Shore Run returns to the Park June 13

Madison Park will be the finish line again this year for the 33rd Annual Shore Run/Walk to benefit immunotherapy research at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. There will actually be three races on that Sunday morning: a 10K Run (beginning at 9 am at Ferdinand Street Park, near Seward park), a 5K Run/Walk (beginning at 8:15 am at Leschi) and a Half-Mile Kids Run (beginning in the Park at 10:15 am). All of this will be followed by a Party-in-the-Park at Bert’s, with food, music, and drawings for prizes.

Those interested in participating should check out the Shore Run website for details and information about registering. There will be shuttle busses to each of the starting points from Madison Park between 6:30 and 8:15 am.

Park residents should note that in addition to the fact that there will be a lot of cars descending on the neighborhood early that morning, traffic will be delayed at times to facilitate the racers/walkers. But it’s all in a good cause.

April Real Estate Report

Depending on which press report you may have read today, you could either believe that Seattle’s real estate market is in recovery or continuing on a downhill path. The Seattle Times headline read “Home Prices in Seattle Inch Up in March,” which was true. But there was also this from the Wall Street Journal: “Housing Prices Remain Weak,” along with a chart showing Seattle prices down 3.6% for March. Which was also true.

Confused? Well both reports were from the Case-Shiller index for Seattle. One statistic was a comparison of house-sale prices from February to March 2010, which showed a small, .1% increase. The other statistic showing a decline of 3.6% was a year-over year number, March 2009 to March 2010. So, while Seattle’s home prices have not recovered even to last year’s levels, it looks like we may be witnessing the bottom of the trough. Here’s what the month-to-month price-change numbers looked like for the first three months of the year (the latest for which statistics are available):

It’s looking like a trend in the right direction.

Seattle sits somewhere in the middle of the top 20 largest American cities in terms of the housing “recovery” during the last 12 months. At the top is San Francisco, with a 16.2% increase year-over-year, and at the bottom is Las Vegas, with a 12.0% decline. The nation as a whole is up 2%, according to Case-Shiller.

Local real estate agents I’ve spoken to in the last couple of months are enthusiastic about the increased interest in the Seattle market. This anecdotal evidence is supported by statistics. For our area of the City, the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (MLS) recently reported a 5.4% increase in listings, a 32.8% increase in pending sales, and a 9.33% increase in median home prices between April 2009 and April 2010 (single-family residences and condos combined). Our MLS coverage area includes Capitol Hill, Madison Park, Montlake, Madrona, Leschi, and parts of the Central District.

For Madison Park, the April numbers were consistent with the upward trend for the year: 10 total residential sales versus an average of seven sales per month in the first quarter of 2010. Even so, this is hardly a big comeback since the fourth quarter of 2009 averaged 10 sales per month.

Here’s a breakout of the sales activity for April:

Houses

Sales: 7
Median Sale Price: $1,266,000
Average Sq. Ft.: 2,805
Average Price per Sq. Ft.: $476
Average Days on Market: 61
Average Discount from List Price: 4.9%

Condos

Sales: 3
Median Sale Price: $410,000
Average Sq. Ft.: 1,062
Average Price per Sq. Ft.: $431
Average Days on Market: 176
Average Discount from List Price: 7.4%

National real estate reports have recently focused on an increase in inventory as many so-called “side-line sellers” have decided to enter the market in the belief that prices are recovering and potential buyers now have access to financing. Indeed interest rates are at historic lows (qualified buyers can now obtain a 30-year mortgage at 4.65%), and a fair amount of new inventory did enter our local market (24 homes in the last month, through a few of these were re-listings at a lower price point).

The median price of the 18 new single-family house listings in April was $1,800,000, and only one of these houses was listed at under $1 million. 14 of the 18 new listings were located in Broadmoor or Washington Park.

Although the average number of days on the market for sold properties has declined from the high levels of last year, there are still 14 houses and five condos currently available that have been for sale at least 200 days. At the other end of the spectrum, however, were the two houses that sold last month after having been on the market for only five days.

Here’s what the Madison Park market looks like right now (Washington Park and Broadmoor included), as reported by Redfin:

Houses

Listings: 65
Median List Price: $1,985,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 3,912
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $507
Average Days on Market: 115
Percentage with Price Reductions: 29%
Pending Sales: 10
New Listings During the Month: 18

Condos

Listings: 27
Median List Price: $549,950
Median Sq. Ft.: 1,125
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $489
Average Days on Market: 186
Percentage with Price Reductions: 41%
Pending Sales: 6
New Listings During the Month: 6
.

While it represents only about 18% of the total residences in Madison Park, Broadmoor has 21 of the 65 houses currently on the market in the Park (32% of the total). Only 18 houses are available in the Park outside of Broadmoor and Washington Park combined.

Next month: A look a declining real estate values in Madison Park, as measured by Zillow.

[Shown in photo above: a 1939 “traditional” 5,200 sq. ft. home located at 1620 Broadmoor Drive E., on the eastern fairway of the golf course. Listed at $2,795,000, the home has four bedrooms and 3.75 baths. It was a new listing this month.]

.

Thanks to Wendy Skerritt of Windermere Real Estate for her help in compiling the sales data.

Contemplating Montlake

The idyllic scene illustrated above, believe it or not, is supposed to be E. Lake Washington Boulevard as it will look at some point in the future--after the new SR 520 floating bridge has been built and the new westside approaches have been installed. As you can see, there is no traffic.

That’s certainly not what that boulevard looks like today, especially during rush hour through the Arboretum. It makes one wonder what the artist may know that we don’t. The graphic is courtesy of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and as we’ve reported, the State’s “preferred” alternative plan for SR 520 contemplates both the removal of the Arboretum ramps to 520 and the imposition of a new “traffic management” plan for the Arboretum. The combination, apparently, will make Lake Washington Boulevard into the bucolic back road of the artist’s imagination.

Here, by the way, is what the artist imagines the scene at 24th Avenue E. and E. Lake Washington Boulevard will look like (this is the intersection where the bridge to the Museum of History and Industry now crosses 520 at Montlake). Under the “preferred” plan, HOVs may leave Lake Washington Boulevard to enter an eastbound ramp to 520 at about this point. Nevertheless, it doesn’t look like this area is expected to be too busy. Although a bus is depicted, it certainly didn’t end up in that location by coming north on Lake Washington Boulevard, since it would not have been able to navigate under the Arboretum’s low-clearance brick footbridge.

But will smaller high-occupancy vehicles be able to drive through the Arboretum to get to the 24th Avenue intersection? That’s a question that will only have an answer once all the public agencies (State, City and the University of Washington, which co-manages the Arboretum) and the Arboretum Foundation agree on a “traffic management” plan for the Arboretum, as noted by the Governor when she announced the new 520 scheme. It’s a matter of some doubt whether any non-HOV traffic will be able to drive through the Arboretum to access 520 either. Just how traffic will be restricted will soon be a topic of discussion between the various players, with a recommendation on an overall traffic mitigation strategy to go to the State Legislature no later than December 31, 2010.

In the meantime, it’s interesting to speculate on just how that new Montlake Lid and 520 interchange will work exactly, since we’re all going to have to make use of it. Eventually, Montlake will have to handle all of the current traffic that flows into the area plus all of the new traffic that will be dumped there because of the elimination of the Arboretum on and off ramps for 520.

As a starting point, WSDOT had provided me with some additional information concerning current usage of the Arboretum ramps. This graphic depicts usage of the 520 westbound exit to Lake Washington Boulevard in the Arboretum:

And this graphic shows usage of the 520 eastbound entrance:

Perhaps a bit surprisingly, Capitol Hill tops the list of peak-hour users of Lake Washington Boulevard to access and exit 520 (35% of total westbound off-ramp usage and 36% of eastbound on-ramp usage). That includes a lot of people coming down E. Madison Street and turning into the Arboretum rather than taking the more direct (but often more time-consuming) 23rd Avenue route to Montlake. First Hill and the Central Area (including Madrona) comprise the next biggest number of westbound off-ramp users. Many of these drivers are certainly bypassing the more direct route to and from their neighborhoods. Montlake residents, somewhat unexpectedly, are also big users of the Lake Washington Boulevard ramps (23% of eastbound traffic and 13% of westbound).

Madison Parkers (and residents of Denny-Blaine), meanwhile, represent only 5% of eastbound traffic and 4% of westbound traffic. But given the fact that Lake Washington Boulevard is the most direct route to 520 from our neighborhood, it is likely that almost all of Madison Park’s 520 traffic to and from the Eastside goes through the Arboretum. So next to Montlake, which is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of new 520 traffic, Madison Park may feel the biggest impact of any neighborhood when the Arboretum ramps are closed.

Quite clearly, based on this WSDOT data, many neighborhoods—including those as far south as Mt. Baker and Columbia City—are going to negatively impacted by the State’s preferred plan. And if access through the Arboretum is further curtailed, as expected, huge changes to traffic through Madison Valley and down 23rd Avenue E. are inevitable, since that route would become the main corridor for 520 traffic to and from Madison Park, Denny-Blaine, Madrona, Leschi and points south that now utilize Lake Washington Boulevard and enter the Arboretum at E. Madison Street. All of that downtown, Central District, and First Hill traffic that now heads down Madison to enter the Arboretum at Lake Washington Boulevard will in the future probably need to turn left at 23rd for the trip downhill to Montlake.

And when everyone gets to Montlake? Well, WSDOT didn’t provide any graphic of what that’s going to look like!

.

Are we dense enough yet?

There was a time, not that long ago, when Madison Park could lay claim to a significant number of modest homes with airy yards and plenty of space between neighbors. In the area to the north of Madison Street, which was once primarily a working class neighborhood, there remained unbroken blocks of one-story cottages. And in the area to the south of Madison, more than a few one-time beach bungalows (such as that classic example shown above) still dotted the landscape.

While we continue to have numerous modest-looking (though few modestly-priced) houses here in the Park, the trend over the past twenty years—as in many other Seattle neighborhoods—has been to demolish the cottages to make room for the Megahouses. Occasionally, modest has been replaced with immodest.

I live in an area of the Park, near the Seattle Tennis Club, that was literally under water until 1916, when the building of the Ship Canal resulted in the lowering of Lake Washington by nine feet. Until that time, much of my block was marshland. Our house, constructed in 2001, sits on the site of what had been a very modest home, built early in the 1900s as someone’s boat house. Next door there was (and still is) a tiny beach cabin originally built in 1914 for the President of the now-defunct Frederick & Nelson Department Store. And the two little houses sitting on the other side of our property were former houseboats that had been pulled up onto the land when the Lake went down. Each was no bigger than 800 sq. ft.

In the eight years we’ve lived here, almost all of the old houses on our block have either been torn down and replaced with larger structures or were significantly remodeled and expanded. The former houseboats are gone, replaced by narrow multi-storey structures that cover virtually the entire footprint of their lots. Even the one-story 4,000 sq. ft. waterside mansion down the street, built in the 1920s, was recently replaced with an 8,000 sq. ft. two-story structure whose outbuilding of 3,000 sq. ft. is larger than my house. And what’s been happening on my block is not atypical of what’s occurring in much of the rest of the Park.

Not everyone, to be sure, is happy about this trend. Local realtor Val Ellis, for one, deplores what she sees as a potential threat to the character of the neighborhood. “I live, work and play in Madison Park, she explains. “It’s my ‘hood, and I’m against anything that will spoil the enchantment of the place.” While she doesn’t oppose people making improvements to their properties that are in line with the rest of the neighborhood, she does object to “obnoxious construction” that is inconsistent with the surrounding houses. She sees the crowding in and building up of the neighborhood as potentially undermining the flavor of the community.

Val and some of her neighbors recently found a catalyst for their concerns when the City notified them that two property owners in their area of the Park had requested approval to divide their lots into two. This is known as short platting and, if approved, allows the development of each lot as a single-family residence.

The property receiving the most critical comment from neighbors is located at 4202 E. Lynn Street, at the corner of Lynn and 42nd (shown below). There are currently two 1940s-vintage structures on the property, one of which appears to be a garage that was converted into a small residence. The other structure is a cottage that is separated into two living units. The lot has about 5,000 sq. ft, and subdivision will result on one lot of 2,557 sq. ft. and another of 2,248 sq. ft.

The neighbors’ stated concern is that future development of the property will result in several large structures at the site, which could negatively impact the “flavor” of the neighborhood and potentially impair sightlines for cars at that intersection. In spite of these objections, however, the City today announced approval of the short plat. The decision by the Department of Planning & Development (DPD) took into consideration only the facts of the case and the requirements of the City’s Code covering situations of this type. The neighbors’ objections were not material to the outcome.

According to DPD planner Holly Godard, the rule is that if there are multiple living units already on the parcel and these were permitted by the City at some point in the past, subdivision of the property is allowed. This assumes that other zoning requirements (with regard to such issues as setbacks) are complied with, she told me. In this case, the structures had been legally approved in the past and the other requirements were satisfied, so the City has allowed the creation of two separate lots, each of which can support a new single-family residence. This necessarily will increase the value of the property for the owner.

A second property on the same block (located at 2330 42nd Avenue E., below) is currently under review for short platting. The subdivision is likely to be approved, since the 4,800 sq. ft. property’s two existing early-1900s cottages were legally permitted. After division there will be a 2,128 sq. ft. parcel and a 2,676 sq. ft. parcel, each of which could be developed as a new single family home.

Godard points out that development of any property in Madison Park still must meet building-code requirements. Nevertheless, grandfathering does allow more leeway for development of smaller parcels—and variances to code can sometimes be obtained when the rules need to be bent by the developer. In the case of a needed variance, however, the neighbors will have another opportunity to weigh in and a much stronger likelihood of impacting the outcome.

Density in Madison Park is theoretically controlled though zoning. Most of the Park, as shown below, falls into the SF 5000 zone, which means that existing properties are meant for single-family residences and can be subdivided only so long as the resulting lots are not less than 5,000 sq. ft. Washington Park is primarily in the SF 7200 zone, so properties there are expected to be 7,200 sq. ft. at minimum. There are a significant number of grandfathered smaller properties scattered throughout Madison Park. And as we have seen, an exception to the subdivision rule occurs when there are already multiple legal structures on a particular property.

The subdividing of existing lots is not, however, the biggest threat to the character of Madison Park. There are probably few—if any—remaining properties that contain two legal residences that could be short platted. The real issue is this: what replaces the cottages and bungalows once the demolition crew has done its job? “It will be a crime if we can’t maintain the existing feeling of the neighborhood,” says realtor Ellis. “Tasteful improvements are fine, but we don’t want those tacky townhouses here like you see in Ballard and elsewhere.” And with regard to the future development of the newly subdivided Lynn and 42nd Street property she adds: “It’s not over ‘til it’s over.”
.

[Zoning map courtesy of the Seattle DPD. Click to enlarge. Note that the blue areas are zoned Multi-Family Lowrise,the gray area is zoned Commercial, and the yellow areas are all Single Family 5,000 sq. ft. lots. Washington Park and Broadmoor are each zoned for Single Family 7,200 sq. ft. lots.]

Madison Park merchants say “NO!” to LOLA

The plan to develop a park at the end of Madison Street has suddenly become controversial, with one part of the Madison Park Establishment squaring off against another. In one corner is the Madison Park Community Council (MPCC), which is busily promoting public involvement in support of its LOLA (Love our Lake Access) project; and in the other corner are the merchants of Madison Park—including those of the Madison Park Business Association (MPBA)—who are busily signing petitions and sending emails in opposition to the Council’s grand scheme. This division appears to be a rare fracture of the “powers that be” in Madison Park. As recently as last year, the two organizations (MPCC and the MPBA) found themselves so much in alignment that they agreed to merge their websites into one (http://madisonparkseattle.com/). Now their unanimity, assuming it was ever real, has been torn asunder over an unlikely issue: parking.

What supporters of LOLA describe as a potential community “jewel” and scenic focal point at the very heart of Madison Park, the merchants see as potential threat to their livelihood. For the fact is that the area at the end of Madison Street currently serves principally as a parking lot, and the creation of a park in that space will lower the amount of close-in business district parking.

Mark Long, owner of The Attic and a leading opponent of LOLA, estimates that 25 or more parking spaces will be lost at the road end if a park is constructed at that location. And it’s parking that will not—and really cannot—be replaced anywhere in proximity to the businesses along Madison Street. Eliminating the existing parking will force people to park further away from the businesses they patronize, he says, and will result in some people deciding to forgo making the trip to Madison Park.

“Everyone that lives in the Park enjoys the benefit of a varied retail area with wide sidewalks,” he says. “However, not all realize the costs and time needed to keep the doors open. Parking is a paramount problem.” This is a position that many other area merchants support. Stan Moshier, co-owner of Bing’s, summed up the concern this way in an email to other business owners: “Parking is most necessary to our existence as a viable business, proven by the countless times we have heard ‘it takes forever to find a place to park around here’ from our patrons, both young and old.”

A similar refrain comes from Madison Park Bakery owners Karen and Terry Hofman, who emailed “In our 17 years of operation, not a week has gone by without someone mentioning or complaining about parking difficulties. On occasion, [we’ve] had to telephone some elderly customers who pre-ordered baked goods but didn’t pick up their order. The response has too often been ‘Sorry, drove down but couldn’t find anywhere to park.’”

While Long is adamant that the whole LOLA idea be dropped, other business owners, including the Hofmans, are a bit more circumspect: “We only ask that the issue of parking be seriously addressed before rapidly proceeding only on the wishes of individuals representing LOLA.”

LOLA committee members say they are attempting to address the parking concerns of the merchants. “We can collaborate with the MPBA,” says LOLA’s Kathleen Stearns, “but we are not the decision makers. The Department of Parks and Recreation is.” She notes that the land belongs to the parks department and simply is not designated for use as a parking lot. “Madison Street ends at 43rd Avenue E.,” she notes, and the area beyond 43rd down to the pier is not controlled by the City’s transportation department. Effectively, vehicle drivers who park in the area are encroaching on City parkland, since it is technically not a city street.
.
Ownership of the property is shown on this graphic (click to enlarge):

.

For LOLA supporters, the issue therefore appears to be pretty straightforward. The land is park land and should be restored to park use. This is not to say, however, that LOLA is opposed to discussing the issue with concerned business owners or working with them to find creative solutions. Stearns notes that focus groups were held (including one where the parking issue was specifically on the agenda) and the business owners also were invited to meet with the MPCC by its president Ken Myrabo. But in spite of this outreach the business owners opposing the project did not come forward, she says; and as a result, some LOLA committee members sought out various Madison Park business owners to solicit their input.

Among the ideas being floated to improve parking in the business district are these, she says:

1) Encourage more employees of these businesses to use public transportation to get to work.
2) Ask employees (as well as business owners) to park further from their places of business.
3) Limit street parking to 2 hours (versus the 1, 2 and 4-hour designations that currently exist in different parts of the business district) and have it enforced to optimize usage.
4) Ask residents to volunteer spaces in their driveways or in front of their houses for the daytime use of employees (Kathleen Stearns reports she has agreed to do this on her property).
5) Make better use of existing alley parking spaces for employees and owners.

Stearns says she believes that collaboration will solve the parking problem, and she’s dismissive of the merchants who are not interested in working with LOLA on the issue. “Their vision is a parking lot. Our competing vision is for it to be restored to public use as a garden park. These are the competing interests for this public space.” To which she adds, “We are not opposed to bringing commerce to the Park.”

"Not impressed,” says Mark Long. “There are already three parks along 43rd. Parking is the Number One need here, not more parks. I know [the current situation] is not perfect and beautiful, but it’s functional. I think LOLA is a waste of time and effort just to get one to two percent more green space.” Among the other merchants supporting this anti-LOLA position, says Long, are the owners of McGilvra’s, Tina’s on Madison, Madison Park Jewelers, Cookin’, and Martha Harris.

Cactus! owner Bret Chatalas, meanwhile, sent an email to City Council members and the parks department last month in which he expressed his support for parks but added that “I can’t imagine anyone, while thinking it through, would think that more parks in Madison Park is a better idea than providing parking for those already coming to the local three parks and beach, let alone the local businesses that rely on customers’ ability to easily access them. The ratio of parks to parking is way out of balance down here already, in my opinion.”

Unfortunately, there is no real room for compromise here. Succinctly, the question is this: park or parking lot? The area at the end of Madison Street can’t be both.

So which is it to be?

Given both the controversy and the uncertainty of funding, it's probably going to be quite awhile before we find out which faction of the Madison Park Establishment will ultimately have its way.

.

[Everyone, Madison Park business owners included, will get another opportunity to give their input when, on May 26, the final schematic design for LOLA will be presented at a community meeting to be held at Park Shore Retirement Community (1630 43rd Avenue E.) at 7:00 pm.]

McGilvra gets new principal in September

The Seattle School District yesterday named Mary Lane, who has been serving this school year as a principal with the Shanghai American School (SAS) in China, as the new McGilvra Elementary School principal for the 2010-11 school year. Lane's most recent experience in Washington was as the principal of Hawkins Middle School in Belfair (located on Hood Canal in Kitsap County). According to the School District, her experience also includes a stint as an assistant superintendent in a Dominican Republic school district. She began her career as an elementary classroom teacher, later moving into administration.

Lane has been in the role of SAS's elementary school principal at the Puxi campus, which provides a pre-kindergarden though fifth-grade education to 650 students from approximately 40 countries. The are more than 100 teachers and staff connected with the school, whose mission is to provide an education on a par with what would be offered in the best American private and public schools. Puxi is an area at the core of urban Shanghai.

Lane's academic credentials include a Master's Degree in education from the University of Tennessee and a B.S. in elementary education from Tennessee Temple University. Why Lane chose to go to China and why she is now returning to the States are questions unanswered in the District's press release. We hope to have the opportunity of asking her about all of that and more. She will be attending the PTA meeting at McGilvra this evening at 6:30 pm.

.

Lane's selection occurred after a round of interviews with a team composed of McGilvra parents, teachers, and staff. She was named one of the finalists for the job by the school's interview team, with Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson and Susan Enfield, the District's Chief Academic Officer, making the final choice.

.

McGilvra's Interim Principal Birgit McShane will continue in her role through the end of the current school year, which has certainly proven to be an interesting one administratively.

Dredging ends, beavers return

I haven’t seen the furry critters myself, but I have it upon reliable eye-witness authority that the beavers are now back frolicking in the waters off the northern coast of Madison Park. This, in spite of the two weeks of dredging in the area recently undertaken by Broadmoor’s contractor. The dredging company pulled out last week, meaning (I guess) that water from the Lake is now free to gush unhindered into the irrigation pipes of the golf course.
.
I don’t get up early enough, unfortunately, to get a shot of swimming beavers (who, I am told, are most likely to be seen after sunrise); but Canterbury resident Gene Brandzel provided this fuzzy shot last week to prove his point either that the Loch Ness monster lives or that the beavers are really back in Canterbury (Gene admits that the lighting was bad). He reports that there were four adult beavers on show at 5:30 that particular morning, which just happened to be a couple of days before the dredging equipment was evacuated. “Some of the beavers slapped their tails right next to the dredge to say goodbye,” Brandzel said. “It was quite touching.”

Broadmoor isn’t the only community, by the way, to benefit from the dredging effort. As a condition of one of the permits that Broadmoor needed to obtain for the project, the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife required that the pier at the end of 37th Avenue E., near the dredging site, be resurfaced. The old surface of the pier (aka “dock”) was wooden, allowing little light to penetrate into waters underneath. The new pier has slots that allow the light to shine through. This, in theory, should be good for the aquatic and plant life of the bay.

It's nice to know that the fears of many of us that the beavers might be disturbed as a result of the dredging have apparently proved overblown. The waters look serene, the beaver lodge remains intact, and we presumably can soon look forward to seeing the results of another successful breading season. If anyone gets a good shot of the new brood, please share with us!

[Middle photo: the wooden housing for the Broadmoor irrigation system intake pipe, around which the dredging occurred.]