Developer that purchased Roger’s plans to build mixed-use building

    4262
    20
    Rogers Market as auction storage facility, June 6 002
    File photo

    The Seattle-based company that purchased Roger’s Market Place is a developer that plans to build a multi-use building in that spot, according to Duane Hodges, the Northwest Commercial Properties real estate agent who brokered the transaction.

    “(Mountlake Terrace) has a perception of being a sleepy ‘burb, but if you look at it on a map, it’s really well located,” Hodges said. “This property is a three-and-a-half minute walk from the transit station.”

    The mixed-use building would fit with the city’s vision for the Main Street project.

    As a mixed-use building, the upper floors will likely contain residential units with the bottom floor likely containing some commercial space. As the development is still in the preliminary planning stages, there is no guarantee of what will go there, but they hope to add enough space for something locals need.

    “The community really wants another grocery store,” Hodges said.

    The developers will likely soon begin submitting permits and design plans, but nothing has been formally submitted yet.

    “There’s no rush to get a design out, but there’s no reason to delay anything either,” Hodges said.

    The sale closed on Monday, Oct. 17. The 93,000 square foot property sold for $2.5 million.

    –By Natalie Covate

    20 COMMENTS

    1. Looking forward to seeing something done with this property. Since it is such a large block I’m hoping they split it up a bit with a mid-block breezeway or something for pedestrians to not have to go all the way around.

      The property is definitely very convenient with the existing and future transit access but 3 1/2 minutes would be a pretty brisk walk. I just walked it in 5:15. It takes another minute or two of you walk around on 236th instead of taking the trail through Veteran’s Park. There is a bus stop right at the property with frequent service to the Transit Center though. Sometimes Ill hop on that when it’s raining hard.

    2. Can’t wait to see what’s built there. They’ve had great success with mixed use in Northgate. It would be great to see a variety of businesses, especially more restaurants like Diamond Knot.

    3. i don’t care what the “professionals” say – you still need private transportation or most purposes and to get to most places times of day or night!

      my guess is – private transportation is moving, like everything else, only for those that receive government subsides/tax excemptions

      then, of course, even now, at certain times, 56th street is starting to fill up – wait until you try to put a few thousand more people on that 2-lane road!

      • Depends on the use but for commercial it’s 1 space per 500 square feet. For residential in the Town Center it’s 1.5 spaces for 3 bedrooms, 1.25 spaces for 1 or 2 bedrooms, and 0.75 space for a studio.

        • in other words – they are expected to park on the streets

          yeah – i know, i’ve heard “the professionals” say that kids today prefer taking the bus over having a car and services like uber, and therefore parking not required

          when it comes down to it – everyone just wants to be able to get from where they’re at to where they’re going – now, any time of day or night

          as i wrote above – expect lots more cars parked on the street

        • That parking description isn’t fully accurate. Here’s some additional language, passed by the City Council in April:

          1. Commercial uses: two spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross, leasable area,
          except that the first 5,000 square feet of a retail use or an eating/drinking establishment within a
          building or on a single parcel shall be exempt from the minimum number of required parking
          spaces, so long as at least four on-street parking spaces are within 200 feet.

          http://www.cityofmlt.com/DocumentCenter/View/9578

          So a large chunk of otherwise necessary parking – up to 10 spaces per project – isn’t required by the City as long as parking for as few as four vehicles is available on the street. And I’ll go out on a limb and suppose that those same four spaces could be cited by multiple projects being developed in the same area of the Town Center. Nothing I have seen says that can’t happen. Convenient, that.

          I believe Mr. Eskanazi is correct – there will be a LOT more vehicles parked on the street. Additionally, there won’t even be enough street parking for them, so the parking will spill even further into neighborhoods within a few blocks of Town Center.

          I suppose there’s a bright side to this discussion. Unlike what happened with the SHAG development on 244th, citizens are figuring this out in advance.

          Wait until citizens figure out how much less parking for a project is required by the City in the Town Center zone than would be required for the same building square footage if it were done elsewhere in the City.

          • Thanks for the clarification on the details. I’m just a couple blocks away and have lots of street parking available so wouldn’t mind if it was better utilized. When there’s cars parked at the curb vehicles tend to drive slower and it provides a nice buffer between vehicles and pedestrians.

            I think the City is going to need to look at time restricted parking here very soon. These are growing pains, no doubt, but can mostly be mitigated by parking enforcement and signage. It’s tough to get the right balance of required parking. Require too much and development gets too expensive and may not happen. People think rents in the newer apartments buildings are high now, wait until you require another parking spot per unit. Studies have shown that one additional parking spot can easily add $250 per month to apartment rental costs.

            Having different parking requirement near the Transit Center does make sense and is not unlike what many other cities do. I’ve been working on a spreadsheet comparison of minimum parking standards from various Puget Sound cities. Just haven’t had time to finish yet. So far what I’ve found is that MLT is right in line with many other cities.

            • Perhaps you could imagine parked cars “utilizing” parts driveways and crosswalks on your own block, the way that car does in the photograph NextMLT posted on Facebook today.

              Because that’s what your neighbors only one block away from Town Center future development sites will begin to experience when the first large project with insufficient parking goes in. That will worsen when the second one does, and when the third one does the incremental vehicle parking creep will finally make it onto your block. “Utilization” won’t just be people parked in front of your residence when you’re at work and not around to experience it. It will be garbage left, driveways partly blocked, visibility decreased, vehicles cruising at low speed through your neighborhood at night as their occupants (you hope) search for a place to park. Loud voices as they return to their vehicles in front of your bedroom window after last call.

              A proponent’s utilization is an opponent’s incursion. The City would be accelerating it by approving new developments with clearly inadequate on-site parking.

              Maybe those new apartments should rent for $250 more, if the surrounding neighborhoods could bear a smaller utilization burden. As I recall, no one openly mentioned effectively monetizing the streets in front of neighborhood residences when they were passing the Town Center concept through Council.

              It’s the potential for project approvals that result in issues like this that cause voters to vote “No” on stuff. And from the looks of this discussion and recent ones like it, affected citizens are less likely not to notice until it’s too late than they were just a few months ago.

            • I think a worthwhile exercise for city staff would be to review our Town Center minimum parking standards and enforcement policies and compare to what other Puget Sound cities are doing in their downtowns/town centers. Like I said, I’ve started looking at those numbers but it’s time consuming so haven’t completed it yet. For those who would like our minimum parking standards to be increased I’d encourage you to talk to your city council members about this idea so they can direct staff to perform the study. While anecdotal evidence is important some good data would be even better.

    4. What does “some extra ‘sustainability’ features” mean in real world terms we could all understand? Also, do you know when Rogers was up-zoned to allow more than the original 4 stories allowed in the original 2007 Downtown Plan?

    5. I would like to respond to Dustin’s suggestion about talking to city council members concerning minimum parking standards as well as researching what other cities are doing concerning parking standards. He didn’t live here yet in 2006 when the Downtown Plan was unfolding, so let me share a brief overview as context for his suggestion.

      There were three primary concerns on a widely circulated citizen petition addressed to the council and signed by over 1,400 people. The first was that no new city hall building be constructed without a vote of the public. The second was that height limits in the Downtown Plan reasonably reflected the will of the surrounding neighborhoods to maintain low-rise elevations. The third concern was that the minimum parking requirement for residential units be 2 spaces per unit so that project parking would be self-contained.

      Staff provided information about “trends” in nearby cities concerning onsite parking ratios. That was their basic logic in support of lowering the ratios far below what the citizen petition supported. That group think approach received responses from other like-minded bureaucracies which our leaders knew beforehand would provide validation for the choice they had already made.

      Note that the validation then and the one that Dustin recommends now did not and will not come from the impacted citizenry of Mountlake Terrace. In 2006, the council fell all over itself finding reasons to doubt the validity of the signatures and of the petition itself before finally ignoring it completely as meaningful input.

      Let me predict that a staff study today would repeat what staff said then and Dustin repeats now. Parking spaces sufficient to actually service the folks in the residential buildings (including the commercial portions as well apparently) is counter productive to the pace of development which both city staff and developers want. Any home owner, other resident or property owner who thinks otherwise is simply out of step with the people who run this city – and they will tell you exactly that. Dustin does it all the time – always in gentlemanly terms – but the outcome is just the same.

    6. Len is correct. The council has consistently ignored the efforts of the citizens to have some input into development. I live in a cul-de-sac off of 48th.. There has been so much development on the north end of 48th, that I sometimes have a 5 min. wait just to get out of my cul-de-sac to 48th in the morning. There is street parking that is always plugged full, hard to see around. We should just make it official and have MLT changed to “Lynnwood South”. This is very disheartening to see. To the council I say, “Have ye no shame for your mantra, ‘develop, develop, develop”?

    Leave a Reply