City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, June 2, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Title 18 Land Use Code: Clarifying Amendments COM 0272

30 min · Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner · packet pp.5–53

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026

▶ Watch from 0:55 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends approval of the proposed Title 18 Clarifying Amendments as presented.

Title 18 Proposed Amendments: Promoting Building Investments in Issaquah COM 0282

45 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.55–132

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 8:10 Open packet at p.55 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends approval of the proposed Title 18 amendments as presented.

Updates to Goals and Outcomes COM 0283

15 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development Director · packet pp.133–136

▶ Watch from 19:01 Open packet at p.133 ↗

Staff report:

Promoting Building Investment in Central Issaquah (updated based on PDE Committee feedback on 5/19/26) Part 1-Umbrella Goals To transform its 900-acre commercial core into a vibrant, sustainable, and walkable urban center, the City’s goal is to remove barriers, streamline processes, and create ﬁnancial incentives to promote development in the Central Issaquah Plan area.

1996 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ Good evening everyone. Um, I, Council

0:08 ↗ Member Walsh, call the June 2nd, 2026

0:12 ↗ City Council Planning, Development, and

0:13 ↗ Environment Committee to order. I am

0:16 ↗ joined by committee members Deputy

0:19 ↗ Council President Jen and Council Member

0:22 ↗ Nichols. Uh, first item on our agenda is

0:25 ↗ public comment.

0:28 ↗ Um, I will note there is no one in the

0:30 ↗ room and no one online it appears. Um,

0:34 ↗ we did receive an email, so at least

0:37 ↗ we're getting a little bit of feedback

0:39 ↗ that way, but anyone can email us, uh,

0:41 ↗ city council isawwa.gov.

0:45 ↗ We have three items on our agenda

0:47 ↗ tonight. I will note there are no

0:49 ↗ minutes ready for approval on tonight's

0:51 ↗ agenda. Maybe that's because of the

0:53 ↗ power outage uh, from the last meeting,

0:55 ↗ you know. Um, but our three agenda items

0:59 ↗ tonight, we have COMM 0272,

1:02 ↗ uh, Title 18, land use code clarifying

1:05 ↗ amendments, and then the next one, COMM

1:07 ↗ 0282,

1:08 ↗ title 18 proposed amendments promoting

1:11 ↗ building investments in Isiqua, followed

1:13 ↗ by COM 0283,

1:16 ↗ updates to goals and outcomes. So, we

1:19 ↗ will start with the clarifying

1:21 ↗ amendments presented by Kate Kaney. I

1:26 ↗ did it. Okay. Principal planner.

1:28 ↗ Fantastic.

1:30 ↗ Um, staff's going to make presentations

1:33 ↗ on the item, answer all of our

1:35 ↗ questions. We'll have opportunities for

1:37 ↗ public comment if anybody else shows up

1:39 ↗ uh with us live, but then we'll

1:41 ↗ deliberate and make recommendations.

1:44 ↗ Thank you.

1:49 ↗ We don't seem to have the right screen

1:51 ↗ on.

1:55 ↗ We can't see all of us. Okay. Um

2:02 ↗ we will pause for

2:05 ↗ technical stuff.

2:21 ↗ We're back. Okay, Kate, I'll let you get

2:25 ↗ set up with your presentation and get

2:28 ↗ going with it. Thank you. Give me just

2:31 ↗ one moment, please.

2:43 ↗ And

2:45 ↗ one more button.

2:51 ↗ Okay, great. And can everyone see the

2:54 ↗ slide on screen now? Okay. Well, um,

2:57 ↗ thank you very much. Um, again, my name

3:00 ↗ is Kate Kaney. My last name rhymes with

3:02 ↗ rainy, has a lot of letters. So um that

3:05 ↗ is that I am here to present tonight but

3:08 ↗ also um available virtually are my

3:11 ↗ colleagues in this uh code amendment

3:13 ↗ process. Uh Emily Medina um she's our

3:16 ↗ senior planner um as well as the other

3:18 ↗ current planning staff. They are the

3:20 ↗ ones that do the development review

3:22 ↗ every day and they were the technical

3:24 ↗ experts in drafting these amendments.

3:26 ↗ So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and

3:28 ↗ start and let you know that um tonight

3:31 ↗ we are briefing you, providing a review

3:34 ↗ of the um annual clarifying or

3:36 ↗ housekeeping amendments. Um tonight,

3:39 ↗ we'd like to facilitate that re review.

3:41 ↗ Um give you time to deliberate and are

3:44 ↗ requesting a recommendation on moving

3:46 ↗ these amendments forward to city

3:48 ↗ council. Um the direction needed

3:51 ↗ includes things like um are the proposed

3:54 ↗ changes clear? Um, is additional clarity

3:56 ↗ needed on any of the amendments? Um, and

3:59 ↗ do you feel ready to bring these uh

4:01 ↗ recommendations forward? Uh, we are

4:03 ↗ aiming at council action on June 29th.

4:07 ↗ So, um, that is the background

4:09 ↗ information on direction. Additional

4:11 ↗ background on clarifying amendments is

4:14 ↗ presented on this screen. Um most cities

4:16 ↗ including Isiqua do an annual process

4:18 ↗ where we look through the codes for um

4:22 ↗ corrections uh cleanup items as well as

4:25 ↗ minor amendments uh especially to

4:27 ↗ clarify what the code means um or to uh

4:31 ↗ uh codify uh practices. So this year uh

4:35 ↗ seven sets of code amendments were

4:37 ↗ identified. uh many were identified by

4:39 ↗ staff and actually a lot of them were

4:41 ↗ identified in conversation with

4:43 ↗ different permanent applicants and the

4:45 ↗ development community.

4:48 ↗ So the seven uh amendments are presented

4:52 ↗ in this chart. Uh the planning policy

4:55 ↗ commission reviewed uh these items uh

4:58 ↗ four times uh before the public hearing

5:01 ↗ and we would like to start tonight by

5:03 ↗ going uh amendment by amendment. So um

5:07 ↗ this first amendment is really a

5:09 ↗ cleanup. It's a correction to the

5:11 ↗ definition section. Uh this uh

5:15 ↗ definition of multifamily residential

5:18 ↗ was

5:21 ↗ >> sorry.

5:25 ↗ Oh okay. Sorry a little reverberation

5:28 ↗ there. Um

5:31 ↗ uh so currently there are two

5:33 ↗ definitions of multifamily residential

5:35 ↗ in the definition section and uh the

5:38 ↗ goal here is to repeal the definition

5:41 ↗ that was superseded by the middle

5:43 ↗ housing amendments uh that were adopted

5:45 ↗ last year in 2025. So this is really a

5:48 ↗ correction.

5:50 ↗ This next set of amendments have to do

5:53 ↗ with site development permits SDPs. So,

5:56 ↗ first uh uh for folks that don't have a

5:58 ↗ lot of background in this, site

5:59 ↗ development permits are land use permits

6:02 ↗ that are for larger development types.

6:04 ↗ Um specifically for multi- large multif

6:06 ↗ family and commercial projects. Um site

6:10 ↗ development permits allow those projects

6:12 ↗ to be reviewed against uh consistency

6:15 ↗ with the land use code, also also

6:18 ↗ consistency with uh transportation

6:21 ↗ requirements, requirements for utilities

6:22 ↗ and that kind of thing. uh single family

6:25 ↗ housing, middle housing is not brought

6:27 ↗ through an SDP review. They are brought

6:30 ↗ through the construction permit process,

6:33 ↗ uh building uh permit review, uh or um I

6:37 ↗ think there's a site work review process

6:40 ↗ and others. So again, this is meant for

6:42 ↗ those bigger projects. Um the issue with

6:46 ↗ the STP code that was identified by some

6:48 ↗ of the planners was that they were

6:50 ↗ seeing smaller scale projects coming

6:52 ↗ through an STP process which adds time

6:55 ↗ and costs um to uh your your overall

6:59 ↗ project and process. So uh the idea was

7:03 ↗ that uh considering hey can't these

7:06 ↗ small smaller projects come through in

7:08 ↗ those construction permits I just

7:10 ↗ mentioned rather than these u this SDP

7:13 ↗ uh process. Um and the reason this is

7:15 ↗ important and the reason it adds time

7:17 ↗ and I forgot to mention this earlier is

7:19 ↗ that there are three types of SDP review

7:23 ↗ levels. Um level one is an

7:26 ↗ administrative review by staff as well

7:28 ↗ as staff approval. Level two is again

7:31 ↗ administrative review and approval but

7:34 ↗ public notice maybe a little bit bigger

7:36 ↗ size project. And then there's actually

7:38 ↗ no level three but level four is the

7:40 ↗ biggest size project. Something like um

7:43 ↗ the TOD project uh you know big and

7:46 ↗ multif family mixeduse projects. They go

7:48 ↗ through the development commission for

7:51 ↗ review and approval processes. There's

7:53 ↗ also public notice and a public hearing.

7:56 ↗ So that would add you know some time uh

7:58 ↗ uh to to anyone's uh project cycle. So

8:02 ↗ again, smaller scale projects were

8:04 ↗ coming in um recently. For example, in

8:07 ↗ uh central Isiqua um commercial project

8:10 ↗ came through where they wanted to

8:12 ↗ increase the size a little bit of the

8:15 ↗ entrance, add some embellishments to it,

8:17 ↗ and they came through with a level one

8:19 ↗ site plan review when uh staff thought,

8:21 ↗ well gosh, we could have caught these uh

8:23 ↗ items through a building permit review

8:25 ↗ process. Another uh project, and there's

8:28 ↗ a slide for this one, um has to do with

8:30 ↗ the conversion of just an asphalt area

8:33 ↗ of a site into an amenity space for uh

8:37 ↗ residents of the construction project.

8:40 ↗ No changes to structures, just a site.

8:42 ↗ And that project was to come through a a

8:45 ↗ level four review process. So that gave

8:48 ↗ everyone pause and uh they took a look

8:50 ↗ at the code and this is uh what we are

8:53 ↗ coming up with to streamline and make

8:55 ↗ this more efficient um maintaining a

8:58 ↗ review process through SDP for

9:00 ↗ structures but not for site improvements

9:03 ↗ only um when the projects aren't too big

9:06 ↗ right when projects are under 10,000

9:08 ↗ square feet. Um also this uh these

9:12 ↗ proposals create a minimum square

9:14 ↗ footage for both improvements to a

9:17 ↗ building. So uh adding square footage to

9:20 ↗ a new project or adding square foot

9:22 ↗ sorry adding square footage to an

9:23 ↗ existing building, a new project, a new

9:26 ↗ structure. Um also um uh certain site

9:31 ↗ improvements um for the buildings. What

9:34 ↗ is proposed is if you are under 200

9:37 ↗ square feet of new space, you do not

9:40 ↗ have to go through an SDP process. So,

9:43 ↗ um we'll walk through more of that in

9:44 ↗ just a moment. Additionally, what is

9:46 ↗ proposed is that a uh minimum square

9:50 ↗ footage uh sorry added already said that

9:55 ↗ losing my losing my uh grip here a

9:57 ↗ little bit. Pardon me.

10:00 ↗ Okay. Um, another change was a

10:03 ↗ clarification actually. Uh, right now,

10:06 ↗ um, what determines the level you are of

10:08 ↗ your SDP review is generally size, but

10:11 ↗ right now in the code, there's also, um,

10:14 ↗ an amount of units that trigger SDP

10:17 ↗ review. This was a little bit confusing

10:18 ↗ for the development community and staff.

10:20 ↗ So, the idea is just to propose, um, uh,

10:24 ↗ the size square footage requirement and

10:27 ↗ not the unit requirement. So um going to

10:31 ↗ the next slide and this is the last

10:34 ↗ change I wanted to highlight. Um I

10:36 ↗ talked about how the proposal is to

10:39 ↗ allow projects that only do site work to

10:43 ↗ not go through SDP review if you are

10:46 ↗ under 10,000 square feet. Um that

10:49 ↗ threshold is from 10,000 square feet to

10:51 ↗ an acre. And if you are within that

10:54 ↗ 10,000 square feet to up to an acre, you

10:57 ↗ will have to go through a level two site

11:00 ↗ plan review or sorry SDP review. And um

11:04 ↗ the reason is is if that is that's kind

11:06 ↗ of a larger uh set of changes even if

11:08 ↗ you're just doing site work. Uh level

11:10 ↗ two allows for that public notification

11:12 ↗ but also the administrative review and

11:14 ↗ approval process. So we thought that was

11:16 ↗ a good compromise. We had gotten these

11:18 ↗ comments from the public and it made

11:20 ↗ sense to us. So, I want to um just show

11:23 ↗ you this slide that um highlights that

11:27 ↗ project I was telling you about earlier.

11:29 ↗ Um this project was just for site

11:32 ↗ improvements to convert 10,000 square

11:34 ↗ feet, a little over that um of asphalt

11:37 ↗ to amenity space. Again, no changes to

11:39 ↗ structures. In the current code, this

11:42 ↗ would have to go through a level four

11:45 ↗ development commission review, public

11:47 ↗ hearing, and decision. What is proposed

11:49 ↗ through this these code changes is an

11:52 ↗ SDP level two. Again, it is over 10,000

11:55 ↗ square feet, sizable. Um, let the

11:58 ↗ neighbors know, other folks know through

12:00 ↗ a public notice process. So, that is

12:03 ↗ what is proposed for the SDP review.

12:08 ↗ Happy to clarify that uh as we go

12:10 ↗ through it if I was a little confusing.

12:13 ↗ Okay. Okay. So, the next amendment is

12:15 ↗ also uh dealing with permit

12:17 ↗ requirements. And in this case, if you

12:20 ↗ come in and do a subdivision or um uh

12:24 ↗ you're platting something,

12:26 ↗ um there are questions right now for

12:29 ↗ people in the public and staff as to,

12:31 ↗ you know, the sequencing of, oh, I would

12:33 ↗ like to subdivide this, but then I also

12:35 ↗ want to get my building permits going.

12:37 ↗ And actually our internal processes are

12:39 ↗ pretty clear about well we cannot give

12:42 ↗ you a building permit unless you have a

12:44 ↗ parcel number that we can tie the

12:46 ↗ building permit to. So because of this

12:49 ↗ lack of clarity, um what is proposed is

12:53 ↗ to clearly state that um that

12:59 ↗ infrastructure

13:00 ↗ uh needs to be put in before final

13:03 ↗ approval of a subdivision or a binding

13:05 ↗ site plan. Um the lack of this clear

13:08 ↗ language in the code leads to requests

13:10 ↗ for the building permits to be issued

13:12 ↗ before the recording of these

13:14 ↗ subdivisions. And again, since you don't

13:16 ↗ have a parcel, that makes it difficult

13:18 ↗ to do your permit review process. So,

13:20 ↗ our proposed language clarifies that

13:22 ↗ site infrastructure must be constructed

13:25 ↗ before your final approval of a plat.

13:27 ↗ Um, for some u minor improvements, you

13:29 ↗ can also purchase a bond to cover that

13:31 ↗ rather rather than constructing say a

13:33 ↗ utility or a portion of a road or what

13:35 ↗ have you. Um, it also adds language to

13:37 ↗ prevent building permits being issued

13:38 ↗ for non-existent lots. So, it's now in

13:41 ↗ the code. So that's the extent of those

13:44 ↗ proposals.

13:46 ↗ So now I want to turn to uh the issue of

13:49 ↗ donation bins. You may have seen these

13:51 ↗ going around town um in uh parking lots

13:54 ↗ and um although they are allowed through

13:57 ↗ our temporary use requirements um the uh

14:02 ↗ there are not development standards that

14:04 ↗ kind of condition how we allow them

14:06 ↗ where they are allowed. So, um, what

14:10 ↗ this proposal does is to clarify these

14:13 ↗ things. So, the proposed changes

14:14 ↗ describe where a donation bin is

14:16 ↗ permitted on a property. Um, for

14:19 ↗ example, away from the entrance. Um, and

14:21 ↗ it clarifies that the duration that a

14:25 ↗ donation bin can be on the property is

14:26 ↗ for an entire year and then you have to

14:28 ↗ come through a renewal process. Um, this

14:31 ↗ there are also new standards that

14:32 ↗ prohibit the accumulation of trash

14:34 ↗ outside the receptacle. We worked really

14:36 ↗ closely with the city's code enforcement

14:38 ↗ officer um to make sure that we had um

14:41 ↗ the right type of codes.

14:44 ↗ >> We have a question. Council member

14:46 ↗ Nichols,

14:47 ↗ >> is there any particular problem you can

14:49 ↗ site that this is trying to solve?

14:51 ↗ >> Um yes. Um right now the temporary use

14:55 ↗ code doesn't specifically call out

14:57 ↗ donation bins. So the the it's a general

15:01 ↗ um temporary use permit that is provided

15:04 ↗ and it doesn't specify where the bins

15:06 ↗ need to be located on a site and other

15:09 ↗ um requirements for it to be

15:11 ↗ wellmaintained.

15:12 ↗ So those were the issues.

15:15 ↗ Is there a a problem more can can you

15:17 ↗ site an example of something that you

15:19 ↗ think is bad that that has caused?

15:22 ↗ >> Well, you know, the businesses want to

15:23 ↗ have them on the on the sites and from

15:26 ↗ what we understood from um uh working

15:29 ↗ the permit counter and also from our um

15:33 ↗ code enforcement officer is they want to

15:35 ↗ do it the right way. Where should we put

15:37 ↗ it? They had questions. These changes

15:40 ↗ just clarify that yes, donation bins are

15:43 ↗ allowed. this is how you can allow them.

15:45 ↗ And it's clear for the businesses who

15:47 ↗ want to put it on their property as well

15:49 ↗ as uh for the public who have contacted

15:52 ↗ the code enforcement officer about there

15:54 ↗ being garbage near here whose

15:56 ↗ responsibility is that and um it just

15:59 ↗ brings clarity to the code.

16:01 ↗ >> So currently what do they do? So if they

16:03 ↗ want a permit for these, what what's the

16:05 ↗ process?

16:05 ↗ >> It's still a temporary use permit. Um

16:08 ↗ and it again is general and doesn't have

16:10 ↗ those additional standards. So they

16:12 ↗ could put the donation bin anywhere on

16:14 ↗ the site and uh it might be uh closer to

16:19 ↗ the right of way um than our code

16:21 ↗ enforcement officer is comfortable with.

16:23 ↗ Of course, you know, safety of vehicles

16:25 ↗ and people passing by is paramount. It

16:27 ↗ might be too close to the um doorway,

16:29 ↗ but they they are allowed on site, but

16:32 ↗ not with those uh kind of defining

16:34 ↗ standards.

16:36 ↗ >> City administrator,

16:38 ↗ >> uh let me just add some other context.

16:40 ↗ In many communities, they become dumping

16:42 ↗ grounds. Uh the the the bins are cited

16:45 ↗ uh without any permits, oftentimes

16:47 ↗ without even property owner permission.

16:50 ↗ Um and then they're not maintained. And

16:52 ↗ so people tend to be pretty uh concerned

16:54 ↗ when they see piles of shoes and u

16:58 ↗ garbage bags full of things that sit

16:59 ↗ there unattended and then oftentimes the

17:01 ↗ city is called uh to clean up a mess. Um

17:04 ↗ which kind of becomes a problem.

17:08 ↗ >> Do we have that happening in Isqua?

17:11 ↗ I've certainly seen more bins in the

17:12 ↗ last

17:13 ↗ >> three months than in my entire time

17:15 ↗ here. Um, you know, there there used to

17:18 ↗ be onesie twoosies of them. Um, you

17:20 ↗ know, there's one at the post office. I

17:22 ↗ can't imagine that the federal

17:23 ↗ government who would could not fill a

17:26 ↗ 18-inch pothole next to the location

17:28 ↗ that they put this bin that has

17:30 ↗ permitted a bin there. Um, so, uh, I

17:33 ↗ think there is certainly in my driving

17:35 ↗ around town seeing a proliferation of

17:37 ↗ them.

17:40 ↗ Kristen,

17:42 ↗ >> I think Wally hit on part of it about

17:44 ↗ where they're located. Um, but also

17:46 ↗ without these regulations in place, we

17:48 ↗ have no way to enforce them. So, we

17:50 ↗ can't control the piles. We can't

17:51 ↗ control it. So, this is giving us a way

17:53 ↗ to actually enforce them and not allow

17:55 ↗ them to be on sidewalks.

17:58 ↗ >> Yeah. And there was one um specific

18:00 ↗ example if you were asking for that. Up

18:02 ↗ in Highlands, it showed up on the

18:03 ↗ sidewalk and the adjacent property owner

18:06 ↗ didn't authorize that like Wally said.

18:08 ↗ So, uh, getting them moved out of, uh,

18:11 ↗ those areas, then, you know, community

18:14 ↗ members complain and then we get it

18:16 ↗ through either cclick fix or we get a an

18:18 ↗ official complaint and then we have to

18:20 ↗ go after them. Um, but in having clear

18:24 ↗ guidance of what they're violating in

18:26 ↗ the code that makes the notice of

18:27 ↗ violation more clear.

18:30 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

18:35 ↗ >> Okay. The next couple of slides have to

18:37 ↗ do with proposals related to the daycare

18:40 ↗ uh standards and also uh that same

18:42 ↗ chapter includes adult family home um

18:45 ↗ requirements. So this uh the two uh

18:49 ↗ proposals on this slide are really more

18:51 ↗ like corrections um and clarifications.

18:54 ↗ Um the first one is to add information

18:57 ↗ in the daycare section of the code that

19:01 ↗ is wayfinding that sends people to the

19:04 ↗ definitions of daycare center, family

19:08 ↗ daycare, adult family home. And the

19:10 ↗ reason is is that the definitions

19:13 ↗ contain information about the number of

19:15 ↗ individuals or children that can be

19:18 ↗ under care in those different types of

19:20 ↗ facilities. there are specific numbers

19:22 ↗ and the state regulations that also um

19:25 ↗ help to um regulate those uses. So this

19:29 ↗ is just adding wayfinding language um to

19:32 ↗ the definition so that information is

19:34 ↗ available. The second proposal is to um

19:38 ↗ just change the language from family

19:41 ↗ child care center to family daycare

19:42 ↗ center for consistency. It's really a

19:44 ↗ cleanup proposal um in the code. That's

19:47 ↗ all it does.

19:50 ↗ This next page also has to do or slide

19:53 ↗ also has to do with daycare center

19:55 ↗ standards. As you may recall, in March,

19:58 ↗ city council adopted uh an ordinance

20:00 ↗ that established traffic impact fee

20:02 ↗ waiverss applicable to daycare centers.

20:06 ↗ Um what is proposed is to help codify

20:09 ↗ that ordinance by adding a provision

20:13 ↗ related to covenants and when they

20:15 ↗ should be recorded for operators that

20:18 ↗ opt into those waiverss. So it's really

20:20 ↗ just part of the codification process.

20:27 ↗ And this last slide um has to do with

20:29 ↗ the home business code, but it's also

20:31 ↗ related to g daycare centers. uh daycare

20:33 ↗ operations used to be a section in home

20:36 ↗ business and there's just some language

20:39 ↗ um this so this truly is housekeeping um

20:41 ↗ in home business that does not belong

20:44 ↗ here um it belongs with daycare um it's

20:47 ↗ already taken care of care of there um

20:49 ↗ and it's in the italicized uh text

20:52 ↗ regarding play equipment for daycare

20:54 ↗ again it's just uh cleanup removing code

20:57 ↗ that should have been deleted um when uh

21:01 ↗ the reorganization what's happening for

21:03 ↗ daycare codes.

21:06 ↗ Okay, so the last set of um clarifying

21:09 ↗ amendments have to do with signs and

21:11 ↗ this first one has to do with balloon

21:13 ↗ signs. This again was something that we

21:15 ↗ worked closely with the city's code

21:18 ↗ enforcement officer on. Um, current code

21:21 ↗ does prohibit balloon signs, but there

21:26 ↗ uh was a need for additional clarifying

21:28 ↗ language uh because uh if you have these

21:32 ↗ signs and they are close to motorists,

21:34 ↗ for example, you can really get in the

21:36 ↗ way and people can't see. So, it's a

21:37 ↗ safety concern. So, it was kind of a

21:40 ↗ cleanup task to go back through the code

21:42 ↗ to make sure it's clear that balloon

21:44 ↗ signs are not allowed. Um, regardless of

21:48 ↗ material, if it looks like a balloon,

21:51 ↗ even if it has a different material than

21:52 ↗ what's cited in the code, uh, we just

21:54 ↗ wanted to be clear that that was

21:55 ↗ prohibited.

21:58 ↗ So, the next sign, um, sorry, the next

22:01 ↗ code has to do with, um, illumination of

22:04 ↗ signs and specifically for monument

22:06 ↗ signs. You can see the um photos um at

22:09 ↗ the bottom of your screen. Those are

22:10 ↗ monument signs uh actually going around

22:13 ↗ central Isqua or other locations. You

22:15 ↗ often see these monument signs at the

22:17 ↗ edge of a driveway um near the street.

22:20 ↗ And in many cases um the uh illumination

22:25 ↗ is not uh compliant with our current

22:29 ↗ standards for internal illumination of

22:31 ↗ signs. But as you can imagine, there's a

22:34 ↗ lot of turnover in these businesses and

22:36 ↗ people come in and they want to uh you

22:38 ↗ know get their new business name and the

22:40 ↗ sign and maintain that illumination or

22:43 ↗ do some maintenance on that

22:44 ↗ illumination. So we get so many of these

22:47 ↗ requests and the code wasn't completely

22:50 ↗ clear about allowing this um

22:53 ↗ illumination to come in to these non

22:55 ↗ legal non-conforming signs. So we are

22:58 ↗ just adding language to clarify that yes

23:01 ↗ you can come in you can update your

23:02 ↗ monument sign um the sign face the alum

23:07 ↗ you know that internal illumination.

23:09 ↗ However if there was a structural change

23:10 ↗ to these signs then they would have to

23:13 ↗ update to the current code. So that is

23:16 ↗ what is proposed with this amendment.

23:18 ↗ >> Council member Nichols

23:19 ↗ >> wanted to go back on the balloon sign.

23:21 ↗ If you can go back one one slide.

23:22 ↗ >> Sure.

23:25 ↗ So, I'm just trying to understand what a

23:27 ↗ sign is in this context. Um, as an

23:29 ↗ example, I I often see these um it's

23:32 ↗ basically balloon art. I don't know what

23:33 ↗ else to call it, but you know, something

23:34 ↗ like 50 to 100 balloons that are

23:36 ↗ arranged in some thing. I see these for

23:39 ↗ high school events. Uh they have them in

23:41 ↗ my neighborhood a couple times a year.

23:42 ↗ Is that considered a sign under this

23:45 ↗ context? So, in the sign code, it talks

23:48 ↗ about commercial signs and so the happy,

23:51 ↗ you know, happy graduation balloons and

23:53 ↗ that kind of thing. As long as they were

23:55 ↗ not in the street, you know, uh in the

23:57 ↗ ride ofway or or in uh blocking people's

24:01 ↗ views, as far as I understand it, those

24:04 ↗ um are not considered commercial signs.

24:07 ↗ um where uh these are uh openhouse now

24:12 ↗ leasing um examples um would be

24:15 ↗ considered as part of the commercial

24:17 ↗ sign code.

24:18 ↗ >> Okay, thank you.

24:22 ↗ >> Okay, so this is the last uh proposal

24:26 ↗ and it has to do with temporary window

24:28 ↗ signs. Um the planners who work the

24:30 ↗ counter often work with uh businesses

24:33 ↗ and projects that are opening and they

24:35 ↗ block out the windows to hide the

24:37 ↗ construction work and sometimes they

24:39 ↗ advertise for their businesses. Um the

24:42 ↗ it is not clear in our code whether they

24:44 ↗ need to get a permit for that or not and

24:46 ↗ to uh encourage these new businesses uh

24:50 ↗ and projects to come in. The proposal is

24:53 ↗ to allow temporary window signs without

24:55 ↗ a permit as long as they are

24:57 ↗ well-maintained and they are uh removed

24:59 ↗ uh once the business uh you know comes

25:02 ↗ in and uh the building is occupied. So

25:05 ↗ that is what is proposed with this

25:06 ↗ amendment.

25:09 ↗ Okay. So that was the last amendment. um

25:13 ↗ what next steps are. Um again, uh we

25:16 ↗ would bring these proposals to council

25:18 ↗ on June 29th uh requesting action. Um

25:23 ↗ the administration is recommending

25:24 ↗ approval of these amendments. Um I I

25:28 ↗ forgot to mention that a public hearing

25:30 ↗ was held on May 14th and uh the planning

25:34 ↗ policy commission did recommend um

25:37 ↗ adoption uh of these amendments as

25:39 ↗ presented. So at this point um again

25:43 ↗ getting back to the direction that we uh

25:46 ↗ would like to hear from you. Any

25:47 ↗ questions first of all and then

25:49 ↗ direction on you know uh whether the

25:51 ↗ proposals are clear whether we need to

25:53 ↗ add some uh more uh language to bring

25:57 ↗ clarity and uh want to hear if you feel

25:59 ↗ like you're ready and can provide that

26:00 ↗ recommendation uh to the full council um

26:04 ↗ on June 29th.

26:06 ↗ >> Okay. Before we go to questions and

26:08 ↗ such, I just want to check in with

26:09 ↗ Amanda. Is there anybody online?

26:12 ↗ Okay. Then I'm going to combine

26:14 ↗ questions and comments uh because we

26:16 ↗ don't have a need for public comment.

26:18 ↗ So, Deputy Council President Chang.

26:20 ↗ >> Great. Um I think on generally I think

26:23 ↗ the proposed changes make sense. Just

26:25 ↗ one minor change um which I had sent

26:29 ↗ over email. Let me pull this up. Um so,

26:34 ↗ uh number I guess IMC 18.208.030

26:39 ↗ C princ 1 and 8.208.030

26:44 ↗ princ 2. Um combining those two to

26:48 ↗ basically you know say a new structure

26:50 ↗ exterior expansion of existing

26:52 ↗ structures where the proposed new gross

26:53 ↗ square footage is 4,000 ft or greater

26:55 ↗ but less than 10,000 gross square feet.

26:58 ↗ um basically just combining the new

26:59 ↗ structure or exterior expansion into one

27:02 ↗ line item just to you know make it

27:05 ↗ simpler. Um is there like a process to

27:08 ↗ propose that amendment or can I just

27:10 ↗ suggest it and then you put it on in the

27:12 ↗ final version that's shown to council?

27:14 ↗ >> That is an excellent question.

27:17 ↗ >> Okay. So I am hearing that we would like

27:20 ↗ you to vote for it and as I understand

27:22 ↗ it's not a change to content but just

27:24 ↗ organization of the provisions. Is that

27:26 ↗ correct for in the SDP code?

27:29 ↗ >> Yes.

27:29 ↗ >> Okay.

27:31 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm I'm aligned.

27:33 ↗ >> Yep. I think clarity is good. Great.

27:36 ↗ >> Yay.

27:38 ↗ >> Okay. So, then the other questions are,

27:41 ↗ are the proposed changes clear? Are

27:42 ↗ additional changes needed to add

27:44 ↗ clarity? Do we recommend bringing the

27:47 ↗ amendments to city council for action on

27:49 ↗ June 29th? So, any

27:52 ↗ thoughts? Yep.

27:53 ↗ >> Sure. I I think these are good. they

27:55 ↗ make sense. Um, I had my my I had a

27:57 ↗ handful of questions. Thank you for

27:59 ↗ answer answering them uh and presenting

28:01 ↗ this very clearly. So, I'm I'm good with

28:03 ↗ this as is.

28:06 ↗ >> Uh, I agree with all that and I think I

28:09 ↗ mean my preference would to bring it

28:10 ↗ back be to bring it back on consent.

28:14 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think we can kind of talk

28:16 ↗ through are is this and the stepbacks

28:20 ↗ and such planned for the same day? Um,

28:24 ↗ yeah,

28:24 ↗ >> I believe so.

28:25 ↗ I'm fine to put it on consent, but I

28:27 ↗ don't know if there's just an idea of

28:29 ↗ hey, we have clarifying amendments and

28:32 ↗ there's these

28:33 ↗ >> um

28:33 ↗ >> they can go separately.

28:35 ↗ >> Okay,

28:35 ↗ >> it's okay.

28:36 ↗ >> Fantastic. Then I would agree. We are

28:39 ↗ good to move forward on these and put

28:41 ↗ them on consent.

28:42 ↗ >> Great. Thank you very much.

28:44 ↗ >> Okay, great. One item down. Um, our next

28:48 ↗ item is COM 0282, title 18 proposed

28:51 ↗ amendments promoting building

28:53 ↗ investments in Isiqua. This is going to

28:56 ↗ be presented by Kristen Leon, our

28:57 ↗ planning manager. Um, and again, this is

29:01 ↗ kind of the first element of this big

29:05 ↗ what we are calling PBI, promoting BIS

29:08 ↗ building investments, um, of this

29:11 ↗ two-year process. And so coming at us

29:14 ↗ quickly.

29:27 ↗ There we go. Good evening. You just you

29:29 ↗ just did like my first three slides for

29:31 ↗ me. Thank you.

29:34 ↗ All right.

29:36 ↗ So yeah, PBI just became easier for us

29:39 ↗ than promoting building investments in

29:40 ↗ Isiqua. Just there we go. All right. So,

29:44 ↗ moving on. If it'll let me. There we go.

29:48 ↗ So, yes, our purpose tonight is to

29:50 ↗ review these and deliberate on the

29:52 ↗ proposed amendments and then, if

29:53 ↗ appropriate, make a recommendation to

29:55 ↗ the full council.

29:58 ↗ Our two questions are, are there any

30:00 ↗ other changes that you would like to see

30:02 ↗ regarding these amendments, and do you

30:04 ↗ recommend moving them forward to the

30:05 ↗ full council on June 29th?

30:09 ↗ So background, I'll just uh say again

30:12 ↗ that these recommendations came from

30:14 ↗ council retreat homebuilders staff and

30:18 ↗ from our title 18 whiteboard when we

30:19 ↗ updated the land use code back in 2023.

30:23 ↗ And council approved or moved forward a

30:26 ↗ list of 17 amendments for us to tackle

30:28 ↗ over the next two years. And tonight we

30:30 ↗ are looking at the first two which are

30:33 ↗ outdoor amenity space requirements and

30:35 ↗ stepback requirements.

30:37 ↗ So starting with stepbacks,

30:40 ↗ our description is it's simply to allow

30:42 ↗ flexibility in the placement of upper

30:43 ↗ level stepbacks and they were said to be

30:46 ↗ a bit excessive and may make a project

30:49 ↗ feasilally uh financially infeasible.

30:53 ↗ So our first proposed amendment is to

30:56 ↗ just remove step the step back

30:58 ↗ requirement from

31:01 ↗ uh from buildings that face natural

31:04 ↗ areas and natural context areas in

31:06 ↗ central Isiqua

31:08 ↗ and you will be at the next round of

31:11 ↗ amendments seeing all of the natural

31:14 ↗ context standards. We'll be looking at

31:15 ↗ those as well. So keep that in mind.

31:20 ↗ Now, this one, you all received a letter

31:22 ↗ at the end of the day today stating that

31:25 ↗ a section had been removed from the

31:27 ↗ public hearing. I don't know how this

31:29 ↗ happened. It was wrong in the ordinance

31:32 ↗ that went to you. It was wrong in the

31:33 ↗ track changes that went to you, but it

31:35 ↗ was correct in the PowerPoint. So,

31:36 ↗ somewhere between those two, um, our

31:39 ↗ intent was never to put this section

31:41 ↗ back in there. Our intent is to state

31:43 ↗ for building massing and articulation

31:45 ↗ design take out most of B that talks

31:48 ↗ about changes in materials on the third

31:50 ↗ floor and up above and just make B all

31:53 ↗ street facing facades for building six

31:55 ↗ stories or higher must include

31:56 ↗ stepbacks. And we would continue with

31:59 ↗ the proposal that for building six

32:01 ↗ stories or um they will begin by the

32:04 ↗ base of the sixth floor but can start as

32:07 ↗ low as the base of floor two. So that's

32:10 ↗ right above the first floor. and

32:12 ↗ stepback shall be a minimum of five feet

32:14 ↗ in depth. We've removed requirements

32:16 ↗ that they incorporate terraces and that

32:18 ↗ the spaces be usable and that they were

32:20 ↗ we no longer require more than one step

32:23 ↗ back. That's our proposal.

32:26 ↗ >> Council member Nichols,

32:27 ↗ >> could you just remind me how many

32:28 ↗ stories is the to

32:29 ↗ >> the to is eight.

32:31 ↗ >> Okay. So, it would it would require

32:32 ↗ stepbacks under this rule if we enforce

32:34 ↗ it.

32:35 ↗ >> It would require a step back. Yes.

32:40 ↗ Okay.

32:42 ↗ when you fall into the section of

32:44 ↗ Northwest contemporary style. We are

32:47 ↗ proposing the exact same. It was

32:49 ↗ different. It required more um

32:53 ↗ stepbacks. It was a little bit more

32:55 ↗ specific. The specifications were

32:56 ↗ different than existed in the other

32:58 ↗ sections. So, we're doing proposing

32:59 ↗ exactly what's in the other one. So,

33:00 ↗ there's no confusion that all street

33:02 ↗ facing facades um for six stories or

33:05 ↗ higher must include stepbacks. And for

33:08 ↗ building six stories or higher, they

33:09 ↗ have to begin by the base of the sixth

33:10 ↗ floor, but can begin as low as the

33:12 ↗ second floor and that they shall be a

33:14 ↗ minimum of 5t in depth.

33:17 ↗ And I do want to bring up there are

33:18 ↗ additional requirements that the city

33:20 ↗ has. So it's not just removing stepex,

33:23 ↗ they're still required to do material

33:25 ↗ changes for the base, middle, and top.

33:28 ↗ It's either material changes,

33:30 ↗ architectural details, um that kind of

33:32 ↗ thing for three stories in height. They

33:34 ↗ must have divided light windows that are

33:36 ↗ operable um that are trimmed perhaps or

33:39 ↗ they're um projecting or recessed from

33:42 ↗ the facade. They must provide um surface

33:44 ↗ relief depth and shadows on the facade.

33:47 ↗ Views must be preserved and building

33:50 ↗ corners. Buildings that are on corners

33:53 ↗ either have to be stepped back or have

33:54 ↗ to be have architectural detail to

33:56 ↗ enhance those corners. Then when you get

33:59 ↗ into the natural context areas, this is

34:03 ↗ what these are. The green areas are the

34:04 ↗ natural areas. The purple areas are the

34:07 ↗ natural context areas. Those are

34:08 ↗ adjacent to natural areas and there are

34:10 ↗ specifications for that. The additional

34:12 ↗ requirements currently are um if you

34:15 ↗ face the natural area that you use

34:17 ↗ natural materials and finishes. They're

34:19 ↗ designed with doors and windows making

34:20 ↗ up 50% of the walls that are oriented

34:23 ↗ toward natural areas. Um all act all

34:27 ↗ activities are oriented toward natural

34:28 ↗ areas. Public walkways need to be

34:30 ↗ provided if you're adjacent to a water

34:33 ↗ and you can't close off the building

34:34 ↗ from the natural area. In other words,

34:35 ↗ we don't want to see the back of the

34:36 ↗ building.

34:40 ↗ All right. Would you want me to keep

34:41 ↗ going or do you want to have questions?

34:47 ↗ >> Uh any questions? No.

34:49 ↗ >> Okay. Keep going. Okay.

34:52 ↗ >> Moving on to outdoor amenity space. Our

34:54 ↗ proposals are reason are to decrease the

34:57 ↗ amount of required private open amenity

35:00 ↗ space and to add deviations for those

35:02 ↗ uses that are converting from commercial

35:04 ↗ to multif family residential. And we're

35:07 ↗ doing these one because again the amount

35:10 ↗ of private space that was required was

35:11 ↗ considered excessive and could make a

35:13 ↗ project infeasible. And for the second

35:16 ↗ one, for the conversions, we don't want

35:17 ↗ to make the process more difficult to

35:20 ↗ get affordable housing, to get different

35:22 ↗ types of housing than it needs to be.

35:26 ↗ So, the proposed changes are, if you

35:29 ↗ look in the first column, it used to be

35:31 ↗ that anything any residential use that

35:34 ↗ had five units or more had to comply

35:36 ↗ with the 100 square feet per unit and

35:39 ↗ that they all had to have 48 square feet

35:41 ↗ per unit of individual space. We are

35:44 ↗ proposing to increase that to nine

35:46 ↗ units. So now if you have nine units,

35:48 ↗ not fewer, um then you need to have 100

35:51 ↗ square feet per unit of common amenity

35:53 ↗ space and only 30% of the units would

35:56 ↗ need to have 48 square ft of private

35:59 ↗ space. Those same things would apply to

36:02 ↗ residential. So that goes from nine

36:04 ↗ units up to 21 units. And then if you

36:07 ↗ have 22 or more units, you are required

36:10 ↗ still to do the 100 square feet per

36:11 ↗ unit. And again, a minimum of 30% of the

36:14 ↗ units need to have private open amenity

36:17 ↗ space of 48 square feet.

36:22 ↗ So, what we're proposing now used to be

36:25 ↗ a deviation. So, we're removing that.

36:28 ↗ Um,

36:30 ↗ and then we're also adding a deviation

36:33 ↗ to state that common and private outdoor

36:36 ↗ amenity space. Um if the if these

36:38 ↗ projects comply with the requirements

36:40 ↗ listed under 18500 which has to do with

36:43 ↗ conversion specifically um then they can

36:46 ↗ also request um deviations from the

36:48 ↗ amenity space requirements

36:51 ↗ as long as they provide whatever they

36:54 ↗ can to the maximum amount feasible.

36:57 ↗ So for example, Motel 6 um came in, they

37:01 ↗ do not have enough room to put in the um

37:03 ↗ required open amenity space. They're

37:05 ↗ having to get a variance right now. It's

37:07 ↗ difficult to do. It's timely. It has a

37:10 ↗ cost added to it. And this way, we would

37:13 ↗ just say, "Let's just do what you can do

37:15 ↗ and make it happen."

37:18 ↗ >> Can you go back to the previous slide?

37:21 ↗ This one?

37:22 ↗ >> Yes. Um, the additional common amenity

37:27 ↗ area required of 400 square ft indoor or

37:31 ↗ outdoor.

37:33 ↗ That's something that none of our other

37:35 ↗ neighboring cities have. Can you tell me

37:38 ↗ why we feel that is necessary when we

37:43 ↗ already have 100 square foot per unit

37:47 ↗ common amenity space that obviously

37:51 ↗ grows with larger buildings.

37:53 ↗ >> Well, the we have the common outdoor

37:56 ↗ amenity space that's just outdoor. The

37:58 ↗ other one requires that they have

37:59 ↗ something indoor as well. So, a room

38:02 ↗ with TVs where people can come in and

38:04 ↗ have, you know, if your apartment is too

38:06 ↗ small, you can have a, you know, party

38:08 ↗ in this space. It's a usable space for

38:10 ↗ the residents that are there. So, it has

38:12 ↗ TVs, it has tables, it has studies, it

38:15 ↗ might, lots of them have an extra

38:16 ↗ kitchen so that you can bring your party

38:18 ↗ down there and have the party there.

38:19 ↗ That's that's what that requirement is

38:21 ↗ for.

38:23 ↗ Okay. So, if I read that correctly, it

38:27 ↗ says indoor or outdoor. So, is there a

38:30 ↗ requirement for indoor?

38:32 ↗ >> No, it's just outdoor or indoor.

38:35 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

38:39 ↗ I'm not sure if

38:42 ↗ if we're looking at a situation where,

38:45 ↗ you know, we don't want to force people

38:47 ↗ to pay for parking as a part of their

38:51 ↗ unit. I'm not sure I would say that it's

38:55 ↗ in interest to pay for additional common

38:59 ↗ amenity space or indoor um piece. And I

39:03 ↗ just don't know that I've been given a

39:06 ↗ reason why that

39:08 ↗ call out in particular is more important

39:12 ↗ um when we're not seeing it with the

39:13 ↗ other cities.

39:15 ↗ Anything? Okay.

39:17 ↗ >> No. Um other cities will call out. It's

39:20 ↗ all listed differently, but sometimes

39:21 ↗ they will call outdoor or indoor. So,

39:25 ↗ they they give the option as well, but

39:29 ↗ nothing is that I have found or that I

39:31 ↗ recall is specifically indoor space

39:33 ↗ that's required.

39:36 ↗ But honestly, I was looking for outdoor

39:38 ↗ space, so I I could have missed it.

39:41 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Well, we can have a

39:44 ↗ conversation at some point, but yeah.

39:45 ↗ Thank you. Sure.

39:53 ↗ Oh, I was gonna say you can go on.

39:55 ↗ >> Oh,

39:55 ↗ >> yeah.

39:57 ↗ >> Okay.

39:58 ↗ So, act. Well, this is all I have. That

40:00 ↗ was it. Um, and as Kate mentioned, these

40:03 ↗ will be coming back potentially to the

40:06 ↗ June 29th council meeting for action.

40:10 ↗ Our recommendation is to

40:13 ↗ recommend approval of the Title 8

40:16 ↗ amendments. I'm going to say as

40:17 ↗ presented in the PowerPoint. Um, we do

40:20 ↗ need to make that change in the

40:21 ↗ ordinance again. And then our questions

40:24 ↗ again, are there are there any

40:25 ↗ additional changes you would like to

40:26 ↗ see? And do you recommend moving this

40:28 ↗ forward to June 29th?

40:31 ↗ Okay. And again, I will look to Amanda

40:33 ↗ and see is there anybody online? Nope.

40:36 ↗ Okay. Then we can combine questions and

40:40 ↗ feedback. Um, do we want to take it

40:42 ↗ topic by topic? Stepbacks and outdoor

40:45 ↗ amenity space.

40:47 ↗ Okay, who wants to go first?

40:51 ↗ Yep, go for it.

40:53 ↗ >> Um, just at least on stepbacks, I would

40:56 ↗ I mean I propose that we

40:59 ↗ put forward a recommendation to strike

41:00 ↗ them as a requirement. Uh, we've got an

41:03 ↗ opportunity to look at architectural

41:06 ↗ standards, basically aesthetic standards

41:08 ↗ overall coming up later in the year. If

41:10 ↗ we want to add them back, I think we

41:11 ↗ could add them back as points, something

41:13 ↗ like that that could come back then.

41:15 ↗ But, uh, I I think the the TOD example

41:18 ↗ is very informative for me. This is

41:20 ↗ something where we have a we have direct

41:22 ↗ data. We have direct evidence of how

41:24 ↗ many housing units we lose by having

41:26 ↗ this requirement in there. Um, and I

41:30 ↗ would say

41:32 ↗ as from from my perspective, I'd like to

41:35 ↗ just see it removed as a requirement. If

41:36 ↗ somebody wants to add them in, fine. Um,

41:39 ↗ and maybe we can find a find a way to

41:40 ↗ incentivize that. But as a requirement,

41:42 ↗ I think it's we're we're losing housing,

41:45 ↗ increasing costs, and it's one of what

41:48 ↗ could be many aesthetic um options that

41:50 ↗ are on on the table, but not something

41:52 ↗ that should be a requirement in itself.

41:59 ↗ I mean I think we had kind of given the

42:02 ↗ feedback in the last meeting that we

42:04 ↗ prefer a menu of options. Um therefore

42:08 ↗ that I think the work that's been done

42:11 ↗ on this to you know have options between

42:14 ↗ two and six is still a good idea. If you

42:20 ↗ know if we move this into the

42:21 ↗ architectural and design standards give

42:23 ↗ people menu of options. If they were

42:25 ↗ going to do a step back I would want it

42:27 ↗ between the second and the sixth floor

42:29 ↗ at the material change. You know all of

42:31 ↗ that work that has already been done

42:34 ↗ there. Um, but I I think

42:41 ↗ I haven't found a significant reason why

42:45 ↗ a step back in particular is what is

42:48 ↗ needed to satisfy the idea that a

42:53 ↗ building can feel like it has less mass

42:56 ↗ or that you are comfortable walking by

42:58 ↗ it as a pedestrian. Um, so go ahead.

43:04 ↗ Yeah, I guess my question I have a

43:06 ↗ question more so on you know just like

43:08 ↗ the we have the same step back now in

43:11 ↗ two different parts of the code right

43:12 ↗ it's in this building massing and

43:13 ↗ interriculation design my understanding

43:15 ↗ is right now any prop building that gets

43:18 ↗ built has to go through basic you know

43:21 ↗ they have to pick an architectural style

43:23 ↗ as well so if it's not included if the

43:27 ↗ stepback isn't included in building

43:28 ↗ massing and articulation design but it

43:30 ↗ is you know in the architectural

43:32 ↗ standards which is where we think it

43:33 ↗ should live. Would there be any, you

43:36 ↗ know, would that like cause any

43:39 ↗ consequences?

43:40 ↗ >> What was the last part of that? I'm

43:41 ↗ sorry.

43:42 ↗ >> Basically, if we just keep the step back

43:45 ↗ portion in the architectural standards,

43:47 ↗ which is where we think it should live

43:48 ↗ and um eliminate it from this, you know,

43:51 ↗ 18.602.050

43:52 ↗ building massing and articulation

43:54 ↗ design. Does that like what would the

43:59 ↗ effect of that be?

44:02 ↗ So the other requirements are citywide.

44:06 ↗ So the the ones that are just the

44:08 ↗ architectural design standards, the the

44:10 ↗ modulation and articulation, those are

44:12 ↗ citywide. So buildings outside of

44:15 ↗ central,

44:18 ↗ not including Oldtown, wherever those

44:20 ↗ buildings may be, they would not have

44:22 ↗ they would not have stepbacks either.

44:25 ↗ Um,

44:26 ↗ >> are there any zones outside of central

44:29 ↗ Isiqua that are allowed to go to six

44:31 ↗ stories or higher?

44:32 ↗ >> Mixed use is allowed to go that high.

44:36 ↗ Um otherwise no.

44:41 ↗ >> Mixed use outside of central Isco.

44:43 ↗ >> You have mixed use central Isiqua and

44:45 ↗ mixed use. And mixed use includes the

44:48 ↗ Oldtown just north of Oldtown.

44:51 ↗ that area

44:52 ↗ >> still central

44:53 ↗ >> over to just west of Front Street.

44:58 ↗ >> Um, okay.

45:02 ↗ I'm I'm taking a quick look at the map.

45:05 ↗ >> Yes,

45:05 ↗ >> Skilman.

45:07 ↗ East Gilman, east of Front Street.

45:09 ↗ >> Yeah, it's still

45:10 ↗ >> and a little bit and a little bit north

45:11 ↗ of Yeah.

45:13 ↗ or west. But is the point of having that

45:16 ↗ conversation are you saying you think

45:18 ↗ stepbacks

45:19 ↗ make sense in central Isiqua but

45:23 ↗ or

45:24 ↗ >> I'm I'm saying if our intent is to put

45:27 ↗ it into the architectural standards

45:31 ↗ bucket then

45:34 ↗ we don't need to have it in the you know

45:36 ↗ building massing part of the code.

45:39 ↗ >> Well it's in three spots. So it's in

45:41 ↗ 18.60042A.

45:43 ↗ So that's natural context. It's an

45:44 ↗ 18.602.15b.

45:47 ↗ Um that's massing and it's 18.72.100D.

45:50 ↗ That's um Northwest Contemporary Style.

45:54 ↗ So

45:55 ↗ I think it's if you're getting at does

45:58 ↗ Northwest Contemporary Style require if

46:01 ↗ if someone adopts that, does it require

46:02 ↗ a step back? Is that what you're getting

46:04 ↗ at? I'm I'm just saying like

46:08 ↗ if we think it belongs in the

46:11 ↗ architectural standards category, which

46:13 ↗ the Northwest contemporary style is one

46:14 ↗ of the options in that universe,

46:18 ↗ um I'm trying to understand why it's

46:20 ↗ also in the building massing and

46:21 ↗ articulation design, right? Because I I

46:24 ↗ think we're probably going to totally

46:26 ↗ revisit all the architectural stuff. Um,

46:29 ↗ so I'm I'm wondering, you know,

46:32 ↗ >> so in in all the different styles in

46:34 ↗ central Isiqua, it's only required in

46:35 ↗ Northwest Contemporary. The other ones

46:36 ↗ are not required to do it,

46:38 ↗ >> but if you are outside of Central Isqua,

46:40 ↗ you are required to do it.

46:42 ↗ >> Okay.

46:47 ↗ Um

46:49 ↗ Okay,

46:52 ↗ I'm I'm gonna quickly read the code,

46:55 ↗ please. Other people ask questions and

46:57 ↗ make comments. Yeah, I mean my my

46:58 ↗ comment on that would just be I I would

47:00 ↗ I see it it tell me if it's someplace

47:03 ↗ else I guess but I I see it in these

47:04 ↗ three places

47:06 ↗ so natural natural context um

47:11 ↗ uh

47:12 ↗ northwest contemporary and massing

47:15 ↗ and my vote would be to just remove it

47:18 ↗ from all three

47:25 ↗ and then I I think what if we come back

47:28 ↗ and we want to give it as if if if

47:31 ↗ it's something that somebody wants to we

47:34 ↗ could provide some sort of point system

47:36 ↗ to incentivize it if we want it in some

47:38 ↗ sort of trade-off versus other aesthetic

47:40 ↗ standards if we once we start going down

47:42 ↗ that road later u but as a blanket

47:44 ↗ requirement it's it's I think it's I

47:47 ↗ think it's the most expensive aesthetic

47:48 ↗ requirement we've got

47:55 ↗ >> just wanted to clarify by one thing. Um

47:58 ↗ on the to project um there is a step

48:02 ↗ back after the second floor. So with the

48:04 ↗ material changes, there is a step back.

48:06 ↗ So you go up and then you step back for

48:09 ↗ the rest of your story. So you lo you

48:11 ↗ actually lose more square footage, but

48:13 ↗ that's what is technically more feasible

48:16 ↗ for folks to do it that way because and

48:18 ↗ and that's a typical podium style. So

48:21 ↗ you get your podium and then you have a

48:23 ↗ narrower um footprint for the upper

48:27 ↗ floors. So just wanted to make sure that

48:29 ↗ everyone um what council gave as part of

48:33 ↗ the housing cooperative agreement was um

48:37 ↗ the requirement to lower that step back

48:39 ↗ on the where the material changes

48:40 ↗ instead of at the upper floors. So the

48:43 ↗ requirements as they were written at the

48:45 ↗ time were you have to have it at the

48:47 ↗ upper floors but the proposal in front

48:49 ↗ of you today that PPC has recommended is

48:52 ↗ to provide that flexibility. If someone

48:54 ↗ chooses to put it at the upper floor

48:56 ↗ albeit at a more expensive uh you know

48:59 ↗ cost but if they want to design it as a

49:02 ↗ penthouse or whatever they can do that

49:04 ↗ and have a terrace on the upper floor or

49:06 ↗ they can do it uh at the lower uh where

49:09 ↗ you actually so it gives them more

49:11 ↗ flexibility where they want to choose.

49:12 ↗ To be clear, my my suggestion is to

49:14 ↗ remove it entirely as

49:15 ↗ >> Sure. Sure. Sure. But you just wanted to

49:17 ↗ clarify the to example that it does have

49:20 ↗ a step back the proposed design.

49:23 ↗ >> Understood. I'm I'm suggesting we remove

49:24 ↗ it as a requirement. If someone wants to

49:26 ↗ add it in that that is still a

49:28 ↗ possibility.

49:30 ↗ >> Yeah. because the the point of it there

49:33 ↗ being a step back required even at the

49:35 ↗ second floor um on the TOD project is

49:38 ↗ that we're losing affordable housing um

49:40 ↗ or at least square footage if not full

49:44 ↗ units by having that as a requirement.

49:48 ↗ And so I guess uh the I've heard pretty

49:52 ↗ clearly that we like the idea of having

49:58 ↗ an aesthetic or you know whatever menu

50:01 ↗ option. Um

50:04 ↗ and

50:06 ↗ potentially that there's the idea of

50:08 ↗ suggesting that this but here's the

50:12 ↗ thing. If this doesn't move forward to

50:14 ↗ council, then what we have is we're

50:18 ↗ stuck with the bad option

50:23 ↗ until we get to the aesthetic stuff.

50:26 ↗ >> Well, is it really that bad? I mean,

50:28 ↗ we've got a couple months of a a step

50:30 ↗ back hole, per se. Are we really going

50:32 ↗ to get something? Yeah, but at the same

50:35 ↗ time, if they've already made a change,

50:38 ↗ if they've already written it up and

50:39 ↗ gone through all of the process,

50:42 ↗ it it would be worse for us to not get

50:46 ↗ it adopted for a few months.

50:49 ↗ >> Why? because then anybody that wants to

50:52 ↗ come in with a building project that

50:55 ↗ would pencil if they did a step back at

50:59 ↗ floor two but doesn't pencil wherever it

51:02 ↗ is now at floor five um

51:07 ↗ would have to wait

51:09 ↗ >> to wait if we just remove it as a

51:11 ↗ requirement they could just do it

51:14 ↗ >> well but can we remove it as a

51:18 ↗ requirement because what we're reviewing

51:19 ↗ right now is proposed changes. Correct.

51:22 ↗ If we were going to remove stepbacks

51:25 ↗ entirely as a requirement, I assume that

51:27 ↗ would have to go back to PPC, do a

51:30 ↗ public hearing. No.

51:31 ↗ >> No.

51:32 ↗ >> Okay.

51:33 ↗ >> You can you can make a different

51:34 ↗ recommendation than the planning policy

51:36 ↗ commission made and still move it

51:37 ↗ forward to council.

51:39 ↗ >> Okay. So, you're suggesting the

51:42 ↗ recommendation is strike everything

51:45 ↗ about stepbacks.

51:47 ↗ >> That's my recommendation. Yeah.

51:49 ↗ Deputy Council President.

51:51 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean I think that's probably

51:54 ↗ fine. Um and then I think, you know, we

51:57 ↗ can revisit it all when we do the

51:59 ↗ architectural standards.

52:01 ↗ Um I will also say I did look on the map

52:03 ↗ of where the mixeduse district is and

52:05 ↗ it's basically Gilman Boulevard east of

52:08 ↗ Front Street, which is there's not much

52:10 ↗ stuff going on there. So or not not much

52:14 ↗ new development that I've seen in recent

52:18 ↗ times.

52:20 ↗ So I think my preference would be to

52:23 ↗ move this forward to council um with

52:28 ↗ this change and bring up the concept of

52:33 ↗ hey the direction that PD is moving is

52:38 ↗ this idea of

52:41 ↗ you know what is what is the concept

52:44 ↗ there um architectural design standards

52:46 ↗ menu of options. Um, so moving this

52:50 ↗ forward in the meantime, but we intend

52:53 ↗ to take stepbacks into that bucket of

52:58 ↗ things and just get kind of a touch

53:00 ↗ point with council.

53:01 ↗ >> Then we'd have to go back and take it

53:03 ↗ out again though. If we if we add this

53:04 ↗ into an architectural review, we'd have

53:07 ↗ to go back and we have to have to go

53:09 ↗ through all this process again to remove

53:11 ↗ it.

53:13 ↗ >> So there are there are two options here.

53:15 ↗ Mhm.

53:16 ↗ >> One is that you can move this forward to

53:17 ↗ city council and say we propose to our

53:20 ↗ recommendation is to remove there step

53:21 ↗ back requirement across the board.

53:23 ↗ Period. No stepbacks in the city. And

53:25 ↗ then if you want us to we can go back

53:29 ↗ and call these architectural details and

53:32 ↗ include it in that as a separate

53:35 ↗ amendment. The other one is to not move

53:37 ↗ this forward to council. And then yes,

53:40 ↗ as you mentioned, the existing stepbacks

53:42 ↗ that are in place would remain there

53:44 ↗ until the set next round of amendments

53:46 ↗ comes through when we look at

53:47 ↗ architectural standards.

53:49 ↗ >> I don't want to wait.

53:51 ↗ >> Well, and both of those recommendation

53:53 ↗ or both of those options that you've

53:54 ↗ said, it's different from the

53:56 ↗ recommendation that the administration

53:58 ↗ proposed which was adopt these and then

54:02 ↗ discuss architectural design standards

54:04 ↗ later. So

54:05 ↗ >> yeah, but we can definitely when we do

54:07 ↗ the architectural design standards so

54:09 ↗ and start that conversation with

54:11 ↗ planning and policy commission we'll

54:13 ↗ obviously ask this as a policy question

54:16 ↗ now that we have all of this laid out

54:18 ↗ architectural options vertical

54:20 ↗ modulation shading this that and the

54:22 ↗ other and stepbacks is in a separate

54:25 ↗ place should that remain or should that

54:28 ↗ completely come out so it won't be

54:30 ↗ addition you know we can pose that as a

54:32 ↗ policy question and go through that that

54:34 ↗ motion of uh seeing it in with the menu

54:37 ↗ of options at that time. Regardless of

54:40 ↗ what your recommendation today is to

54:42 ↗ full counsel, whether you want to strike

54:43 ↗ it out or you want to keep it, we can

54:46 ↗ we'll certainly

54:48 ↗ pose that as a policy question with PPC

54:50 ↗ during the architectural design

54:51 ↗ standards. The the trick part there is

54:54 ↗ that you have five different styles that

54:56 ↗ someone can choose from and stepbacks

54:59 ↗ may not make more sense in the

55:02 ↗ Renaissance Revival style. for instance,

55:04 ↗ you know, it's it's it's a different

55:06 ↗ style that maybe stepbacks don't

55:08 ↗ necessarily play a a role into. So, so I

55:12 ↗ think some conversation with the

55:13 ↗ architectural standards is warranted and

55:16 ↗ we will we will have that with PPC. Um

55:19 ↗ this fixes the interim thing uh that the

55:22 ↗ developers have been asking uh

55:24 ↗ immediately and that's why we prioritize

55:26 ↗ this as the top two issues. we had

55:28 ↗ already given this flexibility to to it

55:31 ↗ extends that flexibility to the rest of

55:33 ↗ the development if that comes in during

55:35 ↗ that time period. So that's pros and

55:36 ↗ cons for you to debate.

55:37 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think my thought process on

55:40 ↗ why including it in now and then taking

55:43 ↗ it out later is both that it fixes fixes

55:47 ↗ some of it in the interim and may make

55:49 ↗ some projects pencil, but also I would

55:52 ↗ imagine we would be removing other

55:54 ↗ requirements and putting them into this

55:58 ↗ bucket of standards at the same time.

56:01 ↗ So, I don't I I think this in some ways

56:05 ↗ signals there are other things that um

56:09 ↗ could be into an options list.

56:21 ↗ >> I'm not tied hugely to this. Again, I

56:24 ↗ don't think this is a big area of the

56:26 ↗ city um of this. That's one of the

56:31 ↗ reasons why I'm looking at this and

56:32 ↗ going I feel pretty comfortable moving

56:35 ↗ that forward with the idea that

56:38 ↗ architectural and design standards, you

56:41 ↗ know, is a bigger area of allowing some

56:45 ↗ flexibility for builders while still

56:49 ↗ achieving the aesthetic standards that

56:52 ↗ our community wants.

56:54 ↗ >> Yeah. And uh one other thing I want to

56:56 ↗ point out, I mean it does strike out

56:58 ↗ next to the natural context area. So

57:00 ↗ that's no longer part of it. Um so if

57:04 ↗ this gets adopted as is with the what

57:06 ↗ PPC is recommending right now. So the

57:08 ↗ that goes away next to the natural

57:10 ↗ context areas. You have it there's

57:13 ↗ consist you the multiple step back

57:15 ↗ requirement goes away. You only have to

57:17 ↗ do one. You have the flexibility and

57:20 ↗ then you um the language between the

57:23 ↗ Northwest contemporary style and

57:25 ↗ everywhere. You know that's consistent.

57:27 ↗ So, um, there's some benefit to to

57:31 ↗ eliminating some requirements, having

57:33 ↗ them consistent, eliminating multiple

57:35 ↗ stepbacks.

57:36 ↗ >> So, and I and I also pulled up the

57:38 ↗ natural context map because right now,

57:40 ↗ if we strike if we strike the stepbacks

57:43 ↗ from the natural context areas and look

57:44 ↗ at the map,

57:46 ↗ part of this, which if you go down um

57:49 ↗ 12th Avenue Northwest and Gilman, much

57:52 ↗ of that is Rally, who falls under a

57:54 ↗ different development agreement anyway,

57:55 ↗ not these standards. And then you have

57:58 ↗ Gilman. Uh much of which is outside of

58:00 ↗ central Isiqua. Um

58:03 ↗ and that's about it. There aren't many

58:05 ↗ areas if we strike it just from the

58:06 ↗ natural context area that we're

58:08 ↗ >> Yeah. But I'm that's why that's one of

58:09 ↗ the reasons I would like to remove it

58:11 ↗ from the other areas as well which is

58:12 ↗ urban core and mixed use and mixed use

58:15 ↗ central Isqua because I agree this isn't

58:18 ↗ >> this this doesn't make much of a

58:20 ↗ difference.

58:22 ↗ >> Deputy Council President, any thoughts

58:24 ↗ here? I mean, I'm fine with it as it's

58:28 ↗ proposed now and I think we can revisit

58:30 ↗ the architectural standards when the

58:32 ↗ time comes.

58:37 ↗ Okay. So two to three kind of moving it

58:41 ↗ forward as an idea and I would use the

58:46 ↗ meeting with the council as kind of a

58:50 ↗ time to kind of introduce hey we're

58:53 ↗ moving this forward but the idea of

58:57 ↗ architectural and design standards

58:59 ↗ options is um coming.

59:01 ↗ >> Yeah. And and once again, I would it

59:03 ↗ would be helpful for at least me because

59:05 ↗ I'm going to try to propose something to

59:06 ↗ have this presented as as a bookend to

59:08 ↗ just remove them. Um so if you can come

59:11 ↗ up with that in advance, that would that

59:13 ↗ would help. Um and I'd like to have that

59:16 ↗ conversation at least.

59:19 ↗ >> You're saying at council on June 29th or

59:23 ↗ when the architectural design standards

59:26 ↗ conversation happens?

59:27 ↗ >> I think I'd like to have it at council.

59:30 ↗ I mean, you can certainly make an

59:32 ↗ amendment or, you know, a a motion to

59:36 ↗ strike, but I think what we're saying is

59:38 ↗ that we've got two out of the three PTE

59:42 ↗ members suggesting it move forward.

59:50 ↗ >> I could also note that next on the

59:52 ↗ agenda is talking about the outcomes

59:55 ↗ that and that could be included in that

59:58 ↗ as well. So the step back shifts down to

1:00:02 ↗ the architectural standards in the next

1:00:04 ↗ discussion and then that's the way it'll

1:00:08 ↗ happen.

1:00:12 ↗ >> We're we're using the the proposed uh

1:00:15 ↗ the uh goals and desired outcomes as our

1:00:19 ↗ that that's those are our marching

1:00:20 ↗ orders. So if you all decide to remove

1:00:23 ↗ stepbacks as a separate item how it is

1:00:25 ↗ currently presented on there and just

1:00:27 ↗ mix it in with the architectural

1:00:28 ↗ standards, that's what we will do. So it

1:00:30 ↗ sounds like you asking for bookends to

1:00:32 ↗ say this is what we're proposing now,

1:00:33 ↗ but here's what we want to come later.

1:00:35 ↗ But if you just put it into this chart,

1:00:38 ↗ that's the way it's going to happen.

1:00:39 ↗ >> Okay. And we'll talk about that when

1:00:41 ↗ that comes up because I think there was

1:00:43 ↗ stuff in there that

1:00:45 ↗ >> tried to suggest that. But yeah.

1:00:49 ↗ Okay. So um looking back at the

1:00:53 ↗ presentation

1:00:55 ↗ okay so this was all of the stepbacks

1:00:59 ↗ um do you have what you need from us

1:01:02 ↗ from stepbacks? Yes. As I understand it

1:01:04 ↗ the recommendation is to move forward as

1:01:07 ↗ presented in the PowerPoint and that's

1:01:10 ↗ it. And then as we know we will talk

1:01:12 ↗ about this later with architectural

1:01:14 ↗ standards. Okay.

1:01:15 ↗ >> Yep. Okay. and then outdoor amenity

1:01:19 ↗ spaces.

1:01:20 ↗ Um so the big change I mean there's

1:01:25 ↗ several changes here of moving

1:01:29 ↗ uh removing the requirement for

1:01:32 ↗ buildings less than nine units changing

1:01:35 ↗ to

1:01:38 ↗ you know only 30% of the units must

1:01:42 ↗ provide

1:01:44 ↗ outdoor individual private outdoor

1:01:47 ↗ amenity space. um all of that and

1:01:52 ↗ all of those pieces. Any feedback?

1:01:57 ↗ So, you're good with it as proposed?

1:02:00 ↗ >> Um I guess I'm still not totally bought

1:02:03 ↗ into this concept that we need this

1:02:04 ↗ additional 400 square ft of indoor or

1:02:07 ↗ outdoor common amenity area for, you

1:02:10 ↗ know, 22 plus units in central Isqua. I

1:02:12 ↗ mean, it's just not that much relative

1:02:15 ↗ to, you know, it's like if it's a 22

1:02:17 ↗ unit property, you go from 2200 ft² to

1:02:20 ↗ 2600 ft² needed. If it's a, you know,

1:02:23 ↗ 100 units, you go from 10,000 to 10,400

1:02:26 ↗ ft² needed. So, I don't know. I I'm not

1:02:29 ↗ really

1:02:31 ↗ I'm not really understanding what the

1:02:33 ↗ necessity of that common amenity space

1:02:36 ↗ is. And I think, you know, I mean, it's

1:02:40 ↗ been interesting because I've talked to

1:02:42 ↗ some owners of, you know, older

1:02:44 ↗ apartment complexes and they're like,

1:02:45 ↗ "Well, we can't charge as much as the

1:02:46 ↗ ones with fancy new amenities because we

1:02:47 ↗ don't have them." And so, you know, if

1:02:50 ↗ there are

1:02:52 ↗ groups out there that want to build

1:02:53 ↗ lower cost

1:02:56 ↗ buildings that have less, you know,

1:02:58 ↗ indoor common amenities. They don't have

1:03:00 ↗ an indoor pool. They don't have an

1:03:01 ↗ indoor co-working space. They don't have

1:03:03 ↗ an indoor, you know, movie theater for

1:03:05 ↗ their residents. But then it costs less

1:03:08 ↗ for rent. I don't see why we should be

1:03:11 ↗ like requiring that.

1:03:15 ↗ I think I'm ending up at the same area.

1:03:18 ↗ Uh maybe there's an argument to be made

1:03:21 ↗ that some of the

1:03:24 ↗ common minimum common amenity space

1:03:26 ↗ could be indoor or outdoor, but that

1:03:29 ↗ takes it a step further.

1:03:32 ↗ I think on the other side like this is

1:03:33 ↗ not one of the things that I think

1:03:34 ↗ anybody identified is really costing.

1:03:38 ↗ We have we have this long list of things

1:03:40 ↗ that do cost a lot that we know about. I

1:03:43 ↗ don't think this is one that came up.

1:03:45 ↗ >> That's fair.

1:03:52 ↗ >> Okay. Well, maybe we'll see if we hear

1:03:56 ↗ sorry see if we hear anything from um

1:04:00 ↗ anybody any of the builders after we

1:04:02 ↗ mention this.

1:04:04 ↗ So other than that good to move forward.

1:04:11 ↗ Excuse me.

1:04:15 ↗ Okay. Was there anything else that then

1:04:18 ↗ you needed from us?

1:04:20 ↗ >> No. Just uh right now I just want to

1:04:22 ↗ confirm no changes.

1:04:25 ↗ >> No changes to amenity space.

1:04:28 ↗ >> Okay.

1:04:29 ↗ >> Okay.

1:04:30 ↗ >> And I would presume this is not going on

1:04:32 ↗ consent.

1:04:33 ↗ >> I would presume that.

1:04:34 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

1:04:40 ↗ Okay. Two of three down.

1:04:43 ↗ Um, com 0283

1:04:46 ↗ updates to goals and outcomes presented

1:04:48 ↗ by director Dollywal, community planning

1:04:50 ↗ and development director.

1:04:53 ↗ >> Good evening everyone. Um, so this is

1:04:56 ↗ the second time with this um, goals and

1:04:58 ↗ outcomes chart. Um, and thank you for

1:05:01 ↗ all the feedback that we received from

1:05:03 ↗ um, a good conversation we had at the

1:05:06 ↗ last meeting. I really don't have a

1:05:08 ↗ presentation for this one. Uh the

1:05:10 ↗ purpose of this uh on the agenda is just

1:05:13 ↗ to make sure I captured all the comments

1:05:15 ↗ uh if there's anything missing uh or

1:05:18 ↗ anything that you thought of since the

1:05:19 ↗ last meeting that we should add into um

1:05:22 ↗ this chart. The purpose of this chart is

1:05:24 ↗ really to be the north arrow for

1:05:26 ↗ planning and policy commission to use it

1:05:28 ↗ as a guide tool so that when they vet

1:05:32 ↗ out these um amendments what comes to

1:05:35 ↗ you they they they already know what

1:05:38 ↗ you're thinking um what you want them to

1:05:40 ↗ evaluate and go into more depth and do

1:05:43 ↗ more research and analysis on it. So

1:05:46 ↗ that that's that's the purpose of this

1:05:49 ↗ thing and we hope um we it'll be a good

1:05:51 ↗ tool for them uh as well as council as

1:05:54 ↗ we bring things forward.

1:05:58 ↗ Okay. So

1:06:00 ↗ I think looking over the sheet I'm

1:06:03 ↗ seeing most of what we talked about. I

1:06:06 ↗ think you did bring up with the stepback

1:06:08 ↗ requirements which is topic number two

1:06:10 ↗ on the list. the you know our goal and

1:06:14 ↗ objective says

1:06:18 ↗ have a context of a menu of other design

1:06:20 ↗ options for overall visual interest

1:06:23 ↗ recognizing the architectural interest

1:06:24 ↗ may be achieved via different methods.

1:06:26 ↗ So that goal and objective almost

1:06:29 ↗ negates the concept that stepX should be

1:06:33 ↗ a requirement. Um so is

1:06:39 ↗ based on this additional conversation

1:06:41 ↗ what you mentioned earlier does it make

1:06:43 ↗ sense to remove stepback requirements

1:06:47 ↗ as its own topic and move

1:06:51 ↗ that under um architectural design

1:06:54 ↗ standards.

1:06:58 ↗ >> Yeah. You know the uh the issue with

1:07:00 ↗ these two items was we had already

1:07:01 ↗ started this work through the planning

1:07:03 ↗ and policy commission before we had the

1:07:05 ↗ goals outcome conversation with you all.

1:07:07 ↗ So it's caught between that uh a little

1:07:10 ↗ bit but moving all of this uh you know

1:07:13 ↗ making sure that in the other

1:07:14 ↗ architectural element

1:07:17 ↗ uh which is uh where are we?

1:07:21 ↗ >> Yes, number eight.

1:07:23 ↗ >> Number eight. Yeah. So I think moving

1:07:26 ↗ some of that language down to here um to

1:07:29 ↗ say also evaluate um stepbacks as a menu

1:07:33 ↗ of options instead of a standalone

1:07:35 ↗ requirement. Um so we can move some of

1:07:37 ↗ that language here. So as as that number

1:07:40 ↗ eight goes forward then we'll we can

1:07:42 ↗ like Kristen said we would come back and

1:07:44 ↗ if pose that as a policy question do you

1:07:48 ↗ want to eliminate this from these other

1:07:49 ↗ we've already eliminated from natural

1:07:51 ↗ context but you also want to eliminate

1:07:52 ↗ it from these two other areas. One is in

1:07:55 ↗ particular architectural style the other

1:07:57 ↗ one is an overall building design

1:08:00 ↗ and just have it under the different um

1:08:04 ↗ architectural style discussions.

1:08:07 ↗ So stepbacks may not make sense for one

1:08:09 ↗ particular type of a style for instance

1:08:11 ↗ uh and that's okay type of a

1:08:13 ↗ conversation.

1:08:14 ↗ >> Yeah. So I think we this update to the

1:08:17 ↗ document does a good job of capturing

1:08:20 ↗ the concept that we want to group

1:08:22 ↗ stepbacks with other modulation

1:08:24 ↗ articulation

1:08:26 ↗ um to achieve overall visual interest.

1:08:29 ↗ Um,

1:08:31 ↗ do we feel like that is enough since

1:08:34 ↗ again we are building the ship while

1:08:36 ↗ we're flying the plane? Um, or do we

1:08:38 ↗ feel like we need to make specific

1:08:40 ↗ changes

1:08:42 ↗ so that this goals and outcomes chart

1:08:44 ↗ doesn't come back to bite us on the

1:08:45 ↗ butt? Deputy council president,

1:08:48 ↗ >> I would say other menu of other menu of

1:08:52 ↗ design options. We should probably name

1:08:53 ↗ what some of them are, right? because I

1:08:55 ↗ don't I don't want it to only be, you

1:08:57 ↗ know, different types of facade

1:08:58 ↗ modulation, which we've heard are tend

1:09:00 ↗ to be more expensive. I think, you know,

1:09:02 ↗ things like, you know, higher quality

1:09:04 ↗ building materials, decorations,

1:09:06 ↗ ornamentation,

1:09:07 ↗ um, art, etc., like having all of those

1:09:11 ↗ different types of things. You could

1:09:12 ↗ even get, you know, points for like

1:09:15 ↗ retaining really large trees or

1:09:16 ↗ whatever. But I do think it's like we

1:09:20 ↗ want to incentivize people to do things

1:09:22 ↗ that make their buildings look good and

1:09:26 ↗ while not, you know, having such

1:09:28 ↗ stringent requirements that every

1:09:29 ↗ building ends up looking exactly the

1:09:31 ↗ same, which is actually the opposite of

1:09:32 ↗ what we want. And I I do think um

1:09:38 ↗ overall visual interest I I think part

1:09:41 ↗ of what I'm trying to get at is you know

1:09:43 ↗ have more you know diversity of what

1:09:46 ↗ types of buildings can get built.

1:09:51 ↗ So agree with that feedback. I think the

1:09:55 ↗ question I'm trying to pose here is do

1:09:59 ↗ we feel with that feedback being given

1:10:03 ↗ to CPD, do we feel comfortable adopting

1:10:08 ↗ or are we even adopting the goals and

1:10:10 ↗ outcomes chart or at least like

1:10:12 ↗ checkboxing it off or do we feel like it

1:10:15 ↗ needs is this a living document and we

1:10:17 ↗ tell you you know two changes and you

1:10:20 ↗ make it etc.

1:10:22 ↗ Um I don't know if the formal adoption

1:10:25 ↗ is needed. Um but I think if you agree I

1:10:29 ↗ mean it's it could become a living

1:10:30 ↗ document but we also don't want it to

1:10:32 ↗ change too often because we'll be in the

1:10:34 ↗ middle of so this is our chance now to

1:10:36 ↗ say okay here's what we know today and

1:10:38 ↗ here's what we think the goals and

1:10:41 ↗ outcomes would be.

1:10:43 ↗ >> City administrator Bob Quitz

1:10:45 ↗ >> and I think your colleagues would be

1:10:46 ↗ anxious to see the work product. So if

1:10:48 ↗ you feel it's at the point where it can

1:10:50 ↗ be shared, uh I don't think adoption is

1:10:53 ↗ necessarily needed, but certainly I

1:10:56 ↗ would we could either put it on consent

1:10:58 ↗ or you could uh we could put it in the

1:11:00 ↗ packet and you could refer to it as a

1:11:02 ↗ committee report um just to share with

1:11:04 ↗ your colleagues. I mean I think the work

1:11:05 ↗ the committee's done, the staff's done

1:11:07 ↗ been really great and this is a real

1:11:08 ↗ central point of the the council's work

1:11:11 ↗ plan over the next couple years. So I

1:11:14 ↗ don't think I think there's need for

1:11:15 ↗ adoption. But if you feel it's at a

1:11:17 ↗ point this evening that it can be more

1:11:19 ↗ widely shared, then we can perhap we can

1:11:22 ↗ we can talk with you offline and decide

1:11:24 ↗ if it's a consent item or just

1:11:27 ↗ distributed otherwise.

1:11:28 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Then I think my preference

1:11:31 ↗ if it's at the point of being shared to

1:11:34 ↗ council is um I'm comfortable with

1:11:38 ↗ keeping stepback requirements as

1:11:40 ↗ adjusted in this because it does very

1:11:43 ↗ much mention

1:11:45 ↗ um this as a menu of options. But I

1:11:49 ↗ think I agree with Deputy Council

1:11:51 ↗ President Jiang that um the

1:11:53 ↗ architectural design standards piece

1:11:57 ↗ should include more options listed there

1:12:00 ↗ as far as like just details of where

1:12:04 ↗ we're going with that to suggest that

1:12:07 ↗ it's not only going to include stepbacks

1:12:10 ↗ but other modulation materials etc. um

1:12:14 ↗ that could satisfy the visual interest

1:12:16 ↗ need and I'm seeing both of you.

1:12:20 ↗ Okay. Uh Council Member Nichols,

1:12:22 ↗ I I think what would better reflect what

1:12:25 ↗ we're get getting at is moving group

1:12:28 ↗ stepbacks with modulation and other um

1:12:31 ↗ menu of design options to achieve visual

1:12:33 ↗ interest from a possible action to a

1:12:35 ↗ goal.

1:12:37 ↗ I think we're saying that's a goal. Is

1:12:39 ↗ that correct?

1:12:44 ↗ Yeah, I agree with that.

1:12:48 ↗ >> Oh, so under possible

1:12:52 ↗ >> right right now we have stepbacks are

1:12:54 ↗ are

1:12:56 ↗ basically a thing that is is stated as

1:12:59 ↗ an independently good thing in itself.

1:13:01 ↗ Um and then we have some issues with

1:13:03 ↗ those and then we have some goals about

1:13:05 ↗ them. We could say one of our goals for

1:13:07 ↗ stepbacks as far from a policy

1:13:10 ↗ perspective is to not have them be this

1:13:13 ↗ independent category, but to be one of

1:13:15 ↗ many things that are options that could

1:13:17 ↗ be picked

1:13:19 ↗ instead of the possible actions for

1:13:21 ↗ setbacks that becomes the goal for

1:13:22 ↗ setbacks,

1:13:24 ↗ which is what I was getting with that my

1:13:26 ↗ concerns around timing is that I'm I'm

1:13:28 ↗ worried that it'll it'll be hard to

1:13:30 ↗ remove them as an independently

1:13:32 ↗ required thing. um which is why I wanted

1:13:35 ↗ to just remove them all now um and come

1:13:37 ↗ back later. If we can say as a goal, one

1:13:40 ↗ of our goals is to remove them as an

1:13:42 ↗ independently required thing and to put

1:13:44 ↗ them with architectural standards that

1:13:45 ↗ could be paid for essentially um as a

1:13:49 ↗ cost. Uh that's I think that's basically

1:13:52 ↗ what we've been saying

1:13:54 ↗ >> and then maybe that u goal moves to the

1:13:57 ↗ architectural standard. So group

1:13:59 ↗ setbacks with modular modulation

1:14:01 ↗ articulation. Then given where we are

1:14:04 ↗ today and that if you all are okay with

1:14:08 ↗ having that conversation as part of

1:14:09 ↗ number eight, we would move the possible

1:14:12 ↗ action from stepbacks to a goal under

1:14:15 ↗ architectural standards.

1:14:17 ↗ >> I am going I'm going a little further

1:14:18 ↗ than that. I'm I'm saying a goal for

1:14:20 ↗ stepbacks is to remove it is to move

1:14:23 ↗ them which is which is a little further

1:14:26 ↗ than saying one of the goals for

1:14:28 ↗ architectural standards is to have these

1:14:29 ↗ in.

1:14:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So the goal right now as written

1:14:33 ↗ for stepbacks says reduce multiple

1:14:36 ↗ stepbacks while still achieving the

1:14:38 ↗ overall goal of architectural interest

1:14:40 ↗ along the public realm. Which as you

1:14:42 ↗ said if what we are really doing here is

1:14:46 ↗ saying our goal is to remove stepbacks

1:14:50 ↗ as a standalone requirement and instead

1:14:54 ↗ include them as a part of a menu of

1:14:56 ↗ options for modulation. So does that

1:15:01 ↗ meet

1:15:03 ↗ the intent there?

1:15:06 ↗ >> Yeah, if I think that the simple move is

1:15:07 ↗ move

1:15:09 ↗ move the goal that was added to possible

1:15:11 ↗ actions which is a good good one which

1:15:13 ↗ is group stepbacks with modulation etc

1:15:15 ↗ from possible actions into goals for

1:15:17 ↗ stepbacks.

1:15:20 ↗ Okay. I think there's probably more work

1:15:23 ↗ on the goals, objectives, and possible

1:15:25 ↗ actions to align it with our intent

1:15:27 ↗ because it says things like eliminate

1:15:29 ↗ multiple stepback requirements when

1:15:32 ↗ really we're going in a um further

1:15:35 ↗ direction. But are you uh deputy council

1:15:39 ↗ president Chang?

1:15:40 ↗ Yeah, I would say I mean I I think where

1:15:43 ↗ probably the goal might need to be

1:15:46 ↗ addressed is like in the architectural

1:15:48 ↗ and design standards aspect. Maybe part

1:15:50 ↗ of the goal is to you know remove

1:15:53 ↗ excessive requirements and replace it

1:15:55 ↗ with flexibility in design standards

1:15:58 ↗ including stepbacks or something like

1:16:00 ↗ that. Um because I think you know with

1:16:02 ↗ stepbacks with the narrowly defined goal

1:16:04 ↗ I think we have a policy that gets at

1:16:06 ↗ that but I want to make sure that you

1:16:07 ↗ know we have in the record that we're

1:16:09 ↗ going to take another look back at all

1:16:11 ↗ of that in the architectural design

1:16:13 ↗ standards.

1:16:16 ↗ >> Sure. So we can capture both all of that

1:16:18 ↗ feedback under the setbacks we can you

1:16:21 ↗ know to council member um Nichols point

1:16:23 ↗ we can move the group setbacks into from

1:16:25 ↗ the possible action to the goals and

1:16:27 ↗ then add a line saying this this will be

1:16:30 ↗ val you know look this goal should also

1:16:32 ↗ be looked at as part of number eight

1:16:35 ↗ down below and then repeat that same

1:16:37 ↗ goal under number eight.

1:16:39 ↗ >> Yeah. Yep. And then I also heard under

1:16:41 ↗ number eight including maybe a list of

1:16:44 ↗ some examples um and the idea that we

1:16:48 ↗ recognize that certain architectural

1:16:51 ↗ requirements add significant cost to

1:16:54 ↗ projects and we want to provide the

1:16:56 ↗ flexibility of options.

1:16:57 ↗ >> Yes, we'll make that under number eight.

1:17:00 ↗ Um, one area that I don't see on here

1:17:03 ↗ that, um, I don't know if it's too late

1:17:05 ↗ to add another item on here, but um, the

1:17:08 ↗ vesting question of, you know, should,

1:17:11 ↗ you know, what is the time point at

1:17:12 ↗ which, um, developments should vest and

1:17:16 ↗ I think having a discussion about like

1:17:18 ↗ what the implications are of doing it in

1:17:20 ↗ different ways, I think is helpful for

1:17:22 ↗ us to understand. Um, so I don't know if

1:17:27 ↗ we can add that

1:17:29 ↗ >> toward that idea. Maybe a much like we

1:17:32 ↗ had with the um title 18 whiteboard,

1:17:34 ↗ which were things that we had decided

1:17:36 ↗ not to include into this update because

1:17:39 ↗ this is a very ambitious 2-year update.

1:17:43 ↗ um just a concept of, hey, here's the

1:17:46 ↗ items that are still listed there that

1:17:49 ↗ still have interest from the community,

1:17:51 ↗ but which we're maybe not committing to

1:17:53 ↗ doing within a 2-year time period. Maybe

1:17:56 ↗ with a reason why um or maybe just with

1:17:59 ↗ um a time period. Now, I'm saying that

1:18:02 ↗ is another option that does not negate

1:18:04 ↗ the idea of bringing this up. So, to

1:18:07 ↗ respond to that vesting time period,

1:18:10 ↗ what are you thinking? Um yeah, I mean

1:18:13 ↗ you're absolutely right. It's an

1:18:15 ↗ ambitious work plan council

1:18:18 ↗ and the discussion that happened to

1:18:19 ↗ include these seven 17 uh we want to get

1:18:22 ↗ these done. Um and what if we accomplish

1:18:26 ↗ and we finish these then the second

1:18:28 ↗ round the second phase could include

1:18:30 ↗ whatever else council puts on our work

1:18:32 ↗ plan. That that would be our

1:18:34 ↗ recommendation. uh in terms of uh the

1:18:37 ↗ actual vesting problems issues. Um

1:18:41 ↗ you so it it it's a legal question a lot

1:18:45 ↗ of times um what we see actually

1:18:48 ↗ happening in SOQUA's context a lot of

1:18:50 ↗ these areas are under development

1:18:52 ↗ agreements that are vested to the

1:18:54 ↗ regulations that are under the

1:18:55 ↗ development agreement for a long period

1:18:57 ↗ of time. So if you parse those areas

1:18:59 ↗ out, you know, so what's left is central

1:19:03 ↗ Isiqua and other places. Um people want

1:19:06 ↗ to use the newer code because they we've

1:19:08 ↗ kind of streamlined of so many different

1:19:10 ↗ things. Um so procedurally they're not

1:19:13 ↗ there's no vesting. It's just to the

1:19:15 ↗ standards. So any of those plats that we

1:19:18 ↗ have processed, the final plat is an

1:19:20 ↗ administrative check. You've done these

1:19:23 ↗ things and you you get this. There's no

1:19:24 ↗ public hearing in that process because

1:19:26 ↗ it's a technical check. A lot of our

1:19:28 ↗ plat applicants are really thankful that

1:19:30 ↗ we did that. So what we're seeing in the

1:19:33 ↗ on the ground is people like the newer

1:19:35 ↗ code and they want to go with the new at

1:19:37 ↗ least the process and procedures into

1:19:39 ↗ the new code. The letter that you

1:19:41 ↗ received today and the feedback from the

1:19:43 ↗ development community is that shity that

1:19:45 ↗ when they apply their land use

1:19:47 ↗ application that they can get their um

1:19:50 ↗ they know that they have to comply with

1:19:52 ↗ these things. the building code, the

1:19:55 ↗ storm water code, those are the big

1:19:57 ↗ ticket items for development and those

1:20:00 ↗ usually do vest at the time of the

1:20:02 ↗ building permit application. Your land

1:20:04 ↗ use regulations,

1:20:06 ↗ policy choices that you all make for uh

1:20:09 ↗ the community. Um there's never an

1:20:12 ↗ intent to pull the rug from anyone's

1:20:14 ↗ feet. Um and it just means um we are at

1:20:18 ↗ a point here where we had the old code,

1:20:20 ↗ we had a title 18 update and then we're

1:20:23 ↗ you know still have a few projects that

1:20:25 ↗ are lingering on. There may come a time

1:20:27 ↗ when all of that is all cleaned up and

1:20:29 ↗ then the the policy discussion about

1:20:32 ↗ when should the vesting occur can would

1:20:35 ↗ be the right time. Uh I think it's a

1:20:37 ↗ little bit messier at this point given

1:20:39 ↗ what we've got in our hopper from the

1:20:41 ↗ old code, new code and all that kind of

1:20:43 ↗ stuff. Um, and we have more um, clearer

1:20:46 ↗ guidance of if you get your land use

1:20:48 ↗ application, how many years do you have

1:20:50 ↗ to apply for your building permit? We

1:20:53 ↗ didn't have that sort of stuff under the

1:20:55 ↗ old code. Uh, the state law on plats is

1:20:58 ↗ you get your preliminary plat approval,

1:21:01 ↗ you have five years to get your final

1:21:03 ↗ plat, and then you have 10 years to

1:21:05 ↗ build your homes under that plat or the

1:21:07 ↗ vesting goes away. So, it gets nuanced

1:21:10 ↗ really based on what what people are

1:21:12 ↗ trying to do. uh it's not going to be

1:21:14 ↗ quick and easy. Let's just give this

1:21:16 ↗ sort of a so it'll take some time. Um

1:21:19 ↗ but our recommendation would be to do it

1:21:21 ↗ in phase two like uh council member

1:21:24 ↗ Walsh said you know we'll maintain a

1:21:26 ↗ list of other interested things that

1:21:28 ↗ come up throughout this process because

1:21:30 ↗ once we get into the nitty-gritty

1:21:31 ↗ details with the other ones there's

1:21:33 ↗ going to be other things that will come

1:21:34 ↗ up so we can maintain a side we'll have

1:21:37 ↗ to come up with a different name than

1:21:39 ↗ white.

1:21:41 ↗ >> Yeah. What was it? Uh, bike parking lot

1:21:44 ↗ at one point. Yep.

1:21:45 ↗ >> Bike rack. Yep. Uh, Council Member

1:21:48 ↗ Nichols.

1:21:50 ↗ >> Yeah. When we do start looking at that,

1:21:52 ↗ um, I I appreciate everything you're

1:21:53 ↗ saying. I I also keep hearing

1:21:55 ↗ consistently from our home builder

1:21:56 ↗ community that this is something that

1:21:58 ↗ they they disagree with essentially. Um,

1:22:00 ↗ so they have a different perspective and

1:22:02 ↗ that it is more important. Um it would

1:22:04 ↗ be helpful to understand what

1:22:06 ↗ neighboring jurisdictions do in this

1:22:09 ↗ with regard to concurrent vesting if

1:22:12 ↗ that's what it would be called. Um to in

1:22:15 ↗ part to understand if we're putting

1:22:16 ↗ ourselves at a competitive disadvantage

1:22:18 ↗ um what expectations are otherwise etc.

1:22:20 ↗ Again in the context of this is a

1:22:22 ↗ consistent thing that we've heard from

1:22:25 ↗ many home builders multiple times as one

1:22:27 ↗ of their higher priority things as well.

1:22:29 ↗ >> Sure.

1:22:32 ↗ Okay. So, we've heard the idea of

1:22:35 ↗ creating, you know, or adding to this

1:22:38 ↗ with a future

1:22:40 ↗ future ideas list and adding vesting to

1:22:44 ↗ that. Um, and a request for information

1:22:48 ↗ on what other communities are doing,

1:22:51 ↗ whether this puts us at disadvantage,

1:22:54 ↗ etc. Um, we gave you the feedback on the

1:22:59 ↗ stepback requirements and the

1:23:01 ↗ architectural and design standards

1:23:03 ↗ section. Um,

1:23:06 ↗ do we feel like this needs to come back

1:23:08 ↗ to us before it goes to council or do we

1:23:12 ↗ feel like our feedback is clear?

1:23:20 ↗ Go ahead.

1:23:20 ↗ >> I I don't think more debate's going to

1:23:23 ↗ change much.

1:23:24 ↗ Yeah, I agree. I think it's fine to

1:23:26 ↗ share it with the whole council. And I

1:23:27 ↗ think, you know, especially as we're

1:23:30 ↗ presenting the first two code changes on

1:23:32 ↗ the 29th. I think it would be good for

1:23:34 ↗ this to, you know, kind of be the

1:23:36 ↗ framing for those two.

1:23:38 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure

1:23:40 ↗ that nobody felt like they needed to see

1:23:42 ↗ it and give a check mark on it before it

1:23:45 ↗ went on. Um, I think you've done a great

1:23:48 ↗ job, you know, taking in our feedback

1:23:51 ↗ and obviously we all emailed um with

1:23:53 ↗ ideas. So, I guess no real action here,

1:23:58 ↗ but recommending that this these this

1:24:02 ↗ get updated and included maybe in the

1:24:04 ↗ presentation um or the conversation on

1:24:07 ↗ the June 29th if you feel like that's

1:24:09 ↗ appropriate.

1:24:12 ↗ >> Okay, great.

1:24:14 ↗ Um,

1:24:16 ↗ I think that's our that's our meeting,

1:24:19 ↗ guys. Um, do you have everything that

1:24:22 ↗ you need from us?

1:24:23 ↗ >> We do. Thank you for your time.

1:24:25 ↗ >> Excellent. Uh, do my fellow committee

1:24:27 ↗ members have any announcements?

1:24:30 ↗ Nope. Okay. Our next committee meeting

1:24:32 ↗ is July 7th, 2026. There being no

1:24:36 ↗ further business, meeting is adjourned

1:24:37 ↗ at 7:57 p.m.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Lindsey Walsh

Kelly Jiang

Kevin Nichols

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The Committee recommended to place this item on the Consent Calendar of the City Council June 29, 2026 meeting agenda, with an organizational revision to combine IMC 18.208.030(C)(1) and 18.208.030(C)(2) to simplify the…
Open Amenity Space The Committee recommended the proposed amendments to be brought to the City Council at their June 29, 2026 meeting.