Land use can be beautiful

I’m embarrassed to admit it, but if I posted a photo of my front yard’s current state on this blog - it’d probably get some nasty comments usually reserved for a townhouse built on top of something like an orphanage.

I accept that I have a yard problem, and isn’t that the first step on the road to recovery, right?

But the harder step is the second one, getting some help, so…I’m looking around for a good landscaper/yard person who could help us clear out these bad boys for us without using chemicals? And wondering if anyone has any good north end recommendations.

We’ve got some landscaping plans already completed but had to put them on hold last year because we needed to repeatedly dig up our front yard to get some drainage work done.

(Does anyone konw a good yard person ready to tackle these front yard beasts?)

Crime in Belltown received quite a bit of attention this past week when one watchful neighbor uploaded BelltownCrime videos onto YouTube. This Belltown resident filmed all kinds of interesting activities in her alleyway and posted them up for the world to watch - the videos have since been removed but you can follow all the drama that happened as a result on the The Seattle PI’s blog.  

But, this does beg the question (and especially since downtown Seattle is constantly being pushed as a density poster child for the rest of the city) how are things working out for our city center? Is downtown Seattle safe?

Well, according to a survey published by the Downtown Seattle Association, that depends on what time of day you’re downtown.

Sixty-nine percent of residents believe that Downtown is a safe place to live versus 77% in 2006. While overall survey results dipped slightly in 2007, the perception of safety in the Pioneer Square/International District neighborhood increased more than 13%. 

Residents continue to feel safe walking downtown during the day (93% in 2007 versus 95% in 2006); however, perceptions of nighttime safety have slipped (46% in 2007 versus 60% in 2006).

What’s really surprising though is the drop from 2006 to 2007. That’s a 25% one year drop in confidence - ouch!

(Crashworks from flickr photo - saw this photo republished first on Belltowner)

It’s pretty interesting to take a look at some of the different housing options for residential districts within New York City.  

And it’s equally interesting to see the justification behind these options - the need to preserve the character of the city’s traditional low-rise neighborhoods. 

Since 1989, R3, R4 and R5 districts with an A, B, D, X or 1 suffix have been created or revised to prevent the out-of-scale development that can blur distinctions between residence districts and alter the character of the city’s traditional low-rise neighborhoods. The regulations for these new and revised districts aim to preserve neighborhood character by reaffirming the bulk distinctions, building configurations and narrow lot sizes of many residential neighborhoods.

Detached residential building 

Attached residential building 

Semi-detached residential buildings 

Zero-lot line residential buildings. 

* The Seattle Weekly’s take on Laurelhurst’s Waterway 1 battle. Touch my property and the shrubbery gets it.

* Mayor Nickels proposes requiring building owners to seismically retrofit their buildings (here’s a map). Glad I sold that brick yurt I used to live in on the tideflats.

*The Stranger features Seattle Center skatepark designs and notes that ‘The designs still don’t include a bowl’. FYI, a ‘bowl’ is where skaters can do ‘loopdee-doos’ - go ahead, ask a skater what that is. This skatepark seems to have some momentum behind actually being completed while a similar skatepark fell apart in West Seattle.

The next meeting of the City Neighborhood Council takes place on May 19th (6:30 to 9:00 p.m., West Precinct Conference Room, 810 Virginia Street)

In the meantime, here’s a nice recap of their April 19th neighborhood planning workshop.

Neighborhood planning.  

In May, the City Council will be reacting to the (still very vague) proposal from the Mayor, DON, and the Department of Planning and Development to update the 38 neighborhood plans.  It appears that the Mayor, DON, and DPD do not want to allow those neighborhoods that want to, to repeat the model of the 1990s under which they hired planning consultants for their neighborhood plan under City guidelines and oversight.  Unless the City Council insists, that grassroots model will be dropped in favor of having City staff and City-hired consultants prepare the neighborhood plans.  Also, the Mayor is proposing that the plans to be updated will be only in one or two sectors per year (there are six sectors) rather than based on which plans most need updating.   

CNC’s April 19 neighborhood planning workshop was lively and successful, attended  by more than 110 (including three City Councilmembers).   Seattle P-I reporter Deborah Harrell’s article about it is http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/359823_hoodplans20.html.   Crosscut.com reporter Peggy Sturdivant’s coverage of neighborhood planning (and her May 11 article about the City Neighborhood Council) is http://www.crosscut.com/authors/peggy-sturdivant   Also, Seattle Channel 21 is airing videos of CNC’s April 19 conference on neighborhood planning; to find these on the schedule, go toseattlechannel.org, and search for “neighborhood planning.  For viewing on the web, here are the links:   Panel on “Why do Neighborhood Planning–GMA Compliance and More?”  http://seattlechannel.org/schedule/programDetails.asp?title=5010827 ; How Should Planning Be Done and by Whom? http://seattlechannel.org/schedule/programDetails.asp?title=5010829  ; and What does Success Look Like? http://seattlechannel.org/schedule/programDetails.asp?title=5010828

Take this four-story building at the corner of N 45th St and Stone Way N in Wallingford. The corner business here is a ‘Desert Sun’ tanning salon. Now, I’m not really the target market for tanning salons (I prefer the ‘unnaturally green’ tint I get from working in front of a computer monitor all day), but when I look at this I have a hard time believing that a suntanning shop in a fairly prominent location really adds much to Wallingford’s ‘walkability’.

But like I said, I’m not the target audience.

And in the larger scheme of things adding a business like a suntanning parlor to Wallingford which already has lots of services within walking distance (Wallingford has a very respectable walkability score of 92), adding a suntanning shop probably isn’t such a big deal. But what if this were a new corner business in a neighborhood such as Wedgwood that is starting to increase its supply of new development, but is also a neighborhood that needs to make sure that it properly leverages new development in order to bring in the kind of businesses that can really help with neighborhood walkability.

Personally, I think this is a huge part of our neighborhood density planning that we neglect - we don’t focus on helping encourage walkable businesses within the neighborhoods that could use them. And, I think that opening up incentives for developers could help address this issue.

For example, in Wedgwood our walking score is a ‘62′ (which means that you can get some services by walking, but for others you’ll need to drive), and adding a tanning salon like this wouldn’t help us move this number up.  So, why not encourage walkable services that our neighborhood lacks by providing incentives for a developer to bring in businesses that positively add to the sustainability/walkability of a neighborhood. This will probably mean charging less for rental space to support these businesses, but I’m sure that offering zoning/tax tradeoffs could make that ’pencil out’ for the developer.

Anyway, there’s also another way to skin this cat, and that’s working with the developer directly. When a few neighbors and I were negotiating with a developer on what we wanted in their mixed-use project planned for Wedgwood, we weren’t able to actually get them to commit to specific businesses (we asked for services like a restaurant, hardware store, bakery, Trader Joes, etc…), but we were able to agree on what couldn’t go in their spots.

• No check cashing, sun tanning or pawn shops will be allowed in the building
• No national chain which is in the same business as any locally owned non-national business located within 1/2 mile of the project will be permitted.
• Retail signage will not include any back lit plastic molded signs. (Believe it or not, this small thing actually eliminates some of the cheesier franchises).

So hopefully when the building does go up and shops come in, we’ll be able to bump that 62 up a little.

Guest article from Matt the Engineer.
(expanding on some comments from this post)

I have a very typical house on Queen Anne. It was built in 1904, and there’s nothing terribly special about it. It’s cute, but it has its problems as any 100-year-old structure might. If it were located on a 7200sf lot in, say, Wedgewood it might be worth $100k less than it is. Yet it was only on the market for one day before recieving 2 offers. Why?

I agrue the main reason is not the houses or the hill, but the density.

My house is on a typical 3000 sf lot. This gives me room for a nice front yard with a lawn and garden, a large rear yart big enough for my two dogs, space for a garage (if I ever get around to re-building one), a garden space, and over 2000sf of living area. I’ve had 6 people living in it comfortably for a summer, and have had my 10-person family up for two holidays. I have 4 bedrooms, a comfortably sized kitchen, dining room, large living room, laundry room, and a family room. Why anyone could ever use a house bigger than this is beyond me, unless they had 10 children and a horse.

Of course, it’s close to the city and on a hill. There’s no view, but people like hills. I’ll call the hill the only non-density benefit. You could also argue that being close to the city is also a non-density benefit, though if all houses were less dense then there wouldn’t really be a city.

It’s walkable*. I don’t have to get in the car any time I want to go places. The walk to any services is tree-lined, and I have nice house fronts to admire as I walk and people to interact with. This is directly a result of density.

It’s affordable. Stop laughing. The likely reason that land was cut up into 3000 sf pieces back before the days of zoning laws is that it’s a reasonable size for a single family, and developers could sell the same amount of land to more people. Bringing a streetcar into the mix made this size house a good idea - you need density to support public transportation.
But it also made it affordable - working-class families could afford a house this close to the city, on a hill, as long as they don’t take up much space. The same is true today. If you think a typical house is expensive, compare it to one of the large houses on the hill.

This article could have easily been written about Fremont, Ballard, much of the U-District, Green Lake, or some of Capital Hill. Whether or not suburbanites admit it, density can be very desirable. I’m not sure what inspired our current zoning laws, but I think they’re flawed. Where we build single family houses, let’s go back to 3000sf (or less) lots with neighborhoods, not 7200sf car-centric sprawl.

* I’ll list what I can walk to in order of distance:

1 block
small grocery store
2 small restaurants
coffee shop
major bus line

5 blocks
library
sports fields
swimming pool
community center
dense retail area

10 blocks
2 large grocery stores

1 mile
7 large grocery stores
opera
ballet
symphony
sports arena
Seattle Center
waterfront
Lake Union
float planes
3 dense retail areas

2 miles
downtown

Last week the city announced 4 possible locations for a new city jail to house misdemeanor prisoners, and each location is controversial in its own way. So…making the rounds of the four - here’s a North Seattle Herald Outlook report on the concerns about the Aurora site option.

The Aurora option would replace the 58-year old Puetz Golf Range and Pro Shop and an adjoining Lincoln Towing yard with a low-rise jail. Personally, the Driving range seems like a nice business to have on Aurora, and it provides a nice addition to a neighborhood that needs the help.

(Seattle PI photo - Puetz Golf Range and Pro Shop)

Looks like Councilmember Conlin has been getting busy with some proposed changes to Seattle’s Single Family Zoning Code. (Thanks to Renee for the heads up on this one!)

• Delete a provision accommodating taller structures as a product of averaging the height of adjacent existing single-family structures.
• Reduce maximum lot coverage on lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. from 1,750 sq. ft. as is allowed currently to 1,000 sq. ft. plus 15% of lot area.
• Limit hardscape surface to 65% of lot area.
• Allow dormers constructed above the maximum permitted height, but below the peak of a pitched roof.
• Limit the additional height permitted for sloped lots to a maximum of five feet.
• Remove corner lot coverage allowance and reduce alley lot coverage allowance to 10%
• Waive parking requirements for single-family residential uses on parcels less than 3,000 square feet in size or 30 feet in width where access to parking is permitted through a required yard abutting a street
• Prevent garage walls from being any closer to the street lot line than 80% of the streetlevel façade that is not a garage.
• Limit the width of garage doors on a street-facing façade to 50% of the structure width or 10 feet, whichever is greater.
• Specify that minor additions such as eaves and unenclosed decks shall not prevent development of adjacent historic lots.
• Create a new lot coverage allowance for rear garages on lots with parking access through the front yard.

Grab a copy of the proposed single family updates here, amendments checklist, and the SEPA checklist.

(Will megahomes finally be able to drag their sorry butts back to the exurbs?)

”
(Photo from Wedgwood Community Council site)

Sure, it’s just a regular ol’ cell phone pole, but Peter Steinbrueck recently suggested to the Wedgwood neighborhood that they make lemonade out of lemons and turn it into a ‘community totem’ like they did for one NYC pole (see the photo at the bottom of this page).

Personally, I have a better idea - use it as a community Festivus pole, where every year neighbors could gather to ‘Air their grievences’ and perform ‘Feats of Strength’ underneath the warm aluminum glow of this 59.5 foot pole.

Of course some of you may be wondering, why install a 59′ 6″ pole, wouldn’t you just round up to 60′? Well, if rounding up to 60′ feet meant you had to go through SEPA, and if you were T-Mobile trying to get this done sooner rather than later, than I bet you’d want to trim off a little from the top. Here’s what Seattle City Light had to say,

Both the Seattle Municipal Code and SEPA establish parameters for public process for these types of facilities.

Antenna towers under 60′ in commercial zones are exempt from SEPA requirements, including any public process required for non-exempt facilities.

However, I don’t think anyone in the neighborhood can be too upset with this pole because nobody complained about it,

The subject pole is in a Neighborhood Commercial 2-30 (NC 2-30) zone, and the proposed height (59′6″) is under 60′, so DPD review is not required by code and the facility is exempt from SEPA review. T-Mobile provided SCL a copy of the notice of a neighborhood meeting held at Eckstein Middle School on 12/11/06 and reported that the notice was sent to property owners (151) within 500′ of the pole. T-Mobile also reported that only one person attended the meeting; she did not want to sign in but was in favor of the project because her T-Mobile service is so poor. SCL did not receive any written comments.

So…the lesson here for those who aren’t fans of Festivus poles (or metal community totems), don’t miss those public comment meetings.

(Wait ’til the folks back home see what I found in New York - a community totem for our NC2-30 zoned parcel!)

The West Seattle Blog reported about this on Thursday.

Plans were filed with the DPD to redevelop a fairly large amount of land in West Seattle (just west of the where the western end of the West Seattle Bridge turns south).

As reported by the West Seattle Blog,

“Land Use Application to allow 21 single family residences in an environmentally critical area (clustered housing). Parking for 30 vehicles will be located within the structures and 8 surface parking spaces will be provided on the site.”

Using Live Maps, here’s the Bird’s Eye View (looking west) of the property up for development. Comments on the West Seattle Blog are also expressing surprise that homes could be built on such a steep location.

Here is the view looking north

And here’s a link to the DPD’s map. (linked from the West Seattle blog)

Of course it was approved, however, now it’s the opponents’ time to appeal the decision if they choose.

The thing about the Dearborn Street Coalition’s position on this project is that they’re not against developing this site (and I’ve been to one of their meetings - and heard them clearly explain their position on this), what they want is a development that benefits the neighborhood by being transit focused, built to environmentally friendly standards and doesn’t gentrify the place.

As others have mentioned, the current plan is way too car-centric for a city who repeatedly expresses the desire to reduce its dependency on the car. The Dearborn Street Coalition is looking to make sure that local businesses benefit from providing the developer with our public asset, the right to upzone. And, the Coalition has also asked that businesses they view as predatory to lower-income folks (shout out here to check-cashing outfits) be restricted from this development.  

The group has also asked that the property be built to LEED standards, of course, this doesn’t matter as much to those who would rather be able to shop for socks at Target on their way home from work.

(We should still do better. Image from Central District News.)

Two 2-story skinny homes on a single 7500 7200 sq ft lot can be a pretty nice way to ‘up’ density without mucking with a neighborhood’s sustainability. These homes aren’t out of scale with their surroundings, they’ve got nice setbacks between one another, they double the density on these lots, and each one is more affordable than a megamansion.

Lots of condos, apartments and townhomes (even a mobile home park) up in this corner of Ravenna Ave by Lake City Way. Not as much investment in pedestrian safety.

Thank the neighbors for the bench!

Walking home on a busy street from that bus stop.

The ‘green’ world of Mayor Nickels continues to amuse me. He likes to issue edicts condemning small environmental transgressions, while at the same time ironically overlooking his own.

Here’s the latest ‘green’ admonishment from the Mayor, the Seattle Times today reports about his latest efforts to inspire Seattlites to curb their use of bottled water.

When Mayor Greg Nickels drives in his car, he carries a plastic container filled with tap water.

He says it’s his small effort to save the environment.

Thanks for the leadership here, Mayor Nickels. You’ve inspired me to curb my anti-environmental ways in a way similar to yours - I have now stopped clubbing baby seals with disposable pre-filled water bottles and instead club them with reusable plastic containers filled with 100% Seattle tap - ‘the finest-tasting, purest-source water in the world’.

Anyway, how about building some more drinking fountains then. I know these kids would appreciate it.

Thanks Mayor Nickels for your leadership!