West Seattle view fight: Roof rift finally results in relief

According to this P-I story, roofing work that’s under way at a house near Schmitz Park represents the final chapter in a decade-long fight over neighborhood views. (More background in this story from three years ago.) For those who like to read court documents, here’s one of the appeals court rulings; interestingly, we also found the case cited in the court fight over the Lora Lake Apartments in Burien. 11:18 AM NOTE: This one’s turning up on TV – two channel 7 trucks in the driveway.

Todd October 16, 2008 (6:03 am)

I think you mean “rift,” not “riff.”

WSB October 16, 2008 (8:17 am)

And I was just telling a college class yesterday afternoon that one problem with being “the” editor is that EVERYBODY needs an editor, “the” editor included … ha. Thank you so much for catching that, fixed now. Riff might have worked if somebody was up there playing a guitar … TR

WS Native October 16, 2008 (8:24 am)

This is great! It’s just too bad that it had to come to litigation.

Gina October 16, 2008 (8:59 am)

I still don’t get it. It looks like a one story house from the street, the subfloors are on a sloping hillside.

A flat roof will logically leak in Seattle, and require constant roof repair. And all that good wood wasted.

May I suggest that the Turpens plant fast growing laurel as part of their landscaping plan? Or whatever kind of evergreens that people protest the trimming of down on Alki.

Teneighty October 16, 2008 (11:21 am)

The things people place a priority on are astounding. 8 feet of air. 10 years of legal fees would have been better spent on some philanthropic activity. Once again, the attorneys are the true winners.

J October 16, 2008 (12:09 pm)

Darn! I kinda liked the “riff on the roof” notion. Like the Fiddler, maybe….

Diane October 16, 2008 (12:44 pm)

I was surprised to see this PI article last night, wondered if wsblog had any previous coverage; thanks for the heads up re ch7 at noon; answered some of my questions
~
the names Dave and Carole Bauman seem so familiar, was wondering where else I’ve heard of them; now seeing them on tv news, weren’t they big contributors to the Alki Statue Plaza project?
~
it’s funny; I heard someone in WS say few years back when they were planning a 2nd story addition to their home, and I asked what their neighbors might say about loss of view; their rather flip comment was “you can’t legislate views”; I knew at the time that wasn’t exactly true; there are exceptions, and clearly there are times when owners with enough cash can purchase adjacent air space (i.e., downtown Seattle), pre-existing land covenant mandates, changing city codes, and/or enough cash to go through this lengthy legal process; there have also been very lively debates at Alki Community meetings re this issue
~
I live in apt, circa 1957, with downtown views, which I love; except for 2 massive ugly mega-houses blocking views west from the Westin Hotel to Queen Anne hill; I have no complaints because the rest of my view is so awesome, and these huge massed out box houses were built before I moved in, so basically no loss to me
~
but if I were the owner, and had lived here for years, and had done my homework re codes, mandates, etc re views, yeh, it would be upsetting, and perhaps worth fighting
~
looking out at my view now, I often think about what this neighborhood and the view looked like in 1957 when this apt building was constructed; completely unobstructed panoramic view from Harbor Island to Queen Anne
~
there are some elderly folks in an old one story house on the property next to the mega-house, which has great potential, if ever sold and built higher, to take away most of my view; that would be very sad

CM October 16, 2008 (3:14 pm)

As someone who is losing a big part of the view from my house due to a “developer” adding two stories to the house across the street, it’s nice to hear about somebody being able to keep a view.

The “developer” is incredibly rude, the construction is sub-code and his response to upset neighbors is, “Well, that’s what you get for living in the city.”

Georgeofthejungle October 17, 2008 (1:43 am)

Too bad the P-I article didn’t do a better job of explaining the physical layout of the house on the property. It is no taller than any of the homes on that side of the street (and shorter than others). The flat roof may not do much to improve the view so the Bauman’s “victory” may be somewhat hollow.

Martin October 17, 2008 (7:55 am)

It is somewhat sad that so many comments ignored the facts that this builder purposely ignored building heighth restrictions established decades before. It would seem to me that view areas require serious cooperation among those involved. Serious premiums are demanded by sellers and property tax income reflects that. Individuals should not be left to their own devices without positive support from involved municipal government.

oliver November 3, 2008 (4:28 pm)

Really late to the conversation but felt compelled to weigh in. I’ve seen the Baumen’s views. What isn’t shown in the photo is that they have still have sweeping views from the space needle to the olympics.

The Turpen’s house which is one story at the street level and adheres to Seattle building height restricitons(just not to an obscure 1950’s covenant), blocks maybe 10 degrees of the 180 degree view the Baumens already enjoy.

Such greed is surprising. Especially since the replacement of a 4:12 pitched roof with a flat one will not restore their view.

Throw in the environmental impact, financial waste, general ill will between neighbors, and in my opinion everyone, including us, lost.

Sorry, comment time is over.