Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 9, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 26, 2026

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, March 26, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Clarifying Amendments: Review All Proposals (D)

20 min · Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner · packet pp.7–23

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:19 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

On April 9, staff will provide a final briefing on all Title 18 changes proposed as part of this year’s Clarifying Code Amendment process. The review session will give Commissioners a second opportunity to share feedback on proposals in advance of the public hearing scheduled for early May.

Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments: Building Stepback, and Multifamily Amenity Space Requirements in Issaquah Central (D)

60 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.25–40

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 30:34 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 26 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review and discuss proposed amendments regarding common amenity space for residential buildings and stepbacks.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.41–44

▶ Watch from 1:58:18 Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

3105 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ Hey, good evening planning policy

0:06 ↗ commission staff.

0:09 ↗ Where else would you rather be today on

0:11 ↗ the 70°ree day than the stuffy chamber?

0:14 ↗ So, thank you everybody for coming.

0:16 ↗ We're going to begin this evening by

0:18 ↗ calling it to order. It's currently 6:31

0:21 ↗ p.m. I don't believe we have anyone

0:23 ↗ joining us uh via online, but it is a

0:27 ↗ hybrid meeting and we may have staff or

0:30 ↗ somebody try to join a little later.

0:32 ↗ Staff, do we have a quorum this evening?

0:35 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:36 ↗ >> Okay. And I believe we have one excused

0:38 ↗ absent.

0:38 ↗ >> Yes, Commissioner Zacharov is excused.

0:41 ↗ >> Perfect. Thank you, Kristen. We're going

0:43 ↗ to move on to approving last meeting's

0:46 ↗ minutes uh for the March 26th. Any

0:50 ↗ corrections? Anything worthy of note

0:52 ↗ from our commissioners? Everything looks

0:54 ↗ good. Okay, those meeting minutes are

0:56 ↗ approved.

0:58 ↗ We set a aside this time for public

1:00 ↗ comment. There is clearly nobody in the

1:02 ↗ room, but Amanda, do we have anybody

1:04 ↗ who's joining us online?

1:07 ↗ >> No, Commissioner.

1:09 ↗ >> Okay, thanks Amanda.

1:15 ↗ We're going to begin by moving on to our

1:17 ↗ first agenda this evening, which is part

1:19 ↗ of our regular business, Title 18

1:22 ↗ clarifying amendments. Review all of the

1:24 ↗ proposals.

1:27 ↗ We are going to pick up on our continued

1:30 ↗ discussion of these code amendments.

1:32 ↗ Kate Kaney, our principal planner, will

1:34 ↗ be presenting tonight. So, Kate, when

1:38 ↗ you are ready, please go ahead.

1:44 ↗ Okay, I

1:48 ↗ think I am sharing my screen. I'm not

1:51 ↗ sure if you see it yet.

1:56 ↗ There we go. That's a bit better. Great.

1:59 ↗ Um, yes. Thank you. Uh again, my name is

2:02 ↗ Kate Kaney and um I am here to present

2:05 ↗ on all of the proposals that you have

2:07 ↗ reviewed um one time over the last

2:10 ↗ couple of months. And while I am here

2:12 ↗ presenting uh some of the staff who did

2:14 ↗ the technical writing is available to an

2:17 ↗ to answer any questions uh that you have

2:20 ↗ uh if they are not available online then

2:22 ↗ we will try to do our best to answer

2:23 ↗ those questions for you.

2:29 ↗ Let's

2:31 ↗ see. Not sure why my slides are not

2:34 ↗ advancing, but

2:38 ↗ it's weird. Hold on.

2:40 ↗ There we go. Sorry about that. Okay.

2:44 ↗ So, again, um we are here to provide you

2:47 ↗ with um a second review of all of the uh

2:51 ↗ items uh that were proposed as part of

2:53 ↗ these title 18 land use uh housekeeping

2:56 ↗ or clarifying codes. And as usual, we

3:00 ↗ provide this uh slide saying, you know,

3:02 ↗ what what might you want to think about?

3:03 ↗ You know, what does the existing code

3:05 ↗ say? Why are we proposing the amendment?

3:07 ↗ Are things clear? Do you think things

3:09 ↗ could be clear? That those are the type

3:10 ↗ of things we'd love to hear from you

3:12 ↗ tonight. Um this slide also you've seen

3:15 ↗ it is our status update in terms of uh

3:18 ↗ where we have gone with this project. So

3:21 ↗ you started in February uh looking at

3:23 ↗ some of the changes to the sign code. um

3:26 ↗ moved into more of the procedural uh

3:28 ↗ reviews, um uh site development plans,

3:32 ↗ uh permits, um and some temporary uses.

3:34 ↗ Um also looked at changes to daycare

3:36 ↗ standards and some definitions and other

3:39 ↗ clarifying type code amendments. And we

3:41 ↗ have landed here um in this last review

3:43 ↗ before the public hearing. So, I will go

3:46 ↗ ahead and go through all of the proposed

3:48 ↗ amendments. And we have also added some

3:50 ↗ slides where uh we collected some of the

3:53 ↗ input that you provided over the last

3:55 ↗ couple of months. Staff has done a

3:57 ↗ little research and we want to provide

3:58 ↗ our follow-up recommendations today and

4:01 ↗ once once again get your feedback on

4:03 ↗ where we're going. So, um the first

4:06 ↗ proposal is one of the more procedural

4:08 ↗ code amendments having to do with site

4:10 ↗ development permits, SDPs. As you may

4:12 ↗ recall, those are land use permits and

4:15 ↗ uh they allow the city and the staff to

4:18 ↗ look at a proposal and make sure it is

4:21 ↗ consistent with what is in title 18 land

4:23 ↗ use code. Um SDP permits um are required

4:27 ↗ for multif family and commercial

4:28 ↗ projects. They are that kind of review

4:30 ↗ is not required for uh the single family

4:33 ↗ or middle housing um type of

4:35 ↗ development. So what were uh we

4:38 ↗ proposing to change? Well, um there are

4:40 ↗ some clarifications in the code that uh

4:42 ↗ we believe were going to help uh

4:44 ↗ applicants get through the system uh and

4:47 ↗ uh reviewers to be able to more

4:49 ↗ accurately review projects. So um the uh

4:54 ↗ what is proposed was uh these these

4:56 ↗ three things where you see those check

4:58 ↗ marks. So um right now uh if you come in

5:01 ↗ for a review for your multif family or

5:04 ↗ commercial project and maybe you are

5:06 ↗ just you're not proposing any changes to

5:08 ↗ a building nothing to a structure but

5:09 ↗ just to your site you still have to go

5:11 ↗ through the full review process um this

5:14 ↗ would eliminate the need uh in the case

5:17 ↗ that you just have site improvements uh

5:19 ↗ that can be handled other under a

5:21 ↗ different type of process we believe um

5:24 ↗ there was also the issue of when you do

5:26 ↗ have a change to a building but It's

5:28 ↗ very small. Um we were proposing that uh

5:31 ↗ 100 square ft of building change be

5:35 ↗ allowed to go through without an SDP

5:37 ↗ being triggered. Um that was an item of

5:40 ↗ discussion that we'll provide some

5:42 ↗ follow-up on. Um also a change to some

5:44 ↗ of the calculations right now uh square

5:47 ↗ footage and another method of

5:50 ↗ calculating whether you go through

5:51 ↗ review uh is in the code. We want to

5:53 ↗ clean that up. So, you know, the main

5:55 ↗ reason is just to make everything go

5:57 ↗ more smoothly, especially for for small

6:00 ↗ uh projects. That's why we're uh making

6:02 ↗ these proposals. So, in terms of the

6:05 ↗ input that we heard from commissioners,

6:08 ↗ um again, that idea of okay, if a

6:10 ↗ building is coming through, maybe

6:11 ↗ they're bumping out the front of their

6:12 ↗ building to, you know, improve the

6:14 ↗ entrance. uh we were saying well maybe a

6:16 ↗ 100 square feet if you do that kind of

6:18 ↗ small level uh building change you don't

6:20 ↗ need to go through the full intensive

6:22 ↗ SDP you know level one review um as we

6:25 ↗ were talking we were wonder that the

6:27 ↗ commissioners were suggesting going a

6:29 ↗ little bit higher we went back took a

6:30 ↗ look at that and are proposing to

6:32 ↗ increase that 100 uh square foot uh

6:36 ↗ threshold to 200 square feet 200 square

6:38 ↗ feet currently is the threshold for when

6:40 ↗ you need a building permit for a

6:42 ↗ detached structure so we thought that

6:43 ↗ would work better So that was one of the

6:46 ↗ items. Um there was also uh some input

6:50 ↗ from commissioners about um you know

6:53 ↗ we're trying to make things uh easier

6:55 ↗ for people with smallcale changes, but

6:57 ↗ are people going to try to gain the

6:58 ↗ system? Should we have a cumulative

7:00 ↗ square footage over several years to

7:02 ↗ make sure that no one's going to try to

7:04 ↗ slide through a project uh without going

7:06 ↗ through SD SDP review when that would be

7:08 ↗ appropriate? Um our current planners

7:11 ↗ took a deep look at this one just to say

7:12 ↗ should we do that? Should we not? And at

7:14 ↗ this time they are recommending not

7:16 ↗ adding any requirements. Um thinking uh

7:19 ↗ maybe there are some unintended

7:20 ↗ consequences. Maybe you know this lack

7:22 ↗ of precedent. We're not sure what would

7:23 ↗ happen. Um so at this point we'd like to

7:25 ↗ kind of just test it out and if it's a

7:26 ↗ problem we will come back to you. So um

7:29 ↗ at this point I would ask the

7:30 ↗ commissioners if they had any additional

7:32 ↗ feedback um on what we're proposing.

7:40 ↗ >> No. I see our fingerprints all over

7:42 ↗ that. So that's wonderful. Uh yeah,

7:44 ↗ Commissioner,

7:46 ↗ >> if you do ever return to the cumulative

7:49 ↗ uh requirement, uh I wonder whether

7:51 ↗ there should be a time limit because

7:53 ↗ obviously if if someone is adding a

7:56 ↗ little bit over 10 years, that's very

7:57 ↗ different than coming back in for a a a

8:00 ↗ building permit or an STP review every 3

8:04 ↗ months.

8:05 ↗ >> Yeah,

8:07 ↗ but it's a point well taken because

8:09 ↗ again, I mean, how many people were

8:10 ↗ going to go through that process? It's

8:12 ↗ much more expensive. It's much more

8:14 ↗ painful, less efficient to try to game

8:17 ↗ the system to be remodeling their place

8:19 ↗ every year. So, it's it's really not

8:21 ↗ practical. So,

8:23 ↗ >> makes sense.

8:25 ↗ >> Great. Um, so moving ahead, this is

8:28 ↗ another part of those uh procedural uh

8:30 ↗ code changes that we were bringing to

8:32 ↗ you. Um this one had to do with the

8:34 ↗ subdivision process uh platting and

8:37 ↗ construction permit sequencing and uh

8:40 ↗ what we were proposing to change um were

8:43 ↗ were some clarifications. Um one issue

8:46 ↗ in the code is that it's not crystal

8:48 ↗ clear that um if you are doing a

8:50 ↗ subdivision the infrastructure for your

8:52 ↗ site must be constructed um before you

8:56 ↗ get uh your final approval of the plat.

8:58 ↗ Um you can also if it's smaller uh level

9:01 ↗ changes uh purchase a bond to cover the

9:03 ↗ cost of construction. But the whole

9:05 ↗ issue is kind of the timing. You've got

9:06 ↗ to get your infrastructure done and then

9:08 ↗ we will um uh approve the final plat.

9:12 ↗ Currently as I was saying the code lacks

9:14 ↗ clarity regarding this requirement um

9:17 ↗ and it can make the process a little

9:19 ↗ sticky uh for everybody. So another

9:22 ↗ change was to add language to prevent

9:24 ↗ building permits uh being issued for

9:26 ↗ non-existent lots. So, what does this

9:28 ↗ mean? You subdivide your plot, um your

9:31 ↗ plat, you do um uh the work you need to

9:34 ↗ do, but you're in a hurry to get your

9:36 ↗ building permit. Um but you haven't

9:38 ↗ recorded with King County um your new

9:40 ↗ parcels. So, there's no parcel number.

9:42 ↗ We can't attach uh a building permit to

9:45 ↗ it. So, we just wanted to clarify that

9:47 ↗ um that sequencing of steps needs to

9:50 ↗ happen where um you do your recording

9:53 ↗ before you are issued a building permit.

9:56 ↗ doesn't mean you can't get started, but

9:57 ↗ we're not going to issue the building

9:58 ↗ permit till you're done with that. Okay.

10:00 ↗ So, there were no questions at the time

10:03 ↗ I did uh put together this presentation.

10:06 ↗ Um but are there any questions before we

10:09 ↗ move forward on that one? Okay, great.

10:13 ↗ All right. So, um the next proposal has

10:16 ↗ to do with changes to the temporary use

10:18 ↗ requirements um to add specific language

10:21 ↗ regarding donation bins. Um the issue

10:23 ↗ here was that we were getting requests

10:25 ↗ um from different businesses about

10:27 ↗ putting donation bins on their sites and

10:28 ↗ they didn't know clearly what permit

10:30 ↗ process to go through. Um the temporary

10:33 ↗ use process is available for that but we

10:36 ↗ wanted to add clarifying language. So,

10:38 ↗ this uh proposal clarifies where and how

10:41 ↗ to allow those bins on private property

10:44 ↗ and it includes um where you can put the

10:46 ↗ donation bins um how long they can be on

10:49 ↗ a site and uh includes some maintenance

10:52 ↗ language so that trash doesn't gather

10:54 ↗ and that sort of thing. So, uh we did

10:58 ↗ get some input about these standards

11:00 ↗ that were proposed including this idea

11:02 ↗ of how long should these bins be on a

11:04 ↗ site. So, we went back and we looked at

11:06 ↗ other uh uh uses that were allowed

11:08 ↗ temporarily. Um looked at permitting

11:10 ↗ processes and uh the commission had

11:14 ↗ thought, well, uh we're proposing a

11:16 ↗ year, which is what we use for food

11:18 ↗ trucks, uh perhaps some other uses. And

11:20 ↗ the idea was, well, maybe that's too

11:22 ↗ long. Maybe they should come back after

11:23 ↗ 180 days. We went back and took a look

11:26 ↗ at that and were thinking well maybe we

11:28 ↗ will try we we would prefer to try the

11:31 ↗ 365 days. Uh when there have been issues

11:34 ↗ uh the code enforcement official has

11:36 ↗ successfully been able to work with um

11:39 ↗ operators to make sure the sites are

11:40 ↗ clean and we were thinking maybe we'll

11:43 ↗ test it out and if there were any

11:45 ↗ problems we would come back to the

11:47 ↗ commission and uh talk about changing

11:48 ↗ that time duration. So that was the

11:50 ↗ thought process there. Um, additionally,

11:54 ↗ uh, the commission had recommended

11:55 ↗ adding some standards having to do with

11:57 ↗ where you locate a bin on site so it

11:59 ↗ doesn't interfere with the work, uh, or

12:01 ↗ with the processes of people coming in

12:03 ↗ and going and, uh, parking and all of

12:06 ↗ that. So, we did add some language, um,

12:09 ↗ to make it clear that the uh, building

12:12 ↗ entrances should not be impeded in terms

12:14 ↗ of access and other things. So, uh,

12:17 ↗ those were the changes that uh, we are

12:20 ↗ recommending. Any questions?

12:22 ↗ >> Any questions, comments? I saw the

12:24 ↗ guidelines. The guidelines look great.

12:26 ↗ Um, I believe not to put you on blast. I

12:29 ↗ think Vice Chair Patterson was more of a

12:31 ↗ proponent for the 365, but it makes

12:33 ↗ sense, right? I know we talked

12:35 ↗ originally about 180. Anybody any

12:37 ↗ concerns about 365?

12:40 ↗ >> Yeah, please.

12:41 ↗ >> Uh, thank you, chair. um with the I

12:45 ↗ looked at the guidelines and the one

12:46 ↗ thing that wasn't quite clear is if it

12:48 ↗ becomes a nuisance, what's the process

12:50 ↗ look like to report it. Um I don't

12:53 ↗ necessarily think that needs to go in

12:54 ↗ the code, but just for my knowledge,

12:55 ↗ like what what does that look like? Is

12:57 ↗ it

12:57 ↗ >> right? Um well, there will be

12:59 ↗ information about who you can contact

13:01 ↗ directly, who operates, you know, the

13:03 ↗ bin actually and also the code

13:05 ↗ enforcement officer gets in touch with

13:07 ↗ the property owner and um there's a

13:10 ↗ warning process and other steps. So at

13:13 ↗ this point um there are some donation

13:15 ↗ bins around that um you know seem to be

13:18 ↗ working in terms of when there's an

13:20 ↗ issue. So that's what we have in terms

13:22 ↗ of those communications right now.

13:24 ↗ >> Okay. Awesome. And then one other

13:25 ↗ question was like what constitutes

13:27 ↗ removal? Is it like a three strikes

13:28 ↗ you're out kind of situation or

13:31 ↗ >> Well, and I'm going to phone a friend

13:32 ↗ here and ask for a little help about uh

13:34 ↗ the uh code enforcement process uh in

13:37 ↗ Isqua. I'm not uh up to date on that.

13:41 ↗ if a if a donation bin needed to be

13:43 ↗ removed and a a code enforcement uh

13:45 ↗ process would be a warning or do you

13:48 ↗ know the steps to share?

13:50 ↗ >> Thank you.

13:52 ↗ >> Um hello everybody. Um so yeah it's not

13:57 ↗ an automatic thing. We send out a not

13:59 ↗ courtesy notice sometimes first uh if it

14:01 ↗ if the violation is too severe then we

14:04 ↗ can jump right to notice of violation

14:06 ↗ but we try to work with people to bring

14:08 ↗ them into compliance. That's generally

14:09 ↗ our our way and approach. We're after

14:12 ↗ compliance, not to penalize people in,

14:14 ↗ you know, in that sense. But if we get

14:17 ↗ into a situation where people are not

14:19 ↗ complying, then we we have abilities to

14:22 ↗ issue fines um you know, lean properties

14:25 ↗ and things like that depending on the

14:27 ↗ severity of the the violation. But for

14:29 ↗ something like this, we would start off

14:31 ↗ with a first contact by phone followed

14:33 ↗ up by a courtesy notice. Then we give

14:35 ↗ them a timeline. And if that doesn't

14:37 ↗ work, then we officially issue a notice

14:39 ↗ of violation.

14:42 ↗ >> Okay, cool. Thank you. Um, yeah, I think

14:43 ↗ when we were kind of talking about the

14:45 ↗ 180 days, the idea was probably on that

14:47 ↗ worst case scenario, you know, idea. Um,

14:50 ↗ so I think I it totally makes sense. I

14:52 ↗ don't anticipate this being like a very

14:54 ↗ high volume thing. You know, it sounds

14:56 ↗ like we have steps in place to alleviate

14:58 ↗ it. So, um, I appreciate you taking all

15:00 ↗ the feedback into consideration.

15:03 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson.

15:04 ↗ One question to follow up on on Jesse's

15:06 ↗ excellent point. Is there

15:09 ↗ >> is are we thinking of any tape and you

15:10 ↗ can let me know what the planners think,

15:12 ↗ but would we want anything on the bin

15:14 ↗ that says if this bin is in distress,

15:16 ↗ please call or you know, report this bin

15:18 ↗ if it's, you know, kind of like you see

15:20 ↗ on the back of people's vehicles. If

15:22 ↗ this car is speeding type thing, you

15:24 ↗ know, please call my boss. Yeah. How's

15:26 ↗ my bin doing? Yeah. And I am sorry I

15:29 ↗ don't have the code right in front of

15:30 ↗ me, but that was the intent that we

15:32 ↗ would require that the owner of the bin

15:34 ↗ um have a clear um uh mode of

15:37 ↗ communication, whether it be a phone

15:39 ↗ number or an email available. Um we

15:41 ↗ think we we did talk about that. That is

15:42 ↗ a great idea. I will go back and double

15:44 ↗ check.

15:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

15:48 ↗ >> Oh

15:50 ↗ yes, with that red box, it's call here.

15:54 ↗ Um, if you see the uh picture with the

15:56 ↗ garbage and then there's a little red

15:57 ↗ box, that's that would be that kind of

15:59 ↗ notice.

16:00 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, maybe that could come back

16:01 ↗ before the public hearing. Something

16:03 ↗ like that.

16:03 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

16:04 ↗ >> Um, anything additional on this topic?

16:08 ↗ All right.

16:09 ↗ >> Okay. Great. Okay. Um, this next

16:13 ↗ definition was cleanup of the code. Uh,

16:15 ↗ currently, uh, there are two definitions

16:18 ↗ of multifamily. Um, this can happen when

16:21 ↗ you do big code amendments. When we did

16:23 ↗ the middle housing code amendments just

16:25 ↗ a little while ago, uh the definition of

16:27 ↗ multifamily was changed so it would work

16:29 ↗ better with the middle housing

16:30 ↗ definitions and we um inadvertently left

16:34 ↗ in the old definition. So this is just

16:36 ↗ cleaning up the old and having the

16:38 ↗ correct definition stand.

16:41 ↗ Uh the next uh couple of uh proposals

16:45 ↗ have to do uh with clean up to the

16:47 ↗ daycare code and some clarifications. So

16:50 ↗ uh what these uh proposals are uh in the

16:54 ↗ first case is um just adding a reference

16:57 ↗ and some way finding to the code to uh

17:00 ↗ help people understand what the

17:01 ↗ definition of uh daycare vers center

17:04 ↗ versus daycare center family is. Um

17:07 ↗ certain numbers of um kids are allowed

17:11 ↗ in each and that that gives you an idea

17:13 ↗ of what type of code you need to look

17:15 ↗ at. So um also some clarification around

17:17 ↗ the adult family home uh code. So really

17:20 ↗ there's just a new paragraph with, you

17:22 ↗ know, references to go go look at the

17:24 ↗ definitions here if you're trying to

17:25 ↗ figure out what these are. Um there's

17:27 ↗ also uh just a minor update to um some

17:31 ↗ language. We used to say uh family child

17:33 ↗ care center and now we say family

17:34 ↗ daycare center. So just for consistency

17:37 ↗ um we made a change to that. Just going

17:40 ↗ to go to the next slide. also about

17:42 ↗ daycare center standards. Um in this

17:44 ↗ case, um council in March adopted an

17:48 ↗ ordinance that established traffic

17:50 ↗ impact fee waiverss applicable to

17:52 ↗ daycare centers. We wanted to codify

17:54 ↗ that so the centers could use it as soon

17:56 ↗ as possible. And basically the change

17:59 ↗ was to um again provide some way finding

18:02 ↗ back to go to the traffic impact code as

18:04 ↗ well as information about uh a covenant

18:07 ↗ being needed uh to record uh what was

18:10 ↗ allowed on that site. So I think there

18:13 ↗ might be one more having to do with

18:15 ↗ daycare. I'll just get through that and

18:16 ↗ get your comments if you have any. Um

18:18 ↗ this was again just cleanup. Um the

18:20 ↗ daycare uh operations code used to be

18:23 ↗ part of home business uh section of the

18:25 ↗ code. We removed it but didn't

18:27 ↗ completely scrub uh sentence here out of

18:30 ↗ home occupation or home uh sorry

18:34 ↗ home business standards. Um so we wanted

18:36 ↗ to just take care of that uh clean it up

18:38 ↗ so people can just be in the daycare

18:40 ↗ section of the code and not worry about

18:42 ↗ getting a license from a hawk. So those

18:45 ↗ were the um set of daycare standard

18:48 ↗ related changes. Any comments on those?

18:54 ↗ Any comments?

18:57 ↗ >> Well done with the with the picture of

18:59 ↗ the kids. Hard to say no to kids. Those

19:01 ↗ cute kids.

19:01 ↗ >> Say Kristen did is she's the graphics

19:03 ↗ expert. She uh she remembers to do those

19:05 ↗ things. So

19:06 ↗ >> the hearts helpful with just code code.

19:09 ↗ Uh now we're going to move to the last

19:11 ↗ section and that's on signs. So you may

19:13 ↗ recall uh these great pictures of

19:15 ↗ balloon signs. I didn't even know these

19:16 ↗ existed. It's kind of hard plastic

19:18 ↗ rather than just real balloons. Um, and

19:21 ↗ this was an amendment that our staff

19:23 ↗ worked with um the code enforcement

19:25 ↗ officer on. Um, currently the code does

19:28 ↗ prohibit balloons um because there's a

19:31 ↗ concern about obscuring the vision of uh

19:35 ↗ drivers and uh that kind of safety

19:38 ↗ issue. Um so to clarify the code uh some

19:42 ↗ additional language saying not only

19:44 ↗ balloons, balloon like objects and

19:46 ↗ certain you know a variety of materials

19:48 ↗ were also included in that uh language

19:51 ↗ for what was prohibited.

19:53 ↗ Um

19:55 ↗ we did get some input that you may

19:56 ↗ recall uh a request you know really

19:59 ↗ confirm do we really need this if it's

20:01 ↗ already in the prohibitions. Um, so our

20:03 ↗ staff did uh go back to the code

20:05 ↗ enforcement officer and she said, "Yes,

20:07 ↗ this expansion of what the materials are

20:09 ↗ is very helpful." Um, so we can be

20:11 ↗ crystal clear when we have to contact a

20:13 ↗ business to say this is in our code and

20:16 ↗ we we need your help in keeping things

20:17 ↗ safe. So that's uh that's what we are

20:21 ↗ recommending. Any questions on this one?

20:25 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

20:27 ↗ >> I did have a question about the code. So

20:29 ↗ it's 18612030.

20:31 ↗ It actually says that balloons that are

20:34 ↗ smaller than 18 in are exempt from the

20:36 ↗ permitting requirement. So, is that kind

20:39 ↗ of contradictory? Is that going to be

20:40 ↗ removed?

20:42 ↗ Um, that is a great catch. I uh will

20:46 ↗ take that back to the planner and uh

20:49 ↗ we'll get some input on that. Um I don't

20:52 ↗ know if Kristen knows more about that.

20:54 ↗ Um as she comes out, we can ask her. So,

20:58 ↗ um, while you stepped out, uh, had a

21:01 ↗ great question from Commissioner

21:02 ↗ Matthews about, um, this proposal in the

21:05 ↗ balloon, um, uh, prohibition to expand.

21:09 ↗ Uh, and apparently it says, can you read

21:12 ↗ that again?

21:13 ↗ >> Um, it says balloons less than 18 in in

21:15 ↗ diameter with messages are exempt from

21:17 ↗ sign standards under 030.

21:22 ↗ Yeah.

21:24 ↗ >> With message. I didn't I didn't know if

21:26 ↗ you might know a little more about that

21:28 ↗ or if we should just go back to

21:29 ↗ >> great soothing do the code.

21:31 ↗ >> I was looking at something else and I'm

21:32 ↗ like hey

21:34 ↗ >> nice.

21:34 ↗ >> Hi.

21:36 ↗ >> Can you hear me? Okay.

21:37 ↗ >> Uh yes.

21:38 ↗ >> Oh

21:39 ↗ >> Andrew.

21:39 ↗ >> Hi. This is Andrew.

21:41 ↗ >> Yes. Hi. Hi. Um so if you remember I was

21:44 ↗ a planner on the sign regulation. So um

21:47 ↗ good catch. I just want to echo what

21:49 ↗ Kate said. So we def definitely don't

21:51 ↗ want to have too many inconsistencies on

21:52 ↗ the prohibited it prohibited sorry signs

21:55 ↗ um section. So I can certainly um take

21:57 ↗ that back and modify that. I think what

22:00 ↗ that section was getting at is allowing

22:03 ↗ some, you know, for example, like

22:06 ↗ residential areas or temporary um uses

22:09 ↗ to have like a, you know, birthday

22:11 ↗ balloons. Uh, for example, identifying

22:14 ↗ the location of um something like that

22:17 ↗ could have been the intent of that

22:19 ↗ section. So, not to uh basically not

22:21 ↗ prohibit balloons that are in smaller in

22:24 ↗ size. But I think that you have a good

22:26 ↗ point that it is a bit conflicting and

22:28 ↗ it would probably be better to um omit

22:31 ↗ that part of the code as well.

22:35 ↗ >> Thank you.

22:36 ↗ >> Thanks.

22:38 ↗ >> So we will go ahead and uh come back um

22:41 ↗ on I believe May 14th when the public

22:43 ↗ hearing is going to be uh and provide

22:45 ↗ our recommendation in the packet uh so

22:47 ↗ you can see it ahead of time uh and talk

22:49 ↗ about it then.

22:53 ↗ All right,

22:54 ↗ >> the next one. Okay,

22:55 ↗ >> please.

22:56 ↗ >> All right, so uh this next uh amendment

22:59 ↗ had to do with the interior illumination

23:01 ↗ of monument signs. You can see some

23:03 ↗ examples of what monument signs look

23:05 ↗ like um at you know sites and driveways

23:09 ↗ uh where the roadway uh meets the

23:10 ↗ driveway. Um and the issue here was that

23:14 ↗ um in the code uh it is not clear that

23:18 ↗ the currently grandfathered or uh signs

23:21 ↗ that are out of uh conformance with the

23:23 ↗ existing code but are grandfathered in

23:25 ↗ to allow them to continue to uh stand

23:27 ↗ up. Um that there there are multiple

23:31 ↗ cases of these in central Isiqua, Isqua

23:33 ↗ Highlands, Talis and in the CBD zone. Um

23:36 ↗ and the idea was to um allow these to

23:39 ↗ move forward maintaining their interior

23:41 ↗ illumination and making that clear in

23:43 ↗ the code um because that is something

23:46 ↗ that is currently not clear. So, um did

23:50 ↗ get some input from the commission about

23:52 ↗ this and changes uh were refined I

23:56 ↗ believe uh to be more explicit to show

23:59 ↗ that for these grandfathered signs. If

24:02 ↗ you were changing just the sign face um

24:05 ↗ then it is okay to keep moving forward

24:08 ↗ with your illumination. But if you are

24:10 ↗ changing the entire sign structure then

24:11 ↗ you would have to replace it and conform

24:13 ↗ with the the current code. So that um is

24:17 ↗ what was uh refined in this set of

24:20 ↗ proposals. Um

24:23 ↗ yeah, so don't know if you have any

24:24 ↗ comments on that.

24:26 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

24:28 ↗ >> I worked on signs for a long time. So

24:30 ↗ I'm looking at this as coming from like

24:33 ↗ a sign installer. So some of the

24:34 ↗ language that's actually in the where

24:37 ↗ you're showing the revision of the code,

24:39 ↗ it's not consistent. So in one case

24:41 ↗ under illumination it says except that

24:44 ↗ sign face replacements are allowed but

24:46 ↗ down below under um the monument signs

24:50 ↗ business and it's it basically says the

24:53 ↗ sign structure or face replaced is okay

24:55 ↗ for a grandfathered sign. So that is not

24:57 ↗ a consistent definition and they should

24:59 ↗ line up.

25:00 ↗ >> That is a great find and

25:02 ↗ >> we will definitely go back and thank you

25:05 ↗ for holding us to account. We'll scrub

25:06 ↗ that and we will come back. Yes. Thank

25:08 ↗ you.

25:11 ↗ Okay.

25:14 ↗ All right. So, temporary window signs.

25:16 ↗ Um the idea here was to make it easier

25:19 ↗ for businesses to install these uh

25:21 ↗ construction signs while they are

25:22 ↗ getting their businesses ready. Um this

25:25 ↗ is not um exempt right now in the code

25:28 ↗ and we just wanted to make it easier for

25:29 ↗ new businesses coming in. So, the

25:32 ↗ feedback we got from the commission at

25:34 ↗ the time was that yeah, that sounds like

25:36 ↗ a good idea. We just want them to look

25:37 ↗ good. We want them to be wellmaintained.

25:39 ↗ So, uh, staff added this sentence, uh,

25:42 ↗ signs must be of professional quality

25:44 ↗ and maintained during the duration of

25:45 ↗ their display, uh, to help us in case

25:48 ↗ they weren't looking good. And then

25:50 ↗ again, you know, code enforcement will

25:51 ↗ go out. But that was the change. Any

25:54 ↗ comments on that one?

25:58 ↗ >> Doesn't look like it.

25:59 ↗ >> Okay,

26:01 ↗ great. So, that was the last um of the

26:03 ↗ amendments. uh we will collect the

26:05 ↗ comments on the sign code uh and the

26:07 ↗ other comments that you made uh and go

26:09 ↗ back and again when we would send you

26:11 ↗ the uh memo and information for the

26:13 ↗ public hearing we'll make sure to

26:15 ↗ highlight these areas uh and so you can

26:17 ↗ go directly to uh any changes uh since

26:20 ↗ today's review um in terms of next steps

26:23 ↗ um we are headed into that public

26:26 ↗ hearing again I believe it's May 14th

26:28 ↗ and uh at that time we will be asking

26:30 ↗ for recommendation from the commission

26:32 ↗ in advance of going through council. So

26:34 ↗ that's the uh planning, development and

26:38 ↗ environment committee and uh then the

26:40 ↗ full council meeting uh is uh

26:43 ↗ anticipated to June 29th. Uh so um I

26:48 ↗ believe that was the last slide and we

26:51 ↗ just wanted to see if you had any final

26:52 ↗ comments.

26:54 ↗ >> Any final comments?

26:58 ↗ >> Nope. That was great. Thank you, Kate.

27:00 ↗ Appreciate it.

27:05 ↗ And thank you, Andrew, for popping in.

27:09 ↗ Okay,

27:11 ↗ we're going to move on to our second

27:12 ↗ item of business this evening. And this

27:16 ↗ is title 18 promoting building

27:18 ↗ investment code amendments, building

27:20 ↗ stepbacks, multif family amenity space

27:23 ↗ requirements in central Isiqua.

27:26 ↗ Uh that's where we're going to begin.

27:28 ↗ Kristen Leon, our planning manager, will

27:31 ↗ be presenting this evening. So Kristen,

27:33 ↗ when you are ready, please go ahead. I

27:35 ↗ got it right.

27:41 ↗ >> We had a little joke. We had a little

27:42 ↗ joke about that.

27:50 ↗ All right.

27:59 ↗ There we go.

28:01 ↗ Yes. Good evening. Kristen Lisen,

28:03 ↗ planning manager, and we are here to

28:06 ↗ kick off our first of our work plan for

28:08 ↗ promoting building investments in

28:10 ↗ Isiqua.

28:13 ↗ Um, these are the first two. We are

28:15 ↗ talking about um outdoor amenity space

28:17 ↗ requirements and stepback requirements

28:19 ↗ tonight.

28:23 ↗ So just rolling right into it.

28:25 ↗ Stepbacks. They are intended to remove a

28:28 ↗ canyon effect of taller buildings and

28:30 ↗ create a more pedestrianfriendly

28:32 ↗ environment is the whole purpose.

28:35 ↗ But there are some issues. The stepbacks

28:37 ↗ can be costly.

28:40 ↗ They can also result they can result in

28:42 ↗ higher construction costs and they can

28:44 ↗ also reduce the amount of buildable

28:45 ↗ space therefore reduce the amount of

28:47 ↗ revenue that developers may get from

28:48 ↗ these projects.

28:51 ↗ So, you know, these pros and cons pretty

28:53 ↗ much I just outlined the pros and cons,

28:55 ↗ but um they add sunlight, they improve

28:58 ↗ the pedestrian experience, they allow

29:00 ↗ for gradual increase when you're next to

29:01 ↗ lower density residential neighborhoods.

29:03 ↗ They, you know, allow for um you don't

29:06 ↗ have a 50story building next to a

29:08 ↗ 25story building. And they help perceive

29:11 ↗ reduce the perceived scale of taller

29:12 ↗ buildings. And the cons, I've mentioned

29:15 ↗ these, you reduce overall square

29:16 ↗ footage. Um, one of the one that wasn't

29:18 ↗ mentioned is that the penetrations

29:21 ↗ from moisture from rain um on the

29:24 ↗ building envelope that they can create

29:26 ↗ moisture problems. So, you know, where

29:27 ↗ the building where the different floors

29:29 ↗ intersect, there's something there,

29:31 ↗ water can get in and that can cause a

29:33 ↗ problem

29:34 ↗ and be very expensive to fix. We have

29:38 ↗ several pol we have some policies in

29:39 ↗ place. These are from the central isqua

29:41 ↗ plan that support stepbacks in this kind

29:44 ↗ of architecture. And it says promote to

29:47 ↗ promote pedestrianoriented development

29:50 ↗ and to encourage the pedestrian scale

29:52 ↗ and architectural interest through a

29:54 ↗ variety of building heights and forms.

29:55 ↗ That's what they're intended to do.

29:58 ↗ We also have regulations in place. And

30:00 ↗ I'm just going to put it out there right

30:01 ↗ now. These are confusing. They're in

30:04 ↗ several different sections. Um, and

30:07 ↗ they're a little they're a little

30:08 ↗ complicated, but we have several

30:10 ↗ different options here. So we have that

30:13 ↗ you in most of these you have to have a

30:15 ↗ if you're if you do stepbacks it has to

30:18 ↗ be a minimum of 5t deep and a maximum of

30:22 ↗ 20 ft deep. Right? If you're in a

30:25 ↗ building that is taller than five four

30:26 ↗ floors your your step back must stop

30:29 ↗ must start above the sixth floor. But if

30:31 ↗ you want to it can start above the third

30:32 ↗ floor. And if you have fewer than six

30:36 ↗ floors um the first two floors at least

30:39 ↗ have to be up against the street.

30:43 ↗ So then you move on um to central Isiqua

30:46 ↗ and step well I guess we're still there

30:47 ↗ stepbacks they must incorporate

30:50 ↗ terraces and usable outdoor spaces and

30:53 ↗ if you have few four or fewer floors you

30:56 ↗ cannot have more than two stepbacks

30:59 ↗ you guys following so far okay then if

31:02 ↗ you're going to choose to do the

31:04 ↗ northwest contemporary style so since in

31:06 ↗ central Isiqua there are different

31:08 ↗ architectural styles that you can choose

31:10 ↗ and one of those is Northwest

31:12 ↗ Contemporary and it requires stepbacks

31:15 ↗ and it has a list of things. You must be

31:18 ↗ compliant with all of the following

31:20 ↗ things and one in those includes that if

31:22 ↗ you are taller than five stories

31:25 ↗ that step back floors above the fifth

31:27 ↗ floor must be back a minimum they have

31:29 ↗ the minimum 5T and the maximum 20 feet.

31:32 ↗ Um you are non-compliant. If you are

31:34 ↗ four floors or less and you have two

31:36 ↗ stepbacks, you're non-compliant. You

31:39 ↗ can't do that.

31:42 ↗ So I those are those are our

31:46 ↗ regulations. Um other city regulations

31:47 ↗ are a little simpler. Um both doesn't

31:50 ↗ have required stepbacks. Uh Bellingham

31:53 ↗ you have to have a 15 foot deep start uh

31:56 ↗ step back starting above the fourth

31:58 ↗ floor measured at the back of the

31:59 ↗ rideway. So the back of the sidewalk not

32:01 ↗ where the building is.

32:04 ↗ So then it may not be as deep. In

32:05 ↗ Edmonds, it's 5T deep starting at 26

32:08 ↗ feet. When adjacent to lowdensity

32:09 ↗ residential being that whole thing about

32:11 ↗ you want to provide more daylight and

32:13 ↗ smaller scale with the lower density

32:15 ↗ residential houses in Kirkland, they

32:17 ↗ have a bunch of different ones, but

32:19 ↗ downtown Kirkland is probably the most

32:21 ↗ consistent comparable to what we are

32:23 ↗ planning here in central Isiqua. So,

32:25 ↗ they have a couple of options. uh 10

32:27 ↗ feet deep from the ground floor. So, the

32:29 ↗ first floor along two facades

32:33 ↗ um starting above the second story or a

32:36 ↗ 5-ft minimum with an average of 10 ft

32:38 ↗ deep um from the street facade starting

32:41 ↗ above the third story.

32:46 ↗ It is

32:53 ↗ I'm sorry. Can you

32:57 ↗ And then are they both along they're

32:59 ↗ saying for Kirkland it has to be along

33:01 ↗ two sides of the building for both of

33:03 ↗ them

33:03 ↗ >> only for the first option. For the

33:05 ↗ second option it can be just along the

33:07 ↗ street facade.

33:08 ↗ >> Got it. Thank you.

33:08 ↗ >> Okay. And then on Mercer Island I had to

33:11 ↗ draw a picture because it's confusing.

33:13 ↗ It's at a 45 degree angle starting at 25

33:16 ↗ ft all the way all the way up to the

33:18 ↗ very top. So every floor is going to

33:20 ↗ step back there. And then in Redmond

33:22 ↗ it's 20. It only applies in Redmond. if

33:25 ↗ you can't do underground parking and

33:27 ↗ then you can do it and it's 20 feet deep

33:30 ↗ um with no required depth or I'm sorry

33:33 ↗ 20 ft deep but no requirement at which

33:35 ↗ floor you start. Okay.

33:38 ↗ So just samples from other cities and

33:40 ↗ there is no no one that is alike unless

33:43 ↗ they're just not required. So yes

33:46 ↗ actually

33:47 ↗ chair voice there's

33:50 ↗ >> last page and we'll open it up. Yeah.

33:54 ↗ Okay, go for it. Commissioner,

33:56 ↗ >> is there any data on Ballard who went

33:58 ↗ through something where they, you know,

34:00 ↗ had had to change pretty quickly in

34:03 ↗ terms of density? Um, and there may be

34:06 ↗ some learnings in Ballard. I know these

34:08 ↗ are all um other parts of town, but um

34:11 ↗ if you go through Ballard, I can't

34:13 ↗ remember whether they have stepbacks or

34:15 ↗ not, but I know they have a lot of

34:17 ↗ sixstory buildings all over the place

34:18 ↗ now. And that could be another

34:20 ↗ >> Well, we happen to have a Ballard

34:22 ↗ resident. Do you do you know if there's

34:23 ↗ do you know if there's a requirement?

34:25 ↗ >> Okay.

34:32 ↗ >> Okay. We can look and see. Okay.

34:36 ↗ So our recommendations are right now is

34:38 ↗ that any building that is four four

34:41 ↗ stories or higher must have a step back

34:44 ↗ and facades only on facades budding

34:47 ↗ abuing public rights of way which would

34:49 ↗ be sidewalks streets or um non-motorized

34:52 ↗ circulation so multif family or

34:54 ↗ multi-use trails. We would require

34:56 ↗ stepbacks where construction changes

34:58 ↗ from concrete to wood.

35:02 ↗ uh only require one step back and remove

35:06 ↗ requirements for stepbacks that face

35:07 ↗ natural context areas

35:13 ↗ and then there are a lot of

35:14 ↗ considerations here. So do you have any

35:16 ↗ questions before we go into those?

35:19 ↗ >> Commissioner

35:21 ↗ um can you explain the rationale behind

35:25 ↗ a maximum of 20 foot setback?

35:30 ↗ No. Um,

35:34 ↗ >> straightforward answer

35:39 ↗ I guess there really doesn't need to be

35:40 ↗ a maximum. Most cities do have them.

35:42 ↗ There doesn't need to be. If a if a

35:44 ↗ developer wants to go that far back. We

35:46 ↗ have um actually Trail Head, the

35:48 ↗ development that's coming in, they're

35:49 ↗ putting their one of their open amenity

35:51 ↗ space requirements on their second floor

35:54 ↗ on top of the second story. So huge open

35:57 ↗ space there. So no

36:01 ↗ Yeah. Okay.

36:05 ↗ >> Any other questions before we start

36:07 ↗ getting into it?

36:09 ↗ >> Maybe you guys could feel free to ask

36:10 ↗ questions once we get into it, too. But

36:12 ↗ vice ch

36:15 ↗ would be a good time to ask you about

36:16 ↗ the natural context areas part. So, um,

36:19 ↗ what what specifically where did that

36:22 ↗ requirement come from? Basically

36:24 ↗ >> that came from our 2016 moratorum when

36:26 ↗ the city council asked for architectural

36:28 ↗ standards and our consultant quite

36:31 ↗ frankly thought this would be a good

36:33 ↗ idea. Um but we do do want to protect

36:36 ↗ you want to highlight when you're

36:38 ↗ building an urban environment or you

36:42 ↗ know mid-density urban environment out

36:45 ↗ of something that's been suburban and

36:46 ↗ people are more used to parks and green

36:48 ↗ spaces. You do want to highlight those

36:50 ↗ that are still here. So it it kind of

36:53 ↗ highlights that. But um to some of the

36:56 ↗ questions that you may have asked

36:58 ↗ before, we do have so we have three

37:01 ↗ state shoreline jurisdictions in the

37:04 ↗ city. Sam Lake Seamish, Isiqua Creek,

37:08 ↗ and North Fork of Isiqua Creek. So

37:10 ↗ anything that is along any of those

37:13 ↗ within 200 feet, anything built within

37:15 ↗ 200 feet of those, you can't exceed more

37:17 ↗ than 35 feet. That's your maximum

37:19 ↗ height. So you're already you're already

37:21 ↗ required to keep it there for that. Um

37:25 ↗ we also have you know other mitigation

37:27 ↗ requirements things like that that are

37:29 ↗ in place. We have critical areas

37:30 ↗ requirements. Um there are certain

37:32 ↗ distances. So there's automatically

37:34 ↗ 150 foot buffer plus another 15t set

37:37 ↗ back there for any building that's going

37:39 ↗ to go in and that we can't that doesn't

37:41 ↗ change. There are no deviations to that

37:44 ↗ or variances for that. So taking away

37:47 ↗ that step back, there's so much space

37:49 ↗ adjacent to right there anyway and the

37:52 ↗ height is required to be so low within

37:53 ↗ the shoreline jurisdiction. It doesn't

37:55 ↗ really make sense to require anything

37:56 ↗ additional.

38:02 ↗ >> Uh yeah, do you mind going back a slide

38:04 ↗ so I can My question is you mentioned

38:08 ↗ walking trails as non-motorized

38:10 ↗ circulation facilities. Would parks also

38:13 ↗ be included in that? something like

38:14 ↗ Confluence Park. Okay, great.

38:17 ↗ >> Yeah, on the map that I sent you all,

38:18 ↗ there are natural areas which include

38:20 ↗ parks and then there are natural context

38:22 ↗ areas. So, there's the green natural

38:24 ↗ area and then the context areas are in

38:26 ↗ purple. This would apply to both of

38:28 ↗ them.

38:34 ↗ >> Any questions?

38:37 ↗ >> All right, Kristen's questions.

38:39 ↗ >> Oh, I I see I saw mouththing of where's

38:42 ↗ the map? Um, it was at the link that I

38:44 ↗ sent you this afternoon for this this

38:47 ↗ code section.

38:53 ↗ I can

38:55 ↗ it's not in the PowerPoint. It was in

38:57 ↗ the code section that I sent today in a

38:59 ↗ response to where are the natural areas.

39:06 ↗ >> Okay.

39:07 ↗ So considerations uh first of all do you

39:11 ↗ want to eliminate multiple stepbacks

39:15 ↗ >> not allow them?

39:18 ↗ >> Do we do we just want to do this one by

39:20 ↗ one?

39:20 ↗ >> Yes that's that was okay. Yeah.

39:22 ↗ >> Um

39:24 ↗ >> yeah so as everybody knows our planning

39:26 ↗ policy commission is full of people from

39:28 ↗ diverse backgrounds and different uh

39:30 ↗ walks of life. But tonight I get to pick

39:33 ↗ on Commissioner Oler and ask him to put

39:35 ↗ on his architect and developer hat. So

39:39 ↗ just remember we all bring something to

39:41 ↗ bear here, but I know this is uh Eric's

39:44 ↗ field of work. So uh we'll leave that

39:47 ↗ there, but go ahead. Commissioner Crass,

39:50 ↗ >> did you want to speak too?

39:51 ↗ >> Did you want

39:53 ↗ >> No, that's okay.

39:55 ↗ I guess more like there's a why would we

39:58 ↗ have rules to eliminate if a if and a

40:00 ↗ developer may not want to do this but if

40:02 ↗ they they want to do multiple stepbacks

40:04 ↗ because it makes those units very

40:06 ↗ desirable and why would we have that

40:09 ↗ limitation to

40:11 ↗ >> so we're not really not allowing them to

40:14 ↗ do it we're not requiring them to do it

40:16 ↗ >> says eliminate multiple

40:17 ↗ >> yes right it is worded that way it is

40:19 ↗ worded that way yes

40:20 ↗ >> eliminate the requirement I'm just

40:22 ↗ trying to figure out what the

40:23 ↗ >> so let's Just cross that one out.

40:25 ↗ >> Okay, I'm done now.

40:26 ↗ >> All right.

40:29 ↗ >> Okay, moving on.

40:31 ↗ >> I've been asked to opine. You

40:33 ↗ >> sure? Please.

40:35 ↗ >> Yes. Call that by name. I

40:37 ↗ >> I mean, I guess if if you've got a

40:40 ↗ 30story building,

40:42 ↗ um you can and you only have a a five-

40:45 ↗ foot setback at the second floor, you're

40:48 ↗ still going to have a canyon effect. So

40:51 ↗ I think to the extent that that multiple

40:55 ↗ stepbacks might be useful for taller

40:57 ↗ buildings

40:58 ↗ and I'm not sure that that is ever

41:01 ↗ applicable in this aqua but um

41:04 ↗ >> Merc island one that you saw they like

41:06 ↗ to have

41:07 ↗ >> yeah they look nice and certain they do.

41:09 ↗ I mean I I I think having read some of

41:11 ↗ the responses from uh developers I think

41:14 ↗ there there is some valid concern about

41:18 ↗ loss of square footage. um you know,

41:21 ↗ waterproofing issues, although I I would

41:24 ↗ push back on that a little bit and say

41:26 ↗ if it's designed properly, it won't do

41:28 ↗ that. Um but um

41:33 ↗ I I think it's it's probably fine in my

41:36 ↗ opinion to eliminate the requirement for

41:39 ↗ multiple setbacks

41:41 ↗ um given the scale of of buildings in

41:44 ↗ Isiqua. Uh, but if we ever got to the

41:47 ↗ point where we were, you know, like

41:48 ↗ Belleview and downtown, I think it might

41:50 ↗ be useful.

41:56 ↗ >> Uh, number two, do you how how do you

42:00 ↗ feel about eliminating stepbacks along

42:02 ↗ natural context areas?

42:07 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass,

42:08 ↗ >> you mean eliminate the requirement or

42:10 ↗ not letting them do it?

42:11 ↗ >> It's the It's eliminating the

42:12 ↗ requirement. Wow.

42:13 ↗ >> Because right now there's the

42:14 ↗ requirement.

42:15 ↗ >> I think Kristen summed it up pretty

42:17 ↗ well. If they can't build above 35 ft,

42:19 ↗ that might be a burden far too high for

42:21 ↗ them.

42:23 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair,

42:26 ↗ >> fair enough. Commissioner,

42:27 ↗ >> just one further comment on that. Um,

42:29 ↗ natural context areas are beautiful and

42:33 ↗ u so there may be um from a marketing

42:36 ↗ perspective an advantage to having

42:38 ↗ balconies that overlook that natural

42:41 ↗ context area. And so developers could

42:44 ↗ very well want to include some element

42:46 ↗ of stepbacks.

42:48 ↗ >> Okay.

42:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Vice chair Patterson.

42:55 ↗ >> Yeah. I think uh one of the reasons that

42:58 ↗ this particular one kind of came to my

43:00 ↗ mind was um you know I I guess if you

43:04 ↗ remove that requirement I'm just

43:07 ↗ imagining like sitting in a park across

43:08 ↗ from a development with like a square

43:11 ↗ flat you know building staring back at

43:14 ↗ me. Um, and so there was a little bit of

43:16 ↗ like when it there's there's two factors

43:20 ↗ to it, right? There's like the design

43:22 ↗ preference of like what do you want that

43:23 ↗ to look like, which is what I just

43:24 ↗ referenced, and then there's more of the

43:26 ↗ like ecological standpoint of like does

43:28 ↗ this true? Is there some scientific or,

43:30 ↗ you know, reasoning that we put this in

43:32 ↗ place in the first place? So, I think,

43:34 ↗ you know, from the design preference, I

43:37 ↗ think a lot of what has been discussed

43:39 ↗ makes sense of like the pros and the

43:40 ↗ cons. like maybe in this case it makes

43:43 ↗ more sense to not have that requirement

43:45 ↗ because of the you know the cost of of

43:48 ↗ doing that. Um but you did kind of

43:51 ↗ highlight a lot of the reason like the

43:53 ↗ stream and the height which makes sense

43:55 ↗ but I think if we can just to put a

43:57 ↗ final dot on that uh just understand

44:00 ↗ from the 2016 mortorium thing like why

44:02 ↗ they made that requirement in the first

44:04 ↗ place just to kind of make sure that

44:06 ↗ we're not undoing something that we said

44:09 ↗ was important at some point. Um, then I

44:11 ↗ just feel really good about it. Right

44:14 ↗ now I feel great about it, but I want to

44:15 ↗ feel really great about it.

44:16 ↗ >> Okay,

44:18 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

44:20 ↗ >> Um, just carrying off of what the vice

44:22 ↗ chair just said, is it possible? I mean,

44:24 ↗ I don't think that we should have step

44:26 ↗ backs either because it's not that high.

44:28 ↗ It doesn't really make sense. But I, as

44:30 ↗ far as what he said about a big block

44:32 ↗ looking at you, I totally get that. is

44:34 ↗ maybe we look at um requiring a

44:37 ↗ different material change or subdued

44:38 ↗ color so it's not like the Alice

44:40 ↗ apartment on Confluence Park so we're

44:43 ↗ looking at it you know it's distracting

44:45 ↗ me but you know something to that effect

44:46 ↗ where maybe the color palette or

44:49 ↗ something is on a

44:50 ↗ >> on the back is

44:51 ↗ >> and we do that

44:52 ↗ >> oh you do that already

44:53 ↗ >> we do we require modulation

44:56 ↗ >> it's like every 30 feet or something

44:58 ↗ there has to be some sort of

45:01 ↗ set back in the building not set back

45:02 ↗ but set back in the or change in

45:04 ↗ materials. We have both horizontal and

45:06 ↗ vertical modulation

45:09 ↗ of either materials or actual

45:11 ↗ architectural changes in the building.

45:14 ↗ >> Thanks.

45:15 ↗ >> Yeah, I remember I think we talked about

45:17 ↗ those like two years ago, but ultimately

45:19 ↗ it's so we don't get those big Soviet

45:20 ↗ style buildings that are just flat

45:23 ↗ >> and I think like you said it's like

45:25 ↗ every 30 feet there's got to be some

45:26 ↗ type of jump. So that would be that

45:27 ↗ still would be true for this.

45:29 ↗ >> Yes, it would.

45:29 ↗ >> Okay.

45:30 ↗ >> Yeah. And I'll just pick up off Ice

45:32 ↗ Chair Patterson. I mean, I think that's

45:34 ↗ where, you know, probably I'll be for

45:36 ↗ both parts of these conversations. I

45:38 ↗ just want to be careful, too, because

45:39 ↗ again, a lot of work. I mean, I I won't

45:41 ↗ name the infamous apartment that

45:43 ↗ triggered the moratorium as all we all

45:44 ↗ know what it was, but

45:46 ↗ >> a lot of thought went into all these

45:47 ↗ when we did this.

45:49 ↗ >> Everybody, stakeholders had the

45:50 ↗ opportunity to come. They did. And the

45:53 ↗ only thing I'll say is,

45:55 ↗ you know, it just kind of seems like

45:58 ↗ they really were pushing for clarity at

46:00 ↗ the time. it was more about clarity, you

46:03 ↗ know, user-friendly code. It just kind

46:05 ↗ of seems like the goalpost is moving now

46:07 ↗ with some of the developers. Okay, now

46:09 ↗ we don't really like this anymore

46:11 ↗ either. And that's the part that

46:12 ↗ concerns me because again, all the

46:14 ↗ stakeholders, we had believe two or

46:16 ↗ three people send in letters I think and

46:19 ↗ again this isn't to pick on anybody, but

46:21 ↗ you know, one of them mentioned the

46:22 ↗ economy. I I don't think that's a reason

46:24 ↗ to to haul, you know, strip our code. I

46:27 ↗ mean, there's always up times and down

46:29 ↗ times, and usually they come back

46:30 ↗ stronger than ever. So, um, I'm I'm

46:33 ↗ definitely want to be user friendly as

46:34 ↗ far as the city. I want people to be

46:36 ↗ able to develop and build here

46:37 ↗ aesthetically pleasing buildings. Um, I

46:40 ↗ just, like I said, a little cautious

46:41 ↗ because a lot of time and consideration

46:43 ↗ went into these. And again, I just kind

46:46 ↗ of feels like Charlie Brown. Every

46:47 ↗ single time this comes up, you know,

46:49 ↗ somebody pulls a football and, you know,

46:51 ↗ it's a different set of asks than what

46:53 ↗ originally was here about two years ago.

46:56 ↗ So my concern,

47:00 ↗ >> thank you.

47:01 ↗ Number three,

47:04 ↗ do you want to provide flexibility in

47:06 ↗ the location of stepbacks either above?

47:08 ↗ So right now we're saying

47:11 ↗ we want it to be where the material

47:12 ↗ changes, but not every building is going

47:14 ↗ to be a podium style building. You're

47:16 ↗ going to have, you know, some that are

47:18 ↗ just wood and they're not going to be a

47:20 ↗ change in material. So, do you want to

47:22 ↗ require it at a certain point like by

47:25 ↗ the third floor or do you want to allow

47:27 ↗ them to decide where it's going to go?

47:30 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Matthews,

47:33 ↗ >> I was just thinking, sorry, I did wave

47:34 ↗ my finger, but um I was actually

47:37 ↗ thinking of what you said earlier about

47:39 ↗ the feeling of a valley or a canyon,

47:42 ↗ even if you have a step back at four or

47:44 ↗ five stories and maybe a lower setback

47:48 ↗ would be better. Okay.

47:51 ↗ Okay.

47:52 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Matthews,

47:53 ↗ Commissioner Krauss.

47:54 ↗ >> And also, would you maybe this is too

47:57 ↗ complicated, does it matter where in the

47:59 ↗ city also because you may have a

48:02 ↗ different point of view if if the

48:05 ↗ streets are narrower or tighter that you

48:08 ↗ want to do it at like floor after floor

48:10 ↗ two where in other areas if the if it

48:14 ↗ may make sense to you allow it to do be

48:16 ↗ a higher. So, I'm not sure if that gets

48:18 ↗ too complicated. on the environment or

48:22 ↗ where it is in the city. So right now

48:24 ↗ we're focused solely on

48:27 ↗ excuse me solely on regulations that are

48:29 ↗ in central Isiqua but in central Isiqua

48:32 ↗ you have the urban core which is the

48:34 ↗ regional growth center you know Costco

48:37 ↗ target that whole area the rally area

48:40 ↗ and then you have uh mixeduse central

48:42 ↗ Isiqua which includes sort of the former

48:44 ↗ Microsoft buildings the FedEx building

48:46 ↗ coming down that way and then you have

48:48 ↗ mixeduse residential which is closer to

48:51 ↗ where I believe you you are located and

48:55 ↗ those are slightly smaller streets with

48:57 ↗ slightly smaller buildings, but Veil is

48:59 ↗ there, Atlas is there.

49:02 ↗ Um, the new towns on Seventh Town Homes

49:06 ↗ just went there. So, it's changing.

49:10 ↗ >> I guess I'm just trying to think of like

49:11 ↗ the width of if you have a two

49:13 ↗ >> a two-lane road or or two lane plus

49:16 ↗ >> parking lane road, it has a different

49:18 ↗ feel of

49:19 ↗ >> what a canyon would be. And if it's a

49:21 ↗ wider one to begin with, I think it

49:22 ↗ gives you more latitude of where you put

49:24 ↗ it. If it's a narrower one, maybe you

49:26 ↗ want it a little bit lower. That's the

49:27 ↗ only thing. I'm not sure how you put

49:29 ↗ that in code. I'm just trying to think

49:31 ↗ aesthetically.

49:32 ↗ Um,

49:33 ↗ >> and most of our streets in urban core

49:36 ↗ and mixed use central Isiqua are what

49:38 ↗ are going to be called core streets. And

49:40 ↗ they will have at least two

49:43 ↗ two drive lanes,

49:45 ↗ parking on each side, and bike lanes. So

49:48 ↗ they're a little bit wider in mixeduse

49:51 ↗ residential. Not all streets are

49:53 ↗ required to be core streets. So some of

49:54 ↗ those may be a little narrower.

49:59 ↗ >> Any other further comment on uh this?

50:02 ↗ >> A good thought. And yeah, worth the

50:04 ↗ discussion.

50:04 ↗ >> Commissioner.

50:06 ↗ >> Yeah, I just want to say I also agree

50:08 ↗ with maybe having the stepbacks on a

50:10 ↗ slightly lower floor as suggested so

50:12 ↗ that we kind of avoid the canyon effect

50:14 ↗ because I can I've definitely seen that

50:16 ↗ in real life. just we already live in a

50:19 ↗ gloomy state. We don't need to make our

50:20 ↗ streets glooier.

50:22 ↗ >> Good argument. Um is there like a middle

50:26 ↗ ground where maybe if they change the

50:27 ↗ materials then they can decide what

50:29 ↗ floor but if they don't have a change in

50:31 ↗ materials then it is a standard. I I

50:34 ↗ like I said the whole idea of the code

50:36 ↗ is to give them policy that they can

50:38 ↗ clearly see and follow. I don't I don't

50:40 ↗ know if we allow developers to decide

50:42 ↗ where they do stepbacks. That that seems

50:44 ↗ kind of crazy.

50:46 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Gr.

50:47 ↗ >> So, just when do you have to can you

50:50 ↗ build a a wood story if you're five five

50:53 ↗ stories? I'm just trying to think of if

50:55 ↗ you build a five story, you don't have

50:56 ↗ any change, right?

50:57 ↗ >> Probably not. I'm going to defer to

50:59 ↗ Commissioner Allner though. Um, but

51:01 ↗ probably not.

51:02 ↗ >> I'm not sure where because you may still

51:05 ↗ tie it to change of materials. You may

51:06 ↗ have a fairly tall building with no

51:08 ↗ change of materials and then

51:09 ↗ >> it's usually like three over. It depends

51:11 ↗ on the materials that are used. I think

51:12 ↗ it's usually if you're going to use wood

51:13 ↗ and concrete, it's usually like

51:15 ↗ >> three over two.

51:18 ↗ >> Could you build a fivetory wood only

51:19 ↗ building?

51:19 ↗ >> Right. But four four fivetory wood

51:21 ↗ building is

51:22 ↗ >> Yeah. And you can build them and there

51:25 ↗ are, you know, mass timber buildings now

51:27 ↗ that are 15 stories high. Um

51:32 ↗ there are obviously some fire code

51:34 ↗ issues related to that, but uh they they

51:37 ↗ tend to be very beefy structures. So

51:40 ↗ they will they will not burn like a a

51:42 ↗ stick frame building would.

51:46 ↗ >> But then along Yeah. Along those lines,

51:47 ↗ you could have a five or more story

51:50 ↗ concrete building. So if they're not

51:52 ↗ changing materials. Yeah,

51:53 ↗ >> that's a good point.

51:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

51:58 ↗ And yeah, there are some very tall

52:01 ↗ buildings around here that are all

52:02 ↗ concrete. So that is that is an option.

52:03 ↗ If there's a material change, they

52:06 ↗ change where you know, you know, if it's

52:07 ↗ a podium style, they change at the

52:09 ↗ material change. And if there's no

52:11 ↗ podium style, then they have to change

52:13 ↗ by the second or third floor.

52:15 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense.

52:16 ↗ >> Oh, but I'm saying I'm sorry, just to

52:18 ↗ say just to clarify what I said, it's

52:20 ↗ like you could have like five stories

52:22 ↗ and then the fifth the sixth story is

52:24 ↗ wood. So five story is concrete. So it

52:26 ↗ could kind of nullify like if they

52:28 ↗ wanted to push it. Yeah. So if we do

52:29 ↗ wind change of material that means your

52:32 ↗ step back could be theoretically they

52:34 ↗ could really high.

52:35 ↗ >> Okay.

52:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

52:36 ↗ >> So

52:38 ↗ what I'm hearing is we want to keep it

52:39 ↗ low.

52:40 ↗ >> Okay.

52:41 ↗ >> All right.

52:43 ↗ >> Second or third floor we want to keep it

52:45 ↗ low.

52:45 ↗ >> Yeah. It it's like I said it's a great

52:47 ↗ conversation because these were well

52:48 ↗ thought out at the time and and again to

52:50 ↗ change them dramatically. I just you

52:52 ↗ know you're tossing away a lot of work

52:53 ↗ that went into these. So, got to be a

52:55 ↗ good reason for it. So, appreciate it.

52:58 ↗ Hopefully, all this different vagueness

53:01 ↗ is coming together for something you can

53:02 ↗ put together.

53:04 ↗ >> It is.

53:05 ↗ >> Okay. Good.

53:06 ↗ >> That's why you sit over there.

53:08 ↗ >> Okay. Oh, Commissioner, sorry. Uh, yes,

53:12 ↗ Commissioner Miller Win.

53:13 ↗ >> Yes. Um, I just took a peek at the uh

53:15 ↗ the central Isiqua plan and I just I'm

53:17 ↗ trying to wrap my mind around this

53:19 ↗ concept, but I do want to ask a question

53:21 ↗ about the developer height bonuses that

53:24 ↗ are tied to stepbacks. So, I'm trying to

53:28 ↗ understand.

53:29 ↗ >> So, devel uh development bonus is not

53:32 ↗ tied to stepbacks. Development bonus is

53:34 ↗ if they want to go over the base height.

53:36 ↗ Yes.

53:36 ↗ >> So, or if they want to go over the base

53:39 ↗ F.

53:41 ↗ So it's not necessarily a step back. So

53:45 ↗ it's convoluted, but if you want to it's

53:48 ↗ I shouldn't say convoluted, it's a

53:49 ↗ little confusing. Um but if so, say the

53:52 ↗ base height is 60 ft and you want to go

53:54 ↗ up to 85 ft, right? We you are required

53:58 ↗ for 20% of onethird of your overage, you

54:02 ↗ have to require affordable housing on

54:04 ↗ site if that development is residential.

54:07 ↗ For the other two/irds, you can either

54:09 ↗ choose to pay of 20% of the other

54:12 ↗ two/irds. You can either pay fee and loo

54:14 ↗ for that. It's based on square footage

54:16 ↗ that your overages. You can do on-site

54:19 ↗ affordable housing. You can do it some

54:21 ↗ other place or you can uh yeah, the fee

54:25 ↗ and loo either goes toward city council

54:27 ↗ decides if it goes toward parks or open

54:30 ↗ space or to affordable housing.

54:34 ↗ So, is it a loss of um square footage to

54:38 ↗ gain height?

54:39 ↗ >> No. No,

54:41 ↗ >> it's actually somebody put it a very

54:44 ↗ interesting way today. Uh the more

54:45 ↗ height you get, that's more free land

54:47 ↗ you're getting. That's more development

54:48 ↗ you get. So, you buy this one square

54:51 ↗ piece of flat land and the higher you

54:53 ↗ get to go. That's more free land right

54:55 ↗ there.

54:56 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

54:58 ↗ >> Yeah. If I may, it's it's all about

54:59 ↗ density, right?

55:00 ↗ So, it's it's really like if they if

55:02 ↗ they're willing to do the affordable

55:04 ↗ housing, they can continue to build

55:06 ↗ upwards in order to get density in their

55:09 ↗ residential

55:10 ↗ uh multifamilies. So, we're allowing

55:13 ↗ less space, they get more or they can

55:15 ↗ build up,

55:16 ↗ >> but they have to in return give us to

55:18 ↗ Kristen's point affordable housing or a

55:20 ↗ fee and L.

55:21 ↗ >> Yeah. So, it's we'll give you this, you

55:24 ↗ can go higher, that's great, but we want

55:26 ↗ this, right?

55:27 ↗ >> That's what that is. But it doesn't have

55:28 ↗ anything to do with steps.

55:29 ↗ >> Nothing to do with stepbacks.

55:30 ↗ >> Step backs.

55:31 ↗ >> Thank you for the clarification.

55:33 ↗ Understood.

55:36 ↗ >> All right. Next question. And I think

55:38 ↗ we've already answered it. Um, well, do

55:41 ↗ we want to require a certain depth for

55:42 ↗ the stepbacks? It seems that we don't

55:44 ↗ want to require a maximum.

55:46 ↗ Um, but do you want to require a

55:48 ↗ minimum?

55:51 ↗ >> Commissioner D. Yeah, I think we

55:53 ↗ definitely want to have some kind of

55:54 ↗ minimum because if you want to think if

55:55 ↗ this is going to be community outdoor

55:57 ↗ space, I don't know y'all have ever been

55:59 ↗ on a narrow balcony. If you you can make

56:02 ↗ them unusable by having them too narrow.

56:05 ↗ >> So I I would think five feet is on the

56:08 ↗ narrow side for sure. Okay.

56:10 ↗ >> Just visualizing it. Yeah.

56:12 ↗ >> Yeah. Fivet would basically be like

56:14 ↗ planters I would assume, Eric. that type

56:17 ↗ of

56:20 ↗ >> you can get beastro chairs out there but

56:22 ↗ not much more.

56:23 ↗ >> Right. Okay.

56:24 ↗ >> So, you want it to be usable space.

56:32 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, if we're counting this

56:33 ↗ towards their community space, you

56:35 ↗ you're saying it should be a terrace

56:36 ↗ space and it should be community space.

56:38 ↗ Well, then it should be usable for the

56:39 ↗ people who live there. I mean, if you

56:41 ↗ can't get a little barbecue or something

56:43 ↗ out there, what's the point? You're not

56:45 ↗ going to use it. Okay.

56:48 ↗ All right. Any preferred depth?

56:52 ↗ >> You can ask whatever you like,

56:53 ↗ Commissioner Grass.

56:54 ↗ >> I guess anything I like. Okay.

56:56 ↗ >> Context.

56:57 ↗ >> Um, so just because you have a minimum,

57:00 ↗ I don't think that means people are

57:01 ↗ going to only build to the minimum. They

57:03 ↗ may say, "Oh,

57:04 ↗ >> from a design standpoint, six feet is

57:07 ↗ better than five feet." Um, we're just

57:10 ↗ trying to have some level of,

57:13 ↗ you know, don't don't go less than this.

57:15 ↗ >> Correct.

57:16 ↗ >> But, you know, the market and, you know,

57:19 ↗ developers are going to say what's best,

57:21 ↗ I think, for their environment. And

57:23 ↗ maybe they're building an 8 foot depth

57:25 ↗ because that's um, so I'm not sure where

57:28 ↗ five came from. It doesn't seem like an

57:30 ↗ unreasonable thing, especially if it's

57:31 ↗ not livable space, but it's just from a

57:33 ↗ design standpoint to to kind of break

57:35 ↗ things up. Um, I can't remember from the

57:38 ↗ other cities.

57:40 ↗ Is is five kind of a standard or is that

57:42 ↗ something that we came up with?

57:43 ↗ >> Five was the minimum with the other

57:45 ↗ cities.

57:45 ↗ >> Okay. So, that's a but it doesn't mean

57:48 ↗ they're only building to five. That's my

57:50 ↗ point. So,

57:51 ↗ >> no. I mean, I guess I would ask um

57:54 ↗ Commissioner Oler, but to me, if they're

57:57 ↗ already making the break, it's more

57:58 ↗ about losing square footage in those

58:00 ↗ floors. So, they're probably going to

58:02 ↗ hug a little bit closer to five. They're

58:04 ↗ probably not going to go 30 on their own

58:05 ↗ free will because they're going to be

58:06 ↗ losing value. But it doesn't mean they

58:09 ↗ would just go 25. I mean, they're

58:11 ↗ already making the break. It's not going

58:12 ↗ to cost them much more money to go a

58:15 ↗ couple more feet. It's more about losing

58:16 ↗ the livable area on the floor, I would

58:19 ↗ assume.

58:20 ↗ >> I think that's true. And I and I think

58:22 ↗ the other factor is if they wanted to

58:26 ↗ consider that as usable open space then

58:30 ↗ they may want to go more than five feet.

58:34 ↗ Um so I think they're giving them a

58:38 ↗ minimum of five feet I think is that's

58:40 ↗ the I mean I wouldn't go smaller than

58:42 ↗ that.

58:43 ↗ >> Okay. Um but they they certainly

58:45 ↗ developer might want to go further than

58:47 ↗ that to to to

58:50 ↗ have a greater uh coverage of the of the

58:54 ↗ property um by having some of the

58:57 ↗ outdoor space elevated,

58:59 ↗ >> right? Which is part of our next

59:00 ↗ conversation which is will be we'll be

59:02 ↗ talking about outdoor communal space and

59:04 ↗ stuff. And so again, if it goes to that

59:06 ↗ number,

59:07 ↗ >> you're right. the the builders are

59:08 ↗ going, I'm already doing the step back,

59:10 ↗ so it makes sense if I'm trying to build

59:12 ↗ communal space. Let's do it here where I

59:14 ↗ already have to make the break.

59:17 ↗ >> I'll assume

59:19 ↗ Commissioner Matthews.

59:21 ↗ >> Um I actually think on your I think 5T

59:24 ↗ is pretty small and I think if you tell

59:26 ↗ them it's 5T, most people are going to

59:27 ↗ do 5T because if you looked at the

59:29 ↗ developer comments, they were already

59:31 ↗ saying they'd want to do less than half.

59:33 ↗ they want to do 30% balconies rather

59:35 ↗ than 50, you know. So, I'm basically

59:38 ↗ talking about another thing. So, they're

59:40 ↗ not going to go and do more unless they

59:42 ↗ know that like you're on Mercer Island

59:44 ↗ and you're going to get a huge amount of

59:46 ↗ rent compared to Isiqua,

59:49 ↗ I'm guessing. I don't know. But, you

59:51 ↗ know, so I think that maybe in between,

59:53 ↗ maybe seven and a half. Is that a weird

59:55 ↗ number? But yeah, eight, but it's um

1:00:00 ↗ five just seems pretty small.

1:00:03 ↗ you can't really use it. I mean, if you

1:00:04 ↗ go through Belltown or if you go through

1:00:06 ↗ Ballad, they have really tiny like five

1:00:08 ↗ foot balconies and they're not really

1:00:10 ↗ usable. You don't see them being used

1:00:12 ↗ that often just because they are small.

1:00:16 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass,

1:00:17 ↗ >> I think we also are combining two

1:00:19 ↗ different things. We have stepbacks,

1:00:21 ↗ which is the building just has a shape,

1:00:24 ↗ and then we have balconies. And do we

1:00:27 ↗ have code that if you have a balcony, it

1:00:30 ↗ needs to be a certain amount of size?

1:00:31 ↗ Because you could solve this. You can

1:00:33 ↗ say the stepbacks are five or less. But

1:00:35 ↗ if you're using it as a balcony, if

1:00:36 ↗ there's already code on balconies that

1:00:38 ↗ need to be at least 6 feet or whatever,

1:00:40 ↗ that kind of solves that problem if

1:00:42 ↗ you're using it for that.

1:00:43 ↗ >> Right now, private outdoor amenity

1:00:44 ↗ space, if you're going to do a balcony,

1:00:46 ↗ it has to be 48 square feet. So whether

1:00:48 ↗ that's 4 by 12 or 6 by8 is up to you,

1:00:50 ↗ but it's a minimum of 48 square feet.

1:00:52 ↗ >> So it's not a depth, it's just overall.

1:00:54 ↗ Okay, that didn't solve it. Sorry.

1:00:57 ↗ >> Try.

1:00:58 ↗ >> No. And I think you're right though.

1:00:59 ↗ It's it's two kind of similar but

1:01:01 ↗ different conversations because the next

1:01:03 ↗ one's going to be about, you know,

1:01:04 ↗ solidifying whether or not you get rid

1:01:07 ↗ of that or you combine it. That I think

1:01:08 ↗ is where the 50 to 30% number comes.

1:01:10 ↗ It's not necessarily the step back. All

1:01:12 ↗ I'm trying to say is that if a builder

1:01:14 ↗ sees it as beneficial to put the

1:01:17 ↗ communal space there, you know, again,

1:01:21 ↗ and I do agree. I do think that their

1:01:22 ↗ big concern is going to be, you know,

1:01:24 ↗ maximizing, you know, their livability.

1:01:26 ↗ But if they already have these other

1:01:28 ↗ standards saying you have to have this

1:01:29 ↗ much livable or communal space or

1:01:31 ↗ private space, they might see that as an

1:01:33 ↗ opportunity to build it in their part of

1:01:36 ↗ their design. So again, I think there's

1:01:37 ↗ similar conversations. Tell me if I'm

1:01:39 ↗ wrong, but they're different.

1:01:42 ↗ >> Correct.

1:01:42 ↗ >> Okay.

1:01:44 ↗ I'm okay with five myself.

1:01:46 ↗ >> I I'm If I can speak, please.

1:01:49 ↗ >> Yeah. I weren't we just looking though

1:01:50 ↗ that the stepbacks in isqua right now in

1:01:53 ↗ the current code they do have to be

1:01:55 ↗ either terrace or community space right

1:01:57 ↗ they can be or they have to be I'm kind

1:02:00 ↗ of curious yeah

1:02:02 ↗ >> um that's that's an open space

1:02:04 ↗ conversation but you can you are

1:02:06 ↗ required right now

1:02:08 ↗ >> in our code to have 48 square ft of

1:02:12 ↗ private space

1:02:13 ↗ >> plus an additional 100 square ft per

1:02:16 ↗ unit common space which yes could be on

1:02:20 ↗ a rooftop. It could be in a plaza. It

1:02:22 ↗ can but some kind of outdoor space.

1:02:24 ↗ >> But right now, are stepbacks required to

1:02:28 ↗ be accessible as a terrace? Because I

1:02:30 ↗ swear I just saw that.

1:02:31 ↗ >> Yeah, they are in one place. They are.

1:02:33 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:02:33 ↗ >> I think it's next to maybe the next

1:02:35 ↗ natural context areas.

1:02:36 ↗ >> That's might be where I saw it.

1:02:37 ↗ >> I think that's right.

1:02:39 ↗ >> Okay. So just so they are going to be

1:02:41 ↗ utilized as I mean cuz if you're forced

1:02:44 ↗ to include a a step back then of course

1:02:46 ↗ you're going to include it as part of

1:02:47 ↗ your common space because you're

1:02:49 ↗ required to it's required to be

1:02:53 ↗ right I mean in the current standards

1:02:56 ↗ >> if I understand it correctly the 48 is

1:02:58 ↗ that's that's non-negotiable the 100

1:03:00 ↗ square feet is like it goes into a bank

1:03:03 ↗ where you know the whole community

1:03:04 ↗ whether I think to Kristen's point it

1:03:06 ↗ goes to it could be a plaza it could be

1:03:08 ↗ an outdoor or wraparound where the step

1:03:10 ↗ back happens like a terrace where

1:03:12 ↗ everybody can use but every unit gets

1:03:14 ↗ their own 48 square ft of outdoor

1:03:17 ↗ livable space.

1:03:18 ↗ >> Correct.

1:03:19 ↗ >> Um and then like I said that other 100

1:03:21 ↗ square ft can go into the property bank

1:03:23 ↗ and how the how the community or the not

1:03:25 ↗ the community how the developer chooses

1:03:27 ↗ to build that. So if there's 20 units

1:03:29 ↗ and you have 100, you know, that's 2,000

1:03:31 ↗ square feet. Where they're how what they

1:03:33 ↗ do or how they configure that is up to

1:03:35 ↗ the developer, but that 100 square feet

1:03:37 ↗ goes into the bank. The 48 is clearly

1:03:40 ↗ that is the individual units outdoor

1:03:43 ↗ area.

1:03:43 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:45 ↗ >> So I that's not quite what I'm getting

1:03:49 ↗ at here,

1:03:49 ↗ >> right? But our code currently requires

1:03:51 ↗ in central Isiqua

1:03:54 ↗ um

1:03:56 ↗ in this one6002 or 8602 masking and

1:04:00 ↗ building articulation that step backs

1:04:01 ↗ must incorporate terraces and outdoor

1:04:03 ↗ usable space.

1:04:04 ↗ >> Yes, that's what I was referring to.

1:04:05 ↗ >> So we do currently require that. But

1:04:08 ↗ it's still a minimum of 5T and a maximum

1:04:10 ↗ of 20 currently.

1:04:13 ↗ >> Yeah. So I'm just Yes.

1:04:16 ↗ So I'm saying yeah if it is going to be

1:04:18 ↗ part of their community space as

1:04:20 ↗ required then we should also think of it

1:04:23 ↗ as a community space is just what I'm

1:04:25 ↗ trying to say.

1:04:26 ↗ >> Okay.

1:04:26 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:04:27 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:04:28 ↗ >> Do you want to require I I'm adding more

1:04:30 ↗ questions. Let's just make this maybe

1:04:32 ↗ longer. Do you want do you want to

1:04:34 ↗ require that stepbacks are used as open

1:04:36 ↗ space?

1:04:38 ↗ >> Uh no. I think like I said then you

1:04:42 ↗ might actually get into their

1:04:43 ↗ feasibility.

1:04:45 ↗ >> Yeah. Please, Commissioner Boler.

1:04:47 ↗ >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. No, that's okay. We'll

1:04:48 ↗ go around.

1:04:49 ↗ >> Um, you know, if you're just doing a

1:04:51 ↗ step back, you can do that with a

1:04:55 ↗ membrane roof that's not walkable. You

1:04:58 ↗ don't need railings, so it's much less

1:05:00 ↗ expensive. Plus, you don't have an an

1:05:03 ↗ exterior door to get access to it. So, I

1:05:07 ↗ mean, I I think it's an important

1:05:10 ↗ question that we're considering here

1:05:12 ↗ whether all of those stepbacks have to

1:05:15 ↗ be accessible and usable.

1:05:19 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

1:05:21 ↗ >> I was uh thinking on the same line if if

1:05:24 ↗ it's usable. So, so there Sorry, I'm

1:05:26 ↗ trying to get my thoughts together. I'm

1:05:28 ↗ thinking of like the apartments, the

1:05:29 ↗ Atlas apartments or where you may not

1:05:32 ↗ have a lot of area on a block to put in

1:05:36 ↗ enough outdoor space and you decide to

1:05:39 ↗ use that terrace or the step back as a

1:05:41 ↗ terrace as an outdoor space. Could that

1:05:44 ↗ if they decide to do that, turn that to

1:05:46 ↗ open space, could they the requirement

1:05:49 ↗ be greater like 10 ft at least minimum

1:05:53 ↗ if that's considered your outdoor space?

1:05:57 ↗ Sorry. Sorry, one one second.

1:06:00 ↗ If

1:06:01 ↗ >> does that make sense? Um

1:06:03 ↗ >> where I'm going? Okay.

1:06:07 ↗ >> I think so. But if they're if they if

1:06:11 ↗ they choose to make that an amenity

1:06:14 ↗ space, that counts toward their outdoor

1:06:16 ↗ space.

1:06:17 ↗ >> Yes. Was that the question? Did I miss

1:06:20 ↗ it?

1:06:21 ↗ >> Actually, if they decide to do that,

1:06:22 ↗ then maybe the step back is greater. So

1:06:25 ↗ five feet is like you're just walking on

1:06:27 ↗ your own in that area, but if it becomes

1:06:30 ↗ part of your outdoor space, then the

1:06:31 ↗ setback should be deeper like 10 feet.

1:06:34 ↗ Yes.

1:06:35 ↗ >> Okay, I see what you're saying. Okay.

1:06:37 ↗ >> All right.

1:06:38 ↗ >> It seems pretty reasonable. Uh,

1:06:40 ↗ Commissioner Er,

1:06:41 ↗ >> just uh um based on my own experience

1:06:44 ↗ renting an apartment in downtown Seattle

1:06:46 ↗ on the 28th floor, we I I think our

1:06:51 ↗ balcony was maybe 8 ft wide by

1:06:57 ↗ 3 and 1/2 to 4t deep. It was barely

1:07:01 ↗ usable, but you could get two chairs out

1:07:03 ↗ there. You you could be outside and we

1:07:06 ↗ used it. Um, so I I'm not sure that, you

1:07:10 ↗ know, five feet is too small for an

1:07:12 ↗ outdoor space to be usable.

1:07:16 ↗ >> It'd be nice if it were bigger, but in

1:07:18 ↗ some cases.

1:07:19 ↗ >> Okay.

1:07:20 ↗ >> I I uh, anyone else like to go?

1:07:24 ↗ Commissioner D,

1:07:26 ↗ >> I kind of support the idea of making it

1:07:30 ↗ so that they have the option of it not

1:07:32 ↗ being outdoor space if they want to save

1:07:34 ↗ money into in order to encourage, you

1:07:37 ↗ know, them doing it, right? And

1:07:41 ↗ >> that way they can always do their

1:07:42 ↗ outdoor space somewhere else as long as

1:07:44 ↗ they are meeting the minimums for their

1:07:45 ↗ outdoor space. So I think where we're

1:07:47 ↗ going if it's if it's

1:07:49 ↗ not going to be amenity space it could

1:07:52 ↗ be 5T but if it is going to be amenity

1:07:55 ↗ space then it has to be I don't know

1:07:59 ↗ it's something to talk through. I mean,

1:08:01 ↗ we it it's this I'm not there's not an

1:08:02 ↗ answer right now, but

1:08:03 ↗ >> No, that's okay.

1:08:04 ↗ >> Like you said, it's I think it's just

1:08:06 ↗ it's percolating different ideas, but I

1:08:08 ↗ I I think I understand where the two of

1:08:10 ↗ you are going and I agree. Like you

1:08:11 ↗ said, if it's a personal private

1:08:12 ↗ balcony, I'm thinking of mine. It's 4

1:08:14 ↗ feet. I mean, it's plenty to have a

1:08:16 ↗ chair and a small Barbie, but yeah,

1:08:18 ↗ maybe if it go if you're actually trying

1:08:20 ↗ to get this to go into the communal

1:08:22 ↗ space, then yeah, maybe okay, now we're

1:08:24 ↗ talking about multiple people using it.

1:08:26 ↗ Five feet. I mean it's you know shoulder

1:08:28 ↗ to shoulder that's two people.

1:08:30 ↗ >> Do you mean communal space or just mean

1:08:32 ↗ usable space? I think we're now we're

1:08:34 ↗ >> communal.

1:08:34 ↗ >> Communal. Okay.

1:08:36 ↗ >> Yes. Not a balcony.

1:08:38 ↗ >> Got

1:08:40 ↗ >> like this is a place you'd have an

1:08:41 ↗ apartment meeting, right? That kind of

1:08:44 ↗ place. All the girls are going to go

1:08:46 ↗ sunbathe.

1:08:48 ↗ >> But it but to but I think to I mean it

1:08:50 ↗ still gives the developers some wiggle

1:08:51 ↗ room. They can decide whether or not

1:08:53 ↗ okay this doesn't really fit our design

1:08:54 ↗ or or what have you. So, gives them some

1:08:57 ↗ still some options.

1:09:00 ↗ >> So, we will we'll look more into that

1:09:02 ↗ one. I have two more quick questions.

1:09:03 ↗ >> Are you getting what you need? That's my

1:09:05 ↗ question.

1:09:06 ↗ >> No, but we're going to figure it out.

1:09:08 ↗ Okay.

1:09:08 ↗ >> Um, no. We got we got lots of

1:09:10 ↗ information to work with.

1:09:11 ↗ >> Okay.

1:09:11 ↗ >> Uh, should the stepback be on all sides

1:09:14 ↗ or should it just be on the street

1:09:15 ↗ frontage?

1:09:18 ↗ >> So, if you're on a corner, then you're

1:09:20 ↗ going to have it on two sides

1:09:21 ↗ automatically because you've got two

1:09:22 ↗ street frontages. Or if you if you're in

1:09:24 ↗ the middle of the block, you've got it

1:09:26 ↗ on one street frontage or should it be

1:09:27 ↗ on all sides

1:09:30 ↗ >> or Yeah, definitely. I'll go ask

1:09:31 ↗ Commissioner Craft.

1:09:32 ↗ >> It just go I mean, the purpose of this

1:09:34 ↗ was to not create canyons. So then by

1:09:36 ↗ definition, then it makes sense where

1:09:37 ↗ there's streets and so

1:09:40 ↗ >> I you know, I think you answered your

1:09:42 ↗ own question on that one, but it's like

1:09:44 ↗ >> well it our code currently doesn't say

1:09:46 ↗ >> otherwise you're like building pyramids.

1:09:48 ↗ Yeah.

1:09:48 ↗ >> Um but yeah, I think it's

1:09:50 ↗ >> it's I think it's the intent of the

1:09:53 ↗ discussion is is for where there's

1:09:56 ↗ people and if there's if you back up to

1:09:59 ↗ an alley or something like that that's

1:10:01 ↗ not that.

1:10:02 ↗ >> Okay.

1:10:03 ↗ >> Is that I So my view is where there's

1:10:06 ↗ streets or the other way we would, you

1:10:08 ↗ know, have walkways and all of that.

1:10:11 ↗ >> I I have one last question. If it's only

1:10:13 ↗ going to be on the street frontage, does

1:10:15 ↗ it need to continue 100% across that

1:10:18 ↗ building that that street facade, or

1:10:21 ↗ could it maybe occupy 75% of that street

1:10:23 ↗ facade?

1:10:24 ↗ >> Yeah. I think you showed a picture, one

1:10:27 ↗ of those pictures of the more modern

1:10:28 ↗ building where clearly it wasn't doing

1:10:30 ↗ that. It was broken up.

1:10:31 ↗ >> Mhm.

1:10:32 ↗ >> I mean, I I think aesthetically that

1:10:34 ↗ looks fine, but like I said, I kind of

1:10:36 ↗ want to phone my friend right now and

1:10:38 ↗ ask Commissioner Olen. But I I I think I

1:10:41 ↗ mean that sounds like that would be that

1:10:44 ↗ to have it on all all sides that seems

1:10:46 ↗ like that would that would probably be

1:10:47 ↗ pretty burdensome on a developer.

1:10:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I would I would think so. Um I

1:10:51 ↗ mean I think you know there's aesthetics

1:10:54 ↗ and there's economics and they don't

1:10:57 ↗ always agree with each other. Um I I

1:11:00 ↗ think if you if you look at many of the

1:11:02 ↗ developments where there there are

1:11:04 ↗ stepbacks on streets, they frequently do

1:11:08 ↗ not have them. Um where they're facing

1:11:11 ↗ an alley or, you know, they're buted up

1:11:14 ↗ against another building.

1:11:17 ↗ >> Yeah. I think for me it's just like I

1:11:18 ↗ said, I just don't want to strip all

1:11:20 ↗ the, you know, the the intent that we

1:11:22 ↗ built in this, but at the same time, we

1:11:24 ↗ want it to be user friendly. I I don't

1:11:25 ↗ want to scare people when people think

1:11:27 ↗ of our zip codes like you know.

1:11:31 ↗ >> So where did we land on that one? If

1:11:33 ↗ it's on the street frontage all the way

1:11:35 ↗ across or a percentage of that 75

1:11:38 ↗ >> percentage right I mean it gives them

1:11:40 ↗ more design options and flexibility

1:11:43 ↗ >> commissioner there.

1:11:44 ↗ >> Yeah. Along those lines though, um, are

1:11:45 ↗ there requirements based on baked into

1:11:48 ↗ I'm just thinking, is it possible to get

1:11:49 ↗ a really long building so then you'd

1:11:52 ↗ have kind of a long section that is that

1:11:55 ↗ 25% or do we have maximum lengths built

1:11:58 ↗ in already?

1:11:58 ↗ >> Well, we already have a built in you

1:12:00 ↗ you've got like 30 feet before you have

1:12:02 ↗ to break it up again. And so we do

1:12:05 ↗ already have some some things broken in

1:12:08 ↗ there um or uh put put in place so that

1:12:13 ↗ you break up the building.

1:12:14 ↗ >> I'm just thinking of the canyon effect

1:12:16 ↗ though. So if you were to have really

1:12:17 ↗ high frontage that's that would be my

1:12:20 ↗ main concern if you have like really big

1:12:22 ↗ I don't want to say the blue names

1:12:24 ↗ building but that is a very long big

1:12:26 ↗ building and even you know 25% of it is

1:12:30 ↗ still enough to cast a shadow is what

1:12:32 ↗ I'm saying. So that's kind of what my

1:12:34 ↗ concern is

1:12:35 ↗ >> is Yeah.

1:12:36 ↗ >> So I hear one for all the way across.

1:12:42 ↗ >> Does the staff have an opinion on it?

1:12:44 ↗ >> No. Waiting to hear from you.

1:12:47 ↗ >> Okay.

1:12:50 ↗ >> That's funny. The blue building which we

1:12:52 ↗ do not speak of. It's like Voldemort.

1:12:55 ↗ >> Well, we did we did just get a second

1:12:58 ↗ staff opinion over. beat. We did get

1:12:59 ↗ another up for like eight years around

1:13:02 ↗ here.

1:13:02 ↗ >> Did the other city I'm curious. You had

1:13:04 ↗ that one slide that had all the other

1:13:06 ↗ cities rules of stepbacks. How do they

1:13:08 ↗ handle that same question?

1:13:10 ↗ >> Um,

1:13:11 ↗ >> is it the entire length or is it

1:13:13 ↗ >> I haven't seen. So, Kirkland's is

1:13:15 ↗ interesting because it has to be an

1:13:17 ↗ average of 10 feet which means they can

1:13:18 ↗ have 5T here and then 25 ft here. So,

1:13:22 ↗ that's that's a big difference in their

1:13:25 ↗ stepbacks. Um, Minnie was just saying

1:13:27 ↗ that there are some you could have it

1:13:28 ↗ where you don't have to step back on the

1:13:30 ↗ corners, but you do have to step back on

1:13:31 ↗ the rest of the building.

1:13:33 ↗ That's an option.

1:13:38 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

1:13:40 ↗ >> I think it's I have no problem with them

1:13:42 ↗ having a, you know, like a a minimum

1:13:45 ↗ 75%. But I don't think that the 25% and

1:13:49 ↗ you may have already said this should be

1:13:50 ↗ junked in one area. Maybe you have to

1:13:52 ↗ break it up break it up a little bit.

1:13:54 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, like you said, on the

1:13:56 ↗ corners have it

1:13:58 ↗ >> have no break or step back and in the

1:14:00 ↗ middle have it

1:14:02 ↗ >> okay?

1:14:05 ↗ >> Yeah, that was going to be my

1:14:06 ↗ suggestion. Maybe we could have like a

1:14:08 ↗ certain foot length of it. You know, you

1:14:11 ↗ can't exceed more than this long without

1:14:14 ↗ some kind of step back.

1:14:15 ↗ >> Okay. So, I'm I mean I could say this at

1:14:19 ↗ the end, but and we're going to move on

1:14:20 ↗ to open space, but I think I'm just

1:14:22 ↗ letting you know we'll come back next

1:14:24 ↗ time with draft code, actual code, but

1:14:27 ↗ there will probably still be some

1:14:28 ↗ options in there. And these are what we

1:14:29 ↗ talked about. This is what it would look

1:14:31 ↗ like. So, but but we've narrowed it down

1:14:33 ↗ so we have things to work with. Okay.

1:14:35 ↗ You ready to move on to open space?

1:14:37 ↗ >> Everybody get to say their piece.

1:14:40 ↗ >> Okay.

1:14:41 ↗ >> All right.

1:14:44 ↗ Okay. So, this one's obvious. It just it

1:14:47 ↗ provides open spaces for residents,

1:14:49 ↗ particularly for those who can't who are

1:14:51 ↗ for some reason unable to go outside of

1:14:54 ↗ the facility, maybe senior housing, that

1:14:56 ↗ kind of thing. And it creates a sense of

1:14:58 ↗ place for for residents who are there.

1:15:01 ↗ Um, however, in comparison to other

1:15:04 ↗ communities, ours are rather excessive.

1:15:07 ↗ Our requirements are excessive. So, as I

1:15:09 ↗ mentioned, um, well, we'll get to that

1:15:11 ↗ in a second, but they're a little

1:15:12 ↗ excessive. Um but they do foster

1:15:14 ↗ community. They attract tenants. They

1:15:17 ↗ command higher rents. Um they reduce

1:15:19 ↗ turnover because of that sense of place

1:15:22 ↗ and they boost property values. So there

1:15:24 ↗ are lots of bonuses to open space.

1:15:28 ↗ There we go. But there can be too much

1:15:31 ↗ of a good thing and too much required

1:15:33 ↗ amenity space can actually stop a

1:15:35 ↗ project. I spoke with a developer

1:15:37 ↗ recently who was looking at a site and

1:15:40 ↗ the amount of required open space the

1:15:43 ↗ site isn't quite an acre. The amount of

1:15:45 ↗ open space that would be required is

1:15:46 ↗ slightly over half an acre. So that that

1:15:48 ↗ stops that development right there.

1:15:52 ↗ So we again we have policies that direct

1:15:55 ↗ us. These are actually from this is from

1:15:56 ↗ the comprehensive plan not central plan.

1:15:58 ↗ citywide, but to encourage a

1:16:00 ↗ well-distributed system of shop,

1:16:02 ↗ services, and recreation that serves

1:16:03 ↗ with the needs of residential

1:16:05 ↗ neighborhoods and workplaces.

1:16:09 ↗ And our codes, as I mentioned before, we

1:16:12 ↗ have if you have 20, we're only looking

1:16:13 ↗ at these are only going to apply to

1:16:15 ↗ those that have 22 units or more because

1:16:17 ↗ that's really what you're going to get

1:16:18 ↗ in central Isiqua. So, we require that

1:16:21 ↗ each each unit currently has 48 square

1:16:25 ↗ ft of space attached to it that they

1:16:29 ↗ have an additional 100 square ft of

1:16:32 ↗ common space to be somewhere in the

1:16:35 ↗ building that everybody can use. And for

1:16:38 ↗ these you also we also require an

1:16:39 ↗ additional 400 square ft of space just

1:16:42 ↗ not per unit just 400 ft of space.

1:16:48 ↗ You can get deviations but if you're

1:16:50 ↗ going to do that you must be consistent

1:16:52 ↗ um with the intent of this. You can't

1:16:55 ↗ constitate it can't be a privilege to

1:16:58 ↗ you know reduce it. You can't you can't

1:17:00 ↗ have an appreciable adverse impact on

1:17:03 ↗ the environment or health or safety. So

1:17:05 ↗ you have to have something and then you

1:17:08 ↗ have to um if you are going to have any

1:17:11 ↗ kind of impacts those have to be

1:17:12 ↗ mitigated elsewhere.

1:17:15 ↗ And I left this out of your slide. What

1:17:17 ↗ are the deviations? Left this out of the

1:17:19 ↗ discussion before. Um, one is that you

1:17:22 ↗ can request a deviation in the size for

1:17:25 ↗ the um,

1:17:27 ↗ size requirements. If you put all of the

1:17:32 ↗ I'm going to say this wrong, all of the

1:17:34 ↗ required community space for multiple

1:17:36 ↗ buildings into one larger community

1:17:38 ↗ space. You can do that.

1:17:41 ↗ So, if you have two buildings, you don't

1:17:42 ↗ have to split it up. You can have it all

1:17:43 ↗ in one place. Um, you can reduce

1:17:49 ↗ the number. This one you all did not too

1:17:51 ↗ long ago and that we were currently

1:17:53 ↗ required that you have all of them have

1:17:55 ↗ it, but you can reduce it that only 50%

1:17:58 ↗ of the units have the private private

1:18:00 ↗ space, but you still have to have a

1:18:02 ↗ total of 148 square feet for every unit.

1:18:04 ↗ So, the rest of that, whatever you don't

1:18:05 ↗ do, that 50% has to go into common

1:18:07 ↗ space. And then the last one is for the

1:18:10 ↗ conversion of multif family units that

1:18:12 ↗ can be uh reduced. They don't have they

1:18:15 ↗ just have to still provide 148 square

1:18:17 ↗ feet somewhere on site. You don't have

1:18:18 ↗ to do any outdoor because we can't

1:18:20 ↗ require them to do physical changes to

1:18:22 ↗ the building. So

1:18:24 ↗ okay. Um so Belleview currently they

1:18:28 ↗ require 800 square feet of unpaved space

1:18:32 ↗ plus private 50 square feet per unit

1:18:36 ↗ beyond 10 units. So if you do 11 units,

1:18:39 ↗ 50 additional square feet per unit.

1:18:42 ↗ Um

1:18:44 ↗ in both and Canyon Park, similar to

1:18:46 ↗ Central Quad, 20 it's they require 20%

1:18:50 ↗ of common space

1:18:52 ↗ um based on the net building floor area.

1:18:55 ↗ No private amenity spaces are required.

1:18:58 ↗ Redmond, they do a common and private. I

1:19:01 ↗ need to look a little further into this,

1:19:02 ↗ but it's 100 square feet per unit that

1:19:05 ↗ they have to do and a maximum of 20% of

1:19:08 ↗ the project site,

1:19:10 ↗ which something like that may have

1:19:12 ↗ prevented in this other situation. Um,

1:19:15 ↗ and then Snomish County, their comment

1:19:18 ↗ and private space is 150 square feet per

1:19:20 ↗ unit, which is very much like Isiqua.

1:19:23 ↗ It's a little bit over.

1:19:28 ↗ So recommendations are right now that we

1:19:30 ↗ require setbacks.

1:19:34 ↗ Shoot.

1:19:38 ↗ Wow. Okay.

1:19:44 ↗ Okay. I don't know what happened. Um, do

1:19:47 ↗ you have your staff report with you?

1:19:50 ↗ >> Okay, we can wing it. Plenty cable.

1:19:55 ↗ >> Uh, my staff report.

1:20:00 ↗ Oh, as far as just the questions you're

1:20:01 ↗ going to ask us. Yes. Let me see.

1:20:04 ↗ >> Of course you can.

1:20:09 ↗ I'm taking my responses.

1:20:15 ↗ >> And I apologize. I looked at this right

1:20:17 ↗ before the meeting and didn't even

1:20:18 ↗ notice it. Oh my goodness. Okay. So our

1:20:22 ↗ recommendations are

1:20:24 ↗ um rather than to have deviations

1:20:28 ↗ um just require

1:20:31 ↗ just 100 square ft of common outdoor

1:20:34 ↗ space plus 48 square ft of open space or

1:20:38 ↗ 100 square feet per unit plus an

1:20:41 ↗ additional 48

1:20:43 ↗ 48 square ft per unit for any units that

1:20:45 ↗ do not have private open space or I'm

1:20:48 ↗ going to need to keep this or 100 square

1:20:51 ↗ feet per unit plus 30% of all units have

1:20:55 ↗ to have this square feet of open space.

1:20:56 ↗ So essentially we're just taking that

1:20:58 ↗ 30% out of the deviations and moving it

1:21:00 ↗ up to the top. Okay. Um to allow

1:21:04 ↗ flexibility in the amount of open space

1:21:06 ↗ requirements for all commercial and

1:21:07 ↗ multif family buildings converting to

1:21:09 ↗ affordable residential housing which is

1:21:11 ↗ what we already do and require private

1:21:13 ↗ open space for only 30% of the units

1:21:16 ↗ instead of 50%.

1:21:21 ↗ thoughts.

1:21:24 ↗ Have

1:21:24 ↗ >> you you want to just take a question by

1:21:25 ↗ question?

1:21:26 ↗ >> Uh, sure. Well, those were the

1:21:28 ↗ recommendations.

1:21:29 ↗ >> Okay. Those are the recommendations.

1:21:30 ↗ Okay.

1:21:31 ↗ >> Um, let's do question by question. How

1:21:32 ↗ about that? Yes. Sure. Okay. That way I

1:21:34 ↗ get to go to the next slide. Okay. Um,

1:21:41 ↗ yeah, Kristen. Wow.

1:21:44 ↗ Okay, I'm keeping this. So, those are

1:21:47 ↗ actually the recommendations that are up

1:21:48 ↗ on the screen. Look at that. Okay.

1:21:50 ↗ Considerations. Um,

1:21:53 ↗ do you want to amend the code to add

1:21:55 ↗ options instead of having applicants

1:21:58 ↗ request deviations? Just, you know what,

1:22:00 ↗ here are your options. You can do one of

1:22:02 ↗ these three things. Sort of the way that

1:22:04 ↗ I don't know if I think it was in the

1:22:06 ↗ packet itself, the way Redmond does it.

1:22:08 ↗ Um, they had different ways of

1:22:10 ↗ calculating it and we could do that.

1:22:13 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass. Um, thanks for the

1:22:16 ↗ options. So, if I look at 1B, do I read

1:22:18 ↗ this as they could do 148 beat per unit

1:22:23 ↗ just that it says both common and

1:22:25 ↗ private together? It's kind of And then

1:22:28 ↗ they could have some with no balconies,

1:22:29 ↗ but it could all be in common. Is that

1:22:32 ↗ one of the choices?

1:22:33 ↗ >> 30%.

1:22:34 ↗ we would have 30%

1:22:36 ↗ >> or is it that's an or I if I just chose

1:22:38 ↗ one B.

1:22:41 ↗ >> It'd be and if I

1:22:43 ↗ >> So here's the other question. I'll ask a

1:22:46 ↗ different way.

1:22:47 ↗ >> I'm confused.

1:22:48 ↗ >> So some of them some of the other cities

1:22:50 ↗ do not break out private and common.

1:22:53 ↗ >> They just say let's say 150 ft per unit.

1:22:56 ↗ You got to put it somewhere.

1:22:57 ↗ >> Is that what B is? One B is.

1:22:59 ↗ >> Yes.

1:23:00 ↗ >> So they don't have to have any private.

1:23:02 ↗ They could do it all public. If if I if

1:23:04 ↗ I was a developer and I chose 1B,

1:23:06 ↗ >> correct?

1:23:07 ↗ >> Okay, that's

1:23:08 ↗ >> And then A is just the current how it's

1:23:11 ↗ written. Correct.

1:23:11 ↗ >> Current how it's written. Yes.

1:23:12 ↗ >> Right. So A is just currently how it's

1:23:14 ↗ written. B is to

1:23:16 ↗ >> John's point

1:23:17 ↗ >> and B gives them the flexibility of

1:23:18 ↗ where they want to put it, which is

1:23:20 ↗ which is not. And they may decide to put

1:23:21 ↗ more of it in.

1:23:23 ↗ Here's the other question. If is there

1:23:25 ↗ is there a D if they if they want to

1:23:29 ↗ just do much bigger balconies on all of

1:23:32 ↗ these and have a smaller common or is

1:23:34 ↗ that not something that we would want to

1:23:35 ↗ have as one of the choices?

1:23:38 ↗ If they say they wanted to do 100 ft per

1:23:41 ↗ unit

1:23:42 ↗ as it as a balcony but then have a

1:23:45 ↗ smaller common one. Are we trying to do

1:23:48 ↗ we care more about having a a bigger

1:23:50 ↗ common area or do we want to have

1:23:53 ↗ if someone has a priv a bigger private

1:23:55 ↗ area we don't have to worry about as

1:23:57 ↗ much common area?

1:23:59 ↗ >> I can't really speak for developers. I

1:24:01 ↗ don't know.

1:24:02 ↗ >> No. What do we want as a city? Not

1:24:04 ↗ developers probably would never do this

1:24:05 ↗ because they would probably it's more

1:24:07 ↗ expensive that way. But I'm just curious

1:24:08 ↗ if if we have a preference one way or

1:24:10 ↗ the other

1:24:13 ↗ >> thinking I mean common space is

1:24:16 ↗ important.

1:24:16 ↗ >> Okay.

1:24:17 ↗ >> Because that's where you go and you meet

1:24:18 ↗ your community and you meet the people

1:24:20 ↗ who are there and it provides play areas

1:24:21 ↗ for kids and it provides that kind of

1:24:23 ↗ thing. Private doesn't do that. You you

1:24:26 ↗ know and if it's a if it's an apartment

1:24:27 ↗ or a condominium that has children in it

1:24:30 ↗ and you don't have the common spaces

1:24:31 ↗ that leaves them 100 square feet to play

1:24:33 ↗ on their backyard.

1:24:34 ↗ >> Okay. Then I wouldn't do then I wouldn't

1:24:35 ↗ do a D. So then you answer my question.

1:24:37 ↗ Okay.

1:24:39 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Matthews,

1:24:41 ↗ >> I actually like the option where um only

1:24:44 ↗ 30% of the units have balconies because

1:24:46 ↗ I could tell you in my condo about 30%

1:24:50 ↗ of the people actually use that space at

1:24:52 ↗ all. So, to me, it makes sense to not

1:24:55 ↗ that not all of them have it. Um, I

1:24:58 ↗ guess the problem comes down to someone

1:25:00 ↗ got lucky and rented a balcony and then

1:25:03 ↗ they never used it and the next guy

1:25:05 ↗ wished he had his balcony. But I think

1:25:07 ↗ it makes sense not to have balconies on

1:25:09 ↗ every single unit. It just especially in

1:25:12 ↗ central Isiqua and have a bigger outdoor

1:25:14 ↗ space.

1:25:16 ↗ >> Commissioner De.

1:25:18 ↗ >> So I'm I'm all for options. I My issue

1:25:22 ↗ is looking at A, B, and C. I feel like B

1:25:25 ↗ kind of covers everything in A and C.

1:25:28 ↗ So, it makes A and C redundant if you

1:25:31 ↗ have B, unless I'm misunderstanding it

1:25:34 ↗ because if you have 30% of units minimum

1:25:38 ↗ have 48 square ft of open space. Oh, I

1:25:41 ↗ guess. So, that way is saying that you

1:25:43 ↗ don't have to have the additional 48 ft.

1:25:45 ↗ Okay. So, that's what I'm getting.

1:25:46 ↗ That's different there. And so then it's

1:25:48 ↗ like if you don't want any balconies at

1:25:50 ↗ all, then you have to add the additional

1:25:53 ↗ square footage.

1:25:55 ↗ >> But then nobody's going to pick a but

1:25:57 ↗ that's fine.

1:26:02 ↗ >> Yeah. No, absolutely. Like I said, code

1:26:04 ↗ language is funny, huh? These guys live

1:26:06 ↗ in it. So I don't feel bad if it takes a

1:26:08 ↗ moment. U I definitely want to make sure

1:26:10 ↗ everybody gets to speak. Uh Commissioner

1:26:11 ↗ Miller Irwin, Vice Chair Patterson,

1:26:15 ↗ >> anything. You don't have to. I just

1:26:17 ↗ Okay. No, just it it does appear that um

1:26:21 ↗ C is most comprehensive in that it's

1:26:24 ↗ appears to be the best of both worlds.

1:26:25 ↗ It gives you the uh square footage or

1:26:28 ↗ private open space and then also the

1:26:30 ↗ private space as far as the balconies

1:26:33 ↗ are concerned. So C seems reasonable to

1:26:35 ↗ me. Okay,

1:26:37 ↗ >> great point.

1:26:40 ↗ I I first thing is do I guess one of the

1:26:43 ↗ questions was would we prefer options

1:26:45 ↗ over deviations, right? That was kind of

1:26:49 ↗ the crux of that perfect. So,

1:26:51 ↗ >> um I know in the past this commission

1:26:54 ↗ has never liked deviations because they

1:26:55 ↗ feel like people lean on those whether

1:26:57 ↗ options are more appropriate here and

1:27:00 ↗ you know giving them a a a menu of

1:27:02 ↗ things they can choose from. Everybody

1:27:04 ↗ agree with that that options are better

1:27:06 ↗ than deviations.

1:27:09 ↗ Okay, I'm getting a lot of headshakes.

1:27:11 ↗ So, it looks like you got some

1:27:13 ↗ >> Sure. Vice Chair Patterson.

1:27:14 ↗ >> My only comment on that. It takes me

1:27:16 ↗ back to the Pioneer Project thing is we

1:27:18 ↗ at one point talked about options. We're

1:27:19 ↗ like everyone's going to pick the one of

1:27:21 ↗ the like one of the three options and so

1:27:23 ↗ we're like why not just go with that? So

1:27:25 ↗ that's one thing I might consider for

1:27:27 ↗ this is like is there one that the

1:27:28 ↗ develop like if you talk to a few

1:27:30 ↗ developers are going to be like we're

1:27:31 ↗ going to pick B every time or whether

1:27:32 ↗ like right

1:27:33 ↗ >> does it make sense if we're trying to

1:27:34 ↗ simplify things that we just if we're

1:27:37 ↗ going to give them the option do we just

1:27:38 ↗ make that the thing I don't know it's

1:27:40 ↗ just

1:27:48 ↗ >> uh Commissioner

1:27:50 ↗ >> I'm not sure I understand uh option C.

1:27:53 ↗ So in option C uh you have to haveund

1:27:57 ↗ 100 square ft per unit common space and

1:28:01 ↗ 30% of the units have to have the

1:28:03 ↗ private space. That seems like the least

1:28:07 ↗ ownorous from a development standpoint

1:28:09 ↗ because the other 70% of units don't

1:28:14 ↗ have to contribute 48 square feet to the

1:28:16 ↗ common area.

1:28:18 ↗ >> You are correct.

1:28:19 ↗ >> So why wouldn't a developer just pick

1:28:22 ↗ that one?

1:28:24 ↗ They may just say, "I want you."

1:28:27 ↗ >> Yeah, that's true. That's true. But then

1:28:28 ↗ they

1:28:31 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:28:34 ↗ >> that's a good point.

1:28:35 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

1:28:36 ↗ >> sorry I keep talking, but um the So for

1:28:39 ↗ option C, I'm at the same point where

1:28:42 ↗ it's like everyone's going to go for

1:28:43 ↗ option C. So why have options? Why don't

1:28:45 ↗ you just tell them what the minimum

1:28:46 ↗ criteria is?

1:28:49 ↗ >> Oh.

1:28:53 ↗ Well, I was going to continue. So,

1:28:56 ↗ basically, you would b you say that that

1:28:58 ↗ 48% cannot be on the ground floor. It

1:29:00 ↗ has to be in one of the higher units.

1:29:02 ↗ >> Well, it it can be a patio on the ground

1:29:04 ↗ floor. Just

1:29:04 ↗ >> No, no, no. I bet. Well, cuz they'll say

1:29:07 ↗ like, hey, that patio is really now if

1:29:09 ↗ it's on the ground floor, it's pretty

1:29:10 ↗ much part of the common space.

1:29:12 ↗ Everybody's going to be, you know,

1:29:14 ↗ >> does

1:29:14 ↗ >> none of it has a fence.

1:29:17 ↗ >> Sorry. condos were just built close to

1:29:19 ↗ me and that first floor they have patios

1:29:21 ↗ and then each one of those patios is

1:29:22 ↗ fenced individually.

1:29:23 ↗ >> Oh

1:29:24 ↗ >> yeah. Okay.

1:29:26 ↗ >> Well, I was going to say it. Why not

1:29:27 ↗ just make it a minimum criteria instead

1:29:29 ↗ of options and then if they want to do

1:29:31 ↗ more they could do more? I mean that's

1:29:34 ↗ it seems like that'd be the simplest

1:29:36 ↗ approach.

1:29:38 ↗ >> Yeah, great point.

1:29:42 ↗ >> Yeah, cuz um building on what Sandra is

1:29:44 ↗ saying. Yeah, I can see somebody saying,

1:29:46 ↗ "Oh, on the ground floor, we're going to

1:29:48 ↗ fence off some areas." And now that's

1:29:50 ↗ technically private and we can kind of

1:29:53 ↗ take away from our overall space

1:29:56 ↗ requirements that way because we'll have

1:29:58 ↗ 30% of this is right smaller. So, I

1:30:01 ↗ would maybe want to specify that that

1:30:03 ↗ private space would either have to be

1:30:04 ↗ above ground floor or maybe we do just

1:30:08 ↗ go with a minimum that way.

1:30:11 ↗ Any

1:30:14 ↗ other comments? Commissioner Grass,

1:30:16 ↗ >> I guess like I asked earlier, do we is

1:30:18 ↗ there a preference that we have common

1:30:20 ↗ areas? The answer was yes. So now I have

1:30:22 ↗ a different question somewhat related is

1:30:25 ↗ do we care if they build private or not?

1:30:28 ↗ Because if we have no preference that

1:30:30 ↗ they build private, then B should be an

1:30:32 ↗ option. If we feel like at least 30% of

1:30:37 ↗ every development should have private,

1:30:41 ↗ then C. I mean, so it comes back down to

1:30:44 ↗ what's the intent of the city. Do we

1:30:46 ↗ want um to require private? Because you

1:30:50 ↗ can envision some areas that B would be

1:30:52 ↗ more attractive based on the what the

1:30:54 ↗ property is. um and they could do maybe

1:30:57 ↗ a better job with common versus trying

1:30:59 ↗ to convolute if it's a small unit have

1:31:02 ↗ 48 square ft maybe make.

1:31:04 ↗ >> So the policy in the comprehensive plan

1:31:06 ↗ is to have common spaces for people to

1:31:08 ↗ enjoy and create a sense of community.

1:31:11 ↗ So that implies common spaces rather

1:31:14 ↗ than private spaces. We did have an

1:31:16 ↗ internal conversation about this a very

1:31:18 ↗ brief one and there was disagreement. So

1:31:21 ↗ um but the but the policy is for more

1:31:25 ↗ common spaces.

1:31:26 ↗ >> Okay, I get that. But because the

1:31:27 ↗ current is we are requiring private

1:31:31 ↗ >> correct.

1:31:32 ↗ >> So that's why I was asking a pointed

1:31:33 ↗ question of are we changing our point of

1:31:35 ↗ view and being more flexible of not

1:31:38 ↗ having private and the with with the

1:31:41 ↗ benefit of being more common.

1:31:43 ↗ >> So I'm going to ask Minnie to come up

1:31:44 ↗ here because Minnie was involved in the

1:31:46 ↗ conversation during the title 18 update

1:31:48 ↗ and that's when we changed this. So she

1:31:50 ↗ will have a little history as to

1:31:51 ↗ background.

1:31:53 ↗ >> Yes. So going back to pre-title 18

1:31:56 ↗ updates um in central it was just a 48

1:32:00 ↗ square ft. You you picked whether it was

1:32:02 ↗ common or it was private. Uh during the

1:32:06 ↗ community conversations um the

1:32:08 ↗ administration's proposal at the time

1:32:10 ↗ was 100 square feet. you pick common or

1:32:15 ↗ um uh balconies. Um through the

1:32:19 ↗ community conversations um there was a

1:32:22 ↗ desire to actually have private open

1:32:24 ↗ spaces. So then what became as planning

1:32:28 ↗ and policy commission's recommendation

1:32:29 ↗ that council adopted was 100 square feet

1:32:33 ↗ per unit plus 48 square ft for each unit

1:32:37 ↗ to have its own private open space. We

1:32:39 ↗ came back last year because we got

1:32:42 ↗ feedback saying every unit balcony is

1:32:45 ↗ not an aesthetic. Nobody's building

1:32:47 ↗ balcony on every unit. We need more

1:32:49 ↗ flexibility. And so we brought it back

1:32:51 ↗ with a 50% had to have balconies. We

1:32:55 ↗ kept the standard the same 100 square ft

1:32:58 ↗ and 48 square ft per private space, but

1:33:02 ↗ you could bundle that 48 ft into your

1:33:04 ↗ common space and just do for 50%. I

1:33:08 ↗ think the ask now that you heard

1:33:09 ↗ comments from the developers is reduce

1:33:12 ↗ that 50% to 30%. So the proposal last

1:33:17 ↗ year or a year before that after title

1:33:19 ↗ 18 where we reduced it to 50% was a

1:33:22 ↗ deviation pathway. So you still had your

1:33:25 ↗ standard but you could ask for a

1:33:26 ↗ deviation to reduce to only do it for

1:33:29 ↗ half the units. So I think that that led

1:33:33 ↗ to this conversation

1:33:35 ↗ um about so the two two things one is

1:33:38 ↗ public common versus private the ask I

1:33:42 ↗ think is to just only have a third of

1:33:44 ↗ the units or 30% of the units have

1:33:47 ↗ mandatory private open space. So if if

1:33:50 ↗ there's consensus on that then we can

1:33:53 ↗ set that aside. The other one is what's

1:33:55 ↗ the common open space standard which is

1:33:57 ↗ 100 right now. And then you have this

1:33:59 ↗ third bucket of if the 70% of the units

1:34:02 ↗ are not going to have private open space

1:34:04 ↗ then should that get bundled in with the

1:34:06 ↗ common open space standard that that's

1:34:08 ↗ how I think it's

1:34:10 ↗ >> I was asking a different question.

1:34:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:34:12 ↗ >> I mean are we

1:34:15 ↗ loosening our or changing our point of

1:34:17 ↗ view about mandatory any private space

1:34:20 ↗ because if you look at B is an option.

1:34:22 ↗ >> I think administration's recommendation

1:34:23 ↗ is at least 30% of the units.

1:34:25 ↗ >> So then B shouldn't be an option.

1:34:27 ↗ >> Yeah. I'm just I'm trying to come up

1:34:29 ↗ with do we want in some of the cities

1:34:30 ↗ that do they combine it? So that was my

1:34:34 ↗ question is is the point of view that we

1:34:36 ↗ want to require private. I know we

1:34:39 ↗ wanted to to focus on on common. I

1:34:41 ↗ totally get that. Um but but do we want

1:34:45 ↗ to require everything? And

1:34:47 ↗ >> so it's it's you know I think that's

1:34:49 ↗ where the community felt that there

1:34:51 ↗ needed to be for a livability standpoint

1:34:53 ↗ of folks living in the community. not so

1:34:55 ↗ much from the other standpoint that it's

1:34:57 ↗ nice to have a space that's your own uh

1:35:00 ↗ as in a multif family unit and so how

1:35:02 ↗ many of those units uh you know if

1:35:04 ↗ people want to pay less rent and not

1:35:06 ↗ have a balcony they have that option but

1:35:09 ↗ some units have that option if you

1:35:11 ↗ desire to have your own space that's

1:35:14 ↗ where we've landed on this 30 and I

1:35:15 ↗ think that's supported by the builder

1:35:17 ↗ roundt forum that we had and you

1:35:20 ↗ received one comment saying they they

1:35:22 ↗ appreciate going from 50 to 30%

1:35:25 ↗ Commissioner,

1:35:26 ↗ >> so casting back in time when we came up

1:35:30 ↗ with the 50% did the builders not have

1:35:33 ↗ input then? So

1:35:35 ↗ >> well it went through a public process

1:35:37 ↗ but we didn't hear from anybody.

1:35:39 ↗ >> Okay. So the 30 what? Yeah. Charlie

1:35:41 ↗ Brown is just but and then I if I could

1:35:44 ↗ just add on to that for speaking for

1:35:46 ↗ private space and this is just a

1:35:48 ↗ question to encourage discussion and

1:35:50 ↗ thought is there an advantage for people

1:35:53 ↗ for example who might be housebound or

1:35:55 ↗ have disabilities to have their own

1:35:57 ↗ private space available for outdoor

1:36:00 ↗ time? I mean maybe they could go down to

1:36:02 ↗ the courtyard but it might be beneficial

1:36:05 ↗ that some people just have that option

1:36:07 ↗ available to them.

1:36:10 ↗ Commissioner Miller, did you want to

1:36:12 ↗ speak?

1:36:12 ↗ >> Um, I agree 100% with Commissioner Dare.

1:36:15 ↗ Um, multifamily housing has different

1:36:18 ↗ demographics within it. So, you may have

1:36:21 ↗ people very well that are willing to pay

1:36:23 ↗ more money for a either balcony or um

1:36:27 ↗ patio space. you may have people that

1:36:29 ↗ are basically um housebound or simply

1:36:33 ↗ don't want to partake in the larger

1:36:36 ↗ communal space that you're going to have

1:36:38 ↗ probably a lot more children than not.

1:36:40 ↗ So I could see in terms of overall

1:36:42 ↗ marketability that C would be very um

1:36:45 ↗ attractive to developers because of all

1:36:49 ↗ of the variability that you can build in

1:36:51 ↗ marketing wise.

1:36:54 ↗ Commissioner Eer.

1:36:56 ↗ Um I think all of those um points are

1:36:59 ↗ valid and and I I think giving

1:37:02 ↗ flexibility is is a a good thing because

1:37:05 ↗ for example

1:37:07 ↗ the the property could be on a very busy

1:37:10 ↗ road um could be noisy um and people may

1:37:15 ↗ not want balconies and the developer may

1:37:19 ↗ say you know rather than have balconies

1:37:22 ↗ on the outside I'd rather have fewer of

1:37:24 ↗ them on on an internal

1:37:26 ↗ courtyard and have an open space with

1:37:29 ↗ plantings there which you know creates a

1:37:32 ↗ respit rather than have it all outward

1:37:35 ↗ facing.

1:37:37 ↗ >> Yeah, I think the language in the code

1:37:39 ↗ doesn't specifically say balconies, it

1:37:41 ↗ says private outdoor space. So that

1:37:43 ↗ could mean you know in your common open

1:37:45 ↗ space you get designated plot to do your

1:37:48 ↗ gardening or whatever, right? So you get

1:37:51 ↗ your own that that is a method. We've

1:37:53 ↗ toured some of the units in Seattle that

1:37:56 ↗ they do that for senior housing and

1:37:57 ↗ those kind of things. So um so there is

1:38:00 ↗ some flexibility. It doesn't say

1:38:01 ↗ balconies only. I think that but most

1:38:04 ↗ people, you know, assume it's a balcony

1:38:06 ↗ and that

1:38:07 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:38:08 ↗ >> it's an interesting way to interpret it

1:38:09 ↗ for sure.

1:38:12 ↗ >> Yeah, of course. Vice Chair Patterson.

1:38:13 ↗ >> Yeah, all this great discussion has

1:38:14 ↗ finally allowed me to form some thoughts

1:38:16 ↗ and opinions on this. Um, one thing I

1:38:19 ↗ will say is, uh, in my day job, we think

1:38:22 ↗ a lot about in the IT world, what's nice

1:38:24 ↗ to have and what do we need to have? And

1:38:26 ↗ I think when I think about that, you

1:38:28 ↗ know, outside space is a is a need to

1:38:31 ↗ have. But whether that's a balcony or

1:38:34 ↗ communal space or a local park, I think

1:38:37 ↗ that's that's the need to have part. The

1:38:39 ↗ balcony itself, I think, is nice to

1:38:41 ↗ have. And I think that making it a

1:38:43 ↗ requirement for all units or even 50% of

1:38:46 ↗ the units It's still a nice to have and

1:38:49 ↗ it's probably something that allows the

1:38:50 ↗ developer to charge more rent for that

1:38:52 ↗ unit because it's it's an additional,

1:38:54 ↗ you know, private amenity, I guess. Uh

1:38:57 ↗ it's like having a jacuzzi bathtub,

1:38:58 ↗ right? It's like that that's an

1:39:00 ↗ additional thing that you get to have

1:39:01 ↗ access to. So, you might be paying a

1:39:03 ↗ premium for it. Um so, in that case,

1:39:06 ↗ like I'm kind of on board with moving to

1:39:08 ↗ 30% of the the private space, private

1:39:11 ↗ open space. I also the more I think

1:39:14 ↗ about it the whole reason this is coming

1:39:16 ↗ up is because developers are saying we

1:39:18 ↗ can't develop with some of these

1:39:19 ↗ requirements whether it be the balcon

1:39:21 ↗ the balconies or the open space and so

1:39:23 ↗ that makes me not want to go the route

1:39:25 ↗ of allocating that non-private space to

1:39:29 ↗ communal space because then you're just

1:39:32 ↗ transferring the cost from the private

1:39:34 ↗ open space to the to the communal open

1:39:36 ↗ space and we might be stuck in the same

1:39:38 ↗ spot where they can't develop anything

1:39:39 ↗ because that communal space is growing

1:39:41 ↗ the square footage that they're trying

1:39:43 ↗ to develop. So, I think where I'm kind

1:39:45 ↗ of landing with is like if we're truly

1:39:46 ↗ trying to like create development, which

1:39:48 ↗ is what I understand the priority of

1:39:50 ↗ this initiative or these changes, is

1:39:53 ↗ that we should probably consider

1:39:56 ↗ uh going the direction of I guess it

1:39:59 ↗ would be

1:40:00 ↗ like I guess a you know one a with a

1:40:03 ↗ combination of lowering the units from

1:40:05 ↗ 50 to 30 that require the private open

1:40:07 ↗ space. Um, and I think the reason why to

1:40:10 ↗ kind of re bring this all back is that

1:40:12 ↗ it helps the developers and that it

1:40:14 ↗ gives them um, they don't have to do

1:40:18 ↗ 50%, you know, they have to do less

1:40:20 ↗ private open or private open space. They

1:40:24 ↗ don't have to do additional common

1:40:26 ↗ space. So, it lowers their cost overall.

1:40:29 ↗ The impact to the consumer, the

1:40:31 ↗ community member is less balconies,

1:40:33 ↗ right? which is I think we've kind of

1:40:35 ↗ discussed like it's a benefit to have it

1:40:37 ↗ but it's not necessarily a a need to

1:40:38 ↗ have it's a nice to have and they're

1:40:40 ↗ still able to access the existing the

1:40:43 ↗ common space that is required which I

1:40:46 ↗ mean if it's a a one-size courtyard and

1:40:49 ↗ you just make it bigger like I don't

1:40:50 ↗ think that's going to impact you know

1:40:52 ↗ the the usage as much um I I I would be

1:40:57 ↗ I don't know I

1:40:58 ↗ >> sure would be surprised that's option C

1:41:00 ↗ I think what you're talking about is

1:41:02 ↗ >> right right I I I think yeah that's

1:41:04 ↗ probably a little too much but so yeah I

1:41:07 ↗ don't know I I think this is a great

1:41:08 ↗ discussion though there's a lot of

1:41:09 ↗ considerations but I think at the end of

1:41:11 ↗ the day the issue is we're not getting

1:41:12 ↗ enough development and housing and you

1:41:15 ↗ know do we want to encourage that by

1:41:17 ↗ lowering some of these barriers or do we

1:41:19 ↗ want to continue this you know being

1:41:22 ↗ stuck here by trying to have these

1:41:24 ↗ requirements and I don't think that

1:41:26 ↗ we're losing much by making these

1:41:29 ↗ changes I think we're doing what it's

1:41:31 ↗ set out to do which is to increase

1:41:33 ↗ development in the central Isqua area

1:41:35 ↗ specifically. So, I'm kind of that

1:41:38 ↗ that's where I landed with all of this

1:41:39 ↗ great discussion that we've had um on

1:41:41 ↗ this topic.

1:41:44 ↗ >> Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson.

1:41:47 ↗ >> I'll just toss in my two cents. I don't

1:41:49 ↗ think necessarily having only 30% having

1:41:52 ↗ private open space is a bad thing. I

1:41:54 ↗ think honestly aesthetically to have

1:41:56 ↗ everybody have a balcony or something

1:41:58 ↗ similar would actually start looking

1:42:00 ↗ monolithic.

1:42:01 ↗ um it's not necessary. The market will

1:42:03 ↗ decide. You can see that almost on every

1:42:06 ↗ multif family. You know, there's pen

1:42:08 ↗ houses, there's things like this that,

1:42:10 ↗ you know, people pay more for what they

1:42:11 ↗ want and some not all units need it and

1:42:15 ↗ some some people to point earlier won't

1:42:17 ↗ even use it.

1:42:19 ↗ My question, and this is just a

1:42:21 ↗ legitimate question, just so what if you

1:42:24 ↗ were to take the 70% of units that

1:42:26 ↗ aren't doing the private open space,

1:42:28 ↗ could they contribute their 48 to an

1:42:30 ↗ additional, you know, put it like in a

1:42:33 ↗ bank, you know, then that would also so

1:42:35 ↗ then those 70 70% of units would now

1:42:38 ↗ have to contribute 148 ft. Does that

1:42:41 ↗ tank the project? Does that make it

1:42:43 ↗ unfeasible? That's my question. I'm not

1:42:45 ↗ saying I know it does or not, but that

1:42:48 ↗ would be my question is like a hybrid

1:42:50 ↗ for number C or for letter C is maybe

1:42:54 ↗ you get you bring down. So then they

1:42:56 ↗ because once they make an area that

1:42:59 ↗ relatively is inexpensive. It's the loss

1:43:01 ↗ of value from the square footage for

1:43:03 ↗ livability. The actual making of a

1:43:04 ↗ common area is not that's not driving up

1:43:07 ↗ the cost. It's they're losing the

1:43:09 ↗ ability to charge more for bigger units

1:43:11 ↗ and more units. So, I don't know if

1:43:15 ↗ there's a hybrid where C is like I said,

1:43:16 ↗ you you give them the 30%, so not every

1:43:18 ↗ unit has to have a balcony, but maybe

1:43:21 ↗ those 70% that don't get it goes in and

1:43:24 ↗ those 70% of units have to be at 148

1:43:27 ↗ square feet.

1:43:27 ↗ >> So, that's what our current deviation is

1:43:29 ↗ >> that. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. Could

1:43:32 ↗ have stopped me earlier, Kristen, but

1:43:33 ↗ thank you.

1:43:34 ↗ >> I want to interrupt.

1:43:36 ↗ >> But, um I honestly take another thing a

1:43:39 ↗ little bit differently. Isqua's always

1:43:41 ↗ hit our housing targets. I don't know

1:43:42 ↗ why we're in a rush to develop anything

1:43:45 ↗ and I don't mean to be rude about that.

1:43:47 ↗ I mean, I understand there's a push uh

1:43:50 ↗ to get more development, but it will

1:43:52 ↗ come. I mean, Isqua is very um you know,

1:43:55 ↗ it's a very coveted area. People want to

1:43:57 ↗ live here. It's only becoming more and

1:43:59 ↗ more expensive. So, just because we're

1:44:02 ↗ not competing with both in terms of

1:44:04 ↗ development does not bother me. Maybe it

1:44:06 ↗ bothers everybody else. It does not

1:44:07 ↗ bother me at all. I don't want to see us

1:44:10 ↗ rush through it. is all of these things

1:44:12 ↗ we're doing are going to be here for a

1:44:13 ↗ generation if not more and I'd rather do

1:44:16 ↗ it properly and right and make it fit

1:44:17 ↗ with the community than just be the

1:44:19 ↗ first one to be like yeah we got five

1:44:20 ↗ new starts like who cares

1:44:23 ↗ always hit their targets and if this

1:44:25 ↗ time we're a little bit slower than

1:44:27 ↗ others

1:44:29 ↗ doesn't bother me I'd rather do it right

1:44:35 ↗ but that go out there

1:44:38 ↗ commissioner

1:44:40 ↗ Um I I come at this u from the

1:44:43 ↗ perspective of someone very interested

1:44:45 ↗ in in developing more affordable

1:44:47 ↗ housing. And um while these are

1:44:52 ↗ obviously going to these questions are

1:44:55 ↗ going to have an impact on the

1:44:56 ↗ affordability of development. Um there

1:45:01 ↗ are many other factors and and some of

1:45:04 ↗ them much more fundamental like the cost

1:45:07 ↗ of land is a huge component and whether

1:45:11 ↗ you have 50% of units with an outdoor uh

1:45:14 ↗ private space or 30% that's not going to

1:45:18 ↗ have the same kind of impact that um you

1:45:22 ↗ know an expedited uh permitting process

1:45:25 ↗ would have or or other ways in which to

1:45:29 ↗ encourage development. So I I guess I

1:45:32 ↗ would suggest we're be a little cautious

1:45:35 ↗ about how far we we push this particular

1:45:38 ↗ lever to favor developers because there

1:45:40 ↗ are so many many other things that we

1:45:43 ↗ could and should be doing. Um so anyway,

1:45:47 ↗ that's just my perspective.

1:45:49 ↗ >> No, I appreciate it. It brings up uh

1:45:50 ↗ Kristen's photo of the island and

1:45:53 ↗ everything that was below the surface

1:45:55 ↗ which again are to your point that's

1:45:58 ↗ those are much more impactful than some

1:46:00 ↗ of the things that we're tweaking and

1:46:01 ↗ like you said if we go one direction

1:46:02 ↗ completely those aren't the big levers

1:46:06 ↗ below the surface ones we cannot see.

1:46:09 ↗ >> Commissioner Darren did you want to

1:46:10 ↗ speak?

1:46:12 ↗ >> Yeah to those along those lines I'm all

1:46:14 ↗ for creating options and all of that

1:46:17 ↗ making it more flexible and easier. I do

1:46:20 ↗ want to point out though when I was

1:46:21 ↗ looking over the open space requirements

1:46:23 ↗ for Kirkland and Redmond and things I

1:46:25 ↗ didn't if I I was just doing the math

1:46:27 ↗ quickly I didn't see that it was that

1:46:29 ↗ different than what we had or that much

1:46:31 ↗ more honorous. So it does make me think

1:46:32 ↗ in some of these cases like what Oler

1:46:35 ↗ said the difference is land cost right

1:46:38 ↗ here versus and not necessarily.

1:46:42 ↗ So, I like the idea of making things

1:46:43 ↗ simpler and easier for people coming in,

1:46:46 ↗ but at the same time, yeah, I don't

1:46:48 ↗ think we should throw the baby out with

1:46:50 ↗ the bathwater on all of these. And yeah,

1:46:55 ↗ the baby in this case being open space,

1:46:59 ↗ >> that's interesting you said that cuz I I

1:47:01 ↗ thought so, too. After looking at that,

1:47:02 ↗ they didn't seem a whole lot different.

1:47:04 ↗ Belleview and what was the other one?

1:47:06 ↗ >> Redmond.

1:47:07 ↗ >> Redmond and Kirkland. I'm just I'm going

1:47:08 ↗ to go home and run them numbers cuz I'll

1:47:10 ↗ be curious to see how much because I was

1:47:12 ↗ just looking at I was like, "Okay, so we

1:47:14 ↗ need about 2,200 square ft of open space

1:47:16 ↗ for a 22 unit building. So, if we get

1:47:18 ↗ down to the nitty-gritty with the

1:47:20 ↗ different ones, how many how much square

1:47:22 ↗ footage of open space would they need?"

1:47:23 ↗ And I did have the question on the

1:47:26 ↗ breakdown of the net area footage that

1:47:28 ↗ I'll probably be emailing you later,

1:47:30 ↗ Kristen, because I know you love my

1:47:31 ↗ questions. Okay.

1:47:34 ↗ >> I'm sorry I missed part of that. the

1:47:35 ↗ >> Okay, there I did have I'm going to

1:47:37 ↗ probably be breaking down the math on

1:47:38 ↗ that just cuz I'm curious and I like

1:47:40 ↗ numbers.

1:47:41 ↗ >> Okay,

1:47:43 ↗ >> thank you.

1:47:44 ↗ >> Let's be honest. Woodenville gets all

1:47:46 ↗ that work because of the wine.

1:47:48 ↗ >> That's what it is.

1:47:51 ↗ >> Um are are you still getting everything

1:47:53 ↗ you need?

1:47:54 ↗ >> Well, you know, we have all these

1:47:56 ↗ questions, but I think the discussion

1:47:57 ↗ has covered them all. So, yeah. Yeah, I

1:48:00 ↗ was looking at them.

1:48:03 ↗ Um, thank you for this by the way.

1:48:05 ↗ >> Yeah, no problem.

1:48:11 ↗ >> The only one that we haven't talked

1:48:13 ↗ about is

1:48:17 ↗ do you want to add a maximum?

1:48:19 ↗ So, Belleview has their requirements,

1:48:22 ↗ but no more than 20 the max they're not

1:48:26 ↗ they don't have to go more than 20% of

1:48:27 ↗ the square net square footage of the

1:48:29 ↗ building.

1:48:31 ↗ Would you want to consider a maximum?

1:48:36 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

1:48:38 ↗ >> So, I had a question about that. Uh, you

1:48:41 ↗ know, in central Isqua, most of the

1:48:43 ↗ blocks are pretty small. So, you

1:48:45 ↗ probably only want X percentage of the

1:48:48 ↗ actual land to be used for open space.

1:48:50 ↗ Otherwise, you're not going to get a

1:48:51 ↗ building around it. So were you thinking

1:48:55 ↗ does it make sense to do it by the

1:48:57 ↗ overall square footage of the building

1:48:58 ↗ or would or the plot of land so for open

1:49:02 ↗ space not for the private space?

1:49:04 ↗ >> We'd have to look at that. You know the

1:49:06 ↗ the land itself you have to calculate in

1:49:08 ↗ the parking spaces and the driveways and

1:49:11 ↗ the required landscape already. I think

1:49:14 ↗ sometimes it's simpler to do the

1:49:16 ↗ building but the building is where the

1:49:17 ↗ people are. So then you're basing it on

1:49:20 ↗ the number of people not the size of the

1:49:21 ↗ land. Plus, if you have critical areas

1:49:23 ↗ in there, you have to calculate those.

1:49:27 ↗ I I don't want to just make it easy, but

1:49:28 ↗ I think it is easier to figure it out if

1:49:31 ↗ you base it on the building. And sort of

1:49:34 ↗ that's that gives you sort of an

1:49:36 ↗ estimate of how many people are going to

1:49:37 ↗ be in there and be using the space more

1:49:39 ↗ than the site itself.

1:49:41 ↗ >> Yeah. I was just thinking if you had 22

1:49:43 ↗ units and say it's only a block big, so

1:49:45 ↗ you have a six floor. Okay. I'm not

1:49:48 ↗ doing maths in my head tonight, but if

1:49:50 ↗ you have a six-story building with 22

1:49:52 ↗ units or whatever it is and it's only a

1:49:55 ↗ block big and they're supposed to have

1:49:57 ↗ 148 square feet for every, you know, for

1:50:01 ↗ 22 units, that's a big chunk of land.

1:50:03 ↗ So, if you're only on a block, that

1:50:05 ↗ seems like you're not going to get that

1:50:07 ↗ space. You could eat up like half that

1:50:09 ↗ block for open space. So, I was just

1:50:12 ↗ wondering if it made sense to do it

1:50:13 ↗ based on the footprint,

1:50:15 ↗ >> right,

1:50:15 ↗ >> of the location. We have to look at that

1:50:17 ↗ one.

1:50:25 ↗ >> Any comments as far as requiring a

1:50:27 ↗ maximum?

1:50:32 ↗ >> Everybody just gone silent.

1:50:36 ↗ Uh,

1:50:37 ↗ what would be the big con of having a

1:50:39 ↗ maximum?

1:50:41 ↗ >> I mean, I don't see one myself. I mean,

1:50:46 ↗ You know, again, I I guess that not

1:50:49 ↗ being good stewards of you utilizing the

1:50:51 ↗ land properly, but again, that the kind

1:50:53 ↗ of

1:50:54 ↗ just the cost and everything, I don't

1:50:56 ↗ see I don't think that's going to come

1:50:57 ↗ up a whole lot.

1:51:01 ↗ I mean, what do other cities do? Let me

1:51:02 ↗ ask you that.

1:51:03 ↗ >> I have only seen one one other city that

1:51:05 ↗ has a maximum.

1:51:07 ↗ >> That doesn't mean there are more, but

1:51:09 ↗ sure, in my research, that's all I've

1:51:10 ↗ seen.

1:51:11 ↗ >> But our but our east side cities only

1:51:14 ↗ one. Yeah.

1:51:15 ↗ >> And what was their maximum? 20%.

1:51:17 ↗ >> Yes.

1:51:21 ↗ >> Please.

1:51:21 ↗ >> If I'm understanding this, it's not it's

1:51:24 ↗ not um

1:51:27 ↗ it's it's a a way of of providing a a

1:51:32 ↗ ceiling to just how much open space

1:51:35 ↗ needs to be on a piece of property. Um,

1:51:39 ↗ and I

1:51:41 ↗ to chair's comment, I I don't see a

1:51:44 ↗ downside to that. Um, because obviously

1:51:48 ↗ developers are going to want to build

1:51:49 ↗ more units and less open space.

1:51:54 ↗ I

1:51:55 ↗ >> think it's a reasonable approach.

1:51:56 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean it I I think again the

1:51:59 ↗ builder is going to want to maximize it

1:52:01 ↗ but if you ever did get that oddball you

1:52:03 ↗ know you wouldn't want to be a bad

1:52:04 ↗ steward of the land and build you know a

1:52:07 ↗ very small building on a very large

1:52:08 ↗ property and take up amazing uh real

1:52:11 ↗ estate in central Isuziqua. So I don't

1:52:14 ↗ really see a downside to it. And if

1:52:16 ↗ you're selling 20%

1:52:19 ↗ you know they're going to build a

1:52:20 ↗ football field out for their community.

1:52:22 ↗ Um

1:52:24 ↗ >> I don't know. Well, I mean, again, I I

1:52:26 ↗ maybe it's something we could put in and

1:52:28 ↗ if it becomes problematic, it could

1:52:29 ↗ always be readressed.

1:52:31 ↗ >> I I think I'm seeing lots of nods.

1:52:35 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:52:35 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. Great.

1:52:43 ↗ >> Are you ready for me to move on?

1:52:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:52:46 ↗ >> Okay.

1:52:47 ↗ >> So, you already know the timeline

1:52:49 ↗ because Kate's given it to you. So,

1:52:56 ↗ So, we will bring this back on April

1:52:58 ↗ 23rd for review and it'll be interesting

1:53:01 ↗ because I know that there are developers

1:53:03 ↗ watching or who will watch this and we

1:53:05 ↗ will be meeting with the developers at

1:53:06 ↗ 5:30 that day. Um, actually no, we

1:53:09 ↗ won't. We'll be meeting with some

1:53:10 ↗ developers will be there and making

1:53:12 ↗ presentations um with the economic

1:53:13 ↗ vitality commission. Um, so we have that

1:53:17 ↗ and so you'll see these again on the

1:53:19 ↗ 23rd with actual code drafted but still

1:53:22 ↗ with options in there. May 24th we come

1:53:24 ↗ back for the public hearing and then

1:53:26 ↗ June 2nd to planning development

1:53:28 ↗ environment committee and then June 29th

1:53:30 ↗ to council for action. That's all I have

1:53:32 ↗ and I don't think there are any more

1:53:34 ↗ questions

1:53:36 ↗ just in case.

1:53:37 ↗ >> Right. Going once. Yeah. All right.

1:53:40 ↗ Well, thank you. Um, it looks like

1:53:42 ↗ Kristen's going to stay up there as we

1:53:44 ↗ move on out of regular business for

1:53:46 ↗ reports,

1:53:48 ↗ >> city council updates.

1:53:51 ↗ >> We did have our second roundt building

1:53:54 ↗ with developers to talk about these and

1:53:57 ↗ that was held on April 1st and there

1:54:00 ↗ were several. The first time we met it

1:54:02 ↗ was more town home, middle housing

1:54:04 ↗ developers and this time it was

1:54:08 ↗ larger developers. There's one who's

1:54:09 ↗ doing Trail Head, one who's looking at

1:54:11 ↗ another market right here. Um, so one

1:54:14 ↗ who did Veil, which is over on uh 7th.

1:54:18 ↗ So, some some larger developers and we

1:54:20 ↗ got some it was an interesting

1:54:21 ↗ conversation that was that was good. Um,

1:54:25 ↗ let's see any other council updates. any

1:54:30 ↗ >> you know for um some of the things we've

1:54:32 ↗ taken to them are um not that stuff that

1:54:35 ↗ comes to you the fee update

1:54:38 ↗ um but one of the things we are going to

1:54:41 ↗ take to the planning uh development and

1:54:44 ↗ environment committee um is the list of

1:54:47 ↗ 17 that council has said we you know as

1:54:49 ↗ our work plan uh for the next two years

1:54:52 ↗ um we want to create some goals and

1:54:54 ↗ outcomes for those seven so that helps

1:54:56 ↗ provide some guidance to the boards and

1:54:59 ↗ commissions as you work through them. So

1:55:01 ↗ that meeting currently scheduled for uh

1:55:04 ↗ May 19th. Um and then we were thinking

1:55:07 ↗ as you all debate uh the four meteor

1:55:10 ↗ topics, you know, there's some that we

1:55:12 ↗ that are more in the housekeeping kind

1:55:14 ↗ kind of category or simpler topics. Uh

1:55:18 ↗ and then some that are more policy

1:55:21 ↗ driven things that we would do a

1:55:22 ↗ midcheck-in with uh planning,

1:55:24 ↗ development, environment committee after

1:55:25 ↗ you all have discussed and debated that

1:55:28 ↗ a little bit um to kind of not surprise

1:55:31 ↗ them towards the end but also give you

1:55:34 ↗ some some of the feedback. You know what

1:55:36 ↗ else do you probably the question as at

1:55:39 ↗ as the midpoint check would be is there

1:55:41 ↗ anything you want planning and policy

1:55:43 ↗ commission to consider before finalizing

1:55:45 ↗ the recommendation. So for that we were

1:55:47 ↗ thinking the stepbacks that you're

1:55:49 ↗ talking about today, the open uh amenity

1:55:51 ↗ spaces and then we have um development

1:55:55 ↗ density and um inclusionary all the

1:55:59 ↗ affordable housing pieces um and tied to

1:56:02 ↗ that is um request for floor area ratio

1:56:06 ↗ and mixeduse residential. So it doesn't

1:56:09 ↗ quite work. We have a maximum height and

1:56:11 ↗ F don't quite work well together. So

1:56:13 ↗ those are the four that we're thinking

1:56:16 ↗ uh after you have had a chance to

1:56:18 ↗ discuss that we'll check in with them

1:56:20 ↗ and bring it back before you finalize

1:56:21 ↗ your comments. So that's in the works in

1:56:25 ↗ terms of sharing the schedule for all

1:56:28 ↗ all the 17 with them as well. Um other

1:56:32 ↗ than that council's busy with a lot of

1:56:34 ↗ stuff. We have new council members and

1:56:36 ↗ you know other things that are current

1:56:38 ↗ but names will kick up after you all

1:56:42 ↗ finish your deliberations.

1:56:45 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Minnie.

1:56:48 ↗ Okay. Uh

1:56:51 ↗ any other updates?

1:56:53 ↗ >> No, I we did um I say no and then I say

1:56:56 ↗ yes. Um we but I do want to talk to you

1:56:59 ↗ quickly about the meeting on the 23rd.

1:57:02 ↗ Um, Chair Voice wanted to remind

1:57:04 ↗ everyone it is at 5:30 here. I'm hoping

1:57:08 ↗ you can make it. Can you raise your hand

1:57:10 ↗ if you cannot make it? Just let or you

1:57:12 ↗ can email me. You can email me if you

1:57:13 ↗ can't make it. But we do need to have a

1:57:15 ↗ quorum. Uh, if we don't have a quorum,

1:57:17 ↗ even though there's no action, we can't

1:57:19 ↗ hold that meeting. So, that's important.

1:57:22 ↗ Um,

1:57:24 ↗ there will be some developers there

1:57:26 ↗ making a presentation. We will also make

1:57:28 ↗ presentations regarding vision and state

1:57:31 ↗ targets and things like that. It's it's

1:57:34 ↗ an educational piece for everyone. It's

1:57:36 ↗ not for feedback. It's education and

1:57:39 ↗ questions

1:57:40 ↗ >> for both the environmental or uh

1:57:42 ↗ economic development commission and you

1:57:44 ↗ all. So hopefully it helps inform

1:57:47 ↗ decisions on both sides.

1:57:49 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I think we all definitely want

1:57:51 ↗ to hear from the stakeholders and

1:57:52 ↗ clearly developers are part of our

1:57:53 ↗ community that help build our community

1:57:55 ↗ out. So definitely want to hear from

1:57:56 ↗ them and you know thank you to I won't

1:57:59 ↗ say their names but the the few people

1:58:00 ↗ that reached out on behalf of of

1:58:02 ↗ developers that provided us you know

1:58:05 ↗ some feedback. I mean it's all important

1:58:07 ↗ and they're definitely a big

1:58:08 ↗ stakeholder. So I don't I I don't hope

1:58:09 ↗ it doesn't come across as hostile just

1:58:12 ↗ more more than anything just you know

1:58:13 ↗ trying to make want to make sure we get

1:58:15 ↗ it right. That's all.

1:58:17 ↗ >> Um

1:58:18 ↗ okay other businesses announcements?

1:58:21 ↗ Anything else?

1:58:22 ↗ >> This time I really don't have any

1:58:25 ↗ Okay, so 5:30. I got a feeling like

1:58:27 ↗ people are going to be sneaking in like

1:58:29 ↗ at 5:45 and 5:50 going, "Oh my god." So

1:58:32 ↗ maybe on the packet and big bold

1:58:33 ↗ letters, we can put 5:30 meeting. Um,

1:58:36 ↗ that would probably help be helpful.

1:58:40 ↗ >> Anything from the commission? Anything

1:58:42 ↗ as far as good the good of the order?

1:58:46 ↗ All right. Well, thank you everybody.

1:58:49 ↗ Anything from staff before we say sign

1:58:51 ↗ off? All right. Well, thank you

1:58:53 ↗ everybody. Thank you Kate and thank you

1:58:56 ↗ Minnie. Thank you Kristen. Thank you

1:58:57 ↗ Amanda. Uh thank you tech and thank you

1:59:00 ↗ all. Have a good evening.

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 (7)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin

Oliner

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, CP&D Director Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Andrew Love, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of March 26, 2026 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3