Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 23, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 26, 2022

packet pp.5–10

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, May 26, 2022

Minutes of June 2, 2022

packet pp.11–16

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, June 2, 2022

Minutes of June 9, 2022

packet pp.17–24

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, June 9, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Preliminary Recommendation on Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Building and Design Standards, (A)

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.25–33

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 55:41 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the June 23rd 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 4 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.35–37

▶ Watch from 1:00:06 Open packet at p.35 ↗

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

1650 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ and uh tonight it's june 23rd and i'd

0:03 ↗ like to call the meeting to order at 6

0:05 ↗ 30.

0:07 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:09 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

0:11 ↗ you all with guidelines you're probably

0:13 ↗ all very familiar with it by this point

0:17 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:19 ↗ computer who others may be attending by

0:21 ↗ phone for all meeting attendees who wish

0:23 ↗ to speak

0:24 ↗ please speak clearly pause frequently

0:27 ↗ state your name each time before you

0:29 ↗ start speaking

0:30 ↗ you might mute your microphone when

0:33 ↗ you're not speaking and if you're having

0:35 ↗ any technical issues

0:36 ↗ or tongue tying issues

0:38 ↗ try rejoining the meeting using a

0:40 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

0:42 ↗ tablet

0:43 ↗ use the call-in information in the

0:44 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

0:48 ↗ so we'll begin with calling attendance

0:50 ↗ valerie could you please

0:52 ↗ call the role

0:54 ↗ yes

0:55 ↗ commissioner milligan

0:57 ↗ here

0:58 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:00 ↗ here

1:01 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:03 ↗ here

1:04 ↗ chair voice

1:05 ↗ here

1:06 ↗ commissioner bader

1:08 ↗ here

1:09 ↗ chair you have a quorum everybody's here

1:13 ↗ so we have a little bit of housekeeping

1:15 ↗ to get to

1:16 ↗ and we have a few sets of

1:19 ↗ minutes to approve

1:21 ↗ so we'll begin with the may 26th minutes

1:26 ↗ is there anyone who has any corrections

1:28 ↗ or clarifications to those sets of

1:30 ↗ minutes

1:34 ↗ hearing none those minutes are approved

1:37 ↗ all right moving on to june 2nd june 2nd

1:40 ↗ minutes any clarifications or concerns

1:42 ↗ of those minutes

1:46 ↗ hearing none those minutes are approved

1:49 ↗ june 9th

1:51 ↗ uh again any concerns or clarifications

1:54 ↗ for those group of minutes

1:57 ↗ housekeeping is done

1:59 ↗ so thank you all those minutes are also

2:01 ↗ approved

2:02 ↗ and now we would like to start with our

2:04 ↗ public comments

2:06 ↗ as you all know

2:08 ↗ these are an important part of our

2:10 ↗ process which we take

2:12 ↗ into consideration

2:14 ↗ and so members of the public who are

2:16 ↗ joining us welcome

2:18 ↗ if there is anyone in the meeting who

2:20 ↗ would like to make public comments

2:22 ↗ please raise your hand

2:23 ↗ and to do this if you are on the phone

2:26 ↗ please press

2:28 ↗ start three

2:29 ↗ and if you have joined by a computer or

2:31 ↗ smartphone

2:32 ↗ look for the hand icon

2:34 ↗ this could vary

2:36 ↗ it might be in your participant panel

2:38 ↗ under the

2:39 ↗ raise hand icon in the lower right hand

2:41 ↗ corner and it could also be under your

2:44 ↗ reactions menu

2:46 ↗ again these are general public comments

2:48 ↗ for the good of the order so if we have

2:51 ↗ anyone that would like to speak please

2:53 ↗ unmute your microphone when you're

2:54 ↗ called state your name

2:56 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

2:58 ↗ please limit your comments to five

3:00 ↗ minutes or less and then mute your

3:02 ↗ microphone when you're not done when you

3:04 ↗ are done

3:06 ↗ if you do not respond after your name or

3:08 ↗ phone number is called or if your

3:10 ↗ connection is lost unexpectedly the

3:12 ↗ meeting will need to proceed

3:14 ↗ you are encouraged to rejoin the meeting

3:16 ↗ if you are able

3:18 ↗ valerie do we have anyone who has signed

3:20 ↗ up for public comment this evening

3:24 ↗ no there's no one who would like to

3:25 ↗ speak

3:27 ↗ okay

3:29 ↗ so the next item on the agenda for this

3:32 ↗ evening is the continuation of the

3:34 ↗ public hearing for title 18

3:36 ↗ uh the building and design updates

3:38 ↗ so this is fight night

3:41 ↗ this is our deliberation night so this

3:43 ↗ is for the planning policy to deliberate

3:46 ↗ uh

3:47 ↗ basically what we heard with our joint

3:48 ↗ meeting with the uh the development

3:50 ↗ commission

3:51 ↗ uh two weeks ago

3:53 ↗ so i'm hoping that all of our clarifying

3:55 ↗ questions have already been asked

3:57 ↗ and staff is going to present us

3:59 ↗ basically with the same information that

4:01 ↗ we already have we can take into

4:02 ↗ consideration some of the emails that

4:04 ↗ we've received since then

4:06 ↗ but tonight's really for an opportunity

4:08 ↗ for us to go back and forth

4:10 ↗ about our views our respective views

4:13 ↗ on the portions and presentations we are

4:15 ↗ going to hear tonight and we're going to

4:17 ↗ do this in three different

4:21 ↗ blocks

4:22 ↗ so we're going to begin

4:25 ↗ with valerie who's going to start us off

4:27 ↗ with building design and then once her

4:29 ↗ presentation's over we can deliberate

4:31 ↗ about that portion we'll move on to uh

4:33 ↗ site and urban design

4:35 ↗ and then we'll finish up with

4:36 ↗ neighborhood overlays

4:38 ↗ so valerie the floor is yours

4:42 ↗ thank you

4:58 ↗ sorry

5:04 ↗ all right cheer can you see my screen

5:07 ↗ i can and you are in presenter form so

5:10 ↗ you're good to go perfect thank you

5:12 ↗ all right my name is valerie porter

5:15 ↗ uh kristen and i are going to briefly re

5:17 ↗ recap

5:18 ↗ the presentation that occurred on june

5:20 ↗ 9th

5:26 ↗ which talks about bucket four so bucket

5:28 ↗ four includes building design site and

5:31 ↗ urban design neighborhood overlays so

5:33 ↗ we're going to start with building

5:34 ↗ design

5:36 ↗ and so building design regulates what

5:38 ↗ the exterior of a building should look

5:39 ↗ like in this chapter it's going to

5:41 ↗ discuss building articulation and

5:42 ↗ modulation rooftop activities weather

5:45 ↗ protection and window transparency

5:49 ↗ so some of the major changes that

5:50 ↗ occurred in this section one is the

5:52 ↗ building step back requirement so we

5:55 ↗ revised this requirement to allow the

5:57 ↗ step back to occur at the third floor we

6:00 ↗ also tried to limit deviations so in

6:02 ↗ this chapter the only dv

6:04 ↗ deviation from standards is the window

6:06 ↗ transparency we also tried to reorganize

6:09 ↗ and reformat the code so some of the

6:11 ↗ requirements have been incorporated into

6:14 ↗ other sections

6:15 ↗ we also tried to revise text to be more

6:17 ↗ prescriptive so we took should and

6:20 ↗ replaced it with must and then we also

6:22 ↗ tried to revise text to provide some

6:24 ↗ clarity

6:25 ↗ um the sky bridge regulations have been

6:27 ↗ relocated and are now going to be in the

6:30 ↗ city street standards

6:31 ↗ and um in our last meeting i addressed a

6:34 ↗ discrepancy where in the memo it talked

6:37 ↗ about a sustainability chapter

6:39 ↗ at this time staff is not

6:42 ↗ making any

6:43 ↗ or adding any regulations but

6:45 ↗ regulations will likely occur after the

6:47 ↗ new energy code is adopted in july 2023

6:52 ↗ so there was a lot of discussion about

6:54 ↗ building step back at our last meeting

6:56 ↗ and i just thought a visual would be

6:58 ↗ helpful

6:58 ↗ so on the left side is the existing code

7:03 ↗ which is if a building is six floors or

7:06 ↗ higher then the building must have a

7:08 ↗ step back at the fourth floor we revised

7:11 ↗ this just because it

7:13 ↗ kind of hindered development and made

7:15 ↗ construction very challenging so what

7:17 ↗ we're proposing which is on the right

7:19 ↗ hand side is for buildings that are six

7:22 ↗ floors or taller to have a step back

7:25 ↗ that begins at the third floor but it

7:28 ↗ can occur at the sixth floor if it's say

7:31 ↗ 10 feet so this allows a little bit more

7:34 ↗ flexibility with the design

7:40 ↗ so

7:40 ↗ oh before i go on chair would you like

7:42 ↗ to deliberate or would you like me to go

7:45 ↗ on

7:46 ↗ um please i think we'll do the

7:47 ↗ deliberations uh for i believe that's

7:50 ↗ what building design yes would you like

7:52 ↗ me to stop sharing

7:54 ↗ please

7:56 ↗ thank you valerie

8:05 ↗ i'll get there

8:12 ↗ so the floor is open to obviously all of

8:15 ↗ the building

8:16 ↗ design

8:17 ↗ um portion of our draft memo

8:21 ↗ but as you can see we just briefly hit

8:23 ↗ some of the highlights the big changes

8:25 ↗ so

8:32 ↗ commissioner lewis

8:35 ↗ thank you chair commissioner joy lewis

8:37 ↗ um as you did mention that you prefer to

8:40 ↗ not have any questions and instead i'm

8:42 ↗ going to phrase some of this more as

8:44 ↗ comments but i want to welcome staff to

8:46 ↗ jump in and correct me or provide more

8:48 ↗ information

8:50 ↗ since i missed our wonderful joint

8:51 ↗ session i really appreciated the

8:53 ↗ comments that dc gave and the questions

8:55 ↗ that you guys gave it was a great uh

8:57 ↗ meeting to overview uh and i recommend

9:00 ↗ anyone do it if they haven't already and

9:02 ↗ they weren't present for the meeting so

9:04 ↗ i'm going to say some of my bigger stuff

9:06 ↗ for later and start with a couple little

9:08 ↗ things and say to staff but i really

9:09 ↗ appreciated this section uh comments um

9:12 ↗ language that say at least two of the

9:14 ↗ following we've kind of been having the

9:16 ↗ debates of the shoulds and the cans and

9:18 ↗ the must and i think that this language

9:19 ↗ is really clear

9:21 ↗ i would like to see

9:22 ↗ a little more pictorial form i think

9:25 ↗ that this particular section would

9:27 ↗ benefit from a few more

9:29 ↗ pictures and explore the examples that

9:31 ↗ we give i think it helps a lot of

9:33 ↗ clarity

9:34 ↗ and i'm kind of curious too about um we

9:37 ↗ have a couple things for rooftops where

9:39 ↗ we talk about screening um i have some

9:42 ↗ concerns about right now how we have our

9:44 ↗ language for instance um for

9:49 ↗ six 18.606060 rooftops point j we talk

9:51 ↗ about um how equipment can be screened

9:54 ↗ by plants and at maturity the screening

9:56 ↗ must at least be the height of the

9:58 ↗ equipment i'm sure everyone is familiar

10:00 ↗ with the fact that at maturity can take

10:02 ↗ quite some time and i think that there

10:04 ↗ needs to be language here about how long

10:06 ↗ we want that to be right putting in a

10:08 ↗ plant that can eventually hide

10:10 ↗ uh versus buxing up for a larger more

10:14 ↗ mature growth

10:15 ↗ that's farther along on that i think

10:17 ↗ that language could get cleaned up a

10:18 ↗ little bit right there um

10:21 ↗ i'm a little wary to a point i the cell

10:23 ↗ phone towers i'm curious if that

10:25 ↗ language was just ported over but um

10:28 ↗ seeing as this commission and others

10:30 ↗ have done a great deal of work about

10:31 ↗ regulating where we can be putting cell

10:34 ↗ phone towers and various equipment i'm a

10:37 ↗ little worried about this being snuck in

10:38 ↗ right here because we've

10:40 ↗ this commission in particular has spent

10:42 ↗ a ton of time on this and the public has

10:44 ↗ given us a whole host of comments over

10:45 ↗ the years about this

10:47 ↗ so i i did think that in rooftop some of

10:49 ↗ that language is

10:51 ↗ a little bit suspect for what i think

10:52 ↗ our intent really is

10:54 ↗ and while i definitely appreciate that

10:56 ↗ we're going to readdress our energy code

10:58 ↗ next year i was a little concerned in

11:02 ↗ 18606.080 when we talk about ground

11:04 ↗ level transparency um tinting for energy

11:08 ↗ efficiency i think is something that

11:10 ↗ would easily be able to put in here

11:12 ↗ while we're waiting in the next year i'm

11:14 ↗ sure that's going to be addressed but

11:16 ↗ having this at an allowance or having a

11:18 ↗ deviation

11:19 ↗ um

11:20 ↗ i certainly understand the point of

11:21 ↗ wanting to be able to have these spaces

11:23 ↗ be more interactive for pedestrian and

11:25 ↗ retail uses

11:26 ↗ but i think it's also a very simple

11:28 ↗ thing to be able to have allow for a

11:30 ↗ window tinting to be

11:32 ↗ possible um and maybe staff is maybe

11:34 ↗ that is just right now the language

11:36 ↗ doesn't seem super clear on it um

11:39 ↗ and what i'd really like for us to have

11:40 ↗ a discussion about tonight um

11:43 ↗ is

11:45 ↗ is about

11:46 ↗ again something that i'm a little

11:47 ↗ confused about which is these step backs

11:50 ↗ and setbacks i'm going to use the word

11:53 ↗ recessed stories because i think that

11:54 ↗ makes it a little bit clearer so when we

11:57 ↗ talk about building massing and

11:58 ↗ articulation in 18606

12:01 ↗ 0.050 um

12:04 ↗ i understand that staff is going to

12:06 ↗ reword some of this but i honestly think

12:08 ↗ this is a subject for policy debate as

12:11 ↗ far as if we

12:12 ↗ align with the idea right now of being

12:15 ↗ able to have it start at the third floor

12:18 ↗ it's my understanding in a layman's way

12:20 ↗ that more stories equals more stability

12:23 ↗ so by allowing there to be these

12:25 ↗ recessed setbacks we're actually

12:27 ↗ allowing something that's

12:29 ↗ sure cheaper for a developer to be able

12:31 ↗ to do but it's also something that is

12:34 ↗ could be a potential hazard if done

12:37 ↗ incorrectly um

12:39 ↗ and so i'm a little unsure because i

12:42 ↗ haven't been right now in the

12:43 ↗ presentations we've been giving

12:45 ↗ given we've only heard well this is

12:47 ↗ onerous to a developer i haven't

12:49 ↗ actually heard that the community has

12:51 ↗ asked for this i haven't heard that this

12:54 ↗ is

12:55 ↗ in is antithetical to our views of how

12:58 ↗ we want design to be in our community um

13:00 ↗ and i'm i'm kind of curious then how

13:02 ↗ many

13:03 ↗ stories are then going to be set back we

13:05 ↗ don't really have language that says if

13:07 ↗ we're going to require each floor to

13:08 ↗ then be terrorists right because we're

13:10 ↗ trying to gain some sort of um

13:13 ↗ outdoor space right with each terracing

13:15 ↗ you're able to then presumably be

13:16 ↗ getting some sort of decking and green

13:18 ↗ space as the building then terraced up i

13:20 ↗ don't see any language that talks about

13:22 ↗ um

13:23 ↗ instead if then they're all going to be

13:25 ↗ at that one same height

13:26 ↗ which is not terribly visually appealing

13:28 ↗ terracing is extremely common on the

13:31 ↗ east coast and they generally do it for

13:32 ↗ the top floor um visually it looks much

13:35 ↗ better to be able to have

13:37 ↗ nearly a penthouse view right and you

13:39 ↗ have that generally surrounded with

13:40 ↗ green space but right now the visual

13:43 ↗ images that we've been given by staff

13:45 ↗ show a frontage

13:47 ↗ a step back and then another

13:50 ↗ large wall effectively which i don't

13:52 ↗ know that is the kind of design that

13:53 ↗ would blend very well in the community

13:55 ↗ right now

13:56 ↗ so i'm hoping that we're going to

13:57 ↗ actually have a conversation not

13:59 ↗ necessarily about the wording that's in

14:00 ↗ this first draft but more about how we

14:02 ↗ think

14:03 ↗ the next draft should evolve to be

14:06 ↗ thanks everybody

14:09 ↗ i don't think i heard a question in

14:11 ↗ there at all

14:12 ↗ so thank you joy for the jeopardy

14:14 ↗ challenge

14:29 ↗ chair commissioner milligan has a

14:31 ↗ comment

14:32 ↗ mr milligan

14:35 ↗ nina milligan here i just realized i had

14:38 ↗ written to the host thank you valerie

14:41 ↗ um and thank you

14:43 ↗ commissioner lewis for coming back

14:45 ↗ and for providing those

14:48 ↗ those comments uh the two things that i

14:50 ↗ want to talk about were step backs and

14:52 ↗ window transparency

14:53 ↗ and the step backs

14:55 ↗ i'm

14:57 ↗ i'm a little puzzled why the

15:00 ↗ language was changed in the way that it

15:01 ↗ was i think what was requested from the

15:03 ↗ building industry or and i wish i could

15:06 ↗ remember who exactly wrote to us about

15:09 ↗ how the

15:10 ↗ construction design

15:12 ↗ lent itself to have a step back at third

15:14 ↗ floor

15:15 ↗ and i thought that what we would do is

15:18 ↗ allow for a step back at the third floor

15:20 ↗ but still require it by the fourth floor

15:23 ↗ uh because to not require it until the

15:26 ↗ sixth floor

15:27 ↗ um is

15:29 ↗ contrary to uh design

15:33 ↗ ideas in in say when we were working in

15:36 ↗ the central israel plan of not having

15:38 ↗ these

15:39 ↗ tunnels building tunnels but to have a

15:41 ↗ lot of open light in our design and the

15:44 ↗ step backs are important for that so i

15:46 ↗ thought all we needed to do to satisfy

15:48 ↗ the comment public comment was to

15:51 ↗ allow it at the third floor but not

15:54 ↗ require it there but require it at least

15:56 ↗ by the fourth

15:57 ↗ so that's my um feedback on that one

16:00 ↗ window transparency

16:02 ↗ to allow deviations because of the use

16:06 ↗ because of the

16:07 ↗ occupant it has privacy or security

16:10 ↗ needs

16:11 ↗ um

16:13 ↗ the

16:14 ↗ it tell this tells me and i see this in

16:18 ↗ in other arenas

16:20 ↗ that the

16:22 ↗ business or the occupation that's going

16:25 ↗ in on that ground floor which we wish to

16:27 ↗ activate and engage with the street

16:29 ↗ first safety

16:31 ↗ for vibrancy for all the things we're

16:32 ↗ looking for in our city it is not the

16:34 ↗ right use for a street front business

16:38 ↗ and if they have security and privacy

16:41 ↗ issues

16:42 ↗ maybe they should be on the fifth floor

16:43 ↗ the fourth floor where there aren't

16:45 ↗ windows on the street to change the um

16:49 ↗ the

16:50 ↗ objective that we're trying to reach

16:52 ↗ because the occupant inside has

16:55 ↗ different

16:56 ↗ um has different needs

16:58 ↗ is and i don't think appropriate we

17:00 ↗ would be doing it everywhere then

17:02 ↗ the idea of having transparent windows

17:04 ↗ is uh are important in the design

17:08 ↗ uh in our commercial layers light light

17:11 ↗ came on excuse me

17:13 ↗ that's true

17:14 ↗ so those are the only two things i have

17:15 ↗ on this

17:16 ↗ section

17:17 ↗ thank you chairvoice

17:21 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan

17:30 ↗ any other comments as far as building

17:32 ↗ design

17:34 ↗ i'm in agreement so i'll take my turn

17:37 ↗ um i'm in agreement with commissioner

17:39 ↗ milligan i think as far as the street

17:41 ↗ floor

17:43 ↗ i don't think as far as the transparency

17:44 ↗ that is what we want we want those

17:46 ↗ floors to be engaging

17:48 ↗ and i think the commissioner makes a

17:50 ↗ good point they have other alternatives

17:53 ↗ but we only have one street thoroughfare

17:55 ↗ so i i don't think that's too burdensome

17:57 ↗ to ask them to

17:59 ↗ possibly think of using utilizing

18:01 ↗ different space

18:03 ↗ so i like that and as far as

18:06 ↗ there was a comment made as far as you

18:08 ↗ know stepping back i believe the new

18:10 ↗ word we're using is recess fx but uh i'm

18:14 ↗ far less concerned about construction or

18:17 ↗ hazards

18:18 ↗ i just i haven't seen any poorly built

18:20 ↗ buildings in issaquah issaquah has some

18:23 ↗ pretty uh

18:24 ↗ pretty tough standards and i also don't

18:26 ↗ know how much this comes into play we

18:29 ↗ don't have a lot of buildings that are

18:31 ↗ over six to seven stories we do have a

18:33 ↗ hotel in a few areas the costco

18:35 ↗ buildings but this is not um there's not

18:37 ↗ a lot of it and again this this this is

18:40 ↗ nothing that's being chiseled into stone

18:42 ↗ so it is something that could always be

18:44 ↗ looked back and reviewed if uh if we

18:47 ↗ start to go towards the way of high

18:49 ↗ rises so i'm less concerned about that

18:52 ↗ but i do take commission lewis point

18:54 ↗ that as far as terracing i'll have to do

18:56 ↗ a little bit more research to see what

18:58 ↗ they do

18:59 ↗ on the east coast um i just i don't know

19:01 ↗ if penthouses and things like that are

19:03 ↗ going to be an issue for us at the

19:05 ↗ moment

19:08 ↗ and i actually do like the building

19:09 ↗ modulation i think the step backs make

19:11 ↗ the building more attractive

19:14 ↗ whether it happens on the third or

19:15 ↗ fourth floor

19:23 ↗ would anyone else like to comment

19:28 ↗ anybody

19:33 ↗ oh everyone's pointing down commissioner

19:35 ↗ baker has has a comment commissioner

19:37 ↗ bader

19:39 ↗ yeah this is sarah vader and to be

19:40 ↗ honest you kind of took the words out of

19:42 ↗ my mouth i wanted to um both

19:44 ↗ just kind of say like i think it's a

19:46 ↗ good question about the hazards but i

19:48 ↗ have no idea and i don't know

19:50 ↗ if going from four floors as currently

19:52 ↗ required to three floors makes that much

19:54 ↗ of a difference in terms of stability um

19:57 ↗ so just a i think it's a good question

19:59 ↗ but personally i have no idea um

20:01 ↗ whatsoever and then was also going to

20:04 ↗ comment on and then i think that

20:06 ↗ terracing um is also um

20:10 ↗ interesting to think about um but um

20:12 ↗ surely she took a lot of the words right

20:14 ↗ out of my mouth that i don't know how

20:15 ↗ many buildings we would have in issaquah

20:17 ↗ where that would apply to but i do think

20:19 ↗ we would want to avoid like

20:21 ↗ three floors step back and then like 10

20:23 ↗ floor solid wall right that's not

20:25 ↗ something i think we'd want the code to

20:27 ↗ allow for so it might be worth having a

20:29 ↗ provision in there too you know if we

20:30 ↗ are to have

20:32 ↗ taller buildings um to think about

20:34 ↗ terracing

20:40 ↗ thank you commissioner

20:46 ↗ any other comments

20:51 ↗ oh something just escaped my mind it's

20:53 ↗ something commissioner lewis said that i

20:55 ↗ completely agreed with

20:57 ↗ now i don't get the opportunity to say

20:58 ↗ it

21:01 ↗ maybe it'll come back but it'll probably

21:02 ↗ be too late

21:04 ↗ all right going once going twice

21:08 ↗ moving on

21:10 ↗ so we're going to move now to site in

21:12 ↗ urban design so i believe valerie are

21:14 ↗ also presenting this topic

21:17 ↗ i am

21:23 ↗ i don't know how kristin does it she's

21:25 ↗ amazing

21:33 ↗ all right chair can you see my screen

21:38 ↗ yes and you are in

21:40 ↗ um

21:42 ↗ yes looks good okay

21:48 ↗ okay next site urban design so site in

21:51 ↗ urban design um regulates the

21:53 ↗ arrangement appearance and

21:55 ↗ relationship of a site as well as the

21:57 ↗ site's relationship to the public realm

22:00 ↗ um

22:01 ↗ in this chapter we're going to talk

22:03 ↗ about um the building orientation to

22:06 ↗ relation or the building's orientation

22:08 ↗ to

22:09 ↗ critical areas

22:10 ↗ entryway designs

22:13 ↗ driveway or parking lot locations or the

22:16 ↗ retaining walls height or the location

22:21 ↗ so some of the major changes that

22:22 ↗ occurred in this section one the solid

22:24 ↗ waste collection standards um they

22:27 ↗ currently live outside of the code so we

22:29 ↗ incorporated them into the code um so

22:31 ↗ applicants are aware of it and then this

22:33 ↗ also allows us to ensure enforceability

22:37 ↗ again we tried to leave limit deviations

22:39 ↗ so in this chapter the only deviation

22:41 ↗ that could be applied for is the

22:43 ↗ building location to preserve view

22:45 ↗ corridors

22:46 ↗ again we tried to do some reformatting

22:48 ↗ and some reorganizing so we tried to

22:50 ↗ merge sections to eliminate any

22:52 ↗ redundancies and then again tried to

22:54 ↗ rewrite text to make it more

22:55 ↗ prescriptive so again removing the

22:57 ↗ shoulds to must or

22:59 ↗ um appropriate we tried to make it more

23:02 ↗ prescriptive

23:03 ↗ so we also removed some regulations um

23:07 ↗ for instance we removed the universal

23:09 ↗ design requirement because it was vague

23:11 ↗ and very hard to implement and then we

23:13 ↗ also relocated the through block passage

23:15 ↗ regulations to the street standards

23:17 ↗ because we thought that it made a little

23:18 ↗ bit more sense in that location

23:22 ↗ and also just to clarify um an email was

23:25 ↗ sent out um stating that the

23:27 ↗ non-motorized facility was um

23:30 ↗ omitted from this section um after um

23:33 ↗ talking we realized that this section

23:35 ↗ was actually going to be relocated to

23:37 ↗ the um street standard so it has not

23:40 ↗ been omitted

23:44 ↗ and so um

23:46 ↗ next steps will be revisiting some of

23:48 ↗ the standards so um where there is

23:51 ↗ should um

23:53 ↗ that was changed to xiao we're going to

23:54 ↗ confirm that this doesn't under

23:56 ↗ development and we're also going to look

23:58 ↗ at those standards that have

24:00 ↗ language of determined by the director

24:02 ↗ to see if

24:03 ↗ we could possibly revise that so we can

24:05 ↗ eliminate that or establish criteria

24:08 ↗ that the

24:09 ↗ director can use to base their decision

24:11 ↗ off of

24:14 ↗ and that is it for now

24:20 ↗ great thank you valerie

24:24 ↗ the floor is open for comments

24:38 ↗ commissioner milligan

24:41 ↗ thank you chair voice knight of milligan

24:44 ↗ here and before i go any further one

24:46 ↗ thing i wanted to say

24:48 ↗ first

24:49 ↗ the first thing i'd say

24:51 ↗ so i'm late

24:52 ↗ is uh so appreciated the development

24:56 ↗ commission's comments at our last

24:58 ↗ meeting

24:59 ↗ and

25:00 ↗ looking through the minutes

25:02 ↗ reminded myself of the hard work that

25:04 ↗ they did and what uh incredible

25:07 ↗ contribution

25:08 ↗ they make to this process and all the

25:10 ↗ work that they do so i want to thank

25:12 ↗ them but i also wanted to kind of plus

25:14 ↗ one everything they said so i'm not

25:17 ↗ going to try to say the things that they

25:18 ↗ did boy their uh their dive is deep and

25:21 ↗ you know quite thorough and so i hope

25:23 ↗ that all their comments are being taken

25:25 ↗ um quite seriously and productively

25:28 ↗ for this section i wanted to

25:31 ↗ not ask a question

25:33 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis for

25:35 ↗ teaching me how so i'm just going to say

25:37 ↗ something with giving the grace that if

25:40 ↗ i get this wrong i hope the staff will

25:42 ↗ chime in and and uh and correct me even

25:44 ↗ though i'm not asking them a question

25:46 ↗ now what i want to talk about was plazas

25:48 ↗ and i was particularly concerned about

25:51 ↗ plaza

25:52 ↗ requirements and design

25:54 ↗ especially in isaiah highlands maybe

25:56 ↗ also in talus or other urban villages

25:58 ↗ i'm not sure but isoqua highlands i know

26:00 ↗ quite well when we

26:01 ↗ replaced when we brought over the

26:03 ↗ replacement regulations we copied in

26:06 ↗ plaza requirements in 1818b

26:09 ↗ and it included things like 25 square

26:12 ↗ feet per thousand square feet of

26:14 ↗ non-residential new development

26:17 ↗ which was a really important

26:19 ↗ design element in our urban space and

26:21 ↗ then

26:23 ↗ for existing plazas in the town center

26:26 ↗ uh we had a um

26:29 ↗ any changes in size required council

26:32 ↗ action and

26:34 ↗ we these were are really important to

26:37 ↗ the entire

26:38 ↗ development

26:40 ↗ agreement master plan community design

26:43 ↗ and so i didn't see where that kind of

26:46 ↗ language was

26:47 ↗ carried over

26:49 ↗ into the

26:51 ↗ the new code so i'm concerned about that

26:54 ↗ now we have neighborhood overlays which

26:56 ↗ is coming up next and isoqua highlands

26:58 ↗ is a neighborhood including its

27:00 ↗ commercial district

27:01 ↗ but this seems to be appropriate to talk

27:04 ↗ about that this in this section because

27:07 ↗ the neighborhood overlay

27:09 ↗ uh as it's been presented to us seems to

27:11 ↗ be just talking about

27:13 ↗ residential neighborhoods in our

27:16 ↗ neighborhoods so i'm kind of saying two

27:18 ↗ things there too that when we do

27:21 ↗ when we remove the replacement

27:22 ↗ regulations that we had previously we

27:25 ↗ also

27:26 ↗ seem to have lost the connection that

27:27 ↗ our

27:28 ↗ neighborhood overlays include

27:30 ↗ commercial and retail areas

27:33 ↗ so those that's my feedback for this

27:35 ↗ section

27:36 ↗ thank you

27:40 ↗ thank you commissioner commissioner

27:42 ↗ lewis

27:44 ↗ thank you chair voice uh commissioner

27:47 ↗ joy lewis i think my comments are more

27:50 ↗ what i'd like to push back on from staff

27:52 ↗ from these sections

27:53 ↗ um i think there's a couple places that

27:55 ↗ um need to be further dived into for our

27:58 ↗ next draft the first i'm going to bring

28:00 ↗ up

28:01 ↗ is going to be um

28:02 ↗ page 5 of 16 is what i'm looking at from

28:05 ↗ my packet um and it's h vistas and views

28:08 ↗ i think that this language needs to be

28:10 ↗ cleaned up um for instance there's no

28:12 ↗ mention of the lake i think lake

28:14 ↗ sammamish is definitely something we

28:15 ↗ consider to be a view corridor from

28:17 ↗ places around um also when we talk about

28:20 ↗ the deviations um i really think there's

28:23 ↗ further explanation that needs to be

28:24 ↗ dived into

28:25 ↗ um this is such an important section

28:27 ↗ right here and i don't know that it's

28:29 ↗ necessarily being given the do that we

28:31 ↗ want it to be and i think that this

28:33 ↗ language could really use some more

28:35 ↗ thought um

28:37 ↗ i have worked so hard over the years on

28:41 ↗ design um for this city that i'm way too

28:44 ↗ familiar with garages and i'm sorry to

28:46 ↗ my fellow commissioners who didn't get

28:48 ↗ to have those hours-long discussion but

28:50 ↗ uh when we talk about family driveways

28:53 ↗ and garages 18 604-090

28:56 ↗ uh i'm looking at d garages five garage

28:59 ↗ door colors may be the same as or close

29:02 ↗ to the color of the primary house color

29:05 ↗ we have talked so much about this and

29:08 ↗ this language is hugely um a big

29:11 ↗ disapproval for me this is not what the

29:12 ↗ community has voiced to us this is not

29:14 ↗ what we've talked about for garage doors

29:16 ↗ and yes we've spent a lot of time on

29:18 ↗ garage doors so i think if i recall um

29:21 ↗ in central issaquah it's different than

29:24 ↗ i think they actually get four colors

29:26 ↗ instead of three so i think they have to

29:29 ↗ pick one of those colors for their

29:30 ↗ garage door if i recall the conversation

29:33 ↗ um

29:34 ↗ and you know we've had other mentions of

29:35 ↗ the color wheel that we use for old town

29:38 ↗ but we do have other design standards um

29:40 ↗ and so i think that this language here

29:42 ↗ on garage doors can be a little bit a

29:44 ↗ little bit tighter um and i would

29:46 ↗ encourage kind of going back and looking

29:48 ↗ at that i want a plus one to nine as

29:49 ↗ comments about plazas if we could please

29:52 ↗ have a section in here or have stuff

29:53 ↗ tell us where else you're planning on

29:54 ↗ getting it

29:55 ↗ i think my only other comment was going

29:58 ↗ to be

29:58 ↗ um there's a reference here to figure xx

30:02 ↗ and point f

30:03 ↗ for every building structure shall be

30:05 ↗ located towards the designated

30:07 ↗ circulation facility as identified in

30:09 ↗ figure xx but i don't seem to have that

30:11 ↗ figure so i'm hoping on the next draft

30:13 ↗ we'll be able to have a little more of

30:16 ↗ that so thank you staff

30:23 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

30:25 ↗ commissioner vice chair monahan

30:28 ↗ hello uh matt monaghan here uh first

30:30 ↗ just want to plus one the uh the

30:32 ↗ commendation of the development

30:34 ↗ commission really great comments uh in

30:36 ↗ our meeting and i'd just like to thank

30:37 ↗ them for their expertise

30:39 ↗ um i have a

30:40 ↗ vague like issue spotting comment

30:42 ↗ without any answers um and it goes to

30:45 ↗ something valerie i think the last point

30:46 ↗ on the last slide you showed us which is

30:49 ↗ when we kind of vest discretion um

30:52 ↗ in the director uh there's a balancing

30:54 ↗ act there and i don't know

30:57 ↗ it's probably different depending on

30:58 ↗ which standard we're talking about which

31:00 ↗ is on the one hand i like to be able to

31:02 ↗ just say we're going to trust staff and

31:03 ↗ so it's just determined by the director

31:05 ↗ period there's no other additional

31:06 ↗ standards and one of the reasons why you

31:08 ↗ do that is maybe the

31:10 ↗ thing we're regulating is a little bit

31:12 ↗ more subjective such that if we were to

31:14 ↗ give standards it would almost you know

31:16 ↗ trying to put a a square peg in a round

31:18 ↗ hole but on the other side if i'm

31:20 ↗ thinking you know if i'm an applicant

31:22 ↗ and i want to be able to have a

31:24 ↗ well-reasoned opinion

31:26 ↗ um or at least a substantive disposition

31:28 ↗ by the director i'd want to know like

31:31 ↗ did the director consider factors one

31:33 ↗ two and three

31:34 ↗ and you know how did he or she weigh

31:36 ↗ those factors in coming up at the result

31:38 ↗ so

31:40 ↗ again this is vague in the sense of i

31:41 ↗ don't have any policy prescriptions i

31:43 ↗ just i want us to be cognizant of that

31:45 ↗ balance between

31:46 ↗ okay this is something that is so

31:48 ↗ subjective that applying objective

31:49 ↗ standards doesn't make sense but on the

31:51 ↗ other hand you know

31:53 ↗ an applicant

31:55 ↗ does get due process of law and so they

31:57 ↗ should know what was considered and it

31:58 ↗ wasn't just you know

32:00 ↗ that they stole the director's parking

32:02 ↗ lot at safeway on sunday is the reason

32:04 ↗ why they're getting denied uh but

32:06 ↗ instead it's something substantive and

32:08 ↗ policy related so i want to balance that

32:10 ↗ as a policy perspective then i'd also

32:12 ↗ like to just run it by uh probably the

32:14 ↗ city attorney to ask okay how can we be

32:16 ↗ challenged on a on a decision by the

32:19 ↗ director and how can we best protect the

32:21 ↗ city um in ensuring that we're not you

32:23 ↗ know sucked down the rabbit hole of the

32:24 ↗ litigation because uh an applicant or

32:27 ↗ somebody in the public field degree

32:28 ↗ because there were no criteria or the

32:30 ↗ criteria were ignored or the director

32:33 ↗ only talked about factors one two and

32:34 ↗ ignored three so again sorry it's not

32:36 ↗ helpful in the sense of i don't know any

32:38 ↗ policy prescriptions but i just want us

32:39 ↗ to be aware of when we play in that

32:41 ↗ sense of okay we're gonna that's

32:43 ↗ discretion in a member of city staff

32:45 ↗ let's think carefully and critically

32:48 ↗ about

32:49 ↗ what parameters if any we want to put

32:51 ↗ around that decision-making process

32:53 ↗ thank you

32:57 ↗ thank you vice chair and i i think the

32:59 ↗ comments are very helpful

33:03 ↗ i need more comments on

33:06 ↗ site and urban design

33:13 ↗ so

33:14 ↗ this is my comment and i've

33:16 ↗ in this when i read it the first time it

33:18 ↗ struck me wrong and it still strikes me

33:20 ↗ wrong

33:21 ↗ is 18 604 dot

33:25 ↗ that should to shall

33:27 ↗ and that entire paragraph on an intent

33:30 ↗ um strikes me funny and and i personally

33:33 ↗ don't like it

33:35 ↗ you know it talks that at a min at a

33:37 ↗ minimum these things shall be required

33:40 ↗ uh trees solar and wind patterns taken

33:43 ↗ into design i don't understand what that

33:45 ↗ means

33:46 ↗ are we talking ergodynamics are we

33:48 ↗ talking aerodynamics are we supposed to

33:49 ↗ be building triangles

33:51 ↗ i don't know

33:52 ↗ i don't like the language there

33:54 ↗ and then we just kind of had this debate

33:56 ↗ about electric vehicle charging and i

33:59 ↗ just i went through the numbers today

34:01 ↗ if i'm being generous six and a half

34:03 ↗ percent of washington state uses

34:05 ↗ electric vehicles

34:06 ↗ to require that in a hundred percent of

34:08 ↗ our mo or of our residential homes

34:11 ↗ doesn't seem right i understand people

34:13 ↗ want to build for the future

34:15 ↗ but we are going to be passing those

34:17 ↗ costs on to new homeowners and

34:20 ↗ homeowners in general and i think

34:22 ↗ everyone can see over the last decade

34:24 ↗ millennials generation z are having the

34:26 ↗ toughest time

34:27 ↗ buying new homes

34:30 ↗ governor polaris of colorado just struck

34:32 ↗ that down in his state because he didn't

34:34 ↗ want to pass that burden on

34:36 ↗ and again none of these things are

34:38 ↗ chiseled in stone as we see more parity

34:40 ↗ as we see more electric vehicles i think

34:42 ↗ these things can be looked at again

34:44 ↗ but

34:46 ↗ we're talking about having a huge cost

34:48 ↗ and again when people talk about equity

34:50 ↗ and things like

34:51 ↗ this is where i kind of

34:53 ↗ i i can't square it

34:55 ↗ right i mean some of those homes in

34:58 ↗ in the highlands are going from nine

34:59 ↗ hundred thousand dollars four years ago

35:02 ↗ to 1.4 million dollars now for the same

35:04 ↗ home the same materials

35:06 ↗ and that's not just an issaquah problem

35:08 ↗ that's definitely a state and a national

35:10 ↗ problem

35:11 ↗ but again this we just had this debate

35:14 ↗ about electric vehicles and now we're

35:15 ↗ going to do six and a half percent who

35:17 ↗ are currently driving them again using

35:19 ↗ the most generous number i could find to

35:21 ↗ a hundred percent of our housing

35:23 ↗ i don't see it

35:24 ↗ i don't like it i don't like the way

35:26 ↗ it's worded again i understand the

35:28 ↗ intent but to change that should to

35:31 ↗ shall require

35:33 ↗ again we're building the city we want

35:35 ↗ and i understand that but

35:37 ↗ i don't understand because again that

35:39 ↗ will be passed on to new homeowners

35:41 ↗ again the small everyone reads about it

35:43 ↗ everybody hears about it all the time

35:45 ↗ people who are having the toughest time

35:47 ↗ purchasing homes are first-time home

35:49 ↗ buyers

35:50 ↗ so again i just use visiqua highlands as

35:53 ↗ an example same house four years ago 900

35:57 ↗ thousand one point four today

36:00 ↗ so that is a problem that i have

36:02 ↗ um with that particular

36:06 ↗ um

36:07 ↗ part of the code

36:11 ↗ now

36:12 ↗ we have a comment from

36:13 ↗ [Music]

36:15 ↗ i believe commissioner bader

36:17 ↗ am i getting this right

36:20 ↗ commissioner lewis

36:22 ↗ commissioner milligan

36:26 ↗ thank you

36:27 ↗ commissioner joy lewis um i appreciate

36:30 ↗ you reminding us of this because as i

36:32 ↗ was um watching your fabulous discussion

36:35 ↗ and comments um and questions last time

36:38 ↗ i was dumbfounded that we didn't have

36:41 ↗ the word capability we had spent so much

36:44 ↗ time

36:45 ↗ this commission i'm incredibly proud of

36:47 ↗ the work that we did to talk about ev

36:49 ↗ ready versus ready to plug and play go

36:52 ↗ and we talked about the capability of

36:54 ↗ having 220 in every building right

36:56 ↗ having in that infrastructure is

36:58 ↗ incredibly important for where we want

37:00 ↗ to go in the future however it's minimal

37:03 ↗ cost to the developer and the homeowner

37:05 ↗ to be able to have that

37:06 ↗ and so i really think that that is just

37:08 ↗ a change of wording and electrical

37:10 ↗ electric vehicle charging capability

37:12 ↗ right or however staff wants to word it

37:14 ↗ of saying new construction needs to be

37:16 ↗ able to have that 220 line we need to be

37:18 ↗ able to have the electric capacity put

37:20 ↗ into

37:22 ↗ you know put in rather than necessarily

37:24 ↗ having the whole set up charging station

37:27 ↗ right so i think that that's language

37:29 ↗ that needs to be tweaked a little bit to

37:31 ↗ honor

37:32 ↗ the intent of where we want to go and i

37:34 ↗ think it's a really problematic area

37:36 ↗ when we talk about saying well we don't

37:37 ↗ really want to touch sustainability

37:38 ↗ right now there's really no way to not

37:41 ↗ do it right now so i understand the idea

37:43 ↗ that we don't want to put a lot of work

37:44 ↗ into it now to have to redo it next year

37:47 ↗ but this is a good example of how we're

37:49 ↗ kind of starting to trip up a little bit

37:51 ↗ and so i would encourage staff to to go

37:53 ↗ back i also want to

37:56 ↗ echo some of the comments

37:57 ↗ that matt made previously i really

37:59 ↗ appreciate his comments and attention to

38:01 ↗ this

38:02 ↗ minnie our director and i have had

38:04 ↗ several conversations about how once we

38:06 ↗ get through the first draft of our

38:08 ↗ buckets but i'd really like to have a

38:10 ↗ meeting just on talking about

38:12 ↗ how we have

38:14 ↗ how we deal with deviations how we deal

38:16 ↗ with director approval when it's

38:18 ↗ appropriate and how the public can have

38:20 ↗ more visibility into that it's hard for

38:21 ↗ us to know right now because we need to

38:23 ↗ get through all of our drafts to see

38:24 ↗ what when those come into play but it's

38:26 ↗ incredibly important for the public to

38:28 ↗ be able to have a better understanding

38:29 ↗ because it's been a huge problem with

38:31 ↗ our code of having the public understand

38:33 ↗ when do we have these deviations when

38:34 ↗ are there allowances and how and why are

38:36 ↗ they happening and really bringing light

38:38 ↗ to that process so thanks very much

38:45 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

38:46 ↗ commissioner milligan

38:53 ↗ that's a negatory oh yeah i i missed if

38:56 ↗ i sent you a message i don't have any

38:57 ↗ further comments thank you very much

39:00 ↗ great vice chairman monahan

39:10 ↗ i just had the one

39:12 ↗ i'm all screwed up on my chat box okay

39:14 ↗ so

39:16 ↗ i believe that's everybody who wanted to

39:18 ↗ speak are there any other takers

39:24 ↗ and i appreciate commissioner lewis's

39:26 ↗ point um again i think the wording and

39:29 ↗ again we just went through this so

39:31 ↗ hopefully the wording can be better i

39:32 ↗ gotta be honest again it reads like all

39:35 ↗ of these things must be required this

39:37 ↗ the i think the ones that like i said

39:39 ↗ that caught my eye were the

39:41 ↗ electrical vehicle and then again the

39:43 ↗ solar and wind it's really not defined

39:44 ↗ what that means as far as building

39:46 ↗ designs

39:47 ↗ you know i know a lot of architects

39:51 ↗ uh you know again not really known for

39:53 ↗ senses of humor

39:55 ↗ but you'll find sometimes that their

39:57 ↗ buildings are kind of interesting

39:58 ↗ um i don't think that's necessarily

40:01 ↗ again i just don't know what they mean

40:02 ↗ by solar and wind design that scares me

40:06 ↗ a lot so

40:08 ↗ that would be my two cents

40:13 ↗ all right moving on to our final

40:14 ↗ presentation and i believe kristen i i

40:17 ↗ think this one you're going to be

40:18 ↗ presenting

40:20 ↗ all right please

40:35 ↗ there we go whoops let me scroll down

40:38 ↗ don't mean to make anybody dizzy here we

40:39 ↗ go

40:41 ↗ yes i'm going to cover neighborhood

40:42 ↗ overlays

40:44 ↗ so

40:45 ↗ again as an overview um

40:48 ↗ neighborhood overlays contain area

40:49 ↗ specific regulations for specific

40:51 ↗ neighborhoods

40:53 ↗ so

40:54 ↗ one of those neighborhoods we currently

40:56 ↗ have standards for old town cultural and

40:59 ↗ business district and multi-family

41:02 ↗ medium

41:03 ↗ within old town and multi-family high

41:06 ↗ east of sunset way so this is the

41:08 ↗ multi-family high

41:09 ↗ multi-family medium and cultural and

41:12 ↗ business district in the red

41:15 ↗ we also have single-family old town

41:17 ↗ single family duplex which is everything

41:20 ↗ that you see here

41:21 ↗ in the gold

41:23 ↗ we have standards that cover those

41:25 ↗ then we have central issaquah

41:28 ↗ architectural standards which cover

41:30 ↗ traditional issaquah in the purple

41:33 ↗ and the urban core and the yellow in the

41:35 ↗ center

41:37 ↗ now we have issaquah highlands right

41:39 ↗ here

41:40 ↗ now i had a question today let me show

41:43 ↗ you this one too and talus we're

41:45 ↗ familiar with those

41:46 ↗ and i had a question today from one of

41:48 ↗ our commissioners saying are all the

41:51 ↗ overlays marked and i said well

41:53 ↗ yes um and you know if i could show the

41:56 ↗ zoning and i knew that was on there i'm

41:57 ↗ some of them

41:58 ↗ um but then i started looking at esquire

42:00 ↗ helens and i thought you know it's the

42:02 ↗ cottage neighborhood or it's the

42:04 ↗ mountain village neighborhood or

42:05 ↗ different things that are there and i

42:06 ↗ thought okay it's and i told her i said

42:08 ↗ it's going to take me longer to map

42:09 ↗ those and i thought because i don't know

42:10 ↗ where all these different neighborhoods

42:12 ↗ are so

42:12 ↗ i have realized with this email that

42:14 ↗ each of those individual neighborhoods

42:17 ↗ covered by these standards need to be

42:19 ↗ mapped out separately and not just the

42:20 ↗ whole

42:21 ↗ island highlands and all of talus so

42:23 ↗ that will be done so thank you

42:26 ↗ commissioner milligan for the

42:28 ↗ question and making me realize that

42:31 ↗ some major changes that we had we merged

42:34 ↗ as i sort of mentioned just now five

42:35 ↗ documents into one

42:37 ↗ they're organized by neighborhood and we

42:39 ↗ revived it we simply revised and added

42:42 ↗ some text to add clarity and specificity

42:44 ↗ update things a little bit

42:46 ↗ old town we had some really antiquated

42:49 ↗ material and color standards for the

42:51 ↗ cultural and business district and

42:52 ↗ multi-family so we adopted or were

42:55 ↗ proposing to adopt

42:57 ↗ excuse me a single family reflects

43:01 ↗ architectural standards for single

43:02 ↗ family and duplex material and color

43:04 ↗ standards for cbd and multi-family

43:07 ↗ and then lastly in central issaquad we

43:09 ↗ pulled in the

43:10 ↗ density bonus program

43:12 ↗ we

43:13 ↗ changed the name from density bonus to

43:15 ↗ development bonus

43:16 ↗ and we

43:18 ↗ also

43:19 ↗ merged where we could standards for

43:21 ↗ traditional issaquah and the urban core

43:23 ↗ where they were similar

43:26 ↗ the questions that came that the only we

43:28 ↗ only have one question really regarding

43:30 ↗ um and this is the one that was

43:32 ↗ discussed by the development commission

43:34 ↗ for a while as well

43:36 ↗ is

43:36 ↗ i'll boil it down i have detailed slides

43:38 ↗ if you'd like them but i'll boil it down

43:40 ↗ that the standards for this area right

43:44 ↗ here

43:45 ↗ are really covered in the citywide

43:48 ↗ standards

43:49 ↗ the materials and colors and then

43:51 ↗ there's one for replacement of windows

43:54 ↗ that would not be included here which

43:56 ↗ would mean then that colors are open

43:59 ↗ materials are open to you know whatever

44:01 ↗ choice and then um

44:04 ↗ it's interesting the replacement of

44:07 ↗ windows on historic structures but

44:10 ↗ that doesn't apply to single family so

44:13 ↗ there really isn't anything in the area

44:14 ↗ that it would apply to because it only

44:16 ↗ applies to the non-residential

44:18 ↗ structures

44:19 ↗ and then of course do these meet the

44:20 ↗ goals and outcomes for this update

44:22 ↗ the development commission if you recall

44:24 ↗ opted for preference was to leave this

44:27 ↗ in the old town design standards

44:30 ↗ that is all i have

44:36 ↗ thank you

44:41 ↗ the final presentation of this evening

44:44 ↗ looking for comments

44:59 ↗ commissioner lewis

45:02 ↗ thank you chair boys commissioner joy

45:04 ↗ lewis um

45:06 ↗ i really appreciate the work that has

45:07 ↗ gone into this as somebody who has

45:09 ↗ pulled from all the different sections

45:11 ↗ before

45:12 ↗ this was a heavy lift and i really

45:14 ↗ appreciate uh this first draft from

45:16 ↗ staff

45:17 ↗ and i will quickly summarize that i

45:20 ↗ concur with the development commission's

45:23 ↗ answer to your question

45:25 ↗ as somebody who went through a lot of

45:28 ↗ those

45:29 ↗ comment periods from the public and

45:30 ↗ creating the design standards for old

45:32 ↗ town

45:33 ↗ i am in favor of keeping it in

45:35 ↗ and not taking it out i hope that helps

45:38 ↗ um i would love to spend my time tonight

45:40 ↗ talking about um i'm on page 51 of 69

45:44 ↗ it's the table summary of a required

45:45 ↗ public benefit

45:47 ↗ and it talks about

45:49 ↗ um

45:50 ↗ the need for when we exceed uh the far

45:53 ↗ and we allow a developer to go beyond

45:56 ↗ their building capability how we then

45:59 ↗ deal with that bonus um

46:01 ↗ i

46:03 ↗ i always say this i don't know maybe i

46:05 ↗ have a lot of questions maybe i just

46:07 ↗ need to be better informed i'm totally

46:09 ↗ willing to admit that but this whole

46:11 ↗ section i feel like needs to go back to

46:14 ↗ council to a work session

46:16 ↗ i um

46:17 ↗ i am not understanding the correlation

46:20 ↗ of the benefit to the developer to

46:21 ↗ exceed versus the modest fees and gains

46:24 ↗ that the community is getting um i i

46:28 ↗ think that this whole section needs some

46:29 ↗ revision to make sure that it aligns to

46:31 ↗ how the community feels about giving

46:33 ↗ this benefit away this bonus that would

46:36 ↗ exist

46:37 ↗ but right now the example that's been

46:39 ↗ given

46:40 ↗ of and

46:41 ↗ it doesn't feel to me um to balance out

46:44 ↗ the benefit of this 9 000 square foot

46:46 ↗ space that would be given this

46:48 ↗ calculation to me doesn't make a whole

46:50 ↗ lot of sense i don't know that it really

46:52 ↗ does enough

46:53 ↗ um i then continue to have issues with

46:56 ↗ um

46:57 ↗ that the development bonus fee may also

46:59 ↗ be paid to fulfill all or part of the

47:01 ↗ elective portion

47:03 ↗ it's so easy for developers to say sure

47:06 ↗ i'll pay this fee i'll pay that fee

47:07 ↗ rather than i mean why don't we require

47:09 ↗ all three if we're going to give them

47:11 ↗ this bonus let's say here's the amount

47:12 ↗ we're going to calculate for you to have

47:14 ↗ your fee here's the open space you're

47:17 ↗ required to give and the affordable

47:18 ↗ housing right rather than having this

47:20 ↗ pick and choose and then you can just

47:22 ↗ pay in um we've seen all too commonly

47:25 ↗ that we don't get what we need we

47:26 ↗ somehow get a

47:28 ↗ a minor slush fund um which then

47:32 ↗ makes me you know wonder if we're um

47:35 ↗ if we're really doing that correctly

47:37 ↗ because then in the development bonus

47:38 ↗ fee account we start to talk about how

47:40 ↗ this is i'm going to support the

47:42 ↗ development of affordable housing an

47:44 ↗ open space a set forth in this chapter

47:46 ↗ i'm on page 53 of 69

47:48 ↗ 18.703

47:50 ↗ 0.090 and i worry that this really puts

47:52 ↗ these two goals at odds um

47:55 ↗ and they really shouldn't be competing

47:57 ↗ for the fees right so being able to say

47:59 ↗ it's going to be either affordable

48:01 ↗ housing or open space we're going to

48:02 ↗ have this little slush fund that we've

48:04 ↗ collected and it can be going to this or

48:06 ↗ this

48:07 ↗ i'm a little concerned then that that

48:08 ↗ ends up putting them

48:10 ↗ at odds with each other

48:12 ↗ which gives me

48:13 ↗ some pause um i then wonder too for the

48:16 ↗ affordable housing we talk about um this

48:18 ↗ is the next section a4

48:20 ↗ um that they must use within 10 years of

48:23 ↗ payment it's a huge time period when you

48:26 ↗ think about when you want to initiate a

48:27 ↗ project when it's being completed

48:30 ↗ i'm curious why it's so long and i'm

48:32 ↗ wondering if something can be done about

48:33 ↗ that and then when we start talking

48:35 ↗ about how

48:36 ↗ these fees are going to be then

48:38 ↗ translated to projects and how it goes

48:40 ↗ to the approval of city council and

48:43 ↗ if i want to be a doomsday person i can

48:45 ↗ tell you that this would be a very easy

48:47 ↗ thing to pick and choose how you want to

48:49 ↗ do projects um based on how you want to

48:52 ↗ appeal to your constituency and i worry

48:54 ↗ that maybe this actually needs to go to

48:55 ↗ a neutral party or conservatorship or

48:57 ↗ something like that i mean what we're

48:59 ↗ talking about here has huge

49:00 ↗ ramifications as a tool for us to be

49:02 ↗ able to be doing two of the most

49:04 ↗ important things of affordable housing

49:06 ↗ and the creation of open space for the

49:08 ↗ public and i just

49:10 ↗ um

49:11 ↗ it just it raises some red flags for me

49:13 ↗ and again i completely acknowledge that

49:14 ↗ it could just be that i'm uneducated on

49:16 ↗ this um but it's something that i i

49:19 ↗ think

49:19 ↗ needs to be relooked at

49:21 ↗ from this section so thanks for humoring

49:23 ↗ me

49:30 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis uh

49:32 ↗ commissioner milligan

49:34 ↗ thank you chairman voice nina milligan

49:35 ↗ here and thank you commissioner lewis i

49:37 ↗ want a plus one

49:38 ↗ uh commissioner lewis and uh

49:41 ↗ supplement it just a little bit in that

49:43 ↗ um

49:45 ↗ i'm not sure didn't get to study how

49:48 ↗ this relates to the density bonus that

49:50 ↗ we use in the central issaquah

49:52 ↗ is it different from what we developed

49:54 ↗ there um raising the red flag the flag

49:58 ↗ on um

50:00 ↗ she so aptly calls slush fund i mean

50:02 ↗ what does that help yeah what we really

50:04 ↗ want are things in the development and

50:07 ↗ this is the exchange that we're setting

50:09 ↗ up whenever we put a fee in lieu we

50:11 ↗ ended up not getting the thing we wanted

50:12 ↗ which was affordable housing or whatever

50:14 ↗ it was

50:15 ↗ so i um unless there's some conflict

50:17 ↗ with

50:18 ↗ um the work that was done for central

50:20 ↗ issaquad i'd sure like to get rid of

50:22 ↗ that fee and lose section on the density

50:24 ↗ bonus the um

50:30 ↗ uh the other thing i want to do is uh

50:32 ↗ amplify the

50:34 ↗ voice thank you

50:35 ↗ kristen for pointing out that the

50:37 ↗ development commission and i believe the

50:38 ↗ public as well who spoke about the um

50:42 ↗ multi-family

50:43 ↗ medium in old town should remain under

50:46 ↗ old town standards i think we've heard

50:47 ↗ that um several times now

50:50 ↗ it's more of their opinion than mine but

50:52 ↗ i appreciate i'm saying it again

50:56 ↗ and then um

50:59 ↗ i wanted to ask about um overlays just a

51:02 ↗ little bit more and kristen leeson

51:04 ↗ brought up you know the solution in the

51:06 ↗ past so you've already answered that

51:07 ↗ question but i want to add to it some

51:10 ↗ things that might help in your homework

51:12 ↗ and that is that when we look at some

51:14 ↗ areas in say isoqua highlands this is my

51:17 ↗ point of reference where we have

51:18 ↗ condominium communities the cottages and

51:21 ↗ brownstones in the zoning map

51:23 ↗ they're they're they don't have the

51:26 ↗ standards

51:27 ↗ you don't know that that's where

51:30 ↗ that design standard the neighborhood

51:32 ↗ overlay design standard applies and so

51:34 ↗ if you redeveloped over in the cottages

51:37 ↗ would you just be

51:39 ↗ um because it's condominium not lot line

51:42 ↗ one home per lot

51:44 ↗ what are the um

51:46 ↗ standards guiding redevelopment in

51:49 ↗ places like the brownstones and the in

51:51 ↗ the cottages that's where i think that's

51:52 ↗ where my

51:54 ↗ concern

51:55 ↗ lies mostly the but it but it applies uh

51:59 ↗ community-wide and so glad that you're

52:01 ↗ going to look at where those

52:03 ↗ neighborhood

52:04 ↗ overlays in this aqua highlands you know

52:07 ↗ so there's this one level and then

52:08 ↗ there's this more uh defined level

52:10 ↗ there's probably some mentalis too

52:12 ↗ and then um

52:14 ↗ the other thing i wanted to bring up in

52:16 ↗ this context and i i hinted to it a

52:18 ↗ little bit before and i appreciate the

52:21 ↗ staff tells me that there's another

52:22 ↗ meeting later on where we're going to be

52:24 ↗ talking about this more specifically but

52:26 ↗ it seems to apply here a little bit too

52:29 ↗ and it might go into zoning and uses is

52:32 ↗ that when we um

52:34 ↗ when we take away the

52:38 ↗ the distinctions some of the

52:40 ↗ distinctions that were made in the

52:41 ↗ replacement regulations for issaquah

52:43 ↗ highlands another concern i have is that

52:45 ↗ the commercial retail zone

52:48 ↗ it doesn't have a neighborhood overlay

52:50 ↗ on it you know it might and so when

52:52 ↗ kristin does her work and how would that

52:54 ↗ apply to

52:56 ↗ what we have in the old regulations like

52:59 ↗ zoning caps and gross floor area things

53:02 ↗ that designate in the commercial retail

53:05 ↗ area how much of the entitlement was

53:07 ↗ commercial

53:08 ↗ and how much of it was retail and how

53:10 ↗ much is in the overall plan

53:13 ↗ in the undeveloped lands

53:16 ↗ i don't see where that this might be

53:18 ↗ where that needs to be because it's like

53:20 ↗ a neighborhood overlay but maybe it

53:22 ↗ needs to be somewhere else because

53:24 ↗ we want to retain the vision of the

53:26 ↗ master plan community

53:28 ↗ and it's a very strong intent of being a

53:31 ↗ place to live work and play

53:34 ↗ if i haven't

53:36 ↗ said that very clearly

53:38 ↗ just call me and ask me but i'm just

53:40 ↗ concerned about the completion of the

53:42 ↗ community and so we need

53:44 ↗ more maybe more detail than others do

53:47 ↗ thank you

53:52 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan

53:54 ↗ planning policy always looking for

53:56 ↗ more detail

54:01 ↗ would anyone else like to comment

54:06 ↗ i'll keep it brief i will second the

54:08 ↗ comments by both commissioner milligan

54:10 ↗ and commissioner lewis

54:17 ↗ any other comment as far as tonight's

54:19 ↗ deliberations on either three subject

54:25 ↗ commissioner bader

54:27 ↗ yeah sarah bader i'll just um

54:30 ↗ i guess plus two um in the comments and

54:33 ↗ like as i read on the um

54:36 ↗ development bonus example like i feel

54:38 ↗ like i know universe would 111 thousand

54:41 ↗ dollars and make 1200 square foot of

54:44 ↗ affordable housing

54:45 ↗ um

54:46 ↗ and so

54:48 ↗ it's not

54:49 ↗ it kind of i feel like makes the

54:50 ↗ affordable housing option like a

54:52 ↗ non-choice um

54:54 ↗ and so i

54:56 ↗ i understand kind of the

54:59 ↗ logic a little bit for like a fee in

55:01 ↗ lieu but support if it can be removed

55:03 ↗ the removal of it because i don't think

55:05 ↗ affordable housing if that's the intent

55:07 ↗ of this will ever be the

55:09 ↗ preferred option from a developer

55:18 ↗ thank you commissioner bader

55:23 ↗ any other comments

55:27 ↗ fantastic discussion thank you

55:28 ↗ commissioners um hopefully staff you got

55:31 ↗ what you needed

55:32 ↗ in order to uh go back and as was

55:34 ↗ previously said

55:36 ↗ more homework

55:39 ↗ all right so i believe that takes care

55:41 ↗ of regular business for this evening so

55:44 ↗ moving on to reports

55:48 ↗ city council updates

55:51 ↗ mini valerie do we have any updates from

55:53 ↗ the city council

55:55 ↗ sure i can provide a quick update so

55:58 ↗ council adopted

56:00 ↗ new code enforcement procedures um

56:02 ↗ last this week

56:04 ↗ so as we work on the code update uh you

56:06 ↗ know we'll have um new code enforcement

56:09 ↗ procedures um in place

56:12 ↗ um

56:12 ↗ and so the basic uh emphasis there was

56:15 ↗ there was a lot of confusion between

56:17 ↗ what went to the municipal court what

56:19 ↗ went to the hearing examiner and and uh

56:22 ↗ and there were you know maximum

56:24 ↗ penalties that we could or couldn't uh

56:26 ↗ establish in any case all of that is

56:28 ↗ cleaned up and um

56:31 ↗ we'll have a clear process of when we

56:33 ↗ get a complaint uh how that's processed

56:36 ↗ we send a courtesy notice to get

56:38 ↗ compliance obviously our our purpose is

56:40 ↗ to get compliance rather than just

56:41 ↗ penalize folks so

56:43 ↗ um and then that will be followed by a

56:45 ↗ notice of violation that then will give

56:47 ↗ the due process to

56:49 ↗ anyone who's part of that um you know uh

56:52 ↗ that process uh to appeal to the hearing

56:55 ↗ examiner um so that is has been adopted

56:58 ↗ and it does touch a little bit um

57:01 ↗ a portion in the title 18 so council had

57:03 ↗ to make a decision to

57:05 ↗ process that separate from this overall

57:07 ↗ um

57:08 ↗ title 18 update and the and they were

57:10 ↗ unanimous

57:12 ↗ in agreement with that that needed to

57:14 ↗ occur

57:15 ↗ so um that's one update

57:17 ↗ uh the other one you know we've been

57:19 ↗ going to council after every uh one

57:22 ↗ bucket finishes uh the the round with

57:25 ↗ the planning policy and the joint board

57:27 ↗ uh so the last time we went to them with

57:29 ↗ the zoning and uses uh section and

57:31 ↗ discussion

57:32 ↗ one of the the asks from the committee

57:35 ↗ is to come back to planning and policy

57:37 ↗ commission on

57:39 ↗ uh the the 250 grid and zero lot line

57:43 ↗ discussion and put a filter on for uh

57:46 ↗ how that meets goal

57:48 ↗ um related to housing diversity so we

57:50 ↗ will bring a memo back for your

57:52 ↗ consideration we're hoping

57:54 ↗ july 14th

57:56 ↗ um

57:57 ↗ two other things that the committee has

57:58 ↗ asked us is one

58:00 ↗ uh creating um you know um when the

58:04 ↗ climate action plan was adopted there

58:06 ↗ was a lot of uh things that had title 18

58:09 ↗ sort of attached to

58:11 ↗ uh those as implementation so we're

58:13 ↗ working on a table we're calling it an

58:15 ↗ icap table and title 18 you know where

58:17 ↗ that connection was supposed to be met

58:20 ↗ and uh and where we're meeting the mark

58:22 ↗ with this title 18 update and where

58:24 ↗ we're still a work in progress so we'll

58:27 ↗ be sharing that table with the council

58:28 ↗ committee uh at their next july 7th

58:32 ↗ uh meeting

58:33 ↗ and we'll bring that back for ppc

58:37 ↗ with some analysis of the sustainability

58:39 ↗ goals and i agree with you the the

58:41 ↗ paragraph that in the code now

58:44 ↗ uh chair voice that i was puzzled by

58:46 ↗ that myself i i don't think it's more of

58:49 ↗ an intense statement than a regulatory

58:51 ↗ language so we have some work to do

58:53 ↗ there

58:55 ↗ but we'll have that discussion when we

58:57 ↗ bring the icap table and some policy

59:00 ↗ options for your consideration um in the

59:02 ↗ coming meetings uh the last thing the

59:05 ↗ whiteboard list or the future you know

59:08 ↗ discussion topics uh so we're working on

59:11 ↗ that we want to be open and transparent

59:13 ↗ at what's on that list we'll be

59:15 ↗ including that with

59:16 ↗ for at this point in time where we are

59:19 ↗ in the process we'll we'll we'll share

59:21 ↗ uh with the council committee on july

59:23 ↗ 7th

59:24 ↗ and then of course uh the process that

59:26 ↗ we've uh always

59:28 ↗ anticipated doing with the planning and

59:30 ↗ policy commission is once we go through

59:31 ↗ all six buckets we will have that

59:34 ↗ uh list to make sure that we didn't miss

59:36 ↗ anything from your perspective and and

59:39 ↗ anything that else um

59:40 ↗ that needs to be added to the list so

59:42 ↗ we'll we'll have that discussion with

59:44 ↗ with you all in the future as well so

59:46 ↗ that's all in terms of council

59:48 ↗ discussion and

59:49 ↗ reports

59:52 ↗ great thank you minnie i know we're all

59:54 ↗ excited to see what's made it onto the

59:56 ↗ whiteboard

59:58 ↗ [Laughter]

1:00:01 ↗ yeah thank you and as far as uh

1:00:04 ↗ the last part of our meeting tonight any

1:00:06 ↗ other business or announcements from

1:00:08 ↗ staff

1:00:09 ↗ mini valerie kristen

1:00:11 ↗ i

1:00:12 ↗ i have just one um quick announcement

1:00:14 ↗ which is um in person meetings we'll

1:00:16 ↗ start back up in july so the next

1:00:19 ↗ meeting um july 14th will be in person

1:00:22 ↗ at the council chambers so that's it

1:00:26 ↗ see you there looking forward to it

1:00:30 ↗ yeah and uh recruitment for planning

1:00:32 ↗ manager is open we have uh some

1:00:36 ↗ uh interviews coming up uh for that but

1:00:38 ↗ if you have any feedback for us in terms

1:00:41 ↗ of you know your

1:00:43 ↗ wish list for an ideal candidate any

1:00:45 ↗ questions we should ask in the interview

1:00:47 ↗ or if any one of you wants to

1:00:49 ↗ participate in the interview just send

1:00:51 ↗ me an email

1:00:53 ↗ appreciate any feedback or any input you

1:00:55 ↗ want to have in that process

1:00:59 ↗ excellent well thank you minnie thank

1:01:00 ↗ you valerie

1:01:02 ↗ commissioners is there anything

1:01:04 ↗ like to add

1:01:05 ↗ before we depart

1:01:09 ↗ all right well i want to thank everyone

1:01:10 ↗ who's watching us tonight uh for

1:01:12 ↗ choosing to spend their evening with us

1:01:14 ↗ thank you commissioners thank you staff

1:01:17 ↗ i know all of us love being here but it

1:01:19 ↗ is a gorgeous day outside so

1:01:21 ↗ we will adjourn tonight at 7 31 pm and

1:01:24 ↗ we will see you next time

1:01:26 ↗ in city chambers

1:01:28 ↗ bye everybody

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Monahan

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan Absence:

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes