Form revised February 6, 2008

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Legislation Title:

·       Summary of the Legislation:

The proposed ordinance contains new standards for the Multifamily Chapter (23.45) of the City's Land Use Code, and makes numerous amendments to the Municipal Code consistent with those changes. The amendments are intended to further the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plans.  Key recommendations include:

1.   Maintain the current LDT, L1, L2, L3, L4, MR and HR zone designations with updated, more flexible standards that maintain the overall scale and density of development currently permitted in each zone.

2.  Maintain current height and density limits in the LDT, L1 and L2 zones, but provide an incentive program in the L3, MR and HR zones to encourage workforce housing in exchange for additional height and floor area.  Landmark preservation and new open space would also be encouraged through floor area bonuses or transfer of development potential (TDP) in the HR zone.

3.   Allow alternatives to overly prescriptive development standards - “flexibility with limits,” including:

·       use basic standards -- setbacks, floor are ratio (FAR) and height limits -- on small (infill) lots;

·       apply additional standards – lot coverage, structure width/depth limits -- on larger lots;

·       recognize local conditions – to provide appropriate transitions, require greater structure setbacks from property lines on multifamily zoned lots abutting single family zoned lots.

·       replace current open space and landscaping requirements with residential amenity area and green factor requirements similar to those recently adopted in commercial zones.

4.  Improve the appearance and function of townhouses with new design standards.

5.  Require green buildings when the incentive program is used.

6.  Eliminate parking requirements in urban centers and station areas, and reduce parking requirements in other areas (consistent with changes in commercial zones).

7. Update and organize regulations so they are easier to understand and use.

Recommendations to change multifamily code provisions apply only to land that is currently zoned for multifamily development.  No remapping is proposed (no single family zoned areas would be rezoned). 

A limited number of technical amendments, such as space requirements for garbage and recycling, apply to zones other than multifamily.  Minor amendments are proposed to the standards for Residential Small Lot (RSL) zones to allow for features such as eaves and architectural features within setbacks areas, consistent with allowances in other residential zones.  In addition, amendments are proposed for cottage housing, allowed in RSL and multifamily zones, to clarify standards related to the permitted floor area of a cottage structure and open space requirements.

·       Background: 

The basis for current multifamily zoning was originally adopted in 1982.  Since then, the zoning has been incrementally amended over the years, adding additional layers of requirements and process, some of which have become redundant, unnecessary or outdated. These conditions add to the cost of development and work against Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plan goals for affordable housing, quality design and sustainable development.

____    This legislation does not have any financial implications. 

___X_ This legislation has financial implications. 

This legislation would generate a minimal amount of additional fee revenues, which will offset minimal additional work for permit review staff in the Department of Planning and Development and the Seattle Department of Transportation.

·       What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? 

If floor area bonus provisions are not enacted, the City will receive less funding for workforce housing.

·       What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives

Alternatives to the proposal that would achieve the same or similar objectives would likely result in similar or greater impacts on the amount of time required to review projects under new standards.

·       Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements: 

The City Council is required to hold a public hearing on the proposal and will conduct a public hearing during their review of the proposed legislation anticipated to be held in 2009.

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:

Attachment A:  Final Report and Recommendations for Amendments to the Multifamily Chapter of the Land Use Code

FINAL REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE

                                                                September 2008

Department of Planning and Development

Diane Sugimura, Director

FINAL REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction...................................................... 3

2.  Executive Summary......................................... 4

Objectives...................................................................... 4

Key Recommendations............................................... 5

Process and Public Involvement............................... 6

3.  Background....................................................... 6

Current Multifamily Zones........................................ 7

Why Amend the Land Use Code?........................... 8

Relationship to Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans................................................... 9

4.  Updated Multifamily Zones........................... 10

Mix of Multifamily Zones......................................... 10

Residential Commercial Designation (RC).......... 13

Rezone Criteria......................................................... 13

5.  Uses................................................................. 14

Permitted and Prohibited Uses.............................. 15

Conditional Uses....................................................... 15

6.  Development Standards................................ 15

Density and Floor Area Ratios............................... 16

Setbacks in Lowrise zones....................................... 19

Height Limits.............................................................. 20

Standards for Lots Larger than 9,000 sq. ft........ 23

Landscaping and the Seattle Green Factor......... 26

Residential Amenity Requirement......................... 27

Design Standards....................................................... 28

Townhouse Design................................................... 29

Midrise (MR) and Highrise (HR) Zones................ 31

Parking.......................................................................... 33

Green Building............................................................ 38

Institutions and Public Schools............................... 40

Definitions and Measurement Techniques.......... 41

7.  Workforce Housing Incentive ...................... 41

Eligible Areas.............................................................. 42

Program Basics........................................................... 43

Workforce Housing.................................................. 45

Landmarks and Open Space Incentives................ 46

Effect on Development Capacity........................... 46

8. Other Benefits of the Multifamily Code Update.............................................................................. 47

Restoring Lost Housing Capacity.......................... 47

Make the Code Easier to Use................................ 49

Encourage the Reuse of Existing Single Family Structures.................................................................... 49

Appendix A.......................................................... 50

Rezone Criteria Comparison................................. 50

Appendix B.......................................................... 70

Charts Comparing Current Development Standards to the Proposal....................................... 70

Appendix C.......................................................... 79

Neighborhood Plan Policies Applicable the to MF Code Update.............................................................. 79

Appendix D.......................................................... 85

2007 - Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Multifamily Policies.................................................... 85

1.  Introduction

Mayor Nickels is proposing amendments to the multifamily chapter of the City’s Land Use Code, to promote smart growth, green housing and good design.  The new Multifamily Code proposal advances the City’s growth management objectives and better achieves the City’s goals and policies for new development, and makes the code easier to use and understand.  

Over the next 20 years, Seattle expects to add 100,000 residents and 84,000 jobs. In 2006, as part of the citywide effort to streamline and update development regulations, new zoning was adopted for downtown and neighborhood commercial areas.  Multifamily zones are next in line as they also play an important role in the city’s ability to accommodate this expected growth.  In addition to achieving the objectives outlined below, this code update also presents the opportunity to address the important issues of climate change and the growing need for housing affordable to working people.

Climate disruption is an urgent threat to the environmental and economic health of the Seattle region. Many cities, in this country and abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution, but more action is needed, including at the local level, to meet the challenge. To help Seattle do its part, Mayor Nickels convened a Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection.  Among other measures, the commission identified actions that could be taken, including reducing energy use in homes.  This is often referred to as ‘reducing the carbon footprint.’ The Mayor responded to the Commission’s recommendations in September 2006 with a Climate Action Plan.  The action plan has informed many of the recommendations in the Multifamily Code Update; in particular, Action #5 of the Climate Action Plan calls for creating compact, green urban neighborhoods -- where multifamily housing is close to transit and commercial areas.

In addition, housing costs have continued upward, to the point that middle-income wage earners have found themselves increasingly priced out of the market. The median price of new condominiums now exceeds $350,000, requiring an income of more than $74,000. Median-priced single family homes exceed $500,000, requiring an income of more than $100,000. Seattle has a long history of meeting the housing needs of the poor or low-income earners. During the past 20 years, through the Housing Levy and other programs, nearly 10,000 homes have been created for those earning between zero and $45,000 a year.  A zoning incentive program, as part of the Multifamily Code Update, is proposed as a way to help provide for the middle-income wage earners.  This program is consistent with City Council Resolution 30939, adopted by the Mayor and Council in December of 2006.   This resolution expresses support for the use of zoning incentives for affordable housing and other public benefits.  The incentive resolution was used in the formulation of the proposed incentive provisions developed as part of the Multifamily Code Update, with additional details expected to be included in separate legislation for the citywide incentive zoning program. 

Many of the recommendations for new multifamily zoning are consistent with goals to reduce the city’s carbon footprint and provide zoning incentives for affordable housing.  Proposed development standards would:

·       Encourage growth where it is most appropriate and reduce development pressures on fragile natural environments and low-density, single-family areas;

·       Promote housing affordability with zoning incentives;

·       Incorporate green building practices;

·       Emphasize the water-quality benefits of landscaping;

·       Allow for more green roofs and wind and solar power generation on rooftops;

·       Reduce automobile dependence by eliminating or reducing parking requirements based on local conditions.

As Mayor Nickels has recently said:  “Every decision facing us today has a direct impact on climate change and our planet.”  As Seattle grows, we need to do it in a way that protects the environment and creates housing that working people can afford.”

2.  Executive Summary

The Multifamily Code Update began in mid-2005.  Milestones to date include the Multifamily Concept Recommendations, first published in April of 2006, that have guided the development of the proposed multifamily draft code provisions.  The concepts for amending the City’s multifamily zones were the product of extensive research and many years of experience in administering zoning provisions, meetings with neighborhood groups, development and design professionals, and a careful assessment of newly emergent issues and conditions in Seattle’s multifamily neighborhoods.  

Additional steps in the process of developing the Mayor’s final recommendations for new multifamily zoning included public review and comment on draft code provisions and initial environmental review.  These steps occurred at the end of 2007.  Input received throughout the process was considered in the preparation of the final legislative documents.  The City Council’s review process, anticipated to begin in September 2008, will include additional opportunities for public participation, including a public hearing. 

Objectives 

The objectives of the proposed Multifamily Code Update are to:

1.        Help create high quality multifamily neighborhoods;

2.        Support Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plan objectives; 

3.        Promote sustainable development;

4.        Encourage new investment in a variety of housing types, including affordable housing;

5.        Recognize special locational characteristics:  urban centers and villages and light rail station areas; adjacency to single family zoned areas;

6.        Foster creative design through development flexibility; and

7.        Make the code easier to use and understand, complementing the adopted amendments to neighborhood commercial zoning.

Key Recommendations 

The proposal to amend multifamily zoning is summarized by the following list of key recommendations:

1.        Maintain the current overall scale and density of most Lowrise zones. 

2.        Establish an incentive program for L3 (except portions of lots within 50 feet of single family zoned lots), MR and HR zones in urban centers, urban villages and station areas to encourage affordable housing in exchange for additional height and floor area.

3.        Allow alternatives to overly prescriptive development standards - “flexibility with limits,” including:

·       use basic standards -- setbacks, floor are ratio and height limits -- on small (infill) lots;

·       apply additional standards – lot coverage, structure width/depth limits -- on larger lots;

·       recognize local conditions – to provide appropriate transitions, require greater structure setbacks from property lines on multifamily zoned lots abutting single family zoned lots;

·       replace current open space and landscaping requirements with residential amenity area and green factor requirements similar to provisions recently adopted in commercial zones.

4.        Encourage landmark preservation and new open space amenities through floor area bonuses and the transfer of development potential (TDP) in HR.

5.        Improve the appearance and function of townhouses with new design standards, and an administrative Design Review requirement.

6.        Require green buildings when the incentive program is used in L3, MR and HR zones.

7.        Eliminate parking requirements in urban centers and station areas, and reduce parking requirements in other areas (consistent with changes in commercial areas).

8.        Update and organize regulations so they are easier to understand and use.

Recommendations to change multifamily code provisions apply only to land that is currently zoned for multifamily development.  No remapping is proposed (no single family zoned areas would be rezoned). 

A limited number of technical amendments, such as space requirements for garbage and recycling, apply to zones other than multifamily.  Minor amendments are proposed to the standards for Residential Small Lot (RSL) zones to allow for features such as eaves and architectural features within setbacks areas, consistent with allowances in other residential zones.  In addition, amendments are proposed for cottage housing, allowed in RSL and multifamily zones, to clarify standards related to the permitted floor area of a cottage structure and open space requirements.

Process and Public Involvement

After releasing the concept recommendations in May 2006, staff spent the next two years talking with more than 500 people at over 35 meetings of community groups, and design and development professionals about their issues and ideas and the concepts and process for updating the multifamily code.  In addition, information and meeting minutes have been posted on the project website.  Written comments have been received responding to the issues discussed at the various meetings and to the web-content.  The public comments received from these various sources have influenced the proposed code amendments. 

After the Mayor submits legislation to amend the Land Use Code to the City Council, additional opportunities for public participation will be available.  The chart below outlines the public process:

3.  Background

Current Multifamily Zones

The following chart summarizes the building types and standards in the current Multifamily Zones.  For more detailed summaries see Appendix B.

Another source for information about existing multifamily zones are the

“Zoning Charts” under the “Publications” menu at DPD’s website:  http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/

The following chart provides a summary of the building types, key development standards and amount of parcel area zoned for each multifamily zone designation:

*In LDT, L1 and L2 zones, roofs with a 4:12 pitch (slope rises 4’ for every 12’ in length) may extend to 30’ and to 35’ with a 6:12 pitch.

**Height limit in HR zones when affordable housing or open space is provided or landmarks are preserved.

***Multifamily (MF) zoned land (4,131 acres excluding rights-of way and City-owned open space) applies to 12% of the total parcel area of the city (34,110 acres).

Why Amend the Land Use Code?

Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1994 and updated in 2004, establishes how the city will accommodate approximately 47,000 new households by 2024.   Under the Comprehensive Plan, Seattle’s growth management strategy directs growth to a system of urban centers and urban villages, where much of the city’s development capacity exists.  Multifamily zones play an important role in accommodating future growth by allowing structures that provide denser housing choices than single family zones.  Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes the role of multifamily residential areas as a means to “encourage the development and retention of a diversity of multifamily housing types to meet the diverse needs of Seattle’s present and future populations.”

Multifamily zones make up approximately ten percent of the total parcel area of the city.  When combined with neighborhood commercial zones, which account for another eight percent of the city, these zones are expected to accommodate many more households than the more than 60 percent of the city’s parcel area zoned for single family development.  There are currently 97,000 housing units in multifamily zones or about 36 percent of the total 271,000 units in the city.  Multifamily zones can provide many different housing options, such as townhouses, row houses, apartments and condominiums that are often more affordable than single family houses and better address the needs of Seattle’s changing households.

Seattle’s zoning is complex, and is often relied upon to accomplish many, often conflicting objectives.  In order to implement Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan and meet the goals established for managing future growth, it has become necessary to re-evaluate the City’s zoning regulations.  Modifying and improving multifamily zoning is the third major undertaking in updating the City’s zoning requirements, following changes begun with the Mayor’s Neighborhood Business District Strategy and Downtown zoning changes, both adopted in 2006.

The basis for our current multifamily zoning was originally adopted in 1982.  Since that time, the zoning has been incrementally amended over the years such that some objectives may be obscured by added layers of requirements and process.  Over time, many of these added layers of regulation have become redundant and unnecessary. They often add to the cost of development and can work against Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plan goals for affordable housing and quality design.

City staff, Planning Commissioners, applicants, neighborhood residents, and Design Review Board members, have identified many issues that impact the effectiveness of multifamily zone requirements.  These issues include:

·       the code Is old and out of date (and was developed before Design Review);

·       could better reflect the Comprehensive Plan;

·       the code is overly complex, which has been exacerbated by multiple amendments over time;

·       the code is not having the desired effect on neighborhood character (especially  related to townhouse development); and

·       the code does not effectively address climate change or the need for affordable housing.

Consequently, four key questions were considered in preparing the final recommendations:

How effective are the multifamily zones in accommodating a growing and changing population? 

Do they encourage well-designed buildings that fit in with established neighborhoods? 

Does multifamily zoning help accomplish City and neighborhood goals without adding unnecessarily to the cost of building new housing?

How can new multifamily development help protect the environment and provide housing that working people can afford?

Relationship to Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans

The goals and strategies laid out in the Comprehensive Plan’s Urban Village, Land Use and Neighborhood Planning Elements were the basis for proposed changes to the multifamily zone requirements. The proposed changes will help to implement Land Use and Housing Element Goals and Policies and 67 Goals and Policies from 30 Neighborhood Plans (see Appendix C for a list).

Land Use and Housing Goals and Policies.  The overarching goals for Multifamily Zones are to:

LUG11 -- Encourage…a diversity of multifamily housing types to meet the diverse needs of Seattle’s present and future populations.

LUG12 -- Promote a residential development pattern consistent with the urban village strategy, with increased availability of housing at densities that promote walking and transit use near employment concentrations, residential services and amenities.

Not only are these two goals furthered by the proposed amendments to multifamily zones, but more specific policies about providing zoning incentives for affordable housing (adopted by the City Council in 2006) and protecting the environment (including responding to the impacts of climate change) are also advanced by  proposed amendments to the multifamily code:

LU-5 (#2)  -- Seek opportunities to incorporate incentive programs for development of housing affordable to lower-income households into legislative rezones or changes in development regulations that increase development potential.   Consider development regulations that condition higher-density development on the provision of public benefits when such public benefits will help mitigate impacts of development attributable to increased development potential.

E1 – Explore ways for City actions and decisions to have positive effects on the natural environment and human health, and to avoid or offset potential negative effects, including those caused by private projects permitted by the City.

The proposed amendments are consistent with land use, housing and environmental policies, including those most directly related to Multifamily Zones.  These policies were adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update of 2007 and are listed in Appendix D to this report.

4.  Updated Multifamily Zones

Multifamily zoning should accommodate a range of housing choices to provide housing for current and future households making Seattle home.  New rezone criteria should aid in predictable and rational use of these zones.  This section of the report summarizes the proposed changes to development standards and rezone criteria that will enable the existing mix of zones, including a mixed-use zone designation – Residential Commercial (RC), to achieve these objectives.

Mix of Multifamily Zones

Currently there are seven Multifamily zones.  Five are intended for low-scale development, while the other two address mid-scale and highrise development.  The low-scale zones tend to be located adjacent to single family zoned areas.  Together, the multifamily zones are intended to provide for a wide range of housing choices and accommodate gradual transitions between zone designations allowing different intensities of development.  Multifamily zones will continue to act as a transition from single family and lower intensity multifamily zones to more intense multifamily and mixed-use commercial zones. 

The five existing Lowrise zones -- Lowrise Duplex/Triplex, and Lowrise 1, 2, 3, and 4 -- are proposed to be retained as mapped throughout the city.  However, for future use, only the first four of these lowrise zones will be available for mapping and would thus have rezone criteria.  The L4 zone would be maintained, but new L4 zones would not be mapped in the future.  This preserves current development potential and maintains an appropriate range of lower-intensity zones to accommodate desired housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, townhouse, row houses, and moderate density stacked flats (apartments and condominiums). 

Four zones are recommended to replace the current five zones for future use to provide for a diversity of housing types as shown in the chart: 

*The stated building type is primarily what is intended, although other types are allowed.

**4 floors may be accommodated in the L4 zone, where currently mapped, without providing affordable housing.

The Lowrise Duplex/Triplex (LDT) zone continues to be a zone allowing small multifamily structures in areas that generally abut single family zones.  LDT zoning is intended to accommodate existing single family structures as well as duplexes and triplexes. 

Initially, in formulating a concept for new multifamily zoning, consolidating L1 and L2 zones was considered, due in part to only a moderate difference in density and scale of development allowed in both zones.  This recommendation was subsequently withdrawn in response to public comments in favor of maintaining both L1 and L2 zones to retain a diversity of scale and density in areas where a lower density neighborhood character or transition to single family areas would best be served. 

Existing L1 and L2 zoned areas account for approximately 40% of the multifamily zoned land in the city, almost evenly split between the two zones.  In addition, these areas are commonly located outside of urban village areas. 

The L3 and L4 zones were intended to accommodate moderate-scaled, wood frame multifamily construction of three to four story apartment and condominium buildings, though townhouses are also common in both zones.  The nature, density and scale of development in both zones are similar, with the primary difference being the ability to accommodate an additional floor in L4.

The revised L3 and existing L4 zones, with improved standards addressing the design of structures, will allow a moderate scale of multifamily development of three to four story apartments that are compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding neighborhood.

Under proposed changes for L3 zones, developers would have the choice to develop at standards similar to what is currently allowed in the L3 zone or, in specified locations, to use standards similar to current L4 if affordable housing is provided (for more on the affordable housing incentive program see Section 7). 

Comprehensive Plan, Neighborhood Plan Element Policies: A-P4, EL-P14, MJ-P15, NN-P34, QA-P10, W-P7

The special L3 and L4 locational criteria for the evaluation of rezones to the L3 and L4 designations inside of urban villages, shall not apply in the Admiral,  Eastlake, Lake City, Morgan Junction, Upper Queen Anne, or Wallingford Urban Village(s).

When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994, the rezone criteria in the Land Use Code only allowed rezoning to L3 and L4 zones when the area to be rezoned already exhibits the scale and intensity of development permitted in these zones.  To help implement the Comprehensive Plan, the City proposed a less restrictive approach to allow the use of L3 and L4 zones within urban villages.  The City Council supplemented this proposal and adopted the above policy for the six neighborhoods listed. 

The policy can be interpreted as a prohibition on additional development potential for the L3 zone, as contemplated in the proposed incentive program.  In deference to this existing policy, these areas are proposed to be excluded from the incentive zoning program, until such time as this policy is amended after appropriate community process.  For more information, see Section 7 of the report on the incentive program.

Residential Commercial Designation (RC)

The Residential Commercial (RC) designation is combined as a suffix to a multifamily zone to allow limited non-residential uses in a mixed use structure (residential and commercial uses).  The physical appearance and use of structures in RC zones is primarily residential in order to maintain compatibility with surrounding residential zoning.  This designation is typically limited to areas adjacent to commercial zones.

Rezone Criteria

Rezone criteria are used to guide decisions regarding the appropriate zone designation for a property proposed to be rezoned.  Rezones might be proposed to carry out new City policies adopted as part of a planning process, or requested by a property owner or permit applicant as part of a development process.   A rezone must be approved by the City Council.

Rezone criteria address general planning considerations, such as effective transitions between different zones, impacts that might result from different zoning scenarios; and specific criteria that help to decide what zone best fits the desired function and characteristics of an area. 

When current multifamily zoning was adopted in 1982, new zones replaced zones first adopted in 1958. Criteria were developed to identify when a new zone designation was appropriate for a particular parcel of land. Generally, these criteria were written to recognize the existing character of an area, and to explain the mapping decisions made in 1982.  For example, the criteria would conclude that an area characterized by highrise development be designated as Highrise.

Over the years, many rezones involving multifamily zones have occurred throughout the city.  In some cases, this was necessary to accommodate new housing opportunities, especially for neighborhoods within urban centers and villages.  Some rezones were proposed as part of a neighborhood planning process.  However, the existing rezone criteria emphasize only allowing rezoning when the existing scale and character of the area already reflects the development that would be permitted under the new zoning designation.  This diminishes the value of planning and rezoning as tools for shaping the future development of an area in ways that might further City and community goals.

5.  Uses

Current multifamily zones are primarily residential in nature.  In addition to the variety of housing types permitted, accessory uses that support the principal residential purpose of the zones are also permitted.  Uses such as institutions (i.e. religious facilities, day cares, schools) that meet development standards are permitted outright.  Institutions that do not meet development standards are permitted as conditional uses.  A conditional use is a use permitted only after it is determined that it meets specific conditions. 

Generally, under the proposal, the regulation of uses in multifamily zones is not proposed to change.  As with current zoning, in Midrise and Highrise zones, ground floor non-residential uses would continue to be permitted in limited circumstances. 

Permitted and Prohibited Uses

The proposed permitted and prohibited uses are organized on a chart for ease of use and understanding.  Though substantively unchanged, organization of the code is changed so that provisions for approval of public facilities are relocated from various sections throughout the existing code to a new use section in the proposed new code, locating all use-related provisions in one place. 

Conditional Uses

Administrative conditional uses can be approved by the Director of DPD, subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner; Council conditional uses must be approved by the City Council.  Generally conditional uses must not be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties.  Amendments are proposed to organize general criteria applicable to conditional uses in all zones in one location in the Land Use Code.   The current uses (institutions, other than public schools, that do not meet Multifamily development standards; uses not otherwise permitted in landmark structures; and park and pool and park and ride lots) would continue to be subject to conditional use approval in multifamily zones:

6.  Development Standards

To meet the objectives laid out in Section 1, the proposed changes to multifamily zoning should help to foster new development that: is cost-effective and sensible; is of quality design; fits into existing neighborhoods; promotes sustainable development and provides incentives for affordable housing.  This section of the report presents the recommendations for development standards for multifamily zones.

Current multifamily zones are governed by standards that have been amended several times since their original adoption, and they predate the creation of the design review process, which, without an alternative approach, made it necessary to address design issues with prescriptive standards.  Consequently, the standards can be redundant or overly prescriptive, resulting in development that is not responsive to neighborhood context or character, diminishing the quality of design in multifamily neighborhoods.  An example is façade modulation, which is required without regard to overall composition of the façade design, articulation or division of the outside of the building to show that there are different units in a building.  While the existing standards were intended to address design concerns, the lack of flexibility has made them an obstacle to design that responds to neighborhood or site specific conditions, which is critical to good design.    

The concept of increased development flexibility within prescribed limits is based on the belief that simpler, less prescriptive code requirements can help new development better relate to local conditions.  Development standards should focus on the objectives to be achieved.

The Design Review Program, initiated in 1994, is intended to help development fit better in the neighborhood.  Development proposals with nine or more dwelling units in L3 and L4 zones and over 20 units in the Midrise and Highrise zones are subject to design review.  In addition, applicants may volunteer for design review, in all multifamily zones. 

Design review allows departures from development standards when a design solution is proposed that better meets the intent of the zone or when the strict application of development standards inhibits good design.  For projects that are subject to design review, issues of compatibility and siting of development can be effectively addressed.  A principal focus of design review is a project’s context.  Design guidelines direct designers and project reviewers to look closely at local conditions in order to ensure that new buildings fit in and enhance their surroundings. 

For more information about the Design Review program, see DPD website:

http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Applicant’s_Toolbox/Design_Guidelines/

Flexibility must be guided with clear statements of policy intent – what is to be achieved. Standards would have limits, but allow for development projects to be designed in a way that is more responsive to the unique conditions of sites.  Proposed standards are based on characteristics of different development sites.  For example, the regulation of bulk and scale on smaller, infill sites of 9,000 square feet or less is accomplished with setback requirements, height limits and a floor area ratio (FAR)[1].  On larger sites, where the bulk of buildings is less constrained by the site size, additional requirements would apply, including maximum limits on structure width.  

Density and Floor Area Ratios

Density in a multifamily development generally refers to the number of dwelling units per square foot of lot area.  Currently in Lowrise zones density is limited based on lot area.  For example, in L3 zones, one dwelling unit is allowed for every 800 square feet of lot area.  While the number of units in a development is often controlled by limits on bulk and scale, setbacks, open space and parking requirements, density limits provide predictability in terms of maximum number of units allowed.  Existing density limits are proposed to be retained for LDT, L1 and L2 zones due to the location of these zones generally outside of urban centers and villages and the proximity of these zones to lower density single family areas.  This will retain existing capacity for new residential development in these zones. 

Density Limits for LDT, L1 and L2 Zones.

Density limits regulate the number of units on a lot, not building bulk.  Therefore, in addition, a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to regulate building bulk in these zones.  FAR permits additional design flexibility.  For example, if the massing of a project results in greater floor area at the lower levels of a building and lesser at higher levels, the result may be reduced shadows and more sunlight on surrounding properties, and less view blockage.  Having more flexibility in the form of a structure may also allow for some savings in the cost of construction.  The use of FAR to control bulk would allow more flexibility for how units are arranged on a site. 

Without density limits, FAR is largely a bulk control; but still has a limiting effect on density.  Since multifamily zones in urban centers and villages are generally L3, L4, MR and HR zones, the proposal is to use FAR to manage both bulk and density in these zones.  Using FAR without a limit on units may increase housing capacity in areas intended to accommodate the greatest density, consistent with the City’s growth management strategy.  The following chart shows the amount of multifamily land area in an urban center, village or light rail station area.  Unlike Lowrise zones, MR and HR zones are currently not subject to a density limit based on lot area.

Inside/outside – Urban Centers, Urban Villages or Light Rail Station Areas.

*Total excludes lots with a Major Institution Overlay (MIO) designation, where no multifamily development is anticipated.  Total parcel area of multifamily zones with a major institution overlay is 822 acres, with 289 acres in L1, 60 acres in L2, 166 acres in L3, 280 acres in MR, and 27 acres in HR.

Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies that support accommodating additional height and density in urban centers, urban villages and light rail station areas, the proposal would allow for an increase in FAR in the L3, MR and HR multifamily zones located within these areas through the incentive program described in Section 7.

How proposed FAR limits were derived.  Recent development trends and development prototypes using the current and proposed code were analyzed to establish preliminary recommendations for FAR limits in the new multifamily zones.  Both types of analysis are helpful (comparing the FAR resulting from the prototypes to FARs resulting from actual development projects built between 1996 and 2006), due to the broad range of building types that are anticipated in Lowrise zones. 

Proposed FAR limits are intended to approximate the development scale and capacity of current multifamily zones; allow for a range of housing types as contemplated for each zone; and allow for the introduction of an incentive zoning program in the L3, MR zones and continuation of an incentive program in the HR zone.

Proposed FAR Limits

As part of the proposal, a departure from FAR limits would not be allowed through Design Review.  

When parking is provided within the structure at least partially underground (protruding not more than 4’ above grade), it would not count toward the floor area used to calculate FAR. This encourages parking in below grade structures rather than on the surface.   

Setbacks in Lowrise Zones

Landscaped setbacks are important to maintain compatibility with surrounding residential development and add vegetation that is important for the environment.  The current approach to setbacks in multifamily zones essentially follows a single family zone model where front and rear setbacks are relatively large (on the order of 15’ to 20’ from the property lines) and side setbacks are more modest (generally, 5’ from the property lines).

Under the proposal, multifamily zoned lots that abut other multifamily or commercially zoned lots would be required to provide setbacks that provide for reasonable separation between structures for privacy and access to light and air, but need not mimic single family development.  However, multifamily zoned lots that abut single family zoned lots are proposed to continue to provide setbacks similar to what is currently required to provide a transition.  The amount of Lowrise zoned parcel area on edges abutting single family zoned lots is shown below.

Setbacks in Lowrise Zones:  Parcels on Edges of Single Family Zones

*Edge Zones = Multifamily zoned lots that abut or are across an alley or street from a Single Family zoned lot.

**Total excludes lots with a Major Institution Overlay (MIO) designation, where no multifamily development is anticipated.

Differentiating between these situations allows greater variety of site planning options for new multifamily development in areas abutting neighborhood business zones or surrounded by other multifamily areas.  For the Lowrise zones, the following setbacks are proposed:

Height Limits

Height limits are important to providing an appropriate transition between zones of greater and lesser intensity.   Currently in LDT, L1 and L2 multifamily zones, structures are limited to a height of 25 feet.  In L3 and L4 zones height limits are 30 and 37 feet, respectively.  In all Lowrise zones an additional 5’ is allowed for a roof with a pitch of 4:12 (the roof slope must rise 4’ for every 12’ of horizontal distance or run).  In LDT, L1 and L2 zones, 10’ is allowed above the height limit for a pitched roof with a minimum pitch of 6:12. 

A height of 30’ to 35’ is generally needed to accommodate structures with at least three floors, which is common for townhouse and other multifamily structures, especially with structured parking at ground level.  In addition, assessment of recently built projects in L3 zones where there is currently a 35’ height limit, when a pitched roof is used, shows that there is more variety in roof designs, both contemporary and traditional.  This also happens to be the height limit allowed in single family zones.

The existing 25’ height limit would remain unchanged in LDT, L1 and L2 zones, except that additional height for pitched roofs would be limited to 10’ for roofs with a minimum pitch of 6:12.  An additional 5’ in height would continue to be allowed in L3 and L4 zones for pitched roofs, but the minimum pitch required would be 6:12, rather than the current minimum of 4:12. 

Dormers and clerestories are traditional architectural features located on roofs that can allow for more usable floor space within a roof-structure without visually increasing the appearance of building bulk, as would occur if an additional floor with vertical walls were allowed.  Dormers and clerestories can also add to the visual interest of a roof.  The proposal would allow limited dormers and clerestories within the height limit allowed for a pitched roof

In Highrise zones, in order to promote more interesting architectural treatment of the tops of residential towers, towers that comply with specific design conditions are permitted a 15% height increase.  The added height is for architectural features and screening, and does not allow additional residential floor area. 

Pitched Roof Allowances.  At community meetings dissatisfaction was expressed over the appearance of structures with a shallow pitched roof, encouraged by the minimum requirements of 4:12 under the current code.  It was widely believed that these roof pitches result in structures that do not fit in and can even detract from the neighborhood.   In response, the proposal is to allow an additional 10’ in height in LDT, L1 and L2 zones and an additional 5’ in height in L3 and L4 zones as an incentive for pitched roofs, but in all cases to require a minimum roof pitch of 6:12. 

Height Incentive.  Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies that support accommodating additional height and density in urban centers, urban villages and light rail station areas, the proposal would allow for an increase in height limits in the L3, MR and HR multifamily zones located within these specified areas.  The height increase would only be allowed if public benefits—mainly affordable housing—were provided through the incentive program described in Section 7.  In L3 and MR zones outside of these areas, and in all L4 zones, no change in maximum height is proposed

Additional Height in HR Zone.  To promote thinner tower design, the proposal in the HR zone would allow maximum structure height to be increased from 240’ up to 300’ when the project includes affordable housing or other public benefits, and the following additional conditions are met:

·       The average residential gross floor area per story above a height of 45’ is limited to a footprint of 9,500 square feet;

·       No parking may located above the ground floor, unless it is separated from all street frontages by another use; and

·       A minimum of 25% of the lot area at ground level must be provided as a landscaped area with a minimum dimension of 10’; or a minimum of 20% if a landscaped, common recreation area at ground level is provided.

Allowances for Green Building Features.  For zones with height limits under 40’, it is difficult to accommodate a green roof (roofs with soil and plants that help off-set heat gain and reduce climate impacts associated with buildings, as well as help filter impurities, improving the quality of storm water run-off).  Green roofs require that the roof structure be engineered to support soil and plant materials.  Often, the floor to ceiling height of floors must be reduced or floors potentially lost if a green roof is provided.  This acts as a disincentive for green roofs.  Therefore, the proposed multifamily code would allow up to 2 additional feet to accommodate a green roof that occupies at least 50% of the area of a roof.  

New technology has produced new elevators that use up to 25% less energy than conventional elevators.  The mechanical equipment of these elevators is such that the current elevator penthouse allowance of 10’ above the height limit is not sufficient to accommodate these elevators.  Therefore, an additional 6‘ to16’ of height is proposed to be allowed in Lowrise and MR zones and up to 25’ in HR zones when new, energy efficient elevators are proposed.  The additional height needed to accommodate these elevators must be approved pursuant to administrative Design Review.  Mechanical penthouses are allowed to cover up to 20% of the roof area when screened.  No changes are proposed to the coverage allowance related to elevator equipment.

Wind–driven power generators placed on the rooftops of buildings are gaining in popularity.  These generators can meet some or all of the power needs of a new building, without consuming fossil fuels and thereby reducing the carbon footprint of a building.  In some cases, excess power generated can be sold to a public utility.  A low profile type of wind generator can be placed on the rooftop of a building and extend no more than 10’ above the surface of the roof.  These horizontal wind generators look like coils that allow views through them, even when rotating.  Therefore the proposal would allow rooftop wind generators to extend up to 10’ above the height limit and exempts them from the rooftop coverage limits.

Solar collectors are allowed to extend above the height limit currently, but they are not allowed on top of penthouse structures on the roof.  This is often an optimal location for solar collectors.  Therefore, the proposal is to allow solar collectors not taller than 4’ to be located on the roof of a penthouse in Lowrise zones and no taller than 7’ in MR and HR zones.

In addition, the current allowance for sloping sites that allows an additional 5’ of height, measured from the downhill side of a slope, on lots with a slope of 6% or greater, is retained. 

*currently, in the HR zone, incentives are required for increases in height above 160’ up to the maximum height of 240’.  An additional 60’ increase to 300’ is proposed for projects participating in the bonus program and meeting specific design criteria.

Standards for Lots Larger than 9,000 sq. ft.

In some neighborhoods, new structures are built on relatively small sites and add to the existing pattern of development at relatively similar bulk and scale.  These developments are characteristic of more urban neighborhoods where lot aggregation may be difficult.  In such circumstances it is recommended to distinguish these proposed developments from those that would occupy much larger sites and are more likely to alter or introduce a new character in an area.

Over time, historically platted lots have been combined, divided and reconfigured.  This makes it difficult to predict the lot area and configuration of all future development projects.  However, using increments of sample platted lots in the city’s multifamily neighborhoods, a 9,000 square foot lot is proposed as an appropriate threshold for applying regulations that distinguish infill lots from larger lots. 

On larger sites, height and FAR limits and setbacks are supplemented by other measures to further protect existing neighborhoods by helping new development to fit in with the surroundings.  Consequently, on sites that are greater than 9,000 square feet, revised standards for lot coverage and structure width and depth limits are proposed to apply. 

Lot coverage. Lot coverage describes the maximum percentage of the lot that may be occupied by structures.  Current code requirements allow greater coverage for townhouse structures.  At the time the Code was written, there was only limited townhouse development, and it was believed desirable to encourage this type of development.  Not only is this no longer necessary, it also adds unneeded complexity to the code.  With the added benefit of a floor area ratio (FAR) limit, the proposal is to apply the greater lot coverage afforded townhouses to all structures to increase flexibility for the siting and design of structures.

Comparison of current and proposed lot coverage limits

*Applies to lots over 9,000 sq. ft. in area.

Width and Depth Limits.  Width and depth limits are used to regulate the bulk of structures.  The maximum width of structures applies to the facades extending between side lot lines, generally facing street and alley rights-of-way or front and rear setbacks.  Maximum depth applies to facades that generally span the distance from the front to the rear of the lot. 

Under current code requirements, width and depth limits differ depending on whether or not the structure includes a modulated facade and whether or not an entrance to the structure faces the street.  As with lot coverage, current standards allow greater widths and depths for townhouse structures, and these are proposed to apply to all new development on sites greater than 9,000 sq. ft.  In addition, depth limits are proposed to better match the setback requirements in that 75% of lot depth tends to be left over, once a front or rear property line setback is provided (for the transition setbacks for multifamily lots that abut single family zoned lots). 

Development on larger lots will likely be large enough to trigger design review.  The existing variable width and depth limits that can be increased to the maximum limits allowed through modulation are standards pre-dating design review.  The design review process now provides a better approach than the prescribed modulation standards.  The charts below compare current width and depth limits with proposed limits. 

Current Width/Depth Requirements for Lowrise Zones

Proposed Width/Depth Requirements for Lowrise Zones

Landscaping and the Seattle Green Factor

Current multifamily code requirements include a landscaped area equivalent to three times the perimeter of lot, street trees as per SDOT standards, and screening of surface parking lots.  The total amount of required landscaping depends on the size of the lot and the configuration of development on the lot.  Under the proposal, new development will have to meet the Seattle Green Factor, a menu of landscaping strategies and corresponding scoring system.

The Green Factor is designed to increase the amount and quality of urban landscaping, while allowing increased flexibility for property owners to develop their property.  Green Factor landscaping can add value and interest to new development and maximizes the functional benefits of landscaping on the environment, such as natural cooling and insulation, air quality, reduced runoff, and habitat.

Under the Green Factor requirement, and in addition to residential amenities, developers will be required to landscape an area that has the equivalent positive effect on water quality to landscaping on 60% of a lot (minimum Green Factor score = 0.6). 

Under the Green Factor scoring system, this landscaping may be provided through a variety of landscaping options, including trees and shrubs, pervious paving, green roofs, vegetated walls and approved water features. Each of these options is weighted differently, with high values or bonuses assigned to the following:

·       Vegetation that is visible to pedestrians and passers-by;

·       Preservation of existing trees;

·       Trees that have larger canopies;

·       Landscaping that combines layers of plantings, increasing the environmental benefits of the landscaped area; 

·       Use of native or drought-tolerant plants;

·       Edible gardens; and

·       Rainwater harvesting.

As is the case in neighborhood business districts, the proposal for multifamily zones would allow landscaping provided in the right-of-way to count towards the Green Factor requirement.  The Green Factor increases the ecological and aesthetic function of landscaped areas. 

This ordinance uses the revised Green Factor scoring system that will be proposed in 2008 as an update for the program in place for commercial zones.  Revisions are based on experience from the first year of implementation as well as a preliminary audit of projects permitted under the Green Factor.  To add greater design flexibility, the revised scoring system includes several new categories, including shallower pervious paving and green roofs, native plants, structural soils, and food cultivation areas.

Residential Amenity Requirement

Current multifamily code requirements for open space, setbacks and screening and landscaping are complex.  Standards stipulate minimum required areas, dimensions and percentages of allowed overlap (for example, a portion of required open space can, in some cases, count toward required landscaping).  These standards vary by zone and by building type.   “Open space” provided to meet these standards is intended to serve the needs of residents and is not public.  In some cases, requirements can be met above ground, on balconies and rooftop decks.  

Proposed amendments to open space requirements are intended to address amenities that provide for the recreational needs of residents.   Residential amenity requirements in multifamily zones are proposed to replace all of the current open space requirements.  The amount of residential amenity area required in a project is equivalent to five percent of the total gross floor area of residential use.  Eligible amenities will include individual and shared spaces such as rooftop decks, balconies and ground level, landscaped spaces.

Current open space requirements in the multifamily zones do not effectively address the needs of residents in either amount or type of space provided and open space, as currently defined, is often cited as adding unnecessarily to the cost of housing development.  As of January 20, 2007, multifamily development in commercial areas must meet residential amenity requirements rather than “open space” requirements.  The residential amenity requirements were adopted by the City Council as part of comprehensive amendments to the City’s commercial areas zoning.  The amount of required residential amenity area proposed for multifamily zones would be the same as the amount now required for multifamily development in commercial areas.

The proposed residential amenity requirement:

·       Will meet the needs of residents;

·       Allows more flexibility for amenities, including ground level open space, decks and balconies, and rooftop decks, which can be provided for individual or shared use; and

·       Is equal to or exceeds what is required in other cities around the state.

Design Standards

Strict adherence to standards that do not take into account site variability and local characteristics often produces a development that does not respond well to an established neighborhood character.  In order to raise the level of design quality and architectural interest of new development that is not subject to the Design Review Program, simple design standards are proposed.  Required architectural features are a relatively low cost way to provide visual interest without prescribing specific architectural styles.  Other U.S. cities, such as Portland, Oregon, successfully include these types of requirements in their multifamily zoning.

Proposed design standards would apply to all multifamily development below the thresholds for design review.  Applicants may volunteer for administrative Design Review to address the intent of each standard in a different manner. 

Townhouse Design[2]

Townhouses have been popular with homebuyers and townhouse construction can be observed in most multifamily neighborhoods.  Almost all townhouse development takes place in the Lowrise zones, which are meant to accommodate a variety of housing types and densities. Lowrise zones often serve as a transition between single family zoned areas and commercial and mixed-use areas of greater density.

The townhouses that are being built, while generally of a much higher design quality than the apartments of the 80s and early 90s, are both homogeneous and ubiquitous. The following characteristics are typical:

·       Units sizes of 1,000 to 1,400 square feet

·       3 stories

·       4 to 8 units in duplex, triplex or quad structures with garage doors and main entrances oriented around a common auto courtyard

·       One garage underneath each unit

·       Small yards surrounded by 6’ to 8’ tall fencing

DPD held a series of workshops to examine the characteristics of townhouse design and develop recommendations for how to improve this important housing type.  The workshops were attended by community representatives, designers, and developers.  Based on these workshops and independent study of recent townhouse development, as well as feedback from the community, DPD is proposing new flexible standards intended to improve the design quality of townhouses.

The proposed design standards, discussed earlier in this report, and outlined below, would apply to townhouses and are intended to encourage creative design solutions to help ensure a better contextual fit in existing neighborhoods. 

In addition, standards are proposed to:

·       Limit the height of fences in a street facing setback to four feet (4’) in height;

·       Limit building overhangs over driveways and aisles to 3’;

·       Require wider (2’ additional width) drives/aisles to facilitate maneuvering in the auto-courtyards;

·       Require larger parking spaces for townhouses (8½ feet wide by 19 feet deep); and

·       Allow for more flexibility in how the driveway slope is configured to aid in accommodating shared, underground parking structures.

Midrise (MR) and Highrise (HR) Zones

MR and HR zones allow substantially denser and taller/bigger development than Lowrise zones.  These zones are primarily located in urban centers, mostly where high density, walkable urban environments are already established.  The Northgate, University District and First Hill/Capitol Hill Urban Centers contain the majority of MR zoning.  The HR zone is mapped only within the First Hill Urban Center Village. 

Existing conditions.  Development in MR and HR zones is currently not subject to a density limit or a lot coverage limit, and in certain circumstances, nonresidential uses are allowed at street level.  MR zones generally allow structures up to 60 feet in height, although there are limited areas of MR in Northgate with an 85 foot height limit.  In the HR zone, buildings may achieve a height of 160 feet.  However, when affordable housing, open space or historic structures are provided or preserved, additional height up to a maximum of 240 feet is possible.  Development standards in MR and HR zones are proposed to be generally maintained, allowing current bulk and density of development.  However, in addition to general consolidation of standards related to bulk and scale, rules governing height increases and an incentive program for affordable housing (and other amenities in HR) are also proposed to apply to MR and HR zones.  The incentive program allowing increased height and density would be limited to MR and HR zones located within Urban Centers, Urban Villages, or light rail station areas.

Parking

In adopting revisions to development standards in commercial zones in 2006, the City Council concluded that it was reasonable to eliminate parking requirements for multifamily structures in commercial zones within urban centers and light rail station areas, and to align parking requirements with parking demand and automobile ownership elsewhere. 

Seattle’s parking requirements for residential use are intended, in part, to anticipate the amount of parking needed and to reflect automobile ownership patterns.  As was true in commercial zones, current requirements for parking in multifamily zones are based on estimates of parking demand and automobile ownership established in the 1980’s.

Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for parking support Seattle’s public transportation investments, encourage transit use and discourage an over-supply of off-street parking.  Appropriate off-street parking requirements, combined with more effective on-street parking space management, shared parking opportunities, improved bicycle and pedestrian ways and transit availability can help to make more efficient use of parking and further long-term goals for a more pedestrian-oriented city. 

Recent studies of parking demand have shown that the Land Use Code often requires more parking than is needed in new development.  This undermines the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and adds significantly to the cost of housing.  Parking provided in a garage can cost upwards of $30,000 per space to build. 

To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with recent Council actions, local data were examined to determine where parking requirements may exceed demand.  Areas with similar characteristics, such as urban centers or high capacity transit areas, exhibit similar parking demand and behavior. Parking requirements are proposed to be differentiated according to these characteristics to better manage parking supply, without creating an oversupply of parking that could run counter to transportation and environmental policies.  The City of Seattle, over the past few years, has been able to gather several data sets to use for analysis for parking code changes. This parking data helps to match real-life parking and traffic experiences to off-street parking regulations. This data were the basis for the Council-approved multifamily parking changes in 2007 as part of the Neighborhood Business District Strategy.

The following four data sources were used to perform this analysis:

·       Comprehensive Neighborhood Parking Study (CNPS, City of Seattle Strategic Planning Office, 2000),

·       Review of new residential development in Belltown where parking is not currently required,

·       An urban village off-street parking study (City of Seattle, SDOT, 2004), and

·       U.S. Census data regarding car ownership.

Examining local conditions. The current state of neighborhood parking conditions in Seattle — the supply and demand for off-street parking and the relationship between what is built and what is used– forms the basis of the recommended changes to the parking regulations.

The CNPS provides an understanding of actual parking demand in Seattle’s multifamily zones.  In 2000, this study collected on and off-street parking data in over 35 areas of Seattle neighborhoods outside of the downtown retail core. The results of the parking data highlighted the difficulty of establishing a single minimum requirement across the entire city that could minimize parking spillover on the one hand and discourage under used parking on the other. A single minimum requirement is not flexible enough to address the varied parking demands for different transportation and land use patterns across Seattle.

Another data source is found in downtown residential buildings where Seattle has no minimum parking requirements. In these areas, developers still provide parking. The amount of parking provided is more closely tailored to the anticipated building occupancy.  Downtown condos with multiple bedrooms typically come with two parking spaces (although trends show a demand for fewer spaces), while small apartment buildings attractive to low-income singles may provide one parking space for every four units.

The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) also collected additional off-street parking data in eight Seattle neighborhood business districts (Greenwood; Eastlake; Lake City; Columbia City; Madison-Miller; Admiral; Alaska Junction; and Ballard) in the fall of 2004.  The following table compares current parking requirements to the average parking demand for residential developments in these areas:

Parking Demand from 8 Seattle Neighborhoods

Two key points emerge from the demand data, consistent with the findings of the 2000 Comprehensive Neighborhood Parking Study:

·       Seattle is currently requiring more parking spaces than are needed for many residential buildings.

·       Buildings generally provide more parking spaces than are required. The result is parking lots that cost money to provide, but are not efficiently used much of the time.

The parking data illustrates another very important point, and addresses a concern expressed by neighborhood residents. No requirement or a lower minimum parking requirement does not mean that no on-site parking will be provided. The data show that most development will provide parking to meet anticipated demand. In fact, the amount of parking provided can even exceed the average and peak demand.

In addition to the parking demand analysis, the 2000 Census data on “vehicles available per household” offers another reliable way to measure residential parking demand. Citywide, on average, households have 1.34 vehicles. However, looking at the buildings that are most likely to be built in multifamily neighborhoods, one can see that Seattle’s requirements of 1.1 to 1.5 generally provides more spaces than households in these areas typically need, see the table:

Cars Available per Seattle Household Compared to Building Size

Source:  2000 US Census, 5-percent sample PUMS data, City of Seattle, SDOT Analysis, 2004

In buildings with 5 or more units, the average number of cars per household is 0.8, with a decreasing number of cars per household as the number of units goes up. Residents of larger buildings are more likely to have fewer cars than other residents of Seattle.  While the figures vary slightly from neighborhood to neighborhood, in no area does the average number of cars available per household in multifamily structures exceed one space.

Transportation Alternatives in Urban Centers and Light Rail Station Areas. These areas are all mixed-use neighborhoods with significant concentrations of both housing and jobs and improving transit service. With construction of light rail underway, “station areas” have been mapped around the future light rail stations. These station areas are the areas where residents are most likely to walk or bike to use the light rail system. It is Seattle’s goal to encourage the continued development and redevelopment of urban centers and station areas into denser, mixed-use communities, with strong pedestrian, bike and transit facilities.

Seattle’s six urban centers are:

·       Downtown Seattle (no Lowrise, MR or HR multifamily zoning)**;

·       First Hill/Capitol Hill;

·       South Lake Union (no Lowrise, MR or HR multifamily zoning)**;

·       Uptown (Lower Queen Anne);

·       University District; and

·       Northgate.

Station areas* with multifamily zoning are:

·       Henderson;

·       Othello;

·       Edmunds;

·       McClellan; and

·       Beacon Hill.

*Multifamily and Commercially zoned land within the Station Area Overlay District.

**These areas having zoning specific to these locations that encourage high density, mixed use development.

Seattle’s urban centers attract residents who enjoy excellent transit service and walking access to neighborhood shopping. They have high numbers of residents who do not use cars to get to work as shown in this table:

Transportation Choices of Urban Center Residents

Source:  2000 US Census, City of Seattle, DPD Analysis, 2004

These residents are also likely to not use their cars to access local businesses. In each of the centers, the ratio of cars per household (including single-family households) is lower than the citywide average.

In addition, on-street parking in these areas is already or will be controlled using parking pay stations, parking meters and/or residential parking zones (RPZs), which limit non-resident, long-term, free parking. The South Lake Union, U-District, Capitol Hill, Pike/Pine, 12th Avenue, Lower Queen Anne and First Hill neighborhoods are, or will soon be, regulated with paid on-street parking and RPZs.  In 2008, SDOT will be working with station area communities to establish RPZs around light rail stations to discourage so-called hide-and-ride parking.  RPZs will be established before the stations open.

Impacts of parking on neighborhoods, health and the environment.  As noted, the City’s parking demand analyses show that development in Seattle tends to supply more parking than is needed. These findings illustrate observations made by national parking experts about the negative traffic, environmental and land use effects of too much free on- and off-street parking. While most people have become accustomed to free parking in front of their homes, and elsewhere, such ease of access to parking impacts the natural environment, increases traffic, and decreases neighborhood quality of life.

Seattle Public Utilities and SDOT are currently working together on natural drainage systems that reduce impervious surfaces, provide green space in residential areas, and help Seattle meet new state Department of Ecology stormwater management regulations. Limiting surface parking can help to support that work as well.  Runoff from surface parking lots contribute to polluted lakes and streams.

The environmental implications described above are exactly what the Seattle Comprehensive Plan is trying to address with policies that discourage automobile use and encourage transit, bicycling and walking. The proposed multifamily zone parking changes support other City and other government agency efforts to protect and enhance the environment. The City of Seattle is leading an effort for U.S. cities pledging to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions reduction goals to reduce climate change. The Seattle Climate Action Plan is the way Seattle will meet those goals and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Many agencies and other groups in the Puget Sound region are making significant investments in rail transit with Sound Transit Light Rail and improved bus service. In addition, SDOT is now implementing the Seattle Transit Plan through the City’s Bridging the Gap transportation funds and through King County Metro’s Transit Now --- transit service improvements and bus rapid transit projects that better connect Seattle’s urban centers and villages. All of these efforts will create additional ways to provide access to multifamily neighborhoods. 

In recognition of these efforts, the proposal also would allow reductions in the amount of parking required for multifamily residential uses when transit and other alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles are available.  This approach is currently allowed for nonresidential uses in commercial zones. The proposal is to extend this exception for multifamily use in both multifamily and commercial zones.

Promoting shared parking, for example making parking spaces available to residents in nearby buildings that may not have parking, can make more efficient use of the overall parking supply available in and around a multifamily neighborhood.  This is proposed to be limited to parking for uses that are permitted in the multifamily zone and only parking spaces that are not needed to meet the parking requirement, if any, would be eligible to be used by neighboring uses. 

Coordinating Environmental Review Parking Policies.  Currently, the City’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) policies state that in Urban Centers, no additional parking may be required for impact mitigation.  Consistent with the City’s transportation goals, the proposal is to add light rail station areas, defined as commercially and residentially zoned land within the Light Rail Station Overlay District, to the list of areas where additional parking may not be required, beyond that required by the Land Use Code.

Green Building

Green, or sustainable building, is an approach that applies principles of resource and energy efficiency, healthy buildings and materials, and ecologically and socially sensitive land-use to new development. Green building requires an integrated design process that considers the building’s entire life-cycle (from planning, design and construction to operations and maintenance, renovation, and demolition and reuse).  This process allows for the optimizing of building cost and performance.

Buildings and development affect water quality, air quality, and ecosystems, impacting human health and our quality of life. Investment in buildings represents more than 50% of the nation’s wealth, and the U.S. construction market comprises 13% of Gross Domestic Product.  The construction industry employs over 10 million people (2003 U.S. DOE Buildings Energy Databook). Green building is a way to address the environmental impacts of the nation’s largest manufacturing sector, which is responsible for:

•    39% of total energy use

•    39% of municipal solid waste

•    40-45% of greenhouse gas emissions

•    40% of all raw materials use, including:

•    25% timber harvests

•    12% of potable water withdrawal

Green building addresses these impacts and contributes toward the Mayor’s environmental goals: Climate Protection, Restore our Waters, Sustainable Urban Forests, and Healthy People and Communities.

For single family, multifamily, and mixed-use residential projects, the City encourages the use of LEED™ or Built Green™.   LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System™) is a nationally recognized green building standard developed by the US Green Building Council.  Built Green™ is a green building program developed by the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, in partnership with King County, Snohomish County and the City of Seattle. 

Adoption of LEED™ and Built Green™ in the marketplace will also support many of the City’s housing and environmental goals, including: infill development, alternative transportation choices, on-site stormwater management, water conservation, energy efficiency and use of renewable energy systems, construction waste recycling, use of local and resource efficient materials, and healthy indoor environments.  The programs accomplish these goals by offering a menu of options that result in durable, high quality homes and multifamily projects that are more cost-effective to own and operate, healthier, safer, and more protective of the environment.

In Seattle, builders and developers have rapidly adopted green building, helping to make Seattle one of the strongest green building markets in the nation. These builders and developers cite a number of reasons for adopting green building, from differentiating their projects in the marketplace and offering high quality homes to earning a higher return on their investment and protecting the value of the asset over time.

In 2006, nearly 25% of new residential units were Built Green™ certified.  And as of July 2007, there were a total of 1,547 Built Green™ certified housing units in Seattle: 641 single family/duplex/townhouse and 11 other multifamily projects totaling 906 housing units. As of May, 2007, there were 28 LEED™ certified projects including residential mid-rise buildings. In addition, there were 98 LEED™ registered projects in development, including nearly 30 LEED™ residential mid-rise and high-rise buildings.

Proposed green building ratings systems

*LEED: minimum Silver rating

 Built Green: minimum 4 Star rating

To administer the green building condition, DPD recommends that the applicant meeting the following requirements:

1.  Submit a letter of intent that communicates a commitment to meet the green building performance requirement prior to issuance of the Master Use Permit.

2.  Demonstrate green building performance requirements have been met within 90 days of receiving final Certificate of Occupancy. Performance is demonstrated through an independent report from a third party. For projects using one of the Built Green programs the report will be produced by the Master Builders Association Built Green Program and submitted by the applicant to DPD. For projects using a LEED rating system, the report will be produced by the US Green Building Council and submitted by the applicant to DPD.

If performance requirements are not met, DPD will work with permit applicants to reach the performance level.  If not successful, DPD would require the applicant to pay a penalty for non-performance. The penalty will be assessed based on a percentage of the construction value.  

Institutions and Public Schools

In addition to residential uses, institutions such as churches, day cares and private schools are permitted in multifamily zones as are public schools.  Institutions are permitted outright when meeting the standards for institutions including: height, width and depth limits, setbacks, parking, access to parking and requirements for transportation plans.  The proposal maintains these requirements while simplifying and reorganizing them.  In addition, these provisions are relocated to a new Chapter devoted to institutions for all zones (provisions for other zones are to be relocated at a later date). 

Standards for public schools are also interspersed through out the different chapters of the Land Use Code.  The proposal simplifies these provisions and relocates them to one new Chapter (other zones to be added at a later date). 

Definitions and Measurement Techniques

To aid understanding of the code, definitions are provided for words that are not commonly used or that are intended to be used in a specific way.  Measurement techniques help DPD and permit applicants apply consistent approaches in how development standards are applied.  Amendments are proposed to various definitions and measurement techniques to clarify meaning and to be consistent with new development standards. 

Changes to three definitions are intended to help promote better townhouse development and are discussed further below:

·       “Ground-related dwelling unit.”  This definition called out a type of housing, as distinct from others, when there is direct access to private ground related open-space.  This definition was created in the late 1990s to help promote townhouse development, which was allowed to cover more of the lot and other more generous development standards than is allowed for stacked flats.  As incentives for townhouse development are no longer desirable, this definition is no longer needed.

·       “Townhouse.”  This overly restrictive definition only allows parking garages to be shared when they are underground.  Making this definition more broad will allow developments that mix townhouse and stacked flat units and allow for shared garage structures separate from the townhouse units, which could result in housing development that is more like rowhouses seen in eastern U.S. cities.

·       “Private usable open space.”  This definition is tied to the ‘ground related’ development discussed above.  It is no longer needed, although private open space would still be permitted by the proposed new multifamily code.

7.  Workforce Housing Incentive

Washington State law (RCW 36.70A.540) provides an opportunity to broaden the application of incentive programs throughout the city, both to stimulate additional housing development and to ensure that a portion of it is affordable.  In addition, the Mayor and Council adopted, as part of the 2007 amendments, a Comprehensive Plan policy to direct the use of incentive zoning when contemplating changes in zoning, such as the Multifamily Code Update.  Density and height bonuses used in Seattle’s downtown were updated in 2006.  At that time, the Mayor and City Council directed that this type of program be expanded to more of the city.  To that end, the Council adopted and the Mayor signed Resolution 30939 in December of 2006. 

Incentive zoning programs for affordable housing operate by allowing a density bonus or other modification to regular zoning requirements that create increased development potential in exchange for the production of or payment for a certain number of housing units affordable to moderate wage workers.  Incentive zoning can also be used to provide for other public benefits in addition to housing, if it can be clearly demonstrated that those benefits are directly related to mitigating any impacts that might be anticipated as a result of the additional density allowed. 

Generally, all public benefits that are part of an incentive program relate to the additional development that would result from the bonus development potential.  Under an incentive program, the public benefit would generally be accomplished by providing a specific feature in a project (performance option) or by making a payment (payment option) based on the economics of development (e.g. greater value of added density at a higher elevation).  The actual cost of compliance with bonus conditions must be carefully balanced with the value of increased development potential, so there will be enough of an economic benefit to encourage use of the bonus incentive.  This is a voluntary option.

Eligible Areas

Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan policies support accommodating additional height and density in urban centers, urban villages and light rail station areas, provided development will fit into the surrounding neighborhoods.   Consistent with these policies, eligible lots would include:

·       L3, MR and HR zoned lots in urban centers, urban villages or light rail station areas.

·       Except that portions of L3 zoned lots that are within 50’ of single family zoned lots may not accommodate additional height to provide appropriate transition.

(NOTE:  the HR zone currently is only located on First Hill, an urban center, and includes a bonus program that would be maintained and updated)

LDT, L1 and L2 zones are not considered appropriate for application of incentive programs due to general location outside of urban centers, villages or station areas.  In addition, these zones tend to be located to help transition between more intensively zoned areas and zones of lesser intensity.  The L4 zone already allows for a fourth floor and no changes are proposed for this zone, which is mapped in limited areas (for more on L4, see ‘Mix of Zones’ earlier in this report).

The following chart shows by percentage where the various multifamily zones are located:

Eligible for the Incentive Bonus

*Edge Zones = L3 zoned lots that may have portions of the lot within 50’ of a Single Family zoned lot are assumed ineligible. 

**Excludes L3 zoned lot area in urban villages w/ a restrictive L3/L4 policy pursuant to certain neighborhood plans (see pages 14 & 15 of this report).

***Excludes L3, MR and HR zones in Major Institution Overlay areas. 

Program Basics

The proposal is to apply an incentive zoning program to areas outside of downtown. Similar to the recently adopted downtown program, the incentive program for multifamily zones would be composed of the following elements:

·       A portion of bonus floor area must be provided as housing affordable to moderate wage workers;

·       The program would only apply where floor area and/or height above the base is used;

·       Housing is the priority public benefit;

·       Creation of housing units affordable to moderate wage workers is the goal of the housing program, payment to a fund in-lieu of providing the affordable units would also be allowed;

·       In the HR zone, incentives also include open space, green street improvements, and preservation of designated landmark structures.

The public benefit incentive program would apply in multifamily zones as follows:

·       LDT, L1 and L2:  not eligible;

·       Eligible L3 and MR zones:  affordable housing only;

·       HR:  affordable housing, historic preservation, open space, and green street improvements. 

Given the scale of development anticipated in each zone, the amount of bonus floor area and height is not believed to be sufficient to generate enough resources in the L3 and MR zones to support other public benefits in addition to the priority housing benefit.  The HR zone, mapped only in the First Hill Urban Center Village, allows for enough bonus development capacity to accommodate housing, open space, and historic preservation, which were confirmed at community meetings on First Hill to be important to that neighborhood.

The following chart shows the proposed base and bonus floor area and height allowances:

*5’ additional height allowed for pitched roof

** when participating in the incentive program, developers may choose to build to 240’ or 300’ when additional standards are met that promote a thinner tower

***Gross Floor Area (GFA)

To provide additional flexibility for accommodating bonus projects and public amenities in the HR zone, a combined lot provision is proposed that would allow lots located on the same block to transfer permitted density to other lots located on the same block.  Under this provision, a project could add bonus floor area, and the ability to transfer density could increase opportunities for improving the massing of structures or accommodating such amenities as open space.  While some lots on the block could, under this provision, gain more floor area than otherwise allowed, the increase

would only occur through a reduction in the floor area allowed on other lots, thereby maintaining the same amount of permitted floor area for the block as a whole.

Workforce Housing

In the spring of 2006, the State legislature passed House Bill 2984 (now codified as Washington State law, RCW 36.70A.540), which authorizes local jurisdictions to enact or expand incentive programs that encourage the development of housing units affordable to households with incomes at or below certain limits. The proposed multifamily code incentive program gives developers the option of exceeding base height and density limits in eligible L3, MR and HR zones if they include housing units that are affordable to moderate-wage workers in their developments. At the developer’s discretion, a financial contribution may be made to a housing fund established for this purpose, in lieu of providing the housing.

The affordable housing obligation under the performance option totals 11% of a minimum of 60% of the gross bonus floor area.  If a developer chooses to make a cash contribution in lieu of performance, it must equal an average minimum of $15.00 per square foot and a maximum of $18.94 per square foot of gross bonus floor area. Affordability requirements for units produced as part of the incentive program are as follows: less than 80% of area median income for rental apartments and less than 100% of area median income for condominiums or townhomes. The minimum term of affordability is 50 years. (The figures presented in this report are based on the Mayor’s proposed Workforce Housing Incentive ordinance, dated September 9, 2008, available on DPD’s website).

The developer may choose to provide the required affordable units either on- or off-site. Land donations may also be considered. Fee-in-lieu funds must be spent within five years of the date the payment is made. Affordable units produced with developer contributions would be built in the following areas, in order of priority as determined by the Director of the Office of Housing:

·       Same neighborhood where the market-rate development is located;

·       Within ½ mile of a major bus transit stop or light rail station; or

·       In the sector of the city where the market-rate development is located.

Landmarks and Open Space Incentives 

As one of Seattle’s first neighborhoods, First Hill, where the HR zone is located, has a number of designated landmarks and structures that may be eligible for designation as a landmark.  Under the existing HR zone provisions, developers may build additional floors above the base height limit of 160’, up to 240’, when a landmark structure is preserved, among other options.  This was intended to encourage the preservation of landmark structures either on the development site or nearby.  The proposed changes to the HR zone would continue to allow a developer to gain additional development potential, but instead of simply preserving a landmark structure on site, or nearby, the developer would be required to transfer development rights from a designated landmark, thereby, more clearly tying the additional floor area to be gained to the landmark structure preserved. 

In addition to protecting landmark structures, the current HR zone also allows up to 40’ of additional structure height to be gained when open space, accessible to the public, is provided on the development site or in the immediate vicinity.  The proposed multifamily code would continue to allow a floor area bonus for the provision of neighborhood open space, as well as allow floor area gains by acquiring development rights transferred from open space locations within the community, similar to the program for protecting landmark structures.  Additional floor area could also be gained by improving a designated green street according to an adopted green street plan and by providing a publicly accessible landscaped setback abutting a designated green street.

Effect on Development Capacity

Chapter 8 of this report contains analysis of the overall effect on development capacity that is anticipated to result from adoption of all of the proposals in the Multifamily Code Update.  This section focuses on the number of affordable housing units that may be produced, assuming projects use the incentive program on all potential development sites in eligible areas:

Estimated Bonus (affordable) Units

As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan section of this report, certain neighborhoods would be excluded from eligibility in the incentive program due to existing neighborhood plan policies. 

8. Other Benefits of the Multifamily Code Update

Restoring Lost Housing Capacity

Though improved design and simplification of the Code are the main impetus behind the amendments now under consideration, the changes also provide an opportunity to restore the capacity for additional multifamily development originally anticipated to be available in the MF zones when the last major amendments were adopted in 1989. 

The chart below presents the estimated capacity for new units in the various multifamily zones under:

A) Current conditions, with available land in the various zones developed at the densities observed in recent development in those zones;

B) The capacity that would have been expected on available land in the various zones under the assumptions that were used to estimate capacity in the 1989 EIS when the current zoning was adopted, and

C) The capacity expected on available land in the various zones developed at densities adjusted to reflect the proposed changes (for example, higher densities in some zones because of the increases in height and/or bulk proposed through incentives).

Current zoning capacity (under current observed/actual densities and assumed densities in 1989) compared to proposed zoning

* Density expressed as the amount of lot area in square feet for each unit.  The assumed densities for Lowrise zones current conditions and the proposal are less than the actual density limits in the Code, since refinements in the methodology for capacity analysis have resulted in adjustments that reflect average densities achieved in real projects.

**Assumed density without bonus

In the LDT and HR zone, the available capacity remains the same for all three scenarios.  However, in the other lowrise zones, there is less capacity under current observed conditions than was expected to be available using the 1989 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assumptions.  This discrepancy is most significant in the L3 zone, where under observed densities, the capacity is almost 30% less than what was anticipated. Overall, the capacity under observed conditions is about 16% less (7,296 units) than what would have been expected under the assumptions used to estimate available capacity in the 1989. 

Under the proposed changes, capacity in the L3, which for analysis purposes combines current L3 and L4 zones, would still fall short of what was estimated in the 1989 EIS for both of these zones, but the amount of the reduction would drop to 16% instead of the 30% shortfall under current conditions.  The total estimated capacity under the proposal is about seven percent less than the estimated capacity in the 1989 EIS.

The MR zone is the only zone where capacity is increased appreciably under the proposed changes relative to what was anticipated in the 1989 EIS or observed since then.  There were no interim changes to the original MR zone in 1989, and density assumptions have remained the same under current zoning.  The increase in capacity under the proposal is due to the higher densities anticipated in MR projects in areas eligible for height and density increases through the incentive program.  Similarly, the capacity in the L3 zone would also exceed the estimated combined capacity of the L3 and L4 zones under current conditions.  The increase in L1 and L2 zone capacity is minimal.

The capacity regained under the proposal is largely due to the extra density that could be achieved through the height and FAR bonuses in the L3 and MR zones, which currently do not exist.  However, even though the actual density limits in the Code do not change in the L2 zone, the assumed densities for the proposed L2 and L3 zones are higher than under current conditions because the increased flexibility is expected to allow more projects to achieve the allowed densities.

Make the Code Easier to Use

The current code is overly reliant on text including complex requirements and layers of exceptions.  New multifamily zoning will make better use of illustrations (e.g. drawings, maps and charts) and diagrams.  Simple, straight forward sentence structure and language will help make the code easier to use.  Fewer exceptions will be needed if regulations are less prescriptive.

Encourage the Reuse of Existing Single Family Structures

In some cases, though property has been zoned for multifamily development for some time, single family structures remain.  Some of these structures may be able to be incorporated into new development rather than being demolished and replaced with new development.  Allowing existing structures to be incorporated into new development can have a positive effect on neighborhood character as well as environmental benefits (reuse of existing structures and less demolition material going to landfills).  The proposal is to allow existing single family structures to be exempt from certain development standards including FAR, setbacks and, where applicable, width and depth limits and lot coverage, to allow more flexibility to accommodate additional development on the same site.

Appendix A

Rezone Criteria Comparison

23.34.014  Lowrise Duplex Triplex (LDT) zone

23.34.016  Lowrise 1 (L1) zone, function and locational criteria.

23.34.018  Lowrise 2 (L2) zone, function and locational criteria.

23.34.020  Lowrise 3 (L3) zones, function and locational criteria.

23.34.024  Midrise (MR) zone, function and locational criteria.

23.34.026  Midrise/85' (MR/85') zone, function and locational criteria.

23.34.028  Highrise (HR) zone, function and locational criteria.

23.34.070  Residential-Commercial (RC) zone, function and locational criteria.

Appendix B

Charts Comparing Current Development Standards to the Proposal

Appendix C

Neighborhood Plan Policies Applicable the to MF Code Update

Citations indicate Comprehensive Plan page numbers where policies cited are located.

Admiral

            -p. 8.9 “A high quality, diverse neighborhood where developers and businesses benefit from sustaining excellence and from filling local needs.”

Bitter Lake

            -p. 8.21 “A community where new development is environmentally friendly and supports pedestrians, containing a range of housing types and accommodating a diverse set of businesses providing a range of products and services.”

            -p. 8.21 “Seek to minimize the impacts of commercial and higher density residential uses on single family residential areas.”

Capitol Hill

            -p. 8.23 “A neighborhood, with distinct residential areas, active business districts, accessible transportation services, and strong institutions, which is diverse and densely populated.”

            -p. 8.23 “An enhanced neighborhood with diverse land uses, a mixture of housing types including single-family and dense multifamily, and vibrant commercial districts.”

             “Enhance and protect the character of the diverse residential districts.”

             “A community with a full range of housing types from single family homes to multifamily contributing to a diverse, densely populated neighborhood.”

             “Seek tools to retain and increase housing affordable to households with incomes at and below the median income.

Central Area

            -p. 8.31 “Encourage increased housing density in and around the 23rd Avenue and Jackson Street commercial area.”

 “Encourage increased housing density where appropriate, such as on 12^th Avenue and on Yesler Way, and in mid-rise zoned areas.”

Columbia City

            -p. 8.34 “Strive to provide the required infrastructure to support increases in housing density.”

Crown Hill/Ballard

            -p. 8.37 “A community with housing types that range from single family to moderate density multifamily.”

            “Accommodate the majority of new housing units and increases in density in the central areas of the Ballard and Crown Hill urban villages.”

Delridge

            -p. 8.43 “A community that preserves and enhances the residential character of single family neighborhoods within the Delridge community while providing a range of housing types to fit the diversity of Delridge households.”

Eastlake

            -p. 8.85 “A residential lakefront community primarily defined by low to moderate residential density, pedestrian-scale mixed-use development, neighborhood services, Lake Union maritime uses and compatible architectural styles.”

-p. 8.85 “Buildings are an important part of Eastlake’s views and residential and commercial streetscapes, and their designs should reflect the neighborhood’s lowrise, finely textured scale, comparatively small development sites, and the individuality of its architectural expressions.”

First Hill

            -p. 8.89 “A community with a culturally and economically diverse residential population, that is also a major employment center, home to many of the region’s state-of-the-art medical centers and related facilities.”

Fremont

            -p. 8.93 “Encourage high density housing to locate in mixed-use areas and in close proximity to transit corridors.”

Georgetown

            -p. 8.97 “Seek to retain Georgetown’s residentially zoned lands as a means of providing affordable homeownership opportunities.”

Green Lake

            -p. 8.106 “An urban village with affordable housing opportunities.”

            “A neighborhood with housing for a range of income levels that is compatible with the existing single-family character of the neighborhood.”

“To support the vision of the Green Lake residential urban village and its housing goals and to accommodate growth targets, Midrise 60 zoning is appropriate in the area bounded by Interstate 5, 5th and 6th Avenues NE, NE Maple Leaf Place, and NE 70th Street.”

Greenwood/ Phinney Ridge

-p. 8.110 “A neighborhood with a varied housing stock and a wide range of affordability that serves a diverse population.”

MLK @ Holly

            -p. 8.114 “A neighborhood that has a broad range of land uses to respond to the diverse needs of the community and to encourage neighborhood sustainability, including residential, commercial, retail, service, cultural, and open space uses.”

            “A balance of both single family and multifamily housing that is both for rent and owner-occupied.”

            “Encourage well designed multifamily development to contribute to the development of a mixed use town center development.”

            “Encourage the preservation of affordable housing resources through rehabilitation of existing single family residences.”

Morgan Junction

            -p. 8.119 “Explore methods to discourage increasing height limits in the commercial and multifamily zones above the currently existing levels and encourage developers of new multifamily and commercial buildings to locate mechanical, heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment within the envelope of the building structure.”

             “Maintain the character and integrity of the existing single-family zoned areas by maintaining current single family zoning both inside and outside the urban village on properties meeting the locational criteria for single-family zones.”

             “Promote home ownership for people of diverse backgrounds and income levels, and encourage a wide range of building styles.”

North Beacon Hill

            -p. 8.122 “Establish methods to focus future growth to areas within the urban village best served by existing and future transit and community services. As part of this effort, consider NC2/R-40 as well as less intensive commercial and multifamily zoning in areas abutting existing NC2 zones, including consideration of upzoning single-family zoned areas approximately as shown on attached Map P-1.”

-p. 8.122 “Provide for a more diverse mix of housing types and densities, especially in the northern portion of the North Beacon Hill neighborhood.”

            “Seek to maintain the character of low density multifamily areas in the northern portion of the urban village while providing opportunities for additional mixed-use residential development in the retail core in the southern portion of the urban village.”

North Neighborhoods

            -p. 130 “Encourage development of non-single family parcels adjacent to single family zoning to provide transitions or buffers adequate to protect the single-family area from adverse impacts.”

             “Encourage innovative and affordable housing types responsive to market demand and neighborhood desires, including live/work, studio, and in-home business.”

            “This policy is to be considered in the review of future rezones in the area defined by 15th Ave NE on the west, NE 95th Street on the south, NE 145th Street on the north, and Lake Washington on the east. Rezones are not favored by this neighborhood plan if they would:

● increase the permitted density of residential or commercial use (except for rezones from C to NC zones)…”

North Rainier

            -p. 8.131 “Housing in the neighborhood which meets community needs and makes a compatible transition from higher-intensity mixed-use and multifamily residential to single family areas.”

            -p. 8.132 “Seek to promote the highest intensity residential development in the proposed “Town Center.” Encourage the “Town Center” to be the focal point of mixed-use commercial and residential development. Encourage additional multifamily or mixed-use development in the following areas: south of the Rainier/ MLK intersection within the urban village, and continue south toward Rainier Valley Square Shopping Center; and in vacant parcels located east to 23rd Avenue S and west to 17th Avenue S around the intersection of Massachusetts Street and Rainier Avenue South.”

             “Seek to maintain single-family zoned areas within the urban village, but allow rezones to Residential Small Lot to encourage cluster housing developments and bungalow courts. Any single-family zoned area within the urban village is appropriate for any of the Residential Small Lot (RSL) designations, provided that the area meets other requirements of the land use code rezone evaluation criteria for rezones of single-family land. Allow for the rezone of property north of S. Holgate Street that is adjacent to both multifamily and commercially zoned areas to lowrise multifamily zones which permit residential densities that are no higher than permitted in the RSL zone.”

             “Seek to use design guidelines within the North Rainier Hub Urban Village to promote mixed-use, townhomes, and higher-density development which accommodates the anticipated growth, while promoting the development of well-designed structures that respond to the physical character and environment of the neighborhood. Seek to avoid suburban “tract home style” developments that detract from the character of some North Rainier’s single-family neighborhoods.”

Northgate

            -p. 8.135 “Encourage development of the core as a major regional activity center for retail, commercial, office, multifamily residential, and educational uses with densities sufficient to support transit.”

            “Promote additional multifamily housing opportunities for households of all income levels to the extent that a compatible scale and intensity of development can be maintained with adjacent single-family areas.”

“Medium to high density residential and employment uses are concentrated within a 10-minute walk of the transit center, reducing the number and length of vehicle trips and making travel by foot and bicycle more attractive.”

Pike/Pine

            p. 8.138 “A community with its own distinct identity comprised of a mix of uses including multifamily residential, small scale retail businesses, light manufacturing, auto row and local institutions.”

            “Encourage diversity of housing while seeking to maintain existing low income housing.”

            “Seek additional resources for the preservation of existing, affordable rental housing.”

            “Promote opportunities for owners of existing affordable rental housing to obtain financing to make property improvements without impacting rent levels.”

            “Promote the additional development of new or rehabilitated housing units, through tools such as code modifications, incentives, and providing flexibility during development review.”

Queen Anne

            -p. 8.142 “Queen Anne has many single-family, multifamily, and mixed-use neighborhoods which preserve cultural and historic resources and which include affordable, subsidized, and special needs housing.”

 “Encourage an attractive range of housing types and housing strategies to retain Queen Anne’s eclectic residential character and to assure that housing is available to a diverse population.”

-p. 8.143 “Create a unique urban identity in Queen Anne’s Urban Center which includes an attractive multifamily residential neighborhood identified by its distinctive park-like character and surrounding mixed use areas.”

Rainier Beach

            -p. 8.147 “A diverse and vibrant neighborhood composed of pedestrian-friendly, transit-connected business districts and affordable and attractive residential areas.”

             “Seek to preserve all single family zoned areas’ character. Encourage residential small lot opportunities within single-family areas within the designated residential urban village, and in the area within the residential urban village west of Martin Luther King Boulevard S., permit consideration of rezones of single-family zoned land to the Lowrise Duplex Triplex (LDT), Lowrise 1 (L1), or Lowrise 2 (L2) designations.

             “A community that meets the housing needs of its economically diverse and multicultural population and provides opportunities at all economic levels.”

            “Encourage affordable and attractive multifamily development, particularly along Rainier Avenue South from South Holly Street to South Cloverdale Street, and as part of South Henderson Street revitalization efforts.”

             “Seek to preserve Rainier Beach’s diversity and multicultural population by providing affordable housing home-ownership opportunities through programs and land use and zoning tools, including, where appropriate, rezoning.”

Roosevelt

            -p. 8.150 “An attractive and diverse community that features the neighborhood’s special small scale building character and a strong, vibrant business district.”

             “A neighborhood with a wide range of housing and family types that support an eclectic and diverse community.”

             “Encourage future housing development in multifamily structures designed to accommodate a range of incomes.”

South Park

            -p. 8.157 “A neighborhood where residents of all cultures, incomes and ages are welcome.”

“Maintain and enhance South Park’s residential character.”

University Community

            -p, 8.161 “Encourage the development of retail businesses that serve local needs on 25th Avenue NE, and encourage the redevelopment of a diverse mix of housing and compatible retail, where appropriate, in adjacent areas.”

            -p. 8.163 “Employ a variety of housing types and development strategies to effectively provide for identified needs, including existing housing preservation, code enforcement, accessory units, new ground related housing, and mixed-use mid-rise residential development.”

            -p. 8.164 “Seek to preserve and enhance the following design characteristics within the community: Pedestrian orientation and visual interest to the pedestrian, high quality, human-scaled design details in larger buildings, streetscape continuity on commercial corridors, integration between the UW campus and the surrounding community, buildings with attractive open space and low rise multi-family development that fits with the design character of adjacent single family houses.”

Wallingford

            -p. 8.168 “A community with housing and amenities that support a population of diverse incomes, ages and other social characteristics.”

            -p. 8.168 “Seek to make a wide variety of housing types available to meet the needs of diverse populations and families and explore options to provide affordable homes.”

West Seattle Junction

            -p. 8.172 “A community with housing and amenities that support a population of diverse incomes, ages and other social characteristics.”

Westwood/ Highland Park

            -p. 8.174 “A diverse community with two distinct areas, Westwood and Highland Park, comprised of a mix of single and multi-family residential areas, significant public facilities, regional and local commercial businesses, and natural resource opportunities that together offer a variety of choices for its residents.”

            -p. 8.177 “A community with both single-family and multi-family residential areas and the amenities to support the diverse population.”

             “Promote the attractiveness of higher density residential areas through the enhancement of basic infrastructure and amenities.”

Appendix D   

Comprehensive Plan Multifamily Policies

Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan multifamily zone policies were adopted by the City Council as part of the 2007 amendment cycle.   The proposed code amendments are intended to be consistent with all Comprehensive Plan policies. The recently amended policies are listed here:

Land Use Policy 80:

Provide for predictability about the allowed intensity of development with appropriate development standards and density limits for each zone to accommodate a range of housing types and achieve development that meets the policy intent for each zone.

Land Use Policy 81:

Limit building heights to establish predictable maximum heights, maintain scale relationships with adjacent buildings, and limit view blockage.  Allow for a variety of roof forms, and allow additional height to encourage pitched roofs, where appropriate.

Land Use Policy 83:

Limit bulk to ensure that buildings contribute to the desired pattern of development for the applicable multifamily zone, to maintain compatibility with the surrounding areas, and to encourage infill and single lot development where appropriate.

Land Use Policy 85:

Establish building setback requirements from property lines, as appropriate for the type of multifamily development allowed in the zone.  This is to help ensure access to light and air, to provide a sense of privacy, and to provide adequate transition between zones of different intensities. 

Land Use Policy 86:

Provide for the recreational needs of residents with standards for amenity areas that may include private or shared open space, whether in the form of rooftop decks, balconies or ground level spaces.