Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2023-07-27 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Department ofC mmunity Develpment_ i t r ierl ff,,AICP Director CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) AGENDA JULY 27, 2023 - 6:30 PM Llan Ekberg, ayor To Participate in the Virtual Meeting at 6:30 pm: By Phone: Dial +1 253-292-9750 Access 779 253 241# Online: To join this meeting virtually please click on Planning Commission on the 7/27/23 calendar date on the events page located at https i_jwww,tuk ilawa.g 'v cvcnts/_ join Pe on at: 6200 Southcenter BIN d, Council Chambers, Tukwila, IV 98188 For Technical Support during the meeting, you may call 1-206-433-7155 Start time I. Call to Order 6:30 II. Roll Call 6:32 III. Amendment of the Agenda (if necessary) 6:34 .IV. Adopt - 6/22/23 PC Minutes 6:37 V. Public Comment (acknowledge whether any written comments were received) 6:40 VI. Unfinished Business 6:45 • Middle Housing Recommendations — An update on Middle Housing project with suggested recommendations for code updates. VII. New Business (none) 8:15 VIII. Director's Report 8:15 .IX. Adjournment 8:30 Reminder: Staff is available to address Planning Commissioner questions regarding packets anytime — we encourage Commissioners to call or email staff by noon on the Tuesday before the Commission meeting date. Please call or email Commission Secretary Wynetta Bivens, at 206-431-3654 or Wynetta.Bivens( 'ukwilaWA.gov to be connected with the appropriate staff member. Thank you! Tuk ila City Hall • 6200 utlrcenter Boul aar • Tukwila, WA 98188 206-433-180 Website: Tukwil A ov City of Tukwila Department of Community Development _ Nora Glerlofffi AlCp, Dire CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) MINUTES Alcan Ekberg, Mayor Date: June 22, 2023 Time: 6:30 PM Location: Hybrid Meeting - via Microsoft Teams / public, in-person attendance, Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188 Call to Order Chair Sidhu called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call The PC Secretary took roll call. Present: Chair Apneet Sidhu, Vice Chair Sharon Mann, Commissioners Louise Strander, Dennis Martinez, Alexandria Teague, and Martin Probst Staff: Director Nora Gierloff, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Department of Community Development (DCD); Long Range Planning Manager Nancy Eklund, AICP, DCD; Senior Planner Neil Tabor, AICP, DCD, Senior Program Manager Cyndy Knighton, Transportation, Public Works (PW), Economic Development Administrator Derek Speck and PC Secretary ,Wynetta Bivens Approval of Minutes (Initial discussion focused on an item that was added to the agenda at the request of City Administration and was not available at the time that agendas were emailed or mailed out to Commissioners. The planned presentation was mailed to commissioners on 5/25/23.) Vice Chair Mann moved to amend the 5/25/23 minutes pertaining to the first item under New Business on the updated agenda, a presentation regarding the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA) given by Mayor Ekberg and Fire Chief Brian Carson. Ms. Mann stated that the presentation of this agenda item was political in nature and that the discussion should not be included in the minutes, in the same way the general public comments provided by an audience member who also spoke were not included. She moved to strike everything pertaining to the PSRFA presentation. Commissioner Stander seconded the motion. The PC voted, Commissioner Sidhu abstained from voting due to being absent, Commissioner Teague abstained from voting because she joined the meeting alter the presentation, and Commissioner Probst opposed. The motion carried as amended with three in favor. Written General Public Comments No submittals. Unfinished Business None Tukwila City Nall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 9 206-43 00 • Website: Tuk +laW 1. ov PC Meeting 6/22/23 Page 2 New Business 1) Transportation Element Update Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager, Transportation, PW, began the presentation to update the PC on the Transportation Element. She explained that the Transportation Element is the document in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) that helps guide transportation for the next 20 years. She noted that an extensive update was adopted in 2005 which established current baselines for such things as level of service standards for roadway intersections and road compacity. This new update will provide a more complete look at transportation, including the local road safety plan, and will determine where to focus funding (i.e., on safety, etc.). They will be considering the following goals: Equity, Safety, Connectivity, Adaptability and Climate Justice in developing the Plan. Public Works (and their consultants) have established draft transportation element goals and are looking at existing conditions. They will then look at where they are going from there and anticipate future conditions. This analysis will require them to start working on the policy and performance metrics to address future transportation needs for residents, businesses, and visitors, etc. The Transportation Plan will be modified throughout theyear, and guided by required fiscal restraints. They will develop a draft plan (of projects and programs), and then present it to the PC, and then to the City Council to be adopted. Tinotenda Jonga, Transportation Consultant, Fehr and Peer, presented information on existing conditions and identified needs for the transportation element. Based on the needs the consultant identified, and those identified during community outreach, the Plan will consider the land use of the 12 distinct neighborhoods: as well as the transportation facilities available for various modes of travel: pedestrian, bicycle, transit; auto, and freight facilities, were identified. Emily Alice Allhart, AICD, Transportation Consultant, Fehr and Peer, presented the feedback received at outreach events held in Spring 2023, as well as from the online survey and webmap. She said that a lot of the public feedback confirmed or reiterated the goals and priorities identified previously by City staff. She also provided a summary of the interactions with the in-person events and focus groups. She stated, in response to a PC inquiry, that translation was provided in multiple languages. Ms. Knighton concluded the presentation with an overview of the schedule, with next steps to be completed in order to have the Transportation Element adopted by the deadline, December 2024. They will be circling back to the communities from whom they've heard comment earlier. She noted that they would be focusing on getting a draft plan to the PC at the Feb 22, 2024, meeting. They plan to present the draft element to the Council for adoption in Spring 2024. 2) Economic Development Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator, gave the presentation. He provided some background information, which stated that, for many years, there was no economic Development plan/strategy. In 2022, the Council provided funding to develop an "Economic Development Phone: 206-433-1800 + E ail: NlayoTukvuilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 2 PC Meeting 6/22/23 Page 3 Strategy". The strategy was originally scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022, but that did not occur. To integrate into the Comprehensive Plan, the Economic Development Strategy will be shaped into an economic development plan/element. The Strategy and the Economic Development Element will be essentially the one document. He will get feedback from the Council PCD committee, then integrate those comments, and bring back a draft to the Planning Commission in Fall 2023. The Economic Element of the Comp Plan will be updated. A PC member asked when the last Economic Development Plan was completed; discussion transpired and other questions were addressed. Mr. Speck provided a summary on various outreach engagements and the results, some of which he said they contracted with community groups to administer. He said nothing stood out from the input received; there was a lot of different interest stated, such as quality of life, equity, gathering place, property crime and services to help people. He said there is a disconnect because some services requested are already in place, such as education, training, etc. He would like to put more resources towards informing residents of what is currently available. He said he did not hear comments or request for more casinos, or more revenue generators. He noted that the consultant is creating topics for some focus groups, which they anticipate completing invitations by and -July. He asked the consultants to conduct interviews with some key stakeholders, such as some of the very large property holders. 3) Tukwila Middle Housing Neil Tabor, Senior Planner, DCI), AICP, presented on updating the Middle Housing Project, for which the City has a grant from the Washington Department of Commerce. He explained the connection to the update of the housing element of the Comp Plan and how it allows the City to analyze upcoming legislative requirements, and alsoinforms a better view of the current market and the subsequent code changes that would support viable middle housing products. Staff will offer further briefings on racially disparate impacts (RDI)r that have occurred from past practices, as well as from existing code, and how the City can better address those impacts going forward. He gave an overview of the project timeline, engagement updates, feasibility analysis, and racially disparate impacts evaluation. Work on the Middle Housing will end this summer The consultant, MAKERS, will continue to refine several elements of their housing work in the next few months. Discussion occurred regarding the various categories of unit types, financing goals, and key themes, such as a summary of realistic opportunities for homeownership occurring when housing is available at a range of prices. In particular, the discussion was focused on how certain recommendations would meet the market and the outcomes of sensitivity testing, and limit impacts to communities at risk of displacement. MAKERS will conduct feasibility analysis on middle housing types, incorporating input from the Tukwila Community received to date. Examples were shown of one- to four -unit housing types, and the baseline requirements set by the State Legislature was discussed. He also noted some focus on home ownership options to consider. Also noted was the need for market calibration, and a summary of how much the housing market has changed in recent years. The question was raised as to whether or not there has been any follow up outreach with some of the developers of townhomes recently regarding their process and were there any stumbling blocks to development. A suggestion was made to invite developers to a PC meeting since PC will be making Phone: 2©6-433-1800 * E ail: ayor TukwilaWA.gov + Website: TukwilaWA.gov PC Meeting 6/22/23 Page 4 some decisions on such projects. Staff noted that several developers had been interviewed as a part of the grant. Updates were provided on the engagement processes, online platform, racially disparate impacts, affordability, impacts to renters of color, white renters, and cost burden renters, or renters who spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Next steps and discussion transpired on the following three questions: - What is important to learn from sensitivity testing? - What areas of zoning codes seem most promising to update? - What outcomes should be strived for? Following are some of the PC feedback and questions: The missing piece is the middle housing- we need to find ways to help and to add more housing. Cluster LDR housing - look at tester housing and the code to allow more. - Have more Cottage style housing for affordability. Nice new townhomes that are organized, have parking, and are clean, are acceptable. The question was raised, when someone builds a small house in the back of their property would it be reviewed by the Police Department for crime prevention and inquiry was made on Fire Department access? 4) Public Outreach Plan Nancy Eklund, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager, DCD gave the presentation. Staff is conducting an outreach program that is equitable and inclusive process and obtain feedback from those who currently live, work, play, worship, etc., in Tukwila, and those that aren't here today, but would like to be in the future. Staff are making a concerted effort to reach specific community based organizations that may have not participated in Comp planning activities in the past. Ultimately, we want to make Tukwila attractive to all existing and future community segments. As such, staff are holding meetings with a lot of different segments of the community: students, religious organizations, community groups, city boards and commissions, etc. They are reaching out by tabling at Parks and Recreation activities, etc., over this summer., and will also be providing specific groups the opportunity to hear more about the Plan. When the Middle Housing grant funding that is funding a lot of the support to Community based organizations for coordinating their input expires, staff will seek other ways to engage with these groups. The PC members were asked for their thoughts on what specific organizations they thought should be contacted for their input. Ms. Eklund noted staff had presented the draft outreach plan to City Council. She noted that, as feasible, outreach materials will be translated. The PC suggested the following outreach efforts and groups: - Hold events with food. - Hold a summit for businesspeople at local hotels. - Engage with the Chamber of Commerce. Engage with Lam's Seafood and Seafood City. Phone: 206-433-18[0 * Email: Mayorr+TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 4 PC Meeting 6/22/23 Page 5 - Work with Starfire Center on a Saturday or Sunday. She said reaching out to all parts of the community willbalance and complement the input received from the business community, and those who are historically more coli mfortabe part in City planning activities. She said they want to be as broad as they can be in their outreach. The next phase is to work with the community to interpret what was said and then start to develop a draft. Director's Report: - Director Gierloff informed the PC that Clifford "Cliff' Cawthon, Advocacy and Policy Manager, Habitat for Humanity Seattle -King & Kittitas Counties extended an invitation to the PC to look at She some habitat projects that are middle housing types. asked the PC if they would be interested in pursuing it and received confirmation of interest so she will look into it and follow up with PC. Staff will try to identify a date that would work for the tour and the PC. - It was announced that Max Baker and his wife had a baby boy. - And she addressed a question pertaining to Tukwila South and the interest expressed in a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) at that site. She mentioned other groups that had also expressed interest in that area. Director Gierloff asked if the Commission was ready for a motion to adjourn, and Commissioner Martinez seconded that idea; the Commission approved adjourning the meeting. Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens PC Secretary Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 5 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development - Nora GierloAICP, Director TO: Tukwila Planning Commission FROM: Nora Gierloff, AICP, DCD Director BY: Neil Tabor, AICP DATE: July 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Update on Middle Housing Project with Code Recommendations Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE Staff and consultants are presenting updates to work being conducted within the Middle Housing Project. The update will include background on survey results, prototyping, and suggested code changes. BACKGROUND As a continuation of the Middle Housing work to date, staff has put together a refresher on certain conversations that have occurred to date, with an update of survey feedback received and proposed code amendments. While code amendments meeting the requirements of HB 1110 are not required until 6/1/2025, staff will present preliminary suggestions in order to gather feedback from commissioners for further refinement of a housing code update at a later date. Housing overview As noted in discussions and various presentations, Tukwila exists within a region experiencing a severe housing shortage. Projections from the Washington Department of Commerce illustrate the need for 1.27 million new homes by 2044 statewide, while Tukwila's own targets will. require 250 new net units of housing to be produced each year from 2023 to 2044. Tukwila has seen very limited housing growth in recent decades, with the exception of a few recent projects, largely within the 55+ affordable subset of housing. In order to meet housing targets and better provide housing opportunities for our community, the development code will need to be revised to better facilitate new development, with consideration for potential impacts to current residents. Survey feedback Over the past few months, staff conducted a Middle Housing Survey to gather preferences from the community. Core takeaways from the survey results included the difficulty of affording housing in Tukwila and the broader region, the openness to allowing additional housing types, and the desire for more housing options. The following tables show responses to questions regarding concerns and items that would alleviate concerns around Middle Housing. Tukwila City Hall . 6200 3outhcenter Boulevard * Tukwila, WA 98188 A 206433-1800 Website: TukwiA.gov 7 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Prompt: I have concerns about the following items related to Middle Housing (45 responses) Height of structures Impacts on privacy of adjacent Impacts on on -street parking None of the above Other 18% 40% 58% 31% 27% Prompt: My concerns about Middle Housing would be addressed if (46 responses) Building heights were similar to maximum heights for single-family homes Sidewalks and other improvements were constructed with new development Construction and design were high; quality The location has good amenities 15i I have no concerns about the impacts of Middle Housing 14 Overview of requirements of legislative actions Two significant housing bills were passed in the 2023 legislative session which will require updates to development standards. The general requirements of these bills are outlined below. HB 1110 Requires allowance of at least two units per lot on all predominantly residential lots. The graphic below also highlights additional density requirements at the point certain population thresholds are passed. 8 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Table 1: Basic requirements for cines subject to the middle housing bill in the 2024-2027 periodic update. Requires jurisdictions to allow at least six of nine middle housing types in zones that allow single-family homes. These middle housing types include: • Duplex • Stacked Flat • Triplex Fourplex • Fiveplex Sixplex • Townhomes • Courtyard Apartment • Cottage Housing HB 1337 Requires the allowance of two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), of at least 1,000 square feet each, at 24' of height, on lots that allow single-family homes. Jurisdictions cannot impose owner occupancy requirements on ADUs, and must allow units to be individually sold. Staff is currently preparing a code amendment related to Accessory Dwelling Units. CITY LIMITS: Number of middle housing units that must be allowed per lot within city limits NEAR A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP: Number of middle housing units per lot that must be allowed within % mile of transit WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Number of middle housing units that must be allowed within city limits if affordable units provided Sec. 3(2)(a) TIER ONE: Cities with population of at least 75,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(b) 4 du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities 6 du/ lot within 1/4 mile walking distance of a major transit stop, unless zoning permits higher densities 6 du/lot if 2 are affordable, unless zoning permits higher densities TIER TWO: Cities with population between 25,000 and 75,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(a) 2 du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities 4 du/lot within 1/4 mile walking distance of a major transit stop, unless zoning permits higher densities 4 du/lot on all lots predominantly residential if one is affordable TIER THREE: Cities with population under 25,000 that are contiguous with the LEGA of the largest city in a county with a population over 275,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(c) 2 du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities Requires jurisdictions to allow at least six of nine middle housing types in zones that allow single-family homes. These middle housing types include: • Duplex • Stacked Flat • Triplex Fourplex • Fiveplex Sixplex • Townhomes • Courtyard Apartment • Cottage Housing HB 1337 Requires the allowance of two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), of at least 1,000 square feet each, at 24' of height, on lots that allow single-family homes. Jurisdictions cannot impose owner occupancy requirements on ADUs, and must allow units to be individually sold. Staff is currently preparing a code amendment related to Accessory Dwelling Units. INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Prototyping Staff worked with MAKERS and Neighborhood Workshop to analyze the projected price of existing and potential housing types under modified standards. The graphs below show the projected leasing or sale price of different housing types as they relate to Tukwila's local median income. AVERAGE ASKING PRICE 10 $000,000 $800,000 $ 700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 5300,000 $200,000 e0,000 $831,221 • 111 jiIi $415,000 $367,661 5393,430 .11 Currently Allowed in LDR 5570,725 54 69,257 5470,483 Owner Lac ai Median 1i -icon -ie., 1 00-1 20% Range 5291,303 SF House Small tot Twin Home Townhouses Townhouses Compact Townhouse Auto Court Cottage AD1.1 Townhouses Court INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 5 of 9 63,890 $4„262. Currently Allowed in LDR 62,893 • $4,2.62 $ 3,261 $2,936 63,142 Renter Local Median income: 100-1 20% Range Currently Allowed in LDR $2,6193 $3,261 $3,142 $2,936 $2„830 $2,346 Renter Local Median Income: 100-1 20% Range 11 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Historical Residential Code Staff reviewed past iterations of residential development standards to provide historical context for commissioners. The table below depicts the Low -Density Residential (LDR) zone standards over time. As seen in the table, there has been little to no modification of these standards since at least 1995. This is significant, as the growth of the region and increases in the cost of housing over the last 28 years has greatly increased the effective cost of development and at what price point new development in this zone is feasible. Staff briefly reviewed the Moderate -Density Residential and High -Density Residential zones from 1995 against the current standards and also found little to no discrepancy. Low -Density Residential inimum' Lot Size 7.200 inimum Width (Average) Heigh Setbacks Fron Second Fron Side 25% of depth, no rriore than 30' 20' N/A 10% of lot width, no less than 4' no less than 8' 25% of depth, Rear more than 30' Suggested Code Changes The tables below illustrate general proposed changes to comply with HB 1110 and provide more market opportunities for middle housing production. These changes are intended to provide context for discussion and gather feedback from commissioners for further refinement of an eventual code amendment. As seen in the tables, MDR and HDR zones are included, and will need further updates to sync with changes in densities and allowances to the LDR zone. 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Zone Detached house Cottage (small -lot) Duplex Triplex LDR (existing) P MDR (existing) P P P Fourplex P Fiveplex Sixplex Townhouses Courtyard Apts. 7-12plex (up to four) (up to four) HDR (existing) P LDR (revised) MDR (revised) HDR (revised) TBD TBD TBD TBD 13 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Zone LDR (existing) MDR (existing) HDR (existing) Minimum lot size 6,500 sf 8,000 sf 9,600 sf Lot area per unit Units per lot Zone Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback 14 LDR (revised) 5,000 sf (3,000 sf for cottage) MDR (revised) 3,000 sf HDR (revised) N/A 3,000 sf 2,000 sf 1,250 sf 800 sf N/A LDR (existing) N/A N/A Up to six N/A N/A MDR (existing) HDR (existing) First First .floor floor: 15' 15' LDR (revised) 15' MDR (revised) HDR (revised) Second Second (10' for 20° floor: 20° floor: 20' cottage) 10' TBD Third Third floor: floor: 30' 30' First First floor: floor: 15' 7 5' 5' Second Second 5' 5' TBD floor: 20' floor: 20' 'Third Third floor floor: 20' 20' First First floor floor 15' 15' Second Second 10' noor 20' floor 20' Third floor 20- 30' Third floor: 20-30' 10' (5' for ADUs & Cottages) 5' TBD INFORMATIONAL MEMO Legislative Update - Briefing July 27, 2023 Page 9 of 9 MDR evised'' 30' 45, Coverage Parking, Requires 35% 50% 50% 40% 45% TBD TBD De 2+ per unit 2+ per unit 2+ per u No "15' front "15' front No requirement yard yard requirement Na Required above requirement 2,500 sf ATTACHED Middle Housing Briefing Presentation Required above 2,,500 sf No requirement TBD TBD Required Required above above 5,000 5,000 sf sf 15 16 Tukwila Middle Housing Planning Commission July 27, 2023 Overview • Housing overview (15 minutes) • Survey feedback (5 minutes) • Overview of requirements of legislative actions (5 minutes) • Prototyping (20 minutes) • Historical residential code (5 minutes) • Suggested code changes (10 minutes) • Discussion (20 minutes) 18 Project Team MAKERS • Ian Crozier • Julie Bassuk • Markus Johnson Neighborhood Workshop • Neil Heller City Staff • Neil Tabor • Nancy Eklund Ian Markus Julie Neil H. 19 Housing Background • Washington State projects the need for almost 1.27 million new housing units by 2044 (Washington Dept of Commerce) • The State fell over a quarter million housing units short in production between 2000 and 2015 (Commerce) • From 2006 to 2018 Tukwila grew by only 130 housing units, the vast majority of recent housing growth (2019 -present) has been from 55+ apartments • Tukwila would need to produce about 250 new net housing units per year until 2044 to meet its allocated housing target 20 Housing Background • Tukwila has approximately 9,356 housing units (KC Parcel Data) • 3,580 Single -Family (38%) • 5,776 Multi -Unit (62%) • 52 units of 2-4 unit buildings (0.6% of total housing stock) • 292 units of 6-20 unit buildings (3.1% of total housing stock) • 87% of net land zoned residential only is in LDR (single-family) • LDR: 893.14 acres • MDR: 39.74 acres • HDR: 94.59 acres Housing Background • Approximately 43% of Tukwila Households are owner occupied, while 57% are renter occupied (ACS 2021 5 yr) • Approximately 7.8% of Tukwila housing units are income - restricted at 80% AMI or less (King County) • 49% of households have one vehicle or fewer (ACS 2021 5 yr) Housing Cost • Median single-family home costs in Tukwila have increased 56% between January 2018 and January 2023 (Redfin) • Average rent prices increased 7.8% from 2021-2022 (WCRER) • Almost 50% of renters in Tukwila are considered cost burdened, paying more than 30% of household income toward housing, wile more than 23% of those renters are considered severely cost burdened, paying more than 50% of income toward housing (CHAS 15-19) •Tukwila homeowners have considerably lower cost burdened numbers at 25% cost burdened, and 11% severely cost burdened comparatively (CHAS 15-19) 23 Housing Cost Example • Single-family home within Tukwila's original city boundary • 6,960 sqft lot • 3 bed, 2 bath 1,940 sqft home built in 1936 • No critical area encumbrances • Minimal home improvements 24 Housing Cost Example Single -Family Home Example Appraised Land Value 6,000 (1998 Inflation Adjusted) —0- Appraised Total Value King County Median Household Income • Sales 25 Housing Cost Example • From 1998 to 2021: Appraised land value increased 444% Total appraised structure and land value increased 262% King County Median Household Income only increased 110% Inflation on $36,000 (1998 land appraisal) increased 66% over this period to $59,846.13, a small portion of the overall increases For a household making the median income in: • King County the ratio of home purchase price to annual income increased from: • 2.0x to 3.5x Tukwila the ratio of home purchase price to annual income increased from: • 3.2x to 5.4x 26 27 Middle Housing Survey Feedback Please check the box if you believe certain Middle Housing Types (above) SHOULD BE ALLOWED in areas meeting these characteristics (to the left): 28 r eats: area; =:‘,5 34 25 24 333thirs Sing, erFare iy Areas • Duplexes THplexes res Fourplexes Townhomes Courtyard Apartments 4.0 Small Apartments Middle Housing Survey Feedback 29 Middle Housing Survey Feedback I have concerns about the foliowing items relating to Middle Housing: kggivszta Height of structures Impacts on privacy of adjacent homes Impacts on on -street parking None of the above Other 30 8 18 26 14 12 18% 40% 58% 31% 27% Middle Housing Survey Feedback My concerns about Middle Housing would be addressed if: 6601ita, liLAPAWZ.;..:402".4. Building heights were similar to maximum heights for single-family homes Sidewalks and other improvements were constructed with new development Construction and design were high quality The location has good amenities I have no concerns about the impacts of Middle IOC ,064a.,,,4Atikat4,8wgiValg:64: Agglagak60.it 14 23 30% 50% 16 35% 15 33% Housing 14 30% Other 12 26% 31 Middle Housing Survey Feedback • "No more new housing -Tukwila is too densely populated now as it is. I do NOT support anymore new housing in ANY form." • "Restrictive, draconian (sic), paternalistic SFH zoning codes (and parking requirements) are a blight on our region and a disturbing (sic) remnant of segregation and redlining. Missing middle is the most affordable housing configuration (higher density + simpler construction techniques), if only our status -quo -drunk city council has the courage to do make obvious and necessary changes to allow housing abundance." • "Can y'all actually make the change" 32 Middle Housing Survey Feedback (Summary) • Respondents generally were supportive of a variety of middle housing types • 30% had no concerns over middle housing to begin with • Privacy and parking were the primary concerns • Associated infrastructure improvements, construction quality and structure height relative to single-family allowances were areas for alleviating concerns State Legislative Requirements - HB 1337 • Jurisdictions must allow: Two ADUs on each lot that allows single-family • Up to 1,000 sqft each, attached or detached A height of at least 24' Jurisdictions cannot: Require owner occupancy of the principal residence or ADUs • Restrict the ADUs from being condominium-ized and sold as separate units Impose certain restrictions on the conve s`on of existing structures State Legislative Requirements HB 1110 Table 1: Basic requirements for cities subject to the middle housing bill in the 2024-2027 periodic update. CITY LIMITS: Number of middle housing units that must be allowed per lot within city limits NEAR A MAJOR TRANSIT STOP: Number of middle housing units per lot that must be allowed within % mile of transit WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Number of middle housing units that must be allowed within city limits if affordable units provided Sec. 3(2)(a) TIER TWO: Cities with population between 25,000 and 75,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(a) TIER THREE: Cities with population under 25,000 that are contiguous with the UGA of the largest city in a county with a population over 275,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(c) 2 du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities 2 du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities 4 du/lot within 1/4 mile walking distance of a major transit stop, unless zoning permits higher densities 4 du/lot on all lots predominantly residential if one is affordable State Legislative Requirements - HB 1110 • Jurisdictions must allow at least 6 of 9 Middle Housing Types, which are: • Duplex • Stacked Flat • Triplex • Fourplex • Fiveplex • Sixplex • Townhomes • Courtyard Apartment • Cottage Housing 36 37 Tukwila Low Density Residential Update LDR/MDR Prototyping & Sensitivity Testing Neighborhood Workshop 38 Prototype Builder (ROI Model): Quick Building Modeler: Physical & Financial Test existing regulations for financial feasibility Identify affordability compared to local incomes Test impact of new development regulations or funding programs Experiment with sensitivity of key variables (setbacks, parking, lot size, etc.) liPtirn• riAc iMAY'raed• tra40r,r VIRTUAL TOUR •••....•••••,•••••• 'kw 11 New Construction Comps Lot Size of Beds # of Baths Sq Ft Asking Price Price PSF ( Year Built 17,550 4 4 3,000 11,120 5 3 2,488 40 $ 650,000 $ 217 $ 875,000 $ 352 .„1 2023 2023 t400440sy 003 404,6,1000, gAdobthfpielkovOI 811404,:i our..1000;44,A.4 ASO,. $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 T.„„ikvvi a, WA Si ng le-Fami y Askin 1 4- rctic; rIn . , Only ;11?k :..VV Cc)nstruction $440,000 :e to Square eet Way • $875,000 Fortune Housing market inventory is so tight that only 1 of the nation's 100 largest markets saw a home price decline in May Story by Lance Lambert • 6h d go 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Single -Family Sensitivity Testing Existing LDR Lot Standards Existing Standards Sales Price $831,221 % Local Median 243% Income Unit Size (sf) Lot Size (sf) Lot Cost ($25 psf) Lot Area per Unit Lot Coverage Parking per Unit 2,500 6,900 $172,500 6,900 23% 2 Lot and unit size are key drivers of home price. Neighbor[2nd Workshop 42 Single -Family Sensitivity Testing Existing LDR Lot Standards Modified LDR Lot Standards (Lot size & parking) Existing Standards Sales Price $831,221 % Local Median 243% Income Unit Size (sf) 2,500 Lot Size (sf) 6,900 Lot Cost ($25 psf) $172,500 Lot Area per Unit 6,900 Lot Coverage 23% Parking per Unit 2 Modified Standards $391,969 105% 870 2,500 $62,500 2,500 Pct Change - 53% - 53% -64% -64% -50% -64% 18% -22% - 50% Reduced Minimum Lot Size & Parking Requirements Reducing standards around minimum lot size supports market choices to consume less land and build smaller. r E ciht-c,hnc:d Workshop Prototyping Housing Choice 4.0 PO ra. I %kJ U • '' rri e o w f 1:4 14,0 A . ............................... V N eigh o+ood Workshop Focus on Existing Built Context Preserve existing house with subdivision or addition Building replacement or new construction on vacant lot 44 For Sale New Flag Lot Cottage New Small Lot Cottage Small Lot Subdivision (up to four) Twin Homes Rowhouses Townhouses For Rent ADU 2 ADUs One Unit Two Units Three Units House + ADU Duplex (+ ADU) Triplex (+ ADU) Double Duplex Four Cottages Fourplex b rhood Work op AVERAGE ASKING PRICE $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 500,000 $400,000 $30Q000 $200,000 $100,000 Prototype Modeling Outcomes -For Sale $831,221 Currently Allowed in LDR $469,257 $470,483 $415,000 r $570,725 Owner Local Median Income: 100-120% Range $367,661 $393,430 291,303 SF Huse Smell Lot Twin Horn Townhouses Ts,, nhouses Compact Townhouse Auto Court Cottage + ADU Townhouses Court Prototype Modeling Outcomes -For Rent c) $3,890 $3,041 $4,262 Currently Allowed in LDR S500 Trip IBC 46 $2,893 $2,403 $2,936 ,142 $2,840 Renter Local Median Income: 100-120%© Range earxck x; ptex 9l1S x Double_ DupIex Duplex l.,Iu Cott a€re o° nh ,u; e ...„ Community 1ra:.alAs od Workshop $4,500 100 $3,890 $3,500 S 3,000 ton z --rJ 5,2,500 z 0 w 9,001) LU 1 $1,000 $3,041 $4,262 Currently AI lowed in LDR $2,893 $3,261 $3,142 $2,840 0,.00,001 Ik MDR Types $2,590 $2,125 6 $2,346 Renter Local Median Income: 100-120% Range SP House Dut)ltx Tr pe IBC f root -Back I' ourplex IBC Double D 1) Hex Six piex 01 1...)opiek Cluster Ccottrstdt Dor:tioxADUCortirturnity 00rit, rit ri• nhouses ourtyard Apt 12-plex Corner 12 -pi eri Pa rked 4 2ADLis 112-n titt, Neighbor Ti Workshop Housing Choice Opportunities Support affordable, ownership -oriented and neighborhood scale middle housing by: 8 Se backs it Ar ce Ratio Lot Coveraqe Para Per Unit Prototype Builder (ROI Model): Modeling Inputs: some locally specific, others national averages Due diligence Land cost Structure cost Contingency Building shell Site work Systems Labor Contingency Soft Costs Consultant fees Taxes Construction interest Permit fees Impact fees costs Return Metrics Direct Inputs 8-10% Return on Cost 18% Levered IRR External Factors rIcing 49 50 Historical Residential Code (LDR) • Effectively no changes between 1995 to present • MDR and HDR have not functionally changed in almost 30 years either • LDR is approximately 87% of land zoned for only residential use • Significant increases to land acquisition and overall development costs from 1995 to present have made like for like development much more expensive today vs 1995 Minimum Lot Size Minimum Width (Average) Height Setbacks Front Second Front Side Rear 7,200 50' 35' 25% of depth, no more than 30' WA 10% of lot width, no Tess than 4' no Tess than 8' 25% of depth, no more than 30' 6,500 50' 30' 20' 15' 5' 10' 51 6,500 50' 30' 20' 15' 10' Middle Housing Recommended Code Changes sz Key Code Update Opportunities • Reduce/eliminate minimum lot size requirements • Allow multiple units per lot • Reduce/allow flexibility for parking requirements • Create standards that support market choices • Support compact rental types in MDR • Expand housing options for prospective buyers and renters • Create ownership opportunities at lower price points, more attainable to the median Tukwila Household Adjust minimum lot size LDR (current) 6,500 sf 54 Revised LDR 5,000 sf Revised LDR Cottage 3,000 sf Adjust setbacks LDR (current) 6,500 sf Revised LDR 5,000 sf Revised LDR Cottage 3,000 sf 55 Multiple units per lot STREET LDR (current) 1 unit 56 STREET Revised LDR Up to 4 units on 5,000 sf STREET Revised LDR Up to 6 units on 7,500 sf STREET Revised LDR Cottage 1 unit (max 1,200 sf) Minimum Required Parking STREET LDR (current) 2 per unit ALLEY STREET Revised LDR 1 per unit STREET Revised LDR Cottage 1 per unit •,1'.4054.171,7 Duplex with 2 parking per unit .„*..146411 ,.;:kook 1404,400,04 •124,114,or,i," 71.61,10t4q,' ',4",?4,1°ItVittfaYitde0151.0". Duplex with 1 parking pers7unit Support Market Choices • Duplex clusters allow builders flexibility to avoid costly IBC building code Compact Rentals in MDR Changes to the MDR zone (upcoming in comp plan process) can emphasize affordability Up to twelve units can fit on a compact site, reducing per-unit construction costs Infeasible to build affordable rental housing at low densities 10 units on 2,000 sf lot in an 59 established urban neighborhood Summary of Recommendations: Permitted Dwellings Zone Detached house Cottage (small -lot) Duplex Triplex Fourplex Fiveplex Sixplex Townhouses Courtyard Apts. 7-12plex 60 LDR (existing) p MDR (existing) p p p p (up to four) (up to four) HDR (existing) p p p p p p LDR (revised) MDR (revised) HDR (revised) Summary of Recommendations: Lot area and density Zone Minimum lot size Lot area per unit Units per lot LDR (existing) MDR (existing) 6,500 sf 8,000 sf N/A 1 3,000 sf N/A HDR (existing) 9,600 sf 2,000 sf N/A LDR (revised) 5,000 sf (3,000 sf for cottage) 1,250 sf Up to six MDR (revised) 3,000 sf 800 sf N/A • Reduced minimum lot size • Reduced lot area per unit • Allow four units per 5,000 sf lot or up to six units per 7,500 sf lot • New units per lot standard • Don't rely on unclear terms like "fourplex". Allow a certain number of units in any configuration of attached or detached. HDR (revised) N/A N/A 61 Summary of Recommendations: Setbacks Zone Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback LDR (existing) MDR (existing) First floor: 15' 20' Second floor: 20' Third floor: 30' First floor: 15' Second floor: 20' Third floor: 20' First floor: 15' 70' Second floor 20' Third floor: 20-30' HDR (existing) First floor: 15' Second floor: 20' Third floor: 30' First floor: 15' Second floor: 20' Third floor: 20' First floor: 15' Second floor: 20' Third floor: 20-30' LDR (revised) 15' (10' for cottage) 5' 10' (5' for ADUs & Cottages) MDR (revised) Reduced front setback in LDR Reduced setbacks for small -lot cottages Standardized setbacks in MDR • Preliminary recommendation to eliminate stringent and variable setbacks for MDR for multi -story buildings. 62 10' 5' 5' HDR (revised) TBD TBD TBD Summary of Recommendations: Dimensional Standards Zone Height Maximum Lot Coverage Parking Requirement Landscaping Design review LDR (existing) 30' 35% MDR (existing) 30' 50% 2+ per unit 2+ per unit No requirement No requirerr ent 15' front yard Required above 2,500 sf HDR (existing) 45' `50 2+ per unit 15' front yard Required above 2,500 sf LDR (revised) 35' 40% 1 per unit No requirement No requirement MDR (revised) 35' 45% 1 per unit TBD Required above 5,000 sf • Increase allowed height and lot coverage • Reduce minimum parking to 1 per unit • Standardized setbacks in MDR • Preliminary recommendation to eliminate complex and demanding setbacks in MDR for multi -story buildings. • Increase flexibility for landscaping and design review HDR (revised) TBD TBD 1 per unit (or less) TBD Required above 5,000 sf Discussion & Feedback • Are there area of specific emphasis for staff to consider as they refine standards into a future code amendment? • Of the 9 middle housing types are there any you'd like to specifically not allow in LDR? • Would more visuals and examples of housing be preferred as opposed to numbers and standards? • Are there suggestions for staff in how to better frame choices in code development? • For denser zones allowing housing, are there suggestions for aligning these zones with potential middle housing changes? 64Any other feedback?