With the Mercer Island City Council still discussing follow-ups to policy questions in its review of the residential development code, and some members expressing a desire to collect more public input, adoption of the new standards has been pushed to at least September.

The council continued to discuss the code revisions at a special meeting on July 5 and at its regular meeting on July 17. Before its next reading on Aug. 7, the council asked for a summary sheet detailing what’s been decided and what’s left to vote on.

About a year ago, the council directed a review of the residential code “to address concerns that were being raised as to the impact of new homes on our neighborhoods due, in part, to their size, the resulting loss of trees, the long building periods for very large houses and the noise impacts,” Councilmember Dan Grausz wrote in an email update to Islanders.

After four readings (June 5, June 19, July 5, July 17) and a public hearing, there are still open questions regarding tree protections, small and odd-shaped lots and other elements of the code. Deputy Mayor Debbie Bertlin said that different numbers are used in different places in the draft code to define the term “small lot,” and would like newly-appointed Councilmember Salim Nice to weigh in on the proposed changes.

Bertlin also said that there’s a slight lag between the council making a decision and the public interpreting what it means for them. Councilmembers Dave Wisenteiner, Benson Wong and Wendy Weiker agreed with slowing the process down and trying to make the dense information available and digestible for citizens.

“We want to get it right for the 7,000 property owners on the Island,” Weiker said.

Some Islanders who spoke at the July 5 special meeting asked for the code to go to a public vote, while others expressed support for the changes.

The council has made preliminary decisions regarding lot coverage standards, parking requirements and other matters. It completed the bulk of its policy view on July 5, after receiving the Planning Commission’s recommendations a month earlier.

Some of the changes include switching from regulating the amount of “impervious surface” on a lot— ie. buildings, driveways, patios, etc — to “hardscape.” The council also accepted a recommendation regarding limiting maximum building height for homes on a slope to 30 feet measured from the downhill facing facade, added a side yard setback requirement and reduced permitted construction noise periods.

The most controversial proposal, which came from the Planning Commission after its own six-month review and public outreach process, was to reduce gross floor area from 45 to 40 percent.

“Under our code, the key factors that determine the size or mass of a house relative to the lot it is on are setbacks, lot coverage, gross floor area and height,” Grausz wrote. “Each one of these is being modified under the proposed code revision.”

Planning Manager Evan Maxim showed the council five examples of recently reviewed or issued permits for new single family homes. He said that all were affected by the proposed changes to some degree, and most would need to be redesigned to comply with the new code’s restrictions on height and gross floor area.

In order to prevent the tall, boxy houses that have become more prevalent, Grausz said he supported a reduction in height to 25 feet with a five foot additional allowance for a pitched roof. That proposal was not adopted by the council, which followed suit with the Planning Commission and decided not to legislate design at all.

For the same reason, the council will not consider an incentive plan proposed by the Master Builders Association that would grant additional gross floor area, up to a maximum of 45 percent, for design elements such as increasing setbacks or modulating the house facade.

“I believe the proposed changes, with a little further work, can get us to the point where we have a balanced code that goes a long way towards protecting our neighborhoods while enabling property owners and developers to still build on their property without excessive constraints,” Grausz wrote.

Throughout the process, the council has juggled and the public has debated “neighborhood character” versus “property rights.”

Grauz wrote that in regard to trees, the council is attempting to strike the correct balance between property rights and environmental and neighborhood sustainability. The proposed code would make changes to tree protection (retention and replacement), whether or not the trees are being removed as part of a development project.

City staff said that once the code is adopted, ongoing maintenance and enforcement will be important. Some elements may need to be revisited when the city updates its critical areas ordinance, which will also involve public input.

For more, see www.mercergov.org/CouncilMeetings.

Major changes to residential code proposed so far

Home size:

Floor area: The Planning Commission recommended reducing gross floor area (GFA) from 45 percent to 40 percent, reducing the size of new homes by about one ninth. This was supported by the Mercer Island City Council, which agreed that the 45 percent limit would be granted to homes with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).

Height: The existing 30 foot height limit hasn’t changed, though the way it works on sloped lots will. The current code allows a house to go to 35 feet on the downhill side, while the new code would limit it to 30 feet.

Setbacks: To reduce the visual impact of tall homes, the proposed code requires increased aggregate and minimum side yard setback for lots wider than 90 feet. This adds to the 20 foot front yard and 25 foot rear yard setbacks already required.

Lot coverage:

Hardscape: The city is changing its terminology from “impervious surface” to “hardscape.” The current code limits impervious surface to 40 percent, though deviations were often granted for an extra 5 percent. The proposed code retains the same 40 percent (or lower) coverage limit for structures and driveways, permits a percentage (the council had agreed on 15 percent) of the remaining lot to be used for hardscape and requires the balance to be used for softscape, such as trees and other vegetation. The council also added an option that would increase the lot coverage from 40 percent to 45 percent for single story homes.

Other:

Garages: The Planning Commission recommended reducing the number of required parking spaces from three (two covered, one uncovered) to two (one covered, one uncovered). The council majority agreed with the proposal, though city staff said that the market, not the code, will likely drive this element of home design.

Noise: Noise from city-permitted construction activities cannot be audible off of the lot before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on weekdays, before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on Saturdays or any time on Sunday or holidays under the proposal. Noise from non-permitted work appears to be an open question among council members.

This portion of the draft code, in the basement floor area calculation appendix, shows how the calculation for building height will be changed. The city council modified the average building elevation measurement to require that it be taken from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is less). Image courtesy of the city of Mercer Island