Seattle’s Housing Choices
Seattle Planning Commission ReportJuly 2003
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
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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:
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report6
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report10
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
× 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.
sing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
#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.
sing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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.
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report20
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report22
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report26
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.
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
× 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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
Themesfor increased housing choices
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
Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2003: Public Open House and Forum 31
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.
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
Themesfor increased housing choices
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)
Section III. Public Involvement 2002-2003: Public Open House and Forum 33
Cottage Housing
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report36
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Facilitator: Jim Metz
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
Facilitator: Jim Metz
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
.
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report40
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.
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report42
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report44
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report
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
Seattle’s Housing Choices: Seattle Planning Commission Report