Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Essentially, it converts all areas now zoned single-family housing (which make up 65% of Seattle's total-land area) into "low density zones" - which can also include rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats, etc. Lot coverage rules for the former SFH zones will remain the same, but the number of units per square mile can rise considerably. Parking minimums outside of the "urban villages" will be loosened as well.
I find this very hard to believe. Why would they eliminate single family homes? There are even a few in central Paris or Manhattan.
So developers can make lots of money scrapping all those single family homes and replacing them with cheap, shoddy, five story wood frame constructed tenements. They have been doing it in California for years.
It's not that they are eliminating single family homes, it is that they wish to be able to build other housing options within areas that are now zoned exclusively for single family homes. The fact that it seems that they are mostly maintaining the FAR (floor area ratio) for the lot regardless of the housing/building type seems like the plan is not without maintaining some constraints to how much building you can cram on to the lot. If you can afford a SFH on an expensive urban lot you can still have exactly that.
In very expensive cities like Seattle (and mine) overarching plans like this need to be seriously looked at as part of a mix of plans and ideas to ease the affordability crisis that these cities are facing. I know in my city we just recently changed the zoning city wide for ADUs, formerly the lot size had to be double the typical (5000 s.f.) lot and now that lot size is fine, but you still need to conform to FAR, parking and all other zoning regulations. This, along with easing parking requirements in transit corridors has at least brought forth some potential for more affordable housing options.
Obviously there is going to be some naysayers and nimbyism that will decry a city "of crowded rabbit hutches" but there has to be some new thinking going on here.
The problem here is how Seattle will handle the increased need for city services like water and sewage, hospitals, and particularly schools. Schools in these areas will be overwhelmed with new students. Water runoff and mass transit/cars are other potential issues.
The thread title is hyperbolic rubbish. The draft report that got leaked (a relatively early draft) had that as one of the ideas which was cut out of the actual report that got released this week. Nobody's getting rid of single family zoning in Seattle, but there are some proposals in the report for changes in specific zones that might make for things like ADUs with less hassle, or relaxing some off-street parking standards, stuff like that.
For the most part, the report is same-old-same-old; incentivize commercial developers (increased FAR) if they'll build 60% AMI housing or pay into a city fund that will support the same; yadda yadda. Meanwhile every time Jeff Bezos or Paul Allen says jump, the city council and mayor all line up on the cliff.
The thread title is hyperbolic rubbish. The draft report that got leaked (a relatively early draft) had that as one of the ideas which was cut out of the actual report that got released this week. Nobody's getting rid of single family zoning in Seattle, but there are some proposals in the report for changes in specific zones that might make for things like ADUs with less hassle, or relaxing some off-street parking standards, stuff like that.
Pages 26-27 of the report seems to say exactly what I summarized.
Quote:
The City should allow more variety of housing scaled to fit within traditional single-family areas to increase the economic and demographic diversity of those who are able to live in these family oriented neighborhoods. The broader mix of housing would include small lot dwellings, cottages or courtyard housing, rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and stacked flats. Although a broader variety of housing would be permitted, the total amount of “massing” or building area on a single lot should remain the same (excluding ADUs and DADUs). This does not eliminate the option of single family housing; rather, it increases the opportunities for more efficient use of very limited land resources. The program could take the form of land use code changes, or it could begin as a pilot program with a limited time period and a maximum number of units. At the conclusion of a pilot phase, final code changes should be developed based on the best examples. The City should also explore methods to create affordability restrictions, perhaps through community land trusts, in these new housing types.
This low-density use would be less intense than the Lowrise 1 multifamily (LR1) zone. The City could also modify and expand use of the Residential Small Lot (RSL) zone that is already in the Land Use Code. The City should allow units in a duplex or a triplex to be separately owned, as well as allowing a traditionally scaled single family structure to be occupied by multiple different households in different units within the structure. This strategy is consistent with the HALA recommendation to promote homeownership opportunities within the city (Strategy H.1).
New housing types produced in single family areas are expected to serve moderate income households above 80% AMI and represent increased homeownership opportunities and more family-sized housing. While homes produced are not expected to be affordable at lower income levels, they should be significantly less expensive than new large detached single family structures – the only other type of new housing commonly produced in single family areas. The program could also make development of new housing more feasible in some of the lower cost single family areas of the city.
While strategies to increase flexibility and variety in Single Family zones have strong potential to improve housing affordability and access, some question whether they go far enough to remedy past racial and social injustice. Limiting the locations where new flexibility would apply could continue patterns of exclusion. And in the absence of specific affordability restrictions, it may not be certain that expanding housing types would result in housing opportunities for households with incomes generally between 80-120% AMI and persons of color. Therefore, monitoring of efforts to diversify housing options in single family areas should be included as the strategies are implemented. This monitoring would also be consistent with Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative.
Pages 26-27 of the report seems to say exactly what I summarized.
The thread title says "Seattle plans to eliminate all single family housing zones," which is inaccurate. The report is a report, not a draft ordinance, and uses the words "could" and "should" rather than "will." And as you've probably seen in the news, the more aggressive ideas in the report are probably DOA.
The council (after the new district-based members are seated) will probably argue briefly about some of the points, the new (undead DCD) OPCD will conduct workshops and council study sessions, bloggers will blog, and we'll end up with new impact fees bound for adjudication, along with a call for another housing levy, world without end, amen. Meanwhile the tower cranes will continue to grow like the butterfly bushes in my (single family, built out) yard.
I find this very hard to believe. Why would they eliminate single family homes? There are even a few in central Paris or Manhattan.
They are not trying to eliminate single family homes. Or raze the ones that exist. They are opening up the density rules so if someone wants to create a guest cottage, create a basement apartment or convert their garage to an apartment it will be legal. And it would be legal to but a duplex on an empty lot. Or build two homes on a lot.
They will also relax the parking requirements some as well. That way you can assume your tenant can share the driveway or garage.
The neighborhood "character" would not change visibly much, but it will allow the opportunity to create more housing easily. This does not mean developers can build high rises in the "low density" areas.
At the moment, creating that in-law unit is illegal with the single family only zoning.
This is a good move for Seattle because it will allow for urban growth more organically throughout the city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
