Wedgwood neighbor's appeal to save the 1904 farmhouse.

This letter was sent over to us by Linda K. from Wedgwood. Here are her thoughts in response to an earlier post about the 1904 farmhouse that is scheduled to be destroyed and turned into townhomes. Thanks Linda for sending this over!

The 1904 farmhouse on 35th should not be sold, torn down and redeveloped. Slowly, gradually, all tidbits of unique personality and flavor in our neighborhood are being taken away from us. Somebody has maintained this property carefully, at least on the outside (I don't know what the inside looks like). A close look reveals detail in the shingles on this building that one would never see on a new structure built today. The way the building is up on a hill almost implies how it is looking down and watching us all. This is a beautiful piece of Wedgwood's history that should be saved.

Another big house for Wedgwood.

I was helping some of my friends drop off some flood damaged items to the transfer station on Saturday when I came across this new construction at the corner of 31st Ave NE and NE 82nd St. Pay special attention to how the new construction interacts with the smaller house to it's right.

Big green house on 35th Ave NE to come down and be replaced by townhomes.

The Wedgwood Blog is reporting that the funky green house on 35th Ave NE is going to be torn down and replaced by townhouses. Guess what Wedgwood, the redevelopment ball in our neighborhood appears to be gaining moment. Should be interesting to see how this one turns out.

Update: Here's a link to the application on file with the DPD.

Wedgwood condo building permit approved. Two weeks to appeal.

Just wanted to pass along that a land use decision was made today that conditionally granted approval for a building permit. There is a two-week window to file an appeal. :) This doesn't come as a surprise, and we were just waiting for the DPD to finally get an appeal out there.

You can read the surprisingly long 25-page decision here.

It's not just Wedgwood, but Murray Franklyn's condos don't fit in on Capitol Hill either.

Way back in April I stopped by a POWhat (a Capitol Hill Commmunity Group) meeting after hearing that they were fighting a Murray Franklyn on Pine and Belmont. Their issue is that this building is taking away Capitol Hill cultural business icons (like the Manray and Bimbo's Bitchin' Burritos) and not replacing them with niteclubs and businesses that add to Capitol Hill's personality.

Here's one quote from the group:

However, (Wade) Metz (of Murray Franklyn) made clear that the new complex would not include bars, given that homeowners will inevitably complain about the noise. Metz expects his company to retain control of the retail spaces to reap rental income. While he vows that his preference is for retail other than Subway sandwich franchises, tanning salons, and dry cleaners, he also indicated that the considerably higher rents will make it unlikely that funky neighborhood businesses become tenants.

Not surprisingly, the current architectural renderings of the complex reflect the homogeneity of the developers’ aspirations. The building appears blocky and bereft of true design inspiration. Skimpy, unusable, Juliet balconies adorn the elevations. An ineffective attempt at relieving the monolithic Pine Street façade is sought through the incorporation of a series of tiered shallow setbacks, allowing the sidewalk to become wider at the downhill Summit Avenue corner.

Read more stories about the Pine and Belmont building on Urbnlivn.com

Drawing of Murray Franklyn's proposed Capitol Hill condo at Pine and Belmont

An architect's view of the Wedgwood development project.

We've received comments saying we're against redevelopment. However, we'll say it again, we're for smart redevelopment that benefits the neighborhood. Here is a copy of a letter that local architect Tim Anderson prepared for Snell Partnership (the current architects on the project). We feel that Tim's ideas are far better for both the neighbors and residents of this building than what Snell was able to achieve through their work.

Design recommendations in response to 3/19/07 proposal by Snell Partnership for:
8606 35th Avenue NE, DPD project #6117703
Wedgwood Community Council and Wedgwood Action Group
Prepared by Tim Andersen, Architect

West Elevation
Place full height of building along 35th Avenue NE, and provide an adequate sidewalk for intensified pedestrian use. Give this block front a coherent design as a single, unified building. Clarify the difference in uses between the tall commercial base and smaller floors of residential above. Retain the 13 feet required height for first floor commercial use. Within prescribed limits this will allow a 10’-4” floor-to-floor height for three additional floors. Applicant has already gained a 4 foot height bonus for mixed-use development.

A building this size should be designed employing architectural syntax of traditional urban, not suburban, building types. Wedgwood offers no historic precedent for a building of this scale. The neighborhood developed in the 1940s and 50s as an automobile suburb, and lacks the fine-grain commercial development and streetscapes found in Seattle’s earlier streetcar suburbs. Until recently, Wedgwood’s commercial development has been modeled on the suburban strip with big box stores like Safeway and Rite Aid. We prefer applicant design this building in conformance with Seattle’s Design Guidelines for NC zones. The most recent commercial development on 35th Avenue NE, north of NE 73rd Street, conforms to these guidelines and is a useful precedent.

Applicant should consider the building facing 35th Avenue NE to have a base, body and top. The taller commercial floor should be the base, the residential floors the body and a projecting roof, cornice or attic story for the top. This familiar vertical organization of an urban building has been interpreted in innumerable ways and virtually every style.

Applicant should abandon the strategy of applying a picturesque pattern of materials and arbitrary “modulations” to make façade interesting, or to break down its scale. If the intention of using a variety of materials is to suggest smaller buildings aggregated over time, each individual building would have a coherent design with its own unified palette of materials. In the current design, an appliqué of veneer materials randomly placed makes the exterior wall appear paper thin and cheap.

If upper residential floors are intended to overhang the commercial floor, as they appear to in elevation, they should be visually supported with brackets or other architectural devices. The current design appears top heavy, and as if it had squashed a tall first story into the ground.

Since this building is residential as well as commercial, residents and their guests deserve a generous street entry and courtyard that can become their commons. The applicant should design a significant open-air portal from the sidewalk through first floor to proposed residential courtyard. This public entry should be easy for visitors to find. It should create a shared outdoor space for residents, and become a focus for units not facing the streets. It will also link the courtyard back to the public realm—a gesture Fred Anhalt used so successfully in his 1920s Capitol Hill apartments, such as 1005 East Roy Street.

If applicant placed the landscaped courtyard on second floor east of commercial space it would allow continuous parking below. Perhaps this would eliminate the need for two parking entrances. Applicant has included schematic building sections (sheet A4.2) of proposed development, but no floor plans. In section, we see that the east portion of second floor is only a partial story above commercial floor. Courtyard east of commercial space could be accessible by open stair from sidewalk through a tall portal.

North and South Elevations
We agree that floor plates for portions of the building facing NE 86th and NE 87th Streets should not align with those facing 35th Avenue NE. This allows the applicant to accommodate down slope conditions to the east, and to design these wings as if they were separate buildings and parcels. This could greatly help reduce the perceived scale of the project, and make a transition to single family neighborhood.

The North and South elevations should be designed to emphasize this change, and appear to be separate attached buildings. We recommend the applicant consider live/work townhouses with street entries facing NE 86th and NE 87th Street. Each townhouse would have its own internal circulation, and not be dependent on established floor heights or elevators. These two and three story townhouses could step with the contours just as row houses do on sloped streets. They would have the same “parcel” width, but could vary in height and design as townhouses might in an urban neighborhood developed over time. Obviously, architectural features such as doors, windows, bays, balconies and parking structure entrances should conform to townhouse module and specific design.

We agree with Board majority that required sight triangles for parking entrances be retained while conforming to “townhouse” widths.

East Elevation
We agree with the Board that setting back and recessing the east façade is required. It is a flaw in our commercial zoning that does not require a rear yard when abutting a single family zone without alley separation. If this parcel had been zoned SF-5000, it would have required a 25 foot set back. We are willing to compromise with applicant for 15 foot rear yard if each floor above is recessed an additional 15 feet. That is, in general, second floor would be 30 feet back from east property line, third floor 45 feet and fourth floor 60 feet. This would greatly improve access to light for single family parcels east of development.

Set backs will also enable applicant to provide private roof terraces built over lower floors for units facing east. With traffic noise blocked by west portion of building, this will become the quiet side of the building. Roof terraces will have an elevated view over single family neighborhood. Private gardens with view and usable outdoor space should make these units highly desirable. We recommend adding pergolas and garden walls to increase privacy, but not gabled roofs. Little gables are part of a suburban vocabulary. When used on a building this size they appear trivial, and almost a mockery of single family houses.

Applicant has chosen to employ Seattle’s earlier code which limits floors 2-4 to 64% of lot size. Their current design shows floors 2 and 3 at 76.4%, or 8,102 square feet over what is permitted. Applicant argues that the DPD should approve this since they set the first floor back 15 feet from east property line. However, this rear yard only reduced the footprint by 3,060 (204’ x 15’) square feet. We recommend applicant comply with 64% limit.

DPD update - a decision more than a month away on the condo development.

Just wanted to send out this update from Martha. After talking to Lucas (the DPD planner handling this proposed project), he mentioned that the DPD's decision would be more than a month away.

We'll post more updates as we get them.

Blatant promotion - Attend the Wedgwood Land Use Meeting on September 13th!

One thing we've consistently talked about in this blog is the fact that Wedgwood has poor zoning and no neighborhood plan. Well, the first step in fixing this is to figure out what we want.

If you'd like to help craft our neighborhood's land use plan, make sure to attend the September community council meeting on September 13th. Here's a quick summary of the meeting that appears on the Wedgwood Community Calendar.

7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Wedgwood Presbyterian Church, 35th NE & NE 80th (use the 80th Street entrance). Join us to discuss creating a neighborhood plan for Wedgwood and an update on the condo project proposed for 35th Ave NE at NE 86th St. One or more representatives from the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods will join us.

The 35th Ave NE land use challenge.

Martha asked me to add something about the zoning incompatibility that exists all along 35th from US Bank to Home Street Bank and the laundromat to the Windemere offices.

It's a community issue, not just our personal issue. All of those people who back up to or are near NC2-40 are vulnerable to impacts from large scale development. Murray Franklyn, and maybe other developers, are looking for more property in Wedgwood. We need to work on this issue as a community with the city NOW so that we find solutions to allow density and growth and retain the character of the neighborhood.