WEST SEATTLE DEVELOPMENT: Comment time for 62-unit building at 4417 42nd SW

There’s one West Seattle project in today’s city-circulated Land Use Information Bulletin – 4417 42nd SW [map]. We first reported on the plan last December; it passed the first round of Design Review in May (here’s the city report). It’s currently planned as a “four-story apartment building containing 58 units and 4 live-work units” with 26 underground parking spaces, to be built where three 1930s-built houses currently stand at 4417, 4421, and 4423 42nd SW. Today’s notice says you have until September 11th to comment on the land-use application for the project; here’s how.

18 Replies to "WEST SEATTLE DEVELOPMENT: Comment time for 62-unit building at 4417 42nd SW"

  • Swede. August 28, 2017 (1:18 pm)

    What is being commented on these meetings? Obviously there isn’t anything that anyone’s can say to not make it happen it seams like. Been lots and lots of complaint for a very long time now against building projects just like this one and it sure doesn’t look like anything changes or being stopped…

    • WSB August 28, 2017 (1:33 pm)

      This isn’t about a meeting – it’s about a project, and the notice that’s linked explains what they’re taking comments on. For one – all environmental factors, which include traffic and noise. The only way to stop a project would be to buy the site and cancel it, unless there’s something unusual such as a zoning change, and that’s not the case here. – TR

      • Swede. August 28, 2017 (1:54 pm)


        So putting up the big boards is just for show. Nobody can really do anything anyways… Explains a lot. 

        • WSB August 28, 2017 (2:20 pm)

          That isn’t what I said. Most “big boards” are project notifications. And yes, changes have been made through comments. Some projects have even been scrapped after pushback from community and Design Review (although the latter program/process has dramatic changes proposed, as we’ve reported) – one example, the CVS drugstore at 4722 Fauntleroy Way. Although in that case, most of the opposition was because the project wasn’t maximizing zoning on the site. Now there’s a new proposal, from different prospective owners, that will. Another example – similar vein – was the standalone Petco originally proposed for the Charlestown CafĂ© site. After lots of pushback through the DR process, it was scrapped; eventually, the Rally townhouse complex was proposed instead (also under different then-prospective ownership). Some projects have downsized after feedback. We’ve covered it all over the past 10 years – https://westseattleblog.com/category/development – TR

          • Stephanie August 29, 2017 (6:01 pm)

            When I read through this comment – I see a lot about “down sizing.” Not a lot about scrapping projects that are hurting our open green spaces and our environment. There is going to have to come a time when this scale of development is no longer sustainable or good for communities. I hope that people reflect on that. Communities are being pushed too far. This is not okay.   

  • Mark August 28, 2017 (3:03 pm)


    If you do want to see the site redeveloped you can buy the property and do nothing.  

    The meetings allow for public feedback that can alter the project, for example add some landscaping, relocate trash container, provide building relief, and other refinements.

    Most developers want to build a successful project.  And when neighbors identify reasonable enhancements they try to be accommodating.


    • Swede. August 28, 2017 (6:20 pm)

      Nah I can’t afford to buy anything anywhere close to Seattle…

      And I do understand they like to make it nice and such not only for the people that will live there but surrounding people also. Just seams like it’s not happening, but like the examples Tracy listed it DO happen. Which is good to know that it do have an effect with people voicing their opinions. 

    • Stephanie August 29, 2017 (6:07 pm)

      That is not really asking the public opinion. What I see happening in Seattle is power and dollars trumping everything else – communities, people that are older being able to live somewhere on a budget, people of color being disenfranchised. People and communities that are struggling are not being asked their opinions. Developers are using up every last piece of green space there is left in this city. It is so heartbreaking. If I had all the money in the world, of course I would buy up these properties and do nothing. I just can’t compete with developers ….if only. 

      • Mark Schletty August 29, 2017 (7:02 pm)

        There is an AP article in today’s Minneapolis Tribune explaining why the flooding is so bad in Houston. It primarily has to do with over develoment eating up all the green/open space, including land planned for an additional water reservoir, covering it in concrete and leaving no place for the water to drain. The claim is that developers are the big campaign contributors and therefore get whatever they want, and it is causing this misery. Sound familiar? Many of the pro-development advocates and commentators here have touted Houston as an example of the way a city should be run. If they, and the HALA people continue to get their way, as they currently are, Houston is the future of Seattle.

        • CAM August 29, 2017 (9:57 pm)

          Mark – I follow these development posts fairly closely and I’ve never seen anyone reference Houston as a model for Seattle’s future. I’ve spent a great deal of time in Houston and would be very disappointed if Seattle was developed in a similar manner. There are also numerous complex reasons why Houston floods that are completely outside of how it’s been developed. It is essentially built on a swamp. 

          Proposing that this development should be foregone for greenspace is a non starter. It is not a vacant lot or currently publicly owned land. 

          • DH August 30, 2017 (7:07 am)

            @Cam. I agree. I’m from Texas and spent many years living in the Houston area. Part of the problem is the Sprawl in the Houston area not necessarily the development of the density. It is better for the environment to have concentrated density (with adequate infrastructure including parks) and preserve the greater natural area as the Growth Management Boundary attempts to do. That said people do need accessible green space but building on already built lots doesn’t really count IMHO.  

  • NW August 28, 2017 (3:39 pm)

    Let renters once the building is open smoke outside on property and or provide an area where they can smoke and a receptacle to dispose of their cigarette butts. Want to see a pile of them from an apartment within a quarter-mile from this one with that issue Oregon 42 apartments directly across the street from the entrance 100s upon 100s left their becoming stormwater pollution. The amount I see in my work as a delivery driver and as cyclists is appalling across this growing city difficult to document and difficult for anyone to try and take action to lessen it. By the way, I think people have a right to smoke. 

  • TJ August 28, 2017 (9:34 pm)

    62 units with parking for only 26. Attention Herbold: No more selling out established home owners and tax payers to developers and people they assume are going to move here, like there is some mass migration coming here; No tax breaks to said developers; Actually make them pay for added infrastructure; 1 parking spot per unit please. Thank you

    • Stephanie August 29, 2017 (6:08 pm)

      I second this comment! No more tax breaks for developers!! 

  • 56bricks@gmail.com August 29, 2017 (4:39 am)

    Maybe smokers should be required to spend time in the military.  They’ll teach them how to field strip a cigarette butt. It’s not all that hard,really.

    • Nw August 29, 2017 (8:01 am)

      I am curious to know the procedure. 

  • Mark Schletty August 29, 2017 (10:03 am)

    The overall problem with development in Seattle stems from the City’s position that if a proposal fits within the building codes it must be allowed. No other city I have lived in proceeds this way. Codes set the outside limits of what a city could allow, not an automatic approval. If it was mandatory to approve something that fits within the code, there would be no need for Permits. Permits are the elsewhere used tool that allows a city to keep development below the maximum permitted size when conditions, or policy warrant. Just because a proposal meets code does not mean it needs to be approved.

  • John August 29, 2017 (11:32 am)

    No other city I have lived in proceeds this way.”

    Hey Mark,

    How about some examples?

Sorry, comment time is over.