Your Chance On Friday To Weigh In To City Council On Tall, Skinny Houses On Back/Side Yard Houses Built On Undersized Lots, Two Already In Laurelhurst

 

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

 

Friday at 2pm, City Council is holding a public hearing on side yard/backyard houses on undersized lots in SF zone and proposed building code changes.
 
Over the last several years, several skinny houses on small lots have been built in Laurelhurst, all the work of developer, Dan Duffus, who is well-known around the city for building the houses which are modern in style, towering over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood..

One 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.

John Taylor, who lives directly behind the new home, commented in a Seattle Times article, that 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.

Nick Jenkins, another Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to another tall, skinny house, has posted his experience titled "There goes the neighborhood and yours may be next" on his blog about going through the construction process and now living with one of these houses right next door to him.  
 
The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing to amend the Land Use Code to establish new standards for development of single-family houses on undersized lots in single-family zones.  The new standards would replace interim standards first established by Ordinance 123978. 
 
Among other things, the proposed new standards would:

·           Establish a minimum site size of 2,500 square feet in area;

·           Eliminate use of tax records and historic mortgages as a basis for establishing lot size exceptions;

·           Require consolidation for redevelopment of adjacent lots with areas less than 3,200 square feet;

·           Clarify the “75/80 Rule” for establishing lot size exceptions;

·           Establish a new “100 Percent Rule” exception for establishing lot size exceptions that are equal to the mean area of lots on the same block front;

·           Establish a Type II discretionary review process with notice and the opportunity for appeal for development on sites less than 3,200 square feet in area;

·           Establish lower maximum height limit for development on sites less than 3,200 square feet in area;

·           Repeal a platting development standard related to short subdivisions where there are two existing houses; and

·           Make other minor clarifications and modifications to development standards.

One Home Per Lot.  a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, said about the public hearing that "this will be your chance to sound off about the issue, face-to-face, with the city council members who will be making the final decisions about what the new building codes will be."

The group added that if the city council members don't hear from hundreds of citizens about this issue, "they'll assume the public has lost interest or is completely satisfied -- and they'll be that much more apt to cave in to pressure from the developers' lobbyists. So please don't
sit on the sidelines and expect other citizens to step up."
 
One Home Per Lot has been working the last 18-months to establish new building codes for backyard / side yard houses. Last month, City Council voted unanimously to extend the emergency moratorium on backyard / side yard houses for another six months while the Department of Planning and Development works on the recommended building code changes.

On April 2nd, the City's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee, accepted the Department of Planning and Development's final recommendations on how to change the building codes for backyard / side yard houses. 

Next in the process is the Committee debating the recommendations internally, taking input from the public and then make their own changes to the recommendations before forwarding them to the City Council for a final vote.

One Home Per Lot believes that during this time, developer Dan Duffus  and other lobbyists, mainly including Smart Growth Seattle, the  developers' lobbying group, are all "pressuring City Council leaders to water down or eliminate aspects of the DPD's recommendations. These groups and individuals are well-funded, well-connected professionals who represent the developers' interests. They will be very vocal and assertive, and their messages to city council members will need to be countered by you."

 

Smart Growth Seattle, is also "the main staff contact for the Seattle Builders Council," as they identified themselves in a recent email to supporters, is "fighting against citizens' efforts to impose new building codes on backyard / side yard houses," One Home Per Lot said.

Roger Valdes, the main lobbyist for Smart Grown Seattle, told supporters in an email to write to DPD saying "Please don't implement the DPD recommendations without amendment and further discussion with people who build housing."
 
In their recent press release they said that "the greatest risk to our growing prosperity is a lack of housing choices for people in Seattle and those who are moving to our city."

Valdes also claimed that "because DPD staff has been so focused on new construction they may have failed to realize that all the limits they have written into their proposal actually close off the possibility of improving existing homes" which he says would include height restrictions on second floors to small homes, as KIRO reported recently.
 
One Home Per Lot said that unfortunately Smart Growth Seattle is "spreading this false rumor and they address it their report found on their website.
 
One Home Per Lot said the "developers' lobbyist is hoping that owners of existing small homes will become livid when they hear the city is trying to prohibit them from expanding their homes and will demand the city scrap the height limits in the new regulations, which would allow the developers to go back to building new, three-story houses on tiny backyard / side yard lots."
 
New height rules proposed by the DPD would also impact some existing small homes, in order to keep the owners of those homes, and developers, from turning them into tall skinny three stories high, One Home Per Lot told us. 

The DPD director's report states: "This is because the potential impacts on neighbors of a substantial addition to an existing house on a small lot would be no different than the impacts of an identical new house built on a vacant lot of the same size."

Katy, with the City Council, told us that:

As proposed, these standards would apply to new development as well as additions to existing structures.  Assuming that these standards are adopted, existing structures on lots less than 3200 s.f. in size that exceed maximum allowable heights could be rebuilt or expanded subject to rules for structures that are non-conforming to development standards.   

That essentially means that non-conforming structures could be rebuilt or expanded provided that the expansion does not increase the existing non-conformity.  

Regulations related to non-conforming structures can be found here.  Note that there are also some existing allowances for dormers, clerestroies, and eaves on single family houses that don’t conform to height limits that can be found here.

 

The height restriction are contained in Section 6 of the council bill and state: 

 

Section 6. Subsections A and B of Section 23.44.012 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which Section was last amended by Ordinance 123978, are amended as follows:

23.44.012 Height (())limits

A. Maximum (()) height established (())

1. Except as permitted in (()) subs ection 23.44.041.B, and except as provided in (())subsections 23.44.012.A.2 and (()) 23.44.012.A.3 , the maximum permitted height for any structure not located in a required yard is 30 feet.

2. The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot 30 feet or less in width is 25 feet.

3. For a lot or unit lot of any width, if the area of the largest rectangle or other quadrilateral that can be drawn within the lot lines of the lot or unit lot (())is less than (()) 3,200 square feet (()) the maximum permitted height for any structure on that lot (()) shall be (()) 18 feet(()) unless the structure's height is further restricted by other code provisions , provided that structure height up to 22 feet is permitted for a principal structure with habitable floor area on no more than two partially- or fully- above-ground floors, and top-of-floor-to top-of-floor height is at least 10 feet at the level of the main entry .

4. The method of determining structure height and lot width is detailed in Chapter 23.86, Measurements.

 

 

Smart Growth Seattle also implies in their communications that their is a housing crisis, which the DPD discredited as written in a January Seattle Times article in which Tim Hauger, the comprehensive-plan manager for the Department of Planning and Development said that Seattle currently has triple the housing capacity necessary to accommodate growth targets through the year 2024. "We have over 50 years growth capacity across the city."

"This isn't the first time Smart Growth Seattle has promoted backyard / side yard houses as the best solution for an invented problem," One Home Per Lot said. Here is a list of Smart Growth Seattle's past arguments. "all of which have been exposed as clever distortions of the truth."

 

Smart Growth Seattle sent an email sent to the group's supporters "revealing why they are  working so hard to fight any new building codes." In the email, the developers' lobbyist said that the developers funding Smart Growth Seattle simply want more building permits for the small-development projects they specialize in creating."

 

They're not interested in solving any housing problems. And they're not concerned about the concerns of neighborhoods. They just want to do more building (and backyard / side yard houses are building projects that are very, very lucrative for this small group of small-scale developers)," One Home Per Lot said.

In the email, lobbyist Roger Valdez writes: "This is the year we can, together, change the civic conversation in Seattle about housing. The question this year we'll be asking is what is the city doing to increase the number of housing choices people have in Seattle" and thereby increasing housing supply by permitting more housing?

One Home Per Lot reported recently that backyard / side yard houses can be devastating to the surrounding property values, according to a professional appraiser  saying:

When a professional appraiser appraises a home, he relies on data from the recent sales of "comparables." Those are homes much like the house being appraised. And because backyard / side yard houses are typically unlike anything else in the neighborhood (they're new, they sit on half-sized lots, are usually ultra-modern in design, and sell for an average of 35% more than the neighborhood's median), they are never, ever going to be used in a comparable analysis. 

In other words, the high prices that backyard / side yard houses sell for (an average of $727,926) don't positively impact the value of surrounding homes, because the backyard / side yard house would never be considered a comparable. 

However, the appraiser  will most likely factor in the environmental impact of the backyard / side yard structure (and that's never positive). 

Sitting 27 feet tall (that's the equivalent of three stories), and squeezed into a backyard or side yard,  backyard / side yard houses block sunlight to the neighboring houses, block views and, because they typically tower over all the surrounding homes and yards, they rob the neighbors of the privacy those homeowners once enjoyed. 

That loss of sunlight, views and privacy can easily drag down the appraised value of the surrounding homes by tens of thousands of dollars. Those were valuable attributes that the current homeowner paid handsomely for, and the associated benefits are now missing or negatively impacted. 

One Home Per Lot strongly urges City Council to notify surrounding neighbors when a backyard / side yard house is being considered for approval on their block as well as  notifying the current homeowner when a developer asks DPD for pre-approval to split the homeowner's property into two lots, which means the property is now worth twice as much money. This would prevent more homeowners from selling to developers at far below actual market value.

"While a good step in the right direction, the DPD's current recommendations need improving if they are going to have a chance at successfully addressing the problems that are roiling neighborhoods all across the city of Seattle. This document details the changes that should be made," One Home Per Lot said.

 

If you can't attend the public hearing, you can write or call the City Council members and provide input through 5pm tomorrow.

Here is contact information for the four members serving on Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee:

• Mike O’Brien, Chairman, 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

And here is contact information for the other City Council members::

• 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 what One Home Per Lot suggests to say to City Council:

While a good step in the right direction, the DPD's current recommendations need improving if they are going to have a chance at successfully addressing the problems that are roiling neighborhoods all across the city of Seattle.

This document details the changes that should be made.

Copies of the proposal are available from the City Clerk’s website,  Reference Council Bill No. 118052 or go here.

For more information contact Andy Kim of DPD at 206-684-8737.

One Home Per Lot can be reached at staff@onehomeperlot.com and here.


 

 

Submit Comments Now On "One Home Per Lot" Proposed Ballot To Notify Neighbors Of Upcoming Land Use Decisions



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

One Home Per Lot, a city-wide grassroots group monitoring large homes built on side and backyards of existing homes, is urging citizens to submit comments to State Legistature regarding a new Bill, "House Bill 2311" proposed by Washington State Representatives Gerry Pollet and Gael Tarleton to ensure that land use decisions affecting neighborhoods are made with notice to neighbors. 

House Bill 2311 would require that cities with a population of 500,000 or more (that means Seattle, and Seattle only), must adopt regulations and procedures for providing notice. Specifically, the city must "provide notice of the application to all adjacent landowners and residents and an opportunity to submit comments" regarding "land use decisions related to the preliminary short plat approval of a short subdivision or the approval of a boundary line adjustment."

Here are some other points included in the new Bill:

• Declare 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.
• Add 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.
• Require 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.

 

  

One Home Per Lot's recent email says:

If you feel neighbors should be notified, we need you to email or call both Representatives Pollet and Tarleton. Thank them for proposing the bill, and let them know you support it. No convincing needed. We just need to show them there is great support within the city for this bill. They measure support based on the number of calls/emails they receive.

Here is a sample email the group wrote that can be sent to government representatives:

At the reading of the bill yesterday, a representative from the construction industry argued that Seattle already provides its citizens with notice. (Of course, citizens would have to be monitoring the DPD's website every day to receive such notice.)

Worst of all, because no notice is given to neighbors, many miss out on their only opportunity to protest or stop the construction of a backyard / side yard house: a LUPA lawsuit. (Under state law, LUPA lawsuits must be filed within 21 days of a backyard / side yard house project being approved. But, how can citizens be expected to file a LUPA suit within that timeline when they're never notified?)

 

One Home Per Lot told us although there is no formal comment period, as there is for many of the issues the City reviews, there is generally no comment period for legislation pending before the state legislature.

"The state legislature has not asked for comments. However, lobbyists from the development and construction industries will be lobbying the legislators, so citizens need to do the same. Comments should be sent sooner rather than later to show the legislators who proposed the bill that citizens support their efforts," the group added.

Representative Gerry Pollet can be reached at (360) 786-7886 or by email at Gerry.Pollet@leg.wa.gov.  And

Representative Gael Tarleton's phone number is (360) 786-7860 and email is Gael.Tarleton@leg.wa.gov.

Several skinny houses on small lost have sprouted up in Laurelhurst over the last few years, all the work of developer, Dan Duffus, who is well-known around the city for building the houses which are modern in style, tower over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood..

One is located at 4812 NE 40th Street 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.

John Taylor, who lives directly behind the new home, commented in a recent Seattle Times article, that 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.

Nick Jenkins, another Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house, has posted his experience going through the construction process and now living with one of these houses right next door to him. His blog post titled "There goes the neighborhood and yours may be next" can be found here
 

For more information on One Home Per Lot and background on the issues go here.

City Council To Discuss Several "One Home Per Lot" Issues On Friday



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

One Home Per Lot, a grassroots multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement monitoring the legislation and building of sideyard houses, sent a recent update on the issue of developers building homes on side yards, inlcuding information on a City Council meeting on Friday from 9:30-11am.

Laurelhurst residnts living around these tall, skinny houses, as well as other residents citywide, have joined One Home Per Lot, whose website explains the issue in detail, shows how to get involved and details Duffus' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake, to name only a few throughout Seattle.
Several skinny houses on small lost have sprouted up in Laurelhurst over the last few years, the work of developer, Dan Duffus, who is well-known around the city for building the houses which are modern in style, tower over the established homes beneath them and don't fit in with the character of the neighborhood..

One is located at 4812 NE 40th Street 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.

One Home Per Lot's recent email says:

Many One Home Per Lot supporters are wondering if the Seattle's Department of Planning and Development (DPD) tried to pull a fast one on us a few weeks ago.

The City Council's Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee's sent out email that DPD was planning to present some "omnibus amendments" to the committee on 9/25/13. 

Omnibus amendments are supposed to be insignificant changes to Seattle's building codes. The omnibus report introduction states: "The proposed amendments are called 'omnibus' amendments because DPD packages a collection of amendments that are small scale, with a limited scope of impact. Such amendments include correcting typographical errors and incorrect section references, as well as clarifying or correcting existing code language."

However, included among the amendments were a number of items of great benefit to the developers of backyard / side yard houses. These are not insignificant items at all but rather dramatic code changes that would make it easier for developers to squeeze more houses into backyards and side yards throughout the city (see the details below).

After a couple of our members contacted councilman Richard Conlin (the chair of the PLUS committee) about this, his assistant sent the following note:

"Just a procedural note: the omnibus has been removed from tomorrow's PLUS meeting agenda. The legislation will not be discussed until after budget, at the Special November 22 PLUS meeting (9:30 - 11:30)."

Then Councilman Conlin followed up with a note of his own:

"Thanks for the note. I agree that we need more time to understand these amendments and determine what their impact will be, so we have postponed beginning our review until late in November."

Having now had some time to reflect on this event, One Home Per Lot supporters are split into two camps about it:

1. Some of us feel this is just the nature of a government bureaucracy: Some well-meaning workers at the DPD probably just lumped some backyard / side yard code changes in with other code changes without thinking. But with multiple lawsuits now pending against the DPD regarding this issue, and a mountain of media coverage surrounding it, you would think that everyone in the DPD would know that this is a hot-button topic, and any new building codes related to backyard / side yard houses should be included in the regulations that the DPD is currently writing having to do with regulations that are part of the recent emergency moratorium. 

2. The majority of our supporters feel that DPD was using the omnibus amendments as a tool to quietly push through some building code changes that might otherwise get bogged down in the current backyard / side yard house legislation. Furthermore, these supporters are concerned that the DPD will use this omnibus tool again in the future to quietly push through other building code changes related to backyard / side yard houses. If that's the case, it doesn't much matter what changes get approved by the City Council in the high-profile public hearings scheduled for November/December, because DPD can always push through changes to them using these omnibus amendments.

If an eagle-eyed supporter of our cause hadn't picked his way through the many pages of dense, complex text in the omnibus report, these changes may have simply been rubber-stamped by the PLUS committee.

THE OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS AT THE HEART OF THIS MATTER

(Remember, omnibus amendments are supposed to be "correcting typographical errors and incorrect section references, as well as clarifying or correcting existing code language")

1. Most backyard houses are built on alleys (it's the only way they can get approved). The omnibus amendments proposed to 23.22.100.C, 23.24.040.A, 23.28.030.A would kill the requirement that these houses have actual frontage on the alley -- which would open up more backyard lots to development, make them less neighborhood-friendly, and make it harder to fight any fires in these homes.

2. Another omnibus amendment proposed to 23.53.005 would reduce the amount of street frontage that a backyard / side yard house would be required to have. This seems to be a direct contradiction to the street-frontage changes that the DPD is proposing as part of the small-lot legislation currently being drafted. In its most recent small-lot legislation recommendations, the DPD tightened up the street-frontage requirements because many developers of backyard / side yard houses were manipulating the rules in order to wedge their projects into lots that are obviously too small. Here, the DPD is proposing loosening the standards.

3. Most backyard / side yard houses already push the boundary limits to the extremes in order to wedge the largest house possible into a backyard or side yard. The omnibus amendments proposed to 23.44.014.C.2, 23.44.014.D, 23.44.014.D.6, and 23.44.014.F would now allow some structural features of these houses (eaves, chimneys, etc.) to extend even beyond those boundaries (into the surrounding yard space) so that, as the DPD document states, "to allow a structure in a side yard adjacent an alley."

 

4. Accessory dwelling units (otherwise known as mother-in-law-apartments) are also backyard / side yard houses. And the omnibus amendment proposed to Subsection 23.44.041.B.2, Table B for 23.44.041, and Exhibit A for 23.44.041 are proposing height-calculation changes that would allow ADUs to be built even taller in the future.

5. The omnibus amendment proposed to Table A for 23.76.004 would automatically classify any future development standards as Type I -- which means citizens have no way to protest them. Seems like a slippery slope.

If you can't attend Friday's meeting, but would like to weigh-in, contact thefollowing:

- The chair of the PLUS committee, Councilman Richard Conlin, 206-684-8805, richard.conlin@seattle.gov

- The director of the Department of Planning and Development, Diane Sugimura diane.sugimura@seattle.gov

Comment Now On DPD's Latest Recommendations For Skinny Homes on Side Yard Lots

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

 

The Seattle Department of Planning and Development is again asking for public input on a new set of recommendations regarding the future development of backyard / side yard houses.

 

In March, DPD released a preliminary set of recommendations in March, followed by a a final  set of recommendations in June. However, DPD received such a large amount of public feedback on those recommendations that they took the unusual step of revising its recommendations on September 16, which is what they are now seeking public feedback on.  City Council will begin formally discussing this issue again next month, when public hearings will be held.

 

DPD's final recommendations will be used by the Seattle City Council to create new building codes for backyard / side yard houses, "which is why it's important that you comment on them now.  If you want things to change for the better, you have to speak up" One Home Per Lot, a grassroots multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement monitoring the legislation and building of sideyard houses, said in a recent email.

 

"The DPD and City Council count the number of emails and phone calls they receive regarding this issue and use that figure to measure citywide support/displeasure.  Recently, they expressed great surprise at receiving 100 emails from concerned citizens," the group added.

 

One Home Per Lot has written a sample letter included at the end of this post to submit to DPD.

 

Comments should be sent to both of the below people on or before Wednesday: 

- Andy McKim (Land Use Planner -- Supervisor): Andy.McKim@seattle.gov
- Richard Conlin (Seattle city council member): richard.conlin@seattle.gov

In Laurelhurst last year, a new property was segmented out of a larger one to build a tall skinny new house built on a very small lot, originally at 4812 NE 40th Street, and now with a new address of 4810 NE 40th Street, just southeast of Laurelhurst Park.

Duffus purchased the 80-foot wide property which included the whole of Lot 27, 30 feet of Lot 28, and 10 feet of Lot 26 (on which the garage was built). Duffus contacted the City for a letter stating whether the 30 feet of property that was once part of Lot 27 qualifies for development as a separate legal building site according to the Land Use Code.

Nick Jenkins, a Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house, in Laurelhurst wrote a blog post last year, on his experience with the new construction home right next door to him.

The skinny houses, which typically start at $700,000, are wedged into undersized lots, standing 25 feet tall (30 feet if they have a pointed roof). "To the surrounding neighbors, 25- and 30-foot tall backyard / side yard houses "feel like guard towers, cruise ships or skyscrapers," One Home Per Lot says.

 

One Home Per Lot which consists of Laurelhurst residents living around theses house, as well as others citywide,  explains the issues in detail, shows how to get involved and details the developer, Dan Duffus,' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake.

 

Here are some of the changes DPD reccommends: 

1. New houses built on smaller backyard / side yard lots will be limited to two stories in height. The height for backyard / side yard houses (on lots 3,200 square feet and smaller) would be limited to 18 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof). However, in a nod to the architectural community, the DPD will allow developers to build as high as 22 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof) if the house is limited to two stories, and the additional height is applied to the first floor.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods, because three-story backyard / side yard houses block views and sunlight and stare down on all of the surrounding houses/yards. But the fact that these two-story houses can still be 27 feet (as tall as a three-story house) is very concerning. Why can't they simply be limited to 18 feet, which is the same height as the current standards for backyard mother-in-law cottages (technically called detached accessory dwelling units)?

2. More historic documents will be removed from the list of items that developers can use to claim a backyard / side yard lot was always intended to be developable.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods because many backyard / side yard lots were never intended to be developed separately (and certainly never developed with towering, three-story structures). Now, developers will have to produce more reliable documentation showing the original owners really did intend to create a separate developable lot.

3. Three changes will be added to the building codes to prohibit developers from dividing one lot into two sub-standard lots "in creative ways" only to qualify the new lots for the less-restrictive sub-standard building codes.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods because it closes a number of loopholes a handful of developers have been using to squeeze backyard / side yard houses into places where they clearly don't belong.

4. Small, undersized lots that are now restricted from development (because they're smaller in size than the current 5,000 square foot minimum), would become developable -- if the lot was equal in size (or larger) to the majority of lots on the same side of that block. Developers will also be allowed to knock-down an existing house on one of these lots and build something new.

One Home Per Lot comments: This is NOT GOOD for neighbors/neighborhoods where the majority of lots and houses are especially small in size (West Seattle, Fremont, Wallingford, Eastlake, Beacon Hill and many other traditionally working-class neighborhoods). It means new houses as tall as 27 feet (22 feet plus five additional feet for a pointed roof) will be allowed to be wedged into the midst of small, one-story cottage houses. Tall houses in these neighborhoods look especially out of place.

One Home per Lot general comments: 

DPD did NOT recommend implementing any kind of mechanism for notifying the neighbors when one of these projects is approved for development. The fact that neighbors have no warning before construction crews show up and start building a new house in a neighboring back / side yard is something that leaves many homeowners absolutely seething. The fact that this lack of notification also deprives those homeowners of filing a LUPA lawsuit within the required 21-day window is most likely also illegal (a federal lawsuit against the city of Seattle is currently pending in federal court regarding this matter).

In our discussions with the DPD and city council, we have made it clear that this is a top priority for neighbors/neighborhoods. A local IT director actually volunteered to show the DPD how to quickly and easily implement an automated notification system.

Here is Councilman Conlin's response to City Council's unanimous decision to extend the 6 month moratorium last month:

MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

On Tuesday, September 3, I introduced emergency legislation to impose interim minimum density requirements in rapidly growing urban centers, urban villages, and station areas designated as pedestrian zones. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent valuable property in these areas from being developed with projects like stand-alone stores with large areas of surface parking. Such projects are contrary to our Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan policies for these areas and could limit our ability to meet our goals under the Growth Management Act.

I have long supported the idea of minimum density requirements in areas with high land values, frequent transit and an active streetscape, but public attention to this issue was prompted by three proposed new projects. CVS Drug Stores is proposing free standing stores in the West Seattle Junction, Queen Anne, and Wallingford, with possibly more in the future. These are vibrant, growing neighborhoods and the community is concerned that the proposed designs for these projects are inconsistent with the pedestrian orientation of the neighborhood. This legislation is a response to concerns voiced by community members and City officials about such kinds of development and is designed to set a pattern for the future.

Zoning has traditionally focused on limiting the size and density of development by setting maximum heights and density, called “FAR”, which stands for Floor Area Ratio. The FAR is the amount of floor space developed on a parcel compared to the size of the property. Thus an FAR of 2, for example, would represent twice as much floor space as the footprint of the property. Usually the FAR is a limitation on the bulk and scale of a project – a developer may be allowed to build, say, four stories, but have an FAR of 2, which means that a blocky building could only occupy half of the land area, or, more commonly, the building is modulated to occupy some larger portion, but with setbacks or other features on the upper floors to create a more compatible design.

Generally, in neighborhoods that are attractive for development, projects will be built out at or near their maximum FAR, and the City’s growth planning projects future growth capacity based on that outcome. Our neighborhood plans envision denser development around traditional commercial/retail cores, with additional height and density allowed to encourage housing over the commercial space. Because of the financial rewards for building larger buildings, zoning these areas usually results in development that is at or close to the allowed densities.

Even in areas where the City is still having difficulty in attracting investment, such as the SE neighborhoods around the light rail stations, when investment takes place it still most often builds out to the preferred densities. This is the Seattle model, sometimes called the ‘New Urbanism’ model that has developed over the last two decades with the revival of urban areas.

But what can we do if a property owner decides to create a building that is totally out of character with what we are looking for? The most common type of such development are retail stores that have a high financial return per square foot, and that are designed to attract auto traffic as their major customers. These are most often free standing coffee shops or drug stores.

A few years ago, Walgreens moved into Seattle with a store model that called for exactly that. In some cases, such as just north of Columbia City on Rainier Avenue, the neighborhood and City were unsuccessful in trying to get the store to be built along more urban, pedestrian-oriented lines (although we did get the company to include a smaller structure that fronts on the street to make the project less like a strip mall). When a similar project was proposed at Broadway and Pine, in the heart of a rapidly developing neighborhood, the community rose up and ultimately persuaded the company to make the store part of a mixed use development with several floors of housing.

Unfortunately, once a project has started down the path to permitting, it is very difficult to stop it or significantly change it legally. Washington law recognizes that property owners generally have the right to develop under the regulations in effect when they apply for a permit so this legislation will likely not affect these three current projects.

The legislation will do two things. First, by establishing a minimum density of 1.5 to 2.5 FAR (depending on the maximum height permitted in the zone) it will prevent further projects like this. Being structured as emergency legislation allows the City to stop the immediate threat posed by inappropriate development proposals, and put interim regulations in place immediately while we write permanent legislation that can address the nuances and complexities of legislation that affects many different neighborhoods.

Second, by sending a clear message that the City will take appropriate steps to curb development that does not fit our growing commercial neighborhoods, we will challenge those who want to push cookie-cutter, strip-mall development into our pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods to rethink their approach. Such developers might be startled by the depth of neighborhood demands for MORE development, not less. Knowing that the neighborhoods and the City are on the same page will help to generate pressure for them to back off on their incompatible proposals. It will also embolden the Design Review Boards, who are also unhappy about such projects, to use their powers to try to make the developments better. Together, we may be able to turn such projects around – and we have to try!

Regardless of the impact on projects already in the pipeline, we will have started down the path of establishing a zoning pattern that will make development work better in the future. By creating a minimum density regulation, we will help foster the kinds of neighborhoods that both the City and our neighborhood plans call for. And we will move a long way towards a zoning pattern focused not on preventing what we don’t want, but at encouraging what we want. That is the best approach for our urban future.

Here is a letter the Laurelhurst Community Club wrote last month to Councilmember Richard Conlin and

Members of the City Council regarding Small Lot Development in Single Family Zones

Dear Councilmembers and Mr. McKim:

The Laurelhurst Community Club Board of Trustees (LCC) supports CB 117898, which would extend the current moratorium on development of incompatible buildings on undersized single family zoned lots. LCC appreciates DPD’s efforts to develop workable solutions to address infill development, but the current proposal falls short in protecting the integrity and livability of Seattle’s neighborhoods. 

Building height, minimum lot size, application of the 75/80 rule, height, bulk and scale issues, and appropriate notice to affected property owners remain critical issues.

LCC looks forward to reviewing and commenting upon a revised proposal. In the meantime, LCC urges you to support extension of the current moratorium. Thank you for considering our views.

Here is a sample letter to submit by Wednesday written by One Home Per Lot:

 

Dear Mr. McKim (and councilman Conlin),

In the most recent set of DPD recommendations regarding backyard / side yard houses (Directors Report, September 16, 2013), you've made some good steps in the right directions, but your recommendations still don't go far enough. I suggest the following:

1. The 100 Percent Rule should be struck from the recommendations. If enacted, this rule would free up hundreds if not thousands of new backyard / side yard lots for developers and make it far easier for developers to hunt them down. While it may ensure that any new lots are comparable in size to their surroundings, the houses constructed on those lots will surely overwhelm all the surrounding structures (see my note #3 below). Plus, the 100 Percent Rule simply greases the skids for what the developers really want: The 80 Percent Rule.

2. The height for backyard / side yard houses (on lots 3,200 square feet and smaller) should be limited to 18 feet (with five additional feet for a pointed roof). This is the same standard currently used for accessory dwelling units, and those have been well received by most neighborhoods.

3. There should be no height exception for backyard / side yard houses built above grade. Your current above-grade recommendations would result in more 27-foot tall structures. Even if the structures were limited to two "habitable" stories, they're still the same size as a three-story structure, which means they would still have many of the same damaging impacts for the surrounding neighbors (loss of sun, loss of views, etc.).

Plus, current Seattle building codes allow for a "habitable attic" (which does not count as a story). Combining that loophole with your 27-foot height allowance would allow developers to construct a three-story, fully habitable house. The lesson: If you allow a 27-foot structure to be built, developers will find a way to make it fully habitable, right up to the pointed roof.

4. All future backyard / side yard house projects should be classified as Type II developments, which would be an easy way to provide the surrounding neighbors with the notification they so dearly want. It's heartless to not provide the surrounding neighbors with advance warning -- and an opportunity to lodge a complaint with a hearing examiner -- when one of these projects is approved for development. And it's illegal to not provide citizens with the advance notice needed to file a LUPA lawsuit within the 21-day window.

Thirteen months ago, the city council enacted an emergency moratorium and directed the DPD to suggest some solutions to the problems brought on by backyard / side yard houses. If the end result of those efforts is simply a three-foot reduction in structure height, and a new process for developers to use when qualifying their backyard / side yard developments, you will have done yourselves and the citizens of this city a great disservice.

I implore you to adjust your recommendations as suggested above.

 

Emergency Moratorium On Backyard/Side Yard Houses Extended For Six More Months

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


The Seattle City Council voted unanimously on Monday to extend the emergency temporary  moratorium on backyard / side yard houses for another six months, as Councilman Conlin said the City Council needed to give the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) more time to revise its recommendations.

Councilman Conlin said the Council will debate the issue again, as well as solicit pubic comment  in November, with the goal of having new, permanent building codes in place before the end of the year.

The moratorium prohibits the development of the smallest backyard / side yard lots, those 2,500 square feet and smaller.

One Home Per Lot  which consists of Laurelhurst residents living around theseshouse, as well as others citywide, is a a multi-neighborhood Seattle wide movement, which explains the issues in detail, shows how to get involved and details the developer, Dan Duffus,' track record and lists the effects these projects have had on neighborhoods like Laurelhurst, Fremont, Wallingford and Montlake.

One Home Per Lot says of the six month extension: "Larger undersized lots are still fair game for developers -- and they've taken full advantage of that fact over the last year, rushing ahead with new and bigger backyard / side yard houses all across the city."

In Laurelhurst last year, a new property was segmented out of a larger one to build a tall skinny new house built on a very small lot, originally at 4812 NE 40th Street, and now with a new address of 4810 NE 40th Street, just southeast of Laurelhurst Park.

Duffus purchased the 80-foot wide property which included the whole of Lot 27, 30 feet of Lot 28, and 10 feet of Lot 26 (on which the garage was built). Duffus contacted the City for a letter stating whether the 30 feet of property that was once part of Lot 27 qualifies for development as a separate legal building site according to the Land Use Code.

Nick Jenkins, a Laurelhurst resident, who lives next door to a tall, skinny house, in Laurelhurst wrote a blog post last year, on his experience with the new construction home right next door to him.

The  skinny houses, which typically start at $700,000, are wedged into undersized lots, standing 25 feet tall (30 feet if they have a pointed roof). "To the surrounding neighbors, 25- and 30-foot tall backyard / side yard houses "feel like guard towers, cruise ships or skyscrapers," One Home Per Lot says.

To correct this issue, the Department of Planning and Development has proposed a new, lower height standard. But it's only three feet shorter than the old height. "Talk about an insult to all the citizens who took the time to call, write letters and attend the public hearings and forums," says the group.

 

One Home Per Lot has created this document to make the related codes / DPD recommendations easier for homeowners and City Council members, to understand, and included photos to show council members the direct impact these homes have on the neighbors. 

Here is a document showing sales prices of 36 skinny homes in the City, including  median sales price for each neighborhood, photos of each home, as well as links to each source.

According to Windermere real estate agent Michael Ravenscroft, there are somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 backyard / side yard parcels still undeveloped in Seattle.  " That's hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential property tax revenue going missing -- revenue that could be used to fund schools, rebuild roads and much more," One Home Per Lot says.

They add:

The truth is the city, just like everyone else, has no idea where most of these historic parcels exist. So they can't be taxed. The vast majority aren't listed on any modern day plat maps. Even most of the homeowners who have these anomalies in their yards have no idea they exist.

The only people able to justify these things are a handful of savvy developers who dispatch subject experts into the city's archives to study old maps and paw through other historic documents.

By legitimizing these developers and their backyard / side yard lots, the city is doing itself (and its citizens) a great financial disservice.

Our group put forth a plan to the DPD showing how it could easily create a registry for these historic parcels. Anyone who owned one and really was counting on selling or developing it someday could register it. Then the parcels could be legitimately platted and taxed. We'd all know where they existed, which would remove much of the anxiety homeowners have about them. That idea, unfortunately, fell on deaf ears.

Here are a few of the numerous comments posted on the One Home Per Lot website:

SEATTLE WEEKLY, 7/24/12 - "Genevieve Giuliano, a professor of urban planning at USC, thinks Seattleites are being perfectly reasonable on restricting large homes on small lots. She says the kind of development Duffus does is not the way cities normally increase density, which happens at a more gradual pace. She adds that allowing the piecemeal creation of houses that are radically different from everything around them undermines the 'existing fabric' of a neighborhood.

SEATTLE WEEKLY, 7/24/12 - "Homeowners often don't know they have an extra little lot on their property, and many of the relevant records are tucked away in archives at Bellevue Community College. The records are so old that anyone who handles them is required to wear plastic gloves. Duffus says he doesn't do that himself, instead relying on a stable of real-estate agents who specialize in that sort of detective work, reaping the rewards when they sell the lots to developers."

SEATTLE WEEKLY, 7/24/12 - "Right now, the loophole does not trigger public comment; if a parcel qualifies, a builder permit is treated as a matter of right, explains Mills. The only hope for stopping a project is — as the Queen Anne couple is doing — to challenge a building permit in Superior Court. And that can only be done within a 21-day window, which is tricky since the lack of public notice means neighbors may not know what's in the works until too late."

Here are articles from the news about the 6 month extension of the moratorium:
Seattle Times
Seattle Weekly
KIRO TV

For more infomation about One Home Per Lot go here.  The city has created a new website to keep residents informed about the issue.

The Laurelhurst Blog has done numerous posts about this issue, including the impact to Laurelhurst residents. Here is one in-depth post from last August on the Laurelhurst Blog.