The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Comm PKT 06-07-2006 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION June 7, 2006 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS . UPDATE Shoreline Master Program . PUBLIC HEARING Cottage Housing Code Amendment 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners Hope Elder, Chair Dave Osaki Merle Pfeifer Pam Duncan-Pierce Dini Duclos, Vice-Chair William Drake Lawson Bronson Richard Agnew (Alternate #1) City Staff Kathy McClung, CDS Director Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 waw.citvoffederalwav. coni K:\Planning Connnission\2006\Agenda 06-07-06.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION May 3, 2006 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Merle Pfeifer, Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, and Pam Duncan- Pierce. Commissioners absent: Dini Duclos (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Richard Agnew. Alternate Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Donna Hanson, Parks, Planning, and Development Services Coordinator Betty Sanders, John Hutton, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bronson moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the April 19, 2006, minutes with a correction (it is Chair Elder, not Vice-Chair). The motion carried. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT Ms. Clark informed the Commission that a public hearing on the zero lot line code amendment is scheduled for June 21, 2006. A public hearing on cottage housing will be held either June 7th or June 21st. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - 2006 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Update Ms. Clark introduced Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Donna Hanson and Parks, Planning, and Development Services Coordinator Betty Sanders. Ms. Sanders delivered the staff report. The City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (parks Plan), which is part of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), is updated every six years in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The process has included an extensive assessment of the City's existing parks, open spaces, and recreation programs. It also included efforts to determine the needs and desires of the community. There were public opinion surveys, open house meetings, stakeholders group (made up of individuals representing organizations that have an interest in the future of the City's park system) meetings, and working sessions with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Committee of the City Council. The 2006 Parks Plan has: · Less emphasis on acquiring land for neighborhood parks; more emphasis on improving existing facilities . Less emphasis on quantity of park land (and a numeric level of service standard), and more emphasis on their future development . A detailed assessment of each individual park and open space site . A focus on meeting a variety of social and recreational needs, including the need for community gathering spaces and for a diverse community K:\Planning Connnission\2006\Meeting Summary 05-03-06.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 3, 2006 Five "Core Values" emerged from a consensus of ideas and opinions expressed through the public outreach efforts. These core values have been used to guide the concepts and proposals developed throughout the planning process. 1. Improve existing facilities and provide multiple functions in parks 2. Develop a walking and biking community through an integrated trail and sidewalk network 3. Retain and improve our open spaces 4. Create community gathering places and destinations 5. Provide a balance of services for a diverse population The Commission asked how these core values differ from six years ago. Ms. Sanders replied that the last plan focused on neighborhood parks. Through their research the parks department has found that the use of neighborhood parks is low, while that of community-wide parks (such as Steel Lake) is higher. In addition, there is a new focus on quality. Also, this Parks Plan has detailed information about each park and open space. The plan six years ago had only two lines about each park and open space. The Commission asked about the financial impact of this plan. Ms. Sanders referred them to Attachment A (handed out this evening) which is a detailed financial plan. The Commission asked where is the funding coming from. Ms. Sanders replied that potential funding sources are listed and that grants would be a big part of the funding sources. The Commission expressed their concern that if they recommend adoption of the Parks Plan, they are also recommending the financial plan, which only has potential funding sources. Commissioner Osaki asked for an explanation of the phased maintenance plan. Ms. Sanders stated that the parks department has staffing issues. For many parks all they can do is mow and clean up trash. They are not able to perform the little extras (such as planting annuals) that would add to atmosphere of the park. In addition, they have a large graffiti and vandalism problem. Phased maintenance address how often larger tasks must be done and fits in the day-to-day tasks. There was no public testimony. Commissioner Pfeifer moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan as presented. It was moved (and seconded) to amend the main motion by including a comment that the Planning Commission is aware that financial challenges exist with this plan. The amendment was carried (five yes, one no). The main motion as amended was carried (six yes). The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT P. T. Purdom, Chair of the Parks Commission - He has been on the Parks Commission for the last nine years. He appreciated the comments from the Planning Commission. The Parks Commission knows that what they do impacts others and they do not have the final word (that is the City Council). They want the best for Federal Way. When the City Council held interviews for the Parks Commission, they asked where the interviewee stands on a special levy for parks. Mr. Purdom asked the Planning Commissioners to also consider this question. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. K:\Planning Connnission\2006\Meeting Summary 05-03-06.doc ~- Federal Way CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 2006 DATE: May 31, 2006 TO: Chair Planning Commission FROM: SUBJECT: Isaac Conlen, Senior Planne~ Informational Report on the Shoreline Master Program Update Status City has received grant funding from the Washington State Department of Ecology to update our Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as required by law. The current SMP was adopted in 1999. We began the update process in late 2005 and hired Adolfson Associates to help us with the project. Teresa Vanderburg and Kent Hale of Adolfson Associates have prepared a short PowerPoint presentation on the overall SMP update process and status to-date. The purpose of this report is to keep Planning Commission up to speed as we go through the process. Eventually the SMP update will come to the Commission as code and Comprehensive Plan amendments for review and formal recommendation. Attached please find PowerPoint slides (Exhibit 1). I've also enclosed a copy of our public participation plan (Exhibit 2), which is a required component of the update process. Shoreline Master Program Update ~ F~deral Way Shoreline Master Program Update Federal Way Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Adolfson Associates, Inc. 5309 Shilshole Ave NW. Seattle, WA 98107 Overview · Shoreline Management Act . SMP Components and Update Process . Public Involvement · Project Status · Next Steps 1 Shoreline Master Program Update ~ FT~oderal Way Washington Shoreline Management Act · Balance of competing goals -Water-Dependent Uses -Public Access -Environmental Protection · Local Master Programs Where does the SMA apply? . 200 feet landward of the OHWM for marine and freshwater shorelines of the state . Lakes larger than 20 acres . Associated wetlands 2 Shoreline Master Program Update ~ FT~oderal Way Where does the SMA apply? . 13 miles of shoreline in City and PAA · Puget Sound shoreline in Federal Way · Seven freshwater lakes in City and PAA 3 Shoreline Master Program Update A F~Oderal Way Why update Federal Way SMP? . State requirement . Federal Way SMP adopted 1999 . City received grant funding . Address future areas of the City (PM) · Update plan by July 2007 · Requires approval by City and Ecology SMP Update Process and Schedule Goals and Policies Shoreline Environment Designations Development Regulations 4 Shoreline Master Program Update ~. FT~deral Way Public Involvement . Public Participation Plan . Open Houses / Website . Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) · Citizens Advisory Committee (CAe) · Planning Commission . Land Use / Transportation Committee · City Council Where are we now? · Shoreline Inventory and Characterization -Technical document - integrates existing plans and studies -Map folio -Provides baseline for updating goals and policies -Will be reviewed by TAC and Ecology 5 Shoreline Master Program Update A FT~deral Way Next Steps . Review of Inventory and Characterization · Goals, Policies, and Environment Designations · Development Standards and Regulations . Restoration Planning · Cumulative Impact Analysis · Public process - ongoing 6 ~ CITYOF' _'7 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - Public Participation Plan City of Federal Way, Washington Prepared by: EnviroVision Corporation and Adolfson Associates, Inc. March 15, 2006 City of Federal Way's 8MP Update -Public Participation Plan Introduction Washington State's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires jurisdictions that contain "shorelines of the state" within their boundaries to periodically update their Shoreline Master Programs (SMP's). The City of Federal Way is beginning the process of updating their SMP and must complete the update by July 2007. Federal Way's updated SMP will be used as a planning document that will set policy and regulation for the City's shoreline areas, including adjacent upland areas in the shoreline jurisdiction within 200 feet of designated shorelines. The three primary areas of focus of SMP updates are to; accommodate reasonable and protective uses of the shoreline, protect shoreline environmental resources, and protect the public's right to access and use the shorelines (RCW 90.58.020). These protections are designed to meet the overarching policy of the Shoreline Management Act which is to ensure that "the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally." Since public use and enjoyment of the shorelines is a principal factor in developing the planning document, it is imperative that the public has opportunities to participate in the process. The following details the Public Participation Plan for this project. Goals of the Public Participation Plan RCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173-26-090 and 100, require that local governments inform the people of the state about the planning process and invite and encourage participation by all who have any interest or responsibility related to shorelines. The goal of the Public Participation Plan is to provide a guide to proactively encourage public participation throughout the SMP update process. The City of Federal Way is committed to encouraging coordinated and effective public involvement. Overview of City and Shorelines The City of Federal Way is located in the southwest corner of King County, 25 miles south of Seattle and 8 miles north of Tacoma. With over 85,800 residents occupying a land area of 22.5 square miles, it is the eighth largest city in the state of Washington. The SMP update will also cover the city's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) east of Interstate-5 (the SMP will not be effective in the PAA, however, until the area annexes into the city). The PAA is approximately 4,400 acres and is home to approximately 20,000 people. Federal Way and its PAA are located between Puget Sound and the Green River Valley. Because of its geographic setting, it has some exceptional water resources including eight miles of Puget Sound shoreline, five major stream systems, seven lakes (within the city limits) and several unique wetlands. Additionally five major lakes are located within the P AA. The shorelines along these water systems are where Enviro Vision Corp. 1 March 15, 2006 City of Federal Way's 8MP Update -Public Participation Plan community members live, work, and play and therefore are of great value to the residents of Federal Way. Roles and Responsibilities The City of Federal Way is responsible for all aspects of the SMP update. The City will be the primary regulator, with Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) acting in a support and review capacity. Ecology is also required to approve some permits and must approve new or amended shoreline master programs. The primary contact for Federal Way's SMP update is: Isaac Conlen City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-2643 isaac.conlen@citvoffederalwav.com Key Parties Local governments must consult with interested parties throughout the process of developing a SMP. Federal Way will involve representatives from the following: o Residents of Federal Way o Puyallup Tribe o Muckleshoot Tribe o Friends of the Hylebos o Lake Associations o Property/Business owners in the shoreline environment o Federal Way City Council o Federal Way Land Use and Transportation Commission (LUTC) o Federal Way Planning Commission o City of Des Moines o City of Pacific o City of Milton o City of Fife o City of Algona o City of Kent o City of Edgewood o City of Tacoma o King County o Pierce County o Department of Ecology o Department of Fish and Wildlife o Department of Natural Resources EnviroVision Corp. 2 March 15, 2006 City of Federal Way's 8MP Update -Public Participation Plan o Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development o State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation o NOAA Fisheries o US Fish and Wildlife Service o WRIA 9 o WRIA 10 Some of these parties will be involved on committees in a review capacity while others will be informed and invited to participate throughout the process. Other stakeholders not included as key parties in the list above may also be notified directly during the public involvement process. These other stakeholders may include homeowner associations, environmental groups or others. Notification to these stakeholders may be accomplished via email or other means as the shoreline management planning process proceeds. Public Participation Strategy The City of Federal Way has developed a strategy to ensure there is effective public participation throughout the process. The primary methods to be employed are: )00 Formation of a technical advisory committee (T AC) consisting of appropriate technical representatives of affected Tribes, state and federal agencies and other affected agencies to provide input and review of work products. )00 Formation of a citizen advisory committee (CAC) consisting of local residents, businesses and stakeholders to provide input and review work products. )00 Development of a public outreach program to inform community members. )00 Updating the City Council, Planning Commission, and LUTC periodically. By utilizing all of these methods, the City shall exceed the mandates of Washington State to involve all interested parties in the update of the SMP. Further details regarding these primary methods are as follows: Enviro Vision Corp. 3 March 15, 2006 City of Federal Way's SMP Update -Public Participation Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TACl The T AC will consist of technical representatives of affected Tribes and other agencies such as Department of Natural Resources, Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, King County, neighboring jurisdictions, etc. These representatives will be asked to provide comments and suggestions on work products developed for each task. Citizen Advisory Committee (CACI The CAC will consist of local residents and stakeholders and may include representatives from groups such as Homeowner Associations, the North lake Steering Committee, the Steel lake Advisory Committee, lake Geneva Property Owners Association, Chamber of Commerce, Friends of the Hylebos Wetlands, etc. It will be important that the CAC represent a cross section of interest groups and public values. Meetings will provide a forum to review the technical work, discuss issues and suggest solutions. Three meetings are tentatively scheduled at this time. By establishing a committee of citizens, the City is encouraging direct input in the process. Based upon public interest to date, this component of the public participation plan may need to be eliminated or delayed. The City will continue to solicit members for the CAC and also rely on other elements of its public outreach program to encourage citizen participation. Public Outreach Program In addition to providing the forum of the CAC as a way for community members to be involved, the City will also set-up a public outreach program to ensure that the broader population is also informed. Some key elements of this program include: · Website3: Adding a page to the City's current website where community members can access draft documents and maps, view the schedule, check for meeting notices, obtain contact information and submit comments. This will create one central location where the latest information can be obtained. The City calendar could also contain key dates in the development of the SMP. · Open house: Hosting an open house at a convenient location will allow for the broad dissemination of information (Le. maps, proposals, etc.) and opportunity for comment. In addition, project staff and City personnel will be on-hand to answer questions from community members and address any concerns. 1 Federal Way has already sent invitations to participate in this committee. 2 Federal Way has already sent invitations to participate in this committee. In addition, the City has solicited for members through a press release and by posting a notice on its website. 3 The City has already developed a page on it's website far SMP related material. Envira Vision Corp. 4 March 15, 2006 City of Federal Way's 8MP Update -Public Participation Plan . Public meetinas: Providing opportunity through the Planning Commission, LUTC and City Council that allow for public input and participation. . Public hearina: Organizing a public hearing for the draft proposal will provide the community with the forum to include their comments into the public record. · Mailina list: Maintaining a list of interested parties would provide the City with another avenue to keep the public informed throughout the update process. Notices of comment periods, public hearings or open houses could be sent to parties on the mailing list. . Comments: Establishing multiple means for submitting comments will allow for interested people to choose their preferred way to provide input. Methods can include on-line comment forms, written comment forms at the open house, public hearing testimony, and a direct email address for comments. The City will consider all comments received and will respond in aggregate or individually. · Public notices: Notice of the open house and public hearing will be placed on the City's website, public access channel, posted at City Hall and local library branches and published in at least one local newspaper (i.e. Federal Way Mirror, Federal Way News, Tacoma News Tribune or Seattle Times). Updates to City Council, Planning Commission and LUTC In order to meet the overall objective of adopting an updated SMP by July 2007, it is important to keep interested parties at all levels adequately informed from the beginning of the process. Through periodic meetings with the planning commission and LUTC, concerns can be addressed as they surface. These meetings also provide another opportunity for other interested parties to obtain information on the process. For the final task of adopting the SMP, workshops have been scheduled to allow for thorough discussion of the SMP's details. Enviro Vision Corp. 5 March 15, 2006 City of Federal Way's SMP Update -Public Participation Plan Timeline The City of Federal Way is aware that developing and maintaining a schedule will contribute to the successful adoption of the SMP. By laying out this tentative schedule at the start of the process, the public is aware of key dates where input is especially critical. The following timeline highlights key public involvement opportunities: March 9, 2006 March 15, 2006 March 27, 2006 April 26, 2006 May 31,2006 Introductory letter to T AC Public participation plan to Ecology T AC comments due on inventory T AC comments on intentory maps T AC comments due on conditions report April 17, 2007 May 1, 2007 June 29, 2007 City Council ordinance - first reading City Council ordinance - second reading SMP to Ecology If there are modifications to the timeline, the schedule on the City's website will be updated. This plan will meet the requirements for public involvement opportunities in the SMP update process. Modifications may be made if needed. Enviro Vision Corp. 6 March 15, 2006 .~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way DRAFT COTTAGE HOUSING ORDINANCE Planning Commission Public Hearing June 7, 2006 I. INTRODUCTION Cottage housing, as the term is commonly used, refers to small detached single-family units grouped around a common open space. Typical characteristics include community oriented design, construction characteristics of single-family housing, higher density, shared parking facilities and architectural design standards. Recently a number of cities, mostly in north King County, have developed cottage housing ordinances. These include Kirkland, Seattle, Redmond, Shoreline and Langley. New cottage housing developments have been built in Shoreline, Redmond, Seattle, Langley, Poulsbo, Bainbridge Island and Port Townsend within the last several years (see Exhibit 3, photos and site plans). Cottage housing is sometimes confused with 'cluster housing'. Cluster housing allows units to be clustered on a usable part of a site to avoid un-buildable sensitive portions of the site like wetlands, streams and their buffers. Cluster houses are not limited in size and cluster developments do not typically include the characteristics of cottage housing such as improved central open space and community oriented design. II. BACKGROUND On February 15,2005, Land Use &Transportation Committee (LUTe) placed consideration of cottage housing on the Planning Commission's 2005 work program. On April 18, 2005 an informational presentation on cottage housing was made to LUTe. The committee directed staff to proceed with creation of a draft ordinance. Planning Commission conducted a cottage housing workshop on September 21,2005. At that time the Commission gave generally positive feedback on the draft ordinance and provided some additional direction to staff. This input has been incorporated into the revised draft and is summarized in section IV below. The draft ordinance is primarily taken from examples of existing codes, with modifications where we felt improvements could be made. Exhibit 2 (cottage housing matrix) compares the cottage housing development standards of a number of local jurisdictions. Most are very similar, in form and content. Cottages in other communities seem to have been received with mixed results from neighbors. Two projects built in Kirkland, Danielson Grove and Kirkland Bungalows have sold quickly and do not appear to have generated significant community opposition (see Exhibit 4, Cottage housing articles). Seven cottage housing developments, totaling 55 units have been built in Shoreline. The units have sold well, but some of the projects have generated opposition from neighbors, citing issues of compatibility with surrounding development. We understand that Shoreline has repealed their cottage housing ordinance. Projects in Langley, Redmond, Bainbridge Island and Seattle seem to have been well accepted by the community. Based on Planning Commission comments at our study session, we've attempted to achieve a broad level of public notification regarding this proposed action. Methods of public notice include publication in the city's official newspaper and posting in public places (these two are typical actions), issuance of a press release, notice to the Master Builders Association of King County, the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, several cottage builders, interested persons mail list and those homeowner's associations for which we have contact information and notification on the city's website. III. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS Proposed code amendments include creation of a new Cottage Housing Article (Article XII), amendments to FWCC 22-631, Single-Family Residential (RS) Use Zone Chart to allow cottage housing in the RS 7.2 and 5.0 zone classifications, amendments to FWCC 22-666, Multifamily Residential (RM) Use Zone Chart to allow cottage housing in the RM zoning classifications and amendments to FWCC 22-1, Definitions, to add a new definition of cottage housing development (Exhibit 1). Major Components The major components ofthe draft code are summarized below. · Density In the multi-family zones cottage housing is permitted at one unit per 2,500 square feet. In the RS 7.2 and 5.0 zones, cottage housing is allowed at twice the density permitted in the underlying zone. In the RS 7.2 zone, lots would be 3,600 square feet and 2,500 square feet in the RS 5.0 zone. Given the higher density, a number of provisions are incorporated to address compatibility with larger surrounding lots (see compatibility heading below). · Cottage Size Maximum cottage size is 1,100 square feet, 800 square feet on the ground floor. We looked at allowing some larger units (something LUTC expressed interest in), but felt that would contradict the premise of cottage housing, which allows higher density, but requires smaller unit size as a trade-off. · Site Design 75% of units must abut a centrally located common open space area. The common open space must have cottages on at least two sides These provisions are typical of existing codes. · Common Open Space 500 square feet per unit Improved for passive or active recreational use Cottage Housing Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104945-00-UP Page 2 No dimension less than 10-feet These provisions are typical of existing codes. · Private Open Space 400 square feet per unit No dimension less than 5-feet Intent is to ensure some private yard space for each individual unit. These provisions are similar to existing codes. . Cottage Design Standards 6: 12 roof pitch Cottages abutting public roads shall have an entrance and covered porch oriented towards the road. All cottages shall have an entrance and covered porch oriented towards common open space. Attached garages are not allowed except in limited circumstances. 18-foot height, with top of roof not exceeding 25-feet. The intent of these provisions is to ensure attractive streetscapes, compatibility with adjacent uses and community oriented design. The provision requiring entries and covered porches oriented towards the public road is something new not contained in other codes we reviewed. We feel this is a compatibility issue - ensuring that those units abutting public roads will present an attractive appearance from off-site. The rest of these provisions are typical of existing codes. · Parking 1.5 spaces required 15% of required spaces dedicated to visitor parking On-street parking counted towards required parking Size of garages and surface parking lots limited Location of parking regulated Surface parking lots visible from public right-of-way or adjacent residential uses screened with landscaping. These provisions are primarily intended to address compatibility issues. Again these are typical of examples in existing codes, with a few tweaks. · Compatibility The following provisions are intended to address compatibility with surrounding lower density residential development. Locational criteria - minimum separation of 660 feet between cottage housing developments Minimum overall site size of one acre Cottage Housing Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104945-00-UP Page 3 Maximum size of cottage housing developments - 16 cottages (in RS zones) Maximum square footage of cottages - 1,100 square feet Maximum height of cottages - 18- feet (25' to ridge) Minimum roof pitch - 6: 12 Entry and porch orientation - to public roads Parking location and screening regulations All of the above regulations are unique to cottage housing and would not apply to a conventional subdivision. The concept is to offset the real and/or perceived impacts associated with higher density development by regulating the form and layout of cottage housing developments to minimize impacts. · Procedural Requirements Cottage housing developments may be subdivisions, with each cottage on its own lot of record or condominium developments with all cottages individually owned but located on one lot of record. In the multi-family RM zones cottage housing could also be developed as a multi-family concept, with all units on one lot of record under one ownership (rentals). For those projects proposed as subdivisions, obviously they will go through the subdivision process. The process requires multiple notices, comment periods and public meetings to allow neighbors and other interested parties an opportunity for input. For this reason no additional permitting requirements are proposed. In the RS zones, cottage housing developments that are condominium projects, (with no subdivision proposed) are subject to Use Process IV permitting requirements. Use Process IV requires public notice and includes a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to allow for public input. Condominium or multi-family cottage housing developments in the RM zones are subject to a less intensive permitting process, Use Process III. This is appropriate because cottage housing is a less intensive use than the multi-family uses that are already permitted in the zone through Use Process III. IV. FOLLOW-UP ON PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS FROM SEPTEMBER 21, 2005, MEETING Minimum Cottage Size Commissioners expressed an interest in regulating the minimum size of cottage housing. The draft code has been amended to specifY a minimum cottage size of 800 square feet. Guest Parking Commissioners indicated that a portion of total parking spaces should be set aside for guests. A provision requiring that 15% of stalls be designated for guest/visitor parking has been added. Affordable Housing Incentive Commissioners indicated a desire to include provisions for affordable housing. The consensus opinion was that affordable units should be encouraged based on incentives rather than mandated. An incentive- based provision to encourage affordable units has been added. The provision allows an increase in the total number of cottages allowed (from 12 to 16), if one half of the additional units are affordable. Cottage Housing Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104945-00-UP Page 4 Homeowner's Association Commissioners requested that formation of a homeowner's association (HOA) be required for the purpose of maintaining common open space, parking and other areas. A provision requiring implementation of a mechanism such as an HOA to maintain common areas has been added. v. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the amendments (Exhibit 1) to the FWCC, as described in sections III and N above be recommended for approval to the City Council. VI. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWCC Chapter 22 "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. VII. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWCC Section 22-528 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528. The City may amend the text of the FWCC only ifit finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies: HGl Preserve and protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods and require new development to be of a scale and design that is compatible with existing neighborhood character HPl High-density housing projects, with the exception of senior housing, will not be permitted in existing single-family neighborhoods. More moderate densities such as cottage housing will be considered. HG2 Involve the community in the development of new housing to a degree that is consistent with the scale of impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Cottage Housing Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104945-OO-UP Page 5 HG3 Develop a Comprehensive Plan and zoning code that provide flexibility to produce innovative housing solutions, do not burden the cost of housing development and maintenance and diversify the range of housing types available in the City. HP13 Continue to use design guidelines to ensure that new infill developments have aesthetic appeal and blend into surrounding development. HP15 Review zoning, subdivision and development regulations to ensure that they further housing policies and don't create unintended barriers. This is of particular importance for small lot and cottage housing developments. In order to facilitate small lot and cottage housing developments, it is particularly important to revise, as necessary, the subdivision and development regulations that govern their development. HP 16 As appropriate, reduce minimum lot sizes to allow construction of smaller, detached single-family houses on smaller lots. HP 17 Increase capacity and encourage greater diversity of housing types and costs for both infill and new development through various methods, such as inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, transfer of development rights, cluster housing, cottage housing, garden housing, duplexes and low to moderate density housing types. HP19 Increase the amount of undeveloped open spaces in both infill and new development parcels, by expanding the use of cluster development and allowing housing techniques such as lot averaging and zero lot line standards. HP20 Establish administrative procedures to permit innovative housing designs and techniques, provided they are of high standard and consistent with the FWCP. HP21 Continue to provide incentives such as density bonuses for multi-family housing, and expand the types of incentives offered to encourage new developments to include affordable housing. HP22 Periodically review and update development regulations to incorporate opportunities for new housing types. HP27 Ensure that any new affordable housing required by the City remains affordable through some tool approved by the City, such as recording a lien on the property. In the case of homeowners hip projects, the lien can be structured as a deferred second mortgage to the homebuyer, due upon sale if the subsequent buyer does not meet the income eligibility standards. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWCC text amendment bears substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it allows a type of housing that is currently lacking in the south King County marketplace. The housing allowed by this amendment would tend to be more affordable than many of the conventional housing options, which are typical in the current market, at a time when many households find it difficult to obtain reasonably priced housing. The amendment would result in an Cottage Housing Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104945-00-UP Page 6 increase in housing supply, which would benefit public welfare. The amendment would result in community oriented project designs, which would benefit public health and safety. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. The proposed FWCC text amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City because it facilitates increased housing choice and opportunities, while implementing measures necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding development. The amendment would result in safe, attractive community-oriented projects that allow more efficient delivery of public services. The proposed amendment provides opportunities for property owners to develop infill type lots. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions ofFWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. VIII. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Draft Code Amendments Exhibit 2 Cottage housing code matrix Exhibit 3 Example photos and site plans Exhibit 4 Cottage housing articles Exhibit 5 September 21,2005 Planning Commission meeting summary Cottage Housing Code Amendments Planning Commission Staff Report File #05-104945-OO-UP Page 7 Article XII. COTTAGE HOUSING Sections: 22-xxxx 22-xxxx 22-xxxx 22-xxxx Purpose Applicability Development Standards Modifications 22-xxxx Purpose. The purpose ofthis Article is to: (1) provide a housing type that is responsive to changing household demographics (e.g., retirees, small families, single parent households, single person households); (2) provide opportunities for more affordable housing within single-family neighborhoods; (3) encourage creation of functional usable open space in residential communities; (4) promote neighborhood interaction and safety through design; (5) ensure compatibility with neighboring uses; and (6) provide opportunities for infill development consistent with goals of the Growth Management Act. 22-xxxx Applicability. Other articles of this chapter shall be applicable to Cottage Housing Developments (CHDs). Where a conflict arises the provisions of this article shall control. CHDs are permitted in the RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones and all RM zones. 22-xxxx Development Standards. CHDs shall be subject to the following development standards. (a) Cottage Housing Development Size. (1) CHDs are not permitted on sites less than one acre in size. (2) CHDs shall contain clusters consisting of a minimum of 4 cottages and a maximum of 16 cottages. In RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones, no more than 12 cottages are permitted in a CHD, unless additional units are permitted subject to subsection (m) below. A CHD may be integrated into a larger conventional subdivision. Maximum number of cottages is not limited in the RM zoning classifications. (b) Loeational Criteria. (1) CHDs in RS zones shall be separated from another CHD by a minimum of 660 feet measured between the closest points ofthe subject properties. (2) Cottages shall not be permitted on a portion of a site with a slope of 15% or greater as measured in its natural state. (e) Minimum Lot Size. (1) Subdivided lots in RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones. Minimum lot size shall be one half of that required by the underlying zone. l.){HI8: J PAGE-L-OF: ~ (2) Condominium style projects in RS 5.0 and 7.2 zones. The number of cottages permitted in a condominium style project shall be equal to the number oflots that may be created pursuant to subsection (c)(I) above. (3) Subdivided, condominium or multifamily projects in the RM zones. One cottage is permitted for each 2,500 square feet of lot area for condominium and multi-family projects. Minimum lot size for subdivided lots is 2,500 square feet. (d) Cottage Housing Unit Size. (1) Cottage floor area shall be between 800 and 1,100 square feet. (2) Floor area of the first floor shall not exceed 800 square feet. (3) Floor area is the area within the surrounding exterior walls, but excluding space where the floor to ceiling height is less than six feet. Floor area does not include covered porches. (e) Common Open Space. (1) A minimum of 500 square feet of common open space shall be provided per cottage. (2) Common open space within a CHD shall be a minimum of 3,000 square feet in size, regardless of number of cottages. (3) No dimension of a common open space area intended to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than 10- feet, unless part of a pathway or trail. (4) In subdivisions and short subdivisions, common open space shall be located in a separate tract or tracts. (5) Required common open space shall be divided into no more than two separate areas per cluster of cottages. (6) Common open space shall be improved for passive or active recreational use. Examples may include, but are not limited to courtyards, orchards, landscaped picnic areas or gardens. Common open space shall include amenities such as seating, landscaping, trails, gazebos, barbeque facilities, covered shelters or water features. (f) Private open space. Each cottage shall provide a minimum of 400 square feet of private yard space. (1) Examples include lawn area, courtyards and patios. (2) No dimension of a private open space area intended to satisfy the minimum square footage requirement shall be less than 5-feet. (g) Site Design. (1) A minimum of75 percent of cottages shall abut the common open space. (2) Common open spaces shall have cottages abutting at least two sides. (3) Lots in CHDs are not required to abut a public street right-of-way. (h) Cottage Design Standards. (1) Cottages shall have a minimum 6:12 roof pitch. (2) Each cottage abutting a public right-of-way (not including alleys) shall have a primary entry and covered porch a minimum of 80 square feet in size, oriented towards the public right-of-way. If abutting more than one public right-of-way, the applicant, with city input, shall determine which right-of-way the entrance and covered porch shall be oriented towards. EXHIBIT PAGE ;2. I DE <( (3) Each cottage shall have an entry and covered porch oriented towards the common open space. If subject to (h)(2) above, this may be a secondary entrance with covered porch, a minimum of 40 square feet in size. If not subject to (h)(2) above this shall be a primary entrance with covered porch, a minimum of 80 square feet in size. (4) Cottages shall not include attached garages unless the garage abuts an alley or shared parking lot. The door of an attached garage shall not be oriented towards a public right-of-way, with the exception of an alley. The first 200 square feet of attached garage space shall not be counted towards maximum cottage size allowance. (5) Detached garages and carports associated with individual cottages shall not exceed 500 square feet in size (detached garages shall not count towards maximum cottage size allowance). (i) Parking. (1) Each cottage shall have a minimum of one designated parking space. (2) A minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per cottage shall be provided for the entire development. Fifteen percent of total required spaces shall be designated for guests. (3) All or a portion of new on-street parking provided as a component ofthe development may be counted towards minimum parking requirements if the Director of Community Development finds that such parking configuration will result in adequate parking for the CHD. (4) Garages and carports shall have a minimum 6:12 roof pitch. (5) No shared garage or carport may exceed 1,500 square feet or 4 parking spaces. (6) Garages and carports shall not be located between the common open space and the cottages. (7) Surface parking lots shall be broken into sub lots of no more than 8 parking spaces. Sub lots shall be separated by landscaped bulb-outs a minimum of 12-feet in width. (8) Parking may occupy no more than 50 percent of site frontage on a public right-of-way, except in the case of an alley or on-street parking, in which case no restriction applies. (9) Surface parking lots shall be setback 15-feet from front property lines and 10- feet from external side and rear property lines. 10) Surface parking lots of more than 2 spaces, visible from a public right-of- way (not including alleys) or adjacent single-family uses or zones shall be screened by landscaping and/or architectural features pursuant to FWCC 22-1567(e). (j) Height. Cottages shall not exceed 18 feet in height, as defined in FWCC 22-1, "height of structure" and in no case shall the ridge of the roof exceed 25 feet from average building elevation. (k) Setbacks. Cottages shall have l5-foot front and 5-foot side and rear yard setbacks requirements. Cottages shall be separated by a minimum of 10-feet, not including projections, as identified in FWCC 22-1133(4). Cottages and accessory buildings shall be separated by six feet. EXHIBIT PAGE 5 OF: ~ (l) Lot Coverage. Lot coverage in CHDs shall not exceed 60 percent of gross site area. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall CHD, not for individual lots. Paved components of common open space areas and walkways shall not be counted in lot coverage calculations. (m) Affordable Housing Bonus in RS Zoning Classifications. In the RS zones, CHDs that include affordable units may exceed the base level of 12 cottages up to a total of 16 cottages (assuming adequate overall lot size). One half of all cottages over the base level of 12 must be affordable (for example, a total of four additional cottages may be permitted if two of these are affordable). (1) Affordable cottages shall be sold at a price which is affordable for a 2- person household with an annual income equal to or less than 80 percent of median income. The Director of Community Development shall prepare administrative guidelines for calculation of sale price and determination of income eligibility. (2) Affordable cottages shall have the same appearance and utilize the same exterior materials as market rate cottages and shall be dispersed throughout the CHD. (3) A deed, covenant or title restriction shall be recorded on the deed/title of affordable cottages. The restriction shall effectively maintain the cottages as affordable for a period of not less than 15 years from initial occupancy. The restriction shall be in a form acceptable to the Director of Community Development (n) Common Area Maintenance. CHDs shall be required to implement a mechanism, acceptable to the Director of Community Development, to ensure the continued care and maintenance of CHD common areas. A typical example would be creation of a home owner's association or condominium association with authority and funding necessary to maintain the common areas. (0) General Provisions. (1) A community building, not exceeding 2,000 square feet, may be provided for the residents of the CHD. Roofpitch, architecture, materials and colors shall be similar to that ofthe cottages within the CHD. (2) An existing single-family home(s) incorporated into a CHD, that does not meet the requirements of this article is permitted to remain on a site developed for cottage housing. Modifications or additions to the structure not consistent with the provisions of this Article shall not be permitted. (3) Accessory Dwelling Units are not permitted in CHDs. (4) CHDs may not utilize the cluster subdivision provisions ofFWCC 20-154. (5) For those CHDs processed as formal or short subdivisions, all development standards of this article shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development as a component of the preliminary plat or short plat review process. For all other CHDs the development standards ofthis article shall be reviewed as a component of process III or IV review (see use zone charts for required review process). In either case this shall include review of conceptual building elevations. EXHIBIT \ PAGE 4 DE ~ 22-xxxx Modifications. Applicants may request modifications to the open space, site design, cottage design standards and parking provisions of this article. The Director of Community Development may modify the above referenced provisions of this article if all of the following apply: (a) The site is constrained due to unusual shape, topography, easements or critical areas. (b) The modification is consistent with the purpose of the article as stated in FWCC 22-xxxx. (c) The modification will not result in a project that is less compatible with neighboring land uses. EXHIBIT PAGE 5 \ OF: g i:l 0 ..p u <I) '" '" ~ .s 'B ~ - <I) '" '" <I) - 0 ::::: .- "g rJJ ~ <U -- ~ - 0 = ".p .... <U ... ~ = ~ <I.l 't:S ~ .... .s rIl == ~ 0 u - ~ .Q - u .... .g a .g S = ~ '" ~ <I) I S 00 <I.l ;:;J - I:)J) N = if.; .... ~ rJJ '-' ~ c; = .~ 0 <I) .... :-sl rIl .... '" > <I) .... .... ~ ~ .s <S I <I) ~ .s '" J3 .s '"0 ~ .~ ...: g 'S <I) = ,D tlJ) ...... :E c; ~ ~ '" '" ~ <I) '" 'e ;::l 'e .~ <I) ..c: C.l C<l ..sa - <I) ;B ~ .... ~ ~ \I:) I N N <1) '" ::l "" Jj ~ .9 ;>< ~ '" 1$ .g g .5 "" E g l'i.S ~ ~~ iQ tI:: <:Il Z o f:: u ~ Q SNOlLV'1!1~:rn1l' <:Il Z o f:: :5 ~ .... <8 ~ o .... u os a ffi E ::r: .R E- os ::E ~ ZrJ'J. o~ N s::l:mds j!UP[Jl1d paI!nb::l)f ;unplUlS JO lqj!!::lH ::lj!lll::lAO::> l<Y} (ljOll::l) ::lp!S ::lZIS lO'l SS::lOQId M::l!A::l)f paImb::l)f 00 ~ E-l o Z ~ ~ 00 z o ... E-l < 8 ~ ~ ... u ~ ~ 00 ;: ~ 5 ~ 1 il ~ ~ 1 1 ~ -t u ~ ~ i ~ i :; 8 ~ '5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ os e ~ ] : g .D .~ os ~ ~ ~ <I ~ ~ g;>. ~o '" ] 8. (.) :s .g '" 12 ~ '" .s :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ! .2 ~ ~.g ~ 'S M ti i l a ~.s ~ :; -s g-a: ~ = ~ os 0. ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ . ~ j ~~- -5~ ~!i 8 f :::~o 01:1 110. '"" 001 ~~ I:IJ g ~ ~ a a .~ 0 4) 8 tS cB {3 ;g ~ c<~ g- :;:i B ~~a ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ . !::: Cl;I:.E Q.) 0 Q.) ~ ,..0 go g- 5 ~ .... ";j :=l'- .~ ~ c5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g <Ii <Ii ,.,>~ ~ s .~ g: ~: . ~ ~ ~ & & <Ii <Ii <Iii j~ ~~~~~ ~J rJJ~ &&&0 . gpe ~< tI1"'S~ f;: gOrJJtI1t11~~.~~ ~Q.)tI1NrJJ H ~qqggg~E~b .s~l~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '0., ~ 0., ~ go ~ ~ ~ tf 'S;; ~ = ~ ='~'~~~:8~e";j ~.~Cl;Ii:~~a~ Quu--- -~.D 512"'OS~~~~ ~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ ~ .~.~ ~ ;J ~ C)Q ~ ~ ~ oS ~ tf} ... ... fI) r.I.I tf.I ~ ,..o..:s l1) .. "' oS,s ~.... ~ ~ ;SS~~~~~~.~~ ~st~:~~.s .~ .~I.~II~ ~I ~I:~ t~ ~ ~ ! 1 ~ ~ ;1 ~ ] .~ =. . . '. ~~so~ .~~o !~=~ ~ ". =.~g-~ ~-~i'~'se~ ~ v ~ v 8 ~ u ['~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ [) -5~ -5~ ~ -5 ~ ~ -5 [ : OJ) ci ci :::: Zl ~ ~ ~ .S tH ::::: ~~~~~~=~:~t>~~~~~c~~.~.~a~~ a,) .... .... a,) a,) a,).2 ~ (1,) I.I"l I.I"l 00 0 ,..., l:: oS'~ l:?:! = _ _ .a22ggg~~~~811 II~~~~~ i'so~~ ~~~~~~~~~~]~~~~~~'~~'~~II~S~ ~~~~~~(1,)~~~~~~~~~~~:~]~ ]~ 3~~~~~~~,,03~~~~~0~~~~0~~ s~~~~~ Eo:~~~~~~;._~I~u e :~~~S~S~u~~'~sssss~=e~~~~:~ ~d~d~~~t~~~d~d~~~~~U~6 .~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~'i=~ bll .s ....:= <1) <1)_ Po ~ .S N""::l ~I .<1) .;:: > g~ <1) bll 8 e~ .~ ~ rs ~ os .n <1) ! <1) 8 .s.9 :g ~II~U~ !I~I .,., <1)2 <1) 0 <:Il !: ~I 111::l)f ..~ ~o 8~ N ..... o"i-oo~ tri ~.~ "'..... ;:: .,., ~~~~ .E~O~ ~I ~I ~I <1) - ~ 11~1~11';1~1 ~~I o ~ 0 ~ ~.~ ~ ~I ~.- ::r:: ~ t:...... CI1 Q) rJl QJ 0..... rJl u 81 <1) 8 ] 8 .s Jl ::: ] .Q ~I ]1 ~ll~I.~ ~I $:: C,) ~ E t::.~ QJ C,) Z 8 ~1<8~~~Ltr:::1 <:: .,., lUQId , !: ~o bll ~ "E .5 0- CI1 ~ Q) ~ C'3 ..c=..s ~ E 2 o !: <1) <1) <:Il_ <1) 8 z r-l <:Il ;l:::> ""bll ..8 !: u .~ .a13~ <1) ~.~ Cl"dS !I~~I cnrJa ~Jj~1 & 1;l u '" ,... ,., , N N "" U 1;l '" os ~ os gj' ~ 0. -g os gj' ~ os 0. -= o ~ = o ~ ] ~ o j .5 ~ ;>. ~ l 'C '.,C ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ;~g=~~zf :g~~~~ ~NNNN _ I I I I ---~- ~ I.I"l 1.0 00 ("f') :::::~<",1~~ _~N N N N ~NNNN '" "" 8"" g "" & 1;l u '" ~ N & N 1;l ""~ ~- "',., .~~ '- N :E"" cou ] ~ .~~ -5 ~ ~~ u~ ~.~ ~g" ~ ~ ]~ ~~ o ~ ~.!a .E -.a -8-8 ~ ~ o 0 ~~ - ~ o ca1 _W Ie!) XC:( we.. ~ N 9 ,... , '" '" "" ..,." N ,. N o o z ~ r'-" ~ .... '" "" ;; 'i' ,... '" o z 'E o ...i '" o N .... s ~ r- "" 0" ,... ,., '" o z 'E o 0- '\' ,... N N 8' o C;'., N "" ,.," ..,. o '" o z 'E Q. ~ -- - = ..... ... = ~ "0 ..... rI) ~ ~ >. - .s ~ ..... ... - = ~ ..; = Q ..... rI) ..... ;;.- ~ "j .... 'a = l)Jl :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -= y = .... ~ ~ '.0 '.0 '.0 I N N i:i .g U <L> '" :E .... s '€ <Q .... <L> '" '" <L> .... o = '"0 = ell '" = o ..j:l ell ~ <L> .... .s o .... .... U <L> :g '" g o N ~ '"@ .~ <L> ~ '" <L> .... ..Q 's ~ .... ] <L> oS .s '"0 <L> :t: .s ~ <L> .J::J ~ := u r.-il Z S r.-il rfJ. j;;l C/) Z o E=: j ;:J ~ - '"@ -= '" '" <L> '" = 00 = .~ .Q ] ~ f-< ~ ... <8 '" '" o ... u '" ~ ::r: S f-< E .;;: ~ '" ::l ~ '0 .: <.:: B '0 f= J~ .0 ~ ::l'" .g s !~ ~ E ~ '8 c-:-~ C/) 0:: ti: C/) z o E=: ~ o S:l:l11d S llUp(llld pax!nb:l"M axnplUl S JO lqll!:lH :llltll:lAoJ lOl (q:Jll:l) :lp!S :lZIS lOl SS:l:Jilld M:lIA:l"M pax!nb:l"M .5 fr ~ <l) ~ 8- ~ rfJ. r.-il E-i o Z ~ rfJ. Z o 1000 E-i -< S c.? ~ ~ 1000 U ~ ~ rJ1 - u <l) ~ '" <l) oS 4-< o .~ t) <l) ~ <l) oS .s B '8 € ~ go :a ~ ~ S bl) ... e .sa € g. <l) -5 g- '" a :s _ 4-< U 0 .~ U'} .g is CI) 'Vi QJ '> .s e is . ~ 'O~i:; ~a3;S "'.0 0 gt'~ ~ <l)'= 2 0 ~ ;>-. .: <l) .. '" B.5 S _ S :<;::: a i:;: g ~ ~ < gp aB ~ gp or. ~ 'VJ ~ 'O::l- ~.2~ O<l)"<t a E~ .sON <l) U 00> Ci ~ 0 s ~:::. o~~ z ~o:: ""':-Br-i 00 .s ..;::: 8. ~ 'S ",.,,:l ." 0:: ;> o 0.0 '" '" ~j~~ lll:l"M ~ '" ~ '" jUilld ~d g- o 8. . ",0:: SNOlLV'I!1~IDI1t g o Z f.ol rJJ ~==> "'00 ~] $i ~.o;:: ~"'3 5 'E o U ~ 4-< o .s i- ... <l) 8- ~ tl .= U <l) is N <l) '" ::l '" ;s 4-< ~ is .: .~ ~ .:;: f! o 0 Is ~. ~ ~~ ~ oS g .~ .~.::: .~ o~~;: -E~ .=goo 8 g. ~.: :~ :;; ij ..c ~ 8.~ ~ .~ (,.) . 0 _ :g ~ g.:E [~~ ~~ e ~ ~ ~ ..tJJ t: .5 ~o<U:CE=..8!: .C':S S 00 ~ ~ VJ ~ .:: > 0, .~" ....: ~ '"E"<l)oo 2>::N5~':'" ~ <l) N "'.;!.8 1;' g. U 00> '" t::.~ '" ..... Q) s:: <e: > :t:: 5 ~ QJ .;a ~..... 0 ~<v.J_o"Ou onlU ~1:Cl3 tTl..g...... ~QJ-; S::tI)cQ ..... u: ~ QJ.9 cQ-B ~_..... l-< rJ') C/).~ u ~ a 'E1 'S;: cO ~ .0 'S ~ Q) e "0 ... saoSE~5 .J <l) gp 8 ~.6 ~ "' oS '6., Q) ... t 0 20<l)i');....i:., g. ~ ~ "0 x'~ t 1i-aQ)t:~ ~'"O ",~oS<l)<l)':2. :E ~ B ~] 2 's ~.a.a~t::~~ o-cu"""<i:G' =2'l'E~~Q)~ j>.. (;5~...",oS" .; . ~. ~. . ,..., S .= <8 is .: .. s: ::: Q.) ~ ...... .-.- s " , ].5 ~ ~ .~ !1! S I I I I I t:: 0".8 >:: 0.5 :l c. ., r , < ~.~" ~ gj.s ~ ' .. ~. . . 0 .: ;. ~ .= o.~ , '~.'-bl)2u_.=S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.: e- ~.! ~ ~ ,.." ~J:J:<l).s~8 . .. <'i1-<ilvil~':U '" ..f.,f;-J;\Ci8,....:~ ~ .~ ~ ~.9 I" '6 ~ il:;; ;> > ;:::J" ~ "'.0 " ~I ~I!I ~t!8It~l)i ~ ~I ~I ~I~I ~ ~ J~ ~I.~I f51 gl ~ s j.~ 1 01 .~ i ~i ... : ~ .~.,. '" .- rfJ E > ~ (II ~I ~ --116 ~ I - JJI ;11 .II~~~ .- ~t = ~ ~ .9 ~ 's ~ ~ '" ~ ......1 8." 8 ;a "'''' 0< 1A " '" ...... '" , '" '" "" " 1A '" '" ~ 00 c ~ '" c. og '" ~ ~ c. ;; o ~ c ., <S .s ~ o .. o U 0< 1A " '" ~ ",0< '" 1A ""~ " " ,,- "'", J- :~ ~ - '" .10"" 00" ] ~ .ia4 .;l a ."", """ ~.g " :::I ,.,"" g ;, ~ c ..8"@ ~ ~ t; e '" '" .B "E " " .,,"" .. .. o 0 "'''' f- - 00 ~ ...... 00 o z ~ ;.;- 00 o '" ... iP ~ 6 ...... "" cO s;: '" 00 o z -g .S u -g ~~ ~ .~ r- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ ;~g:::~g v) -~MV'o:t" ~ ~~~~~ ~ _ I I I I M =:;:;-\0- '1 ="~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ 0 ~~ z ~~ "E p:; Q. -- ~ ~ ~] W :;: In ~_~~ \.."I .......; <( '.... ~a.. ,-.. '" "? ...... ei-, ,.;- "" .;- '" ,. '" o o Z ~ ~. ":' ... ,.;- "" Amend FWCC 22-1 to add the following definition: Cottage Housing Development (CHD) means residential development consisting of clusters of between 4 and 16 detached dwelling units, meeting the following criteria: (1) dwelling units are limited to a maximum square footage; and (2) dwelling units are grouped around a common open space; and (3) developments meet a set of design criteria not applicable to typical single-family developments as stipulated in Article XII of this Chapter. Doc. J.D. EXHIBI-l.__ ~ PAGE ~ 01: cg " I Cl .g" p~ ~fS '" a. ~lil I, ~ ~ ~.5tD C 0.0 Er _~~E",q ~. ~ '4) p." Rli'8"8.~t~ . <<I ~ E e ~.2t~~.8gg; .. >f- a >f- E 0 0 :g~'i ~ ~ ... E c-I E ~ !l. e . E 11 ~ EEtl~ ~ E .. ~ s; ~ 1f. ::E ::E Ii! g.'" <0 g.'af:2 Hi g.lIE ;!! alw ~~ (5 -~Q) Ui;;g! 'i)J!! E ~g_ ~E~ ~~ E~ .8 ~., E~:SE::{~ EN.8 E"'.8 ~~~ ~,g tll -, ::J,g co . ~ 51" . .e~;~1f; .~ ~8-l E -l ..c:c= .c 0. ~ :s ~~l ,S;:3& j _ G) . 'lle cu~ W 0- E ~i'a ~i~'a E~~'a E~.~.9!:l.8-g ~~~~ ~h~ ~ (5! ~-~.8 H'" 5.9..:9 ~"j,-Jl ~o_ ~s 0.'8.iS. HH -gs~" -gsta -gs~(;~~Jj "!l il,~i ij-" ~~ jj." -li ~!-~~~~ !l:(5-.ll a:tn_$ a: :~ ,- i .E ~ 8-" ll. - ~8- ] j ] j :2 :2 :2 :2 ";l .., i;g 6.0 10 a -8 1:fi ~ . .Be 0;" -, -gB ~ ,,- ]U g>(;"HIs8 ~ ~~~ :gj g.tne" s-&::J IV !ilU " '!! "tll!,S'C !iH,llo.~~ !~ ~~j~ ~~l ~~~:h a; ~.9's; ~ i m = g>- ~ 'eJ aj~.5~ i~~~ J!~ .5 ell ~~'ii'i lili ~.~ ~.s CD :; fa 3: Q) ~ ~ E c - 0. B f~~HH:g ~il8.~ >-~~ ~-Jj- &~.8 i. ~~= g -g5.sS..;~C): ~ ((j ~ E a ~ ~ .c~'t:Ii (1)- rEiig ~~.~ i c - E ij!l. ~ E cO; l'l ~~.e !fi; J!l g--r,,0 i~l~ ~8~ ,,~ ~ B~ li..; tn al g 5 a o~uli ~i~~ 'f:.8 ~ -gE _ i6;B~;"g~K -li:!l;gs "fi~:Cli'~E.sa"5~ ~ -Ii 80; ~~m ii_~ g ~ifi-5~!'j~.6a; ~h~ c.-g.2l Q!~O "fail c"'"" -'CC:c iCU5 .~ :a-B{!Jc ~ i~&!&~~ ~ ~.8~ g>~1ii ~sH Ul ~C:~Efi~~ 81 ~i ilp ro w 0 ~ Jl_ 1Jl 8 ij " Jl 0. 1'i :; Cl c c; " ,g '" .0; ~~I :J 0 :I: i ..; " ~~ !l.~ Cl .s ~~~~ <5 ~ [~1 () E ~ l! i (5 i .8o~ gN~ 2'5 = f?~ s~;~ ~!E =ai8:g6~ .~.;!! . l! ~ .~~~H h . '"It N >...... ~ c 51 . ~1i~a8~m1i oo~o .-... ! lI)ie E~-g~.~"'E E E 0 E o.B".:::J=. &8'.EcnO ~g. :::I, ~ :g, ~ J!l!l~~ S~.5lil!~8~ ~~ !.~ 8~E- 8mE :2 (\lm C'll III .... ::;; E ~ &~ c :s e ~ c:ill~ :~~~~~'* :s 8 8-" =!~~O~&i~ .~ ~ _:I: ~ 'S!l " .&g.l:-g~.ee'~ jc:~~~ -~!l~~-o.i-E g-~.~~.c ~!S:o:Ji ij g> ,g ~o~~c .., .c ~~J!! ~~c :ei:::J~.Q) u .,5: 0.= .(3. ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ Eo ~o E ...- ='" :! .. 5 n. Q)C:Q)~:?;U)G) :g ~ 5 .,~ 01- g OW._oS:! (5 g> Q.e ~ 5 ~ J!ll.c ~r~ e u. ... ~qf~ 8 ~= >.~ '" -Ii c5~'Eo~-f6fl 0 lil. " ~~. ~~ Q. .8.8~i'g~.8 " 8- I- ;, s -ll.ll ~~1~~~i 8- 15__ c ~ SEg~a ~u)lIlCl)~~(O ~ ]h~i c,/l-lio;s8;;; .~ $!~:a6'~ 8 o.:::c.oe! :(5~OI~n;Q)= g5.s~ !j-E.8 ';;.~~ gE~.5 CJ~~'51e'CI o l!! = . c= Q) (ll ~E~ II .c. Co ruN .0 '" III Cl III a. :;: en II ale- ;Hj 1!.!!:S~ = mE 'as ~i~"Ci ii = II "J & ~ "'H~~ ,!!! Q " E ,., ~ C::' ~ x :s III ::;: Ol c: .in " o J: III i 8 ~~[ &~OO')ui ~;Ui " pj ~ Q)! ~ ~~~;;~ f8 - s::: t'lI co -.am'ia j.:: 1l ~~ :( i g. ~~ s 6 ~j " H i!~ U ~HB ~~ h eil. j~~u ~UH ;~.6~j ~:;~~m i!~s~ ~ l g..~i .8~~5 ="2"e ~ ~.5 e ii~~8 hH ,!!! ~ ~ E 8 1!15 ~ g e8~ ~'!!!~-si ~8.~ iX J!I,~.gt \R .90:=6 ~. el.5 I-C'O'O~ c ~ ~I . U~ ~ji e.!l " ~~.e -=H ~' i~'~ 1~~ 1182 !~i ~!CD ~E~~ ~~E.!! ro~gc: Hn '~iLi~. E (I).m.c If) ~~H~ ~ ~:~; ~ ~f"Ci:il8 8~!!:: " - =:; m ]! 8_"0 Q) ~ & E ai c: (LB .!l h ~~.g 8,11g.P1t -!i-s~e~J!l &J~ 8 ~8 Hh H ~ee" EO. !iit"g!= mrn Hi~~~P B c: c: c::M 1.1.1 l! ,11~.~ a.I:: a li,11 " ~hh~~.e! :a:l.!!.1D O)E~lii Cs ~~~~gi!&.CJ ~<llC'll.~.s~.!!e~ :€~!cSi:5~~.s i~;~n :i~t 8Cf.lSt'lIQ)oJi!=ro ~.~ l-* ~ i-: :~, g g~O~~I~tii 2Jli~H~ en-.!!! ='~' -.B !le~ -li"-,, 8..!; iii ~~; ~~ fi 8:;:" n Hf ; =~8.. .8 go iii;;;,11~ ii ~"Ci~ "15 U tlui j ",,~~e -c:(,):6C::G)~ j~g.'5n~8 1i c: '1ft. ~e CD ~ ijB~!H~ raes~'O!E& 168E~!E~O 'i!B~.5~-S~ &'5 ..g&5~g jg-8~ull:g" 11i 1Gii 8 J:i Iii" "'. ~g ~! i.e_~~ el~0~ C:IO.5.6ro JUHI o.,s Is ~ c: ~g-~~..&;6 ~hjHi 8- ! UHj" I!! ls" "'5~ its l1l. ol!"Ji..:o"'''i m In s i3~-li ~n1~.g~-6g~ ~l!!.c.,1iiils" ml'll~xE !I1'C1 eg""~gBffi LL",i,11H"s $l:m rn.8 5'~~'J qj Q)~~ o.:S.s :;; m-ll2li'! 610 lllii.eal~tlll"2:1! Ul); ~ ~~i~~ 8:SH~I!?fil-1l ~g-;5 ,hu ~;~~ eo e 5:a~(Q ee'5~ i.€~~ Hffi~ <=J! '" to ~~ ; e :li S ~ !j "' "'l!!.sj [ ~H.!! ~ n~~ l); ~~H. ~ ~~~~ b II ~s Os I ,e g ~ ~ iii~ .; 1-.9 ~ a ili ~~ l1l.~ 1:3 Ill>> go a ! ~_Q.~.E ~! gS :\ ~'{) ~I ,~ o ~~I mW :I:~ ~n. '" Q) al' a. )( :s '" ~ Ol r::: .0; ::J o ::: Q) Ol '" 'g U h ~ en ...._ E hq~iS N.!Ilu. llH~fI) il~~ll~ ~Hn . ~o a.x~ --0 ~ '0 5~ E ~ :n. Eu. '" US ='=": 1:) J! Ql _ ctI 5 "'.S!.qj i~=;;~ 15 >. 0 C Q) . - i &~ ~- ! ~~~~a~ :gei;~B:5 c8~~g~&. f & ! ~ ~ '0 E'" ~ c E ~ ~8. Eu. <'" ]!'Q):<< s C '" = 8.J ~ ll~H h~U siiit5..~- ~5E-6'6J! Ug ~g;: ~~ _ 10 ;;g~..~~~ ll- ~ <J ~.. lI)~~ii'0~ ~::J8iQ).fi~ 8-~ s'8-~ ~ Cl) .9lI;~~8S~ ~ "aiJ!.~'e'.. a. -::Ii :; 11 -'ii .!l~ E" . ~El :ih ~ ~h. "JS_""; ~ ~~~~ ~ 1.8~"" ;;~~'iii ail ll8g~~i .gf;;Oilsil lq~H (/)~_'5u..1IJ & ~ c.'" '" c g>;, '@,s ll- ~ .E~ .E 19 is 8 oj .5n~..!! EN"~O ~ 6 E - 1=.<:'6 il ~ ~ 0.-0 siil ih~ ~~~; j;~~~ j K!:~ -s~s;~ 1 ~:l.~ 1 ~~! c~ 'O,,-rl ~"5 E-{j~ _~ ::l$l:C'lI ~ H~~~:l5~ ~::lgag~~ Q) ni -ca .l!! 'll~= ~$! -Era~~~Ql~~~ (I:l II) l5 01ii :i,laSeD >'iiij'E-ot=i> {l.. ~!:oJ! = . o.~ "ii~~~~is~Ql . ~..g"'c-~-li.&.!! ~~~H~.li-e~~ E $ %H.E ~ !:.E ~ ~;;'[~gfifjM o m2 E15 ~.<: E '" ~ll ffi~j H~ i~~ -e'ScGi !i!. S"ll. .& ~i~i di LL ~ 11 ~0.~16 c: ~ "J g ~ ii B-a-~~~~ai ~.8~ it~E~;; n:l=!;!Cl'lctlCCT"" ~i.!!5ef:38.c .. i! ~ ~.iS 0 .. ~ h~~.<:~: if' ... '8 'E ~'.! '0 .8 li a [5 CJ)~ 8 CD e e~~:Q;g~~ ll.a-e.&g='" :~~i1~~H ~~~5 E;; ls.E ~~.~~ ~.~'gj~ .~,tl'~~-'~~ ~_-.; .8i'e~:.~-8gJJ -ea....,cl!5,'Oo J!-jl'O'O-o".l1!rl- ~:::-8-iJ~~.g~il {j)j~~f~~~~ ~ i ~ &~ ~~.!!~ ~LL.-1: l 0 :g~:~ !l..." '" ~ -...t: s H~~h ..... a.,.. CI) .. H'" c~~ E ~ u. !l "'S~ '00. ~ :g -g i CD g ii 8:$!="~ ~~g.t~.E~;;; cS ~..!!.l!.]:= U 8-.!l~1! ~'O .9liiS!l!s.H ~6 ~-6U!-5:s! tl:!8~-5i8~~ = !;! ~ &.5 '0 8~!1!sS< llE= ".Ji!i tI):5~~8~ ! ~ -g 6> CD:e; ~ Q'U)a1:;=Q.E'O .!2&8s:;J~ ~<olJ!! ..t~;; .88 is 8 E1 =>! '" E 8 e ~c~ b~5 --0'" ..11 = i 15 ~ i:: -l! .. c aI g~:= ~1i1~~ a=~ a:;J~a. I!! tl 8.- HU~ ~Ij -1 COw ::r:Cl X<C UJO- .... <Il '" '" !l. .~ 10 ::; '" c: .OJ :> o :r <Il '" J!l -0 u I 2!ie;h Pm..., "~lo Co~o>~m~~ - ~.&"C 15 ~~ i6q~eg s 1S"'ii" jj.!II ~>oli"C,,-5 ...o"."E~lo~ ~!.C00(1):s :E!i CO.ra- ~'a) S....5Co?-gC1lti 5 m.c I!! .. c._ ts ~.-;,f},e J ~ !u.osilm:ll e~IIl.s.a1ll - - c ~ ll" d~JIB; Hf.-U~ ~i~l~~~ c: b >,_ co E l: !~:~i ~~ ~N.s~!j~ Ei!~H:€.8's ~~-gi.si51i ~~I~Bi~~ .8"~ B _o&tanlClJ g;; ~ IS fi-e; ~~tg>fj :~~~~~ 1l.5. _.c. il.ll-~-6;; ~iLh.1! 0I_0_0<<)U) ~:= ~'~ ~~-~ ~ h51 a ~ a 8 i~ ~~ se H ~- H 16 g> .Co .8i = .. ..- -=" ~.o 8 ! .. " Co- .. .. ~i i!:!! cf! = . .. c -Iii" ~" ;l illi8~6ii1 U :;~ ~ ~ g>~ p ~j :g 'U l:l E {!J .- :. :gg~~ " c .. .2' E ~ii .om~ u"g. ""I!! ~~.8 j b~f ~g>1S~8 'iiH~H ~ ~! ~~ ~ ~E~li~! <8"tJ'J:=-o h ~ Q.g 00 '" .l5~ ~;; CD ~-g~--B .e5_;;,:;:lj~5 ::) d) ~ f; c: In J!C8~8="t:l1'li iHi~U~ ~aC:9CDi6~~ Ul~~!S~~~ .8,i'=> e; ~ &.~ E j!;;~"'E'\!!5l:; 0~CD~':58<o => 5.g>...8 o &e; O=.e lj_. <3 l.L'@ '-CD nN"'~! ~5 (;i5~5l~~8E ~_ ~ ~ '6 E Ai ~ 5 !~~!'~~~~ ....a.i.s!=<U)g I!! 0> 8 ~ ~;;~i ... '115-=J!l -pm ,;afm.8~;;;.o . 5-5l- HH ~J!8~~.a~ni Q-8co:!~~c;:5 .8C5.!ifi>.~=.9 !ii! K~~~] c: "5.-..2 C' - _ ::J Hq~ilH 11 .. .. c !l!lf j ~~ ~;~~j 8;S~g':g~~ . il~-:gE~(;- U)~I2.=,ijE! 0>", ~"~~,, ~ ~ ~.g ~ ~ ClI .5 ,g :. a.'~~ tV ~~~ ~ tl se H ..~ H i 6 cg> h .8-8 = .. ..- -=" ...0 U il= .... fi ~~ ~8, :Is . ]H ..~.s ~ Hj -Of~ ~ 8.~ !.& 05 ~fj~~f (ij a. 15 ~ Q) Ii ~ ai~'~~r1 g>~..lj ".S!' . ~~~~~~~ g:a~ gj,~l :/5" m ~:iS 0 9l .!l:5 ClI t!:g ~gEm~ii8 <CI'll5Cl1"Cnl ;'-g ~.~~ _ ~ nI -E?S ~ ~~h~~i5 ~!~H;i :en~a;Q):;~ mtl6~,s1!:: ~ l!! ~ 0.5 to.2 ,,'6 ~. ~]lI!-1l ~!;.gElljj" o~Q)Q).52..snl ~i~~.8~i C:;,f. Cb,S g ; ~ s61i'Il)>-lii.2 ::';-gf:~!~ ~~B3g'.8:' Si:J!! i5~i ~ a~~~a.Rii .s~:g:g iliq ~ .8 .. :!; ~ ~.8 .8 :: ~~J~8~5.Q E en '5. E ....r-8 ~1~1l!i"'.e" ~ E~~~~j a.. 5.!!! .0 Q.. '5 en .. e; .. .5 t ~ ~~ llii~.e gcn"Ci~ -.!.! 85 I!! .8:g;.. il (5 Q.ad~ 4) c nl C ~ = . 2~':f~! CI)<l:t.s~Cl')en '" ..~.8mE .5..15 I",s g ~ 8-0. ~'E~:E C.- 8.1l,,~~;.; E 8~"".oi!01ii!l!" !!. 5 g> "._ -e .. II ~ 5. "O,! c:t1 ~,a..'N > 'J ~ ~iJl- ~~;3i ;'!co:~~~ ~,~ II il Ii "*l8.= ~ 'l5 b .s:; >. l: e fIl ~, e :::ij~g:;;~~"'a! =liO,:::S'cu1iS ".E"R.!1S,,_ Q.oo:6CS4)cng)Q,. E~cC!59~" ,g !l- (;:;; "<! 21 ~ iof!?sg;B.!!2~ i~.!!g-Q)I'll"C- ~j~Q)!li~~ 0~.s~'" 815~1!" .8"iol!!,.,c E _~_":CUffii fiN l!j-=gH.e~:s'-; cnro_ln(5 .0:;0'" ri~~ili15~~ "~H~dn~ \,\l.() ~ ~~ W)w Ie.!) '>(<( ..LJQ. cottage housing development Project applicant is may contain community buildings required to hold a that are clearly incidental in use or minimum of one size and relate to the dwelling units. neighborhood Such community buildings shall be meeting held early in located on the same site as the permit review cottage housing development and process. be commonly owned by the residents. Shall be clearly incidental in use and size to the cottages and shall be commonly owned by the residents of the cott~ge Neighborhood meeting, including City staff attendance, required prior to application for Process liB review Notification of meeting shall be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the proposal and a sign will be posted on site. City shall participate in neighborhood meetings. Normal pUblishing and posting after application received. Mailing of notice to adjacent residents and property owners within 500 feet. EXHIBI PAGE w._ ~ OF: 6 Cottage ~ "--- 6 G~N\.JCOD ,VG-N Ue=.. I -;; f-( olGf3L-l N e WA ,:=~g;C~",~,,,,~,,,.~~;=;~~ ~..-.~." -.... . .....-r - - ~ - - ....... · ..;... . . .....ii.. . . ~- - -~- LA.f-" u, PAGE J 3 DE It) Greenwood Avenue, Shoreline, W A E.Ai"1Ib. " 9 PAGE ;Z OF: It) I (J) o - 0.. \' ~. ~ ~ EXHIBIT :3 PAGE :) OE /0" ~ "3 \) < V\ ~ 'iJ ~ o "Z ~ -- '.~'- . ~ (_--=~--~. J I ,_. -.....-'--....., \. fl rl--"~~;-~ .,..If!tJ ...'...... ..- l 1 f'.. ~, . r ,l'''i, .~~) ~l t'~/:_ ,~ ~. Conover Commons, Redmond, W A l:..;(HISCi .3 PAGE-LOE (() {i G,J ....., "< V'I ~. M rc ';ttllh A.. NF -0 O,J ::::I ~ . o ') '1. - ~ () l ::;JJ ro va ro .., < (1) c. ~ Vl r -- ~ o ..-..l .---, ..:5 EXHIBIT PAGE !)~ OF: " 10 Danielson Grove, Kirkland, W A EXHIBiT 3 PAGE & OE , IcJ -.... .- Tt-' 'J2D ST"12-:FF!-, (,O/TAGJ::i.S '(-- L".I..N G-l-'S-Y I v../A , -- .. .- t..)(HIBIT 3 PJ~GE 7 OF: /0 .....;+ j.C.,,<< Third Street Cottages, Langley, WA EXHIBIT 3 PAGE (q OF: "- 10 Ut-'1A-TH-~ (-II' '_ I PoQT TbWN5~Nn ( WA ~Il..."''ir,f-' ) l. I < \, ~J ! r Ik.. St..,.. - EXHIBIT 3 PAGE Cf OE /0 Umatilla Hill, Port Townsend, W A EXHIBIT .3 PAGE /0 DE /0. Pa,rick Hagerty! Journal photos Joan. Voves, 70, the first' resident-to move into Danielson Grove in will be asked this fall if they want to allow the cottage-style homes, at Kirkland, \liaters her flowers Thursday on her porch. Kirkland resident Danielson Grove, below, to ~e built across the city. . 'This is.different, mOre neighborly' , '. By Lori Yarosh Journal Reporter KIRKLAND - joan Vovessofd her 1925 Cr$man bungalow ti1. the sought- ~fter neighborhood west of Market Street'after million-dollar J]lansions replaced smaller houses on three sides. ' She never S::l.W her new neighbors or their children, the 70-year-old V oves recalls. . When she moved into a cottage-style . home at Danielson, Grove in IUrkland . two weeks ago, she gave away her lawnmower, planted, marigolds and began to meet people again. . ~This is~~ferent, ~ore neighborly," she ,said. "This is what I was looking f,." .....' . ,or.,... .'" . ' Voves rtloved into one of two "inno- vative housing demqnstration .proje(:tsi'. intended to test thepubHc's appetite for developments other ,than traditional large homes on supuiban lots, . .AlI Kirkland residentS will pe aSked th.ls Jall whether stich nontraditional . housip.gshould be,allowed inw~igh, bOI'hoodsacross the city, .butright now is the best time to get aloOkat the two North Rose Hill projects, while houses remain for sale; , Daniel$on Grove includes 16 energy- efflcient cottag~style homes, each with a small prl.vateyardarranged around a cOlTlJnoris~ Parking is a short walk away. ,Kirkland ]3unga;loWs features 15 ~ottage-sty'lehomesalong one side of a curving ,street, with attached one~car ':1;i.-"L;." See COTTAGE, A7 , , TIle CoItage Co, une gaal or alternative nouslng pro~eCtS proposeo In IIlr1dand is to 'offer a community afjRosphere. lacklnl1 In modern developments. ~~.. . JCf)ttage-style' h_'~ulletl ;. Kirkland projects would offer smal1!:n-, cheaper housing . By lori Yarosh Journal Reporter KIRKLAND -' At 61 and retired, her. children grown, Thea Benjamin was seeking smaller quarters th~ her. suburban Cil.rnation home and its half-acre lot. She wanted just enough yard "to plant what. I'd like to plant, " she,said, but not so inuch th9:t she'd need a lawn mower. Benjlii$l found what she. was looking for at Conover Commons, a "cottage-style-" development being built in Redmond by The Cottage Co'. Soon, if the city approves two demonstration prQjects, . similar homes .Will be. avail- able in. Kirkland. More than half of .U.S. households centain siIigles, si.ngle~parent familiell, seniors Qr young couples on modest incomes, according to :!OOO Census data. So wh3>:, Kirkland officials began eXamineiat-4ipubllc h~g in the $250,000 00$450,000 wondering. inlecent years, at 7 p,m. Jan. -.14;: said Ron range, in an area where new .are so:1Jiany .new ho~es Hanson,.projectplanner. home prices s-tart at designed for families that are In Written. comments to $500,000, Pruitt.said. large a.nd rtch? ..' . the 1>llinning department, . . so. me qu.es..t.I'oned..whether Less expense. upkeep ,Planned ~n Rose. Hill ' the Cilrow.est' design was Danielson Grove would Danielson Grove, a group really any different fr.om cater to the 60 percent of of homes planned on Rose conventional.homes. households in Amerlclunade Hill, is the latest project "If the developer can sell up of one. or two people, intended to provide an alter- 15 houses for the same price Pruitt said. Most want a sin- native, tlley could.'ve sold 10, gle-faml1y style ~erience Thl! homes w-ouid b'e wh8:t's tb,e advantage to the without the expense and smaller and' cheaper than neighborhood?" Betty tau upkeep of a large home. .- co.nventional houses, and Crampton: wrote.. T hat.' s J u.s t w hat could help Kirkland resi- It's a question city offi- Benjattlin wanted; and. she .dents de.cide whether t.o dals wiUhave to examine.. found the prospect of a "cre- embrace similar .alternativeated community" intriguing, housing .projects in the Landscaped c.ourtyards "Now, you see tw"crand future. . .. Danielson Grove is the three-car garl1ges" from the A publiC hearing will' be se.cond .innovative project. street, she says. "Everybody . scheduled befo.re the Named after 10ngtime.Rose has a.fenced backyard. It's. ~kland neariIig .exliminer Hill residents arid former, not real conducive to a sense inearly2004onTheCottage owners ofthe propertY. it of community," - Co.'s plans for"a 16-unit would feattire 141,500" ... Per square foot,. the cot- development on 2.2 acres at squ,are-foot houses and two tage-style houses are'p,oba- 10510 128th Ave. N.E. I,QOO~square-foot cottages bly more expensive thim The Kirkland City Council. built around two landscaped convl!ntional homes, "but paved the wror for the project courtyards. . it's less eXpensiVe than most last year, when it adopted The development would of what you find in the area." . an otdinance authorizlilg five provide an alternative to the she says. "It has a.little dif- Innovative HouSing demon- "institutional style" of typi- f~ent focus, a little different stration projects. cal condominiums and. the lifestyle." The projects must .be . large size of traditional sin- Abl t d' I cheaper and. smaller than gle-fami:ly homes that shut It 0 .rlve ess conventional houses, and residents off behind garages, . Ben.!limin envisionslter-. . htclude "elements that con- said Linda Pruitt, . a princi- self bemg able. to. drive le!lS, .tribute to a sense of com~ pal in The Cottage .Co. takethebusa,ndb1keonthe munity," including front "~ere's not much oPIlortu" nearby Samm~w~sh R~~er,.. ,.pOll',ches,:,commo'II'.open mty .to. get to. know ,each Trail. .. .,., ,",., .;i"':~'~ >'., . space.ana.commi1RIty~en~ :other:-,- .-.. .. ~.. .. u.. "It'Slfljt-ro~w:yr- --'. .ters, the ordinance said. In "We're buildiIig with the she says. "I'mhopmg to be. ~ retlJrn, the city will provide intention of creating com- good neighbor and have flexibility inre~tioI!8 gov- munity, 'much like the neigh- go.od neighbors." .. epl.lng lot size, parking borhoodswe remember from Although the. Innovative spaces. and other.require- manyyearsago,"Pruittsaid. Housing ordinanc.e.is m,ents. Parking clustered at. the designed to; test whether edge of the coiq,muIiity. su~housesaremar.ketable w.ould encourage reSidents in.Kirkland,The Cottage Co. to meet and greet .their is. convinced they are, based, neighbors on the walk on similar developmerits..it through the courtyard to get built in Greenwood and. on to their front .porch, Pruitt Whidbey Island.. Both sold said. . quickly. . . . Layout is deSigned to Save . Pruitt said Kirkland 32 percent of the propertY's ~hould be "comme~d~d .~or large trees, and provide. pri-. Its leadership and VISion. . vacy while putting "eyes on In a series of neighbor- the courtyard" to enhance hood meetings, residents . security. Architecture is told city officials they w~t- designed to evoke "old ed more diverse housmg Kirkland" with deep eaves, . choices than the ubiquitous wide window llll.d door trim large home an!l attached and largepQrches. apartment-style condo, Prices are expected to be Pruitt said. Decision oli neighb~rhoods 'No permanent regula- tiQns will be adopted until residents and officials can decide whether. up to two .such developments should . .be allowed in. each neigh- borhoQd throughout the city. .'Q\eplanning department is 'finalizing. its report on another innovative housing project -:- Gamwest Development's plan for 15 compact houses on.2.2 acres at 9555 132nd Ave. N.E. - for . presentation .to the hearing ~ ~ "" l.1.! o c \(1 COw Ie) ><< we. ,. . . . . . . . ~. ,.. 'lC rJJ (L) E. o ~ ~ o .,., ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ on e= 8 ~ rJJ ""@ a OJ Q e o <..l oj C ... :::I o .;;:: = :::I 8 .., c :;;! ~ ~ ~ .. . & fa ,... I:) u ...'" .., -......, ....!; -I::ofj !5 .~ Q,l..... 0 (d _ ......~ ~~al.d! ~"'~ us ~~ .s 0 ~ ~ ~~ :::: 3l:; ! ~ g ..<: ~ ~ ~ .s:g ~ Q. , ':5ii "'ld", 1>>5l:t",_..., (ij~~ "'~"oSlt B~o 0-~~"<:0"'ofj..<:8 "'~~ ~o'" ..<: .fl.>!..., ..."'.....i:l..-~ UQ.....:..., '~e~~~ ai '" 1a "'"S ai ~..., ~';l ] ;:l ..... 0 5 ti 8. 5i '" ~ (ij ue", ~.3"'I::l<lai~eg ~u~ "'a~l>>~ ~...,,,, EI::~ofjoS-u...,o ;:l;:l~ B",o~~ ~~~ o~~..g.~.~ ~,,~ .iio.e a · ~ · ....,;= ~ 0 0." ..h 8 58.., ~00101~]~~ 8~e "'.I~u", e.. .-~.. ".0 ~'. ._. 8 ~ · ~ ..~ ~. . ~. ~. ~ 8 ._ ~ " ~~8..;;r~ U.. ~~...., ~.~. ~~ hi '.".~~;eg~.~;~~~~.>.._. ~~~ U~.~ ~'t~j>~. ~~!" i~~ o' ~ ~ " ~ ., ~ i ,,~~ ~.. .. Jl. "... _"" 1::03-:", -eoJ5 til",-!:i . , e:2!;:le '" ~ '" :::I - ,.., .., -'r; 0 I:: e 0 e.o. '..0.. .u- e.e- o eJ "'al "'''''-5''' ~.~ '0 -gp] '" eo",' ~S.5~~0~ ~0!;0~3~~~g ]~~ ~~~o~ .....o"'~ '" ..<:"'~"'_. "'", g _ ~~."~. t~E~'~~~,~,~ ~~$& ol'J..<:e.,-o .oo~II::g,~. "B...,!f:.!l. ~_I::... ... <\l .., 5 ~ ~ e.~ '" '" o.~] .2 ._ .1:: ~ ~.;-i.S ~ 3l I:: Q. '" I:: 0 .., '" '" U 1::..<: u '" oS '" ~:.52 0 _ I:: ",. oS 0 I::~Qu!~ eO;:l....."'o~u..<:......,";IO"'so~ 00~1>O"'I!l osoo...,......<:l5.I>O:aI::OSI::"'...,.. ....., .~~:::II::...I:: '411::000 .-U'~"<:41O::~Otl"'l:: ~ ~ o:a 0 41 <l.l 1>0.... '" oS II: 41..., ..... :E' _.; 41 ~ .~ ~k~i 8. ~~n-g~~! :5;~~ ~[E~ 41 .0.... I:: 41 l'< 41 :::I oS 0 41 '" oS '" ';l ~ '" ;:l 'u I:: I:: "s 0 ~ .'29'Q . l]:l II: ,.g = ~ ~ !5 ~ 41. .~ : 41 !5 8; ~ 0 g;.~ ~.~ ~ ~] 41 ~.o 0 I:: I .,-5 ~ ~ ~ t: 'i ~ ~ "<:""oS5"".gfBaoSi!l4l"<:(ij';~41'. 80 tl:n: ~1a~~~~O~~~a.'t~!;1 l]:l. ~:.52~~~.9~ ~~~I::""....... ~41 ~~~ oS::2 3:l-!:i.o '" ;....,.... 41 .. .s ~] '", ~ .E! ~ ~ " · - .". li>_ _. "., . ~. ..., .21.. ~ ~ 0 ~I::.o.s l<l a:l 8 '" '0 ~ 0$0 u 0:5;g 1>05 Eo< g. u .s:; "'-'0'8'; '" '" ofj ~o .... 0 ..rg.... '" ~ ... ~ ..., oS... . '" ~ e ~ .. 0 gd~.:c~J 111~rl~ :~ ~~~ o.....";I..<:~.~.o... .=~f!l~.~o"'i: ~~ ..1::.8 0.... I>O~ ~ ~:; ~~ 0 ..a ~ '3 .,- '" Q. 0 ~ 8 .., ;"mlo..t...~."1 e. o~. -i=I!';*~11~5~~11 8g ~11 ~; ~I~,;[. ~ ~~ i:*~~~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~~~ g e~~"~. i~ ". ....~ m 1'I~.; .~ '".8.~i.~~"'~BQQ 000< "'~l::oaoS_"o""..<:~uo",.",~~.e~~ ..<:ooO....OS...,"'.oolO"''''~ u~ M~ofj~<_... . "'''''. "'$C U~!;i I>O~...,C!...<:. ~ i:!.., -g l<l........~ "00 . ....41cs':......... <<l.. I::OH e 0 Q..;~_ e 0"" ';-'aaio"~h~ o'<~_" ... ~<..~18~;_._ ."'I..~~ Q. 0.....'" ~I~ u ~':;l 0 Q.I:::::I · ~ i>..~~il.O~g: ~. '" 0.0._ :::1"<: 41.:l. :::: e .n g ~:a&! .:l."'~ i5.9:5.z o -gN~ 3:-1:: ""2!~E4I~_;:l .,,;;;. ~"':.'t: ....0l~1::.~5 t-~ c c - ... <II :.. oS 50 I:: oS "0 0 ~ ..., ~_ "' "' -OC~ ..,._ .0 _"'__ ~ ~ '" Iii ~ !ii .~.E rg.~ ~ "; :; .~ ~ !5 ~ ~ ~ s ~ a; ~ ~ E:.;;j ~ 41"<: ~ e l5..g '" ... j: ..; <II.!i! ~...~ E: oS >"Ci"'";I "'......-:::.-~ .. = ~.E i!'t;;,,,- 8~"~Jl'I]~]~~ ~ ... ~~ ~ oil ~~Ji ~'l~~~ li>a.h .... i: :5::;; ~ 'a 't:Z.c &: ~ "'>.oS"".0 QlB ",.0 z = ~ N ~ Ii : g: ::; .41 0 !5 i 41 1a ~ l<l 41..<: ~ - - - 11>::::: -. .c C In i .0 41 .~:.52 '" I:: u Eo< '" II! -Ii "~ji ill !i~,; ~HZI~l ~ ~ . co .!l ~N_ .!~ _ .. Z .....,...,_ I:: I:: 41 41..d0 I::':;l..<: .41 -0 ~'~o.:::~~.s~iJj~ ~...,~ ~~'E .~ .5 3l{j-.fro cL. aloS ] Ol:::a "'B- ~5~~~eldo!e oS ~~~ ~al: ~ s"<:oS'=""><:::I;'~tJ ~ ..<:~. "'i~ ~ ~~Ob~~'(ij!e 8 00_";1 iu~ ~ >9BI::"'",o~~u .... ~~ "'l<l4l.41 ~l<l"'!~;:l8 ~ ! ~oS~ ~"'~~l<l 5o~e.._...,~~~~ '" ... I:: "'''<:J.. -~O;:l~d 0",,,, u '>..., 0 ~ ... -S "'., I:: 0"<: 41 o:::l oS E! ofj 0 oS 41U ...,~... oO~.:l."':.e:: 0"<: i ~!41 .~1a",tl ::E;41BG~J~"<:41 I:: 0 U ofj 1>0 ~ M oS. -';'; ...;...,;:: :; "'l:I i!l"" ~ ~-!:i 41 "''''~.o 41 41 41 I:: oS 41~~~~4I41 ~ 1"'~.s.e.t'!~.';~.~1 ;:l._~"'''''':::I''::l~...,oS''' 41. ',~ ] -~~"'ol~-ooSo~_~~B~~~~~ oS .. o~. ~"''''''''''''<:.-B>l<l'''''l]:l:::l'''''' ~ ~~:O.~~;i::~~"-Cl~~2"'i5 ,.giSt: ~~<~3"'Z.Ci" 0 ~ ~CIlClI::.... ~~ ct:l]:lt '" ..<: 1>0.0 EXHIBIT PAGE ., OF: { /& ... I ne ~eaItle limes: ~norel1ne cottages: Too close tor com tort? http://seattletimes.nwsource.comlcgi-binlPrintStory .pl?document_ ~e_.:J:1bnts -meu1l'lllS..l.lOm Thursday, March 24, 2005, 12:00 A.M. Pacific Permission to reprint or copy this article/photo must be obtained from The Seattle. Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request. Shoreline cottages: Too close for comfort? By Stuart Eskenazi Seattle Times staff reporter From where Shoreline homeowner Terry Barham sits, which very well could be in the hoHub in his back yard, the skinny little house going up next door is too close for him to feel relaxed. Barham is one of several Shoreline neighbors feeling cramped by cottage housing, an experiment in high-density housing. To them, allowing six houses on a lotthat otherwise could accommodate two is seen as a sneaky way to shoehorn multifamily density into neighborhoods with single-family zomng. "I've got essentially a six-unit apartment building next to me," said Barham, who bought in' Shoreline's Richmond Beach neighborhood in 1998. "I moved my family from a housein Wallingford because we wanted to escape the density of Seattle and experience an established residential neighborhood with room to breathe, Now I don't have that anymore." The Shoreline City Council, which adopted its cottage-housing ordinance in 2000 with great hopes, has heard the community outcry. It responded last summer by imposing a moratorium on future . developments, giving the council time to re-examine the law, which has allowed seven developments, with a total of 55 small new homes. Cottage housing, which also has been built on a limited basis in Seattle and on Whidbey Island, has been touted as an innovative approach to reduce suburban sprawl by putting more houses closer to the urban core. An alternative to condominiums and townhouses, cottage housing is different from cluster housing, another form of high-density housing that is causing a controversy in Seattle's' Magnolia neighborhood. Shoreline Mayor Ron Hansen said he wouldn't be surprised if the council decides to allow.cottage housing only in multifamily zones. Doing so, though, would defeat the purpose of cottage housing and essentially render the experiment a failure. If Shoreline revokes its cottage-housing ordinance, that would be a shame, said Scott Becker, the architect-developer of Reserve Cottages, the development being built next to Barham. The six cottages will be ready to occupy next month. "Let's tweak the ordinance, if we must, to address inappropriate developments, but let's not eliminate cottage housing that is built sensitive to neighbors' concerns," he said. Cottage houses are required to meet specific design criteria, including landscaping, and therefore EXHIBIT L( PAGE ~ OF: I~ l he :Seattle times: :Shoreline cottages: Too close tor comtort'! http://seattletunes.nwsource.comlcgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?doc\lIllent_ ~ undergo more city scrutiny than typical single-family houses. Becker said he is_ preserving more trees on the lot than a single-family-house developer likely would have bothered to save. He also said he's not making more money by developing six cottages instead of two large houses. Paul Cohen, Shoreline's senior planner, said cottage housing also grew out of a public concern that a construction boom was resulting in too many large houses where there had been small houses. Shoreline officials saw the cottage-housing ordinance as a way to encourage more modest-size housing. Cottage developments also carried the promise of providing single-family houses at affordable prices, but that no longer applies. Each of the Reserve Cottages, with two bedrooms and l-~ baths, is selling for between $300,000 and $350,000, a price similar to what one would pay for a larger, less-modem house in the same neighborhood. "It's like with anything new," Hansen said. "People have a feeling it might be a good idea as lop.g as it's over there, not here." Concerns over cottage housing vary, with homeowners who live next door worried that their property values will drop as a result. "I am a Realtor and I've been showing houses for 16 years," Barham said. "Right or wrong, people don't want to live next to cottages - and that leads to a loss in property value." Others neighbors fear that the selling of several new houses on the block will result in higher . appraisals for their homes. "The development will increase the value of my house, and at age 83, I'm not anxious to have my taxes increased," said Paul Robben, who lives across the northern boundary of the Reserve Cottages. Robben said he originally was impressed with the development plans and thought having six small houses on the property was better than the alternative of a couple of mega-houses. "But when they first started framing the roof, I thought, 'What did I get myself into?' " The maximum footprint for a cottage house under the ordinance is 800 square feet, and the entire home, counting the second floor, cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. "The developments tend to occur on lots that had small houses built in the '50s or '60s and are somewhat wooded," said Cohen, the Shoreline senior planner. "When people are used to a semirural lot and that lot is being proposed for intensive cottage housing, that comes as a big shock." Cohen said the city adopted its cottage-housing ordinance as a way to reach state growth-management targets for housing without having to rely solely on new multifamily developments. The city amended the code after the first cottage-housing development - the brightly painted l6-house Meridian Park Cottages near North 185th Street and Stone Avenue North - had been skewered by neighbors over its street appeal, particularly its Skittles color scheme. The amended ordinance required cottage-housing developers to meet several guidelines designed to make the developments more compatible with their surrounding~n terms of scale, design and eXHIBIT L( PAGE 6- OF: It The Seattle'Times: Shoreline cottages: Too close for comfort? http://seattletimes.nwsource.comlcgi-bin/PrintStory .pl?document_ external colors. Cottage developments built under the amended ordinance were received more warmly, but neighborhood concern over the concentration of a proposed 16-cottage development on Eighth Avenue Northeast led council members to pass the moratorium. "I think it's fair to say that all of the council members still have an interest in cottage housing, but all of us have reservations whether our current ordinance is restrictive enough," Hansen said. Seattle has no cottage-housing ordinance but recently allowed two developments to be built in the city as an experiment. One, at 16th Avenue and East Jefferson Street, has four houses, and the other is nine units at Northeast 65th Street and Latona Avenue Northeast. "The planning commission has members who support cottage housing, but it is not on our priority list of issues we are moving forward on," said Alan Justad, spokesman for Seattle's Department of Planning and Development. The controversial development of 39 houses in Magno~ia, on a vacant 4.5-acre tract where Briarcliff Elementary School once stood, is not cottage housing but cluster housing. Cluster housing lets developers build homes, under certain conditions, on lots as small as 3,600 square feet instead of the usual 5,000 square feet. Unlike cottage housing, a minimum 2-acre plot is required forthe larger cluster of homes, and because lots that}arge ~e rare in Seattle, there are few such development~. Ground has notb~enbroken in Magnolia, and neighbors who don't want the development built have hired an attorney. ;. Stuart Eskenazi: 206.:464-2293 Copyriqht @ 2005 The Seattle Times Company l;(HIBI1 PAGE t. LL DE It, Neighborho<2~ Goe",Q, PlanningDe~~ Cottage Housing Coming to Redmond Cottages in Redmond? Following a period of . considerable participation by neighbors and deliberation by the. Planning Commission, the City Council has approved the introduction of cottage type housing to the community. It's anticipated that the first project will break ground this summer in the Willows/Rose Hill area whose neighborhood plan was approved last year. Jim Soules of the Cottage Company received City approval in April to develop a 12-unit cottage housing development near 132nd Avenue NE and NE 111 th Street. These will be small detached single-family homes. no greater than 1,000 square feet, clustered around a central open space. Units will be two-bedroom, two-bath homes similar in concept and feeling to the Company's Greenwood Avenue Cottages in Shoreline, and Ericksen Cottages on Bainbridge Island. Prices will range in the low to mid-$300 thousands. A landscaped garden courtyard. large covered front porches, private yards surrounded by low fences and flowerboxes. and parking located to the side so residents approach their front doors through the courtyard, are all designed to create a sense of community. Other project amenities include a commons building (for parties, potlucks, meetings, and 34 personal projects), an outdoor recreation shelter, walking trails. and view platforms overlooking a beautiful heavily wooded ravine. The project site is tucked away among trees and a steep ravine and will not be visible from 132nd Avenue. The only indication of the development will be a newly landscaped and forested private drive. As directed by the Willows/Rose Hill Neighborhood Plan. neighbors met for a special meeting to review the project's site layout. architecture, landscaping, and privacy to adjacent properties. The plan also requires that the developer provide one affordable unit in phase II to a family earning 50% or less of the King County median income. As Redmond seeks to increase its supply and diversity of housing available to various income levels and family types and sizes, cottage housing is seen asa desirable option. Cottages provide a housing type that responds to changing household sizes and ages such as retirees, small families. and single- person households. They provide opportunities for ownership of small detached dwelling units within a single-family neighborhood and encourage the creation of more usable open space for residents through flexibility in density andlot standards. L, For questions about the project, please contact Susie Goett at 425-556-2454 or sgo~tt@ci.redmond. wa.us. '.1 ~~ H..h PAGE .7 OF: v' /&. The Herald Business Journal Page 1 of4 NOHOMISH (OUNT BUSINESS JOURNAL Published January 2002 Cottage developments: 'better rather than bigger' ~botQC~Y QfIWssCbapinAItbi~ Th~fII"'JI.. <tld..fa8,hjOned.C;O~lhQrn..nd~r(I. In the. Third Street Cottages "'eighb'orbQOd. Of. ..... . Langley have an a,_al tol1'laby,eopleWho 'atEl seeking smaller a$commOdatft':)n$ a~::. fri.ndly, peoplHriented way to live. aCcOr(lln';~$e.e devtfoper Jim Soules andLangreyarchl~t RoM Chapin. By John Wolcott Herald Business Journal Editor A recent trend in housing - what might literally be called a "cottage" industry - is attracting the attention of people interested in "less" rather than "more" in their home purchase. It's a lifestyle thing, and it's catching on. In Washington state, new urban developments have been attracting attention since 1998, when Jim Soules of The Qill.,age Co. LLC in Seattle and partner Ros~X'P1 rEnT PAGE 8 http://www.heraldbusinessjournaLcom/archive/jan02/cottage-jan02.htm Bail, . Restaurant " Caterlnl Ga_ Herald if OE /Cs, 9/8/2005 The Herald Business Journal Chapin Architect in Langley, on Whidbey Island, created a minimalist development in Langley dubbed the Third Street Cottages. Chapin already has picked up two American Institute of Architects' Western Home Awards, one for each of the two developments in Langley. Both of them have sold out quickly. "We started with this project (Third Street Cottages) with the idea of building cottage housing in a city. Instead of talking density (of living), we were thinking intensity of living..Instead of four homes on 7,200-square-foot lots, we said let's build eight 850-square-foot detached houses on smaller lots with front porches and quality rather than quantity of space," said Soules, who terms his development "an alternative to conventional planning." The cluster of eight homes surrounding a common garden "is an exciting alternative for one- and two-person households," Chapin said. Others obviously agreed. Soules said he and Chapin were surprised at "the avalanche of inquiries from planning. agencies, developers and architects from all over the country." Third Street Cottages even garnered 10 pages in Sarah Susanka's book, "Creating the Not-So-Big House," and the neighborhood project received the highest honor in the 1999-2000 AIAlSunset Magazine Western Home Awards. The October issue of Sunset featured pictures of Soules and Chapin's second small-home development in Langley, known as the Backyard Neighborhood project, which has just been chosen for another AlA/Sunset Western Home Award. This latest project features somewhat larger homes, but small cottages are still part of the mix. Backyard Neighborhood consists of three adjacent 1~200-square-foot houses that are separated from their 425-square-foot detached cottages at the back of their three lots by a shared alleyway. The AIAjury called it "a flexible, high-density in-fill project that accommodates changing lifestyles," applauding the presence of the cottages because they can "serve as home offices, separate family rooms, master ber~ I BIT PAGE 1 - - tltlp:7 fwww.nerataousmeSSjournal.comlarchive/jan02/cottage-jan02.htm Page 2 of4 1 DE /~ 9/8/2005 The Herald Business Journal Page 3 of4 starter homes for grown children, in-law quarters, guest cottages, studios or even long-term rentals." ''The larger houses combine kitchen, dining and living rooms ina single multifunctional space. Peaked ceilings, windows placed for maximum daylight and side-yard privacy, and light colors keep these great rooms open and bright," the magazine article said. "The largest of the three, which is designed for wheelchair accessibility, also features an elevator and third-story view tower." Spurred by success, Soules and Chapin are finishing a new development near Shoreline Community College north of Seattle at Greenwood A venue North and NE 160th Street, with eight cottages grouped around a landscaped courtyard, similar in character to the Third Street Cottages in Langley. The creative design uses a common garden area to foster a cohesive community and provide a sense of place. Each cottage has a private yard, arranged around a commons with perennial flower borders, lawn and fruit trees. On the west side ofthe courtyard is a Commons Building with a multi-purpose workshop for fixing bikes, planting seedlings or having a neighborhood party. Allofthe cottages include a large covered porch, flower boxes, gas fireplaces, wood floors, vaulted ceilings, great lighting and unique interior detailing. Each home has a single-car garage. The units - selling for around $269,900 - are sold as condominiums, with an association providing insurance, landscaping maintenance and cottage upkeep. Soules is also involved in a joint venture with property owners on Bainbridge Island and local architect Charles Wenzlau, building 1,050-square-foot homes in a small development known as the Ericksen Cottages. Always looking for new sites in the Puget Sound area for more small-home projects, from two-thirds-of-an-acre to two acres, Soules also wants to develop larger communities that would include shops, offices, homes and cottages. Further, in collaboration with Chapin, Soules is offering cottage development consulting services to landowners, prospective residents, developers and city planning departments. "I think it's a significant trend," Soules said. "Better rather ..than bigger, quality over quantity; it's somethi.n. g {l~o~le .1 . LAHIBI ~. ID OE 9/8/2005 1& PAGE http://www.heraldbusinessjournal.comlarchive/jan02/cottage-jan02.htm The Herald Business Journal Page 4 of 4 have been waiting for. It takes more work, details and supervision but -like the old pre-1940s Craftsman homes with mantels and casings - they are homes that get a premium price." When people ask him what the cost per square foot is on his cottage projects, he said he knows they're not "my kind of customer. " "I like to ask them, 'Do you buy a BMW by the pound?' " Soules said. For more information about trends in developing smaller- home neighborhoods, call Soules at 206-525-0835, send e- mail to prusou@man.com or visit his Web site, www.cottagecompany.com. Ross Chapin Architect can be reached by sending e-mail to inquiry@rosschapin.com or by visiting www.rosschapin.com on the Web. Charles Wenzlau Architect on Bainbridge Island can be reached by calling 206-780-6882 or by sending e-mail to charlie@wenzlau- architects.com. Susanka's book, "Creating the Not-So-Big House," can be ordered through www.notsobighouse.com on the Web. Back to the top/January 2002 Main Menu @ The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA L.-)~i1Ibi I. L( PAGE / I DE /!.s, http://www.heraldbusinessjoumal.com/archive/jan02/cottage-jan02.htm 9/8/2005 .' Index Surveys DJC.COM Page 1 of6 November 15. 2001 Small housing: A Northwest mini-trend New developments feature smaller homes with higher quality finishes If zoning changes are approved this month, Kaufman Crossing will rise on a 65-acre site occupied until 1996 by the old Croman Mill, a timber products plant. But it won't look like a subdivision oftri-plex homes with three-car garages. By TERRY STEPHENS Special to the Journal Ashland, Ore., already well known for the quality of its Shakespearean theater performances, may soon become well known for its "small is better" approach to quality housing developments. Photos courtesy of Ross Chapin Architect Third Street Cottages in Langley, on Whidbey Island, has captured national interest for its innovative style of developing small, friendly neighborhoods of smaIler- than-conventional homes for those who don't want subdivision mansions and huge lawns. Pursuing a recent Northwest mini-trend toward smaller homes, closer neighbors and pedestrian living, Kaufman Crossing is being planned as a friendly community for young couples or retirees who want to enjoy more of an old fashioned neighborhood than modem developments offer. "Super big houses don't always fit an area's demographics," said Marcy McInelly, founder of Portland's Urbsworks Inc., an architecture and urban design business. She's leading the design team for the project, working with Galpin LLC, a group of Medford, Ore., developers. "I think this represents a turning point for Ashland," McInelly said. ''The site is near a small lot, detached single-family (home) neighborhood with alleys, built during the railroad boom (between 1890 and 1920) to house... railroad workers. Now it's one ofthe most walkable... desirable neighborhoods in Ashland." The rezoning request, which was expected to be put before city planning commission officials Nov. 13, would change the industrial tag on the property to allow residential developments with more housing densi~ than -flormal- but smaller than normal. EXH I BIT 't - GE I;;{ OE 1& http://www.djc.comlnews/ae/l1127669.html P A '9/8/2005 Page 2 of6 Galpin's proposed project would feature smaller homes of 1,000 square feet or less on 2,500-square-foot lots in a planned development that may even include rail transportation into the community, on the same tracks that once carried lumber out of the old timber mill. Kaufman Crossing would offer a compatible mix of new housing, including single-story, one-bedroom homes with big windows, dormers to open up ceiling space and large porches. Adjacent tothe property is an existing commercial main-street-styled development with apartments above street-level businesses. "I think (there are) people who want a smaller place to take care of, a smaller yard, room for a garden, close to neighbors and a detached house, not a row house. " McInelly sees the need to provide housing for a neglected - but apparently growing - segment of society, those who don't want mansions with huge lawns. -Marcy Mclnelly, Urbsworks Inc. "I think (there are) people who want a smaller place to take care of, a smaller yard, room for a garden, close to neighbors and a detached house, not a row house. The whole key is that you spend less money on square footage and more money on detailing and exterior finishing," she said. . The houses would sell for far less than Ashland's present offerings of moderately~priced homes, in the $220,000 range, and while the square footage would also be less, she sees an increasing market for such housing. Part of the project would provide space for a retirement community with independent and assisted-living services, perhaps even facilities for Alzheimer's patients. "People would be able to enjoy a comfortable, walkable, primarily residential neighborhood (some of the site may be developed.for a school, a church and a tourist-oriented railroad museum) with a lot of room for gardening ... trees that make a canopy over the street ... and 'skinny streets' that promote pedestrian travel over motor vehicles," she said. Access to garages would be through alleys behind the homes and there would be community space for pocket parks, open areas, a village green and recreation pathways that connect with a regional biking trail. To provide jobs in the area, the development may also include some manufacturing activities and other businesses, all of which would open up employment opportunities for residents of Kaufman Crossing. If the project continues on schedule as expected, it could be under construction by next summer, with three to four years planned for full = development, said Maurice Torano, a Partnet;'~m ~rr firm. The http://www.djc.com/news/ae/11127669.html PAGE L{ 13 OE 1& 9/8/2005 Page 3 of6 project would include roads as well as utilities, such as water, sewer and storm drain systems. She has already prepared similar design guidelines and development codes for NorthWest Crossing, a 500-acre "new urbanist" development in Bend, Ore.; Edwards Addition, an 85-acresite in Monmouth, Ore., and a new project for the city of Azusa, site of the last remaining undeveloped 500-acre parcel in Los Angeles County. "The existing Ashland neighborhood (around this site) is very homey and comfortable. We're trying to bring some of those features into this new neighborhood. When the mill is gone we will have a large clear site to work with and we're trying to adopt the very best of Ashland for this project," she said. While these types of small-is-better projects are still too few to be anything more than a footnote in the overall tabulation of housing developments in the . Pacific Northwest, McInelly said there is definitely a growing trend and increasing interest. The small, old fashioned, colorful homes and yards in the Third Street Cottages neighborhood of Langley have an appeal to many people who are seeking. smaller ac(:ommodations and a friendly people-oriented way to live. Hilltop House is typical of the eight small homes in the Third Street Cottages development that has become an award-winning example of the small-is-better trend in housing developments in the Pacific Northwest. Also, in Washington state, new urbanist developments have been attracting attention since 1998 when Jim Soules of The Cottage Company LLC in Seattle and partner Ross Chapin of Ross Chapin Architects in Langley, on Whidbey Island, created a minimalist development in Langley dubbed The -Third Street Cottages. EXHIBIT t{ PAGE /~ OF: It. http://www.djc.com/news/aeIlI127669.html 9/8/2005 Page 4 of6 Chapin has already picked up two American Institute of Architects' Western Home Awards, one for each of the two developments in Langley that have both sold out quickly. "We started with this project (Third Street Cottages) with the idea of building cottage housing in a city. Instead oftalking density, we were thinking intensity ofliving. Instead of four homes on 7,200-square-foot lots, we said let's build eight 850-square-foot detached houses on smaller lots with front porches and quality rather than quantity of space," said Soules, who terms his development "an alternative to conventional planning." The cluster of eight homes. surrounding a common garden "is an exciting alternative for one and two-person households," Chapin said. Others obviously agreed. Soules said he and Chapin were surprised at "the avalanche of inquiries from planning agencies, developers and architects from all over the country." Third Street Cottages garnered 10 pages in Sarah Susanka's book "Creating the Not...;So.;.Big House;" and the neighborhood project received the highest honor in the 1999-2000 AlA/Sunset Magazine Western Home Awards. The October issue of Sunset is now featuring pictures of Soules and Chapin's second small-home development in Langley, known as the Backyard Neighborhood project, which has just been chosen for another AIA/Sunset Western Home Award. This latest project features somewhat larger homes but small cottages are still in the mix. Backyard Neighborhood consists of three adjacent 1,200- square-foot houses separated from 425-square-footdetached cottages at the back of the three lots by a shared alleyway. The AlAjury called it "a flexible, high-density in-fill project that accommodates changing lifestyles" because the cottages can serve as home offices, separate family rooms, master bedrooms, starter homes for grown children, in-law quarters, guest cottages, studios or even long-term rentals. "The larger houses combine kitchen, dining and living rooms in a single multifunctional space. Peaked ceilings, windows placed for maximum daylight and side-yard privacy, and light colors keep these great rOoms open and bright," the magazine article said. "The largest of the three, which. is designed for wheelchair accessibility, also.features an elevator and third- story view tower." Spurred by success, Soules and Chapin are finishing a new development near Shoreline Community College north of Seattle at Greenwood Avenue North and Northeast 160th Street, with eight cottages grouped around a landscaped courtyard, similar in character to the Third Street Cottages in Langley. t..XH I B II 'I PAGE /6-0E It., 9/8/2005 http://www.djc.com/news/ae/l1127669.html Page 5 of6 The development uses the common garden area to foster a cohesive community and provide a sense of place. Each cottage has a private yard, arranged around a commons with perennial flower borders, lawn and fruit trees. On the west side of the courtyard is a Commons Building with a multipurpose workshop for fixing bikes, planting seedlings or having a neighborhood party. All of the cottages will have a large covered porch, flower boxes, gas fireplaces, wood floors, vaulted ceilings, great light and unique interior detailing. Each home has a single-car garage. The units - selling for around $269,900 - are sold as condominiums, with an association providing insurance, landscaping maintenance and cottage upkeep. Soules is also involved in a joint venture with property owners on Bainbridge Island and local architect Charles Wenzlau, building 1,050- square-foot homes in a small development known as the Ericksen Cottages. The project was expected to break ground this month. Always looking for new sites in the Puget Sound area, from two-thirds to two acres, for more small-home projects, Soules also wants to develop larger communities that would include shops, office, homes and cottages. Further, in collaboration with Ross Chapin, Soules is offering cottage development consulting services to landowners, prospective residents, developers and city planning departments. "I think it's a significant trend," Soules said. "Better rather than bigger, quality over quantity, it's something people have been waiting for. It takes more work, details and supervision but - like the old pre-1940s craftsman homes with mantels and casings - they are homes that get a premium price. " When people ask him what the cost per square foot is on his cottage projects, he said he knows they're not "my kind of customer." "I like to ask them, 'Do you buy a BMW by the pound?' " Soules said. Terry Stephens is a freelance writer based in Arlington. He can be reached bye-mail at features@gte.net. Other Stories: . A peek into the architectural process . Orchestrating Belltown's rebirth . Mechanical moxie: Innovations at the new Opera House . Preserving a church gets personal . Delivering the goods in a tight economy . Don't overlook moisture - the silent threat EXHIBIT if PAGE It DE /L~ 9/8/2005 http://www.djc.com/news/ae/l1127669 .html CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 21,2005 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Merle Pfeifer, Bill Drake, and Lawson Bronson. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder (excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Christine Nelson and Tony Moore. Alternate Commissioners absent: Pam Duncan-Pierce (unexcused). Staff present: Development Services Director Kathy McClung, Assistant City Attorney Amy Jo Pearsall, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duclos moved (and it was seconded) to adopt the August 17,2005, minutes with a correction to the date under Additional Business. The motion carried (one abstain, five yes). AUDIENCE COMMENT Greg Coleman - He commented on the Cottages at Hoyt Road project. The neighbors had been told there would be a certain amount of open space and were happy with that. Now the developer wants to decrease the amount of open space. If a developer destroys open space, they then talk about remediation. What is the point if the open space is already destroyed? Is there a way of protecting that open space? ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS WORKSHOP - Cottage Housing Code Amendment Mr. Conlen delivered the staff presentation. Cottage housing refers to small detached single-family units grouped around a common open space. The proposed amendments would allow cottage housing in the Residential Single- Family (RS) 7.2 and 5.0 zones and all Residential Multi-Family (RM) zones. The intent of cottage housing includes providing affordable housing; providing options to a growing demographic desiring single-family setting, but with smaller homes and lot sizes; providing opportunity for infill and reducing urban sprawl; and promoting neighborhood interaction, sense of community, and safety. Staff is seeking the Commission's input on overall direction, development standards, procedural requirements, and public notice. The Commission discussed the issue of affordability. Given today's housing market, how can the City ensure the cottages would be affordable? What tools and incentives are available to encourage affordable housing? The Commission does not want to dictate affordable housing, but would like to encourage it. Given that other jurisdictions allow only 12 units per acre, it was suggested the City allow 12 cottages outright, and up to four additional ones if two of those are affordable. K:\Planning Connnission12005\Meeting Summary 09-21-05 Updated. doc E::.XHlb. PAGE 5 ul: Z- I Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 21,2005 The Commission suggested a minimum cottage size of 800 square feet. They also suggested that a homeowner's association (with dues) be required for cottage housing subdivisions in order to ensure the common open space is maintained. They discussed the parking requirement of 1.5 spaces. The question arose whether this would give enough visitor parking. It was suggested that the requirement be reduced to one and the developer could decide if they want visitor spaces. On-street parking could be counted towards the required parking. The Commission came to the consensus that 1.5 spaces are adequate. The Commission discussed the size of garages. The size limit of 200 square feet gives a size of only lOx 20 feet. It was stated that this applies only to attached garages and unattached garages could be larger. The Commission came to the consensus that 200 square feet for attached garages is adequate. Additionally, attached garages can be larger, but square footage exceeding 200 is counted towards the maximum cottage size. The Commission discussed allowing carports and if they should have a roof pitch, and suggested they should be allowed with a 6:12 roof pitch. The Commission feels this issue could generate concern from citizens. It was suggested that public notice be made through press releases, the City's quarterly newsletter, send notices to the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, send notices to all homeowner associations, send notices to homeowners, send notices to the Master Builders Association, send notices to developers, and place notices on the City's Web site. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Chair Caulfield informed the Commission that last week he had attended a meeting on the City Center. Although there were only four people who were not staff or City Council in attendance, he felt the meeting was worthwhile. AUDIENCE COMMENT Greg Coleman - He commented that cottage housing sounds exciting and he was glad he stayed for the whole meeting. He noted that owner occupied homes are better cared for than others. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.rn. K:\Planning Connnission12005IMeeting Summary 09-21-05 Updated. doc EXHIBIT PAGE z. 5 OF: Z-