The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning 2017-10-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director CHAIR, MIGUEL MAESTAS; VICE -CHAIR, NHAN NGUYEN; COMMISSIONERS, SHARON MANN, MIKE HANSEN, LOUISE STRANDER, BROOKE ALFORD, AND DENNIS MARTINEZ PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA OCTOBER 26, 2017 - 6:30 PM TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. ADOPTION OF 9-28-17 MINUTES IV. CASE NUMBER: L17-0067, Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulation Update (ADU) APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Update of regulations for ADUs in the single-family zone including allowing detached ADUs, changes to lot size requirement, number of occupants, number of parking spaces and height, size and design standards. LOCATION: Citywide V. ADOPT BY-LAWS VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • The next PC meeting will be held on November 16, 2017, at 6:30 PM. VII. ADJOURN Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov City of Tukwila Planning Commission BOARD OF ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW(BAR) MINUTES Date: September 28, 2017 Time: 6:30 PM Location: Council Chambers Present: Chair, Miguel Maestas; Commissioners, Mike Hansen, Sharon Mann, Dennis Martinez, and Louise Strander Absent: Vice Chair, Nhan Nguyen and Commissioner Brooke Alford Staff: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor; Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary Chair, Maestas called the public hearing to order at 6:45 PM. Note: There was a prior event in the Council Chambers. Adoption Commissioner Mann requested two corrections to the August 24, 2017 minutes. of Minutes: Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Mann seconded the motion. The motion passed with four votes, Commissioner Maestas abstained from voting, he was not present at the August 24`'' meeting. Chair Maestas swore in those wishing to provide testimony and opened the public hearing. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NUMBER: L17-0041, L17-0042 APPLICANT: Jeremiah Jolicoeur, Alliance Realty Partners REQUEST: Request for public hearing design review and a parking variance for development of a seven -story building with 166 dwelling units for residents aged 55 years and older. A total of 186.5 parking spaces are required; the applicant is requesting an 11% reduction. The project includes a total of 167 parking spaces within a combination of structured parking and surface parking spaces, along with frontage improvements, recreation space, landscaping, and utilities. LOCATION: 415 Baker Blvd. (parcel #0223100080) Staff asked the Commissioners the Appearance of Fairness questions, there were no disclosures from the Commission, and no one objected to any of the Commissioners presiding over this matter. I. STAFF PRESENTATION Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development gave the presentation for staff. She provided explanation on the review process and gave an overview of the project. 1 Page 2 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 PARKING VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval of the parking variance with one condition, as listed in the September 28th staff report. QUESTIONS: Staff and the applicant responded to the following inquiries from the Commission on parking: The Commute Trip Reduction Program requirements; Location of parking proposed with the development; Management of parking at the site; And on -street parking proposed on Baker Blvd. DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval with 11 conditions. QUESTIONS: Following are some questions that staff and the applicant addressed for the Commission. - Clarification on short term parking on the East side of the project, there's no way to pull up to the entrance? (Hansen) - Does the proposed parking reduction affect any ADA stalls? (Martinez) - How many stalls are there on the south and west side of the project? They don't say visitor? Clarification of the number of parking stalls each unit is allowed; Requested explanation of shared parking for special events with adjacent property owners for short term parking; What if the adjacent neighbors do not want you to park there? Why ask for 11% reduction instead of 10%? Are utilities under the sidewalk? (Strander) - When the 31 spaces are put on Baker can visitors use that on -street parking, will the on -street parking also be used for people using the salon? Are the two flexible units on level two counted in the 167 spaces? Can the cornice be extended on the rooftop? (Mann) - Are there any stalls being designed to accommodate electric cars? (Maestas) Jeremiah Jolicoeur, the applicant, addressed questions from the Commission. He noted, based on their location they are within the specified distance of the transit so there is an administrative approval of a 10% reduction. They are asking for a reduction of an additional three spaces, which he said they lost when they put the fire room in, but they may gain a few spaces back. Ian Morrison, Attorney, for the applicant, addressed shared parking. He said, they will have an on- site concierge to manage parking for events and coordinate rides for residents. Participation in the City's Commute Trip Reduction Program will also help them monitor parking usage and plan for special events. He said, the applicant is willing to work privately with the neighbors to make sure they are not bringing any off-site parking spillage to surrounding properties. II. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ian Morrison, Attorney, for the applicant, thanked staff for an excellent and comprehensive staff report, and said they were 99.9% in agreement. He said they have met with staff and worked out many other issues. 2 Page 3 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 The applicant said they really look forward to the project being a part of Tukwila, and it provides a diverse and unique housing type. Also, the site allows walkability, and a social scene for age 55 plus, and will act very much like a mixed-use building. Following are the applicant's comments and proposed amendments to conditions number 2, 7, and 10: Condition #2, Comments: The applicant doesn't think the reason why the planting strip has been moved to the building side was established. The applicant said the City has six high volt lines running underneath current sidewalk on Andover Park East along with fiber and telecommunication lines all at a shallow depth. The logistic of being able to put plantings and trees there and still make those utilities accessible is impossible. Condition # 7, Comments: The applicant said they inherited some significant utility boxes. Clarification was provided on their intent to screen all the "new" utilities and mechanical equipment that they add to the site, but there is no way to screen existing equipment. Proposed: Add the word "new" after the word all. Condition #10, Comments: The applicant is opposed to the idea of putting a different material and color on the top floor. Saying, they want to keep it simple, which makes a more attractive building. And they feel like they have done that in a way that meets the design guidelines. Proposed: Requested the Commission consider this condition fulfilled, instead of working out something else with staff. Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development stated that there was discussion with the applicant regarding setting the top floor of the building back, which they did not want to do. Staff agreed to work with them to achieve the similar effect, by using materials and texture and patterns for the windows. Since this issue wasn't worked out, the recommendation in the staff report was to defer it, and give the applicant the opportunity to do more work, to see if they could achieve the effect without stepping it back. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: - Inquiry regarding aesthetically pleasing screening of the units(Martinez) - Clarification on the high volt lines location. (Strander) Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development provided clarification on the applicant's comments regarding condition # 1 and the location of the utilities. She said the condition states that the frontage improvements along the streets be approved as part of the building permit. There are a lot of utilities along Andover Park East, but the exact location and the depth was not provided to staff, when staff requested the information it was not available. Staff has had meetings with the City Engineer, and he would like to see the details and work with the applicant regarding where the utilities are, and what can be planted around them. To meet the intent of the Neighborhood Corridor Standard, which is to provide "an intimately -scaled pedestrian environment", there should be a buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk. Two options, (1) split up the landscaping. into two different areas; one area at the back of the curb with landscaping that can be planted around/on top of the utilities and one area with trees, shrubs, and groundcover at the back of 3 Page 4 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 the sidewalk; or (2) landscaping located in planters that are above grade. Once staff gets more detailed information about the utilities, they are recommending the frontage design be handled at the building permit stage. Ian Morrison, Attorney, for the applicant requested, "a friendly amendment to condition #1", if they can establish as part of the building permit review that those easements are cumbersome and wouldn't allow plantings to be located closer to the street. He asked the Commission if they would state for the record, if those things are true and the applicant demonstrates them they support the design solution currently being proposed. Commissioner Maestas asked about the weather protection along the facade, and said it is important to create a buffer between the pedestrian and the street Commissioner Hansen said he agreed with the applicant that if the planting strip is against the building, weather protection should not be required. He also expressed concern with the planters along the edge of the sidewalk, saying they would be hard to maintain, and wanted to know if there was another option. He said, the applicant's explanation on Condition #10 made sense. He inquired whether staff was asking for the top treatment on the back of the building, or just the north and east facades? Staff said the treatment could be different, there may be some opportunities that weren't explored. Commissioner Hansen said, "I am having difficulty being at the Board of Architectural Review and there is not a design to review, so review is turned over to Administrative review." Also, "it feels like there is work still to be done, and the language is broad." Staff commented that the Commission can modify the language or provide direction to staff. Commissioner Martinez said, "at this stage this stuff should be ironed out." There was extensive discussion on condition number 10, regarding what it would take to achieve a substantial horizonal articulation at the uppermost floor of the building to "create a top". Maestas asked for clarification on the location of substantial articulation. Staff provided clarification regarding the horizontal articulation of the upper most floor. Staff referenced page 24 of the staff report of pictures demonstrating the criteria. The applicant said that a set -back at the upper level is not an appropriate solution for this project, they said that the two top floor designs on page 24 really are not applicable to their project. Ian Morrison, Attorney, for the applicant requested that the Commission support their request for a friendly amendment to condition #2, #7 and omit condition #10 because, they felt the design and the intent of the design guidelines had been met. Commissioner Mann made a recommendation to add the following language to condition #10, "To be accomplished by making the upper most floor a continual color of white except for the front corner and the gray in -set." Commissioner Hansen and Martinez said they were comfortable with the design and thinks it meets the criteria. 4 Page 5 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Maestas was not comfortable with the substantial articulation, and said it may not be meeting the criteria. Also, that it may be leaving the City open to others not following the criteria in the future because of a precedent. He was supportive of Commissioner Mann's recommendation. Ian Morrison, Attorney, for the applicant requested a friendly amendment to condition #10. He asked the Commission to give direction for staff to work with them to take the current proposal and the proposal from Commissioner Mann and determine which would achieve the intent. Commissioner Strander noted as a point of clarification, the top floor will go around the entire building but will not include the special corner feature. Staff and the applicant agreed where the roof connects the top floor would include the north, east and south elevations. The applicant was asked to create language for the amended language for condition #10. Note: The amended language is shown below under conditions. Commissioner Hansen asked for clarification on condition #7, and staff's reaction to the applicant's comments. Staff said the intent of condition #7 was to screen the new utilities for the project, and agreed with amending the condition to add the word "new. " III. PUBLIC TESTIMONY There was no public testimony. The public hearing was closed. IV. DELIBERATION: Commissioner Strander expressed concerns regarding the parking reduction request. She said being asked to reduce the parking by 20 stalls seems rather significant; She was not sure how the assumption of overflow parking to adjacent property owners could be enforced long term; She's concerned that there isn't enough parking for the project; Therefore, doesn't know if she can support the parking reduction request. Commissioner Hansen said he respects Commissioner Strander's position, but he can support the parking reduction with the additional parking in the back and the short-term parking. He thinks it is adequate and he is comfortable that it's going to work. Commissioner Maestas also stated respect for Commissioner Stander's parking concerns, but he supports the proposed parking reduction, because it is near transit, and there will be a parking plan, which will be managed. He also stated he assumes that with the applicant's experience of completing projects they are telling potential renters about the parking situation. Commissioner Mann said she was initially concerned with the parking, but the applicant's rule to only allow one car per unit softened her concern. She proposed that on -street parking on Baker Blvd be for a limited amount of time. She asked staff how they can be assured of short-term parking. She said without 5 Page 6 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 the 31 on -street parking stalls there would probably be a lot of resistance in approving the minimum parking. The expectation is for the applicant to make sure their residents understand that on -street parking is not a place for residents to park. Staff said through the transportation management plan they could put the responsibility on the applicant for parking enforcement. The applicant asked the Commission to support the City providing signage and enforcement of the short-term on -street public parking. Commissioner Martinez said he thinks the parking is going to work and he thinks this is an agreeable solution. He said the applicant would be good partners with the City in helping manage the short-term parking on Baker Blvd. He agrees with the parking reduction. V. CONDITIONS, AS AMENDED: Condition #2: Provision of weather protection along 75% of the face of the building along Andover Park East shall be reviewed during the construction permit, as part of the review of the public frontage configuration along Andover Park East, to coordinate the location of weather protection where it will provide coverage over sidewalk areas but not over landscape areas or areas where the sidewalk is not adjacent to the building. Condition #7: The location of all new utilities and mechanical equipment, including those not known now, shall be shown on plans along with screening measures to ensure that if such elements must be mounted in a location visible from a street, pedestrian pathway, or common open space that they will be screened with vegetation or architectural features. Condition #10: Substantial articulation of the uppermost floor on the north, east, and south elevations shall be accomplished by extending the white color ("Distant Gray") along areas of the uppermost floor located underneath the long horizontal cornice. This treatment was proposed and agreed to at the Board of Architectural Review meeting after applicant, BAR, and staff review of the design on the applicant's 3-D model, as shown on Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. VL MOTIONS: Commissioner Martinez made a motion to approve with one condition project number L17-0042 based on staff's findings and conclusions contained in the staff report, dated September 28, 2017 as submitted. The motion passed four to one. Commissioner Strander opposed. Commissioner Mann made a motion to amend the recommendation on project number L17-0041, condition number 7 to add the word "new" after the word all. Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Commissioner Mann made a motion to amend the recommendation on project number L17-0041, condition number 10 to approve amended language for the revised elevations. Commissioner Hansen requested to add language and an exhibit to condition number 10 to show the "top" treatment suggested by Commissioner Mann Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to amend the recommendation on project number L17-0041, condition number 2 as presented by staff, listed under amended conditions above. Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve case number L17-0041 based on the finding, conclusions and 8 conditions contained in the staff report, dated September 28, 2017, and amendments to 6 Page 7 Public Hearing Minutes September 28, 2017 condition numbers 2, 7, and 10. Commissioner Hansen Seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: • Commissioner Mann inquired on the replacement of language on page nine of the by-laws that was deleted. Staff said they will look into this and report back to the Commission. • Voting on the By-laws will be moved to the next meeting agenda due to the lateness of the hour. • Upcoming meeting agenda items through the end of the year are, Tree Code update, Tukwila Village, and Accessory Dwelling Units, • Staff informed the PC that the School District may not build the Birth to Kindergarten, and may come back to PC. ADJOURNED: 10:00 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary 7 8 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director Allan Ekberg, Mayor STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED OCTOBER 18, 2017 FILE NUMBERS: L17-0067 ADU Code Amendments REQUEST: Review and revise Tukwila's accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. LOCATION: City wide PUBLIC NOTICE: Hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times 10/12/17. A postcard was mailed to the owners and tenants of LDR Zoned parcels. An email was sent to the interested parties list. STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Revising city regulations to encourage accessory dwelling units — MRSC Homelessness and housing toolkit for cities B. Comparison of City ADU Standards C. ADU Survey Responses D. Detached ADU Examples BACKGROUND In March the City Council held a Housing Policy Work Session and considered a variety of housing related actions. One of the items that the Council prioritized for policy consideration was an update to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) zoning standards to be followed by an amnesty program for existing units. The intention was to create additional housing options and address the life safety issues in the many illegal ADU conversions in the City. Tukwila's current standards for ADUs are: • Minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet (larger than the Low Density Residential standard of 6,500), • The ADU is no more than 33% of the square footage of the primary residence and a maximum of 1,000 square feet, whichever is less, • One of the residences is the primary residence of a person who owns at least 50% of the property, Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 9 L17-0067 ADU Regulation Update Page 2 • The unit is incorporated into the primary single-family residence, not a separate unit, so that both units appear to be of the same design as if constructed at the same time, • Minimum of three parking spaces on the property with an ADU less than 600 square feet, and a minimum of four parking spaces for an ADU over 600 square feet, and • The ADU is not sold as a condominium. Seattle's experience with loosening restrictions on ADUs and Portland's dramatic increase in the number of ADUs built over the past few years have spurred a policy debate about this housing type. An MRSC article about revising city regulations to encourage accessory dwelling units from its Homelessness and Housing Toolkit is included as Attachment A. A table comparing Tukwila's current ADU standards to neighboring jurisdictions as well as Portland is included as Attachment B. DISCUSSION Staff began public outreach and education about this issue in mid-July by developing a survey about possible changes to current ADU standards. The intent was to give the Council a general sense of the public support for or opposition to the possible changes. The survey was publicized at "See You in the Park" events, emailed to Tukwila boards and commissions, emailed to 468 single family and duplex landlords with rental housing licenses, published in the July Tukwila Reporter and posted on the City's Facebook account. We received 165 responses to the survey, see the results in Attachment C. Overall a majority supported making changes to all of Tukwila's current standards, though for some questions such as maintaining the owner occupancy requirement there was less than a 10% spread. Staff took the survey results and policy options to the Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee and City Council. Below is a discussion of key policy recommendations aimed at allowing more flexibility for ADUs while trying to retain neighborhood protections. Policy Recommendations 1. Begin allowing detached ADUs Tukwila is the only city in the area that does not allow detached ADUs. They provide greater flexibility and a greater degree of privacy between owner and tenant. However, these units are also more visible so there should be standards that make them compatible with and visually subordinate to the main house. Attachment D shows examples of detached ADUs that would meet the size limitations recommended below. • Not allowed if there is an attached ADU on site (only 1 ADU per parcel) • Unit may be up to 800 square feet (must still meet the existing standards for total building footprints of 2,275 sf and maximum impervious area of 4,875 sf for a 6,500 sf lot) W:A@SHAREPOINT FOLDER RESTRUCTURE\Code Updates\Code Amendments\ADU Proposal\PC Staff Report 10-26-17.docx 10 L17-0067 ADU Regulation Update Page 3 • Detached units must be set back at least as far from the street as the main house. This would not apply to the second front of a through or corner lot, or where the unit is incorporated into an existing structure such as a detached garage. • Limit height to 20 feet, which is lower than the existing 30 -foot height limit in LDR and would allow a 1 story building with a loft or attic space. Building height is calculated from the mid -point of any elevation change across the footprint of the house to the mid -point of the pitched roof. Average Grade Alternatives: A. Retain current ban on detached ADUs, Or B. Select different area or height standards 2. Increase the percentage of the house that can be occupied by an attached ADU Many houses are laid out in a way that makes it difficult to meet the limitation that the ADU occupy no more than 1/3 of the floor area of the house. Increasing this percentage could make for more livable units in small houses while retaining the 1,000 square foot ADU cap for larger houses. • Allow attached ADUs to occupy up to 40% of the square footage of the primary residence or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Alternatives: A. Retain standard limiting attached ADUs to 33% of the house, Or B. Select a different area standard 3. Reduce the lot area requirement from 7,200 square feet to 6,500 square feet There are approximately 3,000 Low Density Residential (LDR) zoned parcels that meet the 6,500 square foot minimum lot area in that Zone. Of these there are 330 between 6,500 and 7,200 square feet that would be newly eligible for an ADU if the area requirement were reduced. None of our neighboring cities limit ADUs to lots that are larger than the standard in their zone. W:A@SHAREPOINT FOLDER RESTRUCTURE\Code Updates\Code Amendments\ADU Proposal\PC Staff Report 10-26-17.docx 11 L17-0067 ADU Regulation Update Page 4 • Reduce the lot area requirement from 7,200 square feet to the LDR minimum lot area of 6,500 square feet for both attached and detached ADUs Alternatives: A. Retain the 7,200 SF standard, Or B. Select different standards for attached and detached ADUs 4. Retain the owner occupancy requirement Owner occupancy is required by all of our neighboring jurisdictions and Tukwila could attract more absentee landlords if we were the only one in the area without that requirement. Enforcing the occupancy requirement has been a challenge even though we do require an affidavit to be recorded on the property's title. If an owner were temporarily unable to live on site due to a work assignment, illness, or extended travel they would need to keep one of the units (house or ADU) vacant. Alternative: A. Remove owner occupancy requirement 5. Retain Parking Requirements In residential zones houses and apartments with up to 3 bedrooms are required to provide 2 parking spaces, with 1 additional space for every 2 bedrooms. ADUs up to 600 SF (generally 1 bedroom) are required to have 1 additional space while units over 600 SF (generally 2 bedroom) are required to have 2 additional spaces. Tukwila, like its surrounding cities, averages 1.8 cars per household. Many of Tukwila's neighborhoods do not have on -street parking to accommodate additional vehicles. Of our neighboring cities only SeaTac requires a second parking space for larger ADUs. Alternatives: A. Reduce the parking requirement to 1 space per ADU of any size, Or B. Allow a waiver of the second space for ADUs over 600 SF if the ADU is located on a block with on -street parking 6. Provide an amnesty period for registration of illegal ADUs We periodically become aware of illegal ADUs through code enforcement complaints and the rental housing licensing program. Often these units have significant life safety issues because they have not been built to meet building and electrical codes. We would like to incentivize property owners to register these units and bring them up to code for the safety of the tenants. Providing some flexibility on standards such as height, area, and parking would allow more units to qualify. However, retaining the owner occupancy requirement is likely to be a barrier for some landlords. W:A@SHAREPOINT FOLDER RESTRUCTURE\Code Updates\Code Amendments\ADU Proposal\PC Staff Report 10-26-17.docx 12 L17-0067 ADU Regulation Update Page 5 • For a period of 1 year from the date of adoption of the code updates existing ADUs that do not meet the new code standards may request flexibility from the Director for the following: a. Exceeding the permitted height for a detached ADU b. Exceeding the permitted area for an attached or detached ADU c. Not providing a second parking space for an ADU over 600 sf in area d. Roof pitch of less than 5:12 e. Location of the ADU on the lot. • We would not offer flexibility on owner occupancy, providing at least 1 parking space per ADU, or meeting the 6,500 SF minimum lot size. Alternatives: A. Do not offer an amnesty, enforce all code requirements as we become aware of illegal ADUs, Or B. Limit flexibility to more/fewer standards 7. Do not create a residential occupancy limit in the Zoning Code Seattle and SeaTac limit the number of residents per ADU. Tukwila's Zoning Code does not currently define what constitutes a family or limit the number of individuals who may live together in a dwelling. These types of regulations were removed from Tukwila's code because they can be challenged under the Fair Housing Act as discriminatory, especially against families with children. The International Building Code (IBC) Table 1004.1.2 sets a residential occupancy load of 200 square feet per person. This is based on life safety standards and therefore less susceptible to challenge than standards such as two people per bedroom. • Continue to enforce the IBC but do not create a Zoning Code standard for residential occupancy. Alternative: A. Consult with the City Attorney about what other types of occupancy limitations are legally enforceable Request Hold the public hearing on the proposed changes, review each proposed change, and choose a policy option. Staff will return with an ordinance for the PC to approve and forward to the City Council. W:A@SHAREPOINT FOLDER RESTRUCTURE\Code Updates\Code Amendments\ADU Proposal\PC Staff Report 10-26-17.docx 13 14 dome too <it essness & "or cities sousing Tools and resources to address homelessness and affordable housing from real cases in cities across Washington. Attachment A 15 Affordable housing Revising city regulations to encourage accessory dwelling units Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have been around for decades. In many parts of Washington State, the concept is accepted and local governments have revised their regulations to accommodate such housing. Even so, the number of ADUs created in accordance with local standards has remained relatively low, due in part to the difficulty in meeting those regulations and the associated costs. In response, a few local governments are relooking at their standards and discussing how to make them easier to meet. The potential easing of existing ADU regulations, however, is causing neighborhood homeowners to take notice. What is an accessory dwelling unit (ADU)? An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small, self-contained residential unit located on the same lot as an existing single-family home.They are sometimes referred to as "mother-in- law apartments." An ADU has all the basic facilities needed for day-to-day living independent of the main home, such as a kitchen, sleeping area, and a bathroom. 16 There are two types of ADUs: 1. Attached ADU, which may be created as either: a. A separate unit within an existing home (such as in an attic or basement); or b. An addition to the home (such as a separate apartment unit with its own entrance). 2. Detached ADU, created in a separate structure on the lot (such as a converted garage or a new "backyard cottage"). Reasons for allowing ADUs State law (RCW 43.63A.215 and RCW 36.70A.400) requires that certain cities and counties adopt ordinances to encourage the development of ADUs in single-family zones, by incorporating the model ordinance recommendations prepared by the Washington Department of Commerce. In addition to just meeting a statutory mandate, however, ADUs have also helped local jurisdictions meet their Growth Management Act goals to encourage affordable housing and provide a variety of housing densities and types, while still preserving the character of single- family neighborhoods. From a planning perspective, it is considered by many to be a "kinder and gentler" method for accommodating population growth in a community, as compared to upzoning land to do so. 15 Standard ADU regulations Most local ADU regulations have standards to address the following issues: • Maximum unit size • Owner -occupancy • Dedicated off-street parking • Attached ADUs only • Maximum number of dwelling units on one lot • Separate entrances/Only one visible from the street • Other design standards (especially for detached ADUs) for such items as roof pitch, window style, and exterior material • Maximum number of occupants • Minimum lot size • Building code and other"life/safety" requirements Communities starting to reconsider ADU requirements Some local governments in Washington State and elsewhere are reexamining their"standard"ADU requirements and questioning the rationale behind them, especially given the low production rate of new accessory dwelling units. As a result, some communities are considering changes to ADU regulations, such as: • Unit size: Most current ADU standards set a maximum size (for example, 800 square feet), but some communities are considering an increase to their limit to provide more flexibility. • On-site parking: Some local governments are looking at a reduction or elimination of standards requiring on-site parking spaces for the ADU's occupants, especially in areas where there is adequate on -street parking. Such a change may face stronger opposition in neighborhood where street parking is at a premium. • Detached ADUs: Most codes only allow attached ADUs, but more communities are expanding regulations to permit detached ADUs (which are usually required to be placed in the back half of a residential lot). Even if allowed, the high cost of constructing "backyard cottages" may limit the number that actually get built. • Owner -occupancy: Most codes require that the property owner needs to occupy either the primary or accessory unit, but some communities (such as Seattle) are considering removing this requirement. • Allowing more than two dwelling units: A "cutting edge" regulatory change is to increase the maximum number of dwelling units on a single family lot to three (by allowing one primary dwelling unit, one attached ADU, and one detached ADU). In Seattle, the City Council is currently considering proposed code revisions that would include an increase to three units on one lot. Discussion about these types of changes has caused anxiety for some homeowners, who are concerned about the impacts on neighborhood character and property values. On the other side are affordable housing advocates who consider changing existing regulations as a way to effectively increase the number of legal ADUs. Regardless of how local governments decide to regulate them, ADUs may be a viable approach to address a community's growth and affordable housing policies in a manner that is acceptable to residents (especially if they 16 consider the alternatives). Just be sure regulations and development review process aren't so burdensome that property owners end up not creating these dwelling units or building an ADU without obtaining the required permits. Resources Accessory Dwellings website www.accessorydwellings.org MRSC's Accessory Dwel ;s: Issues & Options MRSC's Accessory Dwelling Units and Affordable Housing 17 18 Comparison of Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards City Min. Lot Size Max. Unit Size Height Parking Requirement Owner Occupancy Other Regulations Fees Tukwila Attached Only smaller of 1/3 sf of main house or 7,200 1,000 sf NA 2 for main house, 1 for ADU up to 600 sf, 2 for ADU over 600 sf Required Incorporated into the primary single-family residence so that both units appear to be of the same design as if constructed at the same time, Not sold as a condo, Detached not permitted None Renton Attached and Detached smaller of 3/4 sf 30', but no of main house or taller than Same as zone 800 sf main house 2 for main house, 1 for ADU Required, signed affidavit, notice on title Conditional Use Permit, match main house, Max 50 allowed per year in City, meet impervious surface and building coverage Admin CUP $1,500 Kent Attached and Detached Specific zoning requirements of each zone. ADU in new development limited to 800 sf or 33% of the same as Zone principal home 23' but not to exceed the height of the principal building 2 for main house, 1 for ADU 1 unit must be owner occupied for 6 Immediate neighbors of an ADU applicant months of the will be notified of the pending ADU permit year, Recorded within 15 days of the application being covenant deemed complete. Planning Review $93 SeaTac Attached and Detached Attached NEW: 800 SF EXISTING: 45% of Same as the principal Zone. 1 ADU home per lot Detached 800 SF 20' Parking for main house by zone, 1 for ADU up to 600 sf, 2 for ADU over 600 sf Must occupy for at least 9 months, affidavit and documentatio n of residency required. ADU must be registered with the City of SeaTac. Occupancy limit of 2 people for 440 SF, 3 people for 600 SF, 4 people for 800 SF. Waiver for additional parking requirements can be granted if adequate street parking is available. Impact fee is 60% of SF rate. $129 N City Min. Lot Size Max. Unit Size Height Parking Requirement Owner Occupancy Other Regulations Fees Burien Attached and Detached Same as Zone. ADU footprint no more than Attached 1000 SF 15% of the Detached 800 SF, total lot area Exceptions or 80% of the possible for main buildings at least residence 5 years old Lower of 10ft above the height of the primary existing structure or the max allowed in the zone 1 additional parking space is required. Parking should be on the side or rear of the building. Required, signed and recorded affidavit Only 1 entrance per street front unless hidden. Designed to match main building. Non -conforming ADU's can apply to become legal ADU's if they meet all requirements set fourth in the BMC. No impact fees for ADUs. None Seattle (in SF Zone) Attached Same as zone 1,000 sf NA 1 for main house, 1 for ADU, waiver is possible Required, signed covenant Max 8 residents on site unless all related. No public comment period on application or appeal allowed. Duplex building standards for sound and fire separation if new construction, Only 1 visible entrance per street, Sewer capacity charge for new connections. $210 + plan review fee based on value of work Detached 4,000 800 sf 1 for main house, 1 for ADU, waiver is possible Required, signed covenant Entrance can't face nearest side yard or rear unless on an alley. Not allowed in the shoreline. Must pay sewer capacity charge. Portland Attached smaller of 3/4 sf of main house or Same as zone 800 sf NA No additional for ADU No 1 or more related persons plus up to 5 additional persons, Some utility hook up and impact fees reduced or waived Only 1 entrance on street fagade smaller of 3/4 sf of main house or Detached Same as zone 800 sf 20' height No additional for ADU No Smaller footprint than main house, 40' setback from front lot line or behind the house, design to match main house, Duplex building standards if new construction ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Q2 Should the City allow detached ADUs, like backyard cottages, that are not part of the main house? Answered: 161 Skipped: 4 Yes - make the change No - keep this the same ANSWER CHOICES Yes - make the change No - keep this the same TOTAL .,,\\.\\%%V\\\\\\\\\\\%\\\\\\\\%\\\A %\\\% - \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% RESPONSES 77.02% 22.98% 90% 100% # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 It should depend on the size of the lot 2 Yes if lot coverage remains the same as it is now. 3 Please, allow this! Housing is SUCH a struggle for this county. We need more options!! 4 Shouldn't a person be allowed to house their mother-in-law without having her live in their house? 5 Owner s choice , can be either backyard cottages or detached AUD 6 City council should have their heads examined for spending money on a suspicious idea. Instead of one rental property their will be two. Where is the benefit for the community. 7 This could be useful for certain people, but not appropriate for all....overall this may be a good solution to certain circumstances., bad for others. 8 This is the most important change. 9 One house pure lot. 10 No rehab or halfway houses, etc. 11 Much additional affordable housing is needed. 12 Design should reflect design of original/main home and/or neighborhood. 13 Yes, but lot square footage should be more compared to ADUs. 14 Would not mind if an ADU was above the garage even if the garage is not attached to the house. Would not like to see 2 homes on 1 lot. 22 2/15 DATE 7/31/2017 8:40 PM 7/25/2017 6:22 PM 7/23/2017 9:37 PM 7/21/2017 4:07 PM 7/20/2017 7:42 PM 7/20/2017 6:10 PM 7/19/2017 8:15 AM 7/18/2017 7:25 PM 7/18/2017 5:46 PM 7/18/2017 4:26 PM 7/18/2017 2:06 PM 7/17/2017 11:05 PM 7/17/2017 3:01 PM 7/17/2017 11:44 AM 124 37 161 ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Q3 Should the City allow detached ADUs to be up to 800 square feet no matter the size of the main house? Answered: 159 Skipped: 6 Yes - make the change No - keep this the same ANSWER CHOICES Yes - make the change No - keep this the same TOTAL \\\A\\\\\\\\\\%\\\\** 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 67.92% 32.08% # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 900 sf 2 Could even be bigger that 800 sf 3 I'm not aware of the current square footage. 4 I would want t know why 800? 5 No. Maximum lot coverage established should remain the same. See above. 6 650 sft 7 800 square feet is enoiugh to provide an nice living space for a relative. 8 8x 10 is not very big... 9 Would I be happy if an 800 sq ft building went up in my neighbors backyard. No! Would he be happy if one went up in my backyard? No. Why create all that unhappiness? 10 For scale and blending, it should be a percentage of the existing structure and some ratio of the lot size. Maybe up tp 1000 sqft. 11 Unless it's above a garage and the garage is 800 sq ft, then ADU would be ok at 800 sq ft. 12 I would suggest approximately the size of a generous studio, I am not sure what that would equate to but I am thinking maybe 500 -600 sq feet? 13 And also 800 Sqf should not include the parking space. 14 Detached should be smaller. 3/15 DATE 8/1/2017 4:11 PM 8/1/2017 4:04 PM 7/31/2017 4:09 PM 7/26/2017 7:49 AM 7/25/2017 6:22 PM 7/23/2017 1:02 PM 7/21/2017 4:07 PM 7/19/2017 8:15 AM 7/18/2017 5:46 PM 7/17/2017 4:00 PM 7/17/2017 11:44 AM 7/14/2017 6:10 PM 7/14/2017 11:24 AM 7/13/2017 9:10 AM 108 51 159 23 ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Q4 Should the City allow attached ADUs to be up to half the square footage of the house rather than the current limit of one third? Answered: 159 Skipped: 6 Yes - make the change No - keep this the same ANSWER CHOICES Yes - make the change No - keep this the same TOTAL \\IINI\110 000\\\\0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 60.38% 39.62% # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 Pay extra costs 2 If it meets other lot dimension requirements 3 Depends on how big the house and lot is. 4 Not sure - maybe up to half with a cap on the total sq. ft. 5 Is the City worried about over crowding when it is building a monstrosity of a low income housing unit near the SouthCenter Mall? 6 AUDs should be allowed up half the sq footage of the main house 7 Only If the ADU is on a 7200SF lot, then and only then could ADU be 1000SF. 8 Yes, up to 800 sf max 9 This creates a duplex. 10 a single amount seems better, so an adu could be the limit of 800 square feet 11 Lot size should be a factor making sure the structure does not cover the entire lot. Scale scale a consideration. 12 Most homes would not allow up to half of the square footage, but for those that can, we feel it should be allowed. 24 4/15 DATE 8/1/2017 4:08 PM 7/26/2017 7:49 AM 7/25/2017 6:22 PM 7/22/2017 12:11 PM 7/21/2017 4:07 PM 7/20/2017 7:42 PM 7/20/2017 6:10 PM 7/18/2017 9:34 PM 7/18/2017 5:46 PM 7/17/2017 4:30 PM 7/17/2017 4:00 PM 7/13/2017 11:41 AM 96 63 159 ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Q5 Should the City only require 1 additional parking space per ADU, rather than the 2 that are now required for units over 600 square feet? Answered: 162 Skipped: 3 Yes - make the change No - keep this the same ANSWER CHOICES Yes - make the change No - keep this the same TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1\\\\%\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\,11i 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 54.32% 45.68% OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) Who cares? There are cars parked all over the place. Just keep the cars parked off of the streets. if the MIL is for one person why two cars? somehow, the parking spaces should match the number of cars that belong to the residents of the MIL Its important that ADUs not effect street parking Parking is already a HUGE issue in Tukwila. Off street parking is essential if we are going to have passable roads. City should LIMIT additional parking to one space Parking is generally a problem in the city, let's not exacerbate the parking problem. Is a parking space considered a place in the driveway, in front of the garage? The density of this area is increasing. Many people will ride public tranist and only have a max of one car. The current 2 additional spots seems to not take into account the current culture of the area. Encourage less car use. 5/15 DATE 7/21/2017 4:07 PM 7/19/2017 8:15 AM 7/18/2017 7:25 PM 7/18/2017 5:46 PM 7/17/2017 11:05 PM 7/17/2017 4:00 PM 7/16/2017 4:51 PM 7/13/2017 11:11 AM 7/13/2017 9:10 AM 88 74 162 25 ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Q6 Should the property owner be allowed to rent out both the house and ADU instead of living on site? Answered: 163 Skipped: 2 Yes - make the change No - keep the same ANSWER CHOICES Yes - make the change No - keep the same TOTAL 2 3 4 al\\\\\\\\\\\\\%\\*ON 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 53.37% 46.63% OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) This is the main problem. As a past Tukwila Building Inspector I found developers buying properties to convert the property into a duplex with no intention of living there. I brought this to the attention of the Planning Director and was told that requiring the owner live at the residence was not enforceable. A study was done a while ago about the percent of rental units in the city. There must have been some concern. Again, this is a MUCH needed change to support this crowded, growing region!! Affordable options are shrinking!! Okay as long as a professional property manager is Managing property!!! No, these changes should be for housing family and friends not for converting the LDR lots into high density, money making lots which would destry the charm of LDR neighborhoods. 5 Allow rent out both the house and AUD if the owner lives in the premise or not 6 But only on 7200SF lots otherwise there is no benefit to the community. 7 Its important to for Tukwila to remain an owner occupied city. 8 If both units are rentals more multi -family buildings which are unregulated will be created. Do we really need more multi -family dwellings in Tukwila? We already have more per capita than any other city in the state. 9 no! owner occupation is a must 10 Lets not encourage absentee landlords who are mostly profit and not community oriented. 11 People own these buildings and should be able to do what they want with them. There are so many existing codes and rental requirements it is the least we can do for people who have to abide by all of those regulations and business license. 12 No slum lords please 26 6/15 DATE 8/5/2017 8:46 AM 7/23/2017 9:37 PM 7/23/2017 1:02 PM 7/21/2017 4:07 PM 7/20/2017 7:42 PM 7/20/2017 6:10 PM 7/18/2017 7:25 PM 7/18/2017 5:46 PM 7/18/2017 12:33 PM 7/17/2017 4:00 PM 7/13/2017 11:11 AM 7/13/2017 9:10 AM 87 76 163 ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Ryan Hilt Allentown Duwamish Foster Point Riverton Foster Cascade View Thorndyke Tukwila Hill McMicken I don't live in Tukwila ANSWER CHOICES Ryan Hill Allentown Duwamish Foster Point Riverton Foster Cascade View Thorndyke Tukwila Hill McMicken Q7 In what neighborhood do you live? Answered: 160 Skipped: 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7/15 RESPONSES 1.88% 7.50% 1.25% 5.63% 9.38% 11.88% 9.38% 11.25% 23.75% 13.75% 3 12 2 9 15 19 15 18 38 22 27 ADU Changes I don't live in Tukwila TOTAL 28 8/15 4.38% SurveyMonkey 7 160 ADU Changes Own Rent ANSWER CHOICES Own Rent TOTAL Q8 Do you own or rent your house? Answered: 162 Skipped: 3 a �1�1��00@� 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 9/15 RESPONSES 93.21% 6.79% SurveyMonkey 29 ADU Changes SurveyMonkey Q9 Would you like to be added to a mailing list about this issue? Yes - enter your email... Email address Answered: 158 Skipped: 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES No Yes - enter your email address below Email address TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 30 EMAIL ADDRESS Email addresses redacted 10 / 15 RESPONSES 37.97% 1.90% 60.13% DATE 8/16/2017 3:17 PM 8/16/2017 1:05 PM 8/16/2017 1:03 PM 8/16/2017 1:01 PM 8/16/2017 1:00 PM 8/13/2017 9:55 AM 8/9/2017 9:54 AM 8/8/2017 1:14 PM 8/7/2017 1:02 PM 8/3/2017 5:20 PM 8/2/2017 10:34 AM 8/1/2017 4:12 PM 8/1/2017 4:09 PM 8/1/2017 4:07 PM 8/1/2017 4:06 PM 8/1/2017 4:04 PM 8/1/2017 12:11 PM 8/1/2017 7:46 AM 60 3 95 158 ADU Changes 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Email addresses redacted 11 / 15 SurveyMonkey 8/1/2017 7:35 AM 7/31/2017 7:12 PM 7/31/2017 6:21 PM 7/31/2017 4:10 PM 7/30/2017 9:39 PM 7/30/2017 3:17 PM 7/28/2017 3:44 PM 7/26/2017 6:16 PM 7/26/2017 7:52 AM 7/25/2017 6:24 AM 7/24/2017 11:36 PM 7/23/2017 9:41 PM 7/23/2017 4:32 PM 7/23/2017 1:56 PM 7/23/2017 1:08 PM 7/22/2017 9:34 PM 7/22/2017 3:16 PM 7/22/2017 12:13 PM 7/21/2017 12:36 PM 7/20/2017 11:16 PM 7/20/2017 9:16 PM 7/20/2017 7:43 PM 7/20/2017 6:13 PM 7/20/2017 4:41 PM 7/20/2017 8:13 AM 7/19/2017 12:44 PM 7/19/2017 9:57 AM 7/19/2017 9:21 AM 7/19/2017 8:16 AM 7/19/2017 6:20 AM 7/19/2017 4:50 AM 7/18/2017 9:35 PM 7/18/2017 9:13 PM 7/18/2017 7:27 PM 7/18/2017 7:05 PM 7/18/2017 5:48 PM 7/18/2017 5:40 PM 7/18/2017 5:08 PM 7/18/2017 4:48 PM 7/18/2017 4:41 PM 7/18/2017 4:29 PM 31 ADU Changes 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 32 Email addresses redacted 12 / 15 SurveyMonkey 7/18/2017 12:36 PM 7/18/2017 8:02 AM 7/17/2017 11:06 PM 7/17/2017 10:03 PM 7/17/2017 9:44 PM 7/17/2017 6:14 PM 7/17/2017 4:07 PM 7/17/2017 3:13 PM 7/17/2017 2:56 PM 7/17/2017 2:55 PM 7/17/2017 11:45 AM 7/17/2017 8:49 AM 7/16/2017 8:29 PM 7/16/2017 4:53 PM 7/15/2017 11:23 PM 7/14/2017 8:44 PM 7/14/2017 7:44 PM 7/14/2017 11:25 AM 7/14/2017 10:54 AM 7/14/2017 6:09 AM 7/13/2017 8:38 PM 7/13/2017 3:29 PM 7/13/2017 1:50 PM 7/13/2017 1:17 PM 7/13/2017 12:29 PM 7/13/2017 12:06 PM 7/13/2017 11:42 AM 7/13/2017 11:32 AM 7/13/2017 11:29 AM 7/13/2017 11:25 AM 7/13/2017 11:19 AM 7/13/2017 11:15 AM 7/13/2017 11:12 AM 7/13/2017 11:10 AM 7/13/2017 9:52 AM 7/13/2017 9:11 AM ADU Changes 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SurveyMonkey Q10 Thank you for taking the time to give us your opinion. Let us know if you have other thoughts on this issue. Answered: 54 Skipped: 111 RESPONSES ADUs are a great tool for improving the inventory of affordable housing in our community (and for providing a little income boost to home owners, as well!) Win -Win! Hardcopy response from 8/9 See You in the Park Hardcopy response from 8/9 See You in the Park Hardcopy response from 8/9 See You in the Park Hardcopy response from 8/9 See You in the Park Hardcopy response from 8/9 See You in the Park Hardcopy response from 8/9 See You in the Park I would like the changes be made in steps --I'm not totally opposed to detached ADU's but I have concerns, given the foreign environment of our citizens as to how they would be kept and what they would look like. We have a boarding house at the end of our street and it was not unusual to have 14-18 cars parked there until we complained. the owner says he lives there but we neighbors seriously doubt it. Having a nonowner occupancy allowance leaves room for the excuse of "not knowing" what is going on and depending on neighbors to police activity. Allowing detached ADU's will certainly increase the appeal for developers and landlords to purchase properties to profit from multiple tenant properties. It is happening now. In many cases the property owners do not live at the residence. The council should not adopt unenforceable regulation. This will certainly change the character of Tukwila. Attached ADU's have already changed Tukwila's character. I believe this will increase Tukwila's problem with irresponsible landlords. 10 Thank you for making the survey. There are already several of these type units, have some good guidelines/boundaries is a great idea. 11 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 12 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 13 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 14 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 15 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 16 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 17 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 18 Hardcopy response from 7/26 See You in the Park 19 Vintage laws do not apply well to modern times. 20 It would be helpful to have more specific information on these issues in order to provide more informed responses. 21 I know if one of my relatives needed to stay with us, it would be great to have an ADU (well built and with curb appeal). I don't see any reason not to allow these in Tukwila, provided they are not eye sores and well maintained. 22 Feel strongly that increased opportunities for ADU on private properties can only increase the options for housing and the prosperity of the region! 23 Keep Tukwila a single family/single home community And NO MORE high-rises, despite the bribes 13 / 15 DATE 8/16/2017 3:17 PM 8/16/2017 1:06 PM 8/16/2017 1:05 PM 8/16/2017 1:05 PM 8/16/2017 1:03 PM 8/16/2017 1:01 PM 8/16/2017 1:00 PM 8/7/2017 1:02 PM 8/5/2017 9:06 AM 8/2/2017 10:34 AM 8/1/2017 4:13 PM 8/1/2017 4:12 PM 8/1/2017 4:10 PM 8/1/2017 4:09 PM 8/1/2017 4:07 PM 8/1/2017 4:06 PM 8/1/2017 4:04 PM 8/1/2017 4:01 PM 8/1/2017 7:46 AM 7/26/2017 7:52 AM 7/24/2017 11:36 PM 7/23/2017 9:41 PM 7/23/2017 4:32 PM 33 ADU Changes 24 Property managers need to be involved if both units are rented, expecially if owner is out of state! otherwise you can quickly lose the upkeep that comes from pride in ownership. Square foot of detachable dwelling could be larger if lot size is larger but capped at 800 square feet 25 More and more people moving into Tukwila and low density zoning should be changed to full fill the needs of housing. 26 City should also look at results of sticky dot exercise (@ Showalter MS and Tukwila CC) several years ago, prior to Comp Plan update. 27 Nobody likes a busybody. We do not need a "nanny state". We can make our own decisions - as long as they do not, negatively, affect others. 28 More parking, not less, it seems that the Asus are capable of two or more adults, most will have cars, street parking is getting scarce 29 Which Council persons plan to recuse themselves because they own lots 7200SF or are considering ADU on their property? 30 Why are the new lot sizes in Georgetown as low as 2500' LDR lots? 31 yes fir cottage and tiny homes! 32 Thank you for requesting input, and for considering this shift in policy. 33 These ADU's will be an increase to the population of Tukwila. I hope that the City ensures we are able to provide the necessary services to current citizens and provide for growth. 34 I wouldn't mind allowing a current garage on the property to be converted to an ADU if an additional parking space was required and all of the other current ADU requirements weremet. 35 Stop making Tukwila a slum. 36 While there are some valid, compelling reasons for ADUs let's not destroy the single family neighborhoods that we have....there just aren't that many of them. 37 Constituits get tired of their local governments trying to control every aspect of their personal decisions concerning their properties and lifestyles. 38 This is a positive and needed way to address the affordable housing issues we face. 39 Please do not sneak anymore halfway, sexoffender, rehab houses into our neighborhood 40 Thank you. 41 I see these units as a place for seniors or a disabled family member that needs help. They should not be built solely as a revenue stream for the home owner 42 Let's try to accommodate more affordable housing, without destroying the appearance , integrity, aesthetics and scale of our neighborhoods. If we had wanted ghetto style, appearance and culture, we would have looked elsewhere outside the city of Tukwila. 43 It is great that the city is moving in a positive way to create affordable housing. This will help build a stronger and secure neighborhoods. 44 this is one of the solution to resolve the housing crisis in urban area. 45 We appreciate your work on options for affordability. I am also eager to hear if and when cottage developments (with parking on the periphery of a cluster) will be allowed again on larger lots as historically. 46 To clarify I am a property owner in Tukwila but nota resident 47 Trees! City should have an official arborist on staff to promote care and preservation of mature trees, and incorporation of existing trees into new project designs. All building permits should require arborist's sign -off. Codes against cutting down mature trees should be enacted and enforced. Public needs to be educated about the value of trees and alternatives to removal. 48 The easiest way to increase affordable housing is with ADU's. 49 I own a house across from the Duawamish in Tukwila. I think increasing density is a good idea. 50 The ADU should not have to be of like style to the main house. Keeping this requirement will stop the building of more efficient and practical housing alternatives. 34 14 / 15 SurveyMonkey 7/23/2017 1:08 PM 7/22/2017 9:34 PM 7/22/2017 12:13 PM 7/21/2017 4:11 PM 7/20/2017 11:16 PM 7/20/2017 6:13 PM 7/20/2017 4:41 PM 7/20/2017 8:13 AM 7/19/2017 9:21 AM 7/19/2017 12:45 AM 7/18/2017 10:38 PM 7/18/2017 9:13 PM 7/18/2017 5:48 PM 7/18/2017 5:40 PM 7/18/2017 5:08 PM 7/18/2017 4:29 PM 7/18/2017 2:07 PM 7/18/2017 12:36 PM 7/17/2017 4:07 PM 7/17/2017 8:49 AM 7/16/2017 8:29 PM 7/14/2017 7:44 PM 7/14/2017 6:10 PM 7/14/2017 10:54 AM 7/13/2017 8:38 PM 7/13/2017 1:17 PM 7/13/2017 12:29 PM ADU Changes 51 I believe that amending the code to encourage ADU's will help homeowners battle the ever increasing housing costs in our area, as well as provide affordable housing for tenants. Additionally, because many ADU's are already in existence, I would encourage the city to offer a program to grandfather in existing ADU's (I have no idea how that would work, but I have heard of other municipalities doing that very thing) 52 We like this idea to help with housing needs! 53 What would the rules be for utilities: water sewer and electricity? 54 Glad you are working on this. 15 / 15 SurveyMonkey 7/13/2017 12:06 PM 7/13/2017 11:42 AM 7/13/2017 11:10 AM 7/13/2017 9:11 AM 35 36 BEDROO 9' X 10' BEDROOM 10' X 13' LAUNDRY KITCH LIVING 10'.6" X 9' Acequia Jardin A, C, F, H 800 SF 38 600 SF BEDROOM 10-3 x 10-0 CLOSET LIVING ROOM 13-6 x 12-4 KITCHEN 8-2 x 8-0 DINING 8-7 x 7-8 COVERED PORCH