DEVELOPMENT: HALA-upzoned Morgan Junction parcel gets non-townhouse proposal

(King County Assessor’s Office photo)

That’s the latest Morgan Junction house proposed for replacement by multi-family development made possible by HALA MHA upzoning. But this one, at 6056 41st SW (corner of Graham) is not set for townhouses like multiple parcels a block south. The early-stage proposal here is for two small three-story apartment buildings on the 6,250-square-foot lot, with 10 units total and five offstreet parking spaces .

27 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: HALA-upzoned Morgan Junction parcel gets non-townhouse proposal"

  • Also John November 3, 2019 (8:36 pm)

    What a bummer for the neighbors… 

    • WSB November 3, 2019 (8:51 pm)

      They are neighbors to multifamily housing already – the KC Parcel Viewer shows that the entire block has townhouses across the alley

  • dsa November 3, 2019 (9:03 pm)

    I once owned that exact same model house here in WS.  I wonder how many of those that builder built.

  • KR November 3, 2019 (9:14 pm)

    Do we know the new zoning for that lot?

  • Steve November 3, 2019 (9:41 pm)

    Woohoo! This would be a great addition of “missing middle” housing. I can’t wait to meet the new neighbors :) 

    • chemist November 3, 2019 (11:10 pm)

      I thought single-unit apartments you paid rent on made up the low rung of housing.  Condos (and recently family-sized apartments with 2+ bedrooms) are what I’ve considered the “missing middle.”

  • Seabruce November 3, 2019 (11:33 pm)

    Too bad the city can’t encourage construction of affordable condos or rent-to-own apartments, so people who want to get off the rent treadmill, might have a chance

    • Peter November 4, 2019 (7:30 am)

      Condos are expensive largely due to state regulations that drive up the price, the city really can’t do anything about that. Everything that has ever been “rent to own” is designed to keep people in debt and ultimately pay much more that a straight sale. 

      • HappyCamper November 4, 2019 (9:41 am)

        I believe this was addressed in the last legislative session at the state level. They made some changes affecting exposure to liability for the builders of condo complexes which is supposed to spur building. Hopefully that will help a little for ownership of missing middle housing.

      • chemist November 4, 2019 (10:25 am)

        Background on the WA condo law issues here  

  • roddy November 4, 2019 (9:15 am)

    The main problem for *this* neighbor is the parking. The city eliminated four on-street parking spaces on the corners of these blocks last year for “safety reasons.” We have one car and the city won’t allow us to have a cutaway so we can’t utilize our driveway. We often find the one parking spot in front of our house occupied (there is already an apartment building nearby with limited parking), and sometimes the street parking on our block is entirely occupied. In addition to this new development, and the townhouses being planned south of this house there are two more houses just north of this house that are also being torn down with townhouses replacing them. It’s unrealistic to think these new residents won’t have cars. Not against having new neighbors (unless they’re like the screaming abusive guy that used to live in this house), but provide a parking space for each unit!

    • Nolan November 4, 2019 (10:14 am)

      No. To keep housing affordable, we need to stop subsidizing parking for car owners on the backs of people who don’t own them. If you need a parking spot, these places are not for you.

      See also:

    • Tsurly November 4, 2019 (10:44 am)

      I have some friends that live on this block. The lack of parking is due to the number of cars per household, not the lack of available space. For example, there is one house on that block that has five cars (formerly 6), one motorcycle, and several scooters occupying the street. Point the finger at you neighbors, not the city. 

      Also, the houses north of you are not being torn down, they are being remodeled and new units are being built in the back.

      • roddy November 4, 2019 (9:33 pm)

        @tsurly if that’s true, they have to move them every three days, no? Tell me the makes and models and I’ll start reporting them. We have one car. Is it too much to ask to get a spot kinda close to our house? Especially if the city won’t let us utilize our driveway? As far as the houses to the north go, I’ll look again tomorrow, but I don’t think that’s clear from the signage in place.

    • Olafur November 4, 2019 (11:03 am)

      We’re apparently still operating on the fallacy that there are more than three people who would choose to move to West Seattle without a car.  The only benefit of this concept is a financial one for the developers, because people continue to bring their cars, anyway.

      • Darius November 4, 2019 (1:33 pm)

        My wife and I moved here this summer without a car. This area will soon be home to two Rapid Ride busses, light rail is coming in the foreseeable future, West Seattle is littered with walkable urban villages, and the half the reason people move to this region is to get outside. I suppose it’s hard to see the forest for the trees when you’re staring at it through the windshield.

        • roddy November 4, 2019 (9:26 pm)

          @Darius we have one car…give me a break. Sometimes we like to get out of town, OK?

          • Darius November 5, 2019 (10:03 am)

            Break given, but if it’s really occasional that you need one, rent! We’ve found it saves money and headache versus payments, upkeep, insurance, parking, depreciation and everything else that comes along with ownership. If there’s one sitting in your driveway, you’re probably using it on more than occasional basis, whether that’s your intention or not.

    • Peter November 4, 2019 (12:58 pm)

      The only equitable solution is to make it illegal to use the public right of way for storage of private property.

  • John November 4, 2019 (12:24 pm)

    Another example of how monetizing all street parking could solve the problem.Fair to all.

    • KM November 4, 2019 (2:27 pm)

      Quite honestly, if we had to pay for street parking we would just get rid of our car. Street parking should absolutely be monetized!

  • Guy Battn' November 4, 2019 (2:36 pm)

    I am puzzled why people are concerned about “subsidizing” their neighbors with free parking  but not concerned about subsidizing wall street  with (rezoning, no impact fees, etc).     We are literally selling our city to developers and Wall Street.   Given the venom directed at one of such developer (Trump) I am surprised we are anxious to provide subsidies to the wealthiest and sell our city, leaving the tax payer to foot the infrastructure bill.I worked in finance for the MDU industry for many years.   Seattle is not getting a good deal.Parking benefits stores and restaurants in the area and improves quality of life.      An article in the Seattle times last week pointed out that Wall Street has purchased virtually all the water rights in the State of Washington.    Once Wall Street owns the building and the water, what’s left?   

  • skeeter November 4, 2019 (5:44 pm)

    If Jort was here, he/she would tell us that using the public right of way for car storage is not an efficient way to use our limited street space.  Jort would also probably be against off-street parking because off-street parking leads to more cars and we already have too many cars!

  • 1994 November 4, 2019 (9:54 pm)

    Will 10 parking slots for bikes be part of the 2 building development?

    • Alex November 5, 2019 (7:28 am)

      Yes. I plan to put in a large bike rack.  It might help with the insane amounts of lime and jump bikes People ditch in my yard every weekend. 

Sorry, comment time is over.