The Seattle City Council’s Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee will hold a public hearing Wednesday morning on the proposal to help change the way city zoning laws describe Seattle’s mix of residential area:
Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee
7/28/2021 9:30 AM
Remote Meeting. Call 253-215-8782; Meeting ID: 586 416 9164; or Seattle Channel online.Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for “Neighborhood Residential Areas” 1. Supporting Documents: Central Staff Memo Briefing, Discussion, and Public Hearing Presenter: Lish Whitson, Council Central Staff Register online to speak at the Public Hearing during the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee meeting at http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/public-comment. Online registration to speak at the Public Hearing during the Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee meeting will begin two hours before the 9:30 a.m. meeting start time, and registration will end at the conclusion of the Public Hearing during the meeting. Speakers must be registered in order to be recognized by the Chair. If you are unable to attend the remote meeting, please submit written comments to Councilmember Strauss at [email protected].
CHS reported here on the plan to begin using a new term to describe the city’s “single family” zoning designation — Neighborhood Residential.
“Changing the zoning title can help reflect the diverse housing we need across our city to support community well-being, walkability and affordability in Seattle, and create a more equitable and inclusive Seattle to accurately reflect our diverse neighborhoods,” citywide representative on the council Teresa Mosqueda said about her proposal.
The change comes as Seattle faces continued pressure to create more housing to address issues ranging from homelessness to affordability. In its most recent overhaul of zoning, the Mandatory Housing Affordability plan altered the city’s zoning to surgically allow taller and more multifamily-packed development in the city’s densest neighborhoods including Capitol Hill and the Central District. The MHA plan tied upzones in 27 of the city’s densest neighborhoods to the creation of affordable units and was planned to transition a reported 6% of Seattle’s single family/Neighborhood Residential-zoned property. Growth advocates say much more is needed.
Meanwhile, Wednesday night will bring a different sort of opportunity to comment on the city’s growth as this proposed eight-story 12th Ave mixed-use development comes in front of the design review board.
PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
Oh, so it is about doing away with single family zoning. Appreciate the transparency from Mosqueda.
Classic Marxism. Get used to it everyone.
Grass is always greener where someone else is living.
Allowing a property owner to build something other that just a single family home on a lot is Marxism?
What? Just the name?
The real change we need is the ability to increase density, and not stay in this terribly limited, antiquated SFH zoning. Allowing people to build ADUs, add on bathrooms/office space to reflect the new working conditions, and creating more affordable housing by expanding existing units is a must.
We must not be held back by the rich, non-diverse neighborhoods like Magnolia and Queen Anne, and bring Seattle to the realities of 21st century living.
Our neighborhoods are Jewels and we should not let developers build whatever they want, wherever they want. We need to do any upzones carefully so we don’t ruin the character of our neighborhoods. Luckily we have time. Crosscut just reported there are over 72,000 vacant apartments in the greater Seattle area with thousands more permitted or in process of being built. Lots of new townhomes too. Lets do it right this time Seattle. Have architects create plans for how to upzone each neighborhood without destroying its character and include planning for infrastructure. Then show the citizens. If the plans are good people will buy into it. If its a developer free for all citizens will fight.
Lol “ruin the character of neighborhoods”
Is this a troll account. This is so much subtle racism to it.
Right, single family housing is racist, just like standardized tests and the banking industry and COVID vaccines and hell, probably the sun. When’s the last time you saw it hanging out with a black hole? Definitely racist.
Turns out if you look for something, you’ll “find it” everywhere.
Would be nice if they’d just restore the old homes instead of tearing them down and building these cement townhouses that all look the same. Or at least rebuild in the same character I’d agree.
It’ll be easier to change the zoning with the new name. “But it’s single family zoning….”
You should keep yourself informed, all that is currently allowed in sfh neighborhoods
this name change is to reflect the zoning we already have in place – most homeowners can build backyard cottages(DADUs), create duplexes (ADUs), put a guest house on top of an existing garage, RIGHT NOW! This name change merely reflects the zoning in its current form. It doesn’t change the zoning – if you want to keep your single family home for just you and your family, go for it.
This is just another shiny object to deflect attention from the 2 major blockers to building more housing density, more quickly, and in more neighborhoods: 1. permits, and 2. design reviews.
Developers must wait months for permits to new issued. Demolition permits, inspections and subsequent permits for those inspections… The design review process is completely broken. Apartment blocks can be denied hearings for months until renderings are prepared, showing “massing” and exterior substrate treatments. Once renderings are submitted, it takes months for the review board to review, and usually results in requests for changes. Rinse and repeat for 100% subjective alterations that have no bearing on architectural integrity.
The city council can call zoning and planned development anything they want. But until the processes by which developments are moved through the system are substantially improved, it’s just more smoke and mirrors from the incompetents ruining this city.
The real reason for the delay is that so many developments have been in the pipeline that SDCI’s limited staff can’t keep up.
Renderings showing massing are about the most basic element of a proposal there is, aside from the address of the parcel and a description of the current state of trees on it, a requirement that SDCI allows developers to fudge or ignore and still have an EDG meeting.
How about considering available green space when adding units? 23d and E. Union are exploding with minimal park space nearby. Adding more density to greener neighborhoods seems fair, especially those that are already on bus lines. The “Urban Village” model seems a minimized copy of the suburb model, which offers protected quality of life (greenery, outdoor recreation, good schools) to some at the sacrifice of others.
The City has already has area/population requirements for public green space that it’s not meeting. The answer is to provide more green space where it’s lacking. You’re suggesting we lower the standard all around. The current code is already exacerbating the heat island effect in urban villages.
Urban villages have nothing to do with schools and are already the denser areas of the city.
Thanks for the response @yetanotherhiller. Could you please provide links regarding the current green space standards that the city is not meeting?
Was it a public hearing? It didn’t seem like many people were able to comment about it.
Have no fear ….thay plan to destroy the lake city area first. Having a nice get tog together downtown? Send the unhoused to Lake City……It has been done for the last 30 years……