Sammamish Planning Commission backs package of minor Title 21 code cleanups, asks staff to define “gross square footage”

The Sammamish Planning Commission on March 6 voted to recommend a package of minor amendments to Sammamish Municipal Code Title 21 and asked staff to produce a definition for “gross square footage” before the City Council considers the changes.

The package, presented by Evan Fisher of the city’s Community Development department, grouped about 10 mostly technical “cleanup” items to align development regulations with outcomes from the city’s recent comprehensive-plan update. "The goal here tonight is really to ensure that there is alignment between the development regulations and the outcomes we're seeing from the application of our code with the comprehensive plan," Fisher told commissioners during the hearing.

Why it matters: The recommended edits aim to remove duplicative or legacy code, add missing definitions used in development review, and clarify how the city calculates developer obligations under its mandatory affordable-housing program. Commissioners and members of the public discussed how definitions and measurement conventions — especially for home size and floor-area calculations — could affect the in-lieu fee that some builders may pay instead of providing on-site affordable units.

Key actions and outcome - Motion: "I move that we approve the staff recommendations and add the suggestion that staff further define gross square footage," moved by Planning Commissioner John Bachman. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; all commissioners present voted in favor. The commission will forward the recommended Title 21 changes to City Council with a request that staff draft and present a clear, administrable definition of gross square footage before council action.

Major topics covered in the hearing and work session - Code cleanups and relocations: Staff recommended removing a duplicative "moving building" section from Title 21 and leaving regulation in Title 16 (Buildings and Construction); consolidating scattered definitions from Chapter 21.11 into the main definitions chapter; and correcting mislabeled subsections (for example, a subsection labeled "general development standards" should be landslide-hazard development standards).

- Definitions proposed: Staff proposed adding or clarifying definitions for "home size" (gross square footage of a single-family residence), "hardscape coverage" (impervious surface including certain gravel or overhangs over 18 inches), "footprint" (two-dimensional outline where a structure meets the ground), and "demolition" (removal of more than 50% of a structure). Planning staff and commissioners discussed whether garages, unfinished basements or vaulted attics should count toward gross square footage; Planner Sam Dunlap said current floor-area-ratio rules already treat some basements and garages as floor area when they have exterior walls meeting a specified height.

- Affordable-housing fee-in-lieu clarifications: Staff proposed amending wording so the payment calculation is based on the total floor area of units designated for in-lieu payment (not an average size), and added language allowing a developer to designate which units are subject to the in-lieu fee when fractional-unit calculations arise. Staff also raised a possible change to the rounding threshold used to determine when a developer must build an affordable unit versus pay a fee.

- Public concern and examples: Citizen Paul Stickney provided fiscal context and urged clarity and consistency in square-footage definitions; he and other commenters noted the practical difference between net and gross interior measurements and the resulting policy effects on in-lieu calculations. Paul told the commission he tracks city budgets and cited stormwater fees and capital spending trends to illustrate broader affordability concerns; Mary (online) urged clarity around overlays and critical-area terminology.

- Development-standards topics discussed (no formal votes tonight): commissioners discussed fence-height measurement atop retaining walls and whether combined wall+fence heights should be limited; how to measure maximum sidewall height and whether the existing 4-foot offset from minimum side setbacks is appropriate; two different building-height measurement methods and staff preference for an average-existing-grade method that is simpler to inspect; and proposed code language clarifying when legal nonconforming status is forfeited (for example, if a structure is demolished under the demolition definition).

- Final subdivision approval: Staff proposed delegating final plat approval from City Council to the hearing examiner to reduce delay and reflect that the hearing examiner already conducts the public hearing, makes findings and conditions, and inspects or audits compliance before final plat recording. Commissioners discussed checks and balances; staff noted statutory time limits (state law requires ministerial approval of final plats when conditions are met).

- State compliance for emergency and supportive housing: Staff reported Department of Commerce comments advising removal of spacing and occupancy limits for permanent supportive housing and emergency shelters; commissioners discussed the practical impacts on the city’s ability to demonstrate capacity under county and state planning requirements and the limited number of sites in Sammamish the city could reasonably use for those uses.

Commission direction to staff - Develop and return with a clear, administrable definition of "gross square footage" (measurement basis, inclusion/exclusion of garages, basements, attics and measurement from interior or exterior walls) for use in Title 21 and the affordable-housing in-lieu calculation. - Prepare maps/illustrations and example sketches to show how proposed sidewall, fence/retaining wall, and height measurements would be applied in typical lot topographies before final code language is drafted. - Continue to refine Title 21 cleanup text and coordinate with the Department of Commerce on language related to emergency and supportive housing placement and capacity.

What the commission did not decide - Staff will return with recommended definitions and graphics for further commission review. No final City Council action has yet occurred; the Planning Commission's vote was a recommendation.

Context and next steps City staff said the Title 21 cleanups are meant to be non-discretionary, straightforward corrections and clarifications following the comprehensive-plan update. The Planning Commission recommended the package to City Council and explicitly requested staff define gross square footage before council consideration. Staff will return with the requested definitions and additional materials, and the City Council will consider the commission’s recommendation at a later date.

Ending The Planning Commission’s recommendation sends the Title 21 cleanup package to City Council and leaves a key definitional question—how to measure gross square footage—open for staff to resolve and present to the commission before council action.