Good evening everyone. Um, I, Council
Member Walsh, call the June 2nd, 2026
City Council Planning, Development, and
Environment Committee to order. I am
joined by committee members Deputy
Council President Jen and Council Member
Nichols. Uh, first item on our agenda is
public comment.
Um, I will note there is no one in the
room and no one online it appears. Um,
we did receive an email, so at least
we're getting a little bit of feedback
that way, but anyone can email us, uh,
city council isawwa.gov.
We have three items on our agenda
tonight. I will note there are no
minutes ready for approval on tonight's
agenda. Maybe that's because of the
power outage uh, from the last meeting,
you know. Um, but our three agenda items
tonight, we have COMM 0272,
uh, Title 18, land use code clarifying
amendments, and then the next one, COMM
0282,
title 18 proposed amendments promoting
building investments in Isiqua, followed
by COM 0283,
updates to goals and outcomes. So, we
will start with the clarifying
amendments presented by Kate Kaney. I
did it. Okay. Principal planner.
Fantastic.
Um, staff's going to make presentations
on the item, answer all of our
questions. We'll have opportunities for
public comment if anybody else shows up
uh with us live, but then we'll
deliberate and make recommendations.
Thank you.
We don't seem to have the right screen
on.
We can't see all of us. Okay. Um
we will pause for
technical stuff.
We're back. Okay, Kate, I'll let you get
set up with your presentation and get
going with it. Thank you. Give me just
one moment, please.
And
one more button.
Okay, great. And can everyone see the
slide on screen now? Okay. Well, um,
thank you very much. Um, again, my name
is Kate Kaney. My last name rhymes with
rainy, has a lot of letters. So um that
is that I am here to present tonight but
also um available virtually are my
colleagues in this uh code amendment
process. Uh Emily Medina um she's our
senior planner um as well as the other
current planning staff. They are the
ones that do the development review
every day and they were the technical
experts in drafting these amendments.
So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and
start and let you know that um tonight
we are briefing you, providing a review
of the um annual clarifying or
housekeeping amendments. Um tonight,
we'd like to facilitate that re review.
Um give you time to deliberate and are
requesting a recommendation on moving
these amendments forward to city
council. Um the direction needed
includes things like um are the proposed
changes clear? Um, is additional clarity
needed on any of the amendments? Um, and
do you feel ready to bring these uh
recommendations forward? Uh, we are
aiming at council action on June 29th.
So, um, that is the background
information on direction. Additional
background on clarifying amendments is
presented on this screen. Um most cities
including Isiqua do an annual process
where we look through the codes for um
corrections uh cleanup items as well as
minor amendments uh especially to
clarify what the code means um or to uh
uh codify uh practices. So this year uh
seven sets of code amendments were
identified. uh many were identified by
staff and actually a lot of them were
identified in conversation with
different permanent applicants and the
development community.
So the seven uh amendments are presented
in this chart. Uh the planning policy
commission reviewed uh these items uh
four times uh before the public hearing
and we would like to start tonight by
going uh amendment by amendment. So um
this first amendment is really a
cleanup. It's a correction to the
definition section. Uh this uh
definition of multifamily residential
was
>> sorry.
Oh okay. Sorry a little reverberation
there. Um
uh so currently there are two
definitions of multifamily residential
in the definition section and uh the
goal here is to repeal the definition
that was superseded by the middle
housing amendments uh that were adopted
last year in 2025. So this is really a
correction.
This next set of amendments have to do
with site development permits SDPs. So,
first uh uh for folks that don't have a
lot of background in this, site
development permits are land use permits
that are for larger development types.
Um specifically for multi- large multif
family and commercial projects. Um site
development permits allow those projects
to be reviewed against uh consistency
with the land use code, also also
consistency with uh transportation
requirements, requirements for utilities
and that kind of thing. uh single family
housing, middle housing is not brought
through an SDP review. They are brought
through the construction permit process,
uh building uh permit review, uh or um I
think there's a site work review process
and others. So again, this is meant for
those bigger projects. Um the issue with
the STP code that was identified by some
of the planners was that they were
seeing smaller scale projects coming
through an STP process which adds time
and costs um to uh your your overall
project and process. So uh the idea was
that uh considering hey can't these
small smaller projects come through in
those construction permits I just
mentioned rather than these u this SDP
uh process. Um and the reason this is
important and the reason it adds time
and I forgot to mention this earlier is
that there are three types of SDP review
levels. Um level one is an
administrative review by staff as well
as staff approval. Level two is again
administrative review and approval but
public notice maybe a little bit bigger
size project. And then there's actually
no level three but level four is the
biggest size project. Something like um
the TOD project uh you know big and
multif family mixeduse projects. They go
through the development commission for
review and approval processes. There's
also public notice and a public hearing.
So that would add you know some time uh
uh to to anyone's uh project cycle. So
again, smaller scale projects were
coming in um recently. For example, in
uh central Isiqua um commercial project
came through where they wanted to
increase the size a little bit of the
entrance, add some embellishments to it,
and they came through with a level one
site plan review when uh staff thought,
well gosh, we could have caught these uh
items through a building permit review
process. Another uh project, and there's
a slide for this one, um has to do with
the conversion of just an asphalt area
of a site into an amenity space for uh
residents of the construction project.
No changes to structures, just a site.
And that project was to come through a a
level four review process. So that gave
everyone pause and uh they took a look
at the code and this is uh what we are
coming up with to streamline and make
this more efficient um maintaining a
review process through SDP for
structures but not for site improvements
only um when the projects aren't too big
right when projects are under 10,000
square feet. Um also this uh these
proposals create a minimum square
footage for both improvements to a
building. So uh adding square footage to
a new project or adding square foot
sorry adding square footage to an
existing building, a new project, a new
structure. Um also um uh certain site
improvements um for the buildings. What
is proposed is if you are under 200
square feet of new space, you do not
have to go through an SDP process. So,
um we'll walk through more of that in
just a moment. Additionally, what is
proposed is that a uh minimum square
footage uh sorry added already said that
losing my losing my uh grip here a
little bit. Pardon me.
Okay. Um, another change was a
clarification actually. Uh, right now,
um, what determines the level you are of
your SDP review is generally size, but
right now in the code, there's also, um,
an amount of units that trigger SDP
review. This was a little bit confusing
for the development community and staff.
So, the idea is just to propose, um, uh,
the size square footage requirement and
not the unit requirement. So um going to
the next slide and this is the last
change I wanted to highlight. Um I
talked about how the proposal is to
allow projects that only do site work to
not go through SDP review if you are
under 10,000 square feet. Um that
threshold is from 10,000 square feet to
an acre. And if you are within that
10,000 square feet to up to an acre, you
will have to go through a level two site
plan review or sorry SDP review. And um
the reason is is if that is that's kind
of a larger uh set of changes even if
you're just doing site work. Uh level
two allows for that public notification
but also the administrative review and
approval process. So we thought that was
a good compromise. We had gotten these
comments from the public and it made
sense to us. So, I want to um just show
you this slide that um highlights that
project I was telling you about earlier.
Um this project was just for site
improvements to convert 10,000 square
feet, a little over that um of asphalt
to amenity space. Again, no changes to
structures. In the current code, this
would have to go through a level four
development commission review, public
hearing, and decision. What is proposed
through this these code changes is an
SDP level two. Again, it is over 10,000
square feet, sizable. Um, let the
neighbors know, other folks know through
a public notice process. So, that is
what is proposed for the SDP review.
Happy to clarify that uh as we go
through it if I was a little confusing.
Okay. Okay. So, the next amendment is
also uh dealing with permit
requirements. And in this case, if you
come in and do a subdivision or um uh
you're platting something,
um there are questions right now for
people in the public and staff as to,
you know, the sequencing of, oh, I would
like to subdivide this, but then I also
want to get my building permits going.
And actually our internal processes are
pretty clear about well we cannot give
you a building permit unless you have a
parcel number that we can tie the
building permit to. So because of this
lack of clarity, um what is proposed is
to clearly state that um that
infrastructure
uh needs to be put in before final
approval of a subdivision or a binding
site plan. Um the lack of this clear
language in the code leads to requests
for the building permits to be issued
before the recording of these
subdivisions. And again, since you don't
have a parcel, that makes it difficult
to do your permit review process. So,
our proposed language clarifies that
site infrastructure must be constructed
before your final approval of a plat.
Um, for some u minor improvements, you
can also purchase a bond to cover that
rather rather than constructing say a
utility or a portion of a road or what
have you. Um, it also adds language to
prevent building permits being issued
for non-existent lots. So, it's now in
the code. So that's the extent of those
proposals.
So now I want to turn to uh the issue of
donation bins. You may have seen these
going around town um in uh parking lots
and um although they are allowed through
our temporary use requirements um the uh
there are not development standards that
kind of condition how we allow them
where they are allowed. So, um, what
this proposal does is to clarify these
things. So, the proposed changes
describe where a donation bin is
permitted on a property. Um, for
example, away from the entrance. Um, and
it clarifies that the duration that a
donation bin can be on the property is
for an entire year and then you have to
come through a renewal process. Um, this
there are also new standards that
prohibit the accumulation of trash
outside the receptacle. We worked really
closely with the city's code enforcement
officer um to make sure that we had um
the right type of codes.
>> We have a question. Council member
Nichols,
>> is there any particular problem you can
site that this is trying to solve?
>> Um yes. Um right now the temporary use
code doesn't specifically call out
donation bins. So the the it's a general
um temporary use permit that is provided
and it doesn't specify where the bins
need to be located on a site and other
um requirements for it to be
wellmaintained.
So those were the issues.
Is there a a problem more can can you
site an example of something that you
think is bad that that has caused?
>> Well, you know, the businesses want to
have them on the on the sites and from
what we understood from um uh working
the permit counter and also from our um
code enforcement officer is they want to
do it the right way. Where should we put
it? They had questions. These changes
just clarify that yes, donation bins are
allowed. this is how you can allow them.
And it's clear for the businesses who
want to put it on their property as well
as uh for the public who have contacted
the code enforcement officer about there
being garbage near here whose
responsibility is that and um it just
brings clarity to the code.
>> So currently what do they do? So if they
want a permit for these, what what's the
process?
>> It's still a temporary use permit. Um
and it again is general and doesn't have
those additional standards. So they
could put the donation bin anywhere on
the site and uh it might be uh closer to
the right of way um than our code
enforcement officer is comfortable with.
Of course, you know, safety of vehicles
and people passing by is paramount. It
might be too close to the um doorway,
but they they are allowed on site, but
not with those uh kind of defining
standards.
>> City administrator,
>> uh let me just add some other context.
In many communities, they become dumping
grounds. Uh the the the bins are cited
uh without any permits, oftentimes
without even property owner permission.
Um and then they're not maintained. And
so people tend to be pretty uh concerned
when they see piles of shoes and u
garbage bags full of things that sit
there unattended and then oftentimes the
city is called uh to clean up a mess. Um
which kind of becomes a problem.
>> Do we have that happening in Isqua?
I've certainly seen more bins in the
last
>> three months than in my entire time
here. Um, you know, there there used to
be onesie twoosies of them. Um, you
know, there's one at the post office. I
can't imagine that the federal
government who would could not fill a
18-inch pothole next to the location
that they put this bin that has
permitted a bin there. Um, so, uh, I
think there is certainly in my driving
around town seeing a proliferation of
them.
Kristen,
>> I think Wally hit on part of it about
where they're located. Um, but also
without these regulations in place, we
have no way to enforce them. So, we
can't control the piles. We can't
control it. So, this is giving us a way
to actually enforce them and not allow
them to be on sidewalks.
>> Yeah. And there was one um specific
example if you were asking for that. Up
in Highlands, it showed up on the
sidewalk and the adjacent property owner
didn't authorize that like Wally said.
So, uh, getting them moved out of, uh,
those areas, then, you know, community
members complain and then we get it
through either cclick fix or we get a an
official complaint and then we have to
go after them. Um, but in having clear
guidance of what they're violating in
the code that makes the notice of
violation more clear.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. The next couple of slides have to
do with proposals related to the daycare
uh standards and also uh that same
chapter includes adult family home um
requirements. So this uh the two uh
proposals on this slide are really more
like corrections um and clarifications.
Um the first one is to add information
in the daycare section of the code that
is wayfinding that sends people to the
definitions of daycare center, family
daycare, adult family home. And the
reason is is that the definitions
contain information about the number of
individuals or children that can be
under care in those different types of
facilities. there are specific numbers
and the state regulations that also um
help to um regulate those uses. So this
is just adding wayfinding language um to
the definition so that information is
available. The second proposal is to um
just change the language from family
child care center to family daycare
center for consistency. It's really a
cleanup proposal um in the code. That's
all it does.
This next page also has to do or slide
also has to do with daycare center
standards. As you may recall, in March,
city council adopted uh an ordinance
that established traffic impact fee
waiverss applicable to daycare centers.
Um what is proposed is to help codify
that ordinance by adding a provision
related to covenants and when they
should be recorded for operators that
opt into those waiverss. So it's really
just part of the codification process.
And this last slide um has to do with
the home business code, but it's also
related to g daycare centers. uh daycare
operations used to be a section in home
business and there's just some language
um this so this truly is housekeeping um
in home business that does not belong
here um it belongs with daycare um it's
already taken care of care of there um
and it's in the italicized uh text
regarding play equipment for daycare
again it's just uh cleanup removing code
that should have been deleted um when uh
the reorganization what's happening for
daycare codes.
Okay, so the last set of um clarifying
amendments have to do with signs and
this first one has to do with balloon
signs. This again was something that we
worked closely with the city's code
enforcement officer on. Um, current code
does prohibit balloon signs, but there
uh was a need for additional clarifying
language uh because uh if you have these
signs and they are close to motorists,
for example, you can really get in the
way and people can't see. So, it's a
safety concern. So, it was kind of a
cleanup task to go back through the code
to make sure it's clear that balloon
signs are not allowed. Um, regardless of
material, if it looks like a balloon,
even if it has a different material than
what's cited in the code, uh, we just
wanted to be clear that that was
prohibited.
So, the next sign, um, sorry, the next
code has to do with, um, illumination of
signs and specifically for monument
signs. You can see the um photos um at
the bottom of your screen. Those are
monument signs uh actually going around
central Isqua or other locations. You
often see these monument signs at the
edge of a driveway um near the street.
And in many cases um the uh illumination
is not uh compliant with our current
standards for internal illumination of
signs. But as you can imagine, there's a
lot of turnover in these businesses and
people come in and they want to uh you
know get their new business name and the
sign and maintain that illumination or
do some maintenance on that
illumination. So we get so many of these
requests and the code wasn't completely
clear about allowing this um
illumination to come in to these non
legal non-conforming signs. So we are
just adding language to clarify that yes
you can come in you can update your
monument sign um the sign face the alum
you know that internal illumination.
However if there was a structural change
to these signs then they would have to
update to the current code. So that is
what is proposed with this amendment.
>> Council member Nichols
>> wanted to go back on the balloon sign.
If you can go back one one slide.
>> Sure.
So, I'm just trying to understand what a
sign is in this context. Um, as an
example, I I often see these um it's
basically balloon art. I don't know what
else to call it, but you know, something
like 50 to 100 balloons that are
arranged in some thing. I see these for
high school events. Uh they have them in
my neighborhood a couple times a year.
Is that considered a sign under this
context? So, in the sign code, it talks
about commercial signs and so the happy,
you know, happy graduation balloons and
that kind of thing. As long as they were
not in the street, you know, uh in the
ride ofway or or in uh blocking people's
views, as far as I understand it, those
um are not considered commercial signs.
um where uh these are uh openhouse now
leasing um examples um would be
considered as part of the commercial
sign code.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Okay, so this is the last uh proposal
and it has to do with temporary window
signs. Um the planners who work the
counter often work with uh businesses
and projects that are opening and they
block out the windows to hide the
construction work and sometimes they
advertise for their businesses. Um the
it is not clear in our code whether they
need to get a permit for that or not and
to uh encourage these new businesses uh
and projects to come in. The proposal is
to allow temporary window signs without
a permit as long as they are
well-maintained and they are uh removed
uh once the business uh you know comes
in and uh the building is occupied. So
that is what is proposed with this
amendment.
Okay. So that was the last amendment. um
what next steps are. Um again, uh we
would bring these proposals to council
on June 29th uh requesting action. Um
the administration is recommending
approval of these amendments. Um I I
forgot to mention that a public hearing
was held on May 14th and uh the planning
policy commission did recommend um
adoption uh of these amendments as
presented. So at this point um again
getting back to the direction that we uh
would like to hear from you. Any
questions first of all and then
direction on you know uh whether the
proposals are clear whether we need to
add some uh more uh language to bring
clarity and uh want to hear if you feel
like you're ready and can provide that
recommendation uh to the full council um
on June 29th.
>> Okay. Before we go to questions and
such, I just want to check in with
Amanda. Is there anybody online?
Okay. Then I'm going to combine
questions and comments uh because we
don't have a need for public comment.
So, Deputy Council President Chang.
>> Great. Um I think on generally I think
the proposed changes make sense. Just
one minor change um which I had sent
over email. Let me pull this up. Um so,
uh number I guess IMC 18.208.030
C princ 1 and 8.208.030
princ 2. Um combining those two to
basically you know say a new structure
exterior expansion of existing
structures where the proposed new gross
square footage is 4,000 ft or greater
but less than 10,000 gross square feet.
um basically just combining the new
structure or exterior expansion into one
line item just to you know make it
simpler. Um is there like a process to
propose that amendment or can I just
suggest it and then you put it on in the
final version that's shown to council?
>> That is an excellent question.
>> Okay. So I am hearing that we would like
you to vote for it and as I understand
it's not a change to content but just
organization of the provisions. Is that
correct for in the SDP code?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm aligned.
>> Yep. I think clarity is good. Great.
>> Yay.
>> Okay. So, then the other questions are,
are the proposed changes clear? Are
additional changes needed to add
clarity? Do we recommend bringing the
amendments to city council for action on
June 29th? So, any
thoughts? Yep.
>> Sure. I I think these are good. they
make sense. Um, I had my my I had a
handful of questions. Thank you for
answer answering them uh and presenting
this very clearly. So, I'm I'm good with
this as is.
>> Uh, I agree with all that and I think I
mean my preference would to bring it
back be to bring it back on consent.
>> Yeah. And I think we can kind of talk
through are is this and the stepbacks
and such planned for the same day? Um,
yeah,
>> I believe so.
I'm fine to put it on consent, but I
don't know if there's just an idea of
hey, we have clarifying amendments and
there's these
>> um
>> they can go separately.
>> Okay,
>> it's okay.
>> Fantastic. Then I would agree. We are
good to move forward on these and put
them on consent.
>> Great. Thank you very much.
>> Okay, great. One item down. Um, our next
item is COM 0282, title 18 proposed
amendments promoting building
investments in Isiqua. This is going to
be presented by Kristen Leon, our
planning manager. Um, and again, this is
kind of the first element of this big
what we are calling PBI, promoting BIS
building investments, um, of this
two-year process. And so coming at us
quickly.
There we go. Good evening. You just you
just did like my first three slides for
me. Thank you.
All right.
So yeah, PBI just became easier for us
than promoting building investments in
Isiqua. Just there we go. All right. So,
moving on. If it'll let me. There we go.
So, yes, our purpose tonight is to
review these and deliberate on the
proposed amendments and then, if
appropriate, make a recommendation to
the full council.
Our two questions are, are there any
other changes that you would like to see
regarding these amendments, and do you
recommend moving them forward to the
full council on June 29th?
So background, I'll just uh say again
that these recommendations came from
council retreat homebuilders staff and
from our title 18 whiteboard when we
updated the land use code back in 2023.
And council approved or moved forward a
list of 17 amendments for us to tackle
over the next two years. And tonight we
are looking at the first two which are
outdoor amenity space requirements and
stepback requirements.
So starting with stepbacks,
our description is it's simply to allow
flexibility in the placement of upper
level stepbacks and they were said to be
a bit excessive and may make a project
feasilally uh financially infeasible.
So our first proposed amendment is to
just remove step the step back
requirement from
uh from buildings that face natural
areas and natural context areas in
central Isiqua
and you will be at the next round of
amendments seeing all of the natural
context standards. We'll be looking at
those as well. So keep that in mind.
Now, this one, you all received a letter
at the end of the day today stating that
a section had been removed from the
public hearing. I don't know how this
happened. It was wrong in the ordinance
that went to you. It was wrong in the
track changes that went to you, but it
was correct in the PowerPoint. So,
somewhere between those two, um, our
intent was never to put this section
back in there. Our intent is to state
for building massing and articulation
design take out most of B that talks
about changes in materials on the third
floor and up above and just make B all
street facing facades for building six
stories or higher must include
stepbacks. And we would continue with
the proposal that for building six
stories or um they will begin by the
base of the sixth floor but can start as
low as the base of floor two. So that's
right above the first floor. and
stepback shall be a minimum of five feet
in depth. We've removed requirements
that they incorporate terraces and that
the spaces be usable and that they were
we no longer require more than one step
back. That's our proposal.
>> Council member Nichols,
>> could you just remind me how many
stories is the to
>> the to is eight.
>> Okay. So, it would it would require
stepbacks under this rule if we enforce
it.
>> It would require a step back. Yes.
Okay.
when you fall into the section of
Northwest contemporary style. We are
proposing the exact same. It was
different. It required more um
stepbacks. It was a little bit more
specific. The specifications were
different than existed in the other
sections. So, we're doing proposing
exactly what's in the other one. So,
there's no confusion that all street
facing facades um for six stories or
higher must include stepbacks. And for
building six stories or higher, they
have to begin by the base of the sixth
floor, but can begin as low as the
second floor and that they shall be a
minimum of 5t in depth.
And I do want to bring up there are
additional requirements that the city
has. So it's not just removing stepex,
they're still required to do material
changes for the base, middle, and top.
It's either material changes,
architectural details, um that kind of
thing for three stories in height. They
must have divided light windows that are
operable um that are trimmed perhaps or
they're um projecting or recessed from
the facade. They must provide um surface
relief depth and shadows on the facade.
Views must be preserved and building
corners. Buildings that are on corners
either have to be stepped back or have
to be have architectural detail to
enhance those corners. Then when you get
into the natural context areas, this is
what these are. The green areas are the
natural areas. The purple areas are the
natural context areas. Those are
adjacent to natural areas and there are
specifications for that. The additional
requirements currently are um if you
face the natural area that you use
natural materials and finishes. They're
designed with doors and windows making
up 50% of the walls that are oriented
toward natural areas. Um all act all
activities are oriented toward natural
areas. Public walkways need to be
provided if you're adjacent to a water
and you can't close off the building
from the natural area. In other words,
we don't want to see the back of the
building.
All right. Would you want me to keep
going or do you want to have questions?
>> Uh any questions? No.
>> Okay. Keep going. Okay.
>> Moving on to outdoor amenity space. Our
proposals are reason are to decrease the
amount of required private open amenity
space and to add deviations for those
uses that are converting from commercial
to multif family residential. And we're
doing these one because again the amount
of private space that was required was
considered excessive and could make a
project infeasible. And for the second
one, for the conversions, we don't want
to make the process more difficult to
get affordable housing, to get different
types of housing than it needs to be.
So, the proposed changes are, if you
look in the first column, it used to be
that anything any residential use that
had five units or more had to comply
with the 100 square feet per unit and
that they all had to have 48 square feet
per unit of individual space. We are
proposing to increase that to nine
units. So now if you have nine units,
not fewer, um then you need to have 100
square feet per unit of common amenity
space and only 30% of the units would
need to have 48 square ft of private
space. Those same things would apply to
residential. So that goes from nine
units up to 21 units. And then if you
have 22 or more units, you are required
still to do the 100 square feet per
unit. And again, a minimum of 30% of the
units need to have private open amenity
space of 48 square feet.
So, what we're proposing now used to be
a deviation. So, we're removing that.
Um,
and then we're also adding a deviation
to state that common and private outdoor
amenity space. Um if the if these
projects comply with the requirements
listed under 18500 which has to do with
conversion specifically um then they can
also request um deviations from the
amenity space requirements
as long as they provide whatever they
can to the maximum amount feasible.
So for example, Motel 6 um came in, they
do not have enough room to put in the um
required open amenity space. They're
having to get a variance right now. It's
difficult to do. It's timely. It has a
cost added to it. And this way, we would
just say, "Let's just do what you can do
and make it happen."
>> Can you go back to the previous slide?
This one?
>> Yes. Um, the additional common amenity
area required of 400 square ft indoor or
outdoor.
That's something that none of our other
neighboring cities have. Can you tell me
why we feel that is necessary when we
already have 100 square foot per unit
common amenity space that obviously
grows with larger buildings.
>> Well, the we have the common outdoor
amenity space that's just outdoor. The
other one requires that they have
something indoor as well. So, a room
with TVs where people can come in and
have, you know, if your apartment is too
small, you can have a, you know, party
in this space. It's a usable space for
the residents that are there. So, it has
TVs, it has tables, it has studies, it
might, lots of them have an extra
kitchen so that you can bring your party
down there and have the party there.
That's that's what that requirement is
for.
Okay. So, if I read that correctly, it
says indoor or outdoor. So, is there a
requirement for indoor?
>> No, it's just outdoor or indoor.
>> Okay. Um,
I'm not sure if
if we're looking at a situation where,
you know, we don't want to force people
to pay for parking as a part of their
unit. I'm not sure I would say that it's
in interest to pay for additional common
amenity space or indoor um piece. And I
just don't know that I've been given a
reason why that
call out in particular is more important
um when we're not seeing it with the
other cities.
Anything? Okay.
>> No. Um other cities will call out. It's
all listed differently, but sometimes
they will call outdoor or indoor. So,
they they give the option as well, but
nothing is that I have found or that I
recall is specifically indoor space
that's required.
But honestly, I was looking for outdoor
space, so I I could have missed it.
>> Yeah. Okay. Well, we can have a
conversation at some point, but yeah.
Thank you. Sure.
Oh, I was gonna say you can go on.
>> Oh,
>> yeah.
>> Okay.
So, act. Well, this is all I have. That
was it. Um, and as Kate mentioned, these
will be coming back potentially to the
June 29th council meeting for action.
Our recommendation is to
recommend approval of the Title 8
amendments. I'm going to say as
presented in the PowerPoint. Um, we do
need to make that change in the
ordinance again. And then our questions
again, are there are there any
additional changes you would like to
see? And do you recommend moving this
forward to June 29th?
Okay. And again, I will look to Amanda
and see is there anybody online? Nope.
Okay. Then we can combine questions and
feedback. Um, do we want to take it
topic by topic? Stepbacks and outdoor
amenity space.
Okay, who wants to go first?
Yep, go for it.
>> Um, just at least on stepbacks, I would
I mean I propose that we
put forward a recommendation to strike
them as a requirement. Uh, we've got an
opportunity to look at architectural
standards, basically aesthetic standards
overall coming up later in the year. If
we want to add them back, I think we
could add them back as points, something
like that that could come back then.
But, uh, I I think the the TOD example
is very informative for me. This is
something where we have a we have direct
data. We have direct evidence of how
many housing units we lose by having
this requirement in there. Um, and I
would say
as from from my perspective, I'd like to
just see it removed as a requirement. If
somebody wants to add them in, fine. Um,
and maybe we can find a find a way to
incentivize that. But as a requirement,
I think it's we're we're losing housing,
increasing costs, and it's one of what
could be many aesthetic um options that
are on on the table, but not something
that should be a requirement in itself.
I mean I think we had kind of given the
feedback in the last meeting that we
prefer a menu of options. Um therefore
that I think the work that's been done
on this to you know have options between
two and six is still a good idea. If you
know if we move this into the
architectural and design standards give
people menu of options. If they were
going to do a step back I would want it
between the second and the sixth floor
at the material change. You know all of
that work that has already been done
there. Um, but I I think
I haven't found a significant reason why
a step back in particular is what is
needed to satisfy the idea that a
building can feel like it has less mass
or that you are comfortable walking by
it as a pedestrian. Um, so go ahead.
Yeah, I guess my question I have a
question more so on you know just like
the we have the same step back now in
two different parts of the code right
it's in this building massing and
interriculation design my understanding
is right now any prop building that gets
built has to go through basic you know
they have to pick an architectural style
as well so if it's not included if the
stepback isn't included in building
massing and articulation design but it
is you know in the architectural
standards which is where we think it
should live. Would there be any, you
know, would that like cause any
consequences?
>> What was the last part of that? I'm
sorry.
>> Basically, if we just keep the step back
portion in the architectural standards,
which is where we think it should live
and um eliminate it from this, you know,
18.602.050
building massing and articulation
design. Does that like what would the
effect of that be?
So the other requirements are citywide.
So the the ones that are just the
architectural design standards, the the
modulation and articulation, those are
citywide. So buildings outside of
central,
not including Oldtown, wherever those
buildings may be, they would not have
they would not have stepbacks either.
Um,
>> are there any zones outside of central
Isiqua that are allowed to go to six
stories or higher?
>> Mixed use is allowed to go that high.
Um otherwise no.
>> Mixed use outside of central Isco.
>> You have mixed use central Isiqua and
mixed use. And mixed use includes the
Oldtown just north of Oldtown.
that area
>> still central
>> over to just west of Front Street.
>> Um, okay.
I'm I'm taking a quick look at the map.
>> Yes,
>> Skilman.
East Gilman, east of Front Street.
>> Yeah, it's still
>> and a little bit and a little bit north
of Yeah.
or west. But is the point of having that
conversation are you saying you think
stepbacks
make sense in central Isiqua but
or
>> I'm I'm saying if our intent is to put
it into the architectural standards
bucket then
we don't need to have it in the you know
building massing part of the code.
>> Well it's in three spots. So it's in
18.60042A.
So that's natural context. It's an
18.602.15b.
Um that's massing and it's 18.72.100D.
That's um Northwest Contemporary Style.
So
I think it's if you're getting at does
Northwest Contemporary Style require if
if someone adopts that, does it require
a step back? Is that what you're getting
at? I'm I'm just saying like
if we think it belongs in the
architectural standards category, which
the Northwest contemporary style is one
of the options in that universe,
um I'm trying to understand why it's
also in the building massing and
articulation design, right? Because I I
think we're probably going to totally
revisit all the architectural stuff. Um,
so I'm I'm wondering, you know,
>> so in in all the different styles in
central Isiqua, it's only required in
Northwest Contemporary. The other ones
are not required to do it,
>> but if you are outside of Central Isqua,
you are required to do it.
>> Okay.
Um
Okay,
I'm I'm gonna quickly read the code,
please. Other people ask questions and
make comments. Yeah, I mean my my
comment on that would just be I I would
I see it it tell me if it's someplace
else I guess but I I see it in these
three places
so natural natural context um
uh
northwest contemporary and massing
and my vote would be to just remove it
from all three
and then I I think what if we come back
and we want to give it as if if if
it's something that somebody wants to we
could provide some sort of point system
to incentivize it if we want it in some
sort of trade-off versus other aesthetic
standards if we once we start going down
that road later u but as a blanket
requirement it's it's I think it's I
think it's the most expensive aesthetic
requirement we've got
>> just wanted to clarify by one thing. Um
on the to project um there is a step
back after the second floor. So with the
material changes, there is a step back.
So you go up and then you step back for
the rest of your story. So you lo you
actually lose more square footage, but
that's what is technically more feasible
for folks to do it that way because and
and that's a typical podium style. So
you get your podium and then you have a
narrower um footprint for the upper
floors. So just wanted to make sure that
everyone um what council gave as part of
the housing cooperative agreement was um
the requirement to lower that step back
on the where the material changes
instead of at the upper floors. So the
requirements as they were written at the
time were you have to have it at the
upper floors but the proposal in front
of you today that PPC has recommended is
to provide that flexibility. If someone
chooses to put it at the upper floor
albeit at a more expensive uh you know
cost but if they want to design it as a
penthouse or whatever they can do that
and have a terrace on the upper floor or
they can do it uh at the lower uh where
you actually so it gives them more
flexibility where they want to choose.
To be clear, my my suggestion is to
remove it entirely as
>> Sure. Sure. Sure. But you just wanted to
clarify the to example that it does have
a step back the proposed design.
>> Understood. I'm I'm suggesting we remove
it as a requirement. If someone wants to
add it in that that is still a
possibility.
>> Yeah. because the the point of it there
being a step back required even at the
second floor um on the TOD project is
that we're losing affordable housing um
or at least square footage if not full
units by having that as a requirement.
And so I guess uh the I've heard pretty
clearly that we like the idea of having
an aesthetic or you know whatever menu
option. Um
and
potentially that there's the idea of
suggesting that this but here's the
thing. If this doesn't move forward to
council, then what we have is we're
stuck with the bad option
until we get to the aesthetic stuff.
>> Well, is it really that bad? I mean,
we've got a couple months of a a step
back hole, per se. Are we really going
to get something? Yeah, but at the same
time, if they've already made a change,
if they've already written it up and
gone through all of the process,
it it would be worse for us to not get
it adopted for a few months.
>> Why? because then anybody that wants to
come in with a building project that
would pencil if they did a step back at
floor two but doesn't pencil wherever it
is now at floor five um
would have to wait
>> to wait if we just remove it as a
requirement they could just do it
>> well but can we remove it as a
requirement because what we're reviewing
right now is proposed changes. Correct.
If we were going to remove stepbacks
entirely as a requirement, I assume that
would have to go back to PPC, do a
public hearing. No.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> You can you can make a different
recommendation than the planning policy
commission made and still move it
forward to council.
>> Okay. So, you're suggesting the
recommendation is strike everything
about stepbacks.
>> That's my recommendation. Yeah.
Deputy Council President.
>> Yeah, I mean I think that's probably
fine. Um and then I think, you know, we
can revisit it all when we do the
architectural standards.
Um I will also say I did look on the map
of where the mixeduse district is and
it's basically Gilman Boulevard east of
Front Street, which is there's not much
stuff going on there. So or not not much
new development that I've seen in recent
times.
So I think my preference would be to
move this forward to council um with
this change and bring up the concept of
hey the direction that PD is moving is
this idea of
you know what is what is the concept
there um architectural design standards
menu of options. Um, so moving this
forward in the meantime, but we intend
to take stepbacks into that bucket of
things and just get kind of a touch
point with council.
>> Then we'd have to go back and take it
out again though. If we if we add this
into an architectural review, we'd have
to go back and we have to have to go
through all this process again to remove
it.
>> So there are there are two options here.
Mhm.
>> One is that you can move this forward to
city council and say we propose to our
recommendation is to remove there step
back requirement across the board.
Period. No stepbacks in the city. And
then if you want us to we can go back
and call these architectural details and
include it in that as a separate
amendment. The other one is to not move
this forward to council. And then yes,
as you mentioned, the existing stepbacks
that are in place would remain there
until the set next round of amendments
comes through when we look at
architectural standards.
>> I don't want to wait.
>> Well, and both of those recommendation
or both of those options that you've
said, it's different from the
recommendation that the administration
proposed which was adopt these and then
discuss architectural design standards
later. So
>> yeah, but we can definitely when we do
the architectural design standards so
and start that conversation with
planning and policy commission we'll
obviously ask this as a policy question
now that we have all of this laid out
architectural options vertical
modulation shading this that and the
other and stepbacks is in a separate
place should that remain or should that
completely come out so it won't be
addition you know we can pose that as a
policy question and go through that that
motion of uh seeing it in with the menu
of options at that time. Regardless of
what your recommendation today is to
full counsel, whether you want to strike
it out or you want to keep it, we can
we'll certainly
pose that as a policy question with PPC
during the architectural design
standards. The the trick part there is
that you have five different styles that
someone can choose from and stepbacks
may not make more sense in the
Renaissance Revival style. for instance,
you know, it's it's it's a different
style that maybe stepbacks don't
necessarily play a a role into. So, so I
think some conversation with the
architectural standards is warranted and
we will we will have that with PPC. Um
this fixes the interim thing uh that the
developers have been asking uh
immediately and that's why we prioritize
this as the top two issues. we had
already given this flexibility to to it
extends that flexibility to the rest of
the development if that comes in during
that time period. So that's pros and
cons for you to debate.
>> Yeah. And I think my thought process on
why including it in now and then taking
it out later is both that it fixes fixes
some of it in the interim and may make
some projects pencil, but also I would
imagine we would be removing other
requirements and putting them into this
bucket of standards at the same time.
So, I don't I I think this in some ways
signals there are other things that um
could be into an options list.
>> I'm not tied hugely to this. Again, I
don't think this is a big area of the
city um of this. That's one of the
reasons why I'm looking at this and
going I feel pretty comfortable moving
that forward with the idea that
architectural and design standards, you
know, is a bigger area of allowing some
flexibility for builders while still
achieving the aesthetic standards that
our community wants.
>> Yeah. And uh one other thing I want to
point out, I mean it does strike out
next to the natural context area. So
that's no longer part of it. Um so if
this gets adopted as is with the what
PPC is recommending right now. So the
that goes away next to the natural
context areas. You have it there's
consist you the multiple step back
requirement goes away. You only have to
do one. You have the flexibility and
then you um the language between the
Northwest contemporary style and
everywhere. You know that's consistent.
So, um, there's some benefit to to
eliminating some requirements, having
them consistent, eliminating multiple
stepbacks.
>> So, and I and I also pulled up the
natural context map because right now,
if we strike if we strike the stepbacks
from the natural context areas and look
at the map,
part of this, which if you go down um
12th Avenue Northwest and Gilman, much
of that is Rally, who falls under a
different development agreement anyway,
not these standards. And then you have
Gilman. Uh much of which is outside of
central Isiqua. Um
and that's about it. There aren't many
areas if we strike it just from the
natural context area that we're
>> Yeah. But I'm that's why that's one of
the reasons I would like to remove it
from the other areas as well which is
urban core and mixed use and mixed use
central Isqua because I agree this isn't
>> this this doesn't make much of a
difference.
>> Deputy Council President, any thoughts
here? I mean, I'm fine with it as it's
proposed now and I think we can revisit
the architectural standards when the
time comes.
Okay. So two to three kind of moving it
forward as an idea and I would use the
meeting with the council as kind of a
time to kind of introduce hey we're
moving this forward but the idea of
architectural and design standards
options is um coming.
>> Yeah. And and once again, I would it
would be helpful for at least me because
I'm going to try to propose something to
have this presented as as a bookend to
just remove them. Um so if you can come
up with that in advance, that would that
would help. Um and I'd like to have that
conversation at least.
>> You're saying at council on June 29th or
when the architectural design standards
conversation happens?
>> I think I'd like to have it at council.
I mean, you can certainly make an
amendment or, you know, a a motion to
strike, but I think what we're saying is
that we've got two out of the three PTE
members suggesting it move forward.
>> I could also note that next on the
agenda is talking about the outcomes
that and that could be included in that
as well. So the step back shifts down to
the architectural standards in the next
discussion and then that's the way it'll
happen.
>> We're we're using the the proposed uh
the uh goals and desired outcomes as our
that that's those are our marching
orders. So if you all decide to remove
stepbacks as a separate item how it is
currently presented on there and just
mix it in with the architectural
standards, that's what we will do. So it
sounds like you asking for bookends to
say this is what we're proposing now,
but here's what we want to come later.
But if you just put it into this chart,
that's the way it's going to happen.
>> Okay. And we'll talk about that when
that comes up because I think there was
stuff in there that
>> tried to suggest that. But yeah.
Okay. So um looking back at the
presentation
okay so this was all of the stepbacks
um do you have what you need from us
from stepbacks? Yes. As I understand it
the recommendation is to move forward as
presented in the PowerPoint and that's
it. And then as we know we will talk
about this later with architectural
standards. Okay.
>> Yep. Okay. and then outdoor amenity
spaces.
Um so the big change I mean there's
several changes here of moving
uh removing the requirement for
buildings less than nine units changing
to
you know only 30% of the units must
provide
outdoor individual private outdoor
amenity space. um all of that and
all of those pieces. Any feedback?
So, you're good with it as proposed?
>> Um I guess I'm still not totally bought
into this concept that we need this
additional 400 square ft of indoor or
outdoor common amenity area for, you
know, 22 plus units in central Isqua. I
mean, it's just not that much relative
to, you know, it's like if it's a 22
unit property, you go from 2200 ft² to
2600 ft² needed. If it's a, you know,
100 units, you go from 10,000 to 10,400
ft² needed. So, I don't know. I I'm not
really
I'm not really understanding what the
necessity of that common amenity space
is. And I think, you know, I mean, it's
been interesting because I've talked to
some owners of, you know, older
apartment complexes and they're like,
"Well, we can't charge as much as the
ones with fancy new amenities because we
don't have them." And so, you know, if
there are
groups out there that want to build
lower cost
buildings that have less, you know,
indoor common amenities. They don't have
an indoor pool. They don't have an
indoor co-working space. They don't have
an indoor, you know, movie theater for
their residents. But then it costs less
for rent. I don't see why we should be
like requiring that.
I think I'm ending up at the same area.
Uh maybe there's an argument to be made
that some of the
common minimum common amenity space
could be indoor or outdoor, but that
takes it a step further.
I think on the other side like this is
not one of the things that I think
anybody identified is really costing.
We have we have this long list of things
that do cost a lot that we know about. I
don't think this is one that came up.
>> That's fair.
>> Okay. Well, maybe we'll see if we hear
sorry see if we hear anything from um
anybody any of the builders after we
mention this.
So other than that good to move forward.
Excuse me.
Okay. Was there anything else that then
you needed from us?
>> No. Just uh right now I just want to
confirm no changes.
>> No changes to amenity space.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> And I would presume this is not going on
consent.
>> I would presume that.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Two of three down.
Um, com 0283
updates to goals and outcomes presented
by director Dollywal, community planning
and development director.
>> Good evening everyone. Um, so this is
the second time with this um, goals and
outcomes chart. Um, and thank you for
all the feedback that we received from
um, a good conversation we had at the
last meeting. I really don't have a
presentation for this one. Uh the
purpose of this uh on the agenda is just
to make sure I captured all the comments
uh if there's anything missing uh or
anything that you thought of since the
last meeting that we should add into um
this chart. The purpose of this chart is
really to be the north arrow for
planning and policy commission to use it
as a guide tool so that when they vet
out these um amendments what comes to
you they they they already know what
you're thinking um what you want them to
evaluate and go into more depth and do
more research and analysis on it. So
that that's that's the purpose of this
thing and we hope um we it'll be a good
tool for them uh as well as council as
we bring things forward.
Okay. So
I think looking over the sheet I'm
seeing most of what we talked about. I
think you did bring up with the stepback
requirements which is topic number two
on the list. the you know our goal and
objective says
have a context of a menu of other design
options for overall visual interest
recognizing the architectural interest
may be achieved via different methods.
So that goal and objective almost
negates the concept that stepX should be
a requirement. Um so is
based on this additional conversation
what you mentioned earlier does it make
sense to remove stepback requirements
as its own topic and move
that under um architectural design
standards.
>> Yeah. You know the uh the issue with
these two items was we had already
started this work through the planning
and policy commission before we had the
goals outcome conversation with you all.
So it's caught between that uh a little
bit but moving all of this uh you know
making sure that in the other
architectural element
uh which is uh where are we?
>> Yes, number eight.
>> Number eight. Yeah. So I think moving
some of that language down to here um to
say also evaluate um stepbacks as a menu
of options instead of a standalone
requirement. Um so we can move some of
that language here. So as as that number
eight goes forward then we'll we can
like Kristen said we would come back and
if pose that as a policy question do you
want to eliminate this from these other
we've already eliminated from natural
context but you also want to eliminate
it from these two other areas. One is in
particular architectural style the other
one is an overall building design
and just have it under the different um
architectural style discussions.
So stepbacks may not make sense for one
particular type of a style for instance
uh and that's okay type of a
conversation.
>> Yeah. So I think we this update to the
document does a good job of capturing
the concept that we want to group
stepbacks with other modulation
articulation
um to achieve overall visual interest.
Um,
do we feel like that is enough since
again we are building the ship while
we're flying the plane? Um, or do we
feel like we need to make specific
changes
so that this goals and outcomes chart
doesn't come back to bite us on the
butt? Deputy council president,
>> I would say other menu of other menu of
design options. We should probably name
what some of them are, right? because I
don't I don't want it to only be, you
know, different types of facade
modulation, which we've heard are tend
to be more expensive. I think, you know,
things like, you know, higher quality
building materials, decorations,
ornamentation,
um, art, etc., like having all of those
different types of things. You could
even get, you know, points for like
retaining really large trees or
whatever. But I do think it's like we
want to incentivize people to do things
that make their buildings look good and
while not, you know, having such
stringent requirements that every
building ends up looking exactly the
same, which is actually the opposite of
what we want. And I I do think um
overall visual interest I I think part
of what I'm trying to get at is you know
have more you know diversity of what
types of buildings can get built.
So agree with that feedback. I think the
question I'm trying to pose here is do
we feel with that feedback being given
to CPD, do we feel comfortable adopting
or are we even adopting the goals and
outcomes chart or at least like
checkboxing it off or do we feel like it
needs is this a living document and we
tell you you know two changes and you
make it etc.
Um I don't know if the formal adoption
is needed. Um but I think if you agree I
mean it's it could become a living
document but we also don't want it to
change too often because we'll be in the
middle of so this is our chance now to
say okay here's what we know today and
here's what we think the goals and
outcomes would be.
>> City administrator Bob Quitz
>> and I think your colleagues would be
anxious to see the work product. So if
you feel it's at the point where it can
be shared, uh I don't think adoption is
necessarily needed, but certainly I
would we could either put it on consent
or you could uh we could put it in the
packet and you could refer to it as a
committee report um just to share with
your colleagues. I mean I think the work
the committee's done, the staff's done
been really great and this is a real
central point of the the council's work
plan over the next couple years. So I
don't think I think there's need for
adoption. But if you feel it's at a
point this evening that it can be more
widely shared, then we can perhap we can
we can talk with you offline and decide
if it's a consent item or just
distributed otherwise.
>> Yeah. Okay. Then I think my preference
if it's at the point of being shared to
council is um I'm comfortable with
keeping stepback requirements as
adjusted in this because it does very
much mention
um this as a menu of options. But I
think I agree with Deputy Council
President Jiang that um the
architectural design standards piece
should include more options listed there
as far as like just details of where
we're going with that to suggest that
it's not only going to include stepbacks
but other modulation materials etc. um
that could satisfy the visual interest
need and I'm seeing both of you.
Okay. Uh Council Member Nichols,
I I think what would better reflect what
we're get getting at is moving group
stepbacks with modulation and other um
menu of design options to achieve visual
interest from a possible action to a
goal.
I think we're saying that's a goal. Is
that correct?
Yeah, I agree with that.
>> Oh, so under possible
>> right right now we have stepbacks are
are
basically a thing that is is stated as
an independently good thing in itself.
Um and then we have some issues with
those and then we have some goals about
them. We could say one of our goals for
stepbacks as far from a policy
perspective is to not have them be this
independent category, but to be one of
many things that are options that could
be picked
instead of the possible actions for
setbacks that becomes the goal for
setbacks,
which is what I was getting with that my
concerns around timing is that I'm I'm
worried that it'll it'll be hard to
remove them as an independently
required thing. um which is why I wanted
to just remove them all now um and come
back later. If we can say as a goal, one
of our goals is to remove them as an
independently required thing and to put
them with architectural standards that
could be paid for essentially um as a
cost. Uh that's I think that's basically
what we've been saying
>> and then maybe that u goal moves to the
architectural standard. So group
setbacks with modular modulation
articulation. Then given where we are
today and that if you all are okay with
having that conversation as part of
number eight, we would move the possible
action from stepbacks to a goal under
architectural standards.
>> I am going I'm going a little further
than that. I'm I'm saying a goal for
stepbacks is to remove it is to move
them which is which is a little further
than saying one of the goals for
architectural standards is to have these
in.
>> Yeah. So the goal right now as written
for stepbacks says reduce multiple
stepbacks while still achieving the
overall goal of architectural interest
along the public realm. Which as you
said if what we are really doing here is
saying our goal is to remove stepbacks
as a standalone requirement and instead
include them as a part of a menu of
options for modulation. So does that
meet
the intent there?
>> Yeah, if I think that the simple move is
move
move the goal that was added to possible
actions which is a good good one which
is group stepbacks with modulation etc
from possible actions into goals for
stepbacks.
Okay. I think there's probably more work
on the goals, objectives, and possible
actions to align it with our intent
because it says things like eliminate
multiple stepback requirements when
really we're going in a um further
direction. But are you uh deputy council
president Chang?
Yeah, I would say I mean I I think where
probably the goal might need to be
addressed is like in the architectural
and design standards aspect. Maybe part
of the goal is to you know remove
excessive requirements and replace it
with flexibility in design standards
including stepbacks or something like
that. Um because I think you know with
stepbacks with the narrowly defined goal
I think we have a policy that gets at
that but I want to make sure that you
know we have in the record that we're
going to take another look back at all
of that in the architectural design
standards.
>> Sure. So we can capture both all of that
feedback under the setbacks we can you
know to council member um Nichols point
we can move the group setbacks into from
the possible action to the goals and
then add a line saying this this will be
val you know look this goal should also
be looked at as part of number eight
down below and then repeat that same
goal under number eight.
>> Yeah. Yep. And then I also heard under
number eight including maybe a list of
some examples um and the idea that we
recognize that certain architectural
requirements add significant cost to
projects and we want to provide the
flexibility of options.
>> Yes, we'll make that under number eight.
Um, one area that I don't see on here
that, um, I don't know if it's too late
to add another item on here, but um, the
vesting question of, you know, should,
you know, what is the time point at
which, um, developments should vest and
I think having a discussion about like
what the implications are of doing it in
different ways, I think is helpful for
us to understand. Um, so I don't know if
we can add that
>> toward that idea. Maybe a much like we
had with the um title 18 whiteboard,
which were things that we had decided
not to include into this update because
this is a very ambitious 2-year update.
um just a concept of, hey, here's the
items that are still listed there that
still have interest from the community,
but which we're maybe not committing to
doing within a 2-year time period. Maybe
with a reason why um or maybe just with
um a time period. Now, I'm saying that
is another option that does not negate
the idea of bringing this up. So, to
respond to that vesting time period,
what are you thinking? Um yeah, I mean
you're absolutely right. It's an
ambitious work plan council
and the discussion that happened to
include these seven 17 uh we want to get
these done. Um and what if we accomplish
and we finish these then the second
round the second phase could include
whatever else council puts on our work
plan. That that would be our
recommendation. uh in terms of uh the
actual vesting problems issues. Um
you so it it it's a legal question a lot
of times um what we see actually
happening in SOQUA's context a lot of
these areas are under development
agreements that are vested to the
regulations that are under the
development agreement for a long period
of time. So if you parse those areas
out, you know, so what's left is central
Isiqua and other places. Um people want
to use the newer code because they we've
kind of streamlined of so many different
things. Um so procedurally they're not
there's no vesting. It's just to the
standards. So any of those plats that we
have processed, the final plat is an
administrative check. You've done these
things and you you get this. There's no
public hearing in that process because
it's a technical check. A lot of our
plat applicants are really thankful that
we did that. So what we're seeing in the
on the ground is people like the newer
code and they want to go with the new at
least the process and procedures into
the new code. The letter that you
received today and the feedback from the
development community is that shity that
when they apply their land use
application that they can get their um
they know that they have to comply with
these things. the building code, the
storm water code, those are the big
ticket items for development and those
usually do vest at the time of the
building permit application. Your land
use regulations,
policy choices that you all make for uh
the community. Um there's never an
intent to pull the rug from anyone's
feet. Um and it just means um we are at
a point here where we had the old code,
we had a title 18 update and then we're
you know still have a few projects that
are lingering on. There may come a time
when all of that is all cleaned up and
then the the policy discussion about
when should the vesting occur can would
be the right time. Uh I think it's a
little bit messier at this point given
what we've got in our hopper from the
old code, new code and all that kind of
stuff. Um, and we have more um, clearer
guidance of if you get your land use
application, how many years do you have
to apply for your building permit? We
didn't have that sort of stuff under the
old code. Uh, the state law on plats is
you get your preliminary plat approval,
you have five years to get your final
plat, and then you have 10 years to
build your homes under that plat or the
vesting goes away. So, it gets nuanced
really based on what what people are
trying to do. uh it's not going to be
quick and easy. Let's just give this
sort of a so it'll take some time. Um
but our recommendation would be to do it
in phase two like uh council member
Walsh said you know we'll maintain a
list of other interested things that
come up throughout this process because
once we get into the nitty-gritty
details with the other ones there's
going to be other things that will come
up so we can maintain a side we'll have
to come up with a different name than
white.
>> Yeah. What was it? Uh, bike parking lot
at one point. Yep.
>> Bike rack. Yep. Uh, Council Member
Nichols.
>> Yeah. When we do start looking at that,
um, I I appreciate everything you're
saying. I I also keep hearing
consistently from our home builder
community that this is something that
they they disagree with essentially. Um,
so they have a different perspective and
that it is more important. Um it would
be helpful to understand what
neighboring jurisdictions do in this
with regard to concurrent vesting if
that's what it would be called. Um to in
part to understand if we're putting
ourselves at a competitive disadvantage
um what expectations are otherwise etc.
Again in the context of this is a
consistent thing that we've heard from
many home builders multiple times as one
of their higher priority things as well.
>> Sure.
Okay. So, we've heard the idea of
creating, you know, or adding to this
with a future
future ideas list and adding vesting to
that. Um, and a request for information
on what other communities are doing,
whether this puts us at disadvantage,
etc. Um, we gave you the feedback on the
stepback requirements and the
architectural and design standards
section. Um,
do we feel like this needs to come back
to us before it goes to council or do we
feel like our feedback is clear?
Go ahead.
>> I I don't think more debate's going to
change much.
Yeah, I agree. I think it's fine to
share it with the whole council. And I
think, you know, especially as we're
presenting the first two code changes on
the 29th. I think it would be good for
this to, you know, kind of be the
framing for those two.
>> Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure
that nobody felt like they needed to see
it and give a check mark on it before it
went on. Um, I think you've done a great
job, you know, taking in our feedback
and obviously we all emailed um with
ideas. So, I guess no real action here,
but recommending that this these this
get updated and included maybe in the
presentation um or the conversation on
the June 29th if you feel like that's
appropriate.
>> Okay, great.
Um,
I think that's our that's our meeting,
guys. Um, do you have everything that
you need from us?
>> We do. Thank you for your time.
>> Excellent. Uh, do my fellow committee
members have any announcements?
Nope. Okay. Our next committee meeting
is July 7th, 2026. There being no
further business, meeting is adjourned
at 7:57 p.m.