City Council townhouse talk in West Seattle: Less (rules) is more?

…As in, less (fewer) restrictions could mean more variety in housing units. Or, so said the architects from whom City Councilmember Sally Clark townhouseswithoutwindows.jpgand her Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee heard at Youngstown Arts Center Tuesday night. A fair share of the two-dozen-plus audience members came from a class at the UW, according to a shoutout from Clark as the meeting wrapped up, but those on hand also included two West Seattle architects who have spoken out on the subject before: Brandon Nicholson, who recently completed a city consultancy contract to work on part of the Multi-Family Code Update – that’s the zoning section that includes townhouses – and David Foster, a former chair of the Southwest Design Review Board (of which Nicholson is a current member, though he’s been on hiatus while on the city contract). No votes were taken, no decisions were made, but it’s another stretch of the road toward a change. Read on for details:

The West Seattle meeting addressed only a slice of the Multi-Family Code Update, townhouses and “low-rise” zoning in particular. After a bit of history (this has been more than a year in the making – here’s our coverage of the “can townhouse design be saved” forum 13 months ago), the first hour or so involved council staff member Michael Jenkins walking Councilmembers Clark, Tim Burgess and Tom Rasmussen through his newest memo analyzing this part of the proposal (read it here in its entirety).

Key points listed by Jenkins included proposals to reduce the front, rear and side setback of townhouses, and change the width/depth standards, in favor of FAR (floor and area ratio – the building’s square footage compared to the site’s square footage). That figure also would figure into possible changes for midrise and high-rise zones “to accommodate affordable housing for ‘moderate-wage workers’.” Developments in six urban villages – including, in West Seattle, Admiral and Morgan Junction – could include extra FAR but not extra height, and that extra FAR would require the developer to commit to something, say, building to “green” standards.

“I’d want to see that there would be enough added development capacity accessed through this for it to make sense,” Clark noted. Burgess also declared himself “skeptical” regarding incentives in low-rise zones.

Possible changes in open-space requirements – potentially less of it at street level – drew concern from Rasmussen, who worried about the “loss of green spaces … if this is going to shrink that further, I don’t support that.”

Burgess observed, “This is one of those areas where the risk of unintended consequences is high.”

Clark mentioned that the street-level open space isn’t worth much to the “softness” of a neighborhood if it’s behind the eight-foot townhouse fence that has become ubiquitous but which is “clearly not working,” as she put it.

The sticking point in all this seemed to be the fact that, in order to widen the “auto courts” in the middle of townhouse buildings so that people can actually use them for their cars, “we’re back to talking (as if) the car is at the center of the design world,” Clark mused. “To make it more usable, we have to either provide more turning space, or buy everyone Cooper Minis … I don’t know which would be more affordable.”

Some parts of the proposal aren’t currently applicable to West Seattle — for example, they’re looking at whether housing in “urban centers” or “station areas” could be built without any parking required at all. None of West Seattle falls under either of those designations so far, but as Clark noted, the “full stations” for Metro RapidRide bus service – in other areas of the city too – might be examined in that light in the future. She even wondered what would happen if parking was “zero(ed) out in all areas of the city”; Rasmussen observed, “The market still requires it.”

After the briefing, up to an hour was available for public comment; everyone who wanted to speak was done within 40 minutes. Nicholson, the West Seattle-based architect/Design Review Board member who’s been involved in the citywide process, was first up. He believes focusing on FAR instead of width/depth is “a wonderful step in the right direction … I encourage you to go further and remove density limits in all areas. It’ll allow smaller, or more variety of, unit types.”

Clark asked him a question that she’s been hit with in this process: “If we remove the density requirements, some worry that suddenly we’ll have Tokyo-size apartment buildings popping up everywhere … Why will the market protect us from small units pumped out en masse?”

Nicholson: “You gotta sell it. Right now (though), we’re getting (only) one unit size, 3 bedrooms, 2 and a half bathrooms, 1400 to 1600 feet, because of the way the code works. There’s more variety in townhouses built in commercial zones than in multifamily zones … the changes (the city) has made in the neighborhood commercial zones have been tremendously successful. (But) I know it’s hard to say, trust developers and architects to come up with something better.”

Concerns about centering standards on accommodating cars were voiced by architect David Neiman, who like Nicholson also is involved with the local Congress of Residential Architecture chapter. “There’s not one density limit, there are two – units per square foot of lot, and performance standards for one parking space per lot.” But considering the idea of removing the latter, before the city’s transit system is improved, he said, “How realistic is that in Seattle at this time – to assume you can take care of all your needs in Seattle without a car?”

“A little more realistic in 2020,” Clark offered.

Also on behalf of CORA, West Seattle-based architect David Foster – who’s been an outspoken critic of previous townhouse “standards” – offered that when it comes to open space, quality triumphs quantity. During his recently concluded tenure on the Design Review Board, Foster recalled, the “open space” requirement was the development standard for which “departures” were most often requested. “Remember,” he said, “Departures are granted (if) you get a better design (as a result of deviating from the standard). … If we want better landscaping around buildings, there are more ways of requiring that.”

With council participation, a brief musing on design and density in Vancouver, B.C., and San Francisco ensued. “San Francisco neighborhoods are delightful to walk through because the front yard spaces, stoops, and so on are so well designed, you get a sense of human scale, and you get a feeling that you belong there.”

“Well,” Rasmussen cautioned, “I can think of a lot of blocks in San Francisco where you DON’T get that feeling.”

“It’s all about design,” Foster countered. “That’s why I’m a strong advocate of design review … you can’t really legislate good design.”

“Much as we try!” interjected Clark.

At that point, she reminded that a proposal for changes in the design review process — specifically, calling for “administrative design review” for more townhouse-type projects – hasn’t come to the council yet, but is expected before the end of the summer.

Height was also discussed, as some areas may be allowed a few more feet in certain low rise zones; Burgess wondered if that might enable underground, or partly underground, parking.

Then, from Pioneer Square architect Brad Khouri, words of warning: “While we’re looking at a solution that’s going to be effective today, we have to look to the future … this is the first code update in 30 years. Whatever we come up with today should be forward-thinking enough that it provides things we want to have in 20 years. … The current writing of this proposal is very much a reaction to where we are today, not necessarily considering enough about the right way to make walkable neighborhoods, affordability in all sizes of homes, and provide for great density in areas of the city where we can provide that density.” He worried aloud that Seattle’s strong neighborhood-specific identities might quash the quest for citywide priorities and plans. To enable density, he advised, “Take a hard look at the parking requirements – what about a parking maximum – what about actually thinking the market IS going to drive parking, so, if the market is going to drive it, why does the legislation have to require it?”

Public comment concluded with West Seattle resident Michael Taylor, who pointed out that this is playing out as “we see house after house disappearing, replaced by townhouses … I really want to see more flexibility in this update. I would love to see, if we are going to have these townhouse units come in, instead of three 1,500-square-foot units, I’d love to see flexibility for different sizes on the same lot.”

As the meeting concluded, Clark announced its next meeting would be Wednesday (July 8th) at City Hall, 9 am, continuing to review the proposed changes to the Multi-Family Code; there’s a sheaf of information available from her official city website. Other topics at that meeting will include the Neighborhood Plan updates (West Seattle’s public meeting on that subject is coming up later this month, 6 pm July 28, Delridge Community Center). Then the Multi-Family Code review will hit the road again for a July 14th meeting, 6 pm, at University Heights Center.

Before leaving the Youngstown Arts Center stage, Clark acknowledged the student group we mentioned earlier, saying she looked forward to hearing their “brilliant ideas” in the not-too-distant future.
=======
To follow development coverage — from issues like this, to specific projects and proposals – keep an eye on this WSB archive section.

12 Replies to "City Council townhouse talk in West Seattle: Less (rules) is more?"

  • WSratsinacage July 1, 2009 (11:43 am)

    Less (condos) is more!

  • wseye July 1, 2009 (1:45 pm)

    The idea that “less restrictions” are going to cure the bad townhouse disease is a bit like believing that deregulating the banking industry is going to lead to a stronger economy. Pathetic.

  • Wendy Hughes-Jelen July 1, 2009 (2:15 pm)

    Thank you for the write up! Sounds like it was a fascinating meeting and I appreciate the ability to get the details like this. You guys are doing a great job!!

  • J July 1, 2009 (2:26 pm)

    Fewer restrictions, less restriction. Countable vs. not countable.

  • christopherboffoli July 1, 2009 (2:27 pm)

    The point is MORE townhouses and MORE density with better design. Hopefully that will mean LESS cars too.
    .
    I’m so glad to see David Foster involved in this because the man has excellent taste when it comes to design.

  • WSB July 1, 2009 (2:29 pm)

    Yes, we know that, J, but the ‘less is more’ play on words doesn’t work with ‘fewer is more.’ So forgive us.

  • David Neiman July 1, 2009 (6:22 pm)

    To learn more about how our current code dictates the bad design we see today & the better housing types that will be enabled by the new code, a .pdf of the CORA presentation is available at the Great City Website

    http://www.greatcity.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/cora_nw_design.pdf

  • grr July 1, 2009 (6:53 pm)

    I’m fine with LESS restrictions on condos if it means developers will STOP building hideously ugly units with useless, tiny windows and god-awful color schemes like the ones you have a pictured of on this thread.

    I walked thru them…they were a tad expensive (tho not unreasonable considering the deeply discounted financing), but..in the middle of the afternoon, on a beautiful sunny day, they felt dark, dingy, and lifeless. Whoever designed them should just turn their license in. Simply a waste.

  • alki_2008 July 1, 2009 (8:51 pm)

    Comparisons were made to San Francisco? Ha! Apples-to-oranges.
    .
    Colors can definitely be annoying, but can also be easily changed by the buyers. Structure and floorplans are much less flexible, and those are the things that need to be addressed more. IMHO.
    .
    I think the residences could be designed better if they didn’t try to squeeze so many units on one lot…but obviously the developers want to profit as much as they can, instead of really caring about aesthetics and functionality. :(

  • Kathryn July 2, 2009 (3:14 am)

    I’d encourage everyone to study the Illustrated Summary available here: http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/clark/2009townhomes.htm and decide for yourself if it’s a real improvement.

    My concerns are two and are related: The new code virtually removes all locational criteria and the size, mass, scale and lot coverage of buildings is not appreciably different between the different levels LDT, L1, L2, L3 and L4.

    Problem is that LDT and L1 were INTENDED to be outside of the Urban Villages and compatible with Single Family zones. These have been upzoned under the covers over the years so that we are no longer talking about the simple duplex that fits in areas that have a lot of single family homes. I think in that environment, you really should be looking at yards and not green roofs, single duplex or triplex and not buildings behind other buildings. Guess I am saying put the buildings on a diet on the lowest MF zones. Otherwise the jump form SF to MF is insurmountable.

    Real differentiation of these zones is needed, what belongs inside Urban Villages and what does not.

    They also spoke quite a bit about FAR, however the proposed legislation still includes the minimum unit sizes, so I am not sure how that plays out.

    To not be completely negative, the good news is that the proposal no longer give bonus lot coverage to townhouses versus apartment buildings. L2 as a transition, and L3-L4 zones are appropriate low rise, dense multifamily housing. The possibility of more apartment style buildings, as opposed to some of the huge townhouses, is really positive in urban villages and close to commercial streets.

    Decent lot sizes might be important to get designs that build better configurations. That will be the challenge. Again, if you look at the illustrated summary, 4 packs still abound.

    Finally, the vast majority of housing is not designed by architects. While I am glad that many good architects are excited about the changes, and will design beautiful places, most housing is built to standard plans. Administrative Design Review won’t stop that, especially if a design is legal or the city will be open to lawsuits. Bottom line is that the code drives design at a gross level, so it needs to be clear what we will get with a revised code.

  • Dan\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'a July 2, 2009 (12:22 pm)

    I get a little overwhelmed by all the info out there. What does this mean, really, for L1 codes? do the height restrictions change? What is the density per lot going to be? I see the druplet housing moving farther and farther south, down Beach Dr at an already alarming rate.

  • wseye July 2, 2009 (2:46 pm)

    I see no benefit out of the proposed multifamily revisions. In fact, things might get worse.

    Listening to Sally Clark on the Seattle Channel made me realize that she is prepared to destroy what is good in our city to achieve what she personally desires this city to be.

Sorry, comment time is over.