← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Auto captions

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
2022 Storm and Surface Water Master Plan Approve Resolution No. _______ , adopting the 2022 Storm and Surface Water Master Plan. Approve Resolution AB 7879 8/11
Title 18 Land Use Code: Follow Up Items: section) sections) ID 1157 7/7
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3a
Minutes of August 4, 2022
packet pp.5–7
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-04-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. August 4, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Storm & Surface Water Master Plan ID 0976
60 min · Allen Quynn, Senior Engineer, Public Works Gary Schimek, Consultant · packet pp.9–43
Topics: Water
Staff report:
The presentation will provide a
4b
Title 18 Land Use Code: Follow Up Items: section) sections) ID 1157
90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.45–139
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
The city is currently undertaking large overhaul of the Title 18, the City’s land use code. This update is being guided by various city adopted policies in the following documents: Strategic Plan, Comprehensive Plan & Olde Town Subarea Plan, Central Issaquah Plan, Parks Strategic Plan, Mobility Master Plan, Climate Action Plan and Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee created Goals, Policy Changes, and Desired Outcomes Document. This update also incorporates updates that are to ensure consistency with State Law and other best management practices. The Title 18 Update has been divided into six “buckets” (topics) that include: Natural Environment; Landscape, Trees and Open Space; Zones and Uses; Building and Design; Zoning and Development Standards and Procedures and Administration.
0:10 good evening everyone welcome to the
0:12 city council planning development and
0:14 environment committee meeting i called
0:16 the july i'm sorry i called the
0:18 september 7th 2022 city council planning
0:21 development environment committee
0:22 meeting to order
0:24 i'm today here with my fellow council
0:26 members
0:28 council president walsh and council
0:30 member ray who is a member of this
0:31 committee has an excused absence this
0:33 evening
0:34 there will be multiple public comment
0:36 opportunities at tonight's meeting and
0:38 we do have two agenda items there will
0:40 be a general public comment opportunity
0:43 at the beginning of the meeting or you
0:44 can make comments after the presentation
0:46 and counsel question and answer period
0:48 on tonight's agenda item
0:52 so the first
0:55 item of business will be public comment
0:59 and i will check in with the city clerk
1:01 if there are any individuals who have
1:02 indicated a desire to speak this evening
1:06 chair hunt no one has signed up prior to
1:09 the meeting and we have no
1:11 virtual attendees
1:13 okay
1:14 um thank you for that
1:16 as a reminder written comments can be
1:17 submitted at any time to city council at
1:19 issaquah.gov
1:22 and then with that we will move to
1:25 approval of the minutes which are the
1:27 minutes from the august 4th meeting and
1:32 i will move to amend the
1:34 move to
1:35 approve the minutes as amended because
1:37 there was a correction that was made
1:40 earlier today just for the purposes of
1:42 accuracy
1:43 so with that i'll move to approve the
1:46 minutes those in favor please say aye
1:48 aye
1:50 minutes as amended are approved
1:55 and with that we will go to our two
1:57 agenda items the first of which is
1:59 id0976
2:01 storm and surface water master plan this
2:03 will be presented by gary schimek and
2:06 alan quinn gary take it away thank you
2:12 thank you very much um
2:14 very excited to be presenting here
2:16 tonight this has been a um quite a long
2:19 process and we're we're nearing the end
2:21 so um again i'm uh gary schmick i am a
2:24 utility strategic advisor here uh former
2:27 uh utilities uh division uh uh director
2:30 and alan quinn will be joining us
2:32 shortly um and he's a senior stormwater
2:34 engineer we go to the next slide
2:39 i'm sorry we are not seeing the slides
2:42 on the
2:44 meeting
2:45 powerpoint is slow
3:16 my apologies i wasn't expecting to do
3:18 this so
3:19 just bear with us for a second
3:26 not a problem we could also call a quick
3:28 recess if necessary so just let me know
3:52 oops i think we have the land use code
4:00 i don't yeah i don't think i would do a
4:01 good job with that i could try but
5:14 there we go
5:16 all right as a reminder we're here to
5:18 talk about the storm and surface water
5:20 uh master plan moving towards uh final
5:22 adoption again i am gary schimek and
5:24 alan quinn will be joining us shortly so
5:26 if we could go to the next slide
5:43 so our purpose uh
5:46 today
5:47 is to take the next step towards the
5:49 completion of the storm and surface
5:52 water master plan
5:54 that started in 2019
5:56 just before the pandemic if you all
5:58 remember that little incident that
6:00 occurred
6:01 uh so we're here to provide a stat of
6:03 support on our progress to date
6:07 and seek your feedback
6:09 before going to full council on this
6:12 item
6:12 next slide please
6:16 direction that we're seeking in terms of
6:18 your feedback we are seeking your
6:20 comments on the the methodology
6:23 uh to develop our proposed priority cip
6:26 list in addition to the actual projects
6:28 so it's important that we we're seeking
6:30 both from you tonight next slide please
6:38 the slide is a brief reminder of our
6:40 community
6:42 council and board commission hunch
6:44 points
6:46 and again we started in 2019 right
6:48 before i joined so mr quinn uh kicked
6:51 this off with a
6:54 very uh extensive uh kickoff meeting
6:56 that included city officials agencies uh
6:59 then the public and we have gone all the
7:01 way uh to the environmental board before
7:03 coming here today i did want to note we
7:06 will be uh seeking parks board uh input
7:09 uh this coming month uh before coming to
7:12 full council so that will be another
7:14 item that we have
7:17 on our path towards adoption next slide
7:19 please
7:24 so our agenda for tonight
7:27 includes the draft final plan just
7:29 reminder what what's in the contents
7:32 of our schedule
7:34 and the next two are kind of the the
7:36 really big pieces here the
7:37 prioritization process recap and the
7:40 screening for the final cip i will also
7:42 talk about the metrics are used for
7:44 prioritization and the final cip list
7:48 next slide please
7:54 so the contents
7:56 the first three items we presented to
8:00 to council and uh to boards and
8:02 commissions and and to the community
8:04 and those were the existing conditions
8:06 assessment of really all the data that
8:09 that alan had worked with judiciously
8:12 with staff and our consultants to round
8:15 from the last you know
8:16 couple decades that we have in issaquah
8:18 we've had a lot of information
8:21 we also then looked at
8:23 and brought to you our stormwater master
8:27 the stormwater
8:30 options list and metrics
8:32 and we also talked about our stakeholder
8:34 engagement along the way
8:37 and those will all be documented in the
8:39 plan as chapters
8:41 what will also be in there is what we're
8:43 talking about tonight the final priority
8:45 uh stormwater management options list
8:49 next few items are going to be developed
8:51 over the next
8:52 period uh before final council adoption
8:54 should be the schedule and those budget
8:56 needs for those
8:57 um lists we have a preliminary you know
8:59 idea for that but council member hunt
9:01 had a question on that today and that
9:03 schedule really all these projects that
9:05 we'll be talking about today will be
9:06 working in the long term schedule
9:08 over the next
9:10 you know we're hoping to get all these
9:11 projects
9:12 on the docket over the next 20 years
9:14 hopefully a lot earlier
9:15 we'll also have a section on adaptive
9:17 management and basin prioritization and
9:20 the stormwater management action plan
9:22 which are requirements from ecology to
9:24 have in this plan
9:26 next slide please
9:30 and our schedule so um
9:33 we are
9:34 here today and we're also going to be
9:39 moving again towards the parks board in
9:41 in september and then the adoption
9:45 to final council in november
9:47 what you also see is happening as the
9:49 start of today is the seeper review that
9:51 will be going on
9:53 and also the ecology review of the
9:55 manual
9:56 and then also our internal city staff
9:58 review which will include those
10:00 additional steps
10:01 for the schedule and the budget
10:03 so if we um the caveat here uh with the
10:07 yellow yellow marker there in november
10:09 that if we receive significant comments
10:11 from cipa and and uh ecology we may need
10:14 to come back for a committee meeting
10:16 before we're not anticipating any um
10:20 comments out of the ordinary from uh
10:23 sipa orcology but if we do that that
10:26 means change the schedule but we've you
10:27 know we've been very transparent in our
10:30 process i think as you know to date so
10:32 we really uh you know we believe we
10:33 would have had any really difficult
10:35 challenging comments that already would
10:37 come in but i just wanna you know to add
10:38 that out here
10:40 next slide please
10:48 one more
10:55 okay i think this is one this is a jam
10:57 packed slide but i think this is really
10:58 important and this is really um
11:01 my most important slide to get across
11:03 alan's going to be talking about the
11:04 projects
11:05 but i really wanted to step you through
11:06 how how we went from the 303 known
11:09 issues uh to to where we are today uh
11:13 the 10 projects
11:14 so um let's just start with the 303
11:17 known issues
11:19 that came from again alan's work
11:21 talking to staff
11:23 community members
11:25 elected officials administration
11:28 through the workshops um and and just
11:31 our database so really was a compilation
11:33 of everything that we knew about in
11:34 terms of existing issues
11:36 now and we put these into three main
11:39 categories that we've talked to you
11:41 about flooding
11:42 uh water quality and then restoration
11:44 habitat
11:45 but these and these issues range from
11:48 some very large issues in old town that
11:50 we know about and some very small issues
11:52 but we we took everything in it was it
11:54 was all comers type of approach like
11:56 let's let's hear it all and i think we
11:58 actually pinned you know had some
12:00 workshops where people pinned things on
12:02 the map and and gave us their comments
12:04 hopefully very extensive at that time
12:07 so we moved from 300 303 known issues
12:11 to our 41 high priority issues now why
12:14 41 it's just that's where in the ranking
12:16 it kind of fell out to cut things um on
12:18 41.
12:19 now we got there again by a robust
12:22 prioritization
12:24 in-house staff from across the
12:26 department and also a few community
12:28 members ranking looking at taking the
12:30 time to look at all of these problems
12:32 303
12:33 ranking them averaging the scores and
12:36 and having some good discussions along
12:38 the way but these again are issues right
12:40 going from 304 303 to 41 priority issues
12:46 so the next step was then then looking
12:48 at how how could we best solve and
12:51 address these issues
12:55 and what's interesting is thankfully the
12:57 number went down from 41 to 23 because
12:59 what's that saying is these projects
13:03 some of them if not not all of them but
13:05 some of them take into account multiple
13:07 issues so it's multiple objective
13:09 projects if it was one one to one right
13:12 one project for one issue we'd be coming
13:14 with you to 41 41 projects but as you'll
13:17 see as alan talks through these some of
13:19 these products are able to hit a couple
13:21 of those two or three priority issues so
13:24 this was kind of an exercise in a
13:26 compilation trying to
13:30 optimize
13:31 our projects
13:32 so that's how we got uh to 23.
13:36 the next step
13:38 uh again these are now projects we call
13:40 them smos that's a psychology term but
13:43 for the sake of this evening with just
13:44 the capital projects
13:46 um and we applied
13:50 ecology approved metrics that we have
13:52 shared
13:53 early on with with council and the
13:55 community
13:56 to all of those projects
14:00 and we'll help we can go back to the
14:01 metrics in the next slide but that got
14:03 us down to 10. the 10 projects that were
14:06 here today so again just to recap went
14:08 from issues prioritize issues
14:12 how do we
14:13 wrap those into projects and then what
14:14 are the highest priority projects i i do
14:17 want to say that on this page and this
14:18 is you know al and i have been talking
14:19 about this from day one
14:22 this plan that you're go you know
14:23 hopefully we'll be adopting this year is
14:25 a living living and breathing document
14:28 right so these issues
14:31 and projects that we've identified that
14:33 that may not be in the top ten they're
14:35 still there and that's going to be part
14:37 of the adaptive management process so
14:38 we're not forgetting about there we're
14:40 not just throwing them out
14:41 we're always going to be having those as
14:43 potential
14:44 projects in the future if we learn more
14:46 about them so i just wanted to be really
14:47 clear on that
14:48 that those will be
14:50 available and
14:52 not just discarded
14:55 question from council president walsh
14:56 yes yeah no i really appreciate the
14:59 description of how that funnel happened
15:01 um and i understand
15:03 how this is then going to be represented
15:06 within the
15:08 um plan that you're talking about
15:11 with the
15:12 cip it's usually represented in a
15:16 six-year cip
15:18 but you talked about all of those 10
15:20 projects being completed in a 20-year
15:22 time period
15:24 so how does that get
15:26 figured out and then i know we're kind
15:29 of rethinking our cip and what should be
15:32 included in that um
15:35 how do we effectively keep track of the
15:38 other
15:38 13 items that wouldn't necessarily make
15:42 it into the cip but
15:44 are
15:45 desired projects for the city
15:48 great question yeah i can hit all those
15:50 let's start with the
15:51 how
15:53 these ten will make it into the cip so
15:56 right now uh we we have been alan and i
15:59 matt and others have been working with
16:01 with uh robert and susie in finance and
16:04 we do have a cip plan uh that's coming
16:07 to you
16:08 and some of those most of those are
16:10 projects that have already been
16:11 identified have been worked through and
16:13 they're quality projects that we feel
16:15 very comfortable with and would like to
16:17 move forward with there's a line item
16:20 in the budget that that calls out for
16:22 this for implementation of this plan
16:25 and and those were that's where these
16:27 projects will then be placed as we after
16:29 your approval so at the next cycle those
16:31 will be you'll take away the placeholder
16:33 basically and put these actual projects
16:36 so that's how those will come in so
16:38 number two of how long it will take
16:41 that's what we're going to find out over
16:42 the next month or two what
16:44 given our funding levels how how quickly
16:47 and our staffing levels
16:49 how quickly can we move these projects
16:51 forward some of them are you know
16:53 relatively you know
16:55 small to moderate projects that with uh
16:58 available staffing and um
17:01 budget we'll probably move forward the
17:02 next couple years there are a couple
17:04 for example the old town project it is a
17:06 big project and it's going to be in
17:09 coordination with king county and we
17:11 don't have a dollar amount on that yet
17:13 but it may be multiple stages so that is
17:16 an example of a project that may take 10
17:17 years itself
17:19 to to um to to actually uh plan
17:23 implement and construct but we'll give
17:25 you a better handle of of that at the
17:28 next council meeting
17:30 then the final piece you asked about the
17:32 ones that didn't make the list um i
17:34 think every budget cycle um from from
17:37 here on we're going to be coming back to
17:39 this plan
17:40 and that's going to be the adaptive
17:41 management aspect of this and i think
17:43 we'll describe that in the plan
17:45 but it will be a case of okay well what
17:47 how does the cip look what have we
17:49 learned about these projects
17:51 and should we should we make some
17:53 changes here based on what we know but
17:55 that's would be a question we're going
17:56 to look at every time is is this still
17:58 the best list or should something else
18:00 replace it so a minimum
18:03 we're coming back to this at every
18:04 budget but every budget touch coming
18:06 back to this plan
18:09 maybe i could just amplify that answer
18:11 just a little bit
18:13 we are in the early stages of sorting
18:15 through a a process that i think we're
18:17 hearing from the council and our boards
18:19 and commissions uh more closely links
18:21 with some of these longer term plans
18:23 like this plan so i i would imagine that
18:26 that process we'll we'll basically use
18:29 those plans as a library we'll take them
18:31 off the shelf every two years uh look at
18:33 them and as we come back to the council
18:35 have some sort of crosswalk that says
18:38 here's what's in those plans i mean
18:39 we've mobility master plan climate
18:41 action plan you know all plans as well
18:43 as i do um but we'll be very intentional
18:45 with that i think what gary is saying is
18:48 that some of the nature of these
18:49 projects will continue to evolve so i
18:51 think as we're we're taking down the
18:53 plans and referring to them i mean that
18:54 evolution will happen it may not happen
18:57 every single year
18:59 conditions change of course but
19:01 i think we will look at it in that
19:02 two-year cycle as we have previously
19:05 starting
19:06 this coming spring
19:10 you
19:12 all right that's
19:13 the next slide please
19:15 uh so the metrics
19:17 so again these are the college approved
19:20 and also community and council approved
19:22 metrics
19:23 and this these are what helped us get
19:26 from the 23 projects to the 10.
19:29 um ran all these metrics through
19:32 and you know that that's what um you
19:35 know really what guided numerically the
19:37 process so again just let's go over them
19:38 real quickly the first one actually came
19:40 out of one of our meetings with the
19:42 community uh effectiveness uh or i'm
19:45 sorry one of the
19:46 benefits to lake washington or lake lake
19:48 sammamish that that was something that
19:50 we had a really good discussion uh with
19:52 the community about and uh not only just
19:54 effectively solving the problem but how
19:56 is it actually benefiting like some
19:57 amish that was an interesting one that
19:58 we came in
19:59 and you know standard things that we've
20:01 talked about before land ownership
20:03 constructability permitting
20:04 cost funding opportunities
20:07 that's just a big example of our work
20:08 with an old town with king county that's
20:10 where you're going to see
20:12 there's going to be leveraging a lot of
20:14 dollars with the king county flood
20:15 control district
20:17 timing coordination partnership
20:19 regulatory requirements
20:21 uh environmental social justice and
20:23 public input so so feel very strong and
20:25 robust
20:28 categories for us to score those
20:30 projects next slide please
20:36 so then where we're at again is um these
20:39 ten selected projects and then what
20:41 we'll be doing after we just you know
20:43 kind of get your nod today that these
20:46 these do look like a good package we'll
20:48 be finalizing those
20:50 concept designs for the 10 and the costs
20:53 and then also the schedule so you can
20:55 have a a better feeling for how this you
20:57 know will play out over the next six to
20:59 10 years
21:00 and those would be meshed of course with
21:02 what we already have on the c in the cip
21:04 so we'd work that in uh together so you
21:06 can see that
21:07 next slide please
21:09 sorry before you oh sure go on can i ask
21:12 um unless
21:13 maybe maybe i'll save this question if
21:15 you're gonna get to it but um in our
21:17 packet it does talk about that there
21:19 were the 23 smos using the quantitative
21:22 metrics which i think you just spoke to
21:24 and then there was also
21:26 one cover each base in the city and two
21:28 emphasized water quality retrofit
21:31 projects that second one
21:33 emphasized water quality retrofits
21:36 project i did ask that by email i'm not
21:39 sure i get it though so is that is that
21:42 to emphasize
21:45 you know
21:46 improvements to our existing
21:47 infrastructure rather than new projects
21:49 so you know keep our existing
21:51 infrastructure
21:53 in a way what we
21:55 so when we had the if you remember we
21:57 got down to 41 issues right and so those
22:00 issues were water quality
22:03 flooding and restoration or habitat
22:05 when we looked at the issues
22:07 related to water quality what we we
22:09 tried to
22:10 to promote was retrofit of
22:15 roadways so that's the terminology using
22:17 so let's
22:18 if we're going to propose a solution
22:20 let's
22:21 focus on the roadways because that's
22:23 where
22:24 we know the most problems are at the
22:26 6ppd copper other issues
22:29 rather than a solution that maybe is in
22:32 a in a park or something else still
22:34 would have capture area but that's where
22:36 we wanted to emphasize
22:39 is that roadway treatment where there
22:41 where there is none exactly we're not
22:43 we're building on but it actually has
22:44 none and that was something i think you
22:46 know that ecology wanted us to look at
22:48 as well
22:49 because of
22:50 of course the 6ppd issue that popped up
22:52 but also copper and other things that
22:54 that would really
22:55 if we're going to spend the money for
22:57 treatment
22:58 right that would give us the biggest
23:00 benefit to do so so it wasn't so i
23:03 apologize for that it was a little
23:04 confusing it didn't we didn't have that
23:06 as a metric to score the projects but it
23:08 was when we looked for solutions to
23:10 solve the issues that's what was at the
23:12 top of our mind
23:14 okay thank you that was that was um
23:16 helpful i think for me just
23:19 the emphasized water quality retrofits
23:21 doesn't necessarily to me without
23:24 knowing more about the roadways so that
23:28 that was helpful thanks absolutely
23:30 absolutely
23:31 um just a quick map showing you all of
23:33 our basins here that are part of the
23:36 city and then part of this plan
23:39 next slide please
23:43 and then the ranking process adjustment
23:44 so this is
23:46 after we
23:50 up with our original list of 10 just
23:51 through those what we'll call the
23:53 ecology approved uh metrics
23:55 um that will be talked about um
23:58 what we noticed was that there there
24:00 wasn't as much geographic
24:02 diversity of projects and variety now
24:06 let me take a step back and explain why
24:08 from my perspective those rankings
24:10 really are individual projects right
24:12 those those metrics that we were using
24:14 effectiveness social justice
24:17 all of those really were ranked by the
24:19 project so
24:21 we really didn't know what would come up
24:23 with the portfolio after we applied
24:24 those to the projects
24:26 so this really this ranking is a what i
24:29 would call a portfolio approach to get
24:31 around
24:34 a round and um a diverse
24:37 package of 10 projects
24:40 so we
24:41 resulted in substituting four of the
24:43 projects to to kind of achieve these
24:45 goals so that when you look at these 10
24:47 we are hoping you see
24:49 two things oh there is a diversity of
24:52 projects across the city oh and and they
24:54 hit flooding water quality and habitat
24:57 now what about those four projects that
24:58 came off they're good projects right
25:00 there's no doubt about that they're good
25:02 projects
25:03 but
25:04 they would be
25:05 as we talked in that uh the next round
25:07 of cips as wally mentioned when we come
25:09 back to another round in a couple years
25:11 those will probably be the next four
25:13 that we'll be on
25:14 so there's no you know again no reason
25:16 we couldn't have stayed with the
25:18 original ten but we feel this was really
25:20 the original tent when we started this
25:22 whole project that we would come out
25:24 with again geographic diversity and a
25:28 package across water quality flooding in
25:31 habitat
25:33 thank you council president walsh
25:35 thanks so when i look at the
25:38 details of
25:39 which projects were swapped out i see
25:41 that three of the four
25:44 that were substituted
25:47 away were
25:48 newport whey
25:50 water quality retrofits
25:52 and
25:54 so one of those was kept on there
25:55 retrofit one but
25:58 two five and another one related to flow
26:01 control and water treatment or water
26:03 quality treatment were substituted so
26:06 can you talk through what the difference
26:07 is between those because it seems like
26:10 some of those maybe do they build upon
26:13 each other are they just different
26:14 segments of the newport way area what
26:17 what is that difference can you speak to
26:19 that
26:20 yeah sure thank you you want to
26:22 um to those
26:26 should can i have a speaker oh you can
26:28 hear me
26:30 thank you sir
26:34 great thank you
26:36 you're welcome
26:38 can you hear me please turn it on
26:40 oh there you go okay
26:42 yeah good evening um
26:44 council president well um hunt and
26:47 council member walsh and alan quinn
26:49 stormwater senior stormwind engineer for
26:50 the city um
26:52 apologize for being here a little late
26:54 had the time wrong apparently um yeah
26:57 just to speak to your question so yeah
26:59 so the newport way water quality
27:00 retrofits um yeah you're correct they
27:03 were so the whole the the newport weight
27:06 corridor project there's several phases
27:08 right so there's e there's the project
27:10 um portion that's
27:13 west of sr 900 and then and then the
27:16 portion east of 900 to sunset
27:19 and so i was
27:20 was able to talk to our transportation
27:22 engineer who um
27:24 who's managing that project and get a
27:26 better understanding of when those phase
27:28 projects will be coming in
27:29 and so
27:31 the the earlier phase of those that the
27:33 newport weight corridor project that's
27:35 the portion from i think is it maple to
27:37 sunset um
27:39 so what that's amazing you know that's
27:41 going to happen sooner and i'm not sure
27:42 that's being teed up in the next couple
27:44 years
27:45 and
27:46 what's what we're finding with that
27:48 project after a little more research was
27:49 that um
27:51 as part of that project they're gonna
27:52 the transportation is gonna do a major
27:55 a major up upgrade to that to that
27:58 street and they're gonna be adding
28:00 several lanes which i believe is going
28:01 to end up triggering treatment storm
28:03 water treatment for the entire roadway
28:06 so typically if they do you know a
28:08 smaller scale project they're adding
28:10 just one lane if they don't trigger a
28:11 certain threshold they only have to
28:12 treat what they're in what they're
28:14 adding essentially but in this case
28:16 they're triggering
28:17 they're doing so much of an improve you
28:18 know so much um impervious area they're
28:21 adding so much roadway they're going to
28:22 trigger a full treatment of that of that
28:24 roadway any is part of their project
28:28 the intent with these retrofits was to
28:30 piggyback on their project and to
28:33 to go above and beyond and treat the
28:35 whole roadway
28:36 more than just what they the
28:38 transportation project is required to
28:40 treat in this case they're going to be
28:41 treating the whole roadways as part of
28:43 the project so we didn't there's no
28:45 point in if it's being done by others as
28:47 a requirement for that project we didn't
28:48 want included
28:50 now the other phase later on the phases
28:52 that are the portion of newport way west
28:54 of sr 900
28:56 that's further down the road and it's
28:58 not you know we're still not clear what
28:59 all that's going to involve but that may
29:02 not trigger the full-blown um roadway
29:04 improvements that we're thinking of
29:06 major you know corridor improvements so
29:09 that's why that's still there is a more
29:11 of a placeholder i guess until that gets
29:13 more you know finalized
29:15 down the road but that's quite a ways
29:16 out as i understand it so
29:19 great so syncing with the transportation
29:22 projects and only doing what is
29:24 necessary rather than doing something
29:26 now that would potentially need to get
29:28 torn up later
29:32 yeah correct as i said we don't want to
29:34 there's no point in doing doing addition
29:36 you know there's nothing to do there
29:37 because they're going to transportation
29:38 is going to do the full treatment
29:40 anyways as part of that project that
29:42 earlier phases of the newport way
29:44 corridor project so um as i said east
29:47 west of there it's
29:49 it's not i don't think they fully
29:50 fleshed out what they're going to do
29:52 and so i'll be obviously coordinating
29:54 with transportation
29:55 as well on all these projects and where
29:58 we can where there's synergy we can work
29:59 together you know that's ideal situation
30:03 and i believe that's that's one of the
30:04 requirements or metrics we looked at was
30:06 you know how does it fit into other
30:08 scheduling of other
30:10 you know of the trans primary
30:11 transportation
30:13 so another any other agencies watchdog
30:15 et cetera which i'll get into in a bit
30:17 here right so
30:19 all right
30:21 so then on to the next side please so
30:23 this then
30:24 goes uh to our final uh
30:27 10 cip list for you as you can see
30:31 there's a few more habitat
30:34 projects that
30:35 supplanted
30:36 the water quality and we still have some
30:38 major water quality and flooding items
30:40 um in the old town area and then the the
30:43 basins as you notice that we
30:45 have issaquah schneider tibbetts park
30:47 hill laughing jacobs and lewis and then
30:49 a city-wide effort so again we're hoping
30:52 again nothing wrong again with that
30:54 first uh the original 10 but again what
30:57 what we're feeling is better with what
30:58 ellen talked about after looking at this
31:01 better coordination but also uh more
31:04 robust project types and more robust
31:06 space in areas keeping in mind that
31:08 those other projects like allen said
31:10 will be will be coming later because
31:12 they are good projects
31:16 all right and uh with that alan is going
31:19 to uh run through quickly just uh
31:22 quickly the concepts um for our ten and
31:25 again we are looking for uh the
31:27 methodology that i just talked about any
31:29 feedback you had on that as as one of
31:31 your feedback items um and i know we've
31:34 talked a little bit about that but then
31:35 again just your feeling on these
31:37 projects themselves and if there's any
31:38 issues that you see with with those
31:40 individual projects coming up thank you
31:42 very much
31:45 great all right so
31:47 all right so you this is our final list
31:49 um attend priority um projects
31:53 and um i guess gary's done a great job
31:55 talking through how he came up with that
31:57 list
31:58 um as you can see a nice
32:01 mix of projects
32:04 we have a few habitat projects in there
32:06 which was great and talk about those and
32:07 water quality of course and then
32:09 flooding flooding projects
32:13 so let's go to skin yeah skip to the map
32:15 i guess yeah maybe two slides ahead
32:18 there you go
32:19 perfect
32:20 so here's a map showing geographically
32:23 um the first project that's why we're
32:25 calling sy-two old town targeted basin
32:27 study and plan
32:29 um so this is really this project rose
32:31 to the top pretty quickly you know among
32:34 all the other all the projects we looked
32:35 at um
32:36 it rose to the top consistently and in
32:39 realizing it was it's amazing it's a
32:40 priority and it's such a there's such a
32:43 diverse
32:44 you know issues here that
32:47 initially con our consultant otac looked
32:49 at you know specific projects but it
32:51 became just uh we just realized there's
32:53 too many things
32:54 to to address here with flooding
32:56 primarily flooding you know conveyance
32:58 systems that are outdated
33:00 and uh and so it and it's a complex
33:03 because it interacts with the isoqua
33:05 creek um and that creates you know like
33:07 adds to the complexity of what we have
33:09 to do there so really this is to a study
33:12 essentially
33:14 a project to study in detail really a
33:17 comprehensive
33:19 suite of projects to address the myriad
33:21 of issues we have in this in this basin
33:24 of old town and it's really looking at a
33:27 combination of flow control
33:29 you know managing you know flooding
33:32 water quality and conveyance as i said
33:34 earlier we have old infrastructure it's
33:36 the oldest infrastructure in the city
33:37 it's
33:38 willfully inadequate
33:40 capacity wise and it's failing so we
33:42 this is really we're going to focus the
33:44 prior number one project
33:46 um is this basically a study in addition
33:49 it's king county as then gary discussed
33:51 earlier with the king county's
33:53 doing a remap flood meep study remap of
33:56 the whole of issaquah creek and we've
33:58 been working with them and coordinating
34:00 with them to to sort of use the
34:02 information that they're going to
34:03 develop as part of that project to
34:05 develop modeling and so forth and
34:06 looking at you know climate change
34:08 precipitations and so forth to really um
34:11 nail that down
34:13 now
34:14 we also is next slide
34:17 however we there's a more specific
34:20 project within that project we're
34:21 calling the old town regional flow
34:22 control water quality facility and this
34:24 is really to do something and yes we
34:26 have to do this bigger study but we also
34:28 recognize what we know for sure what
34:30 we're going to need to do is some
34:31 regional facility to handle um
34:35 you know
34:36 they're really the flooding issues that
34:37 we're having and it's and it's really it
34:39 has to be a regional facility that can
34:40 address not just
34:41 um the flooding but also the issue of
34:44 having the redevelopment of of old town
34:46 as you know there's you know there's
34:47 it's there's zoning in there we have
34:49 we've as
34:50 streets that have 90 percent 95 percent
34:53 impervious zoning
34:55 that allowable zoning coverage and so we
34:58 now is the time to really work to
35:00 develop a regional facility that instead
35:01 of doing a piecemeal where we're just
35:03 you know site by site putting in these
35:05 small facilities that we have to
35:06 maintain
35:07 let's look at a regional facility that
35:09 we can tie into
35:10 um and uh and and treat it all
35:13 and not have to you know it's much more
35:15 efficient obviously so
35:17 that's once again involved you know
35:18 property acquisition potentially and
35:20 other things uh where we want to you
35:22 know how this is where we're going to
35:23 cite this facility in the in the best
35:25 location but it's it's going to be a
35:27 thoughtful process so
35:31 next slide
35:33 and sp 228
35:35 this is a 229th avenue southeast water
35:37 quality
35:38 improvement project and this is a
35:40 project that's over
35:42 by way called the north fork of isawa
35:44 creek
35:46 and
35:48 not far from operations facilities
35:50 and this is an issue that's been going
35:52 on for many years it's basically an area
35:54 gravel area that's
35:57 receives runoff from the
35:59 229th
36:01 when it rains it gets it's it gets
36:03 inundated muddy
36:04 and you have a lot of turbid runoff into
36:07 discharging it is to the north fork of
36:09 sequoia creek and
36:11 the city we've looked at this the
36:13 stormwater has looked at this in the
36:14 last couple years but it's really a
36:16 tricky one because there is what does
36:17 involve a little bit work with washdot
36:19 it's some it's in their limited access
36:20 right away some of it but we really need
36:22 to come up with a solution to address
36:23 that um okay that's that would address
36:26 water quality uh total spend of solids
36:28 which is an issue in that creek
36:30 um next project
36:32 i think there's a question on that
36:33 project if you wouldn't mind uh
36:35 councilman
36:36 yeah so is that
36:39 parking lot or whatever you want to call
36:42 it um
36:44 in the
36:45 you said part of it was in washouts
36:47 right of way who owns that
36:50 yeah so it's it's a private parcel
36:54 i believe it's
36:56 yes it's a good question i'm um
36:59 actually matt and matt's on on this as
37:02 well yeah matt and i actually looked at
37:03 this a couple years ago
37:06 i believe it's a private parcel but but
37:08 there's also some parts of it are limit
37:11 act it's not
37:12 defined there's this portion of portions
37:14 of where we would do the improvement of
37:16 the work would be involved in the
37:18 limited access variety of way of washed
37:19 off so i think it's a combination of
37:21 private ownership
37:23 and limited access
37:25 watchdog limited access right away
37:27 um so
37:29 so then my question is why is this a
37:32 city project
37:36 well because it as i said it's it's not
37:39 all of it is um
37:41 private property and and
37:43 and it is city property but i guess it's
37:45 within limited access and so
37:49 i mean that's a good point we have to
37:51 consider thinking about how we would
37:53 involve others um but i think it's a
37:54 it's a combination of private and
37:57 city and washdot so it's one yeah
38:00 right that's a great question i think
38:01 just
38:02 as you remember back one of the
38:03 parameters were
38:04 partners and other opportunities so what
38:07 we will with that question what we will
38:09 come back with
38:10 for the final on all these projects is
38:12 look at who are the
38:14 uh who are the funding partners because
38:17 that would be another of the uh
38:19 adaptation management that right we're
38:22 we are not going to be looking at uh
38:24 funding costs that really aren't ours
38:26 right we may have partners these are all
38:28 great projects but that might that's a
38:30 missing you know link right now that we
38:32 haven't uh reached out and confirmed
38:34 that yes they're they're interested in
38:35 doing that but that's an important part
38:38 so uh that could be you know something
38:40 that we're gonna could change uh some of
38:42 the projects going forward but what you
38:44 see right now this this ranks up there
38:46 as an issue to be solved and we're
38:48 hoping that because we've identified it
38:50 because it's going to be improved that
38:51 our partners will will join us and uh
38:54 contribute the appropriate amount
38:57 and just one quick thing when i add
38:59 so the
39:00 the water that is entering into that
39:02 area so it's really it's it's city storm
39:04 water i mean it's coming from city right
39:05 away and that's really what's causing
39:07 the issue it's it's sheep flowing and
39:09 and discharging into that gravelly area
39:12 and causing the erosion so i mean the
39:14 city we need to come up with a prop a
39:16 method to you know control that runoff
39:18 and or do some type of treatment before
39:20 it even gets to the
39:22 gets that area so
39:24 so yeah city wall in general it sounds
39:27 like a necessary project i just think we
39:29 need to understand how much of that is a
39:32 city requirement versus
39:34 landowner and what we can do as far as
39:37 understanding that
39:38 and council
39:40 president walsh
39:41 matt's on i know one of our consultants
39:43 turned her uh
39:45 camera on so perhaps they have
39:47 additional information to add matt do
39:48 you want to go ahead
39:50 sure yeah uh matt ellis uh utility
39:52 engineering manager and yeah alan and i
39:54 have been working on this for a couple
39:56 of years uh and a third of that parking
39:59 lot is city property and then two-thirds
40:02 is private but as ellen said a good
40:05 portion of
40:07 city runoff enters that parking lot
40:10 so uh it's in our best interest because
40:12 how close it is to
40:14 uh the uh north fork of isquari uh we
40:19 need to address it so the portion where
40:21 we would do the treatment would be on
40:23 city property
40:25 yeah and the solution that matt and i
40:26 were looking at was you know involved
40:28 conveyance and diverting flows in a
40:31 different area different part of the
40:33 stormwater system and that would involve
40:35 going into washdot limited access so
40:37 that's why it's some coordination with
40:39 watchdog would be required if if we
40:41 wanted to go one route versus another
40:43 route so
40:44 did that answer your question council
40:46 president great thank you thank you
40:47 thanks move on
40:49 all right uh next one it's called hobart
40:52 road fishberry removal so this project
40:54 came in you know later on as gary
40:56 mentioned as part of the further
40:58 refining our
40:59 list
41:00 and this is a habitat project
41:03 it's a it's a fish barrier removal
41:04 project so it's basically a culvert
41:06 that's um failing with a with a barrier
41:08 like a four foot barrier
41:10 downstream of the culvert um
41:13 it's in washdot's list of fish barriers
41:15 as a full barrier
41:18 and so it's we wanted to get that in
41:20 there and add it in there as a as a
41:23 project to um
41:24 you know put in a new culvert crossing
41:26 there and get rid of barry as well as do
41:28 a restoration downstream to issaquah
41:30 creek and it does go through the squat
41:32 valley um
41:33 i believe north park so we do own the
41:36 property downstream
41:38 um and upstream is you know it's a it's
41:40 a riparian corridor area there's a
41:42 church there on the south side of
41:45 of the creek
41:47 we thought that was a good candidate um
41:49 and would like to address the
41:52 www's um fish passage on it's on their
41:54 list of cohorts to be replaced so
41:58 uh slc president walsh has a question
42:02 just i know the sycamore area down there
42:04 has um a lot of risk of flooding and
42:07 everything i assume this project would
42:08 it have
42:10 benefit toward that or would it actually
42:12 speed water through
42:13 well
42:14 yeah good question so as part of the
42:16 design we have to look at downstream
42:17 impacts right right and to make sure we
42:19 mitigate those in some fashion if we're
42:21 gonna there's things we can do to slow
42:23 down velocities and but yes that's a
42:25 that's a good point we'd have to look at
42:27 how to minimize
42:28 downstream impacts as a result of
42:30 opening up that culvert correct
42:33 well i will just add i had emailed a
42:36 question to gary about sycamore flooding
42:38 because i didn't see a project to
42:40 address that on this list and so i
42:42 thought maybe you could clarify too that
42:44 there there's a current project to
42:45 address sycamore flooding um that's why
42:48 that isn't on this list
42:50 yes that's a great point and and that's
42:52 something again we could maybe put in a
42:54 reference uh when we come back uh next
42:56 time to show what's already on the cip
42:58 but yes we're working and again i'm
43:00 bringing back the county again there
43:01 really it seemed to be able and willing
43:03 partners but we're looking at a way to
43:06 reduce flooding and bank erosion in that
43:08 area county is also interested in
43:09 looking at the condition of their event
43:12 current revetments in the air there are
43:13 about four revetments that they own and
43:16 operate or maintain in that area so
43:18 we're looking at together we've actually
43:21 have a grant application and we're
43:23 looking to get funding uh to investigate
43:25 them more along with uh eastwork in that
43:27 area so very hopeful um so that is why
43:31 you don't see those two on the list
43:33 yeah thank you for that i do think when
43:35 this comes back to council that would be
43:37 helpful because when it's one of the
43:38 areas where people
43:40 do experience that flooding and it'll be
43:42 good to explain what the city is doing
43:44 for that thank you
43:47 all right next project
43:49 and we've got about 15 minutes left yeah
43:52 so sl6 manish cove park and street in
43:54 stream enhancement announcement project
43:57 so we this is a project once hitting
43:59 habitat um
44:01 you know primarily fish habitat uh
44:03 essentially
44:04 doing some downstream work in the
44:06 channel um
44:09 and
44:10 that would be in conjunction or is part
44:12 of what i think parks park department is
44:14 looking at doing
44:16 for a planting project in the park as
44:17 part of their planning effort and then
44:20 also involved coordination with washta
44:22 as they do their move forward with their
44:24 covert replacement projects of schneider
44:27 creek that's that's the schneider creek
44:29 crossing there um so yes once again
44:32 working in conjunction with others and
44:34 trying to you know piggyback and
44:37 continue with the good work that others
44:38 are doing particularly you know washed
44:40 out doing the improvements upstream of a
44:42 new culvert crossing there and then we
44:44 would then do some channel improvements
44:46 downstream
44:48 so that's what that project is about
44:52 uh newport way
44:54 all right definitely okay we'll we'll
44:55 newport way water quality one we already
44:57 talked about that any questions
44:59 i think we discussed that earlier so
45:02 east lake sammamish parkway water
45:04 quality retrofit another water quality
45:06 retrofit project this time it will be on
45:08 east lake sammamish parkway um
45:11 treating high use you know pollution
45:14 generating surfaces along
45:17 lake smamish parkway which is a high use
45:19 high traffic area
45:21 so that would really be a lot of bang
45:22 for the buck there's currently no
45:23 treatment there so this would be a great
45:25 i think great location to to retrofit
45:28 for storm water treatment
45:34 southeast
45:35 i'll show you next slide southeast 43rd
45:37 way roadway storm water
45:39 treatment retrofit so this is in the
45:42 laughing jacobs creek basin which is a
45:43 kokanee you know
45:45 ground zero for kokanee for the city and
45:47 we're working with trial unlimited to do
45:48 several projects and and laughing jacobs
45:50 including some channel improvements for
45:52 laughing jacobs creek with trout
45:53 unlimited uh
45:55 this uh is on long southeast 43rd way
45:57 and this actually came out of this uh
45:59 city sammamish's um latin jacobs creek
46:02 basin plan which we're partnering with
46:03 them on and so
46:05 their consultant geosynthetic did us a
46:07 basin study and came up with projects
46:10 and we're basically piggybacking on
46:12 their study and what they looked at is
46:13 as as good candidate projects to do
46:15 treatment and this is one of those that
46:17 came out of that
46:20 okay what's next one here sp 32 west
46:22 lake sammamish parkway
46:25 water quality retrofit
46:28 this would be doing some flow control
46:29 and water quality treatment um
46:32 along west lake smammish parkway
46:35 this was something that came we decided
46:37 on this one because it was it really fit
46:39 well with washdot and i did we had we do
46:41 have coordination meetings with washout
46:43 every two weeks and i discussed with
46:45 them
46:46 uh you know based on their timing of the
46:48 lewis creek cover replacement project at
46:50 i-90 this is something that would make
46:52 sense to do some treatment along the
46:54 city-owned city right-of-way of lake
46:56 west lake smamish parkway while they're
46:58 doing their project they're gonna have
46:59 this part of the street torn up
47:01 and so that would be a great time to
47:02 then put in some treatment facilities
47:04 there because they don't they're not
47:05 gonna treat it but they're you know
47:07 they're but we would go in there and
47:08 treat it while they're doing all their
47:10 work so it's a great opportunity to
47:12 coordinate with them and
47:13 do that work
47:17 and okay i think this is the last one
47:18 here
47:19 sy4 programmatic fishbear inventory
47:22 removal so this is one where we wanted
47:24 to really come up with a program to
47:26 thoughtfully um
47:28 strategically look at all of the fish
47:30 barriers we have in the city and
47:32 we we wanted to do one project
47:34 get that started and that was the hobart
47:36 road one because we know that was a
47:38 known fish barrier but then really
47:39 looking at all of our fish barriers
47:41 and uh coming with the process for
47:44 prioritizing them and
47:46 and putting them in an implementation
47:47 schedule to replace over the next you
47:50 know several years so that's really what
47:51 that is and that's we're really working
47:53 with
47:54 mountain i'm gonna say trout unlimited
47:56 and the county and there's a group there
47:58 that actually will assist the city in
48:00 going out and assessing doing assessment
48:02 of these of these um fish barriers
48:05 so once again trying to work with others
48:07 and and
48:08 and and they've been a great partner
48:10 challenge has been a great partner for
48:11 the city
48:14 and then i think that's really it this
48:17 is extension of that project just more
48:19 description of what we're seeing and
48:21 actually that's a picture of the hobart
48:22 road one on on that you're looking at
48:23 there these all are from the hobart road
48:26 barrier so you can see
48:28 it'd be nice to get that fixed
48:31 all right
48:33 thank you alan that was
48:35 a great great list of projects and
48:38 um we're back to the direction
48:41 so again if there's any other questions
48:43 on specific projects that's great uh
48:46 we're also again looking for your
48:48 comments on the methodology so that um
48:50 we could uh then come back um um the
48:54 next council meeting with the finish
48:56 plan but that and have a little bit more
48:57 detail again we would come back with
48:59 more detail
49:00 on all the projects um if you do want us
49:03 to go forward with that now i'll just
49:04 open it up for questions now
49:07 thank you any questions
49:09 no questions just comments i guess okay
49:11 um great i think i asked my questions as
49:14 we went along so i will at this time
49:16 just check in with the city clerk if
49:17 there are any individuals who have
49:19 called in that might want to make public
49:21 comments on this item
49:30 i see no uh virtual hands raised at this
49:32 time chair hunt okay then i will also
49:35 note for the record that there are no
49:36 members of the public in the audience
49:38 this evening at this time um so we will
49:41 go now to the committee celebration and
49:44 recommendation so council president
49:45 walsh
49:47 yeah um i think this is fantastic seeing
49:50 it as it progresses through seeing all
49:52 of the community engagement that came
49:54 into this using the information from
49:58 ecology talking to the county about ways
50:01 that they can help
50:03 understanding how this relates to our
50:05 transportation projects there are so
50:08 many things that have come into this and
50:10 it's clear when you're talking that
50:12 through and i hope to see that in that
50:14 final report and plan
50:17 when you're talking about the
50:19 methodology i think it's great to talk
50:21 about you know these were the ones that
50:23 scored highest
50:25 i would just
50:27 you know
50:28 i don't mind swapping those out given
50:31 the explanation um i think without the
50:35 explanation on those particular projects
50:38 not just like i think it's important to
50:41 not just talk about we wanted to add
50:43 diversity of projects and add um
50:45 diversity of regions but also
50:48 and these ones were pulled out because
50:51 of those reasons
50:53 i think also for
50:55 community transparency for somebody
50:57 who's reading this understanding what
50:59 those scores were or how they were come
51:02 into it
51:03 i think that was one thing that was
51:04 really nice looking at the climate
51:06 action plan was seeing the actual scores
51:09 that everything got
51:11 and so i'm not sure if that is something
51:13 that is possible or planned but that
51:16 does give a sense of
51:18 weight of a project relative weight to
51:23 give an understanding of for you know
51:25 council or somebody who's funding this
51:27 in the future how important that is
51:30 compared to others but overall i mean
51:33 looking at this i think it's a great set
51:35 of projects i had questions about
51:38 the
51:38 parking lot and so understanding that
51:40 would be great i think
51:43 council will probably have questions
51:45 about how it relates to the cip
51:48 and whether or not that replaces
51:50 existing projects or
51:52 and as you've said it doesn't um but
51:55 also
51:56 how many of these will end up on the cip
51:59 um coming forward and how many will
52:01 maybe wait until you have more
52:02 information from potential funders or
52:05 all of that so getting some of that
52:07 clarity out i think would be really
52:10 important overall
52:12 i really like what's coming out of this
52:14 so really pleased with everything
52:18 similar feedback from me
52:20 i appreciate the transparency and the
52:22 methodology and the documentation of
52:25 the process you know the filters that
52:27 you used and the
52:28 the way that you then applied additional
52:31 filters and
52:33 i do agree with council president walsh
52:34 it would be nice to see that additional
52:36 level of detail but i do think i do
52:38 think the way it's laid out here it does
52:40 give transparency into the thought
52:42 process and
52:44 i think that is important these are big
52:47 projects they will be big dollar amounts
52:50 um so having that
52:52 documentation of the process to how we
52:54 got to those specific projects is is
52:57 really important
52:59 i think there's also a lot to like here
53:02 in terms of the habitat
53:04 projects and the benefits to fish which
53:07 are salmon which are so important to the
53:09 issaquah community
53:10 i was also interested to hear that we
53:12 are working with
53:13 university of washington tacoma on the
53:16 six ppd or the tire dust pollution issue
53:21 that i think would be interesting
53:23 for
53:24 our
53:26 community to know that we're we are
53:28 working on that issue in our stormwater
53:30 master plan but also working
53:32 on better understanding
53:34 um what what can be done
53:37 because this is a issue where
53:39 there's new science and the sciences
53:42 the science on the treatment especially
53:46 is evolving so that's great to know and
53:49 then
53:51 i also thought when this comes back to
53:54 council i think it would be important
53:56 maybe on a map or some visual way to
53:58 show where the existing projects and
54:01 these projects fit in because
54:04 as i mentioned before my first thought
54:06 looking at this was there were only two
54:08 projects
54:09 that were
54:10 flooding and one of them wasn't sycamore
54:13 and sycamore is one of the areas of town
54:15 that experiences
54:16 flooding and so i'm just explaining that
54:18 we are addressing the flooding issues in
54:21 particular which do
54:23 affect um a number of
54:25 people in our community um that we that
54:28 we are addressing those maybe not in
54:30 this list but if not in this list than
54:32 through the existing projects so i think
54:33 that would be that would be helpful to
54:35 lay out in a clear
54:37 way possibly with a map
54:39 um but yeah i think the list is is great
54:42 and i think with i think the methodology
54:44 is clear with a little bit more
54:46 information that would be
54:48 just that much better
54:49 um so with that i'll recommend that
54:53 um staff move forward with the 10
54:55 capital improvement plan projects
54:57 as presented all those in favor signify
54:59 by saying aye aye aye
55:02 and chair hunt would you like to see
55:04 this on consent or on regular business
55:10 i think it's a big plan and so i think
55:13 regular business is probably the right
55:15 place what do you think
55:18 i think it's non-controversial um
55:22 i would say consent but um does the
55:25 administration have a
55:27 recommendation
55:28 uh i think we would agree that it's not
55:30 controversial i think one of the reasons
55:32 we have the committee process is to go
55:34 through the details and i think
55:36 your colleagues continue to demonstrate
55:37 pretty great confidence in the work of
55:39 the committee so
55:41 we'd be happy to have it on consent
55:46 okay i think so i i as they indicated i
55:48 would be also fine with consent so i
55:50 think we can put it on consent it would
55:52 be great to have those additional
55:53 materials in the packet and then if
55:55 council members have questions they can
55:57 either refer to this meeting or refer to
55:59 that packet so that would be great great
56:00 thank you okay thank you so much and
56:02 thank you for the clear direction on the
56:04 changes that you want it's incredibly
56:06 helpful here
56:07 awesome well thank you again um so with
56:11 that we will now
56:12 move
56:14 to id id1157
56:15 [Music]
56:17 title 18 land use code follow-up items
56:21 and this will be presented by
56:23 the long-range planning manager stephen
56:25 padua
56:27 and i think also director dollywall who
56:30 may be on the line
56:32 stephen
56:35 thank you chair hunt um
56:36 director dollywall might be having some
56:38 problems connecting she is traveling
56:40 internationally so
56:42 what we may do is postpone the
56:44 subdivisions topic until the end of the
56:46 presentations give her a chance to still
56:48 get connected and so um i'm joined
56:51 tonight by our consultant katie who's
56:53 with bhc
56:54 she'll be presenting on
56:56 the bucket four follow up items
57:00 and then
57:01 chris
57:03 can i share
57:05 you have sharing rights
57:25 okay can everybody see the presentation
57:28 yes
57:30 so tonight we are seeking feedback from
57:32 the committee members on several items
57:36 from buckets three four and five
57:39 what we are hoping to get from the
57:42 committee members is specific feedback
57:44 on the policy questions and options that
57:47 are will be presented tonight because we
57:49 have several items tonight
57:51 what i'd like to ask is if we could do
57:53 deliberations after each topic instead
57:55 of waiting until the very end is is that
57:57 okay char hunt
58:00 uh i think that is okay the one
58:02 challenge is the public comment but i
58:04 think then um we can probably if there's
58:06 a a good general stopping point then i
58:09 can do the public comment and then we
58:11 can
58:12 do the deliberations as we go great yeah
58:17 just let me know when to stop at any
58:19 time katie will start with your
58:21 presentation
58:22 i will actually just check in if there
58:23 are any members of the public on the
58:25 line because if there aren't any public
58:27 comments there is okay
58:29 great thank you
58:34 all right am i clear to go yes we can
58:36 hear you
58:38 thank you
58:39 thank you for having me um tonight
58:41 commissioners
58:42 um i you can go ahead and advance to the
58:44 next slide
58:48 we were asked to help provide some
58:50 additional research on several topics
58:54 that
58:54 were brought to you previously
58:57 that you felt needed additional analysis
58:59 and research
59:00 the memo that's in your packet addresses
59:03 all of those 15 or 16 items
59:06 and tonight we'll be talking about just
59:09 six of the areas where we were hoping to
59:11 get some additional policy direction and
59:14 discussion
59:15 um so go ahead and advance to the next
59:17 one
59:20 uh the first topic that we wanted to
59:22 talk about was a rooftop screening so
59:25 this has to do with screening mechanical
59:28 hvac equipment that's placed on the top
59:30 of roofs
59:32 the code currently has language i'm just
59:36 going to read it exactly so i don't get
59:37 it wrong that
59:39 mechanical equipment must be screened
59:41 from views above and at ground level
59:45 surrounding streets and surrounding
59:47 buildings
59:48 so um
59:50 that statement has been taken to mean
59:53 that since it needs to be screened at an
59:56 above ground level that all parts
59:59 including the top
1:00:00 of the um
1:00:05 and the comment was that sometimes that
1:00:06 just doesn't work either because the
1:00:09 equipment the ventilation doesn't work
1:00:11 when it's covered or it's overly
1:00:13 burdensome so we try to think of
1:00:15 different options or
1:00:17 look into this a little bit more
1:00:20 whether that is asking too much um
1:00:23 and then to think of some options that
1:00:26 would achieve the same desired outcome
1:00:29 um so you can go ahead next slide please
1:00:34 in thinking about
1:00:37 rooftop equipment essentially the
1:00:38 screening requirements are trying to
1:00:42 protect the aesthetics from the public
1:00:45 realm
1:00:46 which is the sidewalk and public areas
1:00:49 so one option to make it more clear
1:00:52 what's required or these rooftop
1:00:54 mechanical equipment screenings would
1:00:56 just be to say if it's if any part of
1:00:59 the equipment is visible from the
1:01:01 sidewalk whether it's the sidewalk of
1:01:03 the building or maybe an adjacent
1:01:05 sidewalk that may go uphill that that
1:01:07 would afford a view of the top equipment
1:01:10 any area
1:01:12 visible from the sidewalk would need to
1:01:14 be screened so that it's not visible
1:01:17 that would be one option
1:01:18 that would that would kind of define the
1:01:22 origin that we're trying to protect um
1:01:27 uh provide some flexibility you know if
1:01:30 if a building is
1:01:32 very tall and not at all viewable from
1:01:34 um the sidewalk that that that equipment
1:01:37 could just have side
1:01:38 screening for example
1:01:40 um another option would be similarly we
1:01:43 would be choosing to prioritize the
1:01:45 views from we could build on that from
1:01:48 the sidewalk and from anywhere
1:01:51 visible from the second floor so that
1:01:54 would
1:01:54 protect views of these mechanical
1:01:57 equipment from
1:01:58 one level up but maybe not from you know
1:02:01 levels three through ten um
1:02:04 where one might expect to be able to see
1:02:07 all sorts of things if you're in a tall
1:02:09 building
1:02:10 um a third option would be that
1:02:13 this type of and again we're not talking
1:02:16 about we're just talking about the top
1:02:18 screening i think
1:02:19 in most cases the side screening would
1:02:22 always be required to protect visibility
1:02:26 but only to require that top screening
1:02:28 in residential and mixed use zones
1:02:32 so that would be where the views could
1:02:35 be seen by residents that may have a
1:02:38 higher priority for view protection
1:02:41 and then
1:02:43 finally a fourth option would be
1:02:46 if your building is shorter than the
1:02:48 maximum height then you have to you have
1:02:51 to screen the top because
1:02:53 it's likely that there will be a
1:02:54 building above you that can look down on
1:02:57 but if you're hitting that max top level
1:03:00 of the height you don't have to screen
1:03:01 the top of the
1:03:03 mechanical equipment
1:03:05 so those are four options um there's
1:03:07 more details and pros and cons
1:03:09 uh in the memo
1:03:11 but those are
1:03:12 those are the options that we're
1:03:13 bringing to you today
1:03:20 so i think since we we do have a member
1:03:22 of the public if we can go through the
1:03:24 topics and
1:03:25 and do questions and then we'll go
1:03:27 through and do our deliberation after
1:03:31 so go through all six topics now
1:03:34 yes yeah and we'll ask questions as we
1:03:37 go but i don't think we have questions
1:03:40 this one actually i will ask a quick
1:03:42 question i believe the the
1:03:43 recommendation from staff on this one is
1:03:49 first one is that correct the just
1:03:51 screening visible from the sidewalk
1:03:53 there's a staff recommendation on this
1:03:54 item i believe
1:04:01 katie you're muted
1:04:13 um i'm not sure if you're speaking but
1:04:15 if you are we can't hear you
1:04:19 katie you may need to turn off your
1:04:20 video uh you seem to be having a
1:04:23 bandwidth problem
1:04:28 hear me now
1:04:30 yes we can
1:04:32 okay that's strange
1:04:35 so you would ask what the staff
1:04:36 recommendation was on that one and
1:04:41 i'm just looking back at our memo i
1:04:43 don't think we had a recommendation
1:04:47 [Music]
1:04:50 but i think
1:04:55 if i had to make a recommendation now
1:04:57 off the fly i think that
1:04:59 the way that the code is written um
1:05:02 i think it is intending to protect views
1:05:06 the public area so i would prioritize
1:05:09 the sidewalk and um
1:05:12 maybe either
1:05:15 i think the most protective would be the
1:05:17 side protecting views from the sidewalk
1:05:19 number one and also number four which is
1:05:22 requiring screening if it's a building
1:05:24 that's below the maximum height zone
1:05:27 height limit of the zone
1:05:29 so the combination of those two
1:05:33 okay thank you
1:05:38 okay so we can move on to the next one
1:05:42 so this one um
1:05:44 addresses requirements that multi-family
1:05:47 buildings need to have at least forty
1:05:50 percent transparency of the first five
1:05:53 feet above the floor um the floor
1:05:56 elevation and also another requirement
1:06:00 that says that windows need to be above
1:06:02 six feet from the
1:06:05 the floor elevation
1:06:07 that's we recognize that's a conflict
1:06:10 because
1:06:10 when you put those two together only the
1:06:13 top one foot um
1:06:15 would be available for screening uh or
1:06:18 for transparency excuse me so the
1:06:20 purpose of of um
1:06:23 putting the windows above six feet above
1:06:26 this surface of the sidewalk uh would be
1:06:30 so sorry let me do say one more
1:06:32 requirement the um
1:06:35 the floor
1:06:36 the base floor elevation of of the
1:06:39 residential unit
1:06:41 needs to be 18 feet above the exterior
1:06:44 grade so the sidewalk is the exterior
1:06:46 grade
1:06:47 the floor level needs to be at least 18
1:06:49 inches above the sidewalk and then
1:06:52 the windows
1:06:53 can start
1:06:55 six feet
1:06:56 above the sidewalk i think sorry there's
1:07:00 a lot going on here there's a helpful
1:07:02 picture in your memo that helps to sort
1:07:03 it out but essentially we're trying to
1:07:05 figure out how to reconcile the need for
1:07:09 transparency on these facades that are
1:07:11 in some of the more pedestrian oriented
1:07:14 neighborhoods and also
1:07:17 the privacy residents
1:07:20 wanting to have eyes on the street for
1:07:21 public safety
1:07:23 and so
1:07:24 the next slide
1:07:27 so um
1:07:28 what we've proposed um one option would
1:07:32 be to
1:07:33 blend these two uh regulations together
1:07:37 to essentially say that
1:07:39 you need to have your windows at this
1:07:41 higher level and you need to have
1:07:43 transparency but that transparency will
1:07:46 only apply to portions of the wind of
1:07:50 the portions of the window
1:07:51 that are
1:07:54 basically at the
1:07:56 um at the residential unit we're not
1:07:58 going to require windows to be way up
1:08:01 high on the wall
1:08:04 if i'm not sure if you can flip to the
1:08:06 page of the memo but we have a picture
1:08:09 tries to illustrate that
1:08:11 basically we're trying to achieve the
1:08:13 initial intent of the regulation but um
1:08:16 revising it to meet this
1:08:18 condition
1:08:19 and then
1:08:20 another option would be
1:08:24 if the council feels that
1:08:27 these ground-level transparency
1:08:29 requirements are too onerous
1:08:31 we can remove them for multi-family uses
1:08:34 or reduce them
1:08:37 or similarly
1:08:39 remove or reduce the height
1:08:40 placement requirement for windows
1:08:43 i will just clarify that this is a
1:08:45 condition that only exists when
1:08:47 residences are right directly at the
1:08:50 sidewalk so where
1:08:53 a multi-family building is set back five
1:08:55 feet or even less than five feet um
1:08:59 these do not apply so in those cases
1:09:01 windows could be
1:09:03 at the ground level um
1:09:05 there would be an opportunity there to
1:09:06 to put screening for vegetation or
1:09:10 other types of architectural features
1:09:13 and then so
1:09:14 a second the second option would be to
1:09:17 change those requirements and the third
1:09:18 would just be to reduce the transparency
1:09:20 standard um
1:09:22 we heard from at least one commenter
1:09:26 having so many windows
1:09:28 on a residential facade could
1:09:31 could be
1:09:33 could not be
1:09:34 desirable for residents
1:09:38 so we can go on to the next one
1:09:41 um view preservation so this was this
1:09:44 has been a topic that we've kind of
1:09:46 been working on but haven't found a
1:09:49 solution to yet it was initially on the
1:09:53 whiteboard but we were asked to bring it
1:09:55 back and and talk about it now
1:09:58 um the feedback we got was that the
1:10:01 draft language which is
1:10:03 carrying over the existing language
1:10:05 mostly um is too vague and we need some
1:10:09 ideas
1:10:10 so we looked at different peer cities
1:10:12 that had
1:10:13 view protection programs we looked at
1:10:16 vancouver bc we looked at seattle we
1:10:19 looked at redmond
1:10:23 and i think the the major difference
1:10:25 between issaquah's
1:10:28 view protection program and these cities
1:10:30 is that
1:10:31 all of these other cities had really
1:10:33 clearly defined view origins and view
1:10:36 destinations and corridors that
1:10:38 connected those two
1:10:41 issaquaz language names certain areas
1:10:44 that want to be protected the views of
1:10:46 the of the squad alps
1:10:49 views of forced hillsides
1:10:51 um and some others and that they should
1:10:54 protected from
1:10:56 public spaces but that
1:10:58 that really is too big and and could
1:11:01 apply so broadly that it's challenging
1:11:04 to know
1:11:06 it would be challenging to know where
1:11:08 development would be allowed if we're
1:11:09 trying to protect those views from so
1:11:11 many places so our recommendation
1:11:13 recommendation is that we
1:11:15 we do
1:11:16 go ahead and and
1:11:18 have a study and a process with the
1:11:21 community that would identify those
1:11:22 locations that want to be protected
1:11:25 those corridors um and have a map that
1:11:28 would show those areas and then um
1:11:31 specifically
1:11:32 describe what the
1:11:34 types of protection were what those
1:11:37 standards would be
1:11:38 um so that that is a more of a
1:11:42 medium or long-term goal um but for
1:11:46 an interim option
1:11:50 um potential option would be to keep the
1:11:52 draft language as it is as a as a good
1:11:55 framework for what the city is trying to
1:11:57 achieve
1:11:58 but for each
1:11:59 development where we feel
1:12:02 views could be impacted require
1:12:05 a developer to do a view impact study
1:12:08 that would basically be a micro scale of
1:12:11 of this city-wide view study that
1:12:14 i suggested earlier
1:12:16 another option would be
1:12:18 to take out those view protection
1:12:20 language standards for now until a
1:12:23 better standard a better view protection
1:12:25 program can be put in place
1:12:27 uh this would remove that big ambiguity
1:12:32 and then the third option would just be
1:12:34 to keep it as it is and try to work with
1:12:38 as staff has been doing so far
1:12:43 next slide please
1:12:47 so we received a comment that
1:12:49 food waste
1:12:51 shoots specifically waste shoots that
1:12:54 would
1:12:55 be in a multi-family building
1:12:58 could be problematic and could lead to
1:13:01 sanitation issues and burdens for
1:13:03 maintenance
1:13:06 i did want to clarify that right now as
1:13:08 the code is written
1:13:10 waste shoots are not required but there
1:13:13 are standards if they are used they must
1:13:16 meet certain standards
1:13:19 so we looked into this you can go to the
1:13:21 next slide and we come came up with some
1:13:24 options
1:13:26 that would try to address
1:13:28 these sanitation concerns
1:13:30 one one option would be if the shoots
1:13:33 are used
1:13:34 um have them be separate for garbage and
1:13:37 recycle but not allowed a compost a food
1:13:40 waste shoot
1:13:42 that would mean that garbage bags and
1:13:45 recycling which are typically cleaner
1:13:49 they can be
1:13:50 contained in a bag
1:13:52 they would could be sent down the waste
1:13:54 chute into a garbage collection room but
1:13:56 that would not be allowed for food waste
1:13:59 another option would be
1:14:02 similarly if the shoots were used
1:14:06 sep have three separate
1:14:08 options you could have one for for food
1:14:11 waste but there would be some additional
1:14:13 maintenance requirement and code
1:14:15 enforcement language added
1:14:18 so the first one is just two waste
1:14:20 streams not compost the second option
1:14:22 would be all three but extra mitigation
1:14:25 um for the food waste shoot and then the
1:14:27 third one would be to prohibit food
1:14:30 waste shoots
1:14:33 but instead
1:14:34 require food wasters to be
1:14:37 collected in a secure accessible
1:14:40 area um next one please we have a
1:14:44 question on this one if you could pause
1:14:46 council president washington yeah um
1:14:49 is there a way to allow
1:14:52 shoots but if a shoot isn't used to
1:14:57 require collection areas and secure and
1:14:59 accessible areas and by secure and
1:15:01 accessible areas does that mean on each
1:15:05 floor in
1:15:06 neighboring areas where a shoot would be
1:15:11 could it be on the main floor
1:15:16 um i don't think we've added that level
1:15:18 of information
1:15:21 i think i'm understanding your question
1:15:23 correctly we could add we could allow
1:15:25 them as an option
1:15:28 and if
1:15:29 it's not chosen as an option
1:15:32 still require food waste collection
1:15:36 in a garbage room and i i'm not sure if
1:15:40 um apartment buildings usually have
1:15:42 garbage rooms on each floor
1:15:44 i'm more familiar with them on one floor
1:15:47 and that would make sense for the shoots
1:15:49 going down
1:15:51 into a centralized collection area
1:15:55 but i'm not 100 positive if you know
1:15:57 there could be large buildings where it
1:15:58 makes sense to have more than one
1:16:00 garbage room is that answering your
1:16:02 question
1:16:05 yeah i think so so
1:16:08 in my mind that would be kind of
1:16:10 option
1:16:12 um which is
1:16:15 if shoots are used require garbage and
1:16:18 recycle and then
1:16:21 require either
1:16:23 a food waste shoot
1:16:26 a separate collection
1:16:29 in an accessible area
1:16:31 does that make sense
1:16:34 yes it does thank you thanks
1:16:42 okay you can proceed thanks
1:16:47 okay so um
1:16:49 we also received a comment about rooftop
1:16:52 materials and specifically sustainable
1:16:54 materials and what that means because in
1:16:57 code and also the climate action plan
1:16:59 has called for
1:17:01 rooftop materials to be
1:17:03 sustainable materials
1:17:04 so we've added a definition of
1:17:06 sustainable materials
1:17:08 which is in the memo
1:17:10 but we also wanted to do a little
1:17:12 research on
1:17:14 what rooftop materials are currently
1:17:16 required specifically by the central
1:17:19 issaquah
1:17:20 architectural standards and and whether
1:17:22 those
1:17:23 meet the eco-friendly sustainability
1:17:26 goals
1:17:27 and what we found was
1:17:29 the that some of them specifically
1:17:33 asphalt shingles that are required for
1:17:36 craftsman style buildings
1:17:38 are uh not considered sustainable
1:17:40 materials they are since they're
1:17:42 petroleum product
1:17:44 we've come up with some options to
1:17:47 try and address these conflicts between
1:17:49 the design manual and the sustainability
1:17:51 goals
1:17:54 one option would be to
1:17:56 provide flexibility for
1:17:59 the roof material required by the
1:18:01 architectural design manual if um
1:18:05 the sustainability
1:18:07 if that required material
1:18:09 isn't considered sustainable that they
1:18:12 would be able to have an exception to
1:18:14 that rule
1:18:18 essentially they would be able to use
1:18:20 the the asphalt shingles in certain
1:18:23 situations
1:18:26 we could also another option would be to
1:18:28 change the craftsman style requirements
1:18:30 to another material that would be
1:18:32 considered more sustainable
1:18:36 we did some research on specific
1:18:39 alternatives and
1:18:41 we found some but i think that we didn't
1:18:44 feel it was
1:18:46 appropriate to name a specific product
1:18:49 because
1:18:50 technologies are changing so rapidly and
1:18:54 we didn't want to be stuck with a
1:18:55 material that may not
1:18:57 continue to be used or preferred
1:19:02 and then
1:19:02 [Music]
1:19:04 another option would be
1:19:06 if if you use asphalt shingles for
1:19:09 example and there's no other alternative
1:19:11 that works
1:19:12 you need to
1:19:13 provide other types of
1:19:15 green enhancements to the project such
1:19:20 solar panels or enhanced storm water
1:19:23 treatment or some other
1:19:26 mitigation that wouldn't that would
1:19:28 offset the use of that material
1:19:33 um next slide please
1:19:37 oh and finally we were asked to provide
1:19:39 some options um for
1:19:42 an alternative to the multi-family
1:19:44 medium flash old town zone so we've come
1:19:47 up with these three options um
1:19:50 that we could consider
1:19:52 if they're a little bit shorter um and
1:19:55 these would apply only to that medium
1:19:57 density zone in old town
1:20:01 and i believe that's my last slide
1:20:08 okay thank you since we do have um a
1:20:11 person waiting on public comment if we
1:20:13 can go through all of the presentations
1:20:16 and then we will go through and make our
1:20:17 comments and um
1:20:19 i i recognize that that is is a bit
1:20:22 difficult but um to keep the order in
1:20:24 the agenda that would be great so thank
1:20:30 of course thank you katie so for the
1:20:32 next item we're going to look at bucket
1:20:33 five specifically on parking
1:20:36 the committee members requested that we
1:20:39 come back with additional language to
1:20:41 clarify how the new regulations or the
1:20:43 proposed regulations
1:20:45 are different from the existing
1:20:46 regulations
1:20:48 the feedback was specifically on what we
1:20:51 took from the ite parking generation
1:20:53 manual and how that's different from
1:20:55 existing regulations or how they might
1:20:57 be a little bit different compared to
1:20:59 existing projects so
1:21:02 example two
1:21:03 attachments were provided with
1:21:06 the memo the first being project
1:21:08 examples we took five projects in
1:21:10 issaquah to show
1:21:12 how the proposed regulations might
1:21:14 impact if we were to redo those projects
1:21:17 again
1:21:17 and we
1:21:18 presented the net effect
1:21:21 or anticipated net effect from those
1:21:23 existing projects
1:21:26 other attachment attachment b
1:21:29 i'm not going to go specifically through
1:21:30 all of them because there's a lot but we
1:21:32 did go through each of the land uses to
1:21:35 show peer city review to see how other
1:21:37 cities might
1:21:40 have their parking regulations for those
1:21:42 specific land uses but also show the
1:21:44 anticipated effect from the proposed
1:21:46 regulations for tier 1 and tier 2 areas
1:21:48 and that being
1:21:50 the higher density areas versus the
1:21:52 lower density areas
1:21:54 so the options that were
1:21:56 that are being offered for discussion
1:21:58 tonight the first is to keep the draft
1:22:00 changes as proposed
1:22:01 uh the second option is to look at
1:22:04 keeping the maximums as proposed but
1:22:06 potentially removing the minimum
1:22:07 requirements for the tier one land uses
1:22:10 which results in the a neutral decrease
1:22:12 impacts for tier one and that is
1:22:14 consistent with a lot of the goals and
1:22:17 outcomes that were discussed for parking
1:22:19 uh with the committee as well as what
1:22:21 would be consistent with many of the
1:22:23 parking studies and discussions that
1:22:24 we've had as part of this project
1:22:31 so now
1:22:34 chris can you confirm if directory
1:22:35 dollywall was able to join us i can't
1:22:38 see it from where i'm at
1:22:41 yes stephen i i do not see her as a
1:22:44 panelist and i've not gotten any
1:22:45 messages from her okay
1:22:48 so i will
1:22:50 get started with the subdivisions
1:22:51 chapter katie will join me in helping
1:22:54 field any questions that you might have
1:22:55 on this topic um
1:22:57 otherwise we can continue on with the
1:22:59 discussion if that is okay
1:23:01 okay so this follow-up is from bucket 3
1:23:04 from the title 18 project
1:23:06 it was specifically asked from the
1:23:09 committee to go back to the planning
1:23:10 policy commission to get further
1:23:12 feedback on subdivisions specifically on
1:23:15 block length and zero lot line
1:23:17 development
1:23:18 so the feedback received was
1:23:20 that we wanted
1:23:22 a little more discussion from the
1:23:23 planetary policy commission on this
1:23:24 topic because it it has a huge impact on
1:23:27 major development uh throughout the city
1:23:29 and so the staff recommendation going to
1:23:32 the planning policy commission was to
1:23:34 recommend maximum block length of 250
1:23:36 feet for specifically just for central
1:23:38 and highlands and tallest neighborhoods
1:23:41 for zero lot line the recommendation was
1:23:43 to allow zero lot line in central
1:23:45 highlands and talus
1:23:47 and single family zones that have a
1:23:48 minimum dwelling unit
1:23:51 per acre 7.26
1:23:54 and the recommendation from the planning
1:23:57 policy commission was essentially the
1:23:59 same but they added actually additional
1:24:00 consideration for zero hotline which is
1:24:03 to look at design standards to maintain
1:24:05 design character characteristics for
1:24:06 each of the neighborhoods to allow zero
1:24:08 lot line specifically only for central
1:24:11 highlands and telus
1:24:17 so i'd like to open for if there's any
1:24:19 questions on this item
1:24:25 so that concludes our presentation the
1:24:29 jump ahead
1:24:31 next steps is for the planning policy
1:24:34 commission to
1:24:35 have public hearings on the consolidated
1:24:37 draft for title 18
1:24:39 and then start the city council review
1:24:41 in december
1:24:42 the next topic coming to the committee
1:24:44 will be bucket 6 procedures and
1:24:46 administration on september 22nd
1:24:52 great thank you
1:24:55 if you have any questions okay
1:24:58 um then we'll now move to um public
1:25:03 comments on this item so check in with
1:25:05 the city clerk and then if if there is a
1:25:07 member of the public i will read some
1:25:08 directions for a public comment
1:25:12 chair hunt i do not see any virtual hand
1:25:15 raised
1:25:16 okay um maybe i'll just give it a minute
1:25:18 since this video but and then i will
1:25:20 note also there's nobody in the audience
1:25:22 this evening
1:25:26 uh well then we'll move to our our
1:25:29 deliberation um so if we could
1:25:33 do this by going back through the slides
1:25:35 i think that would be helpful
1:25:37 um and then
1:25:39 that will also give us
1:25:40 a visual of the different options for
1:25:43 each topic and we'll try to tick through
1:25:46 and ask any questions as
1:25:48 needed
1:25:51 so um
1:25:53 i think the first ones were
1:25:55 back on screening and
1:26:04 thank you
1:26:05 i i did have a question on this so
1:26:08 the the sidewalk level and then the max
1:26:12 height between one and four are the
1:26:14 situations where
1:26:17 you would require
1:26:19 which one is less
1:26:21 prescriptive or is it just different
1:26:23 situations would require different um
1:26:27 screening
1:26:32 um i think it would depend on
1:26:35 the topography
1:26:38 the side
1:26:40 the screening from the sidewalk level um
1:26:42 [Music]
1:26:44 would
1:26:46 would probably have the broadest impact
1:26:51 and i think it's probably the easiest
1:26:55 apply and um
1:26:57 assess whether or not they've achieved
1:26:59 it because it can you know you can walk
1:27:01 around the building from the different
1:27:02 sidewalks and envision
1:27:05 and look up and see whether the
1:27:07 materials are screened
1:27:09 um the other options are really trying
1:27:11 to zero in on certain
1:27:14 populations or
1:27:15 certain viewers that may
1:27:19 be impacted by the site of the equipment
1:27:22 um i think probably in terms of what's
1:27:25 most prescriptive
1:27:26 and i think by that i'm i'm
1:27:29 hearing i sounds like you're saying
1:27:31 maybe most strict
1:27:34 would be
1:27:34 [Music]
1:27:38 probably number four
1:27:40 because it would mean that any building
1:27:42 that isn't built to the maximum height
1:27:45 would need to screen
1:27:47 the side and
1:27:49 top of all of their equipment
1:27:51 and if you added that
1:27:54 and probably that would um
1:27:57 you added that with with number one
1:28:00 that would cover just about
1:28:02 any opportunity that anybody would have
1:28:04 to see that equipment
1:28:07 the other the other two
1:28:09 numbers two and three
1:28:11 are um a little are trying to add a
1:28:14 little bit more flexibility
1:28:16 um to not require
1:28:18 as much screening with
1:28:20 for every uh circumstance
1:28:25 okay so we did receive one comment on
1:28:28 this which was um from christy triple of
1:28:31 the rally properties and
1:28:34 um she
1:28:37 recommended option four um and i i think
1:28:41 to me this is just it's not particularly
1:28:43 clear
1:28:46 and you just mentioned the topography
1:28:48 which would affect number one um
1:28:51 i i don't personally think that viewing
1:28:55 of the equipment from these different
1:28:57 levels is
1:28:58 particularly
1:29:00 important so i guess i would give some
1:29:03 flexibility in this area and i'm not
1:29:05 sure which one
1:29:09 which one achieves that uh that's do you
1:29:12 have thoughts on this one
1:29:14 yeah um
1:29:16 the users that i care about are the
1:29:18 people that are in public spaces and so
1:29:21 the people that are
1:29:22 walking around on sidewalks in parks
1:29:25 things like that um for the most part
1:29:28 that means that
1:29:29 as long as we're looking at
1:29:31 not being able to see the top of the
1:29:32 equipment from sidewalk level that's
1:29:34 what's important to me if someone has a
1:29:38 three-story building and
1:29:40 their stuff isn't visible from the
1:29:42 sidewalk because it has the side
1:29:44 screening but there's a five-story
1:29:46 building next to it that chose to build
1:29:49 to that height that's okay to see the
1:29:52 tops of those
1:29:54 items from my perspective so i'd rather
1:29:56 give the developer the flexibility and
1:29:58 the ventilation the ability to do its
1:30:02 so my preference is for option one
1:30:09 um i think that all makes sense to me
1:30:11 and i'm
1:30:12 i'm also
1:30:14 fine with option one
1:30:18 okay so we can move we can move on
1:30:24 yeah i i there's one other comment which
1:30:26 maybe i can follow up with director
1:30:28 dollywall but it's about a particular
1:30:31 um requirement in this a particular word
1:30:33 in this code so i'll follow up on that
1:30:36 okay we can go to the next one
1:30:42 so transparency similarly in my opinion
1:30:45 i think
1:30:46 there can be flexibility here i
1:30:49 spoke last two last time about
1:30:52 you know maybe you want to have windows
1:30:53 for cross-ventilation
1:30:55 um and so i i'm in favor of not
1:30:59 requiring this
1:31:02 and allowing the building to be built
1:31:04 to whatever the market
1:31:07 the market is for
1:31:08 this kind of design as a design
1:31:10 aesthetic i don't know do you have
1:31:12 thoughts on this one
1:31:13 yeah um i actually agree with the staff
1:31:17 recommendation that i think it's
1:31:19 important to have visibility on the
1:31:22 street and considering this is only
1:31:24 applicable for a multi-family that has a
1:31:26 zero lot line that doesn't have a
1:31:28 setback
1:31:30 i think it sets the tone
1:31:34 the sidewalk in those cases
1:31:37 and it requires a developer to not have
1:31:41 windows that are necessarily you know
1:31:44 going to be a privacy issue
1:31:46 where somebody at street level is
1:31:48 looking right in which can feel very
1:31:50 awkward for the person walking down the
1:31:52 street
1:31:53 so my preference would be to go with
1:31:55 option one
1:31:59 okay i'm also okay with option one
1:32:02 especially given it is the staff
1:32:04 recommendation
1:32:08 we can go on to the next one
1:32:17 view corridors i'll start with that this
1:32:20 is a big issue i really appreciate all
1:32:22 of the research on what
1:32:25 some of the example cities are i think
1:32:28 we absolutely need to get a map and we
1:32:30 need to decide that our views are
1:32:34 certain things and viewable from park
1:32:37 locations without that it becomes an
1:32:40 absolute nightmare for
1:32:44 and trying to decide who can build what
1:32:46 where we could get into legal issues
1:32:49 i want to get away from that as much as
1:32:51 possible but i do recognize that this is
1:32:54 is a big thing that needs to go to a
1:32:57 community conversation
1:33:00 for now
1:33:02 i guess i would say option
1:33:04 one or option three my concern
1:33:08 with a view impact study for
1:33:11 every development is just the cost of
1:33:15 that and not wanting that to be an
1:33:17 additional burden that might increase
1:33:19 the cost of housing
1:33:26 agree with all of that i especially
1:33:28 thought that redmond
1:33:30 their approach
1:33:32 would make sense in the long run um but
1:33:35 we are not we don't have the information
1:33:37 to to go with that approach currently so
1:33:41 given that i think i was thinking option
1:33:45 three
1:33:48 because it seemed
1:33:49 that we have this code we know there are
1:33:52 changes but at least then we aren't
1:33:53 putting in a interim code that has more
1:33:56 requirements that we again know that
1:33:58 we're going to be changing once we
1:34:00 have information to go with a different
1:34:02 approach so in the long run i think
1:34:04 something similar to redmond's approach
1:34:06 would would be best
1:34:09 in the short term i think option three
1:34:11 which is maintain the existing code
1:34:14 recognizing it has issues
1:34:19 yeah did you have any comment on what
1:34:20 the cost or understanding of the
1:34:23 requirements of those impact studies
1:34:24 would be
1:34:26 we're not sure on the cost quite yet but
1:34:28 just to clarify on the options we do
1:34:31 have identified on the future updates
1:34:34 to look at view preservation and so is
1:34:38 the recommendation to not continue with
1:34:40 that or to continue
1:34:41 maintaining existing code and still
1:34:43 continue with that future update item
1:34:45 yeah i think we're both very interested
1:34:48 in having that as a future update and
1:34:50 doing the work that's required and
1:34:52 probably preferring redmond's model as a
1:34:56 way to just jump start
1:34:58 what we can do but it's going to require
1:35:00 a community conversation so great thank
1:35:13 okay i will start us off on this food
1:35:16 waste options one um so i
1:35:20 uh personally think that composting is
1:35:23 is an important way that we can um
1:35:26 have an option for reducing
1:35:29 emissions as a city and waste and it's
1:35:31 definitely part of achieving our climate
1:35:33 action goals however i did also
1:35:36 view the composting facilities um that
1:35:40 that service the city of issaquah and
1:35:42 those service providers said you know
1:35:45 that one of their really big issues is
1:35:48 contamination and so if this um
1:35:52 if if allowing the shoot and you know
1:35:54 for folks that aren't used to separating
1:35:56 out their garbage recycling and their
1:35:58 food waste if this is going to be a big
1:35:59 source of contamination they actually
1:36:01 specifically flagged that that this was
1:36:03 a concern
1:36:04 um so they would rather have um
1:36:08 compost that's specifically all food
1:36:11 waste and reduce that contamination and
1:36:13 then not have the cost the back end of
1:36:15 sorting out all of this plastic and
1:36:17 other stuff that makes it in when people
1:36:21 when people are not separating those
1:36:22 things out so
1:36:25 based on that i um
1:36:28 i think not requiring it i think if
1:36:30 there's a
1:36:32 development that wants to put in those
1:36:35 facilities i wouldn't want to
1:36:37 preclude that but i also would not want
1:36:40 to require it
1:36:42 [Music]
1:36:43 it also seems that
1:36:46 it doesn't seem that the
1:36:48 there's a big call for this
1:36:54 multi-family developers um so you know
1:36:58 if you if we
1:36:59 if we were to require it and you built
1:37:01 the shoots and then it wasn't used
1:37:02 that's also not
1:37:04 not meeting our goals so for those two
1:37:06 reasons i think um allowing
1:37:08 allowing it i would be
1:37:10 fine with and then um but requiring it i
1:37:13 would not
1:37:14 be supportive of
1:37:17 so the option that i had presented was
1:37:19 kind of an option for
1:37:21 which
1:37:23 if shoots are used require separate
1:37:25 garbage and recycling
1:37:28 they and then they can either do
1:37:32 a shoot for food waste or
1:37:34 a separate collection area i think that
1:37:37 describes what you were talking about
1:37:39 which is don't preclude them from doing
1:37:41 it if they want to
1:37:43 but if they don't choose to do a shoot
1:37:46 they have to provide it in
1:37:49 another way with a separate collection
1:37:54 i i agreed 100 up until that last point
1:37:58 though the last point though is like
1:38:00 that you have to provide it i think we
1:38:01 should check in with our compost service
1:38:03 provider if if this is something that
1:38:05 they would have a major concern with
1:38:07 because my impression from doing this
1:38:10 um this tour of the facilities which was
1:38:13 a couple
1:38:14 probably about a year ago
1:38:17 was that they had they had concerns so
1:38:19 be good to know those concerns before
1:38:21 requiring it
1:38:24 yeah and i think this would only require
1:38:26 it if you're also
1:38:30 shoots if i
1:38:32 understand that correctly
1:38:35 because it's about the building space
1:38:36 not about what services you provide
1:38:40 to your residents so to be clear
1:38:42 currently there are multi-family
1:38:44 apartment buildings that don't have a
1:38:46 food waste option so you just so that
1:38:48 and that um is one way to keep
1:38:51 contamination out of the compost stream
1:38:53 basically so that's that's the
1:38:56 concern so i i would say
1:38:58 um i think we agree on not requiring the
1:39:02 separate shoot and
1:39:03 all of that and then if we could just
1:39:05 check in with um
1:39:08 if we could check in with the compost
1:39:09 provider if they have a concern about
1:39:11 about requiring it in one form or the
1:39:13 other that would be
1:39:15 useful and i i think they may based on
1:39:18 prior conversation with them
1:39:20 okay i'm fine with
1:39:22 that as going forward just getting a
1:39:24 little bit more information but in
1:39:26 general yes we i think we agree don't
1:39:29 don't require it
1:39:30 because of those concerns
1:39:49 go ahead okay so
1:39:51 my concern here is
1:39:54 fire safety
1:39:58 just want to make sure that by creating
1:40:03 so well that's one of my concerns
1:40:05 i want to make sure that by creating
1:40:07 asking people to use eco-friendly or
1:40:09 requiring eco-friendly rooftops that
1:40:12 we're not
1:40:14 precluding them or excluding their
1:40:16 ability to choose something that's going
1:40:19 to be
1:40:20 fire safe
1:40:22 for particularly our mountain and
1:40:23 hillside areas
1:40:26 and then
1:40:29 i guess i would say of the options
1:40:31 presented i prefer option three which
1:40:33 allows the offsets i think that's a
1:40:36 creative way
1:40:38 managing things that let people use
1:40:41 utilize and understand what their
1:40:43 particular circumstances are
1:40:45 but then require something as a
1:40:47 mitigation
1:40:52 so my understanding
1:40:55 so i went into this thinking i was
1:40:57 supportive of option one
1:40:59 but my understanding of option three is
1:41:02 um it would provide alternative
1:41:05 flexibility but there are certain
1:41:07 parts of the city that currently don't
1:41:09 allow you for example to put a metal
1:41:11 roof which i think
1:41:13 i'm not an expert but i don't think
1:41:15 that's a fire
1:41:18 hazard is metal
1:41:19 um so
1:41:22 i would think that providing an ex
1:41:24 providing flexibility for sustainable
1:41:26 roof materials basically allows you to
1:41:28 use those in those areas where they
1:41:29 aren't currently allowed
1:41:31 and that would meet my
1:41:35 my goal which is to just allow it but
1:41:38 also not
1:41:41 be overburdensome
1:41:43 so the way that i read option
1:41:49 was basically
1:41:52 here all of the eco-friendly materials
1:41:54 you should use and here are some
1:41:58 exceptions that we might say
1:42:00 that to me seems like a pretty
1:42:05 seems like we're cornering people into a
1:42:06 certain type of
1:42:08 material and then requiring an extra set
1:42:11 of review if they're not using that i
1:42:13 guess that's kind of the same as three
1:42:15 i'm just trying to understand how can we
1:42:17 reduce the burden on cpd in doing that
1:42:20 review
1:42:22 council president council member hunt it
1:42:24 sounds like you won a four
1:42:26 and so perhaps what we can do is we can
1:42:28 take the comments that you're saying i
1:42:29 think you want to provide flexibility
1:42:31 you want there to be fire safety but you
1:42:33 don't want it to be overly onerous
1:42:35 is that about right
1:42:37 yeah that's right and and this is based
1:42:39 too on the fact that i know there are
1:42:41 some parts of the city where you can't
1:42:43 use eco-friendly materials so i would
1:42:45 like to address that where
1:42:47 you could use them um but not
1:42:50 force
1:42:51 but but not be
1:42:53 unsafe not be fire unsafe and not
1:42:56 require
1:42:58 require every building for example to
1:43:00 have so i think what staff can can take
1:43:03 note of this conversation
1:43:05 and come back with some language that
1:43:07 reflects the committee's desires because
1:43:09 it's not quite one it's not quite three
1:43:12 so we'll we'll work on that
1:43:17 yeah i'm just looking at them again it
1:43:18 really is sort of a flexibility between
1:43:21 it's something like between option one
1:43:23 and three which is option four so thank
1:43:41 zoning name options
1:43:43 yeah and i was trying to remember why
1:43:45 this came up it seemed like it was
1:43:48 like a very similar name
1:43:52 this and another one um but i was
1:43:55 looking over at the zoning map and all
1:43:57 of the lists and i'm not
1:43:59 finding what that was
1:44:02 so um i didn't notice it it was a
1:44:05 comment from from you
1:44:07 uh i i'll just say i think old town
1:44:10 neighborhood
1:44:11 works so i would go with that one i mean
1:44:14 well but it's the difference between
1:44:16 it's the multi-family section of that
1:44:20 and the old town is larger than just
1:44:23 multi-family
1:44:26 okay so then we
1:44:28 can you
1:44:29 refresh our
1:44:31 refresh us on what are the other
1:44:33 surrounding zones that we're trying to
1:44:35 differentiate from
1:44:37 so i think the other one is multifamily
1:44:41 low and i'll ask katie to refresh my
1:44:43 memory because i wasn't at the meeting
1:44:46 but i think it was just trying to
1:44:47 distinguish between multi-family high
1:44:49 which was part of the discussion i think
1:44:51 where the comment came from council
1:44:53 president walsh
1:44:59 and i unfortunately don't have any
1:45:01 additional
1:45:02 information other than um
1:45:05 i think there was another zone in the
1:45:08 city called
1:45:09 multi-family medium dash something else
1:45:12 but i'm going to just take a quick look
1:45:14 at the zoning map and see if i can
1:45:16 refresh my memory
1:45:23 either way i guess i would say
1:45:25 i'm not an expert on this i don't think
1:45:27 i need to
1:45:29 weigh in on which one it is i think you
1:45:32 guys can choose a zoning name i just
1:45:33 called it out
1:45:34 because i saw two things that seemed
1:45:37 very similar and i didn't want people to
1:45:39 be confused so
1:45:40 if that feedback works for you yeah
1:45:45 yes that works for us we'll we'll take a
1:45:47 look at it
1:45:52 okay okay
1:45:53 go to the next one
1:46:05 oh parking
1:46:09 happy to start
1:46:10 um there was tons of information here i
1:46:13 love this it was
1:46:15 everything that i ever wanted and i
1:46:17 wanted to just sit in there and look and
1:46:19 say oh look how
1:46:21 different we are from bellevue and
1:46:23 redmond and all of that so i really
1:46:27 really appreciate it um
1:46:30 i don't think there's much that we
1:46:34 need to do at this point given
1:46:37 what the data shows in our comparison i
1:46:40 look forward to a community conversation
1:46:42 about
1:46:43 you know what we're looking for with
1:46:45 parking
1:46:47 but my actual only concern when looking
1:46:50 at the
1:46:51 information was the single family
1:46:53 detached for tier two
1:46:56 um so when we're talking about tier two
1:46:59 that's our you know
1:47:01 not our core areas not our esco
1:47:04 highlands not our more dense areas
1:47:06 and there is a
1:47:10 per unit max
1:47:12 for those houses and i feel like there's
1:47:16 a fair number of single family homes
1:47:20 that either going to be developed or
1:47:21 currently have a three-car garage
1:47:25 with a tandem and so i just wonder
1:47:28 whether that would be too restrictive
1:47:30 for our community for the tier two
1:47:33 concept so that would be the only one i
1:47:35 would really call out
1:47:38 otherwise i just think this is a
1:47:40 great set of data
1:47:42 and looking into how we can adjust this
1:47:45 in the future
1:47:50 toward that idea i think there was one
1:47:52 instance where like you looked at a
1:47:54 duplex and provided the max option as
1:47:58 a two
1:47:59 tandem space so that could be another
1:48:01 way that you could potentially look at
1:48:05 a single family to touch tier two would
1:48:07 be potentially
1:48:08 a tandem space if we really felt like
1:48:11 that was necessary
1:48:19 do you have thoughts on
1:48:22 keep draft changes that propose for the
1:48:23 keep maximum and remove the minimum
1:48:26 which is the bigger change
1:48:28 um i feel like we had already done a
1:48:31 good job of adjusting the minimum
1:48:33 downward and so i wouldn't want to make
1:48:36 that recommendation at this point before
1:48:39 we have that future updates conversation
1:48:41 so i'm comfortable to keep the draft
1:48:43 changes as proposed
1:48:49 so when i looked at the
1:48:51 table that has the increase decrease
1:48:54 neutral
1:48:56 when i saw the number of increases
1:48:58 especially around retail
1:49:01 so this is increase as i
1:49:03 understand and please correct me if i'm
1:49:05 wrong
1:49:06 this is increasing
1:49:07 there were increases for retail for
1:49:09 example a number of different kinds of
1:49:11 commercial
1:49:15 where we're with the new code we're
1:49:16 increasing the parking requirements from
1:49:18 the existing code that's correct so
1:49:21 to me that is a red flag
1:49:24 and it seems like we don't want to be we
1:49:27 want to at least be neutral or
1:49:29 decreasing um
1:49:33 reduce
1:49:36 um to be more pedestrian friendly to
1:49:38 achieve the goals in the climate action
1:49:40 plan to achieve our general goals with
1:49:42 this update so for me i i saw those and
1:49:45 i was
1:49:46 thinking you know there's a fair number
1:49:49 especially with these commercials that
1:49:50 were actually increasing the
1:49:51 requirements it feels to me like that
1:49:53 was a red flag
1:49:55 and then there's this option presented
1:49:57 to keep maximums and remove the minimums
1:49:59 for tier one which would make everything
1:50:02 neutral or decrease the impacts so it
1:50:04 seemed to me that that would be
1:50:06 something we should
1:50:07 consider
1:50:12 i have some comments on that um
1:50:15 i don't know why they're labeled as
1:50:17 increase
1:50:18 because when maybe it's the difference
1:50:20 between the nsf and
1:50:24 uh gfa
1:50:25 yeah so if you want to describe the
1:50:27 difference between that because
1:50:28 otherwise it looks like you know two
1:50:30 spaces per thousand is the same as one
1:50:33 per 500 so can you talk through the
1:50:35 difference between those two yes so
1:50:38 specifically on the items that show an
1:50:40 increase there are very minor increases
1:50:42 because we we saw that as kind of a red
1:50:44 flag for this conversation one to look
1:50:46 at what is that you know a 50 increase
1:50:49 or is it one percent increase and it is
1:50:51 actually a very small percentage and it
1:50:53 is because of the change from net to
1:50:54 gross um
1:50:56 in that conversion when we were looking
1:51:00 the ite parking generation manual
1:51:04 does that help kind of address what that
1:51:06 means okay yeah so from my perspective
1:51:08 when looking at that um
1:51:10 the the calculations net out that we're
1:51:14 trying to aim for about the same thing
1:51:16 and we're still coming out
1:51:18 you know gobs ahead of
1:51:21 bellevue and redmond and linwood in some
1:51:23 of these cases and so i felt pretty
1:51:26 comfortable that even though they are
1:51:28 technically labeled doesn't increase
1:51:30 that it really isn't
1:51:32 something that's seeing a huge increase
1:51:45 okay i think i think this is the only
1:51:47 one that we potentially might want to
1:51:50 flag for council
1:51:52 um because
1:51:53 for me
1:51:55 i you know we do have this next look at
1:51:57 the parking but if we could take this
1:52:00 in this update um and it's on the table
1:52:03 and it achieves a number of goals from a
1:52:05 number of plans
1:52:07 i think at the very least we should
1:52:08 bring it to council as something that we
1:52:10 had some different thoughts on
1:52:13 didn't have
1:52:14 one um
1:52:16 yeah didn't have one
1:52:18 clear
1:52:19 option that we
1:52:21 we both felt was like the clear winner
1:52:23 so okay um so yeah i think on this one
1:52:26 for me i i like the idea of of the of
1:52:30 removing the minimums for this year one
1:52:32 land uses but um i i do think it'd be
1:52:35 good to better understand because i was
1:52:37 basing that on the number of increases
1:52:39 so if they're they're tiny then that's
1:52:40 also i should go back and look at that
1:52:44 so uh chair hunt i guess a question for
1:52:47 stephen so is the plan then to bring
1:52:49 this updated
1:52:50 analysis back to this committee before
1:52:53 it rolls into the
1:52:54 the final draft document or not uh well
1:52:57 so that was actually going to be my
1:52:58 question okay on when uh would the
1:53:01 committee like to for us to bring this
1:53:03 back because we have the consolidated
1:53:05 draft public hearings we'd like to
1:53:07 try to get
1:53:09 if we want this change we want to try to
1:53:10 get that in there as part of the public
1:53:12 hearings prior to bringing it back to
1:53:14 the committee in december
1:53:19 it sounds like you guys really need a
1:53:21 decision in order to move forward on the
1:53:24 draft
1:53:25 well i mean i i something we really
1:53:27 haven't talked about is what the landing
1:53:29 of all this looks like because
1:53:31 eventually there's going to be a
1:53:33 document
1:53:34 this committee is going to go back to
1:53:35 the council and say here's a list
1:53:36 hopefully a relatively short list
1:53:38 of policy questions
1:53:40 and so this is one of those i think
1:53:42 that's perfectly fine i think the
1:53:43 question stephen's asking is do you want
1:53:46 to have an intermediate discussion
1:53:48 before that
1:53:50 so that you're informing the council or
1:53:52 we have information laid out for the
1:53:54 council or do you just want to i mean
1:53:56 and i also think that
1:53:57 before we go back to the full council
1:53:59 we're going to have to kind of bring you
1:54:01 a draft report i mean a draft
1:54:03 not only here's the draft document but
1:54:05 here's how we're going to step through
1:54:06 it with the council because in essence i
1:54:09 think this committee is going to have to
1:54:10 walk your colleagues through this
1:54:14 and so whatever we want to call that
1:54:16 outline script table whatever it turns
1:54:19 out to be i mean we're getting close to
1:54:22 having to start talking about that um so
1:54:24 in this instance again we can come back
1:54:26 to the committee with more information
1:54:28 that would be folded into what we take
1:54:29 to the council or we could wait until
1:54:33 we're just about ready to go to the
1:54:34 council and talk to you about how this
1:54:36 ultimately gets presented and which
1:54:39 particular sections we want to flag and
1:54:41 then what kind of discussion
1:54:43 the committee wishes to walk through so
1:54:44 i think the committee
1:54:46 your colleagues are going to be
1:54:47 desperate for you to provide some
1:54:49 insight on these harder parts i mean
1:54:51 you've covered lots of ground so i mean
1:54:53 what's left is
1:54:55 if it's hard for you it's going to be
1:54:56 very hard for your colleagues
1:54:58 so i think whatever you like we're happy
1:55:00 to do
1:55:04 yeah i think from my perspective i would
1:55:07 probably have labeled those as increase
1:55:10 neutral um and really just understand
1:55:13 that the
1:55:15 just because the
1:55:16 the top table
1:55:18 shows a bunch of increases
1:55:21 it isn't because we actually increased
1:55:24 the number just because of the gfa
1:55:27 portion
1:55:29 i guess i would just come back to the
1:55:32 concept of
1:55:33 parking is part of our future updates
1:55:36 list and one of those things was
1:55:39 should we
1:55:41 remove minimum requirements
1:55:43 and so i think that from my perspective
1:55:46 is really where
1:55:48 that conversation lies
1:55:50 um particularly because as you look into
1:55:53 the details of that the
1:55:57 there isn't anything that i'm seeing
1:55:58 jump up in parking compared to where we
1:56:06 okay one one more question it it says in
1:56:10 our packet that
1:56:12 this keep maximums and remove minimums
1:56:14 alliance of the city multimodal
1:56:17 and growth goals for tier one areas and
1:56:19 so is it specifically
1:56:21 in our multimodal plan that we would
1:56:24 take this action and
1:56:26 remove the minimums the action isn't but
1:56:28 it's consistent with what the mobility
1:56:29 master plan is calling for for
1:56:32 providing efficient use of the land use
1:56:34 specifically for multimodal modes not
1:56:36 specifically for parking and it's
1:56:38 consistent with what was called for from
1:56:40 the parking study in terms of
1:56:42 being just being more efficient with the
1:56:45 parking existing more than trying to
1:56:47 expand the parking
1:56:48 for tier one areas
1:56:51 but this specific action isn't called
1:56:53 out in any of the plans
1:57:02 it seems that this is i i guess i come
1:57:04 back to it seems that the way we're
1:57:06 headed is to remove minimums to decrease
1:57:10 decrease the amount of parking and
1:57:18 yeah go ahead so my thought is i think
1:57:21 that's a really important community
1:57:23 conversation
1:57:24 and i
1:57:26 would have a hard time going back to the
1:57:28 council and telling them that we're
1:57:30 recommending removing the minimum
1:57:32 requirements for tier one land uses
1:57:36 before we have that future updates
1:57:38 conversation i think that gets us into a
1:57:40 position
1:57:42 where
1:57:43 we're
1:57:44 making
1:57:44 [Music]
1:57:47 fairly large change
1:57:50 that some community members and the rest
1:57:52 of the council may not be pleased with
1:57:55 my preference would be that since this
1:57:59 isn't increasing i love that we have the
1:58:02 data now we can see all of that i love
1:58:05 that we're going to be able to in that
1:58:06 community conversation talk about what
1:58:09 the master mobility plan talks about and
1:58:12 how this affects developers and how this
1:58:13 affects
1:58:16 you know
1:58:18 housing costs and affordability i think
1:58:20 there's a lot there um i'm just not
1:58:23 quite ready to make the recommendation
1:58:26 within this title 18
1:58:29 big thing to remove minimum parking
1:58:32 requirements
1:58:40 okay um
1:58:42 and i think this like the other items it
1:58:44 doesn't have a staff recommendation it's
1:58:47 for our discussion
1:58:50 i think for staff i think the
1:58:52 recommendation is to go with number one
1:58:55 primarily because we have that item on
1:58:57 the future updates list to take a look
1:58:59 at this as part of community
1:59:01 conversations but also to get more
1:59:02 technical analysis of are those even the
1:59:05 right numbers for the maximums if that's
1:59:07 what we want to stay with for tier one
1:59:09 areas
1:59:12 okay um
1:59:14 well i think i think we should flag this
1:59:17 for council consideration i think it'd
1:59:19 be good to
1:59:21 maybe somehow
1:59:22 quantify in the council presentation of
1:59:25 this information
1:59:27 the extent of the increase so it doesn't
1:59:29 look like we're increasing
1:59:31 a bunch because it does even have an
1:59:33 increased neutral category it doesn't
1:59:35 use that except for a few it uses a
1:59:38 bunch of the increase um
1:59:40 so yeah if we could maybe quantify that
1:59:42 a little more um but yeah i guess i just
1:59:46 it seems to me we're increasing a little
1:59:49 bit a bunch of commercial
1:59:52 uses parking requirements which seems
1:59:55 counter
1:59:57 what we want so um
1:59:59 i'm open to sticking with the draft
2:00:01 changes but i will at the very least
2:00:03 want to flag this for council
2:00:05 consideration
2:00:09 okay we can do that
2:00:14 just one more question would it i think
2:00:16 it would be
2:00:17 hard to
2:00:19 would it be hard to
2:00:21 for predictability to use sort of like
2:00:23 if if our existing standard was a little
2:00:29 lower to use that standard
2:00:32 so basically to just kind of for those
2:00:34 ones stick with what we had
2:00:36 i think it would be hard to
2:00:39 hard to say in the documentation of our
2:00:41 method why they would be because it was
2:00:43 based on the past well we
2:00:45 we already do that for some of the
2:00:47 existing land use regulations for
2:00:49 parking for where a maximum and a
2:00:52 minimum were already provided and and
2:00:54 gross floor area was used
2:00:57 um there wasn't very many that did that
2:01:00 but uh we are kind of using the existing
2:01:03 studies from when the central plan was
2:01:05 put together and and since then
2:01:09 so what about maybe then using
2:01:11 the lower of the two if they're
2:01:15 if they're close so i think the it
2:01:17 manual um
2:01:19 standardizes on gross floor area rather
2:01:22 than yeah so i
2:01:24 i when i'm looking through it
2:01:26 there is one instance where it says
2:01:29 increase or neutral which is the medical
2:01:32 office
2:01:33 and the only difference between those is
2:01:37 nsf versus gfa
2:01:39 same thing when you go down to the other
2:01:41 ones that say increase so really really
2:01:44 truly in this there's no instance where
2:01:47 we're actually intentionally increasing
2:01:51 the requirements it's just with this
2:01:54 transition and so i think that
2:01:57 really is just a
2:01:58 it's just a label
2:02:01 maybe was mistaken um
2:02:05 and we can certainly quantify that too
2:02:06 once we when we present it to counselors
2:02:08 just to show what the difference would
2:02:10 be with that conversion
2:02:13 and again i think
2:02:14 as you prepare
2:02:16 the package for the council you know
2:02:18 this is going to be flagged and so i
2:02:20 think as we we will come back
2:02:22 i'm sure one last time uh walk through
2:02:25 what we plan to say
2:02:28 it's a big deal this is this is a major
2:02:30 part of this and i think you know the
2:02:33 committee's sensitive to the magnitude
2:02:35 of this you don't want to
2:02:37 put a roadblock in any way moving
2:02:39 forward with this but you also don't
2:02:41 want to go too far without a larger
2:02:43 community dialogue and so i think you
2:02:45 could say all that as this gets
2:02:46 presented to the council if your
2:02:49 colleagues disagree i mean that's the
2:02:50 reason we're gonna ultimately have to
2:02:52 approve this then they can
2:02:55 have more discussion with it but i think
2:02:58 from what you've said tonight i think
2:02:59 you've given us enough direction we'll
2:03:02 make sure as we package this up
2:03:04 for the council we'll this will be
2:03:06 flagged and you'll have one more pass
2:03:08 at this before the council discussion
2:03:14 yeah i guess
2:03:16 what would be helpful because i
2:03:18 i think
2:03:20 to some degree it's a little bit apples
2:03:22 and oranges um like some of these
2:03:27 existing standard is based on
2:03:29 i mean just looking at one example it's
2:03:31 probably not the best but one is based
2:03:33 on like per beds
2:03:35 and then it's based on the square foot
2:03:38 or gfa
2:03:39 um in a different standard so you know
2:03:41 there there's some apples and oranges i
2:03:43 just i think i've been
2:03:45 just to restate my general premise i
2:03:49 think we've heard and we have all these
2:03:51 plans that talk about using our
2:03:54 limited
2:03:56 efficiently and reducing the amount of
2:04:00 surface
2:04:01 parking lots
2:04:02 in new development to
2:04:04 provide a more walkable
2:04:06 area especially
2:04:08 especially in the central ascot plan and
2:04:11 then also in our multimodal plan and
2:04:12 climate action plan so that's that's my
2:04:14 concern when i see this the big concern
2:04:16 is like all of these increases for
2:04:18 commercial parking so if we can better
2:04:20 explain that and then
2:04:23 if it's not as big as not a big impact
2:04:26 as it looks or as
2:04:27 my um council colleague has described it
2:04:32 then that's okay but um the way it's
2:04:34 presented here it makes me
2:04:36 nervous yeah and let me jump on that i i
2:04:39 completely agree i have no concerns
2:04:42 about the areas that's nsf versus gfa
2:04:45 but if you would quantify the amount of
2:04:48 increase on some of those where we're
2:04:50 changing the kind of measurement
2:04:52 technique if those truly are
2:04:55 significant increases or over a 10
2:04:58 increase then instead of
2:05:01 switching to no minimum requirement i'd
2:05:03 just say hey maybe those numbers that we
2:05:05 calculated aren't
2:05:07 the right fit for us right now and of
2:05:09 course we'll look at that on the future
2:05:11 updates but i don't want to vote
2:05:13 something in right now that's going to
2:05:14 cause us an increase
2:05:18 well and it sounds like it would be
2:05:20 defensible if there is some where it's
2:05:23 increasing that we could go with the
2:05:24 existing standard as the lower standard
2:05:28 for those um as an option especially if
2:05:30 we have that comparison
2:05:32 so i think that would be helpful does
2:05:34 that give you what you need
2:05:37 yes it does thank you okay
2:05:40 and we'll come you'll have one more
2:05:42 touch
2:05:44 before we go back to the council just to
2:05:46 confirm
2:05:48 okay yeah i don't know we need to touch
2:05:50 on this specifically but i think what
2:05:52 you're saying is we're going to get
2:05:54 a function but
2:05:56 there's the specific language then
2:05:58 there's the broader issue and i think we
2:06:00 want to make sure that the committee is
2:06:02 comfortable with how the broader issue
2:06:03 is presented
2:06:04 and as you need to talk about specifics
2:06:06 in order to talk about the broader issue
2:06:08 i think you've sorted through that
2:06:09 tonight so
2:06:10 we can go from there
2:06:25 start out
2:06:26 you guys had great recommendations and
2:06:28 so did ppc i agree with
2:06:31 both of those recommendations for block
2:06:33 length and zero lot line
2:06:37 okay um i
2:06:40 am so i did have a question on the the
2:06:43 block length one
2:06:44 in our materials it talks about that
2:06:46 this is
2:06:47 necessary to restrict to or to only
2:06:50 apply to central highlands and talus in
2:06:53 part because of topography
2:06:56 um and i i i
2:06:59 if you could explain that that would be
2:07:00 helpful
2:07:04 i think what um was intended to say with
2:07:07 what was put in the memo was
2:07:08 for those areas we have different zoning
2:07:10 compared to the other parts of the city
2:07:12 where we have the development agreements
2:07:14 that push forward a little bit higher
2:07:16 density and so with those black lengths
2:07:19 it adds to
2:07:20 what the intention was for adding
2:07:22 pedestrian activity
2:07:25 shorter block length so that you have
2:07:27 more walkability which is what was
2:07:30 asked for for those neighborhoods
2:07:32 and because we haven't gone through the
2:07:33 neighborhood planning process for the
2:07:34 others the other neighborhoods that's
2:07:37 why the commission didn't feel
2:07:38 comfortable
2:07:40 prescribing 250 feet for block length
2:07:43 for the other neighborhoods
2:07:47 does that answer your question
2:07:59 so longer block lengths are more
2:08:05 shorter block lengths are more
2:08:06 compatible with the existing
2:08:08 developments in these areas is sort of
2:08:10 what you're saying correct
2:08:18 yeah i mean i
2:08:19 i think sort of similar to the last one
2:08:22 for this block length issue that we do
2:08:25 want to have our newer
2:08:27 subdivisions with this more connected
2:08:30 pattern
2:08:32 i don't
2:08:34 i i think that one's the one that i have
2:08:36 more concern about the zero lot line i i
2:08:38 can get behind the recommendation of the
2:08:41 staff and the
2:08:42 um ppc i was also at that meeting where
2:08:45 they discussed and they had a good
2:08:47 discussion on it um
2:08:49 i think it's important that we allow it
2:08:52 um where there are these smaller lots
2:08:54 that could use this zero lot line form
2:08:57 of development which are in this the
2:09:00 family zones that have this
2:09:02 um these characteristics that are these
2:09:04 these areas plus this um
2:09:08 family zones that have a minimum
2:09:09 dwelling unit per acre i think
2:09:11 essentially those are all the
2:09:12 places in the city that would have these
2:09:14 smaller lots that would be likely to to
2:09:16 use this zero lot line um form of
2:09:19 development so i'm i'm fine with that
2:09:21 one the block length one um
2:09:26 yeah ask a question on that so
2:09:30 living in the highlands this is
2:09:32 absolutely essential i love block links
2:09:35 and being able to go in between but
2:09:38 that's only available if there's street
2:09:40 connectivity on either side of that unit
2:09:44 of housing is there a way that much like
2:09:47 with the zero lot line they added in you
2:09:50 know and also single family zones that
2:09:52 have a minimum of certain dwelling units
2:09:54 is there a way to
2:09:55 require that if there is a
2:09:58 certain level of like street density or
2:10:02 the ability to connect through to
2:10:04 something behind because like i know we
2:10:07 something that if you're building near a
2:10:09 park you're required to have
2:10:11 connectivity in that way
2:10:14 we can take a look at the draft language
2:10:16 to see what might make sense but for in
2:10:18 terms of the amount of street
2:10:19 connectivity it's not necessarily the
2:10:21 amount of streets that we're looking for
2:10:23 it's more of the activity of what the
2:10:25 land uses are in place and so um to your
2:10:29 point of having connectivity for parks
2:10:32 we want to look at what the is if
2:10:34 allowed commercial or allowed uh retail
2:10:37 uses nearby that would want a call for
2:10:41 higher pedestrian activity for those
2:10:43 three for either through block passages
2:10:45 or for the block lengths so you can
2:10:47 break it up a little bit more
2:10:51 and if i might add to that i think that
2:10:53 the difference between
2:10:55 requiring connections when a park exists
2:10:57 is that these
2:10:59 it could be that blocks short blocks
2:11:01 exist all by themselves for a while
2:11:04 until other short blocks
2:11:06 are developed over time so it's kind of
2:11:10 and that's why it's difficult to put
2:11:11 this in place in existing neighborhoods
2:11:14 because they already have a
2:11:16 established block pattern
2:11:19 really these block lengths come into
2:11:21 play when
2:11:23 pieces of undeveloped property are being
2:11:25 platted and there's an opportunity
2:11:27 to establish smaller blocks
2:11:34 so i'm trying to think of
2:11:36 situations where that would be the case
2:11:39 outside of central esqua and the
2:11:43 highlands and telus where we already
2:11:44 have the block links and central is why
2:11:47 i can see the concept of
2:11:50 you know you've got an area it
2:11:51 redevelops and you want to be able to go
2:11:53 through
2:11:55 i guess
2:11:56 just trying to think other areas of the
2:12:01 whether that would be important enough
2:12:03 in order to
2:12:06 really have a requirement on the
2:12:07 developer that changes how they can
2:12:09 develop on a property
2:12:13 i don't know thoughts
2:12:22 i mean
2:12:23 it doesn't it doesn't so it's a maximum
2:12:26 it doesn't stop you from if there are
2:12:28 connections you can't at least still
2:12:31 build the smaller blocks and use those
2:12:33 connections with the proposed
2:12:35 code as far as i understand it so it's
2:12:38 really just about allowing the
2:12:42 much larger block lengths in certain
2:12:44 neighborhoods and then i i
2:12:47 um i found what i was referring to last
2:12:50 time so
2:12:51 um the the con in the in our packet the
2:12:54 con of um
2:12:56 a maximum block length city-wide is said
2:12:59 to be
2:13:00 may not be possible to have maximum
2:13:02 block link in all areas due to lack of
2:13:03 connections which what you're talking
2:13:05 about due to lack of connections to
2:13:06 existing streets or there may be
2:13:07 topographic challenges
2:13:09 so lack of connections i get i think if
2:13:12 there are connections then that doesn't
2:13:13 actually that's not actually a con and
2:13:16 then uh i
2:13:18 like i said before i'm not sure about
2:13:20 topographic challenges
2:13:22 so i'm thinking of something like
2:13:24 kelkari um that's developing up on i
2:13:27 think it's squawk mountain where it's
2:13:29 into a hillside and while there is a
2:13:34 large amount of development there
2:13:36 there wouldn't necessarily be a reason
2:13:38 to require them to split up their
2:13:40 development and have through
2:13:43 areas because it just connects back into
2:13:46 the back of the hillside
2:13:48 so that's that from my perspective is
2:13:52 why it makes more sense in
2:13:55 already
2:13:56 walkable areas and areas that have the
2:13:59 street connectivity or something behind
2:14:02 the housing that you would want to get
2:14:12 is that that's right yes on the
2:14:14 topographic okay
2:14:16 um okay yeah
2:14:20 i guess this it doesn't prevent you if
2:14:22 you have a grid if you have a grid of
2:14:24 street connectivity somewhere else in
2:14:26 the city you still can build those
2:14:28 smaller blocks
2:14:30 because you're right it's a maximum if
2:14:32 somebody comes in and they have
2:14:35 some another street behind them that
2:14:37 they feel like it would be useful they
2:14:39 can always put it in they also might
2:14:41 find that it's useful if they had a
2:14:44 plaza requirement to do something like
2:14:46 that anyway
2:14:49 but in general
2:14:50 i think
2:14:52 it's really
2:14:54 it should be a requirement in those
2:14:56 areas as they redevelop and then
2:15:01 maybe other areas we really really work
2:15:03 with the developer and encourage it
2:15:10 [Music]
2:15:12 i think so i think for this one it would
2:15:15 be helpful to just look into the idea
2:15:18 you proposed about if there is this
2:15:19 existing
2:15:21 straight grid in the area if we could
2:15:25 because then it it's basically like that
2:15:28 that then it meets the same
2:15:31 intent of selecting central highland uh
2:15:34 central squat highlands and talus
2:15:37 so i think that would be interesting to
2:15:38 know if if
2:15:40 that is an option
2:15:42 but how do you quantify it
2:15:46 we're not the experts we just asked the
2:15:48 questions well and i i guess i would
2:15:51 have i mean
2:15:52 i was not a part of the ppc discussions
2:15:54 my guess is that this was
2:15:56 was uh sorted through with them too
2:15:59 this was and likely probably had a very
2:16:01 similar discussion on this committee's
2:16:02 having well they they didn't they
2:16:06 weren't trying to quantify
2:16:08 how to look at whether or not an
2:16:10 existing street grid is in place it was
2:16:12 primarily of these neighborhoods have
2:16:15 been further developed more so than the
2:16:17 other sub-areas of the city and so it
2:16:19 makes sense to maintain a lot of that
2:16:20 walkability from breaking up the block
2:16:22 links
2:16:25 i guess the administration's
2:16:27 recommendation is perhaps not to
2:16:29 go more complicated at this point
2:16:32 and we'll be happy to bring back
2:16:34 whatever you like but
2:16:36 yeah y'all are very creative people i
2:16:39 like hearing what you come up with
2:16:42 i think
2:16:43 we have
2:16:44 bits of code that already
2:16:46 require
2:16:48 connectivity to parks and trails
2:16:53 think if i remember correctly from the
2:16:55 code that those
2:16:56 require
2:16:58 director
2:17:00 the director is the person who says oh
2:17:03 look there's something that you need to
2:17:04 connect to there was also maybe a map
2:17:07 but i just wonder whether there's
2:17:09 something that we can look at on that
2:17:11 concept whether it indicates a way to
2:17:15 determine that
2:17:19 is this the last item before the
2:17:20 committee
2:17:21 yes it is
2:17:23 perhaps we bring this back
2:17:25 to our next meeting i just
2:17:27 my sense you've done
2:17:29 extraordinary work in the last nearly
2:17:31 two and a half hours uh
2:17:33 perhaps it would make sense and we can
2:17:34 take these comments back and
2:17:36 and perhaps have more to talk about but
2:17:38 let's bring this one
2:17:40 item back at
2:17:42 the next committee meeting
2:17:44 or the one after that
2:17:45 just to finish the discussion
2:17:47 and you could even bring the parking one
2:17:49 back with some of those questions if
2:17:53 makes sense but yeah
2:17:55 i i just think
2:17:59 you've been focused very i mean it's
2:18:01 been two and a half hours
2:18:05 we'll do what you like but my my
2:18:07 recommendation would be let's bring at
2:18:08 least this one back we'll have i think
2:18:11 stephen could take this back
2:18:12 to his colleagues uh certainly many will
2:18:14 be with us at the next meeting
2:18:16 that might be able to help resolve this
2:18:20 by may i'm sorry i would raise my hand
2:18:22 if i had my video the the section of
2:18:25 code where this block length
2:18:28 shows up is
2:18:30 a part that talks about
2:18:32 plating in general and it does
2:18:34 along with that block length requirement
2:18:36 it also says new street should be
2:18:38 connected and contiguous
2:18:40 to encourage compact and walkable
2:18:42 neighborhoods
2:18:44 um streets connect to existing street
2:18:46 stubs on adjacent properties so they
2:18:48 there is already some language in the in
2:18:51 the proposed code that talks to this
2:18:53 sort of
2:18:54 connection but we can provide more more
2:18:56 details
2:18:58 so council president if you're satisfied
2:19:00 with that then perhaps
2:19:02 that we go back to the ppc
2:19:03 recommendation
2:19:05 with that other language already there
2:19:07 yeah yeah i think that's that's helpful
2:19:09 that probably meets our intent um so
2:19:12 i'll be fine with that
2:19:14 great okay
2:19:19 last question on xero lotline
2:19:22 um i i watched the ppc i was actually
2:19:25 there for the ppc conversation and this
2:19:27 one um where they made this edition
2:19:29 about design characteristics the one
2:19:32 additional scenario in which it seems it
2:19:35 might be
2:19:36 useful for someone to use the zero lot
2:19:39 line form of development is if there
2:19:40 happened to be a smaller
2:19:43 uni a smaller
2:19:47 in one of the other areas
2:19:50 um and the the reason i
2:19:53 ask about this
2:19:54 is because i think the reasons against
2:19:56 the zero lot line and the other
2:19:58 neighbors one of them is that you have
2:19:59 this big building that's built all the
2:20:02 way out to the edges of your lot
2:20:05 so if you had a
2:20:06 size limit on the lot that seems like
2:20:09 that would be
2:20:11 that would be important to prevent that
2:20:14 particular concern but then the other
2:20:16 thing i'm trying to find it but the one
2:20:18 of the cons for
2:20:20 allowing citywide is also that
2:20:22 um you would have to
2:20:24 potentially be on the neighbor's
2:20:26 property to do
2:20:27 exterior walls etc it seems if it's a
2:20:29 small property and it's in one of these
2:20:30 other neighborhoods that have these
2:20:32 bigger lots you would still have that
2:20:34 space between the smaller lot and the
2:20:38 neighboring house so
2:20:40 i wondered
2:20:41 for those reasons and again we've we've
2:20:44 looked at this before ppc i thought had
2:20:45 a good conversation but just since this
2:20:48 is probably the last time we're going to
2:20:49 look at this and because i do think
2:20:51 allowing smaller buildings
2:20:54 smaller residential
2:20:57 is important we've seen that in our
2:21:00 housing
2:21:01 strategy that that the housing types are
2:21:04 bigger than what people would prefer
2:21:07 in terms of the housing stock versus
2:21:09 people's preference so i will just flag
2:21:11 that if there
2:21:13 has been and i i don't think that we
2:21:15 talked about that if there's some size
2:21:18 limit we could put on
2:21:19 um plots that would
2:21:21 have the zero lot line development if
2:21:23 they were outside of these areas
2:21:30 just to clarify so it's it's i for zero
2:21:33 lot line the recommendation is to go to
2:21:35 central highland styles but also
2:21:37 other single family zones that have a
2:21:39 minimum
2:21:40 7.2 so you're asking
2:21:42 can we expand it beyond
2:21:46 yeah well i i'm wondering if we could
2:21:48 expand it beyond that if if the lot is
2:21:51 small itself
2:21:56 and if no city ever does this then i
2:21:59 would understand but i did want to flag
2:22:01 it um
2:22:02 ppc had a good conversation and one of
2:22:05 the ppc
2:22:08 commissioners talked about you know the
2:22:10 importance of this kind of development
2:22:12 and i agree i think we should allow it
2:22:14 especially where it's appropriate this
2:22:15 seems like one potential other use where
2:22:17 it could be appropriate
2:22:19 well now you've triggered two questions
2:22:21 for me
2:22:25 one of the ways you might be able to
2:22:27 have an adu in a backyard is
2:22:30 if you've got a smaller lot is to be
2:22:32 able to use a zero lot line is that
2:22:34 considered and then also if you have a
2:22:38 property that has a critical area
2:22:40 i think you're already allowed to kind
2:22:43 of move toward
2:22:45 the edge of your lot but i was just
2:22:47 thinking about that might be a useful
2:22:50 way that you would want to use a zero
2:22:51 lot line in order to keep the critical
2:22:53 area from being built in
2:22:56 i might have to ask katie if she can
2:22:58 remind me what was proposed on
2:23:01 subdivisions
2:23:05 well off the top of my head um
2:23:07 i think that
2:23:10 from your question it sounded like you
2:23:13 it was an it would be an option
2:23:16 to use your lot line
2:23:17 if it was you know
2:23:19 making it more possible to avoid a
2:23:21 critical area or using it or putting an
2:23:23 abu but the the ability to
2:23:27 have a zero lot line would be based on
2:23:29 the zone
2:23:30 so it would be you know specific to
2:23:34 in in this condition we're seeing
2:23:36 single-family zones
2:23:38 um that have a certain number of dens of
2:23:41 dwellings per acre so
2:23:44 if it's part of the the law and
2:23:46 dimensional standards then yes you could
2:23:49 use it
2:23:50 you could put put anything that was
2:23:52 approved in that zero lot line but i
2:23:54 think um
2:23:56 again we're talking about new lots
2:23:59 not retrofitting old lots
2:24:06 it i just would be concerned if um
2:24:10 if folks were thinking that
2:24:12 a zero lot line could be used in a
2:24:14 situation where
2:24:16 the whole community hadn't been
2:24:17 established with that same rule because
2:24:19 it could result in buildings being too
2:24:21 close together for example
2:24:23 um but in a in a community where it was
2:24:25 established from the plating
2:24:27 that zero lot lines were allowed yes it
2:24:30 would be probably allowed if the zoning
2:24:33 if it was in the zoning code for adus to
2:24:36 on the on the lot line or for homes to
2:24:40 on the lot line in order to avoid
2:24:42 critical areas
2:24:45 yeah no you just reminded me this is
2:24:48 about planning um so that totally makes
2:24:51 sense um
2:24:52 and i'm feeling pretty good about that
2:25:00 okay but um
2:25:02 i mean the adu was another with another
2:25:04 one so you can't then build an adu in
2:25:07 one of these other neighborhoods using
2:25:09 the zero plotline
2:25:12 form i mean that's that's the
2:25:13 implication i believe
2:25:17 that's what i was saying yes
2:25:20 but i
2:25:22 is this zero lot line code portion just
2:25:26 related to
2:25:27 planning new subdivisions or is it
2:25:30 related to
2:25:33 the ability to
2:25:35 build just an individual home
2:25:39 this is specific to the subdivision
2:25:41 section
2:25:44 so if we were looking at whether you can
2:25:46 build an adu on your current property
2:25:49 that wouldn't be related to this
2:25:51 conversation that would be related to
2:25:54 what are the setback requirements for
2:25:56 adus that's correct yeah okay
2:26:00 so that's something i'm gonna have to
2:26:01 look up elsewhere
2:26:04 yeah because this is just about like if
2:26:05 you have
2:26:06 a property or a set of properties you're
2:26:08 trying to figure out what are the
2:26:09 through lanes and can they build to the
2:26:14 when you're kind of establishing what
2:26:15 that neighborhood is
2:26:21 but if you have a small lot somewhere
2:26:23 else in the city doesn't the
2:26:26 zero lot line
2:26:28 provisions apply to
2:26:30 that as or
2:26:31 if you have a small lot in a
2:26:33 neighborhood that isn't one of these
2:26:35 neighborhoods
2:26:36 you wouldn't be able to build a zero
2:26:39 line form house on it if it was a vacant
2:26:41 lot i realized not
2:26:43 a lot of them
2:26:45 but i think that's the case
2:26:50 i think that that's what we're saying um
2:26:53 the exception would be if i think the
2:26:56 more appropriate step if you wanted to
2:26:58 allow zero lot line development in an
2:27:00 existing neighborhood it would be a
2:27:03 rezone process
2:27:07 which
2:27:08 would reestablish the
2:27:12 foreman intensity standards for that
2:27:14 established neighborhood
2:27:16 otherwise i think we would be creating a
2:27:18 lot of non-conforming use situations
2:27:22 or at least the potential for conflicts
2:27:24 so if a
2:27:26 if a property is subdividing
2:27:29 and it's surrounded by other established
2:27:31 development
2:27:32 um and it wants to be a zero lot lane we
2:27:34 would need to look closely
2:27:36 at the adjacent properties to make sure
2:27:39 that this new additional
2:27:42 this new established
2:27:44 zero lot line community wouldn't create
2:27:46 conflicts
2:27:47 mostly for building separation
2:27:54 okay um
2:27:57 i think i think i'm fine proceeding i
2:27:59 think we can look up the adu
2:28:02 ramifications
2:28:03 um or if staff is able to provide that
2:28:07 that would also be helpful but um i
2:28:09 think we've come to a
2:28:12 understanding of this so we can proceed
2:28:15 keep the ppc recommendation
2:28:19 um yeah i think that's what we've
2:28:21 decided and this loops back to one of my
2:28:23 original comments which is i think that
2:28:25 almost all uses for
2:28:28 where you would want to build where
2:28:30 anyone would want to build this zero lot
2:28:32 line form a building which is just a
2:28:34 building that
2:28:36 goes out to the lot line
2:28:38 would be in these neighborhoods so
2:28:40 there's just these other
2:28:42 sort of
2:28:43 edge cases that i wanted to
2:28:46 ask about
2:28:47 i think we've covered it
2:28:53 yes that's everything thank you
2:28:58 so um this one is part of our continuing
2:29:01 title 18 conversation so i don't believe
2:29:07 i don't believe that we have a
2:29:08 make a recommendation i'll report back
2:29:10 to council on what we
2:29:12 discussed but don't believe we have a
2:29:14 recommendation
2:29:15 um and the only one that i noted that i
2:29:18 had a difference of opinion although i i
2:29:21 would be fine especially given that it's
2:29:24 administration's recommendation is on
2:29:25 that transparency um i would be
2:29:29 i would be fine with
2:29:32 regulating that um but the
2:29:33 recommendation and your
2:29:36 preference was to go with the staff
2:29:38 recommendations so i will also be fine
2:29:41 with that um so i think then we
2:29:44 have no further business does the
2:29:46 administration have what you need from
2:29:48 this conversation
2:29:52 um i believe we have announcements any
2:29:55 announcements
2:29:57 no okay then we returned at 9 00 p.m
2:30:00 thank you everyone