Kitsap's Residential Code May Get an Extreme Makeover

By Tristan Baurick For the Kitsap Sun
Sunday, January 27, 2008

Kitsap County is considering revisions to the residential code to encourage higher-density development and public infrastructure near cities and in unincorporated areas like Kingston and Silverdale.

"We need to connect our planning to what cities are doing, and how we can (link) to them," said Kitsap County Commissioner Steve Bauer at a recent meeting. "We need to create something better than the type of community planning we've had."

The county is drafting code amendments that would encourage developers to build at higher or maximum residential density in urban growth areas. The revisions would increase parking and sidewalks, and establish clearer rules for open space and recreational area requirements.

The new rules would reduce residential construction setbacks from 20 to 5 feet, allowing homes to be built closer to sidewalks. The change is aimed at giving builders more design flexibility and encouraging community-oriented elements, such as porches rather than garages as a home's dominant front feature.

"This would allow developers to do different things and reduce the uniform strip of houses, like the 'Edward Scissorhands' look," said Special Projects Manager Eric Baker, referring to the 1990 movie set in a suburb of identical homes.

The changes, according to Baker, may produce neighborhoods that resemble those that took shape before the 1950s, with garages facing back alleys and main entrances prominently located along neighborhood streets.

"We want pleasant-looking neighborhoods," said Commissioner Josh Brown, expressing his desire to transform the general residential aesthetic of Silverdale.

The changes would also encourage developers to build at maximum density, making new infrastructure — such as sewers and roads — more cost effective. While many unincorporated urban areas are zoned for nine units per acre, developers often build only four units because of county restrictions, according to Baker.

As density increases, yards are expected to shrink. To compensate, commissioners plan to create tougher public open-space requirements to ensure playgrounds and grass fields are more effectively incorporated into new developments.

Public spaces would have to be centrally located in areas that would encourage their use.

"Generally, these spaces have been put on the less attractive plots, in far corners or where the topography is steep," said Baker.

The little used lots are often poorly maintained and can blight neighborhoods.

"Nobody wants to give directions to their house by saying 'take a left by the scrubby lot with the rusty car in it,'" Baker said.

Other amendments would require additional parking so guests or other nonresident motorists don't park in yards or on sidewalks.

Some commissioners stressed the need for more work in the code revision process to allow for lower-cost housing.

"I'm not done talking about affordable housing," Bauer told Baker during a recent presentation of the proposed revisions. "It's a critical issue."

Commissioner Jan Angel agreed, urging county staff to consider the housing needs of middle-income residents.

"Even recent college grads can't afford to rent apartments in the area," she said.

The residential code revisions are part of a wider effort to prepare county urban areas for possible annexation into Poulsbo, Bremerton and Port Orchard.

Commissioners are also looking at ways to ready Silverdale and Kingston for their possible incorporation as independent cities.

"The county shouldn't be in the urban city business," said Bauer.

"Many of these areas will get annexed or become cities themselves. The focus now is to lay a good foundation."

Commissioners plan to hold hearings on the proposed revisions in mid-February, with possible adoption in April.

COMMENTS

Posted by rexnelson on January 27, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Will the commissioners ever have the courage to deal with non-conforming lots in rural areas? Do they really care about planning and development, or is this article just window dressing? It's not just Manchester. I live in an area zoned one house per ten acres, but every year new homes are being shoehorned in on one and two acre lots, in spite of the zoning.

Posted by scottriddell on January 27, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't know that Eric Baker was, in addition to being SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR, a movie critic. Good job, Eric.
Wish you'd done a better job over the Manor Farm fire incident.

Posted by ServeItCold on January 27, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like they just want to stuff more sardines into an already small can!

Posted by PurtyMouth on January 27, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are there sidewalks in Kingston? Anyway, it's always good to have a guesthouse for daughter and boyfriend and the baby.

Posted by Punkinhead on January 27, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just more unatractive sardine stick homes, built crappy, but more expensive...we moved to Silverdale because there was actually space between the houses...now they want to put houses closer together so they can make more money...That's what it is about...and that alone.

Posted by ckres on January 27, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One of the reasons I chose to buy the house I did was because it is on a .25 acre lot and the house sits way back from the sidewalk. I didn't like the houses on smaller lots and close to the sidewalks. I don't want everybody walking by to be able to look me in the eye when they walk by or the alternative which is keeping the drapes/blinds closed all the time. I don't want to be standing at my kitchen window and be able to see in the neighbor's house. Also, I can fit cars two deep in my driveway, so friends don't have to park on the street. I have a family member who lives in subdivision with houses close to the sidewalk and close to other houses. The garages are behind the houses and you drive in an alley to get to your garage. All guests have to park on the street, because you have no driveway and you can't park in the alley because you will block the neighbors garages. The streets are narrow, so you can only park on one side of the street and only one car can get by at a time so you have to stop for oncoming traffic. The houses have porches and there is a park and swimming pool, so it has a close community feel, but really you just have less privacy and the neighbors aren't real friendly with each other. There are "good mornings" and "hellos," but nobody really knows each other. Oh, and there are mandatory fees for the up keep of the pool and park. Yuck! to high-density zoning!

Posted by mytake on January 27, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Steve is taking a step in the right direction. At least looking ahead a little bit. The influx of people into the region is not going to just stop, so planning ahead is important. They just need to make sure that they don't approve site plans willie-nillie just so developers can squeeze things in where they don't belong.

Posted by rgdimages on January 27, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great to hear planning alternatives being put on the table for discussion ... in Kitsap County no less! Who would have thunk it!
Any decisions now would probably take about a decade before there is any substantial feeling of change. If you are not a fan of higher density living, almost all existing housing will remain. Since this density concept could relieve some pressures on the non-urban areas, it's probably a good concept for supporters of less density in rural areas.
Many European countries have used this approach with quite acceptable results.
So ... looking forward to a vigorous and useful debate!

Posted by ServeItCold on January 27, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Punkinhead had it right ... its all about increasing that tax base to draw from & profits for the land seller.
Do we really want Kitsap Co to be like King Co? Where the only way you are aware of moving from one city to another ... is if you are lucky to see a sign?

Posted by irmarcus on January 28, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Adding density to an urban area seems to be the best way to accomodate the newcomers. It would enhance infrastructure in those areas and put a break between cities if done properly. But how can you keep a county from dropping a strip mall in between those cities. The greed for a larger tax base is all-consuming. But then another person may say more malls more jobs. There are vast undeveloped timberlands still in the county, folks just can't understand that affordable housing isn't a right, it's a product of an open market and an individuals desire to improve their lot in life. No pun intended

Posted by ugetsimon on January 28, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who is in favor or is even considering support for high density housing needs to take a drive through the Shoreline area just north of Seattle. In Shoreline you will encounter houses that appear to be built in either someone’s front or back yard. The housing is so tight that some are built at a slight angle to the existing in order to shove them into the tiny space available. It is an awful sight. Truth is, large construction companies have been running out of available land and are lobbing in every state to loosen up codes so they can continue to build. This business about a garage in the alley and a large porch toward the street is such a load a crap, only the most gullible would fall for these lines. It is and will always be about the maximization of profit for the large builder and if you believe for one second they care about what your house looks like, well then, do they have a home for you.

Posted by Punkinhead on January 28, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The whole purpose of living away from the city is to have peace and quiet and the feeling of the country without actually being in the boonies.
This "high density" building is ugly and defeats the purpose of country living.
It's not about not wanting growth, it about having a clean, quiet place to live...My friend lives in Kent and the housing there all looks the same and cheap. It's horrible. Doesn't take long for those areas to look run down and dirty that's for sure.

Posted by biteme on January 28, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The county loves these high density developments...great for tax revenue. But how about diong some actual planning regarding the roads feeding these high density developments. Time after time, I've seen new developments go in where forested or pasture existed, and no changes are made to the two lane road in front of the land, those feeding arterials, or the traffic controls at nearby intersections.
If they want to claim that planning is actually going to be done, then some standards have to be set for the traffic infrastructure. If the claim is that it won't be needed because of the stellar public transit system, please remove the rose colored glasses and come back to the reality of 2008 and the next decade or so.

Posted by shawnmacn on January 28, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just hope they actually start doing something about these empty lots in Bremerton. I live by a couple that Chico Towing used to illegally parked their junk cars. These empty dirt lots are an eye sore.

Posted by Mars on January 28, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How the heck is 1 house per 2 acres "shoe-horned in"? What a 'tard.
Whatever planning parameters the government installs will irk some people. They will favor some developers at the expense of other developers or of existing residents.
The only answer is to allow for a mix of designs where people who want to live closely with others can live and where others who don't want to see their neighbors can live and everything in between. Your basic market forces should apply.
Mostly government regulation is demanded by monied interests and forced upon the citizens. We get the government we deserve, I have heard said.

Posted by familien1 on January 28, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"... reduce residential construction setbacks from 20 to 5 feet, allowing homes to be built closer to sidewalks. The change is aimed at giving builders more design flexibility and encouraging community-oriented elements, such as porches..."
Dropping the setbacks from 20 to 5 feet allowing the homes built closer to sidewalks is good news to the perverts walking around the neighborhood. They can more easily snatch the children from their own porch...NOT good news to the parents.
Also, if major construction...sewer-water - pipes needed to be done along the sidewalks of the development... construction is limited to the 5 foot setback. This is an idea worth forgetting.
In my opinion... Sharon O'Hara

Posted by janebedinger on January 28, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, Sharon.
What are the esthetics and practicalities of these designs? What kind of culture are they talking about? Who are they visualizing in these places?
I have a house on an acre of land and I don't feel shoe-horned in. It's also easy to imagine fitting a "mother-in-law house" and/or apartment on my property so that it could accomodate my son's family as well as my husband and me. Currently the zoning laws don't allow it.

Posted by JoeInKitsapCo on January 28, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once they get done adding more homes to "Little Seattle", the next phase is to build the bridge from Little Seattle to Real Seattle!

Posted by prettypurple70 on January 28, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aren't houses meant to be apart? Oh wait, sometimes they give up and then just call them APARTMENTS. Yes, people want to own their own homes but can't afford the whole package... so they settle for condos. BUT the condos are considered homes and have those "fees" associated with them, so it's LIKE living in a home, but you don't have the maintenance like a home or a yard to take care of. You have community feel and apartment feel all wrapped up into one. I've seen several apartment complexes around here go "low income" but the rent is about $800 a month. I think they have them designated "low income" so they get money from the government. Residents still can't really afford them.
So, instead of high-density housing, just build condos (nicer than apartments) and call them apartments with lower rent! You can fit more in a smaller space than you could with high density housing. Makes no sense, but neither does the government.
I remember when my first apartment was subsidized and I paid $171 for rent, it went on my income. By the time I left there I was paying over $500, but I have no complaints. My next apartment was $500 something when I got in, $600 something when I left 5 years ago. Thank goodness I got into a house when I did!
Honestly here, WHAT will it take to get affordable housing back in Kitsap? Or are those days really gone?

(c) http://kitsapsun.com/news/2008/jan/27/kitsaps-residential-code-may-get-an-extreme/

FAIR USE NOTICE
Information provided here contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such information/material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.