Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 23, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Public Hearing: 2025 Docket of Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (A)

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.3–10

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

On January 23, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing and then deliberate on the Docket of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan Amendments. A

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Co-Living Housing Code Amendments

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.11–21

Topics: HousingLand Use

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 23

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.23–25

▶ Watch from 52:37 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Stephen Padua 4/10/25 4/24/25

1224 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ good evening I'd like to call the

0:09 ↗ January 23rd planning policy Commission

0:11 ↗ meeting to order is currently 6:30 p.m.

0:15 ↗ it's great to see everybody uh last

0:18 ↗ planning policy commission I was a

0:19 ↗ little under the weather I'm very

0:21 ↗ thankful for the tools that we have

0:23 ↗ these days from the pandemic that

0:25 ↗ allowed me to join you guys virtually

0:27 ↗ but it's always better to see everybody

0:28 ↗ in person

0:30 ↗ Kristen I haven't seen you in a long

0:32 ↗ time good to see you meline Amanda

0:35 ↗ Steven

0:36 ↗ Commissioners so yeah let's get started

0:40 ↗ tonight tonight's meeting is a hybrid

0:42 ↗ meeting the planning policy commission

0:44 ↗ is in person but staff or members of the

0:46 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:49 ↗ person Stephen I do believe we have a

0:52 ↗ quorum this evening chair voice that's

0:54 ↗ correct you have a quum tonight all

0:56 ↗ right everybody's

0:58 ↗ here so we're going to jump right to

1:00 ↗ public comment and for this meeting

1:02 ↗ we're holding general public comment

1:04 ↗ right now we will have a public hearing

1:07 ↗ a little

1:08 ↗ later um as far as some of

1:12 ↗ the the docket of proposed comprehensive

1:15 ↗ plan amendments but right now it's just

1:17 ↗ for general public comment has anyone

1:19 ↗ signed

1:22 ↗ up yes commissioner they have

1:26 ↗ okay so we'll start with some general

1:29 ↗ guidelines lines and anyone that would

1:31 ↗ like to make comments this evening we

1:33 ↗ ask that you would speak clearly and

1:34 ↗ pause frequently state your

1:37 ↗ name and if we do have any virtual

1:40 ↗ attendees that would like to make public

1:42 ↗ comment we do ask that you mute your

1:44 ↗ microphone when you're not speaking and

1:46 ↗ if you're having any technical issues

1:48 ↗ please try joining the meeting using a

1:50 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:52 ↗ tablet you can also use the call in

1:55 ↗ information in the invite to call in

1:58 ↗ public P comments are important part of

2:00 ↗ the public process we do take them

2:02 ↗ seriously they are factored into the

2:04 ↗ decisions that we make and at the moment

2:07 ↗ we're looking for general public

2:08 ↗ comments we do ask that you keep them to

2:11 ↗ five minutes or less we'll

2:15 ↗ begin Brian runberg

2:35 ↗ uh at 1085 Lake Drive uh appreciate the

2:38 ↗ opportunity to speak to you and I'm

2:40 ↗ following up uh a bit in a bit more

2:42 ↗ detail on a letter that was given to you

2:45 ↗ earlier today um representing a larger

2:50 ↗ Housing Development Group uh in the

2:53 ↗ community uh we've been before you and

2:55 ↗ other commissions uh on several

2:57 ↗ occasions as we attempt to create some

2:59 ↗ much needed mixed use Transit oriented

3:02 ↗ development housing under the Pioneer

3:04 ↗ program unfortunately we still need to

3:06 ↗ come forth and draw some attention to

3:08 ↗ some serious issues uh regarding in

3:11 ↗ congruent portions of Title 18 the title

3:14 ↗ 18 code that conflicts not only with the

3:16 ↗ comp plan uh but also with the central

3:18 ↗ isqua plan and the design guidelines as

3:21 ↗ pointed out in that letter you've

3:23 ↗ received

3:25 ↗ um we don't really have an issue with

3:27 ↗ the comp plan per se it's however to

3:30 ↗ address some of these fundamental flaws

3:32 ↗ in Title 18 that's making housing uh

3:34 ↗ impossible currently the title 18

3:37 ↗ complex were brought to staff's

3:38 ↗ attention uh early in draft form a

3:41 ↗ couple years ago was brought to

3:42 ↗ attention during the process of voting

3:44 ↗ and again in subsequent

3:45 ↗ adoption uh it is not I would say is not

3:48 ↗ unusual for an untested unproven code uh

3:52 ↗ to occur for conflicts to occur happens

3:54 ↗ all the time we deal with it all the

3:55 ↗ time in other

3:56 ↗ jurisdictions what is unusual in this

3:59 ↗ case however is Staff emphatically tells

4:01 ↗ us there is absolutely no mechanism or

4:04 ↗ any latitude whatsoever within the code

4:06 ↗ it's just highly highly

4:08 ↗ prescriptive um it it is directly

4:12 ↗ conflicting with industry standards with

4:15 ↗ construction methodologies and as well

4:17 ↗ as conflicts with logical approaches and

4:20 ↗ applications as I said in adjacent

4:22 ↗ jurisdictions for this type of

4:24 ↗ development um we've been told by staff

4:28 ↗ that these title code 18 will just

4:30 ↗ changes or issues will just work

4:32 ↗ themselves through over time meaning

4:35 ↗ years down the road uh we've been told

4:38 ↗ we do comply or can comply but we are

4:41 ↗ being greedy uh and should just take a

4:43 ↗ floor off the building I'll be at we're

4:46 ↗ 20% under the allowable floor floor area

4:50 ↗ ratio or size of the building and we're

4:51 ↗ 40% under height and nonetheless cutting

4:55 ↗ a floor off the building loses a

4:58 ↗ substantial amount of much needed

5:00 ↗ affordable housing that we worked with

5:02 ↗ you so closely on so there's a

5:03 ↗ conflicting interest there uh We've also

5:06 ↗ been told there's no conflicts uh in the

5:09 ↗ code and the given data of corresponding

5:12 ↗ um jurisdictions that comply however for

5:16 ↗ example in open space criteria the

5:18 ↗ standards were as a parallel were taken

5:21 ↗ from Kirkland's lowrise townhouse zoning

5:24 ↗ and not midrise it in other words it

5:26 ↗ wasn't applicable to this type of

5:28 ↗ product um

5:30 ↗ we've also been told and different

5:32 ↗ council members how disappointed they

5:34 ↗ are how Atlas turned out is why there's

5:36 ↗ such a push back on new housing and we

5:38 ↗ agree it didn't turn out that great but

5:40 ↗ does that mean that no housing occurs at

5:43 ↗ all um our group has spent two and a

5:47 ↗ half years attempting uh just to start

5:50 ↗ this long process and we're no further

5:51 ↗ along U on delivering new housing to you

5:55 ↗ we've also in that time burned through

5:57 ↗ $2 million in costs

6:00 ↗ uh while we wait for staff councel to

6:02 ↗ get on the same page about this issue

6:04 ↗ with these new codes coming in that's $2

6:06 ↗ million it could have gone into creating

6:08 ↗ a better a better

6:10 ↗ project uh and to be very specific we

6:13 ↗ are not asking for any advantage

6:15 ↗ whatsoever which or any quantitative

6:18 ↗ changes we're only asking some slight

6:21 ↗ alternative equivalence within the new

6:23 ↗ title 18 code which again is UN

6:26 ↗ completely

6:27 ↗ untested uh and and an Ro that aligns

6:30 ↗ with the multif family building industry

6:32 ↗ as well as with the jurisdictions within

6:34 ↗ the region as well as the nation we have

6:36 ↗ a project the Pioneer project to be

6:39 ↗ exact a pilot project uh and we the

6:42 ↗ guinea pig or the test case here we have

6:44 ↗ a highly qualified development team and

6:46 ↗ a nationally recognized in design and

6:48 ↗ sustainability all the goals that you

6:50 ↗ want and importantly we have a Capital

6:53 ↗ Partner waiting to fund a $150 million

6:55 ↗ project to align with all the toj

6:58 ↗ objectives that are in your Cent is plan

7:00 ↗ but unfortunately it's just languishing

7:03 ↗ for no reason before you all the while

7:06 ↗ we are in a in the region and in the

7:09 ↗ nation in a housing

7:10 ↗ crisis um further it seems uh city of

7:13 ↗ esqua has significant Revenue shortfalls

7:16 ↗ there's layoffs we've been through three

7:17 ↗ planners cycled through um we're simply

7:21 ↗ asking for a collective dialogue to

7:23 ↗ deliver this pilot project for you and

7:25 ↗ yield $150 million investment in your

7:27 ↗ community It lines with all your goals

7:29 ↗ gos and your need in conclusion we have

7:32 ↗ we have heard very clearly that staff is

7:35 ↗ not comfortable utilizing the variance

7:37 ↗ process tools to them to fix to correct

7:40 ↗ these small fixes in the title 18 code

7:43 ↗ and it'll require a legislative fix as

7:46 ↗ part of the larger residential Community

7:49 ↗ highlighted in the letter that given to

7:51 ↗ you before we would collectively love

7:53 ↗ the opportunity to partner with you on a

7:56 ↗ constructive land use amendment to

7:57 ↗ remedy these obstacles current stopping

8:00 ↗ housing produ thank

8:06 ↗ you thank

8:08 ↗ you um Amanda is there anyone else would

8:10 ↗ like to speak chair there are no more um

8:13 ↗ public

8:17 ↗ comments I apologize Connie that's

8:20 ↗ okay I don't recognize you now

8:25 ↗ everyone I'm not

8:27 ↗ insulted uh my name's Connie Marsha Leon

8:30 ↗ Squak um in the past there used to be a

8:35 ↗ land use docket and now we only seem to

8:39 ↗ have a comprehensive plan docket I don't

8:42 ↗ know what ever happened to the land use

8:44 ↗ docket and the land use docket used

8:47 ↗ to have uh a way for the community to

8:53 ↗ request changes to the land use code

8:56 ↗ during a given period of time and then

8:59 ↗ staff would have time to analyze those

9:03 ↗ to see if they wanted to put it on the

9:05 ↗ work plan for the year and it occurs to

9:10 ↗ me that our

9:12 ↗ code because I was just reading it all

9:14 ↗ again before I came down doesn't doesn't

9:17 ↗ have a public process for that and I

9:20 ↗ think that would be an interesting thing

9:23 ↗ to add back into the code is the process

9:27 ↗ for if people see flaws with the code

9:30 ↗ then they have a pathway to try to get

9:33 ↗ um change that that has a sort of a

9:36 ↗ timeline and a basis and so while I

9:39 ↗ don't know the details of this gentleman

9:41 ↗ I do understand the frustration of not

9:43 ↗ being able to get something changed

9:45 ↗ easily or you know at least in the in

9:48 ↗ the process thank

9:52 ↗ you thank you Connie would anyone else

9:55 ↗ like to speak in the room

10:00 ↗ how about

10:00 ↗ virtually no

10:03 ↗ chair okay well thank

10:06 ↗ you we're going to move to our public

10:09 ↗ hearing right now and this is the docket

10:11 ↗ of proposed isqua comprehensive plan

10:15 ↗ amendments so our first item of business

10:17 ↗ is to hold a public hearing regarding

10:19 ↗ this docket and the purpose of the

10:21 ↗ public hearing is to provide a formal

10:23 ↗ opportunity for public comment of

10:27 ↗ docket we'll open the the public hearing

10:30 ↗ which will be followed by a presentation

10:31 ↗ from staff and then we'll ask our

10:34 ↗ commissioners the PPC to uh follow up

10:37 ↗ with any questions that they have we'll

10:39 ↗ take public testimony then we'll close

10:41 ↗ the public hearing and at that time the

10:43 ↗ planning policy commission will be able

10:45 ↗ to uh debate and make hopefully make a

10:48 ↗ recommendation for this item Steven

10:50 ↗ Padua our assistant planning director

10:52 ↗ will be presenting tonight so we welcome

10:55 ↗ Stephen and please go

10:57 ↗ ahead thank you chair voice and good

10:59 ↗ evening

11:06 ↗ Commissioners so the purpose of this

11:08 ↗ presentation is to go over the tonight's

11:10 ↗ poose

11:11 ↗ docket public hearing will be held for

11:14 ↗ uh the docket to take in public common

11:16 ↗ and for the Commissioners to make a

11:18 ↗ recommendation tonight on whether city

11:20 ↗ council should be adopting the docket

11:22 ↗ for this

11:23 ↗ year there's two questions for

11:25 ↗ consideration for the Commissioners are

11:27 ↗ the amendments presented in the docket

11:28 ↗ relevant or necessary

11:30 ↗ are there any refinements that need to

11:32 ↗ be made to the proposed

11:35 ↗ amendment just for a little background

11:37 ↗ uh the docket must be reviewed prior

11:40 ↗ to starting the amendment process which

11:42 ↗ will be all captured and separate

11:45 ↗ projects throughout this year all the

11:48 ↗ all the docket items with the exception

11:51 ↗ of the proposed rezone will be coming

11:53 ↗ back to the planning policy for

11:55 ↗ discussion

12:01 ↗ there are four

12:03 ↗ items five items on the docket uh the

12:07 ↗ first is a potential name change of

12:09 ↗ single family zones to a new residential

12:12 ↗ Zone name that more accurately describes

12:15 ↗ the uses this is part of the middle

12:16 ↗ housing project that the Commissioners

12:18 ↗ will be discussing later next

12:20 ↗ month the update to the policies allow

12:23 ↗ co- living you'll actually be discussing

12:24 ↗ this item later tonight on the agenda um

12:27 ↗ Kristen Leon senior planner will be

12:29 ↗ discussing the potential changes for the

12:32 ↗ regulations related to co- living which

12:34 ↗ is related to hospital 1998 which is a

12:37 ↗ state requirement to allow co- living in

12:39 ↗ residential in

12:42 ↗ City the next changes is updates to the

12:45 ↗ land use map uh the first one is the

12:48 ↗ rezone and land use redesignation for

12:51 ↗ the site where the food bank currently

12:53 ↗ is located the other is a u removal of

12:57 ↗ community facilities and Community

12:58 ↗ facilities privately owned land use from

13:01 ↗ the designation map and this is an

13:02 ↗ effort to change the um publicly owned

13:06 ↗ properties that are currently zoned or

13:08 ↗ identified as Community facilities to

13:11 ↗ the underlying or the leas restrictive

13:13 ↗ Zone which is currently what zoning is

13:16 ↗ applied to each of those

13:18 ↗ properties the last change is uh an

13:20 ↗ update to the transportation element as

13:22 ↗ it relates to concurrency which will be

13:24 ↗ a project that you'll be discussing

13:26 ↗ later this year

13:30 ↗ for perspective the site for the food

13:32 ↗ bank is currently um land land use

13:36 ↗ designation and Community facilities and

13:38 ↗ the proposal is to change the site from

13:40 ↗ Community facilities to retail which is

13:43 ↗ uh dominant Z surrounding zone or land

13:49 ↗ use and for perspective for the other

13:52 ↗ effort for the land use designation map

13:53 ↗ we're looking at changing the community

13:55 ↗ facilities which is all the green areas

13:56 ↗ on the map

13:59 ↗ and this this will be more of a

14:00 ↗ legislative update which is why the

14:03 ↗ planning policy commission will

14:04 ↗ discussing that as part of the comp plan

14:12 ↗ Amendment the doer criteria for

14:15 ↗ consideration for the docket is listed

14:17 ↗ in um isal Municipal

14:22 ↗ 18146 the first criteria that to be

14:25 ↗ considered for the dock is first is it

14:27 ↗ site specific or consideration for

14:29 ↗ development

14:30 ↗ suitability the second is is it a

14:32 ↗ required

14:33 ↗ change and if it's neither one of those

14:36 ↗ then it has to follow all of the

14:38 ↗ following criteria is is there a public

14:40 ↗ benefit is there no issue with land user

14:44 ↗ policy is there any change conditions

14:46 ↗ that's being addressed by the change and

14:48 ↗ is being consistent with the policies

14:50 ↗ that are in the conference and we

14:52 ↗ believe for the four items that are on

14:54 ↗ the docket that all with the exception

14:57 ↗ of the

15:00 ↗ land use designation map changes are

15:02 ↗ required changes that we we need to be

15:04 ↗ considering as part of different efforts

15:06 ↗ for the transation element with the

15:08 ↗ currency that's in compliance with House

15:10 ↗ Bill

15:12 ↗ 1881 for the co- living policy that's

15:15 ↗ House Bill

15:16 ↗ 1998 and for the residential change for

15:19 ↗ House Bill 11:10 and uh 1337 that's the

15:22 ↗ middle housing project requirement from

15:24 ↗ the state

15:31 ↗ the next steps for the doc will be going

15:33 ↗ to City Council on March

15:36 ↗ 3rd and I return back to the questions

15:39 ↗ for commission's

15:42 ↗ consideration example motion for

15:44 ↗ discussion tonight and I can back to

15:48 ↗ this and chair voice would thank

15:52 ↗ you great thank you

15:54 ↗ Stephen all right Commissioners now is

15:56 ↗ your time to ask questions again we're

15:59 ↗ not necessarily giving policy

16:00 ↗ prescriptions or how you feel do that a

16:03 ↗ little bit later but do you have any

16:05 ↗ questions for Stephen as far as

16:07 ↗ present commissioner crass hi it's

16:10 ↗ commissioner crass Hey Stephen um was

16:12 ↗ there anything that just like barely

16:13 ↗ below the line that you wanted to put in

16:15 ↗ the docket and didn't make it for one

16:17 ↗ reason or another or you Limited at all

16:20 ↗ how many things go I'm just trying to

16:21 ↗ think of did you have to make any

16:23 ↗ decisions of things that could be in the

16:25 ↗ docket but didn't make it for one reason

16:26 ↗ or another that we should understand or

16:29 ↗ is this everything this is everything

16:31 ↗ that we considered as part of our work

16:32 ↗ plan for this

16:41 ↗ year uh Vice chair

16:43 ↗ Patterson thank you chair uh Stephen

16:46 ↗ just a clarifying question if I

16:47 ↗ understood correctly those you mentioned

16:49 ↗ the three docket items were basically

16:52 ↗ requirements and then does that mean the

16:54 ↗ land use one would qualified for those

16:56 ↗ four other bulleted items crit

16:59 ↗ yes okay uh Vice chair Patterson thank

17:01 ↗ you I missed that in my presentation is

17:03 ↗ the fourth item is it meets all the four

17:06 ↗ criteria that uh was listed on this

17:16 ↗ R any other

17:18 ↗ questions I'm just curious about site 92

17:21 ↗ right next to the food bank I know it's

17:23 ↗ not the one that's uh they're proposing

17:25 ↗ to buy but so that one piece one parcel

17:30 ↗ is just going to stay the way it is

17:34 ↗ correct that's correct and that's

17:35 ↗ actually a uh City designated Landmark

17:39 ↗ oh

17:43 ↗ okay questions P please thanks chair uh

17:47 ↗ one other clarifying question regarding

17:49 ↗ the community facilities uh designation

17:52 ↗ I know we have the one site the food

17:54 ↗ bank that'll be changing to retail uh

17:57 ↗ but will the other designations be

18:00 ↗ described to us at a later time part of

18:02 ↗ the bigger project I assume yes when we

18:04 ↗ come back to the commission later this

18:05 ↗ year we'll be going through all the

18:07 ↗ sites and we'll be listening out what

18:08 ↗ the current zoning is or zoning and land

18:11 ↗ use designation and what the proposed

18:13 ↗ change would be for each of the

18:19 ↗ sites any further questions for staff

18:21 ↗ regarding

18:24 ↗ presentation okay there being no further

18:27 ↗ questions we will open the public

18:29 ↗ hearing this evening at 6:49

18:33 ↗ p.m. uh Stephen has anyone signed up to

18:36 ↗ speak this

18:38 ↗ evening no one has signed up but we can

18:42 ↗ ask the room yeah is there anyone in the

18:45 ↗ room that would like to speak this

18:46 ↗ evening

18:47 ↗ on

18:54 ↗ docket all right my name is Connie

18:57 ↗ Markin and I'm gonna start

18:59 ↗ I I sent you a few emails on this and so

19:03 ↗ I went back and watched the old meeting

19:06 ↗ and on this agenda there was no

19:09 ↗ reference to anyone that you discussed

19:11 ↗ it before so I had to hunt that down so

19:14 ↗ it's very hard for the community to try

19:16 ↗ to track everything unless it is

19:19 ↗ presented me I'm crazy so I'll track it

19:22 ↗ anyway but um having been through these

19:25 ↗ comprehensive plan updates year after

19:28 ↗ year for I don't know 28 years or

19:30 ↗ something like that they're uh in the

19:33 ↗ last maybe five years they refined the

19:37 ↗ criteria so the idea is that each of

19:41 ↗ those items would go down and they would

19:44 ↗ show you how that fit the criteria they

19:48 ↗ wouldn't just say it fits they would say

19:51 ↗ why they say it fits so that you can

19:55 ↗ understand why the decision is being

19:56 ↗ made and so uh we're talking about this

20:00 ↗ idea of dropping Zoning for Community

20:04 ↗ facilities I did reach out to the parks

20:07 ↗ director and he had no idea that this

20:09 ↗ was happening and there's been no

20:11 ↗ particular discussion of what you're

20:13 ↗ going to be doing with Parks because

20:15 ↗ parks are a community facility so it

20:17 ↗ sort of freaks me out that they would

20:19 ↗ just want to drop the parks zoning it

20:22 ↗ turns out that when you drop the zoning

20:24 ↗ it's going to the um least intense

20:29 ↗ zoning that is

20:31 ↗ adjacent but those are details for the

20:34 ↗ future today is do we put this on the

20:37 ↗ dock and there were the four can I have

20:40 ↗ the four up there

20:43 ↗ again and one of those was public

20:45 ↗ benefit and so right now in the code the

20:49 ↗ reason for having Community facility

20:51 ↗ zones is to provide public benefits on

20:55 ↗ publicly owned property or privately

20:57 ↗ owned property that serves a similar

20:59 ↗ function blah blah there's a little bit

21:02 ↗ more these lands are a limited resource

21:04 ↗ and careful consideration should be

21:06 ↗ given is to their best use for the

21:08 ↗ benefit of the community so this is the

21:12 ↗ thing they want to

21:14 ↗ eliminate and they call this zone for

21:18 ↗ the public

21:19 ↗ benefit so without some sort of argument

21:23 ↗ it seems like they cannot also then

21:25 ↗ Proclaim that it is for the public

21:28 ↗ benefit that you get rid of the

21:33 ↗ Zone I I think that's reasonably clear

21:37 ↗ now they didn't provide you with this

21:40 ↗ information so that you could ask

21:43 ↗ questions about it I think I sent you a

21:45 ↗ link but

21:47 ↗ um

21:49 ↗ so I don't think it fits the criteria of

21:52 ↗ of public benefit I think if anything it

21:56 ↗ loosens the ability for the public to be

21:58 ↗ bble to guard its public land which it

22:01 ↗ owns and it allows the city and the

22:04 ↗ schools and potentially the parks that

22:08 ↗ we don't know to be able to uh to have

22:12 ↗ to go through a lesser process in order

22:14 ↗ to move the publicly owned lands around

22:17 ↗ if they wanted to change it in a code

22:20 ↗ because they want to be able to divest

22:22 ↗ themselves of some land I think that

22:25 ↗ that's fine you can have that

22:26 ↗ conversation I don't think it needs to

22:28 ↗ be an

22:29 ↗ overarching zoning

22:31 ↗ change um then let's go back to the oh

22:35 ↗ we never went to the slide that I asked

22:38 ↗ for a little bit

22:53 ↗ ago anyway so state law indicates very

22:59 ↗ specific things and I'm not going to go

23:00 ↗ into the whole thing but this is all the

23:02 ↗ middle housing stuff where uh the land

23:04 ↗ on single family units is supposed to be

23:06 ↗ up Zone to two uh units per lot adus

23:11 ↗ have a bunch of stuff and then things

23:13 ↗ that are around Transit centers get more

23:16 ↗ density with or without parking so that

23:20 ↗ is the state law there is no state law

23:23 ↗ saying that you need to

23:26 ↗ change the oh

23:31 ↗ I think that was the wrong slide it was

23:32 ↗ the what you were changing the

23:37 ↗ um for the missing middle

23:41 ↗ housing you're just changing a title so

23:44 ↗ what this is doing is this is not

23:46 ↗ allowing the public topic

23:50 ↗ of there you go change the name of

23:53 ↗ single family zones to a new residential

23:55 ↗ Zone that more accurately describes the

23:59 ↗ allowed

24:01 ↗ uses so what this is doing is this is

24:05 ↗ not saying that we are changing the

24:07 ↗ allowed

24:14 ↗ uses since we had some technical issues

24:17 ↗ please Connie keep going for a little

24:18 ↗ bit

24:21 ↗ longer okay um what the zoning what this

24:27 ↗ zoning should talk about is the up Zone

24:31 ↗ from one to two units in the on the

24:34 ↗ single family lots and how you may have

24:38 ↗ to your solution may be to change the

24:40 ↗ name but the actual practice is we are

24:43 ↗ basically doing an up Zone in our town

24:47 ↗ right and that this is obus skates that

24:50 ↗ for the community he to understand what

24:53 ↗ is happening so your entire conversation

24:56 ↗ is going to be about changing a name in

24:58 ↗ instead of the up Zone and I don't think

25:01 ↗ that's right I don't think that's fair

25:02 ↗ to the community uh it's too opaque uh

25:06 ↗ thank

25:11 ↗ you all right thank you is there anyone

25:14 ↗ else in the room that would like to

25:15 ↗ speak on this particular

25:20 ↗ subject is there anyone virtually would

25:23 ↗ like to speak this particular subject no

25:27 ↗ chair okay well thank you

25:29 ↗ Connie um if that is all our speakers we

25:34 ↗ will close the public hearing at

25:36 ↗ 656 p.m. now there is a formal action

25:40 ↗ requested for us in order to debate this

25:42 ↗ so would someone like to make a

25:46 ↗ motion Vice chair

25:48 ↗ Patterson uh thank you chair I would

25:50 ↗ like to move to recommend approval of

25:52 ↗ the docket of proposed isqua

25:54 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments as

25:57 ↗ presented uh we have a

26:00 ↗ second I would like to Second Great

26:03 ↗ thank you commissioner zacharov all

26:06 ↗ right

26:07 ↗ so feel free um now that it's we've made

26:11 ↗ the motion we are open up for

26:23 ↗ debate Mass we have a question of Cl

26:26 ↗ clarification all we're doing is saying

26:28 ↗ these are the things that we're going to

26:29 ↗ review and go through right and then

26:32 ↗ we're going to go through the details in

26:34 ↗ future meetings especially as you

26:36 ↗ mentioned Stephen like what's

26:38 ↗ designation now and what's the proposed

26:40 ↗ and we'll go through each one of those

26:42 ↗ and have a fruitful discussion on that

26:45 ↗ before goes any further is that correct

26:46 ↗ yeah commissioner CR yes that's correct

26:48 ↗ the it's required by state law for the

26:50 ↗ docket to be approved before we even

26:52 ↗ start doing is agree on a list to disc

26:55 ↗ corre and again to Steven's Point the

26:57 ↗ idea is if once we make the

26:59 ↗ recommendation Council okays it then it

27:01 ↗ comes back then we're allowed to use

27:02 ↗ staff and resources to actually have a

27:04 ↗ further discussion so digging deeper on

27:07 ↗ all those things correct really the only

27:08 ↗ thing we can do here is this is the

27:10 ↗ docket that's been approved as far as

27:12 ↗ Council the bar obviously we're getting

27:14 ↗ a public hearing about it really my

27:17 ↗ understanding has always been is you can

27:20 ↗ recommend you make changes or subtract

27:24 ↗ that you cannot

27:26 ↗ add add

27:29 ↗ things this is the docket so again if

27:32 ↗ you feel like there's something that we

27:33 ↗ need to tell to the city council you

27:36 ↗ know a concern you may have that's

27:37 ↗ legitimate if you think something should

27:39 ↗ be wiped out that's legitimate but you

27:41 ↗ can't take subject hey we need to put

27:43 ↗ this on the

27:44 ↗ dock that is what we're doing right now

28:21 ↗ yeah you don't need to feel rushed if

28:23 ↗ everybody's just you know yeah I'll was

28:25 ↗ make a general comment of sure uh just

28:27 ↗ the kind piggy back off what

28:28 ↗ commissioner Crasher says I assume I'm

28:30 ↗ going to have a lot of questions a lot

28:32 ↗ of discussion at a later time but I

28:33 ↗ think in general with these topics in

28:35 ↗ terms of uh aligning on on covering

28:38 ↗ these further throughout the year um I

28:41 ↗ mean I think I think it makes sense at

28:43 ↗ this point for me personally um I have

28:45 ↗ no kind of deliberation debate on these

28:49 ↗ topics at this time perfectly legitimate

28:51 ↗ um Vice chair Patterson and that's fine

28:55 ↗ again this is just uh opening it up so

28:57 ↗ we can use St resources to continue that

29:00 ↗ discussion unless you see something

29:02 ↗ glaring that the council should know

29:04 ↗ about that really is is taking this off

29:07 ↗ for the

29:12 ↗ year and again you guys you don't have

29:15 ↗ to rush out the door you take a few

29:17 ↗ minutes I'm perfectly fine with that

29:53 ↗ anyone in

29:54 ↗ still trying

29:56 ↗ to do do a little research or we just

29:59 ↗ want to kind of round robin this

30:01 ↗ everybody

30:02 ↗ is I mean again I I don't have many

30:05 ↗ concerns about this I mean I think one

30:06 ↗ of the comments this evening is kind of

30:08 ↗ interesting about the land use but again

30:09 ↗ that has nothing to pertain with talk

30:12 ↗ that'll be a question for staff a little

30:13 ↗ later but otherwise um with what we have

30:17 ↗ in front of us the information we have

30:19 ↗ in front of us let's start with

30:21 ↗ commissioner

30:24 ↗ K well from your explanation of it you

30:27 ↗ know where just approving the docket

30:29 ↗ we're just talking about what we're

30:30 ↗ going to talk about and not getting in

30:33 ↗ the nitty-gritty of the details or

30:35 ↗ approving any of these changes at this

30:38 ↗ point we're just saying this is what

30:40 ↗ we'll discuss this year we'll get into

30:42 ↗ all those details later so I mean I

30:44 ↗ think some good points have been brought

30:46 ↗ up that we'll we will want to discuss in

30:49 ↗ detail when we get into these topics um

30:52 ↗ but to the extent this is just a Ducket

30:54 ↗ of what we're going to talk about

30:58 ↗ yeah I mean staff stop me if I'm wrong I

31:00 ↗ mean that's always been my understanding

31:01 ↗ is again this is just the approval

31:03 ↗ process we can

31:06 ↗ talkless there's something glaring that

31:08 ↗ you want to mitigate or take

31:10 ↗ out uh commissioner

31:13 ↗ zakro I agree at this point I'm looking

31:15 ↗ forward to the fruitful discussion

31:17 ↗ through the year so great topic thank

31:20 ↗ you misser crass I think my question

31:24 ↗ summarized mine it's like this is just

31:26 ↗ approving a list that we're going to

31:27 ↗ talk about so it's a pretty low bar um

31:30 ↗ and we probably spent more time on it

31:31 ↗ than I was expecting I'm good with it

31:34 ↗ fair enough VI Patterson uh yeah no

31:37 ↗ further comment from from what I stated

31:39 ↗ earlier okay I have no concerns with the

31:42 ↗ docket

31:43 ↗ um so having said

31:53 ↗ that main motion is to recommend the

31:56 ↗ approval for the proposed periodic

31:58 ↗ amendments to the comprehensive plan as

32:01 ↗ presented all in favor say I

32:06 ↗ I that is

32:10 ↗ unanimous uh Stephen do you have

32:12 ↗ anything more that you need from

32:14 ↗ us no I have everything I need thank you

32:17 ↗ okay thank you Stephen we're going to

32:19 ↗ move on to the next item on the agenda

32:22 ↗ which is regular

32:23 ↗ business and this evening we are going

32:26 ↗ to be reviewing the co living housing

32:28 ↗ code Amendment Kristen Leon the

32:31 ↗ aforementioned Kristen Leon will be

32:32 ↗ presenting on this topic uh so Kristen

32:35 ↗ when you are ready please go

32:54 ↗ ahead our principal planning

33:01 ↗ hey hi Kristen Leon good to see you

33:04 ↗ all um with the community Planning and

33:07 ↗ Development depart development

33:08 ↗ department and yes tonight we're going

33:09 ↗ to talk about yet another state bill um

33:12 ↗ regarding housing that was introduced in

33:15 ↗ 2024 was passed in

33:17 ↗ 2024 it needs to be we need to be

33:19 ↗ compliant with the bill by December 31st

33:22 ↗ of

33:23 ↗ 2025 and it's for co-living so our

33:25 ↗ purpose tonight is just to introduce it

33:28 ↗ to you get any feedback from you and um

33:32 ↗ we'll come back later with some proposed

33:35 ↗ amendments so our question for you

33:37 ↗ tonight as I sort of just mentioned is

33:39 ↗ are there any other standards that

33:40 ↗ should be

33:41 ↗ considered so what is co- living so co-

33:46 ↗ living is defined it it's a residential

33:49 ↗ development it can have mixed juice at

33:51 ↗ the bottom it can't have retail or

33:53 ↗ something at the bottom depending on the

33:55 ↗ type it has sleeping units that are

33:57 ↗ independently rented and

34:00 ↗ lockable none of these are owned by the

34:02 ↗ way these these are all rental

34:04 ↗ properties uh they provide living and

34:05 ↗ sleeping space and they can they'll I

34:09 ↗ either have shared kitchen and living

34:11 ↗ facilities or in some cases such as

34:13 ↗ micro units they might have kitchenet in

34:15 ↗ their individual

34:25 ↗ unit okay um sorry

34:28 ↗ so this is an example of a uh single

34:32 ↗ room

34:33 ↗ occupancy and it's a house that has been

34:35 ↗ converted and it has as you can see from

34:38 ↗ the floor plan Living Spaces in the

34:39 ↗ center and bedrooms all around they do

34:42 ↗ have shared baths in this facility and

34:45 ↗ they all share the kitchen that's one

34:47 ↗ example another example would be micro

34:49 ↗ units which uh some of you were here

34:51 ↗ when we approved micro units as a use in

34:53 ↗ the city right um and these as shown in

34:57 ↗ this picture have kitchen Nets inside

35:00 ↗ the units but there are also some in

35:02 ↗ these same buildings um that do not so

35:05 ↗ that's why some do some don't but they

35:07 ↗ all have some shared shared amenities so

35:10 ↗ where does this get us on the housing

35:11 ↗ Continuum these are not units that would

35:14 ↗ be subsidized they would not have

35:15 ↗ covenants tied to them they are

35:17 ↗ typically market rate rental units that

35:20 ↗ are out

35:22 ↗ there so the house bill that's

35:24 ↗ introduced is House Bill 1998

35:27 ↗ and it says that we must allow co-

35:29 ↗ living housing in zones that allow for

35:31 ↗ six units or more we cannot have

35:36 ↗ development or design standards that are

35:37 ↗ more restrictive than the code require

35:40 ↗ off street parking within 1 half mile

35:42 ↗ walking distance of a major Transit stop

35:45 ↗ require more than 0.25 parking spaces

35:48 ↗ per sleeping unit require standards oops

35:51 ↗ I already said that more restricted than

35:53 ↗ the underlying Zone and treat a sleep uh

35:55 ↗ sleeping units

35:58 ↗ cannot be treated as more than one

36:00 ↗ quarter of a unit so if you have four

36:04 ↗ sleeping units that's the equivalent of

36:06 ↗ one unit that we've

36:09 ↗ gotten so here are some things that

36:11 ↗ we're

36:12 ↗ proposing co- living means residential

36:15 ↗ development with sleeping units that are

36:17 ↗ independently rented and lockable and

36:19 ↗ provide living in sleeping space and

36:21 ↗ we're proposing to break that up we

36:23 ↗ already have Micro units because micro

36:24 ↗ units can have kitchen Nets within them

36:27 ↗ right and their tensity tend to be a

36:29 ↗ little higher density whereas you can

36:31 ↗ also have the single room occupancies

36:33 ↗ that are sleeping units that are

36:35 ↗ individually rented and of course they

36:37 ↗ can lock their doors and provide living

36:39 ↗ and sleeping space but the residents all

36:41 ↗ share the facilities

36:44 ↗ inside so I said that they had to go in

36:46 ↗ all zones where six or more units

36:49 ↗ are allowed and that includes the zones

36:53 ↗ that are shown here Med all uh multif

36:56 ↗ family medium multif family High mixed

36:57 ↗ use residential

36:59 ↗ zones um Urban Village or Village

37:03 ↗ Residential and uh mixed

37:10 ↗ use the other thing they talked about I

37:12 ↗ mentioned was density so right now we

37:15 ↗ have single family estate that allows

37:17 ↗ for 1.24 dwelling units per acre or

37:21 ↗ single family serw that allows for 4.5

37:24 ↗ dwelling units per acre

37:29 ↗ but co-living arrangements are exempt

37:32 ↗ from this so a co- living building new

37:35 ↗ or converted located within a Zone with

37:37 ↗ six more units is exempt from density

37:39 ↗ standards established in this chapter a

37:41 ↗ sleeping unit is Co in co- living

37:44 ↗ housing may not be calculated as more

37:45 ↗ than one quarter of a dwelling unit for

37:47 ↗ purposes of calculating dwelling unit

37:49 ↗ density so if you have 24 sleeping units

37:52 ↗ that's just six units that will be

37:53 ↗ counted for our housing

37:55 ↗ goal and it's the same thing

37:58 ↗ here but keep in mind they all still

38:00 ↗ have to fit within the within the

38:01 ↗ building envelope that is that stated by

38:04 ↗ the under regulated by the underlining

38:07 ↗ zoning similar thing for parking parking

38:10 ↗ you cannot have more than 0.25 spaces

38:12 ↗ per sleeping unit so if you have four

38:14 ↗ units you're only required to have one

38:16 ↗ Park parking

38:18 ↗ space but parking also cannot be

38:20 ↗ required at all um within a half a mile

38:23 ↗ of all transit major Transit stops so

38:25 ↗ this map shows you in the orange P color

38:28 ↗ where that would

38:32 ↗ be so from here we're just going to take

38:34 ↗ your comments we will go back and refine

38:37 ↗ amendments we will have a second review

38:40 ↗ and the idea is that these would go to

38:42 ↗ the we would have a public hearing this

38:44 ↗ isn't quite right uh we would have a

38:46 ↗ public hearing with you all in Q2 and

38:49 ↗ then it would be take it to council to

38:50 ↗ the Planning Development environment

38:52 ↗ committee and then to City Council in Q2

38:54 ↗ as well for action

38:57 ↗ and again is just are there any other

38:59 ↗ standards that need to be considered any

39:01 ↗ questions that you all

39:07 ↗ have that's okay that's okay somebody's

39:10 ↗ got to be brave um thank you Kristen um

39:15 ↗ I'm trying to think I think it was the

39:16 ↗ joy that used to shoot out of the gate

39:18 ↗ there's always somebody there's always

39:20 ↗ somebody

39:21 ↗ John right so commissioner crass please

39:24 ↗ hi um couple quick questions um one one

39:28 ↗ I just don't understand and the other

39:29 ↗ one I'll ask you to go back to one of

39:30 ↗ the slides So when you say it's multiple

39:35 ↗ units account to one dwelling

39:38 ↗ unit why because there are there

39:42 ↗ individual units still and there's

39:45 ↗ people who are living there at least one

39:47 ↗ or two people so why would that only

39:49 ↗ count as a fraction it's typically going

39:51 ↗ to be one person it might be two people

39:53 ↗ but also it's because they're not I I

39:55 ↗ think the bill stepen might be to

39:57 ↗ correct me or mini but I think that part

39:59 ↗ of this has to do with the fact that

40:00 ↗ they don't have full kitchens they don't

40:03 ↗ have stoves and full kitchens therefore

40:05 ↗ it's not counted as a full living unit

40:07 ↗ like a studio apartment would be a full

40:09 ↗ living unit because it would have the

40:10 ↗ kitchen and the bathroom have all the

40:11 ↗ amenities within that space but in this

40:14 ↗ case these don't so they're not full

40:16 ↗ units it does definitely disincentivize

40:19 ↗ like if you're trying to get to a

40:20 ↗ certain number of units that you've

40:22 ↗ created you're only getting a quarter

40:24 ↗ credit for these things so right but

40:26 ↗ it's still more spaces for people to

40:28 ↗ live yeah I don't understand that it

40:29 ↗ just doesn't count so that was that was

40:31 ↗ thank you for the clarification sure can

40:32 ↗ you go back to the map that you overlaid

40:34 ↗ the H the the parking half mile yeah

40:36 ↗ because parking is always going to be

40:38 ↗ one that um people are concerned about

40:42 ↗ whether it's real or perceived questions

40:45 ↗ about it so the

40:48 ↗ colors before I get to the yellow

40:49 ↗ circles the colors are the ones where

40:51 ↗ this would be allowed and then the

40:54 ↗ yellow

40:55 ↗ circles are the ones where the transit

40:57 ↗ is is that am I correct correct okay so

41:00 ↗ really it's only the overlap so the the

41:03 ↗ two yellow circles on the right up on

41:05 ↗ those don't have any that doesn't really

41:07 ↗ matter really only it's about

41:10 ↗ the the two places towards the bottom

41:14 ↗ the bottom there so Oldtown would be

41:16 ↗ affected uh this mostly the southern

41:19 ↗ part of central isqua okay but there is

41:22 ↗ and it's hard to see because the color I

41:23 ↗ chose but there are there's a Urban

41:26 ↗ Village

41:28 ↗ multif family and that would be affected

41:30 ↗ as

41:31 ↗ well and do you feel like the parking

41:33 ↗ thing's going to be kind of a big

41:37 ↗ discussion it it always is

41:39 ↗ okay

41:41 ↗ right but it doesn't but it seems like

41:43 ↗ the with the um the the um pinkish color

41:50 ↗ I'm not sure where that is salmon color

41:53 ↗ thank you um that's outside of that so

41:56 ↗ then that would be not part of the that

41:59 ↗ parking discussion correct uh right part

42:02 ↗ of part of it is just a little tiny

42:03 ↗ piece of it is but but correct

42:09 ↗ okay commissioner

42:11 ↗ zacharov thank you is there any

42:13 ↗ requirements for the minimum of square

42:15 ↗ footage per this unit or per person

42:18 ↗ living there no in fact they've said we

42:20 ↗ cannot put minimum minimum sizes on

42:23 ↗ it oh wait I'm reverse maximum sizes

42:27 ↗ um no the building code has minimum

42:30 ↗ sizes that they that they can't fall

42:33 ↗ below

42:35 ↗ um yeah I I think they put a minimum

42:38 ↗ size in the bill when it was sent out

42:40 ↗ but it was the same as the building code

42:41 ↗ it's like 170 or 190 square feet okay

42:45 ↗ for just the room Studios can't go below

42:48 ↗ I can't I shouldn't brought that up

42:49 ↗ because I can't remember now think 400

42:51 ↗ but it was either 170 or 190 square feet

42:53 ↗ which is the building code okay thank

42:55 ↗ you you're welcome

42:59 ↗ let me quickly oh commissioner

43:02 ↗ Kennedy Vice

43:04 ↗ chair commissioner I just love this

43:07 ↗ stuff I have a lot of questions um do

43:09 ↗ you

43:10 ↗ foresee this being predominantly new

43:13 ↗ build or conversion of existing

43:17 ↗ buildings um because I am

43:20 ↗ curious friend from the building group

43:22 ↗ is gone but I was curious if this is

43:24 ↗ like a desirable thing have you heard

43:26 ↗ from the developers wanting to build

43:28 ↗ these or do you feel like it's more the

43:30 ↗ old houses that have lots of bedrooms

43:31 ↗ that are going to convert into this it

43:33 ↗ depends micro units are going to be new

43:35 ↗ builds because that's that's sort of a

43:37 ↗ new thing that's come around I wasn't I

43:39 ↗ was talking about the other one the

43:41 ↗ about the sro's the single room

43:42 ↗ occupancy yeah um I think those would

43:45 ↗ mostly be

43:46 ↗ conversions yeah it's it's happened

43:48 ↗ around town in a few places you know

43:50 ↗ without us going um it's almost like

43:53 ↗ college campuses where when my kids were

43:55 ↗ in school you know these guys would

43:57 ↗ carve up these houses and make the

44:00 ↗ bedroom smaller and charge $1,200 a room

44:03 ↗ and um but it's mostly probably older

44:05 ↗ houses that are going to get carved up

44:07 ↗ or do you see this in other

44:08 ↗ neighborhoods of um I you know we've

44:11 ↗ seen some through come through uh

44:12 ↗ Regional Coalition for housing that are

44:14 ↗ sort of mid-century houses but I haven't

44:17 ↗ seen anything much older than that

44:21 ↗ okay can you explain to me how much how

44:24 ↗ different this is from like a hostel

44:26 ↗ that's I'm picturing I mean that well

44:29 ↗ not a frat house but I just I think of

44:31 ↗ like I think of like when I traveled I

44:33 ↗ mean it it literally is like a hostel I

44:34 ↗ mean

44:35 ↗ that oh yeah hustles are

44:38 ↗ great but I was much younger but yeah

44:41 ↗ not anymore so actually that's a really

44:44 ↗ good question and I'm trying to look

44:46 ↗ into that because it says that they um

44:50 ↗ you know the the people can't people

44:52 ↗ have to stay there for like at least 30

44:54 ↗ days or something like that but it is a

44:56 ↗ still

44:58 ↗ that's something I'm am going to look

44:59 ↗ into yes so good question

45:06 ↗ yes sure and then would there be any

45:09 ↗ covenants on things like um you know

45:12 ↗ people turning it into a bed and

45:13 ↗ breakfast or things like that I know bed

45:14 ↗ and breakfast is typically a weekend or

45:16 ↗ something to that effect but I mean

45:18 ↗ could somebody sit there and Flip Flip

45:21 ↗ bedrooms I mean as long as they just

45:22 ↗ comply with the 30

45:25 ↗ days wow um I'll look into it okay and

45:29 ↗ you know honestly there's no way for us

45:31 ↗ to you know enforce and make sure that

45:33 ↗ those same people aren't switching rooms

45:35 ↗ you know but leases I believe are

45:37 ↗ required so I I'll look okay I'll

45:41 ↗ look C is qual even half

45:44 ↗ hostiles not that I'm aware of one of

45:48 ↗ those um okay

45:58 ↗ got to give some Christ some feedback

46:00 ↗ on commissioner

46:03 ↗ Kennedy well I guess my read of this and

46:06 ↗ I did actually click into the bill is

46:10 ↗ that we're just meeting State Standards

46:12 ↗ now we have to change our own local code

46:14 ↗ to meet State Standards we can talk

46:16 ↗ about this all we

46:18 ↗ want but we have to meet change our own

46:20 ↗ local code to meet stand state standards

46:21 ↗ and that's what we're doing and that's

46:23 ↗ what we're doing there's not a lot of

46:25 ↗ debate we had

46:27 ↗ yeah really so that's why I sort of tend

46:30 ↗ to be quiet I'm like well we have to

46:32 ↗ update our code

46:34 ↗ and no clearly the last couple years

46:36 ↗ there's push from Olympia yes build up

46:41 ↗ housing build up density so this where

46:42 ↗ all a lot of these bills are

46:45 ↗ coming big part

46:49 ↗ of I mean what would you really be

46:51 ↗ looking for Krist I mean what to call it

46:54 ↗ what to name it I mean

46:57 ↗ well I remember on the property type

46:58 ↗ thing I don't

47:01 ↗ know right right I mean it is like you

47:03 ↗ said it's coming into compliance was

47:05 ↗ something that uh again not crying but

47:07 ↗ just oia seems to usurp more of our

47:10 ↗ City's zoning abilities you know well

47:13 ↗ but you you know you did ask about the

47:14 ↗ 30 days and maybe there's something that

47:16 ↗ we can put in code it has to be

47:20 ↗ enforceable

47:21 ↗ so but it's a very good question because

47:24 ↗ otherwise these turn like if you go to

47:25 ↗ udub You're GNA have

47:27 ↗ you know houses of $1,000 a room and you

47:31 ↗ know people are going to go buy some of

47:33 ↗ these old houses and do that quick

47:35 ↗ question though can you what are the

47:36 ↗ things we are allowed to do as levers

47:38 ↗ can you instead of say 30 days it needs

47:40 ↗ to be 90 days or or can you have a

47:42 ↗ different set of lease requirements that

47:45 ↗ would then I'm talking about not micro

47:48 ↗ units I'm talking about the single

47:49 ↗ because I could

47:50 ↗ see some bad behavior potentially

47:53 ↗ happening um on on some this if someone

47:57 ↗ who has a big property now instead of me

47:59 ↗ barely able to make it I'm just going to

48:01 ↗ rent it out to a bunch of people and um

48:04 ↗ well I think that's why they say it has

48:05 ↗ to be a 30-day well 30 is pretty short

48:08 ↗ still I wasn't sure dude can you make it

48:10 ↗ longer than that that's what I need to

48:11 ↗ look into okay I'm not sure it'd be good

48:13 ↗ to see what our what the levers are so

48:15 ↗ we can understand how how we do the

48:17 ↗ right thing to get the housing that we

48:20 ↗ need but not incent bad

48:23 ↗ behavior thanks

48:27 ↗ uh commissioner

48:29 ↗ zacharov thank you uh yeah I would also

48:31 ↗ support commissioner crass and my reason

48:34 ↗ for that is if we're trying to achieve

48:36 ↗ here to have more affordable housing and

48:39 ↗ not like shortterm units and not to make

48:43 ↗ it into like a

48:44 ↗ commercial thing um I also think it

48:47 ↗ should be at least 30 days but yes my

48:50 ↗ position would be if we can make it

48:52 ↗ longer like 90 days would be like much

48:56 ↗ better I think

48:57 ↗ for the goal for the purpose okay thank

48:59 ↗ you yeah know I appreciate that

49:00 ↗ commissioner Zach because again I would

49:03 ↗ agree I mean in a perfect role you have

49:04 ↗ a longer term lease even though these

49:06 ↗ are like your they co-living and I

49:08 ↗ understand some people enjoy it some

49:10 ↗ people just uh need the living space but

49:12 ↗ one month I mean that that seems like

49:14 ↗ you could invite a lot of trouble with

49:15 ↗ neighbors and other things like one

49:24 ↗ month that probably be my big concern

49:27 ↗ about

49:30 ↗ ite uh to meet might turn into a

49:33 ↗ situation when someone is coming for

49:34 ↗ like a week or two weeks but it's

49:36 ↗ cheaper to rent for a month so they just

49:39 ↗ temporary here they renting a coliving

49:42 ↗ space for a month but they only here for

49:44 ↗ the purpose of assurance say yeah the

49:47 ↗ owner makes money that's good but that

49:48 ↗ not doesn't solve the problem the

49:51 ↗ problem of uh housing at all it's just a

49:55 ↗ turns into tell kindness I think the

49:58 ↗ idea is trying to solve housing they're

50:00 ↗ hoping people will stay longer than a

50:01 ↗ month it's just minimum but uh yeah I I

50:04 ↗ have you seen is this clearly somebody

50:08 ↗ thought this was a good idea but uh is

50:10 ↗ there a big demand for

50:13 ↗ this I don't know I've seen it I've seen

50:15 ↗ it in Seattle even not not close to udub

50:19 ↗ uh you know I've seen it in other places

50:21 ↗ I know other people who have lived in

50:23 ↗ situations like this students who

50:24 ↗ graduate need a place to live I did it

50:27 ↗ um you know

50:29 ↗ so I think there is a a demand maybe not

50:33 ↗ huge but it's

50:36 ↗ there just trying to think of that big

50:38 ↗ college we have here in

50:40 ↗ Isa commissioner Zach thank you yeah

50:43 ↗ that would be demand because I just had

50:45 ↗ one of my students renting a very small

50:48 ↗ Studio unit in Redmond it's a tiny tiny

50:52 ↗ literally like it's I think 300

50:55 ↗ something square feet so and it's a

50:58 ↗ 25-year-old guy so yeah there there will

51:01 ↗ be lots of kids who would be interested

51:02 ↗ once we allow it I

51:08 ↗ think all right is there any other

51:11 ↗ questions concerns considerations for

51:18 ↗ Kristen Kristen is that enough to uh

51:20 ↗ jump off yes it is okay thank you yeah

51:24 ↗ thank you

51:31 ↗ all right well I want to thank uh

51:32 ↗ Stephen and Kristen for their

51:34 ↗ presentations this evening again thank

51:36 ↗ you for um the public who came in and

51:39 ↗ made comments and we are going to

51:42 ↗ move now into reports so we're looking

51:47 ↗ for city council update jar voice I just

51:51 ↗ have one quick update last week um staff

51:54 ↗ met with the council Committee of the

51:56 ↗ whole the discuss an upcoming project to

51:58 ↗ discuss uh to look

52:01 ↗ at a light rail station preferred option

52:05 ↗ and so that's going to be a project that

52:06 ↗ staff will be taken on this year um so

52:09 ↗ if you are wanting to learn more about

52:11 ↗ what that project will look like or how

52:13 ↗ that'll be coming to the commission

52:14 ↗ later this year you can take a look at

52:16 ↗ the materials or reach out to staff if

52:18 ↗ you have any

52:21 ↗ questions maybe Ste can you just email

52:24 ↗ it to us yes I can follow up with the

52:26 ↗ commission tonight just send you a link

52:27 ↗ to the materials yeah that'd be great

52:29 ↗ got some reading material for the

52:32 ↗ weekend okay um any other updates from

52:37 ↗ staff just one quick announcement um I

52:40 ↗ want to thank meline this is her last

52:42 ↗ meeting with planning policy commission

52:44 ↗ tonight she is g a position with the

52:46 ↗ city erser island and so I just want to

52:48 ↗ make that announcement and thank meline

52:50 ↗ for a lot of the work that she's done to

52:52 ↗ bring code amendments and a lot of the

52:54 ↗ packets for commission for C she started

52:56 ↗ with the city uh last

52:59 ↗ year yeah no I'll second that I know it

53:01 ↗ was an emotion but mateline has been

53:03 ↗ fantastic to have you as part of our

53:04 ↗ team and uh merer Island very lucky to

53:08 ↗ have you so again best of luck to you in

53:09 ↗ the future

53:11 ↗ and what

53:13 ↗ happen um anything else uh I guess we'll

53:17 ↗ move to our last item which is just

53:19 ↗ basically other business or

53:20 ↗ announcements anything for the good of

53:23 ↗ the order or

53:25 ↗ calendar um

53:27 ↗ nothing in the counter it's still a work

53:29 ↗ in progress as we finalize our project

53:31 ↗ schedules for the years and so I think

53:33 ↗ by the next meeting you'll have a better

53:34 ↗ idea for the next six months what topics

53:35 ↗ will be coming to the

53:37 ↗ commission yeah great I I see only

53:39 ↗ Kristen's name at the very end of the

53:41 ↗ year but I I see a lot of Steven times

53:43 ↗ so that's great we're happy about

53:45 ↗ that yeah I hope so okay um again

53:49 ↗ anything for the good of the order from

53:51 ↗ our commissioners

53:54 ↗ staff okay well was good being with you

53:57 ↗ all this evening and we will close the

54:01 ↗ commission and adjourn this meeting at

54:02 ↗ 7:24 p.m. thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Kennedy

Krass

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community P & D Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Madelyn Nelson, Planning Intern Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2