Wednesday morning brought the first opportunity for public comment on a legislation package designed to revamp Seattle’s regulatory structure around planning and development. CHS reported earlier on one key aspect of the package that would open up small retail opportunities into Capitol Hill’s residential areas — the re-birth of the corner store for some, an unwanted encroachment for others. But the topics on the table in front of Seattle City Council’s Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee Wednesday morning go well beyond mixed-use. Urban planners around the country are watching.
Chair Richard Conlin said he expects a vote on the proposals in the April 11th committee session.
The Atlantic Cities blog — where writer Charles R. Wolfe was part of “a roundtable group of Seattle business, environmental and neighborhood representatives” convened by Mayor Mike McGinn to shape the proposals — provides an enthusiastic rundown of the issues and opportunities in the reform package:
- Allow Small Commercial Uses in Multifamily Zones and Bring Back the Corner StoreThe Roundtable acknowledged the national trend towards re-establishing the small corner store amid the urban fabric. Historically, residential zoning has often been an impediment to locating such small commercial uses close to where people live.
- Concentrate Street-Level Commercial Uses in Core Pedestrian Zones Near Transit and Allow Residential, Live-Work or Commercial Uses in Other Areas Based on Market Demand The Roundtable acknowledged that ground floor commercial uses makes sense in shopping and other pedestrian areas—and is a major premise of the reinvented American city going forward. However, recessionary times have made clear that more flexibility is needed outside of those areas to build buildings without ground-floor commercial spaces because such commercial spaces may not be leasable. The solution? Let the market determine if the demand actually exists, and allow regulatory flexibility to do so.
- Enhance the Flexibility of Parking Requirements The Roundtable recognized the premise that as Seattle’s transit service improves, demand for on-site parking will shrink. This recommendation allows the market to determine how much parking should be provided for major institution and other non-residential uses in locations within a quarter mile of good transit service.
- Change Environmental Review Thresholds The Roundtable recommended that the city take advantage of opportunities under Washington State law to streamline and combine environmental review with other aspects of land use regulation, for proposed residential and mixed-use projects in areas designated for growth (such as urban centers and light rail station areas). When announced last summer, labor groups explained how this streamlining could result in 40 new construction projects with 100 to 250 units each year. The Seattle Building Trades Council estimated that 2,400 direct jobs in skilled construction trades could be created through such measures.
- Encourage Home Entrepreneurship The Roundtable embraced the assumption that the home-based business is an incubator for new ideas which create jobs. The recommendation allows property owners to operate home-based businesses (“home occupations”) in any structure, as long as impacts to surrounding properties are minimized, and any associated alterations to structures are permitted in the underlying zone.
- Expand Options for Accessory Dwelling Units and Rental Incomes The Roundtable recommended additional flexibility for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) through allowance of backyard cottages on “through lots” (lots that front two streets), essentially providing for a “backyard” in cases where the Seattle Land Use Code has historically interpreted two front yards. The recommendation also provides more flexibility for the height of backyard cottages on sloping sites and clarify that ADUs are allowed in all housing types (including townhouses, row houses as well in multifamily housing in mixed use zones).
- Expand Allowance of Temporary Uses The Roundtable endorsed a continuation of flexibility to non-permanent uses which help enliven neighborhoods. This recommendation would allow more opportunities for low-cost business activity where no permanent structures are needed. This recommendation would also extend the permitted days and hours of farmers markets, and extend the duration of certain temporary use permits.
The Seattle Times was less enthusiastic about the urban planning lollapalooza and chose to focus its coverage on the package’s potential for re-shaping parking planning in the city:
Parking around Seattle may get worse as city planners favor transit
Seattle city planners are recommending that the city eliminate parking requirements for new developments within a quarter-mile of frequent transit, under the theory that more people will take buses and light rail and fewer will own cars, particularly in dense urban neighborhoods like Queen Anne’s West Galer neighborhood.
Publicola lunged at the Times for its beating of the same drum as usual:
Note that the change wouldn’t force developers not to provide parking; instead, it would loosen regulations so that they no longer have to. Currently, the city forces developers in most areas to provide a certain amount of parking (typically one stall per unit), at an average cost of between $10,000 and $25,000 a stall; under the new regulations, developers who build near frequent transit service would have the choice to provide parking or not.
We’ll add updates from Wednesday’s hearing to this post as it progresses. You can also tune in with us live at http://www.seattle.gov/councillive/ starting at 9:30a.
Let’s not forget the true agenda of the Times is to sell newspapers. Seizing on the best hotbutton they can find in that story is how they generate interest, sell newspapers, and spur web hits for their online version. What better way to whip people up than dangle the red meat of no parking?
I really love this proposal. Getting beyond the debates about height and bulk of particular new projects, this gets at the fundamental challenges of creating better urban places: personal flexibility.
Defining a city isn’t about some density threshold or number of skyscrapers. What defines a city is the opportunities for creating. They are big stirring pots for innovation and entrepreneurism; where all kinds of people can come together and develop great new things and ideas.
This new set of rules, or really anti-rules, removes many of the anachronistic barriers we have put up that stymie that creativity. This allows people more economic flexibility to achieve their goals.
Thanks to CHS for their amazing coverage of these issues. These changes are indeed very important to all of us that live in the affected zones.
After seeing and hearing the comments at this meeting I have learned a lot. The parking issue is not as much of a concern to me as is the commercial uses in traditionally residential areas that are peaceful and quiet (for the most part) I did attend that meeting with both Oliver and Patrick and two other commenters from the neighborhood. I agree that the neighborhood has not been properly informed of any of this legislation and also agree that more discussion is needed to determine if this is a good idea for our existing business districts as well as the affected neighborhoods.
Obviously if planners everywhere are looking to Seattle and how this all turns out is is a very big deal and not to be taken lightly. I think that more discussion is in order as many many people I have spoken to had no idea any of this was going on.
And no I am not a nervous nimby. I love what is happening in our neighborhood as far as new places to go and some of the new buildings are well designed and are creating the density that we need to grow. Nothing stays the same it is true. I just hope that Seattle keeps getting better and not worse. The commercial in residential part of these proposals I do not support.
Foxglove, glad to hear you made it. I’d love to get more insight on some of your, and others, worries about commercial in residential areas, which seems to be one of the bigger sticking points.
Parking is already bad enough on the hill. For example, restaurants on the hill are basically small businesses. I notice couples coming into town with friends probably from the eastside to try the new restaurants. In essence they are carpooling because they’re coming together for a night out. They aren’t likely to take a bus. So they have to use neighborhood parking or find a paid lot. If parking continues to become scarcer it could hurt these small businesses plus become a larger inconvenience for residents. Unless the city builds paid underground parking garages to replace the lost parking they should not make this change. Any small business on the hill should be fighting this change.
I think with changes like these the neighborhoods affected NEED to be included in the decision making process and in this case I feel we aren’t being made part of the decision. I would be happy to have a neighborhood “walk” anytime with any of the council members to show them what my particular neighborhood is like and why we feel it should stay residential and what makes it a special place to live.
There has been no evidence provided that Capitol Hill is somehow lacking in vibrance, convenience or walkability for that matter. It was that way thirty years ago as well. Business districts are just a few blocks away from all of us. My list is long of the new places we need to try! And watch out because there are tons more coming. In the commercial districts surrounded with other businesses where I think they should be.
Just look at the new developments planned for Capitol Hill in the coming years. We are going to under construction for some time. Tons of new commercial spaces coming on as well. Let’s keep growing those districts. Densify the residential with more residential.
Just like businesses look out for each other and support each other so do people in the neighborhoods. I think restaurants in particular are a bad idea in residential due to the smells, traffic, garbage pick ups, signage etc etc. The commercial codes for these types of businesses is much more strict than what will be allowed here in a residential neighborhood. I am at 18th and Denny which is quite a walk from the light rail but the bus service has always been good here.
I own a lovely old (1905) single family house in an L3 zone. I know to expect townhouses, row houses, apartments condos and other houses. I think it is reasonable not to expect a bologna factory next door. Have you ever smelled a bologna factory? I have.
Plenty of other cities with much less “convenient” parking arrangements are not only doing well, but flourishing. I have no problem with a group carpooling from Bellevue to support our neighborhood economy. I do have a problem with the sense of entitlement when it comes to parking. Why should it be convenient; more specifically, why should it be convenient for you? And why would small business not thrive? It’s not that we’ve diminished the capacity for on-street parking; instead, it’s being used to its fullest capacity AND bringing in more potential customers for those small businesses. Or is the case you’re making that parking your car on the street overnight helps small businesses?
What’s wrong with carpooling? Would you prefer each person driving themselves into the city? At the end of the day, I think Capitol Hill is dense enough now that parking isn’t going to have that big an impact on businesses in the area.
Free parking for every person that wants it is unrealistic and incredibly expensive (when you factor in the hidden costs).
The combination of mercenary zeal and romantic notions of the importance of special places for inspiration is hilarious, but that shouldn’t make anyone forget that it’s just a more than usually entertaining form of the usual bullshit.
it’s kinda the true agenda of all media…