Give Your Input On Making Areas Around Children's Hospital Safer and More Walkable

Feet First, which promotes walkable communities, is sponsoring, along with the Laurelhurst Community Club, a "Neighborhood Walk and Talk"on Saturday from 10-12, to have the community to weigh in on the $2 million Seattle Children's Hospital has designated towards bike and pedestrian projects.

Partipants are encourages to give ideas and be creative on proposed projects.

The invite says:

"This two-hour walk and talk from 10-12pm will explore proposed new pedestrian signals that are designed to make it easier to access the Burke-Gilman.


"We'll take a look at necessary signage to go by foot easier and physical to around Seattle Children's and new curb ramp improvements. We'll also take a look at the new configuration to reduce the number of crashes at 25th and Blakeley Street.

"Your pictures, ideas, recommendations will be shared at the Livable Streets Workshop on November 13th."

Feet First will provide maps, clipboards and cameras. 10am-12pm. This is a family event and all ages and abilities are encouraged to attend.


Meet at the Giraffe Entrance at Seattle Children's at 4800 Sand Point Way NE.

If you would like to participate, contact Lisa Quinn at Feet First. Her email is lisa@feetfirst.info and phone number is 206-652-2310.

(photo courtesy of Feet First website)

Lead A Neighborhood Walk In Partnership With Feet First

 

Feet First, which promotes "walkable communities, is coordinating a number of citywide neighborhood walks on May 4th and 5th in partnership with Jane's Walks.

 

Darcy, a coordinator with Feet First told us:

This event  is similar to Stairway Walks Day which we coordinated back in February, except that Jane's Walk is a worldwide event to celebrate the work and ideas of urbanist Jane Jacobs by getting people out exploring their neighborhoods and meeting their neighbors. Free walking tours held on the first weekend of May each year are led by locals who want to create a space for residents to talk about what matters to them in the places they live and work.

We currently have 11 separate walks throughout the city planned for that weekend and are hoping to bring more neighborhoods and organizations together for the event. It's really easy to plan and design the walk, and we will support and promote all walks for the event.

Anyone  can lead a walk. Do you have a story to tell? Do you know your neighborhood like the back of your hand? Perhaps you’re a newcomer and can share your experience of learning about your new city? Do you have an idea for a fun, informative, unusual way of looking at cities and neighborhoods?  

There are only two rules: walks should be taken and given for free, and they should be walking conversations.  The rest is entirely up to the walkers, and the conversation topics are as varied as the people taking part, from art and architecture to potholes and shortcuts and from video surveillance to the urban forest: anything that helps you and others better understand our cities and neighborhoods as places and spaces.

To lead a walk for this event contact Jillian Witt at jillian.witt@gmail.com.

NE Trails Debuts New Map Tomorrow at Northgate Library

Feet First, The National Park Service and the Department of Neighborhoods have been working for the past year on putting together a map of trails in the Northeast area of the city.

And tomorrow night the community is invited to Northgate Library from 6-7:30pm to see the debut of the new Neighborhoods on Foot map for the North East Seattle Trails Project (NEST).

The map will display the community produced walking trail network as well as destinations and resources.

After the map is displayed, comments will be accepted through the end of October.

Feet First has been directly working with Laurlehurst as well as the other nearby neighborhoods in putting together the map. Also included in the research and development of the trail map is Lake City, Meadowbrook, Pinehurst,Northgate, Wedgwood, Maple Leaf, Victory Heights, Cedar Park, Matthews Beach, Roosevelt, Ravenna, Bryant.

Check out the Feet First website which talks in detail about the project, the event tonight and how to volunteer.

We also did a story in July about this project with lots of information.

Become a Neighborhood Walking Ambassador

Feet First, which promotes walkable communities, is holding Neighborhood Walking Ambassador training this Saturday from 10-12 at Alki Bath House in West Seattle.

As a Neighborhood walking Ambassador,  "you'll organize and lead walks that inspire, connect and inform people about hidden gems in your neighborhood.. Take steps towards improving your health and the environment while sharing your knowledge." their website says.

Feet First will give you all of the tools to promote and spread the word about good walking conditions.

You can register for Neighborhood Walking Ambassador training program by emailing info@feetfirst.info or calling 206-652-2310.

Here is a previous post we did on Feet First.

Guided Natura Walk Tonight in Ravenna

Tonight at 6pm Feet First is having a guided nature walk in Ravenna.

"Bring the entire family down for a guided 45 minute walk with Joan Burton - local hiking book author, naturalist, and Feet First Neighborhood Walking Ambassador.

Learn about the history and discover hidden gems of our neighborhood as we tour three local parks (Ravenna-Eckstein, Cowen, & Ravenna Parks).

Afterwards relax with new and old friends while enjoying refreshments at Ravenna Community Center provided by Seattle Parks and Recreation from 7:00 PM - 7:30 PM," the website says.

You can dowload the Ravenna walk here.

For more information contact Chas Redmond at 206-932-6003.

Here are several posts we have done over the last year on Feet First.

NE Seattle Trails Walking Map in Process

Did you know that there is a group working on a walking trail map for the NE Seattle area? How great is that - our own walking map where we can venture out on the trails in our area.

The group called, Feet First, is working on creating the first walking map of the Northeast Seattle area. The project is based on the West Seattle Trails project model, which Feet First was involved in.

Susan Rosebrough, from the National Park Service, said they began working on the Northeast Seattle Trails Project in the Winter of 2008. They are working in partnership with Seattle Audubon, Wedgwood Community Council, the Homewaters Project, Public Health -Seattle & King County, Seattle Department of Transportation, and other community groups.

Susan said she has just received a bunch of walking surveys back from the community to help with input on creating the map. She says in reviewing all of them " we have learned alot about this area."

Susan says that the outcomes of this planning project will be (1) a map of NE Seattle with a collection of walking routes (in-park trails, sidewalks, and streets), (2) a plan to improve walkability in the area, and (3) a web based map.

"The next draft of the map that will incorporate all the field work done, will be shared in later summer. After the planning is done signage and on-the ground projects will be pursued," Susan says.

Here is a draft of the walking trail map.

If you love to walk, then this is a great project for you to help with, and get exercise at the same time.

Here are some ways to get involved:
• Take the NEST Survey
• Organize or participate in a neighborhood walk to assess potential trails
• Help create and/or contribute to the NEST website and blog

You can download the map and walking survey tool here. See more details at the end of the message on how to use the tool.

The group is also on Facebook under Northeast Seattle Trails (NEST) group.

Please contact Susan if you would like hard copies of the map, tool, or other project information.

Here are some details on how to use the walking (audit) tool:
- Choose a route from the map that you want to walk. If you know of an interesting route that is not on the map, we'd like to hear about this too.
- Print out a few paper copies of the tool (if you don't have access to
a printer, let us me know and we will try to get copies to you).
- Read the survey over before you leave to have a sense of what you will
be looking for.
- Go out and walk the route, enjoying yourself and taking notice of the trail's
condition and your experience.
- If the trail makes a dramatic change of conditions (goes from sidewalks to no
sidewalks, quiet street to noisy arterial) then complete a survey for the
section you have already walked.
- If your route takes you onto (what could be considered) another trail, such as
from going along 55th, to being along the Burke Gilman, then complete a survey
for the section you have already walked
- If you get to the end of your route, then complete a survey for the section
you walked.
- Also, please note any interesting natural or cultural resources in the area,
as we'd like to map these as well.

Contact for Susan from the National Park Service is susanrosebrough@yahoo.com.

Residents Concerned About Excessive Smoke From Outdoor Fire Pits And City Requirements For Recreational Fires

We have received several emails from residents concerned about the smoke coming from outdoor firepits and its effects.

One email said: 

My neighbor next door had an outdoor party in the front yard last weekend. The fire pit with wood consumed my house in smoke and I found it necessary to close all windows and blow fans.

It was still difficult to remove the smell. I felt like I was at a campground, but unable to breathe clearly in my living room. The fire department told me to 'calmly go over and ask them to put it out'. 

From what I understand, it is legal as long as it is 25 feet from a structure. But this is annoying to those who don't enjoy breathing in burning wood. 

From my research into the City of Seattle, they are legal if there is no burn ban in effect and the fire can be as tall as 2 feet and 3 feet in diameter, but the set back must be 10 feet from the street.

Here is what the Puget Clean Air website, which regulates outdoor and indoor fires and mandates burn bans according to the current quality of air, says:

Fuel it right. Only charcoal, dried firewood or manufactured firelogs may be used. It is illegal to burn anything else.

Keep it small not tall. Fires must not exceed three feet in diameter or two feet in height.

Stay clear of structures. Check with your local fire department regarding setback requirements.

Stand guard and extinguish. A person capable of extinguishing the fire must attend it at all times, and the fire must be extinguished before leaving it.

Ask first. Permission from a landowner, or owner’s designated representative, must be obtained before starting a recreational fire.

Mind the ban. Recreational fires are always prohibited during air-quality burn bans. They may also be prohibited during a fire-safety burn ban (check with your local fire district.)

Be a good neighbor. It is always illegal to smoke out your neighbor. If smoke from your fire bothers your neighbors, damages their property or otherwise causes a nuisance, you must immediately put it out.

To determine if an air quality burn ban is in effect, call 1-800-595-4341, or visit their web site at www.pscleanair.org.

And here is information from the Seattle Fire Department on the City website regarding requirements for recreational fires:
a) No air quality burn ban is in effect.
b) The fire is not more than three feet in diameter and two feet in height.
c) The fire is located at least 25 feet from any structure or combustible material. Conditions which could cause a fire to spread shall be eliminated prior to ignition.
d) Trash, yard waste, rubbish, or paper products are not being burned.
e) Fire extinguishing equipment is readily available for use. This should include a shovel and two buckets of water, or a charged garden hose or fire extinguisher with a 4-A rating.
f) The fire is continually attended by an adult until it is completely extinguished.
g) The fire is not being conducted on public property where fires are prohibited, such as in a park or on school grounds. Fires in parks are only allowed where specifically authorized, and where appropriate burning receptacles are provided.
h) If the fire is in conjunction with a sweat lodge, the lodge itself must be less than 200 square feet if constructed of a tent.



   

 

Your Chance On Friday To Weigh In To City Council On Tall, Skinny Houses On Back/Side Yard Houses Built On Undersized Lots, Two Already In Laurelhurst

 

House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard originally part of home next door

 

Friday at 2pm, City Council is holding a public hearing on side yard/backyard houses on undersized lots in SF zone and proposed building code changes.
 
Over the last several years, several skinny houses on small lots have been built in Laurelhurst, all the work of developer, Dan Duffus, who is well-known around the city for building the houses which are modern in style, towering over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood..

One is located at 4812 NE 40th Street in Laurelhurst,in Laurelhurst, which sits on a piece of property 30 feet wide, and was segmented out of a side yard which was a total of only 80 feet wide. The house covers all the land, except for 10 feet of the house's previous yard.

John Taylor, who lives directly behind the new home, commented in a Seattle Times article, that looming presence over his back yard is like “a guard tower.” He said the neighbors had no notice from the city or the developer that a new house was being crammed in between two existing houses, on what had been the old house’s yard.

Nick Jenkins, another Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to another tall, skinny house, has posted his experience titled "There goes the neighborhood and yours may be next" on his blog about going through the construction process and now living with one of these houses right next door to him.  
 
The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing to amend the Land Use Code to establish new standards for development of single-family houses on undersized lots in single-family zones.  The new standards would replace interim standards first established by Ordinance 123978. 
 
Among other things, the proposed new standards would:

·           Establish a minimum site size of 2,500 square feet in area;

·           Eliminate use of tax records and historic mortgages as a basis for establishing lot size exceptions;

·           Require consolidation for redevelopment of adjacent lots with areas less than 3,200 square feet;

·           Clarify the “75/80 Rule” for establishing lot size exceptions;

·           Establish a new “100 Percent Rule” exception for establishing lot size exceptions that are equal to the mean area of lots on the same block front;

·           Establish a Type II discretionary review process with notice and the opportunity for appeal for development on sites less than 3,200 square feet in area;

·           Establish lower maximum height limit for development on sites less than 3,200 square feet in area;

·           Repeal a platting development standard related to short subdivisions where there are two existing houses; and

·           Make other minor clarifications and modifications to development standards.

One Home Per Lot.  a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, said about the public hearing that "this will be your chance to sound off about the issue, face-to-face, with the city council members who will be making the final decisions about what the new building codes will be."

The group added that if the city council members don't hear from hundreds of citizens about this issue, "they'll assume the public has lost interest or is completely satisfied -- and they'll be that much more apt to cave in to pressure from the developers' lobbyists. So please don't
sit on the sidelines and expect other citizens to step up."
 
One Home Per Lot has been working the last 18-months to establish new building codes for backyard / side yard houses. Last month, City Council voted unanimously to extend the emergency moratorium on backyard / side yard houses for another six months while the Department of Planning and Development works on the recommended building code changes.

On April 2nd, the City's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee, accepted the Department of Planning and Development's final recommendations on how to change the building codes for backyard / side yard houses. 

Next in the process is the Committee debating the recommendations internally, taking input from the public and then make their own changes to the recommendations before forwarding them to the City Council for a final vote.

One Home Per Lot believes that during this time, developer Dan Duffus  and other lobbyists, mainly including Smart Growth Seattle, the  developers' lobbying group, are all "pressuring City Council leaders to water down or eliminate aspects of the DPD's recommendations. These groups and individuals are well-funded, well-connected professionals who represent the developers' interests. They will be very vocal and assertive, and their messages to city council members will need to be countered by you."

 

Smart Growth Seattle, is also "the main staff contact for the Seattle Builders Council," as they identified themselves in a recent email to supporters, is "fighting against citizens' efforts to impose new building codes on backyard / side yard houses," One Home Per Lot said.

Roger Valdes, the main lobbyist for Smart Grown Seattle, told supporters in an email to write to DPD saying "Please don't implement the DPD recommendations without amendment and further discussion with people who build housing."
 
In their recent press release they said that "the greatest risk to our growing prosperity is a lack of housing choices for people in Seattle and those who are moving to our city."

Valdes also claimed that "because DPD staff has been so focused on new construction they may have failed to realize that all the limits they have written into their proposal actually close off the possibility of improving existing homes" which he says would include height restrictions on second floors to small homes, as KIRO reported recently.
 
One Home Per Lot said that unfortunately Smart Growth Seattle is "spreading this false rumor and they address it their report found on their website.
 
One Home Per Lot said the "developers' lobbyist is hoping that owners of existing small homes will become livid when they hear the city is trying to prohibit them from expanding their homes and will demand the city scrap the height limits in the new regulations, which would allow the developers to go back to building new, three-story houses on tiny backyard / side yard lots."
 
New height rules proposed by the DPD would also impact some existing small homes, in order to keep the owners of those homes, and developers, from turning them into tall skinny three stories high, One Home Per Lot told us. 

The DPD director's report states: "This is because the potential impacts on neighbors of a substantial addition to an existing house on a small lot would be no different than the impacts of an identical new house built on a vacant lot of the same size."

Katy, with the City Council, told us that:

As proposed, these standards would apply to new development as well as additions to existing structures.  Assuming that these standards are adopted, existing structures on lots less than 3200 s.f. in size that exceed maximum allowable heights could be rebuilt or expanded subject to rules for structures that are non-conforming to development standards.   

That essentially means that non-conforming structures could be rebuilt or expanded provided that the expansion does not increase the existing non-conformity.  

Regulations related to non-conforming structures can be found here.  Note that there are also some existing allowances for dormers, clerestroies, and eaves on single family houses that don’t conform to height limits that can be found here.

 

The height restriction are contained in Section 6 of the council bill and state: 

 

Section 6. Subsections A and B of Section 23.44.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 123978, are amended as follows:

23.44.012 Height (())limits

A. Maximum (()) height established (())

1. Except as permitted in (()) subs ection 23.44.041.B, and except as provided in (())subsections 23.44.012.A.2 and (()) 23.44.012.A.3 , the maximum permitted height for any structure not located in a required yard is 30 feet.

2. The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot 30 feet or less in width is 25 feet.

3. For a lot or unit lot of any width, if the area of the largest rectangle or other quadrilateral that can be drawn within the lot lines of the lot or unit lot (())is less than (()) 3,200 square feet (()) the maximum permitted height for any structure on that lot (()) shall be (()) 18 feet(()) unless the structure's height is further restricted by other code provisions , provided that structure height up to 22 feet is permitted for a principal structure with habitable floor area on no more than two partially- or fully- above-ground floors, and top-of-floor-to top-of-floor height is at least 10 feet at the level of the main entry .

4. The method of determining structure height and lot width is detailed in Chapter 23.86, Measurements.

 

 

Smart Growth Seattle also implies in their communications that their is a housing crisis, which the DPD discredited as written in a January Seattle Times article in which Tim Hauger, the comprehensive-plan manager for the Department of Planning and Development said that Seattle currently has triple the housing capacity necessary to accommodate growth targets through the year 2024. "We have over 50 years growth capacity across the city."

"This isn't the first time Smart Growth Seattle has promoted backyard / side yard houses as the best solution for an invented problem," One Home Per Lot said. Here is a list of Smart Growth Seattle's past arguments. "all of which have been exposed as clever distortions of the truth."

 

Smart Growth Seattle sent an email sent to the group's supporters "revealing why they are  working so hard to fight any new building codes." In the email, the developers' lobbyist said that the developers funding Smart Growth Seattle simply want more building permits for the small-development projects they specialize in creating."

 

They're not interested in solving any housing problems. And they're not concerned about the concerns of neighborhoods. They just want to do more building (and backyard / side yard houses are building projects that are very, very lucrative for this small group of small-scale developers)," One Home Per Lot said.

In the email, lobbyist Roger Valdez writes: "This is the year we can, together, change the civic conversation in Seattle about housing. The question this year we'll be asking is what is the city doing to increase the number of housing choices people have in Seattle" and thereby increasing housing supply by permitting more housing?

One Home Per Lot reported recently that backyard / side yard houses can be devastating to the surrounding property values, according to a professional appraiser  saying:

When a professional appraiser appraises a home, he relies on data from the recent sales of "comparables." Those are homes much like the house being appraised. And because backyard / side yard houses are typically unlike anything else in the neighborhood (they're new, they sit on half-sized lots, are usually ultra-modern in design, and sell for an average of 35% more than the neighborhood's median), they are never, ever going to be used in a comparable analysis. 

In other words, the high prices that backyard / side yard houses sell for (an average of $727,926) don't positively impact the value of surrounding homes, because the backyard / side yard house would never be considered a comparable. 

However, the appraiser  will most likely factor in the environmental impact of the backyard / side yard structure (and that's never positive). 

Sitting 27 feet tall (that's the equivalent of three stories), and squeezed into a backyard or side yard,  backyard / side yard houses block sunlight to the neighboring houses, block views and, because they typically tower over all the surrounding homes and yards, they rob the neighbors of the privacy those homeowners once enjoyed. 

That loss of sunlight, views and privacy can easily drag down the appraised value of the surrounding homes by tens of thousands of dollars. Those were valuable attributes that the current homeowner paid handsomely for, and the associated benefits are now missing or negatively impacted. 

One Home Per Lot strongly urges City Council to notify surrounding neighbors when a backyard / side yard house is being considered for approval on their block as well as  notifying the current homeowner when a developer asks DPD for pre-approval to split the homeowner's property into two lots, which means the property is now worth twice as much money. This would prevent more homeowners from selling to developers at far below actual market value.

"While a good step in the right direction, the DPD's current recommendations need improving if they are going to have a chance at successfully addressing the problems that are roiling neighborhoods all across the city of Seattle. This document details the changes that should be made," One Home Per Lot said.

 

If you can't attend the public hearing, you can write or call the City Council members and provide input through 5pm tomorrow.

Here is contact information for the four members serving on Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee:

• Mike O’Brien, Chairman, 206-684-8800, mike.obrien@seattle.gov
• Tim Burgess, 206-684-8806, tim.burgess@seattle.gov
• Nick Licata, 206-684-8803, nick.licata@seattle.gov
• Sally Clark, 206-684-8802, sally.clark@seattle.gov

And here is contact information for the other City Council members::

• Jean Godden, 206-684-8807, jean.godden@seattle.gov
• Sally Bagshaw, 206-684-8801, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
• Bruce Harrell, 206-684-8804, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
• Tom Rasmussen, 206-684-8808, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov
• Kshama Sawant, 206-684-8016, kshama.sawant@seattle.gov

Here is what One Home Per Lot suggests to say to City Council:

While a good step in the right direction, the DPD's current recommendations need improving if they are going to have a chance at successfully addressing the problems that are roiling neighborhoods all across the city of Seattle.

This document details the changes that should be made.

Copies of the proposal are available from the City Clerk’s website,  Reference Council Bill No. 118052 or go here.

For more information contact Andy Kim of DPD at 206-684-8737.

One Home Per Lot can be reached at staff@onehomeperlot.com and here.


 

 

Comment Now On DPD's Latest Recommendations For Skinny Homes on Side Yard Lots

House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard oringially part of home next door

 

The Seattle Department of Planning and Development is again asking for public input on a new set of recommendations regarding the future development of backyard / side yard houses.

 

In March, DPD released a preliminary set of recommendations in March, followed by a a final  set of recommendations in June. However, DPD received such a large amount of public feedback on those recommendations that they took the unusual step of revising its recommendations on September 16, which is what they are now seeking public feedback on.  City Council will begin formally discussing this issue again next month, when public hearings will be held.

 

DPD's final recommendations will be used by the Seattle City Council to create new building codes for backyard / side yard houses, "which is why it's important that you comment on them now.  If you want things to change for the better, you have to speak up" One Home Per Lot, a grassroots multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement monitoring the legislation and building of sideyard houses, said in a recent email.

 

"The DPD and City Council count the number of emails and phone calls they receive regarding this issue and use that figure to measure citywide support/displeasure.  Recently, they expressed great surprise at receiving 100 emails from concerned citizens," the group added.

 

One Home Per Lot has written a sample letter included at the end of this post to submit to DPD.

 

Comments should be sent to both of the below people on or before Wednesday: 

- Andy McKim (Land Use Planner -- Supervisor): Andy.McKim@seattle.gov
- Richard Conlin (Seattle city council member): richard.conlin@seattle.gov

In Laurelhurst last year, a new property was segmented out of a larger one to build a tall skinny new house built on a very small lot, originally at 4812 NE 40th Street, and now with a new address of 4810 NE 40th Street, just southeast of Laurelhurst Park.

Duffus purchased the 80-foot wide property which included the whole of Lot 27, 30 feet of Lot 28, and 10 feet of Lot 26 (on which the garage was built). Duffus contacted the City for a letter stating whether the 30 feet of property that was once part of Lot 27 qualifies for development as a separate legal building site according to the Land Use Code.

Nick Jenkins, a Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house, in Laurelhurst wrote a blog post last year, on his experience with the new construction home right next door to him.

The skinny houses, which typically start at $700,000, are wedged into undersized lots, standing 25 feet tall (30 feet if they have a pointed roof). "To the surrounding neighbors, 25- and 30-foot tall backyard / side yard houses "feel like guard towers, cruise ships or skyscrapers," One Home Per Lot says.

 

One Home Per Lot which consists of Laurelhurst residents living around theses house, as well as others citywide,  explains the issues in detail, shows how to get involved and details the developer, Dan Duffus,' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake.

 

Here are some of the changes DPD reccommends: 

1. New houses built on smaller backyard / side yard lots will be limited to two stories in height. The height for backyard / side yard houses (on lots 3,200 square feet and smaller) would be limited to 18 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof). However, in a nod to the architectural community, the DPD will allow developers to build as high as 22 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof) if the house is limited to two stories, and the additional height is applied to the first floor.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods, because three-story backyard / side yard houses block views and sunlight and stare down on all of the surrounding houses/yards. But the fact that these two-story houses can still be 27 feet (as tall as a three-story house) is very concerning. Why can't they simply be limited to 18 feet, which is the same height as the current standards for backyard mother-in-law cottages (technically called detached accessory dwelling units)?

2. More historic documents will be removed from the list of items that developers can use to claim a backyard / side yard lot was always intended to be developable.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods because many backyard / side yard lots were never intended to be developed separately (and certainly never developed with towering, three-story structures). Now, developers will have to produce more reliable documentation showing the original owners really did intend to create a separate developable lot.

3. Three changes will be added to the building codes to prohibit developers from dividing one lot into two sub-standard lots "in creative ways" only to qualify the new lots for the less-restrictive sub-standard building codes.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods because it closes a number of loopholes a handful of developers have been using to squeeze backyard / side yard houses into places where they clearly don't belong.

4. Small, undersized lots that are now restricted from development (because they're smaller in size than the current 5,000 square foot minimum), would become developable -- if the lot was equal in size (or larger) to the majority of lots on the same side of that block. Developers will also be allowed to knock-down an existing house on one of these lots and build something new.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is NOT GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods where the majority of lots and houses are especially small in size (West Seattle, Fremont, Wallingford, Eastlake, Beacon Hill and many other traditionally working-class neighborhoods). It means new houses as tall as 27 feet (22 feet plus five additional feet for a pointed roof) will be allowed to be wedged into the midst of small, one-story cottage houses. Tall houses in these neighborhoods look especially out of place.

One Home per Lot general comments: 

DPD did NOT recommend implementing any kind of mechanism for notifying the neighbors when one of these projects is approved for development. The fact that neighbors have no warning before construction crews show up and start building a new house in a neighboring back / side yard is something that leaves many homeowners absolutely seething. The fact that this lack of notification also deprives those homeowners of filing a LUPA lawsuit within the required 21-day window is most likely also illegal (a federal lawsuit against the city of Seattle is currently pending in federal court regarding this matter).

In our discussions with the DPD and city council, we have made it clear that this is a top priority for neighbors/neighborhoods. A local IT director actually volunteered to show the DPD how to quickly and easily implement an automated notification system.

Here is Councilman Conlin's response to City Council's unanimous decision to extend the 6 month moratorium last month:

MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

On Tuesday, September 3, I introduced emergency legislation to impose interim minimum density requirements in rapidly growing urban centers, urban villages, and station areas designated as pedestrian zones. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent valuable property in these areas from being developed with projects like stand-alone stores with large areas of surface parking. Such projects are contrary to our Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan policies for these areas and could limit our ability to meet our goals under the Growth Management Act.

I have long supported the idea of minimum density requirements in areas with high land values, frequent transit and an active streetscape, but public attention to this issue was prompted by three proposed new projects. CVS Drug Stores is proposing free standing stores in the West Seattle Junction, Queen Anne, and Wallingford, with possibly more in the future. These are vibrant, growing neighborhoods and the community is concerned that the proposed designs for these projects are inconsistent with the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood. This legislation is a response to concerns voiced by community members and City officials about such kinds of development and is designed to set a pattern for the future.

Zoning has traditionally focused on limiting the size and density of development by setting maximum heights and density, called “FAR”, which stands for Floor Area Ratio. The FAR is the amount of floor space developed on a parcel compared to the size of the property. Thus an FAR of 2, for example, would represent twice as much floor space as the footprint of the property. Usually the FAR is a limitation on the bulk and scale of a project – a developer may be allowed to build, say, four stories, but have an FAR of 2, which means that a blocky building could only occupy half of the land area, or, more commonly, the building is modulated to occupy some larger portion, but with setbacks or other features on the upper floors to create a more compatible design.

Generally, in neighborhoods that are attractive for development, projects will be built out at or near their maximum FAR, and the City’s growth planning projects future growth capacity based on that outcome. Our neighborhood plans envision denser development around traditional commercial/retail cores, with additional height and density allowed to encourage housing over the commercial space. Because of the financial rewards for building larger buildings, zoning these areas usually results in development that is at or close to the allowed densities.

Even in areas where the City is still having difficulty in attracting investment, such as the SE neighborhoods around the light rail stations, when investment takes place it still most often builds out to the preferred densities. This is the Seattle model, sometimes called the ‘New Urbanism’ model that has developed over the last two decades with the revival of urban areas.

But what can we do if a property owner decides to create a building that is totally out of character with what we are looking for? The most common type of such development are retail stores that have a high financial return per square foot, and that are designed to attract auto traffic as their major customers. These are most often free standing coffee shops or drug stores.

A few years ago, Walgreens moved into Seattle with a store model that called for exactly that. In some cases, such as just north of Columbia City on Rainier Avenue, the neighborhood and City were unsuccessful in trying to get the store to be built along more urban, pedestrian-oriented lines (although we did get the company to include a smaller structure that fronts on the street to make the project less like a strip mall). When a similar project was proposed at Broadway and Pine, in the heart of a rapidly developing neighborhood, the community rose up and ultimately persuaded the company to make the store part of a mixed use development with several floors of housing.

Unfortunately, once a project has started down the path to permitting, it is very difficult to stop it or significantly change it legally. Washington law recognizes that property owners generally have the right to develop under the regulations in effect when they apply for a permit so this legislation will likely not affect these three current projects.

The legislation will do two things. First, by establishing a minimum density of 1.5 to 2.5 FAR (depending on the maximum height permitted in the zone) it will prevent further projects like this. Being structured as emergency legislation allows the City to stop the immediate threat posed by inappropriate development proposals, and put interim regulations in place immediately while we write permanent legislation that can address the nuances and complexities of legislation that affects many different neighborhoods.

Second, by sending a clear message that the City will take appropriate steps to curb development that does not fit our growing commercial neighborhoods, we will challenge those who want to push cookie-cutter, strip-mall development into our pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods to rethink their approach. Such developers might be startled by the depth of neighborhood demands for MORE development, not less. Knowing that the neighborhoods and the City are on the same page will help to generate pressure for them to back off on their incompatible proposals. It will also embolden the Design Review Boards, who are also unhappy about such projects, to use their powers to try to make the developments better. Together, we may be able to turn such projects around – and we have to try!

Regardless of the impact on projects already in the pipeline, we will have started down the path of establishing a zoning pattern that will make development work better in the future. By creating a minimum density regulation, we will help foster the kinds of neighborhoods that both the City and our neighborhood plans call for. And we will move a long way towards a zoning pattern focused not on preventing what we don’t want, but at encouraging what we want. That is the best approach for our urban future.

Here is a letter the Laurelhurst Community Club wrote last month to Councilmember Richard Conlin and

Members of the City Council regarding Small Lot Development in Single Family Zones

Dear Councilmembers and Mr. McKim:

The Laurelhurst Community Club Board of Trustees (LCC) supports CB 117898, which would extend the current moratorium on development of incompatible buildings on undersized single family zoned lots. LCC appreciates DPD’s efforts to develop workable solutions to address infill development, but the current proposal falls short in protecting the integrity and livability of Seattle’s neighborhoods. 

Building height, minimum lot size, application of the 75/80 rule, height, bulk and scale issues, and appropriate notice to affected property owners remain critical issues.

LCC looks forward to reviewing and commenting upon a revised proposal. In the meantime, LCC urges you to support extension of the current moratorium. Thank you for considering our views.

Here is a sample letter to submit by Wednesday written by One Home Per Lot:

 

Dear Mr. McKim (and councilman Conlin),

In the most recent set of DPD recommendations regarding backyard / side yard houses (Directors Report, September 16, 2013), you've made some good steps in the right directions, but your recommendations still don't go far enough. I suggest the following:

1. The 100 Percent Rule should be struck from the recommendations. If enacted, this rule would free up hundreds if not thousands of new backyard / side yard lots for developers and make it far easier for developers to hunt them down. While it may ensure that any new lots are comparable in size to their surroundings, the houses constructed on those lots will surely overwhelm all the surrounding structures (see my note #3 below). Plus, the 100 Percent Rule simply greases the skids for what the developers really want: The 80 Percent Rule.

2. The height for backyard / side yard houses (on lots 3,200 square feet and smaller) should be limited to 18 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof). This is the same standard currently used for accessory dwelling units, and those have been well received by most neighborhoods.

3. There should be no height exception for backyard / side yard houses built above grade. Your current above-grade recommendations would result in more 27-foot tall structures. Even if the structures were limited to two "habitable" stories, they're still the same size as a three-story structure, which means they would still have many of the same damaging impacts for the surrounding neighbors (loss of sun, loss of views, etc.).

Plus, current Seattle building codes allow for a "habitable attic" (which does not count as a story). Combining that loophole with your 27-foot height allowance would allow developers to construct a three-story, fully habitable house. The lesson: If you allow a 27-foot structure to be built, developers will find a way to make it fully habitable, right up to the pointed roof.

4. All future backyard / side yard house projects should be classified as Type II developments, which would be an easy way to provide the surrounding neighbors with the notification they so dearly want. It's heartless to not provide the surrounding neighbors with advance warning -- and an opportunity to lodge a complaint with a hearing examiner -- when one of these projects is approved for development. And it's illegal to not provide citizens with the advance notice needed to file a LUPA lawsuit within the 21-day window.

Thirteen months ago, the city council enacted an emergency moratorium and directed the DPD to suggest some solutions to the problems brought on by backyard / side yard houses. If the end result of those efforts is simply a three-foot reduction in structure height, and a new process for developers to use when qualifying their backyard / side yard developments, you will have done yourselves and the citizens of this city a great disservice.

I implore you to adjust your recommendations as suggested above.

 

Feet First Maps Completed and Available Now

Feet First, along with the National Park Service and the Department of Neighborhoods, has been working for the past year on putting together a map of trails in the Northeast area of the city.

And it's ready now!

This new neighborhood walking map is available at all local libraries and community centers as well as many local coffee shops and businesses. It is also available on-line.

"Thanks to everyone for being active in this. If anyone is interested in leading walks, there will be programming events this spring and summer and volunteers will be needed to help. Let me know!" says Susan from the National Park Service.

She can be reached at susan_rosebrough@nps.gov

Check out the two posts we did - one last July and the other in September.

Could Cell Phone Towers Atop Street Light Poles Be Coming To Laurelhurst?



Renderings of potential cell phone tower on top of light poles

in Magnolia

 

A concerned group of homeowners in Magnolia are warning Laurelhurst that it could be the next neighborhood for installation of cell phone towers.
 
Recently, Magnolia residents started receiving notices from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections regarding installation of “communication utilities” on Seattle City Light poles.
 
Two residents, Alistair Fulton and Luke Weber, head up the organized group to fight the proposed network of nine cell sites that would run along the edge of Magnolia Boulevard proposed from Crown Castle International, "a subsidiary of time warner who specializes in rolling out and or leasing infrastructure for the large cellular operators," Alistair said.  

Alistair and Luke have posted notices on light poles alerting residents to the City’s plans and have sent letters to residents.

The group says that specifically the antenna would be placed on top of light poles, adding several feet in height and a large cylindrical shroud covering 6 separate radio antenna.  

They say that this is the City's "first pass installation to get on the ground," and then they will roll out larger cans on top of light poles that would support 2+ carriers.

The City has already installed 100 antennas on Queen Anne  on utility poles although reception was already good.

"Right now they have a barrier to entry that they can't install these in Laurelhurst, and if the Magnolia project came to pass one barrier would effectively be removed, "Alistair said.

Luke reached out to the Laurelhurst Blog saying: 

I have information from a trusted source that Laurelhurst would be next in this plan after Magnolia, and this is the trial to give the City the backing to roll this out in the near term.  

I will personally stand behind the information of this coming from an inside City Government source who talked with people behind this program and said that there are plans drawn up and Laurelhurst is on those plans.  

You will not be able to get any information about this until permits are filed, but I stand behind that statement.  They're trying to squash the regular planning and approval process by rolling this out neighborhood by neighborhood.

 

Alistair added: 

 I'd position the potential risk to Laurelhurst as "potential" rather than definite and you should caveat it accordingly to avoid giving the impression that Crown Castle have definitively stated that's what they will do.  

I'd still argue it seems very likely that said but wanted to be clear with you on the provenance of I would regard that as somewhat informed speculation on our part based on the fact that this (Magnolia) is the first deployment Crown Castle are trying to push through in a neighborhood without overhead cabling.  

We have no hard data in any of this but are just going on the multiple conversations we've had with Crown Castle, based on which I would say its very likely that if they are successful in Magnolia they will take the same approach with the same equipment in the only other similar area in Seattle - namely Laurelhurst.   

Crown Castle wants to put these up on top of City Light poles in Magnolia that are the same type as Laurelhurst. If Crown Castle ever wanted to locate them in your neighborhood for better network density which is probable they would be able to put them up almost unopposed in the future after this pilot project becomes the standard for the Seattle DPD and City Light.  They permit for something half the size of the real thing that's actually planned in the near term.

 

Luke explains the ties to Laurelhurst with the proposed Magnolia project:

I had been researching our underground wiring to figure out if we had any previous agreement with City Light that would prohibit this and came to realize that Carlton park in Magnolia was modeled after the project that happened four years earlier in Laurelhurst and that we have similar light poles.  

If Laurelhurst residents would not like this in the future the best point to stop this is now, in its first trial. You don't need to live near this to have an impact on the planning, just your opinion of its aesthetics and a note that you would never want to see this on this style of City Light pole is enough.  The 1996 Telecommunications act prohibits taking into account health impact in the permitting process so long as it meets FCC limits.
 

 

The group told the Laurelhurst Blog that they're "looking for reach and public support to stop this project. It's a first phase, of a first trial of a new design.:

They added:

It's being planned under the need for E911 and was chosen because it's the cheapest solution to achieve more towers and cellular density in these neighborhoods.

If this becomes the accepted standard by the City's Department of Planning and Development, I'm very fearful that we won't even have a leg to stand on in the future to oppose them, much like antennas strapped to utility poles now. Crown Castle, due to federal regulations, and their choice of City Light as a partner has most of the cards in their favor on this project. The only card we seem to have is that this is a new design that hasn't been adopted yet by DPD.

Here are ways the public can get involved:

• Send feedback on Master use permits #3023362 and #3023359 toprc@seattle.gov.
• Sign the groups petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/218/464/912/say-no-to-cell-towers/

Alistair was employed in the cellular industry and told the Magnolia Voice:

I think that there’s a significant risk with the cell phone towers in a neighborhood. At the very least, there is a very big question as to how safe these things are.  

In twenty years we may look back and think about cell phones and cancer the way we think about cigarettes and cancer. Electromagnetic Frequency Radiation [EMF] is exactly the same as a [home] microwave. It agitates your cells and heats your cells. That leads to a variety of cancers, particularly Glioma and Leukemia impact these things will have on property values.

The cell site in question is forty-five feet from my child’s bedroom. It’s also twelve feet away from my neighbors. 

 

The group cites these impacts:

Health concerns – the long term impacts of exposure to EMF radiation have pointed to significant increases in the incidence of cancer, cognitive impairment, nausea, dizziness, sleeplessness and a host of other ailments.

Impact on our Neighborhood – Magnolia is one of only two areas in Seattle (the other being Laurelhurst) that benefit from no overhead cabling or utility poles (other than 20’ light poles).

Impact on property value – if your home or those of your neighbors are in close proximity (within a few thousand yards) of these sites the value of your house will be negatively impacted, perhaps seriously.

Planning process is broken – the City appears to value the interests of big money donors like Crown Castle above those of taxpaying voters, they have NEVER denied Crown Castle a permit to install cellular antenna regardless of neighborhood concerns. Together we can make Magnolia the first neighborhood to break that pattern.

 

The concerned group says that their "goal is to stop this project dead in it's tracks before we have these as the established improved light pole standard."

 

They added:

We need cell coverage, that much is clear, but this proposal to disrupt our local neighborhood and place cellular antenna at street level next to houses where children sleep and play is not the right answer. If enough people speak up we can defeat this proposal and preserve our neighborhood.

 

The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) told the Laurelhurst Blog Staff:

Though there is no evidence about it coming to Laurelhurst right now, the City is setting a precedent by allowing the private utility to be mounted on the Seattle City Light poles.  DPD considers it an administration, type 2 decision, but it could be used to justify further projects .

There are big health concerns for the effects of cell emissions , especially on children whose brains are still developing, and whose bedrooms can sit 20 feet or less from these cell towers every night. Residential neighborhoods should be safe havens from such potential risks.

LCC added that the Villa Academy was approached many years ago to place a tower and one resident remembers being in a room with numerous local pediatricians who spoke loudly against it, with a "resounding no."

The Villa project was many years ago, and I was in the room with numerous local pediatricians who spoke loudly against it.

We can contact them if needed, but it was three headmasters ago!

 

LCC submitted these comments to the City's DPD:

Proposed  permits #3023362 and #3023359 are stated  for the purpose of attaching "minor" communication utility devices on top of the Seattle City Light street light poles in the Magnolia neighborhood which is zoned sf 5,000.  Magnolia neighbors who have underground utilities have been alarmed by this permit application with its short notification allowed for replies, and our concerns are similar to theirs. Because this is a major departure in the use of Seattle Public Utility  property to be used by private utilities  ask that these attached cell tower devices be put on hold indefinitely, until a complete EIS or similar study has been completed.

LCC has these questions:

• Why is the use of Seattle City Light utility poles are permutable for cell tower companies?   What rent is charged? Has this been reviewed by affected homeowners ?
• How many different private companies can put their cell towers on the same pole?     What exactly is the size, height and dimensions of these cell towers?
• What health studies have been done to verify that close proximity to these cell towers have no long term affect on the health of residences next to them?
• What health studies have proven that especially children residing, sleeping in close proximity will have no health affects from these cell towers?  Have the studies from the World Health Organization been considered on the cell tower emissions effects on children, suggesting 10x the risk of cancer?
• Seattle has prided itself in preserving the character of its neighborhoods. How are these cell towers compatible with the residential character of neighborhoods?
• The Magnolia neighborhood homeowners as well as several more in Seattle, have invested large amounts of their own money to have their utilities located underground for safety in windstorms, and to preserve some open space and view lines for the benefit of their residential neighborhoods.  All cable lines and telephone lines from private firms have also been required to locate underground at a considerable cost to preserve this character.  Will the City of Seattle reimburse homeowners whose the funds paid for underground utilities , and now have visual blight instead?7. Large cell towers sitting on top of street light poles  pose a major safety hazard, and as such,  will receive the greatest impact from our powerful windstorms. Cell towers such as these are "top heavy" which makes it even a greater target for the wind and rain to say nothing about a drone hit.
• Will Seattle and/or the utility company pay damages to homeowners for these circumstances? 

There are many questions and concerns that must be factually addressed, and these permits should not be allowed until they are thoroughly considered.  Thank you for considering these comments, and please take more time before issuing a precedent setting permit.

 

 

Here are some recent stories about the Magnolia group of concerned residents:

 

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2016/02/07/magnolia-residents-concerned-over-proposed-cell-towers/79962744/

 

http://www.magnoliavoice.com/2016/02/07/crown-castle-insider-reveals-industry-practices/

 

http://www.magnoliavoice.com/2016/02/04/residents-up-in-arms-over-planned-cell-towers/