Montlake residents declare war against tall, skinny homes
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Some residents in Montlake have declared war on what they consider a dirty housing secret: Tall, skinny houses being built on tiny lots because they qualify for building exemptions.
A three-story modern box house is about to be built in what's been a backyard for the last 60 years in their neighborhood. Neighbors worry it will tower over them, clash with the neighborhood's character and nosedive property values.
"The (developer) comes in, he builds his house, makes his money and he leaves," said Montlake resident Robert Schuck.
Neighbors were curious when stakes went up on the lawn. After digging into city planning records, they discovered a tall house on a tiny lot was coming.
To their surprise -- especially the couple who live next door to the lot -- this kind of project has no public input or appeal process.
"With the three stories out there, people are gonna look right down into our area," said neighbor David Lamb who is with the Blaine Street Preservation Association.
The project began with developer Dan Duffus, who is actually connected to nearly 100 similar local developments. Duffus finds eligible lots -- most are backyards of existing houses. One we found under construction in Wallingford sits on a lot barely 1,000 square feet.
Neighbors here don't like it either. And back in Montlake, the Lamb family are so incensed, they may move.
"It's just that we've been here a long time and I feel I belong here," David Lamb said.
City zoning requires single family homes be built on 5,000-square foot lots, but a little known exception in the city regulations allows homes to be built on tiny lots, if the property was subdivided years ago under old tax records.
"Historical lot exceptions have existed in our code for over 50 years," said Brian Stevens with the Seattle Department of Planning and Development.
A cluster of neighborhood groups insist the code is antiquated and should be ditched, or at least include public input.
"There doesn't seem to be any government agency looking out for our interests," Mary Lamb said. "We lived here and paid taxes."
The city told me that's not unusual -- there's no public input on any single family unit, but Stevens says they have heard some grumblings from neighbors. "And maybe rightly so," he said.
But, in a different Seattle neighborhood, we found a very different attitude. Eric and Linda and their neighbors love their skinny two-story box house. They have the living space, and dream kitchen they've always wanted. They describe their home as green, modern, beautiful and responsible and they don't get all the fuss.
"I think it's really sad, I think it's a lot of misplaced energy," said Linda, who didn't want to give her last name. "I think there is a lot more pressing issues in Seattle to focus on than your neighbor's property."
Duffus declined to be interviewed, but in a statement said he's proud of his work, calls infill development, affordable and environmentally sustainable.
"You're gonna have to up the density, there is no way getting around it," Eric said.
The city agrees with Eric and Linda, but also thinks the Montlake neighbors raise good questions too.
"The mayor's office and City Council has actually asked us to review our historical lot exceptions to look and see if there are some undesired outcomes and whether the code should be changed," Stevens said.
Eric and Linda's neighbor, Scott White thinks the box house fits in with Seattle's eclectic and environmental side.
"It's all about infill in the city, we are running out of buildable lots," White said.
The problem is undeniable, it's the solution that's uncertain.
The planning department says its review will come by the end of the year. But, in an email, Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin told residents the council will vote Monday afternoon on emergency legislation to restrict the city's small lot exemption.
A three-story modern box house is about to be built in what's been a backyard for the last 60 years in their neighborhood. Neighbors worry it will tower over them, clash with the neighborhood's character and nosedive property values.
"The (developer) comes in, he builds his house, makes his money and he leaves," said Montlake resident Robert Schuck.
Neighbors were curious when stakes went up on the lawn. After digging into city planning records, they discovered a tall house on a tiny lot was coming.
To their surprise -- especially the couple who live next door to the lot -- this kind of project has no public input or appeal process.
"With the three stories out there, people are gonna look right down into our area," said neighbor David Lamb who is with the Blaine Street Preservation Association.
The project began with developer Dan Duffus, who is actually connected to nearly 100 similar local developments. Duffus finds eligible lots -- most are backyards of existing houses. One we found under construction in Wallingford sits on a lot barely 1,000 square feet.
Neighbors here don't like it either. And back in Montlake, the Lamb family are so incensed, they may move.
"It's just that we've been here a long time and I feel I belong here," David Lamb said.
City zoning requires single family homes be built on 5,000-square foot lots, but a little known exception in the city regulations allows homes to be built on tiny lots, if the property was subdivided years ago under old tax records.
"Historical lot exceptions have existed in our code for over 50 years," said Brian Stevens with the Seattle Department of Planning and Development.
A cluster of neighborhood groups insist the code is antiquated and should be ditched, or at least include public input.
"There doesn't seem to be any government agency looking out for our interests," Mary Lamb said. "We lived here and paid taxes."
The city told me that's not unusual -- there's no public input on any single family unit, but Stevens says they have heard some grumblings from neighbors. "And maybe rightly so," he said.
But, in a different Seattle neighborhood, we found a very different attitude. Eric and Linda and their neighbors love their skinny two-story box house. They have the living space, and dream kitchen they've always wanted. They describe their home as green, modern, beautiful and responsible and they don't get all the fuss.
"I think it's really sad, I think it's a lot of misplaced energy," said Linda, who didn't want to give her last name. "I think there is a lot more pressing issues in Seattle to focus on than your neighbor's property."
Duffus declined to be interviewed, but in a statement said he's proud of his work, calls infill development, affordable and environmentally sustainable.
"You're gonna have to up the density, there is no way getting around it," Eric said.
The city agrees with Eric and Linda, but also thinks the Montlake neighbors raise good questions too.
"The mayor's office and City Council has actually asked us to review our historical lot exceptions to look and see if there are some undesired outcomes and whether the code should be changed," Stevens said.
Eric and Linda's neighbor, Scott White thinks the box house fits in with Seattle's eclectic and environmental side.
"It's all about infill in the city, we are running out of buildable lots," White said.
The problem is undeniable, it's the solution that's uncertain.
The planning department says its review will come by the end of the year. But, in an email, Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin told residents the council will vote Monday afternoon on emergency legislation to restrict the city's small lot exemption.
I am from somewhere else in the US and don't understand why nweighborhoods here are ericted without some sort of city rules and governances. If you had those rules, you would not have this problem and many others. I am amazed at how you can sell your front yard and have someone else put up a house on it. Elsewhere in the country there are strict rules to follow and once a subdivision is built that's it. You can't add a house to a lot because lot sizes are restrcted. You can't add a mother-in-law suit because that is restricted. You can't have a BIG boat or Mobile home sitting in the driveway because it makes the rest of the neighborhood look like a junk yard. Perhaps you need to set up building codes and rules with your city council? I also don't understand why no one wants sprawl? There is so much land it is ridiculous and the fact that everyone lives on top of each other is crazy.   If this area was designed correctly with roads and subdivisions you could live further away and get to work faster. think about it.
Within Seattle, or urban growth areas, it does seem like "up" may be the only way to go to increase density and help to minimize the continuous sprawl that we originally decided to create with all of its resulting issues. I can see how the neighbors might be upset when they didn't know about it, and have expectations about their neighborhood. Many who have been in a community awhile worry when changes start happening and how they might affect thier land value -- the "not in my backyard" sentiment. But, some of these concerns are a lot more justified than others. Some changes are "less fair" than others and some neighbors can simply be very "un neighborly" themselves when it comes to what someone does on their own property.  From the picture, --- admittedly just one picture -- this seems like neighbor's over reaching just because they don't like that type house behin them. I remeber when vacant lots behind the house I grew up in, that had been our play areas and woods,  were developed -- some with much larger houses -- we were sad to see it go, but knew it was ultimatley what would happen with growth.....  We wound up with a very big house just behind our fence line, but would never have considered the land owner didn't have the right to do this. Still for the city, I would think re-evaluating these lots -- where they are as far as a number of attributes --might need to be re-considred. The zoning does sound antiquated if more than 50 years old -- but that doesn't mean it should be disallowed. I just agree with the re-evaluation happening.
Such a joke. "Green" is the new no-guilt consumerism. Sorry folks but GREEN means taking what you have and making it livable. Not ripping down structures and building something that DOES NOT fit into the environment.
Try living next door to one of these. I do. We've lost ALL of our sunlight. Our house is now a tiny dark little box. So the neighbors get what they want and we get the leftovers.
We once dreamed of adding on and building a deck- can't. No sun. Many of our plants died. The developers limbed two of our large trees as well (branches reached onto the neighbors' side) so that they have been weakened, and chopped down the other very large tree in their yard. Green indeed!Â
There's no density problem. There are vacant old homes everywhere. These buyers just want to justify the purchase of a 3500 sq ft home on a 5000 sq ft lot and the developers want to get out with the cash.Â
By the way, what the hell is so wrong with being a NIMBY anyway? The only people who even use the term are the ones WHO DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
Â
NIMBY doesn't mean not those who don't have to deal with it -- I have had to. And, you say you wanted to add on and add a deck.... so you thought that was suppose to be fine for you because it was different than what your neighbor did -- but what if other neighbors hadn't thought you should cover some of your backyward with whatever your planned addition and deck were -- that they thought it should remain grass, or whatever it currently is. Should that have been their right, to bar you from adding on? And, that's a reality of tree limbs everywhere -- if you plant a tree to close to a fence line of a neighbors..... it depends how neighborly your neighbor wants to be as I said in my earlier post as to what may happen to the tree limbs that grow over the line....
Such a joke. "Green" is the new no-guilt consumerism. Sorry folks but GREEN means taking what you have and making it livable. Not ripping down structures and building something that DOES NOT fit into the environment.
Try living next door to one of these. I do. We've lost ALL of our sunlight. Our house is now a tiny dark little box. So the neighbors get what they want and we get the leftovers.
We once dreamed of adding on and building a deck- can't. No sun. Many of our plants died. The developers limbed two of our large trees as well (branches reached onto the neighbors' side) so that they have been weakened, and chopped down the other very large tree in their yard. Green indeed!Â
There's no density problem. There are vacant old homes everywhere. These buyers just want to justify the purchase of a 3500 sq ft home on a 5000 sq ft lot and the developers want to get out with the cash.Â
By the way, what the hell is so wrong with being a NIMBY anyway? The only people who even use the term are the ones WHO DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
My question is; who do these tiny yards belong to? Are the owners of the yards selling off their backyards to developers or are these properties owned by the city?
Do the owners of the yards confer with their neighbors or just quietly sell off their yards and grab the money?
Â
How many more people can we stuff into the city of Seattle, it's bursting at the seams as it is.
More Seattle NIMBY-ism...
Two things here folks...
First off, you folks voted in the city council and mayor that want to increase bicycle transportation and cause high-density housing to occur. Does the 'make Seattle a walkable city' campaign phrase from Granola McSchwinn ring a bell?
Secondly, you guys [Seattle and King County] even foisted a sewage treatment plant off on another county... AND THEN named it 'Brightwater', brought in a bunch of hired indian tribes to beat drums and chant, and somehow thought that all that feel-good bulldung was gonna make it OK.
This is nothing, NOTHING more than Seattle getting exactly what it voted for.
Mazel'Tov!
 @svensson Unless and until you find a candidate who won office with 100 percent of the vote, please stop squealing, "You voted for him/her!" and endlessly whining about your pet topic on every article.
You haven't a clue who in here did or did not vote for any of our elected officials, so please stop presuming you speak for everyone, because you don't even know what YOU are talking about, much less what the rest of us think.Â
 @svensson While I agree with most of what you write to be fair it must be stated that much of the capacity of Brightwater will serve Snohomish county.
@Furd But it didn't impact the home property values in King County much, did it? Just sayin'...
In-city residents are being pretty short-sighted. When a city is required by state law to plan for increasing its density by so many thousands each year, and the city is running out of land, then the only options are for infill or mega-tall, Singapore-style condos. Demand for options can increase the value of the land, hence the overall property value. That means your property taxes will go up unless there is a way to share that burden with lots more people who need lots more services.
Â
So if you want to complain, and keep your little share of Seattle a modest single family residential neighborhood, with little 1 or 2 story houses on each 5,000 square foot lot, don't start complaining when your home values start looking like you live in SF near the beach. It doesn't matter where the city puts the new density, you are going to have to help pay the bill for public services for everyone who lives here.
Â
This has nothing to do with developers manipulating the city or the city getting away with anything. Its the complex interaction of individuals buying and selling, and the overall economics of real estate ownership, and the external pressure on the city to build more residential housing for more people, pressure to comply with the Growth Management Act.
Â
So, citizens of Seattle: take an interest in growth management planning and make your thoughts known. Do you want 3 story residential infill or do you want mega-condos? Â I'm talking 40-50 or more stories here, all with pristine water and mountain views, nice smallish condos with great big sale prices and great big tax bills to pay for public services for all the people who want to or need to live here. What choice do you prefer? Because with Seattle's physical boundaries, we don't really have any other options. Short of economic collapse, like the early 1970's, Seattle will continue to move away from single family neighborhoods because there are no other options.
Â
A thousand years ago, Italy solved in-city density (not to mention security) by constructing hill towns, the kind featured on in coffee table books, calendars and postcards. When I owned a house in the Central, I loved looking out on the west side of Leschi and seeing houses climbing the hills, mixed with trees. It was very picturesque (admittedly from a distance of 4 blocks) particularly late in the afternoon if the sun broke out after a rain.
Â
If you think your "tall, skinny" neighbors are watching you, you will get over it. After all, they have a life and probably aren't even home most of the time. Learn to ignore it and enjoy your neighbors instead. Build a relationship instead of focusing on anger and disappointment. There are no guarantees in life; you bought your little house and lot a dozen, two dozen or three dozen years ago? No one promised the neighborhood would always stay the same, but if that is your need, there are plenty of dying towns east of the mountains that won't be addressing density for decades to come. Move there and insulate yourself or help plan the future here. You do have a choice, but barking at the city and developers isn't the useful one.
Â
Â
 @Juliana How DARE you be logical! (Yes, this is sarcasm.)
Thank the developers who have city leaders and planners in their pockets. You WILL NOT be asked what you would actually want in your neighborhood.Â
Seattle has plenty of homes and does not need to infill. Â Those neighborhoods look like cities in third world countries. Seriously, I say that without an ounce of hyperbole. Â The "developers" are basically gutting historical and charming neighborhoods to buil the architectural equivalent of a Pods container. And for the folks who are unlucky enough to live next to one, and have NO input on that structure.. Â you can see that they lose the entire side of their own home. The windows on that side are no eclipsed, the airflow and noise are impacted, and the privacy.Â
So, before you post on here about "personal rights" and saying that the neighbors are complainers, find that link in the thread to the photos of these homes. It will make your stomach turn. Â If Seattle was SO desperate for housing, why are those awful condos all begging for people to buy them? Â
Seattle is destroying what little character was left, by knocking everything down to build condo towers, and now this. Â And since when don't you need some sort of approval process to build a home in Seattle? Is this India?Â
I'm sure you need approval to build a home in Seattle, or even to add on to your hom; the article just says they didn't need thier neighbors approval. We added on to our house and certainly we needed approval from the City we are in, building inspections done, etc -- but not the neighbors approval. We have done (and seen some things done) that did require neighbor notifications prior to approval -- but they were of a different nature.
 @DT HA HA HA HA HA HA - This is Seattle, everything is built on everything. Each house different, tons of different cultures and people. If you want an opinion on land go to a state that does not cost as much for the land (Grew up on 3 acres and by tons of farm land, no neighbors for miles). Or by a 5 mill or more home with a gate around it. Then have your neighbor who owns the $100,000 dollar home next door. Complain that your gate is to high.
I feel so bad for these people. Probably people who gleefully voted for critical area ordinances and growth planning.
Â
How do you like them apples, jerks?
I saw this happening in Wedgewood when we lived there about 10 years ago.  Unsightly structures completely out of place with the neighborhood going up every few blocks.  Blech.  When we were looking to buy we were amazed at how many homes were built in back yards -- the person in front had essentially an easement on their property so the backyard neighbors could reach their home denying both properties privacy.  If this type of development came to my neighborhood I would fight it.  And on top of that, Montlake has plenty of density as it is!
I understand both sides, but I will side with established neighborhoods that don't want their neighborhoods drastically changed.  It's no different than when people start moving in next to rural/agricultural properties then start complaining about the farm smell or the roosters crowing. Â
They just want the biggest bang for the buck......ugly homes, but oh well.
Really?
It's my understanding that Montlake can initiate military action against tall, skinny houses, but must ask for an official declaration of war from the Seattle City Council within 30 days, according to the Urban War Powers Act (UWPA).Â
People should be able to do whatever they want on their private property unless they are causing someone else direct physical harm. Â Think you've sustained some monetary damage? Â Then sue. Â Otherwise, leave people alone and stop being busy-bodies.
 @Dean Fuller These people think they should be able to tell not only you but some farmer in King County how they should develop their land. Just not in their backyard.
What is the real issue here? That you can't control what your neighbor does with his property. Good, because I don't want anyone telling me what I can/cannot do with mine.Â
Â
If you don't want a home built right next to you, then buy the vacant lot yourself. Or you could live in the country like I do where everyone builds a shop. I live on half an acre with woods that back up to a retention pond. Why? Because I didn't want anyone building a home behind me. So I searched for a home that backs up to a greenbelt that can never be developed. If you have lived in the same urban home for 50 years and don't like the changes, then move.Â
Â
My parents are in the same house in NJ and have been for 43 years. The homes are all cape cod style and built in replica of Levittown.  Now, all of these years later none of the homes look alike. Most have blown out capes, different materials, different colors. There are larger homes built on once vacant lots. No one whines about it. Those that don't like the changes leave. Most of my parents neighbors are new as everyone else has moved out.Â
Â
This sense of entitlement is growing in the U.S. and now it's hitting every age group. Who cares if you don't like the style of home. It's not your business.Â
Â
As for fitting in with the rest, I noticed that out west none of the homes "match" really. On the east coast they are all one type in a neighborhood--cape cod, victorian, split levels, etc. Here they are all mixed in together.Â
Â
Â
Hilarious...rich folk are getting pummeled by "density". Â
Now all of a sudden it's an issue!!
Wait until they turn the Allen ranch into a light rail station...
The story says they are green, well are they? Just calling green doesnât make it green. Were the materials used to build it procured locally? And of those materials where they themselves green? The fascination with green just kills me. Are they going to use solar shingles, are they going to use open or closed spray foam wall, subfloor and attic insulation, solar or wind power, Energy star appliances or geothermal heating, or last what about water reclamation or solar water heaters.. Nowhere in this story is any of this explained, so therefore I assume the house really isnât all that green.Â
If you don't want one next to you then buy the land.
 @DeadRabitz That was what I was thinking. Many people buy the vacant lots that surround their property so they don't have to be concerned over what is built on it.Â
 @Northend That is what my mom did.  She didn't like the ugly house next to hers so she bought it and tore it down.  Now she has a very nice garden there.
Below is a link to a .pdf containing lots of pictures of these monstrosities. These are some of the ugliest homes I've ever seen. They don't fit in well with the neighborhoods, and they look like giant milk cartons. One of them has an upside-down V roof that looks like it's caved in. I can't imagine why anyone would buy one of these things.
Â
http://www.onehomeperlot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/House-photos.pdf
But it's their choice, not anyone elses. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 @Illuminati Ugly isn't the issue. Private property rights vs government force is.
 @Illuminati It's really none of your business.
 @Illuminati What is hideous to you, isn't necessarily the same for others. I happen to like homes like this.Â
So how is taking the remaining tiny patches of open ground in a neighborhood and building an impervious structure on them considered "green" and "sustainable"? Got to love those buzzwords people use to sell undesirable projects like these.
@ErichBritton  Higher density in the city means less sprawl on the surrounding lands which means you don't have to drive so far to get the heck away from it all.
 @plantfann In the last 400 plus years of development in the areas now controlled by the U.S. less than 3% of the  total land area has been converted to urban use. So what's the big deal about urban sprawl.Â
If that tiny patch of open ground is private property, then it's nobody's business...
Â
The neighbors should consider building 50-foot fences around the property. Â If they can build a house that big, then I don't see why someone else couldn't build a real tall fence.
@Tim Lane  Hmmm--fences that tall would definitely arouse suspicion.Â
 @Tim Lane Because "fences" and "buildings" have difference building code limitations.  Fences are limited to 8-foot without a special permit.  You're not going to get a permit for anything near 50 feet.
 @Travis Hartnett  @Tim Lane Well, you could mount some really shiny reflective panels on your roof, set to reflect the sunlight...
 @Tim Lane Sorry, there ARE ordinances limiting the height of fences.
Wow, you let people own valuable things, and next thing you know they're maximizing their profit. Â Who could have seen this one coming?
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
 @SecretAgent  @CIAassassin Then don't buy one. Â
You may not like the old victorians, but they are very much a part of Seattle's history. It really would be a shame to preserve any of that you know. Seattle used to be a beautiful place and now it's being turned into something that is not unique.....something like Chicago or Las Angeles. Aren't we lucky though.
 @Jatok Have you been to Chicago?? It has many historic locations and housing requirements on colors, up-keep, etc.. Seattle has to many entitled people. Most of the small homes have to be taken down in Seattle, because the prior owner could not take care of them. We have many in my area of ViewRidge. We bought a fixer upper and keep it true to the 50's style, but that has cost a lot. At one point I wished we did tear it down and re-build, but we did not.
Yes, I have been to Chicago more than once. I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with your home, however there are lots of those old homes that have "good bones" and even though I realize it is very expensive and time consuming to fix them up they are still better structurally than a lot of the new homes. Many still have original wood and you can't get the quality of some of the things put in those homes either in material or labor. To many of todays homes have very little character and even though it's not for everyone I believe some of those
homes are well worth saving if you have the time and money to do so.
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
 @CovertAgent  @CIAassassin Maybe you two should get a room...
 @CIAassassin Unlike.
 @glassman:Â
This "new & improved" commenting system SUCKS! I wish there was a "DISLIKE" or TD button!!!