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

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Emily Medina, Senior Planner

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of April 23, 2026 (Special Joint Meeting with Economic Vitality Commission) With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER KRASS.