Multi-Family Land Use Code Amendments
This just in from Bill Zosel: “This is the letter that was written on behalf of SPCC to DPD last September (2006) commenting on the proposed Land Use Code changes for multi-family zones. In the next day or two DPD will post on its Web site the latest version of the proposed changes and SPCC and members of the community will be looking at it to fashion comments on the new proposal.”
Mike Podowski
Department of Planning and DevelopmentRe: Multi-Family Land Use Code amendments
Dear Mike: The following is a compilation of comments from Squire Park residents regarding issues related to the multi-family Land Use Code amendments. Please let us know the next steps in your process of review. Thanks for meeting with us.
Bill Zosel
Secretary, Squire Park C.C. boardA. Design- Related issues: Much attention has been given to the alleged failure of the Lowrise 3 zone — L3 — to produce the hoped-for density and this is one of the main factors motivating this Land Use Code review. Is it possible to promote greater density in the L3 zone but also get projects of better design, given that few, if any projects are required to go through the design review process?
1. Most of the new town house developments lack street front presence. The garages are on the first level—which puts the primary living space on the second level and creates a dead zone in “front yards” of these developments.
Even more disconcerting are the developments that put 6’ fences along the sidewalks. Not only does this create a disconnect in the neighborhood, it reduces personal safety as there are less “eyes on the street”. This building pattern is also boring—we are losing diversity of building types and creating a monoculture of blandness.We recommend that the revised Multifamily Code address this problem in the following ways:
? Do not allow fences over 4’ high in front yards.
? Provide incentives for front porches and living space on the first floor—through relaxed setbacks in the alley if a developer wants to cluster parking in the rear of the lot*; or allow added density and reduced parking requirements if the development provides street level living units along the front of the properties. (Units in the middle and back of a property could be over garages.)
*Current zoning requires a minimum 10’ setback in the alley for parking or structures; we recommend reducing this to 2’ in return for better design/street presence.2. There is no incentive to leave existing old houses (with character) when redeveloping L1-L4 properties. Because these existing properties are often not optimally situated on an existing lot, the most cost effective approach for a market rate developer is to tear down the old house and build new townhouses to the maximum development standards.
We understand developers need to have a solid return on investment, and that the lowest risk approach often dictates tearing down the existing and starting with a blank slate, but Seattle is losing the character and vitality of neighborhoods.
The City can create incentives to make it profitable to leave some existing old houses while adding density. Incentives could include:
Reduced setbacks at new structures
Reduced parking requirements
Reduced open space requirements/flexibility in interpretation
Increased density(i.e.: if the current property zoning allows for 3 units on a 4,800sf then the city could allow for 4 units on the property if the existing house stays—this would also encourage smaller units/condos/creative solutions.)3. Don’t allow 4:12 pitch roofs- the slope is too low and the buildings look like manufactured housing/mobile home roofs. If a steeper pitch were required, we would see more dormers and variety of details for the builders to maximize the use of the top level. You are proposing adding 5’ to the height limit (a good idea) but then allowing a 4:12 pitch roof takes away any incentive for the developer to design a roofline with character. If you are going to give them added height—get something in return—steeper pitched roofs with dormers still provides a livable 3rd level(especially when 5’ is added to the height limit).
4. Do not allow street front bump-outs/modulation without windows. Some projects “bump out” a section of the exterior elevation to accommodate a fireplace chase or closet. These bump-outs are boxy and bulky. Require a window(even if it is blanked off on the inside) if these bump-outs face the street—the thought behind this is to add character to the street front—so the neighborhood is not surrounded by large slabs of blankness.
5. Consider a “Pattern Book” approach to allow developers to expedite the permit process if they build using of the City’s already approved “plan sets”. Other cities are successfully using this approach to encourage development of architectural styles that complement existing neighborhoods.
6. There should be design review for institutions, both “major” and “minor”. Currently institutions are exempt from the design review process even though their impact can be great.
B. There is much frustration with the current process where the Department of Planning and Development provides public notification of unit lot subdivision proposals after the related development has already been approved and not before.