Citizens are frustrated after the Department of Planning and Development approved a Seattle Public Schools expansion project at Loyal Heights Elementary School that has three zone variances.
Last Monday the DPD announced SPS could go on with plans to expand the school with the condition that a future courtyard be used as an open space recreational area for students.
From the DPD decision: “The north, internal courtyard, bounded on all sides by the school building, shall be made available for play at the direction and programming of the staff and principal of Loyal Heights Elementary School.”
With projections for dramatic student increases in the district, SPS has been looking for schools to expand. Based on student projections, available space and building characteristics, last year SPS identified North Beach Elementary and Loyal Heights Elementary (LHE), along with 13 other schools as potential sites for expansion.
The District plans to keep the existing structure at LHE and build on the ground level an additional 37,136 square feet to the south area of the school. The total area of the new structure would be 59,538 square feet.
LHE is a historic landmark, so SDS has to design around the current structure. Because of this there were certain design considerations, such as a courtyard, which would provide access to light.
Paid for by the Building Excellence IV (BEX IV) Capital Levy and a grant from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Loyal Heights Elementary School Project Budget is $43,858,355.
The District proposed a departure for a lot coverage of 47.7 percent in their design plans. The code stipulates only 35 percent lot coverage.
In addition, the code requires public institutions to have one space for each 80 square feet of all auditoria and public assembly rooms or one space for each staff member. The proposal provides no additional parking for the school.
Lastly, SPS proposed to have a higher than allowed building height of 19 feet for a total height of 54 feet. The zoning code allows new building heights to be that of the existing school or 35 feet plus 15 feet for a pitched roof, whichever is greater.
The original proposal called for one more code departure for no set backs from the property line. Setbacks are required for public institutions when a building is facing or abutting residential zones. LHE is in a Single Family Residential zone. However, in the Ditrict’s final proposal the school design was changed to meet the code, and the setback variance was withdrawn before it was submitted to the DPD.
Last year, the Department of Neighborhoods invited community members to apply for an eight-member Development Standard Advisory Committee in order to evaluate the proposal and make recommendations for the project. 22 citizens applied, and seven were selected. They joined a member of SPS to make up the committee.
Ultimately, the committee rejected all four of the departures. However, they wanted to make it clear that they were not opposed to modernizing the school but want to see it done in a way that is less invasive to the surrounding neighborhood and allows more open space.
A series of public meetings were also held during the design phase of the project. A major contention raised by citizens is the condition the DPD granted the proposal on: recreational use of the courtyard. Citizens argued that the courtyard was designed to allow light into the rooms, and not for recreational use. A major concern was acoustic impacts. They argued that activity in the courtyard would be distracting for students in the classrooms abutting it.
SPS agrees that the courtyard was not designed with recreational use in mind, however they contend that the future use of the courtyard would be for types of play that would not distract other students.
“It is the District’s interpretation that this courtyard can be used for educational play, quiet play at the direction and programming of the staff. This space is not intended for active play,” SPS wrote in a statement.
“The programming activities in this space should not impact the surrounding classrooms. We should note that existing classrooms and portables have functioned adjacent to the playground for years without acoustical impacts.”
The Department of Planning and Development commented on their decision as well.
“SDCI (Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections) identifies the staff and principal to determine the programming and impacts; passive recreation, etc,” wrote Bryan Stevens with DPD.
“We don’t consider the impact of programming within the courtyard or on the classrooms. … There are many different levels of play, recreation, and outdoor classroom learning. The courtyard can serve many purposes including access to light for classrooms, different levels of recreation, outdoor learning, exploration, arts, crafts, function space, exhibit space. As the condition states staff and the principal will direct the programming effort.”
The Ballard News-Tribune asked DPD how they evaluate their design/planning decisions when evaluating plans for schools and whether an educational dynamics consultant advises them.
“SDCI (Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections) does not enter into educational dynamics research or hire educational consultants, but instead reviews the project that is proposed. We conduct zoning reviews and review the project for SEPA (environmental impacts). SPS is the lead agency on the SEPA determination and we take their School Departure Committee recommendation under consideration. … We don’t comment or regulate SPS decisions on which schools they expand. Our role is to review what has been proposed by SPS.”
The DPD decision explained further how DPD comes up with their decision.
“The Director balances departure requests through criteria based on the relationship to surrounding areas with need for development standards departures to meet program requirements and finds that the departure requests should be allowed with a condition.”
Furthermore, the DPD reported that the number of code variances for the project is not uncommon.
“It is not unusual for SPS project to request departures from zoning regulations per SMC 23.79 and 23.51B. Three departure requests is fairly common. The Landmarks Board rejected adding a third story to the school, so the classrooms needed to be sited elsewhere. Programmatic constraints including kitchens, gym, lunchroom, and preschool uses were also factors.”
Nathan Soccorsyn lives with his family near the school. His daughter is a kindergartener at LHE.
Soccorsyn said he was disappointed in the SPS proposal and surprised with the DPD decision.
“We were jazzed about the school and its reputation, and then of course we learned that the school was going to change and there’d be a two-year construction period for the school. …We heard about the project, and we thought it seemed kind of wacky.”
Soccorsyn works in project management and spoke about the proposal not being a good fit for the location or the neighborhood.
“When you design a project and it starts to bump up against its limitations usually there’s something that doesn’t align in general, and I think that’s happening here,” said Soccorsyn.
Soccorsyn wonders why North Beach Elementary wasn’t the primary choice for the expansion.
“North Beach Elementary has a much larger lot and a much smaller school. So if you are looking to expand a school without a long list of departures that seems like a much more reasonable place for an expansion.”
SPS reported that they initially planned on NBE for an expansion project however enrollment forecasts forced them to change their plan.
“North Beach Elementary was slated to be renovated as part of the high level evaluation of schools in BEX IV. However, after more detailed examination, Loyal Heights was determined to be a better candidate. Schools were chosen by the School Board for inclusion into BEX IV based mainly on facility conditions and enrollment forecasts. Although both schools had the same facility conditions, Loyal Heights had a greater enrollment forecast,” wrote SPS.
SPS also contends that the proposal meets the standards for the voter approved Building Excellence IV Bond, the Educational Specifications and helps alleviate capacity needs in Northwest Seattle.
The proposal may satisfy educational standards and apparently the zoning code, but Soccorsyn, neighbors and at least seven members of the DON committee do not think the proposal is a good fit for the site.
“Maybe I’m not seeing the forest for trees, but this project is grossly oversized for the property they are putting it on. … It defies logic, but welcome to Seattle I guess,” said Soccorsyn.
