Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is chair Kelly, and I'm calling the meeting to order of the Renton Planning Commission for Wednesday, 03/19/2025. Our first order of business is roll call. Secretary Poole, can you please make the roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Artsy appears to be absent. Commissioner Bay Bayan absent. Commissioner Fixtal?

Here.

Commissioner Kenur? Chair Kelly?

Kelly is here.

Commissioner Matson? Commissioner Pool is here. And commissioner Roche?

Here.

Alright. Thank you.

Commissioner Kanura, we see you on the attendee list. When you are able, please make yourself known.

I'm I'm trying to promote the promote her, but she's accepting it. Yeah. But she's here on the attendees.

Okay.

Having having a quorum of five, we will continue. First, we're gonna talk about correspondence received after 5PM on the last planning commission meeting on February 1. One email was received from Veronica Chacoco regarding comments on middle housing and ADU updates. Those attending the meeting virtually will be offered an opportunity to speak after the in person comments are completed. Each speaker will be provided three minutes to address an item.

Interested parties may also provide written comments to planning commission at rentandwa.gov. Groups or organizations may select a spokesperson to speak on a group's behalf. And as of today, no one has signed up to speak on nonagenda items. So we will move do we have any audience comments?

Like, no one is raising his hand, mister chair.

So seeing no raised hands and seeing none in the room, we will continue to commissioner comments. Are there any commissioners that would like to share? Matt, you're up very quickly for your administrator's report.

Very quickly indeed. Thank you so much, Chair Kelly, members of the commission. Hefty agenda tonight, so I will keep it short. I just wanted to let, the commissioners know and folks, tuning in know that, this Saturday, March 22, planning staff and economic development staff will be at the Renton Home Show at, I think, Renton Technical College from 11AM to 3PM. We'll have a booth set up, and we'll be answering any planning related questions, economic development related questions you can throw at us.

So if you're out and about on Saturday, please come see us at the Renton Technical College. Also, next week, so a week from today, March 26, is the mayor's state of the city address, and that is going to be at the Hyatt Regency at Southport. Please come by at 05:30 for refreshments, and the state of the city will start at 06:30. Third, I wanted to mention that we're working with the Solara development team. That is the big project up in the Sunset Highlands that is wrapping up.

They are just about done with the second block of multifamily mixed use developments there. They are planning a big celebration in June. I will have more info coming in later commission meetings, but they're working with the city communication staff and expect to have

a big extravaganza celebrating the opening of that first phase of the development. We do have an ongoing recruitment for a planning commissioner. We are we could never

totally fill commissioner style's shoes, but we are looking Angie and I will start looking, I think, in the next month or so through our applications that we've already received, and we'll put out a we'll push out another request for folks that are interested in serving on the planning commission. And then finally, I just wanted to let folks know, and you may already know, there's been a lot of bills down in Olympia in the legislature having to do with housing. I did testify on Friday on one bill related to parking at senate Bill fifty one eighty four. It is called the parking reform and modernization act. In a nutshell, what this bill would do would preempt local jurisdictions' ability to to, require really any parking for a number of uses.

Most, mixed use development uses, multifamily, anything under 1,200 square feet, cities would no longer be able to regulate minimum parking standards. Also take away our ability to regulate the the commercial spaces beneath them. We understand, that, you know, obviously, there's a housing crisis, but, we also understand that folks that aren't living next to fixed transit, aren't afforded the ability not to have cars. We also have lots of folks in in the city that work in the gig economy, that work, swing shifts, night shifts, and they cannot only rely on transit to get around. So our modest ask was to allow us to at least allow one vehicle per unit, which is pretty standard, I think, for developments within the city.

Again, it's a modest ask. We'll see how it goes. It looks like this bill's got a lot of momentum moving forward without any changes, but I'll continue to report back to the commission as we learn more. And that concludes the report tonight. Thank you.

Any questions for Matt? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to the briefing for docket group 19 b d two three seven, House bill 1,042, conversion of commercial to housing. Angie.

Very much, chair Kelly. I just wanna note for the record that we have, two additional planning commissioners that have joined us in the virtual room with chair or commissioner Artzi and commissioner Kanwar are now here. I will get going. So this is actually a relatively short presentation and, again, one that we just need to do in order to comply with state law and changes that the legislature has made. So October conversion to housing will require us to allow commercial buildings to convert to mixed use or residential.

We already kind of allow this, but they put in some additional stipulations that we need to make amendments to be compliant with, and we need to do this by June 30. And this building that you're looking at down there, many of you may remember that that's the old Spaghetti Factory. And a number of years ago, Spaghetti Factory moved out, and now this is a reconstructed office project in the the in the parking lot they built off or that's where the multifamily is. And so it's a mixed use project. It actually looks pretty stinking good as sad as I was that they closed. So

this

is just a graphic to get kinda help you understand what it might look like. It is a difficult use to convert. There are it's not there are not many buildings that can really do it. It and and the cost can sometimes be prohibitive. You can see here the on the left, there's only two bathrooms, and so that becomes kind of the a problem is the plumbing and stuff to get that so that you each unit can have their own bathrooms.

Then you can see here on the right that they like to have common shared space, maybe a common laundry and that kind of stuff to minimize the overall improvements that they need to do. And we actually have a cohousing bill that we will need to address after June that has to be affected by December, and this type of conversion is real is very suitable for that coliving type of situation. So we're only required to do this for buildings that have a certificate certificate of occupancy that's at least three years old. So the idea being is you gotta give it a shot to lease it up as your intended use, and then after that, maybe it's appropriate to be converting them. You we have to allow 50% more density, the the residential density than the base zone.

So if we allow 50, we have to allow 75. There's no requirement that we can impose to that they provide additional parking. We typically have higher parking standards for residential than we do commercial, but we can require that they retain any parking that they already have. And then we can't require exterior design or architectural requirements unless it relates to health or safety. So it's that shell of that building they get to keep that. We can't say, oh, no. We like this facade modulation and all that kind of stuff. We can't require that of them. In this building on the right, that is where I used to go to my doctor and my dentist when I was a kid. I did not know this.

It's the Cobb Building. And when I I remembered that it had been also converted, and so I went looking for it. And it is it was the first purposely built medical dental office on the West Coast at the time. And so I I thought it was kinda ironic. That's I didn't realize as a kid that it was built specifically for that. And it's a very cool project. And ironically, UNICO, who is behind the Sounders And Line Acres, is who converted this project and still maintains it as such. And that's the inside of that building, the Cobb Building. So you can see that it it sort stands up to the test of time, and it really does look very good. And the units are very, very nice.

I don't know what the price point is, but I would imagine it's pretty high. So we cannot deny a permit. If there's something nonconforming about the building, we cannot deny that because of that nonconformity. They get to go ahead and maintain that, whether it's height, setbacks, the amount of parking, modulation, etcetera. The unchanged so we can require energy code requirements for the portions that are becoming new residential units, but we can't require any sort of energy code things for, like, the portion that's gonna stay if they wanna keep the ground floor as commercial or they wanna do other things inside there.

It's only for the residential units that we can apply energy code. We can require ground floor commercial if it's on located on our major pedestrian corridor as defined by our own code. So that is one of the things that we're pretty thankful for that they're allowing us to self define that. There are lots of pieces of legislation where they're they're very prescriptive. It's this and this and this, and they're not leaving us some flexibility.

So we appreciate the extension of this one because it really is important for us to have a balanced amount of uses and not just have it all be residential. Commercial drives tax revenue for us, and we don't get a lot out of housing oftentimes. So that would help us maintain that as well as opportunity for folks to shop or go to an office. So the staff recommendation is that we amend our municipal code in order to comply with house bill ten forty two and that we identify principal and minor arterials as major pedestrian corridors. And on this map that's here, that would be all of those red lines and all of the yellow lines.

And so that would be where we could require the Ground Floor commercial be retained if the project converts to multifamily. So the next steps for this this particular docket item is that the public hearing will be April 2, and then deliberations on April 16. That's all that I have.

Angie, commissioner Pool, I see you have a question. Go ahead.

Yes. Thank you. Angie, thinking about Renton, my first thought is, sadly, the offices at Southport being a potential conversion opportunity. However, from what I understand, the floor plates are such that it would be difficult to to create residential units because the floors are so large. Mhmm. And you'd have these, like, narrow, you know, shoebox like, units. But with with communal space in the middle, I suppose it could work. But my question is more about, like, let's say,

is

is utility infrastructure usually able to cope with that kind of conversion, especially if it's in in a modern type of facility. And that would particularly be the sewage, I would think, right, and water.

Really good question. I will have to ask our utilities group that. I don't I don't know that question, but that's

a really

good because something on that larger of a scale, I think, would have a significant impact on the on the surrounding utilities. But, yeah, that'd be pretty awesome if we were able to see that come to fruition, but, well, who knows? I can't really think of too many other locations in the city that would be sort of ripe for that kind of conversion other than maybe a few parcels downtown. Right? But which, you know, one of them was already done, the Penny Penny lofts. Yep. So

Yeah. There's a there's a few other buildings that are around that could potentially be good candidates.

Mhmm.

But without getting into it, you know, in terms of the specifics, I know that that's we could really determine that. It really would have to be a project specific one with the property owner that was Yeah. Interested in exploring that. Mhmm. But there is actually quite a bit of information out there, and you can do, like, pro formas and all that kind of stuff that has already been done. So I don't think it would be difficult for them to do that.

Yeah. I mean, back to my original question, it's really more about the infrastructure being able to support that kind of conversion on a larger scale.

Yep. I will ask that question. Thank you.

My question is, very related to commissioner pools, particularly in our light industrial area in the Southwest corner of the city. And if we were to see conversions there, do we have the infrastructure in place to to support that? And so, really, what I'm getting to here is not the need for a direct answer, but, some thinking about would that motivate us to change how we speak of some of the streets in that area so that the definition would fall appropriately based, you know, if we had restrictions that we needed to place there?

Yeah. It the so so we do have some buildings that sort of function like office buildings that are located in commercial or in industrial zones. So we may have to explore that to see if we would be required to allow them to do that even though we currently don't really allow much residential in The Valley. It's kind of been the place that we wanna save for those more intense land uses. I think if it was clearly like a warehouse that's located in the aisle zone that we could say, no.

You're this is for commercial and mixed use conversions kind of thing. But it's in like, to think about that is really interesting with Longacres coming in. It really and some other projects that are moving forward and conversations being had. The Valley could be dramatically different in twenty years. And so we've started to have some discussions about what what we might be able to do about that, and maybe another we need to do another sub area plan.

But as noted, you know, it we wanna maintain that balance. It's a really tricky thing to do. In fact, Seattle for a long time said no residential in SoDo because we wanna make a priority of our industrial, and we want places where people can do these manufacturing things. That's important to the life of the city. And just now have proposed that they're going to go ahead and allow some. I haven't gotten into the weeds of, like, how how much if it's all over or if it's just certain locations that they're recommending, but it does put a lot of pressure on those I mean, warehouses are usually single story on very large parcels, so it's easy to kinda eyeball those for a lot of opportunity. So

My angle some sort of constraint down there where we needed to control the constraint because, you know, some of these large uses that may come in there, it might not be a terrible thing if there's some residential that goes with them unless we had some sort of issue.

Yep. Yep. Thank you. We were toy we're thinking through those things also. We have heard from a lot of different businesses at a lot of different times that they wish there was more amenities for their employees. Just because they work in a warehouse doesn't mean they don't wanna go out for lunch. So, you know, sometimes just go grab a Coke and a bag of chips at the little shop that's just down the street. So we recognize that. We just haven't had the opportunity to really work through that very well yet.

There are comments or questions from commissioners?

Oh, actually, a question as well. I was wondering if there were any sort of studies done in terms of what potentially doing this kind of conversion, like, for offices and how that would impact sort of, like, change in real estate, like, since cost for those kind of areas? Just in terms of what we could see.

As far as I can tell, the state did not do any studies. They just decided that they wanted to pass this. I think that it was largely passed while we were still in that return to work mode, and a lot of the especially this area is not necessarily returning to the office in the numbers that they were hopeful for. And so I think the legislature was trying to be somewhat creative and with creative approaches for what these hulk of buildings are sitting around doing, and maybe that's an opportunity for housing when we have a housing crisis. So I don't I I have not seen any studies that were done. It was mostly just cities you need to do this.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? If there are members of the public that would like to comment, you're welcome to raise your hand. And would be comments on this specific agenda item. Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna move on to our next briefing, which is for docket group 19BD236, house bill one one one zero, middle housing, and house bill one three three seven ADUs. Katie and Angelia, it's lovely to see you in person.

Just gonna take a moment to share the screen real quick. One moment.

Notice noted that commissioner Matson has jumped us.

Thank you for your patience.

Alright. Good evening, chair Kelly and members of the planning commission and any members in the audience. For the record, Katie Buchel Morales, a planner in the long range planning work group, and I'm accompanied by Angelia Wise. This evening, we are here for the legislative briefing of docket item two thirty six, house bill eleven ten, middle housing, and house bill thirteen thirty seven for ADUs. We've combined these two topics into one docket item, and this is because they are very closely related.

The middle housing legislation references ADUs by name. They follow the same timeline and have the same deadline, and they touch a lot of the same code sections. So starting with our online open house for house bill eleven ten, we did a lot of public engagement with this item more than we would typically do for any other docket items, and there are a couple of reasons for this. The work that occurred early on lined up perfectly with our comprehensive plan, so we were already out in the community and doing a lot of community engagement around the comprehensive plan, so it made sense to tie in housing legislation with that. But, also, given the significance of the legislation and because of the changes that our state mandated, it was important for us to take a opportunity to get out there and get in front of this and let the public know about it and understand where the changes are coming from.

As far as our online open house summary, we had two dedicated events for house bill eleven ten or middle housing. They were both held Saturday mornings at 10AM. Our first event was we had a a small group of maybe 15 people, and they the two open houses followed a very similar structure. We did population and growth targets. We briefed them on the legislation, and we had a live poll just to get some feedback or have a temperature check of what people are thinking and their response to the state legislative changes, and then we wrapped up with the q and a.

And we had our second online open house just a few weeks ago. This was very well attended. We had 64 people register for the event, 28 people. This was March 1. This was the nicest Saturday morning that we've had in months, so it was great to see a strong turnout.

Similar structure. We followed population and growth targets. I do see a typo there on our screen. We had our legislative briefing, and, we summarized some of the public feedback that we've heard through the online poll that we had at the first event, but also just from chatting with people at Farmers Market and at the senior expo throughout the year. What we've heard has really been a mixed response, specifically for, house bill eleven ten.

Folks see that there's a lot of opportunities to expand housing inventory and type, and they're excited about this. They see it as a opportunity to build generational wealth, looking for citing opportunities to bring in their children who are having trouble acquiring housing and and getting into the housing market. Also, the flexibility and options for future development. Along with that, there were some concerns. Primarily, we heard a lot of people with concerns for parking and traffic, also, privacy and capacity.

What are the limitations of the aging infrastructure, and should that be something that we need to worry about? Also, affordability and disproportionate impact. So given the comparative given the current market in Renton, are we going to be disproportionately impacted compared to some of the other surrounding jurisdictions because of the lower cost of property acquisition?

Angelia Weiss with long range planning for the record. So this presentation will be broken into two parts. The first part, I'll be introducing our staff's approach to middle housing updates. And for the second part, Katie will be summarizing the ADU updates. So this slide introduces staff's current approach with middle housing updates as well as our goals and intent with this update.

So first, with this approach, we applicants will have two options when they're developing within select residential zones. They can either choose to do traditional single family development, or they can pursue middle housing. And the current standards for the residential zones will largely remain the same. So that includes, for example, setbacks, building coverage, impervious surface, and height. So one example, if the property is located within the r eight zone and that zone limits the development to two stories and a maximum wall plate height of 24 feet, you can expect that if you're proposing a single family home or middle housing that both will need to comply with those standards.

And, also, there's no anticipated change in zone. So that that's something to keep in mind. And then the purpose of this approach with middle housing is to ensure that middle housing is compatible in scale form and character with single family development in rented neighborhoods. So if you're looking or standing in a rented neighborhood looking down the street, you should not be able to easily ascertain which dwellings are middle housing versus single family. So first, the proposed number of units.

In order to comply with HB eleven ten, we are required to allow four units per lot everywhere where middle housing is allowed. And there are also unit bonuses that depend on the lot's proximity to a major transit stop and if affordable housing is proposed. So for example, six units per lot is allowed on all lots that are within a quarter mile of a major transit stop, and six units per lot are also allowed if at least two of those units are reserved as affordable. Alright. So this slide is regarding the proposed applicable zones.

So, currently, the proposed applicable zones include the zones r c, r one, r four, r six, and r eight, and those are currently only allow for single family detached housing. And in order to comply, we have to allow middle housing within zones that predominantly allow for single family zones. We are proposing to exclude the r 10 and r 14 zones, and that is because those zones already allow for middle housing types. So for example, they allow townhouses, triplexes, and detached dwellings. So they are already middle housing zones, and we already have codes that establish standards for those zones, and and we we want to keep them that way.

So that is why, at this time, we're proposing to exclude the r 10 and r 14 zones. Oh, I wanted to go back for a moment. Just to provide some perspective, this picture shows a property with the front being a duplex, but you can't tell it's a duplex as seen from the street. So when you enter the building, there is a unit on the 1st Floor and a unit on the 2nd Floor. And then in the back of the property, there is another two attached dwellings.

So this is kind of to demonstrate what we're trying to achieve with our standards. Alright. So this slide is regarding unit types. So to comply with h b eleven ten, Renton Renton must allow at least six of the nine middle housing types within our currently single family residential zones, and that includes multiplexes ranging from duplexes to six plexes, townhouses, stacked flats, court courtyard apartments, and cottage housing. So just just a reminder, we are only required to allow six of the nine housing types.

Our proposal is to allow townhouses, duplexes through fourplexes, stacked flats, and courtyard apartments. And as part of this proposal, we are proposing to exclude five plexes, six plexes, and cottage housing. You may be wondering why those are the ones that we are selecting to exclude from our proposal. So regarding the six plexes and the five plexes, you'll see on the screen that the two buildings on the on the two lower pictures, those are six plexes. And I think that at this time, we're thinking that those dwellings, six unit dwellings, may not achieve the compatibility with the residential neighborhoods that we're trying to achieve.

That doesn't mean to say across the board that they don't. But, at this time, we're trying to, just comply, and it's much much easier to let out the stays later than to reel them back in. As far as cottage housing, there's no argument that cottage housing is compatible with residential neighborhoods, but we already have standards and have put a lot of effort into our cottage housing development, regulations. And we want to encourage use of that those development types, and we allow two and a half times the density depending on the zone. And furthermore oh, actually, nope.

That that speaks to it exactly. But, however, one thing we are considering is to address public comments related to middle housing. We are evaluating some limitations that are currently in our cottage house development standards, for example, related to size. So the maximum size for cottage house developments for each unit is 1,500 square feet. However, there is a limitation that at least 50% of those units must be a thousand square feet or less.

So we are considering removing that limitation in order to address some of these those public comments. And then lastly, I would like to emphasize that single family development will continue to be permitted within all our residential zones, so that's not gonna change, and they'll probably continue to be the most popular option. So as part of h b eleven ten, there are restrictions on how much on-site parking can be required by cities. For example, HB eleven ten precludes cities from requiring off street parking as a condition of middle housing approval when it's located within one half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. And that major transit stop is defined as a stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or expanded under the provisions of chapter eighty one one zero four of the RCW, commuter rail stops, stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, and lastly, stops on bus rapid ride routes, including those under construction.

And then some of the major transit routes include King County Rapid Ride f line, the future sound transit stride line, and the future King County Rapid I line. So just some examples. And then there are some pictures to kind of illustrate what I'm talking about. So the layer in gold, for example, illustrates where we are prevented from requiring on-site parking for middle housing and for ADUs. So I believe that the gold the dark gold is where we're limited as far as middle housing, and I think the lighter gold is accessory dwelling units.

And that also just to clarify, that also restricts the number of units that are allowed per per unit lot. I got it wrong, actually. It's darker gold that is the limitation for the number of units, and the lighter gold indicates the parking parking restriction. So in addition to parking standard parameters that are are dictated by the previous slide, h b eleven ten also restricts how much parking cities can require outside of that half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. So for example, lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet, we can require a maximum of one off street parking space per unit.

And for lots that are greater than 6,000 square feet, up to two off street parking spaces may be required. And this is a deviation from our current standards for residential zones, which require two parking spaces for detached single family homes and townhomes. And one thing to emphasize is that while we cannot have requirements for the number of parking stalls, we can provide incentives. So for example, one of the proposed incentives that we are considering is to allow a bonus of impervious surface, which would be, for example, a walkways, driveways, just to allow for that more more area for that parking and potentially allow a small increase in building coverage to also incentivize providing garages, for example. So this is the last slide regarding middle housing, and then the next slide will continue on with accessory dwelling units.

But this is just a summary of some of the closing remarks and final takeaways for middle housing. For example, not all residential lots will be eligible for the maximum unit count. So applicants will still have to keep in mind, some limitations that, for example, setbacks, building height, the tree retention on-site, as well as access, and then, of course, utilities. So if there are any barriers that would impact any development, then those same barriers would impact a development that's proposed for middle housing.

Just wanted

Perfect. Thank you. Just working through some of the technical issues for the first time. For moving on to house bill thirteen thirty seven for accessory dwelling units, we are taking a very incremental approach to this. Yes.

We're going to comply with state requirements, but we're being very pragmatic about how we go about it. Where we're able, we're maintaining aspects of our code that we like and that we think still work while still being in compliance with the state regulations, and, of course, making amendments to the provisions where we need to make changes. Similar to what Angelia said, it's much easier to take a lighter approach firsthand, give it some time, and assess, see how we've done where there have been some trouble points, and make corrections if needed. Under so I'll do my best to kinda give a synopsis of current code, what is the required recommendation as part of the legislation, and then if we are proposing to do anything different or outside of that. So we'll start with unit configuration.

Our current code allows for one detached ADU per lot. For the required code amendments, cities must allow at least two accessory dwelling units on all lots that are in zoning districts that allow for single family. So that means one attached ADU and one detached ADU, two attached ADUs, or two detached ADUs. This is a pretty big change compared to our current code where we only allow a single ADU per lot, and they all have to be detached. Also, as part of the legislation, we are required to allow ADUs as accessory uses to a much larger variety of housing types.

So right now, an accessory dwelling unit is allowed as an accessory use to a single family dwelling. We'll be making amendments to our code to comply with the state regulations so that they can be accessory uses to principal dwellings, which includes single family, townhouse, duplex, triplex, basically, all of your middle housing typologies that we've proposed to move forward with. For residential zones, current code, ADUs are allowed in residential zones resource conservation r one, r four, r six, r eight through r ten and fourteen. The good news is there are no code amendments needed here because we are already in compliance. Maximum unit size.

At a high level, under our current code, maximum ADU unit size is based on the size of the lot. So it's a sliding scale and the sigh the size of the existing residents. The legislation states that the cities cannot establish a maximum unit size of less than 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. And their definition of gross floor area excludes a lot of spaces that you would typically be counted towards gross floor area, like bathrooms and closets and laundry rooms and other utility type spaces, which could create an unwanted loophole, which would allow folks to build an ADU that is larger than what is intended by that thousand square feet. So our remedy to that is a code amendment.

We're complying with what is required by state legislation of a thousand square feet for gross floor area and adding on a requirement for total building area as well. And our current maximum ADU size is also a thousand square feet, so that's something in our code that is staying consistent. Owner occupancy. Current code requires on-site owner occupancy in either the ADU or in the primary residence. This is something that, we are currently would be considered not in compliance with if the code were already in effect, so we need to remove the owner occupancy requirement.

Parking. This is very similar to the slide that Angelia shared. Parking it's house bill thirteen thirty seven restricts cities from requiring parking when within a half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. This is different than what Angelia had shared because the definitions vary just slightly. So looking at the last bullet point, it refers to stops for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route of service at intervals of at least fifty minutes for at least five hours during the peak hours.

So that does this map does look different than the one that Angelia shared. So the purple is showing the half mile walk shed, and in that walk shed is where we would not be able to require parking. As for our current parking requirements, Because all of these housing will be living together more integrated now, just wanted to give a summary. Under our current code, single family dwellings, min park two parking spaces, a minimum of one parking space for accessory dwelling units, and there's no off street parking required when an ADU is within a quarter mile of a mass transit facility, and tandem parking is allowed. Looking for our code amendments, proposed off street parking requirements.

We're maintaining everything for single family. Angelia, summarized the parking requirements, for middle housing. And for accessory dwelling units, we're not proposing any changes, to the number of parking spaces, so we'll maintain that one, parking space per unit. Conversions. Our current code actually allows some for some flexibility for accessory building to aid you conversion.

So when there's an existing structure on the lot, whether that be size or its location. The state legislation says that cities are required to allow ADUs to be converted from existing structures even if they violate current code requirements for setback or lot coverage. And what we are also proposing here, again, in the name of flexibility, conversion units that occupy an entire floor of the primary dwelling may be allowed to increase the maximum unit size to be able to more efficiently use the space. So that's thinking internal conversions, single family home if they wanna turn their basement into an accessory dwelling unit. We're proposing for conversions that exceed 1,250 square feet that you know, we give them a little bit of a buffer.

It would still be considered an accessory dwelling unit. But after that threshold, it would be treated as attached an attached dwelling. And this applies for interior remodels, attached garages, and basement to ADU conversions. Setbacks. The legislation says the city may not impose setback requirements for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for principal units.

So that's saying that we need to whatever is the requirement of the underlying zone, we're required to at least allow the accessory dwelling unit to follow those standards. What we're proposing for specifically attached and internal ADUs, applying those same setback requirements, again, compliance with the state regulations. This may look familiar to planning commission from few years back, looking at setback requirements for detached ADUs. Sing for a single detached ADU, we are proposing that ADUs comply with the same front yard setback requirements that is that are applied to the principal dwelling in the underlying zone. So every zoning designation has their required front yard setback that would also be applied to the accessory dwelling unit.

Where there's more flexibility is for side yard setbacks, and, again, these are our current standards in place for the zones where ADUs are allowed. And our rear yard setback, all zones five feet from the rear yard the rear property line. And we have a provision also when located within 10 feet of the rear property line, at least 25% of the lineal length of the rear yard shall remain unoccupied. And this really is to try and prevent a massive structure occupying, you know, the entirety of your backyard and moving over your neighbor's your fence into your neighbor's yard. So that was a provision that we worked on when we did our last major ADU code update back in 2019.

And because multiple ADUs are allowed, when two detached ADUs are proposed, the second ADU, we are requiring that they comply with the standards applicable to the principal unit. So this is trying to create some flexibility. We're allowing our existing ADU standards to remain in place when one ADU is proposed. But if there's a second detached ADU proposal on the lot, then they would comply with the requirements of the primary dwelling. On to building heights.

Under our current code, ADUs are subject to the max maximum wall plate height restrictions that are applied to principal units in the underlying zone, and we have a provision that says ADUs shall not be taller than the principal unit. So that will be something that we'll be amending in our code because we're not allowed to relegate the size of the accessory dwelling unit based on the size of the primary residence. As far as required code amendments, the legislation says cities may not establish a roof height restriction for ADUs that are less than 24 feet. So this is a little different than, how our code is drafted because in Renton, we measure to the wall plate height rather than, the highest point, or highest peak of the roof as but we like this provision for accessory dwelling units. So we're proposing to follow as proposed at 24 feet and using that standard, so we'll be measuring height differently for ADUs.

And the idea is that this might help mitigate for some of the height differences when we're no longer able to require the accessory dwelling unit to be one story to be more compatible with the other house that's on the lot. So we will be returning to planning commission on April for the public hearing, and deliberations and recommendations are scheduled for April 16. Again, the deadline that we are chasing for both of these items, 06/30/2025, and the legislation would then go in effect on July 1.

And there's our contact information if any members of the public want to contact us to ask us more questions.

Katie and Angelia, are there any commissioners that have questions or comments? Commissioner Pool? Thanks.

So strangely, this comes back to my original question about infrastructure. And excuse me. I'm curious. I mean, adding two ADUs to a 6,000 square foot property to the same sewer line, I assume. What what are the regulations regarding utilities in those instances? Are upgrades required, or what's

For both accessory dwelling units and middle housing, they will be follow the same review process that all development goes through, so it will be reviewed for capacity. No one is going to be guaranteed four units or six units per lot. We're gonna be making sure, one, that they comply with the underlying standard the standards of the underlying zoning, but also looking at capacity and whether or not it can accommodate the additional units.

Yeah. I'm just I'm just curious. I mean and this is not this is kind of a a general comment is whether or not, like, a typical residential sewer line would be able to accommodate two two new units on the same property. It seems a little doubtful, but who knows? I'd I'd be curious to see what the end result is if these actually come to fruition. And as we know, people aren't exactly clamoring to build ADU, sadly, but it is what it is. At least they have the option.

Well, we can certainly try to dig up an example or ask development engineering to provide us an example of some of the thresholds so that we can include that in our presentation for a public hearing.

Yeah. I'd be mostly concerned about older neighborhoods where the infrastructure is obviously, you know, not modern and where it could be cost prohibitive for for people to to make those upgrades. Even power too. I mean, that that's that's an issue for some residences right now. You know, older homes can't even accommodate, like, their panels can't even accommodate, like, you know, EV charging or something. But, anyway, those are my questions.

There are commissioners with questions or comments? Okay. We have no members of the public in the room with us. So if you are an attendee of the meeting, member of the public, and you would like to comment on this item, please go ahead and raise your hand. Todd, we see you. We're gonna unmute you. You have three minutes to speak to this item, and, you may proceed once you're promoted to a panelist here.

Please go ahead, Todd.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Oh, I can.

Yes. We can hear you.

Yeah. I I was just curious, on the middle housing, is there any plans to, include the r 10 or the r 14 in the middle housing. As it stands now, it seems that there's at least a potential for areas that are, you know, r six or r eight to be more dense, on a per lot or per unit basis than those areas that are R 10 and R 14 that are maybe more situated for higher density. Hello?

Room in the room, there's a little sidebar conversation happening. Hold on just a minute.

Alright. We were just trying to confirm whether we're allowed to respond. So absolutely. So your question was, are would staff consider including the R 10 and the R 14 zone as one of the applicable zones for middle housing. At this at this time, we are not considering include it, including it.

However, we are open to public comment and receiving feedback on that, current proposal. And if we receive a lot of public feedback, of course, we'll take that into consideration. But considering the fact that we have so many development standards, open space standards, design standards that are very specific to the r 10 and r 14 zones and the fact that those zones already allow for all of the types of middle housing that middle housing introduces. It it seems that the most appropriate choice in order to preserve our existing standards is to restrict it just to the RC through the r eight zones.

Thank you, Todd, for your question.

Mhmm.

Thanks.

Commissioner Artesi, I see that you have raised your hand. You are next.

Yes. Thank you. So my question was for the middle housing bill. I was wondering if there's any sort of guidance in that bill for including, like, the construction of sidewalks along, any sort of, expanded housing options there. Because if we're limiting the amount of parking that's available, we we should at least be able to give people, you know, comfortable and safe way of getting around.

That is a fantastic question and actually kind of reading our thoughts because we have some proposals related to our street standards in order to address that. So for example, while a h b eleven ten prevents us from requiring on-site parking, that doesn't mean that they prevent us from amending our street standards to accommodate more parking within our public streets. So for example, our residential streets currently only require one parking lane on one side of the street. We are proposing to amend that to require a parking lane on both sides of the street. And then, of course, all anytime somebody proposes development that exceeds a threshold of a $150,000, which any middle housing will exceed that threshold, they would trigger the requirement for street improvements, and all of those street improvements would require sidewalks.

But I would add a caveat to that that accessory dwelling units would that would not apply to accessory dwelling units. So h b thirteen thirty seven indicates that the cities are not permitted to require street improvements if they are proposing accessory dwelling units. And so that is one incentive somebody has to reduce the square footage to a thousand square feet is that now they're not triggering those frontage improvements. Oh, and one more thing. If they're proposing an interior model, so for example, a conversion, that is also an area where that would not trigger the street improvements.

If they're proposing any bill building addition in addition to the remodel that exceeds that $150,000, then they trigger that the street improvements as well, all with sidewalks.

Okay. Thank you. With that 150,000 sort of street improvement trigger, is that up to the individual owner to sort of provide and pay for those improvements, or is that for the city?

Oh, so that the $150,000 is the threshold based on the valuation of the proposal. As far as the improvements, anytime somebody proposes a development, they were are responsible for paying for the the street improvements or paying a fee in lieu of those street improvements based on a determination of what that value is. So it is the applicant who pays.

Gotcha. Thank you.

Alright. Can I ask a question real quick? So the 150,000 that kind of triggered my brain as a designer kind of person, is that just, like, in construction cost? Does does it include finishes? Where what is that kind of what falls under that?

That is a good question. I do not I can guess on the answer, and so that's what I'll do, but I am guessing. I do not believe it includes the fixtures because the, tenant improvement or remodel is not included in that, so I believe it's the construction cost. It's pure construction cost.

Yeah.

And that would just be limited to the addition. So it's an addition. You're adding square footage outside of the walls, the exterior walls of your structure already. That's that's the that's where the threshold starts.

Would it be any, like, structure I guess sometimes if you're adding an addition, maybe there's, like, big structural beams that need to happen or whatever. Would that, because that could eat up here,

but it's pretty A $150,000 does not go

Very far.

In a remodel or an addition. So, yeah, it's it's the the point is really that if you don't have frontage improvements in front of your property, you know, a sidewalk or a parking strip, the impacts that you are adding onto your home or adding to adding another unit is going to trigger the need to improve those that frontage. So, basically, your your growth is intended to pay for growth. So you're growing, and the infrastructure around you needs to grow with it concurrently is is the intent.

Thank you. Sure.

Any other commissioners or attendees have questions? Please make yourself known. Okay. Thank you very much, Katie and Angela, for your briefing. We're gonna move to our next agenda item, which is any additional unrelated commissioner comments.

And seeing none, I would welcome a motion to adjourn.

I move we adjourn. I will second the motion to adjourn.

The motion to adjourn was made by commissioner Fixdal and seconded by commissioner Roger. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And those opposed, say nay. The motion carries, and the meeting is adjourned as of 06:58PM. Thank you, everyone, for your hard work on all these briefings. Thank you.