Seattle Land Use Code

You are currently browsing the archive for the Seattle Land Use Code category.

We’re almost there–the committee passed the measure to allow backyard cottages in Seattle.  Next stop will be City Council.

There are some notable amendments to the ordinance–the 50 per year allowed cap has been eliminated.  The heights have changed somewhat.  A discussion to limit the cottage height to no more than 15′ above the primary residence’s roof (which would affect sloped lots primarily) was tabled without conclusion.

The discussion is a little strange, in that some of the requirements being tossed around are more stringent than for building a single family house.  Case in point–if this relative height limit section passes, you will need a topographic survey to prove that the cottage conforms (not required on a new house if well within setbacks and under height), thus added about $2000 to the pricetag for the drawings.  This doesn’t make any sense if the city is serious about this as being an affortable option.

Another case in point–Councilmember Rasmussen was leaning toward a neighborhood notice, similar to a MUP, but the neighbor’s recourse, provided the cottage design fits the requirements, is nil.  The cottage is a Level 1 decision (no notice necessary, just like a new single family house), but creating such a provision would form a special class of notice (“Here is what is happening next door, but there is nothing you can do about it.  Thanks for coming down.”).

Unfortunately, I had to run out before the discussion on the privacy issue, another NIMBY favorite, but in the end the ordinance is one step closer to fruition.

You can see the entire meeting online at the Seattle Channel here.  Backyard Cottage discussion starts at 107.30.

Tags: , , ,

Seattle’s DPD just announced a program to accelerate permitting for sustainable projects, called Green Q, as in ‘queue.’

Applicants need to commit to construction waste recycling, dwelling units under 2400 sf, and meet LEED silver or better, or BuiltGreen 4 star or better.

Tags:

The Planning, Land-Use and Neighborhood Committee is planning on voting on the Backyard Cottages on October 8th.  Last chance to make yourself heard on this issue!

It will be a packed agenda, with discussions of the Multi-family code revision as well as the design review process (which will be mandatory in Multi-family).

Tags: ,

L3-max-front-NE-2

In the last month, the City Council paid 3 groups to study the new MF code and flesh out some likely outcomes (good and bad) and propose revisions to the code.  It is a complex issue–the code revision itself is about 277 pages–and no doubt the Council were daunted by the prospect of interpreting the impact.  It took me two evenings just to get through the entire code and I am still not sure I’ve got a handle on all the ins and outs.

The three groups were the Masterbuilders Association, the Congress of Residential Architects, and Group Three (composed of unaffiliated concerned citizens).  Each group were paid 5k for their work (our fee went to CORA–not to the  8 individual participants).  Here are my impressions from the three groups: Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

CAST has been involved in reworking the Multi-family code for the City of Seattle–this byzantine, arcane legacy that seems to produce the dreaded Four Pack/Six Pack around a shared auto court.

The proposed code is evolutionary, and at this point, has been watered to down to the point that the impact will not affect the majority of lowrise multifamily that goes up in Seattle.  It is pretty disappointing in general, but a couple of highlights:

1. The move to FAR rather than density limits for number of unit will create more demand for smaller units in the L3 zone

2.  The setbacks are reduced–good for the urban sidewalk edge, and allow raised stoops in the front yard.

3. Height bonuses for workforce housing, and green building are going to get used–an example of incentivizing good construction.

And a couple of lowlights:

1.  Green Factor’s heart in is the right place, but the high baseline is going to force some heavy gaming of the rules, such as fences become ‘vegetated walls’, and green roofs are going to go in then be abandoned.  The city would be better off lowering the baseline and focusing it on green factors that are going to be maintained and become beneficial for the environment and the city.

2.  Density limits in L1 remain, and thus there is zero impetus to alter the 4 pack in any meaningful way.

3.  Partially below grade parking doesn’t count toward FAR (that’s good), but doesn’t give you additional height–meaning no one is going to pay to bury the parking if they are then also not able to offset the cost with a third story of marketable square footage.

I’ll post more info later….

Tags: ,

Newer entries »