Committee reviews Issaquah work plan to speed housing, debate balconies, parking and fees

Council Member Walsh, chair of the Planning, Development and Environment Committee, called the meeting to order and opened discussion on COM 0238, a city work plan aimed at promoting business investment and housing production in Issaquah.

Director Dollywal of Community Planning and Development framed the program as a multi-part effort to “transform our urban core commercial core of 900 acres into a vibrant sustainable walkable urban center,” emphasizing code changes, permit-streamlining and incentives to remove regulatory barriers.

Rachel Mer, a land-use attorney at Hillis Clark speaking for a coalition of developers, submitted a written comment and offered printed copies to the committee. “Our coalition of housing developers and stakeholders prepared a comment letter that was submitted earlier today,” Mer said, and urged staff to keep every item on the work plan and to accelerate three items in particular: retaining priority for multifamily tax-exemption (MFTTE) amendments, moving the redevelopment-buffer mitigation item earlier than the current late-2027 date, and adding vesting-regulation amendments so adopted code changes do not kill projects under review.

Committee members spent the bulk of the evening debating individual policy choices within the plan. On outdoor amenity-space requirements, staff described a draft change to reduce private balcony requirements from 50% of units to 30% (keeping a 100-square-foot common open-space requirement), and noted PPC has held a public hearing and will forward recommendations to committee in early June. Several council members questioned whether balconies are meaningful amenities or simply an added cost to tenants; some expressed willingness to consider reducing the private-balcony requirement to zero while preserving shared common-space options and public parks.

Members also discussed stepback provisions and architectural standards. PPC recommended eliminating multiple stepbacks and requiring stepbacks only along public streets; several members urged a broader, menu-based approach to achieve visual interest (materials, modulation, art) rather than prescriptive measures that can add cost and encourage copy‑and‑paste design.

On incentives and density tools, staff proposed studying higher floor-area ratios (FAR) in the Mixed-Use Residential district to make density bonuses more attractive and to combine those bonuses with MFTTE options calibrated to produce affordable units. Staff cautioned that changes to FAR in the urban core could have complex entitlement effects and that state law constrains some MFTTE options.

Parking policy prompted substantial debate. Director Dollywal summarized the state law (SB 5184) implications for early-adopters and explained interactions with ADA parking calculations; members discussed eliminating parking minimums in targeted urban-core zones, market behavior (developers often still build parking), likely spillover to on-street parking, and lender underwriting considerations. Staff warned that ordinance language must be crafted carefully to satisfy building-code and ADA requirements.

On accessory dwelling units (ADUs) staff reviewed House Bill 1353 options for self-certification or pre-approved ADU plans. Committee members favored exploring self-certification coupled with clearer utility‑connection and permitting guidance, noting that utility hookups and financing—not architectural drawings—are often the main barriers.

Other elements covered included peer review selection for complex technical reviews (geotechnical and critical-area studies), options to allow redevelopment closer to buffers if strategic ecological and stormwater improvements are provided (with required state coordination), a menu approach to sustainable-development standards to avoid duplicative certifications for affordable projects, and a proposed late-2027 impact-fee rightsizing study for transportation and parks that will require consultant work and interdepartmental coordination.

No formal motions or votes were recorded on COM 0238 at this meeting. Staff said they would revise the goals-and-outcomes chart to capture committee feedback and return with PPC recommendations and ordinance language in the coming weeks; committee members identified parking, architectural standards and impact fees as near-term priorities for follow-up. The meeting was adjourned at about 9 p.m.

What’s next: staff will update the goals/outcomes chart and return ordinance specifics (stepbacks, outdoor amenity changes, and related PPC recommendations) to the committee packet; a fuller discussion of impact fees and any consultant‑funding requests was flagged for later calendar scheduling.