Comments on: 3210 California SW: Preview the plan, 2 weeks before Design Review

By: JoAnne

JoAnne — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:43:40 +0000

This is NOT going to be a nice, updated addition to the neighborhood. These are creepy storage boxes for people.
.
I’m not even sure they are legal.
.
Each unit has a little bin that dispenses Purina People-Chow or Soylent Green or something.
.
Residents will be transient because any sane person would run like hell from a place like this.

By: your neighbor

your neighbor — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:51:48 +0000

This is hideous, and it looks like the developer is trying to turn my neighborhood into Bellevue Square. I moved here because I love this neighborhood. It’s always been safe, affordable, and friendly. I’m not sure it will stay that way if this beast is going to be built. Whoever dreamed this up ought to be ashamed. I can’t believe that all of this fits within the boundaries of the re-zone.

By: GT

GT — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:32:44 +0000

+1 Resident of 42nd

On the SW Hanford side the average grade is only 5′ higher at the midsection of the 100′ lot then the lowest point at California. Does the city require the land survey to be published that determined the 13.5′ average grade change?

Of note the design doc mentions the average grade of 374.158’ but the city meeting minutes has 369.25′. Being over 5 feet off is substantial when that could help reduce the structure height by an additional 9′ if the 4’ extra height is denied. With my eye level view at 406’ feet a 40’ max structure height at a 369’ average grade would be 409’ feet or a whole story shorter then what is being suggested at 418’.

Interesting to see that the law used to determine average grade changed after the upzone was approved. I haven’t determined what has changed though but it looks like the interpolated rules changed which are being used for this structure.

Old:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/DDR2011-9.pdf

New:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/dr2012-4.pdf

The building could actually be over 75′ tall when it is all said and done.

13′ Retail
10′x4 residential floors
4′ Extra since ‘retail’ is used
4′ Extra for parapets
16′ for elevator penthouse

Being almost twice as tall as the 40′ limit seems to be completely against the spirit of the zoning law.

Is there another example of a building this tall anywhere on California abutting a residential area that is zoned NC2-40?

The Olympic Apartments at 3200 California are 4 stories tall and this structure will be almost twice as tall. The Olympic apartment doesn’t block the view of any house behind it.

The icing on the cake is the comment about the “increased height providing better views for the residents on the top floors” of this new development since they are using the maximum height possible. Maybe they will be gracious enough to let the owners of houses on 42nd to use their rooftop deck to see the mountains, sound, and sunsets we now enjoy from our houses that they are going to completely block.

By: Resident of 42nd

Resident of 42nd — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:35:32 +0000

What exactly *are* we allowed to talk about at the Design Review meeting? Obviously the upzone is done; there’s no point wasting everyone’s time complaining about that, and I understand this isn’t the place to discuss traffic/environmental impacts. But can we talk about the HVAC units and apartment windows that will soon be the only thing visible from the back of our house? How much light this is going to block? Why can’t we talk about the fact that even if a five story building is technically permissible, the developers are basically getting to build a full extra story because the back few feet of the lot happens to be a 20 foot retaining wall? Can’t we question whether that’s really the way the average grade measurements are supposed to work? Is this surprise fifth story a “design” issue or something else? How about setback? I am not sure of the line between “aesthetic” concerns we are allowed to voice and other issues that aren’t on the table. When you share a property line with the development, it is hard to separate the two.

And Tracy – you ask a good question. What would we, the immediate neighbors, want to see on this block? Most of the existing structures are pretty bad, no doubt, and I don’t think any of us can claim any particular fondness for them. My answer would be two or three-story residential buildings (due to the no alley/lack of access for commercial operations), one or maybe two lots wide. The existing proposal is sort of the worst case scenario after the upzone went through – we have gone from potentially three to four and now to five stories tall, and five addresses wide. Apartments, not even condos. It just seems wildly out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:22:12 +0000

At least this monolith is not a DESC project that is blocking out the view and light of the neighbors to the East on 42nd. Think Delridge Way DESC project being built as we speak. With the massive new DESC building to the West and Puget Ridge to the East peoples homes on 23rd will be in a canyon.
-
In an ideal world the owners, developers and architects ought to be forced to live in the shadows of their buildings.

By: Jeff J

Jeff J — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 14:59:36 +0000

Has anyone considered the impact of this development will have on the infrastructure of this area to accommodate the increased density, such as bus services (which have been recently cut), and schools that right now are over capacity? Who is coordinating this planning?

By: datamuse

datamuse — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:10:48 +0000

I can’t speak for them, wetone, but I moved to West Seattle because overall, I like it here. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t welcome a little more commercial business in Highland Park, or some updating of some of the apartment properties there. Since when does liking a place mean unalloyed love for absolutely everything about it?
.
And what’s so great about the Petco building that people keep referring to it as charming? Cause I gotta tell ya, I don’t see it.

By: howty

howty — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:33:34 +0000

that whole block has for the longest time been such a weird collection of buildings….never really flowed together..rather ugly! Not all change is bad and so i have to say that this is not a bad thing!! it looks a heck of a lot better.

By: 24601

24601 — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:55:24 +0000

To Stop the World,
The block up on Cap Hill to which you refer did NOT have homes directly behind it without an alley for a buffer. We do need to improve the buildings, and old unattractive ones need to be replaced by new ones, but this block has been managed by the landowners for destruction for the last fifteen years at least — and to reward that type of commercial behavior with an upzone and a building that completely blocks not just the view, but also the LIGHT from the eight homes directly adjacent to it is a shame and something that only a group of shortminded thoughtless bureaucrats would choose. The very least they could do is compensate those homeowners for the 20%+ loss in value that they will suffer because of this choice. The increased taxes from this monstrosity in the first two or three years should more than cover the cost. This city should be ashamed of itself.

By: wetone

wetone — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:08:39 +0000

Just curious why some of you people like Karin, KT, CSTW have moved to this area if you did not like the way it is or was ? most people move to a area they like. I have lived here a very long time because I liked the way it was. As far as W says he makes some good points about the Design Review Board meeting as from the results I have seen they deal with design (looks) issues only. Not the impacts on neighborhoods from parking,noise,traffic, and sometimes property value loss. If I as a property owner have an issue with a project that impacts myself or my properties I do my own research and never take city or builders word. In this case if you have questions on the elevation issue get your own survey and go from there, or talk to a land use attorney. The street level will be work space, office space,bar,coffee,food what ever you want to call it and should have parking for such. Don’t care what the builder wants to call it. They always do this and change at later date to avoid more impact and parking issues.

By: Brad Fletcher

Brad Fletcher — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:40:02 +0000

I grew-up in a house behind this @ 3217 42nd SW It had a great view. I remember when there was a vacant lot between us and Calif Ave..We played in the “woods” that were there! Now that view will be gone.

By: Stop The World

Stop The World — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:43:27 +0000

This always makes me giggle. Most of the “West Seattle” folks pine for is a pile of horrible 40s/50s ugly cracker box buildings that only exist because we plowed under miles of old growth forest (and ‘moved on’ the natives who HAD been here for thousands of years). But now that we’ve killed the forest for a McDonalds, a hair salon and a few real estate and insurance offices, we’re freaking about about a 5 story building? The drawings show a building VASTLY more interesting than the nasty looking boring uninspired junk that’s there now. Most of storefronts along California Ave popped up from the 30s on, without ANY design review (obviously). You talk character, most of these buildings have NO character. There ARE a handful of nice/interesting buildings out of maybe 10 blocks, but most are garbage and can cheerfully be torn down. I’ll be there with a glass of champagne when the ugly monstrosity that is the old PetCo building goes down. What a horrible uninspired beige rectangle that building is. The new building designs for that site look much more interesting (and functional) than the literal “box” that is there now. Though my favorite HORRIBLE old Seattle building of all time was the old QFC on Broadway (Capital Hill). That was LITERALLY a block long blank wall facing Broadway. Just a wall. An entire block was just a wall (and a Taco Bell). Thank GOD for change and both of those are gone (and yes there was much complaining about the ‘uninspired’ new building, which made me laugh). Now the block looks much better (and has more ‘life’) today than it had in decades.

By: KT

KT — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 07:29:07 +0000

I agree with Karin. The current buildings in that location are worn and uninviting. I think the architect came up with some nice design solutions, based on the sketches presented. I like the large windows and the steps leading to the businesses. The open patios are a nice touch too.
The entire area will benefit from some consistency in the architecture along California.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:07:22 +0000

Hooray for density! West Seattle will one day become urban, not sub-urban.

By: Karin

Karin — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:53:40 +0000

I just moved here and to be honest; the new design looks way nicer and welcoming then what’s currently offered on 3210 California.
Seattle is up to par with new & modern & Leed Designs, this will be ONLY better for everybody.
Let’s bring West Seattle to the 21st century