Seattle. Ballard.

Ballard residents barrage City Councilmembers with development and housing affordability concerns

shaneh — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:55:53 +0000

shaneh Tue, 07/22/2014 - 4:55pm

Tess, with Livable Ballard, reminding the Council of the 2015 elections.

Photo by Shane Harms

On July 16 the Committee on Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resilience met in the sweltering Ballard Community Center to discuss a number of pressing housing issues. The meeting was part of an ongoing series of meetings working toward creating a Housing Strategic Plan.

City Councilmembers Sally Clark, Tom Rasmussen, Mike O’Brien and Nick Licata were in attendance and listened to community members present their opinions on development, housing and a litany of other issues affecting Ballard and Seattle.

Over 200 citizens sweated in their seats with council members amid opening presentations from concerned residents. Issues brought before the council included developer loop holes in the land use code, overdevelopment in Ballard, “sky-rocketing” rent rates, lack of community involvement in development and the Department of Planning and Development’s lack of oversight.

Citizens called for a pause in development, a vast reappraisal of the housing code, and a reorganization of the DPD.

A woman named, Tess, from Livable Ballard, pleaded to speak after claiming an unknown individual had crossed her name off the presenter list. The council allowed her to speak and when she did residents applauded what she had to say.

“While density is a necessity, developer greed and inattention to low income residents and families with children is not,” said Tess. She stated that the Ballard vacancy rates are one of the highest in the city at 8.6 percent, despite high rent rates, and will climb to 18 percent in six years after the already permitted projects are completed.

“Building our way out of the housing crisis is clearly not working. … City council members need to be reminded that their lack of action in closing developer loopholes, including meaningful community involvement, and actively monitoring and responding to the impact of growth on neighborhoods is irresponsible in the extreme, and we residents of Ballard will not accept it. Although the damage will be done by that time, the 2015 election is not far away and Councilmembers should perhaps be reminded that we will not abide to reelection of the ones responsible for this mess.”

Bob, an architect, who said he owns two houses in Ballard, held up a large picture of a popular designed townhouse being built on a subdivided lot. “Ballard is losing its character, its spirit, its soul. It’s being overtaken by poor design. …Something needs to be done. Design is very hard to legislate. I’ve been a planning commissioner in other communities before and it’s a very difficult situation, but someone has to have the guts and the courage to step forward and take control. …The houses like this are ruining Ballard’s environment. “

Bob, showing an example of what is causing Ballard to "lose its soul." Photo by Shane Harms.

Corey Snelson, Board Chair for the Washington Tenants Union commented on affordability in Seattle.

“I live in Shoreline. I cannot afford to live in Seattle. ... We are really facing a crisis in affordable housing. People that are coming into the Tenants Union every day cannot find housing here, and I’m going to ask you now to make bold steps to change what this looks like. What do you want your city to look like in the future? What do you want it to look like now? Do you want a city full of wealthy people or do you want it to have vibrancy and ethnicity and all the wonderful things that make this city a beautiful, wonderful, fantastic place to live, “ said Snelson.

Catherine Weatbrook from Ballard District Council and Linda Weedman with Central Ballard Residents Association, presented on Ballard development and concerns derived from the community.

Weatbrook reported many challenges for Ballard, including the growth rate, affordability for both housing and businesses, and the diversity of the housing stock. She mentioned the current development rate being at 206 percent of the DPD’s 2024 target with and additional 111 percent permitted/under construction.

“There is no diversity in what we are seeing as far as new housing stock. … This community values the diversity it has and wants to encourage more,” said Weatbrook.

Weatbrook discussed a study that showed young residents and new businesses flock to old neighborhoods because they have diversity, and identified Ballard as having a rich history and a diverse array of people and businesses. She stated that the homogenous development of unaffordable housing occurring in Ballard does not support maintaining what draws people in the first place. She also reported that although there has been substantial housing growth; there has not been any job growth, especially for the living wage jobs.

Transportation and parking was also a major issue she reported as a challenge for Ballard. Weatbrook stated that Capitol Hill is one of the best-served neighborhoods for transit in Seattle and has a high walkability rating, yet automobile ownership is up. She alluded to the parking density increasing in Ballard and how Capitol Hill is a cautionary tale. Moreover, Weatbrook argued the rational behind building more housing to bring costs down is not working.

“I’m going to echo a little bit of Tess’s statement here, which is, if simply adding housing stock made housing more affordable we would have seen it by now, and there are national studies that back that up. It is not a simple economic 101 of supply and demand. These are intertwined, interdependent issues. It’s great to have a housing plan – don’t get me wrong. I think it’s an excellent thing to do, but it can’t be done in isolation from the other factors that affect livability and the cost of housing.”

Weedman reported CBRA’s basic concerns, which on top of addressing rapid growth, included transit, parking, employment, police presence, schools, sewer, water lines, storm drainage, and preserving tree canopy.

“We strongly support the timely assessment of our infrastructure needs and not waiting until a crisis occurs," said Weedman.

Weedman also reported that a recent City study conducted as part of the Ballard Urban Design Framework showed that only five percent of Ballard residents live and work in Ballard. She said that CBRA believes the rising cost of rent and lack of affordable housing is the reason.

In addition, Weedman reported CBRA’s concern for the proposed micro-housing ordinance, addressing the city provisions that she claimed avoid SEPA, design review, public involvement, lack of height limits, and fire and safety controls.

“CBRA has also submitted comments on the proposed correction to the Low Rise Multi-family ordinance. In general we believe any future changes to the land-use code should restore public notice and participation in the design review as well as developer accountability. The emphasis here should be managing growth not just promoting helter-skelter growth. “

In addition, Traci Ratzliff, Council Central Staff, gave a presentation on the City’s Housing Strategic Plan. Jonathan Grant with the Tennant’s Union of Washington spoke about preserving affordable housing in Ballard and cited the recent change in Lockhaven Apartments, (low income housing turned to luxury apartments) as an example of what’s happening throughout Seattle. Moreover, Steve Walker and Maureen Kostyack with the Seattle Office of Housing, presented on affordability, housing preservation and tenant assistance in Washington.

Seattle housing. Development. Ballard development. High rent rates in Ballard.

Seattle. Ballard.

Ballard News Tribune

What if you could touch your neighbor’s house through your bedroom window?

shaneh — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:36:57 +0000

shaneh Wed, 03/05/2014 - 4:36pm

Leroy and Laurette Simmons standing in front of where a row house will soon be less than three feet from their house.

Photo by Shane Harms

A land use application to build a row house at 1730 N.W. 60th Street is in the application process with the Department of Planning and Development.

This sounds like a typical announcement but upon closer inspection of the site plans it’s apparent that the new structure will be built directly on the property line, which upsets neighbor Laurette Simmons.

Leroy and Laurette Simmons and Laurette’s 97-year-old mother live next door to the site that was recently approved for land action. They bought the lot six years ago and built a three-story home.

“Parts of our house lie two and a half feet from the lot line and other parts are more since the rule used to be that structures must have an average setback of five feet. So in some places we would be able to paint the new structure wall from our house! This is just crazy, and I don't think it was the intended result of the DPD,” said Simmons.

However, according to Bryan Stevens, Customer Service Manager and Seattle's Industrial Permit Liaison for the Department of Planning and Development, that is what they have in mind. That is, not to upset Simmons, but to place row houses in that manner.

“A row house development can be placed up to the side property line unless the development proposal is adjacent to a single family zoned property. The “zero lot line” development anticipates the possibility of a future row house on an adjacent site. This is generally a new housing type in Seattle, but one that we encourage and something commonly seen in other major cities,” said Stevens

The current lowrise, multifamily zoning code was enacted in 2010 in areas that have allowed for multifamily development for at least 30 years.

“Lowrise zoning encourages a wide variety of new housing including apartments, townhouses and now row houses. These zones are usually located in between commercial areas and single-family neighborhoods and they play a key role in the production of new housing that can help meet growing demand,” said Stevens.

Stevens said that areas where structures like row housing and townhouses are allowed have not been built because there wasn’t a demand, but that has changed.

“Many of these lowrise zones have remained developed with single family homes, even though they’ve been allowed to build multifamily developments for many years. Given the current construction climate, more of these areas are starting to be redeveloped with a range of building types allowed in the zone.”

Simmons thinks the row house is a bad fit for the context of the property and the neighborhood, which is zoned as multifamily but is largely made up of small single-family homes.

Stevens explained that the context of neighborhoods change and what residents are seeing is the beginning of that change and that even the construction of the Simmons’ home was a change in “built context,” referring to what has already been built.

“There’s the existing built context…based on historic demand and older zoning laws, and then there’s a context based on the type and scale of development currently allowed in the zone and the general vicinity. The existing home to the west (Simmons’) was once a single story house; now it has three stories…which in 2008, was a change in the built context.

The built environment changes overtime, either based on market demands and/or changes to zoning laws. The code is respectful in situations where a more intensive multifamily zone abuts a less intensive single-family zone, but blocks of multifamily zoning surround this site (Simmons)."

Moreover, Stevens explained that since the zone is multifamily it's likely that if a row house development starts there, there is potential more will follow and that’s why they are built to the property line, so that they butt up next to each other. This style of housing is iconic in San Francisco.

“Unless a property is adjacent to a Single Family zoned property, a row-house development can be placed up to the side property line."

The project may satisfy the code, but Simmons thinks that the DPD didn’t review the context of her situation thoughtfully. She said that she bought her property six years ago and tore down the old house in order to build her single family home that she reported to be appraised at $620 thousand dollars.

“To think that more row housing will be built on my lot in the future is ridiculous. It’s a brand new home and at its current value no one in their right mind would buy it in order to tear it down and build a row house. That also goes for the neighboring houses to the west,” said Simmons.

Furthermore, the actual building construction of the row house raises more issues. Simmons said that it’s impossible for the builders to construct the row house without trespassing on her property. If the builders do she said she would call the police. Simmons brought the issue to the attention of the current owner and she said that he told her they would be doing all the building from within the structure. However, a fence along the property line, shrubs and a cedar tree will need to be removed or trimmed dramatically back in order for the build to occur.

Once the row house is built, Simmons claims that the space between the two structures would not allow room for maintenance without being on her property.

“Even after they build it there is no way to paint and maintain the side without coming on my property. We will not only be staring at a wall but eventually unmaintained peeling walls,” said Simmons.

Simmons has also taken steps to claim a one and a half strip of property where her fence lies that extends into the row house site. Simmons has been working with an attorney to enforce the “adverse possession” clause.

The legal action determines that if a fence has been a marker between two properties for longer than 10 years, then where the fence lies determines the property line. The action actually happened to Simmons and she lost property in the past. If the strip is awarded to Simmons, there may need to be changes in the site plan. Or, if the structure is built before the property is awarded to Simmons the row house owner would have problems gaining title insurance.

Bradley Khouri, AIA, Principle and founder of B9 Architects and a member of the Seattle Planning Commission since October 2010, is the architect for the project. The Ballard News-Tribune reached out to Khouri for comment, but he has not responded.

Normally the DPD notifies homeowners about land use application, but Simmons and her neighbors never received anything. The row house project fell into a known “loophole” or flexibility in the code that came after zone changes were made in 2010 that allows higher density structures not to be reviewed when subdivisions occur.

Among other concerns, Simmons said that the City recently stopped picking up waste management cans in the alley behind her house so now cans are rolled out on trash days. She’s concerned that since row house are built abutting the sidewalk there will be no place to put the cans and they will remain on the sidewalk permanently, which is already happening on her block.

"My biggest fear is that because the builders are going to be so close there could be a fire or other safety issues that can happen. My 97-year-old mother would not be able to make it out if there is no one here and something happened,” said Simmons.

Row housing. Development in Ballard

Seattle. Ballard.

Ballard News Tribune