city of tacoma planning commissioncms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/planning commission/pc handouts...

City of Tacoma Planning Commission

Sean Gaffney, Chair Scott Winship, Vice-Chair

Chris Beale Donald Erickson Benjamin Fields

Tina Lee Alexandria Teague

Erle Thompson Stephen Wamback

HANDOUTS and PRESENTATIONS

Meeting of January 8, 2014

1. Tacoma Link Expansion (PowerPoint; for Discussion Item D-1)

2. Point Defiance Park Policy and Code

(Annual Amendment Application #2014-02) (PowerPoint; for Discussion Item D-2)

3. Affordable Housing Code

(Annual Amendment Application #2014-06) (PowerPoint; for Discussion Item D-3)

4. Small Affordable Housing Type (Mini Flats)

(Annual Amendment Application #2014-08) (Handout; for Discussion Item D-3)

5. Open Space Element Update (Annual Amendment Application #2014-08) (PowerPoint; for Discussion Item D-4)

6. MPT Comments (1-6-14)

(Annual Amendment Application #2014-08) (Handout; for Discussion Item D-4)

7. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

(Annual Amendment Application #2014-08) (Handout; for Discussion Item D-4)

8. Sustainability Code Amendments –

Electrical Vehicle Infrastructure and Bicycle Parking (Annual Amendment Application #2014-09) (PowerPoint; for Discussion Item D-5)

9. Commissioner Tina Lee’s Comments

(Handout; for the entire agenda packet)

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

Tacoma Link Expansion Planning CommissionJanuary 8, 2014

Timeline

2

Project Goals

• Improve mobility and transportation accessfor Tacoma residents and visitors

• Increase transit ridership within the City of Tacoma

• Serve underserved neighborhoods andcommunities in the City of Tacoma

• Use transit to spur economic development and other types of investment

• Ensure the project is environmentally sensitive and sustainable

• Establish a project that is competitive for federal funding3

Route Alignments Overview

4

Evaluation Criteria

For each route considered, we asked these questions.Would this route:

5

Community & Environmental Impacts-Differentiating CriteriaImpact categories:• Property acquisitions, potential

displacements• Parks and community facilities• Parking• Transportation• Utilities• Construction

• Consistency with land use plans• Natural resources• Historic resources• Visual • Environmental justice• Noise Receptors

6

Community Facilities

• Broadway Design option A2a and St. Helens A3 and A3a impact Theater Square and may interrupt community events, i.e., Broadway Farmer’s Market

• All other alignments would have no direct impacts

7

Transportation – On-Street ParkingAlignment Number of Potentially

Impacted Parking Spaces

A1 Stadium Way 15A2 Broadway 15A2a Broadway with Theater Square Design Option 15A3 St. Helens 65A3a St. Helens with Division Only Design Option 65B1 MLK 25B2 MLK/J Couplet 30

8

Transportation – Bicycle OperationsReviewed designated

bicycle facilities in Mobility Master Plan:

Segment A: - Potential conflicts

along Broadway, St. Helens between 7th

and 9th and N 1st

between Stadium and Tacoma Ave.

Segment B:- Potential conflict along

J street (B2 MLK/J Couplet)9

Consistency with Land Use Plans

• B2 Couplet not consistent with draft Hilltop Subarea Plan• All other alignments consistent with plans

10

Markets and Major Destinations Served

• Transit market is considered 5-minute walk distance from potential station locations

• Actual station locations to be determined in next phase

• Potential station locations shown where grades are two percent or less

11

Where is your destination?

12

Economic Development Potential

Transit-Oriented Development

“Transit oriented development (TOD) generally refers to higher-density development, with pedestrian priority, located within easy walking distance of a major public transit station or stop(s)” (Transit Cooperative Research Program)

“Typically, a TOD project has the following characteristics: planning boundaries within a quarter- to a half-mile radius of a transit facility (a comfortable walking distance)” (Puget Sound Regional Council)

13

Economic Development Potential

Methodology:

Identified potentially redevelopable parcels within the walk distances (“underutilized” parcels--ratio of current building value to land value less than 150%)

– Acres– Percentage of parcels

14

Economic Development PotentialAlignment Total acres of

redevelopableparcels

%age of redevelopable

parcelsA1 Stadium Way 30 28%

A2 Broadway 39 31%

A2a Broadway with Theater Square Design Option 39 31%A3 St. Helens 42 29%

A3a St. Helens with Division Only Design Option 42 29%

B1 MLK 88 36%B2 MLK/J Couplet 88 36%

15

Capital Cost Comparison

16

Cost Savings Options

17

Help Shape the Future of Tacoma Link

18

Public Open House: Jan. 9, 4-7 p.m., Stadium High School, Auxiliary Gym

Questions?Questions?

2014 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS: POINT DEFIANCE PARK POLICY AND CODE Application #2014-02 January 8, 2014

Point Defiance Park zoning

2005-2008 Concept Plan

Lay groundwork for implementation of Pt. Defiance Park plans Proposal: • Add policy to Open Space Element recognizing Point

Defiance Park plans • Reference DRAs in the Parks, Rec and Open Space

Code

Intent: • Recognize unique function and planning efforts • Clarify review process • Prepare for imminent submittals for City review

Clarify review process for “Destination Point Defiance” • Plans include commercial, recreation, education and other

features • Park Code defines “destination facilities”, but stops short

of Point Defiance scope • Potential review paths – CUPs, Rezones or DRA • DRAs…

• Intended for large, key sites • Appropriate for broad scope and scale • Provide flexibility within full public process

Policy consistency • Destination Point Defiance vision is consistent with Comp

Plan policies • Open Space Element • Generalized Land Use Element • Neighborhood Element

• Builds on Open Space Element, Parks code, DRA code

Proposed changes • Add policy to Open Space Element

• New section for Specific Area Plans

• Add note in Parks, Rec and Open Space Code • DRAs, in addition to CUPs, are a potential review process

• Discussion to date:

• General support for Destination Point Defiance • Questions on the Planning Commission’s role in development

review

Next steps • Request Commission direction • Recommend releasing for public review

2014 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING CODE (PHASE 2) Application #2014-06 January 8, 2014

Previous 2014 scope INCENTIVES • 10% affordable housing with voluntary upzones • Review existing affordable housing incentives • Consider new bonuses/incentives • Consider financial incentives • Affordable Housing Incentives code REMOVE BARRIERS • Mini-flats • ADU standards

Revised 2014 scope INCENTIVES • Affordable Housing Incentives policies

• Continue code/bonuses discussion on separate schedule

REMOVE BARRIERS / PROMOTE AFFORDABILITY • Promote small, affordable housing types (including “mini-

flats”) through parking exemption • ADU standards and requirements • Update parking for Group Housing and multi-family

housing • Refine small lot standards

Affordable housing policies POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR ONGOING EFFORT: Housing Element: • H-HC-7 Land Use Incentives (modifications proposed) • H-HA-5 Affordable Housing Incentive Program • H-HA-6 Regulatory Assistance to Developers of Affordable

Housing • H-HA-7 Inclusionary Requirements for Voluntary Residential

Upzones • H-HA-8 Inclusionary Requirements for City Initiated Upzones

Small & affordable housing types • Reframed to include Group Housing, Student Housing,

Small multi-family (aka, mini-flats) • Downtown and in MUCs • In Parking section EXEMPTION: • No vehicular parking • Bike parking required

Proposed ADU updates CHANGES SINCE LAST TIME: • No additional parking - if main house has parking • Home occupations in both – onsite customers only in one • Less red tape – only one notarized document

Parking standards for group and multi-family housing INTENT: Remove a barrier to an affordable housing type • Current number of spaces is high

• 1 to 2 spaces per room/dwelling

• Proposal:

• Set baseline requirement at 1 space per room/dwelling • Bonus options to reduce to 1 / 2 dwellings, or 1 / 3 dwellings

Small lots

Residential Small Lots – changes to promote infill Update existing Small Lot Code to…

• Add flexibility and enhance design standards

• No change to permitted densities

• Promote infill in keeping with neighborhood

Single-family small lots changes • Current small lot code:

• 4,500 sf + 45 ft width

• Proposed:

• R-2 Districts: 4,500 + 35 ft width

• R-3 to R-5: down to 2,500 + 25 ft width

R-2 lot size unchanged 4,500 sf = • 45 x 100

• 40 x 110

• 37.5 x 120

• 35 x 129

Promote neighborhood pattern…

120 ft

100 ft

45 ft

5000 sf

4500

sf

Multi-family Districts

Single-family within Multi-family districts PROPOSED: • R-3: 3,500 x 30 ft • R-4L: 3,000 x 25 ft • R-4 & R-5: 2,500 x 25 ft

HU

SON

STR

EET

4108 N HUSON ST

Single-family small lot design standards • Existing standards (to go below 5000 sf or 50 ft width):

• Clear building entrances • Garages from rear or size limited • 15% of front façade transparent • Rooflines oriented to street • Driveway size limited • Functional yard space • Housing style variety • Some materials prohibited

• Proposed new requirements:

• Small lot standards not available for pipe stem lots • Infill must follow existing neighborhood pattern • Height limits:

• 40-50 ft lots – 30 ft maximum height • Less than 40 ft lots – 25 ft maximum height

Small lot example

NORTH 28TH STREET

Two- and three-family small lot changes • Densities already permitted:

• R-3, R-4, R-4L: Townhouses allowed • 3,000 to 1,000 sf x 16 ft minimum width

• R-4L, R-4 and R-5: Multi-family allowed

• Proposed changes (in multi-family districts)

• Minimum lot size – range from 6,000 to 3,500 sf • Reduce duplex minimum average lot width from 50 to 32 feet • Apply design standards currently applicable in MUC Districts • Be consistent with current townhouses approach

Two- and three-family design standards Apply standards applicable in X Districts: • Covered entryways • 15% transparency • Garages to rear or size limited • Articulated design • Utilities screened • Fencing standards

Requesting Commission direction… INCENTIVES • Affordable Housing Incentives policies

• Continue code/bonuses discussion on separate schedule

REMOVE BARRIERS / PROMOTE AFFORDABILITY • Promote small, affordable housing types (including “mini-

flats”) through parking exemption • ADU standards and requirements • Update parking for Group Housing and multi-family

housing • Refine small lot standards

2014 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS: OPEN SPACE ELEMENT UPDATE Application #2014-08 January 8, 2014 Elliott Barnett, PDS

Proposed work this year: • Reaffirm vision, goals and policies • Improve and update inventories • Incorporate recent plans • Reflect implementation progress • Enhance guidance on implementation • Organization

Outcomes: • Ensure Element serves its purpose • Prepare for 2015 • Maintain grant eligibility

Proposed this year: Reflect recent policy and plans

• Shoreline Master Program • Downtown Subarea Plans • Transportation Element • Urban Forest Policy Element • Metro Parks Green Vision 2030 • Port’s Public Access Plan • GTP Restoration Action Plan INCORPORATE: • Policy direction • Inventory • Project lists

Reflect progress and transitions • Open Space and surface water • Open Space management plans • Green Tacoma Partnership • Community Gardens Program • Code updates: CAPO and TDR • Active transportation projects

Enhance Implementation Guidance • Framework for collaboration • Consider setting benchmarking • Project lists • Framework for management plans

EXAMPLES: • First Creek • Julia’s Gulch • Point Defiance • Wapato Hills • Schuster Slope

TDR Code refinements • Adopted as pilot code in 2012

• Tacoma’s first potential Sending Area

• Identified opportunity to refine Tacoma Habitat Area

definition • Current code: areas designated Habitat Corridor • Proposed change: areas providing high value within or adjacent to

Habitat Corridors, or providing exceptional value elsewhere

Outreach • City Environmental Services & Public Works Depts • Metro Parks Tacoma • Port of Tacoma • Green Tacoma Partnership • Tacoma School District • Sustainability Commission

Proposed work this year: • Reaffirm vision, goals and policies • Improve and update inventories • Incorporate recent plans • Reflect implementation progress • Enhance guidance on implementation • Organization

Outcomes: • Ensure Element serves its purpose • Prepare for 2015 • Maintain grant eligibility

2014-08 Open Space Element Update

MPT Comments 01/06/14

• On page 7 “Open Space System” - add reference TPU and the Port.

• OS-CG-1 Community Gardens. Mention multi-jurisdictional MOU between MPT, COT and Pierce County with the Pierce Conservation District that sets up the framework for PCD to manage the Community Gardens Program for the entire County.

• OS-HA section – strengthen policy direction to Continue to support community based habitat restoration efforts.

• Recognize the intent of the MPT/COT Interlocal agreement recognizing MPT as the true “purveyor of parks and recreation” in the City.

• OS-PF section - recognize the transition of the 452 acres recently to the Environmental Services Division in the City.

• OS-CW-2 Transfer of General Government Property. This section should provide the direction to the city to evaluate all of its “Unoccupied ROW” and evaluate it for transfer into the Open Space program. For example, there are many unoccupied ROW’s within Puget Gulch that should either be transferred to MPT (preferable) or the ESD (at the very least).

• OS-LF-7 Renovation, Maintenance, and Security. Why is “partnering with MPT” deleted?

• OS-LF-12 (p. 29) Scenic Views – Private Benefit – consider recent discussions on the Stadium-Schuster slope management plan, which may lead to refinements to this policy.

• Potential further refinements to the Plans for Specific Areas section, including inclusion of additional plans. Clarify that it is not intended to create a new layer of City review for MPT planning efforts.

• Progress Report Card – consider further detail in regards to how to evaluate progress.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Proposed addition to Annual Amendment 2014-08 Open Space Element Update

OSHRE Policy Guidance (with proposed changes)

OS-LF-15 Transfer of Development Rights

Utilize the City’s TDR Program to conserve valuable city and regional assets, and continue to develop and enhance the program. Lands meeting the City’s criteria for conservation which are located within the designated Habitat Corridors, and lands achieving other open space goals of this Plan, are appropriate “sending areas” for the transfer of development rights to other locations in the City, county and region.

TMC 1.37 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

***

1.37.030 Sending Areas. The following five categories of land or structures qualify as sending areas:

A. Pierce County Farm Land: Farm land designated as Agriculture Resource Land (ARL) in unincorporated Pierce County situated in Pierce County’s Puyallup Valley (Alderton-McMillin or Mid County Community Planning Areas).

B. Pierce County Forest Land: Forest land designated as Forest Land (FL) situated in unincorporated Pierce County.

C. Resource lands in King County and Snohomish County.

D. Tacoma Habitat: Lands providing high habitat and natural value located within, or in proximity to, designated Habitat Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan, and lands providing exceptional habitat and natural value located within the City and outside of the designated Habitat Corridors.

E. Tacoma Landmarks: Structures designated as a landmark as identified in the Tacoma Register of Historic Places.

***

SUSTAINABILITY CODE AMENDMENTS ELECTRICAL VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND BICYCLE PARKING – DRAFT

Planning Commission – January 8, 2014

Electric Vehicle Parking

Purpose: To ensure infrastructure readiness for electric vehicles that supports market growth and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Background: EV infrastructure currently allowed use in the City of Tacoma, consistent with State requirements. Model ordinance and development standards prepared by PSRC and RCC.

Bicycle Parking

Purpose: To promote bicycling as an important and integral mode of transportation, which enables healthy lifestyles, is affordable, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and to provide the necessary start and end of trip infrastructure for a bicycle friendly community.

Background: 2010 Mobility Master Plan Vision: “Tacoma is a world-class walking and biking community in which pedestrians and bicyclists are top priorities in transportation planning.”

Commonalities

‘Ready’ infrastructure Origins/Destinations

Resident/Employee Concentrations

Likely Concerns

Who is going to use it? How much is it going to cost? Let the market decide…

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Market based approach to infrastructure readiness New single family construction or garage addition

Identify location, provide conduit

Non-Single family construction Level 2 charger

EVI Quantity Requirements

Table 1 Required infrastructure for future electric vehicle charging stations based on use*

Land Use Type Use Size threshold % EV

Single family No size threshold. All new s/f and garage addition

Multi-family residential No size threshold. 10% of parking provided

Lodging No size threshold. 3% of parking provided

Office No size threshold. 3% of parking provided

Institutional At least 12,000 sq. ft. 3% of parking provided, up to 6 spaces

Retail and Shopping Center At least 15,000 sq. ft. 1% of parking provided, up to 8 spaces

Auditorium, stadium, and theater

At least 500 seats 1% of parking provided, up to 12 spaces

EV Applied Case Studies

Electric Vehicle Parking Requirement – Case Studies Non-Mixed-use Centers

Land Use Type Size Auto Parking Rate

Auto Parking #

EV % EV #

Multi-family Residential 150 units 1.25 per unit in R-4

188 10% 19

Lodging 350 guest rooms .5 per guestroom

175 3% 5

Office - Professional 100,000 sq. ft. 3 per 1,000 sq. ft.

450 3% 14

Institutional – Art museum 36,000 sq. ft. 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.

90 3% 3

Shopping Center 150,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1,000 sq. ft.

600 1% 6

Auditorium, stadium and theater

10,000 seats .25 per seat 2500 1% 12 (reaches cap)

EV Applied Case Studies

Electric Vehicle Parking Requirement – Case Studies Mixed-use Centers/Downtown

Land Use Type Size Auto Parking Rate

Auto Parking #

EV % EV #

Multi-family Residential 150 units 1 per unit 150 10% 15

Lodging 350 guest rooms 70% of non-center

123 3% 4

Office - Professional 100,000 sq. ft. 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.

250 3% 8

Institutional – Art museum 36,000 sq. ft. 70% of non-center

63 3% 2

Shopping Center 150,000 sq. ft. 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft.

375 1% 4

Auditorium, stadium and theater

10,000 seats 70% of non-center

1750 1% 12 (reaches cap)

Questions before shifting modes?

Bicycle Parking – Current Code

Tied to auto parking 3% of required auto parking outside center 5% of required auto parking in center Does not apply to certain R districts, primary

pedestrian streets, Downtown Other parking reduction allowances Complicated path to determine quantity requirements

Proposed Changes

Differentiate long and short term bicycle parking

Recognize design and location differences

Flexibility for shared or off-site facilities

Decouple from auto parking Reset the quantity rate calculations

Focus quantity rates on origins/destinations

Differentiate between centers and non-centers for certain uses

Rate reduction after 50 spaces are provided

Parking Configuration Examples

One parking stall 6 Bikes

Three parking stalls 48 bikes

Shower and Changing Facilities

When a use is required to provide at least 10 long-term bicycle parking spaces

1 per 20 long-term bicycle spaces Multi-family residential excepted

Tina Lee

Jan 8, 2014 Planning Commission Comments:

D1 Tacoma Link Expansion

“The Commission may also consider making a formal recommendation to the City Council via a letter of recommendation.” Before Planning Commission were to consider making a recommendation I would like to hear from the new Transportation Commission regarding their recommendation and input.

D2 Pt. Defiance park Policy & Code

General comment for the staff report. Question 3, page 7 of 9, third paragraph describes active transportation choices and also “Integration with abutting city streets, and serve the ferry terminal.” Nowhere in the staff report are the public transit connections mentioned. Pierce Transit’s routes 10 and 11 serve Pt. Defiance and the Ferry Terminal seven days a week.

I am comfortable releasing this package for continued public outreach and review and vote to move this package forward.

D3 Affordable Housing

Exhibit C - Page 18; Table 1. Want to confirm that the Group Housing – up to 6 residents 2 min. required parking stalls required is correct and Group housing – 7 or more residents, 1 min required parking is correct. Those numbers don’t look correct to me. 2 min for up to 6 residents and 1 min for up to 7 residents doesn’t sound right, are these transposed or the numbers need to be updated?

D4 Open Space

No comments. The updates to the plan reflect much work and effort by staff. It is import for the city to maintain eligibility for certain RCO grants. Is staff seeking approval to release this for public review or continue general outreach? I am would recommend moving this package forward.

D5 Sustainability Code

Question Regarding Level 2 charging stations. The definitions on page 13-196 define the speed of charging based on slow, medium or fast. It would be helpful to have a typical charge time. I.e., is a slow charge 8 hours vs. a fast charge taking 2 hrs? This could be important depending on the type of parking environment and vehicle turnover needs.

Page 1 of 3

General comment that transit agencies recognize the importance of bicycle parking and assisting users transfer between these two modes. I am supportive of this section of the code with modest changes.

Most of my comments relate to Table E – Short & Long Term Bicycle Parking:

Institutional Uses, #13 Colleges and University. It would be helpful to see a comparison of how many students are at some of the universities like UPS, TCC and if there are bike facilities already what is available. I don’t know what the peak numbers are but if there are 3000 students, this code would require 300 long term bike facilities? This type of data would help me with my decision making. Also, only 2 short term stalls seems very low, I would increase the short-term requirement as well.

Transportation Facilities, #24 Rail Transit Station and #26 Park and Ride. The Long Term parking and Short Term bike parking numbers need to be updated. Both these items have “At least 20” long term bike stalls with no short-term storage required. There are variations in park and ride sizes and this not taken into account with the required number of bicycle spaces. I suggest that the table be updated to indicate Long Term: 1 per 50 parking stalls with a maximum of 20 long term stalls. (Sample park and ride sizes in Pierce County and the number of existing bike lockers at those facilities are provided as reference below.)

From my experience with park & rides in Pierce County is that there is always a need for short-term bike storage because many long-term bike storage facilities require some type of key, pass code or card for security – this requires the bicyclist to have planned their trip in advance. Short-term bike parking provides flexibility for those occasional users who want to lock their bike but haven’t made previous arrangements to utilize a security long-term facility. It also provides additional capacity if all the long-term stalls are utilized.

Attachment C - #7 Changing and Shower Facilities. An exemption needs to be added to the shower and changing facilities section for Transportation Facilities as well.

• Bicyclists using these facilities’ are generally mid trip and connecting to/from either bus or train services. What we find is that they do not have time to delay between their trip connections. Example is coffee shops at Tacoma Dome Station and Commerce Street were not successful because the riders did not have the time to get a coffee. They immediately want to continue on their trip and reach their destination.

• CPTED principles, safety and security for showering and changing facilities is an issue at these transportation facilities. There are a significant number of transit users coming and going through these facilities. Agencies have high difficulty keeping bathroom facilities operational unfortunately due to vandalism and abuse. Concerned about adding this type of facility at a transportation facility causing additional need for security.

Page 2 of 3

Question: Transportation Facilities - #24 Principal Use parking except park and ride lots. The recommendation indicates 1 per 20 auto spaces. This seems very high. What are these types of facilities and why would they warrant such a need?

Lastly – the packet jumps from page 13-127 to 13-191, is this intentional?

Pierce Transit Park & Rides and Transit Centers Bike Locker Info:

Location Parking Bike

Stalls Lockers

Tacoma Dome Station 2273 28

Narrows (6th & Skyline) 195 6

TCC 0 4

72nd St & Portland TC 68 4

Tacoma Mall TC 0 4

Pt. Defiance 0 2

Parkland TC 62 4

SR 512 P&R 493 8

Lakewood Mall TC 0 7

South Hill Mall TC 0 4

Kimball Park & Ride 306 10 **Note each of these facilities also has short term bicycle storage available in addition to the long-term lockers.

Page 3 of 3