Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 27, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 13, 2025

packet pp.3–7

▶ Watch from 0:49 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, February 13, 2025

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Public Hearing: Title 18 Clarifying Amendments (A)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.9–29

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 13, 2025

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing and take public comment on the proposed 2025 Title 18, Land Use Code clarifying annual updates.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Middle Housing: Draft Code Amendments Review (D)

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.31–107

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 1:04:56 Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

At the February 27th meeting, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will review and discuss proposed amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) Title 18 to ensure compliance with House Bill (HB) 1110 (as amended by HB 2321) and HB 1337.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.109–111

▶ Watch from 1:59:13 Open packet at p.109 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Stephen Padua 4/10/25 4/24/25

2752 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ in good evening everybody there's a lot

0:10 ↗ of you out there

0:11 ↗ today you know it's interesting because

0:13 ↗ this will probably be the last meeting

0:15 ↗ it's just the four of us and I believe

0:18 ↗ the majority of these people will

0:19 ↗ probably be on the PPC next week so we

0:21 ↗ will have a large

0:22 ↗ Ensemble uh but we would like to begin

0:25 ↗ and we'll call this meeting of the

0:27 ↗ planning policy commission to order and

0:29 ↗ it is currently 6:30 p.m. today's

0:32 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting the planning

0:34 ↗ policy commission is in person but staff

0:36 ↗ or members of the public may be

0:38 ↗ attending virtually or in person Kristen

0:41 ↗ do we have a quorum this

0:42 ↗ evening yes we do chair okay so our

0:47 ↗ first bit of housekeeping is to take

0:49 ↗ care of the approval of minutes from

0:50 ↗ February

0:52 ↗ 13th I assume all of you have read your

0:54 ↗ packets any questions

0:57 ↗ concerns hearing none those minutes are

1:00 ↗ approved and we're now going to move

1:02 ↗ into general public

1:04 ↗ comment and this is for General topics

1:07 ↗ for the planning policy

1:08 ↗ commission um there will be a separate

1:10 ↗ public comment time for the hearing

1:13 ↗ itself and I do believe staff we have a

1:15 ↗ few people sign up to make General

1:17 ↗ Public comments this

1:20 ↗ evening we do the list is being

1:22 ↗ collected right now okay

1:32 ↗ oh actually we

1:34 ↗ do we have someone online okay an

1:39 ↗ Fletcher okay so for the benefit of all

1:41 ↗ let me go over some rules um we do ask

1:44 ↗ that everyone speak clearly and pause

1:47 ↗ frequently we ask that you state your

1:49 ↗ name before you speak and if you are

1:51 ↗ attending virtually which I do believe

1:53 ↗ we have one person um we do ask that you

1:57 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:58 ↗ speaking and if if you're having any

2:00 ↗ technical issues try to join the meeting

2:02 ↗ using your tablet or a different device

2:04 ↗ you can also use the call-in information

2:06 ↗ in the meeting invite to call in this is

2:09 ↗ an important part of the public process

2:11 ↗ we do take them seriously they are

2:13 ↗ factored into the decisions that we make

2:15 ↗ and we do ask that you keep your

2:16 ↗ comments to five minutes or

2:19 ↗ less so if we're ready we'll begin with

2:21 ↗ an

2:24 ↗ okay and yeah I've made you a panelist

2:27 ↗ and you can speak and you can turn on

2:29 ↗ your camera if you'd like

2:34 ↗ to okay can you hear me yes we can thank

2:38 ↗ you thank you very much uh yes my name

2:42 ↗ is Anne Fletcher and I am a resident of

2:45 ↗ isqua um and uh good evening

2:49 ↗ Commissioners um I want to address

2:52 ↗ proposed changes to our Title 18 code um

2:56 ↗ in particular about lot density I have

2:58 ↗ one comment about the sidewalk to Door

3:02 ↗ uh issue as well in uh 2023 the state

3:06 ↗ mandated an increase in lot

3:09 ↗ density and uh in the packet it said

3:13 ↗ that zoning requirements must allow at

3:15 ↗ least two units on one lot and four

3:18 ↗ units per lot if located within a

3:20 ↗ quarter mile walking distance of a major

3:22 ↗ Transit stop or if one of the homes is

3:25 ↗ an affordable

3:26 ↗ unit and I appreciate the uh planning

3:29 ↗ policy commission previously

3:32 ↗ recommending uh staying with the two

3:34 ↗ units per lot rather than the four and I

3:36 ↗ urge you to um continue to stay with

3:39 ↗ that position uh as a nearly 40-year

3:42 ↗ resident of Oldtown neighborhood I have

3:45 ↗ appreciated its eclectic quality and the

3:48 ↗ current ways we have already have to

3:51 ↗ increase our density besides single

3:54 ↗ family homes we are also zoned for

3:57 ↗ duplexes and attached and detached

4:00 ↗ accessory dwelling units

4:03 ↗ Etc um and I approve of most of the

4:06 ↗ proposed changes um that you're

4:09 ↗ considering to make these methods work

4:11 ↗ even better um I do have one concern

4:14 ↗ with removing a sidewalk to Door path

4:17 ↗ and having people use the driveway

4:20 ↗ instead um for me keeping people on

4:23 ↗ walkways and cars and driveways and

4:26 ↗ keeping them separate is a safety issue

4:31 ↗ I also see the value of allowing two

4:34 ↗ units on a

4:35 ↗ lot but I think the four units is

4:38 ↗ excessive for the following

4:40 ↗ reasons four units will encourage

4:42 ↗ developers to tear down the older homes

4:45 ↗ and build the maximum number of units

4:47 ↗ for

4:48 ↗ profit uh I get regular solicitations

4:52 ↗ from them as a homeowner in Oldtown to

4:54 ↗ buy my house for just this

4:57 ↗ purpose I think it is better for our

4:59 ↗ homeowners to reuse and repurpose their

5:02 ↗ properties than to demolish and build

5:06 ↗ new materials from the tear drown and

5:09 ↗ construction add greenhouse gases to our

5:14 ↗ landfills and even if one of the four

5:16 ↗ units is required to be affordable this

5:19 ↗ can't be

5:21 ↗ enforced and the rents can later be

5:25 ↗ increased this very thing happened to my

5:28 ↗ own niece

5:29 ↗ she started in an affordable unit when

5:32 ↗ she was starting out and not making very

5:34 ↗ much money and and they and she couldn't

5:37 ↗ afford the increases that they ended up

5:39 ↗ making quite quickly and she ended up

5:42 ↗ moving to a detached accessory dwelling

5:45 ↗ on her parents uh home lot which worked

5:48 ↗ out

5:49 ↗ great okay another reason um for uh the

5:53 ↗ two rather than four is we've been

5:55 ↗ getting a more new families here in

5:57 ↗ Oldtown and I see them walking to school

5:59 ↗ with children walking to school I see

6:01 ↗ them using the little Library that's in

6:03 ↗ front of my house and these families um

6:07 ↗ can afford some of these smaller older

6:09 ↗ houses giving their children a yard to

6:11 ↗ play in and space for

6:13 ↗ Gardens eventually they could add

6:16 ↗ another unit or an accessory dwelling to

6:19 ↗ help the affordability and this seems

6:21 ↗ like a much better route than to tear

6:23 ↗ down and build newer um newer multiple

6:27 ↗ uh

6:28 ↗ units with with the two units versus the

6:31 ↗ four we will also have a healthier

6:33 ↗ environment with more pervious surface

6:37 ↗ this will have better storm water

6:38 ↗ control and less

6:40 ↗ flooding and the final point I want to

6:43 ↗ make is that parking will become an

6:45 ↗ issue with four units allowed because

6:47 ↗ the state requires no parking in

6:50 ↗ buildings within a fourth mile of

6:52 ↗ transfit at Transit and the city could

6:55 ↗ extend

6:56 ↗ that uh Oldtown is close to Transit and

7:01 ↗ Oldtown really does not have the

7:03 ↗ capacity for that much street parking

7:06 ↗ with every uh uh these if it's not

7:09 ↗ provided and especially when there are

7:12 ↗ big events which happen often we

7:14 ↗ experience them down here and it's just

7:16 ↗ all part of living down here but uh

7:18 ↗ there are events in the urban core and

7:21 ↗ nearby community center and schools that

7:23 ↗ uh uh increased parking uh needs down

7:27 ↗ here and so to have the residents also

7:29 ↗ trying to to park on the street um is um

7:31 ↗ not really compatible thank you very

7:34 ↗ much for listening to my

7:38 ↗ comments okay thank you is that all of

7:41 ↗ our virtual

7:45 ↗ attendees yes okay uh we'll begin with

7:50 ↗ our attendees who are with us in

7:52 ↗ person and I believe Amanda you have the

7:54 ↗ list someone has a

7:58 ↗ list G

8:03 ↗ aeve okay thank

8:06 ↗ you is that

8:16 ↗ Brooke you can make them now

8:27 ↗ sir thank you uh my name is Brook Lang

8:30 ↗ some of you I have spoken to earlier

8:32 ↗ about the Adu size and I think some

8:33 ↗ things have changed since then that I've

8:35 ↗ just found out I was supporting the 1200

8:39 ↗ square F foot Adu and part of the reason

8:42 ↗ before was that was density needs to be

8:45 ↗ greater for

8:47 ↗ population and when you look at taking

8:50 ↗ care of elderly and elderly parents you

8:53 ↗ cannot get two separate rooms plus a

8:56 ↗ caregiver room in an Adu to take care of

9:00 ↗ parents and so that was it just it can't

9:03 ↗ be done we spoken to multiple Architects

9:04 ↗ and you can't get that type of

9:06 ↗ arrangement made in 1,000 foot Adu was

9:09 ↗ very very tight in a 12200 foot

9:12 ↗ Adu um but when we spoke about this

9:14 ↗ first I brought this issue to the

9:16 ↗ council you know a year ago in the and

9:18 ↗ the committee here um I do not believe

9:22 ↗ that they had the rule where they're

9:23 ↗ saying now you're being forced to have

9:26 ↗ two units or you're being forced to

9:29 ↗ accept accept that you could have two

9:31 ↗ units on two Adu units plus a primary on

9:35 ↗ a piece of property and so as long as

9:40 ↗ the two units can be a duplex and then

9:44 ↗ there could be a fire door in between

9:47 ↗ the two which essentially means there

9:49 ↗ could be uh one uh uh essentially uh

9:54 ↗ occupying both sides of a duplex then

9:58 ↗ that would be fine because now you can

10:01 ↗ have a very large structure as an

10:05 ↗ Adu um so then the thousand square fet

10:09 ↗ doesn't become an issue since the state

10:11 ↗ is mandating the requirement that we

10:14 ↗ have two adus plus a primary resident or

10:18 ↗ the state is mandating to the city of

10:20 ↗ issaqua that you can have a duplex

10:23 ↗ duplex could be from what I understand

10:24 ↗ 2,000 square ft so now you've got us a

10:27 ↗ lot with a main residence

10:29 ↗ and a duplex with at least 2,000 sare ft

10:33 ↗ and a fire door between the duplex where

10:35 ↗ someone could handle both of them then

10:37 ↗ in that case I would be fine not

10:39 ↗ increasing the Adu size to 1200 if

10:42 ↗ that's not the case if that's not

10:45 ↗ possible then we need to go back to

10:47 ↗ increase the duplex to 12200 sare ft now

10:50 ↗ I understand that that means because the

10:52 ↗ state is mandating to you like you do

10:54 ↗ not have a choice that you will have to

10:57 ↗ have a primary residence and then two

11:00 ↗ like 1,000 foot each

11:02 ↗ adus and now I'm telling you to say well

11:05 ↗ make at least one of them can be 12200

11:08 ↗ Square fet I I get it that's a big ask

11:10 ↗ that was not what I talked to the city

11:12 ↗ about over the past 24 plus months about

11:16 ↗ only one unit being 1,200 square ft but

11:19 ↗ nobody in this decision process can

11:22 ↗ overdo what the state is done so uh as

11:25 ↗ long as all of you and the Planning

11:26 ↗ Commission and all the way up to the

11:28 ↗ city council are fully A Ware that if we

11:30 ↗ can have a duplex with a fire door in

11:33 ↗ between them where they both units could

11:35 ↗ essentially be occupied by one party um

11:38 ↗ 2,000 square ft is fine for an elderly

11:41 ↗ couple to maybe occupy one side and a

11:44 ↗ caregiver to be able to occupy the other

11:47 ↗ side with a fire door in between for

11:49 ↗ emergency purposes taking care of people

11:52 ↗ um I think you all understand what I'm

11:53 ↗ trying to say and I can follow up with

11:55 ↗ you if anybody on the Planning

11:57 ↗ Commission else has any questions about

11:59 ↗ what I just proposed or said thank you

12:01 ↗ very

12:06 ↗ much next person for comment is Mark

12:17 ↗ Bernstein uh my name is Mark burnson

12:19 ↗ I've been a resident of isqua for 69

12:22 ↗ years and I've lived on Bush Street for

12:26 ↗ 66 of those years my wife and I bought

12:28 ↗ our Prime

12:29 ↗ uh my folks's primary residents and

12:33 ↗ remodeled it build a new garage all

12:36 ↗ these other good things to improve it

12:38 ↗ for our growing family um my

12:40 ↗ grandparents have been in here in isqua

12:43 ↗ since the 1800s

12:45 ↗ 1880s

12:49 ↗ um with

12:53 ↗ my background in isaa when I was a kid

12:56 ↗ lots of young kids in the neighborhood

12:59 ↗ um um and it was a wonderful place to

13:02 ↗ grow up and we had a real unique mix of

13:05 ↗ old and young young folks the old people

13:11 ↗ were like additional grandparents in the

13:13 ↗ neighborhood they kept an eye out on us

13:15 ↗ um it was just a really looking back at

13:18 ↗ it you don't appreciate it when you were

13:19 ↗ a kid but looking back at it was really

13:22 ↗ really cool and they watched out for us

13:25 ↗ kids and if I was getting in trouble my

13:28 ↗ mom would be standing on the porch

13:29 ↗ waiting for me because the relatives on

13:32 ↗ the street had called her and said hey

13:35 ↗ this is what he's been up to you need to

13:37 ↗ address it so at any rate it was it was

13:40 ↗ really cool and when I bought the

13:41 ↗ primary residence in '

13:43 ↗ 82 uh that I grew up in for my folks um

13:47 ↗ I had kids and the Dynamics of the

13:49 ↗ neighborhood completely changed hardly

13:51 ↗ any young kids in the downtown area at

13:53 ↗ that time and it was you didn't have the

13:56 ↗ sense of community well now with the

14:00 ↗ housing um we have a lot of young

14:03 ↗ families moving in the neighborhood

14:04 ↗ we've got lots of kids on the street now

14:07 ↗ and it's it's one of the last places I

14:09 ↗ think in isqua where if you're just

14:12 ↗ getting a start in life with the new

14:14 ↗ family and you're trying to make ends

14:16 ↗ meet is AA still affordable some of the

14:19 ↗ little houses and a lot of people have

14:21 ↗ put a lot of time and effort all the

14:23 ↗ major houses on the street have been

14:25 ↗ completely redone they're beautiful on

14:27 ↗ the inside and they've tried to keep the

14:29 ↗ outside character the same and it's it's

14:32 ↗ a feeling of community that you just

14:34 ↗ don't see elsewhere um a lot of other

14:38 ↗ neighborhoods and other cities will um

14:42 ↗ they'll come in and they'll put all

14:43 ↗ these homes very built very similar time

14:47 ↗ and uh it's it's different you don't

14:51 ↗ have the relationship with the people

14:53 ↗ that live in that neighborhood and you

14:55 ↗ know you come off the highway and you

14:57 ↗ come into the old part of town

14:59 ↗ and that's that's unique for this region

15:05 ↗ um there's

15:07 ↗ a a sense of community with the new and

15:10 ↗ the old now that hearkens back to the

15:14 ↗ days when I was a little kid with the

15:16 ↗ old and the young and now I'm I'm the

15:18 ↗ old part of that

15:19 ↗ neighborhood um but it's you know we

15:22 ↗ know all of our neighbors we get

15:25 ↗ together on a regular basis there we

15:27 ↗ have acquaintances but we also have a

15:29 ↗ lot of friends in the neighborhood and

15:31 ↗ we've taken a lot of pride in our homes

15:34 ↗ remodeling them updating them and this

15:38 ↗ that and the other

15:39 ↗ adus um I think are a great addition to

15:41 ↗ the neighborhood um and I would be in

15:44 ↗ support in in favor of the two units for

15:49 ↗ lot um but but beyond that I have some

15:54 ↗ uh some concerns um one is

16:00 ↗ it's going to take away an opportunity

16:02 ↗ for young families to get into a starter

16:05 ↗ home a home that they can build on they

16:07 ↗ can build equity and they can raise

16:09 ↗ their families in a neighborhood where

16:12 ↗ people watch out for one another and

16:14 ↗ that's that's pretty unique you go into

16:16 ↗ any neighborhood in other towns where

16:19 ↗ it's just a whole bunch of new homes and

16:20 ↗ stuff in here they don't have the the

16:23 ↗ closeness that our neighborhood does and

16:25 ↗ it's been that way all my life but I've

16:27 ↗ seen the transition from when I was a

16:29 ↗ kid to when I was a young adult having

16:31 ↗ kids of my own and it was completely

16:33 ↗ different and now it's swung back to the

16:35 ↗ way it used to be where you have old

16:37 ↗ people like myself and and the young mix

16:40 ↗ and and we visit with the with the kids

16:42 ↗ walking to school every day and it's

16:46 ↗ it's just a real unique opportunity to

16:51 ↗ grow up in a neighborhood like that and

16:53 ↗ heavy density I think would destroy that

16:56 ↗ feel and it it also poses other problems

17:00 ↗ um if you look

17:03 ↗ at these families that are going to try

17:05 ↗ to buy a place um excuse me you have you

17:10 ↗ have 15 seconds okay if you make heavy

17:12 ↗ density Builders are going to gobble

17:14 ↗ those up and those people will never

17:16 ↗ have the opportunity to on their homes

17:18 ↗ um infrastructure questions

17:21 ↗ problems storm drain parking and

17:26 ↗ updating the sewer in the sewer in the

17:28 ↗ water systems is going to have to be

17:31 ↗ researched and and addressed so thank

17:41 ↗ you Kim

17:47 ↗ infinger hi good evening um my name is

17:50 ↗ Kim infinger I live at 365 Southeast

17:53 ↗ Bush we have lived on the east side for

17:56 ↗ 34 years the last 15 in Oldtown I

17:59 ↗ strongly support the minimum two unit

18:01 ↗ per lot option because it allows isquad

18:03 ↗ to grow responsibly while maintaining

18:05 ↗ its unique character I am a yimi yes in

18:08 ↗ my backyard where we are proud to

18:11 ↗ provide additional housing in our

18:12 ↗ backyard Adu I have three points I'd

18:15 ↗ like you to consider first is preserving

18:18 ↗ isqua's character while expanding

18:20 ↗ housing isqua is a city with a rich

18:22 ↗ history as Mark has described and an

18:24 ↗ endearing charm that makes it a special

18:27 ↗ place to live the two unit proposal

18:29 ↗ would not unduly diminish that character

18:31 ↗ and can actually enhance it by allowing

18:33 ↗ two units per lot we can thoughtfully

18:35 ↗ promote middle housing meet mandated

18:38 ↗ state requirements while maintaining the

18:41 ↗ distinctive look and feel that makes

18:42 ↗ isqua so beloved rather than exceeding

18:45 ↗ the state requirements without the

18:47 ↗ benefit of full impact analysis or case

18:50 ↗ study let's do a really good job the ISA

18:53 ↗ way we do not need to be a Redmond a

18:56 ↗ Belleview or a Kirkland when we grow up

18:59 ↗ second is building on proven success we

19:01 ↗ have already seen middle housing succeed

19:03 ↗ in isqua particularly in Oldtown however

19:07 ↗ existing city permits fees covenants

19:10 ↗ discourage broader adoption we've

19:12 ↗ ourselves faced enormous challenges and

19:14 ↗ excessive bureaucracy bureaucracy with

19:17 ↗ this city process when we built our Adu

19:19 ↗ in

19:20 ↗ 2021 I encourage the commission to look

19:23 ↗ at ways to encourage and support

19:25 ↗ residents to adopt more middle Housing

19:27 ↗ Solutions rather than and incentivizing

19:29 ↗ developers to maximize Market race

19:32 ↗ market rate housing units new building

19:35 ↗ will not provide

19:36 ↗ affordability and most likely will

19:39 ↗ provide gentrification and neighborhood

19:42 ↗ character destruction we do not need to

19:45 ↗ look far to see bad examples the third

19:48 ↗ is collaboration and thoughtful

19:50 ↗ implementation the best path forward is

19:53 ↗ one where residents and City leadership

19:55 ↗ work together to ensure that growth

19:57 ↗ benefits everyone

19:59 ↗ by choosing the two unit option we

20:01 ↗ create a middle ground one that respects

20:03 ↗ the unique attraction of isqua while

20:06 ↗ addressing the housing needs of the

20:08 ↗ community this change will impact only a

20:10 ↗ small set of neighborhoods so it is

20:12 ↗ vital to listen to those residents and

20:15 ↗ ensure their concerns are heard by

20:17 ↗ working together we can preserve what

20:19 ↗ makes isqua special while while

20:21 ↗ addressing our housing needs in

20:23 ↗ conclusion the two unit per Zone per lot

20:27 ↗ zoning option is the right choice for

20:28 ↗ isqua it aligns with our city values

20:31 ↗ leverages current zoning honors our

20:33 ↗ well-crafted comprehensive plan

20:36 ↗ preserves our unique character and

20:37 ↗ builds on proven success in Middle

20:40 ↗ housing by taking a balanced

20:42 ↗ collaborative approach we can provide

20:44 ↗ sustainable Housing Solutions while

20:46 ↗ representing the voice of our residents

20:48 ↗ thank

20:51 ↗ you we are at the end of our signning

20:54 ↗ sheet however I do see a lot of people

20:56 ↗ in the audience if someone else would

20:58 ↗ like to step step forward and make a

21:01 ↗ comment yes

21:11 ↗ ma'am good evening David kapler 255

21:14 ↗ Southeast Andrews Street a very short

21:17 ↗ walk from here um when we uh chose to to

21:21 ↗ we we we were out in the rural areas May

21:24 ↗ Valley our kids couldn't ride their

21:25 ↗ bikes on the May Valley Road and a lot

21:27 ↗ of things we couldn't do they had

21:29 ↗ friends in the city and um we were

21:32 ↗ really looking specifically in this part

21:34 ↗ we found a a house fortunately that um

21:37 ↗ people were reluctant to give up but um

21:40 ↗ they had other other issues they had to

21:42 ↗ move um one of the things our community

21:46 ↗ has been strong has been inter

21:49 ↗ intergenerational we've got older people

21:51 ↗ we've got a lot of in the middle and a

21:54 ↗ lot of kids and lately more even the

21:58 ↗ kids are seem to be uh more lately which

22:00 ↗ is great is um that's indicates some

22:04 ↗ affordability in the community for one

22:06 ↗ thing um which we hope to

22:09 ↗ maintain um just concerned about the

22:13 ↗ adus having those having them at a

22:16 ↗ reasonable size um so that we can

22:20 ↗ continue um in our our family we had the

22:24 ↗ two kids and raised the kids but we also

22:27 ↗ ended up uh um with our my wife's um

22:33 ↗ mother lived with us for a number of

22:35 ↗ years too and um that was a very very

22:38 ↗ valuable to our family it was very

22:41 ↗ valuable to her life she could continue

22:43 ↗ being on the library board and her

22:45 ↗ different other groups she was involved

22:48 ↗ with and um it was just a great

22:51 ↗ Community I think looking at 4,000 foot

22:55 ↗ units is going to be not not going to

23:00 ↗ continue our community being a place

23:03 ↗ that um it is now which I think is

23:05 ↗ really a great place thank

23:16 ↗ you good evening my name is Nancy

23:19 ↗ Davidson and I live in Oldtown I'm also

23:21 ↗ resident of the city of isqua I want to

23:23 ↗ thank the commission for recommending

23:25 ↗ densities consistent with the state

23:27 ↗ Mandate of two units for parcel um which

23:30 ↗ provides an opport opportunity for

23:32 ↗ gentle and reasonable densification of

23:34 ↗ our neighborhoods however there seems to

23:36 ↗ be a push by the council to consider

23:38 ↗ going to four units per parcel uh two of

23:41 ↗ the neighborhoods that are most impacted

23:43 ↗ by this are Oldtown and squawk Mountain

23:45 ↗ because of the state legislation

23:47 ↗ Exempted neighborhoods with homeowners

23:49 ↗ associations Oldtown currently has a lot

23:52 ↗ of middle housing with adus duplexes and

23:55 ↗ divided houses however there is interest

23:58 ↗ in redeveloping these neighborhoods

23:59 ↗ since they have tended to have lower

24:01 ↗ housing prices due to the older stock of

24:04 ↗ the houses their older

24:06 ↗ homes um making them less more cost

24:09 ↗ effective we don't need Builders to come

24:12 ↗ in and start tearing down these homes

24:14 ↗ for larger units similar to pencil

24:16 ↗ houses that you see in bellw redm and

24:19 ↗ others a pencil house is a is a 2, foot

24:23 ↗ three-story building which puts four of

24:26 ↗ them on one single lot often they're

24:28 ↗ purchased for a certain price and the

24:30 ↗ houses are then sold each one for the

24:32 ↗ same price as what you just purchase

24:34 ↗ that lot for that's not something that's

24:36 ↗ the isqua way super profit profitable

24:40 ↗ houses is not necessarily make them

24:43 ↗ affordable gentle densification by

24:46 ↗ staring with the two unit per parcel

24:48 ↗ will protect the character and feel of

24:49 ↗ these neighborhoods this will allow

24:51 ↗ existing Property Owners to add adus or

24:54 ↗ to divide their homes to provide

24:56 ↗ additional housing some of the Challen

24:58 ↗ es of increased densities above the two

25:00 ↗ unit per partiel are impacting the

25:02 ↗ city's character and infrastructure some

25:04 ↗ of which I'd like to go over with you in

25:06 ↗ terms of my point of view of how it

25:07 ↗ might look the character the character

25:10 ↗ of the old town and squawk neighborhoods

25:12 ↗ are unique and impacted will be impacted

25:14 ↗ by higher densities the Oldtown

25:17 ↗ neighborhood predates the Suburban car

25:19 ↗ oriented forms of other parts of the

25:21 ↗ city thus adding to its tight-knit feel

25:24 ↗ which many have described here small

25:26 ↗ town charm and its AU

25:28 ↗ authenticity this charm is something

25:30 ↗ noted by visitors and sets issaqua apart

25:33 ↗ from nearby cities of bellw Redmond and

25:36 ↗ Kirkland who have lost their small town

25:38 ↗ field and replac them with highly

25:40 ↗ urbanized areas swok Mountain on the

25:43 ↗ other hand is well known for its

25:45 ↗ towering evergreen trees its wide range

25:47 ↗ of views and wooded Lots these

25:50 ↗ characteristics are important to this

25:52 ↗ community and should be preserved for

25:54 ↗ its

25:55 ↗ residents the other thing you might want

25:56 ↗ to be thinking about along this line as

25:58 ↗ you consider densities is parking

26:01 ↗ parking is a challenge particularly in

26:03 ↗ the Front Street area often and it often

26:05 ↗ spoil spills out over into the Oldtown

26:08 ↗ neighborhood Oldtown street parking is

26:10 ↗ already heavily utilized by current

26:12 ↗ densities and many houses last driveways

26:15 ↗ and garages adding three more housing

26:17 ↗ units per lot will Ex exacerbate this

26:20 ↗ issue storm water much of the existing

26:24 ↗ storm water in the Oldtown area um was

26:27 ↗ built over 50 years years ago with

26:29 ↗ corrugated metal pipes and they are

26:31 ↗ beginning to fail streets do not have

26:34 ↗ drainage systems and catch Basin to

26:36 ↗ convey the runoff which can infiltrate

26:39 ↗ and recharge our aquafer higher

26:42 ↗ densities will exacerbate this issue

26:44 ↗ because there will be more impervious

26:46 ↗ areas built and less areas for this

26:48 ↗ water to go sewer capacity as you look

26:51 ↗ at higher densities there will be need

26:54 ↗ to be an increase in an aging sewer

26:56 ↗ system this also needs to be considered

26:59 ↗ as you're talking about lat sizes water

27:02 ↗ supply sorry to hit all these but the

27:04 ↗ Oldtown neighborhood is located within

27:06 ↗ the critical aquafer recharge area for

27:08 ↗ the city's Municipal wealth recharge

27:11 ↗ from storm water infiltrates into the um

27:14 ↗ perious areas and allows it to recharge

27:17 ↗ our water supply system by adding higher

27:19 ↗ densities with more impervious area more

27:22 ↗ coverage of those lots will reduce our

27:25 ↗ recharge to our groundwater system and

27:27 ↗ our wells and finally trees the isaquel

27:30 ↗ climate action plan and the

27:32 ↗ comprehensive plan set a tree canopy

27:34 ↗ Target of 55% by

27:36 ↗ 2035 to achieve this trees in Oldtown

27:39 ↗ and squawk Mountain neighborhoods need

27:40 ↗ to be retained and preserved higher

27:43 ↗ densities will not provide for that in

27:46 ↗ summaries isaa planning must balance

27:48 ↗ housing needs with the preservation of

27:50 ↗ our community's quality of life

27:53 ↗ environmental sustainability and

27:55 ↗ infrastructure capacity increasing the

27:57 ↗ density on a parcle from two two units

28:00 ↗ to four will significantly impact these

28:03 ↗ neighborhoods I encourage you to

28:05 ↗ continue recommending to the city

28:06 ↗ council staying with the two units per

28:09 ↗ parcel thank you very much for

28:10 ↗ considering I'd like to offer my um

28:12 ↗ comments to the clerk to be included in

28:21 ↗ the do we have anyone else who would

28:24 ↗ like to make a comment this evening

28:30 ↗ good evening uh my name is Tina Hayes I

28:34 ↗ live at 585 Southeast Bush Street um I

28:37 ↗ wanted to offer my perspective as one of

28:40 ↗ the younger is families that live in

28:42 ↗ Oldtown with young kids walking around

28:44 ↗ in the streets um and I am echoing some

28:47 ↗ of my neighbors um ideas and thoughts in

28:50 ↗ terms of uh yes wanting more um options

28:53 ↗ for building in our backyard wanting

28:56 ↗ edus um I came just to mostly listen but

29:00 ↗ then as as I was listening I was like I

29:02 ↗ should probably put my perspective out

29:03 ↗ there because I think it's important so

29:05 ↗ we moved here um about 5 years ago and

29:08 ↗ um this the home that we now own um is

29:11 ↗ about 106 years old um it

29:14 ↗ is you know falling apart very slowly um

29:18 ↗ I had a contractor sort of lovingly tell

29:20 ↗ me you know I don't mean to offend you

29:21 ↗ but your house is made of scraps like

29:23 ↗ when they built it they just were

29:25 ↗ finding things around and so we're not

29:27 ↗ sure how long long it's going to go and

29:29 ↗ if every renovation you do um is going

29:31 ↗ to be very costly because everything is

29:33 ↗ out of code um everything you know needs

29:35 ↗ to be updated pretty significantly and

29:38 ↗ so when I think about the preservation

29:41 ↗ of the old homes and the character that

29:43 ↗ we have in our town I recognize that it

29:44 ↗ is complicated because we have a time

29:47 ↗ and that we're we're thinking of um you

29:50 ↗ know 30 years ago where these homes were

29:54 ↗ in a lot better shape and the community

29:55 ↗ felt a certain way and now a lot of them

29:57 ↗ I mean I'm not sure how realistic it is

30:00 ↗ for families um like myself to be able

30:03 ↗ to maintain them um and I just want to

30:05 ↗ think about Equity too so I'm ramble a

30:07 ↗ little bit but thinking about like um is

30:10 ↗ it possible for some of the homes that

30:14 ↗ might need to go um you know making

30:17 ↗ space for new developments and I

30:19 ↗ understand that there's um it's

30:21 ↗ important to maintain the look and

30:24 ↗ character and safety in our town but I

30:25 ↗ also think that it's um important for

30:28 ↗ you all to be considering creating space

30:30 ↗ for newcomers um to move in here our

30:33 ↗ home is not a starter home you know we

30:35 ↗ had a couple homes before this um we had

30:37 ↗ to have a lot of equity to be able to be

30:39 ↗ able to purchase we had a lot of luck we

30:41 ↗ have a lot of privilege that enabled us

30:43 ↗ to have the space that we have in now

30:45 ↗ and I would love to see more families in

30:49 ↗ homes that they can that they can afford

30:52 ↗ and start in truly you know and I think

30:54 ↗ that um isqua is so expensive to live

30:57 ↗ here and

30:58 ↗ um and part of that is a big huge

31:02 ↗ Nationwide problem but other there are

31:03 ↗ other things that you guys can do and

31:05 ↗ recommend to the council that I think

31:06 ↗ will help um bring new people into our

31:08 ↗ town and give them more housing options

31:11 ↗ thank

31:19 ↗ you hi good evening my name is Wendy

31:22 ↗ Pickering and

31:24 ↗ um

31:26 ↗ um my family's been here a long time

31:30 ↗ since the

31:32 ↗ 1860s um I didn't grow up here however

31:35 ↗ but I we made the very wise choice of

31:37 ↗ moving to a sequa 24 years ago and we

31:40 ↗ live at 285 second AV Northeast just

31:44 ↗ just north of the Memorial Field and we

31:47 ↗ didn't know how wonderful it would turn

31:49 ↗ out to be that we chose to come here

31:52 ↗ from

31:52 ↗ Seattle and I think we all know uh the

31:55 ↗ crisis of affordable housing

31:58 ↗ and just the lack of housing in general

32:00 ↗ that's hit our whole state and Western

32:04 ↗ Washington King

32:06 ↗ County um we also know in response to

32:09 ↗ that that the state has been working and

32:12 ↗ and um trying very hard to figure out

32:14 ↗ how to deal with that and mandating now

32:17 ↗ this uh construction of housing the two

32:20 ↗ to four the six units per

32:23 ↗ lot and my understanding is that the

32:27 ↗ commission has recommended we stick with

32:29 ↗ the two for now and that I greatly uh

32:32 ↗ appreciate and want to thank you for and

32:34 ↗ and like the others standing up here

32:36 ↗ continue to advocate

32:38 ↗ for many of the same reasons and I share

32:42 ↗ virtually everything every everybody has

32:44 ↗ said so

32:45 ↗ far but

32:49 ↗ um I I there's a several I have a number

32:53 ↗ of concerns and I um I also just

32:56 ↗ basically am here to advocate for this

32:58 ↗ approach of gentle dend sorry gentle Den

33:02 ↗ density as we begin to uh build and

33:05 ↗ incorporate new housing into Old Town

33:10 ↗ I'll let others talk about squawk

33:11 ↗ because I don't I don't have any

33:13 ↗ experience with

33:15 ↗ that so one of my concerns has also to

33:20 ↗ do with congestion traffic safety safety

33:24 ↗ on our

33:26 ↗ roads and we

33:29 ↗ do uh pride ourselves in our walkability

33:32 ↗ and I and my husband and my dog are are

33:35 ↗ some of those who walk literally every

33:38 ↗ day all around

33:41 ↗ Oldtown and as a matter of fact um I as

33:45 ↗ I have testified to the city council in

33:47 ↗ the past here in this room it isn't

33:51 ↗ actually safe and it isn't actually uh

33:54 ↗ friendly in a lot of ways and nearly on

33:57 ↗ a daily basis when we walk all over

34:01 ↗ there are there are any number of

34:03 ↗ intersections and hotspots that we have

34:06 ↗ been almost hit numerous numerous times

34:10 ↗ and I I I have given a whole list of

34:12 ↗ those hot spots to the council in the

34:14 ↗ past but I'm concerned about with even

34:17 ↗ more cars and we already suffer under

34:19 ↗ the burden of too much traffic in isqua

34:22 ↗ and we have struggled mightily to figure

34:24 ↗ out how to deal with that you know

34:27 ↗ bringing in

34:28 ↗ four units per lot without parking um

34:32 ↗ mandated included they'll just be on the

34:35 ↗ they'll just be parking on the street

34:37 ↗ and you know all the more people on the

34:39 ↗ streets and I just um I I really do not

34:43 ↗ want to

34:44 ↗ increase that burden on our

34:48 ↗ town also

34:51 ↗ [Music]

34:52 ↗ um uh the

34:55 ↗ affordability issue my understanding is

34:59 ↗ it this this law that the state has

35:01 ↗ passed does not really in fact address

35:05 ↗ or really solve that affordability issue

35:10 ↗ as as I don't remember her name but she

35:12 ↗ just spoke to um so

35:15 ↗ eloquently and my understanding is that

35:18 ↗ if they build the four units only one of

35:20 ↗ them technically has to be affordable

35:23 ↗ and the rest are going to be sold at

35:25 ↗ market rate and

35:28 ↗ so I don't think that en that's not

35:30 ↗ going to encourage um young families and

35:33 ↗ people who struggle you know who who

35:36 ↗ can't just come in at that level and I

35:39 ↗ would love to see more affordable

35:41 ↗ housing in isqua in a in a really

35:44 ↗ genuine way so that people can come and

35:47 ↗ join us here people of all

35:50 ↗ ages

35:52 ↗ and so in a way I feel like it this this

35:57 ↗ push

35:58 ↗ maybe kind of just uh benefits the

36:00 ↗ builders and the

36:02 ↗ developers and not really the community

36:06 ↗ and those who might wish to move here

36:09 ↗ I'm also really concerned about

36:10 ↗ environmental impacts and I won't go

36:13 ↗ back through things Nancy just did a

36:15 ↗ fabulous job of breaking that down I

36:18 ↗ apologize but you have 15 seconds okay

36:21 ↗ so as someone who loves my town I

36:24 ↗ cherish it I um the his acquaint nature

36:28 ↗ the sense of community everyone's

36:30 ↗ already spoken toward that I really also

36:34 ↗ want to advocate for the two unit

36:39 ↗ approach to begin so that we can take it

36:42 ↗ slow not go 0 to 60 out of the gate and

36:45 ↗ see how that goes like a test case see

36:48 ↗ how it goes first let's let's go slow

36:52 ↗ let's think about really carefully what

36:54 ↗ we're doing and um making it always

36:58 ↗ affordable sustainable and that sense of

37:00 ↗ strong community that isqua has thank

37:03 ↗ you so much for your

37:10 ↗ time hello I am Kendra nordberg I live

37:13 ↗ at 440 Bush Street uh also in in Oldtown

37:18 ↗ first of all I just want to thank you

37:19 ↗ for your service it feels like this is a

37:21 ↗ overwhelming task to me I can't even

37:23 ↗ imagine what this is for you um I'm just

37:26 ↗ starting to catch up up so if my

37:29 ↗ comments aren't quite on point you'll

37:30 ↗ know why but anyways I've lived here for

37:33 ↗ 25 years just a short amount of time but

37:36 ↗ in that time I've seen issaqua grow and

37:39 ↗ grow and grow some of the growing paints

37:42 ↗ U have um been wonderful you know we got

37:46 ↗ Costco that was awesome we got more than

37:49 ↗ two grocery stores that was awesome we

37:52 ↗ got uh Target that was awesome but with

37:56 ↗ all those changes um traffic increased

37:59 ↗ and increased and parking decreased of

38:03 ↗ through all of these changes um we have

38:07 ↗ an issue I was going to use this letter

38:09 ↗ and now I'm I'm on actually a different

38:11 ↗ thing anyways um we have so much traffic

38:14 ↗ on Second Street because we have three

38:16 ↗ schools a community center and various

38:19 ↗ uh uh uh storefronts restaurants whatnot

38:23 ↗ the amount of parking in Oldtown is very

38:26 ↗ limited Plus the residents that live

38:28 ↗ there actually park on the street I

38:30 ↗ don't have a garage why cuz I have an

38:32 ↗ Adu so I don't have a garage I have to

38:35 ↗ park on the on the street side sometimes

38:38 ↗ um I can't even Park on my in front of

38:40 ↗ my own house so if we grow too quickly

38:43 ↗ and parking decreases we're going to

38:45 ↗ have a real hard time just parking our

38:47 ↗ own Vehicles so um as we go so I have

38:52 ↗ traffic is uh if we remember when we

38:55 ↗ didn't have sunset here uh the sunset

38:57 ↗ exit if you are old enough to remember

39:00 ↗ going from I90 to the community center

39:03 ↗ was almost an hour during traffic if we

39:06 ↗ it was hard to get to my house uh just

39:10 ↗ coming from Kent um because I couldn't

39:12 ↗ get there quickly that provided a great

39:15 ↗ service but now as you can see as we

39:17 ↗ build more things guess what's happening

39:19 ↗ traffic traff traffic is building up

39:22 ↗ once again so um as you make these

39:25 ↗ considerations for is two better or for

39:27 ↗ better could you please in consider what

39:31 ↗ that will do to our traffic the other

39:33 ↗ thing and parking the other thing I'd

39:35 ↗ like you to consider is just the um the

39:39 ↗ quaintness of our town right we have a

39:41 ↗ really unique area here we do have new

39:45 ↗ structures in the highlands we have new

39:47 ↗ structures um downtown but we have this

39:51 ↗ beautiful sense of isqua downtown it's

39:54 ↗ been here for like they've said hundreds

39:56 ↗ of years it's got great histor

39:59 ↗ historical value it has great Community

40:02 ↗ value it has Walkers hikers bikers I

40:05 ↗ mean this is rare it reminds me a little

40:09 ↗ bit of Redmond and Redmond had this

40:12 ↗ quaint town going on for a long time had

40:15 ↗ un it had an absolutely amazing downtown

40:18 ↗ old buildings and houses all mixed in

40:21 ↗ with it it was awesome and what did they

40:23 ↗ do they sterilized it they had these big

40:25 ↗ buildings with the storefronts

40:27 ↗ underneath it and everything looks the

40:29 ↗ same you kind of look in the storefront

40:30 ↗ and you're like H it's another store eh

40:33 ↗ it's another restaurant it all looks the

40:34 ↗ same I was just there Kirkland did the

40:37 ↗ same thing Kirkland had a great downtown

40:40 ↗ so fun so

40:42 ↗ eclectic so I hope that when you make

40:44 ↗ these considerations you'll at least

40:46 ↗ consider these two points how will it

40:48 ↗ affect traffic and how will it affect

40:50 ↗ our community how it looks like how

40:53 ↗ can't we be let's be unique our adus are

40:56 ↗ taking care of some of the middle income

40:59 ↗ or the middle housing um so consider

41:02 ↗ that um but you have a hard job I

41:04 ↗ appreciate what you do because not

41:06 ↗ everybody gets involved with government

41:08 ↗ and this is my first council is meeting

41:11 ↗ yay

41:13 ↗ me so if you would just consider those

41:15 ↗ things I wrote my thoughts down and I

41:18 ↗ will hand them to the court

41:29 ↗ are there any other

41:37 ↗ [Laughter]

41:42 ↗ comments I was just writing down some

41:44 ↗ notes but uh I'll try and wing it so um

41:47 ↗ my name is David Griffin and um my wife

41:49 ↗ and I just bought uh in isqua last

41:52 ↗ August so we're excited we were living

41:54 ↗ in samish for a couple years before that

41:57 ↗ and um you might be able to tell from my

41:59 ↗ accent um I grew up in uh Sydney

42:02 ↗ Australia um specifically I grew up in a

42:05 ↗ suburb called taramara and the like

42:07 ↗ local government there is called kuringa

42:09 ↗ so something it has in common with this

42:10 ↗ aquar is that those are native names

42:12 ↗ like australi original Native American

42:16 ↗ names um something else that has in

42:17 ↗ common is it's tar and K is known for

42:19 ↗ being like really leafy green trees like

42:23 ↗ a beautiful area like relatively

42:25 ↗ affluent um really nice place to grow up

42:28 ↗ um also had relatively good public

42:30 ↗ transport links cuz there was a big

42:32 ↗ there's a train line that went through

42:33 ↗ there called the NorthShore line and um

42:36 ↗ has lots of more stations than U most of

42:39 ↗ the train lines in Sydney like per mile

42:42 ↗ like one of them was put there back in

42:43 ↗ the day because of a private school so

42:45 ↗ like like in Harry Potter the school had

42:46 ↗ a training station basically and um uh

42:50 ↗ yeah and so the issues in that area

42:53 ↗ around development have been like

42:54 ↗ somewhat similar to here where um you

42:57 ↗ know Sydney's been bursting at the seams

42:59 ↗ for many years there's like national

43:01 ↗ parks Heming it in so like where the

43:04 ↗ house is going to go and lots of people

43:05 ↗ are like well there's a train line uh

43:09 ↗ maybe we can put people near the train

43:11 ↗ line in the highway and that seems like

43:13 ↗ great but of course the uh you know when

43:16 ↗ I was growing up there probably uh well

43:19 ↗ 20 years ago now um uh you know the

43:23 ↗ issues there was like a big campaigns

43:25 ↗ where you go I was like going to school

43:27 ↗ School via the train and uh there's like

43:29 ↗ people handing out pamphlets at the

43:30 ↗ train station save our suburbs and then

43:33 ↗ when I was old enough to vote in the

43:34 ↗ local elections it was like the save our

43:35 ↗ suburbs party the green party the

43:38 ↗ developers going get F party and the um

43:42 ↗ and uh yeah and so this went on for many

43:44 ↗ years and there was like even a plan I

43:46 ↗ remember going to the library and they

43:47 ↗ had like a model of like a proposed like

43:50 ↗ New Town Center for torur and it was

43:52 ↗ like all very nice and stuff then

43:54 ↗ eventually all that got like voted down

43:56 ↗ by the local Council and then what the

43:57 ↗ state government did is they took away

43:59 ↗ all the planning powers from kurai

44:01 ↗ Council and some other local councils in

44:04 ↗ Sydney who were being obstinate and um

44:06 ↗ said you can have five-story Apartments

44:08 ↗ like all the way up and down the highway

44:11 ↗ um as far as the I can see and then um

44:13 ↗ even my parents' house which was like

44:15 ↗ just outside the zoning they tried to

44:18 ↗ subdivide to make like

44:20 ↗ 3600 uh they bought the neighbor's house

44:23 ↗ and there was like two long thin L Lots

44:25 ↗ with the street Frontage and tried to

44:26 ↗ turn it into like um 34 acre lots and

44:30 ↗ the local Council fought them on that

44:32 ↗ and uh because the zoning regulations

44:34 ↗ just outside and then like you know just

44:36 ↗ up the road there's like five story

44:38 ↗ apartments and so basically the story is

44:40 ↗ that

44:42 ↗ um uh at some point like all of these

44:45 ↗ things are Balan like Australia has like

44:47 ↗ a worse housing crisis than or in

44:50 ↗ Australia they call the housing

44:51 ↗ situation of Crisis because of how

44:53 ↗ expensive the cost of living is so like

44:54 ↗ people got to live somewhere um if you

44:57 ↗ say no no no no for long enough then

44:59 ↗ eventually like either um another branch

45:03 ↗ of government or someone with a lot of

45:04 ↗ money um ends up steamrolling you and so

45:08 ↗ um what I would just uh suggest to

45:10 ↗ people is to think about how we can like

45:13 ↗ um do things in a balanced way um

45:16 ↗ balance

45:17 ↗ uh uh you know isqua has a lot of things

45:20 ↗ going for it we've got uh I90 eventually

45:23 ↗ the light rail hopefully um all these

45:26 ↗ like beautiful and all these kinds of

45:27 ↗ things so it's really great place place

45:29 ↗ for people to live um and I hope that uh

45:33 ↗ more people are able to enjoy is acquire

45:35 ↗ in the future and come live here and we

45:36 ↗ can do that in a way that um balances uh

45:40 ↗ um the amount of development that is

45:44 ↗ like likely to happen in the future with

45:45 ↗ some of the concerns that other people I

45:47 ↗ imagine are bringing up around the

45:48 ↗ character and like how you do it um all

45:51 ↗ that kind of stuff so I just wanted to

45:54 ↗ tell that story and uh I think that's

45:57 ↗ that's it for

46:05 ↗ me uh hello um my name is Jason sandwish

46:09 ↗ um I'm a firsttime home buyer with my

46:12 ↗ wife um Jill we uh we moved to Juniper

46:18 ↗ Street and um I wasn't going to say

46:20 ↗ anything I just want to come to my first

46:22 ↗ city council meeting and see what the

46:24 ↗ the buzz was all about but um I kind of

46:27 ↗ feel like I had to say something because

46:30 ↗ my wife and I live in um one of those

46:33 ↗ pencil houses and we absolutely love it

46:37 ↗ um and so uh I think that one of the

46:41 ↗ things that we kind of fail to

46:45 ↗ recognize is things are going to change

46:49 ↗ whether we like it or not um I know that

46:53 ↗ somebody came up here earlier and said

46:55 ↗ that uh um they had like 106y old house

47:00 ↗ and it was falling apart and so it's

47:04 ↗ very sad that some of the character of

47:09 ↗ Oldtown and isqua that we all love um

47:12 ↗ will eventually go whether we like it to

47:16 ↗ recognize it or not and what I want to

47:20 ↗ remind everybody is we have the light

47:23 ↗ rail coming in whether we like it or not

47:25 ↗ in like4

47:27 ↗ 4144 and so we can start to plan what

47:32 ↗ the future of isqua is going to look

47:34 ↗ like today and we can really think

47:37 ↗ through like from a strategic Point what

47:40 ↗ we want the new town to be and how to

47:42 ↗ maintain some of the old charm that

47:44 ↗ isqua has or we can try and fight it and

47:50 ↗ fight it and um look the other way while

47:55 ↗ some of the old time or the the Old Town

47:57 ↗ charm just kind of Falls away at the

47:59 ↗ Wayside so I would like to really push

48:03 ↗ the commission and some of my neighbors

48:05 ↗ just to reflect back and think that

48:09 ↗ things are going to change whether we

48:11 ↗ want them to or not but let's take a

48:13 ↗ proactive stance in thinking about what

48:15 ↗ we want to actually change and retain

48:19 ↗ the parts of isqua that we we' love so

48:22 ↗ thank you

48:30 ↗ okay my name's Connie Marsh and I'm just

48:33 ↗ going to start out with okay Boomer

48:36 ↗ right because I am a boomer

48:40 ↗ but you all know this I just have to

48:43 ↗ start with a little history because I

48:46 ↗ think when people move in they don't

48:49 ↗ know what we've done already we have

48:51 ↗ rezoned the Central isqua Area uh which

48:55 ↗ is along Gilman Boulevard and Front

48:57 ↗ Street with a very high density we can

49:00 ↗ go nine stories high on both sides of

49:02 ↗ the freeway on East Lake samamish

49:05 ↗ Parkway and down Newport way and that is

49:08 ↗ the place that isqua in our

49:10 ↗ comprehensive plan in our pre-planning

49:13 ↗ has said it will place its

49:16 ↗ density and that is alongside the new

49:20 ↗ light rail that we expect to have come

49:22 ↗ in and that is the way the community

49:24 ↗ over many years uh has thought to

49:27 ↗ preserve its Oldtown areas um and also

49:33 ↗ preserve the dramatic forested hillsides

49:36 ↗ that we have so the city has made a

49:39 ↗ conscious effort to plan its future in a

49:43 ↗ way that we can try to keep many things

49:46 ↗ while realizing houses get old you do

49:49 ↗ have to redevelop them we do have an

49:51 ↗ Oldtown area plan that talks about how

49:54 ↗ we can redevelop our homes and we can

49:58 ↗ have two in some places we can have four

50:01 ↗ already down there and we can

50:03 ↗ accommodate people as they move in

50:06 ↗ however the most affordable housing in

50:10 ↗ isqua is the older stock of Housing and

50:13 ↗ the newer houses that come in are the

50:15 ↗ more

50:16 ↗ expensive homes so if we can do as much

50:20 ↗ with our older stock of housing then we

50:24 ↗ can get that affordability in and the

50:26 ↗ sustainability in that we all cherish so

50:29 ↗ much while we put our new development

50:33 ↗ and accommodate our people in the

50:35 ↗ correct places if you look at our

50:37 ↗ statistics we are not low on our middle

50:40 ↗ housing we are low on our our midrise

50:44 ↗ Apartments our six and seven story uh

50:48 ↗ dwelling units and so fitting in with

50:53 ↗ the state mandate for two uh two units

50:58 ↗ per single family lot is is well below

51:02 ↗ our expectations we expect way more than

51:05 ↗ that we just expect to put it in places

51:07 ↗ where we can serve it efficiently and

51:09 ↗ effectively and people's taxes don't

51:11 ↗ have to go Skyrocket high in order to

51:14 ↗ create the infrastructure

51:16 ↗ necessary okay given that Spiel I'm

51:20 ↗ going to get a little bit more toward

51:23 ↗ the code language that they provided for

51:25 ↗ you tonight and some of my confusions in

51:28 ↗ that uh code

51:31 ↗ language uh you have the use

51:34 ↗ table uh which is I believe e and then

51:38 ↗ you have language for Middle housing and

51:40 ↗ they seem to contradict each other and

51:43 ↗ I'm a little perplexed by how you can

51:47 ↗ say single family duplex Triplex and

51:51 ↗ fourplexes are permitted in each of

51:54 ↗ those zones without a foot foot note

51:57 ↗ indicating that if we're going with you

52:00 ↗ what you say two houses per lot you

52:03 ↗ would have to be within a quarter mile

52:06 ↗ of a trans major Transit stop or you

52:09 ↗ would have to have affordable housing if

52:11 ↗ I were reading this I would say wow look

52:13 ↗ at that I can put four units on every

52:15 ↗ lot also everything talks about Triplex

52:18 ↗ but we have no Triplex language anywhere

52:21 ↗ and we have no explanation of how we're

52:23 ↗ going to actually deal with a Triplex if

52:25 ↗ we have a triple Lex because we only

52:28 ↗ talk about duplexes and fourplexes so

52:32 ↗ what what what do you do with a Triplex

52:36 ↗ um the parking standards that are

52:39 ↗ written are different than the parking

52:42 ↗ standards that were delivered to you a

52:45 ↗ couple of weeks ago where they said we

52:47 ↗ were going to have maximum one parking

52:52 ↗ space in Thomas's chart and here it just

52:56 ↗ says you you can't have more than two so

53:01 ↗ I don't really understand how we how we

53:03 ↗ get the you know we we all have to be on

53:06 ↗ the same page somebody's going to try to

53:08 ↗ use this so I don't want to read the

53:11 ↗ whole code and my problems with it I

53:13 ↗ suggest that it actually be sent to

53:15 ↗ development Commission because that is

53:17 ↗ what they do they actually Implement

53:19 ↗ code not on this small of a scale

53:21 ↗ usually but they know how to read it and

53:23 ↗ they know how to look for the problems

53:25 ↗ and then they can come back to with

53:26 ↗ recommended changes and they actually

53:29 ↗ look for these okay they look for these

53:32 ↗ particular issues so if you ask for that

53:35 ↗ then we can they can hash out the

53:37 ↗ details and I don't have to try to get

53:38 ↗ them all down in five minutes thank

53:49 ↗ you is there anyone who'd like to

53:53 ↗ speak all right well I do want to say

53:56 ↗ thank you to all of you that was

53:58 ↗ incredible um I want you to know that

54:00 ↗ your comments have been taken but we've

54:02 ↗ been jotting down notes uh again you are

54:05 ↗ more than welcome to stay but I do want

54:07 ↗ you to know that again your comments

54:09 ↗ have been received having said that I

54:11 ↗ also want to say thank you for helping

54:12 ↗ us break a record this evening I think

54:15 ↗ that is the most general public comments

54:17 ↗ we've ever

54:18 ↗ had with yeah right our historical

54:23 ↗ record

54:24 ↗ okay okay

54:28 ↗ recent history okay well again thank you

54:30 ↗ all very much again you are more than

54:32 ↗ welcome to continue to stay uh we will

54:34 ↗ be addressing middle housing a little

54:35 ↗ bit later this evening um but before

54:38 ↗ that we do have some business to attend

54:41 ↗ to which is our public hearing this

54:44 ↗ evening so this item of business is to

54:46 ↗ hold a public hearing regarding the

54:48 ↗ title 18 clarifying amendments the

54:51 ↗ purpose of this public hearing is to

54:53 ↗ provide a formal opportunity for the

54:55 ↗ public to comment on these amendments on

54:58 ↗ the land use code we'll open the public

55:01 ↗ hearing which will be followed by a

55:03 ↗ presentation from staff then the

55:05 ↗ planning policy commission can ask

55:07 ↗ follow-up

55:08 ↗ questions then we will take public

55:10 ↗ testimony close the public hearing and

55:13 ↗ then the PPC will have an opportunity to

55:16 ↗ deliberate and then make a

55:18 ↗ recommendation Kristen Leon our

55:21 ↗ principal planner will be presenting

55:22 ↗ this evening so Kristen when you are

55:25 ↗ ready please go ahead

55:29 ↗ good evening I apologize for having to

55:31 ↗ interrupt this Lively discussion for a

55:33 ↗ little while but this is this is

55:35 ↗ important too uh so yes I'm Kristen Leon

55:37 ↗ I'm a principal planner with the city

55:39 ↗ and we are this is our public hearing

55:41 ↗ for our P clarifying

55:43 ↗ amendments um as we just mentioned we're

55:45 ↗ going to hold a public hearing take

55:47 ↗ public comment deliberate and then if

55:48 ↗ appropriate the commission will take

55:50 ↗ action so back in 2023 we updated title

55:54 ↗ 18 our land use code we did did a

55:56 ↗ complete overhaul and whenever you take

55:59 ↗ on a big project like that you know it's

56:00 ↗ not going to be perfect so we are

56:03 ↗ continuously uh reviewing the code AS

56:05 ↗ projects come through we find we

56:07 ↗ identify things that are working that

56:09 ↗ aren't working or that were translated

56:11 ↗ incorrectly from the old code to this

56:13 ↗ code um so we are working on fixing and

56:16 ↗ just making those

56:19 ↗ Corrections

56:21 ↗ so I won't read every word of everyone

56:24 ↗ but I am going to go over those tonight

56:26 ↗ again again we add a def we added a

56:28 ↗ definition of temporary sign it's used

56:29 ↗ in the code but we didn't know we didn't

56:32 ↗ have a definition for it we clarified a

56:34 ↗ section about land use completeness or

56:37 ↗ about I'm sorry application completeness

56:39 ↗ saying that these apply to land use

56:41 ↗ applications and not all applications we

56:44 ↗ talked about storm water regulations and

56:46 ↗ vesting we are temporarily taking that

56:48 ↗ one off um not out of the code we are

56:52 ↗ just removing that Amendment from this

56:54 ↗ process at this time we need to talk

56:55 ↗ about that a little bit more may come

56:58 ↗ back with the policy

56:59 ↗ discussion we

57:02 ↗ are the multif family zones and

57:05 ↗ warehouses were formerly were previously

57:07 ↗ permitted in certain zones UC IC and

57:11 ↗ icci where they were left out of the

57:13 ↗ code in the permitted uses table this

57:15 ↗ time so we are just putting those back

57:17 ↗ in floor area ratio we needed to have a

57:19 ↗ better discussion or explanation of what

57:22 ↗ base floor area ratio is versus um

57:24 ↗ maximum floor area ratio so we added

57:27 ↗ discussion there old found old Oldtown

57:31 ↗ multif family density Corrections there

57:33 ↗ were some things that weren't lined up

57:35 ↗ Cor correctly so the correct Heights

57:37 ↗ weren't with the right Zone and we are

57:39 ↗ just correcting

57:42 ↗ that oh uh there is a reference in

57:46 ↗ Building height that was pointed to the

57:47 ↗ wrong place so we correct fix that uh we

57:50 ↗ now are requiring proof of estate

57:52 ↗ license PRI prior to issuing a building

57:56 ↗ permit or

57:57 ↗ license for business excuse me uh

58:01 ↗ landscape plans and permits we added

58:05 ↗ thresholds for when land use landscape

58:08 ↗ plans are required we didn't have that

58:10 ↗ before so people were a little confused

58:13 ↗ we've added that in uh we took out the

58:16 ↗ fact that we we took out just a listing

58:19 ↗ of land of a landscape permit because we

58:22 ↗ already have and other permits that are

58:23 ↗ not listed so it's included there and we

58:26 ↗ also since the last time you saw this

58:27 ↗ simplified the wording just a little

58:30 ↗ bit landscape landscape with Dimensions

58:34 ↗ they were inconsistent in two sections

58:36 ↗ of the code we made those the same

58:38 ↗ outdoor lighting we uh clarified the

58:43 ↗ lighting um is it's going to be reviewed

58:47 ↗ clarified when lighting is reviewed

58:48 ↗ foring single family structures but we

58:50 ↗ also last time you all uh council member

58:53 ↗ Thompson brought um up the fact that

58:56 ↗ there was duplicative language that sort

58:58 ↗ of conflicted so we fixed that and

59:00 ↗ removed the language the second language

59:03 ↗ regarding local state and federal

59:04 ↗ regulations and that they were

59:06 ↗ exempt we

59:09 ↗ renamed uh title sections for

59:12 ↗ clarity

59:13 ↗ um we put in the new Central isqua map

59:19 ↗ because the old one had was the former

59:21 ↗ boundary not the one that was adopted in

59:23 ↗ 2018 we added land language or put

59:27 ↗ backin language uh that requires review

59:29 ↗ of plans by the Talis Architectural

59:31 ↗ Review Committee it's also required by

59:33 ↗ isqua Highlands um we updated plan names

59:37 ↗ the mobility master plan which is now

59:39 ↗ the mobility action plan and one other

59:41 ↗ to show n plans that are reviewed under

59:43 ↗ sepa and lastly we updated our critical

59:48 ↗ aquafer protection area language

59:51 ↗ um and revised

59:54 ↗ the critical phographer recharge area

59:58 ↗ map

1:00:01 ↗ Cara um those are all the proposed

1:00:03 ↗ amendments that we have hopefully most

1:00:05 ↗ of those are pretty simple didn't

1:00:06 ↗ require policy discussion these will go

1:00:09 ↗ to the Planning Development and

1:00:11 ↗ environmental committee on April 1st and

1:00:13 ↗ then to council for action on April

1:00:16 ↗ 21st our proposed motion tonight is that

1:00:19 ↗ you recommend approval of the 2025 Title

1:00:22 ↗ 18 clarifying amendments as presented

1:00:25 ↗ that's all I have thank

1:00:29 ↗ you okay thank you Kristen Commissioners

1:00:34 ↗ time to get to work you guys have any

1:00:36 ↗ questions clarifying questions anything

1:00:38 ↗ to

1:00:40 ↗ ask again this is a pretty

1:00:42 ↗ straightforward uh these are clarifying

1:00:44 ↗ amendments the policy discussion will be

1:00:46 ↗ coming later this year to actually

1:00:48 ↗ affect change to policy but this is

1:00:50 ↗ again more technical issues so again

1:00:52 ↗ it's it's pretty straightforward stuff

1:00:53 ↗ the city's doing some house cleaning um

1:00:57 ↗ we have no questions so having said that

1:01:00 ↗ we're going to go ahead and open the

1:01:01 ↗ public

1:01:03 ↗ hearing at 7:31

1:01:06 ↗ p.m. Kristen or Amanda has anyone signed

1:01:10 ↗ up to speak for the public

1:01:14 ↗ hearing no

1:01:16 ↗ chair does anyone want to speak on the

1:01:19 ↗ public hearing Connie please

1:01:27 ↗ Connie Marsh live on squawk uh sign code

1:01:31 ↗ I was the one who found there was no

1:01:33 ↗ sign definition as we were cruising

1:01:35 ↗ through the sign code realized the sign

1:01:41 ↗ definition in the

1:01:43 ↗ past had um requirements that the signs

1:01:47 ↗ actually have uh the person who owns the

1:01:52 ↗ sign on the sign so that one could

1:01:56 ↗ understand if they were an abandoned

1:01:58 ↗ sign or not and they also used to have a

1:02:01 ↗ time period that they could be up and we

1:02:05 ↗ found and I I thought it used to be in

1:02:08 ↗ the sign definition there was none of

1:02:11 ↗ that

1:02:12 ↗ anymore and so if those could be added

1:02:15 ↗ to the sign definition because right now

1:02:18 ↗ you can put up an unidentified sign for

1:02:22 ↗ any length of time and nobody could make

1:02:24 ↗ you take it down now you may think

1:02:26 ↗ that's

1:02:27 ↗ awesome but I would I would uh it may

1:02:31 ↗ not have been in the definition cuz

1:02:33 ↗ honest to goodness I have not memorized

1:02:35 ↗ entire past codes and still have them in

1:02:37 ↗ there but uh that used to be the way

1:02:40 ↗ especially for campaign sign season

1:02:42 ↗ because it can get ugly thank

1:02:48 ↗ you thank you would anyone else like to

1:02:50 ↗ speak

1:02:56 ↗ all right we will close the public

1:02:58 ↗ hearing at 7:33

1:03:01 ↗ p.m. uh so we are looking for a formal

1:03:04 ↗ action to move forward is there a member

1:03:06 ↗ willing to make the

1:03:09 ↗ motion Vice chair

1:03:11 ↗ Patterson thank you chair uh I would

1:03:14 ↗ like to recommend approval of the 2025

1:03:18 ↗ Title 18 clarifying amendments as

1:03:22 ↗ presented is there a second all right

1:03:26 ↗ thank you all right time to deliberate

1:03:28 ↗ is there again any questions concerns

1:03:31 ↗ that Commissioners have as far as these

1:03:36 ↗ amendments any at

1:03:38 ↗ all nothing okay uh I don't have

1:03:42 ↗ anything to

1:03:43 ↗ add again I do believe the signs uh to

1:03:46 ↗ our speaker temporary but if the staff

1:03:50 ↗ could look into that I believe we still

1:03:51 ↗ have our time limits as far as campaigns

1:03:54 ↗ are concerned it's like 90 days from an

1:03:56 ↗ election believe that's all still pretty

1:03:58 ↗ standard it might not be in this

1:03:59 ↗ particular part of

1:04:01 ↗ code right we do have time limits but as

1:04:03 ↗ far as requiring names and contact

1:04:06 ↗ information on there we're not we can't

1:04:08 ↗ regulate the information that goes onto

1:04:09 ↗ signs the content on signs anymore is

1:04:12 ↗ that a state requirement Federal oh okay

1:04:14 ↗ is it Federal so there there we

1:04:18 ↗ go all right um there is a motion on the

1:04:24 ↗ floor we will will take a

1:04:26 ↗ vote all in favor of the motion that is

1:04:29 ↗ currently sitting on the floor everyone

1:04:32 ↗ want to say I hi so that passes

1:04:37 ↗ unanimously thank

1:04:48 ↗ you

1:04:51 ↗ okay and Valerie is the popular one

1:04:54 ↗ today and uh we are going to move on to

1:04:56 ↗ our next item of regular business and

1:04:59 ↗ these is this time is to review the

1:05:01 ↗ proposed amendments for the middle

1:05:02 ↗ housing project Valerie Porter our

1:05:05 ↗ associate planner will be presenting

1:05:07 ↗ this topic and Valerie when you are

1:05:09 ↗ ready please go

1:05:23 ↗ ahead thank you chair voice

1:05:26 ↗ good evening everyone my name is Valerie

1:05:27 ↗ Porter I'm an associate planner with the

1:05:29 ↗ community Planning and Development um

1:05:31 ↗ Department I am the lead of the uh midal

1:05:34 ↗ housing project so tonight we're going

1:05:36 ↗ to be talking about the uh draft

1:05:38 ↗ amendments um related to mle

1:05:42 ↗ housing so I have uh four policy

1:05:45 ↗ questions for you guys

1:05:48 ↗ tonight um three of them are related to

1:05:51 ↗ um design standards um and so uh chair

1:05:55 ↗ voice how would you like to address the

1:05:58 ↗ um the questions would you like me to

1:05:59 ↗ stop after each question or after

1:06:02 ↗ explanation of each question or run

1:06:04 ↗ through

1:06:05 ↗ everything it might be easier to chew on

1:06:07 ↗ it just stopping like we'll just take

1:06:09 ↗ one section at a time okay perfect all

1:06:12 ↗ right so my first question is should

1:06:15 ↗ residential projects be required to

1:06:17 ↗ provide a walkway from the front door

1:06:18 ↗ the uh sidewalk um or the rideway um um

1:06:22 ↗ separate from the driveway the second

1:06:24 ↗ question is related to um building

1:06:26 ↗ facade should massing and facade design

1:06:28 ↗ standards be applied Citywide and these

1:06:31 ↗ standards currently exist in the Oldtown

1:06:32 ↗ design standards and the third question

1:06:35 ↗ is uh does the commission agree with the

1:06:37 ↗ proposed um open space requirements for

1:06:39 ↗ cottage and Courtyard housing and then

1:06:41 ↗ the last question um is are there any

1:06:44 ↗ additional changes to these amendments

1:06:46 ↗ that should be

1:06:48 ↗ considered so first I just want to talk

1:06:50 ↗ about the goal of this project the main

1:06:53 ↗ goal of this project was to men the land

1:06:56 ↗ use code to comply with State

1:06:57 ↗ legislation so House Bill 110 and 1337

1:07:01 ↗ the second goal was to propose

1:07:02 ↗ amendments that you know meant the

1:07:04 ↗ intent of the bill so facilitate housing

1:07:06 ↗ production but then also um proposed

1:07:09 ↗ amendments that allow the houses to fit

1:07:12 ↗ Seely with the existing um neighborhoods

1:07:15 ↗ in

1:07:17 ↗ character so here are all of the

1:07:19 ↗ different uh code sections that have

1:07:21 ↗ been amended um to try to bring um the

1:07:24 ↗ code into compliance clients I'm not

1:07:26 ↗ going to go over all of them tonight I'm

1:07:28 ↗ going to just touch on the um the ones

1:07:30 ↗ where there's major changes or some

1:07:32 ↗ policy questions but I'm happy to go

1:07:35 ↗ over um a section that I didn't discuss

1:07:37 ↗ later if you have any specific questions

1:07:39 ↗ but all of the changes um should be

1:07:41 ↗ identified in the change Matrix that's

1:07:43 ↗ part of your

1:07:45 ↗ packet so the first section I like to

1:07:47 ↗ talk about is the definitions so the

1:07:49 ↗ state defined um some new terms in the

1:07:52 ↗ bill and so those uh terms were added to

1:07:56 ↗ the land use code and so an example of

1:07:57 ↗ that would be middle housing and then

1:07:59 ↗ again the major Transit stops there were

1:08:01 ↗ other terms that were added for clarity

1:08:04 ↗ um that were currently um the use

1:08:07 ↗ probably was already addressed in our

1:08:08 ↗ code but we wanted to provide a little

1:08:09 ↗ bit more clarity so an example of that

1:08:11 ↗ would be like parent lot which is

1:08:12 ↗ associated to unit lot subdivisions our

1:08:15 ↗ code already addressed that but we

1:08:16 ↗ wanted to try to um provide a little bit

1:08:18 ↗ more clarity as well as single family

1:08:21 ↗ attached again our code currently

1:08:23 ↗ addresses it but we've had some

1:08:25 ↗ questions when reviewing plans so we

1:08:27 ↗ just want to again provide Clarity and

1:08:29 ↗ also to ensure that um our C was in

1:08:31 ↗ compliance with State legislation we did

1:08:33 ↗ make some tweets to certain definitions

1:08:35 ↗ so an example of that would be the

1:08:36 ↗ accessory dwelling unit currently had a

1:08:38 ↗ definition but we tweaked to add middle

1:08:41 ↗ housing based off some of the

1:08:42 ↗ discussions that we've had um over this

1:08:48 ↗ timeline so site development permit um

1:08:51 ↗ was another section that was revised so

1:08:54 ↗ um site development permit permits are

1:08:55 ↗ required for approval on how the land is

1:08:58 ↗ used and occupied um for certain uses

1:09:01 ↗ site development permits must be

1:09:03 ↗ obtained prior to um getting a

1:09:05 ↗ construction permit so because of the

1:09:07 ↗ state's requirement and how we're

1:09:08 ↗ approaching middle housing this section

1:09:10 ↗ was revised to exemp midal housing um

1:09:13 ↗ which is similar to for single family

1:09:16 ↗ homes so they would no longer require a

1:09:18 ↗ site development permit So based on the

1:09:21 ↗ discussions that I've had with you as

1:09:22 ↗ well as PD the threshold for Middle

1:09:25 ↗ housing will be set at four units so

1:09:27 ↗ multif family buildings containing a

1:09:29 ↗ total of five units or more will be

1:09:31 ↗ required to obtain a site development

1:09:33 ↗ permit so the code was revised to

1:09:35 ↗ reflect this so to kind of give you a

1:09:39 ↗ visual of what this means this new

1:09:41 ↗ process means that uh detached um homes

1:09:45 ↗ and middle housing um or middle housing

1:09:48 ↗ building types would fall under level

1:09:50 ↗ one so again no sdp just a building

1:09:54 ↗ permit level two two so um middle

1:09:57 ↗ housing building or multif family um

1:09:59 ↗ building types containing 5 to nine

1:10:02 ↗ units would require a site development

1:10:05 ↗ permit but that permit would be reviewed

1:10:06 ↗ administratively with the site the S the

1:10:10 ↗ community Planning Development director

1:10:12 ↗ um being the decision maker on that and

1:10:15 ↗ um units or multif family um projects

1:10:18 ↗ with 10 units or more um would be uh

1:10:20 ↗ reviewed and approved by the development

1:10:22 ↗ commission during a public hearing

1:10:27 ↗ with House Bill 1110 um the city is

1:10:31 ↗ required to allow six of the nine middle

1:10:33 ↗ housing building types in all

1:10:35 ↗ residential zones that allow a single

1:10:37 ↗ family um detach single family home and

1:10:40 ↗ so the city has decided to um or the

1:10:42 ↗ administration is proposing to allow

1:10:44 ↗ cottage homes duplex Triplex fourplex

1:10:48 ↗ town home and stack Flats allowed in

1:10:51 ↗ single family zones

1:10:56 ↗ so the form and intensity section um

1:10:59 ↗ received a lot of um updates mainly

1:11:02 ↗ around middle housing and this is where

1:11:04 ↗ we've um added two dwelling units on one

1:11:07 ↗ lot four dwelling units with the

1:11:08 ↗ exception if you are within a quarter

1:11:10 ↗ mile walking distance of major Transit

1:11:11 ↗ stop or one unit is Affordable and then

1:11:14 ↗ we also address in this section the

1:11:16 ↗ exemptions so um lots that have been

1:11:18 ↗ subdivided below um 1,000 square ft

1:11:22 ↗ portions of a lot that have critical

1:11:24 ↗ areas um there's some other legislators

1:11:26 ↗ that's coming down the pipeline that's

1:11:28 ↗ another one so we we've addressed all of

1:11:30 ↗ that here and again um I've spoke with

1:11:33 ↗ you as well as um pte regarding how to

1:11:37 ↗ um address accessory dwelling units in

1:11:39 ↗ relation to Middle housing So based off

1:11:41 ↗ for your discussion you guys believe

1:11:43 ↗ that Adu should be part of lot density

1:11:45 ↗ when associated with the middle housing

1:11:47 ↗ building type so here this section also

1:11:49 ↗ addresses that requirement

1:11:56 ↗ the accessory dwelling unit section

1:11:58 ↗ received a lot of changes as a result of

1:11:59 ↗ house build 1337 and also again um

1:12:03 ↗ having to um allow adus be constructed

1:12:06 ↗ in association with middle housing and

1:12:08 ↗ so again we um updated the requirement

1:12:11 ↗ to allow two adus to be constructed on

1:12:13 ↗ one lot when associated with a detached

1:12:15 ↗ single family home and then also allow

1:12:17 ↗ adus um in the rear setback if it a but

1:12:20 ↗ the alley again these are requirements

1:12:23 ↗ per house bill Von that we bringing the

1:12:26 ↗ code in compliance um prior to um title

1:12:29 ↗ the big update in uh for Title 18 that

1:12:32 ↗ occurred in 2003 there wasn't a

1:12:34 ↗ requirement for um internal adus that

1:12:37 ↗ allowed someone whoever had a basement

1:12:39 ↗ but they just wanted to convert that to

1:12:40 ↗ an Adu and not have to do additional

1:12:42 ↗ improvements to um create a 1,000 foot

1:12:46 ↗ site we allowed them to basically um

1:12:49 ↗ convert that basement without having

1:12:51 ↗ additional improvements and so we would

1:12:53 ↗ like to reinstate that requirement but

1:12:55 ↗ that back in the code for um internal

1:12:59 ↗ adus so also during the last um meeting

1:13:03 ↗ that I had with you all we talked about

1:13:05 ↗ how um these middle housing regulations

1:13:07 ↗ are really blurring the lines between um

1:13:09 ↗ a detached or a primary unit and

1:13:12 ↗ accessory dwelling unit and so again a a

1:13:14 ↗ way to try to kind of clearly understand

1:13:17 ↗ what is a accessory dwelling unit versus

1:13:19 ↗ a primary unit we've added to um the

1:13:22 ↗ code a new requirement that states that

1:13:24 ↗ adus must be 20% 25% Less in size

1:13:28 ↗ compared to the primary

1:13:32 ↗ unit so again as a requirement house

1:13:34 ↗ build 1337 um we also added language um

1:13:38 ↗ or we remove language that required a

1:13:41 ↗ covenant to be recorded and um an owner

1:13:44 ↗ an owner to reside on site those

1:13:46 ↗ requirements were removed per House Bill

1:13:49 ↗ 1337 and then um staff is also proposing

1:13:52 ↗ to remove there's a door placement

1:13:54 ↗ required

1:13:55 ↗ the code um isn't uh enforcable right

1:13:59 ↗ now it says you should have a door um

1:14:02 ↗ that fronts the street or on the side of

1:14:04 ↗ the building and so um we're proposing

1:14:07 ↗ to remove that um as well as the fact

1:14:09 ↗ that you know I'm talking to decision

1:14:11 ↗ Mak you also have said said that we'd

1:14:14 ↗ like to encourage um uh the construction

1:14:16 ↗ of adus and so we see this as a

1:14:19 ↗ potential development barrier depending

1:14:20 ↗ on where the Adu is on the lot so we're

1:14:22 ↗ proposing to remove it

1:14:30 ↗ so another section that received a lot

1:14:31 ↗ of changes was the single family um

1:14:33 ↗ design standards House Bill 1110 states

1:14:36 ↗ that middle housing regulations cannot

1:14:38 ↗ be more restrictive um than those for a

1:14:42 ↗ sing a det single family home so to

1:14:44 ↗ address this we're basically applying

1:14:46 ↗ the same code requirements for a single

1:14:48 ↗ family to a middle housing um building

1:14:50 ↗ type and so the first change that we did

1:14:52 ↗ to this section is we added middle

1:14:54 ↗ housing to the um to the title so that

1:14:56 ↗ all these the the regulations would be

1:14:58 ↗ applied the same we also eliminated the

1:15:01 ↗ duplex standard section and we added all

1:15:03 ↗ of that um information in this

1:15:06 ↗ section we're also proposing to remove

1:15:09 ↗ you know repetitive standards standards

1:15:12 ↗ that previously um um only appli to

1:15:15 ↗ Central isqua or some of the urban

1:15:17 ↗ Villages so um example of this is

1:15:19 ↗ currently we have a code requirement

1:15:21 ↗ that states um a a uh that

1:15:26 ↗ states the garage must be set back 5T

1:15:30 ↗ from the living space so again um prior

1:15:34 ↗ to the update in U in 2013 this

1:15:37 ↗ requirement only applied to um Lots

1:15:40 ↗ within Central isqua Talis and the

1:15:42 ↗ highlands and so it was really meant for

1:15:45 ↗ those lots that were within areas with

1:15:47 ↗ higher density and had a a build to line

1:15:51 ↗ not a building setback line so the

1:15:53 ↗ difference is building you have to build

1:15:55 ↗ between Z and 10 ft versus a building

1:15:58 ↗ setback is you have to be set back from

1:16:00 ↗ the RightWay 10 20

1:16:03 ↗ feet and so by applying this requirement

1:16:07 ↗ Citywide it's kind of led to some

1:16:09 ↗ challenges um basically having the

1:16:11 ↗ building setb greater than that 10 or 20

1:16:14 ↗ ft so an example would be you know a

1:16:16 ↗ single or a single family Zone that has

1:16:18 ↗ a 10 foot um setback say they wanted to

1:16:22 ↗ have a driveway in front of their garage

1:16:24 ↗ because is because of the driveway

1:16:26 ↗ requirement they now have to be pushed

1:16:27 ↗ back 18 ft but then with the 5ot setback

1:16:31 ↗ requirement from the living space now

1:16:33 ↗ it's being set back 23 ft so you went

1:16:35 ↗ from 10 to

1:16:37 ↗ 23 so we're proposing to remove this

1:16:42 ↗ requirement so now I'm going to get into

1:16:45 ↗ the first policy question which is

1:16:47 ↗ should residential projects be required

1:16:49 ↗ to provide a walkway from the front door

1:16:51 ↗ to the sidewalk or the rideway separate

1:16:54 ↗ from the driveway so for some of you

1:16:56 ↗ guys who joined the middle housing tour

1:16:58 ↗ I actually um posed this question while

1:17:00 ↗ we were out looking at um different

1:17:02 ↗ middle housing um housing types and So

1:17:05 ↗ currently the land use code requires all

1:17:08 ↗ single family homes to provide a

1:17:10 ↗ designated pedestrian connection from

1:17:12 ↗ the front door to the sidewalk that's 5

1:17:14 ↗ ft wide and it must be separate from the

1:17:17 ↗ driveway so why am I asking this

1:17:19 ↗ question I'm asking this question

1:17:21 ↗ because in some single family zones

1:17:24 ↗ there are only they're only allowed to

1:17:26 ↗ cover 30 to 50% of the site with

1:17:28 ↗ impervious surface and so that

1:17:31 ↗ impervious surface includes your

1:17:32 ↗ building your walkways your patios your

1:17:34 ↗ decks and that really starts to add up

1:17:36 ↗ when you're you know trying to construct

1:17:38 ↗ so every inch counts and so this could

1:17:41 ↗ be seen as a potential various so we

1:17:42 ↗ wanted to pose the question to you

1:17:45 ↗ all so I tried to come up with the list

1:17:47 ↗ of pros and cons for whether to have a

1:17:50 ↗ defined walkway or to not you know

1:17:53 ↗ required at all and have possibly

1:17:55 ↗ someone walk through the grass or a

1:17:57 ↗ driveway so having a Define walkway

1:18:00 ↗ ensures that there's easy and safe

1:18:02 ↗ walkway there's an easy and safe walkway

1:18:04 ↗ especially for those with u Mobility

1:18:06 ↗ challenges um a walkway also lets

1:18:09 ↗ someone know exactly where the door is

1:18:11 ↗ if they're trying to get to the front

1:18:12 ↗ door it also creates a cohesive

1:18:15 ↗ streetcape um for the neighborhood um

1:18:18 ↗ and but however it does again count to

1:18:21 ↗ the impervious surface like I said

1:18:22 ↗ previously so if this requirement were

1:18:24 ↗ to be removed from the Lan use code um

1:18:27 ↗ access to the front door will be

1:18:28 ↗ determined by the developer so it

1:18:29 ↗ doesn't mean that a walkway will never

1:18:31 ↗ be built it just means that the

1:18:33 ↗ developer will have the decision whether

1:18:34 ↗ to build it or not um it also REM

1:18:38 ↗ removing this requirement kind of gives

1:18:40 ↗ some design flexibility back to the

1:18:42 ↗ designer so they could instead of having

1:18:45 ↗ a continuous walkway they could do some

1:18:46 ↗ pavers or something decorative um and um

1:18:52 ↗ because this is for um for home single

1:18:55 ↗ family homes um it's going to have less

1:18:57 ↗ traffic so it's not like a commercial

1:18:59 ↗ structure so maybe that might something

1:19:02 ↗ that you guys should consider when

1:19:04 ↗ thinking about this so again the first

1:19:06 ↗ question is whether or not uh we should

1:19:09 ↗ continue to Define uh or require uh a

1:19:12 ↗ walkway from The Front Street to the

1:19:15 ↗ sidewalk or should it be

1:19:18 ↗ removed great thank you Valerie all

1:19:21 ↗ right Commissioners feelings thoughts

1:19:24 ↗ thought question sure commissioner crass

1:19:29 ↗ commissioner crass thank you um so I

1:19:32 ↗ have a couple questions more about the

1:19:34 ↗ flexibility of what our tool set is um I

1:19:38 ↗ think it is good to

1:19:40 ↗ encourage developers to have that I

1:19:42 ↗ think it's it's a nice to offer people

1:19:45 ↗ different ways to get to the front door

1:19:46 ↗ and not have to walk down the driveway

1:19:47 ↗ especially if you have a car in the

1:19:49 ↗ driveway um but the two things I have

1:19:52 ↗ questions that are are they even to be

1:19:55 ↗ flexible one is the 5 ft cuz that's

1:19:57 ↗ pretty wide um I mean that's a pretty

1:20:02 ↗ big and and maybe if you use different

1:20:04 ↗ surfaces like pavers or whatever it may

1:20:07 ↗ not need to be that wide uh that's qu

1:20:10 ↗ that's part one and then the other one

1:20:12 ↗ is is there flexibility if we want to

1:20:14 ↗ encourage this instead of require it

1:20:16 ↗ where we give some flexibility that it

1:20:18 ↗ does not count against impervious

1:20:19 ↗ surfaces if they use certain types of

1:20:23 ↗ walkways so they can do it but then they

1:20:26 ↗ don't get dinged for it cuz I know um I

1:20:28 ↗ live in a new home built 9 years ago and

1:20:32 ↗ I mean I looked back at the old plans

1:20:33 ↗ and they took it to the edge as a on a

1:20:37 ↗ small lot uh and they had to be very

1:20:39 ↗ thoughtful of how big's the back back

1:20:40 ↗ patio and and all of that so is there

1:20:43 ↗ flexibility on either of those two

1:20:46 ↗ pieces um we did something similar um uh

1:20:50 ↗ reducing the impervious surface for

1:20:51 ↗ accessory drilling units previously we

1:20:54 ↗ um reached out out to um our City

1:20:56 ↗ attorney and they advised us to not do

1:20:57 ↗ that that was um not a good idea so no

1:21:01 ↗ we if we if we count if there's

1:21:04 ↗ impervious surface on the site we would

1:21:05 ↗ have to count it um and again at this

1:21:09 ↗ time we're not proposing to reduce any

1:21:10 ↗ of the zoning standard so impervious

1:21:12 ↗ surface would be one um there would be a

1:21:14 ↗ lot of analysis that would need to go to

1:21:16 ↗ be considered in order to reduce or make

1:21:19 ↗ any changes to the impervious surface um

1:21:21 ↗ your first question um is there some

1:21:24 ↗ flexibility or a different requirement

1:21:26 ↗ yes we can reduce it down to four or

1:21:28 ↗ three I believe the building code in

1:21:30 ↗ certain instances um requires the uh

1:21:33 ↗ walkway to be at least 3 feet wide and

1:21:37 ↗ where did five come

1:21:38 ↗ from I'm not sure okay

1:21:44 ↗ what side byby side wheelchairs I mean

1:21:46 ↗ that's lots of big that's like three

1:21:48 ↗ Feet's pretty wide but five 5T used to

1:21:51 ↗ be the okay 5T used to be the standard

1:21:53 ↗ width for sidewalks is that right just

1:21:55 ↗ regular sidewalks yeah theyve they've

1:21:56 ↗ gotten bigger but that used to be the

1:21:57 ↗ standard width and the fire department

1:21:59 ↗ actually requires 4 feet okay that's

1:22:02 ↗ good enough and so for so

1:22:08 ↗ for questions

1:22:15 ↗ comments yeah no we apologies I meant

1:22:19 ↗ for

1:22:20 ↗ them um yeah the only thing I would say

1:22:23 ↗ is is again and this isn't it's about a

1:22:26 ↗ requirement um I personally think having

1:22:28 ↗ design flexibility is more important

1:22:31 ↗ again you can always add the

1:22:33 ↗ walkway I guess the question to you

1:22:35 ↗ Valerie would be something like pavers

1:22:37 ↗ that has like Peak gravel uh in between

1:22:40 ↗ you know obviously a pretty popular

1:22:42 ↗ feature how would that be counted with

1:22:44 ↗ impervious surfaces we would count that

1:22:46 ↗ as impervious surface the entire thing

1:22:48 ↗ the entire

1:22:52 ↗ yes um yeah I I personally am for more

1:22:56 ↗ flexibility myself again people that

1:22:59 ↗ want to have a walkway from the front

1:23:01 ↗ door to the sidewalker the rideway they

1:23:03 ↗ can still do it we're not taking any way

1:23:05 ↗ anything from them it's giving uh the

1:23:07 ↗ developer the architect More Design

1:23:10 ↗ flexibility and again it's they're still

1:23:12 ↗ required to have the walkway to the

1:23:15 ↗ driveway it's not like they can just

1:23:17 ↗ walk out under the

1:23:19 ↗ grass no so they wouldn't have a

1:23:21 ↗ driveway so they would logic just walk

1:23:25 ↗ to through the driveway and hopefully

1:23:27 ↗ there's a path from the driveway to the

1:23:29 ↗ to the front right right so they okay so

1:23:31 ↗ the front door wouldn't be a requirement

1:23:32 ↗ to go from the front door to the

1:23:33 ↗ driveway to connect it they'd be

1:23:35 ↗ expected possibly go through their

1:23:38 ↗ garage to get to their walkway well

1:23:40 ↗ hopefully again because it's not

1:23:42 ↗ something that we're we currently

1:23:43 ↗ require or going to require depending on

1:23:46 ↗ your decision um they would make that

1:23:49 ↗ connection um but we wouldn't require it

1:23:52 ↗ hopefully they put put it there my

1:23:54 ↗ parents added some some concrete in the

1:23:56 ↗ their backyard to expand their patio so

1:23:58 ↗ again giving people options especially

1:24:00 ↗ when it comes to these type of things

1:24:01 ↗ makes more sense to

1:24:04 ↗ me anybody else CH Patterson uh thanks

1:24:08 ↗ chair um I'm in alignment with that I

1:24:10 ↗ think I appreciate the opportunity for

1:24:12 ↗ flexibility um I feel like a pathway to

1:24:14 ↗ your door is probably a desired feature

1:24:16 ↗ for most people and they would want or

1:24:18 ↗ look for that so I think it kind of

1:24:20 ↗ there's a layer of Common Sense there of

1:24:22 ↗ like people will probably choose that

1:24:23 ↗ anyway um to some extent but also having

1:24:26 ↗ the design flexibility uh seems

1:24:31 ↗ reasonable yeah and I'm trying to

1:24:32 ↗ remember Valerie when we did do our

1:24:34 ↗ tour remember when we were by what part

1:24:38 ↗ was it by the mayor's house I'll say by

1:24:41 ↗ the mayor's house we won't say where she

1:24:42 ↗ lives but by the mayor's house um we

1:24:44 ↗ were looking at those smaller units and

1:24:46 ↗ I believe they did not have the the

1:24:49 ↗ walkway that's correct they didn't have

1:24:51 ↗ walk I mean those were smaller smaller

1:24:54 ↗ yards so again I mean with that type of

1:24:58 ↗ front yard having the driveway and then

1:25:00 ↗ having a walkway I mean they would have

1:25:02 ↗ just aten up you know a large percent of

1:25:04 ↗ their

1:25:06 ↗ impervious that may have tipped them

1:25:08 ↗ might have tipped them over in that and

1:25:09 ↗ then what would they have done had a

1:25:11 ↗ smaller driveway I don't even know how

1:25:12 ↗ smaller driveway well I mean they

1:25:14 ↗ already had a pretty small driveway I

1:25:15 ↗ think it was like a one car driveway if

1:25:16 ↗ I remember correctly

1:25:18 ↗ yes so I think if I'm understanding

1:25:22 ↗ correctly at least uh Vice chair

1:25:23 ↗ Patterson and I are on the record for

1:25:26 ↗ flexibility ditto commissioner CR ditto

1:25:30 ↗ commissioner Zach i' support okay all

1:25:34 ↗ right so question one thank you

1:25:42 ↗ Valerie all right thank you okay second

1:25:45 ↗ question so should massing and facade

1:25:47 ↗ design standard to be applied um

1:25:49 ↗ Citywide so I apologize that this

1:25:52 ↗ question wasn't clear initially but the

1:25:54 ↗ old toown design standards has um a

1:25:57 ↗ requirement relating to um building

1:26:00 ↗ facade and articulation and the inent of

1:26:03 ↗ this is try to encourage buildings that

1:26:05 ↗ are human scale or give the perception

1:26:08 ↗ that the scale of the building is not as

1:26:10 ↗ large and so there are two requirements

1:26:13 ↗ that the administration is proposing to

1:26:15 ↗ move from the old town standards and be

1:26:17 ↗ applied Citywide and the first one is

1:26:19 ↗ here on the screen which is related to

1:26:21 ↗ um again um modulation so

1:26:24 ↗ um if someone were to come in and their

1:26:27 ↗ building is over 3 30 ft in width they

1:26:29 ↗ would be required to incorporate um a

1:26:32 ↗ recessed or projected um portion of the

1:26:36 ↗ facade um or or and and they would also

1:26:39 ↗ be required to um either provide a porch

1:26:41 ↗ a portical or some kind of architectural

1:26:44 ↗ feature to Pro bring U kind of to

1:26:47 ↗ highlight the entryway and so this is

1:26:49 ↗ the first requirement and then the

1:26:51 ↗ second requirement is um really related

1:26:54 ↗ to um blank wall treatment so that you

1:26:57 ↗ don't have just a long um blank wall

1:27:00 ↗ with nothing on it so um this standard

1:27:03 ↗ is requiring you to provide either so

1:27:06 ↗ one of the four options either a

1:27:08 ↗ grouping of Windows balconies um some

1:27:11 ↗ kind of architectural feature like trim

1:27:14 ↗ um chimney um and then the fourth option

1:27:16 ↗ would be a change in the materials or

1:27:21 ↗ color ultimately they get a pallet of

1:27:24 ↗ different different ideas to pick from

1:27:27 ↗ these would be the um options and then

1:27:29 ↗ they have that flexibility to determine

1:27:31 ↗ you know we don't tell them really what

1:27:33 ↗ color there are some we have a color whe

1:27:36 ↗ I believe for um Oldtown that says you

1:27:39 ↗ know you should gravitate more to um my

1:27:42 ↗ warmer

1:27:44 ↗ or it's a huge color wheel it's it

1:27:48 ↗ allows for a lot no neon but it allows

1:27:50 ↗ for a lot why am I thinking of what is

1:27:52 ↗ that Wheel of Fortune

1:27:55 ↗ give it a

1:27:57 ↗ spin

1:28:00 ↗ okay

1:28:02 ↗ um are are you guys have questions okay

1:28:05 ↗ commissioner CR so I'm trying to assess

1:28:07 ↗ how big of a burden this could be

1:28:11 ↗ because overall I mean if you're if you

1:28:14 ↗ live in an HOA you kind of understand

1:28:17 ↗ there's requirements and if you don't

1:28:20 ↗ having things that say what you can and

1:28:22 ↗ can't build

1:28:24 ↗ um I think we need to be cautious on so

1:28:26 ↗ I'd love to and this I'm going to ask

1:28:28 ↗ for a little homework is is it possible

1:28:32 ↗ to go back and say what's been built in

1:28:33 ↗ the last let's say 10 years and maybe do

1:28:36 ↗ a sampling of of all the homes that have

1:28:39 ↗ been built in the last 10 years that

1:28:41 ↗ been infected outside of Oldtown how

1:28:44 ↗ many have already been good with this

1:28:46 ↗ versus how many would not pass these

1:28:49 ↗ tests and that would help give us a

1:28:51 ↗ sense of like how big of burden this

1:28:54 ↗ could be because people may already be

1:28:56 ↗ doing this if you come back and say 80%

1:28:58 ↗ are already doing this then you could

1:29:00 ↗ say well maybe there's not a rule that's

1:29:01 ↗ needed but if it's the opposite then

1:29:03 ↗ it's a deeper conversation of how

1:29:06 ↗ onerous do we want to be with strict

1:29:09 ↗ requirements so that would be good to

1:29:11 ↗ see I I don't have exact numbers but I

1:29:15 ↗ do know that a lot of um newer homes or

1:29:18 ↗ you know homes that are kind of being

1:29:20 ↗ remodeled already do this because they

1:29:22 ↗ like the um the projection of the the

1:29:25 ↗ entryway or they want some kind of cover

1:29:27 ↗ so they're already implementing some

1:29:29 ↗ architectural feature that aligns with

1:29:32 ↗ this H thanks sorry um follow I guess I

1:29:35 ↗ just want to make we have we have a goal

1:29:38 ↗ of making

1:29:40 ↗ isqua you know beneficial to have people

1:29:43 ↗ want to build and do stuff here and

1:29:45 ↗ that's I'm trying to understand how

1:29:46 ↗ honorous this would be so I don't know

1:29:48 ↗ could we go back and just say look

1:29:50 ↗ at last period of time and say oh did

1:29:53 ↗ they do this or not you have to look at

1:29:54 ↗ everyone but um something a little bit

1:29:57 ↗ more than you know we think they've been

1:29:59 ↗ doing it but like get something that's

1:30:01 ↗ more like oh 80% or 10% would pass this

1:30:06 ↗ and that would give me a better feel I

1:30:08 ↗ don't like adding requirements for

1:30:10 ↗ design just generally um I mean some

1:30:13 ↗ people like that that's why they live in

1:30:15 ↗ a neighborhood that has those and but

1:30:17 ↗ there's a lot of existing n most of the

1:30:19 ↗ neighborhoods don't have that except for

1:30:21 ↗ Talis Highlands and that's kind of what

1:30:24 ↗ you expect so I think it's a big deal

1:30:26 ↗ when you start putting those things on

1:30:27 ↗ so just a little more Deep dive on that

1:30:30 ↗ would be helpful to

1:30:35 ↗ me commissioner Zach line aside yeah I

1:30:39 ↗ live in a Highlands uh the highlands

1:30:41 ↗ perspective yes I really enjoy it uh I

1:30:43 ↗ know that in uh 2019 I believe we had a

1:30:46 ↗ moratorium on buildings here because not

1:30:48 ↗ of the um single family homes but the

1:30:51 ↗ big buildings that were built and people

1:30:54 ↗ were unhappy with that so I am I am

1:30:57 ↗ actually in favor of keeping the

1:30:59 ↗ architectural standards of some sort so

1:31:02 ↗ we keep the we preserve the

1:31:06 ↗ character VI chair P thank you chair um

1:31:10 ↗ I guess my question is um what is

1:31:14 ↗ the uh I guess the reason why you're

1:31:16 ↗ wanting to apply these standards

1:31:18 ↗ Citywide um because I understand they

1:31:20 ↗ exist in Oldtown today and that's great

1:31:21 ↗ but why what's the movement towards

1:31:23 ↗ wanting to expand that so this section

1:31:26 ↗ is being converted into only applying to

1:31:28 ↗ single family to being applied to single

1:31:30 ↗ family and middle housing and so middle

1:31:33 ↗ housing again goes up to four um

1:31:35 ↗ dwelling units and so um Oldtown is uh

1:31:39 ↗ or single family duplex which is mainly

1:31:42 ↗ old or portion of Oldtown currently has

1:31:44 ↗ this this is the only single family

1:31:46 ↗ neighborhood that allows for multi-unit

1:31:48 ↗ structures and so um again wanting to uh

1:31:52 ↗ meet the intent of the of our project

1:31:54 ↗ goal which is having design standards

1:31:57 ↗ that fit simly with the existing

1:31:58 ↗ neighborhood we felt that this was

1:31:59 ↗ appropriate to apply this Citywide and

1:32:02 ↗ so that's why we're doing it it's not so

1:32:04 ↗ much for single family but thinking

1:32:06 ↗ about duplexes Triplex and forx that

1:32:09 ↗ potentially come

1:32:11 ↗ in thank you and to follow up on that

1:32:14 ↗ there was a graphic in our packet that I

1:32:16 ↗ think was really impactful for me anyway

1:32:18 ↗ that showed basically like a flat side

1:32:19 ↗ of a house or a duplex or structure and

1:32:23 ↗ then next to it was a house more like

1:32:24 ↗ what you have on the screen so is that

1:32:26 ↗ kind of the goal is to prevent like

1:32:27 ↗ basically a wall of Frontage and then

1:32:30 ↗ having that texture that you know that

1:32:33 ↗ depth of of entry way to kind of

1:32:36 ↗ preserve character versus kind of boxes

1:32:38 ↗ essentially exactly

1:32:42 ↗ okay okay um yeah as far as me I think

1:32:47 ↗ everybody kind of knows Aesthetics are

1:32:49 ↗ big for me um I agree this really isn't

1:32:51 ↗ about single family homes this is about

1:32:54 ↗ multi-units where again I think the last

1:32:56 ↗ thing anybody in our city wants to see

1:32:57 ↗ are giant boxes uh they are inexpensive

1:33:00 ↗ to build but that doesn't mean we want

1:33:01 ↗ them here so I don't believe it's too

1:33:03 ↗ onerous um clearly commissioner crass

1:33:05 ↗ has given you a little bit of homework

1:33:06 ↗ Valerie but uh I am I would be generally

1:33:10 ↗ in favor of having these these standards

1:33:12 ↗ um Citywide it's worked out pretty well

1:33:15 ↗ for uh Oldtown and people that are

1:33:18 ↗ typically building multif family um

1:33:21 ↗ projects are going to be working with a

1:33:23 ↗ group of people and the city regardless

1:33:26 ↗ so it shouldn't be too difficult to uh

1:33:28 ↗ understand what the city's looking for

1:33:30 ↗ what they can choose from from their

1:33:31 ↗ color wheel and their Wheel of Fortune

1:33:34 ↗ um yeah so I would I would tend to lean

1:33:37 ↗ that way with commissioner

1:33:40 ↗ zacho please Vice chair patter uh one

1:33:44 ↗ comment I would like to add is um kind

1:33:46 ↗ of piggybacking on what commissioner

1:33:48 ↗ craft said which was related to I guess

1:33:50 ↗ the cost of having those standards and

1:33:54 ↗ how that would impact the development

1:33:55 ↗ and and therefore the affordability of

1:33:57 ↗ the house uh just from kind of an equity

1:34:00 ↗ standpoint right like if we're requiring

1:34:01 ↗ something that cost a lot more money

1:34:04 ↗ versus something that's more affordable

1:34:06 ↗ is that somehow impacting um you know

1:34:09 ↗ the the the the value of that home um

1:34:14 ↗ probably tough

1:34:15 ↗ to I mean I don't have any data to prove

1:34:19 ↗ that um I think we would have to kind of

1:34:21 ↗ look and do a little bit more I'd have

1:34:23 ↗ to add to my

1:34:24 ↗ homework everyone's getting homework

1:34:26 ↗ tonight yeah um but again I think a lot

1:34:29 ↗ of the the requirements how they're

1:34:31 ↗ written they're they're not um uh out of

1:34:35 ↗ the ordinary you know we're saying You

1:34:37 ↗ must have Windows on the front facade

1:34:39 ↗ you're likely to put a window or two

1:34:41 ↗ already on the facade um we're saying

1:34:44 ↗ that you just need to project the the or

1:34:46 ↗ recess or project a portion of your your

1:34:49 ↗ facade for Feet Again that could just be

1:34:52 ↗ the garage so again a lot of folks have

1:34:54 ↗ already done that but I'd have to look

1:34:55 ↗ into it a little bit

1:34:59 ↗ more May thank

1:35:01 ↗ you Kristen Leon principal planner and

1:35:05 ↗ when we wrote the architectural

1:35:06 ↗ standards for single family duplex in

1:35:09 ↗ Oldtown cost was a big issue because the

1:35:12 ↗ housing there is Affordable right now

1:35:13 ↗ and they wanted to keep it that way so

1:35:15 ↗ the materials that we talked about and

1:35:16 ↗ the paints that we talked about those

1:35:18 ↗ were considered when we wrote those

1:35:20 ↗ standards so if they're transferred over

1:35:21 ↗ here I don't think it'd be an issue it

1:35:24 ↗ and I again I should know this I kind of

1:35:26 ↗ work in the industry but I would imagine

1:35:27 ↗ the framing all of those type of costs I

1:35:30 ↗ mean again it's minimal but it's also

1:35:31 ↗ what isqu wants to see right do they

1:35:33 ↗ really want to see a bunch of big

1:35:34 ↗ flatback boxes I don't think so I would

1:35:37 ↗ have to about a limit people want to see

1:35:39 ↗ that charm in their City uh there's

1:35:41 ↗ other ways to make these units

1:35:42 ↗ affordable but you know by having a just

1:35:45 ↗ a giant wall um with no type of

1:35:48 ↗ articulation or just you know the same

1:35:50 ↗ plane with you know one small window and

1:35:53 ↗ I don't think most people would like to

1:35:54 ↗ drive by and see those it probably would

1:35:56 ↗ be a little bit cheaper for the

1:35:58 ↗ developer go ahead okay so I'm like the

1:36:01 ↗ sole one on this side here so it's first

1:36:04 ↗ of all it may not be an issue because

1:36:05 ↗ they're not they may not build that

1:36:06 ↗ because it's not a desirable thing um

1:36:09 ↗ I'm I'm still a little bit stuck on I I

1:36:13 ↗ understand Oldtown unique little space

1:36:15 ↗ but once you start going to Citywide

1:36:18 ↗ that's a much bigger bigger deal and one

1:36:21 ↗ of the other questions oh sorry I all do

1:36:23 ↗ is have questions for you today is do

1:36:26 ↗ some of the other jurisdictions have

1:36:28 ↗ these type of building requirements I

1:36:29 ↗ don't I don't want to have isqua be the

1:36:31 ↗ hardest place to do business or build

1:36:33 ↗ something especially if they're already

1:36:35 ↗ kind of doing like most of this anyway

1:36:38 ↗ what's that um so uh I may be fine with

1:36:44 ↗ it I just don't have enough information

1:36:45 ↗ to

1:36:46 ↗ see what's already the current steady

1:36:49 ↗ state and and I know we talk a lot about

1:36:52 ↗ how do we compare versus other things

1:36:53 ↗ sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad

1:36:55 ↗ but I think it's just good

1:36:56 ↗ knowledge um but I think once we do

1:37:00 ↗ something Citywide it has we just have

1:37:01 ↗ to be have pretty deep thought and and

1:37:04 ↗ and understand all the data points on

1:37:06 ↗ that the only thing I would

1:37:08 ↗ say um and also I live in a big box so

1:37:10 ↗ I'm not sure if my house would pass this

1:37:12 ↗ but I have to go back and look at these

1:37:13 ↗ I'll look at this in front of my house

1:37:15 ↗ tonight and I'll see uh the only thing I

1:37:17 ↗ would say is remember what triggered the

1:37:18 ↗ moratorium and I won't name it but

1:37:20 ↗ everybody in the city knows what I'm

1:37:21 ↗ talking about it's uh the color of your

1:37:23 ↗ your jacket John so there is a a long

1:37:26 ↗ and story to history there so again I'm

1:37:29 ↗ happy to talk about that I think it's

1:37:31 ↗ once again should we no we don't want to

1:37:33 ↗ talk about that but again that was

1:37:35 ↗ something that um a lot of people in the

1:37:37 ↗ city felt pretty passionately about

1:37:39 ↗ so jacket looks

1:37:43 ↗ good okay um all right I'm gonna move on

1:37:47 ↗ so um all right so another change that

1:37:51 ↗ was made or another section that was um

1:37:52 ↗ changed was multif family design

1:37:54 ↗ standards um a while back unfortunately

1:37:56 ↗ can't remember when but we um added um

1:38:00 ↗ Cottage and Courtyard housing to the

1:38:02 ↗ land use code um we provided definitions

1:38:05 ↗ we updated the permanent use code or

1:38:07 ↗ table but we didn't actually have any

1:38:08 ↗ design standards and so with this

1:38:10 ↗ project because um Cottage and Courtyard

1:38:13 ↗ housing are a middle housing type we um

1:38:15 ↗ have created um design standards and so

1:38:18 ↗ they'll live in the multif family design

1:38:20 ↗ standards and so they'll talk about unit

1:38:22 ↗ size building or orientation and then

1:38:24 ↗ again parking

1:38:27 ↗ location so my third policy question for

1:38:29 ↗ you guys tonight is does the commission

1:38:32 ↗ agree with the proposed open space

1:38:33 ↗ requirement for cottage and Courtyard

1:38:39 ↗ housing the administration is proposing

1:38:42 ↗ um 300 Square ft minimum for um Cottage

1:38:46 ↗ housing and this requirement would kick

1:38:48 ↗ in if uh someone is building a cottage

1:38:50 ↗ Housing Development with five or more

1:38:52 ↗ units um for Courtyard housing

1:38:54 ↗ containing 5 to 10 units they' be

1:38:57 ↗ required to provide four um 400 square

1:39:00 ↗ feet per unit and then for Courtyard

1:39:02 ↗ housing having 11 units or more they'd

1:39:04 ↗ be required to have 800 square fet 800

1:39:07 ↗ square fet per unit um there is one um

1:39:11 ↗ minor change I'd like to highlight um

1:39:13 ↗ right now the proposed amendments say

1:39:16 ↗ that um for Courtyard housing 11 units

1:39:18 ↗ or more they're required to provide an

1:39:20 ↗ additional common amenity space for for

1:39:23 ↗ 50 50 squ ft per um 50 sare ft per unit

1:39:29 ↗ and we'd like to change this and make

1:39:31 ↗ this 48 um square feet per unit and the

1:39:34 ↗ reason for that is if you look at the

1:39:35 ↗ rest of the um um open space

1:39:39 ↗ requirements for other residential US

1:39:41 ↗ units they're all 48 square fet and

1:39:44 ↗ so we felt like we can give them back to

1:39:47 ↗ square feet so um that's one change

1:39:54 ↗ and with considering this it's also

1:39:55 ↗ interesting to look at you know what are

1:39:57 ↗ other jurisdictions doing so um I looked

1:40:00 ↗ at Belleview bvw um is requiring 20% of

1:40:04 ↗ the lot size for cottage homes um they

1:40:07 ↗ do not Define a specific requirement for

1:40:10 ↗ Courtyard housing but they do have a

1:40:11 ↗ requirement stating that the minimum

1:40:13 ↗ size provided needs to be um 20 um feet

1:40:17 ↗ in both directions Kirkland um is in the

1:40:21 ↗ same well a little bit different but

1:40:24 ↗ they have 300 ft per unit and they don't

1:40:26 ↗ really have a size requirement for

1:40:28 ↗ Courtyard housing they do allow the use

1:40:30 ↗ they just don't have a requirement at

1:40:32 ↗ the moment like to remind everyone all

1:40:34 ↗ the cities are in the same boat and so

1:40:36 ↗ we're still we're all working to amend

1:40:38 ↗ our codes and so they could come out

1:40:40 ↗ with something later saying this

1:40:42 ↗ requirement will change or they have a

1:40:44 ↗ defined um um area for um Courtyards but

1:40:48 ↗ at the at the moment I didn't find one

1:40:50 ↗ um redwind had redm has um a requirement

1:40:53 ↗ for courtage Courtyard or Cottage

1:40:55 ↗ housing which is 400 ft per unit and

1:40:58 ↗ again no requirement for Courtyard

1:41:00 ↗ housing and then I also take a look at

1:41:01 ↗ the department of karma again they

1:41:03 ↗ provided G guidance for um the middle

1:41:06 ↗ housing project and so they um their um

1:41:10 ↗ guide are their um what are it proposed

1:41:12 ↗ amendments um is 20% of the lot size for

1:41:16 ↗ cottage housing and then for Courtyard

1:41:18 ↗ housing they have a minimum dimension of

1:41:21 ↗ 15 ft in both directions

1:41:27 ↗ so I'll go back to that question

1:41:31 ↗ so what do you think of the proposed um

1:41:34 ↗ size requirements for cottage and

1:41:36 ↗ Courtyard

1:41:37 ↗ housing I don't think anyone's going to

1:41:39 ↗ die on that two square

1:41:41 ↗ feet uh Hill there so um yeah question

1:41:46 ↗ if you did an 11 unit look at Courtyard

1:41:50 ↗ housing if you did 11 units like how big

1:41:52 ↗ of a space would you need to build

1:41:54 ↗ that roughly like yeah no no no how like

1:41:58 ↗ to build like like to put them on

1:42:00 ↗ because right now at that it would be

1:42:02 ↗ essentially a fifth of an acre needed

1:42:04 ↗ for open space but if it's a if it's a

1:42:06 ↗ fifth of an acre on three acres not a

1:42:08 ↗ big deal if it's a fifth of an acre on a

1:42:10 ↗ half an acre that's a big deal so how

1:42:13 ↗ yes sorry I literally was doing it this

1:42:15 ↗ morning and I forgot to mention it if

1:42:16 ↗ you did 11 units at 800 ft per unit that

1:42:21 ↗ would be equivalent to two B bball

1:42:23 ↗ courts it's fifth of an

1:42:25 ↗ acre it's about a fifth of an acre I was

1:42:27 ↗ trying to think about if you wanted to

1:42:28 ↗ do a development of 11 Cottages M how

1:42:31 ↗ much space would you need overall for

1:42:35 ↗ the about 9,000 square F feet 9,000

1:42:37 ↗ 9,000 square feet to to wait just about

1:42:41 ↗ I'm sorry I think we're saying different

1:42:42 ↗ things that's just for the open space

1:42:44 ↗ I'm talking about for the whole

1:42:45 ↗ development for the whole

1:42:48 ↗ development I would have to go back and

1:42:50 ↗ look at as I'm say because if it takes

1:42:52 ↗ two

1:42:53 ↗ to do that not a big deal if it takes

1:42:55 ↗ half an acre to put 11 units of these

1:42:57 ↗ type then then you're you have a pretty

1:42:59 ↗ big requirement for an open space

1:43:01 ↗ correct as a percentage Which is higher

1:43:02 ↗ than all the other cities I'm just

1:43:04 ↗ trying to

1:43:05 ↗ gauge whether you do it by square

1:43:07 ↗ footage or you do it as a percent like

1:43:09 ↗ the other some of the Cities do that's

1:43:10 ↗ an option that we can do and I can add

1:43:13 ↗ to my homework sorry it's totally fine

1:43:16 ↗ this is what we're so I'm supposed to do

1:43:19 ↗ okay uh commissioner zacharov um as

1:43:23 ↗ someone who lives in a 114 unit

1:43:26 ↗ Courtyard

1:43:28 ↗ housing

1:43:30 ↗ place I cannot

1:43:33 ↗ imagine the size of an of an issue are

1:43:37 ↗ you comfortable saying where you live

1:43:39 ↗ Ashford is that

1:43:42 ↗ Highland I asked her where she Liv and

1:43:44 ↗ she's said Ashford is a

1:43:47 ↗ Highland it's it's kind of yeah so she

1:43:49 ↗ said she lives in a

1:43:51 ↗ courtyard it's like it's the reason I'm

1:43:53 ↗ looking at Christian cuz we didn't know

1:43:54 ↗ we had one so now I'm going to like look

1:43:56 ↗ at your

1:43:58 ↗ development like what what should I have

1:44:00 ↗ like I shouldn't have the whole ISO

1:44:02 ↗ Highland around me then right pretty

1:44:05 ↗ much yeah so I will have to look to see

1:44:08 ↗ so again we didn't have requirements

1:44:09 ↗ previously so I'll have to look at see

1:44:11 ↗ what um your development looks like and

1:44:14 ↗ if that's um appropriate if that counts

1:44:16 ↗ yeah okay yeah thank

1:44:21 ↗ you Robin Vice chair

1:44:24 ↗ thank you chair

1:44:26 ↗ um so yeah first just a comment I know

1:44:29 ↗ last year we went on a tour of some

1:44:30 ↗ middle housing options and we looked at

1:44:32 ↗ some cottage housing and and Courtyard

1:44:34 ↗ housing in the Kirkland area I think and

1:44:37 ↗ I do think the open space that we saw in

1:44:38 ↗ those examples were one of the more

1:44:40 ↗ appealing um you know characteristics

1:44:43 ↗ about that type of housing

1:44:46 ↗ um so ultimately like I I agree with the

1:44:49 ↗ idea of this change um I think some

1:44:52 ↗ consideration I have are um you know

1:44:55 ↗ could it increase the development cost

1:44:58 ↗ or create kind of like they're saying

1:45:00 ↗ some physical constraints uh based on

1:45:02 ↗ the lots that make it like less viable

1:45:05 ↗ and therefore less likely to be

1:45:07 ↗ developed so I think you know while I

1:45:09 ↗ like the idea of that the open space and

1:45:11 ↗ and making the requirement as a

1:45:14 ↗ appealing characteristic of you know

1:45:16 ↗ creating that Community with this this

1:45:18 ↗ type of middle housing um I just want to

1:45:20 ↗ ensure that it's feasible basically

1:45:24 ↗ yeah and then um one other thought is

1:45:28 ↗ maybe some alternate compliance options

1:45:30 ↗ like uh rooftop Terraces or like shared

1:45:34 ↗ Garden spaces I don't know if those all

1:45:35 ↗ kind of fall under the category of open

1:45:37 ↗ space okay um and then one other one if

1:45:41 ↗ there is a lot size limit might be uh an

1:45:44 ↗ alternative to of like a contribution to

1:45:46 ↗ a nearby Parker Trail so if their lot

1:45:49 ↗ wouldn't allow that type of open space

1:45:52 ↗ maybe there's an for a connecting or

1:45:54 ↗ adjacent park or trail that they have

1:45:58 ↗ development or some sort of contribution

1:46:00 ↗ to to kind of alleviate that

1:46:04 ↗ requirement so you're open not I mean

1:46:07 ↗ yes to parks and trails but you're open

1:46:09 ↗ to other um exemptions to reduce that

1:46:13 ↗ amount long as it provides some

1:46:15 ↗ Community benefit or interacting with

1:46:17 ↗ surroundings is that yeah yeah I think

1:46:19 ↗ so I mean I I think like commissioner

1:46:21 ↗ Crafton and zacharov were saying is just

1:46:24 ↗ ensuring that I think the first level is

1:46:27 ↗ feasibility right like can that open

1:46:30 ↗ space requirement work for a lot size

1:46:32 ↗ and then if not do we have alternative

1:46:35 ↗ oper you know exceptions or alternative

1:46:37 ↗ uh requirements that we could offer

1:46:39 ↗ great yeah I'll look into

1:46:46 ↗ that now thank you Vice chair because

1:46:48 ↗ I'll piggy back off Vice chair I don't

1:46:49 ↗ think I'm able to give a recommendation

1:46:52 ↗ on this um I think uh all three

1:46:54 ↗ Commissioners I'm agreement with um

1:46:58 ↗ don't want to hurt the feasibility

1:46:59 ↗ obviously uh property and land extremely

1:47:03 ↗ expensive here in isqua and I think

1:47:05 ↗ Valerie what might be helpful for me at

1:47:08 ↗ least because I'm a visual person is if

1:47:09 ↗ next time we see this again more

1:47:12 ↗ homework but maybe some uh illustrative

1:47:15 ↗ uh examples of kind of what this looks

1:47:17 ↗ like and then to Vice chair uh

1:47:19 ↗ Patterson's point you know are there

1:47:21 ↗ some trade-offs we can do

1:47:24 ↗ and just so I'm understanding is the

1:47:25 ↗ concern regarding all of the land use

1:47:28 ↗ types or is it more so the um Courtyard

1:47:30 ↗ housing for 11 units or

1:47:33 ↗ more I I mean I'd like to personally see

1:47:35 ↗ you know illustrations for all of them

1:47:37 ↗ I'm I'm happy I believe you told me what

1:47:40 ↗ city was in line with the cottage

1:47:41 ↗ housing 300 Square

1:47:43 ↗ fet we're in line with Kirkland okay and

1:47:47 ↗ then less than redond you know again

1:47:49 ↗ we're all in the same boat these are

1:47:51 ↗ these are new rules and regulations for

1:47:52 ↗ for all of us um again I don't think it

1:47:55 ↗ hurt to see kind of examples of all

1:47:57 ↗ three uh it would help but it you know

1:48:00 ↗ again as far as the courtyard it it'd be

1:48:02 ↗ nice to kind of have an idea different

1:48:04 ↗ things we can do and again if you're

1:48:06 ↗ next to Parks or Open Spaces does that

1:48:08 ↗ count things like that great I will do

1:48:11 ↗ that thank

1:48:13 ↗ you all right well like the green

1:48:16 ↗ necklace right that something like that

1:48:18 ↗ I guess we don't call it the green

1:48:19 ↗ necklace anymore but everybody gets the

1:48:21 ↗ idea

1:48:23 ↗ all right so that concludes my

1:48:24 ↗ presentation but before I um sip down I

1:48:27 ↗ do want to let you know the next steps

1:48:29 ↗ are kind of the timeline for the uh for

1:48:31 ↗ the projects so um the next time you'll

1:48:34 ↗ see this um the proposed amendments for

1:48:36 ↗ Middle housing will be March 19th and

1:48:38 ↗ that will be um a public hearing March

1:48:42 ↗ 13th and then from there on April 1st I

1:48:46 ↗ will be taking this to um pde for their

1:48:49 ↗ review and then um on May 19th um this

1:48:53 ↗ will be um brought before city council

1:48:55 ↗ for adoption so hopefully we can meet

1:48:57 ↗ that deadline of June 30th okay and I

1:49:00 ↗ had one question for you Valerie so

1:49:03 ↗ regarding the definitions major Transit

1:49:06 ↗ stop have you gotten anywhere with

1:49:08 ↗ Olympia we're still working very hard on

1:49:11 ↗ that because that that could help blow

1:49:13 ↗ up all these wonderful made plans yeah

1:49:16 ↗ well-made plans you know what they say

1:49:18 ↗ so okay that was it all right and so I

1:49:20 ↗ have a fourth question which was

1:49:23 ↗ um are there additional changes to the

1:49:25 ↗ Amendments that should be considered

1:49:26 ↗ that we didn't talk about

1:49:28 ↗ tonight

1:49:33 ↗ Commissioners

1:49:35 ↗ Vice uh thank you I guess starting out

1:49:38 ↗ with what chair voice was just

1:49:40 ↗ mentioning so there is a definition that

1:49:42 ↗ got added for major Transit stops um and

1:49:44 ↗ I noticed it does talk about um Transit

1:49:47 ↗ running I think every 15 minutes or less

1:49:50 ↗ um and I believe the two Express buses

1:49:53 ↗ that we have 554 5.56 typically run like

1:49:56 ↗ every half hour so I think there's some

1:49:58 ↗ contradiction there in what was

1:50:00 ↗ identified as a potential major tra

1:50:02 ↗ Transit C but we talked about that a lot

1:50:05 ↗ last meeting so I think we all know

1:50:06 ↗ where we're at there um I did want to

1:50:10 ↗ talk uh if you this is talking kind of

1:50:14 ↗ in generally right about the whole

1:50:15 ↗ section so if you could kind of clarify

1:50:18 ↗ there was a public comment earlier about

1:50:20 ↗ adus being a duplex

1:50:24 ↗ like is there any is that something we

1:50:26 ↗ could clarify at all tonight or maybe

1:50:29 ↗ more homework or can they be connected

1:50:31 ↗ yeah just that scenario if you will two

1:50:33 ↗ adus at 1,000 sare feet how can they

1:50:35 ↗ work together and and could there be a

1:50:37 ↗ connection of a door in between or those

1:50:40 ↗ do they have to have a yeah so to um how

1:50:43 ↗ the quote is written yes um someone

1:50:46 ↗ could have a detach single family home

1:50:48 ↗ and two attached adus so the two adus

1:50:51 ↗ attached just as long as they met the

1:50:53 ↗ size requirement um I think that I would

1:50:56 ↗ have to look into whether or not they

1:50:58 ↗ they could have a door in between um I'd

1:51:01 ↗ have to you know consult with our uh

1:51:02 ↗ building official on the requirements of

1:51:06 ↗ what yeah I'd have to look into that a

1:51:08 ↗ little bit

1:51:12 ↗ more that's what I was thinking

1:51:15 ↗ too awesome thank you um and then one

1:51:18 ↗ other

1:51:19 ↗ clarification um about parking

1:51:23 ↗ maximums I just want to make sure I

1:51:25 ↗ understand so uh with middle housing and

1:51:27 ↗ the Adu the state mandated parking so

1:51:30 ↗ quarter mile of a Transit Center no

1:51:32 ↗ requirement uh Lots under 6,000 square

1:51:34 ↗ ft

1:51:36 ↗ one per lot is that correct I believe

1:51:40 ↗ it's one um per unit but I also want to

1:51:43 ↗ tweak the um the major Transit stop

1:51:45 ↗ requirement if you're within a one4 mile

1:51:48 ↗ walking distance of a major Transit stop

1:51:49 ↗ you are allowed to have four units but

1:51:52 ↗ if you're within a half mile walking

1:51:53 ↗ distance then you're not required to

1:51:55 ↗ provide any parking on the site gotcha

1:51:58 ↗ okay and then Lots over 6,000 ft it was

1:52:02 ↗ Max two per two per unit I believe unit

1:52:06 ↗ okay um and then the way I interpret is

1:52:10 ↗ that we cannot require uh parking but we

1:52:13 ↗ can allow

1:52:15 ↗ it correct so if someone wanted to

1:52:18 ↗ provide parking we wouldn't tell them

1:52:19 ↗ that they couldn't provide it we're just

1:52:21 ↗ not um we can't we're not allowed if

1:52:23 ↗ you're within um half mile walking

1:52:26 ↗ distance of a major transer stop to

1:52:27 ↗ require it right okay so we're not

1:52:29 ↗ saying like a cap or a maximum if you

1:52:31 ↗ will we're more so saying like we're not

1:52:34 ↗ we can't require more than this amount

1:52:36 ↗ of parking right right right right and

1:52:39 ↗ I'd also just like to clarify that um

1:52:41 ↗ parking um requirements associated with

1:52:43 ↗ middle housing have been taken out so

1:52:46 ↗ when we when you see this next you won't

1:52:48 ↗ be weighing in on parking um Thomas um

1:52:51 ↗ is actually going to provide um parking

1:52:53 ↗ amendments and I believe he's going to

1:52:55 ↗ come at a later date with that so um if

1:52:58 ↗ there's any parking concerns they could

1:53:00 ↗ be addressed later awesome and then last

1:53:04 ↗ one I promise uh could you clarify a

1:53:07 ↗ little bit there was U mention that we

1:53:09 ↗ covered really briefly about like a 25%

1:53:12 ↗ of principal unit can you clarify that a

1:53:14 ↗ little bit more add a little more detail

1:53:15 ↗ to that right so again um the state is

1:53:21 ↗ basically allowing all types of units to

1:53:23 ↗ be constructed on one lot and so there

1:53:25 ↗ was a concern that um folks would maybe

1:53:29 ↗ take advantage of some of the benefits

1:53:31 ↗ of having an accessory dwelling unit

1:53:34 ↗ because if you have a a single family

1:53:36 ↗ home you're allowed outright two units

1:53:39 ↗ on one lot and but it has to be a middle

1:53:41 ↗ housing um type but if someone wanted to

1:53:44 ↗ um be able to have a detach structure

1:53:46 ↗ they could say well I'm building a

1:53:47 ↗ primary home into adus currently we

1:53:50 ↗ don't have any size requirements for for

1:53:52 ↗ the primary use we do have it for adus

1:53:55 ↗ but if someone's really trying to

1:53:56 ↗ maximize the amount of development that

1:53:58 ↗ can occur on a site that primary unit

1:54:01 ↗ will likely get smaller and so it'll be

1:54:03 ↗ hard to distinguish between what's the

1:54:05 ↗ primary use and what's the Adu and so to

1:54:08 ↗ try to um again make clear um lines

1:54:12 ↗ understanding what's the primary and

1:54:14 ↗ what's the Adu um we're proposing that

1:54:17 ↗ the adus must be 25% smaller than the

1:54:21 ↗ primary structure and so again when it

1:54:24 ↗ comes in for plan review um you know say

1:54:28 ↗ someone wants to have a primary home and

1:54:30 ↗ two attached um adus which is allowed

1:54:33 ↗ per house bu 1337

1:54:36 ↗ it's we we're not going to look at it

1:54:38 ↗ and say this is actually a um a Triplex

1:54:43 ↗ this is a primary and two two attached

1:54:46 ↗ adus so followup question like if the

1:54:49 ↗ primary house was 1,50 ft then the Adu

1:54:52 ↗ could be 1,000 square ft or my math

1:54:55 ↗ might be a little off but that's kind of

1:54:57 ↗ the idea right

1:55:03 ↗ okay uh that's great

1:55:06 ↗ um any other questions for valer

1:55:10 ↗ yeah each or in total thousand square

1:55:13 ↗ fet each if if we have one house and two

1:55:16 ↗ adus each each th square feet thank you

1:55:20 ↗ that's what I thought

1:55:22 ↗ commissioner craft I know we're not

1:55:23 ↗ talking about parking but it's kind of

1:55:25 ↗ parking partly sidewalks and all that

1:55:28 ↗ and most like but it's all about

1:55:29 ↗ imperious surfaces um Chris I'm looking

1:55:32 ↗ at you you probably are you

1:55:35 ↗ um you're the expert I know

1:55:38 ↗ um you brought up earlier the idea that

1:55:42 ↗ came out there a lot of feedback of you

1:55:44 ↗ know parking in Oldtown is

1:55:47 ↗ tight um we also have rules about

1:55:49 ↗ impervious surface we don't we're not

1:55:52 ↗ requiring people if they build something

1:55:54 ↗ to have parking necessarily but maybe

1:55:57 ↗ it's nice for them to have it but we

1:55:59 ↗ have this these diametrically opposing

1:56:02 ↗ forces where you may want to include it

1:56:03 ↗ but you may not be able to because of

1:56:05 ↗ impervious surfaces the driveways that

1:56:08 ↗ I've seen starting to be built are these

1:56:11 ↗ kind of pattern cement with grass in

1:56:13 ↗ between it's almost like a pattern I

1:56:14 ↗ don't know if you've seen those before

1:56:16 ↗ there's one on one of the firsts there's

1:56:18 ↗ two streets named first it's one of the

1:56:21 ↗ and they just put one in would that

1:56:22 ↗ count towards impervious surface or a

1:56:25 ↗ portion of it or how does that work when

1:56:26 ↗ you put a driveway in that has um that

1:56:30 ↗ mesh with grass in it I believe what

1:56:32 ↗ you're referring to is what we call

1:56:34 ↗ Grass crate and so yes a portion of that

1:56:37 ↗ would be considered impervious surface

1:56:39 ↗ um I know a lot of people tend to U move

1:56:43 ↗ away from that from driveways because of

1:56:45 ↗ when it rains and you know or mud it

1:56:48 ↗ gets slick and it's hard to kind of

1:56:50 ↗ maneuver so but yes someone could I

1:56:52 ↗ should have asked you I'm sorry I I gave

1:56:54 ↗ you so much homework I didn't want to

1:56:55 ↗ ask you any more

1:56:56 ↗ questions I just saw one someone just

1:56:58 ↗ built one not too far for us I wasn't

1:57:00 ↗ sure do they like get like a 50% off of

1:57:03 ↗ impervious surface so that starts

1:57:05 ↗ opening because then going back to the

1:57:07 ↗ other so if someone does a driver like

1:57:08 ↗ that they may be able to do a nice

1:57:10 ↗ walkway to the street if they wanted to

1:57:12 ↗ and not worry about they just have to

1:57:14 ↗ look at all of those pieces together

1:57:15 ↗ okay that was thank

1:57:18 ↗ you yeah I think the ones that I see a

1:57:20 ↗ lot are the the pavers with like Peak

1:57:22 ↗ gravel in between those seems to be the

1:57:23 ↗ most

1:57:25 ↗ popular okay get enough

1:57:28 ↗ homework yes I do thank you so much guys

1:57:32 ↗ well thank you valer that was fantastic

1:57:34 ↗ great discussion want to thank all of

1:57:35 ↗ our curious and inquisitive

1:57:38 ↗ Commissioners for a great discussion I

1:57:40 ↗ also want to thank our audience this

1:57:42 ↗ evening um you can feel free to stick it

1:57:45 ↗ out there's probably only about 5 to 10

1:57:46 ↗ minutes left um but you're also free to

1:57:49 ↗ leave if you'd like we are going to move

1:57:51 ↗ on to

1:57:52 ↗ reports and we will start with our city

1:57:55 ↗ council update and I'm think I'm looking

1:57:57 ↗ at

1:57:58 ↗ Kristen uh not really any city council

1:58:01 ↗ updates it we the city has a program

1:58:05 ↗ that is an acronym called iHip and it's

1:58:09 ↗ an investment we pull funding from

1:58:11 ↗ different sources and we have an

1:58:12 ↗ affordable housing fund

1:58:14 ↗ um the arch trust fund allocations for

1:58:18 ↗ funding for new affordable housing were

1:58:20 ↗ just approved by our city council uh the

1:58:24 ↗ recommendation and I think most City

1:58:25 ↗ councils have already approved it but

1:58:27 ↗ anyway the reason I'm telling you this

1:58:28 ↗ is because one of those is another Leo

1:58:31 ↗ house which is called Emily house um in

1:58:33 ↗ isqua and our iHip and Arch are each

1:58:36 ↗ putting in half the funding for that so

1:58:38 ↗ that's kind of cool to see that funding

1:58:39 ↗ go to

1:58:40 ↗ work uh that's all I have for Council um

1:58:43 ↗ we do over the next few meetings have

1:58:47 ↗ about five more policy issues that we'll

1:58:50 ↗ be bringing to you and then the public

1:58:52 ↗ hearing will be on April 24th for those

1:58:58 ↗ okay exciting looking forward to

1:59:02 ↗ it okay uh moving along our final uh

1:59:07 ↗ piece of business this evening um

1:59:10 ↗ calendar business any type of

1:59:13 ↗ announcements no

1:59:15 ↗ okay all right everyone well again I

1:59:17 ↗ want to thank you for your participation

1:59:19 ↗ want to thank you for your attendance

1:59:20 ↗ want to thank all of you um anything for

1:59:23 ↗ the good of the

1:59:26 ↗ order hearing none we will adjourn this

1:59:29 ↗ evening at 8:29 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, Principal Planner Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of February 13, 2025

Recommendations & actions (4)

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

a) Minutes of February 13, 2025 There being no corrections or comments, the Minutes were approved.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER ZAKHAROFF.
CHAIR VOISS asked staff to review the Public Hearing comment regarding sign code.
a) Council Update (01:57) Leeson stated that the ARCH Trust Fund allocations for funding new affordable housing have been approved by the Issaquah City Council, one being another Life Enrichment Options (LEO) or Emily’s…