1/21/2010 1:36:00 PM The views from here Requested South Lake Union zoning changes prompt criticism
■ This photo, taken from the west side of Capitol Hill, shows how high buildings would be per the city’s study of maximum heights. It is one of four alternatives studied the Environmental Impact Statement for South Lake Union development. courtesy of JAMES GOODSPEED
PUBLIC MEETING ON EIS FOR SOUTH LAKE UNION DEVELOPMENT
Designated as an urban center, South Lake Union is slated for change guided by the Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans. But the degree of change and height of potential development have more than a few neighbors nervous.
While South Lake Union's Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 2007, highlights a need for parks and open space, it also identifies the neighborhood as an opportunity for density and development. And development means reassessing the current zoning.
Current zoning allows for step-down development toward Lake Union: the highest at 125 feet on Denny Way and down to 40 feet at the waterfront.
After presenting three initial height and density Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives in 2008, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) went back to the drawing board due to an overwhelming neighborhood voice concerned about zoning height increases. Some of the original EIS alternatives proposed zone changes that would allow 400-feet-high development from Denny Way to the waterfront.
The revised alternatives dropped the highest waterfront height to 300 feet, and the least drastic alternative proposes a 65- to 160-feet zone between Aurora Avenue North and Westlake Avenue North, as well as 85 to 125 feet on the waterfront between Valley and Mercer streets.
But, according to some, those changes didn't fairly reflect the neighborhood's concerns, but rather developers' interests.
NEW ALTERNATIVES?
John Pehrson, president of the Lake Union Opportunity Alliance (LUOA) board, said the minor changes made to the alternatives were disappointing. Pehrson estimated 80 percent of public comments were critical of the original alternatives, and with such minor changes, Pehrson said, "Our comments are the same.
"The main problem we have is that all of the alternatives propose towers right next to Lake Union, and those areas are currently zoned the lowest," Pehrson said.
None of the new alternatives propose a step-down zoning to the lake, though they do present less drastic height changes than the original. Still, the zone changes differ considerably from current zoning heights.
And like Pehrson, others don't want South Lake Union transformed into another Belltown or downtown.
"Generally, it's a little bit too much," said Lloyd Douglas of the Cascade Neighborhood Council, who also sits on the South Lake Union Friends and Neighbors Community Council (SLUFAN) board. "There's really no need to build that high to have the density articulated in the pro-growth goals."
Though there was an extensive public process, Douglas said the city diligently avoided talking about the main concerns: height, density and tower spacing.
As an urban center, South Lake Union is expected to absorb more growth - both residential and commercial - but just how that should happen is the question. As an architect and recent South Lake Union resident, Jim Goodspeed is concerned about the decisions to raise heights all at once.
"It needs to happen a little more incrementally," he said. "Building heights is one thing we need to allow but control."
As a proponent of density, Goodspeed said density makes a neighborhood vibrant, but it shouldn't happen overnight. Like other residents, he noted high development at the waterfront "goes against Seattle's character."
"It's too sterile and too much of a monolithic feel to have everything replaced at once by a few developers," Goodspeed said. "...The city is studying all these things, but the reality is they're being influenced by developers in this neighborhood to go higher and not step down to the water."
CRITIQUING THE PUBLIC PROCESS
Douglas also said the developers' interests came first. Though there are a handful of property owners in the neighborhood, the 60 acres owned by Paul Allen's company, Vulcan Inc., seem to elicit the most attention.
Just last week, the Seattle City Council approved to rezone a Vulcan property where the University of Washington plans to build a seven-story medical facility at Eighth Avenue North and Republican Street.
"The resident input over the last two years has been actively ignored or minimized by DPD, the city and City Council," said LUOA member Dianne Masson. "We are not anti-height or anti-development; we just believe it should be done correctly....We don't want this to be downtown; we want this to be a neighborhood."
But increasing height limits does not need to mean another "failed Belltown" or downtown, others say.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ZONE HEIGHTS
Drawing biotech companies and developers interested in tall buildings presents chances for South Lake Union to increase green streets, open spaces and other public amenities, too, since the EIS alternatives being studied mean an incentive-zoning proposal for South Lake Union.
Through incentive zoning, developers are allowed to build taller buildings in exchange for public amenities, such as affordable housing, open space or streetscape enhancements.
To SLUFAN president Steven Paget, taller buildings are a reality of building a vibrant neighborhood.
"Part of what we're doing here," he said, "is trying to find that trade-off between getting the funding to pay for those public amenities and allowing developers to go higher within reasonable limits."
The funding for amenities like pocket parks and green streets needs to come from somewhere, Paget noted: Taller buildings might allow for some of those aspects desired by the community.
Vulcan Inc. spokesperson David Postman pointed to the recent height changes to the University of Washington Medical Center as a testament to the benefits of height. "UW could have built a big building that went literally from sidewalk to sidewalk on all four sides - they didn't want to, " he said. "They wanted open space on the ground floor, a building people working inside could enjoy. It puts a better project on the ground for all concerned. That's a good example of what zoning changes can provide."
LOSS OF VIEWS
Longtime Queen Anne resident Peri Hartmen said few people in Queen Anne and other surrounding neighborhoods whose views would be affected by potential Lake Union development aren't aware of the current rezoning considerations. And that, he said, is a problem.
"This is a big deal. People need to be aware of it and help decide if that's what they want to do with their city," he said. "Part of what makes Seattle charming is its natural topography - it's important to preserve that."
For Tony Russo, chair of the Capitol Hill Policy and Planning Committee, it's not logical to fill in a valley between two hills with tall buildings because that obscures the natural topography.
Like Hartmen, Russo said Capitol Hill residents weren't considered relevant constituents in the decision process, even though the decisions will affect those residents. Tall buildings in South Lake Union could impede public right-of-way views, he said.
Like losing views, taller property also means higher property values in South Lake Union. If it goes too high, the possibility for affordable housing and small business may be threatened. Whether incentive zoning can balance that threat remains to be discovered.
At the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 26, concerned constituents will have a chance to discuss the Urban Design Framework and the EIS alternatives. The meeting will take place from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. in the Seattle Unity Church's Fellowship Hall, 200 Eighth Ave. N.
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Article comment by:
PaulB
I'm not just concerned about views. What about sunlight? By putting the tallest buildings to the south, you'll create long shadows north to the lake. Each successive block north will be in the shadow of taller buildings to the south. Who will want to live and work in canyons of perpetual twilight. (Oh, right...vampires!)
