Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, so what time is it? We're in 7-12. We're ready to go. We are ready whenever, is Tim still up there? Tim up there? Okay. I thought I saw Tim.

Oh.

Now I'm the one that's late. All right. Well, good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us. We are getting on to our second meeting of the evening. This is for the Planning Policy Commission. We're going to call this meeting to order. and it currently is 7.13 p.m. Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The Planning Policy Commission is in person, but we may have staff members or part of the public joining us virtually. Kristen, do we have a quorum this evening?

Yes, we do.

Okay. And I'd just like to take a moment to introduce our commission to our newest member, Commissioner Brett Holstrom. So, Brett, do you want to? Say a few words.

Happy to be here. Lots to learn, including where this meeting takes place. So I feel a little more experienced already at this point. But, yeah, I'm looking forward to meeting and working with everybody and offering any insight I can. So happy to be here.

Great. Happy to have you. All right. We're going to move on to the approval of minutes. You had some minutes in your agenda packet, and this is for the April 9th PPC meeting. Does anybody have any comments or anything they'd like to point out about those minutes? Mine's not technical. I'm just gonna bring it up, especially after our last meeting. I come across as pretty harsh on page three of 30. So for our recorder, it says chair voice stated that Issaquah has hit its housing targets and asked why there's a push for development. I think it was a little bit more nuanced than that. So again, I'm not gonna ask for anything formal, but just to let the record show, I think there was a little bit more to it than that. Okay, so having said that, those meeting minutes are approved. We set aside this time for general public comment. Is there anyone in the audience this evening who would like to make comment? All right, Carl. Yes, please come, he's back. Thank you very much.

Hello, commissioners. Carl Charette, Avalon Bay Communities. Nice to see you again. I have a public comment about the proposed required amenity spaces for residential uses. In layman's terms, as I understand it, we had made a recommendation that there be an evaluation of the minimum common outdoor amenity space, effectively balconies. And sorry, that was the minimum common outdoor amenity space, the private outdoor amenity space. We made a recommendation to reduce that amount, the amount of required balconies per building effectively. I believe that it landed that there is a minimum common outdoor amenity space of 100 square feet per unit, plus an additional 48 square feet for any units without private open space. I take objection to the plus additional 48 square feet for any units without private open space. As I understand, that's the same amount that would have existed previously if we had requested a variance under the city. So effectively, this is just documenting what we would have otherwise been able to secure via variance, and it doesn't help incentivize development at this stage. Happy to debate the merits of balconies. I'm thinking of this via Uh, the challenge in central school in particular of providing this additional private open space or additional, um, common outdoor amenity space. I would also add specifically the project I'm looking at. Um, the trailhead project is directly across the street from a public park. We believe that that's a valuable area that our residents will use in addition to the private, uh, in addition to the, gotta get the strike. common outdoor amenity space that we do provide on site as well. So the additional 48 square feet for any units without private open space is challenging for us to accommodate, adds cost to the development, and will disincentivize investment in the community. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Carl. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Amanda? No, Chair. OK. Thank you. All right, we're going to move along to our regular business this evening. And tonight, this is the Title 18 Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments, Building Step Back, and Multifamily Amenity Space Requirements in Central Issaquah. Let's see. We're going to discuss the proposed code amendments to upper level building step backs and multifamily amenity space requirements. Kristen Leeson, our planning manager, is presenting this evening. So Kristen, please go ahead.

Hello again. I'm Kristen Leeson, planning manager. Let's see. Hope you all are enjoying pizza. Still lots left. Okay. So we're going to start with step backs tonight and then move on to the amenity space. So as we talked about last time, the step backs are intended to sort of create a pedestrian, more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere and remove any canyoning effects that might happen with, you know, taller eight-story buildings with no step backs. During our April 9th discussion, there were several questions that were asked of you all. Do you want to eliminate the requirement for multiple step backs? Yes, indeed you do. Do you want to eliminate step backs along natural context areas? Again, because there are so many environmental regulations that are already in place. You said yes. We don't see a reason to keep the step backs there. Do you want to provide flexibility in the location of the step backs, either above the six story or where construction materials change? And you generally agreed. and wanted to provide flexibility, including just step backs. You want to see step backs on lower floors at location or at the location where concrete podium style construction ends, or where there are construction material changes. I'm just going to keep going. did you want to require a certain depth for stepbacks? And no specific depth was identified, so there should be a minimum. We just didn't discuss it. But there was agreement on removing the existing requirements that the stepback provide usable open space and that there be a maximum. Right now, the minimum is 5 feet and the maximum is 20 feet. You said there's no reason to do that. That's kind of up to, it's like parking. They're going to do what they want to do this far back. Also, we discussed creating an option for step backs to count as usable open space, which is an option for us to look at as well. Lastly, there we go, should the step back be continuous on all sides of the building or should it just be along streets? And if it's along just public streets, should it cover all 100% or can it be less? agreement last week and you guys can correct me if we're wrong uh the agreement we as we understood it last week was yes they should really be only required on street frontages and um there could be a possibility to have less than 100 all the way across so um one thing that i want to mention it's not in here i should have meant to put it in here Just a reminder, we're only talking about central Issaquah. There is another section in the code that requires step backs. There are certain things that you have to do if you want to go up to 50 feet, certain things that you have to go, you know, if you want to go 65 and then up to 85. Because those are outside of central Issaquah, we're not addressing those right now. Maybe at a later date, but not now. So I just wanted to let you guys know that that is also out there and potentially a future amendment, just looking at central right now. OK, so our first proposal is just this is the natural context areas, and it's just to just remove all discussion and requirements for step backs there. And again, we are going to talk about natural context areas at another point. There's more that goes to that, but at least that part is gone, if you like it. it all the time um next is that so it already says we don't have that they don't have to comply um all street facing facades for buildings six stories or higher must include step backs four buildings those step backs can begin by the second floor so right above the first floor or at the sixth floor so right above the fifth floor anywhere in there they can start and maybe where they can you know maybe a A five over three, you want to do it on the third floor. It may be a five over two, you want to do it over the second. But just somewhere in there is the proposal right now. We removed the piece about incorporating terraces in usable space and removed the piece about four fewer floors. Because if you can go all the way to the sixth floor, there's really no point in requiring, or wait, this is about, they can't incorporate more than one. Anyway, didn't make sense. If they want to incorporate more than one, there's not a problem with that. Again, the Northwest Contemporary style provided the same rules there. And then, same thing, they shall begin by floor six, but can begin at floor two. Okay, any questions about those? Yes. Jason, I could say as well.

Just making sure. Trying to follow rules around here. How did we land on six stories for kind of that, I guess, minimum?

It was based on a study that was done several years ago for the Title 18 update and was proposed. It was research from other cities and what they do. That's where it came from.

That sounds good. I think the only reason I would ask is I know our concern last week or last meeting when we brought this up was kind of the canyon effect. I was trying to envision, you know, six stories is pretty high. I can't think of too many buildings in Issaquah that reach that much. Obviously, Central Issaquah, we're looking at new different growth and development. But I guess for the commission, like, are we comfortable with six stories? Like, does that seem like a reasonable height to start?

And this isn't baked. So this is your opportunity to say, hey, we all agree it should be lower.

Yeah. Yeah, so one thing I was gonna say is maybe Kristen you could call it because I can't see what do you in fact? I miss Kate and my thank-you apology So I yeah, I'm just like like I said, I'm focused on the presentation on you So I'm missing people when they're putting their hands.

Yeah, I'll do it.

Okay. Okay.

So yeah, I believe actually Commissioner Olaner raised his hand at the same time as I

It's kind of a weird question, but say you have a setback that begins on the second floor, and that setback occurs. You have a six-story building. You have a setback at the second floor. That goes up two floors. There's nothing really preventing the developer then from cantilevering the last two upper floors.

Oh, you mean like over?

Yeah, back again. In other words, taking the setback away once you... It's more expensive, but it also adds square footage, and... that may be a trade-off that the developer would be interested in.

But you're right. I see what you're saying. And there was one code that said all floors at this floor and all floors above. So if that's something that you want to include, you could do that so that they can't come back and can't leave the first floor.

I don't even know what my opinion on that is. But I think it's something that we should be prepared to address in case it comes up.

Which we'd like to nip it in the bud now if we think it's going to be an issue rather than having to come back and amend again.

Right.

Oh, sorry. I forgot to say it. Commissioner Matthews. I'm used to you doing it.

Off of what Vice Chair said about the six stories, just for comparison, do you know how tall the Atlas apartments are and the Vale, I think, is right next to it? They're five stories. They're five stories. OK. Thank you.

They are. I will note that most of those are set back. They're set back a little bit further, except along Seventh. They're set back a little bit further from Gilman. So I don't know if that makes a difference.

No, it's because I've been by those buildings, so I was just trying to compare. Since he said six seemed tall, I was just trying to, in my mind, picture what it was like. Thank you.

You're welcome. Commissioner Crass.

So if it changes, it's going to be a podium if it's six-story. You're not going to be able to do wood six stories. That means probably two stories are cement by definition, then they'd have to have a step back before six stories.

So even... So, Jess, it was your question.

You still may have a six-story straight up, but I think it would probably have to just because they can't construct something, unless they do a cement building for six stories, which they're not going to do. Six stories?

Yeah. Yes, I'm sorry.

Okay.

JUST MY OPINION IS I KIND OF AGREE WITH JESSE, SORRY, COMMISSIONER JESSE, THAT 60 STORIES FEELS A LITTLE TALL TO BE STARTING IT. MAYBE FOUR STORIES MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE. AND ALSO, I DO THINK IT'S GOOD TO NOTE WHAT COMMISSIONER OLLINER SAID ABOUT THE CANDLE LEAVER. WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD BE ALL THE WAY UP. THAT'S MY OPINION.

Can we take an informal vote on the first would be the four stories, and the second would be the making sure that they all remain back? Sorry, I'm taking the chair's role right now. No, not at all.

I was just going to ask, the second option was what?

The second option is, Commissioner Ohlender talked about how you could step back, go up for maybe three stories, and then come back out over toward the cantilever. Oh, the cantilever option. You're the chair.

Two separate questions, I suppose.

Yes, they are two separate questions. And then Commissioner Adair.

Oh, just to expound on my point a little further, I just think if the point of this is to prevent a canyon effect, then having a cantilevered building would not prevent that effectively. So it would nullify the point of the code in the first place. And then the second, again, I believe that a six-story would cast a significant shadow, which is why I'm suggesting something lower. But I am open to debate on that. I'm not married to it.

I'll try and take my role back. Let's see. Let's see how it goes. Okay. Great point, Commissioner, there. So question one is, should it start at four and then go up? What's everybody feel?

Or lower.

Or lower. But four being the maximum. Then you have to have a step back. I like that. Because we're not going to have that many six-story buildings. You can have it lower, but you have to by four.

We have consensus.

We have consensus. All right. And then the second question being the cantilever question. To Commissioner Adair's point, kind of negates the whole idea we've been talking about, which is the canyon effect. Do we want to nip that in the bud? Do we want to discuss that further? I mean, now's kind of the time. Yes, yeah, absolutely. Vice-chair.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, it would be like, you know, wall for three stories. It would cut in for a story and then go back to like wall. I think because my understanding of the step-backs is it's mostly design aesthetic, like it's to prevent the canyon effect, it's to make it look more visually attractive, if you will, from a curbside appeal. I think I'm in favor of that allowing that I guess. Um, because the, it allows the flexibility by still allowing square footage to be so, you know, you're not taking square footage away all the way up the building. It's just that you're keeping the design aesthetic while still allowing the developer to, you know, capitalize on going up and, uh, maximizing that square footage, um, ability.

That's interesting. So the idea would, they'd still have to be within the original footprint. of the lower floors, but they could come back.

Right, it couldn't extend beyond the first floor.

I think you could sell me on that all day long, because especially after talking to the developers, if they're looking for more living space.

Question, did we also talk about reducing the, there's no minimum? Or is there still a five-foot minimum?

Correct, there's no minimum on there.

So here's how it could get gamed. Someone just bring it in a little bit, they met it, then they go back out, and then they have their square footage. So I think there should be still a minimum. Because if you take away the minimum, then all it is, define a step back. A step back could be very little. So it doesn't meet the goals of what we're trying to accomplish.

Commissioner Allender?

Yeah, I think without a minimum, you could achieve a setback of six inches by changing material on the outside of the building.

And that's not really what we're looking for.

I would agree that a minimum is necessary. I would also suggest that, you know, I think coming back out at higher levels to the original, it sort of defeats the purpose of not creating a canyon. And I think a wedding cake appearance, tiered appearance, is far more attractive than something that cuts in and then bulks out it. That, to me, is an aesthetic question.

Commissioner Adair. Oh, sorry.

To the first point, yeah. I think if our goal is to avoid a canyon effect, it effectively nullifies that if we allow it to go back. And then my second point would be a suggestive minimum maybe of six feet, five feet.

Commissioner Zakharoff.

Yeah, I'm listening. What are we trying to achieve here, actually? Because we just heard the whole presentation about how hard it is to build an Instagram and how many, actually, hurdles we have for developers to develop. And we have some projects here that are sitting for 10 years or almost 10 years. And at the very same time, we kind of, to me, we're right now, yeah, we want things to be beautiful, but is it a good time for things to be beautiful, or is it a time for us to actually get at least something built in the city? So let's, to my opinion, let's try not to create more hurdles with what we're doing now. So, yeah.

So I guess informal vote. Who likes the idea of getting rid of the cantilever options? Okay, so that clearly wins. There's that. So yeah, no, they can't go back. And then as far as a minimum, which Commissioner Dare brought up, I think is a good point. I know we kind of thought the idea of a maximum was silly, but the minimum, and I think originally we had the minimum at five feet.

Yes.

Do we just want to revert back to five feet? I don't know. Okay, informal vote.

OK, five feet.

Sometimes we just need to talk about it, just need to flesh it out.

That's what we're here for.

That's what we're here for.

We've got to talk about it.

Commissioner Holstrom.

I will say, even the difference between like a four foot or five foot setback when you multiply it by the width of the building times another four, I mean, that's a large space. That's a lot of square footage, even just going from four foot to five foot. which will drive up the cost of that building rather significantly. So I would just add, it's not just aesthetics. It's also, are they going to be able to build this building or not?

I agree with that. I think we've also framed it so it's only on certain portions of the building. And don't forget, these buildings are going to be there for 75 years. So we are... you know, once you build them, they will stay. And then, what's that? No, I'm just saying. So I think there's ways in the flexibility, especially if some of these things get to count towards some of the other things, like their outdoor space, then it meets some other objective that they may have to manage around. So it may end up kind of balancing out.

We just heard a great presentation from the developers who obviously have their own point of view. Um, but it's also important to remember we work real hard on some of our designs and aesthetics and we want to find that balance. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Um, like to hear more from developers because they are a stake partner. They are partner, uh, to this and they're definitely a stakeholder. But again, it's, you know, also remember all of the other meetings we had before people that are concerned about environments to, Commissioner Adair's point, the canyon effect. So it is a balance. And to Commissioner Kras's point, these buildings are going to be landmarks for 40 years. So, 75. I don't know who your developer is.

Commissioner Matthews?

I was actually just going to reiterate the fact that we're trying to create a livable space for people it's not just a place for developers to make money. We want to have a nice space where people feel comfortable walking down the streets, um, which you don't really see. Like if you go into Redmond town center, it's not gorgeous. It's like, boom, you're going right down the street. You really don't get a lot of feeling from that area. So I do appreciate we live in a smaller town. We do want to add more people, but we want to make sure it's like a livable space that we're creating for people.

Thank you, Commissioner Matthews. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Trying to strike the balance. So again, I think you got those two informal votes.

Yes, I do need to confirm, and there will be a minimum. I do need to confirm, though, that when we say at the fourth floor, so here's your face, right? Here's your first floor, your second floor, your third floor, your fourth floor, your fifth floor. Is that what you're talking about? Are you talking about first floor, second floor, third floor, fourth floor? wait wait wait this is a west coast east coast thing right because the first floor is always on the ground floor right but i'm saying you're stacking them right you've got your first floor through the third floor stay here oh right do you want it to start do you want the setback to stop at the top of the fourth or at the bottom of the fourth top top or if it's a podium style wherever that should be Well, and then typically, if you do a podium, it's going to be below the 4th floor.

Yes, so just wanted to be sure that, you know, we're talking most of these would come into play as a podium style, which people want to build to the maximum extent based on that type of construction type. So at 75 feet becomes a high rise, so most of these buildings are going to be below 75 feet. So it could be three stories of concrete plus... five stories of wood frame. If they can stay within 75 feet, that's the type of construction you're gonna get. Now, if we say we are gonna allow people to do anywhere at two, second story to, top of the fourth story chances are people will do it at the second story because that's where the material is changing you aren't going to get anyone stepping back at fourth story because they would lose leasable space for the top three stories so hence this recommendation of going just for the top floor to step that back so if you go at the that would be at the bottom of the seventh Well, I think in that instance, it was at the top of the fifth floor, is what we meant, I think, with the sixth story. Where the fifth story ends, you go back. If you do it at the fourth story, you may want to put it in the code, but nobody's going to do it. That's just because they will just do it at the second story, because that's where the material is changing. Well, it has two different things going on. If the step back happens at the material change, it gives you a different aesthetic. If it happens at the top level, it gives you a different aesthetic. What we've heard is that the top level, it adds complexity for plumbing, more beams, heavier things. But if someone wants to build penthouses at the top floor and have beautiful views looking outside, they have the option. under the proposed amendments at this point. But putting it at the fourth story likely is not gonna be used because you would lose for top three floors would have to stay, because they're not gonna go back, especially if we don't let them come back and forth, right? And so that would mean for the top three stories, you're losing leasable space. Just wanted to make sure as you debate about this, that it's clear what the unintended consequences.

Commissioner Matthews.

I actually thought this was for cases where they weren't changing the materials at the second. Like say it's just a concrete building or just a wood building, then we would require them to set back at the fourth floor. But if they were changing materials, we'd say that's fine to set it back there. So I thought that we were having two different recommendations.

The intent is we want step backs, no matter what the construction type. You want step backs, unless we're saying a different thing.

Well, we're saying we want to give people flexibility. If the majority of people want to change it to where the material changes, they can do that. If they want to do it at the upper floor, then they can do that. If you say you have to do it where the material changes, then if someone wants to do it at the upper floor, they won't be allowed under the code. Yeah, but nobody's going to do more than one. are of choice unless they really believe in a good design, you know, a design that can make project pencil and all those kind of things that we heard tonight.

Commissioner Adair. Would it be possible to those ends then to say you can have a step back when the material changes or for the top floor provided your building is, you know, we know what the height is. It's capped at 75 feet. So that might make it a little more feasible for them. Is that kind of what you're thinking?

Well, right now it says... for building six stories or higher, shall begin by the sixth floor, by floor six, so at the bottom of the sixth floor, and may begin as low as floor two. So the bottom of floor two. Commissioner, yes, Commissioner Kress?

So we're not requiring them at, the podium material change based on what you just said.

Right, we're not requiring them. We're giving them the option.

So no one's going to do it until the very top floor, and now we still have caverns. So it doesn't meet the objective. You're going to have five-story buildings with a setback on the last floor because they're going to maximize. Why would they do it any lower if you don't require it?

Well, that's how the TOD project did. They ended up doing the step back where the material changes. So yes, you lose leasable space for all those floors, but for them it was cheaper to do it that way, or that's their intent, or they wanted to do it at that material change. So the language in front of you is giving people options. It's not mandating that you change it where the material changes. But if they want to do it there, they can do it there, or they do it. If we don't want to say at the sixth floor, we just want to say at the top floor, at the very... We should set up expectations this is not going to reduce cavern effect, because...

I mean, you could do that, that's fine, but it's not going to meet that objective. It's a different objective because if you go five stories and you then pull in five feet on the sixth floor, it's still going to be a cavern. So unless you require something lower, you're not going to have any impact. So if I look at what you were mentioning, Redmond versus Mercer Island, which seems to have more rules. I'm not sure if they have more rules, but it seems like they have more step backs. It has a totally different feel. So it depends on what our objective is. If our objective is avoiding caverns, then I think you have to be a little bit more firm. If you wanna add more flexibility, then I think you just realize you're not gonna meet that objective, and that should be just intentional.

Yeah, I mean, a five-foot step back at your material change is still gonna, you're gonna see that whole mass of your building, right? The canyon effect by a five-foot step back at a concrete podium is, is not a significant canyon effect change. That happens through a lot of modulation of the building facade and breakdown of their own things. I think there are multiple objectives here. The canyon effect is not the only objective. It's also to break up the building block and the mass and create a top to the building. So it's just, you know, different ways of creating, breaking up the mass of the building and creating more,

So I think we should articulate our objectives in priority order and what will trade off for what. And I think that would be clear. And then I think maybe even review some other examples and see how we feel about it. Because especially if we're changing our objectives and the priorities around them, I think it's worth another view of what meets those different things. Because we may be all thinking about it in a slightly different way.

So then it sounds like you all need to have a revisit of the objectives here.

looking at the chair do you wanna yeah I'm comfortable with that I mean again this seems like it got very convoluted in the last five minutes so yeah doesn't hurt to review more it'd be nice to see some examples but six stories again I don't think you're gonna get married very many six-story buildings myself so it seems I don't know there's the light is literally right on that presentation screen To me, it makes more sense floor four. I mean, I hear what Mitty's point is, but I mean, if people want some examples, yeah, that's what we're here to do.

Commissioner Ulner?

I just think we shouldn't get hung up on this whole podium design question because construction methods are changing all the time. Mass timber is emerging as a very cost-effective and attractive solution, and there is no material change in those buildings. So I don't want us to get hung up assuming that there's one construction type that's going to be used and then find out that it's irrelevant because of other methods. And a six-story building that is set back only at the sixth floor is not addressing the canyon effect that Commissioner Kratz was saying.

That's really my point.

Yeah. I'll be negative to the question before.

Should there be a minimum step back of two fours to avoid just having that top four setback? Couldn't convoluting a little more, but.

Thank you, Chair. I think what my concern is, given the very thoughtful presentation by the developers, is if we're kind of getting in the weeds in terms of making these minimums and determining where these step backs are, are we really limiting their ability to build here in Issaquah? So are we literally, through this exercise, adding the very limitations that they're concerned about? understanding that that's not the only consideration that we have, but I think it's a considerable one.

Commissioner Adair. I mean, just to those points, so I think from the presentation we saw that these kinds of concerns, while they're important, they don't have the same kind of financial effect for them as something like the MFPE and the wild line, the wild, sorry, the waterway buffers. So I And I think also we're already removing, we're downsizing the code from multiple step backs to just one step back. We're already streamlining it significantly. So to those ends, I think we have to reach a happy medium because we have long-term livability versus short-term buildability. And I do think affordable housing is important, but we need to keep everything in mind.

Yeah, no, and I appreciate that because the other thing, too, is, oh, sorry, Commissioner Zacharoff, go. It's a fight for the mic.

Sorry, thank you. Why we just don't do it this way for all buildings 75 feet and taller, they have to have one step back of five feet on one side, and it has to be either on the level of the material change or on the fourth floor. either there or there.

Commissioner Cross? I'm going to come back to, we just have to discuss what we're solving for. Pardon me? We have to kind of agree of what we're solving for. Yes. Because right now we're going straight to tactics, and I think, and these are all little knobs that we're talking about, but I think we should just be very clear, as we mentioned, there's a whole bunch of different objectives, and let's prioritize them. And I think it may become clearer after there's agreement on what those are of what the right way of doing it is. So I think that's kind of the number one thing to do quickly. And then there's a couple different variants that may, based on those, which should align to those. Because right now we're looking at tactics where we're still, I think there's some ambiguity of what objectives are.

So the intent in the code states it is to create a pedestrian-friendly environment and to prevent the caning effect. That's what the code says. If there's something else out there though that you want to achieve by this.

And see, one thing I'll say is I, I think the code everyone has to remember, we've had these talk with developers and that's the point where again, um, they had an opportunity before too when we were doing it. So I know everyone wants to tear apart title 18 and just start script from scratch. There was like two years that went into that and their big thing was clarity and consistency wasn't setbacks. It wasn't this. That was our design saying this is what we want to make our downtown core livable, aesthetically pleasing. So again, nice men, love the presentation, but that was just one point of view. You also have the point of view of the residents that live here, the people that are going to be living here. The developers, as you heard, are going to sell these buildings rather quickly. And yeah, we want to help them by all means. But again, I think the two goals that Kristen just laid out, those were well thought out by the community, not by the PPC. That was by the community, by feedback that we had through multiple conversations with the community. So I think our objectives are those. But I mean, that's why we're having this conversation. Vice Chair Patterson.

Just to follow up on that, that was great points, is I think where things start to get convoluted is that we're all kind of looking at this through the lens of those objectives are very community-focused, like for living here and living with these buildings, but we're looking at it through the context of these work items came from promoting building investments in ISCWA. And so I think that's where we might be struggling a little bit is like, at least personally, I can't speak for everybody, but I think where I'm personally struggling a little bit is it's almost like a tug-of-war, right, where there's the part of me that wants to live up to that design aesthetic of like, yeah, we agreed we want it to be a walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, and design aesthetics reduce the canyon effect. So that is, in my mind, the objective. But then we have this kind of overlay of like, our current code is not developer friendly and we need to make it more developer friendly. So what can we do to reduce some of the restrictions or requirements in our current code to make it more developer friendly? And so I think we're all trying to figure out in this tug war of like, where do we draw that line? How do we meet those objectives of being reducing the Canyon effect and making it a walkable, you know, city, but also make it more developer friendly. I think that's why we keep getting in these kinds of loops and circles is we're trying to figure out what, what levers to pull. And maybe you're in the same kind of mentality. But I think that's kind of, at least speaking personally, where I'm at with it.

Like Carl's graph with the money. So I think there are bigger things that they're worried about than setbacks. Again, they mentioned a couple. I don't think the setbacks is what's causing developers not to come here.

So we heard loud and clear during the TOD project, right, that is getting built. They threw some numbers to the order of it's going to cost a million dollars more to do a step back. And hence the council's housing cooperative agreement that gave them that break. During Title 18, that issue with TOD was fair and square. It was fixed in one of the sections of the code where it says you can go to the step back at level two or level six, it's based off of the Redmond model, where you're giving people the flexibility of choosing where you want to step back. And I think the objective, yes, is also the canyon effect is really, if you have a narrow street versus a wide, 800 foot street, you're gonna get a different feel for the building. and downtowns of major cities have tall buildings so i think it's also how we want to categorize a canyon effect it's not a simple thing that you know this story gives you a canyon effect and this doesn't or a five foot step doesn't it's not that black and white in that respect so however i think that we can't debate that this isn't doesn't add cost to the to the building it does add cost and so if we are willing to give them the flexibility of where they want to choose which we the city can still require a step back but they get to choose where they put it i think that's fair that's an objective i think we can all agree so are we basically saying we just want to stick with the whole code No, the old code didn't mandate it if you're above five stories.

Okay, so we're just saying we want to give them options. We're just lowering it.

You could lower it or you do it at five or six.

And to Commissioner Oehlner's point, the podium thing may be obsolete in 10 years. Right, and so maybe we just, do we want to do it by floor? Do we want to kick this conversation and ask for more examples? Do we want to go with Commissioner DiCiaco?

My word of caution was the four-story, nobody's going to take you up on that. And so while it might seem like an okay thing that you wanted set back at four-story, people will do it at level two then. So just understanding that policy objective of what we are trying to achieve here. Maybe we can draw some graphics, like a cross-section. Here's where the second step for the next packet, we give you some more visuals.

That would be helpful.

Yeah, that would help me too, because like the East Coast, West Coast thing of where I am imagining the first floor, second floor, third floor versus, and then the top of the first floor is different than the, I mean the top of the second floor is different than the bottom of the second floor, and right now it just says second floor. that would help me a lot. Because when you said six floor, I think I imagined the top of the sixth floor and not the bottom of the sixth floor, which might have been the intention. Mr. Ulner?

Just a couple of clarifications. Being an East Coast guy, we still call the ground floor level the first floor. So I think it's only in Europe that you have ground floor and first floor. But the other clarification I wanted to make is if you look at buildings being developed in dense urban areas now, there are great concerns not only about access to daylight that's causing stepbacks to be required, but it's also a matter of wind. Wind hits the side of a building, rushes down, and it makes pedestrian life miserable. And so I think we can look at examples of how of cities where there are canyons, but they're not favored now because we've seen what the effects are.

OK. So I think we have a minimum step back. We also agree that we don't want it to cantilever back over. So any floor, wherever that step back starts, it has to continue. Right now, it seems like what is written here might work, where it's the minimum of the shall begin by as low as floor two, that must begin by floor six, which would be the bottom of floor six and the bottom of the first floor. But we're going to bring examples. So I'm going to leave it like this for right now, and we'll bring examples to the next meeting and talk about it.

That work?

OK. All right. All right. This is fun stuff. All right. On to private and common open amenity space. So these are the goals. Foster and enhance the quality of life, create connections among residents, raise the property values, keep tenants in place longer, and reduce turnover, which is the same thing. So last time, there were three questions that we talked about last time. Do you want to amend the code to add options instead of having applicants ask for deviations, which is what we currently do? And you said, yes, we do. But a single preference wasn't preferred. There wasn't one thing that was preferred. So the options were 100 square feet per unit, guys can't see what i see on my screen it's being blocked one second no but i on my screen it's blocked okay i can't okay there we go um 100 feet 100 square feet per unit of common outdoor space plus 48 square feet of private open space or 100 square feet per unit plus an additional 48 square feet per unit for any units that don't have open private space, or 100 square feet per unit plus 30% of units to have 48 square feet of private space. Those were the options. Nothing was settled on. Another one was, do you want to allow flexibility in the standard for open space for commercial and multifamily buildings converting to affordable residential housing? The answer is yes. And do you want to require open space for only 30% of the units instead of the current 50% of units? And that 50% is actually as part of the deviation. Right now, 100 units are required to have it. But you can get a deviation requesting 50% as long as the other 50%, that 48 square feet, is included in the common space. So the proposal is, right now, and we added on the five plus units as well. So for both of these, for anything five units up, it would be 100 square feet per unit of common outdoor amenity space. I'm gonna move over to the right. Plus a minimum of 30% of the units must provide individual outdoor space there. For the other 70%, you have to include an additional 48 square feet in that common area. So if you have 100 units, Each one of those has to have 100 square feet of common space. And then 30 of those units have to have 48 individual square feet of space attached to their unit. But the other 70 units, you calculate 70 times 48, and that goes into the common space. Yeah. Mr. Matthews.

It just occurred to me. The common space could be indoor or outdoor, is that right?

No, the common, this one's, you have common outdoor space, and then you have the 400 square feet is indoor-outdoor.

Sorry, I just read that.

That's okay. Yes, Mr. Krause.

When we talked about it before, it was for 22 units and up, so now the five to 21 units? is new, so now you're requiring anybody, and now two of them have to have a balcony, is what you're saying. Right. So can you explain the rationale why we want to do it for the smaller developments as well?

I'm going to phone a friend.

No, because we were just, this is new. Because we only talked about the bigger developments, and now.

Could you repeat your question? Why was that?

We didn't talk about the five to 21 units last time. We only talked about the 22 and over. And this is just, the question is, these requirements for the small developments, small plants.

Yeah, I mean, that's a question. I think we put it there because it seemed like smaller units don't get a balcony. More chances are the smaller the five unit folks also need some outdoor space But if it doesn't make sense for five units to have 500 square foot of common space That's yeah, we could take that out Yeah, just it's just I'd like I mean you may have a great reason I just it's new to the discussion and There's a lot more limited limitations when you have a small plat with five So five or less won't have any common space. But do the five or less have no private open space?

Do we want to ask them to build balconies for a five-unit apartment building? I don't know. It's a new discussion.

Currently, if you have five units, they're required to have 48 square feet of individual outdoor space. The way this is written, it would be just 30% of those units have to have it.

You all mull it over. The 100 square feet already exist. So we just added the flexibility piece to it.

We didn't talk about it before. I was just trying to understand. If this is something new, we should.

I think we were having a global conversation previously, maybe. Yeah. But we're open to if you think we should treat the smaller units differently. But currently, the code requires even the smaller ones to have 100 square feet per unit and 48 for all five of them.

It adds a little bit more flexibility.

I'm just curious. If you're doing a five to eight unit, those are little infill lots. There's some on not too far from me near Gilman Village. I think there's one that I see a sign. um i'm just i'd like to learn more of like does it does it change the feasibility for them to even be able to build it once you add those square footage on something like that because they also probably have to have some parking in there as well because they're they're put on small much smaller lots so i just i think it need need to understand the feasibility of what what that means for right getting these plots either built or not built because i've noticed that white sign's been there for about two years and nothing's happened so i wasn't sure whether it's a requirement thing or they have no money. I just know they're on smaller loss, and you have a lot more things that are tugging at it.

Any other thoughts on that? Yes. Commissioner Zachroff?

Thank you. I think we've just heard from developers again that 48 square feet was a problem. So... I'm not sure. I kind of have a feeling that it's like my feeling is that we do have an issue in the city that nothing is being built and people really have a problem building big projects here in the city and we have several things that should be built and had to be built within the past 10 years and nothing is built and we won't make things work. And at the same time, We have people who are going to build those things and they're coming to the meeting and they're saying what their exact troubles are and what can be done for them to make things easier and they bring examples of surrounding cities and how it worked and I'm pretty sure and and they also bring examples that it worked for them, and they brought their business to those cities, and we are here talking about how we, I don't feel that we are trying to make things easy, it's not about them, it's about us getting something built in the city, bringing people to the city, bringing taxes to the city, bringing jobs to the city, just bringing stuff to the city, getting our light link, here because we have a reason for that so that's kind of my position and kind of that's my maybe it's just my feeling I don't know I myself leave in a condo building two bedrooms no balcony very like rarely that i use the outdoor space of my building i'm not even sure how much of the outdoor space i'm entitled to because i always kind of go somewhere and i've lived there for six years and i feel very comfortable so yeah i i'm not sure for for the 48 square feet mr adair

Okay, so I spent some time today and I sent everyone a spreadsheet I worked on. I did make some last minute tweaks to it just now after our conversation, because I realized I had some of the math wrong. But with those tweaks, I'll say, doing some rough pencil math, it looks like Bellevue requires roughly about, for a 22 unit building, 1,350 square feet, 1,350. Bothell Canyon Park requires about 4,400 square feet of community open space. Redmond would require about 1,400 through 2,200, depending. Theirs is a lot more complex. And Snohomish is about 3,300. So the average is about 2,800 square feet, give or take. And ours... given my updates, assuming a 30% balcony, like let's say that a 22 unit takes advantage and has 30% of their units have the balcony space for private space and 70% take the 48 to the community space, then we would have about 2,940 square foot for a 22 unit. So stop me if I went through any of that past. So that kind of puts us in the middle of the pack of those four things. Now if we want to get more competitive with Bellevue and Redmond, I wouldn't be opposed to tweaking it down to put us maybe in the 2200 range. for 22 unit building personally, that's me to kind of increase competitiveness, but I don't want to, you know, completely eliminate community outdoor space or anything like that. I'm happy with getting more flexible and getting more open, but I also think looking at their codes, they weren't all super clear cut either. So there's only, you know, so that's my opinion.

That is awesome. Commissioner Oliver. First of all, I appreciate your going through that effort, thank you. I think the economics of building a five unit complex is very different than a larger one. And I guess if, you know, going back to this whole affordability issue, if we're saying we can't, we're dissuading developers from building on small lots, because we're requiring a lot of open space on a lot that's constrained, as has been said, by driveways and parking areas. That concerns me. Whereas the larger units, larger unit developments, I think there are other macroeconomic factors that are far more important than whether we're requiring 30% of the units to have private outdoor space. So I think that in my mind, there should be a difference in how we treat those two categories.

Informal vote?

Or discussion?

Sure, pose the question.

I believe what you just brought up was, and I believe you brought up the same thing, and actually Commissioner Kress as well, is the idea of, so right now, The way it's written, anyway. So for the five units and more, not a whole lot has changed. It's still the same amount of square footage of open space that we were requiring before. It's just that now just a minimum of 30% of those have to have open space. But you wanna change that one altogether? The can is open, yes it is. So what is it?

So who wants to mix the open space for the five units to 21 units?

Mix it or discuss or understand more? You can understand more.

I think that was the question though, as far as that was the part that was added from our code that's right now.

Well, it sounds like the, the code for the five to 21, is being altered to make them have less. But since those aren't being built either, I wonder whether they're, it opened the can of questioning whether all of the stuff is one of the reasons why smaller infill ones are not being built. And I think it's a bigger question of if we think there's an opportunity to get more housing built, not from the one or two big developments that take 10 years to do, but some of these infill lots where you could do six to eight units of apartments, we should understand more of what's keeping those from happening. And if this is one of those reasons, I don't know if this is an issue, but it made me think that it could be.

I think the other question too is that Is that truly what's going on? Because there is infill development happening. Yeah, you see some on Newport Way. Right, but you see it in Front Street? Right, but those are still those type of infill lots we're talking about. So it is being built. Right. So again, so I guess it's just a definition of how much development I mean, I think these, the three that I'm...

It may or may not be an issue. I just mean, once you open up the code, it's like, well, we should understand more. If we're tweaking it, we should...

I hope there's a lot more pizza in that room. No, it's something that someone brought up to me, too. It's like there is development happening, and they're actually the smaller ones. It's just not being where we want it in centralistic law. To your point, it's not the big developers. It's the little developers who are actually developing currently. Jesse?

ask a clear so we just read the code and want to make sure that everyone you i think you guys get it the first line is talking about five plus units anywhere outside central israel or orange or in central from 5 to 21 in central or It could be a 200-unit apartment complex outside of Central. So those amendments would apply in those cases. So it's not just focused on smaller. That row isn't just talking about the small five or less. I just want to make sure everyone...

Well, it says five plus, and the next one's 22 plus. So, yeah.

I would think five to 21.

And you said it earlier, five to 21 units. But this is citywide. Yes, Commissioner Matthews.

Would it make sense just to reduce the minimum common outdoor amenity space maybe down to 50 square feet per unit rather than 100? Commissioners?

Do you repeat the question?

Would it make sense to reduce the minimum common outdoor amenity space from 100 square feet down to 50 maybe instead? Since it's the five, I'm sorry, for the residential five plus.

Commissioner Adair? No? Yes, Commissioner Zachroff.

I would agree if we are limiting this to five to 21. So we're actually getting probably a third line that way, I'm not sure. But if it's five to 21, because this five plus includes 200 units as well. Yeah, I just meant that one line. It's complicated. Yeah, but the line five plus, like the top line, it includes 200 units as well.

Well, no, the five plus would end at 21 units. And then once you have 22 units, you start a different requirement.

Maybe we should put it as 5-21.

We can do 5-21.

Thank you.

Valid question. Does anyone feel if you want to help those smaller infill lots to drop the 100 square feet per unit to give them more incentive to build those smaller lots? I think that's what... I mean, again, if you've got six lots, that's 600 square feet right there. They're getting the same amount as a much bigger building. So sorry.

It's a free fall. It's a free fall, yes. I think it's almost like a, it'd be interesting to understand case study. Let's say I want to build a six unit apartment in Issaquah. what are the requirements for outdoor space and parking and setbacks? And I'm curious then, does that, well, maybe, I'm trying to figure out, does this become feasible or infeasible when you start adding all those pieces? Because right now we're looking at it in isolation. So I don't know whether 100 is good, 50 is good, none is good, I don't know, but I'm just trying to understand if you said, let's do a case study of, I want to build a six-unit apartment, in Issaquah, I would need this size lot right now with all the current requirements. And you can say, oh wow, that lot's gonna be way too expensive. Or maybe not, I don't know. But I think by looking at each piece individually, I don't know whether it should be 50 or 100. Because there are other requirements for them that they have to do.

And that's part of the struggle with writing code is that no two lots are alike and no two buildings are gonna be alike. And we've got two properties in the mixed use residential zone that are about the same size, but because one is square and one is oblong, the FAR and height work for them, for the oblong one, but it does not work at all for the square piece.

What if we just took it real quick? So if you said, OK, if I have to do 600 square feet of open common space, how many parking spots do I have to have for six units?

Well, it has to do with the number of units.

Six units.

Oh, six units and how many parking spots right now? OK, again, it depends on where you are.

And then I can add up the square footage of that, and now I'm just trying to figure out whether now this lot has to be really big. I don't know if it's a problem or not. That's the point, because when you look at it in isolation.

I mean, in Central Issaquah, it can go down to 0.7 spaces per unit. Or if you're outside, it's a space per unit. Most people are going to put in two, because that's what the market wants, if you only have six units. There's so many pieces. Yes, Commissioner Adair.

Okay, I'm gonna throw in a curve ball. Good. We haven't had enough. All right, let's say our goal is to foster both community space groups, which I feel is very important to have community space for kids to play in and neighbors to interact with. But we also want dense housing to make it profitable for developers. and who, you know, increase infill within Central Issaquah. So are we maybe looking at this the wrong way when we're quibbling about the square footage per unit and do we want to consider going to a percentage of square footage of the building? So for example, or of the floor of, the base floor of the building so that, you know, If you're thinking, oh, there's 1,000 square feet per unit, would roughly 10% of the square footage of the building sort of fulfill the same needs? And is there a reason we didn't go that way in the past?

And I think that's what Redmond does. I think Redmond does 20% of the building, of the site, not the building. They do 20% of the site. I think it also goes back to what I was saying.

Just a point of clarification. If we had a six-unit development and we reduced the common outdoor space, amenity space, to 50, that's smaller. Overall, that's smaller than one parking space for six units.

Yeah. Because the parking space is 9 by 17 or 9 by 17 or something like that?

Yeah, they're roughly 350 square feet.

Okay. Yes, Commissioner Zacharoff.

I am back on 50. I'm sorry. 50 plus 48 is actually 98, which makes almost 100. What if it's being put the way that every unit has to have 100 square feet of outdoor amenity space, whether it is community, or it's a balcony, or it's a combination? So if you have, I don't know, 48 square feet balcony, then you have 52 square feet of community outdoor space. If you don't have a balcony, you stay with 100. It can be any kind of variation. Or a balcony can be tiny. Yeah? See what I'm saying? Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to that, but I would want to put a minimum on how much of that could be private space, because I do think we want to make sure there is some level of community space, and I'm worried somebody might just make it all private yards, because that's more marketable in a townhouse development, or whatever is going in. So if you were to say no more than X percent can be used for private, that would work for me.

almost Commissioner Hallstrom. Do you have any thoughts?

I think the goal should be to streamline the code, shouldn't it? And make it a little easier than it's just seems very convoluted looking at this and you know, through good means, but I mean, doesn't the lot coverage of each site kind of give you the remaining open space that's available? I mean, the lot coverage restraints for each site.

Right, so the impervious surface maximums and the parking that's required.

Yeah, whatever's left over after that. I mean, isn't that your open space number?

It could be, except that, I mean, it can. In Central Issaquah, though, the impervious surface max is 95%. And if they can take it, they'll take it.

Right. So then it really isn't 95%, though, if we have to. Right. So we're bringing that down. Right, right.

Have we moved the needle at all, or are we staying here?

Can we get examples like we're getting with the setbacks?

Yeah, so we should get somewhere with this. I think we've kind of had a good discussion. The couple of things I heard was maybe having a softer touch or more flexibility or no requirements for less than some unit size. Right now it's anything below four units, like a fourplex doesn't have those. So you want to raise that bar from four to nine? Like at what point do you want to switch over to having requirements and having no requirements? Nine fits in with SEPA because your SEPA threshold is nine or more. So if you want to raise the five to nine, that may be one thing you can look at. The other one, is the split between common and private open space. I think what you heard from the developers, they're fine with requiring 30% of the units to have private open space. Their request was, currently the code says 50% of the units need to have private open space. They'd like to have a third of them. So that if you split up and you agree that maybe mandating private open space for one third is okay, then we can kind of go with that. So those are the two, I think. Oh, okay, in the previous, in the packet? Yeah, so that is what I think you heard Avalon Carl recommend that you pick option C, which in the write up means you would strike out. So what he was recommending in the first column with the red write-up, that you would strike out plus 48 square feet. You keep it simple, you have 100 square feet per unit, and then for 30% of those, you require 48. So that's option C. That was his recommendation.

Would you all turn on your mics? Would you all turn on your mics, please?

It'd give us the more competitive edge that they've asked for in lieu of all the difficulties they have with our topography and different things until we have another meeting where we get to discuss those cans. So I think we're starting to make some headway at 825.

Yeah, so breaking it up into three, if you can give us some direction and then in your public hearing packet, we will include it. You want, is there consensus to raise the, have no requirements for up to nine units?

I'm okay with it because it, oh, sorry. Informal vote.

So we'll change the five plus to nine plus.

That will help us .

And then the second one was to remove the additional 48 in the first column, to remove all the red underline in the first column. Just remove that.

That's a big consensus. OK. So just 100 square feet, not 140 . And then is the consensus on 30% requirement for ? OK. All right.

I'm just going to throw it out there. We also threw in as an additional deviation that for common and outdoor amenity space for conversions to residential uses, that if they comply with all of the requirements in 18500, which talks about the conversion of buildings and all the requirements of those buildings and requirements, that they can get a deviation requested from the 148 square feet per amenity space requirement. But if we go with option C, that's going to change again because then we take the 48 square feet out and it goes to 100. OK. All right.

Wow.

OK. So we did tonight. We reviewed it. May 14 is the public hearing. I'm hoping we can get there. It'll also include all of the other clarifying amendments that have been done. On June 2, we're expected to go to the planning and development and Environment Committee, and then on June 29th, Council Action. And I'm assuming you don't have any questions. But I don't know. We good? OK. Thank you guys so much for a good conversation.

OK. Well, Kristen, don't go anywhere. City Council updates, please.

I don't have any. We haven't. Been to council in a while. No. Oh, except, no. No, we do. I don't know if you watched the council meeting the other night, but the city has a contract to purchase a building over on Maple and 12th, or Maple, right over there. Yeah. So that may happen.

What was the name of the building?

Do you remember the name of it? Yeah.

Okay. So.

Yeah, so that's kind of big news for those of you who have seen our space. Yes, it's big news. Otherwise, I don't have any other thing from council.

Who's happier, staff or the police?

The police.

Okay.

I'll show you right now. Yeah. I don't have any other announcements either.

Okay, well.

Oh, just one. You all had requested a tour and then I went out of town, and I was out of town the next two weekends, and now I think it's not going to happen. So we'll just try and bring as many examples as we can every time we meet. Yeah. OK. All right. That was all.

Or if you want to just email us addresses, some of us can go make our own little pit stops.

I can do that too. We've given tours in the past. I can give you. Self-guided tour. I can send you those maps and tell you where those are if you want to go see them.

Audio tour like we have at museums from you.

All right. Anything about our upcoming planning policy commission schedule?

No.

But we're not done filling it up. Right. As you can see, we're busy.

Yes.

Okay. I think that's it. Anyone like to say anything for the good of the order this evening?

Just thank you. It's been a long night, and you guys have been great and managed to participate all the way for three hours. So thank you.

Yes, thank you, everyone. And again, thank you, our awesome staff, Kate, Minnie, Kristen, Amanda, and thank all of you guys. And please get pizza. We don't want to leave any pizza behind. So if you have kids or have spouses that might feel like a slice of pie, grab it. We're going to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Policy Commission at 8.29 p.m. Good night.