Today’s proceedings in the case of Satterlee House (Beach Drive’s “Painted Lady”) owner William Conner vs. the city Landmarks Preservation Board only ran three and a half hours in the morning, but that span included testimony from Conner himself:Read More

The city Landmarks Preservation Board lawyers have called all their witnesses, and now the lawyer for Satterlee House (aka Beach Drive’s “Painted Lady”) owner William Conner is calling his, with testimony continuing before city Hearing Examiner Sue Tanner at 8 am tomorrow and 12:30 pm Tuesday. It’s already gone on for 2 1/2 days (coverage links: testimony from the house’s previous owner/namesake David Satterlee here; first full day, last Monday, wrapup here; this morning’s testimony here) and is attracting a fair level of attention in the historic-preservation and legal communities, since disputes over development involving official city landmarks almost never get to this stage (an appeal argued before the Hearing Examiner). Here’s what happened this afternoon:Read More

Looks like today will be the second full day of testimony in the case of Satterlee House/Beach Drive “Painted Lady” owner William Conner vs. the city Landmarks Board — it originally was set for a half-day but as we mentioned in our previous reports, the case has been taking so long, the city Hearing Examiner had to add extra time to the calendar. Backstory: Conner has owned the house since 2000. After a previous development proposal went nowhere in the early ’00s, nothing happened for a while, till he filed to subdivide the house’s huge front lawn into three separate lots. That was granted; but before anyone could build on those three lots, the city Landmarks Board had to grant a Certificate of Approval, since the house and site comprise an official city landmark. Conner took a proposal for three homes, about 3,000 square feet each, to the board, and it said no. His appeal of that decision is what is being argued now, courtroom-style, before the city Hearing Examiner, in her hearing room on the 40th floor of the Municipal Tower downtown. This morning’s testimony included revelations about how much Conner has spent so far — in legal fees as well as on the property — among other things:Read More

Just a few running updates (see earlier coverage further down the page) — In addition to the Landmarks Board witness who testified at midmorning, she was followed by the supervisor of the city’s Landmarks Preservation program, Karen Gordon. She reaffirmed the unusual nature of this hearing – saying she’s worked for the department for more than 20 years and only seen a few cases like this where applicants have challenged the board’s decision on economic grounds. (House owner William Conner’s contention is that he has to build larger houses on the site because that’s all that makes economic sense.) More on the afternoon testimony later. This is all moving slowly and general chatter is that it’s going to be difficult getting all the testimony done in the day and a half allotted before the Hearing Examiner. ADDED 4:09 PM: It’s looks like beyond the prescheduled time on Thursday, this may continue Friday morning as well, and possibly March 18 all day if needed. Those who are here, by the way, include Conner and his lawyer Richard Hill at the table across from the two city lawyers, and a few spectators, here in the Hearing Examiner’s chambers on the 40th floor of the Municipal Tower. Some of this afternoon’s testimony has included details about the condition of the Satterlee House itself – more on that in our full writeup later.

The design/build firm that recently bought the Shoremont at 57th/Alki (map) — and the neighboring house, which it’s reselling — is looking into saving and moving the building. That’s according to Chris Pardo at Pb Elemental. He tells WSB, “We have been in discussions with two building-moving firms; one is looking at the possibility of moving the existing building to Whidbey Island. The Shoremont has a brick facade rather than structural brick, so it seems feasible for them to move the building.” Pardo says that’s what Pb Elemental would prefer to do, but if the move doesn’t work out, he says, “We also have a few firms, including ourselves, interested in reusing the brick on the new project and nearby developments.” In addition, he sent us this rendering of the five-unit development they’re proposing at the Shoremont site (more details in this previous report):

Pardo says his firm hopes to start construction by “late spring” and finish by early next year.

We told you last week about the first testimony in the hearing about whether the owner of the Satterlee House, aka the “Painted Lady” of Beach Drive, can build three houses on its expansive front lawn. Since the property is a city landmark, the Landmarks Board had to grant a Certificate of Approval – but last December said no, and this hearing is about the property owner’s appeal of that ruling. Last week’s testimony involved the previous owner of the property, David Satterlee. Today, both sides are presenting the bulk of their case, with time scheduled on Thursday for continuation. The major witness so far this morning has been the staffer for the Landmarks Board, who revealed one reason this is significant beyond West Seattle:Read More

It wasn’t criminal court, but at times it felt almost that contentious — with occasional interjections of OBJECTION! — as the city Hearing Examiner heard the first witness today in the fight over whether homebuilding will be allowed on the expansive front lawn of Beach Drive’s “Painted Lady.” The home — an official city landmark — is also known as the Satterlee House, and its former owner David Satterlee was the first witness to testify, several days before lawyers on both sides will present the bulk of their cases. We went to the Hearing Examiner’s windowless room on the 40th floor of the Municipal Tower downtown to see how this would unfold:Read More

This afternoon, the city Landmarks Board considers 3811 California, aka Charlestown Court (historic King County Assessor photo above), the brick Tudor four-plex across from Charlestown Cafe that otherwise is proposed for demolition and replacement with a mixed-use building. Its history is told, with copious photos, in the 46-page landmark-nomination document by West Seattle-based Nicholson Kovalchick Architects (you can read it here), with details such as “this was one of many apartment buildings for which the architect William H. Whiteley was well-known locally”; the document also includes a summary of West Seattle history and the background of the “bungalow court” type of apartment building this is considered to be, with an addendum cataloging some of West Seattle’s “bungalow courts” (such as the “Green Ghetto” whose ex-residents eulogized it in comments here after its demolition, and the 3400-block California buildings torn down recently, before/after photos here) The Landmarks Board meeting (3:30 this afternoon, 40th floor of the Seattle Municipal Building downtown) should be lively – also on the agenda, the much-discussed Ballard Denny’s.

We’ve been tracking the fate of 3811 California (left), the brick apartments that a developer has proposed razing and replacing with a 4-story mixed-use building. But first, the city has to decide if the buildings qualify for landmark status. As the next step in the process, the 46-page landmark-nomination document has just been posted on the city website – you can download it here (it’s fascinating to browse – detailed history, photos old and new, inside and outside – and more). Also posted on the Landmarks Board site: the official notice of a public meeting on the nomination, 3:30 pm Feb. 20, 40th floor of the Municipal Tower downtown. In the meantime, if you have an opinion on the proposed landmark status, as we mentioned earlier this week, you can e-mail Landmarks Board coordinator Beth Chave at beth.chave@seattle.gov.

Last week, we brought you a followup on the landmark-consideration status of these apartments at 3811 California (just south of Charlestown), proposed for demolition as part of a mixed-use project, which we have been tracking since last April. When we checked in a week ago, the city Landmarks Board told WSB that the required application for landmark-status review still was not complete. Now, this site has landed on the radar of the advocacy group Historic Seattle; preservation advocate Christine Palmer just sent a bulletin saying that 3811 is tentatively scheduled for Landmarks Board consideration on Feb. 20 (although the site is not on the “current nominations” webpage as of this writing), and advising everyone concerned about its fate to send the board a message expressing “concern about protecting this beautiful building and guarding against insensitive infill construction if it is demolished.” She suggests that messages be sent to Beth Chave, Landmarks Board coordinator, at beth.chave@seattle.gov.

While the “Painted Lady of Beach Drive,” aka the Satterlee House, remains listed for sale after a year and a half, city hearings are now scheduled for a proposal to build three homes on its sprawling front lawn. According to the city Hearing Examiner’s Office website, proceedings are scheduled to start March 5 with what the site describes as “testimony from David Satterlee on the appeal of William Conner from a Denial by the Landmarks Preservation Board for a certificate of approval for construction of 3 homes on property known as 4866 Beach Dr. SW.” (David Satterlee sold the property to William Conner in 2000.) The HEO site says March 10 and March 13 also are set aside for proceedings in the appeal. The short plat for the land was granted in May of last year; last word we had of Landmarks Board involvement was in July of last year. The house is one of a handful of officially designated landmarks in West Seattle (full list here).

Seems the Charlestown Cafe/Petco project (most recent WSB update here; we checked directly with Petco a few weeks ago and they had nothing new to report) isn’t the only thing proceeding at a snail’s pace at California/Charlestown. That’s also the case for the determination of the fate of the brick apartments (file photo above) at 3811 California, which were pre-mourned by us and others when we first reported the surfacing last April of a proposal to replace them with a mixed-use building. A tenant’s tip back in October (WSB coverage here) revealed that the city Landmarks Preservation Board would have to evaluate the buildings before the proposal could advance. We just checked back with the Landmarks Board and the status of that part of the process hasn’t changed since October — Beth Chave tells WSB they “do not yet have a complete nomination application for this property, so it has not been scheduled for a review by the Landmarks Preservation Board.” (If and when the nomination paperwork is done, the site will eventually turn up here.) And the city planner assigned to the proposed mixed-use project, Holly Godard, says the final land-use decision on this site can’t be issued till the Department of Neighborhoods (parent of the Landmark Board) review is done.