Residential Infill Pilot Program Project Selection Report and Decision

Transcription

1 City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Office of the Director Residential In accordance with Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC) , the following findings and decision for the project described below is transmitted. APPLICANT: Various (see below) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: An Official Determination of the Director regarding which residential infill pilot program projects, within the detached accessory dwelling unit, 2-family housing, and cottage housing categories, will be approved to move forward into the permitting process. LOCATION: Various (see below) DECISION: Based on review committee recommendations and the goals and intent of the pilot program, the Director determines that four projects may move forward to the permit phase: Applicant Address Type Decision McKee-Johnson 511 N D Street North End DADU Approved, with Conditions MRF Construction 2923 N Stevens Street Cottage Approved, with Conditions South End Durst 214 S 67th Street DADU Approved, with Conditions Central Harpham 1523 S Cedar Street DADU Approved, with Conditions Notes: The appeal period on this decision closes _June 7, 2017_ and the effective date of this decision is the following business day, provided no requests for reconsideration or appeals are timely filed as identified in APPEAL PROCEDURES of this report and decision. 747 Market Street, Room 408 Tacoma, Washington (253)

2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PILOT PROGRAM, PLEASE CONTACT: Lauren Flemister, Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department 747 Market Street, Room 345, Tacoma, WA or Page 2 of 17

3 The Planning and Development Services Director for the City of Tacoma, after consultation with the City s Planning staff and review of the recommendations from the Infill Pilot Program Review Committee, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions based upon a review of the Tacoma Municipal Code, the One Tacoma Comprehensive Plan, the submitted application materials, and comments received from stakeholders. SUMMARY OF RECORD The following attachments and exhibits constitute the administrative record: Attachments: A Residential Infill Pilot Program Review Details & Project Summaries B Maps C Notification Letter D Notification Postcard Exhibits 1 : A Infill Pilot Program Handbook General: FINDINGS 1. In December 2015, the City Council adopted code enacting the Infill Pilot Program, as part of a package of Affordable/Infill Housing code updates (Ordinance No ). The following infill housing types are allowed under the Pilot Program: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in single-family zoning districts Two-family development on corner lots in the R-2 Single-family District Small-scale multifamily development in the R-3 District Cottage Housing in most residential districts 2. In accordance with TMC B, a maximum of three of each infill housing type may be developed (potentially up to 12 in total) through the Pilot Program. 3. The intent of the Pilot Program is to promote innovative residential infill while ensuring that such infill demonstrates high quality building and site design that is responsive to and harmonious with neighborhood patterns and character. The City hopes to see successful and well-regarded examples of these housing types built, as a way to inform a future Council decision on Tacoma s regulatory approach to these housing types. 4. As outlined in the related code and policies, the intent of the program and review process is to evaluate options for expanding housing choice throughout the City. To this end, the project selection process, in addition to addressing issues of compatibility and quality, is designed to promote projects that reflect a variety of locations/neighborhoods, project style (i.e. conversions of existing buildings vs. development of new), reasons for developing the project, and overall project costs. 5. In accordance with TMC B, design guidelines for the Infill Pilot Program were developed and released by Planning and Development Services in November 2016, after 1 All Exhibits are contained in Planning and Development Services File. They are referenced and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. Page 3 of 17

4 consultation with the Planning Commission. Between November 2016 and March 2017, staff fielded project interest, provided education on the program in various public forums, met with potential applicants to scope projects, and assisted property owners and representatives with the application process. 6. The Director has jurisdiction in this matter per TMC Sections and Proposals: 7. Applications for the Pilot Program were accepted in March of Twelve submissions were received for detached accessory dwelling units, three submissions were received for cottage housing developments, and one submission was received for a 2-family development. The map provided as Attachment B identifies the location of each of the proposed projects. 9. The infill pilot program allows for a maximum of three of each of the four infill housing types (potentially up to 12 in total). Therefore, a maximum of 7 projects would be eligible to be selected during this portion of the pilot program. 10. Selected projects are separated by more than 1,000 feet. 11. Selected projects are not within a historic district and are not individually listed on Tacoma, State of Washington, or National Historic Registers. Notification and Comments: 12. To ensure that the neighborhoods surrounding the project proposals had an opportunity to provide input on the proposals, including any specific concerns or issues related to each area, a discretionary written notice of the proposals to the Residential Infill Pilot Program was mailed and/or ed to owners of property within 100 feet of the site as indicated by the Pierce County Assessor/Treasurer s records and Neighborhood Councils, allowing for a brief comment period of 7-12 days. 13. Significant public comment was received on several projects. A summary of comments received follows: Harpham DADU (1523 S Cedar Street) No public comment received Williams DADU (1247 S Adams Street) Several unfavorable comments expressed concerns about site issues (retaining wall and slope), additional accessory structures, and the size of the DADU relative to the main home. McKee-Johnson DADU (511 N D Street) Favorable comment in support of the proposal Hjalseth DADU (3620 N 12th Street) No public comment received White DADU ( N 16th Street) Favorable comment in support of the proposal Foss DADU (4125 N 37th Street) A few comments expressed concerns about privacy Shelton (811 N Oakes Street) No public comment received Odegard-Dennie (3216 N 32nd Street) No public comment received Dismore (407 N I Street) A couple comments expressed concerns about privacy and parking Durst (214 S 67th Street) No public comment received Page 4 of 17

5 Gormley (4529 Tacoma Ave S) One comment received about current overparking and impact of a tenant and tenant s vehicles. MRF (2923 N Stevens Street) Several public comments expressing concern about parking, neighborhood appropriateness, and the number of units Stuart/Sousa (2725 Henry Road) Many public comments expressing concern about the number of units, overall scale of development, neighborhood appropriateness, parking, environmental impacts (steep slopes and wetlands), and traffic impacts Green Harbour (80th and East D Streets) No public comment received BMBD (5310 N Pearl Street) Several public comments expressing concern about site design, impact to alley, privacy concerns, and overall conformance with project intent Applicable Regulations and Policies: 14. Tacoma 2025 Strategic Plan: In 2025, Tacoma s residents and community leaders are committed to a specific and funded program of on-going stewardship of its natural and built systems. Tacoma has a complete and high quality transportation system that is focused on the mobility needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. Residents continue to be proud of their great parks and open spaces. Tacoma s equity, economic and environmental sustainability program is a model for other communities, and the foundation for Tacoma s healthy people and many vibrant neighborhoods. Community Priority 6C - Grow and enhance the vitality of Tacoma s neighborhoods. Transit-oriented and infill development, as well as reuse of historic buildings and districts, provides housing, economic, and environmental benefits. 15. One Tacoma Comprehensive Plan: Housing Chapter Policy H1.3 Encourage new and innovative housing types that meeting evolving needs of Tacoma households and expand housing choices in all neighborhoods. 16. Tacoma Municipal Code: Section Residential Infill Pilot Program. In selecting the projects, the Review Committee applied the criteria present in this code section, which are as follows: Element One. Responsiveness to the following basic neighborhood patterns established by existing development in the area. (1) Street frontage characteristics. (2) Rhythm of development along the street. (3) Building orientation on the site and in relation to the street. (4) Front setback patterns. (5) Landscaping and trees. (6) Backyard patterns and topography. (7) Architectural features. (8) Historic character, if located within a designated Historic District. (9) Whether adverse impacts to properties that are eligible for listing on a historic register can be mitigated. Element Two Pedestrian-friendly design. Page 5 of 17

6 The proposed development must provide direct and convenient pedestrian access from each dwelling to abutting sidewalks and public pathways and must emphasize pedestrian connectivity. The quality of the pedestrian experience within the site and in the abutting public right-of-way shall be high. Element Three De-emphasize parking. The proposal must meet the parking requirements of TMC in a manner that deemphasizes parking in terms of its prominence on the site and its visibility from the public right-of-way. Element Four Minimize scale contrasts, shading and privacy impacts. The proposal must demonstrate that it will limit abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and existing buildings on adjacent parcels. Privacy and shading impacts on abutting parcels must be prevented or reduced to a reasonable extent. Element Five Create usable outdoor (or yard) spaces. The proposal must provide usable and functional outdoor or yard space that will be an amenity to its residents. Element Six Sustainable features. In the case of multifamily development in the R-3 District, and cottage housing, the proposal must provide documentation of the incorporation of sustainability features through one of the following certification programs: (1) Built Green 3 Stars or LEED Bronze, or (2) Greenroads Bronze rating if full new roadway sections are constructed as part of the project Element Seven. Consistency with code requirements. The proposal must be consistent with the applicable provisions of TMC and other applicable requirements. The Director has discretion to increase, decrease or modify development standards including setbacks, height and parking in order to ensure the proposal is fully consistent with the intent of the Pilot Program. Review Committee Recommendations: 17. A review committee composed of staff and citizen volunteers met on April 27th, 2017 to provide recommendations on each project to the Director. 18. The public was invited to attend the review committee meeting to observe the deliberations. Both applicants and neighbors attending the meeting. 19. The review committee received a packet that included all of the materials submitted by the applicants, as well as public comments received in advance of the application review meeting held on the 27th of April. 20. Each project was reviewed and discussed by the committee. The outcome of the committee s project review, based on the review criteria, is represented in the following table: Page 6 of 17

7 Review Committee Recommendations Address Recommendation Housing Type Neighborhood Council McKee-Johnson 511 N D Street Recommend DADU North End Harpham 1523 S Cedar Street Recommend DADU Central Williams 1247 S Adams Street Recommend DADU Central Hjalseth 3620 N 12th Street Recommend DADU North End White N 16th Street Recommend DADU North End Durst 214 S 67th Street Recommend w Conditions DADU South End Foss 4125 N 37th Street Recommend w Conditions DADU North End Gormley 4529 Tacoma Ave S Recommend w Conditions DADU South End Shelton 811 N Oakes Street Recommend w Conditions DADU North End OdegardDennie 3216 N 32nd Street Recommend w Conditions DADU North End Dismore 407 N I Street Recommend w Conditions DADU North End MRF 2923 N Stevens Street Recommend Cottage North End Stuart/Sousa 2725 Henry Road Do not Recommend Cottage North End GreenHarbour 80th and East D Streets Do not Recommend Cottage South End BMBD 5310 N Pearl Street Do not Recommend 2Family West End CONCLUSIONS 1. It is hereby determined by the Director that based on the review committee recommendations and a review of the applicable codes and policies relative to this program, including the goal of distributing these infill pilot projects throughout Tacoma, the final project rankings are as follows: North End DADU Review Committee Recommendations McKee-Johnson 511 N D Street DADU North End 1 Hjalseth 3620 N 12th Street DADU North End 2 White N 16th Street DADU North End 3 Foss 4125 N 37th Street DADU North End 4 Shelton 811 N Oakes Street DADU North End 5 OdegardDennie 3216 N 32nd Street DADU North End 6 Dismore 407 N I Street DADU North End 7 South End DADU Review Committee Recommendations Durst 214 S 67th Street DADU South End 1 Gormley 4529 Tacoma Ave S DADU South End 2 Central DADU Review Committee Recommendations Harpham 1523 S Cedar Street DADU Central 1 Williams 1247 S Adams Street DADU Central 2 North End Cottage Housing Review Committee Recommendations MRF Construction 2923 N Stevens Street Cottage North End 1 Stuart/Sousa 2725 Henry Road Cottage North End 0 South End Cottage Housing Recommendations GreenHarbour 80th and East D Streets Cottage South End 0 West End 2-Family Housing Review Committee Recommendations BMBD 5310 N Pearl Street 2Family West End 0 Page 7 of 17

8 2. The projects ranked first in each of the above categories will be allowed to proceed to the permitting process. The second ranked project would be allowed to proceed if the first ranked project decided not to proceed, and so on. 3. Any projects with a rank of zero would have to reapply to be considered. 4. Three detached accessory dwelling unit projects have been selected in three different Neighborhood Council districts. The projects meet neighborhood pattern and scale criteria while considering livability factors outlined in TMC Based on the maximum of three projects of each type being selected, DADUs have no remaining slots. 5. One cottage housing project has been selected in the North End. The project meets neighborhood pattern and scale criteria while considering livability factors outlined in TMC Cottage Housing has 2 remaining available slots. 6. The sole 2-family project proposal was not selected to move forward, based both on the committee s recommendations and the fact while the project is technically on a corner lot, the corner portion of the site is occupied by a nonconforming commercial use and thus the proposed dwellings would not reflect the intent of being a 2-family dwelling on a corner that could be an generally example project. The 2-family project type has three remaining available slots. 7. As there were no multifamily proposals, the multifamily project type has three remaining available slots. 8. In order to complete this round of the pilot, the cumulative remaining 8 project slots will be filled through another round of applications. Details about next steps and milestones in the process will be made available in the near future. Conditions Applicable to Individual Projects (as noted): The following measures are to be taken as described below, as a condition of or prior to the issuance of future permits related to the reference projects. These conditions are, in many cases, based on the conditions recommended by the review committee. The items below shall be completed to the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department. McKee-Johnson DADU (511 N D Street) Conditions: 1. Unless specifically noted otherwise, the project shall be completed in a manner that is substantially consistent with the plans and other applications materials submitted as part of the pilot program and considered by the review committee. Durst DADU (214 S 67 th Street) Conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design set drawn up by a designer or architect providing clear detail about proportions, materiality, etc. prior to applying for permit. This refined design set will be subject to review by the review committee, who will make appropriate recommendations to the Planning Director regarding the final design. Page 8 of 17

9

10 FULL DECISION TRANSMITTED by first class mail to: Applicants Brett Marlo Design Build (Dama and Tim Harpham) Ardeana Capri and Eddie Robert Williams Jennifer McKee-Johnson Brown Dog LLC: Michael and Carolin Fast Corey & Kelli Jo Hjalseth Robert and Kelsey White Joe Foss Eric and Melora Shelton Jill Sousa Justin Dismore Aaron Stuart Cheri Durst Matthew & Maria Gormley Green Harbour Communities Brett Marlo Design Build All Commenters Review Committee Members FULL DECISION TRANSMITTED by electronic mail to: Lauren Flemister, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services Lucas Shadduck, Senior Plans Examiner, Site Development Jason Miller, Site Development Group Brian Boudet, Planning Division Manager Peter Huffman, Director of Planning and Development Services SUMMARY OF DECISION TRANSMITTED by first class mail and interoffice to: All Neighborhood Councils All Business Districts Neighborhood Planning Team Members: Brian Boudet, Ian Munce, Carol Wolfe All owners of property as indicated by the Pierce County Assessor/Treasurer s records within 100 feet of the subject site (optional) Page 10 of 17

11 RECONSIDERATION and APPEAL PROCEDURES Any request for RECONSIDERATION and/or any APPEALS must be submitted in the applicable manner as outlined below on or before June 7, RECONSIDERATION: Any person having standing under the ordinance governing this application and feeling that the decision of the Director is based on errors of procedure or fact may make a written request for review by the Director within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of the written order. This request shall set forth the alleged errors, and the Director may, after further review, take such further actions as deemed proper, and may render a revised decision. A request for RECONSIDERATION of the Director s decision in this matter must be filed in writing to the staff contact listed on the first page of this document. APPEAL TO HEARING EXAMINER: Any decision of the Director may be appealed by any aggrieved person or entity as defined in Section of the Tacoma Municipal Code, within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this decision, or within seven (7) days of the date of issuance of the Director's decision on a reconsideration, to appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner. An appeal to the Hearing Examiner is initiated by filing a Notice of Appeal accompanied by the required filing fee of $ Filing of the appeal shall not be complete until both the Notice of Appeal and required filing fee has been received. THE FEE SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THE APPELLANT SHOULD THE APPELLANT PREVAIL. (Pursuant to Section of the Tacoma Municipal Code, fees for appeals shall be waived for qualifying senior citizens and persons who are permanently handicapped who are eligible for tax exemption because of financial status.) The Notice of Appeal must be submitted in writing to the Hearing Examiner's Office, Seventh Floor, Tacoma Municipal Building, and shall contain the following: (1) A brief statement showing how the appellant is aggrieved or adversely affected. (2) A statement of the grounds for the appeal, explaining why the appellant believes the administrative decision is wrong. (3) The requested relief, such as reversal or modification of the decision. (4) The signature, mailing address and telephone number of the appellant and any representative of the appellant. Page 11 of 17

12 Attachment A In separate document Page 12 of 17

13 Page 13 of 17 Attachment B

14 Page 14 of 17 Attachment B (cont.)

15 Page 15 of 17 Attachment B (cont.)

16 Page 16 of 17 Attachment C

17 Page 17 of 17 Attachment D