DEVELOPMENT: 4 houses approved for Alki slope

(WSB photo, 2019)

Last February, we reported on a proposal for 4 four-story houses on that sloped site at 2530 55th SW (map) in Alki, site of a street-closing slide in 2013. Today’s twice-weekly Land Use Information Bulletin brings the official notice that the city has approved the plan, which will include 4 offstreet-parking spaces. The decision (PDF) explains the conditions under which the city approved the project despite the site’s challenges. The approval opens a two-week appeal period through January 30th; this notice (PDF) explains how to file one.

27 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: 4 houses approved for Alki slope"

  • ScottAmick January 16, 2020 (1:52 pm)

    Hopefully the project stabilizes the slope!

  • Sillygoose January 16, 2020 (2:38 pm)

    A little jingle comes to mind, “Slip Sliding away” once again no parking so this little narrow street will be impassable with tenant cars parked on the shoulder.  Nice work department of planning, no brain no headache!

    • 55th January 16, 2020 (3:02 pm)

      What do you mean “no parking”?Doesn’t the article above say there will be four off-street spots?  

    • KM January 16, 2020 (3:43 pm)

      “…which will include 4 offstreet-parking spaces…”

    • Peter January 16, 2020 (3:51 pm)

      If you had bothered to read the city’s decision notice or the prior WSB story, both of which are linked above, then you would know that these do have parking, but I guess any excuse to sob crocodile tears about “no parking” is good enough for some people.

      • Mk January 16, 2020 (6:51 pm)

        4 off street parking for 4, 4 story townhomes. I think sillygoose meant households commonly have more than one vehicle so those will likely be parked on a shoulder of an already narrow road.

        • AMD January 16, 2020 (9:07 pm)

          My household has more than one car so we bought a house with more than one off-street parking space.  If people buy houses that do not meet their parking needs, that is the fault of the home-buyer, not the developer.  MAYBE it’s the fault of the city for letting people store their belongings on public right-of-ways to begin with, but really, the fault lies primarily with people who buy inappropriate homes for their car storage needs.

          • chemist January 16, 2020 (11:05 pm)

            the fault lies primarily with people who buy inappropriate homes for their car storage needs.”

            Let’s not forget the fault of folks who rent inappropriate homes/apartments for their car storage needs, especially now that car storage fees are charged separately from rent by city law.

          • SDS January 17, 2020 (3:21 pm)

            Its the City people! if you want or expect ample parking go to the country and buy a house with acreage. 

    • Also John January 16, 2020 (6:28 pm)

      What Sillygoose is trying to say is the four off street parking spots will not be sufficient for four full size four story tall homes.  Therefore each additional vehicle will be on the narrow street.

      • 55th January 16, 2020 (7:10 pm)

        That’s not at all what Sillygoose said, and I’m not sure I have any reason to take your word for what they may or may not have meant.  That’s just a road to nowhere.  So please excuse us while we address what was actually said.

        As for your(?) point: great!  I am glad there won’t be room for more cars!  I consider that a win.  Folks that move in there can have one car per family (seems a higher average than necessary, but I’ll let that slide for now) and if they simply MUST have something silly like one car per person then they’ll be screwed via lack of parking.  How is this not excellent news?

        • Will January 16, 2020 (8:16 pm)

          Having one car per person is NOT always silly.  My wife’s job and my job mandate a car each without exception.  One parking spot per house is not ideal no matter what you say and solves nothing.  Maybe you can not assume that everyone’s situation is the same. 

          • 55th January 16, 2020 (9:02 pm)

            What mandates you can’t bus or carpool?  What mandates you can’t live close enough to one of your jobs that you can walk or bus or carpool?  Having one car per person is not only silly, it is ruining the entire world.  How, in this day and age, can you not see that?  

          • Peter January 17, 2020 (9:21 am)

            Will, if these houses don’t meet your needs, then don’t buy one. Just because you claim to need a car is not in any way evidence that everyone needs a car or that all houses need multiple parking spaces. It is not valid to project your chosen wasteful lifestyle onto everyone else.

          • john January 17, 2020 (6:18 pm)

            Will,  It appears you and your wife should be the ones that are the exception both with jobs mandating cars.  Since you have a self professed  car mandates that are not the norm, it makes no sense to mandate multi-car storage.We could eliminate these endless street-parking entitlement discussions and fairly solve our parking issues by monetizing all street parking.

        • Kram January 17, 2020 (7:15 am)

          These broad strokes about one car per person don’t help. Many people have delivery jobs, jobs that require site visits or metro area meetings, kids, schedules etc. I agree we need to reduce cars but you can’t make people feel bad about it when it’s their lively hood. Your comment about “why not just move close to where you live” makes you sound detached from current events. Many people don’t have the means to live close to where they live. A car person is a current reality for many people as they Uber in the evenings or take on Amazon delivery jobs to supplement their day jobs.

          • 55th January 17, 2020 (8:14 am)

            Kram, you are correct.  Perhaps I should have tried a different tact.  Thanks for your words.

  • admirality January 16, 2020 (2:49 pm)

    this really should be one end of a trail up to Olga St

  • Rico January 16, 2020 (3:16 pm)

    The city will always approve more tax parcels $ no matter the impact on environment, traffic, or neighborhood.

    • Peter January 17, 2020 (9:23 am)

      Rico, the Seattle area is short short over 235,000 homes when compared to job growth. We. Need. More. Housing.  Your pet conspiracy theory is stupid and counterproductive

    • Kram January 17, 2020 (10:49 am)

      Rico; where in the world to you expect people to live when they move to Seattle? Believe it or not the city does cares about traffic, environment and neighborhood impacts. Each one of these projects takes over a year to get designed and permitted, usually more at a massive expense to the developer. The small amount of money they will get for these parcels is not the motivating factor. The motivating factor is that every year there is approximately 15k – 20k more people than the year before; factoring for people leaving. Brushing these projects off as just the city trying to make a buck is ignoring the actual issue.

  • Alki Resident January 16, 2020 (3:23 pm)

    Will there be a sidewalk put in here and will they widen the steet as well?

    • Guy January 16, 2020 (4:59 pm)

      That area of that street is a mess! Hopefully it will be widened and fixed. 

    • ScottAmick January 16, 2020 (5:12 pm)

      This site plan indicates “new/restored concrete sidewalk” which is a good sign.  There does seem to be a utility pole in the middle of the sidewalk zone at the south end of the property though.

    • Peter January 17, 2020 (9:24 am)

      Developers are required to put in sidewalks along with new construction.

  • WTF January 17, 2020 (2:17 pm)

    This is what’s called, tempting fate.

  • john January 17, 2020 (4:22 pm)

    WTF, Please explain how additional family housing, new sidewalks,  upgraded infrastructure and stabilizing a slide area are ‘tempting fate’?

Sorry, comment time is over.