DEVELOPMENT: Site tour for 6318 41st SW; approval for 5616 California

Two project notes:

6318 41ST SW SITE TOUR: Another “early Design Review outreach” meeting – this time, you’re invited to a site tour at 6318 41st SW, 10 am Saturday, December 14th. This is a HALA-upzoned site, where a house is proposed for replacement with a 4-story, 6-unit townhouse building and 3 parking spaces. Project-team members will be there to answer questions and talk about the plan, including the architects from MNMuM Studio, who provided the early-stage rendering above.

5616 CALIFORNIA SW APPROVAL: From today’s Land Use Information Bulletin, land-use approval for this project planned to replace a house with three 3-story townhouse buildings totaling 8 units, as reported here back in August.

(Rendering by Cone Architecture)

One change: The project (just south of C & P Coffee [WSB spomspr]) now has 5 offstreet parking spaces, one more than previously reported. Today’s notice (see it here) opens a window for appeals until December 16th.

21 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: Site tour for 6318 41st SW; approval for 5616 California"

  • anonyme December 3, 2019 (6:31 am)

    The rendering for the proposed development at 5616 California looks more like the before photo of a 1970’s demo than it does that of a new building.  It resembles a defunct dentist’s office.

    • Nolan December 3, 2019 (3:26 pm)

      What, precisely, is wrong with a dentist’s office?

  • Lyle December 3, 2019 (7:36 am)

    I love that we are building new homes and upzoning. The only thing I find extremely frustrating is that there is not enough off street parking. In my opinion each unit built should have to have at least 1 off street parking space per new unit. 

    • Also John December 3, 2019 (8:09 am)

      Developers convinced the City that parking spots are expensive to provide and that thoae cost will be passed down to the future buyer.  Thus raising the purchase price.They convinced the City that if they don’t have to provide parking they’ll pass the savings onto the buyer.  How’s that for BS.

      • Peter December 3, 2019 (9:47 am)

        John, parking is expensive to build, it does raise the cost of construction, and the cost of it is passed on to the buyer/renter. Regardless of how righteous you feel about demonizing home builders, those are facts. Loosening parking requirements is not being pushed by developers, but by residents of the city like me who are alarmed by the critical and worsening shortage of housing in Seattle.

        • KM December 3, 2019 (1:32 pm)

          I’ve written the council in support of loosening, if not eliminating, parking minimums. It’s nice to see the city has moved the needle in recent years. And yes, I drive and own a car.

          • Matt P December 3, 2019 (2:17 pm)

            I agree.  The fewer spaces there are, the more people will choose to ride public transportation which in turn improves traffic for everyone.

  • Airwolf December 3, 2019 (11:12 am)

    Looks like a black and white Rubik’s cube. Also, the cyclists are not wearing a helmet. required by law in King County

    • Railroaded December 3, 2019 (1:13 pm)

      Maybe they stole the bikes and are scofflaws.

      • WSB December 3, 2019 (1:49 pm)

        Thieves can wear helmets too. At least I hope the person who stole a bicycle and helmet from us recently is using it.

  • Jaclyn December 3, 2019 (1:48 pm)

    I’m assuming the 41st plan is replacing more than 1 house, if they’re building 6 townhomes?

  • NWSpur December 3, 2019 (2:04 pm)

    This.  Peter is correct.  To provide parking on these small lots is extremely expensive, as a lot of time there is no other option than to lower the site and take the parking underground….very costly.  If you keep parking at grade, you lose square footage in your housing due to the City limits on the FAR and building heights which isn’t favorable for the developer or the buyer/renter.  It’s very costly to the developer and buyer/renter.

    • KBear December 3, 2019 (3:32 pm)

      Right. But if they don’t put in parking, people are going to have cars anyway. (I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s no rapid transit in West Seattle.) And they’re going to park on the street, in space provided by you and me, the taxpayers. Why should I subsidize the storage space for someone else’s private automobile? Why should I pay for the amenity the builder was too cheap to build?

      • HappyCamper December 3, 2019 (9:46 pm)

        Aren’t we all paying for the streets? Owners and renters? I don’t “like” the loosening of the parking requirements but I do understand the rationale. In the battle of housing vs. parking housing wins

  • Thinker December 3, 2019 (3:12 pm)

    Matt p. Do you have any data to back that up??? I’ll be surprised if even ONE person that moves into this place doesn’t have a car. How about friends and family?? Will they not drive to visit???

    • KM December 4, 2019 (9:09 am)

      It’s not Matt’s job to do research for you on how parking requirements affect private car ownership (and you don’t have to provide data proving that all people moving into the building will have a car). There’s information out there for you. FWIW,  I’ve never lived in a building that provided guest parking (even very old buildings), so I expect that visitors who choose to drive will park on the street, much like they do when they visit friend and family living in single family homes.

  • Thinker December 3, 2019 (3:14 pm)

    WSB. Do you have any data as to how many people moveing into WS DON’T have a car??

    • WSB December 3, 2019 (4:52 pm)

      People aren’t interviewed on arrival, so, no one would have data like that.

  • Chris K December 3, 2019 (5:07 pm)

    I am waiting for the day that cars will be completely banned within the city limits.  One can dream.

    • K December 4, 2019 (2:59 am)

      Here ye, here ye! Again, GLOBAL WARMING…its here folks whether you like it or not. I just don’t get it where people are so self absorbed that they can only think of themselves. By enforcing or, if you will, limiting parking spaces on new developments, especially in densely populated areas, pollution output is being minimized. Nor only in emissions, but in the entire production of a vehicle. We have to see the “light” as no one else is going to fix this delimma for us. Once our environment is gone, there’s no bringing it back. Eliminating cars within Seattle city limits is a good idea. Denver, Colorado had a mandate dating back to 1984, restricting vehicles by odd or even numbers based on the last digit of their license plates daily access to downtown Denver. Yes, they had a major pollution problem & by addressing it,  restored vitality to downtown Denver’s air quality. Regarding the comment of no public transportation in West Seattle…for heavens sake…this new development is right on California Ave! The c line runs right past this address with a stop both north & southbound at Findlay. Plus the 22 shuttle to Alaska Junction and the 128 which continues on up to the Admiral Junction. In so far as resident visitors, there’s UBER, LYFT, cab service as alternative to the bus. 

  • 1994 December 3, 2019 (10:19 pm)

    The Seattle Times’ FYI Guy, Gene Balk, and other contributors comb data sets to look at the numbers behind news topics — especially those that offer insight into the quality of life and cost of living in the Seattle area.He did an article on people moving to King County (or was it Seattle specifically) & whether they registered a car – see if you can find his article in The Seattle Times.

Sorry, comment time is over.