West Seattle development: Preview Thursday Design Review projects – Junction microhousing, CVS – & other updates

We start this roundup with a preview of tomorrow (Thursday) night’s Southwest Design Review Board doubleheader at the Senior Center of West Seattle:

WEST SEATTLE CVS, 6:30 PM AT DESIGN REVIEW: First up will be the Design Review debut of 4722 Fauntleroy Way SW, the proposed CVS drugstore that turned up in city files in summer 2013. It’s a one-story, 12,200-square-foot building proposed with a drive-through and 49 parking spaces; the “packet” prepared for the meeting notes that the land is being leased with a stipulation that it not be developed to the full zoned height (8 stories). Above, the “preferred” massing (size and shape) – looking southeastward over the site – shown by the architect, Schemata Workshop. See the full packet here.

44TH SW STUDIOS, 8 PM AT DESIGN REVIEW: This project – first noted here in November – is also debuting at Design Review, and the “packet” prepared for the meeting shows it’s being designed as microhousing: 6 stories, 58 units, described with the city’s new term, “small efficiency dwelling units,” replacing a two-story eight-Since it’s the Early Design Guidance stage of the process, the board will be focused on its massing (size and shape); below is the “preferred option” as listed by the architect, Alloy Design Group.

See the full packet here.

Now, from reader tips and permit files, among other sources:

3829 CALIFORNIA SW: Thanks to Ted for the tip – a fence (the type that usually precedes demolition) is now up around these brick multiplexes. This site hadn’t been on our radar for a while because the apartment building proposed here seemed to have stalled; the site had gone up for sale shortly after passing Design Review in summer 2013. The planned 29-apartment, 29-parking-space project still has open demolition/building permits, through next year.

6315 42ND SW: This single-family house in Morgan Junction has been proposed for demolition for a while, but its replacement plan has changed a bit. Now six townhouses are proposed. It’s expected to go through the “streamlined Design Review” process – no public meetings, but there will be a chance for public comment.

3310 HARBOR AVENUE SW: An old industrial building at 3310 Harbor SW just north of the West Seattle Bridge has an early-stage land-use proposal described as demolition and replacement with a new three-story self-storage building.

14 Replies to "West Seattle development: Preview Thursday Design Review projects - Junction microhousing, CVS - & other updates"

  • Azimuth March 18, 2015 (10:30 pm)

    49? I guess the nearby apodment renters will have a place to park now.

  • ktrapp March 18, 2015 (11:06 pm)

    Speaking of demolitions, has there been any further word on when the former Life Care Center on Admiral is to be demolished? Looking back, the last report was in May. I can imagine that it might not happen until the traffic light at that corner is completed.

    • WSB March 18, 2015 (11:13 pm)

      The Admiral Neighborhood Association had an update at its meeting a couple months ago but we unfortunately weren’t able to cover it, so I don’t know, will put it on the check list…

  • Peter March 19, 2015 (9:20 am)

    The CVS looks absolutely horrible! :-(

  • too many hours spent for this? March 19, 2015 (10:40 am)

    CVS should not be approved, it goes against the triangle plan that many community members spent many nights and hours working on. They don’t have to go the full height of 8, but at least 4-5, maybe not housing, maybe even office, (which we have a shortage of), but not 1 story! The developer was required to do so in Queen Anne and tried to get away with a one story there, but the DRB there did not allow it and forced them to add a couple levels of residential. Density needs to be appropriate, and while I understand it does not belong in some areas, it does belong here.

  • sophista-tiki March 19, 2015 (11:04 am)

    It occurs to me that this “Urban Village” nightmare being forced on us so that developers can shove more people into every centimeter of open space and stack them on top of each other like rats in a cage, essentially makes said neighborhoods no longer destinations.

  • Jason March 19, 2015 (11:21 am)

    Agreed that the CVS design is really disappointing. The single story wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t proposing to add such an enormous amount of parking. I’ve never seen a pharmacy with dozens of cars parked in its lot, even in the suburbs. It’s a waste of space, and I honestly can’t understand why this makes economic sense for the property owners or CVS.

    The EDG packet also makes repeated references to how this development is pedestrian friendly and so forth, but more than 3/5s of the total project area is for cars, and I can’t imagine why anyone would want to walk around in the parking lot or alley, dodging cars.

  • Costanza March 19, 2015 (12:18 pm)

    Welcome to every other neighborhood in Seattle, where we all have the same exact stores and no identity!

  • G March 19, 2015 (2:52 pm)

    Don’t know about the use of space, but it will be convenient for a lot of people, particularly commuters who use Fauntleroy and 35th Ave.

  • heather March 19, 2015 (2:53 pm)

    Agree w/ @toomanyhours and @jason
    Taking a look at the schematic packet.

  • b March 19, 2015 (4:16 pm)

    Descriptions of the CVS design elements are pretty cringe-inducing. I imagine the architect swallowing her pride as she wrote “The drive-thru window is located along the alley, adding scale and activity to the facade.”

    I’d be happy to see a drugstore go in here, even a national chain, but I definitely agree with Jason that a 1-story building with 60% of land used for occasional car storage is not what we need.

  • ChefJoe March 19, 2015 (8:38 pm)

    Interesting how the lease specifies the height of the building. I wonder if that’s a function of how much they wanted to pay or if the Campagnaro family has a strong reason to prefer lower building height (like they own condos/homes that would have obstructed views).

  • WS since '66 March 20, 2015 (5:53 am)

    sophista-tiki and others regarding Urban Villages.

    Some fought the Urban Villages when first unveiled. Now people want to live where they can walk a few blocks for a cup of coffee, shopping, etc. It is a fact that homes near Urban Villages have seen their values raise more than areas farther away from a UV. Once again the naysayers need a new crystal ball because the old one isn’t working.

    Many people are conflicted and don’t even know it. “Affordable housing” (which means more supply than demand) vs low density (which means more demand than supply) greatly affects the values in any given area. Remember in our capitalist system you can’t have both.

    That said which would you rather have affordable housing or lower density

  • bolo March 20, 2015 (8:56 am)

    How about a third choice: affordable housing with the infrastructure to support it?

Sorry, comment time is over.