Okay. So, what time is it?
>> We're in 7:12.
>> We're ready to go.
>> We are ready whenever. Is Tim still up
there?
>> Tim up there.
>> Okay. I thought I said Tim.
Oh, now I'm the one that's late. All
right. Well, good evening everyone.
Thank you for joining us. We are getting
on to our second meeting of the evening
and this is for the Planning Policy
Commission. We're going to call this
meeting to order and it currently is
7:13
p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
planning policy commission is in person,
but we may have staff members or part of
the public joining us virtually.
Kristen, do we have a quorum this
evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Okay. And I just like to take a moment
to introduce our commission to our
newest member, um, Commissioner Brett
Holstrm.
So, uh, Brett, you want to say a few
words?
>> Happy to be here. Lots to learn,
including where this meeting takes
place. So, I feel, uh, a little more
experienced already at this point, but,
uh, yeah, I'm looking forward to meeting
and working with everybody and offering
any insight I can. So, happy to be here.
>> Great. Happy to have you. All right,
we're going to move on to the approval
of minutes. You had some amendments in
your agenda packet and this is for the
April 9th PPC meeting. Does anybody have
any comments or anything they'd like to
point out about those minutes?
Mine's not technical. I'm just going to
bring it up especially after our last
meeting. I come across as pretty harsh
on page three of 30. So for our
recorder, it says chair voice stated
that isqua has hit its housing targets
and asked why there's a push for
development. I I think it was a little
bit more nuanced than that.
Um so again, I'm not going to ask for
anything formal, but just to let the
record show, I think there was a little
bit more to it than that. Okay.
So, having said that, those meeting
minutes are approved. We set aside this
time for general public comment. Um is
there anyone in the audience this
evening who would like to make comment?
All right, Carl.
>> Yes, please come pay back.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Hello, uh, commissioners. Carl Sharet,
Avalon Bay Communities. Nice to see you
again. Uh, I have a public comment about
the proposed required amenity spaces for
residential uses. Um,
in layman's terms, as I understand it,
we had made a recommendation that there
be an evaluation of the minimum common
outdoor amenity space, effectively
balconies, and or sorry, that was the
minimum common outdoor amenity space.
Um, the private outdoor amenity space.
We' made a recommendation to reduce that
amount, the amount of required balconies
per building effectively. Uh, I believe
that it landed that there is a minimum
common outdoor amenity space of 100
square feet per unit plus an additional
48 square ft for any units without
private open space. I take objection to
the plus additional 48 ft for any units
without private open space. As I
understand that's the same um the same
amount that would have existed
previously if we had have requested a
variance under the city. So effectively
this is just documenting what we would
have otherwise been able to secure via a
variance and it doesn't help incentivize
development at this stage. Um happy to
debate the the merits of balconies. I'm
thinking of this via uh the challenge in
central Isco in particular of providing
this additional private open space or
additional um common outdoor amenity
space. I would also add specifically the
project I'm looking at um the trail head
project is directly across the street
from a public park. We believe that
that's a valuable area that our
residents will use in addition to the
private uh in addition to the got to get
this right common outdoor amenity space
that we do provide on site as well. Um
so the additional 48 square ft for any
units without private open space is
challenging for us to accommodate adds
cost to the development and um will
disincentivize investment in the
community. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you Carl.
Are there anyone? Is there anyone else
that would like to speak? Amanda Blake
looked lots of sharings here.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. We're going to move along to
our regular business this evening and
tonight. This is the title 18 promoting
building investment code amendments,
building stepback and multif family
amenity space requirements in central
Isiqua.
Um, let's see.
We're going to discuss the proposed code
amendments to upper level building
stepbacks and multif family amenity
space requirements. Kristen Leon, our
planning manager, is presenting this
evening. So, Kristen, please go ahead.
Hello again. I'm Kristen Leon, planning
manager.
Let's see.
Hope you all are enjoying pizza. Still
lots left.
Okay.
So, we're going to start with stepbacks
tonight and then move on to the amenity
space. So, as we talked about last time,
the stepbacks are intended to sort of
create a pedestrian more pedestrian
friendly atmosphere and remove any
canyon effects that might happen with,
you know, taller eight-story buildings
with no stepbacks.
Um, during our April 9th discussion, we
tal there were several questions that
were asked of you all. Um, do you want
to eliminate the requirement for
multiple stepbacks? Yes, indeed you do.
Um, do you want to eliminate stepbacks
along natural context areas? again
because there are so many environmental
regulations that are already in place.
You said yes, we don't see a reason to
keep the stepbacks there. Do you want to
provide flexibility in the location of
the stepbacks either above the six story
or where construction materials change?
And you generally agreed and wanted to
provide flexibility including just
stepbacks on you want to see stepbacks
on lower floors at location or or at the
location where concrete podium style
construction ends and where there or
where are there there are construction
material changes and so it could be um
so the um I'm just going to keep going.
Did you want to require a certain depth
for setbacks? And no spec no specific
depth was identified but so there should
be a minimum. We just didn't discuss it
but there was agreement on removing the
existing requirements that the stepback
provide usable open space and that there
be a maximum. Right now the minimum is
5T and the maximum is 20T. He said
there's no reason to do that. It's kind
of up to it's like parking. they're
going to do what they want to do as far
back. Um, also we discussed creating an
option for stepbacks to count as o as
usable open space which is um an option
for us to look at as well.
Lastly, there we go. Should the stepback
be continuous on all sides of the
building or should it just be along
streets? And if it's along just you know
public streets, should it be in cover
all 100% or can it be less? the
agreement last week and you guys can
correct me if we're wrong. Uh the
agreement we as we understood it last
week was yes, these should really be
only required on street frontages and
um there could be a possibility to have
less than 100% all the way across.
So um one thing that I want to mention,
it's not in here. I should have put I
meant to put it in here. Just a
reminder, we're only talking about
central isqua. There is another section
in the code that requires stepbacks.
There are certain things that you have
to do if you want to go up to 50 feet,
certain things that you have to go, you
know, if you want to go 65 and then up
to 85 because those are outside of in
central Isaqua. We're not addressing
those right now. Maybe at a later date,
but not now. So, I just wanted to let
you guys know that that is also out
there and potentially a future
amendment. Just looking at central right
now.
Okay. So our first proposal is
um just this is the natural context
areas and it's just to just remove all
discussion and requirements for
stepbacks there.
And again we are going to talk about
next uh natural context areas at another
point. There's more that goes to that
but at least that part is is gone if you
like it.
Do it all the time.
Um, next is that
so it already says we don't have that
they don't have to comply. Um, all
street facing facades for buildings six
stories or higher must include stepbacks
for buildings. Those stepbacks can begin
by the second floor. So right above the
first floor or at the sixth floor, so
right above the fifth floor. Anywhere in
there they can start. It may be where
they, you know, maybe a a five over
three. You want to do it on the third
floor. It may be a five over two and you
want to do it over the second, but just
somewhere in there is the proposal right
now. We remove the piece about
incorporating terraces and usable space
and remove the pieces remove the piece
about um four or fewer floors because if
you can go all the way to the sixth
floor, there's really no point in
requiring or wait this is about they
can't incorporate more than one. Anyway,
didn't make sense. If they want to
incorporate more than one, there's not a
problem with that. So uh again the
Northwest contemporary style uh provided
the same rules there. Um and then
they sh it's the same thing. They shall
begin by uh floor six but can begin at
floor two.
Okay. Any questions about those? Yes.
>> Jason I can sleep. So
>> just making sure trying to follow rules
around here. uh how do we land on six
stories for kind of that um I guess
minimum
>> um it was based on a study that was done
several years ago for the title 18
update and was proposed it was uh
research from other cities and what they
do um that's that's where it came from.
>> Sounds good. I think the only reason I
would ask is I know our concern last
week or last meeting when we brought
this up was kind of the canyon effect. I
was trying to envision you know six
stories is pretty high. I can't think of
too many buildings in Isiqua that reach
that much. Obviously, central Isqua,
we're looking at new different growth
than development, but I guess for the
commission, like are we comfortable with
six? Like, does that seem like a
reasonable height to start?
>> And and this isn't baked, so this is
your opportunity to say, "Hey, we all
agree it should be lower."
>> Yeah,
>> whatever.
>> Um, yeah. So, one thing I was going to
say is maybe Kristen, you could call on
everyone because I have I can't see.
>> What do you
>> I In fact, I miss Kate and my thank you
apology. So, I Yeah, I'm just I like I
said, I'm focused on the presentation on
you, so I'm missing people when they're
putting their hands up.
>> Yeah, I'll I'll do it. Okay. Okay. So,
yeah, I believe actually Commissioner
Oler raised his hand at the same time as
Commission. It's kind of a weird
question, but say say you have a setback
that that begins on the second floor and
that setback occurs. You have a
six-story building. You have a setback
at the second floor that goes up two
floors. There's nothing really
preventing the developer then from
cantalvering the last two upper floors.
>> Oh, you mean like over?
>> Yeah. Back again. In other words, taking
the setback away once you reason it.
It's more expensive, but it also adds
square footage, and that may be a
trade-off that the developer would be
interested.
>> But you're right. I see what you're
saying. And there was one code that said
all floors at this floor and all floors
above. So, if that's something that you
want to include, you could do that so
that they can't come back and can leave
over the first floor.
>> Well, I I don't know know what I don't
even know what my opinion on that is,
but I I I think it's something that we
should be prepared to address in case it
comes up.
>> Yeah. which we'd like to nip it in the
bud now if we think it's going to be an
issue rather than having to come back
and amend again.
>> Right.
>> Oh, sorry. I forgot to say it.
Commissioner Matthews, I'm used to you
doing it.
>> Um, off of what Vice Chair said about
the six stories, just for comparison,
how do you know how tall the Atlas
apartments are and the the veil I think
is right next to five stories.
>> They're five stories.
>> Okay. Thank you. They are. I will note
that most of those are set back. They're
set back a little bit further except
along Seventh. They're set back a little
bit further from Gilman.
So, I don't know if that makes a
difference.
>> No, it's it's because I've been by those
buildings. So, I was just trying to
compare for since he said 16 tall. I was
just trying to in my mind picture what
it was like. Thank you.
>> Welcome. Uh, Commissioner Crass. So let
me So if if it change it's going to be a
podium. If it's six story you're not
going to be able to do wood six stories.
So that means probably two stories are
cement by definition then they'd have to
have a step back before six stories. So
even so was Jesse was your question. You
still may have a sixtory straight up but
I think it would it would probably have
to just because they can't construct
some unless you do a cement building for
six stories which they're not going to
do.
Yeah.
>> Six stories.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Uh yes. I was
>> uh just my opinion is I kind of agree
with me. Uh Jesse, sorry not to use your
last name, but it's okay. Uh
Commissioner Jesse, uh that 16 stories
feels a little tall to be starting it.
Uh maybe four stories might be more
appropriate. And also the I do think
it's good to note the what commissioner
Oler said about the canal lever. We
could have something that it should be
that all the way up. That's my opinion.
Thanks.
>> Okay.
Can we take an anybody else? Can we take
an informal vote on the first would be
the four stories and the second would be
the making sure that they all remain
back.
Sorry, I'm taking the chair's role right
now.
>> No, no, not at all. I was just going to
ask is the second option was what?
>> The second option is uh Commissioner
Oler talked about how you could step
back, go up for maybe three stories and
then come back out over toward Canver
over there. Yeah.
>> So,
>> um you're two separate questions I
suppose. So,
>> yes, they are two separate questions and
then Commissioner Adair.
Oh, just to expound on my point a little
further, I just think if the point of
this is to prevent a canyon effect, then
having a cantalvered building would not
prevent that effectively. So, it would
nullify the point of the code in the
first place. And then the second, again,
I I believe that a sixtory would cast a
significant shadow, which is why I'm
suggesting something lower, but I'm open
to debate on that. I'm not married to
it.
>> I I'll try and take my role back. Let's
see. Let's see how it goes. Okay. Um,
great point, Commissioner there. Uh, so
question one is, should it start at four
and then go up? What's everybody feel?
>> Or lower.
>> Or lower, but four being the maximum.
Then you have to have a step back. I
like that because we're not going to
have that many six-story buildings.
>> You may have it lower.
>> You can have it lower, but you have to
by four.
>> We have We have consensus.
>> We have consensus. All right. And then
the second question being the
cantaliever question. Um to Commissioner
Dar's point kind of negates the whole
idea we've been talking about which is
the canyon effect. Do we want to nip
that in the bud? Do we want to discuss
that further? I mean now is kind of the
time.
>> Yes. Yeah. Absolutely.
>> So if I'm understanding this correctly,
it would be like um you know wall for
three stories. It would cut in for a
story and then go back to like wall. Um,
I think because it my understanding of
the stepbacks is it's mostly design
aesthetic. Like it's to prevent the
canyon effect. It's to make it look more
visually attractive, if you will, from a
curbside appeal. I'm I think I'm in
favor of that, allowing that, I guess.
Um, because the it allows the
flexibility by still allowing square
footage to be so, you know, you're not
taking square footage away all the way
up the building. It's just that you're
keeping the design aesthetic while still
allowing the developer to, you know,
capitalize on going up and uh maximizing
that square footage um ability.
>> That's interesting. So, the idea would
they'd still have to be within the
original footprint of the lower floors,
but they could come back to
>> they couldn't extend beyond the first
floor. I think I think you could sell me
on that all day long because especially
after talking to the developers and if
they're looking for more living space
>> question did we also talk about reducing
the there's no minimum
>> because there's still a five foot
minimum
>> correct there's no there's no minimum on
there right
>> so here's so here's how it could get
gamed someone just bring it in a little
bit they met met it then they go back
out and then they have their square
footage so I think there should be still
a minimum because if you take away the
minimum Then all it is it define a step
back. A step back could be very little
and all. So it doesn't meet the goals of
what we're trying to accomplish.
>> Commissioner.
>> Yeah. I think without a minimum you
could you could achieve a setback of six
inches by changing material on the
outside of the building and that's not
really what would that's not the
I would agree that a minimum is
necessary. I would also suggest that um
you know you could I I think coming back
out at higher levels to the original, it
sort of defeats the the purpose of not
creating a canyon. Um, and I think a
wedding cake appearance, tiered
appearance, is far more attractive than
something that cuts in and then bulks
out at at higher levels. But that to me
is an aesthetic question.
>> Commissioner Der Oh, sorry. Um, to the
first point. Yeah, I think if we're our
goal is to avoid a canyon effect, it
effectively nullifies that if we allow
it to go back. And then my second point
would be a suggestive minimum maybe of
six feet, 5 ft.
Commissioner Zacharov.
Yeah, I'm listening and I'm um what are
we trying to achieve here actually
because we just heard the whole
presentation about how hard it is to
build an insequent how many actually uh
hurdles we have for developers to
develop and we have some projects here
that are sitting for uh 10 years or
almost 10 years and at the very same
time we kind of to me we're right now
yeah we want we want things to be
beautiful but uh is it a good time for
things to be beautiful or or is it a
time for us to actually get at least
something built in the city? So let's to
my opinion let's try not to create more
hurdles with what we're doing now. So
yeah
>> so I guess informal vote who likes the
idea of getting rid of the canal lever
option.
>> Okay so that clearly wins there there's
that. So yeah, no, they can't
>> go back. And then as far as a minimum,
which Commissioner Dar brought up, I
think is a good point. I know we kind of
thought the idea of a maximum was silly,
but the minimum, and I think originally
we had the minimum at 5T.
>> Yes.
>> Do we just want to revert back to five
feet? I don't
Okay. Informal vote.
>> Okay. Five feet.
>> Sometimes we just need to talk about it.
Just need to flesh it out.
>> That's what we're here for.
>> That's what we're here for. got to talk
about it.
>> Uh, Commissioner Holstrom,
>> I will say even the difference between
like a 4 foot or 5 foot setback when you
multiply it by the width of the building
times another four. I mean, that's a
large space. That's a lot of square
footage, even just going from 4 foot to
5 foot, which will drive up the cost of
that building rather significantly. So,
I would just add it's not just
aesthetics, it's also
are they going to be able to build this
building or not. Um, one of the I mean,
I agree with that. I think we've also
framed it so it's only on certain
portions of the building. And don't
forget these buildings are going to be
there for 75 years. So, we are, you
know, once you build them, they will
stay. Um,
and uh and and then what's that?
>> No, I'm just saying. So I think there's
ways and the flexibility especially if
it if some of these things get to count
towards some of the other things like
their outdoor space then um it meets
some other objective that they may have
to manage around. So it may end up um
kind of balancing out.
>> We just heard a great presentation from
the developers who obviously have their
own point of view. Um, but it's also
important to remember we work real hard
on some of our designs and aesthetics
and it's we want to find that balance.
We don't want to throw the baby out with
the bathwater. Um, like to hear more
from developers because they are a stake
partner. They are partnered uh to this
and they're definitely a stakeholder but
again it's
you know also remember all of the other
meetings we had before people that are
concerned about environments to
Commissioner Dar's point the canyon
effect. So, it's it's it is a balance.
And to Commissioner Crass's point, these
buildings are going to be landmarks for
40 years.
So, 75,
I don't know who your developer is, but
commissioner Matthews,
>> I was actually just going to re sorry,
reiterate the fact that we're trying to
create a livable space for people. It's
not just a place for developers to make
money. We want to have a nice space
where people feel comfortable walking
down the streets. um which you don't
really see like if you go into Redmond
Town Center, it's not gorgeous. It's
like boom, you're going right down the
street. You really don't get a lot of
feeling uh from that area. So, I do
appreciate we live in a smaller town. We
do want to add more people, but we want
to make sure it's like a livable space
that we're creating for people.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Matthews. Yeah,
I couldn't agree more. Trying to strike
the balance.
Um, so again, I think you got those two
informal votes.
>> Yes, I do need to confirm and there will
be a minimum. Um, I do need to confirm
though that when we say at the fourth
floor, so here's your here's your face,
right? Here's your first floor, your
second floor, your third floor, your
fourth floor, your fifth floor. Is that
what you're talking about? Are you
talking about first floor, second floor,
third floor, fourth floor?
>> Wait, wait, wait. This is a West Coast,
East Coast thing,
>> right? Cuz the first floor is always on
the ground floor,
>> right? But I'm saying you're stacking
them, right? You've got your your first
floor through the third floor stay here.
>> Oh,
>> right. Do you want it to stop? Do you
want the setback to stop at the top of
the fourth or at the bottom of the
fourth?
>> Top.
>> Okay.
>> Top.
>> Or or if it's a podium style, wherever
that changes.
>> Well, and then typically if you do a
podium, it's going to be before below
the fourth.
Yes. So just wanted to be sure that you
know we're talking most of these would
come into play a podium style which
people want to build to the maximum
extent if based on the that type of uh
construction type. So at 75 ft becomes a
high-rise. So most of these buildings
are going to be below 75 ft. So it could
be three stories of concrete plus five
stories of wood frame if they can stay
within 75 ft. That's the type of uh
construction you're going to get. Now if
we say we are going to allow people to
do anywhere at two second story to top
of the fourth story chances are people
will do it at the second story because
that's where the material is changing.
You aren't going to get anyone stepping
back at fourth story because they would
lose leasable space for the top three
stories. So hence this recommendation of
going just for the top floor to step
that back. So if you go at the that
would be at the bottom of the
>> well I think in that instance it was at
the top of the fifth floor is what we
meant. I think with the sixth story was
at the where the fifth story ends. You
go back. If you do it at the fourth
story you may want it to put it in the
code but you nobody's going to do it.
That's just because they will just do it
at the second story because that's where
the material is changing.
>> Well, it has two different things going
on. If it's ch if if the step back
happens at the material change, it gives
you a different aesthetic. If it happens
at the top level, it gives you a
different aesthetic. What we've heard is
at the top level, it adds complexity for
plumbing, more beams, heavier things.
And so, um, but if someone wants to
build pen houses at the top floor and
have beautiful views, uh, looking
outside, they have the option under the
proposed amendments at this point. Um,
but putting it at the fourth story
likely is not going to be used because
you would lose for top three floors
would have to because they're not going
to go back, especially if we don't let
them come back and forth, right? And so
that would mean for the top three
stories,
you're losing leasable space. Just
wanted to make sure as you debate about
this that it's clear what what the
unintended consequence of this. And
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> I actually thought this was for cases
where they weren't changing the
materials at the second or like say it's
just a concrete building or just a wood
building, then we would require them to
set back at the fourth floor. But if
they were changing materials, we'd say
that's fine to set it back there. So
this is I thought that we were having
two different recommendations.
>> The intent is we want
we want stepbacks no matter what the
construction type. You want step backs
unless we're saying a different thing.
>> What we're saying we want to give people
flexibility. Right.
>> Right. If majority of people want to
change it to where the material changes
they can do that. If they want to do it
at the upper floor then they can do
that. If you say you have to do it where
the material changes, then if someone
wants to do it at the upper floor, you
they won't be allowed under a code.
>> Yeah. But they do you want I mean
nobody's going to do more than one uh
out of choice unless it's they really
believe in a good design, you know, a
design that can make projects pencil and
all those kind of things that we heard
tonight.
Commissioner Dear, would it be possible
to those ends then to say you can have a
step back when the material changes or
for the top floor provided your building
is, you know, we know what the height is
is it's capped at 75 ft. So that might
make it a little
more feasible for them. Is that kind of
what you're thinking? Well, right now it
says
um
for building six stories or higher shall
begin by the sixth floor by floor six.
So at the bottom of the sixth floor and
may begin as low as floor two. So the
bottom of floor two
commissioner. Yes, Commissioner Crass.
>> So we're not requiring them at podium at
material change based on what you just
said. It's
>> right. We're not requiring them. We're
giving them the option.
>> So, no one's no one's going to do it
until the the very top floor. And now we
still have caverns. So, it doesn't meet
the objective. You're going to have
fivetory buildings with a setback on the
last floor because that's they're going
to maximize why why would they do it any
lower if you don't require it?
>> Well, that's how the to project did.
They ended up ch doing it the step back
at where the material changes.
So yes, you lose leasable space for all
those floors, but for them it was
cheaper to do it that way or that's
their intent or you know they wanted to
do it at that material change. Um so the
language in front of you is giving
people options. It's not mandating that
you change it where the material
changes, but if they want to do it
there, they can do it there or they they
do it if we don't want to say at the
sixth floor. or we just want to say at
the top floor at the at the very the
>> we should we should set up expectations.
This is not going to reduce cavern
effect because I mean you could do that
that's fine
>> but it's not going to meet that
objective. It's a different objective
because if you go five stories and you
then pull in five feet on the sixth
floor it's still going to be a cavern.
So um unless you require something lower
you're not going to have any impact. So
if I look at what you're mentioning,
Redmond versus Mercer Island, which
seems to have more rules. I'm not sure
if they have more rules, but they seems
like they have more stepbacks, it has a
totally different feel. So it depends on
what our objective is. If our objective
is avoiding caverns, then I think you
have to be a little bit more firm. If
you want to add more flexibility, then I
think you just realize you're not going
to meet that objective. And that should
be just intentional.
>> Yeah. I mean a 5t step back at your
material change is still going to you
you're going to see that whole mass of
your building right the canyon effect by
a 5ft step back at a concrete podium is
is not a significant canyon effect
change that happens through lot of
modulation of the building facade and
breakdown of their own own things
um I think that there multiple
objectives here the canyon effect is not
the only objective. It's also to break
up the building block and the mass and
create a top to the building. So it's
just create, you know, different ways of
creating breaking up the mass of the
building and creating more um
>> so I think we should articulate our
>> go our objectives in priority order and
what we'll trade off for what and I
think that would be clear and then I
think maybe even review some other
examples and see how we feel about it
because especially if we're changing
>> our our objectives and the priorities
around them I think it's worth another
view of what meets those different
things because we may be all thinking
about it in a slightly different way.
>> So then it sounds like you all need to
have a revisit of the objectives here.
>> I'm looking at the chair. Do you want to
>> Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. I mean,
again, this seems like it got very
convoluted in the last five minutes. So,
um,
yeah, doesn't hurt to review more. It'd
be nice to see some examples, but six
stories again, I don't think you're
going to get very many six-story
buildings myself, so it seems I don't
know. There's the light is literally
right on that presentation screen. Um,
>> yeah,
>> to me it makes more sense. Floor four. I
mean, I hear what Mitty's point is, but
I mean, if people want some examples,
yeah, that's what we're here to do.
>> Commissioner Mr. I I just think we
shouldn't get hung up on this this whole
podium design uh question because
construction methods are changing all
the time. Mass timber is uh emerging as
a very coste effective uh and attractive
solution. Uh and there is no material
change in those buildings. So, I don't I
don't want us to get hung up assuming
that there's one construction type
that's going to be used and then find
out that it's irrelevant because of of
other methods. And a six-story building
that is set back only at the sixth floor
is not addressing the canyon effect that
Commissioner Craft was saying.
>> That's really my point.
>> Yeah.
should should there be a minimum step
back of two fours to avoid just having
that top four set back
putting convoluting a little more but
Thank you, chair. I I think what my uh
concern is given the very thoughtful uh
presentation by the developers is if
we're kind of getting in the weeds in
terms of making these minimums and
determining where these stepbacks are,
are we really limiting their ability to
build here in Isiqua? So, are we
literally through this exercise adding
the very limitations that they're
concerned about?
understanding that that's not the only
consideration that we have, but I think
it's a considerable one.
>> Commissioner Derek, I mean, just to
those points though, I think from the
presentation, we saw that these kinds of
concerns, while they're important, they
don't have the same kind of financial
effect for them as something like the
MFP. And so, you know, the wild line,
the wild, sorry, the waterway buffers.
So I and I think also we're already
removing we're downsizing the code from
multiple step backs to just one step
back. We're already streamlining it
significantly. So to those ends I think
it's it's you know we have to reach a
happy medium because we have long-term
livability versus shortterm
buildabilility. And I do think
affordable housing is important, but
we we need to keep everything in mind.
>> Yeah. No, and I appreciate that because
the other thing too is Oh, sorry,
Commissioner Zacharov. Go.
>> It's a fight for the mic.
>> Okay.
>> Sorry. Thank you. Uh why we just don't
do it though this way for all buildings
75 ft and taller. They have to have one
step back of five feet on one side and
it has to be either on the level of uh
the material change or on the fourth
floor
>> either there. Um, Commissioner Cross,
>> I just I'm going to come back to we just
have to discuss what we're solving for
>> and I think we have to we have to kind
of agree what we're solving for because
right now we're going straight to
tactics
>> and I think uh and we're like and these
are all little knobs that we're talking
about,
>> but I think we should just be very clear
as we mentioned is like there's a whole
bunch of different objectives and let's
prioritize them. And I think it may
become clearer after there's agreement
on what those are of what the right way
of doing it is. So I think that's kind
of the number one thing to do quickly
and then then there's a couple different
variants that may based on those which
should should align to those. That's
what I'm because right now we're looking
at tactics where we're still I think
there's some ambiguity of what
objectives are.
So the the intent in the code states
that it is to to create a pedestrian
friendly environment
>> and to prevent the canyon effect. That's
what the code says.
>> If there's something else out there
though that you want to achieve by this
>> and see one thing I'll say is I I think
the code everyone has to remember we've
had these talk with developers and
that's the point where again um they had
an opportunity before too when we were
doing it. So, I know everyone wants to
tear apart title 18 and just start scr
from scratch. There was like two years
that went into that. They and their big
thing was clarity and consistency.
Wasn't setbacks. It wasn't this. That
was our design saying this is what we
want to make our downtown core livable,
aesthetically pleasing. So, again, nice
Ben, love the presentation, but that was
just one point of view. Um, you also
have the point of view of the residents
that live here. The people that are
going to be living here, the developers,
as you heard, are going to sell these
buildings rather quickly. And yeah, we
want to help them by all means, but
again, I think the two goals that
Kristen just laid out, those were well
thought out by the community, not by the
PPC. That was by the community, you
know, by feedback that we had through
multiple conversations with the
community. So, I think our objectives
are those. Okay.
>> But I mean that's why we're having this
conversation. Vice Chair Patterson,
>> uh, just to follow up on that, that was
great points. um is I think where things
start to get convoluted is that we're
all kind of looking at this through the
lens of those objectives are very
community focused like for living here
and and you know living with these
buildings but we're looking at through
the context of these work items came
from promoting building investments in
Isqua and so it I think that's where
we're we might be struggling a little
bit is like at least personally I can't
speak for everybody but I think where
I'm personally struggling a little bit
is is it's almost like a tug-of-war,
right? Where there's the part of me that
wants to live up to that design
aesthetic of like, yeah, we agreed we
want to be a walkable, pedestrian
friendly neighborhood and and design
aesthetics reduce the canyon effect. So,
that is in my mind the objective, but
then we have this kind of overlay of
like but our current code is not
developer friendly and we need to make
it more developer friendly. So, what can
we do to reduce some of the restrictions
or requirements in our current code to
make it more developer friendly? And so
I think we're all trying to figure out
in this tug-of-war of like where do we
draw that line? How do we meet those
objectives of being reducing the canyon
effect and making it the walkable, you
know, city, but also make it more
developer friendly. I think that's why
we keep getting in these kind of loops
and circles is we're trying to figure
out what what levers to pull. And maybe
you're in the same, you know, kind of
mentality, but I I think that's kind of
at least speaking personally, yeah,
where where I'm at with it.
like Carl's graph with the money. So, I
think there are bigger things that
they're worried about than setbacks. Um,
again, they mentioned a couple. I don't
think the setbacks is what's causing
developers not to come here.
>> So, we heard loud and clear during the
TOD project, right, that is getting
built. They threw some numbers to the
order of it's going to cost a million
dollars more to do a step back and hence
the council's uh housing cooperative
agreement that gave them that break. Um
during title 18 that issue with to was
fair and square. It was fixed in one of
the sections of the code where it says
you can go to the step back at level two
or
level six. It's based off of the Redmond
model where you're giving people the
flexibility of going choosing where you
want to step back and I think the
objective yes is also the canyon effect
is really you know if you have a narrow
street versus a wide you know 100 foot
street you're going to get a different
feel for the building uh downtowns of
major cities have tall buildings so I
think it's also how we want to
categorize a canyon effect it's not a
simple thing that you know this story
gives you a canyon effect and this
doesn't or a five footstep doesn't it's
not that black and white in that respect
so however I think that that we can't
debate that this isn't doesn't add cost
to the to the building it does add cost
>> and so if we are willing to give them
the flexibility of where they want to
choose we're we the city can still
require a step back but they get to
choose where they put it
>> I think that's fair
>> that's an objective I think we can all
agree on.
>> So, are we basically saying we just want
to stick with the old code?
>> No, no, no. The the old code didn't uh
it mandated it on if you're above five
stories.
>> Okay. So, we're we're just saying we
want to give them options.
>> You could lower it or you do it at
>> and to Commissioner Oer's point, you
know, the podium thing may be obsolete
in 10 years.
>> Right. And so maybe we just do we want
to do it by floor? Do we want to kick
this conversation and ask for more
examples? Do we want to go
>> of caution was the four story nobody's
going to take you up on that and so
while it might seem like an okay thing
that you want it set back at fourtory
people will do it at level two then
>> right
>> so just understanding that policy
objective of what we are trying to
achieve here uh maybe we can draw some
graphics of
>> you know like a cross-section here's
where the second you know step for the
next packet we draw give you some more
visuals
>> that would be helpful
>> yeah that would helped me too because
like the east coast to west coast thing
of where I am imagining the first floor,
second floor, third floor versus and
then the top of the first floor is
different than the I mean the top of the
second floor is different than the
bottom of the second floor and right now
it says just says second floor. So that
would help me a lot because when you
said sixth floor
I think I imagined the top of the sixth
floor and not the bottom of the sixth
floor which might have been the
intention. Mr. owner.
>> Just a couple of uh clarifications. Um
being an East Coast guy, um we we still
call the ground floor level the first
floor. So I think it's only in Europe
that you have ground floor and first
floor. Um but the other clarification I
wanted to make is if you look at at
buildings being developed in dense urban
areas now there are great concerns not
only about access to daylight that's
causing step stepbacks to be required
but it's also a matter of wind hits the
side of a building rushes down and it
makes pedestrian life miserable. And so
I think, you know, we can we can look at
examples of uh of of cities where there
are canyons um but they're not favored
now uh because we've seen what the
effects are.
Okay.
So
I think we're st we have a minimum step
back. Um we also agreed that we don't
want it to can lever back over. So any
floor wherever that step back starts it
has to continue. Right now it seems like
what is written here might work where
it's the minimum of the shall begin by
as low as floor two but h must begin by
floor six which would be the bottom of
floor six and the bottom of the first
floor. But we're going to bring
examples.
So, I'm gonna leave it like this for
right now and we'll bring examples to
the next meeting and talk about it. That
work? Okay. All right.
>> All right. This is fun stuff. All right.
On to private and common um open amenity
space. So,
these are the goals. foster and enhance
the quality of life, create connections
among residents, raise the property
values, keep tenants in place longer,
um, and reduce turnover, which is the
same thing.
So, last time there were three questions
that we talked about last time. Do you
want to amend the code to add options
instead of Okay. Amend the code to add
options instead of asking having
applicants ask for deviations, which is
what we currently do. And you said yes,
we do. Um, but a single preference
wasn't wasn't preferred.
So, the options were 100 square feet per
unit. Sorry, you guys can't see what I
see on my screen. It's being blocked.
One second.
No, but I on my screen it's blocked.
Okay,
I can't. Okay, there we go. Um 100 feet
100 square feet per unit of common
outdoor space plus 48 square feet of
private open space
or 100 square f feet per unit plus an
additional 48 square feet per unit for
any units that don't have open private
space or 100 square feet per unit plus
30% of units to have 48 square feet of
private space. Those were the options.
Nothing was settled on.
Another one was do you want to allow
flexibility in the standard for open
space for commercial and multif family
buildings converting to affordable h
residential housing? The answer was yes.
And do you want to require open space
for only 30% of the units instead of the
current 50% of units? And that 50% is
actually as part of the deviation. Right
now 100 units are required to have it.
you can get a deviation requesting 50%
as long as the other 50% that 48 square
feet is included in the common space.
Okay.
So the proposal is right now and we
added on the five five plex units as
well. So for both of these for anything
five units and up um it would be 100
square feet per unit of common outdoor
amenity space. I'm going to move over to
the right. Plus, a minimum of 30% of the
units must provide individual outdoor
space there. For the other 70%,
you have to include an additional 48
square feet in that common area. So, if
you have a 100 units,
each one of those has to have 100 square
feet of common space. And then 30 of
those units have to have 48 individual
square feet of space attached to their
unit. But the other 70 units, you
calculate 70 times 48 and that goes into
the common space. Yeah,
>> Mr. Matthews,
>> it just occurred to me. Um, the common
space could be indoor or outdoor. Is
that right?
>> No, the common this one's you have
common outdoor space and then the you
have the the 400 square ft is indoor
outdoor.
>> Sorry, I just read that.
>> That's okay.
>> Um, yes, Mr. Craft.
We when we talked about it before it was
for 22 units and up. So now the five to
21 units is new. So now you're requiring
anybody and now two of them have to have
a balcony is what you're saying.
>> Right.
>> So can you explain the rationale why we
want to do it for the smaller
developments as well?
>> I'm going to phone a friend.
>> No, because we were we were just this is
new
>> because we we only talked about the
bigger developments and now
>> Yeah. Could you explain um repeat your
question?
>> Why was that?
>> We didn't talk about the 5 to 21 units
last time. We only talked about the 22
and over and this is just
>> the question is these requirements for
the small developments, small plants.
>> Yeah, I mean that's a question. I think
we put it there because um it seems like
smaller units don't get a balcony.
Chances are the smaller the five unit
folks also need some outdoor space. But
if it doesn't make sense for five units
to have 500 ft² of common space, that's
Yeah, we could take that out.
>> Yeah. Just it's just I'd like I mean you
may have a great reason. I just it's
it's new to the discussion and there's a
lot more limited limitations when you
have a small plat with five. So, so now
>> so five or less won't have any common
space, but do the five or less have no
private open space?
>> I think it's I mean, do we want to ask
them to build balconies for a five unit
apartment building? I don't know. That's
that's a new discussion.
>> Currently, currently, if you have five
units, they're required to have 48
square feet of individual outdoor space.
Um the way this is written it would be
just 30% of those units have to have it
but
you
>> I mean it all mul it over.
>> Yeah the 100 square feet already exists.
So we just added the the flexibility
piece to it.
>> We didn't talk about it before. I was
just trying to understand if something
new global conversation previously
maybe. Yeah.
>> But we're open to if you think we should
treat the smaller units differently.
Um but currently the code requires even
the smaller ones to have 100 square feet
per unit and 48 for all five of them.
>> So it's it just it adds a little bit
more flexibility.
>> I'm just curious like if you're doing
like a five or five to eight unit I mean
those are little infill lots like
there's some on
not too far from me near Gilman Village.
I think there's one that I see a sign.
Um, I'm just I'd like to learn more of
like does it does it change the
feasibility for them to even be able to
build it once you add those square
footage on something like that because
they also have probably have to have
some parking in there as well because
they're they're put on small much
smaller lots. So, I just I think it
needs need to understand the feasibility
of what what that means for
>> getting these plats either built or not
built because I've noticed that white
signs been there for about two years and
nothing's happened. I wasn't sure
whether
it's a requirement thing or they have no
money or I just it's I just know they're
on smaller loss and you have a lot more
things that are that are tugging at it.
>> Any other thoughts on that?
>> Yes, Commissioner Zachro.
>> Thank you. I think we've just heard from
developers again that that 48 square ft
was a problem. So
I I I'm not sure. Uh I kind of have a
feeling that it's like my feeling is
that we do have an issue in a city that
nothing is being built and people really
have a problem building big projects
here in the city and we have several
things that should be built and had to
be built within the past 10 years and
nothing is built and we won't make
things work. And at the same time, we
have people who are going to build those
things and they're coming to the meeting
and they're saying what their exact
troubles are and what can be done for
them to make things easier. And they
bring examples of surrounding cities and
how it worked. And uh I'm pretty sure
and and they also bring examples that it
worked for them and they brought their
business to those cities and we're here
talking about how we can we we I don't
feel that we're trying to make things
easy. It's not about them. It's about us
getting something built in the city,
bringing people to the city, bringing
taxes to the city, bringing jobs to the
city. Um, just bringing stuff to the
city, getting our light link here cuz we
have a reason for that. So, that's kind
of my position and kind of that's my
maybe it's just my feeling. I don't
know. I myself live in a cond building.
Um, two bedrooms, no balcony. Um, yeah,
very like rarely that I use the outdoor
space of my building. I'm not even sure
how much of the outdoor space I'm
entitled to cuz I always kind of go
somewhere and I've lived there for 6
years and I feel very comfortable. So
yeah, I I'm not sure for for the 48
square ft.
>> Mr.
Okay. So, I spent some time today and I
sent everyone a spreadsheet I worked on.
Um, I did make some last minute tweaks
to it just now after our conversation
cuz I realized I had some of the math
wrong. But with those tweaks, I'll say
doing some rough pencil math, it looks
like Belleview requires roughly about
for a 22 unit building 1350
ft 1,350.
Both Canyon Park requires about 4,400
square feet of community open space. A
Redmond would require about 1,400
through 2200 depending theirs is a lot
more complex and Snomish is about 3,300.
So the average is about 2800
square ft give or take and ours given
the my updates
assuming a 30% balcony like let's say
that a 22 unit takes advantage and has
30% of their units have the balcony
space for private space and seven 70%
take the 48 to the community space. then
we would have about um 2940 square ft
for a 22 unit building. So stop me if I
went through any of that fast. So that
kind of puts us in the middle of the
pack of those four things. Now, if we
want to get more competitive with
Belleview and Redmond, I wouldn't be
opposed to tweaking it down to put us
maybe in the 2200 range for 22 unit
building personally. That's me to kind
of increase competitiveness,
but I don't want to, you know,
completely eliminate community outdoor
space or anything like that. I'm happy
with getting more flexible and getting
more open. But I also think looking at
their codes, they weren't all super
clear-cut either.
So there's only, you know, so that's my
opinion.
>> That is awesome. Commissioner,
>> first of all, I appreciate you're going
through that effort. Thank you. Um I
think there the the economics of
building a fiveunit
uh complex is very different than a
larger one. And I guess if if you know
going back to this whole affordability
issue, if we're saying we we can't we're
dissuading developers from building on
small lots because we're requiring a lot
of open space um on a lot that's
constrained, as has been said, by by
driveways and parking areas. Uh that
concerns me. Whereas the larger units,
larger unit developments,
um I think there there are other
macroeconomic factors that are far more
important than whether we're requiring
30% of the units to have private outdoor
space. So I I think that in my mind
there there should be a difference in in
how we treat those two categories.
informal vote
or discussion.
>> Sure. Pose the question.
Um, I believe what you just brought up
was and I believe you brought up the
same thing and actually Commissioner
Crass as well is the idea of
so right now
the way it's written
anyway um not so for the five units and
more not a whole lot has changed. It's
still the same amount of square footage
of open space that we were requiring
before.
It's just that now just a minimum of 30%
of those have to have open space. But
you want to change that one al together.
>> You open the can.
>> The can is open. Yes, it is.
So what is it?
>> So who wants to nyx the open space for
the five units to 21 units?
>> Mix it or disc or or understand more?
>> Oh, you could understand more. I think
that was a question though as far as
that was the part that was added
>> from our code that's right now.
>> Well, it sounds like the the code for
the 5 to 21 is being altered to give
them make them have less. But since
those aren't being built either, I
wonder whether they're it opened the can
of of questioning whether
all of the stuff is one of the reasons
why smaller infill ones are not being
built. And and I think it's a bigger
question of if we think there's an
opportunity to get more housing built,
not from the one or two big developments
that take 10 years to do, but some of
these infill lots where you can do six
to eight units of apartments, we should
understand more of what's keeping those
from happening. And if if this is one of
those one of those reasons, I don't know
if this is an issue. Um, but it made me
think that it could be. Well, I think
the other question sorry I think the
other question too is that is that trul
is that truly what's going on because
there is infill development happening.
>> Yeah, you see some on Newport Way. You
see
>> those are
>> right. You see it in front street,
right? But those are still those type of
inflow lots we're talking about. So it
is being built,
>> right?
So again they are so I guess it's just a
definition how much development um I
mean I think these the three
>> might not be an issue I just made once
you once you open up the code it's like
well we should understand more if you
think if we're tweaking it we should
>> I hope there's a lot more pizza in that
room um
>> no it just it's something that someone
brought up to me too it's like there is
development happening and they're
actually the smaller ones it's just not
being where we want it in central law
and to your point it's not the big
developers it's the little developers
who are actually developing currently.
Jesse
>> ask a say many is waiting to jump.
>> No, no, right.
>> I I just read the So, we just read the
code and want to make sure that everyone
you I think you guys get it. The first
line is talking about five plus units
anywhere outside central Isiqua
>> or or in central
>> or in central from 5 to 21 in central or
it could be a 200 unit apartment complex
outside of central. So that those
amendments would apply in those cases.
So it's not just focused on smaller
that that row isn't just talking about
the small five or less. Just wanted to
make sure.
>> Well, it it says five plus and the next
one's 22 plus. So, yeah,
>> I would think five to 21.
>> Yeah. And you said and you said it
earlier, 5 to 21 units.
>> But this is citywide.
>> Yes. Commissioner Matthews,
>> would it make sense just to reduce the
minimum common outdoor amenity space um
maybe down to 50 square feet per unit
rather than 100?
>> Commissioners,
>> could you repeat the question?
>> Would it make sense to reduce the
minimum common outdoor amenity space
from 100 square feet down to 50 maybe
instead since it's
>> the five I'm sorry for the residential
five plus.
Commissioner dear.
>> No.
>> Yes. Commissioner Zacharov,
>> I I would agree if we are limiting this
to 5 to 21.
So we actually getting probably a third
line that way. I'm not sure. But if it's
5 to 21 because this 5 plus includes 200
units as well.
So meant just the
>> Yeah, I just meant that one line.
>> Complicated. Yeah. Well, well, yeah, but
the line five plus like the top line, it
includes 200 units as well. So,
>> well, no, the fi the five plus would end
at 20
>> 20
>> 21 units.
>> And then once you have 22 units, you
start a different requirement.
>> Maybe we should put it as five-
>> We can do five to 21.
Thank you.
>> Valid question. Um, does anyone feel if
you want to help those smaller infill
lots to drop the 100 square feet square
feet per unit um to give them more
incentive to build those smaller lots? I
think that's what I mean. Again, if
you've got six lots, that's 600 square
feet right there. They're getting the
same amount as a much bigger building.
So
>> I would ask so sorry. Um
>> it's a freef fall. Yes. I think it's
almost like a it'd be interesting to
understand case study. Let's say I want
to build a 600 a sixunit apartment in
Isiqua. What are the requirements for
outdoor space and parking and other and
setbacks? And I'm curious then does that
well maybe I'm trying to figure out does
this become feasible or infeasible when
you start adding all those pieces
because right now we're looking at it in
isolation. So, I don't know whether a
100 is good, 50 is good, none is good. I
don't know. But, um, I'm just trying to
understand if you said, "Let's do a case
study of I want to build a six-unit
apartment in Isiqua.
>> I would need this size lot right now
with all the current requirements, and
you can say, oh, wow, that's that lot's
going to be way too expensive." Or maybe
not. I don't know. But I think by
looking at each piece individually, I
don't know whether it should be 50 or
100 because there are other other
requirements for them that they have to
do.
>> And that's that's part of the struggle
with writing code is that no two lots
are alike and no two building is going
to no two buildings are going to be
alike. And we've got two properties in
the mixeduse residential zone that are
about the same size, but because one is
square and one is oblong, the F and
height work for them, but for the oblong
one, but it does not work at all for the
square piece.
>> What if we just took it real quick? So
if you said, okay, I if I have to do 600
square feet of open common space, how
many parking spots do I have to have for
six units?
>> Well, it has to do with the number of
units.
>> Six units.
>> Oh, six units. And how many parking
spots right now? Okay. Again, it
depends.
>> And then I can add up the square footage
of that. And now I'm just trying
>> No, I'm just I'm just trying to figure
out whether now this lot has to be
really big or it I don't know if it's a
problem or not. That's that's the that's
the point because when you look at in
isolation
>> Yeah. I mean in central Isabol can go
down to seven spaces per unit or if
you're outside it's you know a space per
unit. Most people are going to put in
two because that's what the market
wants. If you only have six units
>> there's so many pieces. Yes,
Commissioner Dear.
>> Okay, I'm going to throw in a curveball.
>> Oh, good. We haven't had enough. All
right, let's say our goal is to foster
both community space groups, which I
feel is very important to have community
space for kids to play in and neighbors
to interact with, but we also want dense
housing to make it profitable for
developers and who, you know, increase
infill within central Isiqua. So, are we
maybe looking at this the wrong way when
we're quibbling about the square footage
per unit? And do we want to consider
going to a percentage
of square footage of the building? So
for example or of the floor of the base
of floor of the building so that you
know if you're thinking oh there's 1,000
square ft per unit would roughly 10% of
the square footage
of the building
sort of fulfill the same needs and is
there a reason we didn't go that way?
>> And I think that's what Redmond does. I
think Redmond does 20%
>> of the building
of the site. Not the building. They do
20% of the site.
>> They can also park on the ground. Just
>> uh Commissioner Olner and then
Commissioner Z
>> just a point of clarification by if we
had a a sixunit development and we
reduce the out common outdoor space
amenity space to 50 that's smaller
overall that's smaller than one parking
space for six units. Yeah,
because the parking space is 9 by 17 or
9 by 17 or something like that 50 square
feet.
>> Yes, Commissioner Zach,
>> I am back on 50. I'm sorry. Uh 50 + 48
is actually 98. So, which makes almost
100. What if it's being put the way that
I'm too close? uh what has been put the
way that every unit has to have 100
square feet of outdoor amenity space
whether it is community or it's a
balcony or it's a combination
so like you like if you have um I don't
know 48 square ft balcony then you have
52
square ft of community outdoor space if
you don't have a balcony you stay with
100 uh like it can be any kind of like
variation or a balcony can be tiny like
yeah see what I'm saying
um yeah I'm not opposed to that but I
would want to put a minimum and how much
it could of that could be private space
because I do think we want to make sure
there is some level of community space
and I'm worried somebody might just make
it all private yards because that's more
marketable in a townhouse development or
whatever is going in. So if you were to
say no more than x% can be used for
private that would work for me
>> almost. Commissioner Holstrom, do you
have any thoughts?
I think the goal should be to streamline
the code, shouldn't it? and make it a
little easier then it's just seems very
convoluted
looking at this and you know through
good means but I mean doesn't the lot
coverage of each site kind of give you
the remaining open space that's
available
the I mean the lot coverage restraints
for each site what it you know
>> right so the imperous service maximums
and the map the parking that's required
and Yeah, whatever's left over after
that.
>> I mean, isn't that your open space
number?
>> Um, it could be except that I mean, it
can in central Isiqua though, the
impervious surface max is 95%. And if
they can take it, they'll take it,
>> right?
So then it really isn't 95% though if we
have
>> Right.
>> So it's
Yeah,
>> we're bringing that down, right? Okay.
Right.
Have we moved the needle at all or are
we staying here?
>> Can we get examples like we're getting
with the setbacks?
>> Yeah. And yeah. Yeah. So, we we should
get somewhere with this. I think we've
kind of had a good discussion. Um, the
couple things I heard was maybe having a
softer touch or more flexibility or no
requirements for less than some unit
size. Right now, it's anything below
four units. Like a forplex doesn't have
those. So, you want to raise that bar
from four to nine. Like, at what point
do you want to, you know, switch over to
having requirements and having no
requirements? nine fits in with uh sea
because your sea threshold is nine or
more. So if you want to raise the five
to nine that may be one thing you can
look at. The other one
is uh the split between common and um
private open space. I think what you
heard from the developers they're fine
with requiring 30% of the units to have
private open space. Their request was
currently the code says 50% of the units
need to have private open space. They'd
like to have a third of them. So that if
you split up and you agree that maybe
mandating private open space for
onethird is okay, then we can kind of go
with that. So those are the two I think.
>> Oh okay. In the previous in the packet
Yeah. So that is what I think you heard
Avalon Carl uh recommend that you pick
option C which in the write up means you
would strike out. Can you go?
So what what he would was was
recommending in the first column with
the right red write up that you would
strike out plus 48 square feet. You keep
it simple. You have 100 square feet per
unit and then for 30% of those you
require 48. So that's option C. That was
his his recommendation.
Would
you all turn on your mics? Would you all
turn on your mics, please?
>> It give us the more competitive edge
that they've asked for uh in lie of all
the difficulties they have with our
topography and different things. until
we have another meeting where we get to
discuss those cans.
>> So I think we're starting to make some
headway at 8:25.
>> Yeah. So so breaking it up into three,
if you can give us some direction and
then in your public hearing packet we
will include it. You want is there
consensus to raise the have no
requirements for up to nine units?
>> I'm okay with it because it Oh, sorry.
>> Informal vote. So we'll change the five
plus to 9 plus.
>> That'll help us in this.
>> Uh and then the second one was to remove
the additional 48 in the first column to
remove the all the red underline in the
first column. Just remove that.
That's a big consensus. Okay.
>> So just 100 square feet, not 140 for
without
>> and then is there consensus on 30%
requirement for office? Okay. Okay.
All right.
I'm just going to throw it out there.
Um, we also threw in as a as an
additional deviation that um for common
and outdoor amenity space for
conversions to residential uses that if
they comply with all of the requirements
um in 18500 which talks about the
conversion of buildings and all the
requirements uh of those buildings and
requirements that they can get a
deviation requested from the 148 square
feet per amenity space requirement. But
if we go with option C, that's going to
change again because then we take the um
48 square feet out and it goes to 100.
Okay. All right. Wow. Okay.
So, we did tonight reviewed it. Um May
14th is the public hearing. I'm hoping
we can get there. It'll also include all
of the other clarifying amendments that
have been done. On June 2nd, we're
expected to go to the planning and
development and environment committee.
And then on June 29th, council action.
And I'm assuming you don't have any
questions, but I don't know.
We good?
Okay. Thank you guys so much for a good
conversation.
>> Okay. Well, Kristen, don't go anywhere.
Um,
city council updates, please.
I
I don't have any. I We haven't been to
council in a while. No. Oh, except No.
No, we do. Um I don't know if you
watched the council meeting the other
night, but the city has a contract to
purchase a building over on Maple and
12th or Maple right over there. Um yeah,
I so that may happen. And
>> what was the name of the building?
Adetics. Do
>> you remember the name of it? Lo is Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. So yeah, so that's that's
kind of big news
>> for those of you who has seen our space.
Yes, it's big news. Um uh otherwise I
don't have any other thing from council.
>> Who's happier, staff or the police?
>> The police.
>> Okay.
>> Tell you right now. Yeah. Um I don't
have any other announcements either.
>> Okay. Well,
>> oh just one. You all had request. Sorry.
You all had requested a tour and then I
went out of town and I was out of town
the next two weekends and now I think
it's not going to happen. So, we'll just
try and bring as many examples as we can
every time we meet. Yeah. Okay. All
right. That was all.
>> Or if you want to just email us
addresses, some of us can go make our
own little
>> I can do that, too. We've given tours in
the past. I can give you selfguided
tour.
>> I can send you those maps and tell you
where those are if you want to go see
them. It would come with like a little
>> audio tour like we have at museums from
you.
>> All right. Um,
anything about our upcoming planning
policy commission schedule?
>> No,
>> but we're not done filling it up,
>> right?
>> So,
>> you guys can see it's we're busy.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, I think that's it. Anyone like to
say anything for the good of the order
this evening?
>> Just just thank you. It's been a long
night and you guys have been great and
managed to participate all the way for
three hours. So, thank you.
>> Yes. Thank you everyone. And again,
thank you our awesome staff, Kate,
Minnie, Kristen, Amanda, and thank all
of you guys. And please get pizza. We
don't want to leave any pizza behind.
So, if you have kids or have spouses
that might feel like a slice of pie,
grab it. We're going to adjourn this
meeting, the Planning Policy Commission
at 8:29 p.m. Good night.