DEVELOPMENT: 39 townhouses proposed for 2051 SW Orchard

| Delridge | Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

While a long-in-the-works development plan proceeds for the north side of SW Orchard just east of Delridge Way, there’s now a new one for the south side of the street.

An early-stage site plan has just been filed with the city for 2051 SW Orchard (the site highlighted yellow in the screengrab above from King County Parcel Viewer). The site plan shows 39 townhouses, with offstreet parking in “shared underground garages.” The prospective development team is currently the most prolific in West Seattle – an entity of STS Construction (WSB sponsor) is listed as the owner (though not yet in county records), with architect Atelier Drome. Since this is an early-stage plan, there’s no timetable yet for feedback, reviews, and public comment.

As for the proposal on the north side of the street – city files indicate the 18-townhouse project, which hasn’t yet finished Design Review, is still being actively pursued. That project has a different owner/architect team.

Flivver June 16, 2021 (12:59 pm)

WOW!!. A recognition of the real world!! Off street parking provided.

Al June 16, 2021 (1:02 pm)

I know people here hate when parking is included in projects, but these townhomes will be in an area where there truly is no street parking. Buyers will have to either have parking assigned to their unit, or commit to never own a car, period.

Peter June 16, 2021 (5:06 pm)

Do you want all home owners to always park in their garage or commit to never own a car, period? Or does that only apply to people with homes you don’t like?

Alki resident June 16, 2021 (2:37 pm)

At this point, all I can do is laugh and shake my head.

natinstl June 16, 2021 (2:43 pm)

I can’t believe we don’t have a moratorium on building over here with this whole bridge situation. I even more can’t believe why someone would voluntarily buy into WS at this time. I own my home already and I’m in it for now, but if I was buying right now no way.

WSB June 16, 2021 (3:12 pm)

Unless something else catastrophic happens, the bridge will be open long before this gets anywhere near construction, which usually takes a couple years from “early site plan” stage.
Kram June 16, 2021 (4:38 pm)

Because people know that the bridge is a temporary situation. Seattle is still one of the fastest growing cities in the US and land is at a premium. We’ve had a 10% increase in house prices from May 2020 to May 2021 which is jaw dropping. West Seattle is a very desirable place to live bridge or no bridge.

shotinthefoot June 16, 2021 (2:44 pm)

Don’t kid yourselves. The only reason they’re adding parking to these units is because it’s TOWNHOMES. You know, owned by homeowners. Apartment dwellers with cars don’t get the same consideration.

Jort June 16, 2021 (2:58 pm)

People here don’t really “hate” when parking is included, but what we do NOT like is when parking is MANDATED to be included in projects. If a developer chooses to include parking (and subsequently pass those incredibly high costs along to potential owners) then that is one thing. It’s another for the city to force every potential renter or homeowner to subsidize the car-ownership decisions of other residents. Sounds like these houses will be perfect for those who choose to own and drive a car. Thankfully there are options in other locations for those who choose not to.

More important than parking June 16, 2021 (3:32 pm)

@JORT What we like even more is low-income / affordable housing. I hope the majority of units from “the most prolific” developer in West Seattle will help the shortage of this type of housing.
- Matt P June 16, 2021 (7:16 pm)
  
  Today’s high cost new housing becomes tomorrow’s affordable housing. That’s the way it has always been and works fine until nimby’s get their way and don’t allow upzoning.
- Patience June 17, 2021 (8:07 am)
  
  Funny thing about garages – of the 22 homes on our block, 17 of them have garages (most are 2 or 3-car). Only 3 of us use our garages for our cars – the rest of them use theirs for storage and park their cars in their driveway or street (they all have 2 or more cars).
My two cents … June 16, 2021 (3:35 pm)

@jort 1. From a development perspective, more amenities = potential higher rent from the market (also see marginal costs, depreciation, etc. that factor into the development business decisions). 2. Zoning regulations drive economic (and design considerations) decisions in most development scenarios.

Flivver June 16, 2021 (4:53 pm)

Jort. Apartment units that have off street parking charge EXTRA for them. That’s why when a new building goes in you see a lot of “new” cars parked on the street as tenants don’t want to pay the extra cost. It DOES NOT dissuade people from owning cars.

Jort June 16, 2021 (11:31 pm)

OK, so? They park on the public streets that they’re entitled to park on like anybody else? If they don’t like parking on the street they can pay extra to park in the garage? What’s the problem here? Am I missing something? At least the other renters in the building aren’t subsidizing the driving choices of their neighbors.

Azimuth June 16, 2021 (5:19 pm)

Unfortunately the space these homes and the project across the street will occupy are presently undeveloped forest slopes. It’s not much, and I know it is private land, but I hate to see what few parcels left like these disappear. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

StopCuttingDownTrees June 16, 2021 (9:52 pm)

That was my initial thought: that’ll be a loss of pure, heavily-forested land on this peninsula that we’ll never get back. But at least it looks like lots of open space will be preserved on the site.
- Joe Z June 16, 2021 (11:00 pm)
  
  Have you taken a closer look at what’s growing on that parcel? It’s mostly invasive species and Bigleaf maples. If it was given a proper restoration there would be hardly anything left besides a few ferns.
  - Xman June 17, 2021 (11:08 am)
    
    It’s still pretty.

Solstan June 16, 2021 (8:37 pm)

Anyone who buys a unit there will be lucky to see even an hour or two of sun no more than 10 days out of the year. No thanks.

JohnW June 17, 2021 (9:49 am)

Solstan,
of course your sun claim is provably false by checking sun charts.
But why take the time to post such a false negative statement?
Sunny or shadey housing is needed and will be appreciated by the people desperate for housing.
Why demean them by casting ‘shade’ on their housing dreams?

1994 June 16, 2021 (8:59 pm)

I hope there are parking spots for guests and a wide enough lane for trucks, emergency vehicles, refuse pick up….and this will be a dead-end lane! I had friends who bought a townhome and the drive was a jumble of cars, very difficult to navigate and turn around – a nightmare actually! And they hated! living there because you can hear EVERYTHING from the neighbors. Unpleasant surroundings.

Jort June 16, 2021 (11:30 pm)

Or, don’t drive. Also an option.
JohnW June 17, 2021 (9:40 am)

If only everyone could afford to own a large lot with a single family home and a circular entrance drive as ‘1994’ seems to imply, the results would be widespread development, clearcutting all forests and multiplying the effects of climate change.
Is that what we want?
- Al June 17, 2021 (10:44 am)
  
  Sorry grandma, I can only accept guests that can transport themselves without a car. You aren’t welcome.

StopCuttingDownTrees June 16, 2021 (10:16 pm)

Sad to see one of the last thickly-wooded, undisturbed areas in West Seattle falling to the saw. I hope they don’t level the whole site and leave something for the critters who call it home.

Lisab June 16, 2021 (11:01 pm)

Couldn’t agree more:)
JohnW June 17, 2021 (8:17 am)

Anyone who actually looked at the site plan posted by WSB will see that this is a two part development with a large area of ECA that will not be developed.
And because this is an ECA Steep Slope there are numerous protections that apply to preserving the trees that do not normally apply.
These comments about saving private parcels from development equates with exporting such development to the ex-burbs destroying the wonderful forests that surround our city and increasing traffic pollution and reducing sustainability while increasing climate change.
Is that what Stopcuttingdowntrees wants?
- StopCuttingDownTrees June 17, 2021 (12:06 pm)
  
  Those wonderful forests surrounding our city are going to be destroyed by development, anyway. If we don’t preserve urban forests in Seattle, what makes you think Burien, Kirkland, Renton, Shoreline, Kenmore, Bellevue, and Tukwila will preserve theirs?
Jort June 17, 2021 (9:31 am)

The “last” thickly-wooded, undisturbed areas in West Seattle?! Seriously?! Are we looking at the same West Seattle?
Auntie June 18, 2021 (9:04 pm)

If you look at a plot map, you will see a number of areas of greenbelt that have been purchased by the city and will remain undeveloped, both west and east of Delridge, especially around Longfellow Creek.

Yep June 17, 2021 (8:57 am)

Should be an interesting one. TH 22-29 don’t meet the definition of a townhouse (two sides exposed) so it’s unlikely this is even close to a final design. The layout could be nice with 30 units instead of 39 but it’s also problematic that the units are only 12-6 and 14 ft wide, so I hope there is some serious consideration for light.

Craig June 17, 2021 (9:24 pm)

For the portion along SW Orchard, the drawings reference a 2019 report siting that “no wetlands were identified” where indicated by GIS. I’m skeptical that none exist and question the wisdom of placing underground parking in this location. Isn’t this nearly at the level of the CSO tanks next door? If it is wetland than perhaps the lower portion should not be developed…

JohnW June 18, 2021 (12:25 pm)

Craig,
Good catch on that wetland mention.
If the parcel is determined to actually have a wetland, then the ECA has specific codes to address development just the same as the ECAs of the site that are determined to be Steep Slope by the DCI methods.
No expert on wetlands, but anecdotally I have enjoyed the two beautiful houses recently completed adjacent to the beaver dams of Longfellow Creek.
The talented architect was able to build them for his family even though his site shows wetlands and steep slope indicated on Seattle DCI iMap.
Such indicators kick off the requirements of formal determination by qualified professionals i.e. licensed surveyors for the steep slopes and likely civil engineers for wetlands.
- Craig June 18, 2021 (8:13 pm)
  
  Thank goodness for processes and talented professionals developing the wetlands in Delridge. SPU can continue putting in holding tanks and little rain gardens everywhere to try to keep our sewage out of Longfellow creek while developers fill in the wetlands. Seriously though, if the site is developed, hopefully there are some talented architects and engineers who can minimize this potential project’s impact on the watershed. Maybe they could actually help environmental matters on some level?
  - JohnW June 18, 2021 (11:21 pm)
    
    There is no known sewage flowing into Longfellow Creek, with the exception of ducks, dogs, beavers and homeless campers.
    To address the development –
    Building density and utilizing new requirements for infiltration (where allowed) actually do help the environment.
    It is the new single family developments in the exurbs that are environmentally poor choices.
    The old existing housing stock in West Seattle is the elephant in the wetlands as Craig’s and my old house both were constructed when we did send our sewage directly to Puget Sound.
    Those combined sewer and storm drains are the source of our problems.

Sorry, comment time is over.