Some neighbors in Seattle think it’s just a “matter of time” before their neighborhoods change from the widespread density development. That’s just the case for a group of neighbors in Ballard. They never thought that a housing application on their block would literally be determined by an element of time, or rather a historic boundary line.

The Department of Planning and Development is in the process of reviewing a housing proposal at 819 NW 70th St. that hinges on parcel boundaries made before the 1950’s.

A boundary line adjustment is required for the project. With the DPD’s approval, a developer with Blueprint – a company that provides funding for builders in Seattle and financed 32 percent of the new homes in Seattle priced between $400,000 and $1 million in 2011 – will build a six unit work/live structure on two different lots.

However, since the building falls on the two land segments, two different proposals are used, yet the structure is one. The building is divided in half at a wall that falls on the property line. The total square footage of the building is approximately 7,777 square feet, which would normally require neighborhood notification for comment, design review and a SEPA evaluation; but because the structure is considered two, the threshold for all three requirements was waived by the DPD. No parking is including in either proposals.

The zoning designation of the property is NC1/30’: Neighborhood Commercial 1, with a height limit of 30 feet. In that zone neighborhood notification, design review and SEPA are required when projects exceed 4,000 square feet. Live-work units are analyzed as a type of non-residential use under the Land Use Code. A small portion of the NC1 zone falls at the intersection of Northwest 70th Street and Division Avenue Northwest, and is surrounded by a single-family residential zone.

Residents on the block, Shelley Rousseau and Renee Remlinger-Tee, have been monitoring the project since its inception in July. When no notification or land use sign announcing the project was presented to the neighborhood, they inquired with the DPD. They say that parking is already congested in the area because it’s next to a bus line and people park and ride. The addition of the six units with no parking would exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, they say that the building would be out of place aesthetically and would tower over neighboring houses, depriving neighbors of privacy. Worst of all they feel robbed in their right to have a voice in the development, something the DPD is meant to ensure.

Since the project fell below the thresholds of review and SEPA, the DPD said there was nothing they could do. Rousseau and Remlinger-Tee wrote letters to the DPD, the Mayor and City Councilmember Mike O'Brien. They pleaded for a design review, but nothing happened. Finally they hired an attorney just so they could have a voice in the proposal. That voice was heard, but still, the project is moving forward.

“It defies reason and logic that the project may avoid design review because the presence of a historical lot line turns a single project into two,” wrote their attorney, John Cooke.

Cooke wrote a letter to the DPD. In the letter he argued that the historical boundaries of the property were not valid and that the work-live structure required design review and SEPA evaluation. Cooke stated that the boundary line adjustment proposed was not valid because the Seattle Municipal Code states “o additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division is created by the proposed adjustment “ (SMC 23.28.030(A)(1). In addition, he sites that “per Director’s Rule series of exempt structures . . . may require environmental review if they are physically and functionally related to each other and . . . are proposals or a series of actions that are related to each other closely enough to be considered a single course of action.”

In addition, Cooke argued that the code does not recognize “historical lot lines as independent lots or parcels unless the owner owns the entire lot created by the parent plat.” Indeed, the owner of the lot does not own the entire plat.

Furthermore, since the boundary line adjustment is not valid, the structure should not be considered two separate proposals, and therefore, it breaches the 4,000 square foot threshold for design review and SEPA evaluation.

The DPD responded to Cooke’s letter, saying that they were moving forward with the project and defending their decision.

“With respect to whether the applicant can adjust lot lines created by an existing plat, even if the parcels being adjusted are not full platted lots within that original plat, there is a court case, Seattle v. Crispin, which concluded that portions of platted lots remain individual parcels that qualify for lot boundary adjustment, and DPD must be guided by that decision.”

Rousseau and Remlinger-Tee looked into the courts case and felt like the example didn’t lend to the proposed project enough and shouldn’t apply. They thought the DPD was reaching and applying a case too loosely.

“There are similarities, but the case is a totally different situation with a different context,” said Rousseau.

The DPD also addressed how their the line boundary adjustment approval was valid.

“In a zone where there is no density standard or minimum lot area requirement, once a structure is removed, the existing lines remain and can be adjusted. …there are actually up to four parcels with existing lines, and the proposal is to create two new parcels by LBA (line boundary adjustment), so our code standards for LBA’s are met.”

Just a few days after Cooke sent the letter, the DPD approved the boundary adjustment. According to the neighborhood group, Cooke called the DPD multiple times regarding the letter with no response from DPD within that time frame. Once a formal letter of that nature is sent there is supposed to be a window of time to address the proposal before it's approved. The DPD moved forward anyway.

Neighbors asked, “How can one building be considered two?” especially when design review and SEPA hinge on that decision.

“There is no question that the Project is functionally and physically one development. It consists of a single building and the two applications present identical plans on either side of the lot line. There is unity of ownership, a common design, as well as shared walls and utilities. We request that DPD reconsider its assessment that the Project consists of two discrete proposals and require design review and SEPA compliance,” wrote Cooke.

The DPD’s rational rests on Section 25.05.060.C.2 of the SEPA Ordinance. They claim that the ordinance tells them to treat separate proposals as one proposal for purposes of SEPA review unless proposals “cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals are implemented simultaneously with them,” and/or the proposals “are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as justification for the implementation.”

The DPD did confirm that the proposals are adjacent and similar, however, “hysical connections to common rights-of-way, a common developer or owner, simultaneous construction, or common design do not cause these separate proposals to be one.”

Moreover, they said that the over 7,700 square foot project would not pose a significant environmental impact. “The similarities [of the … are not enough to demonstrate a physical or functional relationship between the two sites. And, even if this were not so, the two proposals together would not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact in our judgment.”

Neighbors feel like the DPD’s response and evaluation is “sketchy,” and leans in the developer’s favor. Moreover, community members who happen to be engineers are surprised with DPD’s decision.

Incidentally, DPD evaluators of the proposal called for corrections in the proposals and seem to get caught up in the one or two structure question. One evaluator could not help but refer to the structure as an “integral unit” that must satisfy seismic engineering requirements for a single structure.

This blurred image is a photo of design plans that were once on the DPD website for the project but have since been taken down. Photo courtesy of Renee Remlinger - Tee.

Rousseau and Remlinger-Tee remain confused and bewildered. They feel their right to have a say in the what happens in their neighborhood -- one they have lived in for over 15 years -- has been dismissed. They felt especially enraged because there are designers and engineers that live in the neighborhood that could offer years of professional experiences for recommendations on the project.

“The developer gets his way and just gets to walk away after the project is finished, but we will have to live with it and see it every day,” said Remlinger-Tee .

However, the neighbor’s efforts have not entirely gone in vain. According Bryan Stevens with the DPD, they are taking a closer look at the proposals and the pending corrections.

“The issue has been elevated further for evaluation. A permit has not been approved and corrections are outstanding, so we have the ability to request additional information from the applicant. …We need clearer evidence that one building could be constructed without the other, to demonstrate they are not one building for purposes of determining whether SEPA/Design Review should be triggered,” said Stevens.

Meanwhile neighbors are watching and waiting to see how the proposal unfolds.

"Maybe there will be a design review if the DPD is elevating the issue. But I'm not optimistic based on how the DPD reviewer moved forward with approving the boundary line adjustment after our attorney sent the letter, " said Remlinger-Tee.

Look to the Ballard News-Tribune for an update to this story.