HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2005-06-27 Item 4B - Discussion - Single Family Housing Options Program c 11LA, yy`, CO U CIL I-1NDA SYNOPSIS
t y 5 Lutral.■ ITER1IVO. IIP p
z :Z
c) llzztut Date Prepared h; lla; or, review Coruntl rerun)
MCB
o� 06/27/05 1 1 _,{,�e
y, I I I I I 4._
1 1
ITEM INFORMATION r7 l
CAS NUMBER. 05-094 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. ��f1_Lr tes I ,1C LJ�.)
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Housing Options Program a
CATEGORY DzSCuss10i1 motion I 1 Resolntzon 1 1 Ordinance Bid Award Public Heaizng Other
lttg Date 6121/0 S Mtg Date Mtg Date lltg Date 1Itg Date \I!g Date Mtg Date
I SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Fznance Fzre n Legal Pe R I I Police PTV I
SPONSOR'S Create a program that allows a limited number of projects that create "for sale" housing
SUMMARY not typically developed, such as small house, cottages, and townhomes.
REVIEWED BY COW l/Itg CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte U Transportation Cmte
LJtihttes Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE. March 15 May 24, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN
COMMITTEE Community Affairs and Parks forwards to COW for discussion.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
ExPENDPl'URE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source NOT APPLICABLE
Comments
MTG. DATE 1 RECORD O F COUNCIL ACTION I
6/27/05 1
I i
MTG. DATE
I ATTACHMENTS
6/27/05 A Memo from DCD Director
B 3/15/05 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Minutes
C 5/24/05 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Minutes
D Demonstration Program Outline
1
Cz ty o f Steve M. Mullet Mayor
Q tea
r
Mt. Department of f' Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Steve Lancaster, Director
Date June 22, 2004
Subject: Housing Options Program
Background:
The market for single family homes in Tukwila is strong. In fact, less than ideal sites are
bemg 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 meetmgs, the Commumty Affairs and Parks
Committee reviewed a concept and outline for a Housing Options Program. The program
would allow a limited number of projects in appropnate 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, appropnately 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 heanng and approve, deny or condition the
application.
'Housing being built within the last four years averaged approximately 2, 900 square feet m floor area.
Housing on substandard (small lots) has also been criticized as bemg unattractive and harming the
Comprehensive Plan goals of neighborhood livability and quality
Page 1 of 4 Attachment A
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
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 detennine if changes should be
consIdered m City standards.
"Vhat 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-housmg developments cluster small homes around a common area, wIth
parking off to the sIde and usually with a common buildmg space to share for partIes or
communal gatherings.
Cottage
examples
from the
Cottage
Company
Small houses/small lot development from Orenco Station located in Portland area
Page 2 of 4
Attachment A
~
Narrow Lot Houses in Madison Park
\Vhy 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
eXlstmg 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 smgle 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 maX11llutn gross floor area
· Compact S111gle-Family = 1,500 square foot maX11llutn gross floor area
· Duplexes or Tnplexes = 1,500 square foot maXlmutn gross floor area per umt
A covenant restrlct111g any 111creases 111 urut SlZe after 1111hal construchon could be recorded
against the property
Attachment 1 illustrates the typical development that could occur on eXlSt111g narrow lots.
Flexibility 111 setbacks as well as the authonty to reVIew the sltmg of the homes and the
ardutectural details may encourage a more pleas111g pubhc streetscape.
Page 3 of4
Attachment A
If the homes are limited in total size, how many homes could be built in a project?
GIVen the typIcal house size bemg bUIlt m Tukwila, the followmg equivalencies seem
reasonable.
· Cottages = 2 per each s111gle-family umt that could be built on the property
· Compact SF = 1.5 per each s111gle-family umt that could be built on the property
· Duplexes and Tnplexes = overall development not to exceed 1.5 t::lmes the number of
s111gle-family umts that could be built on the property
· Roundmg up to the next whole number of eqmvalent umts IS allowed when the
converSlOn from typical s111gle-family umts to eqmvalent umts results 111 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 ofthe key questIOns regardmg 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 cntena will be used?
Options
1. No Action
This option makes no changes and allows no alternatives.
2. Forward Attachment D to the Planning ComrmssIOn 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 EXlstmg lot layout and development
Q.\mcb\HOUSING\05demosmemo524.doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
'/~ ~
/~-.:;='__-,_,~.-;;_",~~-_ . / ~ <. _~ '.'__::c.' -
'''~r~~-~:'\71 PJ~--i"-~i~:: A5T:;- ~-:- .-~;:,,,r
;c,:>}! ~lt~1 "dl7:J I - -~LA., IL ~..,<~n! ~1]11!~ '~;I ~
,~~ii~~~~~~1,i~~~~~];~
~~___ ---- -,~._~<r--~~~:,_;.;~:~_' _~J
'.-,.,-~ i
-, ."".~ '
_~ - ...._ ~ "i:. :_-~'"'f " :
. -- -, - .
.
"
3D I
-> ~- - ,,- _IJO__ ,,--,--'~.- .. .----- -.--^> --'-~- ,,- -I " ,- " ,-
, t
- _. -
i
:
:
~ ~ ~ ~
Y) V) :
':::j. ~ ~ '~
~ ~ ~ ,
.~
.,fJo' , .
I ,
)... \ ~ I \ ::s-
~ I I ~
I ~ I
~ ! ~
\ \
~ I
1;2. i ~ \ a
; ~
(:l , t:l
.
m ; J . . ,,-
"
<)
~
/" {.if( UIJrt
Atf!llJ/M&'Hf A
5/~EEI
COffiIllumty Affairs and Parks Cornmittee
March 15, 2005
A second decislOn IS whether the CIty should require a busmess l1cense for multl-famlly and
accessory dwellmg units. Denms thought there was not a councIl consensus on thIS Issue, though
he and Joe supported it and Joan would like more mformatlOn on It Kathy reported bemg
allowed in one apartment umt wIth obvious health and safety vlOlatlOlls Mandator} mspectIOns
of apartment Uillts IS also an option that could come with licensmg, though the legalIty of that is
unclear. Refer issue to CO\V.
4. Proposed code amendments The committee considered ten draft code amendments. Staff
-----nact hsted.options, and included recommendatIOns on each amendment. Because cIties are .. ...
required by State law to -accept manufactured homes begmning July 1 sl 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 wntten changes
to the single family dwellmg code that manufactured homes would need to follow, and the
recommendatlOns 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 appropnate, and on
whether a dog kellilel was -appropriate in the urban center. Refer issues to Planning:
Commission.
I
Ii -/
_fV
It
/\
l\
5. Single Familv Neighborhood Housine: 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 smail 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 m
the city, though an ordmance would need to be passed to allow that. The conllmttee 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 infolTIlation system). Funding comes from both the DCD
and Public \Vorks budgets. Recommend contract for aerial photography to Regular l'rleeting.
Minutes by L. Lauterbach
rJ - Committee chmr approval
1!1(~!lIUBNJ Z>
Community and Parks Committee
May 24,2005
Present:
Joe Duffie, 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 buildmg. 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 defimtion to include
airport parking, and designate it a park and ride lo~.
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 CO\V.
*
2. Sing:le Familv Neig:hborhood 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 hou?ing
development. Though the desIgn standards might not disallow that, staff thought it not feasible.
!}IM cJf.;2
Ik#A1OJ7 ~
"
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. D~nnis worried about a large development gomg into a
neighborhood when it \vould be surrounded by traditional housing.
The current site for a very draft proposal for non-traditional housmg is below the hospital and
adjacent to the cemetery on one side and the large back yard of the veterinary office on Mihtary.
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 ofland, 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 ofthese 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 housmg 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 of5:12. 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 detache 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 Orill1a 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 ofthis year. Information.
rdjt-l-td-
ArrlJel/IU8Jifl G
11':70' e011Szder a
deJJZOJlstratzoll program?
HolV v/ollld the SlIeeess
of the program be
measured?
What mil oemr after
the program?
Hov/ v/zll demollstratzoll
pro/eets be evaluated?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
1. Findings
a. The purpose of tlus zorung ordmance would be to establ1sh a
demonstratlon housmg program that would allow development of
selected projects that explore housmg choIces not currently available
m Tukwila's smgle family neIghborhoods.
,
b The goals of 11illovatlve housmg would be to
1. Increase choIce of housmg styles available m the commumt:y
through projects that are compatible wIth eXlstllg smgle-family
developments;
11. Promote housing affordabihty and ownership by
encouragmg smaller homes;
111. To st1tnulate mnovatlve housmg desIgn that Improves the
character and sense of commumty m a neIghborhood and can serve as
a model for other areas, and
IV. ProVide a greater varlety of housmg types which respond to
changmg household SlZes and ages (e.g. retl1:ees, small families, smgle
person households) and that let semors age m place m thelt
neIghborhoods
C. The CIty will evaluate the results of the projects and mochfy the
zorung code to specIfically address successfulmnovatlons m housl1lg
development.
2. Decision Criteria
The relevant decIslOn makers shall evaluate an appl1catlon and deClde If
the project:
a. Meets the goals of tlus ordmance
Page 1 of8
Attachment D
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
b compIles W1th the Multi-family, Hotel and Motel Des1gn Rev1ew
Cntena, stated ill the Board of Arclutectural ReV1ew Chapter, Des1gn
ReV1ew Cntena Section of the Tukwila Zorung Code (18.60 050(C)
ThIC), and
c. whether 1t can be demonstrated that:
1. The proposal 1S not larger ill scale and 1S compatible
w1th surroundmg development w1th respect to Slze of uruts, buildmg
he1ghts, roof forms, buildmg setbacks from each other and property
hiles, parkmQ' location and screerunQ', access, and lot coveraQ'e.
n. The proposal prov1des elements that contribute to a
sense of comm~mty w1thm the development and the surroundmg
ne1gl1borhood by illcludmg elements such as front entry porches,
common open space and/or common buildmg(s), and
ill. Any proposed Type 2, 3 and 4 mochfications to
reqUltements of the Tukwila Zorung Code, Perrrut Apphcation Types
and Procedures, (18 104 ThIC) other than those spec1fically 1dentified
ill the Standards section below, are illlportant to the success of the
proposal as an illnovative housillg proJect.
3. Standards
In order to meet the goals of the 111ilovative houSillg program, there
will be flexibility w1th regard to some normally apphcable
reqUltements. Standards 1denttfied ill the followillg sections will apply
to innovative houSillg demonstration projects and will prevaillf they
confuct Wlth normal regulations. All other reqUltements of the C1ty of
Tukwila will continue to apply, except that apphcants may propose
adchtional mochfications to the Tukwila Zorung Code, as prov1ded for
w1thm the Code.
a. The Bas1c Development Standards and MaXltllum Buildmg FOOtpllilt
sections of the Low Dens1ty Res1dential D1strlct (18.10.060 and
18.06057 TIvIC) and of the Medmm Dens1ty Res1dential D1Strlct
(18.12.070 TIvIC) and of the High Dens1ty Res1dential D1strlct Chapters
(18.14.070 TIvIC) and the reqUltements of 1tlimmum Number of
ReqUlted Parkmg Spaces (Figure 18-7 TIvIC) shall be replaced by the
standards Identified ill the followillg sections of thIs ordInance. EXISting
homes Wltlun a redevelopment must continue to conform to the
eXlstlng code standards unless 1t can be demonstrated that the eXlstlng
home meets the descnption of a demonstration house type.
b. The dens1ty lumtations 1dentified ill the Land Use Map of the
Tukwila Comprehens1ve Plan shall be detemuned to have been met as
long as the proposed project does not exceed the eqmvalent U111t
calculation 1dentified ill the Standards section below
Page 2 of 8
Attachment D
What !JPes oj hotlsmg
wOllld be conszdered?
What jlexzbz!ity v/ould
be needed to eJ1COllrage
program prq;ects?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
c. The appropnate apphcatlon fee, whether for deslgn reVlew and plat,
shall be the fee(s) charged for mnovatlve reSldentlal apphcatlons and
shall be due upon apphcatlon.
The followmg table sets forth parameters apphcable to mnovatlve
housmg project apphcatlons.
Standards Table
Housmg Types Cottages
. Compact Smgle-Family
Duplexes or Tnplexes deslgned to look
like Smgle-Family as part of a
development that mcludes at least one
other housmg type (the other housmg
type may be trachtlonal smgle-familv)
A combmatlon of the above types
Umt SiZe Ltmlts Cottages = 1,000 square foot maXllllum
A covenant restnct1ng any floor area
illcreases ill umt SIZe after in1t1al
construction would be recorded Compact Smgle-Family = 1,500 square
agamst the property foot maxunum gross floor area
Duplexes or Tnplexes = 1,500 square
foot maXllllum gross floor area per umt
Slde yard setbacks are walved so that
these homes may be sold on fee s11llple
lots.
Eqruvalent Umts Cottages = 2 per each smgle-family umt
The number of allowable that could be built on the lot
dwelling units shall be totaled
for each of the exist1ng lots ill Compact SF = 1.5 per each smgle-
order to detenrune eqUlvalent
umts. family umt that could be built on the lot
Duplexes and Tnplexes = overall
development not to exceed 1.5 tunes
the number of smgle-family umts that
could be built on the lot
Roundmg up to the next whole number
of eqruvalent umts lS allowed when the
converSlOn from typlcal smgle-family
umts to eqruvalent umts results m a
fractlon of 0.5 or above
EXlStmg smgle-family homes may remam on the subject property and
will be counted as umts m the eqruvalent umt calculatlon
Page 3 of8
Attachment D
Where cot/ld
demomtratlOJl pro/ects
be bmlt?
How mal!} hOllses cot/ld
be bllz/t wzthm a
demomtratlOn pro/ect?
Wz/I the pro/ects be for
sale or rmtal?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
Locatlons All LDR, MDR & HDR chstrlcts, but
not withm 1,500' of another mnovatlve
housmg proposal approved under tlus
Ordmance.
Access ReqUitements Determme flexibility for road widths,
pubhc vs pnvate, and turn-around
reqUirements With mput from Pubhc
\'Ilorks and Fire Departments
Development SiZe JYIimrnum of 4 uruts, maX1ffium of 36
umts
.
Cottages may have a maX1ffium of 12
umts per cluster
Parkmg ReqUitements 1 stall per urut for uruts under 700
square feet m SiZe
1 5 stalls per urut for uruts 700 to 1,000
square feet m SiZe
2 stalls per unit for uruts over 1,000
square feet m SiZe
SubchvislOn
Ownership Structure
Condom1111Um
Adchtlonal Standards Table
This table sets forth supplemental parameters to those above and are
apphcable to any cottape proposed as an 111llovatlve housmQ: prolect.
Distance Between 10' tn11111llUffi
Structures
. ProVide reqUited area accordmg to
Common Open Space Recreatlon Space ReqUitements
(18.52.060 TIvIC) (1)
. Shall abut at least 50% of the
cottages 111 the development and
those uruts must be onented to and
have the1/: ma11l entry from the
common open space
. Shall have cottages on at least two
sides
. Shall not be reqUited to be mdoor
Each cottage shall:
. be within 60 feet walkmQ: chstance of
Page 4 of 8
Attachment D
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
the common open space
. Shall be onented to the common
Pnvate Open Space apen space as much as IS feasible
. Shall be ill ane cantIguous and
useable piece with a lTI1111mum
chmenslOn of 10' on all sIdes
. Shall be adjacent to each cottage
and be far the excluslVe use of the
resident of that cattaQ:e
. 80 square feet tnl111!llUill per umt
Attached Covered Porches . Shall have a 1TI11lliIlUill chmenslon of
. 8' on all sIdes
18' maXlillUill for all structures except
HeIght 25' maXlillum for cottages wIth a
1ll1lli1llUill roof slope of 6 12 for all parts
of the roof above 18'
. A tnl111!llUln af 40% and nO' more
Floor Area Lmutatlons than 50% of the cottages II a cluster
shall have a mall floar of 800
square feet or less; or
. Vanety ill buildmg SlZes and
faamtillts IS prnvided
. Spaces with a ceiling heIght of 6' or
Exceptions to Floor Area less measured to the ex tenor walls,
Lmutatlans such as ill a secand flaar area under
the slope of the roof
. Unheated storage space located
under the mall floor of a cottage
. Ardlltectural proJections, such as
bay willdows, fireplaces or utility
clasets not greater than 18" ill depth
and 6' ill wIdth
. Detached garages and carp arts
. Attached roofed porches
Parkmg, surface, garages . Shall be provIded on the subject
ar carp arts praperty
. Shall be screened fram publIc
streets and adjacent reSIdential uses
by landscapillg and or arcmtectural
screemng
. Shall be located ill clusters of not
more than 6 adJoillillg spaces
. Shall nat be located ill the frant
yard except on a carner lat where It
shall not be located between the
_ entrance to' any cottage
. Shall nat be located Wltlun 40 feet
Page 5 of8
Attachment D
Should the Czty COJISlder
allowmg accessory untts
above the detached
garages?
How would sUlTounding
property owners know
about the demonstratIOn
pro/ects?
Should there be other
cntena to determme
whether the City should
comzder an applicant's
proposal?
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
of a pubhc street except u the stalls
he parallel to the street and the
dnveway prov1dmg access to those
stalls has parkmg on only one s1de
. j\Iay be located between or adpcent
to structures 1f 1t 1S located toward
the rear of the structure and 1S
served by an alley or dnveway
. All parkmg structures shall have a
p1tched roof des1gn w1th a
1ll11llillum slope of 4'12
.
Commuruty Buildmgs - . Shall be clearly illCldentalill use and
when provided SlZe to the cottages
. Shall be commonly owned by the
res1dents of the cottaees
Accessory Dwelling Uruts Shall not be allowed as part of a
mnovative development
4. Selection Process
a. The Dltector of DCD shall follow the selection cntena outlmed
below ill deCldmg wluch proJects are ehgible for proJect selection and
able to apply for des1gn reV1ew and for plattmg
b. A ne1ghborhood meetmg orgaruzed by the apphcant and attended
by C1ty staff shall be reqUlted of the apphcant ill order to evaluate the
proJect for program selection. The apphcant must follow the
notification procedures outlmed ill Section 6 for the l1l1tial meetmg
Wlth the ne1ghborhood.
c. The Dltector of Commuruty Development shall be the sole declSlon
maker on whether an apphcation for cons1deration ill the
demonstration program satisfies the cntena. The cntena for proJect
selection for the Demonstration Prol!tam are as follows:
1. Cons1stency Wlth the goals of the mnovative housillg as
enumerated ill Findmgs section above.
Page 6 of8
Attachment D
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
11. Not more than one 111novative housillg project shall be
approved per City neighborhood - MdvIicken Heights; Tukwila Hill,
Ryan Hill, Allentown, Duwarrush, Foster POillt; Cascade; RlVerton,
Thorndyke; (These last two beillg generally dtvlded by S. 136 St. and
48 A v S) Proposals must be at least 1,500 feet from any other
mnovative housillg project considered under tlus ordmance.
111. Demonstration of successful development by the
applicant of the proposed product elsewhere.
lV The location and SlZe of the project relative to the
neighborhood, the surroundmg land uses, topography and street
system.
d. The deCiSion of the Dltector of Commuruty Development shall be
the final decision of the City on selection of eligible projects and may
not be adtmmstratively appealed.
5. Review and Approval Process
When an application is approved by the Dltector ofDCD, the project
proponent shall apply for either:
a. a Type 4 declslOn, wmch is a Board of Ardutectural Review
Heanng and Decision for a condotn1n1um or a short plat proJect;
or
b. a Type 5 declslOn, a City Council heanng and declslOn for a plat
illvolVillg more than 9 lots
Both declslOns are described ill the Pet:tn1t Application Types and
Procedures Chapter of the Tukwila Zorung Code (18.104 ThfC.) The
BAR and City Council shall use the decision cntena listed ill Section 2
of tlus ordmance to review and decide any projects allowed illto the
demonstration program as well as use the relevant declslOn cntena for
design reView and/ or plattlng
Page 7 of 8
Attachment D
if an applicatzon were
approved to move
fonJJard, the
sJlJ7vtl1ldmg proper!)
owners lJJOJlld have
additzonalopportllmry
for reVlev.} and mpJlt.
DRAFT
Housing Options
Program Outline
6. Public Notice
a. Notice of the 11l1tial meetmg wIth the neIghborhood would be, at a
tn11111Ilum, a letter from the appl1cant mailed first class to all
property owners wIthm 500 feet. Attendance of a CIty staff
member at tills 11l1tlal meetmg will be reqwred. Schedulmg and
nottfication shall be coordmated wIth the Department of
S=ommuruty Development.
b. If the proJect IS selected to apply for a Type 4 or Type 5 reVIew,
then the publ1slung, mailing and postmg shall follow the
procedures as If It were begmrung a Type 4 or Type 5 appl1cation.
7. Demonstration Housing Evaluation
Upon completion and full occupancy of a proJect, DCD shall evaluate
and report to the Planmng CO!llil11SSlOn and CIty Council.
Q: \mcb \HOUSING \LDRoptlOnstable.doc
Page 8 of8
Attachment D