Blog

Home in Tacoma Update – October 2024…and a Case Study

Hello Home in Tacoma fans – Today’s update fills in the current status of the plan as well as including some lessons learned after reviewing a few sites under the new code.

First – the code updates. Timeline for voting / City Council actions per City of Tacoma’s HIT page below:

This timeline seems on point with what we heard last month, so signs are looking good. We look forward to the first reading of the ordinance in late October as that should confirm final steps in the timeline.

Next – a case study and some lessons learned. We noted last month that we had been looking at lots in the UR-3 zoning. We’ve since taken a site through initial feasibility as well as a preapp level 1 to better understand how the codes may work. The new site is multiple acres in size and several hundred feet long in all directions, a little unique for an urban site. Our client was primarily interested in both for-sale product as well as attached rental product. Ultimately, we selected rowhouses and multiplexes as the likely housing typologies under the new UR-3 zoning that were most suited to the site and the client. Here’s what we’re seeing about the new code:

USES – Rowhomes and apartments / multiplex allowed, but freestanding townhomes are NOT allowed. This means any desire for fee-simple subdivision (ULS) is possible, but your product type is limited.

LOT WIDTH – 25’ minimum lot width is limiting for larger buildings but does not appear to apply to ULS. This means a grouping of rowhomes that are individually narrower than the normal 25’ allowed would be permissible.

DENSITY – density limitations were hard to gage on our case study site due to lot size. We have a number of utility easements which maintain site area / density but which ultimately restrict the developable footprint. We hit the max density due to height and building design limitations well before we needed to use our bonuses.

FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) – FAR wasn’t a factor for us given our site size and the limitations imposed on us by utility easements

HEIGHT / STORIES – we needed to use bonus tier 1 to get the 4 stories / 45’ max height to get a reasonable density while investigating the multiplex building option. This allowed us to increase housing yield by 1/3.

SETBACKS – Setbacks generally were less of an issue than building separation (see next item), with exception to front setbacks along the primary street frontage. Being able to reduce the front to 7.5’ which was permissible with the Bonus tier 1 option helped the site design further inside of the site.

BUILDING SEPARATION – Only 10’ of building separation is required by zoning for 25’ + tall building, which is great for zoning but impacts building typologies differently. This separation aligns w/ IRC requirements for residential projects such as rowhouses, but a multiplex building under the IBC would have very few windows on that side where fire separation distance is only 5’ to the assumed property line between structures. We therefore had to adjust site planning layouts (as we always do) against both zoning and building codes to make sure the projected site yield anticipates a likely final building / unit configuration that a buyer or renter would want to occupy.

PARKING – Only 0.5 stalls / unit are required in the UR-3. Market conditions may initially require more than that, so something to be wary of as you consider your development options.

AMENITY SPACE – base amenity areas are 100 sf / unit but those diminish as you go up in bonus tiers. We had utility easement area which gave us extra room for this as well. Not a big concern in our case.

BONUSES FOR HEIGHT / DENSITY – Bonus tier 1 was necessary for site yield and building heights only. Bonus tier 1 required 20% of total units to be moderately affordable per TMC 1.39, but fee-in-lieu was permissible at this tier level, so client felt that having the option of providing the housing or paying the fee-in-lieu was adequate flexibility at the feasibility stage.

TRAFFIC / ROADS / URBAN FORESTRY / UTILITIES / ETC – all of these other departments commented during our preapp and provided valuable feedback. Our plans need to adjust slightly based on the comments received, but the biggest item was that we likely have some notable impacts to our site design due to the presence of protected trees. We had initially elected to not get the arborist report going prior to preapp submittal so things were a bit of a surprise. Easy enough to make the adjustments, but as noted earlier, the new codes maintain or increase protection for tree canopy so despite the emphasis on providing housing, protection of our existing environment is just as important or more so!

One thing that became apparent to us after going through our options more and also reviewing the City’s informational sheets – the zoning is not written for large sites! This might seem obvious, as Home In Tacoma is intended to bring additional density and housing opportunities to underdeveloped sites near transit and other urban areas and neighborhoods. Our case study site though is large enough to see the limitations on building width for example become a restriction on good site design since it is prescriptive and does not take into account a site’s unique size / dimensions / topography, etc. Beware that this code may challenge you if you have a larger site and/or want to investigate a building typology or configuration that is optimal for development.

That’s it for now. Grouparchitect is happy to help you look at your site and see how the new codes impact you. We’ll keep an eye out for the City Council and their next steps and you know when HIT is live!