Give Input On New Idea Of Neighborhood Conservation Districts



Seattle City Council member Tom Rasmussen recently announced that the city is considering creating "Neighborhood Conservation Districts" with the following objectives:

• Meet the goal that city officials hear from growing communities to "protect the character of the neighborhood as growth and development occur.
• Address development pressure in neighborhoods that have a distinctive character.
• Accommodate increased density in a manner that is compatible with the existing development context.
• Conserve and enhance the existing architectural and cultural identity of neighborhoods and commercial districts.
• Foster new construction and in-fill development in harmony with the scale and physical character of existing buildings.
• Provide direction regarding types of buildings and specific features to be protected.
• Provide tailored guidelines and regulations, with an appropriate level of discretion, to respond to the unique development conditions in each neighborhood that qualifies as a conservation district.

A public meeting will be held tonight at 6pm at the Highpoint Community Center and tomorrow at the Phinney Neighborhood Center to gather community input. 

One Home Per Lot, a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, included this information in their recent newsletter and also gave an update on the ongoing issue.

One such all, skinny home is located in the at 4800 block of   NE 40th Street in Laurelhurst,in Laurelhurst. The home sits on a piece of property 30 feet wide, and was segmented out of a side yard which was a total of only 80 feet wide. The house covers all the land, except for 10 feet of the house's previous yard.

One Home Per Lot update:

Dan Duffus (the city's most prolific developer of small-lot housing) recently

sued the city of Seattle because it tried to stop him from using historical documents to justify the splitting of a single lot. He lost. 

Even better, the case sets a precedent (in the words of one of our supporters): "DPD appears to be requiring Duffus to prove that a substandard lot have been established AS A BUILDING SITE prior to 1957…not just that the lot existed, which was their de facto standard." 

In yet another effort to improve the image of Seattle's small-lot developers, the lobbying group Smart Growth Seattle has hired a professional writer to write sweet stories about these folks and post them on the Smart Growth Seattle website.  

So far, nothing sweet has been written about Dan Duffus. In fact, the entire effort seems to be an attempt to redirect the spotlight away from Mr. Duffus. In the announcement, developer lobbyist Roger Valdez writes, "Whenever I am talking with people who are wary of new growth or who have genuine concerns about development, I will often point out that, 'there is no Monopoly Man with a top hat and cane running away with bags of gold!' It always brings a smile or a laugh. The truth is that many, many good and smart people in Seattle think there really is a Rich Uncle Pennybags behind new growth." 

If you would like to judge for yourself about whether there really is an "Uncle Pennybags," see this recent quarterly earnings report from just one of Mr. Duffus' companies. 

Roger Valdez (the colorful lobbyist for Seattle's small-lot developers; and the little man behind the curtain of Smart Growth Seattle) recently spoke on a panel in San Francisco discussing that city's "housing crisis." In his remarks, he speaks bluntly about the housing situation in Seattle and shares his criticism of the members of the city council, the Department of Planning and Development, and the city's citizens (like any good developer lobbyist, he throws shade on everyone but himself and his developer cronies). 

The Seattle city council Planning, Land Use and Sustainability committee still has not revisited the building codes regarding public notice for small-lot development, as promised. 

Currently, public notice (a yellow sign in the front yard, and a letter to the surrounding neighbors) is only required for small-lot projects on the smallest of lots (those 3,200 square feet and smaller). And no public notice is required prior to a lot boundary adjustment (another sneaky way these developers create buildable undersized lots).

For more information about Neighborhood Conservation Districts go here.

For more information about One Home Per Lot go here.


 

Bill Fails At State Level Yesterday That Would Have Provided Notice To Surrounding Neighbors Of Tall, Skinny Homes Built On SideYards Of Upcoming Construction

 

Tall, skinny house under construction

on former side yard on NE 40^th Street in 2012

 

 

 

Yesterday in Olympia, State Representatives Pollet, Tarleton, Ryu, Santos and Gregerson tried to get passed legislation (HB 1084), trying to force the City of Seattle to provide the surrounding neighbors with official notice when the Seattle Department of Planning and Development is considering allowing a developer to build a new, full-size home in the backyard or side yard of an existing home.

One Home Per Lot, a multi-neighborhood Seattle-wide grassroots movement fighting small, skinny homes, which also includes Laurelhurst residents, sent out this update following yesterday's meeting:

Thank you to all who wrote, emailed and made phone calls in support of state house bill 1084, which would have forced the city of Seattle to provide neighborhood notice whenever a new home is proposed for construction in a single-family neighborhood.

Unfortunately, we just learned that the bill failed to be voted out of committee (the first step for any state legislation). That means it's dead and will no longer be considered this year.  

This is the second year in a row that the bill failed to be voted out of committee. It often takes several tries, so maybe next year state representatives will be more supportive of Seattle's neighborhoods. 

In the meantime, we continue to wait for the Seattle city council to consider similar legislation.

The Laurelhurst Community Club supported the bill saying:

Without this change in law, neighborhoods have 21 days to challenge a land use decision—but they have no notice of the decision. This is not due process. With the pressure for increased density, property lots continue to be subdivided far below the lot size specified in Seattle’s Land Use Code, as there are exceptions that allow this with no notice to affected neighbors.   

These new developments more often than not exceed height and lot coverage restrictions and setback requirements.  Neighbors should have an opportunity to comment before the bulldozers show up. Affected neighbors and community councils should have notice of proposed development on these undersized lots, an opportunity to comment and the right to appeal to the Hearing Examiner.  Currently, this exception is considered a Type 1 decision with no notice, opportunity to comment or appeal to the Hearing Examiner.

Zoning loopholes, exploited by some developers, have resulted in building inconsistent with the height, bulk and scale of surrounding homes on lots as small as 1,050 square feet in Single Family 5,000 zones.  This infill development is destroying the character of neighborhoods with major adverse valuation and aesthetic impacts upon surrounding homes.  In addition, existing privacy evaporates with the new intrusive views, and window placements.

Nick,  a Laurelhurst resident, who lives near a tall, skinny house, wrote in a Blog post in 2012 about his experience with a new construction home right across from him, titled, There Goes The Neighborhood — And Yours May Be Next saying "It could happen to you with no warning."

John, who lives directly behind the new home, commented in a Seattle Times article, that the looming presence over his back yard is like “a guard tower.” He said the neighbors had no notice from the city or the developer that a new house was being crammed in between two existing houses, on what had been the old house’s yard.

The house, southeast of Laurelhurst Park, sits on a piece of property only 30 feet wide, which was segmented out of a larger one only 80 feet wide leaving only three feet in between the houses.  The house covers all the land, except for 10 feet of the house's previous yard.

Dan Duffus, a developer, is well-known around the city for building these tall skinny houses on very small lots, of which the houses are  modern in style, towering over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood.

For more information on the issue go here and here to learn more about One Home Per Lot.

Contact State Reps Before Tomorrow's Meeting To Require City To Give Public Notice For Small, Skinny Home New Construction

 



House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard oringially part of home next door

 

"It could happen to you with no warning" was one Laurelhurst resident's comment when a tall, skinny home was built in 2012 on the 4800 block of NE 40th Street.

The house, southeast of Laurelhurst Park, sits on a piece of property only 30 feet wide, which was segmented out of a larger one only 80 feet wide leaving only three feet in between the houses.

Nick,  a Laurelhurst resident, who lives near a tall, skinny house, wrote a Blog post about his experience with the new construction home right across from him, titled, There Goes The Neighborhood — And Yours May Be Next.

Dan Duffus, a developer, is well-known around the city for building these tall skinny houses on very small lots, of which the houses are  modern in style, towering over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood.

Tomorrow at 1:30pm in Olympia, State Representatives Pollet, Tarleton, Ryu, Santos and Gregerson will be introducing the legislation (HB 1084) at the state level, trying to force the City of Seattle to provide the surrounding neighbors with official notice when the Seattle Department of Planning and Development is considering allowing a developer to build a new, full-size home in the backyard or side yard of an existing home.

A number of Laurelhurst residents have joined a multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement called One Home Per Lot, to fight small, skinny homes.

The group sent out this information about tomorrow's meeting:

Tomorrow is a very important meeting. We will be sending a representative to speak and encourage others to attend and testify. If you can't attend, please take a minute, before Thursday, to send an email (and / or call) in support of the legislation. Email or call each of the members of the House Local Government Committee (and copy Representative Gerry Pollet). Emails are found below.

"Small-lot housing" still has neighborhoods all across the city fired up. And the notification issue is an especially contentious element. 

As you may recall, in May of last year, the Seattle city council passed a new set of building codes for small-lot homes that included a notification requirement. However, it only applies to the smallest of undersized lots (those under 3,200 square feet) and does not include lot boundary adjustments (another way developers build on undersized lots). 

In that same piece of legislation, the city council also promised, in writing, to study the notification issue further. It's been eight months since that promise, and still no results.   

When Representatives Pollet and Tarleton proposed similar legislation last year, professional lobbyists for the building / development industry were the only people to speak -- and they were obviously very critical of the idea of notifying the neighborhood (developers love to work in secret). 

Here's an easy-to-understand summary of the building codes the city passed last year  and here's a complete summary of all that has transpired on this issue.

 

Here is information from Representative Pollett:

Neighborhood Community Council Members and Stakeholders,

This legislative session, I plan to introduce a bill to ensure that land use decisions affecting neighborhoods are made with notice to neighbors.  

This would end a massive loophole. Currently, neighbors have 21 days to challenge a land use decision, but it is not required that they are given notice of this decision. It is important for community members in a neighborhood to be able to have this be a transparent process. The Seattle Times covered the issue this past September.  

I would greatly welcome your input and or support for this proposal. Please contact me with any questions or suggestions. Please let me know if there are other community members you would like to be added to this list. For both, please CC my Legislative Assistant, Angie Weiss at angie.weiss@leg.wa.gov.

Bill Draft Summary:

·         Declares that the Legislature finds that due process requires notice to be given to adjacent landowners and residents within 300 feet of specified land use decisions, and declares the Legislature’s intent that the Land Use Petition Act’s (LUPA) statute of limitations does not run until notice is provided in accordance with statute.

·         Adds to LUPA a new date of issuance – i.e., the date that notice of certain land use decisions is effective – that must be considered in determining when LUPA’s 21-day statute of limitations begins to run.

·         Requires cities with a population of 500,000 or more to provide notice to adjacent landowners and residents of the following: applications for approval and approval of boundary line adjustments, and applications for approval and approval of preliminary short plats of short subdivisions. Applies only to Seattle, where this is a serious problem.

·         Defines the term “adjacent landowners and residents” to mean owners, residents, and persons who are both owners and residents of real property located within 300 feet of property subject to approval of a proposed preliminary short plat of a short subdivision or boundary line adjustment. 

 

 

Here is a letter the Laurelhurst Community Club wrote to Representative Pollett:

 

Dear Representative Pollet:

 

                The Laurelhurst Community Club strongly supports House Bill 1084 which would require notice to adjacent property owners of small single-family lot development.  Without a change in law, neighborhoods have 21 days to challenge a land use decision—but they have no notice of the decision. This is not due process. With the pressure for increased density, property lots continue to be subdivided far below the lot size specified in Seattle’s Land Use Code, as there are exceptions that allow this with no notice to affected neighbors.  These new developments more often than not exceed height and lot coverage restrictions and setback requirements.  Neighbors should have an opportunity to comment before the bulldozers show up.

 

Zoning loopholes, exploited by some developers, have resulted in building inconsistent with the height, bulk and scale of surrounding homes on lots as small as 1,050 square feet in Single Family 5,000 zones.  The Seattle City Council has addressed some of the issues with this small-lot development, but nonetheless, notice remains a major problem.  This infill development is destroying the character of neighborhoods with major adverse valuation and aesthetic impacts upon surrounding homes.  Below is an egregious example in Laurelhurst.

 

 

 

4845 NE 40^th Street, Laurelhurst

Three-story house wedged into side yard

               

Zoning regulations and their consistent enforcement is the backbone of fair and diverse development within our city. Predictable plat sizes for adjacent buildings assure home owners that their investment in 30 years of payments will provide some equity for them in the future.

 

These small lot sized multi-story homes block the sunlight to adjacent yards, and eliminates the ability for the backyard neighbor to nurture a family garden for lack of sunshine.  In addition, existing privacy evaporates with the new intrusive views, and window placements.

 

At minimum, the Laurelhurst Community Club requests that adjacent neighbors and the community provided notice with this substandard development. 

 

The Laurelhurst Community Club supports the bill's specific requirement to give notice and an opportunity to comment:  Because of the impacts to surrounding properties, affected neighbors and community councils should have notice of proposed development on these undersized lots, an opportunity to comment and the right to appeal to the Hearing Examiner.  Currently, this exception is considered a Type 1 decision with no notice, opportunity to comment or appeal to the Hearing Examiner.  Because of lack of notice, impacted neighbors are most often not aware that a building permit has been issued until bulldozers arrive.  This means that the 21-day period to file a Land Use Petition Act appeal to Superior Court is unworkable.  With no notice of the permit and the possible delay between the granting of the permit and the commencement of work, the 21-day time period likely would have lapsed with no opportunity to engage legal counsel or to pursue legal right.

 

Nearby neighbors should not have to lose value in homes they’ve likely owned and worked on for decades due to the antiquated provisions in our local code.  Neighbors’ homes represent an investment they have counted on for their futures.  A standard, such as that listed in SMC 23.46.006, should be a part of any future proposed Code change.  That section states, “The use shall be determined not to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located.”  A similar provision exists in SMT 23.40.020C3.

 

House Bill 1084 offers protection at least from the state when local municipalities fail to provide notice to affected homeowners. 

 

Thank you for your sponsorship of HB 1084 and considering the comments of the Laurelhurst Community Club.  We urge you to do all you can to encourage other legislators to support this important measure.

 

 

Contact information for Representatives courtesy of One Home Per Lot:

 

- Representative Dean Takko (D), Committee Chair

(360) 786-7806

Dean.Takko@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Mia Gregerson (D), Committee Vice Chair

(360) 786-7868

Mia.Gregerson@leg.wa.gov

- Representative David Taylor (R), Committee Ranking Minority Member

(360) 786-7874

David.Taylor@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Dan Griffey (R), Committee Assistant Ranking Minority Member

(360) 786-7966

Dan.Griffey@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Joe Fitzgibbon (D)

(360) 786-7952

Joe.Fitzgibbon@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Joan McBride (D)

(360) 786-7848

Joan.McBride@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Bob McCaslin (R)

(360) 786-7820

Bob.McCaslin@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Strom Peterson (D)

(360) 786-7950

Strom.Peterson@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Liz Pike (R)

(360) 786-7812

Liz.Pike@leg.wa.gov

- Representative Gerry Pollet (D), the sponsor of this bill

(360) 786-7886

Gerry.Pollet@leg.wa.gov

Long-Time Laurelhurst Home Near St. Stephens Demolished To Make Way For Two New Large Homes

home demolished recently at 4720 NE 45th Street  

 

 

 

 

 home as it stood before demolition at 4720 NE 45th Street 

to make way  for 2 new homes

 

 



The yellow house at 4720 NE 45th Street, built in 1936, directly across from St. Stephens Church, was recently demolished and will be replaced with two homes sitting each on roughly 5000 square feet, as the Laurelhurst Blog reported in April of last year.
 
The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) project numbers associated with this upcoming construction, which is considered a short plat, are Project #3016836 and #3016832,  were submitted to the City in March of last year.  

The owner, Thomas Hall, bought the 2000 square foot home in 1990, and hasn't lived there for quite some time. He also owns the small house next door, 4711 48th Avenue NE.  
 
The land us application states a request "to subdivide one parcel into two parcels of land. Proposed parcel sizes are: X) 5,025 sq. ft. and Y) 5,025 sq. ft. Existing structures to be demolished." However the lot size on the King County Assessor website shows as 9,526 square feet.
 
Branin Burdette, DPD Land Use Planner, told us that "the submitted survey shows the lot at 10,049 square feet, therefore allowing a subdivision of two lots into roughly 5000 square foot lots.  The proposed subdivision shows compliance with the minimum lot size requirements of 5000 square feet."
 He added that there was a boundary line adjustment one on the lots addressed 4716 NE 45^th Street, 4511 48^th Avenue NE and 4720 NE 45^th Street.
   
One Home Per Lot.  a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, said that in "reviewing the permits, it looks as if there were three lots and the developer/owner did a boundary adjustment to ensure that the two lots under the current permit would be 5,000 square foot lots.  
 
The group added that three lots have been given three separate addresses (4720 NE 45th Street, 4501 48th Avenue NE, 4503 48th Avenue NE) and are being combined and manipulated n different ways for the project via lot boundary adjustments to create three new lots sizes: A) 5,097 sq. ft; B) 10,049 sq. ft; C) 6,682 sq.ft.   The largest of those three lots (lot "B") will then be subdivided into two lots, each 5,025 square feet, called a short plat.
 
Burdette said that "currently, the only revised lot line shown is the new lot line directly in the middle.  This new property line runs east to west.  The City right-of-way will not be counted in the overall lot size, lot coverage allowances or setbacks."
 
The new home on the northern lot, Burdette said,  will have access off of 48^th Avenue NE while the southern lot will, most likely, have access off of NE 45^th Street. 
 
"No clear access will be proposed on the southern lot until such time as a building permit is proposed.  We do not regulate the orientation of single family home or where their 'front door' needs to face.  Although it would be unique, a new home on this lot could have their front door face the northern or western property line, if desired," Burdette said.
 
DPD said no addresses have been given to either proposed new lot.

A nearby neighbor expressed concern regarding the current  zoning guidelines and the potential that the new house on the new corner lot would have to be built about 7 feet further to the west than the current structure is, making it a very skinny house.
 
Burdette said that the home on the southern lot would be classified as a reverse corner lot, which means that if they take their front yard off of 48^th Avenue NE, then they would have a 10-foot side yard requirement along NE 45^th Street and if they took their front yard off of NE 45^th Street then a 10-foot side yard would be required off of 48^th Avenue NE. 
 
"Assuming they orient the home towards 48^th Avenue NE, the home could still be 37 feet wide and meet applicable setbacks.  They would have a 19.4’ rear yard setback and should have a standard 20’ front yard," Burdette said.
 
A nearby neighbor commented:

I live in  a home on a 4000 square foot lot, which "apparently was grandfathered in when it was built in the early 1940s when zoning laws were different.  The lot seems small, and is, in comparison to my neighbors.  I know that the Laurelhurst community is concerned with development on less than full-sized residential parcels.  And so, as a neighbor, I request further information and clarification before the project is considered.

Another neighbor commented that "an interesting feature of this project is that the entire side yard facing 48th Avenue NE,  except about 3 feet, is City right of way and may not be figured into the calculations.  

The developer is listed as:

PAUL GLOSNIAK

BDR HOMES
11100 MAIN STREET
SUITE 201
BELLEVUE, WA 98004

The applicant (and person listed as the primary contact) is:

KEVIN CLEARYGOLDSMITH ENGINEERING
1215 114TH AVENUE SE
BELLEVUE, WA 9800

425-462-1080 x257

 

And the architect is:

Baylis Architects

Send Input To City Council On Important Development of Tall, Skinny Homes On Side/Back Yards

 

House at 4812 NE 40th Street built on small side yard originally part of home next door

One Home Per Lot.  a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, is encouraging residents to contact City Council right away as they are taking a vote on Monday on whether or not to eliminate the 100 Percent Rule from the final small-lot legislation.

One such home is located at 4812 NE 40th Street in Laurelhurst,in Laurelhurst, which sits on a piece of property 30 feet wide, and was segmented out of a side yard which was a total of only 80 feet wide. The house covers all the land, except for 10 feet of the house's previous yard.
 
The amendment to eliminate the rule is being submitted by Council members Tim Burgess and Nick Licata.  One Home Per Lot is encouraging citizens to contact Council members to support the amendment to protect neighbors from developers building oversized homes on small side yards.

 
Earlier this month, Council members voted on" the most controversial aspects of the new building codes for backyard / side yard houses and demonstrated that they want this kind of development to continue unabated" One Home Per Lot said.

 

Here is City Council contact information:

• Mike O’Brien, 206-684-8800, mike.obrien@seattle.gov
• Tim Burgess, 206-684-8806, tim.burgess@seattle.gov
• Nick Licata, 206-684-8803, nick.licata@seattle.gov
• Sally Clark, 206-684-8802, sally.clark@seattle.gov
• Jean Godden, 206-684-8807, jean.godden@seattle.gov
• Sally Bagshaw, 206-684-8801, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
• Bruce Harrell, 206-684-8804, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
• Tom Rasmussen, 206-684-8808, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov
• Kshama Sawant, 206-684-8016, kshama.sawant@seattle.gov

Here is a sample email written by One Home Per Lot to send to Council members:

Dear [name of council member],

In August, 2012, the city council took the rare step of placing an emergency moratorium on the construction of any more big houses on small lots while the DPD drafted legislation with meaningful solutions to the ongoing problems these projects cause neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, the final legislation that will come before the full council on Monday does not correct many of the problems. Plus, it includes the “100 Percent Rule,” a new building code exception that will open up hundreds of new small lots to this kind of development.

I ask that you support council members Burgess and Licata’s amendment eliminating the 100 Percent Rule.

The 100 Percent Rule is bad because:

- Developers will be able to start building towering, three-story homes on the tiniest of lots again (the rule includes no lot-size minimum).

- It will free-up hundreds of new undersized lots for development (but no one knows how many hundreds).

- While the new lot created by the 100 Percent Rule may be the same average size as the other lots on that block, the new house built on the lot will most certainly be way out of proportion. Under the new legislation, developers will be able to build houses on these lots that are 27 feet tall (three stories).

- The neighborhoods that will suffer the most are the dense, formerly working-class neighborhoods with small, cottage-style homes (Montlake, Ballard, Wallingford, Green Lake, Queen Anne, Fremont, etc.). According to a map produced by DPD, those are the neighborhoods this rule targets.

- Adding a new exception to the building codes is the opposite of what the emergency moratorium was supposed to accomplish. The goal was to close loopholes, not open new loopholes.

- This will NOT create more affordable housing. According to a recent study of 36 small-lot Seattle homes, they sell for an average of $727,926 (35% more than the surrounding homes in the very same zip codes).

In addition, I ask that you also consider spearheading the following amendments:

- The maximum height limit needs to be reduced. The new height limit (22 feet base height, plus 5 more feet for a pitched roof) is only three feet shorter than the old height limit that caused so many neighborhood problems. That's not a compromise ... that's what the developers openly lobbied for from the very beginning. We think the alternative rule proposed by DPD (basing the height on the heights of the surrounding homes) would be much more fair. Or, using the same height limit currently used for backyard mother-in-law cottages (technically known as detached accessory dwelling units).

The amendment for accomplishing this is 1C on this Council Central Staff memo.


- The height-limit loophole for "remodels" needs to be eliminated. The "averaging" height limit proposed by DPD (see item immediately above) would work equally well for anyone wanting to remodel their small-lot home. Instead, the current legislation includes a remodeling loophole that would allow developers to buy a small-lot house and build even higher than the new height limit. (We've all seen what happens when developers "remodel" an old house by leaving just two of the original walls).

The amendment for accomplishing this is 2A on this Council Central Staff memo.


- The DPD's "abutting undersized lots" amendment needs to be added back in. The DPD proposed an amendment to stop developers from subjecting any more neighborhoods to three-story, side-by-side small-lot houses. But the developers somehow convinced decision-makers that two small-lot houses on abutting undersized lots are actually better than one.

The amendment for accomplishing this is 4A on this Council Central Staff memo.


- The DPD's "modulation" amendment needs to be added back in.  After touring a number of small-lot houses, DPD recommended some design guidelines that would make the houses more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Somehow, the developers' lobbyist got those guidelines removed from the final legislation.

The amendment for accomplishing this is 5A on this Council Central Staff memo.


This is your chance to be the hero of homeowners throughout the city by amending the small-lot legislation with the sensible alternatives included above. I look forward to seeing what you're able to accomplish.

Here are other recent developments as documented by One Home Per Lot:

• Council member Mike O'Brien -- the head of the PLUS committee -- pushed hard on all the other committee members to vote in favor of the Smart Growth Seattle, (the  developers' lobbying group), pro-developer issues. He's eager to wrap this up, end the moratorium and let the developers start building in backyards and side yards again.
• Council member Sally Clark -- who has been invisible for the last 19 months that this issue was being discussed -- showed up today to cast her votes in favor of the Smart Growth Seattle pro-developer issues, as well. She's an alternative member of the committee. If she had not showed up to support the developers, the outcome of yesterday's voting would have been very different.
• During the committee's discussion period, O'Brien claimed to be aware of a few bad examples of backyard / side yard houses, but said he'd also seen many that were really good for their neighborhoods. Really? 
• It sounds like Mr. O'Brien missed these photos and addresses for 122 backyard / side yard houses that are driving neighborhoods all across the city nuts.
• He must have also missed the last two years of media coverage showing homeowner after homeowner forced to live in the shadows of backyard / side yard houses.
• Somehow he also missed the petition signed by 760 Seattleites who are furious about backyard / side yard houses.
• It seems all that's really sticking with him at this point is the private tour that the developers took him on last month to show off the few backyard / side yard houses that they want the public to see.
• The developers at Smart Growth Seattle lobbied council member O'Brien recently to make it easier for them to also turn existing small homes on small lots into three-story skinny towers.
• DPD tried to end the practice of building two side yard homes side-by-side, but council members O'Brien and Clark were successful in getting that amendment killed.
• DPD also tried to make backyard / side yard houses less invasive and obtrusive by suggesting rules regarding the location of windows, the modulation of exterior walls, and the inclusion of backyard space. But council members O'Brien and Clark were successful in getting that amendment killed, as well.

New Rules:

• Developers will no longer be able to build without any warning to the surrounding property owners - DPD will provide notice to neighbors when a backyard / side yard house is being considered for approval (but only on the smallest of undersized lots). For undersized backyard / side yard lots 3,200 square feet and larger, there will be no warning / notice provided to the surrounding homeowners.
• No more building on lots smaller than 2,500 square feet (unless the 100 Percent Rule passes with no lot-size restriction, in which case that would be the only exception).
• No more building on long-forgotten historic sub-lots -- making it tougher for developers to use historic maps and documents to justify building on sub-lots that are so long forgotten they don't exist on any current plat maps.
• No more pretending the side or back of a house is the front to qualify for building-code exceptions.
• No more demolishing an existing home, splitting the lot, and using small-lot building codes to maximize the size of the two new structures (the new structures now have to abide by full-size-lot building codes).
• No more abusing the lot calculation requirement for the 75/80 Rule. But if the 100 Percent Rule passes, there's no need for the developers to abuse the 75/80 Rule anymore. They can just switch to the 100 Percent Rule.
• No more creating “panhandle” lot designs to satisfy lot-area requirements -- This closes a loophole these developers were using to satisfy the requirement for a front yard without actually creating a front yard.
• No more abusing the definition of “lot” to incorporate adjacent land into lot-area calculations -- This closes a loophole these developers were using to satisfy lot-area requirements when they didn't actually have the required amount of land.

For more information go here.

MAY 16 email update:
This email is being sent to everyone who received our May 7, 2014, email (that email is included at the end of this message for your reference).

In that message, we made some statements that have since proven to be untrue and unfair. Council member Sally Clark called us out on those details and nicely asked us to print a retraction. We are happy to oblige, because it's the only fair thing to do. And we apologize for the inadvertent errors.

We were not contacted by council member Mike O'Brien about any misstatements. But after reviewing the facts, we found we made one truly outrageous claim about him, as well.

CORRECTIONS OF PAST MISSTATEMENTS

In a One Home Per Lot email sent on May 7, 2014, and titled "The developers win (and homeowners like you lose)," we inadvertently wrote some things that are incorrect and unfair. Below, we set the record straight:

A. We wrote that the 100 Percent Rule passed by the PLUS committee did not include a lot-size minimum. That was incorrect. When it came time to vote on the 100 Rule, the discussions about whether to eliminate the rule or impose a minimum lot size on it became animated, and we misunderstood the end result.

After reviewing video of the meeting, it's obvious that the rule was passed with a requirement that no lot smaller than 2,500 square feet could be developed. We apologize.

In her email to us about this, Council member Clark corrected us as follows: "I think you’ve misstated the version of the 100% rule that’s in the legislation. It’s not without a “floor” in terms of minimum lot size. A lot could be no smaller than 2,500 square feet under any circumstance. I’m by no means looking to see limitless development of super small lots. I do think that if a block’s development pattern is already small, and if we’re about better matching existing character and scale, allowing the 100% rule makes sense. We may disagree on this provision, but it would be great to characterize it correctly."



B. We also wrote that council member Clark tried to convince the other council members that the 100 Rule would replace the existing 75/80 Rule. That also is inaccurate and not true.

After reviewing video of the meeting, we now know what Council member Clark actually said: "This [amendment has] gotten a lot of attention, and I've really been trying to suss out what it is. Again, at the beginning of this, I don't think we set out to completely ... to really shut down infill. Certainly concerned about the scale of infill that was happening, with what people were building seeming out of step with the surrounding community. And so, if I want infill to continue, there will be added density in these neighborhoods because infill happens. And if I want it to be generally in-scale with the surroundings, it seems like a 100 Percent Rule is actually a great step forward from 75/80, which is a torturous rule. And if we then also have a rock-solid minimum of 2,500, that seems like a pretty good box to have tried to constrain things in. And I am always worried that we've left some door open for something else to happen, but the idea of being able to allow it, have it be the 100 percent match-up with the surrounding lots, and to have there be the non-negotiable minimum, that seems to meet my interests.

Later in the discussion, she was even more clear: "So taking it out leaves us with the 75/80 ...."

In her email to us about this, Council member Clark corrected us as follows: "Also, I may have worded things poorly, but I never argued that it would replace the 75/80. I said that the 75/80 rule is confusing for people to understand. "



C. We also wrote that "The DPD also tried to make backyard / side yard houses less invasive and obtrusive by suggesting rules regarding the location of windows, the modulation of exterior walls, and the inclusion of backyard space. But council members O'Brien and Clark were successful in getting that amendment killed, as well."

Actually, the only aspect that was killed is the modulation requirement.



D. We also wrote that "O'Brien claimed to be aware of a few bad examples of backyard / side yard houses, but said he'd also seen many that were really good for their neighborhoods."

This is the most outrageous of our mistakes. After reviewing video of the meeting, we see that statement is absolutely not true, and we apologize for ever saying so. We think the One Home Per Lot member attending on our behalf let his emotions get the best of him and confused a combination of rather mild comments from O'Brien for something else entirely.

What O'Brien did say: "At the two extremes around small lots, we have examples where, you know, three-story buildings on 1,000 square foot lots have been built, contrary to what anybody's expectations in the neighborhood are. And at the other extreme: the desire to put a lot more housing in these neighborhoods that people want. And my goal throughout this whole process has been to find a path, surprisingly enough, kind of in the middle ... that allows for the types of reasonable development that's consistent with the scale of the neighborhood, prevents the kind of egregious examples from happening but continues to allow some level of infill development where appropriate and where those expectations exist."


He also said, "In the process of this, we've heard from a lot of people. Certainly in the case of the Alley Skyscraper, as it has been appropriately dubbed ... I think we're trying to avoid ... and this package of legislation would clearly prevent those types of things from happening going forward. We've also started to hear more and more from homeowners who haven't been paying attention who are saying, 'hey, wait a minute, this might affect my plans.'"


He also said, "For me, the intent of this is to restrict the egregious examples we've seen, but to allow the type of development that is consistent with the neighborhood's scale. And the 100 Percent Rule, in all the examples I've looked at, actually gets to that. Because it says you can build ... if the neighborhood is on average 3,000 square feet lots, then creating an additional 3,000 square foot lot isn't out of character with the neighborhood, and is, by definition, part of the character."


It seems pretty clear that the supporter attending this PLUS committee meeting on our behalf got lost in some of the discussions and let his emotions cloud his senses. We apologize.

Details About Large Home And Accessory Structures Being Built On Surber Drive

Home and additional structures under construction at 3939 NE Surber Drive

Architects drawing of completed structures

(courtesy of Tyler Engle website)

Several Blog readers have sent email about a very large modern home under construction  3939 NE Surber Drive.
 
One neighbor, after reading the recent Blog post detailing last week's Public Hearing on  side yard/backyard houses on undersized lots in SF zone and proposed building code changes  in the neighborhood and around the City, wrote about the multiple buildings going up on the property:

How about the enormous modern house being into a lot skinny lot?  That is very disturbing.

One Home Per Lot.  a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, told us that actually the development, located on the edge of Lake Washington, is not actually a short-plat, a splitting of one lot into two lots, or a backyard / side yard house, it is a huge house being squeezed in between the two other big houses on either side.  The lot size is 35,281 square feet, "very big" the group said. 
 
The former owner demolished the original house in 2005 and the new owner iwho bought the house a year later, is building a new house on the existing lot, with three detached accessory structures, a garage, a kayak storage space, a pool and a pool room, One Home Per Lot told us.

 
DPD (Department of Planning and Development) describes the project, which has been going on for about nine years as: 

Establish use as single family dwelling and construct one family dwelling with detached accessory structures (garage, kayak storage, pool and pool room).

 

Along with the change in owners in 2006 came a change in the plans for the project according to these details provided by One Home Per Lot:

• 11/14/05 Single family residence demolished by RALPH L SWANSON, who purchased the property in 2005. Demolition included the removal of contaminated soil from underground fuel storage tank.
• 11/14/05 Permit issued to construct Single Family Residence per plan.
• 12/12/06 The permit expired; the house was not complete.
• RONALD K TANEMURA & TINA M YAMAGIWA took over the project in 2006
• 6/6/08 Land Use Application to allow a new, two story, 7,003 sq. ft. single family residence in an environmentally critical area. Parking for three vehicles will be provided in a detached garage.
• The applicable permits have been renewed ever since.
• The contractors/architects changed with the plans. The current architect/contractor is Tyler Engle Architects whose plans  of putting a big house on a big lot, squeezed in between two other big houses on big lots can be viewed here.

DPD listings for this project can be found here:

- http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Address.aspx?addr=3939,NE,SURBER,DR,

 

- http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=6284704

- http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=3009257