Latest Talaris Re-Development Status And Send Your Comments Now To Laurelhurst Community Club



 
The Laurelhurst Community Club recently published an in-depth update about the Talaris re-development update in their recent Laurelhurst newsletter.

In addition, LCC is also asking for comments regarding the issue and specifically about the fence the Talaris owner, Bruce McCaw, also referenced as Chairman Emeritus of Pistol Creek, put up in September along with a chain link fence, main driveway barricade, fence on northwest side and a surveillance camera. 
 
Comments can ben sent to jeannieh@serv.net.
 
Here are comments the Blog Staff has received
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/dont-miss-citys-talaris-public-comment.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/talaris-new-four-foot-fence-is-up.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/tonight-king5-reporter-does-story-on.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/update-from-recent-meeting-with-talaris.html
http://thelaurelhurstblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/neighbor-comments-and-lccs-legal-letter.html
 
And here are several of the many posts published by the Laurelhurst Blog:
 
Talaris Re-Development on KIRO-TV
Talaris Submits Retroactive Certificate of Approval After Violation Cutting Down Tree
Talaris Violates Landmark Ordinance
Batelle Site Granted Landmark Historic Status
No Trespassing Signs Could Result In Fine Or Jail Time
 
More Laurelhurst Blog posts can be found here.

Here is the Laurelhurst Community Club article:

What’s the Talaris Redevelopment Status?

Introduction

The 18-acre Talaris (formerly Battelle) site in the heart of Laurelhurst has been a focus of LCC concern for over three decades. Commencing in the 1980s, neighbors objected to Battelle’s increasing impacts on the neighborhood and its advertisement of the site for hotel and catering services open to the general public. In 1991, LCC and Battelle negotiated a Settlement Agreement binding Battelle and its successors to limitations on development, an agreed landscape plan, and legally enforceable “covenants running with the land,” keyed to the site’s single-family zoning and barring major institution (such as UW or Children’s Hospital) use of the site.

By 2004, the current owner had acquired the property, renamed Talaris. The owner now wants to redevelop the site. Despite the history of agreements with LCC, the Talaris owner has chosen to try to work around rather than with LCC. This can best be understood by reviewing the milestones in the current Talaris episode, which are listed below.

Tell LCC How the Talaris Fence Impacts You

The owner’s representatives have not responded positively to repeated LCC requests to negotiate. They have made it clear that the fence will not be removed and that they may even “padlock” the site. In considering what to do about this, LCC needs to hear from you. How you have used the site over the years?

Comments we have heard range from daily dog walking to baseball and soccer games, duck watching, and regular strolls to enjoy the vegetation and landscape design. Please send us an email telling us how and for how long you have used the site! Let us know how best to follow up and reach you. And if convenient, please email photos of your use.
Send email to jeannieh@serv.net.

Timeline of Talaris Events

July 29, 2013: Talaris makes unilateral proposal to eliminate the site’s single-family designation. Responding to LCC concerns, including about lack of consultation with neighbors, Seattle City Council rejects the proposal.

September 15-17, 2013: Without approval, Talaris commences installation of
a chain link fence surrounding the site. Long-standing public access is cut off, surveillance cameras are installed, and trespassing signs are posted threatening prosecution for those brave enough to  enter the site. These actions violate the 1991 Settlement Agreement with LCC as well as City Ordinance.

November 5, 2013: Talaris files an application with the City to redevelop the site with an 82-lot single family subdivision.

November 6, 2013: Despite Talaris opposition, the Landmarks Preservation Board votes unanimously to designate the Talaris site and structures as a landmark. Under the City’s landmarks law, the adoption of the nomination means there can be no alterations on the site without Board approval. The designation starts a period in which Talaris and the Board are supposed to negotiate “controls and incentives” for preservation of the site. 

November 25, 2013: The Talaris owner files Superior Court lawsuit against City to invalidate the November 6 historic landmark designation and to establish that the subdivision application vested. Talaris and City attorneys almost immediately cut a deal to stay the lawsuit for nine months, leaving it hanging over the City agencies as they consider what to do about Talaris’ subdivision application and the landmark designation.

December 13, 2013: LCC files a Motion to Intervene in the Talaris Superior Court lawsuit, noting that it has a legal stake and a long-time interest in the status and disposition of the site.

January 7, 2014: Despite absence of support from City Attorney and opposition by Talaris the Superior Court grants LCC intervener party status.

January 22 and February 11, 2014: LCC and historic preservation representatives meet with Talaris owner representatives to explore potential agreement on redevelopment. Talaris representatives suggest they have a concept  for an expanded hotel and conference center, but refuse to release specifics in response to LCC request. Talaris subsequently refuses to negotiate further with LCC.

February 27, 2014: In response to a request by LCC, the City holds a public comment meeting about the Talaris redevelopment at the Laurelhurst Community Center. At the meeting, LCC urges adoption of a moderate proposal for redevelopment of the site in place of the extreme concepts advocated by Talaris and others.

March – May 2014: LCC learns through documents obtained from City under Public Records Act that Talaris and City agencies have arranged a meeting about potential changes to the Land Use Code to accommodate possible Talaris hotel and conference center expansion plans.

July 2, 2014: Talaris requests a six-month extension from the Landmarks Board on negotiation to guide future development consistent with the landmark designation. There is no indication that negotiations have even commenced. LCC objects and notes neighbor comments that the owner is meanwhile degrading the site. The owner’s representative tells the Landmarks Board that the neighborhood is “obstructionist” and threatens that the site owner might “padlock it…with no further maintenance being done, and the natural state would take over.” The Board rejects the request for a six-month extension and reluctantly grants a three-month extension.

Two Options Under Consideration
LCC’s focus is on ensuring that any redevelopment of the site is based on compatible land uses, preventing adverse impacts, and preserving as much public access and open space as possible. LCC is concerned that the two development proposals most often mentioned for the site – the 82-lot subdivision and the possible expanded hotel/commercial/office development – represent extreme propositions.

While a subdivision could offer a permanent answer to the question of the site’s future, the particular subdivision laid out by Talaris maximizes density, inappropriately impinges upon important site features and amenities, and does not make use of clustering and other Land Use Code alternatives for development.

On the other hand, excessive expansion of hotel/office/conference center use would result in the kinds of neighborhood impacts that first prompted community objections thirty years ago. And, in the absence of a new binding settlement agreement with LCC, it would leave portions of the 18-acre site targeted for even more development down the road.

About Landmark Status
Although not widely acknowledged during the landmark process, a landmark designation unfortunately does not prevent and may even facilitate intensive redevelopment of the site. LCC nonetheless generally supported the landmark nomination, but cautioned that there was more to consider than whether the existing buildings would be preserved.

As neighbors have now seen, landmarking also does not maintain public access to the site. It has been fenced off and no trespassing signs posted, apparently enforced with surveillance cameras. Through its counsel, LCC has warned the Talaris owner that fencing off the site is inconsistent with the 1991 Settlement Agreement with LCC and potentially with the neighborhood’s legal prescriptive rights to access. To date, neither the City nor the groups listed by the Landmarks Board as sponsors of the landmark designation have taken formal positions demanding that the Talaris owner roll back cut-off of public access.

Bottom Line

LCC has invested a tremendous amount of money and its trustees have devoted many, many hours over the years to ensuring compatible, responsible development and use of the Talaris site. They are disappointed by the Owner’s current approach.

LCC is not the driver of any development option and did not put the property in play. LCC does, however, have a legally binding Settlement Agreement and a stake in the use of the parcel in the heart of its neighborhood.

LCC will continue, as it has over the past decades to work for a long-lasting, neighborhood-friendly solution that respects the quality of life in an established single-family zoned community. 

Here are additional comments the Laurelhurst Blog has received:

Is it just me, or is the developer pushing past regulations, agreements and conventions to produce a worst case in order to let all the neighbors accept something less bad with a sigh of relief? Say, like Childrens spreading further into the property, or a shopping mall?

I  just wanted to give my two cents so far on the proposed development at Talaris. I'm sure LCC is staying on top of the issue and will be great for guiding the community and neighborhood through this change. It appears as though Bruce McCaw and the developers are here to make the most money as they can.  I am suspicious of their push to rezone for the apartment units.  It feels like they are threatening the 90+ single family home development in order to get the neighborhood to allow for a rezone to a "seemingly" lower impact apartment building organization. But really, the apartments will bring in more people. 

I think the lowest impact to the neighborhood and environment is to have the least amount of development and people move into that area, and to protect the existing landscape, especially the trees and wildlife. And I think that means higher end homes or condos, and to be fair, some smaller units. It would be great to have some commercial spaces perhaps below the condos since Laurelhurst could use a "village" where neighbors can walk to meet for lunch/dinner or coffee, although I'm not sure if it is zoned for this. 

My concerns include traffic and the school enrollment numbers at Laurelhurst and the already over-extended middle schools, and just the general impact of that many people moving into this area. It seems as if the developer is purposely ignoring this very important issue. 

Getting in and out of our neighborhood is already challenging as it exists now. The new light near the new development at Children's is slow. NE 41st Street  is our main route for getting out of the neighborhood and both development plans will slow that street down as well. We all know how difficult it already is to get through the Montlake cut and the U district during rush hour. I can't imagine what additional delays will be created by the influx of cars and people to the area. 

I grew up next door to this beautiful green space. To believe that the city would allow such a neighborhood landmark to be simply bulldozed and graded would be such an unbelievably shocking loss for this space that has been so much a part of Laurelhurst. I hope the landmark status holds up.

Update On Talaris Re-Development

Talaris Campus (courtesy of Talaris website)

 

 

 

 



The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) recently published an update about the Talaris re-development status of the 18-acre historically designated site in their newsletter:

LCC Talaris Update – More Options Studied

Talaris owners, the City of Seattle, the Seattle Landmark’s Board, and LCC have been working on a new development plan for the site for more than two years.  

In early December 2015, the property representative, Greg Vik, filed a motion in King County Superior Court to extend their LUPA (Land Use Petition Act) for another six months.

In that document 4000 Property LLC stated that they needed more time to explore additional options including but not limited to: a plan for a Planned Residential Development; a conversion of all landmarked buildings for commercial use with a 32-plat layout for housing; a conversion of some existing buildings into micro housing; and the development of the entire site into a private school campus.  

LCC continues to work with the owners and the City to find an appropriate solution for this property, located in single-family residential zoning.  

LCC also has expressed concerns about the site’s deteriorating landscaping in keeping with the underlying Settlement Agreement.

LCC also told the Laurelhurst Blog Staff that Landmarks Board and the Superior Court both gave Talaris a three-month extension. 

In January of last year, Talaris architects presented three preliminary redevelopment plans, as required, to the Landmarks Preservation Board, LCC, and others.

Option 1 would include 37 housing units with no removal of existing buildings.

Option 2 would include 63 housing units and remove existing Building G.

Option 3 would remove Building G and the lodge and would add 72 single-family homes and townhouses. The single-family homes would be along the perimeter of the site. Attached townhouses make up the bulk of the new homes and would be located in the site’s interior area.

Options 2 and 3 would retain the existing buildings (except for the lodge and Building G) for the owner’s economic use, such as for short- or long-term leases. 

Here is the timeline of Talaris events concerning the re-development request and landmark status which was granted in November of 2013.

Laurelhurst Community Club's Important Role In The Talaris Re-Development And Be Sure To Attend Open House To Learn More About Future Of Talaris Property



Community Open Houses for the neighborhood to learn more about the future re-development of the Talaris Conference Center (4000 NE 41st Street), the 18 acre property in Laurelhurst, are underway this week.

The neighborhood is invited to attend any of the Open Houses hosted by 4000 Properties LLC through next week to gain more details about their proposed development.

The remaining community open houses, held in the Willows Building, the central building cluster at the Talaris Conference Center, are:

January 24th, 3-7pm

January 28th, 3-7pm

January 31st, 3-7pm

Larger neighborhood wide meetings will be held on these dates:

February 2nd, 11-2pm

February 4th, 3-7pm

February 7th, 3-7pm

February 9th, 11-2pm

Neighbors will be able to view the two options under consideration shown through exhibits, meet with representatives, including the builders, to give input, share concerns, and have questions answered.

The information is also on the developers new website, Talaris Living, which shows both background on the project and the options under consideration.

The Laurelhurst Community Club, has been involved with the site once known as Batelle, for over 30 years, in ensuring the property is well integrated with the neighborhood by closely monitoring any proposed development.

 4000 Property LLC of Bellevue, purchased Talaris in 2000 from Era Care Communities for $15,630,000, and it was developed into Talaris Institute which focused on infant and early learning research of the brain.

 

 Era Care Communities had purchased the property in 1997 from Battelle Memorial Institute for $6,125,000.

 

Talaris was sold by the owner earlier this year, and the owner is proposing potential new development for the site.

 

The property's zoning is SF 5000, which means single family residential home with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.

 

The property was sold with an underlying Settlement Agreement in which Battelle Neighbors and the Laurelhurst Community Club are partnered together with the land owners of the parcel.

The Settlement Agreement specifically states that major institutions can't operate within this property (no hospitals, colleges, etc)."

 

And the Settlement Agreement has specific restrictions attached which specifies the use of the property to protect the quality of life in the adjacent neighborhood.

 

LCC has been working with the 4000 Property LLC since mid 2012, and LCC has also drafted another conceptual option with the expertise of a reputable residential architectural firm.

An LCC Board member told us:

The option LCC  provided to Talaris is a suggested proposal to encourage Talaris to think outside the box on an alternative for a lower number of single-family lots and preserving more open space in sync with the character of the neighborhood.

This differs from 90-home maxed out grid that Talaris presented as an only option for single family development, or, their preferred plan , which is a 350- 400 unit apartment option, that requires a rezone.

LCC has expressed some preliminary priorities to date in working the property owner:

• Maintain open space, the eagle's habitat and valuable mature trees
• Support/enhance property values and character of the entire Laurelhurst neighborhood.
• Provide possible opportunity for development for desirable single family housing, consistent with underlying zoning of the property.
• Create possible desirable condo attached housing for residents who wish to downsize and stay in the neighborhood.
•  Minimize traffic impacts on all neighborhood streets and access points.

LCC also received the following questions from neighbors and has submitted them to the developers, who LCC has told us, have promised to post the answers on their website: 

 

General:

 

• Why must the property be changed? What is wrong with the existing use and lot coverage?
• Has the owner tried to rent it to another Institute for Advanced Study after selling the Talaris Insitute?
• What are the next steps in the planning process?

 Financial gain:

• How much financial profit is the owner seeking by changing the property's composition, and use?
• Why was the entire single family parcel divided into 90 lots? What is the monetary profit from that parcel lot division?
• Has the owner considered donating some of the open space for a new neighborhood park?

 Proposed development:

• What is the height of any new buildings? How far to the edge of existing residents' property will the new development extend?
• What will be the use of the new buildings - apartments, commercial?
• How many new square feet of development in contained in this new proposal?
• What architectural style is planned for these newer high rise buildings?
• Have the owners considered a plan consistent with the single family zoning that is fewer than 90 units? Or lots with less impact? Or fewer lots with a wetland preserve?

 Traffic and density impact on neighborhood:

• How much traffic would travel through NE 41st Street? How much vehicular traffic would enter through NE 45th Street?
• Would the City of Seattle let you build up to 6 stories if you had "inclusive housing units" in the apartment?
• If apartments were built, how many people would they house? What would be the maximum amount of new residents?

 

For more information or to give feedback contact George Thurtle, the lead development consultant, at (206) 713-3355 or george.thurtle@comcast.net.

Here is a Laurelhurst Blog post from last week on this topic.

 

(photo courtesy of Talaris Living website)

 

Don't Miss City's Talaris Public Comment Meeting On Thursday At The Community Center

Talaris Campus (courtesy of Talaris website)

On Thursday from 6:30-8pm, the City's Department of Planning and Development, is holding a public meeting to hear comments on the re-development of the Talaris property. This important meeting will be held at the Laurelhurst Community Center (4554 NE 41^st Street).

The meeting is being held following a petition signed by 400 people requesting an opportunity to publicly comment, not only on the subdivision of the property into 82 lots, but also to comment on various environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement prepared by DPD (Department of Transportation and Development) - such as the presence of wetlands in the critical habitat area, the nesting eagles, traffic and transportation and other important issues that could have a lasting impact on the neighborhood. DPD has agreed that an EIS must be prepared about proposed site redevelopment

Neighbors can also send written comments, including the project number 3015404 until Thursday end of day  to PRC@seattle.gov or by regular mail to DPD, Attention: Lindsay King, 700 5^th Avenue, Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019, Seattle, WA 98124-4019. LCC strongly recommends that neighbors submit written comments by email if possible.

Here is information LCC sent out to the neighborhood last week:

LCC's focus is on assuring that any redevelopment of the site is based on compatible land uses, preventing adverse impacts, and preserving as much public access and open space as possible.

LCC is concerned that the two development proposals most often mentioned for the site - the 82-lot subdivision or new hotel/commercial/office development - represent extreme propositions.

Regarding public comments, LCC suggests taking into account what should the EIS cover (its scope) and what issues are raised by the Talaris owner's 82-lot subdivision application and possible alternatives?

LCC suggests these point to address, along with a neighbor's own thoughts, observations, and concerns:

•Because of its location and size, the 18-acre Talaris site is pivotal to Laurelhurst as a whole. It occupies a key location at the east entrance to Laurelhurst and depends on the Five Corners intersection and Mary Gates Boulevard, both critical components of access to Laurelhurst.
•Alternatives studied in the EIS should include a residential development consistent with the site's longstanding Single Family zoning, but utilizing Code tools such as a Planned Residential Development ("PRD") for more flexible subdivision. These alternatives should include density variations and clustering options to preserve the maximum amount of open space.
•The EIS should assess the subdivision application in terms of site conditions including wetlands, riparian corridor, tree preservation, and habitat (including for eagles currently nesting on site).
•The EIS should address potential daylighting of Yesler Creek, located in an underground pipe on the site, independently and as mitigation for new development.
•Wetlands on the site should be studied by an independent expert not affiliated with prior studies, with results reported in the EIS.
•The EIS should fully disclose and analyze all options that may be considered by the Landmarks Board for "controls and incentives" as a result of the recent site landmark designation and should also disclose and analyze the relationship between the owner's subdivision application and the site's landmark designation status.
•The EIS should not rely on or credit claims concerning economic viability of any particular alternative or option unless all underlying information and assumptions are clearly stated and available for public scrutiny.
•Because they have been raised as possible results of landmark designation of the site, the EIS assessment of alternatives and impacts (including land use and traffic) should include adverse impacts of allowing more intense hotel, commercial, and office development.
•The EIS should disclose and analyze whether the site's landmark designation would prevent acquisition and redevelopment of the site by a state agency such as the University of Washington.
•The Talaris owner has filed a lawsuit against the City challenging the Seattle Landmark Preservation Board's designation of the site as a landmark. (King County Superior Court has granted LCC intervener status in the lawsuit). The EIS should disclose the potential effects of this lawsuit.
•The EIS should assess in detail each alternative's potential parking and traffic impacts on the surrounding community. In doing so, the EIS should take into account cumulative effects of current and planned expansions in the area along with effects of the proposed Talaris site development.

Here is background information put together by LCC, about the history of Talaris, formerly Battelle, and the longstanding parnternship of LCC and the various previous owners: 

The Talaris site was originally developed and for many years occupied by the Battelle Memorial Institute. In the mid-1980s controversy arose concerning the site's use. Battelle had expanded its lodging and conference center activities so much that traffic and parking problems were spilling over into the surrounding community. LCC, responding to neighbor requests for help, filed an appeal with the Seattle Hearing Examiner after negotiations with Battelle broke down. The appeal was successful. In its wake Battelle settled with LCC. The 1991 "Settlement Agreement and Covenants Running with the Land" includes a series of covenants, explicitly enforceable by LCC, that continue to bind Battelle's successors, including the current owner of the property.

The covenants specify where, how, and under what circumstances additional development and use may occur on the site. There are numerical limits on expansion, parking areas and requirements, and landscape and buffer plans. In addition, the Settlement Agreement gives LCC special rights for review of plans for proposed new construction on the site. The 1991 Agreement also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the Single Family zoning designation for the site and responds directly to what was even in 1991 substantial expansion pressure by, among others, the University of Washington and Children's Hospital. The Agreement does so through a prohibition on any owner attempting to "lease, sell, or place the property in the control of a designated Major Institution under the City of Seattle Land Use Code."

The Settlement Agreement protections remain in effect at least so long as the property retains its longstanding Single Family zoning designation. This designation has been an important tenet for LCC for several decades. Last year, there was an attempt by the current Talaris owner to change that designation, but it was not approved by the City.

Depending on the details of the proposal that are not yet known, the current Talaris owner's proposed 82-lot single-family subdivision might not violate the Settlement Agreement. However, the "devil is in the details" because the proposal is cookie cutter at best: it appears to fall short on complying with Code restrictions on development to protect "environmental critical areas" and other sensitive site features. It also appears to overlook Seattle Land Use Code mechanisms that allow more flexible single-family development that respects important site features. These include provisions for clustering and density that allow for a more site-compatible development, potentially including housing types attractive, for example, to downsizing seniors.


The 82-lot subdivision application was submitted to DPD at the same time that a landmark nomination for the Talaris site was working its way through the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. The neighborhood comments submitted to the City in support of that effort emphasized a desire to preserve the site in its current state and in particular as an amenity for the neighborhood. Those commenting noted they had visited the site, the ponds, the ducks, the trees, and even regularly played soccer there for many decades.

Although not widely acknowledged during the landmark process, a landmark designation unfortunately does not prevent and may even facilitate intensive redevelopment of the site. LCC nonetheless generally supported the landmark nomination, but cautioned that there was more to consider than whether the existing buildings would be preserved.

As neighbors have now seen, landmarking also does not maintain public access to the site. It has been fenced off and no trespassing signs posted, apparently enforced with surveillance cameras. Through its counsel, LCC has warned the Talaris owner that fencing off the site is inconsistent with the 1991 Settlement Agreement with LCC and potentially with the neighborhood's legal prescriptive rights to access. To date, neither the City nor the groups listed by the Landmarks Board as sponsors of the landmark designation have taken formal positions demanding that the Talaris owner roll back cut-off of public access.

The 82-lot Talaris subdivision proposal is not subtle. It does not attempt to utilize Code incentives for clustering, open space preservation, and the like that could make for a more compatible development. It may have been proposed in such an extreme form as a counterpoint to prod community acceptance of redevelopment of the site with new hotel, commercial, and office uses.

These are being floated as required to implement site and building preservation required by the recent landmark designation. However, depending on how it is implemented, this option could result in traffic and parking problems, as well as land use impacts. It could also encourage occupation and, as practical matter, eventual absorption of the site by Children's Hospital and the University of Washington, institutions that have already put substantial pressure on Laurelhurst traffic choke points. Other heavy traffic-generator institutions could be tempted as well. Some in the community may remember that two decades ago the Seattle Community Colleges attempted to acquire the Talaris site, in violation of the 1991 Settlement Agreement. LCC was forced to press the point, including legally, before the acquisition was abandoned.

LCC's Board of Trustees has not voted to support either of the two current, extreme options. Instead, it favors exploration of middle ground, more moderate plans that could be better for the community from an impact and land use perspective while accomplishing much, if not all, of other interests' goals. LCC is hopeful that the EIS the City is requiring will explore such alternatives and provide useful information about the impacts and implications of what the owner and other interest groups have already placed on the table.
 

Friends of Battelle/Talaris, made up of 5 Laurelhurst residents, sent us information on their own view of the proposed development. Last year, the group submitted the Landmark nomination to seek formal recognition of the property’s historic, cultural and architectural significance, which was approved by the City's Landmarks Designation Board on November 6th.

Friends of Talaris told our staff: 

Our primary aim is to preserve and protect this historic, community and national treasure. To that end, we support the ownership and neighborhood groups when their plans focus on sustaining and preserving the campus, ie.e, the landscape and buildings, to the fullest extent possible.

We have been and are participating in meetings with representatives of the property owners and LCC to encourage them to work toward a preservation path acceptable to both parties, one that is best for the entire site and the buildings.  We belive that an insistence on focusing only on the subdivision of the property into single-family housing is not compatible with preservation. 

As part of the review process by DPD, the Landmarks Board will measure and evaluate any development proposal by applying the US Secretary of Interior’s Standard for Treatment of Historic Properties, which  include acknowledging the historic use of the property as well as evaluating the significance of the buildings and open spaces.

We believe that ideally, the current buildings would be updated, new buildings would be compatible with the originals, much of the open space would be saved, and the campus would continue to be used as a place where scholars, public employees and citizens could meet as they have done at the site since its inception. Most important, the final outcome, our group believes,  has to be one that makes the property economically viable to the owner.

The original master plan design by the Richard Haag Associates and NBBJ demonstrated a remarkable integration of site, nature and structure that has retained its low environmental impact and neighborhood compatibility for almost 50 years. We believe these characteristics should and can be retained with sensitive, compatible development.

We are hopeful that a solution compatible with the site’s environmentally sensitive areas, its historic use, and its nationally recognized architecture, while ensuring continuing compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and City can be reached. We believe this outcome is achievable in our city that seeks viable and sustainable redevelopment. 

Here are some neighbor comments we have received:

This will have a sizable impact on the density of our community, school enrollment, traffic, infrastructure, etc. I live very close to Talaris and feel strongly about what happens to this beautiful site. To give you an idea of the size of this land here is a map below to imagine the density of adding another 82 homes.

I would like to sThaee the best possible  development that preserves the most open space.

The Talaris property owners are solely economically motivated seeking maximum return on their investment. They are vying for the 82 houses option for maximum economic return on their investment and for vesting, thus getting the most amount of money off of our neighborhood. The owners have done calculations for each lot and house and are using that as a benchmark. They want to make the same ROI using that benchmark if they have to move forward with the commerical use versus housing option. The commercial use would contain a mixture of expanded conference. 

Letting major institutions possibly use the space, such as Children's and the UW, would result in continuing the institional creep that has been happening for many years in the neighborhood. Most recently with the enormous expansion of the hospital swallowing up Laurelon condominiums, shuttles congesting our neighborhood streets and so many other long lasting impacts this has had, that can't be erased ever. 

The way Talaris has treated the neighborhood in the last year has done so much to distance themselves from and outright anger their neighbors, those immediate and those living further away - putting up fences, signs, cameras, gates and cutting down trees secretly without City approval.  When will this stop and they start to be a good neighbor? Doesn't seem like a very good strategy if they want support for their proposed re-development.

I opposed the suggested development plan. The neighborhood and surrounding areas have already been hit by the impact of large developers and environmental changes. I believe that development on the Talaris property should be limited to single family homes with yards and high end town homes. The impact of this 'suggested development' design could bring in 200-250 cars into this neighborhood, implies rental and leased properly and retail opportunities. Is this what Laurelhurst neighbors really want?

We are surrounded by high density housing from UW student housing, to condos and town homes and an ever growing retail mall. Believe in preserving the idea of single family homes.

Both ideas presented by developer seem to be more about making money than in preserving the environment and enhancing the neighborhood. Against any rental property.

I personally am against such high density housing. More and more signal family neighborhoods have been impacted by high density growth. We need to include preservation of communities like Laurelhurst so that residents of Seattle have choices.

We would support the proposed development of the option presented by Talaris, if contracts and covenants can be developed in such a way as to protect the future of that type of governance/development, including adequate safeguards for the future, and ongoing interaction with the adjacent neighbors and the community at large.

In my opinion the investor is out to get his money, does not really understand or sympathize with the neighborhood.

Some of my biggest concerns is the loss of neighborhood and open space. If I wanted to live in a high density environment I could move downtown!

I sure hope that LCC and the surrounding neighborhoods are able to put a halt to this high density, transient type of building in this location. Hopefully the City Council will stand behind our community.

Talk about the gradual decline of single family housing just to suit big business! I think of the area surrounding the UW especially north of 45th and Greek row, There use to be beautiful single family homes, people I knew. They have left, their homes are not rentals and not well maintained. Is that where we are headed?
 

For more information on the proposed development as covered in the Laurelhurst Blog go here.

Tonight King5 Report On Talaris Re-Development And Read Comments From The Neighborhood

At 5pm tonight,  King 5 news reporter Linda Brill will be doing a story on the Talaris re-development. We have heard she will be talking with George Thurtle, consultant and representative to the owners and who is also a Real Estate Developer with John L. Scott, and Linda will also talking with a few neighbors.

The owners have proposed two options for developing the 18 acre property and have posted the options as well as additional information on their "Talaris Living" website.

The first option, their preferred plan is a 350 to 400 unit multi story apartment option which would require a rezone from the single family zoning. Changing the rezoning then allows the developer to increase the height, in exchange for low income housing.

The second option, which is in line with the current zoning, divides the land parcels up into 90 single family lots for homes.

The Laurelhurst Community Club, who has been working with the 4000 Property LLC since mid 2012, has also drafted another conceptual option along with a residential architectural firm with the goal in mind to preserve as much open space as possible, by having homes with single family lots and staying in character with the neighborhood.

An LCC Board member told us of their concept:

The option LCC provided to Talaris is a suggested proposal to encourage Talaris to think outside the box on an alternative for a lower number of single-family lots and preserving more open space in sync with the character of the neighborhood.

This differs from 90-home maxed out grid that Talaris presented as an only option for single family development, or, their preferred plan , which is a 350- 400 unit apartment option, that requires a rezone.
 

Before last year, LCC has been involved with the site once known as Batelle, for over 30 years, in ensuring the property is well integrated with the neighborhood by closely monitoring any proposed development.

Here is LCC's history with Batelle and later Talaris as posted on their website.

LCC has told us that they "hope to work together with the owner and with neighbors to ensure any development plan enhances the livability of Laurelhurst and takes into account the unique open, natural space that exists".

During the Open Houses held by the developers to educate the community on the proposed re-development, our staff  received many comments from neighbors who attended.

Here are the comments:

I opposed the suggested development plan. The neighborhood and surrounding areas have already been hit by the impact of large developers and environmental changes. I believe that development on the Talaris property should be limited to single family homes with yards and high end town homes. The impact of this 'suggested development' design could bring in 200-250 cars into this neighborhood, implies rental and leased properly and retail opportunities. Is this what Laurelhurst neighbors really want?

Neighbors in the Laurelhurst neighborhood east of Laurelhurst Park did not receive a written invite to the meetings. They are only aware of the development via the hard copy of the Laurelhurst news letter.

Rentals mean transient tenants. With the size of one of the proposals there could be some major turn overs in occupancy in a 12 month time period. Short term occupancy can diminish the sense of community and pride.

How many children would they expect and how will that impact schools?

90 units is too many why not a cluster of single family dwellings more along the line of single family 20-30 nicer homes.

If they go with the POD idea and every occupant had a car and some have two where are they going to park? Reminded of other neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and Swedish Hospital area were traffic and parking are a challenge.

We are surrounded by high density housing from UW student housing, to condos and town homes and an ever growing retail mall. Believe in preserving the idea of single family homes.

Both ideas presented by developer seem to be more about making money than in preserving the environment and enhancing the neighborhood. Against any rental property.

What is to keep other developers from buying up surrounding homes and continuing to build high density housing?

Was the developer putting this plan together at the same time Children's was proposing the additions to Children's?

I personally am against such high density housing. More and more signal family neighborhoods have been impacted by high density growth. We need to include preservation of communities like Laurelhurst so that residents of Seattle have choices.

When I was there an LCC Board Members shared an interesting concept design that is very different than either of the two developer options.  It includes a lot of public open space, retains much of the landscape and water features and still seems to meet the owner’s desire to make a profit on his investment. There are something like 52 homes (instead of the 91 homes in one of their plans) and some condos. But no rentals or apartment buildings

George  Thurtle, one of the owner's consultans seemed to  deny the presence of wetlands on the property, which he is totally wrong. 3.8 acres of the property was designated wetlands in the EIS done in 2006. George  also got pretty defensive with another neighbor who was asking a lot of questions, bringing up a lawsuit against a developer by some residents in magnolia, for whom it didn’t end well   He seemed to be letting this neighbor know that we shouldn’t think about pursuing anything of the sort. 

We attended the open house and had a long interaction with the architect who has developed the current proposed plan for the owners of Talaris.  Our impression is that a lot of thought has gone into the proposed development, with the goal of preserving as much as possible of the open areas, trees and conference center in its current natural setting. The development of carefully located buildings for apartments could balance the losses from the conference center without disturbing it's quiet profile.

We understand that the conference center alone is not self-supporting, and we understand the reasons for that. The facility has been limited to use primarily in the daytime and to quiet activities. It is a lovely place for a small conferences and many folks we know have used it as such.

There was one wedding reception that I know of a few years ago - it went on much longer than planned and became quite noisy around 9 - 10 pm. Our homes are like an amphitheater for sounds at Talaris, especially on the side with the dining hall. To Talaris's credit, there has been no other such activities. I'm sure such rentals would be profitable but they are also potentially noisy and disruptive for nieghbors, as we experienced the one time.
 

I was frankly prepared to dislike any changes to the Talaris property, but we recognize the conference center cannot continue as currently run. Therefore we were pleasantly surprised at the intense evaluation of the assets of the land including open space, trees, birds and wildlife. It took some effort to account for each of the trees, and to site buildings so that trees would largely be undisturbed and would shield buildings from view by homes to the east and west. The size of the buildings are reasonable at 2 stories - if I understand correctly - except for replacement of the "commercial" buildings along 45th. And those buildings would have more setback from the streets with landscaping, be much more attractive than the current buildings, and have underground parking.

We also understand that one reason to leave the property intact as a single entity, with renters, is that the owners/managers will retain control of the buildings, land, and their use. Their stated goal to us is to continue neighborhood access to the grounds, as is currently available, except of the development and sale of a single row of single family houses at the eastern edge of NE 45th. If the land was managed by a home-owners association, it is unlikely that the public would be encouraged or even allowed to freely utilize the grounds. Also, with central ownership, there can be standards for noise and behavior, and full time security is planned for the property. (There have been some vandalism and parties in the summer - not nearly as bad as the playfield from what I understand, and we have had numbers to call to alert the property management group to any problems.)

I asked about one comment I had heard, that the apartments would be 600 square feet, with a target of renting to students and workers at the hospitals. It was explained to us that 600 sq feet is a module when planning, and apartments could be 1, 1.5, 2x the 600 square ft, or whatever is desired by the market. We were told they see it as a high end development, and would likely be out of the price range for students. We commented on the interest by seniors in staying in the neighborhood when ready to give up maintaining a home and gardens. The developers are hearing this from others and will respond, I think.

There are plans to add one extra 2 story building on the east side of the property, north of the dining hall and south of a current building in the NE area which is used for conferences. It would give extra rooms for the conference center. We think that the limited height and footprint, along with the quiet nature of current conferences, would be much more desirable than building single family homes build in that area. In fact, the hillside between the alley and the driveway at Talaris is quite unstable and would be expensive to build on, as they recognize. Maintained and improving the trees and other plantings would be far better than intensive development, from our point of view.

We would support the proposed development of the option presented by Talaris, if contracts and covenants can be developed in such a way as to protect the future of that type of governance/development, including adequate safeguards for the future, and ongoing interaction with the adjacent neighbors and the community at large.

I had an opportunity yesterday to spend 45 minutes at one of the Tilaris open houses and I asked why my neighbors further into the neighbor hood were not included in the mailing. There comment was that they were addressing the periphery neighborhoods first. I asked how they were contacting people. They said they were relying on the LCC to get the word out by email and thru the news letter. Not everyone in this community and adjacent property owners are on the LCC mailing list let alone email. Shouldn't the developer be sending out info to all residence who will be affect by this project?

Apparently this project has been brewing since the approval of the Children's Hospital expansion.

When I asked what studies had been done regards to impact on schools the response was "that the design was created to provide housing for UW students and employees of Children's". No study had been done as yet regard to school aged children.

The majority of units are 600 square feet with a few potential larger corner units. Rents would begin about $1500 with the possibility $3000 for the larger units. The carrot is preservation of the pond and green space to the South as a 'legacy'. If you build homes you destroy or limit the 'legacy'.

At 240 units say 2-3 students renting together, 500 to 600 bodies and cars? I don't agree with that at all. Environmental impact the noise the cars and traffic. Doesn't sound very much like a neighborhood setting to me.

When asked about condos as part of the development we were told that it was not a viable return to the investors and that the maintenance would be an issue. Same with single story homes.

When asked to cut the number of houses in the second offer we again were told that for the investor to get a return he needed to keep the volume high. It was also implied that if they built fewer more expensive homes that it would become a gated community and that the rest of the community may not have access to the 'legacy' area.

I asked that if the POD were approved what was to keep the developer from buying up adjacent land and continuing to expand the project. There was no answer. They literally pressed their lips together and said nothing. What's on their future agenda?

In my opinion the investor is out to get his money, does not really understand or sympathize with the neighborhood. I felt somewhat intimidated when I went up to the display board and suggested the removal and rearrangement of some of the 90 house idea. I was told that by siding with single family houses "that I was not interested in preserving the 'legacy' ". They used that word a lot. It made me mad.

Some of my biggest concerns is the loss of neighborhood and open space. If I wanted to live in a high density environment I could move downtown!

I sure hope that LCC and the surrounding neighborhoods are able to put a halt to this high density, transient type of building in this location. Hopefully the city council will stand behind our community.

Talk about the gradual decline of single family housing just to suit big business! I think of the area surrounding the UW especially north of 45th and Greek row, There use to be beautiful single family homes, people I knew. They have left, their homes are not rentals and not well maintained. Is that where we are headed?

George Thurtle loves to use the words "low impact' and high rise " apartments" in the same sentence, though that is quite an oxymoron. There is absolutely nothing low impact about extra traffic, square footage, taller, cheap contruction units, and 350 transient residents at the foot of one of Seattle's 100 year old neighborhood.

If you were unable to attend an Open House, send comments to George Thurtle, the lead development consultant, at (206) 713-3355 or george.thurtle@comcast.net

George Thurtle, let us know that answers to the questions that neighbors submitted to the Laurelhurst Community Club and that we posted last week have been answered in the new FAQ section of the Talaris Living website.