Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

Aaron Jacobson?

Here.

Gina Medea?

Here.

Julia Nolan? Here. Scott Reiser?

Here.

Angela Rosman? Here. Rodney Rutherford?

Here. And with the majority of commissioners present, we have a quorum and may conduct business. The next item is, let's see, I believe it's items to the audience. Yep. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? If you would like to speak online, please click the raise hand button. And if we see anyone interested do we have any we have no sign ins. So if there's no one interested, then we can go ahead and continue on with the next item on the agenda, which is our study session. Two study sessions, in fact. The first, briefing on co housing co living housing code amendments.

And I'd like to go ahead and get us started on that.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So tonight we have your first briefing on the co living housing code amendments. This is another one of those state legislation implementation projects this one we had a little bit longer for we have until the end of the year and with you tonight for your presentation is our associate planner Martha Rubart she's going to walk you through it

thanks Allison good evening commissioners I'm Martha Rubart a planner with the city and I'll be presenting today on the co living housing code amendments so today's presentation is a briefing on the code amendment project and approach for minimum compliance with state house bill nineteen ninety eight for co living housing I'll cover what co living housing is its benefits an overview of existing allowances in Kirkland an overview of the state mandated requirements for co living housing the staff recommended amendment approach for minimum compliance staff recommended public engagement approach and then the next steps for the project and I'll end with questions for Planning Commission So first what is co living housing? It is a residential use type that contains rentable lockable rooms for independent living and sleeping space and they have a shared kitchen for the units and either a shared bathroom or individual bathrooms within each room. Co living housing is beneficial for many reasons. It provides market rate affordable housing located in desirable neighborhoods with good access to schools, jobs, and transit. It's a good option for seniors, for people in the general workforce, and for people seeking a rentable room without the typical setup of a large house with roommates.

And it also fosters social connection and combats loneliness with the shared living spaces between the sleeping units. And you can see here figure one is an example layout for a unit with sleeping space and then a bathroom within the unit. And then figure two is an image of an example of the shared kitchen space. So currently, the city allows for a very similar use to co living housing under the name Residential Suites. Residential Suites has pretty much the same setup as co living housing with the independent sleeping units and a shared kitchen and or bathroom.

But they are only permitted in select zones in the Central Business District, Totem Lake and Station area zones, and they're subject to strict development standards including minimum and maximum unit sizes minimum common living area size strict parking analysis requirements green building standards and ground floor retail requirements So this use will need to be amended to comply with the state bill. So in 2024, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill nineteen ninety eight, which requires cities to allow co living housing as a permitted use on any lot that allows at least six multifamily units, based on the underlying zone. And staff has confirmed with the Department of Commerce that when overlapping this regulation with the middle housing code amendments, the co living housing allowances will only apply to the lots that get six middle housing units by right per code which are only the lots within one quarter of a mile of a major transit stop. So most of the areas that could develop co living housing under the bill are in medium and high density residential and commercial zones the bill also requires that cities don't count co living sleeping units as more than onefour of a dwelling unit for density calculations So that means if a lot could develop seven dwelling units with the underlying zoning, they could build up to 28 co living units if the other development standards can allow for that.

The bill also requires that cities don't impose room dimension requirements and that cities don't require a mix of unit sizes or number of bedrooms in a co living housing development. It also requires that co living housing not be subject to any more restrictive review process or development standards and would apply to any other residential uses in the zone and the bill requires that sewer connection fees for each co living sleeping unit may not be more than a half of the cost for a typical dwelling unit and there are also provisions for affordable housing and parking that I'll go into more detail with in later slides but this is kind of just the highlights of the requirements the full list can be found in the gap analysis and the staff report for this briefing And the existing residential suites use does not comply with any of these regulations listed here. And the deadline for these code amendments is by the end of the year, 12/31/2025.

Rodney?

There's a question over here.

Yes, go for it.

I was just wondering, can we ask a few questions as we go along? Can you I didn't understand exactly what you said on the okay. As soon as you get seven units, can go up to 20. Yeah. So is it 28 persons, or is it actually 28 units? Or is it

So it'd be so the state code says that if the underlying zone has a maximum density then co living housing units can't count as more than a quarter of a dwelling unit for that density calculations. So if the underlying zone allows for seven dwelling units like your typical multi family unit For co living, you could develop four times that number.

Okay.

But it would be sleeping units, so they would be, you know, different than your typical dwelling unit.

And to clarify further, each individual co living unit, dwelling unit, that would be limited to one sleeping space per, or could there be a possibility of multiple sleeping spaces forming a single unit behind a single locked door?

I believe the definition is is one sleeping space.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah.

Good.

Thanks. That would be the, yeah, sleeping unit.

Yeah. Okay.

Thanks. Great.

Commissioner Madea?

Repeat. But the one sleeping space could, for example, be occupied by a couple?

It could. Yeah. There's no limitation on the number of people. Excellent.

Other than building code? Yeah.

Right.

All right. Go ahead.

So staff's recommendation for the code amendments is a minimum compliance approach with the state mandate. Staff proposes to replace the residential suites use listing with co living housing in the zoning code and with that create a new zoning code chapter that will contain the co living housing specific regulations as required by the state, including permitted locations, the density rate, and parking. And then for the remaining development standards, including setbacks, lot coverage, building height, design standards, landscaping and mixed use requirements, staff proposes to defer to the requirements that apply to the typical multifamily use in the applicable zones. So co living housing development is consistent with other multifamily development. Staff also proposes to apply the same review process to co living housing that applies to the other multifamily uses in each zone meaning that some co living housing development would be subject to design review and some wouldn't depending on the location.

So staff is looking for feedback and direction on two specific items tonight parking and affordable housing requirements. For creating the minimum parking requirements for co living there are two options either go for the minimum compliance with the co living housing bill or option two is a hybrid compliance with the co living housing bill and Senate Bill 5,184 which sets the maximum parking minimums that cities can impose and must be implemented by January 2027 and Planning Commission has opted to implement 5,184 early with other projects so that is being offered as an option here as well so for option one for minimum compliance with the co living bill parking would be set at a minimum of zero spaces per unit when the project is located within a half mile walking distance of a major transit stop and a quarter space per unit if the project is located outside of the half mile walking distance. Option two is the same as option one with an added layer from 05/1984. That would set the parking minimum at zero parking spaces if the unit is less than 1,200 square feet or if it's affordable per code.

Question and clarification on that. Is the 1,200 square feet what I would apply to the individual sleeping unit?

Yes.

I just had a question of for the 1,200 square feet, how often do we actually see these co living sleeping units which are above 1,200 square feet?

I think pretty rarely. Yeah.

Not so far that we've seen, I think.

Yeah, at least in the projects in Kirkland for residential suites.

The

other item that staff is looking for feedback on is affordable housing requirements. The state bill requires that cities allow for co living housing to participate in affordable housing incentive programs, meaning the variations and bonuses and development standards that the city offers in return for providing on-site affordable units. The existing code applies affordable housing requirements to residential suites currently in the station area but not in the Central Business District and Totem Lake zones. And as a reminder the affordable housing requirements apply to developments of four or more units and requires them to provide 10% of the units as affordable. Staff proposes to apply the same affordable housing requirements to co living housing as applies to other multifamily housing developments meaning in some zones it won't apply and in some zones it will.

But staff is looking for feedback from Planning Commission on that approach. So given the scope of this project of minimum compliance with the state mandate, staff has proposed a limited public outreach plan. Information on the project has been posted on the city's website with resources and the public meeting dates and packets as well. And updates have been and will be sent out to the housing email list to keep those stakeholders informed on the code amendment project. The next steps for this project is to bring it to City Council for a briefing in early August and then bring it back here for a hearing in late August and then to City Council in September for a potential adoption.

And with that I'll end with the questions for Planning Commission on co living housing. These are the same that were in the meeting packet. And I'll pass it back to you, Chair Rutherford, for discussion.

Sounds good. Anyone else or anyone like to open with some questions or just discussion on these questions? Commissioner, oh, okay, all right. Commissioner Nolan?

I just had a question on, I think it was mentioned, with the affordability, but I was just curious how frequent it is that these co living sleeping units actually exceed the affordability requirements, since at least my understanding was, in large part, the reason we have these is that they tend to be a more affordable form of housing.

Yeah.

So we don't have the rent rules, but I'd ask you if perhaps Vice Chair Rosman wants to weigh in with some knowledge on that question.

Sure. So as far as when these were built, the standard in most of the East Side was 80% AMI. They're all below that. They're pretty much all below 70% AMI. And then I actually have some data on, like, demographics of people who live in the units right now where approximately 65% of the people living in them right now make below 60% AMI. And that's without any kind of requirements.

And then just from the staff perspective just to reiterate something that Martha said in the Central Business District and Totem Lake we don't have an inclusionary zoning requirement applied to these we we also don't have an inclusionary zoning requirement apply to any other multifamily housing in those districts. In the station area plan, these would be included in the inclusionary requirement similar to other multifamily units. So we've taken both approaches in the city thus far.

Jacobsen? Thank

you. Can you remind me what the zone where the areas are that we already allow our pseudo co living use? Does that have a lot of overlap with the areas where we don't have the affordable housing requirements?

We currently allow it in Totem Lake zones and Central Business District zones and then the stationary plan. And for Totem Lake and Central Business District we do not have inclusionary zoning for any multifamily. So just in the stationary plan.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Medea?

And in those zones where they didn't have the affordability requirements, what level of co living arrangements do we currently have there? Do they exist in those zones yet?

The only two actual co living developments we have are

in the Central Business District.

Questioner Okay. Jacobson?

Well, then to get us started on directly answering the questions, for parking, well, general, I I agree with the minimum compliance. For minimum parking, I prefer I think it was alternative two, so hybrid between co living and 05/1984. For number three, it seems like our affordable housing requirements are not there's not gonna be that much of a difference either way. So I'm open to either. Public outreach seems fine, in line with this being a state compliance project. And then I don't have anything on five.

Commissioner Middiff?

I in order to answer the same questions, I actually have another question, sorry. The quarter of a unit for density oh, wait, sorry, not that. You said earlier something to the degree that only lots within a quarter mile of a transit stop would otherwise even be eligible for this type of housing. So if that's the case, then why would I'm going back now to the parking where it's within a half a mile. Wouldn't it, by definition, already be within that strike distance?

I think you're referring to where co living could be permitted and that could be allowed within a quarter mile of the major transit stop because that is where six units is allowed by right for the middle housing state mandate and so then applying that to this regulation where co living housing has to be allowed anywhere six multifamily units could be allowed then we have to apply co living to that area and so that's just about permitted use and then the parking that's just whether like the transit proximity is whether or not you would have to provide any parking or a quarter of a space per unit.

And then to maybe just put a point on it, this use co living would be allowed in in existing medium and high density residential zones and commercial zones that are are more than that have are beyond that transit proximity. The transit proximity that that Martha pointed out just to make it super clear is is for where it could be permitted in our low density residential zones. And so that clarification is through the middle housing code amendments that council just adopted. You know, you can get up to six units on a lot if you provide affordable housing, but that isn't considered the base density allowance. Within transit proximity, it is allowed at six units as a base density.

So in low density residential zones, you have to have that transit proximity in order to be allowed to build co living units.

Well, I think the idea of co living is an important one. I think it's a good tool in the overall continuum of affordable housing options. Do we have a sense of demand for this type of housing? I would like to see it, but what's our sense of demand for it at this time?

Yeah, can hop in. So I would say that looking at we've done a lot of housing outreach in the past couple of years, mostly through building policies for the comp plan. And we don't hear from the full sort of representative, I would say, demographics of who lives in Kirkland or who wants to live in Kirkland. From the outreach that we have gotten, we hear more about demand for family sized units but I would note that we're hearing from a the most people we hear from might not be the demographics that might be most interested in co living housing because our input tends to skew towards people that are middle or high income, are property owners, are middle aged and are primarily or I would say a higher percentage of people that identify as white than than people that actually live in the city. And so we might not have the best sense from our outreach that we've done.

I would again offer if there's any commissioners that have any idea.

Come on, Angela. What do

you So I will say that we tend to be 95 plus percent occupied at all times. And, you know, renting these units is never difficult. And as Allison said, our community skews non white and less wealthy and also much higher percentage of people without cars. That said, there are no co living units in the city of Bellevue and no co living units in the city of Kenmore and no co living units in the city of Bothell or Woodinville or Lynnwood. There are quite a few in Seattle, but when you get out of Seattle proper, in Seattle I think the last count was like 10,000 units and the East Side has under 600.

So comparative as far as like population wise, we have a very, very fraction of a number compared to what's in Seattle. I will say though that something that is going on in the housing space in Seattle is that because of the older co living units and a lot of studios and one bedrooms, those units are actually the market rate ones are renting at and below affordability requirements because they have so much supply. And, you know, we don't see that as far as like studios and ones even on the East Side. And part of that is because we don't have the same supply as Seattle does.

The reason I brought it up is I'm wondering if there's there's two parts to that. There's the outreach to help people understand that this is happening. But to your same point about the likelihood of people participating in the conversations, etcetera, that might not be aware, like how do we raise awareness about this opportunity when it becomes available or to gauge the demand to potentially help foster that type of creation. Anyway, maybe a part two of an outreach thing. So anyway, those are my questions.

Mean, for the parking, I'm okay with option B. I'm confused about the affordable housing requirements for the same reason my commissioner here asked. I'm not sure what that gains us, but I can go either way.

Any further comments?

Mr. Raso? The only reason I would be in favor of having the affordability requirements is just in case we do get a higher end building in Downtown Kirkland that has shared and it would guarantee that they would still have affordability.

I guess I can speak to that a little bit. The reason why we haven't seen them on the East Side really is that it is extraordinarily hard to build this kind of housing. It doesn't sound like it because people will say, you know, well, square footage wise, these are expensive units. But they are, for starters, the most affordable thing in our city but also it requires more bathrooms, more windows, more doors, more outlets, you know, more exterior per unit. So the actual unit cost as far as like size of unit is actually quite a bit more expensive, especially when you consider common spaces and whatnot.

So, you know, we've talked to a number of folks over the years that have looked to build this kind of housing on the East Side in places where it has been allowed or attempted to be allowed. And far, no one else has been able to build it. And that is not due to desire to construct the units or demand for the units, but because it is a very difficult type of housing to build. And had we built luxury units on the properties where we did build the co living residential suite type units, those projects would have made more money. So these are already at a disadvantage to get someone to finance and decide to build them.

And, you know, honestly, I don't know that I'm super concerned if a really expensive high end one of these went in. They would be more expensive, but it would still give people an opportunity to live downtown in a different housing type. So I don't know that I'm super concerned about that. It's still going to have an upper limit because of size, but I think that the more we can have flexibility and types of housing, you know, if there was a really cool co living building that was, you know, targeted for the single tech worker, maybe that's okay. You know, I don't know that I have necessarily an issue with that on its face because it is still a, very limited type of housing that's accessible right now in Kirkland.

Commissioner Jacobson?

Commissioner Ralsman brings up some good points. I think given the size of these units, a co living and luxury might be mostly a contradiction in terms. And so it sounds like I I hadn't really thought through that these units would be disproportionately more expensive per square foot, but it doesn't make sense. So I would be inclined to, at minimum, keep the affordability requirements as is, but I would honestly be interested in potentially not requiring not having the affordable housing requirement for the co living units in any zone given that these are inherently more affordable across the board. Mr. Nolan?

Yes. I had a question just, you know, and this is just my personal experience. For the people I've known who've lived in these, it's typically been converted very large buildings that used to be a very large single family home that have then become apportioned off because it's clearly easier than a very large 10 person roommate situation. But I was curious, just from particularly Commissioner Rosman, who has a lot more demographic experience in this, whether that's typically how these do exist or whether I've seen a couple of advertisements for new builds. So I know those also exist.

But I'm kind of curious if anyone has information as to how common it is to be sort of these subdivided buildings versus a space deliberately made for this, along with kind of my follow-up question of if most of these are, in fact, in kind of these subdivided older buildings, is this something we even have a lot of stock of? Or whether this would probably be almost entirely new build just because we don't have places that might say be suitable for this type of arrangement?

I would say that mostly this is new builds. Part of it is because our larger older housing stock doesn't exist in any kind of number at this point. We might see at some point some conversions of retail or office space down the line. We haven't seen it. We that kind of conversion has existed outside of the East Side.

They are doing some projects in theory in Seattle and then outside of the region. But mostly for now it's been new builds. Part of that is, yeah, if you have a big old house, either a single family owns it and lives in it or it gets torn down to be built and be something else. We're we're not really seeing the really large houses being subdivided. It's also really like inefficient. So but hopefully we'll see some, you know, office conversions and, you know, larger commercial older buildings turned into something other than just, you know, empty space with tumbleweeds.

Commissioner Nolan, I could chime in, or Chair Rutherford, if I could chime in too. I think the other thing I just wanted to mention is that there's probably lots of examples of residential suites and co living happening informally in Kirkland as well. We hear all the time about houses being rented out a room at a time, where the doors might not necessarily have locks on them, but people are running individual rooms. Some of them have bathrooms, some of them don't. And they're all sharing the kitchen and common open space. That's not something that we regulate at all. It's not something that we really track that much. We just hear about it anecdotally. But think it's very, very likely that there already are lots of examples in Kirkland of existing houses sort of functioning like what we're talking about tonight.

I had a question. Are these required to have their own bathrooms, or is a possibility of shared bathrooms? I have experienced trips to Switzerland where there's like a shared bathroom down the hall that's shared by everyone on the floor or maybe two bedrooms on the floor. Is that allowed?

That is allowed by state code, but I think it's not that common because it might be kind of hard to manage.

Yeah, imagine it be operational

I can speak to that a

little bit

actually because we do have some units with shared. Generally, there are two units with like a Jack and Jill bath and the bathrooms lock on both sides. And when we first built them, you know, we were on, you know, it was more of a trial to see how it went. And they are the most affordable units on the property. And so those are almost always occupied and have a much longer tenure than any of the other units.

They're, you know, they rent for maybe $100 $150 a month less than a private bathroom. And those, because we have such an affordability crisis, they're the quickest to rent and the longest stays because there's just nothing else affordably. Granted, we don't have a lot of them, but has worked extraordinarily well.

I imagine that could also reduce the construction costs, but then you also if you have units that are shared between more, 'll have increased operational costs of managing.

Right. Yeah.

I'll say also one thing I'm curious to see down the road, and I think this is beyond the scope of what we intend to pursue right now. But I'm really interested in the possibility of house scale co living, especially in areas around neighborhood centers within walking distance of neighborhood centers. I imagine that could be really useful for seniors who are looking for affordable ground floor living, as well as for singles who have pets who would want to have access to easy access to a shared open yard space and make that more like a detached home living more accessible and affordable to a broader section of the population. Beyond the scope of what we are looking at right now, but something I am interested in exploring further beyond this.

I will say that we do have a very sizable older population in these buildings. You know, when people think about co living housing, a lot of times they think about, you know, somebody who is in their 20s, just recently out of school, looking for, you know, cheap affordable place to live. But we find a lot of people, you know, post divorce, re, you know, settling them their lives, going back to school, retirees living on a fixed income and know folks on the like getting close to retirement end. So a third of our population last count was over 35 and we've had people into their 80s and we've had people downsize from large homes, their spouse has passed away, they're still very mobile but maybe they're not driving anymore and they otherwise are living in a home all by themselves. In this way, they have a community around them.

And so we found that it's actually been a really good solution for especially older single adults because of that community connection aspect and the ability of being walkable to places. Same with people with disabilities because co living units tend to exist in more dense walkable areas, is given people who otherwise may have had to go into assisted living a longer time of independence before they've had to make that move. Just to give a little bit more perspective of, you know, people like to ask who lives in these units and it really is a very broad sense of people. You know, we've had retired firefighters and we've had single moms going back to nursing school after a divorce or, you know, the 24 year old working at QFC walking across the street. And it really is a, you know, pretty much every walk of life, generally single folks and a lot of times looking for community and living in a place where when you don't have the living space locked behind your door, but it's a more common place, you tend to get to know your neighbors a lot more and get to know the people that you're in community with.

So we see people having like informal board game nights and like Oscar watch parties and barbecuing together on the July 4 because the living space is common and so they connect with each other a lot more than a traditional apartment.

Interesting. Thanks. Another question that comes to mind is, you know, might be interesting to explore, is possibilities to condominium ize these. So you could purchase an individual unit. I know that there's already significant challenges with condominium izing multi unit dwellings, and I don't know how that would map onto the space. But it's something where I'd be curious, like, what are the barriers that we should be thinking about to is that something that we should be

We gotta fix the state code.

I know. Code first. Yeah. Totally. Totally. I'm with you there. But the more that we can reduce the layers that we have to peel back later, I think would be beneficial. Any further comments? I guess I'll chime in on parking too. I'm good with option B.

And then the other question was affordable housing. I don't think it's necessary, and I wouldn't want to do anything that impedes development of these, given it's so close to affordable anyways. Anyone else? No? Looks good.

If I could just just to make sure as a next step what Martha is going to do is go back and start writing this code and so I just want to make sure on on parking and affordable housing that we are representing planning commission's direction well I believe I've heard a consensus for option b on parking and I just want to make sure there's no planning commissioners that and if you want to vote on it we could Okay. And it'll be draft code, so we're not recommending anything yet.

Do you want us to vote on it? Is that helpful?

If

there's If you're good with it, just wanted to provide the opportunity. And then again, on affordable housing, I think we're hearing a consensus that we would draft a code that does not require affordable housing for co living units.

And

the other options will still be on the table at public hearing but the draft code will include option B for parking and no affordable housing requirements for co living. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you. Thank you for asking. Anything else? All right. Sounds good. I guess we're on to thank you for that, for Martha. And we're on to the next item, the Miscellaneous Zoning and Municipal Code Amendments.

All right. This is one of my favorite items every year. So we have your Miscellaneous Code Amendments getting started for you here. This is your first briefing on the Miscellaneous Code Amendments. We've got kind of a wide variety of amendments for you this year. We're not looking for any specific direction tonight. We do have some questions for you. And again, similar to co living, our next step would be to take your direction tonight and go write the draft code for the public hearing. And with you tonight to walk you through this presentation is our senior planner, Peter Milliken.

Thank you, Allison. Good evening, commissioners, chair, vice chair. My name is Peter Milliken. I'm a senior planner here with the city. And tonight, I'm going to be giving you all a briefing on the 2025 Amber alert. Okay. I was like, oh, no. 2025 miscellaneous code amendment package. This is similar to the packages that we bring every year, with various items throughout the code that we want to fix or tidy up. And so we'll start by kind of going through the different groups of miscellaneous amendments.

I've taken there's about a total of 22 amendments and broken them up into three different groupings. The first one is about 22 different amendments for consistency within the code. These are ones that have been brought to us by staff here that work with the code regularly, and they might have picked up on some issues or confusing points when they've been talking to the public about items in code. And so these are just some cleanup things. The second is a group of amendments that counsel has directed us to, change.

There is only one in this in that group. And then the third is a, grouping of five or six items that we're cleaning up for state code implementation. And then after I go through those, we'll talk about what the next steps are for these miscellaneous code items and then open it up for discussion. And as a reminder for those who may be unfamiliar with this process, the miscellaneous code amendment items are specifically those that don't usually require a lot of engagement. They're more for cleanup, things that might need a change of word from and to or, or maybe even rephrasing some items in code to just make them clearer.

But we're not looking at changing any policy or practice through these amendments. Anything that might raise to that level or might require some kind of engagement, we're going to want to take out of this package and look at separately. So then we'll start with the first group. And like I said at the top, this is items that staff has kind of found as they've worked through the code. I've listed out roughly all 15 items here, but two or three that might be good to kind of mention, one being that we're looking at changing or rephrasing the term church to a faith based facility to be more inclusive.

We're looking at rephrasing a section of the form based code for the station area that has to do with continued uses and structures and making it clear when a property owner may need to bring their structure or their use into conformance with the code. We're also looking at changing some language about front porches for low density residential zones and when we allow them to encroach closer to the front property line. And I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was going to give us a chance with each grouping to kind of talk through any questions that you all might have. So I thought this could be a good point to kind of take a pause if you all have any questions about the ones that I've already mentioned or any of the other ones that are in this list of 15 to talk about.

Anyone?

I guess when I looked through these, none of them looked controversial in the least. And I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. It seemed like the last round of these, we had a few that were, you know, more, like, debatable. But I don't know. This none of these seemed like there unless there's something that you would flag as being something we need to discuss, none of these seemed like more than language updates.

And that's exactly what this group is supposed to cover. Our hope is not to kind of draw or necessarily make these seem like there's suspicion around them. They are really just minor word changes or clean up items. But want to give space in case anyone thought that there might be a different way of wording them or any ideas of how to change them. We did go back and forth about whether it should be a religious facility or a faith based facility, so just any kind of feedback that others might have.

Ms. Schmitt?

I'm really having a great time with this microphone tonight. No, think on the whole they made sense and seemed pretty logical. Can you refresh my memory on the artificial turf thing? I remember being here hearing about that proposal. And so to fast forward to the reason I'm asking the question is to make sure that it sounds like there will be an evaluation at some point in the future to determine that it doesn't have any adverse impacts. But what happens if it does and we've done 75% log coverage of artificial turf and it ends up being not so groovy?

Well, you're getting ahead of me a little bit.

You're

welcome. So that's a great point. If no one has any other questions about these 15, so that then moves on to the next group, which is the artificial turf item. So this was one that was directed to us from counsel to increase the exemption level. And this was brought to us from Councilmember Tim Chisholm, who requested a legislative review memo on how we currently regulate artificial turf and looking at increasing the exemption that's offered to artificial turf in terms of a lot coverage regulation.

And we had been receiving some or noticing some issues with code enforcement on people installing or community members installing artificial turf on their property, and then finding out that it was over their allowed lot coverage limits. So we are and as you were pointing out, there were three options that were brought to counsel to consider one, keeping it as it's currently regulated a second option, to kind of quickly allow an increased exemption for artificial turf, possibly increasing or incorporating an overall limit for the square footage of turf that they could install or a third option of kind of taking a larger, broader review or study of artificial turf and its impacts, and then using that to inform our overall regulation. And at that meeting, counsel decided to move forward with the 25% increase. So that would be changing the current exemption from 50% of the area being exempt to 75% of artificial turf installation area being exempted. They did not kind of give us any inclination

on

a maximum square footage area. They wanted to provide for that. But we were thinking or not thinking, but it kind of would fall back on our standard maximum allowance for artificial or lot coverage installations. And since it's one of our partially exempt materials, there is already an existing limit at 10% of the overall exemption, so or thought area. So there is kind of already some kind of limit there.

In terms of coming back to, like, let's say in the future when we study it at staff's discretion, We're not really sure what that could look like. That is something we can look into and kind of figure out maybe at a later date, but I don't know if either Adam or Ali want to jump in.

Yeah, I think given counsel's direction, we may end up bringing it up as a potential work program item, just to make sure we're clear on the direction of when they might want to see us look at it and if Adam has anything else to add. But that was my thought on it.

Yeah. The only thing I was going to add was that it would be possible that we do that that you ask us to add that item to the work program. It's approved by city council. We study it, and we determine that, for instance, artificial turf is not great for the environment for whatever reason or it's not desirable in the community. I think at that point, then, we could move forward at the direction of city council and planning commission with amendments that would, for instance, retract right, this additional allowance. So I mean, that is a possibility. I think all possibilities will be open at that point for changing the allowances for artificial turf. And I don't think adopting or not adopting this particular standard would preclude that from happening in the future.

Yeah. I didn't mean to go down a rabbit hole. Just making sure that, well, the benefits that it presents doesn't then later, if it's widely adopted, turn out to, you know, be an adverse consequence.

Commissioner Reitzer? If City Council has already pretty much made a decision, it doesn't seem like it's really on our plate. Because, yes, I kind of disagree with it just because of it has a life, and then it is in a landfill.

And the

manufacturers have all stated it has like a thirty year life, and we're seeing that it's like a roof that says it's a thirty year or fifty year roof, and then it's a twenty five year roof. Well, we're getting about half the life out of the product. And it does have downfalls. But it has been presented as such a great alternative, especially in shady areas, that there's been a and it's not cheap. It's an expensive product.

So I'm a little more hesitant than city council is because it does have its uses. It's great for sport fields and public use. I'm a little more hesitant on homeowner use, especially considering that in a lot of situations, especially under trees, it degrades very quickly. So I would like to see it on a work program because I don't think anybody here can say they're an expert on it, including myself. I would like to see less of it in a landfill in ten years.

Yeah. I share Commissioner Reisser's opinions and that they're, you know, I would really love to see this study just to see how negative the effects on the environment are or are not, because I just don't really know. And hopefully, again, this is not problematic. But if it is, it would be good to be aware of what the problems are and to be able to make decisions accordingly. That said, if city council has already made their decision on this, I don't really know that it makes a lot of sense to make and provide a recommendation alternative to theirs. But I really would love to see at least more information, just because I think that with that brought forward that might also change counsel's opinion if it is negative. Again, I don't

know. So

I will agree that personally I'm not a fan of it in like individual home spaces for everything that was mentioned as far as like environmental like material impact. But number one, we're only talking here about like how it calculates for lot coverage and as far as, you know, drainage and that whatnot, I think it has gotten a lot better. And number two, we are always overburdened on the amount of things we have to talk about and have staff come back and study and review for us. And I feel like as far as high priority things, I don't know that if we were looking at a planning work program that this would make the list. Not that it's not something that I'd want to talk about, but I, you know, I'm going to rank it way lower than a lot of the other things that we talk about and need to talk about.

So not necessarily it's a bad thing, but it's kind of like the reason why I never watch television is not because I don't like some TV shows. It's just that when I have limited time, I'm gonna go do something else.

My impression is that even if it was to be allowed, it would be something that wouldn't be difficult to change back in the future because I don't think it's a I don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see this as being, like, a significant give that we could then, you know so this is a case where I could see, like, you could try it out for a while, and if it's like, then we've identified there's negative impacts, you could roll it back. But I would also say this doesn't seem like a high priority for staff to be spending time figuring out. I think it's something interesting to be watching to see if there's other research.

Like our city staff don't need to, It's something that's a common problem that I expect that there should be common studies on it that we could refer to. But I was just looking around this week for where are some research on this. I can't really find any good up to date information on what are the impacts. So yeah, I don't think it's a valuable use of our time to really dive into it too deeply, but just experiment, keep our eyes open on the horizon is kind of where I'm at. So whatever is kind of Sure.

And to clarify or to at least add to the conversation in terms of study and adding it to the program, what came up at Council is the idea of incorporating it into the updates to the sustainability strategic plan as an opportunity to study it further. So we may not necessarily need to create a whole new item in the program to do this, but it could come up in or be highlighted in another study. But maybe before we go on, does the commission or any commissioners have any feelings about acknowledgments mentioned in this amendment towards protecting trees or abiding by our tree requirements, any kind of language like that, as that it was not a unanimous kind of decision with city council, but, you know, wanting to see if there were any feelings that the commission might have about this, those additions.

Commissioner Reiser. You know, the turf, it really increases the heat. And I think there should be requirements to augment and offset some of the damaging effects that it has. So I think that people who want to cover 75% of their lot with a plastic product, there should be some requirement that they offset some of the damages, meaning more trees, something else that I just don't see. I can't believe city council I know several of the city council members do have artificial turf in their yards, so they're strong proponents for it.

But overall, it's not great for the environment.

To clarify, the percentage limit is that I'm pretty sure you said this already, but since I'm not seeing it pop up, 50 to 75% of the required yard space or the the required pervious area, I guess? Is that or is it a percentage of?

So if an applicant was to propose, like, an area of 100 square feet of artificial turf, only two or 25 square feet of that artificial turf would be included in the lot coverage calculations for the site versus how it currently would be treated as 50 square feet of that artificial turf would be counted in the lot coverage. It would not change the maximum for the property which already exists at 50%.

Commissioner Nolan?

I had a question just I think you mentioned something about the tree requirement. And when you were mentioning changes in the tree requirement, would that mean that an increase in the tree requirement in exchange for artificial turf? Or did it mean getting rid of the tree requirement so people could cut down their trees and put in artificial turf, which I'm hoping is not what was meant, but

That's yeah, great point.

Just wanted to clarify.

Yes, great point. More so to call out in that section that we're increasing the allowance, but that does not mean that they can put turf or install turf in up to the tree's trunk. It's more to say, as a reminder, that there are requirements to protect trees in the city, or you're not allowed to install something like that that could imperil trees or other, like, critical areas. So less changing the requirements or, like, increasing the number of trees, but more just making clear that there are things that we value that need to be protected if you're going to install this. And as a reminder, other forms of lot coverage would be like pavement or asphalt, concrete.

Other forms of partially exempt materials that do not receive this level of exemption would be things like grassed modular grid pavement, which would be like an installation that allows some vegetation to grow through it, open grid decking, which would allow usually some water to pass through it, or those types of similar materials. So this would be a partially exempt material that artificial turf gets an extra allowance for, if that helps.

Mr. Jacobsen?

Clarifying question. I think I heard you say something about those partially exempted materials have an overall lot coverage limit as well and that we're not changing that. Correct.

Correct. So they get that 50% exemption, but it's not allowed to exceed 10% of the property's lot size. So that 10% limit is not being changed. It's merely that artificial turf receives an additional exception allowance.

Okay. So then if I'm understanding it correctly, we're not changing necessarily the maximum amount that of artificial turf that you could install. It's only in the scenario where the rest, where your overall lot coverage limit is limiting based on how much your actual home is built out. I see Adam.

Yeah. Maybe provide that they're not changing. Yeah. Chair, if I may, Commissioner Jacobson.

I think what

I can do is provide sort of a real world example that was probably motivating the city council's direction here. And we have a couple of cases like this right now that were in our code enforcement process. So one example is typically, when houses are built in Kirkland these days, they're built out to their maximum, right? So they are built out to their maximum lot coverage allowance, The houses, compared to historical houses, are bigger. There's more paving.

And so there is a situation where there is an existing house, newly built house, that was built almost to its maximum lot coverage. And then the folks who lived in the house installed some artificial turf. That puts them over the limit. And you don't need a lot of artificial turf in that scenario to be over the limit because the house already and all the paving surrounding it is really maxing out their lot coverage. So that was probably one of the examples that was in the city council's mind when they gave direction to reduce or increase the allowance.

So in that situation, they would they only be violating the overall coverage limit? They're still limited by the 10%? The For the partially exempt materials?

Yeah. Do you want to cover that?

It could be a combination of both. I think ultimately it would be a knock at lock coverage, because they could adjust or change the balance of what's being counted to make it work for their 50% maximum. There could be instances where they choose or elect to remove more of the artificial turf in order to comply. But if possible, there could be other lot coverage footprints that they could reduce in order to make it comply with the overall 50% lot coverage maximum.

Okay. Thanks.

I think when this comes back, it would be useful to have some diagrams of, like, a few variations of, like, showing the limits and how it might be applied. I think that would be really useful, both to help the Commission as well as the public understand what this is, how that actually plays out.

Perfect. Yeah. Can I ask?

Yep. Pressure riser.

Will this come back to us, since counsel already kind of

paused? Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. To dive in. Yeah. Yeah.

As as part of the package, the whole package will be coming back for, a public hearing in August. And then, once if we can kind of come to an agreement about how to move them forward with a recommendation, including this item about artificial turf, then we'll take it to a hearing with counsel in September. That's the tentative plan. So it won't come back for another briefing, but we will have a hearing about this to get Planning Commission's formal recommendation.

Vice Chair Hizmann?

So I guess I was just kind of thinking about what Commissioner Beiser was talking about with, like, heat island impacts on artificial turf and especially considering especially the new single family homes that we are seeing are covering as much lot as they are legally allowed. I wonder if in relation to this, would love to talk about like the SRI or the Solar Reflective Index required for roof coverings. Because if we're talking about like heat island impacts, a really easy way to make a change there is just if we required a certain reflective index for roofs, which you can get with a metal roof or a composite roof. Like any kind of roof you can have is can be more reflective. I don't know that it's it's not necessarily this but you know I would love to at some point like it's not something that costs more money, it's not something that like changes things, it's just like instead of picking the dark brown roof, you pick the roof that has enough, like, white specks in it that it, like, bounces the light off.

And especially as we're getting hotter in the summer, I would love to, you know, guide new construction to be just like easily more reflective. So not necessarily specific to this, but more of it's just like a general comment when we're talking larger impact stuff when it comes to Heat Island.

Yeah, think on that similar to I think where council ultimately landed on this with directing a near term change but with the direction that we dig into it deeper with the sustainability strategic plan and thank you Peter for reminding me that was part of their direction. I think Planning Commission, as you've done for other topics, has the option when you're deliberating and voting on a recommendation to include part of your in a motion, someone could say, with direction to study it in the next sustainability strategic plan update, which is on the work program for 2027. And it could include some other topics that you want to make sure are studied in conjunction with that. So think I you do have a way to communicate to counsel the desire to also dig deeper and also some other things you'd like to see studied. So that might be an option for you to consider before you get this back to you at a hearing.

On the point of including that in the study, I think that could be useful, but I also wouldn't want that to hold up the possibility of I think this is another case where we could adopt something like an incremental movement in that direction before it's fully studied, because it wouldn't be difficult to change it down the road as well. Just in the spirit of iterate and launch and iterate, we won't get it perfect the first time. We're always learning more. And so don't waste too much time and energy on studying until you get what you think is a perfect path forward. Is that I don't know if Commissioner Rosman has thoughts on that.

Mean, their lead requirements are pretty easy, like they already have a number. So I don't know that it would require research as much as like, hey, this is a super easy thing to do that doesn't cost more money and keeps our city cooler in the summer.

Yeah. I don't know if that'd be reasonable for perhaps even miscellaneous code amendments in this future round if it's a light enough lift. I don't know.

We could look into it in

the future. Did I escalate that too quickly? I don't know.

It probably requires some additional analysis, and we'd be happy to bring that back in the next round of miscellaneous code amendments or when we touch the sustainability strategic plan again.

Does anyone else have thoughts on that?

It seems like a good idea to me.

Alright. Thanks. Awesome. Thank you. And so then we'll get into the last group.

So these are items that we've identified from recent state legislature adoptions, House bills or Senate bills, some from 'twenty three, four, and some from 2025 that we're looking at incorporating into the miscellaneous code amendment package. And then I'll go through each one individually. Actually, there is one that's two grouped together, but I'll go through those, and at each slide we can take a pause to talk through or discuss any questions y'all might have about them. So the first one is to bring the city's codes into compliance with House Bill nineteen thirty five. That requires that we amend or bring it into compliance with the next month, actually, really, by the end of this month.

And it would be taking current Kirkland Municipal Code language and removing building permits from the definition of a project permit. And this would not change how we administer or create timelines or describe timelines for development permits, project permits, or building permits. It just would be bringing us into compliance with the state code requirement and clarifying that building permits are set aside from other types of project permits. Any questions on this item? No?

Okay. Then moving on to the next one. Similarly, this one would be making a modification or an amendment to the Kirkland Municipal Code regarding binding site plans, which is another opportunity for a property owner to divide their land. And in this case, it would be adding language to the portion of the municipal code that covers binding site plans and clarifying that a commercially zoned property includes any properties that could be zoned commercial but allow for multifamily development. So primarily mixed use developments would be what would be impacted by this modification.

Any questions or comments about this or the language? No. Oh, did it go too fast?

You're good. Okay. You're good.

The next two have to do with thresholds for SEPA and concurrency. These would be establishing an exemption for going through the SEPA review process and the concurrency review process when a property owner might be proposing to convert an existing commercial property or building to residential units or residential uses, and that's to comply with House Bill ten forty two, and that's required by actually, was required last month on 06/10/2025. And then the other would be creating a similar exemption for station area plan or station area developments with residential units and exempting them from CEPRA view. So we would be writing in language for those categorical exemptions. Any guidance or questions about these to incorporate into the language?

That's good.

And then the next item is incorporating some definitions into the zoning code regarding different types of housing. Included in this are emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and transitional housing. This would not be changing their allowance or any type of review process that these types of developments would have to go through. It is merely adopting the language as a definition into the zoning code. They would include language that clarifies that it's permitted or permissible in areas where hotels or residential dwelling units are allowed, but it does not create any by right or other type of review allowance for these types of housing.

And it is required, for compliance with House Bill twelve twenty. And during our last round of comprehensive plan updates, this was, something that the Department of Commerce commented on that we were missing within our, zoning code. So it is something that we're trying to fit in here. Commissioner Jacobson?

I just wanted to bring up a question that we got from a member of the public. Their their question was, would this really be allowing these uses in all areas where we allow residential uses? And I'm guessing that's because of HB twelve twenty.

That's a great question. And it would not be changing our policy or how we would treat any of these if we were to receive a proposal to develop this type of housing in any of those zones. It's merely clarifying that this allowance already exists. So yes and no, but it's not changing anything that we already allow. But happy if Alison or Adam would like to chime in on this.

Yeah, I don't think I

have anything to add. Mean, provisions for where these housing types are allowed are already in the code, and they're already required by state law. This is is just adding a definition that tells people what they are because they're undefined right now.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Medea?

But just to clarify, because one of the things that you mentioned as you were summarizing this was it doesn't preclude them from going through the otherwise expected review process. I think just this housing type in particular can be sensitive, so I would want to make sure that it would go through the typical or expected, review and community input process.

Yes. So if someone were to propose it, we would look similar to like any other type of proposal to what the zoning code directs for allowing or permitting that use. And if there was a review process that required noticing, we would perform that noticing as directed through the zoning code. So it would not be changing or eliminating or alleviating any of those requirements as they're already dictated by the zoning code.

Any other concerns? All right. Carry on.

Okay. And then the last one kind of goes in tandem with the item previously mentioned with residential conversions. For this one, we would be adding an item or section to the miscellaneous portion that's kind of funny the miscellaneous portion of the zoning code to kind of direct those who are looking at doing residential conversions for existing commercial buildings to where they can find the standards for those conversions. And it points back to the state's adopted RCW code language. Any kind of points of clarification or suggestions for this amendment?

Nope? Okay. No. And so then leads us to our next steps. Kind of we mentioned or discussed earlier, we'll be bringing back the package with more firmed up language around the amendments for a hearing in August.

And then if the commission can kind of come to a recommendation, then we'll move forward with a hearing in or to city council in September with anticipated adoption around that time. So any other discussion or questions? Any items that Commission feels that we should kind of boot from the miscellaneous code amendments or any thoughts? Okay. That's all I've got.

We're all good. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. So we're on to the next item on our agenda, which is the reading and approval of minutes. We have three sets of minutes. And like to make a motion about these minutes? Commissioner Jacobson.

I move that we approve the minutes from April 24, May 8, and May 22.

Second.

All right. Any discussion on the minutes? All right. Calling for the vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. Any opposed? All right. That carries. And then we're on to item number six, Administrative Reports and Planning Commission Discussion. Yeah. Go ahead, Alison.

Great. Thank you, Chair Rutherford. So just a couple updates from staff. First, just to give you a preview of what's coming up next at Planning Commission. On July 24, you have your next meeting. That's going to be probably a little bit longer than this one. We have your next briefing on the critical area ordinance update. So at this meeting, we're doing a deep dive into stream regulations and geohazard regulations. So you have, like, a pretty substantive packet coming your way next week, and we'll be asking you some questions about that. So we're excited.

We hope you're excited too. The other thing that we're going be doing is actually reviewing bills that passed in this year and last year's legislative sessions at the state. So we thought it might be helpful to the commission to kind of give you a heads up on some of the bills that passed and how they might be kind of coming in front of the Planning Commission and Council in the coming year or so. So some of these will be coming to you as new potential projects for the next work program update. So we're just going to do a light overview of some of those.

We're also going to have our government affairs manager, Diana Hart, come with us just to explain kind of how the city participates in the state legislative session. We did this for you a couple years ago at one of your retreats, and I thought it was a hit. So we're bringing it back. And then as of right now, for August, your next meeting after that would be August 14 when we're bringing the miscellaneous code amendments back for public hearing. And then just a couple quick admin notes for you all.

Wanted to let you know that a few weeks ago now, Puget Sound Regional Council did certify Kirkland's 2044 comprehensive plan. So that is complete. They had just a couple little administrative notes for us. One of them was adding the definitions for the housing types that Peter just walked you through. Other than that, I think the other note was some items that we'll pick up and study with our sustainability strategic plan update.

But all in all, a really great review from Puget Sound Regional Council on our comprehensive plan. So congrats again to Planning Commission for all your work on that. And then just another quick item of note, you have completed your work on the Juanita zoning updates for the Michaels and the Goodwill sites. We are taking a briefing to counsel on those items at their meeting next week. That'll be July 15.

So that'll be at the study session. Chair Rutherford is coming with us to deliver Planning Commission's recommendation to them. That'll just be a briefing. They're not considering adoption at that meeting since we have quite a bit to walk them through. And then they'll be considering adoption of that at their first meeting in September as of right now. And that is it from me unless there's any questions from commission. All right. Back to you, Chair.

Great. Any items of just that any commissioners would like to discuss or share? All right. I'll go ahead and mention, in the June, I was able to travel to Kennewick for the Association of Washington City's annual conference. And it was a great experience that a lot of good connections to other leaders of cities from across the state, so that was a lot of fun for me.

Only a couple of limited things that are relevant to Planning Commission. One of the sessions I attended was about managing short term rentals and regulations around short term rentals, and especially hearing from council members in from Leavenworth and Port Angeles about ways that they have been dealing with this in their areas. So I'm happy to, you know, share more about that later if if others are interested in hearing about that. You know, don't have anything prepared specifically now, but if people are curious, I could even, like, write something publicly and or I think there's even the slide deck. You can go find the slide deck, which accounts member from Port Angeles put together a lot of interesting data around their experience with short term rentals.

And yeah, I got a really cool pair of Association of Washington City socks and a deck of cards featuring different cities from across the state. Yeah, some pretty cool swag too. But not Kirkland. But not Kirkland. Yeah, Kirkland is not in the deck. So I'm not sure what happened there. We're gonna have to figure that out. All right. If there's nothing else, we are onto the next, the penultimate item on the agenda. Comments from the audience.

If any audience members either in the room or online would like to speak, please click the raise hand button if you would like to speak to the Commission. And if not, we have reached the end of our agenda, and this meeting is adjourned.