Comments on: West Seattle development: Neighbors rally against adding 2 homes to the site of 1

By: Cls

Cls — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:48:36 +0000

Had I known this is what was going to happen to homes in West Seattle I wouldn’t have moved here. This place is changing and not or the better…

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:12:23 +0000

Well……My thinking on this issue has several trails but the foremost one is this – when anyone purchases a piece of developed property they are also purchasing the associated zoning that controls the development of that property. So, since the property in question here is 11,500 sf it qualifies for 2 separate houses per SF5000 (one existing and one new). So do the neighbors have a right to question putting two new houses and one existing house on the property in violation of the cities SF5000 zoning? My answer would be an strong YES, since what is the use of zoning if not to control the form and fabric of neighborhoods. So my feeling if the city wants to allow the the placement of homes in the neighborhood on smaller than zoned property then the developer or city should be made to compensate the homeowners for any economic damages that their decision is placing on the existing homeowners. This is only fair in that the home owners in the neighborhood purchased their homes with the protection of the underlining zoning. So If I was living next door to the proposed new house I would be mad as hell if the city allowed a house to be built on a 3,400 sf lot because surly that new house will be built exactly to the side setback lines and to gain marketable square footage will be several stories tall. This would affect the value of my house.
So the city is promoting density and given no push back from the public the city would allow violations of the the current zoning to accomplish densification. The city is already chipping away at the SF5000 zoning by allowing the construction of detached dwelling units on the existing SF5000 lots. These detached units have a maximum footprint restrictions but nevertheless can be placed on current SF5000 zoned property having great impact on neighbors privacy.
On another trail lies the moral hazard issue of the city allowing developers to skirt the existing zoning. So the developers involved in the article paid $860,000 for the property. Lets just say the existing house gets resold for $560,000. The developers then got 2 building lots in a prime location for $150,000 apiece – way, way below the actual value of a lot in that neighborhood. While the monies are not a concern to the city the reality is that a developer that looked at the property in a manner that would adhere to SF5000 zoning would say that 2 lots could be made from the property – one with the existing house and one with a new house. So this developer would be paying $300,000 for the new lot which is more realistic. So by the city allowing the 3 parcels they are saying to all developers they can count on the city to not enforce the zoning laws and you can take that to the bank – this is not a good place for the city to be.
While we can state (and believe) that increasing density is a admirable goal it does have real world impacts to people’s property values. So while the term “nimbyism” can be used in a way to discredit neighborhood stakeholders these stakeholders are truly being subjected to real world impacts of their property values and lifestyles that was part of the value of the property when they purchased it.
It is my guess the developers purchased the property with the knowledge that one new house can be built (and financially work) with no possible push back from the city or the neighbors however if they could get the second lot their profits could be tremendously enhanced so why not take a try at getting it approved.

By: wetone

wetone — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:42:13 +0000

I use to have a sunny yard now it is dark. My garden is dead. In the shadows of your bliss as you watch the sunset.

By: Scooter

Scooter — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:46:50 +0000

Well reported article on an important topic. Visit the website at http://www.onehomeperlot.com to learn more about how backyard and sideyard homes are popping up all over the city, stripping away privacy and looming over existing homes like neighborhood bullies.

By: amisella

amisella — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:43:00 +0000

That is a ghastly proposal. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should! Case in point: we added a floor two years ago to our house, and the city said we could go up 13 feet. That would have made our house tower over all homes on our block. To be neighborly, we kept the rise to only 8 feet. Result? No grumpy neighbors. And an healthy conscience.

By: norskgirl

norskgirl — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:28:04 +0000

Welcome capitalism. Money. More is better and you can never have enough. Get all you can and it matters not how you do it.

By: no

no — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:22:29 +0000

2 houses , three is too many. Modern houses are cool though.

By: WSB

WSB — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:41:29 +0000

New single-family house, according to the DPD records online:
.
http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=6337857

By: L

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:10:10 +0000

If people have the money to buy a property they can build what ever they want. Some people need to mind there own business. Get A life!

By: sc

sc — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:36:52 +0000

they have begun demolition at 4010 sw genesee. does anyone know what will be built there?

By: Deb

Deb — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:59:32 +0000

Mgt, Surely you are not saying that builders are unable to practice restraint and do the right thing on their own and must rely on the city to control their actions.

By: Deb

Deb — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:40:31 +0000

We recently had the unfortunate experience of this same thing happening in our west seattle neighborhood. This type of development causes much more to be concerned about than the look of neighborhood. It raises many concerns, from quality of life of the entire neighborhood, to infrastructure and environmental issues. In our case, there are now two very large 3 story houses with very large footprints where one small structure once stood. Many of us lost sunlight and our view of the sky. In addition most of the yard is now covered which has a detrimental effect on drainage, soil quality and wildlife. We have increased traffic but no upgrade to the street which really needs it. Adding housing for families is a good thing but should be done responsibly. Increased density brings increased pressures on roads, sewers, schools, parks etc. Housing Developers do not do their business in a vacuum and must share the responsibilities for maintaining the quality of life we enjoy in Seattle.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:19:22 +0000

Dick Miller, you could chat with the neighbor behind that house who will have their home depreciate by hundreds of thousands once they lose their view. You could talk with the neighbors in front of it who’s homes are currently valued in the millions who will be dealing with construction of 3 buildings behind them which will be priced too high and sit vacant. The home just North of this lot was recently built. I remember walking my dog by that as they built it. I think that style home was nicely done replacing an old worn down structure to fit within the area.
.
True, anyone with the money ‘could’ have bought this lot to rebuild on. It’s a prime spot, great views, huge lot. Its sad the plan is to destroy that. I’d suggest the developer build a single home on that lot again, it’s easily worth $3M with the right type of home built there. However, I assume they want more than 3x their investment.

By: Amy

Amy — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:08:14 +0000

4832 and 4834 46th Ave SW are under construction. This guy even tried to claim an access easement which does not exist!! These houses will be 30′ high boxes. They’ve already destroyed the tree’s root system, trespassed, and have a cut into the dirt that is unsafe. Do you think the City cares?

By: sophista-tikki

sophista-tikki — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:26:17 +0000

Real estate development seems to trump everything in this town. its gross. Stop shoving more people into already full neighborhoods. More people-less breathing room-higher stress levels. We all end up paying for it while the developer or property owner rakes in all the bucks. Screw them!