Arseny, we're ready to go.
Good evening, Planning Policy. It's good
to see everybody.
Feels a little bit more intimate this
evening, but that just could be because
last meeting we had so many people,
which is a little irregular for us.
Uh we're going to get started and it
currently is 6:31 p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
Planning Policy Commission is in person,
but staff or members of the public may
be joining us virtually
or in person.
Kristen, do we have a quorum this
evening? We do have a quorum. We have um
one unexcused absence, uh Commissioner
Melinda Irwin, and an excused absence
with Commissioner Allender. Okay. So,
what that means for our commission this
evening is both our alternates will be
voting. Uh so, Commissioner
Holstrom as well as Commissioner Adair
will be voting members this evening.
We're going to begin with the approval
of minutes and we have two sets of
minutes for last uh
meeting, which was the 23rd,
and we obviously had our special meeting
with the EVC, and we'll start with
those. Were there any concerns or
anything that anyone like to bring up
regarding those minutes?
As far as the PPC's meeting that
evening any
Anything
anyone like to bring up?
All right, hearing none, both sets of
meeting minutes are approved.
The next item of business
is going to be uh public comment. So,
for this meeting we're holding the
general public comment right now. This
is for the good of the PPC.
Um anything in general that you'd like
to bring up. We will have a moment a
little bit later when the public hearing
is open for anyone that would like to
speak on tonight's main topic, which is
going to be the Title 18 proposed
amendments. Um again, so right now it's
really just more general.
If you want to keep your comments on the
record I
I would uh encourage you to wait.
Um staff, do we have anyone that uh
would like to speak this evening as far
as general public comment?
No, chair. Not for general comments.
Okay. Thank you, Amanda.
Okay.
We're going to move on to our first item
of business this evening, and this is
uh our public hearing regarding the
proposed Title 18 land code land use
code amendments. The purpose of this
public hearing is to provide a formal
opportunity for public comment on these
amendments.
We'll open the public hearing, which
will be followed by a staff
presentation, and then we'll open it up
for the PPC to ask any questions that
they have.
Um after the questions, we'll take
public testimony,
and then we'll close the public hearing,
and then the Planning Policy Commission
will have an opportunity to debate.
Uh it's hoped that at the end of that
debate, we'll make a recommendation,
and we'll see this thing go upstream.
And this evening, Kate Cainey, our
principal planner, will be starting us
off. So, Kate, when you are ready
with your presentation, please go ahead.
>> Thank you, Chair. I'm just getting set
here. Can everybody see the presentation
all right? Okay. Well, thank you very
much.
Um I am here tonight to Oh, this is the
wrong presentation, isn't it? Pardon me.
Bring up the other one.
Sorry.
Page one. My apologies.
Okay.
And
hit the right button again.
Okay.
There we go. I think I have the right
presentation. My apologies for that. So,
uh tonight we are here for the public
hearing on the Title 18 Land Use Code
Amendments. Um three staff are here to
participate in the presentation. I will
go ahead and start it off.
Um as the Chair mentioned, our purpose
here is not only to hold the public
hearing, but also to take public
comment, um allow the Commission to
deliberate, and take action if
appropriate.
So,
the Title 18 Amendments that are um the
basis of the hearing tonight are split
into two general categories. The first
are the 2026 clarifying or housekeeping
amendments the Commission has been
reviewing since the beginning of the
year. And then there are two sets of
amendments that are part of the
Promoting Building Investment in
Issaquah Initiative.
So, I will go ahead and kick off the
presentation on the clarifying
amendments
and share with you that uh the
Commission did review these seven uh
sets of amendments earlier this year.
I'm going to go ahead and roll right
into the first amendment and then uh
each of us will come up and do uh
uh provide information as appropriate.
So, the first amendment has to do with
the multi-family definitions and is is
literally some cleanup. Um the proposal
repeals the definition called
multi-family residential.
And the reason is that last year when
the city adopted the middle housing
amendments, a new definition dwelling
multi-family was adopted and that um
really supersedes uh this older
definition multi-family residential. So,
um that needs to be removed from the
code for consistency.
So, the next set of amendments I am
going to hand over to senior planner
Emily Medina.
Good evening, commissioners. So, the
site development permit um code
amendments clarify when site development
permits are necessary and at what level.
Um
again, the reason for this change is to
just make sure that we're not having
these super small-scale projects have to
go through unnecessary permitting and
get a land use permit when it's not
necessary
um as well as making sure that the
thresholds are simplistic, so not having
multiple thresholds for each level, but
just one to keep it clear, so um
developers know what to expect and it's
easy for staff to process um as well as
using um
as well as
>> [laughter]
>> as well as making sure that the uh
projects that don't involve structures
um and are just site work permits don't
have to go through the development
commission when there is no design
review associated with that.
Um so, just to kind of recall back, one
of the big changes is changing the word
um in our thresholds right now talks
about development and we are to
proposing to change that to structure.
Um development in our code is a very,
very broad definition, and it means
literally anytime you touch the land
versus structure is vertical
construction, um and that is the
original intent of site development
permits is to really focus on those
large structures on site.
Uh following public comments that we
received after our first presentation on
the site development permit amendments,
we added one additional threshold, which
is to the level two. Um level two, if
you recall, is administrative approval
or administrative decision, but with
public notice versus level four permits
um are development commission hearing
and decision with public notice as well.
Um so, currently level four, if there is
a 1-acre site being touched, um even if
there's no structure on it, it has to go
through a level four, but there was no
smaller threshold for that. So, there
was concern that these larger
potentially these large projects that
just involve site work. So, an example
that I've given previously is the um
changing an asphalt parking lot into a
large park or community many space. Um
there was concerns that that's still is
substantial impact to if you live next
door, what's happening to next door to
you. If it's 10,000 square feet to an
acre, you know, that that can be a large
change of land use, and the public
perhaps wants to know about that. Um and
we agree, public notice is always a good
thing, so we added another threshold to
level two that if it is a site work um
project between 10,000 square feet and 1
acre, it has to go through a level two
process, so that the public will be
notified, and then it is administrative
decision.
So, just some examples about that. Um
this is one of the ones that triggered
having that um base threshold for small
projects. Um currently, if you're adding
200 square feet to the front of your
commercial building or less, um you have
to get a level one SDP. Under the
proposed amendments, SDP review would
not be required. So, they would just get
be required to get a building permit and
all those things that we would look for
with the site development permit, we
would just look for with the building
permit. Um so just eliminating that one
extra um hurdle to jump over.
And then I wanted to bring back this
example because I presented this when
these amendments first came before the
commission. Um and this was the trigger
about the site work permit. So this is
the one that is converting that asphalt
parking lot into a community amenity
space. Um currently it would have to go
through a level four even though they're
not doing any structural changes to the
building on site um because of the
amount of land they are touching. Under
these new proposed revised amendments,
it would be a level two because it is
greater than 10,000 square feet but less
than an acre. Um it would have the
public notice associated with it before
the uh staff made a decision.
And then the other process amendment
that is associated is the plat and
construction permit requirements. So
currently our code just lacks clarity um
regarding requirements for construction
of infrastructure um which is utilities,
sidewalks, that kind of thing before
final approval of the subdivisions and
binding site plans, so plats, that kind
of thing. So this is essentially just to
clarify code and strengthen it to make
sure that we have um the right permit
process in place.
Great. Thank you, Emily. Um so I will uh
go ahead and finish up the uh review of
the proposals for the clarifying code.
And this one you may recall is part of
the temporary use uh code that we have.
And a change that would clarify where
and how to allow donation bins on
private properties. You can see some
photos here of what that might look
like, the good and the bad uh that we
would address.
Um and uh the changes that um are added
are really standards for uh where
donation bins can go.
A duration of 365 days is proposed and
also a prohibition in the standards on
accumulating trash or having it be
ill-kept. So,
we worked with our code enforcement
officer to make sure we had the right
standards.
These bins are already allowed through
the temporary use code, but what this
these code changes do is add those
standards that were reviewed previously
by the commission.
So, the next proposal has to do with
daycare and adult family homes and some
clarifications.
This is really just adding
some language when you are reading
through the daycare and adult family
home standards and directions to go see
the definitions for daycare center,
daycare center family, and adult family
home. And it's like wayfinding,
so you can go to the definition section.
It's important because in the
definitions, there are there is
information about the number of kids,
the number of adults that are allowed in
these different facilities and also
applicable state regulations. So, that's
what's proposed in that first upper part
of the proposals. And in the lower half,
the update to the family daycare center
criteria is also pretty simple. It is
just updating the term family child care
center and replacing it with family
daycare center just to be consistent
throughout the code.
There are a couple of others related to
daycare
and this standard has to do with adding
a new provision pertaining to traffic
impact fee waivers. These waivers were
adopted by city council this March. So,
as part of the codification process
in this section of the daycare code, we
added a provision that describes
the need for getting a covenant recorded
as part of any property that decides to
opt in to this waiver program, um, so it
can be tracked by the city.
And this next amendment also kind of has
to do with daycare, but it's, uh, in the
home business code. Daycare operations
used to be in our home business section
of the code. Um, it has this, uh,
italicized, uh, information about play
equipment for daycare operations. Since
daycare is no longer, uh, regulated in
that section of the code, it is no
longer applicable and the proposal is to
remove it.
So now we have, um, three more slides
all on, uh, different sign code
provisions that, um, you have reviewed.
The first, um, balloon sign provisions
and this is a clarification that all
balloons and balloon-like objects, um,
regardless of material, would be
prohibited, uh, for use as signs. Um,
the main reason is that, uh,
these balloons can obscure the vision of
people driving by. Um, it's a safety
issue. We worked on this language with
the code enforcement officer and I
believe one of the commissioners, uh,
in the initial, uh, set of code that we,
uh,
uh,
had you review, noticed, um, that we
hadn't, uh, been completely holistic in
our changes. So, uh, we swept through
the code so that the prohibition is, um,
consistent throughout the code. So that
was added.
The next amendment has to do with the
interior illumination of monument signs.
What we were finding is that a lot of
the monument signs, which you see
examples of on screen here, um, are
grandfathered or legally non-conforming
with the existing code. However, they
come in and they need their illumination
adjusted on their sign faces. So, um,
this is, uh,
this change would be specific to Central
Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus, and
the, uh, CBD zone. And the idea would be
to maintain the signs uh,
the sign face illumination would be
allowed to change
as long as the other standards were met
and this clarification would release
streamline the process because these
signs apparently do come through
regularly to the counter.
The next and final sign code proposal
has to do with temporary window
construction signs and the idea would be
to allow these signs that are temporary
during the construction process for all
development before the um
uh before people have to get the full
permanent signs required by the code. Um
this would just make it easier
um for the new development to install
the signs so we thought it would be a
good streamlining process.
Okay, so with that I am going to go
ahead and hand it over to planning
manager Kristen Lee sent to go over the
next set of proposals.
Good evening. Kristen Lee sent planning
manager.
All right, so we're going to talk about
this time um
proposed amendments for the promoting
building investments in Issaquah.
Um first we are talking about step backs
and step backs
the goal here was to allow for more
flexibility in step backs and where they
should occur. [clears throat]
And the reason for doing that is because
we have been told that they are a little
bit excessive and it could potentially
make a project infeasible.
So first of all before we talk about it,
I wanted to talk about the other
regulations that are in place as well.
So we talk about building modulation and
articulation in this section of the code
and other things that are required we
required a definite a
um differentiating
or um
differentiation there you go between all
the different floors especially once
they hit once they go over three floors.
Um we require divided light windows that
are operable, that are recessed or
projecting or have a
that are framed.
They have to provide some kind of
surface depth, some kind of modulation
back and forth, so it's really a
vertical modulation. Where the building
is stepped back, the views must be
preserved, and then building corners
have to be accentuated either through
architectural details or they could be
recessed to allow for say a plaza to go
on that corner. So, those are other
things that are in place besides the
step backs that fall under this section.
We also talk about
step backs that are adjacent to natural
context areas, natural areas and natural
context areas. So, here's the map,
everything in green is a natural area.
The purple are the natural context
areas, and other requirements that go
there are that
the building has to face the natural
area. It has to have some balconies or
open spaces, windows, things that face
the natural area. It has, if it's next
to a waterway, it has to have a path
that goes between the building and the
waterway. Um, if you have activities or
uses that are adjacent to it, they can't
be closed off from the natural area.
They have to be open to the natural
area.
So, and they have to have all native
plants and that sort of thing. So, there
are other things in place, and we
already talked about as well if it's
adjacent to if it's within one of the
state shoreline jurisdictions, it can't
go higher than 35 ft. It has to be set
back a certain amount of space. So,
there are other things in place beside
the step backs that are in play here.
Here we go. So, moving on to the code,
when you get to the building orientation
to natural areas in Central Issaquah,
that's where those
are used, we are proposing to just
eliminate required step backs
on those areas.
When you move outside of those natural
areas and actually just in the rest of
the city, proposing that all that
setbacks must occur by the base of the
sixth floor that can occur as low as the
base of the second floor. And then they
should be a minimum of 5 ft deep. And we
took out the piece about they must be
there must be usable space
in there. This is a based on our
conversations from last week
or 2 weeks ago.
And then the same requirements would
apply with the Northwest contemporary
style that they have to begin by the
base of the sixth can begin by the base
by the base of the second and then have
to be a minimum of 5 ft deep.
Okay?
Moving on to amenity space
our goal here was to decrease the amount
of required private open amenity space
and also to add deviations for
conversions of commercial uses to
multi-family uses.
So, the reason for the first one is
because again
our requirements have been deemed
excessive and potentially can make a
project difficult and infeasible. For
the second, we don't want to make it
more difficult for a project to come
through. So, we do have one that's
trying to convert right now that's
having to go through deviation process
or a variance process
um that's going to be converted to
affordable housing and we'd like to make
it easier to get affordable housing
here.
So
again, these are based on our last
conversation.
We increased in the upper left-hand
corner increased the number of units. It
used to be five that had to comply with
these regulations and now it's been up
to We're proposing to increase that to
nine units plus
it's 100 sq ft per unit. We eliminated
deleted the piece that said plus an
additional 48 sq ft for any units
without the private open space
and it's just strictly a minimum 30
units must provide 48 sq ft.
Plus every unit has to have 100 sq ft.
And then the same thing would apply for
residential
22 plus, but then you have the
additional 40 400 square feet total that
you have to add for those.
Okay.
We And this is the piece about the
deviations. We deleted the piece about
because we made it code or a requirement
now, we eliminated the
deviation for amenity spaces where you
can reduce it down to 30 feet, but then
you have to, you know, make all 148. We
just got rid of that. Because now it's a
regulation.
And then we added one about the common
private outdoor amenity space that if
they comply with all the requirements
under 18-500-524, which is the
conversion to from commercial and
multi-family, if they comply with all of
that, then they can get a deviation from
the amenity space required in this
section.
So, for our next steps, this will is
proposed to go to the Planning and
Development and Environment Committee on
June 2nd, to Council on June 29th.
And that is all I have.
We are open to questions. Excellent.
Well, thank you, Emily, Kate, and
Kristen. You guys summed it up so well.
Thank you. Those were hours of
conversations all
consolidated into a nice 20-minute
presentation.
>> [snorts]
>> Um we want to open it up right now just
for questions. Again, we want to
make this open for the commissioners.
The questions are part that's going to
help inform public comment if we have
any. So, again, right now just
questions, clarifying questions, and
debate a little bit later.
But questions?
Oh, do you mind going back two slides
before the date slide? It looks like the
code still says 148 square feet of
amenity space. Is that for
Or should that be one of the things that
we're tweaking?
>> That
Yeah, I think I got that wrong here, but
it's right in the um
in the
amendments. It is. It's That's the wrong
number. It shouldn't be 148 square feet.
It should
>> it's just in the presentation.
>> It should be 100. It's not in the Okay,
just just checking.
>> It should be 100. Thank you.
Uh nice catch.
Any other questions?
Uh Commissioner Zacharof.
Um have we heard anything from uh the
developers on this new proposal so not
yet? We received a letter
just prior to this meeting that I
printed out and it is in front of you.
Otherwise, we have not heard anything
since the last meeting.
>> I think someone made the comment that
Kristen was giving us homework.
Any other questions?
It's all relatively pretty
straightforward, I think, at this point
with how many conversations we've had.
So,
um yeah, I think everybody just wants to
get down to debating it.
Um okay. Well, one more time, no more
questions?
Okay.
Um we're going to move on and we are
going to open the public hearing at 6:54
p.m.
And Amanda, I'm looking at you again.
Has anyone signed up to speak this
evening?
Yes, Chair, they have.
His first name is Carl, and please
forgive me for Short. Thank you. Carl
Short.
All right. Well, thank you, Carl. Yes,
you look familiar. Um very quickly, in
case we do have more public speakers,
just uh a few housekeeping rules. Please
speak clearly and pause frequently. Um
please state your name so we make sure
not to butcher your last name.
And then, once you're done, go ahead and
mute your microphone. You'll want to
make sure it's on while you speak. Um
and then again, if we have anyone that's
online that would like to speak, we ask
that if you are having technical issues
to please try joining us again with a
smartphone or tablet. Um we do ask that
everyone try and keep their comments
down to 5 minutes or less. So, Carl,
when you are ready, please go ahead.
Terrific. Um good evening,
commissioners. My name is Carl Schrett,
and I'm with Avalon Bay Communities.
We are the developer of the market-rate
component of the Trailhead TOD project
here in Issaquah.
I was here a few weeks ago for your
discussion about how to help make
housing projects more feasible in the
city, and I appreciate the continued
focus on that effort. First, I want to
thank you for your collaboration with
the development community to reduce some
of the barriers to building housing in
Issaquah.
That partnership is important, and it's
making a difference.
I also want to thank city staff for
their continued work and for maintaining
a productive, constructive dialogue with
the development community throughout
this process.
As outlined in the comment letter
submitted by Avalon Bay and other
housing stakeholders, we are supportive
of the draft code amendments that are
before you tonight. In particular, the
proposed changes to step-back and
amenity space requirements create a more
workable framework, one that continues
to respect Issaquah's unique character,
while also introducing needed
flexibility for projects to move
forward.
While these amendments may seem
incremental, they are meaningful.
Changes like these can have a real
impact on whether projects pencil, and
ultimately whether new housing actually
gets built.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask
that you advance the code amendments as
drafted. Thank you again for your
leadership and your continued work on
this effort. I appreciate your time this
evening. Thank you.
Thank you, Carl.
Um
Amanda, has anyone signed up online?
Okay.
>> No, Chair, they have not. We did get a a
great letter that again, we got right
before the meeting, so hopefully
everybody had a time to look at that. Um
I believe Avalon Bay was represented in
that letter as well as other
stakeholders so
Um great.
We will close at the public hearing
at 6:56 p.m.
Um Okay, but there is formal action
requested from us, commissioners, so
somebody has to make a motion this
evening.
Vice Chair Patterson.
Did the gentleman's pause. Uh thank you,
Chair. I'd like to make a motion to
recommend approval of the Title 18
amendments as presented.
Is there a second?
Uh Commissioner Krass.
I second. Okay, excellent. Thank you
both.
Um I'd like to open it up for and begin
with Vice Chair Patterson since he did
make the motion and we can begin to
debate the merits of what you just saw
in the presentation.
Uh yeah, obviously we have um discussed
and debated these topics uh pretty well
over the last several meetings.
Um I feel like we've gotten to a pretty
good point with them.
Um appreciate the partnership with city
staff. I know we asked for a lot of
examples, a lot of uh clarifications and
intent and I think that was all provided
in our packet. Uh very helpful to have
uh those visuals and diagrams. So, thank
you for your work on that. Um but yeah,
at this time no no other comments.
Great.
Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson.
Um Commissioners,
anyone like to speak?
I see Commissioner Adair reaching for
the mic.
Yeah, I mean obviously we've talked this
through a lot and I agree with 99% of
everything. I did want to revisit the
six-story setback versus possibly moving
it to a five-story setback. And that's
because I have spent some time this week
going and visiting a lot of five- and
six-story buildings
and they were throwing considerable
amount of shadow on the sidewalk. So, I
think part of the issue for me is
there's such a diversity in height
between, you know, you can have a
six-story building that's like 60 ft or
you can have a six-story building
that's, you know, 75 ft and those
obviously have a big disparity in the
kind of shadow they're going to kind of
cast on the sidewalk and community
spaces. So, I just thought we could
revisit that.
Okay, we can.
But, and this is where my knowledge of
Robert's Rules is a little wanting, but
I believe you've got to make an
amendment, right? Before we Not yet?
Okay.
All right. So, would anyone like to
discuss Commissioner Adair's
thought?
Anyone have any
thoughts about sixth to fifth floor?
Yeah, Vice Chair Patterson. Oh, since
we're discussing,
that is something that's definitely
weighed on me a little bit.
I think
>> [snorts]
>> in terms of representing all the
stakeholders in this is a little bit of
you know, what's the right number?
I do think that, you know, looking at
the intense, we talked there it
specifically states things like, you
know, solar access or increased passive
solar and things like that for reasons
why you'd want to be careful of step
backs or why they exist, I should say,
as well as some of the other
aspects of the code.
It's hard, I think, to gauge for
Issaquah right now because we don't have
a ton of those types of buildings.
It would be
challenging to to kind of determine what
the right number is.
Um
So, I guess what I'm saying is I
understand your concern.
I personally don't know the right
number.
So, I'm I'm hesitant to like state one
way or the other.
And that's why I think
I'm kind of supportive of what we have
in front of us given the analysis that's
gone into it.
But, I do understand, you know, I guess
some feelings of
concern, if you will, about stating the
right number.
Yeah, no, thank you, Vice Chair
Patterson. Vice uh uh
Commissioner Zakrzewski.
Thank you.
Well, [clears throat] my biggest concern
is that we are right now as a city, we
are requesting developers to develop. We
want development to happen in Issaquah.
And at the very same time with uh when
we kind of when we're limiting what we
can as a city provide and I mean, what
we have too many requests from
developers in this case.
Uh we end up with the same situation as
Trailhead TOD when everything just goes
just the way they can do that. So, no
setbacks, okay, no setbacks. No, like, I
don't know, something else, no, okay,
fine, just build the building. So, I
don't want to I don't want us to get to
the very same situation with every
building. So, just like Vice Chair
Patterson, I don't know the right
number, uh fifth floor, sixth floor, or
any uh certain height in feet. I just
want to make sure that the policy we
create is both uh work- is workable for
both the developers and the city. And I
think to kind of to get that balance, to
reach that balance is the most important
thing for us right now.
So.
Thank you. Yeah, great. Thank you,
Commissioner Zakrzewski.
Would anyone else like to comment on
Commissioner Adair's
proposal?
Commissioner Halverson.
I certainly understand where you're
coming from with the shadowing. Um
I guess I look I kind of like where it's
at just from I feel like more cons-
constraints are going to mean
less units built, which means less
feasible. It's going to make it more
challenging to get these buildings
built. So, I'm kind of hesitant to
constrict things any more than they
already are.
Great. Um
I'll get back to Commissioner Adair, but
I want to make sure everyone gets an
opportunity to speak.
Um Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner
Krass.
Commissioner Matthews.
Yeah, I also had been thinking a lot
about this and I'm just repeating what
everyone else says basically is I don't
know what the magic number is either,
but I was thinking about, you know, we
have all these different requirements
and it's what it are we trying what is
the goal that we're trying to
achieve and it's like I really don't
want to open this can of worms, but you
know like
when you have setbacks, that is to
create a human scale and of course, you
know, like get rid of shadows, but
articulation is more of a visual
like it's visually interesting as you're
walking down the street. So,
are we looking at creating more visual
interest or maybe we
want to create a more cozy environment.
So,
I didn't know if there was a trade-off
if you if we lower the
setbacks, less articulation, but then
that would open a can of worms, right?
So, I which I didn't want to do, but
it just occurred to me as I was thinking
this
earlier this weekend about this whole
process. We're here we're here to open
can of worms. So, you're okay. You're
fine.
Um, It was just a thought that I was,
you know, wanted to talk about as well.
>> Yeah, I know that that's part of the
process. That's great. Um, Commissioner
Krass.
Uh, thanks. I I like the way it is now.
I think there's flexibility, you know,
you have you know, second six and they
could be somewhere in between if it
makes sense from a design standpoint. I
also just came back from Charlotte,
North Carolina where there's a huge
amount of building and even though we're
walking around town, I had a of course
look at all of the setbacks on these
it's because there's a ton of
five, six, seven-story buildings being
built. And um, they were different and
it was nice. So, I could see how a lot
of the different buildings
um, took a slightly different approach,
um, but it felt like it all worked. And
some of them were much higher up and I
didn't feel like that was
uh, too cavernous by any means. So, I
think um, where we are now or where it
lands and all the work that's been done
I think is is a good spot.
Great. And then I'll just add real
quickly and then everyone can have an
another opportunity at this. Um I'm real
happy with the work that we did not only
as a commission but also with staff and
also our development community. Um it is
an iterative process. There is going to
be other opportunities
um within the next year or two if
there's situations that arise and maybe
they say, "Hey, this is still unfeasible
and we'd like you guys to look at this
again." So, it's not that it's over but
it's pretty rare when you have
not only the commission but also I mean
you can see the stakeholders with the
letter they sent. I mean it's not just
one stakeholder. It's multiple.
And I feel like, you know, to what
Commissioner Matthews said,
you know, I don't want to open a can of
worms to, you know, I don't think that's
the hill I want to die on today myself.
I'd like to I'd like to see this roll
out. Um it's got great support from the
developers who were here and present.
And again, it's something that can
always be brought back up. I mean we get
an opportunity I believe what once a
year to to put these things on the
docket and
have them looked at and Kristen's kind
of giving me a no.
I got side eye.
No, code amendments aren't just I'm just
they're not once a year. You can do
those. Okay. But it's not something you
want to just No.
>> any year or say No, no.
>> I didn't work. But but I think
>> [laughter]
>> No,
but I think to to Vice Chair Patterson's
point, I don't think anybody truly knows
what that number is and as much as I'd
like to say it might be different at
6:05, I don't know what the cost is.
And I don't want to go off a feeling
when we put together a pretty strong
packet myself. But I do want to make
sure that Commissioner Adair gets the
opportunity to rebut all of this here.
No. Um
So please.
>> Um no. Okay, so I'm just one thing I'd
like to bring up that is of the many
wonderful points that the developers
have made including the costs and the
structural issues, I don't know if
somebody addressed why six floors
specifically was the ideal. And if there
would have been, for example, oh, you
know, this this project is going to get
axed if they don't have the sixth floor.
You know, if somebody was coming in and
they said
we have this amazing project and it's
great. Oh, but this sixth floor step
back is the make or break. But I think
if we're going forward with new projects
that are still pending, it is okay for
us to say,
you know, maybe let's err on the side of
caution.
And to that point, I think when you're
going somewhere that's like a sunny
state where they have a lot of sun all
the time, you're going to have a
different kind of feeling than in a
place where we've got rain,
you know, 60, 70, 80% of the year.
>> [laughter]
>> So, I I guess I would just say, Kim,
Kristen, this might be a rules of order
question, but like
would it be a substantial delay if we
were to say, let's propose to make it a
proposed amendment to make it five
stories instead of six? And I will
Would that add another week? Would that
No. Actually, I was
writing
Chair voice a note to say, now at this
time, would Commissioner Adair like to
make an amendment? And then you just
vote on it now. Okay. Yeah.
And can I explain again why I mean, a
little more just
I feel like having visited some of these
buildings, there is
if you were to get two of them across
the street, luckily right now we're not
at the point where we do have two of
them across the street from each other.
I do think if we're going if we get two
of them across the street, it's going to
be a very different vibe and feel than
traditional Issaquah, which is a more
open, welcoming town-like feel.
And I think we're going to have a lot
more hopefully when the transit if the
transit goes through
developers will understand if it's the
fifth story and the sixth not the you
know because we're still making a lot of
concessions in terms of the step backs
with reducing the number of sides that
need stepping back
and reducing how many step backs they
need and the size of it. I think those
are all considerable concessions. So I
think what we want to do now
Commissioner Dare is let you make the
amendment and let's see if we it works
further debate.
>> if not yeah we want to do it. Okay so
I'd like to propose that we amend the
step back from starting at the base of
the sixth floor which is what I believe
it is to start at the base of the fifth
floor.
fifth story Okay and I think this is
just an informal vote.
It does require a second.
I need to study up on my Robert's Rules.
>> [laughter]
>> Is there a second for the amendment on
the floor?
Okay that amendment fails.
>> [snorts]
>> That was right man.
>> [laughter]
>> Okay we'll have Feister Patterson.
I will say
I
struggled with this still but when
looking at our kind of neighboring
cities it seems like no one knows the
magic number because if you're looking
at the Bothells and Bellinghams and
Redmonds there's second floor third
floor fourth floor like no one really
knows the number
but I think what the sixth floor does is
it honestly kind of puts us right in the
middle because it's not too low it's not
no requirement like I won't say their
name but another city so it kind of gets
us in that happy medium which I think
we're trying to find because we're
trying to encourage development without
you know sacrificing anything that we've
developed or you know built in our code
as a city so
the more I was thinking about it and
looking at it like I think that's where
my mind goes is like six is a a good
number for trying to I think the goal is
to try and increase development.
Um but we're find we're putting a limit
on it that's not, you know, kind of in
the middle of where everyone else is.
So.
you, Vice Chair Patterson.
Um, continuing debate just as on the
whole packet as a whole.
Now, this is where I shine. Okay, so
>> [laughter]
>> So, there is a motion on the floor.
Um
We want to go ahead and repeat it.
And the motion is to recommend approval
of the proposed Title 18 amendment as
presented.
Um, all in favor
please say I.
I.
And for the recorder, that was
unanimous. 1 2 3 5 6. That was all seven
of us.
I'm getting a thumbs-up Kristen's. I did
something right.
Okay. Well, thank you everybody. Again,
we want to thank the developers. We want
to thank the staff. Uh, and again, all
thanks to our commission that worked
hard on this
Oh, I don't know. Been a few months.
So, again, thank you.
We are going to move into our next item
of regular business.
And Let's see.
And that is an introduction to the first
two comprehensive plan amendments.
So Kate
Welcome back.
Uh, please go ahead when you're ready.
Pardon me, let me just adjust my screen.
Okay. And is everyone able to see the
presentation? Great.
Um, I think I forgot to introduce
myself, Kate Canny, principal planner.
Uh back here with uh senior planner
Emily Medina and we are going to present
on the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment
proposals starting with the first two
amendments.
So this is an informational briefing um
and really we just want to uh give you a
status update on and let you review what
our findings are so far as we've been
doing some analysis and initial drafting
on amendment proposals one and two. Um
we'd like your questions and your input
and guidance as we move forward.
So just to do a little background, um
you may recall that um every year the
city opens up the comprehensive plan to
minor amendments. Um every 10 years is
that big resetting of the growth
strategies and and policies. Um in 2026
the commission reviewed the initial
docket or list of proposals
um then provided your recommendation to
council as to whether you wanted these
proposals on the final docket for um
this additional um assessment and
drafting process. So um we are uh sorry
sorry council approved that final docket
um
identical to the recommendations you
made um in early March and since that
time we've been working on the
amendments. So the five amendments uh
proposals that you see here um are the
entirety of the list and the first two
amendments are actually uh overlapping
in so far as they both address land use
designations. In terms of the first uh
proposal it's to add descriptions of the
existing land use designations into the
uh the comprehensive plan um and also
kind of clarify which zones um implement
those land use designations by formally
and officially establishing that there's
a connection between the two. The second
amendment talks about clarifying the
names of low density and multi-family
designation land use designations and
zones, and specifically deals with uh
changing the names of the single family
zones because of the middle housing
amendments um that were adopted by the
city last year, which opened up single
family zones to not just single family
houses, but also to the middle housing,
to the town houses, to the duplexes,
triplexes etc.
So, um Emily Medina and I have been
working together on these proposals, and
we just want to share that information
with you tonight. So, I'm going to go
ahead and start with the first proposal.
We'll focus on that, um and specifically
again, that's to add the descriptions of
land use designations to the
comprehensive plan, and um to
uh establish uh which implementing zones
implement those designations. So, why?
Why are we doing this? Um so,
it's important to clarify the roles and
the purposes of the land use
designations and which zones they
implement for several reasons. Um Emily
even mentioned that, you know, she's had
conversations with developers about
"Well, your land use designations, the
names are a little unclear. I'm not
sure, you know, what's the intent of
this area." Um so, by having really
clear designations, really clear
descriptions in the policies, uh it
makes it easier to understand what the
vision for growth is here in Issaquah.
Also, consistency, as we've discussed
before, between the comprehensive plan
and the um development regulations is
required by the Growth Management Act,
um by local city code. So, there's a
little diagram there that kind of lists
how, you know, we have a comprehensive
plan that's influenced and guided by
Growth Management Act, other stuff, and
that the zoning has to implement and
follow um all of the above. So,
um that is why we are here today uh
talking about this.
So, what land use designations does the
city have? Um there are nine, and this
uh these colors uh with the designations
are directly from
our land use map. Um currently, these
designations are established on that
map. There aren't other descriptions in
the code. They are referenced, and we'll
kind of go through where those
references are. And as I mentioned, you
know, some of the names of the
designations do not, you know,
immediately and clearly communicate what
their purpose and intent are. So, you
know, the first three, conservancy,
community facilities, community
facilities privately owned, um you kind
of get a sense of that's, you know,
green space or parks or parks
facilities. Um whether uh in the
community facilities, is that public or
privately owned? Um we have also um
low-density residential, multi-family
residential, then retail, commercial,
mixed-use, and urban village.
In terms of the names, and I did a
little uh animation here, um that I that
we were really scrutinizing um when we
were looking at both of the proposed
amendments, you know, low-density
residential is part of amendment
proposal number two.
Um that is a designation where we have
single-family zones um that are located
within those areas geographically that
are also designated low-density
residential.
And it doesn't immediately speak to the
the fact that middle housing is
available there. So, we were looking at,
you know, should we do a renaming of
this designation? That was one of our
questions.
We also looked at retail.
Retail is a designation that you would
find uh in Old Town around Front Street,
for example. So, not only retail uses
are allowed there, but also residential
uses. So, we're thinking, gosh, maybe we
should re- rename that just to be clear
about what we're trying to do there.
Another of the designations that uh
wasn't completely clear, uh commercial.
Uh commercial might imply, you know,
what is that? Like just big box
commercial or when it's really closer to
light industrial uses, warehouses uh
that are allowed in terms of the zones.
So, our task was to
holistically take a look at these land
use designations, look at the zoning,
and see um how we could make things
clearer in terms of the names of things.
So, um the An- another thing we did was
look at the land use map, right? The The
map is on screen there, and the job of
the map is to illustrate the
comprehensive plan's 20-year vision for
where and how the city should grow.
So, those land use designations, those
colors are on the map, and within those
designations, certain zones make things
happen, right? So, they should align. Um
the Just to give you an idea of um how
the legends work, you know, often the
designations are kind of low- lowest
intensities to highest. That's sort of
the way our our legend works.
Um other wayfinding I wanted to share
with you just so you'd be like, "What
are we talking about?" Um
the land use designation map is now next
to the neighborhoods map. So, it might
be a little easier to see, you know, the
red mixed use just really pops, right?
That designation is for our highest
intensity commercial retail uses, uh
residential uses, and you can see how it
aligns with Central Issaquah, right?
That is in our comprehensive plan, in
our Central Issaquah plan, where we want
to focus most growth for housing, jobs,
etc. So, that kind of um
consistency um between, you know, the
name of a of a designation and the zones
that are within it are important uh when
we are trying to convey to the
community, to developers, where we want
growth to happen, what kind of growth we
want to happen.
I also wanted to show you the land use
map with the zoning map because uh the
relationship is very important,
especially if you want to rezone a
property. Um the land use map, in fact,
underlies the zoning map. So, the land
use map establishes the locations where
the zones are allowed, and then that is
also uh a requirement so that the zones
implement the preferred
uh land use pattern that is identified
in the comprehensive plan, right? We
want uh the taller buildings and the
apartments here and we want the
industrial uses over there.
Um, the zoning map, sorry, where the
land use map is the 20-year, you know,
future land use growth map, the zoning
map
implements the land use map today. What
kind of zone is it? This is what is
allowed today. Sometimes the zones do
not exactly match that land use map and
you get people who want to come in for a
rezone. So, if you are looking to rezone
your property, say, I have a single, you
know, I have a zone that's kind of
single family and I want to do an
apartment and I come into the city. The
first thing we do is check the land use
map to say, "Okay, what's your land use
designation?" Um, if it's, you know,
low-density residential and you want to
do a five-story apartment, you're not
going to be able to do that because that
zoning is inconsistent with that land
use designation. So, that's why this
relationship and this kind of, you know,
sandwich or pancaking of these two maps
is is I think an essential one and it's
why we want to have clear policies and
and zoning. So, additional analysis,
just so that you know,
we have land use land use designations
and zones referenced together in the
comprehensive plan now. If you open up
the land use and sustainability element,
you can find some examples. The housing
element appendices, there's this really
cool housing inventory if you want to
look at it ever. So, this is the example
from the land use element and while it's
in the comprehensive plan and it
includes information where here's a land
use designation and there are zones next
to it, it does not currently officially
establish that these zones implement the
comprehensive plan.
Previous versions of comprehensive plan
had this information and we'd like to
put it back in there just to get that
consistency and clarity back. We also
went through the land use code to find
out how the zones were represented and
how they aligned with comprehensive plan
and implementing that vision. And if you
go to 18400.030,
establishment of zones, you can see
there's information and a table
and the information um
that is on screen is the uh set of four
zone categories that are established. I
think you know that a few years ago that
this really big update of title 18 was
done and this uh these kind of clear
statements about what kind of zones we
have and what zones, you know, kind of
are related to these categories. And
that's really great work and that really
helped us as we were thinking about
clarity for the land use designations.
So, what we did is go to the
comprehensive plan,
look at the nine land use designations,
which in this table are on the left, and
compare those to those four categories
of zones. And where you can kind of see
that there's alignment, um some of the
zone categories,
even though their names are clear, it's
not clear which, you know, of the
um
land use designations fits where, right?
We have low-density residential and
multi-family residential. Are they in
residential
or what? And so, actually multi-family
is residential is in the mixed use in
the mixed zones category. Okay, that
kind of makes sense. Um but, you know,
could we make that clearer? Urban
Village or actually retail, uh which
category are we are we commercial or we
mixed zones? That one actually is in
mixed zones.
Um and then
Ooh, got that little lag in the
animation. So, Urban Village is also in
mixed zones, but it's not immediately
clear. So,
again, just showing you what we were
finding uh before giving you this
recommended set of changes. So, we would
like to uh recommend renaming uh some of
the land use designations to clarify
their roles and to increase alignment
between the comprehensive plan, title
18,
um and also uh uh we wanted to change
something in Title 18. And so, we have
not only comprehensive plan amendments
that we are talking about, but also some
changes to the land use code.
So, what are we proposing um in terms of
low-density residential for the land use
uh designation, we'd like to change it
to residential.
That um
it is a wider uh you know, category of
zones. It's not just single-family, and
it would allow the middle housing to
easily fit at you know, within that
category.
We also looked at multi-family
residential, retail, mixed use, and
urban village, all those designations.
And mo they all allow mixed use. Urban
village is a little bit of an outlier
because that land use category is for
the um areas that are um
regulated through development
agreements. So, they're kind of their
own beast, so they're you know
they they still are related to mixed
use, but um not going to go into that.
We're not going to change that.
But, we did think three different types
of mixed use land use designations,
mixed use residential, medium, and high
would fit better with the mixed zones in
Title 18, and be more obvious to people
um in terms of understanding what their
intent is.
We're also proposing to change
commercial to industrial because in
fact, the light industrial warehouse
type uses are really what we're talking
about as uh the the type of uses allowed
there.
Um also wanting to change again uh the
commercial zone uh
category to industrial zones in Title 18
for consistency.
So um
let's see here.
Oh, um what are other changes that we
would like to make? This is basically
the same table you just saw, but we
added to the right another column that
actually shows you the zones that
implement each of those categories. And
we just want to share that um they are
all consistent right now. We don't need
to make any changes in the zone uh zones
that implement categories, whether it's
in Title 18, or whether it's in the in
the comprehensive plan land use
designations.
But this next, uh, more involved, uh,
table
is what Emily gets to explain to you,
and this is our recommendation around
the mixed use zone.
All right. So, our new recommended mixed
use land use designation, so the mixed
use residential, mixed use medium, mixed
use high,
uh,
Kate gave me the lovely task of combing
through all of our zones and seeing
which one they fit with best. So, this
is the just gnarly table that's in the
packet with all my strike outs and
underlines and little notes to try to
describe how we went about this. Um, so
cleaner version on your screen, this is
just what the end result recommendation
is. Um, so on the left, like I said, the
recommended land use designation
renames, and then on the second column
is, um, how we're recommending the zones
align with these land use designations.
So,
currently they're kind of all over the
map. Um, I went through each zone, um,
and
uh, looked at the permitted uses for the
zone, the different form and intensity
standards um
height, density, that sort of thing for
each zone,
uh, and then
categorized them from least intense to
most intense, and then split that up
into the three different land use
designations. So,
top mixed use residential, we're
recommending MFM and MFH. Um, these are
mostly four stories, and they're mostly,
uh, permitted uses are heavily
residential with some small-scale
neighborhood uses.
Uh, mixed use medium, step above that,
has, um, medium intensity, um,
small-to-larger scale retail and service
uses, and then four stories, but some of
the zones can go a little bit higher as
well.
And then mixed use high is those more
high-intensity commercial uses, um
allowing large, um high-density
residential, and much higher, um height.
So,
those are the uh that's how we are
recommending those land use designations
be implemented in the zoning code.
So, the considerations for the
commissions, we have three general
questions to get some feedback on. Um
first, do the proposed changes to the
names of the land use designations
clarify their intent and purpose?
Second, does the proposed organization
of implementing zones increase
consistency between our comp plan and
title 18 code?
And then third would be should staff
move forward with drafting the land use
designation descriptions and related
policy and code updates in line with the
proposals? For that, aka, we didn't want
to write land use designation
descriptions if the commission did not
agree with how we were proposing we name
them.
And that's it for now.
Okay, well, thank you, Emily and Kate.
Let's open it up to the commission for
questions, comments. Again, this is a
discussion so
all of it's welcome.
Commissioner Krass.
Hi, can you go back a few slides? Cuz I
think it's super helpful. Especially the
one that has Go back one more.
Go back. It's
uh that that's a good one. Oh. Um let's
use uh
um
Go forward one.
So, one of the things I'll I'll ask Give
as an example as a question. So, I live
uh I guess it's part of Issaquah Valley.
So, I live in a single-family house. I
have condos on one side, apartments. So,
I think we're right now
multi-family residential. I would think
our land use is,
if I had to guess.
Um
with the new change, it's just going to
be residential, it sounds like. Is that
correct? Correct.
>> Okay. I'm just curious.
Does it Does it matter to if someone
wants to build a single family home or
a townhouse in either of these
designations or is it just this doesn't
really change what people can and can't
do based on just the the new broader
just residential? No. So, we're not
proposing to rezone anything at this
time, just changing the names.
>> Okay. So, really there's not really
We're just kind of cleaning up to have
less names and
All right.
Commissioner Adair.
Uh yeah, I have a kind of a question and
a follow-up statement. My first question
would be something like office space.
That That would be falling under mixed.
Do I understand that correctly?
Like let's say REI headquarters or
Costco headquarters, those would be
under what zone or what designation?
I don't know what REI is zoned off the
top of my head, but for instance, our
zone one of our zones is
it's a little bit hard cuz offices are
permitted in a lot of zones. Um so, but
professional office is one of our
zoning, PO, and that would be in mixed
use medium. Okay. So, yeah, so my
follow-up is this is mostly good, but I
think I feel like the mixed use medium
and high differing from you go mixed use
residential, then you go mixed use
medium, mixed use high.
I feel like that's a little bit
confusing. Um I get including mixed, and
I think that's a good idea. I just
it feels like to me it should be low,
medium, high or residential dash, and
then the medium should be something
else and
Does that make sense? It absolutely
makes sense, and
2 plus hours were spent right there on
that [laughter] exact one with our whole
planning department. We went back and
forth a lot between low, medium, high.
And I guess I will explain the reason we
ended up on this and then it's
commission's decision what we go forward
with.
>> [clears throat]
>> We ultimately decided with mixed-use
residential because the implementing
zones for those multi-family medium and
multi-family high are heavily
residential zones. There's very limited
commercial uses that are allowed in
those.
So when looking at a land when looking
at the land use name, it's much more
representative of what that area is by
calling it mixed-use use residential and
a much
clearer idea by just reading the name.
And that comes from like Kate
referenced, you know, I talked to
developers almost every day and there is
multiple times that they come in and
they say, you know, what does the city
want to see here?
So having that clarity where you can
just say this is our future land use
designation. Having that clear is that's
why we ended up on that mixed-use
residential. Did I forget anything?
Okay. I'm going to I also want to note
that so
Costco is in Central Issaquah. It's in
the urban core zone.
And but the urban core also allows for
trailhead.
So those are really intense uses and
they're both ones residential and one is
office.
And then mixed-use medium where you have
the mixed-use residential, you've got
Target, which is much lower. It's lower
story, can't go as high. Vail,
Atlas. So those are all those are again
mixed-use residential and commercial,
but they are much lower density than
what would be allowed in the urban core
and
mixed-use Central Issaquah.
And mixed-use.
Commissioner Matthews.
Oh, sorry. Oh. Kate, did you want to
follow up?
>> I just wanted to say really quickly that
um again, we did debate this because
it's hard to convey clearly what we're
what we're trying to say. The low,
medium, high, really the the
the character of mixed-use residential
is mostly residential, mostly, you know,
apartment or even middle housing. Um we
did look at other cities and in other
cities they also kind of do that kind of
mixed-use residential, residential
mixed-use kind of thing before they jump
to like kind of mixed one or two or
three or whatever. So, again, we landed
here um and the zones um are also
aligned um very carefully. Uh
multifamily medium, multifamily high.
I mean, those are uh multifamily uh
medium, Old Town multifamily high, East
Sunset. Thank you. Still learning the
zones from my tutor over here. Um so,
you know, if it was kind of a question,
then looking at what the zones allow
would be your next step probably as a
developer going to the permitted uses
and form intensity tables and then, you
know, that would sort out. But, again,
uh appreciate the conversation we had.
This averted of it.
Uh Commissioner Matthews. Yeah. So, I
kind of had the same when I first saw
this, I was like, what does mixed-use
medium mean? Are you talking about
density? Are you talking about height?
Are you You So, I didn't I was very
confused by that and I wondered if like
if somebody's a developer, if they would
understand they may cuz I'm not a
developer what that means cuz it to me
it's just like, what? Mixed-use high?
High what?
Height, you know, density. So, it just
seems
like a little unclear still.
But, that's where the descriptions come
in, which would be the next step. So, if
you agree with the zones that are in
here, then they we work we start writing
the descriptions that So, the when the
developers come in, we it's explained
for them. And I would follow up on that
as being being in I I used to work as a
consultant in many cities, it is a
common designation and the the medium um
that's why we didn't just go based off
building height or we didn't just go
based off permitted uses. It's really
medium intensity kind of all around.
It's our medium height limits, our
medium density. The the examples Kristen
gave were great for that.
Yeah. Mr. Crass.
So, can you help dimensionalize the
difference between medium and high? Or
and and the reason why I'm asking that
is
does there need to be two or is just
it's you have residential and you have
mixed and then you have everything else
and then
it could be zoned at a by certain height
or density. I'm just wondering whether
these are distinct enough. So, can you
give some examples of what would be in
each of these?
>> Sure. That may make me understand a
little clearer.
Yeah. It's a great question because that
was also something we debated as if we
wanted three categories or two. Um, that
we went back and forth on as well. Um,
example-wise, um, like Kristen was
talking about if you want specific
building examples or you're talking
about specific standards. Oh. Building.
Like
this here it would fall in this. This
here would fall in that. Just so we
understand.
>> Cuz that'll help Trailhead. That
Things that already exist. Oh, off the
top of my head. Um, urban core and then
mixed use.
Costco is high in high mixed use high
and Target is mixed use medium to steal
Kristen's examples.
Target and Costco seem kind of similar.
That's why I'm wondering whether like
that's I
No, you're talking about the store, I
assume.
>> All of it.
All of Costco. I was thinking of that
too.
>> the store as well as their corporate
headquarters are all in urban core.
I just feel like Okay, keep going with
examples. I'm just trying This is a
Well, now I'm I'm running out of these.
>> and high. I'm just having like it kind
of seems like one big lump and there's
like a It's like a spectrum of like and
you can have
Um, so I mean there's definitely a
difference between, as you were saying,
mixed use residential and then the rest,
right? So, for the rest
uh
you know, in terms of medium, it is
mostly you're going to be four stories,
40 ft mostly is allowed
with the opportunity to do some
incentives or or bonus programs. You can
be in different areas, but I'm going to
go ahead and show you this map again.
I know it's always nice to have things
in three. Well, and but but sometimes do
you Do you need that? That's so this
will be helpful if you
So, what I wanted to share is that so
for the highest intensity
um
mixed use high, you've got your urban
core in red here, and I think you've
heard the term wedding cake before. So,
if you think of land use designations by
height and intent by height alone, the
highest buildings are going to be
allowed in your mixed use high, right?
With with bonuses up to 125
ft maybe
um in like the urban core. So, that's
the top of the wedding cake in the red.
If you go down a notch to the medium,
that's where you're going to have your
your Front Street, your um
uh Issaquah Highlands um
little town center, I'm not sure what
it's called, like the purple on the land
use designation map. So, that is kind of
a different tier, a different scale of
um development. Now, are there some
overlaps? Yes, there are, and you can
choose as a developer to go to four
stories or to go up higher, but what you
would likely see in full build-out if
you just went for all the capacity you
could is the mixed use high is those
tallest buildings with the most number
of units if you're talking about you
know, mixed use residential, where
medium is going to be a a lot shorter,
you know, buildings
fewer units, and then the residential is
going to be
apartments with just a tiny bit of mixed
use or no mixed use at all
or ground floor commercial. So,
those three tiers kind of help with that
differentiation of just magnitude and
and scale of development for, you know,
development community coming in. Where
can I put my biggest buildings?
I'm going to start with the high
designations and work my way down from
there. I don't know if that was helpful
and I know Kristen wanted to share
something as well.
>> it's I mean, you're talking about the
future, which I get cuz
um the examples that you gave made me
think that they were this very similar.
So, it's really
from what I
mean, the things that we have right now,
it's a little harder to peel them apart.
Is that what you're saying?
But in the future when I'm 85 years old
and we have a train station and all this
other stuff, um
then they'll probably be taller
buildings and those would be mixed-use
high around there. Is that correct?
And keep in mind it's a 20-year plan.
Too. So, this isn't for what's here,
it's for planning for the future.
>> [laughter]
>> Thank you, John. Um any other
feedback?
Questions?
I think this is probably as far as
being on the commission, this is
probably one of the more, I don't know,
brain-draining parts of it is the the
zoning and all of it. It takes me a
while and then every single time I think
I got it, they throw a monkey wrench in
it and
I start it all over.
But I definitely for simplifying,
definitely want to make it simpler for
everyone. Um definitely would prefer
that you guys wordsmith it the way you
guys think that's going to be the most
helpful with all the people that Emily
alluded to that she talks to today. I
think that's the point, that's the goal.
Anything that moves that way, I think
it's probably appropriate.
Anyone else?
Yes, Commissioner Holstrom.
I appreciate the effort on simplifying
things. I feel like what you're saying.
I mean, I'm all for that and I think
it's great. And
We're going to have to see more of that.
Yeah, we're in like a streamlining kind
of uh year, I suppose. So, um that's
great. Um does anyone have anything else
to put Okay, Commissioner Zakharova.
Thank you. Well, I would like to also
say thank you for simplifying things
around because I'm the one who's been uh
trying to understand zoning since almost
20 years ago when I started doing
business. And uh trying to understand
why I'm allowed in one zone and not
allowed in the other zone. And I've been
through a lot of different cities and
all of those cities over the years and
their rezoning processes and that's
really it's a pain, uh for sure. So, I
appreciate that and I kind of like um
well, I understand the multi zoning with
high density and with lower density and
everything in between. It includes It
also includes It's not just a height. It
also includes the traffic. It also
includes the overall tension in the
area. So, I was explained it too many
times, but yeah, thank you so much. To
me, it's clear. To me, it's clear. I
want to see the explanations as well, of
course. And I'm sure we will go through
that. But yeah, I I looked at it just
briefly and I'm like, yeah, oh, yeah.
That's super fast. Thank you.
The cleanup crew. Okay. Um anyone else?
Sure, Vice Chair Patterson. Uh yes, one
I guess consideration um and again, I'm
deferring to the people that use the
code more and you as the experts, but is
there any risk to removing the term
retail at all?
Um
and the only reason I say is like I feel
like a lot of this is simplification and
um streamlining and you know,
consolidating terms, but retail in
particular seems maybe a little bit
different. Um if you were to merge it
into like mixed-use medium, mixed-use
high, um, it could potentially get
misconstrued as like favoring
residential, perhaps, or, you know, I
don't I don't know. I don't really have
an opinion myself, but I just kind of
wanted to throw that out there as like,
is that worth
considering at all? Well, and I think
you're speaking to a kind of the
characteristics of some certain zones
that implement retail, um,
uh,
cultural and
business district, I believe CBD on
Front Street. I'm still learning. Sorry,
there's 37 zones here and I'm a little
new to being here. So, um,
you know, there are, um, zone
descriptions and establishment of zones
in the in in the land use code, um, and
development standards associated with
that standard that would, um,
promote retail uses like along there,
um, and and that kind of thing. Retail
is allowed as a use in
all of those mixed-use zones, um, to a
to a certain extent, right? Um, very few
in multifamily medium, but
I so,
residential is also allowed, is that So,
that's what we weighed. So, I I mean, I
I hope we can capture what in the in the
land use descriptions, the land use
designation descriptions, as well as the
zone descriptions, what the intent of
that original intent was from retail. We
are drawing from, uh, the previous
comprehensive plans and their land use
designations. They're really, you know,
the foundational documents to help us,
uh, you know, rewrite or write in, uh,
these these new descriptions. So, we'll
we'll try to preserve that and we'll
come to you and get your your guidance
on that.
Yeah, I appreciate that. I think, uh,
just having seen this the first time,
we're probably all like, what does it
mean? And you're like, well, we're going
to tell you the next time. So, I think
this all makes sense. I am on board with
the simplification. Uh, you know, just
coming at from a like small, medium,
large, low, medium, high thing, like
that all makes sense. So, I think we're
on the right track. I think once we get
the descriptions, you know, some
tensions will be eased. Thank you.
Now, I just want to say that also
there's no longer a retail zone
in the city either. That was that was a
holdover from 1995, I think, and
the uses are just much more blended now
than they used to be. I think just by
the way we all live. So, no there's no
there's no
um
What was the word you used? Um anyway,
there's nothing to worry about by
removing that that description.
Yeah, please commissioner. Examples are
helpful. So, Gilman Village for example,
which only has like little shops and all
that, what would that be considered in
this land use? Um as an actual land use,
it's probably retail, but they fall
under the mixed-use Central Squa zone.
Is that in Central Squa? Gilman Village?
>> It is in Central Squa, just barely. Is
it really? Really. Yes.
All right, anything else?
We like examples, Kate. Lots of
examples. Bring your examples.
>> [laughter]
>> Pictures, please.
>> just have a few slides on the second
proposal cuz we've already taken care of
some of the items of conversation. So,
as you may recall, the proposed
amendment number two specifically to
clarify the names of the low-density and
multi-family land use and zoning
designations to ensure compliance with
the state's middle housing requirements.
Um this is really focused on look at all
the zones that say single-family in it
and how they roll up into the land use
designations and you know, uh
are they conveying the right uh
message? So, why are we doing this? Um
last year the middle housing ordinances
came through because the state uh
changed the rules around single-family
zoning
um
as one of the many goals of increasing
affordable housing supply,
uh increasing the number of housing, the
state required um
all cities to to allow uh middle housing
in zones that allow single family uses.
So, in Issaquah, with the size of city
we are, what is allowed in each single
family lot is two to four units. You get
of middle housing, townhouse, that kind
of thing. Two units, but you could go up
to four under certain conditions. Are
you close to high capacity transit?
Well, we don't have any yet yet in
Issaquah.
And if one unit is affordable of the
four, then you can to a certain income
level, you can get four units on the lot
of middle housing.
The laws also
that were passed allowed two ADUs, two
accessory dwelling units on each lot
with a single family or or primary
resident resident. So, that goes from,
you know, allowing
single family and ADU to two ADUs, so
three units per lot. That was the big
increase there.
So,
again, we um
were looking at these zones, known as
called single family, that I'll show you
in a minute, and doing our
analysis by reviewing what's in the code
now, just to verify, just to share with
you. As I mentioned, in single family
zones, we allow middle housing, six
types duplex triplex fourplex
townhome, single family attached, and
cottage housing with just a few photos
there. Um also, I wanted to show you
this cool map. There's actually a really
cool study that was done to support the
middle housing code amendments. So,
there are uh
1 2 3 4 5 Six single family zones. I
remembered that before the presentation.
Five of which have the name single
family in them, right? We have
conservancy residential. That's one of
the, you know, largest lots in in areas
that really are conservation areas that
allow just, you know, a tiny bit of
housing.
Then we have single family duplex, which
is mostly located in Old Town. Single
family estates, single family suburban
which are larger lot, single family
probably where critical areas are or
maybe lack of utilities.
Also single family small lot and urban
village single family. So we have a lot
of single family single family
when in reality you can do more than
single family in these zones. So
we took a look took a look at what other
cities are doing
tried to get
to alignment with what our new proposal
for comprehensive plan land use
designations were and we came up with
this chart. And these proposals.
So as you'll recall in land in terms of
the land use designation that was low
density residential since that now
allows middle densities we went with
just the general residential
use designation.
Of all our existing
zones we decided to start with
residential in the in their name and
then kind of preserve the existing name
in some cases or try to clarify what
type of single family was. So you know
residential conservancy just kind of
change flip the name a little bit
residential estates, residential large
lot those are kind of the again those
larger lot
types of
areas.
And then for the smaller lots we we kept
basically the the small lot but now it's
residential small lot. And then we did
residential Old Town instead of
residential duplex because of course
more than duplexes are allowed
in the single family zones.
We also we're changing urban village
single family to residential urban
village. Right now there's these two
different zones that are rolled up into
one it's a little
bit of a quirk in the code. We had our
GIS
uh
uh
analyst who's great to a look at like
where is this zone? Emily didn't know,
Kristen didn't know.
And we found that we need to remove it
because it doesn't exist anymore. So, or
no, actually that was a different one.
On this one, this one we found was not
actually a parcel but bits of streets in
the Highlands where they had a lot and
then there's an irregular thing. They
just instead of making it a different
kind of tracked, they created these
little zones. So, we're going to come
back maybe next year with an idea about
how to address this one. But we also
found a zone that we're removing which
is super exciting cuz you know, 37 we
can get down to 36 and then maybe
consolidate a few uh if they make sense
in future years.
So, that was um the last uh slide um
on the proposals and the questions,
considerations, you know, do you think
these new zone names work? And should we
move forward with drafting policy and
code updates in line with the proposals?
So, go ahead and put that chart back and
open up for Excellent. Thank you, Kate.
Would anyone like to comment on
comprehensive plan two?
Yeah, Commissioner Holstrom.
Seems logical. Makes sense to me. So,
I'd say good work.
>> It's only logical. Okay.
Um
Yeah, no, I I would agree.
Like I said, streamlining is good.
Anybody?
Commissioner Zackrow.
I would also like to speak in support.
Great job and this is super hard to
clarify all of this, but yeah, thank
you.
Any further comment?
Okay, I think you what you have is your
commissioners trust. You guys obviously
know your stuff.
And again, the idea of just trying to
make this streamline and easier for
everybody.
Full speed ahead.
Cool. Thank you. Just a couple more
slides to talk about next steps then. Um
so, we'll take your comments. We will go
ahead and uh you know, work on drafting
specific proposals and we'll be bringing
those to you. I will say that um in
terms of the code amendments and changes
to the code, there are a lot of
citations that we're going to have to
deal with. So, it's going to take us a
while to uh make sure we uh
you know, cross out single family
everywhere where it is in Title 18. So,
um what's the process looking like? Uh
at this point, we'll come back later
this spring um with those proposals. Um
you will also see other uh proposed
amendments coming through
um in the summer for all of the
complaint amendments. Um we'll have
continued review, the public hearing,
and then in fall is when we'll go to
council uh for their review and action.
Again, uh you can only uh
uh amend the comprehensive plan once a
year, so we have to get these amendments
in by the end of the year. So,
that was it. I didn't know if you had
any final questions, but
Uh do you guys have everything you need?
Yes. Okay. Excellent.
All right. Well, thank you, Kate. Thank
you, Emily. Um thank you, Kristen.
And we're going to move on to reports
and looking at Kristen, do we have any
city council or Kate, I'm not sure who's
taking this, but city council updates.
I just have one and that next Tuesday,
which is May 19th, Manny and I are going
to the Committee of the Whole Council
and with the goal of taking all of the
17 proposed amendments or our work plan
to them. And attached to each one of
those, which will help you all, will be
a goal for each one of those amendments
and what the council wishes to see the
out you know, what outcomes they wish to
see
with those. So, I think that'll help. We
can once those are adopted, we can bring
those to you all and remind you each
time we go through these amendments what
is the It's kind of like we did with
Title 18, you may recall that. So, what
is the goal? What is the outcome? And is
this achieving it? So, I think that'll
help with our discussions in the future.
Great.
May 19th?
Okay.
May 19th is when you guys present? Yes,
May 19th.
All right.
Uh
Any other business or announcements?
None.
Simple.
Okay.
Are there any updates to our calendar? I
noticed that our calendar just got It
goes all the way into 2027 now, so
exciting stuff. Told you it was going to
fill out. We weren't done yet.
Uh anything to our calendar?
Uh not right now.
Just busy, busy.
Which is great.
Okay. Um
Anything for the good of the order?
From our commissioners?
All right. Anything from staff?
Okay. Well, thank you everyone, and we
will adjourn this meeting of the
Planning Policy Commission at 7:55 p.m.
Thank you, and good night.