Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 14, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 23, 2026

packet pp.5–14

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES JOINT PLANNING POLICY & ECONOMIC VITALITY COMMISSIONS 5:30 p.m. – Thursday, April 23, 2026

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed Title 18 Clarifying Amendments and Update to Stepback and Amenity Space Requirements (A)

60 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.15–64

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing, hear public comment, and, if appropriate, make a

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Introduction to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposals (D) Clarifications

45 min · Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner · packet pp.65–85

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 41:28 Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

On May 14, the PPC will re-engage with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that started earlier this year. Staff will provide an informational briefing on proposed policy and code amendments related to Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals 1 and 2, summarized in the table below.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.87–90

▶ Watch from 1:24:50 Open packet at p.87 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

2348 segments .txt ↗

0:32 ↗ Arseny, we're ready to go.

0:43 ↗ Good evening, Planning Policy. It's good

0:45 ↗ to see everybody.

0:46 ↗ Feels a little bit more intimate this

0:48 ↗ evening, but that just could be because

0:50 ↗ last meeting we had so many people,

0:52 ↗ which is a little irregular for us.

0:55 ↗ Uh we're going to get started and it

0:57 ↗ currently is 6:31 p.m.

1:00 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

1:02 ↗ Planning Policy Commission is in person,

1:04 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

1:06 ↗ be joining us virtually

1:08 ↗ or in person.

1:10 ↗ Kristen, do we have a quorum this

1:11 ↗ evening? We do have a quorum. We have um

1:14 ↗ one unexcused absence, uh Commissioner

1:16 ↗ Melinda Irwin, and an excused absence

1:18 ↗ with Commissioner Allender. Okay. So,

1:21 ↗ what that means for our commission this

1:22 ↗ evening is both our alternates will be

1:24 ↗ voting. Uh so, Commissioner

1:27 ↗ Holstrom as well as Commissioner Adair

1:28 ↗ will be voting members this evening.

1:32 ↗ We're going to begin with the approval

1:33 ↗ of minutes and we have two sets of

1:35 ↗ minutes for last uh

1:37 ↗ meeting, which was the 23rd,

1:40 ↗ and we obviously had our special meeting

1:42 ↗ with the EVC, and we'll start with

1:44 ↗ those. Were there any concerns or

1:46 ↗ anything that anyone like to bring up

1:47 ↗ regarding those minutes?

1:54 ↗ As far as the PPC's meeting that

1:56 ↗ evening any

1:57 ↗ Anything

1:59 ↗ anyone like to bring up?

2:02 ↗ All right, hearing none, both sets of

2:03 ↗ meeting minutes are approved.

2:06 ↗ The next item of business

2:09 ↗ is going to be uh public comment. So,

2:12 ↗ for this meeting we're holding the

2:13 ↗ general public comment right now. This

2:15 ↗ is for the good of the PPC.

2:17 ↗ Um anything in general that you'd like

2:18 ↗ to bring up. We will have a moment a

2:21 ↗ little bit later when the public hearing

2:22 ↗ is open for anyone that would like to

2:24 ↗ speak on tonight's main topic, which is

2:28 ↗ going to be the Title 18 proposed

2:29 ↗ amendments. Um again, so right now it's

2:32 ↗ really just more general.

2:35 ↗ If you want to keep your comments on the

2:36 ↗ record I

2:39 ↗ I would uh encourage you to wait.

2:42 ↗ Um staff, do we have anyone that uh

2:44 ↗ would like to speak this evening as far

2:46 ↗ as general public comment?

2:48 ↗ No, chair. Not for general comments.

2:50 ↗ Okay. Thank you, Amanda.

2:54 ↗ Okay.

2:56 ↗ We're going to move on to our first item

2:57 ↗ of business this evening, and this is

3:00 ↗ uh our public hearing regarding the

3:02 ↗ proposed Title 18 land code land use

3:04 ↗ code amendments. The purpose of this

3:07 ↗ public hearing is to provide a formal

3:08 ↗ opportunity for public comment on these

3:11 ↗ amendments.

3:13 ↗ We'll open the public hearing, which

3:14 ↗ will be followed by a staff

3:16 ↗ presentation, and then we'll open it up

3:18 ↗ for the PPC to ask any questions that

3:21 ↗ they have.

3:22 ↗ Um after the questions, we'll take

3:24 ↗ public testimony,

3:25 ↗ and then we'll close the public hearing,

3:27 ↗ and then the Planning Policy Commission

3:28 ↗ will have an opportunity to debate.

3:31 ↗ Uh it's hoped that at the end of that

3:34 ↗ debate, we'll make a recommendation,

3:36 ↗ and we'll see this thing go upstream.

3:39 ↗ And this evening, Kate Cainey, our

3:41 ↗ principal planner, will be starting us

3:42 ↗ off. So, Kate, when you are ready

3:45 ↗ with your presentation, please go ahead.

4:15 ↗ >> Thank you, Chair. I'm just getting set

4:17 ↗ here. Can everybody see the presentation

4:19 ↗ all right? Okay. Well, thank you very

4:21 ↗ much.

4:22 ↗ Um I am here tonight to Oh, this is the

4:25 ↗ wrong presentation, isn't it? Pardon me.

4:29 ↗ Bring up the other one.

4:32 ↗ Sorry.

4:34 ↗ Page one. My apologies.

4:37 ↗ Okay.

4:40 ↗ And

4:41 ↗ hit the right button again.

4:44 ↗ Okay.

4:45 ↗ There we go. I think I have the right

4:46 ↗ presentation. My apologies for that. So,

4:49 ↗ uh tonight we are here for the public

4:50 ↗ hearing on the Title 18 Land Use Code

4:52 ↗ Amendments. Um three staff are here to

4:55 ↗ participate in the presentation. I will

4:57 ↗ go ahead and start it off.

5:00 ↗ Um as the Chair mentioned, our purpose

5:02 ↗ here is not only to hold the public

5:03 ↗ hearing, but also to take public

5:05 ↗ comment, um allow the Commission to

5:07 ↗ deliberate, and take action if

5:09 ↗ appropriate.

5:11 ↗ So,

5:12 ↗ the Title 18 Amendments that are um the

5:16 ↗ basis of the hearing tonight are split

5:18 ↗ into two general categories. The first

5:20 ↗ are the 2026 clarifying or housekeeping

5:23 ↗ amendments the Commission has been

5:24 ↗ reviewing since the beginning of the

5:25 ↗ year. And then there are two sets of

5:28 ↗ amendments that are part of the

5:29 ↗ Promoting Building Investment in

5:31 ↗ Issaquah Initiative.

5:35 ↗ So, I will go ahead and kick off the

5:37 ↗ presentation on the clarifying

5:40 ↗ amendments

5:41 ↗ and share with you that uh the

5:43 ↗ Commission did review these seven uh

5:45 ↗ sets of amendments earlier this year.

5:48 ↗ I'm going to go ahead and roll right

5:49 ↗ into the first amendment and then uh

5:53 ↗ each of us will come up and do uh

5:55 ↗ uh provide information as appropriate.

5:57 ↗ So, the first amendment has to do with

5:59 ↗ the multi-family definitions and is is

6:01 ↗ literally some cleanup. Um the proposal

6:04 ↗ repeals the definition called

6:05 ↗ multi-family residential.

6:07 ↗ And the reason is that last year when

6:10 ↗ the city adopted the middle housing

6:12 ↗ amendments, a new definition dwelling

6:16 ↗ multi-family was adopted and that um

6:19 ↗ really supersedes uh this older

6:21 ↗ definition multi-family residential. So,

6:24 ↗ um that needs to be removed from the

6:25 ↗ code for consistency.

6:28 ↗ So, the next set of amendments I am

6:30 ↗ going to hand over to senior planner

6:32 ↗ Emily Medina.

6:35 ↗ Good evening, commissioners. So, the

6:37 ↗ site development permit um code

6:40 ↗ amendments clarify when site development

6:42 ↗ permits are necessary and at what level.

6:45 ↗ Um

6:46 ↗ again, the reason for this change is to

6:48 ↗ just make sure that we're not having

6:50 ↗ these super small-scale projects have to

6:52 ↗ go through unnecessary permitting and

6:53 ↗ get a land use permit when it's not

6:55 ↗ necessary

6:56 ↗ um as well as making sure that the

6:58 ↗ thresholds are simplistic, so not having

7:00 ↗ multiple thresholds for each level, but

7:02 ↗ just one to keep it clear, so um

7:04 ↗ developers know what to expect and it's

7:06 ↗ easy for staff to process um as well as

7:09 ↗ using um

7:12 ↗ as well as

7:13 ↗ >> [laughter]

7:14 ↗ >> as well as making sure that the uh

7:16 ↗ projects that don't involve structures

7:20 ↗ um and are just site work permits don't

7:22 ↗ have to go through the development

7:23 ↗ commission when there is no design

7:24 ↗ review associated with that.

7:28 ↗ Um so, just to kind of recall back, one

7:32 ↗ of the big changes is changing the word

7:34 ↗ um in our thresholds right now talks

7:36 ↗ about development and we are to

7:37 ↗ proposing to change that to structure.

7:39 ↗ Um development in our code is a very,

7:41 ↗ very broad definition, and it means

7:42 ↗ literally anytime you touch the land

7:44 ↗ versus structure is vertical

7:46 ↗ construction, um and that is the

7:48 ↗ original intent of site development

7:50 ↗ permits is to really focus on those

7:51 ↗ large structures on site.

7:55 ↗ Uh following public comments that we

7:57 ↗ received after our first presentation on

7:59 ↗ the site development permit amendments,

8:01 ↗ we added one additional threshold, which

8:03 ↗ is to the level two. Um level two, if

8:06 ↗ you recall, is administrative approval

8:09 ↗ or administrative decision, but with

8:10 ↗ public notice versus level four permits

8:13 ↗ um are development commission hearing

8:15 ↗ and decision with public notice as well.

8:18 ↗ Um so, currently level four, if there is

8:20 ↗ a 1-acre site being touched, um even if

8:23 ↗ there's no structure on it, it has to go

8:25 ↗ through a level four, but there was no

8:26 ↗ smaller threshold for that. So, there

8:28 ↗ was concern that these larger

8:31 ↗ potentially these large projects that

8:32 ↗ just involve site work. So, an example

8:34 ↗ that I've given previously is the um

8:37 ↗ changing an asphalt parking lot into a

8:40 ↗ large park or community many space. Um

8:43 ↗ there was concerns that that's still is

8:44 ↗ substantial impact to if you live next

8:47 ↗ door, what's happening to next door to

8:48 ↗ you. If it's 10,000 square feet to an

8:49 ↗ acre, you know, that that can be a large

8:51 ↗ change of land use, and the public

8:53 ↗ perhaps wants to know about that. Um and

8:56 ↗ we agree, public notice is always a good

8:58 ↗ thing, so we added another threshold to

9:01 ↗ level two that if it is a site work um

9:04 ↗ project between 10,000 square feet and 1

9:07 ↗ acre, it has to go through a level two

9:09 ↗ process, so that the public will be

9:10 ↗ notified, and then it is administrative

9:12 ↗ decision.

9:16 ↗ So, just some examples about that. Um

9:18 ↗ this is one of the ones that triggered

9:20 ↗ having that um base threshold for small

9:22 ↗ projects. Um currently, if you're adding

9:25 ↗ 200 square feet to the front of your

9:27 ↗ commercial building or less, um you have

9:29 ↗ to get a level one SDP. Under the

9:31 ↗ proposed amendments, SDP review would

9:33 ↗ not be required. So, they would just get

9:35 ↗ be required to get a building permit and

9:37 ↗ all those things that we would look for

9:38 ↗ with the site development permit, we

9:40 ↗ would just look for with the building

9:41 ↗ permit. Um so just eliminating that one

9:43 ↗ extra um hurdle to jump over.

9:48 ↗ And then I wanted to bring back this

9:49 ↗ example because I presented this when

9:51 ↗ these amendments first came before the

9:52 ↗ commission. Um and this was the trigger

9:55 ↗ about the site work permit. So this is

9:57 ↗ the one that is converting that asphalt

9:58 ↗ parking lot into a community amenity

10:00 ↗ space. Um currently it would have to go

10:02 ↗ through a level four even though they're

10:04 ↗ not doing any structural changes to the

10:06 ↗ building on site um because of the

10:08 ↗ amount of land they are touching. Under

10:10 ↗ these new proposed revised amendments,

10:12 ↗ it would be a level two because it is

10:14 ↗ greater than 10,000 square feet but less

10:16 ↗ than an acre. Um it would have the

10:19 ↗ public notice associated with it before

10:21 ↗ the uh staff made a decision.

10:26 ↗ And then the other process amendment

10:28 ↗ that is associated is the plat and

10:30 ↗ construction permit requirements. So

10:32 ↗ currently our code just lacks clarity um

10:35 ↗ regarding requirements for construction

10:37 ↗ of infrastructure um which is utilities,

10:39 ↗ sidewalks, that kind of thing before

10:41 ↗ final approval of the subdivisions and

10:44 ↗ binding site plans, so plats, that kind

10:45 ↗ of thing. So this is essentially just to

10:48 ↗ clarify code and strengthen it to make

10:50 ↗ sure that we have um the right permit

10:52 ↗ process in place.

11:04 ↗ Great. Thank you, Emily. Um so I will uh

11:08 ↗ go ahead and finish up the uh review of

11:10 ↗ the proposals for the clarifying code.

11:13 ↗ And this one you may recall is part of

11:14 ↗ the temporary use uh code that we have.

11:17 ↗ And a change that would clarify where

11:20 ↗ and how to allow donation bins on

11:21 ↗ private properties. You can see some

11:23 ↗ photos here of what that might look

11:25 ↗ like, the good and the bad uh that we

11:27 ↗ would address.

11:28 ↗ Um and uh the changes that um are added

11:32 ↗ are really standards for uh where

11:34 ↗ donation bins can go.

11:36 ↗ A duration of 365 days is proposed and

11:40 ↗ also a prohibition in the standards on

11:42 ↗ accumulating trash or having it be

11:45 ↗ ill-kept. So,

11:47 ↗ we worked with our code enforcement

11:49 ↗ officer to make sure we had the right

11:50 ↗ standards.

11:52 ↗ These bins are already allowed through

11:53 ↗ the temporary use code, but what this

11:56 ↗ these code changes do is add those

11:57 ↗ standards that were reviewed previously

12:00 ↗ by the commission.

12:01 ↗ So, the next proposal has to do with

12:04 ↗ daycare and adult family homes and some

12:06 ↗ clarifications.

12:08 ↗ This is really just adding

12:11 ↗ some language when you are reading

12:12 ↗ through the daycare and adult family

12:14 ↗ home standards and directions to go see

12:17 ↗ the definitions for daycare center,

12:19 ↗ daycare center family, and adult family

12:22 ↗ home. And it's like wayfinding,

12:24 ↗ so you can go to the definition section.

12:26 ↗ It's important because in the

12:28 ↗ definitions, there are there is

12:30 ↗ information about the number of kids,

12:32 ↗ the number of adults that are allowed in

12:35 ↗ these different facilities and also

12:38 ↗ applicable state regulations. So, that's

12:41 ↗ what's proposed in that first upper part

12:44 ↗ of the proposals. And in the lower half,

12:46 ↗ the update to the family daycare center

12:47 ↗ criteria is also pretty simple. It is

12:50 ↗ just updating the term family child care

12:52 ↗ center and replacing it with family

12:54 ↗ daycare center just to be consistent

12:56 ↗ throughout the code.

12:58 ↗ There are a couple of others related to

12:59 ↗ daycare

13:01 ↗ and this standard has to do with adding

13:03 ↗ a new provision pertaining to traffic

13:06 ↗ impact fee waivers. These waivers were

13:09 ↗ adopted by city council this March. So,

13:12 ↗ as part of the codification process

13:14 ↗ in this section of the daycare code, we

13:18 ↗ added a provision that describes

13:22 ↗ the need for getting a covenant recorded

13:26 ↗ as part of any property that decides to

13:28 ↗ opt in to this waiver program, um, so it

13:31 ↗ can be tracked by the city.

13:35 ↗ And this next amendment also kind of has

13:38 ↗ to do with daycare, but it's, uh, in the

13:40 ↗ home business code. Daycare operations

13:41 ↗ used to be in our home business section

13:43 ↗ of the code. Um, it has this, uh,

13:46 ↗ italicized, uh, information about play

13:49 ↗ equipment for daycare operations. Since

13:51 ↗ daycare is no longer, uh, regulated in

13:53 ↗ that section of the code, it is no

13:55 ↗ longer applicable and the proposal is to

13:57 ↗ remove it.

14:00 ↗ So now we have, um, three more slides

14:02 ↗ all on, uh, different sign code

14:04 ↗ provisions that, um, you have reviewed.

14:06 ↗ The first, um, balloon sign provisions

14:09 ↗ and this is a clarification that all

14:12 ↗ balloons and balloon-like objects, um,

14:15 ↗ regardless of material, would be

14:16 ↗ prohibited, uh, for use as signs. Um,

14:19 ↗ the main reason is that, uh,

14:21 ↗ these balloons can obscure the vision of

14:23 ↗ people driving by. Um, it's a safety

14:26 ↗ issue. We worked on this language with

14:28 ↗ the code enforcement officer and I

14:30 ↗ believe one of the commissioners, uh,

14:32 ↗ in the initial, uh, set of code that we,

14:35 ↗ uh,

14:36 ↗ uh,

14:37 ↗ had you review, noticed, um, that we

14:39 ↗ hadn't, uh, been completely holistic in

14:41 ↗ our changes. So, uh, we swept through

14:44 ↗ the code so that the prohibition is, um,

14:47 ↗ consistent throughout the code. So that

14:49 ↗ was added.

14:51 ↗ The next amendment has to do with the

14:54 ↗ interior illumination of monument signs.

14:57 ↗ What we were finding is that a lot of

14:59 ↗ the monument signs, which you see

15:00 ↗ examples of on screen here, um, are

15:03 ↗ grandfathered or legally non-conforming

15:05 ↗ with the existing code. However, they

15:07 ↗ come in and they need their illumination

15:09 ↗ adjusted on their sign faces. So, um,

15:12 ↗ this is, uh,

15:13 ↗ this change would be specific to Central

15:15 ↗ Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus, and

15:17 ↗ the, uh, CBD zone. And the idea would be

15:21 ↗ to maintain the signs uh,

15:23 ↗ the sign face illumination would be

15:25 ↗ allowed to change

15:28 ↗ as long as the other standards were met

15:30 ↗ and this clarification would release

15:32 ↗ streamline the process because these

15:34 ↗ signs apparently do come through

15:36 ↗ regularly to the counter.

15:40 ↗ The next and final sign code proposal

15:43 ↗ has to do with temporary window

15:45 ↗ construction signs and the idea would be

15:47 ↗ to allow these signs that are temporary

15:50 ↗ during the construction process for all

15:52 ↗ development before the um

15:55 ↗ uh before people have to get the full

15:57 ↗ permanent signs required by the code. Um

16:00 ↗ this would just make it easier

16:02 ↗ um for the new development to install

16:03 ↗ the signs so we thought it would be a

16:05 ↗ good streamlining process.

16:08 ↗ Okay, so with that I am going to go

16:11 ↗ ahead and hand it over to planning

16:13 ↗ manager Kristen Lee sent to go over the

16:14 ↗ next set of proposals.

16:18 ↗ Good evening. Kristen Lee sent planning

16:20 ↗ manager.

16:23 ↗ All right, so we're going to talk about

16:24 ↗ this time um

16:25 ↗ proposed amendments for the promoting

16:28 ↗ building investments in Issaquah.

16:31 ↗ Um first we are talking about step backs

16:33 ↗ and step backs

16:35 ↗ the goal here was to allow for more

16:37 ↗ flexibility in step backs and where they

16:40 ↗ should occur. [clears throat]

16:41 ↗ And the reason for doing that is because

16:43 ↗ we have been told that they are a little

16:45 ↗ bit excessive and it could potentially

16:48 ↗ make a project infeasible.

16:51 ↗ So first of all before we talk about it,

16:54 ↗ I wanted to talk about the other

16:55 ↗ regulations that are in place as well.

16:57 ↗ So we talk about building modulation and

16:59 ↗ articulation in this section of the code

17:02 ↗ and other things that are required we

17:04 ↗ required a definite a

17:07 ↗ um differentiating

17:09 ↗ or um

17:10 ↗ differentiation there you go between all

17:12 ↗ the different floors especially once

17:14 ↗ they hit once they go over three floors.

17:17 ↗ Um we require divided light windows that

17:19 ↗ are operable, that are recessed or

17:20 ↗ projecting or have a

17:23 ↗ that are framed.

17:24 ↗ They have to provide some kind of

17:26 ↗ surface depth, some kind of modulation

17:29 ↗ back and forth, so it's really a

17:30 ↗ vertical modulation. Where the building

17:33 ↗ is stepped back, the views must be

17:34 ↗ preserved, and then building corners

17:36 ↗ have to be accentuated either through

17:38 ↗ architectural details or they could be

17:40 ↗ recessed to allow for say a plaza to go

17:42 ↗ on that corner. So, those are other

17:44 ↗ things that are in place besides the

17:46 ↗ step backs that fall under this section.

17:49 ↗ We also talk about

17:51 ↗ step backs that are adjacent to natural

17:53 ↗ context areas, natural areas and natural

17:56 ↗ context areas. So, here's the map,

17:57 ↗ everything in green is a natural area.

17:59 ↗ The purple are the natural context

18:01 ↗ areas, and other requirements that go

18:03 ↗ there are that

18:05 ↗ the building has to face the natural

18:07 ↗ area. It has to have some balconies or

18:09 ↗ open spaces, windows, things that face

18:11 ↗ the natural area. It has, if it's next

18:13 ↗ to a waterway, it has to have a path

18:15 ↗ that goes between the building and the

18:17 ↗ waterway. Um, if you have activities or

18:20 ↗ uses that are adjacent to it, they can't

18:21 ↗ be closed off from the natural area.

18:23 ↗ They have to be open to the natural

18:25 ↗ area.

18:26 ↗ So, and they have to have all native

18:28 ↗ plants and that sort of thing. So, there

18:29 ↗ are other things in place, and we

18:31 ↗ already talked about as well if it's

18:33 ↗ adjacent to if it's within one of the

18:35 ↗ state shoreline jurisdictions, it can't

18:38 ↗ go higher than 35 ft. It has to be set

18:40 ↗ back a certain amount of space. So,

18:42 ↗ there are other things in place beside

18:44 ↗ the step backs that are in play here.

18:49 ↗ Here we go. So, moving on to the code,

18:51 ↗ when you get to the building orientation

18:54 ↗ to natural areas in Central Issaquah,

18:56 ↗ that's where those

18:58 ↗ are used, we are proposing to just

19:00 ↗ eliminate required step backs

19:03 ↗ on those areas.

19:06 ↗ When you move outside of those natural

19:09 ↗ areas and actually just in the rest of

19:10 ↗ the city, proposing that all that

19:12 ↗ setbacks must occur by the base of the

19:15 ↗ sixth floor that can occur as low as the

19:18 ↗ base of the second floor. And then they

19:20 ↗ should be a minimum of 5 ft deep. And we

19:23 ↗ took out the piece about they must be

19:25 ↗ there must be usable space

19:27 ↗ in there. This is a based on our

19:29 ↗ conversations from last week

19:31 ↗ or 2 weeks ago.

19:33 ↗ And then the same requirements would

19:35 ↗ apply with the Northwest contemporary

19:36 ↗ style that they have to begin by the

19:38 ↗ base of the sixth can begin by the base

19:40 ↗ by the base of the second and then have

19:42 ↗ to be a minimum of 5 ft deep.

19:44 ↗ Okay?

19:46 ↗ Moving on to amenity space

19:49 ↗ our goal here was to decrease the amount

19:51 ↗ of required private open amenity space

19:55 ↗ and also to add deviations for

19:57 ↗ conversions of commercial uses to

19:59 ↗ multi-family uses.

20:02 ↗ So, the reason for the first one is

20:04 ↗ because again

20:06 ↗ our requirements have been deemed

20:07 ↗ excessive and potentially can make a

20:09 ↗ project difficult and infeasible. For

20:10 ↗ the second, we don't want to make it

20:12 ↗ more difficult for a project to come

20:13 ↗ through. So, we do have one that's

20:15 ↗ trying to convert right now that's

20:16 ↗ having to go through deviation process

20:18 ↗ or a variance process

20:19 ↗ um that's going to be converted to

20:21 ↗ affordable housing and we'd like to make

20:22 ↗ it easier to get affordable housing

20:25 ↗ here.

20:27 ↗ So

20:30 ↗ again, these are based on our last

20:32 ↗ conversation.

20:33 ↗ We increased in the upper left-hand

20:35 ↗ corner increased the number of units. It

20:37 ↗ used to be five that had to comply with

20:40 ↗ these regulations and now it's been up

20:41 ↗ to We're proposing to increase that to

20:43 ↗ nine units plus

20:46 ↗ it's 100 sq ft per unit. We eliminated

20:50 ↗ deleted the piece that said plus an

20:52 ↗ additional 48 sq ft for any units

20:54 ↗ without the private open space

20:56 ↗ and it's just strictly a minimum 30

20:58 ↗ units must provide 48 sq ft.

21:01 ↗ Plus every unit has to have 100 sq ft.

21:03 ↗ And then the same thing would apply for

21:05 ↗ residential

21:06 ↗ 22 plus, but then you have the

21:08 ↗ additional 40 400 square feet total that

21:10 ↗ you have to add for those.

21:13 ↗ Okay.

21:18 ↗ We And this is the piece about the

21:19 ↗ deviations. We deleted the piece about

21:23 ↗ because we made it code or a requirement

21:26 ↗ now, we eliminated the

21:29 ↗ deviation for amenity spaces where you

21:32 ↗ can reduce it down to 30 feet, but then

21:34 ↗ you have to, you know, make all 148. We

21:36 ↗ just got rid of that. Because now it's a

21:38 ↗ regulation.

21:40 ↗ And then we added one about the common

21:43 ↗ private outdoor amenity space that if

21:46 ↗ they comply with all the requirements

21:48 ↗ under 18-500-524, which is the

21:50 ↗ conversion to from commercial and

21:52 ↗ multi-family, if they comply with all of

21:53 ↗ that, then they can get a deviation from

21:56 ↗ the amenity space required in this

21:58 ↗ section.

22:02 ↗ So, for our next steps, this will is

22:04 ↗ proposed to go to the Planning and

22:05 ↗ Development and Environment Committee on

22:08 ↗ June 2nd, to Council on June 29th.

22:12 ↗ And that is all I have.

22:15 ↗ We are open to questions. Excellent.

22:18 ↗ Well, thank you, Emily, Kate, and

22:20 ↗ Kristen. You guys summed it up so well.

22:22 ↗ Thank you. Those were hours of

22:24 ↗ conversations all

22:26 ↗ consolidated into a nice 20-minute

22:27 ↗ presentation.

22:29 ↗ >> [snorts]

22:29 ↗ >> Um we want to open it up right now just

22:31 ↗ for questions. Again, we want to

22:34 ↗ make this open for the commissioners.

22:35 ↗ The questions are part that's going to

22:37 ↗ help inform public comment if we have

22:38 ↗ any. So, again, right now just

22:40 ↗ questions, clarifying questions, and

22:42 ↗ debate a little bit later.

22:44 ↗ But questions?

22:46 ↗ Oh, do you mind going back two slides

22:48 ↗ before the date slide? It looks like the

22:51 ↗ code still says 148 square feet of

22:54 ↗ amenity space. Is that for

22:58 ↗ Or should that be one of the things that

23:00 ↗ we're tweaking?

23:00 ↗ >> That

23:01 ↗ Yeah, I think I got that wrong here, but

23:02 ↗ it's right in the um

23:04 ↗ in the

23:06 ↗ amendments. It is. It's That's the wrong

23:07 ↗ number. It shouldn't be 148 square feet.

23:09 ↗ It should

23:09 ↗ >> it's just in the presentation.

23:10 ↗ >> It should be 100. It's not in the Okay,

23:12 ↗ just just checking.

23:13 ↗ >> It should be 100. Thank you.

23:15 ↗ Uh nice catch.

23:20 ↗ Any other questions?

23:23 ↗ Uh Commissioner Zacharof.

23:25 ↗ Um have we heard anything from uh the

23:28 ↗ developers on this new proposal so not

23:30 ↗ yet? We received a letter

23:33 ↗ just prior to this meeting that I

23:35 ↗ printed out and it is in front of you.

23:36 ↗ Otherwise, we have not heard anything

23:39 ↗ since the last meeting.

23:43 ↗ >> I think someone made the comment that

23:44 ↗ Kristen was giving us homework.

23:48 ↗ Any other questions?

23:52 ↗ It's all relatively pretty

23:53 ↗ straightforward, I think, at this point

23:54 ↗ with how many conversations we've had.

23:56 ↗ So,

23:57 ↗ um yeah, I think everybody just wants to

23:59 ↗ get down to debating it.

24:01 ↗ Um okay. Well, one more time, no more

24:04 ↗ questions?

24:07 ↗ Okay.

24:08 ↗ Um we're going to move on and we are

24:10 ↗ going to open the public hearing at 6:54

24:13 ↗ p.m.

24:14 ↗ And Amanda, I'm looking at you again.

24:17 ↗ Has anyone signed up to speak this

24:18 ↗ evening?

24:20 ↗ Yes, Chair, they have.

24:23 ↗ His first name is Carl, and please

24:25 ↗ forgive me for Short. Thank you. Carl

24:28 ↗ Short.

24:29 ↗ All right. Well, thank you, Carl. Yes,

24:31 ↗ you look familiar. Um very quickly, in

24:33 ↗ case we do have more public speakers,

24:35 ↗ just uh a few housekeeping rules. Please

24:38 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently. Um

24:40 ↗ please state your name so we make sure

24:41 ↗ not to butcher your last name.

24:43 ↗ And then, once you're done, go ahead and

24:45 ↗ mute your microphone. You'll want to

24:46 ↗ make sure it's on while you speak. Um

24:50 ↗ and then again, if we have anyone that's

24:51 ↗ online that would like to speak, we ask

24:53 ↗ that if you are having technical issues

24:55 ↗ to please try joining us again with a

24:57 ↗ smartphone or tablet. Um we do ask that

24:59 ↗ everyone try and keep their comments

25:01 ↗ down to 5 minutes or less. So, Carl,

25:04 ↗ when you are ready, please go ahead.

25:05 ↗ Terrific. Um good evening,

25:07 ↗ commissioners. My name is Carl Schrett,

25:09 ↗ and I'm with Avalon Bay Communities.

25:11 ↗ We are the developer of the market-rate

25:13 ↗ component of the Trailhead TOD project

25:15 ↗ here in Issaquah.

25:16 ↗ I was here a few weeks ago for your

25:18 ↗ discussion about how to help make

25:19 ↗ housing projects more feasible in the

25:20 ↗ city, and I appreciate the continued

25:22 ↗ focus on that effort. First, I want to

25:24 ↗ thank you for your collaboration with

25:25 ↗ the development community to reduce some

25:27 ↗ of the barriers to building housing in

25:29 ↗ Issaquah.

25:30 ↗ That partnership is important, and it's

25:32 ↗ making a difference.

25:34 ↗ I also want to thank city staff for

25:35 ↗ their continued work and for maintaining

25:36 ↗ a productive, constructive dialogue with

25:38 ↗ the development community throughout

25:39 ↗ this process.

25:40 ↗ As outlined in the comment letter

25:42 ↗ submitted by Avalon Bay and other

25:43 ↗ housing stakeholders, we are supportive

25:45 ↗ of the draft code amendments that are

25:46 ↗ before you tonight. In particular, the

25:48 ↗ proposed changes to step-back and

25:50 ↗ amenity space requirements create a more

25:52 ↗ workable framework, one that continues

25:53 ↗ to respect Issaquah's unique character,

25:56 ↗ while also introducing needed

25:57 ↗ flexibility for projects to move

25:58 ↗ forward.

26:00 ↗ While these amendments may seem

26:01 ↗ incremental, they are meaningful.

26:03 ↗ Changes like these can have a real

26:04 ↗ impact on whether projects pencil, and

26:06 ↗ ultimately whether new housing actually

26:08 ↗ gets built.

26:09 ↗ For those reasons, I respectfully ask

26:10 ↗ that you advance the code amendments as

26:12 ↗ drafted. Thank you again for your

26:14 ↗ leadership and your continued work on

26:15 ↗ this effort. I appreciate your time this

26:17 ↗ evening. Thank you.

26:20 ↗ Thank you, Carl.

26:21 ↗ Um

26:22 ↗ Amanda, has anyone signed up online?

26:28 ↗ Okay.

26:28 ↗ >> No, Chair, they have not. We did get a a

26:30 ↗ great letter that again, we got right

26:32 ↗ before the meeting, so hopefully

26:33 ↗ everybody had a time to look at that. Um

26:35 ↗ I believe Avalon Bay was represented in

26:37 ↗ that letter as well as other

26:38 ↗ stakeholders so

26:40 ↗ Um great.

26:41 ↗ We will close at the public hearing

26:44 ↗ at 6:56 p.m.

26:46 ↗ Um Okay, but there is formal action

26:49 ↗ requested from us, commissioners, so

26:50 ↗ somebody has to make a motion this

26:52 ↗ evening.

26:55 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson.

26:57 ↗ Did the gentleman's pause. Uh thank you,

26:59 ↗ Chair. I'd like to make a motion to

27:01 ↗ recommend approval of the Title 18

27:03 ↗ amendments as presented.

27:06 ↗ Is there a second?

27:10 ↗ Uh Commissioner Krass.

27:13 ↗ I second. Okay, excellent. Thank you

27:15 ↗ both.

27:16 ↗ Um I'd like to open it up for and begin

27:17 ↗ with Vice Chair Patterson since he did

27:19 ↗ make the motion and we can begin to

27:21 ↗ debate the merits of what you just saw

27:23 ↗ in the presentation.

27:28 ↗ Uh yeah, obviously we have um discussed

27:30 ↗ and debated these topics uh pretty well

27:33 ↗ over the last several meetings.

27:35 ↗ Um I feel like we've gotten to a pretty

27:36 ↗ good point with them.

27:38 ↗ Um appreciate the partnership with city

27:40 ↗ staff. I know we asked for a lot of

27:42 ↗ examples, a lot of uh clarifications and

27:44 ↗ intent and I think that was all provided

27:46 ↗ in our packet. Uh very helpful to have

27:49 ↗ uh those visuals and diagrams. So, thank

27:50 ↗ you for your work on that. Um but yeah,

27:53 ↗ at this time no no other comments.

27:55 ↗ Great.

27:56 ↗ Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson.

27:58 ↗ Um Commissioners,

27:59 ↗ anyone like to speak?

28:01 ↗ I see Commissioner Adair reaching for

28:03 ↗ the mic.

28:04 ↗ Yeah, I mean obviously we've talked this

28:06 ↗ through a lot and I agree with 99% of

28:10 ↗ everything. I did want to revisit the

28:13 ↗ six-story setback versus possibly moving

28:16 ↗ it to a five-story setback. And that's

28:19 ↗ because I have spent some time this week

28:21 ↗ going and visiting a lot of five- and

28:24 ↗ six-story buildings

28:26 ↗ and they were throwing considerable

28:28 ↗ amount of shadow on the sidewalk. So, I

28:31 ↗ think part of the issue for me is

28:33 ↗ there's such a diversity in height

28:35 ↗ between, you know, you can have a

28:37 ↗ six-story building that's like 60 ft or

28:39 ↗ you can have a six-story building

28:41 ↗ that's, you know, 75 ft and those

28:44 ↗ obviously have a big disparity in the

28:46 ↗ kind of shadow they're going to kind of

28:48 ↗ cast on the sidewalk and community

28:51 ↗ spaces. So, I just thought we could

28:53 ↗ revisit that.

28:54 ↗ Okay, we can.

28:55 ↗ But, and this is where my knowledge of

28:58 ↗ Robert's Rules is a little wanting, but

29:00 ↗ I believe you've got to make an

29:01 ↗ amendment, right? Before we Not yet?

29:04 ↗ Okay.

29:06 ↗ All right. So, would anyone like to

29:08 ↗ discuss Commissioner Adair's

29:11 ↗ thought?

29:18 ↗ Anyone have any

29:19 ↗ thoughts about sixth to fifth floor?

29:25 ↗ Yeah, Vice Chair Patterson. Oh, since

29:27 ↗ we're discussing,

29:29 ↗ that is something that's definitely

29:30 ↗ weighed on me a little bit.

29:32 ↗ I think

29:33 ↗ >> [snorts]

29:33 ↗ >> in terms of representing all the

29:36 ↗ stakeholders in this is a little bit of

29:40 ↗ you know, what's the right number?

29:43 ↗ I do think that, you know, looking at

29:45 ↗ the intense, we talked there it

29:47 ↗ specifically states things like, you

29:48 ↗ know, solar access or increased passive

29:51 ↗ solar and things like that for reasons

29:52 ↗ why you'd want to be careful of step

29:54 ↗ backs or why they exist, I should say,

29:57 ↗ as well as some of the other

29:59 ↗ aspects of the code.

30:03 ↗ It's hard, I think, to gauge for

30:04 ↗ Issaquah right now because we don't have

30:05 ↗ a ton of those types of buildings.

30:08 ↗ It would be

30:11 ↗ challenging to to kind of determine what

30:13 ↗ the right number is.

30:14 ↗ Um

30:15 ↗ So, I guess what I'm saying is I

30:16 ↗ understand your concern.

30:18 ↗ I personally don't know the right

30:20 ↗ number.

30:21 ↗ So, I'm I'm hesitant to like state one

30:24 ↗ way or the other.

30:26 ↗ And that's why I think

30:27 ↗ I'm kind of supportive of what we have

30:29 ↗ in front of us given the analysis that's

30:31 ↗ gone into it.

30:33 ↗ But, I do understand, you know, I guess

30:35 ↗ some feelings of

30:37 ↗ concern, if you will, about stating the

30:39 ↗ right number.

30:42 ↗ Yeah, no, thank you, Vice Chair

30:43 ↗ Patterson. Vice uh uh

30:45 ↗ Commissioner Zakrzewski.

30:47 ↗ Thank you.

30:48 ↗ Well, [clears throat] my biggest concern

30:49 ↗ is that we are right now as a city, we

30:51 ↗ are requesting developers to develop. We

30:53 ↗ want development to happen in Issaquah.

30:56 ↗ And at the very same time with uh when

30:58 ↗ we kind of when we're limiting what we

31:00 ↗ can as a city provide and I mean, what

31:03 ↗ we have too many requests from

31:05 ↗ developers in this case.

31:07 ↗ Uh we end up with the same situation as

31:10 ↗ Trailhead TOD when everything just goes

31:13 ↗ just the way they can do that. So, no

31:16 ↗ setbacks, okay, no setbacks. No, like, I

31:19 ↗ don't know, something else, no, okay,

31:20 ↗ fine, just build the building. So, I

31:22 ↗ don't want to I don't want us to get to

31:25 ↗ the very same situation with every

31:26 ↗ building. So, just like Vice Chair

31:28 ↗ Patterson, I don't know the right

31:30 ↗ number, uh fifth floor, sixth floor, or

31:33 ↗ any uh certain height in feet. I just

31:37 ↗ want to make sure that the policy we

31:39 ↗ create is both uh work- is workable for

31:42 ↗ both the developers and the city. And I

31:44 ↗ think to kind of to get that balance, to

31:47 ↗ reach that balance is the most important

31:48 ↗ thing for us right now.

31:50 ↗ So.

31:51 ↗ Thank you. Yeah, great. Thank you,

31:53 ↗ Commissioner Zakrzewski.

31:55 ↗ Would anyone else like to comment on

31:56 ↗ Commissioner Adair's

31:58 ↗ proposal?

31:59 ↗ Commissioner Halverson.

32:01 ↗ I certainly understand where you're

32:03 ↗ coming from with the shadowing. Um

32:05 ↗ I guess I look I kind of like where it's

32:07 ↗ at just from I feel like more cons-

32:10 ↗ constraints are going to mean

32:12 ↗ less units built, which means less

32:14 ↗ feasible. It's going to make it more

32:16 ↗ challenging to get these buildings

32:17 ↗ built. So, I'm kind of hesitant to

32:20 ↗ constrict things any more than they

32:22 ↗ already are.

32:24 ↗ Great. Um

32:25 ↗ I'll get back to Commissioner Adair, but

32:27 ↗ I want to make sure everyone gets an

32:28 ↗ opportunity to speak.

32:29 ↗ Um Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner

32:31 ↗ Krass.

32:32 ↗ Commissioner Matthews.

32:34 ↗ Yeah, I also had been thinking a lot

32:36 ↗ about this and I'm just repeating what

32:38 ↗ everyone else says basically is I don't

32:40 ↗ know what the magic number is either,

32:41 ↗ but I was thinking about, you know, we

32:43 ↗ have all these different requirements

32:45 ↗ and it's what it are we trying what is

32:47 ↗ the goal that we're trying to

32:48 ↗ achieve and it's like I really don't

32:50 ↗ want to open this can of worms, but you

32:52 ↗ know like

32:53 ↗ when you have setbacks, that is to

32:56 ↗ create a human scale and of course, you

32:58 ↗ know, like get rid of shadows, but

33:00 ↗ articulation is more of a visual

33:02 ↗ like it's visually interesting as you're

33:05 ↗ walking down the street. So,

33:07 ↗ are we looking at creating more visual

33:09 ↗ interest or maybe we

33:11 ↗ want to create a more cozy environment.

33:14 ↗ So,

33:15 ↗ I didn't know if there was a trade-off

33:17 ↗ if you if we lower the

33:20 ↗ setbacks, less articulation, but then

33:23 ↗ that would open a can of worms, right?

33:25 ↗ So, I which I didn't want to do, but

33:27 ↗ it just occurred to me as I was thinking

33:29 ↗ this

33:30 ↗ earlier this weekend about this whole

33:32 ↗ process. We're here we're here to open

33:34 ↗ can of worms. So, you're okay. You're

33:36 ↗ fine.

33:37 ↗ Um, It was just a thought that I was,

33:39 ↗ you know, wanted to talk about as well.

33:41 ↗ >> Yeah, I know that that's part of the

33:42 ↗ process. That's great. Um, Commissioner

33:44 ↗ Krass.

33:45 ↗ Uh, thanks. I I like the way it is now.

33:47 ↗ I think there's flexibility, you know,

33:49 ↗ you have you know, second six and they

33:51 ↗ could be somewhere in between if it

33:52 ↗ makes sense from a design standpoint. I

33:54 ↗ also just came back from Charlotte,

33:56 ↗ North Carolina where there's a huge

33:57 ↗ amount of building and even though we're

34:00 ↗ walking around town, I had a of course

34:02 ↗ look at all of the setbacks on these

34:04 ↗ it's because there's a ton of

34:05 ↗ five, six, seven-story buildings being

34:07 ↗ built. And um, they were different and

34:11 ↗ it was nice. So, I could see how a lot

34:14 ↗ of the different buildings

34:15 ↗ um, took a slightly different approach,

34:18 ↗ um, but it felt like it all worked. And

34:21 ↗ some of them were much higher up and I

34:23 ↗ didn't feel like that was

34:24 ↗ uh, too cavernous by any means. So, I

34:28 ↗ think um, where we are now or where it

34:30 ↗ lands and all the work that's been done

34:31 ↗ I think is is a good spot.

34:34 ↗ Great. And then I'll just add real

34:35 ↗ quickly and then everyone can have an

34:37 ↗ another opportunity at this. Um I'm real

34:39 ↗ happy with the work that we did not only

34:41 ↗ as a commission but also with staff and

34:43 ↗ also our development community. Um it is

34:46 ↗ an iterative process. There is going to

34:48 ↗ be other opportunities

34:50 ↗ um within the next year or two if

34:52 ↗ there's situations that arise and maybe

34:54 ↗ they say, "Hey, this is still unfeasible

34:57 ↗ and we'd like you guys to look at this

34:58 ↗ again." So, it's not that it's over but

35:00 ↗ it's pretty rare when you have

35:03 ↗ not only the commission but also I mean

35:05 ↗ you can see the stakeholders with the

35:06 ↗ letter they sent. I mean it's not just

35:08 ↗ one stakeholder. It's multiple.

35:10 ↗ And I feel like, you know, to what

35:13 ↗ Commissioner Matthews said,

35:15 ↗ you know, I don't want to open a can of

35:16 ↗ worms to, you know, I don't think that's

35:18 ↗ the hill I want to die on today myself.

35:20 ↗ I'd like to I'd like to see this roll

35:22 ↗ out. Um it's got great support from the

35:24 ↗ developers who were here and present.

35:27 ↗ And again, it's something that can

35:29 ↗ always be brought back up. I mean we get

35:31 ↗ an opportunity I believe what once a

35:33 ↗ year to to put these things on the

35:34 ↗ docket and

35:36 ↗ have them looked at and Kristen's kind

35:38 ↗ of giving me a no.

35:41 ↗ I got side eye.

35:43 ↗ No, code amendments aren't just I'm just

35:44 ↗ they're not once a year. You can do

35:46 ↗ those. Okay. But it's not something you

35:47 ↗ want to just No.

35:49 ↗ >> any year or say No, no.

35:50 ↗ >> I didn't work. But but I think

35:52 ↗ >> [laughter]

35:52 ↗ >> No,

35:53 ↗ but I think to to Vice Chair Patterson's

35:55 ↗ point, I don't think anybody truly knows

35:57 ↗ what that number is and as much as I'd

36:00 ↗ like to say it might be different at

36:01 ↗ 6:05, I don't know what the cost is.

36:04 ↗ And I don't want to go off a feeling

36:05 ↗ when we put together a pretty strong

36:07 ↗ packet myself. But I do want to make

36:09 ↗ sure that Commissioner Adair gets the

36:11 ↗ opportunity to rebut all of this here.

36:14 ↗ No. Um

36:15 ↗ So please.

36:16 ↗ >> Um no. Okay, so I'm just one thing I'd

36:18 ↗ like to bring up that is of the many

36:20 ↗ wonderful points that the developers

36:23 ↗ have made including the costs and the

36:25 ↗ structural issues, I don't know if

36:27 ↗ somebody addressed why six floors

36:30 ↗ specifically was the ideal. And if there

36:34 ↗ would have been, for example, oh, you

36:36 ↗ know, this this project is going to get

36:38 ↗ axed if they don't have the sixth floor.

36:41 ↗ You know, if somebody was coming in and

36:43 ↗ they said

36:44 ↗ we have this amazing project and it's

36:46 ↗ great. Oh, but this sixth floor step

36:48 ↗ back is the make or break. But I think

36:51 ↗ if we're going forward with new projects

36:53 ↗ that are still pending, it is okay for

36:56 ↗ us to say,

36:57 ↗ you know, maybe let's err on the side of

36:59 ↗ caution.

37:01 ↗ And to that point, I think when you're

37:02 ↗ going somewhere that's like a sunny

37:04 ↗ state where they have a lot of sun all

37:07 ↗ the time, you're going to have a

37:08 ↗ different kind of feeling than in a

37:10 ↗ place where we've got rain,

37:13 ↗ you know, 60, 70, 80% of the year.

37:17 ↗ >> [laughter]

37:18 ↗ >> So, I I guess I would just say, Kim,

37:22 ↗ Kristen, this might be a rules of order

37:24 ↗ question, but like

37:25 ↗ would it be a substantial delay if we

37:27 ↗ were to say, let's propose to make it a

37:30 ↗ proposed amendment to make it five

37:32 ↗ stories instead of six? And I will

37:35 ↗ Would that add another week? Would that

37:37 ↗ No. Actually, I was

37:39 ↗ writing

37:41 ↗ Chair voice a note to say, now at this

37:42 ↗ time, would Commissioner Adair like to

37:45 ↗ make an amendment? And then you just

37:46 ↗ vote on it now. Okay. Yeah.

37:49 ↗ And can I explain again why I mean, a

37:51 ↗ little more just

37:53 ↗ I feel like having visited some of these

37:56 ↗ buildings, there is

37:59 ↗ if you were to get two of them across

38:01 ↗ the street, luckily right now we're not

38:03 ↗ at the point where we do have two of

38:04 ↗ them across the street from each other.

38:06 ↗ I do think if we're going if we get two

38:07 ↗ of them across the street, it's going to

38:09 ↗ be a very different vibe and feel than

38:13 ↗ traditional Issaquah, which is a more

38:15 ↗ open, welcoming town-like feel.

38:20 ↗ And I think we're going to have a lot

38:22 ↗ more hopefully when the transit if the

38:25 ↗ transit goes through

38:27 ↗ developers will understand if it's the

38:29 ↗ fifth story and the sixth not the you

38:32 ↗ know because we're still making a lot of

38:34 ↗ concessions in terms of the step backs

38:36 ↗ with reducing the number of sides that

38:38 ↗ need stepping back

38:40 ↗ and reducing how many step backs they

38:44 ↗ need and the size of it. I think those

38:46 ↗ are all considerable concessions. So I

38:48 ↗ think what we want to do now

38:49 ↗ Commissioner Dare is let you make the

38:51 ↗ amendment and let's see if we it works

38:54 ↗ further debate.

38:54 ↗ >> if not yeah we want to do it. Okay so

38:56 ↗ I'd like to propose that we amend the

38:59 ↗ step back from starting at the base of

39:02 ↗ the sixth floor which is what I believe

39:03 ↗ it is to start at the base of the fifth

39:05 ↗ floor.

39:06 ↗ fifth story Okay and I think this is

39:08 ↗ just an informal vote.

39:10 ↗ It does require a second.

39:12 ↗ I need to study up on my Robert's Rules.

39:14 ↗ >> [laughter]

39:14 ↗ >> Is there a second for the amendment on

39:16 ↗ the floor?

39:20 ↗ Okay that amendment fails.

39:22 ↗ >> [snorts]

39:23 ↗ >> That was right man.

39:23 ↗ >> [laughter]

39:24 ↗ >> Okay we'll have Feister Patterson.

39:27 ↗ I will say

39:29 ↗ I

39:30 ↗ struggled with this still but when

39:32 ↗ looking at our kind of neighboring

39:34 ↗ cities it seems like no one knows the

39:36 ↗ magic number because if you're looking

39:37 ↗ at the Bothells and Bellinghams and

39:39 ↗ Redmonds there's second floor third

39:41 ↗ floor fourth floor like no one really

39:42 ↗ knows the number

39:44 ↗ but I think what the sixth floor does is

39:46 ↗ it honestly kind of puts us right in the

39:47 ↗ middle because it's not too low it's not

39:50 ↗ no requirement like I won't say their

39:52 ↗ name but another city so it kind of gets

39:55 ↗ us in that happy medium which I think

39:57 ↗ we're trying to find because we're

39:59 ↗ trying to encourage development without

40:02 ↗ you know sacrificing anything that we've

40:03 ↗ developed or you know built in our code

40:05 ↗ as a city so

40:07 ↗ the more I was thinking about it and

40:08 ↗ looking at it like I think that's where

40:10 ↗ my mind goes is like six is a a good

40:12 ↗ number for trying to I think the goal is

40:14 ↗ to try and increase development.

40:17 ↗ Um but we're find we're putting a limit

40:19 ↗ on it that's not, you know, kind of in

40:20 ↗ the middle of where everyone else is.

40:23 ↗ So.

40:27 ↗ you, Vice Chair Patterson.

40:29 ↗ Um, continuing debate just as on the

40:31 ↗ whole packet as a whole.

40:38 ↗ Now, this is where I shine. Okay, so

40:41 ↗ >> [laughter]

40:43 ↗ >> So, there is a motion on the floor.

40:45 ↗ Um

40:47 ↗ We want to go ahead and repeat it.

40:49 ↗ And the motion is to recommend approval

40:50 ↗ of the proposed Title 18 amendment as

40:53 ↗ presented.

40:54 ↗ Um, all in favor

40:57 ↗ please say I.

40:59 ↗ I.

41:00 ↗ And for the recorder, that was

41:02 ↗ unanimous. 1 2 3 5 6. That was all seven

41:06 ↗ of us.

41:08 ↗ I'm getting a thumbs-up Kristen's. I did

41:09 ↗ something right.

41:11 ↗ Okay. Well, thank you everybody. Again,

41:13 ↗ we want to thank the developers. We want

41:14 ↗ to thank the staff. Uh, and again, all

41:17 ↗ thanks to our commission that worked

41:18 ↗ hard on this

41:20 ↗ Oh, I don't know. Been a few months.

41:22 ↗ So, again, thank you.

41:25 ↗ We are going to move into our next item

41:28 ↗ of regular business.

41:31 ↗ And Let's see.

41:36 ↗ And that is an introduction to the first

41:37 ↗ two comprehensive plan amendments.

41:40 ↗ So Kate

41:42 ↗ Welcome back.

41:43 ↗ Uh, please go ahead when you're ready.

41:57 ↗ Pardon me, let me just adjust my screen.

42:03 ↗ Okay. And is everyone able to see the

42:06 ↗ presentation? Great.

42:08 ↗ Um, I think I forgot to introduce

42:11 ↗ myself, Kate Canny, principal planner.

42:13 ↗ Uh back here with uh senior planner

42:15 ↗ Emily Medina and we are going to present

42:18 ↗ on the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment

42:21 ↗ proposals starting with the first two

42:23 ↗ amendments.

42:25 ↗ So this is an informational briefing um

42:28 ↗ and really we just want to uh give you a

42:31 ↗ status update on and let you review what

42:33 ↗ our findings are so far as we've been

42:35 ↗ doing some analysis and initial drafting

42:37 ↗ on amendment proposals one and two. Um

42:41 ↗ we'd like your questions and your input

42:43 ↗ and guidance as we move forward.

42:46 ↗ So just to do a little background, um

42:48 ↗ you may recall that um every year the

42:51 ↗ city opens up the comprehensive plan to

42:53 ↗ minor amendments. Um every 10 years is

42:55 ↗ that big resetting of the growth

42:57 ↗ strategies and and policies. Um in 2026

43:00 ↗ the commission reviewed the initial

43:02 ↗ docket or list of proposals

43:05 ↗ um then provided your recommendation to

43:07 ↗ council as to whether you wanted these

43:09 ↗ proposals on the final docket for um

43:12 ↗ this additional um assessment and

43:14 ↗ drafting process. So um we are uh sorry

43:18 ↗ sorry council approved that final docket

43:21 ↗ um

43:22 ↗ identical to the recommendations you

43:23 ↗ made um in early March and since that

43:26 ↗ time we've been working on the

43:27 ↗ amendments. So the five amendments uh

43:30 ↗ proposals that you see here um are the

43:33 ↗ entirety of the list and the first two

43:36 ↗ amendments are actually uh overlapping

43:39 ↗ in so far as they both address land use

43:41 ↗ designations. In terms of the first uh

43:43 ↗ proposal it's to add descriptions of the

43:45 ↗ existing land use designations into the

43:48 ↗ uh the comprehensive plan um and also

43:51 ↗ kind of clarify which zones um implement

43:55 ↗ those land use designations by formally

43:57 ↗ and officially establishing that there's

43:59 ↗ a connection between the two. The second

44:01 ↗ amendment talks about clarifying the

44:03 ↗ names of low density and multi-family

44:05 ↗ designation land use designations and

44:07 ↗ zones, and specifically deals with uh

44:10 ↗ changing the names of the single family

44:11 ↗ zones because of the middle housing

44:13 ↗ amendments um that were adopted by the

44:16 ↗ city last year, which opened up single

44:18 ↗ family zones to not just single family

44:20 ↗ houses, but also to the middle housing,

44:22 ↗ to the town houses, to the duplexes,

44:25 ↗ triplexes etc.

44:27 ↗ So, um Emily Medina and I have been

44:30 ↗ working together on these proposals, and

44:32 ↗ we just want to share that information

44:34 ↗ with you tonight. So, I'm going to go

44:36 ↗ ahead and start with the first proposal.

44:38 ↗ We'll focus on that, um and specifically

44:41 ↗ again, that's to add the descriptions of

44:44 ↗ land use designations to the

44:45 ↗ comprehensive plan, and um to

44:49 ↗ uh establish uh which implementing zones

44:53 ↗ implement those designations. So, why?

44:56 ↗ Why are we doing this? Um so,

44:58 ↗ it's important to clarify the roles and

45:00 ↗ the purposes of the land use

45:01 ↗ designations and which zones they

45:03 ↗ implement for several reasons. Um Emily

45:05 ↗ even mentioned that, you know, she's had

45:07 ↗ conversations with developers about

45:09 ↗ "Well, your land use designations, the

45:11 ↗ names are a little unclear. I'm not

45:12 ↗ sure, you know, what's the intent of

45:14 ↗ this area." Um so, by having really

45:17 ↗ clear designations, really clear

45:18 ↗ descriptions in the policies, uh it

45:21 ↗ makes it easier to understand what the

45:22 ↗ vision for growth is here in Issaquah.

45:24 ↗ Also, consistency, as we've discussed

45:26 ↗ before, between the comprehensive plan

45:28 ↗ and the um development regulations is

45:31 ↗ required by the Growth Management Act,

45:33 ↗ um by local city code. So, there's a

45:35 ↗ little diagram there that kind of lists

45:37 ↗ how, you know, we have a comprehensive

45:39 ↗ plan that's influenced and guided by

45:42 ↗ Growth Management Act, other stuff, and

45:43 ↗ that the zoning has to implement and

45:46 ↗ follow um all of the above. So,

45:49 ↗ um that is why we are here today uh

45:51 ↗ talking about this.

45:52 ↗ So, what land use designations does the

45:54 ↗ city have? Um there are nine, and this

45:58 ↗ uh these colors uh with the designations

46:01 ↗ are directly from

46:02 ↗ our land use map. Um currently, these

46:05 ↗ designations are established on that

46:08 ↗ map. There aren't other descriptions in

46:10 ↗ the code. They are referenced, and we'll

46:11 ↗ kind of go through where those

46:12 ↗ references are. And as I mentioned, you

46:15 ↗ know, some of the names of the

46:16 ↗ designations do not, you know,

46:17 ↗ immediately and clearly communicate what

46:19 ↗ their purpose and intent are. So, you

46:21 ↗ know, the first three, conservancy,

46:23 ↗ community facilities, community

46:25 ↗ facilities privately owned, um you kind

46:27 ↗ of get a sense of that's, you know,

46:28 ↗ green space or parks or parks

46:31 ↗ facilities. Um whether uh in the

46:33 ↗ community facilities, is that public or

46:35 ↗ privately owned? Um we have also um

46:40 ↗ low-density residential, multi-family

46:42 ↗ residential, then retail, commercial,

46:44 ↗ mixed-use, and urban village.

46:46 ↗ In terms of the names, and I did a

46:48 ↗ little uh animation here, um that I that

46:51 ↗ we were really scrutinizing um when we

46:53 ↗ were looking at both of the proposed

46:54 ↗ amendments, you know, low-density

46:56 ↗ residential is part of amendment

46:58 ↗ proposal number two.

46:59 ↗ Um that is a designation where we have

47:02 ↗ single-family zones um that are located

47:04 ↗ within those areas geographically that

47:07 ↗ are also designated low-density

47:09 ↗ residential.

47:10 ↗ And it doesn't immediately speak to the

47:13 ↗ the fact that middle housing is

47:14 ↗ available there. So, we were looking at,

47:15 ↗ you know, should we do a renaming of

47:17 ↗ this designation? That was one of our

47:19 ↗ questions.

47:20 ↗ We also looked at retail.

47:22 ↗ Retail is a designation that you would

47:24 ↗ find uh in Old Town around Front Street,

47:26 ↗ for example. So, not only retail uses

47:30 ↗ are allowed there, but also residential

47:31 ↗ uses. So, we're thinking, gosh, maybe we

47:33 ↗ should re- rename that just to be clear

47:35 ↗ about what we're trying to do there.

47:36 ↗ Another of the designations that uh

47:39 ↗ wasn't completely clear, uh commercial.

47:41 ↗ Uh commercial might imply, you know,

47:44 ↗ what is that? Like just big box

47:45 ↗ commercial or when it's really closer to

47:47 ↗ light industrial uses, warehouses uh

47:50 ↗ that are allowed in terms of the zones.

47:52 ↗ So, our task was to

47:54 ↗ holistically take a look at these land

47:56 ↗ use designations, look at the zoning,

47:58 ↗ and see um how we could make things

48:00 ↗ clearer in terms of the names of things.

48:03 ↗ So, um the An- another thing we did was

48:07 ↗ look at the land use map, right? The The

48:09 ↗ map is on screen there, and the job of

48:12 ↗ the map is to illustrate the

48:13 ↗ comprehensive plan's 20-year vision for

48:15 ↗ where and how the city should grow.

48:18 ↗ So, those land use designations, those

48:19 ↗ colors are on the map, and within those

48:22 ↗ designations, certain zones make things

48:24 ↗ happen, right? So, they should align. Um

48:27 ↗ the Just to give you an idea of um how

48:29 ↗ the legends work, you know, often the

48:31 ↗ designations are kind of low- lowest

48:34 ↗ intensities to highest. That's sort of

48:37 ↗ the way our our legend works.

48:39 ↗ Um other wayfinding I wanted to share

48:41 ↗ with you just so you'd be like, "What

48:42 ↗ are we talking about?" Um

48:44 ↗ the land use designation map is now next

48:46 ↗ to the neighborhoods map. So, it might

48:49 ↗ be a little easier to see, you know, the

48:50 ↗ red mixed use just really pops, right?

48:53 ↗ That designation is for our highest

48:55 ↗ intensity commercial retail uses, uh

48:58 ↗ residential uses, and you can see how it

49:00 ↗ aligns with Central Issaquah, right?

49:02 ↗ That is in our comprehensive plan, in

49:04 ↗ our Central Issaquah plan, where we want

49:05 ↗ to focus most growth for housing, jobs,

49:08 ↗ etc. So, that kind of um

49:11 ↗ consistency um between, you know, the

49:14 ↗ name of a of a designation and the zones

49:17 ↗ that are within it are important uh when

49:19 ↗ we are trying to convey to the

49:21 ↗ community, to developers, where we want

49:24 ↗ growth to happen, what kind of growth we

49:25 ↗ want to happen.

49:27 ↗ I also wanted to show you the land use

49:29 ↗ map with the zoning map because uh the

49:32 ↗ relationship is very important,

49:34 ↗ especially if you want to rezone a

49:35 ↗ property. Um the land use map, in fact,

49:37 ↗ underlies the zoning map. So, the land

49:40 ↗ use map establishes the locations where

49:42 ↗ the zones are allowed, and then that is

49:45 ↗ also uh a requirement so that the zones

49:48 ↗ implement the preferred

49:49 ↗ uh land use pattern that is identified

49:52 ↗ in the comprehensive plan, right? We

49:54 ↗ want uh the taller buildings and the

49:56 ↗ apartments here and we want the

49:58 ↗ industrial uses over there.

50:00 ↗ Um, the zoning map, sorry, where the

50:02 ↗ land use map is the 20-year, you know,

50:04 ↗ future land use growth map, the zoning

50:07 ↗ map

50:08 ↗ implements the land use map today. What

50:10 ↗ kind of zone is it? This is what is

50:11 ↗ allowed today. Sometimes the zones do

50:14 ↗ not exactly match that land use map and

50:16 ↗ you get people who want to come in for a

50:18 ↗ rezone. So, if you are looking to rezone

50:21 ↗ your property, say, I have a single, you

50:24 ↗ know, I have a zone that's kind of

50:25 ↗ single family and I want to do an

50:26 ↗ apartment and I come into the city. The

50:29 ↗ first thing we do is check the land use

50:30 ↗ map to say, "Okay, what's your land use

50:32 ↗ designation?" Um, if it's, you know,

50:36 ↗ low-density residential and you want to

50:38 ↗ do a five-story apartment, you're not

50:40 ↗ going to be able to do that because that

50:43 ↗ zoning is inconsistent with that land

50:44 ↗ use designation. So, that's why this

50:47 ↗ relationship and this kind of, you know,

50:49 ↗ sandwich or pancaking of these two maps

50:51 ↗ is is I think an essential one and it's

50:53 ↗ why we want to have clear policies and

50:56 ↗ and zoning. So, additional analysis,

51:00 ↗ just so that you know,

51:01 ↗ we have land use land use designations

51:04 ↗ and zones referenced together in the

51:07 ↗ comprehensive plan now. If you open up

51:08 ↗ the land use and sustainability element,

51:10 ↗ you can find some examples. The housing

51:12 ↗ element appendices, there's this really

51:14 ↗ cool housing inventory if you want to

51:16 ↗ look at it ever. So, this is the example

51:18 ↗ from the land use element and while it's

51:22 ↗ in the comprehensive plan and it

51:24 ↗ includes information where here's a land

51:26 ↗ use designation and there are zones next

51:28 ↗ to it, it does not currently officially

51:31 ↗ establish that these zones implement the

51:33 ↗ comprehensive plan.

51:34 ↗ Previous versions of comprehensive plan

51:36 ↗ had this information and we'd like to

51:37 ↗ put it back in there just to get that

51:39 ↗ consistency and clarity back. We also

51:42 ↗ went through the land use code to find

51:44 ↗ out how the zones were represented and

51:46 ↗ how they aligned with comprehensive plan

51:48 ↗ and implementing that vision. And if you

51:50 ↗ go to 18400.030,

51:52 ↗ establishment of zones, you can see

51:54 ↗ there's information and a table

51:57 ↗ and the information um

51:59 ↗ that is on screen is the uh set of four

52:03 ↗ zone categories that are established. I

52:06 ↗ think you know that a few years ago that

52:07 ↗ this really big update of title 18 was

52:10 ↗ done and this uh these kind of clear

52:13 ↗ statements about what kind of zones we

52:14 ↗ have and what zones, you know, kind of

52:16 ↗ are related to these categories. And

52:18 ↗ that's really great work and that really

52:19 ↗ helped us as we were thinking about

52:21 ↗ clarity for the land use designations.

52:23 ↗ So, what we did is go to the

52:27 ↗ comprehensive plan,

52:28 ↗ look at the nine land use designations,

52:31 ↗ which in this table are on the left, and

52:33 ↗ compare those to those four categories

52:35 ↗ of zones. And where you can kind of see

52:37 ↗ that there's alignment, um some of the

52:40 ↗ zone categories,

52:42 ↗ even though their names are clear, it's

52:44 ↗ not clear which, you know, of the

52:47 ↗ um

52:48 ↗ land use designations fits where, right?

52:51 ↗ We have low-density residential and

52:52 ↗ multi-family residential. Are they in

52:54 ↗ residential

52:56 ↗ or what? And so, actually multi-family

52:58 ↗ is residential is in the mixed use in

53:01 ↗ the mixed zones category. Okay, that

53:02 ↗ kind of makes sense. Um but, you know,

53:04 ↗ could we make that clearer? Urban

53:06 ↗ Village or actually retail, uh which

53:09 ↗ category are we are we commercial or we

53:11 ↗ mixed zones? That one actually is in

53:13 ↗ mixed zones.

53:14 ↗ Um and then

53:16 ↗ Ooh, got that little lag in the

53:18 ↗ animation. So, Urban Village is also in

53:19 ↗ mixed zones, but it's not immediately

53:21 ↗ clear. So,

53:22 ↗ again, just showing you what we were

53:24 ↗ finding uh before giving you this

53:26 ↗ recommended set of changes. So, we would

53:29 ↗ like to uh recommend renaming uh some of

53:32 ↗ the land use designations to clarify

53:33 ↗ their roles and to increase alignment

53:35 ↗ between the comprehensive plan, title

53:37 ↗ 18,

53:38 ↗ um and also uh uh we wanted to change

53:41 ↗ something in Title 18. And so, we have

53:44 ↗ not only comprehensive plan amendments

53:45 ↗ that we are talking about, but also some

53:47 ↗ changes to the land use code.

53:49 ↗ So, what are we proposing um in terms of

53:52 ↗ low-density residential for the land use

53:54 ↗ uh designation, we'd like to change it

53:56 ↗ to residential.

53:57 ↗ That um

53:59 ↗ it is a wider uh you know, category of

54:01 ↗ zones. It's not just single-family, and

54:04 ↗ it would allow the middle housing to

54:05 ↗ easily fit at you know, within that

54:07 ↗ category.

54:08 ↗ We also looked at multi-family

54:10 ↗ residential, retail, mixed use, and

54:12 ↗ urban village, all those designations.

54:15 ↗ And mo they all allow mixed use. Urban

54:18 ↗ village is a little bit of an outlier

54:19 ↗ because that land use category is for

54:22 ↗ the um areas that are um

54:25 ↗ regulated through development

54:26 ↗ agreements. So, they're kind of their

54:28 ↗ own beast, so they're you know

54:30 ↗ they they still are related to mixed

54:32 ↗ use, but um not going to go into that.

54:34 ↗ We're not going to change that.

54:36 ↗ But, we did think three different types

54:38 ↗ of mixed use land use designations,

54:40 ↗ mixed use residential, medium, and high

54:43 ↗ would fit better with the mixed zones in

54:45 ↗ Title 18, and be more obvious to people

54:48 ↗ um in terms of understanding what their

54:50 ↗ intent is.

54:51 ↗ We're also proposing to change

54:52 ↗ commercial to industrial because in

54:54 ↗ fact, the light industrial warehouse

54:55 ↗ type uses are really what we're talking

54:57 ↗ about as uh the the type of uses allowed

54:59 ↗ there.

55:00 ↗ Um also wanting to change again uh the

55:03 ↗ commercial zone uh

55:05 ↗ category to industrial zones in Title 18

55:07 ↗ for consistency.

55:10 ↗ So um

55:13 ↗ let's see here.

55:16 ↗ Oh, um what are other changes that we

55:19 ↗ would like to make? This is basically

55:20 ↗ the same table you just saw, but we

55:22 ↗ added to the right another column that

55:24 ↗ actually shows you the zones that

55:26 ↗ implement each of those categories. And

55:28 ↗ we just want to share that um they are

55:30 ↗ all consistent right now. We don't need

55:32 ↗ to make any changes in the zone uh zones

55:34 ↗ that implement categories, whether it's

55:36 ↗ in Title 18, or whether it's in the in

55:39 ↗ the comprehensive plan land use

55:40 ↗ designations.

55:41 ↗ But this next, uh, more involved, uh,

55:45 ↗ table

55:46 ↗ is what Emily gets to explain to you,

55:49 ↗ and this is our recommendation around

55:51 ↗ the mixed use zone.

55:55 ↗ All right. So, our new recommended mixed

55:59 ↗ use land use designation, so the mixed

56:01 ↗ use residential, mixed use medium, mixed

56:03 ↗ use high,

56:04 ↗ uh,

56:05 ↗ Kate gave me the lovely task of combing

56:07 ↗ through all of our zones and seeing

56:09 ↗ which one they fit with best. So, this

56:11 ↗ is the just gnarly table that's in the

56:14 ↗ packet with all my strike outs and

56:16 ↗ underlines and little notes to try to

56:17 ↗ describe how we went about this. Um, so

56:20 ↗ cleaner version on your screen, this is

56:22 ↗ just what the end result recommendation

56:24 ↗ is. Um, so on the left, like I said, the

56:27 ↗ recommended land use designation

56:29 ↗ renames, and then on the second column

56:31 ↗ is, um, how we're recommending the zones

56:34 ↗ align with these land use designations.

56:37 ↗ So,

56:38 ↗ currently they're kind of all over the

56:40 ↗ map. Um, I went through each zone, um,

56:44 ↗ and

56:45 ↗ uh, looked at the permitted uses for the

56:47 ↗ zone, the different form and intensity

56:48 ↗ standards um

56:50 ↗ height, density, that sort of thing for

56:52 ↗ each zone,

56:54 ↗ uh, and then

56:55 ↗ categorized them from least intense to

56:58 ↗ most intense, and then split that up

57:00 ↗ into the three different land use

57:02 ↗ designations. So,

57:03 ↗ top mixed use residential, we're

57:05 ↗ recommending MFM and MFH. Um, these are

57:09 ↗ mostly four stories, and they're mostly,

57:11 ↗ uh, permitted uses are heavily

57:13 ↗ residential with some small-scale

57:15 ↗ neighborhood uses.

57:17 ↗ Uh, mixed use medium, step above that,

57:19 ↗ has, um, medium intensity, um,

57:22 ↗ small-to-larger scale retail and service

57:25 ↗ uses, and then four stories, but some of

57:27 ↗ the zones can go a little bit higher as

57:28 ↗ well.

57:29 ↗ And then mixed use high is those more

57:31 ↗ high-intensity commercial uses, um

57:33 ↗ allowing large, um high-density

57:36 ↗ residential, and much higher, um height.

57:40 ↗ So,

57:41 ↗ those are the uh that's how we are

57:43 ↗ recommending those land use designations

57:46 ↗ be implemented in the zoning code.

57:51 ↗ So, the considerations for the

57:53 ↗ commissions, we have three general

57:55 ↗ questions to get some feedback on. Um

57:58 ↗ first, do the proposed changes to the

58:00 ↗ names of the land use designations

58:02 ↗ clarify their intent and purpose?

58:05 ↗ Second, does the proposed organization

58:07 ↗ of implementing zones increase

58:09 ↗ consistency between our comp plan and

58:12 ↗ title 18 code?

58:14 ↗ And then third would be should staff

58:15 ↗ move forward with drafting the land use

58:17 ↗ designation descriptions and related

58:19 ↗ policy and code updates in line with the

58:21 ↗ proposals? For that, aka, we didn't want

58:23 ↗ to write land use designation

58:25 ↗ descriptions if the commission did not

58:27 ↗ agree with how we were proposing we name

58:29 ↗ them.

58:31 ↗ And that's it for now.

58:33 ↗ Okay, well, thank you, Emily and Kate.

58:35 ↗ Let's open it up to the commission for

58:37 ↗ questions, comments. Again, this is a

58:39 ↗ discussion so

58:41 ↗ all of it's welcome.

58:43 ↗ Commissioner Krass.

58:44 ↗ Hi, can you go back a few slides? Cuz I

58:47 ↗ think it's super helpful. Especially the

58:49 ↗ one that has Go back one more.

58:52 ↗ Go back. It's

58:54 ↗ uh that that's a good one. Oh. Um let's

58:56 ↗ use uh

58:58 ↗ um

59:00 ↗ Go forward one.

59:02 ↗ So, one of the things I'll I'll ask Give

59:04 ↗ as an example as a question. So, I live

59:08 ↗ uh I guess it's part of Issaquah Valley.

59:10 ↗ So, I live in a single-family house. I

59:11 ↗ have condos on one side, apartments. So,

59:13 ↗ I think we're right now

59:15 ↗ multi-family residential. I would think

59:17 ↗ our land use is,

59:19 ↗ if I had to guess.

59:20 ↗ Um

59:21 ↗ with the new change, it's just going to

59:22 ↗ be residential, it sounds like. Is that

59:25 ↗ correct? Correct.

59:26 ↗ >> Okay. I'm just curious.

59:29 ↗ Does it Does it matter to if someone

59:32 ↗ wants to build a single family home or

59:35 ↗ a townhouse in either of these

59:37 ↗ designations or is it just this doesn't

59:39 ↗ really change what people can and can't

59:43 ↗ do based on just the the new broader

59:46 ↗ just residential? No. So, we're not

59:49 ↗ proposing to rezone anything at this

59:50 ↗ time, just changing the names.

59:52 ↗ >> Okay. So, really there's not really

59:54 ↗ We're just kind of cleaning up to have

59:55 ↗ less names and

59:57 ↗ All right.

1:00:00 ↗ Commissioner Adair.

1:00:02 ↗ Uh yeah, I have a kind of a question and

1:00:05 ↗ a follow-up statement. My first question

1:00:07 ↗ would be something like office space.

1:00:10 ↗ That That would be falling under mixed.

1:00:12 ↗ Do I understand that correctly?

1:00:14 ↗ Like let's say REI headquarters or

1:00:18 ↗ Costco headquarters, those would be

1:00:19 ↗ under what zone or what designation?

1:00:25 ↗ I don't know what REI is zoned off the

1:00:26 ↗ top of my head, but for instance, our

1:00:28 ↗ zone one of our zones is

1:00:31 ↗ it's a little bit hard cuz offices are

1:00:32 ↗ permitted in a lot of zones. Um so, but

1:00:35 ↗ professional office is one of our

1:00:37 ↗ zoning, PO, and that would be in mixed

1:00:39 ↗ use medium. Okay. So, yeah, so my

1:00:41 ↗ follow-up is this is mostly good, but I

1:00:43 ↗ think I feel like the mixed use medium

1:00:47 ↗ and high differing from you go mixed use

1:00:50 ↗ residential, then you go mixed use

1:00:52 ↗ medium, mixed use high.

1:00:55 ↗ I feel like that's a little bit

1:00:56 ↗ confusing. Um I get including mixed, and

1:00:59 ↗ I think that's a good idea. I just

1:01:02 ↗ it feels like to me it should be low,

1:01:04 ↗ medium, high or residential dash, and

1:01:08 ↗ then the medium should be something

1:01:09 ↗ else and

1:01:11 ↗ Does that make sense? It absolutely

1:01:13 ↗ makes sense, and

1:01:14 ↗ 2 plus hours were spent right there on

1:01:17 ↗ that [laughter] exact one with our whole

1:01:19 ↗ planning department. We went back and

1:01:21 ↗ forth a lot between low, medium, high.

1:01:24 ↗ And I guess I will explain the reason we

1:01:26 ↗ ended up on this and then it's

1:01:28 ↗ commission's decision what we go forward

1:01:29 ↗ with.

1:01:30 ↗ >> [clears throat]

1:01:31 ↗ >> We ultimately decided with mixed-use

1:01:32 ↗ residential because the implementing

1:01:35 ↗ zones for those multi-family medium and

1:01:37 ↗ multi-family high are heavily

1:01:40 ↗ residential zones. There's very limited

1:01:42 ↗ commercial uses that are allowed in

1:01:44 ↗ those.

1:01:45 ↗ So when looking at a land when looking

1:01:48 ↗ at the land use name, it's much more

1:01:49 ↗ representative of what that area is by

1:01:52 ↗ calling it mixed-use use residential and

1:01:55 ↗ a much

1:01:56 ↗ clearer idea by just reading the name.

1:01:59 ↗ And that comes from like Kate

1:02:01 ↗ referenced, you know, I talked to

1:02:03 ↗ developers almost every day and there is

1:02:05 ↗ multiple times that they come in and

1:02:06 ↗ they say, you know, what does the city

1:02:07 ↗ want to see here?

1:02:08 ↗ So having that clarity where you can

1:02:10 ↗ just say this is our future land use

1:02:13 ↗ designation. Having that clear is that's

1:02:15 ↗ why we ended up on that mixed-use

1:02:16 ↗ residential. Did I forget anything?

1:02:21 ↗ Okay. I'm going to I also want to note

1:02:22 ↗ that so

1:02:24 ↗ Costco is in Central Issaquah. It's in

1:02:27 ↗ the urban core zone.

1:02:29 ↗ And but the urban core also allows for

1:02:31 ↗ trailhead.

1:02:33 ↗ So those are really intense uses and

1:02:35 ↗ they're both ones residential and one is

1:02:37 ↗ office.

1:02:38 ↗ And then mixed-use medium where you have

1:02:40 ↗ the mixed-use residential, you've got

1:02:43 ↗ Target, which is much lower. It's lower

1:02:45 ↗ story, can't go as high. Vail,

1:02:48 ↗ Atlas. So those are all those are again

1:02:50 ↗ mixed-use residential and commercial,

1:02:54 ↗ but they are much lower density than

1:02:56 ↗ what would be allowed in the urban core

1:02:58 ↗ and

1:03:00 ↗ mixed-use Central Issaquah.

1:03:02 ↗ And mixed-use.

1:03:06 ↗ Commissioner Matthews.

1:03:09 ↗ Oh, sorry. Oh. Kate, did you want to

1:03:10 ↗ follow up?

1:03:10 ↗ >> I just wanted to say really quickly that

1:03:12 ↗ um again, we did debate this because

1:03:14 ↗ it's hard to convey clearly what we're

1:03:17 ↗ what we're trying to say. The low,

1:03:18 ↗ medium, high, really the the

1:03:20 ↗ the character of mixed-use residential

1:03:22 ↗ is mostly residential, mostly, you know,

1:03:24 ↗ apartment or even middle housing. Um we

1:03:27 ↗ did look at other cities and in other

1:03:29 ↗ cities they also kind of do that kind of

1:03:31 ↗ mixed-use residential, residential

1:03:33 ↗ mixed-use kind of thing before they jump

1:03:35 ↗ to like kind of mixed one or two or

1:03:37 ↗ three or whatever. So, again, we landed

1:03:39 ↗ here um and the zones um are also

1:03:43 ↗ aligned um very carefully. Uh

1:03:47 ↗ multifamily medium, multifamily high.

1:03:50 ↗ I mean, those are uh multifamily uh

1:03:53 ↗ medium, Old Town multifamily high, East

1:03:56 ↗ Sunset. Thank you. Still learning the

1:03:58 ↗ zones from my tutor over here. Um so,

1:04:01 ↗ you know, if it was kind of a question,

1:04:03 ↗ then looking at what the zones allow

1:04:05 ↗ would be your next step probably as a

1:04:06 ↗ developer going to the permitted uses

1:04:08 ↗ and form intensity tables and then, you

1:04:11 ↗ know, that would sort out. But, again,

1:04:13 ↗ uh appreciate the conversation we had.

1:04:15 ↗ This averted of it.

1:04:18 ↗ Uh Commissioner Matthews. Yeah. So, I

1:04:21 ↗ kind of had the same when I first saw

1:04:22 ↗ this, I was like, what does mixed-use

1:04:24 ↗ medium mean? Are you talking about

1:04:26 ↗ density? Are you talking about height?

1:04:28 ↗ Are you You So, I didn't I was very

1:04:31 ↗ confused by that and I wondered if like

1:04:33 ↗ if somebody's a developer, if they would

1:04:35 ↗ understand they may cuz I'm not a

1:04:37 ↗ developer what that means cuz it to me

1:04:40 ↗ it's just like, what? Mixed-use high?

1:04:43 ↗ High what?

1:04:44 ↗ Height, you know, density. So, it just

1:04:47 ↗ seems

1:04:48 ↗ like a little unclear still.

1:04:50 ↗ But, that's where the descriptions come

1:04:52 ↗ in, which would be the next step. So, if

1:04:53 ↗ you agree with the zones that are in

1:04:55 ↗ here, then they we work we start writing

1:04:58 ↗ the descriptions that So, the when the

1:04:59 ↗ developers come in, we it's explained

1:05:02 ↗ for them. And I would follow up on that

1:05:04 ↗ as being being in I I used to work as a

1:05:07 ↗ consultant in many cities, it is a

1:05:09 ↗ common designation and the the medium um

1:05:13 ↗ that's why we didn't just go based off

1:05:15 ↗ building height or we didn't just go

1:05:16 ↗ based off permitted uses. It's really

1:05:18 ↗ medium intensity kind of all around.

1:05:20 ↗ It's our medium height limits, our

1:05:21 ↗ medium density. The the examples Kristen

1:05:24 ↗ gave were great for that.

1:05:26 ↗ Yeah. Mr. Crass.

1:05:27 ↗ So, can you help dimensionalize the

1:05:29 ↗ difference between medium and high? Or

1:05:31 ↗ and and the reason why I'm asking that

1:05:33 ↗ is

1:05:35 ↗ does there need to be two or is just

1:05:37 ↗ it's you have residential and you have

1:05:39 ↗ mixed and then you have everything else

1:05:41 ↗ and then

1:05:42 ↗ it could be zoned at a by certain height

1:05:44 ↗ or density. I'm just wondering whether

1:05:46 ↗ these are distinct enough. So, can you

1:05:47 ↗ give some examples of what would be in

1:05:49 ↗ each of these?

1:05:49 ↗ >> Sure. That may make me understand a

1:05:51 ↗ little clearer.

1:05:52 ↗ Yeah. It's a great question because that

1:05:54 ↗ was also something we debated as if we

1:05:56 ↗ wanted three categories or two. Um, that

1:05:58 ↗ we went back and forth on as well. Um,

1:06:00 ↗ example-wise, um, like Kristen was

1:06:03 ↗ talking about if you want specific

1:06:04 ↗ building examples or you're talking

1:06:05 ↗ about specific standards. Oh. Building.

1:06:08 ↗ Like

1:06:09 ↗ this here it would fall in this. This

1:06:11 ↗ here would fall in that. Just so we

1:06:12 ↗ understand.

1:06:14 ↗ >> Cuz that'll help Trailhead. That

1:06:17 ↗ Things that already exist. Oh, off the

1:06:19 ↗ top of my head. Um, urban core and then

1:06:21 ↗ mixed use.

1:06:23 ↗ Costco is high in high mixed use high

1:06:27 ↗ and Target is mixed use medium to steal

1:06:29 ↗ Kristen's examples.

1:06:31 ↗ Target and Costco seem kind of similar.

1:06:34 ↗ That's why I'm wondering whether like

1:06:35 ↗ that's I

1:06:39 ↗ No, you're talking about the store, I

1:06:40 ↗ assume.

1:06:41 ↗ >> All of it.

1:06:42 ↗ All of Costco. I was thinking of that

1:06:44 ↗ too.

1:06:44 ↗ >> the store as well as their corporate

1:06:46 ↗ headquarters are all in urban core.

1:06:48 ↗ I just feel like Okay, keep going with

1:06:50 ↗ examples. I'm just trying This is a

1:06:52 ↗ Well, now I'm I'm running out of these.

1:06:53 ↗ >> and high. I'm just having like it kind

1:06:55 ↗ of seems like one big lump and there's

1:06:56 ↗ like a It's like a spectrum of like and

1:06:59 ↗ you can have

1:07:00 ↗ Um, so I mean there's definitely a

1:07:03 ↗ difference between, as you were saying,

1:07:04 ↗ mixed use residential and then the rest,

1:07:07 ↗ right? So, for the rest

1:07:11 ↗ uh

1:07:12 ↗ you know, in terms of medium, it is

1:07:14 ↗ mostly you're going to be four stories,

1:07:17 ↗ 40 ft mostly is allowed

1:07:20 ↗ with the opportunity to do some

1:07:21 ↗ incentives or or bonus programs. You can

1:07:24 ↗ be in different areas, but I'm going to

1:07:26 ↗ go ahead and show you this map again.

1:07:30 ↗ I know it's always nice to have things

1:07:31 ↗ in three. Well, and but but sometimes do

1:07:34 ↗ you Do you need that? That's so this

1:07:36 ↗ will be helpful if you

1:07:38 ↗ So, what I wanted to share is that so

1:07:40 ↗ for the highest intensity

1:07:43 ↗ um

1:07:43 ↗ mixed use high, you've got your urban

1:07:45 ↗ core in red here, and I think you've

1:07:48 ↗ heard the term wedding cake before. So,

1:07:50 ↗ if you think of land use designations by

1:07:53 ↗ height and intent by height alone, the

1:07:55 ↗ highest buildings are going to be

1:07:56 ↗ allowed in your mixed use high, right?

1:07:58 ↗ With with bonuses up to 125

1:08:01 ↗ ft maybe

1:08:03 ↗ um in like the urban core. So, that's

1:08:05 ↗ the top of the wedding cake in the red.

1:08:07 ↗ If you go down a notch to the medium,

1:08:10 ↗ that's where you're going to have your

1:08:11 ↗ your Front Street, your um

1:08:14 ↗ uh Issaquah Highlands um

1:08:16 ↗ little town center, I'm not sure what

1:08:18 ↗ it's called, like the purple on the land

1:08:19 ↗ use designation map. So, that is kind of

1:08:22 ↗ a different tier, a different scale of

1:08:26 ↗ um development. Now, are there some

1:08:28 ↗ overlaps? Yes, there are, and you can

1:08:30 ↗ choose as a developer to go to four

1:08:32 ↗ stories or to go up higher, but what you

1:08:35 ↗ would likely see in full build-out if

1:08:36 ↗ you just went for all the capacity you

1:08:39 ↗ could is the mixed use high is those

1:08:42 ↗ tallest buildings with the most number

1:08:43 ↗ of units if you're talking about you

1:08:45 ↗ know, mixed use residential, where

1:08:47 ↗ medium is going to be a a lot shorter,

1:08:50 ↗ you know, buildings

1:08:51 ↗ fewer units, and then the residential is

1:08:53 ↗ going to be

1:08:54 ↗ apartments with just a tiny bit of mixed

1:08:56 ↗ use or no mixed use at all

1:08:58 ↗ or ground floor commercial. So,

1:09:01 ↗ those three tiers kind of help with that

1:09:04 ↗ differentiation of just magnitude and

1:09:07 ↗ and scale of development for, you know,

1:09:09 ↗ development community coming in. Where

1:09:11 ↗ can I put my biggest buildings?

1:09:13 ↗ I'm going to start with the high

1:09:14 ↗ designations and work my way down from

1:09:16 ↗ there. I don't know if that was helpful

1:09:18 ↗ and I know Kristen wanted to share

1:09:19 ↗ something as well.

1:09:20 ↗ >> it's I mean, you're talking about the

1:09:21 ↗ future, which I get cuz

1:09:24 ↗ um the examples that you gave made me

1:09:25 ↗ think that they were this very similar.

1:09:27 ↗ So, it's really

1:09:29 ↗ from what I

1:09:31 ↗ mean, the things that we have right now,

1:09:32 ↗ it's a little harder to peel them apart.

1:09:34 ↗ Is that what you're saying?

1:09:36 ↗ But in the future when I'm 85 years old

1:09:39 ↗ and we have a train station and all this

1:09:40 ↗ other stuff, um

1:09:42 ↗ then they'll probably be taller

1:09:43 ↗ buildings and those would be mixed-use

1:09:45 ↗ high around there. Is that correct?

1:09:48 ↗ And keep in mind it's a 20-year plan.

1:09:51 ↗ Too. So, this isn't for what's here,

1:09:53 ↗ it's for planning for the future.

1:09:58 ↗ >> [laughter]

1:10:03 ↗ >> Thank you, John. Um any other

1:10:06 ↗ feedback?

1:10:09 ↗ Questions?

1:10:14 ↗ I think this is probably as far as

1:10:16 ↗ being on the commission, this is

1:10:17 ↗ probably one of the more, I don't know,

1:10:20 ↗ brain-draining parts of it is the the

1:10:22 ↗ zoning and all of it. It takes me a

1:10:24 ↗ while and then every single time I think

1:10:26 ↗ I got it, they throw a monkey wrench in

1:10:27 ↗ it and

1:10:29 ↗ I start it all over.

1:10:30 ↗ But I definitely for simplifying,

1:10:32 ↗ definitely want to make it simpler for

1:10:33 ↗ everyone. Um definitely would prefer

1:10:37 ↗ that you guys wordsmith it the way you

1:10:38 ↗ guys think that's going to be the most

1:10:40 ↗ helpful with all the people that Emily

1:10:42 ↗ alluded to that she talks to today. I

1:10:44 ↗ think that's the point, that's the goal.

1:10:46 ↗ Anything that moves that way, I think

1:10:48 ↗ it's probably appropriate.

1:10:52 ↗ Anyone else?

1:10:54 ↗ Yes, Commissioner Holstrom.

1:10:56 ↗ I appreciate the effort on simplifying

1:10:58 ↗ things. I feel like what you're saying.

1:11:00 ↗ I mean, I'm all for that and I think

1:11:02 ↗ it's great. And

1:11:04 ↗ We're going to have to see more of that.

1:11:06 ↗ Yeah, we're in like a streamlining kind

1:11:08 ↗ of uh year, I suppose. So, um that's

1:11:11 ↗ great. Um does anyone have anything else

1:11:13 ↗ to put Okay, Commissioner Zakharova.

1:11:16 ↗ Thank you. Well, I would like to also

1:11:18 ↗ say thank you for simplifying things

1:11:20 ↗ around because I'm the one who's been uh

1:11:22 ↗ trying to understand zoning since almost

1:11:25 ↗ 20 years ago when I started doing

1:11:27 ↗ business. And uh trying to understand

1:11:29 ↗ why I'm allowed in one zone and not

1:11:31 ↗ allowed in the other zone. And I've been

1:11:33 ↗ through a lot of different cities and

1:11:35 ↗ all of those cities over the years and

1:11:38 ↗ their rezoning processes and that's

1:11:41 ↗ really it's a pain, uh for sure. So, I

1:11:46 ↗ appreciate that and I kind of like um

1:11:48 ↗ well, I understand the multi zoning with

1:11:53 ↗ high density and with lower density and

1:11:57 ↗ everything in between. It includes It

1:11:59 ↗ also includes It's not just a height. It

1:12:01 ↗ also includes the traffic. It also

1:12:02 ↗ includes the overall tension in the

1:12:04 ↗ area. So, I was explained it too many

1:12:07 ↗ times, but yeah, thank you so much. To

1:12:09 ↗ me, it's clear. To me, it's clear. I

1:12:11 ↗ want to see the explanations as well, of

1:12:12 ↗ course. And I'm sure we will go through

1:12:14 ↗ that. But yeah, I I looked at it just

1:12:17 ↗ briefly and I'm like, yeah, oh, yeah.

1:12:19 ↗ That's super fast. Thank you.

1:12:21 ↗ The cleanup crew. Okay. Um anyone else?

1:12:25 ↗ Sure, Vice Chair Patterson. Uh yes, one

1:12:28 ↗ I guess consideration um and again, I'm

1:12:31 ↗ deferring to the people that use the

1:12:33 ↗ code more and you as the experts, but is

1:12:35 ↗ there any risk to removing the term

1:12:37 ↗ retail at all?

1:12:38 ↗ Um

1:12:39 ↗ and the only reason I say is like I feel

1:12:41 ↗ like a lot of this is simplification and

1:12:43 ↗ um streamlining and you know,

1:12:45 ↗ consolidating terms, but retail in

1:12:47 ↗ particular seems maybe a little bit

1:12:49 ↗ different. Um if you were to merge it

1:12:51 ↗ into like mixed-use medium, mixed-use

1:12:53 ↗ high, um, it could potentially get

1:12:56 ↗ misconstrued as like favoring

1:12:58 ↗ residential, perhaps, or, you know, I

1:13:00 ↗ don't I don't know. I don't really have

1:13:02 ↗ an opinion myself, but I just kind of

1:13:03 ↗ wanted to throw that out there as like,

1:13:05 ↗ is that worth

1:13:06 ↗ considering at all? Well, and I think

1:13:08 ↗ you're speaking to a kind of the

1:13:09 ↗ characteristics of some certain zones

1:13:11 ↗ that implement retail, um,

1:13:14 ↗ uh,

1:13:14 ↗ cultural and

1:13:16 ↗ business district, I believe CBD on

1:13:19 ↗ Front Street. I'm still learning. Sorry,

1:13:20 ↗ there's 37 zones here and I'm a little

1:13:22 ↗ new to being here. So, um,

1:13:25 ↗ you know, there are, um, zone

1:13:27 ↗ descriptions and establishment of zones

1:13:29 ↗ in the in in the land use code, um, and

1:13:31 ↗ development standards associated with

1:13:33 ↗ that standard that would, um,

1:13:36 ↗ promote retail uses like along there,

1:13:39 ↗ um, and and that kind of thing. Retail

1:13:41 ↗ is allowed as a use in

1:13:44 ↗ all of those mixed-use zones, um, to a

1:13:46 ↗ to a certain extent, right? Um, very few

1:13:49 ↗ in multifamily medium, but

1:13:51 ↗ I so,

1:13:53 ↗ residential is also allowed, is that So,

1:13:55 ↗ that's what we weighed. So, I I mean, I

1:13:59 ↗ I hope we can capture what in the in the

1:14:01 ↗ land use descriptions, the land use

1:14:03 ↗ designation descriptions, as well as the

1:14:04 ↗ zone descriptions, what the intent of

1:14:07 ↗ that original intent was from retail. We

1:14:09 ↗ are drawing from, uh, the previous

1:14:11 ↗ comprehensive plans and their land use

1:14:12 ↗ designations. They're really, you know,

1:14:14 ↗ the foundational documents to help us,

1:14:16 ↗ uh, you know, rewrite or write in, uh,

1:14:19 ↗ these these new descriptions. So, we'll

1:14:21 ↗ we'll try to preserve that and we'll

1:14:22 ↗ come to you and get your your guidance

1:14:24 ↗ on that.

1:14:25 ↗ Yeah, I appreciate that. I think, uh,

1:14:28 ↗ just having seen this the first time,

1:14:29 ↗ we're probably all like, what does it

1:14:30 ↗ mean? And you're like, well, we're going

1:14:31 ↗ to tell you the next time. So, I think

1:14:33 ↗ this all makes sense. I am on board with

1:14:35 ↗ the simplification. Uh, you know, just

1:14:37 ↗ coming at from a like small, medium,

1:14:38 ↗ large, low, medium, high thing, like

1:14:40 ↗ that all makes sense. So, I think we're

1:14:41 ↗ on the right track. I think once we get

1:14:43 ↗ the descriptions, you know, some

1:14:45 ↗ tensions will be eased. Thank you.

1:14:49 ↗ Now, I just want to say that also

1:14:50 ↗ there's no longer a retail zone

1:14:53 ↗ in the city either. That was that was a

1:14:54 ↗ holdover from 1995, I think, and

1:14:59 ↗ the uses are just much more blended now

1:15:00 ↗ than they used to be. I think just by

1:15:02 ↗ the way we all live. So, no there's no

1:15:05 ↗ there's no

1:15:06 ↗ um

1:15:07 ↗ What was the word you used? Um anyway,

1:15:09 ↗ there's nothing to worry about by

1:15:10 ↗ removing that that description.

1:15:14 ↗ Yeah, please commissioner. Examples are

1:15:15 ↗ helpful. So, Gilman Village for example,

1:15:17 ↗ which only has like little shops and all

1:15:19 ↗ that, what would that be considered in

1:15:21 ↗ this land use? Um as an actual land use,

1:15:25 ↗ it's probably retail, but they fall

1:15:27 ↗ under the mixed-use Central Squa zone.

1:15:31 ↗ Is that in Central Squa? Gilman Village?

1:15:32 ↗ >> It is in Central Squa, just barely. Is

1:15:35 ↗ it really? Really. Yes.

1:15:41 ↗ All right, anything else?

1:15:44 ↗ We like examples, Kate. Lots of

1:15:46 ↗ examples. Bring your examples.

1:15:49 ↗ >> [laughter]

1:15:49 ↗ >> Pictures, please.

1:15:50 ↗ >> just have a few slides on the second

1:15:52 ↗ proposal cuz we've already taken care of

1:15:54 ↗ some of the items of conversation. So,

1:15:57 ↗ as you may recall, the proposed

1:15:58 ↗ amendment number two specifically to

1:16:00 ↗ clarify the names of the low-density and

1:16:02 ↗ multi-family land use and zoning

1:16:04 ↗ designations to ensure compliance with

1:16:06 ↗ the state's middle housing requirements.

1:16:08 ↗ Um this is really focused on look at all

1:16:10 ↗ the zones that say single-family in it

1:16:12 ↗ and how they roll up into the land use

1:16:14 ↗ designations and you know, uh

1:16:17 ↗ are they conveying the right uh

1:16:20 ↗ message? So, why are we doing this? Um

1:16:23 ↗ last year the middle housing ordinances

1:16:24 ↗ came through because the state uh

1:16:27 ↗ changed the rules around single-family

1:16:29 ↗ zoning

1:16:30 ↗ um

1:16:30 ↗ as one of the many goals of increasing

1:16:33 ↗ affordable housing supply,

1:16:35 ↗ uh increasing the number of housing, the

1:16:37 ↗ state required um

1:16:39 ↗ all cities to to allow uh middle housing

1:16:43 ↗ in zones that allow single family uses.

1:16:46 ↗ So, in Issaquah, with the size of city

1:16:49 ↗ we are, what is allowed in each single

1:16:51 ↗ family lot is two to four units. You get

1:16:54 ↗ of middle housing, townhouse, that kind

1:16:56 ↗ of thing. Two units, but you could go up

1:16:59 ↗ to four under certain conditions. Are

1:17:01 ↗ you close to high capacity transit?

1:17:03 ↗ Well, we don't have any yet yet in

1:17:04 ↗ Issaquah.

1:17:05 ↗ And if one unit is affordable of the

1:17:08 ↗ four, then you can to a certain income

1:17:10 ↗ level, you can get four units on the lot

1:17:13 ↗ of middle housing.

1:17:15 ↗ The laws also

1:17:16 ↗ that were passed allowed two ADUs, two

1:17:19 ↗ accessory dwelling units on each lot

1:17:22 ↗ with a single family or or primary

1:17:24 ↗ resident resident. So, that goes from,

1:17:26 ↗ you know, allowing

1:17:27 ↗ single family and ADU to two ADUs, so

1:17:30 ↗ three units per lot. That was the big

1:17:33 ↗ increase there.

1:17:34 ↗ So,

1:17:36 ↗ again, we um

1:17:38 ↗ were looking at these zones, known as

1:17:40 ↗ called single family, that I'll show you

1:17:41 ↗ in a minute, and doing our

1:17:45 ↗ analysis by reviewing what's in the code

1:17:47 ↗ now, just to verify, just to share with

1:17:49 ↗ you. As I mentioned, in single family

1:17:51 ↗ zones, we allow middle housing, six

1:17:54 ↗ types duplex triplex fourplex

1:17:56 ↗ townhome, single family attached, and

1:17:57 ↗ cottage housing with just a few photos

1:18:00 ↗ there. Um also, I wanted to show you

1:18:03 ↗ this cool map. There's actually a really

1:18:05 ↗ cool study that was done to support the

1:18:07 ↗ middle housing code amendments. So,

1:18:10 ↗ there are uh

1:18:11 ↗ 1 2 3 4 5 Six single family zones. I

1:18:14 ↗ remembered that before the presentation.

1:18:15 ↗ Five of which have the name single

1:18:17 ↗ family in them, right? We have

1:18:19 ↗ conservancy residential. That's one of

1:18:22 ↗ the, you know, largest lots in in areas

1:18:25 ↗ that really are conservation areas that

1:18:27 ↗ allow just, you know, a tiny bit of

1:18:29 ↗ housing.

1:18:30 ↗ Then we have single family duplex, which

1:18:33 ↗ is mostly located in Old Town. Single

1:18:36 ↗ family estates, single family suburban

1:18:38 ↗ which are larger lot, single family

1:18:41 ↗ probably where critical areas are or

1:18:44 ↗ maybe lack of utilities.

1:18:46 ↗ Also single family small lot and urban

1:18:48 ↗ village single family. So we have a lot

1:18:50 ↗ of single family single family

1:18:52 ↗ when in reality you can do more than

1:18:54 ↗ single family in these zones. So

1:18:57 ↗ we took a look took a look at what other

1:19:01 ↗ cities are doing

1:19:03 ↗ tried to get

1:19:05 ↗ to alignment with what our new proposal

1:19:07 ↗ for comprehensive plan land use

1:19:09 ↗ designations were and we came up with

1:19:11 ↗ this chart. And these proposals.

1:19:14 ↗ So as you'll recall in land in terms of

1:19:16 ↗ the land use designation that was low

1:19:18 ↗ density residential since that now

1:19:21 ↗ allows middle densities we went with

1:19:23 ↗ just the general residential

1:19:25 ↗ use designation.

1:19:27 ↗ Of all our existing

1:19:30 ↗ zones we decided to start with

1:19:33 ↗ residential in the in their name and

1:19:35 ↗ then kind of preserve the existing name

1:19:38 ↗ in some cases or try to clarify what

1:19:41 ↗ type of single family was. So you know

1:19:44 ↗ residential conservancy just kind of

1:19:46 ↗ change flip the name a little bit

1:19:47 ↗ residential estates, residential large

1:19:50 ↗ lot those are kind of the again those

1:19:52 ↗ larger lot

1:19:53 ↗ types of

1:19:55 ↗ areas.

1:19:56 ↗ And then for the smaller lots we we kept

1:19:59 ↗ basically the the small lot but now it's

1:20:03 ↗ residential small lot. And then we did

1:20:05 ↗ residential Old Town instead of

1:20:06 ↗ residential duplex because of course

1:20:08 ↗ more than duplexes are allowed

1:20:10 ↗ in the single family zones.

1:20:12 ↗ We also we're changing urban village

1:20:15 ↗ single family to residential urban

1:20:17 ↗ village. Right now there's these two

1:20:20 ↗ different zones that are rolled up into

1:20:22 ↗ one it's a little

1:20:24 ↗ bit of a quirk in the code. We had our

1:20:28 ↗ GIS

1:20:29 ↗ uh

1:20:30 ↗ uh

1:20:31 ↗ analyst who's great to a look at like

1:20:33 ↗ where is this zone? Emily didn't know,

1:20:35 ↗ Kristen didn't know.

1:20:36 ↗ And we found that we need to remove it

1:20:38 ↗ because it doesn't exist anymore. So, or

1:20:41 ↗ no, actually that was a different one.

1:20:42 ↗ On this one, this one we found was not

1:20:45 ↗ actually a parcel but bits of streets in

1:20:48 ↗ the Highlands where they had a lot and

1:20:50 ↗ then there's an irregular thing. They

1:20:52 ↗ just instead of making it a different

1:20:53 ↗ kind of tracked, they created these

1:20:56 ↗ little zones. So, we're going to come

1:20:58 ↗ back maybe next year with an idea about

1:20:59 ↗ how to address this one. But we also

1:21:02 ↗ found a zone that we're removing which

1:21:03 ↗ is super exciting cuz you know, 37 we

1:21:06 ↗ can get down to 36 and then maybe

1:21:08 ↗ consolidate a few uh if they make sense

1:21:10 ↗ in future years.

1:21:11 ↗ So, that was um the last uh slide um

1:21:16 ↗ on the proposals and the questions,

1:21:18 ↗ considerations, you know, do you think

1:21:20 ↗ these new zone names work? And should we

1:21:23 ↗ move forward with drafting policy and

1:21:24 ↗ code updates in line with the proposals?

1:21:26 ↗ So, go ahead and put that chart back and

1:21:29 ↗ open up for Excellent. Thank you, Kate.

1:21:32 ↗ Would anyone like to comment on

1:21:35 ↗ comprehensive plan two?

1:21:42 ↗ Yeah, Commissioner Holstrom.

1:21:44 ↗ Seems logical. Makes sense to me. So,

1:21:47 ↗ I'd say good work.

1:21:48 ↗ >> It's only logical. Okay.

1:21:50 ↗ Um

1:21:52 ↗ Yeah, no, I I would agree.

1:21:54 ↗ Like I said, streamlining is good.

1:21:57 ↗ Anybody?

1:22:00 ↗ Commissioner Zackrow.

1:22:02 ↗ I would also like to speak in support.

1:22:04 ↗ Great job and this is super hard to

1:22:07 ↗ clarify all of this, but yeah, thank

1:22:09 ↗ you.

1:22:15 ↗ Any further comment?

1:22:19 ↗ Okay, I think you what you have is your

1:22:20 ↗ commissioners trust. You guys obviously

1:22:22 ↗ know your stuff.

1:22:24 ↗ And again, the idea of just trying to

1:22:26 ↗ make this streamline and easier for

1:22:27 ↗ everybody.

1:22:29 ↗ Full speed ahead.

1:22:30 ↗ Cool. Thank you. Just a couple more

1:22:32 ↗ slides to talk about next steps then. Um

1:22:34 ↗ so, we'll take your comments. We will go

1:22:37 ↗ ahead and uh you know, work on drafting

1:22:40 ↗ specific proposals and we'll be bringing

1:22:42 ↗ those to you. I will say that um in

1:22:45 ↗ terms of the code amendments and changes

1:22:47 ↗ to the code, there are a lot of

1:22:48 ↗ citations that we're going to have to

1:22:50 ↗ deal with. So, it's going to take us a

1:22:52 ↗ while to uh make sure we uh

1:22:55 ↗ you know, cross out single family

1:22:56 ↗ everywhere where it is in Title 18. So,

1:22:59 ↗ um what's the process looking like? Uh

1:23:02 ↗ at this point, we'll come back later

1:23:03 ↗ this spring um with those proposals. Um

1:23:06 ↗ you will also see other uh proposed

1:23:08 ↗ amendments coming through

1:23:09 ↗ um in the summer for all of the

1:23:11 ↗ complaint amendments. Um we'll have

1:23:13 ↗ continued review, the public hearing,

1:23:15 ↗ and then in fall is when we'll go to

1:23:17 ↗ council uh for their review and action.

1:23:19 ↗ Again, uh you can only uh

1:23:22 ↗ uh amend the comprehensive plan once a

1:23:24 ↗ year, so we have to get these amendments

1:23:25 ↗ in by the end of the year. So,

1:23:28 ↗ that was it. I didn't know if you had

1:23:29 ↗ any final questions, but

1:23:32 ↗ Uh do you guys have everything you need?

1:23:34 ↗ Yes. Okay. Excellent.

1:23:38 ↗ All right. Well, thank you, Kate. Thank

1:23:39 ↗ you, Emily. Um thank you, Kristen.

1:23:42 ↗ And we're going to move on to reports

1:23:44 ↗ and looking at Kristen, do we have any

1:23:46 ↗ city council or Kate, I'm not sure who's

1:23:48 ↗ taking this, but city council updates.

1:23:51 ↗ I just have one and that next Tuesday,

1:23:54 ↗ which is May 19th, Manny and I are going

1:23:58 ↗ to the Committee of the Whole Council

1:24:00 ↗ and with the goal of taking all of the

1:24:03 ↗ 17 proposed amendments or our work plan

1:24:06 ↗ to them. And attached to each one of

1:24:08 ↗ those, which will help you all, will be

1:24:11 ↗ a goal for each one of those amendments

1:24:13 ↗ and what the council wishes to see the

1:24:16 ↗ out you know, what outcomes they wish to

1:24:17 ↗ see

1:24:18 ↗ with those. So, I think that'll help. We

1:24:21 ↗ can once those are adopted, we can bring

1:24:23 ↗ those to you all and remind you each

1:24:25 ↗ time we go through these amendments what

1:24:27 ↗ is the It's kind of like we did with

1:24:28 ↗ Title 18, you may recall that. So, what

1:24:31 ↗ is the goal? What is the outcome? And is

1:24:33 ↗ this achieving it? So, I think that'll

1:24:34 ↗ help with our discussions in the future.

1:24:37 ↗ Great.

1:24:40 ↗ May 19th?

1:24:42 ↗ Okay.

1:24:43 ↗ May 19th is when you guys present? Yes,

1:24:45 ↗ May 19th.

1:24:47 ↗ All right.

1:24:49 ↗ Uh

1:24:50 ↗ Any other business or announcements?

1:24:53 ↗ None.

1:24:54 ↗ Simple.

1:24:56 ↗ Okay.

1:24:57 ↗ Are there any updates to our calendar? I

1:24:58 ↗ noticed that our calendar just got It

1:25:00 ↗ goes all the way into 2027 now, so

1:25:03 ↗ exciting stuff. Told you it was going to

1:25:05 ↗ fill out. We weren't done yet.

1:25:07 ↗ Uh anything to our calendar?

1:25:10 ↗ Uh not right now.

1:25:11 ↗ Just busy, busy.

1:25:12 ↗ Which is great.

1:25:14 ↗ Okay. Um

1:25:17 ↗ Anything for the good of the order?

1:25:19 ↗ From our commissioners?

1:25:22 ↗ All right. Anything from staff?

1:25:25 ↗ Okay. Well, thank you everyone, and we

1:25:26 ↗ will adjourn this meeting of the

1:25:28 ↗ Planning Policy Commission at 7:55 p.m.

1:25:32 ↗ Thank you, and 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 (7)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Holstrom

Krass

Matthews

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Emily Medina, Senior Planner