In Seattle - no zoning departure left behind.
Whenever the DPD issues a conditional approval for a master use permit, you will usually find within the approval a number of zoning departures. Zoning departures can serve a benefit where the strict enforcement of a code on a unique property would otherwise cause problems for the surrounding area. However, what seems to be the case these days is that this departure process is instead used as a bonus process for developers to gain more buildable space.
Much of the problem lies with the inherently arbitrary process the DPD uses to grant these departures. Rather than using some kind of structured trade-off process, departures are granted solely by the discretion of the DPD. And very rarely are these departures married with equally significant trade-offs elsewhere that would return a benefit to the neighborhood.
Just looking at one zoning decision at 411 Summit Ave E. on Monday, it’s interesting to see the zoning departures that occurred between the city and the developer.Here’s a summary of the proposed project:
The project proposes four (4) residential units in one townhouse structure and four (4) garage parking spaces at alley grade.
The site is approximately 4,800 square feet in area with 40 feet of frontage on both Summit Avenue and the alley to the west. The site topography is primarily flat except for an approximately six and one-half foot grade drop from east to west approximately 25 feet from the rear (alley) property boundary. The site contains a former single-family structure, now divided into multiple dwelling units, with vehicle access from the alley.
Okay, so this looks like we have a multi-family house with a steeply sloping backyard which the developers want to replace with a four-story four-unit townhome. Fine, and here’s the list of zoning departures that the developers requested:
No north side set-back for the proposed garage and 6-foot minimum and 7 foot maximum side set-backs for the principal structure. (FYI: Code says - The average and minimum side set-back is 11-feet and 6-feet for the proposed 94.75 foot building depth)
Place the majority of the open space adjacent to Units A and B on the proposed garage roof.
Provide more than the required amount of open space for the project and units (15% of lot = 719 sq. ft. and 800 sq. ft. for 4 units) but have most of the ground or garage level open space for common tenant usage (620 sq. ft. common, 180 sq. ft. private).
To exceed the maximum structure depth by approximately 17.75 feet. The proposed depth of the largely underground garage is approximately 21 feet and the proposed principal structure depth is approximately 74.75 feet for a total of 95.75 feet.
So what this is basically saying to me is, well, if you let us build out a covered garage on land otherwise reserved for a setback, we can be good developers and build open space on top of the garage - thereby delivering more open space than what code requires. Oh yeah, and it allows us to set the building back from the street in a way that matches the neighboring buildings.
This may be great, but what it doesn’t do is address concerns that a couple of neighbors brought up.
• There should be a community benefit from granting departures from the requirements for open space and side set-backs,
• A concern that a four-story building will dominate this lot and reduce a sense of openness and light. The request to vary the open space and side yard standards seems to place monetary profit ahead of creating a pleasant neighborhood,
• A concern that a four-story building will block light to and views from the neighboring Summit Terrace building. Building height and open space should be appropriate to the neighborhood and not vary from the zoning standards,
• A four-story building would be in scale with the surrounding buildings, but the building footprint should not be too large for the site and should include front and side yards with landscaping.
I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t seem to me like the DPD did such a great job of negotiating anything for these neighbors in exchange for the zoning departures it granted.
10 comments
I believe these are the same project by looking at the DPD locator. It looks like it’s going to be a Pb designed project
http://www.elementalarchitecture.com/projects/multi/SUMMIT%20L%20W/index.html
Seems to me like it will add to the neighborhood rather than take away. Just my $.02 though. Is the land use code perfect?
The Seattle land use zoning code is extremely flawed, these shouldn’t be departures in the first place. The majority of the buildings in this area are block to block, but the zoning code is pushing for an anti-urban (suburban) serious of setbacks and requirements. In portland this project would need no departures.
Also the design review and departure system is not supposed to be a tit for tat system. It is simply there to promote well thought out design. If a developer approaches us with a proposal that makes sence and is well designed then we approve it.
I’m pretty sure this whole block is zoned midrise (MR) which can go up to either 60′ or 85′ in height…..if so I would say only going up 40 is a pretty big trade-off
I think zoning departures are big deals and should be justified with the benefit they bring to the surrounding area. Otherwise you get to listen to people like me justify them for you.
From the comments it seems like zoning departures aren’t just a way for medicore/bad developers to gain build bonuses, but also a tool for good developers to mitigate bad zoning requirements?
That would seem to me to be a pretty arbitrary system of making decisions.
You know Greg, I’ll go out on a limb here and display a flash of annoyance. Why not call up the land use planner or the architect and engage them in a discussion about this project before delivering this public critique of process and product?
I’ve enjoyed your perspective, I’m impressed by the breadth of your interest and your willingness to stick with it. There’s a lot to agree with in what you write. I too believe strongly in making our discretionary land use processes more transparent, and I think we as citizens could do a much better job of figuring out how to support the intent behind Design Review.
My perspective is that of a DPD land use planner. I administer reviews of the kinds of projects you’ve discussed, including Design Review. I get that you have little faith in that process, and I’ll say up front that I have great faith in what it can be, particularly when it includes neighbors who are on point for what they recognize to be good neighborhood design.
I didn’t conduct this particular review, but I know the land use planner to be a conscientious professional with some good design insights. Call him. Explain what you do. Get his perspective.
This particular project came in well under the SEPA threshold, so this Design Review is optional and sans DRB. In this process, there’s generally no public meeting (a handicap, I think), and there’s a whole lot of responsibility placed on the planner to do the right thing. There are very few Admin Design Reviews, mostly because few developers will put up time, money, and a healthy dose of uncertainty to undergo a voluntary review.
Earlier you posted a bunch of pictures of clearly awful townhouses (none of which went through design review). In this instance, the result is a series of cars parked on the alley, no car court, and much better siting flexibility to locate the active, interesting living space at the ground level, where you’re much more likely to interact with your neighbors at a real front door or on a porch. Again — I don’t know the particulars, but it would be good if you did before you ripped into it.
Your project has the potential to become a good civic engagement vehicle. You’re clearly learning a lot, and you’ve been generous about sharing what you learn. You’ve had good comments from neighbors, maybe some designers, and some developers. But to me, your comments about DPD, Design Review, and the land use code are flat and appear to be based on strong biases without a whole lot of insight. I encourage you to attend these meetings, recruit neighbors who know the place and know how to speak to design guidelines, and see what happens. I bet you’ll come away with a much more nuanced perpective and a better appreciation for what can happen.
We’re all faced with challenges to do what’s right by the design of our place. You’ve picked up a great challenge and have done some good with it already. But you’re no lone citizen speaking truth to the monolith of the establishment — it ain’t there. Let’s recognize that we share a common purpose and figure out how we can best support each other in our various roles.
Thanks for the message Scott, I really do appreciate your comments and am glad to hear from someone within the DPD.
I just want to point out that this whole thing sprang out of my experience last year with the DPD and the Design Review Board.
Last January a group of us organized a response to a proposed development in our neighborhood. We started off going to Early Design Review meetings, telling our story to whoever would listen, working with our planner, and even engaging other designers/architects in the neighborhood to help us understand how to talk your lingo. (And to help the neighborhood understand what was happening I even put together a town meeting with a representative from the DPD to explain zoning in our neighborhood.)
Anyway, the efforts finally ended last December when we negotiated a settlement with the developer (http://www.wedgwoodaction.com/2007/12/update-agreement-made-between-developer.html)
But during this whole process the one thing I learned is that in order to be in a position to negotiate a solution, the ticket to the table is to be active and get your voice out. And the reason is that the process the city give neighbors offers only a limited framework for us to participate. During Design Review we really can’t do anything outside of polishing up the edges, we’re at the mercy of just how intensive a developer wants to build, many of us don’t even get the benefit of a Design Review process and nobody acts as our advocate in this process to help make sure we are presenting our very best case.
I’m not a trained planner, an architect or even a developer. I’m wrong about some things, and not as knowledgeable about technical details. However, I am aware enough to see where building a 40′ development just a few feet away from a single family home isn’t the right thing to do. Or how slightly reducing the scale of a development can do wonders for making a building fit into its environment. Or how simply engaging neighbors about their concerns well before designs even go to Early Design will turn enemies into friends.
I wish I had time to be more active with each project like you suggest, but I just don’t have that time. So the role I feel I’m best able to serve right now is joining up with other activists and publishing our ideas about what’s wrong and what could be done better.
And do you want to know a secret about us? At the end of the day all we want is city staff like you who are in a position of influence to think of us not as NIMBYs but as people who really care about smart growth, to objectively find out where we have valid concerns, and then fix them for us. That’s it.
It may not seem like it, but I have tons of sympathy for your position. You have to enforce the code, you are under pressure from competing interests, you have to deal with whatever workload comes your way and bad decisions not only get publically criticized but can negatively impact people’s lives.
So..my question back to you is, do you understand us? Do you know what it’s like to dread the fact that your life will change because of a zoning loophole everyone knows about but isn’t willing to change? Or why the developer a block over can design an environmentally friendly building without chopping down too many trees but the one next to you can’t? Or maybe why nobody even acknowleged much less did anything about the comments you sent off to the city?
If you’d like to have that chance to reach that audience here, I’d be happy to give you a voice here.
Thanks,
Greg
The profusion of design departures in low-rise multi-family zones is further evidence that the current multi-family code needs a major overhaul. As a commenter noted above, in Portland (or Vancouver, or nearly any other city I can think of) a project like this wouldn’t have needed design departures to get built exactly as it’s designed. The fact that Seattle’s low-rise multi-family code is such a convoluted mess kludged together from two decades of battling neighborhood group special interest groups is why we’re seeing this kind of thing, not a failure of the design review system. In fact, if we didn’t have design review, these projects would be so much worse that it’s difficult to contemplate.
But design review shouldn’t be necessary for this stuff. The code ought to outright allow it. This is a good project and it is the height of stupidity that our current zoning code makes it (and others like it) impossible without going through a long, drawn-out, and expensive process to obtain approvals that would be easy anywhere else.
That’s why the proposed code revisions are so important.
“The fact that Seattle’s low-rise multi-family code is such a convoluted mess kludged together from two decades of battling neighborhood group special interest groups is why we’re seeing this kind of thing, not a failure of the design review system.”
Really… the battling neighborhood special interest groups created the bad zoning that they’re trying to fix.
I’m pretty sure that we all live in the United States. You know, the home of the free? There is only so much you can do to dictate what developers and homeowners on the property that they privately own. The code is for Safety and development guidelines but not to take away from the creativity of people that seek to create great dwellings. Like Ed Judd said, looks like that is an MR zone of 85 feet. They probably could have slapped a condo on that parcel.
[...] the best constructive criticism I’ve received to date about this blog, where I got called out for temporarily losing site of the reason why I was writing this blog - comment [...]
Leave a Comment