← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Auto captions

Tuesday, April 1, 2025

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
2025 Title 18 Clarifying Amendments COM 0104 2/2
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3a
Minutes of March 4, 2025
packet pp.5–6
Staff report:
Presented by: Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Middle Housing Draft Regulations COM 0103
60 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.7–133
Topics: Housing
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.
4b
2025 Title 18 Clarifying Amendments COM 0104
20 min · Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.135–170
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
In 2023, the city adopted a major update to Title 18, Land Use Code, with the intent of modernizing the regulations, simplifying the language and unifying a complex set of codes. As with all major projects, the city is committed to quality control, best practices, and conducting an annual review of issues found by staff and the public through implementation of the new code. Like the 2024 annual update, the city is proposing two phases of updates and splitting the updates by complexity: clarifying amendments and policy amendments. The April 1 meeting
0:09 Uh, welcome everyone. I'm Council Member
0:10 Zach Hall and I'm calling the April 1st,
0:12 2025 City Council Planning, Development,
0:15 and Environment Committee to order at
0:17 6:32 p.m. I'm joined by Council
0:21 President Walsh and Council Member Jen
0:23 has an excused absence this evening. Uh,
0:25 quickly to run through the agenda, we'll
0:27 take public comment. We'll do approval
0:29 of the last month's minutes. We have
0:31 column 0103, the middle housing draft
0:34 regulations and column 0104,
0:37 uh, title 18 clarifying
0:39 amendments. So, the first item on our
0:41 agenda is public
0:45 comment. A few remarks before we get
0:48 into public comment. There are multiple
0:49 times to give public comment tonight. uh
0:51 this general public comment opportunity
0:54 now or you can wait to make comments
0:56 after the presentation and council
0:57 question and answer period of each of
0:59 our two items. Um if you're signed up in
1:01 advance, we'll call you first. Uh and if
1:04 you're joining us virtually, you'd like
1:05 to make comments, please raise your
1:06 virtual hand. If you're on your phone,
1:08 press star three. Uh if you're on a
1:10 smartphone or your computer, look for
1:12 the raise hand icon. Um and if you're in
1:15 the room and didn't sign up, we'll be
1:17 sure to we'll come to you after we get
1:18 through the people who have signed up.
1:21 Um, let's just take a quick moment for
1:23 me to check in with the clerk and see if
1:25 there's anyone online who would be
1:26 interested in speaking. We have no
1:29 virtual attendees so far. Okay, no
1:31 virtual attendees. And do we have anyone
1:34 who signed up to speak for public
1:35 comment? Yes, chair. Okay, perfect. A
1:37 few more comments then. Um, thank you
1:40 very much for being with us. Public
1:41 comments are important part of the
1:43 process. We take them seriously and
1:44 factor them into our decisions. Um
1:46 you're now invited to address the
1:48 committee regarding matters directly
1:49 related to city programs, projects,
1:51 services, and events. Um but just keep
1:53 in mind that anything related to
1:54 political campaigns aren't permitted. Um
1:57 if you'd like to um comment, you'll have
1:59 an opportunity to do so. Please direct
2:01 your comments to us, the committee, not
2:03 individual members. And again, while
2:05 this isn't a question and answer
2:06 session, if you have questions, we'll
2:08 kind of keep track of those and um we'll
2:10 be sure to follow up as needed. Uh when
2:13 you're recognized, unmute unmute your
2:16 microphone if you're online, but there's
2:17 no one online yet. Uh or step up to the
2:19 lecture and hear, state your name,
2:21 address, and relationship to the city.
2:22 Speak clearly and pause frequently and
2:24 uh limit your comments to 5
2:26 minutes.
2:28 Um if you're attending, this isn't
2:31 doesn't quite apply right now, but if
2:32 you're attending virtually and um we're
2:35 having trouble hearing you, we're going
2:36 to have to move on, but we encourage you
2:37 to try to rejoin the meeting. Um, and if
2:40 not, of course, you can email us anytime
2:42 at citycons
2:43 councsilisquawwa.gov. Um, last but not
2:46 least, personal attacks, obscene
2:47 language, derogatory remarks, and
2:48 disruptive behavior such as shouting,
2:51 booing, clapping, or stomping feet, I'm
2:53 not imagining that's going to be a
2:54 problem, are not permitted. Um, so
2:56 again, thank you very much for being
2:58 here, and I'll go over to the clerk and
2:59 ask for um who'd like to speak first.
3:04 Chair, first uh signed up to speak is
3:07 Ann Fletcher.
3:10 Great. Come on up, Ann.
3:19 Great. Good evening. I'm Anne Fletcher.
3:21 I'm a
3:22 38-year Oldtown resident and a People
3:25 for Climate Action
3:27 member. Last week, my husband and I
3:30 received two
3:31 letters. Uh, I meant to bring them to
3:34 wave them around, but I forgot. One was
3:36 handwritten even and they were from
3:38 local real estate agents with ready
3:40 investors and desirable terms to buy our
3:42 home. We have received similar inquiries
3:45 in the past, but both of these letters
3:48 specifically mentioned the code changes
3:49 that you are discussing tonight.
3:52 Developers are more than ready to help
3:54 densify Oldtown, possibly at the expense
3:57 of families who have been and would like
3:59 to move in to the more moderate homes
4:02 with good yards here that are still
4:04 affordable to them.
4:06 So, let's let the families also have a
4:10 chance to invest in their
4:13 units. Developers can competitively
4:16 raise the prices and outbid these
4:18 families because they can make a good
4:20 profit if they are allowed to build more
4:22 units with fewer
4:25 requirements. Smaller, older homes will
4:28 be demolished to put in four units a
4:31 lot. And among other things, this isn't
4:34 environmentally sound. The rapid
4:38 gentrification could be at the expense
4:40 of a more measured approach where
4:42 owners, including young families, can
4:45 use the new and improved city
4:47 regulations to remodel, duplex, add
4:51 ADUs, etc. to what is already
4:55 here. We'd like to see that approach
4:57 continued as much as possible.
5:00 Middle housing is supposed to be to the
5:03 same scale of existing housing and
5:07 allowing four units without exception or
5:10 mitigation will not accomplish that. The
5:14 PCC has done a good job of listening to
5:16 the input and considering the complex
5:19 complexities and many of their
5:21 recommendations would help increase the
5:23 density while retaining the character
5:26 and the human health of Oldtown. These
5:29 include two units uh versus four per all
5:33 lot. Making ADUs easier for owners to
5:36 build, allowing two ADUs with another
5:39 unit or duplex, setting ADU minimum of
5:43 1,000 square ft, massing and facade
5:46 similar to single unit homes, and
5:48 retaining open space of 20% when more
5:51 units are on a lot.
5:54 Other less beneficial PPC
5:55 recommendations
5:57 uh were made because of state law that
6:00 overrides local control. Uh and for
6:04 example, the community and even some of
6:07 our leaders did not realize when these
6:08 laws were passed that the definition of
6:10 1/4 mile from a transit station included
6:14 bus stops. This means pretty much all of
6:17 Oldtown and much of Squawk Mountain have
6:20 to allow four units per lot. Current
6:23 land use and design codes might make
6:25 four units unworkable on smaller lots,
6:28 but there is some uncertainty. Would the
6:31 city codes
6:33 override those four units uh even if a
6:36 home was within 1/4 mile of a bus stop?
6:40 So, I support the administration's
6:42 pursuit to clarify and address the
6:45 transit station
6:48 definition. Similarly, the new law for
6:51 no parking minimums within 1 half mile
6:53 of transit stations is problematic
6:56 because it basically covers the whole
6:58 neighborhood and more. Our streets don't
7:01 have the capacity for an influx of
7:04 residential cars. We already have
7:06 weekday traffic jams in Oldtown because
7:09 of pass through commuters and the three
7:12 nearby schools where parents and
7:14 students drive to and from school every
7:18 day rather than using the school and
7:20 public transportation, the
7:23 buses. This makes it difficult sometimes
7:25 for residents even to get in and out of
7:28 their driveways. And finally, the EV
7:31 charging requirement for multif family
7:33 units is based on an old 2021 ordinance
7:36 that was approved by the city and also
7:39 an inadequate state law uh approved a
7:41 couple of years ago. By 2030, many car
7:44 manufacturers will sell most mostly EVs
7:47 and our buildings will not be adequate
7:49 for that. Adding EV capability later is
7:53 expensive and inefficient. The city
7:55 needs to update this EV charging
7:57 ordinance as soon as they know what the
8:00 state legislature does this session. And
8:03 I think we should also add more bike
8:06 parking than one per 20 units to
8:09 encourage multimodal
8:11 trait and travel. Thanks so much.
8:15 Yeah thanks
8:17 an clerk.
8:21 Chair, next up is David Kappler.
8:30 Good evening. David Kappler, 255
8:32 Southeast Andrew Street. I have to agree
8:35 with what Anne Fletcher said in total.
8:38 And just wanted to bring up one issue
8:40 that's going to lead, I think, to
8:42 confusion, more confusion than we're
8:44 already having around this issue. Um
8:48 there's a at the corner of Second and
8:51 and and East Sunset, there's under
8:53 construction now a fourunit
8:57 um building and it's starting to they're
9:01 in the construction stage of the second
9:03 floor. It's going to have a third floor.
9:06 I'm afraid people in my neighborhood
9:09 that are on the other streets besides
9:14 East Sunset are going to see that and
9:16 panic and think of this four these kinds
9:20 of buildings are going to be right in
9:22 their neighborhood. And I think it's
9:24 really important to clarify for people
9:26 that there's a different zoning for the
9:28 the sides of the street on East Sunset.
9:30 this property went through a process and
9:33 hearings and the whole bit to get do do
9:36 the four units at that site. But um just
9:39 for everybody's peace of mind and the
9:42 quality of the of the discussion and
9:46 everything being on the right piece of
9:49 property or the right area. And it would
9:52 sure be good to make sure that's
9:54 clarified to people that are going to
9:56 see that third floor and see that it's
9:59 got four front doors and um you're going
10:02 to hear about it potentially. So let's
10:04 uh just u handle that correctly and
10:07 upfront and it'll help a lot on this
10:11 whole discussion. Thank you.
10:15 Thank you.
10:17 Who's next? Next we have Nancy Davidson.
10:23 Okay, Nancy is going to hold off until
10:25 after the presentation. And chair,
10:27 that's the last of those that signed up
10:29 uh before the meeting. Okay, great. Is
10:31 there anyone in the audience who would
10:33 like to make comments now knowing we
10:35 have public comment opportunities um
10:38 after the presentation and council
10:40 question and answer? Yes, I'm seeing
10:42 one. Connie coming up.
10:45 Okay, Connie Marsh on Squawk. And as I
10:48 watch potential code changes come
10:50 through, I keep wondering where the
10:52 whiteboard
10:53 is or that from the council retreat
10:56 right after the code was created. And I
11:00 every time I ask for it, it appears for
11:04 a second and then it's never cross
11:06 referenced and all of the changes and
11:08 sort of marked off as to how we're
11:10 progressing on that. So is that a thing?
11:14 Is it
11:16 esiscon? Was it ever adopted as a
11:19 resolution by council? Or is this just a
11:22 memory that I should let waft away
11:25 because it's not enforceable? Because if
11:27 we're going to do what you said, then we
11:32 need
11:34 to make it rigorous, I guess, would be
11:38 the word. And we need to make it visible
11:40 to the public that those are the goals
11:43 that we want. Yet there they are
11:46 nowhere. And so how do we get somewhere
11:48 if we can never see what success is? Um
11:53 and that's part of the problem with many
11:55 things in the city. But here's just one
11:57 easy
11:59 one. I don't know. Does anybody know
12:02 what it is? Anyway, there you go. I'll
12:04 talk later again maybe.
12:07 Thanks, Connie. Would anyone else like
12:10 to make public comments now at the start
12:12 of the meeting before we dig into the
12:14 content of the
12:16 meeting? Uh, and is there anyone online
12:19 or anyone online who'd like to make
12:21 public comment? Chair Hall, we uh still
12:23 have no virtual attendees.
12:26 Okay, last chance to make public comment
12:29 now. Not seeing anyone. So we will then
12:32 move on to the next part of our agenda
12:36 um which is approval of minutes. Um so
12:40 the March 4th meeting minutes were
12:41 distributed in advance. Uh any
12:43 corrections by the committee. Any
12:45 objection to approval by unanimous
12:48 consent. All right. Great. Then um
12:50 hearing none. The March 4th 2025 meeting
12:52 minutes are approved as presented. Um,
12:55 the next item on our agenda then
12:59 is COM 0103, middle housing draft
13:02 regulations, and we have associate
13:03 planner Valerie Porter here to guide us
13:06 through all that good work. So, take it
13:07 away, Valerie, whenever you're ready.
13:27 Thank
13:28 you. Good evening. My name is Valerie
13:30 Porter, associate planner with the
13:32 community planning and development
13:34 department. Here to talk to you about
13:35 the middle housing
13:40 regulations. So tonight, the
13:42 administration is asking the committee
13:44 to deliberate and make a recommendation
13:46 to the full council regarding the middle
13:48 housing regulations.
13:50 So first I want to start with the
13:51 project goal. So the first goal of this
13:54 project is to amend the land use code to
13:56 comply with house bill 1110 which is
13:58 discusses middle housing. The second um
14:01 is or the other bill is house bill 1337
14:04 that addresses accessory dwelling units.
14:07 And then the second goal is to propose
14:09 amendments that meet the int intent of
14:11 the bill. And yeah, just a second. Can
14:15 we um get the size of the PowerPoint
14:18 just a little bit larger? Thank
14:25 you. And the second goal is to um meet
14:29 the intent of um the bill and facilitate
14:32 um housing as well as proposed
14:35 amendments that allow this housing to
14:36 fit seamlessly within the existing
14:38 neighborhoods.
14:40 So, I briefly want to talk about public
14:42 engagement. So, since July, staff has
14:45 been working to inform the public about
14:46 this project. In July, um we went live
14:49 with the middle housing website where we
14:52 um posted project information. We had a
14:54 definition on what is middle housing. We
14:56 posted our feasibility report as well as
14:59 the project timeline. In August, we held
15:01 a middle housing workshop to try to gain
15:04 um feedback from the community. We also
15:07 created a online survey that went live
15:10 in September. Um we believe that we got
15:12 pretty good feedback received
15:14 approximately 280 participants and then
15:17 we also staff held an online Q&A session
15:20 in October and we've also held middle
15:23 housing tours with PPC and council to
15:27 try to gain some feedback.
15:29 So since October of 2024, the
15:31 administration has been posing questions
15:33 to PPC and PD to help guide the proposed
15:36 amendments. So the next two slides um
15:38 I'm going to summarize the questions
15:40 that were asked to PPC and then their um
15:43 decisions. House Bill 1110 um requires
15:46 middle housing projects to be
15:48 streamlined and only be reviewed
15:50 administratively. The administration
15:52 believes in order to comply with this
15:53 requirement, a unit limit needed to be
15:56 established for middle housing. PPC felt
15:59 the unit limit should be set at four
16:01 units or less. Um, and anything more
16:04 would then need to be um would be
16:07 considered impactful and need to um have
16:09 neighbor notices or be reviewed by the
16:12 development
16:13 commission. House Bill 11 states that
16:16 middle housing regulations cannot be
16:18 more restricted than those um for detach
16:20 single family homes. And so this um
16:23 required detach single family homes and
16:25 middle housing to be treated the
16:27 same which required understanding um if
16:31 the city also wanted to exempt um middle
16:33 housing middle housing when it came to
16:35 the land use review process or um
16:38 frontage improvement. PPC decided that
16:40 the middle housing projects would only
16:42 be required to receive a building permit
16:45 and um those projects would also be
16:48 exempt from constructing furniture
16:49 improvements if constructed on an
16:52 existing law. And so mainly so that
16:55 single families um would not be um
16:58 impacted or required to do additional
17:00 permitting than they currently have to
17:03 do. And also just to be clear um
17:06 projects utilizing the unit lot
17:08 subdivision. So again have a lot
17:10 constructing a middle housing building
17:12 tight but they want to create zero lot
17:14 lines. Um if they were to utilize the
17:16 unautdivision process they would be
17:18 required to construct frontage
17:20 improvements and um those improvements
17:22 could be matching what's existing um or
17:26 um constructing half street improvements
17:28 which would include sidewalk curb gutter
17:31 sidewalk um and that's just dependent on
17:34 um the location of the lot. The proposed
17:37 amendments that are that have been
17:38 presented to you do not mention frontage
17:40 improvements because um these
17:42 requirements are outlined in the street
17:44 standards which is um uh regulated by or
17:48 um managed by the public works um
17:50 department but CPD staff is working with
17:53 public works to um ensure that the
17:55 discussions that we have related to
17:56 frontage improvement are reflected in
17:58 the street
18:00 standards. A detach single family home
18:02 and an ADU are not considered middle
18:05 housing. um building types. However,
18:07 House Bill 1110 does allow a city to
18:10 decide if an ADU can be constructed um
18:13 on the same lot as a middle housing type
18:15 and whether or not it could be counted
18:17 towards um lot density. Um PBC was
18:20 asked, you know, how would we like to
18:22 treat ADUs um because of this and they
18:25 believe ADUs should be allowed on a lot
18:27 with metal housing and count towards lot
18:30 density as ADUs is considered an
18:33 affordable housing option.
18:35 We also posed a question related to um
18:38 critical areas. With House Bill 1110,
18:41 the city had the option to exempt lots
18:43 encumbered by critical areas from
18:45 building middle housing. Um again, a
18:48 question was posed and PPC decided that
18:50 the critical area code should be applied
18:52 currently how it is applied today. And
18:54 this is really specifically towards um
18:56 those lots that are encumbered by coal
18:58 mine or seismic hazmat areas. um we
19:01 would allow them to build middle housing
19:03 just as long as they're able to mitigate
19:05 um the impacts um per the land use
19:08 code. And we also posed a question um
19:11 related to impact
19:14 fees. The administration um with these
19:17 new regulation staff wanted to
19:19 understand if impact fees should
19:20 continue to be waved. Um we post a
19:23 question and PPC agreed the fees should
19:24 be waved to continue to encourage
19:26 encourage the creation of accessory
19:28 dwelling units.
19:31 During the um January PTE meeting, the
19:35 committee requested information about
19:37 lot density um be presented to PPC to
19:40 further have um further for them to
19:42 further discuss and provide a
19:43 recommendation. PPC decided um to keep
19:47 the lot density at two units per lot as
19:50 this allowed the city to comply with
19:52 state regulations, allow for more
19:54 density, but then um allow them to
19:56 evaluate the progress over time and then
19:58 make changes if need be
20:01 later. PD PD also wanted PPC to discuss
20:04 the size requirement for accessory
20:06 dwelling units. Considering how the
20:08 state is blurring the lines between a
20:10 primary unit and the ADU, PPC decided to
20:13 keep that size requirement at 1,00
20:16 square feet um because they felt that
20:18 that size requirement was appropriate
20:20 for an accessory
20:23 structure. But as the project um
20:25 progressed, the policy questions um the
20:28 administration started to post questions
20:30 related to design to PPC. The
20:32 administration wanted to understand if
20:33 the requirement um to have a walkway
20:36 separate from the driveway should
20:38 remain. Um PPC decided this requirement
20:40 should be reviewed as not as it it's um
20:45 as it would allow the developer a little
20:46 bit more flexibility and also
20:48 considering that impervious surface
20:50 requirement. The intent of House Bill
20:53 1110 is to allow more housing options in
20:56 single family zones. So since new
20:58 building types are being introduced into
21:00 single family zones, the administration
21:02 wanted to understand if design standards
21:04 should be in place and they suggested
21:06 two um requirements that are currently
21:08 applied only to Oldtown if they should
21:10 be applied citywide. PPC agreed that
21:13 having design standards in place was
21:15 needed and the two requirements were
21:17 appropriate. It allowed for um to kind
21:20 of create visual interest and to allow
21:22 these new building types to fit with the
21:24 existing um homes.
21:32 One thing so a few other years a few
21:34 years ago the city added um cottage and
21:37 courtyard housing to the land use code
21:39 but we didn't adopt any design
21:40 standards. So as part of this project we
21:42 also created design standards um
21:45 creating you know the open space and
21:49 what those open space requirements would
21:51 be. Um the administration's latest
21:53 proposal was to require at least 20% of
21:55 the lot to be set aside for open space
21:57 and PPC agreed with this
22:00 proposal. So next I'm going to briefly
22:02 go over the major changes that occurred
22:04 with the land use code. And so the city
22:06 um changed lot density requirements to
22:08 align with House Bill 1110, which
22:10 required allowing um to increase lot
22:13 density to two dwelling units per lot
22:15 for all lots zone residential and then
22:17 also allow four dwelling units on one
22:20 lot if one unit was designated as an
22:22 affordable unit or one unit was um or if
22:26 the lot was in quarter mile walking
22:28 distance of a major transit stop.
22:31 The state introduced this new term of
22:33 major transit stop with house bill 1110.
22:36 The department of commerce has
22:37 interpreted this definition to extend to
22:39 sound transit bus stop or bus routes. So
22:42 here is a map showing all of the u major
22:45 transit stop locations throughout the
22:47 city. The blue dots, they're little tiny
22:49 dots, but they're showing the bus
22:51 locations. And the lighter blue area
22:53 around that is the quarter mile walking
22:55 distance from those stops. And the
22:58 darker um area around is the um half
23:03 mile walking distance from those stops.
23:06 And then if you can kind of see, it's a
23:08 little bit hard because there's a lot
23:09 going on on this map, but the there are
23:11 some green shapes and those are
23:13 highlighting the lots that would be
23:14 impacted by any of the major transit
23:16 stop requirements. So, as you can see
23:18 from this map, um there are some
23:20 neighborhoods that would be greatly
23:22 impacted by this requirement. I'd like
23:24 to um again state that the
23:26 administration does not agree with the
23:27 Department of Commerce interpretation
23:29 and staff has been working with our
23:31 state representative during this
23:32 legislation session to amend this
23:35 definition. Unfortunately, we'll not
23:37 know when this definition will change.
23:39 We're hoping around the June time. Um
23:42 but we're hopeful that it will be
23:43 changed.
23:46 So, real quick, there is a bill. Is that
23:48 what you're referencing? Going through
23:49 the legislature right now to clarify the
23:50 language. Is that right? I believe so.
23:53 Yes, that's correct. Okay. Do um do you
23:56 happen to know the bill number off the
23:57 top of your head?
23:59 1491. It's the TOD bill
24:02 that has a definition for major transit
24:05 stop already. It's part of the bill.
24:09 Okay. Thank you.
24:15 So, as previously mentioned, accessory
24:16 dwelling units um are allowed to be
24:18 constructed on the same lots with middle
24:20 housing and they will count towards lot
24:22 density. That was discussed and that
24:24 changes being reflected in the proposed
24:26 amendments. Um the state um legislation
24:29 requires that the city allow six of the
24:31 middle housing billy types in all single
24:33 family zones. And so the table of
24:35 permanent uses um has been revised to
24:38 allow for duplex, triplex, forplexes,
24:41 town homes, and cottage homes in all
24:43 single family zones. Again, we added the
24:46 term middle housing um which again
24:48 reflects the PPC's recommendation of
24:51 four units. And then we also revised the
24:54 permitting process again based off of um
24:56 previous discussions to exempt middle
24:58 housing projects from a land use permit.
25:04 We also established design standards for
25:07 single family and metal housing building
25:09 types um just again to ensure that the
25:12 these new types fit seamlessly in these
25:14 neighborhoods. And then we revised the
25:16 parking code um to align with state
25:19 legislation and PPC um did uh recommend
25:23 increasing the maximum parking
25:24 requirement for detach single family
25:27 lots um from I believe two to four. And
25:30 this is to allow for those lots who have
25:33 um a a garage and a long driveway that
25:37 would accommodate um parking. So instead
25:39 of us restricting it, they're allowing
25:42 for that for um that option. And then we
25:45 also again revised our open space
25:49 requirements. Again, in address um in
25:52 addition to addressing House Bill 1110,
25:54 we're addressing House Bill
25:56 1337. Um, the land use code was was
25:59 revised to allow two ADUs on one lot if
26:02 it's constructed with a detached single
26:04 family home. We also removed all
26:06 language requiring a property owner to
26:08 reside on site. And prior to the code
26:11 update in 2023, there was a there was
26:13 code language allowing someone to create
26:16 um an ADU if the size of their basement
26:19 or their attic was over 1,000 square
26:21 feet. This requirement was removed, but
26:24 we are proposing to put this back in
26:25 because we believe it's appropriate if
26:28 someone wants to again convert their
26:30 basement um just to an ADU and not have
26:33 to do additional modifications to meet
26:36 code requirements. And then we also
26:38 eliminated some processes that are no
26:40 longer used. The code um we there was a
26:44 a requirement specifically to eliminate
26:46 approved ADUs. There was a bunch of
26:48 steps that just weren't necessary. So we
26:50 felt that it was appropriate to clean
26:51 that up and remove those
26:55 requirements. During the January PTE
26:58 meeting, the committee requested
26:59 analysis around affordable housing
27:01 requirements. Um really you wanted to
27:03 understand I believe you know would
27:05 these requirements actually yield an
27:06 affordable unit on site. Staff worked
27:09 with the regional coalition of housing
27:11 and they developed a perform model. Uh
27:13 the study evaluated isqua's housing
27:15 prices, land val values, estimated
27:18 construction cost, and potential profit
27:20 for a variety of scenarios. State
27:23 legislation requires an affordable unit
27:25 to be sold to households making less
27:27 than 80% of the area medium income,
27:30 which this information is based off of.
27:33 So here's the model. It's showing four
27:35 scenarios. Um the first is a duplex, a
27:38 new duplex. Um the second is a cottage
27:41 development with four units. Um the
27:44 third is a town home project with four
27:46 units. All of these would then be
27:48 constructed on a 10,000 foot lot. And
27:51 then the last um scenario is an existing
27:53 home that's being converted into two
27:56 units and that would be on a 5,000 ft
27:58 lot. The highlighted section or the area
28:01 highlighted in red is the development
28:03 program and this is just listing you
28:05 know the number of units, the lot size
28:07 and so on.
28:12 The feasibility analysis section which
28:14 is highlighted here is showing the
28:16 development cost and the project profit.
28:18 So according to this data, a new duplex
28:22 on a 10,000 foot lot would not yield a
28:24 profit and is unlikely to be
28:26 constructed.
28:29 Real quick, can we um enlarge the
28:32 PowerPoint even more just for this
28:35 bit for any members of the public that
28:38 wanted to
28:41 a little better. Yeah. Okay.
28:49 Thanks. So, this last section is showing
28:54 um information related to the affordable
28:56 units. This information I'd like to
28:58 bring your attention is the last line,
29:00 which basically shows an affordable unit
29:01 being constructed for cottage and town
29:04 home projects. These projects could
29:06 create an affordable unit if the
29:08 affordable unit is smaller than the
29:09 market rate unit. And in this scenario,
29:12 it's showing um a unit smaller at least
29:15 37% smaller than the market rate units.
29:19 So this is determined by comparing the
29:21 residual profit which is right up here
29:24 with the difference per unit line.
29:27 basically the profit has to be greater
29:29 than the difference in the
29:35 units. So there are two two key
29:37 takeaways. Um the first is it's likely
29:39 that an affordable unit can be
29:41 constructed on site if the unit is
29:43 smaller than the market rate unit. And
29:45 then the second is um constructing more
29:47 units on a larger lot is more
29:49 profitable. Um, currently the land use
29:52 code allows for units to be smaller than
29:54 10% but the code doesn't address a
29:57 fourbedroom scenario which is what this
29:59 perform model is um discussing. So,
30:02 based off this information, the
30:03 administration is proposing to add a
30:06 4unit requirement to the code. Um, just
30:08 in case that someone's able to produce
30:11 um a an four unit or four bedroomedroom
30:15 um affordable unit, there is an option
30:17 for them to um create it.
30:21 PPC held a public hearing on March 27th
30:25 and unanimously approved the proposed
30:27 amendments, but with one motion to
30:30 revise a requirement in the single
30:32 family and middle housing design
30:33 guidelines. This change was intended to
30:36 um to ensure that primary access is
30:38 gained from the street first and then if
30:41 any other available access or if there
30:44 was no other um primary street to gain
30:46 access from they would then gain access
30:48 from an alley or another transportation
30:50 facility.
30:54 So again the administration is asking
30:56 the committee to deliver real quick just
30:58 and go back to that last slide and take
30:59 a question and then and then let's go
31:00 over direction needed. Sorry I know
31:02 you're almost done there. Almost there.
31:04 Um I remember we to when we went on the
31:08 housing tour, there was an ADU above a
31:10 garage that had the door out the side
31:12 and it had a sidewalk that led in. Would
31:15 that be allowed under this scenario or
31:19 would that not be allowed because it
31:21 isn't facing either the street or an
31:23 alley? So ADU standards wouldn't um we
31:26 wouldn't apply this standard to ADUs.
31:29 They would have to follow the ADU code.
31:31 And so, um, I believe we took out all
31:33 requirements for regulating door
31:36 locations for ADUs just to encourage,
31:39 um, their creation. So, would it apply
31:42 to cottage or cluster housing or just
31:45 the like townhouse, duplex? It it would
31:49 apply to So, this scenario is
31:51 specifically addressing more like town
31:53 homes. So if um the the home is set back
31:57 from the main street then they would
31:59 then be um be allowed to be directed
32:02 towards a transportation facility. Okay
32:05 or a central open space or central
32:07 courtyard in the case of cottage or
32:09 something like that or a trail. So okay
32:12 thank you good question. All right feel
32:14 free to wrap up. Thanks.
32:16 The administration is asking the
32:18 committee to deliberate and make a full
32:20 recommendation to the full council
32:21 regarding the middle housing
32:23 regulations. Any
32:27 questions? Okay, I've emailed over a few
32:30 of these. Um, but I just wanted to make
32:32 sure we had them as information in case
32:34 anybody's watching this. So the open
32:37 space requirement, one of my concerns
32:39 there was does that is that on top of
32:43 the imperous surface or could it be
32:45 included in that? So can you explain the
32:47 differences between open space and
32:50 impervious surface? Yes. So um the
32:53 impervious surface requirement is a
32:55 zoning requirement and so basically uh
32:58 each zone has a specific percentage and
33:02 so the purpose is that is just to ensure
33:04 that there's balance between imperous
33:06 surface versus pvious surface. The open
33:09 space requirement is specifically for
33:11 cottage and courtyard housing. And um
33:15 someone could have open space that count
33:17 towards pvious as well as their open
33:20 space requirement. And again, the open
33:22 space requirement related to cottage and
33:24 courthouse is one estate requirement.
33:26 We're required to allow um or for
33:29 cottages that we're required to allow at
33:31 least 20% of the site be um uh allotted
33:35 to open space. And also um that's just
33:39 kind of the character of cottage homes
33:40 is that they gain access from this open
33:43 space.
33:46 Um, so I think you had clarified during
33:49 the presentation the difference between
33:51 the major transit stop, quarter mile and
33:53 a half a mile. I know that's very
33:55 difficult to see on the screen and it,
33:57 you know, looks like it's covered, but I
33:59 appreciate you um, doing that. and then
34:03 the reduction in the on-site affordable
34:07 unit in that proforma. Can you talk
34:10 about what's in the code? Because I
34:14 believe you said the code says 10% it
34:18 can be 10% smaller than a market rate
34:20 unit and otherwise you have to ask staff
34:24 for an exception. But you've also
34:27 mentioned these different sizes for
34:30 different um number of bedrooms. So can
34:34 you tell me what's in the code, what's
34:36 not in the code, how somebody would
34:38 reading it if they didn't know the
34:40 information. Yes. So um right now what
34:43 I'm showing is the um current code
34:46 language um the the code language that's
34:48 currently in the code and then the um
34:51 red text is the administration's
34:53 proposed proposal to revise this. And so
34:56 basically what this is saying is that if
34:58 you have um an affordable unit um we
35:01 would prefer that it's 10% less than the
35:04 market rate but you can go um lower if
35:08 you get the CPD director's approval but
35:11 in no case can those affordable units be
35:14 smaller than the sizes um outlined here.
35:17 So that would be 500 ft² for a studio,
35:21 600 ft² for a one-bedroom unit, 800 ft²
35:24 for a two-bedroom unit, and 1,000 ft²
35:27 for a 3bedroom unit. Um, again, the
35:30 performer was um discussing a 4bedroom
35:33 unit, which the code didn't discuss, and
35:35 so we're proposing to have a fourbedroom
35:38 requirement.
35:41 Great. That answers all of my questions.
35:43 Yeah.
35:47 I don't have any
35:50 um clarifying questions um for this
35:53 though. I did just want to say because
35:55 uh it was brought up in public comment.
35:56 So the title 18 whiteboard is something
35:59 that exists, right? We've it's been
36:01 published several times on in packets
36:03 and stuff like that. We did have a
36:04 lengthy conversation during budget. This
36:06 is all a question just to say is this is
36:08 this the right assumption. Um we had a
36:10 lengthy conversation during budget
36:12 whether or not we could pull things from
36:13 the whiteboard into our work plan. And
36:15 the answer was we actually kind of
36:16 already have a stacked work plan for
36:18 planning um and community development
36:20 right now. And so we're not able to do
36:22 that. And so council gave the thumbs up
36:25 that we would be going into the bienium
36:27 not affording to be able to work on
36:29 anything on the title 18 work uh
36:31 whiteboard. Is that is that right? I
36:34 think that is correct. So we do we are
36:36 maintaining a list. It is on the city's
36:38 web page. uh because of the workload
36:41 with the state mandates um you know
36:44 middle housing, House Bill 5290 and
36:49 another busy legislative session this
36:51 year uh that that those are those are
36:53 the you know were not anticipated when
36:55 we were creating the future updates list
36:57 but council did prioritize parking and
37:00 housing from that list and parking has
37:04 been part of these bills. Um you know we
37:07 we have some clean issues to resolve on
37:10 the parking with a code update already
37:12 that were passed by state legislature.
37:14 There's some new bills floating around.
37:16 So, we'll know more after the end of the
37:19 legislative session, but we will be
37:21 taking on some parking amendments to
37:23 meet the state mandated requirements.
37:26 Um, for housing, um, you know, we've
37:29 already, um, done the Pioneer program
37:32 that established the multif family tax
37:34 exemption. So, we want to see how that
37:36 works out uh for the city before we uh
37:39 take on of expanding multif family tax
37:42 exemption for the entire city. Um but
37:46 that's where we're at with the white
37:48 board. We haven't lost it. We have we're
37:51 keeping track of it. Uh and we'll
37:53 continue to do our annual housekeeping
37:55 code amendments and through that or have
37:58 we have whittleled down a few things
38:00 from that list as part of that annual
38:02 updates. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I was
38:04 just hoping to clarify um my assumption
38:07 of where it was at and sometimes we even
38:09 say, "Oh, we should add this to the
38:10 whiteboard." So, it keeps growing as
38:11 well. Lots of good work for us to work
38:13 on in the future. Um, one final question
38:15 from the PPC hearing, there was a motion
38:18 that wasn't carried around massing and
38:21 um facade design requirements. Um, and
38:24 I'm not sure if I followed what the it
38:27 didn't pass, so it's not it's not before
38:29 us today, but I was just wondering if
38:30 you could expand on kind of what the
38:32 intent of that motion was. Um, if you
38:35 recall, the the intent was to not apply
38:39 um the design standards that are
38:40 currently applied to um Oldtown
38:43 citywide. I think there was concern that
38:45 we needed to have a better understanding
38:49 um if we were to apply those standards
38:52 um the implications and so um the rest
38:56 of the commissioners um didn't quite
38:58 agree and they um felt that the um the
39:02 two uh design standards that were being
39:04 proposed were appropriate because um it
39:07 it's addressing um facade modulation and
39:11 then also um what we call blank wall
39:13 treatment. So basically ensuring that um
39:16 the structure isn't just a plain blank
39:19 wall. Um the the requirements would
39:22 allow
39:23 um a developer to choose from I think
39:26 four different types from changing um
39:30 building color or um adding um windows
39:34 or some kind of modulation again just to
39:36 give it visual interest.
39:38 And all of that would still apply to
39:40 whatever the fourth affordable smaller
39:43 unit would be. It would still have the
39:44 same kind of design aesthetic as the
39:47 remaining units, right? Yeah. So, this
39:49 this requirement would be applied to
39:51 single family as well as middle housing.
39:55 All right. Uh any other questions,
39:57 committee? All right. Um well, very
40:00 good. Then we're going to move into uh
40:02 public comment again for this particular
40:04 item. Thank you, Valerie. Um if um
40:08 there's anyone in the room actually let
40:10 me just check in. Is there anyone online
40:12 at the moment?
40:14 No chair. There is nobody online. Okay,
40:16 great. Uh is there anyone in the room
40:18 who'd like to make public comment now?
40:20 Yeah, come on
40:29 up. Good evening. My name is Nancy
40:31 Davidson. I'm a resident of Oldtown 405
40:34 Southeast Bush. I'm also a former
40:36 resident of Squawk Mountain. I first of
40:38 all wanted to um express my appreciation
40:41 for the hard work that the PPC did on
40:43 this issue. Um they listened very
40:46 carefully. There were a lot of comments
40:47 provided by community members and
40:50 citizens and residents were very
40:51 concerned about potential proposals and
40:54 the impacts to the character of the
40:56 community. I very much appreciated they
40:58 moved forward with the recommendation to
40:59 do two units per lot except for those in
41:02 areas that are affected by major transit
41:04 stops which we're all aware of. I think
41:06 the idea of making ADUs more easy to
41:08 construct is a great way to address
41:10 public housing, making places that are
41:13 more homelike for residents to rent or
41:15 to own. Um the allowance of two ADUs
41:19 with um another unit or duplex is also
41:23 very informative and we see several of
41:25 those in the Oldtown neighborhood at
41:26 this time and also the I appreciate the
41:29 massing basically making the oldtown
41:32 standards part of the community so that
41:34 we don't have blank walls as we see on a
41:36 few units in the community. They also
41:38 expressed a um a recommendation to move
41:41 forward by the council and the
41:43 administration to try and address the
41:45 definition of this major transit stop
41:47 which I think is a very good thing and
41:49 hopefully this piece of legislation that
41:51 u many referenced is will help and
41:54 improve this thing. Um we did provide
41:56 lots of public comments and terms of
41:59 written correspondence and I've brought
42:01 copies in case you have not seen them
42:02 and I'd like them entered into the
42:04 record from many of the people that I
42:06 actually obtained copies of.
42:15 If there is an interest on behalf of the
42:17 council to make the four units per
42:19 parcel go throughout the community, I
42:21 know there are some people that are
42:23 interested in that and I've heard that
42:24 from some of my neighbors as well. I
42:26 think there's several issues that need
42:28 to be considered. parking of course. Um,
42:31 four units potentially eight vehicles
42:34 per per household or or two units per h
42:38 per unit. Eight units, eight vehicles
42:41 now being added to a community or a
42:43 street is a pretty challenging thing.
42:45 The second thing is, of course, it will
42:47 change the character even with the old
42:49 town standards and stuff. It's higher
42:51 density. It's something that you're
42:52 seeing going in in Seattle, um,
42:57 Kirkland, Belle, and it's something to
42:59 pay attention. The second, the other
43:01 thing to consider is storm water. In
43:03 Oldtown, there's lots of neighborhoods
43:04 without storm water facilities. Um,
43:07 clearly it will be it will be very
43:09 difficult for anyone putting in two or
43:11 four units to address that. I appreciate
43:13 that we're not requiring them all to
43:15 come up to those standards, but it will
43:17 provide more potential impervious area
43:20 and um it's something to be concerned
43:23 about. And the other thing that I'm
43:24 really concerned about is the tree
43:26 canopy and you know you build more
43:29 density, trees are going to come down.
43:31 We have a can canopy standard identified
43:34 in the climate commitment and it's
43:36 something that we should be paying
43:37 attention to. So if we're going to four
43:38 units, it's something that we really
43:40 need to think about. With that, I really
43:42 appreciate your um the opportunity to
43:44 provide comments and look forward to
43:46 your decision. Thank you. Thank you very
43:49 much.
43:51 Is there anyone else who'd like to
43:52 provide public comment this evening?
43:58 Yep. Come on up.
44:06 So, um, I live on Squawk and I have lots
44:10 of friends in Sycamore. And these are
44:13 all places that would
44:15 be just about impossible to figure out
44:18 how to do two, much less four. And for
44:22 example, Forest Rim is not um does not
44:26 have a homeowners association. And that
44:29 is a magnificent distance up the hill
44:33 and we don't have water redundancy up on
44:37 the hill. So when you start and same
44:39 with sycamore, you have upper and you
44:41 have lower sycamore. So when you start
44:43 looking at the reaches of the elevation
44:46 changes for these extra densities that
44:50 would be possible, it's expensive. And
44:53 so what the state has not required uh
44:57 for the two units, it's the
45:01 environmental review. If you decide you
45:03 wanted to go above that, then you're
45:05 going to have to describe what those
45:06 consequences are for anything above what
45:09 the state is has required because it is
45:13 no longer a requirement. It's optional.
45:16 The other thing that is hard to make
45:20 decisions in absentia is all the parking
45:23 stuff. They've pulled the parking into a
45:25 whole different category. And so some of
45:28 the things that are in the parking are
45:30 um you can take down more
45:33 trees if you
45:35 can't build your your units because it's
45:39 too expensive. So that means you would
45:43 potentially taking down trees and
45:45 planting them offsite. We haven't even
45:47 figured that out for our regular code
45:49 change, much less adding even more of
45:52 that into this. So I think really it's
45:56 time to just go with the two. You do the
45:59 minimum you possibly can and then you
46:01 try to figure out what the language is.
46:02 with again more language coming your
46:05 way, including I think mobile units
46:08 being able to be parked in people's
46:10 driveways as one of those things that's
46:13 still on the board. So now, how many
46:15 units does that count for in one area?
46:19 It it's uh everything's moving too fast
46:22 to try to go
46:24 faster. So I appreciated PPC staying
46:27 with two and all of the public that came
46:30 out to talk. Squawk and uh Sycamore,
46:34 they're tough because, you know, the
46:37 they're less organized. But anyway,
46:39 everybody I've talked to, they're still
46:42 oblivious to the whole thing even
46:44 happening. So, the outreach didn't reach
46:47 terribly far, but where it did reach,
46:50 you can get the opinion. Thanks.
46:53 Thank you,
46:54 Connie. Anyone else in the room like to
46:57 make public comment before we
46:58 deliberate?
47:01 Going once, going twice. Anyone checking
47:03 back in? Anyone
47:05 online? All right. Um, then I think
47:08 we're going to move on to council
47:09 deliberation. Um, the direction
47:12 needed slide. Would you mind throwing
47:15 that back up for
47:18 us? And then uh we'll open it up for
47:22 feedback. Would you like to start?
47:34 Okay, just yeah, give some
47:37 recommendations. I think we can do that
47:39 kind of part of the job. Um gosh, well,
47:43 first of all, I was going to start with
47:46 um my thank yous on this. And I'll start
47:49 with Valerie because it's her birthday
47:52 and because that's dedication to come
47:56 in. I mean, we should thank you anyway
47:58 for all of the work that you've done,
48:01 including tours of this and answering
48:04 all kinds of email questions. Um, and
48:06 just the dedication of getting it right
48:09 and the little tweaks. Um, but I also
48:11 want to express that thanks to PPC and
48:14 the community's involvement in the work.
48:17 um as much as this is state required the
48:20 feedback allows us to make it a little
48:22 bit more isiquacentric and we've seen
48:25 that in things like the um the critical
48:29 areas and protecting those and such. So
48:33 um I've written a few things here
48:35 because I I think this is an important
48:38 element of what we're doing here. Um, I
48:42 recognize that change, especially around
48:44 one's home, is um, pretty sensitive and
48:49 nobody wants to see their neighborhood
48:51 suddenly changed beyond recognition. Um,
48:55 but I do think we have a really great
48:57 example in our community
49:00 of how zoning changes can actually
49:04 create gentle density that the community
49:07 loves and that doesn't happen quickly.
49:09 and that's Oldtown because Oldtown has
49:13 single family duplex as its zoning and
49:17 has for a long time and it still retains
49:20 a majority of the housing as single
49:22 family. And so I think it's just really
49:25 important that even though you guys are
49:28 getting letters asking for purchase,
49:32 they're your home and people aren't
49:34 going to sell all at once um because of
49:37 this. Our analysis is expecting that
49:41 only 5% of our growth by 2044 is going
49:44 to be from this type of infill change uh
49:49 middle housing development.
49:51 Um and yes, it will impact Squawk and
49:56 Oldtown more than others. And I wish I
50:00 could wave a magic wand and make that go
50:02 away and make CCR CCNRs and HOAs not
50:06 have the protective covenants that they
50:08 have, but we can't.
50:12 Um, and then I wanted to talk to the
50:15 four units compared to two units. So, I
50:19 appreciate that we made that ask to
50:22 PPC both because the question hadn't
50:25 been asked and I think it's important to
50:29 provide options and get the feedback um
50:32 which you can only do if the question is
50:34 asked. Um and then also the initial data
50:39 that we were looking at, it was really
50:41 uncertain if allowing two units
50:45 um would result in just fewer more
50:48 expensive luxury homes
50:50 um which doesn't really meet our goals.
50:53 And so that's why I appreciate we also
50:55 asked the question about is that fourth
50:57 unit feasible um with the affordable
51:01 requirement. And I I think that's really
51:04 important because if we just say, "Oh,
51:08 we could get all of these affordable
51:09 units out of this, but based on our code
51:13 and the proform we're showing, it's not
51:15 really buildable or pencils out." Then
51:18 we're kind of making a promise to the
51:19 community that, oh, if you deal with,
51:23 you know, some additional gentle
51:24 density, we'll also get affordable
51:27 units, but that might not have been able
51:30 to be built. So, I appreciate that we
51:33 looked at it. We recognized what would
51:36 need to happen in order to allow those
51:39 build. So, all of that based on what
51:42 I've heard from PPC in the community, I
51:45 agree with the feedback that two homes
51:47 per lot is the right fit for Isiqua and
51:51 that we make the change in code that,
51:56 you know, allows for that smaller
51:58 affordable unit. um just to really
52:02 cement that as an
52:04 option. And the third piece that I
52:07 really agree with PPC is that the
52:09 definition of a major transit stop is
52:12 absolute bogus um the way that the state
52:15 has defined it right now.
52:18 So I think unless we have a commitment
52:21 from transit partners to continue
52:23 service at a station area with
52:26 regularity,
52:29 um defining movable bus stops that don't
52:32 have BRT lanes or transit centers or
52:35 light rail stations or something built
52:37 that shows that commitment is just
52:40 wrong. So I appreciate mentioning the
52:43 House Bill 1491. I did notice that they
52:46 are um they have a hearing on the 4th at
52:52 1:30 p.m. which I have now signed up for
52:55 so that we can speak on that because I
52:57 think that is really important. Um and I
53:01 did read over the documentation. It
53:03 would fix this problem.
53:06 So I suggest everybody sign up. Um but
53:09 in general I I'm I'm really pleased with
53:12 this process. the listening that we have
53:14 done and the thoughtful conversations
53:18 other than that smack that the state put
53:21 down that just doesn't make it very fun.
53:24 Um so that's where I sit on it. Thank
53:27 you.
53:29 Um yeah, no uh really similar. Um
53:32 definitely a big thank you to uh the
53:34 community. Um I went back and watched
53:37 the different PPC meetings ever since
53:39 our last PTE touch. So, thank you to PPC
53:43 and staff of course for uh carrying the
53:46 weight of this for so long. It was like
53:47 six, five or six touches meetings.
53:50 Incredible. And then of course um many
53:53 community faces that that look familiar
53:55 from watching that meeting on YouTube.
53:57 So, thank you very much for taking your
53:58 time to be here as well. Um and Valerie,
54:01 I thought you you went question by
54:03 question very methodically and had good
54:05 conversations. So, well done kind of
54:06 structuring um uh the touches with PPC.
54:10 Um I agree with the recommendations that
54:12 the groups put together. I think you
54:14 know a problem has kind of been defined
54:16 by the state and a vision has been set
54:18 at that level. So I think it makes sense
54:20 to implement the vision as it was
54:22 crafted there and then monitor um the
54:25 items that we've kind of identified um
54:28 of interest here. Uh the lot density and
54:31 affordability issue. It'll just be
54:33 interesting to see how that plays out on
54:34 the ground. And also let me just say
54:36 thank you for doing the kind of
54:37 feasibility analysis around that is that
54:39 fourth unit affordable uh fourth
54:42 affordable unit even feasible and then
54:45 after that being creative and saying
54:47 okay well what would make it feasible.
54:49 So thank you for kind of tweaking that
54:50 and finding out what comes what comes
54:52 next. I just think that's just
54:54 outstanding staff work in my mind. It's
54:56 cuz you you could just have easily have
54:59 come back and said it's not at the size.
55:02 it's not feasible and then we could have
55:04 had a couple more touches of being like
55:05 well what would make it feasible but you
55:07 kind of almost anticipated what we in
55:08 the community might have said which is
55:10 what would have made that feasible so
55:12 anyways just I was really impressed by
55:14 that work um the ADU size kind of
55:18 watching how how that continues to show
55:20 up on the ground too because you know we
55:21 still have every now and then public
55:23 commenters around wanting to have a
55:25 little bit more space for particular use
55:27 cases right um impact fees will probably
55:30 be something we'll need to evaluate in
55:31 the future both for single family and
55:33 middle housing and and just trying to
55:35 better understand what the impact of not
55:38 um having that is. Um I know um there
55:43 are are many other opportunities around
55:45 could we be using like IHIP funding some
55:48 of our housing investing pool to support
55:50 affordable units and things like that
55:52 too. So um I look forward to maybe
55:54 having framing up some of these
55:56 conversations in the future. And then of
55:58 course frontage improvements, which is
55:59 kind of what I had brought up last time.
56:01 And um I agree again with the direction
56:04 of of of still exempting that for middle
56:06 housing. But I did want to put that just
56:08 on the radar because um uh the mayor and
56:12 I actually went on a little frontage
56:14 improvement tour a few weeks ago. We got
56:16 in her car and we drove around Oldtown
56:19 and Squawk and Newport, some of the
56:22 single family neighborhoods in Newport,
56:23 too, and just kind of observed the
56:25 variety of frontages and paths that we
56:28 saw. And it really doesn't necessarily
56:30 seem unreasonable to say in the future,
56:33 maybe after we have a broader
56:35 conversation, that we could match
56:37 existing standards of frontage. Right?
56:39 There's a there's a a variety. There's
56:42 curb and gutter sidewalks, which
56:44 obviously cost the most, right? there's
56:46 kind of non-conforming smaller sidewalks
56:48 with cracks and stuff and then there are
56:49 gravel paths and there's a lot of other
56:51 uses, right? So, is there a way in the
56:53 future where we could say as infills
56:56 coming in, you need to match the
56:58 existing frontage use in order to
57:01 promote uh mobility and walkability in a
57:04 neighborhood in order to promote sense
57:06 of safety. So you're not kind of when a
57:08 car is parked in that gravel path um
57:12 going around it and walking in the
57:13 street as carts cars are coming by um
57:16 and things like that. And but again I I
57:18 I think it makes sense to hold off on
57:20 that and have a broader conversation
57:22 because as you alluded to um there is a
57:25 lot going on in the street standards
57:27 universe right now here at the city and
57:29 mobility and infrastructure. Of course,
57:31 I just left that committee. So, I know
57:33 we were having those conversations um
57:36 when I left to come
57:37 here is very similar to this
57:40 conversation around front edge
57:41 improvements. It's so similar. So, um I
57:44 see kind of benefit in kind of pairing
57:46 that conversation uh in the future as
57:48 well. Um um because the street standards
57:52 was all about like just acknowledging
57:54 that it's not really feasible. we don't
57:56 have the means to create, you know, curb
57:57 and gutter sidewalk facility everywhere
58:00 where we want to, right? Um um plus I
58:03 think waiting on that sense makes sense
58:05 cuz you know we're going to have even
58:06 more data from the community survey
58:08 coming up this year and um to your point
58:11 that you've made earlier too. I mean
58:12 we've got to get the middle housing
58:13 stuff done by what is it early June
58:16 coming up, right? So so let's do what we
58:18 need to do and then monitor some of
58:20 these things of interest and come back
58:22 as needed in the future. So, um, and
58:25 also thank you, um, for, uh, 1491 for
58:29 that house bill. Um, I just looked it up
58:31 on ledge.w.gov as well and saw that
58:33 there was a hearing and I had good
58:35 support from, um, Victoria and other
58:37 legislators in the house when it was in
58:39 the house. So, um, I will also be sure
58:41 to write our legislators and maybe
58:43 that's something even we share with the
58:45 rest of the council um, as well. And
58:48 then um two things I just wanted to note
58:50 from the community that I heard that I
58:52 thought would be a good idea to revisit
58:53 in the future too. Um the EV parking and
58:56 what's the impact of kind of our EV
58:58 ordinance from 2021 and and how we're
59:00 applying that to kind of the context
59:02 today. And then also being mindful of
59:05 tree code tree code imple implementation
59:08 as and I know this committee not next
59:10 month but the month after I think we're
59:12 talking about tree code so we can make
59:14 sure to bring that up as well. So
59:15 anyways, excellent work and I think we
59:17 go forward with the PPC recommendations.
59:19 It sounds um the same here. Do we need a
59:22 vote or does the administration have
59:23 what they need in terms of feedback?
59:26 We have what we need. Thank you so much.
59:29 Perfect. Anything else you want to add?
59:30 You're good. All right. Then with that,
59:33 we'll move on to the next item on our
59:36 agenda, which is column 0105,
59:39 uh, 2025, title 18 clarifying amendments
59:42 with our very own principal planner,
59:44 Kristen
59:45 Leon. And we'll let you get set up, but
59:47 feel free to get started whenever you're
59:49 ready.
1:00:22 right. Sorry it took me a minute. Hi,
1:00:25 I'm Kristen Leon, principal planner. Um,
1:00:29 let me get back to the beginning here.
1:00:32 See, it seems I went through it. So here
1:00:35 to talk about uh title 18 2025
1:00:38 clarifying amendments tonight. There are
1:00:40 two questions we have for you. Are the
1:00:42 proposed amendments clear or do they
1:00:44 need more clarity? And does the
1:00:46 committee recommend the the amendments
1:00:48 as proposed?
1:00:52 Sorry. So a little background as you
1:00:54 know in
1:00:56 2023 we had some um we're not laughing
1:01:00 at you. It's just the mysterious gray
1:01:02 box. It always shows up. Don't know why.
1:01:05 It's on my computer. It's Yeah, it's a
1:01:07 weird gray box. Is that better? Oh,
1:01:09 that's much better. Okay. You're
1:01:11 welcome. Um, as you know, in 2023, uh,
1:01:15 we adopted we did or we finished an
1:01:18 overhaul of Title 18. And when you have
1:01:21 several people completely overhauling a
1:01:24 450 page document, there are bound to be
1:01:26 a few things that are missed, um,
1:01:28 mistyped, left out, that kind of thing.
1:01:31 So, as we continue to work through our
1:01:33 through the plan, you know, on projects
1:01:35 that come through, we note down things
1:01:37 uh in order to fix it. So, we, you know,
1:01:39 work on our quality control and best
1:01:41 practices and trying to make sure it's
1:01:43 right. So, we keep a list of amendments
1:01:46 um on an Excel spreadsheet and we have
1:01:48 broken them up into clarifying
1:01:49 amendments and policy amendments. And
1:01:51 the clarifying amendments are that they
1:01:53 are simply corrections or something
1:01:54 wasn't worded right or you think this
1:01:56 isn't, you know, this isn't lined up
1:01:58 right, that kind of thing. So, that's
1:01:59 what we're talking about tonight. I will
1:02:01 note that in July, June and July, we are
1:02:05 coming back with policy amendments for
1:02:07 you all to look at, but that's that's a
1:02:09 different
1:02:10 time.
1:02:13 So just
1:02:15 kidding. There we go. So, I'm just going
1:02:18 to run through these. Um, so our first
1:02:20 one is application completeness. Our
1:02:22 code currently says that um this section
1:02:25 applies to all applications to all
1:02:27 projects. That is not the case. This is
1:02:29 a land use code. So it applies to all
1:02:32 land use applications. So that's the
1:02:34 first correction. In the next one, there
1:02:37 were two issues that took place. We have
1:02:39 at the very top residential, commercial
1:02:41 and intensive commercial or something
1:02:43 like that. Um we had multif family was
1:02:46 under commercial. So we just moved it
1:02:48 over to residential. And another one was
1:02:50 that warehouses in the past were allowed
1:02:52 to be were permitted in urban core
1:02:55 intensive commercial and intensive
1:02:57 commercial
1:02:58 sensiqua. They were omitted. So we
1:03:00 replaced those
1:03:01 uses form and intensity um oldtown
1:03:04 multif family densities. Oh, as part of
1:03:06 the title 18 update, we were asked to we
1:03:09 sort of had multif family high and
1:03:11 multif family medium overlays kind of in
1:03:13 Oldtown. We were asked to make those
1:03:15 separate zones, but they have slightly
1:03:17 different heights and impervious surface
1:03:20 and such and but the it was lined up
1:03:22 incorrectly in the regular in the form
1:03:24 and intensity table. So, we just
1:03:26 corrected that. There was also an
1:03:29 incorrect reference to the adjusted
1:03:31 building height section. So, we fixed
1:03:34 reference floor area ratio. We have a
1:03:36 base height and we have a maximum
1:03:39 height. And applicants were a bit
1:03:41 confused by that. anybody who called.
1:03:43 So, we just added verbiage in there
1:03:44 explaining what the two
1:03:46 were. Um, people come in and people
1:03:50 applicants come in and they want to do
1:03:52 adult family homes or daycare centers or
1:03:54 family daycare centers, two different
1:03:56 things. And we don't want to issue
1:03:58 permits unless we are certain that they
1:04:01 have been certified by the state first
1:04:03 and have business permits from the
1:04:04 state, business licenses from the state.
1:04:06 It didn't say that on our code. So, now
1:04:08 Whoops. We're proposing that it does. Uh
1:04:11 oh. You want me just to move on or Oh,
1:04:17 Okay, not on my computer. It said it had
1:04:19 to restart. It's dark. So, I can't move
1:04:23 forward. I can keep talking. I don't
1:04:27 um Okay, I can't stop sharing my
1:04:30 screen. I mean, it's it's black.
1:04:35 All right, bear with us a moment while
1:04:37 we work on some technical difficulties.
1:04:40 Oh, wait. It just Let's
1:04:44 see. It just came back on.
1:04:51 Never mind. All right. I'm going to use
1:04:54 Minnie's hand. Okay.
1:05:14 Oh, that would be
1:05:29 good. Thank
1:05:33 you. One, two, one
1:05:36 more. There we go.
1:05:39 Um, I did that one. Landscaping, we
1:05:42 didn't have any clarity. Planners did
1:05:44 not have any clarity on when landscape
1:05:46 plans were required. So, we added
1:05:48 thresholds to the applicability section.
1:05:50 Uh, we also clarified
1:05:55 when not just what we it used to state
1:05:57 in the bonding section what is in bonds
1:05:59 and we just now say when they're
1:06:01 required and why. Okay, next
1:06:05 page. Planting strips. there was
1:06:07 inconsistency in um public rideway uh
1:06:11 planting strips that we had. One said
1:06:13 four feet, one said 5T. So, we made
1:06:15 those consistent between the two. We
1:06:16 made them 5T. Outdoor lighting, we made
1:06:20 it clear that um this does not the
1:06:23 standards do not apply to existing
1:06:25 single family structures. We also took
1:06:28 out there was something that said these
1:06:30 are exempt unless required by state and
1:06:32 federal law. And then the first
1:06:34 exemption was those things required by
1:06:35 state and federal law. So, we took that
1:06:37 out, clarified that
1:06:41 Oldtown, there was a section that said
1:06:43 that the Oldtown design standards
1:06:45 applied to CBD and multif family, but
1:06:47 that was being interpreted as multif
1:06:49 family throughout Oldtown. And it's
1:06:52 meant to be sculptural and business
1:06:54 district multif family
1:06:57 um medium Oldtown and multif family high
1:06:59 east of Sunset. So, we just made that
1:07:02 clarification. the central ISIQ
1:07:04 standards. We actually changed the
1:07:05 boundary in 2018, but that had never
1:07:07 been corrected before. So, we corrected
1:07:09 it to match our our changes from
1:07:11 that. Uh, next next page,
1:07:14 please. Uh, Talis development standards,
1:07:18 they are require any applications that
1:07:20 come through for Talis are required to
1:07:22 be approved by the Talis architectural
1:07:25 review committee first. It used to be in
1:07:28 the old code. It was left out. We put it
1:07:29 back in this code. SEPA policies. There
1:07:33 were there are list of names uh that
1:07:35 SEIPA applies to. Some of those of
1:07:37 plans, functional plans, some of those
1:07:39 names had changed. So, we made those
1:07:41 corrections. And lastly, uh critical
1:07:43 area regulations. We updated the state
1:07:46 model language with language applies
1:07:48 directly to Isiqua. Uh we updated the
1:07:51 classification table and we updated the
1:07:54 CARA map to represent the new um level
1:07:57 four boundary for CARA. I should note
1:08:00 that we took out there was a proposed
1:08:01 amendment for
1:08:05 um oh my goodness.
1:08:09 Um pardon me, no we already took that
1:08:11 one out before the public hearing. It
1:08:13 was for um signs. We added a definition
1:08:15 of temporary signs um thanks to public
1:08:18 comment. We are going to revisit that
1:08:20 one because what we were doing wasn't
1:08:21 really meet the meeting the intent of
1:08:23 what needed to be done. So we're going
1:08:24 to revisit that and bring it back with
1:08:25 the policy
1:08:26 amendments. I noted that on the matrix
1:08:29 that was sent
1:08:31 out. Next
1:08:33 slide. So our next step um is that April
1:08:37 21st this would go for council action
1:08:39 and as I mentioned earlier we will also
1:08:41 be bringing policy amendments back to
1:08:44 um in June and July. Next slide.
1:08:48 So then our our proposed motion is the
1:08:51 administration recommends approval as
1:08:53 the of the 2025 title 18 clarifying
1:08:56 amendments as presented.
1:09:00 Thank you. Thank you much. Sorry about
1:09:02 all the complications. That's okay. It
1:09:04 makes it makes the meeting more
1:09:06 interesting.
1:09:07 Any any questions? No, I don't have any
1:09:11 questions either. So um I will go on to
1:09:13 public comment then. any public comment
1:09:16 in the audience um for clarifying
1:09:19 amendments to title
1:09:27 18. During title 18, there was a lot of
1:09:30 conversation about whether the lighting
1:09:32 standards should be for single family
1:09:35 housing
1:09:38 and the city swore they should be. So, I
1:09:42 guess I didn't notice that they were
1:09:44 taking it out again.
1:09:47 Um, and so I'm wondering
1:09:51 why, unless I'm not understanding what
1:09:53 the presentation was, I'm wondering why
1:09:55 that change was made. Even though I
1:09:57 agree with it, I don't think it ever
1:09:59 should have been on the single family
1:10:02 housing. But, um, I argued so much for
1:10:05 it. Now, I want to know why I was right.
1:10:08 if if indeed we're talking about the
1:10:10 same thing.
1:10:15 Thank you, Connie. Uh, anyone
1:10:17 else? David, I'm looking at you. Would
1:10:19 you like me to make any public
1:10:21 comment? Uh, is there anyone online?
1:10:25 No, chair. There is not. No one online.
1:10:28 Um, all right, then we'll move on.
1:10:30 Unless you don't Do you want to make any
1:10:32 public comment? Are you okay? Yeah. All
1:10:34 right, then we'll move on to the
1:10:36 deliberation.
1:10:37 um which is just do we agree with the
1:10:39 direction of the clarifying amendments?
1:10:41 Is that correct? Oh, clear
1:10:44 clarity and proceeding to the next
1:10:46 meeting. All right, open up for
1:10:49 deliberations. Regret.
1:10:51 Yeah, I I guess I would say thanks for
1:10:54 doing the review and catching things. Um
1:10:58 it's kind of the minimum requirement of
1:11:00 making big changes, but I'll pat
1:11:03 ourselves on the back for doing so. Um,
1:11:06 and I think this can probably go on
1:11:09 consent would be my
1:11:12 feedback. That's about all I have.
1:11:15 Yeah, pretty similar. I mean, very
1:11:17 straight. I mean, even PBC said very
1:11:18 straightforward. So, I agree. Very
1:11:20 straightforward. We did say we were
1:11:21 going to do this when we when we
1:11:22 overhauled Title 18, right? We would um
1:11:25 as users come in, as staff who are users
1:11:28 are using the code, we'll identify areas
1:11:30 and um we're doing what we're saying.
1:11:32 So, this is great. Um um and you know,
1:11:36 of course, as committee and as policy
1:11:37 makers, we're very eager to get into the
1:11:40 policy amendments as you could imagine,
1:11:42 but it is still very good to move the
1:11:44 needle on somebody's clarifying things,
1:11:45 make it easier to use for users and
1:11:47 things like that. Um
1:11:52 uh yeah, consent. I I could see that.
1:11:54 Um, I was going to say I was actually
1:11:56 going to say let's put it on regular
1:11:57 business cuz it does seem like there's
1:11:59 this movement among um the
1:12:01 administration to put more things on
1:12:03 regular business, but also um this could
1:12:06 be our way of saying by the
1:12:09 way title 18's not gone and policy
1:12:11 amendments are coming back council so
1:12:13 get ready or something like that. But
1:12:14 I'm just curious if if staff has any
1:12:16 thoughts on on where to place it. You
1:12:18 have any strong opinions?
1:12:22 Uh the administration feels that these
1:12:24 are just cleanup amendments and there's
1:12:27 not a lot of um policy discussion there
1:12:30 that we didn't have in the original um
1:12:32 title 18 process. And so we'd recommend
1:12:35 putting it on consent. Well, and I guess
1:12:37 I can during my report out of the
1:12:39 committee, I could also just tease that
1:12:41 policy amendments are are coming as
1:12:42 well. Okay. Yeah, I'm good with that.
1:12:44 Anything else from you? All right. All
1:12:46 right. Well, thank you very much,
1:12:47 Kristen, and thank you for all the staff
1:12:50 um who worked on this.
1:12:52 Um that closes out our last regular
1:12:55 business item of the meeting. Uh so, the
1:12:58 next item is
1:13:00 uh announcements. Do you have any
1:13:02 announcements?
1:13:06 Substitute House Bill
1:13:08 1491 has a remote hearing um at 1:30
1:13:12 p.m. on the 4th, and people can sign up.
1:13:15 There you go.
1:13:18 Uh and I'll also just say that our next
1:13:20 meeting is scheduled for uh May 6th and
1:13:23 the preliminary agenda includes uh COM
1:13:25 0108 2025 title 18 policy amendments uh
1:13:30 and uh COM 0124 uh capital improvement
1:13:33 plan. It's that time of year. So, uh,
1:13:36 there being no further business, we are
1:13:38 adjourned at 7:45 p.m.