West Seattle development: 2 apartment buildings proposed in Luna Park area, and more

| Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

Three notes from today’s edition of the city’s twice-weekly Land Use Information Bulletin:

12-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING @ 3026 SW CHARLESTOWN: In July of last year, we mentioned an early-stage proposal for a “10-12-unit apartment building” on this parcel uphill from Avalon [map]. Now, there’s an official proposal for an apartment building, and this notice in today’s LUIB invites you to comment on it. (While the notice calls it a 3-story, 12-unit building, there’s conflicting information elsewhere on the city website, including documents that say it’s four stories – which is allowed in the site zoning – with 11 units over six parking spaces.)

12-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING @ 3017 SW CHARLESTOWN: Almost directly across the street is a similar proposal – 12 apartments on three floors over 6 parking spaces; same development-team contact, with a separate notice announcing a comment period through December 4th. A single-family house is planned for demolition on this site.

PARKING LOT NEXT TO PECOS PIT: Last month, we reported on a meeting focused on the old substation building east of Pecos Pit BBQ (WSB sponsor). One of the issues that came up was whether the city had gone through the appropriate permit process for Pecos Pit to use the substation property (3243 SW Genesee) as overflow parking. According to online records, it had not, but a notice in today’s LUIB indicates an attempt to fix that – an application for a temporary land-use permit to allow parking there “for up to six months.” You can comment on this application through December 4th.

Friend O'Dinghus November 22, 2016 (2:37 am)

Anyone else find it sort of odd that the name Sue Genty appears as the contact on the errantly late LUIB submittal for the old substation lot adjacent to the new Pecos Pit? Ms. Genty appears to have been the interior designer for the remodel project, according to her website, so not sure why this would not show the land/business owner as the contact person instead. To the best of my recollection that would be Jerry Kingen, who is also the owner of Salty’s.

I hate to think that this is a way to obscure any responsibility for not properly securing the legal right to use public land for personal gain. Makes me wonder about the adjacent land just south of Salty’s. If I am not mistaken, that too is public land, and is also used as overflow parking.

WSB November 22, 2016 (7:12 am)

In the decade we’ve been covering land use here, an architect is frequently who’s shown as the applicant/project contact – that’s the person who tends to be most involved with the paperwork filing, doing the technical work with SDCI (formerly DPD), not the owner.
Alan November 22, 2016 (8:47 am)

The lot to the south of Salty’s is SW Bronson Way Street End Park. It appears to be owned and managed by SDOT because it is a street end. I don’t know if Salty’s purposely uses that property or if customers just choose to park there. I do note that Salty’s property line ends at the picket fence, yet they use the property on the other side, next to the for parking. Since that is public property, I may just park there sometime and see what sort of response I get.
- Alan November 22, 2016 (9:07 am)
  
  Augh. My line in my first post “property on the other side, next to the for parking” was meant to be “property on the other side of the picket fence, next to the Alki Trail for parking”.
Alan November 22, 2016 (8:59 am)

I’m not sure what happened to the images I had attached to my previous post for documentation. I’ll do them one at a time, since multiples seem to be a problem.

Here is a screen capture from King County showing the property lines.
Alan November 22, 2016 (9:00 am)

Here is just a screen capture from Google Maps showing the park designation. Obviously Google Maps is not a governmental agency, so you can follow the link to SDOT on my original post to confirm.

Mike November 22, 2016 (7:53 am)

I hope they get to keep using that lot, the neighbors near by will hate all the people blocking the alley and driveways waiting to get food if they can’t park.

Friend O'Dinghus November 22, 2016 (9:05 am)

I appreciate your insight WSB, and understand that would be the case with the property itself that is being remodeled, but I wonder how often that is the case in the event it is for adjacent, publically owned land, which is merely going to be used for parking….no structures? Also, do you know if Ms. Genty was the architect, or instead was the interior designer, or both? Thanks again for your insight.

Friend O'Dinghus November 22, 2016 (9:26 am)

Oh and I meant to add a reply to Mike. I too am glad that additional parking is available so overflow can be accommodated without unduly impacting the nearest neighbors. My observation isn’t about the land being used in this way by permit, it is about use of the property without a permit. The permit to do such costs money, which ultimately is paid by the person benefitting (financially or otherwise) by the said use of the public land. It is a source of revenue for the city, and by extension, all of it’s citizens. If the former substation land is to be used in this way, albeit temporarily, then the city rightfully should expect and receive remuneration.

Alan November 22, 2016 (10:19 am)

The zoning on the old substation lot is Single Family. Isn’t allowing the property to be used as a parking lot violating the zoning? Pecos Pit is on an NC3 lot, which is supposed to be “pedestrian-oriented”. It seems like they are pushing it into functioning as a C1 property, including the property that is currently SF.

I am not an expert on this but have been in numerous meetings involving city personnel where it was made clear how difficult it is to change zoning. I understand that neighbors want them to have adequate parking but I sure would not want to be in the house next to the parking lot. To go from being next to a quiet property to being next to a lot that is open until 10pm would be more than annoying.

Friend O'Dinghus November 22, 2016 (10:52 am)

That is so true Alan. I hadn’t thought of it like that. The homeowner next to the ‘temporary’ parking lot has to have taken a substantial hit to their properties’ fair market value due to this.

Alan November 22, 2016 (11:11 am)

Both the 7Eleven (across the alley) and the Taco Time (across 35th) are also NC3 properties, so apparently “pedestrian-oriented” zoning doesn’t prevent car-oriented (gas) business or large parking lots. While I would like to see the city generate income from that property, I puzzle over casually allowing for the commercial use in a Single Family zone.

Sorry, comment time is over.