West Seattle Triangle rezoning: Possible vote tomorrow

| Development | Triangle | West Seattle news

Rezoning for the West Seattle Triangle and part of the adjacent area – including increasing some parcels to a maximum of 85-foot-high development – is back on the agenda tomorrow morning for the City Council’s Committee on the Built Environment (9 am, CIty Hall downtown). They are scheduled to discuss potential changes to the plan presented two weeks ago, and they may vote on whether to send the plan to the full council for final action. The information package, including proposed map and text amendments – with an area of Fauntleroy between Alaska and Edmunds proposed for 85-foot zoning on the east side as well as the west side – is linked from the meeting agenda, which begins with a public-comment period for anyone interested in speaking to the members about this.

dd November 29, 2011 (6:30 pm)

Hi WSB and readers,

Can someone lead me to or explain what the different classifications mean?
What is the difference between LR3 & NC3 -65?
C1- 65 & NC3P- 65?
I get that the last number is height but what are the leading descriptors?
Or do I have to read the entire document from the meeting to figure it out?
Thanks

Peter on Fauntleroy November 29, 2011 (6:45 pm)

Here are the City’s land use code definitions:
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CHAP&s1=23.30.h2.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/chap1.htm&r=1&f=G

JoAnne November 29, 2011 (7:06 pm)

I guess 65 ft is not enough for them. They won’t stop until Fauntleroy looks like the Grand Canyon.
.
The Committee for Supporting and Encouraging Unlimited Development is what it should be called.
Or the Committee for Wrecking Neighborhoods.

BAM November 29, 2011 (7:32 pm)

JoAnne,
–
Believe me, the City of Seattle is quite the opposite when it comes to unlimited development! In fact, Seattle is a very difficult city to get some projects designed, approved and eventually constructed.
–
Additionally, given the limits of Washington State’s growth management policies, building out is no longer a viable option. That only leaves building up, unless you want to live underground ala Lebbeus Woods “Underground City”
–
http://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/underground-berlin-the-film-treatment/
–
Low-rise buildings do not create a canyon like effect at all. Have you been to Portland? It’s a great city with many low-rise and mid-rise buildings and there absolutely ZERO “canyon effect” as you state.

denbol November 29, 2011 (7:57 pm)

The city or the builders will find a way to ruin westseattle. Have you been to the top of queen anne lately.?

Nancy38 November 29, 2011 (10:19 pm)

Unless people take the time to write the City Council and tell them you do not want upzoning, West Seattle will end up like Ballard. If you want West Seattle to keep it’s small town character, take the time to let them know. Otherwise we’ll end up looking like Bellevue or Downtown.

Some food for thought – if all the extra density that is being pushed occurs, where are all those people going to park their cars? The Link apt. building that opened last year in the Triangle area has underground parking but that doesn’t stop the the blocks around Link from being packed with cars 24/7 (in part because Link residents have to pay for parking). I live a block from the complex and it has created a real problem on our street. People are not going to give up their cars until the city can provide adequate and efficient public transit. Right now West Seattle only has Metro and Metro plans on cutting bus service to West Seattle next year (although they claim otherwise). Before the City decides to take measures to increase the housing density in W. Seattle, they need to adequately address the issues of parking and of efficiently moving people in and out of West Seattle.

JoAnne November 30, 2011 (9:27 am)

BAM the city makes it hard for developers as part of its extortion racket, NOT because they care about people, their neighborhoods, or the environment.
.
They are always greedy for a bigger tax base, more parking revenue, etc. and will eventually let developers do anything they want–for enough cash.
.
The only neighborhoods where this doesn’t happen are those rich enough to have full-time advocates and lawyers defending them against the city.
Since the Junction is still mainly a working-class neighborhood, we don’t have that here.

Erin November 30, 2011 (1:08 pm)

Nancy38, I agree. Sick of watching Seattle deteriorate. Grew up in Edmonds, worked in Ballard, lived on Capitol Hill, one by one they have been taken over by uninspired developers. It’s becoming the land of big box condos and apts that are usually temporary residences (not community builders). Do you have contact info for the council? I see this issue come up on the blog over and over and I think we better do something NOW.

WSratsinacage November 30, 2011 (4:10 pm)

I’ve seen these comments for years on WSB and I agree with you.. I guess I have just given up. Myself and many others have engaged the city council, gone to review board meetings, etc, etc.. We use to refer to California Ave as the DST (Death Star Trench) because of the “development” / “re-zoning” going on there.
.
Look at what happened this morning with all of the traffic trying to leave WS when there were 2 stalled vehicles (one was about 4 miles away and it still made a mess of the commute). People say, we need to move away from cars.. Well ok but you wont totally do away with them, they have been around and popular since 1909! Bikes and busses are not an option for everyone. Plus “they” want us to take the bus but they keep cutting or rerouting the routes.
.
Look at what density/development/rezoning has done to our schools if you need another example. Now we have a crisis with overcrowding and more kids in portables outside of the school than inside the actual school building!
.
Allowing all of this building to go on with out any thought about transportation is not too smart.
.
Hard not to say I told you so. Development is ok but not having things in place before is not ok and what we have now, is the result.

Sorry, comment time is over.