Multifamily zoning update - let’s fix zoning loopholes first.
I’ve been working on a post to see how much neighborhoods pay in the long run when a development as a whole is able to wriggle around design review - and one of the most well-publicized examples of this recently was a 13-unit West Seattle townhome development built by Soleil Development.
The West Seattle Herald, Seattle Times and West Seattle Blog all wrote about how this townhome development as a whole largely avoided design review by taking advantage of a loophole in Seattle’s zoning code called ‘micropermitting‘ (which the proposed multi-family zoning update still doesn’t address).
(The WestSeattleBlog.com image below shows what this Soleil development looks like.)
The West Seattle Herald summed up negative impacts of this development not going through design review as:
A 13-unit townhouse development under construction in the Gatewood neighborhood is raising hackles among neighbors who claim the developer flew under the city’s regulatory radar by dividing the project into three seemingly separate projects.
Had the Gatewood development been more thoroughly scrutinized by the city, Soleil would have to make improvements to the public infrastructure around the site such as better sidewalks, storm-water detention and street trees, Oustimovitch said. Probably the biggest environmental impacts of the project will be on traffic and parking, he said.
The developer might also have had to stabilize a 22-foot-tall bluff just east of the site. Perhaps a view corridor would’ve been required so passersby could still see an old log cabin that neighbors call the hunting lodge, Oustimovitch said.
Okay, great, this article helps my future post by providing some really good examples of infrastructure improvements the neighborhood (ie you, a city taxpayer) may end up having to pay for in the long run because this project as a whole did not go through design review.
I then went over to Soleil’s web site to try and find out more about this townhome development, but wasn’t able to find more about it (maybe I’m just not looking in the right place). However, while reading about their other developments I did find something that I found to be a bit ironic - their description of the neighborhood benefits of their cottage properties.
Our Cottages -Preserving Neighborhood Flavor
Our cottage projects have been specifically designed to integrate harmoniously into their single family neighborhoods. These in-city developments meet the need for more urban housing as well as fitting the character and feel of the neighborhood. Built on a smaller scale than the townhouse, our cottages are only 17-20 feet high versus 35 feet high, benefiting the whole dynamic of street appearances and property values in the area.
To me this kind of says that they are well aware of the benefits of lower height buildings within neighborhood settings - and how carefully designing buildings to fit into a neighborhood can both meet the needs of density and preserving neighborhood character at the same time.
So, I went back to the Soleil site and found a townhome of theirs at 4117 SW Morgan Street. From the photo below the development looks to be in a neighborhood with a single-family home as its neighbor. The building also looks to be about 30-35 feet tall. So, if one were to apply their cottage projects benefits statement to this building could one assume that this townhome of theirs neither benefits the whole dynamic of street appearances nor benefits property values in the area as much as it would have if it were 17-20 feet high?
This all makes me wonder, if even a developer who is skilled at leveraging zoning codes understands the benefits of more thoughtful, lower height new development in neighborhoods - why is the multifamily zoning update rewarding developers who have been very skillful at finding zoning loopholes to build even higher in the future (35+ feet). Shouldn’t we first focus on closing down the zoning loopholes so we don’t encourage even bigger problems?
(Soleil townhome development - 4117 SW Morgan Street) 
6 comments
Interesting side note to this - it’s a good reason to learn about the DPD site and watch it like a hawk - and also to keep an eye on your neighborhood news site if yours has one. We reported about this situation months before the controversy hit the fan — first the report of the parcel’s sale (and permit applications) in early November 2006, and then the granting of permits in late November 2006, and the first alarm-sounding from neighborhood watchdogs in February 2007. This is why we now post most notable development applications the second we get wind of them — as I’m sure you know, they often appear on the city website even before the infamous white signs go up.
Two thoughts:
1. SEPA regulations, which I’ve recently had occasion to read all 169 pages of, hold a clear way for DPD and neighborhoods to get at micropermitted developments like this. I was surprised to read the clause (SMC 25.05.305.A.2.b) since DPD keeps telling Council there is nothing they can do about it. This development should have been subject to SEPA regulations, and therefore likely design review. Color me unsurprised there is a way already in the law, especially SEPA law, that DPD doesn’t know about or simply refuses to enforce.
2. This is a perfect example of why all developers should be subject to development fees to fund infrastructure improvements. It makes no difference to infrastructure stresses (or the GMA) if there are 1000 1-unit developments or 1 1000-unit developments in an area. Yet it is only the 1000-unit development that is even considered for mitigation requirements. That’s why our neighborhoods are getting creamed with lack of infrastructure and one significant motivation behind micropermitting.
Worse, let’s say we get 500 1-unit developments that clog an intersection from grade ‘C’ to grade ‘F’. Then we get one 500-unit development. The 500-unit development will not be required to mitigate traffic impacts at the grade ‘F’ intersection, because it was already failing before the development was proposed. (Anyone who doubts this needs to review the permit history of the South Lot development at Northgate and the current DEIS for the Northgate Upzone).
This all defies logic, and one way Mayor Nickels and his minions at DPD shift the GMA-mandated costs of development to citizens and off of the developers and related parties that fund his election campaigns.
Every neighborhood plan should total the costs for indentified infrastucture improvement, based upon the assessed density we’re expected to accomodate. Then, divide that dollar figure by the number of units that will be added. The resulting number, plus an adjustment for inflation over the life of the neighborhood plan, should be assessed to every unit added to the neighborhood. Any developer building affordable housing (real affordable housing, not the developer-giveaway type that will be in front of Council next week), would get at least a portion of those fees forgiven in relationship to how affordable/how many affordable units the development will entail.
It will be interesting to see whether this issue comes up in the 2009 citywide elections.
Really good points here. I’m glad to see people starting to critically analyze some of the ‘foundational’ assumptions that appear in many of the DPD and development community’s arguments. I think they’ve had a free ride for quite a while now where they’ve been able to justify so many bad decisions in terms of ’sustainability’ and ‘affordability’, and people just nod their heads in agreement. It’s good that you’re really questioning whether their underlying arguments are true or not.
If there already is a tool (via SEPA) at the DPD’s disposal for dealing with micropermitting, the question should be asked why they aren’t using it. And it would be pretty disappointing if this actually is a tool they could use, but have chosen to ignore.
It’s sad that we are at such a place with the DPD that we have to watchdog their every move? This is a public agency that isn’t best meeting the public’s best interests - and I don’t think it’s because they’re bad people - but I think they’re overwhelmed and doing everything they can to make their workloads more efficient.
I have read all the articles on the Gatewood project and Soleil Development. Soleil was not the builder on any of these townhomes as all the papers continue to mis-guide readers. The builders were Seattle City Homes, LLC and Umani, LLC which Soleil has no part of either company. I do however think the neighborhood looks better than the run down house and parking lot that occuppied the lot prior to construction. Why didn’t the neighbors who wanted control of what got built in their neighborhood buy the property and develop it themselves?
“I think they’re overwhelmed and doing everything they can to make their workloads more efficient.”
I don’t believe this is true. If it was, they would err on the side of neighborhood issues roughly about as often as they err on the side of developers. The Mayor has let it be known nothing substantial should stand in the way of his developer friends.
I also firmly believe there are good people inside DPD who would like what happens from the ground up to reflect more closely what comes out of the Mayor’s agendas, initiatives, and plans. Hopefully, starting some time in January 2010 they’ll be able to show that to be true. In the meantime, woe to the neighborhood that does not examine every proposed development.
For all the stones thrown at us, folks should remember that the people who might eventually move into the development on Waldo have *US* to thank (assuming we win at least a couple of points in the SEPA appeal) that their kids aren’t playing in lead-infested dirt, drinking lead infused water, and ingesting lead paint chips left over from haphazard demolition.
DPD would have never asked for the toxin surveys that discovered extensive lead above allowable limits in the paint on the building and lead above allowable limits in the soils next to the buildings. Heck, they still haven’t required the follow-up asbestos survey suggested by the developer’s own consultants. It is completely irresponsible that we have to spend thousands of dollars on a SEPA appeal to force DPD to actually do something about the lead, but at least we know it is there.
I wonder how much the DPD can really change, when I heard the DPD director speak last December, I left with the impression that it is a pretty slow-moving bureaucracy.
http://smarterneighbors.com/2007/12/07/uh-oh-bad-news-theres-nobody-steering-the-seattle-land-use-ship/
I just think the DPD likes things that make their jobs easier, and certain development groups are more than willing to give them those tools.
Leave a Comment