Are we ready? Yeah. What time is it?
>> What's that?
>> Hey everybody.
>> Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.
>> Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.
Hello.
>> We are going to get started.
We might have might have.
>> Hello.
>> All right.
>> Check check.
>> All right. Well, good evening everyone.
Welcome to this evening's planning
policy commission. Want to say thank you
for everybody showing up. It's not often
our audience outnumbers the commission.
And I want to thank all of our
commissioners here. We have a few
excused absences. Um, we did ask them to
do some heavy lifting. They were here
two weeks ago during the US men's team.
Today's 80°. I get it. I get it. We're
going to begin this meeting at 6:31 p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
planning policy commission is in person,
but staff or members of the public may
be attending virtually or in person this
evening.
Kate, do we have a quorum this evening?
Or Amanda?
Uh, yes we do.
>> Excellent. Okay, we'll begin with the
approval of minutes. Our first item of
business is to take action to approve
the minutes for the June 25th PPC
meeting. Are there any corrections or
concerns in the minutes that were
provided in your packet?
Seeing none, those minutes are approved.
We're going to move on to public comment
for this meeting. We're holding a
general public comment at this time for
all general topics discussed by the
commission for the public. There is no
public hearing this evening. So we will
skip that stuff. But um has anyone
signed up first and foremost?
>> Yes, chair. They have.
>> Okay. So we do have a few boilerplate
items to go through before we invite our
speakers up. Um we do ask that all
speakers speak clearly, pause
frequently. Please state your name
before you speak. And if you are
attending virtually by computer or by
phone and would like to speak during
public comments, in addition to the
above, please mute your microphone when
not speaking. And if you're having any
technical issues, please try joining the
meeting using a different device such as
a smartphone or tablet. You can also use
the call-in information in the meeting
invite to call into the meeting. Public
comments are an important part of the
public process. We take them seriously
and they are factored into the decisions
that we make. Comments may be general at
this time or related to the regular
business items in the agenda.
Please note that we ask that comments
are limited to 5 minutes or less. Okay.
Who's first up?
>> Taylor Haynes.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
Creda, thank you. Thank you, mayor. Uh,
Creda, the Commercial Real Estate
Development Association, formerly known
as NAOP. We just want to take the time
here tonight to thank Mayor Mullet, um,
city staff, and you, the commission, for
the work that you're undertaking.
Communities across the region are facing
growing challenges around housing
affordability, economic competitiveness,
infrastructure needs, and accommodating
growth. We appreciate your willingness
to think strategically about how to
remain a great place to live, work, and
invest. While continuing to create
opportunities for current and future
residents and businesses, the
development community has a strong
interest in being a partner in that
effort. The people we work with and
represent want to invest in Isiqua. We
want to build housing, create jobs, and
contribute to the long-term success of
this community. We appreciate the
leadership being shown by the mayor, by
you, the commission, and staff, and we
really look forward to continuing to be
part of that discussion. Thank you.
I don't show anyone else.
first comment.
>> Would anyone else like to speak?
>> Okay. Well, we do have someone else in
the audience tonight who would like to
speak and we're going to ask Mayor
Mullet to come on up and Mayor Mullet's
going to be discussing the promoting
building investments in Isiziqua
project. So, Mr. Mayor, when you are
ready, please go ahead.
>> All right. Thank you very much,
commission. and I will I think we're
going to try to I'll make some comments
uh and then I want to turn it over to
kind of have you guys be able to ask any
questions you want and we'll go from
there. But I'd say that my first opening
remark is thank you. I think if you look
at the boards and commissions and their
workload they have in the year ahead, I
I think you guys have more than
everybody else. That's a simple
mathematical fact. and uh and there are
some boards and commissions that on
average end up meeting once every two or
3 months. You guys meet twice a month.
So just the sheer frequency of of volume
you're getting through shows, you know,
how important it is to have people who
are willing to volunteer their time to
make Isizakqua a better place to live.
And you guys have all signed up to do
that and I sincerely appreciate those
efforts. And I would like to kind of go
next into sort of you guys might feel
for some who've been on this commission
for a while could feel a little kind of
whips in the sense that you know three
or four years ago you did a lot of
changes around the title 18 process and
then all of a sudden a new mayor comes
in and all a sudden it's like hey what
we're supposed to do all these changes
all over again. And so I think my goal
tonight was kind of just explain I guess
my background of where I'm coming from
and some of the proposals that are
coming forward from this administration.
And I would say going back to my 12
years in the state senate, my primary
role in the Senate was I did chair our
state construction budget. Uh, and I
vividly remember in December of 2022
going into that 23 legislative session.
I actually sent an op-ed that was in the
New York Times to every member of the
Senate Democratic Caucus. It was called
a liberalism that builds. It was written
by Ezra Klene. And the theme of that
op-ed was kind of blue states need to be
aware that when they make it really
difficult to build, people can't afford
to live in those states anymore. And it
was kind of this analysis by Ezra Klein
of the things that blue states say they
want, which was more housing, more clean
energy infrastructure, all these things.
And then it literally went down and said
all of the things that the blue states
say they want is actually being built in
red states solely because the permit
process in those states is easier and
more reliable to navigate. And so I sent
that to my colleagues and we actually I
felt made a lot of progress in the 23
legislative session on things like the
middle housing bill and a lot of other
things around you know permits and and
sea and all these other things that I
think with a simple goal of trying to
make it easier to build. So that was
sort of my mentality of where I had
arrived as a chair of our state
construction budget of trying to find
ways that we can make sure that if we're
driving up the cost of building
something that we're really thoughtful
about that thing being really important
to us if we've actually put it in the
code as as something that we know is
going to drive up the cost of building.
I think you then fast forward to uh last
year in 2025 as I was kind of
doorbelling this community and in in the
mayor's race, our oldest two kids
actually graduated from college. So
Isabelle graduated from Western and
Davis graduated from Montana State. And
so for the first time in our lives, my
wife and I were going through the
process of our two oldest kids actually
looking for housing in Isiqua, which you
know, I build the house we live in 20
years ago. So that was a parcel in the
Highlands I purchased, you know, way
back in 2006 and have been there ever
since and will probably be carted out of
there at some point, hopefully more than
30 years from now. We'll see. Uh I'm 53.
But uh so it was a wakeup call as our
kids graduated from college that they
were coming back to me saying, "Dad, we
can't afford to live in the town that
you love more than any other place in
the state." And uh and so it really made
me once again kind of go back to the
same themes I dealt with in the Senate
and uh and kind of say, okay, well, if
this election works out, I would love to
kind of go through to look at the things
we have in our code and and try to go
through and say which ones of these are
essential that we have to keep, which
ones may be unnecessarily driving up
costs that we may want to revisit
discussions on. And I think that's
what's prompted these kind of 17 items
you see that staff has kind of broken
out. I think in a very thoughtful
manner, you know, quarter by quarter of
things we can get through and and just
to look at the ones you guys have
already done. Uh I mean this is a case
study of it. I think the the
recommendation you made around saying
not everything has to have a balcony.
30% could have a balcony. You could also
meet that with general open space
requirements. I think that's
fundamentally changed what people look
at who want to build homes in our
community now look at those projects
differently because of you know that
proposal that you guys put forward. I
think that's meaningful progress. It
doesn't mean we've said we don't think
outdoor space is important. It's just we
provided I think some flexibility to
people want to build homes here. I think
the the step back issue that you guys
also addressed, you know, this came
directly from the King County Housing
Authority who basically came to us with
a spelled out very detailed cost
estimate of a requirement we had put in
place that was going to change the price
of their affordable housing project by
$1.2 million. And so once again, I think
the recommendation you made on that step
back, I I've looked at it. I think
having flexibility whether you want to
do it right above the parking level like
at the second or third floor versus
higher up I don't think it changes the
aesthetics of the building at all but we
know that we have lowered the cost of
the project by seven figures and so to
me the work you guys are doing is
actually very important and very
meaningful and and so I think this is
why I know it's a lot of work but I also
feel like this is essential to make sure
that our town doesn't fall into what I
call kind of the blue state trap. of
just saying here's all the rules and
regulations. If you don't like it, not
our problem. You don't have to build
here. And and I think we're just trying
to kind of have this collaborative
balanced approach as we go forward. And
and I think I'll end before we go to Q&A
of one kind of tweak you'll probably see
coming forward. Uh it was a little bit
different than maybe the first couple
proposals and this comes directly from
our council president's request. Uh I
think everyone wants to see all the
options now. And so basically, you look
at all 17 of these things. Every one of
them will have an option to say we're
going to keep what we're doing right
now. We're not making any changes.
That'll always be an option that, you
know, you guys can choose to go down.
The second will be what I think you'll
probably see from the administration,
which is here are some thoughtful
changes we think we can make that we
think will make it easier for people to
invest and build homes here. And the
third option will be we don't regulate
this space at all. And so take the you
guys will have the parking minimum
discussion in front of you and uh
basically the administration proposal is
there's a state law that goes in effect
in 2028 that says you know you can't
have more than the 0.5 half a parking
space requirement per home. Uh we have
members I know on the council who would
rather that just be zero. And so I think
that discussion is going to happen I
think and and I want you guys to know
you have choices in front of you. And I
I think I I value the input that this
commission puts forward and and in that
parking example that's like you could
keep the current parking requirements we
have up until the state law forces us to
change. You could implement the state
law early in which you would go to that
lower.5 threshold or you could say we're
not going to have any requirements
whatsoever in certain parts of Isiqua.
And I think those are the decision trees
you're going to find yourself having on
all these issues. And I think the
message from council president Martz was
even if you choose the middle option,
he's going to support the middle option
if you had the full range of options in
front of you. So I think you're going to
see a wider range of options as we
navigate the remaining items on the
list. And I did want to explain that
change as well. Uh and like I said is us
kind of listening to the council to make
sure you know that you guys aren't kind
of pigeonholed into which direction
you're you're going to take on these
issues. And with that, I would love to
be able to answer any questions people
might have.
>> Well, thank you, Mayor Mullet. And yes,
this commission does love work. That's
why we show up. We show up on US men's
teams. We show up on 80° days.
At least most of us.
>> Um, and I also did want to reiterate,
Mayor Mullet's not under a time
constraint. So, please, if you want to
keep going,
>> I'm done.
>> Okay, fair enough. And, um,
>> let's keep it on topic, everybody. But
I'm sure we have a lot of questions we'd
love to ask Mayor Mullet with his time.
But as far as the presentation that he
just laid out, does anyone have any
questions for the mayor?
>> And you can ask me questions on
anything.
>> Uh, Commissioner Holm.
>> Yeah, I think the 17 items are great.
Uh, and I'm wondering is there more
suggestions coming after that or
>> Well, and that's where I'd look to you
guys. I mean, I'll be honest. uh you
know we have we're a city of roughly
42,000 people so we have the staff that
I love but we also aren't going to
double the size of our staff in the next
couple years and so I think it is trying
to manage priorities but acknowledging
like hey we we have to actually while
we're doing all this have to keep
processing the permits that are getting
submitted on a weekly basis and make
sure they do get back with the answers
they deserve in a timely manner. So, but
I think when you get through this, if
there's other items that you would like
us to address, like that's what I'm here
to be like. I'm I'm open to these
suggestions. I find the the ideas that
come out of boards and commissions
extremely helpful. And our current park
bond proposal that's going to be on the
ballot was basically driven and I mean,
majority of that proposal just came out
of the park commission and so the park
board. So, I think that yes, the answer
is if you guys have other things you
think we should be looking at
addressing, I 100% want to hear about
them and then we'll figure out like what
the timing looks like for those.
>> Commissioner Derek,
>> yeah, I think uh for me, one concern I
have is we're hearing a lot from the
developers, which is great. We're not
getting a lot of hard numbers from them
in terms of how much like you just said
seven fig the step back saves us seven
figures. One thing that was really
helpful is when we get the letter
breaking down the cost of adding
additional stepbacks, right? So
sometimes we get these things of well we
want it reduced from 45% to 15%
transparency for example. That's a huge
jump. So if we could get more idea of
like well in the big scheme of things
how much money is this going to save how
much of an impact is this going to have
versus other changes versus for example
reducing it to 30% or something like
that and then on top of that I would
love if we could hear more from the
people who are living here right because
I do think the aesthetics and the people
who are staying here you know we should
be listening to them as well and I know
we're here to represent them but I I do
feel very
>> no
I think that's an excellent point. I
would say in my senate role sometimes
there were some changes that were easier
for people to quantify other changes
they were just like well you're driving
up the cost but to us sometimes to give
you an answer how much like we'd
actually have to spend money to
determine ex so I think it's uh it's
that balancing act I think that's a very
valid question though I I think
commissioner dare to basically say to
the people who are trying to build homes
here saying hey we want flexibility on
this it would really help I think for
you guys and everybody else to
understand well what is the rough cost
of of those things that we're saying we
need to look at again and and I can't so
that's helpful to know going forward we
can try to do the best job we can of
trying to get those estimates in terms
of uh I mean everything we do here I
think we want citizen input and and I've
explained
you know I think going back to the
parking example like the proposal
administration is just adopt the state
law early I actually think if you remove
all parking requirements that there will
be a lot of people in the city of Isqua
will say well that seems like you're
just going too far and even even the
people trying to invest and build homes
here say you don't have to go that far
cuz I've asked them this exact question
is do you have to go all the way to zero
and they say no they're like it would be
hard for them to sell a home in Isiqua
without providing at least one parking
spot like it would be really hard or to
rent a home in Isqua without providing
at least one parking spot so I think
it's one of those things where do you
want to as you're listening to community
feedback sometimes that's going to be
the challenge of saying we're not going
to regulate the space at all is you're
really going to make the community
uncomfortable versus I think in this
example we're saying the community well
this is going to be state law in a
couple years it's just a question of do
we want to adopt it now to see if it
sparks any interest between now and then
of somebody starting a project sooner
rather than later and uh but 100% the
feedback from all residents of Isiqua is
going to be extremely valuable and and
this is and this is our balancing out. I
don't know the solution to this. There's
no silver bullet is my kids who have
grown up in a house with somebody in
elected office, they wouldn't even come
to things like this. It's like the
challenge I find is the people who tend
to show up a lot with very vocal
feelings sometimes are people who have
owned a home in this community for a
very long time and this issue isn't
really impacting like where they're
going to live next. And and so that's my
challenge as mayor is how do you get the
people who are graduating from college
to engage in this discussion at the same
level of energy as somebody who's lived
here for 30 years and owned a home for a
long time and and is in a different
perspective I guess. And so I think
we've heard a lot from that latter
category during my time on the city
council and the last 15 years. And I
think our challenge as a city is how do
we get this this younger generation to
engage on this topic with with their
city council and their city commissions.
And I don't know the answer of how to do
that because I have a hard time to get
my kids out of bed sometimes on the
weekends before 10 a.m. So I don't have
any magic wand on that front.
>> All right. Any other questions for the
mayor?
>> All right. Well, thank you, Mayor
Mullet. That was great. Um,
>> well, thanks again for your guys'
commitment to this community and for
your level of volunteer service. It's
really appreciated and thank you very
much from the bottom of my heart and I'm
sorry you're missing this 80°ree
weather.
It is nice and air conditioned in here.
That's one thing that has not failed in
City Hall South yet is the AC. So,
that's good. Okay. Hey, thanks a lot.
>> Excellent. Thank you, Mayor Mullet.
Appreciate it.
>> Okay.
Moving along, our first well, our first
item of business was um Mayor Mullet's
remarks. So, our second item of business
this evening is a presentation from
associate planner Andrew Love and
principal planner Kate Kaney on two
proposed code amendments related to the
promoting building investments project.
Specifically, changes to parking
requirements and updates to the urban
village commercial retail zone, also
known as the UV-COM
slash ret zone. Andrew and Kate, please
go ahead when you are ready.
>> Thank you. Uh Kate will lead uh or start
the presentation off.
Thank you, Andrew.
So, um, Andrew is going to be speaking
about the parking requirements and the
changes to the UV Comrade zone. But
before he does, I thought I'd take a
minute to, uh, provide some introduction
to this overall briefing process for
these proposed amendments. So, um,
wanted to share some goals. Today is
really a work session and the work
session is aimed at helping you prepare
for the public hearing which is going to
be at your next meeting on July 23rd. Um
you know our goals for you is that you
can uh go back and review the guidance
that we have from city council um on the
PBI or promoting building investment uh
project that the mayor was just speaking
about. Um the speakers will review um in
detail what that guidance was on each of
the amendments. uh we'd like you to
fully uh familiarize yourselves and
understand what is being proposed in the
amendments that was that were in your
packet and ask clarifying questions for
us. We also want to walk through and
confirm sort of this review and
recommendation process because there are
a few differences uh between this
process and what you um did the last
round of PBI amendments. So these are
just some FYI. Um, the amendments that
are in the meeting packet for tonight
are the same amendments that will be
used at the public hearing. Um, I don't
know if you're on the public hearing
calendar, but you may have gotten the
message that these were posted
yesterday. Uh, you know, generally, uh,
a couple weeks before public hearing,
um, it there's a notice, uh, that we
provide to the public and a chance to
look at these amendments. So, um the
goal again for tonight is to talk about,
you know, those proposals. Um but no
changes that you may talk about tonight
will be made to the amendment uh that
you have in your packets because again,
those are for the public hearing. Um of
course, if you want changes to be made,
that is always your prerogative. And as
part of the public hearing, there's the
del deliberation process. Motions can be
made and votes can be held. So, um, one
thing that is a little bit different
this time is as we understand it, city
council would like to, um, better
understand the perspective of the
commission on each of the items that,
um, have been identified as part of
these amendments. Um, they're listed as
possible actions and again, the
presenters will go over what those
possible actions that council wanted you
to consider um, when they uh, do your
briefings. Um and so as part of the
public hearing afterwards your
deliberations wherever you land on votes
um I believe we will work to try to
understand a little bit flesh out um the
rationale behind um your
recommendations. So just wanted to give
you an FYI on that. So um lastly just
want to confirm again what the work is
today and then also um how the the uh
public hearing will go. So again,
tonight um we want to review the PBI
goals and outcomes guidance with you. We
want to give you a full chance to
understand the proposed amendment
language. And we heard from some of the
commissioners when they noticed there
were some new things in the packet that
you guys had already talked about and
maybe made recommendations about and um
you might be wondering what those are.
Um in the parking requirements, the
commission had already spoken about um
remov eliminating parking minimums in
central Isiqua's urban core and mixed
use central Isiqua zones. Um there had
been some feedback that uh you'd you
know that you'd already given those
proposals that elimination is in the
parking code that is going to be
reviewed at the public hearing um for
comment. So we just wanted to make sure
you understand that. Andrew will talk
about that a little bit in his
presentation as well. Um opportunity
tonight for you all to give some
feedback on, you know, your thoughts on
that, whether they've changed or not, uh
since the last time you talked about it.
Additionally, um there's a discussion
about um potentially removing
transparency requirements from town
homes, something that was kind of talked
about a little bit um and heard some uh
feedback on that. So, want to give it
give uh an opportunity to talk about
that, too. um in that presentation. So
um again, this is you know your meeting,
your work session um and there will be
opportunities to uh discuss and provide
additional feedback as you'd like. Just
a reminder of what happens at the public
hearing. You will hear public testimony.
You'll deliberate over the proposals.
Again, if you want to make motions to
propose changes, that is uh something
that can be done then. um as well as
that vote and that little new um uh
opportunity to um share your feedback on
specific PBI items so that council can
fully understand where you where you
your what your opinions are uh and your
recommendations. So with that, I'm going
to go ahead and turn the presentation
over to Andrew. So thank you.
>> Thank you.
Um good evening, commissioners. Uh my
name is Andrew Love and I'm an associate
planner here. Um so the purpose of this
portion of the meeting is to uh is
presenting an uh discussion of the
proposed amendments to parking in
addition to the proposed or the um the
permitted uses in the urban village
commercial and urban village retail
zones um in preparation for the public
hearing. So first we will start with the
parking reform updates.
So the table that you're about to see is
uh just setting the stage um for um more
of a formal response to the possible
actions that you see on the far hand the
far right hand side. Um the this is
taken from the goals and outcomes work
plan that was developed uh in the
council meetings. Um, and the possible
actions being adopting minimum parking
required uh per Senate Bill 5184,
eliminating or keeping current maximum
parking requirements, um establishing
minimum accessible parking requirements
prior to guidance from the state
building code council, and then lastly,
um potentially looking at eliminating
parking minimums in central Isiqua,
specifically the urban core and mixed
use central isqua zones.
And uh this kind of uh hopefully
accurately recaps feedback that we have
heard from to date um from the PPC. So
uh in relation to the uh four possible
actions that were on the previous slide
and this slide. So for adopting the
minimum parking we did discuss uh
complying with the Senate bill 5184
um which is known as the parking reform
and modern modernization act. uh in
addition to complying with uh House Bill
1183 which is the technically called the
building code and development
regulations but it's uh also addresses
residential parking standards and we're
including it since it is uh also
addressed in the commerce uh checklist
that staff relied on um a lot when they
were drafting when I was drafting the
code amendments. Um next is eliminating
or keeping current maximum parking
requirements. Uh we discussed this last
time and um it was uh recommended that
it was an anonymous um motion to
maintain the current maximum parking
requirements. Next we have eliminating
the parking minimums and at um the last
meeting it was uh discussed to not move
forward at this time. uh we and to wait
to understand a more you know fuller
effects of um the parking bill
compliance and we do want to discuss
this more at this meeting um and it was
incorporated into the code um because
it's easier to get rid of something
after publishing it for public hearing
or SEPA than it is to add it back later.
So, um, and then lastly, establishing
minimum accessible parking requirements.
Um, we can also discuss this more later
in the slides.
So, I'm going to jump right into the
code amendments. Um, I apologize, it's a
lot of text, but it's a little kind of
technical. So, um, the code amendments
start with, um, changes to propo uh, to
the provision of required vehicle
parking. Uh there is an a proposed
amendment to subsection G which
addresses changes in use and this is to
comply with Senate Bill 5184.
And then the new proposed um sub
subsection K that is on the same slide
is to remove parking minimums for ground
level non-residential spaces in mixeduse
buildings which is also meant to comply
with Senate Bill 5184.
And then in the same section there are
new subsections L and M. And there was
subsection L was crafted based on draft
uh commerce guidance that recommends
specifying certain categories that are
applied before less specific categories.
For example, the type of building
construction or the size of a particular
residential unit or whether or not the
unit is affordable um may mean there are
no parking minimums which takes
precedence when determining how much
parking is required. The less specific
categories would be things like single
family housing, whether it's meets
middle housing, multif family housing,
or certain um non-residential uses. Um
the state law also requires no more than
X amount of parking. So when determining
if there's like say 11 multif family
units and there's 0.5 parking spaces
required um the com the draft commerce
guidance does say that it is to require
no more than therefore there is that
added subsection M to round down in the
case of determining parking.
Next we're going to move on to the
parking table which has quite a few
different changes. Um and again we can
uh happy to discuss things. Uh so I did
want to um shout out to the vice chair
for catching a scrivener's error which
will be corrected um in one of the code
references. But um no parking minimums
uh would be for the current amendments.
No parking minimum would be uh a part
I'm sorry in order to meet both Senate
Bill 5184 and House Bill 1183. there
would be no minimum parking requirements
for affordable housing. Um, and then
related to specifically Senate Bill
5184,
no minimum parking required for any
dwelling unit under 1,200
uh square ft of gross floor area.
Um, let's see here. And then lastly, um
the last row starts to talk about what I
like to call as um innovative housing
types. So we kind talked a little bit
about this last time, but um for this on
this slide, there's passive house
requirements, which means the uh
criteria for certification as a passive
house by either FIAS or the
international passive house institute.
So that would also see no required
minimum parking uh to meet the state
law.
And this kind of continues with um two
additional uh what I would call
innovative housing types. So we also see
residential projects utilizing modular
construction methods um specifically as
it's outlined in the section of RCW and
then in addition residential projects
utilizing mass timber construction. Um
these in addition would see no minimum
parking requirements as uh
in order to meet state law. Um and then
we move on to single family housing. So
uh currently if you are on a lot uh
greater than 6,000 square ft and you
want to build a detached single family
residence, you are required to put in at
least two parking spaces. Uh but if it's
smaller than 6,000 ft, it's just one.
So, the proposed amendment is to lower
this to one regardless of the size of
the lot to meet state law.
Um, and then we move into middle
housing. So, um, I think when the middle
housing guidance originally came out,
you could separate it based on this
6,000 ft lot size, you could require two
per unit. Um, if it's more than that,
but if it's less than that, um, it's one
per unit. Um, however, in order to meet
the middle housing bill as well, you
can't have regulations that are more
strict for middle housing than they are
for single family housing. So, in
essence, we also have to reduce the
middle housing. At least it's staff's
interpretation that we would have to
require no more than one space for
middle housing. Um, since the same is
being asked of single family housing. So
that is reflected in the first two rows
that you see on the screen. Um the third
row would be multif family and livework
units. So our code currently um has a
minimum of 0.75 spaces per unit and tier
one parking. And in the tier 2 parking
area it's full parking space per unit.
Um in both cases this would need to be
reduced to 0.5 spaces per um per unit to
meet the state law. And then lastly on
this slide is senior housing which um
under the proposed or under the law is
um would have no parking minimum.
Um next we move into um office. So
office is particularly called out as
meeting the definition of commercial um
which is not you don't wouldn't
typically think of office as being a
commercial use but in the state law they
specifically call out office as meeting
this term of commercial. So, um, in
5184,
so in this in the law, it there's no
parking minimum if it's under 3,000
square ft of gross floor area. Um, and
if it's above that size, then it's one
space per 500 square ft of gross uh
floor area. Um, so there are proposed
changes there. And then in addition,
daycare operations would have no parking
minimums in order to meet state law.
Um, and then continuing on, this slide
is um mostly just kind of housekeeping
changes, moving personal service,
keeping the same requirements, but
moving it from overnight lodging
category to general service just so it's
a little easier for staff or applicants
to navigate the parking table. And then
since office is called out um as its own
use uh we are proposing to remove the
separate medical office category. Um
even if we were to keep it, it would
have to meet the same uh requirements as
the the office category uh we talked
about in the last slide. And then um the
last uh bit of the table uh the proposed
changes to the table would be um
restaurants and retail sales also fit
into that definition of commercial in
the state code. Um so you would see no
minimum for spaces that are less than
3,000 of gross floor area. And then if
it's 3,000 or greater, it would be one
space per every 500 square ft of gross
floor area. And then um you can see that
the maximums were kept the same. And if
the minimums for some of the tiers were
higher than what's required by the
state, then we just or I'm sorry were
less restrict restrictive than what was
asked by the state. We tried to do the
lightest touch, if you will, but in but
still trying to meet the state law.
Um, next we move into the flexible
parking tools section. So essentially
this was about tandem parking uh for
strictly residential uses. uh should be
allowed for up to 100% of the parking
per RCW 367A622.
This was a part again of the commerce's
uh residential parking checklist um that
helped guide the proposed code
amendments which is why these changes
are also being included.
And um tandem parking for retail and
commercial uses is addressed in
subsection K of this same section and no
amendments are proposed to tandem
parking for retail and commercial uses.
And then this last section of the
parking amendments is um more of a
cleanup. So again, single family
residential uses are not required to
pave and stripe parking and circulation
areas. They can also use grass block
pavers if they would like to meet
minimum parking. Therefore, we are
simply adding proposing to add and
middle housing um after single family
residential in order um to make sure
that we're compliant with the middle
housing bill.
Um so to kind of circle back on what we
had previously kind of talked about and
um we can definitely open up the
discussion again. Uh we previously
talked about potentially oops um
eliminating parking minimums in within
central Isiqua specifically the urban
core and mixeduse central Isiqua zones.
the urban core zone you can see in kind
of a salmon color um fittingly and then
um the purple uh the one with the the
thicker purple lines is mixeduse central
is
um so the just a friendly reminder the
PPC feedback to date um has been uh to
not move forward at this time um and to
wait um to understand the effects of the
state parking bill and I um would like
to ask if you have any changes or
additions or further comments on that.
Um we would still like to hear that as
part of the public hearing process. Um
since yeah, since I think
Yeah, we would still like to hear it as
part of the public hearing, but I'm
opening it up for discussion if you
would like to um discuss it more
tonight. And if I may just add, um, it's
just an opportunity. We wanted to let
you just feel free if you wanted to
provide us more feedback. Now, if you
want to wait and provide feedback at the
public hearing, it's your choice. Just
wanted you to use the work session as as
you felt, you know, appropriate.
>> Well, thank you both. Um, Kate and
Andrew. And again, the public hearing
that has this all on the agenda has
already gone out. So, nothing we do
tonight is going to have any effect. we
would have to basically have this
conversation or that vote um at the
following PPC meeting, but it is an
opportunity to flush this out as Kate
mentioned earlier to kind of get uh the
idea to again uh it's good to see this
the second and third time. Um I had the
opportunity to talk to a couple
developers, you know, and again I'm I'm
proud to say that my mind also is never
set in stone. I like to learn from lots
of people and um so I'm interested to
hear what all you have to say. Again,
originally, as you can see, and thank
you, Andrew, for such a this is a great
shot.
You know, our last discussion, if you
remember, was kind of about the chicken
and egg. You know, do we want to go
first? We don't really have the transit,
but at the same time, as Mayor Mullet
said, we want to spark development. We
want to do what we can to help
developers. Um, parking is one of those
things, and ultimately, we want to get
to less parking in the city to utilize
our land better. So, we have those goals
and outcomes. I think that was one of
the things is we did want to see where
that state bill landed, but we know
where it's going in 2028. And the
question is, as you all heard, is do we
want to stay where we are now? Do we
want to jump ahead and go to 2028 now or
as you can see, do we just get rid of
the minimums completely? And hopefully,
amongst other things, that would be one
tool for developers. So, that's kind of
it. I mean, again, there's other options
in between, but those are kind of the
big three. Looking for questions,
comments, feedback as we go. Um,
Commissioner Adair's got her microphone
on, so I'm going to guess she's got
something to say. Yeah. No. So, I
actually I'm not opposed to jumping to
the 2028 because if we feel like that's
where things are going, we might as well
lay the groundwork now and start to see
what the results are. I would like to
kind of see what the impacts of those
are before going getting rid of minimums
entirely, but I'm not emotionally
opposed to getting rid of minimums, if
that makes sense. Like I'm like, yes, I
can see us gradually moving to a place
where we have no parking minimums, but
it we don't maybe want to dump the
general populace in ice water and be
like swim swim.
>> It might be a bridge too far right now.
Um, Commissioner Holmstrom.
>> Yeah. I mean, seeing how these state
laws are coming in 2028,
developers, anybody building anything's
just going to they're designing for
those right now. So, if we say we want
to hold on to our current in the
meantime, it's not really going to
matter. They're not I don't think it
it's takes so long to get a building
permit uh for especially for a bigger
project that it's it's not really going
to be applicable in a way with that
they're because they're just going to
design for those laws as soon as they
hit 2028 would be my feeling.
>> Yeah, probably not many projects are
going to be able to sneak in before
that.
>> Yeah,
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> Um I also agree with you. It's going to
take a while for them to break ground
and everything else, so it makes sense
to adopt it now. But I think at the same
time, we need to prep for the reality of
people having cars. I mean, I know that
developers were they're not going to
build with no parking spots, but we
would definitely want to put a permit
process in in place for parking in
established neighborhoods and around
like the parking ride so people are not
doubling into those areas. So, I just
think we need to prep as a city knowing
that that this is coming that we need to
put a parking permit process overall.
In by permit, what do you mean?
>> Um, just like in Seattle where the
neighborhoods have like parking permits
to in your neighborhood because
everybody street parks, right?
>> Yeah. Got it.
>> Sorry.
>> Nope. No problem.
Anyone else like to add?
>> And I do have a few more slides on
parking. I just wanted to give you some
time to kind of noodle on this
particular question.
Well, let's Yeah, let's stay here while
we're here. Um,
I could probably be sold either way if
there was a strong enough argument to
get rid of them now. Um, I'd like to see
build development sparked.
I also am not opposed to just leaving uh
going with the 2028 laws. I mean, again,
these are all things it
I would assume that again, the
developers want a viable project. They
want to be able to sell. They know if
they have absolutely zero parking that
actually does not uh help them um for a
car centric state and nation and city.
But
at the other time, you know, at the
other hand, any correct, anything that
we do that we overshoot can always be
looked at again and corrected. Now, the
only question I have for Andrew is again
with the exceptions of certain
areas like you said about the GFA,
basically when we say getting rid of all
the minimums, you're talking about
everything unless it's state required
like the ADA, certain things like that.
Correct?
>> Yes. Only the minimum.
>> From my understanding, the council never
wanted to get rid of parking minimums
for the citywide. it was specifically to
explore the idea of only doing it in
these the two zones that are on the
screen.
>> Um whereas the rest of citywide it would
be
>> basically what was just presented in the
table
>> um would apply citywide but specifically
just these two zones basically that
table doesn't matter because there are
there is no minimum
>> right
>> if that makes sense.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Shall I continue or would you like to
>> discuss anyone else? Like I said, at
this point,
>> we can also come back to it, too.
>> Yeah. No, at this point, like I said, I
could probably be sold on either getting
rid of it completely or going with the
2028. I don't really see any utility in
keeping us right where we are today.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>> Put a cap in it. We'll come back to it.
>> Okay.
Um, and just uh thank you Kate for
making this. Uh, this basically is a
visual I'm a very visual person. a
visual graphic of basically what which
um this is only focused on the no
parking minimum uh uses um not the ones
where it's like 0.5 spaces but um this
shows like these are um applicable for
the Senate Bill 5184. Um the middle
column is for what's being addressed in
House Bill 1183. Uh for whatever reason
affordable housing is in both. Um and
then the last column uh is basically
checking the box. Yes, we're looking at
this right now. So
um and I did want to bring up the
question of accessible parking spaces
since this was partic this was in the um
golden outcomes chart or the work plan
developed by council. So currently
parking for individuals with um
disabilities is regulated um by the
federal ADA, the building code, and um
and other standards. And the number of
accessible parking spaces uh currently
uh for Isiqua and I'm pretty sure all
the other cities in Washington um are
not really it's not really a land use
matter as much as it is a building code
um matter. So the Senate bill 5184 does
not change the what's required for ADA
parking. It's still based on the amount
of parking that is ended up being
provided. And I'll I have an example
after this slide. Now, I will say that
it does the draft commerce guidance does
point that local government should be
aware of potential updates to
requirements for accessible parking
spaces resulting from a study which um
is being done by the Washington State
Building Code Council. Um and that uh
it's either the guidance is either
coming out in 2027 or that's when
they're starting the guidance. Um but uh
there's more to come on that.
And so this is the table that we would
reference. This is the currently adopted
2021 IBC. And you can see that if one to
25 parking spaces are proposed for any
facility, excuse me, um a required one
parking space of out of those would be
required to be accessible. And it goes
up. The more parking you provide, the
more ADA spaces you need. And as an
example, we have um the Trailhead North
building. So, for example, they uh had
to provide or opted to provide 162
parking stalls total, meaning that they
fell in the what was that? Uh 150 151 to
200 um spaces. So, they on paper they
had to provide six ADA stalls. They
ended up providing seven.
Uh so another possible action that I
said we would come back to is um in the
work plan it was establish minimum
accessible parking requirements prior to
the guidance from the state building
code council. Um this is up for further
discussion. Uh personally um you know
staff really felt like we um needed to
wait until further guidance comes out
before determining what the best course
of action would be. Um it kind of falls
a little bit outside of my own area of
expertise for determining um how many
accessible stalls should be required.
Um, but I guess the right now it's the
proposal is to wait and see and monitor
and um, happy to hear any thoughts you
may have on that.
>> No shame there, Andrew. I'm in the same
boat. So, again, I couldn't tell you
what the magic number is.
>> Any comments, feedback for Andrew
regarding accessible parking units?
>> Commissioner D. Hypothetical question
for Andrew.
>> Yes.
>> If we were to say we want to get rid of
parking minimums in spirit but still
make sure that there is ADA parking
available, could we say every
residential must have at least one
parking spot so that we can make sure
there is ADA accessible parking for that
building? Would that be possible?
>> I
don't know. Wouldn't that kind of run up
against the whole no minimum though?
>> The idea would be we don't want to
dictate how many spots you have, but we
would like to make sure there's at least
one spot for somebody who has a
disability. I mean, just having worked
in a pediatrics office, there's a lot of
people who who need the that parking.
And if I can just jump in, I think that
was as staff was talking about. Okay. Um
where where would we start? What kind of
analysis would be necessary? Um and this
is part of the building code, part of
the federal law. Um there are these
potential conflicts with what was in the
bill. Um we heavily rely on what we hear
from the Department of Commerce and um
in the bill they talk about having um
this building council look specifically
at this issue. So, not a clear answer
from them at this point. And again, you
know, the study is set to start in 2027.
Um, it just kind of opens up a question.
So, I don't think we do have an answer
for you right now. Um, on that,
>> uh, Commissioner Zachro,
>> thank you. Well, I can bring kind of
like a personal example. Out of over 150
parking spaces in my building, there are
like six or seven ADA parkings and they
all taken
all of them are being used and used not
by the guest but by the people who live
in the building. So it's kind of like
it's seems like it's needed more than
like one space perund
162.
I think for me it's just easier to
compartmentalize and let the brain trust
figure out the ADA requirements and just
focus on my narrow perspective of
parking minimums as just you know the
bigger vision of do we want to require
certain amount of parking for pro uh
different projects different
developments around the city and again I
can still be convinced of no minimums
and let uh again the brain trust figure
out the the federal federal guidelines,
you know, the building codes, Department
of Commerce, all of that stuff, and I
could still sleep well at night. Maybe
until you get back to us, then I might
not.
>> That help you out, Andrew?
>> Yeah, I think that there's probably more
to be discussed at the public hearing,
but appreciate your your thoughts. Um so
just to double check um the feedback
that we've received to date uh on these
I won't read them out again but um would
you like to discuss further um any of
these the possible actions um we kind of
went into the last two but um open happy
to open it up for discussion any of
those four
>> commissioner Matthews,
>> I kind I had a question just popped into
my mind and it was actually we talked
about a little earlier about how many
parking spots corporate uh corporations
need. So, I'm thinking of Costco and how
many parking spots they take in this
entire city. So, they have two huge
parking lots or garages and they also
park at um what is that? The the barn.
>> Oh,
>> Pickering Barn. And they park in other
places in the city. So is that going to
be viable if you know we have another
say another corporate headquarters comes
in here is that going to be viable or
are they going to be like Expedia and
parking at Lake Samameish and taking up
park space parking spaces too. I guess
that's something to think about cuz I
just noticed today when I was walking my
dog is like wow there's a lot of Costco
parking everywhere. There's Expedia that
takes up that huge lot at Lake
Samameish. So that's where the overflow
is going into our parking our park
spaces.
>> If I need to think about
>> if I understood the the um
one of those slide panels correctly,
commercial projects are still required
by the GFA to have a certain amount.
We're not talking about getting rid of
those minimums. Correct.
uh if it's under if it's under 3,000
gross square feet.
>> But but that even when we say we're
getting rid of parking minimums and in
the urban core and the retail area, it's
it's still dependent on what you're
building and how big. It's not like
Costco could just build their office
space today and wouldn't have any
parking minimums.
>> Correct. It would be one space per 500
square ft,
>> right?
>> Which is about a size of a, you know,
small one-bedroom apartment. So, you
know, probably could fit more than one
person in that same space, but um it's
not telling them you can't have more
than that.
>> Uh unless, you know, a max there's
maximums, but uh
>> yeah. So,
>> yeah, for the purpose of our
conversation, when we're talking about
minimums, we're really talking about
those specific line items, which mostly
have to do with a lot of multif family,
um things near transit, all of this
stuff. I don't think we're necessarily
talking about Costos or big retail
giants getting away with not having
parking. And again, I want to make sure
I'm saying that correctly so you guys
can tell me if I'm interpreting it
wrong.
>> Uh, as far as what Costco would fall
under, it's could be retail,
commercial. So, I think that they would
fall under the new category, but
certainly, I mean, they're they want to
add more parking. So, I don't think we
would have concerns about them wanting
to get rid of their parking because they
I mean, you can't go to Costco and
generally you're not going to go to
Costco and like lug your groceries back
on the bus unless you have a big wagon.
Um, so yeah.
>> Oh, yeah. Sorry. So, if you are if
you're um kind of If you're talking
about specifically the question of do we
do we still want parking minimums in
those two specific zones the one option
would be
>> no they would not have any minimum
parking requirement. It would be up to
them to decide.
>> But the offices if for example another
office were to come outside of those two
zones they would be held to the state
standard which is one space for per 500
square ft of space. But for those two
zones, we are talking about a blanket
absolutely no minimum
>> if that was the recommendation from PPC.
>> No, that's perfect.
>> It is written that way in the current
code that will be in the public hearing,
but it's completely fine to, you know,
it's up to the PPC to make a motion to
>> um to change it. And
>> it hasn't shaken my faith any. I mean I
like as you said Costco is going to do
what Costco wants to do in order to
better service their so again it hasn't
shaken my faith I just want to make sure
I'm understanding it correctly. So when
we talk about those two zones we're
talking about a blanket absolutely no
minimums for anybody who builds in these
two areas.
>> Correct.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> And thank you.
>> Oh Commissioner uh let's go to
Commissioner Miller Irwin. Okay.
>> Thank you. I just had a question in
terms of the early adoption of the uh
the requirements in um 5184. Do we have
any similar cities like um Redmond or
Belleview that are somewhat similar to
us that have done any early adoption of
this particular Senate bill?
>> Yeah, that's a great point. Um so in the
last I can't remember off the top of my
head, but I know that there are some
examples. Um want to say
it wasn't was it Kirkland?
It was I know that Belleview and Brenton
are actually working on these code
amendments. I don't know their
timelines, but I imagine other cities
are as well. We can find that
information if
>> Thank you.
>> Yes, I will definitely circle back on
that. Commissioner Dair.
>> So, could we theoretically amend the no
minimums to just be residential and
mixed use and omit so that we can
maintain minimums for commercial because
I mean obviously Costco is going to have
parking etc. But I'm thinking there are
small businesses like hair salons that
see really high traffic for prolonged
periods of time and we do want to make
sure they have parking available.
That is definitely an option. Um to meet
the state law early, we would need to
have the standards that are basically in
the table that was presented in the
packet tonight. Um, but the line in
front of the parking table that says
unless you're in central Isiqua, mixed
use central Isiqua, or I'm sorry, unless
you're in urban core or mixed use
central Isiqua, that part could be there
could be a motion made to only um to get
rid of parking minimums in those two
zones, but only for these X zones. Is
that what you were getting at?
>> Yes. So we can make a motion to get rid
of minimums for residential and mixed
use within the urban core and uh the
other zone.
>> Yes, that is absolutely an option.
>> Okay, great.
>> Be for great debate in two weeks.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, now I have one more section. This
one is a little bit more straightforward
hopefully, but this is um allowing
multif family housing in the urban
village commercial and urban village
retail zones. Um so just to kind of
display go back to the golden outcomes
chart um or the goals and outcomes work
plan. So the possible action on the far
right is to allow multif family in the
urban village commercial and retail
zones while not losing retail
requirements.
And just to uh refresh everybody's
memory, um the PPC feedback to date uh
has been to comply with um Senate Bill
6026 to allow multif family use in all
commercial zones. And also um we
discussed um allowing transitional
housing, permanent supportive housing
and co-living in the UV commercial
retail zones to also ensure compliance
with House Bill 1220 um which was
adopted in uh 2021 and then House Bill
1998 which was adopted in 2024.
And uh here is um a snippet of the table
of permitted uses. Um, I did remove any
of the rows that were not being um,
amended this time. The one in the packet
has all of the residential uses just so
um, it's a little easier to understand
maybe, but um, you can see in green the
cells that are proposed to be changed
would be uh, permitting uh, multif
family dwellings, meaning five or more
units in those two zones. Transitional
housing and permanent supportive housing
are already permitted in the UV
commercial zone. However, um
uh transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing have to be allowed in
any zones that allow multif family or
hotels. And since we are proposing to
allow it kind of has a trickle effect
since we're proposing to meet one state
law to allow multif family in these both
of these zones. Therefore, we have to um
we're proposing to permit uh
transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing in these two zones as
well. Similarly, um co-l livingiving,
there's a separate bill that addressed
co-living in Washington to make it
easier for developers to build um
boarding houses which were a more
old-fashioned style of building but more
affordable for people since you don't
have your own bathroom or kitchen
necessarily. Um, so that separate bill
says in all zones you allow multif
family, you have to allow co-living. So,
um, I guess the scope got a tiny bit
bigger, um, than just simply allowing
multif family in the two zones, but
that's also being proposed, um, to
change.
Uh, so any questions regarding the um
before I move on to that next slide,
regarding this in particular? Yes.
What's the time frame on that law
kicking in?
>> That is a great point or a great
question. Um, so early compliance in
particular with the allowing multif
family in zones that are primarily zoned
for commercial or mixed use. Um, that is
not due until from what I understand
December 2027. So we would be early
adopters of that as well.
I think the co-l livingiving and the
transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing are already in
effect. So once we would allow the
multif family, we would then have to
allow the other three.
>> Thanks.
And sorry I called on you. That was not
my job. But
>> luckily I'm secure, Andrew.
>> Okay.
Uh then lastly, I did want to um I
didn't want to ignore the questions that
I put in the memo. So, uh in the memo,
we had posed these questions. They're
definitely still up for your
consideration and up for potential
discussion tonight. Um however, we are
not able to make changes to the code
amendments at this time as we already
published the public hearing packet, but
certainly motions can be made and um at
the public hearing. Um,
so are there any questions
before I turn it over to the next
presenters?
>> Yeah, ultimately right now is a great
time for questions because again, we're
going to have the entire debate in front
of the camera and the public next
meeting and then it sounds like, you
know, a very formal declaration of why
we want to go this way for the council
so they have a better understanding of
our thinking.
So, no need to wear yourselves out
tonight by fleshing it all out, but that
ultimately will be our goal at the
public hearing. So, any questions?
I have a question. I'm trying to figure
out the best way to to frame it. It's a
couple of slides back in regards to
multifamily being included in this area
that we'd be that we're discussing
having the minimums in. If you have
multifamily in that area, you're
increasing the number of people that
would thereby have vehicles. So, it
seems like the two ideas might be
struggling against each other. You're
putting multifamily housing in an area
that you're reducing parking minimums or
removing them all together. I'm just
kind of wondering about the what I'm
picking up as a conflict between those
two ideas.
>> Yeah. Um, definitely a good point. Um,
as far as the conflicts, I think that it
would it it would still be up to the
developer um to provide the amount of
parking if they wanted to do more than
the minimum. It would do if it was
market rate. Um theoretically if we
let's just say we fast forward and we're
already meeting the men the the state
guidance um then it would be 0.5 parking
spaces per unit unless the units are
less than 1,200 ft which would be like a
studio apartment um potentially
one-bedroom apartment then there would
be no parking required. So that's
definitely a valid concern. Um but at
this point we are trying to meet the
state um the state law early and
not yeah
anything
>> no I I appreciate that feedback and I do
remember from a couple of months ago
when we had a uh a joint meeting I'm
forgetting with the uh I think it was
economic vitality
>> um probably about a month or two ago um
and we had some developers speak with
us. They were very uh adamant that
development in Isqua was very important,
but they were looking at market rate um
um housing. So, I'm sure that would be a
a uh consideration for them in terms of
uh making sure they can rent market rate
and maintain the parking that's going to
attract folks willing to pay market. So,
thank you.
>> Yeah, no problem.
Commissioner Zachro
>> wanted sorry I just wanted to make a
little point,200 square ft. So we
understand it's actually two to
threebedroom apartment.
>> Okay.
>> It is two to threebedroom. So so two to
two to threebedroom technically can be
four people and all of them can be
adults driving a car or needed needing
to drive a car. So that's what we're
talking about.
Okay. Uh, Commissioner Matthews,
>> I just had a general question. So, the
area that we're looking at for the um
the urban village, that's pretty much in
the Highlands, right? So,
>> yes,
>> the Highlands was built under like an
HOA or some kind of development
agreement. That is over now, right? So,
are they going to change like the
building heights or anything to
accommodate the change in adding
residents? the development agreement has
sunset and uh I'm not super fluent in
what that development agreement was, but
the code that is current um is basically
was modeled after that development
agreement. So, whatever the heights were
um it's is likely what the maximum
heights are in the zoning. Um and that's
not something that we took a look at. Um
but I think that they're they're
probably pretty high um in that zone.
I'm not sure.
>> Yeah, not that I was around at the time
when that development agreement
happened, but wouldn't they have had to
upzone and also change all the land uses
to accommodate that land use agreement,
the development agreement? So, to your
point, they probably for the most part
are very similar, if not the same.
>> Yeah. So, when the development agreement
sunset, the city adopted regulations
they call and it was called replacement
regulations u which then got folded into
the title 18 update. Um, so with this
change that's in front of you, we're not
changing the height or anything like
that. That's already in the code. Um,
but I think maybe your question was how
is it consistent with the previous
standards under the development
agreement? We're not sure, you know,
that must have been looked at during the
replacement regulations,
but regardless, any development in the
Highlands has to get approval from uh
Highlands Council. Um and so they have
their own design bylaws and guidelines.
So there but our requirement in our code
is you have to get their approval first
before you apply to the city.
Yeah. But this uh while I have the mic
um I think this point about the 1200
square ft doesn't have to have any um
there are no minimum uh requirements for
that. I don't know if the commerce
guidance is that for each individual
unit or is it the overall size of the
unit is 1,200
>> each individual unit.
>> So you could have a 200
>> 200 units that are all 1,000 square
feet. They would not technically have a
parking minimum
>> required.
>> That's the guidance from commerce. Okay.
I you know sometimes these bills get
passed so quickly in the guidance
sometimes um wanted to make sure the
legislative intent was
I I mean it is encouraging smaller units
um for sure but you're right 1,200
square f feet could be three-bedroom
apartments
and if I could just jump into I looked
on the um in the code for the UV comrade
zones and they do have a split for
building height Um, if you're a
commercial project, it's 85 ft. If
you're a retail project, it's 40 feet at
this point.
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> So, if you mix those, use say they want
to like these buildings aren't that old,
but I'm just thinking ahead. If they
want to build retail on the bottom and
go up with apartments on the top, they
wouldn't be able to if it's at 40 feet,
right? That'd be kind of limiting.
And I mean my understanding is at this
point the building heights that are in
the codes are what we would use. So
generally around 10 feet of of uh floor.
So 40 would be maybe allowing you know
four stories um for your mix use or
whatever. Um and then maybe eight eight
stories for uh if you had a commercial
use as defined in in that specific part
of the code.
Okay.
Any final comments for Andrew or Minnie?
Okay. Thank you, Andrew.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Moving along. Our next item of business,
you guessed it, more proposed code
amendments.
And this is also related to the propo
the promoting building investments
project. But right now we have senior
planner Emily Medina and associate
planner Yay Yi Chen who will present the
natural context area and transparency
code amendments.
It looks like Emily's up first.
>> I am. Thank you chair. So I will do the
transparency and then ye will do the um
natural context area.
So purpose just like the other one,
present and discuss proposed amendments.
Um this time for transparency and
natural context area to prepare for the
public hearing and get any questions you
have for staff figured out now so we
have a clear idea of um what's being
presented and you have an idea of your
stance going into the public hearing.
So this is what the PBI work plan
approved by council is for the topic of
natural context area and transparency
requirements. So this is the guidance
that was received um by staff of the
issues that they see um which is the
difficulty of meeting the energy code
and the issue with the 30% on uh for
over 30% on the facade as well as the
possible action items from that work
plan about how to fix the issue.
Sorry, it's I clicked forward.
All right. Um, so tonight just really
focusing on what those amendments are,
that track changes document, the
examples document. Not really going to
delve into the background and the why
and how we got here because we've had
multiple meetings on this. So, um, we
will dive in. So feedback we've heard
thus far from the planning policy
commission that we've taken into account
is um eliminating transparency along the
natural context area which you will
touch on reducing transparency
requirements for commercial uses um and
maintaining those current percentage
requirements for multifamily um the
urban core zone in so much as that it's
pulling that 70% retail percentage um
and then not doing any changes to the
oldtown sub
And then tonight we will be revisiting
the transparency requirements for town
homes in particular as well as um two
new code proposals um regarding
measurement and deviations. Um those
will be the new ones to discuss. So my
slide layout here, the the top one, the
colored one is um the proposal that was
brought to you on June 11th and then the
one below that the July 9th is related
to that top one, but it's how we've
either amended it or revised it, refined
it further.
So in looking at this um the first one
was grouping commercial uses with retail
for purposes of require um transparency
requirements in line with best
practices. Um now we have removed the
word retail altogether for clarity as
retail is a commercial use. They're
typically grouped together. Other cities
um in the area always group them
together. The commission did have um a
discussion about do we want to break up
commercial uses farther? Do we want to
have like services and offices and all
those different types of commercial uses
to um have different requirements for
each of those? Um staff discussed it.
Our stance is that having just a
commercial transparency requirement is
clear for implementation and for the
developer. Um, and it also
helps limit creating nonconformity. So,
if there is a TI, if something changes
from a retail to an office use and then
all of a sudden their windows don't meet
our standards. Um, so it's either
creating a non-conformity use or we're
making them change out their windows
just because the use within the building
changed, which is costly and not maybe
something we want to do. Um, as well as,
you know, like we talked about, um, when
mixeduse buildings come in for their
land use approval, which is when we're
looking at do you meet these
requirements, they oftentimes don't know
what they're what's going in on the
bottom floor. They don't know what that
commercial aspect is. So it would be
very hard to tell them, hey, you have to
do this percentage for ser if it's
service and this percentage for retail
when they don't know who their tenant is
going to be. So for those reasons,
keeping commercial broad. Um moving on
to we discussed separating the multif
family and commercial ground level
transparency requirements and we have
further clarified those to state that
commercial is not um does not include
industrial light industrial. So
transparency is not applicable to that
as well as town homes. Um so before the
meeting commissioner sent a question and
I'm sure you all looking at this as well
exempting town homes a little bit
different than what we talked about last
meeting. At the last meeting the
commission showed um interest in
separating out different types of multif
family. So kind of the apartment style
multif family versus the town home
style. We had a lot of discussion about
how the forms of those buildings are
just very different um and how they're
designed. Um, and so staff went back and
we were looking into what do other
cities do, what's best practice, um, how
does it, how would this be implemented,
how would it work? Um, and we looked at
five different cities and um, instead of
having a different percentage for town
homes, most of them don't have a
percentage for town homes. So in some
cities, town homes are either are
considered middle housing and thus
they're exempt from transparency
requirements, so no transparency for
town homes. or in two or three of the
other cities, um, town homes weren't a
permitted use in the areas that they had
transparency requirements. So, no
transparency requirements for town homes
just from the fact that they're not
allowed. Um, so for those reasons, the
code in front of you tonight for
discussion is to exempt the town homes
from the transparency requirements.
Okay, next big one. So again top is what
we talked about last time which is that
we were clarifying measuring um how to
measure and calculate transparency
because it for the residential use there
was some uh inconsistency about the like
above 6 ft 5 ft to whatever. Um and the
commission had asked for real life
examples and I told you I'd get my tape
measure out and hit up Front Street and
I did it. Um, and it was actually well I
might have freaked a lot of people out
when I was out there taking a lot of
pictures, but it was super super
helpful. And so those are the pictures
that are in that transparency example
sheet that you all got. So one thing I
noticed when I was um out there
measuring is that most the windows start
2 ft above the ground. And currently how
we measure transparency is from the
ground. So 0 feet up to 5 ft. Um whereas
the windows were frequently starting at
18 in 2 ft and then up and higher. And
that is also when looking at other
cities how most cities measure
transparency. They don't start at the
ground. They start at 18 in to 30 in and
then go up to like 7 or 8 ft. Some of
them up to 10 ft. Um so taking those two
items into consideration as well as the
intent of um I've lost my slide.
Um,
>> so we'll have to wait a moment. Uh,
>> are we having a moment?
>> We reboot this screen.
>> Okay. So, maybe we take a fivem minute
break.
>> Sounds great.
>> Is that okay? Great. Thank you.
Okay, it looks like the technical issue
has been um addressed.
Uh our five minute break is up. That was
a quick five minutes. Okay. Well, thank
you tech team, all the wizards up there
who helped us out. Emily, please go
ahead with your presentation.
>> Yes. So, measuring windows, front
street, taking pictures. Um, so when we
were comparing
measuring from zero to 5t, 2 to 8, um,
and how that at that time not to date,
but considering what that meant and how
does that impact the pedestrian
experience and what's the intent of the
code? And you know, you're thinking of
the average height of adults and only
measuring up to 5t, a lot of people
taller than that. And the pedestrian
experience is all about seeing inside
the windows and providing this kind of
transparency. So, um, reviewing the
other cities, looking at our own city as
an example, um, staff's recommendation
is to change how we measure transparency
to better encapsulate, um, the intent of
the code and creating that pedestrian
experience. And this was um a great
example of that um out on Front Street
measuring from 0 to 5 ft 58% um
transparency but measuring from 2 to 8
ft it's 81% transparency um with the
note that all these windows are
transparent now um they're not covered.
Um so that is the recommendation around
that. Um we did have a question from a
commissioner prior to the meeting about
how would the measurement um change
impact the percentage that is being
recommended. Um and staff still feels
that 45% for um the commercial areas
makes sense. Um it's in the kind of in
that middle area of all the other cities
around and actually a lot of other
cities have a higher percentage on those
high pedestrian areas. Um so we do feel
like 45% remains a good place to be even
with the change in measurement.
Um so June 11th we talked about the
changes um in percentages for what was
retail and is now commercial reducing
that from 70 to 45%. Um and that is
still the code amendment in your packet
tonight. There was no further changes to
that. And then same with the the 70%
requirement that was for retail, moving
that just to the urban core zone which
is in central Isiqua and just along
streets. Um maintaining that
recommendation. No changes uh to that
tonight either.
And then lastly, maintaining removing
the transparency standard that was
really a signed standard. No changes to
that. Um but last meeting we said no
changes to deviations. Um, and we got
some great public comments and we were
talking about it. Um, and we have now
proposed, staff has proposed a deviation
for buildings that would be required to
meet ground flooror transparency
standards on more than two sides. Um, so
we saw that with trail head coming in.
There's a road on one side, a road on
the other side, a natural context area
on the other side. Um, and that means
under current code, they'd have to meet
ground flooror transparency on three
sides of the building. So that um
creates issues of where do you put your
garbage, where do you have access, you
know, you can't have transparency on
four sides of a building. Um so we
created a deviation around that to
propose to the commission about um if
you if a building is going to require on
more than two sides reducing that to
just two sides and creating a hierarchy
of what two sides matter the most to get
that transparency on the street side um
primarily and then on the other sides
where it would have been required but it
now isn't under the deviation having
different design elements there instead.
So, just kind of a summary of how we
clarified and reduced and combined our
transparency requirements. Um, we used
to have three citywide standards and
that's been reduced to two. The central
isqua standard used to be in the natural
context area. Ye. We will touch on that
more, but that is um recommended to be
removed and instead the central isqua
transparency standard will just be the
urban core zone and just be abuing
streets. As a reminder for the citywide
ones, it's streets, threeblock passages,
natural context areas, but the urban
core zone is that pedestrian priority
area which is along streets. So that is
where the highest percentage is
recommended.
So a couple questions from the memo and
that are just up for consideration
tonight um so that the commissioners can
have discussions about it and um ask
staff any clarifying questions is do we
support the change? Do you support the
change of how transparency is measured?
Um, how does commission feel about
exempting the town homes from the
transparent requirements? And then just
generally, are the code amendments
clear? Do you have any clarifying
questions that staff can help answer for
you? Um, or is any additional
information desired prior to the
hearing?
>> Excellent. Thank you, Emily. Great
presentation. Thank you for the photos
and thank you for the hard work of going
out there with that tape measure. I'm
sure you did get a lot of odd looks. Um
let's take it apart one by one. We'll
start with question one. Do
commissioners support the change in how
transparency measured? Again, we're
going to have this entire conversation
in two weeks, but always good to flush
it out a little bit more. Uh please,
Commissioner Zacharov.
>> Thank you, Chase. Uh question one more
time. So, how do we can you please
repeat how exactly do we measure it now?
Thank you.
>> Of course. Yeah, it's from the finished
floor, the first um floor. So
essentially it's from 0 feet from the
ground up to 5T and then the
recommendation is from 2 feet up to 8 ft
>> between 2 and 8 ft. Correct. Yes.
>> I mean I'm going to phone a friend but
Commissioner Holmstrom who's a developer
and I I know myself I work I mean that
makes more sense. That's going to be a
lot easier because if you're building
windows and transparency down to the
ground that is more expensive. That's a
lot more expensive I would assume.
>> Yeah this makes a lot more sense. And it
also addresses egress for getting out of
a bedroom window. Those have to be a
certain height off the ground. I mean,
this I couldn't wrap my head around the
0 to5 measurement before. I just could I
really struggle with that one. So, I
think this is uh much more logical.
>> Yeah, it makes sense to me. I mean, just
the way I'm just thinking of stick
framed houses and, you know, again, much
more cost effective and it would help
actually bump up those transparency
numbers as well. So, I'm all in favor
for it.
>> You still seem high.
>> Fair enough. But I am as far as the
measuring, I'm I'm completely Yeah. I
Any questions or comments when it comes
to measuring?
>> Commissioner Miller.
>> Um my comment is um in regards to uh
folks that are watching us at home. I've
been told that there is no audio.
>> They can see us, but they can't hear us.
>> Oh, how it's been a while. How does that
work?
Um, just Oh, no.
>> Um,
I there's I know there's a requirement,
right?
>> Okay.
>> Just
>> Sure.
>> Just
>> Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
>> Um, pardon me. Do you know if this is
just since the the reboot of the system?
Okay. So maybe if we can take another uh
break so we can try to figure this out.
>> I'm gonna blame it on the squirrel
again.
Hello. Hello.
Hello.
That might be it.
Testing one, two, three. Testing.
Testing.
>> Testing. Hi. Can you hear me?
It's not working.
This one too.
Two.
Hello. Testing, testing.
>> Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, we're back.
We're back.
>> Okay, I think we So, we didn't really
capture question one. Um, do
commissioners support the change in how
transparency is measured? I feel like
overall we do.
I believe we can go to question two. Do
commissioners support exempting town
homes from the transparency
requirements?
Okay, let's hear a little bit of
feedback. Anybody like to go first?
Commissioner Dair.
>> Yeah. One thing is when I was
researching transparency, you know,
there's more than glazing to it. So, I
think obviously there's a lot of privacy
concerns and structural concerns with
town homes that makes them a unique type
of business. I mean, not business, but
building. So I think if there we
obviously have other codes and design
standards to make sure they have porches
and other attractive things going on. I
think then that's fine.
>> Excellent.
Any other comments about exempting?
That's a big question.
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> sorry I was about to start talking. I
also I also agree with that because most
mostly town homes are narrow and they
have their doorway there and it's really
hard to get to that glazing percentage
if they have a garage and a doorway. So
on the ground floor I think that it's
probably a good idea. Um there's a town
homes right across the big tree trail
head in Isiqua that has glass doors and
windows and everybody covers them
because it's they don't want people
looking right into their house. It's not
like downtown as well, but you still
have some privacy concerns. So, I think
that's a good idea to exempt it.
>> Great.
Any other feedback regarding the town
homes?
>> I think Commissioner Matthews brings up
a good point. You know, nobody's
building ramblers anymore. Isqua does
not have the land to build that way.
They're building up. These are going to
be two to three floors. And I'm want to
say thank you to Commissioner Zachar. We
had a nice coffee the other day and she
showed me a few buildings around um the
Highlands and there's so many different
unique ways to build whether it's
Pacific Northwest Lodge, whether it's
something much more modern and
contemporary. Um, having a requirement
for transparency on a town home seems
pretty tough and I don't think you're
going to get the different variety
of aesthetics and I think it would be
very tough for developers to have to get
to that transparency requirement if
they're trying to build town homes that
are typically going to be more narrow
and upward focus. So, at this point,
again, we'll have the conversation in
two weeks, but I'm okay with exempting
them.
Okay. Question three. Are the code
amendments clear?
>> I think so too.
Is there any additional information that
the commissioners need for the public
hearing?
>> Commissioner Dair,
>> I think a lot of us understand this, you
know, that there's more than Excuse me,
I'm just still articulating my thought.
Um, it would be great, I think, for
public comment and for the people coming
if there was maybe a little sidebar that
did highlight other aesthetic
requirements that town homes will still
have to meet just so people know that
they're not getting
a straight garage door when we say no
transparency. I just think for general
public,
>> what we're saying, Emily, is more
photos.
>> Happy to.
>> Okay.
Um, I think that's it. Unless anyone
else has anything for Emily.
All right. I believe Y is up next. Thank
you Emily.
All right. Good evening, commissioners.
E Chen, associate planner of CPD here
and tonight my part of the proposal will
be for natural context areas.
So just a little bit of a recap on the
PBI goals and outcomes and the overall
goal for natural context areas code
update is to reduce the burden of
transparency requirements when facing
said natural context areas.
So from the previous meetings, staff has
taken PPC feedback into consideration of
eliminating transparency requirements
along natural context areas. In addition
to that with providing more
clarification and refining other natural
context area requirements.
So just a little bit of a recap on the
background. Um within central Isiqua,
natural contact areas include regulated
streams, wetlands, city park, city open
space, private open space, as well as
natural storm ponds. So the goal within
city plan policies and code regulations
is to have developments prioritize
resource management and integration of
Isiqua's natural features while ensuring
they remain accessible to the public.
A new definition is being proposed to
clarify natural context areas and what
they entail. The new definition outlines
natural context areas to mean regulated
streams and wetlands, city parks, city
open space, private open space,
permanently regulated, and natural
appearing storm ponds. Please also note
that this definition has been taken
directly from a diagram from within our
code. So, it's kind of what we've been
directing people to utilize already.
So staff is proposing to remove the
provision of buildings must be designed
with doors and windows making up 50% of
the walls oriented towards natural areas
to blur the transition between outdoor
and indoor spaces along natural areas
and this is uh done in order to meet PBI
goals. However, city-wide transparency
standards will still apply.
So no changes are being proposed to the
previously discussed removal of code
specifying natural materials which is
illdefined and likely in conflict with
upcoming state law changes. Uh but based
on the June 11th staff also proposed
amendment to eliminate sections that are
vague and are better implemented uh by
more specific sections of the same code.
So with our most recent revision, this
includes adding a specific definition
for natural context areas, revising
subsection A to clearly divide it into
intent and applicability statements, and
reorganized code to clearly identify
building and site requirements along
with a revision to clarify applicability
when a site is bifurcated by streets.
So you might be asking what changed
exactly? Uh to sum it up, here's the
track changes. Um but site orientation
and natural context area integration
into site design and development has
been clarified along with an addition of
language to take into consideration when
a site is bifurcated by a public or
private street.
So we have an example for existing code
conflicts. This is a project um that's
in design currently, but it's located
within central Isiqua on Reineer
Boulevard North. Uh the proposal
currently consists about 16 town homes
uh designed in two rows. One will be
facing Reineer Boulevard North and the
other uh road will be facing the alley.
So the natural context and area across
the street is Reineer Trail.
Um, and this kind of shows how street
and engineering standards could
potentially conflict with land use
regulations since original provision 10
of um, our existing codes provides
prohibits driveway access off of natural
context areas, but sites in their uses
should still be entitled to access. The
new updated code will allow sites to
have access wherein there is bifurcation
via public or private streets while
maintaining the natural context area
intentions are still adhered to.
So here we have some lovely examples
from other cities. So please note that
we're not um saying that these adhere
perfectly to our code sections um and
provide all the amenities. However,
they're great examples of what we want
our codes intentions to kind of um you
know convey. So this development is
Thornton Place located in Seattle and
this is a project that daylighted
Thornton Creek. This is what natural
context area code intends to do when not
bifurcated by public or private roadway.
The natural context area is incorporated
into the site design and is integrated
as a site design feature to connect
residents and pedestrians alike to our
natural resources.
So, next is Blue and Belleview. Blue is
a mixeduse residential building located
within downtown Belleview. Right across
the street is Belleview downtown Park
with the implementation of provisions 1
and five in the code amendment. This
example shows how even when a
development is bifurcated by a public
street, site design can have facads that
are oriented towards a natural context
area with amenities such as balconies,
transparency and design details to
seamlessly blend development and natural
context areas together to create harmony
and then a sense of place.
Um and this is pertinent because
especially in central Isiqua, our
regional growth center where buildings
are required to build between 0 to 10
feet um in the front without
consideration of bifurcation by public
and private street into consideration.
This could create conflict between
development and the amenities that the
building and you should be entitled to.
So some questions for tonight. Um
again we will be you know requesting
changes after the public hearing and
your feedbacks in particular like you
guys did in the beginning. However um we
did want to come with some questions for
you to stew on tonight in preparation
for said public hearing. Um and the
first one is going to be do
commissioners support the exceptions
allowed in E1 through E5 in the track
changes that up on the screen. um if a
building is separated from a natural
context area by a public or private
street. Second is are the code
amendments clear and the third is is any
additional information needed for the
public hearing.
>> Okay, thank you. Ye um
looking for comments. This one's a
little less clear to me.
So, one question I did have for you, Yi,
if you could go back on your slides.
>> Yes.
>> One more, I think.
>> Okay.
This
>> was it. This one.
>> No, that one makes That one's perfectly
fine. I think it was one more before.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's where I wanted to
start. Mhm.
>> So, as far as the natural context areas,
we're talking about
what I understood we're talking about is
right now is just transparency. Again,
the same issue we were just talking
about. We're talking about windows,
glass in order to have harmony with the
natural context area.
>> Yes. What does it mean when it says I
don't recall that we said we were going
to eliminate standards and then I don't
quite understand where it says citywide
transparency standards will still apply.
Help me get past these because that's
the part that's getting me a little
upside down.
>> Yeah. So, uh, within the transparency,
um, changes that Emily has implemented,
um, and presented on, we're just trying
to confirm that while the overall facade
transparency when facing natural context
areas will be eliminated, if a area or
let's say a site faces um, a street and
then there's also a natural context area
on the side, right? because there's
still two sides that faces the street
frontage and the natural context area,
they wouldn't qualify for the deviation
of having less transparency for sides
beyond that. Um, and so we're just
confirming that if natural context area
is still a consideration for the
project, city-wide transparency
standards will still apply to that side.
>> I don't know if that helped me or not
being full transparency. full
transparency.
>> I can give it a whirl since I presented
on it on the 11th. I'll um so this
essentially is saying so currently in
the natural context area code you have
to have 50% of your entire facade that
face the natural context area be
transparent. And that was kind of the
original trigger of the PBI um code
amendment is that anything over 30 is
really difficult to meet. Um, and so
when I presented on this on the 11th, we
talked about how we're removing the
transparency standard from the natural
context area code and kind of
consolidating all of our transparency
code into one section, which is what I
presented on earlier. So, it's removing
the 50% transparency standard that
specifically speaks to natural context
areas. And instead, let's say a building
faces a natural context area, it has to
meet that um 45% if it's commercial on
ground floor or 40% if it's multif
family on ground floor or if it's in the
urban core, 70% along the street. So,
it's just having the building's still
having to follow all those other
transparency standards. It's just
eliminating this one specific one that
just has to do with natural context
areas,
>> right? And you mentioned something else,
too. So, the ground floor stays within
citywide context. When you're talking
about the 50%, you're talking about the
entire facade. We're talking about all
four, five, six floors.
>> Correct. Whatever have you.
>> Correct. So, it's still going to have to
meet the ground floor that every that
all the other ones did that I presented
on. We're just removing that suggesting
we remove the 50% for the entire facade.
>> Right. because I I think we all felt
that developers would take advantage of
a natural context area and we didn't
need to regulate that to death.
>> I remember the conversation.
>> That is how I remember the conversation
as well and that this this this removal
at the time commissioners appear to
support it since we saw the other
transparency standards that were still
applicable to the building.
>> Right? because again it was more about
the pedestrian friendly area where
pedestrians and people are using it on
the ground floor still getting what they
need and again most developers are going
to take advantage of you know views and
things of of that nature by all means so
okay I thank you
>> no problem
>> and thank you ye I just like I said
sometimes is the old mind doesn't go as
quick as it used to
>> and no you're
>> okay having said that is that was that
clear enough for everybody I guess is
the next point because I know that's one
of our questions too
I feel like It's clear now.
>> So,
Commissioner Holmstrom,
>> so essentially we're going to go from
50% to 40 or 45
on the ground floor.
>> On the ground floor.
>> So, yeah, it was whole facade before.
Now, it'll be just ground floor,
>> right? But it's still where I kind of
back to a point I made in a previous
meeting like where does the garbage room
go? Where does all this stuff go? That's
addressed in the prior one where they
had they only have to do two sides now.
>> So this is this is
>> Yeah.
>> Right. There's now a primacy a list of
like you they I understand correctly
right where there's now a list of you
>> of kind of priorities and they can pick
two sides that will meet the 45% and
they don't have correct. So let's say a
building is street on one side, natural
context area on the other, and not
either any of those things.
>> Yeah. Like trail heads like three
streets.
>> So it's just two sides. It's going to
have to meet the ground floor
transparency on the natural context side
and the street side. But for
correct on the ground floor instead of
50 for the whole facade. And it still
has to meet the other natural context
area standards like balconies and
orienting towards that and those other
ones. It's just it's just eliminating
that whole facade 50% requirement.
Okay.
>> You know, also wanted to provide a
little context of where where this um
requirement or was added to the list.
It's the conflict between the energy
code um and which is very strict and and
people are were having a hard time
meeting um their energy because you lose
heat. you're trying to be more energy
efficient and and you know the modeling
that you have to run for the building
code. Um we understood from the that it
was 30% was the max and if you went be
for the whole facade. Now we're talking
about the whole facade. if it was more
than 30% people had a hard time uh
complying with the energy code. And so
that that was a fix that was trying to
be you know we were trying to attempting
to and of course once you get into it uh
you know staff has done a great job of
like all finding all these conflicts and
other things um but that that was the
intent initially um to eliminate that
that uh conflict of 50% versus 30% on
the energy good.
>> No that's okay. Wonderful. Yeah,
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I guess I would just recommend that when
you approach this subject is to um to
say it just like you did before where
it's like this is already going to be
discussed in the natural context area.
We're moving transparency to blah, you
know, so it's just a little more clear
because like him, I was like, wait, what
does that mean? So maybe and we've
discussed this many times. So maybe just
making it really clear so that the
audience understands that too because
that was very clear.
>> Yeah. No, and I I think like I said, I
think staff's looking for constructive
criticism and order to present this on
the public hearing evening. Um I'm all
in favor for it. I just like I said,
just took me a moment to catch up. So
>> no, you're totally fine. It's equipment
malfunction. It was me malfunction. So
>> no, not at all. Okay. Uh can we go back
to those questions?
>> Yes.
All right, let's make sure we answered
them well enough for you. So, do
commissioners support the exceptions
allowed E1 E5. If a building is
separated from a natural context area by
public or private street
and again, we'll we'll debate this.
Um, is the code amendments clear? We
just covered that. And any additional
information needed for the public
hearing? I think Commissioner Matthew
spoke to that.
Please.
>> I would also add pictures just like
Commissioner Adair suggested because
nothing says easiness to us than photos.
>> Absolutely.
>> Noted. Thank you.
>> More pictures. Eie.
>> I will also go out there. Sorry about
that.
>> Excellent.
>> If I could just jump in.
>> Yeah. And I mean, not just picture, I'm
not saying like you have to take
pictures of everything, but I'm just
saying that if there's like a little
bullet point list even in the corner
that says people still have to have
balconies, landscaping, you know, things
so that people aren't thinking that, oh
my god, we're looking at a single
concrete wall. No, we still have codes
elsewhere to handle aesthetic things.
It's just not as much glass. Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, thank you Yi and thank
you Emily. You guys both good. We're
good.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Excellent.
>> Thank you guys.
>> Thank you.
That concludes our regular business for
this evening. I want to thank uh our
audience and obviously our great uh
staff who continues to help us along
with this. And now we are looking to I
believe Kate for city council updates.
or Minnie
>> and I'm wondering if Minnie wouldn't
mind coming up or I mean what I can
share that um um well actually um I
believe there was a city council meeting
where the PBI amendments were discussed
um oh and also the PTE meeting um which
maybe um director Dollywal can
>> sure so the two items that um planning
and policy commission recommended were
the stepbacks that Mayor Mullet talked
about and um the B the open space. So
those were discussed by planning
development and environment committee.
There was a split vote um 2 to1 um for
the uh the point that was debated was
whether there should be a complete
elimination of stepbacks um and whether
that was vetted out or discussed at the
planning and policy commission. Um so so
that went with the planning development
environment committee's recommendation
to full council and council passed it
with two nays and the rest of them
saying yes uh and the two nays were
primarily the feedback was that we
should look at all options. So if it was
uh stepbacks were to be discussed as a
menu of options and things like that and
those two started off before we had the
conversation about goals and outcome um
uh discussion with planning development
and environment committee. So because we
have an ambitious work plan we got
started on it uh and in the meantime
started this goals and outcome
conversation. So for the other ones like
tonight's you actually see that chart
that kind of lays out some of the
framework for that that can help you do
during your deliberations. Um the other
feedback I think um that may mull talked
about today is um we want to be clear in
your recommendations as we take them
forward uh that if there is if you
disagree with certain thing why you know
we capture that clearly uh and the and
then we can assist you in making motions
and other things. And so having the
public uh hearing draft out if you are
going to propose amendments, you know,
reach out to us. We can help you craft
motions and and help you frame uh what
you're thinking um so that you can make
a motion and then decide on it and then
it gets captured. If some of you agree
or disagree, then we can actually lay it
out and explain it to council your
reasons behind your thought process. So
if you if for instance if for parking
you decide to uh not eliminate parking
minimums um then why are you thinking
that um you make a motion to take it out
of the code or you make a motion to only
eliminate for residential what wherever
your discussion is that we actually
capture it well for the legislative
process you know as it moves forward.
>> They'd like us to show our homework.
>> Yeah. But um both of those uh were uh
approved and have became you know uh so
those are done uh these two are on the
way uh other I mean this is lot of
meteor topics um and then some other
stuff is coming your way so thank you
all for all your work uh one t one item
which was self-certification of uh
detached accessory dwelling units
because it was amendments to title 16
didn't have to come through a policy
discussion and that was just uh changing
our processes to say if someone has an
detached ADU of thousand square feet or
less um and it's stamped by a registered
architect, we're not going to do
building plan review on it. We'll still
review it for geotech critical areas um
you know utility connections and so on.
Uh but not for building plan review. So
life safety stuff under the IBC or IRC
um will be will rely on the reg
registered architect to do that. So that
went to planning, development, and
environment committee and that is going
to get passed on to full council for
action on July 20th.
So we're making good progress. Thank you
all for your work and missing World Cup,
two nice summer days. Uh sorry.
>> Yeah, Jesse. Yeah. No, John told me the
score. Yeah. Uh
>> oh. Anyway, it's okay.
>> No spoilers, John.
Thank you, Minnie.
Okay. Um, finally, any other business or
announcements? Anything going on in the
city? I know the city actually has a lot
of things going on this summer. Um, I
could hear it the other night from my
porch. We've got concerts in the green
again. Thursdays, they're doing uh what
is that? Gas station blues. We've got
some more
>> wonderful Fourth of July parade. I don't
know how many of you I saw some of you
participating in it. It was great. uh
farmers market was on the veterans uh
field. Um you know the counter counted
about 5,000 folks. So it was a big
community uh pride event. So um
>> yeah what else? Um there's going to be
um Siri which is summer employee
recognition event coming up. I should
know the date. And does anyone know the
date?
>> August or July 26?
We we will send that information to you.
But um
>> um and that's a event that the city
hosts for employees. Uh public works
makes big barbecues and it's at the
Flint off um little
>> Is it closed to just the city employees?
>> Are you going to find out? Yeah,
>> I think anyone's welcome. There's plenty
of u folks in there.
>> City has amazing employees. Some of them
who obviously we've never get to meet
but uh yeah, Mizqua is very fortunate.
Okay. And then then I noticed something
else. Are something August 13th through
16th some type of
is it like an art and music type
situation
festival? Is it trying to compete with
salmon days? Is that's what's going on?
>> Yeah. Our communications department does
a great job. Do you guys get the
communications email that goes
>> I just see it on the banner when I'm
stuck in traffic. No, but we our
communications department pushes out the
events to community members.
>> Do you don't get it?
>> I don't think so.
>> We'll make sure all of our planning
commissioners are added to their list.
So,
>> okay. Yeah. A lot of fun around the
city. So, that's wonderful. Okay. Um,
going once, going twice. Anything for
the good of the order, staff,
commissioners?
Okay, let's get out of here. Uh, we will
close. Uh, we will adjourn this meeting
of the planning policy commission at
8:30 p.m. Good evening everyone.