Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening Planning Policy Commission staff. Where else would you rather be today on the 70 degree day than the stuffy chamber? So thank you everybody for coming. We're going to begin this evening by calling it to order. It's currently 6.31 PM. I don't believe we have anyone joining us via online, but it is a hybrid meeting. And we may have staff or somebody try to join a little later. Staff, do we have a quorum this evening?

Yes, we do.

Okay, and I believe we have one excused absence.

Yes, Commissioner Zacharoff is excused.

Perfect. Thank you, Kristen. We're going to move on to approving last meeting's minutes for March 26th. Any corrections, anything worthy of note from our commissioners? Everything looks good? Okay, those meeting minutes are approved. We set aside this time for public comment. There's clearly nobody in the room, but Amanda, do we have anybody who's joining us online?

No, Commissioner.

Okay, thanks, Amanda. We're gonna begin by moving on to our first agenda this evening, which is part of our regular business. Title 18, Clarifying Amendments, review all of the proposals. We are going to pick up on our continued discussion

of these code amendments kate kaney our principal planner will be presenting tonight so kate when you are ready please go ahead okay i think i am sharing my screen i'm not sure if you see it yet there we go that's a bit better great Yes, thank you. Again, my name is Kate Caney, and I am here to present on all of the proposals that you have reviewed one time over the last couple of months. And while I am here presenting, some of the staff who did the technical writing is available to answer any questions that you have. If they are not available online, then we will try to do our best to answer those questions for you. I'm not sure why my slides are not advancing, but that's weird.

Hold on.

There we go. Sorry about that. Okay. So again, we are here to provide you with a second review of all of the items that were proposed as part of these Title 18 land use housekeeping or clarifying codes. And as usual, we provide this slide saying, what might you want to think about? What does the existing code say? Why are we proposing the amendment? Are things clear? Do you think things could be clearer? Those are the type of things we'd love to hear from you tonight. This slide also you've seen. It is our status update in terms of where we have gone with this project. So you started in February looking at some of the changes to the sign code. Moved into more of the procedural reviews, site development plans, permits, and some temporary uses. Also looked at changes to daycare standards and some definitions and other clarifying type code amendments. And we have landed here in this last review before the public hearing. So I will go ahead and go through all of the proposed amendments. And we have also added some slides where we collected some of the input that you provided over the last couple of months Staff has done a little research, and we want to provide our follow-up recommendations today. And I want to, once again, get your feedback on where we're going. So the first proposal is one of the more procedural code amendments having to do with site development permits, SDPs. As you may recall, those are land use permits, and they allow the city and the staff to look at a proposal and make sure it is consistent with what is in Title 18 land use code. SDP permits are required for multifamily and commercial projects. That kind of review is not required for the single family or middle housing type of development. So what were we proposing to change? Well, there are some clarifications in the code that we believe are going to help applicants get through the system and reviewers to be able to more accurately review projects. What is proposed was these three things where you see those check marks. So right now, if you come in for a review for your multifamily or commercial project, and maybe you're not proposing any changes to a building, nothing to a structure, but just to your site, you still have to go through the full review process. This would eliminate the need in the case that you just have site improvements. That can be handled under a different type of process, we believe. There was also the issue of when you do have a change to a building, but it's very small, we were proposing that 100 square feet of building change be allowed to go through without an SDP being triggered. That was an item of discussion that we'll provide some follow-up on. Also, a change to some of the calculations right now, square footage and another method of calculating whether you go through a view is in the code and we want to clean that up. So, you know, the main reason is just to make everything go more smoothly, especially for, for small projects. That's why we're making these proposals. So in terms of the input that we heard from commissioners again, that idea of, okay, if a building is coming through, maybe they're bumping out the front of their building to, you know, improve the entrance. We were saying, well, maybe a hundred square feet. If you do that kind of small level building change, you don't need to go through the full intensive SDP level one review. As we were talking, we were wondering that the commissioners were suggesting going a little bit higher. We went back, took a look at that and are proposing to increase that 100 square foot threshold to 200 square feet. 200 square feet currently is the threshold for when you need a building permit for a detached structure. So we thought that would work better. So that was one of the items. There was also some input from commissioners about, you know, we're trying to make things easier for people with small scale changes, but are people going to try to game the system? Should we have a cumulative square footage over several years to make sure that no one's going to try to slide through a project without going through SDP review when that would be appropriate? Our current planners took a deep look at this one, just to say, should we do that, should we not? And at this time, they are recommending not adding any requirements, thinking maybe there's some unintended consequences, maybe this lack of precedent, we're not sure what would happen. So at this point, we'd like to kind of just test it out, and if it's a problem, we will come back to you. At this point, I would ask the commissioners if they had any additional feedback on what we're proposing.

No, I see our fingerprints all over that, so that's wonderful.

Yeah, Commissioner Rolliner. If you do ever return to the cumulative requirement, I wonder whether there should be a time limit, because obviously if someone is adding a little bit over 10 years, that's very different than coming back in for a building permit or an SDP review every three months.

Yeah, that's a rule.

It's a point well taken because, again, I mean, how many people were going to go through that process? It's much more expensive. It's much more painful, less efficient to try to game the system to be remodeling their place every year. So it's really not practical. So it makes sense.

Great. So moving ahead, this is another part of those procedural code changes that we were bringing to you. This one had to do with the subdivision process, platting and construction permit sequencing. And what we were proposing to change were some clarifications. One issue in the code is that it's not crystal clear that if you are doing a subdivision, infrastructure for your site must be constructed. before you get your final approval of the plats. You can also, if it's smaller level changes, purchase a bond to cover the cost of construction. But the whole issue is kind of the timing. You've got to get your infrastructure done, and then we will approve the final plats. Currently, as I was saying, the code lacks clarity regarding this requirement, and it can make the process a little sticky for everybody. So another change was to add language to prevent building permits being issued for non-existent lots. So what does this mean? You subdivide your plot, your plat, you do the work you need to do, but you're in a hurry to get your building permit. But you haven't recorded with King County your new parcels. So there's no parcel number. We can't attach a building permit to it. So we just wanted to clarify that that sequencing of steps needs to happen where you do your recording before you are issued a building permit. Doesn't mean you can't get started, but we're not gonna issue the building permit until you're done with that. Okay, so there were no questions at the time I put together this presentation, but are there any questions before we move forward on that one?

Okay, great.

All right, so the next proposal has to do with changes to the temporary use requirements to add specific language regarding donation bins. The issue here was that we were getting requests from different businesses about putting donation bins on their sites, and they didn't know clearly what permit process to go through. The temporary use process is available for that. But we wanted to add clarifying language. So this proposal clarifies where and how to allow those bins on private property. And it includes where you can put the donation bins, how long they can be on a site, and includes some maintenance language so that trash doesn't gather and that sort of thing. So we did get some input about these standards that were proposed, including this idea of how long should these bins be on the site. So we went back and we looked at other uses that were allowed temporarily, looked at permitting processes. And the commission had thought, well, we're proposing a year, which is what we use for food trucks, perhaps some other uses. And the idea was, well, maybe that's too long. Maybe they should come back after 180 days. We went back and took a look at that and were thinking, well, maybe we will try. We would prefer to try the 365 days. When there have been issues, the code enforcement official has successfully been able to work with operators to make sure the sites are clean, and we were thinking maybe we'll test it out, and if there were any problems, we would come back to the commission and talk about changing that time duration. So that was the thought process there. Additionally, the commission had recommended adding some standards having to do with where you locate a bin on site so it doesn't interfere with the work or with the processes of people coming in and going and parking and all of that. So we did add some language to make it clear that the building entrances should not be impeded in terms of access and other things. So those were the changes that we are recommending. Any questions?

Any questions, comments? I saw the guidelines. The guidelines look great. I believe not to put you on blast, I think Vice Chair Patterson was more of a proponent for the 365. But it makes sense. I know we talked originally about 180. Anybody, any concerns about 365? Yeah, please.

Thank you, Chair. With the, I looked at the guidelines, and the one thing that wasn't quite clear is if it becomes a nuisance, what's the process look like to report it? I don't necessarily think that needs to go in the code, but just for my knowledge, like, what does that look like? Is it?

Right. Well, there will be information about who you can contact directly, who operates, you know, the bin, actually, and also the code enforcement officer gets in touch with the property owner. And there's a warning process and other steps. So at this point, there are some donation bins around that seem to be working in terms of when there's an issue. So that's what we have in terms of those communications right now.

OK, awesome. And then one other question was like, what constitutes removal? Is it like a three strikes you're out kind of situation?

Well, and I'm going to phone a friend here and ask for a little help about the code enforcement process in Issaquah. I'm not up to date on that. If a donation bin needed to be removed and a code enforcement process would be a warning, or do you know the steps to share? Thank you.

Hello, everybody. So yeah, it's not an automatic thing. We send out a courtesy notice sometimes first. If the violation is too severe, then we can jump right to notice of violation. But we try to work with people to bring them into compliance. That's generally our way and approach. We're after compliance not to penalize people in that sense. But if we get into a situation where people are not complying, then we have abilities to issue fines, lien properties, and things like that, depending on the severity of the violation. But for something like this, we would start off with the first contact by phone, followed up by a courtesy notice, then we give them a timeline, and if that doesn't work, then we officially issue a notice of violation.

Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah, I think when we were kind of talking about the 180 days, the idea was probably on that worst case scenario, you know, idea. So I think it totally makes sense. I don't anticipate this being like a very high volume thing. You know, it sounds like we have steps in place to alleviate it. So I appreciate you taking all the feedback into consideration. Great. Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. One question, follow up on Jesse's excellent point.

Is there a Are we thinking of any type of, you can let me know what the planners think, but would we want anything on the bin that says if this bin is in distress, please call or report this bin if it's kind of like you see on the back of people's vehicles? If this car is speeding type thing, please call my boss. Yeah, how's my bin doing?

Yeah, and I am sorry I don't have the code right in front of me, but that was the intent that we would require that the owner of the bin have a clear intention mode of communication, whether it be a phone number or an email available. We did talk about that. That is a great idea. I will go back and double check. Oh. Yes. With that red box, it's call here. If you see the picture with the garbage and then there's a little red box, that would be that kind of notice.

Okay. Yeah. Maybe that could come back before the public hearing. Yes. Something like that. Yes. Thank you. Anything additional on this topic?

All right.

Okay.

Great.

Okay. This next definition was cleanup of the code. Currently there are two definitions of multifamily. This can happen when you do big code amendments. When we did the middle housing code amendments just a little while ago, the definition of multifamily was changed so it would work better with the middle housing definitions and we inadvertently left in the old definition. So this is just cleaning up the old and having the correct definition stand. The next couple of proposals have to do with clean up to the daycare code and some clarifications. So what these proposals are in the first case is just adding a reference and some way finding to the code to help people understand what the definition of daycare center versus daycare center family is. Certain numbers of kids are allowed in each and that gives you an idea of what type of code you need to look at. So also some clarification around the adult family home code. So really there's just a new paragraph with references to go look at the definitions here if you're trying to figure out what these are. There's also just a minor update to some language. We used to say family childcare center, and now we say family daycare center, so just for consistency, we made a change to that. Just gonna go to the next slide, also about daycare center standards. In this case, council in March adopted an ordinance that established traffic impact fee waivers applicable to daycare centers. We wanted to codify that so the centers could use it as soon as possible, and basically the change was to Again, provide some wayfinding back to go to the traffic impact code as well as information about a covenant being needed to record what was allowed on that site. So I think there might be one more having to do with daycare. We'll just get through that and get your comments if you have any. This was, again, just cleanup. The daycare operations code used to be part of home business section of the code. We removed it but didn't completely scrub a sentence here out of home occupation or a home, sorry, home business standards. Um, so we wanted to just take care of that, uh, clean it up so people can just be in the daycare section of the code and not worry about getting a license from a home office. So those were the, um, set of daycare standard related changes. Any comments on those?

Any comments?

Well done with the picture of the kids. Hard to say no to kids. Those cute kids.

I have to say, Kristen did. She's the graphics expert. She remembers to do those things. It's helpful with just code, code. Now we're going to move to the last section, and that's on signs. So you may recall these great pictures of balloon signs. I didn't even know these existed. There's kind of hard plastic rather than just real balloons. And this was an amendment that our staff worked with the code enforcement officer on. Currently the code does prohibit balloons because there's a concern about obscuring the vision of drivers and that kind of safety issue. So to clarify the code, some additional language saying not only balloons balloon like objects and a variety of materials were also included in that language for what was prohibited. We did get some input that you may recall, a request to really confirm, do we really need this if it's already in the prohibitions? So our staff did go back to the code enforcement officer and she said, yes, this expansion of what the materials are, it's very helpful. So we can be crystal clear when we have to contact a business to say this is in our code and we need your help in keeping things safe. So that's what we are recommending. Any questions on this one?

Commissioner Matthews.

I did have a question about the code. So it's 18612030. It actually says that balloons that are smaller than 18 inches are exempt from the permitting requirement. So is that kind of contradictory? Is that going to be removed? That is a great catch.

I will take that back to the planner, and we'll get some input on that. Um, I don't know if Kristin knows more about that, um, as she comes out, we can ask her. So, um, while you stepped out, uh, had a great question from commissioner Matthews about, um, this proposal in the balloon, um, uh, prohibition to expand, uh, and apparently. It says, can you read that again?

It says balloons less than 18 inches in diameter with messages are exempt from sign standards under 030, yeah.

With messages. I didn't know if you might know a little more about that or if we should just go back to it.

Great sleuthing. Do the code.

I was looking at something else and I'm like, hey.

Nice.

Hi. Can you hear me okay? Yes.

Andrew.

Hi, this is Andrew. Yes, hi. Hi. So if you remember, I was a planner on the sign regulation. So good catch. I just want to echo what Kate said. So we definitely don't want to have too many inconsistencies on the prohibited signs section. So I can certainly take that back and modify that. I think what that section was getting at is allowing some, you know, for example, like residential areas or temporary areas uses to have like a, you know, birthday balloons, for example, identifying the location of something like that could have been the intent of that section. So not to basically not prohibit balloons that are in smaller in size, but I think that you have a good point that it is a bit conflicting and it would probably be better to omit that part of the code as well.

Thank you. So we will go ahead and come back on, I believe, May 14th when the public hearing's going to be and provide our recommendation in the packet so you can see it ahead of time and talk about it then.

All right. The next one, okay?

Please.

All right, so this next amendment had to do with the interior illumination of monument signs. You can see some examples of what monument signs look like at, you know, sites and driveways where the roadway meets the driveway. And the issue here was that in the code, it is not clear that the currently grandfathered or signs that are out of conformance with the existing code, but are grandfathered in to allow them to continue to stand up, that there are multiple cases of these in central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Tallis, and in the CBD zone. And the idea was to Allow these to move forward maintaining their interior illumination and making that clear in the code Because that is something that is currently not clear. So Did get some input from the Commission about this and changes Were refined I believe to be more explicit to show that for these grandfathered signs if you were changing just the sign face and um then it is okay to keep moving forward with your illumination but if you are changing the entire sign structure then you would have to replace it and conform with the the current code so that is what was refined in this set of proposals um yeah so i don't know if you have any comments on that

Commissioner Matthews.

Sorry, I worked on signs for a long time. So I'm looking at this as coming from like a sign installer. So some of the language that's actually in the, where you're showing the revision of the code, it's not consistent. So in one case under illumination, it says, except that sign face replacements are allowed, but down below under the monument signs business and it's, it basically says, the sign structure or face replaced is okay for a grandfathered sign. So that is not a consistent definition and they should line up.

That is a great find and we will definitely go back and thank you for holding us to account. We'll scrub that and we will come back. Yes, thank you. All right, so temporary window signs. The idea here was to make it easier for businesses to install these construction signs while they are getting their businesses ready. This is not exempt right now in the code, and we just wanted to make it easier for new businesses coming in. So the feedback we got from the commission at the time was that, yeah, that sounds like a good idea. We just want them to look good. We want them to be well-maintained. So staff added this sentence, signs must be of professional quality. and maintain during the duration of their display to help us in case they weren't looking good. And then again, you know, code enforcement would go out, but that was the change. Any comments on that one?

It doesn't look like it.

Okay, great. So that was the last of the amendments. We will collect the comments on the sign code and the other comments that you made and go back and again, when we would send you the memo and information for the public hearing, we'll make sure to highlight these areas. Uh, and so you can go directly to, uh, any changes, uh, since today's review, um, in terms of next steps, um, we are headed into that public hearing again, I believe it's May 14th. And, uh, at that time we will be asking for recommendation from the commission in advance of going through council. So that's the, uh, planning development and environment committee. And then the full council meeting is anticipated June 29th. So I believe that was the last slide, and we just wanted to see if you had any final comments.

Any final comments? No, that was great. Thank you, Kate. Appreciate it. And thank you, Andrew, for popping in. Okay, we're gonna move on to our second item of business this evening. And this is Title 18, Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments, Building Step-backs, Multifamily Amenity Space Requirements in Central Issaquah. That's where we're gonna begin. Kristin Leeson, our planning manager, will be presenting this evening. So Kristin, when you are ready, please go ahead. I got it right.

We had a little joke about that.

There we go.

Yes, good evening. Kristen Leeson, planning manager. And we are here to kick off our first of our work plan for promoting building investments in Issaquah. These are the first two. We're talking about outdoor amenity space requirements and step back requirements tonight. So just rolling right into it. Step backs. They are intended to remove a canyon effect of taller buildings and create a more pedestrian friendly environment is the whole purpose. But there are some issues. The step backs can be costly. They can also result in higher construction costs, and they can also reduce the amount of buildable space, therefore reduce the amount of revenue that developers may get from these projects. So these pros and cons pretty much, I just outlined the pros and cons, but they add sunlight. They improve the pedestrian experience. They allow for a gradual increase when you're next to lower density residential neighborhoods. They allow for, you don't have a 50-story building next to a 25-story building, and they help perceive reduce the perceived scale of taller buildings and the cons I've mentioned these you reduce overall square footage one of the one that wasn't mentioned is that the penetrations from moisture from rain on the building envelope that they can create moisture problems so you know where the buildings where the different floors intersect there's something there water can get in and that can cause a problem and be very expensive to fix We have some policies in place. These are from the Central Issaquah Plan that support step backs in this kind of architecture. And it says to promote pedestrian-oriented development and to encourage the pedestrian scale and architectural interest through a variety of building heights and forms. That's what they're intended to do. We also have regulations in place. And I'm just going to put it out there right now. These are confusing. They're in several different sections. They're a little complicated, but we have several different options here. So we have that you, in most of these, you have to have a, if you do step backs, it has to be a minimum of five feet deep and a maximum of 20 feet deep, right? If you're in a building that is taller than five floors, your step back must start above the sixth floor, but if you want to, it can start above the third floor. And if you have fewer than six floors, the first two floors at least have to be up against the street. So then you move on to Central Issaquah. Well, I guess we're still there. Step backs, they must incorporate terraces and usable outdoor spaces. And if you have four or fewer floors, you cannot have more than two step backs. You guys following so far?

OK.

Then, if you're going to choose to do the Northwest Contemporary style. So in Central Issaquah, there are different architectural styles that you can choose. And one of those is Northwest Contemporary. And it requires step backs. And it has a list of things. You must be compliant with all of the following things. And one of those includes that if you are taller than five stories, that step back floors above the fifth floor must be back a minimum. They have the minimum of five feet and the maximum of 20 feet. You are non-compliant if you are four floors or less and you have two step backs, you're non-compliant. You can't do that. So, I know. Those are our regulations. Other city regulations are a little simpler. Bothell doesn't have required step backs. Bellingham, you have to have a 15 foot deep step back starting above the fourth floor. measured at the back of the right-of-way, so the back of the sidewalk, not where the building is. So then it may not be as deep. In Edmonds, it's five feet deep, starting at 26 feet, when adjacent to low density residential, being that whole thing about you want to provide more daylight and smaller scale with the lower density residential houses. In Kirkland, they have a bunch of different ones, but downtown Kirkland is probably the most consistent comparable to what we are planning here in central Issaquah. So they have a couple of options, 10 feet deep from the ground floor, so the first floor, along two facades, starting above the second story, or a five foot minimum with an average of 10 feet deep from the street facade starting above the third story. It is. I'm sorry, can you?

And then are they both along? They're saying for Kirkland, it has to be along two sides of the building for both of them?

Only for the first option. For the second option, it can be just along the street facade.

Got it.

Thank you. And then on Mercer Island, I had to draw a picture because it's confusing. It's at a 45-degree angle starting at 25 feet all the way up to the very top. So every floor is going to step back there. And then in Redmond, it only applies in Redmond if you can't do underground parking. And then you can do it, and it's 20 feet deep with no required depth. I'm sorry, 20 feet deep, but no requirement at which floor you start. So just samples from other cities, and there is no one that is alike, unless they're just not required. So yes, actually, Chair Boyce, there's

page and we'll open it up yeah okay go for it is there any data in ballard who went through something where they you know had had a change pretty quickly in terms of density um and there may be some learnings in ballard i know these are all other parts of town but if you go through ballard and i can't remember whether they have Step backs or not, but I know they have a lot of six-story buildings all over the place now and that could be another Well, we happen to have a Ballard resident.

Do you need you know if there's a requirement? We can look and see okay So our recommendations are right now is that Any building that is four stories or higher must have a step-back. And facades, only on facades abutting public rights-of-way, which would be sidewalks, streets, or non-motorized circulation, so multi-use trails. We would require step-backs where construction changes from concrete to wood. Only require one step-back. And remove requirements for step-backs that face natural context areas. And then there are a lot of considerations here. So do you have any questions before we go into those?

Commissioner Oehler. Can you explain the rationale behind a maximum of 20 foot setback?

No.

Straightforward answer.

I guess there really doesn't need to be a maximum. Most cities do have them. There doesn't need to be if a developer wants to go that far back. We have actually Trailhead, the development that's coming in, they're putting one of their open amenity space requirements on their second floor, on top of the second story. So huge open space there. So no. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions before we start getting into it? Maybe you guys could feel free to ask questions once we get into it too, but vice chair Patterson, I guess would now be a good time to ask you about the natural context area part.

So, um, what, what specifically, where did that requirement come from?

Basically that came from our 2016 moratorium when the city council asked for architectural standards and our consultants quite frankly thought this would be a good idea. Um, but we do, you do want to protect, you want to highlight when you're building, an urban environment or a mid-density urban environment out of something that's been suburban and people are more used to parks and green spaces, you do want to highlight those that are still here. So it kind of highlights that. But to some of the questions that you may have asked before, we do have three state shoreline jurisdictions in the city. Lake Sammamish, Issaquah Creek, and North Fork of Issaquah Creek. So anything that is along any of those within 200 feet, anything built within 200 feet of those, you can't exceed more than 35 feet. That's your maximum height. So you're already required to keep it there for that. We also have other mitigation requirements, things like that, that are in place. We have critical areas requirements. There are certain distances. So there's automatically a 150-foot buffer plus another 15-foot setback there. for any building that's going to go in. And that doesn't change. There are no deviations to that or variances for that. So taking away that step back, there's so much space adjacent to right there anyway. And the height is required to be so low within the shoreline jurisdiction, it doesn't really make sense to require anything additional.

Yeah, do you mind going back a slide so I can? My question is, you mentioned walking trails as non-motorized circulation facilities. Would parks also be included in that, something like Confluence Park? Okay, great.

Yeah, on the map that I sent you, all there are natural areas, which include parks, and then there are natural context areas. So there's the green natural area, and then the context areas are in purple. This would apply to both.

Any questions? All right. Kristen's questions.

Oh, I, I see. I saw mouthing of where's the map. Um, it was the link that I sent you this afternoon for this, this code section. I can, it's not in the PowerPoint. It was in the code section that I sent today in a response to where are the natural areas. So considerations. First of all, do you want to eliminate multiple step backs? Not allow them?

Do we just want to do this one by one?

Yes, that was it.

Yeah, so as everybody knows, our Planning Policy Commission is full of people from diverse backgrounds and different walks of life. But tonight, I get to pick on Commissioner Ohliner and ask him to put on his architect and developer hat. So just remember, we all bring something to bear here, but I know this is Eric's field of work, so we'll leave that there. But go ahead, Commissioner Kras.

No, that's okay.

I guess more like there's, why would we have rules to eliminate if a developer may not want to do this, but if they, they want to do multiple step backs because it makes those units very desirable and why would we have that limitation? So we're not really,

not allowing them to do it, we're not requiring them to do it. It is worded that way.

Eliminate the requirement. I'm just trying to figure out what the...

So let's just cross that one out.

Okay, I'm done now.

All right. Okay, moving on.

I've been asked to opine. Sure, please.

Yes, it's called out by name.

I mean, I guess... If you've got a 30-story building and you only have a five-foot setback at the second floor, you're still going to have a canyon effect. So I think to the extent that multiple setbacks might be useful for taller buildings, and I'm not sure that that is ever applicable in Issaquah, but... Mercer Island one that you saw, they like to have more... Yeah, yeah, they do. I mean, I, I, I think having read some of the responses from, uh, developers, I think there, there is some valid concern about loss of square footage. Um, you know, waterproofing issues, although I, I would push back on that a little bit and say if it's designed properly, it won't do that. Um, but, um, I think it's probably fine, in my opinion, to eliminate the requirement for multiple setbacks given the scale of buildings in Issaquah. But if we ever got to the point where we were like Bellevue and downtown, I think it might be useful.

Number two, how do you feel about eliminating step backs along natural context areas?

Commissioner Krause?

You mean eliminate the requirement or not letting them do it?

It's eliminating the requirement because right now there's the requirement.

I think Kristen summed it up pretty well. If they can't build above 35 feet, that might be a burden far too high for them. Commissioner Adair?

Fair enough. Commissioner Ulner. Just one further comment on that. Natural context areas are beautiful. And so there may be, from a marketing perspective, an advantage to having balconies that overlook that natural context area. And so developers could very well want to include some element of step backs.

OK. Yeah, Vice Chair Patterson.

I think one of the reasons that this particular one kind of came to my mind was, um, you know, I, I guess if you remove that requirement, I'm just imagining like sitting in a park across from a development with like a square flat, you know, building staring back at me. Um, and so there was a little bit of like when there's, there's two, factors to it, right? There's like the design preference of like, what do you want that to look like? Which is what I just referenced. And then there's more of the like ecological standpoint of like, it does this true. Is there some scientific or, you know, reasoning that we put this in place in the first place? So I think, you know, from the design preference, I think a lot of what has been discussed makes sense of like the pros and the cons. Like maybe in this case it makes more sense to not have that requirement because of the, you know, the cost of, of doing that. Um, But you did kind of highlight a lot of the reasons, like the stream and the height, which makes sense. But I think if we can just, to put a final dot on that, just understand from the 2016 moratorium thing, like why they made that requirement in the first place, just to kind of make sure that we're not undoing something that we said was important at some point. Then I would just feel really good about it. Right now I feel great about it, but I want to feel really great about it. Commissioner Matthews.

Just carrying off of what the Vice Chair just said, is it possible, I mean, I don't think that we should have step backs either because it's not that high, it doesn't really make sense, but as far as what he said about a big block looking at you, I totally get that. Maybe we look at requiring a different material change or subdued colors so it's not like the Alice apartment on Confluence Park. So we're looking at it, you know, it's distracting me, but you know, something to that effect where maybe the color palette or something is on a on the back is?

We do that. Oh, you do that already? We do. We require modulation. It's like every 30 feet or something, there has to be some sort of setback in the building, not step back, but setback in the building or change in materials. We have both horizontal and vertical modulation of either materials or actual architectural changes in the building.

Great.

Thanks. Yeah, I remember, I think we talked about those like two years ago, but ultimately it's so we don't get those big Soviet-style buildings that are just flat. And I think, like you said, it's like every 30 feet there's got to be some type of jump. So that would be, that still would be true for this.

Yes, it would.

Yeah, and I'll just pick up off Vice Chair Patterson. I mean, I think that's where, you know, probably I'll be for both parts of these conversations. I just want to be careful, too, because, again, a lot of work, I mean, I won't name the infamous apartment that triggered the moratorium, as we all know what it was, but A lot of thought went into all these when we did this. Everybody, stakeholders, had the opportunity to come. They did. And the only thing I'll say is it just kind of seems like they really were pushing for clarity at the time. It was more about clarity, user-friendly code. It just kind of seems like the goalpost is moving now with some of the developers. OK, now they don't really like this anymore either. And that's the part that concerns me. Because again, all the stakeholders, we had the I believe two or three people send in letters. And again, this isn't to pick on anybody, but one of them mentioned the economy. I don't think that's a reason to strip our code. I mean, there's always up times and down times, and usually they come back stronger than ever. So I definitely want to be user friendly as far as the city. I want people to be able to develop and build here aesthetically pleasing buildings. I'm just, like I said, a little cautious because a lot of time and consideration went into these. And again, it just kind of feels like Charlie Brown. Every single time this comes up, somebody pulls a football and it's a different set of asks than what originally was here about two years ago. So, my concern.

Thank you. Number three, do you want to provide flexibility in the location of step backs either above, so right now we're saying we want it to be where the material changes. But not every building is going to be a podium style building. You're going to have some that are just wood, and they're not going to be a change in materials. So do you want to require it at a certain point, like by the third floor, or do you want to allow them to decide where it's going to go?

Commissioner Matthews.

I was just thinking, sorry I did wave my finger, but I was actually thinking of what you said earlier about the feeling of a Valley or a Canyon, even if you have a step back at four or five stories and maybe a lower setback would be better.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Matthews, commissioner traps.

And also would you, maybe this is too complicated. Does it matter where in the city also, because you may have a different point of view if, if the streets are narrower or tighter, that you want to do it after floor two, where in other areas, if it may make sense to allow it to be higher. So I'm not sure if that gets too complicated on the environment or where it is in the city.

So right now, we're focused solely on regulations that are in central Issaquah. But in central Issaquah, you have the urban core, which is the regional growth center, Costco, Target, that whole area, the Raleigh area. And then you have mixed-use central Issaquah, which includes sort of the former Microsoft buildings, the FedEx building coming down that way. And then you have mixed-use residential, which is closer to where I believe you are located. And those are slightly smaller streets with slightly smaller buildings. But Vail is there. Atlas is there. Um, the new towns on seventh town homes just went there. So it's changing.

So I guess I'm just trying to think of like the width of, if you have a two two lane road or two lane plus parking lane road, it has a different feel of what a Canyon would be. And if it's a wider one to begin with, I think it gives you more latitude of where you put it. If it's a narrow one, maybe you want it a little bit lower. That's the only thing. I'm not sure how you put that in code. I'm just trying to think aesthetically.

And most of our streets in urban core and mixed-use central Issaquah are we're gonna be called core streets and they will have at least two Two drive lanes Parking on each side and bike lanes. So they're a little bit wider in Mixed-use residential not all streets are required to be core streets.

So some of those may be a little narrower Any other further comment on

a good thought and yeah worth the discussion commissioner yeah i just want to say i also agree with maybe having the step backs on a slightly lower floor as suggested so that we kind of avoid the canyon effect because i can i've definitely seen that in real life and just we already live in a gloomy state we don't need to make our streets gloomier good argument um is there like a middle ground where maybe if they change the materials then they can

decide what floor, but if they don't have a change in materials, then it is a standard. Like I said, the whole idea of the code is to give them policy that they can clearly see and follow. I don't know if we allow developers to decide where they do step backs. That seems kind of crazy. Commissioner Kress.

So just when do you have to... Can you build a wood story if you're five stories? I'm just trying to think of, if you build a five-story, you don't have any change, right?

Probably not. I'm going to defer to Commissioner Allner, though. But probably not.

I'm not sure where, because you may still, if you tie it to change of materials, you may have a fairly tall building with no change of materials.

It's usually like three over, it depends on the materials that are used, I think. It's usually, if you're going to use wood and concrete, it's usually like three over two.

Could you build a five-story wood-only building?

Right, but a five-story wood building is... Yeah, you can build them, and there are mass timber buildings now that are 15 stories high. There are obviously some fire code issues related to that, but they tend to be very beefy structures, so they will not burn like a stick frame building would.

Mm-hmm. But then along those lines, you could have a five or more story concrete building. So if they're not changing materials, yeah. That's a good point.

And yeah, there are some very tall buildings around here. They're all concrete. So that is an option. If there's a material change, they change where if it's a podium style, they change at the material change. And if there's no podium style, then they have to change by the second or third floor.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Oh, but I'm saying, I'm sorry, just to say, just to clarify what I said, it's like you could have like five stories and then the sixth story is wood. So five stories concrete. So it could kind of nullify like they wanted to push it. Yeah, so if we do one change of material, that means your step back could be theoretically, they could really high.

Okay. Yeah. So what I'm hearing is we want to keep it low. Okay. All right. At the second or third floor, we want to keep it low.

Yeah, like I said, it's a great conversation because these were well thought out at the time. And again, to change them dramatically, you're tossing away a lot of work that went into these. So there's got to be a good reason for it. So appreciate it. Hopefully all this different vagueness is coming together for something you can put together.

It is.

OK. That's why you sit over there. OK. Nope, Commissioner, sorry. Yes, Commissioner Millinder-Irwin.

Yes, I just took a peek at the central Issaquah plan, and I just, I'm trying to wrap my mind around this concept, but I do want to ask a question about the developer height bonuses that are tied to step backs. So, I'm trying to understand.

So, development bonus is not tied to step backs. Development bonus is if they want to go over the base height. Or if they want to go over the base FAR. So it's not necessarily a step back. So it's convoluted, but if you want to, I shouldn't say convoluted, it's a little confusing. So say the base height is 60 feet, and you want to go up to 85 feet. You are required for 20% of one-third of your overage, you have to require affordable housing on-site if that development is residential. For the other two-thirds, you can either choose to pay up 20% of the other two-thirds. You can either pay fee in lieu for that. It's based on square footage that your overage is. You can do on-site affordable housing. You can do it some other place. Or you can, yeah, the fee in lieu either goes toward, city council decides if it goes toward parks or open space or to affordable housing.

So is it a loss of... square footage to gain height? No.

No. It's actually, somebody put it a very interesting way today. The more height you get, that's more free land you're getting. That's more development you get. So you buy this one square piece of flat land, and the higher you get to go, that's more free land right there. OK.

Thank you.

Yeah, if I may, it's all about density, right? It is. So it's really like, if they're willing to do the affordable housing, continue to build upwards in order to get density in their residential multi-families. So we're allowing less space, they get more, or they can build up, but they have to, in return, give us, to Kristen's point, affordable housing or a fee in lieu.

Yeah.

So it's, we'll give you this. You can go higher. That's great. But we want this. That's what that is.

But it doesn't have anything to do with stepbacks.

Nothing to do with stepbacks. Perfect. Thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. Understood. All right, next question. And I think we've already answered it. Well, we want to require a certain depth for the step backs. It seems that we don't want to require a maximum. But do you want to require a minimum?

Commissioner Derrick?

Yeah, I think we definitely want to have some kind of minimum, because if you want to think that this is going to be community outdoor space, I don't know if y'all have ever been on a narrow balcony. You can make them unusable by having them too narrow. So I would think five feet is on the narrow side for sure, just visualizing it.

Yeah, five feet would basically be like planters, I would assume, Eric, that type of.

You can get bistro chairs out there, but not much more. Right. Okay.

So you want it to be usable space.

Yeah. I mean, if we're counting this towards their community space, you're saying it should be a terrace space and it should be community space. Well then it should be usable for the people who live there. I mean, if you can't get a little barbecue or something out there, what's the point? You're not going to use it.

Okay. All right. Any preferred depth?

You can ask whatever you like, Commissioner Kress. Anything I like?

Okay. So just because you have a minimum, I don't think that means people are going to only build to the minimum. They may say, oh, from a design standpoint, six feet is better than five feet. We're just trying to have some level of, you know, don't go less than this.

Correct.

But, you know, the market and, you know. Developers are gonna say what's best I think for their environment and maybe they're building an eight-foot depth So I'm not Sure where five came from it doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing, especially if it's not livable space But it's just from a design standpoint to kind of break things up I can't remember from the other cities Is five kind of a standard? or is that something that we came up with?

Five was the minimum with the other cities.

Okay. So that's a, but it doesn't mean they're only building to five. That's my point.

So, no, I mean, I guess I would ask, um, commissioner owner, but to me, if they're already making the break, it's more about losing square footage in those floors. So they're probably going to hug a little bit closer to five. They're probably not going to go 30 on their own free will because they're going to be losing value. But it doesn't mean they would just go to five. I mean, they're already making the break. It's not going to cost them much more money to go a couple more feet. It's more about losing the livable area on the floor, I would assume.

I think that's true. And I think the other factor is if they wanted to consider that as usable open space, then they may want to go more than five feet. So I think they're Giving them a minimum of five feet I think is, that's the, I mean I wouldn't go smaller than that. But they certainly, developer might want to go further than that to have a greater coverage of the property by having some of the outdoor space elevated.

Right, which is part of our next conversation, which is we'll be talking about outdoor communal space and stuff. And so again, if it goes to that number, You're right, the builders are going, I'm already doing the step back, so it makes sense if I'm trying to build communal space, let's do it here where I already have to make the break. I'll assume. Commissioner Matthews.

I actually think that on yours, I think five feet is pretty small, and I think if you tell them it's five feet, most people are going to do five feet, because if you looked at the developer comments, they were already saying they'd want to do less than half. They want to do 30% balconies rather than 50% know so I'm basically talking about another thing so they're not going to go and do more unless they know that like you're on Mercer Island and you're going to get a huge amount of rent compared to Issaquah I'm guessing I don't know but you know so I think that maybe in between maybe seven and a half is that a weird number but yeah eight but it's uh five just seems pretty small You can't really use it. I mean, if you go through Belltown or if you go through Ballard, they have really tiny, like, five-foot balconies, and they're not really usable. You don't see them being used that often just because they are small.

Commissioner Goss? I think we also are combining two different things. We have step backs, which is the building just has a shape, and then we have balconies. And do we have code that if you have a balcony, it needs to be a certain amount of size. Because you could solve this. You could say, the step backs are five or less. But if you're using it as a balcony, if there's already code on balconies that need to be at least six feet or whatever, that kind of solves that problem if you're using it for that.

Right now, private outdoor amenity space, if you're going to do a balcony, it has to be 48 square feet. So whether that's 4 by 12 or 6 by 8 is up to you. But it's a minimum of 48 square feet. Oh, OK.

So it's not a depth. It's just the overall. OK. That didn't solve it. Sorry.

No, and I think you're right, though. It's two kind of similar but different conversations, because the next one's going to be about solidifying whether or not you get rid of that or you combine it. That, I think, is where the 50% to 30% number comes. It's not necessarily the step back. All I'm trying to say is that if a builder sees it as beneficial to put the communal space there, again, and I do agree. I do think that their big concern is going to be maximizing their livability. But if they already have these other standards saying you have to have this much livable communal space or private space, they might see that as an opportunity to build it in their part of their design. So again, I think there's similar conversations. Tell me if I'm wrong, but they're different.

Correct. OK.

I'm OK with five for myself.

I'm, I'm, if I can speak, yeah, I, where, weren't we just looking though that the step backs in Issaquah right now in the current code, they do have to be either terrorists or community space, right? They can be, or they have to be, I'm kind of curious.

Yeah. Um, that's, that's an open space conversation, but You are required right now in our code to have 48 square feet of private space plus an additional 100 square feet per unit common space, which, yes, could be on a rooftop. It could be in a plaza. But some kind of outdoor space.

But right now, are step backs required to be accessible as a terrace? Because I swear I just saw that. They are.

In one place, they are.

Yeah.

I think it's next to maybe the next natural context areas. Yeah, I think that's right.

Okay, so they are going to be utilized as, I mean, because if you're forced to include a step back, then of course you're going to include it as part of your common space because you're required to, it's required to be, right? I mean, in the current standards.

If I understand it correctly, the 48 is, that's non-negotiable. The 100 square feet is like, it goes into a bank. where the whole community, whether I think to Kristen's point, it could be a plaza, it could be an outdoor wraparound where the step back happens, like a terrace where everybody can use. But every unit gets their own 48 square feet of outdoor livable space. Correct. And then like I said, that other 100 square feet can go into the property bank and how the developer chooses to build that. So if there's 20 units and you have 100, it's 2,000 square feet. what they do or how they configure that is up to the developer, but that 100 square feet goes into the bank. The 48 is clearly, that is the individual unit's outdoor area.

Yeah. So that's not quite what I'm getting at here.

Right, what our code currently requires in Central Issaquah, In this one, 1602, or 8602, massing and building articulation, the step backs must incorporate terraces and outdoor usable space. Yes, that's what I was referring to. So we do currently require that. But it's still a minimum of five feet and a maximum of 20 currently.

Yeah, so I'm just, yes. So I'm saying, yeah, if it is going to be part of their community space as required, then we should also think of it as a community space is just what I'm trying to say.

Okay. Yeah, no, great conversation.

Do you want to require? I'm adding more questions. Let's just make this maybe longer. Do you want to require that step backs are used as open space?

No. I think, like I said, then you might actually get into their feasibility. Yeah, please, Commissioner Ohlner.

Oh, sorry. No, that's okay. We'll just go around. You know, if you're just doing a step back, you can do that with a membrane roof. that's not walkable, you don't need railings, so it's much less expensive. Plus you don't have an exterior door to get access to it. So I think it's an important question that we're considering here whether all of those step backs have to be accessible and usable.

Commissioner Matthews.

I was thinking on the same line. If it's usable space, so they're, sorry, I'm trying to get my thoughts together. I'm thinking of like the apartments, the Atlas Apartments, or where you may not have a lot of area on a block to put in enough outdoor space, and you decide to use that terrace or the step back as a terrace as an outdoor space. If they decide to do that, turn that to open space, could the requirement be greater, like 10 feet at least minimum? if that's considered your outdoor space? Sorry. Sorry, one second. Does that make sense where I'm going? OK.

I think so. But if they choose to make that an amenity space, that counts toward their outdoor space. Yes. Was that the question? Did I miss it?

Actually, if they decide to do that, then maybe the step back is greater. So five feet is like you're just walking on your own in that area. But if it becomes part of your outdoor space, then the setback should be deeper, like 10 feet.

Yes. OK. I see what you're saying. Yeah. OK. All right.

Seems pretty reasonable. Commissioner Oehler.

Just based on my own experience renting an apartment in downtown Seattle on the 28th floor, I think our balcony was maybe eight feet wide by three and a half to four feet deep. It was barely usable, but you could get two chairs out there, you could be outside, and we used it. So I'm not sure that five feet is too small for an outdoor space to be usable. It'd be nice if it were bigger, but in some cases.

Okay. Anyone else like to go? Commissioner Davenport?

I kind of support the idea of making it so that they have the option of it not being outdoor space if they want to save money in order to encourage them doing it, right? And that way they can always do their outdoor space somewhere else as long as they are meeting the minimums for their outdoor space.

I think where we're going, if it's not going to be amenity space, it could be five feet. But if it is going to be amenity space, then it has to be, I don't know. It's something to talk through. I mean, there's not an answer right now.

No, and that's okay. Like you said, I think it's just percolating different ideas, but I think I understand where the two of you are going, and I agree. Like you said, if it's a personal private balcony, I'm thinking of mine. It's four feet. I mean, it's plenty to have a chair and a small Barbie. But yeah, maybe if you're actually trying to get this to go into the communal space, then yeah, maybe, okay, now we're talking about multiple people using it, five feet, I mean, you know, shoulder to shoulder, that's two people.

Do you mean communal space, or does it mean usable space? I think we're, now we're... Communal.

Communal, okay. Yes, not about the meeting.

Got it.

Like, this is a place you'd have an apartment meeting, right?

That kind of place.

All the girls are going to go sunbathe.

but, but, but I think too, I mean it still gives the developers some wiggle room where they can decide whether or not, okay, this doesn't really fit our design or what have you. So it gives them some, some options. Okay.

So we will, we'll look more into that when I have two more quick questions.

Are you getting what you need? That's my question.

No, but we're going to figure it out. Um, no, we got, we got lots of information to work with. Uh, should the step back be on all sides or should it just be on the street frontage? So if you're on a corner, then you're going to have it on two sides automatically because you've got two street frontages. Or if you're in the middle of the block, you've got it on one street frontage. Or should it be on all sides?

Or two sides?

Yeah, definitely. I'll go last.

Commissioner Crafts? I mean, the purpose of this was to not create canyons. So then by definition, then it makes sense where there's streets and so on. I think you answered your own question on that one, but it's like... Well, our code currently doesn't say. Otherwise, you're like building pyramids. But yeah, I think it's... I think the intent of the discussion is for where there's people, and if you back up to an alley or something like that that's not that, is that... My view is where there's streets or the other way, we would have walkways and all of that.

I have one last question. If it's only going to be on the street frontage, does it need to continue 100% across that building, that street facade, or could it maybe occupy 75% of that street facade?

I think you showed a picture, one of those pictures of the more modern building where clearly it wasn't doing that. It was broken up. I mean, I think aesthetically that looks fine, but Like I said, I kind of want to phone my friend right now and ask Commissioner Olin. But I think, I mean, that sounds like that would be, to have it on all sides, that seems like that would probably be pretty burdensome on a developer.

Yeah, I would think so. I mean, I think, you know, there's aesthetics and there's economics and they don't always agree with each other. I think if you look at many of the developments where there are step-backs on streets, they frequently do not have them where they're facing an alley or they're butted up against another building.

Yeah, I think for me it's just, like I said, I just don't want to strip all the intent that we built in this. But at the same time, we want it to be user-friendly. I don't want to scare people when people think of our zip codes, you know.

So where did we land on that one? If it's on the street frontage, all the way across, or a percentage of that, 75%?

Probably percentage, right? I mean, it gives them more design options and flexibility. Are we sure there?

Yeah, along those lines, though, are there requirements based on, baked into, I'm just thinking, is it possible to get a really long building so then you'd have kind of a long section that is that 25%, or do we have maximum lengths built in already?

Well, again, we already have a built-in, you've got, like, 30 feet before you have to break it up again. And so we do already have some things broken in there. put it put in place so that you break up.

I'm just thinking of the Canyon effect though. So if you were to have really high frontage, that's, that would be my main concern. If you have like a really big, I don't want to say the blue names building, but that is a very long, big building. Even, you know, 25% of it is still enough to cast a shadow is what I'm saying. So that's kind of what my concern is, is yeah.

So I hear one for all the way across.

Does the staff have an opinion on it?

No. Waiting to hear from you.

Oh, OK. That's funny, the blue building, which we do not speak of. It's like Voldemort.

Well, we did just get a second staff opinion.

We did get another staff opinion. It's been beat up for like eight years around here.

I'm curious. You had that one slide that had all the other cities' rules of step backs. How do they handle that same question? Is it the entire length?

I haven't seen it. So Kirkland's is interesting because it has to be an average of 10 feet, which means they can have five feet here and then 25 feet here. So that's a big difference in their step backs. Minnie was just saying that there are some you could have it where you don't have to step back on the corners, but you do have to step back on the rest of the building. That's an option.

Commissioner Matthews?

I think I have no problem with them having a minimum, 75%. But I don't think that the 25%, and you may have already said this, should be chunked in one area. Maybe you have to break it up a little bit. OK. Yeah. Like you said, on the corners, have no break or step back. And in the middle, have it. OK.

Yeah, that was going to be my suggestion. Maybe we could have, like, a certain foot length of, you know, you can't exceed more than this long without some kind of step back.

Okay. So, I mean, I could say this at the end, and we're going to move on to open space, but I think I'm just letting you know we'll come back next time with draft code. actual code, but there will probably still be some options in there. And these are what we talked about. This is what it would look like. So, but, but we've narrowed it down. So we have things to work with. Okay. You ready to move on to open space?

Everybody to get to say their piece. Okay.

All right. Okay. So This one's obvious. It provides open spaces for residents, particularly for those who are, for some reason, unable to go outside of the facility, maybe senior housing, that kind of thing. And it creates a sense of place for residents who are there. However, in comparison to other communities, ours are rather excessive. Our requirements are excessive. So as I mentioned, well, we'll get to that in a second. They're a little excessive. but they do foster community, they attract tenants, they command higher rents, they reduce turnover because of that sense of place, and they boost property values. So there are lots of bonuses to open space. There we go. But there can be too much of a good thing, and too much required amenity space can actually stop a project. I spoke with a developer recently who was looking at a site and The amount of required open space, the site isn't quite an acre. The amount of open space that would be required is slightly over half an acre. So that stops that development right there. So again, we have policies that direct us. These are actually from, this is from the Comprehensive Plan, not Central Issaquah Plan, so it's citywide, but to encourage a well-distributed system of shop services and recreation that serves with the needs of residential neighborhoods and workplaces. And our codes, as I mentioned before, these are only going to apply to those that have 22 units or more because that's really what you're going to get in Central Issaquah. So we require that each unit currently has 48 square feet of space attached to it, that they have an additional 100 square feet of common space to be somewhere in the building that everybody can use. For these, we also require an additional 400 square feet of space, just not per unit, just 400 square feet of space. You can get deviations. But if you're going to do that, you must be consistent with the intent of this. You can't constitate. It can't be a privilege to reduce it. You can't have an appreciable adverse impact on the environment or health or safety. So you have to have something. And then if you are going to have any kind of impacts, those have to be mitigated elsewhere. And I left this out of your slide. What are the deviations? I left this out of the discussion before. One is that you can request a deviation in the size for the size requirements if you put all of the, I'm going to say this wrong, all of the required community space for multiple buildings into one larger community space. You can do that. So if you have two buildings, you don't have to split it up. You can have it all in one place. You can reduce the number. This one you all did not too long ago. and that we currently require that all of them have it, but you can reduce it, that only 50% of the units have the private space. But you still have to have a total of 148 square feet for every unit. So the rest of that, whatever you don't do, that 50% has to go into common space. And then the last one is for the conversion of multifamily units. That can be reduced. They just have to still provide 148 square feet somewhere on site. You don't have to do any outdoor, because we can't require them to do physical changes to the building. So Bellevue currently, they require 800 square feet of unpaved space plus private 50 square feet per unit beyond 10 units. So if you do 11 units, 50 additional square feet per unit. In Bothell and Canyon Park, similar to Central Squad, they require 20% of common space based on the net building floor area. No private amenity spaces are required. Redmond, they do a common and private, I need to look a little further into this, but it's 100 square feet per unit that they have to do, and a maximum of 20% of the project site, which something like that may have prevented in this other situation. And then Snohomish County, their common and private space is 150 square feet per unit, which is very much like Issaquah. It's a little bit over. So recommendations are right now that we require step back. Shoot. Wow. Okay. Okay. I don't know what happened. Do you have your staff report with you?

Okay. We can wing it. Plenty capable. My staff report. Oh, as far as just the questions you were going to ask us? Yes. Let me see. Of course you can. I'm taking my responses.

I apologize. I looked at this right before the meeting and didn't even notice it. Oh my goodness. Okay. So our recommendations are rather than to have deviations, just require 100 square feet of common outdoor space plus 48 square feet of open space, or 100 square feet per unit plus an additional 48 square feet per unit for any units that do not have private open space, or I'm going to need to keep this. or 100 square feet per unit plus 30% of all units have to have this square feet of open space. Essentially, we're just taking that 30% out of the deviations and moving it up to the top. To allow flexibility in the amount of open space requirements for all commercial and multifamily buildings converting to affordable residential housing, which is what we already do, and require private open space for only 30% of the units instead of 50%.

You want to just take it question by question?

Sure. Well, those were the recommendations.

Okay. Those were the recommendations.

Let's do question by question. How about that? Yes. Sure. Okay. That way I get to go to the next slide. Okay. Yeah. Kristen. Wow. Okay. I'm keeping this. those are actually the recommendations that are up on the screen. Look at that. Okay. Considerations. Um, do you want to amend the code to add options instead of having applicants request deviations? Just, you know what, here are your options. You can do one of these three things sort of the way that I don't know if I think it was in the packet itself, the way Redmond does it. Um, they had different ways of calculating it and we could do that.

Commissioner Kress. Thanks for the options. So if I look at 1B, do I read this as they could do 148 feet per unit, just that it's both common and private together, and then they could have some with no balconies, but it could all be in common. Is that one of the choices?

30%. We would have 30% of units.

That's an or. If I just chose 1B, it would be and if I... So here's the other question. I'll ask a different way. So some of them, some of the other cities do not break out private and common. They just say, let's say 150 feet per unit. You got to put it somewhere. Is that would be as one B is?

Yes.

So they don't have to have any private, they could do it all public. And if I, if I, if I was a developer and I chose one B correct.

Okay. That's, And then a is just the current house it's written, correct? So it is just currently it's written. B is to John's point.

And B gives them the flexibility of where they want to put it, which is, which is nice. They may decide to put more of it in. Here's the other question. If is there a, is there a D if they, if they want to just do much bigger balconies on all of these and have a smaller common, or is that not something that we would want to have as one of the choices? If they say they wanted to do 100 feet per unit as a balcony, but then have a smaller common one, do we care more about having a bigger common area? Or do we want to have, if someone has a bigger private area, we don't have to worry about as much common area?

I can't really speak for developers. I don't know.

No, what do we want as a city? Developers probably would never do this because it's more expensive that way, but I'm just curious if we have a preference one way or the other.

Thinking. I mean, common space is important because that's where you go and you meet your community and you meet the people who are there and it provides play areas for kids and it provides that kind of thing. Private doesn't do that. And if it's an apartment or a condominium that has children in it and you don't have the common spaces, that leaves them 100 square feet to play on their backyard.

Okay, then I wouldn't do a D, so then you answer my question.

Commissioner Matthews.

I actually like the option where only 30% of the units have balconies because I could tell you in my condo, about 30% of the people actually use that space at all. So to me it makes sense that not all of them have it. I guess the problem comes down to Someone got lucky and rented a balcony, and then they never use it, and the next guy wished he had his balcony. But I think it makes sense not to have balconies on every single unit, especially in central Issaquah, and have a bigger outdoor space.

Commissioner Doe?

So I'm all for options. My issue is looking at A, B, and C. I feel like B kind of covers everything in A and C. So it makes A and C redundant if you have B, unless I'm misunderstanding it. Because if you have 30% of units minimum, have 48 square feet of open space, I guess so that way is saying that you don't have to have the additional 48 square feet. Okay. So that's what I'm getting. That's different there. And so then it's like, if you don't want any balconies at all, then you have to add the additional square footage. Okay. But then nobody's going to pick a, but that's fine.

Yeah, no, absolutely. Like I said, code language is funny, huh? These guys live in it, so I don't feel bad if it takes a moment. I definitely want to make sure everybody gets to speak. Commissioner Millinder-Irwin, Vice Chair Patterson? Anything? You don't have to. Okay.

It does appear that C is most comprehensive in that it appears to be the best of both worlds. It gives you the a square footage of private open space and then also the private space as far as the balconies are concerned. So C seems reasonable to me.

Great point. First thing is, I guess one of the questions was, would we prefer options over deviations, right? That was kind of the crux of that. I know in the past, this commission has never liked deviations because they feel like people lean on those, whether options are more appropriate here, giving them a menu of things they can choose from. Everybody agree with that, that options are better than deviations? Okay, I'm getting a lot of head shakes, so it looks like you got some.

Sure, Vice Chair Patterson. My only comment on that, it takes me back to the Pioneer Project thing, is we, at one point, talked about options. We were like, everyone's going to pick the one of the, like, one of the three options. And so we were like, well, why not just go with that? So that's one thing I might consider for this is, like, is there one that a developer, like, if you talk to a few developers, they're going to be like, we're going to pick B every time. Or whether, like, does it make sense if we're trying to simplify things that we just, if we're going to give them the option, do we just make that the thing? I don't know. It's just...

Commissioner Ulner. I'm not sure I understand option C. So in option C, we have to have 100 square feet per unit common space, and 30% of the units have to have the private space. That seems like the least onerous from a development standpoint because the other 70% of units don't have to contribute 48 square feet to the common area.

You are correct.

So why wouldn't a developer just pick that one?

Yeah, that's true. That's true. But then they, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point.

Commissioner Matthews.

Sorry, I keep talking. But the, so for option C, at the same point where it's like everyone's going to go for option C. So why have options? Why don't you just tell them what the minimum criteria is? Oh. Well, I was going to continue. So basically, you say that 48% cannot be on the ground floor. It has to be in one of the higher units.

Well, it can be a patio on the ground floor. No, no, no.

I bet. Well, because they'll say like, hey, that patio is really now, if it's on the ground floor, it's pretty much part of the common space. Everybody's going to be, you know.

None of it has a fence. Mm-hmm. Sorry, some condos were just built close to me, and that first floor, they have patios, and each one of those patios is fenced individually. Oh. Yeah. Okay.

Well, I was going to say, why not just make it a minimum criteria instead of options, and then if they want to do more, they could do more? I mean, it seems like that would be the simplest approach.

Yeah, great point. For sure it is.

Yeah, because building on what Sandra's saying, yeah, I can see somebody saying, oh, on the ground floor, we're going to fence off some areas, and now that's technically private, and we can kind of take away from our overall space requirements that way, because we'll have 30% of this is smaller. So I would maybe want to specify that that private space would either have to be above ground floor, or maybe we do just go with the minimum.

Any other comments? Commissioner Kratz?

I guess, like I asked earlier, is our preference that we have common areas? The answer was yes. So now I have a different question, somewhat related, is do we care if they build private or not? Because if we have no preference that they build private, then B should be an option. If we feel like at least 30% of every development should have private, than C? I mean, so it comes back down to what's the intent of the city? to require private. Because you can envision some areas that B would be more attractive based on what the property is. And they could do maybe a better job with common versus trying to convolute. If it's a small unit, have 48 square feet maybe make it useful.

So the policy in the comprehensive plan is to have common spaces for people to enjoy and create a sense of community. So that implies common spaces rather than private spaces. We did have an internal conversation about this, a very brief one, and there was disagreement. But the policy is for more common spaces.

I get that. Because the current is we are requiring private. Correct. So that's why I was asking a pointed question of, are we changing our point of view and being more flexible of not having private with the benefit of being more common?

So I'm gonna ask Minnie to come up here because Minnie was involved in the conversation during the Title 18 update and that's when we changed this. So she will have a little history as to that.

Yes, so going back to free Title 18 updates, in Central, it was just a 48 square feet. You picked whether it was common or it was private. During the community conversations, the administration's proposal at the time was 100 square feet, you pick common or private. Through the community conversations, there was a desire to actually have private open spaces. So then what became as Planning and Policy Commission's recommendation that council adopted was 100 square feet per unit plus 48 square feet for each unit to have its own private open space. we came back last year because we got feedback saying every unit balcony is not an aesthetic nobody's building balcony in every unit we need more flexibility and so we brought it back with a 50 percent had to have balconies we kept the standard the same 100 square feet and 48 square feet per private space but you could bundle that 48 square feet into your common space and just do for 50%. I think the ask now that you heard comments from the developers is reduce that 50% to 30%. So the proposal last year or a year before that after Title 18 where we reduced it to 50% was a deviation pathway. So you still had your standard, but you could ask for a deviation to only do it for half the units. So I think that led to this conversation about the two things. One is common versus private. The ask, I think, is to just only have a third of the units or 30% of the units have mandatory private open space. So if there's consensus on that, then we can set that aside. The other one is, what's the common open space standard, which is 100 right now? And then you have this third bucket of if the 70% of the units are not going to have private open space, then should that get bundled in with the common open space standard? That's how I think it's...

I was asking a different question.

Yeah.

I mean, are we... loosening or changing our point of view about mandatory any private space.

Cause if you look at B as an option, I think administration's recommendation is at least 30% of the units shouldn't be an option. Yeah.

I'm just, I'm trying to come up with three and some of the cities that do, they combine it. So I, that was my question is, is the point of view that we want to require private. I know we wanted to focus on, on common. I totally get that. Um, But do we want to require everything?

So I think that's where the community felt that they needed to be for a livability standpoint of folks living in the community, not so much from the other standpoint that it's nice to have a space that's your own in a multifamily unit. And so how many of those units? If people want to pay less rent and not have a balcony, they have that option. But some units have that option if you desire to have your own space. That's where we've landed on this 30, and I think that's supported by the Builder Roundtable forum that we had, and you received one comment saying they appreciate going from 50 to 30%. Commissioner Depp?

So casting back in time, when we came up with the 50%, did the builders not have input then?

Well, it went through a public process, but we didn't hear from anybody.

Okay, so the 30%, what? Yeah, Charlie Brown is just, but, and then I... If I could just add on to that for speaking for private space, and this is just a question to encourage discussion and thought, is there an advantage for people, for example, who might be housebound or have disabilities to have their own private space available for outdoor time? I mean, maybe they could go down to the courtyard, but it might be beneficial that some people just have that option available to them.

Commissioner Millinder-Irwin, did you want to speak?

I agree 100% with Commissioner Adair. Multifamily housing has different demographics within it, so you may have people very well that are willing to pay more money for either a balcony or patio space. You may have people that are basically housebound or simply don't want to partake in the larger communal space that you're going to have probably a lot more children than not. So I could see, in terms of overall marketability, that C would be very attractive to developers because of all of the variability that you can build in marketing-wise.

Mr. Holder? I think all of those points are valid, and I think giving flexibility is a good thing because, for example, the property could be on a very busy road, could be noisy, and people may not want balconies. And the developer may say, rather than have balconies on the outside, I'd rather have fewer of them on an internal courtyard and have an open space with plantings there, which creates a respite, rather than have it all outward facing.

Yeah, I think the language in the code doesn't specifically say balconies. It says private outdoor space. So that could mean, you know, in your common open space, you get designated plot to do your gardening or whatever, right? So you get your own. That is a method we've toured some of the units in Seattle that they do that for senior housing and those kind of things. So there is some flexibility. It doesn't say balconies only. I think that most people assume it's a balcony and

It's an interesting way to interpret it for sure. Yeah, of course.

All this great discussion has finally allowed me to form some thoughts and opinions on this. One thing I will say is in my day job we think a lot about in the IT world what's nice to have and what do we need to have. And I think when I think about that outside space is a need to have. But whether that's a balcony or communal space or a local park I think that's, that's the need to have part. The balcony itself I think is nice to have. And I think that making it a requirement for all units or even 50% of the units, it's still a nice to have and it's probably something that allows the developer to charge more rent for that unit because it's, it's an additional, you know, private amenity, I guess. Uh, it's like having a jacuzzi bathtub, right? It's like that, that's an additional thing that you get to have access to. So you might be paying a premium for it. So in that case, I'm kind of on board with moving to 30% of the private space, private open space. I also, the more I think about it, the whole reason this is coming up is because developers are saying we can't develop with some of these requirements, whether it be the balconies or the open space. And so that makes me not want to go the route of allocating that non-private space to communal space because then you're just transferring the cost from the private open space to the communal open space and we might be stuck in the same spot where they can't develop anything because that communal space is growing, the square footage that they're trying to develop. So I think where I'm kind of landing with is if we're truly trying to create development, which is what I understand the priority of this initiative or these changes, is that we should probably consider uh, going the direction of, I guess it would be, I guess a, you know, one a with a combination of lowering the units from 50 to 30 that require the private open space. Um, and I think the reason why to kind of bring this all back is that it helps the developers and that it gives them, um, they don't have to do 50%, you know, they have to do less private open or private open space. They don't have to do additional common space. So it lowers their cost overall. The impact to the consumer, the community member, is less balconies, right? Which is, I think we've kind of discussed, it's a benefit to have it, but it's not necessarily a need to have. It's a nice to have. and they're still able to access the existing, the common space that is required. Which, I mean, if it's a one-size courtyard and you just make it bigger, I don't think that's going to impact the usage as much. I would be, I don't know, I'd be surprised by that.

Sure, that's option C, I think, what you're talking about. Right, right.

I think, yeah, that's probably a little too much. So yeah, I don't know. I think this is a great discussion though. I mean, there's a lot of considerations, but I think at the end of the day, the issue is we're not getting enough development in housing and you know, do we want to encourage that by lowering some of these barriers or do we want to continue this, you know, being stuck here by trying to have these requirements? And I don't think that we're losing much by making these changes. I think we're doing what it's set out to do, which is to increase development in the central area specifically. So I'm kind of, that's where I landed with all of this great discussion that we've had on this topic.

Thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. I'll just toss in my two cents. I don't think necessarily having only 30% having private open space is a bad thing. I think honestly, aesthetically, to have everybody have a balcony or something similar would actually start looking monolithic. It's not necessary. The market will decide. You can see that almost on every multifamily, you know, there's penthouses, there's things like this that, you know, people pay more for what they want and some, not all units need it. And some, some people to point earlier, won't even use it. My question, and this is just a legitimate question, just, so what if you were to take the 70% of units that aren't doing the private open space, could they contribute their 48 to an additional, you know, put it like in a bank, you know, then that would also, so then those 70, 70% of units would now have to contribute 148 square feet. Is that tank the project? Does that make it unfeasible? That's my question. I'm not saying I know it does or not, but that would be my question is like a hybrid for number C or for letter C is maybe you get, you bring down. So they make, because once they make an area that, relatively is inexpensive. It's the loss of value from the square footage for livability. The actual making of a common area is not, that's not driving up the cost. It's they're losing the ability to charge more for bigger units and more units. So I don't know if there's a hybrid where C is, like I said, you give them the 30%, so not every unit has to have a balcony, but maybe those 70% that don't get it goes in, and those 70% of units have to be at 148 square feet.

So that's what our current deviation is.

Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. Could have stopped me earlier, Kristen, but thank you.

I don't want to interrupt.

But I honestly take another thing a little bit differently. Issaquah has always hit our housing targets. I don't know why we're in a rush to develop anything. And I don't mean to be rude about that. I mean, I understand there's a push to get more development, but it will come. I mean, Issaquah is very... You know, it's a very coveted area. People want to live here. It's only becoming more and more expensive. So just because we're not competing with Bothell in terms of development does not bother me. Maybe it bothers everybody else. It does not bother me at all. I don't want to see us rush through it. All of these things we're doing are going to be here for a generation, if not more. And I'd rather do it properly and right and make it fit with the community than just be the first one to be like, yeah, we got five new starts. Like, who cares? There's a cause always hit their targets. And if this time we were a little bit slower than others, it doesn't bother me. I'd rather do it right.

What'd that do out there? Commissioner Holder. I come at this from the perspective of someone very interested in developing more affordable housing. While these questions are going to have an impact on the affordability of development, there are many other factors, and some of them much more fundamental, like the cost of land is a huge component. And whether you have 50% of units with an outdoor private space or 30%, that's not going to have the same kind of impact that an expedited permitting process would have, or other ways in which to encourage development. So I guess I would suggest be a little cautious about how far we push this particular lever to favor developers, because there are many other things that we could and should be doing. So anyway, that's it. from my perspective.

No, I appreciate it. It brings up Kristen's photo of the island and everything that was below the surface, which again, or to your point, those are much more impactful than some of the things that we're tweaking. And like you said, if we go one direction completely, those aren't the big levers. The below the surface ones, we cannot see. Commissioner Adair, do you want to speak?

Yeah, and to those, along those lines, I'm all for creating options and all of that, making it more flexible and easier. I do want to point out, though, when I was looking over the open space requirements for Kirkland and Redmond and things, I didn't, if I was just doing the math quickly, I didn't see that it was that different than what we had or that much more onerous. So it does make me think in some of these cases, like what Olinor said, the difference is land cost right here versus, and not necessarily... So I like the idea of making things simpler and easier for people coming in, but at the same time, yeah, I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater on all of these. And the baby in this case being open space.

That's interesting you said that, because I thought so too. After looking at that, they didn't seem a whole lot different. Bellevue and what was the other one?

I'M GOING TO GO HOME AND RUN THE NUMBERS BECAUSE I'LL BE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW MUCH. WE NEED ABOUT 2200 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE FOR A 22-UNIT BUILDING. IF WE GET DOWN TO THE NITTY-GRITTY WITH THE DIFFERENT ONES, HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OPEN SPACE WOULD THEY NEED? I DID HAVE THE QUESTION ON THE BREAKDOWN OF THE NET AREA FOOTAGE THAT I'LL PROBABLY BE EMAILING YOU LATER BECAUSE I KNOW YOU LOVE MY QUESTIONS. I'm sorry, I missed part of that. Okay, I did have, I'm going to probably be breaking down the math on that just because I'm curious and I like numbers. Okay. Thank you.

Let's be honest, Woodinville gets all that work because of the wine. That's what it is. Are you still getting everything you need?

You know, we have all these questions, but I think the discussion has covered them all. So yeah, I was looking at them. Thank you for this, by the way.

Yeah, no problem.

The only one that we haven't talked about is do you want to add a maximum? So Bellevue has their requirements, but the max, they don't have to go more than 20% of the net square footage of the building.

Would you want to consider a maximum?

Commissioner Matthews.

So I had a question about that. You know, in Central Issaquah, most of the blocks are pretty small, so you probably only want X percentage of the actual land to be used for open space. Otherwise, you're not going to get a building around it. So were you thinking, does it make sense to do it by the overall square footage of the building or the plot of land? So for open space, not for the private space.

We'd have to look at that. You know, the land itself, you have to calculate in the parking spaces and the driveways and the required landscape already. I think sometimes it's simpler to do the building, but the building is where the people are. So then you're basing it on the number of people, not the size of the land. Plus, if you have critical areas in there, you have to calculate those. I don't want to just make it easy, but I think it is easier to figure it out if you base it on the building and sort of it. That gives you sort of an estimate of how many people are going to be in there and be using the space more than the site itself.

Yeah, I was just thinking if you had 22 units and say it's only a block big, so you have a sixth floor. OK, I'm not doing maths in my head tonight. But if you have a six-story building with 22 units or whatever it is, and it's only a block big, and they're supposed to have 148 square feet 22 units, that's a big chunk of land. So if you're only on a block, that seems like you're not going to get that space. You could eat up like half that block for open space. So I was just wondering if it made sense to do it based on the footprint of the location.

We have to look at that one.

Any comments as far as requiring a maximum? But it's gone silent. What would be the big con of having a maximum? I mean, I don't see one myself. Again, I guess not being good stewards of utilizing the land properly, but again, just the cost and everything, I don't think that's going to come up a whole lot. I mean, what do other cities do? Let me ask you that.

I have only seen one other city that has a maximum. That doesn't mean there are more, but in my research, that's all I've seen.

But are east side cities only one?

Yeah.

And what was their maximum, 20%?

Yes.

If I'm understanding this, it's not... It's a way of providing... a ceiling to just how much open space needs to be on a piece of property. And to the chair's comment, I don't see a downside to that. Because obviously, developers are going to want to build more units and less open space. I think it's a reasonable approach.

Yeah. I mean, I think, again, the builder's going to want to maximize it, but if you ever did get that oddball, you wouldn't want to be a bad steward of the land and build a very small building on a very large property and take up amazing real estate in central Issaquah. So I don't really see a downside to it. And if you're selling 20%, they're going to build a football field out for their community. I don't know. I mean, again, maybe it's something we could put in. And if it becomes problematic, it could always be readdressed.

I think I'm seeing lots of nods.

Yeah.

OK. Great. Are you ready for me to move on?

Yeah. OK.

So you already know the timeline because Kate's given it to you. So we will bring this back on April 23rd for review. And it'll be interesting because I know that there are developers watching or who will watch this. And we will be meeting with the developers at 5.30 that day. Actually, no, we won't. We'll be meeting with some developers. We'll be there and making presentations with the Economic Vitality Commission. That, and so you'll see these again on the 23rd with actual code drafted, but still with options in there. May 24th, we come back for the public hearing, and then June 2nd to Planning Development Environment Committee, and then June 29th to Council for Action. That's all I have, and I don't think there are any more questions. Just in case.

Right, going once, yeah. All right, well, thank you. It looks like Kristen's gonna stay up there as we move on out of regular business for reports. City Council updates.

We did have our second roundtable building with developers to talk about these. And that was held on April 1st. And there were several. The first time we met, it was more townhome, middle housing developers. And this time it was larger developers, one who's doing Trailhead, one who's looking at another market right here. So one who did Vail, which is over on 7th. So some larger developers. And we got some, it was an interesting conversation. That was good. Let's see, any other council updates, Minnie?

Some of the things we've taken to them are not that stuff that comes to you, the fee update. But one of the things we are going to take to the Planning Development and Environment Committee is the list of 17 that council has said we, you know, as our work plan for the next two years, we want to create some goals and outcomes for those seven so that help provide some guidance to the boards and commissions as you work through them. So that meeting is currently scheduled for May 19. And then we were thinking, as you all debate the four meatier topics, there's some that are more in the housekeeping kind of category or simpler topics, and then some that are more policy-driven things that we would do a mid-check-in with Planning, Development, and Environment Committee after you all have discussed and debated that a little bit. to kind of not surprise them towards the end, but also give you some of the feedback. What else do you, probably the question at the midpoint check would be, is there anything you want Planning and Policy Commission to consider before finalizing the recommendation? So for that, we were thinking the step backs that you're talking about today, the open amenity spaces, and then we have development density and inclusionary, all the affordable housing pieces. And tied to that is a request for floor area ratio and mixed use residential. So it doesn't quite work. We have a maximum height and FAR don't quite work well together. So those are the four that we're thinking after you have had a chance to discuss, that we'll check in with them and bring it back before you finalize your comments. So that's in the works in terms of sharing the schedule for all the 17. Other than that, council's busy with a lot of stuff. We have new council members and other things that are occurring. We'll kick up after you all finish your deliberations.

Excellent. Thank you, Minnie. OK. Any other updates?

No. I say no, and then I say yes. But I do want to talk to you quickly about the meeting on the 23rd. Chair Voice wanted to remind everyone it is at 530 here. I'm hoping you can make it. Can you raise your hand if you cannot make it? Or you can email me. You can email me if you can't make it. But we do need to have a quorum. If we don't have a quorum, even though there's no action, we can't hold that meeting. So that's important. There will be some developers there making a presentation. We will also make presentations regarding vision and state targets and things like that. It's an educational piece for everyone. It's not for feedback. It's education and questions for both Economic Development Commission and you all. hopefully it helps inform decisions on both sides.

Yeah, no, I think we all definitely want to hear from the stakeholders and clearly developers are part of our community to help build our community out. So definitely want to hear from them. And you know, thank you to, I won't say their names, but the few people that reached out on behalf of developers that provided us, you know, some feedback. I mean, it's all important and they're definitely a big stakeholder. So I don't, I don't hope it doesn't come across as hostile. There's more, more than anything, just, you know, trying to make, want to make sure we get it right. That's all. Okay. Other business announcements? Anything else?

This time I really don't have any.

Okay, so 5.30. I got a feeling like people are going to be sneaking in at like 5.45 and 5.50 going, oh my God. So maybe on the packet, big bold letters we can put 5.30 meeting. That would probably be helpful. Anything from the commission? Anything as far as the good of the order? All right, well, thank you, everybody. Anything from staff before I say sign off? All right, well, thank you, everybody. Thank you, Kate, and thank you, Minnie. Thank you, Kristen. Thank you, Amanda. Thank you, Tech, and thank you all. Have a good evening.