• You are in:
• »Transportation
• »Transit
• »North Lake Union properties
• »Master Plan

Executive Summary/Recommendations

Executive Summary

The North Lake Union Master Plan responds to a King County Council-issued proviso added to the Department of Transportation’s 2004 Capital Budget. The proviso calls for master planning three County properties located in the area just north of Lake Union and west of Gas Works Park in Seattle. The properties are identified as the Upland Parcel, the Waterfront Parcel—both owned and used by Metro Transit, and the Stone Way Pier Parcel—owned and managed by the King County general fund. The three parcels are delineated in the aerial photograph below.

The Department of Transportation convened a community group comprising residents, business and property owners, and others with active interests in the north Lake Union area. The group’s purpose is to provide input for the future uses of these three parcels. Called the “North Lake Union Stakeholder Working Group,” its process for gathering all relevant information serves as the basis for the master plan.

This master plan is developed with community input and documents the ideas and planning efforts that have been undertaken or presently underway in the north Lake Union area. This process underscores the contextual relationships among publicly owned properties located in a neighborhood that has been active in shaping its future. As the owner and current user of two of the three parcels, Metro Transit has two goals: 1) Continue the transit facilities maintenance functions critical to support bus services and 2) optimize the potential revenues to Metro through potential property sales. The master plan is a balance of King County, particularly Metro Transit’s, business needs and community desires to arrive at the “best uses” for each of the parcels. Transit’s recommended future actions are outlined in this Executive Summary.

Master Plan Chapter Organization

Chapters 1–5: Process, Background, and Data

Chapters 1 through 5 document the information presented and discussed during the Stakeholder Working Group process. These chapters include general and site-specific background information for each parcel. In addition, the Stakeholders Group was provided with requisite planning information to apply to potential land use changes garnered by the ideas for the master plan. Of particular interest to this Group were issues related to environmental quality of land, air and views; alternative modes of transportation, and neighborhood plans:

• Environmental clean-up status of the properties.
• Waterborne transportation and related inter-modal uses, given the proximity of the Burke-Gilman Trail and bus service.
• Design review standards to delineate zoning issues, protect views, pedestrian access and open space.
• Neighborhood plans, particularly the South Wallingford Neighborhood amendment that, through the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods’ planning process, drafted a proposal for housing, open space, public uses such as community centers and special facilities, mix-use commercial, water-related uses, public access to water, and multi-modal transportation.

Chapter 6: Range of Alternatives

Chapter 6 documents the ideas for future uses for each of the three parcels. All the ideas were generated by the Stakeholder Group over several meetings and by the public who attended a community workshop. These ideas were organized into “alternatives” that reflected perspectives spanning business and private to community and public interests. The discussion under each alternative is defined into opportunity and constraint statements, listed as “Pros” or “Cons,” to reflect community interests or concerns.

From the onset, the Stakeholders Group understood that consensus may not be achievable given the diversity of ideas. No evaluations or ranking were conducted to define the “preferred alternative” for each parcel. Instead, specific criteria for each alternative would be performed at the next stage of this process. This is described in Chapter 7.

Chapter 7: Next Steps

Additional steps are identified in the master plan to bring the range of alternatives towards the “preferred best uses.” In brief, the next steps for each of the parcels are as follows:

• Upland Parcel—Based on outcome of Request for Proposal (RFP) for sale of the property and replacement facility for Metro Transit Facilities Maintenance.
• Waterfront Parcel—Based on feasibility analyses of the alternatives to determine the most viable future uses.
• Stone Way Pier Parcel—Based on a possible two-step process to first, determine the existing lease arrangement and if appropriate to pro ceed, a feasibility analyses of the alternatives.

Individual Parcels

The three parcels were reviewed as distinct properties, in relationship to one another and in context of the surrounding neighborhoods and region. Setting the planning background broadens the potential land use connections among the parcels, however, Metro Transit’s ultimate recommendations will likely be distinct for each parcel. The reasons for this are explained below:

Distinct Property Circumstances

Ownership, zoning and fiscal circumstances are unique to each parcel.

• Upland Parcel: Metro Transit ownership. Documented recent interest by private developer.
• Waterfront Parcel: Metro Transit ownership. Specific water-related use restrictions.
• Stone Way Pier Parcel: King County ownership. Present lease to private tenant is a revenue source to the County general fund.

Distinct Current Use and Function

Current functions would be impacted by future uses and the potential changes are unique to each site.

• Upland Parcel: Metro Transit’s facilities maintenance base would require relocation of all current functions.
• Waterfront Parcel: Used by Metro Transit for equipment storage and leased—at no rent value—to a nonprofit group for repair work on historic boats.
• Stone Way Pier Parcel: Present 20-year lease to private tenant for commercial marina use.

Distinct Physical Conditions

Unique physical conditions of each site lends them to potentially distinct future uses.

• Upland Parcel: Large dry land parcel within a corridor of commercial and multi-family residential development.
• Waterfront Parcel: Shoreline parcel subject to regulations for water dependent uses. Adjacent maritime industrial uses.
• Stone Way Pier Parcel: Primarily submerged lands subject to shoreline land use regulations.

Recommendations

Recommendation: Upland Parcel

Request for Proposals (RFP)

Metro Transit currently has a large vested interest in the Upland Parcel. It is recommended that King County solicit offers for the sale of the Upland Parcel for the highest and best use to optimize the return to Metro Transit. A Request for Proposals (RFP) will require that proposals be consistent with any of the seven alternatives generated for this Parcel. These unprioritized alternatives are listed in the boxed insert and descriptions are detailed in Chapter 6. Key RFP conditions are: $3 million property sale, environmental clean-up appropriate to the land use, and a replacement facility (site and building) for Transit’s Facility Maintenance. All alternatives for the Upland Parcel are supported by Metro Transit.

Replacement of Current Transit Facility

The current North Facilities Maintenance (site and buildings) is an essential function that supports the daily operations of transit bases and passenger facilities. In the event that a future use would require facility relocation, Metro Transit must have a replacement facility to continue to perform work vital to maintaining transit services. Performance specifications, including a programming document, for a new location and building is included with the RFP as a condition of sale.

Maximum Benefit

Consistent with the King County Property Expert Review Task Force (PERT) guidelines, Metro Transit is to strive for the maximum benefit in revenue from any sale of its property. The competitive RFP process will ensure that Metro Transit receives a fair market value for the Upland Parcel.

Recommendation: Waterfront Parcel

Metro Transit does not currently have as large of a vested interest in the Waterfront Parcel as it does in the Upland Parcel. It is recommended that a further study be conducted to analyze the feasibility of alternatives identified in this Master Plan. These unprioritized alternatives are listed in the boxed insert and descriptions are detailed in Chapter 6. The feasibility study could include the following:

• Assess the physical conditions of the docks and other infrastructure.
• Develop a program and space needs study for the potential site uses.
• Study the physical configurations of the Parcel to determine capacity issues.
• Coordinate information with potential user organizations.

It is recommended that this study occur after the completion of a Metro Transit Waterborne transportation study, which would determine the viability of a water taxi serving the north end of Lake Union.

Recommendation: Stone Way Pier Parcel

Existing Lease with Private Commercial

King County’s current lease with a private marine business for the use of the Stone Way Pier is active through 2024. Prior to any study of the potential reuse of this Parcel, it would be essential for King County to discuss this lease arrangement with to determine if changes to the lease conditions are acceptable to both parties.

Feasibility Study

If the lease arrangement between King County and the lease holder are determined to remain unchanged in the best interest of both parties, then Metro Transit’s recommendation for this Parcel is to concur with this decision.

If King County and the lease holder mutually conclude that the lease arrangement could change and that conditions for the lease change are agreed-upon, then the next step would be a feasibility study of the potential Stone Way Pier alternatives. This study could be combined with the aforementioned feasibility study of the Waterfront Parcel alternatives for contextual relationships between the two parcels. Components of the study would be similar to that described for the Waterfront Parcel analyses.

Last update: September 08, 2004