Want to follow the process as city pursues more housing via zoning changes? Here's the next step

jt July 16, 2015 (11:09 am)

While I’m hopeful that you’re right and they’re going to allow much more dense development in the heart of the junction, I’m afraid that the 6.0 FAR limit is going to bind before any building could actually make it to 12 stories. I can’t find a way to check how often this would be true in the case of individual parcels though. Are there any recent 8-story developments whose FAR we can examine?

WSB July 16, 2015 (11:18 am)

So far everything I’m looking up topped out at 7 floors.

jt July 16, 2015 (11:23 am)

Interesting, thanks!

Josh July 16, 2015 (11:59 am)

JT -The sweet spot for development is 6-7 stories. The code allows for five over one or five over two construction. Five floors of wood framing over one or two levels of concrete podium. If you go to 8 floors above grade the project triggers a different construction type (concrete or fire protected steel for example). Going beyond 5/2 construction adds significant cost across the entire project so the building really needs to be much more than 8 stories to justify the additional construction costs. In SLU you see a lot of 5/2 or 12 story buildings. I am guessing a developer would max out the FAR of a 7 story building rather than going to 8 floors and changing construction type.

Rick July 16, 2015 (12:22 pm)

West Seattle,the new shoehorn city.

Julie July 16, 2015 (12:27 pm)

Please, could we vote on the Monorail again?

WSB July 16, 2015 (12:29 pm)

Last year, we did … https://westseattleblog.com/2014/11/2014-election-results-local-ballot-measures-transit-monorail-preschool-more

cluelessinws July 16, 2015 (1:44 pm)

Shoehorn, LOL. True.

Imagine a lot of people are going to be losing views to the east and west.

Dave July 16, 2015 (1:57 pm)

Check out Danny Westneat’s article from Seattle Times in July 15th edition. Interesting comparison to Mayor Murray’s concept of housing changes and architect David Neiman take on it.

Ron Swanson July 16, 2015 (2:03 pm)

Josh: Cross laminated timber construction is part of the revisions to the building code, there are ten story buildings going up overseas with pure timber construction now, it’s entirely possible the cost gap between a 5+1 and anything taller will narrow substantially in the near future.

Billv34 July 16, 2015 (2:28 pm)

As Dave pointed out, I was going to ask WSB about the comments of the architect in Westneat’s story. I’m glad that you mentioned you are looking into this! In particular, are the SF changes that Westneat’s referring to applicable to all SF zones, or just the ones in that shaded map that was provided with the report? Speaking as a NIMBY, I really don’t want three houses going up next to mine when our neighbor sells in a few years, and part of the appeal of buying in my neighborhood was the protection afforded by the zoning.

Matt S. July 16, 2015 (2:34 pm)

Link to the article Dave mentioned: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a-developer-and-housing-task-force-member-sells-the-upzoning-of-seattle/

natinstl July 16, 2015 (3:56 pm)

How do we figure out our neighborhood zoning code? The planning dept’s website for my home just says single family 5000.

dcn July 16, 2015 (5:01 pm)

On page 5 of the Mayor’s HALA action plan, there is a description of what is planned for all single family zones:
.
“The City will allow more variety of housing scaled to fit within traditional Single Family areas to increase the economic and demographic diversity. The broader mix of housing will include small lot dwellings, cottages or courtyard housing, rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes and stacked flats. Although a broader variety of housing would be permitted, the total amount of building area on a single lot will remain the same (excluding ADUs and DADUs) and it does not eliminate the option of single family housing.’
.
I believe this is what Danny Westneat’s ST article was referring to. So, even though they are still going to call it SF zones (unlike the draft document, which wanted to do away with the SF designation, I think), all SF zones will be open for upzoning (even if not officially upzoned) to rowhouses, stacked flats, etc.
.
I took a walk down NW 63rd in Ballard recently, and was amazed at how many lots had 2 three-story box houses–one in front of the other, on what used to be lots for one house. These houses have no yards. Yet, I’m sure they are still not affordable for lower income Seattle residents.
.
Although I believe Seattle is destined for more density, my biggest complaint is that it is being done without concurrently building the transit infrastructure we already need. Our city leaders appear to be in denial about how bad our traffic and how inadequate our mass transit is.
.
Here’s the link to the 12 page Action Plan: http://murray.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/HALA_ActionPlan_2015.pdf (already linked in WSB’s original story on the mayor’s housing plan).

Ttt July 16, 2015 (8:46 pm)

This possible change in the definition of what can be in a single famiky zone is worrying me. I think it will devalue homes and make our neighborhoods less unique from one block to the next.

Jeff July 17, 2015 (12:12 am)

Oh look… sardines.

This is going to work out great.

WS since '66 July 17, 2015 (7:09 am)

Ok so lots of complaint here. I’ve asked at least a dozen time on here. Never, never get an answer. I’ll try once more time. People are moving to Seattle and “our” West Seattle for all the same reasons we did. Please offer a solution on how YOU would handle the influx of people moving here? What is your idea to house all the people moving here?

John July 17, 2015 (7:29 am)

Westneat’s piece showed its true color with the claim that a developer could build three houses for “roughly similar construction costs” as one.

Neighbor July 17, 2015 (8:03 am)

WS since ’66 – how about use the existing zones as they were established that can accommodate more than 100,000 additional housing units and accommodate all projected growth for at least the next 30 years without destroying single family neighborhoods, the character of these neighborhoods, and negating the research many of us did when we chose to buy in specific zones that were not to accommodate multi-unit housing. Another option would be to build the adequate transportation to move people and transit in the region, rather than forcing density on the city. There is already a system and process in place to accommodate the alleged growth (projected by developers and the Mayor’s cronies), the Mayor just wants to give a few more handouts to his friends for development purposes in neighborhoods like West Seattle, but not the rich neighborhoods that established community criteria/maximums prior to his proposal.

John July 17, 2015 (8:36 am)

WS since ’66,
No complaints here about what the city must finally do,
allow development.
–
Change is difficult.
But we as a city are beyond the tipping point.
All of us that love Seattle of old must begin to adjust and even embrace our beloved town becoming a world class city.
To do this we will have to modify our dependence on cars. Of course not everyone, but enough of us to make a difference. We don’t all go hiking every weekend. We don’t all need to single occupancy commute.
Making it less convenient and more costly to have cars in the city will reduce car usage. Monetizing all street parking would eliminate the need for required parking in new construction and free-up on street parking. The tens of thousands of residents paying for parking they don’t use would have options to save money.
–
The chicken or the egg argument?
–
Posters so often complain about lack of infrastructure, saying that the services need to be provided first. But in fact the influx and demand have already created the construction-first scenario which will provide the population increase which will demand and support mass transit.
–
So, there you have it.
Allow development.
Charge for street parking.
Embrace alternative forms of transportation.

Matt S. July 17, 2015 (10:03 am)

Well put, John. Despite being a car commuter, I can acknowledge that I’m part of the transportation problem. As such, it only seems fair to pay more to park, drive, and ultimately take up space on the road. That’d be money that could go toward transit and eventually make it possible for me to ditch the car and get past insufficient transit options.
.
And if I can’t afford to drive here anymore I won’t: alternative options or just move to someplace that’s cheaper. No sense in being unrealistic.

LivesInWS July 17, 2015 (11:12 am)

“Embrace alternative forms of transportation.”

I sure would if it were there.

“the construction-first scenario which will provide the population increase which will demand and support mass transit.”

…which Seattleites have been demanding for decades — while transit options decline.

“our beloved town becoming a world class city.”

…world class cities have a decent transit system. Not a system that takes me 3 bus lines and 2 hrs one-way to get to work.

G July 17, 2015 (12:07 pm)

I don’t of any city that grows in a neat, planned manner. Usually people come and then services follow, but lets face it, there will never be enough of the latter to satisfy everyone. Some people will like the changes coming to West Seattle, and some won’t. As far as this yearning for old timey West Seattle, I think it’s over romanticized nostalgia for something that never was. Sure, it was a good place to grow up, but it’s not as if people were trading pie recipes and sipping mint juleps on front porches waving to passing neighbors. This is Seattle, after all.

GC - lives in WS July 17, 2015 (3:46 pm)

The problem is the increased density and lack of infrastructure to allow for vehicles is going to destroy the reasons why West Seattle has become one of the brightspots in the city. One thing to be sure, regardless of what you think of Seattle, Washington is a rural state. The reasons many people moved he was because of access to the mountain and wilderness that the state has to offer. People in Seattle will need, want, a car to enjoy those aspects of the state and we need to ensure we have the infrastructure to support ease of transportation. Its a joke the investment being wasted on painted “bike lanes” and the mess they’ve created downtown. We need to invest in “REAL” transportation infrastructure, including improving traffic flow for vehicles and creating transportation hubs with housing density, not try to turn the entire city into row houses. We’ll never have the transportation infrastructure to support mass transit at every door front and we’ll destroy the character of our city neighborhoods in the process.

These changes are not going to reduce the housing costs in Seattle and I see a give to developers at the expense of our neighborhoods.

WS since '66 July 17, 2015 (4:20 pm)

Hey Neighbor: Thanks for providing a thought out viewpoint which is the only answer received so far.

If one reads only The Summary on page 2 of the 22 page report I see where your statement is true regarding capacity.

However there is more specific detail regarding said capacity on page 7’s “Why upzone when so much development capacity exists? While the city may have enough development capacity overall, upzones may be proposed to encourage growth in very strategic locations. While the city may have enough development capacity. Upzoning (changing the zoning of a parcel from one category to another) has occurred in urban centers and villages where the potential for major job and housing growth increased because of the transit investments. For example, voters approved Sound Transit 2 in 2008, a$17.8 billion investment to construct the LINK (light rail) system. Zoning changes can leverage this investment for more housing and job growth in key locations. Upzones may help to implement policies in comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans that encourage residential and job growth in urban centers and villages.”

In addition most of this growth is on a very small percentage of the West Seattle peninsula. Living just 6 blocks west of the Alaska Jct the impact hasn’t affected my neighborhood one bit. Only those who focus on the building on California Ave SW are experiencing severe knee jerk.

WS since '66 July 17, 2015 (4:30 pm)

Hey Neighbor: Thanks for your imput. It is the first well thought out response to my question.

If one reads only The Summary on page 2 of the 22 page report I see where your statement is true regarding capacity.

However there is more specific detail regarding said capacity on page 7’s “Why upzone when so much development capacity exists? While the city may have enough development capacity overall, upzones may be proposed to encourage growth in very strategic locations. While the city may have enough development capacity. Upzoning (changing the zoning of a parcel from one category to another) has occurred in urban centers and villages where the potential for major job and housing growth increased because of the transit investments. For example, voters approved Sound Transit 2 in 2008, a$17.8 billion investment to construct the LINK (light rail) system. Zoning changes can leverage this investment for more housing and job growth in key locations. Upzones may help to implement policies in comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans that encourage residential and job growth in urban centers and villages.”

WS since '66 July 17, 2015 (4:30 pm)

If one reads only The Summary on page 2 of the 22 page report I see where your statement is true regarding capacity.

However there is more specific detail regarding said capacity on page 7’s “Why upzone when so much development capacity exists? While the city may have enough development capacity overall, upzones may be proposed to encourage growth in very strategic locations. While the city may have enough development capacity. Upzoning (changing the zoning of a parcel from one category to another) has occurred in urban centers and villages where the potential for major job and housing growth increased because of the transit investments. For example, voters approved Sound Transit 2 in 2008, a$17.8 billion investment to construct the LINK (light rail) system. Zoning changes can leverage this investment for more housing and job growth in key locations. Upzones may help to implement policies in comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans that encourage residential and job growth in urban centers and villages.”

Neighbor July 19, 2015 (8:47 am)

WS Since ’66 – you’re being a bit dense and ignoring many other commenters with similar concerns. Of course my statement is true, it’s a fact the Mayor accepts. What you’re failing to see is that upzoning is a handout to developers and has absolutely nothing to do with the affordability agenda to which it is being tied. The strategic locations are ALL of Seattle, with excess capacity added in places that were formerly single-family only. So here’s an example, my neighbor decided to be the first on on my block to sell to a developer. The developer now comes in and builds 3 townhomes on what was a single family site – to a height of 40 feet, with no parking (all allowed under the new rules). The developer thereby creates an urban valley, blocks sunlight and views which I paid for, and it’s legal in the name of affordability. He goes and sells the townhomes for $600,000 each – and that’s affordability? No, that’s a handout to developers from the city to build in an area otherwise not allowed. All because the Mayor changed the urban village definition by a few block – a few blocks I researched and found to be designated single family when I bought my family-friendly home on a family-friendly low-density block. What happens to my middle-class family and the equity in our house, it drops as neighbors realize we need to get out asap because our sunlight, views, and ability to garden is being blocked by 40 foot monstrosities next to our single story homes. Another example, the Mayor wants to allow 12 story buildings all along California ave – 4 stories higher than currently allowed – there go ALL views of the Olympics for any homeowner east of California Ave who presumably paid a premium for their home with a view- and with the loss of view the equity in their homes. In the meantime developers build their $3000/mo apartments or $650,000 condos, and is that really about affordability? I think not – it’s a handout to developers. The mayor’s own staff say this will only impact the non-rich neighborhoods, basically to help developers push out middle class homeowners in the name of density. As for your ST2 comment, these are not linked proposals. The density from ST2 has not been realized. Sure, transit proposals benefit most when density exists, but as you noted per p.2 – the capacity for density already exists. Maybe you’re not a homeowner, so you don’t have equity to lose from this proposed handout to developers, but some of us have much to lose from a proposal written by, paid for, and supported almost entirely by developers. I’m all for density and public transportation, but this Mayor has proposed moving the goalpost at the expense of hundreds of thousands of middle-class homeowners whom stand to lose the most from this proposal.

WS since '66 July 19, 2015 (12:40 pm)

Neighbor I’ll let you have the last word instead of going back and forth. I’ve been a homeowner here in WS for over 40yrs. Have a fun day.

LiveInWS2 July 20, 2015 (6:19 pm)

“Neighbor” is correct!

SF property values will drop because developers get a break. The reduction relative to investment for a new homeowner will be significantly more than the reduction relative to the purchase of a home 40 years ago. It’s easy to be pious when there is less on the line.