Building beef

A reader sent us this photo, saying he took it this morning while passing by a house under construction in Fauntlee Hills. Haven’t seen a whole lot of protest banners around here, so we looked around online and found some backstory …

The unfinished house (which is separate from the older brick home in the foreground) is for sale for $1.2 million, according to this listing, about $1 million more than the landowner paid for the 5k-sf lot a year and a half ago. So what’s the banner-inspiring beef about this development project, compared to the dozens of others under way around WS? The online city records give us a hint; a complaint filed earlier this month, investigated, and found without merit, carries a note about checking the house’s height at the “external nailing inspection.”

RobertSeattle July 30, 2007 (7:31 am)

I’m not anti new construction but at first glance the “house” looks like an office building from the picture.

And as sure as the sun rises, they’ll be a buyer for this house someday – so who is to blame?

Aidan Hadley July 30, 2007 (10:30 am)

Not that I’m defending this incomplete design, but there is room for more variety than the standard “faux Craftsman” crap that seems to prevail in Seattle construction.

Michael July 30, 2007 (10:53 am)

HELLO ALL,

I AM SHAKING AS I WRITE THIS. I CAN’T BELIEVE MY EYES THIS MORNING. ALONG WITH MY PARTNER, I AM THE PERSON WHO BOUGHT THIS HOUSE FROM THE BUILDER EARLIER THIS YEAR. AT THE TIME, WE WERE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF ANY NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS WITH ITS BEING BUILT. AND NOW THAT ALL THE JOY OF BUILDING A NEW HOUSE (A ONCE IN A LIFETIME EXPERIENCE FOR US) HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DESTROYED BY SUCH A MEAN SPIRITED GESTURE, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL (HOPEFULLY INCLUDING THE PERSON WHO HUNG IT) MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS SITUATION (FROM THE BUILDER, REALTORS, AND FORMER OWNER OF THE LOT):

– THIS BUILDING LOT WAS THE FORMER BACK YARD OF THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF IT AND IT WAS LEGALLY SUB-DIVIDED INTO A SEPARATE LOT MANY YEARS AGO.

– THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE IN FRONT OF IT HAD INTENDED TO BUILD THEIR OWN “DREAM HOUSE” ON THAT LOT MANY YEARS AGO, BUT NEVER GOT AROUND TO IT, SO THEY SOLD THE LOT. (THEY ARE A SWEET COUPLE WHO RECENTLY SOLD THE HOUSE IN FRONT TO MOVE TO A RETIREMENT HOME).

– THE LOT HAS ‘FLIPPED’ (CHANGED HANDS) SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, ALWAYS WITH THE INTENTION TO BUILD THERE. THE NEIGHBORS WERE GIVEN A CHANCE TO PURCHASE THE LOT (SO THAT NO DEVELOPMENT COULD TAKE PLACE). WHILE INTEREST WAS EXPRESSED, THE NEIGHBORS DID NOT EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.

– SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS I HAVE MET (WHO ARE ALL EXTREMELY NICE) ARE GLAD A HOUSE IS BEING BUILT THERE BECAUSE THEY SAY IT WAS A ‘DUMPING GROUND’ FOR YARD WASTE AND TRASH PREVIOUSLY.

– BECAUSE OF THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOT (AND CITY RULES RE: LOT COVERAGE), A HOUSE BUILT THERE NEEDS TO BE RELATIVELY TALL (BECAUSE IT IS NOT VERY WIDE OR DEEP). BUT THE HOUSE IS BELOW THE 30 FOOT (CITY WIDE) HEIGHT LIMIT.

– ACCORDING TO THE BUILDER, HE COULD HAVE ACTUALLY BUILT THE HOUSE UP TO 8 FEET HIGHER IN PLACES, BUT KEPT THE HOUSE AS ‘LOW’ ON THE SITE AS POSSIBLE. I CAN TELL YOU WITH ALL HONESTY THAT THE HOUSE IS RELATIVELY “LOW TO THE GROUND” ON THAT SITE. MANY OTHER DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE BUILT A TALLER HOUSE.

I DO REALIZE THAT THIS HOUSE DOES IMPACT THE VIEWS OF A FEW NEIGHBORS AND I AM TRULY, TRULY SORRY AND HAVE GENUINE EMPATHY FOR THEM. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN W SEATTLE ARE “ANTI-DEVELOPMENT” IN GENERAL, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT AS SEATTLE GROWS, THIS HAS BECOME A VERY COMMON ISSUE. REMEMBER, BUILDING THIS HOUSE IS COMPLETELY LEGAL AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ITS CONSTRUCTION WAS PLANNED FOR MANY YEARS. IT DID NOT JUST ‘POP UP’.

OUR INTENTION ALL ALONG HAS BEEN TO MEET WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY UPON MOVING IN TO SEE IF WE COULD SIGNIFICANTLY PRUNE A LARGE TREE ON THE PROPERTY TO HELP MINIMIZE THEIR VIEW LOSS. WE ALSO PLAN TO PAINT THE HOUSE AS DARK AND NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE (TO MINIMIZE ITS IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD).

QUITE HONESTLY, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS VOICING THEIR CONCERNS TO THE CITY. IF THERE WAS ANY VIOLATION, I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SAY IT MUST BE CORRECTED. BUT REMEMBER – NO VIOLATION WAS FOUND! THE HOUSE IS WELL WITHIN THE CITY’S HEIGHT RESTRICTION. I JUST DON’T THINK IT’S FAIR TO HANG BANNERS FROM THE HOUSE MALIGNING THE BUILDER.

WHAT’S DONE IS DONE. THE HOUSE IS BEING BUILT. IF NOT US, SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE BUILT IT AND SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE PURCHASED IT. I WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. PLEASE DON’T JUMP TO JUDGMENT!

THANK YOU!

SINCERELY,
MICHAEL

Elizabeth July 30, 2007 (12:00 pm)

It’s a shame that someone would be so petty to hang this sign. Not to mention TRESPASS (the only illegal activity in this scenario) on someone else’s private property to do so. And to compare it to terrorism is ridiculous! It shouldn’t embarrass the builder or buyer in the least. But it should embarrass whoever put it there.

Some homeowners in Seattle apparently need to learn that their views are not necessarily permanent unless they live on a bluff or pay to buy the necessary land to secure the view. If the homeowners behind this house have moved there in the last several years, they obviously didn’t exercise due diligence to see if their view was safe. Views are not a god given right, people!

And by the way, the house is so obviously international modern, not ‘faux craftsmen’. With one window in place, I think it’s a bit early to start judging the architecture…

RobertSeattle July 30, 2007 (12:55 pm)

Just another comment – that 50’s era house in the foreground isn’t what I’d consider stellar architecture either. Can you even get “skinny” brick like that anymore?

Jan July 30, 2007 (3:36 pm)

who cares what the architecture is, of either the new build, or the one in front of it. The point is, this person is well within his rights to build on his property as he sees fit as long as he follows the city guidelines.And, gee, maybe one should wait until the project is finished, huh. If this person who hung this banner had a lick of sense, and was really upset about developers, he’d be protesting at West Ridge, or any of a number of other condo conversions”, etc, that are happening in Seattle.

eric July 30, 2007 (4:24 pm)

michael – I am sorry you’ve been victimized by “tolerant” Seattle.

It’s your property, you can do as you wish within the guidelines of city code.

People who don’t like it can move to the suburbs and join a homeowners association where you have to get permission to paint your house or deviate from approved roof tile materials, fence styles, etc.

If people don’t like the size, style, or any other aspect of homes being built, they should go to the city and change the codes. Until then, I just write-off people as jealous.

s July 30, 2007 (5:23 pm)

That is pretty bad that a neighbor would do that. When buying a view home, it’s just common sense to anticipate what could potentially block the view in the future…it was the neighbor’s responsibility to do this. If the neighbor is going to be so mad at getting his view blocked, the neighbor shouldn’t have bought in the first place (assuming it was a neighbor that put up the sign). There’s nothing wrong with buying a lot and building a home, as long as everything follows code. I’d be happy to have Michael as a neighbor…he seems thoughtful and level-headed.

GenHillOne July 30, 2007 (7:11 pm)

What photo??? Don’t see any but those on the real estate listing.

WSB July 30, 2007 (7:37 pm)

You can’t see the big picture between the first line of the post and the rest of it?

Sue July 30, 2007 (7:57 pm)

WSB, I don’t see the photo now either. It was there all day, every time I logged on, but it’s not there now. Interesting.

GenHillOne July 30, 2007 (8:04 pm)

Nope, not on this end.

WSB July 30, 2007 (8:10 pm)

That’s odd. I’ve just had the rest of the team check from different computers in different places, different ISPs (one of which is the ISP you both are on according to our logs), different browsers, even Mac as well as PC, computers where the photo wasn’t already cached/stored, yet it’s showing for us. ???

Sue July 30, 2007 (9:02 pm)

The only thing I can think of is that I was online most of the day at work, which is a different connection, and it wasn’t until I was home on comcast that I couldn’t see it. I don’t recall whether I saw the photo or not this morning when I logged on at home. It’s weird though, because I can see every other photo on this page, just not that one. Hmmm.

Mike July 30, 2007 (9:04 pm)

Michael, a note regarding the window that is currently in place and shown in the photo. Hopefully it has been just temporarily placed there to work out some details. If that is the actual ‘final’ install, then you are going to have some serious water intrusion problems and concurrent rotting of framing members, mold, etc. Make sure your builder has a thorough understanding of building envelope and flashing details. It is shocking how often this very important detail is shrugged off or overlooked.

Best of luck with your project.

Sue July 30, 2007 (11:19 pm)

Update for WSB – FYI, after I just rebooted for a virus software update, the photo is visible again.

G Jiggy August 1, 2007 (4:38 pm)

The protester, as most protesters of this type do, is protesting the wrong people. He/she should be protesting the wonderful city government that allows what they don’t seem to like. Rather than protest the actual people in control with a informed vote (against them at the next election), they blame the people who follow every step of the law to try and do the right thing.

Funny how doing the honest, law abiding thing is now considered “greed”. Must be a Seattle School District graduate.

old timer August 15, 2007 (8:41 am)

Many years ago, on Gatewood Hill, a home came up for sale. Neighbors who thought a new owner might add a floor and block views banded together to buy the home. They added restrictions to the deed and then offered the home for sale again. The new owners were able to remodel the home, but with the height restrictions, impared no views.
I thought this was a very interesting way to maintain a neighborhood and it’s desirability.

My best wishes to the folks who are the feature of this entry. In spite of his all caps response, Michael seems to be the kind of neighbor we all wish we could have.

Sorry, comment time is over.