Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone to tonight's meeting. It's 05/27/2025, and the time is now 06:02 p. M. The meeting will come to order. Tanya, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Ali Shosti.

Here.

Ben Reed. Here. Ryan Kesterson.

Here.

Sandra Pereira Reynolds. Here. Justice Phelps, Todd Oyo Fesso, and Dion Ditmar are excused and for the record there is no remote attendance by board member at this meeting.

Fabulous. Thank you, Tanya. Are there any added items or changes to the agenda from staff? We have a change in tonight's presentation so our consultant Tyler Quinn Smith will be doing the presentation tonight. Okay, thank you for the update. The minutes from the previous meeting have been presented to the board. I call for a motion to approve the minutes of May 28, no, not May 20, What day? April 28. It's like May 28 is tomorrow. To approve the minutes of 04/28/2025 as presented.

This is Ben Reed. I move to approve the minutes as presented.

This is Ali Shasti. I second.

Thank you. Is there any discussion? I call for a vote to approve the minutes. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All in favor say nay or excuse me, all against say nay. The vote is approved. One, two, three, to zero. Tonight, we are holding a land use and planning board meeting in which Tyler Quinn Smith from our consultant framework will give the briefing on phase one of the proposed code amendments for the recode Kent project. If there are no objections from the Board members at this time, we're ready for the briefing on Phase one of the proposed code amendments. Mr. Quinn Smith, you may begin.

Right. If I could just get a verbal confirmation that you're able to see the slides on the screen?

Yes. Yes, we can see them. Excellent.

Well, hello. I'm Tyler Quinn Smith representing the media consultant team that's been supporting Deja, Kristen, and others at the city for the Ruta Kent project. I presume you're accommodating my remote attendance tonight. It's been rather fast paced last couple months working with Kristen and others on a variety of amendments to the Kent City code, which which we're really excited to bring forward for adoption beginning with the public hearing starting on the ninth of of June in just two weeks. And so the purpose of tonight's presentation is just a brief view on all of what's included in that amended package.

I am well aware that Kristen has has taken the time to meet with you all several occasions up to this point, mostly on the middle housing implementation. And so I'm gonna stay relatively brief on that topic, but there are a couple other new state laws that we're working to implement to bring the city into compliance with those mandates that I'll spend a little bit more time on tonight. And then towards the end of the presentation, I'll just briefly preview with you all what we are thinking as potential prod or potential topics for a second phase of this project, recognizing that we just simply ran out of time to get everything done that that we wanted to do on this short time frame, and then we'll have have some time at the end for discussion and questions. I also encourage you to just chime in if if anything's unclear throughout the presentation, But rest assured, we'll have plenty of time at the end just because this is a relatively short slide deck that we have in store. So just to get started, I'm gonna begin with a new piece of legislation that was passed in 2023.

It was part of, you know, one of many relatively active legislative sessions at the state of Washington that sought to streamline housing production to simplify permitting of housing. And this bill is no exception, providing opportunities for additional dwelling units in existing buildings. And so this is a requirement for cities to allow for a density bonus of up to 50% of what's allowed in the underlying zoning so long as any additional dwelling units can be contained within the envelope of an existing building. So this is not particularly common in Kent or other cities in the Puget Sound for that matter, but it certainly is something that we could see an uptick in, certainly as housing developers and land landowners get a little bit more creative in how to provide for more help. And so on the left here are a couple kind of baseline requirements in the law that we've pulled through the Kent City code to bring it into compliance with this law.

We've also incorporated a few, you know, necessary provisions on the right, such as requiring these new units be in alignment with building code. That's probably something that doesn't need to be stressed, but it's it's an amendment that we've made. The the the project would need to retain any and all existing parking. And then we also did note that the city has a few pedestrian priority streets that have been identified in past planning efforts, in transportation planning efforts, and recognizing the policy intent of those of those corridors to have more active usage at the ground floor, we've exempted the ground floor of those buildings from this particular provision that would allow for additional dwelling units and instead would require any additional dwelling units in those existing buildings to be in upper stories. Okay.

Moving now to a couple bills that I trust you all are quite familiar with at this point. The middle housing laws that were passed over the last couple years that really kind of brought about this project to begin with. Kent finds itself as a tier one city due to its population. So the baseline requirement for the city is to allow for four units on all lots. Hopefully, this is not new news to you all.

I I know that Kristen has taken the time to go through some of the more some of the nuances to this strategy, and I have a couple slides in a few minutes to to reiterate some of those. But a few other pieces in the legislation that I wanna point out is that because of the way middle housing needs to be treated in comparison to single family, we've had to adjust some of the thresholds for which design review applies. And then there's there's been a nod to the transit proximity that's prevalent across Kent in the way that the density bonus does work where we provide six units on the lot if that lot is within walking distance of a transit stop. And those are the bus rapid transit stops or the the commuter rail stops. And just a few other points that are covered in the kind of overarching approach to the middle housing implementation is that not only, you know, are four units on a lot, that's not the only way for an applicant to really pursue this sort of development option.

But in circumstances where the lots are a little bit larger, a net density alternative of 24 units an acre is an option provided as well. And you'll notice in the latest draft that there's a number of small changes to definitions just to make sure that there's a really clear distinction between middle housing and multifamily development throughout the Kent City code. Okay. Now moving on to ADUs. This is a topic area that the city has addressed in past amendments to its code.

So it finds itself largely in compliance with these laws, now allowing up to two ADUs on a lot. But because of the interaction between the ADU bills and the the middle housing bills, we've had to kinda think about how ADUs should be counted toward density. And so it was a policy direction early on from you all in the city council to count to or count ADUs, excuse me, toward the unit density of four units in a lot or in circumstances of larger lots, 24 units an acre. And then recognizing that because we are allowing for more units on the lot, ADUs may be appropriate to be on the same lot as other housing types beyond single family detached. Once again, so long as the unit count doesn't exceed the the density limitation set by the zone.

Okay. Design standards. So this topic is covered in a number of bills, but most principally addressed in h b twelve ninety three, which I gather isn't one we've had a whole lot of time with you yet. So I'll take a moment to really explain this one. This again was kind of in the name of of streamlining residential permitting and supporting residential development opportunities across the state.

And really kinda acknowledge the fact that many cities were applying, in most cases, subjective and unclear requirements for the design the exterior design of buildings, not only residential, but mixed use in commercial buildings. And so the the intent of this law is to what is to ensure that any design standard is really clear and objective, making it a little bit more predictable for the applicant when putting forward their their proposal for a development project. And so, fortunately, the city has already been reviewing any design standards administratively, which is in alignment with the code as opposed to a design review board, which is common in other communities, for example. But we've had to make a few small adjustments to to kind of equalize the design rigor applied to different housing types. So for example, because of the way this legislation works together, cities can no longer impose a more strict design regulation on an ADU or a duplex compared to a single family home.

So we've kind of equalized the design standard that's applied to all of these types of housing. And in cases where a design standard impacts the building massing in form of development such as modulation requirements where, you know, the facade plane is required to kind of recess and jut out to kinda make for a more varied facade. That that impacts the overall kind of square footage that a that an applicant or a builder would be allowed to include inside the unit. So because that influences the the buildable area, that is a standard that is now addressed in the district and cannot be really imposed as a design standard and will, in the future, just be uniformly applied to all development based on the zone. Now there are a couple bullets here on the right that indicate additional work needed to address this piece of legislation.

For example, the city does have some standards or some updates that are needed to the diminished garage provisions in the code and in external documents. So we're well aware of those, and we'll be updating them in compliance and in alignment with the law. And then as one final point, I'll say that the city has has several external design guideline documents that that are ways of of regulating the design of of multifamily building, of building in certain sub areas such as downtown or the Midway area, and we'll need to kind of reconcile all those and make sure that they're updated to be clear and objective potentially as a second phase to this project.

Tyler, before you move on, I think we've got a question here from Brian.

Sure. Yeah. So, there's a community down near Dupont that has they they passed an ordinance where they they wanted everything to be built with a sort of craftsman house house aesthetic. And, it seems to do I understand this correctly that this would make that illegal because you can't create a clear and objective standard for a craftsman aesthetic?

I I would actually say that it is possible to make something like that clear and objective as long as the code had, you know, very exact either options, design options, or examples that would be allowable and considered to be of the the craftsman aesthetic. But the the catch is that that any development in the city or all residential development for that matter would need to be subject to that rather than, you know, exclusively applied just to single or just to multifamily, for example, which has kind of been the the historical nature of these of these regulations.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair, is it okay if I proceed?

Yes. Thanks, Tyler.

Yeah. You bet. Okay. Moving now onto a a a new law that actually has generated some confusion among many cities. And so I'm gonna take a few moments to explain this one as well.

Even if you are familiar with it, I just wanna make sure that we're on the same page with the unit lot subdivision. So this is a new tool that is required to be an option in all cities across the state to allow for easy, easy simple ownership of housing. This recognizes that historically, cities subdivision requirements to divide land have been kind of complicated and and and and demand a lot of time and money to get a lot of similar results. And and we'll we'll show an example in a second here. But this really is a nod to a streamlined alternative process for creating fee simple ownership opportunities of any number of units on the lot that are either detached from one another, one another, excuse me, or attached to one another.

And I will reiterate here that this is this is simply a subdivision process. It is not necessarily a mechanism that provides for or allows additional density or coverage on a lot. It is simply an alternative and easier land division process that that uses the terms both parent lot and unit lot. So I'm gonna flip to this screen here to show two examples that that demonstrate this this tool. Starting with the top here, we have a scenario in which a single family home is on the lot.

Maybe the owner has already built a couple of units in the back or maybe they are interested in this going forward. The unit lot subdivision process can be used at any point, either while it's being constructed or after. But the fact of the matter is that the the dimensional intensity standards of the underlying zone apply to the parent lot. So that would be the the darker dotted line here. The parent lot, that's what limits the density.

So in this case, it means many lots across the city or units. Right? As as would be the the kind of confines for applying any sort of lot coverage maximum, it's applied to the the parent lot. Now what happens is when they use the unit lot subdivision process, they simply divide the land for purposes of ownership. That those are not these individual are called the unit lots that that that transpire in this process.

Those are not the basis for applying dimensional and and density standards moving forward. Instead, that's applied to the current lot. And so second example here on the bottom is just a conceptual cottage housing development that might be on a little bit larger lot where a couple smaller detached units are built. And then to ensure the fee simple ownership and sale of those units, which is much easier than condominium sale, for example, or ownership in the state of Washington. They have created small unit loss around each of those those detached units, and then you'll see hatched here is just a conceptual indication that that there could be some area that's owned in common.

And so what you'll see in the amendments for this particular law, there are included homeowner association requirements to ensure, you know, maintenance of of shared areas such as that. Those are unit lots subdivisions, once again, being a tool that the legislature sees as pretty critical to enable the ownership of of detached or attached housing moving forward. Okay. Now moving on to step housing. So this has been it's it's certainly been a piece of legislation that's not only impacted this project, but also the comprehensive plan because the city has had the the charge from the state or the the mandate from the state to to plan for and accommodate housing at all levels of income.

And so within this spectrum of of housing that cities need to plan for and now regulate for are permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency housing, and emergency shelter. So together, those add up to this acronym of STEP. And there's some pretty basic requirements in the in the law that we've tweaked the Kent City code to to comply with, and those are essentially allowing permanent supportive housing and transitional housing in all zones that allow residential uses and hotels. And then the second category is here, emergency housing and emergency shelters. We've made some changes to the use permit provisions, excuse me, to allow those as uses wherever there's a zone that allows hotels or motels.

And then on the right, just a couple kind of more localized nuances in the in Kent's code that we've had to address to just kinda reconcile some overlapping definitions such as group homes and and making sure that that the city's existing limitations on intensity density and spacing are are retained in the code as we move forward. So that is an overview of STEP housing. Okay. Now there's there's a handful of bills that recognize the impact of parking on housing, you know, primarily due to the the spatial constraints that it provides on the lot. Right?

You have to provide some some paid area for parking if it's a requirement, and then more so the cost implications and and recognizing that a required parking space or excessively required parking spaces do kind of eat away at the the affordability of of the housing units on the lot. There's a couple bills that we've already talked about, some new ones here that that have implications on the way that the city can regulate parking going forward. I will say that the majority of these, the first bullet the first three bullets here on the left are addressed through a director's rule that was, I believe, incorporated into the code at the end of last year, and that's the implement s p sixty fifteen, which really kinda gets at that the spatial confines of parking and making sure that cities don't require a minimum stall dimension that's that's any larger than eight feet by 20 feet. Once again, developers, if they see it necessary, or homeowners or or landowners could obviously provide parking that's a little bit larger than that, but this is the smallest or, excuse me, the largest minimum standard that cities can apply. And then they have a few provisions here to allow for more pervious alternative forms of paid or of surfacing.

So rather than just require as fault as as the surfacing for new parking, this bill has required cities to allow for grass pavers, for example, as an alternative recognizing that that does, in many cases, if designed right, allow for the percolation of rain into the ground. And then transit proximity. There's a a number of of ways transit access in Kent will dictate the parking requirements depending on the location of a lot by way of either walking to that transit stop. And then whether that's a quarter mile, half mile, there's different different provisions throughout the the amendments that we've made to provide for some parking flexibility when that lot is adjacent to transit. Okay.

Moving on now to some more material that you're that you're presumably familiar with due to Kristen's great presentation and and and kind of instruction on these topics over the last couple of weeks. So it'll be relatively brief. Just wanted to conclude with the night with the the kind of reiteration of the city's approach to the middle housing implementation. Starting with the zone consolidation that we've done. So this has made for, like, a lot of red and a lot of striking in the code, and I don't want that to be startling to anyone.

I just wanna reassure you that it's to kind of simplify the number of zones going forward. And and that's simply because the the Nuance zones that exist in the city before, as SR 4.5, SR six, SR eight, there's a lot of nuances there or there are a lot of nuance there that that no longer really aren't really meaningful in terms of how the city can and should implement eleven ten just because of that baseline for units per lot requirement in the bill. So it made for some opportunities to consolidate zones. So here's the the overview of that. Once again, a couple zones here at the more intense end of the spectrum, existing zones, MRM and MRH, just making a one to one relationship to new zones today in the proposal, n r four a and n r four b.

Other than the renaming, these these zones do not have any changes in this batch of amendments, but it certainly is where those those are some zones that we are are looking at as potential and opportunities for for further amendments during phase two. Okay. And then just finally, to re to just kinda unpack this zone consolidation approach, there are obviously updates to the tables for uses and for dimensional standards based on that zone consolidation. It looks like a little bit alarming at first, but it's mostly because of the consolidation of columns. And then we've also included and keyed the development standards to new diagrams in the code.

And so these may be familiar to you now if you've had the chance to look at the code since the last draft. Just making sure that there's an illustrative kind of equivalent to the various dimensional standards that are applied to to housing development in the in the zones across Kent. And then finally, a couple provisions to pull through some of the city's policy priorities, such as retaining trees in existing homes, and in those circumstances, allowing for a little bit extra height as an incentive when that is when that that's the case in a new development project or infill development project. Okay. So I'm just gonna leave you with a very high level description of of what could be potential topics to include later this year.

Again, not intending to alarm anyone with a number of of topics on the screen here, but there's there's, like there's just a lot of enhancements that the team has identified throughout this project as opportunities for the future. We've we've done the best we could to get the code in compliance with the the laws that have deadlines of of this June. And beyond that, it's all about, you know, fine tuning things, cleaning up items that we didn't have time for. So that's that's more or less what's happening on the right on the right column here, making sure that public work standards are kind of accommodating some of this new density, making sure that landscape requirements, recognizing that that's like a that key priority in the city right now, it's it's kind there's kind of a gap in the application of land landscaping requirements and and thinking about how to right size those and apply those to infill housing and middle housing opportunities going forward. Addressing some of those new zones that we really haven't had time to address other than by renaming such as four A and four B, and then doing a number of other cleanup items here throughout the various chapters just to ensure more usability for both permitting staff and then especially for applicants.

Now I do want to just point out the column on the left that I that I do that I skipped over initially, and that is to point out a number of state mandates that didn't have mandated deadlines by June, but might have deadlines by the end of the year, in any case, are up to the city to implement in relatively short order. Some of these are relatively straightforward. Others will require further kind of education and communication and meetings with with folks like you all. So you can expect items like these to to appear on a potential work plan for the the back 2025, but we really do appreciate all of what you've done to inform the batch of amendments that we've made up to this point. And with that, I'll conclude my presentation, and and we'll happily chat with you through any questions or or clarifications that you need on the presentation this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Tyler. Members, are there any questions for Tyler this evening? Ali?

Hey, good afternoon for presentation. I have a question in regard to your second slide, additional units in existing buildings. If you could elaborate a little bit, to me, this makes sense for large commercial building that is being abandoned, for example, and you want to make it to residential. Is that the case?

That's right. Yes. So not only and that's a great question and I apologize for not clarifying this initially, but not only is the bill or the law for that matter intended to allow for additional units in residential buildings or existing residential buildings, but it does also allow for the conversion of commercial to residential under the same kind of structure whereas if there's flexibility provided as long as the new units are contained within the building envelope of the existing building.

Okay. I also have a quick comment in regard to gravel parking. So per King County surface design manual, gravel surface area count as a pavement, as an impervious surface. I just want to clarify that.

You.

Members, any other questions? Thank you, Ali. Staff, is there any further business to bring before the board?

No.

Since there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you, Tyler.

Thanks again, Tyler.