6 West Seattle development/real estate notes from North Delridge to Morgan Junction

Half a dozen West Seattle development/real-estate updates:

NORTH DELRIDGE TOWNHOUSES: A 10-townhouse development is proposed for 2821 SW Yancy (map). The newly filed “site plan” shows four structures (all circa early 1900s) to be demolished at 2811, 2821, and 2827 to make way for the project, which the city website says will go through Design Review. Five townhouses would face onto Yancy, and the other five would be behind (south of) them, while 11 offstreet-parking spaces are shown on the east side of the site.

MORGAN JUNCTION APARTMENTS: A 48-unit building with 5 offstreet-parking spaces is proposed for 5952 California SW in north Morgan Junction. This would replace a 1925 house with garage spaces behind.

9030 35TH SW: Demolition permits are being sought for the two structures on this site that will be replaced by a 40-apartment, 32-offstreet-parking-space project, which had its most-recent Design Review meeting earlier this month.

4801 FAUNTLEROY WAY SW: This mixed-use project got final Design Review approval back in February, and now the site and plans are up for sale, no price listed. It was approved for 53 units (including 13 micros), ground-floor commercial, no offstreet parking.

4453 CALIFORNIA FOR SALE: A corner commercial building in The Junction is on the market, the northwest corner of California/Oregon, home to more than half a dozen businesses. Its $4.3 million listing, touting “one of the last remaining key sites available,” notes that (as is most of the heart of The Junction) it’s zoned for up to 65′.

3050 AVALON FOR SALE AGAIN: The potential 104-unit “grandfathered” microhousing project is back on the market, asking $3.1 million. This version of the listing shows that two potential purchases “pending feasibility” didn’t go through since we first mentioned its listing back in January. The listing also says the plans are “paid off” and that construction could start immediately, if a purchase is completed.

44 Replies to "6 West Seattle development/real estate notes from North Delridge to Morgan Junction"

  • Justin May 17, 2016 (2:25 pm)

    Nooooooooo! To the 1925 house, they just built micro-housing across the street with no parking. Until the city can catch up with infrastructure (i.e. Mass transit) we really shouldn’t be jamming these buildings that can’t support it. I’m all for density as long as it’s smart. 

  • John May 17, 2016 (2:57 pm)

     A 48-unit building with 5 offstreet-parking spaces……  Those numbers make me sick.  That puts the tenant parking on California and 42nd Avenue SW.

  • Chemist May 17, 2016 (3:04 pm)

    Hrm, how does one get an “improvements assessment” of $1,000 for a 1925 house ? Is there something special about it being parceled for apartments that causes that ?

  • HelperMonkey May 17, 2016 (3:24 pm)

    TR, how do we find out when a design review meeting will be for a particular project? Is there a calendar to reference online or do they just come up in order? Thanks in advance… 

    • WSB May 17, 2016 (3:55 pm)

      HM, here’s the site I browse every few days to see what’s coming up. One caveat: If you see a “streamlined” design review listed for a certain date, that is NOT a meeting date – SDR doesn’t have meetings – they seem to just plop projects there randomly. Another good thing to do is to sign up for the Land Use Information Bulletin, twice weekly, which includes notices when meetings are formally announced, but usually by then they’ve been penciled onto the calendar for at least a few weeks. – TR

  • Mark schletty May 17, 2016 (3:33 pm)

    We really need a moratorium on new multi family develpoment in west seattle until better transit is in place. What the city is doing to west seattle is unconscionable. Please help us, Council-member Herbold. We are being strangled.

  • dan May 17, 2016 (3:48 pm)

    I will be furious if this sale takes a dump on the soon to be open “dumplings of fury”

    • WSB May 17, 2016 (3:53 pm)

      When I first saw that listing, I browsed a bunch of documents that were attached to the open public listing and it mentioned leases … plus, development proposals often take at least two years from proposal to reality, if one emerges here … so it’s probably too soon to fret about the future of any business in that spot.

      • sam-c May 17, 2016 (4:02 pm)

        good to know! I was worried too. (dumplings and fiddlehead)

    • JanS May 18, 2016 (11:51 am)

      I was just thinking about that…between sale and actual project beginning can take a while…we should enjoy it while we can…I’m betting the leasers are none too happy, kiboshed before they even open :(

  • Bonnie May 17, 2016 (4:04 pm)

    Where will the new tenants park in the Morgan Junction?  Parking is already tight.  5 parking spaces for 48 units??  Didn’t they just build something recently south of that with zero parking?  This is ridiculous.

  • Diane May 17, 2016 (5:22 pm)

    omg, Many Moons; Funky Jane’s; so much loss; can’t take it anymore; WS is truly losing it’s soul

  • thee May 17, 2016 (5:54 pm)

    Lisa, we better make sure there’s enough ink for the rubber stamps! Those developers have mouths to feed.


  • steve May 17, 2016 (7:16 pm)

    Ten townhomes and no parking.  West Seattle keeps getting dumped on!  This is out of control, and the result of horrible leadership on so many levels.  Hopefully some common sense will kick, but again, the current history shows otherwise!  

    • WSB May 17, 2016 (8:04 pm)

      Hi – the townhomes have 11 parking spaces – see the last line of the first paragraph.

  • Mike May 17, 2016 (7:21 pm)

    Residents lose, developers win.  

  • dhg May 17, 2016 (7:26 pm)

    the City is hell bent to make mass transit feasible by making all other means worse.  It’s easier to do than IMPROVING the transit system.

  • Time it to Sound Transit May 17, 2016 (8:19 pm)

    I agree with all those who realize we need grade separated rapid transit in West Seattle. I’m less certain of what will bring that about: will it be gridlock brought on by such development noted here, or somewhat enlightened planning and voters willing to pay to make our community better by appro ing and building what we need today, tomorrow and into the future? FORWARD THRUST AGAIN!

  • trevor May 17, 2016 (9:49 pm)

    The good news is they didn’t allow a stadium that would create revenue.  How many of these are affordable housing?

    • Neighbor May 18, 2016 (8:01 am)

      If the stadium is such a guaranteed profit generator, I do wonder why all the capitalist billionaires refuse to fund the entirety of it with their own cash. Why else would they expect to share the risk of failure with taxpayers and stand on the shoulders of residents.

  • Ta May 17, 2016 (11:39 pm)

    I breezed through this post and comments and then spotted an article that might add to the conversations being held here. I’m usually more of an observer since I’m not an expert on this stuff and found new thoughts after reflecting on the points made. But I’m still not an expert so will reserve personal opinions. I’d love to hear thoughts as I’m trying to wrap my head around these issues with more facts.

    Article re: rent control and growth and prices

  • John May 18, 2016 (7:07 am)

    Change has already happened.

    Seattle needs density.

    Seattle needs housing, not car storage.

    Apartments have excess parking that goes unused.

    West Seattleites have buried their heads in the sand for the last half century, turning down mass transit proposals that would have made our city livable and prevented sprawl.

    What is the point of building more parking when there is no more street capacity for single occupancy travel?

    Why does WSB throw ‘meat to the masses’ by highlighting antiquated car storage in every development piece?  

    The results are obvious and stir the same repeated responses from the same vocal car-aholics.

    Future generations will marvel at the ignorance of these rants, as what they suggest (building our way out of traffic/car problems with more car infrastructure)  is impossible.

  • nachobeaver May 18, 2016 (8:58 am)

    west seattle will soon be the new ballard😡

  • Anne May 18, 2016 (10:34 am)

    The initial paperwork filed by the developer with the city states no parking is needed for the 48 units, but they are putting in 5 spaces anyway.  I had thought the city was working on legislation to set minimum number of parking spaces required for this kind of development.  Has there just not been a vote yet?

    • WSB May 18, 2016 (10:47 am)

      No proposed legislation that I know of or have heard of.

  • East Coast Cynic May 18, 2016 (10:54 am)

    @Neighbor and @Trevor, Hansen would have paid the bulk of the cost of SODO Arena while the rest of the $$ upon acquisition of a team would have been funded with a bond issue, not a direct subsidy.  The city’s FEIS study, not a study by Hansen, showed that the arena along with the potential entertainment district that would have sprouted up, would have bought $230 million into the economy.  We also would have gotten considerable transportation infrastructure improvements in SODO including a Lander Street overpass paid for by that “capitalist billionaire” which we won’t be getting now thanks to the no votes, including one from our district councilperson Lisa Herbold.  I guess those buses going back to West Seattle through Lander will have to continue to sit in traffic while those Burlington Northern trains go by for the foreseeable future.  Hansen won’t give up the land–you may end up with an office park over there–more people and more traffic, same infrastructure.

     @Nachobeaver, more quality restaurants, more alternative music clubs and the relocation of more young professionals to WS, then yes that will be true:).




    • JanS May 18, 2016 (11:55 am)

      so, you’re unhappy with the 5 no votes? They should have just gone along?

    • Neighbor May 18, 2016 (8:33 pm)

      @EastCoastCynic The Lander Overpass was supposed to be built with Bridging the Gap funds (per the voter pamphlet of the time) and then it was sold to voters as part of the Move Seattle levy ($20+ million is still to be allocated, plus an anticipated $70 million federal grant, plus funds from the state that are still on the table, and some funds from the city general fund). Funding Lander Overpass is still on the table, and Hansen was never going to fund the whole thing, just part of it. Someone threw that in with the Occidental street vacation to cajole our representatives into voting for the street vacation. Some of us constituents were opposed to the city supporting another stadium for events we won’t attend, or strip clubs we will not visit in the proposed entertainment district. Also, have you noticed that the cost-benefit analysis of city subsidized arenas/sporting venues rarely benefits the cities. Look at St. Louis – taxpayers built a stadium and will be paying for it for 15 years while it sits empty as the NFL owner moves to a new city. Look at LA – billionaires having to (god for bid) pay for their own stadiums. Not all of us have been hoodwinked into believing the fuzzy math behind taxpayer subsidized stadiums. The time horizon for benefits assume full occupancy over many years, no maintenance/upgrade costs, no negative externalities (traffic, economic downturn, the potential loss of the sports franchise, etc.). I applaud the 5 no votes as do everyone I know, but then, I don’t associate with misogynists and am an economist.

      • East Coast Cynic May 18, 2016 (10:03 pm)

        @Neighbor, maybe the City Council should fire those people who did the FEIS statement and found that SODO Arena would bring $230 million in revenue into King County if their studies were so erroneous; and maybe while they’re at it, fire those people at the DOT who found that the transportation infrastructure improvements as part of the SODO arena deal were satisfactory?  It is not a given that all arena deals are money losers: The Sprint Arena in KC–a city with less disposable income and corporate largesse than ours–No NHL or NBA in the facility—makes profit off of the entertainment events at the arena.  We are losing events to other cities because the Key is getting to the point of obsolescence—particularly touring bands that find the loading capacity of the Key to be inadequate.  Sooner or later, we will need a replacement for the Key—-No private investors are willing to deal with it because of the Landmark limitations and city politicians that want to use it and refurbish it have no funding plan of their own.  Maybe if Hansen turns his land into an Office Park (He isn’t selling it)–makes money on buildings for corporations and housing instead of the added cultural and economic benefits that the city can profit from, as per that erroneous? FEIS study:/.

      • East Coast Cynic May 18, 2016 (10:18 pm)

        Furthermore, I an an anti-misogynist sports fan, and those sports fans that engaged in such disreputable conduct that has no place in a civilized society are in the minority of SODO Arena supporters.

  • skeeter May 18, 2016 (11:19 am)

    I don’t understand all the complaints about no/limited parking for new units.  Why would we want more parking?  More parking means more cars.  Our streets are completely clogged at rush hour as it is!  We want to build more units *without* parking to limit the number of new vehicles in West Seattle. 

    • HelperMonkey May 18, 2016 (12:28 pm)

      because it’s silly to assume that everyone who moves into a new apartment here won’t have a car, and they’re going to want to park somewhere. unless the new landlords only rent to people who don’t have cars, which is unlikely to happen. it’s just the reality of the situation. 

      • skeeter May 18, 2016 (4:13 pm)

        Sure… some of the new residents will have cars.  But if they have to walk a half mile to get to their car then some of them will give up and just not get a car.  

        I don’t see how anyone can think that building more parking spaces will reduce traffic in rush hour.  Because I think building more parking spaces will increase traffic in rush hour. 

        • HelperMonkey May 18, 2016 (4:24 pm)

          I know plenty of people who park their cars at home and take transit to work. Having more parking spaces does not necessarily equal more traffic. 

          • skeeter May 18, 2016 (4:46 pm)

             Well sure… but I bet you also know plenty of people who park a car at home and *do* drive it to work.  Look, I’m not trying to be a jerk.  Ultimately, if people are willing to pay for a parking space then developers will build parking spaces.  If people are unwilling to pay for a parking space then developers will not build parking spaces.  We can force developers to build parking spaces through legislation, but I don’t think that will solve our traffic congestion.  I think it will make it worse. 

        • Justin May 18, 2016 (4:53 pm)

          That’s assuming a lot. I live in an area with micro-housing and it’s a parking nightmare. It’s unrealistic to assume people will give up their cars. Until the city’s infrastructure improves we should be building smarter not just more buildings that are unaffordable. It’s also unrealistic to assume everyone commutes to the same area. Cars are needed, I can’t wait until we get rid of them but until then we need to make progressive moves toward a better mass transit system that can support all these new people. 

  • East Coast Cynic May 18, 2016 (12:43 pm)

    @Jans, re the 5 no votes, it’s not a matter of getting along and going along, its a matter of, in my view,  the no voters rejecting a sound economic, infrastructure and culture public policy decision which has been studied to death by city aides and committees for years.  Leaving millions of dollars of revenue for Seattle/King County on the table for reasons that are not very clear.  You may not get an arena w/ entertainment and transportation infrastructure value  as well as development that creates jobs, but instead, potentially, an office park, possibly not unlike the office park we’ve got in SLU, developed with the help of billionaires for profits; billionaires that get street vacations from the city with the greatest of ease—-but they’re ok, just not the one that would use an area zoned for stadiums to build an arena which would have potentially provided cultural and economic benefits for the city and the county.

  • T Rex May 18, 2016 (12:46 pm)

    I do most of my business In West Seattle during the week or on my lunch. However this past weekend I had to do some errands on Saturday. I can tell you that I will not do that again. Traffic was a nightmare and there was no parking anywhere.  I used to think when  I retired I would stay in West Seattle, the past few years here has changed my mind.

    We can all blame the government and the developers all we want, but you must first start with the person who sold the property. Someone made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. 

     Greed is not good.  

  • NeoYogi May 18, 2016 (1:24 pm)

    This past Saturday was a weird day, with the garage sale and all…traffic was a mess because we had an influx of folks for the very popular event, TRex!  West Seattle’s soul is not in its buildings, it is in its people.  Quirky, whiny, big-hearted, wonderful people.  It will be fine. 

  • Born on Alki 59 May 18, 2016 (3:16 pm)

    @JanS, yes, I am unhappy about the 5 no votes.

     I think I speak for the majority of Seattle for reasons stated by East Coast Cynic and so much more. Seattle has the chance to have the Sonics and an NHL team. Hanson made a generous offer to the city in exchange for a partial street vacate of an underutilized pothole infested roadway.

    This is the only chance we will ever get to bring NBA and NHL to Seattle and the clowncil blew it. IMHO.

     Oh well, the Bellevue or Redmond Supersonics sounds just fine. 😐

    • HelperMonkey May 18, 2016 (3:44 pm)

      can one of  you stadium supporters “explain to me like I’m 5” why Key Arena is no longer an option? Even though it’s been remodeled (and we still owe for that remodel, right?) – I guess I’m just confused why we need a new stadium when we have a perfectly good one that the Sonics, Storm and Thunderbirds used for years. Is it just the “shiny new toy” aspect? I’m not being prickly, I really want to know what the deal is. Thanks! 

      • East Coast Cynic May 18, 2016 (9:30 pm)

        @HelperMonkey, the footprint of the Key Arena is too small to accommodate the NHL and the NBA and they have said it would not suit their purposes for long term use.  The potential landmark status would prohibit anybody from trying to tear down the present shell of the arena to expand it—Ray Bartoszek, an NHL investor, looked into refurbishing the Key but decided against it due to the landmark status hangup.  Furthermore, any attempts to locate an NHL and or NBA team at the Key, would face strong NIMBY opposition from LQA residents who don’t want the noise and chaos of thousands of sports fans walking around their neighborhood at night.  Given the limitations of refurbishment, who the heck would fund any refurbishment.

    • Sue May 18, 2016 (3:54 pm)

      I doubt very much that you speak for a majority of Seattleites, as most people I know here in Seattle are (like myself) thrilled to not get this arena at this location. And it’s not because I’m a stupid woman who doesn’t understand sports, as been said recently about our councilmembers (no, not by you – just to clarify). The impact that sports games at the current 2 arenas have on downtown Seattle bus transportation while trying to get back to West Seattle is not insignificant. There were days that my bus on 3rd Ave traveling from Seneca to Columbia (to turn towards the viaduct) could take 20 minutes or more, after already being late from the extra traffic. Add a third arena, plus a viaduct removed and more thru traffic on SODO surface streets, and it would be a nightmare. During the viaduct closure my commute by bus doubled. Add arena volume in the mix and it would be far worse. I would love an NHL team in Seattle. But not in that location. Move it somewhere else that can better handle the traffic.

  • WD fundie May 18, 2016 (9:18 pm)

    If you really need to park at your house, then buy or build parking.  You’re not a victim.

Sorry, comment time is over.