West Seattle Triangle rezoning: Final council vote Monday

If you have anything to say to the City Council before their final vote on West Seattle Triangle (and vicinity) rezoning, Monday afternoon is your last chance – in the public-comment period at the start of their 2 pm meeting (here’s the agenda). If you’ve missed the previous coverage, the rezoning is detailed in the ordinance the council will consider. You can read it here (that’s where we got the map you see above). Two of the main points: Most of The Triangle itself is rezoned from “commercial” to “neighborhood commercial,” which means different standards for future development, particularly stipulations about street-level features; several chunks of land, including some that are west/southwest of The Triangle itself, get 20 more feet of height, to an 85-foot maximum. That includes, for example, what are currently the sites of Les Schwab Tires, Cycle U (future Highline Medical), West Seattle Produce, WSP’s former site across Fauntleroy, the two gas-station sites across from each other at Alaska/Fauntleroy, Howden-Kennedy, and more – see the map (sorry we don’t have a larger version, but many browsers can zoom). The council also will vote on a resolution asking SDOT to do a parking study for The Triangle, since the topic came up so often in the process that preceded this. Side note: Right after taking up The Triangle, the council moves to a final vote on the plastic-bag ban.

11 Replies to "West Seattle Triangle rezoning: Final council vote Monday"

  • ericak December 16, 2011 (2:15 pm)

    I could not be more disappointed in the city council and DPD concerning this proposal. Residents in this community have advocated strongly to limit the height increases where it borders a lower/residential zone – specifically L-2, L-3 and SF5000 zones (all 35ft zoned). A possible 50 foot difference in height for two structures that sit next to each other is horrendous. Shame on council and DPD!

  • Peter on Fauntleroy December 16, 2011 (3:24 pm)

    This is a fantastic proposal. We need the rezone to encourage redevelopment in the Triangle to stop the decay that characterizes the area now, particularly the former Huling properties. Kudos to the DPD and Committee on the Built Environment for all the hard work they’ve done to get this rezone before the full council this year.

  • brizone December 16, 2011 (3:50 pm)

    Uhm, poor resolution on that image, can hardly tell the difference between 65 & 85. Can you replace it with something that hasn’t been so highly compressed, and isn’t so pixilated?


    • WSB December 16, 2011 (4:57 pm)

      Sorry, Bri, it’s not even compressed – it’s straight across from the city website (I didn’t even run it through our system as I do with most images), which is why I wrote, that’s all we have.

  • JoAnne December 17, 2011 (7:48 am)

    Sally Clark and her “committee for the built environment” are pushing these increased height limits in all the neighborhoods, despite universal opposition by residents.
    They repeatedly hold meetings where input from greedy developers holds equal weight with that of life-long residents.
    Their “citizen” advisory committee is comprised completely of architects who have an obvious vested interested in development and are biased against neighborhood preservation.
    Less than 1 parking place per unit is required for these buildings. They crowd neighborhoods and bring in overwhelming numbers of transient residents who have no permanent ties to our community.
    Skyscrapers destroy neighborhoods, and many cities have learned that there are ways to increase density without tall buildings. Too bad our so-called leaders can’t be bothered to do their homework.

    • WSB December 17, 2011 (8:16 am)

      Just one correction. The citizen advisory committee for The Triangle was not comprised of architects. It did not propose the increased heights, either. The advisory committee included neighborhood group leaders who have spoken openly against that part of the proposal. – TR

  • Rick December 17, 2011 (8:19 am)

    Gotta keep up with step sister Bellevue, darnit!

  • metrognome December 17, 2011 (8:33 am)

    JoAnne — wow. With all the errors in your comments, I’m curious what agenda is behind your negative comments in thread after thread. First, there is not ‘universal opposition’ to these changes. Second, an 85′ tall building would be about 8 stories, which is not a ‘skyscraper’. Please provide an example of how you increase density without taller buildings? Third, is there some rule that if you live in WS, you have to buy a home so you won’t be a ‘transient resident? I know people who have rented in the same neighborhood for 20+ years who are very dedicated to their community; I know people who own homes who could care less about their neighbors.
    So much hyperbole doesn’t really sell your comments very effectively.

  • Delridge Res December 17, 2011 (3:34 pm)

    “They repeatedly hold meetings where input from greedy developers holds equal weight with that of life-long residents.”

    JoAnne, since when did holding the opinion of everyone on the same level become a bad thing? Please consider yourself lucky “they” do hold input from everyone equally because if not, your opinion would likely be worth quite a bit less given the fact developers are typically required to pay thousands in development and permit fees as well as providing give backs to the city and community in terms of required improvements and the like. Based on those terms alone, the “greedy developers” would likely hold much more sway than you ever could if such input was not heard on the same plane.

    Additionally, given the fact you state numerous errors in your post you have an obvious lack of knowledge in the fields of architecture, real estate development, and urban planning and as such you should again consider yourself lucky your opinion is held on the same level as professionals at such meetings.

  • JoAnne December 17, 2011 (4:30 pm)

    WSB–I was talking about the advisory committee for built environment, not for the triangle.
    Our neighborhood group leaders have been wonderful advocates for us and have done an outstanding job. Of course they did not propose the height increase.
    DelRes The whole point of citizen advisories is so that residents have a voice and the neighborhood doesn’t completely lose its character as a result of “professionals” whose main goal is to profit by ruining people’s neighborhoods.
    But you did remind me that the city is just as greedy for a bigger tax base as the developers are for cash. I should have pointed that out.

  • higgins December 19, 2011 (2:31 pm)

    JoAnne, we’ve butted heads over this before. I just don’t understand where you expect people to go. Seattle is growing. People need a place to live. Aside from burrowing underground, how do we increase density? Please enlighten us.

Sorry, comment time is over.