The new triangle construction at 45th and Midvale, with moniker LIV Wallingford (1240 N. Midvale), is about 2 months away from completion. The building is owned and developed by PAAR Development. The four story mixed-use building consists of three ground floor commercial spaces and 30 studio apartments. PAAR Development is advertising the new studio units as affordable and geared towards students/workforce.
The studio units are very small with an average of 285 square feet. By comparison, micro efficiencies (a.k.a. aPodments) are now required to be 220 square feet. Unlike micro efficiencies, each studio has its own full galley kitchen. Two studios have private patios while all others (including the commercial tenants) have access to shared patios and a large rooftop deck.
I, for one, am getting tired of the oversupply of vacant retail spaces that plague many of the new mixed-use buildings. It is such a waste to knock down buildings containing local business only to have vacant commercial real estate take their place. Especially when the new commercial space is completely unaffordable to the types of local businesses that were displaced.
Instead of sitting empty, ground floor commercial space at LIV Wallingford is already filling up. Off the Wall School of Music, located across the street, will be the anchor tenant in a 1,300 square foot suite. Off the Wall’s owner, Chris, is excited about the new building and the opportunity to expand his music school. The folks at Off the Wall were involved with this development project very early on, starting with attending design review meetings at the Wallingford Community Council.
PAAR Development itself is relocating from West Seattle into the second of three commercial spaces in LIV Wallingford. I met with founding partner, Joe Paar, who offered me a tour of the new construction and discussed this new building and his company. Joe emphasized that PAAR Development is a small business that is focused on the local community and neighborhood. This new development is not the work of a big out-of-town firm. From PAAR Development’s website:
PAAR Development, LLC is a boutique development company based in Seattle, Washington. Currently, the firm is focused on Built Green Four Star apartment communities. PAAR Development specializes in complex sites in great neighborhoods to create meaningful, community-oriented projects.
We believe that transit-oriented developments are the solution to density. This is why all of our apartments are built near Rapid Ride stops or Light Rail stations. We have experience in most size and types of projects and strongly value our relationships with business partners. We are dedicated to the sustainable development and all of our projects exceed Built Green Four Star standards.
Joe explained a couple of the design elements that tie this new development to the neighborhood. The recently installed sign on the exterior of the building is a nod to the iconic sign atop QFC. Lobby seating will be made of reclaimed pews from neighborhood church Seattle First Church of Nazarene.
Currently, there is just one 300 square foot commercial space remaining. Parr Development is still looking for a one or two person professional company in Wallingford to lease the space.
MFTE in Wallingford
LIV Wallingford is enrolled in the Multifamily Tax Exemption program (MFTE). The city’s MFTE program provides tax breaks for developers who set aside affordable units for qualifying families (and individuals) that have their rent capped according to a formula established by the city. Maximum rent limits are calculated based on family size and income. The maximum rent appears to be capped at an affordable 22-25% of the family’s total income. A breakdown of the city’s income and rent limits can be found here. PAAR Development has set aside 20% of the studios in LIV Wallingford (6 units) as MFTE-eligible.
MFTE units are in high demand. Joe expects to fill all 6 of the new MFTE units very quickly. Joe told me that the regular rent will only be a few hundred dollars above the MFTE level so the building can attract student and workforce renters.
As of June 28, 2016, Wallingford has five new developments with MFTE units. Here is a summary of MFTE-eligible apartments in Wallingford:
| Affordable Unit Type | |||
| Building | Studio | 1 BR | 2 BR |
| Bowman | 7 | 38 | 10 |
| The Noble | 10 | 9 | – |
| Smith & Burns | 1 | 26 | 3 |
| Wallingford Studios (Footprint Apodments) | 8 | – | – |
| Wally Apartments | 1 | 6 | – |
| TOTAL Units | 27 | 79 | 13 |
Source: List of buildings participating in the MFTE program
Wallingford has a total 27 studio apartments that are eligible under the MFTE program. That means LIV Wallingford’s 6 studios will increase the supply of MFTE-eligible studios by 22%. MFTE is only available to new construction. As the neighborhood expands with new development, so too will the supply of rent-capped, affordable housing under the city’s MFTE program. Development in Wallingford is inevitable. Rent continues to soar upwards with no end in sight. Instead of just griping about new apartment developments, we ought to consider positive aspects like the increased supply of affordable housing that the city desperately needs.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I for one am not griping. I accept development as inevitable.
However, if we are really genuine about creating affordable housing and about equality rather than, to borrow a phrase from Skanska “how it pencils out”, then we would get real impact fees for each new development. And real requirements for affordable units.
Density doesn’t magically create the services that are necessary to support it. I say bring on development, but bring on the good stuff too: transportation, parks, money for schools, etc. Again, if you are actually serious about affordable housing and equality, this is how you would do it. If you don’t, well maybe you just care about how it pencils out.
“Impact fees” are a dirty word in Seattle. God forbid we make developers pay like other businesses do, rather than shove the tax burden onto the rest of the people who already live here. Instead, Seattle takes the opposite tack, and gives them tax BREAKS. So it’s not enough that we’re going to give them the “Grand Bargain” and let them build way higher with no design review, we need to give them tax breaks too?
“Tax breaks.” It’s a subsidy that’s so easy to say, and sounds so wonderful. Aw isn’t that nice, they get a “break.” Just like when Boeing got it’s $9 billion dollar tax break. Sounds great, nevermind any requirement to keep jobs here. But the rest of us have to pay to make up the difference in lost revenue.
You want to increase the supply of affordable housing that the city desperately needs, Adam? Build it in places like Beacon Hill, where the land and neighborhoods are actually AFFORDABLE.
Affordable housing is mostly created by the aging of not-very-affordable housing. Building cheap houses in cheap places means expensive places will never have affordable housing. Increasing density in expensive places might create more expensive housing at the short term, but that’s how you create affordable housing for the future. In 20 years those 2k a month studios will not be so fancy, and they’ll be affordable.
“Building cheap houses in cheap places means expensive places will never have affordable housing.”
Why is it so important that expensive places have affordable housing? In other words, if the goal, as ostensibly stated by urbanists, is to create more affordable housing in the city, why does it need to be in more expensive and desirable neighborhoods? If you can’t afford the rent or prices in nice neighborhoods but still want to live in the city, what’s wrong with living in cheaper neighborhoods?
Developers who fund and manage organizations like Seattle For Everyone, want to build in desirable neighborhoods, of course.
Families who aren’t already homeowners or rich just might want to raise their kids in desirable neighborhoods, too.
I’m going to repeat hayduke’s point: “You want to increase the supply of affordable housing that the city
desperately needs, Adam? Build it in places like Beacon Hill, where the
land and neighborhoods are actually AFFORDABLE.” I just don’t understand why so many urbanists and newcomers are focused on the expensive parts of the city. What exactly makes Beacon Hill or Columbia City or other less pricey parts of town less desirable? Not trendy enough?
We can look at it in a simpler terms. Waterfront properties are obviously more desirable than the properties three blocks from the water. So essentially the question is should we keep the density the same everywhere, so the water front properties are essentially only available to the very rich, or do we intentionally build the density up at water front so it’d be more affordable for more people? You can replace the water-front part with any other desirable qualities.
I want to see affordable housing built city-wide. It’s just that this is the Wallingford neighborhood blog.
“It’s just that this is the Wallingford neighborhood blog.” Can’t understand that statement. Can you elucidate?
While I definitely prefer and advocate affordable housing built as widely as possible, it’s not really topical for a blog focusing on Wallingford’s issues, so that’s why you don’t see me advocating for it here.
“I just don’t understand why so many urbanists and newcomers are focused on the expensive parts of the city”
Because the laws in place that make places we deem more desirable needlessly more expensive (e.g., exclusionary zoning) are a remediable wrong.
The places we deem more desirable are that way because of zoning. If we were give in to the demands of you and other urbanists and eliminate zoning, design review, etc…, Wallingford would eventually cease to be desirable. Whether the people who bought in Wallingford realized it at the time, they bought their homes here, and paid a lot of money for them, precisely BECAUSE of currently existing zoning laws. To put it another way, someone who just plunked down 3/4 of a million for a home here would not have done so if they knew that 6 months later they’d have to worry about a four story hundred unit Apodment towering over them next door.
Yeah. To be an “urbanist” in the current sense of the word, is to be blind to the beauty of things, and way that beauty grows out of generations of occupation by individuals who invest their talents and their resources in the places they live. It’s about units, inventoried like boxes on the shelf, and perhaps they truly believe that putting more units on the same shelf would serve more people equally well. Useful idiots.
That’s not on the table. The most aggressive rezone proposal was HALA committee recommendation 2, which retained the same lot coverage and height limits as single family. Like all these hellish nightmare locations in Wallingford & Green Lake that predate the exclusionary overlay.
Bryan, you and your comrades in the equability movement are all clamoring not just for multifamily upzoning, but for ELIMINATING ZONING altogether.
Not me. There’s a good argument to be made that under most circumstances zoning by mass can help affordability (basically because most places, most of the time small wooden walk ups are the cheapest form of family sized housing.)
But we don’t want to right any wrongs via impact fees, right? If the developers don’t put their money where their mouth is, then it’s not about righting wrongs. It’s about making more money.
I guess you’re saying that Industrial zoning is exclusionary too, isn’t it? There are purposes for different usages in these zoning regulations for reasons of safety and community. I don’t see how SFZ is exclusionary, unless you’re willing to open up industrial areas too.
Zoning is exclusionary as to use–i.e., residential vs industrial. “Single family only” is economically exclusionary because (for example) duplexes are still residential, fit within the same size building, and are more affordable. If there was an industrial zone that said “no industrial business can occupy a space smaller than 100,00 SF” then it would be exclusionary because you’d be needlessly making it difficult or impossible for businesses with less rather than more money to operate there.
I am not a developer, and I want developers to build more in the more desirable neighborhoods also. I just don’t like desirable things to be too limited to too few people. So the more desirable a location, the density should be higher. For example, density should be up around concentration of work opportunities, transit centers, water fronts, and what not.
” I just don’t like desirable things to be too limited to too few people.
So the more desirable a location, the density should be higher.” There will come a time when desirability will become undesirability because of too much density. We don’t have a Central Park in this city. And I don’t suppose the city will be want to dig up high priced areas to build more lakes or parks. Density sounds great in theory. But in reality, it’s a bitch. Ask any Seattelite whose commute time even in the city has doubled in the last few years. Or compare auto insurance rates with five or 10 years ago. It’s costing us all in money and peace of mine.
Because by some standards it’s nice to have more people share nice things. It’s like why we don’t make all beach fronts private, and why we let everybody access Green Lake as opposed to let the place occupied by mansions of the rich.
Well TJ, I see you, Bryan, and Skylar (and I’m guessing Paul) responded in just the way I expected you would. And you’ve confirmed what I’ve been saying all along about the density/affordability advocates really want, when you get down to brass tacks and boil away all the mind-numbing chatter over HALA, LR3 vs LR4, FAR, MIZ, MFTE, etc…
And that, in a nutshell, is simply this: That it never was about creating “affordability” for you and other DIMBY’s. It’s always been about wanting what other people with more money have. It’s not about what people actually NEED, because you have the option of buying in a cheaper, less desirable neighborhood in the city. It’s about what you WANT. It’s the whole “equability” argument.
Well guess what. I want a bigger house. I’d like it to be in a reeeaaaally nice neighborhood, one that’s nicer than Wallingford. And I’d like to drive one of those fancy new BMW’s, please. Oh, and a pony for my daughter in our spacious backyard.
Sadly, I’m never going to have those things. But I won’t tell other people with more money in that nicer neighborhood that they should “share nice things” and make sacrifices so I can live just like them. You know why? Because I don’t deserve them, and I’m certainly not entitled to them.
hayduke, I already own a single-family house in Wallingford. I surely am not taking a policy stance that’s best for my personal interest. I want more people to be able to enjoy the convenience of this neighborhood, as opposed to limit it to only people like me.
“I surely am not taking a policy stance that’s best for my personal interest.”
So besides it really being about “equability,” now you ADMIT that HALA is not in the best interests of people who already live in neighborhoods like Wallingford. Apparently you didn’t get the talking points memo from people like Bryan and others in the urbanist movement, who continue to insist how much “better” Wallingford would be if we just let them build whatever they want.
I gotta say, this has been a very illuminating thread.
Of course HALA is not in the best interest of people who already live in Wallingford, if the interest is to maximize personal wealth and maintain an existing lifestyle. It’s like increasing the tax rate of the rich isn’t really for maximizing personal wealth of the rich either. Gains are more communal and spiritual.
“Gains are more communal and spiritual.”
I feel spiritual when I take a hike in an old growth forest. Sorry, but I won’t be having a “come to Jesus” moment and lower my family’s friends, and neighbors quality of life for the sake for the sake of developers, urbanists, and people who haven’t even lived in our state.
I think some of these issues you raise are very similar to general social issues regarding races and immigration. You favor status quo, and prefers others to work around status quo. I on the other hand don’t consider “existing interest” to have any special weight over new interest. That’s just personal preference that can’t be easily changed.
You have the wealth thing backwards, don’t you? Wouldn’t a single-family zoned lot become more valuable when upzoned to higher density?
I mean, in theory. In reality, a few people will benefit from that, but for the rest, after the development gold rush winds down and you’re in an LR zone, it’s all down side.
I think you are thinking about a situation where the reduced number of single-family houses can push up the price of remaining single-family houses more. I think that possibly can mean I’ll move out of my house and move to a condo in the same neighborhood, making profit in the process. Yes, that is not impossible.
And I view your stance similar to protectionism: short-sighted and hurting the greater good.
What is the exact dollar amount of affordable for a studio? A 1 bedroom? 2 bdrm? Who defines this?
“Affordable” rent limits under the MFTE program are defined
by City of Seattle Office of Housing. Affordability is determined on a sliding scale
using family size and income. Income is measured against the area median.
Example: a family of 3, with total income of 65% of the median ($52,845), would pay max rent of $1,028 for a studio; $1,174 for 1 BR; $1,321 for 2 BR; $1,526 for 3 BR.
You can see the full chart of exact dollar amounts broken down by family size, income, and rent limits here: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Housing/PropertyManagers/IncomeRentLimits/Income-Rent-Limits_MFTE.pdf
Hey Adam, I sent an email to the wallyhood blog about an update. Can you review it? Thanks
Also news on the ground-floor-commercial front: Art of the Table will be moving to the Bowman Apts building on Stone Way
http://seattle.eater.com/2016/9/6/12814484/art-of-the-table-relocate-stone-way
So a guy in a tent near the 50th Street ramp gets killed by a drunk driver. Mayor Murray: We could have prevented this accident if we let developers build taller buildings. What a sleaze.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/mayors-plan-for-seattles-u-district-taller-buildings-some-affordable-housing/
A $100 increase in median rent is associated with a 15% increase in homelessness. (http://www.kiro7.com/news/rent-increases-linked-homelessness/28697248)
And undersupply of homes relative to jobs is associated with increases in median rent (https://realitybasedhousing.net/2016/05/30/renters-heres-the-chart-showing-exactly-how-much-too-few-homes-is-costing-you/ and below).
So yes, Seattle’s failure to build enough housing relative to jobs to keep median rent under control is a rightable wrong.
You would agree then that requiring developers to designate a credible portion of units, not negligible, to affordable housing would right that wrong? You would agree then that requiring developers to pay an impact fee that creates more affordable housing would right that wrong?
Or do you think that allowing developers to build taller buildings without requiring the above, will right that wrong?
Put your money where your mouth is. It’s all talk until you do.
Murray’s conference did not specify the number of affordable units that would be required in his plan. However, he was most specific in regard to building height.
Actually putting more requirement and restrictions on developers is only going to reduce development therefore making housing less affordable. Height restriction definitely contributes to higher price. Impact fees type of measures are also means to restrict growth. Not sure why you think that’s a solution for the specific question of affordability.
Really developers will only do projects that are profitable, and really more development is the main way to resolve the problem. So solutions should include how to make it easier to develop, instead of any of those you stated. Studies have shown that regulations are huge factors for higher housing prices. Seattle food price is also high because of the vast amount of regulation limiting the growth of new food businesses.
I’ve been saying all along that it’s not about righting wrongs; it’s about making money. I’ve even said it’s what “pencils out” for the developers. You are saying the exact same thing. They won’t build unless it pencils out for them; i.e., makes money. So spare the neighborhood your faux concern about the homeless and housing affordability. It’s about making money. Own it instead of being a hypocrite.
There’s is no evidence that doing what makes developers money magically creates the equality you are espousing. It’s about as real as trickle down economics.
And that thing about today’s luxury housing being tomorrow’s affordable housing, in other words, let us make more money and magically it will be affordable in a few decades. That is magical thinking. There is no evidence to suggest that. Again, I liken it to trickle down economics.
And the point is that we need to let developers make money to solve the problem. We need developers to solve housing problems just as we need carmakers to solve transportation problems. I don’t see the point complaining about developer profits, just as I don’t see the point complaining about food profits. Without profits, why would we have restaurants and grocery stores and farmers?
While there is no evidence showing that developer profit equals lower housing price, there is evidence showing that more housing equals lower housing price. So we need to get the developers to build more as a path to resolve the issue.
Today’s not affordable housing being tomorrow’s affordable housing is not magical thinking. It’s the conclusion of researches looking at where all the affordable housing today come from.
Tell that to San Franciscans. Builders will build what gives them the most margin. The more high rollers, the more buildings for them will be built. Since the tech boom, especially, San Francisco property prices have sky rocketed and they will here too as long as high tech companies are paying $125 K or more.
Actually there are other types of affordable housing that can be created, but those are hard to do in the US, and rarely succeed in the US: government built housing. That works in many other places, but I do not believe American society is set up for that. So essentially, the solution in the US is going to be mostly about finding ways to stimulate supply.
It sure comes from the same neoliberal place as trickle down economics. As epitomized on the national level by Reagan, Clinton – let the market do its thing unimpeded by constraints, regulations or taxes, and there will be plenty for everyone! The gold rush building spree continues, but of course the promise won’t be fulfilled as long as growth outpaces building. As long as that lasts – and there’s sure no political will to look at managing growth – the developer cheering squads will be telling us that inadequate supply of housing is because we aren’t friendly enough to developers. Ignoring the cranes all over Seattle, building housing like it has never been built in our lifetimes.
It’s not a hard problem, resistance to new homes aside.
Excellent point, impliedobserver. All the studies I’ve read about neo-liberal public-private partnerships always benefit the private over the public. The idea that a profit making business would place social welfare above its own is naive and hypocritical and that is exactly what Chairman (Mao) Murray and HALA expect us to believe. It is magical thinking.
“Impact fees type of measures are also means to restrict growth.”
No, impact fees are means to restrict the IMPACT of new development on existing infrastructure. In other words, they make developers pay for their fair share, rather than make other people pay for it instead. I don’t believe others should be forced to subsidize their profits. Not paying impact fees for the added burden on infrastructure is just another form of corporate welfare, just like when when we gave Boeing a $9 billion dollar tax break a couple of years ago. Someone has to pay to make up the difference.
Why should I have to essentially pay the impact fees for some developer’s latest project? I already pay property taxes, and they raise the rate every single year. So why should I have to pay even MORE by covering the impact fees? God help us when the idiots who think 30 year long massive construction boondoggles “just happen” vote for ST3.
The cost of development SHOULD be passed onto their CUSTOMERS.
Why should you not essentially pay the impact fees through your property taxes? What did house-owners in Wallingford do to be entitled to property price gains?
“Why should you not essentually pay for the impact fees through your property taxes?”
TJ, for the life of me I don’t understand why you can’t grasp this simple concept. So excuse me for a moment while I scream: BECAUSE I’M NOT THE ONE MAKING THE IMPACT! THE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE! I already pay for my impacts through my property taxes.
And by the way, regarding my being “entitled” to property price gains, I am no more entitled to increased property values than the urbanists are entitled to expect OTHERS to pay for their housing costs. And I’m still forced to pay those developer impact fees regardless of what happens to the cost of housing here in Seattle. When the crap hit the fan 9 years ago I still had to pay those impact fees even though I lost a lot of value in my house. Funny, it didn’t ever lower my property tax bill, hmm.
It’s not enough for you guys to demand that others make sacrifices and go against their own personal interests just to make life easier for other people. No, you want us to actually help them buy their housing as well. If you want to build a new building in Seattle and you need to to build new infrastructure to make it happen, then YOU pay for it. Don’t ask others to build it for you.
“THE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE! I already pay for my impacts through my property taxes.”
Their customers pay property taxes too.
Developments like this, although needed, are giving the developers a huge exemption from taxes for 10-12 years. I would call that passing on the costs to all taxpayers. If the city was willing to spend a bit of its considerable bonding capacity and buy property, use non-profit builders and managers, and not give away tax income to for-profit businesses, we would all be better off, in my opinion.
Remember too that the Multifamily tax exemption is also a cost being passed on to taxpayers. And who are these taxpayers, mostly the people who live in the SF residences, who are apparently according to TJ: “relying on complicated regulations to ensure
their existing lifestyle got impacted the least from all social changes.
Neighborhood councils are structured to ensure that also.” I would like to see some numbers to back up that gross generalization.
”
TJ: “Really developers will only do projects that are profitable, and really
more development is the main way to resolve the problem. So solutions
should include how to make it easier to develop, instead of any of those
you stated”
Better look at San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, and other expensive cities before you make such a statement, TJ. As you say developers are only interested in projects that make them money. But applying a simplistic supply and demand theory here doesn’t cut it You want to make it easier for them to make more money? Do what the city is doing now –attracting the wealthiest tech and retail companies in the world. Those high wages are sure to raise their interest in building the most costly buildings they can. Everyone wins — the developers and the city, which pads its tax coffers to pay its already overpaid employees. Oh, I forgot about the homeless, the middle and lower income classes, and Seattle homeowners who are subsidizing this. How much money do you think developers save by not having to pay taxes on their buildings for 10-12 years, I wonder?
Developers didn’t do the wrong. City government did, through policies that didn’t (and still don’t) allow enough housing relative to jobs to keep rents in check.
This is such an amazing conversation. I see these 2 admissions:
1. Developers want to make money and aren’t in it to create affordable housing.
2. Developers shouldn’t have to pay to make housing affordable because they did nothing wrong.
I really appreciate your guys owning it. Now we are getting somewhere.
Regarding one. Developers are going to make money, we know that. I really doubt in this Seattle economy they will run away if they have to pay an impact fee. TJ says more regulation/restrictions restricts growth. Sounds identical to arguments that raising the minimum wage will make restaurants close (hasn’t happened), or that taxing corporations and rich people will make them invest or move elsewhere. Truth is, rich people and corporations need America. Sometimes they like it even.
Regarding two. Developers are asking for something that they don’t have: Greater height. With greater height they will make more money. Why shouldn’t they have to pay for that? If we use that money to create affordable housing, sounds like a win win. If we require affordable housing units, sounds like another win win. If we let them have greater height at no cost, sounds like a win lose. And we are the losers. A wasted opportunity.
My goal guys is to point out that’s it’s hypocritical to bring up housing affordability, when that clearly isn’t what you are all about.
Once again, bring on the development. But bring on the good things for our city too.
Human beings are asking for affordable housing.
Lower height limits and exclusionary zoning mean they can’t have it.
Remove them and they can.
Developers may in tandem make more money. Lucky them.
If human beings were asking for more medical treatment, removing unnecessary limits on what their insurance covers would enable them to get it. And maybe surgeons would make more money too. Great, good on them.
And you know who needs the government the most in all these Wallingford development discussions? Existing home owners. Existing home owners are relying on complicated regulations to ensure their existing lifestyle got impacted the least from all social changes. Neighborhood councils are structured to ensure that also.
Greater height would make more money, but would also provide more housing, which is the goal. I am fine with not having greater height, if the alternative is to find other ways to encourage more housing units. If we don’t want ten 20-floor buildings, twenty 10-floor buildings will do also. And we, all those living in Seattle area, rent or buy, poor or rich, can decide which way we want to go together. And we shouldn’t be satisfied with just providing enough areas that CAN be built up. We need to find ways to ensure enough areas ARE built up. Only that can we resolve the housing issue.
This is quite the puff piece about this development and over the years I have grown accustomed to a little more critical thought from Wallyhood. While having a few “affordable” studio units may be a nominal benefit to the neighborhood what about the negative aspects of this project? Thirty new units and no parking contrary to zoning requirements. Lot line construction contrary to the existing zoning. Cutting down of heritage trees along 46th Street in violation of city policy. Unable to obtain a slope easement to the neighbors? Just go ahead and dig into their property and cut down a 50′ tall tree without permission. When confronted about this violation be verbally aggressive and rude as though you are entitled to do whatever you like with other people’s property. Following community comment period go ahead and change your design and make the structure taller and move it from a nominal setback to right on the lot line. Do the absolute bare minimum for restoration of the neighboring properties that you were able to obtain slope easements from. Don’t be fooled, this building is not the work of an organization that is concerned about the neighborhood, it is the status quo for a developer looking to maximize their return with a bare amount of investment. While having the commercial space occupied may be better than having it sit empty, an office for a developer provides zero added value to the neighborhood. Development is indeed inevitable but it can certainly be done in a more thoughtful and community minded way than this project has been approached.
The way I remember it, this developer has been fairly “proactive” in bringing designs to the community council – this one, and I believe another one coming up on Stone. I think there may be a couple sides to the story, at least with respect to what the zoning permits, but that’s water under the bridge in any case. I just want to take this opportunity to encourage anyone in a situation as portrayed above, to contact Wallingford Community Council, so at least WCC knows what’s going on and perhaps can help do something about it.
I mean, now, if it’s some Blueprint Capital grey block roof deck townhomes job on a 60′ lot, you can more or less expect your property to be trashed, it’s just part of building a multi-million dollar development as cheap as possible and they’d never bother presenting anything to the community council.