West Seattle development: 2 projects apply for master use permits

Two of West Seattle’s in-progress mixed-use developments have just applied for their master use permits, which triggers a new comment period (through at least August 28th):

(Click image for larger view)
3210 CALIFORNIA: It hasn’t appeared in the city’s “land-use information bulletin” yet, but a spokesperson for the developers, Intracorp, tells WSB the master-use permit (MUP) application has been submitted for this five-story project with about 150 units, 168 parking spaces, and 4,200 square feet of commercial space. Its status is verified by the project page on the city website. That was facilitated by the project passing the Early Design Guidance phase of the Southwest Design Review Board process June 27th (here’s the city’s report on that meeting; our detailed notes are here). The image above is from the size/shape renderings shown at that meeting. This project still has at least one more SWDRB meeting ahead; no date announced yet, but the spokesperson believes it’ll be in October. Comments can be sent to michael.dorcy@seattle.gov.

And on the east edge of The Junction:

4745 40TH SW: This also recently passed Early Design Guidance, and has now applied for a MUP, while awaiting at least one more Design Review meeting. The project is listed in city files as eight stories, but part of the building will be shorter; units will total about 150, while parking spaces are projected around 116, and retail at about 1,000 square feet. It will be adjacent to a new city park to the north, which in turn is across the street from the west side of the 4755 Fauntleroy Way (aka Whole Foods) project. Here’s the city report on the July 11th meeting; for comments on the project, e-mail bruce.rips@seattle.gov.

33 Replies to "West Seattle development: 2 projects apply for master use permits "

  • happy August 16, 2013 (3:57 pm)

    Here comes more Ballard-izing.

  • MrElliott August 16, 2013 (4:28 pm)

    Earnest question: why can’t West Seattle have its own hospital instead of another development, grocery or drug store chain?

  • Realist August 16, 2013 (4:40 pm)

    You better get used to it. Increased density is part of growth.

  • Faith4 August 16, 2013 (4:47 pm)

    Yes, it seems we are losing the West Seattle I grew up in. Now more traffic & other things attached to all the building.

    Why is all of this happening so much now? Have zoning laws changed allowing all of this?

  • sophista-tiki August 16, 2013 (5:01 pm)

    Come on architects, can you design something else for a change? . These things are becoming a hideous infestation.

  • John August 16, 2013 (5:09 pm)

    Growth is inevitable and okay. It just doesn’t have to be butt ugly and cheap looking.

  • Ann August 16, 2013 (5:33 pm)

    On the 4745 40th Ave SW project, it says there will be a total of 151 units and only 116 parking spaces.
    How does that work? Do the others park on the street or do they expect roughly twenty five percent of the residents to be without cars?

  • CeeBee August 16, 2013 (5:54 pm)

    A year or so ago the question of locating a hospital in WS was actively discussed. The word we keep hearing is that the major hospital systems don’t think it would pay off. The most that was going to happen was the Urgent Care facility that was set up and then moved to larger quarters. But the investment of a full scale hospital doesn’t “pencil out”.

  • David August 16, 2013 (6:27 pm)

    OMG, Seattle is growing! It’s only done that for 120 years non-stop! Seriously. I’m sorry this changes the neighborhood, but it’s BEEN changing since the “white settlers” got here and cut down the forest. WHY anyone honestly in all seriousness is shocked it’s STILL changing blows my mind. Do you REALLY think West Seattle will stop growing? Seriously? Of course not, that won’t happen. So the ONLY question is WHERE do you want the growth? On California or Alaska (where all the buses are)? Of course…where ELSE should we grow, in the tiny side streets? How is this anything but obvious, normal, expected…it’s been the pattern for 120 years, why did you think it was going to stop in 2010?

    As for ugly? That’s ALWAYS a matter of opinion. I think this looks a LOT better than the ugly, un-designed buildings there NOW (which did NOT go through months of community “input” like they do now). What was the last building (in the last 10 years) you liked? How do you make a standard 5 story building “pretty”? What do you expect? Granite art deco? Too expensive (which we’re already complaining about how expensive new units are, so…)

  • West Seattle Since 1979 August 16, 2013 (6:33 pm)

    Maybe when we have more density, having a hospital here will pencil out for the major hospital systems.

  • Around the Sound August 16, 2013 (7:30 pm)

    Traffic nightmare!

  • Gene August 16, 2013 (7:32 pm)

    West Seattle used to have a hospital- in fact 2 of them. But that was quite a long time ago. Agree a hospital here now probably wouldn’t be profitable.

  • East Coast Cynic August 16, 2013 (9:13 pm)

    Look at the bright side of density—West Seattle becomes a stronger candidate for Light Rail, just as Ballard has become and is getting a study for light rail as a result.

  • Genesee Hill August 16, 2013 (9:22 pm)

    Looks like a couple of very nice developments. Welcome to West Seattle!

    • WSB August 16, 2013 (9:51 pm)

      One thing I meant to say regarding critiquing the appearance – Neither of these developments has released its actual design renderings yet; the renderings are from the “Early Design Guidance” phase in which size/shape (“massing”) is one of the main points reviewed. When the next-phase meetings are scheduled, we will be watching for the more-detailed renderings. – TR

  • MrElliott August 16, 2013 (10:34 pm)

    CeeBee and Gene: thank you for your responses.

  • monosyllabic girl August 16, 2013 (10:52 pm)

    The idea that to locate a hospital here has to mean “profitable” is sad.

  • Gene August 17, 2013 (7:10 am)

    David-I think most would agree with you about growth in WS- it’s the form that growth is taking & it’s impact on existing neighborhoods that upsets folks. Not having enough parking for each unit in a building – will inevitably mean cars will be parking in surrounding neighborhoods. These structures aren’t just being built on California Ave. A good sized one is nearing completion on 42nd & Oregon- with another scheduled to be built on 42nd right across from Hope Lutheran & West Seattle Christian Churches. I understand that the current thinking is to get people out of their cars & onto public transportation – & while that may work for some- I think the reality is that at some point most people will have a vehicle attached to them- their own- a partner’s- a child’s or even a visitors. Growth will & should come- it always does- but parking & traffic are legitimate issues as is the impact on existing neighborhoods.

  • ZED August 17, 2013 (9:04 am)

    What vision for West Seattle! What a design statement! Storage unit architecture at its best! Trendy hipsters will love this new iconoclastic sterility. I wondered where Soviet architects went after the fall of the Soviet Union, now I know – they moved to Seattle! Look Emma, ground floor retail that will cost a fortune per square foot and have rotating tenants for years! Not enough parking? Why is that a problem? No one one in Seattle owns cars!

  • Nancy August 17, 2013 (9:09 am)

    How do people moving into these developments plan to get in/out of W. Seattle? The majority of our arterials have been taken down to one lane. Buses are not always an option.

  • Brian August 17, 2013 (9:44 am)

    Both are welcome additions! It’s about time some of these old, abandoned, derelict buildings that litter West Seattle are replaced.

  • ws resident August 17, 2013 (3:19 pm)

    Hideous! WS is going in the wrong direction in my opinion. I moved to west Seattle to live in a neighborly part of Seattle with friendly neighbors and a sense of community…not to live in a neighborhood with a 5 story gigantic apartment building built in the back yards of single story homes…disgusting. Shame on you Seattle!

  • Last53BusRider August 17, 2013 (9:48 pm)

    Perhaps one solution is to allow us non-car-owning, willing-to-walk-when-the-bus-doesn’t-work types feel a little more like part of your community – instead of dismissing us as hypothetical anomalies that exist only in the minds of greedy developers who don’t want to build parking spaces. We DO exist – and we might actually be the kind of people you ought to be trying to attract to West Seattle. Almost every dollar I spend is spent here in West Seattle BECAUSE I don’t have a car and it is easier to stay close to home than attempt to go somewhere else. Non-car-owning residents are essentially a captive audience for local businesses – but we don’t seem to be acknowledged, let alone valued. If that changed, perhaps there would be a lot less to fear from growth and increased density.

  • sean August 18, 2013 (7:04 am)

    Be sure to ask the developer if resident parking is free. My neighborhood is full of cars because the apartments charge $100/mo to park. They have to provide parking it does not have to be free. Bait and switch

  • JEM August 18, 2013 (9:39 am)

    I hate to lose that small town feel and look. That’s what I love about West Seattle. It feels like a COMMUNITY, not just an assemblage of boxy sterile buildings. At the very least, these new structures should be designed to keep the scale and feel of the surrounding neighborhood. Oh, and have enough off-street parking (free for residents).

  • derrick August 18, 2013 (3:50 pm)

    build it!! too many small, old crappy buildings around west seattle. bring in the people and maybe more businesses will locate here. Its beyond me how california ave isn’t build up yet- that’s some prime real estate

  • Ginger August 18, 2013 (9:36 pm)

    Anyone else feel like they’re being priced right out of the neighborhood? I see all these brand new buildings going up, but the spaces are tiny and 200-400 over what I paid for a decent 2 bed when I moved here just 3 years ago. Growth is inevitable but the economy is still struggling. Most of these new buildings aren’t exactly price friendly….

  • 24601 August 18, 2013 (9:46 pm)

    West Seattle is going to grow — but have you looked at the 3210 California building and what the reality is? 5 stories is an abuse of every inch of the code, not to mention against the spirit of NC2-40 zoning. They are abusing the average height of the lot because this property is so huge, and IF YOU STAND ON THE SIDEWALK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIS BUILDING AS DESIGNED, YOU WILL BE LOOKING UP SIXTY FOUR FEET TO THE PARAPET!!! That is NOT what NC2-40 is intended to produce. This 450 foot long structure will block the sun from California Ave for more than a city block, and there is another 5 story proposed for the other side of the street — bring a coat to walk from Hanford to Hinds in July, cuz that is going to be one dark, chilly block. This is exactly what Ballard is legitimately complaining about — development without consideration for the effect on those who use and live in the neighborhood. Lop off the fifth floor and give it some more character by varying the facade — we deserve better.

  • 24601 August 18, 2013 (9:49 pm)

    If you stand on the sidewalk at the northwest corner of the 3210 building, you will be looking up SIXTY FOUR FEET at the parapet. That is not what NC2-40 zoning is intended to produce (and you’d better wear a coat in July walking from Hanford to Hinds in July, cuz that’s going to be one dark, cold double block). Lop off the fifth floor and vary the facade — we deserve better.

  • bbubby August 18, 2013 (11:52 pm)

    Development and growth is going to happen no matter what — however, West Seattle doesn’t seem to have a good plan in place as to how all the people are going to get out of West Seattle or how we are all going to park our cars. I know the idea has been “urban village” where we all can walk everywhere, including to a bus stop, where we can then catch a bus that will zoom us across the bridge to our work destination — or wherever we may want to go that requires a bridge crossing. But, that is a load of hockey. There has been NO planning as to how more people are going to be able to cross the bridge …. if I am mistaken, please illuminate me. What is the plan for how all these new people are going to get across the bridge when it is already operating over capacity? Especially considering Big Bertha coming on the scene to dig us a nice tunnel that will take even LESS of us from South to North. I do not know one person who is excited about all the ugly tall condo / mixed use buildings being built — especially the ones that seem to compete to see which one can tower over the other and block the views for the most people possible.

  • tommm August 20, 2013 (12:37 pm)

    Could these projects be any uglier and souless? If you’re going to cram thousands of people into mega tenements with no infrastructure couldn’t they at least look like quality buildings even though they aren’t? Why is this the new Seattle style? (we see this crap happening ALL over the city).

  • sagafoo August 21, 2013 (4:46 pm)

    I live right next door to the 3210 california project, and I will no longer get to see the sky when I enter or exit ….its too close to 3200 building.

  • GT August 31, 2013 (11:54 pm)

    How about the entrance for 180 cars being 10 inches from the pedestrian entrance to the Olympic apartment complex?

    How about this new building blocking sunlight for every person who lives in the Olympic apartments since there will now be a wall 10 inches from all the windows?

    What about 180 cars blindly crossing the sidewalks used by kids getting the public elementary, middle, and high schools that are all within two blocks of this development?

    How about trash removal for 180 units up a steep ramp onto California since there is no alley?

    What about the surrounding neighborhood parking that is already congested?

    What about the lights and noise from 180 units that will be only 15 feet from every single family home on 42nd Ave?

    What about this building being up to 75ft tall and 500 ft long in a NC2-40 zone? Can anyone else find a building this long and this tall in a NC2-40 zone anywhere else in the city?

Sorry, comment time is over.

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann