Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/15/2002 e KENT WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. SatterstroDirector October 15, 2002 PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP Manager Mailing Address: The City Council Planning Committee will meet in Council Chambers East, Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S. City Hall, 220 0' Avenue South, at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 15, 2002. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Location Address: 400 West Gowe Kent,WA 98032 Phone:253-856-5454 Committee Members: Leona Orr, Chair Tim Clark Bruce White Fax:253-856-6454 Action Speaker Time 1. Approval of Minutes of YES September 17, 2002 2. "Innovative"Housing NO Gloria Gould-Wessen 60 min The Planning Committee meets the third Tuesday of each month at 3:00 PM in Chambers East, Kent City Hall, 220 4`11 Ave. South,-unless otherwise noted. For agenda information please contact Jackie Bicknell at(253) 856-5712. ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT(253)856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE CALL THE WASHINGTON TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388. OCTOBER 8, 2002 THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 10/15/02 ANNING COMMITTEE & LU&PB - JOINT MEETING (3:00 PM) • TITLE OF ITEM #1 "INNOVATIVE" HOUSING INFORMATION ITEM: This presentation is intended to promote discussion on the following innovative housing forms: "Cottage Housing", "Cluster Housing", Attached Single-Family Housing that have been built around the Puget Sound Region. BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from Gloria Gould-Wessen dated 10/8/02, Staff report that includes a brief history on housing, a description of the workshop's program, a summary of and results from the survey and visual preference, and a summary of the question and answer period, Black and white copies of the housing boards used for the visual preference survey. PRESENTER(s): Gloria Gould-Wessen, Planner/GIS Coordinator Guest Speakers: Bill Kreager of MITHUN Architecture, Design & Planning Jim Soules of the Cottage Company TIME: 30 Minutes S:(Permit(Plan(Planning CommitteeW2101 Spc-cvrsht.doe ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMITTEE OCTOBER 15, 2002 • "INNOVATIVE" HOUSING INFORMATION ITEM : This presentation is intended to promote discussion on the following innovative housing forms: "Cottage Housing", "Cluster Housing", Attached Single-Family Housing that have been built around the Puget Sound Region. • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 K EN T Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 October 8, 2002 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS CHAIR RON HARMON AND LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER RE: "INNOVATIVE"HOUSING FOR OCTOBER l 5, 2002 MEETING At the October 15th joint meeting of the Planning Committee and Land Use& Planning Board(LU&PB), guests Bill Kreager of MITHUN Architecture, Design and Planning and Jim Soules of The Cottage Company will present Cottage Housing, Cluster Housing and Attached Single-Family Housing forms that • have been built around the Puget Sound Region. The purpose of the presentation is to promote discussion on these innovative housing forms. On September 12, 2002, Planning Services held a housing workshop for the public on innovative housing forms. At this workshop, Bill Kreager and Jim Soules introduced Cottage, Cluster and Attached Single- Family Housing forms and facilitated discussion during a question and answer session. The program concluded with the public being asked to respond to visual preference of "housing boards" and to complete a short survey. A summary of the aforementioned housing workshop was presented to the LU&PB on September 23`a The packet that is attached provides: 1) a staff report that includes a brief history on housing, a description of the workshop's program, a summary of and results from the survey and visual preference, and a summary of the question and answer period; and 2) black and white copies of the housing boards used for the visual preference survey. Staff will be available at the October 15a' committee meeting to answer questions or provide further information. G W\pm\P:\Planning\2002 CompPlan Update\Plg Cmte\2021037_CPA2002-1 Housing Wkshp 101502 cc: Satterstrom,AICP,Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Director Gloria Gould-Wessen,GIs Coordinator/Planner Kim Adams Pratt,Assistant City Attorney Project File CPA-2002-1 1 of 1 1 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, C.D. Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager W A S H I N G T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 September 16, 2002 TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: GLORIA GOULD-WESSEN, GIS COORDINATOR/PLANNER RE: REPORT ON "INNOVATIVE" HOUSING WORKSHOP FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 LUPB WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION On September 12, 2002, Planning Services held a housing workshop at the Senior Center for the purpose of educating the public and garnering a response to "innovative" housing forms, namely cottage housing, cluster housing, and what is commonly referred to as attached single-family housing (a.k.a. duplex, triplex, and four-plex). Over 600 invitations were mailed out to citizens historically active in the community. The mailing list included members of local service organizations, Kent PTA, neighborhood block watch, home-owner associations, Kent Downtown Partnership, Chamber of Commerce, as well as, participants in the Kent Station Open House, Arts Commission, Housing Committee, the 1990 Kent Visioning Process, and local builders and developers, the Mayor, Council Members, and members of the Land Use and Planning Board. Notices in the Kent Reporter, South County Journal and The Journal America were published, and both the City's website, cable channel and utility stuffer featured the workshop. Forty-six (46) participants signed into the meeting, and thirty-nine (39) of them completed a brief survey at the end of the program. This staff report provides 1) brief history on housing prepared for the "Housing Workshop"; 2) a description of the workshop's program; 3) summary of the survey and visual preference; 4) results from the survey and visual preference; and 5) summary of question and answer period. The following attachments are included: Attachment A: B&W copies of the housing boards used for the visual preference survey; Attachment B: Housing Survey and responses; and Attachment C: Summary of all survey comments. • • BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON HOUSING AND TODAY Original Euro-American settlement patterns centered around the village, town, and later the city. Populations outside these urban forms were scattered on the farm. The automobile changed this pattern, particularly during the years following World War II. Young veterans and their families needed homes. Automobiles and the improved road system fueled the expansion of suburban development. The housing units produced for this explosive demand were based on an industrial template. Levit Town in upstate New York became the model for planned communities and suburban sprawl. Early zoning regulations adopted development standards for both housing and streets that were intended to protect public health and safety; but effectively centered the automobile as the de facto head of the household for many American families. While the basic principles practiced within the housing industry have not changed significantly in many years, the variation in compositions of households have changed. Increasingly,the heads-of-household are describing themselves as single moms, single dads, empty-nest seniors, and adults without children—whether single or coupled. The social interests and activities of these households differ from those who would purchase the standard single-family detached unit and its associated amenities. With the baby-boomers nearing retirement, these numbers are anticipated to rise even further. Housing prices relative to median family incomes for King County have been also been on rise. First time homebuyers find that most single-family detached housing is too expensive. This is • particularly true of new construction single-family detached housing. The median home price for all single-family detached units in Kent is approximately $202,000. The average Kent household of 2.5 persons with a median income of$55,900 would be able to afford as a twenty-five percent (25%) share of its income a home priced at about $180,000. Young professionals and budget conscious empty nesters also find these prices hard to attain. HOUSING WORKSHOP'S PROGRAM Charlene Anderson provided the workshop's introduction, giving a brief history, as provided above, and an introduction of the evening's presenters. The first to present was Bill Kreager, AIA, MIRM, a principal at MITHUN, a Seattle-based architecture, urban planning, landscape architecture and interior design firm. With more than thirty (30) years of experience in site planning and residential design, Mr. Kreager has an in-depth knowledge of the housing market and the styles and trends emerging in the industry. He provided a lively side-show presentation titled "Honey I Shrunk the Lot" giving examples of both attached and detached housing forms ranging from a density of 8 dwelling units/acre up to 30 dwelling units/acre. Next was Jim Soules, founder and President of The Cottage Company, LCC a Seattle based residential development and construction company focused on building `pocket neighborhoods' of detached single-family homes. Known as cottage housing, these compact homes are centered on a common courtyard with parking grouped in a portion of the site. Jim also has over thirty (30) years of experience in the development of single and multi-family residential projects in California and the Pacific Northwest, with his professional roots in the planning. A twenty (20) • minute "Question and Answer" period followed the presentations. The workshop concluded with the audience completing a visual preference of the"Housing Boards" and a survey. LUPB Workshop September 23,2002 Report on Housing Workshop" Page 2 of 5 VISUAL PREFERENCE AND SURVEY Two methods were used to gain insight into what the public's thought about housing. One was a visual preference of"housing boards" asking people to vote on what they like. The other method was a survey intended to determine what people thought about the "alternative" housing forms presented and whether or not these "alternative" housing forms would be acceptable in their neighborhood. The visual preference method asked participants to vote for the housing form(s) they liked by placing sticky dots on the "housing boards". There were two sets of five (5) boards representing the following housing forms: Single-family; Multifamily Apartments; Attached Housing in single-family neighborhoods (A.K.A. Attached Single-family Housing or duplex, triplex, four- plex); Cottage Housing; and Cluster Housing. Attendees were given a sheet of blue dots (28 dots in total). They were instructed to place the dots on the "housing boards" they liked. Dark blue dots were given out to participants that owned their own home and light blue dots were given to those that rented. Additionally, there was a written survey that asked specific questions as to their willingness to live in any of the "innovative" housing forms presented that evening and their willingness to have such housing built in their neighborhood. Questions concerning lot and house size, attached garages and knowing you neighbors attempted to understand the importance of these elements in the respondents' life. Some demographic information was also collected in the • survey. VISUAL PREFERENCE AND SURVEY RESULTS The visual preference methodology was flawed. While folks had 28 dots to essentially vote 28 times for whatever housing form they liked, not all participants used their entire 28 votes. The consequence of participants not using all their votes is that those that did segued the results. Understanding that, the results do show that those that voted liked the all alternative housing forms presented that evening. Single Family Multifamily Attached Cottage Cluster Owner 37 0 101 187 139 Renter 0 1 9 14 13 Totals 37 1 110 201 152 Thirty-nine (39)participants completed the housing survey(see Attachment B). Even though not all questions were answered, the results give a very clear picture of the participants present households status, their attitudes towards certain housing characteristics, and thoughts about the innovative housing forms they were introduced to during the workshop. The respondents of the survey were primarily residents of Kent (85%), mostly marred (74%) • and own their home (95%), which is typically a standard single-family residence (77%) and had LUPB Workshop September 23, 2002 Report on Housing Workshop" Page 3 of 5 no school-aged children living at home (77%). While not asking the question, the participants . were primarily folks in their 50's and older. Questions concerning the importance of lot size, house size, attached garages, and knowing your neighbor reinforced the later responses to the innovative housing forms. In response to Question 6 — How important is a large lot? 36% thought it was "extremely not important" or "somewhat not important", 44% were "neutral", and 21% thought it was "extremely important' or "somewhat important". The minimum size of a large lot ranged from 3,500 to 30,000 sq. ft. with a median of 8,750 sq. ft. In response to Question 8 — How important is a large house? 41% thought it was "extremely not important" or "somewhat not important", 46% were "neutral", and 10% thought it was "extremely important' or "somewhat important". The minimum size of a large house ranged from 1,200 to 6,000 sq. ft. with a median of 2,200 sq. ft. In response to Question 10 — How important is an attached garage? 28% thought it was "extremely not important" or "somewhat not important", 26% were "neutral", and 46% thought it was "extremely important' or "somewhat important". And in response to Question 11 — How important is a knowing your neighbors? Nobody thought it was "not important", 18% were "neutral", and 82% thought it was "extremely important' or"somewhat important". The respondents were supportive when responding to the questions as to whether or not they could see themselves, or anyone in their family, ever living in a cottage, cluster, or single-family attached house. They were less supportive when they were asked whether or not they thought these types of housing would fit into their neighborhood. It must be said, however, when you look closely at the comments asking for an explanation of their response as to whether or not • they thought these housing types would fit into their neighborhood, many were extremely literal when responding as to why it wouldn't fit. Comments ranged from that there were no vacant large lots, they lived on a hillside, or their neighborhood was made up of 1960's style homes. The following is a summary of questions directed at the alternative housing forms (see Attachment B &C for complete results). 12. Could you see yourself, or a family member, ever living in a cottage or clustered housing development? Yes 69% No 5% Maybe 21% 13, After the presentation on cottage or clustered housing forms, do you think this type of housing would fit into your neighborhood? Yes 64% No 23% Maybe 8% 15. Could you see yourself, or a family member, ever living in an attached housing development? Yes 46% No 23% Maybe 28% 16. After the presentation on attached housing forms, do you think this type of housing would fit into your neighborhood? Yes 44% No 36% Maybe 15% • LUPB Workshop September 23, 2002 Report on Housing Workshop" Page 4 of 5 During the Question and Answer period, there were a wide range of questions and comments made by the participants. There were questions concerning the potential increase in traffic from cluster or cottage housing. Jim Soules responded by saying that a "single-family residence is calculated at 10 trips/day". The small homes represented in "cottage housing generate typically half that because of the lifestyle of the residents". There are typically no children requiring shuttling to school, sports, dance classes and the like. Cottage housing can be located near services so residents can walk to shopping. People wondered if larger houses could be clustered, which they can. The success of cottage, cluster and attached single-family housing are "prescriptive regulations that ensure quality design and appropriate access". "Small can feel large if done right." Someone asked if "cluster housing could fit into Condominium development?" The response was yes, "Dupont Landing is an example of infill development with a mix of unit types". "There is a market for these types of housing forms". One participant found that "The attached duplex looked very attractive, because they looked like single-family homes. Why were there so few examples?" The response was that existing regulations, fire codes, and street standards have not been re-worked to reflect today's housing market needs." Discussion also focused on the cost of housing and that "innovative housing is not necessarily inexpensive". It was pointed out that the "cost of land has driven up the cost of all types of housing". "Developers can find profit in building high quality infill projects on smaller lots.". Staff will be available at the September 23rd workshop to discuss the housing workshop and results from the visual preference, survey and question and answer period. If there are any questions prior to the workshop, please contact Gloria Gould-Wessen at(253) 856-5454. • GGW\WO\pm P:\Planning\2002 Comp Plan Update\Housing\LUPB\HousingWkshpMemo_092302.doc Enc: Attachments A,B,and C cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,Community Development Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Mgr Gloria Gould-Wessen,GIS Coordinator/Planner William D.Osborne,Planner Kurt Hanson,Planner Katherin Johnson,Housing/Human Services Manager Gary Gill,City Engineer Leonard Olive,Engineering/Construction Development Manger Project File • LUPB Workshop September 23, 2002 Report on Housing Workshop" Page 5 of 5 Innovative Attached Housing In Single Family Neighborhoods ,xt ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Attached Units (typically 2-3 units Often Mixed With Standard Single Family Units j Often With Common Open Space Often Alley Loaded Garages Front of House May or May Not Face Street TFI, ED s s PLACE DOTS HERE IF YOU LIKE THIS HOUSING Innovative *Cluster Housing ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Small Sized Lots Small Interior Space (Ave. 1,000 - 2,000 sq. ft.) Preserve Open Space Detached or Attached Units Parking Adjacent to Unit Individual Ownership �V M. 9 n III' t I sE Canwntimal subdivision Cluster subdivision ll i ri III ` PLACE DOTS HERE IF YOU LIKE THIS HOUSING P • Innovative Cottage Housing ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Small Sized Lots Small Interior Space (Ave. 800 - 1, 200 sq. ft.) Community Garden/Courtyard Parking Grouped Away from Units Condominium Ownership of Common Spaces Individual Ownership Detached Units 'f TI [BSI 4371. E�1 Big MI py .t T mY.ip• 1 lg - PLACE DOTS HERE IF YOU LIKE THIS HOUSING tandard ulti- Family Apartments ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Attached Units (usually between 4 and 12 units per building) Small to No Common Yards Limited Active/Passive Open Space Surface Parking Lots Surround Buildings w' I� k. Blue Bell Apartments ;, w � m a � t P "NI � M r SIM � A � L' PLACE DOTS HERE IF YOU LIKE THIS HOUSING Standard Wingle Family ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ' All Residential Units Detached House Faces Street Typically Attached Front-Loaded Garages Private Yards Private Ownership s t PLACE DOTS HERE IF YOU LIKE THIS HOUSING