Business Community Government

Planning Commission recommends higher building threshold in low-density areas

The Gig Harbor Planning Commission recently recommended a housing code change that would allow developers to build significantly larger structures in low-density residential areas, despite concern from city staff.

The City Council would have to approve the Planning Commission’s change, which may have a significant impact on the city’s affordable housing efforts.

During a Sept. 3 Planning Commission meeting, Gig Harbor Community Development Director Eric Baker and city senior planner Cory Ragan presented staff recommendations for updates and changes to the city’s housing code.

City staff’s recommendation included increasing the amount of “hardscape” — or hard surfaces, including buildings — allowed on lots smaller than 6,000 square feet that carry the low-density R-1 zoning. Current code has no such threshold.

The recommendation was intended to make it easier to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which would increase the amount of affordable housing in Gig Harbor. But the Planning Commission recommends applying the change to lots of up to 8,000 square feet, which could open the door to more McMansions.

“I think you guys don’t understand how small a 6,000-square-foot lot is,” said Commissioner Brent Wozniak, who owns a 7,000-square-foot lot. Wozniak said that he is “at the literal maximum of” the amount of hardscape existing code allows.

6,000 versus 8,000

Staff recommended that buildings on lots 6,000 square feet or smaller be granted 50% more room to build hardscapes than allowed under current code, as well as reduced setbacks. This means that anyone building on a 6,000-square-foot or smaller lot would have more room to build than under existing code.

Buildings on those small lots would still have to adhere to existing code unless they added an ADU to make them something other than just a single-family home, Baker confirmed.

Some commissioners zeroed in on the recommended 6,000-square-foot threshold. They worried that the threshold would hamper affordable downsizing options.

Commissioners argued that an ADU isn’t feasible on a 6,000-square-foot lot.  They also said that if the goal is to create accessible accommodations for elders and people with disabilities, building a second story may not be an option, either.

But the housing code can’t tell the difference between developers planning a new subdivision and individuals building on empty parcels of land between houses. 

Increasing the lot size threshold to 8,000 square feet could allow future developers to build many larger, and thus more expensive, homes at once. 

“From staff’s perspective, we aren’t as concerned about the number as it applies to existing lots as we are to folks who are going to be subdividing new lots,” Baker said, “and if they’re doing so at 8,000 square feet, that is a whole bunch of new larger homes that may not necessarily be consistent with housing affordability, though we entirely concur with the needs of our disabled and senior communities needing some place to downsize to. The Rosedale cottages are an excellent example of that. That type of development is entirely allowed.”

Commissioners voted 4-3 in favor of recommending an increase to the lot size threshold in the housing code update proposal that will go to the council for consideration.