Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the meeting of the Kirkland Planning Commission. It's hereby called to order. Let's start with the roll call.

Aaron Jacobson?

Here.

Gina Medea? Here. Julia Nolan? Here. Scott Reiser?

Here.

Justin Robbins? Angela Rosman? Here. Rodney Rutherford?

Here. And with the majority of commissioners present, have a quorum and may conduct business. The next item on the agenda is items in audience. This is the portion of the meeting where we'll hear from the public about items that are not scheduled for public hearing. Tonight's public hearing is for the Washington State Housing Code compliance zoning amendments. Do we have any sign ups?

I did not see anyone on the general comment sign ups.

Okay. And if we But we

might have some online participants.

Yeah. There is anyone online who would like to speak to address the commission at this time, not about the public hearing, then please raise your hand. Those wishing to comment remotely may click the raise hand button. And I can't currently see the participant, so if someone who has visibility to that could verify there's no raised hands. I think we can go ahead and proceed to the next item on the agenda.

Next item listed is special presentations. We have none. Study session, we have none. So we're going straight into our public hearing. Today's public hearing is the Washington State Housing Code Compliance and Zoning Amendments or Compliance Zoning Amendments. And is staff ready to take it from here? Should I go ahead and open the public hearing, I suppose?

Yes. You can go ahead and open the public hearing, and then we are just going to need a couple minutes, perhaps.

Okay. Sounds good. And we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

Sorry for the delay. We should have scheduled that open house from five to 05:55.

Good to have some engagement at the open house, so that's that's great.

Alright, Commission. Thank you for your patience. So this is the culmination of Planning Commission's work on the phase one of the middle housing code amendments. You've had several briefings on this item starting last November. And with us tonight for your presentation is Scott Guter, senior planner.

Alright. Good evening, council members and audience. Tonight, I'm gonna be presenting on the code amendments to meet state residential requirements, and the project's been named middle housing code amendments, rightly so. Next slide, please. So, tonight is a hearing.

So, I will be providing you a staff brief staff briefing on the proposed, code amendments, and, then this will be opened up to receive public testimony afterwards. And then that will be followed by a planning commission deliberating on the proposed amendments and providing recommendation to city council. Alright. So as a reminder, I just wanna as this is a capstone of this project and and we do have a new commissioner. I wanted to provide some background and and provide an overview of of this of what we've done so far with this project.

Again, this is to meet state legislative requirements regarding minimum residential density and middle housing typologies in all of our residential zones. It also there's requirements to make ADU, to loosen up our ADU and parking requirements. And then retool our design requirements.

Okay.

Alright. And as a reminder, we decided to do this in two phases. This is largely based on a lot, a strong desire by the public to be highly engaged when we're talking about future zoning of our residential zones. It's also part it also is due to the fact that we need to adopt these regulations prior to June 30 to avoid having the state model code go into effect in our city. And as such, we've decided to, with this first phase of code amendments, to meet minimum state requirements.

And then we're opting in 2026 to do a future phase of code amendments, well, which we'll focusing on trying to optimize middle housing in order to add housing supply and diversity in our residential neighborhoods. So we've received a lot of public comments on on this project throughout the throughout the months. And largely, the public is in support of our phased approach, decode amendments, and generally supports our, our recent decisions on our base density, and limited housing types in low density zones. And, we've also heard recently some, public some public support for the, council's affordable housing option that is in your packet, and some pushback from, from the master builders on that same topic. Okay.

So, to recap the Planning Commission's decisions up to this point, the Planning Commission has made, some decisions on, the number of how, the the limited housing types in low density zones, the six limited six limited housing types that we've identified in low density zones and have agreed on the ADU exemption in these zones up to two per two per middle housing development. We've also have added some support to our approach to keep retaining our existing parking standards outside of a half mile of major transit stops. And the PC also has voted on deferring any inclusionary requirements until phase two of the code amendments. Alright. So this is how, I've broken up the, draft code amendments, in your in your meeting packet.

Starting off your attachment one which has your middle housing code amendments plus the planning commission recommended affordable housing requirements which basically retains the existing affordable housing requirements and deferring any kind of new inclusionary requirements to phase two. The second the second attachment includes the same revised chapter except it removes the existing affordable housing requirements, replaces it with some new requirements in chapter 112 related to low density zones. And then finally, the final attachment gets into, or at least the third attachment gets into, the parking parking standards and general amendments that we've made throughout the code to make sure that the code is a little clear and works well across the various zoning chapters to enable middle housing permitting. Alright. Now to get into that first attachment related to middle housing, this is the this is the affordable housing option that PC is recommending, which basically retains the existing affordable housing requirements which kick in at 10 units and has that variable AMI levels that it has.

But the changes to the packet, I've highlighted them in this chapter. They include some minor edits to the definition of multiplex. They adds adds an exclusion to our Greenbelt urban separator zone, the RSA one from the middle the new density requirements. Makes a minor amendment to the to some of our density standards for clarity and adds middle housing project site definition. This is in response to a a current interpretation that we have in the code related to common open space and that that Adam drafted that we're now codifying.

It updates the parking standards based on our previous conversations with the planning commission, the decisions you've made to support existing parking standards outside of our half mile or major trend stop. And then make some additional clarifying adjustments to some footnotes and a couple additional sections in the code. Was asked to since we're talking about parking in this chapter, I've decided to kind of put this parking comparison up because it was requested That kind of shows what our what our existing standards are for parking and the what the draft code is doing at this point in time. And then, what a new, Senate Bill fifty one eighty four, which was signed into to law. Actually, what that would what we would also, require.

I can stop here. We can take have some discussion on this because this is a new material that you're seeing. It's basically showing like how the parking standards will need to change in about eighteen months to meet the new state requirements for per the 15 or per fifty one eighty four. Sorry.

And to clarify, this is the maximum the city can require?

This is the maximum the city can require. So basically, outside of the zero parking within the half mile of major transit stops, this is probably going to be what is going to be required in eighteen months.

Any Commissioner Reiser? Okay. So is this what we were talking about at the last meeting? No.

This is this was No.

When we were talking about the Michael site, we were required to live under the same

Correct. It it is, Commissioner Reiser. So we did discuss Senate Bill fifty one eighty four in relation to the Juanita zoning code amendments. Planning Commission had directed us to go ahead and draft the fifty one eighty four parking ratios into those code amendments. It had not been signed by the governor at by your last meeting. It was signed into law by the governor yesterday.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Would there be any reason not to have the draft code just mere, s p fifty one eighty four?

That is something that, the commission could discuss, and bring up as a potential amendment.

So we do that after the hearing?

Right. Yeah. And in response to the question, I think the the the one reason would be that the city will not be required to implement the Senate Bill 5,184 parking standards until eighteen months from now. So we're not required to do it at this point in full transparency. So that would be, I think, the the reason that the Planning Commission might decide not to direct us in that route.

Commissioner Rosman?

So just to clarify though, if we didn't direct you to do that, we would have to staff would have to go through the process of developing draft code now and then in another year do it again if we didn't do it now.

Well, it's potentially, I mean, we could do this in phase two. I mean, phase two is going to start next year as well. So this could be something that we can put into phase two.

Okay.

As an option. Any other questions? All

right. Carry on. Okay.

Just attachment two has the same code amendments broadly across 113 except it removes the affordable housing requirements in section thirteen forty and replaces them with some added affordable housing requirements in low density zones in chapter one twelve. It sets a start start date of 06/30/2026 and applies to all new residential developments except for dwelling units that are 2,000 square feet or less and also exempts out additions or alterations that do not add more than 100% of the existing square footage of the dwelling unit and then sets an affordability requirement at 10% of all units that would be required to be affordable. This would also be subject to the alternative compliance section which allows for fee in lieu. With that we went in the There's a question here.

Yeah. Have a question. On the previous slide. On the 2,000 square feet or less, what where did the 2,000 number come from?

We took that number as a kind of like a like a gross floor area kind of, component that, would allow for us to not only, you know, kinda capture like the like a a a cottage which is 12 1,700 square feet, but it also has an additional 2,500 you can add an additional 2,500 square feet of garage space on it. Two fifty. Two fifty. Did I say 2,000? No. Wow. That was a big garage. Sorry. It's okay. It's okay.

So 200, yeah, two fifty square feet. So that's to capture kind of like all of that. And do we just round it up to 2,000?

So the 2,000 would be the way this is written as the 1,700 plus two fifty, like versus because, like, cottages are counted as 1,700, so that's why I was curious that were you trying to include things other than cottages in that number?

By putting like the no. No. Just to kind of get to the 2,000 square feet, in order to kind of avoid any of those kind of confusing discussions in a pre submittal meeting related to when does this is this really gonna kick in? What are we talking about when we're talking about affordable housing requirements and gross floor square gross floor area? Are we are we talking are we are we exempting? Are we honoring the exemption or not? Instead of like going through that that conversation, we just set it at 2,000 square feet.

But it was generally thought of as cottages.

Generally thought of, yeah.

And I think if I could chime in, I mean, I think a 2,000 square foot house allows for a pretty generous three bedrooms, I would say. So we really wanted to make sure that we were allowing for family size but still middle housing units to be exempt from the fee.

Yeah. I mean, my house is 1,300 square feet, and we have three bedrooms. And so, yeah, 2,000, I'd say, is quite generous.

Yeah.

Okay. So, this was in your pack of this table right here. And it kind of, it's it's taken from a, I believe it's a single family home in, North Rose Hill. And we applied our current standards to it, and it yielded this is how we would basically calculate a fee in lieu for a for a unit, a standard model unit. I think this our, you know, a a standard affordable housing unit would be 1,300 square feet.

That would be our prototype unit, and it came out to a calculation of about $45,000. If we took this as an example, single family home at I think this was like a 3,200 square foot single family home. I keep looking over to Adam because he's the one that chose the particular site. So I just want to make sure that I'm getting it right. If we took that basic example and we just and we applied it to let's say the calendar what we permitted for single family and the calendar year of 2024 if that was the average we could yield about $2,800,000 in affordable housing fees with that kind of, with development, a similar rate of housing production in the future year.

Any questions on this?

Yeah. Commissioner Rossman?

I was going to write it down for later, but I may as well ask it now. So I know that, per the Office of Financial Management, 2024 was, like, peak reduction for like completion of all housing in the state. And I'm curious if is 151 a reduction from previous years? Is it an increase? Like I know, like, with multifamily, 2024 permits are way down. So I'm trying to figure out if single family is is this, like, a normal year over the last ten, or is this a good or bad one?

I did not ask for specifics as I'm getting the number of years. I just chose the the last full year that I I knew I can I can capture?

I know that's kinda in the weeds, but, you know, it can vary quite a bit. So just to get a sense of what's a realistic number.

The aim of this this exercise was just to kind of give you a general, you know, feel about it. Obviously, the that the annual collection would obviously vary depending on the number of single family dwellings.

Right. But I guess for me it's like, you know, is 151 normal or is 70 normal or is 200? Because I think it also impacts the overall discussion of how many homes are we actually talking about in a given year.

Yeah. Think it's probably a little bit on the high side. I think you're right. 2024 was sort of a banner year for housing production. Think Ag, we'll try to dig up some data quickly for the first, you know, couple months of this year at least. And if we can find it, we'll share it. But I think probably more like a little over a 100 might be a more standard

All part single family of

single family generation rate, permit rate.

Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Medea?

So I get I get how the calculations were done. I'm I'm questioning the the land acquisition costs being so low. I don't know of any vacant lot for $3.50.

Yeah. So we assumed so this is, again, what we're looking at here is to calculate this in lieu fee is the difference between the cost of construction of a prototypical affordable housing unit, which is like a 1,300 square foot cottage, and then what a lower income household can pay. So when we think about a prototypical affordable housing unit being built on a lot, you wouldn't just buy a huge lot, like a huge Kirkland lot, and just build one of those units. So what we're assuming is basically four prototypical affordable housing units being built on a standard lot. So if you were just to buy this lot for a single family house, it would be like, whatever $3.59 359,000 is times four, right?

And so that's a more typical price for a lot in Kirkland. Does that make sense?

Okay. Yeah. Just one other point. I think this was also mentioned, and I didn't put it in this slide. But one other point was mentioned is that this particular fee that that for this for under this prototype would have only come out to like a point 1.5% of the sales price that ended ended up being the sales price of the unit. It's another component. Mike? Sorry,

this includes escrow fees, realtor compensation, all of the excise taxes and such?

Correct. Yes.

Okay, Okay, in clarification, because I think I was off on this as well. The first three lines are in reference to the cost of building an affordable housing unit, right? Okay. And so the bottom line, number seven, is the only part that pertains to a newly built single family house because that is the fee that would be applied to that house. Correct. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Cool. Any more questions? Okay. Alright. So now getting into the rest of the rest of the code here.

So largely the definitions have been updated primarily to to help with, you know, middle the middle housing code section. There is a two two, amendments here related to, redefining lot, adding, amending the lot definition to clarify that it doesn't include unit lots. That has to do with the unit lot subdivision code that will be coming to you shortly. It's a clarification that we wanted to make in order to in order to, like, make sure that our access standards and any any kind of any kind of requirements for development standards don't get that confused with a unit lot subdivision, what we mean by lot in the zoning code. And the other one is tandem parking, which is, you know, in response to a state parking requirement that requires us to have some tandem parking standards.

The sections, the use zone sections, the actual residential zone sections, they all those chapters have also been updated to make a reference out of our detached dwelling unit permitted use section that basically references out to middle housing and accessory dwelling unit code sections as one as an alternative and one as an accessory use allowance. This is something that just basically helps us to kind of make it a little more transparent that those are alternatives or additional allowances with detached dwelling unit use. Okay. So in chapter 95, largely what the amendments were was just to replace the old reference, of cottage, two and three unit home, references and, to the new reference of middle housing. We made some adjustments to the parking pad reduction so that it actually meets the state standard for parking, state requirements for parking.

And also exempts non conforming landscaping, landscape buffer requirements for residential parking. Also, to meet state compliance with the residential parking code. In 01/2005, this is there's a, there's again replaces dwelling units with lots to add clarity to what we're talking about when we're doing set. This is largely a subdivision section that we're actually talking about accessing accessing additional lots in a subdivision that that we're making it I made additional adjustments to state to meet state parking requirements, including tandem, like including adding a tandem standard. And then setting other state requirements to to like meet like, grass modular pavement and and other other kinds of dimensional standards that were required to be adjusted to meet the parking, the senate bill for parking.

We get into one ten. This is one ten is require is our chapter on required public improvements. This is like our street improvement standards. The accessory dwelling unit bill exempts accessory dwelling units from being required to add when you build a new accessory dwelling unit, you're exempt from street required street improvements. So that's that basically sets an exemption there for that.

And then in our miscellaneous development standards, we've updated that section to meet our the new state accessory dwelling unit requirements. General call outs to the new middle housing code as a housing typology rather than cottages in two and three unit homes. Basically, some clarifications on the floor area ratio and the FAR and the FAR bonuses for accessory dwelling units. And then makes a density calculation reference back to 113 so that developers aren't confused as to what section applies. In our non conformance code, this really kind of involves, again, the state parking bell.

It exempts out a lot of compliance for nonconforming parking surface parking materials. And then And then it allows for continued use of existing, up to six, I believe it's six parking stalls of residential parking. Then plates chapter is actually amended also to meet the new stall standards, which max out at eight feet in width. So we made a new plate plate for residential standard stall size. And then we also amended plate 21 to match the revisions that we made in 01/2005 related to lots and access.

So that's pretty much the high level overview of all the code amendments that we've kinda gone through. Next is to to take public testimony on the amendments and then deliberate and provide a recommendation to city council. City council will take up these recommendations at their June 3 meeting. So that is the next steps. And I just have a questions

section here. Any questions from the commission before we open up to public comment? Alright. Well, with that, I think we start the period for public testimony. I see the sign up sheet is being brought up now.

I guess I should go ahead and start reading my introductory script here. I usually have this written for the items the audience when I try to adjust it on the fly here. The next portion is about for a public hearing on this topic of those presented here tonight, the Washington State Housing Code Compliance zoning amendments. And so in order to hear from as many people as possible tonight, we are allowing any individual to provide comments. We're allowing them to speak for a maximum of three minutes each.

The timer on the lectern will flash a yellow light when thirty seconds remain and a red light when your time has ended. And to be fair to all speakers, we will adhere strictly to this three minute limit. The Commission wants to hear from as many different views and opinions as possible. If you have already heard another speaker state your comment, please consider not repeating the comment and instead provide a comment or perspective that is unique to you. In making your comments, we ask that you please direct them to the Commission.

But this is not a time for give and take with the Commission. Obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, or abusive language toward the Commission, city staff, or those in the audience is not allowed. As audience members, please refrain from any demonstrative agreement or disagreement with the speaker, such as clapping, cheering, or booing. These actions are not only disruptive, they may also intimidate or have the effect of excluding others in the community whose views may differ. We'll begin the public hearing with the list of people that are here in person that have signed up to speak.

When I call your name, please approach the dais to address us. Online audience members may indicate that you wish to speak by raising your hand in the Zoom meeting now. When it is your turn to speak, we will admit you into the virtual room as a panelist. Please remain muted until I call your name, and then you may unmute to address the commission. So the first person who has signed up tonight is Kyle Sullivan.

All right. Good evening. It's been a while. I would love to see affordable housing requirements extended to low density residential zones. I know that you're focusing on the state requirements right now, but I would love to see that soon. Today, only projects in medium and high density zones are required to build or fund affordable housing units. New market rate construction isn't cheap, but these projects are where the lowest cost new market rate units are made. So why are these the only projects that are required to fund affordable housing? Extending the affordable housing requirement will increase funding, which is sorely needed. And with an exemption for smaller dwelling units, it will encourage middle housing production.

I firmly believe that middle housing projects have a positive impact. Kirkland isn't getting any more land, and most of it is low density residential. While today's cottages aren't for everyone, they are way less expensive than a new single house built on a standard lot. Increasing our supply allows more people connected to our community to live here as well. And let's see it.

Skip. So when we see all these lots being redeveloped with big single houses, the price goes up. So it's really a stark reminder that as that happens, our neighborhoods get more exclusive. Keeping all of the smaller, older houses and their lots alone wouldn't fix the affordability problem either. If you look around, these often cost a similar amount to these new middle housing units while being less supply because they're smaller.

It's the same amount of house on a bigger amount of land, basically. And low supply would increase prices as well. So I could give a whole second comment about the sustainability advantages of compact development, so that's for another time. I'm also excited about the flexibility that these updates would bring. Kirkland's twenty twenty code sets a good foundation, but I'm sure you've noticed the same handful of designs being repeated. They're popular, but having more options is even better. I'm excited about stacked flats. While cottages have allowed for smaller homes that feel familiar, they all share a downside, stairs. Stacked flats allow for ground floor units without stairs, which is a huge accessibility benefit. Single storey units also allow for more layout flexibility.

And by concentrating the development on a smaller footprint, there could be more open space set aside. I'd like to see the city adopt SB five thousand one eighty four parking requirements, but I recognize the timing's awkward. If the commission chooses to go with the draft in the packet, I'd like to see a follow-up very soon so that developers aren't in a holding pattern with this thing that they know is coming. I see parking as a pretty self limiting issue. If a developer underbuilds parking for what people want in a given area, it's a hard sell.

Even today, developers often build more parking than is what than what is required. So just general, I think relaxing regulations while keeping the course off of what size of building you can make is really positive and gives us more options. Thank you.

Thank you, Kyle. The next speaker is Luke Travis. And after that, seeing that there's no one on, online attendees wishing to speak, would be Liz Hunt.

Go ahead, Luke. Good evening, commissioners. It's not a coincidence that shortly after Kirkland disallowed or rather made illegal building anything beyond a single house in much of our city slots that, housing affordability relative to, income began to slip. I am really happy to see today that we are undoing that legacy. It's not a silver bullet by any means.

We have decades of whatever the opposite progress is to make up for, but this is a step in the right direction. I was really glad that Kirkland was a leader with college developments in particular. That was the only way that my family was able to buy a house in Kirkland, and I'm really glad that we did. It's enabled me to get to work here in Kirkland much faster and more inexpensively than I would have had terror wise, and I don't even contribute to local traffic on my commute. I'm able to always take a bus or a bike.

So you're welcome. I think it's great that we have local housing so people don't have to clog our roadways. Let's see. Yeah, I wish Kirkland had been a leader in all of middle housing, but, you know, better late than never, right? Let's talk a bit about inclusive zoning.

The reason that anti housing people or NMBs tend to want inclusive zoning specifically with larger developments is because they know that it will make it less likely for these developments to pencil out and that is the point. That being said, it is specifically McMansion style developments that are the worst for Kirkland's housing affordability crisis. They create no new housing and they make existing housing more expensive. I think it is absolutely the right move to, put the burden of inclusive zoning on these units as well. And I would even venture that they should share more of this burden since they do nothing in and of themselves to alleviate our housing unaffordability unlike say 10 units.

And then I want to touch on parking very briefly. There is two things. One is that my understanding of what you are currently designating as a major transit stop is something like RapidRide. And while that's terrific, we are not going to have very many of those in Kirkland and they only didn't go to Seattle. I'd say that something like the 255, which is our only link to Seattle, is a much better candidate for these availability of not having to build more parking as necessary.

So I'd recommend frequent transit rather than major transit. And secondarily, we already know that legislation is coming down the pipeline from the state that, limits our ability to show ourselves in the foot with harmful parking mandates. And you already saw all the slides about what we have to all the hoops we have to go through to designate parking mandates. We can be like lots of various cities, both larger and smaller than Kirkland, throughout the country, and just get rid of them completely. We're doing fine before then, and we'll do fine afterwards. Thank you.

Thank you, Luke. Next up is Liz Hunt. And as a reminder to those remote, please push the raise hand button if you would like to address the commission for this hearing. Go ahead, please.

Hi. Good evening, commissioners and staff. Thank you for the time to comment on these proposed changes. I do want to thank you for retaining the floor area ratio, lot coverage, and height standards in low density areas. Think that low density residential areas I think that makes sense.

I would request that you remove the Kirkland specific rule that ADUs would not count toward density requirements. The state allows ADUs to count toward the dwelling unit maximums, so I'm still confused as to why we're not excluding ADUs in that count. I know current code excludes them, but we've these new rules are changing the way we count density. So I think it's also appropriate that, especially because the size of our ADUs has gone up, it used to be a maximum of 800 square feet. Now it's 1,200 square feet.

And we've heard that 1,200 square feet is a pretty good sized house. So I think that's something to consider. Next item to mention is the inclusionary zoning in low density residential areas. I support option one. Option two would apply an affordable housing fee to all new single family homes as we've discussed.

That is something that we could consider, I think. But the speed at trying to put that together to meet the June 30 deadline, I think, is challenging. So I and you mentioned the feedback you've gotten from the Master Builders Association on that item. It could unintentionally make housing less affordable rather than more. So something to consider.

I just think we need more time to work on that one. Parking, I think we need to consider how we're going to mitigate the loss of off street parking due to these changes. I know that the focus of this plan was to define all of the changes and write the new code so that they can be implemented. But I really think we need to be figuring out how we're going to mitigate the increases in density and the changes that this zoning is going to bring. I truly hope that we can improve the options for car free living in Kirkland in the future.

But we don't have we're missing some serious infrastructure right now to make that happen. The last item I want to mention is that there are many items in this package that will increase density in our low density residential areas, and we really need to give some attention to making sure that our infrastructure can keep up with that. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Liz. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission on this topic tonight? Go ahead and come forward and introduce yourself.

And Mr. Chair, we do have one online person that raised their hand. We'll go ahead and get them admitted.

Great. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Alex Mason. Thank you, commissioners. Just one comment about the 2,000 square foot threshold for affordable, sorry, like mandatory inclusionary zoning piece. One thing I just think the commission should consider is you have a lot of homeowners who are potentially redeveloping their house, and that if they're tearing it down versus remodeling, it kind of creates this threshold piece for a single unit or really capping a unit size.

So you're encouraging remodeling versus new construction. Something I would consider would be similar to how they do impact fees, where if you have an existing house, there's some form of credit for that house or some different way of charging that fee, just so you're not like, pigeonholing unit sizes or really taxing a homeowner who may want to do a project that's smaller as opposed to developers. So just something to consider. Thank you.

And next, let's see, we added Lucy Chen. You can go ahead and speak.

Yes, hello. Go ahead. We can Hello.

Thank you for, admitting me to the, on the Zoom. And good evening, commissioner and staff. Thank you for the time to comment on these, initiatives. So, I primarily had a comment about middle housing. So I'm currently a graduate student at the University of Washington, and I live in Kirkland.

So, it is, like, a thirty to forty five minute commute, but it works with my schedule given the amount of times I need to go on campus. But I also wanted to comment on, middle housing because, I previously attended Cornell University in Ithaca in Upstate New York, and I lived in dual housing. I lived actually in two different units while I was there. And, I found it to be a really great option, especially for, like, a a younger person like myself, who wanted to seek something that wasn't necessarily an apartment so I could, you know, live with my partner and have a little bit more space and, while also, you know, not being, like, being in a in a city that we wanted to live in, because a lot of the other options that are on the market right now are are very expensive. And, just in my experience, I feel like middle housing was a very affordable and suitable option for a lot of the young other, like, you know, young people that I knew, either students or professionals, who it was just, like, a lot more affordable and accessible to them.

So, I think that's, like, a really big, reason why I'm in support of middle housing. And then another thing is also, I think a lot of young people tend to gravitate towards Seattle because there are some, like like, smaller and, like, more affordable options. But I think that if there are more options available on the East Side, people will be more likely to start searching here even before they want to necessarily start settling down and, you know, raising families, which I think is also really important to at least give people that option and, make it so that it's not, kind of like a stereotype that the East Side is mainly for, older folks or families.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lucy. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission on this topic? Seeing none, I believe it's time for me to close the public hearing of testimony. All right. So we'll close the public hearing for testimony and begin deliberation. Is there anyone on the commission who would like to kick off deliberations? Or unless there's anything I'm missing from staff.

I believe we might have a couple potential amendments that we want to walk you through, some cleanup items. So just a couple things we've caught since packet publication that staff is recommending that you when there is a motion on the table that you offer an amendment to adopt these so they're mostly cleanup and Scott's gonna walk through them. Okay. Oh

hey. Oh hey. There we go. Okay. Me quickly kind of get over.

Okay. So just a couple little small things here. Thank you, commissioner Jacobson for bringing this one up to to us. There's just a small little little edits here that weren't caught in the packet where staff was just I was just trying to get through all of we have so many people that were amending this this this code section. You know, editing by committee is always a challenge and this is one that we just didn't catch and so this is making it clear that we're talking about, you know, parking standards for units that are 1,000 square feet or less, not over.

So that's one. Another amendment that we were that we caught was early on, we were we included this unit lot subdivision process which is it doesn't seem confusing here but if it's all all of our subdivision requirements whether it's law subdivisions, short subdivisions, or in the future, unit lot subdivisions will be in place. This one, this code language was kind of confusing because it was just giving you two flavors of subdivision. The subdivision, which is our long subdivision, greater than 10 units or greater, and then a unit lot subdivision. Those are the only two flavors you had.

So we wanted to make sure that we were inclusive enough to say this is, know, you if you want, you're entitled to subdivide a cottage project under any of any of those allowances, whether that is a short, long, or a unit lot subdivision. And so we just remove this for clarity purposes and just called it subdivision process because that is the subdivision chapter. So that's that amendment. And then this is a a catch that that one of our our planners caught that says this is how we're we're currently applying this standard, but we weren't explicit as to how we would how we're not requiring pedestrian access locations, multifamily requirements. We apply only the standards that are in one thirteen.

We just wanted to make sure that we aren't mixing up two different standards that could potentially conflict. And so we just wanted to make that this small change here to one zero five that we didn't catch. And those are the the some of the amendments that staff caught.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner Rosman.

Quick question. So I just wanted to check and make sure that we don't have anyone in the audience that wants to comment on these. I know they're, like, super minor, but I just want to make note that we could open the public hearing in case there's anyone who wants to speak on this just because it wasn't shown to us before the hearing.

Sounds yeah, it sounds fair. If anyone is interested in speaking to these, is it okay to ask for hands and then we can reopen if necessary?

Sounds like a good plan. Yeah.

So we'll give anyone a couple moments to think about raising their hand. And seeing none, I think we'll proceed with deliberation. Thank you.

I mean

We're we're at a loss for words. Okay. Commissioner Rosman.

Hold on. I had notes. So this is kind of like I don't think you have any slides for like what you want us to

I I don't I don't I just have the question slide right here. That's the

Okay.

Where I end.

Okay. So one piece on the note about the road widths at being 16 feet wide versus can be reduced to 10 feet. Is there a reason it's written that way? Like, what would the process be to reduce it to 10? What would be the reason not to just make 10 the standard?

Yeah. So the public works official that that was working on on this is essentially just taking that flexibility standards and and that we currently have in in chapter one zero five and applying it here so that it's it's just a way for us to to kinda talk about we'd start have a starting point where it might be 16 feet. It just depends on the depth of the lot. And where, you know, there are those extra standards like the the 16 feet might be needed. Generally, what ends up happening is they ends up getting reduced because properties decide the units far that are far back from the street end up becoming sprinkler.

And so they don't have to have, you know, access, fire access requirements. So those things generally get reduced down to 10.

Okay. I guess I would just be interested in maybe figuring out if there's a way to write it more by right, especially if there's like a normal path. Maybe it's 16 feet unless the back units are sprinkled and then it's 10. Like, if that's the standard, can we just write it as the standard so that it saves staff time and gives more certainty for new projects?

Yeah. The only thing that the only reason why we did it this way is we didn't want to we this is the we didn't actually have this codified before and so we were applying this other standard in 01/2005 and saying this is kinda like what we mean. And then in this case we're, you know, this is just standard. This is what we were pointing to in any way. And and so we feel like instead of rewriting the script on it at this point in time, developers are used to this particular direction anyway.

And that we just wanted to make sure that it was in in one place rather than making some, you know, vague reference to just, oh, just wink wink. We'll just, you know, just use this one over this section over here when you're applying this. So I think the developers are used to this section at this point. And that's why I would kind of advocate just kind of not change it at this point and get into because I don't have my public works official

here. Okay.

Well, and maybe that's something we could put like a note on to look at in the future just, you know, as much as possible, you know, when we talk about permitting and timelines and affordability, you know, as much as we can simplify, you know, it it frees up staff time. It frees up time in the permit process. So, you know, maybe this isn't the time to, you know, really get in the weeds on this one. But I would love to if there's an if then by right, I think it's worth looking at. And then I guess I will just start with the parking in 5184 and maybe we can talk parking for a minute and then we can continue on with the rest of deliberation.

My thought is that, you know, we have the state code now. It won't take a lot to update. I would propose that we approve the SB 5,184 language so that we don't have to come back and repeat work. We have a very long planning work program all the time and this is something that the state has mandated. So I think it makes sense to just go with the mandate and then, you know, focus our time and efforts on the stuff that we have more flexibility to discuss.

And I'll stop there. I've got other comments on other stuff, but I figure maybe we can talk parking and be done with parking and then move on to other parts of the code.

Sounds good. I imagine that we might, you know, once everyone's had a chance to to speak, we'll probably set up a motion, and then we can amend it and talk about the the pros and cons. And whoever makes the motion could include or exclude the the parking recommendations. Let's go ahead and continue around with hearing from the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Medea.

Thank you. Where do I start? So overall, staff, thank you. I think it a good summary of the work to date and all the various choices and compromises that we've made to get up to this point with community input. I think we all know this is pretty tough environment out there, very difficult for builders to anticipate and plan accurately when looking to acquire and build property.

So I appreciate the daylight on the fee calculations. Still not convinced that, you know, it's entirely accurate, but I appreciate the further detail on that. I just want to make sure that as we continue, there is a way for a developer to kind of do that calculation and feel reasonably confident that the delta is not going to shift dramatically between the beginning and the end of their projects, it doesn't cut too much into their profitability. I like the idea of continuing to finesse the inclusionary zoning and affordability requirements. I think that that's important.

I am happy we've talked about the carve outs, and I think those are good. I think we can still do more in that space, and I agree with the concern about rushing too quickly to execute that without gathering further information from the key stakeholders to make sure that we do it in a way that doesn't end up backfiring. I'm very sensitive to that. I mean, I want to be clear that I want to make it happen, but I'm not in a rush to do something that we might later regret. And I feel similar about parking, and I appreciate Commissioner Rosman's recommendation about snapping to 5184 right away.

Think tonight, I think there was commentary as well about, do we truly understand and are we prepared for some of the impact of that elimination of the parking requirements to what it might do to our side streets and arterials. And I just want to make sure we don't, again, get too far over our skis and regret not having worked that through more thoroughly. So thank you. Oh, so yeah, so regarding Option two, yes, my recommendation is to wait, and that's how I will be voting to it if it comes to that.

Thank you, Commissioner Martija. Who's next? Commissioner Jacobson.

I don't feel that strongly either way on the whether we should use the currently drafted parking language or the or direct staff to create new language to comply with fifty one eighty four. I don't know that it's gonna be that much of a difference, but I'm open to either. On the note of the affordable housing requirement, the affordable housing requirement only kicks in June 30 next year, so developers will have plenty of time to figure it out. I am open I'm more than open to that affordable housing requirement. I think it should be refined, and I've worked with staff on some revisions that ensure that we don't levy a $45,000 fee for a 2,001 square foot unit.

And so I will and counsel did direct staff did direct us to provide some kind of affordable housing requirement. The Planning Commission has contradicted counsel on an issue like this before, and the counsel got its way because that's how these things work. So I would encourage us to keep that in mind. The and so to the end, I'm gonna be I I will be voting to make sure that we have some kind of affordable housing requirement with the phase in as drafted by staff for mid next year and for some draft language some draft language that I was working with staff on today to essentially exempt the first 2,000 or 2,500 square feet and then have a per square foot fee levied where you would have to build a 4,500 square foot unit to get to the normal 45,000 square foot fee as used in the example that staff provided us.

Commissioner Nolan?

I, too, would like to investigate some of the options for just affordable housing. I agree with Commissioner Jacobson that it would be nice to see it graduated, since I agree that it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense to say your house is 2,200 square feet, and you're hitting the exact same fee that you might be getting if you'd built a 4,000 square foot house. So I think an option along those lines would be very much appreciated and I think reasonable. But I do think that kind of looking at that and at the very least more discussion around some options would be appreciated.

Commissioner Reiser?

Okay. On the parking, one of the reasons I would like to wait until it comes back to us is because I would like the public to get a their heads around what this actually is. I think it is really important that the public actually accepts this. And I think hurrying it into this is harder on staff, and it is going to definitely be harder on the public. For I agree.

It should be what my fear is on doing it as written for the that $45,000 is I think, probably it's going to be higher than that when it is actually figured out. And that could put a stop on a lot of building that we want, especially houses that are not quite the mega mansion. Because people who can really afford it, that's not very much. People who are stressing to get into a 3,000 square foot house, that could mean the difference of just not building. So I think we need more work on it, and it should be graduated.

That just seems like a lot for especially, I just know being in the building industry, middle income housing that is being built out there, somebody who is building in the million range rather than the 3,000,000 range, it's tight. Another $45,000 might make the difference between not building. And I think that's very hard on developers. I think it's hard on the public, too. So I would rather see that there's a kinder, gentler version of this.

Commissioner Rosman?

So I hadn't made my comments about the inclusionary zoning, I figured I'm sure you have thoughts, but I'll make mine. I think it is extremely fair to have some level of inclusionary zoning for single family because we do have it for multifamily, as has been noted. I really do like the idea of a graduated fee. I would be open even to starting that at $2,200 or $2,500 versus $2,000 I'm not tied to any number. But looking online to newly built homes, you know, 3,500 square feet is like over $2,000,000 So 45,000 levied on that is maybe a chunk, but, you know, we're not talking a million dollar home or a $1,500,000 home seeing that kind of fee.

So, know, things are extraordinarily expensive in Kirkland for single family. And so I think it's hard even for those of us who look at this all the time to realize just how expensive a 3,000 square foot, 4,000 square foot brand new home is. You know, we're talking $22,534,000.000. So comparatively, think there is some flexibility to include some inclusionary zoning there. And again, if you're building cottage homes or townhomes or more family sized units, you're not going to see this fee.

And the point is is that we we've all said that we need more affordability in Kirkland and I think this is a way to do it graciously.

Commissioner Jacobson. So I did actually work with staff to provide some draft language. Would you like staff to present that on the screen?

That sounds good to me. Yeah.

We can do that. So I'll ask, our admin staff, Tyler, to bring up that Word document that I dropped into the folder. And then I do have printed copies for commission that I'll come and deliver.

Great. Thank you. And that's intended to be 2,500 square feet, I believe. Yeah. That's right.

Yeah. There was supposed to be a strike through on that.

Oh, okay. Yeah. The zero.

Yeah. This was just kinda changing everything. And there's supposed to be a strike through over the the zero.

Sorry

about that. I mean, I

could do that, I guess.

I think commissioner Jacobsen would like to speak to this.

Yeah. I think it might be helpful for staff to change that on the screen, and I can just talk about the logic. The b, this big paragraph here, which is now no longer on the screen. Essentially, the idea is the first 2,500 square feet are exempted, and then we calculate the fee such that it takes building an extra 2,000 square feet beyond that to hit the to hit the same fee as was being proposed by staff originally. So that $45,000 figure, you only reach that by building 2,000 feet above the 2,500, so 4,500 square feet.

I asked staff to run the numbers for the example home that they provided in the in the staff memo, the 29 the 2,900 ish square square foot home with this language, or it might have been slightly bigger, but with this language, instead of paying 45,000 square feet, that example home would pay on the order of $17,000. And so this would ensure that the smaller units do not pay the same amount as the larger units while also ensuring that the larger units don't pay an absolutely exorbitant amount, but they will still pay more.

Any other commissioners have comments on this? Commissioner Medea?

I like the direction it's going. I wish there was, like, an actual e equals m c squared formula. Go for it.

So the reason why there's not, like, an exact square footage fee is, one, we would want a number that's, like, adjusted for inflation because the cost of these things change over time. And, two, it needs to be based on something. And so we're essentially the reason why it's complicated is we are taking that $45,000 figure and dividing it by 2,000. And that $45,000 figure does vary depending on the home because the site as I understand looking at city staff, the site acquisition costs are based on the specific property. The construction costs are based on a citywide assumption.

So that $45,000 figure will vary a little bit just depending on where where in the city you are, where the property is. So the per square foot fee would be the, right now, the 45,000 divided by 2,000, essentially, for this example home.

Commissioner Nolan?

I also really like the direction of this. I think the graduated approach makes a lot more sense. I do wonder, just because I believe this is the first time the commission and public is hearing about this, whether it might make sense to either schedule a later time to discuss or reopen for just any comments for the public. This may be where I'm a little woozy on exactly nebulous about exactly the proper protocol. But I do wonder if either of those would make sense. Regardless, though, I like the language within the amount of time I've had to study it.

Commissioner Reisser?

So how much would this affect a house that, say, somebody wanted to build a 6,500 square foot house, which we have seen regularly in Kirkland, does it graduate

higher? The way that it's written, it would go higher. And so they would pay more than the 45,000.

Mr. Rosman?

So I'm going to come back to the comments earlier about how this was something that the council is absolutely going to be looking at. And so I think it is appropriate that we weigh in at this point. There will be a public, you know, there will be time in between today and when it goes to council. So if we were the final decision makers, I think waiting on this makes sense. But given that counsel has already talked through and said that they want this, I think I am comfortable enough for now on this understanding that there will be more, you know, outreach to the public and commentary and time, you know, for feedback by the time it goes to counsel.

If we don't, I think they're just going to talk about it anyway. So I would rather us give them solid feedback for them to discuss. So as written, I would be comfortable with using this to move forward.

I guess I'll go ahead and chime in since I haven't really spoken up much yet. I like the idea of the graduated approach. I would maybe on the side of starting with the base of the 2,000 foot square foot. I'm trying to figure out or not sure about the rationale for jumping to 2,500 before starting that. One of the things I was thinking about is what are some ways this might be hacked by or used in different ways?

And so one of the things that I was thinking about is would this potentially encourage the development of, instead of a 3,200 square foot house, a 2,000 square foot house with a 1,200 square foot ADU? Or maybe two twelve hundred square foot ADUs. This I don't think would be a bad thing even, because that would produce more useful or more flexible housing. But I had some questions about that for staff. Are ADUs, attached ADUs, are they allowed to have interior connecting doorways? No. Interesting. Is that? Yeah. Attach to use.

Connecting to the main primary unit?

Connecting yeah. Between from from and Mike is off. But, yeah, my my thought was yeah. Connecting from the primary unit to the accessory unit. This is something I've I've seen

Technically, yes. They have to have their own really, what they're they're required to do is have their own exterior entrance. They can be connected interior into the interior. I'm not quite sure how that's working out with the the, you know, new construction of, you know, the single family with two two ADUs, one of them being attached, one of them being detached, of course, is what we commonly see. And I'm not quite sure if those are actually being built with, you know,

an entryway interior to the primary. And I imagine there is probably some there's what's allowed in zoning, there's what's practical based on building code. And I don't know enough about the building code. There's no, like, would it require such a thick door that it's not actually practical. So I don't know. You could do it? Okay.

Yeah, you could do it. Yeah, so I would imagine that what we'd probably see more likely is when a homeowner wants to add an accessory dwelling unit, they're more likely to put that connection interior.

Chair Rutherford, if I could add just one more thing on that front. So I think we've discussed at previous briefings on the middle housing code amendments that there has been some motivation because of right now, the existing code today, we have a limit on the total amount of accessory square footage you can have on a parcel. And so we don't just have a limit on how big a detached ADU can be. We have a limit on how much square footage outside of the primary home that you can have on a lot, and that would include the amount added up of a detached ADU and a shed and if you have a detached garage. So that has been an additional limitation on how many or how large someone can build a detached ADU such that it has motivated developers to they can get more ADUs if they attach them because it's hard to get two detached ADUs on a property today because of that code.

The state code actually requires us to change that. We cannot subject ADUs to that total accessory structure square footage limitation that we have. And so some of the attached ADUs we've been seeing have been just barely attached. And I think that the motivation to just barely attached ADUs will also be going away with the state requirements implemented with this project. So I do think we won't maybe perhaps be seeing at least to spec as many attached ADUs if that factors in at all.

And one more question on this point.

Can I Yeah? Were you trying to like so a single family home would not put an ADU on with a door in it and basically have it as additional bedroom for a family.

Yeah. And so I've experienced this when visiting friends in Germany. They had a townhome unit, and attached to their townhome unit was an accessory dwelling unit. And before they had kids, they'd rent out the accessory dwelling unit. Then they had kids, and they expanded into it. And then as the kids leave, then they could then continue renting off the accessory dwelling unit. Or in some cases, you might choose to just move into the the accessory dwelling unit and rent out the main unit. And I see this as as providing people with potentially a lot of flexibility rather than and something that I think would be reasonable to have a policy that encourages to provide that that flexibility.

One point that I wanna make here is that this is about dwelling units and non accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units, not dwelling units as regulated in our use zone chapters. So it's an accessory to a dwelling unit. So it probably wouldn't be subject to 112 at all.

It wouldn't be subject to this. And that's kind of what I'm getting at. That there would be a hack around paying the fee.

Right? Correct. I mean, a lot of the a lot of the code is is has been drafted. It's already developed, is already designed to develop a hack, whether it's the one that staff made which is like exempts out units that are 2,000 square feet or less and additions and all alterations to a certain point, you know, up to a 100% of an addition. So it's there's a lot of get out of jail free card kind of language in there that allows for allows for developers just to completely bypass this by making smaller units.

And I think that's the point you were trying to make is

that Yeah. Yeah.

This is this is about this is what this code is really trying to steer is smaller units.

And then to follow-up on the point about accessory dwelling units, I was trying to figure out what are the greatest costs to building an accessory dwelling unit that would be attached like this. And I imagine would probably be a kitchen. Are accessory dwelling units required to have a full kitchen? It can't be an efficiency where a residential suite would have.

Yeah, this not co housing a residential suite. These are like full they are required to have all of the same accommodations or same amenities that a dwelling unit would have, which would be you know, you know, cooking and sanitation and

all the facilities. Like a full size range and but not like

Well, it doesn't really have to have full size range is my understanding.

But Okay.

And that's been a lot of the a lot of the the kind of hacks that that we've seen with with developers kind of developing these small little, you know, what are the kitchen? Cove kitchens or whatever, the little things you see in almost like an apartment, like a hotel room or something to that effect.

Yeah, a hotel room that has like a small food prep space.

Food prep space, yeah.

Right, yeah. Okay, not a full kitchen. Okay, great, thanks. That helps clarify some of the flexibility that was thinking about and reflecting on my experience

But with the code the way it is written and how the development community has been using our current accessory dwelling code. It is, I think this was mentioned, you know, with the added flexibilities that we've been including, including removing the distance between structures for the FAR bonus, for you know putting an ADU behind your a detached ADU behind your unit that's that's gone now. So this distance thing is gone. They can you know just have to apply apply the separation of structures that building code requires. This would further incentivize, I think, developers to really kind of think about picking up properties and probably developing a primary with two detached accessory dwelling units on.

And then in particular, what an affordable housing code a year out, if we maintained something as an adopted 112 low density affordable housing code, that they will probably still try to bypass that as well by making the primary unit less than 2,000 square feet or in this case less than 2,500 square feet.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner Rosman?

Just a note on I looked up on Zillow real quick just so we could get a sense since we're talking 2,000 versus 2,500. I know this is probably going to miss a few units, but since built in 2020 and since then, between two thousand and two thousand five hundred square feet, there have been 82 homes sold in that range. Just to give a sense of what we're talking about if we're talking 2,000 square feet as the starting point or 2,500.

That's just new. That's like total

transaction. Well, that's having been built in 2020 to 2025.

So that is new sold.

New sold in the last five years, new built in the last five years. 82 of them in that range.

Alright. Any further comments from commissioners for the deliberation? Commissioner Amede?

Just to clarify. So Commissioner Jacobson's proposed amendment would be part of what we include if we choose to adopt all of the Option two, which I think you clarified doesn't go into effect until June anyway. Is that true? So we do have time to engage with stakeholders to finesse as needed? Correct. Okay. So this could be part of what gets presented to counsel?

Yeah. The June 30 is also so that the existing pipeline is unaffected. So the homes that are currently in the permitting process would be entirely unaffected.

So what procedural kind of if this is moving towards potentially adopting this as an alternative, as Planning Commission's recommendation, you do have to make a motion because you've already voted on this. You have to make a motion to

you know, amend. I think for well, first we'd have there would have to be a motion put forth. And I I think it could include this or not include it. And then subject to further

It would have to be either the the council staff version or the Jacobson's version. Yeah. So the motion would same thing would happen also if you wanted to make a motion on the parking as well because that's not included. Everything that's included in your packet is is what you would need to that you don't need to make a motion on that. So everything that we've presented to you, like, on the slides right here as additional amendments, you'd have to make a motion on that.

Well, there would have to be a motion for the base recommendation and potential additions to that motion that would address the parking legislation, the edits by staff Correct. And the Jacobsen amendments. So an initial motion could include or exclude any of those and could be further adjusted based on subsequent amendments. Is that fair?

I believe that would work. Okay.

Would it make sense to just do them one by one since I feel like all three of them altogether is a lot?

Well, we can we can start out with with just the base motion and then do amendments thereafter. That's entirely up to whoever is first to make the motion.

Commissioner Jacobson. I was originally not going to since the since we last voted the other way, but since it seems like there's openness to it, I move that we recommend council option two draft code, including staff's technical corrections.

Second.

All right. And then I move to

Oh, you wanna speak to that first?

I mean, I think, like I said earlier, I think we should include some sort of affordable housing requirement that aligns with the direction that council has given us. The I think I will then make a motion to amend this to include this this language for a sort of scaling affordable housing requirement. I think that addresses a lot of the concerns. When if you actually calculate this out, this will likely be a less onerous affordable housing requirement than many of our neighboring jurisdictions are adopting as part of their middle housing compliance code. So and we are with this with this specific version, we'll be making sure that middle housing is really incentivized and we're not impacting the feasibility of developing middle housing.

Is there a second for that amendment?

I'll second. Alright. So that was for the affordable housing?

Yeah. That's for the oh, sorry. Was that in a clear enough

Can I

as an amendment? I'll restate it.

Yeah. So perhaps I could so that wasn't an amendment yet. So the original motion is to move to recommend the council version of the code included in your packet with the staff recommended edits to k z z k z c, Kirkland zoning code sections one thirteen point two five and one zero five point one eight. Those are the ones we showed on the screen. So that was the motion.

That was the base motion that

I That was the base motion. Okay.

Cool. And down there is the motion for Jacobson amendments.

I move to amend, chapter our recommendation for chapter one twelve to include the changes as shown on screen, changing the fee in lieu option for the affordable housing requirement in low density zones.

And that is seconded by? Seconded. Commissioner Reister. Commissioner Rosman?

So on the screen, we have it as the first 2,500. Are we comfortable with the 2,500? Would we rather it be 2,000? I'm not particularly I I don't I think I could go either way on that one, especially after looking you know, we're talking 82 homes in five years.

Does the 2,500 include the garage?

That's a question for staff, I believe. Is it 20?

Yes. Because when we were talking 2,000, they were talking about garage. I think if it is if the garage is included, 2,500 is fair.

It's inclusive of the garage.

Yes. Yep. And I think 2,500 is fair.

I think the numbers I have do not include garages. So but yeah.

And then question to staff. For the parking, would you prefer that just as a motion I don't know how that would fit into this motion. Yeah. Yeah. Think it's an entirely separate motion that we would direct you Amendment. To, provide counsel code language, aligning with the SB fifty one eighty four requirements.

Correct. So as of right now, the motion you have on the table includes a version of the code that has and we can pull that slide up onto the screen if it's helpful. So right now the draft code that you have on the table in the motion includes the draft code, so the middle column. So if you do want to recommend to counsel the five thousand one eighty four requirements, we would need a motion to amend.

Not at this time. First, we have one amendment on the table that we need to resolve, and then we can consider this one. Any further discussion on the amendment? Did you

just make sure to clarify what the amendment was for the affordable housing requirement?

Yeah. The amendment for the affordable housing requirement as noted on the slide that was prepared with Commissioner Jacobson's name. Any further discussion on this amendment?

I'm sorry. I I know I keep coming back to this, and it's probably on me that I missed it in our, actually, pretty sparse packet at only a 100 some odd pages compared to others that we've had to digest. But Commissioner Jacobson, you have said a couple times that this would not none of this would go into effect until June. Where did I miss that in the packet? Because I that's that's my concern, is that we don't rush this.

Seth, to address that?

Are you talking about the

The implementation deadline. Yeah. Effective date. Yeah.

It's so that would be in the one twelve version that you have before you on your and that would be in the first section. And it is one twelve fifteen one a, which states the following requirements shall be in effect after 06/29/2026.

Okay. And so are we committed to engaging the appropriate stakeholders to just finesse this as need be?

Yeah. Just sorry. If I could just jump in real fast. Yeah. Just wanna clarify about, yeah, the nesting.

I mean, I think what this effective date is is it means that it doesn't go into effect until 2026, June 2026. So if it's adopted by counsel, right, in June, basically this year, then there wouldn't really be any there would be just a little bit of time until we take it to counsel to get additional feedback on the proposal. But there would be some opportunity for the public to provide feedback as the commission has mentioned. But after it's adopted by council, right, in June, hypothetically, there would not be any time to make any changes to it after that because it would already be adopted. But that gives the development community a whole year to actually understand the financial implications of it and adjust their pro formas accordingly.

So hopefully that answers your question. But I just want to be really clear, like, the time to finesse is from now until when council adopts, but not the full year after council adopts. That makes sense?

Yes, and I don't know if it makes me feel any better. Okay, okay.

And one other point here, and yes, planning work program task for optimizing middle housing includes affordable housing in that work plan item. So we will be starting another conversation in the 2026 to continue to have dialogue with the development community on on this subject. So, yes, we only have a limited window in between now and when council needs to adopt in June, but it's this long runway of a year out will also give us time for the developers to kinda digest it. And then when we start the public engagement process in in January 2026, we will we will be engaging on this very topic again for a period of however long it takes to get that code amendment.

Alright. Any further comments, deliberation on the amendment? Looks like we might be ready to take a vote. All those in favor of the amendment?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? And no abstentions. Alright. So we're back to the base amendment or the the base motion rather. Commissioner Jacobson.

This is where I want to bring up the question of directing staff on the parking. Is that a separate motion from this motion? My

understanding is that should be considered as an amendment to the base motion.

Before we make a motion, can I ask staff for their opinion first? Like, which is easier on you? To to go with the draft code knowing that you have to come back and do fifty one eighty four? Or is it easier to do fifty one eighty four and just have it done? Or is it you don't care either way?

Yeah. I just I guess, like, from a staff perspective, we would just encourage you to do what feels best from a policy perspective, honestly. I think we we want you to choose the best policy approach, then we can adjust accordingly. I don't think it's a huge burden either way in terms of, you know, administratively implementing this when the code is adopted, whether it's adopted whether the fifty one eighty four standards are adopted now or whether they're adopted later. We can go into the code and and change it. We're constantly doing code amendments. So I would say, like, do what you feel like is best for the city from a policy perspective.

So from that question, you would say you're pretty much neutral?

Yes.

Okay. That's

One one question I had on this point was if we defer the implementation of the of the state legislation within the scope, would that preserve some capacity for further increasing the affordability requirements in the future?

Yeah, possibly. I mean, it's a relatively small give, I would say. So I wouldn't put too much weight in it in terms of being able to ask for a lot more affordability, for instance. But it's a give. Right? Yeah. I mean It's a new development allowance that's more liberal than what we have today. So I could see

that that could potentially allow for tightening from the 2,500 to the 2,000 if we decide that we would want to do that at that point. Commissioner Jacobson?

I would note that we're probably going to be giving more enough in phase two do that and others if we wanted to. So I will move to amend the recommendation to include a direction to staff to draft new parking minimum parking requirements to align with the newly passed SB 5,184, to reduce parking requirements to align with SB five thousand one eighty four and not to increase them if our existing parking requirements are already lower than what SB 5,184 requires.

I'll second.

Any further discussion on this amendment? Yeah. Commissioner Rosman?

I mean, that's my preference. I know that staff said it's not a big ask, but, you know, every time we ask for another thing, it does take time. So I would rather us go with the state code and keep our time and staff time on the things that we can actually have a discussion on.

So point of clarification on the motion. Is this, adjusting the parking standards that you see in chapter 113? Or are you directing staff to make those same amendments to chapters fifteen, twenty, and 25?

The intention is only for middle housing.

And

that's, like, that's the way that the Commission understands it as well? Okay. Just wanted to cross check that. Great. Commissioner Medea?

And again, there's flexibility based on what a developer chooses to build if their feeling is that there's demand for whatever. So this is the floor, not the ceiling. Thank you.

And also, I'll just add that this would only affect the things that are built between, you know, in the coming, you know, year. So it's not like we're going to have an onslaught of it's not going to have a significant impact, in my humble opinion, on the amount of parking or resulting increase in street parking. Any further discussion? We'll go ahead and call for the vote. All those in favor of the amendment on parking?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

I'm not abstain.

Alright. Mr. Rice, sir, abstains. Alright. And that is we're back to the base motion. Any further deliberation on the base motion?

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

Could I just to just to be clear and to make sure the community can follow as well, because there's a few attachments to your package, may I clarify the original motion and the amendments you've made since then, if that's okay?

Sounds great.

Okay. So the original motion was to recommend the staff recommendation for the middle housing code, which is primarily an attachment three to this packet, including the council version of inclusionary zoning requirements with commissioner Jacobson's amendments with the staff recommended amendments that we showed on the screen to KZC one zero five point one eight and one thirteen point two five and with the amendment to incorporate the parking requirements from state bill, 5,184. Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Any further deliberation on this motion as it now stands? All right. Call for the vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? All right. That appears to have passed unanimously. And with that, I believe I close the public hearing. I'm just getting the hang of this now that, you know, it's coming to the end of my term. Right? All right. This is the end of this public hearing. And we're on to the next item on the agenda, which is reading and or approval of minutes.

Motion to approve the meeting minutes from March 13 and 03/27/2025.

Second. Any discussion on the minutes? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any assumptions? Alright. Passes unanimously. Next item on the agenda is administrative reports and planning commission discussion, includes planning commission officer elections. Staff, would you like to introduce this?

Happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. So pretty straightforward. Per your Planning Commission policies and procedures, there are two standard officers on the Planning Commission. That is the chair and the vice chair. Per your policies and procedures, those are selected by the Planning Commission at the first meeting in May, where we are tonight. And just the only extra little fun thing is that your policies and procedures do allow you to create any other officer positions that you wish. So with that, I will hand it over to the commission for your elections.

Wow. That sounds dangerously intriguing.

Chief snack bringer.

I was thinking chief dinner officer, but you know, it's I was thinking miscongeniality. All right. We're into the comical section of of the meeting. Alright. It's only it's not even yeah. We aren't even into the late show hour yet. So alright. Any any discussion before we get started with nominations?

I mean, feel like I do not want to run for an officer position because I'm brand new. That's pretty much the strongest opinion I have, unless it's a miscongeniality, in which case I'm totally on board.

So one of the things that I will go ahead and point out, there has been a tradition of the vice chair has some time during their term to get ramped up and to learn about how the meetings are run and gets to get a chance to try running some meetings. Unfortunately, we've lost our vice chair recently off of the commission, and so we're in kind of an interesting situation. One of the possibilities is in now we elect to a full term, but we could elect with, you know, a, someone who has experience with running the meetings and they might only intend to, say, be the chair for the first half of the one year term and therefore give someone, give others a chance to maybe practice in that time or in the upcoming six months. It gives us a little bit more breathing time to figure out how do we build up our leadership bench on the commission. So I'll just toss that out there and leave that for others to discuss or if there's other directions you want to take it, please.

Commissioner Reisser? Okay. I'm going to

say I feel bad for Aaron being in this position because vice chair was the best position on the commission. Because you get to have basically all the meetings with the mayor. You get to say your opinion. And as chair, you have to reserve yourself a little bit. I kind of would like to see that he gets that opportunity.

I don't know. Angela, how did you feel? I loved that was my favorite time on the commission, because you really could say your opinion and not have to worry about, Okay, am I giving fair time to everybody on the commission? So I would hate to see him robbed of that, is my kind of opinion.

Commissioner Rosman?

So I do want to also recognize that, you know, commissioner Nolan is new, but we actually have, like, three new commissioners. Commissioner Medea is no longer a newbie in comparison, whereas, like, normally, you would be on the early side. So we have had you know, other cities have had a lot more turnover with their planning commissions. Kirkland has always been super stable. So we have had a lot of new folks and it does take some time to get your feet under you.

So I guess with that, I think we also don't have to make a long term decision. I kind of like the idea of, you know, maybe we finish out what we're doing right now and then kind of reassess and let people stabilize. But I think, you know, this is not a life or death conversation here. But I do think that Commissioner Jacobson will get his time, whether it is, you know, immediately, but I I wanna make sure he gets his full fair shot as many of us had.

Mister Jacobson?

Since we're talking about me, I am I appreciate it, and I'm open to serving as vice chair and chair someday. I I don't feel that that needs to be right now. So I'm more than happy looking at the more experienced half of the dais to select both our chair and vice chair from amongst you three. I I think I checked based on if I am reappointed, which I'm allowed to be reappointed once more, I could serve until March 2033. I'm not in a particular rush.

And I would say if I were appointed to another term, would intend to probably step aside about halfway through because I recognize the value of building leadership on the commission. So I don't know where others stand, but I want to be upfront with that.

I mean, I'm the one that turns out real real soon. So

That's right. You're less than a year.

I am.

Mister Jacobs? I was

gonna ask if I can make a motion to nominate. Do we wanna have more discussion?

You're welcome to make a motion, and we can then we can deliberate further.

I move to nominate Chair Rutherford for another term as chair.

I'll second.

Alright. Any discussion?

So we do these one at a time, chair and vice chair? Okay.

Commissioner Rosman?

I mean, I guess I'll just say that I think it makes sense. You know, we've we've done it in the past where we've extended when it makes sense. So I think this is one of those times where an extension for X amount of time is logical.

Any further discussion? All those in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? Any abstentions? All right. I guess I'm still chair.

I had my thank you speech already. Sorry, you'll have to wait.

All right. So next is vice chair. Any nominations? Commissioner Jacobson?

I move to nominate Commissioner Rosman for vice chair.

Any seconds?

I'll second it.

All right. Any discussion?

Mr. Jacobson? Question. Do you accept?

Yeah. I'm more than happy to help in the short term or time I have left just to help with the stability as we finish out some of this stuff. And then it's weird to realize I have less than a year left though. And so there's stuff we're talking about that's gonna be like beyond my time. But I'm more than happy to, you know, assist where it's helpful.

Alright. Any further

discussion? You really don't want to be vice chair.

I do want to be vice chair someday. I'm fine at not being today.

It's a good experience. I, you know, I did it right off. I think I was a year. You have more experience than most people.

I appreciate that. I think it is still valuable for to have Angela and Rodney as yeah.

Any further discussion? Alright. I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of Commissioner Rosman as vice chair?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Alright. That carries. And then we're we have the other half of this item on the agenda, which is planning sorry, public meeting calendar update, but then I guess also our opportunity for Planning Commission discussion after that.

Thank you, and congratulations for your continued services Chair Rutherford and welcome back Vice Chair Rosman and I do want to take a moment and just thank Commissioner Heiser for her service as Vice Chair for the past year. It was a very busy year with a whole lot of work and she chaired a couple meetings too. So just wanted to make sure that as staff, we thank her for her service.

Definitely. And thank you for bringing that up because, yeah, I'm also very thankful for Commissioner for Vice Chair Heiser's service on the commission and for filling in and helping out with leading the Commission, you know, both at my side and in my absence occasionally.

So with that, I will jump right into meeting updates just to give you a preview of what's coming up next. Your next meeting is on May 22 and it's going to be a bit of a busy one. So we actually have two small hearings. One is for the design review streamlining project. That's another state requirement that we have to have implemented before July, and so we are bringing that one to you to implement state requirements to streamline design review processes and then also make sure that all of our design guidelines are clear and objective.

And then the other hearing is for unit lot subdivisions. You have not had a briefing on unit lot subdivisions, but we think it's a pretty straightforward one. It's another state requirement. We're actually a little bit behind on implementation on this one. And what we want to make sure we note now, and we'll definitely walk you through it at the hearing, is that this does not have an impact on the allowed density of any site.

It really just deals with the structure of ownership in the future. Pretty straightforward one, we're bringing that straight to hearing for you at your next meeting. The more substantive item at your next meeting will be the critical area ordinance briefing. So if you remember, this is the item that got pushed from your last meeting, so we're kind of doing the introduction we planned on giving you at your last meeting with the sort of, like, first deep dive into some parts of that code at your next meeting. So we do think that'll be a little bit of a longer briefing for you to just make sure that we maintain our progress because this is another state requirement to update our code, and we have until the end of the year.

But we do want to give it some breathing room because there are some sort of complex topics within it. And then just quickly, in June, we're trying to leave your June 12 meeting to a single item, which will be the public hearing on the Juanita community initiated amendment request option. So you had a really great work session on that at your last meeting. We'll be bringing that to public hearing for you on June 12. And I'll stop there.

Sounds good. Any discussion items from the Commission? Or or nomination for other officers, you know, creativity is appreciated. Commissioner Rosman?

It's not really, you know, I I said it before the meeting, but I just wanted to, like, recognize the staff that feed us before these meetings. I know I said it to a few of you before the meeting, but, you know, I really appreciate it. It really helps, you know, with the mental load of getting here in the evening and, you know, being here all evening. So, you know, that's a newer update in the last couple of years, and I just want to, like, on record, thank the folks that are making sure that we're being taken care of in that way. So thank you.

Yeah. Definitely. Thank you for raising that, and I agree having that does help us focus on what we should be focusing on in these evenings rather than our basic needs of finding food. Any other discussion items? All right.

We are on to the last item of the agenda, which is comments from the audience. Is there anyone either in person or online who would like to speak? Please raise your hand or come forward to the podium. I always like to wait for the uncomfortable silence. All right. Seeing none, we have reached the end of our agenda, and this meeting is adjourned.