Anna Petersen, Vice-Chair Ryan Givens City of Tacoma ... Commission...2019/05/29 · or to request...

City of Tacoma Planning Commission

Stephen Wamback, Chair

Anna Petersen, Vice-Chair

Carolyn Edmonds

Ryan Givens

David Horne

Jeff McInnis

Brett Santhuff

Andrew Strobel

Dorian Waller

The City of Tacoma does not discriminate on the basis of disability in any of its programs, activities, or services. To request this information in an alternative format

or to request a reasonable accommodation, please contact the Planning and Development Services Department at (253) 591-5056 (voice) or (253) 591-5820 (TTY).

747 Market Street, Room 345 ❚Tacoma, WA 98402 ❚(253) 591-5682 ❚FAX (253) 591-5433 ❚http://www.cityoftacoma.org/planning

PRESENTATIONS and HANDOUTS

Meeting on May 29, 2019

Agenda Items Page

1. 2020 Amendment – Assessment of Applications (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-1)

3 – 20

2. 2019 Amendment – Future Land Use map Implementation (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-2)

21 – 31

3. 2019 Amendment – Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-3)

33 – 43

4. 2019 Amendment – Affordable Housing Action Strategy Incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-4)

45 – 51

5. 2019 Amendment – Historic Preservation Code Amendments (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-5)

53 – 58

6. 2019 Amendment – Manitou Potential Annexation (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-6)

59 – 60

7. 2019 Amendment – Minor Plan and Code Amendments (PowerPoint Slides, for Discussion Item D-7)

61

http://www.cityoftacoma.org/

1

T O T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N

A N D L A N D U S E R E G U L A T O R Y C O D E

2020 PRIVATE APPLICATIONS

OVERVIEW

• Requested action – Set a Public Scoping

Hearing for June 19, 2019

• Brief explanation of the application process

and assessment report

• Heidelberg-Davis Application

Q&A

• Narrowmoor VSD Application

Q&A

2

• May 29 – Meeting 1: Set hearing

• June 19 – Meeting 2: Public Hearing

• July 17 – Meeting 3: Finalize scope and assessment and if the Planning Commission is inclined approve work plan

3

TIMELINE

120 Day code mandated “Shot Clock” from the close of the

application period which was April 1,2019

• Amendment request is legislative and properly

subject to Planning Commission review

• Whether there have been recent studies of the

same area or issue or if there are active or planned

projects that the amendment request can be

incorporated into

4

Assessment Report Criteria 13.02.045.E

• Identification of other amendment options the Planning Commission could consider in addition to the amendment as proposed by the applicant; and

• A preliminary staff review of the application submittal

• Whether the amount of analysis necessary is reasonably manageable given the workloads and resources of the Department and the Commission, or if a large-scale study is required, the amendment request may be scaled down, studied in phases, delayed until a future amendment cycle, or declined.

5

Assessment Report Criteria 13.02.045.E

6

Heidelberg-Davis Land Use Designation Application

8

Heidelberg-Davis Land Use Designation Application

LAND USE DESIGNATION

Parks and Open Space Major Institutional Campus

Designation intended to conserve

and enhance open/green space

and/or to provide active spaces

such as ball fields.

Designation is intended for large

institutional campuses (High

schools, higher education,

hospitals)10+ acres in size.

9

RELATED EFFORTS

• 2016 Creation of an Institutional Zoning District

Considered – Tabled Due to Shifting Work Plan

Priorities at the time.

• 2016 Rezoning Discussion –

• Area Wide Rezoning Discussion –

• possible rezoning of the greater Cheney-Foss-Heidelberg site to

C-2 General Commercial. Area residents expressed concern

about possible uses in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning

District. Proposal did not move beyond the Planning

Commission phase of review.

10

SCOPING OPTIONS

• Development Agreement

• Expanded scope

• Possible expansion of proposal to include

the Metro Park Headquarters building

site.

11

12

Narrowmoor View Sensitive District Application

13

Narrowmoor View Sensitive District Application

SCOPE

• City wide View Sensitive Overlay Districts all

presently with a uniform 25-foot building height limit

• Uniform measurement standards which are unique to the

VSD properties.

14

BACKGROUND

15

RELATED EFFORTS

• 2015 Conservation District Considered – Denied by

City Council.

• 2017 View Sensitive District Discussion –

• Old Town Commercial VSD Discussion –

• City Council Tabled the discussion and requested that the

Planning Commission and Staff look at overall View Sensitive

District measurement.

17

SCOPING OPTIONS

• Scoping Options to Consider:

• Text Amendment Option

• Alter how View Sensitive Properties are measured for

Narrowmoor area only

• Call out the Narrowmoor area within the VSD section of the

code

• Creation of a VSD 20 Overlay District

• Which would then require a rezoning action for the Narrowmoor

area

• Area of Applicability

18

Future Land Use

Implementation

Planning Commission Presentation 5.29.19

STEPHEN ATKINSON

PRINCIPAL PLANNER

ACTION REQUESTED

• Identify specific areas for a deep dive on June 5

• Guidance on a “level 2” evaluation for Multi-family High Density

Future Land Use Implementation Stephen Atkinson, Principal Planner 2

DISCUSSION OVERVIEW

• Project Approach

• Comment Themes

• Multifamily High Density Considerations

• Proposed areas for further review


PROJECT APPROACH

Future Land Use Map based on existing policies:

• Focusing growth in and around centers, along transit corridors

• Serves trade areas, employment and transit access, anchor for a 20-minute neighborhood, areas with concentration of activities and services

• Create transitions in scale and intensity

• Promote transit supportive densities

• Maintain housing capacity

• Expand housing choices, diverse housing types, and affordability in all neighborhoods

• Build on City assets (historic resources, views, land use and neighborhood patterns)


SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

WWW.CITYOFTACOMA.ORG/FLUM


THEMES


• Proximity/Connectivity: Consider topography and street connections

• Views: Consider the impact of R-4 on views in Dometop

• Demolition and Historic Resources: Consider incentives for retention of existing structures and utilize lower density multifamily zoning in areas of concern for demolition; relation to proposed Demolition Review

• Transit and Services: Ensure High Density Multifamily zoning is located in areas with appropriate services and infrastructure

• Transitions: Utilize zoning to create transitions where off-site impacts are a concern

• Other Concerns: property values, rentals, traffic, parking

TOPIC 1: HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY

Location:

• Greater potential for scale and massing impacts, such as views, shading, privacy, when situated adjacent to single family residential areas;

• Greater service/amenity demands at that density;

• Not all of the proposed R-4 zones are in areas supported by high frequency transit or other amenities;

Historic and Neighborhood Compatibility:

• More likely to result in demolition of existing structures;

Housing Affordability and Diversity:

• Mixed-use centers have significant capacity for high density housing;

• More likely to support affordable housing requirements such as inclusionary zoning but development trends show under-utilization of zoning;

• High density new construction typically more expensive versus low density multifamily;

• Citywide need is primarily for additional capacity for low-density multifamily;

• Most of these areas are already zoned for low-density multifamily.



MULTIFAMILY BUILDING

ENVELOPES

MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY: TRANSITIONS

• Consider sequencing: Avoid, Minimize, Mitigate

• Avoid impacts by siting R-4 where: • Utilize streets, alleys, and open space/natural areas for scale separations

• Utilize where adjoining other intensive uses

• Utilize on large development sites where creative design treatments are feasible to avoid “edge” impacts

• Utilize in close proximity to commercial uses and activities

• Minimize: Site and Building Design and Development Standards

• Mitigate: Permit conditions/operations


TOPIC 2: SPECIFIC AREAS FOR DEEP DIVE

• High Comment Volume• Stadium

• Dometop

• 72nd and Alaska

• 34th and Proctor

• 26th and Alder

• 6th Ave


• Staff or Commission suggested: • Norpoint

• S 56th and M

• Mt. Tahoma Area

• Portland Ave

• S 19th and Proctor

• N Yakima

NEXT STEPS

• June 5: Deep Dive• Specific locations

• Evaluate High Density Multifamily and recommend area specific amendments to the proposal based on: • Transitions;

• Transit access;

• Commercial access;

• Historic and cultural resources.


SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM

PERIODIC REVIEW & UPDATES

Planning Commission Meeting | May 29, 2019

Requested Action• Review public comments

• Provide direction

Prior Actions• Scoping process, stakeholder

engagement, public review draft, Public Hearing

Next steps• Finalize Council recommendations

MEETING OBJECTIVES

Planning Commission Meeting | May 29, 2019 | SMP

COMMENTS – KEY THEMES

3Planning Commission Meeting | May 29, 2019 | SMP

Row Topic Key themes:

Overall – support for proposals

1. Changes required by Ecology • Ensure consistency

2. Geologically Hazardous Areas • Make code more/less restrictive

• Technical input

3. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors

4. Sea Level Rise • Strengthen policies

• Adopt regulations now

5. Base Flood Elevation

6. Salmon Beach Community • Review agency input

• More flexibility to expand cabins

8. Review Process clarification

9. Consistency with citywide standards • Ensure consistency/prevent conflicts

10. Language clarifications

TOPICS: SALMON BEACH


Agency comments:• FEMA: Meet all standards for new

construction and substantial alterations, including BFE and moving structures landward of mean high tide line (for V zones)

• WDFW: Habitat impacts to be reviewed case-by-case

Response:• Seek FEMA concurrence on staff

interpretation (per ASCE 24-14): For substantial improvements, not required to move landward of mean high tide line An example of storm surge in the Puget Sound



Response:

• Options are limited given overlapping policy and regulatory considerations

• Same requirements apply citywide

• FEMA standards required citywide for flood insurance program eligibility

OPTIONS:

1. No change to existing code (allows one-time, inline 10% expansion)

2. Draft proposal: Allow 2nd story (meet BFE and other requirements)

3. Hybrid: Allow the one-time 10% expansion to be a second-story addition (potentially not triggering full requirements if under substantial development threshold)

Salmon Beach Community comments:Increase flexibility—no new BFE requirement for 2nd story addition (current code already requires meeting standards for substantial improvements (e.g., BFE).



Salmon Beach Improvement Club comments:

• Remove requirement for geological hazard review (steep slopes concerns are known; 1990 hold harmless agreement)

Response:

• City is obligated to take steps to protect life and property

• Multiple overlapping policy priorities & regulatory standards

• Conditions and risks along slope vary, therefore staff and consultant recommend keeping review to determine site-specific conditions

TOPICS: GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS

Comments:

• Technical comments from subject matter experts

• Strengthen protections of landslide hazard areas

Responses:

• Reviewing issues with consultant team

• Update Best Available Science memo

• Changes to clarify draft code, consistent with the intent

• For example: Mitigation sequencing should not be required where site-specific determination of no significant risks


TOPICS: SEA LEVEL RISE


Comments:

• Strengthen policies calling for action to address sea level rise

• Adopt code standards for development now

Responses:

• Taking significant steps now by addressing geological hazardous areas

• Upcoming policy initiatives

OPTION:

• Strengthen policy direction by calling for adaptive management (e.g., managed retreat)

TOPICS: GENERAL


Comments:

• Support for proposals

• Ensure consistency/prevent conflicts with citywide standards

• Strengthen archaeological review standards

• Curtail fossil fuels/strengthen protections for tideflats habitat

• Proposals consistent with takings law

OPTIONS:

• Code clarifications for consistency (e.g., EV standards, TSMP 6.4.3.C.10)

• Future review of historic/archaeological review process

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CHANGES


Row Topic Recommendations/Options

1. Changes required by Ecology • Review regulations to ensure consistency

2. Geologically Hazardous Areas • Update BAS memo

• Changes to address technical input

3. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors

4. Sea Level Rise • Draft “managed retreat” policy

5. Base Flood Elevation

6. Salmon Beach Community • Seek concurrence from FEMA

• Option 1 (current code), 2 (draft proposal), or 3 (hybrid)

8. Review Process clarification

9. Consistency with citywide

standards

• Changes to ensure consistency/prevent conflicts

• Future review of archaeological standards/process

10. Language clarifications



Prior Actions• Scoping process, stakeholder engagement, public

review draft, Public Hearing


MEETING OBJECTIVES


Affordable Housing Action Strategy

(AHAS) – Planning Actions

Planning Commission Public Hearing | May 29, 2019

MEETING OBJECTIVES

Planning Commission | May 29, 2019 | AHAS



Prior Actions• Scoping process, stakeholder

engagement, public review draft, Public Hearing


HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATES

1. Integrate AHAS as implementation strategy

2. Update Housing Element policies• Inclusionary Zoning (modify and expand existing)

• Coordinate public investments with affordable housing

• Expand tenant protections

• Explore “Missing Middle” housing approaches

• Prioritize households with the greatest need

• Consider access to opportunity as part of housing actions

Planning Commission Hearing | May 15, 2019 | AHAS

“Missing Middle is a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living.”

TOPICS: KEY THEMES


Key themes: Recommendations/options:

Missing Middle Housing; revisit single-family

zoning

• Make recommendations for implementation plan

• Infill Pilot 2.0

AHAS implementation actions • Broad, data-supported engagement

• Consider cost-benefits of AHAS actions

Promote tax incentives and green building

Historic design review, parking, owner occupancy,

no developer giveaways

Link between housing, transportation and health • Consider text changes to highlight these links

Recognize historic inequities of housing policies • Add text/map recognizing historical inequities, or

• Defer to Council process

Strengthen policies against displacement

Build housing with community spaces

Ensure fair tenant and landlord protections

Continuum of housing needs (serve homeless)

TOPICS: HISTORIC INEQUITIES

Planning Commission Hearing | May 29, 2019 | AHAS

Redlining map in Tacoma:https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining

https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining

TOPICS: AHAS IMPLEMENTATION


City Council AHAS priorities:

• Action 1.2 Inclusionary Zoning

• Action 1.3 Multifamily Tax Exemption

• Action 1.6 Public Investment/Capital Projects

• Action 1.8 Diverse Housing Types

• Action 1.9 Housing Trust Fund

• Action 1.12 Permit Review

• Action 2.1 Addressing Derelict Properties

• Action 2.3 Resources for Owner Occupied Homes

• Action 3.1 Tenant Protection

• Action 3.2 Resources for Housing Crisis

• Action 4.1 Rental Assistance

OPTION: The Commission could provide implementation recommendations for the planning actions. For example…

• Broad, diverse and data-driven community engagement

• Multi-year, phased approach: 1. Data gathering/engagement2. Policy development3. Zoning and standards

TOPICS: KEY THEMES


Key themes: Recommendations/options:

Missing Middle Housing; revisit single-family

zoning

• Make recommendations for implementation plan

• Infill Pilot 2.0

AHAS implementation actions • Broad, data-supported engagement

• Consider cost-benefits of AHAS actions

Promote tax incentives and green building

Historic design review, parking, owner occupancy,

no developer giveaways

Link between housing, transportation and health • Consider text changes to highlight these links

Recognize historic inequities of housing policies • Add text/map recognizing historical inequities, or

• Defer to Council process

Strengthen policies against displacement

Build housing with community spaces

Ensure fair tenant and landlord protections

Continuum of housing needs (serve homeless)

HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENTS

REUBEN MCKNIGHTHISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

HISTORIC PRESERVATON CODE AMENDMENTS

Purpose: Planning Commission guidance

Staff recommendation: no additional changes recommended

Discussion

• Summary of Proposed Amendments

• Past Discussion

• Recap of public comments

DEMOLITION REVIEW• Within planning subareas: Improve existing

demolition review (13.12.570) for clarity and predictability

• Citywide : New demolition review for 50+ year old structures over 4,000 SF or within Mixed Use Centers or listed on the National Register of Historic Places

• Landmarks Commission may review demolition proposals for buildings that appear to be historically significant.

• Single family residences are exempt.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENTS• Historic Conditional Use Permit – add

clarifying language and additional use categories

• Code Clean Up –

• Streamline NR nomination process for individual properties to Tacoma Register

• Clarify council process

• Interior spaces eligible

HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENTSPast Discussion

• Demolition Review: • The 50 year age threshold for review is based on

national convention

• Applies to buildings only

• Does not currently address alterations of significant buildings

• Is part of a larger cultural resources/City Landmarks regulatory context (see TMC 13.07)

• Nomination cleanup:• Applies to individual properties only, not

proposed districts

HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENTSSummary of Public Comment

• Five written comments received

• General support for demolition review proposal

• Two comments noted that the threshold should be eventually lowered below 4000 SF

11

Manitou Annexation – Public Comments

• About Zoning:

• Option 1

• Option 1, but change C-2 to C-1

• Option 1, with C-2

• Option 2, with R-3

• No C-2

• C-1 more compatible with STGPD

• County’s MUD a concern• About Annexation

• Support / Opposition

• Maintain same level of Fire and Police service

• Sidewalks, Safe routes to school, Signage

• Too many apartments

• Outreach

• How many provided comments?

• 2 testified (May 15)

• 3 written comments (May 17)

• 6 commented at open houses (February 21 & 25)

• 9 attendees at Walk-about (April 26)

22

Manitou Area Proposed ZoningOption 2Option 1

(with STGPD Overlay) (with STGPD Overlay)

Option 3

(with STGPD Overlay)

1 1

Front Porches into Front Yards Proposed Amendment (Public Review Version)

Proposed Amendment (Modified Version Suggested by Staff

Modify TMC 13.06.602.A.4.m(9), as follows: (9) Covered porches which are open on three sides and do not extend above the level of the first floor may project 8-feet into the required front yard setback. If front yard setback averaging is used to establish the front yard setback, then covered porches can extend 8-feet into the front yard setback or extend half the setback distance, whichever is less.

Modify TMC 13.06.602.A.4.m(9), as follows:

(9) Covered porches which are open on three sides and do not extend above the level of the first floor may project up to 8-feet into the required front yard setback, but must be at least 2 feet away from the property line.

Anna Petersen, Vice-Chair Ryan Givens City of Tacoma ... Commission...2019/05/29 · or to request...

Documents

Transcript of Anna Petersen, Vice-Chair Ryan Givens City of Tacoma ... Commission...2019/05/29 · or to request...