Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission narrows housing work to "middle housing" code cleanup; staff to compile issues and seek developer input
Summary
The Commission agreed to prioritize Option 1: clarifying Title 18 code language to make already-adopted middle-housing types (DU/ADU/cottage housing) implementable, create a running issues list, consult developers for scenarios, and reconvene in August.
Commissioners agreed to prioritize code cleanup (Option 1) as the immediate next step on housing work, reframing the Commission's role away from the broad term "affordability" and toward practical "middle housing" implementation.
Commissioner Sam Castic urged the group to focus on the code items that prevent builders from implementing the middle-housing forms the Commission and Council previously approved. 'My vote would be, if we want to make any progress here, we start working towards Option 1,' he said, urging the Commission to compile a list of ambiguities and inconsistencies in Title 18.
Commissioners and staff highlighted recurring implementation questions: inconsistent definitions for cottages, uncertainty about where duplexes and ADUs can be sited, minimum street frontage and side-yard setbacks, and how subsplitting or selling an ADU might be handled in practice. Staff said real project reviews provide the most precise lessons but recommended an accelerated approach: (1) create a shared spreadsheet of code ambiguity items, (2) develop a small set of conceptual scenarios developers could answer without discussing active applications, and (3) invite practitioners to comment later in the process.
Councilmember Josh Rosenau and commissioners emphasized the importance of local examples and existing consultant reports: Rosenau referenced a consultant report circulated earlier (Leland) as useful background on potential tools and policy levers. Commissioners agreed to recirculate a previously prepared developer-question list, to gather examples from local builders, and to form smaller reading or working groups (under quorum limits) to advance the work between full meetings.
Next steps: staff will open a running document (spreadsheet or shared doc) for commissioners to aggregate code questions, Sam Castic will recirculate his earlier developer-question list, staff will reach out to known local residential developers for conceptual feedback, and the Commission will aim to review findings at the Aug. 11 meeting.
