There are 2 new developments that have popped up on our DPD map in the last month and a half since I last checked on April 8th.
First up, 1416 N 46TH ST, submitted on April 9, 2015: Land Use Application for Streamlined Design Review to allow a 3-story, 5 unit residential structure. Parking for 5 vehicles to be provided. Existing structure to be demolished.
Here’s a rendering, with the sun’s angle cleverly chosen to avoid casting a shadow on next door bungalows:
Second, a development at the corner of Woodland Park Ave N and Bridge Way N, 3860 BRIDGE WAY N, submitted April 13th. Design review early design guidance application proposes a 5-story structure containing 18 residential units and 5 live-work units. No parking is proposed. Existing structure to be demolished:
The structure features no parking and borders a proposed regional greenway on Woodland Park Ave N. You’d think that greenway would be developed, but the Move Seattle Levy leaves it undeveloped as developing it would require adding arterial crossings and doing new pavement work.
Finally, the CVS development on 45th stalled because more foundation work was required than expected, but it’s still on track.
eric,
Do you have any additional info about the “proposed greenway” there? (For example, proposed by whom?) Woodland and Bridge badly needs a protected crossing.
At least the first project is providing 5 spaces of parking (although most units will likely house at least two people that may both have cars, so it could be five spaces short), but the other project sounds like parking would be even more crucial and they aren’t providing any?!!! What, no place to park, much less, plug in your Leaf? And I just heard on the news there is a plan afoot to make a protected lane of traffic on 5th downtown for bicycles (good news), but they’d take away all the parking on that side and put in microparks (a la Molly Moon’s ridiculous construct) instead. The War on Cars continues…
@Stacey,
The greenway is in the Seattle Bike Master Plan:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/bmp/2013/NWsector.pdf
Definitely agree that Woodland & Bridge needs a better crossing. I’ve taken to going south on Stone (where I can keep up with traffic). Going north, I’ll use Albion, turn right on Bridge, and then take an immediate left after the median ends onto Woodland.
@Lisa,
More than half of people working downtown don’t drive. Currently there is no safe way to get from one side of downtown to the other on bike – even the 2nd Ave PBL doesn’t extend to Belltown. The city desperately needs to fix this before more cyclist die. Making drivers give up a little bit of convenience seems like a fair trade-off.
Will the Wallingford community be requesting/demanding that parking be added to the Bridge Way project? Hope so. If so, let us know when letters/emails should be submitted and to whom. Thank you for this information.
So the rest of the people who DO drive are supposed to keep sacrificing their ability to get downtown and park, whether it be for work or commerce? That’s not right and it’s not fair. If someone would get off their ass at SDOT and create one north/south bikeway to get bikes safely through downtown, that would solve the problem. Not everyone rides a bike (see the numbers drop when it rains!) and not everyone can take transit. Whomever it was who decided to put a bike path on the left side of a one way street was an idiot and it has resulted in deaths, including the death of one of our neighbors. We don’t need more microparks, for crying out loud. Trying to maintain the parking and road capacities we have for those of us who do drive (as well as bicycle and scooter) is requiring full time vigilance. And the example of Molly Moon taking two parking spaces away from our small business district is ridiculous. I was always under the impression creating a welcoming environment is key to the success of a business, and that would include selling a great product at a good price in an area your target audience can easily reach and park in (car, bike, scooter). Eliminating parking limits shopping or dining or entertainment opportunities for those people who don’t live in the immediate neighborhood, so they avoid our area or, if they do venture out, forces them to find parking in places most of us wish they wouldn’t…like in front of our houses at night when we come home or have guests over who can’t find a place to park, etc. There is a way to coexist with all forms of transportation that doesn’t require death or inconvenience; SDOT just can’t seem to figure it out.
The Bridge Way N building is within a couple blocks of 5 major bus routes and adjacent to one of the best cycling corridors in the city. It’s the perfect location for people who don’t own cars to live.
If these projects are within the ‘urban village’ map, they are not required to have parking (i wager adding parking is a valuable sales tool). Also, height restrictions change drastically when the property is commercially zoned. It is entirely possible that the 46th Street lot will not require height setbacks (comparables just to the east down the street). Learned that the hard way in Tangletown.
Perhaps it’s time to stop complaining that SDOT has no solutions and start making some here.
Suggestions are being made and have been made for a very long time. New building owners/developers should be made to supply parking adequate for a building’s tenants and customers. Simple. They shouldn’t be allowed to tower over other homes and buildings with height limit waivers. Simple. If they can, their property should provide bicycle parking and paths that don’t take anything away (parking spaces, sidewalk space, right of way access, etc.) from everyone else. Simple. People have been making good suggestions for years. Getting them acted upon by SDOT is another endeavor entirely!
Lisa- don’t expect anything from SDOT- SDOT works for the mayor and the city council, not you. The mayor is dictating a strictly top down governance model at this point, and so SDOT is just doing what they’re told.
Sadly, I think you’re right, Eric. The mayor and the city council don’t work for me, either. I understand peoples’ political apathy here. The machine churns on, disregarding most of the wishes of its constituents, no matter who seems to be in charge. It’s “bend over, here it comes!” politics at its best.
Btw, Eric, thanks for these development updates.
Most of the candidates for city council in district 4 are clueless about the development issues in Wallingford. For example, Rob Johnson’s solution to parking woes? “I think the city should do a more thorough analysis of the availability and use of public and private parking in the neighborhood to make sure we’re not building more parking than we need and to better utilize the available parking that currently exists.”
They are not all single issue candidates, but this is not encouraging.
Re: the 1416 N 46TH Street project, a number of neighbors (ourselves included) took issue with the scale of the proposed project; it dwarfs the neighboring bungalows on 46th St in both length and height. The height also affects houses on N 47th street as well.
The architects are also requesting that the SDR allow them to extend the boundaries of the building beyond the zoning code.
A fair amount of feedback was sent to the Seattle Dept. of Planning and Development during the period for public comments. It’s available for viewing at http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/; enter “3019204” under “Search by Number”
The proposed 5 parking spots for 1416 N 46th are underground. The driveway is 1 lane. Imagine the hazard for pedestrians and persons on wheels (bicycle, tricycle, skateboard,scooter, stroller, etc) when vehicles are crossing the sidewalk. The limited building set back contributes to a limited line of sight. The parking will probably be used only for storage of vehicles, or when there is no where to park on the street.
Well, to be fair, I think WCC may have had occasion to ask for something similar. If we need more parking, then the analysis should show it, and then that’s leverage to get policies changed. As for existing parking he’s thinking about better utilizing – I haven’t checked this out, but for example there’s a bank, across the street from where the Post Office used to be, with a parking lot. Can I park there off hours? What about Lincoln, or the other lot back there in back of the library? I’m not speaking for him, have no idea what he’s up to, but all I read there is a matter of trying to get practical solutions based on facts.
As for ordinary houses cast in the shade by contemporary towers, it’s worse for northern neighbors on north-south streets. Luckily the towers going in next to us are to the north, but the next north neighbor has been plunged into eternal darkness. I expect it will lead to more deep forest landscaping, like that cool aspen grove near 41st & Corliss.
Oops, 15 was a response to #12.
I am so sick of hearing about Molly Moon’s parklet. It’s not two spaces unless the two cars are smart cars.
Alx, thanks for highlighting Rob Johnson’s quote. It basically says we don’t need to build parking because businesses can have their employees and customers park in front of residences. Which is what Tableau does at Woodlawn in lower Wallingford. I’m told they have a color coded map of lower Wallingford with the “free” parking streets highlighted for their workers to easily identify the best places to park. Which encourages single occupancy vehicles and it turns neighborhoods into parking lots.
I think it’s a mistake to try to keep everyone happy. We need our politicians to make hard choices. We have streets with cars lanes, sharrows for bicycles, street cars and pay parking spaces. It results in ridiculously confusing signage, collisions and injuries.
Implied–What is your point about Tableau? The map is a minor service to their employees. Having the map does not “encourage” single-occupancy vehicles–it points out the difficulty of taking a vehicle to work, but assists those who find they must drive. (I work elsewhere in the city in a small business located in an RPZ, and, yes, we have a map of the non-RPZ parking in the area. And yet, somehow, the majority of the employees still take the bus or walk; even with the parking map)
@ 2 Skylar, thanks for the link. A protected crossing would help pedestrians too.
Another new development (land use application submitted on 5/4/15) is at 4426 4th Ave NE next to Slave to the Needle. Two live-work units plus four townhomes will be constructed. Three parking stalls will be provided. Existing triplex will be demolished.
@Lisa,
Seattle Bike Blog[1] says that SDOT is planning on moving the parking underneath the monorail. This would improve safety for both cyclists and motorists, as it will completely prevent people from making unsafe lane changes underneath the monorail. It would probably still reduce parking, but not as much as it might seem.
NB: I can’t find SDOT reference for the SBB claim, so it could be unfounded.
[1] http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2015/05/26/times-innovative-5th-ave-bikeway-and-public-space-in-the-works/
And still more on 45th: there’s a plan afoot at 45th and Meridian to rezone and build a SIX STORY behemoth replacing Murphy’s, the neighboring restaurant, and the rug store on 45th, the weed and hair building on Meridian, and the lone house on 46th. The application calls for every floor to be the same square footage (which sounds like no setbacks). Sheesh.
Wow. The rug store might actually close.
I love reading all these comments about parking. Fact is not everyone drives. Look at the millennials – they drive nowhere near as much as their “elders”. Transportation choices are changing and designing for the car (street widths and parking) should not be the number one priority of this city.
I thought Avatar might have been referring to an old proposal I’ve heard about for that block but it looks like the owner of the land is talking to the DPD about an application that would include a rezone.
Link: http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/project.aspx?id=3002184
I would think a rezone from 40′ to 65′ in that area is pretty unlikely.