DEVELOPMENT: 3201 SW Avalon Way project re-activates, with changes

More than two years after clearing the first phase of Design Review, the redevelopment proposal for 3201 SW Avalon Way – site of the Golden Tee Apartments [map] – is back on the front-burner. We dug into the file after a tip from C that the city put up new signs today. Documents show the project has gone through some changes since that 2018 meeting (WSB coverage here) – including a new architect (Public47 has replaced NK) and a change in toplines (now 8 stories, 144 units, 70 offstreet-parking spaces, previously 7/150/85). The new signage mentions a “grocery store and restaurant” but the new documentation shows two retail spaces only totaling 3,600+ square feet on the building’s north side. The project still needs to go before the Southwest Design Review Board at least one more time, but that’s not yet on the board’s calendar (which currently is wide open for 2021).

Jort December 28, 2020 (7:06 pm)

I’m looking forward to welcoming more new neighbors to wonderful West Seattle!!

Carole December 28, 2020 (7:07 pm)

Do we need another grocery store, in addition to 2 Safeways, QFC. TJ’s, Whole Foods, PCC and Met Market?

WSB December 28, 2020 (8:02 pm)

I suspect the “grocery store” reference is in error unless it’s a mini-mart, as 3,600 square feet wouldn’t hold even half a small grocery store.
North Delridge December 29, 2020 (8:18 pm)

Delridge has one grocery store. We need another one.

Flivver December 28, 2020 (8:30 pm)

144 units with 1 car per bedroom means a LOT of street parking. I’d LOVE to be PROVEN wrong but the “nobody has cars” people have yet to provide any REAL proof of that.

AMD December 28, 2020 (9:04 pm)

They need to start charging for street parking. And REALLY charging for it, not those $5 permits. People shouldn’t have the option of having the city/taxpayers subsidize their parking. If parking costs extra money when it’s attached to a property, it should cost the same when it’s in a public right-of-way.
BBILL December 28, 2020 (9:07 pm)

In terms of public transit, that’s one of the better locations in West Seattle.
- Avalon Resident December 28, 2020 (9:40 pm)
  
  There may be nearby bus stops, but the neighborhood cannot absorb more parked cars. This building’s location backs onto the golf course, is bordered by Genessee on the north (no parking), and has significantly reduced parking on Avalon. Plus, there is no real evidence to support the idea that readily available transit means people don’t come with cars.
Joe Grande December 29, 2020 (7:17 pm)

Since the first design review, the re drawing of SW Avalon Way eliminated 35 on street parking spots. There are none on the street in front of the Golden Tee.

Avalon Resident December 28, 2020 (9:42 pm)

WSB, do we know how this plays into the Light Rail plan?

WSB December 28, 2020 (10:40 pm)

Doesn’t “play into it” at all as far as I know. The route alignment has yet to be decided – that, we won’t now know until at least 2023. It was brought up at the 2018 Design Review meeting but more as a side note than anything.
- Joe Z December 29, 2020 (8:12 am)
  
  This definitely gets in the way of several of the light rail alignments. Although they have a modification that uses the north side of Genesee to avoid touching the golf course. We’ve been told that the law considers bulldozing houses to be “lower impact” than using the golf course. Generally having this type of development within walking distance of transit is a very good thing. I’m not convinced they actually want to build this, they may just be designing it so they can get a bigger check from Sound Transit. Similar to what Pecos Pit is doing with their parking lot.
  - WSB December 29, 2020 (10:19 am)
    
    Pecos Pit does not own “their parking lot.” Nor do they own their actual restaurant site. Both remain Seattle City Light property.

TJ December 28, 2020 (9:56 pm)

I’m guessing of the 144 units, most will be 1 bedroom and only a few 2 bedrooms at best. No 3 bedroom units. No families going in there, just like all the other new buildings that have been built with lots of studios and 1 bedrooms.

Mj December 28, 2020 (10:07 pm)

AMD – we do not agree much, but charging for public street parking is an obvious solution.

Delridge December 28, 2020 (10:39 pm)

Oh boy. Wonder when construction will begin on this and how it will impact the already bad rush hour traffic in this corridor.

RJB December 29, 2020 (4:53 am)

Can’t fill the apts that are now in West Seattle….

Flivver December 29, 2020 (6:56 am)

AMD. How much per hour do you want to see?. 24/7 city wide pay means a LOT more meter maids to enforce. How much will THAT cost us?

John W December 29, 2020 (11:41 am)

No need for “meter maids.” We are in the digital age.
A system like “Good to Go” could be implemented that continually monitors street parking demand and adjusts pricing (demand pricing) to insure a few parking places always available. With such a system, Seattle could eliminate the costly coin parking meters of old as well as the new credit card kiosks.
When a car is parked, the system would automatically charge the car owner.
Such a system would eliminate the inequities of the subsidized public street parking and eventually lead to less cars, less pollution, and safer streets.

DB40 December 29, 2020 (8:48 am)

Why even consider this project when the route of ST3 remains unknown? Or is this just a play to artificially enhance the property value in case of eminent domain?

Rico December 29, 2020 (9:07 am)

The City of Seattle continues its subsidy program for large scale developers, Developers are given easy rezoning and charged no impact fees, while the infrastructure costs are passed along to the tax payers. Tax parcel revenues are passed on in the form of rent. On a cost per square foot, these unit will be far from affordable.

John W December 29, 2020 (12:12 pm)

Rico claims are not factual.
The city does not “subsidize” developers other than non-profits.
Rico should acquaint himself with Seattle DCI Codes, before writing such nonsense.Impact fees are required and developers must shoulder infrastructure improvements.
When WSB comments complain of the streets being torn up as 35th & Alaska a year ago, it was for infrastructure saddled on the developers.

Anecdotally, I own undeveloped building sites where Seattle infrastructure costs exceed the value of the property. On Pigeon Point and Gatewood I own properties that a “Water Availability Certificate” requires the excavation of the street ROW and installation of an 8 inch water line extension (about $100 per foot) , installation of fire hydrants and street improvements that cost several hundred thousand dollars.
The Seattle DCI and SPU infrastructure requirements make the value of these platted building sites less than zero, yet they are still taxed as viable lots by King County. I have confirmed this through the appeals process of the King County Assessor’s Office.
Even DADU’s are required to pay large sewage hook up fees that are in fact infrastructure fees that far exceed the cost of the connection.

Finally, with construction and development costs including infrastructure costs make it virtually impossible to build ‘affordable’ non subsidized market rate apartments.
The need for affordable housing is higher than ever, but so are development costs. The supply and demand theories suggest that even building expensive units will lead to more housing and reduced rents.
We all can make a small improvement by supporting “Housing First” and other government enhanced housing.

John W December 29, 2020 (9:38 am)

Besides all of these comments that address non Design Review, I would like to compliment the actual design. The proposed building does address Design Review issues. The design does not look like so many others, like the NK Design which it replaces. This design stand out as being the best looking along the Avalon corridor. I appreciate the glass, steel and wood details and its street presence.
—-
Comments about parking, too many apartments and lack of multi-bedroom units are tired tropes that do not pertain to Design Review. One common complaint that ‘the City thinks people won’t own cars’ is a false position. Of course the City does not expect or believe that no renter will own a vehicle. That is not the issue. The issue is the gradual shift away from our reliance owning automobiles, when their future is not sustainable. And why build expensive underground car storage when the outside streets are gridlocked with too many cars?And to the NIMBY posts complaining about street parking, they are self-admitting that they are the culprits. None of these car owners relying on free street parking, are the only solution: monetizing all street parking.And the claim of no families living in these new apartments? That is plainly false. The economics of demand are likely the determining factor for the mix of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units. Most families prefer the traditional single family house that comprises most of West Seattle. ———– Being a senior, I have recently downsized from a large house on a huge lot to an mid-century one bedroom Morgan Junction apartment. I pay for a unit with parking but park on the California right in front of the building! Why? Because it is free and more convenient. I will continue to park on the street until the City decides to address street parking fairly by charging for every vehicle that is stored. We already own too many cars and any free subsidy from the City just exacerbates the problem that can easily be fixed by fees for street parking.— Complaints about too many apartments being built is strongly at odds with the chorus of high rent complaints due to a shortage of housing. If the apartment developers overbuild, rents will go down to the renters benefit. This is already happening.

Mark schletty December 29, 2020 (1:25 pm)

Charging for all on-street parking in residential areas is just another way to discriminate against low income people and further gentrify our neighborhoods. We all know most of the people renting in no-parking buildings have, and need, cars. They would park in the building if they could. But they are forced to park on the streets so the developers can make more profit. If they are low income and have to pay to park on the street they will not be able to rent there. Therefore low income people are again forced out of the neighborhood and it further gentrifies.

Jon Wright December 29, 2020 (3:15 pm)

Just like the city provides some means-tested housing subsidies, perhaps the city could provide some means-tested parking subsidies. Working to ensure low-income people still have a home in West Seattle is important. However I would be willing to bet most of the people who routinely squawk about new residential developments that don’t include 2 parking spots per unit are probably ones who think they have preferential use of the public right-of-way in front of where they live, have more vehicles than their off-street parking allows, have a garage full of boxes, or some combination thereof. In general, monetizing street parking at market prices would ensure public right-of-way was available to serve the greatest communal good instead of serving as free storage for private property.
- heartless December 29, 2020 (3:47 pm)
  
  Yep, easily done. Seattle already has discounted or free bus passes depending on income level, it could easily do the same for street parking.
  
  That entirely solves Mark’s (probably disingenuous) worry about low-income folks being disproportionately burdened.
  - Mark Schletty December 29, 2020 (6:32 pm)
    
    Wow, Heartless. You choose to insult me, someone you don’t know, over a concern that is at the core of many of my comments and lifetime personal and professional endeavors. I hope you bother to check out other peoples motives before you make assumptions and unjustly insult them too.
    - heartless December 29, 2020 (11:48 pm)
      
      Sorry, I thought you were the Mark Schletty who has previously posted about anti-housing and not wanting any increases in housing in West Seattle until the bridge fiasco was all over?
      
      Here’s an example, you wrote:
      “With our current bridge situation, no project that is more dense than a one-for-one replacement should be allowed. West Seattle desperately needs a moratorium on any project, other than one-for-one replacement, until we get our bridge back.”
      –https://westseattleblog.com/2020/05/development-west-seattle-junction-mixed-use-project-gets-land-use-ok-but-will-it-be-built/
      
      So, yes, Mark, I do suspect it is disingenuous of you to explain your dislike for this development as a product of your concern for people with low income. You have consistently voiced your opposition to more housing–your opposition to the very thing that would help out quite a lot of low income folks.
      
      For you to now contort yourself into a position where you say you’re really just looking out for low income people? By opposing more housing? What’s the word for that…hmmmm…. oh, yeah:
      Disingenuous.
- Mark Schletty December 30, 2020 (9:10 am)
  
  I am that Mark. But my opposition to higher density at this time has nothing to do with keeping out low income people. One for one replacement allows a 30 unit building to be replaced with a 30 unit building. It doesn’t have any income implications. None of the increased density in West Seattle has produced any truly affordable housing. I oppose HALA because it increases density without increasing affordability in the neighborhood getting the increased density. The affordable units are being built elsewhere. And often older already affordable units are demoed to be replaced with non affordable units. It is causing displacement and gentrification. I want the retention of, and increase in the number of, affordable units for low income people in West Seattle. It is just that none of the increase in density is providing it. Low income housing can be provided without increasing density. And increased density aggravates our traffic and infrastructure problems, adversely affecting the rest of the neighborhood. By the way, I retired as an Executive Director of a non-profit development corporation that provided very affordable housing as well as economic development in low income areas in Minneapolis. Before that I professionally lobbied the City to get more low income housing and economic development in the Minneapolis neighborhoods. Just FYI.

DB40 December 29, 2020 (3:47 pm)

Why can’t the City wait to approve this project until the County determines the route of ST3? Is the the value of the Golden Tee is enhanced because of its intended rebuild? Should eminent domain be declared on the Golden Tee, will the owner be compensated for its present value or the value of the proposed rebuild?