DEVELOPMENT: New proposal for 7617 35th SW

The future of the auto-shop site at 7617 35th SW [map] has long been in play – we noted a real-estate listing five years ago, and it was finally sold in 2016. Now there’s a new redevelopment proposal: A 4-story mixed-use building. Documents in city files say it’s proposed for 6,000 square feet of commercial space, plus 50 apartments and 20 offstreet-parking spaces. LDG Architects is designing the project. It will have to go through the Design Review process, though there’s no date set yet for the first hearing.

25 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: New proposal for 7617 35th SW"

  • KM June 18, 2018 (5:07 pm)

    YES! I live right by this site and am SO HAPPY it will finally be developed. And yes, new residents you are welcome to park on the public street in front of my house.

    • Kat June 18, 2018 (7:05 pm)

      Instead of 50 units with 20 parking spaces why not require at least 75% parking spaces?   I am thrilled they are proposing 20!   Better than most developers.  We know most people who live in a public transit area own a vehicle.  If trey don’t, they’ve sold because there’s no parking.  Should the single family neighbors in the neighborhood loose their quality of life because they now have 50+ neighbors in a spot which previously housed one?  Is it okay theat they fret leaving their home knowing they will need to search for a spot to park near their home and are likely not to find it?   Shouldn’t this be against the law?   It’s a shame such mentality exist.  Another example of the city growing at all cost instead of responsible growth.   Again planning based on developer profits, the cities vision to build for those who want to move here and disrespect those who are life residents and have paid taxes for years.  Grow responsibly!

      • Jon Wright June 18, 2018 (8:21 pm)

        Why do you feel like you are more entitled to store your private property in the public right-of-way than somebody else?

      • John June 18, 2018 (10:16 pm)

        To answer Kat’s question, if people park in their own garage and property, they have no worry about getting home and not finding that street parking place out front.  Why not monetize on street parking?  Making every user pay for on street  parking would solve the problem fairly and equally. The current system of free street parking has created a false sense of entitlement.  It needs to change.

        • Terri June 19, 2018 (8:18 am)

          This doesn’t answer Kat’s question, because Kat’s question is not actually about parking or money or density. Kat’s question is about feeling loss and disrespect, and the only answer to that is empathy and understanding and time. We all experience fear or unease or sadness when faced with change we can’t control … maybe not around parking, but around a new boss or a breakup or our favorite hat store closing (RIP, Bernie Utz).  In this case, it’s a feeling shared by many long-time residents that they are being asked — forced — to change their ordered lives in order to accommodate newcomers and are getting little in return. Such feelings are natural, not always rational, and usually resistant to advice, no matter how well-intentioned. Until the “head” starts understanding the “heart” — and vice versa — we will go round and round on this issue forever.

          • Jethro Marx June 19, 2018 (12:36 pm)

            Yes, you’re right, but… if Kat’s fears in life include not wanting to leave home because convenient parking may be hard to come by upon one’s return, that’s both a not-too-tough life and a perspective that may find innumerable reasons to stay home.

  • ArborHeightsRes June 18, 2018 (6:23 pm)

    Let me do the math. 50 units, 20 off street parking spaces (which will be an additional charge on top of the rent) mean at least 30 cars parking in the neighborhood (does anyone really believe that all of the residents will strictly use transit or car shares).  Good luck in finding parking.

  • WSEA June 18, 2018 (7:27 pm)

    Personally, I think 90% of adults forget when they were in their 20’s.   I rented a one bedroom after college had my girlfriend (now wife) lived with me.  She also had a car.   Most, of not all, of my friend were in the boat.  I would guess you are a looking at 45 off street cars for the whole place.   

    • AMD June 20, 2018 (12:05 pm)

      When I was in my 20s I couldn’t afford a car.  Few of the people I knew could.  Many didn’t have licenses at all.  Perhaps we don’t see the need for all that parking because we DO remember our 20s.

  • D Del Rio June 18, 2018 (9:40 pm)

    I am suprised that they only have to have 20 parking spots with the 21 bus being basically the only transit in the neighborhood. I live in Arbor Heights, and Metro took 90% of the 21 away from us. To all those who say people don’t have the right to park in front of their houses. When they bought their houses it was possible. If not, I’m sure most would have not bought them. If you want urban dense living, there is always New York and Chicago. I know things change, but the pro density crowd makes many of us to want growth even less with their remarks. I am 20 years from retirement, so I want Seattle to grow, so that I can sell out and move to the wilderness, and have money left over!

  • Peter June 18, 2018 (10:18 pm)

    OMG yes! Please get rid of that derelict eyesore.

  • 1994 June 18, 2018 (10:23 pm)

    Developers get to pocket the savings from building minimal parking. I doubt  these will  low income housing units.  Good luck with finding street parking.

  • airwolf June 19, 2018 (7:50 am)

    Hopefully they put in a little Ceasars in the commercial space

  • Chuck June 19, 2018 (12:40 pm)

    Eye roll when I read “20 off-street parking places.” I’ve seen this movie before. Soon to be whittled down to “2,” and quite possible zero. But you know, whatever it takes to get the project off the ground, I guess.

  • Wondering June 19, 2018 (3:16 pm)

    I agree with John & Jethro Marx. Car problem will be solved by making ALL street parking in the city payable 24 /7/365.   Who will be the first to sign the initiative?? 

    • el jefe June 19, 2018 (4:38 pm)

      Our stupid city council members. 

    • Kat June 19, 2018 (6:20 pm)

      Not me.  Put parking spaces in for apartments and condos and don’t impose on the home owners who live in a single family dwelling.  Are we really to the point that we are inconsiderate and disrespectful to our neighbors?   Sounds like we are growing at all cost and not responsible growth. Pushing out the single family home owners is a selfish mentality.  Come on people!  I have to believe you were raised to consider your neighbor and it’s not just about you.  

      • KM June 19, 2018 (8:42 pm)

        Kat, being conderate of your neighbors should include newcomers and those who don’t live in SFH. I can’t imagine you are only interested in being kind to those who have been here since 1997 and have houses. Like you said, it’s not just about you.  And if you want to require apartment and condo dwellers to have offsite parking only, that should apply to all Seattle residents, including you and me. Also, nobody is forcing us to move from our single family homes, unless we choose to sell or are foreclosed.Regardless, all sorts of neighbors and visitors have the equal right to park in front of your house as you do, legally, on the public street.

    • Jon Wright June 20, 2018 (10:41 am)

      What about making ALL street parking in the city payable 24/7/365 but then reducing property taxes by the amount collected by  the parking fees?

  • El jefe June 19, 2018 (4:43 pm)

    Another eye clinic or something the community can use day in and day out? 

  • Greystreet June 20, 2018 (10:32 am)

    #notsurprised, more plywood boxes with barely any parking…thankfully living in Arbor Heights has so far meant no one is building mixed use buildings next to me so my street parking is safe, but agree above, when Metro removed most of the #21 from the AH ‘hood our access to public transit became nonexistent.  And then they also cut 35th down to one lane, neat!

    • John June 20, 2018 (12:46 pm)

      Plywood is the  only safe structural prescription for  houses.  Old houses without plywood lack modern shear walls lending to catastrophic failure when the predicted big earthquake hits us (not the little shakers of the past 60 years).  The history of seismic damage has proven that old assumptions regarding shear provided by lath and plaster, drywall and old strip wood framing is inadequate.  If your house is not boxed in plywood, it would make sense to add plywood to protect your investment and lower insurance rates.Seattle has zoning laws that prevent mixed use buildings in the vast majority of neighborhoods.  I live on 36th only a block away from 35th but the zoning is completely different.

      • Jethro Marx June 20, 2018 (4:50 pm)

        Plywood is a cool product, and relatively inexpensive, but hardly the only safe way to create shear strength. I can think of many others, without even taxing myself. Meanwhile, some of our houses aren’t even bolted to their foundation, which is arguably more critical than sheathing.

        • John June 20, 2018 (7:02 pm)

          Yes Jethro,  bolting down a house to its foundation, if it even has one, is a prime first step and often done in conjunction with plywood sheathing of the pony wall or any siding removed to install earthquake bolts.  I am curious about the many other ways commonly used for shear-wall construction in our area?

  • wsn00b June 20, 2018 (4:39 pm)

    Awesome. It also looks like the junkyard/drug-den looking house with garbage all outside it just west of C.A.R also recently sold as part of bankruptcy proceedings (according to King County records). Maybe both lots will get fixed up in the coming year or so and stop being such eyesores. Hoping for more kid-friendly restaurants and stores to show up to extend  Kenyon Junction north. 

Sorry, comment time is over.