“Neighborhood Residential” (previously called “Single-Family”) is the most common zoning type in Seattle. It makes up about 2/3 of the land zoned for development in the city. This is where we have the greatest potential for improving population density and affordability in Seattle. Here is a proposal for simple changes that could make a huge difference. This zoning type used to be three minimum lot sizes. Now there’s only one: 5,000 square feet. Along with lowering the size limit for new lots, other rules are now a bit more liberal. While these changes are laudable, they are still complicated and aren’t as liberal as what Spokane has. I believe we can do better.
We should get rid of minimum lot sizes in the city. As long as a builder adheres to other regulations they should be free to build small-lot homes, like row houses or skinny houses. Some people will still want bigger lots. But it is quite likely this would give a lot more people the opportunity to own both a home and the land under it.
The city restricts both the size of the lots, the dimensions of the structure, and the number of units. This is labeled “Maximum Density” in the code. We should eliminate these limits. Rules and regulations should be based on the structure itself, not how many people can live there. I can understand why people don’t want to see a big building next to them. But if you can build a three-story house next to me, I don’t care how many units it has. It might as well be a short apartment or condo. This would also allow for a lot more houses to be converted to apartments. Limit the dimensions of the structure, not the number of units.
There are also rules about “lot coverage” or what portion of the land can be covered by the structure. Typically this limits the structure to using half the lot. These rules are designed in part to limit water runoff. But the structure should simply be considered as part of the rules governing impervious surfaces. A house taking up 60% of the lot is basically the same as a house taking up 30% and parking taking up 30%. As long as the developer adheres to the stormwater code, both should be allowed.
Parking requirements push up the cost of new construction. As a result, this pushes up the cost of buying a new place or renting a new unit. But since new units impact the cost of existing units, all renters are hurt by the parking requirement. In contrast, existing owners aren’t effected by the regulations since they already own their property. Additional parking in a neighborhood can be considered a benefit to everyone who lives in the neighborhood (which is why the requirement was enacted in the first place). People who live there or visit are less likely to park on the street. But since existing owners pay nothing for this benefit, the burden falls entirely on those who rent or are looking to buy. If you believe that parking is a public good (and I don’t) then everyone should chip in for public parking lots. Regardless, we should remove all parking requirements for new housing.
Floor Area Ratio or FAR is the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built. A FAR of 1.0 means that you can cover the entire lot area with a building that is one story high. It also means that you can cover half the lot with a two-story building (or a third of the lot with three-story building, etc.). A ratio of 0.5 means that you can only cover half the lot with a one-story building (or one quarter of the lot with a two-story building). Likewise, a ratio or 2.0 means that you can cover the entire lot with a building that is two stories high (or half the lot with a four-story building, etc.).
The land zoned neighborhood residential is limited to three stories. Thus any FAR less than 3.0 limits construction. While the FAR limit specified by the city for neighborhood residential varies quite a bit depending on various factors, it is always less than 3.0. This limits the amount of housing that can be built. FAR regulations should be eliminated for this zoning type (if not others).
A “setback” is the minimum distance which a building or other structure must be set back from the property line. There are rules that apply to the front, rear and each side. The front setback is typically based on aesthetics, which are debatable. Paris has no setbacks. Montreal has small setbacks. These are widely considered extremely attractive cities.
Other setbacks are based on the interests of immediate neighbors. In a lot of cases, people don’t want the new owner to build right up to the property line. But side setbacks and rear setbacks should be negotiable. The neighbors — the only people who would actually be impacted by development in those areas — should be able to allow it. Just as you can buy “air rights” over a property, the neighbor should be able to sell development rights right up to the edge of property. There are plenty of people — whose house is already in the middle of the lot — that wouldn’t mind such development at all. Just as importantly, this would also row houses — with the houses right next to each other — in any subdivision.
These changes are relatively simple. They would not alter the height limits that exist. Yet they would change the rules that govern the vast majority of land that can be developed in the city. A lot more people would be able to afford to live in Seattle.
