Missing Middle Alternative Proposal: Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods

Transcription

1 Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods Judy Bardin Jay Elder Jim Keogh John Tobin Walt Jorgensen August 3, 2018 Olympia City Council City Hall 601 4th Avenue E Olympia, WA PO Box 1967 citycouncil@ci.olympia.wa.us cc: Steve Hall, City Manager, City of Olympia cc: Jake Brooks Bricklin & Newman, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington Mayor and Councilmembers: Missing Middle Alternative Proposal: Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods Background: Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods have been following the Missing Middle proposal from its inception. Members of our group have attended the Work Group meetings and all the Planning Commission meetings on the topic. Our group has an in depth understanding of the proposal and its ramifications for Olympia s Low-Density Neighborhoods (those zoned R-4-8 or R-6-12). We would like to present alternative recommendations to the Missing Middle, for the Council to consider.

2 The Council should include reasonable alternatives within its consideration of the Missing Middle proposal because the consideration of alternatives will sharply define the issues at the heart of the Missing Middle proposal and allow for a meaningful determination of whether the community s needs are being met. Rather than wondering if there is an ill-defined and hypothetical other option to the Missing Middle proposal, the Council will be able to evaluate whether the Missing Middle proposal is really the best option for the City of Olympia by comparing concrete alternatives. Preferred Option: First, we believe that the best option would be to start over and develop a proposal that closely follows the Comprehensive Plan and begins with what people in Olympia truly need. The current proposal does not include: A scope of work Clearly defined goals and objectives that have stipulated targets and timelines Any useful measurements of results, which depend on the above No alternative options to the Missing Middle proposal have been presented. It is therefore difficult to evaluate whether whatever the Missing Middle accomplishes could have been accomplished in a better way, or with better results. Also: The proposal is very complex, containing 43 separate provisions for 10 types of housing. Definitions of some housing types overlap and create inconsistencies in their standards: lot sizes and widths, heights, and parking requirements. Some standards seem unworkable. The public process was inadequate. No initial notice was sent out to the residents who would be affected by the proposal. Many people still do not know its details, and few understand it, due to its complexity and shifting parameters. Yet, almost all Olympians will be impacted by the proposal. Plan B If Council decides starting over is not an option, then we would like to present alternative recommendations for the 10 different housing types. Below, we give guiding principles, followed by our recommendations. Our recommendations are focused on four criteria: Increase density in existing residential neighborhoods, up to their stated limits (8, 12) Provide affordable housing options

3 Provide compatible options for those who want to live in residential Low-Density Neighborhoods, but can t afford to own or rent a single-family house Maintain the character and livability of residential Low-Density Neighborhoods Our Rationales and Recommendations: 1. Scarcity of housing of all types - Eight years of severe recession caused builders to nearly stop building housing. Meanwhile, as the population grew, with few new units, the vacancy rate of apartment and house inventory dropped. With improvement of the economy since 2015, pentup demand and scarcity caused rent and house prices to increase quickly. Our Recommendation: We need new housing units of all kinds. 2. Wages and salaries did not grow, and many dropped during the recession. Even with recent economic improvement, most of the population has seen little increase in real (inflation adjusted) income since Average rents have risen beyond the reach of about a third of the Olympia population. High home prices have eliminated the option of buying in the near-future for many. A large 2016 Zillow study: West-coast renters are most likely to consider small to medium sized apartments as rental options, followed by single family homes, townhomes, and then large apartments. Duplexes and triplexes were the least likely rental unit to be considered. In terms of home buying choices, most (78%) buy single family homes, followed by townhomes (10%), condos/co-ops (5%) and duplexes and triplexes (4%). Small apartments in large apartment buildings (in the nodes, as prescribed by the 2014 Comprehensive Plan), townhouses, and ADUs built into existing houses are least expensive per square foot to build and rent (see, Building Costs and Rents). Single Room Occupancies (SROs) are probably the most affordable option. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and detached ADUs are the most expensive. Our Recommendations: o We need more, cheaper, rental properties (smaller apartments, townhomes, SROs and some types of ADUs). o We need to maintain the stock of single-family houses in existing neighborhoods, and preserve their character, which remains very much in demand. o New housing built as a result of the Missing Middle proposal should not be turned into short-term rentals. Short-term rentals (less than a two months in duration) decrease the housing supply in Olympia.

4 3) For those with more money for housing, some variety in what can be bought or rented is needed. Our Recommendations: o In low-density residential neighborhoods this variety can be offered by tiny homes, ADUs, manufactured homes, and 2-unit townhouses. Some duplexes and a few tiny homes or cottage developments, which are sited far apart from each other can also create options. These should be style-and height-compatible for the neighborhood in which they are sited (approximating the heights of surrounding houses, which are generally 25 feet or less). o Taller, or more lot-filling housing should not be squeezed into these neighborhoods. Allowing large rental housing in Low-Density Neighborhoods puts home-buyers in competition with investors for housing, raising house prices and rents for renters, and eliminates open space, which drew people to these neighborhoods in the first place. o In the High Density Neighborhoods (nodes), or areas where there are no existing residential neighborhoods, larger triplexes, fourplexes and courtyard apartments should be located. Larger apartment buildings in these areas will be the quickest and cheapest per square foot to build, and are likely to be the most affordable. 4) Other Recommendations. Design review of larger multi-unit structures (courtyard apartments, multiple townhouses, cottage housing) should be done by the Design Review Board or the Joint Design Review Committee. Fitting multi-unit structures into existing low density neighborhoods should have citizen oversight, especially in our historic districts. The current proposal has staff doing the design review of all Missing Middle housing types. Triplexes and Fourplexes are larger multi-unit structures but they should not be allowed in Low-Density Neighborhoods. For Mixed Residential Districts (MR 10-18), the OMC states that "No more than three (3) duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes shall be contiguous to one another". In low density neighborhoods similar but tighter restrictions should apply to duplexes (and, if allowed, triplexes and fourplexes) even those which are the result of internal redevelopment. We suggest below an appropriate spacing option. A five and ten year review of the Missing Middle should be done to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of increasing housing supply and affordability. Unit density in an R-4-8 or R-6-12 zoning district within a 300 foot radius surrounding new dwelling units added under Missing Middle provisions should stay within the prescribed unit density of the area.

5 Institute policies that discourage teardowns of existing houses. Without these policies, we will lose modest homes that function as starter homes and less expensive rental units. Low Impact Development (LID) guidelines for Low-Density Neighborhoods should not be revised. The revision to the LID guidelines that is being proposed concurrently with the Missing Middle proposal would increase the maximum hard surface limit for lots of a ¼ acre or less of land from 55% to 75% (a 36% increase). This would leave lots with little green space and change single family neighborhoods into an urban/commercial environment. Try a phased approach to instituting Missing Middle changes - one neighborhood at a time. Suggested Revisions for the 10 Missing Middle Housing Types: ADUs: ADU should count in the unit density. Now that the size limit for ADUs will be increased to 800 sf, (the size of many duplex units) they should be included in the density count. Height A free standing ADU should be equal to or less than the height of the house sharing the property. Allow an ADU to be built as a second story on a house. Allow an ADU to be built over a garage only if the primary house is two-stories. Disallow ADUs to be used as short-term rentals (less than two months). ADUs should be preserved as a housing option for long-term renters and owners. Parking One off-street (on-site) parking space is presently required for ADUs. Suggested revision: If the owner lives on-site and the block the ADU is on allows on-street parking on both sides and there is a sidewalk on at least one side of the street. Then the one off-street parking spot requirement can be eliminated. Retain the two off street parking space requirement for the primary house when a garage is converted to an ADU. Cottage Housing: To retain the visual appeal of the common area and avoid garage-scape, parking should be located in back of each cottage or in a common parking area that is located behind all the cottages and abuts an alley for access. Retain the requirement for one off-street

6 (on-site) parking space per unit and 1.5 parking spaces if sufficient parking is not available on the frontage street. With an approved site plan, allow phased construction of common areas and frontage improvements so that the common areas and frontage improvements are always at least proportional to the number of units constructed. Limit larger multi-unit structures (cottage housing developments, tiny homes in a cohousing arrangement, and courtyard apartments) to one in a 1000 foot radius. Disallow cottage housing to be used as short term rentals. These units receive a density bonus and should be used as housing for Olympia residents, not visitors. Duplex: Units should have a height limit of 24 feet. For both new and pre-existing duplex units: Limit of one (1) duplex unit per each pair of opposing block-faces* or each cul-de-sac. If street configuration is irregular, duplexes must be at least 300 feet apart measured from the closest boundary line of each duplex property. Lot width should be no less than 55% of the lot depth and a minimum of 55 feet. Disallow duplexes to be used as short-term rentals. All duplex structures (two living units) count as two (2) units in the unit density. Internal conversions of single family homes to a duplex count as two (2) units in the unit density. A home that has an existing ADU cannot be modified into a duplex. Retain two (2) off-street (on-site) parking spaces per each unit in a duplex. *block-face definition: One side of a city block between two consecutive features intersecting that street. The features can be intersections with other streets or the boundaries of standard geographic areas. That is, if a block is a square or rectangle, a block-face is one side of that square or rectangle. Townhomes: Limit the number of townhouses allowed in a row to two (2) units in an R-4-8 zone and four (4) units in an R-6-12 zone. In an R-4-8 zone, for both new and pre-existing townhomes, limit of two (2) townhome buildings for each pair of opposing block-faces or each cul-de-sac. If street configuration is irregular, a pair of townhome units must be at least 300 feet apart measured from the closest boundary line of each townhome property. In an R-6-12 zone, a row of three (3) to four (4) townhomes should be at least 1000 feet apart and a pair of townhomes should follow the aforementioned stipulations for townhomes in an R-4-8 zone.

7 Prohibit the conversions of townhouse garages to ADUs. Retain two (2) off-street (on-site) parking places per each unit in a townhome. Triplexes and Fourplexes; These units should not be allowed in Low-Density Neighborhoods. They are large units that can go to three (3) stories and can adversely impact neighbors by blocking sun light, decreasing privacy and restricting visual access beyond the immediate yard. o They are currently not even allowed in any residential mixed use zoning districts (RM-7-13, RM 10-18, RM-18, RM-24, RMH, or RMU) with maximum housing densities of up to 30 units per acre. o In High-Density transition areas, the minimum lot width for triplexes and fourplexes is 80 feet. The Missing Middle proposal will compresses these widths by half. Minimum lot widths of between feet for triplexes and fourplexes in newly proposed Low-Density Neighborhoods mirror these reductions. Anyone building triplexes and fourplexes on lots with this limited lot width will have to build them with a height of three (3) stories in order to have a livable set of housing units. o They are not a defined type of allowed unit in Low-Density Neighborhoods as stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan (Land Use and Urban Design Chapter, Appendix A: Future Land Use Designations). Courtyard apartments: Courtyard apartments have the potential to be more affordable units. In an R-4-8 zone, courtyard apartments should be allowed within 300 feet of transit routes or commercial zoning. Courtyard apartments must be at least 1000 feet apart measured from the closest boundary line of each courtyard apartment development. No more than one courtyard apartment complex in an R-6-12 zone in a 1000 ft. radius. In an R-4-8-T, R-4-8 commercial and R-6-12 there should be no other large multi-unit structures (cottage development or tiny homes in a co-housing arrangement) in 1000 ft. radius of the courtyard apartment development. Height limit in R-4-8 Transit should be one-story, and two-stories in R-6-12 zones. Most off-street parking should be in the back of apartments, and the requirement for 1.5 parking spaces per apartment unit should be retained. Courtyard apartments should only be allowed if an alley can provide access to rear parking Courtyard apartments need to be clearly defined in the OMC Residential Development Standards - table (as to lot size, minimum width, setbacks, etc.). Single Room Occupancies:

8 Although these can be moderately impactful to a single family neighborhood they should be allowed because they are truly affordable units, however there needs to be additional specific provisions for SROs to be protective of tenants. o SRO is six (6) to twelve (12) units. o Owner or manager has to live onsite. o Number of people living in the SRO can t exceed the number of bedrooms. o Kitchen requirement needs to be specified to include a fully equipped kitchen (not just a hotplate and microwave, sufficient refrigerator space, etc.) SROs need to be clearly defined in the OMC and in the OMC Residential Development Standards - table Limit of one SRO unit per each pair of opposing block-faces or each cul-de-sac. If street configuration is irregular, SROs must be at least 300 feet apart measured from the closest boundary line of each SRO property. Limit height to two (2) stories. Provide definition of how SROs fit in the unit density. Staff have indicated that each unit in a SRO will count as one unit in the unit density. Disallow SROs as short-term rentals. Parking if: One off-street (on-site) parking space per unit. Parking spaces can be eliminated the block where the SRO is on allows on-street parking on both sides and there is a sidewalk on at least one side of the street and there is space directly in front of the SRO to accommodate parking for each unit in the SRO where a parking is eliminated, otherwise an on-site (on-site) parking space for that unit should be provided Manufactured Homes: Retain the requirements for pitched roofs and exterior siding. Tiny Homes: Reduce the off-street parking requirement from two (2) off-street (on-site) spaces to one (1) space if the house is less than 500 sf. Specify which residential zoning districts to allow for tiny homes to be used in cohousing arrangement. Subject such developments to be the same kind of requirements as cottage housing (unit density, setbacks, frontage improvements, etc.) There needs to be a definition of a tiny home in the OMC and in OMC Residential Development Standards - table

9 Limit larger multi-unit developments (tiny homes in a co-housing arrangement, cottage housing, and courtyard apartments) to one in a 1000 foot radius. Specifically note how long the State will all tiny homes to be used if they are on wheels. Thank you for considering our alternative recommendations for the Missing Middle proposal. Our recommendations focus on the four criteria we outlined. We also strove to retain the apparent intent of the Missing Middle proposal while avoiding the collateral effects that are of concern to many Olympia residents. We would be glad to meet with Council or council members to discuss or review the recommendations in our proposal. Please don't hesitate to contact us with questions. Sincerely, Judy Bardin for Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods 1517 Dickinson Ave NW Olympia, WA judybardin@comcast.net