Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 26, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 12, 2022

packet pp.5–15

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, May 12, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Preliminary Recommendation on Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Zoning and Uses Draft Code, (A)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.17–31

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the May 26th Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is for the PPC to deliberate and come to consensus regarding possible changes to the draft regulations included in Bucket 3 while taking into account comments from the public and the Development Commission.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.33–35

▶ Watch from 1:41:36 Open packet at p.33 ↗

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

2791 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ well good evening everybody

0:14 ↗ good evening planning policy commission

0:16 ↗ good evening staff and good evening

0:19 ↗ issaquah residents

0:21 ↗ uh tonight after

0:23 ↗ our last meeting this meeting almost

0:25 ↗ feels intimate

0:27 ↗ with so few people here

0:28 ↗ so everyone will get a lot of talking

0:30 ↗ time

0:32 ↗ i would like to call the may 26th

0:33 ↗ planning policy commission meeting to

0:35 ↗ order and it is currently 6 30.

0:39 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:41 ↗ meetings

0:42 ↗ like all of our meetings for the last

0:43 ↗ two years

0:44 ↗ i'd like to start by providing some

0:46 ↗ guidelines we have participants

0:48 ↗ attending by computer and others who may

0:50 ↗ be attending by phone

0:52 ↗ for all of you our meeting attendees

0:56 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

0:58 ↗ state your name each time before

1:00 ↗ speaking

1:01 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:03 ↗ speaking

1:04 ↗ and if you're having any technical

1:05 ↗ issues please try joining the meeting

1:07 ↗ using a different device such as a

1:09 ↗ smartphone or a tablet

1:11 ↗ or use the call and information in the

1:13 ↗ meeting invite to call in to the meeting

1:17 ↗ having said that

1:18 ↗ we will begin with attendance

1:21 ↗ valerie will you please call the role

1:24 ↗ yes

1:25 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:28 ↗ here

1:29 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:32 ↗ here

1:33 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:35 ↗ here

1:37 ↗ commissioner voice

1:39 ↗ here

1:40 ↗ commissioner kim

1:44 ↗ and commissioner bader has an execute

1:46 ↗ absence chair you have a quorum

1:49 ↗ excellent thank you valerie and tonight

1:50 ↗ is valerie's first official

1:53 ↗ meeting as far as staff liaison tonight

1:55 ↗ so

1:56 ↗ we're excited to have valerie as part of

1:58 ↗ our our small family

2:01 ↗ i'm going to move on to the second part

2:02 ↗ of the agenda which is approval of the

2:04 ↗ meeting minutes from our last meeting on

2:06 ↗ may 12th

2:07 ↗ are there any corrections to those

2:09 ↗ minutes provided in the agenda packet

2:11 ↗ that you all have received

2:18 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved

2:23 ↗ now we move on to our third

2:26 ↗ part of the agenda which is public

2:27 ↗ comment

2:29 ↗ as everybody here is fully aware this is

2:32 ↗ an important part of the process

2:34 ↗ which also um factors into the decisions

2:37 ↗ we make here at the planning policy

2:39 ↗ commission

2:40 ↗ so members of the public if you are

2:42 ↗ joining us and wish to make a public

2:44 ↗ comment

2:45 ↗ um what we're looking for is you to

2:47 ↗ please raise your virtual hand

2:50 ↗ and to do this

2:52 ↗ please press

2:54 ↗ star 3 on your phone

2:56 ↗ or if you are joined by a computer or

2:58 ↗ smartphone

2:59 ↗ look for a hand icon

3:01 ↗ it could vary by device

3:04 ↗ one option may be go to the participant

3:06 ↗ panel and choose the raised i the raise

3:08 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

3:11 ↗ and it may also be located under the

3:13 ↗ reactions menu or more menu

3:17 ↗ and what we're looking for tonight

3:19 ↗ is

3:19 ↗ general public comment the public

3:22 ↗ hearing has closed so i do ask anyone

3:24 ↗ who is participating tonight in public

3:26 ↗ comment to please

3:28 ↗ uh recognize that that portion is closed

3:30 ↗ i will kindly remind you if you begin to

3:32 ↗ veer into

3:34 ↗ comments on tonight's deliberations

3:37 ↗ this is general comments for the

3:39 ↗ planning policy commission

3:42 ↗ when recognized i ask that you please

3:45 ↗ unmute your microphone

3:46 ↗ state your name

3:48 ↗ speak clearly

3:49 ↗ and please limit your comments to five

3:51 ↗ minutes or less

3:53 ↗ and then when you're done please mute

3:55 ↗ your microphone

3:56 ↗ for some reason if you do not respond

3:58 ↗ after your name or your phone number is

4:00 ↗ called

4:01 ↗ or your connection is lost the meeting

4:03 ↗ will need to proceed

4:04 ↗ you are encouraged to rejoin the meeting

4:07 ↗ if you are able

4:09 ↗ valerie

4:10 ↗ do we have anybody signed up for public

4:12 ↗ comment this evening

4:18 ↗ i do not see any raised hands

4:22 ↗ i see um susan deville's hand is raised

4:26 ↗ oh one second susan

4:29 ↗ [Music]

4:34 ↗ susan you're now a panelist you can

4:35 ↗ unmute and turn your camera on

4:38 ↗ hello

4:41 ↗ and i think my videos on

4:45 ↗ okay good hi everybody good to see you

4:47 ↗ all

4:48 ↗ i'm a little confused so i'm gonna do my

4:50 ↗ best and you can tell me

4:52 ↗ if i'm veering off

4:54 ↗ um thank you for allowing the public to

4:57 ↗ speak

4:58 ↗ i want to talk about something that made

5:01 ↗ me addressing tonight it's concerning

5:03 ↗ the white board

5:05 ↗ and um i have an ask of everyone

5:10 ↗ and

5:11 ↗ it does pertain to this evening's

5:12 ↗ discussion so i'll put it out there

5:15 ↗ uh

5:16 ↗ currently many items have been added to

5:18 ↗ the white board

5:19 ↗ especially during the natural

5:20 ↗ environment section without public

5:22 ↗ review or clarification

5:24 ↗ and i was hoping sometime this evening

5:28 ↗ that the items that were moved to the

5:29 ↗ white board for this particular segment

5:31 ↗ could be reviewed

5:32 ↗ if you feel it it's important to do that

5:35 ↗ fellow commissioners or yeah i feel like

5:37 ↗ i'm a commissioner at this point

5:39 ↗ um excuse me for doing that

5:42 ↗ and and

5:43 ↗ my other ask is going forward before

5:46 ↗ final approval of the first draft could

5:48 ↗ the whiteboard items for that particular

5:49 ↗ section maybe be listed

5:53 ↗ the other item that i wanted to ask

5:57 ↗ was

5:59 ↗ if

6:00 ↗ we

6:01 ↗ could

6:03 ↗ clarify if testing is going to be done

6:05 ↗ for the procedures uses

6:09 ↗ that are being discussed tonight

6:11 ↗ meaning i think

6:13 ↗ um before the second draft occurs

6:18 ↗ and if you all agree

6:20 ↗ will there be

6:22 ↗ a

6:24 ↗ application test done

6:26 ↗ to go over this process

6:29 ↗ so that we can see if it's clear concise

6:31 ↗ and easy to read

6:33 ↗ which is what our objectives are

6:35 ↗ i think as we've gone through this

6:37 ↗ process

6:38 ↗ we could look at little tiny things but

6:40 ↗ we don't know how the actual process is

6:42 ↗ going to

6:43 ↗ roll out and i'm hoping that the links

6:45 ↗ will be live by the time we review

6:48 ↗ second

6:50 ↗ draft and if someone could clarify that

6:52 ↗ publicly i would appreciate it if these

6:54 ↗ can't be followed up today

6:56 ↗ um maybe we could do it in the future

6:59 ↗ thanks you guys for listening bye

7:12 ↗ are there any other folks that would

7:13 ↗ like to speak

7:19 ↗ it

7:20 ↗ does not look like there's anyone else

7:29 ↗ thank you valerie

7:33 ↗ continuation of public hearing for title

7:35 ↗ 18 zoning and uses updates

7:38 ↗ so this is the meat of our agenda

7:40 ↗ tonight

7:42 ↗ and we're going to be deliberating the

7:43 ↗ portion of the public hearing from our

7:45 ↗ last meeting

7:46 ↗ i'm hoping that most of your clarifying

7:48 ↗ questions have already been answered

7:50 ↗ whether from the last meeting or through

7:51 ↗ email to staff

7:53 ↗ and instead looking for policy questions

7:56 ↗ tonight

7:57 ↗ and then obviously getting to talk about

7:59 ↗ it amongst ourselves

8:01 ↗ um towards the end

8:03 ↗ of each presentation

8:07 ↗ as we did on may 12th we're going to

8:08 ↗ start with the permitted uses and

8:09 ↗ specified use standards and then move to

8:12 ↗ form and intensity and conclude with

8:14 ↗ subdivisions

8:16 ↗ we're going to deliberate each topic

8:18 ↗ after they're presented and kristin is

8:20 ↗ our first presenter this evening so

8:23 ↗ miss leeson please take it away

8:34 ↗ oops

8:36 ↗ there we go all right you all can see me

8:40 ↗ or the presentation at least

8:42 ↗ yes okay great thank you

8:45 ↗ sorry i'm fixing my other screen so i

8:47 ↗ can actually see you okay there we go so

8:50 ↗ yes tonight we are doing deliberations

8:52 ↗ on title 18 bit three

8:55 ↗ uh zoning permitted uses specified use

8:57 ↗ standards form and intensity and

8:59 ↗ subdivisions however

9:01 ↗ lucy and i who will be talking about

9:02 ↗ this section are only talking about the

9:04 ↗ first four zoning permitted uses form

9:06 ↗ and intensity and specified use

9:08 ↗ standards because they are so

9:10 ↗ intertwined

9:11 ↗ so i'm going to start with zone uh

9:14 ↗ actually here's how they are intertwined

9:16 ↗ and we have zones as a reminder um what

9:19 ↗ is the purpose of each zone

9:21 ↗ what are standards that go across the

9:22 ↗ zones then we have permitted uses

9:25 ↗ what uses can go in what zones and what

9:27 ↗ zones will allow what uses

9:29 ↗ foreman intensity what do they look like

9:31 ↗ how high can the buildings be how close

9:32 ↗ can they be to the sidewalk how dense

9:35 ↗ and then specified use standards which

9:37 ↗ are standards that are specific to

9:38 ↗ actual uses they don't go across zones

9:41 ↗ it's a specific use

9:43 ↗ so it's it's it's a fine line no it can

9:46 ↗ be a little confusing but um that's what

9:48 ↗ that's how we divided it up so as a

9:50 ↗ reminder we consolidated five existing

9:53 ↗ zones we did imc 1806 zoning districts

9:57 ↗ 1807 development and design standards uh

10:00 ↗ 19 a and b 19a central standards chapter

10:03 ↗ 4 specifically and then 19 b and c which

10:06 ↗ are the squad highlands and talus

10:08 ↗ replacement regulations

10:11 ↗ i want to talk about the first two

10:12 ↗ zoning and permitted uses i'm going to

10:14 ↗ combine those and just hit some of the

10:16 ↗ highlights again just as a reminder for

10:18 ↗ those who may not been here last time

10:20 ↗ the zoning changes highlights we

10:23 ↗ did not change zoning descriptions at

10:26 ↗ all

10:26 ↗ however there were no descriptions that

10:29 ↗ were included in the esco highlands and

10:31 ↗ talus replacement regulations so we

10:34 ↗ added descriptions for those we added

10:36 ↗ clarity for allowed uses in each of them

10:40 ↗ the retail zone was removed because we

10:42 ↗ don't have it anymore once we did

10:44 ↗ central listify the retail zone went

10:45 ↗ away most of it became mixed use

10:48 ↗ and we relocated several footnotes and

10:50 ↗ sections from permitted uses and

10:54 ↗ form an intensity

10:55 ↗ to zones

10:57 ↗ so for example permitted uses

10:59 ↗ there were several footnotes underneath

11:01 ↗ on each page and it might under there

11:03 ↗ have a description for

11:05 ↗ um

11:06 ↗ oh now i'm going to make the adus and

11:08 ↗ how those are supposed to work but that

11:09 ↗ should really be in zones or there was

11:12 ↗ this description about how if you are

11:15 ↗ located in the cbd and on front street

11:16 ↗ then you had to have ground floor

11:19 ↗ commercial and here's what it had to

11:20 ↗ look like so that would go into zones or

11:22 ↗ um

11:23 ↗ specified use sums

11:26 ↗ so the highlights for the changes in

11:27 ↗ permitted uses was that we combined four

11:30 ↗ different use tables out of four

11:31 ↗ different chapters and

11:33 ↗ uh the difficulty here was that some

11:34 ↗ uses that are actually the same use had

11:36 ↗ different names so it may look like some

11:39 ↗ uses were removed from his own but

11:40 ↗ really weren't the name just changed

11:42 ↗ because they're actually the same thing

11:44 ↗ we removed the levels of reviews so if

11:46 ↗ it used to say in their

11:48 ↗ p1 for level one review p3 for pay level

11:52 ↗ 3 review permitted level 3 review and we

11:55 ↗ review remove that and just put in p's

11:57 ↗ to say it's permitted

11:59 ↗ um

11:59 ↗ we did not intentionally um add or

12:02 ↗ remove any uses from zones so

12:05 ↗ admittedly that's something that we need

12:06 ↗ to go back and just double check because

12:08 ↗ four different tables four different

12:09 ↗ names we need to check it again i got

12:11 ↗ the two exceptions as i mentioned last

12:12 ↗ time we did remove bike stations because

12:14 ↗ the way that the bike share programs

12:16 ↗ work now you no longer need the big

12:18 ↗ stations that you used to have to have

12:20 ↗ so we removed that and the state doesn't

12:22 ↗ do emissions testing anymore so we

12:24 ↗ removed the emissions testing

12:26 ↗ we also removed the individual retail

12:29 ↗ uses we kept retail as a broad category

12:33 ↗ and we're going to rely on the debt

12:34 ↗ we're getting we're going to improve

12:36 ↗ that

12:36 ↗ sorry of stuttering improve the

12:38 ↗ definition of retail

12:40 ↗ so that we can

12:42 ↗ have criteria for what meets retail but

12:45 ↗ the retail uses change so often and

12:47 ↗ things come and go and

12:49 ↗ it just evolves and we can't possibly

12:51 ↗ keep continue to keep a list of every

12:53 ↗ retail use and lastly we move footnotes

12:57 ↗ as i mentioned before some of the

12:58 ↗ footnotes to either reference and notes

13:00 ↗ on the right-hand side of the table so

13:02 ↗ that you know where to go to look for

13:03 ↗ special standards

13:05 ↗ or we moved it to zones or special use

13:07 ↗ standards and then referred to it

13:11 ↗ some of the comments that were made

13:12 ↗ there weren't any policy questions that

13:14 ↗ we had associated with these and some of

13:15 ↗ the things that came up

13:17 ↗ were to

13:18 ↗ ensure consistency in

13:20 ↗ language between

13:22 ↗ what was there and what is now fun i

13:24 ↗ know mineral resources came up so that's

13:26 ↗ that's one that we need to re-look at

13:28 ↗ remove

13:30 ↗ replication in tables in the table

13:32 ↗ sometimes it was listed in three

13:33 ↗ different places we need to fix that

13:35 ↗ make sure it's in one place or just make

13:37 ↗ sure it's clear

13:38 ↗ ensure all the references are included

13:40 ↗ so all the references may not be there

13:42 ↗ yet so once this is done we need to go

13:44 ↗ back and make sure that all references

13:45 ↗ to all different sections of the code

13:47 ↗ are included we need to cross check and

13:49 ↗ verify permitted uses consistency so as

13:52 ↗ i mentioned four tables we just need to

13:53 ↗ make sure that we didn't inadvertently

13:55 ↗ delete something

13:57 ↗ or add something and we um you all it

13:59 ↗ came up several times to confirm

14:01 ↗ lakeside properties and zoning so for

14:02 ↗ the fun of it i put a map together

14:04 ↗ hopefully this will help you all

14:06 ↗ so this is lakeside

14:08 ↗ everything that you see in the orange

14:10 ↗ the stripes and the gray is currently

14:11 ↗ owned by lakeside they used to own a big

14:14 ↗ parcel over here but they sold it and

14:15 ↗ it's now view apartments

14:17 ↗ so the underlying zoning for most of the

14:20 ↗ entire thing is actually mineral

14:22 ↗ resources

14:24 ↗ and this part is still mineral resources

14:26 ↗ in accordance with the development

14:27 ↗ agreement this part is an urban village

14:30 ↗ lakeside overlay which is where where

14:32 ↗ they are anticipated to do their more

14:34 ↗ urban development this parcel down here

14:37 ↗ is zoned intensive commercial

14:39 ↗ and there's a house here and there are

14:41 ↗ two buildings here where they do

14:44 ↗ industrial uses they i think um i think

14:47 ↗ that might be where they do some of

14:48 ↗ their gravel operations

14:50 ↗ they were annexed to the city it is

14:52 ↗ state law that we were required to allow

14:54 ↗ to con

14:56 ↗ allow them to continue these uses so

14:58 ↗ that ordinance was adopted in 1999

15:01 ↗ and then in hello 2012 we did the

15:04 ↗ development agreement and that is how

15:06 ↗ this wound up looking like this so i

15:08 ↗ think there was some confusion and kind

15:10 ↗ of how that works so hopefully that

15:12 ↗ helps clear it up and that is all i have

15:17 ↗ for me

15:18 ↗ so lucy i don't know lucy's next i don't

15:20 ↗ know if you all are going to talk about

15:22 ↗ it now or wait

15:23 ↗ um and if you

15:25 ↗ and lucy i can certainly keep this

15:26 ↗ powerpoint up here if you'd like me to

15:34 ↗ uh what staff's opinion should should

15:36 ↗ lucy go next on my notes it's it shows

15:39 ↗ me breaking down

15:41 ↗ moving to deliberation but i know like

15:42 ↗ you said these are intertwined

15:46 ↗ i don't think there's heavy feelings

15:48 ↗ either way just which which way would

15:50 ↗ help it flow better i think these are

15:51 ↗ short enough my personal opinion um

15:54 ↗ these topics they are intertwined and

15:56 ↗ they're they're i know that neither one

15:57 ↗ of us has a real long presentation so i

15:59 ↗ would imagine that you all could just go

16:00 ↗ through the whole thing and then

16:01 ↗ deliberate

16:03 ↗ and then just you do the subdivisions

16:05 ↗ separately

16:06 ↗ correct correct good

16:10 ↗ uh lucy are you ready to present

16:12 ↗ sure

16:13 ↗ can we

16:14 ↗ can't valerie could i have you switch to

16:16 ↗ me being a prince presenter

16:19 ↗ yes you sound like a robot

16:31 ↗ is that better

16:35 ↗ not quite

16:40 ↗ well unfortunately i can't restart and

16:42 ↗ that's all i've got

16:44 ↗ okay

16:45 ↗ so

16:49 ↗ you're now a presenter

16:50 ↗ thank you

16:58 ↗ sorry that you're gonna get robust boys

17:01 ↗ um i'm just gonna step in here would it

17:03 ↗ help if we just stopped and deliberated

17:07 ↗ um with questions

17:09 ↗ because of the technical issues would it

17:11 ↗ help lucy if you were to turn off your

17:12 ↗ computer and reboot i mean we could do

17:14 ↗ it that way because you are coming

17:15 ↗ across

17:16 ↗ as a robot

17:20 ↗ uh

17:21 ↗ yes that's fun i will um

17:24 ↗ start moving back

17:26 ↗ okay

17:27 ↗ so i guess we'll stick to the original

17:29 ↗ script

17:30 ↗ um

17:32 ↗ i get planning policy commission you're

17:33 ↗ up

17:35 ↗ looking for

17:36 ↗ uh policy questions and deliberations on

17:38 ↗ kristen's presentation

17:58 ↗ chair you're muted

18:02 ↗ takes a village sometimes

18:04 ↗ vice chair monahan uh with a question

18:07 ↗ yeah hey uh kristen not a policy

18:09 ↗ question i'm wondering if you could

18:10 ↗ bring us into the belly of the beast and

18:12 ↗ describe kind of how this cross

18:14 ↗ referencing is going on

18:16 ↗ is it like a beautiful mind we've got a

18:18 ↗ bunch of papers up in a conference room

18:20 ↗ somewhere in city hall i just like a

18:22 ↗ little bit of an insight into the

18:23 ↗ process because i can only imagine the

18:25 ↗ bear that this is to making sure this

18:27 ↗ section cross-references this section

18:28 ↗ and we're not deleting and

18:30 ↗ just a little bit describing the process

18:32 ↗ for us

18:33 ↗ i appreciate you appreciate that this is

18:36 ↗ a bear because it is

18:38 ↗ um so we started um by i went through

18:42 ↗ every single one of the footnotes that

18:44 ↗ was there

18:45 ↗ and would talk to i

18:47 ↗ kind of sent them to and would talk to

18:50 ↗ steven and lucy who were doing the other

18:51 ↗ two sections and say hey this is a

18:52 ↗ footnote this needs to go in one of your

18:54 ↗ sections where does it go and then i'd

18:56 ↗ find out where it was and they put it

18:58 ↗ there

18:59 ↗ and we put the note in the reference

19:02 ↗ so that's kind of how it's going but i

19:03 ↗ know that we're not done yet because we

19:05 ↗ still have revisions so i think what

19:07 ↗ we'll have to do

19:08 ↗ that's how we've started it and

19:10 ↗ um

19:11 ↗ a couple of things have come up on there

19:13 ↗ and when they say you know we probably

19:14 ↗ need to put a reference in there for

19:15 ↗ this thing that you know

19:17 ↗ that we added

19:18 ↗ um or move to this section um

19:22 ↗ and i think it's just going to be a

19:23 ↗ continuous back and forth and really

19:25 ↗ more now it's going to be the other way

19:26 ↗ it's going to be looking at the

19:28 ↗ zone section and at the specified uses

19:30 ↗ section and making sure that we have

19:32 ↗ references because i've pulled out all

19:34 ↗ the references from the permitted uses

19:35 ↗ so now it's we're going to have to work

19:36 ↗ backwards the other way

19:39 ↗ with a fine tooth comb

19:42 ↗ anderson thank you appreciate it

19:48 ↗ thank you

19:49 ↗ uh commissioner milligan with a comment

19:52 ↗ hey uh well first process question i

19:55 ↗ think you said

19:56 ↗ uh questions and deliberations jump in

20:00 ↗ and then we're going over two sections

20:02 ↗ i'm sorry about my mic

20:04 ↗ zoning and uses and just as an example i

20:07 ↗ have about one two three four

20:09 ↗ items

20:11 ↗ to talk about in these two categories

20:13 ↗ should we

20:14 ↗ take an item

20:16 ↗ and then go back to the end of the line

20:18 ↗ and cycle through or should i run

20:21 ↗ through all my

20:22 ↗ things that i wanted to talk about

20:30 ↗ would everybody like to do policy

20:32 ↗ questions first and then do a

20:34 ↗ deliberation

20:38 ↗ you have to ask a yes or no question or

20:40 ↗ else we can't answer

20:43 ↗ would everybody like to do that

20:46 ↗ that's a yes or no

20:48 ↗ i'm getting a big thumbs up so we'll do

20:50 ↗ questions first

20:51 ↗ questions first okay um

20:56 ↗ well i don't have any questions so just

20:58 ↗ have comments okay

21:00 ↗ bye commissioner lewis

21:04 ↗ thank you chair boyce all right

21:07 ↗ questions on zoning um policy questions

21:10 ↗ and i'm really excited to see what

21:11 ↗ knight brings to the table i love a four

21:13 ↗ point process

21:15 ↗ can you remind me first of all i i'm

21:17 ↗ gonna add in a comment and tell you

21:18 ↗ kristin that i do really enjoy our

21:20 ↗ permitted use table much better than

21:23 ↗ when i used it before user experience so

21:25 ↗ far

21:26 ↗ um i appreciate it better can you remind

21:29 ↗ me on daycare operations and dry

21:31 ↗ cleaning and pressing shops have no

21:33 ↗ permitted uses in the table and have

21:35 ↗ notes to other places in the imc can you

21:37 ↗ remind me for the user experience how

21:40 ↗ that's going to work is it going to be

21:42 ↗ like a drop link is it going to be

21:46 ↗ once we're done we get it into code

21:48 ↗ publishing we will have links

21:50 ↗ in there okay we'll also still have the

21:52 ↗ reference so if anybody just wants to go

21:54 ↗ look it up they can but we will have

21:56 ↗ links thank you um my other policy

22:00 ↗ question is

22:01 ↗ um on um draft part 4 zoning 18.400

22:06 ↗ and i'm looking at page six of 30. um i

22:10 ↗ might i'm going to read out what the

22:11 ↗ point is it's d2 but it's to encourage

22:14 ↗ the reuse and remodeling rather than the

22:16 ↗ demolition of historic buildings to

22:18 ↗ provide alternative housing

22:19 ↗ opportunities and i want to call out

22:21 ↗ this policy because it's incredibly

22:23 ↗ important and we've been working on this

22:24 ↗ for so many years my question

22:27 ↗ specifically is about the use of the

22:29 ↗ words historic building and alternate

22:32 ↗ housing are those defined

22:36 ↗ we've

22:37 ↗ i've felt good i mean you um

22:40 ↗ we were just looking at that and in a

22:42 ↗ section we're working out now realize

22:44 ↗ that historic structure is not defined

22:46 ↗ technically

22:47 ↗ uh if you're a landmark you have to be

22:49 ↗ 40 years old or older

22:51 ↗ so

22:52 ↗ that may wind at me i don't know what

22:54 ↗ the definite will be definition will be

22:56 ↗ but if you're looking at landmarks

22:57 ↗ that's what it is

22:58 ↗ okay

22:59 ↗ i just jumped out to me is when we talk

23:01 ↗ a lot about aging in place and the

23:03 ↗ different

23:04 ↗ crossover policy to code this stood out

23:07 ↗ to me as a really important one and i

23:09 ↗ just wanted to make sure that we were

23:10 ↗ really putting in our intent in a way to

23:13 ↗ be able to get that meaningful result

23:16 ↗ and i you know it's a good example of

23:18 ↗ where sometimes our language is not

23:19 ↗ necessarily ambiguous but it also

23:21 ↗ doesn't maybe get us to where we want it

23:23 ↗ to be so um i was just curious about

23:26 ↗ those definitions and how we were going

23:27 ↗ to kind of

23:28 ↗ frame that with the word historic right

23:30 ↗ i think it can be a little bit loaded um

23:33 ↗ and so i was trying to figure out how we

23:35 ↗ were going to do about that so thank you

23:36 ↗ for putting a flag in that for me yeah

23:39 ↗ did you have a question about alternate

23:40 ↗ you had something about alternate

23:44 ↗ it's for alternate oh and for alternate

23:46 ↗ housing opportunities i didn't know if

23:48 ↗ the word alternate housing was also if

23:50 ↗ that term was going to be defined if it

23:52 ↗ was the way that we were going to be

23:53 ↗ talking about

23:54 ↗ um you know maybe there was definitions

23:56 ↗ that we're going to be talking about

23:57 ↗ adus or you know what i mean

23:59 ↗ um how to be able to take an existing

24:01 ↗ property um single-family home and be

24:03 ↗ able to use it a different um housing

24:05 ↗ opportunity way you know what i mean so

24:06 ↗ that's what was a second uh definition

24:09 ↗ in that point too that i thought had

24:11 ↗ some interesting

24:12 ↗ give

24:15 ↗ so yeah i don't think i'll turn it out

24:16 ↗ and look we're looking way far ahead and

24:18 ↗ i don't think alternate housing will be

24:20 ↗ defined but i think we'll say here are

24:22 ↗ forms of alternate hat and then you have

24:23 ↗ all the different definitions of what

24:25 ↗ those are

24:26 ↗ i like that thank you you're welcome

24:40 ↗ all right commissioner milligan

24:42 ↗ deliberation time

24:48 ↗ i don't even have to put it in the queue

24:50 ↗ thank you chair um commissioner nina

24:53 ↗ milligan here

24:54 ↗ uh thank you hey i wanted to start this

24:56 ↗ evening with some general comments

24:59 ↗ that i i hope will help explain my

25:02 ↗ specific comments and first of all i

25:04 ↗ want to thank the staff again we don't

25:06 ↗ do that and i don't do that enough

25:08 ↗ we're doing a fabulous job and and this

25:10 ↗ is a

25:15 ↗ and that and i know that my

25:17 ↗ contributions are quite limit

25:19 ↗ uh i depend on the fabulous comments

25:21 ↗ that the

25:26 ↗ i'm not even trying to

25:28 ↗ um

25:31 ↗ amplify their voices because their

25:32 ↗ voices are so clear and capable i really

25:35 ↗ appreciate all the contributions of the

25:36 ↗ puppet

25:38 ↗ and i just want to say that in the

25:40 ↗ comments that i make tonight um and

25:42 ↗ really any night and i don't have a pen

25:44 ↗ anymore but that's okay

25:46 ↗ uh

25:47 ↗ they're just a few

25:48 ↗ that i think are particularly of

25:50 ↗ interest to me and that i've had more

25:52 ↗ experience in that

25:54 ↗ excuse me mr milligan

25:56 ↗ yes would you mind turning off your

25:58 ↗ camera because you keep cutting out and

26:00 ↗ i'm wondering if it might help

26:02 ↗ yeah maybe

26:04 ↗ um and tell me again kristen if it does

26:06 ↗ cut out and i'll just um

26:08 ↗ uh to get rid of this headset i was

26:09 ↗ hoping it was an improvement is this

26:11 ↗ working okay it is you haven't cut out

26:13 ↗ since you did that thank you okay

26:15 ↗ excellent let's do it this way then okay

26:18 ↗ so my point was that um

26:20 ↗ my

26:21 ↗ comments are focused on a few things i'm

26:23 ↗ depending on the capable staff and the

26:25 ↗ public to cover

26:27 ↗ a lot of things that's just way too much

26:28 ↗ for one commissioner

26:31 ↗ but in the zoning and uses category

26:35 ↗ the best actor is now what i wanted to

26:37 ↗ talk about

26:38 ↗ has to do with i'm following up on joy's

26:40 ↗ comment earlier about reuse and

26:42 ↗ remodeling to limit

26:45 ↗ the demolition of properties that's the

26:47 ↗ first thing i want to talk about and

26:48 ↗ that is compatible with

26:50 ↗ preserving our neighborhood character i

26:53 ↗ had wondered why

26:55 ↗ any of the rest of the sentences there

26:57 ↗ why

26:58 ↗ just historic properties if one of our

27:02 ↗ objectives is to preserve neighborhood

27:04 ↗ character and to be

27:06 ↗ sustainable and a low low waste

27:09 ↗ community why would we why wouldn't we

27:13 ↗ encourage the reuse and remodeling

27:15 ↗ rather than the demolition of properties

27:16 ↗ in general so i just wanted to add that

27:20 ↗ reflection back on that comment and then

27:24 ↗ i uh in

27:27 ↗ the way that article two and article

27:30 ↗ three relate to one another when you go

27:32 ↗ into the standards in article 3 and i

27:34 ↗ brought this up last meeting

27:37 ↗ the standards referred to

27:42 ↗ to

27:43 ↗ housing that are residential that

27:45 ↗ doesn't have an architecture review or

27:48 ↗ other residential standards you know

27:50 ↗ like the like old town or the urban

27:52 ↗ villages

27:54 ↗ but it focuses on

27:56 ↗ duplexes cluster multifamily and the

28:00 ↗ reason i asked this question last time

28:02 ↗ is that i thought why does it not apply

28:04 ↗ why do not these standards apply to

28:06 ↗ single family

28:08 ↗ zones

28:09 ↗ and single family in general when we're

28:11 ↗ talking about preserving neighborhood

28:13 ↗ character when we're talking about

28:14 ↗ encouraging reuse and remodeling

28:17 ↗ the

28:19 ↗ the standards below in article 3 could

28:21 ↗ apply

28:22 ↗ to

28:23 ↗ all residential zones and i'd throw that

28:26 ↗ out there as kind of a challenge you

28:27 ↗ guys can

28:28 ↗ can push on that

28:30 ↗ it's an alignment with goal 8 of the

28:32 ↗ council to retain charm and distinctive

28:35 ↗ character there are a number of items in

28:38 ↗ article 3

28:40 ↗ that are helpful even in our single

28:42 ↗ family zones so if you guys could look

28:44 ↗ at that and check me on that and see if

28:46 ↗ i'm i'm going the right way

28:48 ↗ and uh chair voice um that's those are

28:51 ↗ all the comments i have about the zoning

28:52 ↗ section do you want me to continue into

28:54 ↗ uses or do you want me to wait and see

28:55 ↗ if somebody else wants to talk about

28:56 ↗ zoning

28:58 ↗ and i think we'll just stick with

29:00 ↗ continuing on and then we'll have uh

29:02 ↗ we'll bring you back

29:04 ↗ oh good good yeah and this is good

29:05 ↗ because i can put these things out and

29:07 ↗ my fellow commissioners can push back on

29:09 ↗ me

29:10 ↗ this is kind of a question but i i or

29:13 ↗ maybe i'm just proofreading under uses

29:16 ↗ uh live work units um especially

29:18 ↗ directing this to lucy um i wasn't sure

29:21 ↗ if this was correct because

29:24 ↗ um

29:26 ↗ live work units are allowed in the urban

29:29 ↗ village single not in the single family

29:32 ↗ they're they're allowed along park drive

29:35 ↗ but when i look at a zoning map which we

29:38 ↗ don't we weren't given a new zoning map

29:40 ↗ the only zoning map i have is the one

29:41 ↗ that's on the website

29:44 ↗ so i need some help on this

29:46 ↗ to make sure that the live work units

29:49 ↗ especially in izakawa highlands are

29:51 ↗ still allowed

29:53 ↗ so i'll throw that out there the next

29:55 ↗ thing that i want to talk about is um

29:58 ↗ and i want to thank

30:00 ↗ ann for

30:01 ↗ sending in

30:03 ↗ comprehensive plan

30:06 ↗ goals

30:07 ↗ for us

30:08 ↗ when we are talking about

30:11 ↗ um

30:13 ↗ the oh god no i don't have it in front

30:14 ↗ of me but um

30:16 ↗ land use n301

30:20 ↗ call for commercial uses or small scale

30:25 ↗ god i wish i could read that to you

30:27 ↗ right now

30:28 ↗ in our residential when you look at the

30:31 ↗ use table

30:32 ↗ a couple uses like deli and small scale

30:34 ↗ grocers and cafes would satisfy

30:37 ↗ land use and 3 and land use 0-1

30:45 ↗ again push back people but

30:47 ↗ that's what i was thinking might satisfy

30:50 ↗ that comprehensive plan goal

30:53 ↗ and then the last thing in use is

30:56 ↗ self-storage

30:57 ↗ and the reason i'm bringing this back up

31:00 ↗ is because there has been such a

31:02 ↗ controversy and this is an opportunity

31:03 ↗ for us to align our our goals with

31:07 ↗ the use table

31:09 ↗ and

31:11 ↗ just uh summarizing and catching just

31:14 ↗ just high points of very in-depth

31:16 ↗ conversations that this commission has

31:17 ↗ had about self-storage in the past that

31:20 ↗ self-storage does not contribute to the

31:22 ↗ vibrancy of a neighborhood it doesn't

31:23 ↗ contribute jobs it doesn't help with the

31:25 ↗ economy

31:26 ↗ and yet we have them allowed in

31:30 ↗ mixed use along all the eastern side of

31:32 ↗ gilman and in

31:34 ↗ urban villages in the commercial retail

31:36 ↗ and in the mixed-use retail sections

31:39 ↗ and

31:40 ↗ if what we're trying to build is a

31:42 ↗ vibrant

31:44 ↗ community to allow self-storage to be in

31:47 ↗ these areas i think is contrary to our

31:52 ↗ comprehensive goals comprehensive plan

31:54 ↗ goals

31:57 ↗ one idea if you do allow them maybe you

32:00 ↗ could put a used standard that the

32:02 ↗ ground floor has to be a retail use like

32:05 ↗ we do sometimes in uh for other um

32:10 ↗ other

32:12 ↗ uses or other um oh god no i can't even

32:15 ↗ think of the words but anyway that would

32:16 ↗ be one way of solving it

32:18 ↗ i think the ideal way is to limit the

32:20 ↗ areas where it is allowed in the city of

32:22 ↗ issaquah if you aren't if we can't do

32:25 ↗ that then let's add a standard that at

32:29 ↗ least

32:30 ↗ ground floor

32:31 ↗ is a retail or commercial use

32:35 ↗ that's it chair voice thank you very

32:37 ↗ much for letting me

32:39 ↗ go on that's my biggest section

32:44 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan

32:46 ↗ fantastic comments particularly liked

32:49 ↗ the last comment so

32:51 ↗ now we're going to move on to vice chair

32:53 ↗ monahan

32:56 ↗ joy were you in front of me

32:59 ↗ please go right ahead i don't mind going

33:01 ↗ after

33:02 ↗ okay i'm happy to go second um

33:05 ↗ yeah i guess um i did agree with the

33:07 ↗ last comment on self storage um and i

33:10 ↗ i'm more than happy to be shouted down

33:12 ↗ by my fellow commissioners but

33:14 ↗ the way i'm viewing

33:16 ↗ my role tonight um and sort of

33:18 ↗ throughout this process

33:20 ↗ is a little bit more limited in that um

33:23 ↗ you know we're consolidating as i said

33:25 ↗ before i compare this to beautiful mind

33:27 ↗ like so much is going into just

33:30 ↗ consolidating

33:32 ↗ and harmonizing that that role is enough

33:35 ↗ at this point and although i think there

33:37 ↗ are very good policy discussions we can

33:40 ↗ have on various aspects of the code i

33:42 ↗ see that somewhat outside the scope of

33:44 ↗ what we're doing here today

33:46 ↗ instead it's you know to the extent

33:47 ↗ there are

33:48 ↗ contradictions that need to be addressed

33:50 ↗ which i think happens in the subdivision

33:52 ↗ section later on right there we need to

33:54 ↗ call a ball or a strike okay which one

33:56 ↗ are we going to do because you know this

33:57 ↗ code says hey this code says b which one

33:59 ↗ are we going to do going forward i think

34:01 ↗ in these sections where

34:03 ↗ and i i fully trust staff i think you're

34:05 ↗ gonna do it like they both say a but

34:07 ↗ they say a a little bit differently so

34:09 ↗ we're gonna try to make it sound a in

34:11 ↗ both language

34:12 ↗ peace like that's fine let's check the

34:14 ↗ box and then once we get this thing done

34:17 ↗ and this

34:18 ↗ this plane landed then we can start

34:20 ↗ kicking the tires and and making changes

34:22 ↗ here and there so at least i see this as

34:25 ↗ if there is a contradiction we obviously

34:27 ↗ need to discuss it and we need to give

34:28 ↗ guidance to the staff of okay we want a

34:30 ↗ not b or b not a but at least in

34:33 ↗ sections where the goal is just a

34:34 ↗ consolidation and essentially a

34:36 ↗ restatement of everything that's in

34:38 ↗ codes everywhere

34:40 ↗ again i see my role a little bit more

34:41 ↗ limited in just making sure that i

34:43 ↗ understand the process i understand how

34:45 ↗ we're identifying i think we called it a

34:47 ↗ gaps analysis

34:48 ↗ you know where there are gaps or where

34:49 ↗ there are contradictions and then where

34:51 ↗ there are those gaps or there are those

34:52 ↗ contradictions i'm more than happy to

34:54 ↗ weigh in on my

34:56 ↗ you know

34:57 ↗ no expert opinion

34:59 ↗ i'm happy to provide that um but at

35:01 ↗ least at this point

35:03 ↗ i'm not going i don't feel comfortable

35:05 ↗ enough making policy judgments on

35:07 ↗ sections that you know i can read the

35:09 ↗ words but i really don't understand the

35:10 ↗ issues because we really haven't had the

35:12 ↗ time uh to really dive into them so that

35:15 ↗ that's at least how i'm viewing uh my

35:17 ↗ role at least for the first i believe

35:18 ↗ four sections that really just have a

35:20 ↗ consolidation aspect to it

35:22 ↗ thank you

35:26 ↗ thank you

35:27 ↗ and apologies commissioner lewis like i

35:29 ↗ missed you

35:31 ↗ but now my worry is chair voice

35:34 ↗ commissioner joy lewis here um

35:36 ↗ before i get to my comments um on what

35:39 ↗ we're looking at right now i do want to

35:40 ↗ make two other comments and uh we had a

35:42 ↗ previous susan made a comment during

35:44 ↗ public

35:45 ↗ discussion uh about the white board and

35:47 ↗ i do want to address that because i

35:48 ↗ think that it goes to nina's point about

35:50 ↗ storage and that is to say that um i

35:52 ↗ know that staff is making excellent

35:54 ↗ notes about comments that we're making

35:56 ↗ and i know i've requested and staff has

35:58 ↗ confirmed that we will be having a

35:59 ↗ meeting to discuss the whiteboard uh i

36:02 ↗ think we've there's been a decision that

36:03 ↗ we're not going to do it at every single

36:05 ↗ bucket we're going to go through our

36:06 ↗ first draft we're going to make some

36:08 ↗ some good headway and it's my

36:10 ↗ understanding that we're going to come

36:11 ↗ back and and we will have a meeting with

36:13 ↗ public comments about the white board so

36:15 ↗ to let people know that that is coming

36:17 ↗ it's just not what we're doing tonight

36:19 ↗ and nina's comments are right on and i

36:20 ↗ think it's very apt when we do talk

36:23 ↗ about the white board to talk about time

36:24 ↗ frames right being able to say when do

36:27 ↗ we want this to be addressed by staff we

36:28 ↗ get that it's not part of this current

36:30 ↗ title 18 update but where should it

36:32 ↗ where should we advise that fall on the

36:34 ↗ scale of things

36:36 ↗ and that's where i think that kind of

36:37 ↗ where storage be allowed is a great

36:39 ↗ discussion for that conversation um i

36:42 ↗ really appreciate

36:44 ↗ matt's comments um cheerleading tonight

36:46 ↗ because when he says it i think a lot of

36:48 ↗ us go yes right we see this incredible

36:50 ↗ amount of work and we see that the the

36:51 ↗ lift that's happening but i do think

36:53 ↗ there's a little bit more than

36:55 ↗ harmonizing that's happening right now

36:56 ↗ we want to be really talking about

36:59 ↗ how um policy continuity is happening in

37:01 ↗ our code and we really want to be

37:03 ↗ talking about a modernization that's

37:04 ↗ happening a lot of these sections have

37:06 ↗ not been looked at for decades they've

37:09 ↗ been ported over and what we want to

37:10 ↗ make sure that is that we're not

37:12 ↗ limiting ourselves uh

37:14 ↗ right now when we do have the

37:15 ↗ opportunity to do it because this title

37:17 ↗ 18 lift is not going to happen every

37:19 ↗ single year and typically how ppc

37:22 ↗ operates is to look at very finite

37:24 ↗ sections and chunks of code

37:26 ↗ and so to be able to have this

37:28 ↗ overarching view is tremendously

37:30 ↗ important

37:31 ↗ and i'm going to segue that into some

37:33 ↗ comments i have about article six for

37:35 ↗ community resources and zones um i think

37:39 ↗ this section here is page 18 of 30 for

37:42 ↗ those that are following a packet of

37:44 ↗ 1840 zones

37:46 ↗ um right now we have language about

37:48 ↗ conservancy and recreation and i think

37:50 ↗ that this is an opportunity to be adding

37:52 ↗ and strengthening language about the

37:53 ↗ production of chemicals being able to

37:56 ↗ align our policies to the climate action

37:58 ↗ plan

37:59 ↗ and to really be talking about larger

38:01 ↗ language goals about reducing our impact

38:03 ↗ on the environment

38:05 ↗ right here is where we are able to do

38:08 ↗ that where we're able to put that

38:09 ↗ language in i really think that it's

38:11 ↗ missing right now from updates that we

38:13 ↗ need to have

38:14 ↗ and i would hope

38:16 ↗ that we would come together as a

38:17 ↗ commission and say that these sections

38:19 ↗ can be strengthened that a little bit

38:21 ↗ more can be done um in these two um

38:23 ↗ eighteen four hundred um point one eight

38:26 ↗ zero as well as um eighteen four hundred

38:28 ↗ point one seven zero uh to really be

38:30 ↗ able to tie in some of the new policies

38:33 ↗ that we've all

38:34 ↗ been working so hard on

38:36 ↗ many boards and commissions

38:37 ↗ i also think that there's an opportunity

38:40 ↗ to be

38:42 ↗ re-examining some of the language that

38:43 ↗ we use um

38:45 ↗ i'm looking about maintenance of land

38:47 ↗ vacant and uninhibited commercial

38:49 ↗ properties may be maintained to remove

38:51 ↗ litter garbage and yard waste and

38:52 ↗ control noxious and destructive plants i

38:54 ↗ can think of a lot of places right now

38:56 ↗ that are within city control where that

38:58 ↗ is not happening and we need to think

38:59 ↗ about the accountability that we have of

39:01 ↗ our partners in the community and also

39:02 ↗ of the city and so we need to be

39:04 ↗ thinking about how we apply the code to

39:06 ↗ ourselves and being able to hold the

39:08 ↗ administration to a high standard

39:12 ↗ and there's a couple places in this

39:14 ↗ section where we talk about what we

39:16 ↗ expect but are we really doing it for

39:18 ↗ ourselves i think it's incredibly

39:19 ↗ important that we have language that

39:22 ↗ really holds ourselves to the same

39:25 ↗ standards similar to the way that we

39:26 ↗ talked about right away and being able

39:28 ↗ to have

39:29 ↗ similar standards of road maintenance i

39:31 ↗ think is

39:32 ↗ something that we can have kind of

39:33 ↗ across the board as well

39:36 ↗ you know in some places i will say that

39:38 ↗ we have some language issues

39:40 ↗ i look at multi-family standards for

39:42 ↗ residential zones 0.6 tells us to ensure

39:45 ↗ a multi-family is a desirable component

39:47 ↗ of mixed-use development and must be

39:49 ↗ encouraged and i can't tell you how many

39:51 ↗ times i've been frustrated by words like

39:53 ↗ must be encouraged

39:56 ↗ i think that it leaves a lot of

39:57 ↗ ambiguity and i really hope that we're

39:59 ↗ able to fine-tune some of these things

40:02 ↗ because here in our zones is where we

40:04 ↗ really have the teeth and we're able to

40:06 ↗ say what our expectations are

40:08 ↗ in different places with the city so

40:10 ↗ um i i really do want to echo the

40:13 ↗ comments um that commissioner monahan

40:15 ↗ made this this is a huge improvement to

40:18 ↗ what we had uh and i do think that there

40:20 ↗ are

40:21 ↗ a lot of amazing things that we can

40:23 ↗ carry on and i look forward to seeing

40:24 ↗ some of the fine-tooth

40:26 ↗ happenings as we go on to the next draft

40:28 ↗ thanks everyone

40:33 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

40:36 ↗ uh commissioner milligan

40:40 ↗ thank you looked like we'd come around

40:42 ↗ the circle again i want to make a couple

40:44 ↗ clarifying comments about the things i

40:46 ↗ said before and thank my fellow

40:47 ↗ commissioners for their comments as well

40:49 ↗ uh what i was

40:52 ↗ pointing to in article three about

40:53 ↗ standards is that we have all these

40:55 ↗ design standards uh written in there for

40:59 ↗ the benefit of the communities that

41:00 ↗ don't the neighborhoods that don't have

41:02 ↗ design standards and yet they only apply

41:04 ↗ to multi-family or duplexes and the

41:08 ↗ objective is

41:10 ↗ much of our objectives is to maintain

41:12 ↗ distinctive character in our

41:14 ↗ neighborhoods and it's just inconsistent

41:16 ↗ i think it is a housekeeping matter

41:19 ↗ to

41:20 ↗ address this in a way that

41:24 ↗ doesn't just apply a standard to a very

41:27 ↗ unique

41:28 ↗ set of residential so for instance where

41:31 ↗ it's 18

41:32 ↗ point

41:37 ↗ duplex and attached single-family house

41:39 ↗ standard townhouse standards these

41:40 ↗ standards could apply to

41:43 ↗ all residential it could just be

41:45 ↗ residential standards i think most of

41:47 ↗ these would apply and they um they refer

41:49 ↗ to things like resembling the character

41:51 ↗ style and modulation of a single family

41:54 ↗ unit you know resembling and being

41:56 ↗ consistent with the time period in which

41:58 ↗ majority of the homes in the surrounding

42:00 ↗ neighborhood were built well wouldn't

42:01 ↗ this be important in a place like south

42:03 ↗ cover on squawk mountain where

42:06 ↗ there is a neighborhood character a

42:07 ↗ distinctive neighborhood character and

42:09 ↗ you know this phrase from other parts of

42:11 ↗ our objectives and goals

42:13 ↗ why do we only apply this to duplexes

42:17 ↗ and townhouses

42:18 ↗ so i come back to this as a

42:21 ↗ housekeeping matter and then i

42:25 ↗ i hate it when people refer to

42:28 ↗ something with an acronym or with a

42:30 ↗ letter and a number so i'm going to read

42:32 ↗ to you

42:32 ↗ the reason why i was talking about

42:35 ↗ uses namely delis or small-scale

42:38 ↗ groceries and cafes

42:41 ↗ to allow them in some way in residential

42:46 ↗ zones because l-u-n-3

42:49 ↗ says allow for neighborhood hubs and

42:52 ↗ mixed-use developments containing

42:53 ↗ small-scale commercial retail and office

42:57 ↗ uses in residential areas that are

43:00 ↗ intended to serve the neighborhood

43:02 ↗ residents

43:03 ↗ this is in our in our comprehensive plan

43:05 ↗ but it's not in the table that's why i

43:08 ↗ brought it up not to change things but

43:09 ↗ just what we're trying to do is

43:12 ↗ implement the

43:13 ↗ comprehensive plan in the table and the

43:15 ↗ other one was

43:17 ↗ land youth policy

43:19 ↗ zero one which says encourage a

43:21 ↗ well-distributed system of commercial

43:23 ↗ uses that serve the needs of residential

43:25 ↗ neighborhoods these aren't putting in a

43:27 ↗ big grocery store somewhere

43:30 ↗ serve the needs of residential

43:32 ↗ neighborhoods workplaces and the greater

43:34 ↗ isaqah community and are more

43:37 ↗ easily accessible via non-motorized

43:40 ↗ travel this is one of the things that's

43:42 ↗ been frustrating for our satellite

43:43 ↗ neighborhoods that were created during

43:45 ↗ car dependent land uses uh squawk

43:48 ↗ mountain

43:50 ↗ code you know they're stranded they they

43:52 ↗ don't really get to do anything unless

43:53 ↗ they get in their car and use the land

43:56 ↗ use table doesn't allow for the

43:57 ↗ implementation of these particularly

43:59 ↗ these two policies in our comprehensive

44:01 ↗ plan so i just wanted to um flesh that

44:04 ↗ out a little better than i did at first

44:07 ↗ thank you chairvoice

44:14 ↗ thank you commissioner

44:18 ↗ commissioner lewis

44:22 ↗ thank you chairvoice uh since i'm sure

44:24 ↗ staff is tallying for our report back to

44:27 ↗ council i just want to um second the

44:29 ↗ comments that um deny i just made i

44:31 ↗ think she uh did an elegant eloquent job

44:34 ↗ stating them so i won't restate them but

44:36 ↗ i just want to voice my approval with

44:38 ↗ what she said thank you

44:46 ↗ is there anyone who else would like to

44:48 ↗ speak

44:49 ↗ um on this particular topic

44:55 ↗ i'll just briefly mentioned the

44:56 ↗ commissioners all of them courses is a

44:58 ↗ fantastic group i

45:00 ↗ being honest i have always come at this

45:02 ↗ more of the mindset is vice chair

45:04 ↗ monahan that's a big cleanup operation

45:06 ↗ and it is a heavy lift and i understand

45:08 ↗ that staff is

45:10 ↗ just the timetable alone to have a year

45:14 ↗ is difficult it's a difficult

45:15 ↗ undertaking however

45:17 ↗ commissioner milligan and commissioner

45:19 ↗ lewis being so persuasive as they are i

45:21 ↗ do think whenever there's something

45:23 ↗ conflict conflicting which often there

45:25 ↗ is when these things are consolidated it

45:28 ↗ is an opportunity and everything that

45:30 ↗ the two of them have mentioned tonight i

45:31 ↗ think are opportunities to

45:33 ↗ improve the code but i also again look

45:37 ↗ at this more of a cleanup operation and

45:39 ↗ i don't want to get too bogged down on

45:41 ↗ complete and different policy changes i

45:42 ↗ know some of the

45:44 ↗ feedback we've gotten for the public

45:47 ↗ who sometimes question whether or not we

45:48 ↗ read these things which we do

45:51 ↗ sometimes you're questioning um why

45:52 ↗ we're not going much more drastic much

45:55 ↗ more heavy-handed you know implementing

45:57 ↗ things

45:58 ↗ as i'm sure everybody would want to see

46:01 ↗ but again that's not the view that i've

46:03 ↗ ever taken as far as what we've been

46:05 ↗ tasked with doing uh there are some out

46:08 ↗ goals that the council has asked us to

46:10 ↗ look at

46:11 ↗ but uh to matt's point and again i agree

46:15 ↗ we kind of need to land the plane

46:17 ↗ then we can start kicking tires and

46:19 ↗ again i'm not someone who's looking for

46:21 ↗ a perfect draft i'm looking for a good

46:24 ↗ draft a great draft and the opportunity

46:26 ↗ to make amendments uh once a year

46:28 ↗ but i do think like i said as far as

46:30 ↗ commissioner lewis and commissioner

46:31 ↗ milligan

46:33 ↗ everything they made were i don't think

46:35 ↗ those are heavy lifts and again whenever

46:37 ↗ it's conflicting i think we should take

46:38 ↗ the opportunity

46:44 ↗ would anybody else like to comment on

46:46 ↗ this

46:48 ↗ this part of this evening's agenda

46:54 ↗ staff have you gotten what you needed

47:01 ↗ yes i think i have thank you

47:04 ↗ thank you

47:06 ↗ and i see that we have uh ms sloman has

47:08 ↗ returned so i'm sure she's ready to go

47:11 ↗ with her presentation so

47:13 ↗ i blamed mitchell monahan

47:16 ↗ who wanted a technical he said every

47:18 ↗ meeting needs a technical

47:20 ↗ blip and my computer decided to do a

47:23 ↗ major upgrade so um thank you now

47:27 ↗ um welcome good

47:29 ↗ uh i'm relieved um

47:32 ↗ so i um am sharing my screen uh can you

47:36 ↗ see it

47:39 ↗ happy to hear i don't sound like a robot

47:41 ↗ anymore

47:42 ↗ okay um i'm taking over for the next uh

47:45 ↗ two groups i'll go through form and

47:47 ↗ intensity and then let me know if you

47:48 ↗ want to discuss there or if i should go

47:51 ↗ through

47:53 ↗ both groups and then we discuss again

47:56 ↗ um

47:58 ↗ so

47:59 ↗ the highlights of the changes made to

48:02 ↗ form and intensity we consolidated

48:05 ↗ tables from multiple codes

48:08 ↗ uh we reconciled standards from the

48:11 ↗ former urban villages esqui highlands

48:13 ↗ and talus with central issaquah

48:16 ↗ where we found similar types of

48:18 ↗ standards that were inconsistent we that

48:22 ↗ applied to multiple neighborhoods

48:25 ↗ the lower standard was adopted

48:28 ↗ we added new standards for odd lots

48:31 ↗ mostly regarding which

48:33 ↗ which side is front side or rear

48:36 ↗ and we changed a

48:38 ↗ aas processes to

48:42 ↗ more narrowly defined deviations

48:46 ↗ there weren't a lot of comments on form

48:48 ↗ intensity most of them were around edits

48:51 ↗ that we will review and incorporate with

48:54 ↗ the consolidated draft

48:56 ↗ uh the two uh points i would make one is

49:01 ↗ that some of the comments related to

49:03 ↗ policy changes which as we've discussed

49:07 ↗ we're not making unless they're related

49:08 ↗ to goals and outcomes

49:10 ↗ so for instance

49:12 ↗ minimum far requirements in isqua

49:15 ↗ highlands or community facilities

49:18 ↗ um wouldn't be part of this um process

49:22 ↗ that can be a i like to think we're

49:24 ↗ assembling the airplane and then we can

49:27 ↗ figure out how to fly it um

49:29 ↗ so uh i think that's a flying activity

49:33 ↗ um

49:34 ↗ and

49:35 ↗ we but to uh chair voices point we do

49:39 ↗ have to reconcile differences and one of

49:41 ↗ the examples that came up

49:44 ↗ is

49:45 ↗ structured parking

49:47 ↗ and whether it counts or not towards far

49:50 ↗ different definitions in different parts

49:52 ↗ of the city and that's one of the things

49:54 ↗ that will have to get reconciled and a

49:57 ↗ decision made

49:58 ↗ about which approach

50:00 ↗ is used and that will be a change

50:04 ↗ so that's all on form and intensity do

50:07 ↗ you want me to continue with

50:09 ↗ specified use

50:10 ↗ standards yes please

50:15 ↗ so the highlights of uh specified youth

50:18 ↗ standards um

50:20 ↗ 1807 is a massive

50:23 ↗ chapter in the existing code and we

50:25 ↗ broke it into two parts

50:27 ↗ some of it went to

50:29 ↗ form the zoning chapter and some of it

50:31 ↗ went to

50:32 ↗ form the specified uses that we're

50:34 ↗ talking about now please note this is a

50:37 ↗ correction from the memo

50:39 ↗ we didn't say zoning there

50:41 ↗ i think we said permitted uses

50:44 ↗ um

50:45 ↗ we are trying to we we added um

50:49 ↗ specifics related to some design

50:51 ↗ requirements for areas that are outside

50:54 ↗ of

50:55 ↗ neighborhoods that have architectural

50:57 ↗ standards or hoas

51:00 ↗ some elements that are in 1807 got moved

51:05 ↗ to other chapters which you'll see in

51:07 ↗ the final bucket

51:09 ↗ residential mix use was

51:12 ↗ removed because we felt that it was

51:14 ↗ covered by other sections

51:16 ↗ and outdoor recreation was focused on

51:19 ↗ private facilities it was unclear

51:21 ↗ exactly what it applied to so we focused

51:23 ↗ it on to private facilities

51:27 ↗ in terms of some of the um comments

51:31 ↗ one of the things that we

51:34 ↗ one of the dc commissioners

51:36 ↗ had commented about retail or production

51:39 ↗ we

51:40 ↗ we do have um

51:42 ↗ both are separately identified in the

51:45 ↗ permitted uses table but one of the

51:48 ↗ questions that came up

51:50 ↗ was whether in the specified use

51:53 ↗ standards whether those applied to

51:55 ↗ retail or production

51:58 ↗ it seems to me that it applies to retail

52:00 ↗ but we're going to clarify that

52:02 ↗ in the consolidated draft

52:05 ↗ there was also some questions around

52:07 ↗ adult entertainment and what fell into

52:09 ↗ it and are there certain activities that

52:12 ↗ are missing

52:13 ↗ and in researching that what i noticed

52:16 ↗ is

52:17 ↗ adult entertainment is actually

52:19 ↗ regulated not by title 18 but by title 5

52:23 ↗ which is entitled licensing and

52:25 ↗ operation of adult entertainment

52:26 ↗ facilities

52:28 ↗ and um the limitations section that i

52:32 ↗ think

52:33 ↗ brought up these questions about what is

52:35 ↗ and isn't covered

52:37 ↗ is actually a duplication

52:39 ↗ from title v and so should be removed

52:42 ↗ from title 18 because it's just not good

52:44 ↗ code writing to have things in two

52:46 ↗ places

52:48 ↗ and title 18 is only supposed to address

52:51 ↗ location and citing

52:53 ↗ so

52:54 ↗ we'll clean that up in the consolidated

52:56 ↗ draft

52:58 ↗ and then uh another the other comment

53:02 ↗ that i wanted to touch on um

53:04 ↗ is an example of when we expand uh

53:07 ↗ standard city-wide there was a comment

53:10 ↗ about automobile service stations and

53:13 ↗ intensive convenience being prohibited

53:15 ↗ within 300 feet of daycare and or

53:18 ↗ schools

53:19 ↗ and i think the point um one of the

53:21 ↗ things that we struggle with as

53:23 ↗ kristin mentioned there are just

53:27 ↗ i untold number of footnotes in the code

53:30 ↗ right now and what we've tried to do is

53:32 ↗ pull the footnotes out and actually make

53:34 ↗ them standard so that it's much easier

53:37 ↗ to find them to apply them make sure

53:39 ↗ we've got them in the right place

53:42 ↗ the the genesis for the the standard

53:47 ↗ on automobile service stations and

53:49 ↗ intensive commercial comes from

53:51 ↗ footnotes that apply

53:54 ↗ to commercial zones and so we added them

53:58 ↗ as

53:59 ↗ standards i've put the exact language in

54:02 ↗ here some of them apply only to

54:05 ↗ certain kinds of schools and not other

54:07 ↗ kinds of schools

54:09 ↗ i think that what we're trying to do is

54:10 ↗ carry these things forward but i think

54:12 ↗ if the commission has

54:14 ↗ some policy direction about whether um

54:18 ↗ this is the right way to handle these

54:19 ↗ footnotes that we're pulling out

54:22 ↗ it would be great to hear from you

54:26 ↗ and that's the end of my presentation

54:33 ↗ thank you

54:44 ↗ all right commissioners time to do our

54:46 ↗ thing

54:59 ↗ commissioner milligan

55:02 ↗ yeah commissioner lewis beat me to it i

55:05 ↗ saw her she i don't have my camera on so

55:07 ↗ she couldn't see me at the right did she

55:08 ↗ smooth yeah she beat me right under the

55:11 ↗ radar commissioner lewis

55:14 ↗ thank you chair voice um i want to make

55:16 ↗ a quick comment lucy to your last

55:18 ↗ question and

55:20 ↗ tell you that unfortunately a little bit

55:22 ↗ of my answer is predicated on how we see

55:26 ↗ it right one thing that we've kind of

55:27 ↗ been talking about is user experience

55:30 ↗ and so part of it is when it's printed

55:34 ↗ out you know obviously it's not going to

55:37 ↗ be how people are actually interacting

55:38 ↗ in it so being able to see how footnotes

55:41 ↗ will look will be a little bit about you

55:44 ↗ guys coming back to us and giving us

55:45 ↗ that kind of

55:47 ↗ um experience

55:49 ↗ that kind of testing situation that

55:51 ↗ we've all been kind of dancing around

55:53 ↗ it's going to be a little bit easier for

55:54 ↗ me to comment on it once we kind of see

55:56 ↗ this compilation of how am i how am i

55:58 ↗ interacting and using the code so i know

55:59 ↗ that's not quite the answer that you

56:01 ↗ want but at this point i'm going to

56:03 ↗ trust you guys to say we're pulling in

56:05 ↗ all these things i very much like that

56:07 ↗ the permitted use table does not have

56:09 ↗ all the footnotes i think that's a huge

56:10 ↗ cleanup and i really appreciate that so

56:13 ↗ as

56:14 ↗ you guys bring us along this next um

56:17 ↗ future round right and be able to say

56:19 ↗ hey this is now how we are recommending

56:21 ↗ we move through and interact in the in

56:23 ↗ the code i think it's going to be an

56:24 ↗ important component um

56:26 ↗ and i want to thank you for your

56:28 ↗ presentation because you cleared up a

56:29 ↗ lot of questions that i have and i

56:31 ↗ really appreciate the um the follow-up

56:33 ↗ so thanks

56:39 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

56:40 ↗ commissioner milligan

56:42 ↗ thank you chair voice this is

56:44 ↗ commissioner nina milligan i don't have

56:46 ↗ prepared comments here but the first

56:47 ↗ thing i need to say is that i think i

56:49 ↗ snuck in youth standards into the last

56:51 ↗ section i

56:53 ↗ sorry for being out of order

56:55 ↗ but then i was inspired um to be helpful

56:58 ↗ lucy because you know i love this kind

56:59 ↗ of thing

57:01 ↗ if it is helpful that last part about

57:03 ↗ automobile and

57:05 ↗ things around schools

57:08 ↗ looking at it that direction

57:11 ↗ inspired me or i thought of the uh what

57:14 ↗ else do we do like this you know like um

57:17 ↗ recreational marijuana so um couldn't we

57:21 ↗ simplify what sort of things aren't near

57:24 ↗ schools and libraries or whatever

57:26 ↗ and turn it that way

57:29 ↗ and say there's a number of things that

57:30 ↗ we do not allow within a 300 foot radius

57:32 ↗ of a school and they are these rather

57:35 ↗ than the direction that you're going

57:36 ↗ maybe that'll make it

57:38 ↗ simpler and shorter so that's all thank

57:41 ↗ you thank you for the good work

57:48 ↗ great suggestions

57:49 ↗ uh commissioner monahan

57:52 ↗ yeah hi matt monahan i i just want to

57:53 ↗ second uh joy's comments on the

57:55 ↗ footnotes and similarly express my

57:57 ↗ appreciation for their demise so thank

57:59 ↗ you and good work

58:06 ↗ thank you vice chair

58:09 ↗ would anyone like to speak on this topic

58:13 ↗ that hasn't or would like to again

58:20 ↗ all right well thank you ms sloman

58:22 ↗ appreciate the presentation

58:24 ↗ thank you all for the discussion

58:26 ↗ and i believe minnie is up with our last

58:29 ↗ presentation of this evening

58:31 ↗ subdivisions

58:34 ↗ ms dollywood

58:38 ↗ good evening everyone um so i'll quickly

58:41 ↗ share my screen once i have

58:45 ↗ permission

58:53 ↗ looks like

58:56 ↗ you should be a presenter now yes see

58:58 ↗ that thank you

59:04 ↗ so

59:07 ↗ see

59:11 ↗ so i'm gonna quickly highlight some of

59:13 ↗ the changes that we sort of talked about

59:15 ↗ um

59:16 ↗ at our last meeting um so in your

59:19 ↗ proposed draft we've added a design

59:22 ↗ standard section um it addresses street

59:26 ↗ connections block size requirements

59:29 ↗ designing with the topography

59:31 ↗ we talked about open space requirements

59:34 ↗ um and

59:35 ↗ you know

59:36 ↗ based on our discussion with the natural

59:37 ↗ amenities space before that we're going

59:39 ↗ to do some more research in terms of how

59:41 ↗ what the space requirements need to be

59:43 ↗ with subdivisions because we talked

59:45 ↗ about multi-family development

59:47 ↗ but when it's a separate lot

59:50 ↗ single-family development what those

59:52 ↗ space requirements need to be

59:54 ↗ um

59:55 ↗ we've added the unit lot subdivision

59:57 ↗ process so this facilitates fee simple

1:00:00 ↗ ownership of town homes

1:00:02 ↗ uh we've added specific criteria for

1:00:05 ↗ different types of planning short flat

1:00:07 ↗ preliminary flat lot line adjustment

1:00:09 ↗ because uh the criteria didn't exist

1:00:11 ↗ before or it wasn't for each one

1:00:14 ↗ separately

1:00:16 ↗ there wasn't any process for lot

1:00:17 ↗ consolidation but they were processed

1:00:20 ↗ similar to a lot line adjustment so

1:00:23 ↗ we've made called them out explicitly

1:00:26 ↗ the expiration and extensions were

1:00:28 ↗ unlimited um

1:00:30 ↗ someone could ask for an extension

1:00:32 ↗ forever

1:00:33 ↗ in one year increments um which created

1:00:36 ↗ a little bit of false ex you know um

1:00:38 ↗ that those could go on forever um

1:00:41 ↗ but theoretically we could just deny

1:00:43 ↗ them after each year so instead of that

1:00:46 ↗ we've added

1:00:48 ↗ um

1:00:49 ↗ each preliminary plat or short pad is

1:00:51 ↗ good for five years

1:00:53 ↗ to get your final pad done but you can

1:00:56 ↗ ask for one year increment extensions

1:00:58 ↗ for three additional years so maximum of

1:01:01 ↗ eight as opposed to unlimited

1:01:04 ↗ um

1:01:04 ↗ the code wasn't really very clear about

1:01:06 ↗ deferred improvements and bonding so

1:01:09 ↗ between the preliminary plat someone

1:01:11 ↗ could theoretically bond all their

1:01:13 ↗ utility work and all their streets and

1:01:16 ↗ go strictly

1:01:18 ↗ straight away to the final plat that's

1:01:20 ↗ not the intent of the state law

1:01:22 ↗ so we've made that clear

1:01:24 ↗ that you can't build your homes until

1:01:26 ↗ all your improvements are built on the

1:01:27 ↗ ground and so

1:01:29 ↗ but some flexibility for deferring

1:01:32 ↗ improvements like the final

1:01:34 ↗ um you know

1:01:35 ↗ paving of the road because it can get

1:01:37 ↗ some time torn up while you're doing

1:01:39 ↗ home construction and things like that

1:01:41 ↗ so limited amount of deferral but you

1:01:43 ↗ need to get all your utilities and your

1:01:45 ↗ infrastructure in place before you can

1:01:47 ↗ build your homes

1:01:48 ↗ um there was no process or criteria for

1:01:52 ↗ modification so we put that in there

1:01:55 ↗ we're going to continue to look at this

1:01:56 ↗ for some guidance from the state law to

1:01:58 ↗ to really make it clear between

1:02:00 ↗ modification of a preliminary plat

1:02:02 ↗ versus a final plat and who does who is

1:02:06 ↗ authorized to make that decision so this

1:02:07 ↗ may need a little bit more work but uh

1:02:10 ↗ there's a section added in there uh

1:02:12 ↗ there was no option for phasing

1:02:14 ↗ um although phasing has occurred um you

1:02:17 ↗ know and so we're trying to add some

1:02:19 ↗ clarity around how how phasing is going

1:02:22 ↗ to be approved and what the the criteria

1:02:25 ↗ for that is going to be

1:02:27 ↗ the final paths in your draft are listed

1:02:29 ↗ as uh will be considered an

1:02:31 ↗ administrative decision the state law

1:02:33 ↗ was changed to allow this um

1:02:36 ↗ because

1:02:37 ↗ the final plat the work really is a very

1:02:40 ↗ technical check of everything that was

1:02:42 ↗ approved under the preliminary plat it's

1:02:45 ↗ already been signed off and inspected

1:02:47 ↗ all your infrastructure and utility

1:02:49 ↗ works have already gone through an

1:02:51 ↗ inspection and final plat is confirming

1:02:53 ↗ that all of those conditions have been

1:02:55 ↗ carried through and the final lot lines

1:02:57 ↗ are then recorded

1:02:59 ↗ so that's the highlight of the changes

1:03:01 ↗ um

1:03:02 ↗ there was some discussion about um what

1:03:05 ↗ you know what was the intent of some of

1:03:06 ↗ these changes so goal 13 that was for

1:03:09 ↗ came from the council's adopted

1:03:11 ↗ discussed uh golden outcomes chart so

1:03:14 ↗ there was discussion about what issue is

1:03:16 ↗ it with the subdivisions there was some

1:03:19 ↗ talk about

1:03:20 ↗ outside of physical highlands telus and

1:03:23 ↗ um

1:03:24 ↗ the subdivisions haven't a section

1:03:26 ↗ hasn't been updated since

1:03:28 ↗ a couple of decades uh the objective was

1:03:31 ↗ to incorporate um

1:03:33 ↗ a more uh recent um design criteria and

1:03:38 ↗ and such um and the outcome

1:03:41 ↗ intended outcome was that

1:03:43 ↗ subdivisions are well designed and they

1:03:46 ↗ provide guidance on street connections

1:03:48 ↗ garage locations and relationship to the

1:03:50 ↗ street

1:03:52 ↗ uh some of that is going to come from

1:03:53 ↗ your building design section because in

1:03:55 ↗ subdivision you're really talking about

1:03:57 ↗ the layout lot layout and not the

1:04:00 ↗ building design

1:04:02 ↗ but where you get access to your homes

1:04:04 ↗ uh is sort of addressed during the

1:04:06 ↗ subdivision stage

1:04:08 ↗ and um so what we've proposed at this

1:04:11 ↗ time is

1:04:12 ↗ a design section for short flats and

1:04:14 ↗ preliminary flats

1:04:16 ↗ there was some

1:04:17 ↗ comments about the maximum block size

1:04:19 ↗ whether that should be limited to

1:04:21 ↗ certain sections or areas of the city

1:04:24 ↗ there's also a section on zero lot line

1:04:26 ↗ shared access and alley access so

1:04:30 ↗ you know more

1:04:31 ↗ uh judicious use of valuable land and

1:04:34 ↗ there are ways to kind of use your land

1:04:36 ↗ um not waste uh land

1:04:39 ↗ for areas that aren't going to be

1:04:42 ↗ that um

1:04:44 ↗ well used uh so there's that section

1:04:47 ↗ uh the language is still encouraged and

1:04:50 ↗ you know not sort of like required but

1:04:52 ↗ the code allows some of those things so

1:04:54 ↗ we're looking for ppc to discuss this

1:04:57 ↗ design section and you know one whether

1:05:00 ↗ you want to limit it to certain parts of

1:05:02 ↗ the city and whether these these

1:05:04 ↗ requirements should be mandatory or

1:05:06 ↗ encouraged

1:05:07 ↗ and if encouraged then we'll move them

1:05:09 ↗ into the intent and purpose section

1:05:13 ↗ again

1:05:14 ↗ we've included all the detailed public

1:05:16 ↗ comments in the matrix but some of the

1:05:17 ↗ highlights were

1:05:19 ↗ again

1:05:20 ↗ related to this design section block

1:05:22 ↗ length alley access shared access zero

1:05:25 ↗ lot line

1:05:26 ↗ uh sort of things so

1:05:28 ↗ we included these questions in our

1:05:30 ↗ previous packet um so i'll read them out

1:05:33 ↗ here as you uh deliberate um the first

1:05:36 ↗ one is

1:05:37 ↗ the proposed design requirements um

1:05:41 ↗ for plant layout including the block

1:05:43 ↗ length adequately address the con

1:05:46 ↗ the community's desired goals and

1:05:48 ↗ outcomes

1:05:49 ↗ or do you want to limit them to certain

1:05:51 ↗ you know areas that uh like issaquah

1:05:54 ↗ island telus and central and not apply

1:05:56 ↗ them city-wide like squawk mountain and

1:05:59 ↗ south cove in those neighborhoods

1:06:01 ↗ um

1:06:01 ↗ [Music]

1:06:03 ↗ and the second question is

1:06:05 ↗ you know the section that we've included

1:06:07 ↗ about the um ali access shared access

1:06:10 ↗ uh

1:06:11 ↗ do you want to see any changes in that

1:06:13 ↗ section do you also want to limit those

1:06:15 ↗ in certain parts of

1:06:17 ↗ the city

1:06:18 ↗ um the open space and recreation space

1:06:21 ↗ requirements um multi-family versus

1:06:24 ↗ single family should they be different

1:06:26 ↗ and

1:06:27 ↗ and if so then we'll come back with more

1:06:30 ↗ details on what those what our peer

1:06:33 ↗ study standards are what makes sense in

1:06:35 ↗ isoqua's context and such

1:06:37 ↗ uh so at this time we're just asking if

1:06:39 ↗ those should be different and what

1:06:41 ↗ additional research would help you make

1:06:43 ↗ an informed decision on what that

1:06:45 ↗ standard should be

1:06:46 ↗ uh the last question is um you know a

1:06:49 ↗ process question but throwing it in here

1:06:52 ↗ because it's we're talking subdivisions

1:06:54 ↗ so right now the city's process is up

1:06:56 ↗ four lots is considered a short flat

1:06:59 ↗ anything more than four is considered a

1:07:01 ↗ subdivision and the process for

1:07:03 ↗ subdivision is

1:07:05 ↗ you need cpa for more than four lots uh

1:07:08 ↗ five or more

1:07:10 ↗ but you also require a public hearing

1:07:13 ↗ at the preliminary plat stage

1:07:15 ↗ and then a final

1:07:17 ↗ flat hearing

1:07:19 ↗ so

1:07:20 ↗ the question really is should that

1:07:22 ↗ threshold be increased from four to nine

1:07:24 ↗ lots

1:07:25 ↗ um and lastly is a catch-all question

1:07:27 ↗ you know have you captured everything

1:07:29 ↗ that you think what if you're missing

1:07:31 ↗ anything um so that's it

1:07:33 ↗ for my presentation

1:07:36 ↗ i can leave this on the slide or i can

1:07:38 ↗ take it off um

1:07:43 ↗ any preference as far as leaving it up

1:07:47 ↗ i think you could probably take it down

1:07:49 ↗ leave it up

1:07:51 ↗ all i can see is one cube so that's the

1:07:53 ↗ only reaction i got

1:07:57 ↗ all right well thank you ms dollywood

1:07:59 ↗ appreciate the presentation

1:08:12 ↗ vice chairman

1:08:16 ↗ hey so i have comments on three and four

1:08:20 ↗ four but it looks like both nine and joy

1:08:22 ↗ have questions so i'm going to reserve

1:08:23 ↗ comment until they ask their questions

1:08:28 ↗ yeah i think with all these uh

1:08:30 ↗ well if we want to take them one by one

1:08:32 ↗ but at least we'll start with the

1:08:33 ↗ questions so

1:08:36 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:08:39 ↗ thank you chairvoice i have just a few

1:08:42 ↗ questions one has to do with well i have

1:08:45 ↗ two questions about lot consolidation

1:08:49 ↗ um

1:08:50 ↗ where

1:08:51 ↗ would lot consolidation be allowed

1:08:54 ↗ and what was the reason

1:08:58 ↗ to

1:08:59 ↗ add it

1:09:01 ↗ to add it at this time

1:09:03 ↗ and then i have another question about

1:09:05 ↗ um subdivision

1:09:07 ↗ sure um so a lot consolidation can occur

1:09:10 ↗ anywhere in the city it's basically if

1:09:13 ↗ you have you know the law pattern in

1:09:15 ↗ some old parts of town occurs over

1:09:18 ↗ hundreds of years

1:09:19 ↗ so you could have a line

1:09:21 ↗ someone you know back in the day it used

1:09:23 ↗ to be really skinny lots too so the lots

1:09:26 ↗ can vary in different shapes and sizes

1:09:29 ↗ and and all that so if you have

1:09:30 ↗ contiguous ownership of these lots you

1:09:34 ↗ can't eliminate those lot lines now

1:09:36 ↗ under the code it just didn't have a

1:09:39 ↗ process as to how they would be reviewed

1:09:42 ↗ or who makes the decision or what the

1:09:44 ↗ criteria is for consolidation so they've

1:09:46 ↗ been processed it's not a change from

1:09:48 ↗ anything that can't be done

1:09:51 ↗ but it's just eliminating a line

1:09:54 ↗ anywhere in the city people can

1:09:56 ↗ remove lines from interior property line

1:09:58 ↗ there's nothing that prohibits them from

1:09:59 ↗ doing that it's just establishing a

1:10:01 ↗ process and a criteria for it

1:10:04 ↗ okay that's great and then my other

1:10:06 ↗ question has to do with

1:10:08 ↗ help me understand better

1:10:10 ↗ the question is about

1:10:13 ↗ maximum lot size but how do i

1:10:17 ↗ think about that

1:10:19 ↗ when we have block length

1:10:22 ↗ uh maximum block length are is that the

1:10:25 ↗ same thing or are they are they

1:10:27 ↗ different are they in different places

1:10:29 ↗ how do they interact

1:10:31 ↗ so difference between lot maximum lot

1:10:33 ↗ size and block length

1:10:36 ↗ is that did i understand yeah yeah

1:10:38 ↗ that's right i think the question has to

1:10:39 ↗ do with should we have a maximum lot

1:10:42 ↗ size

1:10:43 ↗ is that the question

1:10:45 ↗ going back to

1:10:46 ↗ yeah i mean we're not asking that

1:10:48 ↗ question i think there was a a public

1:10:51 ↗ comment on lot consolidations

1:10:53 ↗ uh and the potential for lot

1:10:55 ↗ consolidation to create large homes

1:10:59 ↗ and so i think in the public matrix we

1:11:01 ↗ captured uh a response to that to say

1:11:04 ↗ if the there is a policy discussion

1:11:06 ↗ about the the size of the homes should

1:11:08 ↗ be limited or there should be maximum

1:11:10 ↗ size of the lots

1:11:13 ↗ then um

1:11:15 ↗ then those things can occur but lot

1:11:17 ↗ consolidation is a separate you know it

1:11:19 ↗ doesn't change policy in terms of

1:11:21 ↗ maximum lot size

1:11:23 ↗ or

1:11:24 ↗ block length size so block length would

1:11:26 ↗ be if you have a road

1:11:29 ↗ you know the connectivity between the

1:11:30 ↗ road so the entire block length is 250

1:11:34 ↗ feet or something um that if you have a

1:11:37 ↗ lot that

1:11:38 ↗ you know that goes bigger you know if

1:11:40 ↗ you have five acres and you're trying to

1:11:42 ↗ do a subdivision then you would lay it

1:11:44 ↗ out so that you have street connectivity

1:11:48 ↗ where

1:11:48 ↗ um

1:11:49 ↗ you don't have one road that

1:11:52 ↗ in and one road out but you would

1:11:53 ↗ actually get some uh sort of a

1:11:55 ↗ connection

1:11:56 ↗ uh that would break up the larger block

1:11:59 ↗ uh maximum lot size yeah

1:12:03 ↗ that's what that's all i need to know

1:12:04 ↗ just wanted to kind of get that out

1:12:06 ↗ there

1:12:06 ↗ thank you

1:12:12 ↗ thank you commissioner

1:12:14 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:12:17 ↗ thank you chair voice commissioner joy

1:12:18 ↗ lewis thank you for the presentation

1:12:20 ↗ minnie i had i had a similar question to

1:12:22 ↗ nina about um because where lot

1:12:25 ↗ consolidation is allowed as to

1:12:27 ↗ and how that can work i think that there

1:12:29 ↗ is some concerns

1:12:30 ↗ um less

1:12:32 ↗ about

1:12:34 ↗ how we maximize space but the worry

1:12:38 ↗ about minimizing space and if you're you

1:12:40 ↗ can if you are able to buy up a number

1:12:43 ↗ of

1:12:44 ↗ of properties to be able to then adjust

1:12:46 ↗ to be able to use the space in a way

1:12:49 ↗ that might be less efficient is trying

1:12:50 ↗ to say how do we how do we anticipate

1:12:53 ↗ and have some safeguards on that which i

1:12:54 ↗ didn't really feel like was present so i

1:12:57 ↗ think maybe it's a little bit more of

1:12:59 ↗ is this something that staff is still

1:13:00 ↗ fleshing out is my question is kind of

1:13:02 ↗ is this something that

1:13:04 ↗ you feel like is

1:13:06 ↗ something we'll be seeing improvements

1:13:07 ↗ on in the second draft or

1:13:11 ↗ as it relates to lot consolidation or

1:13:14 ↗ just use of late inefficient use of land

1:13:18 ↗ as as it as it is with law consolidation

1:13:22 ↗ across the city because as i read it it

1:13:24 ↗ can be anywhere

1:13:25 ↗ so is there

1:13:26 ↗ particular places where we want to have

1:13:28 ↗ maybe more stringent is i'm asking

1:13:31 ↗ is staff planning on coming back to us

1:13:34 ↗ um and presenting us with law

1:13:36 ↗ consolidation in a different way or is

1:13:38 ↗ right now establishing this city-wide it

1:13:40 ↗ can be anywhere is

1:13:42 ↗ is this policy

1:13:44 ↗ correct i mean we're not i mean unless

1:13:46 ↗ you want us to do some any kind of

1:13:48 ↗ analysis but i i

1:13:49 ↗ we're not planning on doing any where

1:13:51 ↗ lot consolidations can occur because

1:13:54 ↗ a lot of

1:13:55 ↗ you know they can they

1:13:57 ↗ some that we would have to know who owns

1:13:59 ↗ contiguous ownership i mean people don't

1:14:01 ↗ consolidate lots between different

1:14:03 ↗ ownership right so it would have to be

1:14:04 ↗ one person who owns

1:14:06 ↗ a

1:14:07 ↗ number of lots um that they're trying to

1:14:09 ↗ eliminate their lot line in between

1:14:12 ↗ for various reasons sometimes they want

1:14:14 ↗ to add on to their house and there was

1:14:15 ↗ an old existing line that occurred and

1:14:17 ↗ the city would require them to eliminate

1:14:19 ↗ that line because it creates problems

1:14:21 ↗ with building code and other things that

1:14:23 ↗ that you have to require the separation

1:14:25 ↗ so

1:14:26 ↗ it's really a mechanical

1:14:28 ↗ thing to to allow this to happen there

1:14:31 ↗ isn't a policy change or anything like

1:14:33 ↗ that associated with lot consolidations

1:14:36 ↗ so okay

1:14:39 ↗ and if i'm reading it correctly it's the

1:14:41 ↗ same with zero lot line right we're um

1:14:44 ↗ we're encouraging it everywhere in the

1:14:46 ↗ city correct

1:14:48 ↗ we're not encouraging we're just

1:14:49 ↗ allowing it and creating a process for

1:14:51 ↗ it yes it's anywhere else um

1:14:54 ↗ i think a lot four you see zero lot line

1:14:56 ↗ shared access lots and ali access lots

1:14:58 ↗ are encouraged

1:15:00 ↗ i mean

1:15:02 ↗ language in in um in in our pack in our

1:15:05 ↗ memo i would say it's not in the code

1:15:07 ↗ yeah yeah that's where i that's where i

1:15:10 ↗ got it from right yeah yeah

1:15:12 ↗ yeah so i think so was it correct with

1:15:14 ↗ zero line across the city right

1:15:16 ↗ everywhere

1:15:17 ↗ that's up for discussion at this point

1:15:19 ↗ you know uh so we did put it in there

1:15:22 ↗ because uh to achieve the golden

1:15:24 ↗ outcomes that we shared you know that

1:15:26 ↗ were in that golden outcomes chart so

1:15:28 ↗ now the question is do they make sense

1:15:30 ↗ everywhere in the city

1:15:32 ↗ uh we heard some public comments that

1:15:34 ↗ maybe we need to be more thoughtful

1:15:36 ↗ about where these um

1:15:38 ↗ things are allowed and and to preserve

1:15:40 ↗ the neighborhood character of some of

1:15:41 ↗ the neighbors that perhaps they

1:15:43 ↗ shouldn't be so that's really for

1:15:45 ↗ planning a policy commission to weigh in

1:15:47 ↗ do we want to encourage these

1:15:49 ↗ anywhere

1:15:50 ↗ um or not

1:15:53 ↗ okay and then um my third question then

1:15:56 ↗ is again about um the requirements of

1:15:58 ↗ open space right now you're asking us

1:16:00 ↗ about multi-family versus single family

1:16:03 ↗ um but it's

1:16:05 ↗ what is the staff recommendation right

1:16:06 ↗ now for we have this 48 feet is like the

1:16:09 ↗ number that i i see but

1:16:11 ↗ are we only

1:16:14 ↗ is this a reduction do we cur what is

1:16:16 ↗ you know currently i believe you know

1:16:18 ↗ it for i think i think it's an is it an

1:16:20 ↗ increase right now for multi-family but

1:16:22 ↗ it's actually a decrease in single

1:16:24 ↗ family

1:16:25 ↗ sure let me explain that so

1:16:27 ↗ right now it doesn't seem like a

1:16:29 ↗ subdivision design standard exists so if

1:16:32 ↗ you were planning there isn't a

1:16:34 ↗ requirement for open space a lot of

1:16:37 ↗ these flats you know have occurred but

1:16:39 ↗ those have been through development

1:16:41 ↗ agreements and such where those areas

1:16:43 ↗ were designated as parks and open space

1:16:45 ↗ in in a more it wasn't for

1:16:48 ↗ sort of uh plat it was more for an area

1:16:52 ↗ planning kind of a thing

1:16:54 ↗ so

1:16:55 ↗ when we discussed the uh natural amenity

1:16:58 ↗ space or whatever we end up calling it

1:17:00 ↗ now you know the the 48 square feet the

1:17:03 ↗ discussion was

1:17:04 ↗ we shouldn't allow balconies to be

1:17:06 ↗ counted towards common community space

1:17:08 ↗ so the balcony should be separate from

1:17:11 ↗ common open space right now the code is

1:17:14 ↗ you can choose one way or the other but

1:17:16 ↗ you have a minimum of 48 per dwelling in

1:17:18 ↗ it

1:17:20 ↗ our opinion is that the 48 perhaps makes

1:17:22 ↗ sense for multi-family but it doesn't

1:17:24 ↗ make sense for someone doing a nine

1:17:26 ↗ large short flat so if you have four

1:17:28 ↗ lots or nine large at 48 you know you're

1:17:31 ↗ good

1:17:32 ↗ what is going to happen with that

1:17:34 ↗ community space you're going to get

1:17:35 ↗ these small

1:17:36 ↗ spaces that aren't really usable or

1:17:39 ↗ maintained it depends on

1:17:41 ↗ the homeowner association to really take

1:17:43 ↗ them on and so so a lot of cities have

1:17:46 ↗ that higher threshold if you're doing a

1:17:48 ↗ subdivision of x number of lots then you

1:17:51 ↗ have this sort of open space

1:17:52 ↗ requirements and now this we're talking

1:17:55 ↗ plats versus

1:17:56 ↗ someone doing an apartment complex right

1:17:59 ↗ so

1:18:00 ↗ so in our opinion those should be two

1:18:02 ↗ different

1:18:03 ↗ uh

1:18:04 ↗ the current code doesn't have a standard

1:18:07 ↗ for plats

1:18:09 ↗ the design section and the plats doesn't

1:18:11 ↗ exist at this time

1:18:14 ↗ do you do you happen to recall or if our

1:18:16 ↗ guru lucies happens to recall what it

1:18:18 ↗ was when we did have our urban villages

1:18:21 ↗ in place

1:18:22 ↗ uh i know that there were requirements

1:18:24 ↗ that were obviously diff are down to

1:18:27 ↗ funk and sunsetted

1:18:31 ↗ to help guide us

1:18:32 ↗ it was a hundred square feet per unit at

1:18:36 ↗ talus

1:18:37 ↗ that was in the original development

1:18:38 ↗ agreement it was removed with the first

1:18:40 ↗ amendment

1:18:42 ↗ uh that allowed not only just

1:18:46 ↗ open spaces but also trails it was a

1:18:48 ↗ fairly broad definition

1:18:50 ↗ at issaquah highlands in fact there was

1:18:53 ↗ no particular standard we

1:18:56 ↗ what you're probably remembering is we

1:18:58 ↗ would often

1:18:59 ↗ present

1:19:01 ↗ analysis that we had done on various

1:19:03 ↗ plats and the amount of open space that

1:19:05 ↗ was provided

1:19:07 ↗ in the replacement regs i believe it was

1:19:10 ↗ 250 square feet for any new created unit

1:19:15 ↗ which was based on some of

1:19:18 ↗ the analysis that we did now that

1:19:21 ↗ doesn't mean that's

1:19:22 ↗ that was based on existing open spaces

1:19:25 ↗ in those two urban villages which may

1:19:27 ↗ not be applicable outside of them

1:19:30 ↗ thank you no i appreciate that refresher

1:19:33 ↗ on the history thank you uh those are

1:19:35 ↗ the questions i have

1:19:42 ↗ well thank you commissioners for all of

1:19:44 ↗ the great questions we are ready for

1:19:47 ↗ deliberation

1:20:00 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:20:02 ↗ thank you cheer voice commissioner nina

1:20:04 ↗ milligan here thank you again for all

1:20:07 ↗ this work i um i don't really

1:20:10 ↗ have complaints you think you guys are

1:20:11 ↗ doing a great job of listening and and

1:20:13 ↗ uh doing this work and it's really

1:20:14 ↗ complicated stuff

1:20:16 ↗ um

1:20:19 ↗ i want to uh focus my attention on two

1:20:22 ↗ things the

1:20:23 ↗ lot consolidation and the open space

1:20:27 ↗ requirements um under lot consolidation

1:20:30 ↗ i i want to push back a little bit on

1:20:32 ↗ this because even though it is an

1:20:34 ↗ interpretation of something that's

1:20:35 ↗ already there it is a new thing and so i

1:20:39 ↗ want to look at it critically for that

1:20:41 ↗ reason

1:20:42 ↗ also because in another context we were

1:20:46 ↗ just talking about zero lot lines and it

1:20:48 ↗ was requested of us to think be

1:20:50 ↗ thoughtful about where we apply zero lot

1:20:53 ↗ lines so why aren't we thoughtful about

1:20:56 ↗ where we

1:20:57 ↗ uh apply lot consolidation and one of

1:21:00 ↗ the reasons why this

1:21:02 ↗ came to my mind as being potentially

1:21:05 ↗ problematic and something that we might

1:21:07 ↗ be able to address at this time because

1:21:09 ↗ we are creating

1:21:11 ↗ we're fixing something with a new

1:21:14 ↗ application of something that was

1:21:15 ↗ already allowed

1:21:17 ↗ on mercer island i followed the

1:21:19 ↗ residential standards

1:21:21 ↗ updates and one of the major complaints

1:21:24 ↗ of the

1:21:25 ↗ of degradation of neighborhood character

1:21:28 ↗ came from lot consolidation and

1:21:31 ↗ residential and single family areas

1:21:33 ↗ where there were a neighborhoods there

1:21:36 ↗ was a neighborhood scale but then it

1:21:38 ↗ became

1:21:40 ↗ very large homes with a lack of of

1:21:43 ↗ neighborhood connectivity so

1:21:46 ↗ they addressed it in some way

1:21:48 ↗ i'm pushing it back

1:21:50 ↗ to you all to

1:21:53 ↗ maybe

1:21:54 ↗ try to follow my thought processes where

1:21:56 ↗ my concerns are i'm not gonna i don't

1:21:58 ↗ really have any great

1:21:59 ↗ solutions but a couple of the goals that

1:22:02 ↗ i'm trying to track in um thinking about

1:22:06 ↗ being thoughtful about this is that we

1:22:08 ↗ want to increase density

1:22:10 ↗ in our city and we want to encourage

1:22:13 ↗ affordability these are things that

1:22:15 ↗ we've talked about so how does lot

1:22:17 ↗ consolidation in residential areas

1:22:19 ↗ help

1:22:20 ↗ in those two categories in fact it seems

1:22:23 ↗ like it would not help now it's not that

1:22:26 ↗ loud consolidation is not appropriate in

1:22:28 ↗ other places in the city i can see where

1:22:31 ↗ we're encouraging mixed use or

1:22:33 ↗ multi-family or commercial

1:22:35 ↗ where law consolidation would be very

1:22:37 ↗ helpful to make a viable lot size in

1:22:39 ↗ order to create a mixed use or a

1:22:40 ↗ multi-family uh project but in our

1:22:43 ↗ single family neighborhoods i wonder

1:22:46 ↗ about the application of that

1:22:50 ↗ so i'm

1:22:52 ↗ just kind of pushing back on that and

1:22:54 ↗ saying i think this is where the

1:22:56 ↗ concerns of mine are coming from

1:23:00 ↗ then you've asked again about

1:23:03 ↗ the open space or natural amenity

1:23:05 ↗ requirements for multi-family should be

1:23:07 ↗ applied in the single family and i don't

1:23:10 ↗ know but um you know what's the reason

1:23:12 ↗ for it you know why do we have this

1:23:14 ↗ reason why do we have this requirement

1:23:16 ↗ in multi-family is it because there's no

1:23:20 ↗ open space in multi-family because of

1:23:22 ↗ the density and the far of those kinds

1:23:24 ↗ of projects

1:23:26 ↗ or is it also

1:23:27 ↗ because the connectivity of our

1:23:29 ↗ neighborhoods and the quality of life is

1:23:30 ↗ enhanced when there are shared spacious

1:23:33 ↗ spaces

1:23:34 ↗ now why wouldn't

1:23:36 ↗ a single family neighborhood

1:23:39 ↗ benefit from shared natural amenities

1:23:43 ↗ shared spaces the way that multi-family

1:23:46 ↗ do

1:23:47 ↗ i guess it kind of depends on what's

1:23:49 ↗ more important you know or what is the

1:23:51 ↗ most important objective of the natural

1:23:53 ↗ amenity space or the open space and the

1:23:56 ↗ multi-family i don't have an answer for

1:23:58 ↗ that but it just seems like um it might

1:24:00 ↗ be just as important in the single

1:24:02 ↗ family

1:24:03 ↗ that's it thank you

1:24:09 ↗ thank you commissioner million and while

1:24:11 ↗ i typically try and hold my tongue until

1:24:12 ↗ all the commissioners have had a chance

1:24:14 ↗ to speak i would echo uh nina's concerns

1:24:17 ↗ because again um

1:24:20 ↗ well typically some people might find me

1:24:21 ↗ as a build baby build guy which i am uh

1:24:24 ↗ there are areas again like i'm thinking

1:24:26 ↗ of old town where i think lot

1:24:28 ↗ consolidation could go

1:24:30 ↗ wrong very quickly so again i i i think

1:24:33 ↗ some of those concerns are shared and i

1:24:34 ↗ think nana made the point brilliantly uh

1:24:36 ↗ there's areas in the city where there's

1:24:37 ↗ mixed use in other areas where i think

1:24:39 ↗ it's quite appropriate um but definitely

1:24:42 ↗ some some guide rails there would be

1:24:44 ↗ would be good so

1:24:46 ↗ a little piece on that um commissioner

1:24:49 ↗ lewis

1:24:52 ↗ thank you chairvoice uh i want to go

1:24:54 ↗ ahead and let commissioner monahan go

1:24:55 ↗ because she had actually

1:24:57 ↗ asked to go for comments are you sure

1:24:58 ↗ okay before we get our questions um i do

1:25:02 ↗ love going after nina i think she very

1:25:04 ↗ well put some of my concerns i think

1:25:06 ↗ that if you had come to us in an off

1:25:08 ↗ year about lot consolidation we would

1:25:10 ↗ have seen this a little bit differently

1:25:12 ↗ but when we stack it up with open spaces

1:25:15 ↗ and with zero lot line i start to get a

1:25:17 ↗ little concerned i get that they're

1:25:18 ↗ disconnected but the way that the

1:25:20 ↗ information was

1:25:22 ↗ presented to us with zones i i see some

1:25:25 ↗ problems we could be backing ourselves

1:25:27 ↗ into and i think that we might as well

1:25:29 ↗ fix them while we're here uh i think

1:25:31 ↗ it's very appropriate to ask the

1:25:33 ↗ question where is this appropriate

1:25:36 ↗ at this point i do not advocate to have

1:25:38 ↗ a lot consolidation allowed city wide

1:25:41 ↗ i think commissioner voice's comments

1:25:43 ↗ about old town is something that we've

1:25:45 ↗ seen has been a historic problem

1:25:48 ↗ and i

1:25:49 ↗ i strongly um have issues with

1:25:52 ↗ allowing zero lot line everywhere um

1:25:54 ↗ throughout the city i think again i

1:25:56 ↗ think of neighborhoods like south cove

1:25:58 ↗ where this could um be

1:25:59 ↗ seriously detrimental it's a

1:26:01 ↗ neighborhood character

1:26:02 ↗ uh and then that feeds me kind of right

1:26:04 ↗ into this kind of discussion about this

1:26:07 ↗ this enhancement of shared spaces

1:26:11 ↗ i may come at this from the bias of

1:26:13 ↗ working

1:26:14 ↗ in the highlands on on the ubdc and i

1:26:17 ↗ will tell you that i saw great benefit

1:26:20 ↗ from the way we planned communities to

1:26:22 ↗ be encouraging of neighborhoods

1:26:24 ↗ interacting together and i think that

1:26:26 ↗ tonight to nina's point of why would we

1:26:28 ↗ not do it for one type of housing or

1:26:31 ↗ another and what my concern is

1:26:33 ↗ is having

1:26:34 ↗ while we're trying to address having a

1:26:36 ↗ wide breadth of housing in issaquah it's

1:26:39 ↗ also important where that housing goes

1:26:41 ↗ and if we have developers that are

1:26:43 ↗ trying to fit

1:26:44 ↗ what we believe the model is for

1:26:46 ↗ affordable housing and our missing

1:26:48 ↗ middle but then don't allow the same

1:26:50 ↗ amenities that we find so vital and

1:26:52 ↗ being able to create community we're

1:26:53 ↗ really creating an equity issue and so

1:26:56 ↗ again maybe if we had looked at these

1:26:58 ↗ things a little bit differently but

1:26:59 ↗ having them all together i see a lot of

1:27:01 ↗ problems and i right now cannot advocate

1:27:03 ↗ for us having

1:27:06 ↗ having lot consolidation across the city

1:27:08 ↗ having a zero lot line allowed

1:27:10 ↗ everywhere um and i really think that we

1:27:13 ↗ need to look and start to see some

1:27:15 ↗ parity the same way that we talk about

1:27:16 ↗ requirements for single-family homes and

1:27:18 ↗ duplexes i think it's very similar to

1:27:20 ↗ the way that we need to be looking at

1:27:21 ↗ these open recreation space standards i

1:27:24 ↗ don't see any reason why we wouldn't

1:27:27 ↗ require developers to have

1:27:30 ↗ an hoa in place to be able um to have

1:27:33 ↗ requirements of how things are

1:27:35 ↗ maintained right we require that of um

1:27:37 ↗ all kinds of plantings in the city so i

1:27:39 ↗ don't know why we wouldn't also have

1:27:40 ↗ that for open spaces and natural

1:27:42 ↗ amenities even in small requirements

1:27:46 ↗ being able to have that those spaces are

1:27:48 ↗ vitally important for how our

1:27:49 ↗ communities interact thanks

1:27:56 ↗ thank you

1:27:57 ↗ uh commissioner monahan

1:27:59 ↗ yeah hi matt monahan um on the lot

1:28:01 ↗ consolidation piece i'm reserving

1:28:04 ↗ judgment and instead i have two

1:28:06 ↗ questions that i'd like

1:28:07 ↗ uh staff to to think about and that's

1:28:10 ↗ what can we do and what should we do um

1:28:13 ↗ i know what can we do i just want to

1:28:15 ↗ make sure that if there's any

1:28:17 ↗ restrictions on lot consolidation that

1:28:19 ↗ that is consistent with property rights

1:28:22 ↗ um and so you know first understanding

1:28:24 ↗ how far can we go and then on the what

1:28:27 ↗ should we do i i and i think this goes

1:28:29 ↗ to nina's point you know i'd like to

1:28:31 ↗ benchmark like what are other

1:28:33 ↗ jurisdictions where are they falling in

1:28:34 ↗ the in the span between most restrictive

1:28:37 ↗ and least restrictive

1:28:38 ↗ um and that way we can think

1:28:40 ↗ thoughtfully about okay where do we want

1:28:42 ↗ to fall within that range of you know

1:28:44 ↗ once the law sets the parameters okay

1:28:46 ↗ then where where do we fall within that

1:28:48 ↗ um on question three on the open spaces

1:28:52 ↗ for short flats um i think i'm against

1:28:55 ↗ requiring it and i'm just thinking from

1:28:57 ↗ an administration perspective you know

1:28:59 ↗ are you gonna have an hoa for four

1:29:01 ↗ six seven homes i i just could see those

1:29:04 ↗ community spaces being run down after a

1:29:07 ↗ period of time

1:29:08 ↗ um particularly if you hate your

1:29:09 ↗ neighbors i know we all love our

1:29:10 ↗ neighbors here but i used to live east

1:29:12 ↗ coast and i hated some of them and so i

1:29:14 ↗ wouldn't be you know pruning the the the

1:29:16 ↗ community garden um unless i had to

1:29:19 ↗ um and then on question four um on the

1:29:22 ↗ increasing from four to nine i think

1:29:24 ↗ i've been relatively consistent in

1:29:27 ↗ saying yes if we have the flexibility

1:29:29 ↗ from

1:29:30 ↗ from state law to kind of increase the

1:29:32 ↗ number of of of houses we can we can put

1:29:35 ↗ through short plots and i'm i'm i'm for

1:29:37 ↗ it so those were my comments thank you

1:29:44 ↗ thank you vice chair monahan

1:29:48 ↗ to see when you have such eloquent

1:29:50 ↗ commissioners as we do you don't have to

1:29:52 ↗ repeat the brilliance that they already

1:29:54 ↗ have said

1:29:55 ↗ i'm just going to say that yes i do

1:29:56 ↗ agree with matt on question four or

1:29:58 ↗ three

1:30:00 ↗ no i'm not in favor of that and four yes

1:30:02 ↗ um i too trying to be consistent but no

1:30:05 ↗ i do believe raising that threshold to

1:30:07 ↗ nine is appropriate and it's also

1:30:09 ↗ um

1:30:11 ↗ i believe it's in line with what the

1:30:12 ↗ state is

1:30:14 ↗ so again more consistency and i think

1:30:16 ↗ sometimes people have the feeling that

1:30:18 ↗ every behind every single builder or

1:30:20 ↗ developer there's a monopoly man with a

1:30:22 ↗ monocle

1:30:23 ↗ and we need to be careful because we

1:30:25 ↗ want to invite

1:30:27 ↗ builders to come here because if we

1:30:29 ↗ continue to make it harder and more

1:30:30 ↗ difficult you can be rest assured

1:30:33 ↗ that it will be a monopoly man with a

1:30:34 ↗ monocle

1:30:36 ↗ so

1:30:37 ↗ again i am for that as well

1:30:40 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:30:44 ↗ thank you chairvoice i think that's an

1:30:46 ↗ apt point when talking about question

1:30:47 ↗ four

1:30:48 ↗ i do have a concern about raising it to

1:30:50 ↗ nine i know that that is the max allowed

1:30:53 ↗ by the state that doesn't mean that

1:30:55 ↗ that's necessarily the right move for

1:30:56 ↗ our community uh i i would like to see

1:30:59 ↗ staff give us

1:31:01 ↗ their recommendation of this is the

1:31:03 ↗ number and this is why i think it's very

1:31:05 ↗ difficult to code to have this is how

1:31:07 ↗ many units we need for cipa this is how

1:31:09 ↗ many units you need for outdoor lighting

1:31:11 ↗ this is how many you need for this and

1:31:13 ↗ it starts to vary i'd like very much for

1:31:15 ↗ staff to tell us we'd like to have it to

1:31:17 ↗ be at seven units we'd like it to be at

1:31:19 ↗ six units if you propose it to be at

1:31:21 ↗ nine i think it needs to be across the

1:31:23 ↗ board for everything and there needs to

1:31:24 ↗ be a consistency in our code that's one

1:31:27 ↗ of the main things that we're trying to

1:31:28 ↗ do with this title 18 update is to have

1:31:30 ↗ uh to use matt's previous word

1:31:32 ↗ harmonious we need to have some

1:31:34 ↗ consistency in our code that says this

1:31:36 ↗ is where we consider our threshold of

1:31:39 ↗ medium to larger scale development and i

1:31:41 ↗ think it's difficult when we start to

1:31:43 ↗ jump around on that number so if staff

1:31:46 ↗ greatly recommends that we move up to

1:31:47 ↗ the maximum allowed then i'd like to see

1:31:50 ↗ what that looks like again across the

1:31:52 ↗ board on all these different places that

1:31:54 ↗ we have these requirements thanks

1:31:59 ↗ well said you're here

1:32:01 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:32:03 ↗ i'm elegant here thank you commissioner

1:32:06 ↗ lewis uh i haven't been able to really

1:32:08 ↗ get my arms around whether it should be

1:32:10 ↗ four or nine and so that kind of it

1:32:12 ↗ keeps coming back to us so so i think

1:32:14 ↗ that there's some inclination towards

1:32:16 ↗ nine but i think the way that uh

1:32:18 ↗ commissioner lewis put it in that

1:32:21 ↗ and and i haven't thought it through it

1:32:23 ↗ would be nice to see it what would it

1:32:25 ↗ look like if we based lighting standards

1:32:29 ↗ sipa

1:32:30 ↗ you know the short plaid everything at

1:32:32 ↗ one number

1:32:35 ↗ could you do that you know i don't know

1:32:37 ↗ but that is the kind of simplification

1:32:39 ↗ predictability

1:32:41 ↗ that

1:32:42 ↗ i would like to see in issaquah so that

1:32:44 ↗ the real heartfelt

1:32:47 ↗ if purposeful

1:32:49 ↗ developers could easily come in and

1:32:52 ↗ deliver the kind of product that we're

1:32:53 ↗ looking for so with that in mind um

1:32:58 ↗ would this get us there or is this just

1:33:00 ↗ another little piecemeal thing when you

1:33:01 ↗ have to figure out a different standard

1:33:04 ↗ for when

1:33:05 ↗ for lighting or you know whatever just

1:33:07 ↗ to make it easier for everybody i like

1:33:08 ↗ the idea i'd love to see how it plays

1:33:11 ↗ out

1:33:12 ↗ uh from commissioner lewis's what if

1:33:15 ↗ most things were set at one

1:33:18 ↗ unit count

1:33:19 ↗ and they were all aligned

1:33:22 ↗ can you do it

1:33:23 ↗ sounds good

1:33:24 ↗ so i'm just chiming in

1:33:33 ↗ we always appreciate people chiming in

1:33:36 ↗ would anyone else like to chime in

1:33:43 ↗ i think the remarks as far as

1:33:44 ↗ consistency um very important again that

1:33:47 ↗ is the major goal so again i will even

1:33:51 ↗ take some things that i personally think

1:33:53 ↗ and i believe again part of our goals

1:33:56 ↗ and outcomes that even overrides that so

1:33:58 ↗ i do believe the consistent part is even

1:34:00 ↗ more important than

1:34:02 ↗ um

1:34:03 ↗ my personal wants and needs

1:34:11 ↗ our commission has fallen deftly silent

1:34:15 ↗ would anyone else like to speak

1:34:17 ↗ on these topics

1:34:18 ↗ and does staff feel they have enough

1:34:20 ↗ information to move forward

1:34:23 ↗ sure um let me just summarize so i can

1:34:27 ↗ be sure that i've captured your

1:34:29 ↗ discussion um

1:34:31 ↗ for our conversation with council

1:34:34 ↗ so in terms of the um

1:34:36 ↗ block length requirements we didn't

1:34:39 ↗ quite talk about that um we did have

1:34:42 ↗ some feedback from the development

1:34:44 ↗ commission um at the last meeting about

1:34:47 ↗ the 250-foot block length requirement

1:34:52 ↗ so there was some

1:34:54 ↗ that perhaps that shouldn't be a

1:34:56 ↗ requirement in every neighborhood is

1:34:58 ↗ that sort of where

1:34:59 ↗ all of you are at i mean we don't have

1:35:01 ↗ to put that in the code that was just

1:35:02 ↗ our first attempt at at uh this code i

1:35:05 ↗ think the the pro and con of that was

1:35:07 ↗ are we taking the same sword are we

1:35:09 ↗ densifying some of the neighborhoods and

1:35:11 ↗ and really the intent here wasn't to

1:35:14 ↗ densify it was more for

1:35:16 ↗ connectivity and walkability so that you

1:35:19 ↗ you have more of a street connection and

1:35:22 ↗ not

1:35:22 ↗ large

1:35:23 ↗ um blocks so that's one area i think uh

1:35:27 ↗ it would be helpful for us to know

1:35:29 ↗ which way to go and then i think we

1:35:31 ↗ heard some

1:35:33 ↗ uh zero lot line and all those kind of

1:35:35 ↗ things perhaps don't make sense in all

1:35:37 ↗ neighborhoods so

1:35:38 ↗ but which where do they i mean should we

1:35:41 ↗ just limit them to highlands talus and

1:35:43 ↗ central isoqua and everything else is

1:35:45 ↗ one

1:35:46 ↗ area

1:35:47 ↗ i mean where where do we split well if

1:35:49 ↗ it's not everywhere then where does it

1:35:51 ↗ make sense to have some of those design

1:35:53 ↗ standards applied that would be helpful

1:35:55 ↗ i think the other two questions number

1:35:57 ↗ three about open space we'll come back

1:35:59 ↗ with some more additional research

1:36:01 ↗ on what makes sense what the thresholds

1:36:03 ↗ are some peer city research and all that

1:36:05 ↗ uh the threshold from four to nine will

1:36:08 ↗ look at consistency of lighting cpu and

1:36:10 ↗ these

1:36:12 ↗ but i think the feedback from

1:36:14 ↗ development commission was leaning more

1:36:16 ↗ towards upping it to nine two of you

1:36:18 ↗ here feel nine is okay and two are

1:36:21 ↗ um ones uh a no and

1:36:24 ↗ and and nine are sort of um

1:36:28 ↗ i'm not sure where we landed on on the

1:36:30 ↗ threshold with united but

1:36:32 ↗ somewhat of a mixed um thing um we'll do

1:36:35 ↗ some research in terms of consistency

1:36:37 ↗ with other thresholds but primarily

1:36:40 ↗ the uh the grid pattern or

1:36:43 ↗ the this block length 250 feet

1:36:47 ↗ and zero lot lines if we don't want them

1:36:50 ↗ everywhere in the city are there certain

1:36:52 ↗ neighborhoods

1:36:53 ↗ that we should limit them to you know is

1:36:55 ↗ there any feedback for us related to

1:36:56 ↗ design standards that would be helpful

1:37:00 ↗ okay well we have our marching orders

1:37:02 ↗ commission but i would like to let uh

1:37:04 ↗ commissioner lewis go quickly because

1:37:06 ↗ i'm sure she was going to want to

1:37:07 ↗ clarify something

1:37:09 ↗ mr lewis

1:37:10 ↗ i do but commissioner um nine is before

1:37:12 ↗ me

1:37:14 ↗ okay i just figured you might want to

1:37:15 ↗ say something about your position

1:37:16 ↗ because i don't think you were a hard no

1:37:18 ↗ but i wasn't below not night ago

1:37:21 ↗ fair enough okay okay

1:37:23 ↗ nina milligan

1:37:24 ↗ uh yes sorry i didn't answer the

1:37:26 ↗ question about block length

1:37:28 ↗ uh i i don't really um without knowing

1:37:32 ↗ how that would be implemented in an

1:37:34 ↗ established neighborhood like

1:37:36 ↗ say

1:37:37 ↗ um

1:37:39 ↗ south coast or squawk

1:37:41 ↗ um i

1:37:42 ↗ yeah as the nissan highlands resident i

1:37:44 ↗ live it every day the benefit of having

1:37:46 ↗ limited

1:37:47 ↗ block length for

1:37:50 ↗ pedestrian

1:37:51 ↗ and other you know multimodal

1:37:52 ↗ connectivity and i think that is a

1:37:54 ↗ really

1:37:55 ↗ important

1:37:57 ↗ value to pursue through city-wide to

1:38:01 ↗ unlock all of our neighborhoods and to

1:38:04 ↗ encourage

1:38:05 ↗ other modes of transportation through

1:38:09 ↗ block length

1:38:11 ↗ and

1:38:12 ↗ i wish i could assert it more

1:38:15 ↗ confidently but i am not quite sure how

1:38:18 ↗ we would implement that in existing

1:38:21 ↗ neighborhoods what burden would we put

1:38:23 ↗ on people who want to remodel their home

1:38:26 ↗ you know if they're over 50 remodeling

1:38:28 ↗ do they have to tear out part of their

1:38:30 ↗ lot and turn it into an easement for a

1:38:33 ↗ block length connectivity i don't know

1:38:35 ↗ that's not what i'm in favor of

1:38:37 ↗ so i'd have to know more about how it'd

1:38:39 ↗ be implemented in existing neighborhoods

1:38:41 ↗ thank you

1:38:47 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:38:50 ↗ thank you chair boys i do appreciate uh

1:38:52 ↗ many you bringing us that we completely

1:38:54 ↗ ignored blog length so from the way that

1:38:57 ↗ i saw it is that it would it would be

1:39:00 ↗ onerous in all parts of the city and yet

1:39:03 ↗ very beneficial in others and so i think

1:39:05 ↗ it makes sense to think about the valley

1:39:07 ↗ floor i think it makes sense to talk

1:39:09 ↗ about conditional implementation when we

1:39:11 ↗ talk about block length because i'm a

1:39:13 ↗ huge fan of it but it's very difficult

1:39:16 ↗ when you live in a vast terrain

1:39:19 ↗ environment right i think you know we

1:39:21 ↗ see that in a lot of neighborhoods in

1:39:22 ↗ seattle so i i think that we need to

1:39:24 ↗ talk about a conditional implementation

1:39:26 ↗ and kind of fine-tune and hone in where

1:39:28 ↗ we think it would be best used and um

1:39:31 ↗ and commissioner voice was right on that

1:39:33 ↗ i don't consider myself a straight no i

1:39:35 ↗ do think that i need a compelling

1:39:36 ↗ presentation to increase to the maximum

1:39:39 ↗ i think it makes sense to increase it

1:39:40 ↗ when we talk about the missing middle

1:39:42 ↗ but what i'd really like to see is

1:39:45 ↗ for the city to take

1:39:47 ↗ a stance and for the administration to

1:39:48 ↗ say this is the number we think it ought

1:39:50 ↗ to be regardless of where it falls on

1:39:51 ↗ the 49 and this is what it looks like

1:39:54 ↗ across the board uh and so i i think

1:39:57 ↗ it's hard for me to tell you where i

1:39:59 ↗ think we should fall on it when we have

1:40:01 ↗ been just getting pieces and parts and i

1:40:03 ↗ think that

1:40:04 ↗ telling me that it's the maximum allowed

1:40:07 ↗ by the state isn't necessarily a reason

1:40:09 ↗ why it would move it so i hope that

1:40:11 ↗ clarification helps

1:40:27 ↗ anyone else like to comment

1:40:32 ↗ many do you feel better about the the

1:40:34 ↗ discussion five minutes after sure yeah

1:40:37 ↗ so we'll capture it in terms of um your

1:40:40 ↗ discussion and we'll come back with uh

1:40:42 ↗ the open space and um

1:40:45 ↗ and and where we think uh the blockland

1:40:48 ↗ you know try to quantify that in terms

1:40:50 ↗ of uh where that makes sense or it

1:40:52 ↗ doesn't make sense we'll give it some

1:40:54 ↗ more thought on our end

1:40:58 ↗ thank you

1:40:59 ↗ yeah thank you

1:41:02 ↗ and thank you um the staff for those

1:41:05 ↗ fantastic presentations always do a

1:41:07 ↗ fantastic job

1:41:11 ↗ we are through with the meat of the

1:41:13 ↗ agenda and now we are going to uh

1:41:17 ↗ cleanup mode batter mode um we are

1:41:19 ↗ moving on to reports

1:41:22 ↗ and i believe

1:41:24 ↗ valerie

1:41:26 ↗ valerie gets to provide the reports

1:41:28 ↗ tonight

1:41:29 ↗ uh there are no council city council

1:41:32 ↗ updates

1:41:33 ↗ for tonight but we do have a few

1:41:36 ↗ announcements so i'm going to hand it

1:41:38 ↗ over to lucy

1:41:43 ↗ thank you um i wanted to announce

1:41:46 ↗ that this is my uh last ppc meeting

1:41:50 ↗ because tuesday is my last day with the

1:41:52 ↗ city

1:41:53 ↗ and i want to thank you all i've really

1:41:57 ↗ enjoyed um being a guest and in front of

1:42:01 ↗ this commission

1:42:03 ↗ and really enjoyed what a very engaged

1:42:06 ↗ and passionate commission you are so

1:42:09 ↗ thank you very much

1:42:15 ↗ that wasn't the announcement we were

1:42:16 ↗ looking for

1:42:20 ↗ may i jumped in here really quickly on

1:42:22 ↗ lucy's behalf

1:42:24 ↗ so i don't know how many of you know and

1:42:25 ↗ this really doesn't matter but i'm gonna

1:42:26 ↗ say it anyway lucy and i went to the

1:42:28 ↗ same high school

1:42:29 ↗ we have a in texas of all things so we

1:42:32 ↗ have a bond and she actually told she'll

1:42:34 ↗ sometimes say she got me the job and she

1:42:36 ↗ told me about the job at issaquah so we

1:42:38 ↗ have both been here for a very very long

1:42:41 ↗ time and i would like to thank lucy

1:42:43 ↗ publicly for always having my back when

1:42:44 ↗ we come to pbc

1:42:46 ↗ um we've both been here so long i know

1:42:48 ↗ that she can answer questions that i

1:42:49 ↗ can't and so i just have truly

1:42:51 ↗ appreciated um working with her and her

1:42:54 ↗ dedication to the city

1:42:57 ↗ for getting me this job

1:43:02 ↗ thanks kristin that's very sweet well

1:43:04 ↗ wishing you the best lucy wherever you

1:43:06 ↗ do end up i know i could probably speak

1:43:08 ↗ for everybody on the commission that

1:43:09 ↗ will miss you and the fantastic work

1:43:11 ↗ that you provide and the great

1:43:12 ↗ explanations and um

1:43:15 ↗ yeah

1:43:16 ↗ can i ch chairplace can i jump in

1:43:19 ↗ because i ever since i came to issaquah

1:43:22 ↗ lucy has been my guiding light

1:43:26 ↗ and uh worked through and and really i

1:43:29 ↗ credit lucy with so many of the

1:43:32 ↗ lovely

1:43:34 ↗ qualities that we have in our urban

1:43:36 ↗ villages and the design formats that we

1:43:38 ↗ are going forward with i don't know how

1:43:40 ↗ we would do these without

1:43:42 ↗ you lucy

1:43:44 ↗ uh it's a legacy that you should really

1:43:46 ↗ be proud of i live it in my you know my

1:43:49 ↗ little courtyard here at star point it's

1:43:51 ↗ just one of them so now you'll have time

1:43:52 ↗ to come up maybe and see me here

1:43:55 ↗ but god i can't imagine

1:43:57 ↗ doing this without you thankfully you

1:43:59 ↗ have provided a lot of leadership to the

1:44:01 ↗ city of issaquah and have developed

1:44:03 ↗ other people in the staff who will help

1:44:05 ↗ continue

1:44:07 ↗ the work that you have laid out

1:44:09 ↗ i'm really mad at you for announcing

1:44:11 ↗ this in public because no one's so

1:44:13 ↗ disappointed you'll be going but

1:44:16 ↗ thank you for giving me this opportunity

1:44:17 ↗ to thank you in public thank you

1:44:20 ↗ thank you very much

1:44:28 ↗ all right well

1:44:29 ↗ that was sad

1:44:31 ↗ so no more sad announcements

1:44:33 ↗ no no more sad announcements

1:44:36 ↗ uh just one more quick announcement so

1:44:39 ↗ as a reminder in-person meetings

1:44:41 ↗ have been pushed back to july

1:44:44 ↗ so before we go back to in-person

1:44:45 ↗ meetings the clerk's office and the city

1:44:47 ↗ attorney would like commissioners to

1:44:49 ↗ participate in a public records training

1:44:52 ↗ so a meeting invitation has been sent

1:44:55 ↗ out um

1:44:57 ↗ for out for a special meeting on june

1:44:59 ↗ 2nd

1:45:00 ↗ so during this meeting we'll also be

1:45:03 ↗ reviewing and discussing updates to the

1:45:05 ↗ commissioner's rules and regulations so

1:45:08 ↗ if you haven't received that meeting

1:45:09 ↗ notice please reach out to steven um and

1:45:12 ↗ that is the last

1:45:13 ↗ the last item

1:45:16 ↗ fantastic job tonight valerie

1:45:18 ↗ thank you thank you for making it a

1:45:20 ↗ smooth ride

1:45:23 ↗ and um to lucy i'm sure you're still on

1:45:25 ↗ there

1:45:26 ↗ well done

1:45:29 ↗ i think that's it does anybody have

1:45:30 ↗ anything they'd like to add for the good

1:45:33 ↗ of the order

1:45:39 ↗ all right hearing none

1:45:41 ↗ um

1:45:42 ↗ i joined the meeting at 8 15.

1:45:45 ↗ good night everyone

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 Valerie Porter, Associate Planner

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Items moved to the white board should be reviewed at this point.
COMMISSIONER LEWIS seconded the comments of COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN.
VICE-CHAIR MONAHAN seconded the comments of COMMISSIONER LEWIS. (00:58) Dhaliwal concluded the presentation with Subdivisions.