West Seattle development: Key approvals for 18-house subdivision proposed at 2646 SW Holden

(WSB photo from January 2014)
From today’s city Land Use Information Bulletin: Key approvals are in for the 18-house subdivision proposed for that 73,000-square-foot site at 2646 SW Holden (map), which stretches to a smaller amount of frontage on SW Webster, all just west of the Navos mental-health facility.

We reported on the proposal at the end of last year, when it was reactivated in the city site after being dormant for some time, following “streamlined design review” approval. Today, the land-use-permit decision has been published (read it here). The decision details why the city believes the development would not substantially disturb the “steep slope” area on the site, though it acknowledges the development will result in “increased surface water runoff due to greater site coverage by impervious surfaces” and “loss of plant and animal habitat.” . Each three-story house would have a two-car garage; part of the site is zoned single-family, part is zoned low rise. While the site was up for sale when we last reported on this proposal, county property records show it hasn’t changed hands since becoming the property of Madrona Glen LLC two years ago. More than 30 of the trees on the site would be removed under the 18-house plan, 10 of them classified by the city as “exceptional.” Today’s publication of the approval opens a two-week period for potential appeals (that process is explained here).

15 Replies to "West Seattle development: Key approvals for 18-house subdivision proposed at 2646 SW Holden"

  • Brian September 18, 2014 (9:55 am)

    I’m sure the property owners adjacent to this property are thrilled!

  • Rick September 18, 2014 (10:32 am)

    I’d say just give the developers the keys to city but it’s become apparent that has already occurred.

  • AG September 18, 2014 (10:51 am)

    So, a bunch of us are dealing with the CSO bioswales projects on our property because there’s too much runoff in WS in general, and we have to get permitting to remove trees that impact the canopy, but the developers are allowed to remove “exceptional” trees and increase runoff by paving over a large tract of land? Yeah, THAT’s fair. And they get tax breaks on top of it. Gotta love capitalism.

  • Rob September 18, 2014 (11:20 am)

    Well everyone complains about all the building going on. During the recession construction workers were at almost 40 percent unemployed. Now they getting back to work they can now catch up there bills. I would love anyone of you winners to tell the carpenter or plumber or electrician to stop working and forget about feeding your families . God forbid even try to get a head. I for one support my family by swing a hammer. And the money we get from these evil developers we spend in our local community . Capitalism is the only Ism that works

  • JO September 18, 2014 (11:21 am)

    What can we do? That’s not a rhetorical question. Yes, there’s an appeals process but why do we have to “appeal” something that should have been addressed earlier? I get that WS is a great area and development is going to happen. But reading the Seattle Tree Protection Code it says: “You cannot remove any exceptional trees. Exceptional trees are trees that are of significant size or have historical, ecological or aesthetic value and You cannot cut down more than 3 non-exceptional trees 6 inches or greater in diameter each year.” So this development, went through a “streamlined” review, will remove at least 2 “exceptional” trees and up to 28 others creating runoff. Why can’t the developers be required to be more creative and work to address these codes and issues. I’m so frustrated with no balanced approach to development up front. I’m not anti-growth, I’m anti-lazy, anti-thinking, anti-balance.

  • JanS September 18, 2014 (11:32 am)

    @Brian…did you see the picture? Do you think they’re thrilled with that mess? Yes, the construction will not be fun, but, c’mon…the end product will be much more appealing

  • trickycoolj September 18, 2014 (11:46 am)

    I hope they consider the use of porous concrete and bioswales to take care of that extra runoff. I really enjoy the porous concrete sidewalks in my neighborhood, I can go out and jog in the rain and my shoes don’t get sopping wet!

  • New Englander September 18, 2014 (7:24 pm)

    Nothing will ever be sacred except profits in this city.

  • AJP September 18, 2014 (9:26 pm)

    I’m sure something lovely and truly “green” could be accomplished, as trickycoolj says. Let’s not build above a super slope without having a really solid plan. Regulation IS important. Oso was preventable.

  • CeCeM September 18, 2014 (10:03 pm)

    Can we hope for a big downturn in the economy? Is that what it will take to stop all this?

  • Kosmicman September 18, 2014 (11:27 pm)

    How can this building continue…where there are trees…and weeds…

    My house in West Seattle is a naturally occurring geologic feature that required no trees to be cut down, no earth to be turned over, and no construction, so therefore I’m not a hypocrite…yea, right…

  • Brian September 19, 2014 (7:20 am)

    @JanS: You own property, yes? You live near the adjacent mental health facility as well?
    I hope you can appreciate that homeowners would rather have the natural green space as a buffer property between their homes and the facility. Even if the facility wasn’t there, the green space buffer is a major plus for home owners.
    I realize that this parcel is private property and it can be bought and sold and developed however the new owner sees fit, but as other commenters have pointed out, it seems that the developers get to play by their own set of rules when it comes to things like slope erosion, tree canopy removal, and massive runoff effects that their creations cause. A normal homeowner has to move mountains just to remove a tree on his own property, though.

  • West Seattle since 1979 September 19, 2014 (8:29 am)

    I’ve heard that even with the buildings going up, West Seattle is one of the least dense areas of the city. We still have huge swathes of wooded areas.

    I understand the problems with this particular property and the runoff and buffer concerns (though won’t a new building provide a buffer?) They really need to do something to mitigate that.

    But hoping for an economic downturn to stop the development? CeCeM, please tell me you’re joking.

  • John September 19, 2014 (3:32 pm)

    Developers do indeed get to play with another set of rules.
    They are required to follow the ECA Code in this project. It requires them to define, address and mitigate the issues described above plus many more.
    It is an incredibly expensive and comprehensive set of rules involving outside experts
    and being openly reviewed and corrected by DPD experts.
    Beyond the requirements, they must formally assume legal responsibility for the projects slope erosion/run-off.
    These rules do not apply to existing homes.

  • kc September 20, 2014 (7:20 pm)

    I’ve seen some idiotic comments on the WSB, but that one from CeCeM might be the most ever!

Sorry, comment time is over.