Issaquah’s Planning, Development and Environment Committee on Jan. 8 reviewed proposed amendments to Title 18 that would implement state middle-housing requirements and sought direction for issues the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) should study before making a formal recommendation.

The administration presented three core policy questions: whether lot density should be increased beyond the state-required baseline (two dwelling units per lot, with the state allowing four units if a lot is within a quarter-mile of a major transit stop or one unit is set aside as affordable), whether accessory dwelling unit (ADU) maximum size should rise from 1,000 to 1,250 square feet, and what additional items PPC should evaluate before returning a formal recommendation. Valerie Porter, Associate Planner, summarized staff analysis and case studies and recommended Option 1: align with state requirements.

Why this matters: the committee’s guidance will shape the PPC public hearing and the draft code returned to council. Changes could alter what property owners can build on single-family lots across Issaquah and affect parking, utilities and the city’s ability to secure affordable units tied to extra density.

Staff and committee discussion

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner, told the committee the administration favors compliance with state rules that require Issaquah (a Tier 2 city) to allow two units per lot and allow four units only if a lot is within a state-defined “major transit stop” or one unit is designated affordable. Porter also said the administration does not support a broad allowance of four units per lot without an affordability requirement because that approach “doesn’t align with the city’s comprehensive plan goals of encouraging and promoting affordable housing.”

Porter walked the committee through zoning constraints and three case studies showing how lot size, setbacks, lot coverage and other standards constrain where a fourth unit would physically fit. She noted a practical barrier: utility connections can cost “between $20,000 and $40,000,” and impact fees and frontage improvements are significant variables in whether new units pencil financially.

On ADU size, Porter explained the trade-offs of increasing the maximum ADU from 1,000 to 1,250 square feet: larger ADUs could better accommodate two bedrooms and a caregiver suite, but could also blur the distinction between primary units and ADUs and reduce the city’s leverage to promote smaller, supplemental units.

Public comment and data points

Several residents spoke during the public-comment period. Connie Marsh urged the committee to follow the comprehensive plan’s public‑engagement steps and warned against council direction that could “chill” PPC deliberations. Kim Anfinger (property owner, Old Town) opposed increasing lot density in Old Town but supported raising the ADU cap to 1,250 square feet. Chris Richley (Issaquah resident) urged that affordability remain a central consideration so workers can live near their jobs.

Steven Padua, Assistant Planning Director, provided two figures that the committee discussed: 82 total units shown in an earlier housing report card (which includes development-agreement projects) and 29 ADUs built since the city’s 2018 ADU code adoption. Padua also summarized how the state’s affordability thresholds would apply: rental units set aside as affordable must be at 60% of area median income (AMI); owner-occupied units must be sold at 80% AMI, with affordability enforced by a recorded covenant.

Committee reaction and directions to staff

Committee members agreed to forward the matter to the Planning Policy Commission for public hearing and recommendation. Key points committee members asked PPC to study or clarify included:
- Market feasibility of the state’s affordability requirement tied to four-unit lots (60% AMI rental / 80% AMI ownership) and whether that requirement would deter developers from building a fourth unit.
- Whether PPC should evaluate allowing up to four dwelling units on a lot in some places and the viability of tying extra density to affordable units or other incentives.
- ADU sizing: consider whether a 1,250-square-foot maximum should be permitted and whether code provisions could allow limited exceptions for caregiving/accessible units (wider doorways, second bathroom) without creating loopholes that convert primary units into ADUs to avoid fees.
- Utility, impact‑fee and frontage-improvement implications, including the administrative complexity of applying frontage or impact-fee rules differently to middle housing versus single-family housing.
- Whether preapproved ADU plan sets used by nearby cities have produced meaningful uptake and whether such an approach could be useful here.

No formal vote was taken. Staff said they will take proposed amendments and the committee’s guidance to the Planning Policy Commission, likely in early February, where the PPC will hold a public hearing and provide a formal recommendation to council. Porter said the administration expects to return proposed ordinance language and adoption materials to council later in the spring (staff estimated May for adoption work), after PPC’s recommendation.

Context and constraints

Porter and other staff repeatedly noted constraints that will limit where additional units can be built: critical areas mapped across large parts of the city, existing zoning setbacks and lot-coverage limits, and the cost of adding utility connections. Porter emphasized that the state’s definition of a “major transit stop” is consequential because lots within quarter‑mile buffers are exempt from on‑site parking requirements under state law; staff said they are still clarifying how the state is identifying transit stops for Issaquah.

What’s next

Staff will prepare draft code amendments and background materials and bring them to the Planning Policy Commission for public hearing and recommendation. The committee’s guidance — especially on ADU size, the market feasibility of state affordability thresholds, and whether to study a broader allowance of four units per lot — will be part of that packet. No final council decision was made at this meeting.

Ending

The committee adjourned after clarifying next steps; staff indicated they would return with PPC’s recommendation and proposed ordinance language for council consideration later in the spring.