The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-01-16 Rural Housing Authority presentationCommunity Development 2025 NE Kresky Ave Chehalis, WA 98532 Phone: (360) 740-1146 Rural Housing AlternativeWide-Lens Perspective January 16, 2024 BOCC Workshop January 16, 2024 Presentation Agenda RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 2 1.Goals and origin of RHA proposal •What is an RHA supposed to do? •What motivated this proposal? 2.What is “rural character” for Lewis County housing? 3.RHA proposal 4.Density 5.Research results –allaying concerns 6.Guardrails 7.Status / What’s next? January 16, 2024 RHA Goals RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 3 1.Provide flexibility for affordability (beyond large SFRs) 2.Foster opportunities to both live and work in rural areas 3.Maintain rural character January 16, 2024 RHA Origin/Impetus RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 4 •There is less housing, and it is more expensive. •In ten years, median home price rose 204%; less than 1/5 the homes for sale •Incomes rose 55% over the same period . . . •Rural home prices are rising faster. ZIP Code Character March-May 2013 March-May 2023 Percent Increase Centralia -98531 Most Urban $127,000 $358,333 182% Mossyrock -98564 Urban $144,000 $565,667 293% Curtis -98538 Rural $129,333 $533,333 312% Packwood -98361 Most Rural $112,000 $481,667 331% Median Sale Price (All Homes) – Select LC Zip Codes •Rural houses are mismatched to our household size and increasingly unattainable. •Around 69% of Lewis County‘s unincorporated population could not afford a median-price home at today’s rates. **That’s 30,000 people.** January 16, 2024 RHA Origin/Impetus RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 5 A huge portion of our population is rural. Unincorporated Pop. = 51% (“Unincorporated” here means outside of UGAs.) January 16, 2024 RHA Origin/Impetus RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 6 70% our county is working resource / tourism land. 70% working resource / tourism land There are lots of reasons to live and work rural! ExampleMorton  Packwood = 35 miles January 16, 2024 RHA Origin/Impetus RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 7 2020 –Strategic Plan aims to increase housing availability and affordability 2021 –Housing Study and Housing Summit 2022 –Housing Initiative and Work Plan “Action Item H: Multi-Family Housing Proof of Concept Create one or more rural multi-family housing concepts that are vetted to generally meet county and state codes and rules.” 2024 –RHA Proposal October 10, 2023 Rural Character RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 8 5+ acre lotsClusteredWell and septicRural services only 9.23-acre parcel ~6000 sq ft of buildings 5.6-acre parcel 4000 sq ft of buildings 6-acre parcel 3200 sq ft of buildings 5-acre parcel 4000 sq ft of buildings 5-acre parcel 3200 sq ft of buildings 5-acre parcel 3200 sq ft of buildings 9.73-acre parcel 3300 sq ft of buildings 4.44-acre parcel (pre-GMA) 5500 sq ft of buildings October 10, 2023 Proposal: the RHA RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 9 Example only – Duplex with Attached ADU (3 units of housing) Clustering Interdependency (ADUs) Form/Impacts-based October 10, 2023 Proposal: the RHA RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 10 Example only – Three Detached Manufactured Houses Clustering Interdependency (ADUs) Form/Impacts-based January 16, 2024 Proposal: the RHA RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 11 New option for 5-acre or larger lots: •Allow up to 4 housing units within a 1.25-acre cluster •Residential square footage must total less than 3,600 sq ft Constraints •Rural water and wastewater services (well and septic) •Share one primary driveway •Units cannot subdivide the lot •Adequate rural services; no urban services •One RHA per lot, max •Five RHAs per year per fire district January 16, 2024 Density RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 12 Four units?!?! Are we going to turn everything into the city? Creative commons license – Jacob Rose (via Wikimedia Commons), cropped January 16, 2024 Density RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 13 9.23-acre parcel ~6000 sq ft of buildings 5.6-acre parcel 4000 sq ft of buildings 6-acre parcel 3200 sq ft of buildings 5-acre parcel 4000 sq ft of buildings 5-acre parcel 3200 sq ft of buildings 5-acre parcel 3200 sq ft of buildings 9.73-acre parcel 3300 sq ft of buildings 4.44-acre parcel (pre-GMA) 5500 sq ft of buildings Rural Density(various places in rural Lewis County) January 16, 2024 Density RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 14 Urban Density(Chehalis) January 16, 2024 Density RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 15 See handout for RDD-10 & RDD-20 January 16, 2024 Density RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 16 January 16, 2024 Density RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 17 Urban Density Rural Density January 16, 2024 Research Results –Allaying Concerns RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 18 Why not just do RDD 2.5? •Looks less like our character than RHA would! •Permissible under the GMA only if it is to reflect existing smaller-lot areas’ character, not to mint new 2.5-acre lots •Produces less affordability than RHA would •No incentive to reduce unit size •Land value  $20,000 less, plus benefit of increased supply •Small unit  $100,000 less, plus benefit of increased supply January 16, 2024 Research Results –Allaying Concerns RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 19 Won’t there be a million of these? Or conversely, would anybody actually do this? •Critical area + well & septic issues •Industry Stakeholder Workgroup •Viable but not a big money maker; can’t scale •Most workable: high equity / improve one’s own property •Family compounds •Aging in place •Rental income / “two-flats” •Small condo properties •Real estate conditions are right for the RHA to work January 16, 2024 Research Results –Allaying Concerns RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 20 Won’t this overwhelm our rural roads and services? •Cramming people into small units? •Median house size is low and stable. •How much impact? •ADU data suggests modest impacts, distributed across a large area – unlike concentrated urban growth impacts. •Service concerns about new or different residents? •Market-rate housing at a more obtainable price point or family compounds are more likely to serve existing rural population. •69% of existing rural residents (77% in Packwood ZIP code!) . . . January 16, 2024 Guardrails RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 21 Guardrails in the Draft Code Itself •Large lots that can’t be subdivided •Max of 4 clustered units •Residential square footage cap •Shared access •Occupancy limitations •Increased setbacks •Prohibition on short-term rentals •Adequate public facilities review •Prohibition on demand for urban services •Max of 5 RHAs per fire district per year January 16, 2024 Guardrails RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 22 Guardrails not Mentioned in the Draft Code but Present •Building, fire, and L&I code compliance •Well and septic regulations •Critical areas regulations  really affect local feasibility •Cost and lending constraints •Profit motive (risk vs. return) ADU permitting data helps model the constraints above •Even with aggressive growth assumptions that will not hold, will not “break the bank” January 16, 2024 Status / What’s Next? RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 23 •Code Draft •Under review by Planning Commission, staff, key stakeholders •May be further revised based on their feedback •Planning Commission •workshop January 23 •More code revisions based on stakeholder, public, and PC feedback •Tentative hearing February 27 –PC can recommend approval, approval with amendments, or denial •SEPA; send to Commerce •BOCC hearing perhaps in April or May •Pass, pass with amendments, do not pass, or send back for more work January 16, 2024 Things to Remember RHA Wide-Lens Perspective 24 •This is an innovation. •The GMA encourages rural land-use innovations. •Anything new and different is hard. •Anything new and different is scary. •We have done our homework. •Grounded in local data about local rural character. •Tailored to that character, the housing need in our community, and GMA requirements. •We have been intentionally conservative. •The innovation itself is enough envelope-pushing. Significant constraints are added to demonstrate how this is GMA-compliant. Questions, Reactions, Discussion October 10, 2023 RHA ISG Summary 25 Question?Reactions?Discussion? This Slide Intentionally Left Blank