Development proposal calls for replacing three MLT houses with 19 townhomes

3717
9

A local developer is eyeing three lots in the southern portion of the Town Center District in Mountlake Terrace as the site for a potential town homes subdivision and the city is welcoming input on the proposal until the end of the month.

Landsverk Quality Homes has submitted application to build Solana Townhomes, a 19-lot townhome development, on the northwest corner of the 240th Street Southwest and 55th Avenue West. The half-acre site lies within the Town Center building district that allows for two- or three-story flex-space townhouses.

Landsverk has been an active builder in Mountlake Terrace during recent years; the company completed a remodel of the Mallory Building, 24113-56th Avenue West, earlier this year and built Brook Glen, a 14-townhome subdivision at 23811 Cedar Way, in 2014.

Written public comments on the proposed Solana Townhomes are now being accepted by the City of Mountlake Terrace Department of Community & Economic Development at 6100-219th St. S.W. through September 29. The Mountlake Terrace City Council will take up the proposal and conduct a public hearing on the townhomes proposal later this fall.

— Story and photos by Doug Petrowski

9 COMMENTS

  1. I am sure that the townhomes will be an improvement over the homes that are there presently. My concern is parking. This is my neighborhood. I have seen the people parking in front of houses from the overflow at Arbor Village also from the Shag apartment building. It ruins the feel of the
    neighborhood. It would be great if they made parking to go with all these new dwellings mandatory.




    0



    0
    • My brother has problems with SHAG apartment people parking a block away in front of his house. He barely has room for one car as does the house next to him. Shag people park all along 56th in that vicinity.




      0



      0
    • There is not room for “several” parking spots on the north side of 240th at this site. There is only one lot along the 240th frontage of the redevelopment project. After accounting for distances required from the alley and the 55th corner, my guess is that there would be room for three vehicles on the north side of 240th at that development site. I can see that frontage from my upstairs office. Further, any vehicle larger than a compact car will have challenges negotiating on-site parking. There will be substantial parking spill-over into the neighborhood, possibly including my parking lot in the evenings and on weekends. Ms. Green’s concerns are well-founded.




      0



      0
  2. Have you looked at the plans for the townhomes project? I would be interested in what the parking plans are. Why have the comments ceased? Have there been decisions made on this project? I see the NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE FOR FINAL FEE SIMPLE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION (dated 12/9/2017) has been posted. This must be a re-posting?




    0



    0
      • Why aren’t all townhomes required to provide 2 on-site spots per unit? How are they exempt from that requirement? They aren’t mixed-use buildings, and each unit has just as much or more square footage as many SFR homes in town. They should be required to have a minimum of 38 on-site spots (not street parking) for these 19 units. Every development that fails to provide sufficient parking for its residents drags the whole neighborhood down.




        0



        0
        • Townhomes aren’t exempt. On-site parking requirements for the BC Downtown District (including townhomes) are set in MTMC 19.50.070. They are required to provide at least 27. They are proposing 30 on-site parking spots. In addition, they will have the 9 striped back-in angle parking spots and, from my measurement, room for about 4-5 parallel parking spots on the north side of 240th.




          0



          0
  3. On-street parking (particularly back-in angle parking) should not be included determining the amount of on-site parking provided. On-street parking is for the general public, short-term visitors, etc. not for new construction residents, customers, employees and vendors. On-site parking should have full-size spaces and a circulation pattern so that you don’t have to somehow get your car turned around to leave the off-site parking. Your neighbors should not need to provide your parking spaces.




    0



    0

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here