There’s nothing like a discussion on neighborhood rezoning to bring out the passionate crowds. About 100 people came to an open house presented by the city’s Department of Planning and Development at Phinney Ridge Lutheran Church on Tuesday night.
The topic was the proposed rezoning of the Greenwood Town Center site (Fred Meyer and Greenwood Market on NW 85th Street), as well as surrounding residential areas. Several months ago, the Greater Greenwood Design Development and Advisory Group (GGDDAG), which includes some members of the Greenwood Community Council, proposed rezoning a 100-foot-deep swath across the street on NW 85th Street, NW 87th Street, and 3rd Avenue NW to allow for multi-family units. The idea was to provide a “step down” between the major development that Fred Meyer has proposed and the surrounding single-family neighborhood.
After hearing from angry neighbors, the council backed off on the part of the proposal that upzoned the residential areas, but the city decided to go ahead and get neighborhood input on the entire proposal.
The proposal is divided into three subareas.Virtually everyone seems to agree on rezoning Subarea #1, which includes the site currently occupied by Fred Meyer and Greenwood Market and their parking lots, from C1-40 (commercial that promotes 40-foot high “big-box” stores and large parking lots) to NC-65 (neighborhood commercial that is pedestrian and transit friendly and encourages mixed-use developments up to 65 feet tall.)
Proponents say rezoning Subarea #1 will protect the neighborhood in case the Fred Meyer development doesn’t go through (their current design for a mixed-use development adheres to the general neighborhood commercial guidelines).
The controversy comes with Subarea #2 and Subarea #3. Subarea #2 would rezone a 100-foot deep parcel along NW 87th Street from 1st Avenue NW to 3rd Avenue NW, and along 3rd Avenue NW from NW 88th Street to NW 85th Street from Single-Family 5000 to Lowrise 3. That would affect dozens of single family homes.
Subarea #3, which includes the old “Checkers” building on the corner of NW 85th Street and 3rd Avenue NW, and the area south of NW 85th Street between Palatine Avenue North and just west of 3rd Avenue NW, would be rezoned from NC2 P-40 (neighborhood commercial, pedestrian overlay with a 40-foot height limit) to NC2 P-65 (increasing the height limit to 65 feet).
“What you’re doing here tonight is very difficult,” City Councilmember Sally Clark told the crowd at the beginning of the meeting. She said talking to neighbors about zoning is hard, especially as a neighborhood grows and changes. The idea is that someday when you leave that neighborhood, “what do you leave behind as a map?”
Seattle City Councilmember Sally Clark (right) talks to concerned neighbors.
DPD Senior Urban Planner Andrea Petzel started off the meeting by emphasizing that each of the three subareas is being treated as separate entities.
“Each of these subareas is being considered separately. It is not a package deal,” she said.
Two people from the GCC or with knowledge of the proposals were stationed at each Subarea station to answer questions. People wandered around the room, writing comments (mostly negative) on sticky notes and placing them on the appropriate drawing.
Leslie Moynihan’s house on the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue NW and NW 87th Street was featured in a photo on DPD’s presentation board because it will be inside the rezone area.
“We bought a home on an arterial street and we understand the implications of that,” she said. But she says the wide street acts as a natural buffer and there’s no need for a step-down area, especially since it would be just feet away from a single-family home. “Moving the buffer into the middle of a single-family block doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Neighbor Brian Hart agreed. “I think the street is a much more natural buffer than the eight feet to my neighbor’s house.”
Hart’s house on NW 86th Street and 3rd Avenue NW would be just outside the buffer area, meaning his house could be just feet away from a taller multi-family building. He and other neighbors think there’s plenty of empty multi-family space in the neighborhood, and we should fill that up before changing the zoning that could add even more. “Ask me in 10 years. Maybe it will be really different,” Hart said. “Now I don’t think that it’s necessary.”
Janet Dockery lives on NW 87th Street inside Subarea #2 and went door-to-door informing neighbors of the proposal and about the meeting.
“I like my neighborhood and I like the single-family homes,” Dockery said. “I like the character of the neighborhood…and I sure don’t want to live next to one of those things,” she said of taller, multi-family buildings.
She says any stepping down in height should be done inside Subarea #1, with higher buildings in the middle of the Fred Meyer site and lower ones along the edges.
“People say they like their neighborhood. It’s affordable single-family houses and they understand there’s going to be some density in the middle,” she said. “But moving it into the single-family block is really upsetting to some people.”
Neighbor Matt Heilgeist agreed. “It seems everything is a foregone conclusion these days, like it’s going to happen no matter what. And most of my neighbors feel the same way,” said Heilgeist, whose house on NW 87th Street would be just outside the rezone area.
There’s still time to make your voice heard on the proposal. The DPD is collecting feedback through July 15. You can take an online survey (only one per IP address). DPD will then develop a draft of rezone recommendations and will present those to the GCC in August. DPD will finalize those recommendations in September. If DPD does recommend any rezoning, it will then begin a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review, along with an email comment and appeal period in October. Rezoning Subarea #2 would have to go to the City Council as part of a Comprehensive Plan Change to the Future Land Use Map in late 2010 or early 2011, followed by a city council public hearing sometime next spring.
21 responses so far ↓
1 Rob Fellows // Jun 30, 2010 at 8:02 am
Thanks for the great neighborhood coverage!
One correction: the rezone concept was not developed or proposed by the Greenwood Community Council, but by a separate advocacy group (with a long acronym).
2 PurrlGurrl // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:27 am
There’s already enough multi-family units around 85th & Greenwood (many still empty).
I support commercial development as long as it’s neighborhood and public transit friendly. In fact, since the area looks so tacky now (really unpleasant and dirty), attractive low-rise commercial development would be a big improvement.
As with most of Seattle, the area’s streets are simply too narrow to allow for the additional auto traffic that more multi-family units coupled with new commercial development would bring.
Part and parcel of any community is its commercial “heart”, where residents can shop and use services locally, as well as gather with neighbors at restaurants, coffee shops, bookstores, etc. Bedroom only communities are boring and often inconvenient places to live.
3 Doree // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:38 am
Rob – Thanks for the clarification on who proposed the rezoning. I changed it to say it was the Greater Greenwood Design Development & Advocacy Group (GG.DDAG), which includes some members of the Greenwood Community Council.
4 Elly // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:48 am
Another minor correction. The “Checkers” building is in subarea 3. It goes right up to subarea 2 though. Subarea 2 is currently entirely single family homes.
I’m one of those people that thinks the street is a better buffer. If development occurs that eventually warrants making these changes in subarea 2, then consider it then. As it stands, I don’t see a good enough reason for it.
And the 65′ limit in subarea 3 is just ridiculous.
5 Doree // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:55 am
Elly – Thanks for catching that. I changed it to reflect that the old “Checkers” building is in Subarea 3.
6 DensityAdvocate // Jun 30, 2010 at 11:04 am
Why homeowners in a single-family zone object to their properties being upzoned is a continuing mystery to me. Your property’s value, if upzoned, would instantly rise as developers’ demand affects the value. If you are indeed attached to living in a single-family neighborhood, sell your home for a profit and move to the suburbs, or an in-city single family neighborhood that’s not experiencing a natural pressure to develop. That way at least you won’t be living across the street from a huge commercial development, which should not be your cup of tea anyway since you value the single-family “character” of where you live. What’s the issue then?
7 john walker // Jun 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm
why they are planning to build this complex over a huge water soaked peat bog is a mystery to me. i suppose there will be thousands of pilings needed to keep it from sinking and filling the surrounding area with new lakes. waterfront living in little old greenwood. better get your sump pumps ready.
8 J B Allen // Jun 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm
My neighborhood, and my family’s neighborhood of the past 75 years will eventually after much nashing of teeth redevelop with a plan. The “temporary” buildings on Greenwood will go away and who knows maybe some day my dear neighbor hood won’t be a mix of new (up to code) buildings and shanty town. There will be kicking and screaming, but it will happen. Better this plan than the Bar – Nightclub – Bar plan that Ballard used.
I hope I live to see the day.
Just don’t throw away the clock.
9 Tiktok // Jun 30, 2010 at 2:34 pm
@john walker
I thought the current problem was that subarea #1 is largely impermeable and diverts all the runoff into the storm drain system, so the peat bog can’t “recharge”. Thus, all the sinking houses and wobbly streets in that area. The last new proposal I saw would allow rainwater back into the bog and alleviate the sinking. But, yes, the ground would be more wet.
Of course, still not a good idea to have a basement in that area.
10 RR // Jun 30, 2010 at 4:02 pm
DensityAdvocate, I don’t WANT to sell my home and move to the suburbs! I live in Greenwood because I can walk to my kids’ school, to the library , to the market. I live here because my neighbors are families. I don’t want my property values artificially escalated so that my taxes go up but my quality of living goes down.
11 finface // Jun 30, 2010 at 5:47 pm
# 2 and # 3 are not needed for at least 20 years, not 10 years.
Vote the Seattle Council out of office, all of them are the opposite of what Seattle needs.
12 YAM // Jun 30, 2010 at 6:08 pm
@ DensityAdvocate
Can you comment on the affect a multi-family dwelling has on the home prices of the surrounding single family dwellings? Personally, I think your view is quite narrow. You’re forgetting about the value of the surrounding homes. Resale values are much lower when a single family dwelling is next to or adjacent multi-family dwellings.
13 Justin // Jul 1, 2010 at 9:16 am
While I don’t live in in the proposed re-zone areas, I do live in the neighborhood (in a single family home that abuts a multi-family zoned area). While there are certainly drawbacks to the re-zone, Seattle as a city needs to drastically increase its population density and I support any re-zones that further that goal.
There are benefits and drawbacks to living in a city. Yes, you can walk to your child’s school, the market and the library, but this is a city and not a town. We are surrounded by hundreds of thousands of other people and should remain flexible and accept change.
People are saying that there’s currently plenty of multi-family housing available. I don’t know, that might be true, but it probably won’t always be the case. I support the fact that the city is looking to the future and being proactive instead of reactive in creating the flexibility before the needs arise (if only they would have done this with mass transit). Just because the area is re-zoned does not mean that development will begin immediately. Developers are not likely spend the money to develop the multi-family units until there is a market for them – and if there is no market for them, like some people say, then I see little need to worry.
14 DensityAdvocate // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:26 pm
@YAM, that is a good point that I had not thought of. Some neighbors’ opposition makes a bit more sense to me now.
However, @RR, you could stay in Greenwood, maintain your single-family home lifestyle, and also help increase density in the city by ending your opposition, selling your re-zoned property to a developer and buying a home just a few blocks away in a single family zone that’s not pressured to develop. What do you think?
15 Whopper // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Here come the gentrifiers, dressed up as urbanists and environmentalists…love them!
16 beth bylund // Jul 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm
I think the upzone is crazy, and Density Advoate is very insensitive to believe that the answer if you dont want to live in this type of neighborhood is to up and move- there is much more to buying and selling- it’s costly and the increased price of the new zoning most likely would not cover the cost to buy and sell. I think YAM is right on the money.
17 sunsetsu // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:01 am
I agree with Whopper. The gentrifiers and pseudo-environmentalists claim we have to “accept more density” in our already-dense city neighborhoods in order to prevent urban sprawl clear out to Snoqualamie Pass. That is a crock. We already have unchecked sprawl all over the county. Have you been to the Samammish Plateau lately?
Developers, aided by city planners, have destroyed the heart of downtown Ballard. The increased “density” there has stemmed ex-urban sprawl in the slightest. That’s just the story the planners and developers tell us to force us to acquiesce in the destruction of our single-family neighborhoods. They use greenwashing to mask their greed for profits.
Ballard and Greenwood are frequent dumping ground for hideous, out-sized, looming multi-plex buildings. Let the low-density neighborhoods of Laurelhurst, View Ridge, Magnolia, Mt. Baker and Leschi absorb this garbage. Greenwood and Ballard already have more than our share of density.
Ballard and Greenwood get targeted for this crap, in part, because only ONE member of the city council – Nick Licata – lives in the North End Everybody else on the Council lives south of the Ship Canal, many in the Gold Coast neighborhoods along Lake Washington.
Yes, I know Mayor McGinn is from Greenwood, but he is s obsessed with matters other than protecting his neighborhood.
I oppose Kroger, Inc’s. plan to tear down the much-loved Greenwood Market and build a huge destination Fred Meyer with underground parking for hundreds of cars. The North End doesn’t need another mega-Meyer; the one near Leary Way is more than large enough . We should be encouraging more small businesses in Greenwood, instead of a hugely expanded chain store.
18 Whopper // Jul 2, 2010 at 6:35 am
Sunsetsu, before you misunderstand me, I support the gentrification of Greenwood, I’m just not pretending I’m trying to save the planet.
Liberals and their green urbanism do a much better job of gentrifying neighborhoods and driving up home/land values than sprawl and strip malls. Sure, to relieve their guilt they’ll toss a few token ‘affordable housing’ units out for some Somali families and their cute kids, but otherwise it’s onward and upwardly.
19 NW // Jul 2, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Troll.
20 Tom // Jul 5, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Doree’s representation that “virtually everyone seems to agree on rezoning Subarea #1 [to 65 feet]” is a misrepresentation of the views of attendees of the meeting. “Virtually everyone” did support changing zoning from commercial to neighborhood commercial, however most people’s comments on the post-its were OPPOSED TO the proposed 65 feet height change. They wanted the zoning to be NC-40, not NC-65.
21 Tom // Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 pm
RE: DensityAdvocate // Jun 30, 2010 at 11:04 am – Your property’s value, if upzoned, would instantly rise as developers’ demand affects the value.
It is possible that property (land) values would go up. But to the developer (the buyer), your house would be worth less than nothing as they are going to tear it down. It is very likely that the homeowner would experience a NET LOSS – not gain on their selling price. This is not to mention a striking increase of their taxes if they don’t sell.
A KC tax assessor indicated that the tax change from single family to L-3 would be based on a multiple of the number of multi-family units that could be placed on your lot. For example, your taxes go up 9% due to the rezone, but if 4 multi-family households could be placed on your 5000 sf lot, your taxes would go up 4 x 9% or 36%. For many single family homeowners, they could not afford that tax increase and would be FORCED to sell at any price a developer would offer. It’s a lose-lose scenario for the homeowner.
Leave a Comment