Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Another Short Plat on Gatewood Hill in 1st Residential
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm #609311
BornInWestSeattleParticipantDoes anyone know/understand the process when a permit is requested to tear down an existing residence, short plat the property into two lots, then build two three-story skinny houses on the property? IS there an opportunity for neighbors to comment on proposals?
This is happening in my mother’s neighorhood. Few people even knew the property had been sold. I found the project 3016247 in the Seattle government databases. The submitted documents show the buyer’s company name as Cha-Ching LLC.
My mom (91 years old) is more than a little upset.
October 4, 2013 at 4:34 pm #798357
WSBKeymasterHey, BIWS. We have covered a few of these situations when neighbors have rallied – yes, there is opportunity to comment, but you won’t know it unless a sign goes up or you follow the Land Use Information Bulletin …
Checking the documents on file on this (have you seen them yet? e-mail me and I can tell you how to look them up – editor@westseattleblog.com ) it appears to be fairly early stage, with everything in that file all posted as of a week ago. They might not have made formal application yet … or they might have.
This explains how to comment:
http://www.seattle.gov/dPd/permits/commentonaproject/default.htm
Since you have the #, that’s a start.
There’s a lot of this happening in Gatewood – I have noticed a couple of spots along California, starting south of Morgan Junction and heading up the hill … anyone interested in what’s happening in their neighborhood would be wise to check the map on the DPD webpage now and then.
There are generally no public MEETINGS on projects like this. However, a few neighborhoods have learned that if you get 50 petition signatures, the DPD can be asked for a meeting. This is what the folks here
http://www.whereiamnow.net/p/alki-rowhouse-controversy.html
among others have done.
-Tracy
October 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm #798358
natinstlParticipantI thought there was currently a moratorium on these types of projects?
October 4, 2013 at 8:12 pm #798359
BornInWestSeattleParticipantSadly, that is not the case. The explanation:
“There has not been a moratorium on all developments on undersized lots, i.e. lots qualifying for exceptions from general minimum lot area requirements. Interim controls were adopted about a year ago, limiting the application of certain exceptions that are provided in the code, and limiting the size of houses that can be built on lots under 3,750 square feet in area. The interim controls, adopted on an emergency basis, are meant to allow time for a more thorough consideration of the lot area exceptions in the code, and the standards for houses on lots that qualify under those exceptions.
One exception that is currently in the code, and not affected by the interim standards, is the “75/80 Rule”. This allows lots that are less than 5,000 square feet in area in an SF 5000 zone to be developed if their area is at least 75 percent of the general minimum required for the zone (i.e. at least 3,750 square feet) and at least 80 percent of the mean area of the lots along the same side of the block which in this case would be the south side of SW Kenyon Street extending from 39th Avenue SW to 41st Avenue SW…the other lots along that block front have a mean area of 4,993 square feet, so this exception would allow separate development of lots with 80 percent of that area, or 3,995 square feet. The property at 3947 SW Kenyon Street has an area of 8,313 square feet, which is sufficient for two lots meeting this exception. Any houses built on the lots will be subject to the standard yard and lot coverage limits.”
October 4, 2013 at 8:35 pm #798360
todd_ParticipantThe BS rolls on. Sorry to hear this BIWS.
October 4, 2013 at 11:16 pm #798361
anonymeParticipant“Cha-Ching”. How appropriate.
With such UNrepresentative government, it’s time for the Monkey Wrench Gang to make a reappearance.
October 4, 2013 at 11:29 pm #798362
kgdlgParticipantThis just happened on my Gatewood block. A teeny tiny home (prob 800 sf) on a double sized lot was demolished and replaced by two HUGE houses. Kenyon btw 36 and 37th.
Now, maybe I am a land use junkie and take particular notice of these things, but there was a large and yellow DPD sign on the property for at least a couple of months, stating in great detail what was happening (short plat, followed by demo and two new houses). I felt that I had public notice and ample time to submit a complaint.
I don’t lament the loss of oversized lots with teeny houses on them. Do I love what replaces them (large modern boxes)? They aren’t my style.
But I will tell you this, every modern box that has been built on Gatewood Hill in the last three years has been snatched up in a matter of weeks, and I have not seen one sell for less than 600k.
So, somebody likes them. Developers only build what people will buy.
October 4, 2013 at 11:31 pm #798363
wsn00bParticipantI live on this block (on the other side of the street) and look at this house almost first thing every morning. I heard from other neighbors that the property was bought by developers when the existing owner moved out. I only noticed the estate sale signs suddenly one weekend. Once I realized that the property was sold to a developer, it was obvious that 2 houses would crop up.
– I am actually glad to hear that they aren’t trying the 3 house stunt like the snafu in Benchview.
– A newer single home would be close to a million in this neighborhood as any new construction will try and take advantage of the nice views from this block.
– The current home is also a one-off design that is not a perfect match to any generation of house on this diverse block. So I don’t have any good defensive ideas to preserve the existing house.
Even though I don’t look forward to the construction noise and reduced street parking (the additional driveway pan will reduce the number of spots), I feel OK with 2 *relatively* affordable houses coming up instead of 1 mansion. [Yes, they will most likely be 600-750K instead of one 900K+ house].
I suspect the houses will be “modern”. I’m just hoping they are not Playhouse designs (boring) and are more slightly interesting modern designs.
I’ll be trying to keep track of this project and am open to neighborhood discussions/petitions supporting something sane being built that, say, minimizes reduction of trees, doesn’t look like an apartment building with more windows, etc.
PS: Where did you see that the developer is called ” Cha-Ching LLC”?
October 5, 2013 at 12:20 am #798364
WSBKeymasterJust a datapoint – I believe the OP was being wry. That is not the developer’s name. I did a bit of offline research on the OP’s behalf and it was some other name, not one I had heard before, but it wasn’t “Cha-Ching.” If you use the DPD Permit & Complaint Status box to look up the land-use application number mentioned, you can see the publicly available info.
This by the way is a true short-plat proposal … NOT a Lot Boundary Adjustment, which is what Benchview among others pursued. Different situation.
And – not saying this in defense of the proposal, just a datapoint – short plats have been going on for a long time … the people who built our little hovel in 1941 owned this lot and the one behind it, which was their backyard. 8400 sf total, about the same as the OP’s mom’s neighbor’s lot. Somewhere in the 1980s, a prior owner of this house short-platted and sold off that back lot, and someone built a tall skinny house, leaving this one with a 4200-sf lot (in SF 5000 zoning) and a wide skinny backyard (so skinny, there wasn’t even a fence dividing the “yards” until we put one up). But at least the tall skinny house was a pre-existing condition when we bought this, not something suddenly happening after X years …
If
October 5, 2013 at 1:36 am #798365
BornInWestSeattleParticipantThe documents for this proposal, Project 3016247, are online at http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/toolsresources/Map/detail/default.htm?lat=47.53197588&lon=-122.38398397&addr=3947,,SW,KENYON,ST,
Renderings of the proposed residences are contained in the document named “Design Proposal.PDF”. The proposed homes are Playhouse designs – sleek modern homes with little architectural detail. There appears to be little or no provision for trees, shrubs or garden space at the front or sides of either house. From my point of view that’s out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Each residence has multiple bedrooms/baths but only a one car garage, so that will indeed add more cars parked on the street, making it more difficult to navigate.
As for the CHA-CHING – the design proposal submitted to the city actually does show the owner’s name as Cha-Ching LLC. The residence proposed 3947 SW Kenyon is labeled CHA-CHING 1, and the one at 3949 SW Kenyon CHA-CHING 2. (Admittedly it’s probably not to my credit that I find this to be astounding poor taste and judgement for a use in a public document, as it really makes no difference what they name the residences.)
October 5, 2013 at 3:24 am #798366
kgdlgParticipantWith all due respect borninws, I live in gatewood and the character of our neighborhood is predominantly “crappy ww2 era houses.” Seriously, I live in one. Litte, nondescript, and shoddily built. My energy audit confirmed no insulation in our walls, and asbestos shingle siding! While I appreciate the occasional craftsman, there are just as many 60s era modern houses up here too. And they too are built to a lesser standard that these houses will be built. Modern is a style. It’s not my style, but it is a legitimate thing that people seem to like well enough to pay 600+ for these houses. Also, every single house on my street (Kenyon) has one car garage. The street is public, and we all use it that way.
The name of the LLC however is def in bad taste.
October 5, 2013 at 3:53 am #798367
kgdlgParticipantI meant all the houses “on my block”
October 5, 2013 at 4:36 am #798368
BornInWestSeattleParticipantThank you, no worries on my account. This is exactly why it’s good to have an open public review process so all points of view can be considered.
I’ve lived in WWII era housing but knew what it was when buying it. Many have been remodeled and updated to the current technologies rather than being completely replaced. Any house with a water or territorial view seems to sell pretty quickly. As for the parking, yes, the street is public but should new construction add to already congested parking. I wonder what will happen when all the on-street spaces are filled and the garden spaces are gone.
October 5, 2013 at 5:18 pm #798369
BornInWestSeattleParticipantCorrecting the document link since I got a message advising it wasn’t working, so here it is in a shortened URL:
http://tinyurl.com/Project3016247
Then click on the tab marked “Documents” to obtain the design proposal with project description, site plans, floor plans and elevations.
October 5, 2013 at 5:52 pm #798370
wsn00bParticipantHeh – they actually used Cha-Ching as the project name! Thanks for the link.
CC-1 looks backwards (and boring) to me. They should really put the deck in the front and not the back.
CC-2 actually looks good with the double decks. I do like that they are creating a downward slope towards 41st and CC-2 is not a 3-story house.
Parking:
For the most part, with rampant car break-ins/thefts I’m not sure why folks with perfectly good garages/driveways don’t use them. Hopefully larger houses provide more storage so that garages can be used for car(s) again and not overflow storage.
Maybe the reduced street parking will force residents to use their unused driveways/garages to park. On our block most people do use their garages/driveways and is currently not really congested.
…Can’t get worse than the 3 instances of backyard car-ranching that happens within a radius of 3 houses (but I digress).
October 5, 2013 at 6:35 pm #798371
BornInWestSeattleParticipantWhen I first looked at it I thought both were three stories, but it was the existing house at 3941 next to CC1. If CC-2 were two stories it would block most, if not all, of the water and territorial view from CC-1.
Look at the floor plan for CC-2 on page 8 of the design document. The front balcony is a large space at 14 x 12.5 feet and is only accessible from the master bathroom. Someone might wish to wall that in as an indoor space since it’s larger than the master bedroom. Just my thoughts.
Always more stuff than storage available!!!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.