Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 12, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 28, 2022

packet pp.5–12

▶ Watch from 3:56 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, April 28, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Officer Nominations

Discussion · 10 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.157–159

▶ Watch from 2:46:09 Open packet at p.157 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2022 Schedule (subject to change) 2022 1/20/22 1/27/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission ▪ Public Hearing: Proposed 2022 Docket of Education: Title 18 - Building and Design Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map ▪ Neighborhood Overlay Standards Amendments January o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Joint Meeting with Development Commission Highlands, Talus Title 18: Education - Building and Design ▪ Neighborhood Overlay Standards o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus 2/10/22 2/24/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission Joint Meeting with Environmental Board

4299 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ have the distinct honor of having the

0:01 ↗ development commission again with us

0:03 ↗ tonight

0:04 ↗ sooner or later you guys are going to

0:06 ↗ have to host us

0:08 ↗ but it's always a pleasure to have you

0:09 ↗ guys with us and tonight is no different

0:12 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:14 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:16 ↗ some guidelines

0:17 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:19 ↗ computer

0:20 ↗ and others who may be attending by phone

0:23 ↗ for all meeting attendees who wish to

0:25 ↗ speak please

0:27 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently state

0:30 ↗ your name each time before speaking

0:33 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

0:35 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

0:36 ↗ technical issues

0:38 ↗ try joining the meeting using a

0:40 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

0:41 ↗ tablet

0:42 ↗ or use the call-in information in the

0:44 ↗ meeting

0:45 ↗ invite to call back in

0:48 ↗ so we'll begin with a little bit of

0:49 ↗ housekeeping by taking roll call and i

0:51 ↗ just want to say on behalf of planning

0:53 ↗ policy tonight a very big warm welcome

0:56 ↗ to our newest commissioner kelly kim

1:02 ↗ so if staff could take the roll call for

1:04 ↗ planning policy commission

1:06 ↗ yes can i hear from commissioner

1:08 ↗ milligan

1:10 ↗ yeah commissioner lewis

1:15 ↗ here

1:16 ↗ commissioner

1:18 ↗ here

1:19 ↗ commissioner voice

1:22 ↗ here

1:23 ↗ commissioner kim

1:27 ↗ yeah

1:28 ↗ and commissioner bader which i see a

1:30 ↗ note that she stepped away for a second

1:34 ↗ but i will mark her as here as well

1:41 ↗ all right thank you steven and now we'd

1:42 ↗ like to take roll call for dc the

1:44 ↗ development commission

1:46 ↗ so their staff liaison please go ahead

1:50 ↗ so good evening uh lucy sloman with the

1:52 ↗ development commission i'd like to

1:54 ↗ welcome our two newest members although

1:57 ↗ i have only seen one of them so far

1:59 ↗ eddie silverman welcome

2:02 ↗ um

2:03 ↗ so commissioner shore

2:05 ↗ is excused

2:08 ↗ yes uh commissioner dylan

2:11 ↗ here

2:13 ↗ commissioner price

2:15 ↗ here

2:17 ↗ uh chair brennan

2:19 ↗ here

2:21 ↗ commissioner gilbert

2:24 ↗ i have not seen commissioner gilbert yet

2:26 ↗ she's one another new member

2:28 ↗ commissioner uh ikeda

2:31 ↗ here

2:33 ↗ commissioner sanford

2:46 ↗ thank you

2:47 ↗ thank you lucy

2:49 ↗ so first order of business tonight is to

2:51 ↗ approve the meetings for the april 28th

2:53 ↗ planning policy commission

2:56 ↗ are there any corrections to either

2:58 ↗ draft minutes provided in the packet

3:00 ↗ agenda

3:02 ↗ commissioner milligan

3:05 ↗ thank you chair voice uh i have a

3:07 ↗ correction to the thursday april 28th

3:10 ↗ minutes in that i had an excused absence

3:14 ↗ uh rather than an unexcused

3:28 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan we'll

3:29 ↗ note that down in the minutes may i note

3:32 ↗ um uh

3:34 ↗ commissioner gilbert is here um welcome

3:37 ↗ to your first meeting um

3:40 ↗ and uh could you just um state here to

3:44 ↗ indicate that you are present here thank

3:47 ↗ you

3:48 ↗ nice mic check too

3:54 ↗ all right so with those corrections can

3:56 ↗ we now approve the minutes

3:58 ↗ are there any other considerations

4:02 ↗ all right

4:05 ↗ so before we move on to the next item on

4:07 ↗ the agenda i want to try and make a

4:09 ↗ clarification that tonight we will be

4:12 ↗ having the public hearing we'll have

4:14 ↗ public comment for each topic discussion

4:17 ↗ and then there will be followed at the

4:19 ↗ end of this by a general public comment

4:22 ↗ so these are important part of our

4:23 ↗ process we take them seriously they are

4:25 ↗ factored in along with all of the emails

4:27 ↗ that we receive and have received

4:30 ↗ to this point so that includes also the

4:32 ↗ email sent earlier today from staff

4:35 ↗ so having said all that the next item on

4:38 ↗ the agenda is the public hearing for

4:40 ↗ title 18 zones and use codes

4:44 ↗ this part of the agenda will have

4:45 ↗ several parts to it which starts with a

4:47 ↗ presentation on each topic

4:50 ↗ after each presentation

4:52 ↗ we will open the four floor for

4:54 ↗ clarifying questions from all

4:55 ↗ commissioners planning policy and

4:57 ↗ development commission

4:59 ↗ and then what we're going to do is save

5:02 ↗ the deliberation

5:04 ↗ towards the very end so a lot of you

5:05 ↗ guys have already gone through this

5:06 ↗ process

5:08 ↗ tonight is going to be much of the same

5:11 ↗ with a little twist

5:12 ↗ so we will have the presentation by

5:14 ↗ staff

5:16 ↗ we'll have clarifying questions from all

5:18 ↗ commissioners

5:19 ↗ we'll have public comment

5:21 ↗ and then

5:22 ↗ after already having discussions with

5:24 ↗ chair brennan

5:25 ↗ dc will save their deliberations till

5:28 ↗ the end of the presentations tonight

5:32 ↗ uh planning policy will not be involved

5:34 ↗ in those deliberations and we will have

5:35 ↗ our own meeting to deliberate

5:37 ↗ in two weeks

5:39 ↗ so at that point i'll ask planning

5:41 ↗ policy commission to turn off their

5:43 ↗ videos and chair brennan will take over

5:45 ↗ those deliberations later this evening

5:51 ↗ let's see

5:58 ↗ yeah once those topics are deliberated

6:00 ↗ we'll move through the remaining topics

6:02 ↗ in the same order um we will

6:06 ↗ close the public hearing

6:08 ↗ and then we will continue with the rest

6:10 ↗ of our agenda

6:12 ↗ so

6:14 ↗ for the very first presentation

6:17 ↗ i'm going to turn it over to

6:18 ↗ staff and we will proceed with the rest

6:21 ↗ of tonight's events thank you

6:36 ↗ you know it's good it's really good when

6:38 ↗ you unmute can you all see my screen

6:39 ↗ okay

6:43 ↗ yes

6:43 ↗ okay great thank you

6:46 ↗ so my name is kristen leeson i'm a

6:48 ↗ senior planner with the

6:50 ↗ uh community planning and development

6:51 ↗ department

6:53 ↗ and whoops i apologize yes tonight is a

6:56 ↗ another public hearing for title 18.

6:59 ↗ tonight we are discussing

7:01 ↗ uh bucket three there are five parts to

7:04 ↗ bucket three five chapters we have

7:05 ↗ zoning permitted uses form and intensity

7:08 ↗ specified use standards and subdivisions

7:11 ↗ and so lucy sloman and i are going to

7:13 ↗ present the first four topics

7:16 ↗ why the first four topics

7:18 ↗ because they are all very intermingled

7:21 ↗ they work together

7:23 ↗ so you start with the zones

7:25 ↗ and each parcel in the city is assigned

7:27 ↗ a zone and they're kind of grouped

7:29 ↗ together and so the zones chapter

7:32 ↗ defines the purpose of each zone and

7:33 ↗ some of the standards within those

7:35 ↗ broader zones

7:37 ↗ then we have permitted uses so what uses

7:39 ↗ go in each zone would and then form an

7:42 ↗ intensity which describes

7:45 ↗ within that zone how tall can the

7:46 ↗ building be

7:47 ↗ how dense can it be how close to the

7:49 ↗ street can that get and then getting

7:51 ↗ even more specific we have specified use

7:54 ↗ standards for things like

7:57 ↗ cannabis and the specific uses and what

8:01 ↗ um standards apply to those

8:05 ↗ so a little background

8:08 ↗ we consolidated five existing codes

8:11 ↗ so they're listed here 1806 zoning

8:13 ↗ districts and 1807 development design

8:16 ↗ standards

8:17 ↗ and then the next three central

8:19 ↗ standards issaquah highlands and talis

8:21 ↗ each had their own

8:23 ↗ permitted uses tables and design

8:25 ↗ standards along with them so of all

8:28 ↗ those what it boils down to one three

8:30 ↗ four five six and eight different things

8:32 ↗ we put it into

8:33 ↗ four different chapters

8:38 ↗ so the first one i'm going to talk about

8:40 ↗ is zoning

8:42 ↗ so as i mentioned um each parcel in the

8:45 ↗ city is

8:46 ↗ given a zone is designated as a zone

8:49 ↗ and in here you can see the big bright

8:51 ↗ red box that's our urban core zone it's

8:53 ↗ supposed to be our most dense zone and

8:54 ↗ then the purple stripes next to it

8:56 ↗ that's mixed use central issaquah and

8:58 ↗ then you have like the lighter yellow up

9:00 ↗ there which is single family estates

9:02 ↗ which is a much less dense residential

9:04 ↗ zone

9:07 ↗ zoning chapter then says it establishes

9:09 ↗ zones it says parcels are going to have

9:10 ↗ zones and we're going to have a zoning

9:12 ↗ map

9:13 ↗ and then it breaks it down into what is

9:15 ↗ the purpose of these zones so we do it

9:17 ↗ by single family then multi-family we

9:20 ↗ work our way down through commercial and

9:22 ↗ mixed use

9:23 ↗ and then we also have standards for

9:25 ↗ those zones things that work all the way

9:26 ↗ across say residential zones

9:30 ↗ for example we have single family small

9:32 ↗ lot

9:33 ↗ that is the intent is to provide

9:35 ↗ single-family neighborhoods which are

9:36 ↗ near low-density and multi-family

9:37 ↗ neighborhoods and urban services

9:40 ↗ and the objective is to preserve these

9:42 ↗ residential neighborhoods encourage

9:44 ↗ reuse and remodeling and provide

9:46 ↗ opportunities for single-family

9:47 ↗ residential development

9:50 ↗ those that are served by public and

9:51 ↗ urban services and then we have

9:54 ↗ standards so i picked in this case

9:56 ↗ cluster

9:57 ↗ cluster developments cluster of

9:59 ↗ developments can be used in all

10:00 ↗ residential zones and if you're going to

10:02 ↗ do it these general standards need to

10:04 ↗ apply you have to have certain setbacks

10:07 ↗ if you're over two acres you need a

10:08 ↗ development agreement you have to have a

10:09 ↗ certain amount of open space shared open

10:12 ↗ space

10:12 ↗ um you can't increase the density so

10:14 ↗ that it just applies across all of the

10:16 ↗ zones

10:19 ↗ there are changes that we made here um

10:22 ↗ not many really

10:24 ↗ we did not change any of the existing

10:26 ↗ zoning descriptions that were in title

10:28 ↗ 18

10:30 ↗ at least in six we didn't change those

10:32 ↗ lending descriptions

10:34 ↗ recently the uh issaquah highlands and

10:36 ↗ talus

10:38 ↗ development agreements sunsetted and

10:40 ↗ zones were created for those

10:42 ↗ but they did not have descriptions along

10:44 ↗ with them so we did create

10:46 ↗ urban village zone descriptions

10:49 ↗ we added clarity for allowed uses in

10:51 ↗ each zone

10:53 ↗ we removed the retail zone because when

10:55 ↗ we adopted centralistic while the retail

10:57 ↗ zone went away we don't have it anywhere

10:59 ↗ anymore and we relocated several

11:02 ↗ footnotes and sections from the

11:03 ↗ permitted uses chapter and the form of

11:05 ↗ intensity to the zones chapter where it

11:08 ↗ made more sense at least for us

11:11 ↗ the next topic is permitted uses

11:14 ↗ so

11:15 ↗ a lot of people wonder how this thing

11:17 ↗ works right um and there are different

11:19 ↗ ways that you can do it this is what we

11:21 ↗ have landed on

11:22 ↗ so let's say

11:24 ↗ you buy a piece of property in issaquah

11:27 ↗ and you discover by looking at the map

11:29 ↗ or by talking to us that it is zoned

11:31 ↗ multi-family medium and you think well

11:33 ↗ okay what can i put there what else can

11:35 ↗ go on this property

11:37 ↗ you find the multimedia multi-family

11:38 ↗ medium zone

11:40 ↗ and you just work your way down and

11:41 ↗ everywhere you see a p which stands for

11:43 ↗ permitted use

11:45 ↗ um

11:46 ↗ then they can go there so

11:48 ↗ you come down here and you look

11:50 ↗ there's a p over to the left you have

11:52 ↗ uses in like religious facilities

11:55 ↗ memorial

11:56 ↗ services community centers environmental

11:59 ↗ adult family homes can move that can go

12:00 ↗ there if you move down and onward like

12:02 ↗ that down here move to the left memorial

12:05 ↗ chapel museums

12:07 ↗ on the other hand you might think huh

12:10 ↗ i really want to put an adult family

12:12 ↗ home in issaquah where can that go so in

12:14 ↗ that case you move down the uses list

12:17 ↗ and you move over to the right and you

12:19 ↗ say oh there's a p which zone is that

12:22 ↗ single family estates single-family

12:24 ↗ suburban and so on all the way down here

12:27 ↗ urban core so they can go many places

12:31 ↗ so what did we change here

12:33 ↗ as i mentioned we can find we combined

12:35 ↗ four different use tables that were

12:37 ↗ actually formatted in three different

12:39 ↗ ways

12:40 ↗ we removed the levels of reviews so you

12:43 ↗ may recall we used to have you would

12:44 ↗ have a p in the box and then you would

12:46 ↗ either have a one through four in there

12:49 ↗ and we removed that that will now go

12:51 ↗ into the process and procedures section

12:55 ↗ we did not remove any uses or add any

12:58 ↗ uses to zones with two exceptions

13:00 ↗ um

13:01 ↗ bike stations so you may recall lime

13:03 ↗ bikes that were around they used to have

13:05 ↗ really big

13:06 ↗ uh bike stations that needed permits but

13:09 ↗ the

13:10 ↗ operations the way those businesses work

13:12 ↗ now has changed so much you don't need

13:14 ↗ the big bike stations anymore and

13:16 ↗ emissions testing we don't do that

13:18 ↗ anymore the state of washington got rid

13:19 ↗ of that so we didn't we took that one

13:21 ↗ out

13:22 ↗ we also removed

13:23 ↗ individual retail uses and instead just

13:26 ↗ put a retail category

13:28 ↗ and we are going to work on improving

13:30 ↗ our definition of retail to tighten the

13:32 ↗ parameters of what that means

13:34 ↗ but what would happen is we could try

13:36 ↗ and list every possible retail

13:38 ↗ type of use that we could think of and

13:40 ↗ the next thing you know somebody comes

13:41 ↗ in the next day with cat grooming

13:43 ↗ services and you go what what is that

13:46 ↗ something that's not on the list and

13:47 ↗ then that leads to an interpretation and

13:48 ↗ more time taken by staff trying to

13:50 ↗ figure out what it means

13:51 ↗ and then lastly

13:53 ↗ uh we removed footnotes

13:56 ↗ there used to be a good 3 to 12

13:58 ↗ footnotes on every page of the permitted

13:59 ↗ uses table and some of those simply

14:02 ↗ refer to other parts of the document for

14:04 ↗ use or

14:05 ↗ it actually included standards in the

14:07 ↗ footnote so we either just move the

14:10 ↗ reference to the other part of the

14:11 ↗ document over to the right

14:13 ↗ or we put a reference in and move the

14:15 ↗ actual standard to the right section of

14:18 ↗ the code which was either zones or

14:20 ↗ specified uses

14:21 ↗ so that's all i have for this section

14:25 ↗ so

14:25 ↗ i'll stop sharing

14:27 ↗ and you guys

14:29 ↗ feel free to ask questions

14:36 ↗ all right well thank you kristen so

14:38 ↗ since this is going to be the first

14:40 ↗ part of the public hearing i'm just

14:42 ↗ going to go over some ground rules house

14:43 ↗ rules

14:46 ↗ for the members of the public joining us

14:48 ↗ first and foremost welcome

14:50 ↗ and if there is anyone

14:52 ↗ from the public that is meeting uh with

14:54 ↗ us now we would like to or who would

14:56 ↗ like to make public comments please

14:58 ↗ raise your virtual hand

15:00 ↗ and to do this if you're on the phone

15:02 ↗ please press three

15:04 ↗ if you have joined by a computer or

15:05 ↗ smartphone look for the hand icon

15:09 ↗ these varies these kind of have

15:11 ↗ different

15:13 ↗ different functions with different

15:14 ↗ devices so one option may be to go to

15:17 ↗ the participant panel and choose the

15:19 ↗ raised hand icon in the lower right hand

15:22 ↗ uh it may also be located under the

15:24 ↗ reactions menu or more menu so hopefully

15:28 ↗ we're getting better at this but it's

15:30 ↗ still a little bit convoluted with so

15:31 ↗ many different apps and devices

15:34 ↗ when you are recognized please unmute

15:37 ↗ your microphone

15:38 ↗ state your name clearly

15:41 ↗ speak clearly pause frequently

15:44 ↗ limit comments to five minutes

15:46 ↗ and because we have so much opportunity

15:48 ↗ for the public to engage tonight at the

15:50 ↗ four minute mark i will kindly interrupt

15:54 ↗ and say something to effect of mr or

15:56 ↗ miss you have one minute remaining

16:00 ↗ and then when you are finished please go

16:01 ↗ ahead and mute your microphone when

16:02 ↗ you're done

16:04 ↗ and for some reason if you do not

16:06 ↗ respond after your name or your phone

16:07 ↗ number is called on

16:09 ↗ or if your connection is lost

16:10 ↗ unexpectedly

16:12 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed

16:14 ↗ uh you are encouraged though to rejoin

16:16 ↗ the meeting if you're able

16:18 ↗ those are the house rules

16:20 ↗ stephen

16:22 ↗ is anyone signed up for public comment

16:24 ↗ jason actually before we get to uh

16:27 ↗ public comment we're going to go to

16:28 ↗ clarifying questions from the

16:30 ↗ commissioners

16:31 ↗ oh

16:32 ↗ this is what happens when the script has

16:34 ↗ it ends on one page right

16:37 ↗ so uh this is the portion of the meeting

16:39 ↗ where we're gonna have clarifying

16:41 ↗ questions from all of our commissioners

16:42 ↗ everyone please feel free to participate

16:44 ↗ planning policy

16:46 ↗ and development commission alike

16:58 ↗ commissioner milligan

17:00 ↗ to start us off

17:01 ↗ yeah you can count on me this is

17:04 ↗ commissioner nina milligan thank you

17:05 ↗ chair voice i have a question about the

17:08 ↗ material in the packet

17:10 ↗ the map

17:11 ↗ that is included in the packet

17:14 ↗ i'm not quite sure how to use it because

17:16 ↗ for instance it has a retail zone

17:19 ↗ in it um in

17:21 ↗ and we just said that there is no more

17:23 ↗ retail zone

17:25 ↗ so i'll ask that question first

17:29 ↗ i hope you can help me with the map on

17:32 ↗ page

17:33 ↗ you know where it is

17:35 ↗ you all know where the map is

17:44 ↗ i don't

17:46 ↗ what'd you mind

17:48 ↗ looks like

17:49 ↗ page 19 of the planning policy

17:52 ↗ well i think i pulled it up differently

17:53 ↗ um

17:54 ↗ and pulled up from the regular website

17:56 ↗ you know which section it's in

17:59 ↗ like zones or

18:04 ↗ it immediately it immediately follows

18:06 ↗ public comment uh the summary of public

18:08 ↗ comments and the packet for planning

18:09 ↗ policy commission it's in zones

18:11 ↗ christian thank you it's amazing

18:14 ↗ okay

18:31 ↗ i think the question pertains to this

18:33 ↗ map has land use designations that's

18:36 ↗ using

18:37 ↗ phrasing that's confusing with the zone

18:41 ↗ designations

18:42 ↗ okay so yeah there are

18:45 ↗ i apologize um let me see

18:50 ↗ there is a land use designation called

18:54 ↗ yeah that's what this is this is a land

18:56 ↗ use designation map and a land use

18:58 ↗ designation

19:00 ↗ is an umbrella

19:02 ↗ and so you have retail i know it's a

19:04 ↗ little confusing but maybe when we

19:05 ↗ update the comp plan next time we can we

19:07 ↗ can change it um but so we have i'm

19:10 ↗ going to use low density residential low

19:11 ↗ density residential is an umbrella and

19:14 ↗ under that you have the different land

19:16 ↗ use designations of conservancy

19:17 ↗ residential

19:19 ↗ um

19:20 ↗ single family estate single family

19:21 ↗ suburban and all the low density single

19:23 ↗ family residential zones

19:25 ↗ so those that's just an umbrella so in

19:27 ↗ that map that's a land use designation

19:29 ↗ map not a zoning map

19:31 ↗ and so

19:32 ↗ yeah it may have been put in there by

19:34 ↗ accident

19:36 ↗ that's what is that's what is in there

19:38 ↗ right now is the designation map and not

19:39 ↗ a landy's map i'll follow up so what

19:41 ↗ would be the zone

19:43 ↗ in the issaquah highlands

19:45 ↗ which is a land use designation called

19:48 ↗ retail

19:49 ↗ and it used to be retail commercial

19:51 ↗ because of the type of entitlement it's

19:53 ↗ actually two different zones we can bind

19:55 ↗ it just for the table because they allow

19:56 ↗ the base the same basic use the same

19:58 ↗ uses but one is commercial

20:00 ↗ uh uv commercial the other one's uv

20:01 ↗ retail

20:03 ↗ yeah

20:04 ↗ but again uv retail

20:15 ↗ great thank you

20:16 ↗ uh commissioner price

20:20 ↗ hi thank you um

20:23 ↗ i had a question about the permitted

20:25 ↗ uses table

20:26 ↗ you talked briefly about where the

20:29 ↗ footnotes went or what happened to the

20:30 ↗ footnotes i find the footnotes are often

20:33 ↗ where the devil lives

20:35 ↗ and has significant complications

20:38 ↗ and and

20:40 ↗ so could you just repeat what you said

20:42 ↗ about the footnotes and where they went

20:43 ↗ and the nature of them

20:46 ↗ does that make sense absolutely uh the

20:49 ↗ nature was all over the place um

20:52 ↗ so some of the footnotes

20:54 ↗ said

20:55 ↗ something like four

20:57 ↗ uses in the mineral resources zone refer

20:59 ↗ to this section

21:01 ↗ so

21:02 ↗ we just move that up to mineral

21:04 ↗ resources there's a column on the far

21:07 ↗ right hand side that says reference

21:09 ↗ references and notes or i think it's

21:11 ↗ references and notes and we would just

21:13 ↗ say for mineral resources refer to that

21:16 ↗ because what used to happen is it would

21:17 ↗ be on about six different pages

21:20 ↗ um in this way it's just in one place

21:21 ↗ mineral resources refer to this section

21:24 ↗ some of them on

21:26 ↗ for example

21:27 ↗ in the co

21:28 ↗ cultural and business district there was

21:31 ↗ a footnote down there that said

21:32 ↗ if you are a business located in the

21:34 ↗ cultural and business district where you

21:36 ↗ are on front street

21:38 ↗ um

21:40 ↗ then you must you must provide

21:42 ↗ commercial space down there and it gave

21:44 ↗ dimensions we thought well that's a use

21:46 ↗ i mean that's a specified

21:48 ↗ design standard so we move that to

21:50 ↗ specified use standards instead of

21:52 ↗ leaving it in the permitted use table

21:54 ↗ because

21:56 ↗ it's a standard

21:57 ↗ sure

21:58 ↗ yeah that helps and

22:00 ↗ if the reference no column was just out

22:02 ↗ of my frame so i i wasn't seeing that

22:04 ↗ but then now that i do see it i love it

22:05 ↗ i think it's very clear instead of this

22:07 ↗ this massive list down below that you're

22:09 ↗ supposed to sort through

22:11 ↗ um

22:12 ↗ um but then there's a link in there too

22:14 ↗ to another code section will that be a

22:16 ↗ hot link that just

22:17 ↗ takes you over or a pop out

22:19 ↗ it will be a hot link but until we get

22:22 ↗ this

22:23 ↗ all this cleaned up and i forgot to

22:25 ↗ mention i recognize that there are some

22:27 ↗ errors in the permitted uses table we

22:29 ↗ had to take that thing back and forth

22:30 ↗ between the excel file and the word file

22:33 ↗ because you can't form it in the word

22:34 ↗ file and so

22:36 ↗ there's some there are some things that

22:37 ↗ need to be cleaned up in there but once

22:39 ↗ we get it all done yes when it is up on

22:41 ↗ uh live it there will be links

22:43 ↗ perfect yeah i really like this it's

22:45 ↗ very clear thank you you're welcome

22:50 ↗ thank you commissioner price and

22:52 ↗ commissioner lewis

22:55 ↗ thank you chair voice um i do have the

22:58 ↗ commissioner joy lewis speaking i do

23:00 ↗ have a couple of questions

23:02 ↗ and i'm going to start with a couple

23:03 ↗ easy ones that are about numbers i'm

23:06 ↗ looking at paige um i'll go with these

23:08 ↗ one too on page 24 of 30 in the zones

23:11 ↗ i'm looking at the community facility

23:13 ↗ standards kristin um in section b for

23:16 ↗ approval criteria we go through one and

23:18 ↗ then b regardless of whether the

23:20 ↗ building is in central issaquah or not

23:22 ↗ the building must comply with central

23:23 ↗ squad development design standards

23:25 ↗ chapter 11.

23:26 ↗ 0.2 g views of vistas and

23:29 ↗ and my packet drops off

23:32 ↗ i'm curious what our and is

23:40 ↗ i know it's a little hard to this um joy

23:42 ↗ can i just confirm the page number did

23:44 ↗ you say 24 i'm looking on 24 of 30 of

23:48 ↗ the zones packet it's section 0.220 of

23:52 ↗ community facility standards

23:54 ↗ i then go down

23:56 ↗ to 0.9

23:59 ↗ b

24:01 ↗ and then 1b of that

24:03 ↗ and i just drop off to the and i didn't

24:05 ↗ know if you knew what the end was it

24:06 ↗ could be a typo but i was actually

24:08 ↗ assuming it wasn't a typo and it was

24:09 ↗ just that there is an and

24:15 ↗ and you can always get back to me

24:16 ↗ because i will continue on i have a

24:18 ↗ question about numbers i have two

24:20 ↗ there's two one one is with cluster

24:21 ↗ housing uh the open space requirement of

24:24 ↗ fifteen percent i'd love to know why the

24:26 ↗ city settled on the fifteen percent for

24:28 ↗ the cluster housing if it was a broad

24:30 ↗ over or if there was an internal debate

24:33 ↗ likewise we have a number here that

24:35 ↗ talks about exceptions

24:37 ↗ and where i'm looking at specifically

24:40 ↗ i guess here it's point h

24:43 ↗ again point page 28 of zones we talk

24:46 ↗ about um exceptions and so we start

24:48 ↗ talking about you know boutiques bazaars

24:50 ↗ yard sales garages and we have this

24:53 ↗ criteria of numbers not to exceed three

24:55 ↗ consecutive days no more than nine in a

24:57 ↗ calendar year

24:58 ↗ and again i was curious if this was

25:00 ↗ brought over or if there was an internal

25:01 ↗ debate

25:03 ↗ on the numbers for those

25:05 ↗ both of these were brought over

25:07 ↗ and one about the 15 for cluster housing

25:10 ↗ that was done about 12 years ago

25:12 ↗ so i would have to go look back at my

25:14 ↗ notes

25:15 ↗ and see what that's right

25:17 ↗ so that would not be updated for our

25:19 ↗ icap for yeah no we're really trying to

25:22 ↗ we really tried here not i mean we

25:24 ↗ didn't have any policy discussion i mean

25:26 ↗ there were no big policy issues with

25:28 ↗ this which is why you know we didn't

25:29 ↗ take out any uses we didn't add any uses

25:32 ↗ um

25:32 ↗ we didn't

25:34 ↗ we just tried to clarify and not change

25:36 ↗ any of the standards

25:38 ↗ so would it be fair to say that there

25:39 ↗ are things you would like to have a

25:40 ↗ discussion about or is this going to

25:42 ↗ fall all in

25:43 ↗ make a note whiteboard it kind of a

25:45 ↗ thing

25:48 ↗ well

25:50 ↗ we have started our whiteboard we have

25:52 ↗ some things that we'd like to discuss if

25:53 ↗ there are things that you all would like

25:55 ↗ us to add to that

25:57 ↗ we can we can probably add it to it

26:00 ↗ okay um i think it's fair to say that um

26:04 ↗ the climate action plan feels pretty

26:06 ↗ missing from this

26:08 ↗ and i think that the open space 15 is a

26:11 ↗ good example of something that i think

26:12 ↗ might be worth some debate likewise

26:15 ↗ these restrictions on how many times

26:18 ↗ somebody would be able to be um

26:20 ↗ effectively benefiting the community to

26:24 ↗ a reduce reuse situation i'm not quite

26:27 ↗ sure why we have these particular

26:29 ↗ limitations it might also again

26:32 ↗ play into the climate action plan so i'm

26:34 ↗ about to step

26:36 ↗ a little off to the right but um i do

26:38 ↗ know the 15 the whole purple if purpose

26:41 ↗ of cluster developments is to protect

26:43 ↗ the critical areas that are there

26:45 ↗ yes so that those don't get torn down

26:48 ↗ you can have much smaller lots on a site

26:51 ↗ so that you can protect those critical

26:53 ↗ areas which is why the you know the open

26:55 ↗ space is only 15 that's required there

26:58 ↗ i mean that would be that would be a

26:59 ↗ thought as to why it's that small

27:01 ↗ right but that is the purpose of cluster

27:03 ↗ zoning is to at least to protect the

27:04 ↗ environment okay my last question um and

27:08 ↗ if you'll humor me is yeah can i answer

27:11 ↗ a couple of the other questions first

27:14 ↗ please lucy thank you

27:16 ↗ so uh i think the

27:18 ↗ vistas uh and it's probably something

27:22 ↗ came after that and got moved and we

27:24 ↗ just lost removing that word

27:27 ↗ um i'm not a hundred percent sure but i

27:29 ↗ know that it is not that wouldn't be

27:32 ↗ surprising

27:33 ↗ in terms of the garage sales the page 28

27:38 ↗ h um

27:40 ↗ on

27:41 ↗ under zones

27:42 ↗ i think that the concern i think there's

27:44 ↗ a good healthy discussion that could be

27:47 ↗ appropriate maybe not

27:49 ↗ as part of this but um into a whiteboard

27:54 ↗ about what is the appropriate amount of

27:56 ↗ garage sales to encourage the kind of

27:59 ↗ reduce reuse recycle however

28:03 ↗ i live in a

28:05 ↗ mixed neighborhood in which some people

28:08 ↗ choose to use fake garage sales to run

28:11 ↗ businesses out of their home

28:14 ↗ and so um i think that it is worth

28:19 ↗ thinking about how much a neighborhood

28:22 ↗ would be comfortable tolerating

28:25 ↗ um

28:26 ↗ you know

28:27 ↗ every weekend three days

28:30 ↗ uh people

28:32 ↗ you know someone running a business out

28:34 ↗ of their garage for instance so i i

28:37 ↗ think it cuts both ways and it's just a

28:39 ↗ question of of what's the right um

28:41 ↗ balance point

28:44 ↗ i completely agree um i i appreciate

28:47 ↗ that um

28:48 ↗ so in future discussions we can talk

28:50 ↗ about whether or not that's a whiteboard

28:52 ↗ situation um so i appreciate kind of

28:54 ↗ understanding

28:56 ↗ that um

28:57 ↗ my next my last question is a little bit

29:00 ↗ hairier and um i'm gonna play devil's

29:02 ↗ advocate for a second on something

29:04 ↗ and please correct me if i'm wrong can i

29:06 ↗ start out saying i believe uh and i want

29:08 ↗ to refer to um section uh 210 which is

29:11 ↗ the mineral resource zone my question is

29:14 ↗ why don't we just get rid of these three

29:15 ↗ pages

29:17 ↗ and completely ban it

29:19 ↗ we don't allow it because right now we

29:21 ↗ only have one current

29:23 ↗ use for it there's with lakeside

29:26 ↗ industries we have a development

29:28 ↗ agreement that would supersede any code

29:30 ↗ we unless of course we find some sort of

29:33 ↗ very rare earth mineral in israel in the

29:35 ↗ future we could always open this up into

29:37 ↗ our code but it's my understanding that

29:39 ↗ we don't have any desire to continue

29:41 ↗ this practice in isaac law other than

29:43 ↗ where it is currently being done

29:46 ↗ so

29:47 ↗ i'm curious why we spend an enormous

29:49 ↗ amount of time talking about how you

29:51 ↗ could do it

29:53 ↗ so actually the mineral

29:56 ↗ zone is outside the development

29:58 ↗ agreement the development agreement is

30:01 ↗ for the portion of the property

30:04 ↗ that is going to be reclaimed over time

30:08 ↗ as the

30:11 ↗ mining activities are extinguished

30:14 ↗ but the portion of the property that it

30:17 ↗ continues to be used

30:19 ↗ for mineral

30:21 ↗ processing

30:22 ↗ or

30:23 ↗ other construction materials is outside

30:26 ↗ of the development agreement and

30:27 ↗ therefore these rules apply to that area

30:34 ↗ so the argument is that

30:36 ↗ down the line we're going to need these

30:39 ↗ but it's my recollection that that

30:41 ↗ property you're talking about as

30:43 ↗ extraction ceases it will be turned into

30:46 ↗ multi-family homes

30:48 ↗ if i recall when it last came before our

30:50 ↗ commission

30:51 ↗ so

30:52 ↗ that is true for the part that's under

30:54 ↗ the development agreement that it would

30:56 ↗ be a mixed-use neighborhood

30:59 ↗ um from highlands drive

31:02 ↗ um

31:03 ↗ most of the way down the hill

31:05 ↗ but the part that's on the valley floor

31:09 ↗ closer to

31:11 ↗ east lake sammamish parkway

31:14 ↗ continues to process and produce

31:18 ↗ construction materials

31:20 ↗ um

31:21 ↗ some of it is on site

31:24 ↗ some i mean using materials that are on

31:26 ↗ site sometimes it's reprocessing

31:29 ↗ other materials and

31:33 ↗ i will say that there is a case to be

31:35 ↗ made for having this close to where work

31:37 ↗ may be taking place

31:39 ↗ so that there is less driving taking

31:42 ↗ place to support construction activities

31:45 ↗ in our community

31:47 ↗ okay thank you lucy

31:52 ↗ and thank you commissioner lewis for

31:53 ↗ that great attempt at turning that last

31:55 ↗ part into a question

31:58 ↗ so

31:59 ↗ all right um moving on commissioner

32:02 ↗ where'd that go commissioner sanford

32:05 ↗ thank you chair voice this is richard

32:06 ↗ sanford development commission and i

32:08 ↗ guess i have a higher level question

32:11 ↗ about the process that we're using

32:12 ↗ tonight um

32:14 ↗ in the past when we've joined you

32:15 ↗ sometimes

32:17 ↗ the uh it's been specified pretty

32:19 ↗ tightly what you want from us on the

32:21 ↗ development commission uh this

32:23 ↗ discussion tonight seems potentially

32:25 ↗ pretty far-ranging

32:27 ↗ so

32:28 ↗ i was wondering

32:30 ↗ in terms of our process is all of the

32:33 ↗ content

32:34 ↗ in the packet fair game anything that's

32:36 ↗ substantive in other words

32:39 ↗ questions on the level of commissioner

32:41 ↗ lewis's just a moment ago but not

32:44 ↗ necessarily

32:45 ↗ every spelling or inconsistency okay but

32:49 ↗ in terms of

32:50 ↗ substantive content

32:53 ↗ did you want questions across this

32:56 ↗ entire packet on substantive issues like

33:00 ↗ that because

33:02 ↗ at least i i've been able to note quite

33:04 ↗ a few issues like that

33:06 ↗ and did you want

33:08 ↗ those submitted section by section as we

33:11 ↗ move through or is this

33:14 ↗ our opportunity to raise all of those

33:17 ↗ questions

33:19 ↗ so

33:21 ↗ we are looking for substitute questions

33:24 ↗ across the board but right now only on

33:26 ↗ permitted uses in zones

33:28 ↗ and then we will move on to form and

33:30 ↗ intensity and just to try and break it

33:32 ↗ down into smaller chunks so it's easier

33:36 ↗ for us and for the public to comment on

33:38 ↗ it um

33:40 ↗ but yes everything is fair game

33:42 ↗ okay so we're only on eighteen four

33:44 ↗ hundred right now correct and eighteen

33:46 ↗ four oh two

33:48 ↗ right so i don't know 100 uses i will

33:50 ↗ add commissioner sanford that we are

33:54 ↗ um

33:54 ↗ because this is the first meeting

33:56 ↗ although you were present for the gap

33:58 ↗ analysis

34:00 ↗ we have not taken on many policy issues

34:04 ↗ and so um

34:07 ↗ there may be things that you would like

34:09 ↗ to

34:10 ↗ bring up

34:11 ↗ but i don't know whether we will be able

34:14 ↗ to add new policy topics right um at

34:18 ↗ this time right that was my

34:20 ↗ understanding too that policy is really

34:22 ↗ outside of the discussion that we're

34:24 ↗ having this code update it's largely

34:26 ↗ about reorganizing and eliminating

34:29 ↗ redundancy and so on correct

34:33 ↗ certainly in these four chapters yes

34:35 ↗ okay well in that case um i could

34:38 ↗ proceed with my questions on 18

34:41 ↗ on the first section if

34:43 ↗ if you really want to ask that

34:47 ↗ and uh in interest of time tonight i

34:49 ↗ think i'm going to try to stick to the

34:50 ↗ top levels that i see and maybe i have

34:53 ↗ some that i can send to kristen after

34:55 ↗ the meeting you know um

34:58 ↗ so okay so 18 400 060 that's page 5 of

35:04 ↗ 30.

35:08 ↗ so i'm looking there at du values and i

35:11 ↗ assume that those are max values is that

35:13 ↗ right

35:18 ↗ i am

35:19 ↗ you're looking i'm sorry which page

35:22 ↗ okay so

35:23 ↗ yes on page 5 of 30

35:25 ↗ uh 18 400 060 single family there are gu

35:29 ↗ values per unit there i assume those are

35:32 ↗ max yes they are

35:34 ↗ okay so my comment would be to add max

35:36 ↗ there

35:37 ↗ okay

35:38 ↗ uh on page 6 of 30 d single family small

35:42 ↗ lot

35:44 ↗ it says in their appropriate areas for

35:47 ↗ this zone include those neighborhoods

35:48 ↗ which are currently

35:50 ↗ medium density single family

35:53 ↗ and so my questions with the word

35:54 ↗ currently currently i guess won't apply

35:56 ↗ in the future so i wonder if we want to

35:58 ↗ recast that in some way

36:03 ↗ we could i think that will

36:06 ↗ um

36:08 ↗ come up when we start to look at that

36:11 ↗ increasing diversity

36:13 ↗ in simplifying in single family zones i

36:15 ↗ think we'll have to revisit some of

36:16 ↗ these

36:19 ↗ okay yeah and i guess what i was

36:20 ↗ noticing there was if this becomes part

36:22 ↗ of the standing code would

36:24 ↗ you know currently would lose its

36:27 ↗ meaning i guess okay

36:30 ↗ okay nf page 7 of 30 urban village

36:34 ↗ single family

36:39 ↗ yeah i'm trying to get there 7 30.

36:41 ↗ [Music]

36:45 ↗ mr sanford yes

36:47 ↗ for these kind of

36:49 ↗ clarifications

36:51 ↗ um i'm wondering if

36:55 ↗ um these might be best emailed in

36:58 ↗ i mean they're important clarifications

37:00 ↗ to language but they may not

37:03 ↗ require answers and and

37:07 ↗ responses tonight

37:08 ↗ um

37:09 ↗ [Music]

37:10 ↗ what do you think about that

37:12 ↗ no i think that's really good that's

37:13 ↗ exactly the kind of guidance i'm looking

37:15 ↗ for so

37:17 ↗ there are others that i think are a

37:19 ↗ little bit more substantive so i'll scan

37:21 ↗ down my list here and see yeah no that's

37:23 ↗ very helpful lucy i appreciate that

37:26 ↗ um

37:27 ↗ i had a question about that page 7 of 30

37:30 ↗ uh f urban village single family

37:33 ↗ because i i think that this may be new

37:36 ↗ or it's ported over from urban village

37:41 ↗ documents onto urban village it says

37:44 ↗ that uvsf0

37:46 ↗ does not have development capacity for

37:49 ↗ any units

37:50 ↗ i'm not that familiar with the

37:52 ↗ development agreements for urban village

37:53 ↗ so i was wondering what that is what

37:55 ↗ kind of lot could have

37:57 ↗ development capacity for new units

38:01 ↗ access tracks

38:03 ↗ um a garage

38:05 ↗ [Music]

38:07 ↗ sometimes a park or open space

38:11 ↗ so um

38:12 ↗ it's it's um

38:16 ↗ most property has zoning

38:18 ↗ and so the way that uh the replacement

38:22 ↗ regs were handled was by giving them and

38:24 ↗ uh when they couldn't be developed for

38:27 ↗ use

38:28 ↗ they were given uv sf0

38:30 ↗ okay got it thanks

38:34 ↗ uh let's see

38:35 ↗ [Music]

38:37 ↗ several of these i'm just gonna i'm in

38:42 ↗ okay um

38:44 ↗ 18 18400

38:46 ↗ 140 commercial

38:48 ↗ that's page 15 of 30.

38:56 ↗ and i'm looking under d intensive

38:58 ↗ commercial ic and icci

39:05 ↗ so number four under there says for uses

39:07 ↗ in icnci

39:09 ↗ must comply with imc critical area

39:12 ↗ recharge areas regulated activities i

39:15 ↗ assume that's critical aquifer recharge

39:18 ↗ area right

39:20 ↗ yes

39:21 ↗ yes yeah and so

39:24 ↗ it's hard to tell

39:25 ↗ which uses are prohibited

39:28 ↗ in critic

39:30 ↗ in in this

39:31 ↗ in ic and critical aquifer recharge area

39:34 ↗ and my concern is that

39:37 ↗ i have a concern about

39:39 ↗ intensive commercial and critical

39:42 ↗ recharge

39:43 ↗ areas overlapping

39:45 ↗ so i was trying to find what

39:47 ↗ uses are prohibited and even in the

39:49 ↗ current existing table 1806 130 i think

39:52 ↗ that's permitted uses

39:54 ↗ uh it's hard for me to tell there so

39:59 ↗ so the section 1802 380 actually points

40:02 ↗ to the section of the critical areas

40:05 ↗ code that says which uses are not

40:07 ↗ allowed

40:08 ↗ yeah i i in there i think i only saw a

40:11 ↗ mineral

40:13 ↗ and then it seemed to have a circular

40:15 ↗ reference back to the table

40:19 ↗ um i guess my my overall concern is just

40:22 ↗ i want to make sure that

40:25 ↗ only mineral extraction is not

40:27 ↗ prohibited in critical aquifer recharge

40:30 ↗ areas okay

40:31 ↗ this had to do with a case that came

40:34 ↗ before us

40:35 ↗ and it had to do with both critical

40:37 ↗ critical aquifer recharge overlay

40:40 ↗ and intensive commercial use

40:43 ↗ so i know we're not changing policy now

40:45 ↗ but i kind of did want to get that on

40:47 ↗ the record that i have a concern about

40:49 ↗ both of those i think it created a big

40:51 ↗ issue for us in that in that permit

40:54 ↗ and and one point i would make

40:57 ↗ which is an important clarification

40:59 ↗ is um we've tried to work

41:02 ↗ fairly comprehensively within a bucket

41:05 ↗ but

41:06 ↗ between buckets so the critical areas

41:09 ↗ was in bucket one

41:11 ↗ we're in bucket three

41:13 ↗ some of the consistency between buckets

41:16 ↗ will come when we create the

41:18 ↗ comprehensive draft

41:20 ↗ following the review of six buckets so i

41:23 ↗ appreciate the comment but sometimes we

41:25 ↗ have not circled back

41:27 ↗ to resolve uh something that's come

41:31 ↗ sequentially

41:32 ↗ but i will say that i am looking at the

41:34 ↗ permitted uses table right now and i

41:35 ↗ actually had the critical the cara regs

41:38 ↗ open at the same time so i went back and

41:39 ↗ forth between the two and they are all

41:41 ↗ referenced in the permitted uses table

41:46 ↗ yeah okay that's good i just want to

41:48 ↗ make sure i guess that these

41:50 ↗ requirements are you know gathered from

41:52 ↗ other sources and consolidated as lucy

41:55 ↗ just referred to i think so that may be

41:57 ↗ to come that's

42:00 ↗ great uh page 16 of 30

42:05 ↗ c village residential vr

42:10 ↗ so i was looking at these various mixed

42:12 ↗ uses

42:15 ↗ that are defined here and

42:18 ↗ it's hard for me to really distinguish

42:22 ↗ among these various

42:25 ↗ zoning districts for example village

42:27 ↗ residential vr it seems that the only

42:29 ↗ difference between that and urban core

42:33 ↗ is that urban core can include office

42:36 ↗ offices is that right

42:40 ↗ there's also a difference

42:43 ↗ densities in those two and things that

42:46 ↗ will come there like transit um

42:48 ↗ light rail

42:49 ↗ and so forth but if it needs if they

42:51 ↗ need to be differentiated a little bit

42:53 ↗ more in the zone section in their

42:55 ↗ descriptions we can certainly take a

42:56 ↗ look at that i see i'm seeing that now

42:59 ↗ right uh village residential vr says

43:01 ↗ moderate density and urban core is dense

43:04 ↗ yeah yeah

43:06 ↗ um

43:07 ↗ i think

43:09 ↗ that could stand a little sharper focus

43:12 ↗ i was really it was really hard for me

43:13 ↗ to tell some of the differences in some

43:15 ↗ of those zones i appreciate that

43:17 ↗ commissioner sanford can i interject

43:19 ↗ real quickly sure

43:21 ↗ so in the interest of time everyone i'd

43:23 ↗ like to ask from all of our fellow

43:24 ↗ commissioners because we do have

43:25 ↗ multiple presentations with multiple

43:28 ↗ opportunities for our uh public to speak

43:31 ↗ and while i'm okay with extending the

43:34 ↗ timeline a little bit i don't want to

43:36 ↗ turn this into a bad version of the

43:37 ↗ hunger games who's the last person

43:39 ↗ standing so again what we're really

43:41 ↗ looking for right now because planning

43:43 ↗ development commission will get an

43:45 ↗ opportunity to have a wide deliberation

43:48 ↗ about their feelings and thoughts um

43:50 ↗ with all of this towards the end of the

43:52 ↗ meeting what we're really looking right

43:53 ↗ now is just clarification on the changes

43:56 ↗ made

43:57 ↗ you guys will be able to have a subset

43:59 ↗ substantive uh discussion towards the

44:02 ↗ end and then again planning policy will

44:04 ↗ be able to have their entirely owned

44:06 ↗ meeting about it in two weeks so i just

44:08 ↗ i want to keep us on track again i'm

44:10 ↗ okay with the timeline expanding a

44:12 ↗ little bit but

44:13 ↗ we do have multiple presentations to get

44:15 ↗ through no i think that that's fine and

44:17 ↗ i'd like to wind it up because as i said

44:20 ↗ i do have a lot more on this same level

44:22 ↗ so i think they're probably more more

44:24 ↗ appropriate to submit my email at the

44:26 ↗ end thank you

44:28 ↗ great thank you commissioner sanford um

44:32 ↗ i'm sorry excuse me jason just a note

44:33 ↗ too we're also available if you wanted

44:35 ↗ to call us and we could meet and go over

44:36 ↗ it in person as well

44:39 ↗ i thought that's an option too

44:41 ↗ no i appreciate it and staff is always

44:42 ↗ available email phone calls

44:45 ↗ um

44:46 ↗ but we do need to make some headways so

44:48 ↗ commissioner milligan any questions

44:52 ↗ thank you

44:53 ↗ uh chair voice commissioner nina

44:55 ↗ milligan here

44:56 ↗ and um i have a question but i do want

44:59 ↗ to comment to our guests the

45:02 ↗ development commissioners during

45:04 ↗ deliberation i sure hope we get to hear

45:07 ↗ um the important things that you have to

45:09 ↗ say because it's very helpful to us and

45:10 ↗ and sometimes easier to follow and for

45:12 ↗ the public to hear when we get all that

45:14 ↗ deliberation tonight so i'm trying to

45:16 ↗ stick with questions right now

45:19 ↗ and my questions regard the cluster

45:21 ↗ housing standards and in our packet it's

45:24 ↗ page 129 of 159

45:27 ↗ and by the way if there is a different

45:29 ↗ packet for development commission and

45:31 ↗ they have a different pagination it

45:33 ↗ makes it hard for us to follow their

45:35 ↗ questions

45:36 ↗ i don't know if it is but maybe that's

45:38 ↗ why i'm having a hard time

45:39 ↗ but

45:40 ↗ in cluster housing i have two questions

45:45 ↗ and then i have a question about um

45:48 ↗ duplexes i'm just gonna get them all

45:49 ↗ done right now

45:51 ↗ critical areas and when we were doing

45:53 ↗ critical areas

45:55 ↗ as critical areas we talked about

45:57 ↗ cluster housing and how the

46:01 ↗ allowable density was to be determined

46:05 ↗ by the buildable land after you took

46:08 ↗ into account all the critical areas

46:11 ↗ i'm asking for a reminder

46:13 ↗ is that um

46:15 ↗ is that something that supplements this

46:17 ↗ how does a developer know how do they

46:20 ↗ they work through these two different

46:21 ↗ sides of looking at how much

46:24 ↗ development can

46:25 ↗ happen when you're doing a cluster

46:28 ↗ housing in a critical with critical

46:30 ↗ areas

46:32 ↗ that's my first question

46:34 ↗ i may have not heard part of that but in

46:37 ↗ here in in 18400 100 it says that the

46:42 ↗ maximum density allowed in that it

46:43 ↗ cannot when you do cluster housing the

46:46 ↗ maximum density cannot

46:48 ↗ exceed what is allowed in the zone

46:51 ↗ so right

46:53 ↗ my question had to do with

46:55 ↗ buildable area remaining after the

46:57 ↗ critical areas are carved out i thought

46:59 ↗ i read that in the critical areas so

47:01 ↗ that the cluster housing could not

47:02 ↗ exceed

47:04 ↗ that density

47:06 ↗ so

47:07 ↗ my understanding

47:09 ↗ because i was working on another chapter

47:11 ↗ is

47:12 ↗ that the density transfer

47:15 ↗ was removed from critical areas

47:19 ↗ so

47:21 ↗ i um

47:24 ↗ that's correct lucy so we we eliminated

47:27 ↗ the density

47:28 ↗ bonus in um critical areas so you have

47:31 ↗ to meet your setbacks whatever is left

47:33 ↗ is your developable lot is what what's

47:35 ↗ developable this one is a cluster

47:39 ↗ subdivision for only properties over two

47:41 ↗ acres

47:43 ↗ and so it you know not if every uh

47:45 ↗ development will qualify for cluster but

47:47 ↗ it's encouraging you know this allows

47:49 ↗ some flexibility for smaller lots

47:52 ↗ but you have to keep 15 of your

47:55 ↗ uh

47:56 ↗ development as open space so two

47:58 ↗ different things the density the the

48:00 ↗ fact that you got extra density was

48:02 ↗ taken you know if you had critical areas

48:05 ↗ and that would only apply to residential

48:07 ↗ development not commercial so there was

48:08 ↗ a disconnect between

48:10 ↗ um

48:12 ↗ best available science and why would we

48:13 ↗ treat one type of development with you

48:15 ↗ know more dens so anyway that was

48:17 ↗ deleted two different things

48:20 ↗ okay okay so uh as long as there's not a

48:22 ↗ conflict i did really like that you did

48:25 ↗ that

48:26 ↗ okay and then another question is on um

48:29 ↗ at the end of this

48:30 ↗ section where under

48:32 ↗ um c

48:35 ↗ 3 f where it says affordable housing is

48:37 ↗ provided where does it say

48:39 ↗ the

48:41 ↗ requirement of how much affordable

48:44 ↗ housing it seemed very vague is that

48:45 ↗ referring to some other place in the

48:46 ↗ document no that's always been

48:48 ↗ negotiated

48:50 ↗ never had um we worked with arch and we

48:52 ↗ decided it's just right now the best way

48:54 ↗ to do it is to negotiate it okay and

48:57 ↗ then my last question has to do with um

49:01 ↗ where is this the duplexes

49:03 ↗ under the duplex section it talks about

49:06 ↗ resembling character and being

49:08 ↗ consistent with adjacent properties and

49:10 ↗ all that kind of thing and this applies

49:12 ↗ to duplex and attached single-family

49:13 ↗ townhome standards

49:15 ↗ does this also apply in single family

49:18 ↗ neighborhoods

49:21 ↗ well duplexes right now are only allowed

49:23 ↗ by right in the single family duplex

49:24 ↗ zone

49:26 ↗ they are allowed in other zones through

49:28 ↗ clustering okay so my my question is is

49:31 ↗ this kind of standard where it says

49:34 ↗ resembling the character style and

49:35 ↗ modulation of this of a single family

49:37 ↗ unit and well no not that one but being

49:40 ↗ consistent with the time period in which

49:41 ↗ majority of homes in the net surrounding

49:43 ↗ neighborhood were built

49:45 ↗ so b2 for instance

49:48 ↗ um is that a standard that is only for

49:50 ↗ these duplex

49:52 ↗ areas or does that standard apply in our

49:55 ↗ single family neighborhoods as well

49:59 ↗ first of all this is an intent

50:01 ↗ statement

50:03 ↗ okay um

50:05 ↗ and

50:06 ↗ uh

50:07 ↗ that

50:12 ↗ so it applies

50:15 ↗ to areas that do not have architectural

50:17 ↗ standards such as esqua highlands

50:19 ↗ central iskwa

50:21 ↗ or active architectural review esqua

50:23 ↗ islands or talus so it would be areas

50:26 ↗ outside of those three

50:30 ↗ and so the other areas that have single

50:32 ↗ family

50:33 ↗ i don't know let's say

50:35 ↗ squawk mountain or

50:37 ↗ some other place where there's single

50:38 ↗ families on them um do they have

50:41 ↗ this kind of requirement

50:47 ↗ so this would be new and this would

50:51 ↗ create consistency across the city but

50:53 ↗ it would be new in certain neighborhoods

50:55 ↗ yeah and i i'm just really kind of

50:57 ↗ asking for your help to know whether it

50:59 ↗ is over there because it's not in you

51:01 ↗ know i didn't know where to find it so

51:03 ↗ it's not in the other single family but

51:05 ↗ it is here

51:06 ↗ yeah okay good

51:08 ↗ and that um concludes questions thank

51:12 ↗ you so much

51:16 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan uh we

51:18 ↗ have commissioner morgan please

51:21 ↗ thank you chair voice and uh i think

51:23 ↗ related to uh commissioner lewis's

51:25 ↗ question

51:26 ↗ in the

51:27 ↗ permitted uses page 4 of 22

51:31 ↗ under mineral resource

51:34 ↗ mineral extracting and asphalt concrete

51:37 ↗ mixing

51:38 ↗ are permitted in the ic and icci

51:42 ↗ zones

51:43 ↗ and i'm wondering why those would be

51:45 ↗ included and not just in the um

51:48 ↗ [Music]

51:49 ↗ the mining mineral zone that lakeside

51:52 ↗ includes because the

51:54 ↗ on the map those zones don't appear to

51:56 ↗ be

51:57 ↗ areas where we would expect to have

51:58 ↗ mineral extraction

52:05 ↗ my understanding is that these were

52:07 ↗ pulled these were carried over from the

52:10 ↗ existing code

52:12 ↗ and

52:13 ↗ i see

52:15 ↗ is

52:17 ↗ adjacent to mineral

52:20 ↗ um

52:21 ↗ and so i don't be on saying that this we

52:24 ↗ carried the existing ones over i'm not

52:26 ↗ sure what else we can add to that

52:29 ↗ okay could that be one of our moments i

52:32 ↗ guess in terms of is it possible to

52:34 ↗ remove a permitted use

52:36 ↗ as part of this process

52:40 ↗ it could certainly

52:42 ↗ be a comment that comes from the

52:45 ↗ okay

52:47 ↗ um

52:48 ↗ and then also on page four wondering why

52:50 ↗ we for the um

52:53 ↗ attach single family dwellings on

52:55 ↗ individual lots

52:57 ↗ why would those only be within the urban

52:59 ↗ villages

53:02 ↗ this is one of the challenges of that

53:05 ↗ i'll talk a little bit more

53:08 ↗ about

53:09 ↗ um issaquah highlands and talus have a

53:13 ↗ lot of

53:15 ↗ town homes and duplexes and things that

53:18 ↗ are on individual lots

53:20 ↗ elsewhere in the city for instance the

53:22 ↗ single family duplex zone

53:25 ↗ you would have one lot

53:27 ↗ with two houses

53:29 ↗ that are built as a duplex but

53:31 ↗ frequently in isqua highlands and telus

53:35 ↗ they're built on fee simple lots on

53:37 ↗ individual lots

53:39 ↗ and so um this was the way it was

53:42 ↗ written

53:43 ↗ in the replacement regulations and this

53:46 ↗ is one of the things that we want to

53:48 ↗ spend a little more time looking at um

53:51 ↗ uh

53:52 ↗ going forward

53:54 ↗ for consistency among zones

53:57 ↗ and and so is it

53:59 ↗ i guess is it possible that it could be

54:01 ↗ something that could be expanded to

54:02 ↗ other single-family zones

54:05 ↗ in the city

54:08 ↗ um

54:10 ↗ again i think we were just carrying

54:12 ↗ forward yeah what was in these what

54:15 ↗ we're in these various documents

54:18 ↗ we're learning things as we look at that

54:21 ↗ and um we we are um

54:24 ↗ studying the urban villages because

54:26 ↗ we're trying to create a little um

54:29 ↗ simplify some of the um tools that got

54:32 ↗ carried over for consistency with other

54:34 ↗ zones

54:35 ↗ so um

54:37 ↗ uh that that's an interesting question

54:39 ↗ about which which way

54:41 ↗ these things carry forward you know as

54:42 ↗ it's

54:43 ↗ offered more widely or

54:46 ↗ um not

54:47 ↗ okay

54:48 ↗ you know we're about to we're about we

54:50 ↗ got the grant to increase diversity of

54:52 ↗ housing and that could be some type of

54:54 ↗ housing that we look at when we do that

54:56 ↗ as well

54:57 ↗ and we start implementing that

55:00 ↗ okay thank you those are my questions

55:09 ↗ great thank you commissioner morgan

55:12 ↗ we get to do this all over again a few

55:14 ↗ more times

55:15 ↗ so

55:16 ↗ i want to thank the commissioners and

55:18 ↗ because in the interest of time i will

55:20 ↗ not

55:21 ↗ bore you all with the same spiel about

55:24 ↗ public comment but we are going to open

55:26 ↗ up for public comment in the public

55:27 ↗ hearing portion of tonight's meeting

55:29 ↗ um i'll just reiterate that we do ask

55:32 ↗ the public to please limit their

55:33 ↗ comments to about five minutes and at

55:35 ↗ four minutes i will politely and

55:38 ↗ uh interrupt and just mention that

55:40 ↗ there's about one minute remaining

55:42 ↗ stephen do we have anyone for public

55:44 ↗ comment

55:46 ↗ we do i heard from brook lang before the

55:49 ↗ meeting so brooke i'm going to

55:51 ↗ unmute you

55:52 ↗ and make you a panelist

55:56 ↗ did you still want to speak on zones

55:59 ↗ yes can uh can everyone hear me yes go

56:02 ↗ ahead okay great uh thank you for the

56:05 ↗ time everyone for being here i will

56:07 ↗ actually be quite short on this

56:09 ↗ uh we've turned in i've turned in two

56:12 ↗ items that i would like looked at under

56:14 ↗ the title 18

56:16 ↗ one of them had to do with the auxiliary

56:19 ↗ dwelling unit

56:22 ↗ that we have on that and another one had

56:23 ↗ to do with uh property lines so the easy

56:26 ↗ one is probably the property line one

56:29 ↗ it has to do with um i want to be very

56:31 ↗ specific about this it has to do with a

56:35 ↗ lake sammamish waterfront only so what i

56:38 ↗ wanted to make clear on that is this is

56:40 ↗ not for winter

56:42 ↗ this is not for a river waterfront or

56:44 ↗ anything like that so if you start

56:46 ↗ narrowing things down and saying

56:49 ↗ so you're talking about

56:50 ↗ property inside the city of issaquah

56:53 ↗ that is on lake sammamish only that's

56:56 ↗ not a lot of places not a lot of homes

56:59 ↗ and then the second and this is all

57:01 ↗ because the current uh title 18

57:04 ↗ uh

57:05 ↗ rules do not uh it does not account for

57:07 ↗ this situation this is why this is

57:09 ↗ turned in is because under this unique

57:12 ↗ situation

57:14 ↗ there is no uh there is no uh

57:17 ↗ accounting for it on how to handle it

57:19 ↗ for title 18. so what this talks about

57:22 ↗ is and the way this was written out is

57:24 ↗ the waterfront i think every single

57:27 ↗ person would say is usually

57:29 ↗ the rear property line i don't think

57:31 ↗ anybody considers the waterfront the

57:33 ↗ side property line or the front property

57:35 ↗ line

57:36 ↗ but the problem is the way the title 18

57:38 ↗ is right now is it designates a driveway

57:42 ↗ as your front property line

57:44 ↗ so technically speaking in this

57:46 ↗ situation if a driveway

57:48 ↗ enters the property the ingress and

57:50 ↗ egress to the property on what you might

57:52 ↗ call the 90 degree

57:54 ↗ property line or the side what you'd

57:56 ↗ commonly think is the side property line

57:58 ↗ it makes that the front

58:00 ↗ and so the problem is it makes the water

58:02 ↗ front line the side property line

58:04 ↗ and that just doesn't work for anybody

58:06 ↗ especially in uh you know some of the

58:08 ↗ situations we're in where it's just

58:10 ↗ ludicrous and ridiculous to think that

58:12 ↗ the

58:13 ↗ waterfront is the side property line of

58:16 ↗ the property especially when it's a you

58:18 ↗ know kind of a long rectangle so this

58:20 ↗ fixes that by saying that if the ingress

58:24 ↗ and egress to the property slash the

58:26 ↗ driveway is on one of the say side

58:29 ↗ property line then the lot owner would

58:31 ↗ have the

58:33 ↗ authority to choose the other sides you

58:36 ↗ know making the

58:37 ↗ the waterfront

58:39 ↗ what you might traditionally say the

58:40 ↗ waterfront line or rear so it just it

58:42 ↗ just allows the property owner to then

58:44 ↗ configure the property right because

58:46 ↗ there's all kinds of problems uh with

58:49 ↗ the code when you start talking about

58:50 ↗ setbacks and everything else when you

58:52 ↗ try to make the waterfront the side

58:54 ↗ property

58:55 ↗ so

58:56 ↗ uh free for anyone to talk to me i'm

58:58 ↗ working with mini a lot on on this and

59:00 ↗ and this seems to fix that problem for

59:02 ↗ there

59:03 ↗ the second item that i brought up was on

59:06 ↗ the uh auxiliary dwelling unit

59:08 ↗ mother-in-law house uh the situation is

59:11 ↗ a lot of uh cities uh have uh uh adus

59:15 ↗ that are that are available for more

59:17 ↗ than a thousand square feet

59:18 ↗ and the situations that we've started to

59:20 ↗ look at on things is when you have

59:23 ↗ uh a couple two people older that are 24

59:27 ↗ 7 nurse care and each one has their own

59:30 ↗ room because they get up at different

59:32 ↗ times of night you can't be waking up

59:34 ↗ the other one so you're looking at two

59:36 ↗ rooms for the couple

59:39 ↗ and that's two and then one for the

59:41 ↗ nurse and so that's three rooms and you

59:44 ↗ can't effectively have that with just a

59:47 ↗ thousand square feet um otherwise people

59:50 ↗ in this situation have to move out

59:52 ↗ because they don't have the money

59:53 ↗ because uh family members or other

59:54 ↗ people are would be in the main house uh

59:57 ↗ and that you know generates the kind of

1:00:00 ↗ level where people can stay on their

1:00:01 ↗ property uh in a um

1:00:04 ↗ in an adu

1:00:06 ↗ so i thought i proposed something that's

1:00:08 ↗ pretty good and that is uh because

1:00:10 ↗ obviously you don't want you know a 3

1:00:12 ↗ 000 square foot adu where it's all on

1:00:15 ↗ one floor so the proposal that i put in

1:00:17 ↗ there just changes it to where

1:00:21 ↗ uh

1:00:21 ↗ it's a 1200 square feet if it was all

1:00:25 ↗ one level which is what many many other

1:00:28 ↗ cities have

1:00:29 ↗ as their adu so there's nothing there

1:00:31 ↗ but if you were going to put it on more

1:00:33 ↗ than one level uh then your footprint

1:00:36 ↗ has to be you know the foundation the

1:00:37 ↗ outline foundation has to only be a

1:00:39 ↗ thousand and then the maximum could be

1:00:41 ↗ 1800

1:00:42 ↗ and of course all the other building

1:00:44 ↗ requirements

1:00:45 ↗ yeah about 30 seconds

1:00:47 ↗ okay yeah so of course all the other

1:00:48 ↗ building requirements and height

1:00:50 ↗ requirements everything that matters it

1:00:52 ↗ just means that if you want to go over

1:00:54 ↗ 1200 square feet your foundation would

1:00:56 ↗ have to be at the thousand what it

1:00:58 ↗ currently is today and then limit to

1:01:00 ↗ eight eighteen hundred square feet uh

1:01:03 ↗ thank you very much i think if anybody

1:01:04 ↗ has a question certainly ask me but i

1:01:06 ↗ hope everybody understood what i spoke

1:01:08 ↗ about

1:01:12 ↗ thank you mr and then i saw a hand from

1:01:16 ↗ i believe it's connie connie i'm going

1:01:17 ↗ to mute you did you want to speak on

1:01:20 ↗ zones tonight

1:01:21 ↗ yeah

1:01:22 ↗ okay i'll move you to panels now and

1:01:24 ↗ then we'll go to kyler

1:01:30 ↗ okay

1:01:32 ↗ there's there's my

1:01:35 ↗ oh connie marshall i live up on stock i

1:01:37 ↗ sent you an email but this is a little

1:01:39 ↗ different

1:01:42 ↗ for

1:01:44 ↗ you

1:01:47 ↗ remember has been my lens

1:01:49 ↗ so

1:01:50 ↗ i went through three different scenarios

1:01:53 ↗ one was a community facilities scenario

1:01:56 ↗ because we had a while ago people

1:01:58 ↗ wanting to put a private tennis facility

1:02:01 ↗ in community facilities

1:02:03 ↗ i looked at

1:02:04 ↗ a doggy daycare because i have one of

1:02:08 ↗ those right next door to me

1:02:10 ↗ which is is is very interesting and then

1:02:14 ↗ i was looking for my ever favorite i i

1:02:17 ↗ want a taco truck right

1:02:20 ↗ and i had little satisfaction

1:02:23 ↗ in any of these areas using the

1:02:27 ↗ land use

1:02:29 ↗ table

1:02:30 ↗ it brought up a lot of questions like is

1:02:32 ↗ my next door neighbor now going to be a

1:02:33 ↗ non-conforming use and then i had to

1:02:36 ↗ look for non-conforming uses and i

1:02:38 ↗ didn't see

1:02:39 ↗ language

1:02:40 ↗ on non-conforming uses i didn't see

1:02:43 ↗ information on

1:02:45 ↗ private facilities in public parks and

1:02:48 ↗ anywhere i looked for restaurant or

1:02:51 ↗ temporary uses

1:02:54 ↗ i didn't see anything that looked like

1:02:56 ↗ it could be a

1:02:57 ↗ taco truck so batting is zero for three

1:03:01 ↗ i decided that that perhaps

1:03:04 ↗ some things were

1:03:05 ↗ missing and there needs to be a way to

1:03:08 ↗ better go through all of the uses to

1:03:11 ↗ understand if we're getting

1:03:13 ↗ to the things that we actually are going

1:03:15 ↗ to need to have because i think these

1:03:17 ↗ are all sort of common things that will

1:03:18 ↗ happen so that is one

1:03:21 ↗ two is

1:03:23 ↗ i don't

1:03:25 ↗ particularly like the having all the

1:03:28 ↗ different sort of standards like zoning

1:03:30 ↗ standards in one space and then uh

1:03:35 ↗ use standards in another space and then

1:03:38 ↗ a bunch of more standards in

1:03:40 ↗ subdivisions even though we aren't there

1:03:42 ↗ yet uh it it made it very bouncy and

1:03:46 ↗ then i was trying to imagine how you

1:03:48 ↗ were going to link those together so

1:03:50 ↗ somebody could go through and make sure

1:03:51 ↗ they were seeing all the

1:03:53 ↗ the appropriate standards and my

1:03:56 ↗ imagination is usually pretty good but i

1:03:58 ↗ was i was sort of stuck

1:04:00 ↗ with

1:04:01 ↗ making that easy to use so i would like

1:04:04 ↗ some consideration on some uh different

1:04:07 ↗ reorganization and clustering

1:04:10 ↗ of the information so that the normal

1:04:13 ↗ you know person off the street which i'm

1:04:15 ↗ not could

1:04:16 ↗ could use it most easily

1:04:19 ↗ and then as an example

1:04:22 ↗ cluster housing

1:04:23 ↗ which is a subdivision i don't really

1:04:27 ↗ understand why something that's

1:04:29 ↗ basically a subdivision then would be

1:04:32 ↗ under

1:04:33 ↗ zoning standards instead of under the

1:04:37 ↗ subdivision section

1:04:39 ↗ and so it's that sort of a

1:04:42 ↗ what's

1:04:43 ↗ what's what doesn't fit you know was it

1:04:45 ↗ the orange with six pairs

1:04:48 ↗ thing that i was going through as i was

1:04:50 ↗ i was running through this code

1:04:54 ↗ and i don't know that the commissions

1:04:56 ↗ are going to want to tackle that but i

1:04:58 ↗ would at least ask staff to

1:05:01 ↗ to consider that and also this um idea

1:05:05 ↗ of this is the last thing of being able

1:05:09 ↗ to combine

1:05:10 ↗ properties

1:05:12 ↗ and potentially make very large homes on

1:05:15 ↗ combined properties

1:05:18 ↗ and the language on

1:05:20 ↗ whether um they can build things that

1:05:23 ↗ aren't

1:05:25 ↗ i don't know don't fit in with the rest

1:05:27 ↗ of the neighborhood i don't know that we

1:05:29 ↗ have the language there to do that i'm

1:05:31 ↗ not sure if it's a a policy change or

1:05:34 ↗ not

1:05:35 ↗ but i would like to at least have that

1:05:37 ↗ conversation thank you

1:05:42 ↗ thank you connie

1:05:43 ↗ next we'll go to kyler and i'm going to

1:05:46 ↗ meet you now and make you a panelist

1:05:53 ↗ hello

1:05:55 ↗ not sure if my video's on or not can you

1:05:57 ↗ hear me

1:05:58 ↗ yes we can go ahead um so

1:06:01 ↗ my name is tyler janelson i am with

1:06:03 ↗ lakeside industries and i just wanted to

1:06:05 ↗ really quickly answer a question that um

1:06:08 ↗ i think it was commissioner mel

1:06:10 ↗ morgan asked earlier in the meeting um

1:06:12 ↗ i'm not exactly sure why the website is

1:06:16 ↗ not

1:06:17 ↗ updated on this matter but um lakeside's

1:06:20 ↗ asphalt plant concrete plant plant and

1:06:23 ↗ part of the mining area are actually

1:06:25 ↗ zoned as intensive commercial um it was

1:06:29 ↗ a decision made in 2015 under ordinance

1:06:33 ↗ 2746 if you want to look it up

1:06:36 ↗ um so

1:06:38 ↗ just a heads up on that one

1:06:40 ↗ and that's all my comment is besides i

1:06:42 ↗ submitted a written comment

1:06:47 ↗ great thank you kyler

1:06:49 ↗ sure voice i don't see any other hands

1:06:51 ↗ for public comment

1:06:55 ↗ great thank you stephen and to that last

1:06:57 ↗ public comment yes we do receive

1:07:00 ↗ in our agendas and in our packets

1:07:02 ↗ a breakdown of public comments that are

1:07:04 ↗ emailed into us so

1:07:06 ↗ multiple ways to reach us

1:07:09 ↗ our next presentation

1:07:11 ↗ i'm not sure which staff member's

1:07:13 ↗ picking this up

1:07:14 ↗ but please

1:07:26 ↗ i forgot to unmute before i made my

1:07:28 ↗ screen really small

1:07:30 ↗ so uh good evening lucy sloman current

1:07:32 ↗ planning manager

1:07:34 ↗ um i just put uh

1:07:37 ↗ that repeat this slide that kristen

1:07:39 ↗ showed

1:07:41 ↗ she has talked about zones and permitted

1:07:44 ↗ uses remember zones is essentially the

1:07:47 ↗ sorting hat for you harry potter fans

1:07:49 ↗ in terms of

1:07:52 ↗ grouping

1:07:53 ↗ properties that will have a similar

1:07:55 ↗ character

1:07:57 ↗ then

1:07:58 ↗ there's permitted uses and form and

1:08:00 ↗ intensity i'm going to speak about form

1:08:02 ↗ and intensity which um is you know about

1:08:05 ↗ how building how big buildings can be

1:08:08 ↗ density

1:08:09 ↗ building placement and then

1:08:12 ↗ i'm going to talk about specified uses

1:08:15 ↗ which is separate from zones and it's

1:08:17 ↗ about additional standards that apply to

1:08:20 ↗ a specific use

1:08:24 ↗ so first form and intensity i'm going to

1:08:27 ↗ do this via examples

1:08:30 ↗ first example is an addition to an

1:08:32 ↗ existing home in single-family small lot

1:08:36 ↗ so the standards

1:08:39 ↗ are

1:08:40 ↗ placed down here

1:08:41 ↗ where you see gray that means that those

1:08:45 ↗ particular standards would not

1:08:48 ↗ come into play for this particular

1:08:50 ↗ action the reason is for instance the

1:08:53 ↗ density

1:08:55 ↗ the lot size and the lot width were

1:08:58 ↗ already determined when the lot was

1:09:00 ↗ established so this would be related to

1:09:03 ↗ subdivision which many i'll talk about

1:09:06 ↗ later

1:09:08 ↗ build two

1:09:09 ↗ and max building height are typically

1:09:11 ↗ used with either multi-family or

1:09:14 ↗ non-residential

1:09:16 ↗ so the standards that would come into

1:09:18 ↗ play are setbacks

1:09:20 ↗ impervious surface

1:09:22 ↗ and building height

1:09:25 ↗ so in one example

1:09:27 ↗ let's say you want to add a

1:09:30 ↗ room onto the house so it would

1:09:32 ↗ for instance be here

1:09:34 ↗ or maybe you want to

1:09:37 ↗ add a

1:09:40 ↗ so this could be a room for more space

1:09:43 ↗ it could be room for a home business

1:09:46 ↗ or an adu

1:09:48 ↗ and similarly you might add a home

1:09:51 ↗ business or an accessory dwelling unit

1:09:54 ↗ on top of a garage

1:09:56 ↗ so

1:09:57 ↗ form an intensity would come into play

1:10:00 ↗ can you comply with the setbacks when

1:10:02 ↗ you're making those kinds of additions

1:10:05 ↗ uh impervious surface is um probably

1:10:09 ↗ most restrictive in the single family

1:10:11 ↗ zones and important in terms of

1:10:13 ↗ establishing character

1:10:15 ↗ anything

1:10:16 ↗ walkways buildings driveways all

1:10:19 ↗ contribute to your

1:10:21 ↗ impervious surface so when you're adding

1:10:24 ↗ on

1:10:25 ↗ a space like this you have to say do i

1:10:27 ↗ still comply with my impervious surface

1:10:30 ↗ where you're adding a second floor on

1:10:32 ↗ the height will come into play can i add

1:10:35 ↗ that second floor and still meet the

1:10:37 ↗ building height

1:10:41 ↗ my second example is a new commercial

1:10:43 ↗ building in mixed-use central issaquah

1:10:48 ↗ similar uh

1:10:49 ↗ examples of standards

1:10:52 ↗ density doesn't um apply because

1:10:56 ↗ typically it's

1:10:58 ↗ far floor area ratio

1:11:01 ↗ minimum lot size was already established

1:11:04 ↗ when the lot was established

1:11:06 ↗ and

1:11:08 ↗ in central issaquah

1:11:10 ↗ setbacks are about setting your

1:11:12 ↗ buildings back

1:11:14 ↗ keeping them away from the street for

1:11:17 ↗ instance

1:11:18 ↗ build two lines require you to build

1:11:21 ↗ close to the street and that's one of

1:11:24 ↗ the tools that we've used in central

1:11:26 ↗ esqua and some other neighborhoods so in

1:11:28 ↗ this case we have a build to line

1:11:31 ↗ instead of setbacks

1:11:33 ↗ then we have side and rear setbacks

1:11:36 ↗ impervious surface and height

1:11:39 ↗ for height there is a base building

1:11:41 ↗ height which you're just allowed to do

1:11:42 ↗ outright and a max building height which

1:11:45 ↗ you're allowed to do if you do certain

1:11:48 ↗ extra

1:11:49 ↗ benefits

1:11:50 ↗ so i think one of the things to point

1:11:52 ↗ out is we're using very similar sort of

1:11:55 ↗ categories of standards

1:11:58 ↗ but the differences in those standards

1:12:00 ↗ creates very different kinds of projects

1:12:03 ↗ and that's how the form and intensity is

1:12:06 ↗ shaped through each of these different

1:12:08 ↗ zones

1:12:14 ↗ issaquah highlands and talus as i

1:12:15 ↗ mentioned earlier because they came from

1:12:18 ↗ the development agreement they don't

1:12:20 ↗ have all the same form and intensity

1:12:22 ↗ standards

1:12:23 ↗ in the draft code which has been brought

1:12:26 ↗ over from the replacement regulations we

1:12:29 ↗ have setbacks impervious height and

1:12:31 ↗ minimum floor area ratio

1:12:34 ↗ we've added build two lines uh the

1:12:37 ↗ reason that we did that is it was a

1:12:39 ↗ guideline and we've now made it a

1:12:41 ↗ standard

1:12:42 ↗ and so that makes it consistent with

1:12:44 ↗ central esqua similar sort of um

1:12:48 ↗ character desired we are considering

1:12:51 ↗ adding density a maximum far floor area

1:12:55 ↗ ratio

1:12:56 ↗ and minimum lot size and width

1:12:58 ↗ those are traditional tools which were

1:13:01 ↗ not

1:13:02 ↗ used under the development agreement and

1:13:04 ↗ were not carried forward with the

1:13:05 ↗ replacement regulations

1:13:08 ↗ we want to have that conversation with

1:13:10 ↗ the commissions and we will bring you

1:13:12 ↗ more information with the next bucket

1:13:15 ↗ to kind of prime that conversation but

1:13:18 ↗ just wanted to give you a heads up it

1:13:19 ↗ was kind of subtle

1:13:21 ↗ in the draft code and we wanted to

1:13:23 ↗ point that out

1:13:26 ↗ in terms of specified uses

1:13:30 ↗ unlike the permitted uses which are tied

1:13:33 ↗ to a zone

1:13:35 ↗ specified use standards are tied to a

1:13:37 ↗ use

1:13:39 ↗ so you don't say i'm in this um mixed

1:13:43 ↗ use

1:13:44 ↗ zone

1:13:45 ↗ what what are my rules

1:13:47 ↗ you add to those

1:13:49 ↗ i'm in the mixed use zone i have these

1:13:52 ↗ form and intensity rules and on top of

1:13:54 ↗ that because i'm doing a bed and

1:13:57 ↗ breakfast or a cannabis facility i have

1:14:00 ↗ these additional rules so wherever that

1:14:03 ↗ use occurs

1:14:05 ↗ wherever that use is allowed and

1:14:07 ↗ wherever that use occurs these

1:14:09 ↗ additional standards apply

1:14:14 ↗ uh one example of that

1:14:16 ↗ that i point out because i know there's

1:14:19 ↗ been a lot of conversation about self

1:14:20 ↗ storage facilities um there are um

1:14:25 ↗ specified use standards for storage

1:14:27 ↗ facilities i've sort of generalized it

1:14:30 ↗ um there are location restrictions

1:14:33 ↗ access colors and building design

1:14:36 ↗ the um building at the top which is the

1:14:38 ↗ self storage

1:14:40 ↗ facility on newport

1:14:42 ↗ i believe would have used these based on

1:14:45 ↗ when the building was built and the

1:14:47 ↗ standards were adopted

1:14:49 ↗ the uh storage facility on gilman

1:14:52 ↗ because it was built under central

1:14:54 ↗ issaquah did not use these standards

1:14:57 ↗ instead it used the

1:14:59 ↗ central issaquah

1:15:02 ↗ building design standards

1:15:05 ↗ and now that the design manual has been

1:15:07 ↗ adopted if it was built today it would

1:15:10 ↗ have to use the design manual so we have

1:15:13 ↗ for areas like central issaquah

1:15:16 ↗ and the urban villages where they're

1:15:18 ↗ active hoas

1:15:21 ↗ we have exempted those from having to

1:15:23 ↗ use some of these specified new

1:15:25 ↗ standards where they're very building

1:15:27 ↗ design oriented because we want the um

1:15:32 ↗ want the

1:15:36 ↗ the uses to

1:15:38 ↗ follow the manual

1:15:47 ↗ and that's it i'm ready

1:15:49 ↗ ready for questions

1:15:51 ↗ or comments questions

1:16:32 ↗ hi

1:16:33 ↗ this is nina milligan with a question

1:16:35 ↗ lucy thank you so much the only question

1:16:37 ↗ i had was about self storage

1:16:39 ↗ um in

1:16:40 ↗ working with this um code i was kind of

1:16:43 ↗ hopeful that there was an opportunity

1:16:45 ↗ through trying to

1:16:46 ↗ match up with our policies finding where

1:16:51 ↗ the consistency is between this

1:16:55 ↗ real desire to limit or maybe even not

1:16:58 ↗ have self storage not because of their

1:17:00 ↗ design but because of their use

1:17:03 ↗ and and i guess i'm kind of surprised

1:17:05 ↗ that we didn't find it in this cleanup

1:17:08 ↗ of title 18.

1:17:10 ↗ are we unable to articulate in our other

1:17:15 ↗ policy documents that

1:17:18 ↗ self-storage is incompatible with

1:17:21 ↗ i'm just thinking back to these these

1:17:23 ↗ long time arguments how do we not have

1:17:25 ↗ self storage in

1:17:28 ↗ issaquah what are we missing

1:17:31 ↗ in our documents

1:17:34 ↗ that make it so that we still allow

1:17:37 ↗ self storage in issaquah is that is that

1:17:39 ↗ a fair question or is that just too big

1:17:41 ↗ and philosophical

1:17:44 ↗ i'm going to let kristen start because i

1:17:46 ↗ think she was present for the um

1:17:54 ↗ that was a discussion that took place um

1:17:57 ↗ probably about 20 i can't remember 2016.

1:18:00 ↗ um and one of the reasons we actually

1:18:02 ↗ were focused on central issaquah um and

1:18:04 ↗ i'd be happy to talk to you about this

1:18:05 ↗ later but it was a centralist aqua

1:18:07 ↗ discussion we limited it there

1:18:09 ↗ um because not because of the use itself

1:18:12 ↗ so much as the number of employees we're

1:18:14 ↗ trying to get employees into central

1:18:15 ↗ issaquah to meet our targets and not

1:18:18 ↗ those those don't do it

1:18:20 ↗ so that that was our policy sort of our

1:18:22 ↗ policy discussion there did not wind up

1:18:23 ↗ in the comp plan something we could look

1:18:25 ↗ at later

1:18:26 ↗ um but that was our reason for doing

1:18:28 ↗ that at the time

1:18:30 ↗ happy to talk about it more with you if

1:18:31 ↗ you'd like that is more of a policy

1:18:33 ↗ discussion

1:18:37 ↗ all right well i apologize commissioners

1:18:39 ↗ i pushed the stop video button instead

1:18:40 ↗ of the unmute button

1:18:43 ↗ i was actually saying something profound

1:18:45 ↗ and then uh all of a sudden so

1:18:47 ↗ what i was saying to myself apparently

1:18:49 ↗ privately was we are tracking behind

1:18:52 ↗ guys so we're about 30 minutes behind

1:18:54 ↗ the one thing i would ask from all of

1:18:55 ↗ our commissioners is to the best of your

1:18:57 ↗ abilities

1:18:58 ↗ please try to keep the questions as

1:19:00 ↗ clarifying questions as far as the

1:19:02 ↗ changes that you're seeing in the code

1:19:06 ↗ if possible try and leave yeah i know

1:19:08 ↗ everybody needs to have a little bit of

1:19:09 ↗ context in order to provide it to staff

1:19:12 ↗ but if everyone's done their homeworks

1:19:13 ↗ we should kind of know so i'm going to

1:19:16 ↗ try and keep that portion down a little

1:19:17 ↗ bit because again

1:19:18 ↗ um happy to go over time a little bit

1:19:21 ↗ but i don't

1:19:22 ↗ if we have to we can always schedule

1:19:24 ↗ another meeting but if we can it'd be

1:19:25 ↗ nice to get this done tonight and again

1:19:27 ↗ we're already tracking about nine

1:19:28 ↗ o'clock versus 8 35

1:19:30 ↗ so just wanted to put that out there

1:19:33 ↗ we have a question for commissioner

1:19:35 ↗ brennan

1:19:37 ↗ care brandon thanks chair boyce um

1:19:39 ↗ so

1:19:40 ↗ lucy i kind of lost track a little bit

1:19:43 ↗ on the use standards and what governs so

1:19:47 ↗ we have

1:19:48 ↗ specific um design standards for and use

1:19:51 ↗ the storage so the self storage is one

1:19:53 ↗ example and then we also have building

1:19:56 ↗ design standards in some some parts of

1:19:59 ↗ the city like central issaquah so now

1:20:01 ↗ we've got

1:20:02 ↗ two different standards it could apply

1:20:05 ↗ to a project so how is that reconciled

1:20:08 ↗ in the code

1:20:10 ↗ so um

1:20:11 ↗ we

1:20:13 ↗ so i think

1:20:14 ↗ two important clarifications one

1:20:16 ↗ many of the specified use standards are

1:20:19 ↗ not about the building design

1:20:21 ↗ so for instance cannabis is a lot about

1:20:24 ↗ operations

1:20:26 ↗ but you're right that

1:20:28 ↗ self storage is you know predominantly

1:20:31 ↗ about building design and less about

1:20:34 ↗ operations

1:20:35 ↗ and we excluded ones that were more

1:20:39 ↗ building design oriented we excluded

1:20:42 ↗ areas that have architectural standards

1:20:45 ↗ like the design manual

1:20:47 ↗ or where there are active hoas like

1:20:50 ↗ isqua highlands and talus

1:20:54 ↗ so in that case those those

1:20:58 ↗ standards would govern not the specific

1:21:00 ↗ use standards when it came to

1:21:02 ↗ architectural okay okay

1:21:08 ↗ thank you commissioner commissioner

1:21:10 ↗ lewis

1:21:12 ↗ thank you chairvoice um i my question

1:21:15 ↗ lucy is uh regarding sorry uh specified

1:21:19 ↗ use standards article two standards uh

1:21:22 ↗ 504.050

1:21:25 ↗ and i'm on

1:21:26 ↗ what page am i 16 of 18

1:21:29 ↗ again specified use standards i'm

1:21:31 ↗ curious about point two for underground

1:21:34 ↗ um communications and electrical uh the

1:21:36 ↗ wording says its greatest extent

1:21:38 ↗ practical i'm kind of confused on the

1:21:41 ↗ language um is this we're talking about

1:21:44 ↗ all all zones this is now the preferred

1:21:47 ↗ source

1:21:51 ↗ so i believe this was all

1:21:53 ↗ this was all pulled

1:21:55 ↗ over from

1:21:58 ↗ existing language we were trying to

1:22:00 ↗ clean up some of those practical and

1:22:03 ↗ feasible phrases

1:22:04 ↗ because

1:22:06 ↗ it um

1:22:07 ↗ really becomes a big negotiation um so

1:22:10 ↗ thanks for pointing that one out

1:22:13 ↗ i'm curious um are we thinking about

1:22:15 ↗ adding language that talks about like

1:22:16 ↗ outside of the floodplain or

1:22:18 ↗ linking in

1:22:21 ↗ more updated language regarding that

1:22:24 ↗ i don't know about outside the flood

1:22:27 ↗ plain because we aren't prohibiting um

1:22:29 ↗ construction in the floodplain there are

1:22:31 ↗ just standards that have to be met if

1:22:34 ↗ you are building in the flood

1:22:37 ↗ i'm a little confused i think about

1:22:39 ↗ where we're trying to say where we want

1:22:41 ↗ things buried where we don't want things

1:22:43 ↗ buried oh i see

1:22:45 ↗ um currently uh

1:22:50 ↗ the wires have to be underground

1:22:53 ↗ uh in general in the city

1:22:55 ↗ most equipment is not underground um a

1:22:59 ↗ lot of

1:23:01 ↗ dry utility purveyors like gas electric

1:23:05 ↗ um cable will not do a lot of stuff

1:23:08 ↗ underground because

1:23:09 ↗ of flooded vaults

1:23:13 ↗ okay so i haven't i haven't missed a

1:23:14 ↗ change

1:23:15 ↗ in language even though this is pretty

1:23:18 ↗ heavily

1:23:19 ↗ this is what we prefer

1:23:23 ↗ i think this pulled the existing

1:23:25 ↗ language over

1:23:27 ↗ okay thank you very much lucy um i do

1:23:30 ↗ want to make a quick comment to say that

1:23:31 ↗ um commissioner stanford brought up a

1:23:33 ↗ really important issue with previous

1:23:35 ↗ permits had been before the dc i know in

1:23:37 ↗ our gaps analysis we talked about um

1:23:40 ↗ hearing examiners and re-examining the

1:23:42 ↗ role of dc

1:23:43 ↗ i think it's extremely important when

1:23:44 ↗ talking about foreign intensity

1:23:47 ↗ and specifically uh when we go through

1:23:49 ↗ our specified use standards i would love

1:23:51 ↗ to be able to hear later on in a

1:23:52 ↗ discussion when dc has the opportunity

1:23:54 ↗ to hear from you guys about how you

1:23:56 ↗ really see this being brought over and

1:23:58 ↗ changes that may or may not need to be

1:24:00 ↗ brought so thank you everyone

1:24:07 ↗ commissioner sanford

1:24:09 ↗ thanks chairman uh richard sanford dc

1:24:11 ↗ only one point i'm uh lucy you'll be

1:24:13 ↗ you'll be sad to hear

1:24:15 ↗ okay um

1:24:16 ↗ but i i think it's a high level one so

1:24:20 ↗ on uh 18 504 or 050 utility facilities

1:24:24 ↗ i'm on page 16 of 18

1:24:26 ↗ uh the same

1:24:28 ↗ section that commissioner lewis just

1:24:30 ↗ referred to

1:24:31 ↗ um it seems to me in looking at this

1:24:34 ↗ that's largely redundant

1:24:36 ↗ with 18.400.220

1:24:40 ↗ a

1:24:42 ↗ and i was wondering why a lot of this

1:24:44 ↗ language occurs almost verbatim in two

1:24:47 ↗ places and i was wondering if we could

1:24:49 ↗ delete this section and just go with the

1:24:51 ↗ previous one

1:24:54 ↗ is that under zones

1:24:58 ↗ i believe so 18400.220

1:25:02 ↗ right

1:25:08 ↗ oh okay

1:25:09 ↗ community facilities standards yeah

1:25:11 ↗ right

1:25:12 ↗ uh community facilities standards i'm

1:25:15 ↗ not saying that we can't delete it i

1:25:17 ↗ think that we were trying to make a

1:25:19 ↗ distinction

1:25:21 ↗ between um for instance unoccupied

1:25:24 ↗ utility facilities and some of the

1:25:27 ↗ community facilities

1:25:30 ↗ that are

1:25:31 ↗ [Music]

1:25:32 ↗ like pump stations

1:25:35 ↗ but i think you've brought up an

1:25:37 ↗ important point we're going to need to

1:25:38 ↗ go back and study the language to see if

1:25:40 ↗ we've just duplicated it in two places

1:25:43 ↗ okay and i think i think one of these

1:25:45 ↗ says should language and the other has

1:25:47 ↗ must so you might take a look at that

1:25:49 ↗ thanks that's all i had

1:25:54 ↗ you commissioner morgan

1:25:56 ↗ uh thank you chair voice um for the uh

1:25:59 ↗ for um

1:26:00 ↗ i'm sorry specified uses

1:26:03 ↗ the

1:26:04 ↗ 18.502.101

1:26:10 ↗ page

1:26:12 ↗ 13 of 18

1:26:13 ↗ the recreational cannabis facility

1:26:16 ↗ two questions one would be

1:26:18 ↗ is the word recreational needed is there

1:26:21 ↗ a different type of

1:26:23 ↗ cannabis

1:26:25 ↗ facility that would be within the city

1:26:28 ↗ uh whether it's production or sales and

1:26:32 ↗ the other would be

1:26:33 ↗ i'm not sure that we i see something

1:26:35 ↗ that would define facilities and it made

1:26:37 ↗ me question does this mean

1:26:39 ↗ a sales

1:26:40 ↗ operation or a

1:26:42 ↗ production

1:26:43 ↗ operation

1:26:47 ↗ so

1:26:48 ↗ i think most of this was

1:26:51 ↗ just carried over and reformatted i

1:26:54 ↗ the use of the term recreational may be

1:26:57 ↗ a holdover from when there used to be

1:26:59 ↗ medical

1:27:00 ↗ and

1:27:01 ↗ versus recreational so we'll have to do

1:27:03 ↗ a little more research on that

1:27:06 ↗ [Music]

1:27:08 ↗ this would apply to

1:27:11 ↗ retail settings that's

1:27:13 ↗ because there we have two licenses

1:27:16 ↗ assigned to the city and uh this

1:27:20 ↗ definitely uh is

1:27:22 ↗ are the regulations the standards that

1:27:24 ↗ are applying to those

1:27:26 ↗ so could it also apply to growing

1:27:29 ↗ operations to them

1:27:32 ↗ if those are allowed in the city and off

1:27:34 ↗ uh i don't is kristin

1:27:37 ↗ um

1:27:37 ↗ do you know if there's a difference in

1:27:39 ↗ the permitted uses between

1:27:42 ↗ cannabis uh retail and cannabis

1:27:44 ↗ production there is a difference yes i

1:27:47 ↗ think that production is not allowed i'd

1:27:49 ↗ have to go back and double check but i

1:27:51 ↗ think okay because

1:27:52 ↗ under under b5

1:27:55 ↗ it says ensure that no horticulture

1:27:57 ↗ production processing or delivery of

1:27:59 ↗ cannabis is visible to the public

1:28:03 ↗ so if it's not allowed at all

1:28:06 ↗ maybe there should just be something

1:28:07 ↗ that states it's not allowed

1:28:09 ↗ um

1:28:11 ↗ the and then a question on eighteen

1:28:13 ↗ point performance intensity

1:28:16 ↗ 18.404.040

1:28:20 ↗ [Music]

1:28:22 ↗ um

1:28:28 ↗ density

1:28:29 ↗ sorry uh well the question is

1:28:32 ↗ um

1:28:33 ↗ i have to get back to it but what is how

1:28:36 ↗ is native soil defined

1:28:41 ↗ um

1:28:44 ↗ it says this is item c

1:28:46 ↗ um page six of twenty four

1:28:49 ↗ uh the uh the

1:28:51 ↗ part that might be moved to landscaping

1:28:53 ↗ chapter

1:28:54 ↗ um but it says

1:28:58 ↗ must retain minimum percentage of native

1:29:01 ↗ soil area

1:29:04 ↗ not sure what native soil is

1:29:08 ↗ uh let us get back to you i need to look

1:29:10 ↗ up the definition

1:29:12 ↗ okay

1:29:14 ↗ and then 18

1:29:15 ↗ 404 100

1:29:18 ↗ wondering in the table

1:29:25 ↗ there's the um

1:29:29 ↗ in the table for density per acre and so

1:29:32 ↗ forth

1:29:33 ↗ there are n a's for mixed use

1:29:36 ↗ central issaquah but limited by fdr

1:29:39 ↗ ratios in

1:29:40 ↗ um

1:29:42 ↗ ic zones

1:29:44 ↗ would the

1:29:46 ↗ so is the density also limited by far

1:29:49 ↗ ratios in

1:29:51 ↗ central issaquah so would would they

1:29:53 ↗ both

1:29:54 ↗ would those all be kind of limited by

1:29:56 ↗ fdr ratios instead of just n a

1:30:00 ↗ can you give me a page number oh um yeah

1:30:03 ↗ page 17 of

1:30:04 ↗ 24 it's the mig zones form and intensity

1:30:08 ↗ standards

1:30:10 ↗ the first line

1:30:11 ↗ development units per acre or density

1:30:15 ↗ so mixed use central issaquah in a

1:30:18 ↗ whereas intensive commercial central

1:30:21 ↗ issaquah i said but intensive commercial

1:30:24 ↗ limited by fdr ratios

1:30:28 ↗ it seems like

1:30:30 ↗ it's limited by

1:30:32 ↗ far ratios in central island as well

1:30:35 ↗ yeah

1:30:36 ↗ yeah

1:30:38 ↗ i that makes a lot of sense and um i

1:30:41 ↗ think we'll have to research that one a

1:30:42 ↗ little more it seems like we would have

1:30:44 ↗ more far

1:30:46 ↗ show up there so great thank you

1:30:50 ↗ that's all my questions to your voice

1:30:54 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan

1:30:56 ↗ uh commissioner lewis

1:31:00 ↗ thank you chair boyce real quick on the

1:31:03 ↗ uh

1:31:04 ↗ specified use standards for adult

1:31:06 ↗ entertainment um is this a pullover or

1:31:09 ↗ are you guys um

1:31:11 ↗ done with this do you feel like you need

1:31:13 ↗ because i see quite a few uses of public

1:31:16 ↗ nudity that are excluded right now where

1:31:18 ↗ we're not prohibiting certain public

1:31:20 ↗ nudity are you looking for feedback from

1:31:22 ↗ everybody on where nudity usually takes

1:31:24 ↗ place in our community and isn't

1:31:26 ↗ included here

1:31:27 ↗ is this something you'd appreciate

1:31:29 ↗ offline comments for

1:31:32 ↗ so this as far as i know this was pulled

1:31:34 ↗ over directly from

1:31:37 ↗ our existing code other than formatting

1:31:39 ↗ and just

1:31:42 ↗ minor cleanups um so like for instance

1:31:45 ↗ on point three we uh you know we're not

1:31:47 ↗ able to restrict community on classes

1:31:50 ↗ seminars lectures um conducted for

1:31:52 ↗ scientific or educational purposes

1:31:54 ↗ artistic isn't mentioned um

1:31:57 ↗ we don't have nudity related to maternal

1:31:59 ↗ activities

1:32:00 ↗ for with children i mean there's there's

1:32:02 ↗ multiple things that nudity naturally

1:32:04 ↗ occurs in our community that are not

1:32:05 ↗ listed here i'm curious if you guys are

1:32:08 ↗ planning on updating and modernizing

1:32:11 ↗ we are modernized um i take your point

1:32:14 ↗ so please send us an email just so that

1:32:16 ↗ we can incorporate this

1:32:18 ↗ and just to know most of that's based on

1:32:20 ↗ state law that was back in 1999 so we

1:32:22 ↗ can go back and see if that's been

1:32:24 ↗ updated as well

1:32:25 ↗ thank you very much

1:32:29 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis so now i'd

1:32:31 ↗ like to move us along to the public

1:32:33 ↗ comment portion

1:32:35 ↗ of this part of the presentation

1:32:37 ↗ so

1:32:38 ↗ uh stephen do we have anyone signed up

1:32:39 ↗ to speak

1:32:41 ↗ no i see one raised hand from kanye but

1:32:44 ↗ i don't know if that's a

1:32:46 ↗ carry over from the previous public

1:32:47 ↗ comment did you want to speak i did

1:32:50 ↗ okay all right i'm gonna move you to

1:32:52 ↗ panelists

1:33:01 ↗ right so this is connie marsh again up

1:33:04 ↗ on squawk um

1:33:06 ↗ so the form and intensity chapter

1:33:09 ↗ was

1:33:10 ↗ uh

1:33:11 ↗ so good as to be almost a thing of

1:33:13 ↗ beauty because i had very few comments

1:33:16 ↗ on that which is so rare that y'all

1:33:18 ↗ might faint

1:33:20 ↗ i did have one um comment and that i

1:33:23 ↗ appreciated the addition

1:33:25 ↗ of

1:33:26 ↗ the uh impervious surface ratio

1:33:30 ↗ not being

1:33:31 ↗ um

1:33:32 ↗ set in stone

1:33:34 ↗ because you also have to follow the

1:33:36 ↗ other criteria for things like

1:33:38 ↗ landscaping and tree preservation so if

1:33:41 ↗ it says 80 percent impervious surface

1:33:43 ↗ allowed that you will

1:33:45 ↗ you you will not necessarily get that

1:33:48 ↗ because you do have to follow the

1:33:50 ↗ other uh codes i think it could still be

1:33:53 ↗ a little clearer

1:33:54 ↗ and louder but there you go it's better

1:33:56 ↗ than it was

1:33:58 ↗ before

1:33:59 ↗ and then i want to follow my doggy

1:34:02 ↗ daycare section to the more specified

1:34:05 ↗ use

1:34:06 ↗ which was where i read that there is um

1:34:11 ↗ there's language there that i'm sure is

1:34:13 ↗ just to carry over but it also includes

1:34:16 ↗ a process

1:34:19 ↗ where you could have

1:34:21 ↗ uh just fences as long as you were

1:34:24 ↗ approved

1:34:25 ↗ by staff

1:34:26 ↗ and so

1:34:28 ↗ um i don't know if i don't know if

1:34:29 ↗ that's in other places but it does seem

1:34:32 ↗ to me that

1:34:34 ↗ that this would not be a place where you

1:34:36 ↗ would start talking about

1:34:38 ↗ deviations

1:34:39 ↗ um

1:34:41 ↗ i don't know if we're gonna have a

1:34:42 ↗ deviations chapter but right now we have

1:34:46 ↗ a process for deviations in this so does

1:34:48 ↗ this just mean you chitter chat with

1:34:50 ↗ staff and they say

1:34:52 ↗ yeah we like that fence and go forth uh

1:34:55 ↗ so if if things like that could be

1:34:57 ↗ tidied up that would be helpful thank

1:34:59 ↗ you

1:35:04 ↗ great thank you connie

1:35:06 ↗ i do not see any other raise times for a

1:35:08 ↗ public comment

1:35:12 ↗ all right thank you steven

1:35:14 ↗ uh moving on to our next presentation

1:35:17 ↗ stay off

1:35:23 ↗ good evening everyone um

1:35:27 ↗ let me share my screen

1:35:33 ↗ and let me know if you all can

1:35:36 ↗ see my

1:35:46 ↗ many we see the presentation with notes

1:35:49 ↗ how about now

1:35:51 ↗ good uh but we see gray boxes in the

1:35:53 ↗ middle

1:35:55 ↗ you don't see the

1:35:56 ↗ the

1:35:57 ↗ oh we see the presentation but there's

1:35:59 ↗ kind of some gray boxes blocking the

1:36:01 ↗ view a bit

1:36:03 ↗ oh kind of in the upper right

1:36:06 ↗ how about now

1:36:10 ↗ it's better

1:36:13 ↗ um

1:36:15 ↗ go ahead and get started and um i can

1:36:17 ↗ let you know if anything is blocked let

1:36:19 ↗ me

1:36:20 ↗ let me take my other monitor off and see

1:36:23 ↗ if that this is better

1:36:35 ↗ is it better now

1:36:37 ↗ let me let me share again sorry about

1:36:39 ↗ that

1:36:40 ↗ so let's try that

1:37:00 ↗ can you guys see my screen

1:37:03 ↗ keeps going

1:37:11 ↗ okay

1:37:21 ↗ so bear with me i have

1:37:23 ↗ three of these things open here

1:37:50 ↗ okay any luck any better now okay great

1:37:54 ↗ so uh just to refresh everyone's memory

1:37:57 ↗ we talked about subdivisions at the very

1:37:58 ↗ beginning we use this as a sample uh of

1:38:01 ↗ how the format we're going to use and

1:38:03 ↗ what not at the time uh we kind of said

1:38:06 ↗ you know that we got the kind of

1:38:07 ↗ questions we received from um

1:38:10 ↗ were you know what is a subdivision so

1:38:12 ↗ just a very quick refresher so when you

1:38:15 ↗ want to divide any land into separate

1:38:17 ↗ parcels for either sale lease or

1:38:19 ↗ financing it's called a subdivision

1:38:22 ↗ at the currently our code says more than

1:38:25 ↗ four lots is considered a subdivision

1:38:28 ↗ less than four or four as short plat

1:38:31 ↗ for commercial and industrial you can

1:38:34 ↗ also do a binding site plan

1:38:36 ↗ where you have shared access and all

1:38:37 ↗ those kind of things for those uh

1:38:40 ↗ areas and we have a boundary line

1:38:42 ↗ adjustment process where you can move

1:38:43 ↗ your property lines

1:38:45 ↗ and make small adjustments we don't

1:38:47 ↗ currently have where you can elim we

1:38:50 ↗ currently allow lot line elimination

1:38:53 ↗ process but it's not clearly spelled out

1:38:55 ↗ in the code

1:38:57 ↗ so uh what what are subdivisions they

1:38:59 ↗ are sort of that form the um

1:39:03 ↗ the

1:39:03 ↗ the framework for land

1:39:06 ↗ uh splitting the land you know back in

1:39:08 ↗ the day people used to deed the land

1:39:11 ↗ then in 1970s this became an interest

1:39:14 ↗ for the state um

1:39:16 ↗ so there is a pretty robust uh state law

1:39:19 ↗ about what those planning requirements

1:39:21 ↗ are

1:39:22 ↗ and the idea is from the state law is

1:39:25 ↗ that you can't divide land unless you

1:39:27 ↗ provide services you know road access um

1:39:31 ↗ and utilities

1:39:32 ↗ so this is just an example of how it's

1:39:34 ↗ been done here this is just south of uh

1:39:37 ↗ southeast 48th street closer to city of

1:39:40 ↗ samamish uh where it happened in

1:39:42 ↗ different phases and so you get these

1:39:44 ↗ connected streets through um as land

1:39:47 ↗ develops over uh over time or at

1:39:49 ↗ different times um within the same

1:39:51 ↗ uh time frame or not

1:39:54 ↗ a plat can have

1:39:57 ↗ you know lots streets

1:39:59 ↗ and then you have your

1:40:02 ↗ tracts so if there is a wetland in the

1:40:05 ↗ property you can generally set it up as

1:40:07 ↗ a tract where you can't build on it

1:40:10 ↗ because of critical area regulations

1:40:11 ↗ it's owned and managed by the homeowners

1:40:13 ↗ association or you can have sometimes

1:40:16 ↗ your roads and access driveways set up

1:40:18 ↗ as tracts

1:40:20 ↗ this is what it looks on the ground so

1:40:22 ↗ on your right hand side is a track set

1:40:24 ↗ up for critical area

1:40:26 ↗ you as part of your planning process you

1:40:28 ↗ have to build your sidewalks all your

1:40:30 ↗ utilities water sewer before you're

1:40:32 ↗ allowed to build your homes

1:40:34 ↗ um

1:40:36 ↗ currently like i said uh in isoqua up to

1:40:39 ↗ no

1:40:40 ↗ more than four lots is considered a

1:40:41 ↗ subdivision it's a two-step process you

1:40:44 ↗ apply for a preliminary plant approval

1:40:46 ↗ then you go and build all your

1:40:48 ↗ infrastructure roads utilities and all

1:40:50 ↗ of that and then you apply for your

1:40:52 ↗ final plant approval at that time you

1:40:55 ↗ you're allowed to build homes on

1:40:57 ↗ individual lots and and you can sell

1:40:58 ↗ individual lots after the final flat

1:41:00 ↗ approval

1:41:02 ↗ um

1:41:03 ↗ so preliminary plan is really when most

1:41:05 ↗ of the work occurs because it's your

1:41:07 ↗ layout is approved it's makes sure that

1:41:11 ↗ you can provide and connect all your

1:41:13 ↗ utilities uh there is a public hearing

1:41:16 ↗ and the

1:41:17 ↗ hearing examiner

1:41:18 ↗ uh makes a decision

1:41:20 ↗ uh and and the role of at that time is

1:41:22 ↗ to make sure that that uh the layout and

1:41:25 ↗ the plat is in conformance with the

1:41:27 ↗ adopted codes

1:41:30 ↗ and what are those you know open spaces

1:41:33 ↗ drainage waters

1:41:35 ↗ park sidewalk um

1:41:37 ↗ and um you know safe walking route for

1:41:40 ↗ schools is a state requirement and then

1:41:42 ↗ also whether the public interest is

1:41:44 ↗ served by subdivision and dedication

1:41:46 ↗ um

1:41:48 ↗ final plat really becomes a a check at

1:41:51 ↗ the at the end that you've you've built

1:41:54 ↗ per your approved preliminary plat

1:41:57 ↗ and then it this is the one which is

1:42:00 ↗ recorded with king county uh that really

1:42:02 ↗ for um finalizes the lot layout

1:42:06 ↗ um

1:42:07 ↗ so you know this this process of

1:42:10 ↗ planning is um

1:42:12 ↗ it is is a lot

1:42:14 ↗ different than your land use approval

1:42:17 ↗ process because you you you have

1:42:19 ↗ multiple steps in it

1:42:21 ↗ so when we first call it a complete

1:42:23 ↗ application we send out a notice of

1:42:25 ↗ hearing if it is more than four lots

1:42:27 ↗ there's a

1:42:28 ↗ hearing a preliminary approval and then

1:42:30 ↗ we review all the site work permit for

1:42:34 ↗ to make sure it's in compliance with all

1:42:35 ↗ the adopted street standards lighting

1:42:37 ↗ stands street light standards drainage

1:42:39 ↗ and all that and then the builders will

1:42:41 ↗ go and build all that infrastructure and

1:42:44 ↗ then you come back for the final plan to

1:42:46 ↗ make sure you've complied with

1:42:47 ↗ everything

1:42:49 ↗ and then it's recorded sometimes for um

1:42:52 ↗ if you are doing some enhancements for

1:42:54 ↗ critical areas and landscaping we will

1:42:57 ↗ require a bond so that it's a

1:42:59 ↗ maintenance bond

1:43:00 ↗ to make sure that those some of those

1:43:02 ↗ infrastructure is maintained

1:43:04 ↗ um

1:43:05 ↗ short flats kind of the same two-step

1:43:07 ↗ process but there isn't a public hearing

1:43:10 ↗ involved with this

1:43:12 ↗ um

1:43:13 ↗ this is an example of a short flat here

1:43:15 ↗ in isoqua where you can see um you know

1:43:18 ↗ a small road

1:43:19 ↗ that was built as a tract and you'll see

1:43:21 ↗ some of these

1:43:23 ↗ which sometimes are referred to as

1:43:25 ↗ hammer heads and those are required for

1:43:27 ↗ fire truck turnaround access

1:43:29 ↗ requirements so you have to main you

1:43:30 ↗ know meet certain

1:43:32 ↗ radiuses and and whatnot and each lot

1:43:34 ↗ has to have a frontage on on a public

1:43:38 ↗ access but these are usually set up as

1:43:39 ↗ private tracts that are owned and

1:43:42 ↗ maintained by the homeowners association

1:43:45 ↗ um some examples uh of some of the

1:43:47 ↗ subdivisions currently uh going on in

1:43:49 ↗ essequa uh this is mallard point it's

1:43:52 ↗ about 30 year four unit single family

1:43:54 ↗ development on west lake sammamish

1:43:57 ↗ uh final plant was approved in february

1:43:59 ↗ of 2021.

1:44:00 ↗ um this is up on talus it's a 63

1:44:04 ↗ single-family home this is what it looks

1:44:07 ↗ like on ground

1:44:09 ↗ then there's west ridge which is

1:44:13 ↗ 73 single-family homes and 38 affordable

1:44:16 ↗ homes again it went through a final

1:44:18 ↗ plant process before they were allowed

1:44:20 ↗ to build the homes

1:44:22 ↗ um

1:44:23 ↗ some more pictures of that

1:44:25 ↗ kalkari this was a phased approach so

1:44:28 ↗ phase 2 has been built phase 3 is still

1:44:31 ↗ under review

1:44:33 ↗ so what are we doing with the changes in

1:44:35 ↗ the subdivision code

1:44:37 ↗ one of the goals and outcomes of this

1:44:39 ↗ update uh in the chart that we've shared

1:44:42 ↗ with all of you in the past

1:44:43 ↗ uh was to adopt some design standards

1:44:47 ↗ which were currently missing from the

1:44:48 ↗ subdivision section so things like

1:44:50 ↗ street connectivity block size

1:44:53 ↗ designing with the topography

1:44:55 ↗ open space requirements and such

1:44:59 ↗ unit lot subdivision the current code

1:45:01 ↗ did not have that process so

1:45:04 ↗ we received comments on this and we also

1:45:06 ↗ heard from uh some folks that do

1:45:08 ↗ development in the city

1:45:10 ↗ that in order to do town homes

1:45:13 ↗ this allowing a unit lot subdivision

1:45:16 ↗ where

1:45:16 ↗ the overall standards apply to your

1:45:19 ↗ parent parcel and you can have these

1:45:21 ↗ individual smaller lots that um the

1:45:25 ↗ the townhomes can be built on so people

1:45:27 ↗ can

1:45:28 ↗ own them fee simple as opposed to

1:45:30 ↗ everyone owns the the land under common

1:45:32 ↗ condo ownership and you just own your

1:45:34 ↗ structure

1:45:35 ↗ um

1:45:36 ↗ so we've added that uh process uh we've

1:45:40 ↗ really made very clear criteria for

1:45:42 ↗ different types of these plats we didn't

1:45:44 ↗ have a specific criteria approval

1:45:46 ↗ criteria in the code

1:45:49 ↗ we didn't have a process for lot

1:45:50 ↗ consolidation

1:45:52 ↗ um

1:45:53 ↗ we've added that

1:45:54 ↗ the expiration and extensions uh could

1:45:57 ↗ go you know the code allowed unlimited

1:45:59 ↗ extensions um so uh which become an

1:46:02 ↗ issue uh because sometimes these um

1:46:05 ↗ preliminary plats vest you to the codes

1:46:08 ↗ in effect at the time of prelim

1:46:10 ↗ preliminary plat so um generally the

1:46:14 ↗ state requires us to update these every

1:46:16 ↗ eight years so we've uh said that you

1:46:19 ↗ can you know you have a five years under

1:46:20 ↗ the state law

1:46:22 ↗ from preliminary plat to get your final

1:46:24 ↗ plat but then you can get three one-year

1:46:27 ↗ extensions but no more than eight years

1:46:29 ↗ you have to finish up your preliminary

1:46:31 ↗ plant

1:46:32 ↗ um

1:46:33 ↗ and then um we've clarified some of the

1:46:36 ↗ um deferred improvement and bonding

1:46:38 ↗ requirements it

1:46:40 ↗ we didn't have really clear guidance so

1:46:42 ↗ a lot of time was spent on what can you

1:46:44 ↗ bond for what can you not um and and

1:46:47 ↗ really the policy direction is that you

1:46:48 ↗ have to put all your infrastructure in

1:46:50 ↗ place before you can build your homes so

1:46:53 ↗ we've

1:46:54 ↗ clarified language related to that

1:46:56 ↗ there was no way in the code to address

1:46:59 ↗ modifications so sometimes things happen

1:47:01 ↗ on the ground

1:47:02 ↗ you know they find something

1:47:05 ↗ or a small modification needs to be made

1:47:07 ↗ because of the you know some minor issue

1:47:10 ↗ comes up um so we've added a process for

1:47:13 ↗ that um there was no process for phasing

1:47:17 ↗ so we've added that

1:47:18 ↗ we've made the final plats which are

1:47:21 ↗ really a very technical check of all the

1:47:23 ↗ conditions of the preliminary plat to be

1:47:25 ↗ an administrative decision

1:47:28 ↗ um so that's what we've accomplished

1:47:30 ↗ with this uh draft code we have a few

1:47:32 ↗ things that we'd like to get your take

1:47:35 ↗ on

1:47:36 ↗ um so we've you know we're still working

1:47:39 ↗ on this design requirements

1:47:41 ↗ we have some language in the code we

1:47:44 ↗ want to know whether it captures the

1:47:45 ↗ essence of what the community's desired

1:47:47 ↗ goals are for well-designed subdivisions

1:47:50 ↗ um we um

1:47:52 ↗ you know zero lot lines where you can

1:47:55 ↗ have your um

1:47:58 ↗ lot at your property line but you have a

1:48:01 ↗ no build easement on your on your

1:48:02 ↗ neighbors so you instead of getting two

1:48:04 ↗ five feet skinny side lots

1:48:07 ↗ one homeowner has ten foot and the other

1:48:10 ↗ one has zero so it's just more of a

1:48:12 ↗ shared um situation

1:48:14 ↗ uh but but you don't end up with um side

1:48:17 ↗ lots that aren't that useful

1:48:20 ↗ um so we want to know if you

1:48:22 ↗ think we've captured some of those

1:48:24 ↗ things here

1:48:25 ↗ the second the third question really um

1:48:29 ↗ and i'm sorry development commission

1:48:30 ↗ wasn't as part of that conversation but

1:48:32 ↗ we had

1:48:34 ↗ a conversation about community and

1:48:36 ↗ recreation space for multi-family

1:48:39 ↗ as part of the open space and community

1:48:40 ↗ space chapter

1:48:42 ↗ and really the standard was 48 square

1:48:44 ↗ feet per unit

1:48:46 ↗ and when we went back and talked to

1:48:48 ↗ council about some of those standards i

1:48:50 ↗ think we have to go back and look at

1:48:53 ↗ what makes sense

1:48:55 ↗ for

1:48:56 ↗ subdivisions and short plats and what

1:48:58 ↗ makes sense for multi-family

1:49:01 ↗ you know and and um

1:49:03 ↗ throughout the city or just in in the

1:49:06 ↗ central issaquah area so what we're

1:49:08 ↗ uh well our recommendation on on number

1:49:10 ↗ three is that you tell us that we should

1:49:13 ↗ uh do and and that's basically what

1:49:15 ↗ council has also told us that we we

1:49:17 ↗ should really look at

1:49:18 ↗ uh our peer review cities and and and

1:49:21 ↗ see what the minimum open space

1:49:23 ↗ requirements are

1:49:24 ↗ and

1:49:25 ↗ it doesn't seem right to have 48 square

1:49:28 ↗ feet for subdivision

1:49:30 ↗ to be the same standard as you have for

1:49:32 ↗ multi-family and the reason being if you

1:49:34 ↗ have a four lot short plaid and you have

1:49:36 ↗ 40

1:49:37 ↗ you know 50 times 4 200 square feet um

1:49:41 ↗ who's going to maintain it is it really

1:49:43 ↗ relevant so a subdivision open space

1:49:46 ↗ requirements need a more in-depth

1:49:48 ↗ analysis and so if you think if you

1:49:50 ↗ agree with us we'll we'll

1:49:52 ↗ you know in

1:49:53 ↗ bring some more research on that topic

1:49:57 ↗ the fourth question i think we asked

1:49:59 ↗ previously

1:50:01 ↗ to the planning policy commission when

1:50:03 ↗ we were and i think development

1:50:04 ↗ commission was at that meeting and it

1:50:06 ↗ was related to cpa

1:50:09 ↗ whether we should increase our

1:50:11 ↗ environmental review thresholds from

1:50:14 ↗ five to

1:50:16 ↗ uh to nine

1:50:18 ↗ and i think we heard uh no keep those

1:50:20 ↗ cpa thresholds to four

1:50:23 ↗ however

1:50:24 ↗ for short flats that are five large

1:50:26 ↗ short plats we just want to make sure

1:50:29 ↗ that there is an opportunity to

1:50:31 ↗ streamline the process here it doesn't

1:50:33 ↗ impact what's going to get built because

1:50:35 ↗ the criteria is still the same

1:50:37 ↗ however there is some efficiency in the

1:50:39 ↗ review process

1:50:41 ↗ because you will get a public notice for

1:50:43 ↗ five lots as part of your cipa review

1:50:46 ↗ but instead of having

1:50:48 ↗ a preliminary plan hearing and a final

1:50:51 ↗ plat uh process that um that if you

1:50:54 ↗ think this threshold should be raised

1:50:56 ↗ from four to nine lots for short and and

1:50:59 ↗ nine lots can be made as short black

1:51:00 ↗ process

1:51:02 ↗ and and really the last one is do you

1:51:04 ↗ think you know what else is missing

1:51:06 ↗ uh from this list that we should

1:51:07 ↗ incorporate in the second draft so

1:51:09 ↗ that's all i have on this

1:51:13 ↗ i can stop sharing or i can keep the

1:51:15 ↗ questions on the

1:51:18 ↗ screen if you could take them down

1:51:21 ↗ minnie

1:51:24 ↗ so thank you mini for the presentation i

1:51:26 ↗ do uh this is just

1:51:29 ↗ me talking but um

1:51:31 ↗ minnie's questions were the deliberative

1:51:33 ↗ questions so this is what you guys want

1:51:35 ↗ to talk about when you're deliberating

1:51:37 ↗ um

1:51:38 ↗ so right now what we're looking for to

1:51:40 ↗ wrap this up are clarification questions

1:51:42 ↗ as far as the presentation or the code

1:51:45 ↗ those deliberative questions that she

1:51:46 ↗ mentioned at the end that's for the

1:51:48 ↗ development commission to jump all in on

1:51:51 ↗ um

1:51:52 ↗ shortly after we wrap this up

1:51:54 ↗ so are there any clarifying questions as

1:51:56 ↗ far as mini's presentation or the code

1:51:58 ↗ itself

1:52:01 ↗ commissioner price

1:52:03 ↗ hi thank you

1:52:04 ↗ um

1:52:05 ↗ minnie i did have one question if you

1:52:07 ↗ could just clarify it it's it's going to

1:52:09 ↗ just inform my deliberative

1:52:13 ↗ conversation later and it's what is the

1:52:15 ↗ correlation of steep and a short flat if

1:52:18 ↗ both of those

1:52:19 ↗ increase

1:52:21 ↗ so say see if it goes five to nine short

1:52:24 ↗ black goes four to nine i think i have

1:52:26 ↗ that correct

1:52:27 ↗ um is there a scenario where one does

1:52:30 ↗ and one doesn't and then is there

1:52:32 ↗ i guess what i'm asking is is there a

1:52:35 ↗ scenario where you increase the short

1:52:38 ↗ flat limit

1:52:39 ↗ but you're not subject to c

1:52:42 ↗ does that make sense sure sure so the

1:52:44 ↗ way the the the land use applications

1:52:47 ↗ are reviewed is sipa's issued first

1:52:49 ↗ so sipa is really looking at anything

1:52:52 ↗ that our code doesn't capture anything

1:52:54 ↗ gray area that falls through the cracks

1:52:56 ↗ any kind of impacts related that aren't

1:52:58 ↗ can't be mitigated by compliance with

1:53:00 ↗ our existing code

1:53:02 ↗ so that has a notice requirement and and

1:53:05 ↗ so on so you know so that happens first

1:53:08 ↗ and then the planning process is

1:53:11 ↗ separate from the it will occur after

1:53:13 ↗ that so the decision on the plat will

1:53:15 ↗ occur after that it it doesn't you know

1:53:17 ↗ they act independently that as far as

1:53:20 ↗ thresholds go

1:53:21 ↗ a lot of uh cities

1:53:23 ↗ you know have increased their zipper

1:53:25 ↗ thresholds as well but i think the

1:53:26 ↗ discussion

1:53:28 ↗ with the planning policy commission

1:53:30 ↗ previously was to keep it at four

1:53:33 ↗ um so that's why we presented it as you

1:53:36 ↗ know you still

1:53:37 ↗ have your public notice requirements

1:53:39 ↗ from cpa

1:53:40 ↗ but do we want to change the short flat

1:53:43 ↗ threshold

1:53:51 ↗ thank you commissioner price i'm not

1:53:54 ↗ seeing any other questions so i'll leave

1:53:56 ↗ it in the air there for a moment and

1:53:59 ↗ then we'll move on to oh commissioner

1:54:01 ↗ dylan please

1:54:05 ↗ i'm not sure if this fits more in the

1:54:07 ↗ deliberation or not but i guess a

1:54:08 ↗ clarification for the short flat process

1:54:11 ↗ um

1:54:13 ↗ is are is there any guidelines or

1:54:15 ↗ restrictions on the size of the lots or

1:54:17 ↗ is it purely the number

1:54:22 ↗ um it's just the number

1:54:24 ↗ uh that comes from state law so state

1:54:26 ↗ law was changed you know years ago it

1:54:28 ↗ used to be four lots uh threshold so

1:54:31 ↗ that was changed over time and yeah

1:54:34 ↗ thank you

1:54:37 ↗ great clarification question my opinion

1:54:40 ↗ so we're going to leave it open there

1:54:41 ↗ for a few seconds especially for any

1:54:43 ↗ commissioner that haven't really spoken

1:54:46 ↗ and otherwise we're going to move to the

1:54:49 ↗ final part of the public hearing the

1:54:50 ↗ last public comment before we close it

1:55:02 ↗ all right stephen do we have anyone

1:55:04 ↗ signed up for public comment

1:55:07 ↗ yes i see one raised hand uh connie i'm

1:55:09 ↗ going to

1:55:11 ↗ unmute you now and make you a panelist

1:55:18 ↗ okay so

1:55:20 ↗ connie marsh again

1:55:22 ↗ um

1:55:24 ↗ and

1:55:25 ↗ again on readability

1:55:27 ↗ for this it does seem like there uh

1:55:31 ↗ you could reduce this chapter by

1:55:34 ↗ two-thirds by making general

1:55:37 ↗ requirements that would be overarching

1:55:40 ↗ and then only having specific language

1:55:43 ↗ that is different

1:55:44 ↗ in all of the subdivision areas i still

1:55:47 ↗ chafe at the amount of process that is

1:55:50 ↗ in this chapter when we are supposed to

1:55:52 ↗ have a process

1:55:54 ↗ chapter

1:55:55 ↗ by itself and every time we've asked for

1:55:58 ↗ process in other areas we're told it's

1:56:00 ↗ going to be in the process chapter so

1:56:04 ↗ then for me the 250

1:56:07 ↗ foot

1:56:08 ↗ lot

1:56:09 ↗ you know the the 250 foot is fine for

1:56:13 ↗ central isquad maybe for the urban

1:56:15 ↗ villages but

1:56:17 ↗ not city-wide i mean to me that's a

1:56:20 ↗ that's actually a large policy change

1:56:23 ↗ to have 250 squawk mountain with 250

1:56:27 ↗ feet

1:56:28 ↗ for intersections

1:56:30 ↗ just

1:56:31 ↗ does not seem like an appropriate thing

1:56:34 ↗ to do and the zero

1:56:36 ↗ lot line the way it is written

1:56:38 ↗ it is actually not written that it is

1:56:41 ↗ side lots

1:56:43 ↗ it's just written zero lot line and so

1:56:46 ↗ that confused me when i read it because

1:56:49 ↗ i was thinking that

1:56:51 ↗ that

1:56:52 ↗ you could you could potentially choose

1:56:54 ↗ any of your lot lines to have be zero

1:56:58 ↗ and so if that is your intent then that

1:57:01 ↗ is not clear in the language so if

1:57:03 ↗ you're making the decision with that

1:57:05 ↗ intent tonight you're going to have to

1:57:08 ↗ clarify the language so that it actually

1:57:10 ↗ does what you say

1:57:13 ↗ uh

1:57:13 ↗ if that makes sense so

1:57:16 ↗ in my land

1:57:18 ↗ uh it's much easier to just have it be

1:57:20 ↗ nine and nine

1:57:23 ↗ and who can remember the goals and

1:57:25 ↗ outcome chart from city council

1:57:28 ↗ so to answer that question i would

1:57:31 ↗ actually have to have the goals and

1:57:32 ↗ outcome chart presented to me and have

1:57:35 ↗ it be reviewed because my head is

1:57:37 ↗ clogged with like

1:57:39 ↗ 85 000 pieces of

1:57:42 ↗ of city goo

1:57:44 ↗ so if you could always bring that goals

1:57:47 ↗ and outcome chart forward

1:57:50 ↗ that would be helpful thank you

1:58:01 ↗ terror voice i don't see any other hands

1:58:03 ↗ raised for public comment

1:58:09 ↗ all right well thank you stephen

1:58:12 ↗ i'd now like to close the public hearing

1:58:14 ↗ i want to thank say thank you to

1:58:16 ↗ everybody who has made public comments

1:58:18 ↗ this evening

1:58:20 ↗ again they are a vital part of the

1:58:21 ↗ process

1:58:23 ↗ now we get to the deliberate

1:58:26 ↗ deliberative part of this night's

1:58:28 ↗ evening and i am going to turn it over

1:58:30 ↗ to chair brennan i am going to ask the

1:58:32 ↗ planning policy to please turn off their

1:58:35 ↗ camera from this portion and we will

1:58:37 ↗ come back once

1:58:38 ↗ chair brennan lets us know that the

1:58:42 ↗ their their part is over so please cheer

1:58:44 ↗ brennan

1:58:46 ↗ thanks chair boys so for the development

1:58:49 ↗ commission i guess we just need to um

1:58:52 ↗ kind of figure out how best to provide

1:58:55 ↗ feedback here which is what uh staff and

1:58:58 ↗ the planning and policy commission are

1:59:00 ↗ looking for from us

1:59:02 ↗ i guess there are a couple ways to do

1:59:04 ↗ this um

1:59:06 ↗ first of all the the last piece that we

1:59:07 ↗ were just talking about subdivisions we

1:59:09 ↗ have some specific questions that that

1:59:11 ↗ they're asking for feedback on so we

1:59:13 ↗ should

1:59:14 ↗ maybe make sure we're handling that one

1:59:16 ↗ um

1:59:17 ↗ maybe a little differently than the

1:59:18 ↗ others we can deal with each of the

1:59:21 ↗ topic areas as presented independently

1:59:23 ↗ or we can just deal with say the first

1:59:26 ↗ the first uh topics be all the topics

1:59:29 ↗ before the subdivision as a whole i'm

1:59:30 ↗ not quite sure how specific folks want

1:59:32 ↗ to be here

1:59:34 ↗ um in providing comments or feedback but

1:59:37 ↗ uh

1:59:38 ↗ is there a preference on on

1:59:40 ↗ doing the collective

1:59:43 ↗ topics

1:59:44 ↗ except for the subdivisions together or

1:59:46 ↗ would you like to deal with them

1:59:47 ↗ independently

1:59:55 ↗ or i'll just make the

1:59:57 ↗ chair do

1:59:58 ↗ chair choice let's deal with how about

2:00:01 ↗ um let's deal with them independently so

2:00:04 ↗ that

2:00:05 ↗ maybe it just makes sense based on the

2:00:07 ↗ way the information was provided

2:00:09 ↗ so the first uh the first two topics

2:00:12 ↗ topic areas

2:00:13 ↗ were zones and permitted uses

2:00:17 ↗ do any of the commissioners have

2:00:21 ↗ comments or feedback that they would

2:00:22 ↗ like to share with

2:00:24 ↗ with the commission and obviously if we

2:00:26 ↗ need to go back and forth and deliberate

2:00:28 ↗ on on points that people are making here

2:00:30 ↗ or commissioners are making certainly

2:00:32 ↗ there's time to do that as well

2:00:34 ↗ so in um in using the same

2:00:37 ↗ um

2:00:38 ↗ approach in the chat just note that you

2:00:41 ↗ have a a

2:00:42 ↗ comment

2:00:46 ↗ anybody want to kick us off

2:00:49 ↗ on

2:00:51 ↗ zones and permitted uses

2:00:53 ↗ feedback to the commission commissioner

2:00:56 ↗ morgan

2:00:58 ↗ uh thank you chair brandon um under

2:01:00 ↗ permitted uses uh we had the comment um

2:01:04 ↗ from a person from lakeside industries

2:01:07 ↗ about the zoning and and looking at the

2:01:09 ↗ city's zoning map it shows the lakeside

2:01:12 ↗ industries as mineral

2:01:14 ↗ and the ic and the um

2:01:18 ↗ uh

2:01:21 ↗ uh ci i think

2:01:23 ↗ as properties that i don't believe are

2:01:25 ↗ part of lakeside industries and so

2:01:28 ↗ i i want staff to make sure that they

2:01:32 ↗ check to

2:01:33 ↗ clarify that because i don't think

2:01:36 ↗ mineral extraction and and asphalt

2:01:39 ↗ operations should be allowed on the

2:01:41 ↗ properties that are not part of lakeside

2:01:44 ↗ um

2:01:46 ↗ and so the the way i see the zoning map

2:01:48 ↗ right now

2:01:51 ↗ m covers their property and should cover

2:01:54 ↗ that

2:01:56 ↗ and i would like them to look into the

2:01:59 ↗ possibility of single-family

2:02:01 ↗ developments on individual lots be

2:02:03 ↗ allowed in areas other other than urban

2:02:06 ↗ villages i think with the shortage of

2:02:08 ↗ housing we have

2:02:09 ↗ everywhere that the more options we have

2:02:12 ↗ for housing throughout the city would be

2:02:14 ↗ better i believe

2:02:15 ↗ um and

2:02:17 ↗ i've got a couple items i'll send to

2:02:19 ↗ staff separately thank you chair brennan

2:02:23 ↗ um

2:02:25 ↗ commissioner sanford

2:02:29 ↗ thank you chair brennan um

2:02:33 ↗ on

2:02:34 ↗ 18402 030 the table of residential

2:02:37 ↗ commercial and recreational permitted

2:02:39 ↗ uses the permitted use table

2:02:41 ↗ uh two uh questions and that i should

2:02:45 ↗ have probably asked before and two

2:02:46 ↗ comments i want to be sure that the key

2:02:49 ↗ to the zone abbreviations would still be

2:02:51 ↗ available in the footer

2:02:53 ↗ um of the permitted use table i know a

2:02:55 ↗ lot of uh requirements and other

2:02:57 ↗ information is coming out of that but i

2:02:59 ↗ want to make sure that those

2:03:00 ↗ abbreviations are still there in the

2:03:02 ↗ footer on the page of those long tables

2:03:05 ↗ i think cross references and

2:03:07 ↗ hyperlinking was mentioned before

2:03:09 ↗ but i wanted to be sure that the cross

2:03:11 ↗ references to the imc chapters

2:03:14 ↗ in that table will be hyperlinked i

2:03:16 ↗ think it's one of the most useful

2:03:17 ↗ features we we can provide in this

2:03:20 ↗ update

2:03:21 ↗ for usability

2:03:23 ↗ a couple of comments the order in the

2:03:24 ↗ table

2:03:26 ↗ for me is hard to decode and i know it's

2:03:28 ↗ just taken across it's in the original

2:03:30 ↗ table as well

2:03:31 ↗ uh could it be alpha order for both the

2:03:33 ↗ headings and the rows there

2:03:36 ↗ and uh finally we're split into

2:03:39 ↗ different tables now so we have

2:03:41 ↗ the residential commercial and

2:03:42 ↗ recreational table and then we have the

2:03:44 ↗ community and resource zones table

2:03:47 ↗ and in the latter table there are 40

2:03:48 ↗ some rows there

2:03:50 ↗ and

2:03:51 ↗ if they are all also

2:03:54 ↗ if that's a subset of the residential

2:03:57 ↗ commercial and recreational table i'd

2:03:59 ↗ suggest that in the top table

2:04:02 ↗ um that we include

2:04:04 ↗ see also references to the second table

2:04:08 ↗ in there because

2:04:09 ↗ i think it's highly likely that users

2:04:12 ↗ could see their use in the first table

2:04:16 ↗ and never even see it under community

2:04:18 ↗ and resource zones

2:04:20 ↗ so those are all my comments thanks

2:04:25 ↗ great thank you commissioner sanford um

2:04:27 ↗ commissioner morgan uh additional

2:04:29 ↗ comments

2:04:30 ↗ um yes sorry i missed this before on

2:04:33 ↗ permitted uses page 15 of 22

2:04:37 ↗ does industrial cannabis producer or

2:04:39 ↗ processor

2:04:40 ↗ recreational as permitted in the ic and

2:04:43 ↗ icci zones

2:04:45 ↗ and i thought kristin had stated that we

2:04:48 ↗ don't allow production or processing

2:04:51 ↗ within the city

2:04:52 ↗ and so i wonder if that is supposed to

2:04:54 ↗ mean

2:04:55 ↗ cannabis sales as opposed to processing

2:04:59 ↗ i'm going to jump in and i'm not

2:05:00 ↗ supposed to this is kristin leeson but i

2:05:01 ↗ double checked and we actually do allow

2:05:03 ↗ processing in ic

2:05:07 ↗ okay

2:05:08 ↗ thank you

2:05:14 ↗ uh are there

2:05:16 ↗ other commissioners that have comments

2:05:18 ↗ on

2:05:21 ↗ on the zones and committed use

2:05:31 ↗ so just a general comment um there was

2:05:34 ↗ some

2:05:35 ↗ the

2:05:35 ↗ for me uh

2:05:37 ↗ so as far as the the permitted use table

2:05:39 ↗ as far as trying to make the to

2:05:41 ↗ consolidate and use that as the form

2:05:44 ↗ to communicate information about the

2:05:46 ↗ zones and what's allowed within zones i

2:05:49 ↗ think it's an effective

2:05:51 ↗ approach way to organize so i i

2:05:54 ↗ understand the challenges of bringing in

2:05:56 ↗ all of these different uses from

2:05:58 ↗ different code sections that

2:06:00 ↗ that that exist out there but i think

2:06:03 ↗ that is a

2:06:04 ↗ form that is

2:06:06 ↗ i think used in other places and i think

2:06:08 ↗ it it's

2:06:09 ↗ um fairly easy to track i appreciate

2:06:12 ↗ commissioner sanford's point about

2:06:14 ↗ hyperlinking and making sure that the

2:06:16 ↗ references are clear because you don't

2:06:19 ↗ want people to conclude that they've got

2:06:21 ↗ all of the information when in fact

2:06:22 ↗ they're missing a critical piece when it

2:06:24 ↗ comes to trying to determine what

2:06:26 ↗ is and isn't allowed on property and

2:06:29 ↗ whether it's somebody who's trying to

2:06:30 ↗ develop property or

2:06:31 ↗ or they're looking to purchase property

2:06:34 ↗ and doing research so those can be

2:06:37 ↗ really important

2:06:38 ↗ um that's important information to

2:06:40 ↗ determine

2:06:41 ↗ what can and can happen and what the

2:06:42 ↗ ultimate value of property might be so i

2:06:45 ↗ but again i think the the table format

2:06:48 ↗ is a is a good approach uh and the

2:06:50 ↗ simplification that came with that i

2:06:52 ↗ think that was good as well

2:06:54 ↗ um

2:06:55 ↗ other than that i don't have any other

2:06:57 ↗ specific feedback on the

2:07:00 ↗ on the zones um

2:07:04 ↗ are there other commissioners that have

2:07:06 ↗ uh comments or to share or

2:07:09 ↗ feedback on on either one of these

2:07:12 ↗ sections

2:07:17 ↗ okay seeing none we can move to

2:07:20 ↗ um oh i'm sorry uh

2:07:23 ↗ uh commissioner tatum

2:07:24 ↗ all hi coach rica thank you chair

2:07:26 ↗ brandon i i kind of shared uh

2:07:29 ↗ commissioner sanford's concern about

2:07:31 ↗ coordination of say these buckets where

2:07:34 ↗ where where the there may be a critical

2:07:37 ↗ areas concern

2:07:39 ↗ that's in the crew that may be in zoning

2:07:41 ↗ or or

2:07:43 ↗ clusters clustered families

2:07:45 ↗ and that that's just a concern that to

2:07:48 ↗ make sure that all these things are

2:07:49 ↗ coordinated i'm not sure who the

2:07:51 ↗ how that ultimately will be

2:07:53 ↗ edited or

2:07:55 ↗ or are

2:07:57 ↗ chased down chase the rat chase the

2:07:59 ↗ rabbit down the hole that sort of thing

2:08:00 ↗ that's that's it's just a massive task

2:08:05 ↗ and the other comment i had was just a

2:08:07 ↗ question on the

2:08:08 ↗ on the zoning seeing the chart there's

2:08:11 ↗ always exceptions to

2:08:13 ↗ to the rules are is this uh

2:08:16 ↗ are there exceptions in the footnotes or

2:08:19 ↗ something to direct someone to to

2:08:21 ↗ another area that may be an exception to

2:08:24 ↗ maybe

2:08:25 ↗ cluster or single family uses

2:08:29 ↗ thanks

2:08:32 ↗ so i guess that's feedback to staff um i

2:08:36 ↗ think um

2:08:37 ↗ if it's not clear

2:08:39 ↗ you're raising those questions as you're

2:08:41 ↗ looking at it

2:08:42 ↗ commissioner kidd that obviously the

2:08:44 ↗ staff can take that feedback in

2:08:46 ↗ and

2:08:47 ↗ make sure that the references are are

2:08:52 ↗ appropriate and

2:08:53 ↗ visible for the user too part of the

2:08:56 ↗ goal here was to simplify and make the

2:08:58 ↗ code a more usable

2:09:00 ↗ and understandable document

2:09:05 ↗ any other comments on these two sections

2:09:08 ↗ from

2:09:08 ↗ commissioners

2:09:13 ↗ um

2:09:15 ↗ then if not we can move on to

2:09:18 ↗ the

2:09:19 ↗ specified uses in form and intensity

2:09:25 ↗ feedback on those sections

2:09:38 ↗ commissioner morgan

2:09:40 ↗ uh thank you chair brennan the um

2:09:46 ↗ page

2:09:48 ↗ performance intensity page 4 of 18

2:09:52 ↗ the roofline variation

2:09:54 ↗ says there will be continued review the

2:09:56 ↗ amount will occur in the next draft

2:09:59 ↗ and i'm curious if

2:10:02 ↗ i guess a suggestion would be

2:10:04 ↗ following um

2:10:06 ↗ this is for outside of central esque old

2:10:09 ↗ town

2:10:11 ↗ i guess my suggestion would be

2:10:13 ↗ to look to central issaquah as the

2:10:16 ↗ standard

2:10:17 ↗ for what those roofline variations

2:10:20 ↗ should be since a lot of work has gone

2:10:22 ↗ into that

2:10:25 ↗ and then

2:10:26 ↗ mormon intensity

2:10:29 ↗ uh page 6 of 24

2:10:33 ↗ which has to do with the

2:10:38 ↗ uh the native retention area that the

2:10:41 ↗ section that's going to be moved and i

2:10:44 ↗ had the question about what does native

2:10:46 ↗ soil mean

2:10:47 ↗ and i'm just curious about how this

2:10:49 ↗ operates because the way i read it

2:10:51 ↗ projects with existing native vegetation

2:10:54 ↗ must retain the fallen minimum

2:10:56 ↗ percentage of the native soil

2:10:58 ↗ and it's 25

2:11:00 ↗ and 30 percent number one it would seem

2:11:02 ↗ simpler just to have one percentage

2:11:04 ↗ either 25 or 30 for all uses i don't see

2:11:07 ↗ a reason why

2:11:08 ↗ we would have that difference between

2:11:10 ↗ single-family non-residential

2:11:13 ↗ but wondering if i had a property that

2:11:15 ↗ was 100 percent

2:11:16 ↗ covered with trees

2:11:18 ↗ does it mean i have to keep 30 percent

2:11:20 ↗ of my property in native soil we

2:11:22 ↗ creating something like that in which

2:11:24 ↗ case does that mean as a developer would

2:11:27 ↗ i go in and

2:11:29 ↗ cut all the trees down

2:11:31 ↗ clear out all the native plants

2:11:33 ↗ and then come in and go for approval of

2:11:35 ↗ a project

2:11:37 ↗ so i wasn't limited by that so

2:11:40 ↗ just i guess for staff to take a look at

2:11:42 ↗ the way that's written

2:11:44 ↗ and how it would work um from a

2:11:46 ↗ practical standpoint

2:11:49 ↗ and then as i mentioned the i think

2:11:51 ↗ looking at those

2:11:53 ↗ changes with the na 4 versus far

2:11:57 ↗ in table 18 404.100

2:12:00 ↗ thank you

2:12:02 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan

2:12:04 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

2:12:08 ↗ thank you uh richard sanford uh in form

2:12:11 ↗ and intensity

2:12:13 ↗ um i'm looking at page 9 of 24.

2:12:17 ↗ section is 18

2:12:19 ↗ 404 0 60.

2:12:23 ↗ on that page there's a table in the

2:12:26 ↗ middle of the page there

2:12:28 ↗ regarding allowances for additional

2:12:30 ↗ heights and

2:12:32 ↗ i don't know how other commissioners

2:12:33 ↗ feel this struck me as kind of a curious

2:12:35 ↗ table

2:12:37 ↗ um

2:12:38 ↗ it looks like

2:12:40 ↗ four categories of overlays and other

2:12:42 ↗ zones

2:12:44 ↗ have no additional height allowance at

2:12:46 ↗ all and four

2:12:49 ↗ zoning districts

2:12:50 ↗ have up to the maximum

2:12:53 ↗ so

2:12:54 ↗ it strikes me as information is not

2:12:56 ↗ really a matrix

2:12:58 ↗ i wonder if there's just a way of saying

2:13:00 ↗ that

2:13:03 ↗ a certain number of well what would i

2:13:04 ↗ have uh replaced by up to 65 foot height

2:13:08 ↗ is allowed in those four

2:13:09 ↗ zoning districts only and list them i

2:13:12 ↗ think there's a shade of difference i'm

2:13:13 ↗ missing in here but uh it was hard for

2:13:15 ↗ me to decode that table

2:13:17 ↗ yeah i think on these comments um

2:13:20 ↗ that are specific to the language of the

2:13:22 ↗ code i think it would probably be most

2:13:24 ↗ helpful to send them directly to staff

2:13:27 ↗ so that because these are great comments

2:13:28 ↗ and it is about readability usability

2:13:31 ↗ and if there are some kind of

2:13:32 ↗ disconnects that that

2:13:34 ↗ commissioners are identifying that will

2:13:36 ↗ be

2:13:36 ↗ very helpful information for staff to to

2:13:39 ↗ kind of get your comments in writing or

2:13:41 ↗ marked up code that you could just send

2:13:43 ↗ in i think

2:13:45 ↗ because i think it's going to be hard

2:13:46 ↗ for us to deal with that level of

2:13:48 ↗ specificity here

2:13:50 ↗ um

2:13:51 ↗ but

2:13:53 ↗ good comments excellent comments

2:13:56 ↗ are there other comments about the

2:13:58 ↗ changes that have been um proposed here

2:14:02 ↗ in the overall

2:14:04 ↗ kind of form of the code

2:14:11 ↗ i'm not seeing it so let's let's spend a

2:14:13 ↗ little time on the questions for the

2:14:15 ↗ subdivision which is they're looking for

2:14:17 ↗ some staff is looking for and the um

2:14:20 ↗ finding a policy commission looking for

2:14:22 ↗ some specific feedback on these

2:14:24 ↗ questions so we just take them just each

2:14:27 ↗ individually um anybody who wants to

2:14:30 ↗ kind of share your perspective

2:14:32 ↗ um based on your review of the materials

2:14:34 ↗ so the first question um

2:14:37 ↗ chair brennan there's a comment from

2:14:39 ↗ commissioner gilbert

2:14:40 ↗ oh i'm sorry i missed that um

2:14:44 ↗ go ahead commissioner um my question

2:14:46 ↗ just really quick and i don't know if

2:14:48 ↗ this was a change i'm still kind of

2:14:50 ↗ getting my bearings but i was looking at

2:14:52 ↗ the

2:14:54 ↗ impervious

2:14:56 ↗ surfaces and the building form and

2:14:58 ↗ intensity

2:15:00 ↗ and i didn't see anything for um

2:15:03 ↗ permeable paving i didn't see any

2:15:05 ↗ exceptions made for permeable

2:15:07 ↗ paving and i wondered if we could add

2:15:09 ↗ something

2:15:10 ↗ about that um

2:15:13 ↗ because we you know some of the comments

2:15:15 ↗ that i read

2:15:17 ↗ um you know outside comments said they

2:15:19 ↗ wanted to encourage um you know more

2:15:22 ↗ sustainable building

2:15:25 ↗ and also with our water runoff issues um

2:15:28 ↗ i think we should be encouraging the use

2:15:30 ↗ of

2:15:31 ↗ permeable paving

2:15:34 ↗ great

2:15:35 ↗ thanks excellent comment uh commissioner

2:15:37 ↗ gilbert sorry i missed you guys i wasn't

2:15:39 ↗ tracking my uh chat it was that you were

2:15:41 ↗ buried underneath it

2:15:43 ↗ um

2:15:45 ↗ okay so let me try to get back on track

2:15:48 ↗ here

2:15:52 ↗ um

2:15:54 ↗ the comment from commissioner dillon

2:15:58 ↗ um i guess just a response to to

2:16:01 ↗ commissioner gilbert

2:16:02 ↗ um i

2:16:05 ↗ think that would be worth looking into

2:16:07 ↗ there are a lot of

2:16:09 ↗ working in stormwater there are a lot of

2:16:11 ↗ complications with permeable pavement

2:16:13 ↗ in terms of

2:16:15 ↗ maintenance in terms of effectiveness

2:16:17 ↗ and things like that and i'm not sure

2:16:19 ↗ and it would it would take some research

2:16:22 ↗ kind of outside of these code documents

2:16:24 ↗ what the

2:16:25 ↗ um the city department of public works

2:16:28 ↗ position is on permeable pavement versus

2:16:31 ↗ other types of

2:16:33 ↗ green storm water treatment or low

2:16:35 ↗ impact development

2:16:36 ↗ so i would be hesitant to

2:16:39 ↗ be too specific here

2:16:42 ↗ but something to look into perhaps

2:16:43 ↗ linking

2:16:45 ↗ some of this with stormwater code in

2:16:47 ↗ terms of

2:16:48 ↗ impervious surface

2:16:50 ↗ allowances and then methods that are

2:16:52 ↗ being used to treat stormwater

2:16:55 ↗ just a real quick comment on this so

2:16:57 ↗ there are things we're identifying that

2:16:59 ↗ are that would be changes of the code or

2:17:01 ↗ policy changes that are kind of outside

2:17:03 ↗ of the scope of

2:17:04 ↗ the title uh 18 update that's underway

2:17:07 ↗ now which is consolidation

2:17:10 ↗ um kind of removing conflicts or

2:17:12 ↗ redundancy and creating consistencies so

2:17:15 ↗ these are substantive changes um i think

2:17:18 ↗ flagging those are putting them on the

2:17:19 ↗ whiteboard so to speak so um

2:17:22 ↗ it's it's a valuable feedback but just

2:17:25 ↗ we need to make sure we understand that

2:17:26 ↗ there's a limited scope of of the work

2:17:29 ↗ here commissioner morgan

2:17:31 ↗ um thank you

2:17:32 ↗ yeah great question by commissioner

2:17:34 ↗ gilbert um but i think the city staff

2:17:37 ↗ when we've seen projects the city has

2:17:39 ↗ generally considered premium pavement

2:17:41 ↗ not to be or to be considered an

2:17:44 ↗ impervious surface from what i

2:17:46 ↗ understand

2:17:49 ↗ but a good a good question to be

2:17:51 ↗ considered always yeah absolutely so are

2:17:54 ↗ there other uh comments on these

2:17:57 ↗ sections before we step into the

2:17:59 ↗ subdivision questions

2:18:04 ↗ okay seeing none let's let's move to the

2:18:08 ↗ subdivision questions and um

2:18:11 ↗ maybe kind of take them

2:18:13 ↗ one at a time remember we're running a

2:18:16 ↗ little late and we've got our planning

2:18:17 ↗ and policy commission folks standing by

2:18:20 ↗ and they still have a little business to

2:18:21 ↗ take care of after we finish this

2:18:23 ↗ deliberation so i just want to be

2:18:25 ↗ respectful of their time but with that

2:18:27 ↗ being said um

2:18:28 ↗ the first question

2:18:30 ↗ is

2:18:31 ↗ you know do the proposed design

2:18:34 ↗ requirements for plat layout including

2:18:36 ↗ block length requirements for

2:18:37 ↗ subdivisions adequately address the

2:18:39 ↗ community's desired goals of

2:18:41 ↗ well-designed subdivisions so this is

2:18:43 ↗ about

2:18:44 ↗ the form of the subdivisions that are

2:18:47 ↗ generated based on the changes and

2:18:49 ↗ regulations more specificity on on the

2:18:52 ↗ design

2:18:58 ↗ uh commissioner dylan

2:19:01 ↗ i guess one thought i have on this is

2:19:03 ↗ that

2:19:04 ↗ the character of our residential

2:19:06 ↗ neighborhoods is is different in

2:19:07 ↗ different parts of the city um and

2:19:11 ↗ some of some of the block lengths and

2:19:13 ↗ the the lack of cul-de-sacs and and

2:19:16 ↗ connection of all the streets may be in

2:19:18 ↗ the character of some areas and lessen

2:19:20 ↗ the character of other areas

2:19:23 ↗ um

2:19:25 ↗ but it seems to be pretty prescribed in

2:19:28 ↗ in one direction and just making sure

2:19:31 ↗ that some consideration is given to

2:19:34 ↗ how these requirements would fit into

2:19:36 ↗ different types of neighborhoods

2:19:43 ↗ other thoughts or comments commissioner

2:19:45 ↗ morgan

2:19:46 ↗ uh but i totally agree with commissioner

2:19:48 ↗ dillon it's a great comment and then i

2:19:50 ↗ would also add i guess a question mark

2:19:53 ↗ for

2:19:54 ↗ um under preliminary plat item c

2:19:58 ↗ three the

2:19:59 ↗ second three there are two threes

2:20:02 ↗ and there but the second item three and

2:20:04 ↗ are native growth protection easements

2:20:07 ↗ part of it could be to provide visual

2:20:09 ↗ and oral buffering

2:20:11 ↗ and just wondering um

2:20:13 ↗ i guess question how is that defined why

2:20:15 ↗ would there be a requirement to

2:20:18 ↗ to buffer other properties from single

2:20:19 ↗ family just a question but otherwise

2:20:23 ↗ agree with what they've come up with

2:20:26 ↗ mr sanford

2:20:32 ↗ you commissioner sanford you're muted

2:20:35 ↗ sorry i'm sorry there you go

2:20:37 ↗ uh thank you

2:20:39 ↗ to pick up on commissioner dillon's

2:20:41 ↗ comment i wonder if there are

2:20:43 ↗ requirements in the overlays section

2:20:46 ↗ that would override some of the

2:20:48 ↗ requirements specified here and make

2:20:49 ↗ them more specific i don't know that

2:20:51 ↗ it's a question that i would have for

2:20:54 ↗ our staff thanks

2:20:57 ↗ other feedback on this question

2:21:02 ↗ um just to share my comment i i

2:21:05 ↗ appreciate the um comment from

2:21:07 ↗ commissioner dillon as well it

2:21:09 ↗ that we don't want to get be overly

2:21:11 ↗ prescriptive because of topographic

2:21:13 ↗ differences how they're going to

2:21:14 ↗ integrate with the existing

2:21:15 ↗ neighborhoods that they may be

2:21:17 ↗ connecting into there are a number of

2:21:19 ↗ things that can

2:21:21 ↗ affect the character of a subdivision

2:21:25 ↗ and how you want it to look and how you

2:21:26 ↗ wanted to integrate so i think i i do

2:21:29 ↗ um appreciate that you know they're

2:21:31 ↗ trying to create kind of a more

2:21:34 ↗ um

2:21:35 ↗ kind of uh

2:21:37 ↗ public facing frontage i guess for the

2:21:39 ↗ single family homes bringing vehicles in

2:21:41 ↗ from the side of the back when their

2:21:42 ↗ alleys etc i do appreciate that but

2:21:45 ↗ sometimes that's not going to fit with

2:21:47 ↗ the connectivity that they're trying to

2:21:49 ↗ create with with what's existing so

2:21:51 ↗ anyway again not overly prescriptive but

2:21:54 ↗ some guide guidance as is provided i

2:21:57 ↗ think is really helpful

2:21:59 ↗ um so the next question are there are

2:22:01 ↗ any changes desired to the code section

2:22:05 ↗ 18.350 on zero lot line shared access

2:22:08 ↗ slots and ali access slots

2:22:13 ↗ anybody give a hard look at that

2:22:16 ↗ section of the code

2:22:24 ↗ i'll just open with a guy the idea of uh

2:22:27 ↗ zero lot line development for town homes

2:22:29 ↗ where you can create these simple

2:22:31 ↗ um

2:22:32 ↗ properties is something that i think is

2:22:35 ↗ is useful that allows for home ownership

2:22:38 ↗ in that form of development uh instead

2:22:40 ↗ of

2:22:41 ↗ a condo or

2:22:43 ↗ or for rent or lease

2:22:45 ↗ so you own the property as well as the

2:22:47 ↗ building if you provide that kind of

2:22:49 ↗ zero lot lounge or the unit lot

2:22:52 ↗ subdivision they're called different

2:22:53 ↗ things

2:22:54 ↗ but i think adding that to the code is

2:22:57 ↗ is a

2:22:58 ↗ a benefit in helping to create a

2:23:00 ↗ different varieties of how housing

2:23:02 ↗ that's accessible

2:23:09 ↗ are there other comments on

2:23:12 ↗ this question

2:23:14 ↗ agreed

2:23:17 ↗ okay we got a few hands up on that one

2:23:19 ↗ okay so let's go to the next one uh

2:23:21 ↗ should open space

2:23:23 ↗ open and recreation space standards be

2:23:25 ↗ the same for multi-family versus single

2:23:27 ↗ family short platinum subdivisions

2:23:32 ↗ anybody have thoughts on this particular

2:23:34 ↗ question

2:23:43 ↗ i'll weigh in open space is a very

2:23:47 ↗ important element to livability um for

2:23:50 ↗ the city for neighborhoods

2:23:52 ↗ for the urban area etc and i i think um

2:23:58 ↗ ms dalawali was talking about taking a

2:24:00 ↗ look at the standards and and trying to

2:24:02 ↗ make sure that they make sense for the

2:24:05 ↗ situation that they're being applied to

2:24:07 ↗ so a short platter plat is different

2:24:09 ↗ than a multi-family development and

2:24:11 ↗ applying the same standard at least for

2:24:14 ↗ size

2:24:16 ↗ may not make sense

2:24:18 ↗ so

2:24:19 ↗ but i do believe that that is something

2:24:21 ↗ that needs to be looked at

2:24:23 ↗ in creating that open space again

2:24:25 ↗ depending upon the size and scale of the

2:24:27 ↗ the project

2:24:28 ↗ is important

2:24:30 ↗ um for that that kind of livability

2:24:33 ↗ element so

2:24:35 ↗ but i don't i don't know that having

2:24:37 ↗ them uh applying the same standard would

2:24:40 ↗ make sense there it doesn't

2:24:43 ↗ um

2:24:44 ↗ come off as it would to me at least

2:24:48 ↗ um

2:24:49 ↗ commissioner uh let's see commissioner

2:24:51 ↗ dillon and then commissioner price

2:24:57 ↗ um yeah i guess i would agree

2:24:59 ↗ that

2:25:00 ↗ there probably needs to be

2:25:02 ↗ be some difference in in that standard

2:25:05 ↗ and perhaps it's it's a scaling factor

2:25:08 ↗ based on

2:25:09 ↗ based on lot size and number of

2:25:11 ↗ residences

2:25:13 ↗ um

2:25:14 ↗ you know if you have a

2:25:16 ↗ uh you know a four thousand square foot

2:25:18 ↗ lot that you're trying to put four town

2:25:20 ↗ homes on

2:25:21 ↗ that's a different situation than a 10

2:25:23 ↗ 000 square foot lot that you're going to

2:25:24 ↗ put single family homes on and and both

2:25:27 ↗ the expectations of the type of

2:25:28 ↗ development

2:25:29 ↗ and

2:25:31 ↗ the opportunities for open space are

2:25:33 ↗ going to vary in those situations so i

2:25:35 ↗ think

2:25:36 ↗ some additional consideration to

2:25:39 ↗ how

2:25:40 ↗ that might be scaled that would

2:25:42 ↗ work in most situations would be would

2:25:45 ↗ be worthwhile

2:25:49 ↗ uh commissioner price

2:25:51 ↗ thank you uh i'll withdraw you both

2:25:53 ↗ captured my comments uh precisely so

2:25:56 ↗ thank you

2:25:58 ↗ commissioner morgan i don't know i i

2:25:59 ↗ don't know if i missed you on this one

2:26:00 ↗ or if that was from the previous

2:26:03 ↗ uh no it was from this one but

2:26:05 ↗ yeah i agree i don't think they need to

2:26:07 ↗ be the same

2:26:08 ↗ okay

2:26:10 ↗ great uh the next question is

2:26:14 ↗ should the threshold of short flats

2:26:16 ↗ increase from four lots to nine months

2:26:25 ↗ uh commissioner morgan

2:26:27 ↗ sorry i just i just don't like to type

2:26:30 ↗ comment um

2:26:32 ↗ the uh yeah i uh i think we should uh to

2:26:35 ↗ go along with the change at the state

2:26:37 ↗ level because i mean we really truly are

2:26:39 ↗ facing housing shortages and the

2:26:42 ↗ more we can do to make the process to

2:26:45 ↗ get new homes built the better

2:26:48 ↗ i don't think this is going to affect a

2:26:50 ↗ large part of the city but the extent

2:26:52 ↗ that we

2:26:54 ↗ can make this change and

2:26:56 ↗ expedite the process would be a good

2:26:58 ↗ thing so i would suggest increasing to

2:27:00 ↗ nine

2:27:03 ↗ uh commissioner price

2:27:07 ↗ um yeah at risk of bigger donna i agree

2:27:10 ↗ we need to allow flexibility for both

2:27:12 ↗ developers

2:27:13 ↗ uh we need to

2:27:14 ↗ provide

2:27:16 ↗ you know

2:27:17 ↗ viable homes for consumers and so

2:27:21 ↗ the way you're going to do that is is to

2:27:23 ↗ allow more density to allow this to

2:27:25 ↗ happen

2:27:26 ↗ and and the best tool you can use is

2:27:29 ↗ expediting that process so i'm a 100 in

2:27:32 ↗ agreement with that

2:27:36 ↗ are there other commissioners that have

2:27:37 ↗ comment on

2:27:39 ↗ um the threshold for short flats

2:27:43 ↗ mr dylan

2:27:46 ↗ um so i understand this in the in the

2:27:48 ↗ context of density i'm also envisioning

2:27:51 ↗ a situation though where you have have a

2:27:54 ↗ a large lot

2:27:56 ↗ that that could be being subdivided

2:27:59 ↗ um

2:28:01 ↗ and perhaps there's enough controls in

2:28:04 ↗ place with

2:28:05 ↗ um with impervious regulations and and

2:28:08 ↗ things like that but

2:28:10 ↗ where you have a larger lot that

2:28:12 ↗ potentially there has a larger

2:28:13 ↗ environmental impact of of development

2:28:16 ↗ and if we are

2:28:18 ↗ cutting down on the review process for

2:28:20 ↗ something like that so perhaps looking

2:28:22 ↗ at

2:28:23 ↗ a um

2:28:26 ↗ a size threshold for lots and and

2:28:28 ↗ somebody who's much more familiar with

2:28:29 ↗ this process than i am would have to

2:28:31 ↗ suggest what that would be um

2:28:34 ↗ but

2:28:35 ↗ to to make sure that that we're

2:28:38 ↗ targeting it at the at that type of

2:28:40 ↗ development that we do want to increase

2:28:42 ↗ the efficiency of and not just giving

2:28:44 ↗ carte blanche to to any developer to

2:28:47 ↗ break up perhaps a very large parcel

2:28:52 ↗ other comments on this question

2:28:57 ↗ i'll just uh so this is a process

2:28:59 ↗ question primarily um

2:29:01 ↗ i i

2:29:03 ↗ um would agree that raising the

2:29:05 ↗ threshold to nine lots says a lot under

2:29:07 ↗ state law eliminates some process

2:29:09 ↗ barrier and does allow for the short

2:29:11 ↗ flats at nine watts or less to move more

2:29:14 ↗ quickly through the process they are

2:29:16 ↗ still subject to

2:29:17 ↗ cpa and environmental review they're

2:29:19 ↗ still subject to

2:29:21 ↗ the codes and standards for impervious

2:29:23 ↗ surface minimum lot size

2:29:25 ↗ etc

2:29:27 ↗ so i'm

2:29:28 ↗ confident that

2:29:30 ↗ that the staff level the administrative

2:29:31 ↗ level review would provide the

2:29:33 ↗ appropriate controls up to nine lots i

2:29:36 ↗ think when you get bigger there's a

2:29:37 ↗ bigger process and a more enhanced

2:29:40 ↗ public engagement that goes with that i

2:29:42 ↗ think that makes sense as well so that

2:29:44 ↗ would be my my comment on this

2:29:46 ↗ particular question

2:29:50 ↗ um the last question under subdivisions

2:29:52 ↗ is do the proposed changes adequately

2:29:54 ↗ address the goals and outcomes

2:29:56 ↗ identified by the council

2:30:06 ↗ i think we had a public commenter that

2:30:07 ↗ said something about

2:30:09 ↗ um

2:30:10 ↗ would be important to understand exactly

2:30:13 ↗ what those are as we're responding to

2:30:15 ↗ this one i believe we've seen them

2:30:17 ↗ previously but i don't remember

2:30:19 ↗ where they were in the materials that we

2:30:21 ↗ received if anybody can point them out

2:30:23 ↗ that would be helpful or if you have a

2:30:25 ↗ great memory

2:30:27 ↗ that would also be helpful

2:30:36 ↗ we will then

2:30:39 ↗ any comments on this particular

2:30:42 ↗ i see the

2:30:43 ↗ director dolly wally

2:30:48 ↗ yeah so i'm trying to find my

2:30:51 ↗ little memo

2:30:52 ↗ thing here and

2:30:56 ↗ bear with me for just a minute

2:30:59 ↗ so um

2:31:01 ↗ in your packet we sort of uh you know

2:31:05 ↗ so this was

2:31:07 ↗ under the modernized code and in

2:31:09 ↗ corporate best practices

2:31:11 ↗ but one of the desired outcomes was to

2:31:14 ↗ create a well-organized clear code that

2:31:16 ↗ improves public access and all of those

2:31:19 ↗ kind of things

2:31:20 ↗ but then underneath this

2:31:22 ↗ there was a goal includes an action item

2:31:24 ↗ to create well-designed subdivisions

2:31:27 ↗ and provide guidance on the relationship

2:31:29 ↗ between the street and the public realm

2:31:35 ↗ and so

2:31:36 ↗ you know in researching of what was the

2:31:38 ↗ thought process and what was the

2:31:39 ↗ discussion to come up with this goal i

2:31:42 ↗ think it was more of a staff driven goal

2:31:45 ↗ than really that came from council

2:31:48 ↗ in terms of how you know if any

2:31:51 ↗ design standards needed to be

2:31:53 ↗ incorporated in the subdivisions and as

2:31:55 ↗ you know design is very subjective and

2:31:57 ↗ so that's why we were asking whether

2:32:00 ↗ we've captured the intent of what a

2:32:03 ↗ well-designed subdivision really means

2:32:05 ↗ from a community's perspective

2:32:11 ↗ thank you that was helpful so uh any

2:32:14 ↗ commissioners

2:32:15 ↗ um have a comment on

2:32:19 ↗ the overarching goals we're trying to

2:32:20 ↗ achieve here

2:32:32 ↗ so i i think uh um sounds like we're

2:32:35 ↗ quiet on this one

2:32:37 ↗ that the the goals are fairly broad so

2:32:39 ↗ it's a little hard to react i think

2:32:42 ↗ without studying the specifics maybe but

2:32:45 ↗ i i would think as far as what we talked

2:32:47 ↗ about in responding to the first

2:32:49 ↗ question i would say we don't want to be

2:32:51 ↗ overly prescriptive

2:32:53 ↗ um but at the same time you know as the

2:32:55 ↗ staff is is trying to find the right

2:32:58 ↗ you know

2:33:00 ↗ thread the needle here so to speak with

2:33:02 ↗ the right amount of guidance and or

2:33:04 ↗ structure around requirements

2:33:06 ↗ um it is about that interface that's

2:33:09 ↗ important um

2:33:11 ↗ and and it needs to be um

2:33:13 ↗ aligned with what's happening

2:33:16 ↗ you know adjacent to whatever the

2:33:18 ↗ subdivision or the short flat is

2:33:21 ↗ while at the same time that front-facing

2:33:24 ↗ you know kind of engaging let's call it

2:33:26 ↗ curb appeal that we're trying to create

2:33:28 ↗ with these neighborhoods so it's not

2:33:30 ↗ car-centric because i think that's part

2:33:32 ↗ of what the guidelines that i saw were

2:33:34 ↗ let's let's try to take advantage of

2:33:36 ↗ alleys and

2:33:38 ↗ and um you know taking the cars away

2:33:40 ↗ from the front of the

2:33:41 ↗ the neighborhood and putting them in the

2:33:43 ↗ back of the buildings if that's

2:33:45 ↗ achievable and that creates a whole

2:33:47 ↗ different kind of more of a village

2:33:49 ↗ effect

2:33:51 ↗ um than kind of a suburban

2:33:54 ↗ slash urban effect so i i think it's um

2:33:58 ↗ definitely a lot of a goal

2:34:04 ↗ commissioner sanford

2:34:06 ↗ thank you uh and in terms of that goal i

2:34:09 ↗ noticed in uh looking through this draft

2:34:11 ↗ that there is still quite a bit of

2:34:13 ↗ intent and purpose language in the body

2:34:16 ↗ of the requirements intermixed

2:34:18 ↗ should encourage discourage and so on

2:34:21 ↗ and i think some of the language

2:34:22 ↗ regarding

2:34:24 ↗ trying to encourage

2:34:27 ↗ rather discourage um cul-de-sacs and so

2:34:30 ↗ on

2:34:31 ↗ is in

2:34:33 ↗ it's there but it's in discouraged

2:34:35 ↗ language kind of buried in the middle of

2:34:36 ↗ the content and it kind of gets to a

2:34:39 ↗ larger point for me i would really like

2:34:40 ↗ to see

2:34:41 ↗ to the extent possible all of these

2:34:43 ↗ chapters very structured in terms of

2:34:45 ↗ their organization

2:34:46 ↗ if applicability applies within a

2:34:49 ↗ chapter then i would like to see that

2:34:51 ↗ in the same location in the chapter

2:34:54 ↗ every time i encounter that if there is

2:34:56 ↗ guidance information i would like to see

2:34:58 ↗ that in a consistent intent or purpose

2:35:01 ↗ statement close to the top and i think

2:35:04 ↗ if that happens then some of that

2:35:06 ↗ language

2:35:07 ↗ discouraging

2:35:08 ↗ um

2:35:09 ↗ motor bound use only would gain emphasis

2:35:13 ↗ by being in that position at the top of

2:35:16 ↗ of each chapter topic

2:35:18 ↗ thank you

2:35:21 ↗ appreciate that feedback commercial

2:35:22 ↗ stanford

2:35:24 ↗ commissioner price um

2:35:27 ↗ thank you uh i would just say that i i

2:35:29 ↗ think the best mechanism you have would

2:35:31 ↗ be guidelines

2:35:33 ↗ that tend to be overly prescriptive

2:35:35 ↗ especially in the case of short class

2:35:39 ↗ [Music]

2:35:40 ↗ or any subdivision really

2:35:43 ↗ um you know you

2:35:44 ↗ developers will be developing these laws

2:35:47 ↗ these aren't individual homeowners uh

2:35:49 ↗ remodeling their house this isn't

2:35:50 ↗ somebody building their dream home this

2:35:52 ↗ is developers and it's the least and

2:35:54 ↗ most out and they're going to appeal to

2:35:57 ↗ the least common denominator and if you

2:35:59 ↗ don't guide that

2:36:02 ↗ you know you're not going to get the

2:36:03 ↗ quality and the performance out of it so

2:36:06 ↗ i think there needs to be more guidance

2:36:07 ↗ but it's a function of guidelines

2:36:09 ↗ um so

2:36:11 ↗ i think what you've described here yeah

2:36:13 ↗ it achieves the goal but it needs to be

2:36:16 ↗ uh it needs to point back to guidelines

2:36:18 ↗ in my opinion

2:36:20 ↗ that are somewhat prescriptive i know i

2:36:23 ↗ i mean as a designer i like that

2:36:25 ↗ and it's it

2:36:27 ↗ it helps shape your your intent

2:36:30 ↗ and um i think makes for a better

2:36:32 ↗ product and a better community and it's

2:36:34 ↗ a pain but

2:36:36 ↗ it worked

2:36:40 ↗ good feedback other other

2:36:43 ↗ commissioners

2:36:44 ↗ want to provide

2:36:46 ↗ your thoughts on this topic or this

2:36:47 ↗ question

2:36:52 ↗ seeing

2:36:53 ↗ none so i think that gets us through

2:36:57 ↗ all of the topics that were presented

2:36:58 ↗ this evening are there any final

2:37:00 ↗ comments uh holistic comments that

2:37:02 ↗ anyone would like to share

2:37:04 ↗ before we hand it back to the planning

2:37:06 ↗ and policy commission

2:37:14 ↗ just one real quick

2:37:16 ↗ i appreciate the challenge that this

2:37:18 ↗ this project is for staff and the

2:37:20 ↗ community and for us and i'm i'm glad

2:37:23 ↗ planning a policy commission has the

2:37:24 ↗ final you know uh responsibility to kind

2:37:27 ↗ of sort all this out and make a

2:37:28 ↗ recommendation

2:37:30 ↗ um but i i i think the work that is

2:37:32 ↗ proceeding is really solid work it's not

2:37:35 ↗ going to address all of the policy

2:37:37 ↗ questions that are coming up because it

2:37:38 ↗ opens the door for lots of we should do

2:37:41 ↗ this and we should do that i do think

2:37:43 ↗ that um we do need to capture that staff

2:37:45 ↗ and i know you are capture those

2:37:48 ↗ questions about the density and

2:37:50 ↗ appropriate density in the neighborhoods

2:37:51 ↗ as an example and there's some issues

2:37:53 ↗ around

2:37:54 ↗ uh design um and uh what's happening up

2:37:57 ↗ in the urban villages and and kind of

2:37:59 ↗ that uh

2:38:01 ↗ allowances uses that are allowed or

2:38:03 ↗ densities that are allowed so i think

2:38:05 ↗ those things are important to capture

2:38:07 ↗ and trying to figure out um at some

2:38:09 ↗ point do we look at those and if so what

2:38:12 ↗ does that look like when you do an

2:38:14 ↗ update like this you gotta you've got to

2:38:16 ↗ get it out there and drive it for a

2:38:18 ↗ while to figure out whether or not you

2:38:20 ↗ hit the mark or not and there will be

2:38:21 ↗ things that come back in and clean up

2:38:23 ↗ later

2:38:24 ↗ as

2:38:25 ↗ you use it and get practiced with it and

2:38:28 ↗ get more feedback after it gets

2:38:30 ↗ implemented but i i just i really

2:38:32 ↗ appreciate the work that's been done so

2:38:34 ↗ far so

2:38:35 ↗ um i'm going to

2:38:37 ↗ uh hand it back to commissioner voice

2:38:39 ↗ hopefully he's not

2:38:40 ↗ our chair voice from the plenum policy

2:38:43 ↗ commission hopefully he's not sleeping

2:38:44 ↗ no he's still awake good

2:38:46 ↗ so sorry we ran a little long here um

2:38:49 ↗ uh mr chair but i'm handing it back to

2:38:51 ↗ you and i believe that the

2:38:54 ↗ work of the development commission for

2:38:56 ↗ the evening is complete

2:38:58 ↗ right and um thank you chair brennan

2:39:00 ↗ thank you development commissioners um

2:39:03 ↗ very interesting conversations you guys

2:39:05 ↗ not only uh bring things out but you

2:39:07 ↗ also inform definitely my opinion um so

2:39:10 ↗ again really appreciate it you guys

2:39:12 ↗ perform an invaluable service to our

2:39:14 ↗ community so again thank you

2:39:16 ↗ uh not only for your discussion but your

2:39:18 ↗ hard work you guys do all the time and

2:39:20 ↗ thank you for coming to be with us

2:39:22 ↗ tonight and welcome to the newest

2:39:24 ↗ development commissioners

2:39:25 ↗ congratulations

2:39:27 ↗ but chair brennan is correct we do have

2:39:29 ↗ some planning policy work to continue on

2:39:31 ↗ with so you are more than free to uh

2:39:34 ↗ to exit and we'll see you guys the next

2:39:37 ↗ time thanks again for coming thank you

2:39:39 ↗ have a good day

2:39:42 ↗ thank you

2:39:49 ↗ planning

2:39:50 ↗ policy

2:39:52 ↗ all right so we have a couple more items

2:39:54 ↗ on the agenda before we get to exit

2:39:56 ↗ but hopefully they should go pretty

2:39:58 ↗ quick

2:39:59 ↗ um the next item on the agenda is the

2:40:01 ↗ chair and vice chair nominations for

2:40:03 ↗ this upcoming year

2:40:05 ↗ and we're going to use the following

2:40:06 ↗ process to elect the chair in the vice

2:40:08 ↗ chair so first

2:40:10 ↗ i will call for nominations

2:40:12 ↗ when all the nominations have been named

2:40:14 ↗ made i will close the nominations so

2:40:17 ↗ here's here's the catch

2:40:19 ↗ if only one nomination is made

2:40:22 ↗ that member is considered elected to the

2:40:25 ↗ position by unanimous consent

2:40:28 ↗ if multiple

2:40:29 ↗ nominations are made for a position

2:40:31 ↗ we will hold time at our next meeting

2:40:35 ↗ for an election process

2:40:37 ↗ so hopefully that's clear for everybody

2:40:39 ↗ so again if there's just a soul

2:40:40 ↗ nomination

2:40:42 ↗ that's it and again if there's multiple

2:40:44 ↗ nominations we will we will move this

2:40:46 ↗ towards our next meeting

2:40:48 ↗ and board members will have a an

2:40:50 ↗ opportunity to discuss that

2:40:54 ↗ let's see

2:40:58 ↗ yeah and a little bit more about the

2:40:59 ↗ process if we do get there is basically

2:41:02 ↗ we will be casting our votes

2:41:04 ↗ and i think we can go over this stuff if

2:41:06 ↗ we get there so otherwise it's kind of a

2:41:08 ↗ moot point

2:41:09 ↗ let's get started are there any

2:41:11 ↗ nominations for chair

2:41:16 ↗ i'd like to nominate jason boyce for

2:41:18 ↗ chair

2:41:21 ↗ commissioner monahan has nominated me

2:41:25 ↗ thank you

2:41:30 ↗ any other nominations for chair

2:41:39 ↗ hearing none

2:41:40 ↗ the nomination for chair is closed

2:41:43 ↗ um i just want to say thank you i'm i'm

2:41:45 ↗ humbled like i said to

2:41:48 ↗ to lead this

2:41:50 ↗ great group of people for the next year

2:41:52 ↗ so again i take it seriously and

2:41:54 ↗ i appreciate the confidence so

2:41:57 ↗ we'll work together and hopefully we'll

2:41:58 ↗ have a wonderful product for this

2:42:00 ↗ upcoming year for not only the public

2:42:02 ↗ but also for all of us working together

2:42:04 ↗ so thank you i appreciate it

2:42:09 ↗ all

2:42:10 ↗ right now we're going to move to vice

2:42:13 ↗ chair are there any nominations for vice

2:42:15 ↗ chair

2:42:17 ↗ commissioner milligan

2:42:19 ↗ i'd like to nominate matt monaghan for

2:42:21 ↗ vice chair of the planning policy

2:42:23 ↗ commission

2:42:33 ↗ are there any other nominations for vice

2:42:35 ↗ chair

2:42:41 ↗ hearing none

2:42:43 ↗ congratulations uh vice chair monahan

2:42:46 ↗ thank you all very much i really

2:42:48 ↗ appreciate it looking forward to

2:42:50 ↗ more meetings that stretch into the nine

2:42:51 ↗ o'clock hour so

2:42:54 ↗ never a shortage of those

2:43:00 ↗ all right so i believe that takes care

2:43:02 ↗ of that so

2:43:04 ↗ again i i know we're looking forward to

2:43:06 ↗ the next year

2:43:10 ↗ and now we're going to move to general

2:43:12 ↗ public comments for this evening

2:43:15 ↗ i'm stephen do we have anyone who would

2:43:16 ↗ like to speak

2:43:18 ↗ uh tonight

2:43:20 ↗ currently don't see any raised hands

2:43:22 ↗ i'll give it a minute

2:43:25 ↗ in case anybody's

2:43:26 ↗ getting to their keyboard

2:43:37 ↗ nope i i don't see any public comment

2:43:42 ↗ all right well thank you stephen

2:43:45 ↗ um agenda part number six reports

2:43:50 ↗ stephen

2:43:55 ↗ hi everyone uh so

2:43:58 ↗ for

2:43:59 ↗ reports last week the city council had

2:44:01 ↗ the discussion on bucket two um

2:44:04 ↗ mini facilitate the discussion so i'll

2:44:06 ↗ hand it over to minnie to

2:44:08 ↗ talk uh just kind of give some

2:44:09 ↗ highlights of what the discussion was

2:44:11 ↗ like

2:44:12 ↗ yeah thank you steven uh due to the

2:44:14 ↗ lateness of the hour you know we i'll

2:44:17 ↗ keep it short um

2:44:19 ↗ but count you know we took your

2:44:21 ↗ recommendation on the trees open space

2:44:23 ↗ and

2:44:24 ↗ the landscaping portion and uh council

2:44:27 ↗ members had the committee with the the

2:44:29 ↗ we're on a committee structure now so

2:44:31 ↗ they're called planning

2:44:32 ↗ development and environment

2:44:35 ↗ committee

2:44:36 ↗ comprised of council member hunt council

2:44:39 ↗ president walsh and council member ray

2:44:42 ↗ are on that committee and they had a

2:44:44 ↗ really good discussion uh want us to go

2:44:47 ↗ back and look at a few things um

2:44:50 ↗ and we answered their questions uh open

2:44:52 ↗ space and you know the terminology what

2:44:55 ↗ we call these things natural amenity

2:44:58 ↗ versus this indoor outdoor so we'll look

2:45:00 ↗ at how to clean that part up

2:45:03 ↗ um which we agree uh also you know the

2:45:06 ↗ discussion today that we had about um 48

2:45:09 ↗ square feet per unit does it make sense

2:45:12 ↗ uh

2:45:13 ↗ when we try and split it into private

2:45:15 ↗ open space and community open space and

2:45:17 ↗ the two do we need a separate one so

2:45:19 ↗ we'll do a little bit more um analysis

2:45:22 ↗ and research on the recreation open

2:45:24 ↗ space part that's the upshot of it but

2:45:26 ↗ there was a lot of other things that

2:45:28 ↗ they

2:45:28 ↗ they gave us feedback on that we'll

2:45:30 ↗ incorporate in the second draft and

2:45:32 ↗ we'll share that uh consolidated list

2:45:35 ↗ of the changes uh from you all

2:45:37 ↗ from the community members and from

2:45:39 ↗ council um that will be incorporated in

2:45:41 ↗ the second draft um towards the end of

2:45:43 ↗ the year so with that that's it

2:45:46 ↗ stephen back to you or chair

2:45:49 ↗ congratulations to the new chair and

2:45:51 ↗ vice chair we look yeah and thank you

2:45:54 ↗ all for all your hard work i know this

2:45:56 ↗ is

2:45:56 ↗ dense material we're sending your way so

2:45:59 ↗ appreciate all your time and efforts um

2:46:04 ↗ yeah great thank you minnie i appreciate

2:46:06 ↗ it

2:46:07 ↗ um finally

2:46:09 ↗ other business and announcements

2:46:12 ↗ i just have a couple things um for

2:46:14 ↗ announcements so i'll be following up

2:46:16 ↗ with the

2:46:17 ↗ commissioners tomorrow to schedule a

2:46:19 ↗ special meeting for our annual training

2:46:22 ↗ but at this training we'll also be

2:46:23 ↗ discussing updating our rules and

2:46:24 ↗ regulations to be consistent with the

2:46:26 ↗ other commissions and boards

2:46:28 ↗ um i had to wait to schedule it because

2:46:30 ↗ i mentioned it last time i didn't wait

2:46:31 ↗ to schedule because their city clerk has

2:46:32 ↗ been out of the office but she is back i

2:46:34 ↗ will schedule that

2:46:37 ↗ so that we can get her at our meeting

2:46:39 ↗ for our trading

2:46:40 ↗ lastly i'd like to announce that the ppc

2:46:42 ↗ will be moving back to in-person

2:46:44 ↗ meetings starting in june

2:46:46 ↗ and we'll start with our june 9th

2:46:48 ↗ meeting i think many of you received a

2:46:50 ↗ message from the mayor uh kind of

2:46:52 ↗ explaining the stance from the city and

2:46:54 ↗ the change from the state so

2:46:57 ↗ we'll be moving back to the hybrid and

2:46:59 ↗ transitioning

2:47:00 ↗ back to in person

2:47:02 ↗ the expectation for the mayor's office

2:47:04 ↗ is that the commissioners will need to

2:47:05 ↗ be in person in order to participate in

2:47:07 ↗ the meetings and uh we'll discuss we'll

2:47:09 ↗ kind of discuss that level of

2:47:10 ↗ participation when we go over the rules

2:47:12 ↗ and regulations that are special meeting

2:47:14 ↗ so that's it for announcements

2:47:18 ↗ great thank you stephen

2:47:20 ↗ all right last call is there any

2:47:23 ↗ comments for the good of the order

2:47:30 ↗ commissioner milligan

2:47:33 ↗ thank you i'm just remembering uh

2:47:35 ↗ sometimes that when we have

2:47:38 ↗ officer

2:47:40 ↗ elections we also talk about governing

2:47:42 ↗ documents for

2:47:44 ↗ the commissions and board do we have any

2:47:46 ↗ of that kind of work during this

2:47:48 ↗ transition this year

2:47:51 ↗ are you talking about the rules and

2:47:53 ↗ regulations for the commission

2:47:57 ↗ yes so we'll have a discussion about

2:47:59 ↗ that at our special meeting when um

2:48:01 ↗ right after it'll be on the agenda for

2:48:03 ↗ this special meeting when we have the

2:48:05 ↗ training with the city clerk so

2:48:07 ↗ a draft uh with some changes from the

2:48:09 ↗ city clerk will get sent out to all of

2:48:11 ↗ you prior to that meeting and then we'll

2:48:13 ↗ discuss any additional changes we might

2:48:15 ↗ want to consider at the meeting

2:48:21 ↗ great thank you

2:48:22 ↗ and finally i just want to say again

2:48:24 ↗ thank you i'm looking forward to a great

2:48:26 ↗ year

2:48:27 ↗ what a great way to start the year to be

2:48:28 ↗ able to start working together in person

2:48:31 ↗ i can only speak for myself but uh this

2:48:33 ↗ pandemic's been going on for 27 months

2:48:35 ↗ which means i've been waiting for this

2:48:38 ↗ for 26 months

2:48:41 ↗ so again i'm looking forward to meet all

2:48:42 ↗ of you guys the majority of you guys for

2:48:44 ↗ the first time in person

2:48:46 ↗ um and then finally i just want to say

2:48:48 ↗ again a very warm welcome to our newest

2:48:50 ↗ member commissioner kim it's uh

2:48:54 ↗ nice to meet you and hopefully we'll get

2:48:55 ↗ a meet well we will meet you in person

2:48:57 ↗ in june

2:49:00 ↗ with that

2:49:01 ↗ um we will close tonight's planning

2:49:02 ↗ policy commission at 9 19.

2:49:06 ↗ thank you everybody

2:49:09 ↗ thank you

2:49:10 ↗ well done share voice

2:49:12 ↗ thank you mr monahan

2:49:15 ↗ good night

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager, CP&D Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager 2. Approval of Minutes VICE CHAIR VOISS asked if there were any corrections to the Planning Policy Commission April 28, 2022 Minutes. COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN stated having an Page 5 of 35 APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-12-22 Special Joint Meeting Planning Policy Commission & Development Commission Meeting Minutes excused absence, rather than unexcused as listed. Chair VOISS stated that the corrected Minutes were approved

Recommendations & actions (4)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Chair VOISS stated that the corrected Minutes were approved.
Leeson replied that some footnotes referred to a section and were moved to that section for all information in one spot.
Specified design standards were moved to specified use standards.
COMMISSIONER MORGAN asked staff to clarify native retention areas from a practical standpoint in Form and Intensity, page 6 of 24, and changes to “NA” versus F.A.R., Table 18.404.100.