Resolution 7700 - Laserfiche WebLink

Appendix B: Community Input Summary Everett Housing Action Plan B-2 Most respondents acknowledged that more diverse housing types are needed and there are limited affordable housing ownership opportunities in the city. Summary of Comments • High Density/Multifamily housing/Mixed Use: Participants generally agreed that locating high density, mixed-use and mixed-income housing near jobs, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure to support the development was important specifically around future light rail stations. Some responses suggested that multifamily housing should mainly be located in the Metro area and developed near established business corridors or neighborhood business areas. • Single-family Homes: Most participants recognized there will not likely be many new single-family homes given land availability constraints in Everett. There was recognition of strong resistance to changing single-family areas and acknowledgement that community members feel there will be negative impacts on the character of established neighborhoods. • Accessory Dwelling Unit: In all community sessions, there was strong support for accessory dwelling units and, in particular, to implement the idea of intergenerational living options for seniors and young adults. Some commenters expressed concern the City’s ADU code is restrictive in terms of owner occupancy and parking requirements. Other suggestions included offering incentives for building ADUs and having preapproved plans that could speed up the permitting process. • Duplexes and townhomes: Responses generally acknowledged the need for increased homeownership opportunities through smaller unit sizes. Again, some participants expressed strong resistance to adding other housing types in single-family neighborhoods. Those concerns include losing neighborhood character. Design, scale, loss of yards or open space, and shading of current properties were important character features to consider. In some neighborhoods, it is believed that increasing density by allowing different housing types would exacerbate challenging parking problems. Discussions included support for preserving the existing housing stock. Comments also related to adapting current single-family homes to duplexes or townhome style development. Some participants, though, strongly supported adding “missing middle” housing in the city. • Homeless Housing: Some participants spoke out in favor of ensuring the city has a full array of housing for the homeless population including both permanent and temporary options. A suggested solution was to repurpose old or vacant building for homeless shelters. It was important to some respondents that a strong social service network is important to support people coming out of homeless and additional supportive housing developments are needed in the community. Such housing should be located close to all daily needs (ex: grocery, clinics, etc.). • Affordability: Housing affordability was a significant topic during discussions. Participants were in favor of mixed income developments and adding smaller units in the community to create more affordability. Other important comments related to affordability included supporting programs for down payment assistance and locating housing near jobs. Keys to good housing for the community includes sidewalks for walkability, green spaces, and other amenities.