Update: 9/11/12, 9:56am: This morning, The Daily Weekly reported that City Council approved the emergency legislation in a unanimous vote.
Back in May, Shannon told us about the Disturbing Development in Tangletown, in which a new, three-story house was being built on a tiny lot at 55th and Kensington. In July, Shannon provided us with an update, letting us know that the infill issue has cropped up in several neighborhoods throughout Seattle. Now, Shannon has provided us with information about a small lot emergency ordinance introduced by Seattle City Councilmember Richard Conlin. Here’s what she writes:
On Sept 5, Richard Conlin introduced emergency legislation that would require lots to be at least 50% of the size of a legitimate building lot and would restrict the size of houses in lots smaller than 3,750 square feet to that of an accessory dwelling unit. This legislation will stop the out-of-scale, monolithic structures like the Wallingford Alley Skyscraper while the Council strives to find a permanent fix.
Developers are out in force to lobby city council this week, and we want the voice of residents to be heard too. Please email/call city council members by Monday morning (9/10) and/or sign the petition if you haven’t already.
Read more on the Seattle Weekly blog update on topic:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/09/richard_conlin_introduces_emer.phpCOUNCIL MEMBERS CONTACT INFO:
206-684-8806, [email protected]
206-684-8800, [email protected]
206-684-8802, [email protected]
206-684-8803, [email protected]
206-684-8807, [email protected]
206-684-8805, [email protected]
206-684-8801, [email protected]
206-684-8804, [email protected]
206-684-8808, [email protected]
For additional reading on this matter, there’s also a post that appeared today on the Seattle Transit Blog with lots of dialog, including points made by Councilmember Conlin.
Wonder about the likelihood of success valid though it is- the council rolled over on 3400 Stone emass.
Thank you for the update and for including the link to the petition. I urge everyone who has an interest in this issue to at least sign the petition.
Wow, that would mean that my house wouldn’t qualify. I have a 3,371 sq ft lot and the house is 1000 sq ft footprint built in 1915. About half the houses on my block, maybe more, have small lots with normal sized houses. 3,750 sq ft seems a bit restrictive for small-lot seattle.
@Tobin, seems to me you live on a corner, that changes the square foot paradigm. And 1815 BS 29120=-`3 EW==S=DI
I have an interest in the issue but am against the proposed “emergency” legislation, so I don’t think I’ll be signing the petition.
Very true @Michael: Many in this neighborhood, the WCC foremost among them, were very vocal about their concerns with the “process” involved in the 34 Stone development. Surely they should be just as concerned with the council proposing “emergency” legislation here. I’m guessing this will reveal they really dont care about the process as long as they like the outcome.
True enough.. this is not an emergency!
I’ve lived in Seattle for 40 years and am in my 4th house. My previous two house were both less than 3750 lots (neither was a corner) and both had smaller houses (though bigger than an accessory dwelling unit). when I sold one, the new owners did park a 3 story on it using the existing footprint. It didn’t seem imposing as the 3 house that were adjacent (all larger lots) were large 2 story houses.and the space between the houses were at least 10 feet (2 x 5 foot setback)
if I had a small lot next to me my concern would be more on setbacks and height more so than percent coverage. And that would also be my concern with a normal lot as that would impact my view and not wanting my neighbor too close.
Given that, the legislation seems miss targeted on small lots vs reviewing issues that may exist with height restrictions? (a 3 story next to me would feel imposing with a 5 foot setback if I was in a single story house). Height restrictions should take into account neighboring structures.
This code has been in place in its current form for over 25 years and only 15-20 of these historical lots are even built on each year. This is hardly an emergency and the people who will be most impacted (the actual property owner) are not even going to have a say ahead of the vote – only after – which just isn’t fair. That 87 year old that has a couple historical lots, is on fixed income and in poor health, and considers this her way to make ends meet…she is the victim here. Not the neighbor. Remove the emergency ordinance language and allow due process.
“Interim ordinance” would have been a better term. To create time and space to Sort This Out ethically and fairly.
I dont have a dog in this fight. But whatever you call it, there shouldn’t be a change to people’s property rights without notice and an opportunity for them to comment. The same opportunity that everyone received for Stone 34. This is not an emergency (unless you are one of the homeowner’s whose lot is threatened by the “emergency” legislation).
I’ll be contacting the council members, thanks for keeping on top of this issue!
The way Duffus and others have been making money is by buying houses from people who have NO idea about the possibility of building on the pre-1957 tax parcel. That’s how they make the money. Why else would developers be investing in a Boston based software firm to help them identify these lots (which are impossible for the average homeowner to identify hence the need for special software). Do the developers expect us to believe that they are going to share that information with the homeowners? No one shared that information with the family of our 101 year-old neighbor who died. They sold to Duffus at market rate (476,000) and he turned around and sold the house for a little more (fine-thats expected). He sold the side yard “lot” to a developer for $275. Developer built a 30 foot tall house on a 25 feet wide lot for $750,000. Explain how that helps people on a fixed income?
And thats $275,000 for the side yard-not $275.00.
KOMO did a story on this today.
Indeed they reported that the measure passed unanimously. I’m glad some common sense prevailed. Hopefully that will give some measure of satisfaction to the neighbors of Duffus’s “surprises”, including the one in Tangletown.
Thanks to all who wrote letters and attended the Council meeting on 9/10. The Council unanimously approved the temporary ordinance to limit backyard/sideyard homes. Now the real work begins to ensure that permanent legislation (likely to be passed in 6-12 months) includes public input, design review standards and neighbor notification. Share your input with the land use committee working on this issue.