Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 24, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Code Update: Bees & Pollinators (D)

Madelyn Nelson, Planning Intern Caitlin Hepworth, Associate Planner · packet pp.3–10

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 23:45 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the October 24th

Title 18 Code Update: Middle Housing and Accessory Dwelling Units (D)

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.11–17

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 1:13:45 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

At the October 24th meeting the Planning Policy Commission will discuss proposed changes to Title 18 related to middle housing and provide policy direction on the changes to the Land Use Code and Street Standards.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.19–21

▶ Watch from 2:03:44 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2024 Schedule (subject to change) 1/11/24 1/25/24

2944 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ well good evening everyone welcome this

0:10 ↗ evening to the October 24th planning

0:12 ↗ policy commission and we will call this

0:15 ↗ commission to order at 6:35 p.m. I want

0:18 ↗ to very quickly thank our commissioners

0:20 ↗ as well as our fantastic planners uh we

0:23 ↗ just concluded a trip looking at

0:25 ↗ different middle housing types

0:26 ↗ throughout the city our planners are so

0:29 ↗ good

0:30 ↗ they even ordered

0:31 ↗ sunshine how good is that and again I

0:35 ↗ want to thank everybody for joining us

0:37 ↗ it was

0:38 ↗ Illuminating and I'm sure it will inform

0:40 ↗ our discussion later this evening

0:42 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:44 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:46 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:48 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:51 ↗ person uh Stephen do we have a quorum

0:53 ↗ this

0:55 ↗ evening chair of voice yes you have a

0:57 ↗ quorum tonight excellent we have no

1:00 ↗ meeting minutes to approve this evening

1:01 ↗ so we are going to jump into public

1:04 ↗ comment we'll hold it at this time and

1:07 ↗ the first question is would anyone like

1:09 ↗ to make public comment

1:12 ↗ tonight not tonight thanks Dave uh

1:16 ↗ Stephen anyone online chair voice we

1:18 ↗ don't have any virtual attendees okay so

1:20 ↗ we'll skip the boilerplate stuff as

1:23 ↗ regards to that and we'll move on to our

1:26 ↗ first item of regular

1:28 ↗ business and we have have two items this

1:30 ↗ evening the first is kind of a

1:34 ↗ continuation last week was um chickens

1:38 ↗ and chicken

1:39 ↗ husbandry tonight is going to be bees

1:41 ↗ and

1:42 ↗ pollinators and our associate planner

1:45 ↗ Caitlyn

1:46 ↗ Hepworth not here but I do see mateline

1:50 ↗ Nelson here who's our cities um planning

1:54 ↗ intern so let's get down to

1:58 ↗ business come on that was

2:01 ↗ funny come on okay tough

2:04 ↗ crowd all right so meline when you are

2:07 ↗ ready please go ahead with your

2:11 ↗ presentation good afternoon

2:12 ↗ Commissioners it's a pleasure to be

2:13 ↗ speaking with you today my name is mine

2:15 ↗ Nelson um I'm a planning intern in isqua

2:18 ↗ and I'm here tonight to present on these

2:20 ↗ inators code amendment to isqua

2:22 ↗ Municipal

2:24 ↗ Code um the purpose of tonight's meeting

2:27 ↗ is to review and provide some initial

2:29 ↗ feedback on on the draft Amendment

2:31 ↗ included in the

2:32 ↗ packet um but also to explore if there

2:34 ↗ are any additions you want to add to

2:37 ↗ code um here are some questions we can

2:39 ↗ use to create our framework when

2:41 ↗ reviewing this code Amendment um these

2:43 ↗ questions can include should we reopt

2:45 ↗ previous standards for beekeeping what

2:47 ↗ kind of setbacks do we want and what

2:49 ↗ kind of Standards should we

2:52 ↗ consider um so I want to take some time

2:55 ↗ to go over some background to evaluate

2:57 ↗ our past standards and our current

2:58 ↗ standards

3:01 ↗ uh we currently lack code about

3:03 ↗ beekeeping because in the 2023 overhaul

3:05 ↗ Title 18 we wanted to have a simplified

3:07 ↗ animal code um but now we are thinking

3:10 ↗ that we would like to bring

3:14 ↗ back um upon research these are some

3:17 ↗ common best practices that we see in a

3:20 ↗ few cities

3:26 ↗ around

3:28 ↗ um thank include uh development

3:31 ↗ standards like such as minimum lot area

3:33 ↗ that you must meet to have uh High

3:37 ↗ permitted um setbacks uh signage so to

3:40 ↗ make sure that people are aware that

3:41 ↗ there's a beehive and then also

3:43 ↗ operational standards which are just to

3:45 ↗ keep the hiive clean and spacious and

3:48 ↗ then it's also uh a very common code for

3:51 ↗ rening practices which is to remove or

3:57 ↗ Abate the queen uh which it helps stamp

4:00 ↗ down aggressive behavior um and then a

4:03 ↗ nuisance threshold is just if the hi is

4:07 ↗ dead or disease or similar or like

4:09 ↗ aggressive or know objectional

4:15 ↗ standard um the old

4:18 ↗ IMC

4:20 ↗ um included a included a graduated

4:23 ↗ system so the size of a lot correlated

4:25 ↗ to the amount of hives per minute on one

4:27 ↗ parcel with these amutations um most

4:30 ↗ properties in isqua would be permitted

4:31 ↗ two to four hies that also included

4:33 ↗ standards about setback

4:42 ↗ and currently because we don't have code

4:45 ↗ tailored to our community we are

4:47 ↗ regulating hives under King County code

4:50 ↗ um which is pretty broad uh King County

4:52 ↗ code allows for 50 be he for anything

4:55 ↗ less than 5 acres and then for any

4:58 ↗ property over 5 Acres is unlimited so

5:01 ↗ that means any property in isqua could

5:03 ↗ theoretically have 50 bives right

5:06 ↗ now assuming they are registered

5:11 ↗ with um and then

5:13 ↗ the county code also includes regulation

5:17 ↗ for adequate space between hives

5:19 ↗ requeening um and then removal of dead

5:21 ↗ or

5:24 ↗ AB okay so with a bit of background

5:26 ↗ covered uh we can get our into our

5:28 ↗ proposed regulation

5:30 ↗ um to start here's the proposed

5:32 ↗ amendment for the lot size standards the

5:34 ↗ main takeaway is that a lot must be over

5:36 ↗ 6,000 squ feet fives with gradual

5:39 ↗ increases in a limit as lot size

5:40 ↗ increases and the absolute maximum for

5:43 ↗ Rural or very large Lots would be

5:45 ↗ 60 um and for reference the average lot

5:48 ↗ in South Cove neighborhood on the lake

5:51 ↗ is about

5:55 ↗ 10,000 so here we have a list of City

5:57 ↗ comparisons with a proposed code at the

6:00 ↗ top in other city codes following below

6:03 ↗ um one thing to note is that most other

6:05 ↗ cities are much l specific in lot size

6:07 ↗ take rent in where most properties would

6:09 ↗ Beed three hives then every 10,000

6:12 ↗ additional square feet of lot they would

6:14 ↗ be red one Hive um bie is a bit more

6:17 ↗ urbanized so we can see that most

6:19 ↗ properties would be permitted only one

6:21 ↗ Hive and so we can consider for current

6:26 ↗ approach um and then here's some

6:28 ↗ regulation for Hive design um so the

6:32 ↗ proposed Hive designs includes a 25 foot

6:34 ↗ setback unless the hive is situated 8T

6:36 ↗ above above ground or a six- foot fence

6:40 ↗ separates the bees from the neighbor

6:41 ↗ property um if there is a public road

6:44 ↗ that is directly next to the property we

6:46 ↗ would prefer if the B flight was

6:49 ↗ directed 20 over that road to prevent

6:51 ↗ conflict

6:52 ↗ TR um and then on the right side there's

6:54 ↗ some examples of how this could look

6:57 ↗ um this upper image up here is what a

7:01 ↗ setback would look like with an 85 8500t

7:05 ↗ property with

7:07 ↗ A700 uh square foot structure on top so

7:10 ↗ the light green is a prohibited area for

7:12 ↗ the hives and then the darker green

7:13 ↗ would

7:15 ↗ per and then a

7:22 ↗ six and here we can see a setback of 25

7:25 ↗ ft is exceedingly common in our

7:27 ↗ surrounding area with bth b and Ron all

7:29 ↗ sharing a 25 fo that

7:33 ↗ back um and then here is some additional

7:36 ↗ regulations we're proposing is signage

7:38 ↗ The Hive to make sure people approaching

7:39 ↗ the hive are aware of it um and then

7:42 ↗ this language for nuisance is for quote

7:47 ↗ enforcement and then here is a timeline

7:49 ↗ you can see that we are in initial

7:51 ↗ review in the first box currently and

7:53 ↗ then in 2025 quarter 2 when we hope to

7:56 ↗ get the code adopt

7:59 ↗ okay so we are back to the overarching

8:01 ↗ question uh do we want to keep the

8:02 ↗ county code or do we want to reopt

8:04 ↗ having our own standards at the city

8:06 ↗ level and what would those standards

8:07 ↗ look like uh the amendment we proposes

8:09 ↗ one possibility um that is all that

8:16 ↗ iared great thank you mateline that was

8:19 ↗ fantastic all right so do we want to

8:21 ↗ start off with some questions for

8:23 ↗ mateline and then get into some

8:25 ↗ discussion commissioner

8:27 ↗ crass hello uh commissioner crass do you

8:30 ↗ U just for a help of scale like how many

8:33 ↗ are in the city now like how many

8:35 ↗ properties have hives I actually do not

8:37 ↗ know how many properties in isal have

8:38 ↗ hives um they are registered with the

8:41 ↗ state and Washington Department of

8:42 ↗ Agriculture so there is an entity that

8:45 ↗ does know but I do not yeah we good to

8:47 ↗ know like how many and where they are

8:49 ↗ now um because it seems like a lot of

8:50 ↗ them I read through the the there's not

8:53 ↗ that much changing just kind of cleaning

8:55 ↗ it up which I appreciate um that was

8:58 ↗ that the other I have one other question

9:00 ↗ which I ask an now is how are comp there

9:03 ↗ is a thing about nuisance but is there

9:05 ↗ also something about how complain

9:07 ↗ complaints and mitigation is actually

9:09 ↗ handled as part of that so if someone

9:13 ↗ has hives and someone else lives next

9:16 ↗ door the I'm not sure if that's a code

9:18 ↗ thing or just how you how you handle it

9:21 ↗ when there is an like how are complaints

9:23 ↗ handle so speak I see um well if someone

9:27 ↗ is complaining about a behive

9:30 ↗ interrupting enjoyment of their property

9:32 ↗ or lifestyle um officials can be called

9:36 ↗ from the Department of Agriculture and

9:38 ↗ in that situation The Beehive can be

9:41 ↗ evaded so it's up to the proper the

9:45 ↗ owner of the hive to maintain the hive

9:47 ↗ to you know reduce any level of

9:51 ↗ aggressive behavior or objectional

9:53 ↗ behavior otherwise

9:56 ↗ um essentially an exterminator can come

9:59 ↗ and and get rid of the problem that

10:05 ↗ way any other questions from Maline B

10:09 ↗ this is like a really basic question but

10:12 ↗ like is a hive like a box basically yes

10:16 ↗ so the hive so the code does require um

10:20 ↗ that hives be kept in a small movable

10:22 ↗ frame which is like a box I think I do

10:24 ↗ have an image

10:25 ↗ here so here's one image of a small

10:28 ↗ movable frame so just a box with a

10:30 ↗ series of frames where the bees can

10:32 ↗ build a honeycomb on it so like how many

10:35 ↗ bees are in one Hive it's about 20,000

10:39 ↗ to 50,000 bees up to 880,000 if it's

10:42 ↗ really significant

10:45 ↗ Hive so one box is one Hive yes okay

10:50 ↗ yeah a lot of bees we need bees

10:53 ↗ yeah not too close but we need

10:57 ↗ bees not those uh n remember the bees at

11:00 ↗ the beginning of Co remember the the

11:02 ↗ year 2020 the murder Hornets oh those

11:05 ↗ are not what we want no murder

11:07 ↗ Hornets um I had a question for you mine

11:11 ↗ why is it that we used to requeen

11:14 ↗ annually our comparative cities also

11:16 ↗ recen annually why would we want to

11:18 ↗ requeen annually instead of by anually

11:22 ↗ apologies um I think that might be a

11:25 ↗ question best left up

11:27 ↗ to and someone who works with bees but I

11:31 ↗ if the common practice is to recen

11:33 ↗ annually I'm sure it's to reduce any

11:36 ↗ likelihood of aggression developing

11:37 ↗ within the bees to take like the most uh

11:40 ↗ effective stance against forming okay

11:44 ↗ yeah I just I noticed that our old code

11:45 ↗ was a little bit more lenient there

11:48 ↗ comparative codes a little bit more

11:49 ↗ lenient now we're getting a little bit

11:51 ↗ more stringent so wondered why and then

11:54 ↗ the last question I have

11:55 ↗ is uh kind of piggybacks off

11:57 ↗ commissioner crass

11:59 ↗ is why wouldn't we just try to order a

12:03 ↗ violation if they were able I mean I

12:05 ↗ imagine that's probably what we would do

12:06 ↗ we wouldn't just the first step would

12:07 ↗ not to be aate the entire Hive or I mean

12:11 ↗ again I would hope not um is that I mean

12:15 ↗ is there like a discipl disciplinary

12:17 ↗ process that would happen is that

12:20 ↗ something that would have to be part of

12:21 ↗ our code you know to spell that out so

12:24 ↗ one times a warning two times a write up

12:27 ↗ with a fee or a fine maybe third time as

12:30 ↗ a batement yeah I definitely uh hear

12:32 ↗ your concern I think the first time

12:34 ↗ offense leading to a batement can be

12:36 ↗ pretty severe um but we can definitely

12:38 ↗ explore having a graduated system with

12:43 ↗ violation chair Bo so help answer your

12:45 ↗ question similar to any like code

12:47 ↗ enforcement enfor they would it would

12:50 ↗ kind of be at their discretion on

12:52 ↗ whether or not they're abiding by what

12:55 ↗ the regulations are if they're complying

12:57 ↗ with then out with the next rather than

13:05 ↗ fing commissioner I think there there's

13:07 ↗ two types of violations one is they're

13:09 ↗ not doing what what spelled out like

13:11 ↗ it's too close too many or whatever

13:14 ↗ that's that's one scenario the other one

13:17 ↗ is they followed all that but their bees

13:19 ↗ are really aggressive and going after

13:20 ↗ the neighbors and I'm not sure if

13:24 ↗ there's two different Paths of how you

13:28 ↗ mitigate gate around those the first

13:30 ↗ one's more spec you know easier like

13:31 ↗ you're not doing the thing you're

13:32 ↗ supposed to do so you're going to get

13:35 ↗ something immediately the second one is

13:38 ↗ you know a little bit more subjective is

13:39 ↗ your your bees are a nuisance um even

13:43 ↗ though you followed all the rules you

13:44 ↗ just happen to have you know orinary

13:46 ↗ bees um so then I'm not sure what we so

13:50 ↗ I think both of those may as you look at

13:52 ↗ those they may be different ter and

13:55 ↗ there is guidance out there around

13:56 ↗ managing swarms or swarming and or PR

14:00 ↗ creating any threatening

14:02 ↗ situations just again it comes down to

14:05 ↗ court of enforcement off of being if

14:07 ↗ they are putting any mitigation

14:09 ↗ otherwise going into removal none of

14:17 ↗ those um so just building off of that

14:19 ↗ too because um it sounds like it's in

14:22 ↗ part the city also in part Department of

14:24 ↗ Agriculture um and so I guess like is

14:29 ↗ that line and then does the Department

14:32 ↗ of Agriculture kind of have

14:34 ↗ recommendations for code um or

14:39 ↗ bees I am not sure if the Department of

14:41 ↗ Agriculture has code written for

14:44 ↗ beekeeping I can look into that and see

14:47 ↗ if that can inform our

14:53 ↗ code any other questions from Al

15:00 ↗ okay we can jump into

15:01 ↗ discussion

15:03 ↗ um anyone like to kick it

15:06 ↗ off commissioner Milligan is gone so we

15:10 ↗ no longer have our our first chair up or

15:12 ↗ first commissioner up but I guess just

15:15 ↗ to kick it off I appreciate the I

15:17 ↗ appreciate new regulations I definitely

15:19 ↗ think King Count's were pretty uh to

15:21 ↗ your use your word mateline Broad and uh

15:24 ↗ yeah I think we need to have limitations

15:26 ↗ on beehives I understand I did think it

15:28 ↗ wasting in to see Belleview and Bothel

15:30 ↗ had I believe a 25 Hive

15:32 ↗ limit ceiling and isqua is so much

15:36 ↗ higher though 60 and then I think of

15:38 ↗ like squawk mountain and I think of our

15:39 ↗ rural rural areas where that makes more

15:43 ↗ sense um but at the same time you know

15:46 ↗ not that we have big a lot of the state

15:48 ↗ lot

15:50 ↗ but I don't know I don't know if like

15:52 ↗ maybe zoning is part of it or it's just

15:54 ↗ based purely off size of the lot

15:59 ↗ yeah and all of the code I've reviewed

16:01 ↗ it's based really off the size of a

16:04 ↗ lot yeah 60 I mean 60 hives that seems

16:07 ↗ like a lot but I suppose if you're in

16:08 ↗ squawk Mountain it's it's not if you're

16:10 ↗ in South Cove or Oldtown that that's

16:12 ↗ quite a bit but I guess it would never

16:14 ↗ get that much

16:17 ↗ um yeah just kind of my thoughts yeah I

16:19 ↗ definitely appreciate new regulations I

16:22 ↗ think it's building Upon Our older

16:24 ↗ regulations which

16:26 ↗ uh yeah I think they look good any other

16:32 ↗ considerations yeah please sorry that

16:34 ↗ just spurred another question in my mind

16:36 ↗ is this this is for

16:38 ↗ any um piece of property in the city

16:41 ↗ it's not just residential right so this

16:43 ↗ could be like a commercial know any

16:45 ↗ farms in the city limits that might have

16:49 ↗ like be more than 10 acres and have yeah

16:52 ↗ so in the code there is no um written

16:55 ↗ difference between uh residential or

16:58 ↗ commercial use it's all uses regarding

17:01 ↗ bees are um I guess they regarded as

17:04 ↗ accessory use more so um but there's no

17:07 ↗ difference for residential or commercial

17:11 ↗ use so no distinction between

17:14 ↗ neighborhoods lot uses have bees

17:18 ↗ anywhere yeah commissioner crra so I do

17:21 ↗ and I read through it I agree I you did

17:23 ↗ a nice job of of hinting all that up and

17:26 ↗ being more specific I think it's good I

17:28 ↗ still think if you could follow up on um

17:31 ↗ how many are there now and and also how

17:33 ↗ many complaints or other mitigations

17:35 ↗ there have been I'm trying to get us a

17:37 ↗ sense of scope of how big of a problem

17:40 ↗ it's been in the past um and just where

17:43 ↗ they are now because people want to know

17:46 ↗ where their bees are I'm sure that would

17:48 ↗ be a question I can quickly answer that

17:50 ↗ commissioner GR in terms of we've only

17:52 ↗ reviewed two complaints about um

17:55 ↗ beekeeping in the city and so far it's

17:57 ↗ more been inquiries of can my my

17:58 ↗ neighbor actually have bees in their

18:00 ↗ backyard more so than any sens

18:06 ↗ ofine uh commissioner

18:09 ↗ zacharov thank you I would like to maybe

18:11 ↗ add to commissioner cr's question uh how

18:14 ↗ many bees we have in different types of

18:17 ↗ uh properties so bigger properties they

18:21 ↗ probably have more and I would imagine

18:23 ↗ that smaller properties like people who

18:25 ↗ want to have bees bees are uh ous even

18:29 ↗ for the people who want to have them

18:30 ↗ right so the owner will be the first one

18:33 ↗ to get bitten probably so I think people

18:35 ↗ would think twice three times four times

18:38 ↗ before getting bees if they have a small

18:39 ↗ property and yeah so but I I would want

18:43 ↗ to know how many bees we have on bigger

18:45 ↗ properties smaller properties and how

18:47 ↗ big of a problem is this that we're

18:49 ↗ talking about thank you I can look into

18:52 ↗ that for

18:54 ↗ you so it sounds like to commissioner

18:56 ↗ zacharov and commissioner cr's Point

18:58 ↗ mine sounds like if if you can dig up

19:00 ↗ any information on the history of bees

19:03 ↗ and isqua that might be helpful maybe to

19:05 ↗ set

19:06 ↗ like the hive limits I mean again um I

19:11 ↗ think that's what you guys are getting

19:12 ↗ at

19:13 ↗ right right

19:15 ↗ again right because I did see that it's

19:18 ↗ still was required by King County to

19:19 ↗ register your hives it is okay that

19:22 ↗ information should be somewhere I would

19:26 ↗ think um I think the signage I think is

19:28 ↗ important obviously there's people that

19:31 ↗ uh are allergic to bees so I think

19:34 ↗ signage is a plus

19:37 ↗ um yeah I

19:39 ↗ think yeah please commissioner Patterson

19:42 ↗ thanks chair uh commissioner Patterson

19:44 ↗ very minimal but your comment reminded

19:46 ↗ me that on signage given that um some

19:50 ↗ larger properties may have many hives I

19:52 ↗ notic that the requirement just says one

19:54 ↗ maybe we don't we just say one as a

19:57 ↗ minimum uh meaning if there's other

19:59 ↗ sides of the property or multiple hives

20:02 ↗ um it may be best to have more than one

20:04 ↗ but leave it up to the owner as long as

20:07 ↗ there's a minimum of one it's kind of

20:10 ↗ minor feedback sure I can totally add

20:13 ↗ add that to the

20:17 ↗ policy yeah I think clearly we're not

20:19 ↗ beekeepers but I think the idea is you

20:21 ↗ know protecting the public what is the

20:23 ↗ proper amount of signage um again I just

20:27 ↗ think of of kids that are allergic bees

20:29 ↗ which there are quite a

20:30 ↗ few

20:32 ↗ and I think that's about it does anyone

20:34 ↗ have anything to add as far as setbacks

20:36 ↗ I mean it's kind of hard to tell I mean

20:38 ↗ it it sounds like these are pretty much

20:39 ↗ standard for a lot of areas so who am I

20:42 ↗ to argue with standards that have been

20:44 ↗ set by other cities and isqua

20:47 ↗ beforehand um but since we're talking

20:50 ↗ any any additional information or

20:53 ↗ thoughts on setbacks property facing

20:56 ↗ fencing

21:01 ↗ um honey

21:04 ↗ tax um

21:10 ↗ okay right but it's a it's a good point

21:13 ↗ I mean you know it's certain level of

21:15 ↗ housing if they are in certain areas

21:18 ↗ would you want to see them would you

21:20 ↗ want to see those beehives covered I

21:22 ↗ mean I don't know if that is problematic

21:24 ↗ for the bees I just don't know enough

21:25 ↗ about bees I bet you to keep the people

21:28 ↗ from getting near the bees it's to

21:29 ↗ protect yeah it's right as opposed

21:32 ↗ because the bees fly but it's like if

21:34 ↗ you have a fence you don't know there

21:36 ↗ it's going to keep a kid from walking

21:38 ↗ over and touching the Beehive that's I

21:40 ↗ guess what the why the

21:41 ↗ fence do you know meline is that is that

21:44 ↗ the idea behind fencing it's just to

21:45 ↗ protect people it's not actually does

21:47 ↗ anything for the bees good or bad I mean

21:49 ↗ I've been around hides and and for the

21:50 ↗ most part unless they're open they

21:53 ↗ pretty much are contained around the

21:55 ↗ hive itself they don't really you know I

21:57 ↗ guess unless they're aggressive for the

21:58 ↗ most part I'm thinking of a couple in

22:00 ↗ Victoria they don't bother anybody right

22:03 ↗ there have been a couple of

22:06 ↗ um Behavior B Behavior research papers

22:10 ↗ that I've seen that said that even just

22:13 ↗ adjusting the entrance The Hive can

22:15 ↗ really like greatly impact the paths

22:18 ↗ that they take so I suppose bees it

22:21 ↗ seems like bees do respond uh quite a

22:24 ↗ lot to obstacles and I've also heard uh

22:27 ↗ from

22:29 ↗ you know be Behavior scientists online

22:31 ↗ that when a b leaves the hive it goes in

22:34 ↗ a straight direction as well to its

22:36 ↗ destination so I think obstacles and

22:40 ↗ then so in quite a few CS codes you

22:44 ↗ see um requirements that the hive

22:47 ↗ entrance must face away from property

22:49 ↗ lines which is there because I suppose

22:53 ↗ that that is an effective uh obstacle

22:55 ↗ for bees to keep them kind of directed

22:58 ↗ so I I suppose bees do respond quite

23:00 ↗ well to obstacles and kind of

23:04 ↗ guidance interesting to

23:07 ↗ know okay and I believe I saw I read

23:09 ↗ that where you actually had that in your

23:11 ↗ regulations is pointing that in that

23:13 ↗ direction so

23:16 ↗ okay that sounds good we don't want

23:18 ↗ anyone to end up like the uh final

23:20 ↗ moments of my

23:22 ↗ girl Culkin's character gets

23:25 ↗ killed um does anyone have anything that

23:28 ↗ they'd like

23:29 ↗ T mateline do you have everything you

23:31 ↗ need yes I do okay well thank you very

23:34 ↗ much great

23:36 ↗ presentation thank you so much and we

23:38 ↗ will move

23:42 ↗ along and now we are going to begin our

23:45 ↗ regular business concerning the title 18

23:48 ↗ code update middle housing and

23:50 ↗ adus part two with our associate planner

23:54 ↗ Valerie

23:55 ↗ Porter so when Valerie is ready we'll

23:57 ↗ give her a second

23:58 ↗ while they're swapping

24:01 ↗ computers uh but yeah that was a great

24:03 ↗ field trip I learned a

24:04 ↗ lot

24:07 ↗ hopefully son no

24:10 ↗ Bees saw a lot of

24:13 ↗ duplexes how few a to use the noes

24:28 ↗ all right hello

24:31 ↗ again all right so tonight in we're

24:34 ↗ going to dive a little bit deeper into

24:36 ↗ middle housing so I have a few policy

24:40 ↗ questions for you guys

24:41 ↗ tonight so the purpose of today's um

24:45 ↗ tonight's meeting is for you all to

24:51 ↗ provide for you all to provide feedback

24:54 ↗ um to help me um or to help staff um

24:57 ↗ draft Amendment it's related to bidle

25:04 ↗ housing all right so we have six and I

25:07 ↗ added one other question so I'm not

25:09 ↗ going to go through them right now I'm

25:10 ↗ going to go through them individually um

25:13 ↗ but I'm I'm showing this to you guys

25:15 ↗ just for for time

25:17 ↗ purposes also the format of the meeting

25:20 ↗ I'm going to um pose a question give a

25:22 ↗ little bit of feedback and then ask a

25:24 ↗ question that way um we get you

25:27 ↗ understand make sure you understand the

25:29 ↗ question and then some of them kind of

25:30 ↗ build off of each other so before we get

25:32 ↗ into the questions I just want to remind

25:34 ↗ you what the requirements are for um

25:36 ↗ Health Bill 1110 which is related to

25:38 ↗ Middle housing so the first one is um

25:40 ↗ middle housing and uh single detach

25:43 ↗ single family homes must be treated the

25:45 ↗ same they must be go through the same um

25:47 ↗ permit review process and um the review

25:51 ↗ can only be administrative meaning um

25:54 ↗ the director of the department or their

25:55 ↗ designate so that would be someone like

25:56 ↗ me the other require is related to

25:59 ↗ density um the city must allow two

26:02 ↗ housing units on all residentially zon

26:05 ↗ Lots uh in a detached single family home

26:08 ↗ is not considered middle housing for the

26:10 ↗ state regulations um the city must allow

26:13 ↗ four dwelling units on one lot if the

26:16 ↗ lot is within one4 mile walking distance

26:18 ↗ of a major Transit stop and right now

26:20 ↗ those are the two um Transit um Transit

26:24 ↗ centers um and also if uh the applicant

26:28 ↗ chooses to have one affordable housing

26:31 ↗ unit the other requirements is that we

26:34 ↗ must allow six of the nine middle

26:36 ↗ housing types in um the residential

26:38 ↗ zones I've highlighted six um to kind of

26:42 ↗ show what that would look like to give

26:44 ↗ an idea of what middle housing would

26:46 ↗ look like or what middle housing types

26:48 ↗ would be allowed and then for parking we

26:51 ↗ cannot the city cannot allow um on-site

26:54 ↗ parking if within a half quarter mile

26:56 ↗ walking distance of a major Transit

26:58 ↗ stock stop the city can allow one

27:00 ↗ parking stall on site for lots that are

27:03 ↗ 6,000 square ft or smaller and then two

27:06 ↗ parking stalls if the lot is greater

27:08 ↗ than 6,000 square

27:10 ↗ ft and so for House Bill 1337 which

27:14 ↗ addresses accessory dwelling units the

27:16 ↗ city must allow um the permit review

27:19 ↗ process to be the same for the um as for

27:22 ↗ like the primary home um the city must

27:25 ↗ allow two accessory dwelling units on

27:27 ↗ one lot not in addition to the primary

27:29 ↗ home and then just some other

27:31 ↗ requirements the Adu must um we must

27:34 ↗ allow it to be um at least 1,000 sare ft

27:37 ↗ it must be able to be sold independently

27:40 ↗ and the property owner is not required

27:42 ↗ to live on

27:44 ↗ site so my first question to you all

27:46 ↗ does the commission agree with the

27:48 ↗ approach of applying a unit limit on

27:51 ↗ middle housing and multihousing

27:54 ↗ projects so like I stated middle house

27:58 ↗ in datat single family homes must be

28:00 ↗ treated the same per state regulations I

28:03 ↗ think it's important to show what the

28:05 ↗ current review process is because that

28:07 ↗ would need to change based off how we

28:09 ↗ Define these terms so today a datat

28:13 ↗ single family home a new detached single

28:15 ↗ family home being constructed on a lot

28:17 ↗ would only be required to obtain a

28:19 ↗ building

28:20 ↗ permit if an applicant came in wanting

28:22 ↗ to say build a fora fourplex town home

28:26 ↗ that's 4,000 s ft

28:28 ↗ that would trigger a site development

28:30 ↗ permit which is a land use review so

28:33 ↗ they would submit it again um it's

28:36 ↗ administrative so it would be the

28:38 ↗ director of department or their design

28:40 ↗ someone like me would review it and then

28:42 ↗ issue um issue the decision and then

28:46 ↗ they would then go on for a building

28:47 ↗ permit for larger projects that are

28:50 ↗ 10,000 square fet or more that would

28:52 ↗ trigger a level four site development

28:55 ↗ permit so they would apply for a permit

28:57 ↗ as part of that process they were

28:59 ↗ required to hold a community meeting

29:01 ↗ which is intended to um allow the

29:03 ↗ community to speak directly to the

29:05 ↗ applicant to um tell them their concern

29:07 ↗ tell them their

29:08 ↗ likes then staff would review that um

29:11 ↗ project recommend a decision to the

29:15 ↗ development commission and the

29:16 ↗ development commission would review it

29:18 ↗ and then render a decision either

29:19 ↗ approve it or deny it and depending on

29:23 ↗ the status hopefully get approval then

29:25 ↗ they can then go on and get a building

29:26 ↗ permit

29:28 ↗ So based on how we defined single family

29:31 ↗ and middle housing this process would

29:33 ↗ change um the administration is

29:36 ↗ proposing to Define middle housing as

29:38 ↗ two to six units that way that they

29:41 ↗ could be treated the same as a detach

29:43 ↗ single family home so that mean that

29:45 ↗ middle housing would only be required to

29:47 ↗ get a building permit they'd be exempt

29:49 ↗ from a site development permit and any

29:52 ↗ project seven units or more would then

29:55 ↗ have to go through the um land use

29:57 ↗ process process um which would then

30:00 ↗ ultimately be reviewed by the

30:01 ↗ development commission they'd have to go

30:03 ↗ through that process before getting any

30:04 ↗ building

30:06 ↗ permits so again I think all day I've

30:09 ↗ been saying we need to establish terms

30:11 ↗ def it depends on how we Define these

30:13 ↗ terms

30:15 ↗ so the administration is proposing to um

30:18 ↗ add a few new definitions the first one

30:21 ↗ is single family detached we currently

30:24 ↗ have um a definition but I think we need

30:26 ↗ to go a step further and say single

30:28 ↗ family attached because we're starting

30:30 ↗ to see um what folks are calling fee

30:33 ↗ simple Lots where you're having a multif

30:35 ↗ family um building but they're having

30:38 ↗ lot lines down the wall so that unit is

30:40 ↗ sitting on their own lot um currently

30:42 ↗ our code does not address this and so

30:44 ↗ it's kind of creating some confusing for

30:46 ↗ staff when trying to review you know is

30:48 ↗ it exempt because it's technically a lot

30:51 ↗ on a single family and its own

30:53 ↗ individual lot or should it be treated

30:55 ↗ as multif

30:56 ↗ family of course we need to address um

30:59 ↗ middle housing how do we want to Define

31:00 ↗ that we're showing it right now as two

31:03 ↗ to six dwelling units and then multif

31:06 ↗ family as seven or more dwelling units

31:09 ↗ again this addresses how we um re create

31:12 ↗ the review process and also um design

31:17 ↗ standards in the last meeting there was

31:19 ↗ a lot of discussion on you know if you

31:21 ↗ have these different scenarios how do

31:23 ↗ you determine which one applies and

31:25 ↗ which one doesn't and the one that came

31:26 ↗ up a lot was assess dwelling units

31:28 ↗ compared to Cottages so today we Define

31:31 ↗ Cottage housing as a detach single

31:34 ↗ family homes that are in a cluster of 4

31:37 ↗ to 12 dwelling units and their Max size

31:40 ↗ is 1,700 Square ft so max size no um

31:44 ↗ minimum size and then for accessory

31:47 ↗ dwelling units they're just in a a

31:49 ↗ subordinate dwelling unit but if you

31:52 ↗ dive deeper in the code then it's the

31:54 ↗ max is 1,000 squ feet today

31:58 ↗ so right at this point I'll take

32:03 ↗ questions on how we should allow a unit

32:06 ↗ lot

32:07 ↗ density commissioner grass uh you had a

32:11 ↗ a slide that had for single family or up

32:14 ↗ to like four like you building permit

32:17 ↗ and then there was another go go back

32:19 ↗ one please so what is like a site

32:23 ↗ development permit level one how how big

32:26 ↗ of a deal is it for someone to get one

32:28 ↗ of those is that a small thing medium

32:30 ↗ thing big thing so that's a land use

32:34 ↗ permit and so what they would have to do

32:36 ↗ is submit um a separate permit from

32:39 ↗ their construction drawings um they tend

32:41 ↗ to be a little bit more conceptual um so

32:44 ↗ they would submit that to

32:46 ↗ staff staff would take between six to

32:50 ↗ eight weeks to review it depending on

32:53 ↗ the review we could go back and forth a

32:54 ↗ few more rounds which could take longer

32:57 ↗ um and then staff would um issue a

32:59 ↗ decision

33:01 ↗ um I it depends on the scope of the work

33:05 ↗ to determine whether or not it's a

33:07 ↗ simple or complicated process because

33:09 ↗ also during the land use review we look

33:11 ↗ at um critical areas so then we'll be

33:15 ↗ working with Consultants that can

33:17 ↗ sometimes take a little bit of time but

33:18 ↗ there's also a benefit because you

33:20 ↗ understand where your um critical areas

33:22 ↗ are before you spend all that more money

33:25 ↗ to get into the detailed um building

33:27 ↗ permit I guess the reason why I ask is

33:29 ↗ like a duplex is definitely more like a

33:31 ↗ house so I get i' get that when you

33:33 ↗ start getting to six all of a sudden

33:35 ↗ this could be a fairly large

33:37 ↗ thing and is do you feel like when you

33:41 ↗ go to the the proposed there's a risk

33:44 ↗ for something that's six which could be

33:45 ↗ a large

33:47 ↗ complex um that you just go straight to

33:50 ↗ like what's the what's the issue if you

33:51 ↗ just go straight to building permanent

33:53 ↗ you now lose the site development um

33:56 ↗ review C cor um I was thinking about

33:59 ↗ that as well and I was curious if maybe

34:01 ↗ then cuz right now today we um regulate

34:05 ↗ the levels of review by um the building

34:07 ↗ square footage so perhaps it could be a

34:09 ↗ combination of doing both so that way if

34:12 ↗ um someone has a larger project that is

34:16 ↗ um still six units maybe we can treat it

34:20 ↗ a little bit differently and go through

34:21 ↗ development commission I need to vet

34:24 ↗ that um but um sorry what was the second

34:27 ↗ part of your question it's just like a

34:29 ↗ duplex is very different than a sixplex

34:31 ↗ corre and and do they need to be treated

34:35 ↗ differently and from a review because

34:37 ↗ you could do a lot of things wrong with

34:39 ↗ a big sixplex that may not be the

34:42 ↗ intention of what this everyone may want

34:45 ↗ so that's all that was my question I

34:47 ↗ think you answer you want to you want to

34:49 ↗ think a little more about yeah I think I

34:50 ↗ need to kind of like you know talk to

34:52 ↗ the building official and other folks um

34:54 ↗ about it

34:56 ↗ because I I can't think of anything um

35:00 ↗ you know that's jumping out right now as

35:03 ↗ to um how impactful or if it's you know

35:07 ↗ one is more detrimental than the other

35:09 ↗ um the review is still the same so the

35:12 ↗ criteria that you know staff is looking

35:14 ↗ at versus development commission we're

35:16 ↗ still applying the code um I just think

35:20 ↗ that the development commission is

35:21 ↗ looking at it from a different l

35:29 ↗ so you know I'm s listening to this

35:32 ↗ thing the the process for site

35:34 ↗ development one or the building permit

35:36 ↗ there's no public notice so um in terms

35:40 ↗ of the Neighbors being able to know what

35:42 ↗ is happening or to be able to

35:44 ↗ participate in that it's still either of

35:47 ↗ those don't require a public notice

35:59 ↗ so um I think I'm like there's like a

36:03 ↗ connection that's just not happening in

36:04 ↗ my mind because I'm not sure why we're

36:06 ↗ even talking about six plexes because I

36:09 ↗ thought that the middle housing was like

36:11 ↗ duplex or if within a Transit Center or

36:14 ↗ an affordable unit up to four and so I

36:18 ↗ guess I'm confused about the like line

36:20 ↗ between the Middle housing kind of in

36:22 ↗ single family zones that we're talking

36:24 ↗ about with like multif family zones and

36:28 ↗ just how it all fits together because I

36:29 ↗ don't I don't I just I'm confused about

36:31 ↗ where six flexes are even coming from so

36:35 ↗ with the state regulations um they

36:37 ↗ clearly Define what middle housing is

36:39 ↗ and they consider um middle housing to

36:42 ↗ be building types up to sixplex so

36:45 ↗ that's where the six is coming from um

36:49 ↗ the four is um a density requirement

36:52 ↗ where if you're within um quarter or

36:56 ↗ quarter mile or affordable housing then

36:58 ↗ we're required to allow for four units

37:01 ↗ if the um zoning does allow for more so

37:05 ↗ we're having to do more go a little bit

37:07 ↗ above that um most of the single family

37:11 ↗ lots or most of the Lots in single

37:13 ↗ family zones will not trigger a six Plex

37:17 ↗ because of their size they'll likely um

37:20 ↗ be two or four if they choose to do

37:23 ↗ affordable housing but for those areas

37:26 ↗ where there there is a large lot then um

37:31 ↗ we're just trying to put some edges on

37:33 ↗ what is considered middle housing

37:34 ↗ because like I said it has to be treated

37:36 ↗ the same way as a a deep chat single

37:40 ↗ family home where today they wouldn't

37:42 ↗ necessarily be applied like that they're

37:44 ↗ um anything more well not always but

37:48 ↗ usually larger projects with multiple

37:51 ↗ units have to go through a land use

37:53 ↗ process so like Minnie was saying staff

37:55 ↗ would review it it would go through a

37:56 ↗ public notice is um so people know that

38:00 ↗ a large structure is going to be built

38:01 ↗ next to you um before getting building

38:05 ↗ permit okay that's helpful thank you um

38:09 ↗ yeah it feel it feels like almost like

38:10 ↗ there's a loophole here right where like

38:12 ↗ all of a sudden you can build a sixplex

38:14 ↗ and not have to go through the same

38:16 ↗ process that you might if it was in a

38:18 ↗ different like Zone potentially um so

38:20 ↗ that doesn't feel quite right to me um

38:23 ↗ so I don't know if that's to your point

38:25 ↗ like a you can like merge it with like a

38:27 ↗ footage thing that like have a threshold

38:29 ↗ there that would trigger a review as

38:32 ↗ opposed to just looking at like unit or

38:49 ↗ what are there any go any further

38:54 ↗ comments yeah I mean I I'm kind of the

38:56 ↗ same mind right so again I don't think

38:58 ↗ there's going to be a lot of six plexes

39:01 ↗ but however it does seem it seems like

39:04 ↗ the kind of thing that Olympia is going

39:06 ↗ to have to address in a couple years

39:08 ↗ because again to the point whereas now

39:10 ↗ you're going to see a sixplex again not

39:12 ↗ likely but if you were to see a sixplex

39:14 ↗ and you got no Community notice I don't

39:16 ↗ understand how that makes a happy

39:18 ↗ community so I don't know if there is a

39:20 ↗ way like you said as long as the

39:22 ↗ requirements are the same we can we can

39:24 ↗ put more requirements on they just have

39:27 ↗ to be the same correct and I noticed

39:30 ↗ obviously we went from square footage to

39:33 ↗ units which is you know part of the

39:35 ↗ house bills so I get that I'm just

39:37 ↗ wondering too because we know kind of

39:39 ↗ what isqua is going to get and to

39:41 ↗ commissioner cr's point we're talking

39:43 ↗ primarily duplexes and triplexes so

39:46 ↗ maybe we put on the regulations at

39:49 ↗ fourplex or something to that effect

39:51 ↗ with square footage however it's done

39:54 ↗ because I I think again I don't think

39:56 ↗ you're going to have a lot of push back

39:58 ↗ or commentary on duplexes and triplexes

40:02 ↗ and again it's not probably going to be

40:03 ↗ likely for our city but I would think

40:07 ↗ our city would want us to do due

40:08 ↗ diligence and say okay if if you have a

40:10 ↗ fourplex or a certain square footage yes

40:13 ↗ it needs to trigger this review because

40:16 ↗ that's what the city has told us for

40:18 ↗ years they want to be involved in these

40:19 ↗ decisions or at least have the

40:20 ↗ opportunity to make their voices

40:22 ↗ heard so I don't know if I I don't know

40:26 ↗ if I'm following the spirit of the house

40:27 ↗ bills but again if we're allowed to make

40:29 ↗ our own requirements as long as they're

40:31 ↗ the same across the board it seems to me

40:34 ↗ like we'd want your point something

40:36 ↗ that's a little bit more uh regulations

40:39 ↗ on things that are going to be slightly

40:43 ↗ bigger so let's dive into that a little

40:46 ↗ bit deeper so because again so you have

40:51 ↗ to apply the same regulations on a a

40:54 ↗ detach single family home so if a detach

40:57 ↗ single PL family home comes in wanting

40:59 ↗ to construct that means they would have

41:01 ↗ to get a site development permit they

41:03 ↗ would have to go through a land use

41:04 ↗ process do you want a individual

41:07 ↗ homeowner to have to get an a second

41:10 ↗ permit or today they would only be

41:12 ↗ required to get a building permit right

41:14 ↗ because we're talking about the same

41:15 ↗ single family

41:16 ↗ lot there's there's the there's the rub

41:19 ↗ it comes down to like what do you attach

41:21 ↗ to be like a single family house and you

41:24 ↗ kind of we just kind of walk down the

41:26 ↗ road it's like dlex okay I feel okay

41:28 ↗ about that Triplex I'm starting to feel

41:31 ↗ a little less comfortable and as you get

41:34 ↗ part of that like okay this is going to

41:35 ↗ be a big thing and people are going to

41:37 ↗ care and it's a bigger decision I should

41:40 ↗ say um so I think once once you get kind

41:42 ↗ of past the duplex I think you start

41:44 ↗ reaching into it's a graduated thing and

41:47 ↗ when you get to four or more I use six

41:49 ↗ as the example because that was what we

41:51 ↗ were doing that is and letting letting

41:54 ↗ that go with

41:55 ↗ less wor sight going in would would make

42:00 ↗ me uncomfortable if I was living in the

42:02 ↗ community all of a sudden there's a six

42:04 ↗ six and six Plex and there's no maybe

42:08 ↗ they didn't have go have to go through

42:09 ↗ as many reviews as what they would have

42:12 ↗ had to do I just understanding where the

42:16 ↗ where the pain is and where you have to

42:18 ↗ kind of draw in my in my understanding

42:21 ↗ this correctly

42:22 ↗ uh Valerie that basically we're talking

42:25 ↗ about single family lots

42:27 ↗ and that they can build up to a sixplex

42:29 ↗ and that's where that's where the rub is

42:32 ↗ because it's got the

42:35 ↗ same uh measures have to be taken in

42:37 ↗ consideration for a single family lot as

42:39 ↗ it does a sixplex so whatever we do to

42:41 ↗ the sixplex has to be applied to a

42:44 ↗ single family home and that's where I

42:47 ↗ mean I guess they're going for their

42:49 ↗ density to make these

42:51 ↗ things but it just it I don't know it

42:53 ↗ doesn't it feels like a very one-sized

42:55 ↗ fits all thing which I don't know I'm

42:57 ↗ understand how that's going to work

42:58 ↗ commissioner

43:00 ↗ zacharov thank you so my question is

43:03 ↗ what if let's say a single family home

43:05 ↗ uh a homeowner wants to build on his lot

43:07 ↗ a huge house say 10,000 square fet or

43:10 ↗ whatever bigger more uh 15 bedrooms uh

43:15 ↗ would they have to be required to do the

43:17 ↗ side development or no they would not

43:20 ↗ because they're exempt from site

43:22 ↗ development permit regardless of square

43:24 ↗ footage regardless of square footage

43:26 ↗ regardless of of the number of floors

43:29 ↗ so correct can do it they would just

43:31 ↗ need to follow the the development

43:33 ↗ standards which I presented today um

43:36 ↗ Building height setbacks loot coverage

43:38 ↗ and they can bring their whole extended

43:40 ↗ family to live there right so they can

43:42 ↗ 40 people can live there easily if they

43:43 ↗ want it

43:47 ↗ correct it doesn't change from six that

43:53 ↗ way that is a good you

43:57 ↗ that is that is a good picture

43:58 ↗ commissioner zacharov thank you for that

44:00 ↗ that helped uh chair Boyce if you don't

44:01 ↗ mind me asking a follow question to the

44:03 ↗ Commissioners is the concern the size of

44:06 ↗ the development or is it the number of

44:08 ↗ units

44:10 ↗ and potential owners on that same lot is

44:14 ↗ the

44:15 ↗ concern that's a good point so my I

44:18 ↗ guess my concern is more like if you're

44:20 ↗ building a nice big house for yourself

44:22 ↗ you're going to build something for

44:23 ↗ yourself or even if it's a spec house if

44:25 ↗ you're building a six

44:27 ↗ unit development you're you're a

44:30 ↗ professional builder that's building

44:32 ↗ this for profit and just going to try to

44:34 ↗ you know get something built and done

44:36 ↗ and it's gonna be big probably you're

44:38 ↗ going to try to maximize everything out

44:40 ↗ of it and I all I'm saying

44:42 ↗ is um if you treat that as a single

44:45 ↗ family type of

44:47 ↗ review my question was what gets lost if

44:50 ↗ you do that and what are the downsides

44:53 ↗ that's I I don't know enough about all

44:54 ↗ the steps of what those checks are my

44:57 ↗ question was more about if you if you if

45:00 ↗ you do that what gets lost or

45:02 ↗ potentially gets lost in that type of

45:05 ↗ review um because the bigger it is the

45:08 ↗ more consequences it could be and I

45:10 ↗ think your question about is it square

45:11 ↗ footage I think it's more about number

45:12 ↗ of units I think is an easier thing

45:14 ↗ because you're going to have multiple

45:15 ↗ different entities living in that versus

45:19 ↗ like the difference of a 3,000 and a

45:21 ↗ 5,000 foot house okay it's just bigger

45:24 ↗ still one one family living there that

45:25 ↗ was that's my

45:27 ↗ question can I add to commissioner CR I

45:30 ↗ think we're kind of on the same page

45:31 ↗ here to me it's more of a protecting

45:33 ↗ homeowners or potential home owners

45:35 ↗ there's six families who will live in

45:37 ↗ those units and the six black and I

45:39 ↗ myself live in a multif family um

45:43 ↗ community and yeah so I just want to

45:45 ↗ make sure that when it's done and it's

45:47 ↗ done for commercial purposes it's done

45:49 ↗ properly and everything like all of the

45:52 ↗ um researches that have to be made are

45:55 ↗ made and it's not just built and then

45:57 ↗ the Builder is just done property is

46:00 ↗ sold and it's not their

46:04 ↗ responsibility I mean the only thing I

46:06 ↗ would say is I guess that's the whole

46:07 ↗ point of these house bills right they

46:09 ↗ don't want people they want the

46:11 ↗ developer to come in and build the six

46:12 ↗ PL utilizing the land the best they

46:15 ↗ can that's the dream right that's the

46:18 ↗ idea you know they don't it's not that

46:20 ↗ you can't build a 6,000 foot house on a

46:24 ↗ single residential lot it's that they're

46:26 ↗ hoping

46:27 ↗ they're hoping developers are going to

46:29 ↗ come in and do the six

46:30 ↗ black um and to Stephen's question it's

46:34 ↗ okay well what what's the concern I

46:36 ↗ don't think it's a square footage of the

46:37 ↗ building uh to Valerie's point you still

46:40 ↗ have the setbacks you still have the

46:41 ↗ design standards I I think probably yeah

46:44 ↗ it's it's going to be the amount of

46:46 ↗ people the cars the parking that's going

46:48 ↗ to bother people I think that's where

46:50 ↗ people start getting like whoa what did

46:53 ↗ am I moving into a small community or is

46:56 ↗ this a small family yeah I'm not against

46:58 ↗ six ples at all I'm just my question was

47:00 ↗ more about what is the difference of

47:02 ↗ review right for those type of bigger

47:05 ↗ properties if they're treated like a

47:07 ↗ single family versus the way they're

47:08 ↗ treated now that's really the and it may

47:11 ↗ be so minimal it's like oh it's all most

47:14 ↗ the only thing is this one small review

47:16 ↗ and it's not a big deal and then

47:17 ↗ everyone feels good I just don't know

47:18 ↗ enough about it I'm just saying we're

47:20 ↗ taking bigger properties and you know

47:22 ↗ treat them to the review of Just a

47:24 ↗ single family and there could be

47:26 ↗ something l than that and it's the state

47:28 ↗ that's saying six units is Middle

47:30 ↗ housing seven would be considered multif

47:32 ↗ family so that's that's from the state

47:34 ↗ bills um the state doesn't Define a a

47:38 ↗ number but they do Define a housing type

47:41 ↗ which is sixplex

47:43 ↗ okay we have to allow for or middle

47:46 ↗ housing is defined as uh six plexes so

47:50 ↗ if we allow for that then we can um

47:55 ↗ adjust our permitting off that

47:58 ↗ it's complex you know I think the the

48:00 ↗ bill is for there are two tiers of

48:04 ↗ cities tier one and tier two so we

48:06 ↗ belong to the tier 2 cities which are

48:10 ↗ our in my understanding is that we have

48:11 ↗ to allow

48:14 ↗ duplexes um and then up to for for

48:18 ↗ plexes if you have an affordable housing

48:21 ↗ or you're next to a Transit stop um

48:24 ↗ where the sixplex has come I think it

48:26 ↗ goes back to the first question is this

48:28 ↗ definition of middle housing and that's

48:30 ↗ kind of adding this complexity in it

48:33 ↗ doesn't mean we have to allow six plexes

48:36 ↗ it just they're defining middle housing

48:38 ↗ as six plexes up to six plexes so

48:41 ↗ correct so we can still have our our our

48:45 ↗ maximum density low but we just have to

48:50 ↗ allow for this housing type so even so

48:54 ↗ most single family like I was saying

48:55 ↗ most single family lots will not be able

48:57 ↗ to construct the six Plex they'll only

49:01 ↗ be allowed to do four so four Plex are

49:03 ↗ some town home but we have to allow for

49:07 ↗ six

49:11 ↗ plexes what if they buy two lots let's

49:14 ↗ say and they they can build a sixplex if

49:17 ↗ the if the density allows for it yeah

49:20 ↗ yes so it's kind of like from one point

49:23 ↗ of from one hand we don't have to kind

49:25 ↗ of care about six at the moment cuz but

49:28 ↗ but things can happen and they can be

49:32 ↗ like three lots bought five Lots bought

49:33 ↗ at the same time and biggest structures

49:35 ↗ would be built correct so kind of have

49:37 ↗ to be prepared well I think just I guess

49:40 ↗ from the conversation I'm hearing if if

49:42 ↗ it is truly the idea that we're the city

49:44 ↗ of isqua is thinking about four and less

49:47 ↗ I think then yeah I guess I'd follow the

49:49 ↗ administration and strike the site

49:51 ↗ development permit

49:54 ↗ because I don't know how you would

49:56 ↗ impose that on people with single family

49:58 ↗ residentials and things that would be

50:00 ↗ pretty

50:02 ↗ cumbersome B sh

50:04 ↗ Bader thanks um so are there still like

50:07 ↗ critical area studies and things

50:09 ↗ required in the building permit process

50:12 ↗ yes you would still have to follow the

50:14 ↗ critical area code um and usually with

50:17 ↗ the critical area code it triggers a um

50:20 ↗ a critical air report consultant review

50:23 ↗ so so really this is all like a question

50:25 ↗ of like is the rest of the code like

50:28 ↗ good enough to protect from these things

50:31 ↗ that we're talking about

50:32 ↗ right and like to say like yeah right

50:36 ↗ that we just went through this whole

50:37 ↗ code process to have a good code in

50:38 ↗ place and so it's the code itself

50:40 ↗ actually that's going to regulate how

50:42 ↗ big you can go on this particular lot

50:45 ↗ like what it's going to look like um

50:48 ↗ that sort of thing correct so like

50:51 ↗ Minnie was saying this is the law is

50:53 ↗ like a one- siiz fits-all but it really

50:54 ↗ doesn't fit us but there's other

50:56 ↗ considerations

50:57 ↗ impervious surface um coverage trees a

51:01 ↗ lot ofes it's not like this is just it's

51:02 ↗ not like they can forget everything else

51:04 ↗ right exactly fit a six Flex on a right

51:07 ↗ you know somebody's driveway and

51:09 ↗ utilities so utilities is also a really

51:12 ↗ big thing they're expensive and have to

51:15 ↗ have space for them right I guess the

51:17 ↗ question is like it all comes down to

51:19 ↗ we're talking about taking away for

51:22 ↗ these multi-units

51:24 ↗ the 3 four five six or however we want

51:27 ↗ to Define it the site development permit

51:29 ↗ level one I guess my question then is

51:32 ↗ what does that do and if it's not that

51:34 ↗ much different then I don't care as much

51:36 ↗ if there's something really critical in

51:38 ↗ that which as I'm not familiar with it

51:40 ↗ then then I would if for something four

51:43 ↗ five or six I just want to make sure

51:44 ↗ something doesn't kind of sneak through

51:46 ↗ on that because I don't know what's

51:47 ↗ actually reviewed in that correct yes so

51:50 ↗ I have some notes so I'll have to do a

51:51 ↗ little bit more research and deep dive a

51:53 ↗ little bit deeper but I can definitely

51:55 ↗ bring that back um to you all and make a

51:59 ↗ yeah I I just like I said it'd be very

52:01 ↗ cumbersome to make single family like

52:03 ↗ that the duplexes do go through that

52:05 ↗ amount of work but I think it sounds

52:07 ↗ like valer is going to help us out and

52:09 ↗ find out a little bit more information

52:11 ↗ about um the benefits or the the

52:14 ↗ detriments to striking that but

52:17 ↗ ultimately I think we'll unless you have

52:19 ↗ more for us on that particular topic

52:21 ↗ Valerie we'll we'll wait to hear from

52:23 ↗ more about what that site development

52:25 ↗ what it would look like to strike and if

52:26 ↗ there's anything important that we're

52:29 ↗ missing because uh I think we'll leave

52:31 ↗ it there but that's where we all kind of

52:34 ↗ find out a little bit more

52:36 ↗ information yeah please commissioner

52:38 ↗ Patterson thanks shair um is there any

52:41 ↗ consideration for existing multif family

52:44 ↗ developments that are currently to the

52:46 ↗ six units would they be like

52:48 ↗ reclassified as middle housing in the

52:50 ↗ future is this like from you you get

52:54 ↗ what I'm saying here yes they would be

52:55 ↗ legally not conforming and yes we

52:59 ↗ depending on what they were proposing to

53:02 ↗ change we would probably have to look at

53:04 ↗ it with the middle housing

53:10 ↗ lens okay I'm going to move

53:16 ↗ on okay question number two should

53:19 ↗ middle housing projects be exempt from

53:20 ↗ the land use process and require a site

53:22 ↗ development permit so this is very

53:24 ↗ similar to what we were just discussing

53:27 ↗ um so I think I'm going to Breeze past

53:30 ↗ this one and move on to the next

53:31 ↗ question because I'm going to dive a

53:33 ↗ little bit deeper and bring back some

53:35 ↗ more information so for question number

53:37 ↗ three should middle housing projects be

53:39 ↗ exempt from constructing Frontage

53:40 ↗ improvements if constructing a building

53:43 ↗ on an existing lot um so during the tour

53:46 ↗ we looked at a duplex that um had an

53:49 ↗ existing at Great sidewalk and and

53:52 ↗ nothing else now if that home that we

53:54 ↗ looked at were to be demolished and um

53:58 ↗ rebuilt in the on the same lot same

54:00 ↗ frint technically they would be required

54:03 ↗ to um uh they would trigger the

54:06 ↗ requirement for Frontage Improvement but

54:08 ↗ depending on how we Define midal housing

54:11 ↗ um we're proposing to have middle

54:14 ↗ housing exempt from Frontage Improvement

54:16 ↗ just how detached single family um homes

54:20 ↗ are and for those who are wondering what

54:23 ↗ consist of Frontage improvements that

54:25 ↗ would be curved gutter sidewalk um

54:28 ↗ possibly drainage um Street illumination

54:31 ↗ so undergrounding power and um adding

54:35 ↗ Street trees or

54:40 ↗ Landscaping

54:44 ↗ question thank you is this now not

54:46 ↗ required with a single family unit yes

54:49 ↗ today um a det single family home is

54:52 ↗ exempt from constructing Frontage

54:54 ↗ improvements thank you

54:58 ↗ Mr Crass so hello again um I think it

55:03 ↗ goes back on the discussion we just had

55:05 ↗ like a duplex definitely more like a

55:07 ↗ house a sixplex especially if they're in

55:09 ↗ a row is a pretty big is a pretty big

55:12 ↗ piece of property and is that treated

55:15 ↗ the same or not I mean maybe they should

55:17 ↗ have to do more in terms of fixing the

55:20 ↗ things that are in front of that

55:21 ↗ property more so than of course a a

55:25 ↗ duplex which is going to be on thing and

55:27 ↗ once again because we're talking about

55:29 ↗ existing Lots we may be talking about

55:33 ↗ things that will never happen I'm not

55:34 ↗ sure but I think it's if we're trying to

55:36 ↗ get it written down in code I think it's

55:38 ↗ related to the first question that we

55:40 ↗ had when you say if if you start getting

55:42 ↗ all the way up to six you may want to

55:45 ↗ have more stringent requirements for

55:46 ↗ them than a duplex and I agree duplex is

55:48 ↗ probably much more like a house and I

55:51 ↗ feel very good about that I think it's

55:52 ↗ related to the first point

55:57 ↗ so um on our tour we looked at a

56:00 ↗ fourplex that was pretty pretty well

56:04 ↗ blended into the city so it was sitting

56:06 ↗ on two separate locks for a total of

56:09 ↗ eight units so would you think that that

56:12 ↗ project would be required to um

56:15 ↗ construct Frontage Improvement we saw a

56:17 ↗ couple so is that the one on Sunset yep

56:19 ↗ right here down here the red

56:21 ↗ building yeah I think they should have

56:23 ↗ to because they're on they're on an

56:25 ↗ exist

56:27 ↗ exting Street versus the other one that

56:30 ↗ we saw that was on a alley which then

56:33 ↗ like what do you really do on an then it

56:34 ↗ would be weird if you kind of just had

56:36 ↗ to jut out so I think the the type of

56:40 ↗ street also and where it is takes I know

56:44 ↗ we're making this very comp now it's

56:45 ↗ like a

56:46 ↗ five-dimensional you know chart here but

56:49 ↗ I think I'm not sure how you overlay

56:51 ↗ that and I think the rules May and the

56:54 ↗ requirements I should say May need to be

56:56 ↗ different depending on the type of road

56:59 ↗ like if it's a road that'll never be

57:00 ↗ changed like an alley that'd be a pretty

57:04 ↗ big thing to do versus on you I think

57:08 ↗ you mentioned a thoroughfare or I don't

57:10 ↗ know what you what you call some of the

57:11 ↗ streets you may have a different set of

57:13 ↗ rules so I I answered your question with

57:16 ↗ a a riddle I'm gonna I'm gonna do what

57:19 ↗ you do to me I'm gonna ask another

57:22 ↗ question so what if we change it and

57:24 ↗ have um the for Lex be a large single

57:27 ↗ family home Square same square footage

57:30 ↗ would you still think that they should

57:31 ↗ be required to construct Frontage

57:34 ↗ improvements or should they be

57:36 ↗ exempt it's a large single family home

57:39 ↗ what street is it on

57:41 ↗ Sunset so same um lot where the fourplex

57:45 ↗ is same building footprint so it's a

57:47 ↗ very large detached single family home

57:49 ↗ should they be required to construct

57:52 ↗ Frontage improvements today they would

57:53 ↗ be

57:54 ↗ exempt I don't know

57:58 ↗ it's a good question but it's it's it's

58:00 ↗ like it's like the same question we ask

58:02 ↗ like will this ever really happen

58:04 ↗ probably not there was there was a big

58:05 ↗ house that was built on Sunset yes

58:07 ↗ that's that one big modern house near

58:10 ↗ the funeral home and

58:14 ↗ um so they didn't have to do anything on

58:17 ↗ this per and so that scenario is likely

58:20 ↗ to happen especially right now because

58:23 ↗ um I've worked on projects where um um

58:27 ↗ DET single family homes are exempt and

58:30 ↗ we consider duplexes as um similar to

58:33 ↗ single family home so they would be

58:35 ↗ exempt from Oldtown standards and they

58:37 ↗ built a very large home and didn't have

58:41 ↗ to comply with the design standards is

58:44 ↗ that because they're on Sunset I don't

58:46 ↗ want to say where they are no there's

58:48 ↗ that one tall one on there's there's a

58:49 ↗ set of like a fourplex that's in Old

58:51 ↗ Town that was built a while ago which

58:54 ↗ doesn't fit but

58:56 ↗ I think you need to be I mean the

58:57 ↗ question is do you manage to to Corner

58:59 ↗ cases or not there's always going to be

59:01 ↗ a corner case on all of these different

59:03 ↗ things and how much do you take that

59:05 ↗ into consideration in the rules that you

59:07 ↗ write um it may be simpler to if it was

59:10 ↗ only going to be one or two big single

59:13 ↗ family houses that fit that type of

59:14 ↗ thing then you don't worry about it you

59:16 ↗ treat it like the rest of the single

59:17 ↗ family and don't have that

59:19 ↗ requirement otherwise you're you're

59:21 ↗ trying to manage around every corner

59:22 ↗ case possible which would be really hard

59:29 ↗ but just to clarify again it's it's an

59:31 ↗ all or nothing right so we have to treat

59:34 ↗ middle housing the same as detach single

59:37 ↗ family homes yes listening to the

59:39 ↗ conversation you know in terms of the

59:41 ↗ size of the house perhaps what we can

59:45 ↗ look further into is is there a size

59:48 ↗ limit so you don't go by the unit size

59:50 ↗ regardless of someone's building a you a

59:53 ↗ mcmansion that's over 5,000 Plus square

59:56 ↗ feet 10,000 whatever threshold you

59:58 ↗ choose and have the multif family units

1:00:01 ↗ square footage added up so bulk in scale

1:00:05 ↗ uh decides when the frontage Improvement

1:00:08 ↗ occurs not so much the number of units I

1:00:11 ↗ don't know if you can do that many but I

1:00:13 ↗ like I said I think that maybe is uh

1:00:16 ↗ maybe that's a the riddle right there

1:00:19 ↗ maybe that's how you solve it can I can

1:00:20 ↗ I throw another Twist on that one you

1:00:23 ↗ could also consider look into it's the

1:00:26 ↗ it's the size of the frontage

1:00:29 ↗ meaning if it's taking up a big section

1:00:32 ↗ that's different than it's a little

1:00:33 ↗ sliver but a big house or it goes way

1:00:35 ↗ back

1:00:38 ↗ um yeah I mean I guess you guys can look

1:00:40 ↗ at it a few different ways I think if

1:00:42 ↗ there is an exception then I'll just

1:00:44 ↗ throw it out here since we're talking as

1:00:46 ↗ I think yeah you have to take the

1:00:47 ↗ opportunity and it's just something that

1:00:49 ↗ single family houses are going to have

1:00:51 ↗ to it's a give and take thing I mean if

1:00:54 ↗ it's your opportunity to help improve

1:00:56 ↗ the Front Street like I said when we

1:00:58 ↗ were talking otherwise you're going to

1:00:59 ↗ have these same street Scapes for 30 40

1:01:02 ↗ years when we can start upgrading them

1:01:04 ↗ now so I think it's one of the areas

1:01:06 ↗ where yeah if even if it's an Adu or a

1:01:09 ↗ single family residential house I think

1:01:11 ↗ you take the opportunity

1:01:12 ↗ myself I think you have them do the

1:01:14 ↗ Front Street uh Front Street

1:01:16 ↗ improvements so anyway that's my two

1:01:18 ↗ cents commissioner

1:01:20 ↗ Zach just thank you I just wanted to

1:01:22 ↗ mention that most likely like well as a

1:01:25 ↗ person who lived for a very long time

1:01:27 ↗ and and still in duplexes triplexes

1:01:30 ↗ fourplexes and multif family most multif

1:01:33 ↗ family units will be around plusus th000

1:01:36 ↗ Square ft per per unit maybe

1:01:40 ↗ less from 400 up to, so but 400 is more

1:01:45 ↗ is a multif family and that will be

1:01:48 ↗ around 1,000 sare ft so if we talking

1:01:50 ↗ about Sixx we're talking 6,000 square ft

1:01:53 ↗ and if we're thinking about an average

1:01:55 ↗ average family home that is detached

1:01:58 ↗ home it's what about 3,000 ft right so

1:02:01 ↗ it's basically 6,000 ft is two homes two

1:02:05 ↗ lots that's what we kind of like have to

1:02:08 ↗ have in mind if to me if two neighboring

1:02:12 ↗ uh single family lots were to build on

1:02:15 ↗ their Lots single family houses I don't

1:02:18 ↗ think I mean they would not be required

1:02:21 ↗ to change the front so that's my opinion

1:02:25 ↗ I think that

1:02:26 ↗ the six blackx if we're talking about

1:02:28 ↗ six blackx six blackx will be most

1:02:30 ↗ likely two lots uh 3,000 square ft

1:02:34 ↗ approximately per lot and it's just like

1:02:36 ↗ a two single family

1:02:38 ↗ houses just standing next to each

1:02:47 ↗ other that's why I don't think they're

1:02:49 ↗ required to change the

1:02:52 ↗ front all right anyone else like to add

1:02:55 ↗ anything

1:02:57 ↗ I'll chime in because I think the square

1:02:58 ↗ footage thing kind of gets to it for me

1:03:01 ↗ a little bit that if we if we have the

1:03:03 ↗ ability to say like it's over I don't

1:03:05 ↗ know what it is like 7,000 square feet

1:03:07 ↗ or something like that because I think

1:03:08 ↗ that's what you said that those ones

1:03:09 ↗ were were

1:03:11 ↗ they yes close to little so that's like

1:03:14 ↗ getting to be right a just a big even

1:03:16 ↗ for a single family house right that's a

1:03:18 ↗ big house and so is like is that a

1:03:21 ↗ threshold where it's you feel

1:03:22 ↗ comfortable like applying it to um

1:03:26 ↗ across the board um using a square

1:03:28 ↗ footage kind of same with like the six

1:03:30 ↗ plx and this Frontage

1:03:32 ↗ conversation um like the site

1:03:34 ↗ development review process that maybe

1:03:36 ↗ it's like it works if it's something

1:03:38 ↗ over right 7,000 square feet because

1:03:41 ↗ that's that's big right for a single

1:03:42 ↗ family house like um I don't know how

1:03:45 ↗ many 7,000 square foot single family

1:03:46 ↗ houses we're going to see in right in

1:03:49 ↗ the city but we might see right like a

1:03:52 ↗ 7,000 squ foot sixplex um

1:03:56 ↗ and so it does that putting a square

1:03:57 ↗ footage threshold kind of solve some of

1:04:00 ↗ what we're talking about um here maybe

1:04:04 ↗ I'm thinking of the the lot that we

1:04:06 ↗ looked at where it was a very large lot

1:04:08 ↗ with an open space those homes

1:04:11 ↗ were very um very small they didn't have

1:04:14 ↗ a very big footprint um so would that

1:04:18 ↗ should that have Frontage improvements

1:04:20 ↗ that if that was the case they wouldn't

1:04:22 ↗ be required to do Frontage improvements

1:04:24 ↗ no because to Steven's question before

1:04:25 ↗ for me it's it is a little bit of a size

1:04:27 ↗ thing um that if you're trying to max

1:04:30 ↗ out these Lots as much as possible right

1:04:32 ↗ um like at the beginning of the tour it

1:04:34 ↗ was all about what's the impact on the

1:04:35 ↗ neighbors and that building right like a

1:04:37 ↗ 30 foot tall like wall six feet from the

1:04:41 ↗ property line when you have a little

1:04:42 ↗ single story Bungalow next to it um

1:04:45 ↗ that's just something that I feel like

1:04:47 ↗ needs to go through like just an extra

1:04:50 ↗ level of review I think it's helpful in

1:04:51 ↗ that sort of scenario I know it doesn't

1:04:53 ↗ go out for public comment or anything so

1:04:55 ↗ maybe that neighbor will never know

1:04:56 ↗ until right it's kind of green lit um

1:05:00 ↗ but it is like a size thing because the

1:05:01 ↗ size of it gets to like the character of

1:05:04 ↗ the neighborhoods um to me it's less

1:05:06 ↗ about like the people right that are

1:05:08 ↗ living there um but more

1:05:11 ↗ about the ability to kind of change the

1:05:13 ↗ feel of places by putting in these huge

1:05:16 ↗ and I feel the exact same way about like

1:05:18 ↗ a mega mansion right as I do about a six

1:05:21 ↗ Flex in that in that

1:05:23 ↗ regard I don't know if that answers your

1:05:25 ↗ question have a Counterpoint so there's

1:05:27 ↗ a lot of big houses in isqua you go up

1:05:29 ↗ to Lakemont you go towards the lake and

1:05:30 ↗ all that so if you did it for based on

1:05:34 ↗ size now you're now it's a new burden on

1:05:36 ↗ a single family home where they have to

1:05:38 ↗ then do Frontage improvements for a

1:05:40 ↗ single house the only one on the whole

1:05:42 ↗ street and nothing else will ever be

1:05:44 ↗ changed so that's kind of a uh I think

1:05:47 ↗ we paint ourselves into a corner on that

1:05:49 ↗ one if we do it by square

1:05:52 ↗ footage be snarky and say like don't

1:05:55 ↗ feel that bad for like the lakefront

1:05:57 ↗ person right with their 7,000 but then

1:05:59 ↗ they just built something for no reason

1:06:00 ↗ it's like a sidewalk to Nowhere that'll

1:06:03 ↗ never go anywhere because it's like the

1:06:04 ↗ other ones next to it will never be

1:06:07 ↗ built I don't know I'm thinking of like

1:06:09 ↗ Harrison Street I'm not to pick on

1:06:12 ↗ anybody uh Lake samamish like you said I

1:06:15 ↗ mean to me it might have to be a little

1:06:17 ↗ bit of give and take and these are the

1:06:18 ↗ things that I think Olympia is going to

1:06:20 ↗ eventually have to come back and address

1:06:21 ↗ I mean again they they made this huge

1:06:23 ↗ block they said here you go s now you

1:06:26 ↗ got to implement it it's either this or

1:06:28 ↗ this and people are going that doesn't

1:06:29 ↗ really fit our city I mean there's more

1:06:31 ↗ Nuance to it again that's why in the end

1:06:35 ↗ like I said I think slow and cautious is

1:06:37 ↗ probably the best way to proceed with

1:06:38 ↗ this but if you're going to ask my

1:06:40 ↗ opinion like I said I I do like the idea

1:06:42 ↗ of maybe there's a size that triggers it

1:06:45 ↗ or to commissioner cr's point maybe

1:06:46 ↗ there's a frontage you know amount of

1:06:48 ↗ Frontage that triggers it but ultimately

1:06:51 ↗ if if you don't get that choice I would

1:06:52 ↗ say yeah that single families would this

1:06:55 ↗ this is going to be one area where they

1:06:56 ↗ are they do lose something because

1:06:58 ↗ otherwise you lose the opportunity to

1:07:00 ↗ change the city landscape and again you

1:07:03 ↗ you're stuck with what you have now for

1:07:05 ↗ 40 years while all this development is

1:07:07 ↗ going behind the front of the street but

1:07:09 ↗ you're just going to what leave this old

1:07:11 ↗ infrastructure that to me doesn't make

1:07:13 ↗ any sense either and it's just going to

1:07:15 ↗ have to be part of the building cost

1:07:17 ↗ which again will go to the duplexes and

1:07:21 ↗ triplexes and all the people that want

1:07:22 ↗ to buy these

1:07:23 ↗ units it's just going to end up being

1:07:25 ↗ part of the building class so I guess a

1:07:27 ↗ question on the on the Frontage piece

1:07:29 ↗ Frontage improvements I and I'm not sure

1:07:32 ↗ how much leeway you guys have in terms

1:07:34 ↗ of subjectivity based on the the type of

1:07:36 ↗ Road that's there like some wom that

1:07:38 ↗ don't have storm water that will never

1:07:40 ↗ have storm water you have to have a

1:07:42 ↗ different set of rules for that versus

1:07:45 ↗ ones that are thoroughfares some that

1:07:46 ↗ are alleys some that are just nice

1:07:48 ↗ normal streets and all of that so I'm

1:07:49 ↗ not sure how you write code to that or

1:07:52 ↗ you have a level of discretion at your

1:07:54 ↗ end of there are some Frontage

1:07:57 ↗ improvements

1:07:59 ↗ pending a review from the city and then

1:08:02 ↗ they will give you one of you have a few

1:08:06 ↗ different things that but you have you

1:08:07 ↗ have the choice of how what to what to

1:08:08 ↗ implement you're laughing I'm not I'm

1:08:10 ↗ trying to give you guys more latitude

1:08:13 ↗ idea but maybe I'm just wishful no I was

1:08:16 ↗ just laughing because I asked Valerie if

1:08:18 ↗ she wanted me to answer be very much so

1:08:21 ↗ so um Tan Your a question on like do we

1:08:24 ↗ have discretion on being able to design

1:08:26 ↗ different roadways and have different

1:08:27 ↗ standards the answer is yes so we do

1:08:29 ↗ have different roadway designs and

1:08:31 ↗ standards with each of those that are in

1:08:33 ↗ our street standards right now when it

1:08:34 ↗ comes to residential roads they we don't

1:08:38 ↗ really differentiate between residential

1:08:41 ↗ Road in Oldtown or South Lake sanish or

1:08:46 ↗ uh

1:08:47 ↗ on Talis um with the exception of the

1:08:50 ↗ amount of RightWay that's there and

1:08:52 ↗ there's going to similar requirements of

1:08:54 ↗ if there's existing firm water there

1:08:56 ↗ needs to be equivalent storm water to be

1:09:00 ↗ system but that's for the larger

1:09:02 ↗ Department develop and when it comes to

1:09:06 ↗ alleys there's a different requirement

1:09:08 ↗ there but is not as significant as what

1:09:10 ↗ the standard roadway requirement going

1:09:13 ↗ to be for the

1:09:14 ↗ resident but that all comes back down to

1:09:17 ↗ the frontage Improvement requirement for

1:09:19 ↗ single family and middle if you set that

1:09:22 ↗ threshold you're now disincentivizing

1:09:25 ↗ buildings regardless of it's

1:09:27 ↗ in which middle housing being the larger

1:09:31 ↗ units or more unit space that's going to

1:09:33 ↗ be needed you're now disincentivizing

1:09:35 ↗ middle house versus a single family mod

1:09:38 ↗ so that creates a little bit of control

1:09:40 ↗ of what kind of housing Supply we're

1:09:43 ↗ wanting in a lot of residential neighbor

1:09:45 ↗ so that's also a

1:09:49 ↗ consideration it was a little more than

1:09:51 ↗ what you asked but I I wanted to I'm

1:09:54 ↗ in I I appreciate that I mean you want

1:09:56 ↗ to have the right incentives there um

1:10:00 ↗ and it comes down to you know I I don't

1:10:02 ↗ think you should make single family

1:10:03 ↗ houses have to go do Frontage

1:10:04 ↗ improvements because we're not doing it

1:10:06 ↗ now and it's just like it's a pretty big

1:10:07 ↗ burden question is how far do you how

1:10:09 ↗ far down the road do you go just like

1:10:11 ↗ the other questions is like duplex

1:10:13 ↗ probably similar pre when you get to

1:10:15 ↗ like the bigger ones then do you have

1:10:17 ↗ a a different set of rules and I think

1:10:20 ↗ it's hard to have a point of view unless

1:10:22 ↗ you know what type of road it's on like

1:10:23 ↗ if it's a road that'll never be changed

1:10:25 ↗ then you may not have that where one

1:10:28 ↗ that as Jason says it's kind of like a

1:10:29 ↗ stepping stone of then that's like the

1:10:32 ↗ kind of the Cornerstone where it'll

1:10:34 ↗ it'll fix that road then maybe you have

1:10:36 ↗ that requirement I'm not

1:10:39 ↗ sure for a lot of those neighborhoods

1:10:41 ↗ that have the existing infrastructure

1:10:43 ↗ that you're talking about they're

1:10:44 ↗ usually part of larger development which

1:10:45 ↗ required that infrastructure to go in

1:10:47 ↗ the first place for a lot of the older

1:10:49 ↗ neighborhoods that were kind of more

1:10:51 ↗ peac Mill development that's why you

1:10:53 ↗ don't have a lot of that wasn't required

1:10:56 ↗ as a larger as piece of a larger

1:11:02 ↗ development so now I feel like the bad

1:11:11 ↗ guy I don't have what I yeah so I need

1:11:15 ↗ to we need to kind of get a little bit

1:11:17 ↗ more closer see what happens when you

1:11:19 ↗ feed the Gremlins I need a little bit

1:11:21 ↗ more on Direction so are we leaning

1:11:26 ↗ towards

1:11:28 ↗ um a unit requirement in addition to a

1:11:32 ↗ square footage or a lot um length

1:11:36 ↗ requirement so similar to the how we're

1:11:39 ↗ defining in the pering it's the number

1:11:42 ↗ of units and square footage that then

1:11:46 ↗ triggers um Frontage improvements or is

1:11:50 ↗ it every I'm guessing a perfect would be

1:11:53 ↗ location but that's not allowed to do

1:11:56 ↗ that well you could but you it would

1:11:58 ↗ just have to be applied to single

1:11:59 ↗ families

1:12:02 ↗ right thank you just another idea on uh

1:12:05 ↗ Frontage Improvement um most likely six

1:12:08 ↗ plexus for four plexus uh will be built

1:12:12 ↗ to sell it's it will be properties that

1:12:15 ↗ will be sold so I would think that even

1:12:20 ↗ if we don't give any regulations on that

1:12:23 ↗ the construction company or whoever is

1:12:26 ↗ the seller they will be interested in

1:12:28 ↗ building some sort of a frontage just to

1:12:31 ↗ bring attention to their

1:12:34 ↗ property that's a good point yeah

1:12:37 ↗ usually Market dictates kind of what

1:12:39 ↗ will be constructed so yeah likely if

1:12:41 ↗ you have a a town home or something like

1:12:44 ↗ that you want a nice walkway or

1:12:46 ↗ something dep on the market if it's a

1:12:47 ↗ hot Market they're going to do nothing

1:12:49 ↗ and just you know get away with it so

1:12:52 ↗ it's it's um

1:12:55 ↗ I so to answer your question I think if

1:12:58 ↗ you if you want to treat

1:13:00 ↗ things similar to a single family then

1:13:03 ↗ the question is how far like if you get

1:13:05 ↗ to probably a a fourplex or smaller I

1:13:08 ↗ think I feel more comfortable when you

1:13:09 ↗ start getting and these are not hard I

1:13:11 ↗ mean it starts getting more complicated

1:13:15 ↗ as you get to a bigger bigger property

1:13:18 ↗ and I think they're all related whether

1:13:20 ↗ it's review whether it's a

1:13:22 ↗ frontage um I think those are all to be

1:13:24 ↗ considered

1:13:26 ↗ um I'm usually the more conservative one

1:13:29 ↗ and I'm the one that's

1:13:31 ↗ like it go yeah

1:13:39 ↗ it's so I'm still kind of leaning

1:13:41 ↗ towards the square footage as like a

1:13:44 ↗ line

1:13:45 ↗ um I also like there's a part of me that

1:13:48 ↗ like wonders and this is probably not

1:13:50 ↗ best practice but like do we start with

1:13:54 ↗ like the

1:13:55 ↗ everybody like the nothing approach

1:13:58 ↗ right where it's just

1:13:59 ↗ all treated how it is right now right so

1:14:02 ↗ like you don't have to do Frontage you

1:14:04 ↗ don't have to have the development

1:14:06 ↗ permits and then like see what happens

1:14:08 ↗ and if we realize it's not working then

1:14:11 ↗ you know in a couple of years we come

1:14:12 ↗ back and say we actually need to put

1:14:13 ↗ some of this in

1:14:15 ↗ place that's one approach um again um

1:14:19 ↗ staff went to um American Planning

1:14:21 ↗ Association conference and one of the

1:14:23 ↗ developers developers speaking at the

1:14:25 ↗ middle housing session actually um

1:14:28 ↗ suggested that he's like tear down all

1:14:30 ↗ the regulations let developers build and

1:14:33 ↗ then see what's getting built then dial

1:14:35 ↗ it back yeah one other question if you

1:14:38 ↗ look at every and I I haven't looked

1:14:40 ↗ this in a while on the development site

1:14:42 ↗ where it has all the the projects that

1:14:44 ↗ are in the mix I'm not sure how many

1:14:47 ↗ duplexes triplexes how many are in the

1:14:51 ↗ on that sheet now is there a lot of them

1:14:53 ↗ is there a few of them because that kind

1:14:54 ↗ of says what the pipeline is over the

1:14:56 ↗ next 18 months I'm not sure when you

1:14:58 ↗ look at the development site and the you

1:15:00 ↗ know the long that big chart that has

1:15:03 ↗ yeah currently there are a lot of

1:15:04 ↗ projects uh Town Homes but they're not

1:15:06 ↗ in the under six count we have a handful

1:15:10 ↗ that are triplexes for plexes you we

1:15:13 ↗ walked by the site one you know where

1:15:15 ↗ there was a board up put up for those

1:15:17 ↗ triplexes um but the legislation's not

1:15:21 ↗ in place so as you put missing middle

1:15:24 ↗ you're going to see

1:15:26 ↗ more we don't know how many

1:15:30 ↗ more thought the pipeline would give us

1:15:32 ↗ a sense of scale of what's like okay

1:15:35 ↗ well we have do we do three a year and

1:15:38 ↗ then we feel okay good about being a

1:15:40 ↗ little more laxed for three a year and

1:15:43 ↗ and and all of that if it's a ton then

1:15:45 ↗ then it's a bigger consideration if

1:15:47 ↗ there's only a couple then you could

1:15:50 ↗ probably take a little bit more of a do

1:15:53 ↗ it and learn type of approach

1:16:01 ↗ thank you had to soak everyone in before

1:16:03 ↗ I could uh provide my opinion on this

1:16:07 ↗ what I'm hearing is that we don't really

1:16:09 ↗ want to apply more regulations to single

1:16:11 ↗ family uh seems like everyone supported

1:16:15 ↗ that but because of the regulations we

1:16:17 ↗ have to allow up to six units and

1:16:20 ↗ that um the regulations for single and

1:16:23 ↗ up to those six units must be the same

1:16:25 ↗ right is that kind of the gist of it

1:16:28 ↗ yeah so then you know we don't want to

1:16:31 ↗ discourage more you know those up to six

1:16:33 ↗ units or larger developments by

1:16:36 ↗ penalizing them like you were saying of

1:16:38 ↗ like putting a square footage limit on

1:16:39 ↗ front edge improvements or extra fees or

1:16:42 ↗ permitting so I'm kind of like falling

1:16:44 ↗ in line with the like let's see what

1:16:45 ↗ happens approach to this of like you

1:16:48 ↗ know

1:16:49 ↗ obviously put it under our code but I

1:16:52 ↗ think we just kind of have to let it

1:16:53 ↗ ride and see what happens

1:16:55 ↗ you know I think the code was well put

1:16:57 ↗ together and if we you know make these

1:17:00 ↗ Minor Adjustments without going too far

1:17:02 ↗ in One Direction or the other and just

1:17:04 ↗ kind of keep an eye on it I don't

1:17:07 ↗ know I just I don't want to get it it

1:17:10 ↗ sounds like we're going too complex like

1:17:12 ↗ adding all these layers like well if

1:17:13 ↗ it's this big or these many units we'll

1:17:15 ↗ have this approach and and like I think

1:17:17 ↗ it's we might be over complicating it at

1:17:19 ↗ this point with the knowledge we have

1:17:21 ↗ especially like you brought up a couple

1:17:22 ↗ times they're probably going to have to

1:17:24 ↗ make some adjustments in the next couple

1:17:25 ↗ years like maybe we don't want to get

1:17:28 ↗ too far ahead of

1:17:30 ↗ that kind of where I'm landing based on

1:17:32 ↗ everyone's great

1:17:34 ↗ feedback okay well I was just convinced

1:17:37 ↗ by my fantastic colleagues up here I say

1:17:39 ↗ let it ride we can always come back and

1:17:41 ↗ amend things I mean that's basically

1:17:43 ↗ part of our job so I'm comfortable with

1:17:46 ↗ that so we're exempting middle housing

1:17:50 ↗ okay at least that's that's but we we we

1:17:53 ↗ would like updates we'd like to see

1:17:55 ↗ maybe we could do this tour again in

1:17:57 ↗ about a year Valerie but yeah I think

1:18:00 ↗ like I said you got to see it in

1:18:01 ↗ practice but yeah maybe maybe that is

1:18:04 ↗ too Draconian to go after middle you

1:18:07 ↗ know have a single family homes have to

1:18:09 ↗ put all that uh working got to see where

1:18:12 ↗ it's going to happen too so chair voice

1:18:14 ↗ we are hearing a couple different voices

1:18:17 ↗ from the commission tonight uh would it

1:18:19 ↗ be helpful to provide research on the

1:18:21 ↗ question of what it would look like to

1:18:23 ↗ apply the threshold um um and then ju in

1:18:26 ↗ support of the let's see what happens we

1:18:28 ↗ could also see what impact it's had for

1:18:31 ↗ the the cities that have already kind of

1:18:33 ↗ loosened the range on mental housing to

1:18:36 ↗ see how it's impacted development in

1:18:37 ↗ their cities and provide that

1:18:38 ↗ information as well we love information

1:18:41 ↗ yeah that'd be

1:18:45 ↗ fantastic okay so we're gonna move on to

1:18:47 ↗ question number four should the city

1:18:50 ↗ allow adus to be used towards achieving

1:18:53 ↗ lot density

1:18:57 ↗ so I'm going to let you um kind of get a

1:19:00 ↗ glimpse of what the consultant and I are

1:19:02 ↗ working on this is one of the case

1:19:03 ↗ studies um that we're working on and

1:19:05 ↗ it's for a single family

1:19:09 ↗ lot so the question that's being

1:19:13 ↗ proposed right now is um the state

1:19:16 ↗ regulations allow middle housing to be

1:19:20 ↗ allowed on a lot in addition to adus you

1:19:23 ↗ cannot um ad are not a middle housing

1:19:26 ↗ type like they're not defined as middle

1:19:28 ↗ housing but the the regulations do allow

1:19:31 ↗ the city to determine whether or not we

1:19:33 ↗ should be able to use it towards lot

1:19:35 ↗ density so what that means is and this

1:19:38 ↗ is a con a modified this so if you have

1:19:42 ↗ a single family lot and they have uh

1:19:45 ↗ let's say an existing single family that

1:19:47 ↗ they've converted into a duplex so the

1:19:50 ↗ white structure is a duplex should we

1:19:52 ↗ allow the um lot to have two adus um in

1:19:58 ↗ addition to a duplex just outright or if

1:20:03 ↗ the lot density allows for um four units

1:20:08 ↗ or to not have four units should they

1:20:11 ↗ not be allowed to have it so let's say

1:20:13 ↗ I'm going to repeat myself the lot size

1:20:16 ↗ is only allowed to have two units which

1:20:18 ↗ is what we're anticipating for many of

1:20:21 ↗ the single family zones to only be

1:20:23 ↗ allowed to have duplexes because a

1:20:26 ↗ detach single single family structure is

1:20:29 ↗ not considered middle housing so a

1:20:31 ↗ duplex if someone were to construct a

1:20:34 ↗ duplex on their lot should they be

1:20:36 ↗ allowed to have two adus in addition to

1:20:40 ↗ the duplex or just a

1:20:48 ↗ duplex so but the lot only allows for

1:20:52 ↗ for a

1:20:52 ↗ duplex so we're going to um comply with

1:20:56 ↗ State regulation and bump up um lot

1:20:59 ↗ density for those smaller lots to allow

1:21:01 ↗ for two units so that would be a duplex

1:21:04 ↗ yes okay and and we want to think if we

1:21:07 ↗ want to add two more basically

1:21:09 ↗ separate units yes that's the question

1:21:12 ↗ should we allow to outright to adus or

1:21:17 ↗ should those adus be counted towards lot

1:21:20 ↗ density so if it were counted towards

1:21:23 ↗ lot density then they could not have the

1:21:25 ↗ adus they would only be allowed to have

1:21:28 ↗ the duplex but if we didn't count it

1:21:30 ↗ towards lot density then they can have

1:21:33 ↗ adus therefore four units on one

1:21:35 ↗ structure or one

1:21:37 ↗ lot so so from reading it sounds like

1:21:41 ↗ you could sell the in scenarios the adus

1:21:44 ↗ can be sold as a to another person so if

1:21:48 ↗ you have units that could be sold

1:21:50 ↗ they're not just used for your family

1:21:52 ↗ members or whatever they should count as

1:21:54 ↗ a unit so I would count them towards

1:21:58 ↗ density because it's actually a real

1:22:00 ↗ unit that can be sold as a unit so I

1:22:02 ↗ don't know it seems like that would be

1:22:04 ↗ weird to not count them in my mind I

1:22:07 ↗ think my recommendation would be you

1:22:10 ↗ know they should

1:22:14 ↗ count I actually think that they should

1:22:16 ↗ be counted in any case like if the lot

1:22:19 ↗ is only allows for a dup duplex it's

1:22:23 ↗ basically it's not just the size of the

1:22:24 ↗ lot right it's all the communications

1:22:26 ↗ everything that is around the lot it's

1:22:28 ↗ uh parking like everything is involved

1:22:31 ↗ so I have a big question why should we

1:22:34 ↗ even allow those adus

1:22:37 ↗ there why should we allow adus in

1:22:40 ↗ addition to the D in addition yeah yeah

1:22:43 ↗ um it's another Housing Opportunity so

1:22:45 ↗ say someone was a property owner it

1:22:46 ↗ would be passive income um adus are also

1:22:50 ↗ considered um kind of a form of

1:22:52 ↗ affordable housing they're definitely um

1:22:55 ↗ less um less expensive than a typical

1:22:58 ↗ detx single family home so that would be

1:23:01 ↗ another option to um add an additional

1:23:03 ↗ housing to the market yeah I I

1:23:07 ↗ understand I understand this very well

1:23:09 ↗ uh I'm just a little bit concerned like

1:23:12 ↗ if if the lot is not allowing it

1:23:14 ↗ [Music]

1:23:16 ↗ then correct so they would still the the

1:23:21 ↗ density wouldn't allow it but then they

1:23:22 ↗ would still have to comply with all the

1:23:24 ↗ other regulation so critical area um lot

1:23:27 ↗ coverage setbacks so this would really

1:23:29 ↗ apply to those larger Lots um this is a

1:23:32 ↗ 12,000 square foot lot with an

1:23:35 ↗ impervious surface of 40% impervious

1:23:38 ↗ surface so this is kind of the what it

1:23:42 ↗ could potentially look like then my

1:23:44 ↗ question is the density doesn't allow it

1:23:46 ↗ why if that's a big lot that's just a

1:23:49 ↗ zoning of current currently why don't we

1:23:52 ↗ allow um accessory dwelling units to be

1:23:54 ↗ counted towards unit lot density that's

1:23:57 ↗ the question uh no the question is uh

1:23:59 ↗ the density is not allowing those units

1:24:01 ↗ so the lot is what not big enough or

1:24:05 ↗ like it's big enough right it is big

1:24:07 ↗ enough but we only can build a duplex

1:24:09 ↗ there correct why

1:24:13 ↗ why why you can only build a duplex yes

1:24:16 ↗ because we have to um bump up density

1:24:19 ↗ per state regulations so we have to so

1:24:22 ↗ in single family zones today only a

1:24:24 ↗ detach single family um unit is allowed

1:24:28 ↗ in most on most Lots but we have to

1:24:31 ↗ allow for two um units with new

1:24:34 ↗ regulations but on that big of a lot can

1:24:37 ↗ we build a

1:24:38 ↗ fourplex yeah probably build a fourplex

1:24:41 ↗ then then I don't see a problem if the

1:24:43 ↗ fourplex can be built there then why not

1:24:45 ↗ a duplex and two Adu units can be built

1:24:48 ↗ there then to me it's it's still like

1:24:52 ↗ four types of hous there I mean four

1:24:55 ↗ four units of housing there different I

1:25:00 ↗ doing like commissioner crash I'm posing

1:25:01 ↗ a question with the question um so if a

1:25:05 ↗ a single family lot that's a little bit

1:25:08 ↗ smaller um what if they want to do um

1:25:13 ↗ they can have a duplex but they maybe

1:25:14 ↗ have a little bit of room to do an Adu

1:25:17 ↗ maybe it's converting an existing garage

1:25:20 ↗ um and having an Adu on top should they

1:25:22 ↗ be allowed to have an Adu and should

1:25:25 ↗ that count towards unit lot

1:25:30 ↗ density I might be able to say correct

1:25:34 ↗ me if I'm wrong um so you have a 6,000

1:25:37 ↗ foot lot minimum lot size in a Zone um

1:25:41 ↗ currently you're allowed one detached

1:25:43 ↗ dwelling unit on it so your density is

1:25:46 ↗ 7.26 units per acre which equates to

1:25:50 ↗ 6,000 ft minimum lot size under the

1:25:53 ↗ state Bill we have to bump the density

1:25:57 ↗ to two units so that would equate to

1:26:01 ↗ 3,000 squ feet per unit for that lot

1:26:04 ↗ size so you at the most you can get to

1:26:07 ↗ meet the unit lot density would be two

1:26:10 ↗ but but so you can't fit in

1:26:14 ↗ more um adus or more another duplex on

1:26:18 ↗ it because you're you're going to run

1:26:20 ↗ into the unit lot density issue however

1:26:22 ↗ if your lot size was 12 ,000 Square ft

1:26:26 ↗ and um the our unit lot density is 6,000

1:26:31 ↗ so you'll still be able to get two

1:26:33 ↗ duplexes on it corre so for a 12,000 squ

1:26:36 ↗ ft lot you're going to run into unit lot

1:26:39 ↗ density in that scenario you could

1:26:42 ↗ build duplex that's itre for a 12,000

1:26:47 ↗ foot lot you could only build a duplex

1:26:50 ↗ yes so in that scenario would you want

1:26:53 ↗ them to have have another unit another

1:26:58 ↗ Adu okay to me it would be like thank

1:27:02 ↗ you to me it would be like this I think

1:27:04 ↗ if you can build a fourplex then you can

1:27:08 ↗ build a duplex and two

1:27:11 ↗ adus if you can build on that lot a

1:27:15 ↗ Triplex you can build a duplex and an

1:27:18 ↗ Adu if you can only build a duplex that

1:27:21 ↗ you can not build the Adu so yeah in

1:27:25 ↗ order to build a fourplex you would need

1:27:28 ↗ 6,000 *

1:27:30 ↗ 4 then correct 24,000 foot lot would get

1:27:36 ↗ ax depending on your if the zoning is

1:27:40 ↗ minimum lot size 6,000 square ft then

1:27:43 ↗ you would need

1:27:45 ↗ 24,000 maybe we'll play out these

1:27:47 ↗ scenarios for you for next time okay

1:27:49 ↗ thank you um so you can kind of see but

1:27:52 ↗ the idea is if you meet the minimum I

1:27:54 ↗ think the question was if you if you

1:27:56 ↗ have the room to meet the unit lot

1:27:58 ↗ density you want to only allow duplexes

1:28:01 ↗ uh the adus in that scenario or you want

1:28:05 ↗ to allow it even when you're running up

1:28:07 ↗ against the unit lot

1:28:08 ↗ density because you can the bill bill

1:28:11 ↗ says you don't have to this is where you

1:28:13 ↗ have a policy choice if you want to if

1:28:16 ↗ isqua wants to this is not a state

1:28:18 ↗ requirement that you have to allow adus

1:28:21 ↗ if you're running into a unit lot

1:28:23 ↗ density issue

1:28:24 ↗ y but kind of like State requirement was

1:28:26 ↗ built out of something right some

1:28:31 ↗ understanding like you can build like

1:28:33 ↗ you can put four families or four like I

1:28:37 ↗ know people only in a certain kind of

1:28:41 ↗ conditions right

1:28:43 ↗ no no like you have to have a certain

1:28:46 ↗ size of a lot for the building no no

1:28:49 ↗ that's not how the bill is written

1:28:51 ↗ that's just how we're kind ofos in to

1:28:55 ↗ apply it to use our existing standards

1:28:58 ↗ and modify them so that we're in

1:29:00 ↗ compliant with state regulations so

1:29:03 ↗ we're not adding a maximum density we're

1:29:06 ↗ only adding a Min minimum again bumping

1:29:09 ↗ those single family lots who are only

1:29:11 ↗ allowed one unit today to two but should

1:29:14 ↗ they be allowed to and maybe they have

1:29:17 ↗ additional space the question is should

1:29:19 ↗ they be allowed to also have two

1:29:21 ↗ additional M so this basically makes it

1:29:23 ↗ four corre correct and and then to me it

1:29:25 ↗ goes back to what's the difference

1:29:27 ↗ between uh duplex plus 2 adus and

1:29:31 ↗ fourplex in kind of terms of the number

1:29:33 ↗ of people in like that kind of way the

1:29:37 ↗ in in that

1:29:39 ↗ scenario you wouldn't be allowed to get

1:29:41 ↗ it so you would just be limiting the

1:29:43 ↗ number of units in certain areas that's

1:29:46 ↗ what you you would be

1:29:49 ↗ doing commissioner Zach the other

1:29:51 ↗ difference is that the ads are limited

1:29:52 ↗ in size too so for the fourplex you

1:29:54 ↗ could build four equivalent using it

1:29:57 ↗ larger size the 2 adus you're limited at

1:29:59 ↗ 1,000 sare foot for our current

1:30:03 ↗ code for the for the adus yeah

1:30:07 ↗ absolutely right and these are the

1:30:08 ↗ challenges because they're two separate

1:30:10 ↗ bills one state legislators were working

1:30:13 ↗ set of were working on Adu the other one

1:30:16 ↗ was working on missing midle now we're

1:30:18 ↗ left to to make sure how they talk to

1:30:20 ↗ each other um and craft regulations so

1:30:24 ↗ that that's sort of the Dilemma there

1:30:26 ↗ too so we took a tour with Kristen few

1:30:31 ↗ months ago in Kirkland oh your

1:30:40 ↗ there um where we looked at a property

1:30:44 ↗ that had two

1:30:45 ↗ adus that were sold as condos so it was

1:30:49 ↗ a Speculator who bought this and did

1:30:52 ↗ that so um

1:30:54 ↗ if we there's a scenario if we start

1:30:57 ↗ being very open with multiple adus on

1:31:00 ↗ properties it'll enlist this Behavior so

1:31:04 ↗ a way to regulate that is to make sure

1:31:06 ↗ they count as units and because it is a

1:31:10 ↗ unit especially if it's going to be a

1:31:12 ↗ sure it's a th000 square feet um but

1:31:14 ↗ it's still it's a a small cottage and

1:31:17 ↗ they probably sold those for a million

1:31:18 ↗ dollars in Kirkland um so I guess I'm

1:31:24 ↗ I'd love to know more background why we

1:31:26 ↗ wouldn't count them as

1:31:28 ↗ units um and maybe I'm not sure if you

1:31:32 ↗ can not count it if it's used by a

1:31:35 ↗ family I'm not sure if you if you can

1:31:37 ↗ add that or if it's it's it's binary

1:31:39 ↗ it's like if you build it it's you can't

1:31:41 ↗ tell people what they can do with it

1:31:43 ↗ they could they could if they could sell

1:31:46 ↗ it I think um as a separate unit I think

1:31:51 ↗ you know that's why I think it counts

1:31:53 ↗ but I'd love to hear background of why

1:31:55 ↗ it shouldn't be counted and before I

1:31:58 ↗ thow I already threw out my opinion but

1:31:59 ↗ I would love to hear the other side

1:32:01 ↗ probably should have done that first of

1:32:03 ↗ why um it hasn't been counted or

1:32:05 ↗ shouldn't be

1:32:07 ↗ counted and another way to think of it

1:32:09 ↗ would be if if as a homeowner or a

1:32:13 ↗ property owner you um Can Build you can

1:32:16 ↗ keep your existing house and you can

1:32:17 ↗ build 2 adus or you can tear down your

1:32:21 ↗ existing home or convert your exist in

1:32:24 ↗ home into a duplex but then you don't

1:32:26 ↗ get to build two

1:32:28 ↗ adus

1:32:29 ↗ [Music]

1:32:31 ↗ so that that's another variable that can

1:32:34 ↗ come in if if your house is you know

1:32:37 ↗ already existing and you add another

1:32:39 ↗ kitchen and you create it into a

1:32:41 ↗ duplex then you won't be able to build 2

1:32:43 ↗ adus so as a homeowner or a property

1:32:46 ↗ owner you would do what the maximum you

1:32:48 ↗ could you would keep your house and then

1:32:50 ↗ you would put build two adus because you

1:32:52 ↗ get three units as opposed to to the

1:32:54 ↗ other scenario if you if you all choose

1:32:56 ↗ to not count adus towards the unit

1:32:58 ↗ density then that would be another way

1:33:01 ↗ it would play out uh you would get more

1:33:04 ↗ adus then less duplexes that could be

1:33:08 ↗ the outcome of that

1:33:11 ↗ policy because it incentivizes three

1:33:14 ↗ units versus two on your

1:33:17 ↗ property we had a we had a conversation

1:33:20 ↗ just looking at data and I'm not sure it

1:33:23 ↗ exists and it's about the most likely

1:33:26 ↗ people to add a Adu is probably people

1:33:28 ↗ with external garages versus trying to

1:33:31 ↗ build something in a because then you

1:33:33 ↗ you you get around all the setbacks like

1:33:35 ↗ if you're like in a in a little lot if

1:33:38 ↗ you have to have setbacks for another

1:33:39 ↗ unit then you have plumbing and all it's

1:33:41 ↗ a pretty big deal to build another unit

1:33:43 ↗ in your backyard um without it costing a

1:33:46 ↗ ton of money and you're even making it

1:33:48 ↗ fit so understanding where these could

1:33:51 ↗ actually be done I think probably the

1:33:53 ↗ ripest I think Oldtown we we see that

1:33:56 ↗ the other one is is neighborhoods that

1:33:58 ↗ have existing external garages and

1:34:02 ↗ understanding if people have already

1:34:03 ↗ been doing that yet I don't know if can

1:34:06 ↗ they can they do adus now if they wanted

1:34:08 ↗ to yes today adus are outright allowed

1:34:12 ↗ everywhere everywhere they're not

1:34:14 ↗ counted towards unit lot density but

1:34:16 ↗ even I it'd be interesting to see how

1:34:18 ↗ many people have been doing them in the

1:34:19 ↗ last five years and and the method that

1:34:23 ↗ they've been doing it would also be

1:34:24 ↗ informative whether it's been converting

1:34:27 ↗ a garage to an Adu building another Adu

1:34:30 ↗ above the garage or freestanding units

1:34:33 ↗ and that may give us some insight of how

1:34:34 ↗ people may move

1:34:36 ↗ forward

1:34:41 ↗ um we do have that information so um we

1:34:44 ↗ can provide that yeah I think give

1:34:46 ↗ Insight of because you're talking about

1:34:47 ↗ like are they going to turn their house

1:34:48 ↗ into the duplex are they going to build

1:34:50 ↗ a thing in the backyard I think that you

1:34:51 ↗ know past Behavior May may help us

1:34:55 ↗ understand future Behavior as

1:35:00 ↗ well I'll um add maybe a little bit of a

1:35:04 ↗ different perspective um to this

1:35:05 ↗ conversation where I'm trying to like

1:35:08 ↗ root myself back and like what is the

1:35:09 ↗ purpose of this right and it's to

1:35:11 ↗ provide housing for like a missing

1:35:13 ↗ middle population right and isqua a very

1:35:15 ↗ expensive place to live and so our adus

1:35:20 ↗ and I can see like two Pathways like I

1:35:24 ↗ way for like a more

1:35:28 ↗ affordable home um again because there's

1:35:30 ↗ nothing in any of these regulations that

1:35:32 ↗ say right that like they don't need to

1:35:34 ↗ these duplexes six flexes whatever don't

1:35:36 ↗ need to be built to like the they can be

1:35:38 ↗ built to top of line right they can

1:35:40 ↗ still be million dollar right all the

1:35:42 ↗ town h Homes are like million dollar

1:35:44 ↗ Town Homes um and that doesn't really

1:35:46 ↗ serve right the missing middle

1:35:48 ↗ population that we're trying to serve

1:35:50 ↗ with us and so our adus one way because

1:35:53 ↗ they're Limited in size right that that

1:35:55 ↗ just by their size alone right they

1:35:58 ↗ become a little bit more affordable um

1:36:01 ↗ the other piece too is that if your you

1:36:04 ↗ know the barrier to like entry right in

1:36:07 ↗ isqua

1:36:08 ↗ is if you're able to buy a single family

1:36:11 ↗ house right and your mortgage is huge

1:36:14 ↗ right does having an Adu that you can

1:36:16 ↗ rent out in your backyard actually make

1:36:18 ↗ that house now more accessible to you um

1:36:22 ↗ and so from those perspective I can like

1:36:24 ↗ I see the value of allowing um adus I'm

1:36:27 ↗ I'm a little like I think it's just like

1:36:29 ↗ time of day I'm like a little confused

1:36:30 ↗ on like the two4 whatever um but just in

1:36:34 ↗ principle um I I see the value of Adu so

1:36:37 ↗ I'm not sure if that's helpful but um we

1:36:40 ↗ all agree on that it's a question does

1:36:42 ↗ account yeah and or not and it's

1:36:45 ↗ interesting like do new if you start

1:36:49 ↗ looking at new single family builds are

1:36:51 ↗ they doing an extra unit on there

1:36:53 ↗ because that would actually be an

1:36:54 ↗ interesting way of doing that but if you

1:36:56 ↗ already have a house and you build

1:36:57 ↗ something in your backyard you're going

1:36:58 ↗ to spend

1:36:59 ↗ $250,000 on that and then you're going

1:37:02 ↗ to rent it out for as much money as

1:37:03 ↗ possible because so I think it won't it

1:37:06 ↗ won't meet that other need so I'm

1:37:08 ↗ curious I don't know if it's is it is it

1:37:11 ↗ just attached that we're talking about

1:37:13 ↗ or is it any

1:37:14 ↗ Adu it could be any Adu so it could be

1:37:17 ↗ attached or could be like a basement

1:37:19 ↗ unit it could be correct correct and so

1:37:22 ↗ um kind of to answer your question today

1:37:25 ↗ we do not allow adus uh with duplexes or

1:37:29 ↗ any multi family structure it's only

1:37:31 ↗ allowed with uh a datat single family

1:37:34 ↗ home so that last home that I showed you

1:37:36 ↗ guys on our tour where it was a new home

1:37:39 ↗ and it had an attached Adu that we would

1:37:42 ↗ likely see more of that

1:37:53 ↗ then another question what would be what

1:37:56 ↗ are the regulations for adus then like

1:37:59 ↗ you you've said like they have this big

1:38:01 ↗ lot they have a duplex they want to

1:38:04 ↗ build to adus who

1:38:06 ↗ decides whether they can or cannot feed

1:38:09 ↗ them

1:38:10 ↗ there so you would decide policy-wise if

1:38:13 ↗ they could count towards unit lot

1:38:15 ↗ density but if you did allow them then

1:38:18 ↗ the other um requirements in the code

1:38:20 ↗ would kind of regulate or dictate

1:38:22 ↗ whether they could have a large one a

1:38:24 ↗ small one would it have to be um an

1:38:27 ↗ addition what that looks like because

1:38:29 ↗ today um the the maximum square footage

1:38:32 ↗ for Adu is 1,000 square ft we require

1:38:35 ↗ one parking stall you also have to have

1:38:37 ↗ a

1:38:38 ↗ walkway from the street and it's mainly

1:38:40 ↗ for emergency access

1:38:43 ↗ um and it has to look similar to the um

1:38:47 ↗ to the primary structure um something

1:38:50 ↗ that um commissioner crass mentioned

1:38:52 ↗ which was you know know do they have to

1:38:55 ↗ live on the site today we do require

1:38:57 ↗ that the property owner live on the site

1:39:00 ↗ but with the new regulations we cannot

1:39:01 ↗ require that and then also it's really

1:39:03 ↗ hard to regulate how would we know where

1:39:07 ↗ you live and if that's a family member

1:39:09 ↗ living in your Adu yeah yeah so I'm like

1:39:13 ↗ I'm really Pro affordable housing I just

1:39:15 ↗ don't want to like this affordable

1:39:17 ↗ housing to turn into basically sheds

1:39:20 ↗ where people just live in someone some

1:39:23 ↗ someone's backyard just and and that

1:39:25 ↗ costs a million dollars so it needs to

1:39:28 ↗ stay kind of on the affordable side of

1:39:30 ↗ the

1:39:32 ↗ planet thank

1:39:41 ↗ you any further

1:39:44 ↗ discussion Valerie I need a little bit

1:39:46 ↗ more consensus do we want to count unit

1:39:49 ↗ Lots um or adus towards unit lot um

1:39:52 ↗ density or no if it was me I currently

1:39:56 ↗ would at the moment I would count it

1:39:58 ↗ towards it okay because I I I still

1:40:00 ↗ remember isqua only about five or six

1:40:03 ↗ years ago having a whole moratorium and

1:40:06 ↗ my idea is again slow and cautious let's

1:40:09 ↗ see how this looks let's see how this

1:40:10 ↗ plays out before we just open the

1:40:12 ↗ floodgates and have and again I I don't

1:40:14 ↗ know what it's going to look like it

1:40:15 ↗ could be a wonderful thing it could be

1:40:18 ↗ uh a you know Panacea to all of our

1:40:20 ↗ problems and then a very well might not

1:40:22 ↗ be and it could could be a bunch of

1:40:24 ↗ speculators that are just putting up as

1:40:25 ↗ many tin buildings and selling them for

1:40:27 ↗ a lot of money so again I've been around

1:40:30 ↗ long enough the city to know that isqua

1:40:32 ↗ has always kind of been cautious when it

1:40:34 ↗ rolls out stuff like this so if we can

1:40:36 ↗ put a little bit of the breaks we can

1:40:37 ↗ always come back to it so that would be

1:40:39 ↗ my

1:40:43 ↗ P is everyone in agreement yeah I I

1:40:46 ↗ haven't heard a good reason why not to

1:40:48 ↗ count them so to your point yeah now if

1:40:50 ↗ you can even sell them off even more so

1:40:52 ↗ yeah so I'm open to be convinced but I

1:40:54 ↗ have and again yeah love more

1:40:57 ↗ information because like commissioner

1:40:58 ↗ crft said I'd like to hear more about

1:41:01 ↗ what is the argument for it and again I

1:41:03 ↗ I could hear when Vice chair Bader also

1:41:05 ↗ mention you know the affordability piece

1:41:07 ↗ it's not quite what's played out in

1:41:09 ↗ Kirkland and again I'd rather see the

1:41:11 ↗ city take a slow and cautious approach

1:41:13 ↗ because it can always be tweaked it can

1:41:15 ↗ always be ramped up but you can't claw

1:41:18 ↗ back what you've lost and to change the

1:41:20 ↗ character of the city within two years

1:41:22 ↗ and have a bunch of people spe culate

1:41:23 ↗ and start putting up buildings um you

1:41:25 ↗ won't get that back so again I remember

1:41:28 ↗ when the city put a moratorium I forget

1:41:30 ↗ how long moratorium was and that the

1:41:33 ↗ whole reason why was to slow the process

1:41:35 ↗ down to see what we could do right and I

1:41:37 ↗ think it served the city really well

1:41:39 ↗ there's still a certain building um in

1:41:41 ↗ Gilman that is Infamous because it got

1:41:44 ↗ in before the

1:41:45 ↗ moratorium so I think we all know what

1:41:47 ↗ building that

1:41:49 ↗ is I won't say its

1:41:51 ↗ name but anyway I how does everybody

1:41:55 ↗ else

1:41:57 ↗ feel

1:42:03 ↗ okay yeah I'm always living in the gray

1:42:05 ↗ area but I think I'm more in line with

1:42:07 ↗ your agreement I mean I I do see what

1:42:10 ↗ Vice chair Bader was talking about like

1:42:11 ↗ the only note I really had was like

1:42:13 ↗ promote housing diversity like getting

1:42:14 ↗ back to the root of this which is to the

1:42:18 ↗ whole supply and demand conversation of

1:42:19 ↗ like add more hopefully those prices

1:42:22 ↗ come down hopefully there's more options

1:42:23 ↗ for different types of people um you

1:42:26 ↗ know I think but obviously there's also

1:42:29 ↗ the cautious approach to that right

1:42:30 ↗ because I think you brought up a lot of

1:42:31 ↗ concerns about you know everyone has so

1:42:35 ↗ I I don't think it hurts to kind of you

1:42:38 ↗ know proceed with caution um I think

1:42:41 ↗ that we do have a lot of flexibility now

1:42:44 ↗ in terms of I think we allow a single

1:42:45 ↗ Adu on Bots which is great and we saw a

1:42:49 ↗ lot of them today which was awesome so

1:42:51 ↗ people are definitely you know taking

1:42:53 ↗ advantage of that and not I don't know

1:42:56 ↗ that this would add a ton of value to it

1:42:59 ↗ with what we have

1:43:01 ↗ today seems like we're juggling a lot

1:43:03 ↗ like I said there's nothing wrong to put

1:43:05 ↗ on the brakes and how about uh attached

1:43:08 ↗ versus detached so we maybe we'll not

1:43:12 ↗ kind of like we will

1:43:14 ↗ count detached into the lot but we won't

1:43:19 ↗ count

1:43:20 ↗ attached like if somebody has an Adu

1:43:23 ↗ unit in their I don't know

1:43:27 ↗ basement still an ad

1:43:29 ↗ unit so that's a gray area but um

1:43:33 ↗ technically if it met the definition of

1:43:36 ↗ an Adu then we would say no it doesn't

1:43:40 ↗ count um but additions to a home do get

1:43:46 ↗ tricky because nobody knows what's there

1:43:51 ↗ correct we saw some good examples of

1:43:53 ↗ adus and our tour today that was great

1:43:56 ↗ other neighborhoods in the isqua area do

1:43:59 ↗ we have any good examples of how they've

1:44:01 ↗ done it and I mean old old town and you

1:44:04 ↗ know on these gritted streets with

1:44:07 ↗ alleys and all that make it a lot lot

1:44:11 ↗ easier never easy but easier I'm curious

1:44:14 ↗ if there's good examples in some of the

1:44:16 ↗ other neighborhoods of what's been done

1:44:19 ↗ over the last you know two three years

1:44:21 ↗ in terms of 80s

1:44:23 ↗ I don't have that information tonight

1:44:25 ↗ but I can definitely dive a little bit

1:44:26 ↗ deeper like I said this is one of the

1:44:28 ↗ case studies that um the consultant and

1:44:30 ↗ I are working with so we're looking at

1:44:32 ↗ um actual areas in single family zones

1:44:36 ↗ looking at the patterns of the Lots this

1:44:38 ↗ one we just chose because it was simple

1:44:40 ↗ but we're looking at those irregular

1:44:42 ↗ shape lots and applying those um the

1:44:45 ↗ current design standards and seeing what

1:44:47 ↗ works what doesn't work and so we have a

1:44:49 ↗ better idea so yes we can definitely

1:44:51 ↗ explore that a little bit more

1:45:00 ↗ all right did you get a little bit more

1:45:02 ↗ consensus I did thank you appreciate it

1:45:05 ↗ okay two more questions um should the

1:45:09 ↗ city um continue to apply the critical

1:45:11 ↗ area code to housing in single family

1:45:13 ↗ areas as it is today and allow middle

1:45:16 ↗ housing U Middle allow development of

1:45:19 ↗ middle housing or not allow Lots with

1:45:21 ↗ critical areas that current ly allow

1:45:23 ↗ construction for developing middle

1:45:25 ↗ housing it's a little bit confusing of a

1:45:27 ↗ question but I'm going to unpack it a

1:45:28 ↗ little bit so here's a map of the city

1:45:31 ↗ showing how much of the city is

1:45:33 ↗ encumbered by critical area I think it's

1:45:35 ↗ close to 40% so many lots are impacted

1:45:40 ↗ either by directly by a um critical area

1:45:43 ↗ so that's um stream Wetland steep slope

1:45:46 ↗ or they're impacted by the buffer of

1:45:48 ↗ these um critical areas so today

1:45:53 ↗ if there is a lot that has um a critical

1:45:55 ↗ area it's that it's being impacted by a

1:45:58 ↗ critical area we allow for development

1:46:01 ↗ just as long as you're not making a

1:46:03 ↗ direct impact to the critical area or

1:46:05 ↗ you're not um located within the

1:46:08 ↗ required buffer for that critical area

1:46:11 ↗ but there are some critical areas where

1:46:15 ↗ um we do allow development within them

1:46:18 ↗ and I mentioned them at the last meeting

1:46:19 ↗ those two would be like critic or um

1:46:21 ↗ Coal Mine Hazard area or um seismic

1:46:24 ↗ areas um the reason this question is

1:46:27 ↗ coming up is because in the state um

1:46:30 ↗ legislation it does exempt Lots portions

1:46:33 ↗ of lots encumbered by critical areas so

1:46:37 ↗ if we were to if you guys were to allow

1:46:41 ↗ Lots um that are encumbered by critical

1:46:45 ↗ area to be exempt again you would most

1:46:47 ↗ likely have to do this for single family

1:46:49 ↗ lots so if you think about how many

1:46:51 ↗ single family locks are in cumbered by

1:46:53 ↗ critical area a lot of them would become

1:46:56 ↗ almost undevelopable so the question is

1:47:01 ↗ should we allow um the development of

1:47:04 ↗ midal housing on lots and covered with

1:47:06 ↗ critical areas and again they would

1:47:08 ↗ still have to follow the existing

1:47:10 ↗ critical area code and all other codes

1:47:12 ↗ that

1:47:21 ↗ apply any thoughts

1:47:23 ↗ so are we saying we'll treat these like

1:47:25 ↗ we do now with single

1:47:28 ↗ family yes that's

1:47:30 ↗ correct there's still all the critical

1:47:33 ↗ area checks and

1:47:35 ↗ balances that's correct okay I feel yeah

1:47:39 ↗ I feel

1:47:41 ↗ okay there's some consensus yeah I think

1:47:44 ↗ that one's pretty easy nice should have

1:47:46 ↗ started with that one good job

1:47:48 ↗ Commission of crass okay so this is the

1:47:51 ↗ last question should the city continue

1:47:53 ↗ to wave impact fees for accessory

1:47:55 ↗ dwelling units so today um if someone

1:47:59 ↗ were to construct a accessory dwelling

1:48:01 ↗ unit on a lot um U the city waves the

1:48:05 ↗ waves these fees um we do the city does

1:48:09 ↗ still pay for these but the applicant is

1:48:11 ↗ not paying for these and so I'm showing

1:48:14 ↗ you right now what the um the impact

1:48:17 ↗ fees are these are typically applied to

1:48:19 ↗ a single family detach structure um they

1:48:23 ↗ may likely need to be adjusted um should

1:48:25 ↗ we um uh choose to um assess fees for

1:48:30 ↗ accessory dwelling units but I wanted

1:48:32 ↗ you to see this cost because this cost

1:48:34 ↗ is in addition to permitting fees so

1:48:37 ↗ depending on if they have to go through

1:48:38 ↗ a land use permit or if they need to get

1:48:41 ↗ a building permit these in addition to

1:48:44 ↗ also utility connections printage

1:48:46 ↗ improvements if that's a requirement um

1:48:50 ↗ this is the fee that they would um also

1:48:53 ↗ be required to um

1:49:00 ↗ pay wow that's a tough one now I really

1:49:03 ↗ do feel like a villain about the whole

1:49:04 ↗ Frontage thing so with so essentially

1:49:09 ↗ we've the cities waved these

1:49:12 ↗ for well correct we've waved this with

1:49:16 ↗ the intention of hoping to get more

1:49:18 ↗ accessory dwelling units constructed and

1:49:20 ↗ did it I'd have to go back and look at

1:49:23 ↗ that number CU if it didn't if it didn't

1:49:26 ↗ change Behavior to do more then um we

1:49:30 ↗ did get more accessory dwelling units I

1:49:32 ↗ just don't it wasn't a significant

1:49:34 ↗ number it didn't like we didn't get 50

1:49:36 ↗ it's more like along the lines of 10

1:49:42 ↗ okay and we would treat are these base I

1:49:45 ↗ don't know how imp I've I've never built

1:49:47 ↗ a home I always bought them done so

1:49:50 ↗ someone paid this is is this BAS on the

1:49:53 ↗ size of the house or is it number of

1:49:54 ↗ people because like if you're buying if

1:49:56 ↗ you're an accessory drawing unit that's

1:49:58 ↗ 600 sare ft you're probably not going to

1:50:00 ↗ have anybody in

1:50:02 ↗ schools so I'm not sure if this scales

1:50:05 ↗ to the size of unit or if this is for

1:50:07 ↗ any single family house this is what

1:50:09 ↗ correct so the maximum size of accessory

1:50:12 ↗ dwelling unit is 1,000 square feet in

1:50:13 ↗ your right if we do apply impact fees to

1:50:16 ↗ um accessory duance we need to reeval

1:50:18 ↗ how re-evaluate um what impact fees

1:50:21 ↗ would be applied to or you know should

1:50:23 ↗ they be less because it's considered an

1:50:26 ↗ accessory not a primary structure I

1:50:29 ↗ guess my question is more like if I

1:50:30 ↗ built a house now in isqua MH scenario

1:50:33 ↗ one I build a 12200 foot little Bungalow

1:50:36 ↗ or I build a 7,000 square foot thing

1:50:40 ↗ that Sarah would never visit

1:50:43 ↗ um um would it be the same impact fees

1:50:46 ↗ or are these based on square footage I

1:50:48 ↗ believe it's based off a unit so oh same

1:50:51 ↗ Fe okay

1:50:53 ↗ different for multif family versus

1:50:55 ↗ single family though but it's not based

1:50:56 ↗ on square footage so some of the stuff

1:51:00 ↗ might be like fire impact and things

1:51:02 ↗ like that this number is pretty high I

1:51:05 ↗ was actually surprised by that before

1:51:07 ↗ you even do anything you have

1:51:09 ↗ $40,000 before permits

1:51:12 ↗ land right but it's worth mentioning

1:51:16 ↗ so this fee is coming someone's paying

1:51:19 ↗ this fee so right now it's the City

1:51:21 ↗ versus the applicant

1:51:24 ↗ they should negotiate

1:51:31 ↗ better I don't know I'm like too late in

1:51:35 ↗ the evening for me to have like coherent

1:51:37 ↗ thought anymore but how are these units

1:51:40 ↗ like

1:51:41 ↗ taxed like because like

1:51:44 ↗ are they still so say you convert your

1:51:46 ↗ basement into an Adu um I don't know if

1:51:49 ↗ that

1:51:50 ↗ like is that tax differently from when

1:51:53 ↗ it was just a single family house like

1:51:55 ↗ is the city getting more Revenue through

1:51:57 ↗ taxes to kind of offet the King County

1:51:59 ↗ Assessor would assess them my assumption

1:52:01 ↗ is yes it would be higher taxes but the

1:52:04 ↗ city only gets this portion of the

1:52:07 ↗ property taxes you know because there's

1:52:08 ↗ all the other entities that get get it

1:52:10 ↗ so theoretically yes um your taxes would

1:52:14 ↗ be higher if it's a single family home

1:52:16 ↗ versus two

1:52:17 ↗ units that's where if not through tax

1:52:21 ↗ where does the city get its money from

1:52:23 ↗ well we get property taxes but the the

1:52:26 ↗ you know someone pays $1000 in property

1:52:28 ↗ tax there the schools get it the King

1:52:31 ↗ County library system gets it and Sound

1:52:34 ↗ Transit gets it and all these other

1:52:35 ↗ entities and our rate

1:52:38 ↗ is you know small

1:52:44 ↗ tin I think that's why I'm kind of I

1:52:47 ↗ like like I'm split because obviously I

1:52:48 ↗ know the city with part of the budget

1:52:51 ↗ problems that they're having but at the

1:52:53 ↗ same time you want to

1:52:54 ↗ encourage you know the middle housing so

1:52:57 ↗ again I I guess this would be another me

1:52:59 ↗ trying to be cautious and see what

1:53:02 ↗ happens by continuing to wave them and

1:53:04 ↗ maybe give it a little bit more time to

1:53:06 ↗ percolate and see I guess with more

1:53:09 ↗ information to find out if it's actually

1:53:11 ↗ moving the needle um and then also see

1:53:14 ↗ what type of adus are being built how

1:53:16 ↗ many are being sold off like like PR

1:53:19 ↗ crass was talking about you know how

1:53:20 ↗ much is this are people

1:53:22 ↗ renting to friends or something you know

1:53:24 ↗ how much is Just speculation and kind of

1:53:26 ↗ getting an idea a bigger and Fuller

1:53:28 ↗ picture of what people are doing with

1:53:30 ↗ these ad you but I mean the last thing

1:53:33 ↗ you want to do is is kill it in the crib

1:53:37 ↗ and and not give it the opportunity to

1:53:38 ↗ see what it can do if valer is already

1:53:41 ↗ thinking maybe

1:53:42 ↗ 10 maybe that's enough to keep looking

1:53:45 ↗ and do other do other cities wave these

1:53:48 ↗ as well do we know is that a common

1:53:51 ↗ practice across like Kirkland Redmond

1:53:54 ↗ bellev and all that yes yeah so

1:53:56 ↗ accessory daring units usually have

1:53:58 ↗ these fees wave for most

1:54:00 ↗ cities and to answer your question on

1:54:02 ↗ the number we have there's a total of

1:54:06 ↗ about 73 and about 33 of that is were

1:54:10 ↗ built as part of the Talis and Highlands

1:54:12 ↗ development agreement so about 40ish are

1:54:16 ↗ that we know of out there that have been

1:54:18 ↗ built over the last I think 10 years

1:54:21 ↗ before we

1:54:23 ↗ added

1:54:24 ↗ Adu new Adu

1:54:30 ↗ regulation yeah I'll just add that this

1:54:32 ↗ feels really high um to me and so like

1:54:35 ↗ if the city needs the fee I just think

1:54:38 ↗ it's scaling it I think charging them

1:54:40 ↗ the same amount as a single family home

1:54:42 ↗ doesn't fit right it kind of goes

1:54:44 ↗ against everything that an Adu should

1:54:45 ↗ stand for um like if I wanted to build

1:54:48 ↗ an and I was like somebody was like you

1:54:50 ↗ got to pay $40,000 just to E

1:54:53 ↗ um I'd be like I'm not going to build an

1:54:54 ↗ Adu um because I never like unless I'm

1:54:57 ↗ going to sell it off I suppose and

1:54:58 ↗ that's incentivizing selling it off

1:54:59 ↗ which also like feels um weird so yeah

1:55:02 ↗ so I'm Pro continuing to wave it if

1:55:05 ↗ waving it doesn't fit right at least

1:55:07 ↗ like scaling it appropriate to the type

1:55:09 ↗ of development that it is yeah I think

1:55:11 ↗ I'd just like to see see if the story

1:55:13 ↗ plays out a little bit more now that now

1:55:15 ↗ that staff's obviously working on this

1:55:17 ↗ now that the word's going to go out

1:55:19 ↗ let's see what happens you know and see

1:55:21 ↗ if like I said maybe maybe we'll have

1:55:24 ↗ some uh some positive growth in the next

1:55:27 ↗ two years maybe it was worth not not

1:55:30 ↗ picking these up yet and then if nothing

1:55:32 ↗ really moves or like you said you see

1:55:34 ↗ you see you know the type of adus being

1:55:37 ↗ built and sold off that City really that

1:55:39 ↗ wasn't the purpose that may bring them

1:55:41 ↗ in so I have a I have a fun Twist of

1:55:43 ↗ this one what if you have a provision

1:55:46 ↗ that if you sell the Adu you have to pay

1:55:48 ↗ the city back the

1:55:50 ↗ $40,000 seriously it's like no it's not

1:55:53 ↗ a crazy crazy thought because it's

1:55:55 ↗ defeating the purpose of what this is

1:55:57 ↗ trying to be you're a Speculator and

1:55:59 ↗ trying to maximize that um that is an

1:56:03 ↗ option um you would have the app the

1:56:06 ↗ property owner would have to record a

1:56:07 ↗ covenant on on the property but then it

1:56:10 ↗ would also be really half for hard for

1:56:12 ↗ staff to track

1:56:16 ↗ [Laughter]

1:56:20 ↗ unless you know but uh home ownership

1:56:23 ↗ for these smaller units is also probably

1:56:25 ↗ not a bad thing from a policy objective

1:56:28 ↗ because someone that can buy a larger

1:56:31 ↗ home this would get them a home

1:56:34 ↗ ownership than being a rental so there's

1:56:37 ↗ both sides make the price $40,000 higher

1:56:39 ↗ right

1:56:41 ↗ which

1:56:42 ↗ yeah so with like you said an option

1:56:45 ↗ could be that the um they pay a portion

1:56:48 ↗ of it maybe because it's not a fullon

1:56:50 ↗ dwelling unit meant to to be accessory

1:56:52 ↗ maybe it's 50% or

1:56:55 ↗ 20% that could also be an

1:57:00 ↗ option well not all like the parks is an

1:57:03 ↗ istic difficult one so they probably

1:57:04 ↗ don't that's probably not a real

1:57:06 ↗ cost this because you're just paying

1:57:10 ↗ yourselves

1:57:11 ↗ um some of the other ones I guess which

1:57:14 ↗ are real costs and which are you know

1:57:16 ↗ transfer from one pocket of isqua to

1:57:18 ↗ another and that may help you figure out

1:57:20 ↗ which which you include like you may

1:57:23 ↗ have a hard cost for fire because we

1:57:25 ↗ Outsource that to East Side Fire and I'm

1:57:28 ↗ not sure how traffic works but um where

1:57:31 ↗ school district is not is quote Yeah the

1:57:34 ↗ other thing to keep in mind impact fees

1:57:36 ↗ uh can't be used for anything they have

1:57:38 ↗ to be used for capital projects and you

1:57:40 ↗ have to you have 10 years to use it use

1:57:43 ↗ them for the city otherwise you have to

1:57:44 ↗ return them to the developer with

1:57:47 ↗ interest so the intent of the impact

1:57:51 ↗ fees and and the state legislation is is

1:57:54 ↗ really to address the impact from

1:57:57 ↗ development okay have we ever returned

1:58:00 ↗ any okay I don't think

1:58:03 ↗ so I mean there's shortage of capital

1:58:07 ↗ you know dollars to do capital projects

1:58:09 ↗ anyways so that point even more implies

1:58:11 ↗ to me that it be failed because the

1:58:14 ↗ impact on all of these things right of a

1:58:17 ↗ smaller Adu is not going to be the same

1:58:19 ↗ as a single family house um

1:58:22 ↗ so I zoned out when you said that the

1:58:25 ↗ first time around but um that clicked

1:58:28 ↗ for me that like I think definitely it

1:58:30 ↗ should be

1:58:32 ↗ um given

1:58:34 ↗ the eyes or whatever

1:58:39 ↗ use I'm looking for consensus so a

1:58:42 ↗ scaled um

1:58:46 ↗ fee I'd be okay well we're we're

1:58:50 ↗ different on this one I would actually

1:58:51 ↗ be okay still waving it w waving it but

1:58:54 ↗ I do think if you do implement it either

1:58:56 ↗ scale it down um because right now it's

1:58:59 ↗ $40 a square foot of just an impact fee

1:59:02 ↗ or more if they're building something

1:59:03 ↗ smaller than that's a that's a big

1:59:06 ↗ that's a big amount before you even sign

1:59:09 ↗ a piece of paper um and I do you know I

1:59:14 ↗ understand the home ownership of these

1:59:16 ↗ things but it's I'm just trying to

1:59:18 ↗ mitigate speculation like we saw in

1:59:20 ↗ Kirkland to kind of get paid back for

1:59:23 ↗ those that may be that may be phase two

1:59:25 ↗ or three but something to kind of keep

1:59:27 ↗ in mind of having Provisions if people

1:59:29 ↗ start you know abusing this based on not

1:59:32 ↗ what the intent was um to have those

1:59:36 ↗ things in place but I'm I'm okay with

1:59:38 ↗ waving him still and then check as Jason

1:59:40 ↗ said kind of keep an eye on keep an eye

1:59:43 ↗ on

1:59:44 ↗ that I don't know if that's helping but

1:59:46 ↗ yeah I I think again to commissioner

1:59:48 ↗ crra and vice chair Bader let's see

1:59:51 ↗ let's see what what happens with this

1:59:53 ↗ let's keep an eye on it and then again

1:59:56 ↗ if it if it is being used or misused I

1:59:59 ↗ mean we should be trying to learn from

2:00:00 ↗ our sister cities and see what they did

2:00:02 ↗ well and what didn't work and what did

2:00:04 ↗ not go according to plan and again if

2:00:06 ↗ it's being misappropriated or it's not

2:00:09 ↗ getting what we wanted and we're just

2:00:10 ↗ getting million dollar

2:00:12 ↗ adus uh then we can to Vice chair

2:00:14 ↗ Bader's point maybe then we scale it to

2:00:17 ↗ try and curb some of that

2:00:20 ↗ behavior okay great thank

2:00:24 ↗ you oh my last question I

2:00:27 ↗ apologize are there any other areas that

2:00:29 ↗ you would like staff to consider that we

2:00:32 ↗ haven't discussed tonight after looking

2:00:34 ↗ at some of the middle housing types um

2:00:36 ↗ some of the you know what this actually

2:00:38 ↗ looks like on the ground is there

2:00:40 ↗ something that we're missing that should

2:00:42 ↗ be added to the list the only thing I

2:00:44 ↗ would say valer is do you have any

2:00:47 ↗ specific kind of goals that you'd want

2:00:50 ↗ to see after we do all the of how much

2:00:54 ↗ more um momentum and these building

2:00:56 ↗ types that we'll see in the next five

2:00:58 ↗ years is there any type of if we start

2:01:01 ↗ like making it easier for Middle housing

2:01:03 ↗ that our goal is to get a certain number

2:01:06 ↗ of units built or I don't know if it's

2:01:10 ↗ number or compare to what's been built

2:01:12 ↗ in the past or like that is there is

2:01:13 ↗ there anything any thoughts on that at

2:01:16 ↗ this point with just trying to comply

2:01:18 ↗ with the state bills that's really our

2:01:19 ↗ goal right now I think as we continue

2:01:22 ↗ our discussions on housing and

2:01:24 ↗ ultimately making an update to the

2:01:25 ↗ housing strategy work plan in hopefully

2:01:28 ↗ in the near future we can have those

2:01:30 ↗ discussions on what kind of goals do we

2:01:31 ↗ want to establish housing and how do we

2:01:34 ↗ how do we gauge that in terms of

2:01:36 ↗ performance and how do we then make

2:01:38 ↗ tweaks on the regulations or incentives

2:01:41 ↗ to get to those goals yeah I think it's

2:01:44 ↗ good because it'd be good to see like oh

2:01:45 ↗ we had this momentum of we were doing

2:01:47 ↗ three adus a year and now we're up to 10

2:01:50 ↗ and which created all this new housing

2:01:52 ↗ that didn't exist in some of these

2:01:54 ↗ different areas and and it's probably

2:01:56 ↗ momentum in certain neighborhoods that a

2:01:58 ↗ couple neighbors do this and all of a

2:02:00 ↗ sudden it kind of catches hold in my old

2:02:03 ↗ neighborhood it was outdoor rooms that

2:02:04 ↗ was like someone started building

2:02:05 ↗ outdoor rooms and everyone had an

2:02:06 ↗ outdoor room and I'm like well just go

2:02:09 ↗ inside if it's cold you don't have to

2:02:10 ↗ build all these heated outdoor rooms um

2:02:14 ↗ but I think having those type of things

2:02:15 ↗ would be but I I understand that your

2:02:18 ↗ first step is being compli no we that's

2:02:21 ↗ definitely part of our reporting program

2:02:23 ↗ anyway um we have a housing dashboard

2:02:25 ↗ set up now and every year the city

2:02:27 ↗ creates a housing report card I think we

2:02:30 ↗ send planning policy commission a copy

2:02:33 ↗ so yeah definitely we can keep an eye

2:02:36 ↗ out for some of

2:02:40 ↗ these no that's a great comment

2:02:43 ↗ commissioner crass yeah just like you

2:02:45 ↗ said but I think obviously staff wants

2:02:47 ↗ some time try to get these two bills

2:02:50 ↗ married together and see how they're

2:02:51 ↗ going to be implemented but yeah just

2:02:53 ↗ ideas of different metrics and things

2:02:55 ↗ would be uh interesting but will have

2:02:58 ↗ staff do their thing first um are there

2:03:00 ↗ any other areas to consider other than

2:03:02 ↗ commissioner cr's

2:03:03 ↗ point that you would like to report to

2:03:09 ↗ Valerie did you get everything you

2:03:11 ↗ needed Valerie I did and then some if

2:03:15 ↗ something comes up please don't hesitate

2:03:16 ↗ to email me great thank you that was a

2:03:19 ↗ great presentation uh learned a lot

2:03:22 ↗ about middle housing today again started

2:03:24 ↗ off with a fantastic tour so again want

2:03:27 ↗ to say thank you to um our planner

2:03:30 ↗ Valerie

2:03:33 ↗ Porter all right that takes care of

2:03:36 ↗ regular business this evening so we are

2:03:39 ↗ going to move on to reports and I

2:03:43 ↗ believe I'm looking at

2:03:44 ↗ Stephen um any other business or

2:03:47 ↗ announcements from staff uh just really

2:03:50 ↗ quick for uh uh

2:03:52 ↗ at least a council report the city

2:03:54 ↗ council's going to be getting a update

2:03:56 ↗ and having a discussion on the upcoming

2:03:58 ↗ budget and so that'll help influence a

2:04:01 ↗ lot of our uh projects uh that we be

2:04:05 ↗ taking on over the next few years so if

2:04:06 ↗ you want a little more you can take a

2:04:08 ↗ look at the next council

2:04:12 ↗ meeting great thank you

2:04:16 ↗ Stephen that takes care of report so

2:04:20 ↗ just want to ask if there's any other

2:04:21 ↗ business or announcements from staff or

2:04:25 ↗ or

2:04:33 ↗ Commissioners oh commissioner crft

2:04:35 ↗ wasn't here I I'm sure you got the news

2:04:38 ↗ but again we want to say congratulations

2:04:40 ↗ as becoming a regular member to the

2:04:42 ↗ planning

2:04:43 ↗ policy we appreciate all the service

2:04:45 ↗ that you've given as an alternate and uh

2:04:49 ↗ yeah so you weren't here last time but

2:04:51 ↗ we got to say welcome commissioner

2:04:56 ↗ crass yeah it's

2:04:58 ↗ official so um yeah no thank you Vice

2:05:01 ↗ chair

2:05:02 ↗ Bader I believe that's it again I want

2:05:05 ↗ to thank staff today for the tour Valery

2:05:07 ↗ for conducting a wonderful tour um again

2:05:11 ↗ all of you Minnie mateline Valerie

2:05:14 ↗ Stephen uh we really appreciate all the

2:05:16 ↗ work you guys do to help us have a

2:05:19 ↗ better understanding of what's going on

2:05:20 ↗ in the city

2:05:22 ↗ and I know sometimes it's it's a lot of

2:05:25 ↗ time and I can only imagine how much

2:05:26 ↗ time you guys have behind the scenes but

2:05:28 ↗ you make it look so easy that's the fun

2:05:31 ↗ part so again thank you everybody we

2:05:34 ↗ appreciate you being here and we will

2:05:36 ↗ adjourn tonight at 8:4 p.m. night

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 (5)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Krass

Patterson

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community P & D Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Madelyn Nelson, Planning Intern Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner