DEVELOPMENT: 3 project notes from Junction, Luna Park, Morgan

Three West Seattle development notes today:

4826 40TH SW: The Fauntleroy/Edmunds development hub continues to densify. Headed for administrative design review (watch for the notice) is a 3-story, 27-apartment, no-offstreet-parking “small efficiency dwelling unit” (SEDU) building. It would replace the duplex shown in the Assessor’s Office photo above.

2821 SW YANCY: A few more details on this early-stage proposal from Transitional Resources, first reported here back in February. This too would go through administrative design review, according to notes posted online from a pre-submittal meeting with the city. It’s described as 100 percent affordable housing with 44 SEDUs, potentially in two buildings, with up to three parking spaces on site.

7001 CALIFORNIA SW: We’ve been watching this block for a while as a lot-boundary adjustment proceeds. Now there’s an early-stage redevelopment proposal for the north end, four rowhouses with no off-street parking at 7001 California SW, where there’s currently a pet-care business.

44 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: 3 project notes from Junction, Luna Park, Morgan"

  • Amy May 21, 2018 (3:50 pm)

    Again with the no-offstreet parking!  I realize that we’re trying to drive people out of their cars, but really?  They’re just going to cram them in on the street, making everybody crazy!

    • Ice May 21, 2018 (4:41 pm)

      Who is tryitng to drive people out of their cars? Who is we? The market?

      • Mark Schletty May 21, 2018 (5:21 pm)

        Ice— quite obviously, the City government. It’s their crazed urbanist utopian, unrealistic mindset. Not the market. Developers love the higher profit with no parking, but the “market” still wants parking.

        • fundamental May 21, 2018 (5:49 pm)

          Yeah, so I’ve only taken a smattering of econ courses in my years, but if the “market” still wants parking then, well, everything will sort itself out perfectly.

          If the “market” still wants parking these units will clearly never be occupied–or, if they are, they will be ridiculously below average prices.  

          Now…  Do you really think either of those scenarios are likely?  Why or why not, please explain in 500 words or fewer.

        • Jethro Marx May 21, 2018 (5:57 pm)

          If this market wanted parking so bad, wouldn’t these places for sale with no parking just sit on said market and never sell/rent?

           I’m a little confused because so many people seem to engage in this discussion with the assumption that if someone is developing their property they should be required to include parking, but I don’t see any particular reason this would be true. It wasn’t required of someone building in the good old days we always hear about. And aren’t some of you the same ones who get all crazy when the city or the community wants to limit your tree-cutting rights on private property?

           I think the tiny tenements (27 where there used to be two?) is going a bit far with this density push, but hey, it’s a city.

        • AMD May 21, 2018 (6:04 pm)

          What’s unrealistic about not adding more cars to roads that can’t hold more cars?

          Unrelated: there’s a lot of development happening (finally) in Highland Park.  Any word on when they plan to get started at 9050 15th SW?

        • Ice May 21, 2018 (6:13 pm)

          Do you honestly believe the city is forcing developers to build apartments without parking? This is some conspiratorial thinking on a comically grand scale. All of city has done is roll back some of the extremely onerous parking requirements in a percentage-wise  small part of the city. Obviously developers are out to make a profit , but telling someone that they can’t build (much needed) homes because it might be a bit harder for you to park your car on public property is pretty much the epitemy of entitlement. This is not profit over people. This is free parking over people.

          • NH May 22, 2018 (9:46 am)

            The developers are allowed to build an entire multi family building without parking. Yet I cannot turn my detached garage into a cottage for my mom to live in without adding another parking space. My family of 4 (1 of whom is 81 and won’t be driving) would be required to have 2 off street spaces, but developers don’t need any? Ridiculous.

          • Serious? May 22, 2018 (10:43 am)

            NH,

            It is your neighbors who made the demands about parking for ADUs.  They also made demands about lot sizes heretofor not required.  

            The zero parking requirement is only in zones approved for multi-family close to transit.  Developers are no more allowed to build zero parking projects than you.

            And remember when you add an ADU, you are becoming a developer.

      • DB Coup May 22, 2018 (12:17 pm)

        The market will do anything to push curgent regulations. Our elected officials are the ones allowing them to do it. Nobody I know of in this neighborhood wants more development without parking. 

        • Mars May 22, 2018 (2:11 pm)

          I’m cool with it.

  • BAS May 21, 2018 (5:12 pm)

    And, 4800 40th is going up for DRB in a couple of weeks. Right? Have they released the design packet yet? I’m having difficulty navigating DCI’s new system. 

  • Rick May 21, 2018 (6:00 pm)

    And the cancer continues to spread.

  • Gene May 21, 2018 (6:51 pm)

    What’s ridiculous is thinking that  many of the folks who move into these units will not  have a car- or a partner or teen that won’t have one. Oh no doubt they’ll be occupied quickly- but  with no off street parking- the existing neighborhoods will be their parking lots- like so many are now. That’s just the way it’s going to be- but it’s delusional to think that because a new build doesn’t have parking- those living there won’t have cars.

    • why not? May 21, 2018 (7:50 pm)

      Gene you are so right!

      Remember home owners nearby –

      paint each side of your driveway curb with 5 feet of yellow paint then call parking enforcement if anyone is parked in the yellow zone!

      • fundamental May 21, 2018 (8:52 pm)

        Or you could learn how to drive. 

        The 5 foot rule is utterly absurd and gobbles up a ton of parking.  It should have been done away with yesterday.

        But for some reason those who most like to complain about the lack of parking somehow most stridently support that inane 5 foot rule.

        • WestSeattle92 May 21, 2018 (10:04 pm)

          Fundamental – I have a single car garage and similar sized driveway, and if anyone parks less than five feet from my driveway, I can’t get out.   So from my standpoint the five foot rule is essential.   Maybe if I had a two car garage and driveway the five foot clearance wouldn’t be necessary but like many living in West Seattle I only have a single car garage and driveway and the five foot clearance is absolutely necessary to get in and out of a driveway sized for one car.  

        • Rick May 22, 2018 (9:52 am)

          Picking and choosing laws you obey or just plain won’t almost seems to be a mantra in this city. They’re usually there for a reason, unless they were generated by the current council.

          • fundamental May 22, 2018 (10:32 am)

            Rick, no where did I advocate not following the law.  I suggested the law be changed–that’s a big difference.  As for why the law exists–you seem to know things, so why is the law 5 feet in Seattle, 2 feet in San Francisco and nonexistent in Chicago and New York?

            You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith that 5 feet on either side of a driveway is the right distance–I don’t have that faith, it seems excessive to me and it seems like it takes away a lot of street parking.  

            Please try to convince me otherwise, but don’t just wave your hands and say oh, the law is there for a reason!

          • CAM May 22, 2018 (12:49 pm)

            Speaking from experience (and as somebody who has the same feelings about requiring parking in developments as you) the 5 foot rule is reasonable and necessary. Unless you are driving a vehicle that is extremely high up you cannot see around or over those cars parked next to a driveway to look for oncoming traffic before pulling out of any kind of driveway (1 car, 2 car, or even larger). It isn’t about anybody’s driving abilities, it’s merely a question of whether that person has experienced an accident blindly pulling into traffic yet. 

        • Chemist May 22, 2018 (12:02 pm)

          Sorry, the city allows people to register extended F-350 trucks and tow registered 14 ft trailers around behind it.  Try hauling either or both of those down a single-driveway on a typically narrow street if someone parks opposite the driveway and it’ll be difficult even with the 5 ft no-parking zone (that has been in the RCW for decades).  https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570

        • Also John May 22, 2018 (2:38 pm)

          Fundamental….  No!  Picture two vehicles parked on each side of your driveway entrance with their bumpers lined up perfectly with the end of the driveway width.  Good luck getting out….especially if a car is parked directly across from your driveway.  You can’t make the turn.  I’ve been unable to get into my driveway, because of these illegal parkers.  

          • fundamental May 22, 2018 (4:49 pm)

            Cam, Chemist, Also John:

            First, thanks for the kind and reasoned responses, much appreciated.

            Second, you all make fair points.  I think I vastly underestimated the number of BIG trucks here–if people are saying they need that much space to get in and out of their driveways, well, I suppose they are right.

            I imagine Chicago and San Francisco and New York have smaller cars on average and that’s how they manage without the 5 foot rule. 

            (But I still think that the driveway plus an extra 10 feet  is a lot of lost parking to trade for a single car garage. — Could we maybe make it a 3 feet rule?  Pretty please?  I’ll buy you all beers?)

          • AMD May 22, 2018 (7:44 pm)

            It’s not just big vehicles.  Mine has a huge turning radius–much greater than many vehicles much larger than it.

            I would also assume the 2 ft. and smaller regulations in other cities have more to do with their STREET sizes, not the size of cars on the streets, just because that makes a heck of a lot more sense.

            Regardless, the bottom line is that street parking is public space.  No one should be required to accommodate your personal need to park in public space.  If you want guaranteed parking because you need to drive, buy a home with off street parking (yes, I did, and it meant buying a smaller home in a less desirable neighborhood.  That’s life). 

            When there is no street parking left for visitors, that is the fault of the people with four cars who buy houses with no off street parking.  It is not the city’s fault for not building enough streets for you to park your car for free.

            Meanwhile, PLEASE keep building housing with no parking for those who don’t want to drive.

        • WestSeattle92 May 22, 2018 (8:49 pm)

          Fundamental – on my street, three-foot clearance on either
          side of my driveway doesn’t work.  I
          simply can’t get in or out of my driveway.  
          I’ve tried.   And I don’t drive a
          large car or SUV.   Love the idea of
          extra street parking but if the rules change regarding driveway clearance, I
          will simply have to park my two cars on the street rather than using my garage
          and driveway like I do now.  

  • M May 21, 2018 (7:51 pm)

    Is that just the dog grooming building of Stella Ruffingtons being redeveloped. Or is the boarding part of the business going as well? 

    • WSB May 21, 2018 (8:17 pm)

      Don’t know.

    • Rwd May 21, 2018 (10:54 pm)

      Sure hope so that place is a nightmare.

      • Lisa May 29, 2018 (4:31 pm)

        How are we a nightmare? This business has been operating for 12 years. The people in the daycare/boarding facility do their best to keep the dog’s quiet. I’m the groomer in the building being redeveloped. I will miss serving this community. I think the plan is for this entire block to be redeveloped. Looks like I’m just the first to go. No idea what I’ll do since I’ve been bringing my child to work for the past year and a half and can’t afford daycare If I decide to have another.It’s really been a pleasure working in and serving this community. I’ve made lots of great friends, not just clients and dogs. I travel from Ballard to work here but I guess I’ll have to relocate closer to home. Maybe I’ll do House call grooming so any clients that like me can keep me. Ah, well. 

  • TiredofGovernmentGreed May 21, 2018 (8:10 pm)

    I agree with the comments about ignoring the reality of cars and how these will end up crammed onto neighborhood streets as developers profit.  I will add another thought:  as the city government pushes their high density, “affordable” housing, how are they insuring that our antiquated water, sewer, and electrical infrastructure is being modernized and upgraded to handle more population in the same city area?  Once again an example of shockingly poor urban planning.

    • fundamental May 21, 2018 (8:45 pm)

      I agree, I am hoping that they put forth new taxes to fund the improvements you suggested.  Having antiquated services is NOT a good idea.  Hopefully they’ll have a homeowner or sales or maybe even push through (finally!) an income tax to fund these measures.

      Fully agree that it’s poor urban planning and it should all be fixed–thanks for calling it out!

      • Jethro Marx May 21, 2018 (9:27 pm)

        It’s fundamental that saying $#*! don’t make it so; you have taken tiredofgovernmentgreed’s bizarre rhetorical twist and run with it, but the infrastructure you speak of is not antiquated, by and large. Parts of it, yes, but it is upgraded and maintained in the same fashion as any large system must be, and sometimes the city gets developers to foot the bill.

         I’m tired of greed too, but I have learned to live with it in a way that I will never apply to nonsensical public discourse. Make better arguments- they’re not hard to find.

      • M May 22, 2018 (5:33 am)

        Each of these units will have to pay a water capacity tax to the county. 

        • carole May 22, 2018 (9:35 am)

          And if you are buying a condo or townhouse the developer can pass the sewer capacity charge on to the buyers, payable over 15+ years.  It won’t show up as a lien on property in a title  report because city laws don’t require the developer to record the debt. Apparently that $10-15 recording cost would impinge on profit.  And cost the buyer upwards of $1000.  Keep that in mind when making a purchase offer.

          • Serious? May 22, 2018 (10:11 am)

            Carole,

            The capacity charge does show up on closing papers.  Your realtor also has responsibility to make the buyer aware of this.

            And as a developer, I have paid this off which amounts to nearly $10,000 on a single family house. 

            The capacity charge is another example of charges faced by developers to upgrade infrastructure that few people are aware of.

          • carole May 22, 2018 (11:10 am)

            It did not show up on mine (I just looked again at my documents) and our seller was the developer who did not disclose it.  Ditto other first time buyers in our bldg.  We of course disclosed on resale documents. We only learned of the debt a few years into ownership when the developer relinquished control to an elected owners’ board. No original buyers knew we had assumed such an obligation.

          • Serious? May 22, 2018 (12:09 pm)

            CAROLE,

            I am sorry to hear your tale.

            But, some of your claims makes no sense. 

            “We only learned of the debt a few years into ownership when the developer relinquished control to an elected owners’ board. ”  This means that the developer was paying the fees for all of the owners for several years you mention.  

            And the developer paying off the $1,000 per unit for years would be far more expensive than the $10 – 15  recording fee… does not make sense.

            It indicates that the developer retained an interest in the building after selling which also does not make sense.  

            It also indicates that you did not have representation when you purchased.  

            And there is  space in the real estate contract that specifically  mentions this fee.  It is a required for the financing because it is additional debt.

             

          • carole May 22, 2018 (7:07 pm)

            The developer relinquished control of the books and funds when all units were sold, about 18 months from first sale.  And the developer was collecting dues from owners during that time, so our money also contributed.  He had it on a 15 year payment plan, paid 2x/year.  So he made 3 payments and we inherited about 13.5 years of payments.

    • Serious? May 21, 2018 (9:06 pm)

      Ignoring the reality of cars?  

      Wrong.  This is acknowledging the reality of cars.  Knowing there are already too many cars for our streets and it is impossible to add more streets without condemning then demolishing large swaths of homes and businesses.

      Ignoring the vast majority of cars parked on the street are from houses with on site parking that is not being used for vehicles?

      Ignoring the reality of costly required parking on site that is underutilized?

      AND

      The city does require developers to update and improve the water, sewer and electrical infrastructure.  Read the code and development requirements before making such false claims.

      For example, I own lots that do not have water service.  To develop them, I would have to extend the 8″ water main and install new fire hydrants at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars for just one SFR.  The city has made the lot un-developable through this new rule. 

  • Steve May 21, 2018 (10:12 pm)

    There’s already enough free street parking. The city should start charging for street parking and convert 30% of on-street parking to bike lanes and bus lanes. Why is so much space devoted to non-moving vehicles? The public right of way is for moving people, not for use as your personal garage.

  • Pamela Tihista May 22, 2018 (10:21 am)

    This is why I am moving out of state.  The West Seattle I knew & loved is gone & is only getting worse.  Especially with all of the entitled people who are moving in.  Stop with all of the rationalizations – this place is turning into a toilet – parking or no parking – wake up & smell the homelessness, garbage everywhere, crime, over priced housing, lousy over crowded schools.  What I love is the “have a nice day” crowd as they walk all over you.  If one more fake person tells me to have a nice day I am going to vomit.  They don’t care if you have a nice day – they just want to look like they are nice people which they aren’t.

    • Jethro Marx May 22, 2018 (11:17 am)

      Your account is concise on two counts: life in the city is gross, yet oddly compelling. It sounds like Seattle expanded its gross elements into what was once the idyllic and sleepy burg of West Seattle. (that must have been before my span) If you’ve found a way to remove to the sunnier parts of the Cascades I salute you, as it looks perennially good to one whose context is the greyscale picture of city life you paint.

       On your second count, yeah, people can be a bit weird; I’ve noticed that.

    • Mina May 22, 2018 (4:20 pm)

      Pamela … If any doubt, know that the sooner you leave the sooner you will start living a true and productive life again. I left last November. You’ll be nickeled and dimed all along the way, so be sure you budget for that (cost me $44K to get out–I had no idea).  Housing 4 homeless for 9 months each over the last 4 years while my “caring liberal enlightened” neighbors called the police several times because they, frankly, are terrified of Black and Native American citizens walking down the stairs to the bus stop. A raving mommy type at Safeway who was “sick of people like [me]” because I dared to tell the Safeway manager that the free Monopoly bagel at that point had taken 15 minutes to process at the cashier and still counting.  “Excuse me” replaced by “Behind you!” at Bartell’s. Being reported to DCLU for 2 years because I dared to build a fence a distant neighbor insisted was too tall (I won–once I got three levels of supervisors to finally come look and measure). Motorists and cyclists playing Axis and Allies every single day. Info I gathered that HUD housing (specifically at the Pike Place Market) is a sham and dictated by Investors. My acquaintance David, now DEAD, being vilified in so many good riddances because–he didn’t keep his weeds down? … Offering this encouragement because it was scary to leave after 35 years, it was hard to accept that the once-brilliant and -vibrant Seattle as a whole, and WS specifically, are dead, at least in the non-Matrix sense. As to economic concerns, the remote contract jobs with Amazon are already making their way to the job sites, so there’s some options for ya there. … I was told that I’d find the same in-a-bubble citizenry anywhere I went–not true.  … All the best on your journey to the wild unknown! Trot, don’t walk. :-> … To those who stay, try to be kinder to one another.

       To Tracy and crew, y’all are amazing. But please … take a dang vacation, will ya? You deserve it. :-> 

       

       

       

       

  • Yes May 23, 2018 (1:44 am)

    Same developer on this project at 7001 California as 6917 California- 30 units with no parking and corner of Willow and California- 7 townhomes with one parking spot. What a great guy! So when you see Dan Dufus having a coffee at Cafe Ladro make sure you tell him how he is making the neighborhood so much better to live in, then give him the finger. Blueprint you suck!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, comment time is over.

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann