Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 13, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 9, 2025

packet pp.3–8

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, January 9, 2025

Minutes of January 23, 2025

packet pp.9–12

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, January 23, 2025

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Land Use Code - Review of Proposed Clarifying Amendments (D)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.13–37

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 15:12 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will review, discuss, and provide feedback on the proposed 2025 clarifying annual updates to Title 18, Land Use Code.

Middle Housing & ADUs - Policy Discussion (D)

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.39–73

Topics: Housing

▶ Watch from 33:25 Open packet at p.39 ↗

Staff report:

Title 18 Middle Housing Regulations FEBRUARY 13, 2025| PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE

IMC 18.604 Parking - Proposed Amendments (D)

Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner · packet pp.75–133

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 51:38 Open packet at p.75 ↗

Staff report:

At the February 13th meeting the Planning Policy Commission will discuss proposed amendments to the Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) Title 18.604 Parking to comply with recent changes to state law concerning residential parking configurations, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and middle housing parking requirements.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.135–137

▶ Watch from 1:09:51 Open packet at p.135 ↗

1711 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ good evening everyone I'd like to call

0:11 ↗ the February 13th planning policy

0:12 ↗ Commission meeting to order it's

0:14 ↗ currently 6:30

0:17 ↗ p.m. how's everybody been everybody have

0:19 ↗ a good two

0:21 ↗ weeks everybody surviving the

0:24 ↗ snow all right today's meeting is a

0:27 ↗ hybrid meeting the planning policy

0:29 ↗ commission is in person that staff or

0:31 ↗ members of the public may be attending

0:33 ↗ virtually or in

0:34 ↗ person Stephen do we have a quorum this

0:37 ↗ evening chair voice you do have a quum

0:39 ↗ tonight okay start with a little bit of

0:42 ↗ house cleaning our first item of

0:44 ↗ business is to take action to approve

0:46 ↗ the minutes for the January PPC meetings

0:49 ↗ are there any corrections to the draft

0:51 ↗ January 9th minutes provided in the

0:52 ↗ agenda

0:56 ↗ packet looking for our virtual Vice

0:58 ↗ chair

1:00 ↗ that's a

1:01 ↗ negatory okay hearing none those me

1:04 ↗ those minutes are

1:05 ↗ approved are there any corrections to

1:07 ↗ the January 23rd minutes provided in the

1:10 ↗ agenda

1:13 ↗ packet all right hearing none those

1:16 ↗ minutes are

1:20 ↗ approved we're going to move on now to

1:23 ↗ public

1:24 ↗ comment and we don't have anyone in the

1:27 ↗ room this evening but I'm going to look

1:29 ↗ towards a man Anda do we have anyone uh

1:31 ↗ that signed up virtually no no one is

1:34 ↗ virtual at this

1:36 ↗ moment all

1:41 ↗ right okay well we will skip that

1:43 ↗ boilerplate and move on to our regular

1:46 ↗ business and our first item of regular

1:48 ↗ business is to review the annual land

1:51 ↗ use code clarifying updates Kristen

1:54 ↗ who's also joining us virtually this

1:56 ↗ evening will be presenting on this topic

2:00 ↗ and Kristen is our principal

2:02 ↗ planner

2:04 ↗ um yeah Kristen when you're ready

2:08 ↗ please okay I don't think you can see me

2:10 ↗ but that's okay um hi uh Kristen Leon

2:15 ↗ I'm a principal planner with

2:18 ↗ CPD and tonight yes we are going to talk

2:21 ↗ about uh review and discuss the proposed

2:23 ↗ Title 18 or land use code clarifying

2:27 ↗ amendments so as most most of you does

2:31 ↗ work there we go as most you

2:35 ↗ may we did a land use code update in

2:39 ↗ 2023 and in an effort to you know review

2:44 ↗ for quality control and best practices

2:46 ↗ as we as all the planners go through

2:50 ↗ the land use code and use it daily we

2:53 ↗ identify things that may not be right or

2:55 ↗ this could be better or oops this was

2:56 ↗ left out of the code from the last uh

2:59 ↗ from the last code was left out of the

3:01 ↗ update and so we just have a rolling

3:04 ↗ list of amendments that need to be made

3:06 ↗ so some of those are clarifying

3:07 ↗ correction amendments and the others are

3:11 ↗ policy amendments which are bigger

3:13 ↗ questions those are going to come to you

3:14 ↗ later tonight we're talking just about

3:16 ↗ the clarifying

3:17 ↗ amendments so our question for you

3:19 ↗ tonight is are the proposed amendments

3:21 ↗ clear or are additional changes needed

3:23 ↗ to add

3:27 ↗ Clarity I'm not going to go into detail

3:29 ↗ on all these most of them are pretty uh

3:32 ↗ straightforward um but I'm just I am

3:34 ↗ going to skim through them so that we

3:36 ↗ can you know if it comes up if you want

3:37 ↗ to stop me and ask me about it we can do

3:39 ↗ that so first of all we added a use for

3:42 ↗ a definition for temporary sign because

3:44 ↗ it's in the code but it's not

3:46 ↗ defined um second for application review

3:50 ↗ We clarified that the section only

3:51 ↗ applies to land use applications and not

3:53 ↗ all applications that come in we removed

3:57 ↗ the stence reference to Storm Rider

3:59 ↗ regulations because those are in Chapter

4:00 ↗ 13 and don't apply here they are not

4:03 ↗ vested until the um we so therefore we

4:06 ↗ clarified what is vested um with the

4:09 ↗ landies landy's permit

4:11 ↗ approval multif family zones and

4:13 ↗ warehouses so multif family zones we had

4:16 ↗ multif family high and multif family

4:18 ↗ medium were actually listed under

4:19 ↗ commercial so we shift those under R

4:21 ↗ shift those over under residential and

4:23 ↗ then warehouses were actually allowed

4:26 ↗ under Urban core intensive commercial

4:28 ↗ and intensive Commercial Center Central

4:29 ↗ isqua under the old code but they were

4:32 ↗ left off of the permuted uses table here

4:34 ↗ so we added those back

4:36 ↗ in floor area ratio there was some

4:40 ↗ confusion with applicants about the

4:41 ↗ difference between the base FL floor

4:43 ↗ area ratio and maximum floor area ratio

4:46 ↗ so we added language to clarify that

4:49 ↗ Oldtown multif family density

4:51 ↗ Corrections it it was weirdly placed and

4:54 ↗ the zones weren't quite lined up with

4:56 ↗ the correct development regulations so

4:58 ↗ we just straightened that out

5:00 ↗ uh we and for the next one we just had

5:03 ↗ to correct a reference uh to the correct

5:05 ↗ place in the code regarding uh building

5:08 ↗ to maximum

5:09 ↗ height

5:11 ↗ for um adult group homes and daycare

5:15 ↗ centers we require now that you provide

5:19 ↗ a proof of a state license prior to

5:21 ↗ issuance of a building permit or a

5:25 ↗ license with a business license with the

5:28 ↗ city landscap landscape plans and

5:31 ↗ permits we had a whole SE we have a

5:34 ↗ whole section on landscape plans in the

5:35 ↗ code but nobody really knew when they

5:37 ↗ were were required so we added

5:40 ↗ thresholds to that section to say this

5:42 ↗ is when a landscape plan is required we

5:44 ↗ also um added it to the levels of review

5:48 ↗ to show it's a level one review it

5:50 ↗ wasn't there and then there was language

5:53 ↗ in there that repeated what was in a

5:55 ↗ bond and instead we just replac that

5:57 ↗ with what the bond is for to know that

5:59 ↗ they're getting it landscape strip uh

6:02 ↗ landra landscape strip with Dimensions

6:05 ↗ were inconsistent with each other in two

6:07 ↗ sections so we made those consistent to

6:09 ↗ be five feet in both outdoor lighting

6:12 ↗ specifically for single family we

6:14 ↗ clarified when lighting is reviewed for

6:16 ↗ single family structures

6:20 ↗ we oh in the old in the old town design

6:24 ↗ standards it used to say um CBD or

6:28 ↗ cultural and business district and

6:31 ↗ multif family and it had a map

6:33 ↗ representing what that covered but

6:36 ↗ without the map it looked like multif

6:38 ↗ family applied to all of Oldtown but

6:40 ↗ it's

6:42 ↗ specifically M MF mot and

6:45 ↗ mfhs so we justl the words um used words

6:49 ↗ to replace the

6:51 ↗ map we're getting there um centralis qu

6:55 ↗ overlay map we replaced a map to reflect

6:57 ↗ the boundaries that were amended in 2018

7:00 ↗ Talis Architectural Review Committee got

7:03 ↗ that backwards Talis Architectural

7:05 ↗ Review Committee we added language um to

7:08 ↗ require that they make sure that their

7:10 ↗ plans and permits are reviewed by the by

7:12 ↗ The Arc before they get issued a permit

7:16 ↗ city um our list of names of plans that

7:19 ↗ have to be reviewed under sea was

7:21 ↗ incorrect the names have changed so we

7:23 ↗ just change those and lastly our

7:26 ↗ critical Cara critical area protection

7:29 ↗ area

7:30 ↗ language when we were doing our

7:33 ↗ Highpoint development agreement we

7:35 ↗ discovered that some of the model

7:36 ↗ language didn't work with the city and

7:38 ↗ that the level four boundary needed to

7:40 ↗ be changed so we adjusted those two

7:43 ↗ things so that's all I have um whoops

7:47 ↗ have the last slide that seemed to have

7:48 ↗ disappeared um I'll tell you what it is

7:51 ↗ so our next steps for this is that this

7:53 ↗ comes back to the planning policy

7:55 ↗ Commission on February 27th for a public

7:59 ↗ hearing and then it goes to the Planning

8:01 ↗ Development and environmental commiss

8:03 ↗ committee on April 1st and then it goes

8:07 ↗ to back to counsel for action on the

8:10 ↗ 21st of April that's all I

8:15 ↗ have all right well thank you

8:18 ↗ Kristen um Commissioners do we have any

8:24 ↗ questions or comments regarding

8:27 ↗ Kristen's presentation

8:30 ↗ commissioner

8:31 ↗ Kennedy commissioner Kennedy so Kristen

8:34 ↗ I guess just following up on my email

8:36 ↗ about the lighting language and I know

8:37 ↗ this wasn't my comment wasn't about

8:40 ↗ language that's being proposed to be

8:41 ↗ changed it was within the section that

8:44 ↗ there's some updates when I was reading

8:46 ↗ through it um because some of the

8:49 ↗ language was in the summary as well that

8:52 ↗ didn't make sense to

8:54 ↗ have um the carve

8:56 ↗ out in the paragraph at the top

9:00 ↗ and then have that language as the first

9:04 ↗ exception what

9:07 ↗ yes where where so it says

9:10 ↗ that off the top of my head and I could

9:13 ↗ look at it but it says that the actually

9:14 ↗ I will

9:15 ↗ look do you want to read

9:18 ↗ it sure if you could read it because I

9:20 ↗ don't have it right in front of me okay

9:22 ↗ so um in the lighting section under

9:25 ↗ exemptions the first paragraph says the

9:27 ↗ following outdoor lighting is exempt

9:29 ↗ from the standard standards outlined in

9:30 ↗ this chapter but may be subject to

9:32 ↗ regulation under federal law state law

9:34 ↗ or other chapters of is called Municipal

9:35 ↗ Code makes sense here the ex here are

9:38 ↗ the exceptions except if they can't be

9:40 ↗ because of other laws and then the first

9:43 ↗ bullet under the exemptions is lighting

9:46 ↗ required by local state or federal rule

9:48 ↗ regulation or

9:50 ↗ law it doesn't make sense to be on the

9:53 ↗ list of

9:56 ↗ exemptions so I'm just wondering how we

9:58 ↗ fix that

10:00 ↗ well so Stephen Stephen and I looked at

10:02 ↗ that and I don't know why we didn't

10:04 ↗ notice it before but we looked at it

10:05 ↗ yeah yeah that's that's really weird um

10:08 ↗ but what it is and maybe we can word it

10:11 ↗ better and if you all have ideas let us

10:13 ↗ know but it's saying that the lighting

10:15 ↗ that we require that the city

10:18 ↗ requires

10:21 ↗ um they have to meet other

10:24 ↗ regulations I I should be looking at it

10:27 ↗ but you have that weird situ situation

10:29 ↗ sometimes in which say maybe um at an

10:33 ↗ arena or maybe at a school some special

10:35 ↗ kind of emergency lighting is required

10:37 ↗ that typically we wouldn't want in the

10:39 ↗ city but the state requires it as a

10:41 ↗ health thing so then it has to be put in

10:45 ↗ because there are codes that supersede

10:47 ↗ ours you know so maybe the pet sound

10:50 ↗ energy has something um that they

10:52 ↗ require that we typically wouldn't um or

10:56 ↗ we wouldn't want it but they go no no no

10:57 ↗ you have to have it so there things that

10:59 ↗ supersede us and it is weird language um

11:02 ↗ or it's weirded it's worded oddly so if

11:05 ↗ you all have suggestions we would love

11:07 ↗ to hear them well it's not really odd

11:09 ↗ language it's odd that it's in there

11:12 ↗ twice the way it's tce the way it's set

11:15 ↗ up makes it look like because it looks

11:18 ↗ like the bullets are supposed to all be

11:19 ↗ the exemptions me we've already done the

11:22 ↗ carve out in the paragraph at the top

11:25 ↗ and then we've said here are the

11:26 ↗ exemptions and put in language that is

11:28 ↗ that same carve out lighting required by

11:31 ↗ local state or federal will that is the

11:34 ↗ carve out it can't be exempt if

11:37 ↗ something supersedes it which it says in

11:39 ↗ that paragraph at the top so either we

11:42 ↗ could either take the language out of

11:43 ↗ the paragraph at the top or take the

11:45 ↗ bullet out and you're still saying these

11:48 ↗ are the exemptions unless they're

11:49 ↗ superseded by other

11:53 ↗ regulations okay and I think that's the

11:55 ↗ thing is that it doesn't say unless

11:56 ↗ they're superseded by other regulations

11:58 ↗ so that may be our

12:00 ↗ well maybe that's what we need to say

12:02 ↗ yeah yeah so that that's a good idea and

12:04 ↗ we will look at that and see what we can

12:06 ↗ do because I I like the hoarding right

12:08 ↗ there okay anyway it just didn't re

12:12 ↗ correctly no that's great great catch

12:14 ↗ commissioner

12:15 ↗ Kennedy u commissioner crft I wasn't

12:18 ↗ first this time so

12:21 ↗ um so I think yeah that that was hiding

12:23 ↗ the lead they would say so I think that

12:25 ↗ that that summed it up well uh so I I

12:28 ↗ went through the packet and there's a

12:29 ↗ bunch of things about landscape I'm not

12:31 ↗ sure if we're going to talk more about

12:32 ↗ that or if this is the section I guess

12:34 ↗ my main question is some clarity around

12:37 ↗ is any of this new or is are there any

12:40 ↗ new requirements when it comes to

12:43 ↗ needing permits for landscaping that are

12:46 ↗ being introduced as part of this or is

12:47 ↗ this all exactly what it was before and

12:49 ↗ just cleaning up

12:51 ↗ language it's it's what it was before it

12:54 ↗ with the bonding like I said in that um

12:57 ↗ bonding language it didn't say that

13:00 ↗ bonds are required and whenn said

13:03 ↗ essentially it was saying the Lang

13:05 ↗ repeating the language that's in the

13:06 ↗ bonds so we updated that to say what the

13:09 ↗ bond is for and then and how how it

13:13 ↗ applies the rest of it is just

13:15 ↗ clarification if you submit for this you

13:18 ↗ are going to have to get a permit if you

13:19 ↗ submit for this you'll have to get a

13:21 ↗ permit and then the very first section

13:23 ↗ gives the thresholds because like I said

13:26 ↗ we had all these requirements for

13:27 ↗ landscape plans but no idea when we were

13:29 ↗ supposed to require people to do them so

13:31 ↗ now that's there okay so I'm just

13:33 ↗ looking at my notes I didn't bring my

13:35 ↗ computer but the especially when it

13:36 ↗ comes to like single family so there's

13:38 ↗ no new requirements on single family H

13:43 ↗ dwellings that getting needing to get

13:45 ↗ landscape plans I'm just trying to

13:47 ↗ understand the things that are you know

13:50 ↗ new requirements have a lot of interest

13:52 ↗ from from people to understand that so I

13:54 ↗ just want to just get clarity on

13:56 ↗ that no in fact uh new new individual

14:00 ↗ new single family residences are exempt

14:02 ↗ from

14:07 ↗ this great clarification commissioner

14:10 ↗ crft definitely want to make sure

14:11 ↗ everybody gets a chance commissioner

14:13 ↗ zacharov

14:15 ↗ anything okay any comments from

14:20 ↗ anyone this looks relatively

14:21 ↗ straightforward to me um yeah uh you

14:25 ↗ know Vice chair Patterson kind of looks

14:28 ↗ like he has like a mold on right now

14:30 ↗ it's interesting but I want to ask our

14:33 ↗ vice chair anything uh from you trying

14:36 ↗ out some new hairstyles uh um no nothing

14:39 ↗ for me I kind of agree with you Jason I

14:41 ↗ think um the changes look pretty

14:43 ↗ straightforward um as I think they're

14:47 ↗ anticipated to be so no no further

14:50 ↗ comments okay thank you um Kristen I

14:55 ↗ believe did you get everything you

14:56 ↗ needed again they look pretty

14:57 ↗ straightforward to me so I did thank you

15:01 ↗ okay and we'll we'll check out that

15:02 ↗ other the exemptions for lighting great

15:06 ↗ all right appreciate

15:08 ↗ it thank you so we're going to move on

15:12 ↗ to our second item of regular business

15:14 ↗ which is to discuss middle housing and

15:16 ↗ Adu policies Valerie Porter our

15:19 ↗ associate planner has returned to

15:22 ↗ present on this topic so Valerie when

15:24 ↗ you are ready please go ahead

15:36 ↗ thank you chair voice good uh good

15:38 ↗ evening

15:39 ↗ everyone all right so tonight I have two

15:43 ↗ um policy questions for you all the

15:44 ↗ first one is related to lot density it

15:47 ↗ should lot density be increased beyond

15:49 ↗ the state's requirement of two dwelling

15:51 ↗ units on one lot or allow four dwelling

15:54 ↗ units on one lot without the affordable

15:56 ↗ housing requirement the second question

15:59 ↗ related to Adu size and that should the

16:02 ↗ maximum size of AD accessory dwelling

16:04 ↗ units be increased from 1,000 square ft

16:06 ↗ to to um to 1,250 Square

16:11 ↗ fet so the first

16:14 ↗ question so State legislation um

16:17 ↗ outlines lot densities um under house

16:21 ↗ bill 1110 and it's based off the City's

16:23 ↗ population isqua falls into tier 2 and

16:26 ↗ so we are required to allow a

16:29 ↗ residential lot to construct two units

16:31 ↗ on one lot four units on one lot if that

16:35 ↗ lot is within quartermile walking

16:37 ↗ distance of a major Transit stop and

16:39 ↗ allow four dwelling units on one lot if

16:41 ↗ one unit will be set aside for

16:43 ↗ affordable

16:45 ↗ housing we're also the state legislation

16:47 ↗ also requires that the city allows six

16:50 ↗ or six of the nine midle housing types

16:52 ↗ to achieve lot density and here on the

16:54 ↗ screen I'm showing um the preliminary um

16:57 ↗ um building types that we've selected to

16:59 ↗ achieve this so that's the duplex

17:01 ↗ Triplex fourplex town home stack flats

17:04 ↗ and cottage

17:07 ↗ homes so here I'm showing a map of the

17:10 ↗ major Transit stops and um as again as

17:13 ↗ previously mentioned for um cities uh we

17:18 ↗ must allow four dwelling units um if a

17:20 ↗ lot is within a quarter mile walking

17:22 ↗ distance and there's a second

17:24 ↗ requirement if a lot is within a half

17:26 ↗ mile walking distance um we cannot

17:29 ↗ require on-site parking that doesn't

17:31 ↗ mean that a developer can't put on-site

17:34 ↗ parking we just cannot require on-site

17:36 ↗ parking and so um this map has probably

17:40 ↗ if you guys remember has changed

17:41 ↗ slightly and that's partly because there

17:43 ↗ are additional stops on this map and the

17:46 ↗ reason for that is because of how the

17:47 ↗ city or the state is defining um major

17:50 ↗ Transit stops um the state defines all

17:53 ↗ stops along a Sound Transit bus route as

17:56 ↗ a major Transit stop and therefore all

17:58 ↗ stops along routes 554 and 556 must

18:02 ↗ comply with this requirement the

18:04 ↗ administration does not agree with how

18:06 ↗ the state is defining major Transit

18:08 ↗ stops um because it has a very big

18:10 ↗ impact we're basically being required to

18:13 ↗ treat you know a buzz stop like a a

18:16 ↗ Transit Center or a light rail stop and

18:19 ↗ so um and we're having to allow for

18:22 ↗ greater density in areas where we

18:24 ↗ weren't planning to have that density

18:27 ↗ and so this has um a pretty big impact

18:29 ↗ on in lot density as well as parking

18:31 ↗ just because a lot of residents in isqua

18:33 ↗ still you know require or have a car and

18:36 ↗ so um say a developer comes in and

18:39 ↗ builds a a large development they may

18:41 ↗ not be required to provide parking and

18:43 ↗ so where is that Resident going to park

18:45 ↗ they'll likely park on the street if

18:47 ↗ there's on street parking but if there

18:49 ↗ on street parking is not available then

18:51 ↗ there is nowhere for them to park so the

18:53 ↗ administration is currently working with

18:55 ↗ decision makers to revise this

18:57 ↗ requirement but we wanted you to be

18:58 ↗ aware um of this as the project is

19:01 ↗ continuing to move

19:05 ↗ forward so last month staff um discussed

19:08 ↗ middle housing with um the PD um Council

19:12 ↗ committee and during that meeting

19:13 ↗ Council committee um questioned whether

19:15 ↗ the proposed amendments were fully

19:17 ↗ meeting the intent of House Bill 1110

19:19 ↗ and so they wanted to understand you

19:21 ↗ know if the uh we increased lot density

19:24 ↗ to four dwelling units on one lot what

19:26 ↗ would be some of the pros and the cons

19:28 ↗ so the administration explored the um

19:31 ↗ the option one which we were currently

19:33 ↗ or presently proposing and then four

19:35 ↗ dwelling units on one lot without the

19:37 ↗ affordable housing requirement the

19:39 ↗ administration um recommends option two

19:42 ↗ which is complying with state

19:44 ↗ requirements and with this option the

19:46 ↗ city is more likely to see more

19:48 ↗ accessory dwelling units constructed

19:51 ↗ because House Bill 1337 supersedes House

19:54 ↗ Bill 1110 again in previous meetings I

19:56 ↗ said these two bills don't really work

19:58 ↗ well together

19:59 ↗ so as a property owner you can construct

20:02 ↗ three accessory dwelling units instead

20:04 ↗ of two units which would most likely be

20:07 ↗ like a duplex and you have more housing

20:10 ↗ um building types you can either do

20:11 ↗ detached detached or internal with an

20:13 ↗ Adu so also with the affordable housing

20:17 ↗ requirement the city is more likely to

20:19 ↗ gain affordable um housing units which

20:21 ↗ we greatly need but on the other hand

20:23 ↗ the affordable housing um requirement

20:25 ↗ tends to discourage um that you know

20:27 ↗ it'll discourage development more than

20:30 ↗ that third unit and so that's also

20:32 ↗ something to keep in mind so with option

20:34 ↗ two Property Owners would be outright

20:37 ↗ allowed to construct four dwelling units

20:39 ↗ on one lot without having to provide an

20:41 ↗ affordable unit this option may result

20:44 ↗ in additional units for the city but it

20:47 ↗ we will not get affordable um housing

20:50 ↗ because if there's no requirement it's

20:52 ↗ less likely for someone to just

20:53 ↗ volunteer to do an affordable housing

20:55 ↗ project and so eliminating this

20:58 ↗ affordable housing requirement doesn't

20:59 ↗ quite align with the goals and policies

21:01 ↗ outlined in the city's comp plan and

21:04 ↗ also allowing this increased density

21:06 ↗ some can see this as an incentive and so

21:08 ↗ typically when the city you know does

21:11 ↗ these types of incentives there's a

21:12 ↗ public benefit we usually do um

21:15 ↗ affordable housing or like a community

21:17 ↗ space but with this we would not be um

21:19 ↗ requiring anything and then furthermore

21:22 ↗ um having four units on one lot is

21:25 ↗ really going to be a challenge for a lot

21:27 ↗ of um residential lots that are smaller

21:29 ↗ than 10,000 sare ft and right now we

21:32 ↗ don't have a a large stock of

21:34 ↗ residential lots that are um not

21:36 ↗ encumbered by critical areas that can

21:39 ↗ accommodate four units on one um on one

21:41 ↗ lot in addition to parking utilities

21:44 ↗ tree canopy coverage and all the other

21:51 ↗ requirements so also during the um pte

21:54 ↗ meeting there was a request for

21:56 ↗ feasibility analysis again we have these

21:58 ↗ requirements that we have to allow for

22:01 ↗ dwelling units on one lot if one one lot

22:03 ↗ is or one unit is Affordable but can we

22:06 ↗ actually get an affordable unit

22:07 ↗ constructed on the lot and so PD

22:10 ↗ requested feasibility feasibility

22:12 ↗ analysis and so to help us understand

22:15 ↗ you know can we actually get an

22:17 ↗ affordable unit we reached out to a

22:19 ↗ regional Coalition of housing Arch which

22:21 ↗ is our affordable housing partners and

22:24 ↗ they created a performa model for us so

22:26 ↗ the study evaluated isqua housing prices

22:29 ↗ land values estimated construction costs

22:32 ↗ and potential property for a variety of

22:34 ↗ scenarios State legislation requires an

22:36 ↗ affordable unit for ownership to be sold

22:38 ↗ at 80% um for or sold to households

22:41 ↗ making less than 80% of the area medium

22:43 ↗ income which this information is based

22:45 ↗ off of so next I'm going to walk you

22:48 ↗ through the performer model of the

22:51 ↗ preliminary analysis that Arch

22:53 ↗ provided so this first model

22:59 ↗ uh well first I want to show there each

23:00 ↗ of the um performa models are showing

23:03 ↗ three scenarios the first one is a

23:04 ↗ duplex so two units on one lot the third

23:08 ↗ or the second column is showing a

23:10 ↗ cottage Housing Development with four

23:12 ↗ units um all um and each bedroom is or

23:16 ↗ there are four bedrooms within the

23:18 ↗ cottage home development and then the

23:20 ↗ last column is showing um a town home

23:23 ↗ development with sorry one second four

23:27 ↗ um four development with um three

23:30 ↗ bedroom

23:31 ↗ homes all of these scenarios are being

23:34 ↗ constructed on a 10,000 ft lot and so

23:37 ↗ you'll see um under the First Column

23:39 ↗ with the duplex um if someone were to

23:42 ↗ construct a duplex this would not be a

23:44 ↗ profitable um scenario however it would

23:48 ↗ be with the cottage homes and the town

23:50 ↗ home

23:52 ↗ development so and this is being

23:55 ↗ determined Again by if you're looking at

23:57 ↗ the residual project process profit

23:58 ↗ which I've highlighted with these red

24:01 ↗ boxes so the data goes on to show how

24:03 ↗ market rate units would be sold for

24:06 ↗ compared to an affordable unit at 80%

24:09 ↗ Ami if the units were all at the same

24:12 ↗ size so that's this area under the first

24:15 ↗ affordable housing

24:17 ↗ policy if all units were the same size

24:19 ↗ the project would not generate enough

24:21 ↗ profit for an affordable unit to be

24:22 ↗ constructed on site and this is

24:24 ↗ determined by looking at the difference

24:27 ↗ per unit which is this area right over

24:30 ↗ here above the last gray box and

24:33 ↗ comparing that to the residual profit

24:35 ↗ price which is highlighted in red

24:37 ↗ currently the land use code has an

24:39 ↗ affordable housing requirement that

24:41 ↗ states that affordable units can be 10%

24:43 ↗ smaller than the market rate and smaller

24:46 ↗ depending on bedroom size so the

24:49 ↗ information under the second um

24:51 ↗ affordable housing policy that last

24:53 ↗ section um is showing the price of the

24:56 ↗ market rate unit um if it were were sold

24:59 ↗ at uh 10% smaller than the market rate

25:02 ↗ unit so if you look at the again the

25:04 ↗ difference per unit which I've had it

25:06 ↗ highlighted in red and you compare that

25:08 ↗ to the the residual profit per unit um

25:13 ↗ it's it's actually not profitable for an

25:16 ↗ affordable unit to be constructed in

25:18 ↗ this

25:27 ↗ scenario there we go okay so this next

25:30 ↗ slide is showing um the same data but

25:34 ↗ with a 20% unit reduction for the

25:37 ↗ affordable unit so again if we're

25:39 ↗ looking at that last section the

25:42 ↗ situation could result in affordable

25:44 ↗ unit with the cottage Home Development

25:46 ↗ again this is determined by looking at

25:48 ↗ the difference per unit line which I've

25:50 ↗ highlighted and comparing that to the

25:52 ↗ residual profit per unit which is lower

25:55 ↗ so because that number is lower then

25:57 ↗ we'll most likely get an affordable

26:02 ↗ unit all right and here is the third

26:05 ↗ situation so this data is showing a 37%

26:09 ↗ reduction for the affordable unit and

26:11 ↗ with this situation both the cottage

26:14 ↗ homes and the town home development um

26:16 ↗ would be able to get affordable unit

26:19 ↗ constructed on site if the Lots were

26:22 ↗ less than 10% so again they would have

26:24 ↗ to be at least 37% for the units to be

26:27 ↗ constructed on on site so want to before

26:31 ↗ I move on I want to make sure we

26:33 ↗ understood that are there any

26:37 ↗ questions so um thanks for the math Camp

26:41 ↗ um I did you when you look at the cost

26:45 ↗ per the price per square foot did you

26:47 ↗ keep it linear when you went to a

26:49 ↗ smaller unit or did you increase the

26:51 ↗ cost per square foot when you go to a

26:53 ↗ smaller unit because if you take out 37%

26:57 ↗ size of the unit

26:59 ↗ the cost the cost per square foot will

27:01 ↗ most likely go up instead of being

27:02 ↗ linear I do not believe so I think what

27:04 ↗ we did we just compared that 10% to the

27:07 ↗ um previous 80% so all the other

27:10 ↗ information to get to the um market rate

27:13 ↗ number stays the same so this is very

27:15 ↗ preliminary high level

27:17 ↗ data I mean I could take the I'll use an

27:20 ↗ example of the wrong glass anara the

27:23 ↗ middle one right so you went from 1750

27:28 ↗ square feet correct for a market price

27:31 ↗ of a mil 69,000 so have to figure out

27:34 ↗ what the cost per

27:35 ↗ square versus if you

27:39 ↗ did

27:40 ↗ 113 1,13 square feet to the market value

27:44 ↗ of six I just was curious if that was

27:46 ↗ kept linear if you made

27:49 ↗ I because you you build houses it's you

27:53 ↗ go to a smaller unit your price per foot

27:54 ↗ is going to be more expensive because

27:55 ↗ you have must of amortise it across

28:03 ↗ yes all right I'm gonna move

28:08 ↗ on yes okay please all right so the key

28:13 ↗ takeaways with this analysis is that

28:15 ↗ it's likely for an affordable unit to be

28:17 ↗ constructed on site if the lot is

28:19 ↗ smaller than the market rate unit and

28:21 ↗ then the second um second takeaway is

28:23 ↗ that constructing more units on a larger

28:25 ↗ lot has the potential to be more

28:26 ↗ profitable

28:30 ↗ so um again previously I mentioned um a

28:32 ↗ code requirement and so this is that

28:34 ↗ code requirement um that's showing um

28:38 ↗ this is the code requirement that we

28:40 ↗ require for bedroom sizes for affordable

28:42 ↗ units the perform a Model analyed A

28:44 ↗ Cottage Housing Development with four

28:46 ↗ bedroom units and So based off that

28:48 ↗ information the administration is

28:50 ↗ recommending revising the land use code

28:52 ↗ to add a requirement for a four bedroom

28:54 ↗ unit to allow for construction of

28:56 ↗ affordable unit so if this requirement

28:58 ↗ were not to be added to the code and a

29:00 ↗ say someone came in with a um project an

29:03 ↗ affordable housing project and one of

29:05 ↗ the units was four bedrooms and it

29:07 ↗ didn't meet one of these size

29:08 ↗ requirements we would tell them that

29:10 ↗ they had to then meet the 10%

29:11 ↗ requirement and then again the performal

29:14 ↗ mod shows that that is less likely to to

29:16 ↗ occur so staff is proposing or the

29:18 ↗ administration is proposing adding a um

29:22 ↗ a a size requirement for a four bedroom

29:26 ↗ unit and so we want to or then this to

29:29 ↗ see if the um if you guys agree with

29:31 ↗ this um proposed

29:33 ↗ change commissioner CR I'm sorry I can't

29:36 ↗ can't resist um I don't know if I've

29:39 ↗ ever seen a 12200 foot four-bedroom

29:42 ↗ place and is that even a feasible thing

29:45 ↗ to to have I mean you're it it it could

29:49 ↗ be like if I looked on Zillow when I see

29:51 ↗ any in King County you

29:55 ↗ probably Maybe not maybe but I just

29:58 ↗ wonder whe that's realist my point the

29:59 ↗ reason point is is are those you know

30:01 ↗ sure it's nice but is it is it a

30:02 ↗ realistic thing um to be able to do

30:05 ↗ because then with four bedrooms you're

30:07 ↗ going to have most likely not one

30:09 ↗ bathroom you at least have to have two

30:11 ↗ bathrooms or something like that right

30:14 ↗ so

30:15 ↗ um if it's realistic or not we don't

30:18 ↗ know I mean it's going to depend over

30:20 ↗ time but we feel like having a

30:22 ↗ requirement to give someone the option

30:24 ↗ is better than not having the

30:25 ↗ requirement because we want to be able

30:27 ↗ to try to get an able unit and how'd you

30:30 ↗ get the 12 what was the driver for 1,200

30:32 ↗ besides keeping them 681 it was

30:36 ↗ the so again for the cottage homes right

30:40 ↗ now at 80% you can see that the reduced

30:42 ↗ size is um 1,400 Square

30:45 ↗ ft and so if you go down um I'm going to

30:49 ↗ do a quick little switch this is the 37

30:52 ↗ and this is

30:53 ↗ 1,00

30:55 ↗ so so I hear what just saying so we did

30:59 ↗ work with Arch and these are the numbers

31:01 ↗ that they're proposing or that they're

31:03 ↗ recommending I I'd recommend we push

31:06 ↗ back and have them show us an example of

31:07 ↗ one that exists and see if that's even a

31:09 ↗ livable thing because I think it could

31:11 ↗ be something that you know they could

31:13 ↗ put on paper but it's not a realistic

31:15 ↗ okay so Steph M assistant planning

31:16 ↗ director um I present you my house is uh

31:19 ↗ large enough to have four bedrooms one

31:21 ↗ three4 bathrooms and uh it's tight but

31:24 ↗ it's workable and how many square feet

31:25 ↗ is it it's uh it's it's 1280 okay well

31:29 ↗ it's more than 11:03 so okay well

31:40 ↗ congrat right so before I move on to the

31:42 ↗ second question um is there any

31:44 ↗ additional questions regarding um lot

31:48 ↗ density commissioner zacharov thank you

31:51 ↗ I would like to make a comment on the

31:53 ↗ 1200 square ft uh four bedroom unit um

31:57 ↗ is Someone who lived in Condos for their

32:00 ↗ whole life it is possible it's tight but

32:03 ↗ it's possible so yeah I'm for

32:08 ↗ it I'm just thinking in my mother's

32:10 ↗ house in Costa Rica yeah she she had

32:12 ↗ about eight brothers and sisters it's

32:14 ↗ doable it's tough but it's

32:17 ↗ doable uh any other questions

32:22 ↗ comments All right you want to lead off

32:25 ↗ with qu your questions Valerie

32:28 ↗ so yes this first question is related to

32:30 ↗ lot density so should the lot density

32:33 ↗ remain um or should lot density um be

32:37 ↗ increased beyond the state's requirement

32:38 ↗ of two dwelling units on one lot or

32:40 ↗ allow four dwelling units on one lot

32:42 ↗ without the affordable housing

32:45 ↗ requirement commissioner zacharov thank

32:47 ↗ you question so the States state

32:50 ↗ requirement is option one right so corre

32:53 ↗ and we want to think if we want to

32:56 ↗ increase it correct okay so we're

32:58 ↗ required to implement option one but we

33:02 ↗ we can always go above and beyond into

33:03 ↗ option two okay thank you Comm Mr

33:07 ↗ grasp uh tell me about your thinking of

33:10 ↗ why number two was proposed because it

33:12 ↗ had a lot of

33:14 ↗ cons number one was a recommendation

33:16 ↗ right no it's a no number two was a

33:17 ↗ recommendation he's right which which

33:20 ↗ kind of threw me because I thought

33:21 ↗ number one was the would have been the

33:22 ↗ recommendation so I was surprised to see

33:24 ↗ proposed so oh so um the administration

33:28 ↗ is recommending option number one um

33:30 ↗ option

33:31 ↗ prop I was trying to be consistent that

33:35 ↗ showing that the requirement for option

33:37 ↗ two is four dwelling units on one lot um

33:40 ↗ with no affordable requirement I thought

33:42 ↗ two I thought option two was your

33:44 ↗ proposal so I have no further

33:47 ↗ questions no further questions your

33:52 ↗ honor okay um time to give Valerie some

33:56 ↗ feedback commissioners

33:58 ↗ commiss

33:59 ↗ zacharov um at this time my personal

34:03 ↗ opinion is that option two is uh it's

34:06 ↗ not good time for it cuz yeah it doesn't

34:08 ↗ it

34:09 ↗ gives way more cons than pros and yeah

34:13 ↗ it although it will grow the um

34:17 ↗ opportunities for people to own or rent

34:19 ↗ here but it's kind of a little bit not

34:22 ↗ for a good reason and I'm all for

34:24 ↗ increasing the places for people to

34:27 ↗ leave but but it also should be in a

34:29 ↗ kind of like a right way so I don't see

34:32 ↗ it in this proposal thank

34:35 ↗ you great thank you commissioner

34:40 ↗ zakro anyone else like to

34:47 ↗ comment just want to make sure I don't

34:49 ↗ step anyone yeah I would agree that

34:51 ↗ option one seems the more viable one

34:53 ↗ especially after you mentioned the

34:54 ↗ transit issue um which still sounds like

34:57 ↗ the city is working out with power

35:00 ↗ Brokers um from Olympia wherever they

35:03 ↗ are whoever is King County Olympia but

35:06 ↗ ultimately we are trying to get more

35:08 ↗ affordability and option two does not

35:10 ↗ only do that but uh as a group that

35:12 ↗ works so hard on that comprehensive plan

35:14 ↗ I'd like to stick with what we did but

35:17 ↗ no that's the big one for me is again

35:18 ↗ we're trying to get more affordability

35:20 ↗ we can always bump it up so I think like

35:23 ↗ I said let's see what happens with our

35:24 ↗ first let's first see what happens with

35:26 ↗ the requirement I again if it catches on

35:29 ↗ and we see something we like we can

35:30 ↗ always go

35:32 ↗ up did I see a Simpson

35:35 ↗ hand Vice chair you thanks chair voice

35:40 ↗ um yeah Vice chair pison I I was going

35:43 ↗ to State something but I think you were

35:45 ↗ so eloquent in how you stated it uh I

35:47 ↗ fully agree um I think option one is is

35:51 ↗ the right way to go here uh I will add

35:53 ↗ as the city is pushing back on the Sound

35:56 ↗ Transit topic um

35:58 ↗ that 556 bus only runs from like 6:00

36:02 ↗ amm to 9:00 am and then like 3: to 6: PM

36:05 ↗ so I that's a very I feel like if you're

36:08 ↗ calling something a major Transit stop

36:10 ↗ people should be able to rely on it you

36:12 ↗ know for all of their needs uh

36:14 ↗ throughout the day um so just kind

36:17 ↗ adding my two cents to Your Arsenal as

36:19 ↗ you uh push back on that

36:21 ↗ requirement that is a great Point Vice

36:23 ↗ chair yes that is odd that they would

36:26 ↗ consider that uh part of a Transit

36:29 ↗ Center um anyone else question

36:33 ↗ one okay I think that takes care of our

36:37 ↗ first

36:38 ↗ part and we'll move on to number two

36:40 ↗ thank you okay so the second question is

36:43 ↗ should the maximum size for the

36:44 ↗ accessory dwelling unit be increased

36:46 ↗ from 1,000 sare ft to 1250 squ

36:52 ↗ ft so during the January PD meeting

36:55 ↗ there was a request to explore

36:56 ↗ increasing the size of adus so an Adu is

36:59 ↗ meant to be a small um suppl

37:01 ↗ supplementary um unit to the primary

37:04 ↗ unit unit and provide independent living

37:07 ↗ currently the land use code states that

37:09 ↗ adus cannot be more than 1,000 squ fet

37:11 ↗ in size and a 1,000 ft is um comparable

37:15 ↗ to um a two-bedroom apartment and so to

37:19 ↗ try to understand you know the size and

37:22 ↗ what you get for you know 1,000 or 1250

37:25 ↗ I thought it would be a good idea for

37:27 ↗ for us to to look at lay apartment

37:28 ↗ layouts and I've chose apartment layouts

37:30 ↗ because they're comparable to Adu

37:32 ↗ layouts so this first um this first uh

37:37 ↗ uh layout is showing a a three-bedroom

37:40 ↗ two bad bath that was constructed in the

37:43 ↗ Discovery Heights um development which I

37:45 ↗ believe is in the highlands and so it's

37:47 ↗ a little bit under 13 um 1300 Square ft

37:51 ↗ and you can see you get three bedrooms

37:53 ↗ the um sizes range you know from 146 66

37:56 ↗ to 200 61 squ ft and you also get two

37:59 ↗ bath a living and a

38:02 ↗ kitchen so this unit is a little bit

38:05 ↗ over 1,000 sare ft which is close to the

38:07 ↗ size requirement that we currently

38:09 ↗ require and this is um located in the

38:11 ↗ Revel isqua and this is um the

38:14 ↗ development over off Newport Way and so

38:17 ↗ again you get two bedrooms two bath um a

38:21 ↗ a living room area and also a kitchen

38:28 ↗ this next unit is a little bit smaller

38:30 ↗ again it's a two-bedroom one bath and

38:32 ↗ it's 866 Square ft again you also get

38:35 ↗ one bath of living in a kitchen

38:38 ↗ space and then this last unit is a also

38:42 ↗ um in Revel isqua which is a one bed one

38:45 ↗ bath one bed one bath and it's a little

38:48 ↗ bit over 800 um square

38:51 ↗ feet also you get a a living area and a

38:54 ↗ kitchen with this space

38:58 ↗ and so if we were to look at the Adu

39:01 ↗ size the ad Administration recommends

39:04 ↗ keeping the th000 foot requirement um if

39:07 ↗ Adu sizes were to be increased it could

39:10 ↗ open up you know housing options for um

39:12 ↗ a larger demographic possibly a small um

39:15 ↗ family but also increas in the size

39:17 ↗ would encourage the construction of adus

39:20 ↗ but on the other hand increasing the um

39:23 ↗ size Al starts to blur the line between

39:25 ↗ what's a primary unit and What's um an

39:28 ↗ accessory dwelling unit and then we

39:30 ↗ could get um to the point where we're

39:32 ↗ seeing you know developers claiming or

39:34 ↗ building primary units and claiming them

39:37 ↗ as accessory dwelling units to try to

39:38 ↗ avoid impact fees or getting lesser um

39:42 ↗ utility bills or um prices for

39:44 ↗ infrastructure and so that's something

39:47 ↗ to keep in mind and then also it's also

39:50 ↗ good to um understand what are other

39:52 ↗ cities doing so when looking at these

39:54 ↗ numbers I think it's good to keep in

39:56 ↗ mind that um all cities are trying to um

40:00 ↗ update their codes to address House Bill

40:02 ↗ 1337 as well as House Bill 1110 so these

40:05 ↗ numbers are subject to change so I've

40:07 ↗ outlined them so they're um the cities

40:09 ↗ are identified by the tear that they

40:11 ↗ fall in again isqua is a tier 2 City and

40:15 ↗ so um if you're looking at you know all

40:17 ↗ the cities isqua kind of in the middle

40:19 ↗ of the road we're not the lowest which

40:21 ↗ is Lynwood at 800 square fet but we're

40:23 ↗ not the highest which is um Redmond at

40:26 ↗ 1500 square fet so um right now we're in

40:30 ↗ the

40:32 ↗ middle so those are my questions and at

40:35 ↗ this time I'll take additional questions

40:36 ↗ related to the second question you like

40:39 ↗ all right thank you Valerie commissioner

40:41 ↗ zacharov thank you uh can we go back

40:44 ↗ couple

40:46 ↗ slides I yeah no the with the with the

40:53 ↗ CTS when you mentioned that uh people

40:56 ↗ can use it as um they can claim that ad

40:59 ↗ they can claim that their what is it

41:02 ↗ basic unit is the Adu unit to voice so

41:05 ↗ if we're allowing increased density on a

41:08 ↗ lot say someone wants to build um their

41:13 ↗ a lot density is four but they only want

41:15 ↗ to build three they can do a Triplex or

41:19 ↗ they could build a Triplex um and say

41:22 ↗ that it's a primary unit with two

41:24 ↗ attached accessory dwelling units so

41:27 ↗ when you think about that scenario

41:28 ↗ what's the difference between a Triplex

41:30 ↗ and a primary unit to adus it's going to

41:33 ↗ be the size okay but there's this thing

41:35 ↗ was let let's say Redmond it's, 1500

41:38 ↗ square ft or 50% of the of the primary

41:40 ↗ home so uh if we are saying that if it's

41:45 ↗ that's smaller then it can be considered

41:47 ↗ an edu basically if we were to apply

41:51 ↗ that requirement

41:54 ↗ yeah yeah so it would have to be um 15t

41:59 ↗ or 50% and that 50% would have to be

42:01 ↗ lower than the 1500 yeah so if let's say

42:04 ↗ if we're growing the size to what 12

42:06 ↗ 1250 1250 then the primary unit should

42:09 ↗ be at least

42:11 ↗ 2500 well yes so right now we don't have

42:13 ↗ a requirement for um the primary unit

42:16 ↗ compared to the Adu we just have an Adu

42:18 ↗ but to try to address this issue um the

42:22 ↗ administration is proposing to have a uh

42:25 ↗ have the primary unit to 25% greater

42:28 ↗ than the accessory dwelling

42:30 ↗ unit okay so well yeah it's 25 proposed

42:34 ↗ and what we see here is 50 or 40% so I

42:37 ↗ think it might kind of like like if

42:39 ↗ somebody's building a Triplex and they

42:42 ↗ have one unit is primary unit as big one

42:46 ↗ and two units that are smaller like why

42:48 ↗ not calling them adus they're much

42:51 ↗ smaller and they can be 12250 then to me

42:55 ↗ yeah so yes that that would would be

42:57 ↗ fine um again that would encourage

42:59 ↗ accessory dwelling units but I think

43:01 ↗ it's a it's a matter of the impact

43:02 ↗ because if you have three um primary

43:06 ↗ units then each one of those units is um

43:09 ↗ paying impact fees and they're paying

43:11 ↗ for their fair share of you know

43:13 ↗ utilities or water or sewer whatever

43:15 ↗ that you're doing um using versus you

43:18 ↗ know again you're bluring that line

43:20 ↗ someone maybe taking advantage of a

43:22 ↗ loophole and having an assess or primary

43:26 ↗ unit and treating it like like an

43:27 ↗ accessory dwelling unit okay thank

43:31 ↗ you commissioner Kennedy so what I'm

43:34 ↗ hearing is that we need potentially a

43:37 ↗ definition of primary unit and accessory

43:39 ↗ dwelling unit because of the argument is

43:42 ↗ you can't you we don't want to make the

43:44 ↗ adus too big because someone might just

43:48 ↗ consider that the primary get around

43:51 ↗ fees defining what primary is what Adu

43:55 ↗ is putting that differentiation and size

43:58 ↗ in here when that solved that

44:01 ↗ problem so we do have a definition for

44:05 ↗ um accessory dwelling unit we don't have

44:07 ↗ one for a primary unit but um it would

44:12 ↗ help but it might not solve the problem

44:15 ↗ so

44:16 ↗ um it's hard to say what will solve the

44:19 ↗ problem just because again when you have

44:22 ↗ more units on a lot the Lots t or the

44:24 ↗ units tend to get a little bit smaller

44:26 ↗ so it's hard it it's kind of you have to

44:28 ↗ look at it um you know at look at every

44:33 ↗ scenario so question I don't have Adu

44:37 ↗ definition in front of me is there

44:38 ↗ somewhere in it that says it's an

44:41 ↗ accessory to a unit that's already there

44:43 ↗ or to a larger unit yes but um the state

44:47 ↗ is starting again to blur that line so

44:50 ↗ they are considering allowing accessory

44:52 ↗ dwelling unit to be um on its own lot

44:55 ↗ and with these requirements you can sell

44:57 ↗ an

44:59 ↗ Adu you know even though they you still

45:02 ↗ own the lot which is interesting because

45:04 ↗ then it makes it no longer an accessory

45:06 ↗ it makes it independent I

45:13 ↗ agree commission grass hi um is the I

45:18 ↗ mean the goal is to get some of these

45:20 ↗ built I assume otherwise we wouldn't be

45:22 ↗ talking about it do we do you see them

45:24 ↗ mostly coming to be built if they're

45:27 ↗ built on existing properties already

45:29 ↗ versus new

45:30 ↗ construction oh yeah I think a lot of

45:33 ↗ folks who um currently have a primary

45:35 ↗ home and have space will most likely try

45:37 ↗ to um build an accessory dwelling unit

45:40 ↗ um which I assume I that would be my

45:42 ↗ that would be my hypothesis as well and

45:44 ↗ then when you showed the three different

45:45 ↗ types you had the internal you had the

45:47 ↗ attached and then the

45:49 ↗ detached and um which is a nice way of

45:51 ↗ putting that so do we like the ones that

45:55 ↗ have been built to date what are they

45:57 ↗ most there haven't been very many I

45:59 ↗ understand

46:00 ↗ um have they mostly been detached when

46:03 ↗ like someone's redoing their garage or

46:05 ↗ are people com I'm curious where they

46:08 ↗ what we have right now where they fall

46:09 ↗ on those three and where do we see the

46:12 ↗ demand for people to do it um and that

46:16 ↗ may help Define some of these

46:18 ↗ requirements um I don't know if we have

46:21 ↗ a breakdown of um the adus versus

46:24 ↗ detached detached or internal you know

46:27 ↗ I've seen um you know permits come for

46:29 ↗ all different types um but no I haven't

46:33 ↗ and I don't think we track that

46:34 ↗ information maybe as simple as okay in

46:36 ↗ the last four or five years there's been

46:39 ↗ less than a dozen so go look at those 12

46:41 ↗ and see what they are um and then um the

46:44 ↗ cities that have I mean I was surprised

46:47 ↗ that they're all over the map to be

46:48 ↗ honest I thought they're all going to be

46:49 ↗ pretty similar um do we have any data

46:51 ↗ from them of what has spurred like when

46:53 ↗ Redmond I assume was not always 1500

46:56 ↗ they must have made that change in the

46:57 ↗ last few years is

46:59 ↗ that because that seems like a very big

47:01 ↗ Adu and I thought I always thought

47:03 ↗ thousand was like a Statewide thing um

47:06 ↗ no thing do we have any data like what's

47:10 ↗ driving building and what

47:13 ↗ like what type of these three in these

47:16 ↗ other cities and has the size if they've

47:19 ↗ made

47:19 ↗ changes been a driver to get things

47:22 ↗ built or is it not not something that

47:25 ↗ actually matters or not

47:28 ↗ Ste is planning director so for the

47:30 ↗ Commissioners that went on the tour when

47:32 ↗ we went around the city of Kirkland last

47:34 ↗ year you may remember a lot of the

47:36 ↗ accessory DS that we saw that were

47:37 ↗ attached or detached all those were

47:40 ↗ being sold separately and I it was a

47:43 ↗ huge driver because the city they they U

47:47 ↗ Exempted a a lot of the adus from Impact

47:50 ↗ fees and they also Exempted them from

47:52 ↗ parking requirements as well and so that

47:55 ↗ was a driver for a lot of the

47:56 ↗ developments developers and homeowners

47:59 ↗ to be constructing adus and selling

48:02 ↗ those off of their properties that's

48:04 ↗ more so than building duplexes and

48:06 ↗ triplexes so if they're so I remember

48:09 ↗ the one in Kirkland that they sold and I

48:12 ↗ I'm not sure what they how they split

48:13 ↗ the lot the land or if they don't do

48:15 ↗ that or not that's that's but that's the

48:18 ↗ question though is so those aren't as

48:20 ↗ you mentioned edus those are just now

48:22 ↗ more units that are market

48:25 ↗ rate you know kind of Arbitrage Builder

48:29 ↗ Arbitrage which I thought was very

48:31 ↗ clever um but it was probably was not

48:33 ↗ the intent what the city was looking for

48:34 ↗ when they probably put those

48:39 ↗ adus and the C just said we could do

48:41 ↗ three units on that and not how like how

48:44 ↗ is it in the Adu type of thing because

48:46 ↗ it's well just like many of the Cities

48:48 ↗ they were trying to incentivize Adu

48:50 ↗ development um because people were

48:52 ↗ trying to find affordable ways to be

48:53 ↗ able to um you know as the the

48:57 ↗ traditional term the Mother-in-law unit

48:58 ↗ on the property so a family member could

49:00 ↗ come live with them and uh they did a

49:05 ↗ good job of it but unfortunately they

49:06 ↗ also saw a lot of developers taking

49:08 ↗ advantage of the opportunity to be

49:11 ↗ exempt from Impact fees and parking

49:12 ↗ requirements and they found a lot of

49:15 ↗ those developments and you only saw a

49:17 ↗ couple examples but the city of Kirkland

49:19 ↗ is keeping record of lots of

49:20 ↗ developments and so they're they're now

49:22 ↗ revisiting a lot of those policies

49:24 ↗ because it's not getting what they

49:27 ↗ originally intended to be so so there

49:29 ↗ that was my next question is like after

49:30 ↗ they've done that and people have kind

49:32 ↗ of played that the system on that are

49:35 ↗ they gonna were they not I assume they

49:37 ↗ weren't happy with that was the outcome

49:39 ↗ of um and will they you said they're

49:41 ↗ going to relook at what they're going to

49:43 ↗ call edus in the future or are they just

49:45 ↗ saying this is the way it is I think a

49:47 ↗ lot of the cities are having to revisit

49:49 ↗ their policies around accessory dwelling

49:50 ↗ units just with the middle housing

49:52 ↗ requirement changes I don't know which

49:54 ↗ direction they're going I haven't been

49:56 ↗ following latest on what the how each of

49:58 ↗ the cities are approaching but I know

49:59 ↗ the city staff weren't happy with the

50:02 ↗ amount of sales of adus versus people

50:04 ↗ just trying to add another unit for

50:06 ↗ family members or finding an affordable

50:08 ↗ unit to use for maybe additional income

50:11 ↗ on their

50:16 ↗ property great question commissioner

50:21 ↗ crass yeah was a good point because

50:23 ↗ again I think they probably got a little

50:25 ↗ bit more density but no affordability

50:29 ↗ um all right so there are some questions

50:31 ↗ before

50:33 ↗ us I believe valer yeah there we

50:37 ↗ go should lot density be increased

50:40 ↗ beyond the state's requirement of two

50:41 ↗ dwelling units on one

50:43 ↗ lot yep sorry wrong

50:49 ↗ question yes should the maximum size of

50:52 ↗ adus be increased from 1,000 squ ft to

50:55 ↗ 1250 ft

51:00 ↗ commissioner zacharov um to my opinion

51:03 ↗ at this point it's a no and

51:08 ↗ no okay great thank

51:12 ↗ you commissioner zacharov has been bat

51:15 ↗ and Lead who wants to go

51:18 ↗ next commissioner Kraft so I I agree I

51:22 ↗ think keeping it at a thousand unless

51:24 ↗ there's data that says wow if you went

51:25 ↗ to 1250 this would open up um for people

51:29 ↗ to do this but because it's not really

51:30 ↗ Builders it's people on their existing

51:33 ↗ properties um it's just gonna cost them

51:36 ↗ more it's not going to I don't see if

51:39 ↗ you made it to 1250 you're going to have

51:43 ↗ homeowners flocking to build adus now

51:46 ↗ necessarily any more than they would be

51:48 ↗ if it was at a thousand so I would say

51:50 ↗ why change it I would keep it at a

51:52 ↗ thousand thank you

51:55 ↗ uh commissioner Kennedy Vice chair

51:59 ↗ Patterson commissioner I'm on board with

52:02 ↗ both of them as um I think sticking with

52:04 ↗ the state requirement of to make

52:07 ↗ sense the th000 square feet seems to

52:09 ↗ make sense if the 1250 is you know not

52:12 ↗ going to create what's desired then keep

52:15 ↗ it at a

52:21 ↗ thousand yeah I agree with that

52:23 ↗ assessment um I think that keeping it at

52:26 ↗ a thousand square feet helps keep that

52:29 ↗ barrier of entry for either home

52:32 ↗ ownership or even just market rate

52:34 ↗ rental a little bit lower than if it was

52:36 ↗ at 1250 Square fet um so even though

52:40 ↗ it's not technically affordable housing

52:42 ↗ it is a lower barrier of Entry uh for

52:46 ↗ market rate housing um so and hopefully

52:49 ↗ with that size more people would be able

52:52 ↗ to uh be able to fit those into their

52:54 ↗ their existing Lots um so yeah in

52:57 ↗ agreement with both of these of um the

53:00 ↗ two dwelling units and then the th

53:02 ↗ Square

53:08 ↗ ft should have had your microphone

53:12 ↗ on okay well uh that's fantastic thank

53:15 ↗ you um I agree I think it should stay at

53:17 ↗ thousand feet I think it's all about the

53:19 ↗ audience you're trying to reach and

53:20 ↗ again I think Vice chair uh Patterson

53:22 ↗ just said it pretty well so again um we

53:25 ↗ saw what happened in Kirk

53:27 ↗ I think uh you're going to get people to

53:28 ↗ take advantage of it the idea keeping it

53:30 ↗ lower it might actually serve its

53:32 ↗ purpose so Valerie did you get

53:34 ↗ everything you needed from us I did

53:36 ↗ thank you so much all right well thank

53:38 ↗ you for the

53:40 ↗ presentation okay we have another item

53:43 ↗ on our regular business this

53:45 ↗ evening and that is to discuss parking

53:49 ↗ code amendments we haven't seen Thomas

53:50 ↗ in a while it's good to see you Thomas

53:53 ↗ uh Thomas is our senior Transportation

53:55 ↗ planner and he'll be presenting this

53:57 ↗ evening on this topic so Thomas when you

54:00 ↗ are ready please go

54:02 ↗ ahead thank you

54:09 ↗ chair great good evening uh thanks for

54:11 ↗ having me here tonight uh tonight I'll

54:13 ↗ be talking about updates to the parking

54:16 ↗ code and really we're just uh trying to

54:19 ↗ comply with state law um some of these

54:21 ↗ topics have been brought up by previous

54:23 ↗ uh presentations so I'm not going to

54:25 ↗ dwell on uh many these very long but

54:27 ↗ essentially um really trying to update

54:31 ↗ our code uh to respond to state law with

54:35 ↗ regard to residential parking and

54:37 ↗ electric vehicle

54:39 ↗ charging so these two bills are related

54:43 ↗ to housing production Senate Bill 6015

54:47 ↗ is the residential parking Bill many of

54:50 ↗ these uh regulations were intended to

54:53 ↗ reduce the cost of building affordable

54:54 ↗ housing and support Transit oriented

54:58 ↗ development the way to do this is

55:00 ↗ through parking so they intended to make

55:02 ↗ it more flexible to meet your parking

55:04 ↗ requirements Valerie had mentioned uh

55:08 ↗ House Bill 1110 the middle housing bill

55:11 ↗ so there's some requirements that were

55:13 ↗ removed uh related to uh parking for

55:17 ↗ residential uses within a half mile of

55:20 ↗ Transit valer had mentioned previously

55:23 ↗ that bus stops uh along along the 554

55:27 ↗ and 556 are part of this um you know uh

55:31 ↗ definitional uh issue that we're trying

55:33 ↗ to work out currently um at the state so

55:36 ↗ we're just kind of in a holding pattern

55:39 ↗ until then but we are um sort of locked

55:42 ↗ in with with this

55:45 ↗ requirement in regards to EV code there

55:48 ↗ was some changes uh through the state um

55:51 ↗ and the state is really trying to

55:53 ↗ transition away from uh traditional like

55:55 ↗ cars uh with gas uh towards electric

55:58 ↗ vehicles so these requirements are

55:59 ↗ really just trying to nudge the market a

56:01 ↗ little

56:03 ↗ bit I created the slide because I get

56:05 ↗ this question all the time so hopefully

56:08 ↗ this can uh sort of help us all uh look

56:12 ↗ through this um so there are three types

56:14 ↗ of EV charging tiers EV capable is

56:18 ↗ essentially having a panel with capacity

56:21 ↗ in your

56:23 ↗ house on top of that so an EV red would

56:26 ↗ be an would be EV capable plus it has

56:29 ↗ wiring in a junction box or something

56:32 ↗ like a dryer

56:33 ↗ Outlet this is typically like a 240 uh

56:38 ↗ amp EV installed is EV capable plus a

56:42 ↗ charging station so that's the hookup

56:45 ↗ that goes into your electric

56:48 ↗ vehicle so this is really just a summary

56:51 ↗ of all the changes uh that are in your

56:54 ↗ packet house spild

56:57 ↗ 6015 uh is preventing us from requiring

57:01 ↗ structured parking requirements for

57:02 ↗ residential development this is

57:05 ↗ particularly important within Central

57:06 ↗ isqua where we have requirements for

57:09 ↗ structured

57:10 ↗ parking so we are no longer required uh

57:13 ↗ we are no longer allowed to require uh

57:16 ↗ garages or carports or structured

57:18 ↗ parking um for

57:21 ↗ residential there's also some changes to

57:24 ↗ stall Dimensions which are very minute

57:27 ↗ um but just reductions of one foot uh in

57:29 ↗ a standard parking

57:31 ↗ stall there's some changes with uh you

57:35 ↗ know grandfathering in uh gravel parking

57:38 ↗ to allow uh for existing uh residential

57:43 ↗ requirements and we can also use grass

57:46 ↗ block pavers for parking as a as a

57:50 ↗ material house pill 1110 Beller had

57:53 ↗ mentioned there's that definition of

57:54 ↗ major Transit stops so we need to

57:56 ↗ incorporate that into our uh

57:59 ↗ code and there's uh just changing up our

58:03 ↗ uh requirements to better align with the

58:06 ↗ definitions of middle housing that we

58:07 ↗ currently

58:09 ↗ have there's some EV capable requirement

58:13 ↗ uh requirements that we have to add to

58:15 ↗ our codes we previously did not have

58:17 ↗ that something we need to

58:20 ↗ add and there are some exemptions that

58:22 ↗ we did not have any need to comply with

58:27 ↗ so at this point uh just hoping to get

58:28 ↗ your feedback if you have any additional

58:30 ↗ uh feedback to

58:35 ↗ provide

58:38 ↗ commission I saw I saw your hand

58:41 ↗ commissioner

58:42 ↗ crass

58:44 ↗ um parkings even though not very

58:47 ↗ exciting but very emotional to some

58:49 ↗ people especially when someone's parked

58:50 ↗ in front of their house um but Co my

58:53 ↗ questions are mostly around some of the

58:55 ↗ EV p

58:57 ↗ um so the first one I'm just looking for

58:59 ↗ my notes so the EV capable point that

59:01 ↗ you had is that for only new

59:03 ↗ construction or is

59:05 ↗ there and and for what levels of

59:08 ↗ building like where where would that

59:11 ↗ take place where that would become a

59:12 ↗ requirement like is this a middle

59:15 ↗ housing and up or is it above that or

59:18 ↗ where would so those are two question

59:20 ↗ those are my first two

59:22 ↗ questions I'll have to ask for

59:24 ↗ clarification because it's very loud I

59:25 ↗ he but so the first question is is it

59:27 ↗ only for new or is it or is it like if

59:30 ↗ you get a permit to redo your building

59:32 ↗ does it does it make you have to then do

59:35 ↗ this that's question one question two is

59:39 ↗ what types of and I think it may have

59:41 ↗ been in there but I was maybe a little

59:42 ↗ confused is like what type of

59:46 ↗ um uh like is it four units and OP 10

59:49 ↗ units and up or whatever so where where

59:51 ↗ is the barrier when you are going to

59:53 ↗ start ask requiring EV capable which

59:55 ↗ means

59:56 ↗ you have the power which then there's a

59:58 ↗ different question that'll come maybe I

1:00:00 ↗ I'll ask it now

1:00:02 ↗ is they may say that but if the

1:00:04 ↗ infrastructure from pugin Sound Energy

1:00:06 ↗ isn't feasible to do an affordable way

1:00:09 ↗ it may be a a requirement that not may

1:00:12 ↗ not be so is there any any thoughts on

1:00:15 ↗ how those things

1:00:16 ↗ align um the condos right next to me are

1:00:20 ↗ going to put two spaces in and I think

1:00:21 ↗ it's taken them forever to get figure

1:00:23 ↗ out with pound energy to get to two

1:00:26 ↗ charging station setup so those are my

1:00:29 ↗ initial questions yeah um my

1:00:31 ↗ understanding is EV capable is for new

1:00:33 ↗ development um so that's just complying

1:00:35 ↗ with the state um they requirement for

1:00:38 ↗ new development we didn't have that

1:00:39 ↗ previously so we're just sort of adding

1:00:40 ↗ that in um the next part was about pit

1:00:44 ↗ Sound Energy the number of units when it

1:00:47 ↗ starts getting triggered if I build a

1:00:48 ↗ single family doesn't matter but if I

1:00:50 ↗ build a duplex do I have to have EV

1:00:52 ↗ capable yes okay so it starts it starts

1:00:55 ↗ at duplex

1:00:58 ↗ up um third third question was about uh

1:01:01 ↗ P head energy well just like the it's

1:01:03 ↗ the more the it's it's a broader

1:01:04 ↗ infrastructure question where if you

1:01:06 ↗ start having requirements around EV

1:01:08 ↗ which is great I don't have one yet but

1:01:10 ↗ someday the you got to be able to have

1:01:14 ↗ whoever the homeowner Builder whatever

1:01:17 ↗ be able to bring in those services in

1:01:19 ↗ something that's not an hly expensive

1:01:22 ↗ way to do it so what is the discussion

1:01:25 ↗ of how infrastructure rolls into that

1:01:27 ↗ yeah we we've been asking P Sound Energy

1:01:30 ↗ a lot of these questions excuse

1:01:33 ↗ me a lot of these questions about uh

1:01:35 ↗ demand and supply of energy um their

1:01:39 ↗ current stance is that they're capable

1:01:42 ↗ of providing and meeting the need um but

1:01:45 ↗ it is sort of a chicken or the egg thing

1:01:47 ↗ so these requirements are pushing them

1:01:49 ↗ to need to respond to our new energy

1:01:52 ↗ demands um and they're saying that

1:01:55 ↗ they're

1:01:56 ↗ capable of doing it um but um that's

1:02:00 ↗ sort of the response that we've heard so

1:02:02 ↗ far okay if I could add more to that so

1:02:06 ↗ in in latest discussions with PSC we've

1:02:09 ↗ been asking these questions about you

1:02:10 ↗ know how can we get a faster response

1:02:12 ↗ and and generally they're they are

1:02:14 ↗ having to just meet the demand when it's

1:02:18 ↗ time and um we've been told it could be

1:02:21 ↗ six months to a year when they are able

1:02:23 ↗ to update the infrastructure when the

1:02:26 ↗ demand is being requested of them to you

1:02:29 ↗ know change out a Transformer so that

1:02:31 ↗ then you can install the EV capable and

1:02:34 ↗ ready and the evsc for any particular

1:02:37 ↗ development and that that applies to the

1:02:40 ↗ single family homes as well as any major

1:02:41 ↗ development that's coming into

1:02:43 ↗ town single family though if I have a

1:02:45 ↗ 200 a panel I could probably make it

1:02:47 ↗ work but if I have to do a bunch of

1:02:50 ↗ units they may have to bring more power

1:02:53 ↗ than what they normally would have in

1:02:54 ↗ that development and

1:02:56 ↗ if it cost a builder hundreds of

1:02:58 ↗ thousands of dollars to bring in power

1:03:00 ↗ then then they won't build then

1:03:02 ↗ something it may I guess the point I was

1:03:04 ↗ trying to get to is do you do you

1:03:07 ↗ foresee this ever becoming an issue with

1:03:09 ↗ this requirement that will stall people

1:03:12 ↗ building because of this requirement or

1:03:14 ↗ is

1:03:16 ↗ this it's hard to say if it'll stall

1:03:19 ↗ development but it's definitely delaying

1:03:21 ↗ people being able to hook up at their

1:03:22 ↗ houses now for some of the newer

1:03:25 ↗ development major de

1:03:31 ↗ developments that answer your question

1:03:33 ↗ I'm more concerned because the amount of

1:03:34 ↗ flex events I get from P Sound Energy so

1:03:38 ↗ chicken and egg thing uh when they try

1:03:40 ↗ to ask you to use less energy specific

1:03:43 ↗ times of the day okay shair if I may um

1:03:47 ↗ yes go

1:03:49 ↗ ahead know good questions because this

1:03:52 ↗ is what we're finding um when uh not NE

1:03:55 ↗ necessarily for residential but it has

1:03:57 ↗ come up with commercial projects so if

1:04:00 ↗ it's a substantial Redevelopment which

1:04:02 ↗ is 50% of the value of your uh building

1:04:05 ↗ triggers um the requirement and you know

1:04:09 ↗ there's a short time period for

1:04:11 ↗ businesses to upgrade their and move in

1:04:13 ↗ because they're already leasing the

1:04:14 ↗ building and so on and so forth um but

1:04:18 ↗ they're at the mercy of um you know a

1:04:20 ↗ utility company to provide the upgrade

1:04:22 ↗ and their back their workload their

1:04:24 ↗ capacity uh to approve itself is about 6

1:04:27 ↗ months out so um I think it's a good

1:04:30 ↗ question we will go back and look at in

1:04:32 ↗ terms of what it what makes sense for um

1:04:36 ↗ the state law we have to meet and and

1:04:38 ↗ it's my understanding it's only for new

1:04:41 ↗ development um the substantial

1:04:43 ↗ Redevelopment is something that isqua

1:04:45 ↗ has chosen because we we're trying to

1:04:47 ↗ incentivize and get some of this

1:04:49 ↗ infrastructure in place and being

1:04:51 ↗ proactive about it um but having some

1:04:54 ↗ flexibility for not holding up uh

1:04:57 ↗ permits if they run into a capacity

1:04:59 ↗ issue maybe something we do need to

1:05:02 ↗ think about okay thanks because that

1:05:03 ↗ that my next is like do you have do we

1:05:05 ↗ have or you have the power to then say

1:05:08 ↗ okay you you'll still get your permits

1:05:09 ↗ even though this thing we want to have

1:05:12 ↗ some language in the code to sort of

1:05:15 ↗ address those it's your discretion to be

1:05:16 ↗ able to keep that moving forward without

1:05:18 ↗ having that stall for a year based on

1:05:20 ↗ FIA salary correct correct but also give

1:05:23 ↗ you guys some options in terms of what

1:05:26 ↗ you have to do because that's a state

1:05:27 ↗ law where you have some flexibility uh

1:05:30 ↗ on it you know with the substantial

1:05:32 ↗ Redevelopment

1:05:33 ↗ definition does the state law say when

1:05:36 ↗ it has to be in place to get the permit

1:05:38 ↗ you know I don't know Thomas do you know

1:05:40 ↗ so we will need to look into that do you

1:05:43 ↗ know you're asking when the when the

1:05:46 ↗ requirement kicks in or when so State LA

1:05:48 ↗ may say there's a requirement for Ev

1:05:51 ↗ services on new construction maybe at

1:05:53 ↗ different levels but if you if you can't

1:05:57 ↗ get an affordable way for fugia Sound

1:06:00 ↗ Energy to make that happen can you still

1:06:02 ↗ issue the permits and that just gets

1:06:03 ↗ done later or does everything halt you

1:06:06 ↗ have the ability to within you could do

1:06:09 ↗ it but within two years it has to be

1:06:11 ↗ done or something like that I think this

1:06:13 ↗ the city has um the capabilities to have

1:06:16 ↗ those kind of discussions on whether or

1:06:17 ↗ not we want to allow that type of

1:06:19 ↗ flexibility the state language doesn't

1:06:21 ↗ dictate that it's just more of with any

1:06:23 ↗ new development you are required to put

1:06:25 ↗ this this infrastructure in place yeah

1:06:28 ↗ and and we don't anticipate with new

1:06:30 ↗ development because they'll have the

1:06:31 ↗ lead time they're already planning

1:06:33 ↗ they're already trying to get their

1:06:35 ↗ electricity that that may be an issue

1:06:37 ↗ for new development but what we

1:06:39 ↗ anticipate is with substantial

1:06:41 ↗ Redevelopment that could be a potential

1:06:43 ↗ issue because they're dealing with

1:06:44 ↗ existing

1:06:51 ↗ infrastructure all right well thank you

1:06:53 ↗ Minnie thank you Thomas thank you

1:06:56 ↗ commissioner

1:06:57 ↗ craft any other questions for

1:07:00 ↗ Thomas I just kind of have to wanted to

1:07:03 ↗ go back to one um and that's kind of the

1:07:05 ↗ required Structure Parking uh kind of

1:07:08 ↗ goes back to what we were talking

1:07:09 ↗ originally

1:07:10 ↗ um Kristen or Valerie but so if because

1:07:14 ↗ we really can't dig under we can't do

1:07:16 ↗ anything underneath especially in our

1:07:18 ↗ residential areas because of the water

1:07:19 ↗ table which again I guess they're

1:07:21 ↗ getting rid of more parking requirements

1:07:23 ↗ to build the density what do they expect

1:07:25 ↗ expect these cars to

1:07:28 ↗ go that's a great question they haven't

1:07:31 ↗ answered that um but feasibly if we

1:07:33 ↗ still have those parking requirements

1:07:35 ↗ they would have to build out right uh it

1:07:39 ↗ is cheaper to build out than it is to

1:07:41 ↗ build higher or lower so that right I

1:07:43 ↗ just I know that structured piece was

1:07:45 ↗ has been there what for years hasn't it

1:07:46 ↗ Stephen as a requirement depending on

1:07:48 ↗ the density or what they're building

1:07:50 ↗ yeah the uh the city's um parking

1:07:53 ↗ structure requirement was incorporated

1:07:54 ↗ as part of like the C development or

1:07:56 ↗ centralal plan and the update to the

1:07:58 ↗ regulations as part of

1:08:00 ↗ that I mean if it becomes an issue is

1:08:02 ↗ that something Olympia would give us a

1:08:04 ↗ waiver

1:08:05 ↗ for I'm getting smile

1:08:09 ↗ no okay

1:08:14 ↗ interesting yeah when we're talking

1:08:16 ↗ about our our bus routes and our Transit

1:08:19 ↗ centers okay uh Thomas Commissioners

1:08:22 ↗ anything else you'd like to

1:08:24 ↗ add Thomas feedback substantial it's

1:08:27 ↗ great thank you okay all right thank you

1:08:31 ↗ Thomas we appreciate the presentation

1:08:33 ↗ it's been good seeing you it's been a

1:08:34 ↗ while um and we're going to move on so

1:08:38 ↗ that takes care of all of our regular

1:08:39 ↗ business this evening and we will now

1:08:41 ↗ move on to reports and I believe step's

1:08:45 ↗ going to take this with city council

1:08:47 ↗ updates yes thank you chair voice so

1:08:49 ↗ last week February 3rd city council

1:08:51 ↗ adopted the urban forestry plan um some

1:08:54 ↗ of that has it is a little bit related

1:08:56 ↗ to some of the Tre code discussions that

1:08:58 ↗ we'll be having later this year um if

1:09:00 ↗ you're interested in learning more about

1:09:01 ↗ that let me know I can also send the

1:09:03 ↗ packet to you uh that city council

1:09:05 ↗ reviewed they also got an update on wind

1:09:08 ↗ recovery efforts if you're interested in

1:09:10 ↗ learning more about the city's efforts

1:09:12 ↗ on recovering from the bomb Cyclone last

1:09:15 ↗ fall winter um so if you're wanting to

1:09:18 ↗ learn more about the impact to the city

1:09:20 ↗ and what the city has done that there's

1:09:22 ↗ all the information there this week city

1:09:26 ↗ council uh selected a new council member

1:09:28 ↗ to add um that was on this Monday so if

1:09:31 ↗ you're wanting to learn more about that

1:09:33 ↗ you can look at the watch the city

1:09:34 ↗ council meeting or look at the

1:09:36 ↗ backet that's it for Council update for

1:09:39 ↗ me all right and a big congratulations

1:09:42 ↗ to council member Jen and she's going to

1:09:44 ↗ be a fantastic addition to the council

1:09:46 ↗ and we are all rooting for

1:09:49 ↗ her

1:09:51 ↗ um I believe other business and

1:09:54 ↗ announcements just have one quick um

1:09:57 ↗ other business announcement earlier

1:09:59 ↗ today I sent you all an email from the

1:10:02 ↗ sustainability staff talking about the

1:10:03 ↗ update to The Climate action plan this

1:10:05 ↗ year if you're interested in taking part

1:10:07 ↗ of any of the Committees that are being

1:10:09 ↗ formed with the environmental board

1:10:10 ↗ please let me know and then we'll get

1:10:12 ↗ you included with the sustainability

1:10:14 ↗ team excellent thank you Stephen and I

1:10:17 ↗ guess I have one thing to add so Stephen

1:10:20 ↗ uh Vice chair Patterson myself and

1:10:22 ↗ aronia um who I don't believe many of

1:10:25 ↗ you you had the opportunity to meet um

1:10:28 ↗ McDaniels is that Ro's last name mle mle

1:10:32 ↗ so uh the four of us have been

1:10:34 ↗ conducting interviews for the past week

1:10:36 ↗ and we're going to have some fantastic

1:10:38 ↗ new colleagues to join us hopefully by

1:10:40 ↗ the beginning of March um Stephen could

1:10:42 ↗ probably speak to the process but uh it

1:10:44 ↗ was a lot of applications we I think we

1:10:46 ↗ had a record right or maybe not a record

1:10:48 ↗ I think Kristen said second most but it

1:10:51 ↗ was like 12 we we got a total of 15

1:10:54 ↗ appli ations um 13 were interviewed two

1:10:58 ↗ people um didn't meet The Residency

1:11:01 ↗ requirement so they weren't we weren't

1:11:02 ↗ able to interview them um the process is

1:11:07 ↗ that we're going to be making the

1:11:08 ↗ recommendations to the mayor by tomorrow

1:11:09 ↗ and then the mayor will finalize the

1:11:11 ↗ appointment list hopefully next week and

1:11:13 ↗ then it'll go to city council for

1:11:15 ↗ confirmation in early March so as chairo

1:11:18 ↗ said we'll potentially have new members

1:11:19 ↗ joining us in early March at the first

1:11:21 ↗ meeting yeah yeah it was a lot of fun

1:11:23 ↗ and definitely want to say thank you

1:11:25 ↗ thank you to Steven um aronia as well as

1:11:27 ↗ Vice chair Patterson um hopefully like I

1:11:30 ↗ said we'll we'll be introducing you to

1:11:32 ↗ some new colleagues here

1:11:33 ↗ shortly um I believe that's all I have

1:11:36 ↗ anything else for the good of the order

1:11:38 ↗ from anyone up

1:11:40 ↗ here anyone around the

1:11:42 ↗ room I missed you guys tonight I

1:11:45 ↗ appreciate the hybrid opportunity for uh

1:11:48 ↗ being that I'm feeling under the weather

1:11:50 ↗ but uh there's nothing like being in

1:11:51 ↗ person so yeah no I couldn't agree with

1:11:54 ↗ you more but it is funny watching you

1:11:55 ↗ with a mullet I got to admit that I got

1:11:58 ↗ to say webex's video elements aren't

1:12:01 ↗ quite on par with zoom or uh teams but

1:12:04 ↗ uh we're making it work here excellent

1:12:07 ↗ well we look forward to seeing you Jesse

1:12:09 ↗ uh the next time around and I know I

1:12:11 ↗ believe our February 27th meeting we'll

1:12:13 ↗ have a public hearing so you'll all want

1:12:16 ↗ to be

1:12:17 ↗ here with no further business we will

1:12:20 ↗ adjourn this meeting of the planning

1:12:22 ↗ policy commission at 7:43 p.m.

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 (Virtual)

Commissioners Kennedy

Krass

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community P & D Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director Thomas Valdriz, Senior Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of January 9, 2025