City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Wednesday, November 6, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 1, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 11:49 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-01-24 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 1, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Update - Middle Housing Regulations COM 0070

60 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.7–179

Topics: HousingLand Use

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

B. Feasibility Study C. Buildable Areas Map D. Public Comment Report

2385 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ welcome everyone to the November 6th

0:11 ↗ meeting of the isqua city council

0:12 ↗ Planning Development and environment

0:14 ↗ committee meeting um I am here tonight

0:17 ↗ with council president Walsh and council

0:20 ↗ member Hall and I am council member hunt

0:22 ↗ um on the agenda this evening we have

0:24 ↗ one regular business item um and before

0:30 ↗ we do that we will have a public comment

0:33 ↗ uh I will check in if there are any

0:35 ↗ members of the public that are wishing

0:36 ↗ to comment on this item all right great

0:39 ↗ then and are there any members of the

0:41 ↗ public also online that might wish to

0:43 ↗ comment okay then I will

0:46 ↗ read some guidelines public comments are

0:49 ↗ an important part of the public process

0:51 ↗ we take them seriously and Factor them

0:53 ↗ into the decisions we make uh during

0:56 ↗ audience comments members of the public

0:57 ↗ are invited to address the council

0:59 ↗ regarding matters that directly related

1:00 ↗ to City programs projects services or

1:03 ↗ events except public hearing items quas

1:06 ↗ judicial items or campaign related

1:07 ↗ matters when recognized please unmute

1:10 ↗ your microphone um please state your

1:12 ↗ name address and relationship to the

1:14 ↗ city please speak clearly and pause

1:16 ↗ frequently and please limit your

1:18 ↗ comments to 5

1:22 ↗ minutes and I will call

1:27 ↗ up the first um first member of the

1:31 ↗ public if you would like to make a

1:32 ↗ public comment thank

1:39 ↗ you no you need to press the button yeah

1:43 ↗ sorry there's a button in the middle yes

1:45 ↗ perect how about

1:47 ↗ you okay thank

1:49 ↗ you um my name is David zeitlin and I'm

1:53 ↗ here representing Life Enrichment

1:55 ↗ options or Leo for short and our address

1:59 ↗ is

2:00 ↗ 690 Northwest Juniper Street in

2:05 ↗ isqua and um thank you for letting me

2:09 ↗ speak city council and members of City

2:12 ↗ Planning other staff um if you don't

2:16 ↗ know us which I have a feeling everybody

2:18 ↗ does we're a 501c3 nonprofit and we work

2:21 ↗ for individuals with intellectual and

2:24 ↗ developmental disabilities in particular

2:27 ↗ I'm here to talk about the housing

2:28 ↗ tonight

2:30 ↗ aspect of what we do um and as you well

2:35 ↗ know Leo and the city share a lot of the

2:38 ↗ same goals provide to break down

2:41 ↗ barriers for lowincome housing in our

2:44 ↗ case especially for the ID

2:48 ↗ population um we have a concern given

2:54 ↗ the cost of living um in our area that

2:59 ↗ not only ID D but they're caregivers

3:02 ↗ that are not living in like an adult

3:04 ↗ family home we have a few that provide

3:06 ↗ respit care they have to drive quite a

3:10 ↗ distance um so we are looking for ways

3:13 ↗ to overcome some of the hurdles and um

3:17 ↗ I've been te talking with some of the

3:19 ↗ city staff including Valerie Porter on

3:22 ↗ this matter um so we would like to

3:28 ↗ encourage the Council and the city at

3:31 ↗ large to include um the items that I'm

3:34 ↗ going to talk about here in a second um

3:38 ↗ if not for the benefit of all of those

3:41 ↗ that are looking to um build middle

3:44 ↗ housing and I think tonight it's just

3:46 ↗ about middle housing not adus is that

3:48 ↗ right okay so this kind of affects both

3:51 ↗ uh or it does affect both um but

3:53 ↗ especially for nonprofits like ourselves

3:55 ↗ that are interested in providing housing

3:58 ↗ so for the middle housing ordinance

4:00 ↗ um ideally we would allow like to see

4:04 ↗ one single family home be on the same

4:06 ↗ parcel as middle

4:08 ↗ housing um we would like higher density

4:12 ↗ for Parcels which are dedicated to

4:14 ↗ providing Workforce and low-income

4:17 ↗ housing that are in single family

4:21 ↗ neighborhoods um we would like to allow

4:24 ↗ up to six units instead of

4:27 ↗ four if all of them are dedicated to

4:30 ↗ Middle low income housing um and in our

4:34 ↗ case it wouldn't have to all be ID as I

4:37 ↗ mentioned our caregivers and and other

4:39 ↗ people in the community um or like to

4:41 ↗ live in our community

4:44 ↗ uh for adus allow the square footage of

4:48 ↗ adus to be 1250 instead of a th000 it's

4:51 ↗ more conducive to a three bedroom it's a

4:54 ↗ little bit tight you can do it in a in a

4:57 ↗ th000 square fet but that is tight so

4:59 ↗ 1250 would be um for us anyways and our

5:03 ↗ population we serve and I think uh

5:06 ↗ people with families two or three

5:08 ↗ children a better

5:10 ↗ option um and for both middle housing

5:13 ↗ and

5:13 ↗ adus um consider either waving or having

5:17 ↗ lower impact fees for nonprofits that

5:20 ↗ are working to provide middle housing um

5:23 ↗ for lowincome and Workforce

5:26 ↗ housing um similarly for City

5:29 ↗ development fees um to

5:36 ↗ have comes from Grants and fundraising

5:40 ↗ public money private money um and public

5:43 ↗ money and not to require off Street or

5:47 ↗ Street improvements on the Frontage be

5:51 ↗ it sidewalks gutter curb um I've been

5:56 ↗ involved as an architect for years in

5:59 ↗ public work works sometimes our projects

6:01 ↗ we have to go to the middle of the road

6:03 ↗ and do half Street improvements which is

6:06 ↗ pretty much for a housing project would

6:09 ↗ be a

6:12 ↗ non-starter so on a broader terms um our

6:17 ↗ initiative would be to find ways to

6:20 ↗ partner with the city of

6:22 ↗ isqua on our initiatives and our goals

6:26 ↗ to provide middle housing low-income

6:29 ↗ housing in housing for ID you know as

6:32 ↗ you know we already have four homes in

6:35 ↗ isqua and now that the trail house

6:37 ↗ project is coming back we are going to

6:40 ↗ have two or three units within the trail

6:43 ↗ house as well thank you very

6:47 ↗ much thank you very much for your

6:50 ↗ comments perfect thank

6:53 ↗ you all right I will check in with city

6:56 ↗ clerk if there are any members of the

6:58 ↗ public online that might wish to make a

7:00 ↗ comment at this

7:02 ↗ time yes chair hunt Connie Marsh is on

7:07 ↗ the call and would like

7:10 ↗ to address the committee Connie I've

7:13 ↗ made you a panelist you should now be

7:15 ↗ able to unmute and turn on your

7:18 ↗ camera okay hi Connie Marsh live on

7:22 ↗ squawk um so I have put in a lot of

7:25 ↗ public comment on middle housing

7:27 ↗ basically on the ACT accuracy of the

7:30 ↗ information that you're being provided

7:33 ↗ and it has not come through on the

7:36 ↗ public comments that you have gotten so

7:39 ↗ I sent one email out but this one

7:42 ↗ comment is about the critical areas

7:45 ↗ themselves so some of your critical

7:47 ↗ areas are missing the state actually

7:49 ↗ includes seismic Hazard areas and M

7:52 ↗ Hazard areas as part of the um uh

7:57 ↗ geological hazards and neither of those

8:00 ↗ are included on your Maps so you are

8:04 ↗ actually not getting accurate mapping

8:08 ↗ and coverage for example um pretty much

8:10 ↗ all of South Cove is seismic Hazard area

8:13 ↗ now this has a couple of issues because

8:16 ↗ we've got insurance and you guys have

8:18 ↗ been watching the city's insurance go up

8:22 ↗ uh but when you're basically on the

8:24 ↗ earthquake fault you do have to consider

8:27 ↗ the viability of single family housing

8:32 ↗ having to build to

8:35 ↗ earthquake standard which they didn't

8:37 ↗ have to do when they built South Cove

8:39 ↗ and South Cove rocks and rolls in an

8:41 ↗ earthquake I don't know if you have been

8:43 ↗ over there in an earthquake but it it

8:45 ↗ like is is something else again the

8:48 ↗ other thing that's missing is the state

8:52 ↗ uh saying that homeowners associations

8:56 ↗ who have rules within them that say that

9:01 ↗ it is single family housing only is also

9:05 ↗ exempt now the city doesn't

9:09 ↗ know where these places

9:12 ↗ are so scroll forward to I am a person

9:17 ↗ living in the city of isqua and I see

9:20 ↗ that wow there is a potential for me to

9:22 ↗ build more units on my parcel and then

9:25 ↗ you're going well how do I know whether

9:28 ↗ it's possible and what you end up with

9:31 ↗ is this whole series of of uh studies

9:37 ↗ and requirements because most of the

9:40 ↗ city is in critical areas or overlaid

9:44 ↗ with homeowners

9:45 ↗ associations so what this means is then

9:48 ↗ the city staff also has to do a heck of

9:51 ↗ a lot of work in order to try to process

9:55 ↗ these items if you basically say well

9:59 ↗ you know we're just going to say all the

10:01 ↗ development is possible in these

10:04 ↗ critical areas where we allow it now and

10:07 ↗ it's it's I think it's going to be a

10:10 ↗ beast I'm I haven't really landed on

10:13 ↗ what the right answer should be but I

10:16 ↗ think you should be starting with the

10:19 ↗ correct Baseline information when I was

10:21 ↗ looking at Talis it also looks like the

10:23 ↗ Deep seated Landslide hazard map that is

10:27 ↗ not in the city mapping that caused all

10:29 ↗ of our Talis landslides is not included

10:32 ↗ on this mapping because that is a a

10:35 ↗ slightly different map and so before you

10:38 ↗ make anything you need to start with the

10:41 ↗ correct information and I've said this

10:43 ↗ like 85 times already two people but

10:47 ↗ this is the first time you may have

10:49 ↗ heard it because it's not included in

10:51 ↗ the public comment so start with good

10:53 ↗ information and you might get a a better

10:57 ↗ result in the end especially because so

10:59 ↗ much of isqua was built with no critical

11:03 ↗ area uh um rules because it was built

11:08 ↗ before critical areas existed thank

11:13 ↗ you thank you

11:16 ↗ Connie all right um city clerk is there

11:18 ↗ anyone else online that might wish to

11:20 ↗ make public comment at this time uh

11:23 ↗ chair hunt that is it for online

11:26 ↗ attendees okay thank you very much then

11:28 ↗ we will move on from public comment we

11:31 ↗ heard about critical areas um HOA uh

11:36 ↗ exemptions as well as uh Life Enrichment

11:39 ↗ options and um a number of of uh issues

11:44 ↗ around making sure that we have low

11:45 ↗ income options for folks so with that we

11:49 ↗ will move to approval of the minutes uh

11:52 ↗ we have minutes from the October 1st

11:55 ↗ 2024 meeting of this committee do we

11:57 ↗ have any corrections or issues then I

11:59 ↗ move to approve the minutes if you agree

12:01 ↗ please say I I I they approved and then

12:06 ↗ we'll go to our uh one and only item of

12:09 ↗ this evening which is Comm 0070 Title 18

12:13 ↗ update uh middle housing regulations and

12:16 ↗ this will be presented by Valerie Porter

12:18 ↗ associate planner welcome

12:21 ↗ Valerie thank you and good evening

12:31 ↗ all right can you guys hear me all right

12:33 ↗ yes we can there is a gray box on the

12:38 ↗ screen there we go sorry about that

12:41 ↗ thank you all right so tonight's meeting

12:45 ↗ um the purpose is for you all to gain

12:47 ↗ feedback from you all for um amendments

12:49 ↗ to Title 18 related to midal

12:51 ↗ housing so um I have several questions

12:54 ↗ that I've posed tonight um I'm not going

12:56 ↗ to go through all of them right now but

12:58 ↗ um during my presentation I'm going to

13:00 ↗ start off with an introduction of middle

13:02 ↗ housing and then go into each question

13:04 ↗ followed with a little bit of background

13:07 ↗ um but mainly most of the questions are

13:09 ↗ going to be related around how we Define

13:12 ↗ midle housing and therefore how we then

13:14 ↗ determine how to process to apply design

13:17 ↗ standards and other other

13:20 ↗ requirements so first why are we talking

13:23 ↗ about middle housing so in 2023 the

13:27 ↗ Washington State Department of Commerce

13:28 ↗ released housing projection stating that

13:31 ↗ um we have to um have over 1 million

13:34 ↗ homes constructed by 2044 in order to

13:37 ↗ keep um the pace of the population

13:40 ↗ growth that same year they passed house

13:42 ↗ house bill 11 um1 and that was intended

13:46 ↗ to increase housing op options

13:49 ↗ traditionally dedicated to single family

13:51 ↗ detached homes in an effort to promote

13:53 ↗ more

13:55 ↗ housing so what is Middle housing I know

13:58 ↗ this term key getting thrown around

14:00 ↗ people are questioning what it is um

14:02 ↗ some people also probably heard missing

14:04 ↗ middle or missing middle housing and

14:06 ↗ basically what this is describing is a

14:08 ↗ range of housing over years there's been

14:11 ↗ a lot of DET single family homes and

14:14 ↗ large scale multif family homes but

14:16 ↗ nothing in the middle hence the term

14:18 ↗ middle

14:19 ↗ housing so middle housing are buildings

14:21 ↗ that are compatible in scale form in

14:24 ↗ character with single family homes and

14:26 ↗ consist of two um or more units

14:30 ↗ the important concept about middle

14:32 ↗ housing is that there's multi-unit

14:34 ↗ buildings that are at the same scale as

14:36 ↗ single family homes this idea is

14:39 ↗ Illustrated here on the slide with the

14:41 ↗ same building but multiple units um

14:45 ↗ throughout the same building and

14:47 ↗ although there may be additional units

14:49 ↗ with middle housing these homes are

14:50 ↗ still required to apply um by the um

14:53 ↗ building setbacks lot coverage the same

14:55 ↗ requirements as a single family home so

14:58 ↗ with carefully with with written design

15:00 ↗ standards um and development standards

15:02 ↗ middle housing types can sit fit

15:05 ↗ seamlessly within existing low density

15:07 ↗ um homes with detached single family

15:11 ↗ homes so here's um some examples of

15:14 ↗ middle housing so middle housing

15:16 ↗ includes duplexes triplexes fourplexes

15:20 ↗ Cottage housing and these are considered

15:22 ↗ small scale middle housing then there's

15:24 ↗ five plexes sixplex which is Middle

15:28 ↗ medium middle housing and then there's

15:31 ↗ uh Cottage apartments and town homes and

15:33 ↗ these two kind of fall between um medium

15:37 ↗ and large scale middle housing depending

15:39 ↗ on the number of units um seven is kind

15:42 ↗ of considered the large and then they're

15:44 ↗ typically taller so three to four

15:47 ↗ stories it's also worth mentioning that

15:50 ↗ middle housing Is Not A New Concept for

15:52 ↗ isqua we actually have a lot of great

15:54 ↗ examples throughout isqua um mostly in

15:56 ↗ Oldtown um isqua Highland

15:59 ↗ as well as the issaqua valley

16:05 ↗ neighborhood so State legislation

16:08 ↗ requires um isqua to process middle

16:11 ↗ housing um applications the same as

16:14 ↗ detach single family homes and we can

16:18 ↗ only require administrative review so um

16:21 ↗ today let's say a 10,000 foot town home

16:24 ↗ comes in for an application that project

16:27 ↗ would likely trigger a a public hearing

16:29 ↗ and a review be with the development

16:31 ↗ commission but with this new legislation

16:33 ↗ we can only do administrative review in

16:35 ↗ administrative review are reviews um

16:38 ↗ that are approved by the um Community

16:40 ↗ planning and development director or

16:42 ↗ their design so I would be the design

16:45 ↗ but we cannot require a public

16:47 ↗ hearing the other requirement um for a

16:51 ↗ house bill 11on is density requirements

16:53 ↗ and this is determined by a City's

16:55 ↗ population um based off of our

16:57 ↗ population isqua falls into tier two

17:00 ↗ there's actually three tiers so the city

17:03 ↗ is required to allow two dwelling units

17:05 ↗ on one lot and all residentially Zone

17:08 ↗ lots and it's worth noting that a

17:11 ↗ detached single family structures single

17:13 ↗ family home does not count as middle

17:16 ↗ housing so if someone wanted to you know

17:18 ↗ they had a single family home decid that

17:21 ↗ they want to construct another single

17:22 ↗ family home in their backyard that

17:24 ↗ wouldn't be allowed they would have to

17:26 ↗ construct middle housing in order to

17:29 ↗ um use the utilize The increased

17:32 ↗ density the other requirement is that

17:35 ↗ lots that are within a quar mile walking

17:38 ↗ distance of a major Transit stop or if

17:40 ↗ one or more units is committed to being

17:43 ↗ in affordable housing the city must

17:44 ↗ allow four dwelling units on one

17:49 ↗ lot here I've mapped out a couple of

17:51 ↗ locations of major Transit stops and

17:53 ↗ these are the um Transit centers so the

17:55 ↗ one on sr900 and the other in the

17:58 ↗ highlands and so these green bubbles

18:00 ↗ would um represent the or show the lots

18:04 ↗ that um would be required we the city

18:06 ↗ would be required to allow for dwelling

18:08 ↗ units

18:11 ↗ on another requirement is um how a lot

18:15 ↗ is able to achieve the density so the

18:18 ↗ city is required to allow six of the

18:21 ↗ nine middle housing building types in

18:23 ↗ single family zones I've on the slide

18:25 ↗ I've highlighted the um six types that

18:28 ↗ the is proposing um or the

18:30 ↗ administration is proposing to allow

18:32 ↗ those are duplex Triplex corlex Cottage

18:36 ↗ housing stack flats and town

18:39 ↗ homes House Bill Levon also addresses

18:42 ↗ parking so for lots that are within a

18:45 ↗ quarter mile or half mile walking

18:46 ↗ distance of a major Transit stop the

18:48 ↗ city cannot allow um require parking for

18:51 ↗ lots that are six um 6,000 ft² or

18:54 ↗ smaller we can require one on on-site

18:58 ↗ parking stall per unit and for Lots

19:00 ↗ greater than 6,000 we can allow two

19:03 ↗ on-site parking

19:06 ↗ stalls so in addition to addressing

19:08 ↗ House Bill 1110 this project will also

19:10 ↗ be addressing House Bill 1337 which is

19:13 ↗ for accessory dwelling units this bill

19:15 ↗ was intended to um ease the construction

19:18 ↗ for um adus and exp expand housing

19:22 ↗ options this bill requires isqua to

19:25 ↗ review accessory dwelling units the same

19:27 ↗ way as the primary home we also must

19:30 ↗ require or allow two accessory dwelling

19:33 ↗ units on one lot with a primary

19:36 ↗ structure in a variety configurations

19:38 ↗ and so that could be two detached adus

19:41 ↗ one detached Adu with a one attached to

19:45 ↗ the primary home variety configurations

19:48 ↗ we must allow it the bill also requires

19:51 ↗ that the um City must must allow the

19:55 ↗ cell the independent cell of that Adu

19:58 ↗ from the prime primary home and can no

20:00 ↗ longer require the property owner to

20:02 ↗ live on

20:05 ↗ site so with all of these new changes

20:08 ↗ can I interrupt you for a question on

20:09 ↗ the last slide um there was a there was

20:12 ↗ a question in public comment about uh

20:14 ↗ adus being up to a larger size so is the

20:18 ↗ requirement that it that that number be

20:21 ↗ up to 1,000 or could it could we

20:23 ↗ potentially choose a higher number and

20:25 ↗ that's the lower level of the

20:27 ↗ requirement we can choose a higher

20:28 ↗ remember um 1,000 square ft maximum is

20:31 ↗ our current requirement okay and okay so

20:34 ↗ we need to have oh that's the current

20:36 ↗ requirement not under the new HP yeah

20:39 ↗ the new regulation states that we cannot

20:42 ↗ um go lower than 1,000 okay thank

20:48 ↗ you so um so how will this impact isqua

20:52 ↗ so there's a there's some concerns that

20:55 ↗ um with these new regulations the

20:57 ↗ neighborhoods are going to change well

20:58 ↗ well neighborhoods are meant to change

21:00 ↗ over time as the community needs evolve

21:03 ↗ so that's going to happen but the

21:06 ↗ administration does not anticipate

21:07 ↗ neighborhoods to change overnight um we

21:09 ↗ do believe that is going to be

21:11 ↗ incremental change that will happen

21:12 ↗ likely over um 5 to 10

21:15 ↗ years and um although there is this

21:19 ↗ increase in density and more housing

21:21 ↗ options um based off of the regulations

21:25 ↗ um the current regulations we don't um

21:27 ↗ we're anticip ating more adus and

21:30 ↗ duplexes um nothing bigger than

21:35 ↗ that so with the addition of these new

21:37 ↗ building types um middle housing

21:39 ↗ projects are required to comply with all

21:42 ↗ applicable codes um that are in place so

21:44 ↗ that's your tree code your critical area

21:46 ↗ codes your zoning

21:51 ↗ standards and the administration is not

21:54 ↗ proposing to make any changes to the

21:56 ↗ current um development standards so

21:58 ↗ midle housing will have to apply with

22:00 ↗ what is currently um in place today and

22:03 ↗ it's also worth noting that um many of

22:05 ↗ the single family homes currently in the

22:08 ↗ um existing single family lots are a lot

22:10 ↗ smaller than the um zoning standards

22:13 ↗ allow for so um these new homes that are

22:16 ↗ going to be constructed are likely going

22:19 ↗ to be a lot taller than what it is

22:24 ↗ today so I'm also sharing a project

22:26 ↗ timeline so this project started started

22:28 ↗ in um February 2024 and since then um

22:31 ↗ staff has been trying to engage the

22:33 ↗ public and gain feedback so in um August

22:37 ↗ um staff had a middle housing Workshop

22:40 ↗ in September um an online survey was

22:43 ↗ posted to gain for you back and then um

22:46 ↗ uh staff also held a Q&A session in

22:49 ↗ October to give the community an

22:51 ↗ opportunity to speak directly to staff

22:52 ↗ and ask any

22:55 ↗ questions so the next steps will be um

22:58 ↗ to gain all of this feedback from the

23:00 ↗ community planning policy commission and

23:02 ↗ you all and then draft um proposed

23:05 ↗ amendments which must be adopted by June

23:11 ↗ 2025 so for our policy questions so I've

23:15 ↗ lumped um question one and two together

23:17 ↗ because they're kind of related so the

23:19 ↗ first question is does the commission

23:21 ↗ agree with the approach of applying a

23:23 ↗ unit limit on middle housing and multif

23:25 ↗ family housing projects and should

23:28 ↗ middle housing projects be exempt from

23:30 ↗ the land use process and require a site

23:33 ↗ development

23:35 ↗ permit so State legislation requires

23:37 ↗ cities to process middle housing um

23:39 ↗ middle housing projects the same way as

23:41 ↗ detach single family homes and so the

23:44 ↗ administration believes that a 10un town

23:47 ↗ home is very different has a different

23:49 ↗ impact than a duplex and so the review

23:51 ↗ should be different so with question

23:53 ↗ number one we're looking for

23:55 ↗ clarification on how the city should

23:56 ↗ Define middle housing and based on how

23:59 ↗ we Define middle housing again this is

24:01 ↗ going to determine how we apply um

24:03 ↗ design regulations and other

24:07 ↗ requirements the administration is

24:09 ↗ proposing to to Define middle housing

24:11 ↗ and multifam separately so traditionally

24:14 ↗ multif family has been um defined as a

24:17 ↗ building with um more than one unit so

24:20 ↗ should the city keep this defin isue

24:24 ↗ then we would have to basically um

24:27 ↗ process all resid itial projects the

24:29 ↗ same way as detach single family home or

24:32 ↗ a 74 unit development project so the

24:35 ↗ administration is proposing to Define

24:37 ↗ midal housing as projects with two to

24:41 ↗ six units and multif family projects as

24:44 ↗ seven or more units and we've come to

24:46 ↗ this number because that's how the state

24:49 ↗ defines middle housing they have uh they

24:51 ↗ clearly defined a sixplex as a middle

24:54 ↗ housing type

24:59 ↗ so if the committee agrees with this

25:00 ↗ approach of separating middle housing

25:03 ↗ and multif family middle housing

25:05 ↗ projects will only be required to obtain

25:07 ↗ a building permit which is similar to a

25:09 ↗ detach single family home today while um

25:12 ↗ projects that are greater than um seven

25:14 ↗ units would be required to obtain a land

25:16 ↗ use permit a site development permit so

25:19 ↗ a site development permit to be clear is

25:20 ↗ not a construction permit and it

25:22 ↗ actually must be issued prior to um

25:25 ↗ someone obtaining a building permit now

25:28 ↗ if if Council disagrees with this

25:30 ↗ approach um then it's kind of a All or

25:32 ↗ Nothing approach again meaning that all

25:34 ↗ residential projects would have to be um

25:36 ↗ treated the same way so we would either

25:38 ↗ exempt all residential projects from

25:41 ↗ obtaining a land use permit or all

25:43 ↗ projects would have to get a l use

25:45 ↗ perent and that means single family um

25:48 ↗ detach

25:51 ↗ homes here I'm showing showing the

25:53 ↗ current process that it is today we

25:56 ↗ currently regulate um projects by the

25:59 ↗ square footage and so if a um 4,000 or

26:04 ↗ less um residential project came in um

26:08 ↗ it would trigger a level one site

26:10 ↗ development permit so they would submit

26:12 ↗ um staff would do public um noticing so

26:16 ↗ neighbor notices um site posting that

26:19 ↗ would review and then the CPD director

26:22 ↗ would then provide approval if a 10,000

26:26 ↗ foot or more project came in staff would

26:28 ↗ do the same process but instead of the

26:29 ↗ CPD director providing um review and

26:32 ↗ approval it would be the development

26:34 ↗ commission and it would have to go

26:36 ↗ through a public hearing

26:38 ↗ process so with this new um new process

26:43 ↗ uh again if Council agrees um middle

26:46 ↗ housing projects so two to six units

26:49 ↗ would be treated um uh like uh detx

26:52 ↗ single family homes only requiring a

26:54 ↗ building permit and seven or more units

26:57 ↗ um could trigger a land use Pro um land

27:00 ↗ use permit or possibly go to the

27:02 ↗ development

27:05 ↗ commission question

27:08 ↗ three should middle housing projects be

27:10 ↗ exempt from constructing Frontage

27:12 ↗ improvements if constructing a if

27:14 ↗ constructing a building on an existing

27:17 ↗ lot so again this requirement of a

27:20 ↗ middle housing has to be treated like a

27:22 ↗ detach single family home so today a

27:25 ↗ detach single family home is exempt from

27:28 ↗ constructing Frontage improvements while

27:31 ↗ a new development Redevelopment of a

27:33 ↗ home or um residential going to

27:37 ↗ commercial triggers Frontage

27:38 ↗ improvements and depending on the lot

27:40 ↗ location and um the existing

27:43 ↗ infrastructure frage improvements could

27:45 ↗ include include a curb and gutter

27:48 ↗ sidewalks um storm water um drainage

27:51 ↗ street lights Street trees landscape um

27:53 ↗ landscape

27:55 ↗ bed so again there's a couple

28:01 ↗ options the administration is proposing

28:03 ↗ to exempt middle housing projects from

28:05 ↗ constructing Frontage improvements on

28:07 ↗ existing single family lots and so to be

28:09 ↗ clear what this means is if someone

28:11 ↗ decided to construct a triplex on an

28:13 ↗ existing lot they would be exempt from

28:16 ↗ constructing um Frontage improvements

28:19 ↗ but say that same lot um someone wanted

28:21 ↗ to construct a Triplex and then plat

28:24 ↗ that so that it was Zero lot lines or

28:27 ↗ like a simple lot then that would

28:30 ↗ trigger Frontage

28:36 ↗ Improvement fourth question should the

28:39 ↗ city allow adus sorry could we maybe go

28:42 ↗ back and get Could you um could you

28:45 ↗ repeat I think that yeah maybe you could

28:48 ↗ repeat this one again thank you yes so

28:51 ↗ if um someone were to construct a

28:54 ↗ triplex on a lot today so um

28:59 ↗ demolish the existing single family home

29:01 ↗ and build a Triplex they would not be

29:03 ↗ required to do any of these Frontage

29:05 ↗ improvements curb gutter sidewalk

29:07 ↗ anything but if someone were to build a

29:11 ↗ Triplex and plot it so that each lot is

29:15 ↗ sitting or each unit is sitting on its

29:17 ↗ own lot so that would be three New Lots

29:20 ↗ that would trigger Frontage

29:22 ↗ improvements and that's how it is today

29:24 ↗ is that if someone were to subdivide a

29:27 ↗ lot short PL or long plat it triggers

29:30 ↗ Frontage

29:38 ↗ improvements okay thank you that that

29:40 ↗ was one of the questions I emailed you

29:41 ↗ like four hours ago so I appreciate

29:43 ↗ actually you're answering almost all my

29:45 ↗ questions right now but um I appreciate

29:46 ↗ that I guess then I'm struggling to

29:49 ↗ understand why someone would do that

29:50 ↗ then if it causes like say a developer

29:53 ↗ builds the triplex and then does want to

29:54 ↗ subdivide the lot now they're on the

29:56 ↗ hook for Frontage improvements

29:58 ↗ why would it be in their benefit to

30:00 ↗ subdivide at that point oh could you

30:02 ↗ then sell the lot individ I answered my

30:05 ↗ own question okay thank you thank you no

30:08 ↗ thank

30:10 ↗ you all right uh oh sorry move on to

30:13 ↗ question number four okay so should the

30:15 ↗ city allow adus to be used to achieve

30:17 ↗ lot

30:22 ↗ density so House Bill 133 I'm going to

30:25 ↗ back up and say House Bill 1337 and 110

30:28 ↗ do not work well together so you kind of

30:31 ↗ have to look at them separately but

30:34 ↗ house build 1337 requires the city to

30:36 ↗ allow two adus on one lot House Bill

30:39 ↗ 1110 allows adus to be counted towards

30:43 ↗ um lot density but it does not consider

30:46 ↗ an Adu to be a middle housing type so we

30:51 ↗ cities do have the option to allow adus

30:54 ↗ to count towards lot density so today

30:57 ↗ one Adu is allowed with one primary home

31:01 ↗ and it does not count towards lot

31:03 ↗ density so to better understand this

31:05 ↗ situation I have a scenario which is

31:07 ↗ this image here so here we have a uh

31:11 ↗ what was a single family home that has

31:13 ↗ been converted into a

31:15 ↗ duplex so the question at hand is should

31:19 ↗ this lot be allowed to construct two

31:22 ↗ adus and it not count towards lot

31:25 ↗ density um resulting in four units on

31:28 ↗ one lot or should the Adu count towards

31:32 ↗ um lot density um basically resulting in

31:35 ↗ just having an Adu and let me back up

31:38 ↗ one more step and say um because of the

31:41 ↗ middle housing regulations we are

31:43 ↗ bumping up zoning to allow for two

31:45 ↗ dwelling units on one lot so we are only

31:48 ↗ required to allow for two units meaning

31:52 ↗ just a duplate

31:59 ↗ okay I'm G to move on to the next

32:01 ↗ question unless there's some question um

32:03 ↗ I I do have a question on this so you

32:04 ↗ mentioned and I've heard it mentioned

32:06 ↗ before as well that the different house

32:08 ↗ bills are not compatible um our lobbyist

32:13 ↗ is also um mentioned something to that

32:15 ↗ effect and so do you do you know or is

32:19 ↗ there any discussion about if the

32:21 ↗ legislature might uh make changes to it

32:24 ↗ that would then impact if we if we

32:26 ↗ adopted um certain regulations with an

32:29 ↗ interpretation is there the potential

32:31 ↗ that we would have to then you know go

32:33 ↗ through this process again

32:35 ↗ to I don't know sorry unfortunately I

32:39 ↗ don't

32:40 ↗ know oh one

32:44 ↗ second good evening council members

32:47 ↗ we're not aware of uh this coming up

32:50 ↗ again there's guidance from Department

32:51 ↗ of Commerce on the interplay between the

32:54 ↗ two bills and how the city should

32:56 ↗ interpret it there was debate between

32:58 ↗ the association of Washington cities and

33:00 ↗ Department of Commerce whether how to

33:03 ↗ interpret both I think the way we are so

33:07 ↗ this is a discretion and a policy

33:09 ↗ question for you all to determine um the

33:13 ↗ by allowing um the question I think um

33:16 ↗ where we align with Commerce guidance is

33:19 ↗ just because you can have two adus

33:21 ↗ doesn't mean you've met your middle

33:23 ↗ housing requirements by density so uh

33:26 ↗ you the city's have to allow

33:29 ↗ duplexes um so that part I think is the

33:32 ↗ guidance where there was debate whether

33:35 ↗ um just having a main house and an Adu

33:37 ↗ that you you've met your middle housing

33:40 ↗ requirements um so Commerce has come out

33:43 ↗ and said no that you have not uh and but

33:47 ↗ all all the cities have to do is to

33:49 ↗ allow the duplex and and you've met the

33:51 ↗ requirements of both bills

33:54 ↗ um be um so because we have average LW

33:57 ↗ sizes you know aren't huge in in a lot

34:00 ↗ of places some of it is practically how

34:03 ↗ people are going to fit in that many

34:05 ↗ it'll play out uh on the ground because

34:08 ↗ by the time you fit in your parking you

34:10 ↗ have your setbacks you have your

34:11 ↗ improval surface you can only put in so

34:14 ↗ many units um so but it's a policy

34:18 ↗ question for us to determine

34:22 ↗ we okay thank you

34:27 ↗ okay we're almost there question five

34:31 ↗ should the city continue to apply the

34:33 ↗ critical area code to housing in single

34:35 ↗ family areas as it is today and allow

34:38 ↗ development of midal housing or not

34:41 ↗ allow Lots with critical areas that

34:44 ↗ currently allow construction for from

34:47 ↗ developing midal housing so here I have

34:50 ↗ a slide of city of isqua kind of showing

34:53 ↗ some of the um critical areas um the

34:57 ↗ public comic was correct that not all of

34:59 ↗ the critical areas are shown just

35:01 ↗ because it depends so whenever someone

35:04 ↗ comes in for an application we review it

35:05 ↗ on a lot by lot basis because depending

35:08 ↗ on what the critical areas are um they

35:11 ↗ may um they may be considered exempt or

35:15 ↗ they may have setbacks that can be

35:16 ↗ reduced there's a lot of um uh

35:24 ↗ factors so House Bill Levon allows

35:26 ↗ portions of lots that are encumbered by

35:29 ↗ critical areas to be exempt from middle

35:31 ↗ housing regulations the administration

35:33 ↗ is proposing middle housing regulations

35:35 ↗ to be treated the same way that they are

35:37 ↗ today and allow development of critical

35:40 ↗ um and allow development if the critical

35:42 ↗ area code allows it so an example of

35:45 ↗ this would be seismic haic areas or

35:48 ↗ mitigated Coal Mine Hazard

35:51 ↗ areas so what that basically means is

35:55 ↗ that the code would allow

35:58 ↗ development in um seismic Hazard areas

36:02 ↗ or a mitigated Coal Mine Hazard area

36:05 ↗ just as long as it complies with code

36:07 ↗ meaning if there's some mitigation

36:09 ↗ measures or um but it would allow it so

36:14 ↗ some some critical areas like steep

36:18 ↗ slopes or excuse me

36:19 ↗ um streams and wetlands are very clear

36:23 ↗ that you cannot build or have direct

36:26 ↗ impacts but they do have buffers and so

36:28 ↗ it's very clear that you cannot develop

36:30 ↗ in those areas but with seismic hmic

36:32 ↗ areas you can build in those areas just

36:34 ↗ as long as you have like pilings or

36:37 ↗ build super durable home so the question

36:40 ↗ that's being posed is whether or not to

36:42 ↗ allow Lots constructing metal housing um

36:45 ↗ should they be allowed to construct just

36:47 ↗ as long as they comply with the critical

36:49 ↗ area code I think the other piece to

36:51 ↗ keep in mind is um again you have to

36:53 ↗ treat metal housing the same way as you

36:55 ↗ do dechat single family homes so if you

36:57 ↗ restrict it for Middle housing you

36:59 ↗ probably have to restrict it for a

37:00 ↗ detach single family home so you're

37:02 ↗ making it um you're restricting

37:04 ↗ development and you're making the code

37:06 ↗ more

37:09 ↗ stringent question six should the city

37:12 ↗ continue to wave impact fees for

37:14 ↗ accessory dwelling

37:15 ↗ unit today the city waves impact fees

37:18 ↗ for adus but House Bill 1110 does allow

37:22 ↗ cities to collect impact fees for adus

37:24 ↗ just as long as they're not greater than

37:26 ↗ 50% of the fees Fe assessed for the

37:28 ↗ primary home so on this slide I have the

37:30 ↗ inact P break down for a one single

37:33 ↗ family home so this is a one-time

37:36 ↗ payment that's paid in full prior to the

37:38 ↗ city issuing the building permit and at

37:40 ↗ the bottom is the total fee that um an

37:43 ↗ Adu would have to um pay which is in

37:46 ↗ addition to permit fees and construction

37:49 ↗ costs and then just to go a little step

37:51 ↗ further to give further context today

37:53 ↗ the city has we know of 82 um

37:58 ↗ adus and in 2018 that's when we changed

38:01 ↗ our regulations to allow for um to kind

38:04 ↗ of streamline the prty process for adus

38:07 ↗ and since that time we've only had 11

38:09 ↗ adus constructed so again the question

38:12 ↗ at hand is whether or not the city

38:14 ↗ should wave um continue to wave impact

38:18 ↗ fees I threw in one last question which

38:21 ↗ is are there other changes that the

38:24 ↗ staff should

38:25 ↗ consider and that concludes my

38:32 ↗ presentation thank you very much all

38:34 ↗ right we will um do our questions and

38:38 ↗ then public comment and then um our

38:42 ↗ comments so council president Walsh you

38:43 ↗ have a question thanks oh I have a bunch

38:46 ↗ you know that

38:48 ↗ um

38:50 ↗ so help me understand I know based on

38:54 ↗ and I'll get all of the house bills

38:56 ↗ wrong but I know based on on one of the

38:58 ↗ house bills um we had to choose six out

39:02 ↗ of nine possible types of Housing and so

39:07 ↗ of those one of them is a

39:10 ↗ fourplex how does that work if we're

39:14 ↗ also

39:16 ↗ saying that the Max on most lots that

39:20 ↗ aren't either affordable or within a

39:23 ↗ quarter mile of uh Transit

39:27 ↗ only allow two

39:31 ↗ units so um

39:35 ↗ one there are some Lots um throughout

39:38 ↗ single family zones that are large

39:39 ↗ enough to have more than two units and

39:42 ↗ so the administration is proposing to um

39:45 ↗ keep the maximum lot density but just

39:48 ↗ Implement a minimum so bump up those

39:50 ↗ lots who are only have or who are only

39:52 ↗ allowed one to two um second we have to

39:56 ↗ allow this option in the event that they

39:58 ↗ can build it and so you're right many of

40:01 ↗ the single family um lots and single

40:04 ↗ family zones will not be able to build a

40:07 ↗ a fourplex or a Triplex but we have to

40:10 ↗ allow it should they

40:12 ↗ um want be allowed to um if they have

40:16 ↗ that density to

40:18 ↗ allow okay so my understanding was that

40:23 ↗ level of density would only be allowed

40:25 ↗ if there was affordable housing or

40:28 ↗ within Transit but you just mentioned

40:29 ↗ something about lot size how does that

40:32 ↗ play in there are some large Lots um

40:35 ↗ like say in the single family um small

40:38 ↗ lot I think the minimum lot size is 3

40:41 ↗ well doesn't matter but there are some

40:44 ↗ um lot larger lots that allow for say

40:47 ↗ three or four units so say CES

40:53 ↗ or it's Zone like a zoning that because

40:58 ↗ that lot is say 18 Acres they can have

41:01 ↗ four units today and so if they wanted

41:05 ↗ to they could build a a cottage housing

41:08 ↗ or a fourplex on that

41:14 ↗ lot I still don't understand that is it

41:19 ↗ related

41:20 ↗ to what was allowed when it was single

41:24 ↗ family and then it's created

41:29 ↗ maximize

41:31 ↗ yeah that that's it's all of the stuff

41:34 ↗ is complex but um as an example if um

41:39 ↗ your minimum lot size is say 6,000

41:41 ↗ square ft and you've got 60,000 ft lot

41:45 ↗ more than an acre you know not that

41:47 ↗ exists common but it can

41:50 ↗ hypothetically um so in that case you

41:53 ↗ could build 10 units just from a

41:55 ↗ strictly unit density standpoint

41:58 ↗ um you'll you'll comply with the how

42:00 ↗ many dwelling units per acre you can

42:02 ↗ have um so in a 60,000 ft lot you are

42:06 ↗ allowed to build 10 units because you're

42:08 ↗ still in compliance with the density so

42:10 ↗ then then the city has the option to say

42:12 ↗ you if you allow maximum of four Plex or

42:15 ↗ six Plex six of them can be attached and

42:18 ↗ four of them can be attached but a total

42:20 ↗ of 10 could be potentially built on a

42:24 ↗ 60,000 ft

42:25 ↗ lot Okay so because of whatever

42:30 ↗ pre-existing size of the lot yeah yeah

42:33 ↗ it's just based on size of the lot okay

42:35 ↗ so if if you're not changing the

42:36 ↗ densities because uh the densities are

42:39 ↗ changing only for duplex so that's what

42:41 ↗ this Bill is saying so if you have one

42:42 ↗ house you have to allow duplexes for

42:44 ↗ tier 2 cities um so the densities will

42:48 ↗ go up they'll double the densities of

42:50 ↗ what whatever then that zone the density

42:52 ↗ is but you you don't have to quadruple

42:55 ↗ the density if you're not within those

42:56 ↗ uh affordable housing or um Transit

43:01 ↗ stations close to Transit

43:05 ↗ stations okay however if you meet the

43:07 ↗ density you can go higher than

43:12 ↗ duplexes because you have a larger lot

43:16 ↗ okay it would only play out for larger

43:19 ↗ lots that you would get yeah more than

43:21 ↗ four BL okay um Valerie you had

43:25 ↗ mentioned something a moment ago about

43:27 ↗ minimum

43:29 ↗ density yes so it's speaking to the

43:32 ↗ point that we have to allow two dwelling

43:34 ↗ units on one lot so in order to comply

43:36 ↗ with that the administration is

43:38 ↗ proposing to implement a minimum lot

43:41 ↗ density um because we already have a Max

43:43 ↗ so again for those lots let's say if you

43:46 ↗ allowed four dwelling units today you

43:49 ↗ would be allowed to have two I mean you

43:51 ↗ can go below that but we have to allow

43:54 ↗ two so that's the best way to allow it I

43:57 ↗ don't understand how you have a minimum

43:59 ↗ density but you're allowed to go below

44:00 ↗ it because much like far right um it's

44:05 ↗ just like if you have again a a lot that

44:08 ↗ you're allowed to build 10 if you want

44:11 ↗ to build one dwelling unit we'll allow

44:13 ↗ you we won't make you build tin dwelling

44:15 ↗ units so again we just have to allow for

44:18 ↗ it so that's the um the reason why we're

44:21 ↗ implementing a

44:23 ↗ minimum

44:25 ↗ okay um

44:31 ↗ wait I'm sorry I didn't get that either

44:32 ↗ maybe it's just the use of the word

44:34 ↗ minimum yeah um is it minimum like we

44:37 ↗ know it to be like everyone who has a

44:41 ↗ two minimum on their lot now has to is

44:43 ↗ it it feels like now you have to have

44:46 ↗ two units on that lot but is it really

44:49 ↗ just instead of minimum more like the

44:51 ↗ allowable yes that's let's change it to

44:54 ↗ allowable yes we're allowing to unit

44:57 ↗ units on a lot yes okay so and that's

44:59 ↗ how we would express it in the code not

45:01 ↗ necessarily as a minimum right right

45:04 ↗ okay yeah it's it's the option for the

45:06 ↗ property owner if they want to they can

45:09 ↗ if they want to build one single family

45:10 ↗ home they can yeah there's no minimum

45:13 ↗ you have to have this much

45:16 ↗ density yep

45:19 ↗ um and then there was a lot in the topic

45:23 ↗ about how

45:25 ↗ you aren't allowed to treat middle

45:28 ↗ housing differently than single single

45:32 ↗ family housing is that just related to

45:35 ↗ permit

45:36 ↗ requirements or is it basically

45:39 ↗ everything

45:41 ↗ everything so

45:43 ↗ then any of the policy

45:47 ↗ decisions we're

45:50 ↗ making are basically have to be

45:54 ↗ considered for a single family as well

45:56 ↗ so so if we allow or if we require

46:00 ↗ Frontage improvements like planning

46:02 ↗ policy said we should that would mean

46:05 ↗ that single family homes would also have

46:08 ↗ to do frage improvements that's correct

46:12 ↗ okay was PPC aware of that yeah

46:16 ↗ well I guess I wanted to Comm clarify so

46:19 ↗ they couldn't quite come to a decision I

46:22 ↗ think they were a little split and they

46:24 ↗ did not like the way that U Middle

46:26 ↗ housing was being um defined they felt

46:28 ↗ like that six unit threshold was a

46:31 ↗ little bit too much and so um yes

46:34 ↗ they're aware of it but they couldn't

46:36 ↗ quite give a definitive answer on yeah

46:39 ↗ so that was another one of my questions

46:41 ↗ is could we rather than

46:45 ↗ defining middle housing as 2 to six

46:49 ↗ units and multif family is 7 plus could

46:52 ↗ we change the definition and say middle

46:56 ↗ housing is two to four units or actually

46:59 ↗ quite honestly what I would say is one

47:01 ↗ to four units because if that stream

47:05 ↗ lines the idea there is no more single

47:07 ↗ family concept

47:10 ↗ um and then Define multifamily as five

47:16 ↗ plus so the state def does not consider

47:20 ↗ a det single family home as middle

47:22 ↗ housing so we can't do that okay and

47:25 ↗ then um the reason why the

47:27 ↗ administration chose six is again

47:29 ↗ because of how the state defines metal

47:31 ↗ housing they Define it as duplex Triplex

47:34 ↗ fourplex fiveplex and sixplex so that's

47:37 ↗ that they kind of established the

47:40 ↗ threshold but we could change it to

47:41 ↗ fourplex two to for Plex yeah and for

47:45 ↗ our purposes of a multi family but then

47:47 ↗ we wouldn't be compliant with the

47:49 ↗ state's

47:50 ↗ definition yeah but we're not using the

47:53 ↗ model

47:54 ↗ ordinance that's why we're doing we can

47:56 ↗ look into yeah we'll um because one of

47:59 ↗ the questions I then had is if our six

48:02 ↗ out of the nine that we allow doesn't

48:06 ↗ include a sixplex then we're essentially

48:10 ↗ saying a sixplex to us is not middle

48:15 ↗ housing is the way that I would

48:17 ↗ interpret that okay um because we're

48:19 ↗ saying of these nine we really think

48:22 ↗ these are the six that apply in the city

48:25 ↗ as middle housing

48:28 ↗ um so it would be great if we could get

48:30 ↗ information on um that idea whether or

48:33 ↗ not we could change that as definition

48:36 ↗ because I think honestly that would make

48:37 ↗ a big difference in how I reply to some

48:40 ↗ of these policy questions

48:43 ↗ um so that yeah I will stop my questions

48:51 ↗ therec member Hall have

48:54 ↗ questions um sure uh thank you first of

48:57 ↗ all I'm just very impressed at the level

48:59 ↗ of Staff work that's gone into this like

49:02 ↗ clearly Monumental work has gone into

49:06 ↗ pulling things from different areas of

49:08 ↗ code into one document it was U me a

49:11 ↗ headache so I'm glad I didn't have to do

49:13 ↗ it but anyways and you also just

49:14 ↗ presented it in a way that made it easy

49:16 ↗ to kind of queue up what information do

49:18 ↗ we need to to tackle this policy

49:20 ↗ question so anyways thank you um you've

49:22 ↗ answered a couple of the questions I

49:24 ↗ already had emailed in um I guess just

49:28 ↗ kind of from a

49:30 ↗ first maybe let's start with 1110 um

49:34 ↗ since we were just talking about kind of

49:36 ↗ a little this a little bit

49:37 ↗ distinguishing between middle housing

49:39 ↗ and multif family housing did we

49:41 ↗ consider not making kind of that

49:43 ↗ delineation and just considering them

49:45 ↗ all the same in terms of review and did

49:47 ↗ we kind of think through pros and cons

49:49 ↗ associated with that would you speak to

49:51 ↗ that yeah we thought about pros and cons

49:54 ↗ and I think the big one was again you

49:56 ↗ know a 74 unit town home development is

49:59 ↗ not the same as a duplex and so just

50:02 ↗ allowing them to have building permits

50:05 ↗ and not go through a public process um

50:08 ↗ we felt like you know those larger

50:11 ↗ projects needed a public process because

50:14 ↗ community members would be surprised to

50:16 ↗ wake up one day and someone's now

50:18 ↗ building a 100 unit um development next

50:21 ↗ to them so um that's why we felt like

50:25 ↗ just you know clearly delineating the

50:27 ↗ terms and treating you know the smaller

50:30 ↗ um middle housing types um like single

50:33 ↗ family housing and still treating the

50:35 ↗ larger units um you know with the land

50:38 ↗ use process um Community um meetings and

50:42 ↗ to the development commission was a

50:44 ↗ better approach do we know if there are

50:46 ↗ any other cities that are

50:49 ↗ uh I guess like the way I'm thinking

50:52 ↗ about it is like the difference between

50:54 ↗ in my community like the difference

50:55 ↗ between six and seven units on a lot

50:58 ↗ wouldn't wouldn't be that different but

51:00 ↗ you have to draw the line somewhere I

51:01 ↗ get that and I think you've made that

51:03 ↗ good point but are there any other

51:04 ↗ cities that are considering higher like

51:07 ↗ drawing that line at a higher like 7

51:08 ↗ eight or

51:10 ↗ 10 what you read of the landscape so a

51:14 ↗ lot of cities are trying to figure this

51:16 ↗ out um there yeah we're all in the same

51:18 ↗ vote right now um some of the cities

51:20 ↗ that have figured it out already are the

51:22 ↗ larger cities like Seattle and Bellevue

51:25 ↗ they're required to allow six

51:28 ↗ or doying units on one lot um but

51:31 ↗ they're already allowing um for that um

51:34 ↗ greater density um the city of Shoreline

51:37 ↗ is one of the um is a tier 2 City and so

51:41 ↗ um they are um their initial approach

51:44 ↗ was to just comply with the state

51:46 ↗ regulations so allow two dwelling units

51:48 ↗ on one lot but in areas um where they

51:52 ↗ have um Sound Transit because they just

51:55 ↗ have uh recently got a A Sound Transit

51:58 ↗ line they've decided to increase

52:00 ↗ development in those areas um but other

52:03 ↗ than that I'm not quite sure what other

52:05 ↗ cities are doing because you bring up a

52:07 ↗ good point everyone's doing this at the

52:08 ↗ same time so

52:13 ↗ um improvements you answered

52:21 ↗ um I guess this is almost this is kind

52:24 ↗ of similar so for the per for 1110 for

52:26 ↗ the permited uses for whether like a

52:27 ↗ policy question was whether or not to

52:29 ↗ consider adus as part of the um lot

52:33 ↗ density achieving lot density

52:35 ↗ um guess I just want to think through a

52:38 ↗ little bit more what the concern would

52:39 ↗ be if we

52:41 ↗ didn't um consider them as part of

52:44 ↗ achieving lot density so you had that

52:45 ↗ example in the memo of you're a quarter

52:48 ↗ mile from or a half mile from Transit

52:50 ↗ Center or major Transit stop you can

52:54 ↗ build up to four but then also two

52:57 ↗ adus

52:59 ↗ um the difference there would be either

53:01 ↗ having five units on the property or six

53:04 ↗ right um so yeah four units versus six

53:07 ↗ yeah four versus six okay so you would

53:11 ↗ um you could do that I think you wanted

53:14 ↗ to kind of know some of the pros and

53:15 ↗ cons to that so the pros would be

53:18 ↗ additional um housing units on a lot um

53:22 ↗ I the cons would be um is it just that

53:27 ↗ it would be out of character with the

53:28 ↗ rest of the it could possibly be um yeah

53:31 ↗ having more um homes now um with these

53:35 ↗ additional units they are still required

53:37 ↗ to comply with single family um

53:39 ↗ standards but there are some exceptions

53:41 ↗ for accessory dwelling units like

53:43 ↗ accessory dwelling units can be

53:45 ↗ constructed in the rear set back

53:47 ↗ depending on if there's an alley so then

53:50 ↗ there's some Wile room um but the other

53:55 ↗ piece to that is that we we do have

53:57 ↗ development standards that um like I

53:59 ↗ said that they have to comply with but

54:01 ↗ then we also are feel like a a unique

54:03 ↗ City where we have a ton of critical

54:05 ↗ areas um and we still have parking

54:08 ↗ requirements and infrastructure so that

54:10 ↗ does start to limit your buildable

54:14 ↗ area naturally part of the buildable

54:16 ↗ area is already being limited it's

54:18 ↗ almost like every example we pull out

54:21 ↗ wouldn't necessarily ever apply to any

54:23 ↗ single lot in the city right because

54:24 ↗ there's so many individual things that

54:26 ↗ are happening at once is this the story

54:28 ↗ you're telling us okay got it yeah well

54:30 ↗ then that was effective well done

54:35 ↗ um talked about critical areas um okay

54:38 ↗ looking at 1337 so the Adu bill

54:43 ↗ um I had the same question as was

54:45 ↗ brought up during public comment about

54:47 ↗ how we have a maximum of a th unit um

54:50 ↗ Adu size just

54:52 ↗ wondering um when we wrote this what was

54:55 ↗ kind of the value

54:57 ↗ of putting that number associated with

55:00 ↗ an Adu and and what does the

55:02 ↗ administration think about removing any

55:05 ↗ kind of size limitation there

55:06 ↗ recognizing that we we are already in

55:09 ↗ compliance with the state they just say

55:11 ↗ we can't go below a th000 but

55:14 ↗ um what about the thought of letting the

55:16 ↗ market decide kind of how big it should

55:18 ↗ be given the constraints of the

55:21 ↗ lot um unfortunately I wasn't able to um

55:24 ↗ dive deep into the um ordinance for 2018

55:28 ↗ that for the a accessory dwelling units

55:30 ↗ but I kind of remember that the number

55:33 ↗ the thousand square feet was determined

55:35 ↗ by um uh neighboring cities so I did a

55:38 ↗ quick Google search and um a lot of the

55:41 ↗ other neighboring cities um are around

55:44 ↗ th000 square feet so um Kint Renton and

55:47 ↗ samamish are allow 1,000 sare feet for

55:49 ↗ adus um Belleview allows between 300 and

55:53 ↗ 800 Kirkland allows 1,200 and red allows

55:56 ↗ 15 so I think we looked at everything

55:59 ↗ and that's how we determined our our

56:02 ↗ number yeah from what I recall there was

56:04 ↗ a lot of public Outreach uh during the

56:06 ↗ Adu legislation it was before our time

56:08 ↗ here my time here and so we can look

56:11 ↗ into what formed the basis for that but

56:15 ↗ um it was based

56:16 ↗ on debates and discussions with the

56:20 ↗ community and just to add to that um I

56:23 ↗ think we should definitely have a um and

56:27 ↗ a number a threshold um because then you

56:30 ↗ started getting to um what's an

56:32 ↗ accessory dwelling unit and what's a

56:34 ↗ cottage and so a cottage is a detached

56:36 ↗ um home it's considered middle housing

56:40 ↗ but how do you start to determine what's

56:42 ↗ the difference if someone comes in um

56:45 ↗ saying that it's an Adu and really it

56:48 ↗ looks like a cottage so we should

56:50 ↗ definitely have a threshold but

56:52 ↗ increasing it would be fun

56:57 ↗ so from the 2018 conversations one thing

56:59 ↗ I remember about that was that we had a

57:02 ↗ lot of discussion about daet basements

57:05 ↗ um and the whole bottom floor of certain

57:09 ↗ uh a certain fairly common single family

57:12 ↗ home construction especially on in

57:14 ↗ certain neighborhoods like squawk um to

57:17 ↗ make to try to make sure that the number

57:19 ↗ that we chose would allow for that to be

57:22 ↗ an Adu if people wanted to convert their

57:25 ↗ lower floor into an Adu um and we didn't

57:28 ↗ I think we my recollection is we didn't

57:31 ↗ ever feel like we necessarily got the

57:34 ↗ right number for that but I do remember

57:35 ↗ there was a lot of discussion about

57:36 ↗ should it be higher um and if it's if it

57:40 ↗ isn't if that number isn't high enough

57:42 ↗ to include that particular construction

57:45 ↗ type or option um there was concern

57:48 ↗ about about

57:51 ↗ that okay so I'm hearing in the region

57:54 ↗ there's a range um that's a good policy

57:57 ↗ conversation for committee and Council

57:58 ↗ to have but there should definitely be a

58:00 ↗ number associated with it because then

58:02 ↗ you start to get into gray lines on

58:04 ↗ whether it's a cottage or a

58:08 ↗ okay

58:10 ↗ um oh um so for the parking parts for

58:13 ↗ the Adu bill for

58:15 ↗ 1337 it said I just noticed in the memo

58:18 ↗ there were um differences um so the

58:22 ↗ change said exempt for adus within a

58:24 ↗ quarter mile of a major Transit stop but

58:26 ↗ I thought earlier in the memo it said

58:27 ↗ something about if it was within half a

58:30 ↗ mile so could you clarify is it quarter

58:32 ↗ or half so for lots that are within a

58:36 ↗ half mile walking distance of a major

58:38 ↗ Transit stop the city cannot require

58:40 ↗ parking and that's for adus as well as

58:43 ↗ middle housing if a lot is within a

58:45 ↗ quarter mile walking distance we must

58:47 ↗ allow four dwelling units on one lot so

58:50 ↗ if it doesn't say that then I apologize

58:51 ↗ that's an

58:54 ↗ error so parking is related to half mile

58:58 ↗ walking

59:00 ↗ distance okay perfect thank you

59:07 ↗ um well you kind of answered my question

59:09 ↗ about impact fees so um we we don't

59:12 ↗ already charge impact fees on Adu

59:14 ↗ development one of the policy questions

59:16 ↗ was should we continue to do that so I

59:18 ↗ guess my question was well why why would

59:21 ↗ we not um if we're already not doing it

59:24 ↗ it seemed like you kind of answered that

59:25 ↗ earlier let me just clarify you'd said

59:28 ↗ um well essentially we had a good amount

59:31 ↗ of adus for some point like 80 something

59:34 ↗ and since then we've only had like 11

59:35 ↗ since we've actually made changes to

59:37 ↗ make it easier to have adus in the city

59:39 ↗ so maybe that is more of a reason to

59:41 ↗ keep the barriers low is that is that

59:44 ↗ kind of how you'd respond to that yeah

59:45 ↗ that that is a pro um waving the fees

59:48 ↗ then encourages more development on the

59:50 ↗ other hand the city is paying for that

59:53 ↗ so then that means that the city's been

59:55 ↗ having the front the build for those um

59:58 ↗ infrastructure and services so um it may

1:00:01 ↗ be less

1:00:02 ↗ um I haven't looked at the budget but

1:00:05 ↗ less money so that it may be harder to

1:00:07 ↗ um construct some of that

1:00:10 ↗ infrastructure president was just a

1:00:13 ↗ comment that I heard Steven Padua

1:00:15 ↗ mention on the middle housing tour was

1:00:17 ↗ that like Kirkland um

1:00:20 ↗ exempts um adus from Impact fees and so

1:00:23 ↗ one of the things you're seeing is a lot

1:00:25 ↗ of

1:00:26 ↗ development instead of duplexes or other

1:00:29 ↗ things so it also is a question of what

1:00:33 ↗ do you want more of and what are you

1:00:35 ↗ incentivizing versus

1:00:41 ↗ disincentivizing that's a good point and

1:00:43 ↗ so I guess then just to follow up on

1:00:44 ↗ that our options as a city are no impact

1:00:48 ↗ fees all the way to the same impact fees

1:00:50 ↗ as the same single family home on the

1:00:55 ↗ lot is that right

1:00:56 ↗ we can look at the rate you know if it's

1:00:58 ↗ lower than a single family home if oh

1:01:01 ↗ it's 50% lower rate or or the same rate

1:01:04 ↗ as single family I think that's what

1:01:06 ↗ yeah so our option then is no impact

1:01:09 ↗ fees up to half of what is for the home

1:01:13 ↗ on the live correct the primary

1:01:15 ↗ structure so

1:01:18 ↗ 50% okay um I think that's it for me at

1:01:21 ↗ the moment although some might come to

1:01:24 ↗ me okay great thank you

1:01:28 ↗ um I wondered if in your surveys and in

1:01:32 ↗ conversations with the planning

1:01:34 ↗ department staff if you have a sense of

1:01:37 ↗ why we have only seen 11 adus being

1:01:40 ↗ built since we adopted all of these like

1:01:42 ↗ what are the main barriers to having

1:01:44 ↗ more of these be

1:01:46 ↗ built um fees I think the fees are just

1:01:50 ↗ High um uh also um utility connections

1:01:56 ↗ just again cost of construction um lot

1:01:59 ↗ coverage um it's hard to have a large

1:02:02 ↗ single family home in an ad and an

1:02:06 ↗ Adu um with the current um development

1:02:10 ↗ standards

1:02:12 ↗ um those are the the top ones that can I

1:02:15 ↗ think it's mostly Market driven

1:02:18 ↗ um and rather than regulations and

1:02:20 ↗ things like that I mean

1:02:23 ↗ I oh uh on average you know homeowner um

1:02:29 ↗ they have to have that much Equity to

1:02:31 ↗ kind of build that I mean usually when

1:02:34 ↗ it transitions to a sale and a builder

1:02:36 ↗ comes in and they want to build it but

1:02:38 ↗ sometimes there family situations where

1:02:39 ↗ they want to live in the property and

1:02:41 ↗ and do that and you know in those cases

1:02:42 ↗ we are seeing that isqua 11 number is

1:02:45 ↗ better than some other cities which had

1:02:47 ↗ a much more promotion going on for um

1:02:51 ↗ adus they you know like I know for city

1:02:53 ↗ of Ron they had um pre-programmed Adu

1:02:57 ↗ plans they hired a u an architect to

1:03:00 ↗ kind of you can come byy you know if you

1:03:02 ↗ use this and it's a speed year process

1:03:05 ↗ and you know the number was lower than

1:03:07 ↗ 11 last time when they had first

1:03:10 ↗ launched so it's just market for you

1:03:14 ↗ know you don't see it come really

1:03:17 ↗ quickly over time though it that number

1:03:20 ↗ can creep up and now with the house 1110

1:03:23 ↗ the number could be higher that's why we

1:03:24 ↗ pulled that as a policy question CU it's

1:03:27 ↗ not too much of an impact if it's only a

1:03:29 ↗ handful of

1:03:30 ↗ adus but if the city is going to get a

1:03:32 ↗ lot more um metal and then the then not

1:03:37 ↗ having um those infrastructure

1:03:39 ↗ improvements and and deferring

1:03:41 ↗ them but he's never going to have the

1:03:43 ↗ money to go back and do all

1:03:48 ↗ that okay great thank you um Stephen did

1:03:51 ↗ you have additional comments since you

1:03:53 ↗ hopped on I do thank you chair hunt um

1:03:56 ↗ good evening uh council members Steph P

1:03:58 ↗ longrange planning manager so the total

1:04:01 ↗ number of adus in the city is a little

1:04:03 ↗ deceiving comparing it with the 11 that

1:04:05 ↗ were built after we changed the

1:04:07 ↗ regulations because the vast majority of

1:04:09 ↗ the 60-ish adus were actually built as

1:04:12 ↗ part of the master plan communities in

1:04:14 ↗ Talis and Highland so it's hard to say

1:04:17 ↗ like the regulation change really um was

1:04:20 ↗ a difference between before and after so

1:04:24 ↗ um like Minnie was saying in terms of

1:04:26 ↗ rate of development after the

1:04:27 ↗ regulations were changed we did get a

1:04:30 ↗ little more adus than a lot of our

1:04:31 ↗ neighboring cities comparative to um at

1:04:34 ↗ least the cities that made similar

1:04:35 ↗ changes to their

1:04:38 ↗ regulations and that is just kind of the

1:04:40 ↗ market for adus at the

1:04:42 ↗ time okay great thank

1:04:46 ↗ you all right do we have any additional

1:04:49 ↗ questions at this

1:04:51 ↗ time no okay um then I will uh call for

1:04:56 ↗ public comment on this item um if if any

1:05:00 ↗ members of the public would like to make

1:05:01 ↗ an additional comment you are welcome to

1:05:03 ↗ uh come up at this

1:05:13 ↗ time I would this is David Zin with the

1:05:17 ↗ record um I would just add on to what

1:05:19 ↗ they're talking about putting my hat on

1:05:22 ↗ not only as a representative Leo but

1:05:24 ↗ just a homeowner

1:05:26 ↗ with the Advent of with the

1:05:28 ↗ adus with the state regulations

1:05:31 ↗ understand it not having to occupy the

1:05:35 ↗ primary home you can now rent it out and

1:05:39 ↗ with the Advent of being able to sell

1:05:41 ↗ the

1:05:42 ↗ Adu that correct Val yes that could

1:05:47 ↗ incentivize homeowners right there

1:05:50 ↗ because if you can build an Adu in this

1:05:53 ↗ market and then sell it for twice of

1:05:56 ↗ what I'm just throwing something out

1:05:58 ↗ there that could be a big incentive for

1:06:01 ↗ building

1:06:05 ↗ them thank you very much I'll check in

1:06:08 ↗ with C clerk if there's anyone online

1:06:11 ↗ that would like to make a comment

1:06:12 ↗ specific to this item chair hunt we have

1:06:14 ↗ no virtual attendees at this time all

1:06:17 ↗ right uh then we'll move to comments on

1:06:19 ↗ these items and I think um Valerie if

1:06:22 ↗ you could put the questions up so we can

1:06:24 ↗ uh have the questions I think that would

1:06:27 ↗ help us structure our comments thank you

1:06:30 ↗ very

1:06:37 ↗ much oh

1:06:40 ↗ yes um C oh sorry um just a quick

1:06:45 ↗ question that I forgot to ask um I

1:06:47 ↗ didn't even think about HOAs until came

1:06:50 ↗ up in public comment is is that one of

1:06:52 ↗ those things kind of like critical areas

1:06:54 ↗ where we're just having to analyze on an

1:06:55 ↗ individual basis if there's

1:06:59 ↗ a exemption to be made that's correct um

1:07:03 ↗ at this time the staff does or the city

1:07:05 ↗ does not collect that information so it

1:07:08 ↗ it the owners would actually be on the

1:07:10 ↗ property owner um we've kind of thrown

1:07:13 ↗ around a couple of ideas of um which is

1:07:16 ↗ kind of similar to um Talis in isqua

1:07:20 ↗ Highlands which is whenever they come in

1:07:22 ↗ for a project they're required to get or

1:07:26 ↗ provide ARC approval so it would be

1:07:28 ↗ something similar where if someone came

1:07:30 ↗ and wanted to construct an Adu or middle

1:07:33 ↗ housing they would have to get approval

1:07:35 ↗ or an affidavit or something like

1:07:45 ↗ that council president was I'll start us

1:07:48 ↗ off if you're okay with it so uh first

1:07:51 ↗ of all Valerie uh knowing that I went on

1:07:55 ↗ the middle housing tour that was

1:07:58 ↗ phenomenal as a way to visualize so much

1:08:02 ↗ of this and recognize all of the really

1:08:07 ↗ fine middle housing that we have already

1:08:10 ↗ in the city but also so many of those

1:08:14 ↗ that would not be allowed to be built

1:08:17 ↗ today and so I think as I go into this

1:08:22 ↗ I'm

1:08:23 ↗ thinking about what are the barriers

1:08:26 ↗ that we can lo uh

1:08:29 ↗ lessen that would make it so that

1:08:32 ↗ something that was previously allowed to

1:08:34 ↗ be built and fits within the scale of a

1:08:38 ↗ neighborhood would again be allowed so

1:08:42 ↗ that's that's kind of the approach that

1:08:44 ↗ I'm coming to this I think the other

1:08:46 ↗ thing going on that tour helped me see

1:08:49 ↗ and I think your visual with you know

1:08:52 ↗ the three houses showing one is a single

1:08:54 ↗ family one is is a duplex one is a

1:08:56 ↗ quadplex um showing that they have

1:08:59 ↗ basically the same form and that they

1:09:01 ↗ fit within a neighborhood that makes me

1:09:05 ↗ think about all of the potential

1:09:08 ↗ regulations should fit within that idea

1:09:12 ↗ so if

1:09:13 ↗ something looks like a single family

1:09:16 ↗ house and fits into a neighborhood that

1:09:19 ↗ is mostly single family houses then I

1:09:22 ↗ think we should treat it accordingly so

1:09:26 ↗ um as I wrote down in my notes I think

1:09:30 ↗ for me that includes critical areas that

1:09:33 ↗ includes the land use process that

1:09:37 ↗ includes probably a lack of size limits

1:09:40 ↗ though I'll ASX that with another idea

1:09:43 ↗ um and that includes not having any FR

1:09:46 ↗ Frontage update requirements so from my

1:09:49 ↗ perspective if the choice is either do

1:09:53 ↗ have all of those things requ ired for a

1:09:56 ↗ single

1:09:57 ↗ family so that you can do it for Middle

1:10:00 ↗ housing or get rid of them for Middle

1:10:04 ↗ housing and single family that would be

1:10:06 ↗ my preference um the other

1:10:10 ↗ thing that I know is because we've got

1:10:13 ↗ these dueling state laws but from my

1:10:19 ↗ perspective adus were really just a

1:10:22 ↗ stepping stone to help us

1:10:26 ↗ conceptualize the idea of middle housing

1:10:29 ↗ being neighborhood appropriate it's

1:10:32 ↗ something that is palatable um and

1:10:36 ↗ something that people can see um working

1:10:39 ↗ in their

1:10:41 ↗ neighborhoods but

1:10:43 ↗ now if you're going to allow 2

1:10:47 ↗ adus in my mind that's just very similar

1:10:49 ↗ to Cottage

1:10:50 ↗ housing

1:10:52 ↗ so generally

1:10:55 ↗ I think adus should be part of the unit

1:10:59 ↗ requirement

1:11:03 ↗ um and I would generally say that impact

1:11:07 ↗ fees shouldn't be waved because we

1:11:09 ↗ wouldn't wave it for cottage

1:11:13 ↗ housing but I think that's that's a

1:11:16 ↗ conversation to have

1:11:19 ↗ um and I would say if if the difference

1:11:24 ↗ between

1:11:26 ↗ adus and cottage housing is

1:11:29 ↗ size then I could understand um so if

1:11:33 ↗ there is a size limit on the adus I

1:11:36 ↗ could understand

1:11:39 ↗ having um the impact

1:11:41 ↗ fees

1:11:43 ↗ waved um but I do want the size limit to

1:11:47 ↗ be larger because this isn't the first

1:11:49 ↗ time that we've heard about that we also

1:11:51 ↗ heard about it with someone who wanted

1:11:54 ↗ to have care for uh a family member and

1:11:58 ↗ wanted to have a second bedroom because

1:12:01 ↗ that was required from the home health

1:12:04 ↗ um so I do think 1 12200 1250 something

1:12:08 ↗ around there um should should be um

1:12:14 ↗ allowed so those are some of my main

1:12:17 ↗ Concepts the other thing I will say and

1:12:19 ↗ it's probably going out on a limb here

1:12:22 ↗ but after going on the middle housing

1:12:24 ↗ tour I can really see how a fourplex

1:12:27 ↗ fits into a

1:12:29 ↗ neighborhood and so really looking at

1:12:34 ↗ that I have a hard time saying we should

1:12:38 ↗ go through this full process uh and only

1:12:42 ↗ allow two

1:12:45 ↗ units I think that if the lot size is

1:12:51 ↗ large enough to deal with a four plus

1:12:56 ↗ or if the developer is willing to have

1:12:59 ↗ small enough units to fit a fourplex in

1:13:03 ↗ where a tlex or a single family would be

1:13:06 ↗ allowed then I think that should be

1:13:08 ↗ allowed I think I agree with

1:13:12 ↗ PBC that a sixplex and six unit is a

1:13:17 ↗ different

1:13:18 ↗ scale um but generally I think we should

1:13:23 ↗ consider

1:13:26 ↗ allowing four units on all Lots not just

1:13:31 ↗ those close to transit or affordable now

1:13:36 ↗ I love the idea of trying to incentivize

1:13:39 ↗ the affordable housing so if there's a

1:13:41 ↗ way that we could do that and allow six

1:13:44 ↗ flexes that would be something I would

1:13:46 ↗ be interested in doing or allowing

1:13:49 ↗ additional adus I would be interested if

1:13:52 ↗ there was a way to get that done but my

1:13:56 ↗ first and foremost goal is to make

1:13:59 ↗ something that fits the

1:14:02 ↗ neighborhoods in and increases

1:14:05 ↗ Supply and so I would be very interested

1:14:09 ↗ in exploring that as an idea and then

1:14:12 ↗ I've got a whole other set of questions

1:14:14 ↗ around what remains to limit our middle

1:14:17 ↗ Housing Development but I'm going to

1:14:18 ↗ pause on that and start there

1:14:27 ↗ okay I was just looking if if we've

1:14:29 ↗ addressed if you addressed all of

1:14:32 ↗ these questions there okay okay great um

1:14:36 ↗ I I am largely in agreement um I I have

1:14:40 ↗ not yet gone on the middle housing tour

1:14:43 ↗ but I have uh lived in isqua and and you

1:14:46 ↗ know experienced uh four plexes fitting

1:14:49 ↗ in beautifully with their neighborhood

1:14:51 ↗ and um in isqua and uh we we do have a

1:14:54 ↗ lot of middle housing as has been

1:14:56 ↗ pointed out sort of scattered throughout

1:14:58 ↗ our

1:14:59 ↗ neighborhoods um I I agree with the

1:15:03 ↗ general concept that want to make it

1:15:05 ↗ easier to to make sure that we have

1:15:08 ↗ these smaller units um our housing

1:15:10 ↗ survey from many years back indicated

1:15:13 ↗ that uh there are a lot of single folks

1:15:15 ↗ or um couples that would like to have

1:15:17 ↗ options for a smaller unit than our

1:15:19 ↗ existing housing stock and so you know

1:15:21 ↗ moving that direction is is good for our

1:15:24 ↗ community and reducing red tape to that

1:15:27 ↗ end I think is good for the community

1:15:29 ↗ and also we have to to some degree we

1:15:31 ↗ have to comply with that um to meet the

1:15:34 ↗ the state regulations I I also agree

1:15:37 ↗ with increasing the um size of the

1:15:40 ↗ accessory dwelling unit I think the 1250

1:15:43 ↗ per foot seems about right um as as I

1:15:47 ↗ mentioned we did have a lot of

1:15:48 ↗ conversation about what was the right

1:15:50 ↗ level when this was discussed back in

1:15:53 ↗ 2018 and really wanting to make sure

1:15:55 ↗ that it was a number that uh that worked

1:16:00 ↗ for for uh folks and it seems like it's

1:16:04 ↗ maybe something that we could toy with

1:16:06 ↗ to try to make sure um to try to make

1:16:09 ↗ sure that we have a little bit more adus

1:16:10 ↗ since we aren't seeing we are seeing

1:16:12 ↗ more than some of our neighboring cities

1:16:13 ↗ but we're not seeing a huge number of

1:16:15 ↗ adus being built

1:16:18 ↗ um

1:16:20 ↗ and yeah and then I think the other

1:16:22 ↗ thing uh is this is all slow you know

1:16:27 ↗ the change that will come about from

1:16:28 ↗ these regulations is slow um we're

1:16:30 ↗ seeing some adus being built but not

1:16:32 ↗ very many if we make a change we will

1:16:35 ↗ see I think a small a small change and

1:16:38 ↗ all of this will take time um so I would

1:16:40 ↗ like to keep that in mind too I think we

1:16:42 ↗ can make some changes here and and it

1:16:45 ↗ will take a fair amount of time for the

1:16:48 ↗ market to catch up and for there to be

1:16:50 ↗ these houses built um and so to that end

1:16:53 ↗ I think we should we should try to make

1:16:55 ↗ the changes up front to to get the

1:16:58 ↗ housing Supply that we

1:17:01 ↗ want uh and I'll just mention too I

1:17:04 ↗ agree with the the constructing the

1:17:05 ↗ frontage because I think that's a an

1:17:08 ↗ additional um additional barrier to

1:17:12 ↗ having this midle housing

1:17:14 ↗ be all right those are my comments on

1:17:16 ↗ these three uh

1:17:19 ↗ that's um oh I see we're just doing the

1:17:22 ↗ first three um

1:17:25 ↗ yeah I think for the most part also

1:17:26 ↗ haven't heard anything that I disagree

1:17:28 ↗ with

1:17:30 ↗ um I would I don't know if I'm ready

1:17:34 ↗ to you know throw my steak in the ground

1:17:37 ↗ that that four units is the right um uh

1:17:40 ↗ number yet but I think it's definitely

1:17:42 ↗ worthy of of consideration

1:17:47 ↗ um at the end of the day it's two two

1:17:49 ↗ additional units and I it's completely

1:17:51 ↗ driven by the market so if the market

1:17:53 ↗ wanted wants to build that seems like

1:17:55 ↗ that's a benefit to the community so

1:17:57 ↗ again I'm interested in having that

1:17:58 ↗ conversation is not something I want to

1:17:59 ↗ rule out um for the Adu size I also

1:18:03 ↗ wanted to say um I think it should I

1:18:06 ↗ completely agree I think it should be

1:18:08 ↗ more than thousand um I

1:18:11 ↗ think saying 1250 or 12200 it could be

1:18:15 ↗ right but I also have no idea I would

1:18:17 ↗ like to know kind of more like what are

1:18:18 ↗ the need cases um for an Adu I think

1:18:23 ↗ most people in the community would think

1:18:24 ↗ of it has kind of this mother-in-law

1:18:26 ↗ unit that that can be small but that

1:18:28 ↗ also evolves um as the market has need

1:18:31 ↗ for new types of um Adu units um I think

1:18:36 ↗ one thing

1:18:37 ↗ um that might be a little

1:18:40 ↗ um different and I I actually can't

1:18:42 ↗ remember if it's it's different from

1:18:44 ↗ either of your comments but um I do

1:18:46 ↗ think we should at least for now

1:18:47 ↗ continue to wave fees uh impact fees on

1:18:50 ↗ adus um though I think the point is very

1:18:54 ↗ well taken that it could potentially

1:18:57 ↗ have an impact on increasing where we

1:19:00 ↗ see increased Adu development and not as

1:19:03 ↗ much middle Housing Development as we

1:19:05 ↗ might have wanted so

1:19:08 ↗ um with this and with pretty much

1:19:10 ↗ everything it probably is a good idea to

1:19:12 ↗ have some sort of check-in Point um be

1:19:15 ↗ able to analyze the policy and the use

1:19:17 ↗ cases of what's been happening in terms

1:19:18 ↗ of implementation out in the community

1:19:19 ↗ and then say do we need to adjust um but

1:19:22 ↗ I think as of this point um U is still

1:19:25 ↗ kind of an

1:19:26 ↗ attractive um option that then might

1:19:31 ↗ make other people consider middle

1:19:34 ↗ housing um elsewhere in the city so I

1:19:37 ↗ still think that there's value in um um

1:19:40 ↗ having as few barriers to Adu

1:19:42 ↗ development as possible

1:19:45 ↗ um com there but I it

1:19:58 ↗ yeah so I mean I guess from the first

1:19:59 ↗ three questions then I agree with the

1:20:01 ↗ direction that's already been provided

1:20:03 ↗ are we just doing the first three or

1:20:07 ↗ we I think we've we've done the first

1:20:10 ↗ three plus some comments on the on the

1:20:13 ↗ next ones but uh We've at least covered

1:20:15 ↗ the first three maybe could we go to the

1:20:18 ↗ next questions thank you

1:20:28 ↗ okay so we all I think we all agreed

1:20:30 ↗ that that we do uh we do recommend the

1:20:32 ↗ city continue to wave impact fees for

1:20:34 ↗ adus at this

1:20:35 ↗ time okay yes and

1:20:51 ↗ then go ahead um

1:21:00 ↗ for four um I think um council president

1:21:04 ↗ Walsh she made some good points about

1:21:07 ↗ um I mean at some point 280 us is is

1:21:11 ↗ very similar to Cottage um very s

1:21:14 ↗ similar to the kind of middle housing

1:21:16 ↗ that we're talking about um I don't

1:21:19 ↗ necessarily know how to feel about this

1:21:21 ↗ although I'm kind of leaning towards not

1:21:24 ↗ in including it um to achieve lot

1:21:26 ↗ density

1:21:28 ↗ um so that if the market wants to in the

1:21:32 ↗ community want to have more units on the

1:21:34 ↗ lot we should we shouldn't necessarily

1:21:36 ↗ be preventing that

1:21:42 ↗ um I don't know if I'm necessarily um

1:21:47 ↗ completely hold on that one um but I I I

1:21:51 ↗ guess for now where my thinking is is

1:21:53 ↗ that it shouldn't necessarily be used is

1:21:54 ↗ to achieve the lot density requirements

1:21:57 ↗ um for the critical area um I think it

1:22:00 ↗ well it needs to be the same as single

1:22:02 ↗ family housing and I think that I agree

1:22:05 ↗ with the planning policy commission

1:22:06 ↗ recommendation of um continuing to

1:22:09 ↗ follow critical area code and allowing

1:22:12 ↗ um missing housing or middle Housing

1:22:15 ↗ Development on these slots as much as

1:22:17 ↗ possible and then we answered the last

1:22:21 ↗ one um I guess just some other quick

1:22:25 ↗ comments that I written down too um that

1:22:28 ↗ I wanted to say um the feasibility study

1:22:32 ↗ was fascinating super helpful tool so

1:22:34 ↗ please pass along our thanks um super

1:22:37 ↗ interesting to explore the different

1:22:39 ↗ development ER eras of the city um kind

1:22:43 ↗ of the evolution of housing structure

1:22:45 ↗ and type throughout um and definitely

1:22:47 ↗ interesting to see that overlap of

1:22:49 ↗ critical area and building buildable

1:22:52 ↗ area and how much it's like 48% or

1:22:55 ↗ something is encumbered by um critical

1:22:58 ↗ area that anyways news to me very

1:23:00 ↗ interesting um I also want to thank

1:23:03 ↗ members of the community that

1:23:06 ↗ um participated um and provided us with

1:23:09 ↗ feedback

1:23:11 ↗ um it seemed like it was really full

1:23:14 ↗ spectrum of uh feedback on on missing

1:23:18 ↗ housing um the short responses were also

1:23:20 ↗ uh helpful but it seemed clear to me

1:23:22 ↗ that there wasn't really a consensus

1:23:24 ↗ amongst the community around um um

1:23:27 ↗ middle housing in general which I think

1:23:29 ↗ underscores how we'll need to have that

1:23:31 ↗ sort of check-in after the code has been

1:23:33 ↗ allowed to be implemented for some while

1:23:36 ↗ um or for some time uh to see how it's

1:23:38 ↗ working I'm not sure when exactly that

1:23:41 ↗ when that would look like because I

1:23:42 ↗ don't think we're anticipating this any

1:23:44 ↗ of this to happen overnight it could

1:23:45 ↗ take even longer than we think you said

1:23:46 ↗ something about like 5 to 10 years that

1:23:48 ↗ even seemed quick to me so um those are

1:23:52 ↗ just also some of my general thoughts

1:23:54 ↗ and I can come back to anything else if

1:23:57 ↗ we want to

1:24:02 ↗ discuss okay great so on the on number

1:24:07 ↗ four

1:24:08 ↗ um the just so we are clear the ppc's

1:24:11 ↗ recommendation was that adus should not

1:24:15 ↗ be exempt from lot density and should be

1:24:17 ↗ considered a unit so

1:24:20 ↗ adus uh should they they recommended

1:24:23 ↗ that the city allow adus to be used to

1:24:26 ↗ achieve but and you're you're

1:24:28 ↗ recommending

1:24:33 ↗ not are you on the same page with that

1:24:36 ↗ um I

1:24:38 ↗ think so my best scenario would be that

1:24:44 ↗ adus are considered a part of lot

1:24:47 ↗ density and we allow for

1:24:52 ↗ units because I think

1:24:55 ↗ think just streamlining out the concept

1:24:58 ↗ that an Adu is any different from a unit

1:25:02 ↗ um from my perspective just eases the

1:25:06 ↗ concept in everybody's

1:25:08 ↗ mind so that would be my preference if

1:25:11 ↗ we are going to stick to two

1:25:15 ↗ units then yeah I want to have adus not

1:25:20 ↗ be counted in lot density because that

1:25:23 ↗ basically achieves the same thing

1:25:26 ↗ um I just I I think it's a silly idea

1:25:29 ↗ that we have

1:25:31 ↗ to treat adus

1:25:34 ↗ differently um than just a unit no

1:25:39 ↗ matter what the form

1:25:44 ↗ is I think I'm a little confused so that

1:25:46 ↗ that would be considering that would

1:25:48 ↗ include them in in the lot density

1:25:52 ↗ calculation yeah so by preference would

1:25:55 ↗ be to allow four units on a lot whether

1:25:59 ↗ that gets accomplished by saying you can

1:26:04 ↗ have four units on a lot and adus count

1:26:07 ↗ as one of those

1:26:09 ↗ four

1:26:10 ↗ or we are saying you can have

1:26:15 ↗ two

1:26:17 ↗ units wait two units on a

1:26:20 ↗ lot and adus don't count so you could

1:26:23 ↗ really have

1:26:28 ↗ four okay but the four is counting the

1:26:31 ↗ two adus in your calculations in the

1:26:33 ↗ first one yeah the four would count adus

1:26:37 ↗ as part of

1:26:38 ↗ it okay

1:26:41 ↗ um I'm going to check in if that is a is

1:26:44 ↗ that a a workable um kind of

1:26:48 ↗ scenario from the planning

1:26:52 ↗ perspective I mean uh so under the allow

1:26:57 ↗ for is going above and beyond what the

1:26:59 ↗ state um bill is if that's where the

1:27:02 ↗ policy consensus is to go above and

1:27:05 ↗ allow more density then yes that concept

1:27:08 ↗ can work the the adus have a maximum

1:27:13 ↗ size limit so which is nice because

1:27:15 ↗ otherwise you get larger lot homes which

1:27:18 ↗ you doesn't solve your affordability

1:27:20 ↗ issue um either not necessarily that

1:27:23 ↗ adus will solve the housing problem

1:27:25 ↗ because some cities have seen those are

1:27:28 ↗ turning into short-term rentals and so

1:27:30 ↗ there's that aspect of it so there's no

1:27:32 ↗ one size fits all it's really uh we're

1:27:36 ↗ happy to provide pros and cons of both

1:27:38 ↗ the options you know if you want to

1:27:40 ↗ consider this is what the bill requires

1:27:43 ↗ us to do is just allow the middle

1:27:45 ↗ housing of two units per

1:27:47 ↗ lot the the ability of the adus is an

1:27:52 ↗ option for the community to consider

1:27:54 ↗ whether you want to count it or you

1:27:55 ↗ don't that's that's why we presented it

1:27:58 ↗ that way there's no right or wrong I

1:28:00 ↗ think to some extent it's hypothetical

1:28:04 ↗ because the size of the lot will really

1:28:05 ↗ determine how many you can fit in after

1:28:07 ↗ you take the parking into consideration

1:28:10 ↗ so but we

1:28:12 ↗ can analyze whatever you want us to to

1:28:18 ↗ present okay yeah I think the main

1:28:21 ↗ message is we want

1:28:23 ↗ to we want to be supportive of of having

1:28:26 ↗ missing middle housing types and we want

1:28:28 ↗ to have the flexibility to allow the

1:28:30 ↗ market to put the types of missing

1:28:33 ↗ middle housing on the appropriate lot

1:28:38 ↗ size right yeah and I guess I would say

1:28:41 ↗ if we're if we have a scenario where

1:28:44 ↗ we're saying okay two units are allowed

1:28:46 ↗ on any lot adus don't count as a

1:28:50 ↗ unit and so you can really end up with

1:28:52 ↗ that four scenario I

1:28:56 ↗ um we're in a worse situation as a

1:29:00 ↗ community

1:29:02 ↗ because then we're almost if a parcel

1:29:06 ↗ would allow for that many units we're

1:29:09 ↗ always going to get that

1:29:10 ↗ scenario which those don't have impact

1:29:17 ↗ fees but I honestly think if somebody

1:29:20 ↗ has

1:29:21 ↗ the money I guess I would say or the the

1:29:25 ↗ ability to build four

1:29:30 ↗ units that should you know if they're

1:29:33 ↗ not providing affordable housing that

1:29:35 ↗ that they should have to pay the impact

1:29:40 ↗ fees yeah that's why some of these are

1:29:42 ↗ intertwined because the impact fees

1:29:44 ↗ could you know incentivize one versus

1:29:47 ↗ the other issue uh the other practical

1:29:50 ↗ aspects of of this in isqua are really

1:29:54 ↗ on street parking you know you don't

1:29:56 ↗ have much in in certain neighborhoods

1:29:59 ↗ and and how and you have a you know

1:30:02 ↗ topography constraints and a and a

1:30:04 ↗ stream thing and you can't be really be

1:30:06 ↗ expanding your roads and so if you so

1:30:10 ↗ and but and there's no Transit so people

1:30:12 ↗ are still relying on their cars you know

1:30:14 ↗ there's one bus that takes you to

1:30:15 ↗ Seattle so I think there's just a

1:30:18 ↗ combination of issues that probably will

1:30:21 ↗ um majority of it being parking and and

1:30:24 ↗ and if you get four units in a lot and

1:30:26 ↗ you have to accommodate one parking

1:30:29 ↗ space

1:30:30 ↗ per you know per unit what happens if

1:30:34 ↗ there's no on street parking and you

1:30:35 ↗ have guests or you own two cars because

1:30:38 ↗ you're a two household person that on

1:30:41 ↗ car get so it's just you

1:30:45 ↗ know those are the and infrastructure

1:30:48 ↗ honestly I think um water sewer uh

1:30:53 ↗ connections and things like that will

1:30:55 ↗ also come into play uh if we get whes

1:30:57 ↗ scale development in some of the older

1:31:01 ↗ neighborhoods so between parking and

1:31:03 ↗ utilities are the more practical aspects

1:31:05 ↗ that we have to keep in mind so given

1:31:07 ↗ those we don't know how they'll play out

1:31:10 ↗ I think our recommendation would be we

1:31:12 ↗ start with what the law requires us to

1:31:14 ↗ do and then we can always go back and

1:31:17 ↗ increase if we want to but let's see how

1:31:20 ↗ it plays out a little bit more but if

1:31:23 ↗ you want us to go

1:31:24 ↗ you know four units instead of two units

1:31:27 ↗ we're happy to provide pros and cons for

1:31:30 ↗ a good policy discussion on

1:31:37 ↗ it okay do we want do we want to have a

1:31:40 ↗ an analysis of that with pros and

1:31:43 ↗ cons I mean I think it's certainly fine

1:31:48 ↗ it

1:31:49 ↗ yes though I would also say that in some

1:31:52 ↗ ways the middle housing

1:31:55 ↗ tour gave me some of that I mean just if

1:32:00 ↗ the concept is that a fourplex could fit

1:32:04 ↗ within the form of a single family

1:32:11 ↗ then yeah I I mean yes because there are

1:32:15 ↗ questions about parking and such and so

1:32:18 ↗ that therefore it's not like everywhere

1:32:20 ↗ right Oldtown isqua already has a single

1:32:22 ↗ family duplex Zone so we were ahead of

1:32:25 ↗ what the state was asking other

1:32:27 ↗ communities to do because we already

1:32:28 ↗ allowed duplexes in in the single family

1:32:31 ↗ Zone it doesn't work for every

1:32:33 ↗ neighborhood um because of topography

1:32:35 ↗ and other constraints and such so one

1:32:38 ↗ size fits all kind of becomes the

1:32:41 ↗ concern or a con of that approach so we

1:32:43 ↗ can lay it out if you want us

1:32:46 ↗ to to write it

1:32:51 ↗ up okay thank thank you I'm seeing head

1:32:55 ↗ nodding so I think I think we are

1:32:56 ↗ interested in in that okay um all right

1:33:00 ↗ I think we've answered all of these now

1:33:07 ↗ um oh okay

1:33:13 ↗ um right did you did you have additional

1:33:15 ↗ questions this was list of questions

1:33:24 ↗ um no these are all the questions there

1:33:26 ↗ was just one question the last question

1:33:28 ↗ was were there additional um items that

1:33:30 ↗ you wanted us to explore okay great

1:33:32 ↗ thank you um all right council president

1:33:35 ↗ was yeah so that was one of the things

1:33:39 ↗ that I kind of noted down

1:33:43 ↗ is what do we know of that limits you

1:33:47 ↗ know I if we make these changes what are

1:33:51 ↗ going to be the things that continue to

1:33:53 ↗ limit

1:33:54 ↗ middle housing so I think that um

1:33:57 ↗ commentary about well impervious surface

1:34:01 ↗ and water recharge requirements I know

1:34:04 ↗ that's a big study it's a big piece um

1:34:10 ↗ but honestly if we're still saying that

1:34:13 ↗ 50% of a lot has to be impervious

1:34:16 ↗ surface in certain areas that's going to

1:34:19 ↗ be the biggest limiter um so I would

1:34:23 ↗ really ask

1:34:24 ↗ that oh gosh uh we create a Bike Barn as

1:34:29 ↗ we did with Title 18 over what are the

1:34:32 ↗ other things that we know of that are

1:34:34 ↗ limiting factors you know whether that's

1:34:38 ↗ setbacks or lot size or some of the

1:34:42 ↗ things that I noted down during this

1:34:44 ↗ conversation was utility connection fees

1:34:48 ↗ pre-approved plans and short-term rental

1:34:52 ↗ regulations so

1:34:54 ↗ making sure that we're getting the most

1:34:57 ↗ out of this I think would be really

1:35:01 ↗ important um so I would love to know

1:35:04 ↗ what the planning staff since you guys

1:35:06 ↗ do this every day feels like the limits

1:35:10 ↗ are and obviously some of it's going to

1:35:12 ↗ be related to being able to get capital

1:35:15 ↗ and you know other things that maybe are

1:35:17 ↗ out of our hands as City policy makers

1:35:21 ↗ um but are important to know and

1:35:24 ↗ recognize what the limits are and what

1:35:26 ↗ the lovers are um the other thing I

1:35:30 ↗ would say

1:35:31 ↗ is I want to be very cognizant of

1:35:36 ↗ parking and the impact on residents when

1:35:39 ↗ I looked through the survey that was the

1:35:42 ↗ biggest concern that was brought up and

1:35:46 ↗ so yes the state has all of these

1:35:49 ↗ requirements but I didn't see any policy

1:35:52 ↗ questions in here

1:35:54 ↗ about how should we handle

1:35:57 ↗ parking you know should

1:36:00 ↗ we require it

1:36:03 ↗ as you know on an alley if it exists or

1:36:07 ↗ you know any of those other questions I

1:36:09 ↗ know during the middle housing tour you

1:36:12 ↗ had mentioned something about um

1:36:14 ↗ driveway lengths and so either having a

1:36:18 ↗ requirement that it be 4 feet so that

1:36:19 ↗ somebody doesn't stick out into the

1:36:21 ↗ right of way or 18 ft so that a full car

1:36:25 ↗ can be in the driveway so I would want

1:36:28 ↗ to make sure that we really are

1:36:30 ↗ thoughtful on what that is both in

1:36:34 ↗ balancing you know if we require parking

1:36:38 ↗ that in some ways on a unit means we

1:36:43 ↗ value housing for cars more than housing

1:36:47 ↗ for people in some ways um but we also

1:36:51 ↗ have to recognize that we do live in a

1:36:53 ↗ commity community that basically

1:36:55 ↗ requires a car um to get two places so I

1:37:00 ↗ would want to make sure that that's

1:37:01 ↗ front and center in some of our

1:37:03 ↗ conversations on this and I didn't see

1:37:05 ↗ that as much in this um just presenting

1:37:08 ↗ here's what the state requirement is but

1:37:10 ↗ not giving us options for how we can

1:37:13 ↗ make this the best for our residents um

1:37:17 ↗ so that would be important for

1:37:21 ↗ me those are kind of the notes I had

1:37:24 ↗ down so

1:37:30 ↗ yeah okay great thank you

1:37:34 ↗ umal did you have any additional things

1:37:36 ↗ that you wanted them to okay

1:37:39 ↗ great um yeah one comment uh one comment

1:37:43 ↗ and one question um I was actually

1:37:45 ↗ thinking of the same thing the last

1:37:46 ↗ question was are there any changes staff

1:37:49 ↗ should

1:37:50 ↗ consider my question was are there any

1:37:52 ↗ changes we should consider based on your

1:37:55 ↗ experience so um I also recognize we got

1:37:57 ↗ to get this done by June 2025 right so

1:38:00 ↗ um Dr Dolly I take to heart kind of what

1:38:02 ↗ you said maybe we do what the state has

1:38:05 ↗ required us to do first and um we have

1:38:08 ↗ conversations about where we can go

1:38:09 ↗ above and beyond with more depth um I

1:38:13 ↗ did want to ask um one question around

1:38:16 ↗ um would there be staff capacity as part

1:38:18 ↗ of this conversation to kind of generate

1:38:22 ↗ that at least list of Buck

1:38:24 ↗ of kind of areas where we could have

1:38:26 ↗ more conversation like some of the

1:38:27 ↗ things council president Walsh was just

1:38:29 ↗ talking about so we could decide as a

1:38:31 ↗ committee whether or not to like add

1:38:34 ↗ things to the Whiteboard uh or few

1:38:37 ↗ things

1:38:37 ↗ up um to either consider as part of this

1:38:41 ↗ or very soon afterwards um if the answer

1:38:44 ↗ is no I understand just because there's

1:38:47 ↗ a lot going on but but maybe we try to

1:38:49 ↗ have that conversation um after sometime

1:38:53 ↗ in Q3 2025 or something like that like

1:38:56 ↗ okay now we've done this here's are here

1:38:58 ↗ are the other opportunities where we

1:38:59 ↗ could go further um and when do you want

1:39:02 ↗ to have that conversation counselor that

1:39:04 ↗ so I guess that's kind of one of my

1:39:06 ↗ questions I want to leave you with um

1:39:08 ↗ the other way um um around next steps so

1:39:13 ↗ it seemed like PPC so staff is going to

1:39:15 ↗ go off now with all this um somewhat

1:39:18 ↗ contradictory but good feedback from

1:39:21 ↗ Council and draft the actual code

1:39:23 ↗ language right um and then it's going to

1:39:25 ↗ go to planning policy commission um and

1:39:28 ↗ I'm assuming a public hearing at

1:39:29 ↗ planning policy before coming back to

1:39:31 ↗ hopefully this committee I was wondering

1:39:32 ↗ how many touches we might have with it

1:39:35 ↗ at committee before it goes to the full

1:39:38 ↗ Council or if we've thought that far

1:39:40 ↗ yet

1:39:42 ↗ um you would get one more touch and it

1:39:46 ↗ would be after the um public hearing for

1:39:49 ↗ the planning policy

1:39:51 ↗ commission so I guess then my question

1:39:53 ↗ is do you think there might do you think

1:39:55 ↗ there would be any value in maybe us

1:39:56 ↗ having it

1:39:57 ↗ touch before the planning policy

1:40:00 ↗ commission hearing but because there are

1:40:02 ↗ at least one or two things where we've

1:40:05 ↗ provided feedback that were that was a

1:40:06 ↗ little different than planning policy

1:40:08 ↗ commission and I would hate to have it

1:40:10 ↗ go through the process have the public

1:40:12 ↗ hearing and then come to council where

1:40:14 ↗ we say actually maybe we should we

1:40:16 ↗ should make the some tweaks I know

1:40:18 ↗ technically we can although it always

1:40:20 ↗ just makes me feel kind of weird that

1:40:22 ↗ that we're doing this after public

1:40:23 ↗ public hearing so maybe then I guess my

1:40:25 ↗ feedback here might just be if we could

1:40:27 ↗ have some sort of even informational

1:40:29 ↗ touch before the PPC public hearing that

1:40:31 ↗ would be

1:40:38 ↗ awesome my my understanding is that if

1:40:41 ↗ they con if there's something that has

1:40:44 ↗ been considered um and it's it's been

1:40:46 ↗ considered up to the point of the public

1:40:48 ↗ hearing then the public hearing you know

1:40:50 ↗ covers that because it is one of the

1:40:52 ↗ things that's on the table and so we can

1:40:54 ↗ we as Council can then change you know

1:40:57 ↗ the parameters of what we adopt as long

1:40:59 ↗ as it

1:41:01 ↗ was so I I think as long as you know

1:41:04 ↗ we're I think as long as we've flagged

1:41:07 ↗ things like parking

1:41:11 ↗ um I think that's that's correct from a

1:41:16 ↗ procedural mam chair members of the

1:41:18 ↗ committee good evening um let us figure

1:41:21 ↗ out a way for an additional touch before

1:41:23 ↗ for the PPC public hearing and we can

1:41:26 ↗ talk with the committee chair about the

1:41:28 ↗ detail so we're not prepared tonight to

1:41:31 ↗ sort through the calendar but uh I think

1:41:33 ↗ we hear what you're saying um certainly

1:41:36 ↗ tile 18 other things that this committee

1:41:38 ↗ has had um that's off often a useful

1:41:41 ↗ opportunity so we let let us figure it

1:41:44 ↗ out and we'll we'll communicate with the

1:41:45 ↗ committee

1:41:49 ↗ chair okay okay great um so did you have

1:41:54 ↗ anything else that you wanted okay um

1:41:56 ↗ the one other thing um actually two

1:42:00 ↗ things that I um thought should be

1:42:03 ↗ considered one is

1:42:05 ↗ the amount of staff time if I it would

1:42:09 ↗ seem to me that if we are including uh

1:42:13 ↗ these missing middle housing types into

1:42:14 ↗ the same process as single family that's

1:42:17 ↗ um that's good from a from the staff

1:42:20 ↗ perspective there's a process that they

1:42:21 ↗ follow for multiple types of units so

1:42:24 ↗ it's streamlined um so just wanted to

1:42:26 ↗ check on that but I thought if there's

1:42:28 ↗ if there's exceptions or if there's some

1:42:30 ↗ um issue there that would be good to for

1:42:33 ↗ us to to know about and consider um and

1:42:36 ↗ then um the other thing that was uh

1:42:39 ↗ mentioned in public comment that I

1:42:41 ↗ wanted to flag is um around uh

1:42:47 ↗ affordable units and if there would

1:42:49 ↗ be I think I think it may not be I think

1:42:53 ↗ since we said we are already wanting to

1:42:55 ↗ wave impact fees and already not wanting

1:42:57 ↗ to require the frontage improvements Etc

1:43:01 ↗ um for missing middle in general but

1:43:03 ↗ making sure that if there are loow

1:43:04 ↗ income or affordable units um that they

1:43:07 ↗ are not additionally um burdens with

1:43:11 ↗ these additional fees and costs um so

1:43:14 ↗ basically how do we make sure

1:43:15 ↗ that if there is a developer that wants

1:43:18 ↗ to include affordable units that we are

1:43:21 ↗ uh incentivizing that as well because

1:43:23 ↗ because that is also something that we

1:43:24 ↗ have heard time and time again is

1:43:26 ↗ something we um are in need of in the

1:43:32 ↗ community that was it on my

1:43:35 ↗ list right

1:43:38 ↗ um any additional feedback on this

1:43:45 ↗ item okay um I think I think we have

1:43:49 ↗ concluded our feedback do you have what

1:43:52 ↗ you need from us on this let me just

1:43:55 ↗ quickly summarize so we want to make

1:43:57 ↗ sure we capture I took notes and so but

1:44:01 ↗ in terms of the six

1:44:03 ↗ questions uh applying the unit limit on

1:44:06 ↗ middle housing and multif family I think

1:44:08 ↗ that one was sort of a lot of discussion

1:44:11 ↗ but generally in support of or not in

1:44:14 ↗ support of allow uh having the unit

1:44:17 ↗ density is that landed on

1:44:21 ↗ that I think I think we are potentially

1:44:23 ↗ in favor of it being

1:44:28 ↗ four counted you would count an Adu

1:44:32 ↗ towards lot density so if there if a lot

1:44:34 ↗ was allowed four they only be allowed

1:44:37 ↗ four no additional

1:44:40 ↗ more let's make sure we talking the same

1:44:43 ↗ thing

1:44:44 ↗ so what I'm hearing you all to go above

1:44:47 ↗ and beyond at least you know not consens

1:44:51 ↗ not full consensus more information

1:44:53 ↗ inform needed perhaps but what this

1:44:56 ↗ question is getting at is you want to

1:44:59 ↗ keep the adus separate and just allow

1:45:01 ↗ what the bare minimum is you're not in

1:45:05 ↗ support of that you you you've I I heard

1:45:07 ↗ council member Hall saying he wants more

1:45:10 ↗ information and wants to think he's not

1:45:12 ↗ ready to say four is the right number at

1:45:14 ↗ this point I heard council member while

1:45:17 ↗ say she's you're more interested in

1:45:20 ↗ allowing for regardless whether it's Adu

1:45:23 ↗ or not and then council member

1:45:25 ↗ H supports that I I generally support

1:45:30 ↗ okay we're council member was is so to

1:45:36 ↗ to uh agree with the do not agree with

1:45:40 ↗ the approach of applying a unit limit on

1:45:42 ↗ middle

1:45:43 ↗ housing and one

1:45:46 ↗ maybe is that what we um sorry just a

1:45:49 ↗ clarifying so I thought the unit limit

1:45:51 ↗ question was about like the

1:45:54 ↗ lineation

1:45:55 ↗ between uh what's considered middle

1:45:57 ↗ housing and multif family housing so

1:46:00 ↗ like okay that one we debated whether

1:46:02 ↗ it's six or four is the break point okay

1:46:05 ↗ I'm mixing the the other question I

1:46:07 ↗ think for the first question we're all

1:46:08 ↗ in agreement I went to the number four I

1:46:11 ↗ think when in my summary correct you're

1:46:14 ↗ right uh the first one I think we

1:46:16 ↗ there's General consensus on drawing the

1:46:19 ↗ limit at four versus six there was a

1:46:23 ↗ discussion about cu the the model

1:46:25 ↗ ordinance is six but there was a debate

1:46:29 ↗ about whether we should put it at four

1:46:31 ↗ because that's what we

1:46:34 ↗ allow and I would say for me the

1:46:37 ↗ difference between four and six that six

1:46:42 ↗ to me seems more like a developer coming

1:46:46 ↗ in and we weren't picking that as one of

1:46:48 ↗ the um middle housing types exactly so

1:46:52 ↗ the only only way you would be able to

1:46:54 ↗ get six in this scenario would be with

1:46:59 ↗ affordable

1:47:04 ↗ housing yeah oh buying multiple lots and

1:47:07 ↗ putting it together yeah

1:47:10 ↗ um man you just confused it so much more

1:47:15 ↗ so so we'll go with the the definition

1:47:18 ↗ to be

1:47:19 ↗ four for Middle housing anything more

1:47:22 ↗ than four is multif family and therefore

1:47:24 ↗ will will trigger Frontage improvements

1:47:27 ↗ will not get waver from fees and such

1:47:30 ↗ because it becomes a larger thing and

1:47:32 ↗ for process it'll go to development

1:47:34 ↗ commission anything more than okay

1:47:37 ↗ sounds good uh land use process sorry I

1:47:40 ↗ think we I think

1:47:42 ↗ we're yeah sorry no I I didn't have any

1:47:45 ↗ problem with the six as the delineation

1:47:48 ↗ personally for that first question I

1:47:50 ↗ thought that was pretty straightforward

1:47:52 ↗ so it was trying to solve other problems

1:47:54 ↗ with the future questions which was

1:47:57 ↗ Frontage improvements do we want to wave

1:47:58 ↗ Frontage improvements with six units or

1:48:02 ↗ keep it to

1:48:04 ↗ four because we can't treat them

1:48:06 ↗ differently middle housing and single

1:48:09 ↗ family homes have to be treated the same

1:48:11 ↗ so if we Define middle housing to be six

1:48:14 ↗ then a sixplex doesn't have to do frage

1:48:17 ↗ Improvement on the same lot

1:48:21 ↗ okay right I think I think part of this

1:48:24 ↗ is also is the is there going to be a a

1:48:26 ↗ market

1:48:36 ↗ for okay so sort of split on six versus

1:48:40 ↗ four we can have a more deeper

1:48:42 ↗ discussion with PPC but the PPC

1:48:44 ↗ recommendation was six right no I think

1:48:47 ↗ staff oh they wanted staff was six they

1:48:50 ↗ said we were just taking what the

1:48:51 ↗ guidance from Commerce def was in

1:48:53 ↗ proposing that so there's no right or

1:48:55 ↗ wrong here yeah PBC was um in the same

1:48:59 ↗ situation where they could not

1:49:00 ↗ definitively say six was the number take

1:49:04 ↗ that one can't definitively

1:49:06 ↗ say six is the more discussion with bpc

1:49:10 ↗ on four versus 6 is where we landed

1:49:12 ↗ today this

1:49:14 ↗ fair and and what I would say is having

1:49:18 ↗ the discussion as it relates to you know

1:49:21 ↗ we've got six m middle housing types

1:49:23 ↗ that we've allowed that doesn't include

1:49:26 ↗ a sixplex

1:49:29 ↗ so where would a sixplex come into play

1:49:32 ↗ what would be the scenario that would

1:49:34 ↗ allow a sixplex and then have that

1:49:37 ↗ conversation about do we think about

1:49:39 ↗ that as middle housing or multif family

1:49:42 ↗ and I think that helps to kind of get a

1:49:46 ↗ better answer out of that question

1:49:49 ↗ okay the process I think we talked about

1:49:52 ↗ that I think we have good understanding

1:49:55 ↗ Frontage we talk about adus and lot

1:49:58 ↗ density now

1:50:01 ↗ we are not full consensus but um on that

1:50:05 ↗ one critical area code sounds like

1:50:08 ↗ there's consensus just treat them like

1:50:09 ↗ single

1:50:11 ↗ family and waving the impact fees is

1:50:15 ↗ continue to do that but the

1:50:17 ↗ cognizant of and and monitor it and come

1:50:21 ↗ back and see and and maybe potentially

1:50:23 ↗ look at what the fees might be for

1:50:25 ↗ single family versus Adu

1:50:28 ↗ have and I would say the the piece of

1:50:31 ↗ that that makes a difference for me is

1:50:35 ↗ an Adu has a size limitation and so I

1:50:38 ↗ guess I can be okay and the difference

1:50:40 ↗ between a 50% waved fee and 100% wave

1:50:44 ↗ fee isn't that big for the city but it's

1:50:48 ↗ very big for a user um so

1:50:53 ↗ yeah

1:50:55 ↗ okay and then for our last question what

1:50:58 ↗ else should we study or come back with

1:51:02 ↗ uh I heard creating a sidebar note

1:51:06 ↗ whiteboard whatever we want to call it

1:51:08 ↗ as these conversations occur things we

1:51:10 ↗ may need to monitor come back and

1:51:13 ↗ revisit and things of that nature um uh

1:51:17 ↗ we talked about the four versus six uh

1:51:21 ↗ more more discussion about that Adu size

1:51:25 ↗ going up to 12 you know increasing the

1:51:28 ↗ size but having a good basis of what

1:51:31 ↗ that upper size limit is going to be

1:51:34 ↗ that's

1:51:37 ↗ what St yeah and then I think parking

1:51:40 ↗ and affordability

1:51:43 ↗ correct sounds

1:51:46 ↗ good okay uh are we anything anything

1:51:51 ↗ else that we have

1:51:54 ↗ okay great thank you thank you for that

1:51:56 ↗ summary that was also helpful to hear

1:51:58 ↗ back um great so that was our only

1:52:02 ↗ [Music]

1:52:05 ↗ item do we have any announcements no

1:52:09 ↗ okay then there being no further

1:52:12 ↗ business this me meeting is adjourned at

1:52:14 ↗ 8:22 p.m. thank you all

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Victoria Hunt

Lindsey Walsh

Zach Hall

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.