Seattle's Housing Choices€™s Housing Choices: ... Cheryl Sizov : Content, ... George Blomberg, Vice Chair Anjali Bhagat Angela Brooks Gregory Davis

Seattle’s Housing Choices

Seattle Planning Commission ReportJuly 2003

http://www.cityofseattle.net/planningcommission/

Seattle Planning Commission

The Planning Commission, established in 1946, is an independent voluntary 15 member advi-sory body appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council. This diverse group ismade up of people who bring a wide array of valuable expertise and perspectives to theimportant planning decisions in the City of Seattle. The role of the Commission is toadvise the Mayor, City Council, and City departments on broad planning goals, policies,and plans for the physical development of Seattle. It reviews land use, transportation andneighborhood planning efforts using the framework of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan and thelong-range vision described in the Plan.

Planning Commission publications can be found on its website at:www.cityofseattle.net/planningcommission/

AcknowledgementsSpecial Thanks to:Jill BerkeyAngela BrooksDiana CorneliusRoque DeherreraVince FeresseMark HinshawMichael KimelbergJeanne KrikawaDenise LathropLisa MerkiJim MetzCouncilmember Judy NicastroJohn Owen

Seattle’s Hou

Barbara E. Wilson and Marty Curry : Analysis,Cheryl Sizov : Content, Review and EditingSusan McLain : Review and EditingMarkus Eng : Design and LayoutJory Phillips, Michael Kimelberg and John Ku

Jory PhillipsMike PodowskiLisa RutzickSteve SheehyMimi SheridanJohn SkeltonDiane SugimuraTory Laughlin TaylorTony ToMark TroxelChuck WeinstockLish WhitsonChuck Winkleman

sing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report

Production and Writing

cher : Photos and drawings



mailto: [email protected]







City of Seattle Seattle Planning Commission Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor Marty Curry, Executive Director

John Owen, Chair George Blomberg, Vice Chair

Anjali Bhagat Angela Brooks Gregory Davis Matthew Kitchen Jeanne Krikawa Lyn Krizanich Denise Lathrop Joe Quintana Stephen G. Sheehy Mimi Sheridan Tony To Paul Tomita Marty Curry, Executive Director Barbara E. Wilson, Analyst

July, 2003

Dear Reader:

The Planning Commission is pleased to publish its Housing Choices Report. This

report contains results of the public process the Commission sponsored with the

City’s Department of Construction and Land Use. It also contains the Planning

Commission’s observations and recommendations regarding the two housing types

under consideration – Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADU’s) and Cottage

Housing.

The Commission has been a strong advocate of expanding housing choices to meet

the changing needs of our community since the inception of the Comprehensive Plan.

We recognize the critical need for more affordable housing in the community as well

as expanded choices in the types of housing that are available to our changing

population.

This report attempts to accurately portray the opportunities and the challenges of both

Detached Accessory Dwelling Units and Cottage Housing. Each will contribute in a

small but important way by providing more choices throughout the city. DADUs

and cottage housing are part of a larger set of options that the City and its

neighborhoods are exploring to help residents like older people who want to “age in

place” and younger people seeking to own a home.

We urge the City to listen carefully to the concerns and ideas of the community

members who participated in this process and to continue to seek the balance between

the need for a broad array of housing types and the need to ensure healthy residential

communities.

The Planning Commission looks forward to continuing our work with the

community, City staff and elected officials to ensure that we meet both current and

future housing needs of our diverse community.

Sincerely,

John Owen

Chair

Department of Design Construction & Land Use, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98104-5070 Tel: (206) 684-0433, TDD: (206) 684-8118, Fax: (206) 233-7883 An Equal Employment opportunity, affirmative action employer.

Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request.

Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report

Table of Contents

I. BackgroundThe Housing Choices InitiativeThe City’s Commitment to Housing ChoicesRole of the Planning Commission in Housing ChoicesTimeline: Planning Commission’s Role in Housing Choices

II. Planning Commission Findings, Issues and Recommendations

Overall Findings, Issues and Recommendations onHousing Choices Proposal

Overall Findings and Recommendations forDetached Accessory Dwelling Units

Overall Findings and Recommendations forCottage Housing

Observations and Recommendations on thePublic Involvement Process

III. Public Involvement 2002-2003

Goals for Public InvolvementPublic Involvement Strategy and ElementsSummary of Focus GroupsPublic Open House and Forum

IV. Appendices

Sample of Focus Group AgendaFocus Group ParticipantsFocus Groups Summary of InputPublic Forum AgendaPublic Forum ParticipantsPublic Forum Summary of Input

1278

11

13

17

20

23242529

373839434445


I. Background

The City of Seattle Housing Choices Initiative

Section I. Background

Growth Management and Seattle’sComprehensive Plan

In the 1980s, Washington State experiencedunprecedented population increases. Without aplan for growth much of the development duringthat period was haphazard and resulted insprawl. The Washington State Legislatureenacted the Growth Management Act (GMA)in 1990.

The Goal of the Washington State GMA is “tofurther protect the quality of life in the PacificNorthwest.” The GMA directs the state’s mostpopulous and fastest growing counties and theircities to prepare comprehensive land use plansthat anticipate growth and related impacts for a20-year horizon (King County Comprehensive Plan 2000Adopted February 12, 2001 Published June 2001).

In the early 1990s, Seattle adopted aComprehensive Plan, as required by State Law,to manage growth for the next 20 years. Seattle’sComprehensive Plan acknowledges that it hasbecome difficult for many people to findhousing that is affordable or otherwise of thetype they need within their community.

The Plan articulated the City’s strongcommitment to expand housing choices and totackle affordability issues using a variety oftools. This includes exploring different housingtypes and changes in land use and zoning codesincluding development standards as a tool toexpand those choices.

1

The City’s Commitment to Housing Choices

Comprehensive Plan Goals

The City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan outlines a number of housing goals that relateto expanding housing choices and opportunities within the community:

× Accommodate a range of 50,000 to 60,000 additionalhouseholds over the next 20 years covered by this plan.

× Maintain housing affordability over the life of this plan.

× Achieve a mix of housing types that is attractive and affordableto a diversity of ages, incomes, household types, household sizes,and cultural backgrounds.

× Encourage and support accessible design and housing strategiesthat provide seniors the opportunity to remain in their ownneighborhood as their housing needs change.

× Accommodate a variety of housing types that are attractiveand affordable to potential home buyers.

× Promote and foster, where appropriate, innovative and non-traditionalhousing types such as co-housing, live/work housing andaccessory dwelling units, as alternative means of accommodatingresidential growth and providing affordable housing options.

× Increase opportunities for detached single family dwellings that areattractive to a variety of residents, including families with children.

× Encourage development of ground related housing types includingtownhouses, duplexes, triplexes, ground-related apartments, smallcottages, accessory units and single-family homes (Seattle’s

Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle).

Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report2

3Section I. Background: The City’s Commitment to Housing Choices

The City has taken the lead in identifyingthese potential tools and testing them on alimited scale as detailed below. Thisinformation has been shared withneighborhood planning groups— many ofwhom addressed affordable housing andcalled for expanded housing choices in theneighborhood plans. Housing non-profitsand other community organizations havealso worked with many communities toaddress these issues.

The City of Seattle’s Housing Choices Initiative

In 1998, the City’s Department of Design, Construction and Land Use (DCLU) initiatedthe Demonstration Program for Innovative Housing Design “to test housing concepts thatcould diversify Seattle’s housing,” focusing on Cottage Housing, Detached AccessoryDwelling Units (Detached ADUs), and residential small lots. This effort was supportedby the Mayor and Council and included an evaluation of the project as a condition toallowing these uses outright. DCLU also began examining code changes to the Lowrise 3and 4 zones to encourage more effective use of these low density, multi-family residentialdesignations.

Cottages and Detached ADUs are two housing types that provide opportunities for smallerhomes, either rented or owned, to be built within the existing single-family residentialfabric. They offer the possibility for people to stay in their homes or in their neighborhoodsby either renting out or living in a Detached ADU or living in a cottage home on a lot withshared common spaces and parking. They are defined as follows:


Cottage Housing is typically a cluster, usu-ally of 4–10 small dwelling units of 1,000square feet or less, surrounding a commongarden. They are developed as a singleproject and may have shared garagestructures as well as shared open space.Each cottage is owned separately.

4

Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (De-tached ADU) is a separate, small dwellingunit built on the same lot as an existingsingle family home. It is similar in conceptto an “accessory dwelling unit” which al-lows homeowners to convert a portion ofthe existing structure into a second dwell-ing unit. The main difference is the De-tached ADU is located in a separate struc-ture in the rear yard. These units are ownedby the main homeowner and rented outor used for extended family situations.

5Section I. Background: The City’s Commitment to Housing Choices


Role of the Planning Commission in Housing Choices

The Seattle Planning Commission plays an important role as a steward of theComprehensive Plan. This is an outgrowth of its role advising the Mayor, City Counciland City departments on broad planning goals, policies and plans for the physicaldevelopment of the City. The Planning Commission actively supported and advocated foraffordable housing through the development of the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhoodplans. To this end, the Planning Commission has worked with communities and the Cityto promote the development of more choices in housing types that meet the needs of adiverse population and expands the supply of housing.

The Planning Commission advised DCLU and participated in the development andimplementation of the Demonstration Program for Innovative Housing design over thepast 6 years. Accordingly, the Commission continues to play a key role in the broaderHousing Choices Public Process.

In 2002, DCLU staff conducted the evaluation of the Demonstration Program for InnovativeHousing Design. They began the work of developing specific proposals for permittingboth Detached Accessory Dwelling Units and Cottage Housing across the city. They alsoworked on adjustments to the Lowrise 3-4 zones to encourage development that meets thepotential capacity of these more dense residential zones. DCLU requested the PlanningCommission’s assistance in developing and carrying out a public process for DetachedADUs and Cottage Housing.

The Planning Commission’s role in this phase of project has been twofold:

× Assisting DCLU in designing and implementing a public processto educate citizens and obtain citizen input on these proposalsbefore they go to City Council.

× Reviewing and forwarding recommendations on the HousingChoices Initiative to DLCU, Mayor, and Council based onpublic input and Planning Commission analysis.

7Section I. Background: Role of the Planning Commission in Housing Choices


March 2002Demonstration

ProjectsPlanning Commission

advised DCLU onevaluation of

Demonstration Program.

August 2002Public Outreach

CriteriaPlanning Commission

developed andproposed criteria for

Housing Choices publicoutreach process.

February 25-27, 2003Housing Choices

Focus GroupsPlanning Commissionhosted 3 focus groupsinvolving a diversity of

interests from thecommunity.

1998 – 2001Demonstration Program for Innovative Housing DesignPlanning Commission advised DCLU on scope and process forDemonstration Program; two Commissioners participated onselection panel; Commission was briefed on progress of theprogram at key intervals.

Timeline: Planning Commission’s Role in Housing Choices

8

Section I. Background: Timeline

March 26, 2003Public Open House and Forum

Planning Commission and DCLUhosted a Public Open House and

Forum on Housing Choices.

June/July 2003Report and Recommendations to DCLU staff

Planning Commission prepared this summary report basedon input from the public outreach and advises DCLU staff

on legislative proposal.

Late summer/Early Fall 2003Public Hearings with/ CouncilThe Planning Commission will co-hosta public forum with the City Council

on proposed legislation.

9


II. Planning Commission Findings, Issues and Recommendations

Overall Findings, Issues and Recommendations on
Housing Choices Proposal
× Changing Demographics and Housing NeedsThroughout the public process participants acknowledged that the faceof households in the City has changed and will continue to change. Thisresulted in strong agreement that the City must meet the changinghousing needs of an aging population, an increasing number ofmultigenerational families, extended families, and single parent families.Community participants generally agreed that it is important for the Cityto look for innovative solutions in providing housing options for thisnew housing demographic profile.

× Requirements/RegulationsThere were contrasting opinions and goals expressed during the publicprocess regarding requirements and regulation of these housing types.On one hand participants expressed a desire not to overly burdenhomeowners who want to build Detached ADUs or developers who wantto build Cottage Housing with overly-restrictive requirements andbureaucratic layers to the permit process. On the other hand, there was adesire to safeguard neighborhood quality and character. Balancing thesecontrasting and possibly conflicting goals will be one of the greatestchallenges of implementing housing choices legislation, and will requirean innovative approach from the City.

× SupportThe public process confirmed that many homeowners support allowingthese housing types in single family zones and some would welcome theopportunity to live in Cottage Housing and Detached ADUs if they wereavailable. There were also a number of people participating who want tobuild Detached ADUs for a variety of reasons.

11Section II. Planning Commission Findings, Issues and Recommendations


× Common ConcernsThe most frequently identified concerns associated with these housingtypes were parking, privacy, traffic, and neighborhood context andcharacter. Participants suggested strategies to address these concerns.Examples include both “carrots” and “sticks” including regulatory toolssuch as zoning and development standards to provide the structure tosafeguard neighborhood character, and incentives such as a simpleprocess for those meeting certain standards to help raise the bar on

design quality.

× Effect on Single Family CharacterThe public process also revealed that some people oppose thesehousing types or any code changes that might change the nature ofSeattle single family communities. The City may be able to alleviatesome people’s concerns by providing a level of standards, guidance andresources, but it should recognize that some people will not want anychanges to the status quo.

× Consistency/FairnessMany people involved in the public process made a strong argumentfor considering consistency and fairness when creating restrictions andstandards for these housing types. They suggested the City should notapply standards to Cottages and Detached ADUs that are not applied toother housing units in the same zone. They argued that puttingrestrictions on parking or occupancy that do not exist for other housingin the same zones is unduly burdensome and unfair.

12

Overall Findings and Recommendations forDetached Accessory Dwelling Units (Detached ADUs)

Section II. Planning Com

Overall Findings

Detached Accessory Dwelling Units provide an importantaddition to the housing choices for both homeowners and renters.

They can provide an opportunity for extended families, where elderlyparents or young adults can live in an independent, supportivehousing arrangement. Detached ADUs also provide homeownerswith extra income to help meet rising homeownership costs, allowingolder homeowners to stay in their home or potential new homeownersto purchase a single family home. Detached ADUs are a good wayto increase the supply of affordable rental housing in single familyareas with dwellings that fit into the scale and character of theneighborhood. Finally, Detached ADUs guarantee on–site landlordswho are more likely to make sure their renters are good neighbors.

Overall Recommendation

The Planning Commission supports andurges the City to move forward withlegislation permitting DetachedAccessory Dwelling Units in singlefamily zones throughout the city.

mission Findings, Issues and Recommendations: Detached ADUs 13

Specific Issues and Recommendations for Detached ADUs

Throughout the process of developing and testing Detached Accessory Dwelling Units,several issues have been raised. Key issues are described below along with Commissionrecommendations for addressing them in the Detached ADU legislation. The specificlegislation should address the following issues:

#1. Inexperience of homeowner as developer and landlord

Issue
In most cases, Detached ADUs will likelybe built by homeowners with little or noexperience with developing property orbeing a landlord. This raises concerns aboutinadequate quality of design anddevelopment and of poor management ortreatment of tenants. Some people havesuggested that regulations are needed tosafeguard single family neighborhoods fromthese potential problems. Participants alsoraised concerns that the complexity andexpense of the development process mightdiscourage most homeowners from takingthis on.
Seattle’s Hou14

RecommendationsThe Planning Commissionrecommends that the City considerseveral tools or measures to addresslack of homeowner experience.

Create a Client Assistance Memo thatprovides a detailed, easy-to-use “how-to” guide on developing a DetachedADU. The memo should also giveguidance on how to work well withneighbors during the planning, designand construction of the project.

Provide access to technical assistancefor homeowners interested in andgoing through the Detached ADUdevelopment process (ensuring this isavailable to the full range of cultural/language groups). This assistancecould be built into DCLU’s existinghomeowner assistance programs.

Develop a plan book of pre-approvedDetached ADU designs (described inmore detail below)—a potentiallyimportant tool in addressingarchitectural and good design concernsand providing homeowners with clearguidance for moving forward.


#2. Size/Fit of Detached ADUs in single family neighborhoods

RecommendationsDevelop a plan book that has a seriesof “pre-approved” plans for DetachedADUs that homeowners can select forthe design of a Detached ADU. Thiswould help address homeownerinexperience and would be a usefultool for dealing with size and fit issues.

IssueMany participants have expressed concernsabout the design, scale and size impacts ofDetached ADUs, of how they can “fit”unobtrusively into existing single familyneighborhoods. Related concerns includethe impact on property values of adjacentneighbors.

Section II. Planning Commission Findings, Issues and Recommendations: Detached ADUs 15

The plan book could simplify theprocess for the developer/homeowner.It should offer a broad range of designoptions consistent with quality housingstock in this region. The PlanningCommission recommends that forthose wanting more flexibility outsidea plan book a simple admin-istrativeprocess be used to ensure that qualitystandards are met.

Include performance standards forminimum lot size, maximum unit size,parking standards, setback, and heightrequirements in the Detached ADUlegislation. Make standards consistentwith those for single family dwellings;address issues such as privacy andother impacts of structures overlookingan adjacent home or yard. TheCommission encourages the City to usethis approach to ensure DetachedADUs are built with sensitivity todesign quality rather than requiring thatDetached ADUs emulate features ofthe primary residence. (e.g. such asroof pitch, color, trim, windows andeaves).

#3. Locational or Siting Criteria for Detached ADUs

IssueSome people have expressed concern thatsome areas of the city have lot sizes andcharacteristics that may be more conduciveto adding a Detached ADU such as cornerlots and lots with alleys that can betteraccommodate a Detached ADU. Othersargue for dispersion criteria to ensure nosingle neighborhood has a concentration ofthem. Although the Planning Commissionrecognizes that certain characteristics suchas alleys and larger lot sizes can makeDetached ADUs more appealing in aneighborhood, it does not advocate settingup either preferences or dispersion criteria.They believe this would unduly complicatematters and diminish the feasibility ofproviding this housing type.

Seattle’s Hou16

RecommendationThe Planning Commissionrecommends that Detached ADUs bepermitted in all single family zonedareas, with consistent siting and designstandards, rather than limiting them tospecific neighborhoods.


Overall Findings and Recommendations for Cottage Housing

Section II. Planning Comm

Overall Findings

Cottage Housing provides a housing option for people who wantto own a smaller home in a lower-density residential area. Thedemonstration cottage housing project and existing older cottagedevelopments indicate the marketability of these small homeswith shared common spaces. Developers have shown an interestin this housing type and a number of projects have been built insurrounding communities. This type of housing would notnecessarily always qualify as what is typically referred to as“affordable” housing, but is likely less expensive than largersingle family homes in the same area. Thus, Cottage Housingcan offer a less expensive and more suitable housing option forthose seeking a small home.

The Commission recognizes that currently there are limited sitesappropriate for cottage housing, which may result in morelimited use of this housing type, at least in the short run.However, over the long term, it presents a valuable addition tothe types of housing options for the increasing number of smallhouseholds living in Seattle.

Primary concerns raised about Cottage Housing relate toperceived land use, traffic and parking impacts associated withincreased density.

Overall Recommendation

The Planning Commission recommendsthat the City move forward withdevelopment of Cottage Housinglegislation. Additional analysis canhelp determine where there ispotential for this type of developmentwhich will make Cottage Housing amore viable housing choice.

ission Findings, Issues and Recommendations: Cottage Housing 17

Specific Issues and Recommendations for Cottage Housing

Throughout the process of developing and testing Cottage Housing a number of issueshave been raised. The key issues are described below along with the Commission’srecommendations for addressing them in legislation. The specific Cottage Housinglegislation should address the following issues:

#1. Density — Dispersion and Siting Criteria

Issue Recommendations


Concerns were raised in the public processregarding the impacts of increased densityin a single family area as a result of CottageHousing development. These impactsinclude parking and traffic impacts, bulk,scale and privacy impacts on adjacenthomes, and site design impacts (the inwardorientation of design).

One suggestion has been to developdispersion criteria, limiting the number ofCottage Housing projects that could bedeveloped on a block, or block face. Anothersuggestion was to require that garages beused for storing owner cars.

The Commission recommends thatconcerns about increased density andtraffic created by Cottage Housing beaddressed with minimum lot size,maximum total lot coverage, minimumopen space, and off street parkingrequirements. Such requirementsshould be fair and equitable so as not tounduly burden or encumber CottageHousing development as comparedwith other development permitted byin single family zones.

The Commission recommends againstincluding dispersion criteria forCottage Housing. This is not anappropriate requirement because itwould be difficult to find a fair way tojustify allowing development just on thebasis of being first.

The Commission recommends thatsimilar to Detached ADUs, privacyconcerns can be addressed by looking atstandards such as size, siting location,height and bulk.

18

Section II. Planning Commission Findings, Issues and Recommendations: Cottage Housing

#2. Open Space and Site Design

IssueOpen space was identified in the publicprocess as an important priority, particularlyusing setbacks to create shared open spacewhile still ensuring appropriate spacebetween adjacent homes and the cottagedevelopment. The Commission agrees thatopen space is integral to cottage housing andits design is what makes cottage housingboth unique and workable. Cottage Housingmust also fit into the broader neighborhoodcontext in the way it relates to the street andsurrounding neighbors.

RecommendationsThe Planning Commission recommendscareful consideration be given to theopen space requirement, balancing thedesire and advantages of shared openspace with the need for someconsistency with the general sitingcharacteristics of the neighborhood.

#3. Design/Design Review

IssueThe Planning Commission acknowledgesthe importance of good design and qualitymaterials and workmanship to the ultimatesuccess of Cottage Housing, an issue ofimportance to many community membersin the public process. People expressed theneed for public input in the design of suchprojects, particularly given the larger sizeand density of a Cottage Housing project ina single family area. The same time,developers expressed concern that such aprocess needed to be clear, timely and havea clear decision point.

RecommendationsThe Planning Commission recommendsthe City develop a simple designreview process for Cottage Housingprojects. One option would be to havea special design review board/teamwith expertise in Cottage Housing(including a neighborhood represen-tative) that would be responsible forreviewing all such projects. This wouldensure that the process would haveconsistency and would benefit from theexpertise on this fairly unusual type ofhousing project.

The Planning Commission recommendsthat DCLU publish a guide to cottagehousing that could inform potential de-velopers and, more importantly, commu-nity members about basic siting and designparameters of cottage housing projects.

19

Observations and Recommendations on thePublic Involvement Process

ObservationsThe joint SPC/DCLU public process provided an opportunity for diverse citizenparticipation and allowed for a broad range of feedback that will ultimately inform publicpolicy about Cottage Housing and Detached Accessory Dwelling units. The three focusgroups; general community, people familiar with the housing types, and housing expertsallowed for very detailed discussions and input. The public open house and forum waswell organized and allowed multiple opportunities for input.

DCLU staff was very helpful and creative in taking extra steps to ensure broader publicinvolvement. This included distribution of the housing choices brochure and survey totargeted constituencies, and the creation a virtual forum and on-line survey on the DCLUwebsite. The Commission commends DCLU in its efforts to expand outreach efforts tosolicit input from diverse interests.

Those who participated were typically from two main groups; single family neighborhoodactivists and people wishing to develop Detached ADUs or cottage housing, despite thebest efforts and comprehensive outreach to seek a broader range of input. Since thoseinterested in Detached ADUs are typically single family homeowners, the dichotomybetween developer and homeowner was softened in both the focus groups and the publicforum. While there was the expected tension between these different interests, there wasalso movement and coming together on some key points in these two processes. Watchingthis dynamic play out in the focus groups and the public forum was heartening.

Few people of color, elderly homeowners, those from immigrant communities and generallylower income people participated in the Housing Choices public process. While this wasnot a surprise given limited resources and a general outreach approach, it is a reminderthat the City must make a more concerted effort to engage these groups. This is particularlyimportant in this issue as these groups could benefit from developing Detached ADU tomake homeownership more financially viable and to help meet multigenerationalhouseholds’ housing needs. In addition, greater initial opportunities for these housingchoices exist in neighborhoods where community revitalization is occurring.


Section II. Planning Commission Findings, Issues and Recommendations: Public Involvement Process

RecommendationsThe Planning Commission recom-mends that after adoption of DetachedADU and Cottage Housing legisla-tion the City carry out more targetedoutreach to communities of color,elderly homeowners, those fromimmigrant communities and lowerincome people. The City shouldwork with housing advocacystake-holders, housing and neigh-borhood interests and revitalizationefforts throughout neighborhoods ofthe city.

The Planning Commission recom-mends that DCLU further develop abroad array of tools for public out-reach and input, particularly usingon-line tools. Even those without per-sonal computers could access thesetools through libraries and variouscommunity service programsproviding free computer access.

21


III. Public Involvement 2002-2003

In summer of 2002, DCLU requested the Planning Commission’s help in developing andcarrying out a public process for exploring two housing choices—Detached ADUs andCottage Housing.

The Planning Commission assisted DCLU by developing goals for public involvement inthe Housing Choices Initiative. The goals were intended to guide a strategy for publicinvolvement, emphasizing the need to solicit input from a broad and diverse range ofstakeholders.

Goals for Public Involvement

× Provide information that helps the public understand the broader growthchallenges Seattle and the region are experiencing.

× Research and provide information about changing trends in householdcomposition over the past two decades and implications for housingneeds.

× Educate public on need and value of housing choices and the principlesbehind them; including how the proposed legislation contributes tothem.

× Educate City officials and the public about housing options that can helpaddress growth issues.

× Engage the public in developing and tailoring these options to ourcommunity’s specific situation.

× Increase broad public support for housing choices legislative package.

× Improve the proposed legislation and the development/approval process.

23Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2003: Goals for Public Involvement


Public Involvement Strategy and Elements

DCLU and the Planning Commission jointly developed a public involvement strategythat would best incorporate these goals. The Commission agreed to conduct focus groups,co–sponsor a public open house and forum, and provide advice and input on DCLU’sinformation distribution and outreach.

× Focus Groups: Planning Commission sponsored three focus groups inFebruary 2003 to get feedback on the Cottage Housing and Detached ADUconcepts. Focus groups including a group of general citizenry looked atbroader housing needs and choices; people familiar with Cottage Housingand Detached ADUs gave opinions on key features and criteria; andarchitects, developers and technical experts gave input on technical featuresand feasibility.

× Public Open House and Forum: DCLU and the Planning Commission co-sponsored a forum and open house in March 2003 to report on results offocus groups, provide information and obtain further input on thehousing choices proposals.

× Demonstration Program Survey and Evaluation: DCLU planners con-ducted interviews and surveys to learn from the demonstrations projects(Cottage Housing and Detached ADUs). DCLU staff briefed and discussedthe findings from demonstration projects with City officials and thePlanning Commission.

A survey was mailed by DCLU to about 500 stakeholders and communityactivists soliciting feedback regarding Detached ADUs and CottageHousing. DCLU included an analysis of the 140 completed surveys in theevaluation.

× Outreach & Information Distribution: The City broadly distributed infor-mation on the housing options, including brochure mailings, print and webnews articles and presentation materials for City and neighborhood events.

Survey results from 81 participants.

24

× Virtual Forum and Survey: DCLUhosted a virtual forum and on-line surveyon its website where over 80 additionalpeople provided opinions from Marchthrough June 2003.

Summary of Focus Groups

Purpose and FormatThe purpose of the Planning Commission sponsored focus groups was to hear from anintentionally diverse group of people on how to best provide more housing choices forpeople to live in our community. The focus groups particularly sought suggestions onhow Cottage Housing and Detached ADUs could be developed in single family areas ofthe city. (See Appendix for Sample of Focus Group Agenda, page 37.)

Results from the focus groups were compiled and used by DCLU staff to refine theproposals and to guide further public information and process. Results were also used bythe Planning Commission and DCLU in planning the March 2003 public open house andpublic forum. (See Appendix for Focus Group Summary of Input, page 39.)

Focus Group CompositionEach focus group had 6-12 participants, a neutral facilitator, a Planning Commission host/observer and a notetaker. The Commission sought geographic, ethnic, age and genderdiversity in assembling the focus groups. (See Appendix for a list of Focus GroupParticipants, page 38.)

General PublicThis group represented a broad group of citizens including a renter, firsttime home-buyers, existing homeowner with an ADU, a homeowner withinterest in Detached ADU, neighborhood and land use activists, and peoplewho have concerns about these housing types.

Citizens Familiar with Cottage Housing, Detached ADUs andSimilar Housing TypesThis group represented people who have had some first hand knowledge withthese housing types such as a neighbor of demonstration projects, residentsof demonstration projects, neighborhood plan stewards, potentialDetached ADU applicant, a housing advocate representing the TenantsUnion and affordable housing, a resident of New Holly development witha carriage house, and a growth management advocate.

Housing “Experts”This group consisted of people with professional expertise in housingand including an architect who designed Cottage Housing, and anotherwho built and designed a Detached ADUs, a housing advocate, a land useand housing planner, a housing developer, and an urban designer.

25Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2003: Summary of Focus Groups


Themesfor increased housing choices

There is a need for housing options—Options need to be affordable to a broadspectrum of people and are diverseenough to meet different needs.However, some would prefer that thesehousing types be limited to particularneighborhoods that can better handleadded density.

Changing demographics are affectingthe housing market—There isrecognition of the changing housingmarket needs such as single person,single parent households, empty nesters,and multigenerational families.

Affordability—Some believe permittingthese housing types should be tied to theiraffordability; others think that expandingchoices and the supply are the key goalsrather than affordability.

Key Findings

CommonConcerns

Results: Focus Groups Summary

Detached Accessory Dwelling Units(Detached ADU)

Establishing criteria—There is stronginterest in articulating clearly definedcriteria for these housing types to ensurequality and address impacts to neighbors

Key impacts—Privacy, parking, traffic,neighborhood context and character are theimpacts that should be considered whendeveloping these housing options.

Prioritize housing types when certaincharacteristics exist—Suggestionsinclude encouraging Detached ADUswhere there are alleys and in areas wherethe City wants to prioritize more housinggrowth.

Need to provide tools for people to ensureit is done right—Various suggestions weremade for tools and incentives from “how-to” guides to providing financial incentives.

Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2003: Summary of Focus Groups 27

Key impacts—Privacy, parking, traffic,neighborhood context and character arethe impacts that should be consideredwhen looking at these housing options.

Design review is important forensuring quality and neighborhoodcontext—The need for design review isimportant, whether administrative or apublic process.

Guidance and standards—Althoughmost agreed that some standards are a must,there was wide variation about whichcriteria are important (i.e. lot sizes, setback,height restrictions, dispersion criteria) andhow to ensure standards that do not addtoo many restrictions or make itunaffordable to build.

Parking and traffic—There is disagre-ement over how much emphasis can beplaced on this and whether it is a realproblem or only a perception.

Cottage Housing

Locating in single family zones—Somepeople are okay with this, others haveserious concerns or don’t want it allowedin single family zones without constraints

Need for neighborhood input—Thereis disagreement over who constitutes the‘neighborhood’ when seekingneighborhood input. Varies fromneighbors in the periphery, districtcouncils, or community meetings.


× Plan book of pre-approved designs forDetached ADUsTo expedite the review process and control costs the Citycould develop a series of pre-approved designs forDetached Accessory Dwelling Unit (Detached ADU). Thiscould also help ensure quality and neighborhood integrity.

× ‘How to guide’ for Detached ADUsGuide applicants through the process with estimated costsand general advice for homeowners who are consideringbuilding a Detached ADU.

× OmbudsmanAssist and facilitate individuals who wish to pursuehousing options through the City process or to look forfunding options.

× Training/assistance on being a landlord and developerEnsure that “mom and pop landlords” created by this housingtype understand their rights and their tenants’ rights.

× Funding to help homeowners develop Detached ADUsLook for existing opportunities or create new ones forproviding funding for homeowners to build Detached ADUs.Could possibly link funding availability to affordability.

× Tours of demonstration projectsCreate a tour to help elected officials, City planners,neighborhood planning councils and others better understandhow these housing options fit into neighborhoods.

× On the Counter Design ReviewCreate an easy design review checklist and process. Thiscould be combined with a catalogue and planning book ofoff-the-shelf designs.

× Create Benchmarks for successLook to other cities to see how they are successfullyincorporating these housing options into their communities.

Ideas and Suggestions from the Focus Groups

28

Public Open House and Forum

DCLU and the Planning Commission jointly sponsored a public open house and forum onMarch 26, 2003. This event built on the focus groups and was intended to involve the broaderpublic in learning about and discussing the potential of Cottage Housing and Detached ADUsas housing choices in single family residential zones. The event was organized in three parts.

Open HouseThe open house provided an opportunity to see informationaldisplays on Cottage Housing and Detached ADUs, to talkinformally with staff and write down individual questions andcomments. Participants viewed displays, interacted with City staffand Planning Commissioners and provided comments on the displayboards or on comment worksheets. (See Appendix for a List ofPublic Forum Participants, page 44.)

Presentation and Panel DiscussionThe presentation and panel discussion were structured to provideinformation and elicit discussion about the characteristics and meritsof the housing types (based in part on the demonstration projectexperiences). DCLU Staff Jory Phillips and Michael Kimelberg gavepresentations describing the Detached ADU and Cottage Housing concepts, as they havebeen developed thus far.

A panel discussion was moderated by Chuck Weinstock, Executive Director of the CapitolHill Housing Improvement Program. The discussion focused on three areas: 1) Advice regardingde-velopment of Cottage Housing and Detached ADUs, including standards or criteriathat should be considered; 2) How to address key concerns about parking, traffic impactsand about privacy; 3) How to ensure good design and quality development of both ofthese housing types. The four panel members represented a range of interests includingneighborhood organizations, developers, homeowners and urban designers (See Appendixfor Public Forum Agenda, page 43.)

Table DiscussionsThe table discussions offered the opportunity for facilitated discussion among participantsin a small group setting. These discussions focused on key aspects of Cottage Housingand Detached ADUs that had emerged throughout the public process and demonstrationprojects. Either a Planning Commissioner or City staff person moderated the discussionwhile another recorded detailed notes of the questions, concerns, ideas and suggestions(See Appendix for Public Forum Summary of Input, page 45.)

Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2000: Public Open House and Forum 29



Changing housing needs—There isrecognition that household compositionhas changed (fewer nuclear families;broader mix). Across the boardagreement that housing choices shouldreflect this.

Who develops—There is recognitionthat Detached ADUs will primarily bebuilt by homeowners while Cottages willbe built by developers. Thus, process andrequirements must be viewed differently.

Effect on single family character—Fear that these housing types wouldchange the nature of single familyneighborhoods leads to desire for ahigher level of scrutiny and standards.

Fairness/consistency—Some believethat standards should be the same/consistent for all housing types allowedin a zone (e.g. Detached ADUs andCottage Housing should only havestandards that are applied to other singlefamily housing units in the same zone).

Results: Public Forum Summary

30

Key Findings


Detached Accessory Dwelling Units(Detached ADUs)

Advantages for extended families—Detached ADUs will provide neededhousing for grandparents, immigrantfamilies, singles, etc.

Success of ADUs—Detached ADUshave worked very well in single familyneighborhoods. There is no reason tobelieve that Detached ADUs won’t havesimilar results.

Owner occupancy—There is the beliefthat owner occupancy would helpmitigate negative impacts to thecommunity by ensuring ownerresponsibility/oversight.

Affordability criteria—Some believethat affordability should be aconsideration while others believe thatif you make building Detached ADUseasy it will add housing in a limitedsupply market, thus increasing supply tomeet the demand.

Cottage Housing

Expands homeownership options—Cottage Housing is a good way to allowfor homeownership of smaller homes insingle family areas; modest increase ofdensity that is consistent with singlefamily character.

Development standards—The keystandards the City should focus on aresize, location, height and bulk.

Priority areas—Some suggestedprioritizing Cottage Housing in areaswhere there is good transit or prioritizingtransit money where Cottages aredeveloped.

Open space—Both common and privateopen space was identified as what makesCottage Housing work.



Results: Public Forum Summary (continue)

CommonConcerns

Larger context—Many participantssuggested parking concerns should notdrive urban planning

Parking and privacy—These wereidentified as the most common negativeimpacts that will come from DetachedADUs or Cottages.

Neighbor voice—Some were concernedthat neighbors would not have any sayin the development of these housingtypes.

Effect on neighborhood character—Concern that these housing types wouldchange the nature of single familyneighborhoods and decrease propertyvalues.

32

Success in other jurisdictions—Manyother jurisdictions in the region and offergood examples for Seattle.

Cost of regulation—Many who want tobuild a Detached ADU are concerned thatdevelopment requirements and processwill be complicated, burdensome andprohibitively costly.

Height limits—Concern exists that 12foot height limit would be too restrictive;there needs to be more flexibility in theregulations.

Sensitivity to adjacent homes—Detached ADUs should be designed withsensitivity to neighbors by limitingimpacts on privacy, shading, andparking.

Limited opportunity—There arelimited opportunities to develop Cottagesin a built-out city. Opportunities aremostly where there are underdevelopedor large lots.

Excessive standards/process—Concernthat the City tends to pile on standards,resulting in too many hurdles fordeveloper interest.

Development standards—There isconcern that 350 square-foot second floorrequirement is too limiting.

Fit with neighborhood—Cottagesshould fit into the character and scale ofneighborhood.

Use of parking—Concern exists thatpeople would use garages for storage andparking cars on the street.

Detached Accessory Dwelling Units(Detached ADUs)


Cottage Housing


Ideas and Suggestions from the Public Forum

× A plan book for Detached ADUs is an important tool.There is some concern about creating a cookie cutter look or limitingcreativity if a plan book is used. To ensure both standards and flexibility,some suggested the use of a two tiered approach where a Detached ADUbuilder could use the simpler process for pre-selected designs from theplan book or could get more flexibility by going through anadministrative process that would be subject to more steps towardapproval.

× Provide technical assistance for Detached ADU Developers.Specific suggestions included a Client Assistance Memo, anOmbudsman program, a single project manager/case worker assigned toa Detached ADU review so there is consistency, and a resource guidewith information on things like hiring an architect and contractor. Holdworkshops and how-to clinics for potential Detached ADU builders withCity planners. Include architects and contractors who can providetechnical advice.

× Encourage smart growth and sustainability.These housing types should promote smart growth techniques byproviding smart growth tools like Flexcars, free bus passes and bicyclestorage for Cottage Housing units. Consider allowing exemptions forparking requirements in certain instances such as dense neighborhoodswhere transportation options are more available. Work to developlocation efficient mortgage options as a tool for placing these housing typesin areas where certain advantageous characteristics exist. Look for waysto reward green building efforts for all new housing in the City includingCottages and Detached ADUs.

34

× Outreach and education should address the communitiesbeing served with housing choices.These housing choices seek to reach a demographic population for whomhousing needs are not being served such as multigenerational andimmigrant communities, the elderly, and singles. Their issues should beaddressed in tools like how-to guides, plan books or designguidelines. Consider partnerships with community groups to educatelandlords and tenants. Prepare materials for non-English speakingimmigrants and for outreach to cultural groups who would be interestedin multigenerational or co-housing options, such as Cottages and homeswith a Detached ADU.

× Administrative design review for Cottage HousingIn most cases, administrative design review could replace a broaderdesign review process making the process less cumbersome and timeconsuming yet still providing clear performance standards ensuringquality control and good design practices.

35Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2003: Public Open House and Forum


IV. Appendices

Sample of Focus Group Agenda

Section IV. Appendices: Sample of FocusGroup Agenda 37

City of Seattle Seattle Planning Commission Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor Marty Curry, Executive Director

HOUSING CHOICE FOCUS GROUP (3)

AGENDA

February 26, 2003

11:30 A.M. – 1:30 P.M.

Key Tower Room 1860

Welcome 11:30 – 11:45 A.M. Background,

Introduction of Facilitator, Jim Metz

Planning Commissioner, Mimi Sheridan

Self-Introductions 11:45 – 11:55 A.M. All

Facilitated Discussion 11:55 A.M. – 12:40 P.M. All

BREAK 12:40 – 12:50 P.M.

Facilitated Discussion Part 2 12:50 – 1:20 P.M. All

Wrap up and Next Steps 1:20 – 12:30 P.M. Planning Commissioner, Mimi Sheridan

ADJOURN 12:30 P.M. *Brown bag lunch provided


IV. Appendices

Focus Group Participants

38

Focus Group

Details

Focus Group Date,

Time and Location

Confirmed Participants

Focus Group #1: GENERAL PUBLIC

P.C. Host: John Owen

P.C. Staff: Barbara Wilson

Facilitator: Jim Metz

Monday, February 24, 2003

5:30 – 7:30 P.M.

Miller Community Center

330-19th Avenue E.

Seattle, WA. 98112

1. Julie Gwinn

2. Matthew O'Brien

3. Nelson Miller

4. Doris Baxter Burns

5. Skye Kahli

6. Devin Malkin

7. Mike Ruby

8. Bill Zoesel

Focus Group #2: CITIZENS FAMILIAR WITH

HOUSING TYPES

P.C. Host: Steve Sheehy

P.C. Staff: Marty Curry


Tuesday, February 25, 2003

5:30 – 7:30 P.M.

University Heights Center

5031 University Way NE

Seattle, WA. 98105

1. Andrew Taylor

2. Tim Trohimovich

3. Joan Davis

4. Mark Engelbrekt

5. Marisa Hancock

6. Jeannie Hale

7. Kate Maulkin

8. Chuck Winkleman

Focus Group #3: HOUSING ‘EXPERTS’

P.C. Host: Mimi Sheridan

Planning Commission Staff:

Marty Curry & Barbara Wilson


Wednesday, February 26, 2003

11:30 A.M. – 1:30 P.M.

Key Tower

700 Fifth Avenue, Room 1860

Seattle, WA 98104

1. Rick Sellers

2. Vince Feresse

3. David Foster

4. John Kucher

5. Mike Luis

6. Roger Wagoner

7. Carol Eychaner

8. Bill Kreager

9. Tom Donnelly

10. Mark Hinshaw

11. Nicki Parrot

Section IV. Appendices: Focus Group Summary of Input 39

IV. A

ppen

dice

sF

ocus

Gro

up S

umm

ary

of I

nput

Fo

cu

s G

rou

p 1

Fo

cu

s G

rou

p 2

Fo

cu

s G

rou

p 3

Gro

up

ma

ke

up

:

This

gro

up

co

nsi

ste

d o

f "g

en

era

l c

om

mu

nity"

an

d

wa

s m

ost

ly p

eo

ple

wh

o h

av

e b

ee

n a

ctiv

e in

th

eir

ow

n n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds

in o

ne

wa

y o

r a

no

the

r.

A

few

la

st m

inu

te c

an

ce

llatio

ns

an

d o

ne

no

sh

ow

en

de

d u

p m

akin

g it

a s

ma

ll g

rou

p o

f 6

pe

op

le.

On

th

e u

psi

de

we

ha

d 3

pe

op

le w

ho

id

en

tifie

d

the

mse

lve

s a

s sk

ep

tic

al a

nd

3 p

eo

ple

in

th

e

sup

po

rtiv

e c

ate

go

ry m

akin

g f

or

a v

ery

pro

du

ctiv

e d

ialo

gu

e.

Gro

up

ma

ke

up

:

This

gro

up

co

nsi

ste

d o

f 8 c

om

mu

nity

me

mb

ers

fa

mili

ar

with

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

inc

lud

ing

; 2

ne

igh

bo

rs w

ho

liv

e n

ea

r th

e

de

mo

nst

ratio

n p

roje

cts

, a

re

sid

en

t o

f

Ra

ve

nn

a c

ott

ag

e, a

ne

w h

om

eo

wn

er

with

a

ca

rria

ge

ho

use

, 2

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

ass

oc

iatio

n

me

mb

ers

, a

ho

usi

ng

ad

vo

ca

te, a

nd

a

gro

wth

ma

na

ge

me

nt/

lan

d u

se o

rga

niz

atio

n

rep

rese

nta

tiv

e.

Gro

up

ma

ke

up

:

This

gro

up

co

nsi

ste

d o

f 1

0 h

ou

sin

g e

xp

ert

s in

clu

din

g a

rch

ite

cts

wh

o h

av

e b

uilt

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

ns,

arc

hite

cts

an

d d

ev

elo

pe

rs

inv

olv

ed

with

th

e d

em

on

stra

tio

n p

roje

cts

, a

de

ve

lop

er,

tw

o lo

w

inc

om

e h

ou

sin

g a

dv

oc

ate

s, a

re

pre

sen

tativ

e f

rom

th

e m

ast

er

bu

ilde

rs, a

nd

a la

nd

use

exp

ert

.

Ne

ed

fo

r th

is H

ou

sin

g T

yp

e

�

Ch

an

gin

g d

em

og

rap

hic

s m

ea

n t

ha

t p

eo

ple

ne

ed

mo

re o

ptio

ns

in h

ou

sin

g

�

The

re is

a n

ee

d f

or

mo

re a

ffo

rda

bili

ty h

ou

sin

g

op

tio

ns

in n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds

wh

ere

pe

op

le

wa

nt

to li

ve

�

So

cia

l re

spo

nsi

bili

ty d

icta

tes

tha

t th

e C

ity

en

ab

les

mo

re d

ive

rse

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

ns.

�

The

se o

ptio

ns

he

lp f

ost

er

a m

ore

ric

h a

nd

div

ers

e c

ultu

re.

�

Ow

ne

rsh

ip c

rea

tes

mo

re n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d p

rid

e

an

d c

om

mitm

en

t.

�

DA

DU

’s p

rov

ide

a w

ay f

or

pe

op

le t

o s

tay in

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s.

�

The

se o

ptio

ns

co

uld

he

lp t

ran

sfo

rm f

ee

l o

f

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s w

he

re h

ou

sin

g s

toc

k is

po

or.

�

Ho

usi

ng

is

exp

en

siv

e b

ec

au

se t

he

re is

no

t

en

ou

gh

of

this

typ

e o

f h

ou

sin

g. A

lo

t o

f

pe

op

le w

ho

ne

ed

th

ese

sm

alle

r h

ou

sin

g

typ

es

inst

ea

d o

f m

eg

a h

ou

sin

g t

ha

t a

re t

he

cu

rre

nt

bu

ildin

g t

ren

d.

�

The

re is

a n

ew

ge

ne

ratio

n o

f h

om

eo

wn

ers

with

diffe

ren

t n

ee

ds

suc

h a

s

mu

ltig

en

era

tio

na

l fa

mili

es,

pe

op

le c

arin

g f

or

eld

erly p

are

nts

, kid

s st

ayin

g a

t h

om

e lo

ng

er,

em

pty

ne

st b

ab

y b

oo

me

rs w

ho

wa

nt

co

mm

un

ity a

nd

ac

ce

ssib

le n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds.

Ne

ed

fo

r th

is H

ou

sin

g T

yp

e

�

Pe

op

le n

ee

d m

ore

op

tio

ns

in h

ou

sin

g

be

ca

use

of

the

ch

an

gin

g d

em

og

rap

hic

s.

�

Co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

an

d D

AD

U’s

pro

vid

e h

ou

sin

g

ch

oic

es

as

pe

op

le a

ge

. R

en

tin

g a

n A

DU

allo

ws

old

er

pe

op

le t

o s

tay in

th

eir h

om

es.

�

DA

DU

’s p

rov

ide

a s

tro

ng

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o

aff

ord

ab

ility

.

�

Co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

ha

s w

ork

ed

we

ll fo

r p

eo

ple

wh

o a

re s

ing

le, o

lde

r, d

esi

rin

g t

o b

e a

ble

to

wa

lk t

o s

erv

ice

s.

�

DA

DU

’s a

nd

Ca

rria

ge

ho

usi

ng

pro

vid

es

ne

ed

ed

re

nta

l in

co

me

en

ab

ling

pe

op

le t

o

aff

ord

to

ow

n a

ho

me

.

�

The

se o

ptio

ns

pro

vid

e a

n a

lte

rna

tiv

e t

o

mo

vin

g t

o t

he

su

bu

rbs

an

d a

llow

mo

re

pe

op

le a

ch

oic

e t

o s

tay in

th

e c

ity.

�

On

e s

tory

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

ns

serv

e p

eo

ple

with

dis

ab

ilitie

s.

�

Aw

are

ne

ss o

f c

ultu

ral c

on

sid

era

tio

ns

po

ints

to

ne

ed

. Th

ere

are

mo

re e

xte

nd

ed

fa

mili

es

in t

he

imm

igra

nt

co

mm

un

ity t

ha

t w

ou

ld b

en

efit

fro

m

the

se h

ou

sin

g o

ptio

ns.

Ne

ed

fo

r th

is H

ou

sin

g T

yp

e

�

The

re a

re p

eo

ple

in

so

cie

ty w

ho

se h

ou

sin

g n

ee

ds

are

no

t b

ein

g

sup

plie

d t

ha

t w

ou

ld b

e in

tere

ste

d in

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

ns.

�

De

ma

nd

is

the

re f

or

DA

DU

’s. It

he

lps

pe

op

le t

o a

ffo

rd t

o b

uy a

ho

use

, o

r st

ay in

a h

ou

se, kn

ow

ing

th

ey c

an

de

pe

nd

on

re

nt

to h

elp

pa

y t

he

mo

rtg

ag

e

�

The

re is

a d

em

an

d f

or

mo

re d

en

sity

. Th

e m

ark

et

is t

he

re.

Pe

op

le lik

e

clo

se k

nit n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds

ne

ar

tra

nsi

t w

ith

am

en

itie

s th

at

yo

u c

an

wa

lk t

o. P

rob

ab

ly c

ou

ld n

ot

bu

ild c

ott

ag

es

or

DA

DU

’s f

ast

en

ou

gh

in

som

e n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds.

�

Loo

kin

g a

t 2

00

0 c

en

sus,

we

ne

ed

to

op

en

th

e d

oo

r to

ho

usi

ng

by

pro

vid

ing

mo

re o

ptio

ns

for

sin

gle

s, s

ing

le p

are

nts

, yo

un

g c

ou

ple

s,

an

d s

en

iors

. T

his

is

no

w 5

0%

of

the

po

pu

latio

n a

nd

ma

ny o

f th

em

are

will

ing

to

liv

e in

de

nse

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s.

�

Inc

rea

sed

su

pp

ly is

on

e e

lem

en

t to

in

cre

asi

ng

aff

ord

ab

ility

.

�

Re

co

gn

ize

th

at

pe

op

le w

ho

will

liv

e in

th

is h

ou

sin

g o

fte

n a

lre

ad

y li

ve

in t

he

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

. T

he

se h

ou

sin

g o

ptio

ns

allo

w t

he

m t

o s

tay in

the

ir f

am

ilia

r c

om

mu

nity.

�

De

mo

nst

ratio

n p

rog

ram

illu

stra

ted

th

e n

ee

d in

sin

gle

fa

mily

zo

ne

s fo

r

mo

re h

ou

sin

g d

ive

rsity.

�

Ne

ed

to

exp

an

d o

pp

ort

un

ity f

or

infill

to m

ee

t th

e d

em

an

d t

o liv

e

clo

se in

. T

ha

t is

wh

at

the

ma

rke

t is

te

llin

g u

s.

The

en

viro

nm

en

tal a

nd

Co

mp

reh

en

siv

e P

lan

be

ne

fits

of

this

are

it

als

o r

ed

uc

es

spra

wl a

nd

me

ets

ma

ny o

the

r im

po

rta

nt

go

als

of

the

co

mp

reh

en

siv

e p

lan

.


IV. A

ppen

dice

sF

ocus

Gro

up S

umm

ary

of I

nput

Co

nc

ern

s

�

Fittin

g in

to t

he

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

ch

ara

cte

r

�

Imp

ac

tin

g t

he

sta

tus

qu

o w

ill im

pa

ct

mid

dle

cla

ss p

eo

ple

’s la

rge

st in

ve

stm

en

t

�

Dis

tru

st t

ha

t C

ity c

an

do

it

rig

ht.

�

This

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

n (

co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

) w

ill

no

t a

llev

iate

aff

ord

ab

ility

iss

ue

s.

�

We

co

uld

cre

ate

"ra

bb

it w

arr

en

s".

�

The

re is

an

in

co

ng

ruity b

etw

ee

n lim

itin

g

sup

ply

by r

eq

uirin

g t

hin

gs

like

lim

itin

g t

he

nu

mb

er

pe

r b

loc

k v

ers

us

pro

vid

ing

aff

ord

ab

ility

. U

ltim

ate

ly a

ch

oic

e w

ill h

av

e

to b

e m

ad

e a

bo

ut

aff

ord

ab

ility

ve

rsu

s

he

av

y r

est

ric

tio

ns.

�

Ra

ve

nn

a C

ott

ag

es

are

no

t a

ffo

rda

ble

.

�

So

me

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s a

re le

ss a

pp

rop

ria

te

tha

n o

the

rs f

or

this

typ

e o

f h

ou

sin

g.

�

Dis

tru

st o

f a

rch

ite

cts

an

d d

ev

elo

pe

rs w

ho

just

wa

nt

to m

ake

mo

ne

y.

�

Pe

op

le h

av

e s

ee

n a

lo

t o

f b

ad

, lo

w

qu

alit

y D

AD

U's

.

�

Pe

op

le in

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

ha

te d

en

sity

an

d

will

try

to

op

po

se a

ny a

tte

mp

ts t

o c

ha

ng

e

the

sta

tus

qu

o.

�

Ca

utio

us

ab

ou

t D

AD

U’s

be

ca

use

of

de

sig

n a

nd

sc

ale

co

nc

ern

s.

�

It’s

im

po

rta

nt

for

pe

op

le t

o u

nd

ers

tan

d

wh

o w

ill li

ve

th

ere

an

d h

ow

it w

ill add

to

co

mm

un

ity.

Co

nc

ern

s

�

Sta

nd

ard

s w

ill n

ot

be

ad

eq

ua

tely

en

forc

ed

or

will

be

lo

ose

ne

d in

sin

gle

-fa

mily

are

as.

�

In d

esi

gn

ing

co

tta

ge

s, t

he

co

urt

ya

rd d

esi

gn

op

tio

n is

ola

tes

the

co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

fro

m t

he

rest

of

the

str

ee

t a

nd

ma

ke

s it f

ee

l lik

e it’

s n

ot

pa

rt o

f th

e r

est

of

the

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

.

�

En

co

ura

gin

g p

eo

ple

to

de

ve

lop

AD

U’s

re

sults

in “

mo

m a

nd

po

p” la

nd

lord

s w

ho

are

no

t

ed

uc

ate

d o

n b

ein

g g

oo

d la

nd

lord

s.

�

Inc

rea

sin

g d

en

sity

will

ha

ve

ne

ga

tiv

e im

pa

cts

on

pa

rkin

g in

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s.

�

Co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

do

esn

’t in

cre

ase

ho

usi

ng

aff

ord

ab

ility

.

�

De

sig

n w

ill n

ot

be

co

nsi

ste

nt

with

th

e

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

.

�

Sh

ou

ld r

eq

uire

ow

ne

r o

cc

up

an

cy.

�

The

pro

ble

m is

with

ze

ro lo

t lin

e a

nd

th

e

imp

ac

t o

n lig

ht/

sha

de

on

ad

jac

en

t

ne

igh

bo

rs, a

nd

priv

ac

y im

pa

cts

.

�

Co

nc

ern

ab

ou

t la

ck o

f re

spo

nse

fro

m D

CLU

on

cu

rre

nt

infr

ac

tio

ns

on

ho

usi

ng

an

d z

on

ing

sta

nd

ard

s.

�

Gro

wth

is in

cre

me

nta

l; c

um

ula

tiv

e im

pa

cts

ov

er

tim

e a

re n

ot

ad

dre

sse

d.

�

This

will

re

sult in

du

ple

xin

g t

he

city.

�

Pa

rkin

g w

ill b

e a

n iss

ue

an

d f

igu

rin

g o

ut

ho

w

to r

eq

uire

a g

ara

ge

or

off

-str

ee

t p

ark

ing

in

old

er

are

as

wh

ere

exis

tin

g h

om

es

do

n’t

ha

ve

eith

er

is a

ch

alle

ng

e.

�

Co

nc

ern

ed

th

at

all

this

is a

do

ne

de

al a

nd

tha

t p

eo

ple

ha

ve

no

t h

ad

th

e a

bili

ty t

o in

pu

t

into

th

is p

roc

ess

ad

eq

ua

tely

.

Co

nc

ern

s

�

Ha

rd t

o s

trik

e a

ba

lan

ce

be

twe

en

pro

vid

ing

lo

w in

co

me

ho

usi

ng

tha

t e

xist

ing

ne

igh

bo

rs f

ee

l g

oo

d a

bo

ut

be

fore

it

is b

uilt

.

�

Pe

op

le a

re p

red

isp

ose

d n

ot

to a

cc

ep

t c

ha

ng

es

in t

he

ir

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

; th

ey h

av

e n

o in

ce

ntiv

e t

o c

ha

ng

e t

he

ir o

pin

ion

.

�

Co

nc

ern

ed

th

at

ge

ttin

g in

to n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d d

esi

gn

re

vie

w is

like

stirrin

g u

p h

orn

ets

ne

st.

�

Cre

ate

so

me

thin

g t

ha

t c

an

ge

t in

sure

d a

nd

ca

n g

et

bu

ilt.

�

Ne

ed

so

me

gu

ida

nc

e a

nd

sta

nd

ard

s.

�

Co

nc

ern

ed

ab

ou

t tr

yin

g t

o d

o c

od

e la

ng

ua

ge

th

at

ap

plie

s

cityw

ide

. L

oo

k f

or

pla

ce

s in

th

e c

ity t

ha

t m

ake

se

nse

an

d s

tart

the

re.

�

De

ve

lop

ers

will

no

t p

ut

in D

AD

U’s

be

ca

use

it

is e

xp

en

siv

e –

de

sig

n

rev

iew

, p

erm

it p

roc

ess

plu

s b

uild

ing

co

sts

all

ad

d u

p t

o a

pro

hib

itiv

e

ve

ntu

re f

or

the

av

era

ge

ho

me

ow

ne

r.

�

Su

pp

ly p

rob

lem

is

ca

use

d in

pa

rt b

y s

ing

le f

am

ily z

on

ing

co

de

s.

�

De

sig

n r

ev

iew

ta

ke

s to

o lo

ng

. Fe

es

are

ve

ry p

roh

ibitiv

e.

�

Hu

ge

ho

use

s o

n s

ma

ll lo

ts t

ha

t a

re t

ota

lly o

ut

of

the

ch

ara

cte

r o

f th

e

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

are

big

ge

r p

rob

lem

th

an

co

tta

ge

s a

nd

DA

DU

’s.

�

Mid

dle

le

ve

l D

CLU

pe

op

le w

ho

ha

ve

no

co

nc

ern

fo

r th

e c

ost

of

ho

usi

ng

ad

d t

o d

ev

elo

pe

rs’

co

sts.

�

City o

ffic

ials

are

sc

are

d o

f th

e s

an

ctity

of

the

sin

gle

fa

mily

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

.

�

De

sig

n r

ev

iew

pro

ce

ss is

co

mp

lica

ted

. B

ein

g p

resc

rip

tiv

e a

bo

ut

the

do

’s a

nd

do

n’t

s is

fin

e, b

ut

we

ne

ed

a s

imp

le (

on

e p

ag

e)

co

de

.

Be

yo

nd

th

at

let

us

de

sig

n.

�

De

mo

nst

ratio

n p

roje

cts

ha

ve

be

en

a r

ea

lly g

oo

d p

roc

ess

an

d

pe

op

le’s

orig

ina

l fe

ars

ab

ou

t n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d im

pa

ct,

pa

rkin

g iss

ue

s,

vis

ua

l is

sue

s h

av

e m

ost

ly b

ee

n r

eso

lve

d.

�

The

re a

re 3

00

-40

0 A

DU

’s in

th

e c

ity w

ith

no

co

mp

lain

ts.

�

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e d

esi

gn

re

vie

w m

igh

t w

ork

be

tte

r. S

tan

da

rds

ne

ed

to

be

pe

rfo

rma

nc

e b

ase

d, ra

the

r th

an

pre

scrib

ed

se

tba

cks

an

d

he

igh

ts.

�

Mo

re h

ou

sin

g w

ill b

e d

ev

elo

pe

d t

hro

ug

h D

AD

U’s

, n

ot

co

tta

ge

s.

Fe

we

r o

pp

ort

un

itie

s fo

r c

ott

ag

e d

ev

elo

pm

en

t so

will

ta

ke

a lo

ng

tim

e t

o s

ee

an

y r

ea

l c

ha

ng

e.

Section IV. Appendices: Focus Group Summary of Input 41

IV. A

ppen

dice

sF

ocus

Gro

up S

umm

ary

of I

nput

Cri

teri

a a

nd

su

gg

est

ion

s fo

r h

ow

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

�

DA

DU

’s a

re b

ett

er

in a

rea

s w

ith

alle

ys.

�

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

co

nsu

lta

tio

n w

ill h

elp

en

sure

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

ch

ara

cte

r is

re

tain

ed

.

�

Pu

t lim

its

on

th

e n

um

be

rs o

f th

ese

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

in e

ac

h n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d.

�

Exe

mp

t so

me

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s b

ase

d o

n

spe

cific

crite

ria

(E.g

. lo

t si

ze).

�

Do

n’t

ov

erc

row

d –

co

nsi

de

r re

latio

nsh

ip a

nd

imp

ac

t o

n n

eig

hb

ors

.

�

City m

ust

be

pre

pa

red

to

do

th

e in

spe

ctin

g

tha

t is

re

qu

ire

d.

�

Aff

ord

ab

ility

sh

ou

ld b

e p

rio

ritize

d.

�

En

sure

fa

irn

ess

in

pe

rmittin

g.

�

Co

nsi

de

r n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d s

pe

cific

s lik

e s

ca

le,

de

sig

n, a

pp

rop

ria

ten

ess

, d

eg

ree

of

exis

tin

g

de

nsi

ty.

�

Ba

nks

ne

ed

to

be

in

vo

lve

d. S

om

etim

es

ba

nkin

g r

eq

uire

me

nts

ad

d t

o u

gly

, b

ad

de

sig

n.

�

DA

DU

’s n

ee

d c

on

sist

en

t d

esi

gn

an

d f

inis

h

be

twe

en

ho

use

an

d t

he

DA

DU

.

�

Allo

w b

ou

nd

ary

ch

an

ge

s su

ch

as

co

mb

inin

g

of

lots

an

d r

ep

latt

ing

to

cre

ate

mo

re s

pa

ce

for

co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

.

�

Re

gu

latin

g a

est

he

tic

s w

ill b

e h

ard

, b

ut

try t

o

inc

lud

e d

esi

gn

fe

atu

res

like

po

rch

es,

ga

rde

ns,

co

mm

un

ity s

pa

ce

s th

at

co

uld

be

reg

ula

ted

th

rou

gh

co

de

an

d z

on

ing

.

�

Cre

ate

in

ce

ntiv

es

for

ow

ne

rs.

�

Be

vis

ion

ary

ab

ou

t w

ho

is

go

ing

to

use

th

is

ho

usi

ng

.

�

Ad

dre

ss p

ark

ing

by e

nsu

rin

g t

ha

t p

ark

ing

reg

ula

tio

ns

are

en

forc

ed

.

�

Critic

al a

s to

ho

w t

he

y a

re p

lac

es

on

th

e lo

t

an

d h

ow

th

ey a

dd

ress

th

e s

tre

et.

Cri

teri

a a

nd

su

gg

est

ion

s fo

r h

ow

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

�

Prio

ritize

pro

pe

rty w

ith

alle

ys

in p

lac

ing

DA

DU

’s.

�

Fo

cu

s in

are

as

wh

ere

gro

wth

is

an

tic

ipa

ted

an

d t

arg

ete

d b

y t

he

city a

nd

in

are

as

with

go

od

tra

nsi

t a

cc

ess

.

�

Re

qu

ire

he

igh

t a

nd

se

tba

ck r

est

ric

tio

ns

sho

uld

be

co

nsi

de

red

in

co

nte

xt

of

wh

at

is

ap

pro

pria

te f

or

the

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

.

�

En

forc

em

en

t o

f e

xis

tin

g p

ark

ing

re

gu

latio

ns

will

he

lp.

�

Re

qu

ire

th

at

“re

qu

ire

d” p

ark

ing

is u

sed

by

pe

op

le in

th

e u

nits

(ve

rsu

s p

ark

ing

on

str

ee

t).

This

is

esp

ec

ially

tru

e in

are

as

wh

ere

th

ere

are

oth

er

pre

ssu

res

on

pa

rkin

g.

�

Pro

ac

tiv

ely

de

al w

ith

th

e t

raff

ic t

ha

t c

om

es

with

mo

re d

en

sity

.

Ad

dre

ss t

raff

ic s

afe

ty

co

nc

ern

s.

Co

nsi

de

r th

ing

s lik

e t

raff

ic c

irc

les,

spe

ed

bu

mp

s to

slo

w t

raff

ic.

�

On

-str

ee

t p

ark

ing

ca

n a

ctu

ally

he

lp t

o s

low

do

wn

tra

ffic

.

�

Ne

ed

to

ha

ve

sta

nd

ard

s fo

r o

pe

n s

pa

ce

an

d

setb

ac

ks,

re

qu

ire

me

nts

to

be

clo

se t

o t

ran

sit

an

d t

o m

itig

ate

tra

nsp

ort

atio

n im

pa

cts

.

�

Ha

rne

ss lo

ca

l kn

ow

led

ge

in

de

sig

n r

ev

iew

pro

ce

ss a

nd

in

co

rpo

rate

lo

ca

l kn

ow

led

ge

into

de

ve

lop

me

nt.

�

Se

att

le h

as

ve

ry r

est

ric

tiv

e A

DU

re

qu

ire

me

nts

co

mp

are

d t

o o

the

r ju

risd

ictio

ns,

e.g

. w

aiv

ers

to p

ark

ing

re

qu

ire

me

nt

allo

we

d in

oth

er

citie

s.

�

De

ve

lop

with

in t

he

co

nte

xt o

f th

e

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

. C

lea

r st

an

da

rds

tha

t a

re n

ot

op

en

-en

de

d.

�

Inv

ite

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

inp

ut;

list

en

to

th

eir

co

nc

ern

s c

are

fully

. P

roje

ct

sho

uld

no

t b

e a

“d

on

e d

ea

l” b

efo

re n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d r

ev

iew

.

Cri

teri

a a

nd

su

gg

est

ion

s fo

r h

ow

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

ty

pe

s c

an

wo

rk b

ett

er

�

Targ

et

som

e a

rea

s firs

t v

s. c

ityw

ide

ap

plic

atio

n

�

Mo

re d

en

sity

in

cre

ase

s w

ill c

om

e f

rom

co

tta

ge

s, w

ork

s b

est

with

alle

y b

ut

the

re a

re n

ot

a lo

t o

f a

lleys

in t

he

city.

�

Loo

k in

to w

he

the

r th

ere

is

mo

ne

y in

ho

usi

ng

le

vy, th

rou

gh

th

e h

om

e

rep

air p

rog

ram

– t

ha

t c

an

be

ma

de

av

aila

ble

to

pe

op

le t

o a

dd

an

AD

U t

ha

t w

ou

ld b

e m

ad

e a

va

ilab

le t

o lo

w in

co

me

pe

rso

n.

�

Co

nsu

lt w

ith

la

nd

tru

sts

to e

na

ble

ho

usi

ng

ch

oic

es

tha

t c

ou

ld b

e

use

d a

s lo

w in

co

me

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

ns.

�

Cre

ate

a S

ea

rs c

ata

log

of

de

sig

ns

wh

ere

so

me

on

e c

ou

ld ju

st g

o in

an

d g

et

the

ir d

esi

gn

. T

ha

t w

ou

ld m

ake

it

ea

sie

r fo

r p

eo

ple

to

ac

tua

lly d

o it.

�

Go

od

de

sig

n w

ork

s. P

roc

ed

ura

l c

ha

ng

es

are

ne

ed

ed

so

DC

LU c

an

giv

e in

spe

cto

rs t

he

au

tho

rity

to

ma

ke

ju

dg

me

nt

ca

lls.

�

Su

bd

ivis

ion

in

cre

ase

s la

nd

va

lue

su

rro

un

din

g c

ott

ag

e h

ou

sin

g e

ve

n

mo

re. F

ind

ch

an

ge

s th

at

are

use

ful a

nd

bro

ad

en

th

e o

ptio

ns

– n

ot

just

AD

U’s

& c

ott

ag

e h

ou

sin

g.

�

Sim

plif

y t

he

ord

ina

nc

e t

o m

ake

th

is m

ore

like

ly t

o b

e a

re

al c

ho

ice

.

�

Wa

tch

wh

at

Re

dm

on

d a

nd

oth

er

pla

ce

s n

ea

rby a

re d

oin

g. Fin

d

gre

at

exa

mp

les

of

pe

op

le e

lse

wh

ere

in

re

gio

n a

nd

cre

ate

be

nc

hm

ark

s fo

r su

cc

ess

�

Cre

ate

an

Om

bu

dsm

an

fo

r p

roje

cts

with

in t

he

city t

o h

elp

pe

op

le

ge

t o

ve

r h

urd

les

an

d t

o g

ive

th

em

to

ols

to

do

th

ese

rig

ht.

�

Ed

uc

ate

th

e C

ity s

taff

on

ho

w t

he

co

de

is

no

t w

ork

ing

; te

ac

h t

he

m

by s

ho

win

g e

xa

mp

les

of

ho

w it

co

uld

be

.

�

Go

od

in

spe

cto

rs w

ho

ca

n m

ake

go

od

jud

gm

en

t c

alls

in t

he

fie

ld w

ill

ma

ke

a b

ig d

iffe

ren

ce

.

�

Inc

orp

ora

te s

imp

le s

olu

tio

ns

to a

dd

ress

pe

op

le’s

big

co

nc

ern

s lik

e

win

do

w p

lac

em

en

t fo

r p

riv

ac

y

�

Loo

k a

t d

isp

ers

ion

re

qu

ire

me

nt

of

the

se h

ou

sin

g t

yp

es

�

De

ve

lop

a 2

tra

ck r

ev

iew

pro

ce

ss; g

ive

a c

ho

ice

to

go

th

rou

gh

op

tio

na

l d

esi

gn

re

vie

w h

eig

ht/

setb

ac

k o

r u

se d

esi

gn

bo

ok p

lan

s.

�

De

sig

n o

n t

he

co

un

ter

with

th

e p

lan

, m

ake

it

ea

sy.

�

In o

rde

r to

ma

ke

th

is a

via

ble

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

n t

ha

t fu

lfill

s th

e g

oa

l

the

re w

ill n

ee

d t

o b

e m

ark

etin

g a

nd

pu

blic

aw

are

ne

ss e

ffo

rts.


Cri

teri

a a

nd

su

gg

est

ion

s fo

r h

ow

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

�

Sh

ou

ld b

e w

elc

om

ing

. C

on

sid

er

ho

w y

ou

ge

t

in t

he

m a

nd

wh

ere

is

pa

rkin

g.

�

Inc

rea

sin

g s

up

ply

sh

ou

ld b

e a

prio

rity

an

d w

ill

he

lp a

dd

ress

aff

ord

ab

ility

iss

ue

s.

�

De

sig

n R

ev

iew

will

he

lp e

nsu

re q

ua

lity.

�

Pla

nn

ing

Bo

oks

– C

rea

te a

“Se

ars

ca

talo

gu

e”

of

pre

ap

pro

ve

d p

lan

s in

ord

er

to m

ake

it

ea

sy f

or

pe

op

le. It

will

brin

g d

ow

n t

he

co

sts

an

d m

ake

th

e p

erm

ittin

g p

roc

ess

ea

sie

r.

It

will

als

o h

elp

with

th

e q

ua

lity a

nd

de

sig

n

co

nc

ern

s.

�

He

lp p

eo

ple

do

th

is b

y p

rov

idin

g t

oo

l th

at

will

spe

ed

up

pro

ce

ss a

nd

lo

we

r e

xp

en

ses.

Cri

teri

a a

nd

su

gg

est

ion

s fo

r h

ow

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

�

Str

uc

ture

pu

blic

pro

ce

ss t

o n

ot

last

to

o lo

ng

. It

is n

ot

sust

ain

ab

le t

o r

eq

uire

ap

pro

va

l of

ne

igh

bo

rs.

�

En

sure

ne

igh

bo

rs g

et

a f

air s

ha

ke

in

de

cis

ion

-

ma

kin

g a

bo

ut

the

ir n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds.

�

Re

co

gn

ize

dis

tin

ctio

n b

etw

ee

n r

etr

ofitt

ing

an

exis

tin

g b

uild

ing

an

d b

uild

ing

a n

ew

on

e. T

his

inc

lud

es

bo

th d

esi

gn

issu

es

an

d e

nsu

rin

g t

ha

t

plu

mb

ing

/ele

ctr

ica

l a

re a

de

qu

ate

fo

r th

is

ne

w u

se.

�

Min

imiz

e s

ub

sta

nd

ard

ho

usi

ng

be

ing

de

ve

lop

ed

. E

du

ca

tio

n o

f th

e la

nd

lord

is

ve

ry

imp

ort

an

t, e

spe

cia

lly r

eg

ard

ing

la

nd

lord

-

ten

an

t la

ws.

�

Lim

it h

ow

ma

ny p

er

blo

ck.

�

Inst

itu

te c

ov

en

an

t a

gre

em

en

ts

Cri

teri

a a

nd

su

gg

est

ion

s fo

r h

ow

th

ese

ho

usi

ng

ty

pe

s c

an

wo

rk b

ett

er

�

Ma

ke

it

ea

sie

r fo

r th

e la

yp

ers

on

by c

rea

tin

g a

“h

ow

to

” k

it t

ha

t w

alk

s

thro

ug

h h

ow

to

hire

arc

hite

ct,

exp

lain

s th

e la

nd

use

re

vie

w, p

erm

it

pro

ce

ss, a

nd

ou

tlin

es

co

sts

an

d f

ina

nc

ing

.

�

Thin

k t

hro

ug

h a

nd

wo

rk w

ith

th

e f

ina

nc

ing

co

mp

on

en

t.

�

Bu

ild y

ou

r o

wn

DA

DU

kits

– s

toc

k p

lan

s. S

ou

nd

s lik

e a

go

od

Pro

jec

t

for

AIA

�

DA

DU

’s w

ill b

e le

ast

in

tru

siv

e t

o t

he

cu

rre

nt

co

de

.

�

Co

tta

ge

s a

re o

ut

of

ch

ara

cte

r in

L z

on

es

sho

uld

be

in

Sin

gle

fa

mily

zon

es.

�

He

igh

t h

as

to b

e c

on

ce

ptu

ally

ba

sed

an

d a

rch

ite

ctu

rally

so

un

d.

�

Alle

yw

ay r

ea

r ya

rd s

etb

ac

ks

sho

uld

be

bu

ilt r

igh

t u

p t

o t

he

ed

ge

of

an

alle

y a

s it h

as

ma

ny p

osi

tiv

e im

pa

cts

.

�

Pro

vid

e f

lexib

ility

in

op

en

sp

ac

e a

nd

ho

w y

ou

pro

vid

e it

. It

sho

uld

be

fu

nc

tio

na

l sp

ac

e.

�

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

co

un

cil

is n

ot

alw

ays

rep

rese

nta

tiv

e o

f

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

. G

oin

g t

hro

ug

h o

nly

th

em

is

no

t re

ally

a f

air p

roc

ess

.

Mig

ht

be

be

tte

r to

ou

tre

ac

h t

o p

eo

ple

in

pe

rim

ete

r to

ge

t b

uyo

ff

an

d d

o a

pre

de

sig

n n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d m

ee

tin

g d

urin

g p

roje

ct

pla

nn

ing

.

�

DC

LU m

idd

lem

en

ne

ed

to

be

ed

uc

ate

d o

n h

elp

ing

co

ntr

ac

tor

to

ke

ep

co

sts

do

wn

if

we

wa

nt

to c

rea

te a

ffo

rda

ble

ho

usi

ng

. It

sho

uld

n’t

be

ha

rde

r to

bu

ild s

om

eth

ing

th

at

is a

be

tte

r p

roje

ct

just

be

ca

use

th

e c

od

es

ge

t in

th

e w

ay.

�

Ed

uc

ate

th

e p

ub

lic, e

lec

ted

off

icia

ls a

nd

de

ve

lop

ers

an

d b

an

ke

rs.

Co

ord

ina

te a

to

ur

of

all

of

the

se h

ou

sin

g t

yp

es

an

d t

he

n t

ake

pe

op

le o

ut

to s

ee

it.

�

City h

as

to s

tep

up

an

d b

e p

rop

on

en

t.

�

Co

mp

ile s

tatist

ics

an

d d

ev

elo

p g

en

era

l h

um

an

in

tere

st s

torie

s a

bo

ut

wh

o liv

es

in t

he

se c

ott

ag

es

an

d D

AD

U’s

.

�

Ma

yo

r a

nd

City c

ou

nc

il h

av

e t

o s

et

vis

ion

, se

t g

oa

ls, a

nd

ge

t in

pu

t

to m

ake

it

be

tte

r a

nd

be

le

ad

ers

in

mo

vin

g t

his

fo

rwa

rd.

It

is t

he

ir

ma

nd

ate

an

d t

he

ir r

esp

on

sib

ility

.

IV. A

ppen

dix

Foc

us G

roup

Sum

mar

y of

Inp

ut

Section IV. Appendices: Public Forum Agenda 43

Housing Choices Public Open House and Forum Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Seattle Center, Northwest Rooms (Olympic)

5:30 – 8:30 P.M. AGENDA

Co-sponsored by the Seattle Planning Commission and

the City’s Department of Design, Construction and Land Use

Open House 5:30 – 6:30 P.M.

View Displays

Ask Questions of City Staff and Planning Commissioners

Opportunity For Public Comment

Public Forum Program 6:30 – 8:30 P.M.

Welcome and Introductions 6:30 – 6:40 P.M.

Diane Sugimura, Director of Department of Design, Construction and Land Use

John Owen, Chair, Seattle Planning Commission

Background/Overview 6:40 – 6:50 P.M.

Mimi Sheridan, Seattle Planning Commissioner

Presentation on Cottage Housing and

Detached ADUs 6:50 – 7:05 P.M.

Jory Phillips, DCLU staff

Mike Kimelberg, DCLU staff

Panel Discussion 7:05 – 7:50 P.M.

Moderator, Chuck Weinstock, Director, Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program

Panel Members:

Mark Hinshaw, Architect and contributing writer to the Seattle Times

Chuck Winkelman, Neighbor of Housing Choices Demonstration Project

Vince Ferrese, Designer/building of Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit

Lisa Merki, City Neighborhood Council and Southeast Neighborhood Plan Steward

Table Discussion 7:50 – 8:20 P.M.

This discussion will be facilitated by a Planning Commissioner, focus group participant

or staff. Notes will be taken, summarized and included in the Commission’s report.

Closing/Next Steps 8:20 – 8:30 P.M.

Moderator, John Owen

IV. Appendices

Public Forum Agenda


Public Forum Participants

T. J. Andersen

Brittani Ard

Emory Baldwin

Tim Becker

Garrett Birkeland

Mindy Black

Evelyn Brom

Steve Brooke

Marci Bryant

Judy and Hudson Burke

Christine Carr

Mike Carroll

Clarence Copeland

Brian Corbett

Karen DeLucas

Tom Donnelly

Allan Farkas

Bill Fenimore

Mike Ferone

Vince Ferrese

Gary Gartcell

Joseph Gellings

Laura Hafermann

Dru Hardee

Laura Hewitt Walker

Mike Hollingea

Laura Hopper

Ron Hopper

Mark Huppert

S. Johnsen

Heather Johnston

Skye Kahli

Michael Kitchell

Ian Klein

Scott Kralik

John Kucher

Gary Langowski

Denise Lathrop

Tory Laughlin Taylor

Marty Liebowicz

Stephen Edwin Lundgren

Suying Luu

Jennifer Mahler

Mike Mariano

Helen Matekel

Andrfew McCune

Lisa Merki

Lisa Miller

Tammy Morales

George Ostrow

Tom Phillips

Chad Rollins

Jim Romano

Rick Sever

Cheryl Sizov

Jim Soules

Winnie Sperry

Andrew Taylor

James Thomas

Jeremy von Wandruszka

Lluvia and Seth Walker

Chuck Weinstock

Jaques White

David Williams

Chuck Winkelman

Vin Yarnmunilert

Chris and Ward MacKenzie

IV. Appendices

Public Forum Participants

IV. A

ppen

dice

sP

ublic

For

um S

umm

ary

of I

nput

Pu

blic

Fo

rum

Su

mm

ary

of is

sue

s, c

on

ce

rns

an

d Id

ea

s fr

om

th

e p

rese

nta

tio

ns

an

d t

ab

le d

isc

uss

ion

s

Ho

usi

ng

Ch

oic

es

Ov

era

ll D

eta

ch

ed

AD

Us

CO

TTA

GES

N

ee

d f

or

this

Ho

usi

ng

Ty

pe

N

ee

d a

ffo

rda

ble

ho

usi

ng

op

tio

ns

ov

era

ll in

a

va

rie

ty o

f n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds

for

pe

op

le lik

e t

ea

ch

ers

wh

o o

fte

n c

an

no

t a

ffo

rd t

o li

ve

in

th

e c

om

mu

nitie

s

wh

ere

th

ey w

ork

.

Th

ese

ho

usi

ng

typ

es

will

aff

ec

t c

ha

rac

ter

of

the

city

B

uild

in

pro

tec

tio

ns

to e

nsu

re t

he

fa

bric

of

co

mm

un

itie

s.

W

ith

in

cre

ase

d d

en

sity

co

me

tra

ffic

iss

ue

s. In

th

e

sho

rt t

erm

tra

ffic

will

be

a r

ea

l p

rob

lem

.

Lo

ok a

t lo

ca

tio

na

l c

rite

ria

an

d a

llow

ea

ch

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

to

de

cid

e w

he

the

r to

re

qu

ire

pa

rkin

g.

Se

att

le h

as

a r

esp

on

sib

ility

to

gra

cio

usl

y a

cc

ep

t

de

nsi

ty.

N

ee

d t

o m

ake

th

e C

ity d

en

se n

ea

r tr

an

sit

line

s.

D

eta

ch

ed

AD

Us

& C

ott

ag

es

allo

w m

ore

pe

op

le/h

om

eo

wn

ers

to

liv

e in

Se

att

le r

ath

er

tha

n

mo

vin

g t

o t

he

ou

tskirts

an

d c

rea

tin

g m

ore

sp

raw

l.

Ne

ed

fo

r th

is H

ou

sin

g T

yp

e

Fro

m a

n e

co

no

mic

pe

rsp

ec

tiv

e D

AD

Us

ca

n h

elp

to

sup

po

rt in

terg

en

era

tio

na

l h

ou

sin

g f

or

low

er

inc

om

e

ho

use

ho

lds.

A

DU

’s h

av

e w

ork

ed

ve

ry w

ell

in s

ing

le f

am

ily

resi

de

ntia

l ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s it is

like

ly t

ha

t D

eta

ch

ed

AD

U’s

will

als

o w

ork

we

ll a

nd

pro

vid

e n

ee

de

d

op

tio

ns.

D

AD

U’s

are

oft

en

be

tte

r h

ou

sin

g o

ptio

ns

tha

n A

DU

’s

tha

t a

re o

fte

n b

uilt

in

ba

sem

en

t. T

he

ca

rria

ge

ho

use

or

ga

rde

n h

ou

se c

on

ce

pt

for

DA

DU

’s is

a n

ice

r vis

ua

l

an

d w

ill b

e a

pp

ea

ling

to

ne

igh

bo

rs a

nd

th

ose

liv

ing

in t

he

ho

usi

ng

.

Ne

ed

fo

r th

is H

ou

sin

g T

yp

e

Co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

pro

vid

es

po

ten

tia

l ho

me

ow

ne

rsh

ip a

nd

a lo

ng

-te

rm w

ay t

o a

dd

de

nsi

ty

wit

h g

oo

d t

ran

sit

ac

ce

ss

Co

tta

ge

ho

usi

ng

pro

mo

tes

ec

on

om

ic a

nd

life

style

div

ers

ity. A

ffo

rda

bili

ty s

ho

uld

no

t

ne

ce

ssa

rily

be

an

ob

jec

tive

SF c

ott

ag

e h

ou

sin

g –

sam

e c

ost

as

SF h

om

e.

Co

nc

ern

s

C

on

ce

rns

with

pa

rkin

g, tr

aff

ic a

nd

priv

ac

y d

ue

to

inc

rea

sed

de

nsi

ty in

sin

gle

fa

mily

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s.

C

on

ce

rn t

ha

t th

is w

ill n

eg

ativ

ely

im

pa

ct

the

ch

ara

cte

r a

nd

fa

bric

of

sin

gle

fa

mily

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s.

Co

nc

ern

s

O

pp

ose

d t

o D

esi

gn

Re

vie

w f

or

DA

DU

. It

is

no

t

req

uire

d f

or

oth

er

ho

usi

ng

su

ch

as

big

te

ar

–d

ow

n

ne

w h

om

es

tha

t a

re o

ut

of

ch

ara

cte

r a

nd

sc

ale

with

the

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

s th

at

are

no

t su

bje

ct

to d

esi

gn

rev

iew

. D

esi

gn

re

vie

w o

n D

AD

U’s

is a

n u

nfa

ir s

cru

tin

y.

N

ee

d t

o e

nsu

re t

he

re is

a s

imp

lifie

d s

tru

ctu

re a

nd

pro

ce

ss f

or

DA

DU

’s. O

ve

rall

pro

ce

ss s

ho

uld

be

ea

sy

an

d h

av

e a

th

resh

old

fo

r t

iere

d r

ev

iew

D

oe

s n

ot

ne

ed

to

be

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e p

roh

ibitiv

ely

exp

en

siv

e.

P

ark

ing

iss

ue

s v

ary

sig

nific

an

tly. D

on

’t b

e t

oo

rig

id in

ad

din

g r

eq

uire

me

nts

Re

qu

ire

me

nt

for

off

-str

ee

t

pa

rkin

g s

ho

uld

be

wa

ive

d in

so

me

situ

atio

ns.

M

ay b

e c

ha

llen

ge

s to

ow

ne

r o

cc

up

ied

re

qu

ire

me

nt

C

on

ce

rn t

ha

t a

12 f

oo

t p

late

he

igh

t w

on

’t a

llow

ab

ov

e 1

sto

ry. 16 f

oo

t b

ett

er

& a

llow

flo

or

ov

er

ga

rag

e.

Co

nc

ern

s

Co

nc

ern

with

wh

eth

er

the

re e

no

ug

h a

va

ilab

le

co

tta

ge

site

s.

Ch

ara

cte

r &

sc

ale

ca

n b

e a

dd

ress

ed

, b

ut

co

nc

ern

ed

ab

ou

t th

e n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d f

ab

ric

.

Pa

rkin

g a

nd

de

nsi

ty c

on

ce

rns

co

me

do

wn

to

fe

ar

of

the

un

kn

ow

n.

Th

ere

is

a lo

t o

f u

pfr

on

t c

ost

s w

hic

h c

rea

te a

big

ch

alle

ng

e b

efo

re e

ve

r g

ett

ing

to

a

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

de

sig

n r

evie

w.

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

de

sig

n r

ev

iew

wo

uld

ma

ke

it t

oo

cu

mb

ers

om

e.

Crite

ria

an

d s

ug

ge

stio

ns

for

ho

w t

he

se h

ou

sin

g t

yp

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

Crite

ria

an

d s

ug

ge

stio

ns

for

ho

w t

he

se h

ou

sin

g t

yp

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

Crite

ria

an

d s

ug

ge

stio

ns

for

ho

w t

he

se h

ou

sin

g

typ

es

ca

n w

ork

be

tte

r

Section IV. Appendices: Public Forum Summary of Input 45


Ho

usi

ng

Ch

oic

es

Ov

era

ll D

eta

ch

ed

AD

Us

CO

TTA

GES

B

ala

nc

e t

he

im

pa

cts

city-w

ide

an

d n

ot

just

in

ce

rta

in n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds

Th

e C

ity c

ou

ld p

rov

ide

be

tte

r e

du

ca

tio

n a

nd

ba

ckg

rou

nd

on

wh

y “

go

od

de

nsi

ty” is

gre

at

thin

g.

Tea

ch

ne

igh

bo

rs a

bo

ut

GM

A

C

ity s

ho

uld

co

nd

uc

t a

su

rve

y o

f p

ark

ing

an

d

de

term

ine

a p

roc

ess

fo

r w

aiv

ing

pa

rkin

g

req

uire

me

nts

M

ake

ou

tre

ac

h m

ate

ria

ls a

va

ilab

le in

mu

ltip

le

lan

gu

ag

es

an

d a

t N

eig

hb

orh

oo

d S

erv

ice

Ce

nte

rs

an

d F

am

ily S

up

po

rt C

en

ters

to

ta

rge

t p

ote

ntia

l

au

die

nc

es

for

the

se h

ou

sin

g t

yp

es

Fin

d w

ays

to p

rom

ote

a s

ca

le a

nd

typ

olo

gy f

or

“g

ard

en

co

tta

ge

” o

r “c

arr

iag

e h

om

e”.

Th

e p

lan

bo

ok a

cts

as

an

ec

on

om

ic in

ce

ntiv

e f

or

po

ore

r p

eo

ple

to

bu

ild t

he

se t

yp

es

of

ho

usi

ng

.

D

eta

ch

ed

AD

Us

sho

uld

re

late

to

sc

ale

of

ma

in h

ou

se

to s

ho

w D

AD

U is

sub

ord

ina

te.

P

resc

rib

e d

eta

ch

ed

AD

Us

city-w

ide

.

D

esi

gn

re

vie

w p

roc

ess

sh

ou

ld o

ffe

r d

ep

art

ure

s to

ap

plic

an

ts. If b

uild

er

me

ets

pre

scrib

ed

sta

nd

ard

s,

tha

n n

o d

esi

gn

re

vie

w o

r p

ub

lic p

roc

ess

.

C

rea

te a

be

tte

r p

roc

ess

wh

ere

ne

igh

bo

rs c

an

wo

rk

wit

h n

eig

hb

ors

.

Lo

ok a

t p

lac

es

like

th

e C

ity o

f K

irkla

nd

to

se

e w

ha

t

wo

rks

an

d w

ha

t d

oe

s n

ot

wo

rk.

C

on

sid

er

ge

og

rap

hic

sta

nd

ard

s b

ase

d o

n a

va

ilab

ility

of

bu

s lin

e.

C

on

sid

er

Loc

atio

n E

ffic

ien

t M

ort

ga

ge

op

tio

ns

to

pla

ce

DA

DU

’s in

ce

rta

in n

eig

hb

orh

oo

ds,

or

ne

ar

tra

nsi

t.

R

eq

uire

a b

asi

c le

ve

l of

pre

scrip

tiv

e d

esi

gn

bu

t c

lose

to n

oth

ing

mo

re t

ha

n w

ha

t w

ou

ld b

e p

resc

rib

ed

in

sin

gle

fa

mily

zo

ne

s.

Fin

d w

ays

to m

inim

ize

lig

ht/

sha

do

w im

pa

cts

on

ad

join

ing

pro

pe

rtie

s.

C

on

sid

er

two

pe

rmittin

g o

ptio

ns;

on

e w

ith

str

ict

sta

nd

ard

s a

nd

on

e w

ith

de

pa

rtu

res

& n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d

rev

iew

.

D

on

’t g

et

too

co

mp

lica

ted

with

he

igh

t lim

its

inst

ea

d

loo

k a

t FA

R s

tan

da

rds.

Th

e s

ize

of

un

it c

ou

ld b

e r

ela

tiv

e t

o s

ize

of

lot

or

av

era

ge

of

lot

size

s in

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Pro

vid

e in

ce

ntiv

es

like

r lo

ca

tio

n e

ffic

ien

t

mo

rtg

ag

es,

Fle

xc

ars

, re

du

ce

d p

ark

ing

req

uire

me

nts

fo

r c

ott

ag

e h

ou

sin

g if

with

x

nu

mb

er

of

fee

t o

f si

ng

le f

am

ily b

us

line

.

Bu

ilde

r m

ay b

en

efit

by h

old

ing

a n

eig

hb

orh

oo

d

me

etin

g p

rio

r to

pro

po

sal, v

ery

ea

rly in

pro

ce

ss.

Lo

ok o

uts

ide

of

Se

att

le t

o d

ete

rmin

e d

en

sity

lim

its

for

Co

tta

ge

Ho

usi

ng

.

Gre

en

wo

od

co

tta

ge

s p

rovid

e a

go

od

exa

mp

le

of

ho

w c

ott

ag

es

ca

n f

it n

ice

ly in

to t

he

ne

igh

bo

rho

od

co

nte

xt.

Co

tta

ge

ho

me

s sh

ou

ld h

av

e a

str

on

g s

en

se o

f

co

mm

un

ity a

nd

he

lp t

o c

rea

te a

se

nse

of

co

mm

un

ity.

Cre

ate

a p

roc

ess

to

de

al w

ith

th

is s

ca

le im

pa

ct

of

Co

tta

ge

s. S

ittin

g a

nd

bu

lk s

ho

uld

fit t

he

spe

cific

site

.

Ap

ply

sa

me

lev

el o

f sc

rutin

y a

s c

om

pa

rab

le

de

nsi

ty p

roje

cts

ha

ve

with

fle

xib

ility

to

ta

ke

ad

va

nta

ge

of

a g

ive

n s

ite

.

46

IV. A

ppen

dix

Pub

lic F

orum

Sum

mar

y of

Inp

ut


Documents

Seattle's Housing Choices€™s Housing Choices: ... Cheryl Sizov : Content, ... George Blomberg, Vice Chair Anjali Bhagat Angela Brooks Gregory Davis