The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAP 2016-05-23 Item 2D - Update - Housing Options ProgramW z City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Community Affairs and Parks CC: Mayor Ekberg FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director BY: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner Laura Benjamin, Assistant Planner DATE: May 23, 2016 Allan Ekberg, Mayor SUBJECT: Evaluation and Reinstatement of the Housing Options Program ISSUE Should Tukwila increase the types of housing allowed and if so, how and where? BACKGROUND In 2005 the City created a housing demonstration program in order to provide opportunity for innovative housing designs. Housing stock in the city is dominated by detached single family homes and "garden- style" apartments of 20 -100 units. (Attachment A) The program adopted by the City created a three year timeframe for up to three demonstration projects that met specific criteria. Four projects applied and three were approved in 2008. A summary of the four applications received in 2008 and one newly proposed project is provided as Attachment B. The newly proposed project, the Riverton Compact Homes development is listed in row 1 a under the Housing Type /Option category in the Housing in Tukwila — Current & Potential Efforts matrix which was presented to CAP at the April 25, 2016 meeting. DISCUSSION A Housing Options program evaluation element was specified (TMC 18.120.080) after completion and occupancy of the housing approved. This is supported by the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan that provides direction for the City to evaluate and reinstate the Housing Options program based upon lessons learned. None of the Housing Options program projects were constructed; however, there are some lessons learned as a result of the first phase in the program. Based on these lessons some aspects of the Housing Program should be revised. The time limit on the program proved ineffective as the housing market crashed before any of the selected projects could be constructed. Given the volatility of the housing market and the City's lack of control over market factors, a longer time limit or no limit is recommended. The housing density and unit size equivalencies, which had no performance standards, could be linked to performance criteria with a cap on the percentage increase. i.e., more units can be built if the units meet design, sustainability, and affordability standards. The primary goals of the Housing Options program were to increase the choice of housing styles, provide a better infill into the City's existing lot and street arrangements, and improve the character and quality of neighborhoods. Under the Housing Options program, the type of review 15 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 for the proposed developments was based upon the type and size of project proposed, for example the development could be reviewed as a short plat or a full subdivision with associated design review. There are additional ways to write regulations to achieve these goals. Attachment C provides an overview of the regulatory processes for the now sunset Housing Options program and alternatives. The Options program created a separate process whereas there are existing processes within the Zoning Code that could be used. They are: • The Planned Residential Development (PRD) process in the existing Tukwila Zoning Code, allows greater flexibility in site design. PRDs can encourage a unified plan that provides a more complete and integrated package, such as a cluster of smaller lots in conjunction with common open space with recreational amenities and a protected natural area. With some modifications, it could be an effective mechanism for review and decision - making; or • A zoning overlay creates a special zoning district, placed over specific geographic areas of an existing zone and that modifies the underlying regulations, such as height, density or use. The City currently utilizes overlays, such as the Urban Renewal Overlay in the several zoning districts in the TIB corridor, and the Tukwila Valley South Overlay in Tukwila South, to provide flexibility in specified geographic areas. This would be a tool if there are some LDR districts where the Housing Options program shouldn't be used. The code update process will include outreach to residents and numerous opportunities for public input at community meetings, open houses, and public hearings. A draft outreach plan is included as Attachment D. FINANCIAL IMPACT Outreach costs would include mailings, meeting refreshments, handouts, and overtime. RECOMMENDATION Discuss and provide direction on the Housing Options program reinstatement with modifications and the draft outreach plan. Forward to Planning Commission for their review. ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Housing Types in Tukwila B. Summary of Housing Options Applications C. Overview of Regulatory Processes D. Draft Outreach Plan 16 Attachment A HOUSING IN TUKWILA Housing Stock The majority of residents live in two bedroom single - family homes or apartments in large multi- family developments. Type # of Units % of Total Housing Stock Single - Family 3,254 42 Multi- Family (including condos) 4,207 55 Mobile Home 233 3 Source, King County Assessor, 2013 The majority of Tukwila residents rent. Type # of Units % of Total Housing Stock Owner - Occupied 3,335 43 Rental 4,420 57 Total 7,755 12 Source: King County Assessor, 2014 Housing Affordability at Various Incomes Income Bracket Annual Income Affordable Monthly Rent /Home Purchase Cost* % of Residents % of Affordable Housing Units King County Affordable Housing Target ( %) Less than 30% $19,990 or less $500 rent/ $94,400 to own 20 3.5 12 AMI 31 -50% AMI $19,991- $670 rent /$157,300 to own 17 26 12 $33,100 51 -80% AMI $33,101- $1,070 rent /$232,700 to own 22 38 16 $52,939 81 -100% AMI $52,940 - $1,500 rent/ $314,700 to own 19 22.5 NA $66,174 101% + AMI $66,175+ $1,800+ rent /$361,900+ to own 22 10 NA Source: American Community Survey, 2008 -2012; King County, 2008 * Housing is considered affordable when residents pay no more than 30% of their total income on housing costs such as rent or mortgage payments, and utilities. Housing Condition • Most existing single - family homes were built before 1970 and the majority of multi - family homes were constructed between the 1960s- 1980s. • Aging housing stock typically requires more money for maintenance, which can be difficult for residents who are already burdened by other economic stressors. Affordable Housing • While Tukwila continues to have affordable units for those at 50 -80% area median income (AMI), more and more households are struggling to meet their housing costs. • Nearly 40% of residents are cost burdened, paying more than one -half of their income on housing. • In particular, households who make 30% or less of the AMI face the greatest struggle to find affordable housing and are often on the brink of homelessness. 5/17/2016 \ \dcdstore \DCD Common$ \Long Range Projects \Cottages \Code Update \CAP 5.23.16 \A_Housing Types Summary.docx 17 Housing Options • Over 9% of homes are overcrowded, indicating a need for more "family sized" housing, with three or more bedrooms. • This range of housing options does not accommodate residents in all stages of life, including young adults, multigenerational families, older adults hoping to "age in place," and older adults looking to downsize. 5/17/2016 \ \dcdstore \DCD Common$ \Long Range Projects \Cottages \Code Update \CAP 5.23.16 \A_Housing Types Summary.docx 18 Attachment B - Summary of Housing Options Applications The goals of the Housing Options 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; 4. Develop high - quality site, architectural and landscape elements in neighborhoods; and 5. Provide a greater variety of housing types that respond to changing household sizes and ages (e.g. retirees, small fami ies, single - person households) and provide a means for seniors to remain in their neighborhoods. Housing Type Project Size Unit Size Equivalent Units Height /# Stories Common Open Space Building Coverage Parking Districts Distance Between Structures Ownership Structure Notes Original Housing Options Program Standards Cottages; Minimum of 8 units; maximum of 36 units For cottages — Maximum of 12 per cluster Minimum of 800 sf; Maximum of 1000 sf 1 dwelling unit per 3250 net sf 18'; 25' if roof slopes 6:12 Units within 60 ft of space, abutted by units on at least two sides; TMC Recreation Space Requirements for projects of 20 units or more 35% 1.5 stalls per unit; 2 stalls for units >1,000 sf LDR, MDR, HDR; At least 1,500 feet from another Housing Option Development 10' Subdivision or Condominium 3 projects to be selected as pilot demonstration program Compact single family; duplexes designed to look like single - family; Or a combination of all above Maximum of 1500 sf 1 dwelling unit per 4875 net sf Duwamish Neighborhood Cottages (Duwamish) Cottages 8 1000 sf 1 per 3752 sf 1.5 Stories Met Code; 7,000 sq. ft. 24.5% 8 stalls in garages; 5 surfaced LDR 10' Subdivision 16 neighbors signed petition in support; Concerns about river bank stabilization; Selected Live Above Carriage Units 1 720 sf Riverton Park Cottages (Thorndyke) Cottages 8 900 sf 1 per 4458 sf 1.5 Stories Met Code 30.75% 2 per unit —18 surface, 20 in garages LDR 10' Subdivision Community meeting space; use Built Green sustainable building standards; Not Selected Compact 8 Single - Family Homes 1200 sf Live Above 2 Carriage Units 800 sf Cooke Commons (Riverton) Cottages 1 1000 sf 1 per 4474 sf 1.5 Stories Location did not meet Code 22% 2 per unit; Unscreened location did not meet Code LDR 10' Subdivision Selected Compact Single Family Homes 8 1500 sf E Marginal Way Cottages (Riverton) Compact Single - Family Homes 16 1100 sf 1 per 4933 sf No Elevations Provided Common green, retain existing Madrona grove — sf not specified Not Specified 2 per unit, 47 on site including street spaces LDR 10' Not Specified Focus on environmentally and socially conscious design; Selected Duplexes 2 1500 sf Riverton Park CURRENT PROPOSAL (Cascade View) Compact Single- Family Homes 31 1650 sf 1 per 4875 sf 2 Stories Common greens, community gardening spaces Not Specified 68 off - street spaces — garage, open stalls, and driveway; 22 reserved street parking LDR 10' Subdivision, Owner- Occupied with HOA Will meet King County's Built Green sustainability standards Live Above Carriage Units 3 720 sf Q Attachment C: Overview of Public Review Processes Page 1 of 2 Development of 9 Lots or Less Development of 10+ Lots Advantages /Disadvantages Original Housing Options Program Type of Application • Pilot Program Selection application (A)* • Short Plat (A) • Design Review (A) Type of Application • Pilot Program Selection application (A)* • Subdivision (CC) • Design Review (CC) • SEPA (A) Advantages • Numerous opportunities for public involvement at various stages of review process • For 10+ Lots — Concurrent review of subdivision and design review streamlines the permitting process Type of Public Notice • Notice of Application to agencies and Type of Public Notice Disadvantages applicant • Notice of Application to agencies, applicant and property owners and tenants w /in 500' • Posting property • Pilot program selection process lengthens permitting process/ may be seen as a disincentive for developers Type of Meetings • Permit approvals expired when ordinance sunset • Initial Community Meeting Type of Meetings • Initial Community Meeting Appeal Process • Informational Meeting for Subdivision • Hearing Examiner • Public Hearing Appeal Process • Superior Court Planned Type of Application Type of Application Advantages Residential • Short Plat (A) • Subdivision (CC) • Opportunities for resident involvement at various stages of review Development • Design Review (A) • Design Review (CC) process (PRD) • PRD (A) • SEPA (A) • For 10+ Lots — Concurrent review of subdivision, design review, and PRD streamlines the permitting process Type of Public Notice Type of Public Notice • Notice of Application to agencies, applicant • Notice of Application to agencies, applicant and property owners and tenants w /in 500' Disadvantages and property owners and tenant w /in 500' • Posting property • Posting property • Does not limit geographic area /number of developments in a neighborhood Type of Meetings Type of Meetings • Initial Community Meeting • Initial Community Meeting • Informational Meeting for Subdivision • Public Hearing Appeal Process Hearing Examiner Appeal Process • Superior Court Page 1 of 2 N) ^) Attachment C: Overview of Public Review Processes *(A) — Type 2 — Administrative Decision (CC) —Type 5 — Council Decision * *Council review of Subdivision, Design Review, and PRD can be done concurrently Please note: Zoning Code updates require a five meeting process: CAP 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing /Recommendation 4 CAP 4 Council Public Hearing /Discussion (COW) 4 Council Action (Regular Meeting) Page 2 of 2 Development of 9 Lots or Less Development of 10+ Lots Advantages /Disadvantages Zoning Type of Application Type of Application Advantages Overlay • Short Plat (A) • Subdivision (CC) • Design Review (CC) • Limited to specific geographic areas where the zoning overlay is applied Type of Public Notice • SEPA (A) • Notice of Application to agencies and Disadvantages applicant Type of Public Notice • Limited to specific geographic areas where zoning overlay is applied • Notice of Application to agencies, applicant and property owners and tenant w /in 500' • Limited opportunities for public involvement for developments less Type of Meetings • Posting property than 9 lots • None Type of Meetings Appeal Process • Informational Meeting for Subdivision • Hearing Examiner • Public Hearing Appeal Process • Superior Court *(A) — Type 2 — Administrative Decision (CC) —Type 5 — Council Decision * *Council review of Subdivision, Design Review, and PRD can be done concurrently Please note: Zoning Code updates require a five meeting process: CAP 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing /Recommendation 4 CAP 4 Council Public Hearing /Discussion (COW) 4 Council Action (Regular Meeting) Page 2 of 2 2 Attachment D: Housing Options Draft Outreach Plan Date Tactic Task Notes June Web page creation Explain concept show pictures, include schedule July Powerpoint presentation Overview of concept; type of homes; variations and process July Online open house Opportunity to provide feedback electronically July Tukwila Reporter article July /August Pop -Ups Have staff and a display at Tukwila Community Center; and Foster Library during peak periods Engage residents at popular community destinations August Postcard Mailed to all residents in LDR Advertise that staff is available for meeting, or presentations to groups and date of PC hearing August E hazelnut (Distributed last Monday of each month) August TukTV Interview Community Trust September Planning Commission Work Session /Public Hearing September Planning Commission Discussion /Decision October CAP Planning Commission Recommendation/ Ordinance Briefing COW Public Hearing City Council Ordinance Decision 25