West Seattle development: Revised CVS design; Whittaker’s 2nd crane; another South Delridge plan

Three West Seattle development notes this afternoon:

REVISED CVS STORE DESIGN: One week from tomorrow – at 6:30 pm Thursday, June 25th – the Southwest Design Review Board will again take an “early design guidance” look at the planned CVS drugstore at 4722 Fauntleroy Way SW, and the “design packet” with the revised proposal is now available online – see it here. Board members’ first look at potential size/shape options in March ended with a “try again” directive (WSB coverage here); this project’s big challenge is seen as the the owners from whom CVS is leasing the land will not allow a mixed-use project, though the site is zoned for it, so the project team is expected to design it in a way that will still fit with a densifying neighborhood drawing increased foot traffic, and the new “preferred plan” is described as one with a “pocket park” feel – take a look at the packet and see for yourself. Public comment is welcome at the June 25th meeting, which will be at the board’s usual meeting place, the Senior Center of West Seattle.

The CVS is planned right across the street from the biggest project under construction in West Seattle, for which we also have an update:

(Recent photo by Long Bach Nguyen; Whittaker site is in lower-center)
THE WHITTAKER’S SECOND CRANE: One crane has been up at the south end of The Whittaker‘s Edmunds/Fauntleroy/Alaska site for almost two months, and now the second is on the way. The second crane’s base is up and a project-team spokesperson tells WSB its installation is expected on Monday, June 29th.

SOUTH DELRIDGE PROJECT: Last week, we had first word of a South Delridge site, 9021 17th SW, where a 31-apartment building is proposed. Today, city files have turned up a new early-stage plan on the next block to the west – one house to be demolished on a 4,400-square-foot lot at 9043 18th SW, with eight townhouses to subsequently be built on that lot and the vacant site (already subdivided into four parcels) to the south of it.

26 Replies to "West Seattle development: Revised CVS design; Whittaker's 2nd crane; another South Delridge plan"

  • anonyme June 17, 2015 (3:13 pm)

    This is a grotesque and obscene waste of space and real estate – even if it were located in the outskirts of the suburbs, rather than the heart of a booming urban neighborhood.

  • ChefJoe June 17, 2015 (4:01 pm)

    It sure looks like two levels of underground parking and you could build that CVS on half the lot while still having several handicap spots out front.

    I guess this could keep getting ping-ponged through the DRB until the property owners change their mind about what sort of development they can monetize.

  • Seattlite June 17, 2015 (4:08 pm)

    Who owns the property? Do the owners give reasons why they don’t want to lease to mixed use? Interesting.

  • ChefJoe June 17, 2015 (4:35 pm)

    Seattlite, looking at the property assessor’s site it looks like Campagnaros own the property. We talked about it in March at the preview (and probably other times)


    I do see one of the LLC members lives up the hill on 38th so it’s possible they (like so many commenters around) remember the views they used to have and that’s their condition when it went to market. It’s also possible CVS doesn’t want to deal with the additional time/hassle of having a bunch of housing above and evacuating their store whenever a residential fire alarm gets triggered.

  • Ray June 17, 2015 (5:09 pm)

    They likely do not want mixed use to give them options at the end of the lease. If they want to at that time, they could tear down the building and build something else or sell it off for other types of development. If they make it mixed use, it would be almost impossible to tear down the living units.

    Plus not everything has to be mixed use. We have enough multi level eyesores all over the place. It is nice to have some open space areas like this.

  • old timer June 17, 2015 (5:15 pm)

    One way to force the proper development of this property might be to assess it as if it were fully developed to the maximum allowable by the zoning code, regardless and in spite of what is actually put in place. This kind of ruling could be made for new construction only, relieving long time owners of the need to immediately upgrade their property.
    I’d bet the taxes would be much greater for an apartment building with commercial rental space over the commercial space alone.
    That, along with some kind of abatement for an affordable housing component could be a good tool to coax development in the way the community desires.
    As things look now, this is a colossal waste of
    yes, ‘private property’, but which none the less seeks to profit from the community.

  • quiz June 17, 2015 (6:47 pm)

    Wow, what a sad looking rendering and a colossal waste of space.

  • under_achiever June 17, 2015 (7:04 pm)

    One way to for the developer to do what you want is to buy it from him and develop it yourselves.

    I think the plan looks pretty darn nice and a tremendous improvement over what currently occupies the site.

  • Joe Szilagyi June 17, 2015 (7:18 pm)

    Have the site owners said why they’re refusing a mixed use project?

  • XXX June 17, 2015 (8:04 pm)

    So, multi-story buildings go up all over the place and people wet themselves weeping and moaning about ‘eyesores,’ ‘there goes the neighborhood,’ ‘this place is worse than Ballard’ and assorted other hysterical hyperbole.
    Then, a shorty building is planned, and people wet themselves and begin weeping about ‘eyesores’ and ‘waste of space’ and ‘they’re doing it wrong.’
    Hilarity ensues.

  • Ken June 17, 2015 (8:40 pm)

    @ old timer: Great comment and wonderful idea.
    I’ll admit, I’m very uninformed about zoning laws/assessments, but I wonder if there is any precedent for that sort of thing?

  • dsa June 17, 2015 (9:22 pm)

    Finally, someone willing to sacrifice profit and greed for open space, daylight, sunshine and fresh air, thank you.

  • Plf June 17, 2015 (9:37 pm)

    Hmm, money grabbing developers are allowed to create ugly boxy housing. They are developing west Seattle within the current regulations and neighborhoods have to accept, are they breaking any regulations? Should they not be provided the same to develop their proptery the way they see fit

  • ChefJoe June 17, 2015 (9:46 pm)

    Ken, no, the state is required to impose taxes on property equally (that’s the law against a scaled income tax) so taxing property based on what it “could be” would be pretty quickly thrown out.

  • G June 17, 2015 (9:59 pm)



  • WSince86 June 18, 2015 (7:58 am)

    XXX and Dsa – well stated!

  • Jon Wright June 18, 2015 (9:35 am)

    XXX, I am sorry to rain on your smugness, but I am willing to bet the people complaining about the proliferation of multi-story “eyesores” in West Seattle are not the same people complaining that the CVS proposal is a “waste of space.” I do not find it particularly remarkable that a community has different constituencies with different opinions.

  • Peter June 18, 2015 (9:55 am)

    This is no-density development with vast surface parking, and it embodies all the misguided suburban development of the 20th century that promoted car usage and the air pollution, carbon output, and sedentary lifestyle that goes with it. It’s laughable that CVS stopped selling tobacco because they’re a “health” company, but they’re more than willing to promote a wasteful and sedentary lifestyle with all the negative environmental and health effects that go along with it. At least since I just moved three block the other direction I won’t have to dodge cars using they’re drive through, but it still pisses me off. One change that Seattle really needs to make in land use and zoning laws is to require some minimum density for new development in NC and mid-rise zones.

  • Neighbor June 18, 2015 (11:10 am)

    I’d be fine with it if they make that a nice green roof. Put the park on the rooftop, with trees and low-water plants and it would be win-win. There’s no reason they couldn’t put a rooftop deck for the community, is there? Other than liability, which they could probably use lawyers to weasel out of for some community benefit.

  • G June 18, 2015 (1:01 pm)

    Those parking spaces might be valuable in the future if light rail comes to West Seattle, and a station is anywhere close to CVS. Might be an option to park there if something can be worked out with CVS.

  • W June 18, 2015 (1:15 pm)

    Could not find proposed zoning departures listed in packet. Wondering if this plan violates the 60ft max width of parking to the side of a building in NC zones (23.47A.032)?

  • Azimuth June 18, 2015 (2:34 pm)

    How about a few stories of office building on top of the CVS? It seems like WS could use some office space to go along with the new residences.

  • Jw June 18, 2015 (2:41 pm)

    Maybe it’s a work around so they don’t have to have parking in the cvs itself. Hold the property for a few more years then develop or sell of the parking lot portion. it obviously a waste of space, the question is why?…

  • bolo June 19, 2015 (12:14 am)

    Hey I like the green roof idea. Even better: make the green roof an off-leash area!

  • Neighbor June 19, 2015 (7:04 am)

    Build a few more stories and let the ymca move their preschool program there. It would still be within walking distance to the gym.

  • Brian June 21, 2015 (12:13 pm)

    Lots of great comments here – clearly the community has something to say (and yes XXX, what that “something” is varies!). I hope folks will consider trying to attend the meeting. And if you can’t, copy/paste your comments here and send to DPD.
    Believe it or not, citizen input has already shaped this proposal. Perhaps not as much as some intended but it does make a difference!

Sorry, comment time is over.