City accepting comments on proposed addition to Andorra Estates apartments


Andorra Estates apartmentsThe City of Mountlake Terrace is now accepting comments on any environmental concerns the public may have about a planned addition to the Andorra Estates apartment complex at 22817 Lakeview Drive. The public comment period ends on March 21, 2014.

Public comments should be sent to the Planning Department, City of Mountlake Terrace, P.O. Box 72, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043.

Andorra Estates plans on razing four existing buildings, to be replaced with seven new buildings, landscaping, open space, vehicular and bicycle parking, storm drainage, pedestrian amenities and street frontage improvements along Lakeview Drive. Upon completion of the project, the total number of one- and two-bedroom units in the development will rise to 403.

The map shows the area within Andorra Estates targeted for redevelopment.
The map shows the area within Andorra Estates targeted for redevelopment.

City officials have determined that the planned expansion will not have any adverse impact on the environment if mitigation measures are implemented. A 14-day public comment period is required by the Washington State Environment Policy

The plans for the Andorra Estates redevelopment include a reduction of about 20 percent of the total parking spaces at the complex; currently the development typically sees more than 100 of its current parking stalls being unused on a regular basis.

The Andorra Estates developers are also expected to help pay a portion of the costs associated with placement of a new traffic signal and crosswalk beacon lights along Lakeview Drive in connection to construction of the proposed Lakeview Trail. The traffic light would be place at the intersection of 236th Street Southwest and 65th Avenue West, while rectangular rapid flashing beacons are proposed for where the Interurban Trail crosses 228th Street Southwest.


  1. More than double the number of units combined with a 20% decrease in parking spaces? Can that really be correct? If it is, can someone please explain the logic?

  2. I guess that qualifies as background logic for the general urban (now suburban in places) trend of offering less parking spaces per rented residential unit than say 25 years ago. What it doesn’t explain is how a property of 193 units with apparently 100 more parking spaces than necessary could add 210 units whilst decreasing the number of spaces.

    My inquiry refers to the counter-intuitiveness of ignoring common current practice in favor of theoretical forecasts. With about 100 spaces generally unused, if the number of spaces just stayed the same, simple math suggests that there will be about 110, (210-100) more vehicles than spaces.

    I know that common sense derivation has to somehow be wrong even though it is based on the my observation of the unwillingness of households to give up their vehicles at the pace which theory suggests they should. Maybe the number of vehicles per household for folks living in that portion of MLT will dutifully follow the theory, but if it doesn’t, where will all the cars park?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here