Until now. A new business recently set up shop in the site, and the activity has picked up. That’s the good news. The bad news? The new business, a hand car wash, is a pretty blatant zoning violation. The site in question, right on the junction of Beacon and 15th, is zoned NC2P-40. (Here is the basic zoning information for the site.) NC2P-40 means Neighborhood Commercial 2, Pedestrian-Designated Zone, 40-foot height limit. (Here is a city document that describes the various commercial zones.)
The important thing here, though, is that this is an NC2P, not a plain NC2. The P indicates that it is a Pedestrian-Designated Zone. P zones have restrictions that other NC2 zones do not have. The intent of the P zone, says the city, is to preserve and encourage “an intensely pedestrian-oriented, retail shopping district where non-auto modes of transportation, both to and within the district, are strongly favored.” To that end, street level uses are limited to “pedestrian-oriented nonresidential uses that have the potential to animate the sidewalk environment, such as retail, entertainment, restaurants, and personal services. Drive-in or drive-thru businesses are prohibited.” A car wash would seem to be a “drive-in or drive-thru business” by definition, so this seems to be a straightforward zoning violation.
If the car wash gets shut down, the possibility exists that the 2507 site will be vacant for months again, and no one wants more vacancies in the North Beacon business district. The existence of an active business in that site is a positive thing for the neighborhood. However, a business that doesn’t enhance the neighborhood’s stated desires (in the neighborhood plan, the comments here on the blog, etc.) for a pedestrian-oriented business district is not necessarily a positive. Is it more important to have a business there — of any kind — than to have uses that match the neighborhood’s zoning? Please tell us what you think.
(And since it’s Friday, why not enjoy a musical interlude while you post your thoughts?)
Too funny. A car wash business in a pedestrian zone. OMG.
Any business is better than an empty storefront. With all due respect, I do not understand why people are getting so bent out of shape about the zoning laws in this area. My only concern with the car wash is that it is following environmental laws and not dumping its water into the street.
@ Anonymous-
Do you think the new car wash is properly disposing its wash water?
The building is a warehouse. Did you see any construction occur prior to the business opening?
I doubt it.
As for getting bent about zoning laws, here’s the deal, land use in a city is a massively complex and contentious issue that our city government spends tons of hours managing, debating and planning. Neighbors have spent tons of hours over many years patiently working with the city government spelling out what they want their neighborhood to be. This particular property, along with the former Hui International Trading are prime retail locations in the Town Center of North Beacon Hill. If a warehouse or car wash are allowed to operate there, they will. And the owner of the property will collect rent, doing nothing to improve the property or neighborhood, all the while keeping a prime property off the market to a legal and neighborhood preferred use.
On top of that, its just plain dangerous to have a driveway in a crosswalk, and there is an automatic car wash across the street at the Shell station.
There are plenty of shop spaces available down the hill toward Rainier that are well suited to automotive use, the business should have opened there.
David, I’m not Anonymous but with all due respect, I’m curious how you can call a big garage a “prime retail location.” In my opinion the fact that the rest of the building has been filled for quite a while, but this part hasn’t, seems to indicate that it really isn’t that prime.
It really is important to differentiate between “retail” and “services” too. Fiesta Mex is retail business. Cesar Tugade’s Salon and Inay’s Kitchen are service businesses. A hand car wash is a service, but apparently a service that different individuals have different opinions of.
I’m not sure I understand what the base objection to a hand car wash is. It uses a chronically vacant space that by its nature doesn’t fit a “pedestrian friendly retail” vision. It employees people who will presumably spend money at other businesses in the neighborhood. It gets people out of their cars for the length of time they are being washed, giving them a window of opportunity to spend money at nearby businesses.
I have no idea how they dispose of their waste water. It may be totally illegal. On the other hand, it may be perfectly legal. What plumbing exists in that part of the building? What are the laws about water disposal for hand car washes anyway? To spread doubt without information to back it up seems a bit unfair.
There is a significant difference between a hand car wash and an automated car wash. If not maintained, the automated ones can build up a lot of dirt on those brushes, making them have a similar effect to whipping your paint with sandpaper. (Alas, my car rarely sees any sort of car wash…)
Is there something I’m not getting? Something about car washes that makes them undesirable in some way? Trying to get them shut down instead of working with them address any concerns and be good neighbors frankly seems more Medina than Beacon Hill.
Brook, you just have to use a little creativity to think of that site as a prime retail location. See this comment from Mid-Beacon Hill a few months ago: http://midbeaconhill.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-zoning-questions.html?showComment=1232425860000#c796000853630314736
Once you imagine those changes, it starts to sound a lot more like a potential retail location. But changes like that do cost money, even if it’s not a huge amount.
I think this is worth investigating. If I have time, these are things I will look into. (If anyone else has time, please let me know what you find out!)
#1) SMC 23.47A.028 Standards for drive-in businesses.
Does this business count as a drive-in business? If so, it is clearly prohibited in a pedestrian-designated zone, per this section of the municpal code.
This section specifically refers to car washes as drive-in businesses. Which makes sense — you can’t walk to a car wash!
#2) SMC 22.801.090 Definitions — H.
This section defines any commercial car wash as a “high-risk pollution generating activity.” As such, are there any restrictions for such activity in a pedestrian zone? I would think so.
#3) SMC 22.802.013 Requirements for all discharges and land
uses.
This section details the systems that need to be set in place to run a high-risk pollution generating activity such as a car wash.
Anyway, I just don’t think that a car wash is allowed in a pedestrian zone, so all that drainage stuff is kind of beside the point…
FYI — Here’s the link to the open complaint about the potential zoning violation:
http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=26197
Many years ago, I worked for a firm downtown that had Brown Bear Car Wash as a client. What I remember from then was that the City required them to hold all graywater on site for recycling. That means that any water used for washing cars had to be collected in a tank on site, treated, and reused.
For Brown Bear, besides being good for the environment, it was good business to re-use water that they only had to pay the city for once. And it may be that they were ahead of the times.
I imagine that Seattle Public Utilities would have something to say about this activity as well as the DPD, and generally, they’re more effective in responding to complaints.
FYI – Here’s the link to the online SPU surface water quality complaint form. I won’t complain unless I see it myself.
http://www2.seattle.gov/util/forms/surfacewater/surfacewaterForm.asp
Wendi, I have no doubt that anyone who’s commented on this post could come up with some good ideas for modifying that space to be a viable retail location. The point is that because we lack time, money, or motivation, we haven’t.
Yes, we all think the North Beacon Business District could be more like West Seattle’s Admiral District (as a low-hanging example), with a walkable core of services and retail that create a self-sustaining ecosystem. But that’s not going to happen overnight in this economy. It has to be built up to.
My biggest concern for the neighborhood right now is that because money for starting businesses is scarce, rather than light rail being a boost, it will instead provide an easy way for even more car prowlers, burglars, folks drinking on the El Centro steps across the street from my house, and others to congregate here.
Successful businesses both attract and support other successful businesses. The more successful businesses there are, the more upward pressure on rents there will be. Eventually, the marginal businesses that can’t afford to stay in the improving neighborhood move on. Is it better to drive out someone with the right level of time, money, and motivation to make a go of that space or to encourage them to succeed until the point when it no longer makes sense to have a hand car wash on Beacon Hill?
Until someone backs up the insinuations that have been made here and on the mailing list that there is something inherently sketchy about washing cars with some data, I’m going to continue to think that having any business is better for the neighborhood than having a vacant space.
At any rate, the real cynic in me suspects that left alone, the car wash won’t last more than a few months anyway. It’s not a great location.
One more thing to investigate:
Check out page 20 of this PDF:
http://www.seattle.gov/dclu/Codes/Dr/dr2000-17.pdf
Vehicle and Equipment Washing
Untreated wash water from vehicle and equipment washing operations may not be discharged to the public drainage control system and must be discharged to an approved
discharge location in accordance with the Side Sewer Code (SMC 21.16) and the Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Control Code.
A side sewer permit is needed to connect to the City sanitary sewer. Call the Street Use Division at (206) 684-5283 to get information about side sewer permits. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are also regulated by the King County Industrial Waste Program. In some cases, wash water from vehicle washing operations may need to be pretreated before discharging to the sanitary sewer.
—–
(I didn’t see anything about a side sewer permit on the DPD permit page for this address…)
Thanks for the useful information, tlp. You posted while I was writing my last post so I hadn’t seen it yet.
And you too, JvA!
I find it tough to complain about a new business opening up in these times, particularly when they seem to have customers, but I think a check by DPD is warranted. I didn’t see any permits recorded and I would expect that some sort of change of use permit would be necessary. There are specific requirements for car washing discharge, even if it is going to the sanitary system (www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/95056.pdf). I think it is a fair assumption that if permits were not pulled, these systems were not installed.
The other thing to think about is how this business would fit several years from now after transit-oriented development gets started (hopefully). This spot is just a bad fit for this business,
Brook — To me, it makes no sense to have a hand car wash in the center of the business district of Beacon Hill.
The more successful the business becomes, the more of a hazard it will be to pedestrians. The surrounding businesses will not be attractive to foot traffic if cars are constantly crossing the sidewalk.
I’ve inquired with the city as to whether the business is properly permitted for this “high-risk polluting activity.” If it isn’t (and I’d be willing to bet cash money that it isn’t, based on my own observation of its lack of physical barrier between it and the storm drains outside as well as the lack of special permit mentions on the DPD site), then it’s a hazard to the environment.
When I said “no longer makes sense” I meant “no longer makes sense to the business owner.” As I said, I think that time period could be a few months given the reality of the location. And if they have not, and will not, follow the wastewater laws, then they get what’s coming to them.
On the other hand, Downtown sidewalks are an incredibly dense mix of pedestrians and cars leaving parking facilities, but people walk there. Other neightborhoods that share North Beacon Hill’s Residential Hub Urban Village designation mix pedestrians and cars too.
I don’t know what the maximum capacity of this car wash is, but let’s assume worst case means a car crosses the sidewalk ever five minutes. Now, how often do cars cross the sidewalks on the north and south sides of Red Apple? Is it a pedestrian-friendly business?
I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just surprised by the strong reaction to this one particular business, and trying to understand it in context, and with data.
Zoning laws? Come on now. This gentrification thing is killing me now. Why don’t you leave these guys alone? You complainers out there are the same idiots who never grew up here in the Hill and you come here to “diversify” yourselves here because this is the only area you could afford. You are the same complainers who want to call this area NoBeHi. WTF is that? Give these car washers a break. If you aren’t walking across the street nor are you driving into the car wash, how would this bother you? The environmental argument is pointless considering that every time I pass by there, I haven’t seen one car washed. They are only polluting me visually. If you want Beacon Hill to look like West Seattle, you need to convince more gentrificators like many of you to move here and contact the city on “zoning” law violations against the people of color who want to better themselves by setting up legitimate businesses in their neighborhood. I’m done now. No need to respond. Just a rant.
OK, an “idiot” here. Sorry, but I’ve only lived here 10 years.
You must not have taken the time to actually check this place out. THe first time I saw it, last weekend or maybe two weekends ago, there were probably 6-8 cars inside, with no additional room. This morning when I drove by there were at least a few cars inside. I have never seen it empty.
How does one set up a legitimate business without following building codes and zoning laws? Maybe they should ignore the tax laws too.
It is quite ironic that you are complaining about suppressing “people of color” with zoning laws, when we just lost a great business ran by a caucasian family in the heart of North Beacon Hill due to pretty much the same thing.
Speaking of the amount of traffic that this drive-in business is getting, there’s this matter too…
SMC 23.47A.028 Standards for drive-in businesses.
…
2. Car washes: a minimum of ten (10) queuing spaces.
C. If the drive-in bank or car wash is located along either a principal arterial or a minor arterial, or along a street with only one lane for moving traffic in each direction, the Director will determine as a Type I Master Use Permit decision, after consulting with the Director of Transportation, whether additional queuing spaces
are necessary or whether access should be restricted. The Director may restrict access to the facility from that arterial or street, or may require additional queuing space up to a maximum of:
…
3. Car washes, twenty (20) spaces per lane.
One major difference between the car wash and Culinary Communion is that people in the neighborhood didn’t actively try to shut the second one down. That’s what L is seeing happen with the car wash.
That’s true. I thought the alcohol control board was being overzealous in bugging them about cooking with wine, even though they didn’t have the proper permit to do it.
But I do see a difference between:
1) using a splash of sherry in a saute when teaching a cooking class to a group of adults (personally, I did find their apparent food violations troubling, though)
and
2) disregarding both the spirit and the letter of zoning laws and apparently disregarding environmental regulations as well
Culinary Communion did have its fair share of detractors, though I’m not sure how many were here on the hill.
Culinary Communion’s violations had less obvious impact on the neighborhood, I think. To all appearances, CC was an asset. Most of us would not know that they didn’t have an added exit from the basement, or that it was a issue. I think most people thought the Liquor Control Board issue with CC was ridiculous. (No one should need a permit to cook with wine.)
CC’s food violations with the Swinery were another issue — once again, not something that was obviously visible to the neighborhood, nor was it particularly detrimental to the business district around it (except in the sense that if the business gets shut down, that’s not good). So it seems kind of an apples and oranges thing. You can see why people get more upset at a business that seems to be obviously violating zoning and making an area less pedestrian-friendly than at one that might just be violating health codes, or having one fewer exit than required. The former is going to draw way more negative attention.
I’m not really expressing an opinion on the car wash here, but I do want to reply to L on one thing — “You are the same complainers who want to call this area NoBeHi.” Heh, you might have noticed that the editors don’t use this term on the blog unless quoting others who used it. We think it’s stupid too. 😉
CC was being hit from all sides, the alcohol issue (brought on by complaints, very similar to this case with the car wash), food prep and production permitting, and most recently being required to add an egress door. I’m not defending their inability to handle these issues, I just wanted to point out that this is a good example of how these rules apply to everyone.
The issues with CC were mostly operational and while important, they wouldn’t have an impact on the neighborhood. The issue with the car wash is a blatant violation of the pedestrian overlay to the commercial zoning for the Beacon ave core. What the hell is the point of neighborhood planning if we ignore situations like this?
“What the hell is the point of neighborhood planning if we ignore situations like this?”
Or what the hell is the point of liquor laws if they’re going to be over-zealously enforced on a cooking school using a little sherry in a recipe?
I’ve never been a big fan of rules that are enforced simply because they are rules. There has to be flexibility. I like the idea of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, but could it be that trying to impose that vision on the intersection of two significant arterials isn’t going to be practical in every case?
I love that people are so into this issue.
But I thought that I should point out that the ‘gentrified’ Admiral District has had a long term hand car wash “Auto Buff” located right on Admiral Way just around the corner from the Admiral Theater.
If we grew up in this neighborhood or not isn’t really relevant. We all want to see a safe, prosperous and livable business area.
You know, I had been thinking that because the physical space was so uninviting that maybe it was OK if the businesses that located there weren’t particularly pedestrian friendly. But I’ve changed my mind. I think that if they replaced the garage door with one that had windows, they could fix it up and make it look nice. It’s been done elsewhere.
Here’s a spot in Ballard with a garage-type door with windows:
http://www.ballardloft.com/
And Cap Hill’s Smith Pub, which is gorgeous inside, has a windowed garage door:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=smith+pub+seattle&gbv=2&ie=UTF8&ll=47.621861,-122.312685&spn=0,359.995193&z=18&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=47.621545,-122.312708&panoid=U5Jpm1UL9OA5w-LLGqM1jA&cbp=12,74.90377287177509,,0,5
They just need a windowed door to get light inside and then go from there. A polished concrete floor would work well in that space.
The Wingdome in Greenwood also has turned their garage doors (it used to be a scooter shop in the 80s) to windows. It works pretty well.
I don’t care about the car wash at all, I love that they got in there and are making a go of it. Let the people make some money for crying out loud. We don’t need fancy stuff here in NoBeHi (haha). I know I don’t, because if more uppity white people move into the ‘hood my rent will go up and then I’ll have to move away. And I can’t afford that.
If people are so worried about that corner maybe THEY should open up a business and pay a bunch of money to make that into a non-warehouse kind of space. Then you can have jazz bands and ferns and fancy coffees or whatever.
Yes, the space could be made less ugly and more pedestrian-friendly. I think that would be great.
Anyone is free to create a business plan for a business that will move into that space and make those improvements. You should include your sources of funding, and an amortization of start up costs showing the break even point. And then you should do it and hope that the neighbors don’t try to shut you down.
Personally, I have no experience in that arena, but if anyone with a neighborhood-friendly business plan for that space wants me to do a few Seattle Municipal Code searches in advance for them, I’d be absolutely thrilled to do so. (Think how much money and effort — and jail time — I could have saved my neighbors a couple blocks north who started the sex-slave brothel and the ones a few blocks south who ran the grow house that illegally tapped the city’s power supply!)
Out of the 55 carwashes in Seattle, I don’t see a business license for that address. Maybe it’s under something else.
http://www.seattle.gov/biz/cobysic.asp?whichpage=1&pagesize=25
That link doesn’t work. Instead, go to http://www.seattle.gov/biz/ , then choose “Carwashes” under “Search by Commodity”. I don’t see anything there either, but I have a killer headache at the moment so I could miss things.
This is a very interesting discussion so far. I think it touches on the larger issues of the neighborhood plan (how important is it to follow it? Does it really represent the needs of the neighborhood?), gentrification, etc. Does it matter to the neighborhood if businesses move in that may be violating zoning laws? What if they are also violating environmental laws? What if they don’t have a business license? (I don’t know if they do or not, or if they are violating environmental laws or not — I’m just throwing these out as things to think about.)
I should repeat that the Blog is not taking a stance for or against the car wash, and we did not post this report to hound them out of business — but it was being discussed on the mailing list, and when looking for something else on the DPD site, I did a quick search on the 2507 address and saw that someone had just filed a complaint, and figured it was something to discuss. It does seem like a fairly cut and dried zoning violation, so, as a community, it doesn’t hurt to discuss whether that matters to us or whether it is more important to just fill space in the Junction.
I appreciate this discussion for spurring me to do some research I’ve been meaning to do for a while on zoning. It’s odd how the business district is mostly NC2P-40, but some small areas are NC2-40. But what’s odder is that I can find nothing in the Seattle Municipal Code that defines what the “P” means legally. The function of NC2 zoning is:
“To support or encourage a pedestrian-oriented shopping area that provides a full range of household and personal goods and services, including convenience and specialty goods, to the surrounding neighborhoods, and that accommodates other uses that are compatible with the retail character of the area such as housing or offices…”
Can anyone point to a legal definition of what the “P” is? It seems pretty redundant given the standard NC2 definition’s emphasis on pedestrians. If there is no legal definition, then I guess it just exists for the placebo effect…
Maybe SMC 23.34.086? See also http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Neighborhood_Main_Street_Mapping_Project/P-zoneCriteria/default.asp which mentions that section of the SMC.
If you search for “Pedestrian-designated” in the SMC, you find a lot of definitions of what is and isn’t required in P-Zones, but they aren’t all in the same place.
Thanks, SMC 23.34.086 was what I was looking for. I must have been tired.
I’m also not too thrilled the car wash moved in there, but I suppose if someone’s willing to give it a go, I’d probably rather see some tenant there rather than see it empty, as long as they’re complying with environmental regulations. As much as we want it to be a strong retail or commercial space, it’s not–and without some significant investment, it’s not going to be. Many of us wish it were different in the North Beacon commercial district, but the current property owners are not investing in their properties, unfortunately. With respect to the environmental regulations, the deal with this business that’s unusual compared to some other car washes in town is that it’s inside. Every drop of water runoff collected in an interior space is supposed to be discharged to sanitary sewer, not storm drain. I don’t recall seeing soapy water draining out across the sidewalk there (but I don’t get by there often), so I’m guessing they’re collecting it with some existing floor drains inside. Their side sewer connection is out the back of the building, and then it goes down to the main line in Bayview. I believe this type of use requires an oil water separator installed to meet applicable environmental regulations. It’s possible they already had one before the car wash moved in, depending on what was there before. I don’t mean to muddy the waters with yet another layer of complexity, but just wanted to add this bit.
i think these comments reveal a lot of pent-up angst that beacon isn’t attracting the higher-end retail and services that we’d all like to have. i share this angst, but i think we shouldn’t let it get in the way of reality, which is that our neighborhood just isn’t yet suited for the businesses we crave. i expect this will change with time but, in the meantime, let’s try & remember that right now the carwash is in an unsightly building that would need major improvements to have true retail appeal.
if beacon was a great site for “better” businesses, they’d be here. the facts speak for themselves.
What’s with all this citing of municipal codes? Who ever heard of these things? NC2 what? Side Sewer Code? Want to see MY Side Sewer? Who cares? Have sex instead! Have a drink! Go car wash!
The warehouse was last permitted for retail and auto washing, detailing and stereo installation does not fall under that permit so they are currently operating under a permit violation. According to the DPD inspector, the business will be notified that they have 30 days to file the proper permit requests and if they don’t then the case gets turned over to the city attorney’s office.
If this issue was just about not liking a particular type of business, trust me I could probably find a few more that I would like to shut down/change and some of them are legal, but it isn’t. Many people have been working to make this neighborhood a pedestrian friendly place. Isn’t it a bit ironic how hard BH Peds has had to work to convince the city to allow a pedestrian plaza right next to a transit station that is supposed to encourage pedestrian access? Perhaps if First Choice car services had done the necessary research and preparation that Brook was suggesting, they wouldn’t be in this situation.
Shelly, even if they file the permit requests, they can’t get a permit if the property is in a Pedestrian-Designated Zone, right?
Shelly — yes, it is funny. It’s kind of hilarious.
First Beacon Hill residents are criticized by the transit-oriented development folks for not supporting upzones over 85 feet:
http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/02/the-tod-challenge-how-do-we-make-a-circle-from-a-line-part-1-in-a-series/
And then we’re also criticized (someone should be “hung by their toenails” was the phrasing, I believe) by the normally density-loving Stranger for suggesting that a zone-violating car wash may not be the best use of space at our major pedestrian intersection, a stone’s throw from the new light rail station:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/14/nothing-is-better-than-a-car-wash
I sometimes get the feeling that the rest of the city thinks of Beacon Hill as a bunch of morons who don’t know what’s best for themselves. It’s really bizarre.
I think it may have to do with the fact that we’re so isolated — that if you don’t live here, you probably don’t come here, and you don’t know anything about what’s here. (A recent guest essay about Beacon Hill development that suggested we already have things like neighborhood Thai restaurants comes immediately to mind.)
As I’ve been thinking about this, I have to say I’m wondering whether it’s practical to try to make this neighborhood a pedestrian-friendly zone. I’m not questioning whether it’s desirable, just whether it’s practical.
The intersection of Beacon Ave. and 15th St. is a bottleneck. There’s no way to get off the hill to the west between Spokane St. and where Beacon Ave. drops down to Holgate St. Routes off the hill to the east are awkward with turns and doglegs.
The zoning map shows a big area of NC2P, with a number of NC2 variances in it. For example, the 76 gas station is NC2, but the Shell station is NC2P. I can think of no less pedestrian-friendly lot than the Shell station, but I also can’t think of any other way to have a gas station on that lot. Are people going to try to shut down the gas station now because of the zoning?
Farther south, the parking lot of Red Apple is NC2. Will people agitate to make the parking lot NC2P because it’s across the street from the light rail station?
From the link up above in the post, it sounds like in 2002 the car wash property was NC2, not NC2P. It’s all pretty confusing.
I’ve been looking at the Admiral District, not because I want Beacon Hill to look like West Seattle as L accused, but because it’s another designated Residential Urban Village and is also a bit of a traffic bottleneck. It also has a more active, much more pedestrian-friendly, business district.
There isn’t a single lot in the Admiral District that is Pedestrian Designated. The whole thing is NC2, without variances.
I’m curious what looking at the other Residential Urban Villages with active business districts would show. As well-intentioned as the zoning may be, it’s mess. According the link above in the post, as recently as 2002 the car wash property was NC2, not NC2P.
I also wonder whether the Pedestrian Designation is putting the cart before the horse. Given the way car traffic flows, is NC2P really a practical designation? What will change when light rail starts running? Will the train absorb a significant amount of car traffic? Will it absorb mostly current pedestrian/transit traffic?
If the NC2P zoning is more well-intentioned or aspirational than it is practical for the layout of the neighborhood, it could actually be one of the things holding the business district back right now. I think it’s worth thinking about as we see what happens in the next year or two.
And for the record, this doesn’t mean I prefer cars over transit, feet, and bicycles. I’d love to be less dependent on my car. I’m just trying to step back and look at it dispassionately.
JvA, for what it’s worth, I’d be totally in support of much broader upzoning to 85 feet and think it would be a step in the direction of giving the neighborhood the sorts of amenities that so many in this thread say they want. More density makes for more pedestrians. It also slows development of undeveloped land out in the burbs, helping preserve the natural part of our region.
Maybe now that I’ve said that I have to accept the “gentrifier” label.
What happened to JvA’s comment that I was just responding to? If it’s gone and never coming back, then can my response be removed as well, since it’s completely out of context?
Pardon the serial posting, but it looks like I may have misread the zoning map, and both the 76 and Shell stations might be in the Pedestrian-Designated zoning.
Brook, which comment were you referring to in 44? AFAIK, nothing has been removed from the comment threads.
Zoning changes aren’t enforced retroactively. Our house has been rezoned NC40; we aren’t now required to tear it down and build something commercial. But if we did tear it down or do major redevelopment of the property, the new use or development would have to abide by the new zoning.
Oops, I’m confused. I thought JvA’s comment went up after mine, not before. I just didn’t scroll far enough up after I commented again and thought it had gone away. Considering how much Web usability work I’ve done, it’s both embarrassing and educational when I make a dumb user error like that.
I understand that existing uses are grandfathered in and could have been clearer that my questions about the gas stations were rhetorical. The point I was trying to illustrate that just because we want a pedestrian zone it doesn’t mean the basic infrastructure of the neighborhood is actually well-suited to having one.
Wendy, when I spoke with the inspector I told him that neighbors had found the zoning for the property was designated pedestrian and that the code stated drive thru business could not be put in a pedestrian zoning area. His response was that he hadn’t looked into that yet, but he would check it as he continued his investigation. So I believe initially he only looked at usage permit issues. His name and number are Ed Backmon, 684-7795, and he did say to call if I had any other questions.
JvA – thanks for the link to the Stranger article. I better keep my shoes tied tightly.
This isn’t about gentrification for me. When we first moved here 13 yrs. ago, we had some Filipino friends that had been driving to Beacon Hill from Kenmore to do their shopping at the old ABC supermarket (was it called that way back then – and their kids hated the smell, anyone remember it?), pick up their lumpia at Inay’s and the mocha rolls at the Delite. They also showed us the cracker nuts at Red Apple. We have other friends that would drive in from Woodinville to get hair cuts at Cesar Tugade’s – they now go to Jess’ once my husband told them the price difference. So I don’t know for how long, but for some this is a destination neighborhood, but for us it is home. It’s where we want to raise our three children and every time I get frustrated over drugs and prostitution and think maybe it’s time to go, I remember the things I like about where I live. We have a decent backyard for the kids to play in which isn’t always possible in the city, we can walk to the library, grocery and soon to light rail to get us to the airport for those vacations few and far between. I also like that my children have the diversity of their school and sports teams, they know about egg rolls, lumpia, curry and sho paos. But diversity can be recognized both ways and variety does not have to hurt diversity. I truly don’t believe that people are clamoring for a coffee shop on every corner (just like I don’t want a nail salon on every corner – which we might almost have). I think Red Apple is a business that has recognized that the community it serves is not the same one from 20 years ago and they have made changes to help invite that part of the community into their business. If forcing the owner at 2507 to recognize that maybe it is time they do the same, by not idly standing by while they rent their building to an illegal business, then I will tolerate the closed garage door some more while they receive no rent.