Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 11, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Mar. 23, 2023

packet pp.3–7

▶ Watch from 1:05 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, March 23, 2023

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Chair and Vice-Chair Elections

Action · 15 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.9–10

▶ Watch from 2:17 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.19–20

▶ Watch from 1:15:21 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2022 1/12/23 1/19/23 1/26/23 (Special Meeting) Title 18 – Final Draft Introduction Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft  Part 1 – General Provisions  Part 5 – Specified Use Standards

1923 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ good evening planning policy it's nice

0:10 ↗ to see all of you

0:11 ↗ we were just talking about a doodle poll

0:14 ↗ who would rather be outside than in here

0:16 ↗ right now

0:18 ↗ check

0:19 ↗ well I appreciate everybody being here

0:21 ↗ tonight it's been a while since we've

0:23 ↗ met last

0:24 ↗ I would like to call the May 11th

0:26 ↗ planning policy commission to order and

0:28 ↗ it is currently 6 32 pm

0:32 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:34 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:36 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:38 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:40 ↗ person

0:41 ↗ attendance Kristen do we have a quorum

0:44 ↗ tonight

0:45 ↗ we do have Quorum and commissioner Bader

0:47 ↗ has an excused absence tonight excellent

0:49 ↗ thank you and I'd also like to take this

0:52 ↗ moment to introduce our newest

0:53 ↗ commissioner Mr John crass so nice to

0:57 ↗ see you nice to have you with us

1:01 ↗ so again a little housekeeping and our

1:03 ↗ first item of business is to take action

1:05 ↗ to approve the minutes for the March

1:06 ↗ 23rd uh PPC meeting are there any

1:10 ↗ corrections to the draft minutes

1:12 ↗ provided in your agenda packet

1:16 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved

1:20 ↗ moving right along our next order of

1:22 ↗ business is public comment

1:25 ↗ so the guidelines for two nights public

1:27 ↗ comments are

1:28 ↗ they may be made in person or virtually

1:31 ↗ and for all of those who would like to

1:33 ↗ speak we ask that you speak clearly and

1:36 ↗ pause frequently

1:37 ↗ state your name each time before

1:39 ↗ speaking and if you are attending

1:41 ↗ virtually by computer or by phone and

1:43 ↗ would like to speak

1:44 ↗ in addition to the above please mute

1:47 ↗ your microphones when you're not

1:48 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

1:50 ↗ technical issues try to join the meeting

1:51 ↗ using a different device

1:53 ↗ or use the call-in information in the

1:55 ↗ meeting invite

1:57 ↗ these are important part of the public

1:59 ↗ process and we take them seriously and

2:01 ↗ we do ask that you keep your comments to

2:03 ↗ five minutes or less

2:06 ↗ Kristen and Thomas do we have anyone who

2:08 ↗ would like to make public comments

2:10 ↗ yeah chair voice we have nobody signed

2:12 ↗ up for public comments

2:15 ↗ okay

2:17 ↗ so our first item of regular business

2:19 ↗ tonight are nominations and elections

2:22 ↗ the following process is what we're

2:24 ↗ going to use and we will be electing the

2:26 ↗ chair and vice chair

2:28 ↗ first I will be calling for nominations

2:29 ↗ and once they've been made I will close

2:32 ↗ the nominations if only one nomination

2:35 ↗ is made that member is considered

2:37 ↗ elected by unanimous consent

2:40 ↗ if multiple nominations are made we'll

2:43 ↗ hold time at our next meeting for an

2:44 ↗ election process

2:47 ↗ so let's get started

2:49 ↗ are there any nominations for chair

2:54 ↗ I'd like to note that you all received

2:56 ↗ an email from commissioner Bader

2:58 ↗ nominating chair voice thank you for

3:01 ↗ cheer

3:04 ↗ can I second it

3:11 ↗ are there any other nominations

3:16 ↗ well thank you I appreciate it I'm

3:18 ↗ looking forward

3:20 ↗ to working with you guys and I hope

3:23 ↗ the next year that everyone's proud to

3:24 ↗ be a part of this commission and

3:26 ↗ hopefully proud to have me as a

3:28 ↗ colleague and chair

3:30 ↗ so now we'll move on to the vice chair

3:34 ↗ are there any nominations for vice chair

3:36 ↗ and I myself would like to nominate Vice

3:38 ↗ chair Bader

3:45 ↗ are there any other nominations

3:50 ↗ well Sarah if you're watching or

3:52 ↗ listening congratulations

3:56 ↗ all right our elections are done so now

4:01 ↗ we will be moving on

4:04 ↗ to our next uh item on regular business

4:06 ↗ which is our housing action work plan

4:09 ↗ implementation and tonight we'll be

4:11 ↗ discussing a bit about the happy Grant

4:13 ↗ as well as diversity of housing

4:16 ↗ Kristen you're up

4:20 ↗ okay a little sooner than I thought it

4:22 ↗ would be let's see

4:27 ↗ sorry I'm trying to get some out of the

4:29 ↗ way

4:29 ↗ okay and that doesn't want to work

4:32 ↗ interesting

4:38 ↗ there we go it's a little slow so yes we

4:41 ↗ are talking about diversity of housing

4:42 ↗ tonight I'm Kristen Lisa and I'm a

4:44 ↗ senior planner with Community planning

4:45 ↗ and development

4:46 ↗ it's nice to see you all

4:49 ↗ welcome commissioner Krause

4:51 ↗ so tonight our meeting expectations are

4:54 ↗ we just I'm going to present and then

4:56 ↗ we're going to have you all ask

4:57 ↗ questions and then next at our next

5:01 ↗ meeting on the 23rd we'll be holding a

5:03 ↗ public hearing for proposed amendments

5:05 ↗ so if there's any additional information

5:07 ↗ that you all need in order to make a

5:09 ↗ recommendation at the next meeting let

5:11 ↗ us know tonight and we can provide that

5:14 ↗ to you also if you think of anything

5:16 ↗ between now and the next two weeks you

5:19 ↗ can always email us and ask us questions

5:21 ↗ then as well

5:24 ↗ so it's a big list of questions for

5:26 ↗ tonight and some of it has to do with

5:28 ↗ our meeting on the 23rd some of it is

5:31 ↗ moving beyond that to 2024 and work that

5:33 ↗ will happen then but it has to do with

5:35 ↗ we'll go over them later but um

5:38 ↗ do you agree with the proposed

5:39 ↗ amendments now that we're going to do

5:41 ↗ should we consider reevaluating some of

5:43 ↗ our development regulations and parking

5:46 ↗ requirements so that'll we'll talk about

5:48 ↗ that in more detail at the end

5:51 ↗ you guys are going to see this a lot

5:54 ↗ housing is a as you know

5:56 ↗ excuse me a big issue in Issaquah it's a

5:59 ↗ regional issue it's it's a United States

6:01 ↗ issue there's a shortage of housing

6:05 ↗ um so this kind of lays out how what is

6:08 ↗ involved in our housing so we go from

6:10 ↗ unsheltered homeless to Emergency

6:12 ↗ Shelters transitional housing Supportive

6:14 ↗ Housing subsidized housing affordable

6:16 ↗ housing with covenants that's rental and

6:18 ↗ ownership and onto market rate rental

6:20 ↗ and ownership housing so the full

6:22 ↗ spectrum of it the arrows below it kind

6:25 ↗ of show the different programs and

6:26 ↗ funding and policies that we have that

6:29 ↗ cover this range of housing

6:33 ↗ tonight we are going to talk

6:35 ↗ specifically about the market rate

6:37 ↗ rental and ownership housing

6:40 ↗ and that a lot of that work has been

6:42 ↗ covered with funding from the happy

6:44 ↗ Grant so you may recall we've received a

6:46 ↗ hundred thousand dollars from the

6:48 ↗ Department of Commerce to the intent is

6:51 ↗ to implement our housing action plan we

6:53 ↗ hired Eco Northwest as our consultant we

6:56 ↗ were working on three strategies from

6:58 ↗ our housing element the first one is

6:59 ↗ housing strategy six which is to expand

7:01 ↗ inclusionary zoning the second strategy

7:05 ↗ seven is to remove deterrence to

7:06 ↗ condominium construction and the third

7:08 ↗ was strategy eight which is to allow or

7:11 ↗ increase our diversity of housing in the

7:13 ↗ city

7:15 ↗ so I'm going to talk briefly about some

7:18 ↗ of the work that was done for six and

7:20 ↗ seven and we're going to come back to

7:22 ↗ that in about 2024. okay but I'll tell

7:25 ↗ you what's been done and then we're

7:26 ↗ going to focus on strategy eight have a

7:28 ↗ longer conversation about that

7:30 ↗ so strategy six is inclusionary zoning

7:32 ↗ and inclusionary Zoning is simply a

7:34 ↗ requirement that developers must include

7:36 ↗ a percentage of affordable units as part

7:39 ↗ of any market rate rental or homeowner

7:43 ↗ developments and I uppercase the I made

7:46 ↗ the a in gold and uppercase it capital

7:48 ↗ whatever because affordable means that

7:50 ↗ this one has covenants tied to it so

7:52 ↗ they're going to be affordable in this

7:54 ↗ case for if it's rental the life of the

7:57 ↗ building as it exists as a rental unit I

7:59 ↗ mean as an apartment building or a

8:02 ↗ homeowner as at least for 50 years

8:07 ↗ we currently have this program it exists

8:09 ↗ and you're required to do inclusionary

8:11 ↗ zoning in our mixed use Central Issaquah

8:15 ↗ Urban core and vertical mixed use

8:17 ↗ overlay zones we wanted to expand it

8:21 ↗ first we looked at you know you can't

8:23 ↗ really expand it until you know what's

8:24 ↗ going on with the existing one right so

8:26 ↗ they looked at the existing one and we

8:28 ↗ have no residential development in any

8:30 ↗ of those zones

8:31 ↗ so why isn't it happening if residential

8:34 ↗ development isn't happening we can't get

8:35 ↗ the affordable housing right so one of

8:38 ↗ the reasons is because the land values

8:40 ↗ are so so high right now and

8:42 ↗ construction costs have shot through the

8:44 ↗ roof so those certainly don't help when

8:46 ↗ trying to build affordable housing

8:49 ↗ especially and additionally some of our

8:51 ↗ development requirements such as

8:52 ↗ structured parking the number of

8:54 ↗ affordable units required and the

8:56 ↗ percentages at which we require those

8:58 ↗ aren't working our affordable units the

9:00 ↗ number of them we may be requiring too

9:02 ↗ many

9:03 ↗ and our percentage of Ami which is area

9:06 ↗ median income that might be a little too

9:09 ↗ low so we're going to come back and look

9:12 ↗ at that and can we expand it which was

9:14 ↗ our original intent no not right now we

9:16 ↗ can't do that we need to fix what's

9:17 ↗ broken first and then go back and see if

9:19 ↗ we can expand it so two things that

9:22 ↗ we're going to be doing

9:24 ↗ um soon 2024 are a parking study

9:27 ↗ which we'll also look at structured

9:29 ↗ parking and we're going to be looking at

9:31 ↗ at the same time we'll go back and we'll

9:33 ↗ look at impervious surface and zoning

9:37 ↗ and densities and all these things that

9:38 ↗ go with it and it's a balancing act

9:40 ↗ what's what's you know how much do you

9:42 ↗ have to increase this or decrease this

9:44 ↗ to make it all work out so that's what

9:46 ↗ we need to do but we can't do it without

9:47 ↗ the parking study so

9:50 ↗ the next one was the condominium

9:52 ↗ development strategy seven

9:54 ↗ Condominiums are

9:57 ↗ it's a Statewide issue back in 1989 the

10:00 ↗ state passed a law that actually put

10:01 ↗ restrictions or deterrence to developers

10:05 ↗ there are lots they're risk adverse

10:08 ↗ so if there are construction defects the

10:11 ↗ developers are held responsible for

10:12 ↗ certain periods of time and that keeps a

10:15 ↗ lot of developers if they can't build

10:17 ↗ you know 300 units in a building

10:20 ↗ and they can only build 20. they're not

10:22 ↗ going to want to do it so that's a

10:24 ↗ problem especially for smaller cities

10:25 ↗ like ours Bellevue you see them in

10:27 ↗ Seattle but not here

10:29 ↗ so we want stack Condominiums because

10:31 ↗ they provide a more affordable ownership

10:33 ↗ when you do them stacked as opposed to

10:34 ↗ side by side they're smaller and then

10:37 ↗ they become a little bit more affordable

10:40 ↗ so I already talked about how they're

10:42 ↗ subject to life to liabilities that were

10:45 ↗ enacted by the state

10:47 ↗ and so right now we've realized there's

10:50 ↗ nothing that we can do locally our code

10:52 ↗ is okay we just it's the state so we

10:56 ↗ need to

10:57 ↗ um and we also our house our market like

11:00 ↗ I said we're not Bellevue we're not

11:02 ↗ Seattle so our Market doesn't quite fit

11:04 ↗ that bill right now so moving forward

11:07 ↗ we're just going to continue to make

11:09 ↗ recommendations to the state that reduce

11:11 ↗ risk to developers through our

11:13 ↗ legislative agendas

11:16 ↗ moving on before I move on do you guys

11:18 ↗ have any questions about those

11:23 ↗ uh do you want to say anything about new

11:25 ↗ legislation that came through this year

11:27 ↗ in condominium and when that might

11:30 ↗ um come into play I know we're not

11:31 ↗ talking about this until next year but

11:33 ↗ and I can wait

11:35 ↗ um the only one I know they did make

11:36 ↗ some changes but

11:38 ↗ um they're not really going to affect

11:39 ↗ Issaquah not Material no thank you yeah

11:44 ↗ okay so moving on strategy eight

11:48 ↗ increasing housing diversity

11:50 ↗ so this is market rate affordable

11:52 ↗ housing so the idea is that we would get

11:55 ↗ smaller housing in there and therefore

11:58 ↗ more housing and then maybe the prices

11:59 ↗ go down right

12:01 ↗ right there are no covenants attached to

12:02 ↗ these

12:04 ↗ so what we discovered what our

12:06 ↗ Consultants discovered for us is that

12:08 ↗ we're actually doing pretty well

12:09 ↗ compared to other cities when you look

12:11 ↗ at the diversity of housing so we have

12:13 ↗ more uh five plus units of owner

12:16 ↗ occupied housing and that's through

12:18 ↗ Townhomes that kind of housing we have

12:22 ↗ um about the same number of Apartments

12:24 ↗ as other cities that are in the area

12:27 ↗ we have more

12:29 ↗ duplexes triplexes and fourplexes than

12:32 ↗ all other cities and we have less and I

12:34 ↗ don't this is a good thing we have less

12:36 ↗ single family housing than other cities

12:38 ↗ that just means that we are diversifying

12:40 ↗ right

12:41 ↗ so we still want single family housing

12:43 ↗ but it's we're Diversified a little bit

12:45 ↗ more than others but we still want more

12:47 ↗ right we want more options for

12:49 ↗ developers so we looked at three

12:50 ↗ different types we looked at Courtyard

12:51 ↗ Apartments we looked at Cottage housing

12:53 ↗ and we looked at micro units and we only

12:55 ↗ at this time looked in multi-family

12:57 ↗ zones because single-family zones we

13:00 ↗ knew that the state was making changes

13:02 ↗ and we didn't want to do anything and

13:04 ↗ they've made quite a few and if you want

13:05 ↗ to talk about those later we can but

13:08 ↗ we'll get into much more depth on those

13:09 ↗ later

13:11 ↗ um but I'm happy to talk about them but

13:13 ↗ knowing that the state was going to be

13:14 ↗ making changes to single-family

13:16 ↗ neighborhoods and the requirements there

13:17 ↗ we decided to hold off on that one so we

13:19 ↗ just looked at multi-family

13:22 ↗ so what we looked at is these different

13:25 ↗ types these three different types how do

13:26 ↗ they compare to other housing types in

13:28 ↗ the MF multi-family High which would

13:31 ↗ also be now that we've adopted it

13:32 ↗ multi-family High East Sunset

13:35 ↗ multi-family medium and multi-family

13:37 ↗ High Old Town

13:39 ↗ and mixed use residential zones and then

13:42 ↗ could are there any regulatory changes

13:44 ↗ that we can make in our develop

13:45 ↗ um in our development code to make

13:47 ↗ development more feasible for people

13:50 ↗ for these types

13:51 ↗ so the first one I'm going to talk about

13:53 ↗ are Courtyard Apartments

13:54 ↗ so these are several attached units

13:56 ↗ around a central Courtyard they're

13:58 ↗ usually one to three stories high

14:01 ↗ and that's that's about it they've got

14:03 ↗ two examples right there you see them a

14:05 ↗ lot in California and Chicago

14:08 ↗ um here's a table that kind of shows

14:10 ↗ what they found so the first two columns

14:13 ↗ are multi-family medium and multi-family

14:14 ↗ High

14:15 ↗ the last column is a comparison to it's

14:19 ↗ a an existing

14:21 ↗ unit someplace else where they compared

14:23 ↗ it so

14:26 ↗ you can see that when they looked at

14:28 ↗ Courtyard Apartments in our MFM and mfh

14:30 ↗ we were only able able to get about 14.4

14:33 ↗ dwelling units per acre whereas the

14:35 ↗ Paris comparison got 21.8 yet in the

14:39 ↗ comparisons the lot size was quite a bit

14:41 ↗ smaller

14:42 ↗ the number of units was the same

14:45 ↗ these gross building area was about the

14:48 ↗ same

14:48 ↗ which means that our critical areas

14:50 ↗ played a big role in this and actually

14:52 ↗ more importantly our impervious surface

14:54 ↗ plate a role in this

14:56 ↗ um that they had the same unit size same

14:59 ↗ number of floors same bedrooms uh we

15:02 ↗ require two parking stalls per unit in

15:04 ↗ mfh and MFM

15:07 ↗ most areas you'll find one or a lot of

15:09 ↗ areas you'll find one and I shouldn't

15:10 ↗ say most Thomas can correct me if I'm

15:12 ↗ wrong a lot

15:13 ↗ um and our impervious coverage we have

15:15 ↗ 50 in our two zones there and in the

15:18 ↗ example they had 60 percent

15:20 ↗ and because of primarily the impervious

15:22 ↗ and the parking stalls they were able to

15:25 ↗ get more units per acre

15:28 ↗ and the asterisk is there under

15:30 ↗ multi-family High because that

15:33 ↗ so our density our maximum density

15:36 ↗ multi-family medium is for 14.52 units

15:39 ↗ per dwelling units per acre

15:41 ↗ in multi-family high it's actually 29

15:44 ↗ dwelling units per acre but you could

15:46 ↗ only get halfway there under the

15:47 ↗ existing regulations if you do Courtyard

15:49 ↗ Apartments

15:52 ↗ so

15:54 ↗ what we found is so actually courtyarder

15:56 ↗ Apartments would be allowed by code now

15:58 ↗ but we don't have a definition It's Not

16:00 ↗ Included or not permitted uses table the

16:02 ↗ impervious surface and parking

16:03 ↗ requirements limit the number of

16:04 ↗ dwelling units and like with everything

16:06 ↗ else the Highland prices and the

16:09 ↗ construction costs slow things down as

16:11 ↗ well it just the the land Value Plus the

16:14 ↗ construction costs on top means that

16:16 ↗ they're not going to get as much in

16:17 ↗ return once they build unless they can

16:19 ↗ get the density

16:21 ↗ foreign

16:30 ↗ would you say like the courtyard housing

16:33 ↗ is more feasible in Issaquah or

16:37 ↗ um another type of house that's more

16:39 ↗ high-rise

16:44 ↗ okay so yeah as you could see in that

16:47 ↗ one

16:48 ↗ um people are going to get closer to the

16:51 ↗ density more people are more likely to

16:53 ↗ do it if they can achieve the maximum

16:54 ↗ density and they can in multi-family

16:56 ↗ medium not in multi-family High the way

16:58 ↗ it's set up so multi-family High they'd

17:00 ↗ be more likely to do something where

17:02 ↗ it's a little taller you can do

17:04 ↗ apartments and get more units in there

17:06 ↗ okay I think we have one of those in in

17:09 ↗ the highlands basically a few others

17:12 ↗ okay thanks

17:17 ↗ Kristen this is good stuff I need some

17:19 ↗ help though because I can't remember how

17:20 ↗ to read all the numbers in this table

17:22 ↗ and so pardon me

17:24 ↗ um for forgetting when we're talking

17:26 ↗ about lot size

17:29 ↗ so many of the numbers are exactly the

17:31 ↗ same and why are some of them different

17:33 ↗ I know you just explained it all but it

17:36 ↗ went a little bit past me so it was lot

17:38 ↗ size and the effective selling units

17:41 ↗ breaker that was messing me up can you

17:43 ↗ do that again sure so the lot sizes

17:47 ↗ um they looked at our lot sizes that

17:50 ↗ they looked at were eight just about 18

17:52 ↗ 000 square feet

17:53 ↗ and so this is in effect this is the lot

17:56 ↗ sizes

17:57 ↗ they looked at an existing lot existing

18:00 ↗ this isn't a minimum or a maximum yeah

18:02 ↗ this is kind of lots we have yeah yes so

18:06 ↗ um because I don't think we anyway uh

18:08 ↗ they looked at existing and existing

18:10 ↗ lots and they used a comparison lot it

18:12 ↗ was only 11 almost 12 000 square feet so

18:15 ↗ the light size starting off was smaller

18:19 ↗ once

18:22 ↗ commissioner cross

18:24 ↗ so I think is lot size more of an output

18:27 ↗ of the two things of parking and

18:30 ↗ impervious coverage because of those

18:32 ↗ exist you can't you have to have a

18:34 ↗ bigger lot to be able to get those

18:35 ↗ number of units and that's why those are

18:36 ↗ so if those are long-term changed the

18:39 ↗ numbers you could do the same number of

18:42 ↗ units on a smaller lot are we thinking

18:43 ↗ about that the correct way

18:45 ↗ so the lot size is just the flat out

18:47 ↗ piece of land I know but that's

18:49 ↗ a developer would want to put as many

18:51 ↗ units as they can but you have to have

18:53 ↗ certain number of parking spots and

18:55 ↗ Imperial Service that that then caps of

18:57 ↗ how many you could put there for things

18:58 ↗ exactly right you have to have a certain

19:00 ↗ number of spots perfectly for each unit

19:02 ↗ so commissioner Mill England going back

19:05 ↗ to yours and the other number that's

19:06 ↗ different two of the other numbers that

19:08 ↗ are different to commissioner crisis

19:09 ↗ points the parking so

19:12 ↗ you know you might want to fit 20 units

19:14 ↗ in there but then that's 40 parking

19:16 ↗ spaces

19:17 ↗ but and those are expensive I mean even

19:19 ↗ just surface parking it's

19:22 ↗ Thomas correct me if I'm wrong about

19:23 ↗ forty thousand dollars of space right

19:26 ↗ sometimes higher so that's expensive for

19:29 ↗ each unit you're going to build and it

19:31 ↗ just doesn't pencil out for people

19:33 ↗ yeah so what this is showing is that

19:35 ↗ even though there are some of their

19:37 ↗ their numbers were smaller because their

19:39 ↗ parking was smaller and because they had

19:40 ↗ bigger impervious they were able to

19:42 ↗ build out further

19:44 ↗ they were able to get more units on

19:45 ↗ there

19:47 ↗ because 20 units you know or six units

19:50 ↗ they only had six parking spaces six

19:53 ↗ units ours had to have 12.

19:57 ↗ commissioner altimore

19:59 ↗ thank you this might be a question for

20:01 ↗ after you go through all the housing

20:02 ↗ types so feel free to punt it to the end

20:05 ↗ um but looking at the questions of what

20:07 ↗ we're what we're looking to recommend in

20:08 ↗ terms of changes why would we want to go

20:11 ↗ with a lower density solution in a

20:14 ↗ multi-family High which where where we

20:16 ↗ could potentially get higher density

20:20 ↗ um

20:21 ↗ we and that came up a lot that's why

20:24 ↗ these aren't being recommended mixed

20:26 ↗ juicer Urban core

20:28 ↗ um whoops excuse me

20:30 ↗ um no it's a really really good point

20:32 ↗ and one of the things that was brought

20:34 ↗ up but we had to look at these these are

20:36 ↗ things that are in our it's in our

20:38 ↗ housing strategy and our housing action

20:40 ↗ work plan and they said we need to look

20:42 ↗ at different uses throughout the city so

20:44 ↗ agreed and maybe we will go back and

20:46 ↗ look at these and once we do single

20:48 ↗ family small lot and single family

20:50 ↗ duplex maybe we'll look at these there I

20:52 ↗ don't know

20:53 ↗ but yes

20:57 ↗ but if I'm reading the chart right and

20:59 ↗ I'm with commissioner Milligan and not

21:01 ↗ positive I'm reading the chart right uh

21:03 ↗ for multi-family medium it's a it could

21:06 ↗ be a perfect match right it could be

21:09 ↗ okay yeah okay thanks

21:12 ↗ and then if development regulations were

21:15 ↗ changed land costs went down it could

21:16 ↗ actually work in multi-family high too

21:18 ↗ if the density if we allowed the density

21:20 ↗ to go higher

21:21 ↗ yeah

21:22 ↗ so that's why this is a whole Balancing

21:24 ↗ Act thing if we can't just make these

21:26 ↗ changes now we need to wait on more

21:27 ↗ information so that we can look at it

21:29 ↗ holistically

21:33 ↗ any other questions

21:36 ↗ okay

21:39 ↗ all right

21:41 ↗ you're going to hear a similar story

21:42 ↗ with cottage housing

21:44 ↗ Cottage housing is compact development

21:46 ↗ of detached dwelling units that are also

21:49 ↗ generally around a central Courtyard

21:52 ↗ okay and there's 1200 square feet to

21:55 ↗ 1700 square feet that's usually about

21:57 ↗ what they are

21:59 ↗ you're going to see some of these on our

22:01 ↗ tour

22:02 ↗ um

22:03 ↗ a c a similar chart look at this in this

22:06 ↗ case the lot size our lot size was about

22:10 ↗ 29 000 square feet the comparison lot

22:12 ↗ size was

22:14 ↗ you know 20 27 and a half thousand

22:17 ↗ square feet

22:19 ↗ um

22:19 ↗ they were able to get six units on each

22:22 ↗ lot they put six units on each lot the

22:25 ↗ gross building area so you take out

22:27 ↗ improvements and that was pretty close

22:29 ↗ to each other

22:31 ↗ the average unit size the ones in

22:34 ↗ Issaquah multi-family medium and

22:35 ↗ multi-family High were slightly higher

22:37 ↗ because we require two parking spaces

22:40 ↗ per lot and so they actually did it in a

22:43 ↗ two-car garage

22:44 ↗ which could either be

22:46 ↗ um

22:46 ↗ the kind front you know one behind the

22:49 ↗ other which that Name Escapes Me

22:51 ↗ pardon me

22:53 ↗ tandem yes thank you tandem or side by

22:55 ↗ side I'm not sure how they did it but it

22:57 ↗ accounted for that space there as well

22:59 ↗ which is why the unit lot size was a

23:01 ↗ little bit bigger

23:02 ↗ two floors for each of them three

23:04 ↗ bedrooms parking stalls per unit two for

23:06 ↗ us one for them

23:07 ↗ uh impervious surface was a big

23:09 ↗ difference ours is 50 the one that the

23:11 ↗ city had was 73 and they were able to

23:14 ↗ get 14.8 units dwelling units per acre

23:17 ↗ and we got nine

23:20 ↗ so again very similar remember

23:21 ↗ multi-family medium and commissioner

23:23 ↗ altmore this is to your point

23:25 ↗ multi-family medium

23:27 ↗ um kind of close to what they could get

23:29 ↗ which is 14.5 but a multi-family high

23:31 ↗ it's a third of what a developer could

23:34 ↗ get if they just went in and build

23:35 ↗ apartments right now

23:40 ↗ so same thing almost the same story

23:43 ↗ um but except that they say that the

23:45 ↗ Consultants say this might be feasible

23:47 ↗ or competitive under existing

23:48 ↗ regulations if the land prices are

23:51 ↗ really what they're assessed at but as

23:52 ↗ we know the market value is a lot higher

23:54 ↗ than the than the King County assessment

23:57 ↗ um duplexes might out compete Cottages

23:58 ↗ because they can do more density there

24:01 ↗ they don't have the street or the common

24:02 ↗ shared space that they that you have to

24:04 ↗ use with cottage housing an impervious

24:07 ↗ surface of parking requirements again

24:08 ↗ limit the densities that we can get it's

24:10 ↗ a very similar story

24:12 ↗ any questions

24:19 ↗ okay in both of these types

24:23 ↗ that's what this one is saying that

24:25 ↗ these are basically allowed now the

24:27 ↗ cottage housing

24:32 ↗ this do we have you said we have some

24:34 ↗ examples of cottage do we have any

24:35 ↗ examples of Courtyard actually this one

24:38 ↗ is not allowed oh okay it was allowed in

24:41 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands development

24:42 ↗ agreement so Issaquah Highlands has some

24:44 ↗ Courtyard housing okay but it's not

24:46 ↗ allowed in that yes sorry kind of Chasm

24:50 ↗ um it is allowed it's not allowed in the

24:52 ↗ rest of the city

24:54 ↗ and uh and then the

24:56 ↗ Courtyard is not yet allowed

24:59 ↗ so Cottage housing is not allowed it was

25:03 ↗ only allowed in the highlands through

25:04 ↗ the development agreement Courtyard

25:05 ↗ housing is not allowed I mean I'm sorry

25:07 ↗ it is allowed it's not in the code

25:09 ↗ there are too many C's yeah I got a

25:12 ↗ quick follow-up for you Kristen uh is an

25:14 ↗ example of Courtyard Apartments I'm

25:16 ↗ thinking uh think with me map of

25:18 ↗ Issaquah south from like the Issaquah

25:20 ↗ Coffee House

25:21 ↗ are those apartments down there by kind

25:24 ↗ of like right so you're thinking of

25:25 ↗ Gilman Village and you go south from the

25:28 ↗ Issaquah coffee house there's that

25:29 ↗ apartment complex there that kind of

25:31 ↗ follows the creek

25:32 ↗ would that be considered

25:34 ↗ Courtyard Apartments sorry I'm not

25:36 ↗ picturing it but I'll show you a picture

25:38 ↗ okay sure

25:43 ↗ this one right here let me go back up

25:45 ↗ here

25:46 ↗ um the one on the top

25:48 ↗ it has a gate there in kind of an

25:51 ↗ archway but inside there's a courtyard

25:53 ↗ this is a very good example is it and

25:55 ↗ then

25:56 ↗ this one right here the one on the bot

25:57 ↗ see the one on the top you see how that

25:59 ↗ just sort of makes a u-shape

26:02 ↗ and the courtyard faces the street

26:04 ↗ that's a courtyard department and

26:06 ↗ sometimes they have that's this one

26:07 ↗ happens to have a garage in the back a

26:09 ↗ lot of them don't even require parking

26:10 ↗ and they just park on the street

26:12 ↗ please so why can't they build that yeah

26:18 ↗ the courtyard apartment building why

26:20 ↗ aren't they building it

26:22 ↗ well is it I mean

26:25 ↗ I'm thinking that

26:28 ↗ there are other elements besides if this

26:31 ↗ number of Apartments is allowed on the

26:33 ↗ piece of land and you could build it in

26:36 ↗ a box and they're building it in a box

26:37 ↗ instead of building it in a courtyard

26:41 ↗ okay

26:43 ↗ I'm not a developer yeah but if they

26:45 ↗ fill in the courtyard space with units

26:47 ↗ they're going to make more money

26:49 ↗ so that takes out the courtyard so

26:51 ↗ that's right yeah

26:52 ↗ yeah but it's not the fact of the racial

26:55 ↗ the impervious yeah that one's right in

26:58 ↗ MFM it's not yeah

27:06 ↗ you ready move on

27:09 ↗ okay

27:10 ↗ micro units

27:13 ↗ um you've probably heard of these

27:14 ↗ they're also sometimes called a podmans

27:17 ↗ they

27:19 ↗ are between about 125 to 400 square feet

27:22 ↗ sometimes they have kitchenettes

27:24 ↗ sometimes they don't they would often

27:26 ↗ share a kitchen five units would share

27:28 ↗ one centralized kitchen and living room

27:30 ↗ that's that's what some of them do they

27:32 ↗ have and I just said it some have access

27:34 ↗ to larger shared kitchens bathrooms and

27:36 ↗ community space

27:39 ↗ and they're pretty popular

27:42 ↗ so looking at these we only looked at

27:44 ↗ him you are and we looked at smaller

27:47 ↗ ones so the ones that they looked at

27:48 ↗ were going to get around 135 if we were

27:51 ↗ going to do it in a squad but 135 units

27:53 ↗ a lot of these will get closer to 350

27:55 ↗ units

27:56 ↗ but we we said That's which we could

28:00 ↗ still do in urban core and mixed use

28:02 ↗ Central Issaquah

28:05 ↗ um but we were looking at expanding it

28:07 ↗ too we were looking outside of that too

28:09 ↗ so we looked at him you are and I'll be

28:11 ↗ honest I don't fully remember the

28:12 ↗ reasons why it wasn't going to work in

28:14 ↗ mfh and MFM and I can ask our

28:16 ↗ consultants and come back to you on that

28:18 ↗ but the one where they said it would

28:19 ↗ work would probably be Mur and I think

28:22 ↗ it's because of the amount of density

28:23 ↗ that's allowed in Mur and there's no

28:25 ↗ density cap it's rather in a floor area

28:28 ↗ ratio that you have to work with so

28:30 ↗ there's more building space in there I

28:32 ↗ think that's what it was

28:34 ↗ so lot sizes were about the same a

28:36 ↗ thousand feet off

28:38 ↗ um

28:39 ↗ we got 20 dwelling units uh they got 30

28:43 ↗ same size gross building area same unit

28:46 ↗ average size floors because we require

28:49 ↗ structured parking and this is probably

28:51 ↗ what we why we got 20 units and the

28:53 ↗ other one got 30 we require structured

28:55 ↗ parking so they were building above and

28:57 ↗ the structure car parking is

28:59 ↗ a lot more than forty thousand dollars

29:01 ↗ per for each parking spot a lot

29:04 ↗ then we also require .4 stalls per unit

29:07 ↗ the other places don't a lot of places

29:09 ↗ don't but the impervious surface was the

29:11 ↗ same

29:13 ↗ so um

29:15 ↗ here really the structured parking was

29:18 ↗ the issue and why they were able to get

29:20 ↗ 315 units and we got 165.

29:25 ↗ so again these would be a load by

29:28 ↗ Allowed by code but it's not defined

29:30 ↗ it's not allowed in the permitted uses

29:31 ↗ table and I even a couple years few

29:33 ↗ years ago we went and review were

29:35 ↗ touring micro units in Kirkland and

29:40 ↗ um they said oh we'd love to come to

29:42 ↗ Issaquah but you guys don't allow them

29:43 ↗ and we really hadn't looked at our code

29:45 ↗ and we went

29:46 ↗ just you know doing this one oh they

29:48 ↗ could have come here but it's not

29:50 ↗ apparent so we would need to change that

29:52 ↗ uh not financially feasible in mfh and

29:55 ↗ MFM

29:56 ↗ um again I think it's because of the

29:58 ↗ densities the density caps that we have

30:00 ↗ but they can get less than less I've

30:02 ↗ already said this less

30:03 ↗ dense micro units would be feasible in

30:06 ↗ Mur with changes in some of the

30:08 ↗ regulations particularly structured

30:10 ↗ parking

30:12 ↗ so the recommendations in general

30:14 ↗ overall for all of these would be to add

30:17 ↗ definitions add fermented uses table

30:18 ↗ reevaluate parking requirements

30:20 ↗ re-evaluate

30:21 ↗ including structured parking reevaluate

30:23 ↗ impervious surface and potentially

30:27 ↗ reevaluate the allowable densities

30:30 ↗ in those areas

30:32 ↗ specifically for cottage housing there

30:35 ↗ are other allowances that I didn't

30:36 ↗ really mention because you have to get

30:37 ↗ in we haven't looked at design standards

30:39 ↗ yet so sometimes you have a drive down

30:42 ↗ the middle

30:43 ↗ sometimes their garage is attached

30:46 ↗ sometimes you have separate parking lots

30:48 ↗ but we would need to look at doing

30:49 ↗ things like smaller setbacks

30:52 ↗ and maybe narrower Drive aisles for

30:55 ↗ these areas to make them work and then

30:57 ↗ for micro units uh they said remove but

31:01 ↗ we would reevaluate parking requirements

31:04 ↗ especially structured parking in these

31:06 ↗ areas

31:08 ↗ so our proposal right now is simple it's

31:12 ↗ to add definitions of cottage housing

31:14 ↗ and Courtyard Apartments

31:16 ↗ add definitions for micro units

31:19 ↗ and then add Courtyard apart add all of

31:21 ↗ these to the permitted uses table

31:23 ↗ Courtyard Apartments in

31:25 ↗ um

31:26 ↗ mfh and hes MFM and mot and Mur mixed

31:32 ↗ use residential

31:34 ↗ and I agree maybe they wouldn't happen

31:36 ↗ there but it doesn't hurt to allow them

31:38 ↗ so you know and then Cottage housing in

31:42 ↗ the two of those zones in multi-family

31:45 ↗ high and multi-family medium and then

31:46 ↗ micro units in mixed use residential

31:49 ↗ mixed use Central issaqua and urban core

31:51 ↗ that's what we would propose

31:53 ↗ this would come back to you all on the

31:55 ↗ 25th go to the planning and development

31:57 ↗ environment committee potentially we're

32:00 ↗ not sure if it needs to go yet on the

32:02 ↗ June 6th and then back to council for

32:05 ↗ action one of the reasons we want to

32:07 ↗ make these amendments too is because the

32:09 ↗ happy Grant requires

32:11 ↗ it's an implementation Grant so some

32:14 ↗ some development regulations need to be

32:16 ↗ adopted and these need to be done so

32:18 ↗ they're just surface they would be you

32:21 ↗ know tip of the iceberg amendments that

32:22 ↗ we would do

32:23 ↗ once the parking study is done we would

32:26 ↗ then reevaluate parking structures

32:27 ↗ re-evaluate parking requirements look at

32:29 ↗ improve a surface and look at density

32:31 ↗ requirements

32:33 ↗ so that's that's what I had any

32:36 ↗ questions and then we can get into

32:38 ↗ Direction

32:41 ↗ insurance

32:43 ↗ floor is open for questions

32:48 ↗ through a million oh warm it up

32:50 ↗ uh

32:52 ↗ a minute ago you said that we would

32:54 ↗ evaluate parking after we had a parking

32:57 ↗ study but then I thought the slide

32:58 ↗ before you said you wanted us to

33:00 ↗ consider reducing parking requirements

33:02 ↗ no those are some of the recommendations

33:04 ↗ from the Consultants

33:07 ↗ so that is not on the table next not not

33:09 ↗ next so this list right here that we

33:12 ↗ were looking at that's their full list

33:14 ↗ of General recommendations

33:16 ↗ evaluate parking requirements that's the

33:18 ↗ parking study right that's not us right

33:21 ↗ now no it's just doing a parking study

33:24 ↗ right and evaluating impervious surfaces

33:26 ↗ that's not us

33:28 ↗ not right now not right now

33:31 ↗ um so are we doing the other three

33:32 ↗ incredible two because we're not looking

33:34 ↗ at densities yet either so right now

33:36 ↗ it's just ad definitions and add to the

33:38 ↗ permitted use yes

33:41 ↗ okay let me think about that

33:46 ↗ could you go back to the slide with the

33:48 ↗ permitted use table please yes this one

33:51 ↗ yeah

33:52 ↗ yeah sorry it's small

34:01 ↗ I mean I personally don't really see a

34:03 ↗ problem with adding the definitions I'm

34:05 ↗ a little bit more hesitant with the

34:08 ↗ the the table just because you're

34:11 ↗ talking about a major change and again

34:13 ↗ in a half hour meeting it's hard to say

34:16 ↗ I mean I even though I trust staff

34:20 ↗ um that's the only one I'm a little

34:21 ↗ hesitant on myself what is your concern

34:24 ↗ with adding well I just I mean like I

34:26 ↗ said we don't have Micro units correct

34:28 ↗ in the city at all right right and then

34:30 ↗ we also don't have Cottage housing in

34:32 ↗ the city at all

34:34 ↗ so that's the only one I'm a little

34:36 ↗ hesitant on just because it

34:37 ↗ and again like you said it's not like

34:39 ↗ anyone's going to be building these

34:40 ↗ tomorrow it very well that people won't

34:42 ↗ even build them just because right now

34:44 ↗ the the high cost of construction and

34:46 ↗ land

34:47 ↗ um

34:48 ↗ but it's still a big permission slip

34:50 ↗ well and but Micro like I said micro

34:52 ↗ units would still be allowed right now

34:53 ↗ they're just not defined yeah I mean

34:55 ↗ it's just the way you build it that's

34:57 ↗ just not spelled out but yeah I guess

35:00 ↗ that so is that the cart before the

35:01 ↗ horse wouldn't we want the definitions

35:03 ↗ first we would but nobody's done micro

35:05 ↗ units so we would still be putting the

35:07 ↗ well whatever and we put it in the right

35:09 ↗ way

35:13 ↗ commissioner

35:15 ↗ so these are we'd be given definitions

35:18 ↗ to

35:20 ↗ um housing types or zoning that aren't

35:23 ↗ in existence right now but at least

35:25 ↗ it'll help guide

35:27 ↗ developers and and even the citizens

35:30 ↗ later on if they choose to follow one of

35:34 ↗ these means of housing basically

35:37 ↗ exactly okay

35:42 ↗ commissioner altimore

35:45 ↗ I think I saw this on one of your slides

35:47 ↗ but in a future consideration there will

35:49 ↗ be talking about this in single family

35:51 ↗ it's just right now we're only talking

35:52 ↗ in multi-family zones right yes we've

35:55 ↗ talked about it and like I said we have

35:57 ↗ all the state bills coming forward

36:00 ↗ um that have now been passed and we need

36:02 ↗ to look at so I'm this should be a part

36:05 ↗ of it

36:06 ↗ and these are these are all going to be

36:08 ↗ requirements from that legislation

36:11 ↗ um no not necessarily

36:13 ↗ um

36:16 ↗ uh

36:17 ↗ um not necessarily yeah it's

36:21 ↗ Our intention was to look at these in

36:23 ↗ single family zones yes

36:26 ↗ um

36:27 ↗ and now we have this other legislation

36:29 ↗ to look at I think we just need to

36:30 ↗ evaluate it all together sure yeah

36:38 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh when do we

36:41 ↗ evaluate the

36:45 ↗ criteria so the definitions some of the

36:49 ↗ things I remember from the packet and

36:50 ↗ from some other experience I have is how

36:52 ↗ these specialty Cottage and Courtyard

36:54 ↗ Apartments are served by utilities and

36:57 ↗ drive when would we be looking at that

37:00 ↗ sort of thing as that impacts cost so

37:03 ↗ much and is often a determining Factor

37:06 ↗ well

37:07 ↗ I mean as far as

37:10 ↗ you're doing it so you're talking water

37:11 ↗ in student roads and that kind of thing

37:13 ↗ so what we're proposing right now

37:15 ↗ doesn't exceed any densities that are

37:17 ↗ already allowed

37:19 ↗ but when we look at single family and we

37:22 ↗ have to start allowing more units in

37:24 ↗ single-family zones that does impact

37:25 ↗ utilities so we've already started

37:28 ↗ talking to Public Works about the

37:29 ↗ effects that some of the changes might

37:31 ↗ have

37:33 ↗ I think one thing I'm getting out is

37:35 ↗ that especially with cottage if you have

37:37 ↗ to have individual service to each home

37:40 ↗ and then so that kind of pairs up with a

37:43 ↗ consideration for cottage of condo

37:47 ↗ Cottage

37:50 ↗ how would that without working the way

37:52 ↗ that we allow for multiple

37:56 ↗ so that's an interesting one and oh

37:58 ↗ shoot that's what I was going to ask her

38:00 ↗ um

38:01 ↗ you know I had it's one of those things

38:03 ↗ where you had a question come up earlier

38:04 ↗ in the day and I thought I need to call

38:05 ↗ her and ask and then I forgot my

38:07 ↗ questions so I never got back to it that

38:09 ↗ was it

38:10 ↗ um you can keep that for for okay but it

38:12 ↗ but we are changing our code to allow

38:13 ↗ for fee simple units okay and I think

38:17 ↗ that this then allows for fee simple

38:19 ↗ units but that's what I wanted to check

38:20 ↗ with Minnie yeah so I'll get back to you

38:22 ↗ on that one and see so then that would

38:24 ↗ be the opposite because each fee simple

38:25 ↗ would have to have their own utilities

38:27 ↗ yes running to their own home yeah yeah

38:30 ↗ that would be the episode what I was

38:31 ↗ thinking and then the uh last thing is

38:35 ↗ I'm trying to visualize Courtyard

38:36 ↗ Apartments and the example that you

38:38 ↗ showed I think was some single story

38:40 ↗ and I don't know what the building

38:42 ↗ height limits are in multi-family medium

38:45 ↗ multi-family high but I'm thinking of

38:47 ↗ these lovely Courtyard examples in

38:49 ↗ London which are my favorite you know in

38:51 ↗ urban settings where they're really tall

38:52 ↗ and they share a courtyard

38:54 ↗ um is that dreamable

38:57 ↗ in our say multi-family High

39:00 ↗ uh yeah I think so I mean especially so

39:03 ↗ uh you know we brought up the other day

39:05 ↗ I brought up that we just recently

39:06 ↗ lowered the maximum height on

39:08 ↗ multi-family

39:09 ↗ High East Sunset and so you can do 40

39:12 ↗ feet or three stories whichever is lower

39:15 ↗ so in my opinion that's ideal right

39:18 ↗ there the heights are about the same as

39:21 ↗ 45 feet for other multi-family High

39:25 ↗ zones and with a maximum of 60 or 65

39:28 ↗ feet

39:29 ↗ and multi-family medium is lower

39:31 ↗ yeah so I it would work yes

39:35 ↗ the diet

39:38 ↗ just

39:40 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

39:42 ↗ um so I'm curious about we're talking

39:44 ↗ about permitted uses and how that

39:47 ↗ relates to the parking study would there

39:50 ↗ be a difference in

39:52 ↗ parking studies is a study I mean will

39:54 ↗ there be any change to parking

39:57 ↗ allowable parking required parking per

39:59 ↗ unit

40:01 ↗ would there be any change to that

40:03 ↗ because you talked about you know some

40:05 ↗ places don't require there to be any

40:07 ↗ parking per unit or just one parking

40:09 ↗ printer per unit and so then the

40:11 ↗ question is you know that would very

40:13 ↗ much impact if you build apartment you

40:16 ↗ build a big structure with a lot of

40:18 ↗ units and a lot and put no parking for

40:21 ↗ it how that then impacts the entire

40:24 ↗ neighborhood because everyone's

40:25 ↗ scrambling to go find parking somewhere

40:27 ↗ so the parking study versus these

40:31 ↗ proposed amendments to allowed

40:34 ↗ buildings

40:36 ↗ so I'm going to let Thomas jump in

40:37 ↗ anytime too but I am going to say that

40:39 ↗ one of the reasons for the parking study

40:40 ↗ is that we have hopefully Light Rail

40:43 ↗ coming here which means that you then

40:45 ↗ develop a whole Transit oriented

40:48 ↗ development neighborhood and when you

40:50 ↗ have transient oriented development

40:52 ↗ neighborhoods you generally have less to

40:54 ↗ no parking

40:55 ↗ because you're right there next to a

40:57 ↗ transit or you know a station and you

40:59 ↗ can hop on there or there are lots of

41:01 ↗ trains Thomas feel free to jump in if

41:03 ↗ I'm speaking Yeah I know that that's

41:05 ↗ definitely right we'll be looking at the

41:07 ↗ off street parking requirements by land

41:09 ↗ use type so

41:11 ↗ uh the the maximum and minimum uh that

41:15 ↗ would be required for each uh housing

41:18 ↗ type would be looked at

41:19 ↗ which is great

41:21 ↗ when we get light rail absolutely you

41:25 ↗ put those near you know Transit like

41:27 ↗ that until then we could build that and

41:30 ↗ have a real problem and something that

41:32 ↗ Thomas came up with during Title 18 I

41:35 ↗ think it was Thomas I'm going to give

41:36 ↗ you credit was that you know now we have

41:37 ↗ tier two and tier one parking so tier

41:39 ↗ two is more of the Suburban parking

41:41 ↗ because we recognize that we are not yet

41:44 ↗ a an urban city

41:47 ↗ and people are still very car dependent

41:50 ↗ so we do recognize that and it came up

41:52 ↗ when we were doing central issaqua as

41:53 ↗ well and we haven't we've had some

41:56 ↗ issues but we've had issues up in the

41:57 ↗ highlands too but

42:00 ↗ that's one of the reasons we need to do

42:01 ↗ it because we're changing so we need to

42:03 ↗ be able to meet the needs that we have

42:05 ↗ now and then sort of try and anticipate

42:08 ↗ what we'll have in the future

42:11 ↗ long range planning so

42:14 ↗ um that's the purpose of it I mean we're

42:16 ↗ not going to know every answer but yes

42:18 ↗ we may say if you do Apartments you have

42:21 ↗ to have right now our code says that if

42:23 ↗ you have a unit that is less than 500

42:26 ↗ square feet and within a quarter of a

42:27 ↗ mile you only have to have 0.7 parking

42:29 ↗ spaces per unit and a pod mints

42:32 ↗ five bedrooms are considered one unit

42:34 ↗ five of those pods are considered one

42:36 ↗ unit

42:38 ↗ because there's one kitchen and our

42:40 ↗ definition of residents is that you have

42:43 ↗ five unrelated persons living together

42:47 ↗ so that's how that works

42:52 ↗ thank you Carolyn uh the uh see now

42:55 ↗ we're saying should we have it a

42:57 ↗ permitted use but we're not I wouldn't

43:00 ↗ say that I understand your definition in

43:03 ↗ the ramifications of the definition in

43:04 ↗ the permitted use well enough to say

43:07 ↗ that

43:09 ↗ I could oh good we're going to look at

43:12 ↗ that

43:13 ↗ um

43:15 ↗ I'd have to that we have until two weeks

43:18 ↗ from now right okay good uh because

43:21 ↗ there could be

43:23 ↗ um ways of looking at this and thank you

43:25 ↗ for raising the flag about parking

43:28 ↗ requirements and one thing that I was

43:30 ↗ considering is rather than attaching

43:32 ↗ parking retirement parking requirements

43:35 ↗ to the type of unit that parking

43:37 ↗ requirements should be attached to where

43:40 ↗ the

43:41 ↗ property is it could be a cottage that

43:45 ↗ could be a courtyard apartment that's

43:47 ↗ sitting right next to the train station

43:48 ↗ and it might not need parkings not

43:50 ↗ because it's a micro unit or a courtyard

43:52 ↗ it's because we're located so I think

43:54 ↗ that our um when we do look at those

43:56 ↗ parking requirements we should look at

43:58 ↗ uh

44:00 ↗ adjacency to a walkable community and

44:03 ↗ Transit

44:05 ↗ which I think maybe we already do a

44:07 ↗ little bit of that

44:08 ↗ but that's where I'm looking rather than

44:10 ↗ hooking it up to the deaf of the

44:12 ↗ property but I still I do want to read

44:14 ↗ this thank you I'm sorry if it was in

44:16 ↗ the packet and I didn't study it enough

44:17 ↗ but I will now no we've got time I

44:19 ↗ haven't started the pack yet

44:24 ↗ okay

44:27 ↗ anything else

44:31 ↗ commissioner altimore

44:34 ↗ so

44:35 ↗ um I toured those uh podmans the micro

44:37 ↗ units in Kirkland and

44:41 ↗ um part of the design is the expectation

44:44 ↗ that you are setting to the residents

44:46 ↗ too like they know that it is Hunger

44:48 ↗ Games for parking and that makes them

44:50 ↗ decide whether or not they're going to

44:51 ↗ live there

44:53 ↗ um I just really want to encourage all

44:54 ↗ of us to uh yes it's really frustrating

44:58 ↗ and and those of us who have lived in

45:00 ↗ places where it's crazy for parking it

45:01 ↗ is really frustrating but I do think we

45:03 ↗ need to look forward because we need

45:04 ↗ density and something like this

45:06 ↗ particularly as I'm thinking about right

45:08 ↗ now having 220 somethings who need to

45:11 ↗ move out and there need to be some

45:13 ↗ places and I love them because they

45:14 ↗ never see this but uh there need to be

45:16 ↗ places for them to go so I understand we

45:19 ↗ all have those nightmare parking pieces

45:22 ↗ but I do want us to really think forward

45:24 ↗ with things like micro units or the

45:27 ↗ Cottages because I think there are

45:28 ↗ solutions to this and I think Tod like

45:30 ↗ the transit oriented where we would have

45:32 ↗ a much much lower parking requirements

45:35 ↗ does make sense but but also being a

45:37 ↗ little bit more flexible for the future

45:38 ↗ pieces I just I just want us to keep

45:40 ↗ open mind about that

45:43 ↗ commissioner cross

45:44 ↗ a clarifying question so if there are

45:47 ↗ changes to parking requirements per unit

45:49 ↗ for new development does there also for

45:53 ↗ existing of like buildings there's a

45:56 ↗ change for them as well meaning is there

45:58 ↗ if there's already a apartment building

46:00 ↗ that they had to do two per unit and now

46:04 ↗ it's one per unit for new development do

46:08 ↗ they also are they grandfathered to go

46:10 ↗ can they go back to one and now they

46:12 ↗ have more space to do something

46:13 ↗ different with that apartment building

46:15 ↗ does that need to be addressed

46:17 ↗ as part of this whether it's only new or

46:20 ↗ it's all that's an interesting question

46:21 ↗ I mean

46:22 ↗ so if we did

46:27 ↗ I'd have to look I'd have to look but I

46:29 ↗ would imagine say they wanted to do an

46:30 ↗ addition again

46:32 ↗ always remember like when I said you

46:34 ↗ know maybe you do zero that's me talking

46:36 ↗ off the top of my head okay that's not

46:38 ↗ me saying that we're gonna do zero

46:39 ↗ parking

46:40 ↗ um

46:42 ↗ but so that's what I'm saying because

46:43 ↗ this is just an example maybe and I have

46:45 ↗ to check look into it but maybe if

46:49 ↗ somebody wanted to do an addition

46:50 ↗ their existing parking say an apartment

46:52 ↗ building wanted to do an addition their

46:54 ↗ existing parking might count toward

46:57 ↗ um that new those new units that they

46:59 ↗ put in and they wouldn't have to put in

47:00 ↗ new parking because for example there's

47:02 ↗ a big apartment complex next to my home

47:04 ↗ and they probably have to have a certain

47:06 ↗ number of units per parking spots per

47:08 ↗ unit the way it is now and have a change

47:10 ↗ and now they only need half that parking

47:13 ↗ they could build a lot more buildings

47:14 ↗ and that's in that area and all of a

47:16 ↗ sudden now so I wasn't sure if it was

47:18 ↗ only for new or if it included existing

47:20 ↗ and new that's the only question well

47:22 ↗ and you're right they could build a lot

47:23 ↗ more buildings but they're still going

47:24 ↗ to need parking

47:27 ↗ so it's not they can just come over come

47:29 ↗ in and build a new building and take up

47:30 ↗ all those parking spaces because some of

47:32 ↗ those are still going to be needed for a

47:33 ↗ new brand new building that went in

47:36 ↗ they wouldn't just be wiped out

47:39 ↗ unless we said no parking is required

47:45 ↗ I'll have to look more closely into that

47:46 ↗ one though I have a long range planer

47:48 ↗ not a current planner so I'd have to

47:49 ↗ check with them

47:51 ↗ bye

47:58 ↗ and remember we're not talking parking

48:01 ↗ yet right

48:02 ↗ this is

48:04 ↗ accept your definition says they

48:07 ↗ typically do not provide parking spaces

48:11 ↗ okay uh in the definition

48:16 ↗ so that we can look at that separately

48:19 ↗ look at it now I mean if it's something

48:20 ↗ that you all want to talk about

48:23 ↗ well we don't have the parking study yet

48:24 ↗ though

48:33 ↗ yeah

48:34 ↗ for the park and study that's Yet to

48:37 ↗ Come how far out does that go

48:39 ↗ like in the sense of that it's studying

48:43 ↗ um the past present and projected into

48:45 ↗ the future the need

48:49 ↗ Thomas

48:52 ↗ so we'll be looking towards the future

48:54 ↗ so it's for like new development

48:56 ↗ um coming through yeah

48:58 ↗ So based on the census data and then

49:02 ↗ formulating what's to come basically

49:06 ↗ yeah and of course I don't have the

49:07 ↗ scope of work in front of me but uh you

49:09 ↗ know typically it's like looking at peer

49:12 ↗ cities in the area what they require

49:14 ↗ it'd be looking at sort of um

49:18 ↗ you know like land uses and just

49:23 ↗ making sure that uh you know what we're

49:26 ↗ doing is aligned with like sort of where

49:28 ↗ we should be going towards the future

49:30 ↗ for a new development that I guess it'll

49:33 ↗ also factor in

49:35 ↗ um some of what we're kind of talking

49:36 ↗ about right now

49:38 ↗ um the type of like Zone in basically as

49:42 ↗ well such that some areas may not need

49:45 ↗ the two parking spaces basically okay

49:49 ↗ yeah and we'll be looking sort of one of

49:51 ↗ the things that's been mentioned here is

49:52 ↗ the proximity to like uh good Transit so

49:56 ↗ um that would be something we'd be

49:58 ↗ looking at too making sure that the

50:00 ↗ context is like sort of included uh in

50:02 ↗ addition to like the type of use it's

50:06 ↗ being proposed very well thank you and

50:09 ↗ you asked about looking at Future

50:11 ↗ numbers and what we can accommodate we

50:13 ↗ do have uh buildable lands numbers so we

50:15 ↗ have our capacities by Zone so we know

50:19 ↗ up to 2044 based on our existing zoning

50:22 ↗ how much capacity we have in each area

50:24 ↗ and by then I think

50:27 ↗ um light rail

50:30 ↗ pardon me well it's a joke okay

50:39 ↗ commissioner Milligan

50:40 ↗ you're so kind uh Kristen a few minutes

50:43 ↗ ago you said something about

50:45 ↗ housing units and I'm still looking at

50:47 ↗ micros here housing units size and the

50:51 ↗ unit the number of parking per unit if

50:55 ↗ the unit is a particular size that went

50:58 ↗ really fast by me tell me that again so

51:00 ↗ two separate things

51:02 ↗ um is

51:05 ↗ currently in our code if you have a unit

51:08 ↗ that is 500 square feet or smaller

51:12 ↗ you and you're within a quarter mile of

51:15 ↗ a Transit Center

51:16 ↗ then you'll you can lower your parking

51:19 ↗ space requirement to 0.75 parking spaces

51:22 ↗ per unit

51:30 ↗ commissioner I have to ask what what is

51:34 ↗ 0.75 is that like a compact or like no

51:38 ↗ it means the number of spaces so if you

51:40 ↗ have okay two there's two units you

51:43 ↗ would need one and a half spaces which

51:45 ↗ so ultimately you'd have two or yeah but

51:48 ↗ the more you get the fewer spaces you

51:49 ↗ have I think that's okay yeah

51:56 ↗ I'm gonna follow the thought

51:58 ↗ um exercise here so a developer who

52:01 ↗ doesn't want to do parking

52:04 ↗ comes in and finds a location near or

52:07 ↗ has a location near Transit would be

52:12 ↗ incentive I don't know what the um

52:13 ↗ what's the um it reduces it to 0.7 but

52:16 ↗ what is it above 500 square feet is it

52:19 ↗ one to one

52:23 ↗ is what happened to the requirement how

52:25 ↗ much does the requirement go down from

52:27 ↗ so you go from one space to 0.75 spaces

52:30 ↗ okay it's a one-to-one unit per unit if

52:34 ↗ it's above 500. if it's above 500 square

52:36 ↗ feet then yes it's one to one to one

52:38 ↗ okay okay so then depending on the zone

52:40 ↗ so the benefit would be a 30 reduction

52:43 ↗ if you made all of your units uh

52:45 ↗ 499 square feet

52:48 ↗ yeah just as a thought exercise yeah

52:53 ↗ I'm usually okay with numbers but

52:57 ↗ um okay okay but that's under our

53:00 ↗ current code

53:01 ↗ yeah

53:02 ↗ okay

53:05 ↗ quarter of a mile

53:14 ↗ the reason I wanted to do that is that

53:16 ↗ when we're looking at Cost savings for

53:17 ↗ developers uh and we're we're creating

53:20 ↗ an incentive that is saying that we

53:23 ↗ prefer we could be creating an incentive

53:25 ↗ that's saying we prefer micro units that

53:28 ↗ are below 500 square feet by saying

53:30 ↗ we're going to give you a bonus for that

53:32 ↗ meaning you don't have to create as many

53:34 ↗ parking spaces so I'm just thinking of

53:36 ↗ what are the outcomes that we might get

53:40 ↗ now that we're implementing a definition

53:42 ↗ for

53:43 ↗ micro so I'm not saying it's good or bad

53:45 ↗ I'm just

53:46 ↗ saying which way the tide would turn

53:52 ↗ essentially they're both going to be

53:54 ↗ Studios

53:55 ↗ the micro unit or the micro or the yeah

54:03 ↗ it was something like that would have to

54:05 ↗ be balanced because of course a family

54:07 ↗ of so many kids

54:10 ↗ um can't stay in the studio of course so

54:13 ↗ um developments like that would have to

54:15 ↗ be balanced with other developments

54:17 ↗ um that allow for a larger space for

54:21 ↗ families but also we have to think about

54:24 ↗ how we can incentivize Developers for

54:27 ↗ those type of spaces too as well with

54:30 ↗ the parking with the parking issue as

54:33 ↗ well

54:34 ↗ um as it relates to having those

54:37 ↗ um

54:38 ↗ homes and areas for those larger

54:41 ↗ families around that Transit Center so

54:43 ↗ to look into that as well

54:45 ↗ that's a good point yeah

54:50 ↗ I I love what you just said and so I

54:52 ↗ want to ask then if you had a a

54:54 ↗ development that was mixed

54:56 ↗ two-bedroom three-bedroom and micro

54:58 ↗ units do the micro units in effect get

55:01 ↗ the parking bonus

55:04 ↗ so we don't have Micro units yet

55:08 ↗ okay so your question again was if you

55:11 ↗ have say you have a an apartment

55:13 ↗ building with a unit mix that included

55:16 ↗ three bedrooms and micro units would the

55:20 ↗ property

55:22 ↗ production and parking requirements

55:23 ↗ based on the number of micro units

55:26 ↗ the point the property as a whole I

55:29 ↗ I

55:31 ↗ don't feel like I'm the right person to

55:32 ↗ answer this question it's often

55:33 ↗ absolutely it's often up to the

55:35 ↗ developer and not to me how they assign

55:37 ↗ these spaces so yes overall it's going

55:39 ↗ to have fewer spaces

55:42 ↗ right some of the units to grow even if

55:44 ↗ it's in a property that's three bedroom

55:46 ↗ units yes

55:49 ↗ there

55:56 ↗ I think these are great questions

56:00 ↗ any further questions

56:06 ↗ more to share

56:09 ↗ that's all I have

56:12 ↗ [Laughter]

56:16 ↗ a commissioner Patterson

56:17 ↗ so I've been kind of sponging the

56:19 ↗ information and uh trying to figure out

56:21 ↗ what direction to go so and you just

56:22 ↗ brought up the slide so for the public

56:24 ↗ hearing that we'd have in a couple weeks

56:25 ↗ is this ultimately what we'll be

56:28 ↗ discussing is these four points the

56:31 ↗ first point first point only okay I want

56:33 ↗ to make sure I understood that thank you

56:34 ↗ yeah

56:36 ↗ um

56:36 ↗ we haven't addressed two three and four

56:38 ↗ yet but we really haven't answered

56:40 ↗ number one

56:42 ↗ um which is really kind of left up to

56:44 ↗ next week you know that's I think you

56:46 ↗ guys will answer that next week whether

56:47 ↗ or not you want us to move forward with

56:49 ↗ this because well it sounds like on the

56:51 ↗ 23rd two of these type of housings are

56:52 ↗ already allowed it's just uh like you

56:54 ↗ said they're not well defined right so

56:57 ↗ yeah I think that helps me figure what I

56:59 ↗ would say which was yeah we need

57:01 ↗ definitions

57:03 ↗ right commissioner Kennedy

57:05 ↗ so are we going to help with the

57:08 ↗ definitions just because as you pointed

57:11 ↗ out on the micro units it sort of talks

57:12 ↗ about because they're typically they

57:14 ↗ often have no parking you know leaving

57:17 ↗ that out of a definition of what a micro

57:19 ↗ unit is so that we don't sort of get

57:21 ↗ into the speculation of what they often

57:23 ↗ have but we Define it very clearly

57:25 ↗ that's what I want you guys to do

57:28 ↗ um yeah are you okay if we move forward

57:30 ↗ and I like I said I have the or you saw

57:31 ↗ I have the definitions and we can pull

57:33 ↗ them up and start talking about them and

57:34 ↗ we say you know I'd like to see this

57:36 ↗ changed we can try and come up with

57:38 ↗ Alternatives before before the 23rd and

57:40 ↗ if that works better great and if you

57:42 ↗ guys still want to tweak it we can tweak

57:44 ↗ it

57:45 ↗ so yeah let's do it yeah you guys you

57:48 ↗ guys are used to having the bigger

57:49 ↗ picture kind of whole code thing but now

57:51 ↗ we're getting we're getting specific so

57:52 ↗ let's go specific yeah let's go well I

57:55 ↗ guess let's come back to uh let's let's

57:57 ↗ get the other two definitions we'll come

57:59 ↗ back to uh micro units okay you wanna

58:02 ↗ okay here Cottage Cottage housing

58:57 ↗ I think somewhere on the agenda actually

58:59 ↗ said that uh even use Condominiums as an

59:01 ↗ example and that's basically what this

59:03 ↗ is correct

59:05 ↗ for the most part

59:08 ↗ it with their detached units though okay

59:13 ↗ sometimes someone got it so they don't

59:16 ↗ have like they don't share common walls

59:17 ↗ things like that right

59:19 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh let it begin

59:22 ↗ thank you uh why do we this is one thing

59:24 ↗ that popped up in my mind while I was

59:26 ↗ reading the packet and why do we have

59:27 ↗ number one where it says that in a

59:30 ↗ cottage Housing Development

59:32 ↗ just pushing anyway for the heck of it

59:35 ↗ it has to be suitable for a single

59:37 ↗ person or a very small family why

59:38 ↗ couldn't they be bigger based on other

59:40 ↗ criteria in the code for

59:44 ↗ I don't know uh floor area ratio or

59:47 ↗ something

59:49 ↗ why do you have to say that isn't it

59:51 ↗ already said somewhere

59:59 ↗ I think you know the purpose of it is

1:00:01 ↗ really just to sort of limit the size

1:00:04 ↗ of them because they are supposed to be

1:00:06 ↗ somewhere between about 1200 and 1700

1:00:08 ↗ square feet and no bigger

1:00:11 ↗ so if there's a better way to say that

1:00:12 ↗ I'm I don't know so wouldn't it be

1:00:15 ↗ clearer to talk about the size versus a

1:00:18 ↗ single person or very small family

1:00:20 ↗ because that's a very squishy definition

1:00:22 ↗ yeah family for some people is three

1:00:25 ↗ people for you know we're a very small

1:00:27 ↗ family for others is the same person I

1:00:29 ↗ can do some research and see if there's

1:00:30 ↗ some sizes out there we just want to

1:00:32 ↗ make sure that we just didn't pull it

1:00:33 ↗ out for the sky and say yeah we just

1:00:35 ↗ picked you know 1700 square feet I can't

1:00:37 ↗ go bigger we have to have a reason for

1:00:38 ↗ doing it so I can do some research and

1:00:40 ↗ and see if there are any sizes that are

1:00:42 ↗ listed in other codes

1:00:46 ↗ does anybody want to have any contention

1:00:48 ↗ with point four where it says off street

1:00:50 ↗ parking

1:00:51 ↗ because again I think to commissioner

1:00:54 ↗ Kennedy and commissioner Milligan's

1:00:56 ↗ Point earlier I mean do you strip that

1:00:58 ↗ out of the definition and tell or do you

1:00:59 ↗ say TBD parking study 2024

1:01:05 ↗ what are the requirements for parking in

1:01:07 ↗ mixed use at multi-family medium and

1:01:10 ↗ high anyway

1:01:12 ↗ well if these are considered

1:01:13 ↗ single-family houses because it's not by

1:01:15 ↗ Zone but they're considered single

1:01:17 ↗ family houses as two spaces per lot

1:01:21 ↗ per house so is is that where parking is

1:01:25 ↗ addressed yes in that

1:01:27 ↗ um and it would by definition be off

1:01:30 ↗ Street yes yes so I don't think you have

1:01:32 ↗ to say it here you could but the point

1:01:35 ↗ this could move up into the parking

1:01:38 ↗ could be shared

1:01:41 ↗ in a courtyard

1:01:42 ↗ so that would need to be said

1:01:46 ↗ okay perhaps

1:01:50 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

1:01:53 ↗ um okay so I'm feeling really dense on

1:01:55 ↗ number three units may be located on

1:01:58 ↗ plotted Lots or as units into

1:01:59 ↗ condominium we've already said there can

1:02:02 ↗ construction characteristic

1:02:03 ↗ characteristics of a single family house

1:02:06 ↗ and you've said they're all detached so

1:02:09 ↗ I'm confused by the units in the

1:02:11 ↗ condominium part of the

1:02:13 ↗ description so con they're called

1:02:16 ↗ Condominiums because they are several

1:02:19 ↗ units on one undivided lot

1:02:22 ↗ you're right it is confusing and I can

1:02:24 ↗ fix that but I have in a neighborhood

1:02:26 ↗ next to me there are 26 units they are

1:02:29 ↗ all

1:02:30 ↗ um detached but they're on an undivided

1:02:33 ↗ parcel so when you look it up in the

1:02:34 ↗ King County Assessor it's called a

1:02:36 ↗ condominium because they all yeah they

1:02:39 ↗ own the yeah they own the house and not

1:02:40 ↗ the property

1:02:43 ↗ yeah but I can I can see I mean it's a

1:02:46 ↗ technical thing so I can see if there's

1:02:48 ↗ another way to say that maybe undivided

1:02:50 ↗ lot or something like that yeah or maybe

1:02:53 ↗ it doesn't need to be said at all if we

1:02:55 ↗ have yeah like I said I'll check with

1:02:56 ↗ Minnie about the fee simple and maybe it

1:02:58 ↗ doesn't need to be mentioned at all

1:03:02 ↗ I'll see

1:03:06 ↗ yeah don't I wouldn't want it to be just

1:03:08 ↗ be simple you want to allow for shared

1:03:11 ↗ yeah

1:03:19 ↗ yeah commissioner grass

1:03:22 ↗ so I understand the intent of these are

1:03:24 ↗ single family units

1:03:26 ↗ do they need to be not could they be

1:03:28 ↗ townhouses and why would or is that

1:03:31 ↗ called something different is that it's

1:03:34 ↗ a townhouse it is something different

1:03:35 ↗ the intent is that they have that they

1:03:37 ↗ don't have shared walls that they have

1:03:39 ↗ they tend to be a little less expensive

1:03:41 ↗ they don't have shared walls they're

1:03:44 ↗ advantages to this ever over I

1:03:46 ↗ understand that but I mean is it

1:03:49 ↗ it's cheaper to build them if they share

1:03:51 ↗ some walls like a few groups of two but

1:03:53 ↗ we're saying we don't want that is that

1:03:55 ↗ the intent of no we're just trying to

1:03:57 ↗ have options we're just giving we're

1:03:58 ↗ trying we're the city wants more diverse

1:04:00 ↗ housing more options for people out

1:04:02 ↗ there and right now we don't allow this

1:04:04 ↗ kind of development in the city well the

1:04:05 ↗ other like if they were townhouses like

1:04:07 ↗ this that already exists and this is

1:04:09 ↗ just a new thing in addition to that

1:04:10 ↗ correct yeah we're not saying we don't

1:04:12 ↗ want another one we want to add to our

1:04:13 ↗ list got it yeah

1:04:20 ↗ any further questions concerns about

1:04:23 ↗ Cottage housing

1:04:26 ↗ okay okay let's try the next definition

1:04:45 ↗ for Milligan yeah commissioner cross I

1:04:47 ↗ think this might be where those Town

1:04:48 ↗ Homes could come in in the same sort of

1:04:51 ↗ format of a shared space but they're

1:04:53 ↗ attached they would be attached in a

1:04:55 ↗ courtyard and

1:05:02 ↗ so then that's going to be my follow-up

1:05:04 ↗ question thank you very much is that

1:05:06 ↗ Courtyard Apartments are you implying

1:05:08 ↗ here that these are always rentals in

1:05:10 ↗ the Northwest vernacular well and that's

1:05:12 ↗ why Courtyard housing is in there so we

1:05:15 ↗ could change it to Courtyard housing

1:05:16 ↗ yeah and then say rented or owned or or

1:05:19 ↗ don't even have to say it Courtyard

1:05:21 ↗ housing yeah right because this to me

1:05:23 ↗ just sounds like you're that typical

1:05:24 ↗ well at least it sounds like the

1:05:25 ↗ condominiums that I'm very familiar with

1:05:28 ↗ down there uh what is that Windsong

1:05:30 ↗ Harrington place that sounds almost

1:05:34 ↗ exactly like what this is

1:05:35 ↗ I think actually uh Arrington place used

1:05:38 ↗ to be Apartments before it was converted

1:05:40 ↗ so

1:05:45 ↗ any questions concerns as far as

1:05:47 ↗ Courtyard Apartments

1:05:51 ↗ just as you said use the verbiage that's

1:05:53 ↗ actually applicable if they're not if

1:05:55 ↗ it's Apartments isn't the limitation if

1:05:58 ↗ it's housing

1:06:01 ↗ right we're being super super clear and

1:06:03 ↗ crisp in the language well in my note I

1:06:05 ↗ I have to change it from Courtyard

1:06:07 ↗ Apartments to just take out the

1:06:08 ↗ apartments and just call it Courtyard

1:06:10 ↗ housing in my notes

1:06:12 ↗ is that correct

1:06:15 ↗ okay

1:06:19 ↗ want to give it a shot one more time

1:06:21 ↗ micro units

1:06:25 ↗ let's do it

1:06:28 ↗ now that everyone's had a few minutes

1:06:34 ↗ commissioner why is the minimum 125 feet

1:06:37 ↗ square feet it's not a minimum it's just

1:06:40 ↗ generally that's how big they are there

1:06:41 ↗ is

1:06:43 ↗ there is a minimum size

1:06:45 ↗ [Music]

1:06:47 ↗ for livable space I have to check on

1:06:48 ↗ exactly what it is but

1:06:51 ↗ I can now look

1:06:54 ↗ s great

1:06:56 ↗ when they don't have

1:06:59 ↗ a bathroom or a kitchen

1:07:02 ↗ there's another name for that isn't

1:07:04 ↗ there

1:07:06 ↗ what is it called

1:07:08 ↗ um

1:07:10 ↗ Community well there's there's

1:07:13 ↗ sorry there's there's

1:07:16 ↗ SRO yeah SRM occupancy okay I was

1:07:20 ↗ thinking of a different one but that's

1:07:21 ↗ fine with me um

1:07:23 ↗ yeah I wonder if

1:07:25 ↗ if it's appropriate to bundle them

1:07:27 ↗ together if they're the same

1:07:31 ↗ is a micro

1:07:33 ↗ unit

1:07:36 ↗ the same as having a bedroom

1:07:39 ↗ with shared bathrooms and kitchen

1:07:43 ↗ do we need two definitions commissioner

1:07:46 ↗ owensmore correct me if I'm wrong but

1:07:48 ↗ usually single room occupancies are more

1:07:50 ↗ like a house that's been converted and

1:07:51 ↗ so it's more of a single

1:07:54 ↗ single family house that's been

1:07:55 ↗ converted with one kitchen and one

1:07:57 ↗ living area for everybody

1:07:58 ↗ but I see your point too

1:08:03 ↗ yes

1:08:05 ↗ here that has tended to be true it back

1:08:07 ↗ East it tends to be those much much

1:08:09 ↗ larger really what's being described

1:08:11 ↗ here okay yeah so maybe micro units also

1:08:15 ↗ known as single room occupancies

1:08:21 ↗ so I think my inclination from a pure

1:08:23 ↗ definition perspective

1:08:24 ↗ would we would be to stop at the end of

1:08:27 ↗ the definition of you know larger shared

1:08:29 ↗ kitchens bathrooms between a space

1:08:30 ↗ period

1:08:31 ↗ the part that says these units are

1:08:33 ↗ generally built blah blah blah and sort

1:08:35 ↗ of gives a description of what's often

1:08:37 ↗ part of them

1:08:39 ↗ is great information but not part of the

1:08:42 ↗ definition per se okay

1:08:45 ↗ I see that okay

1:08:48 ↗ commissioner Patterson this is kind of

1:08:50 ↗ an agreement or an alignment with those

1:08:52 ↗ comments but uh looking back at the

1:08:54 ↗ previous definition what I appreciate

1:08:55 ↗ about that is it defined what it was

1:08:57 ↗ without giving into specifics that puts

1:08:59 ↗ it in a box right where if I'm a

1:09:02 ↗ developer I'm like oh I can build micro

1:09:03 ↗ units here but now we're saying well you

1:09:05 ↗ can but you they have to be this this

1:09:06 ↗ and this and it's almost like getting

1:09:07 ↗ into code territory whereas a definition

1:09:11 ↗ should be clear concise but broad enough

1:09:14 ↗ to you know to cover all the options

1:09:17 ↗ if that's the case and good point

1:09:20 ↗ um would you all want to just remove the

1:09:23 ↗ whole square foot

1:09:26 ↗ piece of it or leave it in there

1:09:28 ↗ or maybe not have a minimum unless I

1:09:31 ↗ find out that there is a legal reason

1:09:32 ↗ for a minimum and just say maximum

1:09:39 ↗ because you're right that's kind of

1:09:40 ↗ codish yeah

1:09:43 ↗ yeah I would say it is because I mean

1:09:45 ↗ typically there is usually a minimum

1:09:48 ↗ like for like a person to actually

1:09:50 ↗ inhabit a space so I would probably

1:09:53 ↗ probably added that definition and

1:09:56 ↗ that's probably a reference in another

1:09:57 ↗ code essentially and maybe even just

1:10:00 ↗ referencing the codes codes change as

1:10:03 ↗ well oh yeah reference building code

1:10:05 ↗ commissioner all four

1:10:07 ↗ I would go along with what commissioner

1:10:10 ↗ Austin Whitey just said I think if we

1:10:11 ↗ make this tie to the code because if I'm

1:10:15 ↗ a um just a general member of the

1:10:17 ↗ community and I see that this micro

1:10:19 ↗ housing or micro units gets added and

1:10:21 ↗ there isn't any sort of specificity and

1:10:23 ↗ I saw a documentary on Japan or

1:10:26 ↗ something like that where I might be

1:10:27 ↗ thinking of you know something extremely

1:10:30 ↗ more micro

1:10:31 ↗ yes a shelf right and so um so I think

1:10:35 ↗ that there is some utility to having

1:10:37 ↗ those numbers in there and I know it's

1:10:39 ↗ not specific but I think we should

1:10:41 ↗ either say can be but is tied to code

1:10:44 ↗ and is typically X

1:10:46 ↗ um because I think that that will be

1:10:47 ↗ much more accessible to the community

1:10:48 ↗ who might see this okay

1:10:58 ↗ okay you did a lot better that time

1:10:59 ↗ around huh

1:11:01 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you uh so

1:11:04 ↗ are we saying no square footage

1:11:07 ↗ guidelines here because it's picked up

1:11:10 ↗ somewhere else

1:11:11 ↗ no what are we saying

1:11:15 ↗ um my preference would be that we do

1:11:16 ↗ include the typical piece but say the

1:11:19 ↗ actual numbers will align with Issaquah

1:11:20 ↗ code or something like that because I

1:11:23 ↗ think it does make this it without that

1:11:26 ↗ this doesn't have any sort of definition

1:11:27 ↗ in people's minds okay right so so often

1:11:31 ↗ when things are built there's a minimum

1:11:33 ↗ size or you have to have a certain roof

1:11:34 ↗ or you have to have a certain thickness

1:11:36 ↗ and wall and all that kind of stuff but

1:11:37 ↗ you can just refer to that and say you

1:11:39 ↗ know a size defined as in the building

1:11:42 ↗ code you know two to 2024 building code

1:11:45 ↗ or whatever yeah or the building code

1:11:47 ↗ you know I find it helpful just because

1:11:50 ↗ I think of uh what's been in the news

1:11:51 ↗ lately a lot with like the tiny housing

1:11:54 ↗ and um I can't imagine those are more

1:11:56 ↗ than 200 square feet if not even smaller

1:11:58 ↗ right yeah those are tiny housing

1:12:01 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh another

1:12:03 ↗ question it goes to this name I can't

1:12:05 ↗ quite think what it is

1:12:07 ↗ congregate housing maybe that's the word

1:12:10 ↗ I'm thinking of okay so in

1:12:12 ↗ that's is there or somewhere else a

1:12:16 ↗ requirement for the number of bathrooms

1:12:19 ↗ per unit the number of kitchens per unit

1:12:22 ↗ or something like that is there a reason

1:12:24 ↗ for it is it exists somewhere else

1:12:27 ↗ um again I think it would be

1:12:29 ↗ dictated by the building code but I

1:12:32 ↗ think that it's typically about you know

1:12:34 ↗ one kitchen for every five units

1:12:37 ↗ is what's required yeah

1:12:40 ↗ and then there are other specifications

1:12:43 ↗ like if you can have a kitchenette it's

1:12:44 ↗ actually not considered a kitchen it's

1:12:46 ↗ you know you just have your microwave

1:12:47 ↗ and things like that

1:12:51 ↗ commissioner altimore

1:12:53 ↗ congregate housing usually doesn't have

1:12:55 ↗ bedrooms yeah they're all in one space

1:12:57 ↗ so I thought Monica yeah

1:13:01 ↗ [Laughter]

1:13:05 ↗ so it kind of sounds like maybe to clean

1:13:08 ↗ this up

1:13:09 ↗ keep some of the square footage to

1:13:11 ↗ commissioner s m wada's point uh with a

1:13:14 ↗ reference to code and then to

1:13:16 ↗ commissioner Kennedy's Point everything

1:13:18 ↗ after community space drop

1:13:21 ↗ sound right

1:13:23 ↗ and I also have to the square footage

1:13:27 ↗ yeah refer to code and then uh

1:13:30 ↗ micro units also known as single single

1:13:34 ↗ room occupancies yeah and I'm going to

1:13:36 ↗ look into that make sure that those

1:13:37 ↗ definitions do actually match each other

1:13:39 ↗ before I

1:13:40 ↗ throw it in there

1:13:43 ↗ okay thank you that was a fun exercise

1:13:45 ↗ how good all right a little different

1:13:48 ↗ from the past year and a half huh

1:13:52 ↗ that's all I have

1:13:55 ↗ I thought there was a question too

1:13:58 ↗ no that's for March or May 23rd May 23rd

1:14:03 ↗ sorry I'm trying to stop sharing

1:14:10 ↗ there we go

1:14:13 ↗ all right well thank you again

1:14:14 ↗ Commissioners for that amazing

1:14:16 ↗ conversation

1:14:17 ↗ hopefully staff was able to take

1:14:18 ↗ something away that they can work on and

1:14:20 ↗ bring back to us for our public Hearing

1:14:22 ↗ in two weeks

1:14:24 ↗ that is all we have for regular business

1:14:27 ↗ Kristen uh now we're up to reports do

1:14:31 ↗ you have any city council updates that

1:14:32 ↗ you'd like to share with all of us I am

1:14:36 ↗ happy to announce that City Council on

1:14:38 ↗ May 1st adopted title 18.

1:14:43 ↗ um it becomes effective they are putting

1:14:46 ↗ all the formatting on the website now it

1:14:48 ↗ becomes effective on June 1st

1:14:51 ↗ and everything will be up on June 1st

1:14:53 ↗ yeah

1:14:55 ↗ so uh I think that's all I have

1:14:58 ↗ it's pretty big though yeah no that's a

1:15:00 ↗ big one that was a big part of it oh and

1:15:03 ↗ there were there is a party you all got

1:15:05 ↗ an invitation that on May 31st I think

1:15:08 ↗ at Pickering Barn

1:15:10 ↗ I think that's right yeah for

1:15:13 ↗ Commissioners and staff and so forth who

1:15:15 ↗ worked on Title 18 so you're all invited

1:15:18 ↗ Hardy

1:15:21 ↗ all right any other business or

1:15:23 ↗ announcements

1:15:24 ↗ from staff fellow commissioners

1:15:30 ↗ all right anything for the good or the

1:15:31 ↗ order

1:15:33 ↗ again it's been great to see everybody

1:15:36 ↗ it seems like every time we see each

1:15:38 ↗ other it's been longer and longer in

1:15:40 ↗ between but it sounds like we're going

1:15:42 ↗ to be doing some ride-alongs in June to

1:15:44 ↗ go look at some of this housing out

1:15:46 ↗ there be interesting to see where staff

1:15:48 ↗ takes us

1:15:50 ↗ other than that

1:15:52 ↗ I want to again

1:15:55 ↗ oh Kristen I apologize you just brought

1:15:58 ↗ up a good point though be sure to fill

1:15:59 ↗ out your tutor polls if you haven't yet

1:16:01 ↗ yeah

1:16:03 ↗ thank you I just got yeah I just got a

1:16:05 ↗ lesson on Doodle polls so thank you

1:16:08 ↗ all right and again I want to thank

1:16:11 ↗ everybody

1:16:12 ↗ for earlier for the elections and

1:16:15 ↗ everything and looking forward to

1:16:16 ↗ working with all of you guys this summer

1:16:18 ↗ and also on this important work for the

1:16:20 ↗ comprehensive plan it's a new start for

1:16:22 ↗ our commission and

1:16:25 ↗ should be a fun rest of the year

1:16:27 ↗ so again thank you and tonight we will

1:16:29 ↗ adjourn our meeting at 7 48 pm

1:16:32 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Voiss

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Krass (Alt)

Milligan

Patterson Absence: Vice-Chair Bader

Staff (2)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner 2. Approval of Minutes CHAIR VOISS asked for corrections regarding the March 23, 2023 meeting minutes

there were none. The minutes were approved. 3