Army. We're ready when you are.
>> We are live. Good evening, everyone.
We're going to call the June 11th
Planning Policy Commission to order. Let
me get my phone.
It is currently 6:35 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 attending virtually or in person.
Kristen, do we have a quorum this
evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Great. Okay, so you guys all heard about
the squirrel, right?
So, the squirrel apparently got into
some like the type of fuse box, ate a
bunch of wires. It's why we don't have
recordings of our last meeting. And it's
also why we do not have meeting minutes
to approve this evening. So, we will try
and get those provided to the planning
policy commission at our next meeting on
June 25th. But, uh, if you were
wondering,
we're going to open right now with
public comment. And this is for general
public comment. um for all topics that
we discuss here at the Planning Policy
Commission. Um yeah. So, do we have
anyone that would like to speak
online?
>> No, we do not.
>> Okay.
I was looking at Genevieve's children,
but they didn't look interested in
speaking either. So,
>> maybe next time. Okay. Regular business.
We'll move on to uh these two items
which will be presented relating to
projects on the promoting building
investments work plan. We'll start with
an update from senior planner Emily
Medina on the natural context area and
transparency code amendments. So it says
Emily, but I see Kristen and Kate
looking at me.
>> Ah, okay. So Kristen, our planning
manager is going to go first. So
Kristen, when you are ready, please go
ahead.
>> Hello, Kristen Leon, planning manager.
And this really, it's not a big item.
Um, just wanted to do an intro. I
mentioned to you all that
the
planning, development and environment
committee was working on establishing
goals, objectives, outcomes for us to
help us um guide our decision-m for the
promoting business in Isiqua amendments.
And just want to let you know that for
each one of the amendments that comes
forward
in the future, we will include this as a
reminder at the top of the information
sheet at the top of the memo. This will
be in there. Um, so the first one that
we have, I'm just want to do the first
three just to talk about those are the
natural context areas and transparency
requirements. We know what the issues
are. We've been through that before, but
they, you know, developers have said
it's difficult to meet the energy code
requirements. We we know we're we're
we've become aware of this as well.
Staff has that it is difficult to meet
the energy code requirements um when you
have significantly large windows and
lots of transparency. So the goal is to
provide some flex flexibility in the
transparency requirements
um along natural context areas and along
street frontage and to eliminate and
reduce transpar transparency
requirements along natural context areas
a possible action identified by PTE and
add flexibility for transparency along
the street frontage. But as you also
know, we're going a little above and
beyond in looking at natural context
areas themselves and the standards that
are currently required there. And we
talked about that at our last meeting.
So, we've included those as well.
The next ones,
I should switch this way.
Okay. are the parking requirements. And
the in our intent really is just to um
meet the
uh state mandates through bills 5184 and
1183
before they're actually due and those
are all outlined. But the council the
issues are parking is not the you know
piece of par a parcel's highest and best
use which we all know that um we want to
it parking can generate negative impacts
such as dirty storm water and dead
zones. Um when we did the central Isqua
study we found that 75% of central
Isiqua was surface parking lots and we
want to get rid of that. We didn't want
that anymore. So initially we required
structured parking. state no longer
allowed structured parking for resident
multif family residential properties. We
also found that that was a deterrent to
development because parking can go
anywhere from say $20,000 on a surface
space per space up to about $100,000 if
you're per space if you're going to go
underground with structured parking. So
it does get expensive.
U apparently the parking requirements
are arbitrary and though therefore some
areas are overparked and parking lots
create barriers for non-car users. So,
our goals are to establish right-size
parking requirements to, as I mentioned,
do early adoption of 5184 and eliminate
council would like you all to consider
eliminate parking minimums in central
Isiqua, specifically the urban core and
the mixeduse central isqua zone.
No, I just want to go over the go what
council has directed. And yes, um Andrew
is going to be talking specifically
about parking tonight.
Uh the last one I just wanted to go over
you again, these are just council
council objectives and goals is um to
allow multif family in the com UV urban
village commercial retail zone.
If you all ever want to know the history
behind it and why that's you know why
that is that I can tell you but probably
don't need to now. Um but this bill 6026
requires that um residential be allowed
multif family be allowed in all
commercial zones. So we just need to
meet that and the goal is to achieve a
balance of multif family housing across
the city while not losing retail
requirements. That's something we've
tried really hard to do in central
Isiqua. Um you may recall um chair voice
when we did the central Isqua standards
and redid them and did the visions we
had a developer obligation in there to
sort of try and replace jobs one for
one. So if a job was lost due to
housing, replace that job one for one.
We found that it's really hard to do by
code, but we'd still like to try and
accomplish it somehow. Um, so anyway,
that is the action is to allow multif
family in UV comrade. That is all I have
tonight unless you all have any
questions and want to talk about some of
these and I do have them all here, but
otherwise we can talk about them as they
come up when the topics come up.
>> Okay. Okay. All right. That's all I
have. Thank you.
>> All right. Okay. Now, we're going to get
to Emily Medina.
Okay, Emily, when you are ready, please
go ahead with your presentation.
All right. Good evening, commissioners.
Am I good to go? Okay, perfect. I'm
sorry, I'm used to DC. I have to be
sworn in first and I I forget that I can
just talk here. Um, Emily Medina, senior
planner, here to talk to you tonight
about the transparency and the natural
context area requirements. Um, if you'll
remember, our associate planner, Yei,
presented about this last meeting. Um,
we're kind of tag teaming it um to, you
know, multiple minds on it and because
we're both missed one of the meetings,
so it worked out. Um, as a reminder,
um, kind of the purpose of this that,
sorry,
sorry, got my notes. Um, the, as Kristen
said, when it comes to these amendments,
the goal is to provide flexibility for
transparency requirements along natural
context areas and along street
frontages. So, we're going to review um
staff's proposed amendments and some
questions staff has for the commissions
um to get feedback tonight.
And just a reminder, this is where we're
at in our schedule of amendments.
And the first one we will discuss is
transparency.
So, um, Ye presented all the background
on it. So, I'm just going to kind of
breeze through these as it's more of a
reminder. transparency. You know, we're
using windows and doors to break up
buildings, break up blank walls,
activate the ground floor, engage the
pedestrian, um walkability, pedestrian
friendly environment. That's the goal
behind transparency.
Uh we have varying transparency
requirements in the city currently. So,
we have citywide requirements and then
neighborhood level requirements in both
Oldtown and in central Isqua.
Um those existing requirements
um have presented developers have
informed us of some issues and some
issues that staff has seen as we review
projects. Um costly when it comes to all
the windows. Um conflicts between the
land use code and the building code and
the energy efficiency. uh privacy
concerns when it comes to residential
transparency on the ground floor as well
as some inconsistency between our
internal land use code sections.
So, what are our current regulations? As
a reminder, um our citywide regulations
currently are 40% transparency on the
ground floor for multif family and
commercial and 70% transparency on the
ground floor for retail. In Oldtown,
which is the map on uh your screen
there, we have 15% of the entire facade
for multif family and 45% or 25%
depending on what street um the property
is located on for ground floor in the
CBD zone um which is the red on your
screen along French street. And then in
central Isqua, it's currently required
to have 50% of the entire facade be
transparent when facing a natural
context area.
Um and then the other part of our
current regulations, how it's measured
and what it's measured from. So just
same as last one, Oldtown has the entire
facade for multif family, CBD for ground
floor. Central Isakiqua is all walls
oriented towards natural areas. And then
citywide it's um that 6 ft or higher or
5 ft below depending on how the
developer opts to measure that um which
commissioner Adair provided good um
visuals of that for the last meeting. So
kind of just breezed through that as
that was last last time's presentation
um and moving into our recommendations.
Um so that is in your packet. We have
the memo that goes over all of um city
staff's recommendations as well as the
track changes of what that would
actually look like in the code. Um for
transparency,
our recommendations are um separating
multifamily and commercial ground floor
transparency requirements. Right now
those are grouped together and staff
believes um just from our own use of the
code as well as developer feedback that
it makes more sense for those to be
separate different uses. um clarifying
the options for measure measuring and
calculating ground floor level
transparency for residential uses. The
whole 5 foot, six foot, it was different
in different portions of code. We
realized how confusing it was,
especially when Commissioner Adair sent
us those and we were talking about it
internally and we were like, "Oh boy,
this this could use some help." Um and
then the next one is um grouping
commercial uses with retail instead of
the commercial with the multif family.
similar uses reducing citywide
transparency requirement for retail and
commercial the new grouping we're
proposing from what 70% which is what's
current for retail to 45% which is what
is required in the CBD district along
front and sunset
um and then maintaining the 70%
transparency requirement but only
applying it to the urban core zone um
which is our high priority pedestrian
area and And then lastly, there was a
transparency standard about um window
signs and that's already covered in our
sign chapter. So removing that entirely
um we don't need sign regulations in our
building design chapter. Um and then
you'll note that there's no changes
proposed to the allowed deviation
section when it comes to transparency or
to the Oldtown um uh CBD or multifamily
transparency standards.
So
with that,
that is staff's recommendation before
you. But with that comes questions for
the commission. Um the first is about
the multifamily transparency
requirement. Um staff is looking for
commission's input on if multifamily
should be further broken down into two
categories, which is multi-story multif
family, so think apartment buildings
versus town homes. So think, you know,
connected town homes, front doors and
windows on the ground floor. Um that's
number one. Number two is does it make
sense for commercial and retail to be
grouped together as now proposed instead
of um commercial grouped with
multifamily as currently exists?
Number three is does reducing the
citywide retail and commercial
transparency standard to 45%. Um instead
of the general 70 for retail achieve the
code amendment and the citywide goals.
And then additionally related to that
one, does applying the 70% transparency
standard just to that high priority
growth and pedestrian area, which is the
urban core, achieve the city's visions
and goals, or should it stay as it
exists today and apply 70% transparency
more generally across the use.
The second one is natural context area.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Do you want to talk about the questions
before we launch the next one?
>> I think that'll be a little easier for
all of us.
>> Yes. Threw a lot your way.
>> Well, thank you, Emily. Uh, let's start
with some questions.
>> Commissioner Dare, is that a microphone
that's on?
>> Yeah. Just to clarify, so three and four
kind of Am I understanding correctly
that they're kind of linked? So you're
saying that instead of having 70% across
everything, we would just say 70% in
high priority zones, 45% everywhere
else. Correct. And then just to further
clar So correct is that it's 70% retail
right now and we're suggesting combine
retail and commercial, lower it to 45
and just put the 70% in the urban core
along street frontages.
>> Okay. And was follow-up question. Have
any commercial or retail builders asked
or requested this or is that just like
what was the origin of wanting to lower
this standard? Um generally speaking,
the developers um wanted the standard
lowered overall
um all the way down to 15%.
For multif family, all the way down to
15%. And then when we were looking
within the transparency requirements um
since this 70% is within that as well
and there's been concerns about the
meeting the energy efficiency and the um
conflict between the IBC and uh IMC is a
municipal code. Um staff took it one
step further to recommend this.
>> Okay. Uh Commissioner Crass.
>> Hi. Thanks. So, um I have a clarifying
question. So, uh retail, I kind of I
understand what retail is. You walk down
the street, you see stores, you want to
have a lot of glass and all of that. Um
define commercial because they could be
very different. And by combining them,
I'm not sure if I agree with combining
them until I have a better understanding
what falls within that bucket.
>> Sure. And um Kate, you can help me out
here too. Kate, help me write the code.
Um, part of the issue is that in our
current code, it says retail needs 70%
transparency and we don't have a
definition for retail in our code. Um,
so when in doubt of a definition, we
look to the dictionary definition of
what's retail. But that that was part of
what initially triggered this amendment
is that we don't define exactly what
retail is. So who exactly this applies
to, that obviously creates a hurdle. Um
but in answer to your question,
commercial is far more reaching than
retail is. Commercial would include
things like personal services, um
typical retail.
>> So like
>> shopping stores,
>> dairy gold who's on Front Street. Is
that considered commercial?
That'd be weird of having a lot of
windows there, but on the stores on
Front Street, you want to have a lot of
windows. So I think they could be very
different things. And
>> I have a little Oh, I apologize. I have
a little clarification because when we
faced this on we did this on Front
Street
>> that we required
>> if you're on Front Street the first
floor had to be commercial or retail and
in our permitted uses table it is broken
up by categories in there and that you
actually do have retail medical office
um food and beverage that kind of thing.
So if we were to do something like that,
we could specify food and beverage
retail as identified in the permitted
uses table.
>> Yeah. I mean I think it's easy to
identify as you just mentioned what
retail is food and beverage and things
like that.
Commercial
as I said I just used I just grabbed an
example of the dairy gold plant. if
that's considered commercial, it's such
a different thing. And I wouldn't want
to impose having to have windows on a
factory where
um where a bike shop or a restaurant
makes sense to have that from a
walkability standpoint. So I think just
having the clarity. So So I'm not sure
about combine to answer your question,
combining those depends on what they
are.
>> Sure.
>> And right now since I don't know what
they all are, it's hard for me to agree
with the recommendation of combining
them. And if you wouldn't mind, um I
actually don't know what the uh dairy
gold plant is um identified in our use
tables as.
>> What is it?
>> Mineral use
>> as an example. Something that's not
retail.
>> Um so uh
I think what Kristen was saying, so
where you have areas that are
anticipated to be high pedestrian of
high pedestrian interest, then you're
really looking at street level design,
which includes that transparency level.
So, right now on Front Street, it is 45%
for all of Front Street, including where
Dairy Gold is. I have a feeling that
plant is legal. That that building is
legal non-conforming. I'm sure it was
there before that standard was put in
place. Um there are town houses coming
in that are activating their frontage
with more transparency um than they
might have to do elsewhere. Um, so it
depends on what the intent of the code
is and the sub area plan for Oldtown
probably talks about activating Front
Street and so the code is written to
implement that plan and those goals.
Just as in central Isiqua, the idea is
the urban core. You know, we've been
talking about the regional growth center
that is, you know, the heart of the
regional growth center. That is where we
want the most mixeduse activity. We want
um ground floors that are active. We
want, you know, the 18-hour city where
people can be walking day and night. And
we want the uses to be retail or
commercial. You could be a bank, you
could be a dentist, you could be a um a
shop, a clothing store. We want the
transparency there. And we want your
lobby to be there to be activating the
street where your office uses could be
elsewhere in the building. But that
street frontage for whatever that amount
is, that's what um what that
transparency, that 70% is looking at. I
totally I totally agree with all that.
Uh I just was like what is commercial
was my question. It's kind of like it
seems like a lot of things can fit in
that and
>> and I'm not sure if it just needs more
definition to what you're based on what
you just explained.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Happy to happy to specify it more. It
was um just as it exists now in code it
says multif family and commercial needs
40% ground floor. So we just moved that
and commercial from the multif family
and commercial down to retail. But happy
happy to define it more.
mic.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. The same. Thank you. Um because
you're already redoing all this, it
gives you the great opportunity to put
the definitions that you really want in
there that will not have these questions
in three more years from the same group
of people.
>> Yeah.
>> Commissioner Zacharov,
>> thank you. uh regarding the commercial
and retail the kind of well as a
business operator I uh exist in a world
where retail is more like a store
industrial would be something that is a
dairy gold is and commercial is let's
say my dance studio it's commercial
property so and like I don't sell for
retail but we do services so that's
that's commercial so maybe we can kind
of clarify kind of in that direction but
>> I'm just going to reiterate again with
Front Street, we had the same
conversation because it said commercial
and you don't want a dentist office to
be,
>> you know, 70%,
you know, whoops, sorry, um,
transparent. The reason we didn't
include those is because that's not a,
you know, an activation of the of Front
Street. But that was how we did it. Our,
like I said, we have categories in our
permitted uses table. And so you can say
specifically um we actually took the
definition definition of retail out of
our code when we did the overhaul
because retail uses change daily. I mean
something that we've never heard of
comes up and so we just did a general
definition of it. But if we say um we
have grocery stores, we have
restaurants, you know, we have food and
beverage as a as a category, we have um
services as a category and then we also
have medical offices. So services don't
equal medical offices. Those are two
different things. So we can be very very
specific with it that way if that's
something that you want to do.
>> Also have one.
>> Thank you. Uh my question is regarding
the number one uh did we get any
requests from developers to divide
multifamily from uh multi-tore multif
family and town homes? Did we get any
questions on that?
>> We did not get that request from
developers. That is from um my own
implementation of the code. And when
you're implementing an apartment
building versus town homes, when
apartment buildings have lobbies and
community space on the ground floor
usually versus a town home that has
their front door and their living room
windows on the ground floor. I think
it's potential that those should be
viewed differently, which is why we're
coming to you for input if you agree.
>> Okay. We also have condos and condos
have no any kind of um space on the
ground floor except for living space. So
condos aren't a use in the city. That's
a legal mechanism. So town homes could
be condos or apartment buildings could
be condos. Um so that that one kind of
falls outside of the division of that
line.
>> Yeah. But we don't have offices and
condos like there we have just
>> Oh, you mean in apartment building
condos there's units on the ground
floor?
>> Yes. Yeah. So
>> Sure.
Commissioner,
>> um, up in the Highlands, I'm not sure
what regulations were in effect when,
for example, Bevmo was built or the the
so-called retail areas further up the
hill where there's now a dental office.
The dental office has um essentially
floor ceiling windows. Uh, and they have
to be obscured because patients are
right there. Um uh and Bevmo has covered
over I would say 80% of its window space
because that's where they want their
shelving for their goods. And so, um, I
mean, I I I think
our regulations have good intentions,
but, um, they don't necessarily, at
least in those two instances, did not
provide the leeway for the developer to,
um, have some deviation from the
transparency requirements.
I'm not sure where to go with that. I'm
just saying I think it's it's it's
difficult to um without any flexibility
to say you know this is what retail is.
I mean Bevmo is a retail establishment.
Safeway is a retail establishment but
threearters of the perimeter of of the
Safeway building have no windows.
So I you know I I think we just have to
be careful about how we apply any uh
desires for transparency.
And we're we're just talking about along
street frontages as well. So it's not
all the wrapping all the way around the
building. It's just the street frontages
>> for the for the 70 for the 70% on
>> the 70% urban core is just street
frontages. The 45% would be the street
frontages through block passages and
natural context areas.
>> Which would be a reduction.
>> Okay. Uh Commissioner Holstrom Holstrom.
>> Yeah. I mean 70 and 45% still seem
really high to me. And I would think
like somebody that's building a new
building, they don't know if the tenant
on the ground floor is going to be a
commercial use or a retail use when
they're designing that building. They
don't know if it's a professional
service or a restaurant that's going to
come in. So
that wouldn't be decided till the
building's complete almost or real
close. So it would to me it makes sense
to have one percentage
>> for a newer building that would be
coming in.
>> That is a great point because that is
something I've had to deal with. So that
is part of what's really hard about
having the retail separate from the
commercial as it is now and the
commercial looped in with multi- um
family. For instance, the town homes
going in next to Dairy Gold have retail
on Front Street, but it's it's re it's
retail. we made they they had to design
to the highest transparency required
because they didn't know what use was
going to go in there. So they had to
design to whatever the highest was
because if it under the current code
retail 70% but commercial is 40. Um so
it's it's a great point
>> and I would say I'm building a house
over here right now and I measured the
front of mine or transpar what I had and
it's 36t wide house. I've got seven
windows and a glass door on the front
and that comes up to like 33 34%
transparency and you couldn't hang a
piece of anything on the walls inside. I
mean, it's just windows. So, I don't
even know how they're building those
town homes with that level of
transparency requirement. I mean, it's
it's got to be quite cost-effective and
it's just going to be solid glass pretty
much or the bulk of it. So those numbers
are high in my opinion.
>> Great. Thank you. Commissioner Matthews,
>> I just had a general question. Uh when
you're building a multifamily
uh development in central Isqua, can
they put parking on that ground floor
unit? Like the ground floor? I noticed
in the trail head they do have parking a
park like the first floor is parking.
So, how if that's allowed, how do you
deal with the transparency rules? Do
they have to get a deviation?
>> Well, that happens to be coming up
later. So, um in another in another
amendment, but no, no, that's okay.
Trail Head Trail Head was given I think
we may have told you this. I'm not sure,
but they through the state are allowed
to get deviations through a contract
with the city from some of the design
requirements that might make their
building more expensive. One of the
things, one of the things we require in
central Isiqua is that if you have
ground floor structured parking, it is
wrapped on the street facads with
storefronts.
And so, trail heads not having to do
that. Typically, they would, but that is
also one of the amendments that we're
looking at um early next year.
>> I thought I had seen somewhere in the um
the packet we had that the state had a
law that you could not force them to
have retail in the bottom. Is that true
or did I misread that?
No. Um, that's a whole other long thing,
but you can require it that 40% of your
zoned properties, commercially zoned
properties outside of your um trans your
transit oriented development or your
station area can require mixed use on
the ground floor.
>> Okay.
>> But only 40% of it.
>> Only 40.
>> Yeah. So, we don't have a station area
right now. So we're not actually looking
at that part yet. We're trying to
address what we can first and then Yeah.
So the other part of that is the
requiring uh multif family and
commercial areas.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I love that you all read your packets.
This is good.
>> Commissioner Der.
>> Yeah. So just to give my input on some
of the questions. I I do agree that
multi-story family and town homes serve
kind of a different purpose and a
different market. And I think it's okay
to kind of separate them in terms of
requirements, right? Because yes, multif
family homes will by and large have a
lobby at the base and town homes won't
and town homes will likely have garages.
Um,
yes, I had another comment, but my kids
distract me. So, I'll I'll be back in a
second.
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I also agree that the multif family and
the town home should be separate because
again I mean it they are different.
They'll have more narrow frontage and
you know the apartments they might have
entrances in different areas or a
central zone that you enter into. So I
do think um it would probably be best to
separate those two.
>> Does everybody feel comfortable trying
to do one two three four? See where
everybody's standing?
>> Okay. May May I offer up another option?
>> Sure.
>> You know, I just throw them all out
there. Um, but to Commissioner
Zacharov's point, you know, you're going
through New York or, you know, any other
city that has them. You have condos on
the first floor. If you've got stacked
flats, condos, those will be on the
first floor. So, another option is to
say that any uh ground floor residential
units have to meet the 15% and then the
rest of it has to meet something else.
>> Can we say ground floor but not specify
the 15% yet? Cuz that's more
Okay. Who's comfortable with uh question
one as far as should multif family be
bro further broken down to multi-story a
multi-story multif family and town
homes?
So I think that um you know these are
informal but I think you got the idea.
Uh okay. Does it make sense for
commercial to be grouped with retail as
now proposed instead of with multif
family residential as currently exists?
I think we're probably looking for more
information about how we define those.
At least I am.
>> What's that?
>> Yeah.
>> So, probably yes, but more information.
>> More information.
Does reducing the citywide retail and
commercial transparency standard to 45%
achieve the code amendment and city
goals? And then just this is a
clarifying question for me. So the
developers were looking for 15. We're
currently at 70 and we're trying to go
meet them halfway around 45
>> around 45% and also um part of the
reason part of the reason that's
selected halfway but also um because
that's the current standard in our CBD
zone along Front Street and Sunset which
is arguably one of our most commercial
stretches in the city. Um and so if
that's being applied there currently and
it's working that feels like a good
consistent standard to apply throughout.
>> Okay. Rather than raising it an
additional 25%. Okay,
minding what Commissioner Holmstrom said
as well. So, but I'll ask the question
as it stated again, is everyone
comfortable with the citywide retail
transparency standard to 45% to achieve
the code amendment and city goals?
>> Okay,
I think you've got about half of us
convinced that's okay, right? I just
have three. I think everybody could
going back to the meeting two weeks ago.
It's it's hard to pinpoint that number.
I take Commissioner Holmstrom's uh
comments, you know.
>> I would love to see some examples though
of what it would look like for 45 versus
50. You know, just some kind of like I
did the ones on my own, but and I think
to um Homestöm's thing, were you looking
at the 6T and above number or the 5ft
and the balloon? So he was looking at
the whole facade. So that also
introduces another thing because in our
code we have up to six feet for retail
and then I mean up to 5 ft for retail
and 6 ft and above for multif family. So
I mean I'm just saying it it's different
when you're looking at things and based
on how the windows are arranged the
purpose.
>> Examples.
>> Yeah, examples would be great. Vice
Chair Patterson
>> add to I I guess just some thoughts on
that too is uh I mean you brought up the
idea that Oldtown and Front Street is
currently 45% and I think um personally
I think that's probably our most
pedestrian friendly walkable like
enjoyable area in terms of like walking
down the street. And so when I think
about like how I would want the rest of
the city to develop in a pedestrian
friendly way I feel like that is a great
example of somewhere in our city that
has that. And so that's what makes me
think 45 is probably okay. I don't given
I 70 is way too high. Um I think I could
be convinced lower potentially.
Definitely not 15%. Um but I think 45 is
a good starting out point as we continue
to look at examples and such.
>> Excellent point. Uh Commissioner Crafts.
>> So um when you said 45 in Oldtown, that
is what the rule is, but I'm curious
what the actuals are. So that's by
looking at each one we they may be the
rule of 45 but they may be at 70. So
that what you like may be higher than
45. So it'd be great on your examples of
true actual buildings and then picture
and then what that would actually be in
terms of the percentage and that I think
that would be a lot more that'll be very
informative um because we may find that
the ones on Front Street are all
exceedingly higher than the 45. Um, so
then we'll have a better sense of what
45 really means or what 60 means or what
55 means or whatever.
>> Come back with some examples. When you
see me on Front Street with a measuring
tape, you'll know what I'm doing.
>> That's excellent. I was kind of
thinking, yeah, if the examples could
actually use our city.
>> Yeah, some real life examples. I think
sounds like it would be helpful.
>> I'm just thinking of like Fischer Meat,
that's probably quite a lot of glass.
And then you go over to uh Los
Margaritas, not a lot of glass.
>> So again, to Commissioner Crass's point,
um, so again, I think we're split there.
want some examples, but I think
ultimately you could probably convince
us 45% is the
>> Well, at least to start from I I'm in
agreement with uh Vice Chair Patterson.
I think 15 is way too low
>> and I think 70 is way too high. So, it's
trying to find, you know, the porridge
that's just right.
Okay. Additionally, does applying the
70% transparency standard to just high
priority growth in pedestrian areas
achieve the city's visions and goals or
should this or should they stay as it
exists today and apply 70% transparency
more generally across the use.
Um okay.
I'm going to
questions. Yes,
>> Fred. Commissioner Matthews,
>> I kind of think that if you keep it at
70, it's kind of like we've been
discussing before, you're not thinking
about what use is going in there. So,
what
>> Yeah, 70 is nice, but if somebody's
going to put a bunch of shelving in
front of it, I'd rather not see that.
So, maybe when we're looking at the
transparency and you know, we have
commercial and retail and services is
completely different. A dentist office,
you don't want 70. So maybe it comes
down to services versus retail. I'm not
sure because you do want to give them
flexibility on how much wall space they
can hang their merchandise on um and how
much you want the transparency obscured
at some point because it doesn't fit the
the future use of that building. I hope
that makes sense.
>> Absolutely. I I think it kind of goes to
Kristen's point about the different like
you said and I my question is doesn't
that make a ton more work for all of you
>> to just apply the 70% to UC?
>> No. No. The exact opposite to have the
different permitted uses and okay this
is your permitted use and this is okay
now you're a dentist office now you're a
veterinarian now you're an art shop. Now
you're this and I get it because I agree
that you know nobody wants to see people
getting worked on their teeth on Front
Street.
>> Commissioner Cass.
>> Sorry. So I also am curious if you think
from a longer term view. Is it better to
have a building that has glass but
inside's wrapped because they have other
shelving or something like that just
from the view from the outside versus
just a wall? And I and I have a belief
set and once again when we look at
examples it still may feel better when
you're walking down a street if you see
a bunch of glass even though they may
have like Bevmo has you know in you know
some some opaque things in there versus
just brick walls. So I'm just it's even
though the uses may change, there's ways
of handling that and maybe still having
a requirement that may seem a little
stricter, but it gives a better vibe
what we're trying to do from a a
walkability for the pedestrian. So
understanding what that
>> Sure.
>> So the once again go back to the real
life examples. I think you know pictures
a thousand words. Is that right? There
you go.
>> Pictures worth a million.
>> Yeah. Thousand. Yeah.
I would just if I could just add one
absolutely permitting thought as we're
talking about examples just um
>> the just specifically because this is
just in our code um you if you are
required to have this level of
transparency that sign standard that's
in the sign you you can't cover the
windows in signs there's actually a
specific percentage that windows are
allowed to be covered in signs and I
want to say it's 25% you can't cover
more than 25% of your windows in signs
so you could to um Commissioner Crass's
this point dentist office put in blinds
to cover up the windows but then if a
retail shop comes in those blinds can be
removed but when it comes to like the
Bev Mo example or that kind of thing
like we've had to have other um
retailers remove opaque window signs
because you have to maintain a certain
percent of transparency.
>> So is a sign so if I use a no words on
it but is a a window film on the inside
is that considered a sign? It doesn't
say anything. So, what is the definition
of a sign then?
>> You're not going to love my answer if it
depends. Um,
>> I'm just saying like my like I live on a
busy street and on my front door I had
one of those windows just a film put in
like so you can't really kind of see
inside. It's still glass and has a nice
vibe.
>> Not not a sign.
>> Okay. So,
>> yeah, but I was just to the sign
portion, but to your point, yes, if a
dentist office goes in that doesn't want
to see people, they put they can put up
blinds and that kind of thing and that's
allowed. But the signage itself and the
mud bay putting up their signs across
every windows is not allowed.
>> And can I just add that some cities do
not allow you to darken your window if
there's a transparency requirement. So
there
>> we also have a dark tint prohibition on
ours as well.
>> Um, Commissioner Derek,
>> I so um are we kind of on a detour then
from number four? because this is kind
of how not how I understood the question
but because how I understand number four
and correct me if I'm wrong is you know
some cities have higher activation
streets where they have different
transparency levels than lower
activation streets. So I'm not opposed
to that but I would worry that if our
goal is to simplify code this might be
going in the opposite direction. And
like let's say right now we're expecting
the light rail to go to location A, but
something happens and it gets put in
location B. How do we adjust if we do
the street activation? Would we then
have to go in and adjust the code as
our use of the city evolves and changes
in the future?
>> Uh to answer the first point, yes, we
did go on a detour. That is that is that
is the intention of it. Um to answer the
second point potentially, yes. Um I
might throw the mic to Kate because she
loves this topic, but that you know
that's that's that's what our sub area
and our long range plans are for is this
is what we want to see this area become.
And right now urban core is what we want
to see become our pedestrian priority.
Our growth center are where we want this
type of activation to occur. which is
why um staff has proposed the 70% just
there.
>> Great. Commissioner Matthews, did you
have your hand up?
>> Well, I might be going off topic, but
the one thing I think we forget is that
there's other options besides
transparency. You could have like living
walls with greenery to take in cases
like that or you put artwork up that for
those cases where you have a service
that doesn't need a 70% transparency. Um
and maybe the developers would be not
happy with having to add, you know, a
seat or something for pedestrians, but
that those are other options to look at
besides the 70%. That may be nice to add
more artwork, more living walls in the
city because that's kind of nice too to
see a lot more greenery.
>> Yeah, I was thinking of
>> especially with all the glass and brick
and everywhere. So,
>> yeah. No, I was thinking of a example
that I believe you guys provided two
weeks ago which kind of had like, you
know, the buildings are modulated. They
had brick and they almost had like um it
was like framed in and then the brick
was set back like six inches and they
had ivy or something in there. I mean
that looked great. That looked nice. So,
>> uh Commissioner Holmstrom,
>> I think we're all pretty focused on the
visual aspects of transparency, which is
a fine conversation to have. Um, if I
and I hate to ask for more information
because I know you're all so busy, but
part of me is, you know, the developers
have brought up the added con
construction costs with the new state
building codes and I I can tell you it's
significant just in what I do. I mean,
it's dramatic and I know there's another
building code update coming that's going
to be even more stringent. So, is there
is there any information we could get on
kind of what that looks like compared to
what it was
>> as far as windows go to what's being
required now, which may be required in
the future.
>> I don't know. Maybe there's not. But I
feel like that's a conversation we
probably need to address before we pick
a percentage on how expensive this is
for anybody trying to build a new
building. the uh to clarify the change
to the build the change to the building
code.
>> Yeah. The Washington state building, you
know, the requirements for energy
efficiency and all that.
>> Okay. You would like to see what those
numbers are.
>> I'm just wondering if there's any
information that might be available that
or feedback from somebody on the costs
that are being incurred trying to meet
all this glass requirement.
>> I feel like some cities have adopted it
already. We can look and see and try.
>> Yeah, I will. We can talk to our We can
say I'll talk to our building official.
That one's outside my
>> land use code scope, but I will I I'm
happy to talk to our building official.
>> I know this is a problem for anybody
trying to build something. So, I'm just
wondering if we could get any if there
is any information to kind of put that
in focus.
>> Sure.
>> Thanks,
Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Yeah, I think that's a good point is
that, you know, we are kind of still
arbitrarily putting numbers out there
where we're like, well, this one doesn't
work, this one doesn't work. I think
what would be helpful is like data
driven decision-m right like we're
hearing from developers and this is as
you mentioned like part of this whole
conversation is like how we make it
easier for them to build or more cheaper
or affordable um and so that's the
reason for bringing it down right now
we're all trying to maintain it for the
for the community perspective of like
the walkability and the how it looks and
and how it feels so I think to to try
and you know focus this in it's To
Crash's point earlier, it's trying to
understand what it looks like, right?
Like what does 40% look like? What does
70% look like? What does 15% look like
in our town today? And then from a
developer standpoint, what does it cost
to do those things? What does 15%, you
know, going from 70 to 40 to 15 look
like from a dollars and cents
perspective? And and trying to
understand like where we can land
amongst that because we are trying to
balance those things, right? we're those
are truly the two things that were
brought to us is the developers say it's
too expensive to do x amount and we're
saying we don't want to go too far in
one direction and have big blank walls.
So I think if we get the data that both
of you have kind of brought up that'll
help us kind of get to where we want to
go in terms of feeling better about a
number or a percentage.
Any other comments? I don't feel like we
did too well on question four, but
that's okay.
>> We I have a whole long list of
assignments for question four.
>> Okay. Got a lot of homework for question
four.
>> Yes, I will I will be coming back with
this before the public hearing. So
>> Okay. Yeah, I think that'd be great. I
think everyone would feel better. Again,
I I to Vice Chair Patterson's point
earlier, 15 seems way too low. 70 seems
unreasonably high.
>> We don't want everything. may ask a more
general question. Absolutely. Let's not
talk percentages, but how does the
commission feel about our urban core
having a different probably higher
percentage than the rest of the city?
Just on the face of that in general,
>> the question's been put to all of you.
I'm okay with it.
>> So,
do do we have statistics of pedestrian
flow of urban core versus other areas?
because I think or or expectations I
should say
>> because that'll help drive it where
where there's more people walking and
being
>> yes you should have more
>> that's the idea of the the 18 hour
>> no to statistics yes to upcoming
expectations that that's where our
growth will be
>> but that is the idea of like the you
know the RG the the regional growth
center that's where we want
>> right so I think in generally I think
people are okay with the higher number
>> yeah just yeah because for me one
concern I have is I don't want people we
build this beautiful light rail station
and then people get off and then there's
towering prison-like buildings and then
they never want to come visit here,
right? And also though you have a higher
desiraability of land that's near the
light rail so we can increase costs in
other ways like transparency and get
away with it.
>> So to Emily's point, is everyone
comfortable with the
urban core area having a higher
standard?
Great. Thank you.
>> I don't think you're going to get a
solid yes out of any of us, but
>> that that was good enough. I appreciate
it.
>> Yes. So,
>> okay.
>> All right. So, I think we're ready to
move on to
>> number two.
>> Second amendment related natural context
areas. Um just again the history that um
ye went over. Um these are generally
areas in the city that are regulated
streams, wetlands, but also city parks,
open space, private open space. Um and
the goal is to have developments that
prioritize resource management and
integrate is Aqua's natural features um
while ensuring they remain accessible to
the public. And a reminder of the goal
from the council level is to provide
flexibility um in our transparency
requirements.
Um so again, uh issues around natural
context areas, multif family project
sites, um when natural contact areas
have challenges meeting those
regulations. Um and this is focused
within central Isiqua.
The current regulations, the buildings
need to be oriented towards these
natural areas. Um the site area between
the building and the natural area needs
to um help connect it. natural
materials, native plants, um designing
buildings um with things like balconies
and stoops facing the natural areas,
public walkways connecting to it. Um and
if adjacent to a water having water
oriented features.
Uh so recommendations
around the natural context area um
sorry my notes around the natural
context area code is amendments to
eliminate sections that are vague or
better implemented by more specific
sections within the same code. Um
removing code specifying natural
materials as that's ill-defined and very
likely in conflict with upcoming state
law changes. And then lastly to remove
the transparency requirement to reduce
code redundancy since we have a whole
transparency section it doesn't need to
exist in this one as well. Um and since
that's already addressed remove that
here.
So main question for the commission um
for this section of code building
orientation to natural areas in central
Isiqua should the applicability be
changed to just address sites that
directly adjoin a natural contact zone?
So in this case it would mean if there
was a street separating the building
site from the natural context area they
wouldn't need to be oriented towards the
zone. Right now as it reads anything in
the natural context zone has to orient
towards it. Um so our question is should
that remain or should we change that to
um only require ones that directly
adjoin the natural contact zone?
>> Great. Thank you Emily. Hands up. Uh,
Vice Chair Patterson,
>> uh, remind me on that distance. It's 150
ft. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Uh, I'm just going to get straight
to a personal opinion on this one. Um, I
think that part makes sense to not apply
for a street or parcel with the carveout
that if it's a trail or a pedestrian
path, then it should apply. Meaning if
there's a trailer pedestrian path they
should have to face that natural even if
so natural contact area trailer path
house it should face that still.
>> Okay. So if it's a vehicular street that
it doesn't need to then orient the the
natural context area on the opposite
side of vehicular street. But if it's a
pedestrian trail and there's a natural
context area on the opposite side it
should.
>> Yes.
>> Got it.
>> I think I think Commissioner Olen I can
I can see him over there. brings up a
good point.
>> I mean, bicycle paths sort of bridge
that question of vehicle versus
pedestrian. So, I'm not sure how you how
you address that. I think, you know,
with with a street in between, clearly,
uh, you don't want maximum transparency.
Um, and I think depending on how busy
that path would be, whether it's a
bicycle or pedestrian path that you
would might have similar transparency,
visibility issues. So, I I hate to keep
muddying the waters here. But I I think
we we have to define what street is
versus path.
>> I would like to refocus this question
that it's not just about transparency.
It's about the whole building being
oriented that way.
>> Just just making sure we're on the same
page.
>> Uh, Commissioner Matthews. Oh, I'm
sorry. Commissioner, you sure?
>> Okay, Commissioner.
>> I was just thinking of the Confluence
Park and how that's just a small
residential street and it does face the
context area and I think they should be
oriented. I don't want to see the back
of somebody's building in that natural
environment. So, I think there's a
difference between a residential street
and maybe like a four lane or a three
whatever it is on Gilman. Um, that may
be completely different or if there's a
parcel that's going to be built on, I
think that would be separate, too. But a
residential street I think should be it
should face the natural context area
because they're usually pretty narrow.
One and a half car um to two car lane.
No,
>> these are great points. Like I said,
it's great discussion. So, uh,
Commissioner D,
>> I think you're kind, it kind of is
introducing some confusion because we
also say in the code that if you're like
along water, you need to create a
pathway. So then if we're saying you
don't have to orient towards a pathway,
but you have to create an orient towards
a pathway or another example would be if
you have a street frank quite frequently
you also have pedestrian walkway along
that street. So then if most places also
have to be oriented towards their
pedestrian walkway. Do you see what I'm
saying? It's like do we create
>> I I'm definitely seeing that. I did not
phrase this question as well as I could
have. Um
the intent behind this was an actual
street, not a trail, not a pedestrian
pathway, but a two-lane
vehicular street.
>> Right. But a two-lane vehicular street
often times would have a sidewalk.
>> Sure.
>> Right. And so in that case, does the
sidewalk supersede or do you see what
I'm saying? Because they're going to
have to be oriented towards the sidewalk
anyways, wouldn't they? Or would it
depend?
May I?
>> Yeah. Okay. So, trail head. Trail head.
I'm sorry. Did I miss it?
>> No. I just was like, she could just see
my brain whirling.
Trailhead. trail head has four
streets around it, right? It's Well,
okay.
Anyway, there are two buildings. Um,
they came across an issue. They have a
natural context area to one side, they
have a critical area to one side, and
then they have two regular streets. But
on the on the south side where they're
going to build that building, they are
not going to have to build an additional
sidewalk even though it's adjacent to an
extra natural context area because they
already have that sidewalk. Um, they are
having to build Oh, I had a better
thought before I started this. Um, but
they are having to build
>> Keep going. I'm going to pick it up when
you put it down. I know where you're
going.
>> The garages.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. They're having to build the
garages on the street now. We would
rather have those garages along that
other street than along the natural
context areas.
And Emily, you're going to have to pick
it up now.
Sorry, I held very long.
>> I think what she's getting at is that
trail head does face this exact
conundrum, right? It has a natural
context area on one side, it has a
throughblock passage on the other side,
and has a street on the other side. And
so, how are they orienting the building
towards all three of those? Um, and is
that where you're
they are orienting it? You don't want
the garage the garage has to go
somewhere. You don't want the garage
oriented towards the next natural.
They're just they're naturally going to
do that. But but my question is I I
think I mispoke then cuz my question is
kind of like okay
>> here you have beautiful natural context
area here you have a street the street
has sidewalks
here you have an apartment going in
right so I'm assuming you're that this
situation then
>> you want it oriented towards the
sidewalk anyways so then this whether or
not there's there's a street there is
kind of irrelevant.
>> Yes.
>> Right. Because or whether or not Yes. Do
you see what I'm saying? So it's like
>> the building is orient towards the
street anyways. Yes.
>> Um because that's where they get their
pedestrian access from and that. So yes,
it generally speaking that will most
likely be the case is even if it is
building street natural context area,
it's going to face the natural context
area because it's going to face the
street. However, natural context area in
requiring the building to be oriented
towards that has other requirements as
well like having the stoops and the
porches and the balconies. So that's
part of saying if it's directly adjoined
versus just adjacent to if it's just
adjacent to across
>> right now even if it's across the street
>> because there's above and beyond.
>> Yeah. So even if it's just next to the
street right now in the natural context
areas on the other side it has to meet
this whole menu of options. We're
saying, do we want them to have to meet
all of that if they're across the street
or do we want them to only have to meet
all that code if they're directly
adjoining it?
>> Got it. I think directly adjoining, but
that's I'm still listening.
>> Commissioner Alner,
I
>> I mean, I think if you've got a natural
context area, you'd want to have your
apartments face that regardless of
whether there's a street in between or
not. So, is it possible to to uncouple
the the requirements for balconies and
various other amenities when you have a
street but still require uh the
buildings to orient towards the natural
context regardless of whether there's a
street there or not? So, maybe maybe I
would ask a different question than than
what you were asking. I mean, we have a
lot see the map that uh that Sandra
requested um showed a huge amount of our
city as having natural context areas.
So, this isn't it's not a a minor
question for future development. It's
kind of very important and central to
how you orient your buildings.
I
am I not making myself
>> No, I uh I'm having a hard time picking
the question out out of that that you
want me to respond to.
>> I'm not sure that there is a question. I
think my my opinion is based on the on
your question in the previous slide that
I think they should be oriented towards
the natural context whether there's a
road or street there or not. Okay. the
the what the the other implications of
that aren't necessarily compatible with
having a street there. You know, you
don't want to necessarily have a patio
right next to a a two-lane road. So, is
there a way to uncouple that orientation
requirement from the other requirements
that now um fall under that category?
>> Okay. I apologize. I am following you
now. Yes. So um that just having it the
building even if it doesn't adjoin but
is adjacent to be oriented towards it
but perhaps not require the other items
unless it directly adjoins.
>> Yes that you know we write the code it's
always possible
>> just makes it more complicated.
>> I want I want to get to I also want to
give our other commissioners a chance to
speak before we commissioner Holmstrom
Commissioner Zachro.
Yeah, it's this just strikes like
buildings are always going to face the
street just like houses face the street.
I mean in my opinion. So to require it
face two different things which may not
even align in any way just seems strange
to me. I mean
seems like a lot. I I agree
if it's across the street then I don't
think it should have to be facing that
that direction as well. But see I as a
architect I couldn't imagine trying to
solve this riddle. It seems like it' be
extremely challenging.
>> Uh Mr. Zachro
>> well to me uh once we started talking
about like apartment buildings uh I mean
I'm not sure if it's possible that all
of the apartments in the same building
will be facing or have at least one
window pointing towards the same like
pointing in the same direction.
Because I mean I I live in condos and
apartments for the past 22 years. Yeah.
All of my windows are always facing one
side unless it's a corner unit. But it's
either one side or the other side. So
it's not possible. Like if I see the uh
natural context area, then my neighbor
across the hallway doesn't see the
natural context area. And what kind of
like if it
Yeah. So the requirement isn't that all
of it has to face that way. It's just
that side of the building has to have
porches and stoops and balconies. Not
that every single unit has to be
oriented that way. It's just making
requirements of the building facade that
does face that way.
>> Yeah. But if we're saying we're not
adding stuff, I'm just trying to figure
out commissioner's point. So
>> all very valid again. Um that's why they
ask us to keep coming back.
>> So Commissioner Derek,
>> I have another follow-up question. Okay.
So as I'm understanding this, under the
current code, you could have a plat of
land.
Here's natural context area. A plat of
land and another plat of land within
150. And if you're building on this,
you can orient towards the natural
context area, but then have somebody
build something between you. So, you're
trying to eliminate, right, that
possibility because it does it doesn't
make sense to me to have to orient
towards another building that's blocking
your view of the natural context area.
Anyways, so to those ends, yes, I I
agree. If we have a plat separating you
or a parcel that is going to be built on
either in the future or currently,
they shouldn't have to orientate towards
a view that is ultimately going to be
blocked. Right.
>> Great point.
Great point, Commissioner.
>> I guess I'm stuck on the question of uh
the definition of orientation.
Um, my house faces the street in terms
of the front door being facing the
street, but we have western views which
are in the opposite direction. So, as
far as I'm concerned, my house faces two
different orients to two different
directions. And so, I think the question
of orientation has to be better defined.
>> Okay.
>> And oh, we're actively working on better
showing an example of that right now.
Just give us one second.
>> Sure. So just the way a lot of and I'm
sorry I'm still a bit new here in terms
of what what the code looks like but in
most codes and I believe here you
identify a front and your entrance is on
the front and usually it's the highest
level you know street classification. So
um if you're on an arterial and a local
street by classification we would say
the front is your arterial and um I we
will need to get a little more familiar.
I think this is a great thing to talk
about. So, um, these guys might be able
to tell you straight up, but we can
bring more information about that. Um, I
can say that we did look at some other
cities codes and they did use the
language adjoining rather than, um, some
of the other language that would require
things in case another parcel gets
developed or if it's across the street.
Um, but I think um, we have a lot to
think about and options to bring based
on the things that you said.
>> Yeah. No, and I appreciate that, Kate,
because that's my understanding. At
least that's been my understanding, too,
is that's when we're talking about
orientation, it's really more of the
front features such as doors and access.
But I think
>> our wizards are over there trying to
figure out some pictures.
>> Well, we we just wanted to show you this
picture again because orienting doesn't
mean putting the front of your building
there. It doesn't mean that your
entryway to the hotel is facing the
natural area. simply means that there
are features that are oriented toward
that side of the building. So this what
you're seeing right here, the front
entrances are on the other side by by
the street side, but it is open and the
back sides are oriented toward and can
view the natural areas. There are no
blank walls and I I think that's all
we're trying to say.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Well, that's definitely helpful.
>> Okay.
>> Um yeah, Commissioner Matthews,
>> I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
So about the street, I understand the
PL. I do totally agree that if there
isn't plant between that you're going to
build on it should you shouldn't have to
orient balconies there. But an example
is that Monahan building on Newport Way
that faces it faces 90. It has Newport
Way but it the views are to Lake
Samameish. So you're automatically going
to put balconies there because who would
not do that? I mean a developer would
not do that. Yeah, that's like the
obvious. People are going to want to
orient because that's going to be the
highest priced unit in a condo or an
apartment. So, I think it's natural that
you would if you have a street, it may
be worthwhile doing that, but I get, you
know, like a plaid between where it's
going to be built, it may not make sense
to require that. So,
>> the other thing that we're trying to I'm
not pushing anything out there. I'm just
trying to I'm But the other thing that
came to mind when we're talking about
this is in that situation that it only
has up there. You've got the street on
the front side. You don't want loading
docks or anything on that street side,
but you also don't want people to put a
driveway in the back and put all of your
garages back there. And that's what
orients to the natural areas. So, I
think we're trying to find a way unless
you say, "Okay, you can put them back
there, but you have to put up these huge
green walls that cover it so nobody else
can see it." You know, I I just don't
want big blank garage walls or anything
back there. And that that is easily
something somebody could do is provide
access to go to around to the back of
the building from the front. And that's
just what we're trying to avoid here.
How it happens is, you know, you guys
make the recommendation. We're just
throwing stuff out there.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So maybe we try and take this
apart by as far as can we all agree that
um
properties that are adjoining a natural
context area should be oriented
orientated to that area. And again with
Kristen's definition as the building is
working with that area. It's not
necessarily that the front features like
doors, but it is taking that con that's
taking that area funny enough into
context.
Is everyone okay? I mean, if if not,
that's fine. I'm just trying to get a
feel so we can move this along, too.
All right, everybody put their hands up
if they agree with that.
Okay, making some headway. Okay,
Commissioner Adair.
Oh, I thought you just wanted to speak.
Got it. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.
>> No, no, no, no. That's fantastic. Like,
no. I honestly thought you had a
question.
So, okay. So, I think we all agree with
that as far as the adjoining of a of a
natural context area. Yes, the building
should take that into context and orient
the building that way. Uh so and again
most likely those developers will take
that into context but uh how you can
write that in a way that you avoid what
Kristen brought up is loading docs.
Yeah that's tough.
That's that's why you guys write the
code. We just recommend
um
are we willing to go a little bit
farther and talk about if there is a
road? Um because I think Commissioner
Dar brings up a great point. You know,
if you have enough land, so is the 150
foot, is that even something they should
consider or is that less considerable?
Meaning, if there's a plot of land or if
there's a highways, does that make more
sense than just some arbitrary 150 foot
rule? I would say so. I mean, myself,
150 ft. Again, if you have a parcel in
front of you that we built on, it
doesn't really matter. Um, so to me it's
really about more what's in front.
What's between? What's between? Yeah,
that to me makes more sense. Emily has a
question.
>> I Well, I I I feel like I want to add a
piece of context as we're debating like
if the street really, as you are
debating whether the street between it
really separates because um there's
different types of natural context
areas, right? So if it's a wetland or a
stream or like a true natural area,
nothing's getting built in the 150 ft.
So that is going to remain natural. So
where this is really coming into
question, the adjoin versus the adjacent
is city parks and public open space and
things that aren't critical areas
because that has the potential to be
built in between. And I can't speak to
whether market rate always wants the
balconies facing out towards the soccer
fields versus towards a wetland or a
stream, which there's definitely not
going to be anything built in between
them. Um, so there there's a little bit
of a let me just throw another wrench in
here of a farther dividing line that the
type of natural area it is a joining or
adjacent to could impact what could
actually happen in between.
I mean, I feel better with Kristen's
working definition as far as orientating
a building. They still have options as
far as egress ingress. It's really just
more about are they taking advantage or
are they blocking out to use it as
loading docks? I mean, not that they
would. Is that where they're putting all
the
air conditioners? You know what I mean?
Are they taking advantage of it? That's
the way I see it. You know, kind of
after Kristen's nice definition of it.
So,
Okay, I think you that's about all
you're going to get out of us after
question one.
>> I've stunned you into silence.
>> I think we'll quit while we're ahead.
So, yes, I think when it comes to
adjoining There you go.
>> Adjoining. Yes. Adjacent.
>> Adjacent. Uh
>> surprise you.
>> TBD. TBD.
>> Okay. It depends. Um
>> need more data. Yes. So, with that in
mind, because we do have some it depends
some let's get some more information.
Um, we will I will be coming back. The
potential third review sounds like it's
going to be a definite third review. Um,
so I will uh go measure front street and
we will be back on July 9th um for a
third review of the code um with some
more of the requested data to hopefully
help the commission make another
decision and then we will have our
public hearing in PD and council
following that.
>> Excellent. Well, thank you, Emily.
Definitely appreciate it. And uh to some
of the commissioner's points, I mean,
these are big decisions that are going
to help the development of our city or
hinder it. So, I mean, again, having
another meeting and going over again,
it's completely completely appropriate.
So, again, I think we're getting closer,
though.
>> It sounds like I appreciate the
feedback.
>> Okay. Well, thank you, Emily. Um, we
have another item of regular business.
And
where am I? There we go. The last item
tonight is an introduction to two more
code amendments. Parking reform and
allowing multif family uses in the UV
commercial retail zones. Associate
planner Andrew Love will lead this
discussion uh for this evening. So
Andrew, when you're ready with your
presentation, please go ahead.
Thank you. I'm here to present on
additional title 18 code amendments. Uh
specifically this uh is relates to the
um
promoting building investment uh code
amendments or PBI for short and
specifically updates to parking
requirements and then secondly we'll be
discussing allowing multif family uses
and the UV comat zone or urban village
commercial retail for is the full title.
I wonder how I can make my
self smaller.
Okay, I got it. Sorry about that. Uh so
here is the uh overview of the schedule
on the screen. So we are in the yellow
color. Uh so parking requirements
allowing multif family and um UV
comrade.
So first let's talk about parking. So
the background of this is uh key
objectives from uh state legislation.
Multiple state parking bills um have
been passed uh recently aimed at
reducing parking requirements for new
housing. And actually, the city has
already done a lot of parking uh code
amendments last year as from what I
understand. I'm not sure if uh all of
you were on the PBC at that point, but
um but it's time to do some more. So,
less parking uh allows for more housing
to be built. Um freeing up land by
reducing areas that must be provided for
private vehicle storage. Not to say that
parking is not important, but it's just
one piece of the puzzle. Washington
cities uh that have reformed parking
already uh such as uh Bellingham have
seen projects develop with more dwelling
units than would have been uh permitted
under the previous parking minimums due
to greater site development potential.
Uh and a 2024 study of urban areas uh in
Colorado found that reducing the minimum
off- streetet parking spaces required
had the potential to allow for the
development of 73% more homes near
highcapacity transit. That's almost
double and 41% more homes in areas
further from transit.
So key um objectives of the promoting
building investments uh would be to
accelerate the implementation of the
state laws to help reduce potential
barriers uh to development um and
promoting more housing opportunities.
And really a lot of pe you'll hear the
term parking reform a lot. That really
just refers to the Senate Bill 5184.
However, um we're also going to be
talking about House Bill 1183, which uh
has additional parking requirements that
we hope to address with this suite of
code updates. So, passed in uh just this
past year in 2025, it requires cities
with populations over 30,000, which is
Aqua is well within that range, to adopt
by July of 2028. So, we're getting a
head start. We have a couple years but
um establishes maximum number of off-
streetet parking spaces that a community
may require for uh different types of
residential units. For example, multif
family, even single family is included,
residences under 1,200 square ft,
affordable housing and senior housing.
Also certain limitations for off-
streetet parking for commercial uses.
So, just to go bullet by bullet, um it's
going to be no more than 0.5 spaces per
multif family unit, no more than one
stall per single family. Um no more than
two stalls per 1,000 square ft of
commercial space, or it's easier for me
to understand it as no more than one
stall per 500 square ft.
In addition, um, and some of this may be
a little shocking, but no parking may be
required for residences under 1,200 ft².
You may be asking yourself, what if it's
a multif family unit, but it's under
1,200 ft²? Is it a half a space or is it
zero spaces? And the least restrictive
apply. So, in this case, if an apartment
building goes up and all the spaces are
under 1,200 ft², that would be zero
spaces for all the units.
Um, next, commercial spaces under 3,000
square feet. I'm glad we kind of had
that retail commercial conversation
earlier because, um, in this case, the
definition of commercial use in the
state code means is is actually quite
it's basically any non-residential use.
Um, so we'll need to be careful that
we're not um, we may need to define
commercial in a different way in the
parking chapter. Um or maybe perhaps
just refer to it as non-residential
because commercial use in the state code
means use for non-residential purposes
including retail office, believe it or
not, wholesale, general merchandise and
food services.
Next, affordable housing. Um, senior
housing, childcare centers, ground
level, non-residential spaces, and
mixeduse buildings
and buildings changing use, which I'm
actually happy about that last one cuz
it's a little bit of a pain when we're
doing tenant improvements. And it's
like well
can be uh challenging for uh new
businesses as well. So, that was this
the parking reform bill. Next, I'm going
to talk about the House Bill 1183. The
full name of it is building code and
development regulation reform. This was
also passed last year and it's required
uh sometime in 2029. Uh it's actually 6
years after our first implementation
progress report. Um so I don't know the
exact date, but it's sometime in 2029.
it uh and that's the comprehensive plan
implementation progress report that's
due 5 years after it's um from the
deadline of the comp plan update that
was done in 2024 hence 2029. So it uh
prohibits the separate bill prohibits
jurisdictions uh planning under the GMA
which we are from requiring any off-
streetet parking spaces for the
following uses. Now, the affordable
housing piece is kind of a a duplicate
from the last one, but additionally,
it's it's regulating no um minimum off-
streetet parking for new or retrofitted
buildings meeting passive house
requirements, modular housing, and
housing constructed with mass timber.
You may be asking yourselves, what does
passive house requirements mean? I'm
glad you asked that because we have a
table.
we have a table on the sl the next
slide. So um in this case affordable
housing um as well as that other bill
that we just looked at the affordable
housing in this case means where your
monthly costs um
where housing costs are not over 30% of
your um monthly gross income. For it's
for rental households it's earning up to
60% of the area median income. For owner
households, it's earning up to 80%.
The next one is um and I'm still
learning about this uh but um for newer
retrofitted buildings that meet passive
house requirements. In this case, it's
passive house requirements. It's any
housing that uh is meeting the criteria
for certification as a passive house by
FIAS or the International Passive House
Institute.
Um and um you're welcome to explore
those websites. I'm like I said I'm
still um learning about this but uh
passive houses are uh basically a way to
design um residential buildings to
drastically reduce energy uh consumption
methods through insulation, solar energy
and other methods.
Modular housing would be a multi-story
residential building constructed of
standardized components produced
off-site uh which are then transported
and assembled at a final location. And
then housing constructed with mass
timber would be a building with
structural components primarily made of
mass timber products. And I'm not going
to read them all, but you can see them
on the screen.
So, it is important to kind of take a
step back. Um, I know that we're uh
really trying to make it easier for
housing to come to Isiakiqua, but we do
have existing parking guidance and many
different um policy documents. Notably,
the comprehensive plan talks about
parking. We have the central isqua plan,
Oldtown Plan, mobility action plan.
So some of the differing policies would
be on one hand we do want to recognize
that
you know there are legacy neighborhoods
in Isiqua you're not going to I mean
getting up on the top of Squawk Mountain
you need a car if you if you live there
right it it's different from if you live
in you know a future multi-story
building next to a light rail station or
maybe if you live in Oldtown um there it
might be easier to catch a bus but so we
do
We do have some documents that talk
about wanting to or understanding the
importance of providing enough parking.
But then on the other hand, we have
other policy documents that want to give
more flexibility. For example, the
central isqua plan. So it's about trying
to strike a balance
and isqua is a little unique in that we
have two different tiers when it comes
to the parking regulations. Uh the
parking table and the parking chapter
has different requirements depending on
if you're in tier one or tier two. And
from what I understand, this was a way
to uh make it a little bit easier for
development to occur in the central
isqua area because it is um a regional
growth center designation. uh meaning
that we are trying to we want housing
and employment to come to Isiqua, but we
specifically are looking at that section
of the city. Uh especially since we are
fingers crossed getting light rail there
one day. And then parking tier 2 is
basically any area outside of central
Isiqua, Isiqua Highlands, commercial
areas, and Oldtown.
So this is just a just a snapshot of um
the actual table's longer um and
actually in the the packet materials but
this is just a snapshot of the
residential standards. So you can see
that the in this case the different the
differences between tier one and tier 2
are pretty negligible. Um the only
difference being multif family and live
work it's uh 75 per unit for tier one
and then the minimum for tier 2 is uh it
goes up to one per unit. All the other
ones are the same and um
going for commercial retail the
differences start to become a little
more apparent between tier one and tier
2. So these are some of the things that
would need to be updated with um the
code amendments that will follow uh that
will come to you in a future meeting.
So we also looked at some what are some
cities doing around here especially our
nearby peers um but also some other
cities in the state. So for example, uh
cities all the way from Port Townson to
Spokane have looked at reducing parking
minimum min minimums already ahead of
the legislation. Uh both did eliminate
off- streetet parking requirements city
city citywide to reduce housing costs,
spur economic development, and encourage
a more walkable, less car dependent
city.
Uh Kirkland recently passed an ordinance
to eliminate minimum parking
requirements uh in a specific area
similar to what we're thinking about for
central Isiqua. Uh however, it is
important to note that they um they
either have or will soon have bus rapid
transit in this station area. So um
whereas we still are lacking rapid
transit. It also is waving minimums for
certain commercial expansions. And then
Red Redmond is also eliminating uh has
eliminated off- streetet parking for uh
most commercial uses. And then Belleview
and Reton are in the pro process of
working through this as well.
So, right now, staff is recommending
updating the parking code uh or at least
to bring draft code updates back to PPC
to comply that would comply with recent
state legislation. In particular,
accelerating the compliance with the
state parking legislation, which um is
part of that set of uh promoting
building investments in Isiqua. So we
got state senate bill 5184 the parking
reform act and then the other one was
the house bill 1183 which is uh more has
to do with the type of residential
construction
and the other recommendation would be to
in order to bolster construction of the
desired development in central Isiqua
and uh urban core regional growth center
potentially looking into eliminating
parking minimums um in those two zones.
And just for some context, uh the mixed
juice central isqua zone is shown with
the diagonal purple lines and then the
urban core zone that we're talking about
is in the salmon color. Um
and there is a second there. So there's
the one that's further south has the
lines are closer together. That's
actually a separate zone. So it's not
that isn't included in the mixed juice.
um centralizone
that's mixed use residential I believe.
So some additional considerations that
we would like to know from uh from PBC
is are the commissioners wanting to keep
the parking maximums? For example, if we
have a business going in that is not
that is choosing to not provide any
parking and then another business is
coming next door to it and they're
already concerned about the lack of
parking. Is it still fair to say that
you can't have x amount of parking
spaces because it's over the maximum
when other people may not be supplying
parking anymore. And I did want to note
that I believe the parking maximum thing
is potentially
less of a concern as it may have been in
the past with the market. Um it, you
know, you would have these big box
retailers coming in and just putting as
much parking just to be safe. And I feel
like it's possible that it's becoming
less of an issue with the tighter market
to de um with development.
And I'm sorry, do we usually go one by
one or just
Okay. Second. Second. Um, do you agree
that urban core and the mixeduse central
isqua zones uh could be the right areas
to remove parking minimums um more areas
than that or potentially fewer? Is there
interest in doing more than the minimum
required by state law? For example, both
and uh Bellingham and Spokane have
looked to reduce parking requirements
even more than the state uh is
requiring. And lastly, should staff
investigate requiring more temporary or
timerestricted parking? So, we already
do have certain requirements for off-
streetet loading spaces, but if we're
not going to require parking for some of
these uses, should staff be looking more
into potentially amending that section
of the parking code to have
requirements for temporary parking? So,
parking for like loading or moving in
and moving out or delivery driving, that
kind of stuff.
So, I will open it up to discussion
before moving it on to the next
code amendment.
>> Okay,
questions.
Commissioner Matthews,
>> um, just out of curiosity,
we don't really have any street parking
on Gilman or around that area. Is there
a future where we're redesigning the
streets so that when the areas are
redeveloped kind of like both where they
added street parking in that
neighborhood
did the reverse. There is
not a plan that I am aware of to add
parking on existing streets. In fact,
some's going to go away on Newport when
that road is done. But there are plans
to put in new streets in central Isiqua
like um 14th Avenue Northwest which is
going next to trail head and when those
streets go in they do require parking.
>> Okay, Commissioner Crass.
>> Thanks. So just a what quick clarifier
this is just doing what the state has
already told us. So there's not a lot of
nuance here. Is that correct? We this is
just like whether we do it earlier. Is
that the real main question?
>> Yes.
except for the recommendation to
potentially look at um
>> getting rid of minimum
>> removing them in the central isqua u
mixeduse central isqua zone and the
urban core zone. Those were suggested by
um by uh the elected officials
>> planning development and environment
committee that was
>> and okay so
>> to invest to look at it not
>> so there's certain things like you have
to match the state the question is when
>> I think there's a chicken the egg if we
don't have robust transit
these things are going to be a disaster
because there's
you're you're going to you may face what
I think it was San Jose, I read
somewhere where they had um no parking
and they have a 60some percent um
vacancy rate because people don't want
to move into this. So, the person who
built it sold the building, they're out
and all of a sudden now there's
something that's an undesirable thing
left. So I do wonder whether we want to
accelerate
until until we have some other real
transit or we're just um making the pro
the problem worse. I mean eventually we
have to do some of these things. So I
don't know if I'd want to do even
stricter taking you know minimums
because of that. And then I would
question even the timing that's not tied
to the ability for people to get around
if you don't have places for them to
park. Um
>> it is important to note too that central
Isiqua currently doesn't have a lot of
street parking which I think one of you
had alluded to.
>> Um so that's definitely something to
consider.
>> And then also I think the city needs to
enforce its parking as part of any of
these decisions because they don't. And
I'm not sure this doesn't fall within
your guys, but it ties back to the city
where there's RVs parked for weeks at a
time taking up parking spots. So, I do
think all of these things have to be
looked at a whole of what happens if a
building is put here and there's no
parking for the building and there's no
parking on the streets and there's no
transit.
So, we should go through that that kind
of thing. So, that's my my question plus
two cents. You got a little you got a
little extra there.
>> I will add and I won't take credit for
it. Kristen told me this or talked to me
about this, but uh or maybe it was Kate,
but u there are there is a lenders I
guess will not it's not just like you
can propose, oh, I'm not going to do
parking anymore. I want to build this
huge multif family building in Isiqua.
I'm only going to I'm going to construct
it using mass timber, so I'm not going
to provide any parking. And it's not
saying that if we were to move I mean
some of them are required like we have
to meet them whether it's now or two
years from now but um but in some cases
the market will determine how many
parking spaces it won't necessarily even
though there will be no minimum it's not
necessarily saying there will be no
parking spaces. Um, and I guess I'm not
an economist, but or whatever the
profession is, but um, basically like
with the way that the lending works, it
might be harder for them to get um to
get the funding the financing together
if they all if a developer were to all
of the sudden propose a giant
development with zero parking.
>> Maybe. I mean then your your your plan
is market economy and it's going to take
care of itself versus so it's so some of
these things as you said it's like you
have to do them the question is when and
then do you want to be more strict and I
would say no but that's one of many
opinions so
as a third scent
>> you got
commissioner Matthews
>> I I just wanted to give a little I
before I moved here I lived in northwest
Portland where there's no parking in any
building and parking was a nightmare.
Sometimes I parked a mile away and I
could never remember where I parked my
car. I'd have to take a picture. But the
the thing to think about is if you start
looking at that, it's kind of like uh
Commissioner Krauss said, you have to
implement a parking like requirement
like people having stickers on their car
and um parking zones. that would really
need to be implemented at the same time
that you start because people will
probably park in Oldtown. They'll park
wherever they could find a spot. So you
start going into the neighborhoods and
making everybody unhappy with people
just leaving their cars around. So
that's a huge
>> Yeah. So it's just a it's an issue just
like Ballard. you're going to have like
a parking nightmare and you really want
to think about having other programs in
place at the same time that you start
taking parking away.
>> No, I thank you. I'm I'm imagining just
to make this real simple, imagine salmon
days every day in your neighborhood.
That would be awful.
>> So that would terrify me.
>> Anybody else? Commissioner Zachro,
>> thank you. I'm basically on a verge
because one thing is yes for new
developments it's really hard with all
of the parking standards but at the same
time like I'm 100%
uh agreeing with uh Commissioner Cruss
that we are not ready as a city we don't
have enough transit options we're not
ready as a city for uh minimizing or
eliminating any parking standards so uh
I think like if we go through points
Um, do we want to keep parking maximums?
We probably want to do that because you
you were right. If one business takes
too many parking spaces, another
business doesn't have enough parking
spaces there. So, we still like people
still using cars. Um,
do I agree that we have to remove
parking minimums? I I don't I don't
agree that we we need to remove them
completely. I think that we have to
stick to the uh state requirements and
uh just stay there for now because uh
compared to other cities we don't have
enough transit and uh then another thing
um is there interest in doing more than
the minimum required by the state load
and to me it's a no and should staff
investigate requiring more temporary
timerestricted parking I would think so
I would think so because if we try to
kind of like eliminate
uh like parking. I mean we we're not
trying but we have to eliminate parking.
There will be an issue there and again
if we have businesses let's say we have
old town uh businesses need to somehow
like I don't know bring stuff in and
yeah so I think there should be uh
investigation there. Thank you. And just
to clarify, you had you did talk about
parking maximums, but I wasn't sure if
it was you were in favor of removing the
parking maximums or keeping them keeping
the parking maximums. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other comments, Commissioner?
>> Here to muddy the waters further. Um you
know we we were uh previously talking
about other issues where um we were
struggling with the notion that
developers for example would um
naturally want their uh new buildings to
face natural areas to take advantage of
the views. Um and here we're we're again
the facing the question of do we let the
market determine how much parking is
being built or not? Um are we are we
overregulating
or uh or are we opening the door for
sort of unscrupulous development? And I
I think it's a very delicate balance.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Um, I I
also, and I know this is, you know, it's
been passed, but I don't understand the
relationship between mass timber and
parking. It's nice to encourage
developers to use ecologically sound and
and energy efficient uh methods, but
tying that to parking just seems like,
you know, it's it's seems manipulative
in a way that's not necessarily
productive. But that's a feda comply. Um
I think in in terms of these four
questions, I think keeping the parking
maximum uh makes sense. We we don't want
structured parking six stories high
anywhere in the city. Um, I think that
the the uh the urban core and and uh
MUCI
uh areas are probably the best areas
where parking requirements could be
reduced, but um I'm not sure that um
back to um Commissioner Cross's argument
that we don't have the transit. Um we we
have a letter from some developers
asking to reduce uh bicycle storage
areas. I mean what what are we leaving
people with without cars, without
bicycles, and without transit? It just I
I think going too far in this
>> free shoes.
>> Yeah, that's right.
>> Yeah. A supply every six months, new
pair of shoes. Anyway, uh that's just my
perspective. Thank you. And I know that
with the middle housing bill, they ended
up having to do a fix it bill later. So
it that's another thing to consider that
I didn't put in the slides, but if we do
everything two years early and then all
of a sudden is aqua doesn't require any
parking, but then the state says, "Oh,
well actually um you can require parking
for these." So that's another thing just
to keep in the back of our minds. But
>> I feel like there going to be quite a
few fix it bills. Um, Patterson, I see
you.
>> Yeah, I mean, I guess in general, uh,
this my experience with this commission
is with a lot of these state mandates,
if you will, uh, we've typically tried
to meet that mandate but not go further.
Um, because I find I think we've
discussed at times that they're
typically pretty restrictive as they as
they are and that going beyond them is
probably even too too far. Um, one
particular anecdote I wanted to mention
on number two regarding, you know,
removing parking minimums for UC and MU
was, um, I had emailed Kristen about
this and it had to do with the ADA
parking spaces. And I was honestly a
little shocked to find out that if you
have zero parking minimums, that means
also no ADA parking is required. It's
only if the developer decided to put
parking in then those ADA, you know, uh,
uh, requirements kick in. So, um, again,
that's probably something that market
driven would figure itself out, but, um,
I also think it's just another kind of
like consideration of of being careful
as we're discussing those things. So, I
think that's it for now.
>> No, that's great. That's great. Yeah.
Commissioner,
>> just one anecdotal point. ADA is a
federal requirement, and I could see
that uh there could be a conflict
between state requirements and federal
requirements. You can't have a doctor's
office with zero parking and zero ADA
spaces. That's just totally impractical.
>> We would all hope so.
>> Okay. Um let's go ahead and try to
answer some questions for Andrew. So
again, I just real quickly, I think Vice
Chair Patterson and Commissioner Craft
said it pretty well, so I won't repeat
it. Um yeah, how about question one?
Does the commission want to keep parking
maximums at this point?
Okay.
Do you agree that UC and MUCI are the
right areas to remove parking minimums
or to reduce parking minimums?
I'm more in favor of reduce. Yeah, I
don't want to get rid of minimums
either.
>> Yeah. And I think
>> and I agree with Vice Chair Patterson. I
think to his point again, the state came
out, you know, it's kind of like
Kristen's point about the big box stores
down, you know, um um you guys all know
their names. I won't say their names
here, but you know, just amounts of
parking is insane,
but at the same time, we know the state
swings completely the opposite way. And
somehow we're trying to find our way and
make it right for our city. And
Commissioner Kra mentioning the the
transit problem. So I think is it fair
to say we rewrite question two as
those are the right areas to reduce
parking minimums. Is that fair?
>> So just to clarify the state we would
need to we would need to meet the state
requirements for the whole city. So at
that point it's kind of a yes. Should we
reduce them further for these two areas
or just do the minimum?
>> Okay, thank you for the clarification.
So, I think we stick with the state
standards for question two.
>> Okay.
>> Okay,
>> that's Thank you. That's helpful.
>> Is there interest in doing more than the
minimum required by state law? I think
we just answered that for you. No.
>> And should staff investigate requiring
more temporary or timerestricted
parking?
I think um I think it was Commissioner
Crass that brought up was it
Commissioner Aller? I'm giving the
credit to the wrong person, but it seems
like a lot of resources would have to be
used in the city to have enforcement
>> and you know that would obviously be
staff's time to look into that and what
does that look like? It was Commissioner
Matthews.
>> Yes. And have Yes. The Portland example.
So as far as having stickers and what's
that look like and who's enforcing this?
So definitely something staff should
probably look into.
>> Okay. Yeah, we looked we focused our
efforts in looking at the parking
requirements in general for like
different communities around the state,
but we can look more into the best
practices regarding like the
timerestricted parking um to make sure
that if we are allowing these more
flexible parking requirements that at
least that's a backup like well at least
there's some spaces for more temporary
parking. So we can look further into
that before coming back.
>> Yeah, Vice Chair Patterson.
Um yeah, just to comment on that last
one, uh the temporary or timerestricted
parking. Like I think if you're in a
situation where you're creating, you
know, less cars, less parking, more
pedestrian friendly, typically people
are ordering delivery or getting things
delivered more and so having those like
loading zone parkings, I think becomes
almost a requirement. Like I think about
I work in Belleview and you're
constantly getting deliveries, right?
And so they need somewhere to go. If
there's not ample parking or somewhere
for them to go, I think being able to
you know, have that temporary or
timerestricted parking like a 30-minute
loading zone, whatever, three minute
loading zone, I think becomes like a
hard requirement for something like
especially like urban core or something
like that where um there's not, you
know, higher density area, lower parking
area. And for that, it would be more
looking at the off- streetet like space
as far as like curb management
strategies go. That kind of falls
outside the scope of the parking
requirements. Um, but I I I think both
are important.
>> Yes, Commissioner Crafts,
>> just as more of a broader zoning
question. So, Central Isiqua, if there's
going to Let's fast forward to 2050,
some of us will still be alive. Um, most
of you guys. Um, so there's a bunch of
buildings, not a lot of parking. in the
code, is there gonna if is it going to
allow because there may be a need to
have a private highstory
um parking garage. Are those going to be
allowed or not allowed in the future or
I don't know. It's probably may not
pencil out, but I'm not sure if there's
going to the economies of that, but cars
will have to go somewhere. And whether
it's in the buildings themselves or
in like you go into Seattle and there's
private parking garages.
>> Imagine trying to go to downtown Seattle
and there's no parking garages. That's
what I I'm wondering what would h So
does the code allow or would there be
future incentives to want those?
>> So I'm not going to provide opinion. Um
and I don't have my crystal ball with
me. I forgot it. Um but as part of
our
getting light rail, we gave up our light
rail parking station. So we don't have
garage parking at our station when it
comes here, which
would lead me, you know, that the
logistics are then there would need to
be some kind of parking and our code
allows parking garages.
>> Yes. Yeah. So
>> they're not probably economically
feasible to build now,
>> right?
>> But they could be built v via code.
>> They could be built within.
>> Yes, there was discussion a while ago
about building one in between central
Isqua Oldtown.
>> So it's it's been discussed before.
>> Any other comments, questions on
>> Yeah, of course. vice.
>> Uh, going back to I think Commissioner
Olner mentioned the bike parking reform
came up in a developer letter. It's not
in scope tonight, I understand, but I
was just curious if it will be at some
point.
>> The bike parking reform.
>> We can talk about that one um and see if
we have time to do it. It's it's not on
our it's not on our agenda right now. If
if council directs us to do that at some
point or if you guys request us to look
into it, we can. Um, we just based on
our workload right now, we'd prefer to
wait on that one.
>> Gotcha. Yeah. I wasn't sure where it
came from. It kind of it was new to me,
so I didn't know if it had been
discussed in another
>> I feel like the developers got success
and now they're just
>> Yes, exactly. Seriously, I did. I mean,
again, they got a home run and they're
like, "Okay, let's keep going back for
more." Okay. Uh, any other comments,
questions on these first four?
All right, Andrew, you get what you
needed on this particular amendment?
>> Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> I know it's a hot hot topic, but this
one maybe not quite as exciting, but
allowing multif family housing in UVCOM
uh commercial retail zones.
So, what where is the UV commercial
retail zone? Um on this map, it's shown
as in the dark orange. It's basically uh
centered around the um
Grand Ridge Plaza area. And
why are we adding why are we proposing
to add multif family uses to this these
zones? So, Senate Bill 6026 uh
residential development and commercial
and mixeduse zones. It's p passed last
year with a lot of these um requires any
city planning under the GMA such as
Isiqua to allow residential uses in
areas currently zoned for commercial or
mixeduse development. Additionally, um
the bill it basically indirectly
requires cities to allow for um
co-living and permanent supportive
housing and transitional housing within
those zones as well because um separate
laws uh basically say if you allow you
have to allow those in and zones where
you allow residential. I'll get to that
in a slide or two, but um it also limits
the ability of cities to require ground
floor commercial uses.
So, this is a a closer up map. The dark
orange, the red orange color is is the
zone that we're talking about. It's
basically right now it functions as one
zone. Um but back when there was a
development agreement, it was kind of
two separate ones as far as I know. Um
so Senate Bill 6026 and then also step
housing and co-l livingiving. So since
multif family dwellings uh meaning five
or more units uh need to be permitted in
these zones, some of the step housing
types are therefore triggered. For
example, house bill uh 1220 required
jurisdictions to update development
regulations in respect to emergency
shelters, transitional housing,
emergency housing, and permanent
supportive housing. Some of that may
sound familiar to you. So essentially
since those type some of those two of
those types um of the step housing
permanent supportive and transitional
housing are required where any
residences or hotels are required then
essentially if we're being required to
allow multif family in these zones then
those other two residential types kick
in. Sorry, it's a little confusing but
um and then further I apologize I don't
have this on the slide um but RCW uh
separately RCW 367A535
that uh is related to co-l livingiving
or think of your a lot of people are
more familiar with the term boarding
house. So those used to be a more
popular type of uh living style
especially you know as there we're we
have this kind of loneliness epidemic
going on. we have less people having
kids. People may want to live with other
people that um you know uh people's
living situation no longer may be your
typical you know American dream of white
picket fence with two and a half kids.
Not that that's bad, but um so co-living
that that bill the RCW 367A535
co-living um is has to be required on
any lot that allows six or more
residential units. So in addition to
those two types of step housing, then
the co-living essentially is also
triggered to to be implemented.
>> May I jump in here for half a second for
an educational moment? Um, I just want
to know if everybody knows what RCW is.
Okay. It's it's the revised Code of
Washington. So, every time a bill is
passed, it is then codified and put into
our revised code of Washington. And I
don't know that I've ever brought that
up before and I just heard it and I
thought I should bring it up now. Okay,
back to the record.
>> And so, we do have policies that are in
support of this even though it's a
requirement from the state. uh such as
um several goals from the housing
element. I won't bore you with reading
them one by one, but um so our
recommendations for this is to update
the table of permitted uses located in
section 1842
of the IMCA municipal code. I'm sure you
knew that one to allow multif family
residential transitional housing,
permanent supportive housing, and
co-living uses in the UVC comm zones.
And then secondly, the recommendation
would to be to further review new
limitations to the ground floor
commercial requirements and assess
whether additional amendments are
necessary to fully comply with the
legislation.
So the consideration for this is does
the uh planning policy commission have
enough information to support a staff
recommendation on changing the permitted
uses in the UV uh commercial retail
zones
or are there any questions regarding
what we went over?
>> I think it'd probably be helpful to put
up that last slide before that one.
>> Okay. But the question before everyone
is as you saw, do you have enough
information?
Um,
okay. Let's kick it around the
>> Commissioner Zacharov.
>> I am familiar with that shopping plaza
very well. I live next door. I'm just
thinking where where is it possible to
live there in TJ Maxx in Safeway or any
of the restaurants there. So it's kind
of like but I saw that also across the
street it's still a grand reach. So
something is getting built there. So
>> yeah I believe there's a senior housing.
>> Senior housing. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just
kind of if we thinking about the future
>> Yeah. when
>> way into the future.
>> Yeah. Well maybe at some point. Yes. We
will we won't need stores anymore and
people will have deliveries all the
time.
There is still one undeveloped parcel
behind Grand Rage Plaza.
>> Oh yes.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, well, yes, I guess then
then it's understandable,
but Okay.
Thank you.
>> Yeah, Commissioner Dare.
>> So, this is just putting us into
compliance with the state law basically.
So, I don't I I don't see the point of
going against state law.
Is that a fight we want to fight?
>> That was funny. Anybody else?
>> Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Uh kind of a follow-up question. Um I
know we talked about this state law, we
kind of have to do it, right? Is more or
less. Um but because it's in the
Highlands, it does have the the
covenants of the what would you call it?
>> Development agreement.
>> Thank you. No, not the development
agreement. The HO It's like the HOA or
what is it called? It's a covenants,
right?
>> It's it's kind of like their CCNRs.
Yeah. Um they have the Isqua Highlands
Architectural Review Committee and then
they also have the Isqua Highlands
Council,
>> right?
>> Um they uh regulate residential
properties, single family residential
properties and not commercial and multif
family.
>> Gotcha. So in this case, us making this
required change,
something could be built essentially
without their approval. Correct.
>> Okay, cool. Thank you.
Any other further comments, questions?
Okay,
so
um back to your question, Andrew, the
next slide. Does commission have enough
information to support the staff
recommendation on changing the UV
comm retail zones?
Okay. And then as far as Okay, if we go
back to the other slide now, as far as
uh the updates from review new
limitations to ground floor, that's also
part of the requirement. Correct. Okay.
I throw up my hands. All right.
So, essentially, I I did what I thought
was meeting the code and then Kate was
like, "Well, maybe we need to take a
look at this, too." So we will make the
the code amendments uh the proposed we
will bring back draft code amendments
meeting the um uh updating the permitted
uses table to uh include multif family
residential transitional housing
permanent supportive housing and
co-living uses in this zone these two
zones in addition to uh further
reviewing whether there's additional
implications
uh for the second part.
Okay. Well, thank you, Andrew.
Appreciate the presentation. You have
everything you need.
>> Yeah. Thank you. And then I just had a a
>> slide on the timeline and then another a
final slide in case there were lingering
questions on the parking stuff. Um so
June, we're here June 11 reviewing. July
9th will be a second review. So I expect
to bring back um draft code amendments
at that point. I'm sure there will be
there will still be a ton of questions
that I will welcome and we can talk it
out and
and have fun with the parking and the
other stuff. And then in August, uh it's
to be determined, but we're thinking
that would be when the public hearing
is. Um, I mean, I I could I would expect
there's potentially a small chance we
may need just an extra meeting for the
parking if anything, but if but I'm
remaining optimistic that um everything
will go smoothly. And then uh if that
does happen, then September 22nd would
be u when we would like to take it to
the the PTE or the planning development
and environment committee.
Um, lastly, are there any additional
questions I can answer?
>> All right, I think that's it.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Okay. Well, thank you, Andrew. So, that
takes care of regular business for us
this evening. Uh, let's move into
reports.
Um, am I looking at Kristen or Kate?
>> I don't have I don't have any council
reports.
>> Okay.
>> I do have a question.
May I?
>> She's gonna give us homework.
>> So, our our work So, council takes
August off and we have never done that
in the past. But this year, it was just
automatically put onto our calendar that
we would take August 27th off. And I
went to our clerk's office the other day
and said, "Do we really have to?" Um,
because we have a pretty big workload.
And I'm I think we need more review time
on some of the these items than we're
currently giving ourselves if we take
August 27th off. However, technically
we're actually going to PTE planning
development environment committee on
September
1st. So if we hold our meeting on August
our public hearing on August 27th, that
doesn't give us enough time because the
packet is actually due before that. So,
I want to see first of all, raise your
hand if you'd be willing to have a
meeting on August, an additional meeting
on August 20th. Not an additional, but a
special.
>> Well, and that's my second question is
can we get a quorum that night?
>> Um, can
>> Commissioner Miller Irwin is our only
absence today?
>> Correct.
>> So, if you all
Okay, let's try that again.
>> Okay,
>> August 20th.
>> If you are able to be here, if you
believe that you are able to be here on
August 20th, please raise your hand.
One, two, three, four, five, six. We got
a quorum. Okay, great. Then I will you
will get a meeting notice about August
20th then from uh Cassidy. Okay, thank
you. That's all I have.
Commissioner Mer is the 27th.
>> The 27th will be cancelled. It'll just
be rescheduled to the 20th instead. It
initially was canceled and then I asked
to get it back and then I asked to
switch it to the 20th.
>> Oh, so you don't want to do three
meetings in August.
>> No, just two.
>> We're just moving one up for more time
for you guys to put it together for PD.
>> Exactly. And to actually it gives us
because 27th was originally cancelled.
This gives us an additional meeting to
review amendments because everything
that's come through tonight's been
pretty big and we need more time.
>> Sure. No, I follow.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Well, now you don't have any horse
trading since we all know you got the
27th off. We're just moving our Thursday
up a week.
>> So, Okay.
>> Um,
>> I just had one
>> any other business.
>> I had one comment.
>> Oh, sorry, Commissioner.
>> I had just one comment. Included in our
packet was a report from Eco Northwest,
which I found very interesting in terms
of what efforts we're trying to make and
how effective or not they may be. So if
if you haven't had chance to go through
that Eco Northwest report, it's worth
worth doing.
>> And we will be discussing that a lot
further on our July what is it? No, June
25th meeting. We'll be talking about
that a lot more.
>> Yeah. No, it's always fun seeing uh you
know what the city pays for in terms of
reaching out to
professionals in those fields. So yeah,
they are good reading. Okay, any other
business or announcements?
commissioners.
All right, let's get out of here. It's
uh we will close this meeting at the
Planning Policy Commission at 8:40 p.m.
Good night, everybody.