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

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

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER ZAKHAROFF.
Padua replied correct, required by State Law for the Docket to be approved before using staff and resources for further discussion.