City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, June 10, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 6, 2024

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-06-24 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes

Minutes of May 6, 2025

packet pp.7–8

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 05-06-25 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. May 6, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

2025 Title 18 Policy Amendments COM 0108

45 min · Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.9–118

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 22, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:18 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

In 2023, the city adopted a major update to Title 18, Land Use Code, with the intent of modernizing the regulations, simplifying the language and unifying a complex set of codes. As with all major projects, the city is committed to quality control, best practices, and conducting an annual review of issues found by staff and the public through implementation of the new code.

1218 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ All right, welcome everyone. I'm Council

0:09 ↗ Member Zach Hall and I'm calling the

0:10 ↗ June 10th City Council Planning,

0:13 ↗ Development, and Environment Committee

0:15 ↗ to order at 6:30 p.m. I'm joined by

0:17 ↗ Council President Walsh and Council

0:18 ↗ Member Jen. Um, really quickly to run

0:20 ↗ through the agenda, we'll take public

0:23 ↗ comment right up top. approval of two

0:26 ↗ separate minutes from previous meetings

0:28 ↗ and then our only item on the agenda is

0:30 ↗ uh comm 0108 the 2018 or 2018 2025 title

0:34 ↗ 18 policy amendments. Um and then we'll

0:38 ↗ do some quick announcements. So we will

0:41 ↗ now move into the first item on our

0:43 ↗ agenda which is public comment. And

0:45 ↗ before I go into the public comment

0:47 ↗ script I don't see anyone in the

0:48 ↗ audience um from the public. I just want

0:50 ↗ to check if there's anyone online with

0:52 ↗ us from the public.

0:54 ↗ Uh, Chair Hall, we do have a member of

0:56 ↗ the public online with us tonight.

0:59 ↗ Fantastic. Um,

1:02 ↗ real quickly, I will say that there are

1:04 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

1:06 ↗ tonight's meeting. There's a, like I

1:08 ↗ said, there's a general public comment

1:09 ↗ opportunity now at the top of the

1:11 ↗ meeting and um, or you can wait to make

1:14 ↗ your comments after the presentation and

1:16 ↗ the council question and answer period

1:18 ↗ on tonight's one agenda item. Uh if you

1:21 ↗ signed up advance uh in advance, you'll

1:22 ↗ be called on first. And if you're

1:24 ↗ joining us virtually, and it looks like

1:26 ↗ you are, um and you want to make

1:28 ↗ comments, you please raise your virtual

1:30 ↗ hand, you can do that by if you're on

1:31 ↗ the phone, pressing star three, or if

1:33 ↗ you're on your computer or smartphone,

1:34 ↗ look for that hand icon, which varies by

1:37 ↗ device, but look at the participant

1:39 ↗ panel and choose the raise hand icon in

1:41 ↗ the lower right hand corner. Um, and

1:44 ↗ then if anyone happens to walk into the

1:45 ↗ room, um, I'll be sure to ask them as

1:48 ↗ well if they'd like to participate in

1:49 ↗ public comment here at the top. So,

1:51 ↗ we'll just wait a quick moment to see

1:52 ↗ if, um, our participant online would

1:55 ↗ like to provide public comment. Again,

1:56 ↗ raise your hand if you would like to.

2:05 ↗ All right. Um well again there's another

2:08 ↗ opportunity later in the meeting to

2:09 ↗ provide com public comment if you'd like

2:11 ↗ to but as a reminder um written comments

2:15 ↗ are always welcome and you can email us

2:16 ↗ at any time at city council atisqua.gov.

2:19 ↗ So we will now move on to the next item

2:22 ↗ of our agenda which is approval of both

2:25 ↗ the November 6, 2024 and May 6, 2025

2:29 ↗ meeting minutes which were distributed

2:31 ↗ in advance. So I'll ask members of the

2:33 ↗ committee if you had any corrections

2:36 ↗ um or if not if you're okay approving

2:38 ↗ the minutes by unanimous consent. Okay.

2:42 ↗ So no objections. So the November 6th

2:45 ↗ actually I'll turn to the clerk really

2:46 ↗ quick. Is it okay to take action by

2:48 ↗ unanimous consent on both meeting

2:50 ↗ minutes or do we need to do it

2:51 ↗ separately? Yes it is chair. Okay

2:52 ↗ perfect you can do that. Then hearing

2:54 ↗ none, both the November 6, 2024 and May

2:57 ↗ 6, 2025 meeting minutes are approved as

2:59 ↗ presented. And we'll move into our next

3:01 ↗ item on the agenda, which is COM 0108,

3:04 ↗ the 2025 Title 18 policy amendments,

3:07 ↗ brought to us by acting planning manager

3:10 ↗ Kristen Leon. Take it away.

3:23 ↗ There we go. Good evening. Yes, I am

3:24 ↗ Kristen Leon, acting planning manager

3:26 ↗ for uh community planning and

3:28 ↗ development department.

3:30 ↗ Uh tonight we are looking for two things

3:32 ↗ from you all. One is are the proposed

3:34 ↗ changes clear or do they need some

3:37 ↗ additional changes and does the

3:40 ↗ committee move recommend moving these

3:41 ↗ forward to the June 23rd council meeting

3:43 ↗ for action?

3:46 ↗ So we're doing this because it is about

3:48 ↗ quality control. So, as you know, we

3:51 ↗ updated our title 18 a complete overhaul

3:55 ↗ which included combining several

3:56 ↗ different documents and about 580 pages.

4:00 ↗ Um, and in doing that, you are bound to

4:02 ↗ come across some mistakes. Uh, people

4:06 ↗ from the public or development will

4:07 ↗ point out to you things that they think

4:09 ↗ could work better and the state provides

4:12 ↗ changes for us as well. So, we came to

4:15 ↗ you with clarifying amendments earlier

4:17 ↗ in the year, and tonight we're doing

4:19 ↗ what we're calling policy amendments,

4:21 ↗ but we've broken them up into three

4:22 ↗ different categories. We have minor,

4:24 ↗ which are still sort of clarifying

4:26 ↗ amendments, which just need to be taken

4:27 ↗ care of. State required amendments

4:29 ↗ because once the state legislature

4:31 ↗ finished, there were quite a few things

4:32 ↗ that we needed to do by June or by the

4:35 ↗ end of this year. And then policy

4:37 ↗ amendments as well, things that were

4:39 ↗ identified by staff that needed to be

4:41 ↗ changed.

4:42 ↗ So I'm going to start with the minor

4:44 ↗ amendments first. We have adult family

4:46 ↗ homes and daycare centers. So this was

4:48 ↗ confusing because they are allowed by

4:50 ↗ right in single in residential zones,

4:53 ↗ all residential zones. Yet they were

4:55 ↗ still being required to get a home

4:56 ↗ occupation permit which makes no sense.

4:58 ↗ So we removed them from home

5:00 ↗ occupations. We clarified daycare

5:02 ↗ centers versus family care centers. We

5:04 ↗ created their own section. They were

5:06 ↗ both in residential and commercial, but

5:08 ↗ because they can go in both, we created

5:10 ↗ an own section for them. 18 uh.522 and

5:13 ↗ just tried to clean all of that up.

5:16 ↗ Next, we have legislative action

5:18 ↗ exemptions. We had some unnecessary

5:20 ↗ steps that were being taken in when a

5:23 ↗ developer comes in, they submit an

5:25 ↗ application and we're required to send

5:26 ↗ out notification to all property owners

5:28 ↗ within 500 ft. Well, to do legislative

5:32 ↗ amendments, there is no notice. So, we

5:34 ↗ there's we don't send them out. And we,

5:36 ↗ you know, we do public hearing notices

5:38 ↗ everywhere, not just within 500 ft. So,

5:39 ↗ we decided that those are exempt from

5:41 ↗ those processes.

5:44 ↗ Land use permit extensions. It was in

5:46 ↗ the code already, but it wasn't clear

5:48 ↗ that um the expiration time for the land

5:52 ↗ use permit applies to the building

5:53 ↗ permit. So, we just put that in there to

5:55 ↗ clarify. Um you know, the land use

5:58 ↗ permit and then when the building permit

5:59 ↗ time time frame takes over, we tried to

6:01 ↗ fix that. It's unclear. Um table of

6:04 ↗ permitted uses. We actually had uses

6:06 ↗ that were omitted during the update. We

6:08 ↗ also had uses that we discovered were um

6:11 ↗ added in different zones through the

6:13 ↗ update, but you see all those little

6:14 ↗ squares. They were just put in the wrong

6:16 ↗ ones. And so we just fixed that to clean

6:18 ↗ it up to match what was done in title

6:20 ↗ 18. Our intent with title 18 was not to

6:22 ↗ change any of the any of the existing

6:23 ↗ uses. So we took it back to what it was.

6:27 ↗ Parking corrections. We had accidentally

6:29 ↗ omitted senior and assisted parking

6:31 ↗ during the title 18 update. And so we

6:32 ↗ added those two uses back in and then we

6:35 ↗ based their ratios on the new city

6:37 ↗ standards that had been established

6:38 ↗ during the update. Additional height

6:42 ↗ applicability. Um there was it was

6:45 ↗ misinterpreted in the new code. It was

6:47 ↗ so to go above the base height there are

6:50 ↗ requirements that you must meet in order

6:51 ↗ to do that.

6:53 ↗ It only apply it did not apply to

6:55 ↗ central Isiqua. So we won applicability.

6:58 ↗ We added that that applies. We clarified

7:01 ↗ which zones those apply to. They also

7:04 ↗ stated that you couldn't go more than,

7:06 ↗ you know, if you're going to go 65 feet

7:08 ↗ above the base height. Well, if your

7:11 ↗ base height's 40 ft, we don't want you

7:13 ↗ going up to 105 ft in a medium family

7:15 ↗ residential zone. So, we corrected that

7:17 ↗ as well. Um, central in isqua

7:21 ↗ development bonus program, the primary

7:24 ↗ reason for that program is to get

7:25 ↗ affordable housing within central

7:27 ↗ Isiqua. yet fee and loo the fact that

7:30 ↗ you could use the fee and loo funds for

7:32 ↗ affordable housing was left out of the

7:34 ↗ update. So we added that back in and we

7:36 ↗ also took out the staff respon

7:38 ↗ responsibility for approval of

7:40 ↗ expenditures for funding because when

7:43 ↗ you get up to you know that amount of

7:45 ↗ money that is up to the city council.

7:48 ↗ So electrical veh vehicle standards our

7:51 ↗ table was out of date with the building

7:52 ↗ code so we removed it and replacement of

7:56 ↗ omitted footnotes. What we tried to do

7:57 ↗ in the update was take we had I think 24

8:00 ↗ footnotes underneath the permitted uses

8:02 ↗ table and we took all of those and we

8:05 ↗ thought we had taken all of them and put

8:07 ↗ them in as regulations in various places

8:09 ↗ in the code. Well, it turns out we left

8:11 ↗ some out having to do mostly with office

8:13 ↗ uses in residential zones, both multif

8:15 ↗ family and single family. So we again we

8:18 ↗ created a new section just for office

8:20 ↗ uses in residential zones and put those

8:22 ↗ requirements there.

8:25 ↗ Is it okay if I move on or do you want

8:27 ↗ to ask any questions about the

8:29 ↗ clarifications? Move on. Okay.

8:33 ↗ Moving on to state required amendments.

8:36 ↗ The first one is the state requirement

8:39 ↗ to allow for commercial and mixeduse

8:42 ↗ buildings to be converted to multif

8:44 ↗ family within the existing structure.

8:48 ↗ And there are some things that

8:51 ↗ came with that. And then a parking. We

8:53 ↗ can require the attent retention of

8:56 ↗ existing parking. We can also allow the

8:59 ↗ non-conforming parking to remain. We

9:02 ↗ cannot require more parking that would

9:04 ↗ typically be needed to meet whatever is

9:06 ↗ there. Concurrent. They are exempt from

9:08 ↗ concurrency.

9:10 ↗ They are exempt from density. And if

9:11 ↗ you're in a zone where they allow 14

9:13 ↗ dwelling units per acre, they can

9:15 ↗ actually go 50% over that. they can now

9:17 ↗ allow they can now find a way to fit 21

9:19 ↗ units per acre into that existing

9:21 ↗ structure. And then they're also exempt

9:24 ↗ from design standards. So whereas and

9:27 ↗ we'll talk about later, we currently

9:29 ↗ require that you put balconies on

9:32 ↗ individual units, we cannot require them

9:34 ↗ to do that. That's just an example.

9:38 ↗ Residential parking configurations and

9:40 ↗ electric vehicle charging

9:41 ↗ infrastructure. There were numerous

9:44 ↗ updates in the Washington Administrative

9:46 ↗ Code. Some included new EV standards,

9:50 ↗ language for different types of uses, so

9:53 ↗ such as uh the conversions, middle

9:57 ↗ housing co-living

10:00 ↗ um updated accessible parking standards,

10:02 ↗ removed. We are no longer allowed to

10:05 ↗ require structured parking in multif

10:07 ↗ family buildings. So, we took that out.

10:10 ↗ We now we now allow grass pop grass

10:14 ↗ block pavers as pvious surface and

10:17 ↗ there's a tree retention exemption. So

10:18 ↗ if you have a choice between having to

10:21 ↗ meet your parking code regulations and

10:22 ↗ your tree retention regulations, tree

10:24 ↗ retention regulations win and you may

10:26 ↗ not get all the parking that you would

10:28 ↗ typically require.

10:32 ↗ Last state required amendment is

10:33 ↗ co-living which requires a hospital bill

10:36 ↗ of 1998 requires cities to allow

10:38 ↗ co-living housing in all zones that

10:40 ↗ allow residential uses including

10:42 ↗ mixeduse zones. So we added def

10:44 ↗ definition of co-l livingiving which

10:46 ↗ also includes single room occupancies.

10:49 ↗ There was also an exemption for parking

10:51 ↗ um that they we cannot require parking

10:54 ↗ within half a mile of a transit center

10:55 ↗ and we can only allow a quarter of a

10:58 ↗ space per unit which means per room per

11:02 ↗ that's in there. And then I have an

11:05 ↗ asterisk by this one because when I was

11:07 ↗ talking with commerce they said where

11:08 ↗ are all the state requirements? I said

11:10 ↗ we usually refer to those just by

11:12 ↗ reference and say CRCW this so that we

11:14 ↗ don't have to change every time they

11:15 ↗ change but they really wanted them in

11:17 ↗ there. So, we just added the state

11:19 ↗ requirements in there. And that's one

11:21 ↗ thing that has changed since the public

11:22 ↗ hearing, but because it's something we

11:24 ↗ can't argue with, um, we went ahead and

11:26 ↗ put it in there. All right. Would you

11:29 ↗ like me to go on or questions? Okay.

11:33 ↗ Policy amendments. The first one was

11:34 ↗ wayfinding. We had a standard that said

11:37 ↗ you have to put in wayfinding, but we

11:38 ↗ didn't have any details to go along with

11:40 ↗ it. So, we included

11:42 ↗ specifics on what and where and how.

11:45 ↗ heat bump and mechanical equipment

11:47 ↗ setbacks. We'd gotten complaints about

11:50 ↗ noise levels and so we've fixed that.

11:54 ↗ We're different. We're not urban. Our

11:55 ↗ standards were for more um sorry, we are

11:58 ↗ urban. Our standards for more rural

12:00 ↗ areas and our decibel levels were too

12:02 ↗ high. People couldn't meet those and so

12:04 ↗ we lowered the decimal

12:06 ↗ level and we gave mitigating measures.

12:09 ↗ So, if you can't fully meet that just in

12:11 ↗ the with the mechanical equipment by

12:12 ↗ itself, then you can screen it with

12:14 ↗ shrubbery or fencing or placing it

12:17 ↗ further away or closer to the house than

12:19 ↗ it's supposed to be or put it in quiet

12:21 ↗ mode if that's available. Um, rooster

12:24 ↗ and chicken husbandry.

12:26 ↗ Yes. Just a quick question. How do we um

12:30 ↗ how do we enforce decel levels? Is that

12:32 ↗ something done by the city level or or

12:34 ↗ how does that inspector how does that

12:36 ↗ happen on the ground level? Sure. in

12:38 ↗ terms of the um this is mini delual. Um

12:42 ↗ just for the record um so

12:45 ↗ the way the the heat pump um permits are

12:49 ↗ issued they're on online you know

12:52 ↗ there's no review required per se

12:53 ↗ because it's just um verification of it

12:56 ↗ in the field but before they apply we

12:59 ↗ kind of give them here's what you need

13:01 ↗ to meet uh as part of the application

13:03 ↗ process. So um they have to provide

13:07 ↗ their specifications to the inspector

13:10 ↗ out in the field that shows what their

13:12 ↗ decibel levels are. The measurement of

13:14 ↗ decibel levels is is complex. Uh so if

13:18 ↗ we get complaints from someone, you

13:20 ↗ know, we would probably need an noise

13:22 ↗ expert to go because there's ambient

13:24 ↗ noise levels. If an airplane is flying

13:26 ↗ by, what does that do to your noise

13:28 ↗ level versus a freeway going by? So you

13:31 ↗ really have to account for a lot of

13:32 ↗ those things to say if there's a

13:34 ↗ violation of the noise code or not. Um

13:37 ↗ in this case um in the case of the um

13:41 ↗ heat pumps um some of the HOAs that we

13:45 ↗ talked to uh you know Talis being one

13:47 ↗ and Highlands being one uh they

13:49 ↗ indicated that uh Talis in particular

13:52 ↗ had done a lot of work and they said

13:54 ↗ DBAs are kind of difficult and so we

13:56 ↗ just use this um institute of heating

13:59 ↗ and refrigeration institute has a 270 uh

14:04 ↗ you know standard. So I think our code

14:05 ↗ language kind of reflects some of that

14:08 ↗ that you know you either meet this or

14:09 ↗ you meet that that kind of a thing but

14:12 ↗ it it's almost equal to about 73 dB

14:15 ↗ whereas the the state law that we were

14:17 ↗ in compliance with before was 55 decel

14:21 ↗ levels in residential areas. So we asked

14:24 ↗ ecology who creates these state law to

14:28 ↗ see if they could just you know how how

14:30 ↗ are they doing it for other cities and

14:31 ↗ could they just change it at the state

14:33 ↗ level so each of these cities doesn't

14:35 ↗ have to do it because people were

14:37 ↗ struggling unlike you know other cities

14:39 ↗ Seattle came up with a very elaborate

14:41 ↗ table where they calculate the based on

14:44 ↗ distance and square someone you know we

14:46 ↗ were using that for a little while but

14:48 ↗ again it it it becomes more complex than

14:51 ↗ what it's uh the end intended outcome

14:53 ↗ is. So, ecology didn't have the

14:56 ↗ bandwidth to deal with this and but the

14:59 ↗ state law also required that we give

15:01 ↗ them um 90-day notice. So, that's why

15:04 ↗ this got, you know, um attached this

15:07 ↗ time around, not the first time around

15:09 ↗ uh in the iteration. But to answer your

15:11 ↗ question, how do we measure it? We get

15:13 ↗ their specifications that show their

15:15 ↗ decibel levels as part of the permit

15:17 ↗ process. And then if a complaint comes

15:19 ↗ in, it's too noisy. At that point, we

15:21 ↗ can go out with a noise meter reader.

15:24 ↗ Um, we do have one. The city has one.

15:27 ↗ However, it can be debatable. And so

15:30 ↗ then we would hire an acoustical

15:32 ↗ engineer to actually take the readings

15:34 ↗ if it became an issue. Okay.

15:37 ↗ Fascinating. Interesting. Thank you very

15:38 ↗ much. Uh, any other questions from

15:40 ↗ committee? All right. Feel free. All

15:42 ↗ right. Thank you. Back to roosters and

15:45 ↗ chickens. Um, we had fairly specific

15:49 ↗ code in or regulations in our previous

15:52 ↗ code and when we updated we just said

15:55 ↗ let's use the county code but the county

15:56 ↗ code is intended for more rural areas

15:59 ↗ than Isiqua has. So we added things

16:02 ↗ about the age of roosters because

16:04 ↗ apparently once you know they hit a

16:06 ↗ certain age their voices change and they

16:07 ↗ get a lot louder. um the minimum size of

16:10 ↗ lots on where you could have uh roosters

16:13 ↗ and then the size and distance of

16:14 ↗ dwelling shelters from property lines

16:16 ↗ and running spaces where they can run

16:19 ↗ and so forth. A similar thing with bees

16:22 ↗ and beekeeping. We again switched over

16:25 ↗ to the county code said nope too rural

16:27 ↗ for us. We're more of an urban

16:29 ↗ environment and so we reestablished our

16:31 ↗ previous codes that we had in place.

16:34 ↗ clarified it a little bit. Uh defined

16:36 ↗ nuisance again for noise and then we

16:40 ↗ improved enforcability

16:43 ↗ which no I should say those things will

16:45 ↗ improve enforceability. And then last

16:47 ↗ but not least we have common and private

16:49 ↗ amenity space. We have received some

16:52 ↗ concerns from developers that the amount

16:55 ↗ of private and common amenity space that

16:57 ↗ we require is very difficult to do in

17:00 ↗ this climate. And what we currently

17:02 ↗ require is for each unit in a multif

17:05 ↗ family home or multif family complex

17:07 ↗ that each unit has 100 square ft of

17:10 ↗ common amenity space. It can be indoor

17:12 ↗ or outdoor plus an additional 48 square

17:15 ↗ ft of amenity space outdoor amenity

17:18 ↗ space attached to their unit and they

17:21 ↗ say that that's difficult. So we have

17:23 ↗ proposed a deviation that each unit is

17:27 ↗ still required to have 148 square ft but

17:30 ↗ this can some of this can just all be

17:32 ↗ put into common space. 50% of the units

17:35 ↗ still have to have 48 ft attached to

17:38 ↗ their unit. Um but the other 50% of the

17:42 ↗ units they can just throw all of that

17:44 ↗ 148 square feet into the various amenity

17:46 ↗ spaces indoor and outdoor. So prop

17:52 ↗ But the prop right so the proposal is

17:55 ↗ that all 148 square feet all 148 square

17:59 ↗ feet could be combined um and into the

18:02 ↗ indoor and outdoor amenity space rather

18:04 ↗ than having all you know 48 ft attached

18:06 ↗ to each unit. Yeah, just to clarify it's

18:09 ↗ all outdoor um common open space is

18:11 ↗ outdoor and the balconies are also

18:14 ↗ outdoor. Uh there's a separate

18:17 ↗ requirement I believe for 400 square ft

18:19 ↗ for dwelling units over 22 units that

18:22 ↗ can be indoor. That's above and beyond

18:24 ↗ the 148. I apologize. Yeah. Thank you.

18:29 ↗ All right. Um we have a question here if

18:30 ↗ that's okay. Council President, why did

18:33 ↗ we consider using a deviation rather

18:35 ↗ than just changing the code? If we're

18:38 ↗ hearing from developers that this is too

18:40 ↗ expensive and it's preventing housing,

18:43 ↗ doesn't making it a deviation mean that

18:46 ↗ somebody has to know they can get a

18:48 ↗ deviation, decide that they think

18:50 ↗ they're going to get it

18:53 ↗ before buying the property. Like,

18:55 ↗ wouldn't that cause a problem? I think

18:57 ↗ first they need to prove to us that that

18:59 ↗ they really can't do it, that it's not

19:01 ↗ feasible because our preference is to

19:02 ↗ have 48 ft attached to each unit. So

19:05 ↗ first they would need to show us that it

19:07 ↗ is infeasible for them really to be able

19:09 ↗ to do this and if they can't then this

19:10 ↗ is another option.

19:12 ↗ And how do we define infeasible? Do we

19:15 ↗ define it as it physically can't work or

19:19 ↗ it monetarily can't work? Monetarily.

19:22 ↗ Okay.

19:24 ↗ Okay.

19:26 ↗ They've they've also said in some cases

19:28 ↗ part of this it came up at planning

19:29 ↗ policy commission is that some

19:31 ↗ developers say that it's too difficult.

19:32 ↗ it becomes infeasible financially

19:34 ↗ because they it requires extra sealants.

19:37 ↗ Um water can get in there that kind of

19:38 ↗ thing. So it is it can be a little bit

19:40 ↗ more expensive.

19:43 ↗ I have a couple questions on this item

19:45 ↗ too. So the

19:48 ↗ public comment that we received referred

19:50 ↗ to previous code that was just 48 square

19:54 ↗ ft. Is that right? So how was that what

19:56 ↗ was the mix breakdown of that? Was that

19:57 ↗ all private amenity space or was that

20:00 ↗ also have some element of common amenity

20:02 ↗ space to that? Do you remember the old

20:04 ↗ Yeah, under the that was only for

20:05 ↗ central Isiqua um areas um 48 could be

20:10 ↗ indoor uh could be private or common.

20:12 ↗ People had the option to do one or the

20:14 ↗ other. They could choose to put it all

20:16 ↗ in a common space or they could do

20:18 ↗ balconies for each one. Okay. 6 by8

20:21 ↗ balcony for for each one would get them

20:23 ↗ there or they would count the number of

20:25 ↗ units multiply by 48 and provide one

20:27 ↗ common open space. Okay. Thank you. Um

20:32 ↗ and then you know we did talk a little

20:33 ↗ bit about this when we were talking

20:34 ↗ about the TOD a few weeks ago right the

20:37 ↗ project. And I can't remember exact I

20:39 ↗ mean we ended up in a very similar if

20:41 ↗ not the exact same deviation process

20:43 ↗ here which I'm sure has is the reason

20:45 ↗ why we have it as a policy amendment

20:46 ↗ here today. We had also talked about um

20:50 ↗ kind of framing up a community

20:52 ↗ conversation because it seemed like a

20:53 ↗ number of us on council were interested

20:54 ↗ in revisiting the code in the

20:56 ↗ requirement itself. Can you can you

20:59 ↗ remind me kind of where we fell out in

21:01 ↗ that conversation or where we ended up

21:03 ↗ in that conversation and if staff took

21:05 ↗ any particular direction there? Yeah,

21:07 ↗ for the uh to project uh what they're

21:11 ↗ asking for is to get get what's in the

21:13 ↗ code here. So combine let developers

21:16 ↗ combine them the two spaces and provided

21:19 ↗ it's one common open space. Uh so for

21:22 ↗ their affordable building they didn't

21:24 ↗ have any balconies and everything 148

21:27 ↗ per unit is is all in a common space. uh

21:30 ↗ for the market rate they had they have

21:32 ↗ some balconies but um not not each unit

21:35 ↗ has a balcony but we don't know the

21:37 ↗ percentage at you know at this point um

21:40 ↗ for because I think the proposed code is

21:43 ↗ at least 50% still have to have have a

21:45 ↗ balcony.

21:48 ↗ Okay. Yeah. And I only asked that

21:49 ↗ because I know right I'm pretty sure we

21:52 ↗ had a a bit of a conversation up on the

21:53 ↗ day too about us just wanting to revisit

21:57 ↗ the requirement at all in the first

21:58 ↗ place and whether or not this is the

22:00 ↗ right mix and if whether 148 was the

22:02 ↗ right number but I think we settled with

22:05 ↗ yes that's a good conversation to have

22:06 ↗ in the future where we can involve the

22:08 ↗ community and I was just wondering if if

22:10 ↗ staff had taken any direction for that

22:12 ↗ or added it to a particular list of

22:13 ↗ things to consider or if that's

22:15 ↗ something we should talk about up here

22:16 ↗ tonight. We can you can we can continue

22:18 ↗ to add that to the future discussions

22:21 ↗ for this iteration of the code that's in

22:24 ↗ front of us. We did do an informal look

22:26 ↗ at the other cities initially when we

22:28 ↗ had recommended um you know

22:30 ↗ administration's recommendation at that

22:32 ↗ time uh during title 18 update was 100

22:34 ↗ square feet per unit. Um but through the

22:37 ↗ community process with the discussion

22:38 ↗ with the boards and commissions um

22:41 ↗ hundred remained but in addition this

22:43 ↗ balcony requirement was added back in

22:46 ↗ the code through the through that public

22:48 ↗ conversation with the boards and

22:49 ↗ commissions. Uh so that that's what

22:51 ↗ council adopted as part of the title 18

22:53 ↗ update was the 148 148 for the for the

22:58 ↗ balconies.

23:00 ↗ Okay. Any other questions on that

23:02 ↗ particular?

23:04 ↗ No. All right. Um, feel free to move on.

23:11 ↗ Next steps. This would, if you all

23:14 ↗ choose to move this forward, this would

23:16 ↗ go to council for action on June 23rd.

23:21 ↗ And that's what I have. We recommend

23:22 ↗ moving it forward to June 23rd as

23:25 ↗ presented.

23:28 ↗ And again a reminder the direction

23:29 ↗ needed is are these changes clear clear

23:31 ↗ and reasonable or do they need

23:33 ↗ additional changes and do you all

23:35 ↗ recommend moving it forward?

23:38 ↗ That's all I have.

23:40 ↗ All right. Thank you very much for all

23:42 ↗ the work that's gone into that. I

23:43 ↗ appreciate it. Um open it up for

23:45 ↗ questions from the committee. We've had

23:47 ↗ a chance to ask some of them, but any

23:48 ↗ other kind of lingering questions on

23:50 ↗ people's minds?

23:56 ↗ Yeah, council member J. This is a kind

23:58 ↗ of going back to what we were talking

23:59 ↗ about previously. Um, what was the

24:01 ↗ rationale for adding, you know, from the

24:04 ↗ community through that process of adding

24:06 ↗ in the requirement of having balconies

24:07 ↗ on every unit?

24:10 ↗ Yeah. You know, um, it's not necessarily

24:13 ↗ balconies. It can be a patio space on

24:15 ↗ the ground level. It can be your

24:17 ↗ designated spot in the common open space

24:19 ↗ where you get your, you know, to grow

24:22 ↗ your vegetables or anything like that.

24:24 ↗ So, it isn't necessarily just balconies,

24:26 ↗ it's your private open space. So, just

24:28 ↗ want to be clear that that. But the

24:30 ↗ rationale was that people that live in

24:32 ↗ multif family units also desire their

24:35 ↗ own space and um you know so therefore

24:40 ↗ that was in addition to the common open

24:42 ↗ space um

24:45 ↗ from a user perspective I think was what

24:47 ↗ they were thinking.

24:50 ↗ Anything else?

24:53 ↗ Right. The um just out of curiosity, the

24:58 ↗ code changes um amendments around um

25:02 ↗ the chickens, no the roosters and

25:04 ↗ chicken husbandry and the bees and

25:05 ↗ beekeeping. Is that because community

25:07 ↗ members came to us or is that because we

25:09 ↗ just oh we forgot to or we realized that

25:12 ↗ maybe yeah, we're more urban than rural

25:14 ↗ and we should change that. Community

25:16 ↗ members came. Yes. Okay, good to know.

25:19 ↗ And also I think our code enforcement

25:21 ↗ officer who used to work for King County

25:23 ↗ was familiar with the King County code.

25:25 ↗ So the rationale for using King County

25:27 ↗ code was we have an animal section of

25:29 ↗ the code title 11 that's used for who

25:32 ↗ does animal control and then there were

25:34 ↗ title 18 animal regulations. And so it

25:38 ↗ seemed why have two different standards

25:41 ↗ kind of a thing. So, we went with King

25:42 ↗ County at the time, but the rooster

25:45 ↗ noise issue I think came from a

25:47 ↗ community member and bees. I think

25:49 ↗ someone was interested in keeping bees

25:51 ↗ and we were trying to find what

25:53 ↗ regulations would apply to them because

25:55 ↗ I think the rationale for not having

25:56 ↗ that initially was Department of

25:58 ↗ Agriculture regulates beekeeping and so

26:01 ↗ they have their own set of rules and

26:02 ↗ regulations but I think the impact to

26:04 ↗ neighbors and all that kind of stuff

26:06 ↗ from bees then was sort of the missing

26:09 ↗ piece that this is fixing.

26:13 ↗ All right.

26:15 ↗ All right. If we have no more questions,

26:16 ↗ then uh thank you and we'll move on to

26:20 ↗ public comment. Um do we still have a

26:22 ↗ member of the public with us online?

26:24 ↗ Yes, we do, Chair. Great. Well, thank

26:26 ↗ you again for being with us. Just a

26:27 ↗ reminder that if you raise your hand, um

26:30 ↗ or raise your hand if you're interested

26:32 ↗ in participating in public comment on

26:34 ↗ this particular item with regard to the

26:35 ↗ Title 18 policy amendments. Um, as a

26:39 ↗ reminder,

26:40 ↗ um,

26:43 ↗ to do that, if you're on the phone, you

26:45 ↗ can press star three. If you're on your

26:46 ↗ computer, look for that hand icon. If

26:48 ↗ you look at the participant panel, you

26:51 ↗ should be able to find that hand icon

26:52 ↗ that you can click uh, to raise your

26:54 ↗ hand to provide public comment. So, I'll

26:56 ↗ just go back to the clerk and see if

26:57 ↗ you're interested in providing public

26:59 ↗ comment.

27:01 ↗ No desire to speak indicated, chair.

27:03 ↗ Okay. Well, again, thank you very much

27:05 ↗ for um spending your sunny evening with

27:08 ↗ us tonight. Uh and feel free to write us

27:10 ↗ if you have any thoughts on uh the item

27:12 ↗ as it heads to council out of committee

27:14 ↗ eventually. Um all right, so now we're

27:18 ↗ on to council direction and the

27:20 ↗ questions were um I've got it here. Are

27:24 ↗ the proposed changes clear and

27:26 ↗ reasonable or are additional changes

27:27 ↗ needed? And should we proceed with um

27:30 ↗ moving the amendments forward to the

27:32 ↗ June 23rd council meeting? So, who would

27:35 ↗ like to go first?

27:39 ↗ Council member Jane, go ahead. Um, yeah,

27:42 ↗ I mean it's, you know, it's good for us

27:45 ↗ to be compliant with state law and uh,

27:47 ↗ responsive to the needs of the

27:48 ↗ community. So, I think makes sense for

27:50 ↗ us to approve these. Um, I did also have

27:52 ↗ a couple like very minor grammatical

27:54 ↗ edits which I believe were incorporated

27:55 ↗ as well. So, thanks for being uh,

27:58 ↗ receptive to those. Oxford commas, it's

28:01 ↗ one of my pet issues.

28:06 ↗ Great, Council President Walsh. Thank

28:08 ↗ you. Um, so I agree on the state

28:12 ↗ compliance and fixing of minor errors.

28:14 ↗ Those are great. Never going to say no

28:16 ↗ to those. Um, and for the policy issues,

28:21 ↗ I don't generally have any issues with

28:24 ↗ proposed changes other than I really do

28:26 ↗ think the open space adjustment doesn't

28:28 ↗ go far enough. Um, but when I kind of

28:31 ↗ take a step back and look at the

28:33 ↗ proposal,

28:35 ↗ I started to question like what problem

28:37 ↗ are we trying to solve here and who are

28:40 ↗ we listening to when defining that

28:42 ↗ problem or the solutions? Like I can

28:44 ↗ clearly see the connection from

28:48 ↗ community members that talked about not

28:50 ↗ being able to install heat pumps and how

28:52 ↗ we were trying to address that. But it

28:55 ↗ seems like we've heard much more clearly

28:58 ↗ from the development community over the

29:00 ↗ last 12 to 18 months than we have

29:02 ↗ previously, which I think is a great

29:05 ↗ thing because we have definitely seen an

29:09 ↗ inability to get projects happening um

29:12 ↗ that would house our community members.

29:14 ↗ And so and then we also we got the

29:19 ↗ community survey results and so we heard

29:21 ↗ very clearly from community members that

29:23 ↗ they care about housing affordability

29:25 ↗ and cost, the ease of creating new

29:27 ↗ businesses and the ability to site child

29:29 ↗ care. And so

29:34 ↗ I guess I would have hoped that our

29:36 ↗ annual updates were trying to solve some

29:39 ↗ of those issues, trying to pick an issue

29:41 ↗ and address it.

29:43 ↗ um and try to

29:47 ↗ identify what we've heard from

29:49 ↗ stakeholders. And so I know we're still

29:52 ↗ working through the tree code, but um I

29:56 ↗ really wish we had started to address

29:58 ↗ child care. Um, I think with the outdoor

30:03 ↗ space, you know, as somebody who came up

30:05 ↗ through the planning commission, um, I

30:09 ↗ know that when staff talked to us, I was

30:12 ↗ on the planning commission when we

30:13 ↗ created the structured parking

30:15 ↗ requirement and staff talked to us and

30:17 ↗ they said, "Hey, if we don't do this,

30:19 ↗ stuff is going to get built with, you

30:22 ↗ know, big parking lots and here are the

30:24 ↗ reasons we would want to adopt that."

30:28 ↗ you don't necessarily hear a lot of but

30:31 ↗ here's the downside here's what it could

30:34 ↗ cost us in development things like that

30:36 ↗ and so as much as I think the community

30:40 ↗ does desire having open space and

30:43 ↗ individual open space

30:46 ↗ I don't know whether

30:50 ↗ we can clearly say

30:52 ↗ that's the hill we're going to die on

30:54 ↗ even if housing doesn't get built Um, I

30:58 ↗ think when we're looking at particularly

31:01 ↗ affordable housing and being told that

31:05 ↗ this is going to be too expensive or

31:08 ↗ we're going to get this affordable

31:09 ↗ housing project, but then the market

31:11 ↗ rate project that was supposed to help

31:13 ↗ pay for that is probably not going to

31:16 ↗ come in for years. Like, I feel like

31:18 ↗ these are problems that we've been told

31:23 ↗ need to be addressed. And so, um,

31:27 ↗ that and stepbacks. Um, I guess I'm just

31:30 ↗ a little bit disappointed that we're not

31:34 ↗ seeing movement on some of those issues

31:36 ↗ and also just trying to understand

31:40 ↗ how did these come up and the others

31:42 ↗ didn't. And so maybe that's the question

31:45 ↗ I will ask is

31:48 ↗ why did these step forward and other

31:51 ↗ things that we heard

31:54 ↗ not get addressed in this annual update?

32:02 ↗ Um other things um I mean we we've

32:05 ↗ brought forward what we've heard. So the

32:07 ↗ step back, there's a provision in here

32:08 ↗ that's clarifying that um about the 25%

32:12 ↗ reduction in the upper floors is only

32:15 ↗ for um properties not in central Isiqua.

32:18 ↗ That provision doesn't apply in central

32:19 ↗ Isukqua. So that's in in the proposed

32:21 ↗ amendments. um the open space

32:24 ↗ requirement, you know, because the

32:26 ↗ community just adopted these codes, we

32:28 ↗ didn't go um and change want to change

32:31 ↗ the standard at this point uh because

32:33 ↗ we've heard from the to folks, but

32:35 ↗ they're meeting what is in the code

32:37 ↗ right here here uh in front of you. So,

32:40 ↗ they're making a pencil out for the

32:41 ↗ affordable unit to have 148 square ft in

32:44 ↗ their one large open space.

32:47 ↗ So, uh but if there are others you guys

32:49 ↗ are hearing from, we'd love to hear as

32:51 ↗ well. uh the ones that we may have

32:53 ↗ missed bringing forth. Uh but but we

32:56 ↗ keep a list whatever we hear we try to

32:58 ↗ bring forth for. So my thoughts on the

33:01 ↗ stepbacks is we heard from the developer

33:03 ↗ that having it happen at a material

33:07 ↗ change what was what was important. And

33:10 ↗ so it wasn't just that this doesn't need

33:14 ↗ to happen or doesn't it wasn't central

33:17 ↗ Isiqua versus outside. it was this is

33:20 ↗ going to cost multiple million dollars

33:22 ↗ more because we're doing it at a

33:25 ↗ particular floor level at within the

33:28 ↗ wood structure. Um so is that something

33:32 ↗ that we can address with this round with

33:37 ↗ this suite of uh proposals that you have

33:39 ↗ or we added to the list?

33:43 ↗ So you're asking whether we should

33:45 ↗ include the um the flexibility to allow

33:49 ↗ the step back at the third at the third

33:51 ↗ floor where the material changes. So

33:54 ↗ that was included in the title 18 update

33:56 ↗ but it only applies to the natural

33:58 ↗ context area. So at the time the tod

34:01 ↗ development folks were involved with the

34:03 ↗ title 18 update and and the issue was

34:06 ↗ stepping it back when you're facing a

34:08 ↗ natural context area. So there is

34:11 ↗ flexibility when you're next to an um

34:14 ↗ natural area that you can do the step

34:16 ↗ back at a third floor. So in in the case

34:19 ↗ of um their current proposal uh they

34:23 ↗ wanted also the step back at the third

34:25 ↗ floor um along the street. Um and so

34:29 ↗ that's what they've proposed and is part

34:32 ↗ of the housing uh cooperative agreement.

34:34 ↗ Uh the other uh one other developer that

34:37 ↗ has um stated an issue was more about

34:41 ↗ the 25% reduction in floor area which is

34:43 ↗ getting addressed as part of this code.

34:45 ↗ Um but the step back at the upper floors

34:48 ↗ um is really

34:51 ↗ um a design um

34:54 ↗ you know manual uh issue. So if you

34:57 ↗ choose one of the five architectural

34:59 ↗ design standards, Northwest Contemporary

35:02 ↗ is one of them that has that requirement

35:04 ↗ of a step back on the upper floor just

35:06 ↗ to break down the mass of the building.

35:08 ↗ And we did take planning and policy

35:10 ↗ commission um on a tour of the housing

35:13 ↗ and they looked at the Kirkland examples

35:15 ↗ where there was a step back and they

35:17 ↗ found that design much more appealing.

35:19 ↗ And then we took them to red, you know,

35:21 ↗ showed them the Redmond examples where

35:22 ↗ there was more of a straight street wall

35:25 ↗ and that was not their prefer

35:27 ↗ preference. So we we're having those

35:29 ↗ conversations and in this uh stuff that

35:32 ↗ it's in front of council tonight, it

35:34 ↗ includes some fixes. Maybe if it needs

35:36 ↗ more uh reook next year, we can

35:39 ↗ certainly continue to work through that.

35:43 ↗ or you want I heard a lot of details

35:46 ↗ about when this applies in a natural

35:48 ↗ context zone and whether or not it

35:51 ↗ applies on this side of the building or

35:52 ↗ that or you know all of that that to me

35:56 ↗ just says that we've made a very complex

35:58 ↗ code. Um

36:02 ↗ so I don't entirely understand what you

36:05 ↗ were saying about the stepbacks whether

36:07 ↗ or not that solves the cost issue. um

36:11 ↗ whether or not that

36:13 ↗ means there is stepbacks on one side of

36:16 ↗ the building versus another, whether or

36:18 ↗ not that means that it has to continue

36:20 ↗ stepping back, whether that means a

36:23 ↗ reduction in housing. Yeah. With the

36:25 ↗ natural context, the the architectural

36:28 ↗ design manual and the central design

36:30 ↗ standards, the last title 18 code update

36:33 ↗ didn't make any changes to those. They

36:36 ↗ lowered some of those standards by

36:38 ↗ allowing flexibility of stepbacks along

36:41 ↗ the natural context to be lowered at the

36:43 ↗ third floor. So just to to kind of from

36:47 ↗ you know central design standards were

36:49 ↗ put in place. Title 18 golden um

36:52 ↗ outcomes were not to change the design

36:54 ↗ standards of those at that point. It was

36:56 ↗ to consolidate in best practice and all

36:58 ↗ that. So we moved forward as is but we

37:00 ↗ heard from the TOD development to have

37:02 ↗ some flexibility along natural context.

37:05 ↗ So that was built in and now I think

37:07 ↗ this is building flexibility for um for

37:10 ↗ the open space but the step back

37:13 ↗ provision still remains but we have

37:16 ↗ clarified that the 25% reduction in

37:19 ↗ floor area on the upper floors only

37:21 ↗ applies in these lower um zones that

37:25 ↗ have a lower height not in central

37:26 ↗ Isiqua. I know it's complex and we're

37:28 ↗ happy to come back and give more

37:30 ↗ information to council if you want us to

37:32 ↗ detail it out.

37:35 ↗ Mr. Chair, if I can maybe add a couple

37:38 ↗ additional comments. I don't want to

37:39 ↗ interrupt the council president.

37:41 ↗ Um, you know, certainly, uh, this is the

37:45 ↗ council committee's opportunity to

37:47 ↗ provide the very feedback you're

37:48 ↗ providing. Um, and so as you deliberate

37:50 ↗ this evening and make recommendations to

37:52 ↗ your colleagues if you feel that there

37:54 ↗ are specific issues that need additional

37:56 ↗ attention uh, at this time, I would

37:57 ↗ encourage you to make that part of your

37:59 ↗ recommendation to the full council. um

38:01 ↗ in talking with Mayor Paulie uh

38:03 ↗ specifically about some of of these of

38:05 ↗ setback issues um you know her concern

38:08 ↗ is yes we've heard from developers but

38:10 ↗ we have not heard from members of our

38:11 ↗ community and so if this is a priority

38:13 ↗ for the council um I think then the

38:15 ↗ administration would want to come back

38:17 ↗ and give you a timetable for community

38:20 ↗ dialogue um late summer early fall um

38:24 ↗ and then also tell you what else may not

38:26 ↗ happen um we are currently down three

38:28 ↗ planners out of a six planner

38:31 ↗ uh division. Um you know, we have also

38:33 ↗ heard from the community that processing

38:35 ↗ current planning applications is

38:36 ↗ extremely important and so we want to

38:39 ↗ make sure we have the staffing to do

38:40 ↗ that. But if the council uh is not

38:42 ↗ satisfied with certain of these and you

38:44 ↗ would like us to see uh a different time

38:47 ↗ frame, um I would encourage you to ask

38:49 ↗ your colleagues uh to recommend that at

38:52 ↗ full counsel and then the administration

38:54 ↗ can come back and tell you what it will

38:56 ↗ take to do that. Uh again, Mayor Paulie

38:58 ↗ has been concerned that uh given the

39:00 ↗ work plan that we have for a sixperson

39:03 ↗ planning division, we were going to be

39:05 ↗ under difficulty. Um a threeperson

39:07 ↗ planning division makes it harder. But

39:09 ↗ it's your job to do what you're doing

39:12 ↗ and that is reviewing this. Uh your

39:14 ↗ sense of the community standards, your

39:16 ↗ sense of where things are. Um and if you

39:18 ↗ feel what you're hearing tonight is not

39:19 ↗ satisfactory or needs a different time

39:21 ↗ frame, I would encourage you to let your

39:24 ↗ colleagues on the full council know

39:26 ↗ that. and then have that discussion at

39:28 ↗ full counsel.

39:31 ↗ Yeah. So, what I would say is I just

39:35 ↗ want to be able to go back to the

39:37 ↗ community and say

39:40 ↗ we heard that part of our code was

39:45 ↗ unintentionally inflating housing costs.

39:48 ↗ And we listened to that and we addressed

39:51 ↗ it. And we didn't just address it for

39:54 ↗ the one building, but we took that

39:57 ↗ learning because we couldn't unsee it

40:00 ↗ and were able to go back. So, I hear

40:04 ↗ that you're saying something about there

40:06 ↗ was a change to step backs.

40:09 ↗ That doesn't allow me to say go back to

40:12 ↗ the community and say this has been

40:14 ↗ fixed. Um, so I don't have enough

40:19 ↗ information on what the changes are

40:21 ↗ proposed here to be able to answer that.

40:24 ↗ So I think my preference would be I'm

40:28 ↗ fine to adopt this because it seems to

40:31 ↗ be an adjustment, but I don't feel like

40:34 ↗ it

40:36 ↗ addresses

40:38 ↗ the need in front of us. Um,

40:41 ↗ and I would say I hear the idea of

40:45 ↗ needing to go back to the community and

40:49 ↗ the idea that we have a limited number

40:52 ↗ of staffers. I think this is the

40:55 ↗ absolute lowest hanging fruit that we've

40:57 ↗ ever been given, which is to say, look,

41:00 ↗ you do this, it costs a million dollars

41:03 ↗ that we as council didn't even think

41:05 ↗ looked better. um or you don't do this

41:09 ↗ and look, it just wipes a million

41:12 ↗ dollars off the cost. So, um I would

41:16 ↗ hope that that would sway folks to

41:19 ↗ understand that yes, maybe this jumps

41:22 ↗ ahead of some other things as a way that

41:24 ↗ we can tangibly listen to the

41:27 ↗ information we're being provided.

41:32 ↗ Council member J. Yeah, I mean I'm new

41:35 ↗ here, so I'm not super familiar with

41:36 ↗ like the timeline of when, you know, we

41:38 ↗ pass Title 18 updates and all that. So,

41:40 ↗ is this like a once a year thing?

41:45 ↗ Excuse me.

41:47 ↗ We have been making it a twice a year

41:48 ↗ thing to do deeper amendments and

41:51 ↗ clarifying amendments. So, twice a year.

41:54 ↗ Um, we can amend the code at any time

41:56 ↗ during the year unlike the comprehensive

41:58 ↗ plan which is just once a year. So it is

42:01 ↗ it is something that could be addressed

42:03 ↗ at another time. Yeah. A little bit more

42:06 ↗ context of you know when the overhaul of

42:08 ↗ title 18 was done we did commit to uh

42:11 ↗ coming doing this at least once a year

42:14 ↗ um of maintaining a list of issues that

42:17 ↗ come up during that year and try and fix

42:19 ↗ them as we go because what had happened

42:21 ↗ in the past was you know you a lot of

42:24 ↗ time goes by and then it and you know

42:27 ↗ the issues didn't get addressed. So at

42:29 ↗ least the commitment was at least once a

42:31 ↗ year we would do it. But the way it's

42:33 ↗ worked out in practical is that we've

42:35 ↗ had to come in twice because otherwise

42:37 ↗ it becomes too many ordinances and so

42:39 ↗ we've tried to move things along that

42:41 ↗ are easy and then some policy ones that

42:44 ↗ follow.

42:47 ↗ Yeah, that makes sense. Um, yeah, I

42:50 ↗ agree with Council President Walsh that

42:51 ↗ I think, you know, some of these things

42:52 ↗ that have been surfaced through the, you

42:55 ↗ know, trans the TOD project, we really

42:57 ↗ should be looking more seriously at

42:59 ↗ those, especially this setback issue.

43:02 ↗ Um, and so, and I think it's probably

43:05 ↗ fine for us if it's, you know, every 6

43:07 ↗ months, it's probably fine for us to,

43:08 ↗ you know, go through the community

43:10 ↗ engagement project process, figure out

43:11 ↗ how that aligns with other, you know,

43:13 ↗ planning priorities. Um, but do want to

43:16 ↗ emphasize that that is something that's

43:17 ↗ really important because I mean the fact

43:19 ↗ that we updated the code in 2023 and

43:21 ↗ we're just now getting the first project

43:23 ↗ getting built to this new code uh is

43:26 ↗ certainly interesting and a sign that

43:29 ↗ perhaps we aren't really building that

43:30 ↗ many more homes in Isla that um we think

43:34 ↗ that we need to build. So definitely um

43:36 ↗ support looking more into uh these types

43:39 ↗ of issues that have been surfaced by the

43:41 ↗ TORD project.

43:45 ↗ Well, I'll just throw my feedback in um

43:47 ↗ too, and I think I think for the most

43:49 ↗ part, we're all showing up pretty much

43:50 ↗ in the same way here. First and

43:51 ↗ foremost, just to say that I think that

43:53 ↗ the suite of amendments you have here is

43:54 ↗ good, has gone through the public

43:56 ↗ process, and we should adopt them. So,

43:58 ↗ I'm perfectly fine moving forward with

44:00 ↗ them. Um moving them forward to the

44:02 ↗ council meeting on when was it? Later

44:04 ↗ this month, 20 June 23rd. Yeah. So,

44:07 ↗ yeah. Um I think that makes sense. Um I

44:10 ↗ yeah was coming into this thinking I

44:12 ↗ would love to also have kind of a

44:13 ↗ broader conversation at some point too

44:15 ↗ around

44:17 ↗ stepbacks too which was brought up but

44:18 ↗ the amendity space requirement and and

44:21 ↗ have we have we set that at the right

44:23 ↗ place and and what what is our value

44:26 ↗ here in terms of having amenity space or

44:29 ↗ um or having outdoor like amenity space

44:32 ↗ near so near so much amenity space that

44:35 ↗ exists in the city or making housing a

44:37 ↗ bit cheaper and just to have a deep

44:39 ↗ conversation as a council and have

44:40 ↗ community feedback feed into that too.

44:42 ↗ So, wherever that fits into the process,

44:44 ↗ I'd love to do that. And I think that's

44:46 ↗ kind of where we ended up as a council.

44:47 ↗ Anyways, um when we first talked about

44:49 ↗ this at within the context of the TOD

44:52 ↗ saying we want to solve the immediate

44:54 ↗ problem with this deviation process

44:55 ↗ which we're now putting in code and then

44:57 ↗ have kind of a broader conversation and

44:59 ↗ city min city administrator Bob Kitz I

45:01 ↗ appreciate too saying with this feedback

45:04 ↗ then coming back and saying okay we can

45:06 ↗ do that but given staff capacity here's

45:08 ↗ what then we won't be able to do. So I

45:09 ↗ would welcome us having that that

45:10 ↗ conversation as well and I would

45:12 ↗ encourage you to report all this out to

45:16 ↗ your colleagues. I can do that because

45:17 ↗ that is an appropriate conversation for

45:20 ↗ the seven. Um there may be even an

45:22 ↗ opportunity at the July 12th council

45:25 ↗ retreat to talk more broadly about title

45:28 ↗ 18. Um you know I think the

45:30 ↗ administration's concern is just time

45:32 ↗ frames and priorities. Um I hope you're

45:35 ↗ not hearing any objection to anything

45:37 ↗ you're saying. I think it's just a

45:38 ↗ management of resources and priorities.

45:41 ↗ Um, and if the council would like to

45:43 ↗ talk about that when this comes back in

45:45 ↗ June, likes to talk about it in July,

45:47 ↗ um, or some future date, that's great.

45:49 ↗ We just need to then come back to you

45:51 ↗ and say this is how we can do it and

45:53 ↗ this might what not happen or get other

45:55 ↗ things get delayed in order to make that

45:57 ↗ priority. Okay.

46:01 ↗ So then to ask a question about that,

46:03 ↗ would it make sense? So, I'm happy

46:04 ↗ reporting out this conversation and

46:06 ↗ highlighting some of the policy

46:08 ↗ questions that exist outside of the

46:10 ↗ amendments that we'll that we'll adopt

46:11 ↗ as a council when I report back to the

46:13 ↗ council. Would we want that to be part

46:16 ↗ of a regular business item, this coming

46:18 ↗ to regular business at council or put

46:19 ↗ this on consent? I guess that's more of

46:22 ↗ a question for the committee too if you

46:24 ↗ have any thoughts on that. But first,

46:25 ↗ I'll go to city administrator to see if

46:26 ↗ you have any thoughts.

46:29 ↗ You know, I think that there's a larger

46:30 ↗ question here for this committee. This

46:32 ↗ committee has been charged by your

46:33 ↗ colleagues to worry about land use code

46:36 ↗ issues. Um, this is a larger land use

46:38 ↗ code issue that there are that are there

46:40 ↗ are pieces of title 18, which you've

46:42 ↗ heard from, uh, members of the community

46:45 ↗ that perhaps need additional attention

46:46 ↗ sooner than later. And so, um, I think

46:49 ↗ if you could report that out, get some

46:51 ↗ feedback from your colleagues, it

46:53 ↗ probably makes sense that this happen on

46:54 ↗ regular business. Um and then depending

46:57 ↗ on what you hear from your colleagues,

46:59 ↗ then perhaps there's a future item uh

47:01 ↗ that's either at a committee the whole

47:02 ↗ or comes back to this committee um to

47:05 ↗ talk about the specifics some timing

47:07 ↗ issues um in order to move this forward.

47:14 ↗ Any other feedback from committee

47:16 ↗ members then? Yeah. Here's a question.

47:19 ↗ When is tree code coming through?

47:24 ↗ So we have Yes, it goes environmental

47:26 ↗ board meeting tomorrow. Uh so this is

47:30 ↗ their other touch and uh we got some

47:32 ↗ feedback from them. They wanted more you

47:34 ↗ know there was some feedback about

47:35 ↗ setting up a subcommittee for it but

47:37 ↗ we'll see what um you know they figure

47:40 ↗ out tomorrow. Then we go to PPC in July.

47:43 ↗ August July. It is July. We're July.

47:47 ↗ Yeah. We just adjusted the schedule

47:49 ↗ today. So it is Yeah. And then September

47:51 ↗ to PTE. Okay. because you're off in

47:54 ↗ August. So, yeah, that makes sense.

47:56 ↗ Okay. Yeah, I was just trying to see how

47:58 ↗ everything was traveling together.

48:00 ↗ Thanks. Y and they've been doing a

48:02 ↗ really good job with it and lots of

48:04 ↗ community members have been involved in

48:05 ↗ that tree code work. So, thank you staff

48:07 ↗ for working with them on that and with

48:08 ↗ environmental board as well. Um, any

48:11 ↗ other comments about the suite of

48:13 ↗ amendments?

48:17 ↗ Did um you get all the feedback you

48:18 ↗ needed? Anything else particular you

48:20 ↗ want to sus out or is that is that good?

48:23 ↗ I'm good. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank

48:25 ↗ you very much. We appreciate it. Um All

48:28 ↗ right then. Um so that was our only

48:31 ↗ agenda item. So we'll move on to the

48:32 ↗ next item which is announcements. Any

48:35 ↗ announcements by me I'm not think not

48:37 ↗ seeing so many. Um I'll just say then

48:39 ↗ then the next meeting is scheduled for

48:41 ↗ July 8th. And the prelim pre preliminary

48:43 ↗ agenda includes, this is exciting, uh,

48:46 ↗ COM 0142, Belleview College development

48:49 ↗ agreement extension request and COM 0156

48:52 ↗ impact and mitigation fee update. Uh, so

48:55 ↗ there being no further business, we're

48:57 ↗ adjourned at 7:19 p.m.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF