…As in, less (fewer) restrictions could mean more variety in housing units. Or, so said the architects from whom City Councilmember Sally Clark and 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 COMMENTS