Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 27, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 9, 2021

packet pp.5–13

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MEETING 6:30 p.m. -Thursday, December 9, 2021

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation of 2022 Docket (List) of Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, (A)

30 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.15–54

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the meeting is to present, hold a public hearing, and make a

Title 18 Land Use Code Update: Building and Design - Neighborhood Overlay [1 hr.] Standards (continued from Jan. 20

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.55–68

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.55 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 20th Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is for staff to provide background on and receive feedback pertaining to Building and Design, specifically related to Neighborhood Overlay Standards.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

3932 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ all right good evening i'd like to call

0:01 ↗ order the january 20th policy and

0:03 ↗ planning commission meeting uh time is 6

0:06 ↗ 30. due to the virtual format of today's

0:08 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:10 ↗ some guidelines

0:11 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:13 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:15 ↗ by phone for all meeting attendees

0:17 ↗ please wish

0:19 ↗ who wish to speak please speak clearly

0:21 ↗ and pause frequently

0:22 ↗ state your name each time before

0:25 ↗ speaking mutual microphone when not

0:27 ↗ speaking

0:28 ↗ if having technical difficulties try

0:30 ↗ joining the meeting using a different

0:32 ↗ device such as a smartphone or tablet

0:34 ↗ use the call-in information

0:36 ↗ provided in the meeting invite

0:39 ↗ now we'll move to attendance and we'll

0:41 ↗ have christian do with policy and

0:43 ↗ planning commission and we will have

0:46 ↗ lucy take care of

0:48 ↗ um

0:48 ↗ [Music]

0:50 ↗ development commission

0:53 ↗ okay so

0:55 ↗ commissioner bader

1:00 ↗ not so i'll have to check on that one i

1:02 ↗ don't recall

1:03 ↗ have to check on that one uh

1:05 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:07 ↗ here

1:09 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:11 ↗ here

1:12 ↗ vice chair voice

1:17 ↗ chair fall

1:18 ↗ here

1:20 ↗ and

1:23 ↗ we have excused our commissioners

1:25 ↗ milligan and zaragoza and i just

1:27 ↗ remembered that yes uh commissioner

1:28 ↗ bader is an excused absence as well

1:33 ↗ so for the development commission um

1:37 ↗ commissioner brennan

1:39 ↗ i'm here

1:41 ↗ commissioner sanford here

1:44 ↗ commissioner

1:46 ↗ here

1:48 ↗ commissioner dylan

1:50 ↗ here

1:51 ↗ commissioner

1:52 ↗ shore here

1:55 ↗ commissioner price

2:03 ↗ commissioner schulte

2:06 ↗ commissioner ikeda

2:10 ↗ commissioner morgan

2:16 ↗ i saw him just a minute ago

2:22 ↗ i wonder if he got kicked out because i

2:24 ↗ don't see him now

2:30 ↗ maybe so we'll give it a few minutes and

2:31 ↗ when he pops back in we will know that

2:33 ↗ for the minutes

2:35 ↗ okay great

2:39 ↗ okay

2:40 ↗ commissioner morgan

2:43 ↗ could you please stay here for the role

2:44 ↗ please you left us for a minute

2:53 ↗ mr morgan can you hear us

3:00 ↗ i think

3:02 ↗ chair brennan may be checking with him

3:05 ↗ okay but he's here

3:07 ↗ yes he is technical difficulties okay

3:12 ↗ should i continue

3:14 ↗ he may be calling in by phone so go

3:16 ↗ ahead and continue we'll we'll get this

3:17 ↗ worked out

3:19 ↗ all right and for tonight we're going to

3:20 ↗ have the three

3:22 ↗ opportunities for the public to make

3:24 ↗ comments the first opportunity is going

3:26 ↗ to be for addressing

3:29 ↗ the

3:30 ↗ hearing tonight on the property

3:32 ↗ development or the property read

3:35 ↗ rezoning

3:36 ↗ and then we will have a um

3:39 ↗ an opportunity for public comment

3:42 ↗ considering the

3:44 ↗ um title 18 amendments

3:48 ↗ uh before we actually have the

3:50 ↗ presentation and then we will have it

3:51 ↗ during the presentation before the

3:54 ↗ commission discussions after the

3:56 ↗ commission questions okay uh so let's go

3:59 ↗ ahead and open up for a public comment

4:01 ↗ in regards to i'm i apologize

4:04 ↗ there's a little glitch in the script so

4:06 ↗ uh first we need to do approval of

4:08 ↗ minutes i apologize i don't think i was

4:09 ↗ in there and then actually we're going

4:11 ↗ to have public comments before we do on

4:13 ↗ just general public comments before the

4:14 ↗ public hearing according to the agenda

4:16 ↗ yes some minutes first okay uh so let's

4:20 ↗ go ahead and approve the meeting minutes

4:22 ↗ uh are there any changes proposed for

4:25 ↗ the meeting minutes

4:29 ↗ hearing none the meeting minutes are

4:31 ↗ approved

4:33 ↗ okay now we'll open up for public

4:35 ↗ comment for the hearing

4:41 ↗ this is public comment for just general

4:43 ↗ public comment and if anyone has

4:45 ↗ anything they would like to say if you

4:47 ↗ could raise your virtual hand or press

4:49 ↗ star 3 on your phone

4:57 ↗ i am not seeing anyone who would like to

4:59 ↗ speak

5:01 ↗ okay excellent so we'll go ahead and

5:04 ↗ we're going to have

5:05 ↗ [Music]

5:06 ↗ lucy take the presentation for the

5:10 ↗ hearing tonight

5:12 ↗ actually that will be me oh sorry yeah

5:15 ↗ so i'm going to share my screen

5:30 ↗ there we go you see that

5:38 ↗ yes

5:39 ↗ okay great you can hear me

5:42 ↗ okay

5:43 ↗ all right great

5:45 ↗ so yes our public hearing tonight oh it

5:47 ↗ says 2021 it's on the 2022 docket of

5:50 ↗ proposed comprehensive plan and zoning

5:51 ↗ map amendments

5:54 ↗ the purpose of our meeting tonight

5:56 ↗ is to present the proposed docket

5:58 ↗ and take public comment

6:00 ↗ then you all will deliberate and then

6:02 ↗ you will make a recommendation

6:05 ↗ on the docket

6:08 ↗ just as a reminder the comprehensive

6:10 ↗ plans may be amended just once a year

6:12 ↗ there are a few exceptions but for the

6:13 ↗ most part just once a year

6:16 ↗ so a docket must be approved prior to

6:18 ↗ starting the amendment process and what

6:20 ↗ it ensures is that we have our list of

6:23 ↗ proposed amendments and that everything

6:25 ↗ is being looked at holistically

6:28 ↗ and being considered at the same time so

6:29 ↗ that one item doesn't come in later and

6:32 ↗ negatively affect another item we just

6:33 ↗ want to make sure everything's working

6:34 ↗ together

6:37 ↗ so

6:38 ↗ this the agenda came out twice the

6:40 ↗ packet came out twice

6:43 ↗ because we had two additions to the

6:45 ↗ docket hopefully all of you had a chance

6:47 ↗ to look at the revised editions today

6:50 ↗ so this is our docket and it consists of

6:54 ↗ solely redesignations and rezones to

6:56 ↗ properties

6:57 ↗ the first one which came in about two

6:59 ↗ weeks ago is for our

7:01 ↗ savior lutheran church

7:04 ↗ i'll go through each of these in

7:05 ↗ individually in just a minute

7:07 ↗ they're asking to go from single family

7:10 ↗ small lot to multi-family high

7:12 ↗ the next one is a newport area

7:15 ↗ you may recall we did this one last year

7:17 ↗ and there was a technical glitch and

7:20 ↗ though i tried it cannot be done

7:22 ↗ administratively it must be done through

7:23 ↗ a public hearing so that our proposal is

7:25 ↗ to take that from community facilities

7:27 ↗ recreation to village residential and

7:29 ↗ the last one came in about two days ago

7:31 ↗ and it was the wildwood parcel

7:34 ↗ and they are asking to go from single

7:36 ↗ family small lot to multi-family medium

7:39 ↗ the first one our savior lutheran church

7:42 ↗ it's located here on front street south

7:45 ↗ between wildwood boulevard and front

7:47 ↗ street south it's about almost three and

7:49 ↗ a half acres the current designation is

7:51 ↗ low density residential they are

7:53 ↗ requesting multi-family residential

7:55 ↗ designation

7:56 ↗ the existing zoning is single family

7:58 ↗ small lot and they are requesting

8:00 ↗ multi-family high

8:02 ↗ and

8:03 ↗ it's a little bit

8:05 ↗ uh background

8:06 ↗ this is the parcel that they're

8:08 ↗ requesting be rezoned right here

8:10 ↗ but they also own this parcel a separate

8:13 ↗ parcel which is zoned multi-family high

8:18 ↗ next parcel

8:19 ↗ um you may recall this room from last

8:21 ↗ year i don't have the acreage on it yet

8:25 ↗ it is currently zone the land use

8:27 ↗ designation is community facilities and

8:29 ↗ we are requesting that it be changed to

8:30 ↗ multi-family residential

8:32 ↗ and it is currently has a community

8:34 ↗ facilities recreation zoning on it and

8:37 ↗ we're requesting that it go to

8:39 ↗ village residential and i'll show you

8:40 ↗ what happens so last year we you may

8:43 ↗ recall

8:44 ↗ we re the city acquired dispersal for

8:47 ↗ park space and this parcel excuse me

8:51 ↗ for open space and those were

8:52 ↗ redesignated and rezoned as part of the

8:54 ↗ 2021 comprehensive plan amendments

8:57 ↗ but what happened was when we started

9:00 ↗ the amendment process and went in and

9:02 ↗ selected its parcel

9:03 ↗ zero two four zero six nine one zero

9:06 ↗ seven

9:07 ↗ um

9:09 ↗ contained everything that's in this blue

9:11 ↗ line right here

9:13 ↗ what we did not know was that in 2020

9:16 ↗ a this property

9:19 ↗ had a lot line adjustment

9:21 ↗ but we were unaware of this until after

9:25 ↗ the redone and redesignation had been

9:27 ↗ approved so what happened was this

9:29 ↗ section here in orange

9:31 ↗ was taken out of this parcel and is now

9:33 ↗ part of this much larger parcel right

9:35 ↗ here on which anthology apartments are

9:38 ↗ located so

9:39 ↗ this and this so it's sort of split

9:41 ↗ zoning this one parcel now has two zones

9:43 ↗ so this needs to be taken back to

9:46 ↗ village residential

9:49 ↗ our last request is one of wildwood

9:53 ↗ it is just off of wildwood boulevard

9:56 ↗ close to front street south

9:58 ↗ it is currently it's about almost four

10:00 ↗ acres

10:02 ↗ the land use designation is low density

10:03 ↗ residential they're requesting

10:05 ↗ multi-family residential

10:07 ↗ the existing zoning is single-family

10:09 ↗ small lot and they are requesting a

10:11 ↗ multi-family medium

10:13 ↗ and just to show you i showed you the

10:15 ↗ other ones with zoning around it so this

10:17 ↗ is the parcel right here

10:19 ↗ single family small lot

10:21 ↗ it actually is this lot and this bigger

10:23 ↗ lot this one right here

10:25 ↗ has a house on it it is owned separately

10:27 ↗ it's a different parcel and then you'll

10:29 ↗ notice that the church parcel that is

10:31 ↗ being requested is right there

10:34 ↗ so the process for this

10:36 ↗ is that

10:38 ↗ uh you all would make a recommendation

10:40 ↗ tonight council would take an act to

10:42 ↗ take action in february on the docket

10:45 ↗ then staff would be beginning uh begin

10:48 ↗ researching the proposed amendments

10:49 ↗ probably not it says march but probably

10:52 ↗ because of all of our title 18 work and

10:53 ↗ everything else that we have on not

10:54 ↗ until late going on not till later in

10:56 ↗ the summer

10:57 ↗ september you all would get to see the

10:58 ↗ proposed recommendations

11:01 ↗ october we would hold a public hearing

11:03 ↗ november to a council study session in

11:05 ↗ december for council action

11:08 ↗ so questions for you all

11:10 ↗ are there any amendments that need to be

11:12 ↗ made this year that are not included on

11:14 ↗ the docket as it's presented

11:16 ↗ and are the amendments presented on the

11:18 ↗ proposed docket relevant and necessary

11:22 ↗ this year

11:25 ↗ and a reminder that when you make a

11:27 ↗ recommendation that this is a

11:28 ↗ recommendation regarding a list of

11:30 ↗ amendments to be processed it is not a

11:33 ↗ recommendation regarding the amendments

11:35 ↗ themselves

11:36 ↗ so if you say

11:38 ↗ no

11:39 ↗ then this doesn't mean that something's

11:41 ↗ not being rezoned it just means that

11:43 ↗ it's not on the list to be processed

11:47 ↗ and

11:49 ↗ so your options here you have several

11:50 ↗ options

11:51 ↗ one is to approve the docket as

11:53 ↗ presented

11:55 ↗ another is to move one or more of the

11:57 ↗ items to a following year

11:59 ↗ you could add items because i did ask

12:01 ↗ you if there's anything on here that

12:02 ↗ that you don't see on here that you

12:04 ↗ think needs to be here so you could add

12:05 ↗ one or more items to the docket and the

12:07 ↗ other option is to just not approve it

12:10 ↗ and not do it this year

12:11 ↗ we do have a big comprehensive plan

12:13 ↗ update the state mandated update coming

12:15 ↗ up in 2023

12:18 ↗ and that's when we would do our next

12:19 ↗ update

12:21 ↗ that's all i have i'll

12:23 ↗ would you like me to stop sharing

12:26 ↗ or do you want me to keep it up there

12:28 ↗ i would say keep it up until

12:29 ↗ commissioners have um

12:31 ↗ are done with their questions okay so

12:34 ↗ let's go ahead and open up for uh

12:36 ↗ commissioner questions

12:39 ↗ and just as a reminder this is and i see

12:41 ↗ that everybody's got their cameras off

12:42 ↗ but this is just for the planning policy

12:44 ↗ commission to ask questions deliberate

12:46 ↗ make a recommendation not for the

12:48 ↗ development commission but we're glad

12:50 ↗ you're here we'll see in a minute

12:53 ↗ okay okay and we the first person is uh

12:56 ↗ matt monahan so commissioner monaghan

12:58 ↗ you have a floor

13:00 ↗ yeah hi matt monahan here uh kristen

13:03 ↗ have

13:03 ↗ there ever been an instance where the

13:05 ↗ ppc has recommended to not approve the

13:08 ↗ docket

13:09 ↗ at this stage

13:11 ↗ i haven't seen it where they haven't

13:13 ↗ where they've recommended to not approve

13:15 ↗ the entire docket there have been

13:17 ↗ several instances where they have not

13:19 ↗ approved um

13:21 ↗ certain items on a docket

13:24 ↗ yeah

13:25 ↗ and do you recall generally what the

13:27 ↗ considerations were i i'm asking you to

13:29 ↗ generalize which is probably really

13:30 ↗ unfair but what were some of the factors

13:32 ↗ that that weighed in favor of not

13:35 ↗ approving certain items on the docket

13:39 ↗ no i can think

13:42 ↗ um let's see

13:45 ↗ so some things we just weren't quite

13:47 ↗ ready for um

13:49 ↗ or it was too much to take on i remember

13:51 ↗ um and then yeah

13:54 ↗ i'm sorry i can't be more specific on

13:56 ↗ that

13:57 ↗ i don't know

13:58 ↗ i do know in

13:59 ↗ 2014 we did not do amendments at all so

14:02 ↗ we didn't bring a docket

14:04 ↗ okay thank you

14:06 ↗ you're welcome

14:17 ↗ should i just jump in thank you and then

14:19 ↗ next uh commissioner voice you have the

14:22 ↗ floor

14:22 ↗ great

14:23 ↗ thank you chair foul uh senior planner

14:26 ↗ lisa um so quick question you had

14:28 ↗ mentioned that if it's not going to be

14:30 ↗ processed they can continue to move

14:32 ↗ forward with the zoning i didn't follow

14:33 ↗ that

14:34 ↗ i thought if it's not on the list of

14:36 ↗ approved dockets it's pretty much

14:37 ↗ stopped in its tracks correct yes

14:40 ↗ you can either

14:42 ↗ yet if i apologize if i said that if it

14:45 ↗ um

14:46 ↗ if it doesn't move forward on the docket

14:48 ↗ this time then no it doesn't go forward

14:50 ↗ at this time i mean you can move it to

14:51 ↗ another year you can propose that it be

14:54 ↗ moved to another year but if it's not on

14:56 ↗ this year's docket then it stops for

14:57 ↗ this year right so again they can

14:59 ↗ continue to

15:00 ↗ change or make little adjustments like

15:03 ↗ the city is for their uh the newport one

15:06 ↗ but if it's if it's not approved for

15:08 ↗ this year it stops and then again they

15:10 ↗ can continue to submit it but

15:12 ↗ for this year it's not on the calendar

15:15 ↗ correct

15:16 ↗ okay great thank you

15:20 ↗ thank you commissioner voice

15:21 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

15:25 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here um

15:28 ↗ i have some concerns about how

15:31 ↗ addressing changes to the comp plan will

15:34 ↗ end up affecting a timeline with the

15:36 ↗ work we're doing on title 18

15:38 ↗ is it feasible that if uh

15:42 ↗ changes to rezones that were put on the

15:45 ↗ 2022 plan would be able to go through

15:48 ↗ and then not be able to apply

15:50 ↗ the

15:51 ↗ future

15:52 ↗ 2023 title 18 passage

15:57 ↗ that makes sense well with the timeline

15:59 ↗ basically being conflict would we with

16:02 ↗ the hard work that is being done to

16:04 ↗ re-format title 18 not apply depending

16:08 ↗ on when people get permits and

16:11 ↗ things into the city so are you asking

16:14 ↗ so okay so first all these reasons this

16:17 ↗ won't slow down title 18 at all

16:20 ↗ slow down title

16:22 ↗ depending on if they were able to get

16:24 ↗ their permits in in a very expeditious

16:26 ↗ manner not have to follow

16:29 ↗ the newly constructed title 18 as that's

16:32 ↗ not going to be processed through until

16:33 ↗ 2023

16:35 ↗ would they be effectively grandfathered

16:37 ↗ into an older standard of

16:39 ↗ of building codes yes i can tell you

16:42 ↗ that neither has submitted a plan

16:45 ↗ um it takes a long time either to submit

16:47 ↗ it but yes if they were able to get

16:48 ↗ plans in prior to approval of title 18

16:51 ↗ then

16:52 ↗ um then they would

16:54 ↗ investing is a is a touchy issue

16:57 ↗ but they would i'm going to say they

16:58 ↗ would likely we always have to go check

17:00 ↗ with our legal account we haven't had to

17:02 ↗ go check with council but likely they

17:04 ↗ would be grandfathered in

17:06 ↗ to the old 18.

17:08 ↗ thank you uh my last question is if you

17:10 ↗ can help clarify the difference between

17:12 ↗ the do not approve and the move um would

17:15 ↗ we basically be voicing uh to counsel

17:18 ↗ the differences as we would be voicing

17:19 ↗ the council we think this has merit just

17:21 ↗ not in this calendar year versus uh do

17:24 ↗ not approve um

17:26 ↗ is it just a hard stop is that that's

17:28 ↗ really the full difference okay nailed

17:30 ↗ it thank you

17:44 ↗ ron you're muted

17:47 ↗ thank you

17:49 ↗ uh okay so i i don't see any additional

17:52 ↗ questions are there any additional

17:53 ↗ questions from any of the members

17:58 ↗ okay hearing none um i have a i do have

18:01 ↗ a question uh the wildwood property

18:04 ↗ and the church property

18:06 ↗ aren't those considered um

18:10 ↗ those are along izakawa creek

18:13 ↗ specifically the wildwood property isn't

18:15 ↗ doesn't that have a lot of restrictions

18:18 ↗ on it because it seems like that is a

18:21 ↗ within the buffer and it also seems like

18:23 ↗ it's a wetland

18:25 ↗ so

18:26 ↗ there are see this is this is not for us

18:29 ↗ to look at uh totally yet and it's the

18:31 ↗ property but yes there it is adjacent to

18:34 ↗ the creek and

18:36 ↗ depending on which buffers if they were

18:38 ↗ to these the ones that are here today

18:40 ↗ were to apply or anything new that would

18:41 ↗ be adopted those would apply to the

18:42 ↗ property as well there are steep slopes

18:45 ↗ on the property

18:46 ↗ particularly along the east side of the

18:49 ↗ property

18:52 ↗ not specifically i don't know that i

18:54 ↗ would consider it steep slopes okay

18:57 ↗ it looks foggy to me okay our map shows

19:00 ↗ it as critical areas and usually that's

19:01 ↗ steep slopes but we'd have but we'd have

19:03 ↗ to look

19:04 ↗ okay yeah

19:06 ↗ okay i'm not seeing any additional

19:08 ↗ questions so let's go ahead and

19:13 ↗ let's see

19:14 ↗ we're going to

19:17 ↗ could i ask a point of order

19:19 ↗ um if we are

19:21 ↗ going to take public comment would the

19:24 ↗ development commissioners be considered

19:27 ↗ public

19:28 ↗ and able to comment on the docket

19:32 ↗ as a member of the public

19:34 ↗ i don't believe so because they are a

19:36 ↗ quorum right now so okay yeah

19:46 ↗ okay so uh i guess what we need now is a

19:50 ↗ motion are there any would anybody like

19:52 ↗ to make a motion

19:54 ↗ ron

19:54 ↗ we need to hear any public comment first

19:57 ↗ we need to open up the public hearing oh

19:59 ↗ i okay i thought that's what we were

20:01 ↗ doing in the beginning so we wanted to

20:02 ↗ get the presentation in questions and

20:04 ↗ now we need to open up the public

20:05 ↗ hearing for public comment understood

20:07 ↗ okay let's go ahead and open up for

20:08 ↗ public comments sorry my mistake i am

20:11 ↗ going to stop sharing because if i don't

20:12 ↗ then i can't see anybody who has their

20:14 ↗ hands raised

20:16 ↗ okay

20:17 ↗ so i do know that first i had two people

20:20 ↗ write in i know that ken konig's mark

20:22 ↗ would speak

20:24 ↗ ken i am going to make you a panelist

20:28 ↗ and you are now unmuted and you can turn

20:31 ↗ on your camera if you would like and you

20:32 ↗ have five minutes

20:35 ↗ okay can you all hear me

20:39 ↗ can you hear me

20:41 ↗ you're very quiet

20:43 ↗ but we can hear you can you either speak

20:45 ↗ i'll speak up how's that that's good

20:49 ↗ all right sorry i tried to raise my hand

20:52 ↗ and i can't find how to do it so

20:54 ↗ anyway

20:55 ↗ um i want to speak to you on behalf of

20:58 ↗ our savior lutheran church tonight

21:01 ↗ about the exciting opportunity

21:03 ↗ we believe we're bringing to the entire

21:06 ↗ city

21:07 ↗ with this rezone request for the

21:09 ↗ property

21:11 ↗ i understand your workload is heavy

21:13 ↗ i understand the earlier decision was to

21:16 ↗ not look at rezones this year

21:18 ↗ but i hope you will make an exception in

21:20 ↗ this case

21:22 ↗ and i'll explain why

21:24 ↗ we're very hopeful to be in a

21:26 ↗ partnership

21:28 ↗ between our church and the issaquah food

21:30 ↗ and clothing bank

21:32 ↗ which is

21:34 ↗ not able to meet the demand in the very

21:36 ↗ cramped spaces they have

21:38 ↗ while at the same time we have vacant

21:41 ↗ building space

21:43 ↗ and as you saw

21:44 ↗ a total of about four acres of property

21:47 ↗ including the 3.35 acres we would like

21:50 ↗ to get rezoned

21:52 ↗ the partnership would bring the issaquah

21:54 ↗ food and clothing bank to our property

21:57 ↗ and that is what is behind this rezone

22:00 ↗ request

22:01 ↗ it's not about us wanting to sell

22:04 ↗ for single-family home development or

22:07 ↗ condo development

22:08 ↗ our church seeks to do something good on

22:12 ↗ behalf of the community

22:14 ↗ that benefits the comp plan directly in

22:17 ↗ two ways

22:18 ↗ first with the opportunity we hope in

22:21 ↗ the future

22:22 ↗ to meet and help the city achieve

22:25 ↗ affordable housing goals

22:27 ↗ on some portion of this property

22:30 ↗ and the second goal

22:33 ↗ tied in with the human services

22:35 ↗ strategic plan

22:37 ↗ being that

22:38 ↗ we in this partnership with the food

22:40 ↗ bank

22:41 ↗ would be able to bring

22:43 ↗ added

22:44 ↗ beneficial services to those in need in

22:47 ↗ our community

22:50 ↗ and

22:50 ↗ hopefully as things progress in the

22:53 ↗ years ahead like i said being able to

22:57 ↗ expand into other social services and

23:00 ↗ potentially affordable housing hopefully

23:02 ↗ in partnership with the city

23:05 ↗ so

23:06 ↗ um again this achieves the key goals or

23:10 ↗ helps to achieve key goals in the city's

23:13 ↗ human services strategic plan

23:16 ↗ so again the purpose of this rezone

23:20 ↗ is to help facilitate the move of the

23:22 ↗ food bank to our property and to be able

23:26 ↗ to do

23:27 ↗ any sort of

23:29 ↗ expansion of our existing building that

23:31 ↗ they may need which hasn't been

23:33 ↗ determined yet

23:34 ↗ but

23:35 ↗ it would facilitate that if it were

23:37 ↗ under the a different zoning

23:40 ↗ and secondly again looking longer term

23:43 ↗ the opportunity for

23:46 ↗ multi-family affordable housing units

23:50 ↗ also

23:52 ↗ i will add that as you saw in the map

23:55 ↗ shown by by kristen

23:57 ↗ we have two parcels one of which is

23:59 ↗ already zoned multi-family high

24:02 ↗ i believe this larger lot was likely

24:06 ↗ left out of that zoning at the time it

24:08 ↗ was

24:09 ↗ added to these properties all around us

24:12 ↗ simply because it already had a church

24:14 ↗ building on it

24:15 ↗ and

24:16 ↗ so i suspect it was left in the sfl cell

24:19 ↗ zone

24:20 ↗ and

24:21 ↗ it would bring our two lots into the

24:24 ↗ same zoning and in

24:26 ↗ uh

24:28 ↗ cohesion with the lots all around us

24:30 ↗ that are all zoned multi-family high

24:32 ↗ density

24:33 ↗ including even the nursing home that's

24:35 ↗ next to us

24:37 ↗ so

24:38 ↗ um

24:39 ↗ we look forward to working

24:41 ↗ with the issaquah food and clothing bank

24:43 ↗ to help them achieve their mission in a

24:45 ↗ better way

24:47 ↗ our church looks to partner with them to

24:49 ↗ help provide volunteers to help in those

24:51 ↗ services

24:52 ↗ and we look forward in the future to

24:55 ↗ work with the city

24:57 ↗ to do something

24:58 ↗ very good on this four acre total

25:01 ↗ property

25:02 ↗ that helps to meet the city goals for

25:04 ↗ housing and human services

25:06 ↗ so i ask you to support this rezone

25:09 ↗ request as we've submitted and again the

25:12 ↗ timing i must add is kind of critical

25:15 ↗ because we hope to make a partnership

25:17 ↗ agreement with the food bank within the

25:19 ↗ next three to four months

25:21 ↗ and to help facilitate their move

25:24 ↗ uh we can't wait another year after this

25:27 ↗ year to try to get that rezoned so it is

25:30 ↗ an urgent issue

25:32 ↗ thank you

25:50 ↗ and next next we have

25:53 ↗ susan neville who would like to speak

25:56 ↗ susan i am making you a panelist

26:04 ↗ you are unmuted you can turn on your

26:05 ↗ camera if you would like

26:08 ↗ um

26:09 ↗ it's not working so

26:11 ↗ anyway hello everyone and thank you for

26:14 ↗ allowing me to speak this evening um

26:17 ↗ i just wanted to speak to the wildwood

26:20 ↗ application

26:21 ↗ submitted today and this is a new

26:25 ↗ thing for me to review so bear with me

26:28 ↗ um as as i go through my little list i

26:31 ↗ looked through the criteria

26:33 ↗ and as i went through each one

26:36 ↗ i want to start with number one

26:38 ↗ and

26:40 ↗ the criteria does was does it meet the

26:43 ↗ current growth management targets

26:45 ↗ or have they been met

26:47 ↗ so um i believe we have met our targets

26:51 ↗ so as i looked at number one i thought

26:54 ↗ well that's not an agreement so when i

26:56 ↗ went to number two

26:58 ↗ i realized the upzoning that they're

27:00 ↗ asking for is outside the central isoqua

27:02 ↗ plant but yet that's the zoning that

27:04 ↗ they're wanting um

27:07 ↗ when i went to number three

27:10 ↗ not being consistent with the

27:11 ↗ comprehensive plan you did speak to that

27:13 ↗ so i understand that a little better

27:15 ↗ but i think

27:16 ↗ the largest

27:18 ↗ issue i have is the environmental

27:19 ↗ impacts

27:20 ↗ in the critical areas and we did speak

27:22 ↗ to that thank you

27:24 ↗ um a few of them

27:26 ↗ and

27:27 ↗ i don't understand how

27:29 ↗ without really looking at the

27:30 ↗ environmental impacts how you can make

27:33 ↗ this decision

27:34 ↗ and there was supposed to be more

27:36 ↗ information in the packet and i'm i

27:39 ↗ don't believe i saw it concerning this

27:41 ↗ so i just wanted to bring those points

27:42 ↗ forward before you decide to make a

27:45 ↗ mistake

27:46 ↗ and thank you for giving me my time

27:56 ↗ thank you i am meeting you and making

27:59 ↗ you an attendee again

28:01 ↗ and then we have connie marsh who would

28:04 ↗ like to speak

28:06 ↗ ani you are a panelist

28:11 ↗ and you're now unmuted you could turn on

28:13 ↗ your camera

28:16 ↗ okay

28:17 ↗ let's see if i i can turn on my camera

28:23 ↗ okay my name is connie marsh and i live

28:25 ↗ on squawk um

28:27 ↗ so

28:29 ↗ as usual at this point in time

28:32 ↗ i

28:32 ↗ always want a discussion

28:35 ↗ of the criteria

28:39 ↗ for approval what is unclear

28:42 ↗ is whether we are supposed to be using

28:44 ↗ the criteria for approval

28:47 ↗ to

28:48 ↗ put it on the docket so i guess i don't

28:50 ↗ really understand

28:52 ↗ what the criteria

28:54 ↗ is for

28:56 ↗ getting it on the docket or not getting

28:57 ↗ it on the docket it's like do we think

28:59 ↗ it's okay do we not think it's okay and

29:01 ↗ that's really sort of too loose

29:03 ↗ for me so i will give you a little bit

29:06 ↗ of history from last year which is

29:09 ↗ last year the city council

29:12 ↗ didn't want to approve up zones outside

29:15 ↗ of the central issaquah area

29:17 ↗ and um

29:20 ↗ so i think that's an interesting thing

29:22 ↗ to carry forward how much time do we

29:24 ↗ want to spend on something that we've

29:26 ↗ already

29:27 ↗ discussed

29:28 ↗ and and did last year and this is

29:31 ↗ basically asking the same question again

29:33 ↗ and i don't know if you guys can make

29:35 ↗ that decision or not uh the

29:38 ↗ the wildwood property

29:40 ↗ that's coal mine hazard area

29:43 ↗ and it has

29:44 ↗ springs in it as i recall and it is

29:47 ↗ float and it goes down to issaquah creek

29:51 ↗ the the most beautiful thing is you have

29:54 ↗ a single family house

29:56 ↗ right there in the middle of those two

29:58 ↗ parcels that it wants to increase the

30:00 ↗ density on which i would consider an

30:03 ↗ extreme hardship to that single family

30:05 ↗ house to have the high density housing

30:08 ↗ built on either side of it and sort of

30:10 ↗ wedging it

30:12 ↗ and um

30:13 ↗ so then i would like to go to what i

30:16 ↗ would consider to be the appropriate

30:18 ↗ pathway

30:19 ↗ for the church property

30:24 ↗ i would be getting a memorandum of

30:27 ↗ understanding between the clothing bank

30:30 ↗ and this property in advance before i

30:34 ↗ would say we should commit a lot of

30:36 ↗ staff time to getting a re-zone now i i

30:40 ↗ hear mr koenig mark saying that this is

30:42 ↗ in the process

30:44 ↗ but if if he was anyone other than who

30:46 ↗ he is i'd be going yeah right a hoshur

30:50 ↗ so i don't think that we want to put

30:52 ↗ things on the docket with the promise of

30:55 ↗ oh we're going to do good things

30:57 ↗ um and i might want to do it for one

30:59 ↗ person because i trust them but then i

31:01 ↗ would have to say i just don't trust you

31:02 ↗ to the next gut so i think we have to be

31:05 ↗ very consistent in what the appropriate

31:08 ↗ process would be chicken or egg you do

31:10 ↗ the memorandum of understanding before

31:13 ↗ you put it on the docket or do you put

31:15 ↗ it on the docket even though you you

31:17 ↗ don't have any

31:19 ↗ any reliability that this process is

31:22 ↗ going to go forward and i guess i would

31:25 ↗ i would want to ask the staff

31:28 ↗ um what you're supposed to do and maybe

31:32 ↗ in the new comprehensive i'm the new

31:35 ↗ code update

31:37 ↗ or something you could get some better

31:39 ↗ language for this moment in time

31:42 ↗ thanks

31:50 ↗ we have david toyer

31:52 ↗ david i'm making you a panelist

31:59 ↗ you are unmuted and you may turn on your

32:01 ↗ camera if you'd like

32:02 ↗ yeah good evening thank you i really

32:04 ↗ appreciate your time can you hear me

32:08 ↗ yes thank you

32:10 ↗ awesome

32:11 ↗ am i able to share

32:16 ↗ i

32:18 ↗ don't know actually

32:20 ↗ i think

32:23 ↗ i just thought it'd be easier to bring

32:24 ↗ up a couple visual things but it doesn't

32:26 ↗ look like that's possible so i just want

32:28 ↗ to introduce myself david toyer

32:30 ↗ president of tourist strategic advisors

32:32 ↗ orlando's an economic development

32:34 ↗ consulting firm located up

32:45 ↗ i'm sure well aware

32:47 ↗ sorry

32:48 ↗ uh david toyer uh twitter strategic

32:51 ↗ advisors i represent the applicant for

32:53 ↗ wildwood the docket proposal appreciate

32:56 ↗ your time this evening

32:58 ↗ as i'm sure you've all been through the

33:00 ↗ process a few times before this is a

33:03 ↗ very early beginning to what is a larger

33:06 ↗ process that involves quite a bit of

33:08 ↗ public input

33:09 ↗ and opportunities for for the public to

33:11 ↗ weigh in and comment on proposals

33:14 ↗ what we've proposed in this particular

33:16 ↗ uh

33:17 ↗ case

33:18 ↗ is uh the property is adjacent to

33:21 ↗ budding

33:23 ↗ existing multi-family medium density

33:25 ↗ residential

33:27 ↗ and it's an area where there's quite a

33:28 ↗ few

33:30 ↗ multi-family medium residential and high

33:32 ↗ residential

33:33 ↗ type projects already it's a quarter

33:35 ↗ mile radius

33:37 ↗ quarter mile walking distance to transit

33:39 ↗ stops it hits a lot of the criteria

33:43 ↗ inside vision 2050 which is the regional

33:46 ↗ kind of comprehensive plan to help guide

33:47 ↗ growth policies

33:49 ↗ it

33:50 ↗ really fits in line with a number of

33:52 ↗ your own community comprehensive plan

33:54 ↗ policies and we believe that there's a

33:57 ↗ good merit here to put this forward in

34:00 ↗ the docket process to study it allow for

34:03 ↗ additional public input

34:05 ↗ and then you know at some point towards

34:07 ↗ the end of the year

34:08 ↗ it would then get further consideration

34:11 ↗ so i'm happy to answer questions you may

34:13 ↗ have this evening

34:15 ↗ this is a

34:17 ↗ plan level proposal so there's not a

34:20 ↗ project proposed so i wouldn't have like

34:23 ↗ information on a project but i

34:25 ↗ definitely could talk to kind of the

34:27 ↗ background and the idea behind why this

34:29 ↗ makes sense from a policy perspective

34:34 ↗ thank you

34:38 ↗ and

34:39 ↗ next we have

34:42 ↗ connie fletcher connie i am making you a

34:44 ↗ panelist

34:48 ↗ you are unmuted and may turn on your

34:50 ↗ camera if you would like you have five

34:51 ↗ minutes

34:52 ↗ thank you very much i just want to

34:53 ↗ clarify that uh regarding the church

34:56 ↗ property and issaquah food and clothing

34:57 ↗ bank

34:58 ↗ we do have a

35:00 ↗ memorandum of understanding already with

35:02 ↗ the issaquah food and clothing bed we've

35:04 ↗ been working together for several months

35:05 ↗ on this it's a really exciting project

35:07 ↗ we're looking forward to seeing it to

35:09 ↗ completion

35:11 ↗ thank you

35:19 ↗ i don't see anyone else who would like

35:21 ↗ who would like to speak but if you would

35:23 ↗ like to go ahead and raise your hand

35:25 ↗ or press star 3 or send me a note in the

35:27 ↗ message box too

35:35 ↗ okay i'm not seeing anyone else

35:41 ↗ okay thank you kristen so we'll go ahead

35:43 ↗ and open this up for uh commissioner

35:47 ↗ excuse me tearful you need to close the

35:48 ↗ public hearing first

35:50 ↗ oh okay i thought we were still in the

35:52 ↗ public hearing okay

35:54 ↗ no worries sorry

35:56 ↗ first time doing this uh okay we're

35:58 ↗ going to go ahead and close the public

36:00 ↗ hearing

36:02 ↗ public comments

36:03 ↗ right kristen not publicly that is

36:05 ↗ technically the public hearing part of

36:07 ↗ it at 706.

36:08 ↗ okay

36:10 ↗ all right we're going to go ahead and

36:11 ↗ close the public comments at 706.

36:14 ↗ and now we'll open it up for

36:17 ↗ commissioner discussion correct

36:19 ↗ yes but if you wouldn't mind may i

36:21 ↗ address a few of the things that were

36:22 ↗ discussed during public comment sure

36:25 ↗ okay thank you

36:27 ↗ so first of all this is a weird one to

36:29 ↗ address first but i just recently

36:31 ↗ learned that no um attendees

36:33 ↗ may not present anything on camera um

36:36 ↗ until unless it has been sent to staff

36:38 ↗ first and then we would share it at that

36:40 ↗ time so just for future that's something

36:42 ↗ new i learned today but now we all know

36:45 ↗ um i also want to mention that the

36:47 ↗ clothing and food bank is actually

36:48 ↗ considered a nonprofit and as a la is in

36:50 ↗ a permitted use under single family

36:52 ↗ small lot

36:54 ↗ so if they stayed the existing zoning

36:56 ↗ they could still have the clothing and

36:58 ↗ food bank located on their site

37:02 ↗ um i want to remind you that this is not

37:04 ↗ an approval of a reason it's an approval

37:07 ↗ of a list that's come up a few times and

37:10 ↗ miss marsh brought up a very good point

37:12 ↗ um that i agree with um that

37:16 ↗ it's it's confusing right now and yes we

37:18 ↗ are trying to fix this in the code we

37:20 ↗ will you know when the code comes out we

37:21 ↗ will have deadlines

37:23 ↗ uh different deadlines for

37:26 ↗ proposal

37:27 ↗ for proposed amendments

37:29 ↗ and we have talked about with our city

37:31 ↗ attorney the criteria in fixing that but

37:34 ↗ now this is what we have so this is what

37:35 ↗ we're working with

37:37 ↗ and

37:39 ↗ i you know it's a it's a no-win

37:41 ↗ situation

37:42 ↗ um i include the applications with these

37:44 ↗ because if i don't people want more

37:46 ↗ information

37:48 ↗ and if i do it's too much information

37:49 ↗ what are you supposed to look at so i

37:51 ↗ understand and i apologize it's a little

37:53 ↗ confusing uh the criteria does not

37:55 ↗ matter so much here the requirement is

37:57 ↗ that they submit a complete application

37:59 ↗ so the purpose of giving you that is to

38:00 ↗ show that they have submitted a complete

38:02 ↗ application and yes i agree it gets

38:05 ↗ confusing but that's what that is um

38:08 ↗ lastly i want to mention that

38:10 ↗ commissioner vader came on at 6 56

38:13 ↗ joined us at 6 57 tonight

38:16 ↗ and that's all i have thank you

38:24 ↗ all right thank you uh

38:25 ↗ christian and now we're going to open up

38:27 ↗ to

38:28 ↗ commissioner discussion

38:31 ↗ reserves another point of order

38:33 ↗ sorry

38:34 ↗ yes

38:36 ↗ um in order to open it up for discussion

38:38 ↗ someone needs to make a motion and it

38:40 ↗ needs to be seconded and then you can

38:41 ↗ start discussion

38:44 ↗ so let's does anyone want to make a

38:47 ↗ motion

38:50 ↗ i'll make a motion

38:52 ↗ so i will make a motion to open up

38:54 ↗ discussion on the 2022 docket

38:58 ↗ and is there a second

39:01 ↗ i see kristen she's

39:04 ↗ the motion needs to be on a

39:06 ↗ recommendation regarding the docket

39:08 ↗ so you would make a motion to

39:12 ↗ move the docket forward as presented

39:14 ↗ somebody would second

39:15 ↗ and then you would discuss

39:17 ↗ unless there was an amendment to the

39:19 ↗ motion and he's got the options so

39:21 ↗ you've got to share so many options yes

39:26 ↗ right my hope was to do a little bit of

39:28 ↗ deliberating with the fellow

39:29 ↗ commissioners before we decided what to

39:31 ↗ do with the docket

39:33 ↗ so i think what kristin's saying is we

39:35 ↗ make a motion and then we can discuss it

39:37 ↗ and then make an amendment to the

39:38 ↗ emotion

39:39 ↗ you can vote on the motion and if you

39:41 ↗ don't like then if everybody says no to

39:43 ↗ the motion you can do another motion and

39:44 ↗ deliberate that one

39:46 ↗ i'm gonna let the lawyer in the room

39:47 ↗ handle this one i see you smiling so all

39:50 ↗ you buddy i'm glad he's nodding that

39:53 ↗ means i'm saying the right things

39:55 ↗ you are so i will move to

39:57 ↗ go forward with the proposed zonings uh

40:02 ↗ to docket the proposed rezone as

40:04 ↗ presented that good enough kristin

40:08 ↗ okay

40:08 ↗ and is there a second

40:12 ↗ yeah i can i can step up in second half

40:16 ↗ okay

40:17 ↗ and now we will open it up to discussion

40:23 ↗ and if you have a

40:25 ↗ comment please go ahead and put it in

40:27 ↗ the chat window and the first person is

40:30 ↗ uh commissioner voice

40:32 ↗ well thank you chair foul and yeah that

40:34 ↗ was a fun exercise that's always fun um

40:37 ↗ so unfortunately with uh both the

40:40 ↗ church and the wildwood properties i see

40:44 ↗ a few problems and

40:46 ↗ chief among them

40:48 ↗ they're talking about multi-family in

40:50 ↗ the city's biggest traffic choke point

40:54 ↗ front street

40:55 ↗ the city knows through surveys that

40:58 ↗ traffic is by

41:00 ↗ far and away the biggest problem that

41:02 ↗ the city has it completely overshadows

41:04 ↗ almost everything in terms of

41:07 ↗ people's frustrations within the city

41:09 ↗ and like i said i can't think of a city

41:11 ↗ that's more clogged up than front street

41:12 ↗ so allowing more multi-family

41:15 ↗ right there on front street just in a in

41:17 ↗ a place that again we're not even

41:19 ↗ through the pandemic so once we start

41:20 ↗ getting back to typical mobility um this

41:23 ↗ could be super problematic i do

41:25 ↗ appreciate mr koenigsberg's

41:27 ↗ remarks about as far as the food bank

41:30 ↗ i'd love to see more benevolent like

41:32 ↗ work like that in our community

41:34 ↗ i appreciate miss marsh's comments about

41:36 ↗ an moe as well as a follow-up comment

41:38 ↗ from another

41:39 ↗ public speaker

41:41 ↗ but i will say when people tell you that

41:43 ↗ you know just trust me on the plan

41:46 ↗ that scares the heck out of planters you

41:48 ↗ know we're gonna do something good in

41:49 ↗ the future um that i don't think that

41:52 ↗ really cuts the muster and also

41:55 ↗ um as far as

41:57 ↗ needing to have an understanding with is

41:59 ↗ a quad food bank this would just be the

42:01 ↗ beginning of a process because again

42:03 ↗ this things wouldn't even be decided

42:04 ↗ until later in the fall anyway so that

42:06 ↗ three to four month timeline that he was

42:08 ↗ discussing really

42:10 ↗ it's still it still really doesn't work

42:12 ↗ anyway for them

42:13 ↗ so those are a few of my concerns as far

42:15 ↗ as the

42:16 ↗ the two zone the two up zones again um

42:20 ↗ one of the things that i saw as far as

42:21 ↗ wildwood there was a couple responses to

42:24 ↗ the issaquah comp plan

42:26 ↗ and i believe somebody else spoke to it

42:28 ↗ but i think one of them was about the

42:30 ↗ urban growth boundary and again they

42:32 ↗ just kind of said well the city has a

42:34 ↗ housing crisis

42:36 ↗ the city has been hitting their growth

42:38 ↗ targets in fact the reason we have new

42:39 ↗ growth targets is because we

42:40 ↗ renegotiated them in 2021 so yes we're

42:44 ↗ starting out fresh again but the city

42:46 ↗ has been hitting their growth targets um

42:48 ↗ exceedingly well so a few things on my

42:51 ↗ mind like i said i like the idea there's

42:53 ↗ a quad food bank

42:54 ↗ a little little timid to hear anyone say

42:57 ↗ well just you know we're going to do

42:58 ↗ something great in the future

43:00 ↗ that

43:01 ↗ that's a hard sell especially in the

43:03 ↗ city's biggest choke point for traffic

43:05 ↗ which again

43:06 ↗ comes down to the city's residents

43:08 ↗ biggest frustration in the city is

43:10 ↗ traffic so you're talking about the

43:12 ↗ worst street in izakawa and putting more

43:14 ↗ and more multi-families which again

43:16 ↗ that's really not where we're supposed

43:17 ↗ to be concentrating the building the

43:19 ↗ building's supposed to be happening in

43:20 ↗ the central area

43:21 ↗ so they're building what we want they're

43:23 ↗ just not building where we want it

43:26 ↗ thank you

43:28 ↗ thank you commissioner voice and

43:30 ↗ commissioner monahan you have the floor

43:33 ↗ thank you chair paul matt monahan here

43:35 ↗ um

43:37 ↗ i really resonated with a lot of what

43:38 ↗ kristen said about how right now we

43:40 ↗ don't have a ton of standards and

43:42 ↗ guidelines to be able to

43:44 ↗ kind of discharge this function right

43:46 ↗ now and so my biggest

43:48 ↗ fear is that we'll be acting in a way

43:51 ↗ that could be considered

43:52 ↗ arbitrary um and kind of selecting the

43:55 ↗ project to the docket that we might like

43:57 ↗ or that might have

43:58 ↗ you know

43:59 ↗ an initial uh uh when we look at it we

44:02 ↗ kind of like what's going on and then we

44:04 ↗ deep six the ones that we don't

44:06 ↗ um so at least at this early stage and

44:09 ↗ absent some clear legislative guidance

44:13 ↗ as codified in title 18 or elsewhere

44:16 ↗ i consider

44:18 ↗ my role to be relatively

44:20 ↗ ministerial and what i mean by that is

44:22 ↗ if they've submitted a complete

44:23 ↗ application by whatever deadlines or

44:26 ↗ guidelines are that are already in there

44:28 ↗ that they should proceed to be docketed

44:30 ↗ i think the city council can definitely

44:32 ↗ take a different approach if they think

44:33 ↗ that staff resources for example are

44:35 ↗ better used elsewhere but at least from

44:37 ↗ my perspective sitting here today with

44:40 ↗ the law that we have

44:42 ↗ um

44:44 ↗ i think everybody has a lot of great

44:45 ↗ points substance wise about these

44:46 ↗ projects and they're very very

44:48 ↗ legitimate concerns so at least at this

44:50 ↗ early stage i'd be leaning towards

44:53 ↗ proceeding with docketing the

44:55 ↗ projects as presented by staff thank you

45:02 ↗ thank you commissioner monahan and

45:03 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

45:07 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

45:08 ↗ lewis here

45:10 ↗ i really appreciate the comments that

45:12 ↗ commissioner um voice made tonight i

45:14 ↗ think that he

45:15 ↗ without speaking to the particulars of

45:18 ↗ the of the three

45:19 ↗ applicants in front of us

45:21 ↗ i do think that

45:22 ↗ all of them need to be weighed the same

45:25 ↗ while they may have different attributes

45:26 ↗ that contribute to the community uh

45:28 ↗ these are all applicants that are coming

45:30 ↗ to us for read zones that are currently

45:32 ↗ outside of the urban growth boundary

45:35 ↗ they are not in central israel and they

45:36 ↗ lie along uh pretty

45:39 ↗ sensitive critical areas right now we're

45:41 ↗ doing incredibly important work to be

45:43 ↗ able to make adjustments to title 18 to

45:46 ↗ be able to put in the correct framework

45:48 ↗ you know ron you had a fantastic point

45:50 ↗ when you were talking about

45:51 ↗ uh the steep slopes that were on our

45:53 ↗ particular outlets on the wildwood we're

45:55 ↗ currently debating what that is we're

45:56 ↗ currently trying to change and put into

45:58 ↗ code what is a steep slope and so i'm

46:00 ↗ very hesitant for us to go along with

46:03 ↗ business as usual as someone who's gone

46:06 ↗ through this process many times before i

46:08 ↗ think that this year is different and i

46:10 ↗ think that it would be completely within

46:12 ↗ council's right to decide to to put a

46:14 ↗ pause

46:15 ↗ uh i would be interested to see if

46:17 ↗ anyone is curious about moving these to

46:20 ↗ the 2023 docket and effectively not

46:24 ↗ passing these through

46:25 ↗ granted

46:27 ↗ what we're doing right now as a city and

46:29 ↗ what the focus of the administration is

46:32 ↗ i think it's long overdue it's something

46:34 ↗ we've been working on

46:35 ↗ for a while and it's something that we

46:36 ↗ really need to see through to be able to

46:38 ↗ get the desired outcome that we want in

46:40 ↗ the community

46:41 ↗ and i really have concerns too about

46:43 ↗ staff resources and the ability

46:46 ↗ normally on a comp plan

46:48 ↗ on something like this we alone just on

46:51 ↗ our commission would spend three

46:52 ↗ meetings we would have one meeting to

46:54 ↗ just have staff go through the details

46:56 ↗ so that we kind of got familiar with it

46:58 ↗ uh we would have a public hearing and

46:59 ↗ then we would have a third meeting where

47:00 ↗ we would actually then make our

47:02 ↗ recommendation uh that's a that's that's

47:04 ↗ quite a bit considering the calendar uh

47:06 ↗ and resources that staff needs to be

47:08 ↗ able to commit just to us not even to

47:11 ↗ the applicants so i think that it would

47:13 ↗ be very

47:14 ↗ reasonable to look at pausing

47:17 ↗ these three uh

47:19 ↗ free zones on the comp plan this year

47:21 ↗ and moving them to the 2023 docket um if

47:24 ↗ they should still want to continue at

47:26 ↗ that time

47:27 ↗ i do want to appreciate the comments

47:28 ↗ that were brought forward by the public

47:30 ↗ and by ken

47:31 ↗ i think that these projects

47:33 ↗ are

47:36 ↗ the comments that i'm making tonight

47:37 ↗ have nothing to do with the merits of

47:39 ↗ them and have instead to do about the

47:40 ↗ work that we're trying to do with the

47:42 ↗ city to be able to create a framework

47:44 ↗ that really works for

47:46 ↗ projects like these to move forward and

47:47 ↗ what i hope is that instead

47:50 ↗ that the actors in these various

47:52 ↗ projects will be able to continue to

47:53 ↗ work on the planning continue to work on

47:55 ↗ their preparation and be able to

47:56 ↗ continue so that when their applications

47:59 ↗ are able to be addressed by staff and by

48:01 ↗ the commission and by council that

48:03 ↗ they're ready to go and in a more

48:04 ↗ complete state and that this shouldn't

48:06 ↗ slow down the work at all and instead

48:08 ↗ it's just a reflection on us being able

48:10 ↗ to give the best product to our

48:12 ↗ community possible so i would love to

48:13 ↗ hear about people's thoughts about

48:16 ↗ uh the option to move to the next year's

48:18 ↗ calendar docket

48:20 ↗ and thank you commissioner lewis uh and

48:22 ↗ i also have a comment and question uh

48:25 ↗ clarification from christian first uh

48:27 ↗ church parcel

48:29 ↗ um ends in 9217

48:32 ↗ you said that the food bank can operate

48:35 ↗ uh

48:36 ↗ under his current permit requirements

48:38 ↗ out of the church so we

48:40 ↗ our decision tonight would not impede

48:43 ↗ the food banks and the

48:46 ↗ our savior lutheran church being able to

48:47 ↗ work together and

48:50 ↗ set up a food bank operation out of the

48:52 ↗ church facilities

48:54 ↗ it shouldn't no because that's a

48:55 ↗ permitted use under sfso okay it's

48:58 ↗ current

48:59 ↗ so with that said

49:01 ↗ i would like to make the

49:03 ↗ well i'm leaning towards the

49:04 ↗ recommendation of not approving

49:06 ↗ um

49:07 ↗ this docket and postponing it until 2023

49:10 ↗ as as joy had mentioned because we

49:13 ↗ really need title 18 to give us

49:16 ↗ direction and steer us in knowing how to

49:19 ↗ make the right decisions

49:22 ↗ when i look at the wildwood property

49:24 ↗ it's got a lot of different critical

49:26 ↗ areas and i think we need title 18 to be

49:28 ↗ able to give us the proper

49:31 ↗ directions because we haven't really

49:33 ↗ ironed any of that out

49:35 ↗ as far as the

49:37 ↗ the parcel that's on

49:40 ↗ part of the village residential

49:43 ↗ i don't know what's necessarily required

49:46 ↗ if if title 18 is going to impact that

49:47 ↗ or not but

49:50 ↗ i think all three should probably just

49:52 ↗ be tabled until 2023 when there are more

49:55 ↗ resources to be able to

49:57 ↗ put towards the resulting and also

50:01 ↗ we have title 18 to give us the

50:03 ↗ direction so that's how i'm leaning

50:08 ↗ let's go ahead and looks like we have a

50:13 ↗ let's see another comment from jason

50:16 ↗ go ahead jason you have the floor

50:19 ↗ thank you chair so again fantastic

50:22 ↗ comments by

50:23 ↗ fellow commissioners i think mr monaghan

50:26 ↗ brings a point of view that i really

50:28 ↗ appreciate because again i think i

50:30 ↗ completely agree with him in the spirit

50:31 ↗ that you know

50:33 ↗ as far as legalese they've done exactly

50:36 ↗ what they're supposed to

50:38 ↗ but i also know that as far as city

50:40 ↗ planners um you know this is the future

50:42 ↗ of the city so i tend to lean more with

50:44 ↗ commissioner lewis um you know again

50:47 ↗ this isn't saying that they cannot

50:50 ↗ resubmit an application for next year

50:52 ↗ but commissioner lewis makes a great

50:54 ↗ point we usually have a lot more time

50:55 ↗ and resources to go through these

50:57 ↗ parcels and also by going through title

50:59 ↗ 18 we might be able to tighten up some

51:01 ↗ of the standards so again that we're not

51:04 ↗ putting

51:06 ↗ major multi-family projects in a very

51:08 ↗ sensitive area not only environmentally

51:10 ↗ but again also referring to the city's

51:12 ↗ traffic problem so rather than

51:15 ↗ allowing something to skate through

51:18 ↗ um

51:19 ↗ you know and again i know that tonight

51:20 ↗ would just really be letting it continue

51:22 ↗ on

51:23 ↗ i think like i said the planning policy

51:25 ↗ can't really make a good decision

51:26 ↗ without having more information about

51:28 ↗ these lots which are both of them

51:30 ↗ sensitive areas for two different

51:31 ↗ reasons environment and traffic

51:33 ↗ so i'm leaning with commissioner lewis

51:35 ↗ but i do hear you commissioner monahan

51:37 ↗ and like i said i always appreciate the

51:39 ↗ perspective you bring

51:40 ↗ um but yeah i i kind of i think i'm

51:43 ↗ lining up more with commissioner lewis

51:44 ↗ and i do appreciate commissioner

51:46 ↗ chairfowl

51:47 ↗ um pointing out what um kristin had

51:49 ↗ mentioned because

51:50 ↗ that does make me happy i do want to see

51:53 ↗ the isoqua food bank being able to

51:54 ↗ expand and in the future

51:56 ↗ um they could resubmit that application

51:59 ↗ and like i said depending on a little

52:00 ↗ bit tighter standards in such a

52:02 ↗ sensitive area i'm all for it but again

52:04 ↗ whenever somebody tells you no we've got

52:06 ↗ great big plans but we got to up zone it

52:09 ↗ now

52:10 ↗ that's that's a tough sell that's going

52:12 ↗ to always be a tough sell of people who

52:14 ↗ are trying to plan for the best uses of

52:16 ↗ our city and especially sensitive areas

52:18 ↗ so

52:19 ↗ appreciate everybody's comments um again

52:22 ↗ i think everybody kind of knows where

52:23 ↗ i'm leaning

52:24 ↗ um if anybody else wants to talk and

52:26 ↗ then we'll we'll see where the chips

52:28 ↗ fall

52:31 ↗ thank you commissioner voice uh

52:33 ↗ commissioner bader do you have any

52:35 ↗ feedback or comments or questions you'd

52:36 ↗ like to

52:37 ↗ volunteer

52:40 ↗ um thanks this is sarah bader i

52:42 ↗ don't only because i feel like i missed

52:44 ↗ um quite a bit and coming in to this so

52:46 ↗ i don't feel like i can make fully

52:48 ↗ informed comments right now um

52:51 ↗ thank you

52:54 ↗ uh okay and we have a comment from

52:57 ↗ commissioner monahan you have the floor

52:59 ↗ yeah it's a it's a

53:01 ↗ question followed by a comment um chris

53:04 ↗ i'm wondering if you could answer this i

53:05 ↗ noticed on page 33 of the packet there's

53:08 ↗ a a check

53:10 ↗ that the church

53:12 ↗ wrote for the rezone application did

53:15 ↗ any of the other applications or were

53:17 ↗ they accompanied by checks and fees

53:20 ↗ no and what's happened with that when

53:21 ↗ they sent it um early it was a sort of a

53:24 ↗ hurry to get the application in for them

53:26 ↗ and they sent the check and

53:29 ↗ kind of forgot to tell them that they

53:30 ↗ don't need to submit it until council

53:32 ↗ approves it so it is sitting in a drawer

53:34 ↗ in our offices i have made sure um and

53:36 ↗ it won't be deposited until council uh

53:39 ↗ approves it yeah so that that that

53:42 ↗ mitigates the unfairness that i was

53:43 ↗ worried about which is these folks

53:45 ↗ followed the follow the rules and now

53:46 ↗ they're going to be out 2 500 so at

53:48 ↗ least if the city doesn't proceed um

53:51 ↗ they'll get that money back which i

53:52 ↗ think is a fair outcome

53:54 ↗ i recognize i'm a minority opinion here

53:56 ↗ i still think that you know

53:58 ↗ notwithstanding the fact that we didn't

53:59 ↗ catch their check early i still think

54:01 ↗ these applicants follow the rules um as

54:03 ↗ they exist today granted they're going

54:05 ↗ to be better next year granted we're

54:07 ↗ going to have more guidelines to follow

54:10 ↗ but i think just based on what i've

54:12 ↗ heard today

54:13 ↗ um i will be the the vote for the the

54:16 ↗ docketing and i'm more than happy to be

54:17 ↗ overruled by my esteemed colleagues on

54:19 ↗ this on this commission so

54:22 ↗ with that nothing else for me

54:27 ↗ okay uh so with that we're going to

54:30 ↗ conclude and we're going to move towards

54:33 ↗ um

54:38 ↗ taking a motion do we want to

54:41 ↗ approve matt monahan's first motion

54:44 ↗ or do we want to make an amendment to it

54:47 ↗ or christian point of order

54:50 ↗ you need to vote on the motion that is

54:52 ↗ on the table right now

54:54 ↗ okay

54:55 ↗ so with that uh

54:58 ↗ and can we recap what the motion is

55:03 ↗ yes the motion was to move the

55:07 ↗ 2022 proposed docket of comprehensive

55:09 ↗ plan and zoning map amendments to

55:11 ↗ council as presented tonight and i want

55:12 ↗ to be clear that there are three

55:15 ↗ proposed free zones on there

55:17 ↗ okay so let's go ahead and take a vote

55:20 ↗ we're all in favor

55:22 ↗ hi

55:24 ↗ and all those

55:25 ↗ i believe i need to take roll call

55:28 ↗ we'll do we'll do a roll call vote so as

55:30 ↗ long as you're up there commissioner

55:31 ↗ monahan hi

55:35 ↗ commissioner lewis

55:38 ↗ nay

55:39 ↗ commissioner voice

55:44 ↗ commissioner vader can i abstain from

55:46 ↗ voting i don't feel like i have all of

55:48 ↗ the information is that possible

55:50 ↗ abstaining is a yes vote

55:54 ↗ um

55:56 ↗ no it's a cautious no then

55:58 ↗ okay

55:59 ↗ and cheerful

56:00 ↗ no all right the vote is the motion does

56:05 ↗ not pass

56:06 ↗ for

56:08 ↗ against and one in favor

56:10 ↗ so the docket will not it is recommended

56:13 ↗ by the planning policy commission not to

56:15 ↗ move this forward however this still

56:16 ↗ does go to the city council and they

56:18 ↗ will

56:19 ↗ take action on february 22nd

56:23 ↗ okay and so

56:25 ↗ i've got a comment from commissioner

56:27 ↗ lewis

56:29 ↗ thank you chairfall i do want to mention

56:31 ↗ to kristen that um in a summary to

56:33 ↗ counsel about about our recommendations

56:36 ↗ that i do feel that it represents us to

56:37 ↗ be able to say

56:38 ↗ that we are not um in any way voicing a

56:41 ↗ comment on the merits of these three

56:43 ↗ reasons and instead

56:45 ↗ believe that moving forward with title

56:48 ↗ 18 is the best use of resources to be

56:50 ↗ able to properly address them at a time

56:52 ↗ when title 18 will be finished if

56:55 ↗ council does not want to have a

56:56 ↗ moratorium on the comp plan then

57:00 ↗ we would support their decision to use

57:02 ↗ of resources and moving forward as the

57:05 ↗ built as as our title 18 building codes

57:07 ↗ are so i do think that it's relevant for

57:09 ↗ them

57:10 ↗ to know in our decision

57:12 ↗ thank you

57:15 ↗ noted thank you

57:16 ↗ i would like to agree with commissioner

57:18 ↗ lewis on that as well i think she well

57:20 ↗ spoken

57:24 ↗ okay so with that

57:27 ↗ we're going to move on we're going to

57:29 ↗ close out this public hearing at

57:32 ↗ 7 28

57:35 ↗ and we will move into the next phase of

57:38 ↗ our presentation which is schedule 18

57:41 ↗ and we will start off with

57:44 ↗ public comment for title 18.

57:49 ↗ and

57:50 ↗ kristen would you like to uh

57:53 ↗ nope all right i'm sorry

57:55 ↗ i am still here we usually do the

57:56 ↗ presentation first would you like to do

57:58 ↗ that or

58:00 ↗ or wait

58:02 ↗ i mean or do it now

58:03 ↗ we'll do it we'll we can do the

58:05 ↗ presentation now

58:08 ↗ i need to um make lucy the um

58:12 ↗ center

58:13 ↗ um let me hang on one second

58:17 ↗ not arthur lucy there she is

58:27 ↗ lucy you're a presenter now

58:29 ↗ thank you

58:43 ↗ too many things open

58:44 ↗ um

58:45 ↗ let's try it this way

58:52 ↗ can you see my screen

58:54 ↗ yes

58:57 ↗ um so

58:59 ↗ uh lucy sloman current planning manager

59:04 ↗ the purpose of tonight's discussion is a

59:08 ↗ continuation of last week's meeting

59:11 ↗ there were two topics that we said we

59:13 ↗ would bring back some additional

59:15 ↗ materials one was

59:17 ↗ the sections of the design manual where

59:20 ↗ they might you know we had proposed a

59:22 ↗ kind of

59:24 ↗ macro division of them and i think you

59:26 ↗ had you all had asked us to show it at a

59:29 ↗ finer grain so we're going to give you

59:31 ↗ something on that

59:33 ↗ and then

59:34 ↗ we all began discussing thresholds for

59:37 ↗ compliance with the design manual and

59:39 ↗ some of the challenges that we'd seen

59:41 ↗ and so we've brought some materials back

59:43 ↗ on that

59:44 ↗ i will point out that

59:46 ↗ none of you have seen this before

59:48 ↗ tonight um because it was only a week

59:51 ↗ ago and it's taken us most of the week

59:53 ↗ to try and put something together

59:56 ↗ um so

59:57 ↗ some of this is kind of complicated and

59:59 ↗ i'm sorry about that so um we'll see

1:00:02 ↗ where we can get to in one presentation

1:00:04 ↗ this evening

1:00:07 ↗ and uh for commissioner fall

1:00:11 ↗ given the complexity of the second topic

1:00:13 ↗ i would

1:00:15 ↗ suggest that the

1:00:17 ↗ commissioners be able to discuss each of

1:00:19 ↗ these separately

1:00:21 ↗ to discuss questions that staff have

1:00:24 ↗ proposed would would that be acceptable

1:00:27 ↗ i would agree with that yes okay thank

1:00:29 ↗ you

1:00:32 ↗ so um this was the slide we used um last

1:00:35 ↗ week showing that the

1:00:37 ↗ architectural portion of the design

1:00:39 ↗ manual would be applied only to the

1:00:42 ↗ neighbor neighborhood overlay for

1:00:44 ↗ central

1:00:45 ↗ and that the urban design components

1:00:49 ↗ would

1:00:50 ↗ go city-wide and there were questions

1:00:52 ↗ about whether that was really

1:00:54 ↗ fine-grained enough and uh accurate

1:00:57 ↗ um

1:00:58 ↗ so what we did was try and look at this

1:01:01 ↗ at a little bit finer grain on the

1:01:04 ↗ left-hand side you see architecture and

1:01:06 ↗ all the different styles and those all

1:01:09 ↗ are going to the central issaquah

1:01:11 ↗ overlay

1:01:13 ↗ what we then did was look at the urban

1:01:15 ↗ design sections and begin to

1:01:19 ↗ parse those out a little bit more

1:01:22 ↗ what we were seeing as we began to look

1:01:24 ↗ at this is that some of these sections

1:01:27 ↗ actually naturally go

1:01:29 ↗ with other chapters that are being

1:01:31 ↗ discussed separately so for instance

1:01:34 ↗ hillsides and slope sites is

1:01:36 ↗ an integral part of terrain management

1:01:39 ↗ and

1:01:40 ↗ all of that is really an outgrowth of

1:01:42 ↗ the chapter in the design manual

1:01:45 ↗ um through block passages and alleys are

1:01:48 ↗ forms of circulation

1:01:49 ↗ and should be addressed with the the

1:01:52 ↗ whole approach for circulation for the

1:01:54 ↗ city

1:01:55 ↗ and that the urban open spaces which

1:01:58 ↗ included

1:01:59 ↗ courtyards and plazas and parks that

1:02:02 ↗ that should be

1:02:04 ↗ addressed through open and community

1:02:06 ↗ space

1:02:08 ↗ um the one piece uh that we think

1:02:12 ↗ could potentially as just a preliminary

1:02:16 ↗ sorting hat

1:02:18 ↗ is

1:02:19 ↗ compatibility

1:02:20 ↗ which has to do with whether buildings

1:02:22 ↗ should be compatible with their

1:02:24 ↗ neighbors or stand out we're suggesting

1:02:27 ↗ that stay

1:02:29 ↗ with the architectural styles because it

1:02:31 ↗ is a very style oriented building design

1:02:34 ↗ component

1:02:36 ↗ and that then other components like

1:02:39 ↗ natural context

1:02:41 ↗ block size

1:02:43 ↗ parking structures and lots and building

1:02:45 ↗ edges

1:02:47 ↗ potentially

1:02:49 ↗ be applicable in urban areas we are

1:02:52 ↗ exploring whether

1:02:54 ↗ there may be some differences between

1:02:56 ↗ sort of central parts of the city and

1:02:59 ↗ more outlying parts of the city um

1:03:03 ↗ but that's something that we are as i

1:03:06 ↗ said still exploring

1:03:07 ↗ so

1:03:08 ↗ our question to you is does this

1:03:10 ↗ division and this the preliminary

1:03:12 ↗ destinations seem logical as a starting

1:03:15 ↗ point

1:03:16 ↗ for working on draft code

1:03:28 ↗ okay so sorry i was thinking about

1:03:30 ↗ exactly what you said

1:03:32 ↗ i got it at the moment let's go ahead

1:03:34 ↗ and open up for

1:03:35 ↗ uh questions from the commissioners

1:03:46 ↗ i thought it made sense

1:03:54 ↗ okay i am not seeing any

1:03:56 ↗ oh here we go uh commissioner dillon

1:04:01 ↗ um i think i think this makes a lot of

1:04:03 ↗ sense and i think

1:04:04 ↗ that staff

1:04:06 ↗ saw as they worked through it that there

1:04:08 ↗ there were natural places and they

1:04:10 ↗ weren't necessary that become apparent

1:04:12 ↗ as you look at the individual sections

1:04:14 ↗ and so proceeding

1:04:16 ↗ along these lines to

1:04:19 ↗ kind of come up with with an initial

1:04:21 ↗ master draft

1:04:23 ↗ seems to make a lot of sense

1:04:28 ↗ okay and uh commissioner morgan

1:04:33 ↗ the answer i would have is yes

1:04:37 ↗ that's succinct

1:04:41 ↗ okay i have not seen any additional

1:04:43 ↗ questions although that we were supposed

1:04:45 ↗ to have questions but uh here we go

1:04:47 ↗ commissioner lewis has a comment

1:04:51 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:04:52 ↗ lewis i just want to reiterate my

1:04:54 ↗ comments from the other uh from last

1:04:56 ↗ week's meeting which would basically

1:04:58 ↗ tell you that this makes a lot of sense

1:05:01 ↗ uh by going with the overlay plan i

1:05:03 ↗ think that we see a lot of um

1:05:06 ↗ it it makes a lot of sense to me without

1:05:08 ↗ actually seeing different options of how

1:05:09 ↗ it would be laid out i still have

1:05:11 ↗ concerns about

1:05:12 ↗ the information architecture as it's

1:05:14 ↗ going to be used and applied um but

1:05:17 ↗ right now in this preliminary stage it

1:05:18 ↗ looks good

1:05:23 ↗ okay and i'm actually with uh

1:05:25 ↗ commissioner lewis on that so

1:05:27 ↗ you know

1:05:28 ↗ uh

1:05:29 ↗ commissioner sanford you have a question

1:05:32 ↗ thank you chair for richard sanford uh

1:05:34 ↗ lucy i was just um wondering about the

1:05:37 ↗ reasoning behind compatibility for the

1:05:39 ↗ uh centralistic overlay

1:05:42 ↗ rather than a more general uh urban area

1:05:45 ↗ or some other more general area of the

1:05:47 ↗ code

1:05:48 ↗ it's it's a great question and i think

1:05:50 ↗ we're going to need to spend a little

1:05:52 ↗ more time with that um

1:05:54 ↗ uh

1:05:55 ↗ some of the development commissioner

1:05:56 ↗ members may remember that um

1:06:00 ↗ the way compatibility worked is that for

1:06:03 ↗ most buildings they should be compatible

1:06:06 ↗ with their neighbors

1:06:08 ↗ and compatibility was defined as

1:06:11 ↗ using the styles that are in the manual

1:06:14 ↗ but public buildings

1:06:17 ↗ were encouraged to stand out to be

1:06:19 ↗ unique to not necessarily be compatible

1:06:23 ↗ um some of the examples that were used

1:06:27 ↗ were

1:06:29 ↗ the and not to say that they aren't

1:06:31 ↗ compatible but that they stand out is

1:06:35 ↗ buildings like the library city hall

1:06:38 ↗ fire station 73 fire station 72

1:06:42 ↗ that these buildings

1:06:43 ↗ may

1:06:44 ↗ be unique may not necessarily use the

1:06:47 ↗ style manual

1:06:49 ↗ because they should be notable and um

1:06:53 ↗ you know visible

1:06:54 ↗ highly visible in the landscape as

1:06:57 ↗ public buildings that the public would

1:06:59 ↗ be looking for

1:07:00 ↗ so

1:07:01 ↗ um that approach

1:07:03 ↗ could be used citywide on the other hand

1:07:07 ↗ the content of it right now is very uh

1:07:11 ↗ central issaquah centric and so that's

1:07:13 ↗ why i think we're not sure yet whether

1:07:15 ↗ we would take that city-wide

1:07:18 ↗ that makes sense to me thanks because

1:07:21 ↗ the styles then in the architecture

1:07:24 ↗ manual tend to define compatibility

1:07:26 ↗ there and if we were to apply it more

1:07:28 ↗ generally it seems like a very

1:07:30 ↗ subjective category but if you keep it

1:07:32 ↗ in the overlay it's clearly defined

1:07:33 ↗ there thanks

1:07:35 ↗ yeah you better

1:07:48 ↗ you're muted ron i'm chair ball oh sorry

1:07:53 ↗ talking to myself again here uh so to

1:07:55 ↗ richard sanford's point is that why we

1:07:58 ↗ have the question mark in location

1:08:00 ↗ update is the central overlay

1:08:03 ↗ okay

1:08:08 ↗ all right i am not seeing any additional

1:08:11 ↗ go

1:08:12 ↗ jason voice you have a question

1:08:14 ↗ thank you chairfell just a quick

1:08:16 ↗ question um the slogan which is urban

1:08:20 ↗ areas and i do like the layout i think i

1:08:22 ↗ kind of i pretty much agree with

1:08:23 ↗ everyone this seems pretty easy to read

1:08:25 ↗ urban areas would still be defined as

1:08:27 ↗ city-wide

1:08:29 ↗ well not necessarily um we're still um

1:08:33 ↗ looking at

1:08:35 ↗ this

1:08:36 ↗ idea that there may be

1:08:38 ↗ for instance

1:08:40 ↗ block size you know it may make more

1:08:43 ↗ sense in

1:08:44 ↗ certain center city areas

1:08:47 ↗ where we're able to complete the grid

1:08:50 ↗ and we want to break some of the larger

1:08:52 ↗ blocks

1:08:53 ↗ into more fine grain size that may make

1:08:56 ↗ sense in certain neighborhoods but not

1:08:59 ↗ every single of the outlying

1:09:01 ↗ neighborhoods where we don't have the

1:09:04 ↗ same kind of street grid available and i

1:09:06 ↗ so i think that's where we need you know

1:09:09 ↗ i think that's where doing this exercise

1:09:11 ↗ in a very preliminary fashion was really

1:09:14 ↗ useful

1:09:15 ↗ um because i think we're wondering on

1:09:17 ↗ the ones that we put urban edges on

1:09:20 ↗ urban areas on like building edges

1:09:23 ↗ that that that

1:09:25 ↗ moving buildings up to the street and

1:09:28 ↗ having certain kinds of relationships to

1:09:30 ↗ the street may not make sense citywide

1:09:32 ↗ and so that we really need to dig into

1:09:34 ↗ that some more

1:09:36 ↗ before we would

1:09:38 ↗ have a ultimate recommendation

1:09:41 ↗ okay thank you

1:09:47 ↗ okay i have not seen any additional

1:09:48 ↗ comments or questions at this point so

1:09:50 ↗ let's go ahead and open it up for public

1:09:52 ↗ comment in this topic

1:09:55 ↗ christian do we have any members of the

1:09:56 ↗ top of the public that would like to

1:09:58 ↗ speak to this topic

1:10:02 ↗ i

1:10:03 ↗ believe so um connie marsh

1:10:06 ↗ i'm going to make you a panelist

1:10:16 ↗ honey i am not sure if your hand was up

1:10:18 ↗ before or if this is new but you are

1:10:20 ↗ unmuted

1:10:22 ↗ yep it this is

1:10:24 ↗ this is a new hand up

1:10:26 ↗ um

1:10:27 ↗ so

1:10:29 ↗ lucy just got to

1:10:33 ↗ the concept of urban areas

1:10:36 ↗ a little bit for me

1:10:39 ↗ um

1:10:41 ↗ i

1:10:42 ↗ that that the term

1:10:44 ↗ urban areas in this chart

1:10:48 ↗ freaks me out because one of the over

1:10:50 ↗ arching considerations from last week is

1:10:54 ↗ preserving neighborhood character

1:10:56 ↗ and i don't i still don't see a map

1:11:00 ↗ that

1:11:01 ↗ shows

1:11:03 ↗ what areas

1:11:04 ↗ are even considered in this grand

1:11:07 ↗ definition of urban area

1:11:09 ↗ and then a map that shows

1:11:12 ↗ which areas are under some form of

1:11:15 ↗ either development agreement which i'm

1:11:18 ↗ assuming is exempt

1:11:20 ↗ or

1:11:21 ↗ an

1:11:22 ↗ overlay

1:11:23 ↗ and so when i look at this chart it's

1:11:27 ↗ very difficult for me to understand

1:11:29 ↗ whether i agree

1:11:31 ↗ or don't agree because i actually

1:11:34 ↗ don't agree if it's all urban areas

1:11:37 ↗ i

1:11:38 ↗ might agree if i could understand

1:11:42 ↗ what

1:11:42 ↗ you were talking about and then when you

1:11:45 ↗ use the word

1:11:48 ↗ uh edges

1:11:50 ↗ there's an old-fashioned term in the

1:11:52 ↗ world called urban separators

1:11:54 ↗ and those are areas that are the uh

1:11:58 ↗ interface between less dense and more

1:12:01 ↗ dense places so that you don't

1:12:04 ↗ you don't have a

1:12:06 ↗ single family houses right up against

1:12:09 ↗ some

1:12:11 ↗ some very commercial loud area and that

1:12:15 ↗ that sort of uh gets rid of a lot of the

1:12:18 ↗ problems you have when you have people

1:12:20 ↗ living in a used to be suburb turning

1:12:24 ↗ urban area and so

1:12:27 ↗ the nuance

1:12:29 ↗ is

1:12:30 ↗ is is

1:12:32 ↗ is so important to me that that i i my

1:12:36 ↗ brain won't function with this chart

1:12:39 ↗ everybody else seems sort of happy with

1:12:41 ↗ the chart but

1:12:42 ↗ but my brain has hit the red and then

1:12:45 ↗ when you say

1:12:46 ↗ central isoqua overlay question mark for

1:12:50 ↗ compatibility

1:12:51 ↗ and then i look at

1:12:54 ↗ the uh

1:12:56 ↗ old town

1:12:58 ↗ and what their concept of compatibility

1:13:01 ↗ is

1:13:02 ↗ i

1:13:05 ↗ start looking at my definitions table

1:13:07 ↗ and i start wondering about

1:13:10 ↗ how you would possibly define that in a

1:13:12 ↗ variety of areas and so

1:13:16 ↗ if you ask me conceptually if this is

1:13:20 ↗ pointing in a better direction

1:13:23 ↗ because you're pulling things out and

1:13:25 ↗ putting them into

1:13:27 ↗ uh categories that will already exist in

1:13:29 ↗ the code

1:13:31 ↗ yes but for me

1:13:34 ↗ you have you have a long way

1:13:37 ↗ to

1:13:38 ↗ to go before my brain even hits yellow

1:13:42 ↗ which is warning as compared to

1:13:44 ↗ explosion thank you

1:13:52 ↗ i'm going to check um

1:13:54 ↗ one second please

1:13:55 ↗ there's a novel your hand is up would

1:13:57 ↗ you like to speak

1:14:03 ↗ pardon me

1:14:04 ↗ thank you

1:14:06 ↗ yes you would like to speak no thank you

1:14:08 ↗ no thank you okay thank you

1:14:12 ↗ all right there's no one else who would

1:14:13 ↗ like to speak

1:14:20 ↗ so um is

1:14:22 ↗ you know what one of the things that

1:14:24 ↗ we're doing as we go through these

1:14:25 ↗ conversations is

1:14:29 ↗ trying to see if there is a consensus

1:14:31 ↗ among the commissioners to help us move

1:14:34 ↗ forward

1:14:36 ↗ and so i guess i would ask uh now that

1:14:39 ↗ you've had your public comment and had

1:14:41 ↗ an opportunity

1:14:43 ↗ to hear from each other

1:14:46 ↗ if there is a consensus among

1:14:48 ↗ commissioners

1:14:52 ↗ thank you lucy

1:14:53 ↗ make my job easy uh okay we have a

1:14:57 ↗ comment from commissioner voice i'll

1:14:59 ↗ open up for comments from the

1:15:00 ↗ commissioners

1:15:02 ↗ so to in response to ms sloman's request

1:15:05 ↗ yes i think you guys are starting off at

1:15:07 ↗ a good point um i think miss marshburn

1:15:10 ↗ brings up a good point which i know is

1:15:11 ↗ what you're looking for is basically

1:15:13 ↗ kind of a green light to put in more

1:15:14 ↗ resources but

1:15:16 ↗ she brings up a good point commissioner

1:15:17 ↗ lewis brings up a good point um

1:15:19 ↗ definitely maps and things would help

1:15:21 ↗ but i think you guys are on the right

1:15:22 ↗ track i think like i said this starts

1:15:24 ↗ breaking it down it's a little easier to

1:15:26 ↗ read i think the way you guys are trying

1:15:28 ↗ to go about it

1:15:30 ↗ seems seems about right to me and i know

1:15:32 ↗ it's just the beginning of the process

1:15:33 ↗ so it'll get more refined i know some of

1:15:36 ↗ our questions that we have tonight will

1:15:37 ↗ get answered but i guess if you're just

1:15:40 ↗ looking for the

1:15:41 ↗ we're on the right track now we can

1:15:43 ↗ dedicate more city resources

1:15:46 ↗ i'm in favor for it i think so

1:15:49 ↗ thank you commissioner royce

1:15:50 ↗ commissioner brennan

1:15:52 ↗ yeah be careful so i i um i agree i

1:15:56 ↗ think i like the way that this kind of

1:15:58 ↗ consolidation or alignment along these

1:16:00 ↗ kind of um

1:16:02 ↗ more thematic areas make sense

1:16:04 ↗ i i was having a similar thought to um

1:16:09 ↗ the comment we heard from miss marsh

1:16:10 ↗ about the urban areas

1:16:12 ↗ if it's applied to a geographic area

1:16:14 ↗ specifically then you know using the

1:16:17 ↗ term areas or urban

1:16:19 ↗ it would make sense but if we're

1:16:21 ↗ applying it to certain development types

1:16:24 ↗ so it's an urban development

1:16:26 ↗ then and it's not you know

1:16:30 ↗ easily kind of consolidated within a

1:16:31 ↗ mapped area of the city so it could

1:16:34 ↗ happen in various locations when this in

1:16:36 ↗ the city as a result of the nature of

1:16:37 ↗ the development that's happening

1:16:39 ↗ then you might want to use a different

1:16:41 ↗ term an area because that takes you to a

1:16:43 ↗ geographic location so that would be

1:16:45 ↗ it's a

1:16:46 ↗ terminology issue only but as far as the

1:16:48 ↗ way that you're organizing this i think

1:16:50 ↗ it makes sense anything that you

1:16:52 ↗ do that really simplifies and clarifies

1:16:55 ↗ the code which is the goal um i think

1:16:57 ↗ you're on the right track for that so

1:16:58 ↗ i'm i'm

1:17:00 ↗ i'm i think you're in go in the right

1:17:02 ↗ direction here

1:17:04 ↗ may i ask a clarifying question

1:17:08 ↗ um uh commissioner brennan um

1:17:11 ↗ what what i'm taking away from what

1:17:13 ↗ you're saying is that you would like it

1:17:15 ↗ to be

1:17:16 ↗ shall we say prescriptively applied to

1:17:19 ↗ certain

1:17:21 ↗ geography geographic areas rather than a

1:17:24 ↗ performance standard

1:17:26 ↗ that has to be evaluated about whether

1:17:28 ↗ the standard applies to that area or not

1:17:32 ↗ it it provides so it could be either but

1:17:35 ↗ it's easier from a simplification

1:17:37 ↗ application standpoint if i'm a

1:17:38 ↗ developer or a builder and i need to

1:17:41 ↗ know what applies to my my land my

1:17:43 ↗ project

1:17:44 ↗ if you've got it you know defined within

1:17:46 ↗ a geographic area that makes it easy

1:17:50 ↗ but if it doesn't work well if you can't

1:17:53 ↗ draw a line around the part of the city

1:17:55 ↗ where the standard would apply and it

1:17:57 ↗ would be certain development types that

1:18:00 ↗ would trigger these requirements or

1:18:02 ↗ would apply these requirements would

1:18:04 ↗ apply then i would try to characterize

1:18:06 ↗ it as urban development you have to

1:18:07 ↗ define what an urban development is

1:18:09 ↗ where the standard would then apply

1:18:11 ↗ thank you that did that make sense

1:18:14 ↗ absolutely i think we're heading more

1:18:16 ↗ towards geographic areas than

1:18:19 ↗ the other

1:18:29 ↗ i

1:18:30 ↗ commission chair fall you're muted sorry

1:18:34 ↗ hit that mute button

1:18:36 ↗ um so i actually agree with uh

1:18:40 ↗ commissioner brennan and commissioner

1:18:41 ↗ voice

1:18:42 ↗ in terms of urban areas having a

1:18:45 ↗ geographically defined using a map would

1:18:47 ↗ be very helpful and two

1:18:50 ↗ i thought connie brought up some good

1:18:51 ↗ points so i'd like to see a map

1:18:53 ↗ incorporated into this but i

1:18:56 ↗ i would say that you're on the right

1:18:58 ↗ going in the right direction i like the

1:19:00 ↗ overlay so far and i'm able to follow

1:19:02 ↗ along with it

1:19:03 ↗ i i just think the map would be uh very

1:19:05 ↗ helpful

1:19:06 ↗ uh we have a comment here from

1:19:08 ↗ commissioner sanford you have the floor

1:19:11 ↗ thanks chair paul uh richard sanford i

1:19:14 ↗ do appreciate the the more granular

1:19:16 ↗ approach to to this part especially

1:19:19 ↗ through black passage and

1:19:21 ↗ enclosure and block size um it does

1:19:23 ↗ strike me that a lot of the urban area

1:19:25 ↗ it looks like we're struggling

1:19:26 ↗ struggling with this definition in

1:19:28 ↗ in the new world and it seems that

1:19:30 ↗ there'd be a lot of

1:19:31 ↗ overlay between that and

1:19:34 ↗ central issaquah um it seems like if

1:19:37 ↗ we're going to draw a map of urban area

1:19:39 ↗ you know

1:19:40 ↗ it might be challenging to try to

1:19:44 ↗ see how much is not

1:19:45 ↗ already defined in central issaquah so

1:19:48 ↗ just struck me i i don't know what the

1:19:50 ↗ working definition of urban area is uh

1:19:52 ↗ going forward into the new code but i'd

1:19:54 ↗ certainly i think a lot of us would be

1:19:56 ↗ uh interested to see thanks

1:20:01 ↗ thank you commissioner sanford and i'm

1:20:02 ↗ not seeing any additional comments

1:20:06 ↗ last call

1:20:10 ↗ okay

1:20:11 ↗ so we'll close this out and lucy we can

1:20:13 ↗ move on to the next topic super and what

1:20:16 ↗ i hear is this is a structure worth

1:20:18 ↗ continuing with as as a consensus from

1:20:21 ↗ the commissioners the next piece

1:20:23 ↗ is more complicated honestly i think you

1:20:26 ↗ got a sense

1:20:28 ↗ from our examples last week

1:20:30 ↗ so what i'm going to do is

1:20:33 ↗ present

1:20:34 ↗ two brief

1:20:36 ↗ overviews of of new construction and

1:20:39 ↗ sort of remodel and reconstruction

1:20:42 ↗ tell you the questions or some of the

1:20:44 ↗ approaches and options

1:20:46 ↗ that we have for you then run through

1:20:49 ↗ some examples then return to those

1:20:51 ↗ approaches and options

1:20:54 ↗ for you all to discuss them but we

1:20:56 ↗ thought that if we put this at some of

1:20:58 ↗ the approaches and options

1:21:00 ↗ up front it would help you sort of think

1:21:03 ↗ about them more um in a more meaningful

1:21:05 ↗ way given that we've given you no time

1:21:07 ↗ to think about it ahead of time

1:21:09 ↗ uh uh as you're looking at the examples

1:21:13 ↗ so

1:21:14 ↗ the first is new construction typically

1:21:17 ↗ we think when something's new that it's

1:21:19 ↗ going to fully comply

1:21:22 ↗ but what we're seeing is that it can be

1:21:24 ↗ complicated when it's just part of a

1:21:27 ↗ site that's the new construction not the

1:21:29 ↗ full site being redeveloped or being

1:21:32 ↗ built for the first time

1:21:34 ↗ so that that's the point about new

1:21:36 ↗ construction

1:21:39 ↗ when we're doing a remodel or a partial

1:21:42 ↗ reconstruction

1:21:43 ↗ we're seeing this is the most

1:21:45 ↗ complicated one to determine what the

1:21:47 ↗ thresholds

1:21:49 ↗ are

1:21:51 ↗ we have multiple methods available

1:21:54 ↗ within the city and one example uh

1:21:56 ↗ outside of his squad that we'll post to

1:21:59 ↗ you

1:22:00 ↗ and

1:22:01 ↗ i think part of the challenge is that

1:22:04 ↗ even when

1:22:05 ↗ um

1:22:07 ↗ a threshold is triggered it might be for

1:22:11 ↗ the whole building but the site won't be

1:22:13 ↗ involved so it just becomes very

1:22:15 ↗ complicated to parse how much of things

1:22:19 ↗ are being asked to come into compliance

1:22:25 ↗ so some of the um approaches and options

1:22:29 ↗ that we'll put out there for you to

1:22:32 ↗ ponder as you look at our example is

1:22:35 ↗ for new construction in any new building

1:22:37 ↗ on a site

1:22:39 ↗ has to fully comply

1:22:42 ↗ another option is any new building

1:22:44 ↗ complies if it's compatible with the

1:22:46 ↗ existing architecture i mean part of the

1:22:49 ↗ goal is to transform

1:22:52 ↗ central issaquah and some of the styles

1:22:55 ↗ in the style manual don't necessarily

1:22:57 ↗ match up with some of the existing

1:22:59 ↗ styles

1:23:01 ↗ and the third

1:23:03 ↗ option or approach is

1:23:05 ↗ that a site complies to the extent

1:23:07 ↗ extent that the site is impacted so the

1:23:10 ↗ area of impact is the only portion that

1:23:13 ↗ has to comply

1:23:17 ↗ uh with remodeling or partial

1:23:20 ↗ reconstruction

1:23:22 ↗ some of the options and approaches that

1:23:24 ↗ we've considered are is that maintenance

1:23:26 ↗ is exempt we would have to define what

1:23:29 ↗ that term is

1:23:30 ↗ um

1:23:31 ↗ that interior changes such as tis that

1:23:34 ↗ don't affect the exterior would be

1:23:37 ↗ excluded from the threshold decision

1:23:39 ↗ meaning if you're using value you don't

1:23:42 ↗ of the improvements you don't include a

1:23:45 ↗ ti as part of that value

1:23:50 ↗ landmark buildings and isquad treasures

1:23:52 ↗ are treated maybe differently either

1:23:55 ↗ fully or partially differently

1:23:57 ↗ than just other buildings

1:24:01 ↗ and

1:24:02 ↗ right now we're using king county

1:24:04 ↗ improvement values

1:24:07 ↗ but maybe what we do because we're going

1:24:09 ↗ to present some other options

1:24:12 ↗ maybe we offer that applicants can

1:24:15 ↗ choose some other options like market or

1:24:17 ↗ insurance value

1:24:20 ↗ if it um

1:24:21 ↗ [Music]

1:24:22 ↗ if they feel that the king county

1:24:24 ↗ improvement value is not um

1:24:27 ↗ appropriate or indicative or that the

1:24:29 ↗ city could require someone to provide

1:24:32 ↗ the market value

1:24:34 ↗ and we'll get into some of the reasons

1:24:36 ↗ kristin did you have something you

1:24:37 ↗ wanted to add i just want to clarify for

1:24:40 ↗ those who might not know that eti is a

1:24:42 ↗ tenant improvement thank you so much

1:24:45 ↗ you're welcome and typically

1:24:46 ↗ improvements to the interior of their

1:24:47 ↗ building

1:24:51 ↗ you needed the coder ring to talk to us

1:24:53 ↗ sometimes thank you

1:24:57 ↗ so um here's one of our examples uh

1:24:59 ↗ jackson's at gilman and sr 900

1:25:03 ↗ now

1:25:04 ↗ it may seem that this is a new building

1:25:07 ↗ because that can this is the exist this

1:25:09 ↗ was the previous site plan before they

1:25:11 ↗ started construction

1:25:13 ↗ this is the fuel station

1:25:16 ↗ fueling canopy

1:25:17 ↗ this was the convenience store

1:25:20 ↗ and this was the car wash and i'll just

1:25:22 ↗ flip to my next slide so that you get a

1:25:25 ↗ sense this is what the site looked like

1:25:27 ↗ before construction

1:25:29 ↗ whereas

1:25:31 ↗ now

1:25:32 ↗ they torn down their convenience store

1:25:34 ↗ and they asked to rebuild it

1:25:37 ↗ so we said that's fine but you're going

1:25:40 ↗ to have to design it and position it

1:25:43 ↗ consistent

1:25:44 ↗ with the

1:25:46 ↗ manual

1:25:47 ↗ but the rest of the site isn't

1:25:49 ↗ particularly in compliance you know in

1:25:51 ↗ terms of street wall and frontage

1:25:54 ↗ improvement i mean not frontage

1:25:56 ↗ improvements but what you're doing along

1:25:58 ↗ the frontage to create that street wall

1:26:00 ↗ that more urban character

1:26:02 ↗ um

1:26:03 ↗ because they weren't really touching the

1:26:05 ↗ rest of the site

1:26:08 ↗ and

1:26:09 ↗ the lower right is the picture i showed

1:26:12 ↗ you last week of the

1:26:14 ↗ building which is compliant with the

1:26:17 ↗ style manual

1:26:19 ↗ so that's example number one

1:26:23 ↗ example number two you saw both of these

1:26:27 ↗ at this level of information at gilman

1:26:29 ↗ village

1:26:30 ↗ um

1:26:31 ↗ the old tikka masala space

1:26:34 ↗ is currently under review

1:26:36 ↗ masa and the recology buildings

1:26:39 ↗ different character

1:26:41 ↗ um you know should this portion of the

1:26:44 ↗ building be asked to use the style

1:26:46 ↗ manual when the rest of the building is

1:26:50 ↗ not involved

1:26:51 ↗ or for agnes

1:26:54 ↗ which is uh burned

1:26:57 ↗ but the rest of the building is fine and

1:27:00 ↗ untouched

1:27:03 ↗ so now we're going to get into the

1:27:04 ↗ really complicated slide bear with me

1:27:06 ↗ please

1:27:08 ↗ um we put two examples up here uh and i

1:27:12 ↗ want to run through the examples before

1:27:14 ↗ i run through the chart

1:27:15 ↗ so one of them was the friends of youth

1:27:17 ↗ building which we mentioned to you last

1:27:19 ↗ time

1:27:20 ↗ it's on about a third of an acre it has

1:27:23 ↗ one building

1:27:24 ↗ the property is valued at almost eight

1:27:27 ↗ hundred thousand dollars but according

1:27:29 ↗ to the king county site the building is

1:27:30 ↗ worth a thousand dollars

1:27:33 ↗ so most of the um thresholds that we use

1:27:37 ↗ are based well the threshold that we use

1:27:40 ↗ in central isco and some other parts of

1:27:42 ↗ town

1:27:43 ↗ is 50 percent of king county assessed

1:27:46 ↗ value so you can imagine that almost

1:27:48 ↗ anything they do

1:27:50 ↗ is more than five hundred dollars

1:27:54 ↗ uh the second example is heritage square

1:27:56 ↗ we've had several projects uh within

1:27:59 ↗ heritage square

1:28:01 ↗ it has six buildings

1:28:04 ↗ property value of 10.5 million

1:28:06 ↗ improvement values of 1.2 million

1:28:10 ↗ but for instance when the denny's

1:28:12 ↗ building

1:28:13 ↗ uh was scraped down to the slab

1:28:17 ↗ and corner bakery rebuilt on that site

1:28:21 ↗ we only have the value based on the

1:28:23 ↗ entire property we don't have the value

1:28:26 ↗ based on that individual building

1:28:30 ↗ um so those are just two examples of the

1:28:32 ↗ challenges where the king county

1:28:35 ↗ improvement value is a challenge

1:28:38 ↗ so um as i mentioned in central issaquah

1:28:41 ↗ we

1:28:42 ↗ use 50 of the king county value

1:28:46 ↗ if you're above that you have to fully

1:28:48 ↗ comply if you're below that you comply

1:28:50 ↗ to the fullest extent practical and

1:28:52 ↗ feasible

1:28:54 ↗ so

1:28:55 ↗ here are some some thoughts

1:28:58 ↗ uh one option is to keep that uh king

1:29:02 ↗ county value

1:29:03 ↗ um

1:29:04 ↗ but maybe we um it's not below that 50

1:29:08 ↗ percent we're not saying comply to the

1:29:11 ↗ fullest extent practical and feasible

1:29:13 ↗ because that becomes a negotiation and

1:29:16 ↗ it's unclear to both staff

1:29:19 ↗ and the applicant

1:29:20 ↗ what you're supposed to do

1:29:22 ↗ the advantages of using the king county

1:29:24 ↗ value is the information is free and

1:29:26 ↗ easy to get

1:29:28 ↗ um the disadvantage are the two examples

1:29:30 ↗ i've shown you where a low value or

1:29:33 ↗ where there are multiple buildings on

1:29:34 ↗ site that makes it pretty hard to know

1:29:37 ↗ [Music]

1:29:38 ↗ what to do

1:29:40 ↗ or how to get that value

1:29:42 ↗ another option

1:29:44 ↗ based on a definition the city uses is

1:29:46 ↗ substantial improvement

1:29:50 ↗ substantial improvement looks at the

1:29:52 ↗ market value so that might mean that you

1:29:55 ↗ use an insurance assessment or a

1:29:59 ↗ property assessment

1:30:01 ↗ someone to come out and actually define

1:30:03 ↗ the value

1:30:05 ↗ right now

1:30:06 ↗ um

1:30:07 ↗ and that you are either above or below

1:30:10 ↗ that 50

1:30:12 ↗ this addresses sites with multiple

1:30:14 ↗ buildings but it could be more expensive

1:30:16 ↗ you know someone has to hire someone to

1:30:18 ↗ come out and do it and the city may very

1:30:20 ↗ well want to

1:30:22 ↗ have that peer reviewed and that would

1:30:24 ↗ be the applicant's responsibility to pay

1:30:26 ↗ for

1:30:29 ↗ another option

1:30:30 ↗ using a city definition is the term

1:30:33 ↗ demolish

1:30:35 ↗ and uh that is if you're impacting 50

1:30:40 ↗ of the exterior or bearing walls and 50

1:30:44 ↗ and also

1:30:45 ↗ structural supports

1:30:48 ↗ that that determines that you are

1:30:50 ↗ basically rebuilding that building

1:30:54 ↗ you know that's a very objective

1:30:58 ↗ assessment and it's unrelated to the

1:31:00 ↗ value on the other hand that could be

1:31:02 ↗ quite an undertaking to calculate and to

1:31:06 ↗ argue about which

1:31:08 ↗ are

1:31:08 ↗ bearing walls or structural supports

1:31:11 ↗ although the architects in the room

1:31:12 ↗ might disagree with me

1:31:14 ↗ um and then lastly we looked at bell red

1:31:19 ↗ which

1:31:21 ↗ when we did some research i think this

1:31:23 ↗ was back in 2016 the approach used there

1:31:26 ↗ was that if you were above a specific

1:31:29 ↗ value which at the time encode was 150

1:31:32 ↗ 000 based on 2009 dollars

1:31:35 ↗ you had to come into compliance with a

1:31:38 ↗ very specific list of standards so it

1:31:40 ↗ wasn't the entire code there were

1:31:42 ↗ specific sections of code that were

1:31:45 ↗ identified

1:31:46 ↗ and that coming into compliance could be

1:31:48 ↗ no more than 20 percent

1:31:51 ↗ of the project value so

1:31:53 ↗ um

1:31:54 ↗ if you were at

1:31:56 ↗ 150 000

1:31:58 ↗ that would be 30 000 the the

1:32:01 ↗ improvements could not cost more than

1:32:03 ↗ that

1:32:04 ↗ the good thing is that it's proportional

1:32:06 ↗ um again it requires um determining

1:32:10 ↗ values and buying into values

1:32:17 ↗ so

1:32:18 ↗ back to approaches and components

1:32:21 ↗ approaches and options so with new

1:32:23 ↗ construction like the jackson site

1:32:27 ↗ one option is to say anytime you're

1:32:29 ↗ building a new building you have to come

1:32:31 ↗ into compliance

1:32:32 ↗ another is that you say

1:32:35 ↗ you have to comply

1:32:37 ↗ but

1:32:39 ↗ maybe you give some flexibility if the

1:32:41 ↗ architectural styles the central esqua

1:32:44 ↗ architectural styles aren't really

1:32:46 ↗ compatible with anything on site

1:32:49 ↗ and that site compliance only is to the

1:32:52 ↗ extent extent the site is impacted

1:32:55 ↗ rather than

1:32:56 ↗ saying that the whole project is

1:32:58 ↗ supposed to come into

1:33:00 ↗ full compliance

1:33:06 ↗ everyone thoroughly confused

1:33:10 ↗ my brain hurts

1:33:12 ↗ i i hear you

1:33:14 ↗ okay let's go ahead and open up to

1:33:16 ↗ commissioner

1:33:20 ↗ questions and first person up is

1:33:23 ↗ commissioner sanford

1:33:25 ↗ thank you chairfall uh lucy number three

1:33:28 ↗ cycle applies to the extent that the

1:33:29 ↗ site is impacted could you go into a

1:33:32 ↗ little bit more detail about that what

1:33:33 ↗ constitutes site i understand it as far

1:33:36 ↗ as going village but

1:33:37 ↗ yeah

1:33:39 ↗ so let's go back to um the jackson's

1:33:42 ↗ example

1:33:43 ↗ um

1:33:45 ↗ they were

1:33:46 ↗ tearing down this building

1:33:49 ↗ in this building

1:33:51 ↗ and so they had to replace they wanted

1:33:54 ↗ to replace the convenience store so that

1:33:57 ↗ was having to come into compliance

1:33:59 ↗ but the rest of the site say over here

1:34:02 ↗ where no changes were being made there

1:34:04 ↗ was no request

1:34:06 ↗ potential in this approach you would not

1:34:09 ↗ ask the western portion of the site to

1:34:11 ↗ come into compliance because it wasn't

1:34:13 ↗ being at impacted by the actions they

1:34:16 ↗ were proposing

1:34:18 ↗ does that make more sense as as an

1:34:21 ↗ option not necessarily that you agree

1:34:22 ↗ with it right understand

1:34:25 ↗ thank you

1:34:39 ↗ and the next question is from

1:34:40 ↗ commissioner voice

1:34:42 ↗ thank you chairfell so that was a great

1:34:44 ↗ exercise as far as taking number three

1:34:46 ↗ and laying it over on jackson's so can

1:34:48 ↗ we do the same with number two

1:34:50 ↗ um so any new building complies are

1:34:52 ↗ compatible with the existing

1:34:53 ↗ architecture

1:34:55 ↗ so if if we're looking at

1:34:58 ↗ i guess if we will go backwards to

1:35:00 ↗ um tiki masala

1:35:04 ↗ so ideally if that overlay

1:35:07 ↗ not overlay but if that so if we were to

1:35:09 ↗ go with number two how would that look

1:35:11 ↗ ms sloman

1:35:13 ↗ because i thought you did i thought that

1:35:14 ↗ looked pretty good with the slide as far

1:35:15 ↗ as so if we go back to that slide

1:35:19 ↗ right and we were to use

1:35:22 ↗ number two

1:35:26 ↗ so i'm gonna i'm gonna make up an

1:35:28 ↗ example here

1:35:30 ↗ let's say that um

1:35:33 ↗ let's say that masa and recology which

1:35:36 ↗ are the two buildings um on either side

1:35:40 ↗ are super modern

1:35:44 ↗ and this is in traditional issaquah

1:35:47 ↗ which only has historic styles

1:35:50 ↗ so maybe we would say

1:35:53 ↗ that doesn't make sense to stick a very

1:35:56 ↗ traditional building in the middle of

1:35:59 ↗ two very modern buildings

1:36:03 ↗ or maybe we say

1:36:06 ↗ that's how we incrementally move in the

1:36:08 ↗ direction that we've committed to

1:36:10 ↗ through the manual

1:36:18 ↗ can i add to that

1:36:21 ↗ let's see real quick

1:36:22 ↗ so i think this threshold wouldn't apply

1:36:24 ↗ to this example because it's not a new

1:36:27 ↗ building so this would fall under the

1:36:29 ↗ remodel category

1:36:32 ↗ so as you're thinking through just think

1:36:34 ↗ of new building as a brand new structure

1:36:36 ↗ complete tear down and rebuilding

1:36:39 ↗ um so there are two different

1:36:41 ↗ you know tiers of discussion that we're

1:36:43 ↗ talking about

1:36:44 ↗ so would the eggness fall under

1:36:46 ↗ completely new construction because

1:36:47 ↗ that's going to be torn down to the

1:36:48 ↗ foundation correct

1:36:51 ↗ well it's but it's also part of a larger

1:36:53 ↗ building

1:36:55 ↗ okay

1:36:56 ↗ so um

1:36:59 ↗ think of

1:37:00 ↗ uh we talked about heritage square

1:37:04 ↗ and where corner bakery is

1:37:06 ↗ um so let's there the design manual did

1:37:09 ↗ not apply when corner bakery was being

1:37:12 ↗ done

1:37:14 ↗ but if you think about the um somewhat

1:37:18 ↗ barn-like building

1:37:20 ↗ that most of heritage square

1:37:24 ↗ uses

1:37:25 ↗ and you have corner bakery

1:37:29 ↗ which has picked a different style

1:37:33 ↗ uh does that um

1:37:35 ↗ is that a good way of incrementally

1:37:37 ↗ moving it forward or should it

1:37:40 ↗ have more flexibility

1:37:43 ↗ um because

1:37:46 ↗ maybe none of the and i'm not saying

1:37:48 ↗ this is in fact true but i'm just trying

1:37:50 ↗ to come up with an example

1:37:52 ↗ that um

1:37:53 ↗ that none of the architectural styles if

1:37:57 ↗ none of those architectural styles in

1:37:59 ↗ the design manual were complementary

1:38:02 ↗ to the rest of the existing buildings

1:38:06 ↗ you might say

1:38:07 ↗ you don't have to use the

1:38:10 ↗ design manual

1:38:16 ↗ thank you lucy uh next question is from

1:38:19 ↗ commissioner dylan

1:38:23 ↗ thank you chair fall patty dillon um so

1:38:25 ↗ going back to that list of of three

1:38:28 ↗ approaches it doesn't seem

1:38:31 ↗ like those are mutually exclusive i mean

1:38:33 ↗ the jackson's example is is applying

1:38:35 ↗ both one and three

1:38:37 ↗ which seems like a logical compromise

1:38:39 ↗ that that's asking a lot of somebody to

1:38:43 ↗ um basically

1:38:45 ↗ modify their their entire site uh when

1:38:48 ↗ they're only dealing with a small part

1:38:50 ↗ of it

1:38:51 ↗ and

1:38:52 ↗ and number two i think the example that

1:38:54 ↗ you just brought up about heritage

1:38:55 ↗ square was it was interesting

1:39:00 ↗ i could see two ways about it one being

1:39:02 ↗ that there's a moving toward the design

1:39:04 ↗ manual does promote incremental

1:39:06 ↗ improvement but

1:39:07 ↗ is another

1:39:09 ↗ option a 2a possibly that

1:39:13 ↗ that the new building has to apply

1:39:14 ↗ either with the fully comply with the

1:39:16 ↗ design manual or it needs to be

1:39:18 ↗ consistent with the surrounding

1:39:20 ↗ buildings so that you're not coming up

1:39:22 ↗ with something entirely different

1:39:24 ↗ um but you're you're moving in a

1:39:27 ↗ direction that is consistent with either

1:39:31 ↗ the the area or the design manual

1:39:36 ↗ i guess that's maybe a comment as much

1:39:39 ↗ as a question but

1:39:40 ↗ sure i know the answer

1:39:42 ↗ fair enough thank you

1:39:46 ↗ and commissioner morgan you have the

1:39:48 ↗ floor

1:39:49 ↗ i'm sorry uh

1:39:50 ↗ paz commissioner bader you have the

1:39:52 ↗ floor

1:39:54 ↗ great thanks this is sarah vader um i

1:39:56 ↗ think commissioner dylan's comment

1:39:57 ↗ actually helped me clarify my own

1:40:00 ↗ question because i was struggling to see

1:40:01 ↗ the difference actually between number

1:40:03 ↗ one and number three

1:40:04 ↗ um and it sounds like they can be read

1:40:06 ↗ as like an and so it's any new building

1:40:09 ↗ on site complies and the site complies

1:40:11 ↗ only to the extent impacted is that

1:40:13 ↗ right

1:40:14 ↗ yeah and so thanks for that

1:40:16 ↗ clarification i think that's why we use

1:40:18 ↗ the term approach components

1:40:20 ↗ because some of them could be additive

1:40:23 ↗ and some all are

1:40:25 ↗ options or alternatives so thanks for

1:40:28 ↗ clarifying that

1:40:45 ↗ cheerful

1:40:47 ↗ oh sorry

1:40:49 ↗ was on mute uh commissioner morgan uh

1:40:52 ↗ you now have the floor

1:40:53 ↗ thank you chair fall

1:40:55 ↗ and this might fall into comment lucy

1:40:56 ↗ but i guess a question with number two

1:41:00 ↗ could you add uh if compatible existing

1:41:03 ↗ architecture and

1:41:04 ↗ does not exceed x percent of total

1:41:08 ↗ building area in the project like

1:41:11 ↗ if you're rebuilding 75 percent of it

1:41:14 ↗ you shouldn't be allowed to but if

1:41:15 ↗ you're built rebuilding less than 25

1:41:17 ↗ percent of it

1:41:20 ↗ sure

1:41:27 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner morgan

1:41:29 ↗ and commissioner sanford you have the

1:41:30 ↗ floor

1:41:32 ↗ thank you richard sanford um a couple of

1:41:35 ↗ things um

1:41:37 ↗ a little off the wall maybe i don't know

1:41:39 ↗ um the issaquah work lofts uh lucian

1:41:43 ↗ gilman when that was approved i guess

1:41:46 ↗ that wasn't technically

1:41:49 ↗ after the design manual had been

1:41:51 ↗ released is that right

1:41:52 ↗ actually no it's an interesting kind of

1:41:55 ↗ hybrid the a draft of the design manual

1:41:59 ↗ had been released it was during the

1:42:01 ↗ moratorium and the council approved a

1:42:03 ↗ development agreement

1:42:05 ↗ that they would use the design manual

1:42:09 ↗ at the point at which it had gotten to

1:42:12 ↗ because we hadn't done the final

1:42:13 ↗ adoption that was the negotiation with

1:42:16 ↗ the applicant

1:42:17 ↗ okay yeah and that comes to mind because

1:42:19 ↗ i remember on the commission we were

1:42:21 ↗ struggling a bit with

1:42:23 ↗ how prescriptive to be um we were

1:42:26 ↗ actually doing an interpretation on that

1:42:30 ↗ of the requirements that were in the

1:42:32 ↗ manual given

1:42:34 ↗ um the use of the building and the

1:42:36 ↗ setting and

1:42:39 ↗ uh trying to preserve a degree of

1:42:40 ↗ creativity also and interest in that

1:42:43 ↗ building and i think it was actually a

1:42:47 ↗ positive result i

1:42:49 ↗ always like to see that building uh

1:42:51 ↗ maybe because i remember the struggle

1:42:53 ↗ but i think it turned out fine and i

1:42:55 ↗ guess the point i'm raising is that

1:42:57 ↗ i wonder if we're in a subjective area

1:42:59 ↗ here in which the development commission

1:43:01 ↗ really does play a role

1:43:03 ↗ and we have to be the arbiters of

1:43:05 ↗ whether or not

1:43:07 ↗ compliance is being attained

1:43:10 ↗ given the fact that

1:43:12 ↗ a developer

1:43:14 ↗ may be presented clearly with the intent

1:43:18 ↗ of

1:43:19 ↗ the kind of matching to the styles that

1:43:21 ↗ they should be doing

1:43:23 ↗ i guess what i'm saying is i wonder if

1:43:25 ↗ it's the role of the development

1:43:26 ↗ commission ultimately to make that

1:43:27 ↗ decision

1:43:29 ↗ and then secondly um

1:43:31 ↗ i'll just throw this out but uh the the

1:43:34 ↗ northwest contemporary style

1:43:36 ↗ was a style that we do have and

1:43:37 ↗ currently it only pertains in urban core

1:43:40 ↗ is that correct

1:43:41 ↗ yeah

1:43:42 ↗ so i guess it currently it wouldn't help

1:43:45 ↗ some of these issues like aganas and

1:43:47 ↗ tikka masala but i could almost see

1:43:50 ↗ uh northwest contemporary

1:43:53 ↗ uh being a pretty close match to the

1:43:54 ↗ current agonist building

1:43:56 ↗ so i wonder if we should even consider

1:43:58 ↗ possibly expanding the use of northwest

1:44:01 ↗ contemporary

1:44:02 ↗ out to more of at least centralisat

1:44:05 ↗ possibly address cases like this and

1:44:07 ↗ cases of partial

1:44:09 ↗ redevelopment

1:44:12 ↗ thank you

1:44:15 ↗ thank you uh

1:44:17 ↗ commissioner sanford

1:44:20 ↗ many would like to speak

1:44:23 ↗ minnie thanks chair i just wanted to

1:44:25 ↗ clarify one thing that sometimes um

1:44:28 ↗ uh commissioner sanford these projects

1:44:31 ↗ aren't coming to development commission

1:44:32 ↗ because the threshold of the project

1:44:34 ↗ that goes to the development commission

1:44:36 ↗ is

1:44:36 ↗ they they have to be a certain square

1:44:38 ↗ footage and so some of these projects

1:44:41 ↗ like the jackson example didn't even

1:44:44 ↗ trigger any land use review so all of

1:44:46 ↗ this land use review was bundled up with

1:44:49 ↗ a building permit

1:44:51 ↗ so that's the other part of the the

1:44:53 ↗ the mess that happens is that you know

1:44:56 ↗ very detailed drawings are submitted as

1:44:58 ↗ part of the building permit and then

1:45:00 ↗ some of these conversations start

1:45:02 ↗ occurring in terms of the land use which

1:45:04 ↗ style applies and which doesn't apply

1:45:06 ↗ when they have figured out you know

1:45:08 ↗ where your utility line is going to be

1:45:10 ↗ what the what is the thickness of your

1:45:12 ↗ siding and whatnot

1:45:13 ↗ so

1:45:14 ↗ so that adds to the amount of time it

1:45:17 ↗ takes for to review the building permit

1:45:19 ↗ and all those kind of things so that's

1:45:20 ↗ the other part was should you know which

1:45:23 ↗ is not an option here but but could be

1:45:25 ↗ considered is

1:45:26 ↗ should only the projects that go through

1:45:28 ↗ land use approval be subject to the

1:45:32 ↗ style

1:45:33 ↗ style guide which is a much higher

1:45:35 ↗ threshold

1:45:39 ↗ that's all i have to say back to you

1:45:40 ↗ chair

1:45:42 ↗ thank you mary

1:45:44 ↗ all right and we're going to go to

1:45:45 ↗ commissioner brennan

1:45:48 ↗ yeah that that's an interesting question

1:45:50 ↗ about what's the process here um that

1:45:52 ↗ you apply

1:45:53 ↗ but that's not in front of us today

1:45:54 ↗ that's a whole different complicated

1:45:56 ↗ question

1:45:57 ↗ um i you know i think when you think

1:45:59 ↗ about this is

1:46:01 ↗ a hard policy choice because you're

1:46:03 ↗ balancing the

1:46:04 ↗ interest of moving the city to the new

1:46:06 ↗ vision that's been defined in

1:46:08 ↗ you know in the comprehensive plan and

1:46:10 ↗ ultimately the the land use code at the

1:46:13 ↗ same time you don't want to

1:46:14 ↗ don't stifle economic development by

1:46:16 ↗ having you know so many requirements

1:46:19 ↗ that are in the way or that are arduous

1:46:20 ↗ that don't make sense and they're just

1:46:22 ↗ not gonna you're not gonna see

1:46:23 ↗ development happen as a result

1:46:25 ↗ so for me you know i look at the list

1:46:27 ↗ here and i would say for new buildings

1:46:29 ↗ new buildings should comply because a

1:46:31 ↗ new building is going to be around for a

1:46:33 ↗ long time so when you reinvest in kind

1:46:36 ↗ of the existing

1:46:37 ↗ or the previous kind of vision or style

1:46:41 ↗ that just you know preserve that over

1:46:43 ↗ time but if you want to move to the new

1:46:46 ↗ the new um image the new look and feel

1:46:50 ↗ division of the city then you want to be

1:46:52 ↗ more assertive in the way the

1:46:54 ↗ regulations would apply so i would would

1:46:56 ↗ say anytime you're building a new

1:46:58 ↗ building that the standard should apply

1:47:00 ↗ now when you're dealing with additions i

1:47:02 ↗ i consider the number two to think more

1:47:04 ↗ about that as an addition and those were

1:47:05 ↗ the examples for the most part to an

1:47:07 ↗ existing building it gets a little

1:47:09 ↗ trickier um but i would say that in that

1:47:12 ↗ particular instance i would say that the

1:47:15 ↗ addition should comply

1:47:17 ↗ um with whatever the design standard is

1:47:21 ↗ but if it it also needs it could be

1:47:23 ↗ modified to um really align with the

1:47:26 ↗ architectural kind of compatibility with

1:47:28 ↗ the existing you don't want to have

1:47:30 ↗ something that is

1:47:31 ↗ really out of character you know that

1:47:33 ↗ just doesn't make sense when you step

1:47:35 ↗ back and look at it so you want to have

1:47:37 ↗ some flexibility but the starting place

1:47:39 ↗ is there's a there's a design standard

1:47:41 ↗ building

1:47:42 ↗ addition should need

1:47:44 ↗ and then the challenge for the

1:47:46 ↗ architecture or the architect is try to

1:47:48 ↗ integrate that into the existing

1:47:50 ↗ building so that it makes sense when you

1:47:52 ↗ look at it i think we

1:47:53 ↗ ran into these challenges similar

1:47:55 ↗ discussion when we were talking about

1:47:57 ↗ updates to the

1:47:59 ↗ old town

1:48:01 ↗ neighborhood residential standards about

1:48:03 ↗ what trips the upgrades

1:48:05 ↗ and then the the other piece when it

1:48:07 ↗ comes to site improvements

1:48:10 ↗ the this idea of proportional compliance

1:48:13 ↗ where you have when a building the

1:48:15 ↗ exterior of a building is being modified

1:48:17 ↗ or an investment is being made

1:48:19 ↗ but it's not an addition it's not a new

1:48:21 ↗ building but it's a significant

1:48:23 ↗ investment that's being made that would

1:48:24 ↗ prolong the life of the building you do

1:48:26 ↗ want to say well we do want to have

1:48:28 ↗ certain elements of that investment

1:48:30 ↗ align with the future vision

1:48:33 ↗ of the city and you would be selective

1:48:35 ↗ about where you want that investment to

1:48:36 ↗ happen that's the bell red example that

1:48:38 ↗ you

1:48:39 ↗ put out there lucy that that would seem

1:48:41 ↗ to make sense

1:48:42 ↗ as a strategy it's a little more

1:48:44 ↗ complicated to administer but you can

1:48:46 ↗ set thresholds in there and point

1:48:48 ↗ specific thresholds that you know that

1:48:50 ↗ that improvement we shouldn't exceed in

1:48:52 ↗ the case i think you showed the bell

1:48:53 ↗ right example of 20 of the overall

1:48:56 ↗ project value

1:48:57 ↗ um and you could set that line at any

1:48:59 ↗ point uh you want but i think it makes

1:49:02 ↗ sense to continue to the the policy

1:49:04 ↗ direction is let's move to the new

1:49:06 ↗ vision

1:49:07 ↗ and let's not reinvest in what was

1:49:10 ↗ the old vision where that where there's

1:49:12 ↗ an opportunity to

1:49:14 ↗ responsibly and economically responsibly

1:49:16 ↗ move that that direction so that would

1:49:18 ↗ be my

1:49:19 ↗ my read on the three in my mind then

1:49:22 ↗ completely new building in addition to a

1:49:24 ↗ building and then

1:49:25 ↗ modification or investment in an

1:49:27 ↗ existing building you would carve those

1:49:30 ↗ up a little differently

1:49:37 ↗ thank you very much commissioner brennan

1:49:40 ↗ and commissioner lewis

1:49:44 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

1:49:46 ↗ lewis here uh i really appreciate uh the

1:49:48 ↗ comments uh by chair brennan right there

1:49:51 ↗ i think that was a

1:49:52 ↗ a very succinct way of putting um

1:49:54 ↗ something that i'm coming along on i i

1:49:56 ↗ certainly am curious why originally the

1:49:58 ↗ king county value was chosen and i think

1:50:02 ↗ it's clear that that model isn't working

1:50:04 ↗ and so i i would almost encourage us to

1:50:06 ↗ go back to the county and point out you

1:50:08 ↗ know there's there's an issue here that

1:50:10 ↗ actually could be leading to some larger

1:50:12 ↗ issues we've kind of i think may have

1:50:13 ↗ found a little canary in the coal mine

1:50:15 ↗ here i i'm certainly interested by doing

1:50:17 ↗ a project value uh i you know right now

1:50:19 ↗ uh building materials is extremely high

1:50:22 ↗ so i can see how it may be economically

1:50:24 ↗ disadvantageous for

1:50:26 ↗ a developer to to want to go with that

1:50:28 ↗ method uh but it's certainly intriguing

1:50:30 ↗ especially in the case of uh the friends

1:50:32 ↗ of issaquah building you know i'm sure

1:50:34 ↗ just to repaint that building would be

1:50:35 ↗ in excess of 20 000 just for a paint job

1:50:38 ↗ and so uh when we start looking at that

1:50:41 ↗ might have actually a more appropriate

1:50:43 ↗ valuation for moving forward and things

1:50:45 ↗ like that uh

1:50:47 ↗ so i do think that that needs to be

1:50:48 ↗ addressed uh i i don't recommend going

1:50:51 ↗ forward with the with the current model

1:50:53 ↗ of the king county value system i do

1:50:55 ↗ think that new buildings should fully

1:50:56 ↗ comply with the design standards what i

1:50:58 ↗ want to see is how do we get um to have

1:51:00 ↗ the fullest compatibility right rather

1:51:03 ↗ than having

1:51:04 ↗ some sort of loopholes and discretion i

1:51:06 ↗ could argue on the jackson site

1:51:08 ↗ that instead of having the extent of the

1:51:11 ↗ site being impacted that instead the

1:51:12 ↗ west side is impacted by tearing down

1:51:14 ↗ the car wash on the east side the west

1:51:16 ↗ side looks very different like i could

1:51:19 ↗ see a different way of saying if you

1:51:21 ↗ rash your site down then no holds barred

1:51:24 ↗ right to be able to say if you've

1:51:26 ↗ changed the makeup of how you're

1:51:28 ↗ orienting your space then you need to

1:51:30 ↗ completely redo the entire site uh they

1:51:32 ↗ would have needed to meet some sort of

1:51:34 ↗ threshold the percentage that they were

1:51:36 ↗ tearing down and instead by completely

1:51:38 ↗ leveling what they had then their all

1:51:40 ↗ aspects of that site now need to

1:51:42 ↗ apply to the design manual i'm just

1:51:44 ↗ saying there's i think a devil's

1:51:45 ↗ advocate approach to it i do like having

1:51:48 ↗ more of a balance but i think that

1:51:50 ↗ it's easy to see

1:51:52 ↗ a large corporation coming into a

1:51:54 ↗ prominent visible corridor in our city

1:51:56 ↗ needing to have a high standard and

1:51:58 ↗ that's the reason that we have the

1:51:59 ↗ design manual so i i want to advocate

1:52:02 ↗ for us really

1:52:04 ↗ having a uh a strict view of how we how

1:52:08 ↗ we realign what needs to be tweaked

1:52:10 ↗ right now thank you

1:52:15 ↗ great thank you commissioner lewis um

1:52:17 ↗ ron stepped out for a moment on acting

1:52:20 ↗ chair

1:52:21 ↗ um commissioner schulte please

1:52:23 ↗ um

1:52:24 ↗ thank you commissioner voice um my

1:52:26 ↗ comments are very similar to that of

1:52:29 ↗ commissioner lewis and commissioner

1:52:31 ↗ brennan

1:52:32 ↗ you know i'm in support of

1:52:34 ↗ you know new building construction

1:52:36 ↗ having to comply

1:52:37 ↗ as well as improvements

1:52:40 ↗ matching the existing structure as much

1:52:42 ↗ as possible

1:52:43 ↗ i do recognize the need to you know

1:52:45 ↗ maintain the brand um of a specific

1:52:47 ↗ building a specific company

1:52:50 ↗ and there's still opportunities to you

1:52:52 ↗ know integrate

1:52:54 ↗ well into the existing architecture i

1:52:56 ↗ mean you look at examples like the city

1:52:58 ↗ of leavenworth right where where you

1:53:00 ↗ have these brands like starbucks um you

1:53:03 ↗ know still integrating into the bavarian

1:53:05 ↗ style

1:53:06 ↗ of living worth so there's definitely

1:53:08 ↗ opportunities for that um

1:53:11 ↗ regarding number three um i do like what

1:53:13 ↗ uh commissioner lewis mentioned about

1:53:15 ↗ the

1:53:16 ↗ the site compliance i i think what we

1:53:18 ↗ need to be mindful of is we don't want

1:53:20 ↗ to be

1:53:22 ↗ in a position where we're driving around

1:53:24 ↗ and we're looking at pockets of land

1:53:26 ↗ where half of the land you know was

1:53:28 ↗ developed and

1:53:30 ↗ the other half is not right i mean it

1:53:32 ↗ just

1:53:33 ↗ it doesn't look good to the city

1:53:35 ↗ in terms of growth

1:53:37 ↗ in terms of this movement towards our

1:53:39 ↗ vision

1:53:40 ↗ in terms of sustainability

1:53:43 ↗ so there's definitely thresholds that

1:53:44 ↗ can be implemented

1:53:46 ↗ even higher thresholds that

1:53:49 ↗ you know

1:53:50 ↗ promote

1:53:52 ↗ you know the full redevelopment of the

1:53:54 ↗ property i mean at the end of the day it

1:53:55 ↗ is their property right so

1:53:57 ↗ um

1:53:58 ↗ you know it's

1:54:00 ↗ you know they're the landlord right i

1:54:01 ↗ mean we got to keep that property and

1:54:03 ↗ you know have that good upkeep so

1:54:06 ↗ we just got to be mindful of that um

1:54:09 ↗ and uh i think it was commissioner

1:54:11 ↗ morgan um

1:54:12 ↗ earlier who

1:54:14 ↗ mentioned the idea of a square footage

1:54:19 ↗ as a way to you know calculate the value

1:54:22 ↗ or the improvements and i think that's

1:54:23 ↗ that could be a great approach i mean

1:54:25 ↗ it's it's not always diff it's it is

1:54:27 ↗ difficult to

1:54:28 ↗ obviously calculate what 50

1:54:31 ↗ is but when you take a look at things in

1:54:33 ↗ a square footage value

1:54:35 ↗ that can sometimes make it easier as

1:54:37 ↗ well uh you know floor area roof area

1:54:40 ↗ you know foundation area

1:54:42 ↗ and so on so thank you

1:54:48 ↗ great thank you

1:54:54 ↗ thanks jason

1:54:57 ↗ okay uh commissioner kevin price you

1:54:59 ↗ have the floor

1:55:02 ↗ welcome back thank you um

1:55:05 ↗ so with respect to the valuation

1:55:07 ↗ question uh using the king county

1:55:10 ↗ evaluation

1:55:11 ↗ method

1:55:12 ↗ for establishing the threshold am i

1:55:14 ↗ understanding that you're only

1:55:16 ↗ using the improvement value

1:55:19 ↗ and not the land value is that accurate

1:55:22 ↗ yes

1:55:24 ↗ was it ever contemplated to use land

1:55:26 ↗ plus valuation i'm sorry land plus

1:55:28 ↗ improvements because that would

1:55:30 ↗ significantly increase that threshold

1:55:32 ↗ and the county values are

1:55:35 ↗ historically low

1:55:37 ↗ you know that's the tax basis value

1:55:38 ↗ right that has nothing to do with the

1:55:40 ↗ real estate value and

1:55:43 ↗ and so

1:55:45 ↗ why or did you consider using

1:55:48 ↗ both of those in the equation

1:55:52 ↗ well

1:55:54 ↗ i think we did not include

1:55:56 ↗ the land value because we're looking at

1:55:59 ↗ the imprint you know the improvements

1:56:01 ↗ are the part that we're looking at i

1:56:03 ↗ think what you're identifying is the

1:56:05 ↗ flaw in using king county values and

1:56:10 ↗ as much as commissioner lewis thinks the

1:56:12 ↗ county cares what we think about their

1:56:15 ↗ values

1:56:16 ↗ um

1:56:17 ↗ uh

1:56:18 ↗ they are you know

1:56:20 ↗ i will say on a number of levels they

1:56:22 ↗ are really only interested in things

1:56:24 ↗ from a tax perspective and they do crazy

1:56:26 ↗ things with property lines and

1:56:30 ↗ other things because it makes sense from

1:56:32 ↗ a tax perspective so really it is only

1:56:35 ↗ for their tax

1:56:37 ↗ purposes even though we know

1:56:39 ↗ many many people use it for lots of

1:56:41 ↗ different purposes

1:56:44 ↗ so

1:56:45 ↗ i i think that we have better ways of

1:56:48 ↗ looking at the improvement values such

1:56:51 ↗ as market

1:56:52 ↗ rather than trying to use the land

1:56:55 ↗ portion to help us understand the

1:56:58 ↗ improvement value does that make sense

1:57:01 ↗ yeah i yeah i totally agree and i think

1:57:03 ↗ what you're searching for is

1:57:05 ↗ is is a tool that establishes a common

1:57:08 ↗ threshold across the board i think even

1:57:12 ↗ a third-party consultant establishing

1:57:13 ↗ value i think there's

1:57:15 ↗ a lot of opportunity there for

1:57:18 ↗ inconsistencies

1:57:20 ↗ uh

1:57:21 ↗ i don't know i find it always

1:57:23 ↗ interesting when

1:57:24 ↗ you're getting a loan or financing a

1:57:26 ↗ house that appraises to the penny that

1:57:29 ↗ your offer was so i just think there's

1:57:32 ↗ potential

1:57:34 ↗ pitfalls in that method as well

1:57:36 ↗ and i just wondered um

1:57:39 ↗ if if you

1:57:41 ↗ were to include the land value would it

1:57:43 ↗ would it go further

1:57:45 ↗ to uh create some predictability and

1:57:49 ↗ and from a source that

1:57:52 ↗ fear point is free and readily

1:57:54 ↗ accessible

1:57:55 ↗ and irrefutable um so um

1:57:59 ↗ i don't know that's all i have it's more

1:58:01 ↗ of a question beyond that i i would like

1:58:04 ↗ to just agree with commissioner brennan

1:58:06 ↗ and his remarks i think they

1:58:08 ↗ they would align directly with mine so

1:58:12 ↗ i'll leave it at that thank you

1:58:15 ↗ minnie did you have something you wanted

1:58:16 ↗ to add

1:58:18 ↗ oh i was just gonna say that's true that

1:58:20 ↗ you know the king county assessor value

1:58:22 ↗ is readily available and what we

1:58:24 ↗ don't want to get into is getting these

1:58:26 ↗ market appraisal values and we have to

1:58:28 ↗ review them and then go back and you

1:58:30 ↗ know uh but

1:58:32 ↗ it it uh if i mean that's an option to

1:58:35 ↗ consider the king county assessed value

1:58:37 ↗ of the property as a whole of the the

1:58:39 ↗ building and the land value together i

1:58:42 ↗ think the issue is uh we're getting into

1:58:44 ↗ the king county assessed value but for

1:58:46 ↗ the new construction there isn't that

1:58:48 ↗ threshold it's just whether you're new

1:58:50 ↗ so that threshold comes into play when

1:58:52 ↗ you're doing additions and

1:58:54 ↗ and remodels so i think the two issues

1:58:56 ↗ are kind of getting overlapped in in our

1:58:58 ↗ discussion which which um

1:59:01 ↗ perhaps just if you can focus on just

1:59:03 ↗ the new construction

1:59:05 ↗ um options which don't necessarily tie

1:59:08 ↗ in with the assessed value unless we say

1:59:12 ↗ um

1:59:13 ↗ you know

1:59:15 ↗ new valley new building should probably

1:59:17 ↗ be a square footage so if you have a

1:59:20 ↗ five acre site and

1:59:22 ↗ you know you're building buildings on 75

1:59:25 ↗ of the land area or something then the

1:59:27 ↗ entire site is going to comply i think

1:59:29 ↗ that was one of the discussions as to

1:59:30 ↗ what what's the extent of the site

1:59:32 ↗ impacted threshold

1:59:35 ↗ so that's just on your site if you have

1:59:37 ↗ more than half of your site you're

1:59:39 ↗ redeveloping then the whole site comes

1:59:40 ↗ into compliance or if 75 of the site is

1:59:44 ↗ being impacted then the entire site

1:59:45 ↗ comes into compliance because you don't

1:59:46 ↗ want to leave 25

1:59:48 ↗ of it alone so

1:59:51 ↗ this threshold doesn't quite

1:59:54 ↗ uh tied to the assessed value unless we

1:59:57 ↗ want to tie that as as the options laid

2:00:00 ↗ out here tonight

2:00:05 ↗ thank you and commissioner dillon

2:00:09 ↗ so i was going to go back to kind of the

2:00:11 ↗ site extent too and and that

2:00:13 ↗ percent of site might be might be a good

2:00:16 ↗ way to get at it but i was

2:00:18 ↗ i

2:00:19 ↗ thinking initially i was going to echo

2:00:20 ↗ what commissioner brennan said something

2:00:23 ↗ of the bell red approach that

2:00:25 ↗ that you do need to make other

2:00:26 ↗ improvements to the site but the extent

2:00:29 ↗ of those improvements is

2:00:31 ↗ um tied to the value of of your

2:00:35 ↗ featured project and as i can see um as

2:00:38 ↗ you know commissioner lewis was

2:00:39 ↗ suggesting on on the jackson site

2:00:41 ↗ perhaps there there is reason to improve

2:00:44 ↗ the whole site and that is

2:00:45 ↗ you know there's there's one operation

2:00:47 ↗ one use there

2:00:49 ↗ and and potentially an argument to be

2:00:51 ↗ made by something like a heritage square

2:00:54 ↗ and you're replacing um you know

2:00:56 ↗ jack-in-the-box or denny's um

2:01:00 ↗ certainly the new building should be in

2:01:02 ↗ compliance but that seems

2:01:04 ↗ uh way too much to ask to

2:01:07 ↗ then take an entire site that is you

2:01:09 ↗ know

2:01:11 ↗ possibly five to ten times bigger than

2:01:13 ↗ your project and improve that so having

2:01:16 ↗ whether that threshold is area or

2:01:18 ↗ whether that threshold is value

2:01:20 ↗ i think having having that defined for

2:01:22 ↗ the site compliance would be the way to

2:01:25 ↗ go

2:01:36 ↗ thank you commissioner dillon and

2:01:37 ↗ commissioner brennan you're on the floor

2:01:39 ↗ so

2:01:40 ↗ kind of carry on the discussion on the

2:01:42 ↗ thread that we're on about how do we

2:01:44 ↗ deal with

2:01:45 ↗ um a site where you've got multi

2:01:47 ↗ buildings i mean when you think about an

2:01:50 ↗ existing building on a a new building on

2:01:52 ↗ an exists on a piece of property it's

2:01:54 ↗ stands alone that one's pretty

2:01:55 ↗ straightforward

2:01:57 ↗ if you're talking about adding to

2:01:59 ↗ an existing building

2:02:01 ↗ you can set a minimum threshold number

2:02:03 ↗ of square feet exceeds certain

2:02:04 ↗ percentage that might trip it so try i

2:02:07 ↗ know where you're trying to go to try to

2:02:08 ↗ figure out

2:02:10 ↗ fairly predictable thresholds so that

2:02:12 ↗ it's not a lot of discretion and

2:02:13 ↗ confusion for the staff and the

2:02:15 ↗ applicant

2:02:16 ↗ the

2:02:17 ↗ the condition that were

2:02:19 ↗ i think that's the most difficult is the

2:02:22 ↗ multi-building

2:02:23 ↗ that the jackson store situation we've

2:02:25 ↗ got multiple buildings and only partial

2:02:28 ↗ improvement is going on our partial

2:02:30 ↗ replacement is going on

2:02:32 ↗ i

2:02:33 ↗ the idea again of using a threshold

2:02:35 ↗ that's based on square footage and value

2:02:38 ↗ is easier to administer if you can

2:02:40 ↗ figure out what that threshold would be

2:02:42 ↗ so if you're um

2:02:45 ↗ the example that um that many that you

2:02:48 ↗ were describing where your certain

2:02:50 ↗ percentage of the site is being

2:02:52 ↗ redeveloped as a result of this could

2:02:54 ↗ include not only the building footprint

2:02:56 ↗ but what's going on around it if you're

2:02:57 ↗ doing the parking etc but when you when

2:03:00 ↗ that improvement crosses a certain

2:03:01 ↗ threshold then full compliance is

2:03:04 ↗ necessary

2:03:05 ↗ or some proportional compliance would be

2:03:07 ↗ triggered

2:03:08 ↗ um like front end improvements or

2:03:10 ↗ something like that that are kind of one

2:03:12 ↗ of the more important elements that

2:03:13 ↗ you're trying to get for walkability and

2:03:15 ↗ etc so

2:03:17 ↗ i think as much as you can

2:03:19 ↗ can focus it on

2:03:21 ↗ square footage or predictable thresholds

2:03:23 ↗ and not debate dollars and what

2:03:26 ↗ something's worth

2:03:27 ↗ is a lot easier to administer but i

2:03:29 ↗ think you're still for

2:03:31 ↗ an existing building that's not being

2:03:33 ↗ added to but the exterior is being

2:03:34 ↗ modified that one is a little trickier

2:03:37 ↗ you might have to deal with a value

2:03:39 ↗ based

2:03:40 ↗ threshold of some sort so

2:03:42 ↗ so i guess that like i said there's four

2:03:44 ↗ different scenarios there's a entirely

2:03:47 ↗ new building stands along a property

2:03:49 ↗ addition to an existing building

2:03:51 ↗ the

2:03:52 ↗ the and then you've got the

2:03:55 ↗ multi-site or multi-building site and

2:03:57 ↗ then just the remodel or facelift of it

2:04:00 ↗ of an existing building to try to figure

2:04:02 ↗ out where the thresholds are

2:04:11 ↗ all right and thank you very much

2:04:12 ↗ commissioner brennan

2:04:13 ↗ and i'm not seeing any additional

2:04:15 ↗ questions or comments

2:04:18 ↗ i i believe commissioner akeda just um

2:04:21 ↗ indicated he had one

2:04:23 ↗ oh i didn't see that okay yes sorry

2:04:26 ↗ commissioner academic go for it thank

2:04:28 ↗ you christian fall uh just a question

2:04:30 ↗ back on the item number two on on any

2:04:33 ↗ new building complies of compatible with

2:04:35 ↗ existing architecture if we're in the

2:04:37 ↗ intent is to

2:04:39 ↗ move to the new design standard uh

2:04:41 ↗ a building can be

2:04:43 ↗ new building can be just separated by an

2:04:44 ↗ expansion joint or nearly budding next

2:04:47 ↗ to each other

2:04:49 ↗ so um i'm just kind of curious if that's

2:04:52 ↗ if there's a separation

2:04:54 ↗ between the buildings because

2:04:56 ↗ in the situation of say gilman village

2:04:58 ↗ you could have a building looks

2:05:00 ↗ completely different if

2:05:01 ↗ the standard

2:05:02 ↗ that there's a standard that applies

2:05:04 ↗ that way

2:05:08 ↗ well and for for those of you i i did

2:05:11 ↗ have some slides of heritage square but

2:05:13 ↗ it what none of it was under the design

2:05:16 ↗ manual so i haven't shown it to you

2:05:19 ↗ but um there's corner bakery which was a

2:05:22 ↗ freestanding building

2:05:23 ↗ but for those of you who um

2:05:26 ↗ frequent heritage square you may

2:05:28 ↗ remember you may be

2:05:30 ↗ familiar with rio cafe

2:05:33 ↗ which

2:05:34 ↗ is on the end towards

2:05:36 ↗ jack in the box

2:05:39 ↗ and

2:05:39 ↗ it's you know there was no again design

2:05:42 ↗ manual

2:05:43 ↗ on their choice

2:05:45 ↗ was to do something architecturally

2:05:48 ↗ completely different than the rest of

2:05:50 ↗ the building so

2:05:51 ↗ the building the rest of the building

2:05:53 ↗ has this sort of

2:05:54 ↗ [Music]

2:05:56 ↗ agricultural kind of shape and materials

2:06:01 ↗ and then you have a very modern stucco

2:06:04 ↗ end cap

2:06:05 ↗ um to the building you know maybe we

2:06:08 ↗ don't care

2:06:09 ↗ um and maybe we do um but to the to the

2:06:12 ↗ question that's being uh asked i i think

2:06:15 ↗ those are the kinds of situations

2:06:18 ↗ um to what to what extent do we want to

2:06:20 ↗ control those choices

2:06:23 ↗ and one of the one comment i do i think

2:06:26 ↗ that having

2:06:27 ↗ site development

2:06:28 ↗ related to percent uh impacted is makes

2:06:32 ↗ sense

2:06:33 ↗ thanks

2:06:34 ↗ thank you

2:06:47 ↗ should we go to the next set of

2:06:49 ↗ questions

2:06:54 ↗ cheerful uh yes sorry i was on mute all

2:06:58 ↗ right we'll go to the next set here i'm

2:07:00 ↗ not seeing additional questions or

2:07:02 ↗ comments from the commissioners

2:07:04 ↗ so uh to commissioner bader's uh

2:07:06 ↗ excellent point these are not

2:07:08 ↗ necessarily mutually exclusive

2:07:11 ↗ some of these could be additive

2:07:14 ↗ or

2:07:16 ↗ based on the intensity

2:07:18 ↗ but to recap

2:07:20 ↗ potentially maintenance is exempt from

2:07:23 ↗ having to comply if you're replacing

2:07:25 ↗ all of your windows you can replace them

2:07:27 ↗ in kind

2:07:28 ↗ a big one that happens is

2:07:31 ↗ replacing your rooftop hvac

2:07:35 ↗ and having to screen it

2:07:39 ↗ you know it gets bigger and bigger with

2:07:41 ↗ time it seems and so it may be more

2:07:44 ↗ visible but maybe that's just part of

2:07:48 ↗ waiting for the building to catch up um

2:07:51 ↗ option number two or uh one of the

2:07:53 ↗ alternatives is that interior changes

2:07:56 ↗ are specifically excluded from the

2:07:58 ↗ threshold decision

2:08:00 ↗ option three is that landmark buildings

2:08:03 ↗ and buildings listed on the isquad

2:08:05 ↗ treasures are treated separately somehow

2:08:09 ↗ and the third

2:08:11 ↗ or the fourth

2:08:12 ↗ is i can't read the numbers anymore

2:08:16 ↗ the fourth is that we might start with

2:08:18 ↗ the king county values as a as a sort of

2:08:20 ↗ initial take but offer options um either

2:08:25 ↗ because an applicant wants to use a

2:08:28 ↗ market or insurance value or because

2:08:30 ↗ there are multiple buildings on the side

2:08:32 ↗ that the city

2:08:33 ↗ requires them to

2:08:35 ↗ do that kind of assessment

2:08:48 ↗ okay and now we'll open this up for

2:08:50 ↗ commissioner comments or questions and

2:08:52 ↗ commissioner morgan you have the first

2:08:54 ↗ question

2:08:57 ↗ thank you chair fall this is mel morgan

2:09:00 ↗ um lucy i have a question about

2:09:03 ↗ when i was looking at the code in

2:09:04 ↗ 1808.050

2:09:07 ↗ talks about non-conforming situations

2:09:11 ↗ it appears to have a 75 percent of

2:09:14 ↗ improvement value threshold

2:09:16 ↗ to determine the review level but then

2:09:19 ↗ your other slides were talking about a

2:09:21 ↗ 50

2:09:22 ↗ threshold are those two different

2:09:24 ↗ thresholds that

2:09:26 ↗ looking at

2:09:27 ↗ so um having looked at one portion of

2:09:30 ↗ that recently i'm not sure if it's 0.50

2:09:33 ↗ you're doing better at remembering the

2:09:34 ↗ numbers than i am

2:09:36 ↗ um

2:09:37 ↗ i believe the 75 threshold is where

2:09:40 ↗ there is involuntary loss so if there

2:09:43 ↗ was a fire or an earthquake so that's

2:09:46 ↗ why it's setting such a high value

2:09:49 ↗ before you have to come into compliance

2:09:53 ↗ because this is involuntary destruction

2:09:56 ↗ not where you're making

2:09:58 ↗ a voluntary choice

2:10:01 ↗ great thank you and then um i guess one

2:10:04 ↗ other question for or something maybe

2:10:06 ↗ for consideration would be

2:10:08 ↗ to use uh replacement cost and and you

2:10:11 ↗ could build in a marshall evaluation

2:10:13 ↗ service

2:10:15 ↗ costs a replacement cost number that you

2:10:18 ↗ know becomes less susceptible to

2:10:22 ↗ um

2:10:22 ↗ appraisal questions things like that and

2:10:26 ↗ i don't know if that's something that's

2:10:27 ↗ been considered or not that could even

2:10:29 ↗ be run by the city itself

2:10:32 ↗ is that similar to uh building values i

2:10:35 ↗ know that uh

2:10:37 ↗ when

2:10:38 ↗ you know uh building permit costs

2:10:41 ↗ are

2:10:43 ↗ based on the improvements and we often

2:10:46 ↗ get those but they're kind of checked

2:10:48 ↗ against

2:10:49 ↗ standardized valuations based on

2:10:52 ↗ construction type and such

2:10:54 ↗ is is that what you were referring to

2:10:58 ↗ it is it's typically what what most

2:11:00 ↗ appraisers would use when they estimate

2:11:02 ↗ insurable value what it should cost to

2:11:04 ↗ rebuild the building or

2:11:06 ↗ if they're trying to estimate what it

2:11:08 ↗ should cost to replace a building for a

2:11:10 ↗ cost approach and an appraisal

2:11:12 ↗ it's a fairly calm it's been around for

2:11:14 ↗ decades and

2:11:18 ↗ commissioner brennan may know more from

2:11:21 ↗ what they other services they might use

2:11:24 ↗ and what he has seen there's dodge

2:11:25 ↗ construction services too i think but

2:11:28 ↗ the marshall valuation services would be

2:11:30 ↗ a

2:11:31 ↗ very standard one

2:11:34 ↗ thank you

2:11:38 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan i'm not

2:11:40 ↗ seeing any additional questions or

2:11:41 ↗ comments

2:11:48 ↗ lucy do you have another set of

2:11:49 ↗ questions

2:11:53 ↗ uh well we have a comment from

2:11:56 ↗ commissioner brennan

2:11:58 ↗ thank you chair paul so real quick

2:11:59 ↗ follow up on commissioner morgan's uh

2:12:01 ↗ comment

2:12:02 ↗ the the marshall

2:12:04 ↗ um kind of approach is the most common

2:12:07 ↗ that i've seen just it the

2:12:10 ↗ what lucy is referring to is a square

2:12:12 ↗ foot valuation that's used to determine

2:12:14 ↗ value to establish a building permit fee

2:12:17 ↗ and it's another it's just based on the

2:12:19 ↗ type of construction that you use and

2:12:21 ↗ and the size of the building you get a

2:12:22 ↗ value um

2:12:24 ↗ it's a fairly

2:12:25 ↗ straightforward approach and again like

2:12:27 ↗ uh commissioner morgan said it's less

2:12:29 ↗ subject to

2:12:31 ↗ you know uh

2:12:32 ↗ you know con being contested because

2:12:35 ↗ it's you know it's a formula you just

2:12:37 ↗ apply the formula you do the math you

2:12:39 ↗ get the same answer so

2:12:41 ↗ um i think that approach would make

2:12:43 ↗ sense as an alternative uh

2:12:46 ↗ to if you're going to use a value based

2:12:47 ↗ and that some more the replacement value

2:12:50 ↗ is something that it's a higher and you

2:12:52 ↗ have to decide what the threshold is

2:12:53 ↗ based on the replacement value which

2:12:55 ↗ would be significant

2:12:57 ↗ significantly higher than many of the

2:12:59 ↗ king county

2:13:00 ↗ values that would be applied to those

2:13:02 ↗ property or to those improvements

2:13:04 ↗ and then on the the questions here

2:13:07 ↗ um

2:13:08 ↗ or the points about maintenance being

2:13:10 ↗ exempt um i think you need to figure out

2:13:12 ↗ how you know what's included in

2:13:14 ↗ maintenance but yes i think we want

2:13:16 ↗ people to take care of their buildings

2:13:17 ↗ they don't want them to be afraid of

2:13:19 ↗ tripping you know a costly improvement

2:13:22 ↗ that would be necessary to meet the new

2:13:23 ↗ design standard and so they don't

2:13:25 ↗ maintain the building and it starts to

2:13:27 ↗ become

2:13:28 ↗ an eye source you don't want that

2:13:30 ↗ um

2:13:31 ↗ you know as far as the interior changes

2:13:33 ↗ being excluded from the threshold again

2:13:35 ↗ it's back to the question about how

2:13:37 ↗ aggressive do you want to move toward

2:13:40 ↗ you know changing the character of the

2:13:42 ↗ city to align with the new vision

2:13:45 ↗ if it's excluded you know that can be a

2:13:48 ↗ significant part of the investment

2:13:51 ↗ that's going on into an existing

2:13:52 ↗ building

2:13:53 ↗ i would

2:13:54 ↗ i would suggest that

2:13:57 ↗ anything that's improving a

2:13:58 ↗ non-conforming building would probably

2:14:00 ↗ be included as part of that but

2:14:03 ↗ as part of the valuation and making that

2:14:05 ↗ threshold determination

2:14:07 ↗ so that would be my take on that

2:14:09 ↗ and then

2:14:10 ↗ yes i think the landmark and the isoqua

2:14:13 ↗ treasures um

2:14:14 ↗ you know those they are unique and you

2:14:16 ↗ want to preserve those and so maybe

2:14:18 ↗ there is a different

2:14:20 ↗ approach i don't know exactly what it

2:14:22 ↗ would be but it seems like they need to

2:14:23 ↗ be handled with

2:14:25 ↗ um some sensitivity to make sure that

2:14:27 ↗ you maintain their character because

2:14:29 ↗ you're trying to preserve those you're

2:14:30 ↗ not trying to move them to a different

2:14:32 ↗ place

2:14:33 ↗ so that's a little different strategy

2:14:35 ↗ uh and then back the final one back to

2:14:37 ↗ the using you know the marshall

2:14:38 ↗ valuation approach would be

2:14:40 ↗ probably a better approach than the king

2:14:42 ↗ county value would be my

2:14:45 ↗ my suggestions on this list

2:14:50 ↗ thank you very much commissioner brennan

2:14:53 ↗ uh so with that said i'm not seeing any

2:14:56 ↗ additional comments or questions

2:15:01 ↗ i guess a point of order for

2:15:02 ↗ uh business

2:15:04 ↗ uh christian do we want to open this up

2:15:06 ↗ for public comment

2:15:09 ↗ that is up to you but that is typically

2:15:12 ↗ what we do yes

2:15:13 ↗ okay let's go ahead and open up for a

2:15:14 ↗ public comment and see if there's anyone

2:15:16 ↗ would like to speak tonight should i

2:15:17 ↗ stop sharing my screen so you can see

2:15:20 ↗ better just please

2:15:25 ↗ it looks like uh honey marsh would like

2:15:27 ↗ to speak so

2:15:29 ↗ honey you are a panelist

2:15:31 ↗ and you are unmuted

2:15:37 ↗ all right well this is connie again and

2:15:41 ↗ that is a monster conversation you guys

2:15:46 ↗ so

2:15:46 ↗ uh briefly

2:15:48 ↗ i agree with commissioner

2:15:51 ↗ brennan

2:15:53 ↗ on almost all parts and

2:15:57 ↗ commissioner lewis and those in support

2:16:00 ↗ um

2:16:02 ↗ elephant in the living room

2:16:05 ↗ is

2:16:07 ↗ okay

2:16:08 ↗ basically issaquah got settled by

2:16:11 ↗ the taxes being raised and the rules

2:16:14 ↗ being changed in agriculture being

2:16:16 ↗ booted out so developer

2:16:18 ↗ developers could make money and issaquah

2:16:21 ↗ changed right and that is how big change

2:16:25 ↗ happens

2:16:27 ↗ quickly and so when you look at the

2:16:30 ↗ rules and regulations that you want to

2:16:32 ↗ put in place for improvement value and

2:16:34 ↗ redevelopment value

2:16:36 ↗ this is basically what you're talking

2:16:37 ↗ about you're talking about how quickly

2:16:40 ↗ do we want to potentially force major

2:16:44 ↗ change in the city of issaquah and how

2:16:46 ↗ delicately do we want to do that foxtrot

2:16:50 ↗ right

2:16:51 ↗ so

2:16:52 ↗ we have lots of developer lots of

2:16:56 ↗ development that you know they don't

2:16:58 ↗ want to develop for 50 years they're

2:17:00 ↗ making massive amounts of money

2:17:02 ↗ so in these rule changes

2:17:04 ↗ you

2:17:05 ↗ have the potential

2:17:08 ↗ for making it harder for them to hold on

2:17:11 ↗ to their properties for the next 50

2:17:14 ↗ years and not get those changes

2:17:17 ↗ and to me

2:17:18 ↗ that's the core of the conversation

2:17:21 ↗ do you want to allow them to

2:17:24 ↗ easily upgrade their development and

2:17:27 ↗ continue to make money and not get the

2:17:30 ↗ large

2:17:31 ↗ change

2:17:32 ↗ that you

2:17:34 ↗ we've all agreed upon

2:17:38 ↗ and

2:17:39 ↗ i'm not here to make the value judgment

2:17:43 ↗ on that

2:17:46 ↗ we are a suburban city

2:17:49 ↗ attempting

2:17:51 ↗ to say that we are mature enough

2:17:55 ↗ to have

2:17:57 ↗ dense

2:17:58 ↗ developments

2:18:00 ↗ with a

2:18:01 ↗ sophisticated traffic

2:18:04 ↗ support with transit

2:18:07 ↗ and pedestrian orientation

2:18:10 ↗ and i frankly don't think we are there i

2:18:13 ↗ don't think the land values support

2:18:16 ↗ that

2:18:17 ↗ yet so

2:18:20 ↗ in sort of a gross overlook of how

2:18:22 ↗ quickly can issaquah

2:18:26 ↗ become what we have envisioned its

2:18:29 ↗ future

2:18:31 ↗ to be

2:18:33 ↗ i

2:18:33 ↗ i think that's actually the conversation

2:18:36 ↗ that

2:18:37 ↗ we need to have we've just sort of

2:18:40 ↗ dived right into the wall

2:18:44 ↗ the the nuts and bolts of how to get to

2:18:46 ↗ that

2:18:48 ↗ that interesting future so

2:18:50 ↗ given that overarching

2:18:53 ↗ [Music]

2:18:55 ↗ interior debate

2:18:57 ↗ um

2:18:58 ↗ i am going to

2:19:01 ↗ say

2:19:03 ↗ uh

2:19:04 ↗ the conversation that richard said about

2:19:09 ↗ uh

2:19:10 ↗ about the development commission

2:19:12 ↗ actually being involved in some of these

2:19:14 ↗ conversations well i think that's really

2:19:16 ↗ interesting because i look at

2:19:18 ↗ jackson's and i see a big huge blank

2:19:22 ↗ wall

2:19:23 ↗ and i thought we were not supposed to

2:19:25 ↗ have big huge blank

2:19:27 ↗ walls

2:19:28 ↗ and the back is just

2:19:29 ↗ blank

2:19:31 ↗ so i think a commission would have been

2:19:33 ↗ very helpful

2:19:34 ↗ in that situation because i don't like

2:19:36 ↗ it i think it's hideous and every time i

2:19:38 ↗ drive that way i cringe and i want to

2:19:40 ↗ call

2:19:41 ↗ the city and complain also i see all the

2:19:44 ↗ trees are gone i looked the other day

2:19:46 ↗ and there is not a stick widget left yet

2:19:48 ↗ in the pictures i see that they

2:19:51 ↗ originally had trees so it's hard for me

2:19:53 ↗ to understand how how somehow that site

2:19:56 ↗ wasn't being impacted when all the trees

2:19:58 ↗ that were there are now gone including

2:20:00 ↗ the frontage trees

2:20:02 ↗ so

2:20:03 ↗ given that sort of odd

2:20:06 ↗ view of how i drive through the city and

2:20:08 ↗ i look for the vegetation

2:20:10 ↗ um la-z-boy they did a partial

2:20:14 ↗ thing and all they had to put was like a

2:20:17 ↗ rain garden and they don't have any

2:20:19 ↗ trees

2:20:20 ↗ so i disagree i think that

2:20:24 ↗ given our city is

2:20:27 ↗ a tree city and we're trying to be

2:20:30 ↗ verdant that we should at least have

2:20:32 ↗ vegetation and landscaping standards and

2:20:36 ↗ i i think that's included in sight

2:20:40 ↗ and then we also have to have the

2:20:43 ↗ ability to let people

2:20:45 ↗ improve

2:20:47 ↗ their site without triggering

2:20:51 ↗ um

2:20:52 ↗ having to

2:20:54 ↗ redo their architecture right because if

2:20:56 ↗ they're improving their sight in their

2:20:59 ↗ their uh if they want to re-landscape

2:21:01 ↗ their site it's 50 000 and now they have

2:21:03 ↗ to do something else to their buildings

2:21:06 ↗ in order to accommodate that you sort of

2:21:08 ↗ have this wobble back and forth i know

2:21:10 ↗ in a place where i leased they were

2:21:13 ↗ afraid to replant a tree because they

2:21:15 ↗ were told that they could if in order to

2:21:17 ↗ work on their landscaping they had to

2:21:19 ↗ resubmit a landscape plan

2:21:21 ↗ and then that was going to cost them

2:21:23 ↗ fifty thousand dollars so they just

2:21:25 ↗ didn't do anything and they still don't

2:21:26 ↗ do anything in the trees they go away so

2:21:29 ↗ this is a situation with this

2:21:31 ↗ exterior visible maintenance we have to

2:21:35 ↗ make it easy to make the city look great

2:21:38 ↗ even as we go through iterative

2:21:41 ↗ change

2:21:42 ↗ and again you see i'm not talking about

2:21:44 ↗ the details i'm just talking about sort

2:21:46 ↗ of a goal language

2:21:49 ↗ and um

2:21:51 ↗ so this

2:21:52 ↗ this brings me back to

2:21:56 ↗ can you tell me exactly what the goals

2:21:58 ↗ are

2:21:59 ↗ that we're aiming for

2:22:01 ↗ with these

2:22:02 ↗ these decisions that we're making

2:22:05 ↗ um

2:22:07 ↗ what exactly are we trying

2:22:10 ↗ to do and in what priority order

2:22:14 ↗ and that might help

2:22:18 ↗ for staff to

2:22:20 ↗ understand what is most important

2:22:22 ↗ because i don't feel that we're

2:22:24 ↗ prioritized and then one last comment is

2:22:28 ↗ potentially

2:22:29 ↗ you could say well you're going to

2:22:31 ↗ impact x square

2:22:33 ↗ and you need to then um

2:22:37 ↗ enhance

2:22:38 ↗ 15 feet in all directions of x square

2:22:43 ↗ and then we're going to give you a

2:22:44 ↗ checklist of choices

2:22:46 ↗ for improvement and you can choose

2:22:50 ↗ one two three or four but you have to do

2:22:54 ↗ some improvement toward our future

2:22:57 ↗ vision but you get a choice in what

2:23:00 ↗ though that might

2:23:02 ↗ be

2:23:03 ↗ and gilman village is a treasure

2:23:06 ↗ so

2:23:08 ↗ holy hot spit

2:23:11 ↗ i'm i'm i i i

2:23:14 ↗ i

2:23:15 ↗ that be that would be really fun to come

2:23:17 ↗ up with standards

2:23:19 ↗ for how

2:23:20 ↗ to work with gilman village and could

2:23:23 ↗ you allow them to be bigger and taller

2:23:26 ↗ and better and more attractive well

2:23:28 ↗ never mind so you see i go down the

2:23:30 ↗ bunny hole so freaking fast

2:23:35 ↗ so i'm going to summarize by saying

2:23:38 ↗ if you wouldn't mind going into your

2:23:39 ↗ brain and looking bigger try to

2:23:41 ↗ understand exactly

2:23:43 ↗ what these smaller rules are trying to

2:23:46 ↗ do

2:23:47 ↗ and then decide amongst yourselves

2:23:50 ↗ whether we're trying to get this city

2:23:52 ↗ develop redeveloped quickly or we want

2:23:55 ↗ a slow and attractive

2:23:59 ↗ change and i don't know that answer but

2:24:02 ↗ there you have it thank you

2:24:11 ↗ i'm going to check with one of our

2:24:14 ↗ attendees one moment please

2:24:17 ↗ susan demille your hand is up would you

2:24:18 ↗ like to speak

2:24:20 ↗ um no it isn't and i apologize

2:24:23 ↗ okay

2:24:25 ↗ good night

2:24:26 ↗ nice

2:24:29 ↗ so there is no one else uh who would

2:24:31 ↗ like to speak

2:24:33 ↗ thank you kristen and we'll go ahead and

2:24:34 ↗ close the public comment

2:24:36 ↗ and

2:24:37 ↗ open it back up for commissioner

2:24:39 ↗ comments or questions concerning the

2:24:42 ↗ public discussion we just had

2:24:47 ↗ a moment there

2:24:52 ↗ not seen any additional comments or

2:24:54 ↗ questions

2:24:59 ↗ so with that said i guess we'll move

2:25:01 ↗ we'll close out the presentation tonight

2:25:03 ↗ and we'll move into

2:25:05 ↗ general business

2:25:08 ↗ so uh kristen do we have any reports

2:25:10 ↗ from the city tonight

2:25:12 ↗ um

2:25:14 ↗ excuse me

2:25:15 ↗ i just want to mention that

2:25:17 ↗ many will be going to the city council i

2:25:20 ↗ believe on february 7th just to give an

2:25:22 ↗ update to them on title 18 and how

2:25:24 ↗ that's going

2:25:25 ↗ and

2:25:26 ↗ you know many can expand if you like and

2:25:28 ↗ then after each of our

2:25:30 ↗ meetings regarding buckets after our

2:25:32 ↗ after our public hearings and then

2:25:33 ↗ deliberations

2:25:35 ↗ she will also be going back to the city

2:25:37 ↗ council just to sort of summarize how

2:25:38 ↗ those meetings go if you all want to

2:25:40 ↗ tune in

2:25:41 ↗ many of you have anything to add

2:25:43 ↗ uh no thanks kristen yes so the idea is

2:25:46 ↗ we want to you know we had one study

2:25:48 ↗ session with city council in september

2:25:50 ↗ after you all had uh discussed the

2:25:52 ↗ national environment topic with the

2:25:54 ↗ environmental board so that was the last

2:25:56 ↗ briefing we had with council

2:25:58 ↗ and on september on february 7th we will

2:26:02 ↗ um

2:26:03 ↗ do another briefing you know give them

2:26:05 ↗ all the information

2:26:06 ↗ how busy all of you have been

2:26:08 ↗ doing the gaps analysis we're coming to

2:26:10 ↗ a closure of the gaps analysis and

2:26:12 ↗ policy guidance phase

2:26:14 ↗ and getting into the actual code

2:26:17 ↗ drafting

2:26:18 ↗ stage as you all know um the first um

2:26:22 ↗ code update uh drafts were released for

2:26:25 ↗ shoreline master program and um

2:26:28 ↗ and the outdoor lighting and we hope to

2:26:30 ↗ release the other ones for critical

2:26:32 ↗ areas in the coming weeks

2:26:34 ↗ so just kind of getting uh giving that

2:26:36 ↗ status update to city council and then

2:26:39 ↗ like kristen said once you get into

2:26:42 ↗ reviewing the court drafts uh we what we

2:26:44 ↗ are contemplating at this point is

2:26:47 ↗ before we have the hearing we will have

2:26:48 ↗ an open house for members of the public

2:26:51 ↗ to drop in if they have any questions

2:26:52 ↗ about the draft code language uh to get

2:26:55 ↗ those answered from staff

2:26:58 ↗ for each of the six buckets so there

2:27:00 ↗ will be six hearings you all are going

2:27:02 ↗ to have uh we will have an open house

2:27:04 ↗ for each prior to each one of those

2:27:06 ↗ hearings and then the deliberation so a

2:27:09 ↗ lot of these are going to be

2:27:11 ↗ you know joint meet joint public

2:27:12 ↗ hearings with environmental board

2:27:15 ↗ development commission and the parks

2:27:16 ↗ board

2:27:18 ↗ so we have a

2:27:19 ↗ schedule we're going to lay out

2:27:21 ↗ with council

2:27:23 ↗ on how

2:27:24 ↗ they want to be briefed but the idea is

2:27:26 ↗ that we would brief them once a month at

2:27:29 ↗ least after you all finish your deli

2:27:32 ↗ hearing and deliberation on each of the

2:27:34 ↗ six groups

2:27:35 ↗ um

2:27:36 ↗ and that's all for now but we'll circle

2:27:38 ↗ back with you all after uh we talk to

2:27:41 ↗ them to city council and see uh what

2:27:44 ↗ they'd like to do uh you know if they

2:27:46 ↗ confirm that that's the right approach

2:27:51 ↗ that's it kristin over to you

2:27:54 ↗ thank you um

2:27:55 ↗ speaking of calendar i did not include

2:27:57 ↗ one in this meeting or the last one in

2:27:59 ↗ the packet and

2:28:01 ↗ dc you may be interested in this this as

2:28:03 ↗ well i think we have updated i just want

2:28:05 ↗ to share it with you because there's a

2:28:06 ↗ lot coming up

2:28:08 ↗ and share my screen really whoopsies

2:28:11 ↗ really quickly

2:28:19 ↗ oh lucy

2:28:20 ↗ could you please make me a presenter

2:28:29 ↗ actually i was

2:28:31 ↗ yes i'm working on that that's okay i

2:28:33 ↗ was able to do it

2:28:35 ↗ okay

2:28:40 ↗ um

2:28:41 ↗ there we go

2:28:49 ↗ so there's a lot coming up um here's

2:28:52 ↗ uh today so

2:28:55 ↗ february

2:28:58 ↗ uh we can actually that one's coming off

2:29:00 ↗ we won't be having that public hearing

2:29:01 ↗ so see we look forward to seeing you

2:29:03 ↗ again on december 10th

2:29:05 ↗ uh when we'll be talking about

2:29:06 ↗ circulation standards and parking

2:29:08 ↗ then we have a meeting with the

2:29:10 ↗ environmental board and as i believe

2:29:12 ↗ many mentioned we have sort of split up

2:29:14 ↗ the natural environment pieces because

2:29:17 ↗ it was just too much

2:29:19 ↗ so we'll be having a public hearing with

2:29:20 ↗ the environmental board

2:29:22 ↗ you all have your special meeting with

2:29:24 ↗ the environmental board to talk about

2:29:26 ↗ stormwater plan where you will be guess

2:29:28 ↗ at their meeting

2:29:30 ↗ on the 10th the environmental board will

2:29:32 ↗ be back at our meeting to talk about

2:29:35 ↗ the public hearing for the rest of the

2:29:37 ↗ natural environment and then on the 24th

2:29:41 ↗ another regular meeting you will

2:29:42 ↗ deliberate so the environmental board

2:29:43 ↗ will actually stay at these two meetings

2:29:45 ↗ you'll hold the public hearing the

2:29:47 ↗ environmental board will deliberate

2:29:50 ↗ just them and then the ppc will

2:29:52 ↗ deliberate on march 24th we've added a

2:29:55 ↗ meeting and this is what i wanted to

2:29:57 ↗ show you i'm sorry um

2:29:59 ↗ but on this means that we have had to

2:30:01 ↗ adjust our joint meeting with the park

2:30:02 ↗ board we'll have our public hearing with

2:30:04 ↗ them on april 7th in deliberation on the

2:30:06 ↗ 14th and back to

2:30:08 ↗ um development commission for zoning and

2:30:10 ↗ uses on

2:30:12 ↗ the uh

2:30:13 ↗ 28th of april

2:30:15 ↗ so just a lot coming up and we've had to

2:30:17 ↗ add some meetings i just wanted to share

2:30:19 ↗ that with you i'll put in your packets

2:30:21 ↗ um

2:30:22 ↗ but just a heads up i think the april

2:30:24 ↗ 7th meeting is new and march 9th we

2:30:26 ↗ talked about last time but i want to be

2:30:27 ↗ sure that's on your calendars as well

2:30:30 ↗ christian can you put the calendar back

2:30:31 ↗ up please i sure i'm going to send it to

2:30:33 ↗ you too but yes i can put it back up

2:30:35 ↗ yeah so think about like in march you're

2:30:37 ↗ going to be thinking everything critical

2:30:39 ↗ area related

2:30:41 ↗ april you're going to be thinking

2:30:42 ↗ landscape and trees and open spaces

2:30:45 ↗ and then

2:30:48 ↗ may you'll be talking zoning and uses

2:30:51 ↗ uh can you go back to february

2:30:55 ↗ yes

2:30:56 ↗ so question

2:30:58 ↗ february 10th we will have a joint

2:30:59 ↗ meeting with the with the uh development

2:31:01 ↗ commission not a public hearing

2:31:04 ↗ correct okay and then on the 24th we are

2:31:07 ↗ having a public hearing on the 18th on

2:31:10 ↗ title 18 yes that's presentation not an

2:31:13 ↗ actual public hearing because we're not

2:31:14 ↗ making a decision right you're not

2:31:16 ↗ making a decision but we are going to

2:31:21 ↗ hold a public hearing the public hearing

2:31:22 ↗ during these is the time when we

2:31:24 ↗ actually open it up for public comment

2:31:27 ↗ and allow for public comment on that

2:31:29 ↗ topic and then we close it that is

2:31:30 ↗ technically the public hearing okay and

2:31:32 ↗ then we will hit the environmental board

2:31:34 ↗ um will deliberate and no you aren't

2:31:36 ↗ making a recommendation but what that

2:31:37 ↗ means is that

2:31:39 ↗ when you deliberate about this topic um

2:31:41 ↗ you'll just deliberate about those top

2:31:43 ↗ those comments that you heard during the

2:31:44 ↗ public hearing portion of that meeting

2:31:47 ↗ okay that makes sense yep thank you for

2:31:49 ↗ confirming that you're welcome

2:31:54 ↗ okay and with that

2:31:56 ↗ uh do we have any other additional

2:31:59 ↗ business or announcements

2:32:02 ↗ no okay none uh we're going to adjourn

2:32:05 ↗ the meeting at 903 pm

2:32:26 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (14)

Faul

Voiss

Commissioners Bader (Excused – arrived 6:57 p.m.)

Lewis

Monahan Absence: Commissioners Milligan

Zaragoza (Excused) Development Commissioners Present: Chair Brennan

Vice-Chair Price

Commissioners Dillon

Ikeda

Morgan

Sanford

Schulte

Shore

Sowa Absence: None

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager, CP&D Valerie Porter, Associate Planner, CP&D Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager,CP&D 2. Approval of Minutes Page 11 of 58 APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 01-27-22 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING Planning Policy Commission Minutes a) Chair Faul asked if there were any comments or changes to the PPC December 9, 2021 minutes

there were none. The minutes were approved. 3