Issaquah committee reviews middle-housing draft regulations; residents warn of parking, stormwater and tree loss

The City of Issaquah Planning, Development and Environment Committee on April 1 reviewed draft middle‑housing regulations intended to implement state law and expand housing options in single‑family zones.

Associate Planner Valerie Porter, of the Community Planning and Development department, told the committee the amendments are intended to comply with House Bill 11 10 (middle housing) and House Bill 13 37 (accessory dwelling units) and to allow middle‑housing types to “fit seamlessly within existing neighborhoods.”

The city’s proposal would change lot density rules to allow two dwelling units per residential lot as a baseline, and permit up to four units on a lot if one unit is designated as affordable or the lot lies within a quarter‑mile walking distance of a major transit stop, as defined in the state law. Porter said Planning Policy Commission (PPC) discussion yielded mixed guidance: PPC recommended setting an administrative unit limit at four units, but ultimately recommended keeping lot density at two units per lot while allowing conditional four‑unit projects.

Why this matters: state law requires municipalities to allow more housing types in single‑family zones and constrains local review processes; Issaquah staff and commissioners said the changes will affect older neighborhoods such as Old Town, Squak and Sycamore and that implementation choices (parking, frontage improvements, design standards) will shape local outcomes.

Key points from the presentation

- Administrative review and frontage exemptions: To comply with the state requirement for streamlined administrative review, staff proposed establishing unit limits and exempting middle‑housing projects from a land‑use permit and from constructing frontage improvements on existing lots; staff is coordinating with Public Works on street‑standard language for frontage work.

- ADUs and density: Staff proposed allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same lot as middle housing and counting ADUs toward lot density. The draft would allow two ADUs on a lot with a detached single‑family home and would remove the prior owner‑occupancy requirement.

- Design and open space: The proposal adds citywide design standards for new middle‑housing types (massing, façade modulation and blank‑wall treatments) and would require at least 20% of the lot to be set aside as open space for cottage and courtyard housing types.

- Parking and EVs: The parking code was revised to align with state law; PPC recommended increasing the maximum parking allowance for detached single‑family lots (from two to four) to reflect long driveways and garages. During public comment, residents urged the city to update its 2021 EV charging requirements to reflect current technology and to consider more bicycle parking.

- Critical areas and impact fees: PPC recommended applying Issaquah’s existing critical‑area rules (including for mine and seismic hazard areas) and recommended continuing to waive impact fees for ADU creation to encourage production.

Affordability feasibility

Staff presented a pro forma prepared with the Regional Coalition for Housing. Porter summarized that a four‑unit project could produce an on‑site affordable unit if that affordable unit is substantially smaller than market units (the example in staff materials showed an affordable unit about 37% smaller). The study also showed that building more units on a larger lot tends to be more profitable, and that a new duplex in one scenario did not produce positive project profit under the assumptions used.

Public comment and concerns

Anne Fletcher, a People for Climate Action member, told the committee she and neighbors are receiving purchase solicitations from investors referencing the code changes and warned developers could outbid families: “Allowing four units without exception or mitigation will not accomplish that.” She also urged the city to update the EV‑charging ordinance and to require more bike parking.

Nancy Davidson, an Old Town resident, thanked PPC for listening to community input and said she supported measures to make ADUs easier to build but raised concerns about parking, stormwater in areas without facilities and loss of tree canopy if density increases.

A resident from Squak described infrastructure constraints on hill neighborhoods — water redundancy, topography and costs — and argued staff and the council should pursue the minimum changes required by state law (two units) and delay broader expansions until more analysis and outreach are complete.

Council deliberations and next steps

Members thanked staff and PPC for extensive outreach and analysis and generally endorsed PPC’s recommendations. Several council members said they prefer keeping the baseline lot density at two units per lot, while retaining mechanisms that could allow four units where state conditions are met and where an affordable unit is included.

Council members and staff also expressed strong concern with the Department of Commerce interpretation of “major transit stop,” which expands the quarter‑mile bonus to include bus stops; staff said they are working with the city’s state representative and noted House Bill 1491 is pending at the Legislature to clarify the definition. One councilmember said a hearing on HB 1491 is scheduled for April 4 and encouraged sign‑ups.

Outcome and administrative direction

There was no formal committee vote recorded on the middle‑housing amendments at the meeting. Committee members told staff they had sufficient direction to move forward with the proposed draft and to return recommendations to the full council for action.

Ending

Staff said it will use PPC’s recommendation and council feedback to finalize a recommendation to the full council. The committee moved on to its next agenda item after concluding deliberations.