Denver zoning code page has a nice glossary:
http://www.newcodedenver.org/rezoning/page/zoning-glossary

DPD has an Illustrated Summary of the Multifamily code updates on the right hand side of this page: http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/Multifamily_Code_Update/Overview/

There are links to summaries for all of the Seattle zoning designations on the right nav (scroll a bit) under Land Use – Seattle Zones Basics here: http://canpluosh.wordpress.com/

Most people don’t care (within reason) whether the thing is 3 apartments as a stacked triplex or 2 town homes as a duplex as long as the size, mass and scale on the lot are fitting, with a reasonable maximum number of residents. The old and new proposed code would not support the above example. Even on a narrow lot, the code supports three 1500 sq ft homes in an L1 zone. In a duplex neighborhood, a neighborhood for which the LDT and L1 zones were written in the first place, older homes are duplexes no bigger than a large SF home, some with with three generations and other extended family living in them.

Take a look at the executive summary on DPD’s website. The pictures show us more lovely four packs and six packs. They celebrate that ’special’ Seattle form that has no known home anywhere else on earth.

Zoning for larger buildings use FAR. I think they also need to look at average height, with varying heights to take advantage of the hills and to make the building appear to have visual variety. Another way to avoid big boxes is to have frontages have only a given width with a single treatment. In other words, make one building look like three buildings when it takes up a whole block.

The drawings above are very interesting. Problem is, with the current code, the third option does not really exist except as ’special’ case. If absolutely zoned for that height, any builder worth it to investors will build out a box to fill the space.

The other thing I have heard about NC zones is that there is no reasonable height designation to give us three residential over one level of commercial because of the jump from 40-65.

So — yeah I think neighborhood context and use should be driving the zoning code. Most neighborhoods are in a position of doing infill, it’s not like we are tearing the whole shebang down and completely creating a context free blank slate. Denver took the forms that exist. My experience is that there is more creativity in the architecture there than here, thre are absolutely special distinct neighborhoods, and I don’t see the new code constraining that. I also do not see any 4-packs or 6-packs at all.

Please tell us more (someone): is Seattle really relying on building permit fees to get its basic planning done? If so, it’s a recipe for disfunction.

Denver’s code, like many other city codes that take a more form-based approach is great in that it clearly shows (using visual aids) what the code requires. However, in this way it can also be very prescriptive and less flexible than say a performance-based code. Where there is a well-defined vision for how a place, e.g. a street or town center, should look or function, such a prescriptive approach can be quite successful. In other situations it can be cumbersome. This is why often you see cities with form-based codes that are only applied in specific areas. But enough about that…

To get to the real question: How can DPD plan when it doesn’t have money to plan? A straight forward answer would be to dedicate more funding out of the general fund to planning. I often wonder how a City like Seattle, which talks a lot about being a more livable and sustainable place, approaches planning primarily from a reactive rather than a proactive position.

Perhaps you all should organize a panel discussion to evaluate DPD’s proposal? The Council is getting further along in considering the draft revisions, but maybe it’s not too late.