Planning Board Minutes August 12, 2008KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 12, 2008
GALL TO ORDER AND ROLL
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and
CALL
Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board
members present were: Bryan Schutt, Rick Hull, C.M.
(Butch) Mark, John Hinchey, Jim Williamson, Richard
Griffin and Troy Mendius. Toni. Jentz and Sean Conrad
represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were
approximately 20 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF NOWTES
dark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the July 8, 2008 Kalispell City Planning Board
meeting.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
PUBLIC COI42VIENT
No one wished to speak.
VALLEY RANCH PLANNED
A. request by Gateway Properties, Inc. (Talley Ranch) for a
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
planned unit development (PUD) overlay Zoning district on
approximately 80 acres of land currently zoned City R-2
(Single Family Residential) within the City of Kalispell. A total
of 382 units are proposed on the site which includes 85
single-family residential lots, 33 townhouse lots, 104
assisted / independent (elderly) living units, and 160
apartment/ con.donu*nium units. The property is located on
the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of
the intersection of Highway 93 and. west Reserve Drive, and
south of a County subdivision., Ponderosa Estates.
STAFF REPORT -08-
Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell City Planning
01
Department reviewed staff report KPUD-08-01 for the board.
Conrad said the Talley Ranch Planned Unit Development
Zoning Overlay is before the board tonight. Conrad provided
the location of the site for the board and reviewed the uses
within the project including parks, open space, road
connections, and the residential aspect that would include
single family, townhouse, assisted /independent living and
apartment/condominium units. The first phase, Conrad
noted, has the highest density because it includes the
assisted/ independent living, apartment/ condominium units,
along with some single family and townhouse lots.
City staff had some comments regarding the access for the
townhouses in phase 3. Instead of access off' an alley staff is
recommending a road be extended, and the townhouse units
be reconfigured to front off the road. This would provide
access to these lots which would meet subdivision regulations
standards, and the street would also accommodate a future
Kalispell City Punning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 1 of 8
road to properties to the south of this project. The tracts to
the south are developed but development is primarily on the
western edge along Highway 93 and the intent here is to get a
parallel road to Highway 93 which would allow further
development of these lots if and when they want to come into
the city.
Conrad reviewed the landscape buffer that will be provided
along Highway 93 which he noted is extensive and will include
100 feet of landscaped berrning and trees. They are also
proposing a 130 foot wide linear park before they start the
housm* g units.
Hinchey asked if there was a height requirement for the buffer
and Conrad said not at this time but staff is asking for more
detailed plans when they come in with the preliminary plat for
phase 1. Conrad noted the Parks & Recreation Department
will also review those plans.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD--08 -o 1 as
findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the Walley Ranch PUD be approved subject to the 26
conditions listed in the staff report.
Conrad emphasized the preliminary plats will come before the
board for review before any lots are created and any houses
built. In addition as part of the final plat approval they would
not be granted approval until there is a road con.n.ection south
to Rose Crossing which will, be in conjunction with the
construction of phase 1 of Glacier Town Center. That will
provide the residents of Valley Ranch a full -turn, signalized
intersection to safely access Highway 93.
BOARD QUESTIONS Griffin noted there are differences in the number of dwelling
units throughout the application and report. Jentz noted the
382 figure is correct.
Griffin raised his concern with the issue of sewer where the
city indicates they are not currenur. m y le posiuori to ouua
the needed off -site improvements to accommodate this and
other larger scale developments in the area, therefore the
developer is in the best position for making the improvements.
Griffin asked for clarification as this would require the
developer to pay for the improvements to the city's facilities.
Conrad said currently our Public Works Department indicated
the infrastructure going along Highway 93 south has the
capacity to serve the Silverbrook subdivision, the first phase of
Glacier Town Center and other projects along this route that
have already received preliminary plat approval. However,
they have found with the preliminary plat approvals the
station and lines are at capacity. The station would need to
be upgraded and new lines would need to be run and the cost
Kalispell City Punning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 2 of 8
would be the responsibility of this and any other developer
that may develop in this area.
Griffin thought this would negatively impact the cost per lot in
Valley Ranch. Conrad said someone has to bear the cost and
right now the city doesn't have the funding to construct the
unprovements . Jentz said this developer may put up the
initial cost but it will not necessarily affect the values of the
lots. Jentz continued the developer would enter into a late-
comers' agreement with the city and the impact and hook-up
fees that would be paid with each individual housing unit
building perrmit would be used to reimburse the developers for
the upgrades. Jentz further explained how the late -comers'
fee works. Griffin asked about the current capacity of the
sewage treatment plant and Jentz noted the sewage plant is
currently undergoing an expansion that would double its
capacity in the next 12 months.
Williamson asked if this developer may also have to pay
Silverbrook for their late --corners' fee and Jentz said yes.
Williamson asked the status of impact fees and Jentz reviewed
the current impact fee program that includes police, fire,
stormwater, severer and water. Jentz noted that transportation.
(roads) and parrs impact fees are currently being considered
by council.
Griffin asked if the 7 year approval window was a reasonable
length of time given the current market. Conrad said the
timeline gives the public assurance that the project approved
will be completed or if the developer lets the PUD lapse the
public will know with another developer the public process
will begin again. Conrad noted the current developer could
also request an extension from city council.
Hinch.ey asked if the proposed road extension would end in a
cul-de-sac and Conrad said not necessarily since there is an
alley at that location but under other circumstances the Pure
department could require some sort of temporary turnaround
area instead.
Griffin noted there was a letter from Kalispell Public Schools
indicating that they have some concerns regarding this project
and asked when those concerns would be addressed. Conrad
said any impacts would be discussed at the preliminary plat
stage. Clark noted for the record that in the past the school
district has either not commented at all or their comments
were very vague. Clark suggested the school district should be
negotiating with the developers for school sites, etc. in the
future. Jentz reminded the board that impacts to the schools
cannot be used to recommend denial of a project. Jentz
explained further.
APPLICANT/CONSULTANTS I Bruce Lutz, Sitescape Associates said he represents Brent
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 3 of 8
Card and Gateway Properties. He has been working with staff
on the conditions and they concur with those conditions.
However, they do have concerns with the sewer situation and
will. be following that very closely through this process. Being
neighbors to the Glacier Town Center they are hopeful that
some of the other developers will share in that load.
Lutz said he wanted to address a few points discussed at the
work session last month including the issue of Round Up
Road extending down to the south end of the property and, he
added, they concur with that condition. The other issue was
connectivity to Ponderosa Estates and there are some severe
grade constraints in the area that was recommended. Lutz
suggested the area between. lots 55 and 57 be considered
instead.
Lutz continued part of the conditions for phase 1 would be
connecting Whitehall Road all the way from the condo area
out to Highway 93 and connecting to the east side of the
property in phase 1. He added they had a meeting with the
Parks Department to determine what would be considered a
public park v. a homeowner park. He said also in phase 1, the
Parks D epartrnen.t is asking for the construction of the buffer
along Highway 93 as part of phase 1, even though it is a part
of another phase. Lutz reviewed the trail connections within.
the Valley Ranch development.
Hinchey was concerned that the first phase of this project is
all of the high density and yet there would be very few park
areas developed with phase 1. Lutz said along with the
potential sewer issue one of the large expenses of this project
will be connecting to Rose Crossing and he said phase 1 will
not proceed until they can achieve that. Lutz said they wanted
to internalize the assisted living project to make it more
integrated into the project and closer to the town center and
wanted to buffer the Ponderosa perimeter with larger lots so
they have shifted their density. The 1-1/2 acre park will be
built as a public park in the first phase and will have a gazebo
shelter structure, benches and some kind of a trail connection
to the assisted living facil ity.
Clark asked for a review of the roads that will be constructed
with phase 1 and Lutz provided the infornnation and the
relationship with the roads to be constructed in Glacier Town
Center. Clark asked if Lutz felt 7 years was enough time to
develop Valley Ranch. and Lutz said he hoped it would be
enough and added they have the potential to extend the
timefrarne another 3 years. Clark thought under the current
conditions 7 years wasn't enough time.
Hinch.ey said he doesn't see any connections to Highway 93
with the exception of the road south to Rose Crossing and
Lutz said with phase 1 there is another secondary connection
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 4 of 8
to the west. Clark asked if that would be right--in/right-out
only and Lutz said it would be a 3/4 movement.
PUBLIC HEARING Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive — Ponderosa Estates
distributed information regarding cottage housing in Seattle
for the board's information. DeMeester said during the work
session there was discussion about connectivity through. the
Ponderosa park and she wanted there to know that area
proposed for the connection is not a parr it is an 8-hole
putting green. DeMeester said there is also major opposition
to providing a connection between. Valley Ranch and
Ponderosa Estates because their roads are all private and they
do not want the additional traffic from Valley Ranch. In
addition a major issue is the right-in/right-out on the north
side of this property. She thinks the traffic will turn right onto
Highway 33 then right into Ponderosa and then make a u--
turn and go back out onto the highway. She described the
safety problems that currently exist at this intersection.
DeMeester said her other concern is the apartment complex
and density. She understands that developers need density to
compensate for the cost of development and she suggested
they consider the cottage -style developments which are very
successful in. the Seattle area. She further described this type
of development for the board.
Bonnie Raeth, 261 white Pine Road stated she was one of the
first residents of Ponderosa Estates and has been living there
for over 25 years. Her concerns are the same as were stated
by Mrs. DeMeester. She added the developers have really tried
hard to work with the residents of Ponderosa but she said the
plans for a connection between the 2 subdivisions at the parr
location will not work because it is a putting green not a park.
She asked the board to consider the sewer issue and the
impacts on schools.
MOTION Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff
report :[SPUD--08-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the
iialu�pC-ll Cl ty C o unci1 that- tlhe Valley Ranch. PUD be approved
subject to the 26 conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION Clark said the developer has addressed all of his concerns.
They have put the large lots next to Ponderosa, the buffer
was added in the area where he was worried the trees would
be removed, and they have done everything possible to get
along with their neighbors and address the board's concerns.
Conrad noted that an email was received from Todd Thiesen
and copies were distributed to the board before the meeting.
Mr. Thiesen didn't have any major opposition to the project
but he did suggest that the developer provide a
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 5 of 8
transportation right-of-way that would connect with the
Ponderosa Estates subdivision.. Mr. Thiesen also expressed
his concerns regarding dust abatement control and Conrad
noted the city's Public works Department is being more pro-
active in requesting that developers provide a plan for dust
abatement and Public works restricts the amount of
property that can be disturbed to limit the impacts of dust
on nearby properties.
Schutt asked if the connectivity would serve this
development of Ponderosa Estates and Conrad said it would
be an alternative ingress/egress for the residents of
Ponderosa to travel south to the signalized intersection of
Rose Crossing and Highway 93 and to the Glacier Town
Center. If and when the residents of Ponderosa feel that they
need an alternative route they would have to construct the
road. Schutt asked if there were any long term plans for the
intersection of the Big Mountain Golf Club and Ponderosa
and Conrad said none that he is aware of now but MDOT
may choose to change the intersection in the future.
Hinchey said he echoes what was said by Clark in that the
developer has answered most of the concerns of the
neighbors and the board. However, Hinchey continued he
still has some concerns. He said regarding the density of the
first phase, it contains 80% of the units for the project but is
only planning for 2 0% of the p arks . He doesn't think the city
will be getting the infrastructure that it needs to support this
phase. Hinchey would like to see more parks and bike paths
developed.
Hinchey added he also shares the concerns expressed
regarding the 160 apartment units and asked for some idea
of what their design will be. He is also concerned that
residents of Valley Ranch will use the right -out up to
Ponderosa and make a u-turn.
Hinchey noted Condition # 21 refers to the Department of
Military Affairs and that the developer would work with them
to Come up = Ltlh a s unable plan to buffer ��e uses between
the DMA facility and the residential lots. Hinchey thought
that sounded subjective and he would rather see that
wording changed so the noise can be mitigated.
Conrad responded the Parks Department is recommending
that in addition to the 1-1 / 2 acre park the .8 of an acre park
on the north end also will be developed along with the open
space. Another thing to bear in mind, Conrad continued, is
that they will not get preliminary plat approval until phase 1
of the Glacier Town Center is approved which will include the
construction of Rose Crossing. Conrad explained further and
added along with the construction of phase 1 of Glacier Town
Center is a 17 -- 13 acre -Dark which will also be developed
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 6 of 8
and that park would be available to the residents of Valley
Ranch.
Conrad continued whether the residents will turn right out of
Valley Ranch and go up and turn around at the Ponderosa
intersection is an issue for MDOT. other access points will
be provided to the south that will be much safer than using
the route to the north.
Conrad referred Hinchey to the elevation drawings for the
apartments that were provided in the packets and noted
their designs should be similar. Conrad also added the
designs will be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Committee.
Conrad said Condition #21 regarding the plan to mitigate
noise from the Department of Military Affairs facility could be
amended by the board. Hinchey asked, homer does the board
guarantee that the residents of Valley Ranch adjacent to the
DMA facility will know there will be noise generated on
Saturdays when they are purchasing their lots? Hinchey
proposed an amendment to condition #21 with the wording
suggested by staff. Williamson noted in reference to
Condition #21 all the developer has to do is contact DMA. It
is an existing structure and everyone hopefully wi.11 know it is
there. The motion was not seconded and no further
discussion was held.
Hinchey thanked Conrad for the clarifications but expressed
his continued concern about the density of phase 1.
Schutt said he believes this project is much improved since it
was first presented. He is not personally concerned about the
7 year time limit because markets change and he believes
there will be adequate time. The city council has granted
extensions in the past and this project would be not
different.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6 in favor and I
opposed.
OLD] BUSINESS:
None.
NEW BUSINESS:
Coming in September there will be the regular meeting on.
September 9th and a work Session on. September 23rd. In
addition, in October the planning board meeting will be
broadcasted live on the internet and there will be a dry run
in. September.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:1 S p.m.
WORK SESSION:
Immediately following the regular meeting a work session
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 7 of 8
was held on the following items:
1. Siderius Commons/Highway 93 South Growth Policy
Amendment
Due to the late hour the following work session items were
not discussed:
Entrance Corridor Standards 'Text Amendment
Kalispell west Growth Policy Amendment
NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning
Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for September 9,
2008, at the regular time of 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City
Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East. A
work session is scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 2008
in the city council chambers. The work session agenda will
include the Entrance Corridor Standards and the Kalispell
West Growth Policy Amendment.
Bryan H. Schutt
President
Michelle Anderson
Recording Secretary
APPROVED as submitted/corrected: /-/08
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008
Page 8of8
Tom• .Pbdlon
WnrOrKj@lW s ll.cccn
$ubjM1lnd
Lcoy'Ra . h: SL r . .
i
_ 7-
�b � I �� ' v i � 547 '•� f v
i
tip{ a a _ •r. •� L
�.li�gust 11;.2008
-&i= _ TIC • I y I r h ub vil4dii
Dear Plannino Stak
�,r v � ��' •{��i "� �" h��i��.�i' �4�._— I.'�~{r'. �r' ''+i{ � ti �r �''� '� � y'v �.'r-� t� �� ,�ijr�' ��.�:. nJ`.�r'' � �j�:�
w
I :gin riot opposed 'bv � # major. . Of-.#t a I rn . p :
l6vha h� 03 and =:� .modem f_ o4 h. a :� ; r TI' " �#' f . Th '
f(AjoW 1,1 III 11 I 1 �I n:red i A, nappmpriats,
arrount, of grben spiamshouldbe W1A by the su Wiiln to compensW*:for tto
�r UdOn ' lei POhd �ii �. � .sU.�� . �larr�i' bow
�l r� rim I&W
Rirdortm' : - rod :tight W-- ,art this ft ...H6vo ; n
. The city- plaqning rd old -requ irk .the d el ow.� gi : a m � r
: r " bid. ' wmAO . fioffi* ond�. abl , ft - r l r� Estate
Homeomws In theevert'duA.-conau on dust 19 1h
_.
!(Indudl ng vdndojorm&)- 7US hips, been a.
a=ms,NW:03.'Our Imo" :has been.:tW ire -dui , GOVS!dwo Fln6dbqU9W-
.du .Ours . construction.. bave,had to doan the- hw90 on at JeW.tm oomWom:
bemse of PAr4_ - .0 ot::I �h,r. r�ile Si�`r�il a,;:l
vont to have#iq
'Thank .you tbr the opportunity to rornrnent.
Cot'tage Housing
Development
March, 2000
The Housing Partnership
1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2400
Seattle, Washington 981012603
425-453-5123
425-462-0776 fax
mluis@seanet.com
The ,Housing Partnershig is a non-profit organisation (officially known as the King County Housing Alliance)
dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable housing in King County. This is achieved, in part, through policies of
local government that foster increased housing development while preserving affordability and neighborhood
character. The Partnership pursues these goals by: (a) building public awareness of housing affordability issues; (b)
promoting design and regulatory solutions; and (c) acting as a convener of public, private and community leaders
concerned about housing. The Partnership's officers for 2000 are: Rich Bennion, HomeStreet Bank, Chair; Paige
Miller, Port of Seattle, Vice Chair; Gary Ackerman, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Secretary; Tom Witte, Bank of
America, Chair, Finance Committee; J. Tayloe Washburn, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Chair, Land Use Committee.
Introduction
Although a significant number of Americans live in multi -family housing,
research shows that single family housing is the overwhelming preference in
this country. Surveys by Fannie Mae indicate that upwards of 85 percent of
Americans would prefer to live in a detached house, and that they will make
major sacrifices to do so.
Why is it that while our cultural cousins in Europe happily live in large
urban flats and townhouses, Americans feel deprived if they do not have
their oven castle? While this question begins to get into scary psychological
and sociological territory, dealing with frontier traditions and questions of
personal space, we do know a few things. For instance, Housing Partnership
research in 1998 showed that King County residents place a very high value
on safety, quiet and privacy, three important features of single family,
detached housing in low density neighborhoods.
In the end, however, a preference expressed by 85 percent of people does
not need to be defended. It demands to be accommodated. In Ding County
we are doing a nice job of accommodating the housing needs of upper -
income families with children. we are, however, falling short of meeting
the needs of families that cannot afford to pay $300,000 for a house near
their job, or who want a detached house but do not need 2500 square feet of
space and a large yard.
Part of the challenger
g
Part of the challenge of meeting the housing needs of our growing and
thriving region is to offer housing types that address the values that drive
of meeting the
demand for detached, single family housing, but with smaller spaces and
housing needs of our
smaller price tags.
growing and thriving
Enter the cottage!
region is to offer
Cottage housing provides an option that preserves the privacy and personal
housing Types that
space of a detached house in a smaller and less costly unit. Cottages are
address the values
usually built in clusters and can introduce a sense of community. In the
that drive demand for
marketplace they offer an alternative to the two choices most often
available: single family houses and condominiums. For those looking for a
detached; single
detached house, cottages provide a way to trade quantity of space for quality
family housing, but
ofspace.
with smaller spaces
mile quite a number of successful cottage developments, both_ old and new,
and smaller price
can be found in the Puget Sound area, this is still not a common style of
housing development. But as communities by to fmd ways to meet their
tags
housing needs in the more dense patterns called for in the Growth
Management Act, cottage housing offers an option that should be added to
the mix.
This short report is intended to be a primer on cottage development and to
point the way for cities to develop approaches to cottage zoning that will
interest developers and buyers in this attractive foram of housing. A follow--
up report will provide a case study of the Ravenna cottage project being
undertaken by Threshold Housing.
Cottages usually
provide some means
for neighbors to
inevitably run into each
other. One person
described the Third
Street Cottages in
Langley as "co -
housing without all the
meetings. if
Single family
neighborhoods will be
the optimum location
for cottage clusters,
both because of the
economics of land cost
and to achieve the-.:---..-.-
promise of a single-
family feel at multi-
family prices.
Definition
There is no precise definition of cottage housing, and it is not clear when a
house ceases to be a cottage and becomes a small -lot house, or simply a
house. For purposes of this discussion, however, we will assume that
cottages are built in clusters, close together, have some common area, and
do not have parking adjacent to each cottage. Cottages usually provide
some means for neighbors to inevitably run into each other. One person
described the Third Street Cottages in Langley as "co -housing without all
the meetings."
The following discussion of design features should help round out a picture
of cottage housing.
Cottage Design Features
Size. Among cottages in the area, the small end of the size range would be
found in the Pine Street Cottages in Seattle, which have about 450 square
feet on the main floor, plus a 100 square foot loft. This space allows. for
living room, bedroom, kitchen and full bath. At the larger end of the size
spectrum, the Ravenna cottages in Seattle will offer about 950 square feet of
space in two stories. This allows for two bedrooms and one and a half
baths. The Third Street Cottages in Langley, Washington, range from 600
to 650 square feet on the main floor, plus lofts ranging from 100 to 280
square feet.
The cottage zoning ordinance in Seattle limits cottages to 975 square feet,
with no more than one third of that space in either a basement or upper
level. Although definitions are squishy, cottage proponents would generally
put the upper size limit around 1000 square feet.
Location. Both existing and new cottage clusters are located within single
family areas. The older clusters, built in the early part of the century,
predate the current zoning and have been grandfathered. The Third Street
cottages in Langley were built under a special cottage zoning ordinance, and
the Ravenna cottages in Seattle are being built under a special design
demonstration project ordinance.
Single fa nily nei crliborhnods i1A be the opthrnLim lncation fur cottage
clusters, both because of the economics of land cost and to achieve the
promise of a single-family feel at multi -family prices. one- or two-story
cottages would not fit well into a multi -family zone where taller, bulkier
structures would overwhelm them. The existing Seattle cottage zoning
ordinance, which lunits cottage clusters to low-rise multi --family zones, has
not resulted in any new cottage projects.
Clustering. Cottages tend to be clustered together around some common
open space, such as a courtyard or walkway. If the land is in condominium
ownership (the easiest, but maybe not the most popular method) agreements
will specify the areas that are subject to common maintenance and those that
are the owners' responsibility.
Cottage Horsing Development Page 2
Some utility features may also be clustered or in common. For instance, the
Pine Street Cottages have a shared, off-street parking area. The Third Street
Cottages have a shared workshop building and a separate building with
To maximize the storage lockers. The Ravenna cottages have storage areas under one
chances of a good cottage, taking advantage of a drop in grade.
social atmosphere in A less tangible part of the clustering concept is the relationships that
a cottage cluster, If is deveIop among the occupants. In clusters where the front doors face each
other (Bungalow Court, Greenbush Court, Third Street, Ravenna) neighbors
generally believed are bound to run into each other. The Pine Street Cottages have a
that there should be landscaped courtyard that acts as everyone's back yard. To foster a sense of
at least four cottages community beyond that which might emerge naturally from common spaces
or owners associations, the developer may raise an implicit or explicit
in a cluster, and no expectation to buyers that the cottage cluster is no place for hermits.
more than twelve. . -
To maximize the chances of a good social atmosphere in a cottage cluster, it
clusters should not be
is generally believed that there should be at least four cottages in a cluster,
built too C%OSG
and no more than twelve. Furthermore, to preserve both the original feel of
together in the same
the neighborhood as well as the special atmosphere of cottages, clusters
be built too together in the
should not close same area.
area
Land Use. The efficiency of land use is gained by clustering the cottages
relatively closely together. The Pine Street cottages feature 10 units on
about a third of an acre, clustered around a common courtyard. The
Ravenna project clusters six cottages plus a garage with three carriage units
on about a quarter acre. The Third Street Cottages in Langley provide a
little more space, placing eight cottages and two common utility buildings
on two-thirds of an acre. These densities range from 12 units/acre to 36
units/acre. The Seattle ordinance requires a minimum of 11600 square feet
per cottage (i.e. no more than 26 units per acre), and 6,400 square feet for
The surest way to
the whole cluster (suggesting a minimum of four cottages).
destroy public
Softening impacts. In spite of higher densities, experience has shown that
support for cottage
cottage clusters can fit very nicely with their surroundings. Older clusters,
deve% ment would
p
like Pine Street on Capitol Hill or the Bungalow Court on First Hill, mirror
homes. Newer
the craftsman architecture of the surrounding clusters also
be to build cheap
employ more traditional architectural styles. In all cases, careful attention to
little boxes that add
design detail and landscaping softens the impact of higher densities.
density while
Going one step further, a design goal should be that the cottage cluster
degrading the
actually improve the surrounding neighborhood, rather than having just a
aesthetics of the
neutral impact. Off-street parking, landscaping, interesting facades and
other design features can result in a better streetscape than single-family
neighborhood. , . ,
houses might yield. A cottage cluster can present less mass than single
such development
family houses that maximize the building envelope. The pedestrian
orientation of cottages puts more people on the sidewalk; enhancing
will inevitably erode
neighborhood security.
support for the
The surest way to destroy public support for cottage development would be
higher densities
to build cheap little boxes that add density while degrading the aesthetics of
necessary for long-
the neighborhood. While very inexpensive cottages may provide
affordability in the short nui, such development will inevitably erode
term affordability.
support for the higher densities necessary for long-term affordability.
Cottage Housing Development
Page 3
The Market for Cottages
Although some question the market attractiveness of cottages and very small
houses, those that have been on the market in the Puget Sound region have
tended to sell very well and to hold their value. So although experience is
The predominant
limited, there is clearly a market for cottages. Following are some key
buyers of cottages in
market considerations.
recent years have
Singles. The predominant buyers of cottages in recent years have been
been single people. , _
single people. These individuals have the option of buying a condominium
or an older house, but opt for cottages because they offer the privacy of a
The buyer profile
single family house with the low maintenance requirements of new
developed for the
construction or a condominium. The buyer profile developed for the
Ravenna cottages
Ravenna cottages indicates that the majority of buyers will be women.
indicates that the
Couples and single parents. Cottages can work well for couples or single
. M,
majority of buyers will
parents. To work for small children care would need to be taken to enclose
open space.
be women.
Seniors. Cottages can work well for seniors, especially those wanting to
stay in a detached house in their neighborhood, but unwilling or unable to
care for their current house. The loft approach will present problems for
residents less able to negotiate steep stairs.
Space -quality trade-off. Implicit in the cottage concept is the trade-off
between space and the qualify of construction. Some of the savings from
Implicit in the cottage
land cost and building size can be put into better finishes, interesting design
CO/1Cept IS the trade-
elements, appliance and fixture upgrades and landscaping. This is
especially important for that segment of the market that could afford a full -
off between space
sized house, but chooses a smaller space.
and the quality of
construction..This
.
Economics of Cottage Housing
is especially
Developmentimportant
for that
segment of the
Cottages, like any other form of housing, can come to market in a wide
market that could
range of prices, depending on what the potential buyers in that area might be
&UAM
afford a full-sized
willing to pay.
house,butchooses
At the low end, for example, a cluster of eight cottages on a third of an acre
a smaller space.
in an outlying area with modest amenities could come in at around $130,000
cottage. At the higher a a half in a
per end, cluster of six cottages on acre,
desirable close in neighborhood, with high grade finishes and amenities,
might come in at $3001,000.
The developer, in deciding what price range to aim for, loops at the
alternatives available to the prospective buyer. As noted above, cottages
occupy a place in the market between small, older houses and
condominiums. So, for a $130,000 cottage to compete with an older
rambler at $160,000 at needs to emphasize the love maintenance advantages
of new construction. At the other end, the cottage in a desirable area can
Cottage Housing Development Wage 4
easily compete with condominiums that easily top $300,000 by offering that
crucial space between neighbors.
The big economic
From a policy perspective, then, cottages can be part of an affordability
edge for cottages is
strategy- A $200,000 cottage in North Seattle may be beyond the range of
low land cosh
middle wage earners, but is still less expensive than most existing houses
per
and certainly less than other new construction houses in the area.
Ul1lt, and this cannot
Furthermore, cottages can take pressure off the single family market by
be achieved on most
providing an alternative to those who like the privacy of single family
houses but need less space.
multi -family zoned
land which is much
All of these assumptions about unit pricing are based on land prices that
predominate in single family zones. The big economic edge for cottages is
10
more expensive
low land cost per unit, and this cannot be achieved on most multi -family
zoned land which is much more expensive. In a cottage project built in a
single family zone, land cost will be 15 to 20 percent of total sales, in
contrast to the 25 to 30 percent of sales that is customary in single family
development.
Development Standards
To ensure that cottage projects fit well into existing single family
neighborhoods, careful thought needs to be given to specific development
standards. These standards must achieve a balance so that they protect
[Development]
neighborhood character and at the same time provide incentives for cottage
standards must
development.
achieve a balance
Three cottage zoning ordinances exist in the region. The Seattle ordinance
so that they protect
was adopted in 1994, but restricted cottages to the lowest density multi-
neighborhood
family zones. The city of Langley, on Whidbey Island, adopted a cottage
ordinance using the Seattle model, but allowing cottages in single family
character and at the
zones. The City of Shoreline adopted a cottage zoning ordinance modeled
same time provide
after Langley. The issues that follow will reference the Seattle ordinance,
but that should not suggest that it's standards are the only approach.
incentives for
ef COt%ag2
Lot coverage. The Seattle ordinance limits overall lot coverage for a
cottage cluster to 35 percent (for low-rise duplexJtriplex zones) or 40 percent
development.
(lowrise 1 zones). In addition, individual cottages are not to exceed 650
square feet of lot coverage.
Setbacks. The Seattle ordinance requires a 10 foot setback in the front and
rear yards, and allows the centerline of an alley to count as the reference
port for the rear yard. The Seattle ordinance requires a f ve foot side yard
setback. The space between cottages must be at least six feet. The side with
the main entrance door must be 10 feet from the next cottage. -
Height and Sulk. In Seattle, concern was raised about the prospect of
"skinny houses," that might overwhelm their neighbors. To guard against
this prospect, first, a requirement was written that restricts a second floor to
no more than half the square footage of the first floor. Second, height
restrictions were written that effectively limit cottages to one and a half
stories (i.e., parts of the second story do not have a full eight -foot height).
Cottage Housing Development 'age 5
Open Space. The Seattle ordinance requires at least 400 square feet of
usable open space in duplex/triplex zones, and 300 square feet in lowrise I
zones. In both cases, this space is evenly divided between private space
adjacent to the unit, and space available to everyone in the cluster. In all of
these spaces, the horizontal dimensions must be at least 10 feet, but this
requirement is not met in existing or planned cottage developments.
Parking. As with so many development issues, parking is central to the
acceptability of cottages. The Seattle ordinance requires one parking space
per cottage, and does not allow those spaces to be built between cottages.
Although the Pine Street Cottages predate this requirement, they do provide
one off street space per cottage in a secured lot behind the courtyard. The
Ravenna Cottage project includes a nine -car garage structure with three
carriage units on top (i.e. one space per cottage and per carriage unit).
Neither the existing Bungalow Court nor the Greenbush Court in Seattle
provide off-street parking. The Third Street Cottages in Langley provide
one space per unit with a couple of guest spaces available.
Dispersion. To help allay fears about a rapid increase in densities in
Seattle, and to protect the uniqueness of the cottage concept, the original
cottage zoning proposal contained a dispersion requirement. (At this point
in the legislative process the ordinance had still allowed cottage clusters in
single family zones.) Under the dispersion requirement, no cottage cluster
could be built within one block of another.
Conclusion
Nearly all housing
beingbuilt todayIf
we are to achieve our goals of more compact urbandevelopment, we need
to expand the range of housing types available to consumers. Nearly all
consists of either
housing being built today consists of either single family houses on full lots,
single family houses
or multi -family units in large buildings. Cottage housing offers a middle
be
ground that will attractive to some segments of the market.
on full lots., or multi -
family units in large
Design and economic considerations suggest that cottages will work best if
allowed in single family zones. Experience shows that cottages can fit
buildings. Cottage
nicely into existing neighborhoods, but experience also shows that density
housina offers a
increases are always a tough sell. As with so many questions of density, the
�-
middle ground that
policy challenge is to find ways to ensure that cottage development in single
family areas follows good design principles. Cottage housing is a wonderful
will be attractive to
idea that could be killed off with just a few bad experiences.
some segments of
If we begin now, builders, consumers, local governments and neighbors will
the market
soon figure out how to add cottages to the box of tools we need to achieve
our growth visions.
Cottage Housing Development Page 6
Short picker fenc-es
bordering the curved
pathway through Port
Townsend's Umatilla Hill
pocket neighborhood
distinguish shared space
from private yards.
A variety of ages and
family types, from
singles to empty nesters,
enjoy the compact, open
style encouraged by
pocket neighborhoods.
V g
0.1-1
'7
Just outside Seattle, architect Ross Chap *in's
designs for cottage "pocket neighborhoods"
show how crafting close-knit homes can
create a sense of community
and distinction
in a sea of grandiose and vanilla. "I have a certain amount of save -the -
world complex,- he says, and his method is to design and build small
houses-65o to 1,60o square feet or so.
In 1995, Jim Soules, developer and founder of The Cottage Company,
approached Ross about upping the ante from crafting homes to creating
community. Together, they and other investors bought four 720o-square-
foot lots in a small town on the Puget Sound where a visionary zoning
code was already in place. It allowed for double the density of housing
units if the homes were limited to 975 square feet each, shared a common
courtyard, and kept parking areas to the side. It was here that they devised
their first pocket neighborhood: the Third Street Cottages. Jim describes
pocket neighborhoods as "a group of homes that face and relate to one >
BREW GEIGER WRITER LISA SELIN DAVIS Cottage Living 4/2008 17
PRIDE O6 PLACE _
s � - - - a i N F �.: r rj 'fir - - _ . _ - '•'a*': ;..A -_ ter--•
M1 1 w' `y s �Y �a •i%
irr
air
MINI _4
A,.
04
1TV
- r.. •� ^ h,~ _ ^' �1 Z •�.r.Y' Yet,^. 1
' • ^c.
�• S �'.E•�•ta L•�='ri.� •may_ _ - V f
'_'� �' �^-".�7 -WTI ` I s,� ` _• •�•y. +"�
` _ i I •� ... � .icy ' �-l.::�i `1 •�.% � •A �1 S�� - 1
[ r aw' K,• � _, Iy� + �'r,' �,Yr`—s'y..:..� • ��L7"`• — .-a'•'r' t-.i.� ��"r='r _ ,
r i ti'
• ^— ram' �'� • ; • - � '.�
g r.
f n area--- styles, from Victorian cottages to Craftsman
another around a landscaped common �
"" bungalows, with front porches, built-in shelves,
the old bungalow court approach. g maximiz.n the minimal space.
The Third Street Cottages eight homes, all and loft areas. g
T ntimatel The cottages are lovingly rendered in. soft olives
,etwPPr� ?�o and goo square feet, •y . , . .,na �mv-pt-vvellows.
common and blues, warrr� ��rrd-co ��"`~• �A �
hover around a lushly landscaped vi4itin flail to adjust
- �(around the corner from Ross'own Residents remember Roa.
g Y lcourtyard
.- �r�i�-��-s the pre, b.e�ght of a table or tweak the colors
1,�50-square-foot house). Despite warnings P „ «
t� serious to et what he calls "the sweet spot. when it's
from a few skeptics —"you're making a g 's a resonazice," Ross says. "Zt's
retained landscaping mistake," Ross recalls real estate agents dust right, there
financial m r
from the or out imxnediatel , whatoldilocks was searching for."
saying —all eight cottages sold Y
orchard on the site dramatically in the So successful were tite Third Street Cottages
of them have and their value has increased dram y
Some that Ross andirset out --both together and
Dutch front doors to years since•
eo le separately —to a-e -create this model in other
(above), enhancing "When you design around the way p pet _`10LI d where a new zoning
and e size,"' he says. arts cif the Puget .
both the private a really live, the houses are a sensible , y p
features of living room o� icy re5trz�:ted development to wilderness
communal "We don't need a great room and a l� g p
neighborhoods. is are�ti. The pocket neighborhood model served
the g or a breakfast room and a dining room. H b increasing density >
r varietyof housing types and to fulfill housing needs y g
homes evoke a g
I8 Cottage Living 4/2008
in an aesthetically pleasing, neighborhood -
appropriate way. Soon new projects began:
Conover Commons in Redmond, Washington;
Grreenwood Avenue Cottages in Shoreline,
Washington; Danielson Grove in Kirkland,
-Washington; Umatilla (pronounced "you-
matilla") Hill in Port Townsend, Washington;
and Salish Pond in Gresham, Oregon. More are
on the 'way.
AArhat makes them so popular is not just the
cute factor —yes, they 3re adorable --but also
their effects: Smaller homes mean people spend
more time outside; smaller yards mean they use
the communal lawn. Detached parking forces
people to pass one another on the path, as do
detached mailboxes. Smaller houses and yards
also require less maintenances freeing up money
and time for other things, such as kayaking or
reading a book. Plus, having less space to fill
means you surround yourself only with things
you use or really love. The No. 1 rule of living in
a small house, declares Third Street resident
Mira Jean Steinbrecher, is "Something goes in,
something comes out."
While the design keeps utilities and other
expenses down, it also inspires friendly reemq;�i
among the owners. "I'm worl6ng on the social
dimension of architecture even as I'm working
on the physical dimension," says Ross. In spite
of their close proximity to one another, resi-
dents report feeling safe, not exposed. Private
spaces, such as bedrooms and baths, turn away
from the commons; public areas, such as living
rooms and kitchens, face there. Ross emphasizes
shifts between public and private: A low fence, a
narrow pathway, a border of perennials, a step,
an eave, all distinguish one kind of territory
from the next. "It's not a physical barrier; it's a >
:fit iu?�iEi f
Pocket neighborhoods
foster friendships among
neighbors.
They provide safe
places for children to
play, with shirttail aunts
F and uncles just beyond
their front gate.
I Homes look out onto
a park (not parking).
Their placement
contributes to the
liveliness and walkability
of the neighborhood.
20 0ottage Living 4/2008
transition," explains Ross. "The security we're
yr+....-...4-4. er 4-r� n.-�aeAyru it-%^0p14 IIV%r -M t,-4rx14-,r% �` r
.tLLt_111FL11.L6' LU CLl lltl YL 10 LJCILO%-%t lLLl VtI AAL A�AACJVII Y
relationships, knowing and carting about the
people around vou."
.know and care, they do. Even the animals get
along —the three cats and five dogs living in
Umatilla Hill frolic in harmony— and, of course,
you don't need a ferocious guard dog. "You have
heart in here; you can feel it," says Bob Igoe, who
moved from a larger, 3,600-square-foot house
in Chicago to a Umatilla Hill cottage. "You have
a feeling that you belong from the start."
At Third Street, they watch one another's
pets and celebrate an annual illumination party
where they line their homes with Christmas
lights and flick them on at the same moment.
Not that living in a pocket neighborhood is
such as the one above right
of Danielson Grove becomes an eyte.nsion of the
house, in this case for after --school downtime.
The pocket neighborhoods' design also allows the
arc_:hitect Lo be flexible w€thl ding lakc..,.-.'. lnL
bu€lam€i �y ja�ai..�� i E�� }�,
which helps preserve stands of mature trees.
always pure joy: Residents report scuffles over
some of the shared chores and different needs ---
weekenders versus full-timers and people on
fixed incomes versus those with disposable
income. But that's part of community, too.
"Diversity doesn't mean eternal bliss, but it adds
liveliness," says Ross. "Neighborhood is not just
an assembly of houses --it's when people care
about their surroundings and they're engaging
with one another. The physical space is the
backdrop for our lives."
22 Cottage Living 4/2008