A city arbitrator has rejected a pro-density group’s appeal of zoning code changes that seek to scale back the size of new housing projects, including future microhousing and townhouse developments around Capitol Hill. The decision paves the way for the “down-zone” in Lowrise 3 areas to go to the City Council for a vote.
In October, the Seattle Hearing Examiner rejected an appeal from the developer-backed group Smart Growth Seattle, which argued the new adjustments ignore increasing demands for development in the city.
The proposed zoning adjustments were introduced by Councilmember Sally Clark to augment her 2010 update to the multifamily zoning code that allowed for bigger buildings in areas zoned for lowrise development. Many neighbors later complained that new buildings were too big and too tall. Where lowrise development is generally thought of as three to four-story townhouses and apartments, some developers have used incentives to cram five stories into tightly packed apartment and microhousing buildings. In response, Clark put forward a set of code adjustments this year that were then approved by the Department of Planning and Development.
In a 2013 letter to DPD, Clark outlined the problems she saw with the 2010 Lowrise 3 zoning changes. “I never envisioned or intended that developers would be able to achieve five stories in LR3 zones. I think five stories is too big a change in height and scale for the LR3 zone.”
Smart Growth Seattle challenged the proposed code changes in July by filing a complaint with the Hearing Examiner against DPD’s “determination of non significance” of the plan. The Hearing Examiner upheld DPD’s decision in an October ruling, paving the way for the measure to go before the full council.
Smart Growth’s Rodger Valdez said public support for the changes had more to do with a general opposition to density than the substance of the legislation.
“You get the same sized building with fewer and more expensive units in it,” Valdez said.
The new zoning changes restrict the size of rooftop structures in order to prevent their use as additional floors and removed a 4-foot height bonus for building basement units. The legislation also tweaks the calculation of what is known as a building’s “floor-to-area ratio,” which compares interior floor space to the size of a structure’s plot. Technically, developers could still build to nearly the same size under the proposed changes by removing basement units to come under the new thresholds. City officials contend that developers will keep basement units, requiring a “minor” reduction in building bulk.
Last year a five-story microhousing building at 17th and Olive St., along with a handful of others, sparked an outpouring of complaints that developers were pushing the height limits in onerous ways. Under the new rules a developer could still build a five-story building if it was on a sloping plot.
Valdez vowed to keep fighting against the measure as its moves to the City Council this month. He said Smart Growth Seattle would also turn its focus to finding alternatives to a proposed linkage fee program that would place fees on new developments in order to expand affordable housing projects.
The Hearing Examiner ruling comes as the Harvard Ave Neighbors group continue their so-far successful fight against a microhousing project on north Capitol Hill. Following a complaint filed by the group, a judge ruled in August that the dorm-style project must go through a public design review before construction can begin. Microhousing projects were previously not required to go through the public review process because of how units were counted.
In September, the City Council passed a set of microhousing regulations that allowed microhousing development to continue in dense areas like Capitol Hill while setting a new average size requirement for the apartments built in lowrise-zoned areas.
Along with the successful lawsuit by the Harvard Ave Neighbors, this decision is helping to turn the tide against unfettered development, which has been giving us many too tall/too bulky/ugly buildings. Hopefully, this will mean that fewer apodments will be built in the future (we already have enough), or at least that they will be more in-scale with existing structures and will go through design review.
You know, those apodments aren’t as ugly as a lot of buildings that go through design review. The only thing that gets is neighbors extra time to complain. This is a thinly veiled way to keep low(er) income residents out.
If this is true, then we haven’t fixed anything
“You get the same sized building with fewer and more expensive units in it,” Valdez said.
NIMBYism wins again. This is nothing more than thinly disguised classism.
Yeah, I hate the bldg pictured. There’s often trash out front because there’s only two dumpsters (recycling, and trash), for a bldg w/48 units! My bldg w/a quarter of that number has 2 dumpsters (also recycling and trash) and sometimes that’s barely enough. Plus a lot of those apod places are over $1000/month; that’s hardly “low income.”
Amazing how many people are under the impression that Apodments are here to help low income renters (unless developers are padding the comments every time this comes up). The price per sqft is often 2x-3x surrounding buildings. That is not helping anyone.
If there is anyone taking advantage of people of lower economic status it is the developers. New construction on the hill is renting around $2.50 per sqft. Apodments are often $4+.
Well, if you are dumb enough to pay huge $$ for such a tiny space, I’d say you deserve to be taken. “A fool and his money are soon parted”.
I also am left scratching my head at the accusations of classism when it comes to community resistance to these buildings. Apodments are NOT low, or even “lower”, income housing.
OTOH, many of the buildings that are being razed to support the explosion of development have been rented at more affordable rates for years.
I think the real complaint most people have here, whether it’s explicitly stated or not, is that all these dense bldgs where the new residents allegedly don’t have cars, most of them really do. A bldg that used to have 10 or 12 units now has 40 or 50, and if you don’t believe easily half of them have cars, you’re being naive. It crowds the entire neighborhood, not just the building lot.
The *real* complaint that people have is that modern Apodments (and all new Seattle architecture in general) is ugly as sin.
No one would be complaining if developers were building Brooklyn row houses or Parisian apartments.
[…] Pro-density group loses challenge to zoning adjustments to shrink building size […]
[…] the multifamily zoning code to prevent developers from cobbling together various incentives to build five stories in lowrise […]
[…] October, the Seattle Hearing Examiner rejected an appeal from Smart Growth Seattle, which argued the new adjustments ignore increasing demands for […]