Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2021 YPC Agenda PacketAWN M Joan Davenport, AICP, Director AdjlPlanning Division. ICY OF MMA Joseph Calhoun, Manager anning 129 North Second Street, 2 a Floor, Yakima, WA 98901. ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/ypc/ City of Yakima Planning Commission ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING Wednesday, October 13, 2021 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. YPC MEMBERS: Chair Jacob Liddicoat, Vice -Chair Lisa Wallace, Leanne Hughes -Mickel, Al Rose, Robert McCormick, Philip Ostriem, and Mary Place Council Liaison: Kay Funk (District 4) CITY PLANNING STAFF: Joan Davenport (Community Development Director), Rosalinda lbarra (Community Development Administrative Asst.), Joseph Calhoun (Planning Manager), Eric Crowell (Senior Planner), Trevor Martin (Senior Planner), and Analilia Nunez (Planning Technician) FIT" a '011.1 I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Staff Announcements IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2021 V. Housing Action Plan VI. Other Business VII. Adjourn Next Meeting: October 27, 2021 To listen watch this virtual meeting, please register with your name and email address here: htt s: cif of aki a.zoo ,us e I i re infer N VcOu 9F7S-- ZR G -cbu After registering, you will receive emailed instructions for joining the meeting online with your device or by calling in. The meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website. Yakima Nf:Wm¢MaCI� The meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website. Visit the Yakima Planning Commission webpage for more information. 1994 Attended User Name (Original Name) First Name Last Name Email Registration Time Approval Status Join Time Leave Time Time in Country/Region Name Yes City of Yakima Planning Division City of Yakima Planning Division Ask. Planning@yakimawa.gov 10/13/2021 14:55 10/13/2021 15:19 25 United States Yes Sara Watkins Sara Watkins Sara.Watkins@YAKIMAWA.GOV 10/13/2021 14:58 10/13/2021 16:11 74 United States Yes Mike Brown Mike Brown Michael.brown@yakimawa.gov 10/13/2021 14:55 10/13/2021 16:11 76 United States Yes Jacob Liddicoat Jacob Liddicoat jake@3dyakima.com 10/13/2021 14:57 10/13/2021 16:01 64 United States Yes Lisa Wallace Lisa Wallace lisakwallace@hotmail.com 10/13/2021 15:00 10/13/2021 16:11 71 United States Yes David Helseth David Helseth dkhelseth1968@gmail.com 10/13/2021 14:56 10/13/2021 15:22 27 United States Yes Mary Place Mary Place placeml@charter.net 10/13/2021 14:56 10/13/2021 16:11 75 United States Yes Leanne Hughes -Mickel Leanne Hughes -Mickel leanne.mickel@me.com 10/13/2021 14:56 10/13/2021 16:07 72 United States Yes Al Rose Al Rose aar7040@gmail.com 10/13/2021 14:55 10/13/2021 16:08 73 United States Yes Joseph Calhoun Joseph Calhoun Joseph. Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV 10/13/2021 14:55 10/13/2021 16:11 76 United States Yes Kay Funk Kay Funk Kay. Funk@YAKIMAWA.GOV 10/13/2021 14:59 10/13/2021 16:11 72 United States Yes Eric Crowell Eric Crowell eric.crowell@yakimawa.gov 10/13/2021 15:09 approved 10/13/2021 15:09 10/13/2021 16:11 62 United States Yes Call -In User 1 Call -In User 1 10/13/2021 14:57 10/13/2021 16:07 70 United States City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) Meeting Minutes City Council Chambers September 8, 2021 Call to Order Chair Liddicoat called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Roll Call YPC Members Present: Chair Jacob Liddicoat, Vice -chair Lisa Wallace, Mary Place, Al Rose, Leanne Hughes -Mickel, Phil Ostriem YPC Members Absent: Rob McCormick Staff Present: Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager and Trevor Martin, Senior Planner Others: Kay Funk Staff Announcements — Planning Manager nced the following: • The Critical Areas Amendments were adopted by council and will become effective in early October. • Meetings will resume to Zoom and the next meeting will be October 13. August 25, 2021 Meeting Minutes — It was motioned by Commissioner Rose and seconded by Commissioner Wallace to approve the meeting minutes of August 25, 2021 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. ru r UU11V 1 IGQI 11 IN - MOt.JC11 1 1 CC V Vy. r IQL VI M.7N Martin presented the staff report regarding the P1 SEPA#023-21, TCO#011-21 a preliminary long 22 single-family residential lots in the R-1 zoning from HLA Engineering and Land Surveying provii to the staff report. There was no one present for r of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rose h use. Vice -Chair Wallace had a question about the Hughes-Mickle motioned for the Plat of Aspen I Council with a recommendation for approval. Estates Phase 2) — Senior Planner, Trevor of Aspen Estates — Phase 2 — PLP#003-21, t to subdivide approximately 4.82 acres into ,trict and recommended approval. Mike Heit, I a brief summary and had no contradictions lic comment and the public comment portion questions related to the SEPA and historical ning of the adjacent property. Commissioner 3tes — Phase 2 be sent to the Yakima City Housing Action Plan — Planning Manager provided an updated on the Housing Action Plan and provided a brief summary on tiny homes.. Code Administration Manager and Certified Building Official Glenn Denman, provided a presentation on the building code changes related to tiny homes. The commissioners engaged in a discussion on what the City's vision was related to tiny homes, definitions, similarities to mobile homes, and utility connections. Chair Liddicoat asked for some clarification on the differences between a tiny home and a micro home. The commissioners and Planning Manager Calhoun` went through the recommendation together and provided feedback. Other Business — None Ad'o� urn — A motion to adjourn to October 13, 2021 was passed with unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:20 p.m. Chair Liddicoat Date This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Analilia Nunez -I- PRFT!III', I It I"I 2:110 z�, If I it ^� M27efy< um�?«vyMl 1. HAP Strategy I I . Update city regulal-ions to rer-nove barriers iro hnovative !­4oushg types. LEAD EFFORT AffordaMity Housing Supp�y City OWe� Aduff Opflons StabUffy Anfi-Msp�acernent inventory) or multifamily of three or more units (22% of all housing inventory). Supporting innovative housing types and arrangements will more fully meet the needs and preferences of Yakima's community members. For example, community engagement revealed that many Yakima residents seek multigenerational, senior, and more affordable housing opportunities that these types of innovative housing can facilitate. There are a wide variety of housing types that help reduce housing costs and fit into a small-town character. Each is defined below. Tiny hornes are small dwelling units on a foundation or on a carriage with wheels with between 150-400 square feet of habitable floor area. They are affordable compared with traditional site -built homes. They may be located on their own lot, serve as an accessory dwelling unit, or be located in a village arrangement in a manufactured home or RV park. Their small size and cottage like nature make them compatible in single-family areas on their own lot or as an accessory dwelling unit. They may offer temporary or long-term housing for seasonal workers such as in a manufactured home or RV park. Senate Bill (SB) 5383, passed in May 2019, legally permitted tiny houses as permanent dwellings in Washington State; as a result, the State Building Council adopted International Residential Code standards that apply to tiny houses, effective in November 2020. SB 5383 also expanded RCW 58.17.040(5) of the subdivision statute to allow the creation of tiny house villages such as through a binding site plan and stops cities from prohibiting tiny houses in manufactured/mobile home parks, House Bill (HB) 1085, passed in 2018, also allows local jurisdictions to remove minimum unit size limitations on detached houses. Congregate housing "sleeping rooms" are often in the 140-200 square -foot range and may include private bathrooms and kitchenettes. Shared facilities include kitchens, gathering areas, and other common amenities for residents. A small efficiency dwelling unit (SEDU) is a very small studio apartment including a complete kitchen and bathroom. Typically, the units will be as small as 220 square feet of total floor space, as compared to 300 square feet for the smallest yj�* M1112, Ma Microhomes are more affordable apartment units, and could be located in commercial, mixed -use, and high -density multifamily zones. hol-nes are structures that are built offsite, then transported to a permanent site. They differ from manufactured or mobile homes in that modular homes are constructed to meet the some state, regional, or local building codes as site -built homes, while manufactured homes adhere to national HUD code standards.] c p housi.ng is a form of shared housing in which a cooperative corporation owns housing, and residents own stock shares in the corporation and participate in governance of the cooperative.2 Shared property, usually including a common house, is part of what defines this type of housing. These spaces allow residents to gather for shared meals, activities, and celebrations as well as the collaborative work Muffi-genercational hor'nes are designed to provide space for multiple generations I I living together under one roof, with each generation benefiting from their own separate space and privacy. The design of the home is similar to a single-family residence in outward appearance with an interior layout designed around common areas with separate spaces for the different family groups. Other related dwelling unit types include ­ttages - a cluster of small dwelling units, generally less than 1,200 square feet, around a common open space - and zer,D­Iol, line developrnent, which allows a zero or minimal setback normally required within a particular zone thus promoting efficient use of buildable land. Zero -lot line development is common with townhouse developments and may also be designed as an attached single-family home. The City of Yakima has made several changes recently to encourage the above housing types. Tiny houses on an individual lot are currently treated the same as a regular single-family home. The City has also updated its definition of multifamily development to include any residential use where three or more dwellings are on the same lot. This can be 3+ tiny homes, a duplex and a tiny home, or other combinations. A new manufactured home can be placed anywhere a single-family home can locate, consistent with state law. However, process and level of review for these housing types can be improved. For example, to build a tiny home on a new smaller single lot (smaller than the city's current minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 SF) one must go through a Planned Development process. Streamlining and simplifying the J n Vf_" I,',, o� I "s, n rdk­'�,,[ �­t hffp://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/house/ review process for smaller housing types can further support encourage these housing types. Gaps Addressed. Yakima needs to create housing units at a rate of 295 units annually through 2040. Housing like tiny homes and modular housing is often less expensive to develop than traditional, single-family homes. These cost savings could help encourage and facilitate the development of more housing that can also be more attainable for households with lower incomes. This housing is often also more suitable for small households, for whom Yakima currently has a shortage of housing options. Cooperative housing can provide a more affordable opportunity for homeownership than traditional single-family homeownership. Yakima, like many communities in Washington, also has a shortage of farmworker housing. Innovative housing types can provide farmworkers with high -quality housing that meets local codes, but at a lower cost to developers. Considerations. Additional options to encourage tiny homes, micro housing, cottage homes, multigenerational homes and others include: * Allowing for different zoning/density options to incorporate the above -listed housing types. * Density/massing and review process: Consider allowing a higher number of units than typical for the zone, due to smaller home size or where legacy pesticides are present. Some density increase is essential because the units are smaller and usually more expensive to build on a cost/square feet basis. Consider applying a maximum floor area ratio limit or an across the board allowed density for tiny houses, for instance one tiny house per 1,200 square foot of lot area. Consider reduced development standards such as lot coverage and setbacks for multi -generational homes. Design elements. Provide design standards in a manner similar to cottage housing clusters: * Consider providing design standards for both common open spaces and semi- private open spaces for individual cottages. * Permit construction of a shared community building to provide a space for gathering and sharing tools. * Play close attention to how parking can/should be integrated with tiny house MIM 2= Cohousina, Haystack Heights in Spokane is an intergenerational village that is close to downtown with clustered townhouses and flats to maximize efficiency, interaction, and green space. Designed to include 39 units spread out among four buildings, the development includes spaces to share skills and facilities. ,2. YMC Code Changes - D-iy Hornes • "Parks" changed to "Communities" • Changes to Sitescreening requirement • Changes to recreation requirement 1 15.02.020 Definitions. --- - - --- ------- -------- ---------------- ----- -- - oil -MMIMMORM 310=1211110ul - � � mer-]ALM "TIN state buildiqgode. in RCW 58.17.030/YMC Ch 1435� A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish standards and criteria for development and expansion of mobile/manufactured home pa*s-ggd tiny home communities within the urban area. These standards are provided to ensure uniform, coordinated development of mobile/manufactured hod to ensure the general health, welfare and safety of the occupants of mobile/manufactured a unitypark _qOA tiny homes that may be located within a commun gMM___ developed under these standards. These standards shall be applied in a manner that stresses minimizing costs. Alternatives that reduce costs and meet the intent of these standards will be encouraged. B. Site Plan Requirements. All proposals for mobile/manufactured home gDd tiny home engineer or surveyor and shall include the following information in addition to the standard information required for site plans: 11. All spaces shall be clearly delineated on the site plan and include dimensions and square footage for each space; IMENrellMe M-OW111305-M.91T. 1171"i 111 IN AM., 7. The location of all solid waste containers and screening of containers ­sha4-be­ssown --en the —,Ae-plan; and 1. Minimum •. Size and Width. The minimum space size and width for a mobile/manufactured home-par*,•le. exclusive • streets, shall • ensu area standards. of4his441e. irg 0 INLYINIMMAW-10 2 Z A 1! 0 1 awl ITI 3. Off -Street Parking. Two paved off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each mobile/manufactured home • recreational vehicle unit4n-aGGofda-nGe-w4h4hi&44te,� ff-street ---------- -------- --------------- WINIM10912wei am 9 0 - 6. Street Signs and Internal Directional Signs. All streets within the park shall be name* utilizing blue street signs consistent with the appropriate jurisdiction's public street signs. Internal directional signs indicating unit/space numbers shall be placed at all street intersections within the park. 9. 'Sitescreenin 7 Re4n�r gfoundGovef- 10. Stormwater Drainage. All stormwater drainage shall be retained on site and a drainage plan shall be approved by the appropriate jurisdiction. wall and access gate. 12. Play Area Requirement. Each unit shall provide a play area for children contained within the unit's space, consisting of a minimum size odred square feet and a minimum width of tenfifteen feet. The unit sc uare-fooe reduced !I y_y0l/o if �the D. Expansion of Existing Mobile/Manufactured Home and Tiny Home ParksComrn unities. All standards of this section shall apply to expansion of existing mobile home parks�qommunities. The standards shall not .if to existing areas of a ot being expanded. The examiner may, at his or her discretion, reduce one or more standards of this section for newly expanded areas of a park-�q�un�itif expansion plans also include improvements to the existing park-�q�uny E. Maintenance of Common Areas, Landscaping and Open Space/Recreational Areas. All common areas and facilities (including streets, walkways, utilities, landscaping, storage areas, open space, and recreational areas) shall be continuously maintained in good condition by the park cg�un�itowner or designated homeowner's association. An irrigation system shall be installed for maintenance of landscaping and recreational/open space areas that would normally require gation. F. Planned Development Under the Provisions of This Title. Development of a development provisions of this title. 1 14.35.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process for the division of land for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of commercial or industrial lotsaj �dmobilehomes tin�houses/fin �hous�eswhe�els or travel trailers as an alternative to the subdivision process. 1 14.35.020 Authority. 7717,40 TWZI-'�Jllrii Te plari �trocess as ar- alternate method of dividing land for-, - Z 10 1 14.35.030 Applicability. UM MOMENT V WE M* F MAII UMN 24-under-the- . . i�, 15 WAGin all zoni Land use development within binding site plans is governed by YMC 45-.04Title 15,RCW 58.17.035 and RCW �� �.17-04�04 a�nd5 'Techriiaues and Incentives for Encouraghg Affordable Houdng MRSC - Techniques and Incentives for Encourai-yina Affordable This page provides a broad overview of techniques and incentives available to local governments in Washington State to encourage the construction of new affordable housing. It is part of MRSC's series on Affordable Housing, jnsity Bonuses Inclusion ao �n i ng Partnershjps vLifti N(Mprodt.L-JQink- De Ke TskjLLjhLi�LL-jjo ,iin'�ALIthoritjev _6_ j_Qp_tL _-U_ ---V Permit Stre-arnlinin L-g Reduct ion/ILVaiver of 17ees fur -P hil 1 sd2kc -L:a-FWL Standards RegiliCing Parking Standards PLe,-L Apliroved Buildin"Lans Recommended Resources 1071--T=- '" Local governments can encourage the development of affordable housing through a variety of regulatory and non -regulatory techniques. This page reviews some techniques being used in Washington State and around the United States, including functional density bonuses, design standards, parking standards, reduced infrastructure fees, and use of pre - approved plans. The level of complexity to implement these techniques along with their effect on housing affordability varies. If combined in a way that is appropriate to the specific community and housing market, these incentives will likely result In an effective approach to help local governments make housing easier to build and potentially more affordable. Incentives can be a driver for action by private sector housing developers. Density bonuses can be used to achieve certain common goods — such as preserving common open space, building public amenities, or another public benefit — in exchange for the capacity to build more square footage/ housing units than normally permitted. Functional density bonuses often give a developer, the ability to construct more units in exchange for providing a public benefit (e.g., affordable housing units). Developers can take advantage of the increased density to create more economic value for themselves while cities and towns benefit from the addition of more affordable housing units. This image shows now a density bonus might work on a proposed, four-story building, M ■ M A density bonus program should be designed to provide enough of an incentive so that the desired public benefit is achieved. In some cases, a development code contains an impressive set of density bonuses that look good on paper but don't offer enough incentives to entice a developer. In other cases, a density bonus may be too generous to a developer, resulting in too much of a benefit to the private sector and fueling potential public resentment at what may be viewed as a "give-away." For these reasons, it is important for a local government tow * Learn from other communities that have implemented a successful density bonus prograin, * Talk with local developers to determine what they would need to use such a program, and * Communicate with the public about the rationale for a density bonus program. It should be rioted that the usefulness of this tool is often limited to areas with strong real estate markets where there is a demand for new construction at a price that can subsidize the desired public goods incentivized by the density bonuses. Sample City Regulations Using Density Bonus to Encourage, Not Require, Affordable Housing • Bellingham -Municipal Code Ch. 20.27 — Creates a demonstration program that offers a 50% density bonus if 100% of units are "provided and retained as permanently affordable owner -occupied homes." • Kirkland Municinal Code Ch. 112 — All developments with over four units and located in certain zones must provide some affordable units. Bonus units as an incentive are an option in zones where affordable units are not required. Off -site provision of units or cash payments in lieu of affordable units are options under certain circumstances. • Marysville Municipal Code Ch. 2 2C.090 — Residential density bonus incentives available for permanently restricted, low-income rental units and low-income senior rental units. Also available for mobile home space for mobile homes displaced from closed mobile parks. • Poulsbo Municinal Code Sec. 18.70.070(B) — A small -city example of an affordable, low- income housing incentives program. • Redmand Zoni -Code Ch. 21.20 — Includes affordable senior housing bones program; all programs are subject to an affordable housing agreement, • Seattle Outlines the conditions by which affordable housing shall be provided to satisfy requirements for bonus non-residential floor area • Shoreline Municinal Code Sec. 20.40.230 — Example of a simple density bones code Sample County Regulations Using Density Bonus to Encourage, Not Require, Affordable Housing • King County Affordable Housing Incentive Prog�ram — Includes development incentives such as credit enhancement, density bonus program, fee waivers, and surplus property for affordable housing and other public benefits. Code 2 1A.34 offers density bonuses ranging from 1-1,5 bonus units per benefit unit. For 100% affordable projects, the density allows 200% above the base. • Pierce CountyCodeCh. 18A.65 — Offers expedited permit processing for all projects with low-income, affordable units. Financial and regulatory incentives that are available (subject to criteria) include expedited permit processing, fee waivers, bonus units, and alternative development standards. County assumes shared equity when units increase in value, which is recaptured at time of sale to fund price reductions for additional units. • San Juan CountyCodeSec. 18.60.260 — Offers restrictive use easement to operators of affordable housing while Code Sec, 1830-200 (D) offers a density bonus specifically for the density district of Doe Bay Hamlet Activity Center, zsz=��r Inclusionary zoning (IZ) refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. Inclusionary housing programs in Washington State must offer density bonuses or other incentives to offset the developer's project costs and "compensate" for the requirement to provide affordable units. This approach enlists private sector help in contributing to the affordable housing supply and reducing segregation of affordable and market -rate housing. The samples below require developers provide affordable housing in areas within designated inclusionary zones, • Federal Way — Multi -family projects over 25 units must provide affordable units and may then build bonus units. Single-family developments have the option of reduced lot size in exchange for affordable units if built in identified zoning areas, • Kirkland Municipal Code Ch. 112 — All developments with over four units and located in certain zones must provide some affordable units. Off -site provision of units or cash payments in lieu of affordable units are options, under certain circumstances. • Redmond Zoning Code Ch. 21.20 — Affordable housing is defined by tip to 80% median income; housing developments over 10 units in specified planning areas must provide affordable units and may then build bonus units. Off -site provision of units or cash payments in lieu of affordable units and dimensional modifications are options. All programs are subject to an affordable housing agreement, Sample Out -of -State Regulations Requiring Provision of Affordable Housing • Boulder (CO) Municipal Code Ch. 13 -- Mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements apply to even single -unit projects with alternative means of compliance offered. Interesting procedural details from a community that has long experience with this inclusionary program. • Montgomery County (MD) Moderatel Priced Dwellin Unit MPQU Program and related doge mm.etp�tsgr�eemen�tsand and showcase one of the longest -lived, most sophisticated, and successful inclusionary zoning programs in the country. • Portland (OR)JELIusioriarX Housing — Requires that all residential buildings proposing 20 or more units provide a percentage of the new units at rents affordable to households at 80% of the area median income, • Sacramento (CA) -Municipal Code Ch. 1T704 — Offers an additional bonus for green, affordable housing. Ch. 17.712 addresses mixed-Ingorne housing and features all inclusionary housing component. • San Diego (CA) Municipal Code Art. 2 Div. 13 — Comprehensive, carefully considered, inclusionary affordable housing regulations. • San Mateo (CA) Below Market JnclusionaryLPro ram ---- Resources for Inclusionary Zoning • Center for Housing Polic nities for llnn.d�usionar Housin (2013) — Discusses major issues and opportunities facing inclusionary housing today, • Grounded Solutions Network • Inclusionary Housing Polio V Des.,-n Com on ucations — Addresses issues to consider when developing an 1Z housing policy. • What Do We Know About Inclusionary Zoning? (2018) — Drawing from the 2016 national survey of programs, this report spotlight prevalent program characteristics and their implications for the field, • Lincoln Institute of Land Policy o Achievii Lasth - Affordabilit 7 throeah Inclusiona (2014) — A detailed report with many useful case studies, 0 Inclusionary Housing (2015) — Through a review of the literature and case studies, this report details how local governments are realizing the potential of inclusionary housing, Puget Sound Regional Council: Inclusionary Zoning (2020) — Discusses where 1Z is most applicable and how to implement it. Urban Land Institute • Economics of Inclusionary Zoning (2016) -- Assesses and illustrates the economics of 1Z on MUlti-family rental development. • Inclusionary Zoning: What Does the Research Tell Us about the Effectiveness of Local Action? (2019) — A study on the effectiveness of 1Z on improving economic opportunity and racial disparity. Partnerships with Nonprofit Housing Developers/Public Housing Autifiorities Nonprofit housing developers and public housing authorities (PHA) create and maintain many affordable housing units throughout Washington State and the Unites States. PHAs are federally recognized public entities that focus on providing and advocating for housing for low-income households, while nonprofit housing developers can offer a wider scope of services. Both types of organizations have independent governing boards and can often gain access to funding sources not available to a city or county. These organizations usually have staff with expertise solely devoted to solving affordable housing problems and producing new housing units. Oftentimes, nonprofit housing developers and PHA's can do their work more effectively in cooperation with local government. As a result, it is important for both sides to reach out to one another and explore potential partnerships when applicable. Resources for PHA/Local Government Partnerships • Grounded Solutions Net workLNon profit Partnerships — Offers a summary of the issue, • Housing Studies: The Chan in Role of Public Ilousin Authorities In the Affordable UHRouqsaiing-jDeliver y-System (May 2014) — This whitepaper looks at case studies of the largest PHAs in the Pacific Northwest, including Seattle, King County, Tacoma, Snohomish County, Bellingham, Vancouver, and Bremerton. • Puget Sound Research Council: Non Partnerships Tool — Addresses how local governments can establish cooperative arrangements with public or nonprofit housing developers to promote low-income or special needs housing. 7-xamples of M-111ocal Government Partnerships • Bellingham and Whatcom Coun hi Housi- -A —1--ities • Bremerton and Bremerton Housing Authorit-IT Rental Assistance Pro rams RMZMEM�= Having a clear and consistently applied permit review process is of benefit to everyone, whether you are an applicant, local citizen, or government staff person. Many communities have taken steps to streamline their development review processes to make them more efficient while still requiring projects to meet all applicable zoning and development standards. Some communities have focused these expedited processes on projects that address key community priorities, such as affordable housing. Why is a streamlined development review process so important? Shorter permit processing times will save applicants time, which can translate into significant money savings when there are costs associated with holding property until it is put to productive use. While permit strearning will not by itself create more affordable housing, the achieved cost savings may be enough to give the financial "green light" to allow an affordable housing developer to proceed with a development project, A development project receiving any type of incentive should be required to maintain a pre -determined level of affordability for an established number of years (via a covenant or similar mechanism that "runs with the land"). Examples of streamlined permitting processes (includes expedited permitting code provisions that apply to more than just affordable housing) include: • Issaquah Green Building Incentive P_____ —Applicants pursuing green building certification (LEED Gold or Built Green 5 Star) are eligible for priority building permit review at no additional fee, • Pierce County Code Ch. 18A.65.040(A) — Offers expedited permit processing for all projects with low-income, affordable units covered by Chapter 18A,65, which provides for other financial and regulatory incentives, • Vancouver Municinal Code Sec. 20.920.060(H) — Expedites permit review for infill development. rMim- Rt Met IN . �M M M =- Several communities have adopted exemptions, waivers, or a reductions of charges normally assessed to residential development in exchange for the construction of affordable housing. Examples of this approach includes impact fee waivers/exeiiiption/reductioiis, discounted building or planning fees, or reduced sewer and water connections fees. While some community members may feel it is unfair to provide a financial break to a select type of housing development, fee reductions and waivers are a powerful tool for those local governments looking to encourage construction of new affordable housing. While usually not as large as impact fees or utility connection fees, reduced or waived fees for submitting a development project application will reduce the costs for an affordable housing developer. Examples of local governments that offer such fee waivers or reductions include: 0 Everett Municipal Code Sec. 16.72.070 — Offers waiver of planning fees. Lakewood Municinal Code Sec. 18A.90.070 — Reduces fees for land use and building permits. Puyallup Municipal Code Sec. 17.04,080(2) — Offers waiver of building permit fees. Impact fee wa ivers/exe mptio n /reductions for low-income housing are authorized under RCW 82,02.060(2) and (3), subject to conditions. Subsection (2) states that exempted impact fees must be repaid from public funds other than impact fee accounts, while subsection (3) has less stringent repayment standards but imposes more requirements on which low-income housing qualifies for a partial or full exemption. Examples of local governments that offer impact fees exemptions include: • Ephrata Municinal Code Sec. 13.04.112(g) — Allows for water connection fee waiver, while Sec. 13.08 QW(f) allows for sewer connection fee waiver • King CountyCodeSec. 21A.43.080 — Provides impact fee exempti on/red ucti oil for low- or moderate -income housing, • Kirkland Zoinin- Code Sec. 112.20(4) — Includes dimensional standards modification as g— well as reduced fees for road and/or park impact and reduced fees for eligible planning, building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits • Kitsap CountyCodeCh. 4A10 — Allows exemptions from all impact fees for low-income rental housing, low-income owner -occupied housing, public schools, and other public buildings. Port Townsend Municipal Code Sec. 13.03.110 — Offers system -development charge deferrals. Infrastructure connection fees are used to cover the cost related to connecting a new development to a public utility system, such as public water and sewer. Such fees are usually based on the real costs of extending a physical connection (i.e,, a pipe) to the development and are assessed on a per -unit basis, based on the type of development (for example, single-family or multi -family housing). These connection fees should not be confused with impact fees, which are not utility connection -oriented and only apply to capital facilities relating to transportation, parks and recreation, public schools, and fire protection. Infrastructure connection fees can often be a significant cost for developers. For example, in 2020, the Port Orchard Munici al Code 13.04.025 notes the following connection fees® $5,945 for a public water connection, $5,157 for a public sewer line connection, and $3,597 for a wastewater treatment facility fee per residential unit (either detached home or apartment unit). This totals to $14,699 per unit, plus an additional $1,000-$2,000 in installation and materials costs. Such fees may serve as an impediment for affordable housing developers in cases where the connection fees contribute to a project not being able to "pencil out" financially on the development's pro forms. Because high connection fees may discourage construction of an affordable housing development, some municipalities waive or offer reduced connection fees for these developments. Any local government that might consider reduced connection fees should establish clear eligibility criteria, such as a threshold level of affordability (e.g., less than 50% of the Median Family Income), a mininium number or percentage of units that must be affordable, and the time period within which these units must remain at the set affordability level. Examples of local governments with reduced infrastructure fees includes: Kirkland Zoni o, Code Sec. 112.20 — Kirkland is an example of a community that uses several different types of fee waivers and exemptions. The code includes dimensional standards modification as well as reduced fees for road and/or park impact, and eligible planning, building, PlUmbing, mechanical, and electrical permits, Pierce County Municipal Code 18A.65.040 — Offers financial incentives, including the waiver of infrastructure fees, for the construction of affordable units. (e.g., If 20% of units are affordable to low-income households, the development is exempt from park impact fees). Port Townsend Municipal Code 13.03.110 — Allows for deferral payment of systern development charges for water and sewer for low-income housing. Orrfffr-M 01 n-lpff W.M Washington State law was amended in 2018 to allow local government to dispose of surplus government property at a discount for affordable housing projects. Local governments have traditionally been required to receive fair market value for the sale of surplus properties but 3SHB 2382 enables state agencies and local governments to dispose of surplus property at no or to cost to developers who are then required to construct permanently affordable housing at that site. Allowing the sale of surplus property at a discounted rate is expected to open more land for, the development of affordable housing. In 2017, the King County Assessor identified more than 300 count y-owynail -properties that are larger than 20,000 sf and located within a quarter mile of transit, In 2018, Pierce County conducted a similar iiRnyven�tolll 1 of ubhc lands for the South Sound Housing Affordability Partnership. Many local governments require a design review process to ensure that new development fits a desired visual aesthetic of a community or neighborhood. Such standards serve an important purpose in encouraging a design treatment that will likely make a housing development more compatible with nearby buildings, potentially causing neighbors to be more accepting of it. Having a well -designed building is especially important for affordable housing sites due to the prejudice against these sites as being poorly designed and shoddily built. Design review is sometimes criticized because it can add extra time to the development application and review process, particularly when the process involves a citizen -led design review board or committee. Some cities and towns have tailored their design reviews for certain types of developments to make construction faster, easier, and less costly. See Olympia's white paper on i2gAgaLqiddints for tiny home, townhouse, duplex, triplex, and fourplex construction, which includes examples of how a variety of municipalities approach design guidelines. Pre -a roved fans may be another solution to speeding up the review 3 p Developments Chelan Municipal Code Ch. 17.14.050 — Covers design standards for cottage housing, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, single-family homes and ADUs in the downtown planning area, • North Bend Munic . al Code Ch. 18AL050 — Covers cottage housing design standards and guidelines, • Port Townsend Municipal Code Ch. 1734 — Gives detailed guidelines for cottage housing development by addressing parking, screening, building dimension, street orientation, and stormwater runoff. • Puyallup Municipal Code Ch. 20.21.030 — Covers cottage housing design standards and guidelines • University Place Municipal Code Ch. M53 — Provides detailed design standards, including pictures, to help smaller -unit developments fit into the aesthetic of a primarily single-family housing community. Depicted are both desirable and undesirable designs. Parking requirements can be a major factor in determining the affordability of a real estate development project. For housing projects requiring surface parking, that parking often occupies land that could otherwise be used to add more income -producing housing units. Conversely, structured parking allows for the efficient use of land but significantly adds to a new development's construction cost, which gets passed on in the rental rate or sales price of each housing unit. While reducing parking requirements alone won't by itself result in production of more dwelling units affordable to less than 80% of low- and moderate- incorne households, it will help reduce what might otherwise be viewed as unnecessary development costs. The graph below is from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute's (VTPI) 2020 report ME Parking Spaces Per Unit Exurban, Higher Price ThIs shows pmmking costs as a petmilage 01 h'Ousing COSIF for differs-mi, comArLiction and land costs:. Vie ptucentage is gre-West for lowof p0ce vrWan IhQU50g, This d"C'e5, 1101 ftl"(Audea'dftorial indiiect co5t., and Graph courtesy of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute The vrpi found that when included as part of a new multi -family building ill 2020, parking decks cost an average of approximately $18,000/parking space. This cost increases substantially if the parking is located underground. Fortunately, there are multiple ways to reduce development- related parking costs, including reducing parking space requirements, lowering the dimensional requirements of parking spaces (Note: reduced standards should not result in parking spaces so small as to be rendered unusable by most vehicles), allowing tandem spaces, and encouraging the unbundling of parking and rent. Residents of small -unit affordable housing may not need the same amount of parking as other types of housing. For example, illicrohousing developments have demonstrated a reduced rate of car ownership. Other types of developments may be located in walkable areas served by good transit service, thereby appealing to a car -free or "single car ownership" demographic, which reduces the need for on -site parking. Requiring more parking spots than are needed for an affordable housing project does not make sense and will unnecessarily increase the development costs of such housing, leading the developer to decide that it is not financially worthwhile to pursue it. It should be acknowledged that some community members may not like a reduction in parking requirements, which they may perceive as having a negative impact oil the availability of on -street parking. There are a few approaches, however, that can be used to mitigate this concerti. For example, some micro -apartments in the Puget Sound have a reqUirement that all automobile -owning tenants must pay for and use an on -site parking spot, while tenants without cars don't have to pay for parking if they sign all affidavit stating they do not own a car). Monitoring and enforcement of such oil -site parking use by tenants is also an essential part of such an arrangement. Sample Codes with Different Parking Standards for Affordable and Smaller -Unit Housing Developments • Everett Municipal Code 19.34.020 — Requires 1 parking spot per 2 microhousing unit. • Kenmore Municinal Code 18.40.030 — ReqUires,75 parking spots per inicrohousing unit if within a quarter mile of the major arterial SR 522; otherwise 1 spot per dwelling unit. • Kirkland Municinal Code 112.110(4)(b) — Reduces required parking to 1 space per affordable housing unit, with no additional guest parking required. If parking is reduced through this provision, the owner signs a covenant restricting the occupants of each affordable housing unit to a maximum of 1 automobile. • Olympia — Conducted a 2017 analysis of parking requirements • For tiny houses • For court and apartments cottage housing sinle-roomocci anc manufactured homes • For accessory dwellinunits - • Port Townsend Municipal Code 17.34.180 — Reduces requirements for off-street parking for cottage housing developments to "less than normally required for detached single- family residences, based on the idea that the smaller cottages contain fewer occupants. • Washougal Mur-iicipal Code 18.45.070(7) — Reduces parking requirements for cottage housing developments: The project -related steps involved in designing a housing development project and having those individual designs approved by a local government take a lot of time, which has cost implications for the developer and architect. To achieve efficiency and cost savings, some municipalities are opening the door to having architects prepare design plans that have been pre -approved for construction. This is an approach that might also be well -suited to units that can be factory built off -site, such as modular housing and tiny homes. It can be difficult for municipalities to set up and administer a pre -approved plans program: A local government must find an architect who can create a variety of pre - approved plans that are compatible with neighborhood character and meet local market demands. The jurisdiction then needs to find a way to encourage builders to use those pre - approved plans instead of their own designs. In 2020, Seattle launched its ADUniverse program to facilitate the building of new accessory dwelling units in the city. It featured 10 different i3re-gnproved models on the welisite, each from a different architecture studio. Below is an example from the City of Encinitas (CA) pLQgram, which offers free, publicly available plans to encourage construction of smaller living units. MMM Irriages courte�y of the City of Eilcinite; The benefit of pre -approved plans is that planning staff are already familiar with the documents, which can significantly speed up the development review process.'rhis shortened review time will result in cost: savings to the developer since each month saved is a month in which the developer does not have to pay construction loan debt service and is time that can be used to construct and bring the housing unit(s) to market faster. Resources Related to Pre -Approved Plans * MRSC: What's Not to Like? Pre-Annroved Plans Offer Faster Permittin!"a Cheqnpr Qgqft � (2 0 14) * Encinitas (CA) ftEjnjtRead AI�U Pro rats — Encourages the construction of ADUs by offering property owners a selection of pre -approved ADU building plans that can be downloaded for free * Humboldt County (CA) Pre -A roved ADD Plans — Offers publicly available pre -approved Tp plans for ADUs either attached or detached frog a home, or above a garage * Ventura County (CA)Far m Worker 1-lousing - Offers plans for one-, two-, and three-bedroorn homes ranging from 700 to 1,200 square feet.