Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 14, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 13, 2023

packet pp.3–7

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, July 13, 2023

Minutes of Aug 24, 2023

packet pp.9–14

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, August 24, 2023

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Neighborhood Planning, (D)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.15–26

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this September 14, 2023,

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.67–69

▶ Watch from 52:57 Open packet at p.67 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2022 1/12/23 1/19/23 1/26/23 (Special Meeting) Title 18 – Final Draft Introduction Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft ▪ Part 1 – General Provisions ▪ Part 5 – Specified Use Standards

1403 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ foreign

0:04 ↗ policy Commissioners staff

0:07 ↗ and our watchful public

0:10 ↗ I would like to call the September 14th

0:12 ↗ meeting of the planning policy

0:13 ↗ commission to order and it is currently

0:15 ↗ 6 30 P.M

0:17 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:19 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:21 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:23 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:25 ↗ person

0:26 ↗ attendance Kristen do we have a quorum

0:29 ↗ this evening

0:32 ↗ yes we do we have two excuse absences

0:35 ↗ commissioner Kennedy and commissioner

0:36 ↗ esmaid

0:38 ↗ excellent thank you

0:40 ↗ our first item of business

0:43 ↗ is to do some basic things like

0:44 ↗ approving our minutes from the July 13th

0:47 ↗ and August 24th meetings

0:49 ↗ has everyone been able to review the

0:51 ↗ packets are there any corrections or

0:54 ↗ concerns with the July 13th minutes

0:58 ↗ hearing none

1:00 ↗ I'm hearing a nope those minutes are

1:02 ↗ approved

1:04 ↗ and the same for the August 24th meeting

1:06 ↗ are there any concerns or Corrections

1:10 ↗ right both sets of minutes are approved

1:14 ↗ now we're at next item of business is

1:16 ↗ public comments and we will hold it at

1:19 ↗ this time Jared has anybody signed up

1:21 ↗ for them no one has signed up online or

1:24 ↗ in person at this time

1:27 ↗ excellent

1:30 ↗ so tonight our first order of regular

1:32 ↗ business item uh as far as reviewing and

1:35 ↗ the deliberation of the land use element

1:37 ↗ specifically the neighborhood planning

1:40 ↗ for the comprehensive plan periodic

1:43 ↗ update

1:44 ↗ Kristen our senior planner will be

1:46 ↗ presenting tonight

1:48 ↗ Kristen this Mike is yours

1:55 ↗ all right good evening I'm Kristen

1:56 ↗ Leeson senior planner with the community

1:58 ↗ Planning and Development Department

2:01 ↗ and yes we're going to start with land

2:02 ↗ use element and neighborhood planning in

2:05 ↗ particular so we did the land you

2:06 ↗ settlement and then we said we're going

2:07 ↗ to bring the southern part land use

2:09 ↗ planning and insert it in so we're just

2:11 ↗ going to talk about those policies

2:15 ↗ the purpose is to review it

2:18 ↗ and then address these questions do you

2:21 ↗ have feedback regarding the proposed

2:23 ↗ neighborhood

2:24 ↗ sub areas with maps do the proposed

2:28 ↗ goals and policies address potential

2:30 ↗ necessary topics for neighborhood

2:31 ↗ planning and are the topics not being

2:33 ↗ addressed and are there topics not being

2:35 ↗ addressed in here

2:47 ↗ so starting with the map uh this these

2:50 ↗ sub areas were adopted back in 1995 with

2:53 ↗ the original comprehensive plan and

2:55 ↗ there were eight sub areas at the time

2:57 ↗ and since then since the uh since the

2:59 ↗ city has annexed in areas of sub areas

3:01 ↗ have changed such as cyber Central

3:03 ↗ Issaquah we now have 15.

3:06 ↗ and this area right here you can barely

3:11 ↗ see the white on white was the King

3:13 ↗ County donut that I talk about and it

3:16 ↗ wasn't even annexed at the time so and

3:18 ↗ now it has been

3:21 ↗ so the self-reflection or 2017

3:23 ↗ neighborhoods map was done as a part we

3:26 ↗ used to have a neighborhood Outreach

3:28 ↗ coordinator

3:29 ↗ and when she started here she went out

3:31 ↗ reasonably and worked with the community

3:34 ↗ to say what neighborhood do you identify

3:37 ↗ with

3:38 ↗ and this is the map that was produced

3:41 ↗ from that

3:44 ↗ not officially adopted but introduced

3:46 ↗ out of that Community effort

3:49 ↗ so you can see kind of on here the

3:50 ↗ colors are the neighborhoods and the red

3:52 ↗ lines are the sub areas and they don't

3:55 ↗ line up

3:56 ↗ so these are used for

3:58 ↗ planning purposes we plan you know we

4:00 ↗ look at Future planning using these sub

4:02 ↗ areas the current planners use it to

4:04 ↗ identify where projects are located

4:06 ↗ other departments use it for other

4:07 ↗ reasons communication still uses it when

4:10 ↗ they reach out to neighborhoods but it's

4:12 ↗ really caused some problems internally

4:13 ↗ and with the community is confusion and

4:16 ↗ frustration and so and there are places

4:18 ↗ that no longer have sub-areas that are

4:21 ↗ no longer in sub-areas because we

4:22 ↗ changed the centralized car boundary we

4:24 ↗ had Annex the King County donut so we

4:27 ↗ gotta fix it so

4:29 ↗ uh whoops

4:31 ↗ to do it we have Incorporated the

4:34 ↗ community input from the 2017 map we've

4:37 ↗ addressed the 2018 2018 changes to

4:39 ↗ Central Issaquah and we're also

4:41 ↗ addressing as I said the annexation of

4:43 ↗ the King County donut

4:45 ↗ so I'm going to go through these uh

4:47 ↗ parcel or piece by piece for Central

4:50 ↗ Issaquah the neighborhoods map had cut

4:53 ↗ out part of the Newport area which is

4:56 ↗ actually his own village as an internal

4:58 ↗ part of central it also

4:59 ↗ uh took out Issaquah Valley

5:02 ↗ which is zoned Mur and then Central

5:04 ↗ issaquasa we took those back into

5:07 ↗ Central Issaquah because those have

5:09 ↗ standards associated with them that are

5:11 ↗ separate

5:13 ↗ Issaquah Highlands we absorbed part of

5:15 ↗ the King County area that was annexed

5:19 ↗ and it is all zoned

5:21 ↗ we also took part of the donut but it's

5:23 ↗ also in community facilities and most of

5:25 ↗ its Community facilities open space

5:35 ↗ it's fine if you want to do it now

5:37 ↗ because yeah commissioner Milligan yeah

5:40 ↗ I think this is where I had a question

5:42 ↗ about the King County donut

5:43 ↗ um

5:44 ↗ I could see why you'd put it in Issaquah

5:46 ↗ Highlands but it seemed like it was not

5:49 ↗ yet determined whether access because of

5:51 ↗ the utilities that are going in there

5:53 ↗ now are accessed by the road below

5:56 ↗ okay yeah and so I was just kind of

5:57 ↗ wondering about how access might

5:59 ↗ determine what neighborhood that's in

6:01 ↗ and where that boundary line goes and it

6:03 ↗ has it has to it did determine some of

6:05 ↗ these so we can take another look at

6:07 ↗ that

6:10 ↗ revisit it

6:15 ↗ excuse me Issaquah Valley

6:18 ↗ we just took as I mentioned earlier we

6:20 ↗ took out the portion that was in central

6:21 ↗ Issaquah and

6:23 ↗ took it just south of

6:26 ↗ Holly there

6:29 ↗ so we also changed it

6:34 ↗ it was called Newport I just said name

6:36 ↗ changed from but it was a name change

6:37 ↗ from Newport

6:39 ↗ Mantra there was no change and I

6:41 ↗ realized that there are some parcels

6:43 ↗ outside here in the neighborhoods map

6:44 ↗ but that area has since been removed

6:47 ↗ from Issaquah

6:50 ↗ Newport

6:52 ↗ we removed the Eastern Eastern portion

6:54 ↗ that belongs in central Issaquah we also

6:57 ↗ move portions into the Tibbetts Creek

6:59 ↗ Valley area

7:01 ↗ and it just I know it looks weird it

7:04 ↗ will go across you know just continues

7:06 ↗ down that road

7:10 ↗ North Issaquah it takes

7:14 ↗ art of central Issaquah

7:18 ↗ no former part I'm sorry it takes a

7:20 ↗ former part of central Issaquah part of

7:22 ↗ the King County donut and Lakeside as

7:24 ↗ well

7:24 ↗ and most of these were identified this

7:27 ↗ way they identified with North issaquad

7:29 ↗ during the 2017 communication

7:31 ↗ Outreach they did

7:33 ↗ and then it also removes Providence

7:36 ↗ Ridge because as commissioner Milligan

7:38 ↗ just pointed out access comes from 43rd

7:41 ↗ and 228 and they also have a trail that

7:44 ↗ goes through those properties together

7:46 ↗ so that's why we removed that one

7:49 ↗ uh yeah so same with the Lakeside

7:53 ↗ I'm remembering that Lakeside is

7:55 ↗ accessed from Highlands Drive and that

7:58 ↗ the lower section remains Industrial

8:02 ↗ and not a neighborhood entrance

8:07 ↗ so just another look at that at that

8:09 ↗ weather I mean it seems so logical to

8:11 ↗ put it in North Issaquah but it was also

8:13 ↗ orienting to Issaquah Highlands for

8:15 ↗ another reason I'm sorry I'm now I'm

8:17 ↗ just going off memory this is popping up

8:19 ↗ in my head bubbly

8:21 ↗ um lakesides at Urban Village that

8:24 ↗ orients to the commercial that is in

8:26 ↗ Issaquah Highlands doesn't provide much

8:28 ↗ commercial of its own because it's so

8:29 ↗ adjacent so it's kind of part of a

8:32 ↗ I don't know I don't know if I draw the

8:34 ↗ boundaries around it but I'm just saying

8:36 ↗ thank you

8:39 ↗ Old Town also takes in part of

8:44 ↗ what used to be in central Issaquah and

8:45 ↗ we had a conversation about this several

8:47 ↗ years ago when we were doing the Old

8:48 ↗ Town sub area

8:50 ↗ and we were worried that and the

8:52 ↗ property owners were concerned that if

8:53 ↗ they came into Old Town that they would

8:55 ↗ have to comply with the old town design

8:56 ↗ standards but they're actually zoned Old

8:58 ↗ Town of design standards apply to

9:01 ↗ Central or cultural and business

9:02 ↗ district and multi-family they do not

9:05 ↗ apply to mixed use so if they were to

9:07 ↗ come into Old Town the design standards

9:09 ↗ would not apply to those businesses

9:11 ↗ it wouldn't be a rezone it's just a

9:13 ↗ change in boundary line

9:17 ↗ Providence Point as I mentioned took in

9:19 ↗ Forest Ridge

9:23 ↗ South Lakes Sammamish did not change

9:25 ↗ except the name it was Greenwood Point

9:27 ↗ now at South Lake Sammamish the

9:28 ↗ residents actually asked for that

9:30 ↗ was South Cove didn't like Cobb being

9:33 ↗ called Greenwood Point in Greenwood

9:34 ↗ Point didn't like being called South

9:35 ↗ Coast so this was their compromise

9:39 ↗ guac Mountain we took out a part on the

9:42 ↗ western side and put it in Tibbetts

9:44 ↗ Valley and a lot of that is because of

9:46 ↗ the topography and the zoning the zoning

9:50 ↗ to the West on the west Western part of

9:54 ↗ that is Zone single family estates so

9:57 ↗ it's a much lower density than the

9:58 ↗ single family Suburban on the that's

10:00 ↗ currently in squawk mountain

10:02 ↗ and the

10:06 ↗ I'll show you in a minute but the the

10:08 ↗ two zonings were different we felt like

10:09 ↗ the areas were different when we planned

10:11 ↗ for it it's going to be different and so

10:13 ↗ that's why we took that out and then we

10:14 ↗ made some Access Corrections on the

10:16 ↗ bottom East uh on the northeast corner I

10:19 ↗ mean sorry Southeast corner and changing

10:21 ↗ boundary lines to match up with parcels

10:25 ↗ Sycamore uh this is where we made the

10:28 ↗ adjustment because of access on squawk

10:30 ↗ Mountain

10:32 ↗ um we you cannot access this portion

10:35 ↗ that's in blue right there from Sycamore

10:37 ↗ so we changed that to go to squawk

10:39 ↗ mountain and again Justin bound adjusted

10:41 ↗ some boundary lines

10:45 ↗ in Talus we removed Forest Ridge a lot

10:47 ↗ of people because it developed up there

10:49 ↗ I think it is part of Talus and it's

10:51 ↗ adjacent to it but it's not it is

10:53 ↗ actually it was done as part of a

10:54 ↗ development agreement it's cluster

10:56 ↗ housing and it was done separately we

10:58 ↗ took that out and then the parcel that's

11:00 ↗ in the sort of mustard color here was an

11:03 ↗ expansion parcel originally for Talus

11:05 ↗ and is developing under their

11:06 ↗ regulations so because Talus has design

11:09 ↗ standards and regulations we left that

11:11 ↗ there and took out Forestry

11:16 ↗ Davis Creek Valley this is the was part

11:20 ↗ of it's block mountain the west side and

11:22 ↗ it was also part of

11:25 ↗ I can't remember what that was called

11:27 ↗ but it ran along Newport but this is

11:30 ↗ another one of those situations where

11:31 ↗ the zoning is the same is similar in

11:33 ↗ these areas they have environmental

11:34 ↗ critical areas environmental constraints

11:37 ↗ and when we look at planning we look at

11:40 ↗ these more similarly these are these are

11:42 ↗ much more akin to each other

11:44 ↗ where they were before

11:47 ↗ so this is what the proposed

11:48 ↗ neighborhoods map looks like

11:50 ↗ everybody has a home now

11:53 ↗ um

11:53 ↗ and we will take you know some of those

11:56 ↗ comments regarding access into account

11:58 ↗ we've also sent this out to directors of

12:00 ↗ other departments because it's not just

12:02 ↗ our department it uses its

12:04 ↗ Communications Public Works Parks they

12:05 ↗ use it as well we've sent that out so

12:07 ↗ far no comments back but there may be

12:11 ↗ changes as a result of that

12:14 ↗ so we also did policies

12:17 ↗ this is one of those ones that I got

12:19 ↗ wrong in the packet but

12:22 ↗ this is to set a template for when we go

12:25 ↗ out and do individual neighborhood plans

12:27 ↗ what are things that we need to consider

12:29 ↗ when we do those individual plans this

12:31 ↗ is not doing the plans it's just

12:33 ↗ preparing for that because we want

12:34 ↗ everything to be consistent we want to

12:36 ↗ make sure that we're looking at all the

12:37 ↗ same things with each of these

12:39 ↗ neighborhoods and this I'm not sure

12:41 ↗ where it'll fit yet right now we have it

12:43 ↗ I think under development patterns um

12:45 ↗ but it's in the land use code so the

12:48 ↗ draft language for the goal full Z

12:50 ↗ develop neighborhood plans that aim to

12:52 ↗ establish welcoming attractive and

12:53 ↗ walkable neighborhoods

12:55 ↗ with various amenities that support the

12:57 ↗ city's cultural and economic

12:58 ↗ economically diverse community

13:05 ↗ policy X11

13:07 ↗ wrong in the chart but right in the um

13:10 ↗ element itself

13:12 ↗ adapt guiding principles from the city's

13:14 ↗ neighborhood planning guide for each

13:16 ↗ neighborhood and develop new guiding

13:18 ↗ principles as may be needed to address

13:19 ↗ the unique interests and needs of each

13:21 ↗ of the neighborhoods residents

13:23 ↗ I think the apostrophe is

13:30 ↗ policy N3 isn't new we just moved it

13:32 ↗ down because it addresses neighborhoods

13:34 ↗ specifically to allow for neighborhoods

13:36 ↗ small-scale hubs retail and personal

13:38 ↗ services in residential areas

13:43 ↗ policy X8 create 10-minute neighborhoods

13:46 ↗ while maintaining a sense of opening

13:48 ↗ open welcoming and inviting Community

13:50 ↗ with multimodal home activity and

13:52 ↗ accessibility in 10-minute neighborhoods

13:53 ↗ or if it's a fairly common term in

13:56 ↗ planning and it's you walk a half a mile

13:58 ↗ anywhere you can walk them a half mile

13:59 ↗ perks half a mile of services half a

14:02 ↗ mile of school that's the idea of a

14:04 ↗ 10-minute neighborhood is that

14:05 ↗ everything is walkable and can be

14:09 ↗ yeah

14:12 ↗ is this for all 15 regions or only some

14:15 ↗ of for all of them

14:17 ↗ so we have some area plans right now for

14:19 ↗ Central Issaquah and Old Town and those

14:21 ↗ get updated so once those are updated

14:23 ↗ those would also

14:25 ↗ how does that work in squawks

14:31 ↗ um The Proposal so there's a proposal in

14:33 ↗ the land use code well and actually the

14:35 ↗ one that we just looked at too to allow

14:37 ↗ for

14:38 ↗ small scale you're right and for schools

14:40 ↗ it may not work for some things that may

14:43 ↗ not work but for Parks it could for

14:44 ↗ small scale Neighborhood Services it

14:46 ↗ could work if we allow if we change

14:48 ↗ zoning to allow those in there then you

14:50 ↗ can have that

14:51 ↗ I'm just thinking more of the

14:53 ↗ steep residential only neighborhoods

14:57 ↗ you drop a ball it ends up right and

15:00 ↗ this isn't something to actually access

15:02 ↗ to put into every single plan but it's

15:04 ↗ something to consider in every single

15:06 ↗ plan we want to be sure that we're

15:07 ↗ considering all the same factors for

15:09 ↗ every neighborhood

15:11 ↗ is when the word create makes it sound

15:13 ↗ like directive I was wondering whether

15:16 ↗ that was intended for all 15 or

15:18 ↗ as like reasonable effort to make

15:21 ↗ because some of them I mean Municipal

15:24 ↗ Valley it's very easy

15:25 ↗ and

15:26 ↗ pallets should be easy like squawk for

15:30 ↗ example

15:31 ↗ this may be harder because it Hills

15:33 ↗ but it's something we can't just ignore

15:34 ↗ we still need to talk about it because

15:36 ↗ we have heard it in the past that people

15:38 ↗ would like Services closer

15:45 ↗ commissioner

15:48 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you

15:49 ↗ commissioner cross I agree that the word

15:51 ↗ create seems to be an order you know I'm

15:56 ↗ not a something to think about but

15:58 ↗ actually do it so that word and then I

16:00 ↗ wondered about the 10-minute

16:02 ↗ neighborhoods as a standard we don't

16:03 ↗ have it capitalized but you do have an

16:05 ↗ asterisk and thought that I'm not

16:09 ↗ against the philosophy here but the

16:12 ↗ verbiage because if a 10-minute

16:14 ↗ neighborhood which I am not certain that

16:16 ↗ it does but if it comes to define

16:18 ↗ something

16:19 ↗ that has required certain elements in it

16:22 ↗ then you have to create a 10-minute

16:24 ↗ neighborhood then you have to be have

16:25 ↗ all of those things in it say it say

16:27 ↗ schools are required so you have to have

16:28 ↗ an elementary school

16:30 ↗ neighborhood I wouldn't be against that

16:33 ↗ but I would just um want to say here

16:35 ↗ that uh be care be mindful what you're

16:38 ↗ saying if you're using a definition that

16:40 ↗ we don't have

16:43 ↗ I don't know if 10 minute neighborhoods

16:45 ↗ is the right phrase

16:52 ↗ people here

17:00 ↗ I'm not I'm not saying I'm against using

17:03 ↗ the I'm not against having 10-minute

17:05 ↗ neighborhoods I'd love to I'm just

17:06 ↗ saying right be careful what you wish

17:09 ↗ for that's what I'm saying

17:11 ↗ I think you said some of the topography

17:13 ↗ those things limit Sycamore

17:16 ↗ there's a few of them well in developers

17:18 ↗ you know developer may not come in and

17:20 ↗ put something in there right

17:23 ↗ consideration

17:25 ↗ yeah I don't really have anything new to

17:28 ↗ add other than like I saw this and I

17:30 ↗ like loved it in theory and then was

17:32 ↗ like oh

17:33 ↗ um because I think even in Talus which

17:34 ↗ feels like it should have services like

17:37 ↗ there's nothing like in Dallas right

17:39 ↗ like we are on an island up there with

17:41 ↗ croissants and nothing else essentially

17:44 ↗ um it's a 10 minute walk down that Hill

17:46 ↗ it is it's actually exactly 10 minutes

17:48 ↗ from my house to the croissant place but

17:49 ↗ like everybody else down there they're

17:51 ↗ they're too far

17:53 ↗ um and so yeah I don't know what that

17:54 ↗ looks like in a place like Dallas

17:56 ↗ because there's not really like I know

17:58 ↗ there's like maybe some new development

17:59 ↗ on that like Landslide area but like how

18:02 ↗ does that happen we need it desperately

18:04 ↗ because you have to drive to get it to

18:06 ↗ anything

18:08 ↗ um even like bike riding is hard right

18:11 ↗ make it up that hill is challenging

18:13 ↗ um so yeah I don't know what I'm trying

18:16 ↗ to say but like I would love to see it

18:17 ↗ but don't

18:19 ↗ it sounds like there's a lot of

18:20 ↗ agreement just like the word create like

18:22 ↗ you said it's but it sounds like

18:23 ↗ Kristen's saying the intention is that

18:25 ↗ it's it's really more about allowing

18:27 ↗ having the conversation we're not

18:29 ↗ treating different sub areas different

18:31 ↗ neighborhoods differently just as not

18:34 ↗ showing favorites Christopher Patterson

18:36 ↗ um yeah just the poem like I again love

18:38 ↗ the idea of this

18:40 ↗ um I think what stuck out to this

18:42 ↗ particular policy to me is it seems very

18:45 ↗ specific in like the measurement and

18:48 ↗ what we're asking for here compared to

18:50 ↗ the others or a little bit more broad

18:51 ↗ whereas this one kind of drills down to

18:53 ↗ like we need this one specific thing to

18:55 ↗ happen

18:56 ↗ um one consideration I'd have which your

18:58 ↗ comment just now made me almost

18:59 ↗ Backtrack on it was is this something

19:01 ↗ that could be considered as a

19:04 ↗ characteristic or criteria of certain

19:06 ↗ neighborhoods that would lend themselves

19:09 ↗ to it more

19:11 ↗ um

19:12 ↗ but then again if we're treating them

19:14 ↗ all equally maybe that doesn't quite

19:16 ↗ make sense so I'm kind of struggling

19:18 ↗ with where to go with this one but um I

19:21 ↗ guess the specificity of it is what kind

19:23 ↗ of I think makes me pause a little bit

19:25 ↗ but the idea behind it is great okay

19:30 ↗ okay since we're word smithing and I

19:32 ↗ don't normally do this

19:33 ↗ um

19:34 ↗ the intent is great I understand the

19:37 ↗ consistency but instead of creating it's

19:39 ↗ really we're advocating for 10 minutes

19:41 ↗ neighborhoods and by doing that

19:44 ↗ it then it only becomes reality in the

19:46 ↗ ones that make sense

19:48 ↗ um as opposed to trying to be more

19:50 ↗ directive in the one trying to fit

19:51 ↗ something that doesn't fit like in the

19:53 ↗ top squawk

19:56 ↗ it could be just you can either say

19:58 ↗ create where it makes sense or you could

20:00 ↗ just use a different word like Advocate

20:02 ↗ and then I think that's also problem

20:04 ↗ okay we'll take a stab at this one not

20:06 ↗ make it quite so specific not use the

20:09 ↗ word create

20:10 ↗ and uh

20:12 ↗ maybe rethink the name 10-minute

20:14 ↗ neighborhood

20:16 ↗ all right

20:17 ↗ good feedback thank you

20:20 ↗ all right X9

20:22 ↗ celebrate the history and culture of

20:24 ↗ each neighborhood through public art

20:25 ↗ signage and wayfinding elements

20:28 ↗ I went to the Arts commission meeting

20:30 ↗ the other night to talk about the plan

20:31 ↗ and because they have the cultural

20:33 ↗ element to work on and I said hey maybe

20:36 ↗ you could be a part of this one

20:40 ↗ with that

20:41 ↗ almost the x10 maintain and enhance each

20:44 ↗ neighborhood's unique design

20:46 ↗ characteristics through best practices

20:48 ↗ in design and development regulations

20:58 ↗ so that's yeah when it comes to

21:03 ↗ this

21:05 ↗ John crass when it comes to

21:08 ↗ development regulations who sets those

21:10 ↗ at the neighborhood how does that

21:13 ↗ we would set them at

21:16 ↗ that's a tricky one because some

21:18 ↗ neighborhoods have HOAs we're actually

21:20 ↗ just talking about this today some

21:22 ↗ neighborhoods have HOAs and you can't

21:24 ↗ really those supersede

21:27 ↗ Providence Point Dallas and Isco

21:29 ↗ Highlands are probably

21:31 ↗ multiple HOAs in each one but those are

21:33 ↗ more probably versus some of the other

21:35 ↗ ones but right and even you know and

21:38 ↗ this is bigger and it's not single

21:40 ↗ family but Central Issaquah has

21:41 ↗ standards in place Old Town has

21:43 ↗ standards in place but the old the old

21:44 ↗ town standards were actually established

21:46 ↗ by the city for Old Town

21:49 ↗ um at at their request they don't yeah

21:52 ↗ so um that one that one's a little

21:54 ↗ tricky

21:55 ↗ um and it design characteristics may be

21:58 ↗ parks

22:00 ↗ probably not single-family houses but

22:02 ↗ maybe it's if you do have neighborhood

22:04 ↗ hubs that come in it's for the

22:05 ↗ commercial structures it's for the

22:07 ↗ schools

22:08 ↗ so it may not be for single-family

22:10 ↗ houses it's just an overall feel

22:12 ↗ I guess my question was more broader

22:14 ↗ when you when you have 15 neighborhoods

22:16 ↗ and we're saying each has their own

22:19 ↗ best practices around design and

22:20 ↗ development regulations it opens up the

22:22 ↗ question of who then is the Creator and

22:26 ↗ decider on what those development

22:28 ↗ regulations are and that needs to be

22:30 ↗ addressed or is it

22:33 ↗ well I mean we would work with the

22:35 ↗ residents just like we did with the old

22:37 ↗ town we would work with residents

22:39 ↗ to figure out what those are and then

22:42 ↗ ultimately the city council would

22:43 ↗ approve them if they're adopted into the

22:45 ↗ code if I understand it uh chair voice

22:48 ↗ if if I understand it correctly Kristen

22:49 ↗ the idea is that new development they

22:52 ↗ can either they have to meet the

22:54 ↗ standard but they can go above and

22:56 ↗ beyond with an HOA yes but ultimately

22:58 ↗ they have they have to pick that

22:59 ↗ Baseline right all of Issaquah Highlands

23:01 ↗ but like you said basically an HOA for a

23:04 ↗ new development could take those

23:05 ↗ standards be more aggressive right so

23:08 ↗ the city's already set the setback we

23:10 ↗ said on the you know front sides and

23:12 ↗ rear we set the height limits sometimes

23:15 ↗ you know depending on what neighborhood

23:17 ↗ you're in we set the floor area ratio we

23:19 ↗ set the basic development on the ground

23:21 ↗ standards HOAs will often do paint

23:23 ↗ colors we do setbacks in some areas but

23:26 ↗ they may do setbacks um or HOAs I'm

23:29 ↗ sorry

23:32 ↗ um not setbacks modulation

23:34 ↗ and like Central and in Old Town but

23:38 ↗ sometimes HOAs you know HOAs may not get

23:41 ↗ that deep it's more colors and height I

23:43 ↗ think with HOAs and plantings

23:44 ↗ development regulations setbacks and all

23:47 ↗ that makes sense the city sets those

23:49 ↗ designed for things that are

23:52 ↗ like Old Town totally get but I I'll use

23:54 ↗ my I live in iska Valley

23:58 ↗ which is a mixture of a whole bunch of

24:00 ↗ different things will there be a design

24:03 ↗ regulation for something that's kind of

24:06 ↗ very mixed or is it once again

24:08 ↗ if appropriate because it's not an HOA

24:11 ↗ and it's a whole bunch of different

24:13 ↗ oh

24:14 ↗ design is a subjective thing people will

24:17 ↗ have lots of opinions on development

24:19 ↗ regulations height setbacks and all that

24:21 ↗ are much more straightforward

24:23 ↗ this is really design regulations as I

24:26 ↗ thought through this

24:27 ↗ if you're not part of an HOA you have a

24:30 ↗ mixture of a whole bunch of different

24:31 ↗ stuff then

24:32 ↗ who decides and what's the process and

24:35 ↗ do you should you even have that for

24:36 ↗ example you design one and some of these

24:39 ↗ very mixed areas

24:42 ↗ can I get feedback from the rest of you

24:45 ↗ on this one

24:49 ↗ I think I understand what commissioner

24:50 ↗ grass is saying but again like the way I

24:52 ↗ see it is like it establishes the

24:54 ↗ Baseline so I'm thinking like a hold

24:56 ↗ down when we

24:57 ↗ let this two years ago three years ago

24:59 ↗ when we were looking at um

25:01 ↗ Craftsman we were looking at

25:03 ↗ paint colors so they had a palette from

25:05 ↗ which they could choose

25:07 ↗ for that portion of the town I think we

25:09 ↗ said that Old Town can have funny

25:10 ↗ colored doors you know they could have

25:12 ↗ bright yellow doors things like that but

25:14 ↗ you couldn't do that in every aspect of

25:16 ↗ the city so they can choose from a

25:17 ↗ palette of different things but

25:20 ↗ ultimately if you're an HOA if you're

25:22 ↗ part of three to four houses then

25:24 ↗ they're going to be a little bit more

25:25 ↗ strict about what you can choose from in

25:27 ↗ their development

25:38 ↗ but then you'd be directed by this

25:41 ↗ standards of that particular development

25:43 ↗ if they have it or if we came together

25:45 ↗ and we said like this neighborhood wants

25:47 ↗ x y and z

25:48 ↗ right and I want to go back to the city

25:50 ↗ doesn't want absolutely does not want to

25:53 ↗ look at paint colors for every house

25:54 ↗ that comes through the city that's not

25:56 ↗ what we are in the business to do so we

25:59 ↗ don't have the time to do that we don't

26:01 ↗ want to do that people you know it

26:03 ↗ really is more things like hype maybe

26:05 ↗ it's modulation and I think it would be

26:07 ↗ more for any commercial hubs that came

26:09 ↗ into the area for rev for commercial

26:10 ↗ development that came in not so much for

26:12 ↗ single family we do have it for

26:14 ↗ multi-family already in the code not

26:16 ↗ colors but modulation and Heights and

26:26 ↗ is is a hot button especially if you're

26:29 ↗ not in I mean HOAs take care of that and

26:32 ↗ you can decide whether that's

26:35 ↗ but when you're not in one it's just I

26:38 ↗ don't want them to be seen as the city

26:40 ↗ being in a business of

26:42 ↗ design regulations in areas

26:45 ↗ that are outside of it I would call Old

26:47 ↗ Town special

26:48 ↗ where most of the other ones are not

26:53 ↗ Mr altmore

26:56 ↗ so I think for me design is a little

26:58 ↗ broader than maybe how you're describing

27:00 ↗ it like I think about the building that

27:02 ↗ Top Pot Donuts is in it's unlikely that

27:04 ↗ that building would be built again today

27:07 ↗ under current design standards so not

27:09 ↗ just the colors but the shape and and

27:11 ↗ let's say that when Homewood Suites or

27:13 ↗ whatever that is the the rally property

27:14 ↗ went in if they had wanted to make it uh

27:17 ↗ like star-shaped and purple or light it

27:20 ↗ like T-Mobile like that's where maybe

27:22 ↗ some design pieces would have come in so

27:24 ↗ I feel like design

27:26 ↗ is is broader than what color is the

27:28 ↗ paint or is it is there Craftsman trim

27:30 ↗ on it or something like that but it's

27:32 ↗ really sort of the look and feel of the

27:34 ↗ structure itself which is where there

27:36 ↗ would be some design standards even if

27:38 ↗ it is in a mixed use area

27:41 ↗ so so the city would then decide I want

27:44 ↗ to build a building

27:45 ↗ in one of these areas what shape of the

27:48 ↗ building is or is just the economics no

27:50 ↗ one's going to build the Top Pot donut

27:51 ↗ because it's super in it

27:54 ↗ a building and the next thing will be

27:56 ↗ pollen Square

28:00 ↗ I'm just trying to understand what role

28:02 ↗ does the city have a say in

28:05 ↗ and what it should not

28:07 ↗ just be clear about it because

28:11 ↗ because this could be interpreted that

28:13 ↗ he's getting involved

28:15 ↗ Mr million

28:17 ↗ uh thank you commissioner Krause

28:18 ↗ commissioner Milligan I agree you're

28:21 ↗ you're convincing me that design

28:23 ↗ including design here

28:26 ↗ seems problematic I want to ask Kristen

28:29 ↗ about

28:31 ↗ this is a goal right it's a policy it's

28:34 ↗ a policy okay and where is it that we

28:37 ↗ say that

28:39 ↗ um development will be

28:44 ↗ that will reflect the nature of the

28:46 ↗ properties adjacent we have it in about

28:49 ↗ three different policies in the Landry

28:50 ↗ settlement

28:54 ↗ yeah that says that

28:57 ↗ that is all written and nobody argued

29:01 ↗ about that and that's even stricter than

29:03 ↗ than what you're saying is that that if

29:05 ↗ you're building in this neighborhood you

29:06 ↗ have to put a building in that looks

29:08 ↗ kind of like the neighborhood

29:09 ↗ that's already a design limitation is

29:13 ↗ that true though so that's what I'm

29:14 ↗ wondering where does that I live in the

29:16 ↗ First new modern like in my neighborhood

29:17 ↗ I was the first modern house so if that

29:21 ↗ was the policy it should never have been

29:23 ↗ built yeah well and so I'm dialing out

29:25 ↗ to the the other language where is it

29:29 ↗ and um how does it relate to this and

29:31 ↗ when does it come and play I um I'm

29:34 ↗ feeling supportive of commissioner

29:36 ↗ cross's concern that when we're outside

29:38 ↗ HOAs where we don't have enforcement of

29:41 ↗ self-enforcement the neighborhood you

29:43 ↗ know like the HOA is the

29:44 ↗ self-enforcement no we want that in a

29:45 ↗ neighborhood

29:46 ↗ um and evidence is not paint color by

29:49 ↗ the way there are four different housing

29:51 ↗ types and each little sub neighborhood

29:54 ↗ has a housing type and yeah

29:58 ↗ way

29:59 ↗ um

30:00 ↗ if we're if if we're saying and if it

30:04 ↗ were still important somewhere else in

30:06 ↗ the document that the the development

30:08 ↗ should adhere to what is already there

30:11 ↗ to create to support the unique

30:14 ↗ characteristic of the neighborhood then

30:16 ↗ you know we wouldn't have this

30:18 ↗ delightful mix that you get in some

30:21 ↗ areas that aren't regulated where you

30:23 ↗ get a modern house right next to a

30:24 ↗ Craftsman house right next to a DOT pot

30:26 ↗ donut Brown thing I love this

30:29 ↗ but yeah so I don't know so I have a

30:33 ↗ couple of thoughts one is that you can

30:35 ↗ just stop with best practices

30:40 ↗ say maintain and we don't have to we

30:42 ↗ don't have to fix it now but just some

30:43 ↗ thoughts um maintain and enhance each

30:45 ↗ neighborhood's unique design and

30:46 ↗ characteristic through Best Practices

30:48 ↗ what that is for each neighborhood

30:50 ↗ depends on each neighborhood

30:56 ↗ right

31:01 ↗ who's in favor of that Joel hands

31:08 ↗ sure

31:14 ↗ so

31:15 ↗ on the piece of design I had like an

31:17 ↗ even broader interpretation of the word

31:19 ↗ design because we're talking about

31:20 ↗ neighborhoods we're not talking about

31:21 ↗ houses and so when I think of

31:23 ↗ neighborhood design it's like

31:25 ↗ walkable right like is it

31:28 ↗ um like

31:30 ↗ like the Landscaping look like as like a

31:33 ↗ broader kind of perception of design and

31:35 ↗ less so like what color is your

31:37 ↗ individual house and like we had a

31:40 ↗ saying when I worked in planning albeit

31:41 ↗ in like a completely different country

31:43 ↗ that like you can apply to like put the

31:45 ↗ Eiffel Tower in your backyard and call

31:47 ↗ it like your house but like that doesn't

31:49 ↗ mean it'll get approved right

31:51 ↗ um and so I feel like some of this

31:52 ↗ protects from that right like so if your

31:54 ↗ neighbor applied to build the Eiffel

31:56 ↗ Tower in their backyard and called a

31:58 ↗ single-family house like they're half

31:59 ↗ like that can help right like it just

32:03 ↗ helps manage some of like that it's not

32:04 ↗ saying that like every single family

32:06 ↗ house on the street has to look like

32:08 ↗ every other single family house on the

32:10 ↗ street it could be like modern single

32:12 ↗ family house and a you know older single

32:13 ↗ family house but there's still single

32:14 ↗ houses right

32:16 ↗ um and that like gets into some of that

32:19 ↗ best practice so I'm thinking of like

32:21 ↗ design much more broadly in terms of

32:22 ↗ like feel up the neighborhood as opposed

32:24 ↗ to like the look of an individual

32:26 ↗ building and so maybe it's like a

32:27 ↗ Clarity in definition

32:30 ↗ um so

32:31 ↗ Kristen Lee said I'm gonna go back to

32:32 ↗ Old Town because that was to preserve

32:35 ↗ the character so houses started coming

32:37 ↗ into Old Town that were two stories high

32:39 ↗ two and a half stories high that were

32:42 ↗ really wide that didn't have a whole lot

32:44 ↗ of modulation and they didn't fit the

32:46 ↗ character of Old Town and people said we

32:49 ↗ want to keep this character we want our

32:51 ↗ lower

32:52 ↗ are are shorter houses so we lowered the

32:55 ↗ building height to 20 a maximum of 25

32:57 ↗ feet

32:59 ↗ um we don't want houses that have a

33:01 ↗ garage you know that are mostly garage

33:03 ↗ with a little tiny door on the side we

33:04 ↗ want the garages to be more

33:06 ↗ inconspicuous either placed in the back

33:08 ↗ if there's an alley or you know Place

33:10 ↗ further back if if there is no alley so

33:12 ↗ that you don't see it as much

33:14 ↗ um

33:15 ↗ they wanted

33:17 ↗ there were just certain things that

33:19 ↗ people asked for and they weren't super

33:21 ↗ they did want color palette so we put a

33:24 ↗ color palette in there but it's pretty

33:26 ↗ it's pretty broad

33:28 ↗ um but that's that's what they meant by

33:30 ↗ character we don't want houses with just

33:32 ↗ huge garages in the front let's let's

33:34 ↗ find a way to keep those from coming in

33:35 ↗ we don't want three-story flat roof

33:38 ↗ buildings to come in that still meet the

33:39 ↗ building height that's in place so let's

33:40 ↗ see if we can fix that and flat roofs

33:43 ↗ are still allowed they're just lower

33:45 ↗ so that that's what character was for

33:47 ↗ Old Town

33:49 ↗ let me ask you this Kristen is the idea

33:52 ↗ that eventually each

33:54 ↗ Zone will have its own plan like

33:58 ↗ um like Old Town

34:00 ↗ a naughty Zone but each neighborhood

34:01 ↗ each neighborhood so the idea is there

34:03 ↗ is going to be an underlying document

34:05 ↗ eventually

34:06 ↗ the way I see it and I'm not a big

34:09 ↗ person on regulations but I actually

34:11 ↗ agree that the language doesn't bother

34:14 ↗ me because I see it as more of like new

34:16 ↗ development and then again I see those

34:18 ↗ individual neighborhoods having their

34:20 ↗ own policies when those eventually get

34:22 ↗ written you know five years down the

34:24 ↗ road that will kind of speak to some of

34:26 ↗ those things in Old Town but I'm

34:28 ↗ thinking of Palace Highlands other areas

34:30 ↗ so again the language for me it doesn't

34:33 ↗ bother me

34:35 ↗ I guess is a unique one one of the it's

34:38 ↗ one of 15. I purposely am picking I'll

34:41 ↗ pick either Central Issaquah or

34:44 ↗ Valley which is a mixture of a whole

34:46 ↗ bunch of different stuff

34:48 ↗ it comes back down to is there it made

34:51 ↗ me nervous that we have like it must

34:53 ↗ adhere to things that are already there

34:54 ↗ which I if that's a policy I think

34:56 ↗ that's the thing we should understand a

34:58 ↗ little bit more

34:59 ↗ um because it's not the case otherwise

35:02 ↗ it'll

35:03 ↗ um things will never get built

35:06 ↗ um so I am curious and let's pick let's

35:09 ↗ forget old town for a second let's say

35:11 ↗ Central escort Valley how would this in

35:14 ↗ reality go forward of setting these

35:16 ↗ types of things today

35:18 ↗ hey

35:19 ↗ you put something out there for any

35:21 ↗ volunteers and then do you have to have

35:24 ↗ a certain amount of votes to say what a

35:27 ↗ what a regulation or a guideline is it's

35:29 ↗ it opens up a lot of questions so this

35:32 ↗ one's easy because we already have it

35:33 ↗ for Central Issaquah we have

35:34 ↗ architectural standards for Central

35:36 ↗ Issaquah and it actually dictates

35:38 ↗ different styles that you can do okay

35:41 ↗ and different and it does have a color

35:43 ↗ palette and so it's in place and it is

35:47 ↗ um done administratively now

35:51 ↗ and wouldn't it be go through the same

35:53 ↗ process the old town will bring it back

35:55 ↗ Old Town went through which is again it

35:57 ↗ goes through public hearing it's not

35:58 ↗ that it's just the city dictating by you

36:01 ↗ know two or three people commenting oh

36:02 ↗ this is what I want to see in my

36:03 ↗ neighborhood it's a whole process before

36:05 ↗ these plans are put together people have

36:07 ↗ comment period people have time and

36:09 ↗ that's really not a lot I don't think

36:11 ↗ it's more or less about stifling

36:12 ↗ creativity it's just saying certain

36:14 ↗ things are unacceptable here

36:17 ↗ again I I think

36:19 ↗ anyone want to continue or do we want to

36:21 ↗ show a hand Vice chair Bader just one

36:24 ↗ other comment just on the language in

36:25 ↗ here that it's not saying that each

36:27 ↗ neighborhood

36:28 ↗ we're gonna lock in like their unique

36:30 ↗ design characteristics for all time and

36:33 ↗ not be able to like ever change or

36:34 ↗ anything maintain and in hand

36:37 ↗ um which and it's Unique design

36:39 ↗ characteristics right it's not like

36:41 ↗ let's make everything look exactly the

36:42 ↗ same in a neighborhood because I did

36:44 ↗ this neighborhood this way

36:46 ↗ um so I also like don't I think it's

36:47 ↗ fine to cut it after best practices but

36:49 ↗ I don't have a

36:51 ↗ issue with the language grade that I

36:52 ↗ live in an HOA so like my choices are no

36:56 ↗ longer mine but

36:58 ↗ um

36:58 ↗ I feel like the language here isn't

37:00 ↗ saying I think that there's like no

37:02 ↗ opportunity to like anything different

37:04 ↗ thing like preserve the characteristic

37:07 ↗ right the feel of the neighborhood not

37:09 ↗ necessarily like

37:12 ↗ and that's why I was suggesting cutting

37:15 ↗ it after best practices because you know

37:17 ↗ not every neighborhood's going to want

37:18 ↗ it you're going to walk into you know

37:20 ↗ some neighborhood think oh no let people

37:22 ↗ we don't care you know the the character

37:24 ↗ of our area of our neighborhood is that

37:27 ↗ people build whatever they want to build

37:28 ↗ so maybe that's the unique character you

37:31 ↗ know but we do have direction from

37:33 ↗ Council too to protect the character of

37:37 ↗ existing neighborhoods within the city

37:38 ↗ so

37:41 ↗ would anyone else like to speak I think

37:42 ↗ we could probably just show staff a

37:46 ↗ by hands who feels it's best to cut

37:49 ↗ after best practices take out design and

37:52 ↗ development regulation

37:54 ↗ yeah basically after best practices take

37:57 ↗ the rest of that out

38:01 ↗ who would prefer to keep it in

38:06 ↗ there you go

38:10 ↗ okay who would like to take out design

38:23 ↗ um maybe if staff could present us with

38:25 ↗ two options because this is coming back

38:28 ↗ to us again and then we can read it as a

38:30 ↗ group and see which one we like more

38:31 ↗ yeah this is a refining process so more

38:34 ↗ to go

38:36 ↗ it's a great debate and you guys thought

38:37 ↗ policies might be boring all right this

38:40 ↗ is the planning policy I know half hour

38:43 ↗ on language

38:45 ↗ all right uh yeah so back to that was it

38:49 ↗ um

38:50 ↗ thoughts do is there anything that you

38:52 ↗ think we're leaving out we've gotten

38:54 ↗ feedback on on the individual

38:56 ↗ policies and goal is there anything

38:58 ↗ we're leaving out is there anything else

38:59 ↗ that you need from us

39:01 ↗ um

39:04 ↗ just a minor thing because I didn't know

39:06 ↗ we were going Slide by slide when we

39:08 ↗ were going so on the goal

39:10 ↗ um for this section

39:13 ↗ whatever line would

39:17 ↗ um

39:18 ↗ oh this is not

39:21 ↗ never mind apparently I'm referring to

39:23 ↗ another part of our agenda

39:26 ↗ um this kind of because I like this goal

39:29 ↗ um never mind this is what happens when

39:30 ↗ I let my laptop

39:32 ↗ commissioner Patterson

39:34 ↗ thank you commissioner Patterson

39:36 ↗ um the question I had on this one or

39:38 ↗ comment was

39:40 ↗ um the word establish so I understand

39:42 ↗ that we need to develop neighborhood

39:43 ↗ plans

39:44 ↗ uh but then it says the aim to establish

39:47 ↗ welcoming attractive and walkable

39:48 ↗ neighborhoods which I think alludes to

39:50 ↗ the idea that we don't have that right

39:52 ↗ now which I think we've also established

39:54 ↗ that we do you know we do have these

39:55 ↗ neighborhoods and they do have existing

39:57 ↗ character and existing characteristics

39:59 ↗ they just haven't been documented yet

40:02 ↗ which is I think where the developed

40:03 ↗ neighborhood plans part comes in so my

40:05 ↗ comment on this would be to remove or

40:07 ↗ reword the idea of establishing that

40:15 ↗ yeah I mean for myself I kind of see

40:17 ↗ this is a you know this is

40:19 ↗ plan going forward that word in itself

40:22 ↗ doesn't bother me but anyone else have

40:24 ↗ uh follow-up

40:30 ↗ I found my reference it was to the

40:33 ↗ um

40:34 ↗ the vision it was in our memo

40:37 ↗ um like the neighborhoods retained their

40:38 ↗ charm and distinct character I don't

40:40 ↗ know where that fits and all this

40:42 ↗ vision for this element that's an old

40:45 ↗ goal

40:47 ↗ oh I think the when I put it sorry I

40:49 ↗ don't have it with me I think the one I

40:50 ↗ put in there referred to these that's um

40:52 ↗ from the strategic plan okay the one I

40:56 ↗ just referred to

40:59 ↗ all right um final comments

41:02 ↗ I'll just quickly say

41:04 ↗ share voice I I think it's great I can

41:07 ↗ see why people were probably upset with

41:08 ↗ the prior two maps so these look to

41:11 ↗ almost be if not identical so that's

41:14 ↗ wonderful the only question I have and I

41:16 ↗ I don't think it's an issue but I'm

41:17 ↗ going to ask anyway there's two two sub

41:20 ↗ areas which will now be two

41:21 ↗ neighborhoods that are not no longer

41:23 ↗ contiguous is that a problem

41:26 ↗ that present you guys any problems

41:29 ↗ so Newport

41:31 ↗ oh in Tiger Mountain

41:33 ↗ I just wondered as far as planning as

41:35 ↗ far as communication does that actually

41:37 ↗ throw a wrench in anything tiger

41:39 ↗ Mountain's been that way for years

41:42 ↗ um we can rename one if you want it

41:43 ↗ hasn't been into or it's not an issue

41:45 ↗ for us because there's no development

41:46 ↗ there they are permanent open space so

41:49 ↗ that's why that hasn't caused an issue

41:50 ↗ for us Newport we would probably change

41:53 ↗ the road right now it's on the the line

41:56 ↗ is on the east side of the road to

41:57 ↗ probably change it to the west side of

41:59 ↗ the road so it's least it's connected by

42:00 ↗ that

42:03 ↗ um

42:03 ↗ but I it shouldn't

42:07 ↗ yeah I just didn't know how it worked

42:08 ↗ with like city funding or anything like

42:10 ↗ that no this doesn't affect funding or

42:12 ↗ design or development or anything like

42:14 ↗ that it just is really for planning and

42:16 ↗ discussion purposes okay but it has

42:19 ↗ caused frustration and confusion the the

42:21 ↗ different Maps yeah yeah

42:24 ↗ big Improvement

42:25 ↗ any final thoughts on this portion of

42:27 ↗ tonight's meeting

42:29 ↗ all right well thank you Kristen looks

42:31 ↗ like you're going to be presenting for

42:32 ↗ our second item I am which is uh

42:36 ↗ a discussion on the update of the land

42:39 ↗ use element

42:40 ↗ s please

42:49 ↗ we brought the first draft of the land

42:53 ↗ use element to you on August 24th and

42:57 ↗ just as we did with the housing element

42:58 ↗ we've gone back and addressed your

43:00 ↗ comments and made those changes and we

43:02 ↗ want to make sure that our changes

43:05 ↗ accurately reflect what you all asked

43:09 ↗ for and we're still going to need some

43:11 ↗ help with one of these

43:13 ↗ so the first one was that you all

43:14 ↗ preferred on goal L prefer the language

43:16 ↗ of regional leader so we put aim to be a

43:18 ↗ regional leader back in there

43:24 ↗ oh uh L3 removed specifics regarding

43:27 ↗ citing and this is for compact schools

43:29 ↗ and actually we are going to revert back

43:31 ↗ and we are going to leave all of the

43:33 ↗ original language in there or L3 through

43:36 ↗ L6

43:38 ↗ we had deleted a couple of those changed

43:41 ↗ a couple of those and we are just going

43:43 ↗ to leave it all as is right now just to

43:45 ↗ ensure that we go back through the

43:47 ↗ development code and make any make sure

43:50 ↗ that we have everything in the

43:51 ↗ development code that is listed here

43:52 ↗ before we take these policy before we

43:55 ↗ taking into specifics out

44:01 ↗ oh in this is where we need some more

44:03 ↗ help

44:05 ↗ um particularly perhaps from

44:07 ↗ commissioner Bader

44:08 ↗ um the direction was that it seems to be

44:11 ↗ missing opportunity and we just we you

44:14 ↗ are going to give that some more thought

44:17 ↗ okay

44:18 ↗ great

44:20 ↗ um yeah so I gave it more thought but I

44:22 ↗ also was like wishy-washy um because

44:24 ↗ what I was trying to get at was that I

44:27 ↗ think allowing for an accommodating

44:28 ↗ growth that is just fiscally responsible

44:34 ↗ environment it doesn't feel like enough

44:37 ↗ so I want also want growth that like

44:40 ↗ promotes opportunity for residents or

44:42 ↗ something like that that's the best

44:43 ↗ language that I could come up with but

44:45 ↗ it's like how is our growth creating

44:48 ↗ opportunity for like jobs that residents

44:52 ↗ can do right how is our opportunity

44:53 ↗ creating like places for residents to

44:56 ↗ like play and have access to like

44:59 ↗ um you know it's kind of like the live

45:00 ↗ work and play right like Health all of

45:02 ↗ that that's it just felt like that kind

45:05 ↗ of like level of direction for like the

45:07 ↗ type of growth we are allowing and

45:08 ↗ accommodating form was needed so where I

45:11 ↗ landed was like promotes opportunity for

45:13 ↗ residents but I don't know if that's

45:14 ↗ like would be clear to anyone

45:16 ↗ um without like all the rest

45:22 ↗ Commissioners anybody want to help out

45:24 ↗ refine Vice chair Bader's message

45:27 ↗ commissioner Milligan

45:29 ↗ Milligan thank you Sarah I like your

45:31 ↗ word

45:32 ↗ right there

45:36 ↗ can you repeat all that

45:40 ↗ okay anybody else

45:44 ↗ okay

45:49 ↗ commission across

45:51 ↗ and an Economic Opportunity because you

45:54 ↗ already have most of those pieces

45:58 ↗ kind of covers almost

46:02 ↗ misses that one Economic Opportunity

46:06 ↗ because it's responsive with the

46:07 ↗ community natural

46:09 ↗ environment physically responsible is of

46:13 ↗ course

46:16 ↗ I think it covers everything

46:19 ↗ very wordy but

46:24 ↗ you said it was

46:30 ↗ so are we are we kind of sitting on

46:32 ↗ opportunity for growth

46:34 ↗ or economic up or do you want it to be

46:36 ↗ more specific or opportunity for growth

46:38 ↗ yeah I have my language is just most

46:41 ↗ opportunity because I think economic is

46:42 ↗ part of it I also think that there's

46:43 ↗ like the like opportunity for health

46:45 ↗ like opportunity for

46:48 ↗ um

46:48 ↗ like well-being and all of that stuff

46:52 ↗ promotes opportunity for residents

46:55 ↗ I know that's like very like probably

46:57 ↗ the policy like so I think you either

47:00 ↗ have to be vague that it's it's open to

47:02 ↗ loss of interpretations or you put a

47:04 ↗ bunch of examples like

47:05 ↗ uh yeah you worry

47:08 ↗ I don't think it's probably wordy right

47:09 ↗ these are these are basically policy

47:11 ↗ goals yeah it's not good I think it's

47:13 ↗ okay

47:14 ↗ this one is a goal

47:17 ↗ um so

47:18 ↗ if it becomes too much we can always add

47:21 ↗ policies

47:22 ↗ and we'll bring back we'll work on it

47:24 ↗ and bring back another draft of this one

47:26 ↗ okay

47:29 ↗ great start thank you Vice chair Bader

47:33 ↗ okay language or sorry language uh

47:35 ↗ policy L10 include how to keep edu how

47:39 ↗ or keep education programs in the policy

47:42 ↗ so we reworked this one quite a bit we

47:44 ↗ deleted L10

47:46 ↗ but created two new policies because in

47:48 ↗ L10 it talked about sustainability but

47:50 ↗ the goal talks about sustainability and

47:53 ↗ the last part of this policy talks about

47:55 ↗ environmental sustainability so

47:57 ↗ we deleted kind of the bulk of it and

48:00 ↗ then said admit X12 would be

48:01 ↗ administered Creekside and Wetland

48:03 ↗ restoration programs that improve

48:06 ↗ habitat and decrease flooding potential

48:08 ↗ which was part of that previous policy

48:10 ↗ and then provide public education

48:12 ↗ programs that offer an easily accessible

48:14 ↗ source of information regarding the

48:16 ↗ public stewardship role in a sustainable

48:17 ↗ community

48:21 ↗ I think that gets it what you all were

48:24 ↗ looking at

48:27 ↗ any comments there

48:31 ↗ okay

48:33 ↗ here we were just asked to clarify it

48:35 ↗ and we just took out the word with and

48:37 ↗ said support the urban course

48:39 ↗ development as a regional growth Center

48:40 ↗ by allowing and encouraging the density

48:42 ↗ mix of uses and amenities

48:49 ↗ next two you just asked us to remove and

48:51 ↗ families which made sense so we did

48:57 ↗ check changes in reference for Title 18

48:59 ↗ we will continue to do this throughout

49:02 ↗ one of those would be the school the

49:04 ↗ compact schools so we will continue to

49:07 ↗ do that as we do this and if you guys

49:09 ↗ since you worked on Title 18 if you

49:10 ↗ catch anything that don't that we don't

49:12 ↗ please let us know

49:16 ↗ additional emergency preparedness and

49:18 ↗ policies are they needed the additional

49:21 ↗ the the additional policies those are

49:23 ↗ really more appropriate for the actual

49:25 ↗ management plans through the Emergency

49:27 ↗ Services Group

49:29 ↗ I think I think we're covered there

49:33 ↗ this one wasn't in your packet but we

49:35 ↗ changed it so I added it back in here

49:37 ↗ policy 05 we just simplified it because

49:41 ↗ there was no need to list them out

49:44 ↗ um so just design and create Trails

49:46 ↗ sidewalks bikeways and pass to increase

49:47 ↗ connectivity

49:49 ↗ by providing comfortable convenient and

49:51 ↗ safe links throughout the community

49:52 ↗ period

49:55 ↗ because you really want them everywhere

49:56 ↗ not just

49:59 ↗ and that's it any questions and do these

50:02 ↗ reflect correctly what you all asked us

50:04 ↗ to do

50:05 ↗ commissioners

50:09 ↗ all right getting some head nods I think

50:12 ↗ you're on the right path great all right

50:14 ↗ and that is that is all I have

50:17 ↗ thank you

50:18 ↗ well thank you Kristen

50:22 ↗ appreciate those presentations

50:26 ↗ all right we're going to move on to

50:28 ↗ basically our last item of business

50:30 ↗ which is reports

50:33 ↗ um are there any city council updates

50:34 ↗ that staff would like to provide

50:38 ↗ I'm glad that Minnie came do you have

50:39 ↗ anything

50:44 ↗ really

50:46 ↗ um not really uh you all went to the

50:49 ↗ Planning Development

50:50 ↗ Committee and took your recommendation

50:53 ↗ on the housing element and and the

50:56 ↗ reason other

50:58 ↗ there was another item

51:00 ↗ um for fixing a codifying error

51:03 ↗ um piece that you held the public

51:05 ↗ hearing on and that that is passed on it

51:07 ↗ is on the council agenda for the 18th to

51:10 ↗ adopt uh the other things going on with

51:13 ↗ council at this time

51:15 ↗ um we are going back to them on October

51:18 ↗ 9th with the permit process timelines

51:22 ↗ what data we have what we're doing uh

51:25 ↗ what we've analyzed and addressed some

51:27 ↗ of the issues

51:29 ↗ um to meet our Target goals

51:32 ↗ um so we're focused on that aspect of it

51:34 ↗ and we'll be talking to them on October

51:37 ↗ 9th

51:39 ↗ um we have a presentation coming up with

51:41 ↗ the equity board on October 4th which is

51:44 ↗ not a council update but related to the

51:46 ↗ comp plan as well as

51:48 ↗ um the whole city has an equity

51:50 ↗ framework and each department is taking

51:52 ↗ one project and putting it through the

51:55 ↗ equity framework and for us it was how

51:57 ↗ do we notify public over land use

52:00 ↗ applications and using that as an

52:02 ↗ example we're going to go through and

52:05 ↗ see and give feedback on the framework

52:07 ↗ whether we are doing it right or how we

52:09 ↗ can you know meet the framework but also

52:11 ↗ the 13 questions and the framework and

52:14 ↗ really giving them

52:16 ↗ on the framework itself

52:18 ↗ um other items

52:21 ↗ no this is Kristen Leeson senior planner

52:23 ↗ I did want to clarify though when Minnie

52:25 ↗ was talking about the Planning

52:26 ↗ Development environmental committee the

52:29 ↗ public hearing piece is going through

52:30 ↗ the council but they did have items that

52:33 ↗ they wanted us to bring back to you and

52:35 ↗ revisit regarding the housing element

52:37 ↗ so so all the elements are actually

52:39 ↗ going to go together at once through

52:41 ↗ Council but they did have some

52:42 ↗ suggestions to come back this way

52:46 ↗ foreign

52:52 ↗ appreciate it

52:54 ↗ um

52:55 ↗ all right our final piece of the evening

52:57 ↗ are there any other business or

52:59 ↗ announcements from staff or is the city

53:03 ↗ concerned something exciting all of our

53:05 ↗ fun summer events have finished

53:09 ↗ playing in towards the Darkfall

53:13 ↗ that's right salmon days is coming up

53:15 ↗ thank you a bit of optimism uh the only

53:19 ↗ little comment I had is I did notice in

53:21 ↗ The Matrix that talks for public comment

53:24 ↗ general public comment there was one

53:26 ↗ particular person that made quite a few

53:28 ↗ and I couldn't tell if it was their

53:30 ↗ edits

53:31 ↗ I mean I could but it was a little

53:33 ↗ difficult to decipher

53:35 ↗ so I'm sure you saw that I don't know if

53:37 ↗ there's anything you can help us out

53:39 ↗ because reading them like I said it was

53:40 ↗ going back and forth

53:42 ↗ it's their edits

53:44 ↗ who's staff responding to right now or

53:46 ↗ is this edits that you made I think

53:48 ↗ someone got a hold of your program went

53:51 ↗ through and started redlining things and

53:53 ↗ highlighting things someone asked for a

53:55 ↗ word version of the program of the

53:56 ↗ Matrix and then went through and did

53:58 ↗ make some edits and we accepted some but

54:00 ↗ not all so the edits that are in there

54:03 ↗ were recommended by the public yeah

54:06 ↗ known less about the substance more

54:07 ↗ about the color scheme yeah and

54:10 ↗ yes so yeah I think that's all I have

54:14 ↗ anybody else any uh

54:17 ↗ last comments anything for the good of

54:19 ↗ the order any policy Commission

54:22 ↗ all right well I want to thank everybody

54:24 ↗ for attending and we will adjourn this

54:26 ↗ meeting of the planning policy at

54:28 ↗ 7 25 pm thank you

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.