Commission reviews proposed Title 21 code edits including middle‑housing clarifications and debate over 3,000‑square‑foot limit

Planning staff returned Oct. 16 with draft redlines to Sammamish Municipal Code Title 21 and asked the commission for feedback before a Dec. 4 public hearing.

Avril Beatty, current planning and permit center manager in the Community Development Department, presented about 10 proposed edits. Beatty said the package includes clarifications and new definitions (for example, codifying a cottage‑housing size tied to a recent director’s interpretation and an accessory dwelling unit definition that requires a separate entrance), regulatory clarifications for quasi‑judicial versus area‑wide rezonings, and a proposed change to unit‑lot subdivision rules so unit lots could carry more than one dwelling unit (to allow, for example, duplexes or triplexes in ownership forms such as condos). She said staff would add a reference to the middle‑housing overlay where appropriate and that a parent lot is the larger parcel subdivided into unit lots.

Other proposed edits Beatty reviewed included deleting duplicative public‑comment language for commercial site development permits and adding flexibility to land‑use entitlement duration so approvals would remain valid if a complete building permit submittal is made within the entitlement window. She also proposed reverting shoreline substantial development permits from a Type 4 land‑use decision (hearing examiner) back to a Type 2 decision to reduce review complexity, and allowing concurrent review of building permits and final plats so construction review can proceed sooner while plat work continues.

The item that generated the most discussion was a proposed limitation on building floor area and massing (often framed as a 3,000‑square‑foot limit). Beatty summarized options staff had drafted: an initial narrow relief (a one‑time 300‑square‑foot expansion for legal nonconforming homes), and a broader approach that exempts the ground floor but limits the area of floors above ground level to 3,000 square feet to prevent “excessive mass” on taller buildings. Commissioners and staff debated definitions (floor plate, volume, ground level), practical effects, and exemptions. Commissioners voiced concern about regulating a single‑story owner who wants a large ground‑floor plan; Beatty said the staff preference, based on discussion, was to simplify by exempting single‑story ground‑floor area while applying a 3,000‑square‑foot cap to floors above ground level. Several commissioners asked staff to remove the technical term “floor plate” from the draft and to provide clear examples showing how the proposed rule would apply to real projects. Commissioner Mike Bresco asked staff to include prior project examples that would have been affected by the rule to aid clarity.

Commissioners also directed staff to refine unit‑lot language (clearly tie it to the middle‑housing overlay), add a clause clarifying that cottage‑housing square footage excludes garages, and to return with revised language and examples at the Dec. 4 public hearing.

Beatty said staff will produce updated redlines for the Dec. 4 hearing and incorporate the commission’s feedback, including clearer definitions, example applications, and references to the middle‑housing overlay. No formal vote was taken on the Title 21 package Oct. 16; the item will return for a public hearing and potential action at a later meeting.