Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 11, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Promoting Building Investments in Issaquah: Council Goals and Objectives (D)

15 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.3–91

▶ Watch from 1:44 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

At the June 11 Planning Policy Commission meeting, staff will provide an overview of the desired Goals and Outcomes for the code and process changes identified by the Planning, Development, and Environment Committee on June 2, 2026.

Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments: Proposed Transparency and Natural Context Area Amendments (D)

30 min · Emily Medina, Senior Planner · packet pp.93–102

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 22:17 Open packet at p.93 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the June 11 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review and discuss proposed draft amendments regarding transparency and natural context area requirements.

Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments: Introduction to Parking Reform Amendments and Proposed Updates to Urban Village- Commercial / Retail (UV/COM/RET) Zones (D)

45 min · Andrew Love, Associate Planner Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner · packet pp.103–130

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 1:03:23 Open packet at p.103 ↗

Staff report:

At the June 11 Planning Policy Commission meeting, staff will provide an informational briefing on two code amendments focused on reducing barriers to residential development and some other land uses. The amendments include updates to the City’s parking requirements and changes that would allow multifamily uses within the Urban Village Commercial/Retail (UV-COM/Ret) zone.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.131–134

▶ Watch from 2:05:02 Open packet at p.131 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

3167 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ Army. We're ready when you are.

0:22 ↗ >> We are live. Good evening, everyone.

0:25 ↗ We're going to call the June 11th

0:26 ↗ Planning Policy Commission to order. Let

0:29 ↗ me get my phone.

0:31 ↗ It is currently 6:35 p.m.

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

0:37 ↗ Planning Policy Commission is in person,

0:39 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:41 ↗ be attending virtually or in person.

0:44 ↗ Kristen, do we have a quorum this

0:46 ↗ evening?

0:47 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:48 ↗ >> Great. Okay, so you guys all heard about

0:50 ↗ the squirrel, right?

0:52 ↗ So, the squirrel apparently got into

0:54 ↗ some like the type of fuse box, ate a

0:58 ↗ bunch of wires. It's why we don't have

0:59 ↗ recordings of our last meeting. And it's

1:02 ↗ also why we do not have meeting minutes

1:05 ↗ to approve this evening. So, we will try

1:08 ↗ and get those provided to the planning

1:10 ↗ policy commission at our next meeting on

1:11 ↗ June 25th. But, uh, if you were

1:14 ↗ wondering,

1:15 ↗ we're going to open right now with

1:17 ↗ public comment. And this is for general

1:19 ↗ public comment. um for all topics that

1:22 ↗ we discuss here at the Planning Policy

1:24 ↗ Commission. Um yeah. So, do we have

1:27 ↗ anyone that would like to speak

1:29 ↗ online?

1:31 ↗ >> No, we do not.

1:32 ↗ >> Okay.

1:34 ↗ I was looking at Genevieve's children,

1:37 ↗ but they didn't look interested in

1:39 ↗ speaking either. So,

1:44 ↗ >> maybe next time. Okay. Regular business.

1:47 ↗ We'll move on to uh these two items

1:49 ↗ which will be presented relating to

1:51 ↗ projects on the promoting building

1:53 ↗ investments work plan. We'll start with

1:56 ↗ an update from senior planner Emily

1:58 ↗ Medina on the natural context area and

2:01 ↗ transparency code amendments. So it says

2:05 ↗ Emily, but I see Kristen and Kate

2:07 ↗ looking at me.

2:15 ↗ >> Ah, okay. So Kristen, our planning

2:18 ↗ manager is going to go first. So

2:20 ↗ Kristen, when you are ready, please go

2:22 ↗ ahead.

2:22 ↗ >> Hello, Kristen Leon, planning manager.

2:24 ↗ And this really, it's not a big item.

2:26 ↗ Um, just wanted to do an intro. I

2:29 ↗ mentioned to you all that

2:33 ↗ the

2:34 ↗ planning, development and environment

2:36 ↗ committee was working on establishing

2:40 ↗ goals, objectives, outcomes for us to

2:44 ↗ help us um guide our decision-m for the

2:48 ↗ promoting business in Isiqua amendments.

2:51 ↗ And just want to let you know that for

2:54 ↗ each one of the amendments that comes

2:56 ↗ forward

2:58 ↗ in the future, we will include this as a

3:02 ↗ reminder at the top of the information

3:04 ↗ sheet at the top of the memo. This will

3:05 ↗ be in there. Um, so the first one that

3:07 ↗ we have, I'm just want to do the first

3:09 ↗ three just to talk about those are the

3:12 ↗ natural context areas and transparency

3:14 ↗ requirements. We know what the issues

3:16 ↗ are. We've been through that before, but

3:17 ↗ they, you know, developers have said

3:18 ↗ it's difficult to meet the energy code

3:20 ↗ requirements. We we know we're we're

3:21 ↗ we've become aware of this as well.

3:23 ↗ Staff has that it is difficult to meet

3:25 ↗ the energy code requirements um when you

3:28 ↗ have significantly large windows and

3:30 ↗ lots of transparency. So the goal is to

3:32 ↗ provide some flex flexibility in the

3:34 ↗ transparency requirements

3:36 ↗ um along natural context areas and along

3:39 ↗ street frontage and to eliminate and

3:42 ↗ reduce transpar transparency

3:44 ↗ requirements along natural context areas

3:48 ↗ a possible action identified by PTE and

3:51 ↗ add flexibility for transparency along

3:53 ↗ the street frontage. But as you also

3:55 ↗ know, we're going a little above and

3:57 ↗ beyond in looking at natural context

3:59 ↗ areas themselves and the standards that

4:02 ↗ are currently required there. And we

4:04 ↗ talked about that at our last meeting.

4:06 ↗ So, we've included those as well.

4:10 ↗ The next ones,

4:12 ↗ I should switch this way.

4:15 ↗ Okay. are the parking requirements. And

4:20 ↗ the in our intent really is just to um

4:24 ↗ meet the

4:26 ↗ uh state mandates through bills 5184 and

4:30 ↗ 1183

4:32 ↗ before they're actually due and those

4:34 ↗ are all outlined. But the council the

4:36 ↗ issues are parking is not the you know

4:38 ↗ piece of par a parcel's highest and best

4:40 ↗ use which we all know that um we want to

4:45 ↗ it parking can generate negative impacts

4:48 ↗ such as dirty storm water and dead

4:49 ↗ zones. Um when we did the central Isqua

4:53 ↗ study we found that 75% of central

4:55 ↗ Isiqua was surface parking lots and we

4:57 ↗ want to get rid of that. We didn't want

4:59 ↗ that anymore. So initially we required

5:01 ↗ structured parking. state no longer

5:03 ↗ allowed structured parking for resident

5:05 ↗ multif family residential properties. We

5:07 ↗ also found that that was a deterrent to

5:09 ↗ development because parking can go

5:11 ↗ anywhere from say $20,000 on a surface

5:14 ↗ space per space up to about $100,000 if

5:16 ↗ you're per space if you're going to go

5:17 ↗ underground with structured parking. So

5:19 ↗ it does get expensive.

5:22 ↗ U apparently the parking requirements

5:24 ↗ are arbitrary and though therefore some

5:26 ↗ areas are overparked and parking lots

5:28 ↗ create barriers for non-car users. So,

5:31 ↗ our goals are to establish right-size

5:33 ↗ parking requirements to, as I mentioned,

5:36 ↗ do early adoption of 5184 and eliminate

5:39 ↗ council would like you all to consider

5:40 ↗ eliminate parking minimums in central

5:42 ↗ Isiqua, specifically the urban core and

5:44 ↗ the mixeduse central isqua zone.

5:49 ↗ No, I just want to go over the go what

5:51 ↗ council has directed. And yes, um Andrew

5:54 ↗ is going to be talking specifically

5:55 ↗ about parking tonight.

5:57 ↗ Uh the last one I just wanted to go over

5:59 ↗ you again, these are just council

6:00 ↗ council objectives and goals is um to

6:02 ↗ allow multif family in the com UV urban

6:07 ↗ village commercial retail zone.

6:10 ↗ If you all ever want to know the history

6:12 ↗ behind it and why that's you know why

6:14 ↗ that is that I can tell you but probably

6:16 ↗ don't need to now. Um but this bill 6026

6:19 ↗ requires that um residential be allowed

6:21 ↗ multif family be allowed in all

6:23 ↗ commercial zones. So we just need to

6:24 ↗ meet that and the goal is to achieve a

6:27 ↗ balance of multif family housing across

6:28 ↗ the city while not losing retail

6:30 ↗ requirements. That's something we've

6:31 ↗ tried really hard to do in central

6:32 ↗ Isiqua. Um you may recall um chair voice

6:36 ↗ when we did the central Isqua standards

6:38 ↗ and redid them and did the visions we

6:40 ↗ had a developer obligation in there to

6:43 ↗ sort of try and replace jobs one for

6:45 ↗ one. So if a job was lost due to

6:47 ↗ housing, replace that job one for one.

6:49 ↗ We found that it's really hard to do by

6:51 ↗ code, but we'd still like to try and

6:52 ↗ accomplish it somehow. Um, so anyway,

6:55 ↗ that is the action is to allow multif

6:57 ↗ family in UV comrade. That is all I have

7:00 ↗ tonight unless you all have any

7:02 ↗ questions and want to talk about some of

7:03 ↗ these and I do have them all here, but

7:06 ↗ otherwise we can talk about them as they

7:08 ↗ come up when the topics come up.

7:10 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. All right. That's all I

7:12 ↗ have. Thank you.

7:13 ↗ >> All right. Okay. Now, we're going to get

7:16 ↗ to Emily Medina.

7:19 ↗ Okay, Emily, when you are ready, please

7:20 ↗ go ahead with your presentation.

7:43 ↗ All right. Good evening, commissioners.

7:45 ↗ Am I good to go? Okay, perfect. I'm

7:48 ↗ sorry, I'm used to DC. I have to be

7:50 ↗ sworn in first and I I forget that I can

7:53 ↗ just talk here. Um, Emily Medina, senior

7:55 ↗ planner, here to talk to you tonight

7:57 ↗ about the transparency and the natural

7:59 ↗ context area requirements. Um, if you'll

8:01 ↗ remember, our associate planner, Yei,

8:03 ↗ presented about this last meeting. Um,

8:05 ↗ we're kind of tag teaming it um to, you

8:08 ↗ know, multiple minds on it and because

8:10 ↗ we're both missed one of the meetings,

8:12 ↗ so it worked out. Um, as a reminder,

8:16 ↗ um, kind of the purpose of this that,

8:18 ↗ sorry,

8:22 ↗ sorry, got my notes. Um, the, as Kristen

8:26 ↗ said, when it comes to these amendments,

8:28 ↗ the goal is to provide flexibility for

8:30 ↗ transparency requirements along natural

8:32 ↗ context areas and along street

8:34 ↗ frontages. So, we're going to review um

8:36 ↗ staff's proposed amendments and some

8:39 ↗ questions staff has for the commissions

8:41 ↗ um to get feedback tonight.

8:49 ↗ And just a reminder, this is where we're

8:50 ↗ at in our schedule of amendments.

8:55 ↗ And the first one we will discuss is

8:56 ↗ transparency.

8:59 ↗ So, um, Ye presented all the background

9:02 ↗ on it. So, I'm just going to kind of

9:03 ↗ breeze through these as it's more of a

9:05 ↗ reminder. transparency. You know, we're

9:07 ↗ using windows and doors to break up

9:09 ↗ buildings, break up blank walls,

9:11 ↗ activate the ground floor, engage the

9:13 ↗ pedestrian, um walkability, pedestrian

9:16 ↗ friendly environment. That's the goal

9:18 ↗ behind transparency.

9:20 ↗ Uh we have varying transparency

9:22 ↗ requirements in the city currently. So,

9:24 ↗ we have citywide requirements and then

9:26 ↗ neighborhood level requirements in both

9:28 ↗ Oldtown and in central Isqua.

9:31 ↗ Um those existing requirements

9:34 ↗ um have presented developers have

9:38 ↗ informed us of some issues and some

9:40 ↗ issues that staff has seen as we review

9:41 ↗ projects. Um costly when it comes to all

9:44 ↗ the windows. Um conflicts between the

9:47 ↗ land use code and the building code and

9:49 ↗ the energy efficiency. uh privacy

9:52 ↗ concerns when it comes to residential

9:54 ↗ transparency on the ground floor as well

9:56 ↗ as some inconsistency between our

9:58 ↗ internal land use code sections.

10:03 ↗ So, what are our current regulations? As

10:05 ↗ a reminder, um our citywide regulations

10:08 ↗ currently are 40% transparency on the

10:10 ↗ ground floor for multif family and

10:12 ↗ commercial and 70% transparency on the

10:15 ↗ ground floor for retail. In Oldtown,

10:17 ↗ which is the map on uh your screen

10:20 ↗ there, we have 15% of the entire facade

10:22 ↗ for multif family and 45% or 25%

10:26 ↗ depending on what street um the property

10:28 ↗ is located on for ground floor in the

10:30 ↗ CBD zone um which is the red on your

10:33 ↗ screen along French street. And then in

10:35 ↗ central Isqua, it's currently required

10:37 ↗ to have 50% of the entire facade be

10:39 ↗ transparent when facing a natural

10:40 ↗ context area.

10:45 ↗ Um and then the other part of our

10:49 ↗ current regulations, how it's measured

10:51 ↗ and what it's measured from. So just

10:53 ↗ same as last one, Oldtown has the entire

10:56 ↗ facade for multif family, CBD for ground

10:58 ↗ floor. Central Isakiqua is all walls

11:00 ↗ oriented towards natural areas. And then

11:02 ↗ citywide it's um that 6 ft or higher or

11:06 ↗ 5 ft below depending on how the

11:08 ↗ developer opts to measure that um which

11:11 ↗ commissioner Adair provided good um

11:14 ↗ visuals of that for the last meeting. So

11:17 ↗ kind of just breezed through that as

11:19 ↗ that was last last time's presentation

11:22 ↗ um and moving into our recommendations.

11:25 ↗ Um so that is in your packet. We have

11:28 ↗ the memo that goes over all of um city

11:31 ↗ staff's recommendations as well as the

11:33 ↗ track changes of what that would

11:34 ↗ actually look like in the code. Um for

11:37 ↗ transparency,

11:39 ↗ our recommendations are um separating

11:42 ↗ multifamily and commercial ground floor

11:44 ↗ transparency requirements. Right now

11:45 ↗ those are grouped together and staff

11:47 ↗ believes um just from our own use of the

11:50 ↗ code as well as developer feedback that

11:51 ↗ it makes more sense for those to be

11:52 ↗ separate different uses. um clarifying

11:55 ↗ the options for measure measuring and

11:57 ↗ calculating ground floor level

11:59 ↗ transparency for residential uses. The

12:01 ↗ whole 5 foot, six foot, it was different

12:04 ↗ in different portions of code. We

12:06 ↗ realized how confusing it was,

12:07 ↗ especially when Commissioner Adair sent

12:09 ↗ us those and we were talking about it

12:11 ↗ internally and we were like, "Oh boy,

12:12 ↗ this this could use some help." Um and

12:15 ↗ then the next one is um grouping

12:19 ↗ commercial uses with retail instead of

12:21 ↗ the commercial with the multif family.

12:23 ↗ similar uses reducing citywide

12:25 ↗ transparency requirement for retail and

12:28 ↗ commercial the new grouping we're

12:29 ↗ proposing from what 70% which is what's

12:32 ↗ current for retail to 45% which is what

12:35 ↗ is required in the CBD district along

12:38 ↗ front and sunset

12:40 ↗ um and then maintaining the 70%

12:43 ↗ transparency requirement but only

12:45 ↗ applying it to the urban core zone um

12:47 ↗ which is our high priority pedestrian

12:50 ↗ area and And then lastly, there was a

12:53 ↗ transparency standard about um window

12:56 ↗ signs and that's already covered in our

12:57 ↗ sign chapter. So removing that entirely

13:00 ↗ um we don't need sign regulations in our

13:02 ↗ building design chapter. Um and then

13:04 ↗ you'll note that there's no changes

13:06 ↗ proposed to the allowed deviation

13:08 ↗ section when it comes to transparency or

13:10 ↗ to the Oldtown um uh CBD or multifamily

13:15 ↗ transparency standards.

13:17 ↗ So

13:19 ↗ with that,

13:21 ↗ that is staff's recommendation before

13:24 ↗ you. But with that comes questions for

13:26 ↗ the commission. Um the first is about

13:28 ↗ the multifamily transparency

13:30 ↗ requirement. Um staff is looking for

13:34 ↗ commission's input on if multifamily

13:37 ↗ should be further broken down into two

13:39 ↗ categories, which is multi-story multif

13:41 ↗ family, so think apartment buildings

13:43 ↗ versus town homes. So think, you know,

13:45 ↗ connected town homes, front doors and

13:48 ↗ windows on the ground floor. Um that's

13:51 ↗ number one. Number two is does it make

13:54 ↗ sense for commercial and retail to be

13:56 ↗ grouped together as now proposed instead

13:58 ↗ of um commercial grouped with

14:00 ↗ multifamily as currently exists?

14:03 ↗ Number three is does reducing the

14:05 ↗ citywide retail and commercial

14:07 ↗ transparency standard to 45%. Um instead

14:10 ↗ of the general 70 for retail achieve the

14:13 ↗ code amendment and the citywide goals.

14:16 ↗ And then additionally related to that

14:17 ↗ one, does applying the 70% transparency

14:20 ↗ standard just to that high priority

14:22 ↗ growth and pedestrian area, which is the

14:25 ↗ urban core, achieve the city's visions

14:27 ↗ and goals, or should it stay as it

14:29 ↗ exists today and apply 70% transparency

14:32 ↗ more generally across the use.

14:40 ↗ The second one is natural context area.

14:43 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

14:44 ↗ >> Do you want to talk about the questions

14:45 ↗ before we launch the next one?

14:46 ↗ >> I think that'll be a little easier for

14:47 ↗ all of us.

14:49 ↗ >> Yes. Threw a lot your way.

14:52 ↗ >> Well, thank you, Emily. Uh, let's start

14:54 ↗ with some questions.

14:56 ↗ >> Commissioner Dare, is that a microphone

14:57 ↗ that's on?

14:58 ↗ >> Yeah. Just to clarify, so three and four

15:00 ↗ kind of Am I understanding correctly

15:02 ↗ that they're kind of linked? So you're

15:04 ↗ saying that instead of having 70% across

15:09 ↗ everything, we would just say 70% in

15:12 ↗ high priority zones, 45% everywhere

15:15 ↗ else. Correct. And then just to further

15:19 ↗ clar So correct is that it's 70% retail

15:21 ↗ right now and we're suggesting combine

15:23 ↗ retail and commercial, lower it to 45

15:26 ↗ and just put the 70% in the urban core

15:28 ↗ along street frontages.

15:30 ↗ >> Okay. And was follow-up question. Have

15:34 ↗ any commercial or retail builders asked

15:37 ↗ or requested this or is that just like

15:41 ↗ what was the origin of wanting to lower

15:43 ↗ this standard? Um generally speaking,

15:46 ↗ the developers um wanted the standard

15:49 ↗ lowered overall

15:51 ↗ um all the way down to 15%.

15:55 ↗ For multif family, all the way down to

15:56 ↗ 15%. And then when we were looking

15:59 ↗ within the transparency requirements um

16:02 ↗ since this 70% is within that as well

16:04 ↗ and there's been concerns about the

16:07 ↗ meeting the energy efficiency and the um

16:10 ↗ conflict between the IBC and uh IMC is a

16:14 ↗ municipal code. Um staff took it one

16:17 ↗ step further to recommend this.

16:22 ↗ >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Crass.

16:26 ↗ >> Hi. Thanks. So, um I have a clarifying

16:29 ↗ question. So, uh retail, I kind of I

16:32 ↗ understand what retail is. You walk down

16:34 ↗ the street, you see stores, you want to

16:35 ↗ have a lot of glass and all of that. Um

16:38 ↗ define commercial because they could be

16:40 ↗ very different. And by combining them,

16:42 ↗ I'm not sure if I agree with combining

16:44 ↗ them until I have a better understanding

16:47 ↗ what falls within that bucket.

16:49 ↗ >> Sure. And um Kate, you can help me out

16:51 ↗ here too. Kate, help me write the code.

16:53 ↗ Um, part of the issue is that in our

16:55 ↗ current code, it says retail needs 70%

16:58 ↗ transparency and we don't have a

16:59 ↗ definition for retail in our code. Um,

17:02 ↗ so when in doubt of a definition, we

17:04 ↗ look to the dictionary definition of

17:06 ↗ what's retail. But that that was part of

17:08 ↗ what initially triggered this amendment

17:10 ↗ is that we don't define exactly what

17:13 ↗ retail is. So who exactly this applies

17:15 ↗ to, that obviously creates a hurdle. Um

17:18 ↗ but in answer to your question,

17:20 ↗ commercial is far more reaching than

17:22 ↗ retail is. Commercial would include

17:24 ↗ things like personal services, um

17:27 ↗ typical retail.

17:29 ↗ >> So like

17:29 ↗ >> shopping stores,

17:31 ↗ >> dairy gold who's on Front Street. Is

17:32 ↗ that considered commercial?

17:35 ↗ That'd be weird of having a lot of

17:37 ↗ windows there, but on the stores on

17:39 ↗ Front Street, you want to have a lot of

17:40 ↗ windows. So I think they could be very

17:42 ↗ different things. And

17:44 ↗ >> I have a little Oh, I apologize. I have

17:46 ↗ a little clarification because when we

17:48 ↗ faced this on we did this on Front

17:49 ↗ Street

17:50 ↗ >> that we required

17:53 ↗ >> if you're on Front Street the first

17:54 ↗ floor had to be commercial or retail and

17:57 ↗ in our permitted uses table it is broken

18:01 ↗ up by categories in there and that you

18:02 ↗ actually do have retail medical office

18:06 ↗ um food and beverage that kind of thing.

18:09 ↗ So if we were to do something like that,

18:11 ↗ we could specify food and beverage

18:14 ↗ retail as identified in the permitted

18:16 ↗ uses table.

18:18 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean I think it's easy to

18:20 ↗ identify as you just mentioned what

18:21 ↗ retail is food and beverage and things

18:23 ↗ like that.

18:25 ↗ Commercial

18:26 ↗ as I said I just used I just grabbed an

18:28 ↗ example of the dairy gold plant. if

18:32 ↗ that's considered commercial, it's such

18:33 ↗ a different thing. And I wouldn't want

18:35 ↗ to impose having to have windows on a

18:38 ↗ factory where

18:40 ↗ um where a bike shop or a restaurant

18:44 ↗ makes sense to have that from a

18:45 ↗ walkability standpoint. So I think just

18:47 ↗ having the clarity. So So I'm not sure

18:50 ↗ about combine to answer your question,

18:51 ↗ combining those depends on what they

18:53 ↗ are.

18:53 ↗ >> Sure.

18:54 ↗ >> And right now since I don't know what

18:56 ↗ they all are, it's hard for me to agree

18:59 ↗ with the recommendation of combining

19:00 ↗ them. And if you wouldn't mind, um I

19:03 ↗ actually don't know what the uh dairy

19:06 ↗ gold plant is um identified in our use

19:08 ↗ tables as.

19:10 ↗ >> What is it?

19:11 ↗ >> Mineral use

19:12 ↗ >> as an example. Something that's not

19:14 ↗ retail.

19:14 ↗ >> Um so uh

19:18 ↗ I think what Kristen was saying, so

19:19 ↗ where you have areas that are

19:21 ↗ anticipated to be high pedestrian of

19:23 ↗ high pedestrian interest, then you're

19:25 ↗ really looking at street level design,

19:27 ↗ which includes that transparency level.

19:29 ↗ So, right now on Front Street, it is 45%

19:32 ↗ for all of Front Street, including where

19:35 ↗ Dairy Gold is. I have a feeling that

19:37 ↗ plant is legal. That that building is

19:38 ↗ legal non-conforming. I'm sure it was

19:41 ↗ there before that standard was put in

19:43 ↗ place. Um there are town houses coming

19:45 ↗ in that are activating their frontage

19:48 ↗ with more transparency um than they

19:50 ↗ might have to do elsewhere. Um, so it

19:54 ↗ depends on what the intent of the code

19:55 ↗ is and the sub area plan for Oldtown

19:58 ↗ probably talks about activating Front

20:00 ↗ Street and so the code is written to

20:02 ↗ implement that plan and those goals.

20:04 ↗ Just as in central Isiqua, the idea is

20:07 ↗ the urban core. You know, we've been

20:08 ↗ talking about the regional growth center

20:10 ↗ that is, you know, the heart of the

20:11 ↗ regional growth center. That is where we

20:13 ↗ want the most mixeduse activity. We want

20:16 ↗ um ground floors that are active. We

20:19 ↗ want, you know, the 18-hour city where

20:21 ↗ people can be walking day and night. And

20:23 ↗ we want the uses to be retail or

20:25 ↗ commercial. You could be a bank, you

20:27 ↗ could be a dentist, you could be a um a

20:30 ↗ shop, a clothing store. We want the

20:33 ↗ transparency there. And we want your

20:36 ↗ lobby to be there to be activating the

20:38 ↗ street where your office uses could be

20:40 ↗ elsewhere in the building. But that

20:41 ↗ street frontage for whatever that amount

20:43 ↗ is, that's what um what that

20:45 ↗ transparency, that 70% is looking at. I

20:48 ↗ totally I totally agree with all that.

20:49 ↗ Uh I just was like what is commercial

20:51 ↗ was my question. It's kind of like it

20:53 ↗ seems like a lot of things can fit in

20:55 ↗ that and

20:56 ↗ >> and I'm not sure if it just needs more

20:58 ↗ definition to what you're based on what

21:00 ↗ you just explained.

21:01 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

21:02 ↗ >> Happy to happy to specify it more. It

21:04 ↗ was um just as it exists now in code it

21:07 ↗ says multif family and commercial needs

21:09 ↗ 40% ground floor. So we just moved that

21:11 ↗ and commercial from the multif family

21:13 ↗ and commercial down to retail. But happy

21:14 ↗ happy to define it more.

21:20 ↗ mic.

21:22 ↗ >> Yeah.

21:23 ↗ >> Yes. The same. Thank you. Um because

21:25 ↗ you're already redoing all this, it

21:27 ↗ gives you the great opportunity to put

21:29 ↗ the definitions that you really want in

21:30 ↗ there that will not have these questions

21:32 ↗ in three more years from the same group

21:35 ↗ of people.

21:36 ↗ >> Yeah.

21:37 ↗ >> Commissioner Zacharov,

21:39 ↗ >> thank you. uh regarding the commercial

21:41 ↗ and retail the kind of well as a

21:44 ↗ business operator I uh exist in a world

21:47 ↗ where retail is more like a store

21:50 ↗ industrial would be something that is a

21:52 ↗ dairy gold is and commercial is let's

21:56 ↗ say my dance studio it's commercial

21:57 ↗ property so and like I don't sell for

22:00 ↗ retail but we do services so that's

22:04 ↗ that's commercial so maybe we can kind

22:06 ↗ of clarify kind of in that direction but

22:09 ↗ >> I'm just going to reiterate again with

22:10 ↗ Front Street, we had the same

22:11 ↗ conversation because it said commercial

22:13 ↗ and you don't want a dentist office to

22:15 ↗ be,

22:16 ↗ >> you know, 70%,

22:19 ↗ you know, whoops, sorry, um,

22:22 ↗ transparent. The reason we didn't

22:23 ↗ include those is because that's not a,

22:25 ↗ you know, an activation of the of Front

22:26 ↗ Street. But that was how we did it. Our,

22:29 ↗ like I said, we have categories in our

22:31 ↗ permitted uses table. And so you can say

22:34 ↗ specifically um we actually took the

22:36 ↗ definition definition of retail out of

22:38 ↗ our code when we did the overhaul

22:40 ↗ because retail uses change daily. I mean

22:44 ↗ something that we've never heard of

22:46 ↗ comes up and so we just did a general

22:48 ↗ definition of it. But if we say um we

22:51 ↗ have grocery stores, we have

22:53 ↗ restaurants, you know, we have food and

22:54 ↗ beverage as a as a category, we have um

22:59 ↗ services as a category and then we also

23:01 ↗ have medical offices. So services don't

23:02 ↗ equal medical offices. Those are two

23:04 ↗ different things. So we can be very very

23:06 ↗ specific with it that way if that's

23:07 ↗ something that you want to do.

23:10 ↗ >> Also have one.

23:11 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh my question is regarding

23:14 ↗ the number one uh did we get any

23:17 ↗ requests from developers to divide

23:19 ↗ multifamily from uh multi-tore multif

23:22 ↗ family and town homes? Did we get any

23:24 ↗ questions on that?

23:25 ↗ >> We did not get that request from

23:26 ↗ developers. That is from um my own

23:29 ↗ implementation of the code. And when

23:31 ↗ you're implementing an apartment

23:32 ↗ building versus town homes, when

23:34 ↗ apartment buildings have lobbies and

23:36 ↗ community space on the ground floor

23:37 ↗ usually versus a town home that has

23:39 ↗ their front door and their living room

23:41 ↗ windows on the ground floor. I think

23:43 ↗ it's potential that those should be

23:45 ↗ viewed differently, which is why we're

23:47 ↗ coming to you for input if you agree.

23:48 ↗ >> Okay. We also have condos and condos

23:52 ↗ have no any kind of um space on the

23:56 ↗ ground floor except for living space. So

23:58 ↗ condos aren't a use in the city. That's

24:01 ↗ a legal mechanism. So town homes could

24:03 ↗ be condos or apartment buildings could

24:04 ↗ be condos. Um so that that one kind of

24:08 ↗ falls outside of the division of that

24:10 ↗ line.

24:11 ↗ >> Yeah. But we don't have offices and

24:12 ↗ condos like there we have just

24:15 ↗ >> Oh, you mean in apartment building

24:17 ↗ condos there's units on the ground

24:18 ↗ floor?

24:19 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. So

24:20 ↗ >> Sure.

24:22 ↗ Commissioner,

24:25 ↗ >> um, up in the Highlands, I'm not sure

24:28 ↗ what regulations were in effect when,

24:31 ↗ for example, Bevmo was built or the the

24:34 ↗ so-called retail areas further up the

24:37 ↗ hill where there's now a dental office.

24:40 ↗ The dental office has um essentially

24:42 ↗ floor ceiling windows. Uh, and they have

24:46 ↗ to be obscured because patients are

24:48 ↗ right there. Um uh and Bevmo has covered

24:53 ↗ over I would say 80% of its window space

24:57 ↗ because that's where they want their

24:58 ↗ shelving for their goods. And so, um, I

25:03 ↗ mean, I I I think

25:06 ↗ our regulations have good intentions,

25:08 ↗ but, um, they don't necessarily, at

25:11 ↗ least in those two instances, did not

25:13 ↗ provide the leeway for the developer to,

25:17 ↗ um, have some deviation from the

25:20 ↗ transparency requirements.

25:25 ↗ I'm not sure where to go with that. I'm

25:27 ↗ just saying I think it's it's it's

25:29 ↗ difficult to um without any flexibility

25:33 ↗ to say you know this is what retail is.

25:35 ↗ I mean Bevmo is a retail establishment.

25:38 ↗ Safeway is a retail establishment but

25:41 ↗ threearters of the perimeter of of the

25:44 ↗ Safeway building have no windows.

25:48 ↗ So I you know I I think we just have to

25:50 ↗ be careful about how we apply any uh

25:54 ↗ desires for transparency.

25:57 ↗ And we're we're just talking about along

25:59 ↗ street frontages as well. So it's not

26:02 ↗ all the wrapping all the way around the

26:03 ↗ building. It's just the street frontages

26:05 ↗ >> for the for the 70 for the 70% on

26:09 ↗ >> the 70% urban core is just street

26:11 ↗ frontages. The 45% would be the street

26:13 ↗ frontages through block passages and

26:14 ↗ natural context areas.

26:17 ↗ >> Which would be a reduction.

26:20 ↗ >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Holstrom Holstrom.

26:23 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean 70 and 45% still seem

26:27 ↗ really high to me. And I would think

26:29 ↗ like somebody that's building a new

26:31 ↗ building, they don't know if the tenant

26:32 ↗ on the ground floor is going to be a

26:34 ↗ commercial use or a retail use when

26:37 ↗ they're designing that building. They

26:39 ↗ don't know if it's a professional

26:40 ↗ service or a restaurant that's going to

26:42 ↗ come in. So

26:45 ↗ that wouldn't be decided till the

26:46 ↗ building's complete almost or real

26:48 ↗ close. So it would to me it makes sense

26:51 ↗ to have one percentage

26:56 ↗ >> for a newer building that would be

26:57 ↗ coming in.

26:58 ↗ >> That is a great point because that is

27:00 ↗ something I've had to deal with. So that

27:02 ↗ is part of what's really hard about

27:03 ↗ having the retail separate from the

27:05 ↗ commercial as it is now and the

27:06 ↗ commercial looped in with multi- um

27:08 ↗ family. For instance, the town homes

27:09 ↗ going in next to Dairy Gold have retail

27:12 ↗ on Front Street, but it's it's re it's

27:15 ↗ retail. we made they they had to design

27:18 ↗ to the highest transparency required

27:20 ↗ because they didn't know what use was

27:22 ↗ going to go in there. So they had to

27:25 ↗ design to whatever the highest was

27:26 ↗ because if it under the current code

27:28 ↗ retail 70% but commercial is 40. Um so

27:32 ↗ it's it's a great point

27:34 ↗ >> and I would say I'm building a house

27:36 ↗ over here right now and I measured the

27:38 ↗ front of mine or transpar what I had and

27:42 ↗ it's 36t wide house. I've got seven

27:44 ↗ windows and a glass door on the front

27:47 ↗ and that comes up to like 33 34%

27:50 ↗ transparency and you couldn't hang a

27:53 ↗ piece of anything on the walls inside. I

27:55 ↗ mean, it's just windows. So, I don't

27:58 ↗ even know how they're building those

28:00 ↗ town homes with that level of

28:03 ↗ transparency requirement. I mean, it's

28:05 ↗ it's got to be quite cost-effective and

28:07 ↗ it's just going to be solid glass pretty

28:09 ↗ much or the bulk of it. So those numbers

28:13 ↗ are high in my opinion.

28:17 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Commissioner Matthews,

28:20 ↗ >> I just had a general question. Uh when

28:23 ↗ you're building a multifamily

28:25 ↗ uh development in central Isqua, can

28:28 ↗ they put parking on that ground floor

28:30 ↗ unit? Like the ground floor? I noticed

28:32 ↗ in the trail head they do have parking a

28:35 ↗ park like the first floor is parking.

28:37 ↗ So, how if that's allowed, how do you

28:40 ↗ deal with the transparency rules? Do

28:43 ↗ they have to get a deviation?

28:44 ↗ >> Well, that happens to be coming up

28:46 ↗ later. So, um in another in another

28:48 ↗ amendment, but no, no, that's okay.

28:50 ↗ Trail Head Trail Head was given I think

28:52 ↗ we may have told you this. I'm not sure,

28:53 ↗ but they through the state are allowed

28:56 ↗ to get deviations through a contract

28:58 ↗ with the city from some of the design

28:59 ↗ requirements that might make their

29:01 ↗ building more expensive. One of the

29:03 ↗ things, one of the things we require in

29:04 ↗ central Isiqua is that if you have

29:06 ↗ ground floor structured parking, it is

29:08 ↗ wrapped on the street facads with

29:11 ↗ storefronts.

29:13 ↗ And so, trail heads not having to do

29:15 ↗ that. Typically, they would, but that is

29:17 ↗ also one of the amendments that we're

29:18 ↗ looking at um early next year.

29:21 ↗ >> I thought I had seen somewhere in the um

29:24 ↗ the packet we had that the state had a

29:26 ↗ law that you could not force them to

29:28 ↗ have retail in the bottom. Is that true

29:29 ↗ or did I misread that?

29:34 ↗ No. Um, that's a whole other long thing,

29:37 ↗ but you can require it that 40% of your

29:42 ↗ zoned properties, commercially zoned

29:44 ↗ properties outside of your um trans your

29:50 ↗ transit oriented development or your

29:51 ↗ station area can require mixed use on

29:54 ↗ the ground floor.

29:55 ↗ >> Okay.

29:56 ↗ >> But only 40% of it.

29:57 ↗ >> Only 40.

29:58 ↗ >> Yeah. So, we don't have a station area

30:00 ↗ right now. So we're not actually looking

30:02 ↗ at that part yet. We're trying to

30:04 ↗ address what we can first and then Yeah.

30:06 ↗ So the other part of that is the

30:08 ↗ requiring uh multif family and

30:11 ↗ commercial areas.

30:13 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

30:16 ↗ >> I love that you all read your packets.

30:18 ↗ This is good.

30:24 ↗ >> Commissioner Der.

30:26 ↗ >> Yeah. So just to give my input on some

30:28 ↗ of the questions. I I do agree that

30:30 ↗ multi-story family and town homes serve

30:33 ↗ kind of a different purpose and a

30:34 ↗ different market. And I think it's okay

30:37 ↗ to kind of separate them in terms of

30:40 ↗ requirements, right? Because yes, multif

30:42 ↗ family homes will by and large have a

30:44 ↗ lobby at the base and town homes won't

30:47 ↗ and town homes will likely have garages.

30:51 ↗ Um,

30:53 ↗ yes, I had another comment, but my kids

30:55 ↗ distract me. So, I'll I'll be back in a

30:57 ↗ second.

31:00 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

31:01 ↗ >> I also agree that the multif family and

31:03 ↗ the town home should be separate because

31:05 ↗ again I mean it they are different.

31:08 ↗ They'll have more narrow frontage and

31:11 ↗ you know the apartments they might have

31:13 ↗ entrances in different areas or a

31:15 ↗ central zone that you enter into. So I

31:17 ↗ do think um it would probably be best to

31:20 ↗ separate those two.

31:22 ↗ >> Does everybody feel comfortable trying

31:24 ↗ to do one two three four? See where

31:25 ↗ everybody's standing?

31:26 ↗ >> Okay. May May I offer up another option?

31:29 ↗ >> Sure.

31:30 ↗ >> You know, I just throw them all out

31:31 ↗ there. Um, but to Commissioner

31:32 ↗ Zacharov's point, you know, you're going

31:34 ↗ through New York or, you know, any other

31:36 ↗ city that has them. You have condos on

31:38 ↗ the first floor. If you've got stacked

31:39 ↗ flats, condos, those will be on the

31:41 ↗ first floor. So, another option is to

31:43 ↗ say that any uh ground floor residential

31:46 ↗ units have to meet the 15% and then the

31:50 ↗ rest of it has to meet something else.

31:52 ↗ >> Can we say ground floor but not specify

31:53 ↗ the 15% yet? Cuz that's more

31:59 ↗ Okay. Who's comfortable with uh question

32:02 ↗ one as far as should multif family be

32:05 ↗ bro further broken down to multi-story a

32:07 ↗ multi-story multif family and town

32:09 ↗ homes?

32:13 ↗ So I think that um you know these are

32:15 ↗ informal but I think you got the idea.

32:18 ↗ Uh okay. Does it make sense for

32:21 ↗ commercial to be grouped with retail as

32:23 ↗ now proposed instead of with multif

32:25 ↗ family residential as currently exists?

32:28 ↗ I think we're probably looking for more

32:31 ↗ information about how we define those.

32:33 ↗ At least I am.

32:38 ↗ >> What's that?

32:40 ↗ >> Yeah.

32:40 ↗ >> So, probably yes, but more information.

32:42 ↗ >> More information.

32:44 ↗ Does reducing the citywide retail and

32:46 ↗ commercial transparency standard to 45%

32:49 ↗ achieve the code amendment and city

32:51 ↗ goals? And then just this is a

32:53 ↗ clarifying question for me. So the

32:55 ↗ developers were looking for 15. We're

32:57 ↗ currently at 70 and we're trying to go

33:00 ↗ meet them halfway around 45

33:02 ↗ >> around 45% and also um part of the

33:05 ↗ reason part of the reason that's

33:07 ↗ selected halfway but also um because

33:09 ↗ that's the current standard in our CBD

33:11 ↗ zone along Front Street and Sunset which

33:13 ↗ is arguably one of our most commercial

33:15 ↗ stretches in the city. Um and so if

33:18 ↗ that's being applied there currently and

33:19 ↗ it's working that feels like a good

33:21 ↗ consistent standard to apply throughout.

33:24 ↗ >> Okay. Rather than raising it an

33:25 ↗ additional 25%. Okay,

33:28 ↗ minding what Commissioner Holmstrom said

33:30 ↗ as well. So, but I'll ask the question

33:33 ↗ as it stated again, is everyone

33:35 ↗ comfortable with the citywide retail

33:37 ↗ transparency standard to 45% to achieve

33:40 ↗ the code amendment and city goals?

33:46 ↗ >> Okay,

33:49 ↗ I think you've got about half of us

33:51 ↗ convinced that's okay, right? I just

33:54 ↗ have three. I think everybody could

33:57 ↗ going back to the meeting two weeks ago.

33:59 ↗ It's it's hard to pinpoint that number.

34:01 ↗ I take Commissioner Holmstrom's uh

34:03 ↗ comments, you know.

34:04 ↗ >> I would love to see some examples though

34:07 ↗ of what it would look like for 45 versus

34:11 ↗ 50. You know, just some kind of like I

34:13 ↗ did the ones on my own, but and I think

34:15 ↗ to um Homestöm's thing, were you looking

34:17 ↗ at the 6T and above number or the 5ft

34:20 ↗ and the balloon? So he was looking at

34:22 ↗ the whole facade. So that also

34:25 ↗ introduces another thing because in our

34:27 ↗ code we have up to six feet for retail

34:30 ↗ and then I mean up to 5 ft for retail

34:33 ↗ and 6 ft and above for multif family. So

34:36 ↗ I mean I'm just saying it it's different

34:39 ↗ when you're looking at things and based

34:41 ↗ on how the windows are arranged the

34:43 ↗ purpose.

34:44 ↗ >> Examples.

34:45 ↗ >> Yeah, examples would be great. Vice

34:47 ↗ Chair Patterson

34:48 ↗ >> add to I I guess just some thoughts on

34:50 ↗ that too is uh I mean you brought up the

34:52 ↗ idea that Oldtown and Front Street is

34:54 ↗ currently 45% and I think um personally

34:59 ↗ I think that's probably our most

35:00 ↗ pedestrian friendly walkable like

35:02 ↗ enjoyable area in terms of like walking

35:04 ↗ down the street. And so when I think

35:06 ↗ about like how I would want the rest of

35:08 ↗ the city to develop in a pedestrian

35:10 ↗ friendly way I feel like that is a great

35:12 ↗ example of somewhere in our city that

35:14 ↗ has that. And so that's what makes me

35:15 ↗ think 45 is probably okay. I don't given

35:19 ↗ I 70 is way too high. Um I think I could

35:23 ↗ be convinced lower potentially.

35:24 ↗ Definitely not 15%. Um but I think 45 is

35:28 ↗ a good starting out point as we continue

35:30 ↗ to look at examples and such.

35:32 ↗ >> Excellent point. Uh Commissioner Crafts.

35:34 ↗ >> So um when you said 45 in Oldtown, that

35:38 ↗ is what the rule is, but I'm curious

35:40 ↗ what the actuals are. So that's by

35:42 ↗ looking at each one we they may be the

35:45 ↗ rule of 45 but they may be at 70. So

35:47 ↗ that what you like may be higher than

35:49 ↗ 45. So it'd be great on your examples of

35:52 ↗ true actual buildings and then picture

35:56 ↗ and then what that would actually be in

35:58 ↗ terms of the percentage and that I think

36:00 ↗ that would be a lot more that'll be very

36:01 ↗ informative um because we may find that

36:04 ↗ the ones on Front Street are all

36:06 ↗ exceedingly higher than the 45. Um, so

36:10 ↗ then we'll have a better sense of what

36:11 ↗ 45 really means or what 60 means or what

36:14 ↗ 55 means or whatever.

36:16 ↗ >> Come back with some examples. When you

36:17 ↗ see me on Front Street with a measuring

36:18 ↗ tape, you'll know what I'm doing.

36:20 ↗ >> That's excellent. I was kind of

36:21 ↗ thinking, yeah, if the examples could

36:23 ↗ actually use our city.

36:24 ↗ >> Yeah, some real life examples. I think

36:25 ↗ sounds like it would be helpful.

36:26 ↗ >> I'm just thinking of like Fischer Meat,

36:28 ↗ that's probably quite a lot of glass.

36:30 ↗ And then you go over to uh Los

36:31 ↗ Margaritas, not a lot of glass.

36:33 ↗ >> So again, to Commissioner Crass's point,

36:37 ↗ um, so again, I think we're split there.

36:38 ↗ want some examples, but I think

36:40 ↗ ultimately you could probably convince

36:42 ↗ us 45% is the

36:44 ↗ >> Well, at least to start from I I'm in

36:48 ↗ agreement with uh Vice Chair Patterson.

36:50 ↗ I think 15 is way too low

36:52 ↗ >> and I think 70 is way too high. So, it's

36:54 ↗ trying to find, you know, the porridge

36:56 ↗ that's just right.

36:58 ↗ Okay. Additionally, does applying the

37:01 ↗ 70% transparency standard to just high

37:04 ↗ priority growth in pedestrian areas

37:06 ↗ achieve the city's visions and goals or

37:08 ↗ should this or should they stay as it

37:12 ↗ exists today and apply 70% transparency

37:15 ↗ more generally across the use.

37:21 ↗ Um okay.

37:24 ↗ I'm going to

37:26 ↗ questions. Yes,

37:29 ↗ >> Fred. Commissioner Matthews,

37:30 ↗ >> I kind of think that if you keep it at

37:32 ↗ 70, it's kind of like we've been

37:34 ↗ discussing before, you're not thinking

37:36 ↗ about what use is going in there. So,

37:37 ↗ what

37:38 ↗ >> Yeah, 70 is nice, but if somebody's

37:40 ↗ going to put a bunch of shelving in

37:42 ↗ front of it, I'd rather not see that.

37:44 ↗ So, maybe when we're looking at the

37:46 ↗ transparency and you know, we have

37:49 ↗ commercial and retail and services is

37:52 ↗ completely different. A dentist office,

37:53 ↗ you don't want 70. So maybe it comes

37:56 ↗ down to services versus retail. I'm not

37:58 ↗ sure because you do want to give them

38:00 ↗ flexibility on how much wall space they

38:03 ↗ can hang their merchandise on um and how

38:06 ↗ much you want the transparency obscured

38:09 ↗ at some point because it doesn't fit the

38:11 ↗ the future use of that building. I hope

38:14 ↗ that makes sense.

38:16 ↗ >> Absolutely. I I think it kind of goes to

38:17 ↗ Kristen's point about the different like

38:19 ↗ you said and I my question is doesn't

38:21 ↗ that make a ton more work for all of you

38:25 ↗ >> to just apply the 70% to UC?

38:27 ↗ >> No. No. The exact opposite to have the

38:29 ↗ different permitted uses and okay this

38:31 ↗ is your permitted use and this is okay

38:33 ↗ now you're a dentist office now you're a

38:35 ↗ veterinarian now you're an art shop. Now

38:37 ↗ you're this and I get it because I agree

38:41 ↗ that you know nobody wants to see people

38:44 ↗ getting worked on their teeth on Front

38:46 ↗ Street.

38:47 ↗ >> Commissioner Cass.

38:48 ↗ >> Sorry. So I also am curious if you think

38:51 ↗ from a longer term view. Is it better to

38:53 ↗ have a building that has glass but

38:55 ↗ inside's wrapped because they have other

38:59 ↗ shelving or something like that just

39:01 ↗ from the view from the outside versus

39:03 ↗ just a wall? And I and I have a belief

39:06 ↗ set and once again when we look at

39:08 ↗ examples it still may feel better when

39:10 ↗ you're walking down a street if you see

39:12 ↗ a bunch of glass even though they may

39:13 ↗ have like Bevmo has you know in you know

39:18 ↗ some some opaque things in there versus

39:21 ↗ just brick walls. So I'm just it's even

39:24 ↗ though the uses may change, there's ways

39:27 ↗ of handling that and maybe still having

39:29 ↗ a requirement that may seem a little

39:30 ↗ stricter, but it gives a better vibe

39:35 ↗ what we're trying to do from a a

39:36 ↗ walkability for the pedestrian. So

39:38 ↗ understanding what that

39:39 ↗ >> Sure.

39:40 ↗ >> So the once again go back to the real

39:41 ↗ life examples. I think you know pictures

39:44 ↗ a thousand words. Is that right? There

39:46 ↗ you go.

39:46 ↗ >> Pictures worth a million.

39:47 ↗ >> Yeah. Thousand. Yeah.

39:51 ↗ I would just if I could just add one

39:52 ↗ absolutely permitting thought as we're

39:54 ↗ talking about examples just um

39:58 ↗ >> the just specifically because this is

40:00 ↗ just in our code um you if you are

40:03 ↗ required to have this level of

40:04 ↗ transparency that sign standard that's

40:06 ↗ in the sign you you can't cover the

40:08 ↗ windows in signs there's actually a

40:10 ↗ specific percentage that windows are

40:12 ↗ allowed to be covered in signs and I

40:13 ↗ want to say it's 25% you can't cover

40:16 ↗ more than 25% of your windows in signs

40:18 ↗ so you could to um Commissioner Crass's

40:20 ↗ this point dentist office put in blinds

40:22 ↗ to cover up the windows but then if a

40:25 ↗ retail shop comes in those blinds can be

40:26 ↗ removed but when it comes to like the

40:28 ↗ Bev Mo example or that kind of thing

40:29 ↗ like we've had to have other um

40:33 ↗ retailers remove opaque window signs

40:36 ↗ because you have to maintain a certain

40:38 ↗ percent of transparency.

40:40 ↗ >> So is a sign so if I use a no words on

40:44 ↗ it but is a a window film on the inside

40:47 ↗ is that considered a sign? It doesn't

40:49 ↗ say anything. So, what is the definition

40:51 ↗ of a sign then?

40:52 ↗ >> You're not going to love my answer if it

40:53 ↗ depends. Um,

40:54 ↗ >> I'm just saying like my like I live on a

40:56 ↗ busy street and on my front door I had

41:00 ↗ one of those windows just a film put in

41:03 ↗ like so you can't really kind of see

41:04 ↗ inside. It's still glass and has a nice

41:07 ↗ vibe.

41:07 ↗ >> Not not a sign.

41:08 ↗ >> Okay. So,

41:10 ↗ >> yeah, but I was just to the sign

41:11 ↗ portion, but to your point, yes, if a

41:13 ↗ dentist office goes in that doesn't want

41:15 ↗ to see people, they put they can put up

41:16 ↗ blinds and that kind of thing and that's

41:18 ↗ allowed. But the signage itself and the

41:20 ↗ mud bay putting up their signs across

41:22 ↗ every windows is not allowed.

41:24 ↗ >> And can I just add that some cities do

41:26 ↗ not allow you to darken your window if

41:28 ↗ there's a transparency requirement. So

41:29 ↗ there

41:30 ↗ >> we also have a dark tint prohibition on

41:32 ↗ ours as well.

41:33 ↗ >> Um, Commissioner Derek,

41:36 ↗ >> I so um are we kind of on a detour then

41:39 ↗ from number four? because this is kind

41:41 ↗ of how not how I understood the question

41:43 ↗ but because how I understand number four

41:46 ↗ and correct me if I'm wrong is you know

41:47 ↗ some cities have higher activation

41:50 ↗ streets where they have different

41:52 ↗ transparency levels than lower

41:54 ↗ activation streets. So I'm not opposed

41:57 ↗ to that but I would worry that if our

42:01 ↗ goal is to simplify code this might be

42:03 ↗ going in the opposite direction. And

42:06 ↗ like let's say right now we're expecting

42:08 ↗ the light rail to go to location A, but

42:12 ↗ something happens and it gets put in

42:14 ↗ location B. How do we adjust if we do

42:18 ↗ the street activation? Would we then

42:20 ↗ have to go in and adjust the code as

42:25 ↗ our use of the city evolves and changes

42:27 ↗ in the future?

42:29 ↗ >> Uh to answer the first point, yes, we

42:31 ↗ did go on a detour. That is that is that

42:35 ↗ is the intention of it. Um to answer the

42:38 ↗ second point potentially, yes. Um I

42:41 ↗ might throw the mic to Kate because she

42:43 ↗ loves this topic, but that you know

42:45 ↗ that's that's that's what our sub area

42:48 ↗ and our long range plans are for is this

42:49 ↗ is what we want to see this area become.

42:52 ↗ And right now urban core is what we want

42:54 ↗ to see become our pedestrian priority.

42:56 ↗ Our growth center are where we want this

42:59 ↗ type of activation to occur. which is

43:02 ↗ why um staff has proposed the 70% just

43:06 ↗ there.

43:08 ↗ >> Great. Commissioner Matthews, did you

43:10 ↗ have your hand up?

43:11 ↗ >> Well, I might be going off topic, but

43:14 ↗ the one thing I think we forget is that

43:15 ↗ there's other options besides

43:17 ↗ transparency. You could have like living

43:19 ↗ walls with greenery to take in cases

43:23 ↗ like that or you put artwork up that for

43:26 ↗ those cases where you have a service

43:28 ↗ that doesn't need a 70% transparency. Um

43:32 ↗ and maybe the developers would be not

43:34 ↗ happy with having to add, you know, a

43:36 ↗ seat or something for pedestrians, but

43:39 ↗ that those are other options to look at

43:40 ↗ besides the 70%. That may be nice to add

43:44 ↗ more artwork, more living walls in the

43:46 ↗ city because that's kind of nice too to

43:49 ↗ see a lot more greenery.

43:51 ↗ >> Yeah, I was thinking of

43:52 ↗ >> especially with all the glass and brick

43:55 ↗ and everywhere. So,

43:57 ↗ >> yeah. No, I was thinking of a example

43:58 ↗ that I believe you guys provided two

44:00 ↗ weeks ago which kind of had like, you

44:02 ↗ know, the buildings are modulated. They

44:04 ↗ had brick and they almost had like um it

44:07 ↗ was like framed in and then the brick

44:09 ↗ was set back like six inches and they

44:11 ↗ had ivy or something in there. I mean

44:13 ↗ that looked great. That looked nice. So,

44:17 ↗ >> uh Commissioner Holmstrom,

44:19 ↗ >> I think we're all pretty focused on the

44:21 ↗ visual aspects of transparency, which is

44:24 ↗ a fine conversation to have. Um, if I

44:26 ↗ and I hate to ask for more information

44:29 ↗ because I know you're all so busy, but

44:31 ↗ part of me is, you know, the developers

44:33 ↗ have brought up the added con

44:35 ↗ construction costs with the new state

44:37 ↗ building codes and I I can tell you it's

44:40 ↗ significant just in what I do. I mean,

44:42 ↗ it's dramatic and I know there's another

44:44 ↗ building code update coming that's going

44:46 ↗ to be even more stringent. So, is there

44:49 ↗ is there any information we could get on

44:51 ↗ kind of what that looks like compared to

44:54 ↗ what it was

44:56 ↗ >> as far as windows go to what's being

44:57 ↗ required now, which may be required in

45:01 ↗ the future.

45:03 ↗ >> I don't know. Maybe there's not. But I

45:05 ↗ feel like that's a conversation we

45:08 ↗ probably need to address before we pick

45:11 ↗ a percentage on how expensive this is

45:14 ↗ for anybody trying to build a new

45:16 ↗ building. the uh to clarify the change

45:19 ↗ to the build the change to the building

45:21 ↗ code.

45:22 ↗ >> Yeah. The Washington state building, you

45:24 ↗ know, the requirements for energy

45:26 ↗ efficiency and all that.

45:28 ↗ >> Okay. You would like to see what those

45:29 ↗ numbers are.

45:30 ↗ >> I'm just wondering if there's any

45:31 ↗ information that might be available that

45:33 ↗ or feedback from somebody on the costs

45:36 ↗ that are being incurred trying to meet

45:39 ↗ all this glass requirement.

45:41 ↗ >> I feel like some cities have adopted it

45:43 ↗ already. We can look and see and try.

45:45 ↗ >> Yeah, I will. We can talk to our We can

45:47 ↗ say I'll talk to our building official.

45:49 ↗ That one's outside my

45:51 ↗ >> land use code scope, but I will I I'm

45:53 ↗ happy to talk to our building official.

45:55 ↗ >> I know this is a problem for anybody

45:57 ↗ trying to build something. So, I'm just

45:58 ↗ wondering if we could get any if there

46:00 ↗ is any information to kind of put that

46:02 ↗ in focus.

46:03 ↗ >> Sure.

46:04 ↗ >> Thanks,

46:06 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson.

46:08 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that's a good point is

46:09 ↗ that, you know, we are kind of still

46:11 ↗ arbitrarily putting numbers out there

46:13 ↗ where we're like, well, this one doesn't

46:14 ↗ work, this one doesn't work. I think

46:16 ↗ what would be helpful is like data

46:19 ↗ driven decision-m right like we're

46:22 ↗ hearing from developers and this is as

46:24 ↗ you mentioned like part of this whole

46:25 ↗ conversation is like how we make it

46:26 ↗ easier for them to build or more cheaper

46:29 ↗ or affordable um and so that's the

46:32 ↗ reason for bringing it down right now

46:33 ↗ we're all trying to maintain it for the

46:35 ↗ for the community perspective of like

46:37 ↗ the walkability and the how it looks and

46:39 ↗ and how it feels so I think to to try

46:42 ↗ and you know focus this in it's To

46:45 ↗ Crash's point earlier, it's trying to

46:47 ↗ understand what it looks like, right?

46:48 ↗ Like what does 40% look like? What does

46:50 ↗ 70% look like? What does 15% look like

46:53 ↗ in our town today? And then from a

46:56 ↗ developer standpoint, what does it cost

46:57 ↗ to do those things? What does 15%, you

47:00 ↗ know, going from 70 to 40 to 15 look

47:02 ↗ like from a dollars and cents

47:03 ↗ perspective? And and trying to

47:06 ↗ understand like where we can land

47:08 ↗ amongst that because we are trying to

47:10 ↗ balance those things, right? we're those

47:12 ↗ are truly the two things that were

47:13 ↗ brought to us is the developers say it's

47:15 ↗ too expensive to do x amount and we're

47:17 ↗ saying we don't want to go too far in

47:19 ↗ one direction and have big blank walls.

47:21 ↗ So I think if we get the data that both

47:23 ↗ of you have kind of brought up that'll

47:24 ↗ help us kind of get to where we want to

47:26 ↗ go in terms of feeling better about a

47:29 ↗ number or a percentage.

47:39 ↗ Any other comments? I don't feel like we

47:40 ↗ did too well on question four, but

47:42 ↗ that's okay.

47:43 ↗ >> We I have a whole long list of

47:45 ↗ assignments for question four.

47:46 ↗ >> Okay. Got a lot of homework for question

47:48 ↗ four.

47:49 ↗ >> Yes, I will I will be coming back with

47:50 ↗ this before the public hearing. So

47:52 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, I think that'd be great. I

47:54 ↗ think everyone would feel better. Again,

47:55 ↗ I I to Vice Chair Patterson's point

47:57 ↗ earlier, 15 seems way too low. 70 seems

48:00 ↗ unreasonably high.

48:02 ↗ >> We don't want everything. may ask a more

48:04 ↗ general question. Absolutely. Let's not

48:07 ↗ talk percentages, but how does the

48:09 ↗ commission feel about our urban core

48:11 ↗ having a different probably higher

48:14 ↗ percentage than the rest of the city?

48:17 ↗ Just on the face of that in general,

48:20 ↗ >> the question's been put to all of you.

48:23 ↗ I'm okay with it.

48:25 ↗ >> So,

48:26 ↗ do do we have statistics of pedestrian

48:30 ↗ flow of urban core versus other areas?

48:32 ↗ because I think or or expectations I

48:35 ↗ should say

48:36 ↗ >> because that'll help drive it where

48:37 ↗ where there's more people walking and

48:39 ↗ being

48:40 ↗ >> yes you should have more

48:41 ↗ >> that's the idea of the the 18 hour

48:44 ↗ >> no to statistics yes to upcoming

48:46 ↗ expectations that that's where our

48:47 ↗ growth will be

48:48 ↗ >> but that is the idea of like the you

48:50 ↗ know the RG the the regional growth

48:51 ↗ center that's where we want

48:54 ↗ >> right so I think in generally I think

48:57 ↗ people are okay with the higher number

48:59 ↗ >> yeah just yeah because for me one

49:01 ↗ concern I have is I don't want people we

49:03 ↗ build this beautiful light rail station

49:05 ↗ and then people get off and then there's

49:07 ↗ towering prison-like buildings and then

49:09 ↗ they never want to come visit here,

49:10 ↗ right? And also though you have a higher

49:14 ↗ desiraability of land that's near the

49:16 ↗ light rail so we can increase costs in

49:18 ↗ other ways like transparency and get

49:20 ↗ away with it.

49:22 ↗ >> So to Emily's point, is everyone

49:24 ↗ comfortable with the

49:26 ↗ urban core area having a higher

49:29 ↗ standard?

49:33 ↗ Great. Thank you.

49:34 ↗ >> I don't think you're going to get a

49:35 ↗ solid yes out of any of us, but

49:36 ↗ >> that that was good enough. I appreciate

49:38 ↗ it.

49:38 ↗ >> Yes. So,

49:42 ↗ >> okay.

49:43 ↗ >> All right. So, I think we're ready to

49:44 ↗ move on to

49:45 ↗ >> number two.

49:50 ↗ >> Second amendment related natural context

49:54 ↗ areas. Um just again the history that um

49:58 ↗ ye went over. Um these are generally

50:01 ↗ areas in the city that are regulated

50:02 ↗ streams, wetlands, but also city parks,

50:05 ↗ open space, private open space. Um and

50:08 ↗ the goal is to have developments that

50:10 ↗ prioritize resource management and

50:12 ↗ integrate is Aqua's natural features um

50:15 ↗ while ensuring they remain accessible to

50:16 ↗ the public. And a reminder of the goal

50:18 ↗ from the council level is to provide

50:20 ↗ flexibility um in our transparency

50:22 ↗ requirements.

50:24 ↗ Um so again, uh issues around natural

50:27 ↗ context areas, multif family project

50:29 ↗ sites, um when natural contact areas

50:32 ↗ have challenges meeting those

50:33 ↗ regulations. Um and this is focused

50:35 ↗ within central Isiqua.

50:39 ↗ The current regulations, the buildings

50:41 ↗ need to be oriented towards these

50:42 ↗ natural areas. Um the site area between

50:46 ↗ the building and the natural area needs

50:48 ↗ to um help connect it. natural

50:50 ↗ materials, native plants, um designing

50:53 ↗ buildings um with things like balconies

50:55 ↗ and stoops facing the natural areas,

50:57 ↗ public walkways connecting to it. Um and

51:00 ↗ if adjacent to a water having water

51:02 ↗ oriented features.

51:06 ↗ Uh so recommendations

51:08 ↗ around the natural context area um

51:13 ↗ sorry my notes around the natural

51:15 ↗ context area code is amendments to

51:17 ↗ eliminate sections that are vague or

51:19 ↗ better implemented by more specific

51:21 ↗ sections within the same code. Um

51:24 ↗ removing code specifying natural

51:26 ↗ materials as that's ill-defined and very

51:29 ↗ likely in conflict with upcoming state

51:30 ↗ law changes. And then lastly to remove

51:33 ↗ the transparency requirement to reduce

51:35 ↗ code redundancy since we have a whole

51:37 ↗ transparency section it doesn't need to

51:38 ↗ exist in this one as well. Um and since

51:42 ↗ that's already addressed remove that

51:43 ↗ here.

51:46 ↗ So main question for the commission um

51:49 ↗ for this section of code building

51:52 ↗ orientation to natural areas in central

51:53 ↗ Isiqua should the applicability be

51:56 ↗ changed to just address sites that

51:58 ↗ directly adjoin a natural contact zone?

52:01 ↗ So in this case it would mean if there

52:03 ↗ was a street separating the building

52:06 ↗ site from the natural context area they

52:08 ↗ wouldn't need to be oriented towards the

52:10 ↗ zone. Right now as it reads anything in

52:13 ↗ the natural context zone has to orient

52:15 ↗ towards it. Um so our question is should

52:17 ↗ that remain or should we change that to

52:20 ↗ um only require ones that directly

52:23 ↗ adjoin the natural contact zone?

52:27 ↗ >> Great. Thank you Emily. Hands up. Uh,

52:29 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson,

52:32 ↗ >> uh, remind me on that distance. It's 150

52:34 ↗ ft. Is that correct?

52:35 ↗ >> Correct.

52:36 ↗ >> Okay. Uh, I'm just going to get straight

52:38 ↗ to a personal opinion on this one. Um, I

52:41 ↗ think that part makes sense to not apply

52:44 ↗ for a street or parcel with the carveout

52:46 ↗ that if it's a trail or a pedestrian

52:49 ↗ path, then it should apply. Meaning if

52:52 ↗ there's a trailer pedestrian path they

52:54 ↗ should have to face that natural even if

52:57 ↗ so natural contact area trailer path

53:00 ↗ house it should face that still.

53:04 ↗ >> Okay. So if it's a vehicular street that

53:07 ↗ it doesn't need to then orient the the

53:09 ↗ natural context area on the opposite

53:10 ↗ side of vehicular street. But if it's a

53:12 ↗ pedestrian trail and there's a natural

53:13 ↗ context area on the opposite side it

53:15 ↗ should.

53:15 ↗ >> Yes.

53:16 ↗ >> Got it.

53:17 ↗ >> I think I think Commissioner Olen I can

53:20 ↗ I can see him over there. brings up a

53:22 ↗ good point.

53:22 ↗ >> I mean, bicycle paths sort of bridge

53:24 ↗ that question of vehicle versus

53:26 ↗ pedestrian. So, I'm not sure how you how

53:29 ↗ you address that. I think, you know,

53:32 ↗ with with a street in between, clearly,

53:35 ↗ uh, you don't want maximum transparency.

53:39 ↗ Um, and I think depending on how busy

53:41 ↗ that path would be, whether it's a

53:43 ↗ bicycle or pedestrian path that you

53:46 ↗ would might have similar transparency,

53:49 ↗ visibility issues. So, I I hate to keep

53:53 ↗ muddying the waters here. But I I think

53:56 ↗ we we have to define what street is

53:59 ↗ versus path.

54:01 ↗ >> I would like to refocus this question

54:04 ↗ that it's not just about transparency.

54:06 ↗ It's about the whole building being

54:08 ↗ oriented that way.

54:09 ↗ >> Just just making sure we're on the same

54:11 ↗ page.

54:12 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Matthews. Oh, I'm

54:14 ↗ sorry. Commissioner, you sure?

54:16 ↗ >> Okay, Commissioner.

54:17 ↗ >> I was just thinking of the Confluence

54:18 ↗ Park and how that's just a small

54:20 ↗ residential street and it does face the

54:22 ↗ context area and I think they should be

54:24 ↗ oriented. I don't want to see the back

54:26 ↗ of somebody's building in that natural

54:28 ↗ environment. So, I think there's a

54:31 ↗ difference between a residential street

54:32 ↗ and maybe like a four lane or a three

54:35 ↗ whatever it is on Gilman. Um, that may

54:37 ↗ be completely different or if there's a

54:39 ↗ parcel that's going to be built on, I

54:43 ↗ think that would be separate, too. But a

54:44 ↗ residential street I think should be it

54:47 ↗ should face the natural context area

54:49 ↗ because they're usually pretty narrow.

54:51 ↗ One and a half car um to two car lane.

54:56 ↗ No,

54:56 ↗ >> these are great points. Like I said,

54:57 ↗ it's great discussion. So, uh,

54:59 ↗ Commissioner D,

55:00 ↗ >> I think you're kind, it kind of is

55:02 ↗ introducing some confusion because we

55:06 ↗ also say in the code that if you're like

55:08 ↗ along water, you need to create a

55:10 ↗ pathway. So then if we're saying you

55:12 ↗ don't have to orient towards a pathway,

55:14 ↗ but you have to create an orient towards

55:16 ↗ a pathway or another example would be if

55:19 ↗ you have a street frank quite frequently

55:23 ↗ you also have pedestrian walkway along

55:26 ↗ that street. So then if most places also

55:29 ↗ have to be oriented towards their

55:31 ↗ pedestrian walkway. Do you see what I'm

55:33 ↗ saying? It's like do we create

55:35 ↗ >> I I'm definitely seeing that. I did not

55:37 ↗ phrase this question as well as I could

55:38 ↗ have. Um

55:41 ↗ the intent behind this was an actual

55:44 ↗ street, not a trail, not a pedestrian

55:47 ↗ pathway, but a two-lane

55:50 ↗ vehicular street.

55:51 ↗ >> Right. But a two-lane vehicular street

55:53 ↗ often times would have a sidewalk.

55:55 ↗ >> Sure.

55:55 ↗ >> Right. And so in that case, does the

55:57 ↗ sidewalk supersede or do you see what

56:01 ↗ I'm saying? Because they're going to

56:02 ↗ have to be oriented towards the sidewalk

56:04 ↗ anyways, wouldn't they? Or would it

56:06 ↗ depend?

56:10 ↗ May I?

56:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. So, trail head. Trail head.

56:15 ↗ I'm sorry. Did I miss it?

56:16 ↗ >> No. I just was like, she could just see

56:18 ↗ my brain whirling.

56:23 ↗ Trailhead. trail head has four

56:25 ↗ streets around it, right? It's Well,

56:28 ↗ okay.

56:30 ↗ Anyway, there are two buildings. Um,

56:33 ↗ they came across an issue. They have a

56:35 ↗ natural context area to one side, they

56:37 ↗ have a critical area to one side, and

56:39 ↗ then they have two regular streets. But

56:41 ↗ on the on the south side where they're

56:43 ↗ going to build that building, they are

56:44 ↗ not going to have to build an additional

56:45 ↗ sidewalk even though it's adjacent to an

56:48 ↗ extra natural context area because they

56:50 ↗ already have that sidewalk. Um, they are

56:53 ↗ having to build Oh, I had a better

56:55 ↗ thought before I started this. Um, but

56:58 ↗ they are having to build

57:00 ↗ >> Keep going. I'm going to pick it up when

57:02 ↗ you put it down. I know where you're

57:03 ↗ going.

57:03 ↗ >> The garages.

57:04 ↗ >> Yeah.

57:05 ↗ >> Yeah. They're having to build the

57:06 ↗ garages on the street now. We would

57:09 ↗ rather have those garages along that

57:11 ↗ other street than along the natural

57:13 ↗ context areas.

57:15 ↗ And Emily, you're going to have to pick

57:16 ↗ it up now.

57:18 ↗ Sorry, I held very long.

57:21 ↗ >> I think what she's getting at is that

57:23 ↗ trail head does face this exact

57:25 ↗ conundrum, right? It has a natural

57:26 ↗ context area on one side, it has a

57:28 ↗ throughblock passage on the other side,

57:29 ↗ and has a street on the other side. And

57:31 ↗ so, how are they orienting the building

57:33 ↗ towards all three of those? Um, and is

57:36 ↗ that where you're

57:38 ↗ they are orienting it? You don't want

57:40 ↗ the garage the garage has to go

57:41 ↗ somewhere. You don't want the garage

57:42 ↗ oriented towards the next natural.

57:44 ↗ They're just they're naturally going to

57:45 ↗ do that. But but my question is I I

57:48 ↗ think I mispoke then cuz my question is

57:50 ↗ kind of like okay

57:52 ↗ >> here you have beautiful natural context

57:55 ↗ area here you have a street the street

57:58 ↗ has sidewalks

58:00 ↗ here you have an apartment going in

58:03 ↗ right so I'm assuming you're that this

58:07 ↗ situation then

58:09 ↗ >> you want it oriented towards the

58:11 ↗ sidewalk anyways so then this whether or

58:14 ↗ not there's there's a street there is

58:16 ↗ kind of irrelevant.

58:18 ↗ >> Yes.

58:18 ↗ >> Right. Because or whether or not Yes. Do

58:21 ↗ you see what I'm saying? So it's like

58:22 ↗ >> the building is orient towards the

58:24 ↗ street anyways. Yes.

58:25 ↗ >> Um because that's where they get their

58:27 ↗ pedestrian access from and that. So yes,

58:30 ↗ it generally speaking that will most

58:32 ↗ likely be the case is even if it is

58:34 ↗ building street natural context area,

58:36 ↗ it's going to face the natural context

58:37 ↗ area because it's going to face the

58:38 ↗ street. However, natural context area in

58:41 ↗ requiring the building to be oriented

58:42 ↗ towards that has other requirements as

58:44 ↗ well like having the stoops and the

58:45 ↗ porches and the balconies. So that's

58:47 ↗ part of saying if it's directly adjoined

58:49 ↗ versus just adjacent to if it's just

58:52 ↗ adjacent to across

58:53 ↗ >> right now even if it's across the street

58:56 ↗ >> because there's above and beyond.

58:57 ↗ >> Yeah. So even if it's just next to the

59:00 ↗ street right now in the natural context

59:02 ↗ areas on the other side it has to meet

59:04 ↗ this whole menu of options. We're

59:05 ↗ saying, do we want them to have to meet

59:07 ↗ all of that if they're across the street

59:08 ↗ or do we want them to only have to meet

59:10 ↗ all that code if they're directly

59:11 ↗ adjoining it?

59:12 ↗ >> Got it. I think directly adjoining, but

59:15 ↗ that's I'm still listening.

59:19 ↗ >> Commissioner Alner,

59:22 ↗ I

59:22 ↗ >> I mean, I think if you've got a natural

59:24 ↗ context area, you'd want to have your

59:28 ↗ apartments face that regardless of

59:31 ↗ whether there's a street in between or

59:32 ↗ not. So, is it possible to to uncouple

59:36 ↗ the the requirements for balconies and

59:40 ↗ various other amenities when you have a

59:43 ↗ street but still require uh the

59:46 ↗ buildings to orient towards the natural

59:49 ↗ context regardless of whether there's a

59:51 ↗ street there or not? So, maybe maybe I

59:55 ↗ would ask a different question than than

59:57 ↗ what you were asking. I mean, we have a

1:00:00 ↗ lot see the map that uh that Sandra

1:00:03 ↗ requested um showed a huge amount of our

1:00:08 ↗ city as having natural context areas.

1:00:11 ↗ So, this isn't it's not a a minor

1:00:15 ↗ question for future development. It's

1:00:18 ↗ kind of very important and central to

1:00:21 ↗ how you orient your buildings.

1:00:30 ↗ I

1:00:32 ↗ am I not making myself

1:00:33 ↗ >> No, I uh I'm having a hard time picking

1:00:37 ↗ the question out out of that that you

1:00:38 ↗ want me to respond to.

1:00:39 ↗ >> I'm not sure that there is a question. I

1:00:41 ↗ think my my opinion is based on the on

1:00:44 ↗ your question in the previous slide that

1:00:47 ↗ I think they should be oriented towards

1:00:49 ↗ the natural context whether there's a

1:00:52 ↗ road or street there or not. Okay. the

1:00:54 ↗ the what the the other implications of

1:00:57 ↗ that aren't necessarily compatible with

1:01:00 ↗ having a street there. You know, you

1:01:02 ↗ don't want to necessarily have a patio

1:01:04 ↗ right next to a a two-lane road. So, is

1:01:07 ↗ there a way to uncouple that orientation

1:01:12 ↗ requirement from the other requirements

1:01:14 ↗ that now um fall under that category?

1:01:18 ↗ >> Okay. I apologize. I am following you

1:01:19 ↗ now. Yes. So um that just having it the

1:01:23 ↗ building even if it doesn't adjoin but

1:01:25 ↗ is adjacent to be oriented towards it

1:01:26 ↗ but perhaps not require the other items

1:01:28 ↗ unless it directly adjoins.

1:01:31 ↗ >> Yes that you know we write the code it's

1:01:34 ↗ always possible

1:01:36 ↗ >> just makes it more complicated.

1:01:37 ↗ >> I want I want to get to I also want to

1:01:39 ↗ give our other commissioners a chance to

1:01:41 ↗ speak before we commissioner Holmstrom

1:01:43 ↗ Commissioner Zachro.

1:01:45 ↗ Yeah, it's this just strikes like

1:01:49 ↗ buildings are always going to face the

1:01:50 ↗ street just like houses face the street.

1:01:52 ↗ I mean in my opinion. So to require it

1:01:54 ↗ face two different things which may not

1:01:57 ↗ even align in any way just seems strange

1:02:01 ↗ to me. I mean

1:02:04 ↗ seems like a lot. I I agree

1:02:07 ↗ if it's across the street then I don't

1:02:10 ↗ think it should have to be facing that

1:02:13 ↗ that direction as well. But see I as a

1:02:16 ↗ architect I couldn't imagine trying to

1:02:18 ↗ solve this riddle. It seems like it' be

1:02:20 ↗ extremely challenging.

1:02:22 ↗ >> Uh Mr. Zachro

1:02:25 ↗ >> well to me uh once we started talking

1:02:28 ↗ about like apartment buildings uh I mean

1:02:31 ↗ I'm not sure if it's possible that all

1:02:33 ↗ of the apartments in the same building

1:02:35 ↗ will be facing or have at least one

1:02:38 ↗ window pointing towards the same like

1:02:41 ↗ pointing in the same direction.

1:02:44 ↗ Because I mean I I live in condos and

1:02:47 ↗ apartments for the past 22 years. Yeah.

1:02:50 ↗ All of my windows are always facing one

1:02:53 ↗ side unless it's a corner unit. But it's

1:02:57 ↗ either one side or the other side. So

1:02:59 ↗ it's not possible. Like if I see the uh

1:03:04 ↗ natural context area, then my neighbor

1:03:06 ↗ across the hallway doesn't see the

1:03:07 ↗ natural context area. And what kind of

1:03:10 ↗ like if it

1:03:12 ↗ Yeah. So the requirement isn't that all

1:03:14 ↗ of it has to face that way. It's just

1:03:16 ↗ that side of the building has to have

1:03:19 ↗ porches and stoops and balconies. Not

1:03:21 ↗ that every single unit has to be

1:03:23 ↗ oriented that way. It's just making

1:03:25 ↗ requirements of the building facade that

1:03:27 ↗ does face that way.

1:03:28 ↗ >> Yeah. But if we're saying we're not

1:03:30 ↗ adding stuff, I'm just trying to figure

1:03:32 ↗ out commissioner's point. So

1:03:41 ↗ >> all very valid again. Um that's why they

1:03:44 ↗ ask us to keep coming back.

1:03:46 ↗ >> So Commissioner Derek,

1:03:48 ↗ >> I have another follow-up question. Okay.

1:03:50 ↗ So as I'm understanding this, under the

1:03:53 ↗ current code, you could have a plat of

1:03:57 ↗ land.

1:03:59 ↗ Here's natural context area. A plat of

1:04:02 ↗ land and another plat of land within

1:04:04 ↗ 150. And if you're building on this,

1:04:08 ↗ you can orient towards the natural

1:04:10 ↗ context area, but then have somebody

1:04:12 ↗ build something between you. So, you're

1:04:15 ↗ trying to eliminate, right, that

1:04:17 ↗ possibility because it does it doesn't

1:04:19 ↗ make sense to me to have to orient

1:04:21 ↗ towards another building that's blocking

1:04:23 ↗ your view of the natural context area.

1:04:26 ↗ Anyways, so to those ends, yes, I I

1:04:28 ↗ agree. If we have a plat separating you

1:04:32 ↗ or a parcel that is going to be built on

1:04:35 ↗ either in the future or currently,

1:04:39 ↗ they shouldn't have to orientate towards

1:04:40 ↗ a view that is ultimately going to be

1:04:42 ↗ blocked. Right.

1:04:45 ↗ >> Great point.

1:04:47 ↗ Great point, Commissioner.

1:04:49 ↗ >> I guess I'm stuck on the question of uh

1:04:52 ↗ the definition of orientation.

1:04:55 ↗ Um, my house faces the street in terms

1:04:57 ↗ of the front door being facing the

1:04:59 ↗ street, but we have western views which

1:05:02 ↗ are in the opposite direction. So, as

1:05:05 ↗ far as I'm concerned, my house faces two

1:05:07 ↗ different orients to two different

1:05:09 ↗ directions. And so, I think the question

1:05:12 ↗ of orientation has to be better defined.

1:05:16 ↗ >> Okay.

1:05:17 ↗ >> And oh, we're actively working on better

1:05:19 ↗ showing an example of that right now.

1:05:21 ↗ Just give us one second.

1:05:22 ↗ >> Sure. So just the way a lot of and I'm

1:05:25 ↗ sorry I'm still a bit new here in terms

1:05:27 ↗ of what what the code looks like but in

1:05:28 ↗ most codes and I believe here you

1:05:31 ↗ identify a front and your entrance is on

1:05:34 ↗ the front and usually it's the highest

1:05:36 ↗ level you know street classification. So

1:05:39 ↗ um if you're on an arterial and a local

1:05:42 ↗ street by classification we would say

1:05:45 ↗ the front is your arterial and um I we

1:05:49 ↗ will need to get a little more familiar.

1:05:50 ↗ I think this is a great thing to talk

1:05:51 ↗ about. So, um, these guys might be able

1:05:55 ↗ to tell you straight up, but we can

1:05:56 ↗ bring more information about that. Um, I

1:05:59 ↗ can say that we did look at some other

1:06:01 ↗ cities codes and they did use the

1:06:03 ↗ language adjoining rather than, um, some

1:06:06 ↗ of the other language that would require

1:06:08 ↗ things in case another parcel gets

1:06:09 ↗ developed or if it's across the street.

1:06:11 ↗ Um, but I think um, we have a lot to

1:06:15 ↗ think about and options to bring based

1:06:17 ↗ on the things that you said.

1:06:20 ↗ >> Yeah. No, and I appreciate that, Kate,

1:06:21 ↗ because that's my understanding. At

1:06:22 ↗ least that's been my understanding, too,

1:06:24 ↗ is that's when we're talking about

1:06:25 ↗ orientation, it's really more of the

1:06:26 ↗ front features such as doors and access.

1:06:30 ↗ But I think

1:06:31 ↗ >> our wizards are over there trying to

1:06:32 ↗ figure out some pictures.

1:06:34 ↗ >> Well, we we just wanted to show you this

1:06:35 ↗ picture again because orienting doesn't

1:06:38 ↗ mean putting the front of your building

1:06:40 ↗ there. It doesn't mean that your

1:06:42 ↗ entryway to the hotel is facing the

1:06:45 ↗ natural area. simply means that there

1:06:47 ↗ are features that are oriented toward

1:06:49 ↗ that side of the building. So this what

1:06:51 ↗ you're seeing right here, the front

1:06:53 ↗ entrances are on the other side by by

1:06:55 ↗ the street side, but it is open and the

1:06:59 ↗ back sides are oriented toward and can

1:07:01 ↗ view the natural areas. There are no

1:07:03 ↗ blank walls and I I think that's all

1:07:06 ↗ we're trying to say.

1:07:07 ↗ >> Okay. Okay.

1:07:07 ↗ >> Well, that's definitely helpful.

1:07:08 ↗ >> Okay.

1:07:09 ↗ >> Um yeah, Commissioner Matthews,

1:07:11 ↗ >> I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

1:07:13 ↗ So about the street, I understand the

1:07:16 ↗ PL. I do totally agree that if there

1:07:18 ↗ isn't plant between that you're going to

1:07:20 ↗ build on it should you shouldn't have to

1:07:22 ↗ orient balconies there. But an example

1:07:25 ↗ is that Monahan building on Newport Way

1:07:28 ↗ that faces it faces 90. It has Newport

1:07:31 ↗ Way but it the views are to Lake

1:07:34 ↗ Samameish. So you're automatically going

1:07:37 ↗ to put balconies there because who would

1:07:39 ↗ not do that? I mean a developer would

1:07:41 ↗ not do that. Yeah, that's like the

1:07:44 ↗ obvious. People are going to want to

1:07:46 ↗ orient because that's going to be the

1:07:47 ↗ highest priced unit in a condo or an

1:07:51 ↗ apartment. So, I think it's natural that

1:07:54 ↗ you would if you have a street, it may

1:07:58 ↗ be worthwhile doing that, but I get, you

1:08:00 ↗ know, like a plaid between where it's

1:08:02 ↗ going to be built, it may not make sense

1:08:03 ↗ to require that. So,

1:08:07 ↗ >> the other thing that we're trying to I'm

1:08:10 ↗ not pushing anything out there. I'm just

1:08:11 ↗ trying to I'm But the other thing that

1:08:13 ↗ came to mind when we're talking about

1:08:15 ↗ this is in that situation that it only

1:08:17 ↗ has up there. You've got the street on

1:08:19 ↗ the front side. You don't want loading

1:08:21 ↗ docks or anything on that street side,

1:08:23 ↗ but you also don't want people to put a

1:08:25 ↗ driveway in the back and put all of your

1:08:27 ↗ garages back there. And that's what

1:08:29 ↗ orients to the natural areas. So, I

1:08:31 ↗ think we're trying to find a way unless

1:08:32 ↗ you say, "Okay, you can put them back

1:08:35 ↗ there, but you have to put up these huge

1:08:36 ↗ green walls that cover it so nobody else

1:08:38 ↗ can see it." You know, I I just don't

1:08:41 ↗ want big blank garage walls or anything

1:08:43 ↗ back there. And that that is easily

1:08:45 ↗ something somebody could do is provide

1:08:47 ↗ access to go to around to the back of

1:08:48 ↗ the building from the front. And that's

1:08:50 ↗ just what we're trying to avoid here.

1:08:52 ↗ How it happens is, you know, you guys

1:08:55 ↗ make the recommendation. We're just

1:08:56 ↗ throwing stuff out there.

1:08:58 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:09:05 ↗ >> Okay. So maybe we try and take this

1:09:06 ↗ apart by as far as can we all agree that

1:09:10 ↗ um

1:09:14 ↗ properties that are adjoining a natural

1:09:16 ↗ context area should be oriented

1:09:19 ↗ orientated to that area. And again with

1:09:22 ↗ Kristen's definition as the building is

1:09:25 ↗ working with that area. It's not

1:09:27 ↗ necessarily that the front features like

1:09:28 ↗ doors, but it is taking that con that's

1:09:31 ↗ taking that area funny enough into

1:09:33 ↗ context.

1:09:37 ↗ Is everyone okay? I mean, if if not,

1:09:40 ↗ that's fine. I'm just trying to get a

1:09:41 ↗ feel so we can move this along, too.

1:09:45 ↗ All right, everybody put their hands up

1:09:46 ↗ if they agree with that.

1:09:49 ↗ Okay, making some headway. Okay,

1:09:52 ↗ Commissioner Adair.

1:09:55 ↗ Oh, I thought you just wanted to speak.

1:09:58 ↗ Got it. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.

1:10:02 ↗ >> No, no, no, no. That's fantastic. Like,

1:10:04 ↗ no. I honestly thought you had a

1:10:05 ↗ question.

1:10:07 ↗ So, okay. So, I think we all agree with

1:10:09 ↗ that as far as the adjoining of a of a

1:10:12 ↗ natural context area. Yes, the building

1:10:14 ↗ should take that into context and orient

1:10:17 ↗ the building that way. Uh so and again

1:10:20 ↗ most likely those developers will take

1:10:22 ↗ that into context but uh how you can

1:10:25 ↗ write that in a way that you avoid what

1:10:27 ↗ Kristen brought up is loading docs.

1:10:29 ↗ Yeah that's tough.

1:10:32 ↗ That's that's why you guys write the

1:10:34 ↗ code. We just recommend

1:10:36 ↗ um

1:10:38 ↗ are we willing to go a little bit

1:10:40 ↗ farther and talk about if there is a

1:10:42 ↗ road? Um because I think Commissioner

1:10:44 ↗ Dar brings up a great point. You know,

1:10:46 ↗ if you have enough land, so is the 150

1:10:48 ↗ foot, is that even something they should

1:10:51 ↗ consider or is that less considerable?

1:10:54 ↗ Meaning, if there's a plot of land or if

1:10:56 ↗ there's a highways, does that make more

1:10:58 ↗ sense than just some arbitrary 150 foot

1:11:00 ↗ rule? I would say so. I mean, myself,

1:11:05 ↗ 150 ft. Again, if you have a parcel in

1:11:07 ↗ front of you that we built on, it

1:11:09 ↗ doesn't really matter. Um, so to me it's

1:11:13 ↗ really about more what's in front.

1:11:15 ↗ What's between? What's between? Yeah,

1:11:18 ↗ that to me makes more sense. Emily has a

1:11:21 ↗ question.

1:11:21 ↗ >> I Well, I I I feel like I want to add a

1:11:24 ↗ piece of context as we're debating like

1:11:27 ↗ if the street really, as you are

1:11:29 ↗ debating whether the street between it

1:11:31 ↗ really separates because um there's

1:11:33 ↗ different types of natural context

1:11:35 ↗ areas, right? So if it's a wetland or a

1:11:37 ↗ stream or like a true natural area,

1:11:41 ↗ nothing's getting built in the 150 ft.

1:11:44 ↗ So that is going to remain natural. So

1:11:47 ↗ where this is really coming into

1:11:48 ↗ question, the adjoin versus the adjacent

1:11:50 ↗ is city parks and public open space and

1:11:54 ↗ things that aren't critical areas

1:11:55 ↗ because that has the potential to be

1:11:58 ↗ built in between. And I can't speak to

1:12:00 ↗ whether market rate always wants the

1:12:02 ↗ balconies facing out towards the soccer

1:12:04 ↗ fields versus towards a wetland or a

1:12:06 ↗ stream, which there's definitely not

1:12:07 ↗ going to be anything built in between

1:12:09 ↗ them. Um, so there there's a little bit

1:12:11 ↗ of a let me just throw another wrench in

1:12:13 ↗ here of a farther dividing line that the

1:12:15 ↗ type of natural area it is a joining or

1:12:18 ↗ adjacent to could impact what could

1:12:21 ↗ actually happen in between.

1:12:25 ↗ I mean, I feel better with Kristen's

1:12:27 ↗ working definition as far as orientating

1:12:29 ↗ a building. They still have options as

1:12:31 ↗ far as egress ingress. It's really just

1:12:33 ↗ more about are they taking advantage or

1:12:36 ↗ are they blocking out to use it as

1:12:37 ↗ loading docks? I mean, not that they

1:12:39 ↗ would. Is that where they're putting all

1:12:41 ↗ the

1:12:42 ↗ air conditioners? You know what I mean?

1:12:44 ↗ Are they taking advantage of it? That's

1:12:46 ↗ the way I see it. You know, kind of

1:12:47 ↗ after Kristen's nice definition of it.

1:12:51 ↗ So,

1:12:57 ↗ Okay, I think you that's about all

1:12:59 ↗ you're going to get out of us after

1:13:00 ↗ question one.

1:13:01 ↗ >> I've stunned you into silence.

1:13:03 ↗ >> I think we'll quit while we're ahead.

1:13:05 ↗ So, yes, I think when it comes to

1:13:07 ↗ adjoining There you go.

1:13:08 ↗ >> Adjoining. Yes. Adjacent.

1:13:10 ↗ >> Adjacent. Uh

1:13:11 ↗ >> surprise you.

1:13:11 ↗ >> TBD. TBD.

1:13:14 ↗ >> Okay. It depends. Um

1:13:16 ↗ >> need more data. Yes. So, with that in

1:13:19 ↗ mind, because we do have some it depends

1:13:21 ↗ some let's get some more information.

1:13:23 ↗ Um, we will I will be coming back. The

1:13:26 ↗ potential third review sounds like it's

1:13:28 ↗ going to be a definite third review. Um,

1:13:30 ↗ so I will uh go measure front street and

1:13:32 ↗ we will be back on July 9th um for a

1:13:36 ↗ third review of the code um with some

1:13:38 ↗ more of the requested data to hopefully

1:13:40 ↗ help the commission make another

1:13:42 ↗ decision and then we will have our

1:13:43 ↗ public hearing in PD and council

1:13:45 ↗ following that.

1:13:46 ↗ >> Excellent. Well, thank you, Emily.

1:13:48 ↗ Definitely appreciate it. And uh to some

1:13:50 ↗ of the commissioner's points, I mean,

1:13:52 ↗ these are big decisions that are going

1:13:53 ↗ to help the development of our city or

1:13:56 ↗ hinder it. So, I mean, again, having

1:13:58 ↗ another meeting and going over again,

1:13:59 ↗ it's completely completely appropriate.

1:14:02 ↗ So, again, I think we're getting closer,

1:14:04 ↗ though.

1:14:05 ↗ >> It sounds like I appreciate the

1:14:06 ↗ feedback.

1:14:07 ↗ >> Okay. Well, thank you, Emily. Um, we

1:14:11 ↗ have another item of regular business.

1:14:14 ↗ And

1:14:16 ↗ where am I? There we go. The last item

1:14:19 ↗ tonight is an introduction to two more

1:14:22 ↗ code amendments. Parking reform and

1:14:24 ↗ allowing multif family uses in the UV

1:14:28 ↗ commercial retail zones. Associate

1:14:30 ↗ planner Andrew Love will lead this

1:14:32 ↗ discussion uh for this evening. So

1:14:35 ↗ Andrew, when you're ready with your

1:14:36 ↗ presentation, please go ahead.

1:15:10 ↗ Thank you. I'm here to present on

1:15:13 ↗ additional title 18 code amendments. Uh

1:15:16 ↗ specifically this uh is relates to the

1:15:20 ↗ um

1:15:23 ↗ promoting building investment uh code

1:15:25 ↗ amendments or PBI for short and

1:15:30 ↗ specifically updates to parking

1:15:31 ↗ requirements and then secondly we'll be

1:15:34 ↗ discussing allowing multif family uses

1:15:36 ↗ and the UV comat zone or urban village

1:15:39 ↗ commercial retail for is the full title.

1:15:54 ↗ I wonder how I can make my

1:15:58 ↗ self smaller.

1:16:02 ↗ Okay, I got it. Sorry about that. Uh so

1:16:05 ↗ here is the uh overview of the schedule

1:16:07 ↗ on the screen. So we are in the yellow

1:16:11 ↗ color. Uh so parking requirements

1:16:14 ↗ allowing multif family and um UV

1:16:16 ↗ comrade.

1:16:19 ↗ So first let's talk about parking. So

1:16:22 ↗ the background of this is uh key

1:16:26 ↗ objectives from uh state legislation.

1:16:28 ↗ Multiple state parking bills um have

1:16:31 ↗ been passed uh recently aimed at

1:16:33 ↗ reducing parking requirements for new

1:16:35 ↗ housing. And actually, the city has

1:16:37 ↗ already done a lot of parking uh code

1:16:38 ↗ amendments last year as from what I

1:16:41 ↗ understand. I'm not sure if uh all of

1:16:42 ↗ you were on the PBC at that point, but

1:16:45 ↗ um but it's time to do some more. So,

1:16:48 ↗ less parking uh allows for more housing

1:16:50 ↗ to be built. Um freeing up land by

1:16:53 ↗ reducing areas that must be provided for

1:16:56 ↗ private vehicle storage. Not to say that

1:16:58 ↗ parking is not important, but it's just

1:17:00 ↗ one piece of the puzzle. Washington

1:17:03 ↗ cities uh that have reformed parking

1:17:05 ↗ already uh such as uh Bellingham have

1:17:09 ↗ seen projects develop with more dwelling

1:17:12 ↗ units than would have been uh permitted

1:17:14 ↗ under the previous parking minimums due

1:17:16 ↗ to greater site development potential.

1:17:20 ↗ Uh and a 2024 study of urban areas uh in

1:17:24 ↗ Colorado found that reducing the minimum

1:17:27 ↗ off- streetet parking spaces required

1:17:29 ↗ had the potential to allow for the

1:17:31 ↗ development of 73% more homes near

1:17:34 ↗ highcapacity transit. That's almost

1:17:36 ↗ double and 41% more homes in areas

1:17:39 ↗ further from transit.

1:17:42 ↗ So key um objectives of the promoting

1:17:44 ↗ building investments uh would be to

1:17:47 ↗ accelerate the implementation of the

1:17:49 ↗ state laws to help reduce potential

1:17:51 ↗ barriers uh to development um and

1:17:54 ↗ promoting more housing opportunities.

1:17:58 ↗ And really a lot of pe you'll hear the

1:18:01 ↗ term parking reform a lot. That really

1:18:03 ↗ just refers to the Senate Bill 5184.

1:18:07 ↗ However, um we're also going to be

1:18:09 ↗ talking about House Bill 1183, which uh

1:18:13 ↗ has additional parking requirements that

1:18:15 ↗ we hope to address with this suite of

1:18:18 ↗ code updates. So, passed in uh just this

1:18:21 ↗ past year in 2025, it requires cities

1:18:24 ↗ with populations over 30,000, which is

1:18:27 ↗ Aqua is well within that range, to adopt

1:18:30 ↗ by July of 2028. So, we're getting a

1:18:34 ↗ head start. We have a couple years but

1:18:36 ↗ um establishes maximum number of off-

1:18:40 ↗ streetet parking spaces that a community

1:18:42 ↗ may require for uh different types of

1:18:45 ↗ residential units. For example, multif

1:18:48 ↗ family, even single family is included,

1:18:51 ↗ residences under 1,200 square ft,

1:18:54 ↗ affordable housing and senior housing.

1:18:57 ↗ Also certain limitations for off-

1:19:00 ↗ streetet parking for commercial uses.

1:19:05 ↗ So, just to go bullet by bullet, um it's

1:19:10 ↗ going to be no more than 0.5 spaces per

1:19:13 ↗ multif family unit, no more than one

1:19:15 ↗ stall per single family. Um no more than

1:19:19 ↗ two stalls per 1,000 square ft of

1:19:21 ↗ commercial space, or it's easier for me

1:19:23 ↗ to understand it as no more than one

1:19:25 ↗ stall per 500 square ft.

1:19:27 ↗ In addition, um, and some of this may be

1:19:30 ↗ a little shocking, but no parking may be

1:19:32 ↗ required for residences under 1,200 ft².

1:19:36 ↗ You may be asking yourself, what if it's

1:19:38 ↗ a multif family unit, but it's under

1:19:40 ↗ 1,200 ft²? Is it a half a space or is it

1:19:43 ↗ zero spaces? And the least restrictive

1:19:46 ↗ apply. So, in this case, if an apartment

1:19:48 ↗ building goes up and all the spaces are

1:19:50 ↗ under 1,200 ft², that would be zero

1:19:52 ↗ spaces for all the units.

1:19:55 ↗ Um, next, commercial spaces under 3,000

1:19:58 ↗ square feet. I'm glad we kind of had

1:20:00 ↗ that retail commercial conversation

1:20:01 ↗ earlier because, um, in this case, the

1:20:05 ↗ definition of commercial use in the

1:20:07 ↗ state code means is is actually quite

1:20:10 ↗ it's basically any non-residential use.

1:20:12 ↗ Um, so we'll need to be careful that

1:20:14 ↗ we're not um, we may need to define

1:20:17 ↗ commercial in a different way in the

1:20:18 ↗ parking chapter. Um or maybe perhaps

1:20:21 ↗ just refer to it as non-residential

1:20:23 ↗ because commercial use in the state code

1:20:26 ↗ means use for non-residential purposes

1:20:28 ↗ including retail office, believe it or

1:20:30 ↗ not, wholesale, general merchandise and

1:20:33 ↗ food services.

1:20:36 ↗ Next, affordable housing. Um, senior

1:20:39 ↗ housing, childcare centers, ground

1:20:40 ↗ level, non-residential spaces, and

1:20:42 ↗ mixeduse buildings

1:20:45 ↗ and buildings changing use, which I'm

1:20:46 ↗ actually happy about that last one cuz

1:20:49 ↗ it's a little bit of a pain when we're

1:20:50 ↗ doing tenant improvements. And it's

1:20:52 ↗ like well

1:20:54 ↗ can be uh challenging for uh new

1:20:57 ↗ businesses as well. So, that was this

1:21:00 ↗ the parking reform bill. Next, I'm going

1:21:02 ↗ to talk about the House Bill 1183. The

1:21:06 ↗ full name of it is building code and

1:21:08 ↗ development regulation reform. This was

1:21:10 ↗ also passed last year and it's required

1:21:13 ↗ uh sometime in 2029. Uh it's actually 6

1:21:16 ↗ years after our first implementation

1:21:18 ↗ progress report. Um so I don't know the

1:21:20 ↗ exact date, but it's sometime in 2029.

1:21:24 ↗ it uh and that's the comprehensive plan

1:21:26 ↗ implementation progress report that's

1:21:28 ↗ due 5 years after it's um from the

1:21:32 ↗ deadline of the comp plan update that

1:21:34 ↗ was done in 2024 hence 2029. So it uh

1:21:38 ↗ prohibits the separate bill prohibits

1:21:41 ↗ jurisdictions uh planning under the GMA

1:21:43 ↗ which we are from requiring any off-

1:21:46 ↗ streetet parking spaces for the

1:21:48 ↗ following uses. Now, the affordable

1:21:49 ↗ housing piece is kind of a a duplicate

1:21:51 ↗ from the last one, but additionally,

1:21:54 ↗ it's it's regulating no um minimum off-

1:21:58 ↗ streetet parking for new or retrofitted

1:22:01 ↗ buildings meeting passive house

1:22:03 ↗ requirements, modular housing, and

1:22:06 ↗ housing constructed with mass timber.

1:22:09 ↗ You may be asking yourselves, what does

1:22:10 ↗ passive house requirements mean? I'm

1:22:13 ↗ glad you asked that because we have a

1:22:15 ↗ table.

1:22:16 ↗ we have a table on the sl the next

1:22:18 ↗ slide. So um in this case affordable

1:22:21 ↗ housing um as well as that other bill

1:22:24 ↗ that we just looked at the affordable

1:22:25 ↗ housing in this case means where your

1:22:28 ↗ monthly costs um

1:22:30 ↗ where housing costs are not over 30% of

1:22:33 ↗ your um monthly gross income. For it's

1:22:37 ↗ for rental households it's earning up to

1:22:40 ↗ 60% of the area median income. For owner

1:22:43 ↗ households, it's earning up to 80%.

1:22:47 ↗ The next one is um and I'm still

1:22:50 ↗ learning about this uh but um for newer

1:22:53 ↗ retrofitted buildings that meet passive

1:22:56 ↗ house requirements. In this case, it's

1:22:58 ↗ passive house requirements. It's any

1:23:00 ↗ housing that uh is meeting the criteria

1:23:02 ↗ for certification as a passive house by

1:23:06 ↗ FIAS or the International Passive House

1:23:08 ↗ Institute.

1:23:10 ↗ Um and um you're welcome to explore

1:23:13 ↗ those websites. I'm like I said I'm

1:23:14 ↗ still um learning about this but uh

1:23:16 ↗ passive houses are uh basically a way to

1:23:20 ↗ design um residential buildings to

1:23:22 ↗ drastically reduce energy uh consumption

1:23:25 ↗ methods through insulation, solar energy

1:23:28 ↗ and other methods.

1:23:30 ↗ Modular housing would be a multi-story

1:23:32 ↗ residential building constructed of

1:23:34 ↗ standardized components produced

1:23:36 ↗ off-site uh which are then transported

1:23:38 ↗ and assembled at a final location. And

1:23:41 ↗ then housing constructed with mass

1:23:43 ↗ timber would be a building with

1:23:45 ↗ structural components primarily made of

1:23:47 ↗ mass timber products. And I'm not going

1:23:49 ↗ to read them all, but you can see them

1:23:51 ↗ on the screen.

1:23:54 ↗ So, it is important to kind of take a

1:23:56 ↗ step back. Um, I know that we're uh

1:23:59 ↗ really trying to make it easier for

1:24:01 ↗ housing to come to Isiakiqua, but we do

1:24:03 ↗ have existing parking guidance and many

1:24:05 ↗ different um policy documents. Notably,

1:24:09 ↗ the comprehensive plan talks about

1:24:11 ↗ parking. We have the central isqua plan,

1:24:14 ↗ Oldtown Plan, mobility action plan.

1:24:19 ↗ So some of the differing policies would

1:24:21 ↗ be on one hand we do want to recognize

1:24:24 ↗ that

1:24:26 ↗ you know there are legacy neighborhoods

1:24:28 ↗ in Isiqua you're not going to I mean

1:24:31 ↗ getting up on the top of Squawk Mountain

1:24:33 ↗ you need a car if you if you live there

1:24:35 ↗ right it it's different from if you live

1:24:37 ↗ in you know a future multi-story

1:24:39 ↗ building next to a light rail station or

1:24:42 ↗ maybe if you live in Oldtown um there it

1:24:44 ↗ might be easier to catch a bus but so we

1:24:46 ↗ do

1:24:47 ↗ We do have some documents that talk

1:24:49 ↗ about wanting to or understanding the

1:24:53 ↗ importance of providing enough parking.

1:24:56 ↗ But then on the other hand, we have

1:24:57 ↗ other policy documents that want to give

1:25:00 ↗ more flexibility. For example, the

1:25:01 ↗ central isqua plan. So it's about trying

1:25:04 ↗ to strike a balance

1:25:07 ↗ and isqua is a little unique in that we

1:25:10 ↗ have two different tiers when it comes

1:25:12 ↗ to the parking regulations. Uh the

1:25:14 ↗ parking table and the parking chapter

1:25:16 ↗ has different requirements depending on

1:25:18 ↗ if you're in tier one or tier two. And

1:25:20 ↗ from what I understand, this was a way

1:25:22 ↗ to uh make it a little bit easier for

1:25:25 ↗ development to occur in the central

1:25:28 ↗ isqua area because it is um a regional

1:25:32 ↗ growth center designation. uh meaning

1:25:35 ↗ that we are trying to we want housing

1:25:38 ↗ and employment to come to Isiqua, but we

1:25:40 ↗ specifically are looking at that section

1:25:43 ↗ of the city. Uh especially since we are

1:25:47 ↗ fingers crossed getting light rail there

1:25:49 ↗ one day. And then parking tier 2 is

1:25:52 ↗ basically any area outside of central

1:25:54 ↗ Isiqua, Isiqua Highlands, commercial

1:25:57 ↗ areas, and Oldtown.

1:26:01 ↗ So this is just a just a snapshot of um

1:26:04 ↗ the actual table's longer um and

1:26:07 ↗ actually in the the packet materials but

1:26:09 ↗ this is just a snapshot of the

1:26:10 ↗ residential standards. So you can see

1:26:13 ↗ that the in this case the different the

1:26:15 ↗ differences between tier one and tier 2

1:26:17 ↗ are pretty negligible. Um the only

1:26:21 ↗ difference being multif family and live

1:26:23 ↗ work it's uh 75 per unit for tier one

1:26:27 ↗ and then the minimum for tier 2 is uh it

1:26:31 ↗ goes up to one per unit. All the other

1:26:33 ↗ ones are the same and um

1:26:37 ↗ going for commercial retail the

1:26:39 ↗ differences start to become a little

1:26:41 ↗ more apparent between tier one and tier

1:26:43 ↗ 2. So these are some of the things that

1:26:46 ↗ would need to be updated with um the

1:26:49 ↗ code amendments that will follow uh that

1:26:53 ↗ will come to you in a future meeting.

1:26:57 ↗ So we also looked at some what are some

1:27:00 ↗ cities doing around here especially our

1:27:02 ↗ nearby peers um but also some other

1:27:04 ↗ cities in the state. So for example, uh

1:27:07 ↗ cities all the way from Port Townson to

1:27:09 ↗ Spokane have looked at reducing parking

1:27:11 ↗ minimum min minimums already ahead of

1:27:13 ↗ the legislation. Uh both did eliminate

1:27:16 ↗ off- streetet parking requirements city

1:27:18 ↗ city citywide to reduce housing costs,

1:27:20 ↗ spur economic development, and encourage

1:27:22 ↗ a more walkable, less car dependent

1:27:24 ↗ city.

1:27:26 ↗ Uh Kirkland recently passed an ordinance

1:27:29 ↗ to eliminate minimum parking

1:27:30 ↗ requirements uh in a specific area

1:27:33 ↗ similar to what we're thinking about for

1:27:35 ↗ central Isiqua. Uh however, it is

1:27:38 ↗ important to note that they um they

1:27:40 ↗ either have or will soon have bus rapid

1:27:43 ↗ transit in this station area. So um

1:27:46 ↗ whereas we still are lacking rapid

1:27:49 ↗ transit. It also is waving minimums for

1:27:53 ↗ certain commercial expansions. And then

1:27:56 ↗ Red Redmond is also eliminating uh has

1:27:59 ↗ eliminated off- streetet parking for uh

1:28:02 ↗ most commercial uses. And then Belleview

1:28:05 ↗ and Reton are in the pro process of

1:28:07 ↗ working through this as well.

1:28:10 ↗ So, right now, staff is recommending

1:28:13 ↗ updating the parking code uh or at least

1:28:16 ↗ to bring draft code updates back to PPC

1:28:19 ↗ to comply that would comply with recent

1:28:21 ↗ state legislation. In particular,

1:28:23 ↗ accelerating the compliance with the

1:28:25 ↗ state parking legislation, which um is

1:28:29 ↗ part of that set of uh promoting

1:28:31 ↗ building investments in Isiqua. So we

1:28:34 ↗ got state senate bill 5184 the parking

1:28:37 ↗ reform act and then the other one was

1:28:38 ↗ the house bill 1183 which is uh more has

1:28:42 ↗ to do with the type of residential

1:28:44 ↗ construction

1:28:46 ↗ and the other recommendation would be to

1:28:49 ↗ in order to bolster construction of the

1:28:52 ↗ desired development in central Isiqua

1:28:54 ↗ and uh urban core regional growth center

1:28:58 ↗ potentially looking into eliminating

1:29:00 ↗ parking minimums um in those two zones.

1:29:05 ↗ And just for some context, uh the mixed

1:29:09 ↗ juice central isqua zone is shown with

1:29:11 ↗ the diagonal purple lines and then the

1:29:14 ↗ urban core zone that we're talking about

1:29:16 ↗ is in the salmon color. Um

1:29:20 ↗ and there is a second there. So there's

1:29:23 ↗ the one that's further south has the

1:29:25 ↗ lines are closer together. That's

1:29:27 ↗ actually a separate zone. So it's not

1:29:28 ↗ that isn't included in the mixed juice.

1:29:32 ↗ um centralizone

1:29:34 ↗ that's mixed use residential I believe.

1:29:39 ↗ So some additional considerations that

1:29:42 ↗ we would like to know from uh from PBC

1:29:48 ↗ is are the commissioners wanting to keep

1:29:51 ↗ the parking maximums? For example, if we

1:29:54 ↗ have a business going in that is not

1:29:57 ↗ that is choosing to not provide any

1:29:59 ↗ parking and then another business is

1:30:01 ↗ coming next door to it and they're

1:30:03 ↗ already concerned about the lack of

1:30:04 ↗ parking. Is it still fair to say that

1:30:08 ↗ you can't have x amount of parking

1:30:09 ↗ spaces because it's over the maximum

1:30:12 ↗ when other people may not be supplying

1:30:16 ↗ parking anymore. And I did want to note

1:30:18 ↗ that I believe the parking maximum thing

1:30:20 ↗ is potentially

1:30:23 ↗ less of a concern as it may have been in

1:30:26 ↗ the past with the market. Um it, you

1:30:30 ↗ know, you would have these big box

1:30:32 ↗ retailers coming in and just putting as

1:30:34 ↗ much parking just to be safe. And I feel

1:30:37 ↗ like it's possible that it's becoming

1:30:39 ↗ less of an issue with the tighter market

1:30:42 ↗ to de um with development.

1:30:46 ↗ And I'm sorry, do we usually go one by

1:30:48 ↗ one or just

1:30:50 ↗ Okay. Second. Second. Um, do you agree

1:30:53 ↗ that urban core and the mixeduse central

1:30:55 ↗ isqua zones uh could be the right areas

1:30:59 ↗ to remove parking minimums um more areas

1:31:02 ↗ than that or potentially fewer? Is there

1:31:05 ↗ interest in doing more than the minimum

1:31:07 ↗ required by state law? For example, both

1:31:10 ↗ and uh Bellingham and Spokane have

1:31:13 ↗ looked to reduce parking requirements

1:31:16 ↗ even more than the state uh is

1:31:19 ↗ requiring. And lastly, should staff

1:31:21 ↗ investigate requiring more temporary or

1:31:24 ↗ timerestricted parking? So, we already

1:31:25 ↗ do have certain requirements for off-

1:31:28 ↗ streetet loading spaces, but if we're

1:31:30 ↗ not going to require parking for some of

1:31:35 ↗ these uses, should staff be looking more

1:31:38 ↗ into potentially amending that section

1:31:40 ↗ of the parking code to have

1:31:44 ↗ requirements for temporary parking? So,

1:31:46 ↗ parking for like loading or moving in

1:31:48 ↗ and moving out or delivery driving, that

1:31:51 ↗ kind of stuff.

1:31:57 ↗ So, I will open it up to discussion

1:32:00 ↗ before moving it on to the next

1:32:04 ↗ code amendment.

1:32:05 ↗ >> Okay,

1:32:07 ↗ questions.

1:32:09 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

1:32:11 ↗ >> um, just out of curiosity,

1:32:13 ↗ we don't really have any street parking

1:32:16 ↗ on Gilman or around that area. Is there

1:32:20 ↗ a future where we're redesigning the

1:32:22 ↗ streets so that when the areas are

1:32:24 ↗ redeveloped kind of like both where they

1:32:26 ↗ added street parking in that

1:32:29 ↗ neighborhood

1:32:33 ↗ did the reverse. There is

1:32:37 ↗ not a plan that I am aware of to add

1:32:39 ↗ parking on existing streets. In fact,

1:32:41 ↗ some's going to go away on Newport when

1:32:42 ↗ that road is done. But there are plans

1:32:45 ↗ to put in new streets in central Isiqua

1:32:48 ↗ like um 14th Avenue Northwest which is

1:32:50 ↗ going next to trail head and when those

1:32:52 ↗ streets go in they do require parking.

1:32:57 ↗ >> Okay, Commissioner Crass.

1:33:00 ↗ >> Thanks. So just a what quick clarifier

1:33:03 ↗ this is just doing what the state has

1:33:06 ↗ already told us. So there's not a lot of

1:33:07 ↗ nuance here. Is that correct? We this is

1:33:09 ↗ just like whether we do it earlier. Is

1:33:11 ↗ that the real main question?

1:33:13 ↗ >> Yes.

1:33:14 ↗ except for the recommendation to

1:33:17 ↗ potentially look at um

1:33:19 ↗ >> getting rid of minimum

1:33:20 ↗ >> removing them in the central isqua u

1:33:23 ↗ mixeduse central isqua zone and the

1:33:25 ↗ urban core zone. Those were suggested by

1:33:30 ↗ um by uh the elected officials

1:33:34 ↗ >> planning development and environment

1:33:35 ↗ committee that was

1:33:36 ↗ >> and okay so

1:33:38 ↗ >> to invest to look at it not

1:33:40 ↗ >> so there's certain things like you have

1:33:41 ↗ to match the state the question is when

1:33:43 ↗ >> I think there's a chicken the egg if we

1:33:45 ↗ don't have robust transit

1:33:48 ↗ these things are going to be a disaster

1:33:50 ↗ because there's

1:33:53 ↗ you're you're going to you may face what

1:33:55 ↗ I think it was San Jose, I read

1:33:57 ↗ somewhere where they had um no parking

1:34:01 ↗ and they have a 60some percent um

1:34:04 ↗ vacancy rate because people don't want

1:34:06 ↗ to move into this. So, the person who

1:34:08 ↗ built it sold the building, they're out

1:34:09 ↗ and all of a sudden now there's

1:34:11 ↗ something that's an undesirable thing

1:34:13 ↗ left. So I do wonder whether we want to

1:34:17 ↗ accelerate

1:34:19 ↗ until until we have some other real

1:34:22 ↗ transit or we're just um making the pro

1:34:27 ↗ the problem worse. I mean eventually we

1:34:30 ↗ have to do some of these things. So I

1:34:31 ↗ don't know if I'd want to do even

1:34:33 ↗ stricter taking you know minimums

1:34:36 ↗ because of that. And then I would

1:34:37 ↗ question even the timing that's not tied

1:34:40 ↗ to the ability for people to get around

1:34:42 ↗ if you don't have places for them to

1:34:44 ↗ park. Um

1:34:46 ↗ >> it is important to note too that central

1:34:47 ↗ Isiqua currently doesn't have a lot of

1:34:49 ↗ street parking which I think one of you

1:34:51 ↗ had alluded to.

1:34:52 ↗ >> Um so that's definitely something to

1:34:54 ↗ consider.

1:34:54 ↗ >> And then also I think the city needs to

1:34:57 ↗ enforce its parking as part of any of

1:35:00 ↗ these decisions because they don't. And

1:35:03 ↗ I'm not sure this doesn't fall within

1:35:04 ↗ your guys, but it ties back to the city

1:35:07 ↗ where there's RVs parked for weeks at a

1:35:10 ↗ time taking up parking spots. So, I do

1:35:12 ↗ think all of these things have to be

1:35:14 ↗ looked at a whole of what happens if a

1:35:17 ↗ building is put here and there's no

1:35:19 ↗ parking for the building and there's no

1:35:21 ↗ parking on the streets and there's no

1:35:23 ↗ transit.

1:35:25 ↗ So, we should go through that that kind

1:35:27 ↗ of thing. So, that's my my question plus

1:35:30 ↗ two cents. You got a little you got a

1:35:31 ↗ little extra there.

1:35:32 ↗ >> I will add and I won't take credit for

1:35:34 ↗ it. Kristen told me this or talked to me

1:35:37 ↗ about this, but uh or maybe it was Kate,

1:35:40 ↗ but u there are there is a lenders I

1:35:43 ↗ guess will not it's not just like you

1:35:45 ↗ can propose, oh, I'm not going to do

1:35:46 ↗ parking anymore. I want to build this

1:35:48 ↗ huge multif family building in Isiqua.

1:35:50 ↗ I'm only going to I'm going to construct

1:35:52 ↗ it using mass timber, so I'm not going

1:35:54 ↗ to provide any parking. And it's not

1:35:56 ↗ saying that if we were to move I mean

1:35:59 ↗ some of them are required like we have

1:36:01 ↗ to meet them whether it's now or two

1:36:03 ↗ years from now but um but in some cases

1:36:07 ↗ the market will determine how many

1:36:08 ↗ parking spaces it won't necessarily even

1:36:11 ↗ though there will be no minimum it's not

1:36:12 ↗ necessarily saying there will be no

1:36:15 ↗ parking spaces. Um, and I guess I'm not

1:36:18 ↗ an economist, but or whatever the

1:36:21 ↗ profession is, but um, basically like

1:36:23 ↗ with the way that the lending works, it

1:36:25 ↗ might be harder for them to get um to

1:36:29 ↗ get the funding the financing together

1:36:32 ↗ if they all if a developer were to all

1:36:34 ↗ of the sudden propose a giant

1:36:36 ↗ development with zero parking.

1:36:39 ↗ >> Maybe. I mean then your your your plan

1:36:42 ↗ is market economy and it's going to take

1:36:44 ↗ care of itself versus so it's so some of

1:36:47 ↗ these things as you said it's like you

1:36:48 ↗ have to do them the question is when and

1:36:51 ↗ then do you want to be more strict and I

1:36:54 ↗ would say no but that's one of many

1:36:55 ↗ opinions so

1:36:58 ↗ as a third scent

1:36:59 ↗ >> you got

1:37:02 ↗ commissioner Matthews

1:37:03 ↗ >> I I just wanted to give a little I

1:37:06 ↗ before I moved here I lived in northwest

1:37:08 ↗ Portland where there's no parking in any

1:37:11 ↗ building and parking was a nightmare.

1:37:14 ↗ Sometimes I parked a mile away and I

1:37:16 ↗ could never remember where I parked my

1:37:18 ↗ car. I'd have to take a picture. But the

1:37:20 ↗ the thing to think about is if you start

1:37:23 ↗ looking at that, it's kind of like uh

1:37:25 ↗ Commissioner Krauss said, you have to

1:37:27 ↗ implement a parking like requirement

1:37:29 ↗ like people having stickers on their car

1:37:31 ↗ and um parking zones. that would really

1:37:34 ↗ need to be implemented at the same time

1:37:36 ↗ that you start because people will

1:37:39 ↗ probably park in Oldtown. They'll park

1:37:41 ↗ wherever they could find a spot. So you

1:37:43 ↗ start going into the neighborhoods and

1:37:45 ↗ making everybody unhappy with people

1:37:47 ↗ just leaving their cars around. So

1:37:49 ↗ that's a huge

1:37:52 ↗ >> Yeah. So it's just a it's an issue just

1:37:54 ↗ like Ballard. you're going to have like

1:37:56 ↗ a parking nightmare and you really want

1:37:58 ↗ to think about having other programs in

1:38:01 ↗ place at the same time that you start

1:38:04 ↗ taking parking away.

1:38:06 ↗ >> No, I thank you. I'm I'm imagining just

1:38:08 ↗ to make this real simple, imagine salmon

1:38:11 ↗ days every day in your neighborhood.

1:38:13 ↗ That would be awful.

1:38:15 ↗ >> So that would terrify me.

1:38:18 ↗ >> Anybody else? Commissioner Zachro,

1:38:21 ↗ >> thank you. I'm basically on a verge

1:38:24 ↗ because one thing is yes for new

1:38:26 ↗ developments it's really hard with all

1:38:28 ↗ of the parking standards but at the same

1:38:30 ↗ time like I'm 100%

1:38:33 ↗ uh agreeing with uh Commissioner Cruss

1:38:37 ↗ that we are not ready as a city we don't

1:38:39 ↗ have enough transit options we're not

1:38:41 ↗ ready as a city for uh minimizing or

1:38:44 ↗ eliminating any parking standards so uh

1:38:48 ↗ I think like if we go through points

1:38:52 ↗ Um, do we want to keep parking maximums?

1:38:55 ↗ We probably want to do that because you

1:38:58 ↗ you were right. If one business takes

1:39:00 ↗ too many parking spaces, another

1:39:02 ↗ business doesn't have enough parking

1:39:04 ↗ spaces there. So, we still like people

1:39:06 ↗ still using cars. Um,

1:39:10 ↗ do I agree that we have to remove

1:39:12 ↗ parking minimums? I I don't I don't

1:39:15 ↗ agree that we we need to remove them

1:39:17 ↗ completely. I think that we have to

1:39:20 ↗ stick to the uh state requirements and

1:39:24 ↗ uh just stay there for now because uh

1:39:26 ↗ compared to other cities we don't have

1:39:28 ↗ enough transit and uh then another thing

1:39:32 ↗ um is there interest in doing more than

1:39:34 ↗ the minimum required by the state load

1:39:36 ↗ and to me it's a no and should staff

1:39:39 ↗ investigate requiring more temporary

1:39:41 ↗ timerestricted parking I would think so

1:39:45 ↗ I would think so because if we try to

1:39:47 ↗ kind of like eliminate

1:39:49 ↗ uh like parking. I mean we we're not

1:39:52 ↗ trying but we have to eliminate parking.

1:39:54 ↗ There will be an issue there and again

1:39:56 ↗ if we have businesses let's say we have

1:39:58 ↗ old town uh businesses need to somehow

1:40:01 ↗ like I don't know bring stuff in and

1:40:04 ↗ yeah so I think there should be uh

1:40:07 ↗ investigation there. Thank you. And just

1:40:09 ↗ to clarify, you had you did talk about

1:40:11 ↗ parking maximums, but I wasn't sure if

1:40:13 ↗ it was you were in favor of removing the

1:40:16 ↗ parking maximums or keeping them keeping

1:40:19 ↗ the parking maximums. Okay.

1:40:20 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:40:22 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:40:24 ↗ >> Any other comments, Commissioner?

1:40:28 ↗ >> Here to muddy the waters further. Um you

1:40:31 ↗ know we we were uh previously talking

1:40:34 ↗ about other issues where um we were

1:40:37 ↗ struggling with the notion that

1:40:39 ↗ developers for example would um

1:40:42 ↗ naturally want their uh new buildings to

1:40:46 ↗ face natural areas to take advantage of

1:40:48 ↗ the views. Um and here we're we're again

1:40:52 ↗ the facing the question of do we let the

1:40:55 ↗ market determine how much parking is

1:40:58 ↗ being built or not? Um are we are we

1:41:02 ↗ overregulating

1:41:03 ↗ or uh or are we opening the door for

1:41:07 ↗ sort of unscrupulous development? And I

1:41:10 ↗ I think it's a very delicate balance.

1:41:12 ↗ I'm not sure what the answer is. Um, I I

1:41:15 ↗ also, and I know this is, you know, it's

1:41:17 ↗ been passed, but I don't understand the

1:41:19 ↗ relationship between mass timber and

1:41:22 ↗ parking. It's nice to encourage

1:41:25 ↗ developers to use ecologically sound and

1:41:28 ↗ and energy efficient uh methods, but

1:41:32 ↗ tying that to parking just seems like,

1:41:36 ↗ you know, it's it's seems manipulative

1:41:39 ↗ in a way that's not necessarily

1:41:40 ↗ productive. But that's a feda comply. Um

1:41:45 ↗ I think in in terms of these four

1:41:47 ↗ questions, I think keeping the parking

1:41:49 ↗ maximum uh makes sense. We we don't want

1:41:53 ↗ structured parking six stories high

1:41:56 ↗ anywhere in the city. Um, I think that

1:41:59 ↗ the the uh the urban core and and uh

1:42:04 ↗ MUCI

1:42:06 ↗ uh areas are probably the best areas

1:42:09 ↗ where parking requirements could be

1:42:12 ↗ reduced, but um I'm not sure that um

1:42:17 ↗ back to um Commissioner Cross's argument

1:42:20 ↗ that we don't have the transit. Um we we

1:42:23 ↗ have a letter from some developers

1:42:26 ↗ asking to reduce uh bicycle storage

1:42:29 ↗ areas. I mean what what are we leaving

1:42:31 ↗ people with without cars, without

1:42:34 ↗ bicycles, and without transit? It just I

1:42:37 ↗ I think going too far in this

1:42:39 ↗ >> free shoes.

1:42:40 ↗ >> Yeah, that's right.

1:42:41 ↗ >> Yeah. A supply every six months, new

1:42:44 ↗ pair of shoes. Anyway, uh that's just my

1:42:47 ↗ perspective. Thank you. And I know that

1:42:50 ↗ with the middle housing bill, they ended

1:42:51 ↗ up having to do a fix it bill later. So

1:42:54 ↗ it that's another thing to consider that

1:42:56 ↗ I didn't put in the slides, but if we do

1:43:00 ↗ everything two years early and then all

1:43:02 ↗ of a sudden is aqua doesn't require any

1:43:05 ↗ parking, but then the state says, "Oh,

1:43:06 ↗ well actually um you can require parking

1:43:09 ↗ for these." So that's another thing just

1:43:11 ↗ to keep in the back of our minds. But

1:43:14 ↗ >> I feel like there going to be quite a

1:43:15 ↗ few fix it bills. Um, Patterson, I see

1:43:18 ↗ you.

1:43:20 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean, I guess in general, uh,

1:43:22 ↗ this my experience with this commission

1:43:24 ↗ is with a lot of these state mandates,

1:43:27 ↗ if you will, uh, we've typically tried

1:43:28 ↗ to meet that mandate but not go further.

1:43:32 ↗ Um, because I find I think we've

1:43:34 ↗ discussed at times that they're

1:43:35 ↗ typically pretty restrictive as they as

1:43:37 ↗ they are and that going beyond them is

1:43:39 ↗ probably even too too far. Um, one

1:43:42 ↗ particular anecdote I wanted to mention

1:43:44 ↗ on number two regarding, you know,

1:43:46 ↗ removing parking minimums for UC and MU

1:43:50 ↗ was, um, I had emailed Kristen about

1:43:52 ↗ this and it had to do with the ADA

1:43:54 ↗ parking spaces. And I was honestly a

1:43:57 ↗ little shocked to find out that if you

1:43:58 ↗ have zero parking minimums, that means

1:44:00 ↗ also no ADA parking is required. It's

1:44:03 ↗ only if the developer decided to put

1:44:04 ↗ parking in then those ADA, you know, uh,

1:44:08 ↗ uh, requirements kick in. So, um, again,

1:44:11 ↗ that's probably something that market

1:44:12 ↗ driven would figure itself out, but, um,

1:44:15 ↗ I also think it's just another kind of

1:44:16 ↗ like consideration of of being careful

1:44:19 ↗ as we're discussing those things. So, I

1:44:22 ↗ think that's it for now.

1:44:24 ↗ >> No, that's great. That's great. Yeah.

1:44:26 ↗ Commissioner,

1:44:26 ↗ >> just one anecdotal point. ADA is a

1:44:29 ↗ federal requirement, and I could see

1:44:33 ↗ that uh there could be a conflict

1:44:34 ↗ between state requirements and federal

1:44:36 ↗ requirements. You can't have a doctor's

1:44:39 ↗ office with zero parking and zero ADA

1:44:42 ↗ spaces. That's just totally impractical.

1:44:48 ↗ >> We would all hope so.

1:44:50 ↗ >> Okay. Um let's go ahead and try to

1:44:53 ↗ answer some questions for Andrew. So

1:44:56 ↗ again, I just real quickly, I think Vice

1:44:58 ↗ Chair Patterson and Commissioner Craft

1:44:59 ↗ said it pretty well, so I won't repeat

1:45:01 ↗ it. Um yeah, how about question one?

1:45:05 ↗ Does the commission want to keep parking

1:45:06 ↗ maximums at this point?

1:45:10 ↗ Okay.

1:45:11 ↗ Do you agree that UC and MUCI are the

1:45:15 ↗ right areas to remove parking minimums

1:45:18 ↗ or to reduce parking minimums?

1:45:22 ↗ I'm more in favor of reduce. Yeah, I

1:45:24 ↗ don't want to get rid of minimums

1:45:25 ↗ either.

1:45:26 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think

1:45:29 ↗ >> and I agree with Vice Chair Patterson. I

1:45:31 ↗ think to his point again, the state came

1:45:33 ↗ out, you know, it's kind of like

1:45:34 ↗ Kristen's point about the big box stores

1:45:38 ↗ down, you know, um um you guys all know

1:45:42 ↗ their names. I won't say their names

1:45:43 ↗ here, but you know, just amounts of

1:45:45 ↗ parking is insane,

1:45:47 ↗ but at the same time, we know the state

1:45:49 ↗ swings completely the opposite way. And

1:45:52 ↗ somehow we're trying to find our way and

1:45:54 ↗ make it right for our city. And

1:45:56 ↗ Commissioner Kra mentioning the the

1:45:58 ↗ transit problem. So I think is it fair

1:46:00 ↗ to say we rewrite question two as

1:46:04 ↗ those are the right areas to reduce

1:46:07 ↗ parking minimums. Is that fair?

1:46:16 ↗ >> So just to clarify the state we would

1:46:18 ↗ need to we would need to meet the state

1:46:20 ↗ requirements for the whole city. So at

1:46:23 ↗ that point it's kind of a yes. Should we

1:46:25 ↗ reduce them further for these two areas

1:46:27 ↗ or just do the minimum?

1:46:30 ↗ >> Okay, thank you for the clarification.

1:46:31 ↗ So, I think we stick with the state

1:46:32 ↗ standards for question two.

1:46:34 ↗ >> Okay.

1:46:34 ↗ >> Okay,

1:46:35 ↗ >> that's Thank you. That's helpful.

1:46:37 ↗ >> Is there interest in doing more than the

1:46:39 ↗ minimum required by state law? I think

1:46:41 ↗ we just answered that for you. No.

1:46:43 ↗ >> And should staff investigate requiring

1:46:45 ↗ more temporary or timerestricted

1:46:47 ↗ parking?

1:46:50 ↗ I think um I think it was Commissioner

1:46:51 ↗ Crass that brought up was it

1:46:53 ↗ Commissioner Aller? I'm giving the

1:46:55 ↗ credit to the wrong person, but it seems

1:46:58 ↗ like a lot of resources would have to be

1:46:59 ↗ used in the city to have enforcement

1:47:02 ↗ >> and you know that would obviously be

1:47:05 ↗ staff's time to look into that and what

1:47:06 ↗ does that look like? It was Commissioner

1:47:08 ↗ Matthews.

1:47:09 ↗ >> Yes. And have Yes. The Portland example.

1:47:12 ↗ So as far as having stickers and what's

1:47:14 ↗ that look like and who's enforcing this?

1:47:16 ↗ So definitely something staff should

1:47:17 ↗ probably look into.

1:47:19 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, we looked we focused our

1:47:21 ↗ efforts in looking at the parking

1:47:23 ↗ requirements in general for like

1:47:25 ↗ different communities around the state,

1:47:26 ↗ but we can look more into the best

1:47:28 ↗ practices regarding like the

1:47:30 ↗ timerestricted parking um to make sure

1:47:32 ↗ that if we are allowing these more

1:47:35 ↗ flexible parking requirements that at

1:47:37 ↗ least that's a backup like well at least

1:47:39 ↗ there's some spaces for more temporary

1:47:41 ↗ parking. So we can look further into

1:47:43 ↗ that before coming back.

1:47:45 ↗ >> Yeah, Vice Chair Patterson.

1:47:49 ↗ Um yeah, just to comment on that last

1:47:52 ↗ one, uh the temporary or timerestricted

1:47:53 ↗ parking. Like I think if you're in a

1:47:56 ↗ situation where you're creating, you

1:47:58 ↗ know, less cars, less parking, more

1:48:00 ↗ pedestrian friendly, typically people

1:48:02 ↗ are ordering delivery or getting things

1:48:03 ↗ delivered more and so having those like

1:48:06 ↗ loading zone parkings, I think becomes

1:48:07 ↗ almost a requirement. Like I think about

1:48:09 ↗ I work in Belleview and you're

1:48:11 ↗ constantly getting deliveries, right?

1:48:12 ↗ And so they need somewhere to go. If

1:48:14 ↗ there's not ample parking or somewhere

1:48:16 ↗ for them to go, I think being able to

1:48:18 ↗ you know, have that temporary or

1:48:20 ↗ timerestricted parking like a 30-minute

1:48:22 ↗ loading zone, whatever, three minute

1:48:23 ↗ loading zone, I think becomes like a

1:48:25 ↗ hard requirement for something like

1:48:27 ↗ especially like urban core or something

1:48:28 ↗ like that where um there's not, you

1:48:30 ↗ know, higher density area, lower parking

1:48:33 ↗ area. And for that, it would be more

1:48:35 ↗ looking at the off- streetet like space

1:48:37 ↗ as far as like curb management

1:48:40 ↗ strategies go. That kind of falls

1:48:41 ↗ outside the scope of the parking

1:48:43 ↗ requirements. Um, but I I I think both

1:48:47 ↗ are important.

1:48:49 ↗ >> Yes, Commissioner Crafts,

1:48:50 ↗ >> just as more of a broader zoning

1:48:52 ↗ question. So, Central Isiqua, if there's

1:48:55 ↗ going to Let's fast forward to 2050,

1:48:59 ↗ some of us will still be alive. Um, most

1:49:01 ↗ of you guys. Um, so there's a bunch of

1:49:05 ↗ buildings, not a lot of parking. in the

1:49:08 ↗ code, is there gonna if is it going to

1:49:10 ↗ allow because there may be a need to

1:49:12 ↗ have a private highstory

1:49:16 ↗ um parking garage. Are those going to be

1:49:19 ↗ allowed or not allowed in the future or

1:49:22 ↗ I don't know. It's probably may not

1:49:24 ↗ pencil out, but I'm not sure if there's

1:49:25 ↗ going to the economies of that, but cars

1:49:28 ↗ will have to go somewhere. And whether

1:49:30 ↗ it's in the buildings themselves or

1:49:33 ↗ in like you go into Seattle and there's

1:49:35 ↗ private parking garages.

1:49:37 ↗ >> Imagine trying to go to downtown Seattle

1:49:39 ↗ and there's no parking garages. That's

1:49:41 ↗ what I I'm wondering what would h So

1:49:43 ↗ does the code allow or would there be

1:49:47 ↗ future incentives to want those?

1:49:51 ↗ >> So I'm not going to provide opinion. Um

1:49:54 ↗ and I don't have my crystal ball with

1:49:56 ↗ me. I forgot it. Um but as part of

1:50:01 ↗ our

1:50:03 ↗ getting light rail, we gave up our light

1:50:05 ↗ rail parking station. So we don't have

1:50:07 ↗ garage parking at our station when it

1:50:10 ↗ comes here, which

1:50:13 ↗ would lead me, you know, that the

1:50:15 ↗ logistics are then there would need to

1:50:18 ↗ be some kind of parking and our code

1:50:20 ↗ allows parking garages.

1:50:22 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. So

1:50:26 ↗ >> they're not probably economically

1:50:27 ↗ feasible to build now,

1:50:29 ↗ >> right?

1:50:30 ↗ >> But they could be built v via code.

1:50:32 ↗ >> They could be built within.

1:50:34 ↗ >> Yes, there was discussion a while ago

1:50:35 ↗ about building one in between central

1:50:37 ↗ Isqua Oldtown.

1:50:39 ↗ >> So it's it's been discussed before.

1:50:46 ↗ >> Any other comments, questions on

1:50:48 ↗ >> Yeah, of course. vice.

1:50:50 ↗ >> Uh, going back to I think Commissioner

1:50:51 ↗ Olner mentioned the bike parking reform

1:50:53 ↗ came up in a developer letter. It's not

1:50:54 ↗ in scope tonight, I understand, but I

1:50:56 ↗ was just curious if it will be at some

1:50:58 ↗ point.

1:50:59 ↗ >> The bike parking reform.

1:51:06 ↗ >> We can talk about that one um and see if

1:51:08 ↗ we have time to do it. It's it's not on

1:51:10 ↗ our it's not on our agenda right now. If

1:51:12 ↗ if council directs us to do that at some

1:51:14 ↗ point or if you guys request us to look

1:51:16 ↗ into it, we can. Um, we just based on

1:51:20 ↗ our workload right now, we'd prefer to

1:51:22 ↗ wait on that one.

1:51:22 ↗ >> Gotcha. Yeah. I wasn't sure where it

1:51:23 ↗ came from. It kind of it was new to me,

1:51:26 ↗ so I didn't know if it had been

1:51:27 ↗ discussed in another

1:51:28 ↗ >> I feel like the developers got success

1:51:30 ↗ and now they're just

1:51:33 ↗ >> Yes, exactly. Seriously, I did. I mean,

1:51:35 ↗ again, they got a home run and they're

1:51:38 ↗ like, "Okay, let's keep going back for

1:51:39 ↗ more." Okay. Uh, any other comments,

1:51:43 ↗ questions on these first four?

1:51:45 ↗ All right, Andrew, you get what you

1:51:47 ↗ needed on this particular amendment?

1:51:48 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

1:51:49 ↗ >> Okay.

1:51:51 ↗ >> I know it's a hot hot topic, but this

1:51:54 ↗ one maybe not quite as exciting, but

1:51:57 ↗ allowing multif family housing in UVCOM

1:52:00 ↗ uh commercial retail zones.

1:52:03 ↗ So, what where is the UV commercial

1:52:06 ↗ retail zone? Um on this map, it's shown

1:52:09 ↗ as in the dark orange. It's basically uh

1:52:12 ↗ centered around the um

1:52:16 ↗ Grand Ridge Plaza area. And

1:52:21 ↗ why are we adding why are we proposing

1:52:23 ↗ to add multif family uses to this these

1:52:25 ↗ zones? So, Senate Bill 6026 uh

1:52:29 ↗ residential development and commercial

1:52:31 ↗ and mixeduse zones. It's p passed last

1:52:33 ↗ year with a lot of these um requires any

1:52:37 ↗ city planning under the GMA such as

1:52:38 ↗ Isiqua to allow residential uses in

1:52:42 ↗ areas currently zoned for commercial or

1:52:44 ↗ mixeduse development. Additionally, um

1:52:47 ↗ the bill it basically indirectly

1:52:49 ↗ requires cities to allow for um

1:52:52 ↗ co-living and permanent supportive

1:52:54 ↗ housing and transitional housing within

1:52:57 ↗ those zones as well because um separate

1:53:00 ↗ laws uh basically say if you allow you

1:53:04 ↗ have to allow those in and zones where

1:53:06 ↗ you allow residential. I'll get to that

1:53:09 ↗ in a slide or two, but um it also limits

1:53:13 ↗ the ability of cities to require ground

1:53:15 ↗ floor commercial uses.

1:53:18 ↗ So, this is a a closer up map. The dark

1:53:21 ↗ orange, the red orange color is is the

1:53:23 ↗ zone that we're talking about. It's

1:53:25 ↗ basically right now it functions as one

1:53:28 ↗ zone. Um but back when there was a

1:53:31 ↗ development agreement, it was kind of

1:53:33 ↗ two separate ones as far as I know. Um

1:53:37 ↗ so Senate Bill 6026 and then also step

1:53:41 ↗ housing and co-l livingiving. So since

1:53:43 ↗ multif family dwellings uh meaning five

1:53:46 ↗ or more units uh need to be permitted in

1:53:49 ↗ these zones, some of the step housing

1:53:51 ↗ types are therefore triggered. For

1:53:53 ↗ example, house bill uh 1220 required

1:53:56 ↗ jurisdictions to update development

1:53:58 ↗ regulations in respect to emergency

1:54:01 ↗ shelters, transitional housing,

1:54:02 ↗ emergency housing, and permanent

1:54:04 ↗ supportive housing. Some of that may

1:54:05 ↗ sound familiar to you. So essentially

1:54:09 ↗ since those type some of those two of

1:54:11 ↗ those types um of the step housing

1:54:15 ↗ permanent supportive and transitional

1:54:16 ↗ housing are required where any

1:54:19 ↗ residences or hotels are required then

1:54:22 ↗ essentially if we're being required to

1:54:24 ↗ allow multif family in these zones then

1:54:26 ↗ those other two residential types kick

1:54:29 ↗ in. Sorry, it's a little confusing but

1:54:33 ↗ um and then further I apologize I don't

1:54:35 ↗ have this on the slide um but RCW uh

1:54:38 ↗ separately RCW 367A535

1:54:43 ↗ that uh is related to co-l livingiving

1:54:45 ↗ or think of your a lot of people are

1:54:47 ↗ more familiar with the term boarding

1:54:49 ↗ house. So those used to be a more

1:54:51 ↗ popular type of uh living style

1:54:54 ↗ especially you know as there we're we

1:54:56 ↗ have this kind of loneliness epidemic

1:54:58 ↗ going on. we have less people having

1:54:59 ↗ kids. People may want to live with other

1:55:02 ↗ people that um you know uh people's

1:55:05 ↗ living situation no longer may be your

1:55:08 ↗ typical you know American dream of white

1:55:11 ↗ picket fence with two and a half kids.

1:55:13 ↗ Not that that's bad, but um so co-living

1:55:18 ↗ that that bill the RCW 367A535

1:55:22 ↗ co-living um is has to be required on

1:55:25 ↗ any lot that allows six or more

1:55:28 ↗ residential units. So in addition to

1:55:30 ↗ those two types of step housing, then

1:55:32 ↗ the co-living essentially is also

1:55:34 ↗ triggered to to be implemented.

1:55:37 ↗ >> May I jump in here for half a second for

1:55:38 ↗ an educational moment? Um, I just want

1:55:41 ↗ to know if everybody knows what RCW is.

1:55:46 ↗ Okay. It's it's the revised Code of

1:55:48 ↗ Washington. So, every time a bill is

1:55:50 ↗ passed, it is then codified and put into

1:55:53 ↗ our revised code of Washington. And I

1:55:55 ↗ don't know that I've ever brought that

1:55:56 ↗ up before and I just heard it and I

1:55:57 ↗ thought I should bring it up now. Okay,

1:55:59 ↗ back to the record.

1:56:03 ↗ >> And so, we do have policies that are in

1:56:06 ↗ support of this even though it's a

1:56:08 ↗ requirement from the state. uh such as

1:56:11 ↗ um several goals from the housing

1:56:13 ↗ element. I won't bore you with reading

1:56:15 ↗ them one by one, but um so our

1:56:18 ↗ recommendations for this is to update

1:56:19 ↗ the table of permitted uses located in

1:56:21 ↗ section 1842

1:56:25 ↗ of the IMCA municipal code. I'm sure you

1:56:27 ↗ knew that one to allow multif family

1:56:30 ↗ residential transitional housing,

1:56:32 ↗ permanent supportive housing, and

1:56:34 ↗ co-living uses in the UVC comm zones.

1:56:39 ↗ And then secondly, the recommendation

1:56:41 ↗ would to be to further review new

1:56:44 ↗ limitations to the ground floor

1:56:45 ↗ commercial requirements and assess

1:56:47 ↗ whether additional amendments are

1:56:49 ↗ necessary to fully comply with the

1:56:50 ↗ legislation.

1:56:55 ↗ So the consideration for this is does

1:56:58 ↗ the uh planning policy commission have

1:57:01 ↗ enough information to support a staff

1:57:03 ↗ recommendation on changing the permitted

1:57:06 ↗ uses in the UV uh commercial retail

1:57:09 ↗ zones

1:57:15 ↗ or are there any questions regarding

1:57:17 ↗ what we went over?

1:57:18 ↗ >> I think it'd probably be helpful to put

1:57:20 ↗ up that last slide before that one.

1:57:22 ↗ >> Okay. But the question before everyone

1:57:24 ↗ is as you saw, do you have enough

1:57:26 ↗ information?

1:57:28 ↗ Um,

1:57:30 ↗ okay. Let's kick it around the

1:57:35 ↗ >> Commissioner Zacharov.

1:57:36 ↗ >> I am familiar with that shopping plaza

1:57:39 ↗ very well. I live next door. I'm just

1:57:42 ↗ thinking where where is it possible to

1:57:44 ↗ live there in TJ Maxx in Safeway or any

1:57:49 ↗ of the restaurants there. So it's kind

1:57:51 ↗ of like but I saw that also across the

1:57:53 ↗ street it's still a grand reach. So

1:57:55 ↗ something is getting built there. So

1:57:59 ↗ >> yeah I believe there's a senior housing.

1:58:02 ↗ >> Senior housing. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just

1:58:05 ↗ kind of if we thinking about the future

1:58:09 ↗ >> Yeah. when

1:58:09 ↗ >> way into the future.

1:58:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Well maybe at some point. Yes. We

1:58:13 ↗ will we won't need stores anymore and

1:58:15 ↗ people will have deliveries all the

1:58:17 ↗ time.

1:58:18 ↗ There is still one undeveloped parcel

1:58:20 ↗ behind Grand Rage Plaza.

1:58:22 ↗ >> Oh yes.

1:58:24 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. So, well, yes, I guess then

1:58:29 ↗ then it's understandable,

1:58:31 ↗ but Okay.

1:58:34 ↗ Thank you.

1:58:35 ↗ >> Yeah, Commissioner Dare.

1:58:37 ↗ >> So, this is just putting us into

1:58:39 ↗ compliance with the state law basically.

1:58:41 ↗ So, I don't I I don't see the point of

1:58:43 ↗ going against state law.

1:58:47 ↗ Is that a fight we want to fight?

1:58:49 ↗ >> That was funny. Anybody else?

1:58:56 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson.

1:58:59 ↗ >> Uh kind of a follow-up question. Um I

1:59:02 ↗ know we talked about this state law, we

1:59:04 ↗ kind of have to do it, right? Is more or

1:59:06 ↗ less. Um but because it's in the

1:59:08 ↗ Highlands, it does have the the

1:59:10 ↗ covenants of the what would you call it?

1:59:13 ↗ >> Development agreement.

1:59:14 ↗ >> Thank you. No, not the development

1:59:15 ↗ agreement. The HO It's like the HOA or

1:59:17 ↗ what is it called? It's a covenants,

1:59:18 ↗ right?

1:59:19 ↗ >> It's it's kind of like their CCNRs.

1:59:21 ↗ Yeah. Um they have the Isqua Highlands

1:59:23 ↗ Architectural Review Committee and then

1:59:24 ↗ they also have the Isqua Highlands

1:59:26 ↗ Council,

1:59:26 ↗ >> right?

1:59:27 ↗ >> Um they uh regulate residential

1:59:30 ↗ properties, single family residential

1:59:32 ↗ properties and not commercial and multif

1:59:34 ↗ family.

1:59:35 ↗ >> Gotcha. So in this case, us making this

1:59:37 ↗ required change,

1:59:40 ↗ something could be built essentially

1:59:41 ↗ without their approval. Correct.

1:59:44 ↗ >> Okay, cool. Thank you.

1:59:52 ↗ Any other further comments, questions?

1:59:55 ↗ Okay,

1:59:57 ↗ so

1:59:59 ↗ um back to your question, Andrew, the

2:00:02 ↗ next slide. Does commission have enough

2:00:04 ↗ information to support the staff

2:00:05 ↗ recommendation on changing the UV

2:00:09 ↗ comm retail zones?

2:00:15 ↗ Okay. And then as far as Okay, if we go

2:00:19 ↗ back to the other slide now, as far as

2:00:21 ↗ uh the updates from review new

2:00:24 ↗ limitations to ground floor, that's also

2:00:26 ↗ part of the requirement. Correct. Okay.

2:00:28 ↗ I throw up my hands. All right.

2:00:31 ↗ So, essentially, I I did what I thought

2:00:35 ↗ was meeting the code and then Kate was

2:00:36 ↗ like, "Well, maybe we need to take a

2:00:38 ↗ look at this, too." So we will make the

2:00:40 ↗ the code amendments uh the proposed we

2:00:43 ↗ will bring back draft code amendments

2:00:45 ↗ meeting the um uh updating the permitted

2:00:49 ↗ uses table to uh include multif family

2:00:52 ↗ residential transitional housing

2:00:53 ↗ permanent supportive housing and

2:00:54 ↗ co-living uses in this zone these two

2:00:56 ↗ zones in addition to uh further

2:00:59 ↗ reviewing whether there's additional

2:01:01 ↗ implications

2:01:02 ↗ uh for the second part.

2:01:06 ↗ Okay. Well, thank you, Andrew.

2:01:07 ↗ Appreciate the presentation. You have

2:01:09 ↗ everything you need.

2:01:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you. And then I just had a a

2:01:13 ↗ >> slide on the timeline and then another a

2:01:15 ↗ final slide in case there were lingering

2:01:16 ↗ questions on the parking stuff. Um so

2:01:19 ↗ June, we're here June 11 reviewing. July

2:01:22 ↗ 9th will be a second review. So I expect

2:01:26 ↗ to bring back um draft code amendments

2:01:28 ↗ at that point. I'm sure there will be

2:01:30 ↗ there will still be a ton of questions

2:01:32 ↗ that I will welcome and we can talk it

2:01:35 ↗ out and

2:01:37 ↗ and have fun with the parking and the

2:01:40 ↗ other stuff. And then in August, uh it's

2:01:43 ↗ to be determined, but we're thinking

2:01:44 ↗ that would be when the public hearing

2:01:46 ↗ is. Um, I mean, I I could I would expect

2:01:49 ↗ there's potentially a small chance we

2:01:51 ↗ may need just an extra meeting for the

2:01:53 ↗ parking if anything, but if but I'm

2:01:56 ↗ remaining optimistic that um everything

2:01:59 ↗ will go smoothly. And then uh if that

2:02:02 ↗ does happen, then September 22nd would

2:02:05 ↗ be u when we would like to take it to

2:02:08 ↗ the the PTE or the planning development

2:02:11 ↗ and environment committee.

2:02:14 ↗ Um, lastly, are there any additional

2:02:17 ↗ questions I can answer?

2:02:21 ↗ >> All right, I think that's it.

2:02:22 ↗ >> Thank you so much.

2:02:23 ↗ >> Okay. Well, thank you, Andrew. So, that

2:02:26 ↗ takes care of regular business for us

2:02:28 ↗ this evening. Uh, let's move into

2:02:31 ↗ reports.

2:02:32 ↗ Um, am I looking at Kristen or Kate?

2:02:36 ↗ >> I don't have I don't have any council

2:02:38 ↗ reports.

2:02:38 ↗ >> Okay.

2:02:39 ↗ >> I do have a question.

2:02:42 ↗ May I?

2:02:44 ↗ >> She's gonna give us homework.

2:02:46 ↗ >> So, our our work So, council takes

2:02:50 ↗ August off and we have never done that

2:02:54 ↗ in the past. But this year, it was just

2:02:56 ↗ automatically put onto our calendar that

2:02:57 ↗ we would take August 27th off. And I

2:03:00 ↗ went to our clerk's office the other day

2:03:02 ↗ and said, "Do we really have to?" Um,

2:03:04 ↗ because we have a pretty big workload.

2:03:06 ↗ And I'm I think we need more review time

2:03:08 ↗ on some of the these items than we're

2:03:10 ↗ currently giving ourselves if we take

2:03:11 ↗ August 27th off. However, technically

2:03:15 ↗ we're actually going to PTE planning

2:03:17 ↗ development environment committee on

2:03:19 ↗ September

2:03:20 ↗ 1st. So if we hold our meeting on August

2:03:23 ↗ our public hearing on August 27th, that

2:03:26 ↗ doesn't give us enough time because the

2:03:27 ↗ packet is actually due before that. So,

2:03:30 ↗ I want to see first of all, raise your

2:03:33 ↗ hand if you'd be willing to have a

2:03:36 ↗ meeting on August, an additional meeting

2:03:37 ↗ on August 20th. Not an additional, but a

2:03:40 ↗ special.

2:03:46 ↗ >> Well, and that's my second question is

2:03:47 ↗ can we get a quorum that night?

2:03:50 ↗ >> Um, can

2:03:51 ↗ >> Commissioner Miller Irwin is our only

2:03:53 ↗ absence today?

2:03:54 ↗ >> Correct.

2:03:56 ↗ >> So, if you all

2:03:59 ↗ Okay, let's try that again.

2:04:01 ↗ >> Okay,

2:04:02 ↗ >> August 20th.

2:04:02 ↗ >> If you are able to be here, if you

2:04:04 ↗ believe that you are able to be here on

2:04:06 ↗ August 20th, please raise your hand.

2:04:09 ↗ One, two, three, four, five, six. We got

2:04:11 ↗ a quorum. Okay, great. Then I will you

2:04:14 ↗ will get a meeting notice about August

2:04:15 ↗ 20th then from uh Cassidy. Okay, thank

2:04:18 ↗ you. That's all I have.

2:04:22 ↗ Commissioner Mer is the 27th.

2:04:26 ↗ >> The 27th will be cancelled. It'll just

2:04:28 ↗ be rescheduled to the 20th instead. It

2:04:30 ↗ initially was canceled and then I asked

2:04:32 ↗ to get it back and then I asked to

2:04:33 ↗ switch it to the 20th.

2:04:34 ↗ >> Oh, so you don't want to do three

2:04:35 ↗ meetings in August.

2:04:36 ↗ >> No, just two.

2:04:37 ↗ >> We're just moving one up for more time

2:04:38 ↗ for you guys to put it together for PD.

2:04:40 ↗ >> Exactly. And to actually it gives us

2:04:42 ↗ because 27th was originally cancelled.

2:04:44 ↗ This gives us an additional meeting to

2:04:46 ↗ review amendments because everything

2:04:48 ↗ that's come through tonight's been

2:04:49 ↗ pretty big and we need more time.

2:04:51 ↗ >> Sure. No, I follow.

2:04:52 ↗ >> Okay.

2:04:52 ↗ >> Okay. Well, now you don't have any horse

2:04:54 ↗ trading since we all know you got the

2:04:55 ↗ 27th off. We're just moving our Thursday

2:04:57 ↗ up a week.

2:04:58 ↗ >> So, Okay.

2:05:00 ↗ >> Um,

2:05:01 ↗ >> I just had one

2:05:02 ↗ >> any other business.

2:05:03 ↗ >> I had one comment.

2:05:04 ↗ >> Oh, sorry, Commissioner.

2:05:06 ↗ >> I had just one comment. Included in our

2:05:08 ↗ packet was a report from Eco Northwest,

2:05:11 ↗ which I found very interesting in terms

2:05:14 ↗ of what efforts we're trying to make and

2:05:17 ↗ how effective or not they may be. So if

2:05:21 ↗ if you haven't had chance to go through

2:05:23 ↗ that Eco Northwest report, it's worth

2:05:25 ↗ worth doing.

2:05:26 ↗ >> And we will be discussing that a lot

2:05:28 ↗ further on our July what is it? No, June

2:05:30 ↗ 25th meeting. We'll be talking about

2:05:31 ↗ that a lot more.

2:05:33 ↗ >> Yeah. No, it's always fun seeing uh you

2:05:35 ↗ know what the city pays for in terms of

2:05:37 ↗ reaching out to

2:05:39 ↗ professionals in those fields. So yeah,

2:05:41 ↗ they are good reading. Okay, any other

2:05:45 ↗ business or announcements?

2:05:49 ↗ commissioners.

2:05:51 ↗ All right, let's get out of here. It's

2:05:54 ↗ uh we will close this meeting at the

2:05:56 ↗ Planning Policy Commission at 8:40 p.m.

2:05:59 ↗ Good night, everybody.

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)

Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Andrew Love, Associate Planner 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.

Leeson replied that it is not on the agenda currently and can be requested of staff but due to workload later would be preferred.
Commissioner Oliner stated that a report from EcoNorthwest had been included in the meeting packet and recommended reading.