“Micropermitting” critic says zoning proposal doesn’t go far enough

| Development | West Seattle news | West Seattle people

(photo shows the California/Spokane townhouses mentioned in third-to-last paragraph below)
After the mayor’s proposed changes in “multifamily zoning” came out yesterday afternoon (WSB coverage here and here; city infopage here), with a particular focus on townhouse design, we wondered how one high-profile expert would react to the proposal — West Seattle architect David Foster, current chair of the Southwest Design Review Board, gained citywide attention earlier this year after this WSB report, in which he lashed out at “micropermitting” — large townhouse developments escaping design review by applying for permits as separate small developments. We e-mailed Foster to ask for his comments on the new zoning proposal, and he says it’s a mixed bag:

I am very happy to see the City finally recognizing the importance of requiring Design Review for all townhouse projects. It would fix the micropermitting issue because it removes the thresholds that allowed
builders to dodge the process. Every neighborhood deserves good design. Since townhouse builders have consistently failed to deliver good design, it’s time to require it as a condition of permitting.

As for the other proposed amendments to the code, I support them, but feel that many don’t go far enough – or will have little effect. The 4′ max fence height restriction for example is a no brainer: better would be to require real landscaping and no fence at all. (Look at the NW corner of Spokane and California for a 4′ fence that is still UGLY.) I don’t think that a ‘proscriptive’ code can be relied upon to ensure good design, which is why
the Design Review requirement is so important.

I’m very disappointed to see that the mayor removed the height increases in L2 zones and lower. Obviously he is feeling the heat by the NIMBY crowd. Any good designer will tell you how is hard to do decent architecture with a 25′ height limit. The fact that most lowrise zones will continue to have a lower height limit than single family zones is sort of absurd. And, height limits will remain ‘non-departable’, which means Design Review won’t be able to offer that flexibility either. So, we’ll be stuck with more low-ceilinged, faux-craftsman designs in the years to come.

Next step in the “multifamily zoning” proposal will be various opportunities for review and comment as the City Council reviews it – we’ll keep you updated when dates are set.

NIMBY July 10, 2008 (11:33 am)

Interesting that David is on the design review committee – isn’t he the guy that received “numerous” complaints from his neighbors about the aesthetics of his townhomes?

Also, David criticizes the NIMBY crowd for protesting the height proposals. I know a solution – for every townhome that is allowed to go up in a single family zone, the developers have to raise the height of the adjacent single family homes so they can have sunlight and fresh air!!!!

Really David – do you expect single family owners to put up and shut up as they are closed in on all sides by these large structures? It’s one thing if your neighbor puts up a 2nd story above your house, because that’s usually only one neighbor and one structure, but it’s another thing altogether to expect someone to put up with large structures next to them which house more people than is called for in a residential single family neighborhood.

Developers have money to “outsize” the rest of the houses – most single family homeowners don’t have the same means to build up when a townhome crowds them out. As a NIMBY – I hope the City stands firm on the restrictions.

WSB July 10, 2008 (12:43 pm)

Just a clarification, townhouses can’t be built in single-family zoning. If there’s a townhouse on the site or proposed for it, it’s zoned that way – there may have been a legacy SF house on it from decades ago, but the underlying zoning is MF. Obviously our area and others have plenty of single-family zoning that is adjacent to multifamily zoning, like the neighborhoods along (or next to) the major arterials. People who are interested in checking the zoning of the parcel they live on (or are considering buying, or whatever) can use this handy search page on the city website:
http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/dpdgisv2/parceldatasearch.aspx

NIMBY July 10, 2008 (5:08 pm)

WSB – thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected, although seems like there is a lot of townhomes being built on lots next to SF homes and/or on lots where SF homes are and then they tear them down to replace them with these structures.

Just a reminder to check the zoning before you buy a SF home – wouldn’t want one of the developers to slip one in next to you.

Tatiana July 10, 2008 (8:49 pm)

Only 10% of buildable area in Seattle is multifamily zoned, but for some people even that is too much?
The reality is that with gas on its way to $6 (and up) per gallon, more and more people and businesses will look to move to urban areas. Many of us will have to learn to live in more densly populated neighborhoods.
Townhouses are a great option for a lot of people that don’t want to live in a building, while SF homes are too expensive.
There are examples of beautifully built townhomes – I have no connection to David Foster, but I have seen his work and was very impressed.
I have also seen a good number of delapidated, poorly built (barely holding in one piece) 600 sqft azbestos/mold/infested SF homes that are overdue for demolition. Not all progress is bad.
Shame, our leadership is proving again they are clueless. I agree, leaving L2 at 25′ height severely limits the design options and the esthetics of the exterior, not to mention claustrophobic interior spaces. Most builders don’t mind, they save on materials, only too bad for thousands of people that have to live with low /sloped ceilings; is this really necessary?

Sorry, comment time is over.