COMMENTARY—The act of zoning an entire city is a necessary but inherently arrogant undertaking. It works on the premise that a relatively small group of individuals can decide the appropriate level of development for each and every parcel of land. To make up for its limitations, zoning should allow flexibility in the development of each unique lot, taking into consideration the time frame over which development occurs and changes in living patterns and attitudes. The proposed new Multifamily section of the Land Use Code (“Multifamily Code”) currently being debated by the Planning, Land Use and Neighborhood Committee (“Committee”) sets about to address these concerns and looks to make vast improvements in the shape of Seattle’s neighborhoods.
This article focuses on the changes to the lowrise zones, which will have the biggest impact on Seattle’s neighborhoods, as they make up 92% of the multifamily zoned area in the city. The overall effect of the current proposal would be a welcome change to these areas, giving needed site development standard flexibility, and improving the design of some of the rather unsightly townhouse developments. Overall, however, the current proposal remains too focused on fixes to current problems in the lowrise zones and falls short of defining a new urban vision for lowrise development.
Basics of the Proposed New Multifamily Code—Uses and Zones.
The proposed changes to the Multifamily Code begin by simplifying its structure, eliminating the separate subsections for each of the Lowrise, Midrise, and Highrise zones. The permitted and prohibited uses section is modernized into table format, but with no substantive changes.
The new Multifamily Code would retain the existing seven multifamily zones (Lowrise Duplex/Triplex, Lowrise 1-4, Midrise and Highrise), although Lowrise 4 would no longer be available for rezoning. The “Final Report and Recommendations for Amendments to the Multifamily Chapter of the Land Use Code” prepared by DPD states that Lowrise 1 and 2 were initially planned to be consolidated but were kept after public comment in favor of “retain[ing] diversity of scale and density.” This should be reconsidered. A combined zone could keep the scaling proposed in the lower three zones but applying each standard contextually based on the size of adjacent buildings, which may be more effective at providing the desired zone transitions.
The New and the New Old Site Development Standards.
As Donald Elliott points out in his book, “A Better Way to Zone,” one trick to good zoning is providing a balance of flexibility and predictability, each where appropriate. The proposed Multifamily Code attempts to achieve this by allowing more site flexibility to generate more predictably good design. The proposal hopes to achieve this in part by jettisoning many of the existing site development standards on infill lots in favor of floor area ratios and mandatory administrative design review for townhouses. These changes, while good, and combined with the new design standards (discussed below) would help create attractive neighborhood development, should go further toward shaping a new urban form without placing an overly high burden on design review.
The primary change to the site development standards is the move to using floor area ratios to both limit the bulk of new structures and provide the flexibility for good design. This flexibility is allowed by eliminating limits on lot coverage and structure width and depth, as well as façade modulation requirements on infill sites no larger than 9,000 square feet. Much discussion in Committee meetings has focused on eliminating these old rules for larger sites as well, which is advisable to avoid an arbitrary dichotomy of standards. While the move to floor area ratios is ceding urban design to technocracy, it is receiving positive endorsements from architects and the Planning Commission and may be the best simple solution, especially given the diversity of Seattle’s topography. Floor area ratios, however, will only help shape good development if used in conjunction with well-crafted height and setback requirements.
One of the best changes would come in the form of drastically reduced and simplified setback standards. While the Multifamily Code currently has separate formulas for front, side and rear setbacks, the new Multifamily Code reduces setbacks on all sides to an average of 7 feet and no less than 5 feet, with side setbacks of 5 feet for facades up to 40 feet. When next to a single-family zone, the current averaging of adjacent structures is used for front setbacks and existing rear setbacks are retained with some minor alterations. Although this formula could be adjusted to favor slightly decreased front setbacks, it is an example of a contextual standard that could be incorporated into the other site standards as well. Porches and steps may now also project into the front setback, with portions less than two and a half feet tall going up to the street lot line. Together, these relaxed setbacks should help create stronger more defined neighborhood streets with front stoops instead of privacy fences.
Unfortunately, the vision seen in the new setback minimums did not extend to the new (same as the old) height limitations of 25 feet for the Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1 and 2 zones. There does seem to be a fair amount of support for raising the limit to 30 feet. This would be a positive move that would allow a greater variety of roof forms as well as a proper third floor. Caution should be taken though, and the height extension should only apply when the first floor is at least four feet above the sidewalk grade, squashing any temptation by developers to drop the first floor to ground level or below and squeezing out three and a half floors. This would also work to give a height bonus to partially submerged parking.
Lastly, the proposed Multifamily Code would retain the density limits at the same levels for Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1 and 2 at, respectively, one unit per 2,000, 1,600, and 1,200 square feet. Many commentators have noted that the density limits are somewhat duplicative with floor area ratio limits and work to create homogeneous unit sizes and discourage diversity of housing type. Although some density limits may be necessary to prevent an abundance of small units crammed into an inappropriate site, especially if required parking is eliminated as it should be in many areas, such limits could apply contextually, in relation to neighboring development.
Fear the Four-Pack—Design Standards.
Maybe the biggest driver of the Multifamily Code revamp is dread of inward facing townhouses partially cantilevered over a central auto-court, the “four-pack.” As one public commentator stated this summer at a Committee meeting, the goal should not be “improving the four-pack, but eliminating it.” While important steps have been taken to allow better site design, the new design standards largely just address current problems that assume a basic rework of the four-pack instead of setting forth a new vision for what form our lower lowrise zones should take.
The new design standards would require that townhouses with street facing facades must open to the street and that street facades must also have 20% window coverage as well as trim. To address the auto-court problem, the new setback provisions would require an additional two feet between structures separated by a driveway, limit cantilevered overhang to three feet, require individual townhouse garages to fit a “large car” and limit fronting garage doors to 75 square feet. Changes to the unit lot subdivision rules would also eliminate the requirement for private open space, one of the culprits behind the walls of fenced-off yards.
Requiring some townhouses to orient to the street is a huge improvement and by itself will correct many of the current problems, however, the rules should prohibit rear lot structures (except cottages) and require all multifamily buildings to orient to the street or a pedestrian courtyard open to the street. Maintaining a street wall should also be a focus of the design standards, pushing street-accessible driveways to the sides of lots and allowing adjacent townhouse developments to share access to back parking lots where feasible. Setbacks should be adjusted to allow row housing.
As the proposal also allows more flexibility in curbcuts for fronting garages, some additional changes are necessary to ensure the best design of this type possible. These would include removing the 15 foot minimum setback for fronting garages, the requirement that garages be sized for a large car, and reducing the square footage maximum of doors (75 square feet is a big door). While not ideal, fronting garages are better flush with the home than under an overhang, and if combined with the new three feet overhang rule would work to push townhouse facades back 12 feet from the front lot line.
Parking Should Not Be a Design Gating Issue
As the Multifamily Code exists right now, the quantity of parking spots that must be provided is a primary influence on site design, producing more spots than are being used. Changes to the multifamily zone parking requirements would update our parking rules with current usage and attitudes. More than just updating, however, the changes should look at parking as part of the design element and project forward to creating the livable walkable neighborhoods so often only seen in design sketches.
Currently, the number of mandated parking spots in multifamily zones starts at 1.1 spots per unit with fractional increases according to number and square footage of units. New rules would eliminate parking requirements entirely in Urban Centers, as is already the case in commercial zones and Station Overlay Areas Districts, and reduce them everywhere else to one spot per unit.
Nobody wants parking in Seattle to become the kind of manic obsession seen in New York, but the proposed reductions don’t go far enough. For instance, research has found that in buildings of five units and over there is an average of .8 cars per household, which decreases as the number of units increases. Since nobody owns .8 cars, what this means is that 20% or more of people in apartment building don’t have cars. We should at the very least reduce required parking by one spot per every five units. Other possible reductions could be made within Urban Villages and conditionally for townhouses if developers can show sufficient on-street parking availability.
As attitudes and living patterns change in response to continued development, our parking requirements should not get caught behind the times again. Parking will continue to be required by lenders who worry about marketability and losing money, but our Multifamily Code should not look to financing conditions for guidance, it should look to building a city where cars are just one way to get around.
Next Steps
The Committee will resume its review of the Multifamily Code proposals in November and December, shifting their focus back to the Lowrise zones after finishing the review of Midrise and Highrise changes. The City Council is also expected to prepare new legislation pertaining to the Lowrise zones by early next year. Future articles will examine some of the specific sections of the proposals in greater detail as the process unfolds.
About the Author: Originally from Spokane, Joseph Skocilich is a lawyer who has recently made his way back to the Pacific Northwest after working as a corporate lawyer in New York for the past three years. His primary area of interest is the relationship between law and urban design. Joseph can be contacted by emailing the editor at editor@northwesthub.org.
