Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is Vice Chair Artsy calling to order the Rent and Planning Commission for Wednesday, June 4th, 2025 at 6 p.m. First order of business will be roll call. Secretary Poole, could you please make the roll call?

Yes. Vice Chair Artsy is here. Commissioner Byan. Commissioner Fixdahl. Commissioner Knurr. Commissioner Kelly is, is Commissioner, or I'm sorry, Chair Kelly is out. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay.

And Commissioner Mattson, I believe she said she was on her way.

As a guest.

Okay. I'm here. And Commissioner Roche.

Here.

All right. Thank you.

That's six people if I counted right. Okay, in attendance, so therefore we have a quorum to hold a meeting. So our next item is correspondence received and as of 5pm on the last planning Commission meeting in May 21 25 there have been zero emails received. So next up is audience comments. Those attending 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 planningcommission at rentanois.gov. Groups or organizations may select a spokesperson to speak on a group's behalf. As of today, no one is signed up to speak on non-agenda items. Okay. Next item is commissioner comments. Are there any commissioner comments at this time? Okay. Rolling right on through. Next is the administrator's report. Matt, if you could please step up and give a report.

Thanks so much, Vice Chair Artsy, members of the Planning Commission. A couple of announcements tonight. I just wanted to let the commissioners know that both Angie and I will be attending the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Policy Board meeting tomorrow. That is for our conditional certification of the comprehensive plan. That was looked at by the Planning Commission and voted passed by the City Council last December. The certification is a really important process by our Metropolitan Planning Organization. The PSRC is the agency that doles out federal funds. So really important. This is a conditional certification process. And that is because our transportation division down in public works still has a little bit more work to do. They have identified that we'll get that work done before the end of the year. So this leaves us the ability to still obtain grants, which is obviously important. We have a big grant coming up in this fall that I believe that they'll be applying for. So, yeah. you will see that transportation element before the end of the year, and that will be shipped off to PSRC. For approval, also wanted to note that, and I hope that you all received invitations for the Solera Grand Opening on Saturday, June 21st. Also wanted to clarify, I think it was in the email that Planning commissioners are VIPs. So you get the special treatment at noon with the other electeds and administrators. So be there for the ribbon cutting, if you like. There's some tours. And so if you're able to make it, hope to see you there. And then I just wanted to let the commission know some items coming up for our next three meetings before the August break, hoping to give the commission the August off. But before then, we'll have three meetings. We've got three items on the docket to talk to you all about. The first one is co-living or congregate housing. This is an item that we're required to get passed by the end of the year. The other item that we're excited to talk to you about, I wish Chair Kelly was here because I know it's an item that he is interested in, but it's neighborhood scale retail and corner stores. We'll be bringing that to you as well as, and then the last item is incentives to reopen empty storefronts. So an economic development tool that we're hoping to spur and get those empty storefronts filled. And that is the administrator's report tonight. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Are there any questions or comments from Matt at this time?

Oh, speaking of empty storefronts, actually, I'm just out of curiosity. What's the timeline for the WinCo store? Saw that posted recently somewhere.

Yes. So the WinCo store building permits are completed and fees paid. There is a little wrinkle in that one because the building permit was actually appealed. Yes. We had a hearing on that appeal. It's coming up on two weeks, I believe, Patrice. Yes, there was an appeal filed. It's not something that we see every day. That's the first time a billing permit has ever been appealed in my tenure here. It wasn't Costco. No, so it was appealed. We had our appeal hearing. I expect that decision to be delivered in the next couple of days. It should be. I believe we're coming up on the 14-day mark here.

Sorry, for reference, the hearing was on May 27th. So that was actually only last week.

It felt like two weeks ago. Yes. It's been a long, but we've got, yes. So unfortunately that's a hiccup. Uh, I would tell you that Winco, uh, and their council did a really good job. Uh, I believe in, um, pushing back on the appellants. So we're hopeful, fingers crossed, that we get back good news, hopefully next week, and they're able. Because WinCo's ready. They paid all their fees. I would tell you it was almost $10 million in building permit fees. So they are very bullish and ready to get moving. And we're ready to get them moving. Thank you.

All right, if nothing else, we can go on to the next item, which is deliberations and recommendations. Docket Group 19BD-236A, Middle Housing Street Standards Update. So, Angelia, if you could please present on the topic.

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair Artsy and Planning Commissioners. I'm just going to take a moment to share my screen really quick. All right. So for the record, Angelia Weiss with Long Range Planning. And I know that you've heard this presentation several times already. So I did take the liberty of condensing it a bit. But I did also add another slide to help hopefully provide some more context. So there will be a slide included in here with a little bit of new information. So first and foremost, the reason why we're proposing these amendments regarding our residential street standards is primarily because of middle housing as well as the ADU regulations that we've been talking about. So, HB 1110 and HB 1337. Once again, both of these bills will require significant changes to our residential landscape. It will require, at least for middle housing, at least four units per lot. And if those lots are located within a quarter mile walking distance of a major transit stop, it requires six units per lot. Furthermore, for ADUs, we're required to allow at least two ADUs per lot, whereas previously we only allowed one. So once again, this will be a big difference from our current code. Furthermore, and the big ticket item as far as why we're requiring, not requiring, but proposing these amendments. is that HB 1110 and HB 1337 prohibit cities from requiring off-street parking for middle housing or ADUs when the lot is located within a half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. Additionally, the mandates limit on-site parking that cities can require based on the lot size. So for example, for lots that are 6,000 square feet or less, we can only require one parking space per unit. And for lots that are 6,000 square feet or greater, we can only require two parking spaces per unit. So that is also a pretty significant change. And the new information I would like to provide, just to provide greater context, because I know some of the questions that I've heard in previous discussions is that, is middle housing going to be so impactful that it really warrants the changes to our residential street standards? And if you're just looking at it from that perspective, maybe it's debatable. I certainly think that the middle housing updates warrant changing the residential street standards. But also, if you're looking at it from a bigger picture, there are other bills that will be coming into effect that also warrant changes to our residential street standards. So, for example, there is SB 5184 regarding parking reform. That is probably the biggest one there. And then there's HB 1998 regarding co-living. I'm actually assigned this one, so I'll be bringing this to you in a couple of weeks. I'll just start with co-living and then I'll discuss the parking reform. So for co-living, that is HB 1998. It requires cities to allow a co-living use on all lots that allow at least six multifamily dwellings. So that means all the residential zones that allow middle housing, within a quarter mile walking distance of a major transit stop. That means all of our commercial zones in the areas where we allow multifamily, all of those we will be required to allow co-living. And then HB 1998 also limits the amount of parking cities can require. So, for example, we cannot require off street parking within a half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. So no parking can be required. And then outside of that area, cities may not require more than one quarter off street parking space per sleeping unit. So that is a pretty big change there. And then compliance for that particular one is required by December of 2025. So pretty much the end of the year. And the next one is SB 5184. That is the parking reform. And so this Senate bill aims to reform parking requirements that cities can require for development. And there are a lot of changes related to this. So for example, cities may not require more than one half parking space per multifamily dwelling unit. For a single family dwelling unit, we cannot require more than one parking space. So we currently require two, but that will be reduced to one. And then cities may not require more than two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial floor area. And then here's a big one here, because this last bullet point that I'm showing, it kind of makes changes to the ones described above. So for example, cities cannot have any minimum parking required for small houses. So under 12,000 square feet, we cannot require any parking for those small houses, even if it's a single family home. In addition, for commercial spaces that are under 3,000 square feet, we cannot require parking. And the same for affordable housing, senior housing, child care, any ground level commercial that's in a mixed use building, we cannot require parking. And then changes of use. So, for example, if there is an existing use and they propose to change it to a commercial use, for example, we cannot require them to up. upgrade their parking to comply with our current code requirements. So from that context, I think that this adds a bigger picture for why it might be necessary to amend our residential street standards. And so that being said, our proposal intends to mitigate for the parking limitations imposed by these state legislation. And the purpose of this is, number one, to provide one additional parking lane for the residential access street classification. And the second part is to provide additional limitations for the limited residential access streets and for shared driveways, which are essentially private streets. And that's to ensure appropriate traffic volumes based on the intended use of those streets, as well as ensure that streets can accommodate vehicles while also maintaining the emergency access that is necessary for those developments, just to ensure that people aren't parking where they're not supposed to be. And even if they do, that we can ensure that there's still emergency access. And then one last point I would like to clarify is that particularly for the residential access street classification, this would only require three additional feet of right-of-way dedication on each side. So just to summarize the key revisions we're proposing, number one, to exempt ADUs from the requirements for street improvements in compliance with the bill. Two, update residential access street standards to require a six foot parking lane on both sides of the street, but continue to allow modifications to standards when warranted. Three, update the limited residential access street standards to require two 10 foot travel lanes rather than one 12 foot travel lane. and also provide criteria limiting when this street classification can be utilized. And then update the street to driveway standards to allow a maximum of one primary dwelling unit and one attached or detached accessory dwelling unit per lot. And then lastly, update the half street standards to include a parking lane, which just provides some consistency with the other standards we described and to ensure consistency with our current procedures. Because honestly, in order to approve of Half Street, we often have to comply with whatever rent and fire authority requirements are required. And it's all based on a context basis. So our staff recommendation is to amend Renton Municipal Code 4-6-60, the street standards, as described, to mitigate for the legislation mandates restricting parking requirements as previously indicated. And the next steps include planning and development committee recommendations, which is on June 9th. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

At this point, we'd like to open the floor to commissioners for questions or comments.

I just want to be educated regarding House Bill 1998 co-living about 0.25 office street parking spaces per sleeping unit. How would you define sleeping unit?

Sure. We don't have a, I didn't provide a definition here, so I'll just provide one on a memory. But pretty much how co-living will, what it will look like is that many sleeping units will share a commercial, not a commercial, a kitchen space. And they'll have shared amenities. And then there will be sleeping units that are stemmed off from that where individuals will be able to sleep and maybe have separate bathroom facilities. So I think that that will be the most common way that this looks. But it's kind of like a dwelling unit, only it's a micro dwelling unit. And often they share kitchen spaces.

If there are four sleeping units, they will have one parking space and they will be sharing that space. parking space.

Exactly. Yes, it assumes, this bill assumes that most people who utilize the co-living will be using public transportation. Not necessarily the case, because speaking for myself, I would totally love to live in a co-living, but not if I don't have my secure parking spot. So yes, but only one parking space per four separately rented sleeping units.

That's a good question. The parking reform, the SB 5184, it says you're not allowed to require child care parking. But are you allowed to require like a certain amount of drop off and pickup area or that sort of thing?

I don't believe that the particular bill addresses that. It just says where we cannot require minimum parking. So I'm sure. that we can provide requirements for a drop-off, but I would need to see that specific language. I'm sure that, oh, you have- Yeah, no, I think you encapsulated it well.

I was just gonna add, Commissioner O'Shea, typically when these bills pass, this is a brand new one, we'll get guidance from Commerce. The Department of Commerce is charged with going into these bills and trying to find, tease out intent and provide guidance to local jurisdictions. What I have heard is, While we're not permitted to require off-street parking, there is going to be allowances for pickup drop-off. There's also ADA allowances as well, so folks that... have mobility issues, we're going to still be able to require parking for those instances. But yes, as we were discussing this bill with our lobbyists, all of the comments were, as we knew that this bill was going to, it had the momentum to pass, we were explicitly wanting and needing pickup and drop-off space and circulation patterns as well, as we all know. childcare, it's, it's high volume, very fast, early morning, late afternoon, you have to have accommodations for that. So we'll be doing our best to get that in there.

Thank you. I could see why you wanted to increase the street. Thank you.

Any more questions or comments at this time? Okay. Let's see. So next is the deliberation of voting for the motion.

So it's essentially at this point we can deliberate if we want to discuss amongst ourselves or make additional recommendations or anything like that.

have any particular concerns that we want to raise that will be on record for the city council i think i mean one of my concerns i just um you know i've been thinking about this and i understand that this is the legislation coming forward so you're trying to accommodate for the legislation but i just i can't help thinking about like um being a parent with young kids and trying to get my one kid with a child carrier and trying to grab my other kid and having groceries and not having a parking spot. I just can't quite imagine that.

That makes total sense, especially since many parents will probably be dropping off their kids at the exact same time. Yes, it's clear that this legislation was written by young people who do not have kids, possibly.

Well, even just at your home, I'm thinking about not at a child. I'm thinking like in, you know, young families moving into middle housing and you can actually afford so you finally are able to get a place you can actually afford right that's what the middle housing bill is supposed to be and so i'm guessing there are going to be young families who are moving into homes like this and then i i just i i my kids are not that old and so i really remember um the struggle of you know trying to get them in and out of the car in the rain And, you know, I get that we want people to use public transportation. That's amazing. I wish our public transportation system actually worked well. I mean, the other thing I think about is my neighborhood, which is lower income, a lot of renters, you know, a lot of people who are not, you know, live in the high life with high paid jobs. And it takes for me to get to work. It would take probably two hours. I work near Boeing field. It is, that is not a reasonable expectation for me to take public transportation. I would love to, I hate sitting in traffic. I am not a huge proponent of single use vehicles, but I also cannot possibly spend four hours of my day commuting to my job. Um, I also, you know, have to go pick up my kids sometimes. I have like I have these other responsibilities that require me to have a vehicle. And while I am a huge proponent of, you know, of public transportation and of, you know, making sure that people are more able to use it. I think in the reality, most of the families in my neighborhood, like I said, not live in large people, people who are working really hard have cars because they have jobs they have to get to. They cannot have a bus that doesn't come. They will be fired if they are late to work. And I think it just... I just, I've been thinking about it since the last time we talked about it. And I know that this is the bill that's coming down and you guys are doing your best to try and figure this out. But I just, yeah, I can't. I'm struggling with the idea of getting home finally after picking up my kids at childcare, going to the grocery store, getting my groceries, and then coming in with my kid in the bucket seat, the toddler, and groceries somehow and walking like a half a mile. Sounds awful in the rain. So I just – I don't have a solution for this, and I don't – bless you guys for trying to figure it out, but I just think that it's going to be hard for people. And I think it's not super practical. While it's optimistic and idealistic, I get it, but I think the practicalities are, yeah, they're not there.

Yep. Absolutely. Actually reminded me of my time living downtown Seattle with my infant. And yeah, it was rolling around in a stroller, you know, you'd load everything you could on that stroller to kind of get. Speaking of that, do we address like sidewalks and that sort of thing with this reform or is that another reform that we're talking about? Because, again, if you're making people more dependent on. you know, foot traffic or bicycles or whatever, we really have to have better sidewalks or whatever. And that sort of thing throughout.

Gotcha. A great question. So we are not proposing any changes to our current standards for sidewalks, but our residential access street, well, actually all of our residential streets, which is the two of them, have requirements for sidewalks. I think when you are driving down the road and you don't see sidewalks, you should keep in mind that actually those streets are not up to current code. But anytime a developer proposes to develop a property such as a short plat or subdivision, they will be required to bring it up to conformance with code. And so that's how we get our sidewalks to be built piece by piece.

Again, walking around downtown with your toddler, you're like, you know, holding on for dear life and hoping that they don't break away from you and start to run out to traffic. So it's like, yeah, the bigger the sidewalk, little buffers, that sort of thing are always much appreciated when you're wandering with your family.

And one thing to consider, I think, some of the inside of this legislation is that developers will address market conditions and they'll see that people need parking. And so they will provide parking, but it only takes one project to make it inconvenient for kind of the surrounding area. So, and that's why we're proposing these amendments.

Is there a motion to accept the staff recommendation?

Oh, actually, I just wanted to weigh in, too. What was I going to say? Oh, yeah. I mean, ultimately, it's completely unrealistic. I mean, let's face it. It's for a suburban environment. It's it's ridiculous considering our our current state of public transportation. But so what's going to happen is that, you know, parking within higher density neighborhoods is going to become more and more scarce and problematic, which, you know, we've seen already the people in North Renton neighborhood, for example, are very opposed to a higher density development near them for that very reason. So, yeah. Yeah, I mean, we're just going to see more, less and less parking availability and existing residents will suffer and those moving in will have challenges, you know, finding park, finding safe parking, finding legal parking. Yeah. And I highly doubt that many people, particularly families, are going to switch to public transportation as a result. But there's nothing the city can do at this point to overcome the restrictions. So with that in mind, does anyone else have any? Sorry, taking over here. Any other comments?

Yeah, I would just like to say, I mean, reciprocally, like downtown mentioned, let's assume that this all goes into play. We have wild development. Nobody has a place to park. You're not going to find businesses that are going to be wanting to co-locate there either. And that, I think, defeats the purpose of having, you know, urban density where people can live and, you know, have retail and restaurants, work, etc. So I just think that's that's a shame, too.

Okay, any other questions or comments before we vote? No? Okay. Is there a motion to accept the staff recommendation?

I move we accept the staff recommendation. I will second it.

Okay. Motion moved by Commissioner Fickstall and seconded by Commissioner McShay. Those who are in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And those who are not in favor, say nay. And motion passes.

I was an aye for the record. I didn't unmute fast enough.

Since there is no further motion, then there is no action. Wait, no, hold on. Never mind. Any last Commissioner comments before we close out?

I think with all those concerns that were raised for this house bills, the market will dictate whether it will be achievable or not. So let's see.

Or the residents.

The surrounding community. Andy, you did a great job tonight. Thank you.

Thanks. It's a hard seat to be in.

But now you've nominated yourself for next year's chair.

Wait a minute. Well, hold on. That's right. I said all the way down the other end. It's fine. Somebody else can take this spot. That's okay.

No, no, no. That's okay.

Just testing the water. A trip for you.

Oh, no.

All right, that is the last item on our agenda. Are there any motions to adjourn for today?

Move to adjourn.

Second to motion.

OK. Move to adjourn was Thumbnail Commissioner Poole and seconded by Commissioner Bayan. All those in favor? Aye. OK. Meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Nice job, Andy.