HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L05-043 - CITY OF TUKWILA - HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM CODE AMENDMENTLOS -043
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
CITY WIDE
Washington
Ordinance No. 2 03
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A THREE -YEAR DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM FOR SMALL -SCALE HOUSING ENTITLED THE HOUSING
OPTIONS PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council believes that a demonstration housing
program would allow development of selected projects that explore housing choices not
currently available in Tukwila's single - family neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan suggests a demonstration program for
cottage housing and encourages the development of a range of housing types; and
WHEREAS, such a program would allow the City to experiment on a small scale
with new standards not currently used within the City; and
WHEREAS, design review would be administered on the proposed projects
ensuring an opportunity to require high standards for design and construction; and
and
WHEREAS, the focus of the program would be on housing for home ownership;
WHEREAS, the City plans to evaluate the results of the projects and might consider
modifying City standards to specifically address successful innovations in housing
development;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regulations Adopted. The "Housing .Options Program" is hereby
established, and regulations for this three -year demonstration program for small -scale
housing are hereby adopted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 18.120
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM - TEMPORARY
Sections:
18.120.010 Program Goals
18.120.020 Program Standards
18.120.030 Selection Process and Criteria
18.120.040 Fees
18.120.050 Review and Application Process
18.120.060 Public Notice
18.120.070 Program Expiration
18.120.010 Program Goals
The goals of the Housing Options Program are to:
1. Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through
projects that are compatible with existing single - family developments;
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005
Page 1 of 7
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM STANDARDS
Housing Types
Cottages.
Compact single - family.
Duplexes designed to look like a single - family home or
with zero lot lines for fee simple ownership; and included
with at least one other housing type in a proposed
development (the other housing type may be traditional
single - family).
A combination of the above types.
Unit Size Limits
A covenant restricting
any increases in unit size
after initial construction
shall be recorded against
the property.
Cottages = 800 square feet minimum and 1,000 square foot
maximum floor area.
Compact single - family = 1,500 square foot maximum floor
area.
Duplexes = 1,500 square foot maximum floor area per unit.
Side yard setbacks are waived so that these homes may be
sold on fee simple lots.
•
18.120.020 Program Standards
2. Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes;
3. Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of
community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas;
4. Develop high- quality site, architectural and landscape elements in
neighborhoods; and
5. Provide a greater variety of housing types, which respond to changing
household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single - person households) and
provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods.
In order to meet the goals of the Housing Options Program as set forth in TMC
18.120.010, there will be flexibility with regard to normally applicable requirements.
Standards identified in this section will apply to the selected housing projects and will
prevail if they conflict with normal regulations. All other requirements of the City of
Tukwila will continue to apply; however, applicants may propose additional
modifications to the Tukwila Municipal Code, as provided for within the Code.
1. The Permitted Uses and Basic Development Standards and Maximum Building
Footprint sections of the Low -, Medium- and High - Density Residential Districts (TMC
18.10.020, 18.10.060, 18.10.057, 18.12.020, 18.12.070, 18.14.020, 18.14.070); the
Supplemental Development Standards (TMC 18.50) that relate to yards, house design
and orientation; and the requirements of Minimum Number of Required Parking
Spaces (TMC 18.56.050) shall be replaced by the standards identified in this section.
2. Existing homes within a proposed project site must continue to conform to the
existing code standards unless it can be demonstrated that the existing home meets the
description of a housing type listed below.
3. The density limitations identified in the Land Use Map of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan shall be determined to have been met as long as the proposed
project does not exceed the equivalent unit calculation set forth in TMC 18.120.020 -4.
4. The following development parameters are applicable to all Housing Options
Program applications.
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005
Page 2 of 7
Equivalent Units
There is no minimum lot
size, but there is a
maximum project
density.
The number of allowable
dwelling units shall be
totalled for each of the
existing lots in order to
determine equivalent
units.
Existing single - family
homes may remain on the
subject property and will
be counted as units in the
equivalent unit
calculation.
Cottages = two per each single- family unit that could be
built on an existing lot, or a maximum of one unit for every
3,250 net square feet.
Compact single family = one and one -half per each single -
family unit that could be built on the lot, or a maximum of
4,875 net square feet.
Duplexes = overall development not to exceed one and one-
half times the number of single - family units that could be
built on the lot, or a maximum of 4,875 net square feet.
Rounding up to the next whole number of equivalent units
is allowed when the conversion from typical single - family
units to equivalent units results in a fraction of one -half or
above.
Locations
All LDR, MDR & HDR districts, but not within 1,500 feet of
another housing options proposal under review or
approved under TMC Chapter 18.120.
Floor Area
Variety in building sizes and footprints is required.
Access Requirements
Determine flexibility for road widths, public versus private,
and turnaround requirements with input from Public
Works and Fire Departments.
Development Size
Minimum of 8 units, maximum of 36 units.
Cottages may have a maximum of 12 units per cluster.
Parking Requirements
1.5 stalls per unit for units 800 to 1,000 square feet in size.
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000 square feet in size.
Building Coverage
35%
Ownership Structure
Subdivision
Condominium
Distance Between
Structures
10 feet minimum
Common Open Space for
cottages and projects of
20 or more homes.
Provide required area according to Recreation Space
Requirements (TMC 18.52.060)(1).
Exceptions to Floor Area
Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6 feet or less measured to
the exterior walls, such as in a second floor area under the
slope of the roof.
• Unheated storage space located under the main floor of a
cottage.
• Architectural projections, such as bay windows,
fireplaces or utility closets not greater than 18 inches in
depth and 6 feet in width.
• Detached garages and carports.
• Attached roofed porches.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of this Housing Options
Program.
Housing Options Program MB:kn 10/4/2005
ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM COTTAGE STANDARDS
Common Open Space
• Shall abut at least 50% of the cottages in the development,
and those units must be oriented to and have their main
entry from the common open space.
• Shall have cottages on at least two sides.
E Shall not be required to be indoors.
O Each cottage shall be within 60 feet walking distance of
the common open space.
Private Open Space
• Shall be oriented to the common open space as much as is
feasible.
• Shall be in one contiguous and useable piece with a
minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides.
• Shall be adjacent to each cottage and be for the exclusive
use of the resident of that cottage.
Attached Covered
Porches
• 80 square feet minimum per unit.
• Shall have a minimum dimension of 8 feet on all sides.
Height
18 feet maximum for all structures, except 25 feet maximum
for cottages with a minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts
of the roof above 18 feet.
Parking - surface, garages
or carports
• Shall be provided on the subject property.
0 Shall be screened from public streets and adjacent
residential uses by landscaping and /or architectural
screening.
■ Shall be located in clusters of not more than six adjoining
spaces.
• Shall not be located in the front yard, except on a corner
lot where it shall not be located between the entrance to
any cottage.
• Shall not be located within 40 feet of a public street,
except if the stalls lie parallel to the street and the driveway
providing access to those stalls has parking on only one
side.
• May be located between or adjacent to structures if it is
located toward the rear of the structure and is served by an
alley or driveway.
• All garages shall have a pitched roof design with a
minimum slope of 4:12.
Community Buildings --
if provided
• Shall be clearly incidental in use and size to the cottages.
• Shall be commonly owned by the residents of the
cottages.
5. The following development parameters are supplemental to those in
18.120.020 -4, and are applicable to any cottage proposed as a housing options project.
18.120.030 Selection Process and Criteria
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005
A. The Director of DCD shall follow the selection criteria outlined in TMC
18.120.030 -C to decide which projects are eligible for project selection and allowed to
apply for design review and /or for platting.
Page 4 of 7
B. A neighborhood meeting organized by the applicant and attended by City staff
shall be required of the applicant in order to evaluate the project for program selection.
The applicant must follow the notification procedures outlined in TMC 18.120.060 for
public meetings.
C. The Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on
whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the
criteria. The criteria for project selection for the Housing Options Program are as
follows:
1. Consistency with the goals of the housing options program as enumerated
in TMC 18.120.010.
2. Not more than one housing option project shall be approved per City
neighborhood, which are as follows and illustrated in Figure 18 -13.
(a) McMicken Heights
(b) Tukwila Hill
(c) Ryan Hill
(d) Allentown
(e) Duwamish
(f) Foster Point
(g) Cascade View
(h) Riverton
(i) Foster
(j) Thorndyke
Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th
Avenue South.
3. Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other housing project
considered under TMC Chapter 18.120.
4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed
product elsewhere.
5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative
to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For
example, attached housing should be located on land with direct access to a collector
arterial or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high - density
districts.
6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposal's design.
D. The decision of the Director of Community Development, in the form of a letter
inviting the applicant to submit for the project within one year of the date of the letter,
shall be the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may not be
administratively appealed.
18.120.040 Fees
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005
• •
There is no fee for application for selection into the Housing Options Program as
described in TMC 18.120.030. The adopted fees for the processes, which are described
in TMC 18.120.050 shall be charged for the relevant required underlying applications.
18.120.050 Review and Application Process
A. Limited time frame to apply. When the Director of DCD selects an application
as outlined in TMC 18.120.030, the project proponent must apply within one year for
the appropriate decision(s) or the selection will become null and void.
Page 5 of 7
B. Type of Application. Decision types are described in the Permit Application
Types and Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.104). In all cases,
design review is required and shall be consolidated per "Consolidation of Permit
Applications" in the Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (TMC
18.104.030).
The type of applications shall depend on the size and type of proposed project:
1. If less than four additional lots are proposed, then a Type 2 decision shall
be followed;
2. If between 5 and 9 additional lots are proposed or a project is to be a
condominium, then a Type 4 decision shall be followed; or
3. If more than 9 additional lots are proposed, then a Type 5 decision shall be
followed.
C. Decision Criteria. The relevant decision makers shall use the following criteria
to review and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any project allowed
into the Housing Options Program as well as use the relevant decision criteria for
design review and/ or platting.
1. Meets the goals of the program, as set forth in TMC 18.120.010;
2. Complies with the Multi- family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria,
stated in the Board of Architectural Review chapter, Design Review Criteria section of
the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.60.050 -C); and
3. Demonstrates the following:
a. The proposal is compatible with and is not larger in scale than
surrounding development with respect to size of units, building heights, roof forms,
building setbacks from each other and property lines, parking location and screening,
access, and lot coverage;
footprints;
• •
b. Variety is provided through a mixture of building designs, sizes and
c. The proposal provides elements that contribute to a sense of
community within the development and the surrounding neighborhood by including
elements such as front entry porches, common open space and/or common building(s);
and
d. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 modifications to requirements of the
Permit Application Types and Procedures (TMC 18.104), other than those specifically
identified in TMC 18.120.020, are important to the success of the proposal as a housing
options project.
D. Expiration of Approval. When a Notice of Decision is issued on a Housing
Options Program project, the applicant shall have one year to apply for subsequent
permits.
18.120.060 Public Notice
A. Notice of the pre - proposal meeting with the neighborhood will be a letter from
the applicant mailed first class to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of
the proposed development.
B. Subsequent publishing, mailing and posting shall follow the procedures of the
Permit Application Types and Procedures of TMC Chapter 18.104.
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005
Page 6 of 7
18.120.070 Program Expiration
The Housing Options Program is available for three years from the effective date of
this ordinance. A total of three projects may be developed as part of the Program and
selected projects must vet themselves with a Type 2, 4, or 5 application before the
program expires on O Githm 12 , 2008.
Section 2. Effective Period of Program. The Housing Options Program
established by this Chapter shall become effective as set forth in Section 5 below, and
shall continue in effect for up to three years thereafter or until three projects have been
developed, unless repealed, renewed or modified by the City Council. A project must
vest itself with a Type 2, 4, or 5 application before the program expires three years after
the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 3. Demonstration Housing Evaluation. Upon completion and full
occupancy of a project, DCD shall evaluate and report to the Planning Commission and
City Council on the results of the Program.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this 3 day of Q '(Jl� , 2005.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
e E. Cantu, CMC, City ty Clerk
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/29/2005
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk: 4] -29-- o J
Passed by the City Council: /0-63-05
Published: 16- 07 - 05
Effective Date: /0- /2- 05
Ordinance Number: 2103
Page 7 of 7
• 1
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE
No. 2103
City of Tukwila, Washington
On October 3, 2005, the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington,
adopted Ordinance No. 2103, the main points of which are summarized by its title as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A THREE -YEAR DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM FOR SMALL -SCALE HOUSING ENTITLED THE HOUSING
OPTIONS PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE MAILED UPON
REQUEST.
Approved by the City Council at their Regular Meeting of October 3, 2005.
Published Seattle T es: 10 -07 -05
e- mailed: bbaker 10 -04 -05 — 8:50 p.m.
ne E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
HEARING DATE:
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBERS:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENT:
• •
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 28, 2005
Notice of Public Hearing published July 14, 2005.
L05 -043 Housing Options Program
E05 -009 SEPA
Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council
on the Housing Options Program, a demonstration program for
cottages, compact and attached housing in residential neighborhoods.
City wide
DNS
Prepared July 7, 2005
Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner
A. Draft Program Ordinance
B. City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes June 27, 2005
(To be distributed at the 7/28/05 Planning Commission Public Hearing)
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 = 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
• •
Staff Report to the Tukwila Planning Commission L05 -043 Housing Options Program
BACKGROUND
The market for single family homes in Tukwila is strong. In fact, less than ideal sites are being
developed and less than perfect designs are being sold. Some of these homes are being developed
because the public has paid for the design and installation of needed sewer and water
infrastructure.
As the staff review plans and the community reviews the new development, thoughts on how to
improve the overall quality of development have been raised. The number one objective of the
City's Comprehensive Plan is " To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and
livability." In addition the Housing Chapter of the Plan states that the City should "encourage a
full range of housing opportunities for all population segments by actions including but mot
limited to revising the Tukwila development codes as appropriate to provide a range of housing
types."
The Plan goes on to suggest as an implementation option "demonstration projects on cottage
housing." The majority of the land area in the City is LDR, detached one and two story homes.
Staff considered the options available for new or redevelopment in LDR neighborhoods and
considered the products being developed in the housing market today.
The following are home ownership products that are being built around the region but not in
Tukwila, which could be compatible in Tukwila neighborhoods:
• Cottage housing are small finely detailed homes built around a common area;
• Compact housing, are smaller than they typical home being built today; and
• Townhouses are attached fee simple homes, on individual lots.
At their 15 March and 26 May 2005 meetings, the Community Affairs and Parks Committee
reviewed the concept of a housing demonstration program and the details and where, how many,
how big, how, etc. The program would allow projects with the above types of homes in single
family neighborhoods. The Community Affairs and Parks Committee suggested modifications to
the process and forwarded the concept to the Committee of the Whole. On June 27, 2005, the
Committee of the Whole endorsed the program and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for
a hearing and recommendation.
PROGRAM PROPOSAL
The program would allow up to nine projects within the City subject to design review and any
necessary platting, on a demonstration basis.
The following steps would be followed and are outlined in Attachment A:
Q:\H OME\ MOIRAThouseng\ housngoptionspcstaffreport.728.doc Page 2
Staff Report to the Tukwila Planning Commission L05 -043 Housing Options Program
Program Application and Process
• •
Project Selection
One application, which would be on a first come, first served basis, would be allowed from each
of the nine identified neighborhoods. A neighborhood meeting, appropriately advertised, is
required to be held by the applicant prior to application.
The DCD director would decide if the proposed project/application met the selection criteria for
the program.
Project Review
The applicant would be notified that they may apply for a Type 5 application - subdivision and
design review; Type 4 — design review and short plat or condominium, or a Type 2 —
administrative design review and short plat or lot line adjustments.
The Multi- family Design Manual would be used as the guide for assessing and directing design
review. The Manual is divided into three sections: Site Planning, Building Design and
Landscape and Site Treatment. The fundamentals of residential design are outlined and will
provide good direction on what is expected and can potentially produce results that are better
than non reviewed detached single family development.
Any appeal would follow the process established for the Type of approval given.
Project Evaluation
An evaluation would follow any development to determine if changes should be considered in
City standards.
Program Details
Projects size: Between 8 to 36 homes
Type of homes: Cottages up to 1,000 square feet
Compact or Townhomes (up to 3 attached) - up to 1,500 square feet
Project density: Cottages — up to 13.5 units per acre
Compact or Townhomes — up to 9 units per acre Parking space: graduated
Parking: Based upon house size — between one and two stalls
Ownership Structure: Fee Simple or Condominium
Height /Area/Bulk/Setback
Requirements: Subject to design review and neighborhood patterns and standards
Q:\ HOME\ MOI RA\ houseng\ housngoptionspcstaffreport.728.doc Page 3
Staff Report to the Tukwila Planning Commission L05 -043 Housing Options Program
What types of housing could be considered?
There are a number of different types of housing being built around the region that may be
considered compatible within the City's existing residential neighborhoods.
Cottage and co- housing developments cluster small homes around a common area, with parking
off to the side and usually with a common building space to share for parties or communal
gatherings.
Greenwood Avenue Cottages, Shoreline, WA
North Creek Bungalows; Bothell, WA
Q:\H OME\ MOIRA\ houseng\ housngoptionspcstaffreport.728.doc
• •
Page 4
Staff Report to the Tukwila Planning Commission L05 -043 Housing Options Program
Southside Park Co- housing; Sacremento, CA
Why would a property owner be interested in pursuing a development other than the single
family house /plat?
There are several types of situations that exist. There are developers who only do the
nontraditional type of product that is currently not allowed in the City and there are developers
who own property where the existing codes make single family house construction difficult or
problematic from a design perspective. For example, where existing plats have 25 foot wide lots
or where HDR property requires minimum 9,600 square foot lots for a single family home.
What type of flexibility should there be on the potential projects?
There were 254 new detached single family homes built in Tukwila over the last four years and
the average size was 2,864 square feet. Below are typical sizes for the products described:
• Cottages = 1,000 square foot maximum gross floor area
• Compact Single - Family = 1,500 square foot maximum gross floor area
• Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500 square foot maximum gross floor area per unit
A covenant restricting any increases in unit size after initial construction could be recorded against
the property.
Q:V-IOME\MOIRA\houseng\ housngoptionspcstaffreport.728.doc Page 5
• •
Staff Report to the Tukwila Planning Commission L05 -043 Housing Options Program
If the homes are limited in total size, how many homes could be built in a project?
Given the typical house size being built in Tukwila, the following equivalencies seem reasonable.
• Cottages = 2 per each single- family unit that could be built on the property
• Compact SF = 1.5 per each single - family unit that could be built on the property
• Duplexes and Triplexes = overall development not to exceed 1.5 times the number of single -
family units that could be built on the property
• Rounding up to the next whole number of equivalent units is allowed when the conversion from
typical single- family units to equivalent units results in a fraction of 0.5 or above
As the program outlines, up to 36 units could be built in a demonstration project.
REQUESTED ACTION
Hold a public hearing on the proposed program - Attachment A - and make a recommendation to
the City Council.
Q:\H OME\ MOIRA\ houseng\ housngoptionspcstaffreport.728.doc Page 6
1 Findings
a. The purpose of this ordinance would be to establish a
demonstration housing program that would allow development of
selected projects that explore housing choices not currently available
in Tukwila's single family neighborhoods.
b. The goals of innovative housing would be to:
i. Increase choice of housing styles available in the community
through projects that are compatible with existing single - family
developments;
ii. Promote housing affordability and ownership by
encouraging smaller homes;
iii. To stimulate innovative housing design that improves the
character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as
a model for other areas; and
iv. Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to
changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single
person households) and that let seniors age in place in their
neighborhoods
c. The City will evaluate the results of the projects and may modify
City standards to specifically address successful innovations in housing
development.
2. Decision Criteria
The relevant decision makers shall evaluate an application and decide if
the project:
a. Meets the goals of this ordinance
Why consider a
demonstration program?
How would the success
of the program be
measured?
What will occur after
the program?
How will demonstration
projects be evaluated?
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 1 of 8
Attachment A
b. complies with the Multi - family, Hotel and Motel Design Review
Criteria, stated in the Board of Architectural Review Chapter, Design
Review Criteria Section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (18.60.050(C)
TMC), and
c. whether it can be demonstrated that:
i. The proposal is not larger in scale and is compatible
with surrounding development with respect to size of units, building
heights, roof forms, building setbacks from each other and property
lines, parking location and screening, access, and lot coverage;
ii Variety is provided. through a mixture of building sizes
and footprints;
iii. The proposal provides elements that contribute to a
sense of community within the development and the surrounding
neighborhood by including elements such as front entry porches,
common open space and /or comnion building(s); and
iv. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 modifications to
requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Code, Permit Application Types
and Procedures, (18.104 TMC) other than those specifically identified
in the Standards section below, are important to the success of the
proposal as an innovative housing project.
3. Standards
In order to meet the goals of the innovative housing program, there
will be flexibility with regard to some normally applicable
requirements. Standards identified in the following sections will apply
to innovative housing demonstration projects and will prevail if they
conflict with normal regulations. All other requirements of the City of
Tukwila will continue to apply, except that applicants may propose
additional modifications to the Tukwila Zoning Code, as provided for
within the Code.
a. The Basic Development Standards and Maximum Building
Footprint sections of the Low Density Residential District
(18.10.060 and 18.06.057 TMC) and of the Medium Density
Residential District (18.12.070 TMC) and of the High Density
Residential District Chapters (18.14.070 TMC) and the
Supplemental Development Standards (18.50 TMC) that relate to
yards and house design and orientation; and the requirements of
Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces (Figure 18 -7 TMC)
shall be replaced by the standards identified in the following
sections of this ordinance. Existing homes within a redevelopment
must continue to conform to the existing code standards unless it
can be demonstrated that the existing home meets the description
of a demonstration house type.
•
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 2 of 8
•
Attachment A
b. The density limitations identified in the Land Use Map of the
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shall be determined to have been met as
long as the proposed project does not exceed the equivalent unit
calculation identified in the Standards section below.
c. The application fees for an innovative residential project, shall be
the fee(s) charged for the relevant required underlying applications.
The following table sets forth parameters applicable to innovative
housing project applications.
Standards Table
Housing Types
Cottages
Compact Single- Family
Duplexes or Triplexes designed to look
like Single- Family as part of a
development that includes at least one
other housing type (the other housing
type may be traditional single- family)
A combination of the above types
Unit Size Limits
A covenant restricting any
increases in unit size after initial
construction would be recorded
the property
Cottages = 1,000 square foot maximum
floor area
Compact Single-Family 1 500 square
p g y uare
q
foot maximum gross floor area
Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500 square
foot maximum gross floor area per unit
Side yard setbacks are waived so that
these homes may be sold on fee simple
lots.
Equivalent Units
The number of allowable
dwelling units shall be totaled
for each of the existing lots in
order to determine equivalent
units.
Using net square feet eliminates
the incentive to use the
program on property with
substandard lots.
Cottages = 2 per each single - family unit
that could be built on an existing lot or
1 unit for every 3,250 net square feet
Compact SF = 1.5 per each single -
family unit that could be built on the lot
or 4,875 net square feet
Duplexes and Triplexes = overall
development not to exceed 1.5 times
the number of single - family units that
could be built on the lot or 4,875 net
square feet
What types of housing
would be considered?
What flexibility would
be needed to encourage
program projects?
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 3 of 8
Attachment A
Where could
demonstration projects
be built?
How many houses could
be built within a
demonstration project?
Will the projects be for
sale or rental?
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 4 of 8
Attachment A
Rounding up to the next whole number
of equivalent units is allowed when the
conversion from typical single- family
units to equivalent units results in a
fraction of 0.5 or above
Existing single - family homes may remain on the subject property and
will be counted as units in the equivalent unit calculation
Locations
All LDR, MDR & HDR districts, but
not within 1,500' of another innovative
housing proposal approved under this
Ordinance.
Access Requirements
Determine flexibility for road widths,
public vs. private, and turn- around
requirements with input from Public
Works and Fire Departments
Development Size
Minimum of 8 units, maximum of 36
units
Cottages may have a maximum of 12
units per cluster
Parking Requirements
An option that is done
elsewhere is to allow 50%
of street parking to apply
toward requirement.
1 stall per unit for units under 700
square feet in size
1.5 stalls per unit for units 700 to 1,000
square feet in size
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000
square feet in size
Building Coverage
35
Ownership Structure
Subdivision
Condominium
Additional Standards Table
This table sets forth supplemental parameters to those above and are
applicable to any cottage proposed as an innovative housing project.
Distance Between
Structures
10' minimum
Common Open Space
• Provide required area according to
Recreation Space Requirements
(18.52.060 TMC) (1)
• Shall abut at least 50% of the
Where could
demonstration projects
be built?
How many houses could
be built within a
demonstration project?
Will the projects be for
sale or rental?
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 4 of 8
Attachment A
•
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 5 of 8
•
Attachment A
cottages in the development and
those units must be oriented to and
have their main entry from the
common open space
• Shall have cottages on at least two
sides
• Shall not be required to be indoor
Each cottage shall:
• be within 60 feet walking distance of
the common open space
Private Open Space
• Shall be oriented to the common
open space as much as is feasible
• Shall be in one contiguous and
useable piece with a minimum
dimension of 10' on all sides
• Shall be adjacent to each cottage
and be for the exclusive use of the
resident of that cottage
Attached Covered Porches
• 80 square feet minimum per unit
• Shall have a minimum dimension of
8' on all sides
Height
18' maximum for all structures except
25' maximum for cottages with a
minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts
of the roof above 18'
Floor Area Limitations
• A minimum of 40% and no more
than 50% of the cottages in a cluster
shall have a main floor of 800
square feet or less; or
• Variety in building sizes and
footprints is provided
Exceptions to Floor Area
Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6' or
less measured to the exterior walls,
such as in a second floor area under
the slope of the roof
• Unheated storage space located
under the main floor of a cottage
• Architectural projections, such as
bay windows, fireplaces or utility
closets not greater than 18" in depth
and 6' in width
• Detached garages and carports
• Attached roofed porches
Parking - surface, garages
or carports
• Shall be provided on the subject
property
• Shall be screened from public
streets and adjacent residential uses
by landscaping and or architectural
•
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 5 of 8
•
Attachment A
Should the City consider
allowing accessory units
above the detached
garages?
How would surrounding
property owners know
about the demonstration
projects?
Should there be other
criteria to determine
whether the City should
consider an applicant's
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 6 of 8
Attachment A
screening
• Shall be located in clusters of not
more than 6 adjoining spaces
• Shall not be located in the front
yard except on a corner lot where it
shall not be located between the
entrance to any cottage
• Shall not be located within 40 feet
of a public street except if the stalls
lie parallel to the street and the
driveway providing access to those
stalls has parking on only one side
• May be located between or adjacent
to structures if it is located toward
the rear of the structure and is
served by an alley or driveway
• All garages shall have a pitched
roof design with a minimum slope
of 4:12
Community Buildings -
when provided
• Shall be clearly incidental in use and
size to the cottages
• Shall be commonly owned by the
residents of the cottages
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of a
innovative development
4. Selection Process
a. The Director of DCD shall follow the selection criteria outlined
below in deciding which projects are eligible for project selection and
able to apply for design review and for platting.
b. A neighborhood meeting organized by the applicant and attended
by City staff shall be required of the applicant in order to evaluate the
project for program selection. The applicant must follow the
notification procedures outlined in Section 6 for the initial meeting
with the neighborhood.
c. The Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision
maker on whether an application for consideration in the
demonstration program satisfies the criteria. The criteria for project
selection for the Demonstration Program are as follows:
i. Consistency with the goals of the innovative housing as
enumerated in Findings section above.
Should the City consider
allowing accessory units
above the detached
garages?
How would surrounding
property owners know
about the demonstration
projects?
Should there be other
criteria to determine
whether the City should
consider an applicant's
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 6 of 8
Attachment A
proposal?
Program options:
specify a total
number of new
projects that would
be acceptable —
relying on the
separation standard
above;or
redefining the
neighborhoods.
The time involved in a
Type 4 and 5 process is
lengthy and costly
compared to the typical
process for other single
family builders.
Program options: allow
administrative design
review for projects that
qualib for short plats;
or for any project with
structures less than
1,500 sq. ft.
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 7 of 8
Attachment A
ii. Not more than one innovative housing project shall be
approved per City neighborhood —
McMicken Heights;
Tukwila Hill;
Ryan Hill;
Allentown, Duwamish, Foster Point;
Cascade;
Riverton;
Thorndyke; (These last two being generally divided by S. 136
St. and 48 Av. S.)
Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other innovative
housing project considered under this ordinance.
iii. Demonstration of successful development by the
applicant of the proposed product elsewhere.
iv. The location and size of the project relative to the
neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street
system.
v. The concerns of the community are addressed in the
proposal's design.
d. The decision of the Director of Community Development shall be
the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may
not be administratively appealed.
5. Review and Approval Process
When an application is approved by the Director of DCD, the project
proponent shall apply for the appropriate decision:
a. If no increase in density is proposed or less than four additional
lots are created, a Type 2 decision, which is an administrative
design review, short plat, boundary lines adjustment or binding
site plan;
b. If an increase in density but less than 10 additional lots are created
and or a condominium is proposed, a Type 4 decision, which is a
Board of Architectural Review Hearing and Decision, and /or a
short plat; or
c. If a plat involving more than 9 additional lots, a Type 5 decision, a
City Council decision.
Decision types are described in the Permit Application Types and
Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zoning Code (18.104 TMC.) The
proposal?
Program options:
specify a total
number of new
projects that would
be acceptable —
relying on the
separation standard
above;or
redefining the
neighborhoods.
The time involved in a
Type 4 and 5 process is
lengthy and costly
compared to the typical
process for other single
family builders.
Program options: allow
administrative design
review for projects that
qualib for short plats;
or for any project with
structures less than
1,500 sq. ft.
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 7 of 8
Attachment A
decision makers shall use the decision criteria listed in Section 2 of this
ordinance to review and decide any projects allowed into the
demonstration program as well as use the relevant decision criteria for
design review and or platting.
6. Public Notice
a. Notice of the initial meeting with the neighborhood would be, at a
minimum, a letter from the applicant mailed first class to all
property owners within 500 feet. Attendance of a City staff
member at this initial meeting will be required. Scheduling and
notification shall be coordinated with the Department of
Community Development.
b. Publishing, mailing and posting shall follow the procedures of the
Zoning Code.
7. Demonstration Housing Evaluation
Upon completion and full occupancy of a project, DCD shall evaluate
and report to the Planning Commission and City Council.
If an application were
approved to move
forward, the
.surrounding property
owners would have
additional opportunity
for review and input.
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Q: \mcb\ HOUSING \LDRoptionstable.doc
Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
Dept. 0 Community Development
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I, al b 6-* HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Public Hearing
Determination of Non - Significance
Project Name:
Notice of Public Meeting
Project Number:
Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance
Mailer's Signature:
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Person requesting mailing:
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muiler Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a23 day ofo in the
year 20 05
AVIT -MAIL 08/291003:31 PM
Project Name:
o 2 - J
Project Number:
z--V 5 d :
Mailer's Signature:
it) 6111i.'nS
Person requesting mailing:
R /324064,444‘,/
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a23 day ofo in the
year 20 05
AVIT -MAIL 08/291003:31 PM
Dept. Of Community Development .
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION• .
I.
HEREBY
DECLARE THAT:
J
Project Number:
Mailer's Signature: ,S T) , f .
Notice of Public Hearing
Determination of .Non- : Significance • .
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of -.
Si gni fi cance`,Y-.
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determinationof`Significance & Scoping;
Notice - . - ... 1
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action ' .
•
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice . . •
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline .Mgmt:
Permit
__
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Ma Ga Mul ler Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other
a ��
/
` "> `
.
•
Project Name: 1 L i l� DefiDri f �� 1�t;inArkut ,_
J
Project Number:
Mailer's Signature: ,S T) , f .
Person requesting mailing: 1V ►COQ ` E0,414) .
Was mailed ;o each of the addresses listed on this
year 20 Q
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
•
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: September 21, 2005
Subject: Housing Options Program
Background
Planning Commission Recommendation
The City Council reviewed the concept for this program in June, at which time you
forwarded the proposal to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation.
To recap, the program would allow up to three projects, which would contain cottages,
compact housing and/or duplexes in residential neighborhoods in the City:
The program would operate in the following manner.
1. Application would be made to the Department of Community Development.
2. A neighborhood property owner /resident meeting, appropriately advertised, would be
held to solicit suggestions and opinion about the specific project.
3. The DCD director would decide if the proposed project met the criteria for
acceptability into the "program."
4. The applicant would be notified that they have a specific period to apply for
appropriate land use approvals and in all cases design review:
5 If approved, the applicant would have a specified time frame to complete any
required public improvements and submit the final plat application and building
permits.
6. An evaluation would follow any development to determine if changes should be
considered in City standards.
The Planning Commission held their public hearing on July 28, 2005. Their public
hearing and deliberation minutes are Attachment C. A number of people attended the
hearing all speaking in favor of proceeding with the program. The Planning Commission
then deliberated and recommended that there be up to 10 projects spread throughout the
City's neighborhoods and that there be a five year limit on the program: They also
Page 1 of 2 Attachment A
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
considered increasing the allowable size of compact homes and duplexes to 1,500 square
feet but were unable to reach a majority opinion on the issue.
Community Affairs and Parks
After a review and deliberation of the Planning Commission recommendation, the
Committee made the following modifications, which are reflected in the draft ordinance
(See Attachment D.)
1. Reduce the total number of potential projects from 10 (or 1 for each neighborhood
(See Attachment E)) to three total projects.
2. Reduce the duration of the program from 5 to 3 years.
3. Eliminate the potential for triplexes in a proposed project.
4. Require dedicated common recreational space in projects 1 with 20 or more compact
and attached homes.
5. Eliminate the potential for cottages of less than 800 square feet.
6. Clarify where a demonstration project would be acceptable.
CAP then directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for discussion at the Committee of
the Whole. (See Attachment B for their minutes.)
Summary
To implement the recommendation, the Council would adopt an ordinance establishing
the program. The program would exist for three years after which it would sunset
automatically. If any projects are developed, the City would then evaluate the successes
and failures of the project(s) and the desirability of the program housing types and
relevant standards for their development.
Recommendation
Hold a public hearing on October 10 and take action on the draft ordinance.
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng \05demosmemo926.doc
Cottages are already required to meet the City's recreation standards.
Page 2 of 2 Attachment A
Community and Parks Committee
September 13, 2005
Present: Joe Duffie, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Jack Pace, Bruce Fletcher, Moira Bradshaw, Lucy Lauterbach; Matt Martel -
Homesight
1. Proposed Real Estate Purchase The City now owns Grandmother's Hill. The 8.7 acre
property is not a perfect square. There is a property in the southeast portion that is a separate
parcel. It is the flat green space from which the toe of the slope begins. That property, which has
Light Industrial zoning, has recently been asked about for use as a small warehouse. Cascade
Land Conservancy has had discussions with the owner. There are still funds left in the IAC grant
from last year, and those funds can only be used for acquisition. The Committee recommended
pursuing the purchase. Recommend purchase request to Regular Meeting.
2. Macadam Winter Garden Bid Result When no bids were submitted for the Macadam
Winter Garden, staff approached five consultants and asked them to submit bids. Only two
followed up, and only one bid was received. That bid was $325,555, when the budget is
$235,000. Staff will pursue other ways to get the park built. Recommend resolution rejecting
bid to COW.
3. Housing Options Program This issue was introduced at Council and Committee, then sent
to the Planning Commission which held a public hearing. The purpose of the draft proposal is to
allow flexibility in housing options in Tukwila by allowing cottages, compact houses, and
duplexes on a trial basis. The Committee went through the draft ordinance carefully and
discussed some issues that were raised by the Planning Commission. In the end they
recommended keeping the ten neighborhoods, but limiting the number of demonstration projects
to three. They thought those three projects should be in process within three years of the
ordinance adoption. Parking garages are not part of the square footage allowances. In housing
types, they agreed that 1,500 feet was an adequate size for compact single- family homes, rather
than 1,750 feet. To resolve this question they estimated how much space 1,500 feet was,
deciding it was generally one floor size of a single - family home built before the 1990's.
The Committee was hesitant to allow triplexes, and decided against allowing them. Dennis raised
the fear that these projects would be built in the middle of single - family residences, and Moira
suggested language that would ensure this would not happen. Raising the issue of turnover of
housing that increased renters rather than home owners, the Committee hoped there was a way to
make certain the homes would be occupied by home owners, at least for some time after they
were built. The Committee removed an option to allow 50% of the parking to be on- street, as too
many cars now crowd many streets. They also added the minimum size of cottages to be 800
feet. After discussing the community building requirements that would be useful in smaller home
developments, they thought common space should be required in the larger developments, such
as for projects of compact houses or duplexes over 20 units.
These changes will be brought to a COW, hopefully in late September. Recommend option to
COW.
ATTACHMENT B
flit 0 vet
Community and Parks
September 13, 2005
Page 2
4. Growth Management Services Grant Jack explained the staff would like to apply for a
$35,000 grant from the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development. The grant's 10% match requirement will be met with staff time. The grant would
be used to plan a non - motorized transportation plan for not only TUC, but for the whole City.
Connecting TIB, neighborhoods, and the transit center will require planning. Pedestrians and
bicycle riders would be the beneficiaries of this plan when it is implemented. Recommend
approval of grant application to COW.
Minutes by LL
T:"L
ommittee chair approval
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
JULY 28, 2005
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Bratcher at 7:08 p.m.
Present: Chair, Margaret Bratcher, Vice Chair, Allan Ekberg, Commissioners, Vern
Meryhew, George Malina, Bill Arthur, and Lynn Peterson
Absent: Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff:
Moira Bradshaw and Wynetta Bivens
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES FROM JUNE 23, 2005 WITH ONE CORRECTION. COMMISSIONER
ARTHUR SECONDED; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Bratcher swore in those wishing to give public testimony.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L05 -043: Housing Options Program
APPLICANT: . City of Tukwila
REQUEST: A City wide demonstration program that would allow up to 9 projects of
cottage, compact and/or attached homes in residential neighborhoods,
subject to design review and relevant review processes and approvals.
Projects could range in size from 8 to 36 homes.
LOCATION: City Wide
Moira Bradshaw gave a slide show presentation. There were illustrations of various housing projects
around the region and the country, which showed some of the potential concepts of the proposed project.
The proposed project is a result of some Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies, which addresses and
encourages a variety of housing stock. Currently all of the housing built in the City is single family
homes that are averaging about 2900 sq. ft. in floor area. The Comprehensive Plan suggested a
demonstration program for cottage housing, which is something that the community has an interest in
seeing developed in the City. There is also an interest in a greater variety of housing. Currently, in the
medium and higher density properties, the minimum lot sizes would prevent the development of fee
simple attached housing. The housing options program allows for both cottage housing, as well as,
attached housing in an ownership format to be developed on a demonstration basics. There will be a
limited number of projects allowed, and spread amongst the community.
The project criterias are: Limited to projects that range between 8 to 36 homes. Only one project will
be allowed in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods are defined in the program. There will be a separation
standard. There is no time limitation for completion of the program. As soon as the housing projects are
built, the project is over. House will be limited to 18 feet in height.
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Minutes
July 28, 2005
Page 2of3
After the projects are developed the results of the projects will be analyzed and discussed at a community
and legislative level. It would be determined whether any changes to the Zoning Code would occur. If so,
the projects would be allowed to precede with variances from the code without making changes to the
code, subject to design review. In order for a project to be considered it must go through a selection
process. The criteria in the selection process will look at the overall goals of the program, which are
established at the beginning of the program. Also, the compatibility of developing a different type of
housing will be evaluated. There would be a public meeting and property owners and citizens within 500
sq. ft of the project can provide comments or discuss their concerns. The comments and the concerns of
the neighborhood would need to be reflected and discussed in the application that will go to the DCD
Director when the selection process occurs. If the project is approved it will increase density, which will
allow more housing to be developed on a parcel.
A question and answer session transpired between the Commissioners and Moira. A question was raised
whether the garage is included in the overall floor space. Moira will look into the issue and provide some
clarification.
Matt Martel with Homesight, an organization that develop homes, spoke in support of the project. He
said if the project is approved, allowing smaller lot sizes will give Homesight the ability to build their
homes in Tukwila. Homesight is interested in the Riverton Park parcel as a potential sight for developing.
Homesight has developed 265 homes since their organization was formed in 1990. Mr. Martel explained
Homesight is a community corporation, which means their job is to create communities and help out
buyers. A question and answer session transpired.
Nora Lu with Homesight explained that their organization is also a community bank. They provide
second and third mortgages and down payment assistance. Their organization has helped over 500 first
time homebuyers with down payment assistance. Ms. Lu addressed a question that was raised concerning
turnover in the housing, saying that there has been 1 foreclosure and less than 10 people have sold their
homes. Ms. Lu stated that the approval of the project would help to make their homes more affordable.
Ms. Lu talked about the Riverton Park project calling it the perfect demonstration project, 25 to 30 homes
would be developed on the parcel. Ms. Lu concluded by thanking the Commissioner for being willing to
take a look at the proposed project.
Chris Libby from DJL Architects in Seattle stated he was wholeheartedly in support of this project and
the idea of adding density to the community. He called the program a great, painless and efficient way to
add density to the community and create the neighborhoods that people want in the area. Mr. Libby
spoke positively about Homesight. He offered some advice from an Architect's perspective, suggesting
flexibility, and that the ordinance not be over legislated. He also suggested not creating impairments, and
that the City works with the developers to use the flexibility in the code to develop a nice size and scale of
development. Mr. Libby also answered questions.
Mary Lane, a member of the Riverton Park United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of the project. Ms.
Lane stated the church parcel would be perfect for the demonstration program, saying the project would
be a great asset to the whole area. Although some of the members are concerned with giving up too much
open space, most of the members think it would be a great service to have the project on their parcel.
Thomas Foster, a property owner from the Ryan Hill neighborhood, also spoke in favor of the
project. Mr. Foster spoke of the project as an opportunity to offer some flexibility that Tukwila has
lacked in the past regarding residential zoning. He encouraged flexibility be given to developers to make
as many decisions as they can, suggesting that increasing the maximum square footage would allow the
developer more flexibility.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2005
Page 3 of 3
Nadine Morgan a member of the Homesight board echoed words of support for the project and stated
she would like to see the project happen.
There was no further comment.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Ekberg asked Ms. Bradshaw to explain what a type 2, 3, and 4 modification decision
means. He also asked for some additional clarification on other information provided in the draft
ordinance.
Commissioner Meryhew supported Mr. Foster's suggestion of increasing the maximum square footage.
The Commissioners voted on whether the maximum size of compact houses and duplex/triplex should be
increased to 1,750 square feet or if they should be limited to the proposed 1,500 square feet. There was a
split decision, three for and three against. Some Commissioners stated they were interested in keeping the
1,500 square feet to make the housing more affordable. Other Commissioners were of the opinion that
increasing the square feet would provide more flexibility to the developer.
Chair Bratcher called a recess
The public hearing reconvened at 9:25
There was consensus among the Commissioners to increase the number of potential projects from 7 to 10.
The increase occurred by allowing one project in each of the following neighborhoods: Allentown,
Duwamish, Foster Point and Foster, which were initially combined. Also, to strike the sentence in the
draft ordinance on page 7, following the word Thorndyke. They also decided to establish a five -year time
limit for the program and subsequent analysis and program review.
Chair Bratcher closed the Public Hearing.
COMMISSIONER MERYHEW MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CASE NUMBER L05 -043 AND TO FORWARD
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
1. MAKE A DECISION WHETHER TO INCREASE MAXIMUM SQUARE FEET FROM 1,500 SQ.
FT. TO 1,750 SQ. FT. FOR COMPACT HOUSES AND DUPLEX/TRIPLEX. THERE WAS A
SPLIT DECISION OF THREE FOR AND THREE AGAINST BETWEEN THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS.
2. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS FROM 7 TO 10 BY ALLOWING ONE
PROJECT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOODS: ALLENTOWN,
DUWAMISH, FOSTER POINT AND FOSTER, WHICH WERE INITIALLY COMBINED.
3. STRIKE THE SENTENCE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ON PAGE 7 FOLLOWING THE
WORD THORNDYKE.
4. ESTABLISH A FIVE -YEAR TIME LIMIT FOR THE PROGRAM AND SUBSEQUENT
ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM REVIEW.
BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM.
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Administrative Secretary
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A THREE -YEAR DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM FOR SMALL -SCALE HOUSING ENTITLED THE HOUSING
OPTIONS PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council believes that a demonstration housing
program would allow development of selected projects that explore housing choices not
currently available in Tukwila's single - family neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan suggests a demonstration program for
cottage housing and encourages the development of a range of housing types; and
WHEREAS, such a program would allow the City to experiment on a small scale
with new standards not currently used within the City; and
WHEREAS, design review would be administered on the proposed projects
ensuring an opportunity to require high standards for design and construction; and
WHEREAS, the focus of the program would be on housing for home ownership;
and
WHEREAS, the City plans to evaluate the results of the projects and might consider
modifying City standards to specifically address successful innovations in housing
development;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regulations Adopted. The "Housing Options Program" is hereby
established, and regulations for this three -year demonstration program for small -scale
housing are hereby adopted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 18.120
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM - TEMPORARY
Sections:
18.120.010 Program Goals
18.120.020 Program Standards
18.120.030 Selection Process and Criteria
18.120.040 Fees
18.120.050 Review and Application Process
18.120.060 Public Notice
18.120.010 Program Goals
The goals of the Housing Options Program are to:
1. Increase the choice of housing styles available in the community through
projects that are compatible with existing single - family developments;
2. Promote housing affordability and ownership by encouraging smaller homes;
3. Stimulate innovative housing design that improves the character and sense of
community in a neighborhood and can serve as a model for other areas;
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/23/2005
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT C
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM STANDARDS
Housing Types
Cottages
Compact single- family.
Duplexes designed to look like a single - family home or
with zero lot lines for fee simple ownership; and included
with at least one other housing type in a proposed
development (the other housing type may be traditional
single- family).
A combination of the above types.
Unit Size Limits
A covenant restricting
any increases in unit size
after initial construction
would be recorded
against the property.
Cottages = 800 square feet minimum and 1,000 square foot
maximum floor area.
Compact single - family = 1,500 square foot maximum floor
area.
Duplexes = 1,500 square foot maximum floor area per unit.
Side yard setbacks are waived so that these homes may be
sold on fee simple lots.
Equivalent Units
There is no minimum lot
size, but there is a
maximum project
density.
Cottages = 2 per each single - family unit that could be built
on an existing lot, or a maximum of 1 unit for every 3,250
net square feet.
Compact single family = 1.5 per each single - family unit that
could be built on the lot, or a maximum of 4,875 net square
feet.
Duplexes = overall development not to exceed 1.5 times the
number of single - family units that could be built on the lot,
or a maximum of 4,875 net square feet.
4. Develop high- quality site, architectural and landscape elements in
neighborhoods; and
5. Provide a greater variety of housing types, which respond to changing
household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single - person households) and
provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods.
18.120.020 Program Standards
In order to meet the goals of the Housing Options Program as set forth in TMC
18.120.010, there will be flexibility with regard to normally applicable requirements.
Standards identified in this section will apply to the selected housing projects and will
prevail if they conflict with normal regulations. All other requirements of the City of
Tukwila will continue to apply; however, applicants may propose additional
modifications to the Tukwila Municipal Code, as provided for within the Code.
1. The Permitted Uses and Basic Development Standards and Maximum Building
Footprint sections of the Low -, Medium- and High- Density Residential Districts (TMC
18.10.020, 18.10.060, 18.10.057, 18.12.020, 18.12.070, 18.14.020, 18.14.070); the
Supplemental Development Standards (TMC 18.50) that relate to yards, house design
and orientation; and the requirements of Minimum Number of Required Parking
Spaces (TMC 18.56.050) shall be replaced by the standards identified in this section.
2. Existing homes within a proposed project site must continue to conform to the
existing code standards unless it can be demonstrated that the existing home meets the
description of a housing type listed below.
3. The density limitations identified in the Land Use Map of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan shall be determined to have been met as long as the proposed
project does not exceed the equivalent unit calculation set forth in TMC 18.120.020 -4.
4. The following development parameters are applicable to all Housing Options
Program applications.
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/23/2005
Page 2 of 2
Equivalent Units (Cont.)
The number of allowable
dwelling units shall be
totalled for each of the
existing lots in order to
determine equivalent
units.
Existing single - family
homes may remain on the
subject property and will
be counted as units in the
equivalent unit
calculation.
Rounding up to the next whole number of equivalent units
is allowed when the conversion from typical single - family
units to equivalent units results in a fraction of 0.5 or above.
Locations
All LDR, MDR & HDR districts, but not within 1,500 feet of
another housing options proposal under review or
approved under TMC Chapter 18.120.
Floor Area
Variety in building sizes and footprints is required.
Access Requirements
Determine flexibility for road widths, public versus private,
and turnaround requirements with input from Public
Works and Fire Departments.
Development Size
Minimum of 8 units, maximum of 36 units.
Cottages may have a maximum of 12 units per cluster.
Parking Requirements
1.5 stalls per unit for units 800 to 1,000 square feet in size.
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000 square feet in size.
Building Coverage
35%
Ownership Structure
Subdivision
Condominium
Distance Between
Structures
10 feet minimum
Common Open Space for
cottages and projects of
20 or more homes.
Provide required area according to Recreation Space
Requirements (TMC 18.52.060).
Exceptions to Floor Area
Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6 feet or less measured to
the exterior walls, such as in a second floor area under the
slope of the roof.
• Unheated storage space located under the main floor of a
cottage.
• Architectural projections, such as bay windows,
fireplaces or utility closets not greater than 18 inches in
depth and 6 feet in width.
• Detached garages and carports.
• Attached roofed porches.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of this Housing Options
Program.
ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM COTTAGE STANDARDS
Common Open Space
• Shall abut at least 50% of the cottages in the development,
and those units must be oriented to and have their main
entry from the common open space.
■ Shall have cottages on at least two sides.
• Shall not be required to be indoors.
■ Each cottage shall be within 60 feet walking distance of
the common open space.
5. The following development parameters are supplemental to those in
18.120.020 -4, and are applicable to any cottage proposed as a housing options project.
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/23/2005
Page 3 of 3
Private Open Space
• Shall be oriented to the common open space as much as is
feasible.
• Shall be in one contiguous and useable piece with a
minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides.
• Shall be adjacent to each cottage and be for the exclusive
use of the resident of that cottage.
Attached Covered
Porches
• 80 square feet minimum per unit.
• Shall have a minimum dimension of 8 feet on all sides.
Height
18 feet maximum for all structures, except 25 feet maximum
for cottages with a minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts
of the roof above 18 feet.
Parking - surface, garages
or carports
• Shall be provided on the subject property.
• Shall be screened from public streets and adjacent
residential uses by landscaping and/ or architectural
screening.
• Shall be located in clusters of not more than six adjoining
spaces.
• Shall not be located in the front yard, except on a corner
lot where it shall not be located between the entrance to
any cottage.
• Shall not be located within 40 feet of a public street,
except if the stalls lie parallel to the street and the driveway
providing access to those stalls has parking on only one
side.
• May be located between or adjacent to structures if it is
located toward the rear of the structure and is served by an
alley or driveway.
• All garages shall have a pitched roof design with a
minimum slope of 4:12.
Community Buildings —
if provided
• Shall be clearly incidental in use and size to the cottages.
• Shall be commonly owned by the residents of the
cottages.
18.120.030 Selection Process and Criteria
A. The Director of DCD shall follow the selection criteria outlined in TMC
18.120.030 -C to decide which projects are eligible for project selection and allowed to
apply for design review and /or for platting.
B. A neighborhood meeting organized by the applicant and attended by City staff
shall be required of the applicant in order to evaluate the project for program selection.
The applicant must follow the notification procedures outlined in TMC 18.120.060 for
public meetings.
C. The Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision -maker on
whether an application for consideration in the demonstration program satisfies the
criteria. The criteria for project selection for the Housing Options Program are as
follows:
1. Consistency with the goals of the housing options program as enumerated
in TMC 18.120.010.
2. Not more than one housing option project shall be approved per City
neighborhood, which are as follows and illustrated in Figure 18 -13.
(a) McMicken Heights
(b) Tukwila Hill
(c) Ryan Hill
(d) Allentown
(e) Duwamish
(f) Foster Point
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/23/2005
Page 4 of 4
(g) Cascade View
(h) Riverton
(i) Foster
(j) Thorndyke
Foster and Thorndyke are generally divided by South 136th Street and 48th
Avenue South.
3. Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other housing project
considered under TMC Chapter 18.120.
4. Demonstration of successful development by the applicant of the proposed
product elsewhere.
5. The location and size of the project is acceptable and of low impact relative
to the neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street system. For
example, attached housing must be located on land with direct access to a collector
arterial or along a neighborhood edge or in or adjacent to medium or high - density
districts.
6. The concerns of the community are addressed in the proposal's design.
7. The decision of the Director of Community Development, in the form of a
letter inviting the applicant to submit for the project within one year of the date of the
letter, shall be the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may not
be administratively appealed.
18.120.040 Fees
There is no fee for application for selection into the Housing Options Program as
described in TMC 18.120.030. The adopted fees for the processes, which are described
in TMC 18.120.050 shall be charged for the relevant required underlying applications.
18.120.050 Review and Application Process
A. Limited time frame to apply. When the Director of DCD selects an application
as outlined in TMC 18.120.030, the project proponent must apply within one year for
the appropriate decision(s) or the selection will become null and void.
B. Type of Application. Decision types are described in the Permit Application
Types and Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.104). In all cases,
design review is required and shall be consolidated per "Consolidation of Permit
Applications" in the Permit Application Types and Procedures Chapter (TMC
18.104.030).
The type of applications shall depend on the size and type of proposed project:
1. If less than four additional lots are proposed, then a Type 2 decision shall
be followed;
2. If between 5 and 9 additional lots are proposed or a project is to be a
condominium, then a Type 4 decision shall be followed; or
3. If more than 9 additional lots are proposed, then a Type 5 decision shall be
followed.
C. Decision Criteria. The relevant decision makers shall use the following criteria
to review and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any project allowed
into the Housing Options Program as well as use the relevant decision criteria for
design review and /or platting.
1. Meets the goals of the program, as set forth in TMC 18.120.010;
2. Complies with the Multi- family, Hotel and Motel Design Review Criteria,
stated in the Board of Architectural Review chapter, Design Review Criteria section of
the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.60.050 -C); and
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/23/2005
Page 5 of 5
3. Demonstrates the following:
a. The proposal is compatible with and is not larger in scale than
surrounding development with respect to size of units, building heights, roof forms,
building setbacks from each other and property lines, parking location and screening,
access, and lot coverage;
b. Variety is provided through a mixture of building designs, sizes and
footprints;
c. The proposal provides elements that contribute to a sense of
community within the development and the surrounding neighborhood by including
elements such as front entry porches, common open space and /or common building(s);
and
d. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 modifications to requirements of the
Permit Application Types and Procedures (TMC 18.104), other than those specifically
identified in TMC 18.120.020, are important to the success of the proposal as a housing
options project.
D. Expiration of Approval. When a Notice of Decision is issued on a Housing
Options Program project, the applicant shall have one year to apply for subsequent
permits.
18.120.060 Public Notice
A. Notice of the pre - proposal meeting with the neighborhood will be a letter from
the applicant mailed first class to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of
the proposed development.
B. Subsequent publishing, mailing and posting shall follow the procedures of the
Permit Application Types and Procedures of TMC Chapter 18.104.
Section 2. Effective Period of Program. The Housing Options Program
established by this Chapter shall become effective as set forth in Section 5 below, and
shall continue in effect for up to three years thereafter or until three projects have been
developed, unless repealed, renewed or modified by the City Council. A project must
vest itself with a Type 2, 4, or 5 application before the program expires three years after
the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 3. Demonstration Housing Evaluation. Upon completion and full
occupancy of a project, DCD shall evaluate and report to the Planning Commission and
City Council on the results of the Program.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2005.
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Housing Options Program MB:kn 9/23/2005
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
Page 6 of 6
Improving neighborhoods.;:One home at a time!
License #: REHABN'016MA
DRAFT ORDINANCE
SUGGESTIONS
Thank You for allowing us to review the Draft Ordinance for the City of Tukwila relating
to Cottage /Cluster development. It is apparent that a lot of thought went into the
excellent Draft.
Upon reviewing neighboring approaches to this concept, touring area projects and
consulting with the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) on similar
type of developments, we would like to offer up some additional ideas to ponder.
I. Equivalent Units
1. Cottages allowed -2 per single family lot
a. Proposed: 1 per 2160 s.f. lot area or at least base it on lot area.
2. Compact Single Family allowed -1.5 per single family lot
a. Proposed: 1 per 3250 s.f. or at least base it on lot area
3. Duplex/Triplex allowed -1.5 per single family lot
a. Proposed: 1 per 3250 s.f. or at least base it on lot area
Note; Often in larger parcels there is a mix of lot size and configuration, with some lots
exceeding and others not meeting single lot area zoning regulations. An allowance by
square feet would simplify the process for both the Developer and City.
II. Unit size limit
1. Cottages - 00 s.f. maximum floor area with maximum 1 floor of 800 s.f.
a. Proposed: Increase total to 1200 s.f total -900 s.f. main level
Note; This is a King County proposed limit that has merit. By increasing to 1200 s.f it
would expose the product to a larger market, le; single parents, siblings caring for a
parent, etc.
111. Common Open Space
1. 400 s.f. per unit (100 s.f. senior housing) allowed.
a. Proposed: 250 s.f per unit
Note; It would be difficult to predict and control ownership in a mixed development.
IV. Setbacks allowed-20' front.
5639 16th Avenue SW Seattle, Washington 98106
Steve Detwiller
General Contractor
Direct 206.255.3474
Fax 206.933.7355
stevedetwiller @hotmaiIcom
Improving neighborhoods.t.One home at a time!
1. Proposed: 15' front
License #: REHABN'016MA
Note; Improve design options for rear loading/alley garages.
V. Accessory Dwelling Units
1. Not allowed.
Note; Entertain the thought of allowing ADU's above detached garage clusters. This
would allow additional income to Owner without impacting the density significantly.
This also opens design options to improve the architectural lines of the garage clusters.
Thank You again for the opportunity to review an exciting proposal.
Sincerely,
Steve Detwiller, President
Rehabitat Northwest, Inc
206- 255 -3474
5639 16th Avenue SW Seattle, Washington 98106
Steve Detwiller
General Contractor
Direct 206.255.3474
Fax 206.933.7355
stevedetwiller @hotmail.com
To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
From: Steve Lancaster, Director L✓'
Date: September 6, 2005
Subject: Housing Options Program
Background
Cizy of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
A program entitled the Housing Options Program has been under discussion at the
Council level and was sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and a
recommendation.
The program would allow one demonstration housing project in each of the City's
residential neighborhoods. The projects would consist of cottages at twice and compact
houses and/or duplex /triplex townhomes at a 50% increase in the existing underlying
density. The goal of the program is to expand the type of home ownership opportunities
available in Tukwila, to allow flexibility in housing design and layout and then analyze
the results before making any desireable changes to City standards.
Planning Commission Recommended Changes
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above program on July 28, 2005.
(See Attachment A.) They heard from Homesight and the Riverton Church regarding
their potential project as well as from Tom Foster, a developer in the Ryan Hill
neighborhood. After hearing the testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission
made the following recommendations:
1. Limit the duration of the program to five years.
2. Consider expanding the size limit of the compact house and attached townhomes
from 1,500 square feet to 1,750. A developer testified at the hearing that the 1,750
square feet provides enhanced living spaces. The Commissioners split 3 to 3, on
whether to recommend the larger square footage. Those in favor of the larger square
footage liked the flexibility this provided, whereas those not in favor considered the
larger square footage as jeopardizing the affordability of the product.
Page 1 of 2
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
b
3. Expand the number of possible projects by dividing the Allentown/Duwamish/Foster
Point area into three separate neighborhoods and dividing Foster and Thorndyke into
two, which results in 10 possible projects. Commissioner Meryhew suggested
looking at the neighborhoods by size and organizing them accordingly. They are
listed below and organized by their rough sizes and illustrated on Attachment B:
1. FosterPoint 29 acres
2. Duwamish 47
3. Ryan Hill 122
4. Riverton 132
5. Allentown 169
6. Foster 183
7. Cascade View 236
8. McMicken Heights 266
9. Thorndyke 279
10. Tukwila Hill 381
A modified draft Program outline reflecting the Commission's recommendation is
Attachment C.
Summary/ Request
Forward the draft ordinance to the September 26, 2005 Committee of the Whole Meeting
for briefing and discussion and then to the October 3, 2005 meeting for a second public
hearing and possible adoption.
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission 28 July 2005 Hearing Minutes on the Housing Options
Program
B. Neighborhood Map
C. Draft Housing Options Program
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng \05capdemosmemo913.doc
Page 2 of 2
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Bratcher at 7:08 p.m.
Present: Chair, Margaret Bratcher, Vice Chair, Allan Ekberg, Commissioners, Vern
Meryhew, George Malina, Bill Arthur, and Lynn Peterson
Absent: Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff:
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
JULY 28, 2005
Moira Bradshaw and Wynetta Bivens
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES FROM JUNE 23, 2005 WITH ONE CORRECTION. COMMISSIONER
ARTHUR SECONDED; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Bratcher swore in those wishing to give public testimony.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER: L05 -043: Housing Options Program
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: A City wide demonstration program that would allow up to 9 projects of
cottage, compact and/or attached homes in residential neighborhoods,
subject to design review and relevant review processes and approvals.
Projects could range in size from 8 to 36 homes.
LOCATION: City Wide
Moira Bradshaw gave a slide show presentation. There were illustrations of various housing projects
around the region and the country, which showed some of the potential concepts of the proposed project.
The proposed project is a result of some Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Policies, which addresses and
encourages a variety of housing stock. Currently all of the housing built in the City is single family
homes that are averaging about 2900 sq. ft. in floor area. The Comprehensive Plan suggested a
demonstration program for cottage housing, which is something that the community has an interest in
seeing developed in the City. There is also an interest in a greater variety of housing. Currently, in the
medium and higher density properties, the minimum lot sizes would prevent the development of fee
simple attached housing. The housing options program allows for both cottage housing, as well as,
attached housing in an ownership format to be developed on a demonstration basics. There will be a
limited number of projects allowed, and spread amongst the community.
The project criterias are: Limited to projects that range between 8 to 36 homes. Only one project will
be allowed in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods are defined in the program. There will be a separation
standard. There is no time limitation for completion of the program. As soon as the housing projects are
built, the project is over. House will be limited to 18 feet in height.
ATTACHMENT A
Planning Commission Minutes
July 28, 2005
Page 2 of 3
After the projects are developed the results of the projects will be analyzed and discussed at a community
and legislative level. It would be determined whether any changes to the Zoning Code would occur. If so,
the projects would be allowed to precede with variances from the code without making changes to the
code, subject to design review. In order for a project to be considered it must go through a selection
process. The criteria in the selection process will look at the overall goals of the program, which are
established at the beginning of the program. Also, the compatibility of developing a different type of
housing will be evaluated. There would be a public meeting and property owners and citizens within 500
sq. ft of the project can provide comments or discuss their concerns. The comments and the concerns of
the neighborhood would need to be reflected and discussed in the application that will go to the DCD
Director when the selection process occurs. If the project is approved it will increase density, which will
allow more housing to be developed on a parcel.
A question and answer session transpired between the Commissioners and Moira. A question was raised
whether the garage is included in the overall floor space. Moira will look into the issue and provide some
clarification.
Matt Martel with Homesight, an organization that develop homes, spoke in support of the project. He
said if the project is approved, allowing smaller lot sizes will give Homesight the ability to build their
homes in Tukwila. Homesight is interested in the Riverton Park parcel as a potential sight for developing.
Homesight has developed 265 homes since their organization was formed in 1990. Mr. Martel explained
Homesight is a community corporation, which means their job is to create communities and help out
buyers. A question and answer session transpired.
Nora Lu with Homesight explained that their organization is also a community bank. They provide
second and third mortgages and down payment assistance. Their organization has helped over 500 first
time homebuyers with down payment assistance. Ms. Lu addressed a question that was raised concerning
turnover in the housing, saying that there has been 1 foreclosure and less than 10 people have sold their
homes. Ms. Lu stated that the approval of the project would help to make their homes more affordable.
Ms. Lu talked about the Riverton Park project calling it the perfect demonstration project, 25 to 30 homes
would be developed on the parcel. Ms. Lu concluded by thanking the Commissioner for being willing to
take a look at the proposed project.
Chris Libby from DJL Architects in Seattle stated he was wholeheartedly in support of this project and
the idea of adding density to the community. He called the program a great, painless and efficient way to
add density to the community and create the neighborhoods that people want in the area. Mr. Libby
spoke positively about Homesight. He offered some advice from an Architect's perspective, suggesting
flexibility, and that the ordinance not be over legislated. He also suggested not creating impairments, and
that the City works with the developers to use the flexibility in the code to develop a nice size and scale of
development. Mr. Libby also answered questions.
Mary Lane, a member of the Riverton Park United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of the project. Ms.
Lane stated the church parcel would be perfect for the demonstration program, saying the project would
be a great asset to the whole area. Although some of the members are concerned with giving up too much
open space, most of the members think it would be a great service to have the project on their parcel.
Thomas Foster, a property owner from the Ryan Hill neighborhood, also spoke in favor of the
project. Mr. Foster spoke of the project as an opportunity to offer some flexibility that Tukwila has
lacked in the past regarding residential zoning. He encouraged flexibility be given to developers to make
as many decisions as they can, suggesting that increasing the maximum square footage would allow the
developer more flexibility.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 28, 2005
Page 2 of 3
After the projects are developed the results of the projects will be analyzed and discussed at a community
and legislative level. It would be determined whether any changes to the Zoning Code would occur. If so,
the projects would be allowed to precede with variances from the code without making changes to the
code, subject to design review. In order for a project to be considered it must go through a selection
process. The criteria in the selection process will look at the overall goals of the program, which are
established at the beginning of the program. Also, the compatibility of developing a different type of
housing will be evaluated. There would be a public meeting and property owners and citizens within 500
sq. ft of the project can provide comments or discuss their concerns. The comments and the concerns of
the neighborhood would need to be reflected and discussed in the application that will go to the DCD
Director when the selection process occurs. If the project is approved it will increase density, which will
allow more housing to be developed on a parcel.
A question and answer session transpired between the Commissioners and Moira. A question was raised
whether the garage is included in the overall floor space. Moira will look into the issue and provide some
clarification.
Matt Martel with Homesight, an organization that develop homes, spoke in support of the project. He
said if the project is approved, allowing smaller lot sizes will give Homesight the ability to build their
homes in Tukwila. Homesight is interested in the Riverton Park parcel as a potential sight for developing.
Homesight has developed 265 homes since their organization was formed in 1990. Mr. Martel explained
Homesight is a community corporation, which means their job is to create communities and help out
buyers. A question and answer session transpired.
Nora Lu with Homesight explained that their organization is also a community bank. They provide
second and third mortgages and down payment assistance. Their organization has helped over 500 first
time homebuyers with down payment assistance. Ms. Lu addressed a question that was raised concerning
turnover in the housing, saying that there has been 1 foreclosure and less than 10 people have sold their
homes. Ms. Lu stated that the approval of the project would help to make their homes more affordable.
Ms. Lu talked about the Riverton Park project calling it the perfect demonstration project, 25 to 30 homes
would be developed on the parcel. Ms. Lu concluded by thanking the Commissioner for being willing to
take a look at the proposed project.
Chris Libby from DJL Architects in Seattle stated he was wholeheartedly in support of this project and
the idea of adding density to the community. He called the program a great, painless and efficient way to
add density to the community and create the neighborhoods that people want in the area. Mr. Libby
spoke positively about Homesight. He offered some advice from an Architect's perspective, suggesting
flexibility, and that the ordinance not be over legislated. He also suggested not creating impairments, and
that the City works with the developers to use the flexibility in the code to develop a nice size and scale of
development. Mr. Libby also answered questions.
Mary Lane, a member of the Riverton Park United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of the project. Ms.
Lane stated the church parcel would be perfect for the demonstration program, saying the project would
be a great asset to the whole area. Although some of the members are concerned with giving up too much
open space, most of the members think it would be a great service to have the project on their parcel.
Thomas Foster, a property owner from the Ryan Hill neighborhood, also spoke in favor of the
project. Mr. Foster spoke of the project as an opportunity to offer some flexibility that Tukwila has
lacked in the past regarding residential zoning. He encouraged flexibility be given to developers to make
as many decisions as they can, suggesting that increasing the maximum square footage would allow the
developer more flexibility.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 28, 2005
Page 3 of 3
Nadine Morgan a member of the Homesight board echoed words of support for the project and stated
she would like to see the project happen.
There was no further comment.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Ekberg asked Ms. Bradshaw to explain what a type 2, 3, and 4 modification decision
means. He also asked for some additional clarification on other information provided in the draft
ordinance.
Commissioner Meryhew supported Mr. Foster's suggestion of increasing the maximum square footage.
The Commissioners voted on whether the maximum size of compact houses and duplex/triplex should be
increased to 1,750 square feet or if they should be limited to the proposed 1,500 square feet. There was a
split decision, three for and three against. Some Commissioners stated they were interested in keeping the
1,500 square feet to make the housing more affordable. Other Commissioners were of the opinion that
increasing the square feet would provide more flexibility to the developer.
Chair Bratcher called a recess
The public hearing reconvened at 9:25
There was consensus among the Commissioners to increase the number of potential projects from 7 to 10.
The increase occurred by allowing one project in each of the following neighborhoods: Allentown,
Duwamish, Foster Point and Foster, which were initially combined. Also, to strike the sentence in the
draft ordinance on page 7, following the word Thorndyke. They also decided to establish a five -year time
limit for the program and subsequent analysis and program review.
Chair Bratcher closed the Public Hearing.
COMMISSIONER MERYHEW MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CASE NUMBER L05 -043 AND TO FORWARD
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
1. MAKE A DECISION WHETHER TO INCREASE MAXIMUM SQUARE FEET FROM 1,500 SQ.
FT. TO 1,750 SQ. FT. FOR COMPACT HOUSES AND DUPLEX/TRIPLEX. THERE WAS A
SPLIT DECISION OF THREE FOR AND THREE AGAINST BETWEEN THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS.
2. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS FROM 7 TO 10 BY ALLOWING ONE
PROJECT IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOODS: ALLENTOWN,
DUWAMISH, FOSTER POINT AND FOSTER, WHICH WERE INITIALLY COMBINED.
3. STRIKE THE SENTENCE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ON PAGE 7 FOLLOWING THE
WORD THORNDYKE.
4. ESTABLISH A FIVE -YEAR TIME LIMIT FOR THE PROGRAM AND SUBSEQUENT
ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM REVIEW.
BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM.
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Administrative Secretary
9
10
ATTACHMENT B
1. Findings
a. The purpose of this ordinance would be to establish a
demonstration housing program that would allow development of
selected projects that explore housing choices not currently available
in Tukwila's single family neighborhoods.
b. The goals of innovative housing would be to:
i. Increase choice of housing styles available in the community
through projects that are compatible with existing single - family
developments;
ii. Promote housing affordability and ownership by
encouraging smaller homes;
iii. To stimulate innovative housing design that improves the
character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as
a model for other areas; and
iv. Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to
changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single
person households) and that let seniors age in place in their
neighborhoods
c. The City will evaluate the results of the projects and may modify
City standards to specifically address successful innovations in housing
development.
2. Decision Criteria
The relevant decision makers shall evaluate an application and decide if
the project:
a. Meets the goals of this ordinance
Why consider a
demonstration program?
How would the success
of the program be
measured?
What will occur after
the program?
How will demonstration
projects be evaluated?
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 1 of 8
Attachment C
b. complies with the Multi - family, Hotel and Motel Design Review
Criteria, stated in the Board of Architectural Review Chapter, Design
Review Criteria Section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (18.60.050(C)
TMC), and
c. whether it can be demonstrated that:
i. The proposal is not larger in scale and is compatible
with surrounding development with respect to size of units, building
heights, roof forms, building setbacks from each other and property
lines, parking location and screening, access, and lot coverage;
ii. Variety is provided through a mixture of building sizes
and footprints;
iii. The proposal provides elements that contribute to a
sense of community within the development and the surrounding
neighborhood by including elements such as front entry porches,
common open space and /or common building(s); and
iv. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 modifications to
requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Code, Permit Application Types
and Procedures, (18.104 TMC) other than those specifically identified
in the Standards section below, are important to the success of the
proposal as an innovative housing project.
3. Standards
In order to meet the goals of the innovative housing program, there
will be flexibility with regard to some normally applicable
requirements. Standards identified in the following sections will apply
to innovative housing demonstration projects and will prevail if they
conflict with normal regulations. All other requirements of the City of
Tukwila will continue to apply, except that applicants may propose
additional modifications to the Tukwila Zoning Code, as provided for
within the Code.
a. The Basic Development Standards and Maximum Building
Footprint sections of the Low Density Residential District
(18.10.060 and 18.06.057 TMC) and of the Medium Density
Residential District (18.12.070 TMC) and of the High Density
Residential District Chapters (18.14.070 TMC) and the
Supplemental Development Standards (18.50 TMC) that relate to
yards and house design and orientation; and the requirements of
Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces (Figure 18 -7 TMC)
shall be replaced by the standards identified in the following
sections of this ordinance. Existing homes within a redevelopment
must continue to conform to the existing code standards unless it
can be demonstrated that the existing home meets the description
of a demonstration house type.
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 2 of 8
Attachment C
b. The density limitations identified in the Land Use Map of the
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shall be determined to have been met as
long as the proposed project does not exceed the equivalent unit
calculation identified in the Standards section below.
c. The application fees for an innovative residential project, shall be
the fee(s) charged for the relevant required underlying applications.
The following table sets forth parameters applicable to innovative
housing project applications.
Standards Table
Housing Types
Cottages
Compact Single- Family
Duplexes or Triplexes designed to look
like Single - Family as part of a
development that includes at least one
other housing type (the other housing
type may be traditional single- family)
A combination of the above types
Unit Size Limits
A covenant restricting any
increases in unit size after initial
construction would be recorded
against the property
Cottages = 1,000 square foot maximum
floor area
Compact Single-Family = 1 500 square
p g y s q
foot maximum gross floor area
Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500 square
foot maximum gross floor area per unit
Side yard setbacks are waived so that
these homes may be sold on fee simple
lots.
Equivalent Units
The number of allowable
dwelling units shall be totaled
for each of the existing lots in
order to determine equivalent
units.
Using net square feet eliminates
the incentive to use the
program on property with
substandard lots.
Cottages = 2 per each single - family unit
that could be built on an existing lot or
1 unit for every 3,250 net square feet
Compact SF = 1.5 per each single -
family unit that could be built on the lot
or 4,875 net square feet
Duplexes and Triplexes = overall
development not to exceed 1.5 times
the number of single - family units that
could be built on the lot or 4,875 net
square feet
What types of housing
would be considered?
What jlexibilio would
be needed to encourage
program projects?
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 3 of 8
Attachment C
13
Where could
demonstration projects
be built?
How many houses could
be built within a
demonstration project?
Will the projects be for
sale or rental?
(Li
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 4 of 8
Attachment C
Rounding up to the next whole number
of equivalent units is allowed when the
conversion from typical single - family
units to equivalent units results in a
fraction of 0.5 or above
Existing single - family homes may remain on the subject property and
will be counted as units in the equivalent unit calculation
Locations
All LDR, MDR & HDR districts, but
not within 1,500' of another innovative
housing proposal approved under this
Ordinance.
Access Requirements
Determine flexibility for road widths,
public vs. private, and turn- around
requirements with input from Public
Works and Fire Departments
Development Size
Minimum of 8 units, maximum of 36
units
Cottages may have a maximum of 12
units per cluster
Parking Requirements
An option that is done
elsewhere is to allow 50%
of street parking to apply
toward requirement.
1 stall per unit for units under 700
square feet in size
1.5 stalls per unit for units 700 to 1,000
square feet in size
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000
square feet in size
Building Coverage
35 %
Ownership Structure
Subdivision
Condominium
Additional Standards Table
This table sets forth supplemental parameters to those above and are
applicable to any cottage proposed as an innovative housing project.
Distance Between
Structures
10' minimum
Common Open Space
• Provide required area according to
Recreation Space Requirements
(18.52.060 TMC) (1)
• Shall abut at least 50% of the
Where could
demonstration projects
be built?
How many houses could
be built within a
demonstration project?
Will the projects be for
sale or rental?
(Li
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 4 of 8
Attachment C
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 5 of 8
Attachment C
cottages in the development and
those units must be oriented to and
have their main entry from the
common open space
• Shall have cottages on at least two
sides
• Shall not be required to be indoor
Each cottage shall:
• be within 60 feet walking distance of
the common open space
Private Open Space
• Shall be oriented to the common
open space as much as is feasible
• Shall be in one contiguous and
useable piece with a minimum
dimension of 10' on all sides
• Shall be adjacent to each cottage
and be for the exclusive use of the
resident of that cottage
Attached Covered Porches
• 80 square feet minimum per unit
• Shall have a minimum dimension of
8' on all sides
Height
18' maximum for all structures except
25' maximum for cottages with a
minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts
of the roof above 18'
Floor Area Limitations
• A minimum of 40% and no more
than 50% of the cottages in a cluster
shall have a main floor of 800
square feet or less; or
• Variety in building sizes and
footprints is provided
Exceptions to Floor Area
Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6' or
less measured to the exterior walls,
such as in a second floor area under
the slope of the roof
• Unheated storage space located
under the main floor of a cottage
• Architectural projections, such as
bay windows, fireplaces or utility
closets not greater than 18" in depth
and 6' in width
• Detached garages and carports
• Attached roofed porches
Parking - surface, garages
or carports
• Shall be provided on the subject
property
• Shall be screened from public
streets and adjacent residential uses
by landscaping and or architectural
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 5 of 8
Attachment C
Should the City consider
allowing accessory units
above the detached
garages?
How would surrounding
propery owners know
about the demonstration
projects?
ie
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 6 of 8
Attachment C
screening
• Shall be located in clusters of not
more than 6 adjoining spaces
• Shall not be located in the front
yard except on a corner lot where it
shall not be located between the
entrance to any cottage
• Shall not be located within 40 feet
of a public street except if the stalls
lie parallel to the street and the
driveway providing access to those
stalls has parking on only one side
• May be located between or adjacent
to structures if it is located toward
the rear of the structure and is
served by an alley or driveway
• All garages shall have a pitched
roof design with a minimum slope
of 4:12
Community Buildings -
when provided
• Shall be clearly incidental in use and
size to the cottages
• Shall be commonly owned by the
residents of the cottages
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of a
innovative development
4. Selection Process
The Housing Options Program shall be available for up to five years
from the effective date of this ordinance. A project must vest itself
with a Type 4 and or 5 application before the Program sunsets.
a. The Director of DCD shall follow the selection criteria outlined
below in deciding which projects are eligible for project selection and
able to apply for design review and for platting.
b. A neighborhood meeting organized by the applicant and attended
by City staff shall be required of the applicant in order to evaluate the
project for program selection. The applicant must follow the
notification procedures outlined in Section 6 for the initial meeting
with the neighborhood.
c. The Director of Community Development shall be the sole
decision maker on whether an application for consideration in the
demonstration program satisfies the criteria. The criteria for
project selection for the Demonstration Program are as follows:
Should the City consider
allowing accessory units
above the detached
garages?
How would surrounding
propery owners know
about the demonstration
projects?
ie
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 6 of 8
Attachment C
i. Consistency with the goals of the innovative housing as
enumerated in Findings section above.
ii. Not more than one innovative housing project shall be
approved per City neighborhood —
1. McMicken Heights;
2. Tukwila Hill;
3. Ryan Hill;
4. Allentown,
5. Duwamish,
6. Foster Point;
7. Cascade View;
8. Riverton;
9. Foster ;
10. Thorndyke; (These last two being generally divided by S. 136 St.
and 48 Av. S.)
Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other innovative
housing project considered under this ordinance.
iii. Demonstration of successful development by the
applicant of the proposed product elsewhere.
iv. The location and size of the project relative to the
neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street
system.
v. The concerns of the community are addressed in the
proposal's design.
d. The decision of the Director of Community Development, in the
form of a letter inviting the applicant to submit for the project within
one year of the date of the letter shall be the final decision of the City
on selection of eligible projects and may not be administratively
appealed.
5. Review and Approval Process
When an application is approved by the Director of DCD, the project
proponent must apply within one year for the appropriate decision or
the selection becomes null and void:
a. If no increase in density is proposed or less than four additional
lots are created, a Type 2 decision, which is an administrative
design review, short plat, boundary lines adjustment or binding
Should there be other
criteria to determine
whether the City should
consider an applicant's
proposal?
Program options:
specify a total
number of new
projects that would
be acceptable —
relying on the
separation standard
above;or
redefining the
neighborhoods.
The time involved in a
Type 4 and S process is
lengthy and costly
compared to the typical
pmcess for other single
family builders.
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 7 of 8
Attachment C
site plan;
b. If an increase in density but less than 10 additional lots are created
and or a condominium is proposed, a Type 4 decision, which is a
Board of Architectural Review Hearing and Decision, and /or a
short plat; or
c. If a plat involving more than 9 additional lots, a Type 5 decision, a
City Council decision.
Decision types are described in the Permit Application Types and
Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zoning Code (18.104 TMC.) The
decision makers shall use the decision criteria listed in Section 2 of this
ordinance to review and decide any projects allowed into the
demonstration program as well as use the relevant decision criteria for
design review and or platting.
6. Public Notice
a. Notice of the initial meeting with the neighborhood would be, at a
minimum, a letter from the applicant mailed first class to all
property owners within 500 feet. Attendance of a City staff
member at this initial meeting will be required. Scheduling and
notification shall be coordinated with the Department of
Community Development.
b. Publishing, mailing and posting shall follow the procedures of the
Zoning Code.
7. Demonstration Housing Evaluation
Upon completion and full occupancy of a project, DCD shall evaluate
and report to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Program options: allow
administrative design
review forprojects that
qual5 for short plats;
or for any project with
structures less than
1,500 sq. ft.
If an application were
approved to move
forward, the
surrounding property
owners would have
additional opportunity
for review and input.
is
Q: \mcb \HOUSING \LDRoptionstable.doc
Housing Options Program
Draft Ordinance
Page 8 of 8 Attachment C
Moira Bradshaw - Neighborhoods - -are cres
From: DCD- Intern Intern
To: Moira Bradshaw
Date: 8/1/05 4:02PM
Subject: Neighborhoods - -area in acres
Hi Moira,
Here is a list of the raw numbers I came up with for the area (in acres) of each of the neighborhoods you
outlined on the map. These numbers include the area of right -of -way in each neighborhood. Let me know
if you would like more help breaking the numbers down further. -- Jaimie
Ryan Hill: 121.57
Allentown: 168.87
Foster Point: 29.29
Tukwila Hill: 380.58
McMickin Heights: 266.49
Thorndyke: 279.42
Foster: 183.11
Cascade View: 236.03
Riverton: 131.77
Duwamish: 47.17
- --• -
Page 1
Moira Bradshaw - demonstration ordine Page 1
From: "Matt Martel" <Matt @HomeSightwa.org>
To: "Moira Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us>
Date: 7/25/05 4:17PM
Subject: demonstration ordinance
Hi Moira - welcome back from your vacation, I hope that you had a great
time and return well rested.
Thank you for sending us the 7/28 Planning Commission agenda and copy of
the demonstration ordinance. I do have a question regarding Equivalent
Units for compact SF and duplexes /triplexes: Is 4,875 net square feet
the minimum lot size? I ask because our plan involves some community
space that would require some lots to be smaller in exchange for the
community space.
Thanks
Matt Martel
Associate Project Manager
HomeSight
Seattle, WA
(206) 760 -4212
PLANNING COMMISSION
• •
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JULY 25, 2005 - JULY 29, 2005
Housing Options Program
The Planning Commission held their public hearing on the above program last night and after
hearing from Homesight, the Riverton United Methodist Church and Tom Foster, a property
owner from the Ryan Hill neighborhood, recommended approval of the program with the
following suggestions for changes:
• Increase the number of potential projects by allowing one project in each of the following
neighborhoods Allentown, Duwamish, Foster Point and Foster;
• Establish a five year time limit for the program and subsequent analysis and program review;
• The Commission was divided as to whether the maximum size of compact houses and duplex
triplex should be increased to 1,750 square feet or if they should be limited to the proposed
1,500 square feet.
Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development
Dept. Of Community Development 't
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION `
, f h'V HEREBY DECLARE T ;`
Notice of Public Hearing
Determination of Non-Significance
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination.of Non-
Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping'.4}
Notice,
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
_.. raE
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application _'
'
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
e ,"
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgt"r
Permit •
•
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Project Number : 0
Other : =:."'-
,
' .i
. ��w�� '
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this day ofJ c-c.. in the
year 2042S-
K .
_.. raE
Project Name:ZI- �
'
. ; . a • a ®
e ,"
r' 69
''
Project Number : 0
I
8 ..r.E
-
/.C' ,e
' Yr
I
Mailer's Signature:
0 - 46'LlJ
ry'
Person requesting mailing:
fl/1yLAa
{,��
t, f
• = r
:mss,
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this day ofJ c-c.. in the
year 2042S-
SPECIAL ISSUES:
XCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES •
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
June 27, 2005
COMMITTEE OF WHOLE MEETING
b. Single- Family Housing Options Program
Councilmember Duffie reported review of a concept and outline for a housing options program at the
March 15 and May 24 Community Affairs and Parks Committee meetings. He reported that as the City's
population grows, we must consider programs which allow a limited number of projects in appropriate
locations (low- density areas) which would contain atypical types of new housing (subject to design review
and platting) such as small houses, cottages and condominiums.
Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, reviewed four points with
Council and members of the audience. Points addressed included 1) why the proposal is being
presented; 2) elements of the proposed program; 3) pictures of proposed housing types; and 4) a
summary of action(s) to move the item forward.
Calling the program "experimental in nature," Ms. Bradshaw reported it would have "controls written into
it," with only a certain number of homes being allowed within the City as these are currently not allowed,
according to TMC.
With the use of PowerPoint, Ms. Bradshaw made a visual presentation showing pictures from Greenwood
Avenue Cottages, Kirkland Bungalows, Danielson Grove (Kirkland), Benson Glen and the Brownstones
(Bellevue).
Throughout the pictorial presentation and immediately following same, Ms. Bradshaw noted the following
steps would be required in connection with this program.
1. An application would be presented to the Department of Community Development for such
development (and only one application would be allowed in each of the City's five residential
neighborhoods).
2. A neighboring property owner meeting would be conducted.
3. The Director of Community Development must decide if the proposed project meets the
criteria for acceptability into the program.
4. The applicant would be notified that they have a specific period of time in which to apply for a
Type 5 application — subdivision and design review.
5. The City Council would conduct a public hearing to approve, deny or create conditions
associated with the submitted application.
6. The applicant would have a specific time frame in which to complete any required public
improvements and submit the final plat application.
7. An evaluation would follow any development to determine any changes required according to
current City standards.
After the presentation, Ms. Bradshaw invited questions and comments from the Council. Calling the
proposal, "good," and citing a need for balance in the community, Councilmember Robertson spoke in
favor of his own proposed edits to the program.
Councilmember Haggerton called for citizen comment.
Joe Tice, 3269 South 137 Street, Tukwila, proposed one parcel for consideration — that parcel where
Riverton United Methodist Church is located. Considering that location, he cited, is a way to keep seniors
in Tukwila when need dictates a move from their current Tukwila home. He also noted this is an option to
keep Tukwila a livable community.
Mayor Mullet agreed with Mr. 's comments on keeping the seniors loc. in Tukwila and said, "it's
exactly what we're aiming for." This pilot program is proposed for the following areas (one each) —
Cascade View, Thorndyke, McMicken Heights, Allentown, Foster Point
Nora Loon, Homesite representative, was present and informed Council that her organization has a
"revolving loan fund" for homebuyers. The program exists to help schoolteachers, City employees, and
other workers in their efforts as first time homebuyers. She acknowledged working with representatives
from the Riverton United Methodist Church in determining what could be done on their property. She also
acknowledged an "intergenerational" need for affordable housing in Tukwila.
Although quite early in the process, Ms. Loon shared an artist's rendition of a very preliminary site plan for
the demonstration /pilot project on the church property.
Chris Libbev, representative from the architectural firm of GGLO, is working with Ms. Loon and
Homesite. He noted related work with community groups where his firm has built. He also spoke of the
importance in obtaining input from those community groups. Mr. Libbey called this a great move towards
affordability. He encouraged the City and the Council to be as liberal as possible with the proposed
ordinances and related amendments.
Councilmember Haggerton and Duffie agreed it is important to retain the senior population within Tukwila.
In connection with that, Mr. Haggerton spoke of the need for single story housing. Much of what was
shown (pictures, diagrams, sketches, etc.) included double -story units. Both spoke in favor of at least
one of the pilot sites within Tukwila having single -story homes.
Mary Lane, SeaTac resident and member of the Riverton United Methodist Church, spoke in favor of
a "mixed age development." In an attempt to remain young at heart, Ms. Lane said she would rather live
in a community of mixed ages. She would never think of moving into a retirement community.
Nadine Morgan, Homesite Boardmember and Tukwila resident, spoke in opposition to development in
her McMicken Heights neighborhood. She spoke in favor of the proposed church site.
Calling it a "great idea," Councilmember Carter said the project represents diversity and would include
diversity of all community members.
Councilmembers Carter, Hernandez, Duffie and Fenton spoke in favor of the project and thanked Ms.
Bradshaw for her presentation.
Arthur MacDonald, Tukwila resident and member of the Riverton United Methodist Church, spoke
in favor of the proposed project. He asked the Council to move it to the Planning Commission.
FOR ACTION /CONSIDERATION, CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE CITY'S
PLANNING COMMISSION.
I, Robert H. Baker, Deputy City Clerk, for the City of Tukwila, hereby certify the above to be a true
and correct excerpt of the DRAFT City Council Committee of Whole meeting minutes from Monday, June
27, 2005.
DATED this
CITY OF TUKWILA
Office of the City Clerk
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 433 -1800
day of
, 2005
Robert H. Baker, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
• •
Cityof rukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: June 22, 2005
TO: Interested Parties
From: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner
Subject: Single Family Demonstration Program
Enclosed is a copy of the information for the upcoming June 27, 2005 Tukwila City
Council's Committee of the Whole meeting. The link to the City's web site is
http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, where you can find the agenda, driving directions and more
information about the City Council meeting. At it's discretion, the Council may ask for
your input and interest in the subject.
There will be formal opportunities for you input when this issue moves forward during
comment periods and at the public hearings that the Planning Commission and City
Council will hold.
If you have further questions, please call me at 206 -431 -3651 or via email at
mbradshaw(a�ci.tuk■ila.wa.us.
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng \05transmittalmemo524.doc 1
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665
Dept. Of Community Development
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION .
HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Public Hearing
Determination of:Non- Significance
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Person requesting mailing:
Official Notice
, Q7Afk,1u J
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for.Shoreline'Mgmt
Permit
_
_
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other .:
=..:v . �J
!' pc
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this
year 20 y5
ay .ofJ in the
Project Name:
Project Number:
Mailer's Signature:
46 ♦ .
Person requesting mailing:
ti
, Q7Afk,1u J
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this
year 20 y5
ay .ofJ in the
Minutes by LL
Committee chair approval
• •
Community and Parks Committee
June 14, 2005
Present: Joe Duffie, Chair; Dennis Robertson Dave Fenton
Steve Lancaster, Evie Boykan, Lucy Lauterbach; Sue Carlson; Tom Foster
1. Shoreline Master Plan Map Because the TVS annexation area includes shoreline, the City
will need to amend its Shoreline Management Plan to include a use designation for the shoreline.
The applicant prefers it be designated "Urban", and DCD staff agreed that was appropriate. Dennis
asked for a table showing what is allowed in King County's Rural District as well as in Tukwila's
Urban shoreline district. A public meeting will be held June 20, and the Council has options to
pass the amendment request on to the Planning Commission, defer consideration, or reject the
request. Recommend amendment to Regular Meeting for Council approval.
2. Changes in Interlocal Agreement for CDBG Funding Due to declining federal funds and
increasing administrative costs at the County level, a new interlocal agreement between the pass -
through and other cities has been drafted. This new agreement makes funding allocations
available at the sub - regional level; north and east and south. South King County will receive the
same proportion of funding that would have been available with the individual pass - through
system. Tukwila, will not receive a pass - through allocation in 2006. Funds will still be
available for housing repair and homelessness prevention, as these funds will come off the top of
the regional allocation. Tukwila will need to compete with other applications from cities and
human service providers. This applies to projects such as minor home repair, nutrition
education and any capital project that is internal to the City. Utility connection assistance will
still be available through the King County Housing Repair program.
Cities and agencies will submit their projects to the County. They will then be reviewed by sub -
regional city representatives who will meet to recommend how to allocate funds in the sub-
region. Those recommendations will go to the Joint Recommendations Committee, composed of
representatives from suburban cities, King County, City of Seattle (for Home and RHAP funds
only) and cities considered Joint Agreement cities. Finally, JRC recommendations will go to the
King County Executive and the County Council.
Dave asked about the process and Evie said that some of it is still being worked out. It is
anticipated that everyone may not get their capital requests funded immediately, but in
subsequent years will be in a better position if they apply. The Committee accepted Evie's
recommendation for the s - . .. cess. Recommend interlocal a • reement to COW.
3. i m Foster Request Torn- • ster is a developer who owns 14 single - family lots on 5
yan Hill. He said his options are to build fourteen 20 -foot wide homes, but he hoped to be able
to use the alternative housing that had been discussed previously in Committee. He has built
several large homes recently, and there is a ready market for those homes. He would like to
consolidate lots to be able to do something similar on his consolidated lots. The Committee
talked about the need for cottage housing in Tukwila for empty nesters and those moving into a
smaller home. In the end the Committee agreed they would proceed when DCD comes back to
the Committee with more information on alternative housing. Information.
• •
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
Present: Joe Duffle, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Steve Lancaster, Rhonda Berry, Evie Boykan, Derek Speck, Nora Gierloff, Lucy
Lauterbach; Eda and Dario Mastandreas, Jim Hankin -Extra Car; Steve
Detweiler, Matt Martel
1. Zoning Code Amendment The Mastandreas family has allowed their property to be used by
Extra Car to park cars of people who leave their car for longer periods. The property is zoned
Regional Commercial (RC), which does not allow airport parking unless it is in a structure with
ground floor retail, or if it's 175 feet behind a building. When the couple came to the City in
April, the Committee had directed DCD write a letter detailing the options the couple could take
to become legal. The letter was written, and a date of June 15 was set as the date by which the
issue must be resolved before code enforcement takes steps to close the lot. Mr. Mastandreas
then wrote the City asking the Council to amend the RC zoning designation to allow him to use
his property for Commercial Parking. Another option would be to apply for a zoning change to a
zone such as Light Industrial that would allow the parking lot.
Dario Matandreas said they have lived in the area for a long time, and the property was zoned
Business and Commercial. Steve noted it changed to RC in 1995. Mr. Hankin, Extra Car's
attorney, suggested that a conditional use or variance be allowed, as the parking does not affect
anyone negatively. Another suggestion was to enlarge the park and ride definition to include
airport parking, and designate it a park and ride lot.
Dennis said the City had spent considerable effort and expense to upgrade Tukwila International
Boulevard in an effort to improve the highway. He said he did not support changing the zoning
code, and would prefer the "take no action" option, which would end their appeal. Joan said it
would be hard to justify Light Industrial zoning in this location. She appreciated the fact that the
Mastandreas property was well cared for, but agreed that the Council could not allow airport
parking in the RC zone without the current restrictions. She wanted the couple to know what
other options they had. Steve L said there is a large range of businesses allowed in RC, but the
couple said they didn't want to build a building for a business. Joe said rules are made to be
followed, and the Mastandreas property has rules also that must be followed. In the end, Joe and
Joan favored the option of sending the issue to the COW without a committee recommendation.
No committee recommendation; send to COW.
2. Single Family Neighborhood Housing Options The Committee had agreed to look at
different concepts for housing in low density areas of the City. There are currently no options
other than a standard house. Cottage -type housing, compact (i.e. small) houses, and duplexes or
triplexes are all options not currently allowed in Tukwila. Staff proposed a demonstration project
with criteria that would allow the city to observe how one of these developments could work.
Dennis expressed concern that manufactured houses could make up a cottage housing
development. Though the design standards might not disallow that, staff thought it not feasible.
• •
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
Page 2
The land costs are high enough that the developer wants to get a good return on investment,
which he /she cannot do with trailers. Dennis also raised the issue of neighborhoods being very
wary of changes in density, types of housing, and rental housing.
Joan initially thought allowing up to 36 cottage homes in a development was too many, but after
hearing that developers sometimes require 36 homes to make a development profitable enough to
build, she changed her mind and thought 36 homes could be allowed. The size and location of a
development would be important. Dennis worried about a large development going into a
neighborhood when it would be surrounded by traditional housing.
The current site for a very draft proposal for non - traditional housing is below the hospital and
adjacent to the cemetery on one side and the large back yard of the veterinary office on Military.
Matt said the design review process would help ensure the buildings in a demonstration site were
attractive. Dennis' comments concerning changing the character of a neighborhood could be
calmed by a demonstration that showed different methods of housing in an area like the proposed
demonstration site. To do a project like this would take a large amount of land, and those large
parcels are generally not in the middle of densely populated areas.
Joan said she supported cottage housing that was not cookie cutter in appearance, but had
modulation and pitched roofs instead. Steve mentioned that often this new type of housing is not
cheap, and may not be as easily rented as something less expensive. The Committee members
had some comments about the draft demonstration housing outline. Joe said he would like
pictures of how some of these areas could look. Refer issue to COW.
3. Proposed Code Amendments The set of zoning code amendments that addressed changes
required by state law regarding manufactured housing as well as some other changes was sent
from the Committee to the Planning Commission. The Commission held a hearing and endorsed
the Committee's recommendation on all the items except the manufactured housing section. The
Commission did not want to require all new single- family houses to have an attached garage,
have a front door that faced the street, or have a minimum roof pitch of 5:12. The Committee
agreed to reinstate their original design standards for a 5:12 pitched roof, a front door that faces
the front yard, and they wanted to allow detached garages for alley- accessed lots. The issue of
requiring attached garages on manufactured homes can still be kept if detached garages can be
dealt with separately. Dennis asked that the Planning Commission minutes be included in the
Council packet. Recommend code amendments to COW.
4. Comp Plan Amendment Update Two proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were
submitted for 2005. The first in the Tukwila Public Works Transportation Element of the comp
plan. The other was a request from a resident on Orillia Road who wanted a zoning designation
though he is outside the Potential Annexation Area. Steve has asked that person to wait until
annexation for his request, which the applicant has agreed to. The Transportation Plan is
scheduled for the end of this year. Information.
• •
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
Page 3
5. Update on Tukwila Urban Center Sub Area Plan and Activities Freedman Tung &
Bottomley (FTB) has been doing a study and plan for the TOD and TUC. A draft plan went to
staff and some changes were recommended. When the plan is finished it will come for a joint
review by the Council and Planning Commission. Dennis asked that the Council review the plan
in detail before it goes to the Planning Commission. In July the prestigious Urban Land Institute
wants to review the plan not with staff input, but rather by themselves. They will investigate
whether or not the plan will help Tukwila achieve the community's vision. Plans now are to
adopt the plan by the end of the year if possible. A new moratorium will be needed by July.
Steve pointed out the moratorium does not limit very many businesses very much. Information.
6. Treasure of Tukwila and Tukwila Day Gift The committee had no new suggestions for the
Treasure of Tukwila, and left the decision to the mayor's office. Joan said of proposed handouts
at Tukwila Days, she preferred note pads, so that will be the order. Information.
Committee chair approval
Minutes by L. Lauterbach
ern
•
Gity ojTakwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: 05/19/2005
To: Interested Parties
From: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner
Subject: Single Family Demonstration Program
Q \HOME\MOIRA\rncb \HOUSING \05transmittalmemo524.doc 1
Enclosed is a copy of the Tukwila City Council's Community Affairs and Parks
Committee Agenda along with a staff memo and attachments. There are three
committee members who will discuss this issue informally in Conference Room 3 at
City Hall, which is located at 6200 Southcenter BL. You are welcome to attend and
listen to the discussion. The Council may ask for your input and interest in the
subject.
There will be formal opportunities for you input when this issue moves forward during
comment periods and at the public hearings that the Planning Commission and City
Council will hold.
If you have further questions, please call me at 206 -431 -3651 or via email at
mbradshaw@ci.tukwila.wa.us.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone= 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
[ Moira Bradshaw Re: Fwd: Proposed Vila Cottage Housing Ordinance
From: Moira Bradshaw
To: Bob Munn
Date: 4/27/05 12:49PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Proposed Tukwila Cottage Housing Ordinance
Mr. Munn, I will forward a copy of the agenda and accompanying information to you when it is scheduled.
Thank you for your interest.
Moira Bradshaw, AICP
Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
(206) 431 -3651
(206) 431 -3665 FAX
»> Bob Munn <rwmunn @yahoo.com> 04/27/05 11:50AM »>
Note: forwarded message attached.
Bob Munn
206 - 999 -4484
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http: / /mail.vahoo.com
Page 1 I
Moira Bradshaw - Proposed Tukwila C e Housing Ordinance
From: Bob Munn <rwmunn @yahoo.com>
To: <mbradshaw @citukwila.wa.us>
Date: 4/27/05 11:48AM
Subject: Proposed Tukwila Cottage Housing Ordinance
Ms. Bradshaw,
It is my understanding that you are the Tukwila
planner coordinating the proposed Cottage Housing
ordinance. I would like to request a draft copy of
the ordinance when it comes out of committee.
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Bob Munn
200 112th NE Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004
Bob Munn
206 - 999 -4484
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http: / /mail.yahoo.com
} Community Affairs and Parks Committee
March 15, 2005
• •
Present: Joe Duffie, Chair, Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Rhonda Berry, Peter Beckwith, Jack Pace, Steve Lancaster, Kathy Stetson, Nora
Gierloff, Moira Bradshaw, Derek Speck, Lucy Lauterbach
1. Update on Code Enforcement Kathy gave a report on code enforcement issues for the past
year. The highest numbers of complaints were received in the following categories: building,
trash and vehicles. Kathy explained that Building Department violations have been incorporated
in to the tracking system used for zoning and nuisance code violations, making follow up easier.
She_showed before and after pictures of several major code violation cases which culminated in
property being cleaned up and illegal uses and derelict buildings removed. Forty -eight cases
from 1999 -2003 were also closed and three hundred and twenty new cases were opened and
investigated in 2004. Kathy concluded by referring to the new International Property
Maintenance Code, regulations for vehicle parking and storage, and tax lien ordinances as
valuable tools for Code Enforcement to use. Information.
2. Hearing Examiner Services The city currently contract with the City of Renton for Hearing
Examiner Services. The City of Seattle has submitted a proposal to provide those services for us,
and it appears that proposal holds several advantages for Tukwila. The Seattle examiner costs
$70/hour compared to the Renton examiner cost of $100/hour. Seattle is also willing to work
evenings and weekends, which Renton would not do. Seattle will also hold hearings in Tukwila,
another advantage over current practice. The committee members supported the change.
Recommend interlocal agreement to COW.
3. Using Code Enforcement to Improve Housing Stock As a follow on to materials provided
for the City Council retreat, DCD staff proposed options for improving the housing stock in
Tukwila. The first decision the Council will make is whether to be pro- active or re- active in code
enforcement. If the city is pro- active another decision will be which issues are most important to
focus on, and whether the focus should be on one or two issues, or instead on cleaning up one
geographic area for several issues.
The City of Sea Tac has been pro - active in addressing some basic code violations. On other
issues they are reactive. Tukwila is now reactive on all code violations, with properties being
investigated only after a complaint is received. Kathy said that approach has resulted in
addressing an issue at one house, while houses on both sides of that house may have the same
violation, but not be the source of a complaint.
The committee supported a more pro- active approach, though Joan hoped to use data from the
housing study to substantiate where there are problems with the housing stock. Dennis said he
would focus on trash and vehicles for both residential areas and multi - family units. He would
like to focus on cleaning up deteriorated and poorly maintained apartments. The committee
talked about joining forces with the police effort to clean up the area around S. 144` /Tukwila
International Boulevard (TIB).
/3
4imciout-h "4
•
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
March 15, 2005
A second decision is whether the city should require a business license for multi - family and
accessory dwelling units. Dennis thought there was not a council consensus on this issue, though
he and Joe supported it and Joan would like more information on it. Kathy reported being
allowed in one apartment unit with obvious health and safety violations. Mandatory inspections
of apartment units is also an option that could come with licensing, though the legality of that is
unclear. Refer issue to COW.
4. Proposed code amendments The committee considered ten draft code amendments. Staff
had - listed options, and included recommendations on each amendment. Because cities are
required by State law to accept manufactured homes beginning July 1 this year, City standards
need to be established.. Nora said manufactured homes come in a range of quality, from very
basic trailer types to homes hard to distinguish from stick -built homes. Staff had written changes
to the single family dwelling code that manufactured homes would need to follow, and the
recommendations would lead to a higher quality manufactured home. The committee largely
followed the staff recommendations. Committee members had some questions about appropriate
requirements for condo conversions and which requirements might be appropriate, and on
whether a dog kennel was appropriate in the urban center. Refer issues to Planning
Commission.
5. Single Family Neighborhood Housing:Options Moira said most developments-for single
family homes put in a standard home with a garage in front. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages a range of housing types. Some options include cottage housing, where small homes
are clustered around a common green, with parking in the back or on the sides, and porches
facing one another. There is an opportunity for this type of housing in a demonstration project in
the city, though an ordinance would need to be passed to allow that. The committee supported
cottage housing on a demonstration project basis. Return to Committee with specific
recommendations for allowing demonstration projects.
6. Aerial survey DCD has budgeted an aerial survey of the entire city and is eager to proceed
with that survey before the trees leaf out any more than they already have. The photos will be
used to update the city GIS (geographic information system). Funding comes from both the DCD
and Public Works budgets. Recommend contract for aerial photography to Regular Meeting.
Committee chair approval
Minutes by L. Lauterbach
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
•
Czy of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Steve Lancaster, Director
10 March 2005
Single Family Neighborhood Housing Options
•
Background:
Housing demand, housing developers, the Tukwila Zoning Code and the available land in
the City are resulting in a similar housing product — the detached single family home on a
6,500 square foot (or smaller) lot. According to the following policy, there is an interest
in seeing other single family housing types. How should the City attempt different
development patterns within residential neighborhoods?
Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2.7: "Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for
all population segments by actions including but not limited to revising the Tukwila
development codes as appropriate to provide u range of housing types."
Concept:
Prepare aii ordinance that would allow on a demonstration basis some flexibility for other
types olhousing in residential districts - such as cottage small sin�.;lc family homes and
or triplexes or duplexes that look like a single family home.
How would potential projects be judged?
Criteria for evaluating proposals would be established and adopted within the authorizing
ordinance. The criteria would allow judgement of the overall quality of the pro cct and
also the impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood.
How would the surrounding community be notified?
Review and approval of a project could be either a public hearing before the Board of
Architectural Review (Type 4) or the City Council (Type 5 which both require public
notification and hearing.
What would be the incentive for a property owner to do this type of project as
opposed to the typical single family house /plat?
There would be a tradeoff between the maximum size allowed for each product type
(cottages and small houses would have a maximum square footage) and a higher number
of units. Therefore there could be more units available for sale.
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
3/
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
0 i
Demonstration Projects
January 13, 2005
Problem: The City receives inquiries about building "cottage housing" and other types of
housing that are not allowed due to the City's Zoning Code and the lack of available land.
Existing Conditions: The dominant type of housing available in Tukwila is a detached
single family home in a typical neighborhood setting or larger apartment complexes of 40 or
more units.
Discussion: The housing construction market will innovate when there is a demand for a
different type of product. Demand for different types of housing is reflective of demographics
and the resultant change in households.
Should Tukwila consider other types of home ownership opportunities, such as cottage
housing, that allow more units per acre within single family neighborhoods?
The land available in Tukwila is primarily infill and redevelopment. Are three and four single
family homes on a private easement with a hammerhead turnaround model the preferred type
of residential neighborhood?
Advantages: Opportunity to broaden the type of housing available in the City. Potentially
improve the development model for single family homes in City neighborhoods.
Disadvantages: City staff and legislative time to analyze and address incoming
developments. Uncertain outcome.
Post -it Fax Nate 7871
Dam
((
10 /vr� Z-
To M
p
From
G(Z r
0r�/_
Co/Dept.
coo,
1
r 1
Phone 4104, (o ,a.i4 4 - DI Zz
Phone c5
�exe
4-1 Al -16'7,0
° (7, tz.l - II-13a
,, NOV 10 '04 03 :42PM TUKWI DCD'PW
a -,nn e....,....
November 2, 2004
Michael Chen
Core Design, Inc.
14711 NE 29 Place Suite #101
Bellevue, WA 98007
RE: I-1DR Code Interpretation
Dear Mr. Chen:
..- D....Iw.. - -4
City of Tukwila
The issues raised by your request are:
Permitted Uses in HDR
5. Dwelling - One detached single - family dwelling per lot,
6. Dwelling - multi - family,
QALETTERS\SF1 nHDR. DOC
•
•
Department of Community Development
I received your letter asking about the possibility of building single family houses in an area
zoned HDR at 51' Avenue South and S. 111 Street (Pottery Works). Your proposal is to
consolidate 14 parcels and develop 7 detached condominium units. Although this would be a
lower density than allowed in the zone, it could not be accomplished with separate lots because
they would not meet the minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet.
Can more than one single - family house be built per lot in HDR if they are sold as
condominiums? Not without a code change (or PRD).
There is no provision for multiple single - family dwellings on a Single lot.'
When the only sensitive area on a site is a slope over 20% is it eligible for a Planned
Residential Development? No.
TMC 18.46.020
Planned residential development (PRD) may be permitted in the LDR, MDR and HDR
residential districts when there are wetlands, watercourses, and associated buffers on the lot.
P. 1
Would single -family houses in HDR be subject to design review? No. The HDR chapter
requires design review only for multi - family structures and not for the other types of buildings
that are allowed (veterinary clinics, nursing homes, day care centers. libraries, shelters).
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
. T „4•w11e Wach/notnn QR1RR • Phana0. 20A -431 -2670 • Fax: 206- J31.366S
, NOV 10 '04 03 :43PM TUKWI 1 DCD/PW
■
It appears that your options are to:
- Build one single - family house on each existing legal lot. This would only require a SEPA
determination and building permits.
- Consolidate the 14 lots into 5 9,600 sf lots and build S single - family houses, each on its own
lot. This would require a SEPA determination, lot consolidations and building permits.
- Build up to 24 condominium units in duplex or larger buildings. This would require a SEPA
determination, lot consolidation, design review and building permits.
Sincerely,
Ja ' Pace
DCD Deputy Director
QALETTERMSFinHDILDOC
•
r.c
Jack Pace - Land planning meeting Page 1
From: "Steve Detwiller" <stevedetwiller @hotmail.com>
To: <jpace @ci.tukwila.wa.us>
Date: 10/28/04 6:28PM
Subject: Land planning meeting
Dear Jack,
Thank You for your time and input on our Macadam Rd project. I have given
your cottage style development some thought and I might say I share your
excitement. I don't know from a timing prospective if it would work on our
Macadam site. I would like to have you look at two other sites we have and
let me know your thoughts.
The sites are as follows; 13330 32nd Ave S ( @1 Acre with existing house)
the 2nd site located at East Marginal Way and S 116th Street(south of 116th
and the east side of E. Marginal Way. I think this site is well
suited - please let me know your thoughts.
Thank You again for your interest in our efforts.
Sincerely,
Steve Detwiller- President
Rehabitat Northwest, Inc.
206 - 255 -3474
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - its FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Cizy of Tukwila
Committee of the Whole
From: Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: June 22, 2004
Subject: Housing Options Program
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Background:
The market for single family homes in Tukwila is strong. In fact, less than ideal sites are
being developed and less than perfect designs are being sold. See Attachment 1. Some of
these homes are being developed because the public has paid for the design and
installation of needed sewer and water infrastructure.
As the staff review plans and the community reviews the new development, thoughts on
how to improve the overall quality of development have been raised. One way to
proceed with alternative residential development would be through a "Housing Options
Program"
At their 15 March and 26 May 2005 meetings, the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee reviewed a concept and outline for a Housing Options Program. The program
would allow a limited number of projects in appropriate locations that would contain
atypical' types of new housing in residential districts, subject to design review and any
necessary platting, on a demonstration basis.
The following steps would be followed and are outlined in Attachment D:
1. Application would be made to the Department of Community Development - Only
one application for each of the five residential neighborhoods would be allowed
2. A neighboring property owner meeting, appropriately advertised, would be held
3. The DCD directed would decide if the proposed project met the criteria for
acceptability into the "program."
4. The applicant would be notified that they have a specific period to apply for a Type 5
application - subdivision and design review.
5. The City Council would hold a hearing and approve, deny or condition the
application.
'Housing being built within the last four years averaged approximately 2, 900 square feet in floor area.
Housing on substandard (small lots) has also been criticized as being unattractive and harming the
Comprehensive Plan goals of neighborhood livability and quality.
Page 1 of 4 Attachment A
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 =431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Cottage
examples
from the
Cottage
Company
• •
6. The applicant would have a specified time frame to complete any required public
improvements and submit the final plat application.
7. An evaluation would follow any development to determine if changes should be
considered in City standards.
What types of housing could be considered?
There are a number of different types of housing being built around the region that may
be considered compatible within the City's existing residential neighborhoods.
Cottage and co- housing developments cluster small homes around a common area, with
parking off to the side and usually with a common building space to share for parties or
communal gatherings.
Page 2 of 4
Small houses /small lot development from Orenco Station located in Portland area
Attachment A
Narrow Lot Houses in Madison Park
Why would a property owner be interested in pursuing a development other than
the single family house /plat?
There are several types of situations that exist. There are developers who only do the
nontraditional type of product that is currently not allowed in the City and there are
developers who own property where the existing codes make single family house
construction difficult or problematic from a design perspective. For example, where
existing plats have 25 foot wide lots or where HDR property requires minimum 9.600
square foot lots for a single family home.
What type off flexibility should there be on the potential projects?
There were 254 new detached single family homes built in Tukwila over the last four
years and the average size was 2,864 square feet. Below are typical sizes for the products
described:
• Cottages = 1,200 square foot maximum gross floor area
• Compact Single - Family = 1,500 square foot maximum gross floor area
• Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500 square foot maximum gross floor area per unit
A covenant restricting any increases in unit size after initial construction could be recorded
against the property.
Attachment 1 illustrates the typical development that could occur on existing narrow lots.
Flexibility in setbacks as well as the authority to review the siting of the homes and the
architectural details may encourage a more pleasing public streetscape.
Page 3 of 4 Attachment A
If the homes are limited in total size, how many homes could be built in a project?
Given the typical house size being built in Tukwila, the following equivalencies seem
reasonable.
• Cottages = 2 per each single- family unit that could be built on the property
• Compact SF = 1.5 per each single- family unit that could be built on the property
• Duplexes and Triplexes = overall development not to exceed 1.5 times the number of
single - family units that could be built on the property
• Rounding up to the next whole number of equivalent units is allowed when the
conversion from typical single - family units to equivalent units results in a fraction of 0.5
or above
Summary
To implement the recommendation, the Council would adopt an ordinance to establish
the program. Below are some of the key questions regarding the potential program:
• Should project size be limited?
• Is the parking requirement adequate?
• How will decisions be made /what process would be followed?
• When and how will the neighbors know about applications?
• How will the applications be judged, i.e. What criteria will be used?
Options
• •
1. No Action
This option makes no changes and allows no alternatives.
2. Forward Attachment D to the Planning Commission for hearing and recommendation
following City Council discussion and any modification. There are many
components to the program - Attachment D - that the Council may wish to review and
modify.
3. Identify single family development issues that should be reviewed and regulated;
such as narrow lot development, or house orientation on small lot short plats.
Recommendation
Option 2. Forward the Program Outline - Attachment D- with any modifications to the
Planning Commission for a hearing.
Attachment 1 Existing lot layout and development
Q:\mcb\HOUSING\05demosmemo524.doc
Page 4 of 4 Attachment A
•
•
fr
.
,fo
3 CY
. 350 0 7 1 -/
A teleCR arcl
,g9
3SPOH
At/rn_RAI3CL
10Q/
• •
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
March 15, 2005
A second decision is whether the city should require a business license for multi - family and
accessory dwelling units. Dennis thought there was not a council consensus on this issue, though
he and Joe supported it and Joan would like more information on it. Kathy reported being
allowed in one apartment unit with obvious health and safety violations. Mandatory inspections
of apartment units is also an option that could come with licensing, though the legality of that is
unclear. Refer issue to COW.
4. Proposed code amendments The committee considered ten draft code amendments. Staff
had listed options, and included recommendations on each amendment. Because cities are ___
required by State law to accept manufactured homes beginning July 1 this year, City standards
need to be established.. Nora said manufactured homes come in a range of quality, from very
basic trailer types to homes hard to distinguish from stick -built homes. Staff had written changes
to the single family dwelling code that manufactured homes would need to follow, and the
recommendations would lead to a higher quality manufactured home. The committee largely
followed the staff recommendations. Committee members had some questions about appropriate
requirements for condo conversions and which requirements might be appropriate, and on
whether a dog kennel was appropriate in the urban center. Refer issues to Planning
Commission.
5. Single Family Neighborhood Housing'Options Moira said most developments. for single
family homes put in a standard home with a garage in front. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages a range of housing types. Some options include cottage housing, where small homes
are clustered around a common green, with parking in the back or on the sides, and porches
facing one another. There is an opportunity for this type of housing in a demonstration project in
the city, though an ordinance would need to be passed to allow that. The committee supported
cottage housing on a demonstration project basis. Return to Committee with specific
recommendations for allowing demonstration projects.
6. Aerial survey DCD has budgeted an aerial survey of the entire city and is eager to proceed
with that survey before the trees leaf out any more than they already have. The photos will be
used to update the city GIS (geographic information system). Funding comes from both the DCD
and Public Works budgets. Recommend contract for aerial photography to Regular Meeting.
Committee chair approval
Minutes by L. Lauterbach
anael/Nan-a
•
iltiteit&
V 619 /
•
• •
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
Present: Joe Duffle, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
Steve Lancaster, Rhonda Berry, Evie Boykan, Derek Speck, Nora Gierloff, Lucy
Lauterbach; Eda and Dario Mastandreas, Jim Hankin -Extra Car; Steve
Detweiler, Matt Martel
1. Zoning Code Amendment The Mastandreas family has allowed their property to be used by
Extra Car to park cars of people who leave their car for longer periods. The property is zoned
Regional Commercial (RC), which does not allow airport parking unless it is in a structure with
ground floor retail, or if it's 175 feet behind a building. When the couple came to the City in
April, the Committee had directed DCD write a letter detailing the options the couple could take
to become legal. The letter was written, and a date of June 15 was set as the date by which the
issue must be resolved before code enforcement takes steps to close the lot. Mr. Mastandreas
then wrote the City asking the Council to amend the RC zoning designation to allow him to use
his property for Commercial Parking. Another option would be to apply for a zoning change to a
zone such as Light Industrial that would allow the parking lot.
Dario Matandreas said they have lived in the area for a long time, and the property was zoned
Business and Commercial. Steve noted it changed to RC in 1995. Mr. Hankin, Extra Car's
attorney, suggested that a conditional use or variance be allowed, as the parking does not affect
anyone negatively. Another suggestion was to enlarge the park and ride definition to include
airport parking, and designate it a park and ride lot.
Dennis said the City had spent considerable effort and expense to upgrade Tukwila International
Boulevard in an effort to improve the highway. He said he did not support changing the zoning
code, and would prefer the "take no action" option, which would end their appeal. Joan said it
would be hard to justify Light Industrial zoning in this location. She appreciated the fact that the
Mastandreas property was well cared for, but agreed that the Council could not allow airport
parking in the RC zone without the current restrictions. She wanted the couple to know what
other options they had. Steve L said there is a large range of businesses allowed in RC, but the
couple said they didn't want to build a building for a business. Joe said rules are made to be
followed, and the Mastandreas property has rules also that must be followed. In the end, Joe and
Joan favored the option of sending the issue to the COW without a committee recommendation.
No committee recommendation; send to COW.
2. Single Family Neighborhood Housing Options The Committee had agreed to look at
different concepts for housing in low density areas of the City. There are currently no options
other than a standard house. Cottage -type housing, compact (i.e. small) houses, and duplexes or
triplexes are all options not currently allowed in Tukwila. Staff proposed a demonstration project
with criteria that would allow the city to observe how one of these developments could work.
Dennis expressed concern that manufactured houses could make up a cottage housing
development. Though the design standards might not disallow that, staff thought it not feasible.
h(rr/ 4?-.0 Arilattitair
• •
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
Page 2
The land costs are high enough that the developer wants to get a good return on investment,
which he /she cannot do with trailers. Dennis also raised the issue of neighborhoods being very
wary of changes in density, types of housing, and rental housing.
Joan initially thought allowing up to 36 cottage homes in a development was too many, but after
hearing that developers sometimes require 36 homes to make a development profitable enough to
build, she changed her mind and thought 36 homes could be allowed. The size and location of a
development would be important. Dennis worried about a large development going into a
neighborhood when it would be surrounded by traditional housing.
The current site for a very draft proposal for non - traditional housing is below the hospital and
adjacent to the cemetery on one side and the large back yard of the veterinary office on Military.
Matt said the design review process would help ensure the buildings in a demonstration site were
attractive. Dennis' comments concerning changing the character of a neighborhood could be
calmed by a demonstration that showed different methods of housing in an area like the proposed
demonstration site. To do a project like this would take a large amount of land, and those large
parcels are generally not in the middle of densely populated areas.
Joan said she supported cottage housing that was not cookie cutter in appearance, but had
modulation and pitched roofs instead. Steve mentioned that often this new type of housing is.not
cheap, and may not be as easily rented as something less expensive. The Committee members
had some comments about the draft demonstration housing outline. Joe said he would like
pictures of how some of these areas could look. Refer issue to COW.
3. Proposed Code Amendments The set of zoning code amendments that addressed changes
required by state law regarding manufactured housing as well as some other changes was sent
from the Committee to the Planning Commission. The Commission held a hearing and endorsed
the Committee's recommendation on all the items except the manufactured housing section. The
Commission did not want to require all new single- family houses to have an attached garage,
have a front door that faced the street, or have a minimum roof pitch of 5:12. The Committee
agreed to reinstate their original design standards for a 5:12 pitched roof, a front door that faces
the front yard, and they wanted to allow detached garages for alley- accessed lots. The issue of
requiring attached garages on manufactured homes can still be kept if detached garages can be
dealt with separately. Dennis asked that the Planning Commission minutes be included in the
Council packet. Recommend code amendments to COW.
4. Comp Plan Amendment Update Two proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were
submitted for 2005. The first in the Tukwila Public Works Transportation Element of the comp
plan. The other was a request from a resident on Orillia Road who wanted a zoning designation
though he is outside the Potential Annexation Area. Steve has asked that person to wait until
annexation for his request, which the applicant has agreed to. The Transportation Plan is
scheduled for the end of this year. Information.
Ayt 07t-02- /4777POOtir G
Present: Joe Duffle, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dennis Robertson
teve Lancaster, Rhonda Berry, Evie Boykan, Derek Speck, Nora Gierloff, Lucy
L. uterbach; Eda and Dario Mastandreas, Jim Rankin -Extra Car; Steve
De . eiler, Matt Martel `
1. Zonin Code Amend ent The Mastandreas family has allowed their props y to be used by
Extra Car to park cars of pen • 1 e who leave their car for longer periods. The property is zoned
Regional Commercial (RC), ich does not allow airport parking unless it i in a structure with
ground floor retail, or if it's 17 eet behind a building. When the couple ge to the City in
April, the Committee had directe . DCD write a letter detailing the optio& the couple could take
to become legal. The letter was wri . en, and a date of June 15 was set is the date by which the
issue must be resolved before code enforcement takes steps to close / he lot. Mr. Mastandreas
then wrote the City asking the Council to amend the RC zoning designation to allow him to use
his property for Commercial Parking. Ariother option would beto apply for a zoning change to a
zone such as Light Industrial that would allow the parking
Dario Matandreas said they have lived in the area for a to g time, and the property was zoned
Business and Commercial. Steve noted it changed to R, in 1995. Mr. Hankin, Extra Car's
attorney, suggested that a conditional use or variance a allowed, as the parking does not affect
anyone negatively. Another suggestion was to en1ar a the park and ride definition to include
airport parking, and designate it a park and ride to
Dennis said the City had spent considerable fort and expense to upgrade Tukwila International
Boulevard in an effort to improve the highyay. He said he did not support changing the zoning
code, and would prefer the "take no actin" option, which would end their appeal. Joan said it
would be hard to justify Light Industri Yzoning in this location. She appreciated the fact that the
Mastandreas property was well care or, but agreed that the Council could not allow airport
parking in the RC zone without the urrent restrictions. She wanted the couple to know what
other options they had. Steve L s d there is a large range of businesses allowed in RC, but the
couple said they didn't want to uild a building for a business. Joe said rules are made to be
followed, and the Mastandre property has rules also that must be followed. In the end, Joe and
Joan favored the option of ‘nding the issue to the COW without a committee recommendation.
No committee recomme send to COW.
•
• "I .
Community and Parks Committee
May 24, 2005
2. Sin _ le Famil Nei • hborbood Housin • 0 • tions The Committee had agreed to look at
different concept for housing in low density areas of the City. There are currently no options
other than a st dard house. Cottage -type housing, compact (i.e. small) houses, a'd duplexes or
triplexes are • '1 options not currently allowed in Tukwila. Staff proposed a demons ration project
with criteri • that would allow the city to observe how one of these developments cold work.
Dennis -xpressed concern that manufactured houses could make up a cottage housing '
devel► .ment. Though the design standards might not disallow that, staff thought it not asible.
1. Findings
a. The purpose of this zoning ordinance would be to establish a
demonstration housing program that would allow development of
selected projects that explore housing choices not currently available
in Tukwila's single family neighborhoods.
b. The goals of innovative housing would be to:
i. Increase choice of housing styles available in the community
through projects that are compatible with existing single - family
developments;
ii. Promote housing affordability and ownership by
encouraging smaller homes;
iii. To stimulate innovative housing design that improves the
character and sense of community in a neighborhood and can serve as
a model for other areas; and
iv. Provide a greater variety of housing types which respond to
changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small families, single
person households) and that let seniors age in place in their
neighborhoods
c. The City will evaluate the results of the projects and modify the
zoning code to specifically address successful innovations in housing
development.
2. Decision Criteria
The relevant decision makers shall evaluate an application and decide if
the project:
a. Meets the goals of this ordinance
Why consider a
demonstration program?
How would the success
of the program be
measured?
What will occur after
the program?
How will demonstration
projects be evaluated?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 1 of 8
Attachment D
b. complies with the Multi- family, Hotel and Motel Design Review
Criteria, stated in the Board of Architectural Review Chapter, Design
Review Criteria Section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (18.60.050(C)
TMC), and
c. whether it can be demonstrated that:
i. The proposal is not larger in scale and is compatible
with surrounding development with respect to size of units, building
heights, roof forms, building setbacks from each other and property
lines, parking location and screening, access, and lot coverage.
ii. The proposal provides elements that contribute to a
sense of community within the development and the surrounding
neighborhood by including elements such as front entry porches,
common open space and /or common building(s); and
iii. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 modifications to
requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Code, Permit Application Types
and Procedures, (18.104 TMC) other than those specifically identified
in the Standards section below, are important to the success of the
proposal as an innovative housing project.
3. Standards
In order to meet the goals of the innovative housing program, there
will be flexibility with regard to some normally applicable
requirements. Standards identified in the following sections will apply
to innovative housing demonstration projects and will prevail if they
conflict with normal regulations. All other requirements of the City of
Tukwila will continue to apply, except that applicants may propose
additional modifications to the Tukwila Zoning Code, as provided for
within the Code.
a. The Basic Development Standards and Maximum Building Footprint
sections of the Low Density Residential District (18.10.060 and
18.06.057 TMC) and of the Medium Density Residential District
(18.12.070 TMC) and of the High Density Residential District Chapters
(18.14.070 TMC) and the requirements of Minimum Number of
Required Parking Spaces (Figure 18 -7 TMC) shall be replaced by the
standards identified in the following sections of this ordinance. Existing
homes within a redevelopment must continue to conform to the
existing code standards unless it can be demonstrated that the existing
home meets the description of a demonstration house type.
b. The density limitations identified in the Land Use Map of the
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shall be determined to have been met as
long as the proposed project does not exceed the equivalent unit
calculation identified in the Standards section below.
•
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 2 of 8
•
Attachment D
c. The appropriate application fee, whether for design review and plat,
shall be the fee(s) charged for innovative residential applications and
shall be due upon application.
The following table sets forth parameters applicable to innovative
housing project applications.
Standards Table
Housing Types
Cottages
Compact Single - Family
Duplexes or Triplexes designed to look
like Single - Family as part of a
development that includes at least one
other housing type (the other housing
type may be traditional single - family)
A combination of the above types
Unit Size Limits
A covenant restricting any
increases in unit size after initial
construction would be recorded
against the property
Cottages = 1,000 square foot maximum
floor area
Compact Single - Family = 1,500 square
foot maximum gross floor area
Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500 square
foot maximum gross floor area per unit
Side yard setbacks are waived so that
these homes may be sold on fee simple
lots.
Equivalent Units
The number of allowable
dwelling units shall be totaled
for each of the existing lots in
order to determine equivalent
units.
Cottages = 2 per each single - family unit
that could be built on the lot
Compact SF = 1.5 per each single -
family unit that could be built on the lot
Duplexes and Triplexes = overall
development not to exceed 1.5 times
the number of single - family units that
could be built on the lot
Rounding up to the next whole number
of equivalent units is allowed when the
conversion from typical single - family
units to equivalent units results in a
fraction of 0.5 or above
Existing single - family homes may remain on the subject property and
will be counted as units in the equivalent unit calculation
What types of housing
would be considered?
What flexibilio would
be needed to encourage
program projects?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 3 of 8
Attachment D
Locations
All LDR, MDR & HDR districts, but
not within 1,500' of another innovative
housing proposal approved under this
Ordinance.
Access Requirements
Determine flexibility for road widths,
public vs. private, and turn- around
requirements with input from Public
Works and Fire Departments
Development Size
Minimum of 4 units, maximum of 36
units
Cottages may have a maximum of 12
units per cluster
Parking Requirements
1 stall per unit for units under 700
square feet in size
1.5 stalls per unit for units 700 to 1,000
square feet in size
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000
square feet in size
Ownership Structure
Subdivision
Condominium
Additional Standards Table
This table sets forth supplemental parameters to those above and are
applicable to any cottage proposed as an innovative housing project.
Distance Between
Structures
10' minimum
Common Open Space
• Provide required area according to
Recreation Space Requirements
(18.52.060 TMC) (1)
• Shall abut at least 50% of the
cottages in the development and
those units must be oriented to and
have their main entry from the
common open space
• Shall have cottages on at least two
sides
• Shall not be required to be indoor
Each cottage shall:
• be within 60 feet walking distance of
Where could
demonstration projects
be built?
How many houses could
be built within a
demonstration project?
Will the projects be for
sale or rental?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 4 of 8
Attachment D
•
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
•
Page 5 of 8
Attachment D
the common open space
Private Open Space
• Shall be oriented to the common
open space as much as is feasible
• Shall be in one contiguous and
useable piece with a minimum
dimension of 10' on all sides
• Shall be adjacent to each cottage
and be for the exclusive use of the
resident of that cottage
Attached Covered Porches
• 80 square feet minimum per unit
• Shall have a minimum dimension of
8' on all sides
Height
18' maximum for all structures except
25' maximum for cottages with a
minimum roof slope of 6:12 for all parts
of the roof above 18'
Floor Area Limitations
• A minimum of 40% and no more
than 50% of the cottages in a cluster
shall have a main floor of 800
square feet or less; or
• Variety in building sizes and
footprints is provided
Exceptions to Floor Area
Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6' or
less measured to the exterior walls,
such as in a second floor area under
the slope of the roof
• Unheated storage space located
under the main floor of a cottage
• Architectural projections, such as
bay windows, fireplaces or utility
closets not greater than 18" in depth
and 6' in width
• Detached garages and carports
• Attached roofed porches
Parking, surface, garages
or carports
• Shall be provided on the subject
property
• Shall be screened from public
streets and adjacent residential uses
by landscaping and or architectural
screening
• Shall be located in clusters of not
more than 6 adjoining spaces
• Shall not be located in the front
yard except on a corner lot where it
shall not be located between the
entrance to any cottage
• Shall not be located within 40 feet
•
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
•
Page 5 of 8
Attachment D
Should the City consider
allowing accessory units
above the detached
garages?
How would surrounding
properly owners know
about the demonstration
projects?
Should there be other
criteria to determine
whether the City should
consider an applicant's
proposal?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 6 of 8 Attachment D
of a public street except if the stalls
lie parallel to the street and the
driveway providing access to those
stalls has parking on only one side
• May be located between or adjacent
to structures if it is located toward
the rear of the structure and is
served by an alley or driveway
• All parking structures shall have a
pitched roof design with a
minimum slope of 4:12
Community Buildings -
when provided
• Shall be clearly incidental in use and
size to the cottages
• Shall be commonly owned by the
residents of the cottages
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of a
innovative development
4. Selection Process
a. The Director of DCD shall follow the selection criteria outlined
below in deciding which projects are eligible for project selection and
able to apply for design review and for platting.
b. A neighborhood meeting organized by the applicant and attended
by City staff shall be required of the applicant in order to evaluate the
project for program selection. The applicant must follow the
notification procedures outlined in Section 6 for the initial meeting
with the neighborhood.
c. The Director of Community Development shall be the sole decision
maker on whether an application for consideration in the
demonstration program satisfies the criteria. The criteria for project
selection for the Demonstration Program are as follows:
i. Consistency with the goals of the innovative housing as
enumerated in Findings section above.
Should the City consider
allowing accessory units
above the detached
garages?
How would surrounding
properly owners know
about the demonstration
projects?
Should there be other
criteria to determine
whether the City should
consider an applicant's
proposal?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 6 of 8 Attachment D
ii. Not more than one innovative housing project shall be
approved per City neighborhood — McMicken Heights; Tukwila Hill;
Ryan Hill; Allentown, Duwamish, Foster Point; Cascade; Riverton;
Thorndyke; (These last two being generally divided by S. 136 St. and
48 Av. S.) Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other
innovative housing project considered under this ordinance.
iii. Demonstration of successful development by the
applicant of the proposed product elsewhere.
iv. The location and size of the project relative to the
neighborhood, the surrounding land uses, topography and street
system.
d. The decision of the Director of Community Development shall be
the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may
not be administratively appealed.
5. Review and Approval Process
When an application is approved by the Director of DCD, the project
proponent shall apply for either:
a. a Type 4 decision, which is a Board of Architectural Review
Hearing and Decision for a condominium or a short plat project;
or
b. a Type 5 decision, a City Council hearing and decision for a plat
involving more than 9 lots
Both decisions are described in the Permit Application Types and
Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zoning Code (18.104 TMC.) The
BAR and City Council shall use the decision criteria listed in Section 2
of this ordinance to review and decide any projects allowed into the
demonstration program as well as use the relevant decision criteria for
design review and /or platting.
•
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
•
Page 7 of 8 Attachment D
6. Public Notice
a. Notice of the initial meeting with the neighborhood would be, at a
minimum, a letter from the applicant mailed first class to all
property owners within 500 feet. Attendance of a City staff
member at this initial meeting will be required. Scheduling and
notification shall be coordinated with the Department of
Community Development.
b. If the project is selected to apply for a Type 4 or Type 5 review,
then the publishing, mailing and posting shall follow the
procedures as if it were beginning a Type 4 or Type 5 application.
7. Demonstration Housing Evaluation
Upon completion and full occupancy of a project, DCD shall evaluate
and report to the Planning Commission and City Council.
If an application were
approved to move
forward, the
surrounding property
owners would have
additional opportunity
for review and input.
Q: \mcb\ HOUSING \LDRoptionstable.doc
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Page 8 of 8 Attachment D
' ? �C�i:.:{ d- ', zYn: t; �'":': I}• r<',y.t' ., r ",- ,a'�GV .,..,� ,..�',S
TO: s7E✓e ! t/luta
geilAstmrdamwexr
5639 /6 4Y 5uJ
SSE 98/6!
x f r u iR3f
V( k4 +47.r,il,i',;
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(208) 433 -1800
+� ?•, +4 t L D.. F .Y.! i #�I
. e1 r' l�,LX:.' � r� r �. -_ „ 1 G P1 y .
�w.:t.l �.�`.'��M� °, �}Y r iro'<n:;l r Y 1r � F '�l `t ;�'.�..,' A ,..�:'� �. •....,
rt. 'sJat.'
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
To: �,r,r I )oaV--- 5
/ /e/2
� ►M4' 98440 15021
t} .
M1i
?1}7
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
f. • ":Rs' ,V. v 1
Mr ..
Ir
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
4;lit
�2'
TO: N»i7
#00112.51 'I`
5117 ■•er At/ 5.
ea1t1 vtJ4 9.9i/g- /9d-9
ft
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
hr,rls i��7{
ro:
a
TO:
ro:
CITY OF, TUKWILA
6200 SOUTH BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188 -2599
(206) 433 -1800
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
PHONE
PROJECT /SUBJECT
.4.6:L/ 4/Sky ✓
/30/ f7eS7,&/ #30/
S'4 % 77, - Wet v/G'/
cmg . 5
1Ge„,ti Ff'c [1Tep—
2.
+S'81 c 40--4/1`.`' S
7 k'1..1'f WA C ) ik
Ao� 42r y
, 37iomits s r-
P(l dl `( fi r-
5c k, v Y / / ?S-
P`6 `-aYY -
��zZ
4 Act4
\ ■ /
s gi s v`;.(,-
SL , : L- 4
1 - 0 6 a6
'5, & O ( 414
98l /8
\
,, 6. , v n d :,,u2.._ Pit (T1 C4W\
1 , So /6 6-f G( 54-
•�_ f - t o, 1,,j,4- c (iI i 6
�c . �
lu 2-f 3 --G 9oG
7 7. '. -. 4 0p :,. yl ..
3(0l S. r7 s-}-
ca T,c.., 1-44 t
_}
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
BAR / PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 28, 2005
Persons wishing to speak, swear or affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that they will be giving.
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
From: Steve Lancaster, Director
Date: May 19, 2004
Subject: Single Family Neighborhood Housing Options
Background:
Community Affairs and Parks agreed at their 15 March 2005 meeting to consider
allowing additional types of housing in LDR districts on a demonstration basis. Staff
was directed to return to CAP with specifics related to a potential demonstration program.
To recap, opportunities, which would allow different approaches in single family
development such as for cottage type housing, have presented themselves but no vehicle
exists to allow flexibility in single family neighborhoods.
The proposal before you would establish a demonstration period in which developers
could approach the City, and if specific qualifying criteria are met, may proceed through
a design review /subdivision process for a residential development. An evaluation period
would follow any development to determine if changes should be considered in City
standards.
What types of housing could be considered?
There are a number of different types of housing being built around the region that may
be considered compatible within the City's existing residential neighborhoods.
Cottage and co- housing developments cluster small homes around a common area, with
parking off to the side and usually with a common building space to share for parties or
communal gatherings..
Page 1 of 4
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
9
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
/0
Cottage examples from the Cottage Company
Small houses/small lot development from Orenco Station located in Portland area
Page 2 of 4
ire
e. r
•
•
7M�
Multi -unit House
•
Rowhouses from Orenco Station in the Portland area
Page 3 of 4
•
//
• •
Why would a property owner be interested in pursuing a development other than
the single family house /plat?
There are several types of situations that exist. There are developers who only do the
nontraditional type of product that is currently not allowed in the City and there are
developers who own property where the existing codes make single family house
construction difficult or problematic from a design perspective. For example, where
existing plats have 25 foot wide lots.
What type off flexibility should there be on the potential projects?
There were 254 new detached single family homes built in Tukwila over the last four
years and the average size was 2,864 square feet. Below are typical sizes for the products
described:
- - -■ Cottages = 1,200 square foot maximum gross floor area
• Compact Single - Family = 1,500 square foot maximum gross floor area
• Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500 square foot maximum gross floor area per unit
A covenant restricting any increases in unit size after initial construction could be recorded
against the property.
If the homes are limited in total size, how many homes could be built in a project?
Given the typical house size being built in Tukwila, the following equivalencies seem
reasonable.
• Cottages = 2 per each single - family unit that could be built on the property
• Compact SF = 1.5 per each single- family unit that could be built on the property
• Duplexes and Triplexes = overall development not to exceed 1.5 times the number of
single - family units that could be built on the property
• Rounding up to the next whole number of equivalent units is allowed when the
conversion from typical single - family units to equivalent units results in a fraction of 0.5
or above
Summary/ Request
Attachment B is an outline containing relevant issues that would need to be contained in
a demonstration program. The primary issues are as follows:
How many demonstration houses would be reasonable and adequate?
How will decisions be made /what process would be followed?
When and how will the neighbors know about applications?
How will the applications be judged, ie. What criteria will be used?
The Committee should review Attachment B, making any desired changes and then
direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and make recommendations on
a draft ordinance to the Council.
Attachments: A 15 March 2005 Community Affairs and Parks Minutes
B Draft Ordinance Outline
mcb\HOIJSING\05demosmemo524.doc
Page4of4
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM
COMPARISON OF INITIAL PROPOSAL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND CAP RECOMMENDATIONS
Q: \CODE -sjl- Created on 09/26/2005 3:35 PM
Page 1 of 2
Initial Proposal
Planning Commission
Recommendation
CAP
Recommendations
Housing Types
Cottages
Compact Single Family
Duplexes or Triplexes
Combination of above
No change
Cottages
Compact Single Family
Duplexes
Combination of above
Dwelling Unit Size Limits
—
0 Cottages:
1000 sq ft maximum
0 Compact Single Family:
1,500 sq ft maximum
o Duplexes or Triplexes:
1,500 sq ft maximum
No change
0 Cottages: 800 sq ft
minimum and 1000 sq ft
maximum
0 Compact Single Family:
1,500 sq ft maximum
o Duplexes: 1,500 sq ft
maximum
Parking Requirement
0 1 space /unit for residential
units under 700 sq ft
01.5 spaces /unit for
residential units between
700 and 1000 sq ft
o 2 spaces /unit for
residential units over 1000
sq ft
01.5 spaces /unit for
residential units between
800 and 1000 sq ft
0 2 spaces /unit for
residential units over 1000
sq ft
Floor Area Limitations
o At least 40% and no more
than 50% of cottages in a
cluster must have a main
floor area of 800 sq ft or
less
0 Variety in building sizes
and footprints is provided.
No change
Variety in building sizes and
footprints is provided.
HOUSING OPTIONS PROGRAM
COMPARISON OF INITIAL PROPOSAL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND CAP RECOMMENDATIONS
Q: \CODE -sjl- Created on 09/26/2005 3:35 PM
Page 1 of 2
Common Open Space
Common open space
requirement for cottage
projects
No change
o Common open space
requirement for cottage
projects and other
projects over 20 dwelling
units
o Provide recreation space
consistent with TMC
18.52.060(1) (Multi-
family recreation space
standards)
Number of Projects
No more than 1 project per
o No more than 1 project
o No more than 3 projects
neighborhood
per neighborhood
citywide
(10 neighborhoods)
o Program shall sunset after
five years
o Program shall sunset
after three years
Selection Criteria
Consider the location and
size of the project relative to
the neighborhood, the
surrounding land uses,
topography and street -
system
The location and size of the
project must be acceptable
and of low impact relative
to the neighborhood, the
surrounding land uses,
topography and street
system. For example, e
attached housing rst`be
located on land with direct
access to a collector
arterial or along a .
neighborhood edge or in
or adjacent to medium or
high density districts.
Initial Proposal
Planning Commission
CAP
Q: \ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix. doc
Page 1 of 4
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance
Program Goals
Program Goals
1.
Increase choice of housing styles
1. Increase the choice of housing
available in the community
styles available in the community
through projects that are
through projects that are compatible
compatible with existing single-
with existing single - family
family developments;
developments;
2.
Promote housing affordability and
2. Promote housing affordability and
ownership by encouraging
ownership by encouraging smaller
smaller homes;
homes;
3. Stimulate innovative housing
3.
To stimulate innovative housing
design that improves the character
design that improves the
and sense of community in a
character and sense of
neighborhood and can serve as a
community in a neighborhood
model for other areas;
and can serve as a model for
other areas; and
4. Develop high - quality site,
architectural and landscape elements
4.
Provide a greater variety of
in neighborhoods; and
housing types which respond to
5. Provide a greater variety of
changing household sizes and
housing types, which respond to
ages (e.g. retirees, small families,
single person households) and
that let seniors age in place in
changing household sizes and
ages (e.g. retirees, small families,
single - person households) and
their neighborhoods
provide a means for seniors to
remain in their neighborhoods.
Q: \ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix. doc
Page 1 of 4
Q:\HOME\MOIRA\houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page 2 of 4
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance
Housing Types
Same
Housing Types
Same
•
Cottages
• Cottages
•
Compact Single - Family
• Compact single - family.
•
•
Duplexes or Triplexes designed
to look like Single - Family as part
of a development that includes at
least one other housing type (the
other housing type may be
traditional single - family)
A combination of the above types
• Duplexes designed to look like a
single - family home or with zero lot
lines for fee simple ownership; and
included with at least one other
housing type in a proposed
development (the other housing
type may be traditional single -
family).
• A combination of the above types.
()A,yf ft4- 4
•
•
Cottages = 1,000 square f of
maximum floor area
Compact Single - Family = 1,500
square foot maximum gross floor
area
Same
• Cottages = 800 square feet
minimum and 1,000 square foot
maximum floor area.
• Compact single - family = 1,500
square foot maximum floor area.
Same
•
•
Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500
square foot maximum gross floor
area per unit
Side yard setbacks are waived so
that these homes may be sold on
fee simple lots.
Duplexes = 1,500 square foot
maximum floor area per unit.
Side yard setbacks are waived so that
these homes may be sold on fee
simple lots.
I
Q:\HOME\MOIRA\houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page 2 of 4
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc Page 3 of 4
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance
Parking Requirements
Same
Parking Requirements
Same
An option that is done elsewhere is
to allow 50% of street parking to
apply toward requirement.
1 stall per unit for units under 700
square feet in size
1.5 stalls per unit for units 800 to
1,000 square feet in size.
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000
square feet in size.
1.5 stalls per unit for units 700 to
1,000 square feet in size
2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000
square feet in size
Common Open Space requirement for
Cottage only
Same
Common Open Space for cottages
and projects of 20 or more homes.
Provide required area according to
Recreation Space Requirements
(TMC 18.52.060).
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc Page 3 of 4
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc Page 4 of 4
•
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance
No recommendation
Selection Process
Effective Period of Program
Same
The Housing Options Program shall
be available for up to five years from
the effective date of this ordinance.
The Housing Options Program
established by this Chapter shall
become effective as set forth in
A project must vest itself with a Type
4 and or 5 application before the
Program sunsets.
Section 5 below, and shall continue in
effect for up to three years thereafter
or until three projects have been
developed, unless repealed, renewed
or modified by the City Council. A
project must vest itself with a Type 2,
4, or 5 application before the program
expires three years after the effective
date of this ordinance.
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc Page 4 of 4
•
4
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q: \HOM E\MOIRA\houseng\HOPCompari sonmatrix.doc
Page 1 of 8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance - Staff refinements
Program Goals
Increase choice of housing styles
available in the community
through projects that are
compatible with existing single-
family developments;
2. Promote housing affordability and
ownership by encouraging
smaller homes;
3. To stimulate innovative housing
design that improves the
character and sense of
community in a neighborhood
and can serve as a model for
other areas; and
4. Provide a greater variety of
housing types which respond to
changing household sizes and
ages (e.g. retirees, small families,
single person households) and
that let seniors age in place in
their neighborhoods
No change
No change
Program Goals
1. Increase the choice of housing
g
styles available in the community
through projects that are
compatible with existing single -
family developments; '
2. Promote housing affordability and
ownership by encouraging smaller
homes;
3. Stimulate innovative housing
design that improves the character
and sense of community in a
neighborhood and can serve as a
model for other areas;
4. Develop high - quality site,
architectural and landscape
elements in neighborhoods; and
5. Provide a greater variety of
housing types, which respond to '
changing household sizes and
ages (e.g. retirees, small families,
single - person households) and
provide a means for seniors to
remain in their neighborhoods.
4
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q: \HOM E\MOIRA\houseng\HOPCompari sonmatrix.doc
Page 1 of 8
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q : \HOME\MOIRA \houseng\HOPCompari sonmatrix.doc
Page 2 of 8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance — Staff refinements
The Basic Development Standards
and Maximum Building Footprint
sections of the Low Density
Residential District (18.10.060 and
18.06.057 TMC) and of the Medium
Density Residential District
(18.12.070 TMC) and of the High
Density Residential District Chapters
(18.14.070 TMC) and the
Supplemental Development
Standards (18.50 TMC) that relate to
yards and house design and
orientation; and the requirements of
Minimum Number of Required
Parking Spaces (Figure 18 -7 TMC)
shall be replaced by the standards
identified in the following sections of
this ordinance. Existing homes within
a redevelopment must continue to
conform to the existing code
standards unless it can be
demonstrated that the existing home
meets the description of a
demonstration house type.
No change
No change
The Permitted Uses and Basic
Development Standards and
Maximum Building Footprint sections
of the Low -, Medium- and High-
g
Density Residential Districts (TMC
18.10.020, 18.10.060, 18.10.057, I
18.12.020, 18.12.070, 18.14.020,
18.14.070); the Supplemental
Development Standards (TMC 18.50)
that relate to yards, house design and
orientation; and the requirements of
q
Minimum Number of Required Parking
Spaces (TMC 18.56.050) shall be
replaced by the standards identified in
this section
'
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q : \HOME\MOIRA \houseng\HOPCompari sonmatrix.doc
Page 2 of 8
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\HOMEMOIRA\houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page 3 of 8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance — Staff refinements
Housing Types
No Change
Housing Types
No change
• Cottages
• Cottages
• Compact Single - Family
• Compact single - family.
• Duplexes or Triplexes designed
to look like Single - Family as part
• Duplexes designed to look like a
single - family home or with zero lot
of a development that includes at
least one other housing type (the
other housing type may be
traditional single - family)
• A combination of the above types
lines for fee simple ownership; and
included with at least one other
housing type in a proposed
development (the other housing
type may be traditional single -
family).
I
• A combination of the above types.
Unit Size Limits
Unit Size Limits
• Cottages = 1,000 square foot
maximum floor area
• Compact Single - Family = 1,500
square foot maximum gross floor
area
No change
• Cottages = 800 square feet
minimum and 1,000 square foot
maximum floor area.
• Compact single - family = 1,500
square foot maximum floor area.
No change
• Duplexes or Triplexes = 1,500
square foot maximum gross floor
area per unit
• Duplexes = 1,500 square foot
maximum floor area per unit.
Side yard setbacks are waived so
that these homes may be sold on fee
simple lots.
Side yard setbacks are waived so that
these homes may be sold on fee
simple lots.
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\HOMEMOIRA\houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page 3 of 8
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\HOME\MOIRA\houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page4of8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance
Parking Requirements
No change
Parking Requirements
No change
An option that is done elsewhere is
to allow 50% of street parking to
apply toward requirement.
• 1 stall per unit for units under 700
square feet in size
• 1.5 stalls per unit for units 800 to
1,000 square feet in size.
• 2 stalls per unit for units over 1,000
square feet in size.
'
• 1.5 stalls per unit for units 700 to
1,000 square feet in size
• 2 stalls per unit for units over
1,000 square feet in size
Cottage Standards
Cottage Standards
Applied to all unit types
Floor Area Limitations
No change
Floor Area
• A minimum of 40% and no more
than 50% of the cottages in a
• Variety in building sizes and
Floor Area
cluster shall have a main floor of
800 square feet or less; or
footprints is required.
• Variety in building sizes and
footprints is required.
• Variety in building sizes and
footprints is provided
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\HOME\MOIRA\houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page4of8
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q: \HOME\MOIRA\ houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page 5 of 8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance
Additional Cottage Standards
Exceptions to Floor Area Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6'
or less measured to the exterior
walls, such as in a second floor
area under the slope of the roof
• Unheated storage space located
under the main floor of a cottage
• Architectural projections, such as
bay windows, fireplaces or utility
closets not greater than 18" in
depth and 6' in width
• Detached garages and carports
• Attached roofed porches
No change
No change
Applied to all unit types
Exceptions to Floor Area Limitations
• Spaces with a ceiling height of 6'
or less measured to the exterior
walls, such as in a second floor
area under the slope of the roof +
• Unheated storage space located
under the main floor of a cottage
• Architectural projections, such as
bay windows, fireplaces or utility
closets not greater than 18" in
depth and 6' in width
• Detached garages and carports
• Attached roofed porches
Additional Cottage Standards
Distance Between Structures
10' minimum
No change
No change
Applied to all unit types
Common Open Space requirement for
Cottage only
No change
Common Open Space for cottages
and projects of 20 or more homes.
Provide required area according to
Recreation Space Requirements
(TMC 18.52.060) (1).
No change
Should the City consider allowing
accessory units above the detached
garages?
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of a
innovative development
No change
No change
Applied to all unit types
Accessory Dwelling Units
Shall not be allowed as part of a
innovative development
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q: \HOME\MOIRA\ houseng\HOPComparisonmatrix.doc
Page 5 of 8
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatri x.doc
Page 6 of 8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance — Staff refinements
No recommendation
No recommendation
No recommendation
There is no fee for application for
selection into the Housing Options
Program as described in TMC
18.120.030. The adopted fees for the
processes, which are described in
TMC 18.120.050 shall be charged for
the relevant required underlying
applications.
No recommendation
Selection Process
Effective Period of Program
No change
The Housing Options Program shall
be available for up to five years from
the effective date of this ordinance.
The Housing Options Program
established by this Chapter shall
become effective as set forth in
A project must vest itself with a Type
4 and or 5 application before the
Program sunsets.
Section 5 below, and shall continue in
effect for up to three years thereafter
or until three projects have been
developed, unless repealed, renewed
or modified by the City Council. A
project must vest itself with a Type 2,
4, or 5 application before the program
expires three years after the effective
date of this ordinance.
'
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\ HOME\ MOIRA \houseng\HOPComparisonmatri x.doc
Page 6 of 8
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\HOM E\MO I RA\ho usen g\HOPComparisonmatri x.d oc
Page7of8
Initial Program Outline
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Community Affairs and Parks
Recommendation
Draft Ordinance — Staff refinements
No recommendation
No recommendation
No recommendation
Expiration of Approval.
When a Notice of Decision is
issued on a Housing Options
Program project, the applicant shall
have one year to apply for
subsequent permits.
No recommendation
No recommendation
No recommendation
Limited time frame to apply.
When the Director of DCD selects
an application as outlined in TMC
18.120.030, the project proponent
must apply within one year for the
appropriate decision(s) or the
selection will become null and void.
Selection Criteria
iv. The location and size
of the project relative to the
neighborhood, the surrounding land
uses, topography and street system.
No change
Selection Criteria
5. The location and size of the
project is acceptable and of low
impact relative to the neighborhood,
the surrounding land uses, topography
and street system. For example,
attached housing must be located
on land with direct access to a
collector arterial or along a
neighborhood edge or in or
adjacent to medium or high- density
districts.
No change
i
Bold for additions; italics for deletions
Q:\HOM E\MO I RA\ho usen g\HOPComparisonmatri x.d oc
Page7of8