In an email she forwarded to us, the intent from the neighbors was to let the City Council know that they “want fair and sensible zoning laws” and “that it’s not appropriate to give special privileges to the developer Skanska, allowing them to build 20 feet over current zoning.”
On Monday, July 9, the City Council’s land use committee will hold a hearing on the ordinance to change the height restrictions.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love it when people “take it to the streets”…especially with signs like “LESS BLUE, THAT’S POO”.
I just fundamentally don’t understand the psychological underpinnings of NIMBYism. Tall buildings allow for dense, walkable, enjoyable cities. But they also…don’t look great? I really don’t get it.
Do you “get” zoning?
Buildings which ar eplanned to be out of the zoning laws deliberately are deliberate means to break established codes mad ewith best interests of the city and people in it.
Big buildings cause too much shade, obscure water views, create traffic messes due to large numbers of traffic, reduce space fo rbirds, reduce green of whater kind might have been there. Lately these monoliths are built right up against the sidewalk, ground and disrupting watershed patterns.
See seattlefederation.blogspot.com for info on how to mount an effective appeal.
Seattle Community Council Federation
Federation meets Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 7 p.m. – Courts and hearings boards: When and how to file a case or appeal What reforms, if any, are needed? Featuring Jeffrey M. Eustis, partner in the law firm Aramburu & Eustis
Since 1946 the Federation has been assisting communities that need guidance when the city is breaking/bending the law.
Just to provide clarity (and a little balance??) to this report, the City Council is considering proposed changes to the city’s Living Building Pilot Project. After four community meetings, the Design Review Board has already approved Stone34 and found the departures requested were appropriate. The changes to the Pilot Program would extend the timeframe (the program is set to expire and only a handful of projects have applied, one is Stone34) and would allow additional incentives, like height, in some areas (IC zones with a limit of ’45 or less in urban villages or centers) and an exemption from FAR limits for ground floor retail in that same zone.
Integrating living building systems into commercial buildings is often quite challenging given site and neighborhood design constraints. These changes would allow for more deep green projects, like Stone34, to be built in our city – a good thing.
Where do all the NOs get their energy, time, and organizing power? How can we YESs get some???? These “dozens” don’t represent me, and this building is in FREMONT.
Thanks for the reminder. I just sent another letter in support of the project.
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/nmaps/html/NN-1130S.htm
Fremont Urban Village: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population_Demographics/Census_2000_Data/Data_Maps_for_Locally_Defined_Areas/DPDS_007017.asp
I don’t even have to read the fine print to say what’s 20 ft unless it impedes on someones else’s property! Whats to ever stop when it comes to building and how high as it’s been going on forever! How about focusing on the positive like the jobs it creates. 20 ft? Come on………
40 feet, come on…..
Look at Fremont under the bridge.. what is no wALL concrete and tall block buildings at one time had water views, grass, yes, an old warehouse, paths, trees, more watershed, sune exposure.
Life is nto about building buildings and pretending they will bring jobs. LOOK at the eyesore across from ressential Bakery .. big tall building blocking park and water views- EMPTY NOW
40 feet, come on…..
Look at Fremont under the bridge.. what is n w ALL concrete and tall block buildings at one time had water views, grass, yes, an old warehouse, paths, trees, watershed, sun exposure.
Life is not about building buildings, pretending they will bring jobs. LOOK at the eyesore across from ressential Bakery .. big tall building blocking park and water views- EMPTY NOW
Mickey, thank you for the info in your post, which is helpful for understanding the upcoming Council action.
I believe we ALL want “fair and sensible” land use laws. In my opinion, the “Living Building Pilot” fulfills exactly that purpose, and I continue to support the Stone34 project.
The buildings zones accross Seattle are meant to be topographically matched and appropriate. Years of careful planning and assesment have gone into the zoning so that heights of buildings match the others.
This building could be 20 feet lower — and still house the business that want this built — with just a slower ROI for the developer, the out of town investment firm SKANSKA..
This building would HULK over the buildings at this intersection and block all southern views for the lower Wallingford community that lives right behind it. A building this tall could be built 3 miles south in Eastlake or Downtown.
It is just too big for Stoneway and 34th.
I hope the CEO of Brooks Running enjoys the view of Lake Union from the top floor corner office. Perhaps (s)he will think now and then of the many neighbors who were deprived of open sky, glimpses of the Aurora Bridge, and their connection to the lake just so this building would “pencil out.”
It’s not the extra 20′ that is so valuable to the developers, its the regulation creep. Keep chipping away at the laws and eventually you can build towering lifeless structures on every corner unimpeded, and the voices of the people are irrelevant.
The folks that impulsively favor developers building whatever they want, without restraint, are slowly drowning in the obsolete paradigm that unfettered and unbalanced growth/development/capitalism is a good thing. Problem is, they will unwittingly take the rest of us with them. However, as soon as one of these structures is blocking their sunlight, you will hear no end to the squawking.
I’m a bit surprised by the many pro-developer posts. Makes me suspicious…a coordinated effort?
I also continue to be supportive of this project, and no, I am not part of a coordinated effort.
oh, and wow, I guess I live in Fremont now?
Why doesn’t Brooks just repurpose then occupy the new, huge, empty building across from the Essential Bakery? It is even closer to the lake.
I agree with KC. There are so many empty commercial buildings and storefronts around. The new ones put retail space on the ground floor, and then evidently price it so local businesses can’t afford the rent. It’s a tax write-off for them. The best “green” building is adaptive re-use.
I also support the project and I am not part of some coordinated effort. I think it will be great for the area- just makes sense to me.
@Auntie X, I was thinking the same thing – except exactly the opposite. I live on 38th, I coach soccer at Wallingford park, I walk my kids to JSIS every day, and I haven’t met a single person who’s opposed to this building. What’s more, I don’t even recognize anyone in that picture.
But instead of thinking it’s some sort of nefarious corporate seeding scheme, I chalk that up to the fact that this is a large neighborhood with many varying opinions.
As for me, I continue to support replacing the crappy blacktop parking lot and Subway with a nice building – regardless of height. But mostly I’ll be happy when the thing is either built or killed so everyone can go back to ignoring this corner like they have for the past 20 years.
I live 4 block from this site. Have not been to a single meeting or protest. I fall into both camps. Do I believe that corporations or people should be exempt from zoning regulations? No. A good architect can work within the rules. Do I think the height of a building is the worst offense? No. Just look to that piece of crap at 40th and Stone. Fits regulation to a T but is much more of an eyesore than a well designed building that exceeds zoning.
The City’s exisiting living building pilot program incentives seem reasonable – allowing the addition of 10′ added height and 15% added FAR to a zone in exchange for encouraging thoughtful, energy and resource conservation minded development. Apparently, projects have been proposed on Capitol Hill and in Ballard that fit within the current program constraints. My concern about the Skanska project is that Skanska is asking for twice that height and a whole extra floor of building square footage and the City proposes to give them an extra 20′ height and an extra floor (this type of land use parcel only). The City is not planning to give everyone applying to the LBPP challenge an opportunity to seek 20′ of extra height and a whole floor. If the city believes that Skanska’s extra height and FAR will have no impact, why are they not applying the additional incentives citywide in all zones? Why doesn’t Skanska take the extra 10′ and 15% FAR and develop the building as all other LBPP developers are expected to do?
That’s the point, these changes that are being proposed WILL be available to others in similarly zoned areas.
The proposed living building provides several public landscaped spaces along Stoneway and at the 34th St. corner. The building is set back from the street and the landscaped roof is more set back. So much lovelier than the Subway. So much more appropriate as a gateway to Wallingford and access area to Burke Gilman trail.
The proposed zoning changes are not final. They are in review.
When reading the living building challenge, you get the idea that zone departures were meant to allow for things like solar panels, water filtration systems, grass roofs etc. Here we have an extra floor and an elevator shaft. So green. I don’t think it fits the spirit of the living building challenge but maybe I’m too idealistic about what the lbc is. It seems that it’s an excuse to get departures..
What does “access area to the Burke Gilman trail” mean?
While we were standing out there, a passerby stopped to put in a good word for the Subway. I’m sure not many of us Wallingford urban sophisticates would step into a Subway, but the degree of hating is kind of funny – I mean, it’s brightly painted, it’s a relatively wholesome place for a cheap sandwich. You thought about what you’re hoping for instead, in the street level retail? It’s still going to be a chain, the Burke empire doesn’t have room for no local one-off business, and it’s still going to be located at that same very heavy traffic street corner. It will just be more expensive.
The landscaped plazas are a gimmick to sell the project to people who buy the fantasy portrayed in artist renderings. The reality is what you see along the real N 34th – the level of traffic creates a hostile environment where stuff like that doesn’t thrive. I mean, they’ll be able to keep the plants alive, but from a design perspective it’s fraudulent. Subway at least is real.
This is a very interesting exchange and i appreciate hearing everyone’s perspectives. Thanks.
Personally, the question I ask myself is “Do I support variances from the zoning regulations?” My answer is “no.”
This is no reflection on Skanska, Brooks, the architect, and/or anyone else involved in the project. I am working on the assumption that the designs are great and that the building would be visually appealing. Personally, I would like to have Brooks in the neighborhood, and I have admired the work of Skanska in other building in South Lake Union.
Unfortunately, the designs are not consistent with the zoning regulations of the location – which to me is the deal breaker.
I have lived in neighborhoods where developers have deviated from zoning regulations. The results have led to buildings that stick out like sore thumbs, and slippery slopes that change the character of the neighborhood.
Miss Ruby, you say that the departures will be available to everyone in similarly zoned areas. However, from what I remember, there aren’t so many similarly zoned areas in the city – IC zones within an urban village outside of a shoreline area. The bulk of eligible sites are along Stone Way N between 34th and 36th, no? From what I remember the other areas are in Eastlake and the U District and are either split zoned, in shoreline areas or awkwardly shaped. To be a truly fair incentive, shouldn’t the additional departures apply Citywide and not just to a relatively small number of parcels?
Right about the design, but it is a shame that so much good work has been invested in this project, against so much neighborhood opposition. If we manage to stop it, it looks to me like the blame for that waste of talent and energy falls in part on the landowner, but mostly on the city planning department, and I hope the lesson won’t be wasted on either of them.
Impliedobserver – the technologies incorporated into a living building are so much more sophisticated than solar panels and green roofs. Many of the technologies being used in Stone34 have never been used in the United States (though have been used in Europe successfully for years). Anyway, one of the changes in the code, exemption for ground floor FAR, allows for street level retail, super important, especially at that site.
Donn – why do you think the retail will be a chain? It will be Brooks, for one, and from briefings, the rest is local is well, and sounds pretty exciting. Nothing against Subway, but come on – really?
Folks, this is about growth, and managing it well. I’ve seen it on this blog before, the squeaky neighbors may kill this project, and the next one through, 10′ shorter, will suck. People say “build this green building in a location that will work better for it, where it doesn’t need the 10′ to work”. We must find a way to make these green buildings work in ANY/EVERY location. This should not be a pilot project, this should be the way we build.
Mickey, I went to the design and planning meeting 2 months ago, and I didn’t hear Skanska talk about any green technologies from the additional height. Retail on main floor is a technology? A green technology? If s,o there are a lot of buildings in Seattle with this cutting edge European technology.
But seriously, I’m willing to be convinced either by Skanska or by you. Can you provide further details that would convince me because I’m not getting it.
Slippery slope?
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/FremontUrbanVillageRezone/RezoneRecommendations/default.asp
Sarcasm aside, there are several different, but related, things you are talking about here: 1) the innovative technologies being used in/on the building; 2) why they need the height; and 3) why retail is important.
1) http://www.stonethirtyfour.com/deep_green.html (click through to some of the diagrams)
2) The changes DPD is suggesting to the program would allow for 10′ additional height for buildings in the LBPP program (no others). That provides room the tenant, Brooks, yes – and also allows for higher ceilings on each floor for greater daylight penetration that reduces energy use.
3) obvious.. I hope, but again, what I hear about retail is “curated”, local. Like a good dinner party, finding the right set of guests that compliment each other and together create a great experience.
“Nothing against Subway, but come on – really?” Sure. Why don’t you just say what you have against Subway?
This is a difficult location. Walk down N 34th to Fremont, looking for thriving storefronts, there isn’t much. But at this corner, the worst for traffic, that Subway toughs it out and serves an affordable, reasonably healthy meal in a clean, well lit environment, and for this what do they get? Wallingford is so posh that the sight of a Subway offends, and we clamor for its destruction and crave Skanska’s curated retail experience. Well, good luck with office building restaurants. (By the way, think that usage calls for “complement”, with an “e”.)
At a Design Review Board meeting, Lisa Picard with Skanska was asked if the departures were needed for the green technology. Very candidly she said that Skanska could build a green building at 45 feet but said they need the extra 20 feet above zoning to make it “pencil out” financially.
The problem is that the draft language for the proposed ordinance states that participants must demonstrate that the departure would result in a development that “better meets the goals of the Living Building Challenge” and the Design Review Guidelines. Having a building “pencil out” financially is not one of the goals of the Living Building Challenge.
Skanska could build a Living Building at 65 feet under current law. There are a large number of sites that currently allow that height under current zoning thereby eliminating the need for a departure. Unfortunately, Skanska insists that it should be able to build on this particular site and says it should be granted special privileges to do so. The DPD’s analysis has indicated that this site is not even particularly suitable for a living building given its size, shape, north-south orientation.
Furthermore, the proposal does not meet the first LBC Petal “Site” which states that “projects must find sites that are appropriate for such developments.” The site selected is too small for the program and in the wrong urban design location. Plus, at this site, the building would divert 28,000 gallons of water a day from an underground water source into an already taxed storm water system that goes directly into Lake Union.
With all of these facts, it makes one wonder whetherr Skanska is fully committed to a Living Building, or is it using the LBC’s provisions as a pretext to have the city grant their corporation special privileges for its benefit to provide million-dollar views to its tenant, Brooks Sports?
all that, and it’s about Subway? okay. right, complement. thanks.
yes KC, that is a good question.. why doesnt Skanska Broooks use the already existing waterfront tall building across from Essential Bakery?
It meets criteria.
its tall.
It blocks water views.
It generates lots of concrete.
It will hold a business.
It can have a green roof.
BONUS there is free parking nearby.
It will bring business to the area.
NO construction noises, just remodeling.
Shorter time to remodel than completely build.
“and this building is in FREMONT.”
Why does it matter if it’s in Fremont or Wallingford? That can be argued either way but it doesn’t matter really. What matters is that people — whether they are for or against the breach in zoning — care about that area.
My recommendation for those in favor of a height departure is that they should focus on less petty arguments if they want to get any traction with people who have yet to be persuaded.
I am in complete agreement with “JSIS Parent” and think “Katherine” gives the most comprehensive explanation of the underlying issues and why the neighbors are taking issue with the proposed height of the building.
I do not believe anyone is saying a black top parking lot and Subway is preferred. This is prime real estate that is eventually going to be developed.
I have been to community meetings, including the design meeting. This project outlines and very forward thinking, community minded concept.
That said, the current zoning prevents their full wish from being granted.
I say, “Welcome Brooks! Thank you Skansa for the considerations to the area and for attempting to build a Living Green Building.
Build the building with current zoning laws in place and let this be a win/win with no one a complete “winner”, but many benefits to both sides.
Katherine – Why would anyone build a building that didn’t “pencil out” aka, make sense financially? That’s a ridiculous argument to use against the developer. And really, should we only build green where it’s easy??
I have been saying often.. same,” build the building within current height restrictions..!
It is a win/win and a no brainer.
OR Essential bakery’s across the street EMPTY building.
Mickey. You missed the point. The proposed law that would allow the departure states that the developer must prove that the extra height is needed to further the goals of the Living Building Challenge. Having the building pencil out is not one of the goals.
But they have already stated that they can not met the goals with or without the extra height!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Katherine. You missed the point. You can’t build a building that meets the goals of the LBPP, or any similar program, if you can’t make a profit. What’s the point a program like the LBPP, or encouraging developers to build green to this level, if no one will do it (because they need to make a profit)?
No, really, there’s a difference. If the proposed ordinance has language like “better meets the goals of the Living Building Challenge”, it’s for a reason. If following your reasoning we accept developer profit under that clause, it loses its meaning: since we can trust the developers to ask for a departure only when it’s in their interest, there wouldn’t be any need for them to demonstrate that the departure serves anything else.
If this building needs to be that big, there are plenty of locations zoned for that height.
If you can’t do it, there are other areas with different height restrictions which will appreciate what you can do.
OR another novel idea- DO NOT DO IT! here or anywhere!
I have two words: “Safeco Plaza.”
Mickey, it doesn’t seem like anyone is saying that a developer shouldn’t make a profit. That’s not the point. It’s obvious that any developer needs to make a profit to take on a project whether it’s green or not. For a more thoughtful conversation, it seems that you should really look at the point the person is making about the proposed ordinance.
If the legislation states that the developer needs to demonstrate that the 20-foot height departure is needed to further the goals of the LBC, then they legally need to do just that. The Skanska representative clearly stated at that one DRB meeting that the height is not needed for green technology. Then, according to the city’s own proposed law, they shouldn’t be granted the departure.
Mickey, it doesn’t seem like anyone is saying that a developer shouldn’t make a profit. That’s not the point. It’s obvious that any developer needs to make a profit to take on a project whether it’s green or not. For a more thoughtful conversation, it seems that you should really look at the point the person is making about the proposed ordinance.
If the legislation states that the developer needs to demonstrate that the 20-foot height departure is needed to further the goals of the LBC, then they legally need to do just that. The Skanska representative clearly stated at that one DRB meeting that the height is not needed for green technology. Then, according to the city’s own proposed law, they shouldn’t be granted the departure.
I’ve heard them say more than once now that the height is needed to “skinny up the building” to allow more daylight in, and in further, to meet energy efficiency goals. But, you’re right, they’ve also said that the technology they are using to be able to meet the criteria of the LBPP is expensive; and that the goal of this building to make this type of development something that is affordable for tenants. That means you need more sq footage to spread the cost out. I imagine you can DO this level of green in a smaller building, but no one will be able to afford to be in it.
I live on the opposite end of Wallingford (close to 1-5 & 45th) and am currently driving to work in Bothell every weekday. If that building ever gets built, I will get to work in it and will probably cartwheel myself to work. I’m pretty new to Brooks, but I can tell you, most of us live in Seattle … Greenlake, Fremont, Wallingford, Ballard … because the culture of the company and the culture of these neighborhoods are on the same wavelength. Pleeeease. Let us out of our current (ugly) office park and save tons on gas and emissions. There is so much growth here, and we need space to grow!
The City Council will continue to hold public meetings to discuss proposed changes to the Living Building Pilot Program. The first City Council Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee public hearing was held July 9, 2012.
These further meetings will also be important. All meetings are held at Seattle City Hall in Council Chambers at 600 5th Ave.
•Wednesday, July 11, 9am – City Council Land Use Committee
•Wednesday, July 25, 9am – City Council Land Use Committee
•Monday, July 30, 2pm – City Council of the Whole Meeting – Vote
The changes, advanced by the Seattle Department of Planning & Development, would extend the life of the program beyond the end of the year. The proposed Living Building Pilot Program amendments would allow developers substantial exemptions from current zoning laws. To add ‘flexibility to deep green’ projects, the departures would:
* Allow maximum building height increases of up to 20 feet above zone height limits;
* Exempt ground floor retail space from maximum floor area ratio (FAR) limits, allowing substantially larger buildings;
* Eliminate any height limits for rooftop structures.
Other changes to the Living Building code would apply throughout the city.
These proposed changes are controversial. Looking closely at the program, rather than promoting a particular project, would better serve our neighborhood.
If you cannot attend you can send a letter to City Council Members directly.
Land Use Committee members are:
Richard Conlin, Chair (206-684-8805)
Tim Burgess, Vice Chair (206-684-8806)
Mike O’Brien (206-684-8800)
Sally Clark (206-684-8802)
Email all council members at
A reasonable person relies upon objective information from third-party, trusted and relatively unbiased sources to make informed decisions. Please post any you find.
email addresses:
Richard Conlin, Chair Richard(dot)conlin(at)seattle(dot)gov
Tim Burgess, Vice Chair tim(dot)burgess(at)seattle(dot)gov
Mike O’Brien mike(dot)obrien(at)seattle(dot)gov
Sally Clark sally(dot)clark(at)seattle(dot)gov
Email all council members at council(at)seattle(dot)gov
The following is excerpted from KUOW’s “Controversy Erupts Over Zoning Law Exemptions” Please visit this website for more information:
www . kuow . org/program . php?id=27287
Amanda Sturgeon is with the Living Building Challenge. She says Seattle’s take on the program, including this new ordinance, doesn’t reflect the program’s spirit.
Sturgeon: “The point of our program is that it’s hard to meet, that it’s setting out really high expectations and goals. It’s not intended to be a mainstream program.”
The “Seattle Channel,” available at the City of Seattle’s web site, now includes the video of the public hearing held on Monday, July 9th by the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee.
Whatever your own views about the proposed project may be, this video is one opportunity to hear a wide variety of perspectives and opinions, both for and against the proposed project. I found it to be very informative.
LOOK Carly, you can get out of yourold building. Use the abandoned one across from essential Bakery. Tear down Subway and build one in compliance. itis simple.
But you ar etying having an out of compliance high HIGH grey concrete tree- eating air killing, view-removing horrid building as your only opportunity to get out of Bothell.
I tis also possible to move ot Bothell- they have bike trails and organic food there.. that’s part of the Wallyhood ethos.