Development Commission · Thursday, June 9, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Building and Design Standards, (D) Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.5–133

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the May 26 joint Planning Policy Commission (PPC) and Development Commission (DC) meeting is to hold a public hearing and receive public comments regarding the draft code for the Building and Design topics. The DC will deliberate following closure of the public comments.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

2735 segments .txt ↗

0:17 ↗ i still don't see the little record

0:18 ↗ button should i just go ahead

0:26 ↗ good evening commissioners

0:28 ↗ uh tonight

0:29 ↗ we are once again joined by the

0:31 ↗ development commission so i want to say

0:33 ↗ welcome to the development commission

0:35 ↗ and tonight is a joint meeting between

0:38 ↗ them as well as the planning policy

0:39 ↗ commission so i'd like to bring this

0:41 ↗ meeting to order and it is currently

0:45 ↗ 6 32 pm

0:47 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:49 ↗ meetings i'd like to start by providing

0:51 ↗ some guidelines we have participants

0:54 ↗ attending by computer and others who may

0:56 ↗ be attending by phone for all meeting

0:58 ↗ attendees who wish to speak tonight

1:00 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

1:03 ↗ frequently

1:04 ↗ state your name each time before

1:06 ↗ speaking

1:07 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:09 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

1:10 ↗ technical issues

1:12 ↗ call kristen

1:15 ↗ now if you're having any technical

1:16 ↗ issues please try joining the meeting

1:18 ↗ using a different device such as a

1:20 ↗ smartphone or a tablet

1:21 ↗ and use the call-in information in the

1:23 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

1:26 ↗ and kristen would you please call roll

1:29 ↗ for both commissions tonight

1:31 ↗ and be happy to

1:33 ↗ commissioner vader

1:35 ↗ mr monahan

1:37 ↗ here

1:38 ↗ mr milligan

1:40 ↗ here

1:42 ↗ commissioner lewis i believe i need to

1:44 ↗ check and see if her absence was excused

1:46 ↗ thinking back on it so um

1:48 ↗ commissioner lewis is not present

1:50 ↗ and commissioner voice chair

1:52 ↗ voice here

1:56 ↗ okay for the development commission

1:58 ↗ eddie silverman has an excused absence

2:00 ↗ tonight

2:02 ↗ commissioner shore

2:05 ↗ here

2:06 ↗ commissioner dylan here commissioner

2:09 ↗ price

2:10 ↗ here

2:11 ↗ commissioner brennan

2:14 ↗ commissioner gilbert

2:15 ↗ here

2:17 ↗ commissioner ikeda

2:19 ↗ here

2:21 ↗ mr morgan

2:22 ↗ here

2:23 ↗ and chair sanford

2:37 ↗ great thank you kristen

2:40 ↗ i believe we have quorums

2:43 ↗ so the third part of our agenda tonight

2:45 ↗ is going to be public comment and this

2:47 ↗ is the portion of the evening for our

2:49 ↗ general public comment so this is not

2:51 ↗ does not have anything to do with uh our

2:53 ↗ agenda or business this meeting this is

2:55 ↗ for the general public to

2:57 ↗ um

2:59 ↗ to offer some sound advice to the

3:01 ↗ commission

3:03 ↗ kristen do we have anyone to speak

3:07 ↗ susan the bill has her hand raised i'm

3:09 ↗ going to double check and make sure that

3:10 ↗ it's a journal comment and not for the

3:12 ↗ public comment period

3:14 ↗ and while kristin's checking i just like

3:16 ↗ to remind the public that

3:19 ↗ if any of you do have questions please

3:21 ↗ raise your virtual hand

3:23 ↗ if you are on the phone go ahead and

3:24 ↗ press

3:25 ↗ start three

3:27 ↗ if you've joined by a computer

3:28 ↗ smartphone look for a hand icon

3:31 ↗ one option may be to go to the

3:32 ↗ participant panel and show choose the

3:35 ↗ raised hand icon in the lower right hand

3:37 ↗ corner

3:38 ↗ it may also be located under the

3:40 ↗ reactions or more menu

3:46 ↗ recognized please unmute your microphone

3:48 ↗ state your name

3:50 ↗ speak clearly

3:52 ↗ limit your comments please to five

3:54 ↗ minutes or less and then mute your

3:56 ↗ microphone when you're finished

4:01 ↗ so i have not i send a message in the

4:03 ↗ chat but haven't susan do you want to

4:04 ↗ speak during your hand is still up would

4:06 ↗ you like to speak during general comment

4:08 ↗ yes please and it's on a different topic

4:10 ↗ i will do i will make you a panelist

4:12 ↗ right now

4:13 ↗ thank you you're welcome

4:15 ↗ um hello everyone um thank you for

4:17 ↗ giving me this opportunity

4:19 ↗ um i just wanted to comment on

4:22 ↗ during the recent june 7th council

4:23 ↗ workshop

4:25 ↗ work um shop on segment three they were

4:28 ↗ reviewing that

4:30 ↗ um

4:31 ↗ during the

4:33 ↗ evening talk

4:34 ↗ an area of

4:36 ↗ of the

4:37 ↗ segment was being pushed back to ppc

4:41 ↗ and this was um

4:43 ↗ to look at number six of the goals chart

4:45 ↗ regarding subdivisions and to look at it

4:48 ↗ through the lens of increasing house

4:50 ↗ diversity

4:51 ↗ and um i thought this is an interesting

4:53 ↗ challenge in in how this is going to be

4:55 ↗ accomplished just not just the process

4:58 ↗ of coming back to ppc and then going

5:01 ↗ back to

5:02 ↗ uh council again but um how to maintain

5:06 ↗ the distinct character of assisting

5:09 ↗ traditional suburban and mixed-use

5:10 ↗ neighborhoods and and to accomplish this

5:13 ↗ this is a big goal

5:14 ↗ um other cities that found it really

5:16 ↗ challenging so

5:18 ↗ um that was one item and there was also

5:20 ↗ a lot of discussion around the zero lot

5:22 ↗ line

5:22 ↗ proposal and again how do you

5:26 ↗ promote maybe diversity

5:29 ↗ without replacing small homes

5:32 ↗ with mega mansions as evidenced in other

5:34 ↗ cities

5:35 ↗ so these were uh two topics that um were

5:39 ↗ interesting

5:40 ↗ and i'm again i'm just uh in the process

5:43 ↗ and how we're gonna resolve this thank

5:45 ↗ you

5:46 ↗ and have a good

5:48 ↗ talk

5:57 ↗ is there anyone who else would who would

5:58 ↗ like to speak this evening on general

6:00 ↗ public comment

6:02 ↗ i'm looking closely i'm not seeing any

6:04 ↗ other hand raised at this time

6:09 ↗ i'll give it just a minute

6:17 ↗ no no one else would like to speak at

6:18 ↗ this time

6:20 ↗ all right well thank you kristen

6:22 ↗ so this evening this is great because no

6:25 ↗ one has to feel guilty because look at

6:27 ↗ the weather back there

6:29 ↗ so we're going to have a great

6:29 ↗ discussion this evening we're going to

6:31 ↗ have a few different presentations we're

6:34 ↗ going to ask our clarifying questions

6:36 ↗ and then we'll move into our public

6:38 ↗ hearing

6:39 ↗ so tonight's public hearing is for the

6:41 ↗ title 18 building and design

6:43 ↗ standard code updates

6:46 ↗ again staff will present the three

6:48 ↗ topics together

6:50 ↗ then we'll open the floor to all of our

6:51 ↗ commissioners this evening for

6:53 ↗ clarifying questions and in the interest

6:55 ↗ of time we really are looking for

6:57 ↗ clarifying questions

6:59 ↗ i do try to lead by example and as much

7:01 ↗ as it pains me

7:02 ↗ i like to insinuate things

7:04 ↗ i know i'm not supposed to so we really

7:06 ↗ want to keep them to questions because

7:08 ↗ both commissions will have the

7:10 ↗ opportunity to deliberate

7:12 ↗ uh development commission this evening

7:13 ↗ in planning policy at our next meeting

7:16 ↗ so again we're looking really for

7:18 ↗ clarifying questions so people have a

7:19 ↗ better understanding for their

7:21 ↗ deliberations

7:23 ↗ so

7:25 ↗ we are going to open the public comments

7:28 ↗ public comments then will be heard and

7:29 ↗ then we'll close the public comment

7:31 ↗ period

7:33 ↗ as i mentioned development commission

7:35 ↗ will deliberate uh ppc will turn off

7:37 ↗ their cameras and we will hand it over

7:39 ↗ to chair sanford for that portion of

7:41 ↗ tonight's meeting

7:43 ↗ so i believe we are good to go

7:47 ↗ staff

7:49 ↗ please go ahead with your presentation

7:56 ↗ christian should i share the powerpoint

7:59 ↗ yes

8:00 ↗ i've made you a presenter

8:17 ↗ can you see the powerpoint

8:22 ↗ yes

8:28 ↗ all right there we go that looks

8:29 ↗ familiar

8:32 ↗ all right hi everyone my name is valerie

8:34 ↗ porter and i'm an associate planner and

8:37 ↗ tonight we're going to be talking about

8:42 ↗ i can there we go we're gonna be talking

8:44 ↗ about bucket four so bucket four

8:46 ↗ consists of building design site and

8:49 ↗ urban design and neighborhood overlays

8:51 ↗ so i'm gonna talk about the first two

8:53 ↗ chapters and then kristen's going to

8:55 ↗ talk about the neighborhood overlays

8:58 ↗ so the first topic is building design

9:01 ↗ so what is building design

9:03 ↗ building regulations discuss how the

9:05 ↗ exterior of a building looks and engages

9:07 ↗ with the surrounding street in the

9:08 ↗ walkways this chapter discusses building

9:11 ↗ articulation and modulation to create

9:13 ↗ visual interests provides guidelines to

9:16 ↗ determine building locations to preserve

9:18 ↗ views or increase passive solar

9:21 ↗ it also discusses what elements and

9:23 ↗ activities should be on a rooftop

9:25 ↗ weather protection requirements and

9:27 ↗ window transparency along the ground to

9:30 ↗ ensure

9:31 ↗ active use

9:34 ↗ so the building design chapter is a

9:37 ↗ compilation of standards mostly from the

9:39 ↗ central issaquad development design

9:41 ↗ standards and the design manual

9:43 ↗ so one of the requirements um or one of

9:46 ↗ the changes that's occurring in this

9:47 ↗ section is the building step back

9:49 ↗ requirement

9:50 ↗ so staff discovered that stepping back

9:52 ↗ the building above the fifth floor for

9:56 ↗ taller buildings up to 20 floors created

9:59 ↗ a challenge for construction so we

10:01 ↗ revised the requirement to allow these

10:03 ↗ taller buildings

10:05 ↗ to

10:06 ↗ step back at the fifth third floor

10:08 ↗ instead of the fifth floor

10:11 ↗ so

10:12 ↗ another change was we narrowed the

10:14 ↗ deviation so today an applicant can

10:16 ↗ request a deviation for many of the

10:18 ↗ requirements on our code so now in this

10:21 ↗ chapter

10:22 ↗ we're limiting deviation requests only

10:25 ↗ to window transparency

10:27 ↗ um other changes that are occurring in

10:30 ↗ this chapter had to deal with kind of

10:31 ↗ organizing and compiling regulations so

10:34 ↗ some of the standards were either

10:36 ↗ relocated

10:37 ↗ into other sections or combined

10:40 ↗ and we also revised text to be more

10:42 ↗ prescriptive

10:43 ↗ also in an effort to try to simplify the

10:45 ↗ code and try to create some consistency

10:48 ↗ we relocated the sky big regulations we

10:52 ↗ moved it to the street standards

10:54 ↗ we felt that this was a better location

10:56 ↗ seeing how sky bridges are located

10:57 ↗ within the right-of-way

11:00 ↗ and i also want to identify

11:02 ↗ a minor error so in the building um

11:05 ↗ design memo we state that there are

11:08 ↗ there's a new sustainability section

11:11 ↗ this isn't correct at this time no

11:13 ↗ regulations are being proposed

11:16 ↗ a lot of the state nobility regulations

11:19 ↗ that would be covered in this section

11:20 ↗ deal with the building and we want to

11:22 ↗ make sure that this is in alignment with

11:24 ↗ the energy and the building codes so

11:26 ↗ staff is going to attempt to make some

11:29 ↗ recommendations but no regulations will

11:32 ↗ occur until the new energy code is

11:34 ↗ adopted um sometime in july 2023 um

11:37 ↗ adopting um any code at this time would

11:40 ↗ could would create potential conflicts

11:42 ↗ with the building code which is

11:43 ↗ something that we're trying to avoid

11:47 ↗ so next we're going to talk about the

11:48 ↗ site in urban design

11:52 ↗ so this chapter regulates the

11:54 ↗ arrangement and the appearance of

11:57 ↗ in the relationship a development has

11:58 ↗ with the public realm and this chapter

12:01 ↗ it discusses how to orient the building

12:03 ↗ towards a critical area what

12:04 ↗ architectural elements an entry should

12:07 ↗ have

12:08 ↗ driveway access locations

12:10 ↗ garage placement and the designs and

12:13 ↗ also retaining wall heights

12:17 ↗ so some of the changes that occur in

12:18 ↗ this section section are

12:21 ↗ one is the solid waste

12:23 ↗ design guidelines so these regulations

12:26 ↗ today currently exist outside of the

12:28 ↗ code and many applicants are unaware

12:30 ↗ that they even exist so to try to bring

12:33 ↗ awareness and ensure enforceability

12:35 ↗ we're incorporating these guidelines

12:37 ↗ into our code

12:39 ↗ again we're also going to narrow the

12:41 ↗ deviation process so for this chapter

12:44 ↗ only building location to preserve view

12:46 ↗ corridors is going to be allowed for a

12:49 ↗ deviation

12:51 ↗ and then we are also

12:52 ↗ um

12:54 ↗ you know reorganizing the code so

12:56 ↗ throughout this chapter it's or we com

12:59 ↗ we combine the central issac development

13:01 ↗ design standards the design manual and

13:03 ↗ the critical area code so to try to

13:06 ↗ simplify all of that and create some

13:07 ↗ consistencies

13:09 ↗ we started again to merge some sections

13:11 ↗ and then we removed the word should and

13:14 ↗ replaced it with must to be more

13:16 ↗ prescriptive

13:18 ↗ in this section we also um

13:21 ↗ did some removing and relocating so one

13:24 ↗ requirement that was removed was the

13:26 ↗ universal design requirement which

13:28 ↗ requires a site to inherently be

13:30 ↗ accessible to people with or without

13:32 ↗ disabilities

13:34 ↗ that's been removed because it's pretty

13:36 ↗ vague and it's very difficult to

13:38 ↗ um

13:40 ↗ regulate it without any criteria and

13:42 ↗ then we also remove the throughback

13:44 ↗ passage regulations from

13:47 ↗ this section and we relocated it to the

13:49 ↗ street standards

13:53 ↗ so

13:54 ↗ non-motorized facilities so this isn't

13:56 ↗ addressed in the memo and it's not in

13:58 ↗ the draft code but i just want to

13:59 ↗ address something so in our discussion

14:02 ↗ on

14:03 ↗ tuesday this

14:05 ↗ was brought up and then we also had

14:08 ↗ the public inquire about this and so

14:11 ↗ i just want to be clear about one thing

14:12 ↗ is that

14:14 ↗ we did tell the public that the

14:15 ↗ non-motorized facilities was

14:17 ↗ unintentionally omitted from this

14:18 ↗ section and it was going to be added and

14:20 ↗ that's no longer going to be the case

14:22 ↗ after a little bit more digging in

14:23 ↗ discussion we realized that um this

14:26 ↗ section is actually going to be located

14:28 ↗ in the street standards along with the

14:30 ↗ trail section

14:34 ↗ and that is it kristin

14:38 ↗ okay will you make me a presenter please

14:53 ↗ i am not

14:55 ↗ able

14:58 ↗ my screen is not allowing me

15:01 ↗ you click on my name

15:05 ↗ yes

15:07 ↗ okay

15:08 ↗ there we go

15:13 ↗ all right

15:22 ↗ let's go here

15:24 ↗ all right so i'm going to talk about

15:26 ↗ neighborhood overlays

15:28 ↗ open this up so i can see everybody real

15:30 ↗ quick

15:31 ↗ here we go

15:33 ↗ all right

15:35 ↗ get this in

15:40 ↗ everything that i set up went backwards

15:42 ↗ there we go okay neighborhood overlays

15:47 ↗ so what are neighborhood overlays

15:49 ↗ these are

15:51 ↗ regulations that are specific to certain

15:53 ↗ neighborhoods

15:56 ↗ the other night at the open house

15:58 ↗ someone asked me if i could show all the

16:01 ↗ maps where all of these apply

16:03 ↗ and it is intended there are

16:06 ↗ markers in the code right now saying

16:07 ↗ that we will include maps in there right

16:09 ↗ now they're all different a little messy

16:11 ↗ um but yes so here are the maps this is

16:14 ↗ old town cultural and business district

16:17 ↗ and multi-family

16:18 ↗ we have these design standards and this

16:20 ↗ is cultural and business district and

16:22 ↗ these two are multi-family

16:25 ↗ then we have the old town architectural

16:27 ↗ standards for single-family duplex and

16:30 ↗ these apply to everything that is in the

16:33 ↗ gold here and the thing so it applies to

16:36 ↗ any structure within the single family

16:37 ↗ duplex zone

16:40 ↗ we have central issachar which i noticed

16:41 ↗ tonight still needs to be amended

16:43 ↗ because this tail is no longer part of

16:44 ↗ it but

16:45 ↗ in central issaquah we have the

16:47 ↗ traditional issaquah and we have the

16:49 ↗ urban core

16:52 ↗ and i think you are all familiar with

16:54 ↗ the esqua highlands

16:56 ↗ and with dallas

16:58 ↗ so these both had um

17:00 ↗ separate replacement regulations which

17:04 ↗ some of those standards were brought

17:06 ↗ over from the development agreements

17:09 ↗ so the major changes that we had was the

17:11 ↗ big overview

17:13 ↗ we merged five documents into one as

17:15 ↗ best we could

17:16 ↗ these are organized by neighborhood so

17:19 ↗ the five that i just mentioned but then

17:21 ↗ within each one of those there are also

17:22 ↗ neighborhoods

17:24 ↗ the biggest change in old town was that

17:26 ↗ we are proposing to adopt the single

17:29 ↗ family duplex material and color

17:31 ↗ standards for the cultural and business

17:33 ↗ district and multi-family zones as well

17:37 ↗ and then the central issaquah

17:39 ↗ we

17:40 ↗ moved the density bonus program over

17:43 ↗ from the central standards it's program

17:44 ↗ but we moved it in here

17:46 ↗ and we've actually changed the density

17:48 ↗ bonus name to development bonus because

17:51 ↗ technically if you increase the height

17:54 ↗ of each floor by two feet which takes

17:56 ↗ you over the maximum height you're not

17:57 ↗ increasing density you're increasing

17:59 ↗ development

18:01 ↗ bonus development area

18:03 ↗ so for legal reasons we changed that and

18:06 ↗ then the standards for traditional issue

18:08 ↗ highland and urban core where those were

18:09 ↗ similar we combine them

18:13 ↗ so that was a very quick overview of

18:15 ↗ overlays and i'm going to get a little

18:16 ↗ deeper into in just a minute because i

18:18 ↗ do have a question for you all

18:20 ↗ um but first i want to talk about

18:21 ↗ developer obligations

18:23 ↗ in our central issaquah plan we have a

18:25 ↗ section called developer obligations

18:29 ↗ it applies to each one of the different

18:31 ↗ sub sort of neighborhoods within central

18:33 ↗ listed while there are four or five

18:35 ↗ and the sections include livable

18:37 ↗ distinctive connected and sustainable

18:39 ↗ top thing is developer obligations and

18:42 ↗ within each of these livable there are

18:44 ↗ things that developers must do within

18:46 ↗ those neighborhoods

18:49 ↗ this isn't our plan so plan is not

18:51 ↗ necessarily

18:53 ↗ enforceable as a regulation we do have

18:57 ↗ however a regulation in our code that

18:58 ↗ says

18:59 ↗ developers must comply with the

19:01 ↗ developer obligations

19:02 ↗ but to make that stick a little more

19:06 ↗ we are going to

19:07 ↗ look at putting these into our code

19:11 ↗ and most specifically what has come up

19:13 ↗ is that in certain areas

19:16 ↗ if there are jobs if you redevelop that

19:19 ↗ site you are required to keep

19:22 ↗ i don't remember it's the same number of

19:24 ↗ jobs or a certain percentage of those

19:26 ↗ jobs

19:27 ↗ based on a formula so we are going to

19:29 ↗ work we're struggling a little bit with

19:31 ↗ getting these in there so we're going to

19:33 ↗ do that next

19:34 ↗ so those are the topics for tonight

19:36 ↗ there are two questions that we have for

19:37 ↗ you one is

19:39 ↗ and i realized at the open house this

19:41 ↗ may not have been the clearest question

19:43 ↗ um are the city-wide standards

19:46 ↗ sufficient for multi-family medium in

19:48 ↗ old town

19:49 ↗ or do we want to

19:50 ↗ keep the standards in old town for

19:54 ↗ multi-family medium which are a little

19:55 ↗ bit more specific

19:57 ↗ the second question is one we are always

19:58 ↗ going to ask you is do the proposed

20:00 ↗ changes meet the goals and outcomes for

20:01 ↗ this update or are additional changes

20:04 ↗ required

20:06 ↗ so the first one answering that question

20:09 ↗ the question about here is so this area

20:11 ↗ over here

20:12 ↗ is actually

20:14 ↗ multi-family medium east of sunset way

20:17 ↗ longest zoning game you can have this

20:20 ↗ area is the multi-family medium that

20:22 ↗ we're talking about right there

20:24 ↗ it sits this is uh

20:26 ↗ first place i believe

20:28 ↗ and

20:29 ↗ you've got the creek over here so it's

20:32 ↗ just that strip

20:34 ↗ and someone again at the open house the

20:36 ↗ other night asked if i could do my best

20:38 ↗ to explain the difference between the

20:39 ↗ regulations so there are very there are

20:42 ↗ several uh regulations that are shared

20:44 ↗ by both of these areas

20:46 ↗ in old town and city wide so one is

20:49 ↗ rooftops

20:50 ↗ they both require where you can do it

20:52 ↗ solar panels green roofs rain water

20:54 ↗ amenities and passive spaces on the

20:56 ↗ rooftops

20:57 ↗ roof lines they have a minimum four or

20:59 ↗ twelve pitch you have to break up large

21:01 ↗ expanses of roof with different types of

21:03 ↗ roofs has to be consistent with building

21:05 ↗ designed front yards

21:07 ↗ you want to distinguish the public from

21:08 ↗ the private room

21:10 ↗ using different techniques

21:12 ↗ windows they require divided light

21:13 ↗ windows that are operable trimmed and

21:15 ↗ framed

21:16 ↗ and you can they have to be recessed or

21:18 ↗ projected from the building entrances

21:20 ↗ have to be visually prominent and

21:22 ↗ materials and colors

21:24 ↗ um distinguish a building base middle

21:27 ↗ and top through through different

21:28 ↗ techniques so they talk about it

21:30 ↗ additional regulations that apply

21:32 ↗ city-wide so you have those that apply

21:34 ↗ to old town and to um citywide these

21:37 ↗ right now just apply

21:38 ↗ actually they would apply to both anyway

21:40 ↗ non-primary entrances more than one

21:42 ↗ frontage use of numerous

21:45 ↗ and separated rather than one entrance

21:47 ↗ building massing and articulation

21:50 ↗ view preservation

21:52 ↗ um

21:53 ↗ more regulation about parapets and

21:55 ↗ including

21:56 ↗ gathering spots when buildings sit on

21:58 ↗ the corners of the streets

22:01 ↗ regulations in old town that do not

22:03 ↗ apply city-wide

22:05 ↗ dormers uh it regarding dormers

22:08 ↗ and how steep those can be it's a little

22:10 ↗ more specific each street facing facade

22:14 ↗ must have a gable

22:15 ↗ roof form

22:16 ↗ uh there is no specific color palette or

22:19 ↗ material standard city-wide

22:21 ↗ and there's a little bit more

22:22 ↗ specificity on projecting windows and

22:24 ↗ then it has to be 18 inches they must

22:26 ↗ project

22:28 ↗ so there are pros and cons to removing

22:30 ↗ multi-family media pros are

22:33 ↗ most of the existing most of the

22:34 ↗ standards in old town are covered by the

22:36 ↗ city's city-wide standards already

22:39 ↗ and then

22:40 ↗ it gives

22:41 ↗ you know one one less one fewer area for

22:44 ↗ people to look in standards they just

22:45 ↗ have to go to one place

22:47 ↗ cons the city-wide standards do not

22:49 ↗ include as i mentioned a color palette

22:50 ↗ or specific materials

22:52 ↗ and there's there's slightly more

22:54 ↗ specificity regarding windows and door

22:56 ↗ and dormers

22:58 ↗ so

22:59 ↗ um that's that's what we have here are

23:01 ↗ the questions again do we remove this

23:03 ↗ from the overlays and specific designs

23:06 ↗ specific standards or do we keep it

23:08 ↗ there

23:09 ↗ and the proposed changes meet the goals

23:11 ↗ and outcomes

23:13 ↗ that's all i have

23:15 ↗ would you like me to keep sharing or can

23:17 ↗ i close it

23:19 ↗ i think you can close it

23:20 ↗ okay well thank you senior planner lee

23:23 ↗ sin and thank you associate planner

23:26 ↗ porter great presentations you know i'm

23:28 ↗ not someone who reads a lot of code or

23:30 ↗ contracts for my daily life so

23:33 ↗ it can be quite dry so the presentations

23:35 ↗ are always great

23:37 ↗ hopefully for everybody else but they

23:39 ↗ had a lot for me

23:43 ↗ next we're going to open up for

23:46 ↗ commissioner clarifying questions

23:49 ↗ i'll give it a minute because there's a

23:50 ↗ lot to unpack there i know a lot of this

23:52 ↗ is consolidation there's not a lot of

23:54 ↗ edits made but there are a few areas

23:56 ↗ where there were um

23:58 ↗ i'd say monumental but there are some

24:00 ↗ changes so

24:01 ↗ i know some people can have some

24:03 ↗ questions

24:17 ↗ hello

24:21 ↗ there were some um

24:23 ↗ some of the public emails that we

24:25 ↗ received there were comments on the

24:27 ↗ changing of should to shall

24:29 ↗ and i wondered what the the rationale

24:32 ↗ behind that or how how that was decided

24:36 ↗ so the reason why we did that is because

24:38 ↗ should sounds like a suggestion versus a

24:41 ↗ requirement um and so

24:43 ↗ um instead of and so basically ensuring

24:47 ↗ that we can enforce the code that's why

24:50 ↗ um

24:51 ↗ should was change to must or shall

24:55 ↗ and when that was changed each item was

24:58 ↗ kind of weighed individually

25:01 ↗ against

25:02 ↗ prior

25:04 ↗ decisions or

25:05 ↗ were they things that were intended

25:07 ↗ before to be a shell

25:10 ↗ i think yes most of them were um

25:13 ↗ we for those that kind of seemed like

25:16 ↗ they were maybe too restrictive i think

25:17 ↗ we evaluated you know how to make it

25:20 ↗ more um

25:21 ↗ [Music]

25:22 ↗ applicable uh without being too

25:24 ↗ restraining um so yes we did weigh

25:27 ↗ whether or not things should be you know

25:30 ↗ remain should and um

25:33 ↗ change to show or must

25:37 ↗ thank you

25:41 ↗ thank you

25:42 ↗ um

25:43 ↗ commissioner price

25:45 ↗ thank you uh this is kevin price

25:47 ↗ speaking

25:48 ↗ um i just had a question on the last

25:50 ↗ point you made regarding the two

25:52 ↗ questions

25:53 ↗ uh unfortunately i'm still really

25:54 ↗ unclear on them

25:56 ↗ it probably doesn't have to do with your

25:58 ↗ lack of clarity you presented i'm just a

26:01 ↗ little slow on the uptake here

26:05 ↗ so i'm not sure what my specific

26:06 ↗ question is other than to say

26:09 ↗ are you suggesting we remove

26:11 ↗ old town regulations all together and

26:13 ↗ the city-wide would be sort of an

26:15 ↗ umbrella blanket and that's sufficient

26:18 ↗ so some of those finer points of old

26:20 ↗ town would go away like dormers and roof

26:22 ↗ ditches am i understanding that

26:24 ↗ correctly

26:25 ↗ we are only

26:27 ↗ we're not even suggesting yet we're

26:28 ↗ asking the question but we're only

26:30 ↗ asking about multi-family media in that

26:32 ↗ small section off to the left

26:34 ↗ okay because most of those most of the

26:36 ↗ requirements that are there are included

26:38 ↗ in the citywide requirements as well

26:41 ↗ got it but the other section you

26:43 ↗ describe on sunset heading east is not

26:46 ↗ multi-family

26:48 ↗ it's

26:49 ↗ a different multi-family it's

26:50 ↗ multi-family high and we're only

26:52 ↗ responding to that family medium okay

26:54 ↗ perfect i understand now thank you very

26:56 ↗ much

27:00 ↗ thank you commissioner price uh

27:02 ↗ chair sanford

27:03 ↗ hi

27:05 ↗ thank you mr chairman um question on

27:08 ↗ building design section

27:11 ↗ um pretty early in that i think on page

27:13 ↗ five there's a section

27:15 ↗ on setbacks there not step backs but

27:18 ↗ setbacks in the massing and articulation

27:21 ↗ section there and i thought that

27:23 ↗ most of this on

27:25 ↗ building design is really about what the

27:27 ↗ building looks like

27:28 ↗ so i wonder if setbacks was considered

27:31 ↗ for either site in urban design or form

27:33 ↗ and intensity instead

27:43 ↗ you mean as far as so there is a section

27:46 ↗ i believe in the site in urban design

27:48 ↗ that talks about setbacks it's a minor

27:50 ↗ setback

27:51 ↗ from the street um just again to try to

27:54 ↗ bring some building interest is that the

27:57 ↗ setback that you're referring to

27:58 ↗ um no i'm talking about i guess this

28:01 ↗ section is um

28:04 ↗ 18606

28:06 ↗ 050 d it's on page five

28:10 ↗ it follows the step back section and

28:14 ↗ it's in the massing and articulation

28:17 ↗ chunk of that document

28:19 ↗ and it kind of stepped out to me because

28:22 ↗ it's not really talking about building

28:24 ↗ it's really talking about orientation

28:26 ↗ within a site

28:28 ↗ or possibly even the idea of

28:33 ↗ form and intensity i don't know it just

28:34 ↗ didn't seem to sit to fit inside

28:37 ↗ building design to me so are you

28:40 ↗ thinking that it should probably be in

28:41 ↗ another section like that's what i'm

28:43 ↗ asking if that was considered

28:46 ↗ performant intensity

28:48 ↗ or maybe even considered for sight and

28:50 ↗ urban design which you said had to do

28:52 ↗ with the orientation of a development on

28:54 ↗ the site instead of here in building

28:57 ↗ design i can see how

28:59 ↗ setback is specific to building

29:02 ↗ i'm sorry step back is specific to you

29:05 ↗ know building form

29:07 ↗ uh but setback seemed that it

29:10 ↗ wasn't

29:12 ↗ it wasn't considered but it can be

29:16 ↗ okay i guess that's my question

29:19 ↗ yes we will look into that okay

29:25 ↗ staff knows us

29:26 ↗ commissioners make it better

29:28 ↗ uh commissioner aikida

29:31 ↗ thank you uh johnny

29:33 ↗ i have a question on um

29:37 ↗ there was a there was a comment about uh

29:39 ↗ ada or accessibility for

29:42 ↗ uh disabled and it was it was not going

29:44 ↗ to be considered

29:46 ↗ i guess i'm trying to make sure that

29:47 ↗ we're covering that accessibility for

29:49 ↗ disabled is that falling back on ada

29:52 ↗ standards or

29:54 ↗ we're going back to a state requirement

29:56 ↗ yeah that's exactly correct um i reached

29:58 ↗ out to the plains examiners today

30:00 ↗ because i was like oh no

30:02 ↗ is this being addressed and they assured

30:04 ↗ me that it is um so typically what

30:06 ↗ happens is um the plans examiners would

30:09 ↗ review for ada um for s accessibility

30:12 ↗ standards

30:13 ↗ okay so although we're taking it out

30:15 ↗ it's still going to be reviewed or

30:17 ↗ required

30:18 ↗ yeah i see it it was kind of a red flag

30:21 ↗ um

30:22 ↗ and then the other comment or the other

30:24 ↗ question i have on the energy code it's

30:26 ↗ it there's

30:27 ↗ there's snippets of a sustainable design

30:30 ↗ in the design

30:32 ↗ and this is being taken out and

30:33 ↗ readdressed in 2023

30:37 ↗ with the energy code that's going to be

30:40 ↗ developed i guess

30:41 ↗ so the section has already been

30:44 ↗ deleted from the draft so what's online

30:47 ↗ doesn't show

30:49 ↗ any sustainability

30:51 ↗ section there are still some

30:53 ↗ requirements in the um in the draft that

30:56 ↗ kind of promote

30:57 ↗ solar panels and things like that

31:00 ↗ but for

31:01 ↗ you know more specific or more detailed

31:05 ↗ or

31:06 ↗ just additional regulations yeah that

31:08 ↗ will definitely occur um with the um

31:11 ↗ the energy code update that will occur

31:14 ↗ in july 2023

31:16 ↗ okay

31:17 ↗ uh and then i have a question on the

31:20 ↗ last presentation there was a should and

31:23 ↗ shell question

31:24 ↗ um there's there was four requirements

31:26 ↗ that had a lot of shell do this

31:29 ↗ but it was um the developer should do

31:32 ↗ these things

31:33 ↗ i i'm trying to i it was one of your

31:35 ↗ slides that had

31:37 ↗ four distinct items on it

31:41 ↗ and your your comment was um

31:45 ↗ uh miss le less at least it was um

31:48 ↗ it's driven by a should but here's huge

31:50 ↗ requirements i guess there's that's just

31:52 ↗ a discrepancy i'd like to

31:54 ↗ figure it out

31:58 ↗ which chapter is that in is it in the

32:00 ↗ overlays it was in your it was in your

32:02 ↗ presentation uh

32:04 ↗ i forget it's probably a third of the

32:06 ↗ way through your slides i think it was

32:08 ↗ your design uh developer obligations

32:11 ↗ yeah there you go thank you and that's

32:12 ↗ and that's part of our issue is that

32:14 ↗ that is in our plan right now

32:17 ↗ it's in the so the plan sets the policy

32:19 ↗ right and it's not

32:21 ↗ enforceable

32:22 ↗ necessarily you need to comply you need

32:24 ↗ to be consistent with the plan um but

32:27 ↗ that's not enforceable when looking at

32:28 ↗ projects

32:29 ↗ so what we and those say should

32:32 ↗ so what we want to do is take those and

32:34 ↗ make them regulations that would be

32:36 ↗ must's

32:38 ↗ shells in the code yes i actually am in

32:41 ↗ an agreement thank you

32:42 ↗ okay

32:44 ↗ that's all thank you thank you

32:45 ↗ commissioner um niketa

32:48 ↗ commissioner morgan

32:50 ↗ uh thank you chair boys mel morgan the

32:53 ↗ um a couple questions in building design

32:58 ↗ uh this would be page 5 of 13

33:02 ↗ that is the

33:04 ↗ 18606.50 with regard to the must do

33:09 ↗ and it's item

33:10 ↗ b2

33:12 ↗ says step backs must incorporate

33:14 ↗ terraces in usable outdoor space

33:18 ↗ so that means that

33:20 ↗ buildings taller buildings all have to

33:22 ↗ have step backs and every step back

33:25 ↗ in the building has to be a usable space

33:27 ↗ then that people can go out onto it has

33:29 ↗ to be a deck not just a

33:32 ↗ physical feature of the building to

33:34 ↗ to get a setback with and was that

33:37 ↗ intended

33:42 ↗ valerie you're muted

33:46 ↗ that is correct sorry

33:48 ↗ um

33:49 ↗ so yes that that would mean that all of

33:51 ↗ the step backs would need to incorporate

33:53 ↗ usable open space

33:56 ↗ and by using multiple space that would

33:57 ↗ be space people can go out onto and

34:01 ↗ correct okay and that was intentional

34:05 ↗ is that something we had before

34:08 ↗ that's being transferred over

34:10 ↗ i'm not a hundred percent sure i would

34:13 ↗ need to look into that to see if this

34:15 ↗ was something that came from the design

34:17 ↗ manual or

34:19 ↗ somewhere else

34:20 ↗ but it feels like it's from the design

34:22 ↗ manual and everything in the design

34:24 ↗ manual is a requirement

34:27 ↗ or was it was it could have been a

34:29 ↗ should be could have been a should

34:31 ↗ before

34:33 ↗ the design manual is interesting because

34:36 ↗ it had a lot of shoulds but

34:39 ↗ how

34:40 ↗ uh

34:41 ↗ the opening statement stated it was

34:43 ↗ required even though it said should

34:47 ↗ a little confusing

34:49 ↗ okay

34:50 ↗ um

34:52 ↗ and then uh

34:54 ↗ let's see on

34:56 ↗ um

34:57 ↗ sight and urban design

35:00 ↗ and i think this is

35:04 ↗ um

35:05 ↗ page 5 of 16.

35:07 ↗ it's it's it mentions where that's where

35:09 ↗ i think we

35:11 ↗ um

35:13 ↗ we deleted

35:15 ↗ the

35:19 ↗ ability to for the the director to make

35:22 ↗ adjustments because we considered it

35:24 ↗ vague

35:26 ↗ but then it seems like as you mentioned

35:28 ↗ at the beginning we added that on

35:31 ↗ at the end of the requirements as

35:33 ↗ something

35:35 ↗ that could be done

35:36 ↗ on page 16.

35:40 ↗ are you referring to

35:42 ↗ h views and vistas

35:45 ↗ uh let's see

35:47 ↗ so it's 5 of 16 it was 18604040

35:53 ↗ um

35:55 ↗ and that's where we said

35:58 ↗ sorry lots of different documents

36:05 ↗ where we said that sids 11 2 g4 is

36:08 ↗ deleted as va

36:11 ↗ and then adjustment criteria placed on a

36:13 ↗ whiteboard

36:15 ↗ but then at the end the very end of the

36:17 ↗ document is where we add on

36:19 ↗ essentially that language

36:22 ↗ um

36:24 ↗ the 18604

36:29 ↗ where the building locations can deviate

36:32 ↗ and that's the language that was deleted

36:34 ↗ before is vague

36:36 ↗ it has now been added on here and i

36:39 ↗ guess was that was that intentional to

36:41 ↗ do that was it gonna put on the white

36:43 ↗ board and

36:45 ↗ and then added on back on here

36:52 ↗ yes i think that note got

36:56 ↗ it should be above

36:59 ↗ yeah i think that was a little

37:02 ↗ it's a little hiccup

37:04 ↗ because it is

37:06 ↗ 11.2 g is actually i believe h

37:12 ↗ and there is aas criteria below

37:16 ↗ so i think so we've essentially moved it

37:18 ↗ to

37:19 ↗ the administration area yeah

37:22 ↗ thank you and then finally on uh

37:25 ↗ overlays in the development bonus fee

37:28 ↗ in 18703030

37:31 ↗ on page 50 so it was updated from 2013

37:36 ↗ to today based on inflation

37:39 ↗ i think that fee the 15 came from the

37:42 ↗ study that heartland did

37:44 ↗ or the central area plan

37:46 ↗ was there a consideration to go back and

37:49 ↗ re-study

37:51 ↗ um

37:52 ↗ that number to to look at something in

37:55 ↗ case it might be more than just an

37:57 ↗ inflationary increase

37:59 ↗ or is it not worth spending money on a

38:00 ↗ study or

38:04 ↗ didn't consider it you know the number

38:05 ↗ was from 2013 and we figure is that

38:08 ↗ prices are going to continue to change

38:09 ↗ they'll go up they'll go down

38:11 ↗ and arch works with all the other cities

38:14 ↗ on a form with a formula that they have

38:16 ↗ to determine at that day and time

38:19 ↗ what the market price is we figured that

38:21 ↗ was the most accurate way to do this

38:23 ↗ rather than sticking with a solid number

38:24 ↗ that

38:25 ↗ may or may not be right

38:30 ↗ rather than sticking with 15 for 20

38:32 ↗ years kind of like we've done

38:34 ↗ right let's see what it is at the time

38:37 ↗ yeah and i think well i think we've now

38:39 ↗ changed it to say it's going to be 18

38:42 ↗ 55.

38:44 ↗ it's going to be a set number

38:46 ↗ it says that in there

38:48 ↗ yeah it's

38:49 ↗ it's under overlays on page 50 of 69.

38:55 ↗ i'm going there right now

38:58 ↗ um

39:02 ↗ it's in the the the highlighted section

39:04 ↗ in the middle was updated from 15 to

39:06 ↗ 1855 using the cpi

39:10 ↗ it was a note that i missed so that that

39:12 ↗ note needs to be changed because in the

39:15 ↗ in the text itself in the code we

39:16 ↗ actually refer to a formula

39:20 ↗ and that's the way we're going to go

39:21 ↗ 1855 is not

39:23 ↗ number we're going to use

39:25 ↗ note should be removed

39:28 ↗ oh okay

39:29 ↗ um

39:30 ↗ what looks like down on page 51 at the

39:33 ↗ bottom it does show the 15 the 1855.

39:36 ↗ i think that was used as an example

39:39 ↗ how to calculate

39:40 ↗ we needed a number okay

39:43 ↗ so the

39:44 ↗ so that 1855 would be changed to a

39:46 ↗ formula instead of a set number yeah and

39:48 ↗ we'll just have to explain that 1855 is

39:50 ↗ a sample is a sample cost

39:53 ↗ as a sample price

39:54 ↗ okay being used for the formula yeah

39:57 ↗ okay

39:58 ↗ yeah

39:59 ↗ great thank you good catch thank you

40:04 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan and i'll

40:06 ↗ take a small liberty here because it

40:08 ↗ kind of piggybacks off commissioner

40:10 ↗ morgan's one of his points which was as

40:13 ↗ far as these buildings that are multiple

40:15 ↗ stories tall we don't have a tremendous

40:17 ↗ amount in the city

40:19 ↗ um

40:20 ↗ so i'm guessing some of these

40:22 ↗ buildings

40:23 ↗ like the hotel

40:25 ↗ holiday inn suites these were probably

40:27 ↗ grandfathered in

40:28 ↗ but something like costco i was driving

40:30 ↗ by it today and i was looking for their

40:32 ↗ particular setbacks are they exempt from

40:35 ↗ something like that because of a

40:36 ↗ development agreement or do they

40:38 ↗ actually have setbacks in the costco

40:40 ↗ building along i-90

40:42 ↗ i looked for one it was hard to see if

40:44 ↗ they had one or not

40:46 ↗ um yeah i haven't looked at the

40:48 ↗ development agreement in a while but

40:50 ↗ they're

40:51 ↗ their design standards are um i think

40:55 ↗ not exactly the same but they're very

40:57 ↗ similar to the central instacart

40:58 ↗ development design standards and so they

41:01 ↗ do have setbacks um i don't know what

41:04 ↗ they are exactly but yes costco gets to

41:07 ↗ comply with the standards that were

41:08 ↗ established that were in place when

41:10 ↗ their development agreement was adopted

41:12 ↗ back in 2012

41:14 ↗ somewhere between 2012 and 14 but those

41:16 ↗ are the standards that they have to

41:17 ↗ comply with

41:18 ↗ so the yeah the urban standards the

41:21 ↗ urban design

41:22 ↗ were adopted afterwards

41:28 ↗ all right um we have a question from

41:30 ↗ commissioner gilbert

41:32 ↗ hi

41:33 ↗ um my question is about

41:36 ↗ building design on page five of 13.

41:39 ↗ um it talks about um the step actually

41:42 ↗ again by the sixth floor but may begin

41:44 ↗ as low as the third floor above fifth

41:47 ↗ floor

41:48 ↗ um and that's really i'm not sure what

41:50 ↗ is meant by that but it's not

41:53 ↗ it doesn't sound the way that it was

41:55 ↗ described verbally

41:57 ↗ earlier

41:59 ↗ yeah

42:00 ↗ um

42:01 ↗ i have to read it a couple of times

42:03 ↗ myself but yes the it sounds like

42:05 ↗ there's two different requirements so

42:07 ↗ the first one a is for building taller

42:12 ↗ than the fifth floor

42:14 ↗ and

42:18 ↗ it can

42:19 ↗ it's uh it's just worded very weirdly

42:22 ↗ but yes it could occur as low as the

42:25 ↗ third floor but i think the intention is

42:27 ↗ to really have it at the sixth floor

42:30 ↗ so that that's language that will be

42:32 ↗ cleaned up

42:33 ↗ okay

42:34 ↗ and there's there was one more thing um

42:37 ↗ page six of 13 and section

42:40 ↗ f i think it's

42:42 ↗ um it says

42:44 ↗ setting back but i think this section is

42:46 ↗ about stepping back

43:00 ↗ e

43:02 ↗ let's see

43:03 ↗ this is that section is talking about

43:06 ↗ kind of creating this um

43:10 ↗ uh

43:11 ↗ what is it uh bottom middle top kind of

43:14 ↗ to give visual interest

43:16 ↗ um

43:18 ↗ so i it looks like it's in the

43:22 ↗ yeah i could argue that it could go in

43:23 ↗ another section but it is it's in the

43:26 ↗ right chapter

43:29 ↗ thank you thank you

43:33 ↗ thank you

43:34 ↗ uh

43:35 ↗ chair sanford

43:37 ↗ uh thank you mr chairman picking up on

43:39 ↗ both commissioner morgan and uh

43:42 ↗ commissioner gilbert's comments i i was

43:44 ↗ similarly confused by the

43:46 ↗ uh section on step backs i think that

43:48 ↗ that's an area that definitely needs to

43:50 ↗ be revised

43:51 ↗ i'd like to move on though to urban

43:53 ↗ design site planning um

43:55 ↗ there is an area in that section that

43:58 ↗ seems to say the electrical vehicle

44:00 ↗ charging stations are required by all

44:03 ↗ new development

44:04 ↗ is that a carryover is that intentional

44:07 ↗ or uh

44:09 ↗ where did that come from and i i guess

44:11 ↗ that's development regardless of use

44:14 ↗ right now i'm looking at it's in

44:15 ↗ 18604040a

44:20 ↗ yeah

44:22 ↗ um it's my understanding yeah um any new

44:25 ↗ uh

44:26 ↗ and i even think redevelopment they're

44:28 ↗ required to do um electric

44:30 ↗ um

44:31 ↗ they're supposed to to do add electric

44:34 ↗ charging stations or do hookups so

44:37 ↗ um

44:38 ↗ that's an accurate statement i just

44:40 ↗ don't know if we maybe want to repeat it

44:42 ↗ there

44:43 ↗ okay thanks so that's regardless of use

44:45 ↗ whether it's commercial or retail or

44:47 ↗ residential

44:48 ↗ it's my understanding regardless of use

44:50 ↗ that's required i think the percentage

44:52 ↗ is different but it's required

44:55 ↗ okay and one other in that same section

44:58 ↗ um

45:00 ↗ let's see is ask is the intention that

45:03 ↗ asphalt

45:04 ↗ surface be prohibited for all driveways

45:07 ↗ now

45:09 ↗ is that intended because i think that's

45:11 ↗ a general requirement now

45:16 ↗ and what i'm looking at is 18604 0.90

45:19 ↗ yeah i'm trying to break my brain yes i

45:21 ↗ believe you

45:23 ↗ your driveway can't be asphalt it's i

45:25 ↗ think the

45:27 ↗ the last

45:28 ↗ uh 20 feet or something that

45:30 ↗ that's in the right of way can be

45:32 ↗ asphalt

45:33 ↗ that's a street standard requirement

45:35 ↗ which is a little fuzzy

45:42 ↗ great thank you um

45:44 ↗ question from commissioner price

45:48 ↗ hi thank you

45:50 ↗ uh i had wanted to circle back on the um

45:53 ↗ the developer obligations uh and just to

45:56 ↗ get a better understanding of the nature

45:58 ↗ of those

45:59 ↗ and how

46:00 ↗ how they work in practice

46:03 ↗ what is the trend i guess this is the

46:05 ↗ question for staff in general what is

46:06 ↗ the trend

46:08 ↗ um

46:10 ↗ now do developers observe them or make

46:12 ↗ some gesture towards them or do they

46:15 ↗ know that it doesn't really have tooth

46:16 ↗ and generally they skirt the obligation

46:21 ↗ and i'm not saying they do it's just a

46:23 ↗ question

46:26 ↗ i'm

46:27 ↗ valerie do you know better than i do

46:31 ↗ sorry can you repeat the question

46:33 ↗ just the nature of the developer

46:35 ↗ obligations in practice it sounds like

46:37 ↗ we're including language that makes them

46:40 ↗ uh required versus optional uh and or

46:43 ↗ we're putting them in a place where they

46:45 ↗ refer to them being required

46:47 ↗ um

46:48 ↗ what is the current nature of those are

46:50 ↗ they generally observed or do you find

46:52 ↗ that the minimum is done or that they

46:55 ↗ understand there's no

46:57 ↗ necessary requirements so

47:00 ↗ they're really not

47:01 ↗ uh fulfilling those obligations

47:04 ↗ it's a little bit of a struggle so

47:06 ↗ typically what happens right now if a

47:08 ↗ developer comes in or an applicant is

47:10 ↗ looking at a site you know staff will

47:12 ↗ try to bring it to their attention in

47:14 ↗ the pre-op process and then we also say

47:17 ↗ when you come in for your land use

47:20 ↗ permit that you need to address that in

47:22 ↗ your narrative

47:24 ↗ not all folks do it or not all folks do

47:27 ↗ it very well so it's up to staff to kind

47:29 ↗ of

47:31 ↗ look at how they're addressing it

47:33 ↗ most of the developer obligations right

47:36 ↗ now are you know pretty general where

47:38 ↗ it's like you know you should have um

47:40 ↗ you know walkways to open space or you

47:42 ↗ should you know try to have um you know

47:46 ↗ build a park or a plaza so

47:50 ↗ there are other regulations like open

47:52 ↗ space and um

47:55 ↗ circulation requirements that

47:58 ↗ beat that

47:59 ↗ so we're not enforcing it

48:02 ↗ very strictly because again it's very

48:05 ↗ general so if you have a path to you

48:08 ↗ know

48:09 ↗ a bus stop or to the end of the of your

48:11 ↗ property technically you're meeting that

48:14 ↗ requirement so

48:15 ↗ um there's a few um areas within the

48:19 ↗ central issaquah plan that have a very

48:21 ↗ specific requirement and i think that's

48:23 ↗ the one that kristen was talking about

48:25 ↗ regarding jobs that one we do strictly

48:28 ↗ enforce

48:29 ↗ um and they are required to show how

48:31 ↗ they're complying with that one okay so

48:34 ↗ you're basically they're just looking

48:36 ↗ for a tool to take the ambi ambiguity

48:38 ↗ out of the equation altogether but the

48:41 ↗ nature of them and the implementation

48:44 ↗ may or may not change that much it just

48:46 ↗ makes

48:47 ↗ processing the application simpler is

48:49 ↗ that yes

48:50 ↗ yes

48:52 ↗ perfect thank you

48:57 ↗ thank you commissioner price

48:59 ↗ i was waiting

49:01 ↗ and uh

49:02 ↗ i was waiting and finally here it is

49:04 ↗ commissioner milligan has some questions

49:06 ↗ yeah aren't the questions open to

49:08 ↗ everybody

49:09 ↗ come on friends

49:11 ↗ yeah this is our chance to ask questions

49:13 ↗ and if i remember process and you can

49:15 ↗ elaborate on this later chair this is

49:16 ↗ not a milligan

49:18 ↗ on whether we will have time to ask

49:20 ↗ clarifying questions in our meeting when

49:23 ↗ we deliberate on the 23rd

49:25 ↗ i think we might not so it might bear

49:29 ↗ reminding us whether this is your only

49:31 ↗ chance to ask questions about this i

49:34 ↗ only have a couple questions

49:36 ↗ one is

49:38 ↗ in 18604

49:40 ↗ and thank you commissioner morgan about

49:43 ↗ asking about allow deviations i wanted

49:44 ↗ to know

49:46 ↗ sorry how long have i been doing this

49:48 ↗ what's the difference between an allowed

49:50 ↗ deviation and an exception because

49:52 ↗ there's a placeholder chapter in there

49:54 ↗ that's not filled in

49:55 ↗ if i'm looking at say that chapter or

49:58 ↗ any other

49:59 ↗ how how would i find out

50:01 ↗ where

50:02 ↗ the

50:04 ↗ deviations or exceptions

50:06 ↗ uh would come into play and uh so that's

50:09 ↗ a that's a question that you can use

50:10 ↗ 18604 as an example

50:13 ↗ of a

50:14 ↗ chapter and and

50:16 ↗ tell me if i can apply what you're going

50:17 ↗ to teach me to other chapters

50:20 ↗ and then my second question has to do

50:22 ↗ with i have to ask it now the step backs

50:25 ↗ i am so

50:27 ↗ confused i thought during the powerpoint

50:30 ↗ presentation we were going to be

50:32 ↗ getting step backs at the third floor

50:35 ↗ that was it and now i don't know when

50:38 ↗ we're going to get step backs are we

50:40 ↗ would we ever get them and

50:42 ↗ under what circumstances and where

50:44 ↗ thank you

50:46 ↗ okay so yes i can answer those for you

50:48 ↗ so for

50:50 ↗ 18604 there is a

50:52 ↗ section 030 where it has exception and

50:56 ↗ then it has placeholders

50:58 ↗ that was um unintentionally or it was

51:01 ↗ left blank so um staff basically went in

51:04 ↗ and you know were making some updates

51:06 ↗ and we were trying to determine whether

51:08 ↗ or not this section should be applied

51:11 ↗ city-wide or only to specific uses so

51:14 ↗ that

51:14 ↗ so let's say that that section um said

51:17 ↗ single-family all of the regulations

51:20 ↗ would not apply to single family

51:24 ↗ so as far as deviation deviations are

51:27 ↗ [Music]

51:29 ↗ is a process

51:30 ↗ if some if a development came in and for

51:33 ↗ some reason they could not comply with

51:36 ↗ that

51:37 ↗ that standard or that requirement then

51:39 ↗ they would request a deviation um

51:42 ↗ from that specific standard so that's

51:44 ↗ what the difference is and the the

51:47 ↗ emitted or the deviation process i

51:49 ↗ believe will be addressed in the next

51:51 ↗ bucket

51:52 ↗ um

51:53 ↗ and i believe step backs

51:55 ↗ so i'm gonna try to find a picture for

51:59 ↗ you for step backs

52:11 ↗ please tell me i'm not the only one

52:12 ↗ still confused about step backs i can't

52:14 ↗ read anyone it's a word of the worded

52:17 ↗ weirdly so i mean this is an indicator

52:20 ↗ exactly still needs editing yes no

52:23 ↗ exactly kristen do you mind giving me um

52:27 ↗ uh hosting capability so i can share my

52:29 ↗ screen

52:33 ↗ all right you are a presenter

52:36 ↗ thanks

52:41 ↗ um

52:42 ↗ i

52:44 ↗ think i'm sh

52:45 ↗ maybe this one

52:48 ↗ can you all see my screen

52:51 ↗ it says cite on in the on a green box on

52:54 ↗ the left hand side

52:57 ↗ okay perfect

52:58 ↗ so this is actually an image from the

53:00 ↗ design manual so this is our current

53:02 ↗ standard and so

53:05 ↗ what you're seeing is a building that

53:08 ↗ has

53:09 ↗ six floors and this is saying that the

53:11 ↗ step back should occur after the fourth

53:14 ↗ floor

53:16 ↗ and so

53:18 ↗ so for taller buildings

53:20 ↗ this is um

53:22 ↗ is posing a challenge for construction

53:25 ↗ so the new standard is supposed to

53:28 ↗ reduce that and it's the step back is

53:31 ↗ supposed to occur at the third floor

53:35 ↗ so

53:36 ↗ um again the how it's written it's a

53:38 ↗ little wonky but it's

53:41 ↗ it's encouraging the step back to happen

53:44 ↗ at the sixth floor but we're saying

53:46 ↗ you're allowed for it to occur at the

53:48 ↗ third floor

53:54 ↗ i hope that makes sense

54:00 ↗ um

54:01 ↗ hi minnie i can add to um some of the

54:06 ↗ the

54:07 ↗ reasons behind allowing a step back at a

54:10 ↗ lower floor

54:12 ↗ is because some of the construction is

54:14 ↗ um

54:15 ↗ you know two floors of concrete with

54:17 ↗ wood frame up above that so

54:20 ↗ from a lot of construction standpoints

54:23 ↗ it makes sense to have

54:25 ↗ the building you know the

54:28 ↗ tiered effect lower and up the upper

54:31 ↗ floors

54:32 ↗ because that's where the change in

54:33 ↗ materials is occurring between the the

54:36 ↗ concrete floors and the wood frame

54:38 ↗ construction so that's one of the

54:39 ↗ reasons why we're allowing it at a lower

54:42 ↗ so it's encouraged at the upper floors

54:44 ↗ but it also is allowing you you meet the

54:47 ↗ intent by actually having the step back

54:49 ↗ at the lower floor and the idea

54:52 ↗ is you know what's the purpose of this

54:54 ↗ uh step back if it's to break down the

54:57 ↗ mass of the building or it's to create a

55:00 ↗ modulation effect or

55:02 ↗ you know tie it more to a pedestrian

55:05 ↗ interest so

55:07 ↗ i think

55:08 ↗ keeping in mind the building

55:10 ↗ construction limitations and what we

55:11 ↗ understand is a preferred way of

55:14 ↗ stepping it back from a construction

55:15 ↗ standpoint and then having these step

55:18 ↗ backs that upper floors also raises some

55:22 ↗ um

55:23 ↗ you know

55:24 ↗ finicky details for meeting energy code

55:28 ↗ moisture issues and such um

55:31 ↗ whereas if it happened at a lower floor

55:34 ↗ it you know it still meets the intent of

55:36 ↗ the design but it's from a construction

55:38 ↗ standpoint it's a little bit better so

55:39 ↗ that's sort of the reasoning behind it

55:51 ↗ commissioner milligan feeling better

55:54 ↗ all right

55:56 ↗ and i want to thank the real time staff

55:58 ↗ that we have because uh in 2022 we don't

56:02 ↗ pass notes we just do it through the

56:04 ↗ chat so yes to commissioner milligan's

56:06 ↗ point tonight is the night we want to

56:08 ↗ ask our questions um

56:10 ↗ that way the public as well as dc can be

56:13 ↗ informed before their deliberations that

56:15 ↗ is the idea so tonight is the night for

56:18 ↗ planning policy to ask questions again

56:20 ↗ it should be noted that not only

56:23 ↗ um the commissions but the public can

56:25 ↗ also continue to submit questions

56:27 ↗ through email

56:31 ↗ and moving along commissioner dylan

56:35 ↗ thank you chair voice uh patty dillon

56:37 ↗ could one of you uh kristen or valerie

56:40 ↗ could you please pull up the

56:42 ↗ map again with that multi-family medium

56:47 ↗ area

56:51 ↗ yes i can

56:59 ↗ thanks

57:00 ↗ um

57:01 ↗ i'm i'm looking at this in google earth

57:03 ↗ because i was trying to remember kind of

57:05 ↗ what what's there now and obviously

57:07 ↗ that's not necessarily what the vision

57:09 ↗ is for what this will ultimately look

57:11 ↗ like um

57:14 ↗ there's a lot of small despite the fact

57:16 ↗ that it's multifamily it seems like

57:17 ↗ there's a lot of small parcels and

57:19 ↗ single-family homes

57:21 ↗ um

57:22 ↗ still in there

57:24 ↗ and

57:25 ↗ i'm wondering if

57:27 ↗ um

57:29 ↗ kind of the if the planning staff

57:31 ↗ has thought about

57:34 ↗ the if

57:36 ↗ what difference is either keeping old

57:38 ↗ town standards

57:40 ↗ versus going to the city-wide standards

57:42 ↗ would have in

57:44 ↗ as the area redevelops kind of the fit

57:48 ↗ of of some of the

57:50 ↗ the single-family homes with the

57:52 ↗ newer

57:55 ↗ multi-family construction that would be

57:56 ↗ going in

57:59 ↗ sure so recently the code was changed

58:02 ↗ and now the maximum height in

58:04 ↗ multi-family medium in old town

58:06 ↗ and it wouldn't change the maximum

58:08 ↗ height for multi-family medium in old

58:10 ↗ town is three uh three stories or forty

58:12 ↗ feet whichever is lower

58:14 ↗ so it's not going to get any higher

58:17 ↗ and as i mentioned earlier most of the

58:20 ↗ regulations that are in old town for

58:21 ↗ multi-family medium are also in the

58:23 ↗ city-wide standards so most of those are

58:25 ↗ still going to apply if it's removed

58:27 ↗ the one that might make a difference

58:29 ↗ although i don't know how much of a

58:30 ↗ difference would be the materials and

58:32 ↗ colors

58:33 ↗ because even when i looked at the

58:35 ↗ windows i like you did a google tour

58:37 ↗ through a multi-family medium

58:40 ↗ and the standards only apply to

58:43 ↗ commercial or non-residential and

58:46 ↗ multi-family properties not to

58:47 ↗ single-family and those are the older

58:48 ↗ properties there so in most of the

58:51 ↗ buildings that are there right now don't

58:52 ↗ have historic windows you know leaded

58:54 ↗ blooded glass in there and that kind of

58:56 ↗ thing so it doesn't affect really what's

58:58 ↗ there now and aside from the color

59:00 ↗ palette

59:02 ↗ and this is just me speaking this is why

59:04 ↗ we're asking the question um that i

59:06 ↗ don't think there would be a big change

59:10 ↗ okay thank you yeah i was just sort of

59:13 ↗ i

59:14 ↗ drive through that area a lot but i was

59:17 ↗ trying to remember what the mix was and

59:19 ↗ trying to think about how that that

59:20 ↗ might change um

59:22 ↗ but yeah if it's mostly colors and

59:24 ↗ windows

59:25 ↗ um that doesn't have the same kind of

59:27 ↗ form impact or pass-through impact a lot

59:30 ↗ of other regulations might thanks

59:38 ↗ thank you commissioner dillon

59:42 ↗ are there any other questions

59:46 ↗ i think just to bug you guys

59:48 ↗ and i am getting better at this i should

59:50 ↗ have tacked it on

59:51 ↗ originally but

59:54 ↗ try and let other people get their

59:55 ↗ questions before the chair starts

59:56 ↗ blurting out questions but honestly

59:59 ↗ that's the one thing that i saw the

1:00:01 ↗ we've already talked about it a few

1:00:02 ↗ times 18 604

1:00:05 ↗ um 040 with that change of should from

1:00:08 ↗ chal i mean i know most of this is a big

1:00:11 ↗ heavy lift to consolidate that seems

1:00:13 ↗ like a pretty

1:00:15 ↗ significant change are you guys seeing

1:00:19 ↗ i guess responses to that other than the

1:00:22 ↗ one public comment we got earlier today

1:00:24 ↗ because

1:00:25 ↗ that one the should from shell with the

1:00:28 ↗ electric car i believe i mean could

1:00:30 ↗ maybe somebody explain to me wind

1:00:32 ↗ patterns into the design are we looking

1:00:34 ↗ for triangular buildings i mean that's

1:00:37 ↗ all kind of things that

1:00:39 ↗ that one word can change

1:00:43 ↗ um no other from um

1:00:46 ↗ aside from the comment that we received

1:00:48 ↗ today no i i haven't heard um

1:00:52 ↗ any comments about that

1:00:56 ↗ okay

1:01:02 ↗ would anyone else like to ask

1:01:05 ↗ staff

1:01:06 ↗ any more clarifying questions

1:01:14 ↗ you're out there for a few seconds

1:01:22 ↗ all right well thank you commissioners

1:01:24 ↗ thank you for participating

1:01:26 ↗ um and now we'd like to open the public

1:01:28 ↗ hearing for public comment

1:01:31 ↗ so for the members of the public joining

1:01:32 ↗ us this is your opportunity to speak and

1:01:35 ↗ sound off on

1:01:37 ↗ all things title 18

1:01:39 ↗ building and design standard codes

1:01:41 ↗ updates

1:01:42 ↗ so a few

1:01:45 ↗ general rules if you are on the phone

1:01:47 ↗ please test press three if you have

1:01:49 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone look

1:01:51 ↗ for a hand icon

1:01:53 ↗ one option to be again would be to go to

1:01:55 ↗ the participant panel raise your hand

1:01:58 ↗ icon in the lower right corner

1:02:02 ↗ and yes again please limit your comments

1:02:04 ↗ to about five minutes or less state your

1:02:07 ↗ name clearly speak

1:02:09 ↗ clearly and pause frequently and then

1:02:11 ↗ mute your microphone when you are

1:02:13 ↗ finished

1:02:14 ↗ though kristin do we have anyone who

1:02:16 ↗ would like to speak for tonight's public

1:02:18 ↗ hearing

1:02:19 ↗ yes um

1:02:21 ↗ so connie marsh i saw her hand up just a

1:02:24 ↗ minute ago but now i don't see it up oh

1:02:26 ↗ there it is again so um but also i

1:02:28 ↗ should note that she was she was having

1:02:30 ↗ computer issues earlier and was trying

1:02:32 ↗ to raise her hand for general comment

1:02:34 ↗ are you okay if she makes a general

1:02:36 ↗ comment here as well

1:02:37 ↗ sure

1:02:38 ↗ okay bonnie i am going to

1:02:42 ↗ make you a panelist

1:02:46 ↗ there you go your panelist connie

1:02:51 ↗ thank you oh it's dark because it's

1:02:53 ↗ still raining connie marsh i live up on

1:02:55 ↗ squawk

1:02:56 ↗ and uh my general comment was

1:03:00 ↗ on the um

1:03:02 ↗ the

1:03:04 ↗ zoning and grid and shared

1:03:08 ↗ uh driveways from the prior

1:03:11 ↗ i sent you actually the

1:03:13 ↗ the comprehensive plan chapter on

1:03:17 ↗ housing

1:03:18 ↗ because

1:03:21 ↗ it doesn't seem correct to have you have

1:03:24 ↗ simple sentence snippets

1:03:28 ↗ of our policy guidance

1:03:30 ↗ because the paragraphs in the

1:03:32 ↗ comprehensive plan actually

1:03:34 ↗ are pretty good at showing you the

1:03:36 ↗ direction that it's been settled upon

1:03:39 ↗ for housing and it basically says we do

1:03:43 ↗ want diverse housing

1:03:45 ↗ if we can fit it into the neighborhood

1:03:48 ↗ character so i sent that out so you

1:03:51 ↗ could read the whole language and have a

1:03:53 ↗ just a better discussion

1:03:56 ↗ on whether

1:03:57 ↗ your decisions and directions are

1:04:00 ↗ appropriate so then i am going to segue

1:04:04 ↗ um

1:04:04 ↗ in an ungainly manner now to this new

1:04:08 ↗ set

1:04:10 ↗ where i noticed in the urban design

1:04:12 ↗ guidelines that

1:04:14 ↗ there are no exemptions so if you read

1:04:16 ↗ them literally they also would

1:04:20 ↗ apply to single-family housing city-wide

1:04:24 ↗ because that is not

1:04:26 ↗ exempted

1:04:28 ↗ and

1:04:30 ↗ that blew my gourd i gotta tell you i

1:04:32 ↗ had to start reading everything as if it

1:04:35 ↗ was going to apply citywide to

1:04:37 ↗ single-family housing and

1:04:41 ↗ so i asked at the meeting the other

1:04:43 ↗ night is this true is that what's going

1:04:44 ↗ to happen and got sort of a

1:04:48 ↗ maybe response it's still under

1:04:51 ↗ discussion

1:04:52 ↗ so when you look at those

1:04:54 ↗ those urban design guidelines

1:04:57 ↗ it does not seem to me that they should

1:04:59 ↗ apply to single-family housing city-wide

1:05:03 ↗ again like our prior topics a while ago

1:05:06 ↗ maybe to certain areas of the city it

1:05:09 ↗ would work

1:05:10 ↗ on for single-family housing

1:05:12 ↗ but

1:05:14 ↗ not city-wide it is hard to understand

1:05:16 ↗ in overdale park that they would have to

1:05:18 ↗ give up all their new driveways if they

1:05:20 ↗ decided to do a redevelopment on their

1:05:23 ↗ house and they could only have a certain

1:05:26 ↗ driveway and i must say there is still

1:05:28 ↗ language in there mandating the color of

1:05:31 ↗ your garage door

1:05:32 ↗ and i don't think that that is the scale

1:05:35 ↗ that you want

1:05:37 ↗ in this language

1:05:39 ↗ so

1:05:40 ↗ now still continuing on with the

1:05:42 ↗ neighborhood character i'm going to

1:05:44 ↗ those central issaquah

1:05:47 ↗ uh

1:05:49 ↗ descriptions and some years ago

1:05:53 ↗ we went through a big process to try to

1:05:56 ↗ create a

1:05:57 ↗ picture of the future neighborhoods for

1:06:00 ↗ the areas in central issaquah and

1:06:04 ↗ so we described those and added language

1:06:07 ↗ in the central issaquah plan and came up

1:06:10 ↗ with uh developer requirements

1:06:14 ↗ so as i look at neighborhood overlays

1:06:18 ↗ that are supposed to be

1:06:21 ↗ helping us get our vision for the

1:06:24 ↗ character of the particular

1:06:25 ↗ neighborhoods it seemed like

1:06:28 ↗ we have had the conversations for those

1:06:30 ↗ future neighborhoods yet we do not have

1:06:33 ↗ overlays for those neighborhoods instead

1:06:36 ↗ we are only trying to

1:06:39 ↗ implement the uh

1:06:42 ↗ developer requirements

1:06:44 ↗ and so i hear a lot of conversation that

1:06:47 ↗ well we don't really have the

1:06:49 ↗ neighborhood characters for squawk

1:06:51 ↗ mountain or

1:06:52 ↗ uh sycamore because we haven't had that

1:06:55 ↗ public conversation so we do not have a

1:06:57 ↗ overlays for those areas but

1:07:01 ↗ in theory the intent is to create such

1:07:04 ↗ things so as they redevelop then we are

1:07:07 ↗ able to maintain the character that that

1:07:10 ↗ we desire

1:07:11 ↗ so we have had that process and i would

1:07:14 ↗ like to see

1:07:16 ↗ though either overlays or language put

1:07:18 ↗ into place that would actually get us

1:07:21 ↗ to

1:07:22 ↗ the work that we have already done

1:07:24 ↗ so i agree with you all on the caution

1:07:27 ↗ about

1:07:28 ↗ the

1:07:29 ↗ setbacks not step backs

1:07:33 ↗ language as it flows through this we do

1:07:36 ↗ have our forms and and other places

1:07:40 ↗ where we are saying what the setbacks

1:07:43 ↗ set backs should be and they should not

1:07:46 ↗ be contradicted in any area other areas

1:07:51 ↗ of code except for potentially

1:07:53 ↗ deviations

1:07:55 ↗ and i see it sort of threaded through

1:07:59 ↗ now i want to go through

1:08:02 ↗ this

1:08:04 ↗ streets

1:08:06 ↗ and trails

1:08:08 ↗ setting the standard for internal

1:08:10 ↗ circulation because i was the one who

1:08:12 ↗ brought up that question

1:08:14 ↗ because i said well you have a front

1:08:16 ↗ door but i don't understand what gets

1:08:18 ↗ people safely to the front door or to

1:08:21 ↗ the side door without them having to go

1:08:23 ↗ through traffic where are those

1:08:24 ↗ standards

1:08:26 ↗ and so now today she said those are

1:08:28 ↗ going to be in the streets

1:08:32 ↗ and trails

1:08:33 ↗ and so i've got to say i don't know if

1:08:36 ↗ that is the right place as you're going

1:08:37 ↗ through this code

1:08:39 ↗ would you say wow i have to i have to

1:08:42 ↗ make my door front door like this

1:08:44 ↗ but i have to go to the street standard

1:08:46 ↗ section to understand how i'm going to

1:08:48 ↗ get people to that front door

1:08:51 ↗ it it seems

1:08:53 ↗ awkward to me so i would question that

1:08:55 ↗ decision though maybe maybe that isn't

1:08:58 ↗ exactly part of this conversation

1:09:00 ↗ and then i'm going to finalize with old

1:09:03 ↗ town there was a big like two three year

1:09:06 ↗ process for the old town design

1:09:08 ↗ standards that were put into place

1:09:11 ↗ and so

1:09:12 ↗ um

1:09:13 ↗ without going back and tapping all those

1:09:15 ↗ people who sat through all those

1:09:17 ↗ meetings for those standards

1:09:19 ↗ i would not touch those i would just let

1:09:21 ↗ those sit because they invested

1:09:24 ↗ they invested months of their lives into

1:09:26 ↗ getting those standards put in place to

1:09:29 ↗ nap to now

1:09:30 ↗ sort of for the convenience of ease of

1:09:32 ↗ staff to change those

1:09:35 ↗ seems disrespectful and i would just

1:09:38 ↗ leave them alone because

1:09:40 ↗ as a community you all know how hard it

1:09:42 ↗ is to get people out and you put your

1:09:44 ↗ blood and sweat into trying to make

1:09:46 ↗ things better and then it gets changed

1:09:48 ↗ in some meeting in the future that you

1:09:50 ↗ never even knew about so out of respect

1:09:53 ↗ for them i would just sort of let it let

1:09:55 ↗ it

1:09:56 ↗ stay

1:09:57 ↗ and i'm sure i'm forgetting many things

1:09:59 ↗ but

1:10:00 ↗ oh i do have something that's going to

1:10:02 ↗ surprise you all i thought that the

1:10:04 ↗ staff's response to the community

1:10:07 ↗ meeting the other night

1:10:09 ↗ was excellent they listened and they

1:10:11 ↗ changed a lot of things and i really

1:10:14 ↗ appreciate the the um

1:10:17 ↗ that because sometimes when you speak as

1:10:19 ↗ a community member it feels like you're

1:10:21 ↗ bouncing your head against the brick

1:10:23 ↗ wall for the 200th time and i did not

1:10:25 ↗ get that sensation this time so i bow to

1:10:28 ↗ staff you did great thank you

1:10:37 ↗ thank you miss marsh uh kristen do we

1:10:40 ↗ have anyone else who would like to

1:10:42 ↗ comment susan deville would like to

1:10:44 ↗ speak so susan i am going to make you a

1:10:46 ↗ panelist

1:10:48 ↗ you are a panelist

1:10:51 ↗ um hello

1:10:52 ↗ um

1:10:53 ↗ my first statement was to be thank you

1:10:56 ↗ staff

1:10:57 ↗ for tuesday's meeting and the outcome

1:11:00 ↗ was phenomenal

1:11:01 ↗ um i totally agree with

1:11:04 ↗ what connie said is to be heard and the

1:11:06 ↗ follow-through was amazing so thank you

1:11:09 ↗ and it was only two days ago and i know

1:11:11 ↗ you a lot on your plate so that was a

1:11:13 ↗ big deal i just have a couple comments

1:11:16 ↗ that i wanted to reiterate on um

1:11:19 ↗ one of them that was brought up

1:11:21 ↗ previously

1:11:22 ↗ probably last year during this segment

1:11:24 ↗ was a work in definition

1:11:26 ↗ a working definition of urban area

1:11:29 ↗ which would go right into the code and i

1:11:31 ↗ would i wanted to say that staff had

1:11:33 ↗ said they're working on it and it will

1:11:35 ↗ be included

1:11:37 ↗ um

1:11:38 ↗ in the next strap

1:11:40 ↗ and the other

1:11:42 ↗ point

1:11:43 ↗ i wanted to make now it contradicts what

1:11:45 ↗ even connie was saying but

1:11:47 ↗ i'm not sure if i understand it

1:11:48 ↗ correctly i'm having a difficult time

1:11:50 ↗ with single-family suburban housing

1:11:54 ↗ not being exempt during

1:11:56 ↗ neighborhood overlay and i thought it as

1:11:59 ↗ it was said on tuesday there is a

1:12:01 ↗ placeholder for it right now

1:12:04 ↗ so i

1:12:06 ↗ not quite sure what we're doing with

1:12:07 ↗ that area i kind of thought it was a

1:12:09 ↗ done deal it's just

1:12:11 ↗ one more step

1:12:13 ↗ and then i'm in agreement with

1:12:16 ↗ the minimal changes for

1:12:18 ↗ old town standards

1:12:21 ↗ being in the public and coming out and

1:12:24 ↗ really going after an issue and spending

1:12:26 ↗ time the deviations and or changes are

1:12:29 ↗ so minimal

1:12:30 ↗ that to change it would probably deflate

1:12:32 ↗ people

1:12:33 ↗ even though they're minimal and have

1:12:34 ↗ little impact

1:12:36 ↗ thank you everyone for listening and the

1:12:39 ↗ extensive questioning period tonight

1:12:42 ↗ was really helpful

1:12:44 ↗ thank you

1:12:50 ↗ thank you miss neville

1:12:53 ↗ chris do we have uh any other

1:12:56 ↗ we have one other person from the public

1:12:58 ↗ i'm going to ask um miss brown if you

1:13:00 ↗ would like to speak

1:13:02 ↗ you can either send me a message in the

1:13:03 ↗ chat or

1:13:06 ↗ um

1:13:07 ↗ raise your hand

1:13:17 ↗ no there's no one else who would like to

1:13:18 ↗ speak

1:13:22 ↗ great thank you

1:13:24 ↗ and thank you to everyone who did

1:13:26 ↗ provide public comment tonight um

1:13:28 ↗ and also to those who did not provide

1:13:30 ↗ public comment tonight but did it

1:13:32 ↗ through

1:13:33 ↗ emails and writing again it's part of

1:13:35 ↗ our agenda packet

1:13:36 ↗ it's always interesting to read the

1:13:37 ↗ different perspectives that everybody

1:13:39 ↗ has in the city that we share together

1:13:42 ↗ and i also want to thank all of the

1:13:44 ↗ commissioners for asking such great

1:13:46 ↗ questions um

1:13:47 ↗ you know again they enlighten it for me

1:13:49 ↗ as well

1:13:50 ↗ uh even reading the packet already

1:13:53 ↗ against people are able to bring things

1:13:55 ↗ out differently in a different

1:13:56 ↗ perspective

1:13:58 ↗ that hopefully everybody else finds as

1:13:59 ↗ enlightening as i do

1:14:02 ↗ now we get to have some deliberation

1:14:03 ↗ time and this time is reserved for the

1:14:05 ↗ development commission alone

1:14:08 ↗ and i'd like to ask the planning policy

1:14:11 ↗ uh to please turn off their cameras and

1:14:13 ↗ i will hand it over to chair sanford

1:14:17 ↗ to conduct his commission's

1:14:18 ↗ deliberations

1:14:20 ↗ thank you

1:14:22 ↗ thanks chairman voice

1:14:25 ↗ uh christine uh some clarification

1:14:28 ↗ should we be

1:14:30 ↗ focusing our deliberation specifically

1:14:33 ↗ on the one policy question you had in

1:14:35 ↗ your presentation

1:14:37 ↗ also earlier in the week we got some

1:14:40 ↗ guidance from staff regarding

1:14:42 ↗ we could also comment it would be

1:14:44 ↗ helpful for us to comment rather

1:14:46 ↗ on the various tables in the packet were

1:14:48 ↗ called summary of substantive changes

1:14:51 ↗ so

1:14:53 ↗ um

1:14:54 ↗ can we address anything in those tables

1:14:56 ↗ as well uh if so there are lots of

1:14:58 ↗ underlying sections so i guess that

1:15:00 ↗ really opens the possibility of the

1:15:02 ↗ discussion

1:15:03 ↗ so stat staff presents one staff

1:15:05 ↗ presents questions that we think of so

1:15:07 ↗ yes deliberate that um but one of the

1:15:09 ↗ reasons one of the reasons for this

1:15:10 ↗ whole deliberation process is if you all

1:15:12 ↗ have identified anything else or there's

1:15:14 ↗ something else that you would like to

1:15:15 ↗ talk about you said this doesn't make

1:15:16 ↗ sense then you may deliberate liberate

1:15:19 ↗ that as well so yes the tables the

1:15:20 ↗ questions and then anything else that

1:15:22 ↗ you all may have

1:15:24 ↗ okay thanks

1:15:26 ↗ um

1:15:28 ↗ well it's broken into three large

1:15:30 ↗ sections i wonder if it would be

1:15:32 ↗ appropriate for us

1:15:35 ↗ most efficient for us maybe to begin

1:15:37 ↗ with the one policy question regarding

1:15:40 ↗ old town and the multi-family

1:15:43 ↗ do we have any thoughts on that or any

1:15:45 ↗ objections to proceeding that way

1:16:01 ↗ okay so seeing no objections to that and

1:16:04 ↗ then we can move on

1:16:05 ↗ to the more general discussion of the

1:16:07 ↗ summary tables

1:16:08 ↗ so

1:16:09 ↗ here

1:16:11 ↗ yes there is a quest there is a comment

1:16:13 ↗ from kevin price

1:16:16 ↗ thanks

1:16:17 ↗ commissioner price

1:16:20 ↗ all right thank you uh so um with regard

1:16:24 ↗ to the question

1:16:26 ↗ my

1:16:27 ↗ answer and i was on the fence about this

1:16:28 ↗ and i've changed my mind twice

1:16:30 ↗ but i think i've come back squarely on

1:16:33 ↗ they should not be changed and they

1:16:35 ↗ should stay as is

1:16:37 ↗ especially if the two uh

1:16:40 ↗ the two primary things that will uh

1:16:43 ↗ continue are are things of color and

1:16:46 ↗ material those are two of the most

1:16:48 ↗ powerful things in defining

1:16:50 ↗ character and if the goal is to retain

1:16:53 ↗ character

1:16:54 ↗ um

1:16:56 ↗ i i would suggest that those stay in

1:16:59 ↗ and i would um also just point out that

1:17:03 ↗ this is probably the oldest part of the

1:17:05 ↗ city we're talking about now it's

1:17:07 ↗ probably

1:17:08 ↗ you know been developed since but

1:17:10 ↗ peppered throughout are some of the

1:17:11 ↗ oldest structures in

1:17:13 ↗ in that area so i think it's important

1:17:15 ↗ to recognize the character of that area

1:17:18 ↗ and recognize that it truly is part of

1:17:20 ↗ old town and as old town continues to

1:17:22 ↗ develop and that character continues to

1:17:25 ↗ be preserved it's going to move that way

1:17:28 ↗ you know you already see it happening to

1:17:30 ↗ a degree

1:17:31 ↗ um so i i'm in favor of just leaving it

1:17:34 ↗ as it

1:17:35 ↗ so i would be curious to hear if anybody

1:17:37 ↗ else has any thoughts or if i'm

1:17:39 ↗ completely misunderstanding as usual i

1:17:42 ↗ must feel a little confused but i think

1:17:44 ↗ that

1:17:46 ↗ thank you commissioner gilbert

1:17:52 ↗ hi

1:17:53 ↗ um

1:17:54 ↗ i

1:17:56 ↗ actually

1:17:57 ↗ um

1:17:58 ↗ i found some of the

1:18:00 ↗ some of the old town code to be a little

1:18:03 ↗ overly

1:18:04 ↗ prescriptive i thought and in particular

1:18:07 ↗ i was looking at the

1:18:08 ↗ the roofs

1:18:10 ↗ and there's a requirement to have a

1:18:11 ↗ gable roof

1:18:13 ↗ form facing the street but then it also

1:18:16 ↗ suggests that you incorporate

1:18:18 ↗ other roof forms such as hip roofs

1:18:22 ↗ and

1:18:23 ↗ um

1:18:24 ↗ you know

1:18:25 ↗ as far as

1:18:27 ↗ historic architectural styles go

1:18:30 ↗ combining roofs like that isn't really

1:18:32 ↗ typical i mean there are a few styles

1:18:34 ↗ where that might happen but

1:18:36 ↗ um

1:18:37 ↗ so i thought it was kind of more like

1:18:40 ↗ you know

1:18:41 ↗ it's kind of like suggesting a more

1:18:43 ↗ eclectic style than necessarily anything

1:18:48 ↗ that would be preserving

1:18:50 ↗ historic character

1:18:52 ↗ downtown and so the effect might not be

1:18:54 ↗ quite

1:18:55 ↗ what the intent is

1:18:57 ↗ here

1:18:58 ↗ um so i'm actually

1:19:00 ↗ kind of in favor of

1:19:02 ↗ maybe modifying it or changing it or

1:19:05 ↗ even getting rid of it

1:19:07 ↗ thank you

1:19:09 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:19:12 ↗ oh thank you chair uh

1:19:14 ↗ i would agree with miss marsh that there

1:19:17 ↗ was a lot of work that's gone into the

1:19:20 ↗ old town standards

1:19:22 ↗ over the years including colors

1:19:26 ↗ and

1:19:28 ↗ when i read goal 8 that is mentioned in

1:19:32 ↗ the memo

1:19:33 ↗ neighborhoods retain their charm and

1:19:35 ↗ distinctive character

1:19:37 ↗ and i think

1:19:38 ↗ this

1:19:39 ↗ those standards that were developed

1:19:41 ↗ specifically for old town are meant to

1:19:44 ↗ retain their charming

1:19:46 ↗ distinctive characters so i would be

1:19:48 ↗ in favor of keeping the multi-family

1:19:50 ↗ medium

1:19:52 ↗ for specific requirements for old town

1:19:55 ↗ thank you

1:20:02 ↗ any other comments regarding the policy

1:20:05 ↗ question

1:20:06 ↗ of multi-family in old town

1:20:09 ↗ especially any

1:20:11 ↗ commissioners who may not have had

1:20:12 ↗ opportunity to speak yet

1:20:15 ↗ chair sanford some of these are coming

1:20:16 ↗ to me privately which is why you're not

1:20:18 ↗ seeing them so there is one from

1:20:20 ↗ commissioner shore followed by one from

1:20:22 ↗ commissioner

1:20:24 ↗ thanks so if you're using the chat uh

1:20:27 ↗ please do remember to send to all

1:20:29 ↗ panelists thanks

1:20:31 ↗ i didn't realize there was that option i

1:20:34 ↗ i fixed it

1:20:35 ↗ um i would be in favor of keeping the

1:20:39 ↗ requirements um i think

1:20:41 ↗ the overall purpose of this

1:20:44 ↗ reformatting is not to change the

1:20:46 ↗ standards and they were

1:20:49 ↗ you know needed and

1:20:52 ↗ thought to be useful at the time they

1:20:53 ↗ were created so to take them out

1:20:56 ↗ because of this restructuring

1:20:58 ↗ i don't think seems appropriate

1:21:02 ↗ commissioner dylan i think we may have

1:21:03 ↗ skipped you

1:21:05 ↗ um yeah i i would agree i think as

1:21:09 ↗ especially if

1:21:10 ↗ um

1:21:12 ↗ if the differences are are so minimal it

1:21:15 ↗ it does

1:21:17 ↗ it seem a little bit arbitrary to change

1:21:19 ↗ something that went through public

1:21:20 ↗ process and

1:21:22 ↗ um an agreement and has

1:21:25 ↗ you know had exists currently in the

1:21:27 ↗ code

1:21:28 ↗ um it's a pretty small area

1:21:30 ↗ either way and i certainly appreciate

1:21:33 ↗ the

1:21:34 ↗ the desire to to simplify

1:21:36 ↗ you know both the code and and the

1:21:38 ↗ zoning

1:21:40 ↗ but

1:21:41 ↗ i would agree that

1:21:43 ↗ leaving

1:21:44 ↗ keeping that that distinct has some

1:21:46 ↗ value in this case

1:21:51 ↗ thank you any other comments on the

1:21:53 ↗ question

1:21:58 ↗ so i guess to wrap up i'll just add i

1:22:00 ↗ think it might be valuable to keep that

1:22:02 ↗ section

1:22:04 ↗ uh simply for flexibility in case there

1:22:07 ↗ are changes going forward in that in

1:22:09 ↗ that area of the map

1:22:11 ↗ so uh i guess that's my take on it that

1:22:14 ↗ uh

1:22:16 ↗ and also

1:22:17 ↗ the character of the neighborhood is

1:22:19 ↗ intended to be eclectic

1:22:21 ↗ so

1:22:22 ↗ i think that level of detail

1:22:25 ↗ advances that overall goal too

1:22:28 ↗ pierre sanford there is one more comment

1:22:30 ↗ from commissioner ikeda

1:22:32 ↗ yeah thank you commissioner katie hi

1:22:35 ↗ johnny

1:22:36 ↗ for all the comments stated i'm in

1:22:38 ↗ agreement to keep the old town standards

1:22:41 ↗ thank you

1:22:47 ↗ any other comments from commissioners

1:22:49 ↗ who may have spoken before but

1:22:51 ↗ have the opportunity to do so again on

1:22:53 ↗ this issue

1:22:56 ↗ okay i think that concludes our

1:22:58 ↗ discussion of the policy question i'd

1:23:00 ↗ like to move on to

1:23:03 ↗ the summary

1:23:04 ↗ tables in each of the sections

1:23:07 ↗ and take them section by section

1:23:09 ↗ and

1:23:12 ↗ so if we look at the building design

1:23:16 ↗ section 18606 for example

1:23:20 ↗ there's the table there summary of

1:23:22 ↗ substantive changes

1:23:24 ↗ and so we are invited to comment on any

1:23:28 ↗ of those major changes in there and

1:23:30 ↗ because there's there are lots of

1:23:32 ↗ underlying chapters there that pretty

1:23:34 ↗ much opens the discussion to a lot of it

1:23:37 ↗ so if there are questions or comments

1:23:39 ↗ concerns on any of the content i think

1:23:43 ↗ it's our

1:23:44 ↗ responsibility at this point in our

1:23:46 ↗ deliberations to raise those so

1:23:48 ↗ open the floor for

1:23:51 ↗ questions regarding 18606

1:23:54 ↗ building design

1:23:56 ↗ summary of substantive changes

1:24:03 ↗ commissioner price

1:24:06 ↗ uh apologies i found it i just wondered

1:24:09 ↗ what page you were on um

1:24:12 ↗ i'm there we're ready to begin the

1:24:13 ↗ beginning of the

1:24:15 ↗ building design area and i guess it's it

1:24:17 ↗ i'm sorry i'm sorry i misspoke because

1:24:20 ↗ the the table is in the accompanying

1:24:22 ↗ memos

1:24:25 ↗ okay that's one right thank you for the

1:24:27 ↗ memos that preface each of the three

1:24:29 ↗ sections

1:24:30 ↗ thank you

1:24:32 ↗ would you tell us which page of the pdf

1:24:35 ↗ you're on

1:24:38 ↗ you know i'm not sure that that

1:24:43 ↗ it's page 2 of 8 of the

1:24:46 ↗ building design memo

1:25:02 ↗ thanks right or depending on your

1:25:05 ↗ numbering it's page 14 of 133.

1:25:11 ↗ got it thanks

1:25:35 ↗ so since a lot of these

1:25:37 ↗ entries in the table really constitute

1:25:40 ↗ much of the

1:25:42 ↗ much of that section if you have

1:25:44 ↗ comments on those the odds are very good

1:25:47 ↗ they will uh fall under the table

1:25:49 ↗ commissioner dillon

1:25:52 ↗ um

1:25:53 ↗ one of the comments in here talks about

1:25:56 ↗ some of these um being rewritten to be

1:25:58 ↗ more prescriptive kind of going back to

1:26:00 ↗ the the shell should um discussion and

1:26:02 ↗ not to

1:26:04 ↗ to harp on that but i do think that's

1:26:06 ↗ something that um would bear some close

1:26:09 ↗ review i i suspect that there are

1:26:11 ↗ um places in the code that

1:26:14 ↗ that things still should be it that

1:26:17 ↗ there still should be shoulds um

1:26:20 ↗ with still have with still having the

1:26:22 ↗ ability to enforce a

1:26:24 ↗ a um

1:26:26 ↗ a regulation

1:26:27 ↗ with some variability possibly included

1:26:30 ↗ so just something to

1:26:34 ↗ do i guess another pass through and and

1:26:37 ↗ make sure that

1:26:38 ↗ the intent is

1:26:48 ↗ correct thank you other comments on the

1:26:51 ↗ major changes in this section

1:27:13 ↗ i'll throw in a couple well we're still

1:27:15 ↗ thinking

1:27:17 ↗ i think we already mentioned regarding

1:27:19 ↗ 11

1:27:20 ↗ that the step bag area seems confusing

1:27:23 ↗ and uh we need some rework there i think

1:27:26 ↗ it's also inconsistent with another

1:27:28 ↗ section which is in 18604

1:27:34 ↗ g1b

1:27:35 ↗ and i guess this picks up on a comment

1:27:38 ↗ from miss marsh that we do have

1:27:41 ↗ step back language

1:27:44 ↗ and set back language still throughout

1:27:46 ↗ the code so it would be

1:27:48 ↗ great to be able to consolidate that

1:27:52 ↗ um

1:27:53 ↗ 13 sky bridge regulations will be placed

1:27:56 ↗ in city street standards

1:27:58 ↗ i see that the city street standards is

1:28:00 ↗ adopted by reference in the imc but i

1:28:03 ↗ would hope there'd be a way to make this

1:28:05 ↗ document more accessible to users

1:28:07 ↗ because we have i'd be i believe through

1:28:10 ↗ black passages in here as well as

1:28:14 ↗ sky bridge

1:28:15 ↗ and we did have an issue with a sky

1:28:17 ↗ bridge and a school proposal i believe

1:28:20 ↗ so i think that should be a document

1:28:22 ↗ that people should be able to get to

1:28:24 ↗ fairly easily and readily

1:28:37 ↗ do we hear any other comments

1:28:41 ↗ commissioner gilbert

1:28:42 ↗ hi is there anywhere um that has a

1:28:46 ↗ really solid definition for through

1:28:48 ↗ block passages

1:28:50 ↗ um because at first i thought this was

1:28:52 ↗ about you know

1:28:54 ↗ allies and

1:28:56 ↗ pedestrian areas but then um

1:29:00 ↗ yeah i'm not exactly sure

1:29:02 ↗ is there somewhere where that is defined

1:29:05 ↗ and directly in the code

1:29:09 ↗ thank you um

1:29:10 ↗ from layman's perspective and i'm not

1:29:12 ↗ sure but i know there is a definition

1:29:14 ↗ section in the imc

1:29:16 ↗ there are lots of definitions there i'm

1:29:18 ↗ not sure that through black passage is

1:29:20 ↗ defined there

1:29:21 ↗ but i believe it's also defined in the

1:29:24 ↗ central issaquah

1:29:27 ↗ design and arc architecture and urban

1:29:30 ↗ design manual

1:29:32 ↗ and that's part of the content that's

1:29:33 ↗ being ported into the code in this past

1:29:36 ↗ so

1:29:37 ↗ you can still find it in that manual i

1:29:39 ↗ believe probably together with

1:29:41 ↗ illustration

1:29:45 ↗ mr sanford may i jump in sure please

1:29:48 ↗ yeah i believe that that there are

1:29:50 ↗ definitions but this is part of the

1:29:52 ↗ reason that we're consolidating our

1:29:53 ↗ different codes because there are

1:29:55 ↗ definitions in central issaquah and in

1:29:56 ↗ the urban standards and in talus and in

1:29:58 ↗ the sql islands so we need to reconcile

1:30:01 ↗ those but it will be in the definition

1:30:03 ↗ section and it does not just include

1:30:05 ↗ alleys and

1:30:07 ↗ the other one that you mentioned but

1:30:08 ↗ it's

1:30:09 ↗ passages that are recommended for every

1:30:11 ↗ 250 to 300 feet as well

1:30:14 ↗ and blocks

1:30:23 ↗ other comments on the first section the

1:30:26 ↗ building design section

1:30:34 ↗ do i hear any objections to moving on

1:30:37 ↗ to the next section on site and urban

1:30:39 ↗ design

1:30:48 ↗ hearing none

1:30:50 ↗ so

1:30:51 ↗ [Music]

1:30:52 ↗ let me check that to make sure i have

1:30:54 ↗ none okay

1:30:56 ↗ so moving on to the memo for 18604 urban

1:31:00 ↗ design and site planning the subs the

1:31:03 ↗ summary of substantive changes in the

1:31:06 ↗ memo for that section

1:31:10 ↗ i'll try to find it and if someone knows

1:31:12 ↗ where it is please let me know

1:31:26 ↗ okay so now we're looking at page 36 of

1:31:29 ↗ 133

1:31:31 ↗ of the continuous pdf

1:32:23 ↗ commissioner shore

1:32:27 ↗ i have a comment on item 4

1:32:30 ↗ about through block passages

1:32:34 ↗ and those

1:32:36 ↗ preservation views being incorporated in

1:32:38 ↗ the public works street standards

1:32:42 ↗ i thought the letter

1:32:43 ↗ that we received

1:32:46 ↗ from lakeside was

1:32:49 ↗ a very good point that

1:32:53 ↗ it became unclear exactly what would be

1:32:56 ↗ preserved

1:32:59 ↗ so i don't know if an additional look

1:33:00 ↗ could be taken at that to

1:33:03 ↗ to further define

1:33:06 ↗ what would be protected

1:33:15 ↗ thank you other comments on the section

1:33:50 ↗ i guess i have a question and a comment

1:33:53 ↗ i was wondering uh

1:33:55 ↗ how our fellow commissioners

1:33:58 ↗ felt about the requirement for

1:34:00 ↗ electrical vehicle charging stations

1:34:02 ↗ required by all new development

1:34:04 ↗ regardless of use

1:34:08 ↗ and then

1:34:10 ↗ and i guess that would be

1:34:13 ↗ maybe in relation to 0.2 in the table

1:34:17 ↗ and then

1:34:19 ↗ point

1:34:19 ↗ three

1:34:23 ↗ that includes orientation and

1:34:26 ↗ especially near creeks and so on

1:34:30 ↗ i think it might be helpful to

1:34:33 ↗ reference in this section the critical

1:34:36 ↗ areas chapter of the imc

1:34:42 ↗ it's talking in general about natural

1:34:44 ↗ areas and so on but it doesn't any

1:34:46 ↗ include

1:34:48 ↗ of course any of the

1:34:50 ↗ prescriptive code regarding

1:34:53 ↗ buffer width and so on so

1:34:56 ↗ we wouldn't want to be redundant or move

1:34:58 ↗ it off here but i think it could be

1:34:59 ↗ helpful to have

1:35:00 ↗ a cross-reference to that area here

1:35:06 ↗ commissioner dylan

1:35:09 ↗ um to your your first question of the

1:35:14 ↗ the various requirements under

1:35:16 ↗ sustainable site design

1:35:18 ↗ um

1:35:20 ↗ it

1:35:22 ↗ i don't know if again if this is

1:35:25 ↗ changing to the more prescriptive

1:35:27 ↗ language

1:35:29 ↗ but this seems like a

1:35:31 ↗ very extensive list

1:35:35 ↗ of

1:35:35 ↗ of things to be considered for

1:35:39 ↗ for every project certainly the idea

1:35:41 ↗ that there should be

1:35:43 ↗ there should be sustainable

1:35:44 ↗ sustainability and climate change

1:35:46 ↗ mitigation

1:35:47 ↗ design

1:35:48 ↗ considered and incorporated into each

1:35:50 ↗ project but the language currently seems

1:35:53 ↗ to suggest that all of those pieces

1:35:56 ↗ are required which

1:35:58 ↗ seems

1:36:00 ↗ probably pretty difficult to implement

1:36:01 ↗ in a lot of cases

1:36:04 ↗ thank you that was nice that was my

1:36:06 ↗ sense and the comment it says that these

1:36:08 ↗ items are required at a minimum

1:36:19 ↗ other comments on

1:36:23 ↗ the site in urban design section

1:37:01 ↗ yes i have one one other follow-up

1:37:03 ↗ comment um

1:37:05 ↗ can

1:37:06 ↗ recalling the discussion earlier

1:37:09 ↗ um

1:37:10 ↗ that at this point these requirements

1:37:12 ↗ applied

1:37:13 ↗ to single family housing or

1:37:16 ↗ single-family residential as as well and

1:37:19 ↗ it sounds like that may be something

1:37:20 ↗ that um

1:37:22 ↗ may be addressed in the to be the

1:37:24 ↗ placeholder exceptions

1:37:27 ↗ um piece i think that was in this one

1:37:31 ↗ but whether whether these are indeed

1:37:34 ↗ intended to

1:37:35 ↗ apply to all uses throughout the city

1:37:49 ↗ thank you do we have any other comments

1:37:50 ↗ on this section

1:38:03 ↗ okay unless i hear objection we'll move

1:38:05 ↗ on to the final section on neighborhood

1:38:06 ↗ overlays

1:38:09 ↗ um chair sanford

1:38:12 ↗ yes

1:38:13 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:38:14 ↗ thank you i'll jump in and and i

1:38:16 ↗ apologize my computer has dropped access

1:38:19 ↗ online to all the forums and so i'm

1:38:21 ↗ trying to read them on my phone but

1:38:24 ↗ the um

1:38:25 ↗ i i do think i i would agree with you

1:38:27 ↗ the question about

1:38:30 ↗ requiring essentially the language that

1:38:32 ↗ were to require electric vehicle

1:38:34 ↗ charging stations at all

1:38:37 ↗ in all developments

1:38:39 ↗ would be an issue

1:38:42 ↗ i think there are a couple of things

1:38:43 ↗ like that in those shelves and masks

1:38:46 ↗ that staff should be looking at right

1:38:50 ↗ thank you

1:38:56 ↗ thank you any other comments

1:39:11 ↗ seeing none let's move on to the final

1:39:14 ↗ section on

1:39:15 ↗ neighborhood overlays

1:39:17 ↗ and i think in the

1:39:19 ↗ running pdf uh the summary of

1:39:22 ↗ substantial changes

1:39:25 ↗ is

1:39:27 ↗ on page 60 of 133

1:39:50 ↗ so this is a big section all

1:39:52 ↗ neighborhood overlays

1:39:54 ↗ old town central issaquah highlands

1:39:57 ↗ dallas

1:40:28 ↗ i'll throw out a couple

1:40:30 ↗ i guess they would apply to

1:40:35 ↗ items one

1:40:38 ↗ and six

1:40:41 ↗ both old town and central issaquah my

1:40:44 ↗ overall feeling of this section is that

1:40:48 ↗ um it feels half missing because there

1:40:50 ↗ are no illustrations from the original

1:40:52 ↗ source documents uh to me it's

1:40:54 ↗ practically impossible to understand

1:40:57 ↗ uh some of these concepts especially in

1:40:59 ↗ the central issaquah

1:41:01 ↗ area uh in terms of architectural styles

1:41:04 ↗ without those illustrations and i know

1:41:07 ↗ there are a lot of illustrations in the

1:41:08 ↗ old town

1:41:09 ↗ architectural standards as well they

1:41:11 ↗ would be very helpful i think to add to

1:41:13 ↗ both of those sections i don't know if

1:41:15 ↗ those are anticipated to be added or not

1:41:18 ↗ but i think for me that would be a

1:41:20 ↗ critical

1:41:26 ↗ also i had one more regarding for the

1:41:28 ↗ development bonus program

1:41:30 ↗ there may be uh commissioners and

1:41:32 ↗ certainly staff who are much more

1:41:33 ↗ familiar with this than i am but i found

1:41:36 ↗ it very difficult to decode reading that

1:41:38 ↗ section

1:41:39 ↗ um it may be one of those things that if

1:41:41 ↗ you're familiar with it it's extremely

1:41:43 ↗ clear to you

1:41:44 ↗ but i think that the subject matter

1:41:46 ↗ experts may be very close to the

1:41:48 ↗ material here

1:41:49 ↗ and it might be helpful to clarify this

1:41:53 ↗ by

1:41:54 ↗ having a sme work with

1:41:56 ↗ a technical writer a writer to develop

1:41:59 ↗ these uh either the the consultants

1:42:01 ↗ writer or someone

1:42:03 ↗ because

1:42:04 ↗ th this section even with examples was

1:42:06 ↗ still very difficult for me to decode i

1:42:08 ↗ don't know if anyone else had that same

1:42:10 ↗ scent

1:42:16 ↗ and what section am i talking about

1:42:18 ↗ there

1:42:19 ↗ uh

1:42:24 ↗ i do not have it in front of me but

1:42:27 ↗ maybe you guys know what i'm talking

1:42:28 ↗ about i hope

1:42:46 ↗ yeah so i guess it's in 18 703

1:42:50 ↗ and that's page 50 of 69 of that section

1:42:54 ↗ 18703 the bonus program

1:43:01 ↗ commissioner akita

1:43:08 ↗ commissioner john mute

1:43:12 ↗ thank you commissioner johnny ketta um

1:43:15 ↗ i'm in agreement i i read this about

1:43:17 ↗ four times and i didn't understand

1:43:19 ↗ whether the

1:43:21 ↗ bonuses applied to a billing permit or

1:43:23 ↗ or how it was applied

1:43:26 ↗ and it

1:43:27 ↗ um it was unclear to me

1:43:30 ↗ and i'm i'm afraid if we put another

1:43:32 ↗ formula in there to calculate the bonus

1:43:34 ↗ program it's got to be

1:43:36 ↗ it's got to be made a lot more simple

1:43:39 ↗ thanks

1:43:42 ↗ mr dylan

1:43:48 ↗ i didn't have anything right now

1:43:52 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:43:55 ↗ um just one comment on

1:43:58 ↗ um 18700.080

1:44:03 ↗ which is 10 of 69

1:44:06 ↗ this is a case where

1:44:08 ↗ on b

1:44:09 ↗ 6

1:44:11 ↗ buildings must incorporate sustainable

1:44:14 ↗ roof design and materials

1:44:16 ↗ when feasible

1:44:18 ↗ and i guess for me that raises the

1:44:20 ↗ question we've put in a

1:44:22 ↗ must and when feasible

1:44:25 ↗ and which seems to sort of throw out the

1:44:28 ↗ the must part of it so i don't know if

1:44:30 ↗ if that's intended to be that way and if

1:44:33 ↗ so

1:44:34 ↗ how staff would um

1:44:36 ↗ define what's feasible and not feasible

1:44:41 ↗ and and one other item on there

1:44:44 ↗ we mentioned sustainable materials and

1:44:47 ↗ i'm not sure what those are defined as

1:44:52 ↗ thank you

1:45:02 ↗ thank you other comments on this section

1:45:04 ↗ our last section

1:45:06 ↗ our last chance to get in our word on

1:45:08 ↗ this section

1:45:31 ↗ i did notice one other in this section

1:45:34 ↗ under applicability

1:45:36 ↗ close to the top it's page 3 of 69

1:45:40 ↗ and

1:45:42 ↗ 18 hundred zero twenty

1:45:46 ↗ and both e and f

1:45:48 ↗ talk about

1:45:51 ↗ uh

1:45:52 ↗ standards in old town

1:45:54 ↗ essentially being interpreted for all

1:45:57 ↗ development and redevelopment

1:46:00 ↗ it seems to be saying that

1:46:04 ↗ on a case-by-case basis

1:46:09 ↗ a process would be

1:46:11 ↗ applied for all new development and

1:46:14 ↗ redevelopment to make the decision

1:46:19 ↗ when the provisions of the section apply

1:46:23 ↗ and the degree to which they would apply

1:46:27 ↗ so to some extent i suppose that's true

1:46:30 ↗ of

1:46:32 ↗ any permit

1:46:33 ↗ application

1:46:35 ↗ but

1:46:36 ↗ i'm wondering if there's a special

1:46:38 ↗ meaning intended here and

1:46:41 ↗ it's worded rather passively we assume

1:46:44 ↗ that

1:46:48 ↗ city staff is making this

1:46:50 ↗ recommendation i think it could be

1:46:52 ↗ clarified a bit

1:46:54 ↗ if this is a process that applies for

1:46:56 ↗ all new development and redevelopment in

1:46:58 ↗ old town i would suggest that these

1:47:01 ↗ sections be moved to the top of

1:47:02 ↗ applicability seems like a very high

1:47:05 ↗ level issue in the applicability area

1:47:20 ↗ we have other comments on this final

1:47:22 ↗ section

1:47:35 ↗ any other input on all of the tables

1:47:38 ↗ or any other thoughts on the main policy

1:47:41 ↗ question on multifamily before we wrap

1:47:43 ↗ up

1:47:49 ↗ okay thank you commissioners for your

1:47:51 ↗ input and this concludes our

1:47:53 ↗ deliberation and kristin i'll turn it

1:47:55 ↗ back to you

1:47:58 ↗ thank you very much and i'll hand it

1:48:00 ↗ over to

1:48:02 ↗ voice i just want to say thank you to

1:48:06 ↗ chair sanford and to all of the

1:48:09 ↗ development commissioners here this

1:48:10 ↗ evening

1:48:11 ↗ uh

1:48:12 ↗ not everybody understands this or knows

1:48:14 ↗ this but in addition to their own

1:48:16 ↗ workload

1:48:18 ↗ they've been coming to help us with

1:48:20 ↗ title 18

1:48:22 ↗ and while the planning policy commission

1:48:24 ↗ mandate is to typically try and drive

1:48:27 ↗ policy

1:48:28 ↗ their health especially with their

1:48:29 ↗ expertise in the granularity

1:48:32 ↗ of what they do

1:48:33 ↗ has been very significant for us so you

1:48:36 ↗ guys deliberations have been fantastic

1:48:38 ↗ we appreciate them we appreciate you

1:48:40 ↗ guys being here

1:48:42 ↗ and yeah thank you very much on behalf

1:48:45 ↗ of the planning policy commission

1:48:47 ↗ having said that you guys are free to

1:48:49 ↗ leave we are going to be doing reports

1:48:51 ↗ we

1:48:52 ↗ probably won't be

1:48:54 ↗ a whole lot longer ourselves so you can

1:48:56 ↗ feel free to stay if you'd like um but

1:48:58 ↗ now we are going to move on because fear

1:49:01 ↗ not planning policy

1:49:02 ↗ our chance to deliberate is coming up in

1:49:05 ↗ a couple weeks

1:49:07 ↗ thanks

1:49:08 ↗ thank you thank you thank you everyone

1:49:10 ↗ thank you

1:49:13 ↗ all right

1:49:15 ↗ so

1:49:16 ↗ the rest of our meeting is rather short

1:49:20 ↗ uh we'll begin with reports

1:49:22 ↗ and city council updates so if staff can

1:49:25 ↗ provide any updates that they have for

1:49:26 ↗ us that'd be great

1:49:28 ↗ so

1:49:29 ↗ i don't have any but i know that many

1:49:32 ↗ attended the city council meeting on

1:49:33 ↗ bucket three uh or actually the

1:49:36 ↗ committee meeting on bucket three on uh

1:49:39 ↗ the seventh so many i'm sure good

1:49:42 ↗ evening commissioners um so the the

1:49:45 ↗ meeting on tuesday

1:49:46 ↗ um was all the work that you all had

1:49:49 ↗ done with the development commission so

1:49:50 ↗ we took the zoning and uses section for

1:49:53 ↗ the committee um

1:49:55 ↗ the way we've been structuring this is

1:49:57 ↗ um you know we've created a feedback

1:50:00 ↗ loop matrix so what we heard from public

1:50:02 ↗ comments during that informed the draft

1:50:06 ↗ to what we heard at the public hearing

1:50:08 ↗ and how

1:50:09 ↗ that is incorporated and then the things

1:50:11 ↗ that we have to incorporate in our

1:50:13 ↗ second draft

1:50:14 ↗ um

1:50:15 ↗ so we've shared everything uh you know

1:50:17 ↗ all your comments feedback um to them

1:50:21 ↗ what we are charged with is to come back

1:50:23 ↗ to you with a discussion on

1:50:26 ↗ um

1:50:28 ↗ primarily uh zero lot lines and

1:50:32 ↗ um you know the great discussion that we

1:50:34 ↗ had so so

1:50:36 ↗ with a filter of um

1:50:38 ↗ looking it through the lens of uh

1:50:40 ↗ increasing housing diversity so

1:50:43 ↗ there is a ma you know in your golden

1:50:45 ↗ outcomes chart that we shared there's

1:50:47 ↗ also a goal six

1:50:49 ↗ so we'll uh write up some um you know

1:50:51 ↗ discussion on the topic

1:50:53 ↗ and clarify some of the things you know

1:50:55 ↗ where is it currently allowed how is it

1:50:57 ↗ um and lay out some pros and cons and

1:51:00 ↗ options for that so that's something we

1:51:03 ↗ do need to circle back with you on um

1:51:05 ↗ the other couple things that came from

1:51:07 ↗ that meeting

1:51:08 ↗ are um you know we'll be working on

1:51:10 ↗ perhaps uh creating

1:51:12 ↗ the icap and the implementation that

1:51:15 ↗ happened with the climate action plan

1:51:17 ↗ and where we said we would um

1:51:20 ↗ incorporate some of the things in title

1:51:22 ↗ 18 um so we're going to go through that

1:51:25 ↗ and highlight some of those things that

1:51:27 ↗ have been done

1:51:28 ↗ what um is you know building energy for

1:51:31 ↗ instance

1:51:32 ↗ what's the status of that

1:51:34 ↗ so we'll produce that document and share

1:51:36 ↗ with uh you all and the community

1:51:40 ↗ um

1:51:41 ↗ because some of the the comments that

1:51:42 ↗ came into the the council committee were

1:51:45 ↗ um from the uh the folks um uh asking

1:51:49 ↗ for

1:51:49 ↗ uh how are we doing with the

1:51:51 ↗ implementation of the climate action

1:51:53 ↗ plan and

1:51:54 ↗ tying that with title 18 update

1:51:57 ↗ and lastly i think uh there's a request

1:52:00 ↗ uh for what's on the whiteboard

1:52:03 ↗ so we're going to clean up that document

1:52:05 ↗ and

1:52:06 ↗ bring that forward for everyone's

1:52:08 ↗ discussion i think we had planned on

1:52:12 ↗ having that at the

1:52:14 ↗ at the end after we do the six buckets

1:52:16 ↗ uh and have a which we still will plan

1:52:18 ↗ on having a discussion of all the items

1:52:20 ↗ on the whiteboard list but we are going

1:52:22 ↗ to release the the draft list with a

1:52:24 ↗ date of this is what we have so far on

1:52:27 ↗ it so that

1:52:28 ↗ it's um open and transparent for

1:52:30 ↗ everyone what's on it so that's uh some

1:52:33 ↗ of the gist of um

1:52:35 ↗ our takeaways from

1:52:37 ↗ council committee meeting

1:52:41 ↗ that's all i have

1:52:42 ↗ yeah

1:52:43 ↗ busy city

1:52:45 ↗ that's what we like

1:52:47 ↗ uh thank you minnie

1:52:49 ↗ and finally other business and

1:52:51 ↗ announcements open to staff open to

1:52:54 ↗ fellow commissioners does anyone have

1:52:55 ↗ anything they'd like to add for the good

1:52:57 ↗ of our order

1:53:03 ↗ all right

1:53:04 ↗ well thank you everyone again for being

1:53:05 ↗ here tonight we're looking forward to

1:53:07 ↗ our next meeting i believe it's on

1:53:09 ↗ june

1:53:10 ↗ 23rd uh

1:53:13 ↗ anyway

1:53:14 ↗ check your calendar for that may third

1:53:16 ↗ time

1:53:17 ↗ so mark your calendars all right

1:53:19 ↗ mark on our calendars so otherwise

1:53:21 ↗ everyone have a fantastic evening and we

1:53:24 ↗ will adjourn tonight

1:53:26 ↗ at 8 25 pm

1:53:28 ↗ thanks everyone

1:53:30 ↗ thank you

1:53:33 ↗ thank you good night

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.