Rasmussen: Another Downzone of Existing Single-Family Homes?
Posted by Roger Valdez on Thursday, May 22, 2014 · Leave a Comment
It’s starting to look like the unintended consequence first pointed out by Matt Gangemi in his post called Seattle’s Biggest Downzone was not entirely averted by the City Council. Councilmember Tom Rasmussen’s amendment in response to his angry neighbors upset about the Benchview Project will actually limit additions to some existing single family homes. Not only that, the strange average height calculation could result in roof heights that can be much taller than neighbors would want. This doesn’t even consider that many new additions would be allowed heights up to 30 feet and new houses on lots between 3200 and 5000 square feet aren’t governed by this new legislation. It’s the worst of both worlds, more complicated and confusing code but the building will continue, which will incite angry neighbors to agitate and appeal, which will result in more rules and constraints.
Here’s the Rasmussen language as it passed:
23.44.012 Height (( Limits )) limits
A. Maximum (( Height Established )) height established (( . )) The provisions of this Section 23.42.012 apply, except as provided elsewhere in the Land Use Code for specific types of structures or structures in particular locations.
1. Except (( as permitted in Section 23.44.041.B, and )) as provided in (( subsection )) subsections23.44.012.A.2 and (( A.3 )) 23.44.012.A.3 , the maximum permitted height for any structure not located in a required yard is 30 feet.
2. The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot 30 feet or less in width is 25 feet.
3. For a lot or unit lot of any width, if the area of the largest rectangle or other quadrilateral that can be drawn within the lot lines of the lot or unit lot (( The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot of any width that ))is less than (( 3,750 )) 3,200 square feet (( that qualifies for separate development according to the provisions in section 23.44.010.B.1.d )) the maximum permitted height for any structure on that lot (( is )) shall be (( 22 )) 18 feet(( , )) (( unless the structure’s height is further restricted by other code provisions )). Additional height shall be allowed, subject to the limit that would otherwise apply under subsections 23.44.012.A.1 and 23.44.012.A.2, provided that the elevation at the top of the exterior walls of the structure, exclusive of pitched roofs, does not exceed the average of the elevations at the tops of the walls of single-family residences on abutting lots within the same zone. The limit of this subsection 23.44.012.A.3 shall not apply to additions to single-family residences existing as of February 1, 2013 that do not exceed the greater of 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area or the amount of gross floor area on any one floor of the existing house.
Confused? So is everyone else.
What Rasmussen did to make his neighbors happy was to lower the compromise height of 22 feet for flat roofs with an additional height of 5 feet for pitched roofs. After lots of discussion in and out of committee, members of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee decided was to regulate height, not the number of floors, and 22 feet was considered to be appropriate for most neighborhoods. Remember that heights allowed for existing 5000 square foot lots can exceed 30 feet. So 22 feet with 5 feet for a pitched roof along with set backs and a minimum lot size of 2500 square feet was deemed reasonable.
And a look at any block of single-family neighborhoods in the city would make it obvious that this height would preclude the so-called “alley skyscraper” and most above grade three story structures. But this wasn’t enough for angry neighbors in Benchview who have the ear of Councilmember Rasmussen.
Rasmussen broke what has usually been protocol for Councilmembers: working with the Chair of the Committee that passed the legislation. As I pointed out in a previous post Rasmussen couldn’t resist grandstanding at the full Council meeting, lecturing Councilmember O’Brien because he
took a tour with us to get a better sense of how new homes fit in to the neighborhood context. The pedantic comment by Rasmussen is notable because, like Councilmember Bagshaw, he never talked to us; but it’s our understanding
he took his own tour with his angry neighbors of the Benchview project. Then, the Friday before the vote, he walked around his amendment undermining the work of the PLUS Committee. His amendment does the following:
- Lowers height for new homes to 18 feet;
- Introduces an unpredictable calculated height exception based on the average of other roof heights on the block; and
- Limits additions to existing houses to 1000 square feet.
But here’s the problem: this has an effect on some families that might want to make an addition to their homes. As we pointed out before, DPD and Council Central staff did their best to accommodate political pressure to sock it to builders while at the same time not totally shutting down development. But what they succeeded in doing with Rasmussen’s amendment was creating yet another unintended consequence, limiting, again, additions to some existing homes and creating more confusion.
We’re trying to figure out just how many homes might be impacted, but Central staff said yesterday that we wouldn’t know how many until people ran into issues with permitting; “It’s a lot by lot problem.” This uncertainty was exactly what the legislation was intended to stop. That’s on top of the fact the Rasmussen’s amendment will complicate the calculation of height all over the city, meaning some homes will be much taller than expected. Councilmember Clark rightly pointed out that a house higher up on a hill could skew height to be taller than neighbors want. Once again, Council, led by Councilmember Rasmussen, has chosen less of a good thing, but more complicated codes, higher costs for housing, and more uncertainty over innovation and making things easier to understand for everyone.
