This product isn't new, but new to us:  sheep wool insulation. Sheep wool insulation has some advantages over other forms of insulation, especially fiberglass batts.  It stays lofted, retains R-value even when there is moisture penetration.  It installs like fiberglass batts, but there are no masks, no off gassing, no itchiness.  Plus the product is all natural, and there aren't the environmental impacts of making fiberglass.

There are a couple big downsides:

1--this is not a local product, and there are carbon costs associated with bringing the insulation to our neck of the woods (although bringing together the elements to make fiberglass isn't carbon free either)

2--the cost is about $2.16 per sf, which is roughly three times the cost of fiberglass, or 50% more than spray foam.

Seattle's DPD just announced a program to accelerate permitting for sustainable projects, called Green Q, as in 'queue.' Applicants need to commit to construction waste recycling, dwelling units under 2400 sf, and meet LEED silver or better, or BuiltGreen 4 star or better.

Our recent Fremont Townhomes have shown up in another industry publication, Builder Magazine! They highlighted Unit 5, which is built on a narrow sliver of commercially zoned land--only 10' feet wide.  The lot is just 400 sf, and we were able to get a 950 sf 2br/2ba (that is an FAR of 2.375 for you density geeks out there). Builder Magazine article

The Planning, Land-Use and Neighborhood Committee is planning on voting on the Backyard Cottages on October 8th.  Last chance to make yourself heard on this issue! It will be a packed agenda, with discussions of the Multi-family code revision as well as the design review process (which will be mandatory in Multi-family).

The 10x10x10 is an event put on by the Northwest EcoBuilding Guild annually to highlight regional sustainably oriented projects each year.  The name derives from the fact that they showcase 10 projects, and give each presenter 10 minutes to talk about 10 slides.  This year CAST was selected to be one of the presenters for our work on in-fremont, a series of 5 town homes designed for 5 star BuiltGreen certification. The event was held at the Gates auditorium, at the Seattle Public Library last Friday. There were some great projects discussed - I especially enjoyed Christina Bollo's talk from SMR on Kenyon House a LEED platinum affordable housing project.  Since I have all the material handy I thought I would post the slides from my talk, as well as a quick transcript, which steps through some of the concepts, and techniques we were working on with the in-fremont project.

SLIDE 1 - Intro:

• In-fremont is a set of 5 town homes finished in the spring this year – which was not exactly great timing!
• But we had a client who was excited to explore what we could do in terms of a high quality sustainably minded project
• In 2007 we received a Built Green grant in their multifamily category, which was a great help in trying to push a project like this forward.

SLIDE 2 - Quick orientation:

• Location: just north of 36th in Fremont on phinney – extremely pedestrian oriented location.
• 5 units counterclockwise. Goal was to Break out of the typical 4 pack plan you see all over.
• This is a bit of an atypical site having a 10’ wide x 40’ deep slice of commercial zoned C1-40 in an otherwise typical L-2 lot.
• Since we could not span across the zoning line with this unit, it provided a unique constraint as well as a great tie in to the 10x10x10 …
• So in addition to the 10 presenters and 10 slides and 10 minutes, i‘m going to add 10 feet.  That is the outside to outside dimension of unit 5 and good segway for talking about sustainability and scale.

SLIDE 3 - unit 5:

• Unit 5 ended up being a 950 sqft 2br 2 bath
• Quantity is intrinsically linked to sustainability - you can do as much advanced framing, and responsible specifications as possible, in the end the way to leverage all that is to reduce size – that cuts across all the materials and finishes.
• Key to selling people on smaller is making sure they are extremely desirable, and functional spaces
• Staggered section helps break down the length of the building.
• Central light well 3’ setback brings natural light to the core of the building.
• This was envisioned as a live work scenario – having an office with sidewalk access for clients.

SLIDE 4 - unit 5 pictures:

• To put it into context this is 400 sqft lot – that is an order of magnitude smaller than the typical Seattle single family lot – this means fewer materials, higher density, smaller footprint & lower impact.
• Despite the size this is a very dynamic space - It wont be sustainable if no one wants to live in it.
• The stairs act as a transparent screen which reveal adjacent spaces and light, while breaking down the overall length and volume.
• Dramatic 12’ high living room and glass walls, gives the space sense of volume, variety  and levity which would have been lacking without the split level.

SLIDE 5 - power plant:

• We ended up settling on a gas boiler to drive the radiant floors and domestic hot water.
• This single piece of equipment runs both systems with instant on heat and no standby losses and a 93% efficiency rating.
• All the units are plumbed in for solar hot water, which would preheat the domestic hot water loop for the boiler.
• In terms of panel placement, we realized that we had two sites with better solar access, and so we created a solar easement as part of the unit lot subdivision to allow all the units to place and maintain the panels relative to solar access rather than property lines.
• According to the city this was the first time in Seattle this was done for solar access in a short plat.

SLIDE 6 – details:

• On the exterior we used a rain screen throughout - simply holding the siding off the building with a vented air space, allows for the walls to dry out, reducing the chances of rot and mold, and allows the finishes to last substantially longer.
• Bamboo & concrete radiant floors aid in air quality - no carpet or ducting for mold or dust to gather.
• Site built casework such as screen frames and treads made of bamboo plywood.
• Trim all finger joined poplar - no mdf.
• Low voc paint – waterborne clear coats – compact florescent energy star lights throughout.

SLIDE 7 – air sealing:

• Since most heat loss in a reasonably insulated home occurs thru infiltration rather than radiant loss, a composite system of spray foam & fiberglass batts was used to create the air seal.
• This creates an R-24 wall and allows the air barrier to be achieved more easily in a production environment – only one trade is then responsible for the bulk of the work.
• With the decreased infiltration, comes the need for increased ventilation.
• Heat recovery ventilators brings in fresh air while recovering aprox 80% of the embodied energy, which keeps a tight home healthy and energy efficient.
• Garage included an exhaust fan equipped with a motion sensor.
• Also tied into an ev charging station so the fan can be activated when charging to take care of any off gassing.

SLIDE 8 - garage as flex space:

• While parking is required by code, cars are basically what ruins the ground level of most town homes.
• Given the pedestrian oriented location of the site we wanted to plan for the possibility that they might be used as a studio, shop or bedroom
• Natural light / aluminum doors with sidelights, help make drive court a more human space, matching the detailing of the rest of the windows on site.
• The garage is fully insulated both from the outside and the rest of the house so they could be used as garage or habitable space.

SLIDE 9 – framing:

• Floor to ceiling glass - No headers or cripples - typical rim joist was adequate for all but a handful of openings.
• 24”oc studs on 75% of walls to reduce thermal bridging.
• Insulation heal on truss, allowed for r-50 in the roof all the way out to the edge of the building, and maintain clearance for eave vents.

SLIDE 10 – wrap-up:

• In some of these images you can really get a sense of the affect of the floor to ceiling glass on the quantity of natural light and the way it washes the ceiling & floor.
• This project was really rewarding working on compact plans and trying to wring the most out of the smallest amount.
• Quality over quantity ended up to be one of the main ways that we were able maximize the affect of specking responsible materials and systems.

In the last month, the City Council paid 3 groups to study the new MF code and flesh out some likely outcomes (good and bad) and propose revisions to the code.  It is a complex issue--the code revision itself is about 277 pages--and no doubt the Council were daunted by the prospect of interpreting the impact.  It took me two evenings just to get through the entire code and I am still not sure I've got a handle on all the ins and outs.

The three groups were the Masterbuilders Association, the Congress of Residential Architects, and Group Three (composed of unaffiliated concerned citizens).  Each group were paid 5k for their work (our fee went to CORA--not to the  8 individual participants).  Here are my impressions from the three groups:

MBA

The MBA group, lead by Arg Consulting and Pb Elemental focused on fee simple townhomes, 1200 sf-1600sf each, on both the L1 and L3 sites.  One gable style, one flat roof style option for each site given in the program.  The schemes prioritized surface parking (I think one scheme had garages).  The site designs either a central surface parking lot, accessed along a longitudinal drive or perpendicular parking off an alley.  The reduction in setbacks meant the building volumes were spread to the site edges.  These would be cheap to build--fee simple boxes, surface parking, no cantilevers--and  therefore probably the most likely to get built under the new code.  Which is depressing, when you extrapolate it to the scale of the city.

The other remarkable thing is that the MBA group left development capacity on the table in order to have straight forward rectangles.  The most dense scheme had 6 units (on 7200 sf= 1200 sf per unit) well below the 800 sf per unit allowable now.  It seems hard to believe that developers best use of the lot is solely dictated by construction simplicity.  My back of the envelop calculation would put the FAR between 1 and 1.34 (6 units X 1200 or 1600 sf per = between 7200 sf and 9600sf divided by 7200 sf lot), less than the 1.4 allowed.  The outcome of the MBA exploration is big units, minimal density, and pushed to the property lines so there is enough space to have cheap surface parking. That isn't to say that all the other groups' schemes made economic sense, but if this is their best option, the proposed mandatory design review has to have some more bite, because we'll definitely be seeing these bland site plans again all over town.

CORA:

The second presenter, the Congress of Residential Architects, had a lot of diversity in both type, density, good and bad.  CORA explored ground related townhouses, high density apartments, even row houses. We tried to find the limits, loopholes and boy did we create some code compliant cringe-worthy options, as well as some good options that would require departures.  David Neiman and Bradley Khouri deserve praise for herding the cats.   Here is a little conclusion that David Neiman wrote:

"There are certainly some problems with loopholes & some flawed gating mechanisms that we identified.  The bad news is that our bad schemes are even worse than what you can do today.  The good news, however, is that the culprits aren't very hard to find, and they aren't hard to fix.  Overall, we remain strong supporters of the Multi-Family Update.  It just needs some work under the hood.

Code changes recommended to make bad schemes better:

1.  Above 1.1 FAR, the wheels start to come off the cart for most ground based housing schemes.  At 1.4 FAR most ground based housing schemes are a disaster.  We need to revisit allowable FAR & use it as a tool to reward desirable features & outcomes.  For small-lot ground-based housing, FAR needs to be kept relatively low.  For structured parking solutions, large lots, and projects that undergo full design review, higher FAR is appropriate.  See executive summary.

2.   The residential amenities requirement is far too permissive – it reduces open space to an afterthought.  It's not hard to correct.  The requirements just need to be dialed up to be more significant.  See executive summary for proposal.

Code changes recommended to make good outcomes into better outcomes:

1.    Lift the density limits to allow diverse unit types, sizes, affordability levels.

2.    Return to a 30' base height limit for all L-zones w/ a 4' height bonus in L3 for structured parking.

3.    Encourage basements by exempting them from FAR – you get a privacy grade break & create opportunities for inexpensive rental flats.

4.   Green factor.  If it were working, it would incentivize open space, privacy screening, tree planting & permeability.  It does none of those things; it simply covers your land in shrubs & your walls in vines.

5.   See executive summary for more."

There will be more information and a pdf of our work forthcoming.

Group Three:

Because this post is getting long, I am going to rapidly summarize the Group 3:  Lots of double lot schemes, and generally trying to put a bad face on each.  I am not sure if anything they put up there would be something they'd like to see built.  There was a preposterous presentation of anecdotal evidence that when houses are closer than15' to the sidewalk that window blinds are always closed, and it emotes an unsafe neighborhood, therefore the front yard setbacks must be 15' feet.  One merely has to walk around any neighborhood to see front blinds drawn--it is not a function of distance to sidewalk.  There was a recurring complaint that street trees weren't provided or required and that more of the green factor elements would die or get removed (I envisioned a truck with mobile planters with trees being carted from one property to another to fulfill Green Factor, get the final inspection, then on to the next development).  I actually agree with this--by setting the level of Green Factor too high, they will be pushing unsustainable planting (one of their schemes had a vegetable garden at the bottom of a four story light well).   And they ground the axe of allowing developers to subdivide properties to take advantage of the rounding up allowed by unit density rules.  The presentation was a pretty cynical take on the new code.

If you have questions, or comments, I'd love to hear about them!

Cheers to Stefan for his excellent presentation at the NW Ecobuilding Guild's annual celebration of innovation in sustainability!

CAST has been involved in reworking the Multi-family code for the City of Seattle--this byzantine, arcane legacy that seems to produce the dreaded Four Pack/Six Pack around a shared auto court. The proposed code is evolutionary, and at this point, has been watered to down to the point that the impact will not affect the majority of lowrise multifamily that goes up in Seattle.  It is pretty disappointing in general, but a couple of highlights:

1. The move to FAR rather than density limits for number of unit will create more demand for smaller units in the L3 zone

2.  The setbacks are reduced--good for the urban sidewalk edge, and allow raised stoops in the front yard.

3. Height bonuses for workforce housing, and green building are going to get used--an example of incentivizing good construction.

And a couple of lowlights:

1.  Green Factor's heart in is the right place, but the high baseline is going to force some heavy gaming of the rules, such as fences become 'vegetated walls', and green roofs are going to go in then be abandoned.  The city would be better off lowering the baseline and focusing it on green factors that are going to be maintained and become beneficial for the environment and the city.

2.  Density limits in L1 remain, and thus there is zero impetus to alter the 4 pack in any meaningful way.

3.  Partially below grade parking doesn't count toward FAR (that's good), but doesn't give you additional height--meaning no one is going to pay to bury the parking if they are then also not able to offset the cost with a third story of marketable square footage.

I'll post more info later....

Here at CAST we have been watching the Seattle City Council very closely over the past few months as they contemplate passing an ordinance that would allow homeowners to construct backyard cottages, or DADUs (detached accessory dwelling units), on their property... The measure is of particular interest to me as I'm a proponent of multigenerational living. If passed, the ordinance would provide greater flexibility for Seattle homeowners who wish to bring their families closer together. Curious what the ordinance would mean for my own property I spent a little time putting together some plans...

For my own property I envision a studio space above our existing garage that will provide a place for friends and family to stay during extended visits...

If you live in Seattle and are interested in seeing the measure passed by the council, please take a minute and email your Seattle city council members with your support:

Planning Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee: Sally Clark; sally.clark@seattle.gov (Sally is the committee chair and in charge of getting the measure to vote) Tim Burgess; tim.burgess@seattle.gov Tom Rasmussen; tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov Jen Godden; jean.godden@seattle.gov (alt. member)

The remainder of the council is: Richard Conlin; richard.conlin@seattle.gov Jan Drago: jan.drago@seattle.gov Bruce Harrell; bruce.harrell@seattle.gov Nick Licata; nick.licata@seattle.gov Richard Mciver; richard.mciver@seattle.gov

We have been working hard to get the City of Seattle to agree to allow Backyard Cottages, or DADUs (detached accessory dwelling units). It gives owners opportunity and choice to provide additional housing for rental or a studio, will increase property values and does so in a measured way that is conscientious of neighbors and the single family neighborhood fabric. The current legislation will allow fifty per year--so it will have a minimal effect on neighborhood character.  If anything, I'd like to see more of them.

I find it amazing that this is at all controversial, considering you can put an detached accessory building or garage on your lot which may not be as tall, but can take up to 1000 square feet of your back yard!   The argument that this proposal will lead to less trees and green space in Seattle is a red herring.

And since attached accessory dwellings are already allowed outright, it also doesn't make sense that this proposal will lead to more density.  More likely, it will lead to more people choosing to build a small cottage than expanding their existing house to provide for the mother-in-law.  Two smaller structures are better for the scale of the city than more larger houses.

Carriage houses are successful component of many cities' neighborhood fabric and we'd like to see them allowed in Seattle too!  If they were, I'd build one--my neighborhood and site would be perfect for a little cottage--so here is my first pass....

I need a shop space, my wife needs an home office, and both of us need a place for our parents when they are in town for extended visits.

The building's footprint is roughly 40 x 14 with an airy studio (or 1 car garage with ample storage), and a guest bedroom and bath on the first floor.  Stairs lead up to a loft office overlooking the garden.  The design has some additional flexibility built in--the garage can be built with the rough in for a kitchen, so with minor changes, we'd have a 2br/1ba cottage.

We have been talking to an excellent local contractor with experience in prefab about teaming up to deliver a few prototypical designs for a fixed price (including ground work) somewhere around $210 a square foot, but one-off custom stick built cottages will be competitive in price, and adapt to the unique conditions of each site--existing lot coverage, location of existing buildings, solar orientation, parking, matching materials etc.

Before we do any real development, the City Council needs to green light the ordinance.  So you support the legislation, email the council!