← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Auto captions

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Title 18 Middle Housing Regulations COM 0086 3/3
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Title 18 Middle Housing Regulations COM 0086
45 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.5–43
Topics: HousingLand Use
Staff report:
Washington is experiencing a housing shortage and an even greater need for affordable housing. According to the Washington Department of Commerce, Washington will need more than one million homes in the next 20- years to meet the housing demand. To address this issue, in 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted multiple House Bills (HB) to increase housing affordability and promote greater housing diversity. HB 1110 and HB 2321, which addresses revisions to HB 1110, require jurisdictions across the state to adopt development regulations to allow greater density and more housing types in zones that allow single-family housing.
0:14 good evening welcome everyone to the
0:16 isqua city council Planning Development
0:18 and environment committee meeting of
0:20 Wednesday January 8th
0:22 2025 I am here this evening with council
0:25 president Walsh and council member Hall
0:27 and I am the chair council member hunt
0:31 um we have multiple opportunities for
0:33 public comment in this meeting this
0:36 evening we will have a general public
0:38 comment opportunity at the beginning of
0:40 the meeting and we will also have a
0:43 public comment opportunity after our
0:45 agenda item um and we have one regular
0:48 business agenda item this evening uh do
0:51 we have any members of the public that
0:53 are signed up for a general public
0:54 comment opportunity this evening clerk
0:59 uh yes do okay great well I will read
1:02 some uh guidance for our audience
1:05 comments public comments are an
1:07 important part of the public process we
1:08 take them very seriously and Factor them
1:10 into the decisions we make during
1:13 audience comments members of the public
1:14 are invited to address the council
1:16 regarding matters that are directly
1:17 related to City programs projects
1:19 services or events um except for public
1:22 hearing items quasi judicial items Campa
1:24 and campaign related matters um when you
1:28 are recognized please comments to our
1:31 whole committee here and while this is
1:33 not a question and answer session we
1:35 will contact you to follow up if needed
1:37 when recognize please unmute your
1:39 microphone and there is a microphone up
1:41 at the um front here and um for virtual
1:45 attendees please unmute your microphone
1:47 remotely and uh please state your name
1:50 address and relationship to the city
1:52 please speak clearly and pause
1:54 frequently and please limit your
1:55 comments to 5 minutes you're attending
1:57 virtually and do not respond after your
1:59 name or phone number is called or your
2:01 connection is lost the meeting will
2:03 proceed and you are encouraged to rejoin
2:05 the meeting if you are able written
2:07 comments can be submitted at any time to
2:09 city council at isqua
2:11 wa.gov um personal attacks obscene
2:13 language derogatory remarks and
2:15 disruptive behavior are not
2:19 permitted with that I will uh ask if the
2:22 city clerk could please call up our
2:24 first public comment chair hunt Connie
2:27 Marsh expressed the desire to address
2:29 the
2:30 thank you welcome
2:36 Connie hi my name's Connie msh and um
2:41 you've got a lot of information from me
2:42 this is the higher level bit where I
2:45 talk about process and uh how
2:51 information is supposed to go through
2:53 the
2:54 system and include Council or not so in
2:59 this situation
3:01 uh we just completed a comprehensive
3:02 plan that created a new series of
3:06 policies which I sent you all because I
3:08 need to hunt them down so I could review
3:10 them and what council is supposed to do
3:14 is Council is supposed to ensure that
3:17 the implementation that they are seeing
3:20 is in line with the policies that they
3:24 created you're not supposed to be
3:26 creating new policies at this point in
3:28 time because we just did that so when
3:31 looking at the tasks in front of you it
3:34 is okay is does this adhere to our
3:37 Council guidance that we created in the
3:40 comprehensive plan and then you go okay
3:42 well what does the community think about
3:45 the particular topics and so we present
3:47 an agenda item and it flows through the
3:51 process which in this case had some
3:54 early overarching Outreach to the public
3:57 which didn't talk about do we actually
3:59 want increased density it only said what
4:02 do you think about a spectrum and then
4:05 you know you have some
4:06 conversations and a package eventually
4:09 gets back to planning policy commission
4:12 that is supposed to already be within
4:15 our comprehensive plan guidance right
4:19 I'm not sure why this is coming to you
4:20 all again and I'm not sure why uh there
4:24 was such a direct direction from this
4:27 group back in November that that did was
4:30 not it's not really supported by our
4:33 comprehensive plan though that comp plan
4:37 had been voted on at that point in time
4:39 but now we're here again and you're
4:42 looking at potentially creating
4:44 direction to give back to planning
4:46 policy commission who is not supposed to
4:49 be being directed by city council at
4:51 this point in time they're supposed to
4:53 be dealing with the public process and
4:55 the community opinions on topics so when
4:59 someone with more Authority goes back to
5:01 a community board and says well this is
5:04 our opinion in advance that is chilling
5:07 the
5:08 conversation of that committee because
5:11 they're going well Council has already
5:13 made a
5:14 decision and so I would say that the
5:19 tone and the type of of
5:24 Direction needs to be set to not chill a
5:28 community convers ation because these
5:30 decisions are being made for our entire
5:34 Community they are not personal things
5:37 they are how do we make an awesome City
5:39 for the people who live here um and so I
5:46 don't think some of the direction from
5:47 the last meeting aderes to comp plan nor
5:50 do I think that it is a holistic
5:52 Community conversation at this point in
5:54 time because there's been a substantive
5:56 change in the
5:57 conversation and uh
6:00 there you go for that was comment number
6:03 one thank
6:05 you thank you Connie city clerk who is
6:08 our next
6:10 speaker chair hunt we had nobody else
6:13 sign up uh to speak and we have no
6:15 online attendees at the moment okay
6:18 thank you we do have a number of uh
6:20 members of the public in the audience
6:22 this evening does anyone in the audience
6:25 wish to speak on this uh General Public
6:28 opport public comment Unity before I
6:31 close this
6:35 section there there is one item and it
6:38 is uh Comm 0086 which is Title 18 middle
6:41 housing regulations there will be an
6:43 opportunity after that item's
6:45 presentation before our discussion to
6:47 discuss to make another comment on that
6:49 option um so I will with that I think I
6:53 will close public comments seeing no
6:55 members of the public that wish to
6:57 comment at this time
6:59 okay um and we will proceed to our next
7:02 item of business there are no uh minutes
7:06 that need to be approved at this meeting
7:08 so we will move into Comm 0086 Title 18
7:12 middle housing regulations and this will
7:14 be presented by Valerie Porter our
7:17 associate planner welcome
7:21 Valerie thank you good
7:25 evening all right before I get started I
7:28 just want to let you you all know that
7:30 there were some changes made to the um
7:33 presentation that was provided in the
7:35 packet so as you're if you're trying to
7:37 follow along there may be some changes
7:39 so I apologize in advance for any
7:41 confusion so the administration is
7:43 seeking your direction for three uh and
7:46 we're proposing three questions the
7:48 first question is related to lot density
7:50 should um the lot requirement go beyond
7:55 the state requirement of two dwelling
7:56 units per one lot or allow four dwelling
7:58 units per one lot without the affordable
8:01 housing requirement the second question
8:03 is related to Adu size should the Adu
8:06 size be increased from 1,000 s fet to
8:08 1250 and then the last question is um
8:12 asking if there's anything else PPC
8:14 should evaluate or uh provide a
8:17 recommendation on before it comes back
8:19 to you for a formal
8:22 recommendation so before I get into the
8:24 policy questions I just want to recap
8:26 what some of the topics that we were um
8:28 discussed at the last Mee last meeting
8:31 we covered a lot so I did pose about six
8:35 questions and so the first question was
8:37 asking how should the city Define middle
8:39 housing um you all agreed with the
8:41 planning policy commission and felt like
8:44 that cap for Middle housing should be
8:46 four so U Middle housing is defined um
8:49 multi-unit projects between two and four
8:52 units and multif family is five plus
8:56 units with House Bill 1110 um middle
8:59 housing projects cannot be more
9:01 restrictive than uh middle housing
9:04 projects cannot be more restrictive than
9:06 single family projects so the committee
9:08 agreed that um middle housing projects
9:10 should be exempt from obtaining a land
9:12 use permit similar to single family
9:14 homes and they should also be exempt
9:17 from um providing or constructing
9:19 Frontage
9:20 improvements with the middle housing
9:22 regulations there is an exemption for
9:24 lots that are impacted by critical areas
9:27 and so I did pose that question on
9:28 whether or not we should exempt those
9:30 lots and the committee agreed that we
9:32 should continue to allow those lots who
9:34 can um develop on them to develop but
9:37 apply the code uh the critical area code
9:39 how it is
9:42 today we also talked about um assessory
9:45 dwelling units the city had the ability
9:47 to determine how as um adus would be
9:51 count to towards lot density whether Adu
9:54 should just be outright allowed or
9:56 should they count towards the max um the
9:59 density just as long as that lot is um
10:02 complying with that Max requirement the
10:04 committee um sounds like agreed that Adu
10:07 should be counted towards lot
10:10 density and the last question that I
10:12 posed was around impact fees and whether
10:15 um impact fees should continue to be
10:17 waved as they are today and the
10:19 committee agreed that they
10:22 should again we had a a lot of a lot of
10:25 discussion and so some additional um
10:28 requests for information information um
10:30 came out of the last meeting the first
10:31 one was regarding parking and the second
10:35 one was again this um request to
10:37 understand the pros and cons of
10:39 increasing lot
10:41 density there was also a request for um
10:44 additional discussion around affordable
10:46 housing and then um during the public
10:49 comment there was a request to increase
10:50 the Adu size from 1,000 to 1250 and you
10:54 guys wanted to understand the pros and
10:55 cons of increasing the the size of the
10:58 adus and then um you also requested
11:01 staff to compile a list of barriers that
11:03 are preventing um middle
11:07 housing so before again we get into the
11:10 policy questions I just want to touch on
11:12 two topics one the um request for
11:14 additional parking and affordable
11:15 housing um the administration um
11:19 purposely did not provide um affordable
11:21 housing and um and parking um policy
11:24 questions um the one the first reason
11:27 for that was because in 2003 we updated
11:29 title 18 and so the parking code is um
11:33 has been updating and is in alignment
11:35 for the most part with um state
11:37 regulations we will be making some minor
11:39 tweaks to it but we feel like we don't
11:42 um need to make any major changes the
11:44 second reason is that last year the
11:46 administration initially proposed to
11:48 conduct two studies one for parking and
11:50 the second for inclusionary zoning
11:52 however due to budget issues those um um
11:56 those studies had to or projects had to
11:57 be cut the Administration believes that
12:00 thoughtful consideration and Analysis is
12:02 needed for these topics and so um uh
12:06 once we have the funding we will um
12:08 bring back um policy questions once
12:11 we've done some
12:13 analysis so the first question that I'm
12:15 posing tonight is should lot density be
12:18 increased Beyond State's requirement of
12:20 two dwelling units on one lot or allow
12:23 four dwelling units on one lot without
12:26 the affordable housing requirement so
12:29 again a reminder house bill levington um
12:32 determines lot density by a City's
12:34 population isqua falls into tier two and
12:37 so we required to allow two dwelling
12:40 units on one lot um with the exception
12:44 if a lot is within quarter mile walking
12:46 distance of a major Transit stop we're
12:48 required to allow um four units on one
12:51 lot and four units on one lot if one of
12:53 those units has been set aside as an
12:56 affordable housing
12:58 unit so if a property owner wanted to
13:00 construct middle housing on their lot
13:02 they have a few opt building housing
13:04 type options they can construct a duplex
13:07 Triplex corlex town home stack flats or
13:11 Cottage
13:15 housing so here is a map of the
13:19 um of the city showing um all sound
13:22 transit bus stops which the state
13:25 defines as major Transit stops this map
13:28 has changed from the last time you've
13:29 seen it and you'll notice that there are
13:31 additional um uh stops on this map the
13:36 reason for this change is that when the
13:38 administration wanted to understand um
13:41 what how the state was defining um major
13:44 Transit because as you can see this has
13:46 very big
13:47 implications so the administration does
13:50 not agree with how the state is defining
13:53 major Transit stops they are treating
13:55 express bus stops like a Transit Center
13:59 and it's also important to note again
14:01 all of these um lots that are within
14:04 these bubbles are not required to
14:05 provide parking so you're having lots
14:09 that have increased density that are not
14:12 intended or that the city did not intend
14:14 to have increased density and they're
14:16 not required to provide parking the
14:18 administration is very concerned about
14:20 this and especially again for those
14:23 areas but those areas that do not have
14:26 on street parking and so if they're the
14:28 developer chooses not to construct a
14:30 parking on site and there's no on street
14:33 parking option where those car is going
14:35 to go the administration is presenting
14:37 this information because we feel that
14:38 it's a concern and we want to bring it
14:39 to your
14:43 attention so based off the last um
14:46 conversation that we had regarding
14:47 middle housing we Define middle housing
14:50 as four units um two to four units and
14:53 so that streamlined the permitting
14:55 process so those projects are only
14:57 required to obtain a building permit
15:00 Lots 5 to 10 are required to obtain a
15:03 land use permit but it's reviewed
15:05 administratively so the decision maker
15:07 would be the CPD director projects um
15:10 with 11 units or more would um still
15:13 have to obtain a land use permit they
15:15 would have to hold a public hearing and
15:17 they would have to receive a decision um
15:19 from the development commission prior to
15:27 construction at the commit these request
15:29 the administration um explore two
15:31 options related to density the
15:33 administration recommends option one
15:35 which is to comply with state
15:37 requirements and allow two dwelling
15:38 units on one lot or four dwelling units
15:41 on one lot if um within a ma close to a
15:44 major Transit stop or if one affordable
15:46 unit um has been provided if this option
15:50 were to be adopted the city would likely
15:51 see an increase in accessory dwelling
15:53 units because one accessory dwelling
15:55 units are less costly to construct
15:58 compared to um primary units and House
16:01 Bill 1337 supersedes House Bill 1110 and
16:05 so instead of someone um being allowed
16:07 to have two units on a lot they would be
16:10 allowed to then construct
16:12 three also developers have a hard time
16:15 penciling out a project if there's an
16:16 affordable housing unit so likely the
16:19 affordable housing requirement May deter
16:21 some people from constructing that
16:22 fourth unit however if they are able to
16:25 construct it then we do get additional
16:28 affordable housing units for the city
16:30 the section op the second option is to
16:33 explore um four units on one lot without
16:36 the affordability requirements so just
16:38 outright allowing four units on one lot
16:40 now that doesn't mean that if a lot is
16:43 within a major Transit stop they have to
16:45 provide they don't have they do have to
16:46 provide parking they still are not
16:48 required to um provide parking on site
16:52 so they um the the pro of this um this
16:57 option would be we do get more housing
17:00 the con however would be um without an
17:03 affordable housing requirement the
17:05 likelihood of us getting affordable
17:07 housing is pretty slim also um this
17:11 option doesn't align with the city's
17:13 comprehensive plans goals and policies
17:15 of encouraging and promoting affordable
17:18 housing and dens the the increase in
17:22 density is seen as an incentive so if
17:24 the city wanted to treat the additional
17:27 um density as an incentive
17:29 and maybe come back and decide well we
17:31 do want to um afford apply this
17:33 affordability requirement later we
17:36 couldn't do that after we adopt these
17:38 regulations we would have to determine
17:40 come up with another incentive say
17:41 reduce parking for some Lots unless um a
17:47 lot of the Lots um are not able to AC a
17:50 lot of the single family lots are not
17:52 able to accom um accommodate four units
17:54 along with the associated infrastructure
17:56 driveway parking utilities
18:00 walkways so to kind of expand on this um
18:04 this point I would like to
18:07 um uh present a couple of case studies
18:10 but before I do that I want to kind of
18:11 explain buildable area buildable area is
18:15 determined by zoning standards so that's
18:17 one your building height which is again
18:19 the height of the building um building
18:21 setbacks which is the distance from your
18:23 property line to the face of your
18:25 building and then third You LP coverage
18:28 which is how much of the lot is covered
18:29 by impervious surface on this image
18:32 you'll see a dotted line behind um
18:34 around the building the dotted line is
18:37 um the buildable
18:40 area so the first um case study I'm
18:43 going to show is a lot that's um located
18:45 within the single family duplex area so
18:48 these are actual Lots we're not showing
18:51 exactly where
18:53 but we wanted you to get a flavor for
18:56 what have something realistic
18:59 so it's also worth noting that all of
19:01 the case studies except for one are
19:03 showing Lots with existing homes as we
19:05 believe again adus are most likely going
19:07 to be um created other than demoting the
19:10 home and building new
19:11 structures and so for the first one it's
19:15 single family duplex so single family
19:17 duplex has a minimum lot size of 6,000
19:19 square fet and the lot may not cover
19:22 more than 50% of that lot the front set
19:25 back is 10 the side setbacks are six and
19:28 the rear re set packs are 10 excuse
19:37 me as you can see with this first case
19:39 study there's a primary home and the um
19:43 with the addition of two attached adus
19:47 the new the additions are um in Orange
19:51 and you can see that this 6000 foot
19:53 lunch L lot is pretty crunch for space
19:56 with a primary home a
19:59 450 um square foot Adu that's over the
20:03 existing garage and a 1,000 sq foot
20:06 attached Adu along with the parking and
20:09 walkways So based off the zoning
20:11 standards this slot would not be able to
20:13 accommodate a fourth unit or fourth
20:16 detach unit um as this lot is already at
20:19 Max Capacity for lot
20:22 coverage do you prefer that we hold our
20:25 questions until the end or should we ask
20:27 questions as you can ask questions if it
20:29 helps okay um so for for this example
20:33 this is under current code that it would
20:35 not accommodate um and under the
20:38 proposed code change as well under both
20:41 circumstances this would not allow for
20:43 four units correct okay thank
20:47 you and then also just to clarify this
20:50 these examples are all assuming no
20:51 critical area impacts right anything
20:53 right yes
20:57 okay all
20:59 right okay the the next few um case
21:02 studies are going to be um located
21:04 within the single family suburban area
21:06 and so this Zone has a minimum lot size
21:09 of 9600 Square ft the Lots cannot um go
21:12 over a 40% lot coverage the front setb
21:16 is 20 fet the side setbacks are eight
21:18 and the rear setbacks are
21:21 10 so for this first slot this is a
21:24 primary home with an a a a a garage
21:29 conversion so they had an existing
21:30 garage they converted it to an Adu and
21:33 then they de um constructed a detached
21:36 Adu so this is a 12,000 foot lot um The
21:41 Proposal again cannot exceed 40 sare
21:43 feet 40% of the lot and so that's 4,800
21:46 Square F feet and so this proposal is
21:49 actually covering close to
21:51 32% um again creating a fourth unit is
21:55 doable because this lot has a little bit
21:57 more space but you can see it's going to
21:59 be a challenge you're going to have to
22:00 get creative with your design um in
22:02 order to get a a detach unit um a
22:06 walkway and another parking stall um on
22:10 the um there was also a request to kind
22:13 of speak to unil lot subdivisions or
22:16 subdivisions and for a lot like this if
22:19 someone wanted to come in and um create
22:22 a second lot they could do that by
22:25 create or utilizing the unit lot
22:27 subdivision provision
22:29 which basically allow someone to create
22:30 a new lot but the uh zoning standards
22:33 that we're talking about the um lot side
22:36 or uh setbacks would not apply to the
22:38 individual Lots but to the parent Lots
22:41 before it was subdivided so if someone
22:45 had had the ability to do four units on
22:47 the lot they could do that and have zero
22:49 lot lines basically having um the lot
22:52 line down the wall so we added this in
22:56 our code um last year with the title
23:02 update the next case study is showing a
23:05 primary home again a garage conversion
23:08 and an attached Adu on the backside
23:12 again this lot cannot exceed 40% of um
23:15 the lot coverage and is currently at um
23:18 30 so again there's um a little bit more
23:22 wiggle room but having a fourth detach
23:25 structure on this slot um will be a CH
23:28 challenge um in addition to having in
23:31 parking utilities on the other um
23:33 supported
23:36 infrastructure so here is a lot that's
23:38 over 15,000 square ft the Matt's slot
23:41 coverage is um a little bit over 6,200
23:44 and this proposal is showing four um
23:47 detached Cottages so two at600 square F
23:50 feet and two at 1,000 square feet um the
23:53 lot is also providing the required
23:56 parking um for each lot so for for
23:58 parking stalls um this lot coverage is
24:02 um 36 and again the max is 40 um it's
24:06 also worth mentioning with cottage
24:08 housing um there's going to be a um open
24:12 space like a Central Plaza requirement
24:14 which is why um there's so much space so
24:17 for those who are like well just build
24:18 in the middle no you can't there's going
24:20 to be a a an open space
24:24 requirement so again the first question
24:26 is should lot density be increased on
24:28 the state's requirement of two two
24:30 dwelling units on one lot or allow four
24:33 dwelling units on one lot without the
24:35 affordable housing
24:37 requirement the second question that I'm
24:39 going to Poe tonight is should the
24:41 maximum size of the Adu be increased
24:43 from 1,000 square feet to
24:46 1250 so accessory doying units are
24:48 intended to be um subordinate they're
24:52 meant to supplement the primary unit so
24:54 they're meant to be small independent
24:55 living spaces so to und understand the
24:58 size of the unit I thought it'd be a
25:00 good idea for you to see the layout of
25:03 um some units so you can understand what
25:05 does you know 1,000 sare fet get you
25:08 what does 1250 get you so the I have um
25:11 the following are layouts of Apartments
25:14 but they're comparable because again
25:16 they show Independent
25:18 Living the first is of a three bedroom
25:22 two bath unit um located within the
25:25 Discovery Heights development as you can
25:28 see this develop has um three bedrooms
25:32 um varying size but pretty decent you
25:34 also get two full baths a living a
25:37 kitchen area and a dining area and the
25:40 square footage on this one is
25:43 1,297 I know that's a little bit over
25:46 what we um The Proposal but I think you
25:49 kind of get the idea of that this is
25:51 more re
25:54 bedroom the second um layout is of uh a
25:58 two bedroom two bath um uh apartment in
26:01 the Revel isqua apartment
26:04 and excuse me again you get two bedrooms
26:08 um the main bedroom is um a little bit
26:11 over 200 square ft and the second
26:13 bedroom is a little bit over 100 square
26:16 ft you get two full bath a living in a
26:19 kitchen the third unit is a two bedroom
26:22 one bath which is 866 Square F Feet
26:26 Again pretty sizable units one full bath
26:29 living in a kitchen
26:31 area and then the last is Again part of
26:34 the Revel isqua um development and
26:36 that's one bedroom one bath which is 831
26:39 s ft and the bedroom is about 150
26:45 ft so you can see that the 1,000 square
26:50 foot um requirement was based off of a
26:52 two-bedroom um layout which seems to be
26:56 more um comparable to an an accessory
26:59 versus the primary so if the size of the
27:01 adus were to increase they could this
27:03 could be um a more of a housing option
27:07 for um a larger demographic say like a
27:09 smaller home um but also increasing the
27:12 size of the ads will also encourage you
27:15 know more development but then you start
27:17 to um possibly see developers um treat
27:22 uh primary units like adus because they
27:24 start to get comparable in size so if
27:26 you again look remember that um Cottage
27:29 development there was two 1,000 foot
27:32 units and two 1600 foot units so if
27:35 someone were to come in they could say
27:38 um well not in that case exactly because
27:41 again they have a affordability or a
27:44 open space requirement but a similar
27:45 project they could come in and say I
27:48 have um instead of four primary units
27:51 two units and two a to use and so the
27:54 two units would be um not required to um
27:57 have impact
28:01 fees so it's Al always good to
28:03 understand what other C cities are doing
28:06 however um a lot of the other cities are
28:08 in the same boat that we are and so some
28:10 of these regulations are subject to
28:12 change um come June but if uh we are a
28:15 tier 2 City so we're similar to Redmond
28:18 samam Shoreline be B and Lynwood and as
28:21 you can see the the dimensions are all
28:24 over it's from 8 800 square fet to 1500
28:27 square ft
28:28 so um but we are closer to toage which
28:32 is our neighboring
28:34 City so again the second question is
28:37 should the maximum size of the Adu be
28:39 increased from 1,000 square fet to 1,250
28:43 sare
28:45 fet so again there was a request to
28:48 understand what barriers
28:51 yeah sorry just to clarify so in the
28:53 memo there was something too about how
28:56 the administration was maybe propos in
28:58 something around 25% like ad 25% less
29:02 size than the primary structure correct
29:04 stand on
29:05 that
29:07 so um to try to um avoid folks coming in
29:12 saying that oh we have um we have we're
29:16 proposing for you know primary but
29:18 really they're too adus we would impose
29:21 a requirement that states that your the
29:23 adus have to be 25% less than the
29:27 primary Mar unit to again to create to
29:30 try to make sure that the um adus are
29:33 smaller um we would also try to um
29:37 address the fact that you know a
29:39 property owner just maybe has a basement
29:41 and they want to you know convert it for
29:44 an elderly parent so we would then say
29:47 you know whatever the size of that
29:49 basement would be allowed just as long
29:51 as you don't expand the the building
29:53 footprint
30:02 okay so there was a request from um from
30:06 staff for staff to create a list of
30:08 barriers and so these are a list of
30:10 barriers that are covered in the
30:11 municipal code so the first barrier is
30:14 the critical areas a large portion of
30:16 the city is impacted by critical areas
30:19 and this does impact developable areas
30:21 um however there isn't much that we can
30:23 do with this the critical areas are
30:26 where they are we just need to make sure
30:27 that that we're not impacting those
30:29 critical areas another barrier um like I
30:32 presented with the case studies um are
30:35 um as the zoning standards as it does
30:38 impact buildable area um however the
30:40 administration is not proposing to make
30:42 any changes at this
30:44 time another barrier are utilities um
30:47 constructing utilities is a significant
30:50 cost um just I think creating a
30:54 meter not my a expertise but um creat
30:58 um a connection could between could be
31:01 between 20 to
31:03 $40,000 so that is a significant impact
31:07 and then also um some developed for
31:09 subed impact fees are um are
31:13 high so again um the administration is
31:16 seeking Direction um on lot density the
31:20 size of the accessory dwelling units and
31:22 then we also want to understand prior to
31:24 PPC making a formal recommendation on
31:26 proposed code amendments is there
31:28 anything else PPC should evaluate and
31:31 and provide a recommendation
31:33 on and at this time I will take
31:38 questions thank you so much right we
31:41 will move into committee
31:44 questions council president Walsh thank
31:47 you so looking over those examples it
31:50 seems like the
31:52 biggest piece the biggest barrier to
31:56 Future development is the impervious
31:58 surface slot coverage so can you explain
32:01 a little bit about why the
32:03 administration isn't looking to address
32:06 that and the impacts that it has on
32:09 things like water recharge and other
32:11 areas that would make it a more complex
32:14 conversation yeah like you said um it
32:17 has Ripple effects it impacts um store
32:19 water storm water so we would have to
32:21 have storm water infrastructure in
32:22 places at certain areas um uh and every
32:28 zone is different like there's parking
32:31 or um critical recharge areas in some
32:33 zones but not in others and so it just
32:35 requires a little bit more time um than
32:38 we can dedicate because again we have
32:40 this requirement of June 2025 that we're
32:43 we're up
32:45 against and then you mentioned as a con
32:49 that if there if the lot is small enough
32:54 or has an impervious surface requirement
32:57 that that you know only three or only
33:00 two units would be built what do you
33:03 mean by Con on that I I see that as more
33:06 of a
33:08 like regulation requirement um that just
33:12 says this lot might only allow two that
33:15 lot might allow four this lot much like
33:18 the critical areas might only allow two
33:22 so was that a con or how do you it's a
33:25 con in the context if your con is your
33:27 goal if it's a con if your goal is to
33:29 increase lot density to four because you
33:31 can't get that fourth unit but like you
33:34 said the zoning um uh standards are
33:36 doing what they're doing which is
33:38 keeping the development sizable into the
33:41 appropriate
33:52 scale all right I do have a a couple
33:55 questions um would you be able to back
33:58 to the slide with the um
34:00 proposed 4unit option and the
34:08 alternative thank
34:12 you
34:15 that um it had side by side comparison I
34:19 believe it was a side by side oh of the
34:21 different options
34:24 yes this guy yes okay so um um the
34:28 proposed uh when you were when you were
34:32 walking through the different examples
34:34 those
34:34 were um you were speaking to what would
34:38 be allowed under a current code and then
34:39 what was under the proposed code and the
34:41 proposed code is what is recommended by
34:45 the administration at this time is that
34:46 all correct so the the zoning standards
34:50 are what they are today again we're not
34:53 changing them the last example of The
34:55 Cottage House the cottage well all of
34:57 the examples um would not be allowed
34:59 today because today you're only allowed
35:01 18 Adu so it's applying the current
35:05 standards with this new
35:07 regulation okay and the word proposed
35:10 that is the administration's
35:13 proposed choice for the for
35:16 unit option oh the administration is um
35:20 recommending option
35:21 one aligning with state
35:24 requirements okay
35:28 so uh the wording proposed what does
35:31 that indicate in this context then oh
35:35 we're we're exploring option the four
35:38 units on one lot that's why it's
35:40 proposed it's not an actual requirement
35:44 okay all right um thank you so when you
35:47 were looking at um moving on to
35:51 the uh Adu size um options when you were
35:57 talking about
35:58 uh Rebel um I just wanted to clarify
36:01 that is a independent senior living
36:05 um housing that is in isqua currently
36:08 correct okay yes um I just mentioned
36:11 that because one of our one of our
36:13 reasons for exploring this was we did
36:14 hear from folks that wanted to have um
36:17 support for seniors within um within an
36:21 Adu and and that our current
36:23 requirements did not allow for that so
36:25 um the two bedroom units are interesting
36:28 in that
36:29 context um and
36:32 then okay um one more question on the
36:34 adus you mentioned that
36:38 um the uh in your comments I think you
36:43 said that adus are more likely to be
36:46 built um rather than demolishing an
36:48 existing single family home and building
36:49 two units um I believe that in our last
36:53 discussion on this topic you also spoke
36:56 to the number of um the number of adus
37:01 that have been built outside of
37:03 development units and uh sorry outside
37:06 of development agreements and that it's
37:07 quite small um so I wondered if you
37:10 could give us a quick overview of that I
37:12 believe
37:13 it's a low number of um folks that have
37:17 used the current regulations to build
37:19 adus which has been in place for a
37:20 number of years wonder if you could go
37:22 over that yeah um unfortunately I don't
37:25 remember off the top of my head I
37:27 believe believe um Stephen was able to
37:29 assist me with that um I know he's
37:31 online I'm going to put him on the fot
37:33 and see if he can provide that
37:34 information again for
37:43 us good evening
37:46 everyone uh assistant planning director
37:49 with CPD so I'm looking through my notes
37:52 on last time because I don't have the
37:53 number off the top of my head if you can
37:54 give me a minute I can um help answer
37:57 that question
38:00 okay um I just looked it up if it's
38:03 helpful that's great uh 82 is what was
38:06 listed in the housing report card there
38:08 have been a total of 82 built across the
38:11 city okay and those
38:13 include those are including development
38:16 agreement oh that's true that's
38:18 including development agreements good
38:20 point
38:24 yeah okay all right um
38:29 thank you yes if uh Stephen if you are
38:32 able to find the number that are
38:33 developed after we adopted those
38:35 regulations which were intended to
38:37 incentivize or make it easier for um for
38:41 folks to choose that option to develop
38:43 adus that would also be helpful um and
38:47 uh those are those are my questions at
38:49 this time
38:51 Hall um well thank you very much for
38:54 answering some of my kind of clarifying
38:55 questions over email I appreciate that I
38:57 think that this kind of exercise of pros
39:00 and cons has also been really helpful in
39:02 kind of understanding in chewing on
39:04 these policy issues a little bit and
39:06 will be helpful to PPC as as they chew
39:08 on it as well um I think the
39:11 administration's made really compelling
39:13 points um I just keep coming back to one
39:16 question and maybe it's more of a policy
39:18 question for us to chew on but I'd be
39:20 curious if the Administration has any
39:22 thoughts about how we should be thinking
39:24 about the concern around infrastru
39:27 structure impacts and timing that you
39:30 know when these bills were passed in the
39:31 state there was a lot of worry
39:35 that things like infill would happen
39:38 overnight which obviously isn't going to
39:39 happen it's going to be many many years
39:41 decades sometimes so how should we
39:43 really be thinking about the concern
39:45 around infrastructure improvements when
39:47 over time these things will kind of be
39:49 happening on their own as as infill
39:52 starts to come up very slowly in
39:55 neighborhoods if you have any thoughts
39:57 anyone on staff if not maybe it's
39:58 something we should chew
40:05 on good evening committee members it's a
40:07 good point um I think um as the city
40:11 looks at um sewer plans water plans you
40:15 know all of that uh we'll factor that in
40:18 in terms of a certain percentage um what
40:21 the market will deliver is still you
40:24 know you don't want to plan for 100%
40:26 everyone will put in two units and
40:29 therefore we need to upssize our sewer
40:31 line by th thousands of you know
40:35 millions of dollars and so um obviously
40:38 that will be a very balanced approach of
40:41 what we see the market delivering how
40:43 much we think is going to come we did
40:46 some of that exercise with the Eis for
40:48 the comprehensive plan because we did
40:50 assume some growth outside of certain
40:53 areas in response to these two house
40:55 bills um but again we were picking a
40:58 number now with time and market and
41:02 forces will will learn more about how
41:04 soon it happens but you're absolutely
41:06 right it's not going to happen overnight
41:08 uh some of the states that have done
41:10 similar legislation and implementation
41:12 it's you know the results of they point
41:15 to anything it's it's slow um but over a
41:18 long period of time we'll just have to
41:21 keep keep at it through the
41:22 comprehensive planning
41:24 process it's no no right answer
41:27 at this
41:37 point I think I have I think I have
41:39 another question not a followup thank
41:41 you that was excellent
41:44 um chair hunt you had brought this up
41:46 too the how the Adu and actually I think
41:48 you brought up the last committee
41:49 meeting like we had wanted to explore
41:52 what it would look like the pros and
41:53 cons to increase the size for adus
41:56 because we had heard this call for
41:59 people wanting inhome care and having an
42:01 inhome care provider to live inside um
42:04 with someone who's Aging in place um now
42:07 you had the example of kind of like a
42:08 basement like that could that could be
42:10 one of the ways that were flexible um
42:13 and then the proposal of having it
42:16 25% um less than the primary structure I
42:21 guess keeping it at a th000 square feet
42:24 it seemed like there was a pretty um
42:28 the gentleman who came and talked to us
42:29 said that that just wouldn't be possible
42:32 to have um the space that was necessary
42:35 for um people who are aging in place and
42:37 in home care and whatever kind of
42:39 services or structure that they need
42:41 inside the home how do we avoid some of
42:45 the
42:46 challenges between differentiating
42:48 between primary structures and adus that
42:51 you've highlighted pretty well but also
42:53 provide flexibility for this option for
42:56 aging in place in our
42:59 community guess I'm also just curious on
43:01 your thoughts on that because that's
43:03 kind of the primary thing I keep going
43:04 back to is you you've made very
43:06 compelling points for why maybe a th000
43:09 square feet is the right number or
43:10 something around there but if that's not
43:12 going to work for the market for people
43:14 to be able to stay in place and have
43:15 inhome Care Living inside I'd like to
43:18 explore how we how we create kind of
43:21 flexibility en code for that and maybe
43:23 that actually maybe the question is is
43:24 that something PPC should on further but
43:29 if you have any thoughts I'd love to
43:30 hear it as
43:31 well um so of as a current planner um I
43:35 haven't heard very many people saying
43:38 that the thousand square feet um
43:40 requirement is hindering them from doing
43:42 whatever or for creating an additional
43:44 unit for elderly parent or for their um
43:48 kids that you know come back from
43:49 college where they just need a little
43:50 bit of space so um but in the case for
43:54 the um uh the uh
43:58 I think it was the caretaker there is a
44:00 requirement that if you have um uh group
44:05 of disabled folks you must have a space
44:07 for the caretaker now there are no
44:10 requirements regarding um you know what
44:13 that space um the size of that space
44:15 should be it's just saying that you must
44:17 provide one so I think um I don't want
44:20 to speak for that person but it could be
44:21 on what they think a caretaker would
44:23 want or to um um make it appealing for
44:27 to take that job so you know you have a
44:30 your own unit as you're caring for
44:33 someone else so um I don't know if I've
44:36 spoken to your question or
44:38 not well a little bit and it's
44:40 definitely helpful to understand kind of
44:42 what are the use cases that you're
44:43 hearing about for adus and is a th000
44:46 square feet hindering that or not so it
44:48 sounds like maybe that's not something
44:49 at least right now in this moment that
44:52 is a problem that's showing up in yeah I
44:55 haven't heard a a large number now again
44:57 you'll always have a couple of people
44:58 who want a little bit more space but for
45:02 um the number of you know folks that
45:04 call or project that we've seen um that
45:07 hasn't deterred people from
45:17 creating do we have any other questions
45:19 at this time
45:21 okay all right I think at this time then
45:24 there being no questions at this time we
45:27 we will move into our um public comment
45:30 opportunity and so these will be
45:33 comments that are specifically on the
45:35 title 18 middle housing regulations Comm
45:38 0086 the same um the same guidance that
45:41 I read at the beginning of the meeting
45:43 does apply to this opportunity um so I
45:46 will check in with the city clerk if
45:48 there are any members of the community
45:49 that would like to speak on this
45:53 item uh well chair hunt there's no
45:56 online attend but I'm certain we have
45:59 folks in the room nobody has signed up
46:01 all right uh so okay nobody has signed
46:04 up though um on the second item all
46:06 right we don't have sign up for that
46:08 thank you are there any members of the
46:10 community um in council chambers that
46:13 would like to speak on this
46:16 item see one hand two hands um if you
46:22 could please approach the podium and
46:23 give your name uh address relationships
46:26 to the city and your comments thank you
46:29 much good day everyone I'm Mark I'm an
46:32 isqua resident and I just I just want a
46:36 clarification is the
46:41 current current setting that you can add
46:44 one
46:45 Adu and they want to increase it to two
46:48 or larger is that the
46:50 understanding okay and also what what
46:55 are the definitions of primary versus
46:59 Adu as I mean is it because you're
47:02 saying it can't be larger than the
47:04 primary is it is it what's existing and
47:07 what's being built or is it the owner
47:09 where they live just looking for
47:11 clarification at this time uh we do not
47:14 do question and answer but you're
47:15 welcome to give your comments on any of
47:17 the items and then um Council can
47:19 discuss um the the options that were
47:22 before us but we don't um do question
47:24 and answer at this point this is for
47:25 public comments
47:33 apologies okay thank you um are there
47:36 any other members of the Comm that would
47:38 like to speak yes please approach the
47:40 podium thank
47:42 you hello I'm Kim enfinger my address is
47:45 365 Southeast Bush Oldtown so I'm a
47:49 owner property owner and I wanted to
47:51 just for the record to speak in
47:53 opposition of increasing the lot density
47:56 for Oldtown specifically beyond the
47:59 state's requirement um but in support of
48:01 increasing the maximum size of adus from
48:04 1,000 to
48:09 1250 thank you very
48:12 much we do have a a number of other
48:15 folks in the council chambers would
48:18 anyone else like to speak on this
48:21 item Anie welcome
48:31 all right Connie Marsh again
48:38 um so in reading the comprehensive plan
48:42 it says we want a pedestrian oriented
48:45 town so all infill development will uh
48:50 enhance The
48:53 Pedestrian movement and
48:55 Mobility so when you go back to the
48:58 Assumption from the last meeting that uh
49:04 two units or four units even would not
49:07 have to do Frontage improvements
49:10 basically that is not creating a
49:12 sidewalk and so if our comprehensive
49:15 plan says that that is the case the
49:18 question really should be should one
49:21 house do Frontage improvements because
49:24 that's what our comp plan policy says
49:27 not should we exempt the other houses
49:31 from having to do it because we're
49:33 trying to make a walkable City it's
49:36 everywhere the other thing is we are
49:38 supposed to be putting our density where
49:42 we have Transit and
49:45 mobility and uh in this situation our
49:50 Central isqua plan is the place that
49:52 actually has Transit and the majority of
49:54 the sidewalks isqua Highlands has that
49:57 built in callus for example does not
49:59 squawk does not then it says we are
50:03 supposed to try to put our density in
50:07 places that is most easily efficiently
50:10 effectively it changes its words served
50:13 by its utilities and infrastructure so
50:17 if you say and I I believe that the
50:21 state was poolish and saying that you
50:24 should put two if you decide that you
50:26 want to spread this density out two but
50:30 worse four in far-fetched places with
50:33 this within this city even over time you
50:36 are going to be looking when we don't
50:39 have the budget to even do what we have
50:40 to do when we're firing people now and
50:42 we don't see a pathway to more income
50:45 you're going to have to figure out how
50:47 to pay and if you're exempting the
50:50 impact fees for your adus and
50:53 potentially for the your other things
50:56 you are not getting the money and the
50:58 people who are having to pay are the
51:00 people who live here
51:02 already and you're increasing their
51:05 costs to have to live in the city of
51:07 isqua which goes against the
51:08 comprehensive plan saying that we're
51:10 supposed to be creating aordable housing
51:13 it doesn't really talk about the
51:16 affordability of housing but I expect
51:18 the people are going to say enough about
51:20 the affordability of their housing so
51:23 last point the comprehensive plan also
51:26 says that near- term within the next
51:28 year that the city is supposed to be
51:30 going out to these neighborhoods that we
51:32 are discussing and asking them what they
51:34 would like to see in their neighborhoods
51:36 what is the appropriate density what are
51:38 the amenities that they would like to
51:40 see what is the nature and the
51:42 sensibility of their communities that
51:45 they want to maintain and after this
51:47 conversation and after you get that
51:49 public input it is then the time to see
51:52 if these neighborhoods would like to
51:55 have higher density because that is what
51:57 they see as their future the
52:00 conversation in a subcommittee meeting
52:02 is leaving out the community that you
52:04 are to be representing when the
52:07 comprehensive plan has already outlined
52:09 the pathway to represent that very
52:12 community so I would ask that you stick
52:15 with the mandated state law chafe
52:17 against it but certainly wait until the
52:20 community has its chance to say what its
52:24 home what's it heart what's it heart and
52:27 its lives should be thank
52:32 you
52:34 you there any other members of the
52:36 community yes please approach the podium
52:39 thank
52:42 you good evening uh Chris Richley 26162
52:46 at avue Northeast s up in the highlands
52:49 um first of all thank you guys for your
52:52 work on this uh having worked on the
52:53 Strategic plan task force and the
52:55 comprehensive plan Plan update and the
52:58 economic development plan
53:00 update one thing that c comes to mind to
53:03 me when I look at this initiative is the
53:05 affordable housing piece of it and it
53:07 does Strate specifically state in the
53:10 Strategic plan that we are to create an
53:13 affordable housing plan and that's what
53:15 I would encourage when you look at this
53:18 type of initiative that we keep that in
53:22 in front of our minds as far as the
53:24 affordability piece of it because we
53:25 want to be able to great when you look
53:27 at small businesses the workforce wants
53:29 to be able to work here and live here
53:30 like I do I live and work and play in
53:32 isqua I have that privilege but do our
53:35 workers do our Police Department do our
53:38 fire departments do our doctors and and
53:41 everybody that works in the area they
53:43 travel in so I would I'm in favor of
53:46 increasing the the size or whatever the
53:49 plan is the meant to create that
53:52 diversity of housing to allow for that
53:54 Middle Market that's not there
53:57 but I would also keep the affordability
53:59 piece of it in front of mine as far as
54:01 whether it's higher you know the
54:03 rent I would keep that affordable piece
54:05 in there because they're it's going to
54:07 be a lot of them are going to be rentals
54:08 I highly doubt they're going to be
54:11 ownership so the affordability piece
54:13 needs to be in that whatever you decide
54:16 I would hope it would continue to be
54:18 affordable that is part of the Strategic
54:20 plan and the comprehensive plan is the
54:21 affordability piece of it thank you
54:26 thank
54:29 you
54:31 right checking last last call if there
54:34 are any other members of the community
54:36 and council chambers that would like to
54:38 make comments on this item before we
54:40 move into our uh Council committee
54:45 deliberation okay not seeing any all
54:48 right um we do have three questions that
54:50 are posed by the administration I'm
54:52 wondering if you could put those
54:53 questions up on the screen so we can
54:56 have them um I actually think if if the
54:59 committee is uh amendable maybe we can
55:02 go to the ad1 first um I think there
55:06 might that might be easier to resolve um
55:10 first because it's a specific question
55:12 and then we can do the
55:15 um the uh the question the first
55:18 question and then the third question
55:20 which is regarding extra uh additional
55:22 items to send to PPC um Stephen
55:27 thank you chair hun so I do have an
55:28 answer to your question on the number of
55:30 adus that have been built EXC the Adu
55:33 code was adopted back in 2018 and 29
55:36 adus have been built since that
55:39 time thank you very
55:41 much I appreciate
55:48 that all right um are we are we okay
55:52 with discussing item two then one then
55:54 three okay um um would anyone like to
55:58 kick us off on item two can I ask a or a
56:01 couple follow-up questions really
56:03 quickly um based on what came up in all
56:05 the comment yes um so there was a
56:08 question around um size of primary unit
56:11 in Adu I was wondering if you could kind
56:13 of speak to kind of
56:15 differences um the code doesn't um
56:18 specify a specific size for the primary
56:22 um primary unit we just specify a size
56:24 for the 80 unit so and 0 um a primary
56:27 unit could be 800 square ft could be
56:30 2500 ft just depends on whoever's
56:34 developing
56:35 it righten the needs and whatever the
56:37 Market's driving for size of housing
56:39 correct um and then there was another
56:41 question about and you had answered this
56:43 in an email response to me but about how
56:45 we ensure affordability of that fourth
56:47 unit can you also speak to kind of the
56:49 affordability aspect of that yes so um
56:53 the with the state reg um State
56:55 legislation um um we are required to um
56:59 have rental units um rented at to
57:04 household
57:06 60% of the Ami and then for owner
57:09 occupied units we're required to sell
57:11 sell those to households um that are um
57:16 80% excuse me Ami is area medium income
57:20 um and how that works is the developer
57:23 whoever is you know setting aside that
57:25 unit as a affordable they're required to
57:27 record a covenant that runs with the
57:29 land and the city along with the
57:31 regional Coalition of housing our
57:33 planning um our affordable housing
57:36 Partners would um would track that um
57:40 that
57:46 Covenant did you have any additional
57:48 questions council member Hall okay all
57:52 right thank
57:53 you um would you like to make comments
57:56 on this item at this
58:02 time okay thank
58:04 you I think
58:07 um by the way I so I thought some of the
58:10 comments about process earlier we well
58:12 taken are these are you looking for kind
58:14 of definitive direction or again is this
58:17 more kind of what is the head of and
58:19 temperature of pp or of pte as we then
58:22 go to PPC again for because they've
58:25 already had one such then coming back
58:27 with some of these issues is that right
58:29 more thinking of it as not definitive
58:31 Direction
58:33 okay can I can I make a additional
58:36 clarification um I I was formerly
58:39 planning policy commission as was
58:41 council president Walsh uh another um
58:44 Factor here is that um PBC if they if
58:48 they uh have a public hearing and
58:50 they're they have discussed those
58:52 options that gives the public at that
58:55 public hearing an option to have known
58:57 that this is something we're considering
58:58 so that's another reason that we might
59:00 um that we might direct them to uh that
59:04 this is our preference so that that is
59:06 something that's considered in their
59:07 public hearing um and that the public
59:09 knows that this is the direction that
59:10 we're
59:15 headed
59:17 um yeah so then I guess for the second
59:20 question around adus um definitely in
59:22 the last meeting I would have said don't
59:25 necessarily see what the downsides would
59:26 have been with uh increasing the size um
59:29 to 1250 but I find myself questioning
59:33 that logic now um I feel like you've
59:35 laid out a lot of challenges around um
59:39 staff being a staff not being able to um
59:42 understand differences or interpret
59:44 differences between primary structures
59:45 and adus at a certain point and so we
59:47 want to avoid that there were some
59:48 challenges associated with even
59:50 utilities that you had brought up as
59:51 well um so my initial gut reaction would
59:55 say say um we maintain the maximum size
59:59 of adus at 1,000 square ft but continue
1:00:03 to monitor what the use cases are for
1:00:05 adus as hopefully they continue to to
1:00:08 start to creep up from what is it 29
1:00:10 units since what it you can say some
1:00:13 year 2018 oh um that's even worse so um
1:00:18 so I guess my initial reaction would be
1:00:20 let's let's stick with 1,000 square ft
1:00:22 and monitor what the interested use
1:00:24 cases are for 80 use if we need to go in
1:00:27 and make changes again sure that's
1:00:30 something we can do at a later date um
1:00:32 but I would also be interested if PPC
1:00:34 has any thoughts around how do how could
1:00:37 we potentially
1:00:38 create uh flexibility in code to allow
1:00:41 for um use cases that align with uh our
1:00:45 other strategic planning documents like
1:00:47 human services strategic plan and and
1:00:50 thinking about how we're creating spaces
1:00:51 for people at all stages of their of
1:00:53 their life to live in place to live in
1:00:55 the community that's they love um so
1:00:58 that's not super helpful Direction but
1:00:59 if they have any thoughts of Staff have
1:01:01 any thoughts perhaps this is something
1:01:02 other cities have also um considered it
1:01:05 seemed like for Adu size it was all over
1:01:07 the place in the region so maybe there
1:01:09 are also maybe it's all also all over
1:01:11 the place in terms of what are kind of
1:01:13 flexibility flexibility en code or is
1:01:17 there administrative deviances that that
1:01:19 Exist Elsewhere um in other cities that
1:01:22 might be worth looking into those are
1:01:25 kind of my my initial thoughts on that
1:01:27 second policy
1:01:29 question as resident wsh thanks yeah um
1:01:34 really here I'm looking to explore some
1:01:36 of the ideas and then send it back to
1:01:39 PPC to have
1:01:42 conversations I don't think there's any
1:01:44 reason to give them Direction just make
1:01:48 sure that they can consider different
1:01:51 options here so some of the questions
1:01:54 there so for me some of the stuff in
1:01:57 responding to number two is about prior
1:02:00 to PPC making a formal recommendation is
1:02:02 there anything they should evaluate so
1:02:04 when considering adus what I'd like to
1:02:07 know is particularly with um someone who
1:02:11 is in a disabled situation that needs
1:02:15 larger um walkways doorways Etc how much
1:02:19 does that impact square footage and like
1:02:22 you've done a great job of providing
1:02:24 examples that are around th000 Square ft
1:02:27 but I believe the the example that
1:02:30 someone had brought to us with um an Adu
1:02:34 for senior care situation they said that
1:02:38 at least their agency required a
1:02:40 separate bathroom for the person so it
1:02:43 would have to be a two-bedroom two bath
1:02:46 and if we're looking at doorways that
1:02:49 had to be wider how does that impact you
1:02:51 know and then toward this idea of
1:02:55 flexibility or administrative
1:02:58 deviances what are our options there so
1:03:01 one particular area that I want to look
1:03:03 at is in that case somebody with a
1:03:06 disability who needs wider walkways the
1:03:09 second thing that I want to consider
1:03:11 when we're talking about
1:03:13 adus is um that percentage of the main
1:03:19 unit you know does PPC have a preference
1:03:22 on saying the Adu shouldn't be no more
1:03:28 75% or 1,000 square ft whichever is
1:03:33 higher you know what what is the thought
1:03:35 process there and then the third piece
1:03:38 for me in considering adus is I really
1:03:42 don't want people to try and work around
1:03:45 that just to avoid the impact fees so
1:03:52 considering you
1:03:53 know those tradeoffs I'd like PPC to
1:03:57 have a conversation if they feel like
1:04:00 having a larger unit
1:04:03 is worth it to have that additional
1:04:06 supply of housing versus the downside of
1:04:10 us not receiving the impact fees so I
1:04:13 think having an intentional conversation
1:04:15 about that pro and con I think would be
1:04:18 really beneficial and on this one I
1:04:22 don't I don't have a Doug in the race
1:04:24 I'd like to hear from the community and
1:04:27 then I'd like PPC to have a really good
1:04:29 conversation on that um I think if I
1:04:34 given the information we
1:04:35 have it make sense to go up to 1250 um
1:04:39 but I see the pros and cons so I'd like
1:04:42 to hear from
1:04:46 PBC okay thank you I
1:04:49 think I so I was in the conversations in
1:04:53 around 20 um you know around six years
1:04:56 ago now when we were talking about this
1:04:58 in 2018 and uh we really were trying to
1:05:02 adopt regulations that would make it um
1:05:06 possible and simpler for folks in our
1:05:10 community you know community members to
1:05:13 decide with their property to build an
1:05:16 Adu and to use that for you know
1:05:19 potentially for a family member um for a
1:05:21 senior to age in place uh for a um a a
1:05:25 adult child to return to the home I mean
1:05:28 there were there were many compelling
1:05:29 reasons why the community would benefit
1:05:34 from uh having this as an option and
1:05:37 since then we've seen 29 be built so I
1:05:41 think um giving some additional
1:05:43 flexibility I think it's unlikely to uh
1:05:47 to be you know it's definitely not going
1:05:49 to solve our housing problems but at the
1:05:52 same time I think it might give some
1:05:53 more flexibility for somebody who needs
1:05:55 a little more more than a th000 sare ft
1:05:57 because they have a need for a caregiver
1:05:59 and we saw I think compelling evidence
1:06:03 that um for the rebel uh Apartments
1:06:07 which is senior independent living you
1:06:10 know for the two-bedroom it's a little
1:06:12 bit bigger than 1,000 square ft and so
1:06:16 you know between that and then also uh
1:06:19 recalling all of the conversations we
1:06:21 had about perhaps you have a house where
1:06:24 you want to um make the the lower
1:06:28 floor um or the daylit basement uh which
1:06:32 is a kind of development that we have
1:06:34 throughout isqua that that might be an
1:06:35 Adu that might be a little bit more than
1:06:38 a th000 square fet and so I I think for
1:06:41 me this is a little bit more flexibility
1:06:45 for homeowners this is something that we
1:06:47 have wanted we have wanted to allow and
1:06:52 to incentivize and to promote adus for
1:06:55 years and we've seen 29 builts since our
1:06:58 last attempt at this um so I um my my
1:07:02 take is that we should give more
1:07:05 flexibility I'm I'm okay with these
1:07:08 other you know making sure that's 75% of
1:07:10 the house I do think that complicates
1:07:12 things and I I'm for streamlining it
1:07:16 because I think that more complex means
1:07:18 more requirements and that can also be
1:07:22 um that can also be something that's a a
1:07:26 complication for a homeowner who's just
1:07:27 trying to assess if this is something
1:07:29 that's possible at the same time I I
1:07:32 think bottom line I would like to give
1:07:36 more flexibility to homeowners because
1:07:37 we have not seen this option be taken up
1:07:39 and it is something that is in our
1:07:41 housing policy from you know before I
1:07:44 was on Council our housing strategy plan
1:07:46 that uh we wanted to allow for this kind
1:07:49 of housing it fits into our
1:07:50 neighborhoods it's something that
1:07:52 existing homeowners have have wanted to
1:07:54 do um and there's a lot of folks that
1:07:58 would benefit from that so that's my
1:08:01 that's my take on number
1:08:06 two okay um should we move on to number
1:08:11 policy question number one okay anybody
1:08:14 like to kick us off on policy question
1:08:16 one the president watch thank you so
1:08:20 first I just want to take a little step
1:08:22 back to the previous meeting my idea in
1:08:26 suggesting that we consider for units
1:08:30 was just that a consideration it wasn't
1:08:32 a you know we should tell PPC that that
1:08:37 should be the thing they consider it's
1:08:39 just like let's not cut our legs off
1:08:43 before we have a robust conversation I
1:08:45 think there's a lot of really great
1:08:47 conversations about you know the
1:08:51 affordable affordability and supply and
1:08:54 all of those pieces um so I
1:09:00 think I don't really have a lot of
1:09:03 Direction here other
1:09:06 than you know PPC went on a tour and saw
1:09:11 some of the duplex Triplex and quad
1:09:13 plexes well we only have one quadplex um
1:09:17 on that tour that fit into the
1:09:21 neighborhood feel I think you've
1:09:24 highlighted on the maps that with the
1:09:27 state requirement around a fourth 1/4
1:09:31 Mile around Transit stops there's going
1:09:35 to be a lot of areas that already have
1:09:38 foreign units allowed without parking
1:09:42 so I think that's an important
1:09:45 consideration is that it's already going
1:09:47 to happen in many cases because of state
1:09:50 law I think it's also really important
1:09:53 to recognize that much like we didn't
1:09:56 get houses torn down so that somebody
1:09:58 could buy or build an Adu or we haven't
1:10:01 had a lot of adus built very likely to
1:10:05 have a lot of these built and they're
1:10:09 still going to be limited by critical
1:10:11 area they're still going to be limited
1:10:14 by the lot coverage and impervious
1:10:17 surface they're still going to have
1:10:19 parking requirements and so I think the
1:10:24 idea of of
1:10:26 considering that some
1:10:28 Lots might be appropriate to have four
1:10:32 units on them especially when you're
1:10:34 looking at some of our estate Lots or
1:10:36 bigger areas that just have a lot of
1:10:39 land I would have a really hard time
1:10:42 looking at that land owner and say I'm
1:10:45 sorry because this was a scary idea we
1:10:49 didn't want to let you do something that
1:10:52 would be absolutely appropriate
1:10:55 it's not going to happen on most Lots so
1:11:00 think I'm comfortable with looking at
1:11:04 for dwelling units the question I would
1:11:06 want to have PPC look at
1:11:11 is can we potentially do like five or
1:11:16 six units with an affordable housing
1:11:19 requirement and then have four ba a Max
1:11:26 if that's not possible then I want to
1:11:28 hear from them about you know the
1:11:31 affordable housing and whether that is
1:11:34 going to present
1:11:38 um clarifying there very well
1:11:42 um how do I say that I might have to
1:11:45 come back to the affordable housing
1:11:47 portion I I guess my biggest piece is I
1:11:50 just want to hear from PPC uh I think
1:11:53 that this should be an option that they
1:11:55 consider and that the important elements
1:11:58 um for making that decision are a lot
1:12:00 about
1:12:02 affordability
1:12:04 allowing um units more units on larger
1:12:08 lots that would support it um and
1:12:10 recognizing that we have a lot of other
1:12:12 areas in the code that already have
1:12:14 Place
1:12:15 limitations um that will help out in
1:12:18 that way I'll come back to the
1:12:19 affordable housing part
1:12:25 I wanted to if I if I may I also wanted
1:12:27 to clarify so you you made a comment
1:12:30 about uh near Transit centers or near
1:12:34 Transit that um there would always
1:12:36 already be um housing that is the four
1:12:40 units per lot and you said without
1:12:43 parking I just want to clarify without
1:12:45 the requirements of parking right I mean
1:12:49 they're it's not without parking that
1:12:52 that's a good point is that developers
1:12:54 can build the parking um however they
1:12:57 want whether it's on site or um on
1:13:01 Street um and consider that parking but
1:13:04 it could you clarify on the state
1:13:07 requirement with um around Transit
1:13:12 stops uh is the change that a they can
1:13:15 have four units up to four units and B
1:13:19 they don't have to build parking on site
1:13:22 correct the city cannot allow them
1:13:25 require them to provide parking but with
1:13:27 the market they could you know elect to
1:13:30 have parking on site
1:13:34 y just wanted to clarify one thing on
1:13:37 the parking so we're still looking at
1:13:39 the definitions of this major Transit
1:13:41 stop and it's complex there's multiple
1:13:44 places in state law that Define it
1:13:46 slightly differently so we haven't quite
1:13:49 figured that part out but we will with
1:13:51 the planning and policy commission but
1:13:52 we wanted to highlight that this could
1:13:54 be a potential
1:13:56 um we we just don't know if
1:14:04 this okay thank you but um in in any
1:14:07 event it is it's a um it's that it's not
1:14:10 required it's it does still exist in its
1:14:13 current form and it could be
1:14:19 built okay um all right U I'm
1:14:24 comfortable going or would you like to
1:14:26 go okay um all right I wanted to start
1:14:31 my comments on this item with a few of
1:14:35 our um strategies and policies and then
1:14:39 uh anecdotes and then my thoughts um so
1:14:44 we have had a housing strategy work plan
1:14:46 since
1:14:47 2017 and in that we have a strategy um
1:14:50 long-standing
1:14:51 strategy uh around incorporating code
1:14:54 provisions to increase the diversity of
1:14:56 housing types built in the city and um
1:14:59 as part of that we also have the
1:15:02 statistic that data developed uh for the
1:15:04 housing strategy work plan shows that
1:15:06 60% of all households in isqua are one
1:15:08 or two person households and I um that
1:15:12 2017 I from talking with folks across
1:15:15 the city there are a lot of folks that
1:15:19 would like to downsize that would like
1:15:21 to have an option um in the city for a
1:15:24 smaller um um of for a smaller unit to
1:15:27 live in um and are not able to find that
1:15:31 in our city so um this continues to be a
1:15:35 a big challenge I think that we have 60%
1:15:37 of all households in a square one or two
1:15:39 person households um that dates back to
1:15:43 2017 I think it continues to be a
1:15:44 challenge also for the workforce just
1:15:47 for for folks that would like to have a
1:15:48 smaller unit they would like to have
1:15:51 options
1:15:52 um allowing it it says in our strategy
1:15:56 from 2017 allowing the market to build
1:15:58 smaller forms of housing could address
1:15:59 this need and we have uh strategies
1:16:03 around how we might allow for these
1:16:07 smaller housing types in our different
1:16:09 neighborhoods um so this is a
1:16:11 conversation that we have been having
1:16:13 for for quite a while I think it's quite
1:16:15 well documented and it is also um
1:16:18 something that we've had a lot of
1:16:19 community feedback
1:16:21 about also in our comprehensive plan um
1:16:25 we discuss that uh to Spur development
1:16:29 the city this is a quote to to Spur
1:16:31 development the city will allow the
1:16:32 development of housing such as duplexes
1:16:34 triplexes Town Homes stacked housing and
1:16:36 cottage housing where single family
1:16:38 housing is allowed and this is in a
1:16:40 conversation in our comprehensive plan
1:16:42 about we do have capacity but we are not
1:16:45 seeing the kinds of housing being built
1:16:47 that our community would really benefit
1:16:50 from and it would improve their quality
1:16:51 of life um I was at at a uh Farmers
1:16:57 Market earlier this year where we had a
1:16:59 number of items listed um for Community
1:17:03 feedback uh you know how do you how do
1:17:06 you feel about these different items um
1:17:08 conversational and a woman came up to me
1:17:11 um and she was speaking about how uh one
1:17:16 the one of the challenges that she has
1:17:19 faced is that uh in a domestic violence
1:17:22 situation if you're not able to find
1:17:24 housing and you have children you want
1:17:26 to stay in your um School District that
1:17:28 this uh had meant that she just didn't
1:17:32 have options for moving and staying
1:17:34 within her community um and so
1:17:39 these these
1:17:41 restrictions um this lack of of housing
1:17:45 options that folks would would like to
1:17:47 have in our community it is something
1:17:50 that impacts folks and when I reflect
1:17:54 back also on our Equity training we
1:17:55 don't always hear from people who are
1:17:58 who are deeply impacted this was a
1:18:00 conversation at a farmers market where
1:18:02 we were talking with folks and she
1:18:04 shared that with me um that in a
1:18:07 domestic violence situation she wouldn't
1:18:09 be able to move so I
1:18:12 um I wanted to share that because I
1:18:14 think that these conversations they uh
1:18:18 giving folks options it is really
1:18:20 important I think there's many uh there
1:18:23 are many restrictions already in place
1:18:25 that are that make sense about critical
1:18:27 areas protecting our natural environment
1:18:29 making sure that that the Lots fit that
1:18:32 there's enough um space you know I think
1:18:35 there's a lot of there's a lot of
1:18:38 requirements in there already um I think
1:18:40 that adding that allowing
1:18:43 for more flexibility would benefit our
1:18:46 community um so I would be in favor as
1:18:49 council member as council president
1:18:51 sorry uh Walsh spoke to I would be in in
1:18:54 favor of having planning policy
1:18:57 commission um consider this additional
1:19:01 flexibility
1:19:14 that's uh yeah sure thank you um well I
1:19:18 mean first just Dido that I would also
1:19:20 like to hear um from planning policy
1:19:22 commission and definitely eager to hear
1:19:23 from their consideration
1:19:25 um and it does seem like more and more
1:19:28 community members are hearing about this
1:19:30 and are writing in we're getting lots of
1:19:32 people writing in either for our gets so
1:19:34 so that's always a good thing when you
1:19:36 have people communicating um how they're
1:19:38 feeling about particular issues and some
1:19:39 coming today thank you very much um I
1:19:42 think my interest so I I had expressed
1:19:46 my interest in exploring this four unit
1:19:48 per lot idea back in November to because
1:19:52 wanting to try to understand how can we
1:19:54 create flexibility for homeowners and
1:19:56 really the market more generally to be
1:19:58 able to decide what's best for their lot
1:20:00 and not be so so limiting but um I think
1:20:04 that the
1:20:05 the arguments that the Administration
1:20:08 has made is is really compelling and I
1:20:10 think that the state has actually
1:20:12 created this pathway where someone could
1:20:14 build Ford units as long as one of them
1:20:16 is Affordable um or depending on where
1:20:20 they are and it seems like we're still
1:20:21 trying to work out where these major
1:20:23 Transit stops are
1:20:25 um you could do four units as well so
1:20:27 meeting kind of the state's original
1:20:29 tent around wanting infill wanting
1:20:31 density in these areas that aren't
1:20:33 necessarily like our downtown core um
1:20:35 but also meeting our own uh affordable
1:20:37 housing goals which of course um there's
1:20:40 there's Adu we're not seeing that that
1:20:42 happen a lot but I mean affordable
1:20:44 housing as well is not something that
1:20:46 that we're seeing a whole lot of success
1:20:47 in in wanting to build as well um so
1:20:51 anyways I think kind of the staff
1:20:52 recommendation of of of not exceeding
1:20:54 state requirements here is compelling
1:20:56 and and that way growth comes with this
1:20:59 added Community benefit of affordable
1:21:01 housing um but honestly I mean all of
1:21:03 this is a big change um um so eager to
1:21:07 hear what planning policy um has to say
1:21:11 um and what the community has to say in
1:21:13 between um now and whenever this comes
1:21:15 back to council um regardless of what we
1:21:18 do we also just need to make sure we
1:21:20 have capacity to evaluate whether things
1:21:22 are actually happening um and coming
1:21:23 back to council on saying this is
1:21:25 working the way it intended or this
1:21:26 isn't working the way the intended maybe
1:21:28 we stick with the state requirements and
1:21:30 then uh try to understand how it's
1:21:32 actually happening on the ground over
1:21:33 time and if we need to be flexible and
1:21:36 move up to four or um even higher as um
1:21:39 council president was was referring to
1:21:41 either that those can be future
1:21:42 conversations that we have too so that's
1:21:45 just kind of like where I sit in this
1:21:46 moment in time right now um is that
1:21:50 maybe we stick with kind of the state
1:21:51 requirements I think the staff have made
1:21:53 a good case for that
1:21:57 council president was thanks so I think
1:22:02 one of the things I can say off of this
1:22:04 is it it feels like there's a mix of
1:22:07 conversations here so I just want to
1:22:09 make sure that PPC gets the questions
1:22:13 that are coming at them and that really
1:22:16 just recognizes that this is an
1:22:18 important conversation to have and
1:22:21 understand what the needs are of the
1:22:23 community you know we've heard heard
1:22:25 from many members of the community about
1:22:28 their concerns around traffic and
1:22:32 schools and um you know neighborhood
1:22:36 character and things like that so I'd
1:22:39 like to make sure that those things are
1:22:41 specifically addressed and not coming
1:22:45 from a coming from a standpoint of
1:22:48 recognizing this is probably not all
1:22:51 going to happen very quickly not all in
1:22:53 one neighborhood and so
1:22:56 addressing what a an 11 unit plus um
1:23:02 place would have to do when it comes to
1:23:04 like traffic studies versus what a
1:23:07 single family would have to do and kind
1:23:10 of understanding the impact on a per lot
1:23:16 basis um and what those pieces are so I
1:23:19 think that would be important in having
1:23:23 conversation um um I think
1:23:32 um I don't know I'm just reflecting back
1:23:36 I I've got two teenagers um in high
1:23:39 school and one of them wants to be a
1:23:41 preschool teacher and just recognizing
1:23:45 the a dang good preschool teacher too by
1:23:49 the way and that's such a need in the
1:23:52 community we've got so many people
1:23:55 that are currently working in our small
1:23:57 businesses and our healthare and
1:24:00 education we've got I
1:24:02 mean I don't think we have a single
1:24:05 police officer maybe just a few that
1:24:09 live in the city um because it's so
1:24:14 unaffordable and so I just really want
1:24:17 to make sure that we keep that portion
1:24:20 in mind when we're talking about PPC
1:24:23 when we're talking to PPC on that and
1:24:26 there's two maybe if you can make sure
1:24:30 you open with that um uh Continuum of
1:24:34 Housing and understanding that middle
1:24:39 housing and additional housing create
1:24:44 Supply which inherently helps
1:24:48 with cost of living I'm not saying it's
1:24:51 going to bring things down and some of
1:24:53 the new units are going to be luxury
1:24:56 units but somebody that moves into that
1:25:00 luxury unit um that's created as
1:25:02 somebody's Adu is moving out of another
1:25:06 smaller older unit that then becomes
1:25:10 more affordable or they're moving in
1:25:13 from Auburn and so they're no longer
1:25:16 driving that whole
1:25:18 distance in order to work in isqua so I
1:25:23 guess I just want to make sure that we
1:25:25 are infusing this with all of the other
1:25:28 benefits that come from adding housing
1:25:32 options in our community that serve um
1:25:36 members of the community as we talk
1:25:38 through it all
1:25:41 so thank you council
1:25:44 president that did uh did remind me
1:25:48 to also speak to one thing um there's
1:25:52 there's existing housing some of which
1:25:54 is Affordable there's also affordable
1:25:58 housing uh we used to talk about capital
1:26:01 A versus lowercase a affordable right
1:26:04 there's a housing that is more
1:26:07 relatively speaking more affordable for
1:26:09 for folks and then there is technically
1:26:11 affordable housing that is you know at
1:26:13 80% Ami Etc um at a technically
1:26:18 maintained at a certain level of
1:26:20 affordability based on the area median
1:26:22 income and I think I think that's that's
1:26:26 all important because what we've seen
1:26:29 with our current efforts um to allow for
1:26:34 options is that um our existing housing
1:26:37 you know we we currently and for many
1:26:40 years have had these uh these policies
1:26:43 to uh incentivize or make it possible
1:26:46 for adus on I believe every every um
1:26:49 single family lot could build an Adu for
1:26:52 for many years and we've seen 29 built
1:26:55 right so this is not something that is
1:26:58 it it is possible currently in law is
1:27:00 not being used and so I think I think
1:27:03 that's also important to point out we're
1:27:05 we're giving an option it's not going to
1:27:09 result in major changes based on
1:27:11 everything we've seen everything that
1:27:12 we've seen in the region um the market
1:27:15 will determine what ultimately um is
1:27:19 built and so I
1:27:21 think based on the community
1:27:23 conversations and based on on the fact
1:27:26 that we do have so many people who you
1:27:28 know so many businesses who would like
1:27:30 to make sure that their employees don't
1:27:32 have to travel long distances based on
1:27:34 wanting to have seniors be able to age
1:27:36 in place um and a and downsize uh
1:27:40 students return home from college I mean
1:27:42 there's so many
1:27:43 cases I I see this value in flexibility
1:27:48 um to allow for where it is appropriate
1:27:50 where it is possible and where the where
1:27:53 the uh home owner does want to do this
1:27:56 giving them that flexibility um and then
1:27:59 ultimately the market will decide and
1:28:00 what we've seen so far is that um there
1:28:03 is there is a incremental change but it
1:28:06 is you know on the order of 29 units
1:28:09 over many years in a city of 40,000
1:28:17 people I remembered what I was going to
1:28:19 say about the affordable housing um my
1:28:22 concern with the afford aable housing as
1:28:24 the state has listed out um is just the
1:28:30 60% of area median income at
1:28:33 rental I think based on the analysis
1:28:36 that we've done within our city that
1:28:39 it's really hard for that to pencil out
1:28:42 um and
1:28:45 no yes yes okay so uh I I
1:28:52 think yes I love the idea of saying we
1:28:56 can get a developer to build one unit of
1:28:59 affordable housing for every three units
1:29:02 of market rate
1:29:04 housing I think based on our experience
1:29:07 that that's very unlikely to happen just
1:29:11 because it doesn't pencil out for the
1:29:13 developer and so one of the pieces I
1:29:16 want to make sure PPC really takes into
1:29:19 effect is that um the Eco Northwest
1:29:23 report
1:29:24 that we had um that talked about where
1:29:28 affordability might make sense I think
1:29:30 that was mostly for larger apartments
1:29:33 and things like that but I I don't want
1:29:36 to go into this and say we should only
1:29:39 have four units with affordable because
1:29:42 that's going to get us affordable
1:29:44 capital A housing
1:29:47 because we were basically told by
1:29:49 developers and Consultants that that
1:29:52 isn't going to be cost effective for the
1:29:54 developer so if we're going to have an
1:29:57 effective conversation about what would
1:30:01 get us affordable housing with a 4
1:30:07 um with three units of marker rate and
1:30:09 one affordable we may want to consider
1:30:11 something that's different than the
1:30:13 state suggested 60% rental
1:30:19 um purchase because as it is written BAS
1:30:24 on what we have heard of our Market it
1:30:27 seems like that's just going to say
1:30:29 don't build a fourth
1:30:31 unit and so I think there then there
1:30:35 should be a pro and con conversation
1:30:38 about is getting a fourth smaller unit
1:30:42 that would allow somebody to downsize
1:30:45 Escape domestic violence be you know I
1:30:49 teenager who wants to come back and
1:30:50 teach
1:30:52 preschoolers is that unit that could be
1:30:55 more lowercase affordable to them
1:30:58 because it's
1:30:59 smaller better to
1:31:02 achieve than to have a regulation that
1:31:07 says you can only build two
1:31:10 units or you can get to four if you can
1:31:13 build affordable but it's not really
1:31:14 going to pencil
1:31:16 out so I don't know if that provides a
1:31:20 lot of clarity but I just want to make
1:31:22 sure we're not making a decision because
1:31:25 it sounds good on paper even if what it
1:31:29 really means in our development
1:31:32 environment is that those third and
1:31:35 fourth units would never be
1:31:40 built council member
1:31:42 Hall just to say I thought that was a
1:31:45 really good point um but in terms of
1:31:47 like request for information for PPC it
1:31:49 would be great to go um kind of deep on
1:31:52 the affordability stuff there too
1:31:54 because that report was written for like
1:31:56 x% of a unit or x% of units in a
1:32:00 building of hundreds as opposed to one
1:32:02 unit at 60% Ami so I don't know how what
1:32:06 the differences are to like securing
1:32:07 bank loans for like developing and stuff
1:32:09 like that maybe it is maybe it does
1:32:11 pancel out for do more for one unit at
1:32:14 60 60% maybe it's harder I don't know um
1:32:17 so maybe that's something we could also
1:32:19 kind of look into and have2 on um we're
1:32:24 giving them a very hard homework
1:32:25 assignment
1:32:26 guys so I mean there's a reason they
1:32:29 call it a housing crisis it's a big
1:32:32 issue so
1:32:35 yeah um on your last question for PPC
1:32:40 can you maybe I I also I'm not sure what
1:32:44 what so are you looking for them to be
1:32:47 provided with data
1:32:49 on you can you articulate that well
1:32:52 thank you did you understand what I'm
1:32:53 saying I guess I I don't necessarily
1:32:56 know I wouldn't necessarily be able to
1:32:58 say that just because it it doesn't
1:32:59 pencil out for a big developer um to
1:33:03 build x% of their units at 60% Ami I I
1:33:07 couldn't necessarily definitively say
1:33:08 that that would be the same for someone
1:33:10 who'd like to build four units on their
1:33:13 lot uh and one of the units would be at
1:33:15 60% Ami so maybe some establishing some
1:33:18 elements I think what you're looking for
1:33:19 is market feasibility of this policy so
1:33:23 that would be some sort of an economic
1:33:25 analysis and you know playing out some
1:33:28 numbers and performance but that can
1:33:30 change interest rates can change the cap
1:33:33 rate so it's not really hard it it can
1:33:36 vary significantly so we can look we can
1:33:39 work with Arch to come up with some sort
1:33:41 of a market feasibility analysis to give
1:33:43 to PPC but I I can guarantee that we can
1:33:45 you know it's possible and how variable
1:33:47 it can be based on market
1:33:50 conditions thank you for that I I also
1:33:53 think that eco Northwest did look into
1:33:55 current market feasibility and you know
1:33:58 there were a number of challenges in
1:34:00 with the existing code um and
1:34:03 so I I think a deeper level of
1:34:07 affordability unlikely to but I I think
1:34:11 there there's some data that's already
1:34:12 been done in that analysis which we as a
1:34:15 city commissioned for this we can
1:34:18 certainly dig out some some stuff to
1:34:20 share with on that but I think the 6 %
1:34:24 is for rental it's 80% for ownership so
1:34:27 I think that that can also be if someone
1:34:29 is doing is that as a development and
1:34:32 wants to create four rental units then
1:34:34 they would just have they could rent
1:34:36 three at market rate and the fourth one
1:34:38 would be that's one scenario the other
1:34:40 one is they just build three sell them
1:34:44 keep the fourth one as a rental because
1:34:46 there can be multiple permutations and
1:34:48 combinations
1:34:51 of well well we can give it a
1:34:54 okay thank
1:34:58 you all right
1:35:06 um I I also uh you know that why I asked
1:35:10 the question about the lot subdivision
1:35:12 is because in our existing code for as
1:35:14 long as at least I've served on Council
1:35:17 there is this possibility to divide up a
1:35:19 lot and then put more units on that lot
1:35:21 and that is also not in my in my
1:35:24 understanding taken advantage of very
1:35:25 often um and so you know these these
1:35:28 options do exist but it seems to me like
1:35:31 uh giving homeowners more ways to build
1:35:35 these smaller
1:35:36 units that's that's where I'm coming
1:35:39 from their existing existing flexibility
1:35:43 does not seem to promote that and the
1:35:45 market you know we don't know exactly
1:35:47 what the
1:35:48 market needs but at the same time it
1:35:51 seems like more flexibility would get us
1:35:53 some more options for our
1:35:55 community um okay do we so
1:36:00 let's uh so um one of you will be
1:36:03 recapping this to our Council um so I
1:36:06 will try to recap and then um perhaps
1:36:09 you can uh let me know if
1:36:13 you if I've missed anything um
1:36:18 and go from there okay so on the first
1:36:21 one I think that we
1:36:24 uh we do have an ask that the
1:36:27 PPC um specifically look
1:36:30 into uh the impact of the
1:36:34 affordability requirement by the state
1:36:38 um around the 60% rental and 80%
1:36:41 ownership um for the for units and and
1:36:45 that uh the market feasibility of that
1:36:48 Based on data that we that we have
1:36:51 including the Eco Northwest study um we
1:36:54 also would like them to consider I
1:36:57 believe
1:36:58 um two out of the three of us uh at
1:37:02 least would like us would like them to
1:37:04 consider the um allowance of four
1:37:07 dwelling units on one
1:37:09 lot um to provide that additional
1:37:12 flexibility and to have the public
1:37:14 hearing on that that sound right and we
1:37:18 can we can
1:37:19 also explain that there was a robust
1:37:22 conversation and there were many
1:37:24 considerations that were discussed in
1:37:26 our in our
1:37:29 meeting okay on the second
1:37:35 one okay second one council member Hall
1:37:38 I believe that you are in
1:37:43 favor maintain 1,000
1:37:47 okay okay
1:37:50 um I am in favor of allowing the
1:37:54 1,250 um and I'm also fine with uh the
1:38:00 um the administration's recommendation
1:38:02 of making sure that it's uh smaller than
1:38:04 the main unit I think
1:38:07 that's that's
1:38:11 uh I have one um piece that I was
1:38:14 thinking about for the adus uh for those
1:38:17 29 units now that we have a sample size
1:38:21 can we get a or can PPC get a sense of
1:38:24 what the square footage is um on those
1:38:28 because to me that if they're almost all
1:38:32 a th000 square feet that's indicative of
1:38:35 oh maybe the thousand square F feet is
1:38:38 limiting and so I think that might be
1:38:41 useful information um in considering
1:38:45 that as an idea and I think the other
1:38:47 thing that we put uh or that we talked
1:38:50 about with adus was um flexibility
1:38:54 and then also
1:38:55 disability was the other
1:38:58 piece okay um so on the second question
1:39:05 uh on the specific question about the
1:39:09 1,250 square feet uh increasing the
1:39:15 maximum would you like that to be
1:39:17 considered by PVC
1:39:24 yes okay okay so we would like uh the
1:39:27 PBC to consider the
1:39:30 1,250 uh square foot maximum as well as
1:39:34 the uh additional considerations
1:39:36 regarding disability
1:39:39 um and yes regarding disability and you
1:39:43 know and that's based on public comment
1:39:45 around wanting to make sure that it
1:39:46 could accommodate a caretaker and a and
1:39:50 a person with a disability all right um
1:39:56 and then on the third one we we already
1:39:58 mentioned a number of things regarding
1:40:00 item number one and two do we have any
1:40:03 additional separate requirements or or
1:40:06 um questions rather for PPC to
1:40:09 consider presid yeah um I know two other
1:40:13 cities in the area I believe Ron and if
1:40:16 I'm not mistaken Kirkland have
1:40:19 preapproved Adu plans um I've always
1:40:23 been interested in that as a potential
1:40:26 way to help streamline but I know people
1:40:29 have to fit it into their Lots they want
1:40:31 it to look similar so what I would love
1:40:34 is if it's possible just to reach out to
1:40:36 those cities and see if those
1:40:38 pre-approved plans have been built or
1:40:41 have been built in any substantial
1:40:43 amount like are they getting interest
1:40:46 from the community or are they sitting
1:40:47 on the shelf um because if we're looking
1:40:51 at ways that we might
1:40:54 not incentivize but create opportunity
1:40:58 to build out adus in a more streamlined
1:41:01 cost effective way for homeowners
1:41:04 whether that presents a viable option or
1:41:08 whether it's just another high in the
1:41:10 sky idea that we would spend a lot of
1:41:12 money on and wouldn't get a lot of use
1:41:14 so that would be
1:41:19 great okay so our additional uh
1:41:22 consideration for PPC is the efficacy
1:41:26 and impact of these um plans that are
1:41:29 available to community members for ad to
1:41:31 use that sound right okay uh council
1:41:35 member Hall I had a couple other ones if
1:41:36 that's okay um and then first
1:41:39 um just to touch one more time on adus I
1:41:42 think You' mentioned flexibility in kind
1:41:43 of having that pro and con conversation
1:41:46 around what would it look like to
1:41:47 maintain the max of 1,000 squ feet but
1:41:49 having a flexibility for use cases then
1:41:51 also making sure to bring in Chan I
1:41:53 thought you had a good comment earlier
1:41:55 about sometimes that creates more comp
1:41:57 complication and complication is yet
1:41:59 another barrier so that sounds like a
1:42:00 good kind of procon conversation to have
1:42:03 there as well um couple other things
1:42:06 that came to mind the utilities thing
1:42:08 was like this huge red flag that um
1:42:11 stood out to me and I sent you a
1:42:13 question about that so it sounds like
1:42:14 Public Works is going to be working
1:42:16 working on that is there a kind of touch
1:42:18 Point ever in the future for kind of
1:42:20 council to have a policy conversation
1:42:22 around um what can be changed in policy
1:42:26 to address some of
1:42:28 these questions around utilities I'm
1:42:30 assuming that's something that in the
1:42:33 future or is it more
1:42:38 administrative um there's certainly an
1:42:40 opportunity and I think U Public Works
1:42:42 is doing a rate study that is going to
1:42:44 come to Council on some of the stuff but
1:42:47 um you know as the boundaries blur
1:42:49 between an Adu and a duplex and a single
1:42:52 family and whether they need 3/4 meter
1:42:55 or in 1 inch meter and how does their
1:42:57 utility billing uh we're trying to parse
1:43:00 through all of that so and talking to
1:43:02 Public Works to to see if any Clarity in
1:43:05 the code which is in title 13 needs to
1:43:07 be made but my understanding is there's
1:43:09 a r study under uh way which you all
1:43:13 will get a chance to weigh in
1:43:17 on um thank you um the other thing that
1:43:21 that comes to mind um is
1:43:25 is I thought there were I thought the
1:43:27 there were good comments around kind of
1:43:29 the value of maybe we should be thinking
1:43:32 about the frontage requirement and
1:43:33 impact these um thing again I I wasn't
1:43:37 really thinking of it more as kind of
1:43:39 this is yet another barrier to this um
1:43:41 housing type that we want to promote in
1:43:43 our community and that the state is
1:43:44 saying we should be promoting in our
1:43:45 community as well
1:43:47 um uh I I hadn't really thought deeply
1:43:50 about what could this mean in the long
1:43:52 term in terms of our ability to um going
1:43:55 to have sustainable neighborhoods um so
1:43:59 um and if I remember right we couldn't
1:44:01 necessarily H assess impact fees or
1:44:03 Frontage Improvement requirements on one
1:44:05 without the other right well we guess we
1:44:07 could on single family without adus but
1:44:10 if we did something on adus we would
1:44:12 also then have to come back
1:44:13 to um single family housing requirements
1:44:17 as well is that right yeah some of the
1:44:19 requirements so for like imp for impact
1:44:21 fees for adus we could
1:44:23 um collect impact fees it would just
1:44:25 have to be 50% of the impact fees on a
1:44:28 single family home and for Middle
1:44:31 housing um if we uh so that requirement
1:44:35 that um single family units cannot be
1:44:37 more restrictive than middle housing so
1:44:39 for Frontage improvements if you require
1:44:41 it for Middle housing you would have to
1:44:43 require it for single family okay yeah
1:44:45 thank you for the clarity there um then
1:44:48 I guess I guess my thought would just be
1:44:52 maybe PPC could kind of revisit that
1:44:54 just with the lens of what does this
1:44:56 mean for our future and it's it still
1:44:58 could be I mean my initial reaction
1:45:00 would still be that this is kind of a
1:45:01 barrier to the housing it would be
1:45:03 against kind of the intent of the the
1:45:06 original intent of the state legislation
1:45:08 and trying to promote this housing in
1:45:09 our community but um I think it's a good
1:45:13 consideration the commission to think
1:45:16 about again maybe double the
1:45:19 council that was the only other thing
1:45:21 that I thought about the the fr
1:45:23 improvements and impact fees
1:45:29 okay that's president was yeah I have a
1:45:33 really hard time giving them direction
1:45:35 to go back and talk about the frontage
1:45:38 portion because they already had that
1:45:41 conversation um
1:45:44 and so unless we're presenting them with
1:45:47 new information or a new way of
1:45:52 addressing it
1:45:53 I I don't know that that would add to an
1:45:57 already complex
1:45:59 conversation I think that's fair I think
1:46:01 that's kind of why I framed it
1:46:02 differently like the way they had talked
1:46:04 about it was the way we had thought
1:46:05 about it which is this is a barrier this
1:46:07 is another barrier that we kind of see
1:46:09 in the community or in the developer
1:46:10 Community around building these kinds of
1:46:12 units um I didn't hear in the meeting
1:46:16 when I watched it or or when we had our
1:46:18 initial conversation didn't feel like
1:46:20 kind of a heavy uh Focus on what does
1:46:23 this mean for the future in terms of
1:46:25 creating kind of sustainable
1:46:27 neighborhoods having the sidewalks that
1:46:28 we need and the infrastructure we need
1:46:30 or whatever so maybe this is an
1:46:32 opportunity just to revisit that logic
1:46:33 and say okay does it still hold the same
1:46:36 water that we had when we were having
1:46:38 this conversation around removing
1:46:41 barriers see puzzled looks though that
1:46:45 am I not making any
1:46:48 sense um
1:46:51 I I I'm probably looking puzzled I I
1:46:55 guess I am thinking you know what
1:46:57 problem are we what problem are we
1:46:59 trying to solve right we we do have a
1:47:01 requirement by the state and so one of
1:47:03 the things is how do we uh how do we
1:47:05 make sure that we are addressing the
1:47:08 requirements that um the state has given
1:47:11 us uh factoring and Community feedback
1:47:13 and to the best of our abilities you
1:47:15 know to meet our community's needs
1:47:16 within the law right and then I think
1:47:18 the other thing is we do have for for me
1:47:21 we do have these longstanding strategies
1:47:23 including from the housing strategy work
1:47:25 plan um so you know saying there are
1:47:29 significant number of cost bured and
1:47:31 severely cost burdened households
1:47:32 allowing the market to build smaller
1:47:33 forms of housing could address this need
1:47:35 so I I think for me that's the problem
1:47:37 I'm trying to solve not additionally
1:47:39 these like how do we make sure that we
1:47:41 have these uh you know that we're also
1:47:44 making Frontage improvements I also I
1:47:46 also think the frontage improvements and
1:47:48 the walkability um I I
1:47:53 we're talking about single you know the
1:47:55 the flexibility for individual houses to
1:47:57 build an Adu you know trying to also
1:47:59 accommodate whole neighborhood um
1:48:02 walkability I guess it doesn't seem like
1:48:05 uh at least from I think why I'm puzzled
1:48:08 by this is that it it doesn't seem like
1:48:10 it's addressing the question that I
1:48:12 thought were trying to address with the
1:48:14 the current
1:48:19 policy yeah and I guess I I would say in
1:48:23 addition to that if if you're bringing
1:48:26 the question back in
1:48:29 if you're opening up a different can of
1:48:32 worms which
1:48:35 says if we're going to require that
1:48:38 for these middle housing units you'd
1:48:41 also have to require it for single
1:48:43 family and that would be a big change
1:48:47 not something that we currently
1:48:49 have a community conversation going on
1:48:51 for or
1:48:53 a you know staff availability to
1:48:57 really handle that type of change so I I
1:49:02 don't mind putting a pin in the idea of
1:49:05 should we have a conversation
1:49:08 about brage Improvement requirements for
1:49:13 development I don't know if this is the
1:49:16 right Avenue necessarily to have that I
1:49:19 think what we heard from PPC was we we
1:49:22 agree that middle housing should be
1:49:25 treated like single family housing and
1:49:29 that if we put a requirement of Frontage
1:49:32 it would
1:49:34 reduce it would make it more difficult
1:49:37 to build and one of our goals is to have
1:49:40 this be more
1:49:44 buildable so I think again I'm not
1:49:47 seeing an
1:49:49 additional additional conversation that
1:49:51 wasn't necessarily
1:49:53 had because you'd have to take it back
1:49:56 to single family which I think is
1:49:58 somewhat out of the
1:50:01 scope no I think that's fair about the
1:50:03 scope too in kind of addressing the
1:50:04 original question I still this is still
1:50:07 something that's on my mind I mean just
1:50:09 in terms of are we really accounting for
1:50:11 the full impacts of um this policy
1:50:14 analysis with the original question to
1:50:17 so I don't know I maybe this can be
1:50:20 captured with a single sentence in the
1:50:21 memo or something that goes to PPC but I
1:50:24 just really feel like this is something
1:50:25 that maybe it's something like you said
1:50:27 we put a pin in in terms of a policy
1:50:30 conversation to have a fer date and
1:50:31 maybe this isn't relevant to this
1:50:33 particular conversation but it is
1:50:36 something that that's Weighing on my
1:50:39 tonight mam
1:50:41 chair c administrator boitz um as I
1:50:45 think was said on the dasis evening this
1:50:47 is a housing crisis um and so we are I
1:50:50 think tempting to Grapple with this on
1:50:52 multiple levels the comprehensive plan
1:50:55 um through Community standards here in
1:50:57 isqua through uh State mandates um and
1:51:01 so this is one piece of a a pretty large
1:51:03 puzzle so you certainly we appreciate
1:51:07 the committee's feedback tonight and
1:51:09 that feedback will then be conveyed back
1:51:11 to planning policy uh uh the
1:51:13 administration's recommendation is to
1:51:14 try to keep the focus on these questions
1:51:17 for the task at hand recognizing this is
1:51:19 just still one piece of this housing
1:51:21 crisis that we're dealing with
1:51:27 think staff I think we've gotten a lot
1:51:30 from you which we will convey back to
1:51:32 planning policy
1:51:35 um if if the council final comments
1:51:38 great otherwise I'd like to have staff
1:51:40 at least have an opportunity to kind of
1:51:42 say what next steps are uh before we
1:51:44 before we par yes thank you so much
1:51:48 um council president did you have okay I
1:51:51 think I think that's great I will just
1:51:54 one quick final comment is that I do
1:51:56 really appreciate uh the administration
1:51:59 bringing back some additional
1:52:01 information the graphics the additional
1:52:03 um data options because that was
1:52:06 something that we asked about at our
1:52:08 last meeting um when we discussed this
1:52:10 and so I just wanted to uh I think that
1:52:12 set us up for this conversation um and I
1:52:16 appreciate the additional thought that
1:52:18 went into addressing our questions and
1:52:21 um making sure that we had
1:52:24 the information for
1:52:27 tonight so perhaps Madam chair um we can
1:52:30 close by just kind of saying what we
1:52:32 anticipate next steps would be um how
1:52:35 this may or may not impact a February
1:52:37 meeting of this committee that would be
1:52:40 great thank
1:52:43 you yeah so um next steps um we're going
1:52:47 to take all of the information that was
1:52:49 provided tonight and um we're going to
1:52:52 um continue to work on um proposed
1:52:54 amendment we're going to take that to
1:52:56 the planning policy commission likely in
1:52:59 the beginning of February and then um at
1:53:02 that time we'll uh they'll hold a public
1:53:04 hearing and provide a formal
1:53:06 recommendation to um to council and then
1:53:10 we'll have another discussion um that
1:53:12 and we'll be looking for formal um
1:53:14 discussions for adoption so that will
1:53:17 likely come
1:53:18 in May once we get all
1:53:25 so this committee will not see this item
1:53:27 again for a little while uh and director
1:53:30 do well I don't believe there are any
1:53:31 pending matters for the committee in the
1:53:33 month of
1:53:36 February don't ask me agenda items for
1:53:39 February so we
1:53:41 will we will keep in touch with uh
1:53:45 council president Walsh and council
1:53:46 member Hall um the meeting likely will
1:53:48 be cancelled just to let you know where
1:53:51 this is going and we will be back in a
1:53:54 couple of months with this matter all
1:53:56 right thank you and thank you for
1:53:58 outlining the next steps and our
1:53:59 volunteer planning policy commission's
1:54:01 role it's very important in the process
1:54:04 um all
1:54:05 right any any additional Thoughts by
1:54:11 Council not seeing any then we will move
1:54:14 to announcements are there any
1:54:18 announcements all right well I will I
1:54:20 will just mention I have so enjoyed
1:54:23 working with both of you this is my last
1:54:24 meeting as chair of this committee um
1:54:27 and thank you for the conversations and
1:54:30 for the conversation this evening and
1:54:32 best of luck as you grapple with these
1:54:34 important issues on behalf of our
1:54:38 community it's in good hands all right
1:54:41 um with that this meeting is adjourned
1:54:44 at 8:25 p.m thank you all