Sammamish Planning Commission on Dec. 4 recommended that the City Council consider a package of code cleanups to SMC Title 21 that staff say correct minor errors, clarify intent and remove redundant language. The package also retains a debated cap intended to limit the bulk of new "middle housing" but directs council to consider refined language developed by staff and the commission.

Avril Beatty, planning and permit center manager, led the presentation of the package and said the most substantive change under discussion was a 3,000‑square‑foot limit applied to floors above ground level. "Anything that's within 3 feet of the exterior grade is part of that ground floor, would not be limited by the 3,000 square feet," Beatty said, explaining the intent is to limit massing above grade while allowing modest ground‑level additions and improvements.

Commissioners focused discussion on how to define "ground floor" on Sammamish's sloped lots and how the rule would affect existing split‑level and terraced homes. Several commissioners said they were concerned the measure could limit residents' ability to "age in place" in older homes. In response, staff and commissioners crafted an amendment so that the commission would forward the package to council with a request to exempt from the upper‑floor cap any floor within 5 feet of the main‑entry threshold (or below) and to clarify that the 300‑square‑foot relief for upper floors is cumulative.

Public commenters included residents who urged caution on different grounds. Mary Wictor, a Tamarack resident of about 25 years, warned of stormwater and drainage impacts tied to cumulative increases in building footprint: "Stormwater is a big thing ... cumulative stormwater might be a problem," she said, asking the commission to consider drainage thresholds when loosening footprint limits. Earlier during general public comment, Richard Johnson urged that independent traffic forecasts be re‑run using 2026 data to inform planning, saying recent short‑term increases called longer‑range assumptions into question.

A commissioner moved to forward the exhibit as presented and to include the commission's amendment; another seconded. The commission approved the amendment by voice vote and then approved the recommendation to City Council as amended. Chair Mark Boffman closed the public hearing, thanked staff and speakers and said the commission will reconvene in January to take up impact fees.

The package before the council will include the staff's redlined code language and a cover letter summarizing the commission's intent and the specific amendments the commission asked staff to refine. Staff told commissioners they will fine‑tune the exact code wording before the item goes to council and that the letter to council traditionally notes that professional staff will finalize draft ordinance language for council consideration.

What happens next: The Planning Commission forwarded its recommendation to the City Council; council review will include staff‑prepared ordinance text and any additional refinements requested by the commission. The record the commission will send includes public comments on stormwater, aging‑in‑place concerns and the commission's direction on the main‑entry exemption and cumulative relief.