Roosevelt's dilemma: How should a neighborhood grow?
A developer's proposed amendments to increase density in the neighborhood near a planned light-rail station didn't pass the Seattle City Council - yet.
Early this month, the Seattle City Council voted to drop consideration of several amendments to Seattle's Comprehensive Plan that were proposed by the Roosevelt Development Group (RDG).
The organization, a partnership of developers working with property owner Hugh Sisley, was seeking to change key provisions in the neighborhood plan for the area where I live. A North Link Light Rail station is slated to be built in the neighborhood by 2030, and the Regional Growth Plan requires greater population density near the station.
The question for interested parties is not whether to construct new buildings that will house more people, but where to situate the buildings and how tall they should be. RDG wants to construct buildings as high as 16 stories on 15th Avenue Northeast at Northeast 65th Street, adjacent to Roosevelt High School and single-family houses.
Roosevelt is a quiet neighborhood, with streets that can feel almost rural (the potholes help). An elderly friend of mine remembers when as a child she rode north with her parents from the University District to visit relatives near Roosevelt High. Once they crossed the 15th Avenue Bridge spanning the Ravenna Park ravine, they felt, she said, "out in the country."
Despite the designation of Roosevelt as a Seattle Urban Village, the sense of the place as a green retreat from urban life lingers with a few residents. But most accept the proposition that increased population density must come with the planned transit station. Some residents, including local small-business owners, imagine Roosevelt as a future "destination neighborhood," where people will top off a hike in Ravenna Park, a volleyball game on Cowen Park playfield, or a bicycle ride around Green Lake with visits to a wider variety of shops, additional restaurant choices, and jazz clubs or other new nightlife.
RDG argues that its project would further the Regional Growth Plan by bringing large numbers of new residents into the area. The group's amendment proposal stated among other things that building high would "use limited land resources more efficiently and pursue a development pattern that is more economically sound, by encouraging infill development on vacant and underutilized sites, particularly within urban villages."
The Roosevelt Neighborhood Association (RNA) counters that the 16-story height of RDG's project would be out of proportion with surrounding structures, and that new buildings should be no taller than four stories. The association adds that the buildings should be located farther west, close to the planned station between 12th Avenue NE and Roosevelt Way, to reinforce the existing business district and patterns of commerce.
Of concern beyond the neighborhood is the shadow that RDG's project would cast over Roosevelt High School. In the recent $93.5 million restoration of this historic city landmark, the architects' design made generous use of natural light. The 1922 building used to be so dark that students compared it to a dungeon, but increased natural light has made the building more welcoming as well as a more sustainable structure, with the potential of conserving energy and reducing operating costs.
On Aug. 2, the Council voted 9-0 to exclude the RDG amendments.* Council member Sally Clark, who chairs the Committee on the Built Environment, wrote in an e-mail to RNA members, "Your near-unanimous community feedback and advocacy were instrumental in this decision." Still, she added, dense housing near the planned light rail station is inevitable, and rezoning to make this possible is imminent.
Likely to weigh in RDG's favor as the city planning process unfolds is Sisley's willingness, as a single property owner, to have hundreds of apartments built as soon as possible on contiguous lots that either have decaying structures awaiting demolition or are already vacant. With such ready cooperation, density in the area would increase relatively easily and quickly, since fewer owners would have to go through the process of separately selling and vacating. Sisley has already signed a 99-year lease with RDG, a partnership of capable developers who are prepared and eager to build.
When Clark dropped by the Roosevelt “Night Out 2010” block party Aug. 3, residents applauded the council's decision and expressed gratitude for her support. But she was careful to warn those present, "We can't always make you guys happy." Decisions going forward will depend on many things including reviews by the Department of Planning and Development.
Here's video of Roosevelt residents at the block party, with Clark appearing briefly at the end:
Speakers: Jim O'Halloran (chair, RNA land use committee); Peter James (RNA president); Brian Albright (RNA member); Councilmember Clark.
*Note: The earlier statement that the vote was 8 to 1 was mistaken.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!











Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Aug 13, 8:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Most people would view Hugh Sisely as a crank. Sure there are dilapidated properties but that is only because Sisely personifies the definition of a slumlord. Although he may espouse conservative values, he fails to live up to them in his personal action. To me, a conservative is one who builds value through the re-investment of capital. In the 25 years that I have lived in the blocks neighboring Sisely's properties, I have failed to see him invest any funds to improve his properties. Instead, he lives as a hoarder who purchases properties but fails to improve upon them.
I would in fact term him as a hoarder with a mental illness. Just drop by R&R; Hardware and peak inside. It looks just like the reality TV shows.
Let's not grant Sisely the honor of civil discourse. This is a man that lives by his own rules. Such are not to be trusted in moving forward the commonweal.
Posted Sat, Aug 14, 4 p.m. Inappropriate
Email from Jim O'Halloran:
Judy, to correct a small but important factual error, which I believe that I have caused: it’s about Mike O’Brien’s vote in full Council on Monday, Aug. 2 regarding the Comp Plan amendment docket. I must have told you that O’Brien voted alone to oppose the amended docket from COBE, but I was misinformed and confirmed recently that O’Brien voted with all of the other councilmembers on this particular issue. I’m concerned that this factual error is sitting there in your story and that I can’t “get there” to take responsibility and to correct it. I’m sorry about the bad information but apparently stymied by the Crosscut log-in machinery.
Thanks,
Jim
Posted Sun, Aug 15, 9:24 p.m. Inappropriate
Email from Ed Hewson, Roosevelt Development Group partner:
Hi Judy,
I just read your article on the Roosevelt Comp Plan revision. I am sure you will find some amusement that the sinister, mysterious developer for the Sisley properties is in fact one of your Lakeside English students from the 80’s and not some long-lost underworld cousin of Mr. Sisley. I hope you are doing well, and stay tuned for the next step in our development saga. I believe that once we start unveiling the actual design proposals for our two main buildings some of the neighbors will see the advantages of tall skinny buildings you can see around rather than giant mid-height bread-loaves that you can’t see through.
Don’t count me out yet. I am fighting the good fight to bring community-friendly density to one of Seattle’s few light rail stops.
Cheers, and Best Regards, Ed
Posted Mon, Aug 16, 9:15 a.m. Inappropriate
This is a manufactured "dilemma". Roosevelt already has a plan for growth, developed in a democratic process by the neighborhood and city planners, updated after the light rail station decision. Roosevelt ASKED for a light rail station in its heart instead of by the freeway, and ASKED for highest growth around the station, not blocks east, and not in contradiction to the City's comprehensive plan. RNA is in favor of responsible growth and density. Roosevelt is not a "quiet neighborhood". Roosevelt is asking City Council to implement the update of our neighborhood plan, which calls for higher density in support of transit oriented development, and to ignore the gerrymandered contract rezone that one private party is attempting to impose for personal gain with no community benefit in comparison with the neighborhood plan.
Posted Mon, Aug 16, 9:28 a.m. Inappropriate
Something is horribly wrong when a developer that misrepresented the facts to citizens and city council paints themselves as "fighting the good fight".
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.