Planning commission advances SMC Title 21 cleanup; schedules Nov. 20 traffic workshop on town‑center plan

Sammamish Planning Commission members on Oct. 2 heard a staff presentation on a second, limited round of code cleanups to SMC Title 21 and were told a focused traffic presentation on the town‑center subarea plan is scheduled for the Nov. 20 meeting.

David Pyle, Sammamish Department of Community Development, told commissioners the Nov. 20 meeting "will be primarily dedicated to hearing from the city's traffic engineer, our traffic planners, our traffic consultants, and technical experts" to address public and commission questions that have arisen during the EIS and follow‑up comment period.

The code cleanup package presented by Avril Bedi, planning and permit center manager, includes a series of mostly procedural and clarification edits intended to improve usability and close unintended gaps in newly adopted rules. Key topics discussed by staff, commissioners and members of the public included: a proposed 1,500‑square‑foot cap for standard cottage housing units; formalizing that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) must have a separate external entrance; definitions and processes distinguishing quasi‑judicial rezonings from area‑wide rezonings; a proposed return of shoreline substantial‑development permits to a director (type 2) decision in ordinary cases; changes to comment periods and submittal timing; and possible limited relief for existing houses constrained by the city’s 3,000‑square‑foot footprint limit.

Why it matters: the changes are intended to fix drafting errors, remove references to repealed statutes and clarify processes for applicants and neighbors. Several items—most notably the cottage housing size limit and the one‑time addition allowance for pre‑existing large single‑family footprints—could affect how middle‑housing types are built and how homeowners pursue small additions or conversions.

What staff proposed and what commissioners probed

• Cottage housing size cap. Bedi said the code currently lacks a square‑foot cap for cottage homes in the city’s middle‑housing overlays and that a director’s interpretation has treated 1,500 square feet as a reasonable maximum. "We just want to codify that amount," she said. She noted regional comparisons where cottage caps range from about 1,250 to 1,700 square feet and said the 1,500 figure aligns with affordable‑housing fee thresholds. Commissioners asked whether a lower cap (1,200 or 900 square feet) would better preserve the small‑house character and whether a minimum should be set; staff said they will return with red‑lined language and examples showing how other Eastside cities treat cottage size and how other zoning controls (floor‑area ratio, hardscape limits, height and clustering rules) interact with a cap.

• ADU access. Staff proposed adding a requirement that an accessory dwelling unit have its own separate external entrance. Bedi explained the change would prevent confusion about units accessed only through the primary dwelling and would align Sammamish’s wording with other regional ADU definitions.

• Rezonings and definitions. Staff recommended explicit definitions to distinguish quasi‑judicial rezonings (parcel‑by‑parcel hearings examiner process for limited upzones when criteria are met) from area‑wide rezonings (legislative processes tied to comprehensive plan updates). Pyle said the change is intended to reduce applicant and neighbor confusion about which process applies.

• Shoreline permitting. Staff proposed returning ordinary shoreline substantial‑development permits (commonly used for private docks) from a type 4 (hearing examiner) back to a type 2 (director) decision to reduce time and cost for routine dock work; Pyle said higher‑impact shoreline actions (shoreline variances or conditional uses) would remain at the higher review level. Staff noted they could flip the permit type back to a higher process when a project with broad public interest warrants it (for example, the East Lake Sammamish Trail permitting previously required higher‑level review).

• Validity of land‑use approvals. Staff proposed changing the standard that currently requires applicants to commence construction within two years; the suggested change would instead require a complete building‑permit submittal and fee payment within two years to keep an entitlement active. Staff said the change would give applicants more realistic time to assemble permit packages in a constrained professional market.

• Footprint limit relief. Commissioners and members of the public also discussed the city’s 3,000‑square‑foot single‑family footprint limit and a staff proposal to allow a one‑time modest expansion for pre‑existing homes (staff suggested a 300‑square‑foot or 10% allowance as an option to consider). Staff said they will draft objective, documented criteria if commission members want a limited one‑time allowance and will return with language and sample permit scenarios.

Public comments and developer remarks

Several citizens raised related issues during public comment, including traffic data questions and whether town‑square planning funds should be spent given competing park priorities. Peter Brennan, vice president of land development at Innovation Realty Partners, urged the commission to move the town‑center plan forward, saying developers have held approved projects through delays: "To give just one example, our Brownstones West application was filed in 2019. Nearly six years later, 38 townhomes are just now starting to be built," Brennan said.

Next steps

Staff said they will return Oct. 16 with drafted red‑lines for the Title 21 cleanup package and that December 4 is tentatively targeted for a public hearing and final recommendation to city council. The Nov. 20 meeting will focus on traffic analysis and a draft "North Star" approach to guide the subarea plan work.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of Oct. 2 meeting agenda: approved (voice approval recorded; vote not specified in transcript). - Approval of Sept. 18 meeting minutes: approved (voice approval recorded; vote not specified in transcript). - Motion to extend the Oct. 2 meeting by 15 minutes: approved (moved and seconded; voice approval recorded; vote not specified in transcript). - Motion to adjourn: approved by voice vote (vote not specified in transcript).

Ending note

Commissioners asked staff to provide comparative examples (other Eastside cities’ cottage‑house size allowances, ADU definitions, and one‑time nonconforming relief approaches) and to circulate commissioners’ top questions in advance of the Nov. 20 traffic workshop to ensure technical experts can prepare focused answers.