Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 23, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 09, 2026

packet pp.3–9

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, April 9, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

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

Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.11–26

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 4:48 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the April 23 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review and discuss proposed draft amendments regarding outdoor amenity space for residential buildings and stepbacks.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.27–30

▶ Watch from 1:15:36 Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

1933 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ Okay. So, what time is it?

0:02 ↗ >> We're in 7:12.

0:04 ↗ >> We're ready to go.

0:05 ↗ >> We are ready whenever. Is Tim still up

0:07 ↗ there?

0:08 ↗ >> Tim up there.

0:13 ↗ >> Okay. I thought I said Tim.

0:16 ↗ Oh, now I'm the one that's late. All

0:19 ↗ right. Well, good evening everyone.

0:21 ↗ Thank you for joining us. We are getting

0:23 ↗ on to our second meeting of the evening

0:25 ↗ and this is for the Planning Policy

0:27 ↗ Commission. We're going to call this

0:29 ↗ meeting to order and it currently is

0:31 ↗ 7:13

0:33 ↗ p.m.

0:35 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:37 ↗ planning policy commission is in person,

0:39 ↗ but we may have staff members or part of

0:42 ↗ the public joining us virtually.

0:46 ↗ Kristen, do we have a quorum this

0:47 ↗ evening?

0:48 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:49 ↗ >> Okay. And I just like to take a moment

0:51 ↗ to introduce our commission to our

0:53 ↗ newest member, um, Commissioner Brett

0:55 ↗ Holstrm.

0:58 ↗ So, uh, Brett, you want to say a few

1:00 ↗ words?

1:02 ↗ >> Happy to be here. Lots to learn,

1:04 ↗ including where this meeting takes

1:06 ↗ place. So, I feel, uh, a little more

1:09 ↗ experienced already at this point, but,

1:12 ↗ uh, yeah, I'm looking forward to meeting

1:13 ↗ and working with everybody and offering

1:15 ↗ any insight I can. So, happy to be here.

1:18 ↗ >> Great. Happy to have you. All right,

1:21 ↗ we're going to move on to the approval

1:22 ↗ of minutes. You had some amendments in

1:24 ↗ your agenda packet and this is for the

1:26 ↗ April 9th PPC meeting. Does anybody have

1:29 ↗ any comments or anything they'd like to

1:32 ↗ point out about those minutes?

1:36 ↗ Mine's not technical. I'm just going to

1:38 ↗ bring it up especially after our last

1:40 ↗ meeting. I come across as pretty harsh

1:43 ↗ on page three of 30. So for our

1:47 ↗ recorder, it says chair voice stated

1:49 ↗ that isqua has hit its housing targets

1:50 ↗ and asked why there's a push for

1:52 ↗ development. I I think it was a little

1:54 ↗ bit more nuanced than that.

1:56 ↗ Um so again, I'm not going to ask for

1:59 ↗ anything formal, but just to let the

2:01 ↗ record show, I think there was a little

2:03 ↗ bit more to it than that. Okay.

2:07 ↗ So, having said that, those meeting

2:09 ↗ minutes are approved. We set aside this

2:12 ↗ time for general public comment. Um is

2:15 ↗ there anyone in the audience this

2:17 ↗ evening who would like to make comment?

2:19 ↗ All right, Carl.

2:22 ↗ >> Yes, please come pay back.

2:28 ↗ >> Thank you very much.

2:30 ↗ >> Hello, uh, commissioners. Carl Sharet,

2:32 ↗ Avalon Bay Communities. Nice to see you

2:33 ↗ again. Uh, I have a public comment about

2:36 ↗ the proposed required amenity spaces for

2:38 ↗ residential uses. Um,

2:41 ↗ in layman's terms, as I understand it,

2:44 ↗ we had made a recommendation that there

2:47 ↗ be an evaluation of the minimum common

2:50 ↗ outdoor amenity space, effectively

2:52 ↗ balconies, and or sorry, that was the

2:56 ↗ minimum common outdoor amenity space.

2:58 ↗ Um, the private outdoor amenity space.

3:00 ↗ We' made a recommendation to reduce that

3:02 ↗ amount, the amount of required balconies

3:05 ↗ per building effectively. Uh, I believe

3:09 ↗ that it landed that there is a minimum

3:11 ↗ common outdoor amenity space of 100

3:13 ↗ square feet per unit plus an additional

3:15 ↗ 48 square ft for any units without

3:18 ↗ private open space. I take objection to

3:21 ↗ the plus additional 48 ft for any units

3:25 ↗ without private open space. As I

3:27 ↗ understand that's the same um the same

3:30 ↗ amount that would have existed

3:32 ↗ previously if we had have requested a

3:34 ↗ variance under the city. So effectively

3:36 ↗ this is just documenting what we would

3:37 ↗ have otherwise been able to secure via a

3:39 ↗ variance and it doesn't help incentivize

3:42 ↗ development at this stage. Um happy to

3:44 ↗ debate the the merits of balconies. I'm

3:46 ↗ thinking of this via uh the challenge in

3:49 ↗ central Isco in particular of providing

3:51 ↗ this additional private open space or

3:54 ↗ additional um common outdoor amenity

3:56 ↗ space. I would also add specifically the

3:58 ↗ project I'm looking at um the trail head

4:00 ↗ project is directly across the street

4:02 ↗ from a public park. We believe that

4:04 ↗ that's a valuable area that our

4:06 ↗ residents will use in addition to the

4:08 ↗ private uh in addition to the got to get

4:10 ↗ this right common outdoor amenity space

4:12 ↗ that we do provide on site as well. Um

4:14 ↗ so the additional 48 square ft for any

4:17 ↗ units without private open space is

4:18 ↗ challenging for us to accommodate adds

4:20 ↗ cost to the development and um will

4:22 ↗ disincentivize investment in the

4:24 ↗ community. Thank you.

4:28 ↗ >> Great. Thank you Carl.

4:32 ↗ Are there anyone? Is there anyone else

4:33 ↗ that would like to speak? Amanda Blake

4:36 ↗ looked lots of sharings here.

4:39 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

4:46 ↗ >> All right. We're going to move along to

4:48 ↗ our regular business this evening and

4:51 ↗ tonight. This is the title 18 promoting

4:54 ↗ building investment code amendments,

4:57 ↗ building stepback and multif family

4:59 ↗ amenity space requirements in central

5:01 ↗ Isiqua.

5:03 ↗ Um, let's see.

5:06 ↗ We're going to discuss the proposed code

5:07 ↗ amendments to upper level building

5:09 ↗ stepbacks and multif family amenity

5:11 ↗ space requirements. Kristen Leon, our

5:14 ↗ planning manager, is presenting this

5:16 ↗ evening. So, Kristen, please go ahead.

5:21 ↗ Hello again. I'm Kristen Leon, planning

5:23 ↗ manager.

5:26 ↗ Let's see.

5:31 ↗ Hope you all are enjoying pizza. Still

5:33 ↗ lots left.

5:36 ↗ Okay.

5:37 ↗ So, we're going to start with stepbacks

5:39 ↗ tonight and then move on to the amenity

5:42 ↗ space. So, as we talked about last time,

5:45 ↗ the stepbacks are intended to sort of

5:47 ↗ create a pedestrian more pedestrian

5:49 ↗ friendly atmosphere and remove any

5:51 ↗ canyon effects that might happen with,

5:52 ↗ you know, taller eight-story buildings

5:54 ↗ with no stepbacks.

5:56 ↗ Um, during our April 9th discussion, we

5:59 ↗ tal there were several questions that

6:01 ↗ were asked of you all. Um, do you want

6:03 ↗ to eliminate the requirement for

6:05 ↗ multiple stepbacks? Yes, indeed you do.

6:08 ↗ Um, do you want to eliminate stepbacks

6:09 ↗ along natural context areas? again

6:12 ↗ because there are so many environmental

6:13 ↗ regulations that are already in place.

6:16 ↗ You said yes, we don't see a reason to

6:17 ↗ keep the stepbacks there. Do you want to

6:20 ↗ provide flexibility in the location of

6:21 ↗ the stepbacks either above the six story

6:23 ↗ or where construction materials change?

6:26 ↗ And you generally agreed and wanted to

6:29 ↗ provide flexibility including just

6:31 ↗ stepbacks on you want to see stepbacks

6:33 ↗ on lower floors at location or or at the

6:36 ↗ location where concrete podium style

6:38 ↗ construction ends and where there or

6:40 ↗ where are there there are construction

6:42 ↗ material changes and so it could be um

6:46 ↗ so the um I'm just going to keep going.

6:49 ↗ Did you want to require a certain depth

6:51 ↗ for setbacks? And no spec no specific

6:55 ↗ depth was identified but so there should

6:58 ↗ be a minimum. We just didn't discuss it

7:00 ↗ but there was agreement on removing the

7:02 ↗ existing requirements that the stepback

7:05 ↗ provide usable open space and that there

7:09 ↗ be a maximum. Right now the minimum is

7:11 ↗ 5T and the maximum is 20T. He said

7:14 ↗ there's no reason to do that. It's kind

7:16 ↗ of up to it's like parking. they're

7:17 ↗ going to do what they want to do as far

7:18 ↗ back. Um, also we discussed creating an

7:22 ↗ option for stepbacks to count as o as

7:24 ↗ usable open space which is um an option

7:27 ↗ for us to look at as well.

7:29 ↗ Lastly, there we go. Should the stepback

7:33 ↗ be continuous on all sides of the

7:34 ↗ building or should it just be along

7:37 ↗ streets? And if it's along just you know

7:39 ↗ public streets, should it be in cover

7:42 ↗ all 100% or can it be less? the

7:45 ↗ agreement last week and you guys can

7:47 ↗ correct me if we're wrong. Uh the

7:49 ↗ agreement we as we understood it last

7:50 ↗ week was yes, these should really be

7:52 ↗ only required on street frontages and

7:56 ↗ um there could be a possibility to have

7:58 ↗ less than 100% all the way across.

8:02 ↗ So um one thing that I want to mention,

8:04 ↗ it's not in here. I should have put I

8:06 ↗ meant to put it in here. Just a

8:08 ↗ reminder, we're only talking about

8:10 ↗ central isqua. There is another section

8:12 ↗ in the code that requires stepbacks.

8:15 ↗ There are certain things that you have

8:16 ↗ to do if you want to go up to 50 feet,

8:18 ↗ certain things that you have to go, you

8:19 ↗ know, if you want to go 65 and then up

8:21 ↗ to 85 because those are outside of in

8:24 ↗ central Isaqua. We're not addressing

8:26 ↗ those right now. Maybe at a later date,

8:28 ↗ but not now. So, I just wanted to let

8:30 ↗ you guys know that that is also out

8:31 ↗ there and potentially a future

8:33 ↗ amendment. Just looking at central right

8:35 ↗ now.

8:37 ↗ Okay. So our first proposal is

8:41 ↗ um just this is the natural context

8:44 ↗ areas and it's just to just remove all

8:47 ↗ discussion and requirements for

8:49 ↗ stepbacks there.

8:52 ↗ And again we are going to talk about

8:54 ↗ next uh natural context areas at another

8:57 ↗ point. There's more that goes to that

8:59 ↗ but at least that part is is gone if you

9:01 ↗ like it.

9:05 ↗ Do it all the time.

9:08 ↗ Um, next is that

9:12 ↗ so it already says we don't have that

9:14 ↗ they don't have to comply. Um, all

9:16 ↗ street facing facades for buildings six

9:18 ↗ stories or higher must include stepbacks

9:22 ↗ for buildings. Those stepbacks can begin

9:24 ↗ by the second floor. So right above the

9:26 ↗ first floor or at the sixth floor, so

9:28 ↗ right above the fifth floor. Anywhere in

9:30 ↗ there they can start. It may be where

9:32 ↗ they, you know, maybe a a five over

9:34 ↗ three. You want to do it on the third

9:35 ↗ floor. It may be a five over two and you

9:38 ↗ want to do it over the second, but just

9:39 ↗ somewhere in there is the proposal right

9:41 ↗ now. We remove the piece about

9:44 ↗ incorporating terraces and usable space

9:46 ↗ and remove the pieces remove the piece

9:48 ↗ about um four or fewer floors because if

9:51 ↗ you can go all the way to the sixth

9:52 ↗ floor, there's really no point in

9:54 ↗ requiring or wait this is about they

9:57 ↗ can't incorporate more than one. Anyway,

9:59 ↗ didn't make sense. If they want to

10:00 ↗ incorporate more than one, there's not a

10:02 ↗ problem with that. So uh again the

10:06 ↗ Northwest contemporary style uh provided

10:09 ↗ the same rules there. Um and then

10:13 ↗ they sh it's the same thing. They shall

10:15 ↗ begin by uh floor six but can begin at

10:19 ↗ floor two.

10:22 ↗ Okay. Any questions about those? Yes.

10:26 ↗ >> Jason I can sleep. So

10:28 ↗ >> just making sure trying to follow rules

10:30 ↗ around here. uh how do we land on six

10:33 ↗ stories for kind of that um I guess

10:36 ↗ minimum

10:37 ↗ >> um it was based on a study that was done

10:39 ↗ several years ago for the title 18

10:41 ↗ update and was proposed it was uh

10:43 ↗ research from other cities and what they

10:44 ↗ do um that's that's where it came from.

10:48 ↗ >> Sounds good. I think the only reason I

10:50 ↗ would ask is I know our concern last

10:53 ↗ week or last meeting when we brought

10:54 ↗ this up was kind of the canyon effect. I

10:56 ↗ was trying to envision you know six

10:58 ↗ stories is pretty high. I can't think of

10:59 ↗ too many buildings in Isiqua that reach

11:02 ↗ that much. Obviously, central Isqua,

11:04 ↗ we're looking at new different growth

11:06 ↗ than development, but I guess for the

11:08 ↗ commission, like are we comfortable with

11:10 ↗ six? Like, does that seem like a

11:11 ↗ reasonable height to start?

11:14 ↗ >> And and this isn't baked, so this is

11:15 ↗ your opportunity to say, "Hey, we all

11:17 ↗ agree it should be lower."

11:19 ↗ >> Yeah,

11:19 ↗ >> whatever.

11:22 ↗ >> Um, yeah. So, one thing I was going to

11:24 ↗ say is maybe Kristen, you could call on

11:26 ↗ everyone because I have I can't see.

11:28 ↗ >> What do you

11:29 ↗ >> I In fact, I miss Kate and my thank you

11:32 ↗ apology. So, I Yeah, I'm just I like I

11:35 ↗ said, I'm focused on the presentation on

11:36 ↗ you, so I'm missing people when they're

11:38 ↗ putting their hands up.

11:38 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll I'll do it. Okay. Okay. So,

11:41 ↗ yeah, I believe actually Commissioner

11:42 ↗ Oler raised his hand at the same time as

11:44 ↗ Commission. It's kind of a weird

11:45 ↗ question, but say say you have a setback

11:48 ↗ that that begins on the second floor and

11:51 ↗ that setback occurs. You have a

11:53 ↗ six-story building. You have a setback

11:55 ↗ at the second floor that goes up two

11:57 ↗ floors. There's nothing really

11:59 ↗ preventing the developer then from

12:01 ↗ cantalvering the last two upper floors.

12:04 ↗ >> Oh, you mean like over?

12:06 ↗ >> Yeah. Back again. In other words, taking

12:08 ↗ the setback away once you reason it.

12:11 ↗ It's more expensive, but it also adds

12:13 ↗ square footage, and that may be a

12:15 ↗ trade-off that the developer would be

12:16 ↗ interested.

12:17 ↗ >> But you're right. I see what you're

12:18 ↗ saying. And there was one code that said

12:20 ↗ all floors at this floor and all floors

12:22 ↗ above. So, if that's something that you

12:24 ↗ want to include, you could do that so

12:25 ↗ that they can't come back and can leave

12:27 ↗ over the first floor.

12:28 ↗ >> Well, I I don't know know what I don't

12:30 ↗ even know what my opinion on that is,

12:32 ↗ but I I I think it's something that we

12:34 ↗ should be prepared to address in case it

12:36 ↗ comes up.

12:37 ↗ >> Yeah. which we'd like to nip it in the

12:38 ↗ bud now if we think it's going to be an

12:40 ↗ issue rather than having to come back

12:41 ↗ and amend again.

12:42 ↗ >> Right.

12:46 ↗ >> Oh, sorry. I forgot to say it.

12:47 ↗ Commissioner Matthews, I'm used to you

12:49 ↗ doing it.

12:50 ↗ >> Um, off of what Vice Chair said about

12:53 ↗ the six stories, just for comparison,

12:55 ↗ how do you know how tall the Atlas

12:56 ↗ apartments are and the the veil I think

12:59 ↗ is right next to five stories.

13:00 ↗ >> They're five stories.

13:02 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. They are. I will note

13:04 ↗ that most of those are set back. They're

13:07 ↗ set back a little bit further except

13:09 ↗ along Seventh. They're set back a little

13:12 ↗ bit further from Gilman.

13:14 ↗ So, I don't know if that makes a

13:15 ↗ difference.

13:16 ↗ >> No, it's it's because I've been by those

13:18 ↗ buildings. So, I was just trying to

13:20 ↗ compare for since he said 16 tall. I was

13:22 ↗ just trying to in my mind picture what

13:24 ↗ it was like. Thank you.

13:26 ↗ >> Welcome. Uh, Commissioner Crass. So let

13:30 ↗ me So if if it change it's going to be a

13:32 ↗ podium. If it's six story you're not

13:34 ↗ going to be able to do wood six stories.

13:35 ↗ So that means probably two stories are

13:38 ↗ cement by definition then they'd have to

13:40 ↗ have a step back before six stories. So

13:43 ↗ even so was Jesse was your question. You

13:47 ↗ still may have a sixtory straight up but

13:49 ↗ I think it would it would probably have

13:52 ↗ to just because they can't construct

13:53 ↗ some unless you do a cement building for

13:55 ↗ six stories which they're not going to

13:57 ↗ do.

14:00 ↗ Yeah.

14:01 ↗ >> Six stories.

14:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

14:04 ↗ >> Uh yes. I was

14:08 ↗ >> uh just my opinion is I kind of agree

14:10 ↗ with me. Uh Jesse, sorry not to use your

14:14 ↗ last name, but it's okay. Uh

14:15 ↗ Commissioner Jesse, uh that 16 stories

14:17 ↗ feels a little tall to be starting it.

14:20 ↗ Uh maybe four stories might be more

14:24 ↗ appropriate. And also the I do think

14:27 ↗ it's good to note the what commissioner

14:30 ↗ Oler said about the canal lever. We

14:32 ↗ could have something that it should be

14:33 ↗ that all the way up. That's my opinion.

14:36 ↗ Thanks.

14:36 ↗ >> Okay.

14:39 ↗ Can we take an anybody else? Can we take

14:41 ↗ an informal vote on the first would be

14:43 ↗ the four stories and the second would be

14:45 ↗ the making sure that they all remain

14:47 ↗ back.

14:50 ↗ Sorry, I'm taking the chair's role right

14:51 ↗ now.

14:52 ↗ >> No, no, not at all. I was just going to

14:54 ↗ ask is the second option was what?

14:56 ↗ >> The second option is uh Commissioner

14:58 ↗ Oler talked about how you could step

14:59 ↗ back, go up for maybe three stories and

15:02 ↗ then come back out over toward Canver

15:04 ↗ over there. Yeah.

15:06 ↗ >> So,

15:08 ↗ >> um you're two separate questions I

15:10 ↗ suppose. So,

15:11 ↗ >> yes, they are two separate questions and

15:12 ↗ then Commissioner Adair.

15:14 ↗ Oh, just to expound on my point a little

15:16 ↗ further, I just think if the point of

15:18 ↗ this is to prevent a canyon effect, then

15:21 ↗ having a cantalvered building would not

15:24 ↗ prevent that effectively. So, it would

15:26 ↗ nullify the point of the code in the

15:29 ↗ first place. And then the second, again,

15:31 ↗ I I believe that a sixtory would cast a

15:34 ↗ significant shadow, which is why I'm

15:36 ↗ suggesting something lower, but I'm open

15:38 ↗ to debate on that. I'm not married to

15:40 ↗ it.

15:41 ↗ >> I I'll try and take my role back. Let's

15:42 ↗ see. Let's see how it goes. Okay. Um,

15:45 ↗ great point, Commissioner there. Uh, so

15:48 ↗ question one is, should it start at four

15:51 ↗ and then go up? What's everybody feel?

15:53 ↗ >> Or lower.

15:54 ↗ >> Or lower, but four being the maximum.

15:56 ↗ Then you have to have a step back. I

15:58 ↗ like that because we're not going to

15:59 ↗ have that many six-story buildings.

16:00 ↗ >> You may have it lower.

16:01 ↗ >> You can have it lower, but you have to

16:03 ↗ by four.

16:04 ↗ >> We have We have consensus.

16:06 ↗ >> We have consensus. All right. And then

16:08 ↗ the second question being the

16:10 ↗ cantaliever question. Um to Commissioner

16:13 ↗ Dar's point kind of negates the whole

16:14 ↗ idea we've been talking about which is

16:16 ↗ the canyon effect. Do we want to nip

16:18 ↗ that in the bud? Do we want to discuss

16:20 ↗ that further? I mean now is kind of the

16:22 ↗ time.

16:24 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. Absolutely.

16:26 ↗ >> So if I'm understanding this correctly,

16:28 ↗ it would be like um you know wall for

16:30 ↗ three stories. It would cut in for a

16:33 ↗ story and then go back to like wall. Um,

16:36 ↗ I think because it my understanding of

16:38 ↗ the stepbacks is it's mostly design

16:40 ↗ aesthetic. Like it's to prevent the

16:41 ↗ canyon effect. It's to make it look more

16:43 ↗ visually attractive, if you will, from a

16:45 ↗ curbside appeal. I'm I think I'm in

16:48 ↗ favor of that, allowing that, I guess.

16:51 ↗ Um, because the it allows the

16:54 ↗ flexibility by still allowing square

16:56 ↗ footage to be so, you know, you're not

16:58 ↗ taking square footage away all the way

16:59 ↗ up the building. It's just that you're

17:01 ↗ keeping the design aesthetic while still

17:03 ↗ allowing the developer to, you know,

17:05 ↗ capitalize on going up and uh maximizing

17:08 ↗ that square footage um ability.

17:12 ↗ >> That's interesting. So, the idea would

17:13 ↗ they'd still have to be within the

17:15 ↗ original footprint of the lower floors,

17:18 ↗ but they could come back to

17:21 ↗ >> they couldn't extend beyond the first

17:22 ↗ floor. I think I think you could sell me

17:24 ↗ on that all day long because especially

17:26 ↗ after talking to the developers and if

17:28 ↗ they're looking for more living space

17:31 ↗ >> question did we also talk about reducing

17:33 ↗ the there's no minimum

17:35 ↗ >> because there's still a five foot

17:36 ↗ minimum

17:37 ↗ >> correct there's no there's no minimum on

17:38 ↗ there right

17:38 ↗ >> so here's so here's how it could get

17:40 ↗ gamed someone just bring it in a little

17:42 ↗ bit they met met it then they go back

17:44 ↗ out and then they have their square

17:46 ↗ footage so I think there should be still

17:48 ↗ a minimum because if you take away the

17:50 ↗ minimum Then all it is it define a step

17:54 ↗ back. A step back could be very little

17:57 ↗ and all. So it doesn't meet the goals of

17:59 ↗ what we're trying to accomplish.

18:02 ↗ >> Commissioner.

18:03 ↗ >> Yeah. I think without a minimum you

18:05 ↗ could you could achieve a setback of six

18:07 ↗ inches by changing material on the

18:09 ↗ outside of the building and that's not

18:11 ↗ really what would that's not the

18:13 ↗ I would agree that a minimum is

18:15 ↗ necessary. I would also suggest that um

18:20 ↗ you know you could I I think coming back

18:23 ↗ out at higher levels to the original, it

18:26 ↗ sort of defeats the the purpose of not

18:28 ↗ creating a canyon. Um, and I think a

18:32 ↗ wedding cake appearance, tiered

18:34 ↗ appearance, is far more attractive than

18:37 ↗ something that cuts in and then bulks

18:40 ↗ out at at higher levels. But that to me

18:42 ↗ is an aesthetic question.

18:47 ↗ >> Commissioner Der Oh, sorry. Um, to the

18:50 ↗ first point. Yeah, I think if we're our

18:52 ↗ goal is to avoid a canyon effect, it

18:54 ↗ effectively nullifies that if we allow

18:56 ↗ it to go back. And then my second point

19:00 ↗ would be a suggestive minimum maybe of

19:02 ↗ six feet, 5 ft.

19:06 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov.

19:09 ↗ Yeah, I'm listening and I'm um what are

19:12 ↗ we trying to achieve here actually

19:14 ↗ because we just heard the whole

19:16 ↗ presentation about how hard it is to

19:17 ↗ build an insequent how many actually uh

19:21 ↗ hurdles we have for developers to

19:23 ↗ develop and we have some projects here

19:26 ↗ that are sitting for uh 10 years or

19:28 ↗ almost 10 years and at the very same

19:31 ↗ time we kind of to me we're right now

19:34 ↗ yeah we want we want things to be

19:36 ↗ beautiful but uh is it a good time for

19:39 ↗ things to be beautiful or or is it a

19:41 ↗ time for us to actually get at least

19:43 ↗ something built in the city? So let's to

19:47 ↗ my opinion let's try not to create more

19:50 ↗ hurdles with what we're doing now. So

19:53 ↗ yeah

19:54 ↗ >> so I guess informal vote who likes the

19:56 ↗ idea of getting rid of the canal lever

19:58 ↗ option.

20:00 ↗ >> Okay so that clearly wins there there's

20:03 ↗ that. So yeah, no, they can't

20:05 ↗ >> go back. And then as far as a minimum,

20:07 ↗ which Commissioner Dar brought up, I

20:09 ↗ think is a good point. I know we kind of

20:11 ↗ thought the idea of a maximum was silly,

20:14 ↗ but the minimum, and I think originally

20:16 ↗ we had the minimum at 5T.

20:18 ↗ >> Yes.

20:18 ↗ >> Do we just want to revert back to five

20:20 ↗ feet? I don't

20:23 ↗ Okay. Informal vote.

20:26 ↗ >> Okay. Five feet.

20:27 ↗ >> Sometimes we just need to talk about it.

20:29 ↗ Just need to flesh it out.

20:30 ↗ >> That's what we're here for.

20:31 ↗ >> That's what we're here for. got to talk

20:33 ↗ about it.

20:34 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Holstrom,

20:36 ↗ >> I will say even the difference between

20:38 ↗ like a 4 foot or 5 foot setback when you

20:40 ↗ multiply it by the width of the building

20:42 ↗ times another four. I mean, that's a

20:45 ↗ large space. That's a lot of square

20:47 ↗ footage, even just going from 4 foot to

20:51 ↗ 5 foot, which will drive up the cost of

20:55 ↗ that building rather significantly. So,

20:59 ↗ I would just add it's not just

21:02 ↗ aesthetics, it's also

21:05 ↗ are they going to be able to build this

21:06 ↗ building or not. Um, one of the I mean,

21:09 ↗ I agree with that. I think we've also

21:12 ↗ framed it so it's only on certain

21:13 ↗ portions of the building. And don't

21:15 ↗ forget these buildings are going to be

21:16 ↗ there for 75 years. So, we are, you

21:19 ↗ know, once you build them, they will

21:21 ↗ stay. Um,

21:24 ↗ and uh and and then what's that?

21:26 ↗ >> No, I'm just saying. So I think there's

21:29 ↗ ways and the flexibility especially if

21:31 ↗ it if some of these things get to count

21:33 ↗ towards some of the other things like

21:36 ↗ their outdoor space then um it meets

21:39 ↗ some other objective that they may have

21:41 ↗ to manage around. So it may end up um

21:44 ↗ kind of balancing out.

21:50 ↗ >> We just heard a great presentation from

21:51 ↗ the developers who obviously have their

21:53 ↗ own point of view. Um, but it's also

21:55 ↗ important to remember we work real hard

21:56 ↗ on some of our designs and aesthetics

21:58 ↗ and it's we want to find that balance.

22:00 ↗ We don't want to throw the baby out with

22:02 ↗ the bathwater. Um, like to hear more

22:04 ↗ from developers because they are a stake

22:06 ↗ partner. They are partnered uh to this

22:08 ↗ and they're definitely a stakeholder but

22:10 ↗ again it's

22:12 ↗ you know also remember all of the other

22:14 ↗ meetings we had before people that are

22:17 ↗ concerned about environments to

22:18 ↗ Commissioner Dar's point the canyon

22:20 ↗ effect. So, it's it's it is a balance.

22:22 ↗ And to Commissioner Crass's point, these

22:25 ↗ buildings are going to be landmarks for

22:26 ↗ 40 years.

22:28 ↗ So, 75,

22:30 ↗ I don't know who your developer is, but

22:32 ↗ commissioner Matthews,

22:35 ↗ >> I was actually just going to re sorry,

22:38 ↗ reiterate the fact that we're trying to

22:39 ↗ create a livable space for people. It's

22:42 ↗ not just a place for developers to make

22:44 ↗ money. We want to have a nice space

22:46 ↗ where people feel comfortable walking

22:48 ↗ down the streets. um which you don't

22:50 ↗ really see like if you go into Redmond

22:52 ↗ Town Center, it's not gorgeous. It's

22:55 ↗ like boom, you're going right down the

22:57 ↗ street. You really don't get a lot of

22:59 ↗ feeling uh from that area. So, I do

23:02 ↗ appreciate we live in a smaller town. We

23:04 ↗ do want to add more people, but we want

23:06 ↗ to make sure it's like a livable space

23:08 ↗ that we're creating for people.

23:10 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Matthews. Yeah,

23:12 ↗ I couldn't agree more. Trying to strike

23:14 ↗ the balance.

23:16 ↗ Um, so again, I think you got those two

23:18 ↗ informal votes.

23:19 ↗ >> Yes, I do need to confirm and there will

23:21 ↗ be a minimum. Um, I do need to confirm

23:24 ↗ though that when we say at the fourth

23:26 ↗ floor, so here's your here's your face,

23:29 ↗ right? Here's your first floor, your

23:31 ↗ second floor, your third floor, your

23:33 ↗ fourth floor, your fifth floor. Is that

23:35 ↗ what you're talking about? Are you

23:36 ↗ talking about first floor, second floor,

23:38 ↗ third floor, fourth floor?

23:39 ↗ >> Wait, wait, wait. This is a West Coast,

23:41 ↗ East Coast thing,

23:42 ↗ >> right? Cuz the first floor is always on

23:45 ↗ the ground floor,

23:46 ↗ >> right? But I'm saying you're stacking

23:48 ↗ them, right? You've got your your first

23:49 ↗ floor through the third floor stay here.

23:52 ↗ >> Oh,

23:54 ↗ >> right. Do you want it to stop? Do you

23:55 ↗ want the setback to stop at the top of

23:57 ↗ the fourth or at the bottom of the

24:00 ↗ fourth?

24:02 ↗ >> Top.

24:04 ↗ >> Okay.

24:04 ↗ >> Top.

24:05 ↗ >> Or or if it's a podium style, wherever

24:07 ↗ that changes.

24:08 ↗ >> Well, and then typically if you do a

24:10 ↗ podium, it's going to be before below

24:11 ↗ the fourth.

24:18 ↗ Yes. So just wanted to be sure that you

24:20 ↗ know we're talking most of these would

24:22 ↗ come into play a podium style which

24:25 ↗ people want to build to the maximum

24:26 ↗ extent if based on the that type of uh

24:30 ↗ construction type. So at 75 ft becomes a

24:33 ↗ high-rise. So most of these buildings

24:35 ↗ are going to be below 75 ft. So it could

24:38 ↗ be three stories of concrete plus five

24:42 ↗ stories of wood frame if they can stay

24:45 ↗ within 75 ft. That's the type of uh

24:48 ↗ construction you're going to get. Now if

24:51 ↗ we say we are going to allow people to

24:53 ↗ do anywhere at two second story to top

24:59 ↗ of the fourth story chances are people

25:01 ↗ will do it at the second story because

25:05 ↗ that's where the material is changing.

25:07 ↗ You aren't going to get anyone stepping

25:09 ↗ back at fourth story because they would

25:11 ↗ lose leasable space for the top three

25:13 ↗ stories. So hence this recommendation of

25:16 ↗ going just for the top floor to step

25:19 ↗ that back. So if you go at the that

25:22 ↗ would be at the bottom of the

25:26 ↗ >> well I think in that instance it was at

25:28 ↗ the top of the fifth floor is what we

25:32 ↗ meant. I think with the sixth story was

25:34 ↗ at the where the fifth story ends. You

25:36 ↗ go back. If you do it at the fourth

25:39 ↗ story you may want it to put it in the

25:41 ↗ code but you nobody's going to do it.

25:43 ↗ That's just because they will just do it

25:45 ↗ at the second story because that's where

25:47 ↗ the material is changing.

25:52 ↗ >> Well, it has two different things going

25:54 ↗ on. If it's ch if if the step back

25:56 ↗ happens at the material change, it gives

25:59 ↗ you a different aesthetic. If it happens

26:01 ↗ at the top level, it gives you a

26:04 ↗ different aesthetic. What we've heard is

26:05 ↗ at the top level, it adds complexity for

26:08 ↗ plumbing, more beams, heavier things.

26:12 ↗ And so, um, but if someone wants to

26:15 ↗ build pen houses at the top floor and

26:17 ↗ have beautiful views, uh, looking

26:19 ↗ outside, they have the option under the

26:21 ↗ proposed amendments at this point. Um,

26:24 ↗ but putting it at the fourth story

26:26 ↗ likely is not going to be used because

26:29 ↗ you would lose for top three floors

26:31 ↗ would have to because they're not going

26:33 ↗ to go back, especially if we don't let

26:34 ↗ them come back and forth, right? And so

26:36 ↗ that would mean for the top three

26:38 ↗ stories,

26:39 ↗ you're losing leasable space. Just

26:41 ↗ wanted to make sure as you debate about

26:43 ↗ this that it's clear what what the

26:46 ↗ unintended consequence of this. And

26:49 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

26:50 ↗ >> I actually thought this was for cases

26:51 ↗ where they weren't changing the

26:53 ↗ materials at the second or like say it's

26:55 ↗ just a concrete building or just a wood

26:57 ↗ building, then we would require them to

26:59 ↗ set back at the fourth floor. But if

27:01 ↗ they were changing materials, we'd say

27:03 ↗ that's fine to set it back there. So

27:05 ↗ this is I thought that we were having

27:06 ↗ two different recommendations.

27:08 ↗ >> The intent is we want

27:10 ↗ we want stepbacks no matter what the

27:13 ↗ construction type. You want step backs

27:16 ↗ unless we're saying a different thing.

27:18 ↗ >> What we're saying we want to give people

27:20 ↗ flexibility. Right.

27:21 ↗ >> Right. If majority of people want to

27:23 ↗ change it to where the material changes

27:26 ↗ they can do that. If they want to do it

27:28 ↗ at the upper floor then they can do

27:31 ↗ that. If you say you have to do it where

27:34 ↗ the material changes, then if someone

27:35 ↗ wants to do it at the upper floor, you

27:37 ↗ they won't be allowed under a code.

27:43 ↗ >> Yeah. But they do you want I mean

27:44 ↗ nobody's going to do more than one uh

27:48 ↗ out of choice unless it's they really

27:51 ↗ believe in a good design, you know, a

27:53 ↗ design that can make projects pencil and

27:56 ↗ all those kind of things that we heard

27:58 ↗ tonight.

28:00 ↗ Commissioner Dear, would it be possible

28:03 ↗ to those ends then to say you can have a

28:05 ↗ step back when the material changes or

28:08 ↗ for the top floor provided your building

28:11 ↗ is, you know, we know what the height is

28:13 ↗ is it's capped at 75 ft. So that might

28:16 ↗ make it a little

28:18 ↗ more feasible for them. Is that kind of

28:20 ↗ what you're thinking? Well, right now it

28:22 ↗ says

28:24 ↗ um

28:26 ↗ for building six stories or higher shall

28:28 ↗ begin by the sixth floor by floor six.

28:30 ↗ So at the bottom of the sixth floor and

28:33 ↗ may begin as low as floor two. So the

28:36 ↗ bottom of floor two

28:41 ↗ commissioner. Yes, Commissioner Crass.

28:43 ↗ >> So we're not requiring them at podium at

28:47 ↗ material change based on what you just

28:48 ↗ said. It's

28:49 ↗ >> right. We're not requiring them. We're

28:51 ↗ giving them the option.

28:52 ↗ >> So, no one's no one's going to do it

28:54 ↗ until the the very top floor. And now we

28:56 ↗ still have caverns. So, it doesn't meet

28:58 ↗ the objective. You're going to have

29:00 ↗ fivetory buildings with a setback on the

29:02 ↗ last floor because that's they're going

29:04 ↗ to maximize why why would they do it any

29:07 ↗ lower if you don't require it?

29:08 ↗ >> Well, that's how the to project did.

29:11 ↗ They ended up ch doing it the step back

29:13 ↗ at where the material changes.

29:16 ↗ So yes, you lose leasable space for all

29:19 ↗ those floors, but for them it was

29:21 ↗ cheaper to do it that way or that's

29:23 ↗ their intent or you know they wanted to

29:25 ↗ do it at that material change. Um so the

29:30 ↗ language in front of you is giving

29:32 ↗ people options. It's not mandating that

29:34 ↗ you change it where the material

29:35 ↗ changes, but if they want to do it

29:38 ↗ there, they can do it there or they they

29:40 ↗ do it if we don't want to say at the

29:42 ↗ sixth floor. or we just want to say at

29:44 ↗ the top floor at the at the very the

29:48 ↗ >> we should we should set up expectations.

29:50 ↗ This is not going to reduce cavern

29:52 ↗ effect because I mean you could do that

29:55 ↗ that's fine

29:56 ↗ >> but it's not going to meet that

29:57 ↗ objective. It's a different objective

30:00 ↗ because if you go five stories and you

30:02 ↗ then pull in five feet on the sixth

30:04 ↗ floor it's still going to be a cavern.

30:06 ↗ So um unless you require something lower

30:09 ↗ you're not going to have any impact. So

30:10 ↗ if I look at what you're mentioning,

30:12 ↗ Redmond versus Mercer Island, which

30:14 ↗ seems to have more rules. I'm not sure

30:16 ↗ if they have more rules, but they seems

30:17 ↗ like they have more stepbacks, it has a

30:19 ↗ totally different feel. So it depends on

30:21 ↗ what our objective is. If our objective

30:22 ↗ is avoiding caverns, then I think you

30:25 ↗ have to be a little bit more firm. If

30:27 ↗ you want to add more flexibility, then I

30:29 ↗ think you just realize you're not going

30:30 ↗ to meet that objective. And that should

30:32 ↗ be just intentional.

30:34 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean a 5t step back at your

30:37 ↗ material change is still going to you

30:39 ↗ you're going to see that whole mass of

30:42 ↗ your building right the canyon effect by

30:46 ↗ a 5ft step back at a concrete podium is

30:50 ↗ is not a significant canyon effect

30:52 ↗ change that happens through lot of

30:54 ↗ modulation of the building facade and

30:56 ↗ breakdown of their own own things

30:59 ↗ um I think that there multiple

31:02 ↗ objectives here the canyon effect is not

31:04 ↗ the only objective. It's also to break

31:06 ↗ up the building block and the mass and

31:09 ↗ create a top to the building. So it's

31:11 ↗ just create, you know, different ways of

31:13 ↗ creating breaking up the mass of the

31:15 ↗ building and creating more um

31:19 ↗ >> so I think we should articulate our

31:22 ↗ >> go our objectives in priority order and

31:25 ↗ what we'll trade off for what and I

31:26 ↗ think that would be clear and then I

31:28 ↗ think maybe even review some other

31:30 ↗ examples and see how we feel about it

31:32 ↗ because especially if we're changing

31:34 ↗ >> our our objectives and the priorities

31:36 ↗ around them I think it's worth another

31:38 ↗ view of what meets those different

31:40 ↗ things because we may be all thinking

31:42 ↗ about it in a slightly different way.

31:46 ↗ >> So then it sounds like you all need to

31:48 ↗ have a revisit of the objectives here.

31:53 ↗ >> I'm looking at the chair. Do you want to

31:55 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. I mean,

31:57 ↗ again, this seems like it got very

31:59 ↗ convoluted in the last five minutes. So,

32:02 ↗ um,

32:04 ↗ yeah, doesn't hurt to review more. It'd

32:06 ↗ be nice to see some examples, but six

32:09 ↗ stories again, I don't think you're

32:10 ↗ going to get very many six-story

32:12 ↗ buildings myself, so it seems I don't

32:15 ↗ know. There's the light is literally

32:17 ↗ right on that presentation screen. Um,

32:21 ↗ >> yeah,

32:22 ↗ >> to me it makes more sense. Floor four. I

32:24 ↗ mean, I hear what Mitty's point is, but

32:27 ↗ I mean, if people want some examples,

32:29 ↗ yeah, that's what we're here to do.

32:31 ↗ >> Commissioner Mr. I I just think we

32:33 ↗ shouldn't get hung up on this this whole

32:35 ↗ podium design uh question because

32:39 ↗ construction methods are changing all

32:40 ↗ the time. Mass timber is uh emerging as

32:44 ↗ a very coste effective uh and attractive

32:47 ↗ solution. Uh and there is no material

32:50 ↗ change in those buildings. So, I don't I

32:54 ↗ don't want us to get hung up assuming

32:56 ↗ that there's one construction type

32:58 ↗ that's going to be used and then find

33:00 ↗ out that it's irrelevant because of of

33:03 ↗ other methods. And a six-story building

33:05 ↗ that is set back only at the sixth floor

33:09 ↗ is not addressing the canyon effect that

33:12 ↗ Commissioner Craft was saying.

33:13 ↗ >> That's really my point.

33:14 ↗ >> Yeah.

33:30 ↗ should should there be a minimum step

33:32 ↗ back of two fours to avoid just having

33:36 ↗ that top four set back

33:40 ↗ putting convoluting a little more but

33:48 ↗ Thank you, chair. I I think what my uh

33:51 ↗ concern is given the very thoughtful uh

33:54 ↗ presentation by the developers is if

33:58 ↗ we're kind of getting in the weeds in

34:00 ↗ terms of making these minimums and

34:03 ↗ determining where these stepbacks are,

34:05 ↗ are we really limiting their ability to

34:07 ↗ build here in Isiqua? So, are we

34:10 ↗ literally through this exercise adding

34:12 ↗ the very limitations that they're

34:14 ↗ concerned about?

34:16 ↗ understanding that that's not the only

34:18 ↗ consideration that we have, but I think

34:20 ↗ it's a considerable one.

34:24 ↗ >> Commissioner Derek, I mean, just to

34:26 ↗ those points though, I think from the

34:27 ↗ presentation, we saw that these kinds of

34:30 ↗ concerns, while they're important, they

34:32 ↗ don't have the same kind of financial

34:34 ↗ effect for them as something like the

34:36 ↗ MFP. And so, you know, the wild line,

34:41 ↗ the wild, sorry, the waterway buffers.

34:44 ↗ So I and I think also we're already

34:48 ↗ removing we're downsizing the code from

34:50 ↗ multiple step backs to just one step

34:53 ↗ back. We're already streamlining it

34:54 ↗ significantly. So to those ends I think

34:59 ↗ it's it's you know we have to reach a

35:01 ↗ happy medium because we have long-term

35:04 ↗ livability versus shortterm

35:06 ↗ buildabilility. And I do think

35:08 ↗ affordable housing is important, but

35:12 ↗ we we need to keep everything in mind.

35:14 ↗ >> Yeah. No, and I appreciate that because

35:16 ↗ the other thing too is Oh, sorry,

35:17 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov. Go.

35:21 ↗ >> It's a fight for the mic.

35:22 ↗ >> Okay.

35:23 ↗ >> Sorry. Thank you. Uh why we just don't

35:26 ↗ do it though this way for all buildings

35:29 ↗ 75 ft and taller. They have to have one

35:32 ↗ step back of five feet on one side and

35:35 ↗ it has to be either on the level of uh

35:38 ↗ the material change or on the fourth

35:40 ↗ floor

35:48 ↗ >> either there. Um, Commissioner Cross,

35:52 ↗ >> I just I'm going to come back to we just

35:55 ↗ have to discuss what we're solving for

35:56 ↗ >> and I think we have to we have to kind

35:58 ↗ of agree what we're solving for because

36:00 ↗ right now we're going straight to

36:01 ↗ tactics

36:03 ↗ >> and I think uh and we're like and these

36:05 ↗ are all little knobs that we're talking

36:07 ↗ about,

36:08 ↗ >> but I think we should just be very clear

36:10 ↗ as we mentioned is like there's a whole

36:11 ↗ bunch of different objectives and let's

36:13 ↗ prioritize them. And I think it may

36:15 ↗ become clearer after there's agreement

36:18 ↗ on what those are of what the right way

36:20 ↗ of doing it is. So I think that's kind

36:21 ↗ of the number one thing to do quickly

36:24 ↗ and then then there's a couple different

36:26 ↗ variants that may based on those which

36:29 ↗ should should align to those. That's

36:31 ↗ what I'm because right now we're looking

36:33 ↗ at tactics where we're still I think

36:34 ↗ there's some ambiguity of what

36:36 ↗ objectives are.

36:38 ↗ So the the intent in the code states

36:41 ↗ that it is to to create a pedestrian

36:43 ↗ friendly environment

36:44 ↗ >> and to prevent the canyon effect. That's

36:47 ↗ what the code says.

36:50 ↗ >> If there's something else out there

36:51 ↗ though that you want to achieve by this

36:53 ↗ >> and see one thing I'll say is I I think

36:55 ↗ the code everyone has to remember we've

36:57 ↗ had these talk with developers and

36:59 ↗ that's the point where again um they had

37:02 ↗ an opportunity before too when we were

37:03 ↗ doing it. So, I know everyone wants to

37:05 ↗ tear apart title 18 and just start scr

37:07 ↗ from scratch. There was like two years

37:09 ↗ that went into that. They and their big

37:10 ↗ thing was clarity and consistency.

37:13 ↗ Wasn't setbacks. It wasn't this. That

37:15 ↗ was our design saying this is what we

37:17 ↗ want to make our downtown core livable,

37:21 ↗ aesthetically pleasing. So, again, nice

37:24 ↗ Ben, love the presentation, but that was

37:27 ↗ just one point of view. Um, you also

37:30 ↗ have the point of view of the residents

37:31 ↗ that live here. The people that are

37:33 ↗ going to be living here, the developers,

37:35 ↗ as you heard, are going to sell these

37:37 ↗ buildings rather quickly. And yeah, we

37:39 ↗ want to help them by all means, but

37:41 ↗ again, I think the two goals that

37:43 ↗ Kristen just laid out, those were well

37:45 ↗ thought out by the community, not by the

37:48 ↗ PPC. That was by the community, you

37:50 ↗ know, by feedback that we had through

37:52 ↗ multiple conversations with the

37:54 ↗ community. So, I think our objectives

37:57 ↗ are those. Okay.

37:59 ↗ >> But I mean that's why we're having this

38:01 ↗ conversation. Vice Chair Patterson,

38:05 ↗ >> uh, just to follow up on that, that was

38:06 ↗ great points. um is I think where things

38:10 ↗ start to get convoluted is that we're

38:11 ↗ all kind of looking at this through the

38:13 ↗ lens of those objectives are very

38:15 ↗ community focused like for living here

38:18 ↗ and and you know living with these

38:20 ↗ buildings but we're looking at through

38:22 ↗ the context of these work items came

38:26 ↗ from promoting building investments in

38:28 ↗ Isqua and so it I think that's where

38:30 ↗ we're we might be struggling a little

38:32 ↗ bit is like at least personally I can't

38:33 ↗ speak for everybody but I think where

38:35 ↗ I'm personally struggling a little bit

38:36 ↗ is is it's almost like a tug-of-war,

38:39 ↗ right? Where there's the part of me that

38:41 ↗ wants to live up to that design

38:43 ↗ aesthetic of like, yeah, we agreed we

38:45 ↗ want to be a walkable, pedestrian

38:47 ↗ friendly neighborhood and and design

38:49 ↗ aesthetics reduce the canyon effect. So,

38:51 ↗ that is in my mind the objective, but

38:53 ↗ then we have this kind of overlay of

38:55 ↗ like but our current code is not

38:57 ↗ developer friendly and we need to make

38:59 ↗ it more developer friendly. So, what can

39:00 ↗ we do to reduce some of the restrictions

39:02 ↗ or requirements in our current code to

39:04 ↗ make it more developer friendly? And so

39:07 ↗ I think we're all trying to figure out

39:09 ↗ in this tug-of-war of like where do we

39:11 ↗ draw that line? How do we meet those

39:13 ↗ objectives of being reducing the canyon

39:16 ↗ effect and making it the walkable, you

39:18 ↗ know, city, but also make it more

39:20 ↗ developer friendly. I think that's why

39:21 ↗ we keep getting in these kind of loops

39:22 ↗ and circles is we're trying to figure

39:24 ↗ out what what levers to pull. And maybe

39:27 ↗ you're in the same, you know, kind of

39:29 ↗ mentality, but I I think that's kind of

39:32 ↗ at least speaking personally, yeah,

39:34 ↗ where where I'm at with it.

39:38 ↗ like Carl's graph with the money. So, I

39:41 ↗ think there are bigger things that

39:42 ↗ they're worried about than setbacks. Um,

39:46 ↗ again, they mentioned a couple. I don't

39:48 ↗ think the setbacks is what's causing

39:49 ↗ developers not to come here.

39:51 ↗ >> So, we heard loud and clear during the

39:53 ↗ TOD project, right, that is getting

39:56 ↗ built. They threw some numbers to the

39:58 ↗ order of it's going to cost a million

40:00 ↗ dollars more to do a step back and hence

40:03 ↗ the council's uh housing cooperative

40:06 ↗ agreement that gave them that break. Um

40:10 ↗ during title 18 that issue with to was

40:14 ↗ fair and square. It was fixed in one of

40:16 ↗ the sections of the code where it says

40:17 ↗ you can go to the step back at level two

40:20 ↗ or

40:22 ↗ level six. It's based off of the Redmond

40:24 ↗ model where you're giving people the

40:26 ↗ flexibility of going choosing where you

40:28 ↗ want to step back and I think the

40:30 ↗ objective yes is also the canyon effect

40:34 ↗ is really you know if you have a narrow

40:36 ↗ street versus a wide you know 100 foot

40:39 ↗ street you're going to get a different

40:40 ↗ feel for the building uh downtowns of

40:44 ↗ major cities have tall buildings so I

40:46 ↗ think it's also how we want to

40:49 ↗ categorize a canyon effect it's not a

40:51 ↗ simple thing that you know this story

40:53 ↗ gives you a canyon effect and this

40:54 ↗ doesn't or a five footstep doesn't it's

40:57 ↗ not that black and white in that respect

41:01 ↗ so however I think that that we can't

41:03 ↗ debate that this isn't doesn't add cost

41:06 ↗ to the to the building it does add cost

41:09 ↗ >> and so if we are willing to give them

41:11 ↗ the flexibility of where they want to

41:13 ↗ choose we're we the city can still

41:15 ↗ require a step back but they get to

41:17 ↗ choose where they put it

41:19 ↗ >> I think that's fair

41:20 ↗ >> that's an objective I think we can all

41:22 ↗ agree on.

41:22 ↗ >> So, are we basically saying we just want

41:24 ↗ to stick with the old code?

41:26 ↗ >> No, no, no. The the old code didn't uh

41:28 ↗ it mandated it on if you're above five

41:31 ↗ stories.

41:31 ↗ >> Okay. So, we're we're just saying we

41:33 ↗ want to give them options.

41:34 ↗ >> You could lower it or you do it at

41:36 ↗ >> and to Commissioner Oer's point, you

41:37 ↗ know, the podium thing may be obsolete

41:41 ↗ in 10 years.

41:43 ↗ >> Right. And so maybe we just do we want

41:46 ↗ to do it by floor? Do we want to kick

41:47 ↗ this conversation and ask for more

41:49 ↗ examples? Do we want to go

41:51 ↗ >> of caution was the four story nobody's

41:53 ↗ going to take you up on that and so

41:55 ↗ while it might seem like an okay thing

41:58 ↗ that you want it set back at fourtory

42:00 ↗ people will do it at level two then

42:02 ↗ >> right

42:03 ↗ >> so just understanding that policy

42:04 ↗ objective of what we are trying to

42:06 ↗ achieve here uh maybe we can draw some

42:09 ↗ graphics of

42:11 ↗ >> you know like a cross-section here's

42:12 ↗ where the second you know step for the

42:14 ↗ next packet we draw give you some more

42:17 ↗ visuals

42:17 ↗ >> that would be helpful

42:19 ↗ >> yeah that would helped me too because

42:21 ↗ like the east coast to west coast thing

42:23 ↗ of where I am imagining the first floor,

42:26 ↗ second floor, third floor versus and

42:28 ↗ then the top of the first floor is

42:29 ↗ different than the I mean the top of the

42:31 ↗ second floor is different than the

42:32 ↗ bottom of the second floor and right now

42:33 ↗ it says just says second floor. So that

42:36 ↗ would help me a lot because when you

42:38 ↗ said sixth floor

42:40 ↗ I think I imagined the top of the sixth

42:43 ↗ floor and not the bottom of the sixth

42:45 ↗ floor which might have been the

42:46 ↗ intention. Mr. owner.

42:50 ↗ >> Just a couple of uh clarifications. Um

42:53 ↗ being an East Coast guy, um we we still

42:57 ↗ call the ground floor level the first

42:59 ↗ floor. So I think it's only in Europe

43:01 ↗ that you have ground floor and first

43:03 ↗ floor. Um but the other clarification I

43:06 ↗ wanted to make is if you look at at

43:08 ↗ buildings being developed in dense urban

43:10 ↗ areas now there are great concerns not

43:13 ↗ only about access to daylight that's

43:16 ↗ causing step stepbacks to be required

43:19 ↗ but it's also a matter of wind hits the

43:22 ↗ side of a building rushes down and it

43:24 ↗ makes pedestrian life miserable. And so

43:27 ↗ I think, you know, we can we can look at

43:30 ↗ examples of uh of of cities where there

43:34 ↗ are canyons um but they're not favored

43:37 ↗ now uh because we've seen what the

43:39 ↗ effects are.

43:45 ↗ Okay.

43:47 ↗ So

43:49 ↗ I think we're st we have a minimum step

43:51 ↗ back. Um we also agreed that we don't

43:55 ↗ want it to can lever back over. So any

43:58 ↗ floor wherever that step back starts it

43:59 ↗ has to continue. Right now it seems like

44:02 ↗ what is written here might work where

44:05 ↗ it's the minimum of the shall begin by

44:09 ↗ as low as floor two but h must begin by

44:12 ↗ floor six which would be the bottom of

44:14 ↗ floor six and the bottom of the first

44:17 ↗ floor. But we're going to bring

44:19 ↗ examples.

44:21 ↗ So, I'm gonna leave it like this for

44:22 ↗ right now and we'll bring examples to

44:24 ↗ the next meeting and talk about it. That

44:27 ↗ work? Okay. All right.

44:35 ↗ >> All right. This is fun stuff. All right.

44:38 ↗ On to private and common um open amenity

44:41 ↗ space. So,

44:44 ↗ these are the goals. foster and enhance

44:47 ↗ the quality of life, create connections

44:49 ↗ among residents, raise the property

44:51 ↗ values, keep tenants in place longer,

44:55 ↗ um, and reduce turnover, which is the

44:58 ↗ same thing.

45:00 ↗ So, last time there were three questions

45:02 ↗ that we talked about last time. Do you

45:04 ↗ want to amend the code to add options

45:09 ↗ instead of Okay. Amend the code to add

45:11 ↗ options instead of asking having

45:13 ↗ applicants ask for deviations, which is

45:14 ↗ what we currently do. And you said yes,

45:18 ↗ we do. Um, but a single preference

45:20 ↗ wasn't wasn't preferred.

45:24 ↗ So, the options were 100 square feet per

45:27 ↗ unit. Sorry, you guys can't see what I

45:29 ↗ see on my screen. It's being blocked.

45:31 ↗ One second.

45:33 ↗ No, but I on my screen it's blocked.

45:36 ↗ Okay,

45:39 ↗ I can't. Okay, there we go. Um 100 feet

45:44 ↗ 100 square feet per unit of common

45:45 ↗ outdoor space plus 48 square feet of

45:48 ↗ private open space

45:51 ↗ or 100 square f feet per unit plus an

45:54 ↗ additional 48 square feet per unit for

45:56 ↗ any units that don't have open private

45:58 ↗ space or 100 square feet per unit plus

46:01 ↗ 30% of units to have 48 square feet of

46:05 ↗ private space. Those were the options.

46:08 ↗ Nothing was settled on.

46:14 ↗ Another one was do you want to allow

46:16 ↗ flexibility in the standard for open

46:17 ↗ space for commercial and multif family

46:19 ↗ buildings converting to affordable h

46:21 ↗ residential housing? The answer was yes.

46:23 ↗ And do you want to require open space

46:25 ↗ for only 30% of the units instead of the

46:27 ↗ current 50% of units? And that 50% is

46:30 ↗ actually as part of the deviation. Right

46:31 ↗ now 100 units are required to have it.

46:34 ↗ you can get a deviation requesting 50%

46:38 ↗ as long as the other 50% that 48 square

46:40 ↗ feet is included in the common space.

46:43 ↗ Okay.

46:45 ↗ So the proposal is right now and we

46:48 ↗ added on the five five plex units as

46:51 ↗ well. So for both of these for anything

46:55 ↗ five units and up um it would be 100

46:58 ↗ square feet per unit of common outdoor

47:01 ↗ amenity space. I'm going to move over to

47:04 ↗ the right. Plus, a minimum of 30% of the

47:08 ↗ units must provide individual outdoor

47:11 ↗ space there. For the other 70%,

47:15 ↗ you have to include an additional 48

47:17 ↗ square feet in that common area. So, if

47:20 ↗ you have a 100 units,

47:22 ↗ each one of those has to have 100 square

47:24 ↗ feet of common space. And then 30 of

47:27 ↗ those units have to have 48 individual

47:30 ↗ square feet of space attached to their

47:31 ↗ unit. But the other 70 units, you

47:35 ↗ calculate 70 times 48 and that goes into

47:37 ↗ the common space. Yeah,

47:42 ↗ >> Mr. Matthews,

47:42 ↗ >> it just occurred to me. Um, the common

47:45 ↗ space could be indoor or outdoor. Is

47:46 ↗ that right?

47:46 ↗ >> No, the common this one's you have

47:48 ↗ common outdoor space and then the you

47:50 ↗ have the the 400 square ft is indoor

47:53 ↗ outdoor.

47:53 ↗ >> Sorry, I just read that.

47:54 ↗ >> That's okay.

47:56 ↗ >> Um, yes, Mr. Craft.

47:58 ↗ We when we talked about it before it was

48:00 ↗ for 22 units and up. So now the five to

48:03 ↗ 21 units is new. So now you're requiring

48:07 ↗ anybody and now two of them have to have

48:09 ↗ a balcony is what you're saying.

48:11 ↗ >> Right.

48:11 ↗ >> So can you explain the rationale why we

48:14 ↗ want to do it for the smaller

48:15 ↗ developments as well?

48:16 ↗ >> I'm going to phone a friend.

48:18 ↗ >> No, because we were we were just this is

48:21 ↗ new

48:23 ↗ >> because we we only talked about the

48:24 ↗ bigger developments and now

48:26 ↗ >> Yeah. Could you explain um repeat your

48:28 ↗ question?

48:29 ↗ >> Why was that?

48:30 ↗ >> We didn't talk about the 5 to 21 units

48:32 ↗ last time. We only talked about the 22

48:34 ↗ and over and this is just

48:36 ↗ >> the question is these requirements for

48:38 ↗ the small developments, small plants.

48:40 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean that's a question. I think

48:42 ↗ we put it there because um it seems like

48:46 ↗ smaller units don't get a balcony.

48:49 ↗ Chances are the smaller the five unit

48:52 ↗ folks also need some outdoor space. But

48:55 ↗ if it doesn't make sense for five units

48:57 ↗ to have 500 ft² of common space, that's

49:01 ↗ Yeah, we could take that out.

49:04 ↗ >> Yeah. Just it's just I'd like I mean you

49:07 ↗ may have a great reason. I just it's

49:08 ↗ it's new to the discussion and there's a

49:11 ↗ lot more limited limitations when you

49:14 ↗ have a small plat with five. So, so now

49:19 ↗ >> so five or less won't have any common

49:21 ↗ space, but do the five or less have no

49:25 ↗ private open space?

49:27 ↗ >> I think it's I mean, do we want to ask

49:29 ↗ them to build balconies for a five unit

49:32 ↗ apartment building? I don't know. That's

49:34 ↗ that's a new discussion.

49:35 ↗ >> Currently, currently, if you have five

49:36 ↗ units, they're required to have 48

49:38 ↗ square feet of individual outdoor space.

49:41 ↗ Um the way this is written it would be

49:43 ↗ just 30% of those units have to have it

49:45 ↗ but

49:47 ↗ you

49:48 ↗ >> I mean it all mul it over.

49:49 ↗ >> Yeah the 100 square feet already exists.

49:51 ↗ So we just added the the flexibility

49:54 ↗ piece to it.

49:55 ↗ >> We didn't talk about it before. I was

49:56 ↗ just trying to understand if something

49:59 ↗ new global conversation previously

50:01 ↗ maybe. Yeah.

50:03 ↗ >> But we're open to if you think we should

50:06 ↗ treat the smaller units differently.

50:10 ↗ Um but currently the code requires even

50:12 ↗ the smaller ones to have 100 square feet

50:15 ↗ per unit and 48 for all five of them.

50:21 ↗ >> So it's it just it adds a little bit

50:22 ↗ more flexibility.

50:24 ↗ >> I'm just curious like if you're doing

50:25 ↗ like a five or five to eight unit I mean

50:28 ↗ those are little infill lots like

50:30 ↗ there's some on

50:32 ↗ not too far from me near Gilman Village.

50:35 ↗ I think there's one that I see a sign.

50:38 ↗ Um, I'm just I'd like to learn more of

50:41 ↗ like does it does it change the

50:43 ↗ feasibility for them to even be able to

50:44 ↗ build it once you add those square

50:46 ↗ footage on something like that because

50:48 ↗ they also have probably have to have

50:49 ↗ some parking in there as well because

50:51 ↗ they're they're put on small much

50:53 ↗ smaller lots. So, I just I think it

50:55 ↗ needs need to understand the feasibility

50:57 ↗ of what what that means for

51:00 ↗ >> getting these plats either built or not

51:03 ↗ built because I've noticed that white

51:04 ↗ signs been there for about two years and

51:05 ↗ nothing's happened. I wasn't sure

51:07 ↗ whether

51:09 ↗ it's a requirement thing or they have no

51:11 ↗ money or I just it's I just know they're

51:13 ↗ on smaller loss and you have a lot more

51:15 ↗ things that are that are tugging at it.

51:23 ↗ >> Any other thoughts on that?

51:29 ↗ >> Yes, Commissioner Zachro.

51:30 ↗ >> Thank you. I think we've just heard from

51:33 ↗ developers again that that 48 square ft

51:36 ↗ was a problem. So

51:40 ↗ I I I'm not sure. Uh I kind of have a

51:43 ↗ feeling that it's like my feeling is

51:46 ↗ that we do have an issue in a city that

51:49 ↗ nothing is being built and people really

51:52 ↗ have a problem building big projects

51:54 ↗ here in the city and we have several

51:56 ↗ things that should be built and had to

51:59 ↗ be built within the past 10 years and

52:01 ↗ nothing is built and we won't make

52:03 ↗ things work. And at the same time, we

52:06 ↗ have people who are going to build those

52:09 ↗ things and they're coming to the meeting

52:10 ↗ and they're saying what their exact

52:13 ↗ troubles are and what can be done for

52:16 ↗ them to make things easier. And they

52:18 ↗ bring examples of surrounding cities and

52:21 ↗ how it worked. And uh I'm pretty sure

52:24 ↗ and and they also bring examples that it

52:28 ↗ worked for them and they brought their

52:30 ↗ business to those cities and we're here

52:35 ↗ talking about how we can we we I don't

52:38 ↗ feel that we're trying to make things

52:40 ↗ easy. It's not about them. It's about us

52:43 ↗ getting something built in the city,

52:45 ↗ bringing people to the city, bringing

52:47 ↗ taxes to the city, bringing jobs to the

52:49 ↗ city. Um, just bringing stuff to the

52:52 ↗ city, getting our light link here cuz we

52:56 ↗ have a reason for that. So, that's kind

53:00 ↗ of my position and kind of that's my

53:04 ↗ maybe it's just my feeling. I don't

53:05 ↗ know. I myself live in a cond building.

53:08 ↗ Um, two bedrooms, no balcony. Um, yeah,

53:13 ↗ very like rarely that I use the outdoor

53:17 ↗ space of my building. I'm not even sure

53:20 ↗ how much of the outdoor space I'm

53:21 ↗ entitled to cuz I always kind of go

53:24 ↗ somewhere and I've lived there for 6

53:26 ↗ years and I feel very comfortable. So

53:31 ↗ yeah, I I'm not sure for for the 48

53:33 ↗ square ft.

53:35 ↗ >> Mr.

53:37 ↗ Okay. So, I spent some time today and I

53:39 ↗ sent everyone a spreadsheet I worked on.

53:41 ↗ Um, I did make some last minute tweaks

53:44 ↗ to it just now after our conversation

53:46 ↗ cuz I realized I had some of the math

53:48 ↗ wrong. But with those tweaks, I'll say

53:52 ↗ doing some rough pencil math, it looks

53:54 ↗ like Belleview requires roughly about

53:56 ↗ for a 22 unit building 1350

54:00 ↗ ft 1,350.

54:03 ↗ Both Canyon Park requires about 4,400

54:07 ↗ square feet of community open space. A

54:10 ↗ Redmond would require about 1,400

54:12 ↗ through 2200 depending theirs is a lot

54:16 ↗ more complex and Snomish is about 3,300.

54:20 ↗ So the average is about 2800

54:24 ↗ square ft give or take and ours given

54:28 ↗ the my updates

54:31 ↗ assuming a 30% balcony like let's say

54:34 ↗ that a 22 unit takes advantage and has

54:37 ↗ 30% of their units have the balcony

54:40 ↗ space for private space and seven 70%

54:44 ↗ take the 48 to the community space. then

54:48 ↗ we would have about um 2940 square ft

54:52 ↗ for a 22 unit building. So stop me if I

54:56 ↗ went through any of that fast. So that

54:58 ↗ kind of puts us in the middle of the

55:01 ↗ pack of those four things. Now, if we

55:05 ↗ want to get more competitive with

55:07 ↗ Belleview and Redmond, I wouldn't be

55:09 ↗ opposed to tweaking it down to put us

55:12 ↗ maybe in the 2200 range for 22 unit

55:16 ↗ building personally. That's me to kind

55:19 ↗ of increase competitiveness,

55:21 ↗ but I don't want to, you know,

55:24 ↗ completely eliminate community outdoor

55:26 ↗ space or anything like that. I'm happy

55:28 ↗ with getting more flexible and getting

55:30 ↗ more open. But I also think looking at

55:33 ↗ their codes, they weren't all super

55:35 ↗ clear-cut either.

55:38 ↗ So there's only, you know, so that's my

55:41 ↗ opinion.

55:48 ↗ >> That is awesome. Commissioner,

55:50 ↗ >> first of all, I appreciate you're going

55:52 ↗ through that effort. Thank you. Um I

55:54 ↗ think there the the economics of

55:56 ↗ building a fiveunit

55:59 ↗ uh complex is very different than a

56:01 ↗ larger one. And I guess if if you know

56:05 ↗ going back to this whole affordability

56:07 ↗ issue, if we're saying we we can't we're

56:11 ↗ dissuading developers from building on

56:13 ↗ small lots because we're requiring a lot

56:17 ↗ of open space um on a lot that's

56:20 ↗ constrained, as has been said, by by

56:23 ↗ driveways and parking areas. Uh that

56:26 ↗ concerns me. Whereas the larger units,

56:30 ↗ larger unit developments,

56:32 ↗ um I think there there are other

56:34 ↗ macroeconomic factors that are far more

56:37 ↗ important than whether we're requiring

56:39 ↗ 30% of the units to have private outdoor

56:43 ↗ space. So I I think that in my mind

56:47 ↗ there there should be a difference in in

56:48 ↗ how we treat those two categories.

56:54 ↗ informal vote

56:57 ↗ or discussion.

56:58 ↗ >> Sure. Pose the question.

57:02 ↗ Um, I believe what you just brought up

57:04 ↗ was and I believe you brought up the

57:06 ↗ same thing and actually Commissioner

57:08 ↗ Crass as well is the idea of

57:12 ↗ so right now

57:15 ↗ the way it's written

57:18 ↗ anyway um not so for the five units and

57:21 ↗ more not a whole lot has changed. It's

57:23 ↗ still the same amount of square footage

57:25 ↗ of open space that we were requiring

57:27 ↗ before.

57:28 ↗ It's just that now just a minimum of 30%

57:31 ↗ of those have to have open space. But

57:34 ↗ you want to change that one al together.

57:36 ↗ >> You open the can.

57:39 ↗ >> The can is open. Yes, it is.

57:42 ↗ So what is it?

57:44 ↗ >> So who wants to nyx the open space for

57:47 ↗ the five units to 21 units?

57:51 ↗ >> Mix it or disc or or understand more?

57:54 ↗ >> Oh, you could understand more. I think

57:56 ↗ that was a question though as far as

57:58 ↗ that was the part that was added

58:00 ↗ >> from our code that's right now.

58:02 ↗ >> Well, it sounds like the the code for

58:05 ↗ the 5 to 21 is being altered to give

58:08 ↗ them make them have less. But since

58:10 ↗ those aren't being built either, I

58:12 ↗ wonder whether they're it opened the can

58:14 ↗ of of questioning whether

58:18 ↗ all of the stuff is one of the reasons

58:20 ↗ why smaller infill ones are not being

58:23 ↗ built. And and I think it's a bigger

58:26 ↗ question of if we think there's an

58:27 ↗ opportunity to get more housing built,

58:30 ↗ not from the one or two big developments

58:32 ↗ that take 10 years to do, but some of

58:34 ↗ these infill lots where you can do six

58:37 ↗ to eight units of apartments, we should

58:40 ↗ understand more of what's keeping those

58:42 ↗ from happening. And if if this is one of

58:44 ↗ those one of those reasons, I don't know

58:46 ↗ if this is an issue. Um, but it made me

58:49 ↗ think that it could be. Well, I think

58:51 ↗ the other question sorry I think the

58:53 ↗ other question too is that is that trul

58:57 ↗ is that truly what's going on because

58:58 ↗ there is infill development happening.

59:03 ↗ >> Yeah, you see some on Newport Way. You

59:05 ↗ see

59:06 ↗ >> those are

59:06 ↗ >> right. You see it in front street,

59:09 ↗ right? But those are still those type of

59:10 ↗ inflow lots we're talking about. So it

59:12 ↗ is being built,

59:15 ↗ >> right?

59:16 ↗ So again they are so I guess it's just a

59:19 ↗ definition how much development um I

59:22 ↗ mean I think these the three

59:24 ↗ >> might not be an issue I just made once

59:25 ↗ you once you open up the code it's like

59:26 ↗ well we should understand more if you

59:28 ↗ think if we're tweaking it we should

59:30 ↗ >> I hope there's a lot more pizza in that

59:31 ↗ room um

59:34 ↗ >> no it just it's something that someone

59:35 ↗ brought up to me too it's like there is

59:37 ↗ development happening and they're

59:39 ↗ actually the smaller ones it's just not

59:40 ↗ being where we want it in central law

59:42 ↗ and to your point it's not the big

59:44 ↗ developers it's the little developers

59:46 ↗ who are actually developing currently.

59:49 ↗ Jesse

59:51 ↗ >> ask a say many is waiting to jump.

59:53 ↗ >> No, no, right.

59:54 ↗ >> I I just read the So, we just read the

59:57 ↗ code and want to make sure that everyone

59:59 ↗ you I think you guys get it. The first

1:00:02 ↗ line is talking about five plus units

1:00:05 ↗ anywhere outside central Isiqua

1:00:07 ↗ >> or or in central

1:00:08 ↗ >> or in central from 5 to 21 in central or

1:00:13 ↗ it could be a 200 unit apartment complex

1:00:16 ↗ outside of central. So that those

1:00:18 ↗ amendments would apply in those cases.

1:00:20 ↗ So it's not just focused on smaller

1:00:24 ↗ that that row isn't just talking about

1:00:26 ↗ the small five or less. Just wanted to

1:00:30 ↗ make sure.

1:00:43 ↗ >> Well, it it says five plus and the next

1:00:45 ↗ one's 22 plus. So, yeah,

1:00:47 ↗ >> I would think five to 21.

1:00:49 ↗ >> Yeah. And you said and you said it

1:00:50 ↗ earlier, 5 to 21 units.

1:00:55 ↗ >> But this is citywide.

1:00:58 ↗ >> Yes. Commissioner Matthews,

1:01:00 ↗ >> would it make sense just to reduce the

1:01:02 ↗ minimum common outdoor amenity space um

1:01:05 ↗ maybe down to 50 square feet per unit

1:01:09 ↗ rather than 100?

1:01:12 ↗ >> Commissioners,

1:01:14 ↗ >> could you repeat the question?

1:01:15 ↗ >> Would it make sense to reduce the

1:01:17 ↗ minimum common outdoor amenity space

1:01:19 ↗ from 100 square feet down to 50 maybe

1:01:22 ↗ instead since it's

1:01:24 ↗ >> the five I'm sorry for the residential

1:01:26 ↗ five plus.

1:01:27 ↗ Commissioner dear.

1:01:31 ↗ >> No.

1:01:33 ↗ >> Yes. Commissioner Zacharov,

1:01:35 ↗ >> I I would agree if we are limiting this

1:01:39 ↗ to 5 to 21.

1:01:43 ↗ So we actually getting probably a third

1:01:45 ↗ line that way. I'm not sure. But if it's

1:01:48 ↗ 5 to 21 because this 5 plus includes 200

1:01:51 ↗ units as well.

1:01:54 ↗ So meant just the

1:01:56 ↗ >> Yeah, I just meant that one line.

1:01:57 ↗ >> Complicated. Yeah. Well, well, yeah, but

1:01:59 ↗ the line five plus like the top line, it

1:02:02 ↗ includes 200 units as well. So,

1:02:04 ↗ >> well, no, the fi the five plus would end

1:02:06 ↗ at 20

1:02:07 ↗ >> 20

1:02:08 ↗ >> 21 units.

1:02:09 ↗ >> And then once you have 22 units, you

1:02:11 ↗ start a different requirement.

1:02:13 ↗ >> Maybe we should put it as five-

1:02:16 ↗ >> We can do five to 21.

1:02:18 ↗ Thank you.

1:02:22 ↗ >> Valid question. Um, does anyone feel if

1:02:25 ↗ you want to help those smaller infill

1:02:27 ↗ lots to drop the 100 square feet square

1:02:30 ↗ feet per unit um to give them more

1:02:34 ↗ incentive to build those smaller lots? I

1:02:36 ↗ think that's what I mean. Again, if

1:02:38 ↗ you've got six lots, that's 600 square

1:02:40 ↗ feet right there. They're getting the

1:02:42 ↗ same amount as a much bigger building.

1:02:44 ↗ So

1:02:47 ↗ >> I would ask so sorry. Um

1:02:52 ↗ >> it's a freef fall. Yes. I think it's

1:02:55 ↗ almost like a it'd be interesting to

1:02:57 ↗ understand case study. Let's say I want

1:02:59 ↗ to build a 600 a sixunit apartment in

1:03:02 ↗ Isiqua. What are the requirements for

1:03:05 ↗ outdoor space and parking and other and

1:03:08 ↗ setbacks? And I'm curious then does that

1:03:11 ↗ well maybe I'm trying to figure out does

1:03:14 ↗ this become feasible or infeasible when

1:03:17 ↗ you start adding all those pieces

1:03:18 ↗ because right now we're looking at it in

1:03:19 ↗ isolation. So, I don't know whether a

1:03:21 ↗ 100 is good, 50 is good, none is good. I

1:03:24 ↗ don't know. But, um, I'm just trying to

1:03:26 ↗ understand if you said, "Let's do a case

1:03:28 ↗ study of I want to build a six-unit

1:03:30 ↗ apartment in Isiqua.

1:03:32 ↗ >> I would need this size lot right now

1:03:35 ↗ with all the current requirements, and

1:03:36 ↗ you can say, oh, wow, that's that lot's

1:03:38 ↗ going to be way too expensive." Or maybe

1:03:40 ↗ not. I don't know. But I think by

1:03:42 ↗ looking at each piece individually, I

1:03:44 ↗ don't know whether it should be 50 or

1:03:46 ↗ 100 because there are other other

1:03:48 ↗ requirements for them that they have to

1:03:50 ↗ do.

1:03:50 ↗ >> And that's that's part of the struggle

1:03:51 ↗ with writing code is that no two lots

1:03:53 ↗ are alike and no two building is going

1:03:55 ↗ to no two buildings are going to be

1:03:56 ↗ alike. And we've got two properties in

1:03:58 ↗ the mixeduse residential zone that are

1:04:00 ↗ about the same size, but because one is

1:04:02 ↗ square and one is oblong, the F and

1:04:04 ↗ height work for them, but for the oblong

1:04:06 ↗ one, but it does not work at all for the

1:04:07 ↗ square piece.

1:04:08 ↗ >> What if we just took it real quick? So

1:04:09 ↗ if you said, okay, I if I have to do 600

1:04:12 ↗ square feet of open common space, how

1:04:15 ↗ many parking spots do I have to have for

1:04:16 ↗ six units?

1:04:17 ↗ >> Well, it has to do with the number of

1:04:19 ↗ units.

1:04:20 ↗ >> Six units.

1:04:21 ↗ >> Oh, six units. And how many parking

1:04:22 ↗ spots right now? Okay. Again, it

1:04:24 ↗ depends.

1:04:24 ↗ >> And then I can add up the square footage

1:04:25 ↗ of that. And now I'm just trying

1:04:28 ↗ >> No, I'm just I'm just trying to figure

1:04:29 ↗ out whether now this lot has to be

1:04:31 ↗ really big or it I don't know if it's a

1:04:33 ↗ problem or not. That's that's the that's

1:04:35 ↗ the point because when you look at in

1:04:37 ↗ isolation

1:04:38 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean in central Isabol can go

1:04:39 ↗ down to seven spaces per unit or if

1:04:43 ↗ you're outside it's you know a space per

1:04:45 ↗ unit. Most people are going to put in

1:04:46 ↗ two because that's what the market

1:04:47 ↗ wants. If you only have six units

1:04:51 ↗ >> there's so many pieces. Yes,

1:04:53 ↗ Commissioner Dear.

1:04:54 ↗ >> Okay, I'm going to throw in a curveball.

1:04:56 ↗ >> Oh, good. We haven't had enough. All

1:04:59 ↗ right, let's say our goal is to foster

1:05:01 ↗ both community space groups, which I

1:05:04 ↗ feel is very important to have community

1:05:06 ↗ space for kids to play in and neighbors

1:05:08 ↗ to interact with, but we also want dense

1:05:11 ↗ housing to make it profitable for

1:05:14 ↗ developers and who, you know, increase

1:05:18 ↗ infill within central Isiqua. So, are we

1:05:21 ↗ maybe looking at this the wrong way when

1:05:24 ↗ we're quibbling about the square footage

1:05:26 ↗ per unit? And do we want to consider

1:05:29 ↗ going to a percentage

1:05:31 ↗ of square footage of the building? So

1:05:33 ↗ for example or of the floor of the base

1:05:36 ↗ of floor of the building so that you

1:05:40 ↗ know if you're thinking oh there's 1,000

1:05:44 ↗ square ft per unit would roughly 10% of

1:05:47 ↗ the square footage

1:05:49 ↗ of the building

1:05:52 ↗ sort of fulfill the same needs and is

1:05:54 ↗ there a reason we didn't go that way?

1:05:55 ↗ >> And I think that's what Redmond does. I

1:05:57 ↗ think Redmond does 20%

1:05:59 ↗ >> of the building

1:06:01 ↗ of the site. Not the building. They do

1:06:03 ↗ 20% of the site.

1:06:07 ↗ >> They can also park on the ground. Just

1:06:10 ↗ >> uh Commissioner Olner and then

1:06:11 ↗ Commissioner Z

1:06:12 ↗ >> just a point of clarification by if we

1:06:14 ↗ had a a sixunit development and we

1:06:17 ↗ reduce the out common outdoor space

1:06:20 ↗ amenity space to 50 that's smaller

1:06:24 ↗ overall that's smaller than one parking

1:06:26 ↗ space for six units. Yeah,

1:06:30 ↗ because the parking space is 9 by 17 or

1:06:33 ↗ 9 by 17 or something like that 50 square

1:06:36 ↗ feet.

1:06:39 ↗ >> Yes, Commissioner Zach,

1:06:41 ↗ >> I am back on 50. I'm sorry. Uh 50 + 48

1:06:47 ↗ is actually 98. So, which makes almost

1:06:49 ↗ 100. What if it's being put the way that

1:06:53 ↗ I'm too close? uh what has been put the

1:06:55 ↗ way that every unit has to have 100

1:06:58 ↗ square feet of outdoor amenity space

1:07:01 ↗ whether it is community or it's a

1:07:04 ↗ balcony or it's a combination

1:07:08 ↗ so like you like if you have um I don't

1:07:11 ↗ know 48 square ft balcony then you have

1:07:14 ↗ 52

1:07:16 ↗ square ft of community outdoor space if

1:07:19 ↗ you don't have a balcony you stay with

1:07:21 ↗ 100 uh like it can be any kind of like

1:07:25 ↗ variation or a balcony can be tiny like

1:07:30 ↗ yeah see what I'm saying

1:07:42 ↗ um yeah I'm not opposed to that but I

1:07:44 ↗ would want to put a minimum and how much

1:07:45 ↗ it could of that could be private space

1:07:47 ↗ because I do think we want to make sure

1:07:49 ↗ there is some level of community space

1:07:51 ↗ and I'm worried somebody might just make

1:07:53 ↗ it all private yards because that's more

1:07:56 ↗ marketable in a townhouse development or

1:07:58 ↗ whatever is going in. So if you were to

1:08:01 ↗ say no more than x% can be used for

1:08:04 ↗ private that would work for me

1:08:15 ↗ >> almost. Commissioner Holstrom, do you

1:08:17 ↗ have any thoughts?

1:08:22 ↗ I think the goal should be to streamline

1:08:24 ↗ the code, shouldn't it? and make it a

1:08:26 ↗ little easier then it's just seems very

1:08:30 ↗ convoluted

1:08:32 ↗ looking at this and you know through

1:08:35 ↗ good means but I mean doesn't the lot

1:08:39 ↗ coverage of each site kind of give you

1:08:41 ↗ the remaining open space that's

1:08:44 ↗ available

1:08:45 ↗ the I mean the lot coverage restraints

1:08:47 ↗ for each site what it you know

1:08:50 ↗ >> right so the imperous service maximums

1:08:53 ↗ and the map the parking that's required

1:08:55 ↗ and Yeah, whatever's left over after

1:08:57 ↗ that.

1:08:59 ↗ >> I mean, isn't that your open space

1:09:01 ↗ number?

1:09:01 ↗ >> Um, it could be except that I mean, it

1:09:03 ↗ can in central Isiqua though, the

1:09:05 ↗ impervious surface max is 95%. And if

1:09:07 ↗ they can take it, they'll take it,

1:09:09 ↗ >> right?

1:09:13 ↗ So then it really isn't 95% though if we

1:09:15 ↗ have

1:09:16 ↗ >> Right.

1:09:16 ↗ >> So it's

1:09:18 ↗ Yeah,

1:09:19 ↗ >> we're bringing that down, right? Okay.

1:09:21 ↗ Right.

1:09:30 ↗ Have we moved the needle at all or are

1:09:31 ↗ we staying here?

1:09:37 ↗ >> Can we get examples like we're getting

1:09:38 ↗ with the setbacks?

1:09:40 ↗ >> Yeah. And yeah. Yeah. So, we we should

1:09:43 ↗ get somewhere with this. I think we've

1:09:45 ↗ kind of had a good discussion. Um, the

1:09:49 ↗ couple things I heard was maybe having a

1:09:52 ↗ softer touch or more flexibility or no

1:09:55 ↗ requirements for less than some unit

1:09:59 ↗ size. Right now, it's anything below

1:10:02 ↗ four units. Like a forplex doesn't have

1:10:04 ↗ those. So, you want to raise that bar

1:10:06 ↗ from four to nine. Like, at what point

1:10:10 ↗ do you want to, you know, switch over to

1:10:13 ↗ having requirements and having no

1:10:14 ↗ requirements? nine fits in with uh sea

1:10:19 ↗ because your sea threshold is nine or

1:10:21 ↗ more. So if you want to raise the five

1:10:23 ↗ to nine that may be one thing you can

1:10:26 ↗ look at. The other one

1:10:29 ↗ is uh the split between common and um

1:10:34 ↗ private open space. I think what you

1:10:36 ↗ heard from the developers they're fine

1:10:38 ↗ with requiring 30% of the units to have

1:10:40 ↗ private open space. Their request was

1:10:44 ↗ currently the code says 50% of the units

1:10:46 ↗ need to have private open space. They'd

1:10:48 ↗ like to have a third of them. So that if

1:10:50 ↗ you split up and you agree that maybe

1:10:53 ↗ mandating private open space for

1:10:55 ↗ onethird is okay, then we can kind of go

1:10:57 ↗ with that. So those are the two I think.

1:11:06 ↗ >> Oh okay. In the previous in the packet

1:11:21 ↗ Yeah. So that is what I think you heard

1:11:23 ↗ Avalon Carl uh recommend that you pick

1:11:26 ↗ option C which in the write up means you

1:11:29 ↗ would strike out. Can you go?

1:11:34 ↗ So what what he would was was

1:11:35 ↗ recommending in the first column with

1:11:38 ↗ the right red write up that you would

1:11:40 ↗ strike out plus 48 square feet. You keep

1:11:42 ↗ it simple. You have 100 square feet per

1:11:45 ↗ unit and then for 30% of those you

1:11:47 ↗ require 48. So that's option C. That was

1:11:50 ↗ his his recommendation.

1:11:58 ↗ Would

1:12:06 ↗ you all turn on your mics? Would you all

1:12:08 ↗ turn on your mics, please?

1:12:18 ↗ >> It give us the more competitive edge

1:12:19 ↗ that they've asked for uh in lie of all

1:12:22 ↗ the difficulties they have with our

1:12:23 ↗ topography and different things. until

1:12:25 ↗ we have another meeting where we get to

1:12:27 ↗ discuss those cans.

1:12:29 ↗ >> So I think we're starting to make some

1:12:31 ↗ headway at 8:25.

1:12:33 ↗ >> Yeah. So so breaking it up into three,

1:12:35 ↗ if you can give us some direction and

1:12:37 ↗ then in your public hearing packet we

1:12:39 ↗ will include it. You want is there

1:12:41 ↗ consensus to raise the have no

1:12:43 ↗ requirements for up to nine units?

1:12:48 ↗ >> I'm okay with it because it Oh, sorry.

1:12:52 ↗ >> Informal vote. So we'll change the five

1:12:53 ↗ plus to 9 plus.

1:12:55 ↗ >> That'll help us in this.

1:12:56 ↗ >> Uh and then the second one was to remove

1:13:00 ↗ the additional 48 in the first column to

1:13:04 ↗ remove the all the red underline in the

1:13:07 ↗ first column. Just remove that.

1:13:10 ↗ That's a big consensus. Okay.

1:13:12 ↗ >> So just 100 square feet, not 140 for

1:13:15 ↗ without

1:13:16 ↗ >> and then is there consensus on 30%

1:13:20 ↗ requirement for office? Okay. Okay.

1:13:24 ↗ All right.

1:13:29 ↗ I'm just going to throw it out there.

1:13:30 ↗ Um, we also threw in as a as an

1:13:33 ↗ additional deviation that um for common

1:13:35 ↗ and outdoor amenity space for

1:13:36 ↗ conversions to residential uses that if

1:13:38 ↗ they comply with all of the requirements

1:13:41 ↗ um in 18500 which talks about the

1:13:44 ↗ conversion of buildings and all the

1:13:46 ↗ requirements uh of those buildings and

1:13:48 ↗ requirements that they can get a

1:13:49 ↗ deviation requested from the 148 square

1:13:51 ↗ feet per amenity space requirement. But

1:13:54 ↗ if we go with option C, that's going to

1:13:56 ↗ change again because then we take the um

1:13:59 ↗ 48 square feet out and it goes to 100.

1:14:01 ↗ Okay. All right. Wow. Okay.

1:14:07 ↗ So, we did tonight reviewed it. Um May

1:14:10 ↗ 14th is the public hearing. I'm hoping

1:14:12 ↗ we can get there. It'll also include all

1:14:14 ↗ of the other clarifying amendments that

1:14:16 ↗ have been done. On June 2nd, we're

1:14:19 ↗ expected to go to the planning and

1:14:21 ↗ development and environment committee.

1:14:23 ↗ And then on June 29th, council action.

1:14:25 ↗ And I'm assuming you don't have any

1:14:28 ↗ questions, but I don't know.

1:14:32 ↗ We good?

1:14:33 ↗ Okay. Thank you guys so much for a good

1:14:38 ↗ conversation.

1:14:40 ↗ >> Okay. Well, Kristen, don't go anywhere.

1:14:43 ↗ Um,

1:14:45 ↗ city council updates, please.

1:14:48 ↗ I

1:14:50 ↗ I don't have any. I We haven't been to

1:14:52 ↗ council in a while. No. Oh, except No.

1:14:55 ↗ No, we do. Um I don't know if you

1:14:57 ↗ watched the council meeting the other

1:14:58 ↗ night, but the city has a contract to

1:15:01 ↗ purchase a building over on Maple and

1:15:04 ↗ 12th or Maple right over there. Um yeah,

1:15:08 ↗ I so that may happen. And

1:15:10 ↗ >> what was the name of the building?

1:15:11 ↗ Adetics. Do

1:15:12 ↗ >> you remember the name of it? Lo is Yeah.

1:15:14 ↗ Yeah. Okay. So yeah, so that's that's

1:15:18 ↗ kind of big news

1:15:19 ↗ >> for those of you who has seen our space.

1:15:21 ↗ Yes, it's big news. Um uh otherwise I

1:15:25 ↗ don't have any other thing from council.

1:15:27 ↗ >> Who's happier, staff or the police?

1:15:29 ↗ >> The police.

1:15:30 ↗ >> Okay.

1:15:32 ↗ >> Tell you right now. Yeah. Um I don't

1:15:36 ↗ have any other announcements either.

1:15:38 ↗ >> Okay. Well,

1:15:39 ↗ >> oh just one. You all had request. Sorry.

1:15:43 ↗ You all had requested a tour and then I

1:15:46 ↗ went out of town and I was out of town

1:15:48 ↗ the next two weekends and now I think

1:15:49 ↗ it's not going to happen. So, we'll just

1:15:50 ↗ try and bring as many examples as we can

1:15:52 ↗ every time we meet. Yeah. Okay. All

1:15:55 ↗ right. That was all.

1:15:57 ↗ >> Or if you want to just email us

1:15:59 ↗ addresses, some of us can go make our

1:16:01 ↗ own little

1:16:02 ↗ >> I can do that, too. We've given tours in

1:16:04 ↗ the past. I can give you selfguided

1:16:06 ↗ tour.

1:16:06 ↗ >> I can send you those maps and tell you

1:16:08 ↗ where those are if you want to go see

1:16:09 ↗ them. It would come with like a little

1:16:11 ↗ >> audio tour like we have at museums from

1:16:14 ↗ you.

1:16:19 ↗ >> All right. Um,

1:16:22 ↗ anything about our upcoming planning

1:16:24 ↗ policy commission schedule?

1:16:26 ↗ >> No,

1:16:28 ↗ >> but we're not done filling it up,

1:16:30 ↗ >> right?

1:16:30 ↗ >> So,

1:16:31 ↗ >> you guys can see it's we're busy.

1:16:33 ↗ >> Yes.

1:16:35 ↗ >> Okay, I think that's it. Anyone like to

1:16:38 ↗ say anything for the good of the order

1:16:39 ↗ this evening?

1:16:41 ↗ >> Just just thank you. It's been a long

1:16:43 ↗ night and you guys have been great and

1:16:45 ↗ managed to participate all the way for

1:16:47 ↗ three hours. So, thank you.

1:16:49 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you everyone. And again,

1:16:51 ↗ thank you our awesome staff, Kate,

1:16:54 ↗ Minnie, Kristen, Amanda, and thank all

1:16:57 ↗ of you guys. And please get pizza. We

1:17:00 ↗ don't want to leave any pizza behind.

1:17:02 ↗ So, if you have kids or have spouses

1:17:04 ↗ that might feel like a slice of pie,

1:17:07 ↗ grab it. We're going to adjourn this

1:17:09 ↗ meeting, the Planning Policy Commission

1:17:11 ↗ at 8:29 p.m. Good night.

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (14)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Holstrom

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin

Oliner

Zakharoff Economic Vitality Commissioners Present: Chair Richley

Vice-Chair Richardson

Commissioners Kapustein

Larson

Lerch

Lee

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, CP&D Director Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner 2