Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, commissioners. Hello, hello. We've got a lot of commissioners here, and I'm sure a lot of commissioners have a lot to say, so we want to get started. And we're going to call this meeting, this joint meeting of the PPC as well as the DC to order, and it currently is 6.34 p.m. A little boilerplate, today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The commissions are in person, but staff or members of the public may be attending virtually or in person. Feels like I know the answer to this, but I'm gonna ask anyway to make it official. Kristen, do we have a quorum?

Yes, we do for both commissions.

Okay, great, we can talk, we can speak. We'll begin, as we always do, with public comment. And for this meeting, we're gonna hold general public comment at this time for all general topics being discussed this evening. So we're going to include the planning policy agenda items as well right now.

Yes.

Okay. I like it. Has anyone signed up to speak this evening?

No one has signed up to speak.

Okay. Anyone online, Amanda?

Just one moment. We do have someone that is online. Taylor Haynes, do you have a comment? They did not respond, so no comments.

Okay. I don't think we need to go through absences or anything, right? No. We won't shame anybody. Okay. We're going to skip all the boilerplate for public comment. We're just going to get right down to business. That's why we're all here. And our first item of business is to discuss architectural design standards for Issaquah amongst other cities. Adding flexibility and predictability to the design standards is one of the items on the promoting building investments in Issaquah's work plan. Kristen Leeson. planning manager is going to begin the presentation as long as her computer is working. So Kristen, when your computer decides to work, please go ahead.

My computer is not working. So we managed to get everything transferred over to Kate's. So we're working off of that one. All right. Okay. So this is weird. There we go. All right. There we go. So I am. I'm Kristen Leeson. I'm the planning manager for Community Planning and Development Department. And I'm going to remind that Planning Policy Commission has heard this at least once a week or twice a month for the past I don't know how many months now. But for the Development Commission members who are here, when the mayor was elected, Prior to that, he had gone around and talked to developers. And realizing that we were not seeing the development in our central Issaquah area, particularly the regional growth center like we would like to see. Until the Trailhead project came along, there was zero residential development in the urban core. And it was all outside the urban core. Now, we have regional growth targets. We have a regional growth center. And we have targets within that regional growth center that we need to hit. And we are struggling. We are very far behind. So we just need to see more development, period, particularly residential development. All development, but residential in the urban core. So we talked to several different developers. We talked to city council during their retreat. And we had staff input. And we also had a whiteboard from our Title 18 update. Some of you might remember the whiteboard that we had or the parking lot. We pulled something like 87 different items from all of these and came up with 17. And the items that we identified were sort of some low hanging fruit, some not so low hanging fruit, but things that we figured we could get done from 2026 to 2027 to try and spur development. Knowing that we want market rate residential, but we also need affordable housing, all of this while meeting the visions of Central Issaquah. And all of this is focused in Central Issaquah, not citywide. So do you all have any questions about that before I go on? OK. So I'm going to start. So one of the items on our one of the 17 is architectural standards. And developers were looking for more flexibility and more certainty. in their developments and what they build here before they come in so tonight we're going to review and discuss the architectural standards for issaquah and for other cities and i'm what we're looking for from you all is a recommendation on a path to take for our amendments we have a few options here so that's what we're looking for and there is a boatload of information And I can't give it all to you. If there is other stuff, at the end of this, I'll ask if there's anything else that you would like us to find. But this is going to be a pretty broad overview. But the idea is to get... sort of the sort of the outline of what we want here and then we'll break it get down into the details as we move along which is development commission this is what you do and this is why we need you here you review this planning policy commission does not you all do so we need you here and we need your input for these so considerations for tonight is we'll talk about this in a minute but we have seven different styles of architecture in the central issaquah area do you want to keep those styles we are one of two that I am aware of that has styles at all. Regardless of whether you want to keep the seven styles, each of those has six categories within them. Do you want to keep those categories? Do you want to add to them? Do you want to get rid of them? What do you want to do? What's the best way to increase opportunities for creative, well-designed building while still by treating standards as flexible guidelines, provided that we still meet the intent? And then are there any other suggestions? We have menus of options. We have performance standards. We have all sorts of things that are out there for us to talk about. So the issues I brought up is right now there's a lack of flexibility for architectural design standards. And for example, one of the developers gave this part of the code states that scale is to use step backs and facade articulation to reduce the perceived building size and avoid monolithic buildings. It then provides a very prescriptive list of items that are required with no possibility of deviations. So the council in creating the 17 items for us to do also came up, like with Title 18, a list, a matrix, and you have the issue, the topic, the issue, as I just mentioned, and then goals and outcomes, and then possible actions. So that's what I'm gonna go over now. So the first possible goal or outcome is to provide flexibility and design standards while still meeting the vision of the Central Issaquah Plan. Next is to group step backs with modulation and articulation and the other menu of design options to achieve overall visual interest. And other menu of design options such as higher quality building materials, art, and landscaping should also be considered in the menu. And then promote architectural diversity and encourage visually appealing designs instead of homogeneous structures while eliminating excessive regulatory requirements that drive up development costs. Some of the possible actions include provide a menu of options to meet the objectives. They specifically asked the Planning Policy Commission to look at examples of well-designed developments, such as the district flats in Woodinville, which were included in your packet and we'll look at tonight. Increase opportunities for creative well-designed buildings by treating design standards as flexible regulations. provided they achieve the intent and revisit step-back sections and group those with architectural design style sections and other design options. So for a development commission, as you know right now, step-backs we have as a separate entity. We just amended those. But the city council called it sort of a midpoint amendment. We said that step-backs, you only have to do two. You only have to do a second one if you go above five stories. They can start as low as the base of the second floor or go all the way up to the base of the sixth floor. And we removed all step backs requirements against natural context areas because so much of that is already covered through critical areas and shorelines. So we removed that. But council would like us to include that as an architectural style. Consider including that as an architectural style instead of a separate standard. So moving into our standards, we have our existing Central Issaquah standards. And outside of the urban core, we have, it's called traditional Issaquah, and then you have the urban core. So everything in purple here, Arts and Crafts, Craftsman, Northwest Lodge, Urban Grange, and Western Falls Front are all permitted in the traditional Issaquah area. Northwest Contemporary is only allowed in urban core. Northwest Revival is allowed in both areas. I apologize for that. I need to turn it down. Thank you. So citywide and our central subcategories. So we have general requirements that require citywide for multifamily and commercial. And that includes massing, blank walls, entrances, weather protection, rooftops, and articulation. When you move into multifamily and commercial, they have different ones. So the general don't apply unless they're not listed multifamily, but we have massing, setbacks, ground floor windows, and then commercial setbacks and doorways, sort of the entrances and how it should appear, not what the door looks like. And then in central, the subcategories are massing scale, windows, walls, doors, and roofs. So I'm going to start with other cities. Wait, do you have any questions about ours?

Commissioner Adair.

Hi, can we go back a slide? So Northwest Contemporary, is it allowed in both traditional Issaquah and urban core or only? Okay, so the other six, are they allowed in urban core or is only Northwest Contemporary?

So the top five are only allowed in traditional Issaquah. The Northwest Contemporary is only allowed in urban core and Northwest Revival is allowed in both.

So urban court can only have Northwest contemporary or Northwest revival. Correct. But none of the others. Correct. Thank you.

Commissioner all owner. I just had a question about the evolution of all of this. Um, when were these standards promulgated?

They came in 20, 2016 there was a moratorium and we put a moratorium on all new commercial and multifamily residential properties. And we were asked to do six things, and one of those was to come up with architectural standards. We hired consultants, and the consultants came up with these standards. I will look, though, however, to two of our commissioners over there, Commissioners Brennan and Morgan, who were here and helped work on the architectural standards. Do you guys know any more information than I do? I'm going to turn on your mic.

This is the Central Area Task Force book that we did in 2009. The mayor appointed a commission to look at the central area and rewrite all the code for it. We spent about a year starting in the fall of 29, and then it went through more processes, and I think eventually got passed in 2012.

The original ones did in 12. The architectural standards for the traditional and urban core came around in 2016, 2017 during the moratorium. Yep.

Just one more comment. I'd like to distinguish between styles and standards.

So a style is you have, you're an architect, but you have, so arts and crafts. When you look at an arts and crafts building, it has smaller, finer details. It has very divided windows. It usually has a front porch along with it. And so it gets, it's arts and crafts is the umbrella. The style is the umbrella. And then all of the standards below it your little details to go with it very much like our land use designations with the zones that fall under that umbrella and the standards that fall under that thank you Commissioner Kraus hi some of these sound like a wedding invitation like like cowboy cocktail or something I don't even know what some of these things are but the

So I have a question of the intent of this when it was done and what things are not included in this lists like for example, modern buildings is modern kind of some of these things or cause styles evolve over time. And some of these are, are kind of tried and true the first couple of them. So I guess start with the intent of doing this in the first place versus just handling things based on code of, you know, step back, transparencies, things like that.

So I was not involved in the development of these. However, The task force that Mel Morgan and I were both involved with, they talked a lot about there's the area. Let's see, can I get there? No, I can't get there. But it's on the left side of urban core, that little sort of triangle piece up there. That's Village Residential. And there was a lot of talk about making sort of that a ski lodge looking kind of area. So lots of wood materials. And that's what kind of started to come about then. But then in 2016, it was really the consultants who came up with this, and I don't know. I just know city council wanted more standards.

Your mic. Sorry. I know like a neighborhood. has maybe a theme or a style, but something that's more broader. I just really want to understand what things also didn't fit in here that the city decided they don't want in the city, and what was the discussion about the role of the city deciding what's nice and not nice?

And I can't answer that question, which is why I keep looking over to these two who were more involved in the discussion. Any ideas?

So I can weigh in a little bit. So there was a period of, significant development happening not only in isaac but in the region and there were projects that um that weren't well received let's say by the public by the community particularly one along gilman boulevard and the council responded back saying we need to tighten up our standards be more specific about what our design criteria are to ensure that the character of the buildings that are constructed in the city really reflect what this community wants And so that's what kind of led to a fairly significant effort to come up with the architectural design standards, hiring a consultant. I don't recall where they were from. They were from, I think, California. Yes. In any case, it was a fairly significant effort to provide very, as you can see in the code now, specific criteria in design standards that developments needed to comply with to kind of correct what was thought to be maybe too much freedom in creating some outcomes that were not satisfactory to the public.

I think I'll add to that. I think part of it too was the idea that developers had concerns that it was too uncertain what you could get done with uncertain standards and the development commission making decisions. So part of it I think was to say, here are very strict standards. Meet these standards and the process will go faster. And there will be less chance for big changes in review.

And you all received a public comment that alluded to that. And it's true. The standards were considered to be a little loose. Things were built that people didn't like loose, less prescriptive. Things were built that residents didn't necessarily like. So we were directed to tighten them up. So we tightened them up. And now we're going back the other way of we need more flexibility and predictability. So this is where we are. And I don't know what was left out. You've asked what was left out, and I don't know.

Commissioner Matthews.

Thanks.

So when I look at this list, it's like we're really looking backwards. So was that a theme that was guiding the decisions? Because mid-century modern, which we do have buildings like that, is not included or anything that's going modern. So it's like was the theme to look backwards and try to recreate what was in the past versus trying to develop more of a synchronistic community that is both backwards and forwards looking. Cause it seems like we're stepping back instead of like reaching forward to whatever's possible in the future.

I'll jump in and say, I think it was driven a lot by the architect. the architectural consultant that came in that was coming up with these themes of what to do and yeah. I don't think we ever gave them instructions to come up with older design standards necessarily.

Agreed. The consultants had a very heavy hand in creating these standards.

Yeah.

To help me with your name, Commissioner Fassoon?

How does Issaquah compare against Redmond, for example, or Sammamish? Do we know?

So we've only found, we looked at six other cities, and we've only found one other city that really referred to styles, and it was Northwest style. And the rest of them are just, either they don't mention it, or they say that meet the character of the neighborhood. Now, whether that's existing or proposed or future, you don't know, but existing character or character.

So more in line with the previous pre-2016 guidance?

Correct.

Mr. Matthews. Sorry, one more question. What is Northwest Revival considered? That was one I forgot to look up. I'm sorry. I looked at all of them and I just don't remember that particular design style.

I don't remember either. I looked and I don't remember. Okay, thank you. I'm not on my computer, so it's gonna be harder for me to find stuff right now.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Carry on. One more. So do we know if we solved the problem? We did not. Whatever the problem that we had in 2016.

We did not because we're back at it. And it didn't result in any more development. I will say we have not had complaints or concerns about the architecture that's gone up. Okay.

So we limited public outcry.

There has been no public outcry that I am aware of. That's good. Lots of questions.

Commissioner Stanchuk?

Do you have off the top of your head how far off we are from meeting our goals for residential development within central Issaquah, whether that's from that time period to now. So how many units are we missing?

So we are in the process of updating our targets. The city is supposed to get 3,500 new units. Our proposal is to get 65% of that, which is about 2,250. We are about to build the first 165, and that's how far off we are. We are off by about 2,150 units.

So a lot, a lot.

Okay, I think we're gonna keep going. We're gonna have plenty more time to ask Kristin questions, but let's let her continue with the presentation.

If I can, let's try this again. There we go. OK, I know I don't know how to fix the flashing. I apologize. So I'm just going to go over it. These are very high level. And this is the only one I did this for to actually pull some code out. Someone else might know this a little better than I. But Bellevue is, and we looked at downtown, we tried to look at sort of regional growth centers, things that match ours, areas that match ours. But we looked at Bellevue, primarily Belle Red area, and it's a lot less prescriptive. So for example, there's a very in-depth intent. The length and breadth of a building should be friendly in scale, portions of a large building mass should be broken into smaller, appropriately scaled modules, allows an overly large building to appear smaller, vertical and horizontal elements should be used to create human scale. So those are all intents and things that they're trying to achieve. But then you go down to the standards and it says, Break down long expanses of building frontage, both horizontally and vertically. A vertically articulated tripartite facade division, base, middle, and top for buildings over three stories. And vertical articulation of windows, columns, and bays. And that's about as specific as it gets. And that is the most general one that we have found so far. So I just wanted to put that up there as an example and compare it with ours, which is much more prescriptive. Do you have anything to add to that?

I think it's a good example of kind of the other end of the spectrum from very specific and prescriptive because this is a conversation that is ongoing in all cities all the time. There's this swing back and forth between how much do you regulate versus how much essentially latitude you provide to the property owners and the developers to build what makes financial sense, economic sense for them. So this is a result of a multiple code updates over multiple years to get to a little less prescriptive and a little bit more, um, kind of general criteria that the intent, I think, uh, as Kristen mentioned is a, is a big piece. It's like, what's the overriding intent or the design objectives or the community, uh, space feel that we're trying to create, uh, and then, uh, provide some guidance I think on creating, um, pedestrian spaces that are inviting and interesting and safe. And just using words like that instead of planting certain type of vegetation or having a certain type of a door entryway, et cetera, rather than directing entrances to buildings off the public way, et cetera. But in any case, it is a different example of a more performance-based or general standard versus a very prescriptive. But the The city and the development community, they kind of want the same thing. They want flexibility, but they want predictability, and they're in tension constantly. Flexibility means you don't have specific criteria. You've got general guidelines that you're designing to, and you're hoping that what you're designing is going to be satisfactory to the city when it comes to permits. So it really is a partnership, and a lot of it is not only the standard, but the processes that you put in place to administer the code and create predictability in the process. So there's, I think, a lot of levers that you can pull to make this work better.

And for the Planning Policy Commission, if you don't know, I keep looking at Commissioner Brennan because he used to be the planning director for the city of Bellevue, and at one point I believe deputy city administrator. Yes? Yeah, city manager. So he knows about Bellevue. So that's why I keep pointing to him. That's why I've looked at him a few times.

Commissioner Stanchek.

So it strikes me with this more general approach that the process for figuring out whether or not a project meets that is the most important part. adds to predictability or not. So, I mean, it says in our pamphlet booklet that this is, they do it in administrative approval. Do you have any insight on the process of who decides whether these standards are met? How does the permitting process go? Do they get stuck in review all the time by people who don't like what they submit?

So, well, we did include in the packet, too, whether these are approved administratively or by commissions. And it's mostly still by some sort of development or design committee or commission that does it. There are some administrative.

Real quick question. I was the director of the development services department there. The planning director is a different position. But in Bellevue, it was an administrative approval process, a design review. They call it a design review. It is the director makes the final decision on the permit. But there is a process that includes a public meeting, similar to what Issaquah does, to engage the community prior to the decision, then there's an appeal process to a hearing examiner to the director's decision. When the land use decision is made, then the building permits to follow that. So in Bellevue, there is not a commission or a design review board that it goes through. But in some communities, as Kristen mentions, they do that.

OK, so here's where we go really high level. Bellevue and what I did is I tried to go through and everything that you'll see in the lighter blue here are similar topics that you see all the way through. So they have a site stand. This is still Bellevue site standards and some things I tried to take out for you all. This commission has already talked about open amenity spaces. We've talked about step backs, natural context areas. So some of that I tried to take out of here unless they included things like windows in the open space. So it's a little messy. But they include pedestrian emphasis standards. So as we were talking about, that's the human scale piece with windows, walls, form, colors, lighting, how to address blank walls, pedestrians and the elements, weather protection, outdoor spaces, building massing and high quality materials. Oh, I forgot to highlight rooftops. That's a big one. Everybody talks about rooftops and it's really the roof line that we're talking about there, not what the top of the roof looks like. Bothell Canyon Park, we've looked at two different areas. One is Canyon Park, and it's fairly prescriptive with some menus for some architectural details. They do have deviations. They talk about air quality buffers, something that is not brought up here but has been discussed. block frontage requirements such as transparency and building placement, outdoor space requirements, as we have, massing and articulation, facade articulation, maximum facade lengths, and again, roofline. For downtown, it's very much the same. They talk about much more robust frontage. It's a more pedestrian area, and so they talk more about that. Various maximum building lengths and building heights, outdoor space requirements, Downtown Redmond, and by the way, these photos, it was also alluded to that these were examples of good architecture. Good architecture, like good art, is subjective. So these are not examples of good architecture, just architecture that has resulted from the standards that you are talking about tonight. Just throw that out there. All right, Bothell downtown I just talked about, Redmond downtown. These are standards. However, the word should is used a lot instead of standard, so it means shall for the most part. Again, siting and building, building entries. They talk about public art. Building colors and materials, windows, pedestrian features, outdoor pedestrian areas, site entrances and rooftops. I'm just going to sort of Kirkland Park Place, we pulled this one up even though it's very site specific. It's very much like a development agreement and it's with something about, you know, 12 acres maybe is what it is. So it's a little bit different. And they have both residential and office there, and retail. They have the Google offices there. And then this is their residential. But orientation, massing, blank wall treatment, and building diversity. They actually mentioned building diversity here. Kirkland downtown, not a lot is different. I'm not going to go through every single one of these because they're all sort of similar. You can see the blue. Kirkland Totem Lake, the same, except that they have larger façade widths, max façade widths.

They also have, though, a lot of three-block passages.

Sammamish Town Center. They've actually kind of put the kibosh on this. They've put it on hold, and they're looking at rewriting it right now. So there aren't any pictures. This one is from about 10 years ago. There wasn't a whole lot to pull up. And so I just wanted to say right now, they do mention character. And they talk about everything else that we talk about. See, there's roof line again. And window designs, materials, and colors. And that's actually pretty prescriptive. Very prescriptive, I should say. The last one that we have here is Woodinville. So Woodinville is prescriptive with some menus. This one right here is the one that we were asked to look at by the Planning, Development, and Environment Committee. And there is commercial all along the bottom. There are restaurants and shops, and then residential on top, and lots of open space and pathways in between. This is the one that talks about Northwest design character, and this is for commercial, because they have commercial and residential broken up. Human scale. And then they talk about, again, the horizontal building modulation, modulated roof line, window patterns, changing materials, building. They talk about corners. Some of these talk about corners. I haven't mentioned facade orientation materials and blank walls, how to address blank walls. Nobody wants blank walls. And then Woodinville multifamily. Northwest woodland character. And this one specifies sort of outdoor materials. So you can see from at least this photo and from the one before it, lots of wood on the outside and lots of windows, lots of transparency. Human scale, implementing balconies. They do talk about balconies and decks on upper floors. Architectural scale, step backs again, building corners and building details, materials and blank walls, and roof lines. Pretty short presentation, actually. So what we have found is that, yes, issaquah is the most prescriptive out there. It really is. Maybe Sammamish is close, but it's very prescriptive. Because you look at ours, and it'll say, and I tried to highlight it in the packet where I could, it'll say, we need all of these, or all of these are required, or the following are required. Very few times do you see four of the ones below. So it is. They can get, people can ask for variances, but if you get a variance, you have to go to the hearing. You can ask for a variance for anything, but there are various criteria to meet. And it has to go to the hearing examiner. And it's a whole separate permit. And the deviations, we allow for about nine deviations. Emily, about nine deviations we have, and each of those is very prescriptive. Yeah. Pardon me? Eleven. Eleven? Okay. Between nine and twelve. Okay. So, you know what we've heard and initially we heard we want more deep from developers we want more deviations I really don't think that's what they want because we've also heard deviations we're going to submit something we're going to ask for deviation and we don't know if we're going to get it or not so you know that leads me to believe and the rest of us who have talked about it all of staff is that really what they would like is more flexibility just more options so that they know exactly what they're getting as long as we meet the intent and trying hit that vision. And as I mentioned before, cities tend to focus on the same categories. And it's really three things. The ground floor. What's it going to look like and feel like when a person is walking by that ground floor? Then modulation and articulation so that you don't get these straight up and down walls and roof lines so that it's interesting once you get to the top as well. It's those three pieces. So I've got questions and then I've got all of the considerations again to talk through one by one.

So start with questions. Okay. Now it's your guys' time. Lots of questions. I'll start with one just quick question. If is a clause the most prescriptive was Bellevue the least prescriptive?

Yes.

And Sammamish was the next most prescriptive. Yes. Woodinville was what third?

going to rate them yeah the rest were kind of right i think botho was kind of prescriptive woodenville was a little looser right and then redmond kirkland and bellevue were the least prescriptive would you all agree with that

I think Redmond is prescriptive in so much of the standards that they have, but they had less standards than some of the other cities. So some of the other cities had like a whole long list of standards, and Redmond had less categories, but those categories were pretty prescriptive.

Okay, that's a great explanation. All right, time to open it up. Commissioner Kress, I know you've been waiting patiently.

Not patiently. No, thanks. So I think a lot has changed in 10 years. I mean, it sounds like we became very prescriptive in 2016 because some people didn't like blue. And we had a knee-jerk reaction and then put a bunch of rules. And it took a lot of work. I totally get that. And the question I have, though, is that was 10 years ago. And the council has evolved as well. Do we want to be prescriptive? I think that's the bigger question. It's not like, are seven right? And how much do you want to do on this gigantic matrix? I think it's really, do we have the ability to have the question of what is the role that we want to do and how prescriptive that we want to be is kind of the first question. And then other things will roll out of that. So I'm trying to see what's on the table for this conversation. Are we just moving the pieces around, or do we want to have them step back and say, is this the thing that we want to be doing, period, in terms of being prescriptive? Versus Bellevue, who, I mean, Bellevue's very well-run, I think, so I think congratulations. And Sammamish, I used to live in Sammamish. I would not use them as a high watermark on a lot of things. So even if they have certain rules or whatever, I would put them not as the target. We should look at and aspire to the places who do it well and kind of learn from that. So I guess my question is, how open is the conversation about being prescriptive or not prescriptive right now with the current council?

So you're getting into our considerations discussion. However, what we have asked to do is provide more flexibility. So we are being asked to be less prescriptive than we are now. Now, whether that means keeping the seven styles or condensing everything into one or having the rest of the city and central Issaquah is up to you. The less prescriptive that we get and the more that we start from the ground up, we are going to require a consultant that will require extra time. But if we get it right, okay.

I was going to say the only thing to add to Commissioner Crass's point, it's not just the city council that's changed. It's also other demands from Olympia, the state. So there's, yeah, to your point. So things have changed in 10 years. We'll keep that one off the mic. Commissioner Adair.

So this is actually directed towards Morgan and Brennan, and something you guys said earlier, and I just want to clarify about when we were originally putting these standards into play and getting the consultant, which was, did I hear correctly that the developers wanted more strict was it that they wanted less flexibility so they knew what to expect or so they could get more certainty? Because I just don't want to go back too far the other direction and wind up, you know, there's kind of a push and pull here, right, as Michael said, and, sorry, as Commissioner Britton said, and I just don't want to go too far the other direction. I want to sort of settle in.

So I think... I mean, the developers weren't in direct communication with the commission. We were working with staff and their consultant as they were bringing the standards forward and providing some comment and feedback. I think the development community, uncertainty creates risk, and that costs money. So they want certainty, and they want to know what they're going to get when they come into a city. They want to build on a piece of property. But they want to be able to do what they want to do. So as I mentioned earlier, that creates tension, that predictability versus that flexibility. So I think what the city was doing at that time was responding to blowback from the community about some of the character of the buildings that were being built and trying to put in more specific criteria on what buildings would look like architecturally in the city. And for the most part, that hasn't really come to fruition. Probably one of the reasons that development didn't happen is because the standards were very difficult to meet and probably costly. So I think this is really a conversation about where do we move the pendulum. It's pretty far over to the very predictable but defined standards versus move it back to creating more flexibility, but you give up. You give up some of that certainty and you also give up some of the control. of what happens in the built environment when you back things up.

I'll add into that. I think the part of it was the process was the development commission was involved in a lot of projects back then. And there was a community conference that was held, a lot of community input, commissioner input, having to come back and then find out did they actually meet that when they came back with or their development permit. And so partly I think it was the time that it took to go through and the expense of that. And then that uncertainty of it that, well, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to meet what these commissioners want. And the guidelines are kind of fuzzy. And I think the city wanted to get out of fuzziness because they didn't want to be sued for being too fuzzy on things. And so I think the idea of just saying, okay, just meet these standards and you would be good to go, it's more certain for them, it does, I think, lead to less public input in the process. And in some cases, I think it does lead to less flexibility for a developer that says, you know, this would work much better this way, and the commissioners might all agree, but if it's not in the code, you can't do it.

And we'd already had a lawsuit. If you ever go to planning school, you'll hear about Issaquah versus Anderson. And that was because we had fuzzy regulations, so we couldn't get too fuzzy.

I never knew about that. Kristen just shared that with me the other day.

You also brought up process. And one of the things we've done in 2023, we had a consultant come in and look at our permitting process. And since then, we have been updating. I think they gave us 11 different things to do, and we have been updating the process to try and make that easier for developers when they come in. Still not perfect, but we're working on it, so I believe it's gotten better.

I can't remember who said it, whether it was Commissioner Morgan or Commissioner Brennan, but that's part of the issue, too, is having such a difficult permit process, which some of the feedback I've heard from developer friends has been the permit process in Issaquah is difficult, and being able to have Certainty in that part of developing would be much more helpful for developers, whether they get what they want or not. At least they know quickly versus they go seven steps down the road to find out that, nope, you're going back to square one. Oh, just one thing. Commissioner Fassoon.

Yeah, so I have a couple questions and I think, so how do we, I think we're trying not to go back to 2016, right? But could we implement the shalls and make them shoulds? So that kind of gives kind of guardrails as far as what we expect, but it's not hard and fast, right? It's not a, you must do 10 things, right? So they understand what the intent is, what we expect. want it to look like, right, without, or so if they keep the intent of it. I remember some of our commission meetings where they keep the intent of the design, right, without necessarily sticking to, you know, natural material. It looks kind of like natural material type of thing. So how do we do that?

That's what we're here to try and figure out. I don't have the magic answer tonight. But, you know, part of it is what Bellevue's done with Belle Red and say have a very, very strong intent. We have our styles. And then you can have your very, very strong intents and say, this is what we're trying to get. Here's a menu of options to get you there. It's just one way of doing it.

Would anyone else like to speak? I feel like a few people here are taking up a large part of the conversation. Commissioner Matthews?

So it kind of, you know, everyone's afraid to start from scratch. But the problem is we have like a... a dream for Issaquah, that's not the right word, but it's like to make it pedestrian friendly, to create a vibrant community, and are these design styles gonna get us there? I mean, is that why we're doing this? It makes no sense to me why we're sticking hard and fast, we have to have this and that, because you're looking at materials that are required, so you can't have metal roofs because an arts and crafts building's supposed to have shingle roofs, and it's like now you're becoming way too, you're donning back to the, first buildings that were put in this Quah, do we really want to be frontier land? I don't think so. I think most people want to live in a community that it's vibrant and maybe not blue, but you could actually do that by sticking with massing and your transparency and how you introduce yourself to the sidewalk, doors, the materials you use, but you don't have to go so far over the top. where now we're saying that environmental engineering, they want to have green roofs or ways to gather water. And all of these styles won't meet that goal with the steep roofs. You're going to have solar panels that are reflective, which you can't have on gable roofs, according to the design style. So I think we're fighting against each other. And I don't know if having specific styles from back in the 1800s is going to get us the city that we want to live in. So just something to think of.

Commissioner Zakharov.

Thank you. So as Commissioner Morgan and Brennan mentioned, it was all done in 2009 through 2016, and that was the time when we really had a lot of development happening in the city. And I truly believe now we're in a little bit opposite situation. So we want the development to happen in the city and development now is struggling and it's hard to develop in the city. So instead of limiting, well, I would think we should let the developers have a little bit more freedoms or more freedoms. So, well, I'm working in Bellevue. I'm there every day. And Bellevue is growing. And the whole area, I'm working on the North Upway. And the whole area, the Spring District, is growing right before my eyes in the past seven years. And so if this is something that we would really like to see in Issaquah, maybe we can give some directions to the style that we want to see. Because, well, we are not Bellevue. And we are smaller than Redmond. but I think we should be very proactive with allowing development to happen.

Thank you.

Yes, it was up for a while there. Just a couple of observations. As we looked at the visual examples of good architecture in the various cities, I was struck by how similar they are. And yet, their regulations, their massing, and there are all sorts of different requirements, and yet they end up looking remarkably similar. So I don't want to understate the importance of what we're talking about, but at the same time, if it's possible to design and build a building in Redmond And in Issaquah that look very similar, does it really matter that much that the regulations are dissimilar? The other observation that I would have, and this is going back to some other discussions that this commission has had with developers, is developers have come to us and they've asked for changes to bike storage and to transparency at ground level facing natural features. And I feel like we keep wanting to encourage development, which is a good goal and obviously something that we're all here to do. But at the same time, there are some underlying basic impediments to development in Issaquah. Availability of land, high water table, high cost of land, And those things we're not addressing. So, again, I just wanted to interject that personal perspective.

Thank you.

Commissioner Adair?

Just to kind of build off of what Katja and Eric and Sandra and Commissioner Matthews were saying, sorry. I like the idea of having... I will go against the grain. I do like the idea of having styles because I do think it points people in a direction of like, this is the feel and the vibe we want. However, I don't think they need to be super prescriptive. I think we can say your building should be inspired by styles such as craftsman, Northwest traditional, et cetera. you know, so that we don't get some awful brutalist Bauhaus thing, right? Sorry, that's my personal taste. I know some people love brutalism. But, no, but I think we can have buckets of styles and say, yes, we would like something inspired by this that's fitting with the area without it being, oh, you have to use specific materials. You have to do it this way. That's my point.

It sounds like you kind of... are thinking more like Bellevue, where they have a strong intent, even in a direction. So it is kind of swinging that pendulum this way.

Yeah, sorry to go off of what you said. Yeah, if we're very clear, this is what our intent is, but you can get there multiple ways.

I think you might find more than a few people agree with you here. Commissioner Stanchak.

Yes, I was also going to note, basically, first of all, basically my agreement with a lot of that, that I'm not sure that My big thing is how Kristen answered my question before. We want a lot more development than we're getting. It doesn't mean you do everything the developers want because as we've learned, maybe they don't want certain things. It doesn't mean they're necessarily going to build here anyway. They will ask for anything. No permit approvals process. That'd be great. you know, it strikes me our standards are very different from the cities that are getting a lot of development. As was mentioned, a lot of the buildings look the same anyway, but they're not getting built here. So if we're gonna end up with those buildings anyway, the ones that are kind of going up everywhere that we see are like pretty good things, why can't, you know, why don't we adopt standards that are similar to the ones where they're getting built? And to me, this strikes me as like what we're talking about, a strong intent. It is very easy to not allow a blue building in our standards without requiring a lot of other things. And I think I agree with the idea that we shouldn't be afraid to start from ground up. because we're looking to make such a big change that brings in so much more housing. It doesn't mean that we go entirely non-prescriptive or whatever, but we're trying to get so much more housing, maybe we do need to make big changes somewhere. And I think the architectural standards are, I don't know if everyone would see this as it, but one of the more low-hanging fruits that maybe people don't really care that much about some of the things that get debated in the meetings and that need extra review time to make sure things are the right measurements on the, of the aesthetic facades and stuff. Um, I don't know that those are, so those are some of my thoughts. My priorities are in the simplifying.

That's great. Thank you, commissioner. Stand check. Um, one thing I'll just mention and then I'll pass it back to John and then we're going to want to do a time check to make sure you're getting what you want before eight. is two things, I think. One, again, Commissioner Kress brought this up. It is a very different environment than 10 years ago. And I think someone else brought it up. We were developing like crazy. We had these development agreements that were coming through. The Development Commission was working overtime every month of every week. So that has changed. We do not have that situation now. And then I also thought Commissioner Kress and Katia brought up a good point, Commissioner Zakharoff, Bellevue is doing a great job. And I know someone made the comment, we're not Bellevue, but you also got to think about 50, 60 years ahead. We will basically be a neighborhood to Bellevue as it becomes more financially central and kind of basically Seattle's rival. So I do see it at a time when Issaquah is going to look a lot like that. And it's up to us now to start planning it because the people like Commissioner Brennan that helped plan Bellevue were planning 40 years ago for what they're getting now. They've been planning a long time is my understanding. And they've been executing well on it. And again, there's more cranes in Bellevue than Seattle. And Seattle used to be Crane City. So just keeping that in thought too. So we'll find that way. Commissioner Kratz?

One last thing. Instead of going back to the basic ground and starting all over, some of this could also just be in a repositioning of some of the work that we've already done. And think of it We're going to take what we had as a rule book and make it more of a guide book. I know that sounds like a bumper sticker. But it just helps position the intent in a way that's easy to explain. We still want these things. And we feel like there's been a lot of work that this would be great for the city. But it's a guide book, not a rule book. And there are going to be some things that there are going to be rules around that are going to be baked in there. But I think that instead of going all the way from the very beginning and starting over and having two or three years to do that, this may be something that we can evolve pretty quickly if we just make that. It goes back to the intent of how firm we want to be, and that may be an easy way to do it.

That's all. You could sell that bumper sticker all over town. A rule book, not a guidebook. And I don't know who brought a blue building. There was... No, I know... right right right i feel like right i feel like it's woldemort or something right we're not supposed to speak its name um commissioner stanchek

Yeah, I do agree. When I mentioned going right back to the beginning, I don't necessarily think we should do a year-long planning effort to come up with new styles. Maybe we don't need to hire a consultant for this, ideally. We're not that long of a process anyway. But of maybe taking using the styles or some of them as examples of intent and then pooling those standards elements out and thinking about which ones of these do we want to be prescriptive to apply to everything. Right, like color that applies, you know, can be different across everything, and maybe we want to make sure they're like muted colors or natural colors or something, as an easy example. And so some of those standards could be applied to everything, no matter what style they want to build in, and we can give the styles and the intent.

That's great. Vice Chair Patterson?

I'm going to give a leading question to Kristen here. Are people building these styles, our existing seven styles? Are people building them?

The only ones that I've seen have been the Northwest Contemporary. I tried to find out another one today, but I couldn't find it. It just had a building permit, so I don't know what style. I think somebody may have done arts and crafts.

I think it was, was it?

Those don't apply to them. They're in Raleigh. It does. It looks like Northwestern. Yeah.

I think the... The townhomes were craftsmen?

Which one? Those are the ones I was thinking of. Yeah, I think those were arts and crafts.

Or just, oh, okay.

Which, are you talking about the park place?

Yes.

Park place?

Park place townhomes.

Yeah, yeah. I think so. Because I remember talking about their windows.

That was a... that was a lead in so you can get to your considerations.

So yeah, I've got our, I have our four questions up here. So the first one is, would you like to keep the seven styles of architecture or would you like to move away from those? I'm looking for consensus here, right?

So we can do this in one of a few ways. We could do it by raising of hands. How many questions you have for Kristen?

Just four.

So what is that for the half hour left? It's about seven minutes per. seven minutes we can either go around, people can give their opinion, we can vote, we can do it, you know, obviously a non-binding vote, but we just want to do a round robin.

Maybe like a time box discussion on this.

I'm not going to mess with the presenter. I don't want to get in trouble. But we'll start with this one if we want to come back to when we can. We'll have like two minutes to spare. But we're on a hard 8 o'clock, so... We'll start with Commissioner Stanchek.

I'd say in general, no, unless we want to refer to them in an intent statement.

Commissioner Morgan.

I would say at least as an interim to keep them, because I think the more expeditious way to get to a better solution to this is to allow more variances to this that get reviewed by the Development Commission. allows some flexibility to say, if you want to go something different than here, or if you want to do four materials on the building instead of three, you can go to the development commission as part of your approval and ask for that variance. Then that gives the public feedback as to that change. Is the commission a chance to chime in? And I think that gets you at least at a quicker result, you can get there faster than you can trying to just get rid of all the going back to ground zero, I think.

Commissioner Brennan.

So I wonder if some of the styles are really relevant. I think that was a good question. I mean, have we seen, not only in Issaquah, but in the region, some of these like Western Falls Front or Northwest Lodge built in the urban area? And for the most part, I would argue probably not. So I wonder if they're even relevant. So from a development standpoint, whether they want to build those. So I think we need to look at consolidating these and maybe I think some architectural direction is helpful, but I think we've gone too far with these standards in being very specific about what the features need to be and how it needs to be designed.

Thank you. Commissioner Fassoon?

I think keep them in line with Commissioner Morgan, I think that the process works. So they come in. If they want to make a deviation, they can. Maybe keep them as guides, you know, rather than overly prescriptive. But I think a good basis to start from. So keep the seven.

Commissioner Adair.

Yeah, I kind of touched on this earlier. I think keep them as inspiration style guides, but make them less prescriptive. So kind of put them in an intent. We would like you to be inspired by some of these styles.

Great. Commissioner Matthews.

I would actually say to get rid of them or to redo them. As Commissioner Brennan was saying, some are not even relevant. One of them is the Chicago style. Like Louis Sullivan, we're going back to the 1800s. But we also don't have a mid-century modern. If somebody wants to do a flat roof that's a green roof, there's not an option. So we need to either replace some of them and make all of them less prescriptive. But I don't think we should keep all seven the way they are.

I like everything that everyone has said I think I think keeping them as as guides as recommendations makes a lot of sense but frankly I'm confused and as an architect I shouldn't be but I know that the difference between arts and crafts and And I can't remember the other one. And craftsmen. Are they really very different styles? And who decides what is what? And so I think having them be things that we like and wouldn't it be nice if you, you know, looked at some of things that were Northwest Lodge, for example, and incorporated that but not be prescriptive about it. Thank you. Commissioner Zachroff.

Thank you. Well, I think we should keep them only as visual inspirations and not as prescriptions, and definitely not as prescriptions of material that have to be used to build, just as a recommended visual inspiration for your design. You can use any materials, but that's kind of style that we want. Maybe that's the only reason to keep them. Thank you.

Commissioner Kress?

So I think it's two steps. I agree that in the short term, leaving was fine, but change the perspective of rulebook to guidebook, as we mentioned. But I do think there should be some work done in step two to, instead of having seven, that some of them may not be as relevant. Looking forward, because styles have changed, as Commissioner Matthews says, it's like, Maybe there's two or three new ones that should be in there as we now give some ideas. But that's a different set of work. But I wouldn't hold off changing. So step one, make it more recommendations with letting people know these are going to evolve. And I agree, the shootout Western storefront I thought was kind of funny. But it doesn't have modern or some of the things that you may see being built in the next 30 years. But I think that's another set of work that would be fun to work on. But also let people know that it's going to be coming even when you change the perspective at the beginning.

In alignment with a lot of what's been said, I like the idea of leaning more into the design intent, utilizing some of those styles as examples. I think leaning into the categories a little bit more, but loosening the specificity of them is probably a way to kind of move that needle more, or swing the pendulum, if you will, more towards being a little bit more flexible there.

Great. And what a great group. We should meet more often. Yeah, I'm in agreement. I really liked what Commissioner Kras said. Rulebook, not a guidebook. I think, again, a stronger intent. Rulebook. Guidebook, not a rulebook. Thank you. That bumper sticker would not have sold. But yeah, just having a little bit less prescriptive and a much stronger intent. As far as the seven styles themselves, I would say I like Commissioner Morgan's for interim purposes because staff obviously needs to study this. I don't know if it's going to require a consultant or what, or if we can do this on our own, but they work for now. I mean, it is what they've known, but possibly giving staff more time to figure out what styles are used more often now. I mean, I think Commissioner Allender brought up such a great point so many of these buildings look the same and you know it's because there's certain efficiencies in building now that weren't there 15 years ago so there's certain things and again you can still call out certain things that were comfortable or would want but much less prescription will help in what's already a difficult city because of what commissioner all owner i think it was commissioner mentioned the water table the land scare city I mean, there's a lot of other reasons here that Issaquah is not being developed quite like everybody else. But in order to help us do our part to make sure that we are trying to get to those goals without giving the store away, I think these are things we can do.

So based on what you all just said, how do you feel about the categories? We have the six categories, massing, scale, windows, doors, walls, and roofs. Do you want to add to those? Do you want to take away? Do you want to?

I don't know how much you're going to get in addition here. I know. I know. Let's do that. Should we do round robin again? I would like to defer to Commissioner Allender too, but this seems to make more sense because we're trying to do a rapid round. So Commissioner, stand check.

I generally think so for using the styles as more inspiration and ideas and intent then I think it I would rather see the categories pulled out right now they're used to make the styles different from one another in a very prescriptive way why don't we figure out what's important about each of the categories I haven't thought very clearly about whether more should be added and and just make them apply to all style all you know we don't have a style that they choose from menu but they do have things that they need to meet in each of the categories the most important parts so that would be my recommendation for these one set of uh subcategories that applies to any development well i guess it could separate for residential or commercial or whatever um and yeah that would be my recommendation all right commissioner morgan

I do like those six items. I think they cover a lot of what we see and feel from a building. And I'll go back. I do think, I do like the idea of being less prescriptive, but then you'll have to ask a question. Is it a staff decision on whether something's meaning it solely, or do you want public input through a design review board, development commission, something like that?

Commissioner Brennan? So I think the six categories are The question is just how much specificity is included in the code that says you must like, we've had discussions about mullions on windows, that level of detail, and developments came through, and we shouldn't be at that level of detail. So I think it is about reframing how those criteria are applied to development with less specificity and more kind of guidance, as we've been talking about. Great, thank you.

Commissioner Faso?

yeah so the same with me i think that we keep them but remove that specificity i mean we've had discussions about material like the exact wood and you know does it look like wood and that type of thing so we need to remove that and just keep the intent i think commissioner adair

I defer to Eric. No, I don't have a lot to say that's different. I agree those six categories make sense. And I think pulling them out as separate from the style as the developers mentioned and making specific rules about them, but not being too prescriptive.

Commissioner Matthews.

Yes, I absolutely agree with Commissioner Brennan because when I looked at the roof, the specificity, it was kind of like, that's ridiculous. So, I totally agree, don't make it so specific, but have those categories. Commissioner Holder.

Agree with all of that. At the risk of adding more complexity and going back to Chairman Voice's comment about Voldemort, I think if we wanted to add colors and be more prescriptive about colors that appear in nature, as opposed to artificial electric blue or whatever, that that might be something to consider. Commissioner Zakharov.

Well, I would agree with Commissioner Adair on this. And yeah, I think we should keep the categories, but we should really be less prescriptive. And as for the color blue, you know, that bright blue appears in nature.

I think it's all been well said about the category thing.

That's fine. But I do differ. I shouldn't have deferred to Eric because I disagree with him on the colors. So I do think we have to be very careful giving too much say of what colors should be. And we're not an HOA. I saw that in somebody's feedback. I thought that was a good analogy. So I think once you get into that, it opens up a totally different set of issues. So I'm not a fan of adding colors onto that. So sorry, Eric.

Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, sir. Yeah. I think just an analogy is that currently I think a lot of the categories read as checklists and they should be more like guidelines and just kind of go back to the whole rule book thing. So, definitely in favor of trying to find a way to loosen the, the specificity of those a little bit. I will take a second to ask Kristin kind of a follow up question related to something that was said here on this round, which was one thing we don't want to do is kind of, you know, one step forward, two steps back. And if we go in the direction we are, which is loosening the standards in some way, shape or form, it seems like we will have to add some kind of model where it be a design board or administrative review. currently is the city leaning towards any direction right now or council or mayor in what that would look like or is that still pretty wide open it's pretty open okay and is there concern about that adding time to the permitting process or review process that we've already heard is too long yes and the state has talked about eliminating design review from Commission's

and making that all administrative. And I can't recall if that's just for multifamily or if it's for commercial as well. But there has been discussion at the state level.

OK.

Thank you. Follow up question. Isn't right now currently design review is at a certain level and everything, right? Because before, prior, it used to be like level one through four. Now it's like only three and four.

Right. It used to be that even signs went to the development commission. Right. And now if it's a site development permit level four, it goes to the Development Commission.

Right, okay. I think there are great points made by everybody. I won't go into all of them. I think those six different aspects, what, two, three, four, five different aspects, six different aspects, missing a comma. Yeah, door walls. I think those are fine. I think Kristen made the point earlier, really massing scale and rough lines, I think, are even more critical. But again, I really like this idea of a guidebook, not a rule book. So I think that'll be helpful.

I really think you've already answered number three. But if you disagree and have something else to say.

OK, this one we'll just do an open mic night. Anyone want to chime in on number three, or we'll move right by it?

OK. Whoops. Commissioner Voss, or Chair Voss, Can I weigh in on that really quick? Just a quick comment on number three. One of the things that really makes it work is how you develop the relationship between the city staff and the development community that are doing business in Issaquah. And it is about, instead of an us and them, more of a partnership in creating high quality development in the community. The developers are looking to do that for the most part are also looking to make a profit. And they're also trying to navigate their way through a whole bunch of things, not only in the permitting process, but the financial side. And Commissioner Morgan can weigh in on all that. But there's a bunch of other risk factors that go into it. But if there's a relationship with staff, a trusting relationship, and that's the reputation that the city presents, that has a lot of weight in how the developer engages and the quality of the output that comes at the end of the process.

Any additional comments? Number three? Thank you, Commissioner Brennan. And finally, number four. Any other suggestions? I think we've all kind of more or less informally kind of given you the guidance that we think, which is more homework for city staff, of course. But any other suggestions? Do you have what you need, Kristen?

I think I do. I'd like to know, though, the Development Commission, we'd like to keep you involved because this is what you do. Would you prefer that we bring these to your meetings separately? Or would you like to continue and try to do joint meetings? And I guess I should check with the liaison, too, because I haven't talked to her about it. Is that OK?

We love having you, if it makes any difference.

I like this a lot. Yeah, this is very helpful.

But we can try and do this on a development commission meeting night as well. Okay. This was a good format, I think. We can do this again. Okay. Good to know. That's helpful. Great. Thank you.

Excellent. Well, again, I want to say thank you to the development commission. And, yeah, I would love to do this again and keep this going. Always learn a lot from our colleagues around the city. And it brings out the best in us, too. So, again, thank you, Commissioner Stanchak, Commissioner Morgan, Commissioner Brennan, and Commissioner Fassoon, and your staff liaison. So Kristen has everything she needs. We are going to take, what, a five-minute break? We will take a five-minute break to reset, but thank you all again. Have a great night, and we'll see you soon.

Arsene, we're ready.

All right. All right. It is very distracting, but anyway. All right, we're here for part two. Our commission just got, our joint commission is over and our commission looks a lot smaller now, around the dais. We are going to begin, however, with our boilerplate items, always important. Where am I? Approval of minutes. So you guys should have gotten two different sets of minutes in your agenda packets for August 13th and August 20th. Let's start with August 13th. Any issues or concerns? That's right, you weren't. Excuse me. Okay. All right, those meeting minutes are approved. August 20th. Both of you were there.

Yes.

Any issues or concerns? All right. Those meeting minutes are approved. Both sets of meeting minutes are now approved. All right, more regular business. Next up is a final review of the proposed 2026 comprehensive plan updates. Kate Caney, our principal planner, will be presenting. So Kate, hopefully you got your computer back and you can now go ahead and present when you're ready.

Apologies, that sounds much better than what we're about to do, looking at golden doodles. But anyway, apologies for the technical difficulties. I am here to provide an opportunity for a final review of the comp plan amendments. And what we're gonna do tonight is really focus on the items you haven't seen yet outside of the packet and see if you have any comments. So we'll move through a few slides here. As you're well aware, there were five proposed amendments in this year's final docket and I won't go through all of them. Well, maybe I will give you a few notes. So tonight we are going to focus on proposal number one, which was to add land use designation descriptions. And we have one revised description we want to share with you. And then we'll focus on the regional growth center policies and review the information on growth targets that we were working on at the last meeting. I didn't have any other specific items to bring you for the other three amendments, but if you do have questions, I have a few slides tucked away so we can bring things up as needed. So without further ado, let's go ahead and turn to the first proposed amendment dealing with land use designation descriptions and specifically the revised version of the urban village description. So I think it was a month ago or so where we brought all of the proposed land use designation descriptions, and we got some comments from the public and individuals from the areas with development agreements that use the urban village designation. They thought that the proposed language, which actually had been drawn from a version of the comp plan from 2014 or so, was not accurate today. So we've come up with this updated version of the land use description where I'll just highlight a few things. The idea is to accurately describe what the purpose of land use designation is. So the idea is to encourage innovative uses, the planning of large land parcels, provide opportunities for mixed use, clustering, phased infrastructure, and preservation of critical areas. talks a little bit about how the designation is implemented through the adoption of a development agreement aligned with the public interest and the comprehensive plan. So this is the proposal, again, that was in your packet and just wanted to check in with you and see if anyone had any comments. So, Chair, if you'd like to take comments after each proposal, if you want to wait till the end.

We can do this one by one. Makes sense. All right. Any comments or questions? Commissioner Kras, you do like the definition? Okay, fair enough. Great. Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward. I don't think I have anything to add.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so let's go to the proposed amendment number three, which looks at regional growth center updates. I just have on the map, the map of the central Issaquah, the green is The Regional Growth Center, one thing I would add is we've moved away from calling the Regional Growth Center the urban core. Saw that in some of the slides that Kristen had up to talk about design standards in the urban core versus elsewhere. It's something we haven't talked about, so I'll refer to the RGC as the RGC or the center. We'll test out that language with you tonight. So some of the highlights, this is data that I hadn't been able to update, and it just shows the capacity, the zoned capacity of the Regional Growth Center. And the updates are numbers from Puget Sound Regional Council from 2023. And the reason I thought it might be interesting was to just show you and demonstrate that there is a lot of zone capacity still for both housing and jobs in the center. So just FYI on that. The next slide is the revised regional growth center growth target slide. You may recall at the last meeting we discussed the proposed growth targets and at first staff was recommending these data points that would get us to 62 percent of the proposed total housing target in the city and 72 percent of the total job target for the city. when the policy direction, as we discussed, was for Puget Sound Regional Council to desire 65% of the total population of future growth to come into these regional growth centers in general, and 75% of future jobs to come into regional growth centers. So we had debated which number should we use. Should we just use these generalized numbers from across the region, again, they're targets, they're estimates, they're not requirements, or should we use the data-driven sort of the math that we did, also estimates, to try to tie the numbers to, you know, again, actual data. So after taking a step back, after getting some great comments from Vice Chair Patterson, about, hey, we have all this policy guidance around. We should aim for the 65% of housing and 75% of jobs. Why are we tilting it down a couple percentages? These are aspirational. We talked a lot about how the targets are aspirational, and that is okay as long as cities are showing growth towards the targets, showing efforts toward changing your codes, capital facilities planning to try to encourage growth. And the Puget Sound Regional Council, in their reviews, would see that the city's really trying to get there for the targets. So staff is now back to saying, hey, 65%, 75%, these are aspirational targets. Our main goal is really to demonstrate to PSRC that we are really working toward getting our full designation as a regional growth center on track. and that we're doing a lot of work as a city to get there. So when I was talking to you all last time, we not only looked at, OK, with these percentages could mean a lot when we're talking about hundreds of units, thousands of units. And where's the growth supposed to happen? So one of the things we talked about is the development agreements. So I apologize because the boundary is not very clear for the Regional Growth Center. I just kind of clipped the map. So it's kind of like this. I don't know if you can see my cursor. And this is the general area for the Regional Growth Center. You can see in the brown area, these are the land use designations for urban village. This purple kind of dotted circle is generally where Costco's development agreement regulates the land uses here. So a very large percentage of the regional growth center is regulated through the development agreements. And we had talked about, well, how many units are we talking about? And so I looked at those numbers, and I drew these from the draft EIS data that is in the central ISQA plan. So we have on the left side with the green those city targets for citywide housing units, 3,500 units by 2044. In the RGC, if we get to 65% of citywide housing growth, that would be 2,275 housing units in the RGC. And 75% in the RGC of the total citywide jobs would mean 5,963 jobs by 2044, 18 years from now. So, how much of that are tied up within the Rowley and Costco properties? And again, these are numbers from pre, like the 2012 DEIS. There are some refined numbers in the development agreements themselves, but we're kind of going range of magnitude, and I thought it would be good to do apples to apples estimates here. So, Out of that RGC, again, 2275 housing units, if we go over and look in the housing units estimated for the Rowley properties, 1060 to a little higher than that is in the DEIS. Costco does not have in their DA any housing units. So if we add those two development agreements together, again, we're at 1060 units provided within the 30-year time period of the DA, which I believe that DA was, I don't know, 2011 or so adopted. So, you know, we're up at the 2040 kind of end date anyway that we're looking at.

Yes.

Or chair, yes. Commissioner there.

So these 1,060 units are units that will be built on Raleigh properties or are currently existing on Raleigh properties?

Oh, I'm sorry. That estimate is what could be built in the EIS, estimated to be built as part of their, you know, availability on their property and their plans.

They're kind of saying, yes, we intend to build these, but we're not required to, but this is what our intent is. Right.

And again, this is not the development agreement. I think it's closer to 1,050 in the DA, perhaps. But this is, again, kind of a range of magnitude exercise. So if you do the math on the housing units and you look at, OK, on the Rowley property, by the end of their development agreement, if 1,060 units come in, that leaves us with around 1,215 remaining units of housing to achieve by 2044. I'm going to go ahead and advance this. Oh, well, yeah.

I think we're going to stop real quick. You thought you were going to make it through all the amendments, Kate.

Commissioner Graf. This is super interesting. So essentially, Rowley's picking up half, assuming all goes right. Right now, Costco has zero in there. But let's say in this scenario, Costco doesn't do any housing. If you look at all the other land that's in there, Could the other half be made up in other places if Costco does zero? Or does Costco, within their realm, have to do some housing for us to meet that goal?

You know, I didn't do the exact math, but I believe that there's capacity outside of the DA areas. And actually, I'm going to go back to this map. There is significant amount of land. And those capacity numbers that I showed in this table show that there is significant room for additional housing. Because those are two big chunks. But it's a good question.

And do we think Costco will have some housing within their realm? Or should we plan on zero and it's only going to be commercial?

You know, I would say the DA's been around for a while. I think questions have come in. And I think we had some stories shared about housing developers that desired to come into some Costco properties. And that wasn't something, I think, in the very recent few years has not happened there. So maybe we should think not at this point as we plan.

Wasn't there a story about the Red Robin, the old Red Robin? Yes. Is it? It shows you how far off I go over there. Yes.

So again, just to go through, like, so we're on this little housing hunt. We've got around half of housing achieved perhaps on the Rowley properties. What else is happening? I had parts of this slide at the last meeting where we discussed this. So we have the Trailhead TOD project, the affordable project that King County Housing Authority is bringing through at 164 affordable units. The Motel 6 conversion is moving forward. They've got about 103 units. There's also the market rate portion of Trailhead. I just threw in the number 200 because we've been talking with the consultants and looking at sort of the MFT and incentives and feasibility, and they're saying, okay, well, Maybe 200 units on a two-acre property is something we can kind of baseline. So adding up just those units, that gets us another 457 units. Adding that DA total from the Rowley properties leaves us at 1,672 units, which gives us around 600 units, or like three projects to go in 2044. This is not meant to be real numbers. This is just meant to say, hey, if we really sit back and if stuff happens as we think it could in 18 years, this does look potentially achievable. I mean, there's a lot of market forces. I know in the 2015 to 2035 last comprehensive plan time horizon for targets and planning, we had a lot of up and down cycles. cities tried to achieve, some did very well, some didn't. So I guess, for me, I just wanted to share these numbers to say it could be possible. It doesn't look completely out of the realm, and I think that that's great. There's a lot of development capacity in this city, in the Valley, and I think that's why the builders have a lot of interest in working with you and the city moving forward through the promoting building investment project. So I could go through the same kind of exercise with the job situation. Lots of capacity for jobs. Actually, going back to this slide, PSRC was showing that in 2012 for jobs, we had 9,000 in the Regional Growth Center. And we've had 3,000 plus new jobs come in. So the new baseline is at 12,000. I was talking to Kristen a little bit about Costco and their plans. There seems to be a lot of capacity for jobs, and I know there are a lot of headwinds out there right now. But in terms of where we're trying to go, oops, yeah, this is the right slide. Adding 5,963, 75% of the city's anticipated growth, also seems to align with a lot of the planning in the Central Issaquah Plan. And as far as we can see with the capacity, with the continued interest in this area, again, perhaps we have some forward motion on that. One other thing, we were talking before coming in about, well, we will be, and the rest of the region, we'll be looking in 2029 at updating our comprehensive plans. For the midpoint kind of assessment, there may be some opportunity to tweak these. We adopted new comprehensive plans and the major updates in 2024, 2034, every 10 years, we will do a major update. So this is not the last time we will talk about targets, but I just wanted to do a kind of thorough review of, hey, what should we be thinking of based on our conversation at the last meeting? So are you all comfortable with updating to the 65%, 75% mark for the targets?

Let's see. Thumbs up. Great.

Good job.

Very official.

That was official. And please don't ever quote my math because, oh wait, no, I'm sorry. So that was really all I had. Just a few slides to come back to you to make sure you're all OK with the proposed changes. I know there are a couple more. I think I sprinkled in some revisions for some redundant language and clarifications of policy language. So if there's any other questions, please let me know.

Any questions? No, I think to Kate's point, yeah, Vice Chair Patterson, when he mentioned the 62 to 65 and 73 to 75, made a lot of expense, because again, it's aspirational, so. Brought a flashback. So, no, I think that's it.

Great, thank you.

Thank you. You guys thought we were done? And more regular business. and it looks like Kate and Kristen might be swapping spots, but our next item under regular business is to discuss proposed amendments to long-term bicycle parking. This will interest Commissioner Craft. Kristen Leeson, our planning manager, is going to begin the presentation. So Kristen, when you're ready and your computer is ready, please go ahead.

Okay, there we go. Yeah, Kristen Leeson, long range, or not, what am I? Planning manager for community planning and development. So right now we're going to talk about long-term parking. We have heard recently from developers that long-term parking is an issue, and admittedly we require a lot of long-term parking. There is a comparison in your packet. This was not on our list of 17 items to do, but why not? We did talk to a developer recently who said that the requirements that we have would result in two fewer units being built because of the amount of parking. We say, so what we're talking about are the minimum number of parking spaces currently required for long-term parking is excessive and can result in fewer units. And the required location is a little bit constraining. So all we want to know is, do you agree with what we're proposing? And if not, what would you like to see instead? So our existing regulations, we currently have in two tiers. So tier one is Central Issaquah Highlands and Old Town. Tier 2 is the rest of the city. And we currently say that in Tier 1, Central Isco Highlands and Old Town, that we require two spaces per building or one per unit. And no, I don't exactly know what that means. It's a little unclear. But if you read further down, I can't say off the top of my head, but if you read further down, it makes sense. And yes, a multifamily developer would have to come in and put in one space per unit. So if they're putting in 200 units, they require 200 spaces. In tier two, it's a minimum of two spaces per building or one per 20 units. So doing the math, 200, five, 10 spaces they have to put in. for that, but we still feel like in Central Issaquah, where we're anticipated to have more light wheel, we're anticipated to get more transit, we're anticipated to have a more walkable community, that even that's a little bit too low. So our proposal right now is to just eliminate the tier one, tier two, just have multifamily as a category, and require .25 spaces per unit. So when you're looking at this currently, like I said before, under current, the way it currently is, if we have one per unit, it's 200 spaces, and this is all based on 200 units. Proposed, it would be 25 spaces for 200 units. Bellevue currently requires 200. Wait, one per every 200, one per every 10 units. I did the math wrong. What is that, 20 units? Okay, thank you. Really, has my math been that bad? OK. Thank you. Seriously, it's me. It's my math. So I should just go back and correct that now. But so then what we're proposing, if you have 200 spaces. it would be 50 units would be a quarter of it. Thank you all. I apologize for that. I was so certain. I think that's in your packet too. Um, okay. Um, Bothell, this one, I, um, 200 units for four. Anyway, what it means is that right now ours is high. It is not the highest, but it is high and that we are just trying to lower it to make this, um, more feasible for developers. We are also proposing to, right now it says the parking area must be located in one or more, or in one of the following secure locations. And within 50 feet of an attendant or security guard, within the field of view of the security system, and within 100 feet of a building's primary pedestrian entrance, but we're proposing pedestrian or parking entrance, because you still have security there to watch it, located in an area visible from employee work areas or located in an area visible from residential, communal areas or living spaces. So that's our proposal for the location. And that's what I have. I really feel like I need to start over and do the math again. I apologize.

I always felt like our bike situation was very bullish. Even I remember when we were doing it, I don't know if we had just everybody on the commission was a bicyclist, but it always felt like it was very heavy handed. I'm actually looking at my first bike for next spring. So yeah, looking at the track down here in Issaquah, those kinds of amazing bikes. Yeah, I'll go with you. Okay, now back to business. Commissioner Adair.

So my question is, in the proposed, you have two Bs. So would it include one secure room or enclosed area as well as the two B, or would it just be the two B that you have there?

It would just be the one. We would take out the two per unit.

So the requirement would be the secure room or enclosed area with a locked gate, limited access, within a field of view security system, and within 100 feet of a building's primary pedestrian, correct?

Yes. Okay. Because there are some that aren't necessarily attached to the building, but most of the ones I actually was looking at pictures, and they're set off a little bit and are surrounded with a secure gate and ceiling.

I mean, that makes total sense to me.

So if I understood that correctly, so one still applies, and you're just saying two would just be down to 2B. You're saying one does not apply anymore.

Oh.

Right. So 1 and 3 are gone. 2A, 2C, 2D are gone. If I'm reading this right, 2B is the only thing that you're proposing, which is within a field of view of security system.

So are you looking at the entire code right now?

Yeah.

So our existing is 1 per unit.

Right.

That would be gone. And we would just propose 0.25 per unit.

Correct. Yep.

And then also this location change.

Can you put the proposed code on the screen so we can look at it? Is that right? Okay.

So this is, this is, so yeah, so no, so this is in regards to the location. The other one is in regards to numbers.

Oh, so we're only talking about numbers right now.

I'm talking about, This is numbers. Right. This is the numbers. Yes. So we currently require one. We would require 0.25.

I think I'm confused because of what's in the packet.

In regards to the location.

So the proposed row has only 2B in the. Correct. That's what we're getting confused with here. Ah. But is that all the existing, but the change to 2B?

Yes, the change would just be to 2B. Right, so you would still have 1, 2, and 3. And 2 would have A, B, C, and D. You're pulling 2B.

2B, the adjustment on the screen, the red.

Got it.

Yeah, so you still have 1, you still have 3, and just what would change is number 2B. 2B is A. Yeah, 2B is... Okay. Thank you, because I was really confused. Okay. All right. So... Back to my final question, are you good with this?

Vice Chair Patterson?

I'll just throw in some justification. I am good with it. I guess the one thing I was thinking to myself was like, is there data that would back this up, meaning like ridership, ownership of bikes? The only thing that came to mind is I remember we looked at a study at one point in the last couple years where it was like how people get to work, and bikes was like I don't even think it was categorized as part of other. It was like 1.2%.

It was very small.

Um, yeah. So, I mean, I guess like anecdotally I would imagine one in four people has a, I don't know, like I was just trying to think of like how it would make sense. I do think like one to one or 200 units to 200 spaces, probably a little extreme.

So in a, in the letter that you all received and we talked to developers about it too in Redmond, which is, you know, the bicycle capital of Washington, they really only need about .2 spaces per unit right now.

Yeah, so I think the data speaks. I know we're a bike town. I would assume Redmond is also, as you just mentioned. So that lines up. The only other question I had was commercial bike space. Is that the thing?

It is a thing. We're not proposing to change that right now.

Gotcha. Okay, cool. I'm good then.

Excellent. Commissioner Adair?

To throw you a curveball, grass style, can you explain the logic behind having showers provided for cyclists? And is that strictly necessary?

We are one of the few cities that I've found that requires it. The other cities that I looked at, it's often recommended or strongly recommended. I think I only saw it required in maybe one other city. And it's not for residential, it's just for commercial uses. Or non-residential uses.

Oh, so it's like if someone bikes to Costco so they can shower when they get there? If they work at Costco, they can bike there and shower? I'm trying to understand the logic.

That is the intent. I have worked with people who have ridden their bikes from Capitol Hill and come here. By the time they get here, they're sweaty. In our other building, we had showers. They jump in, take a shower, and then go to work. Correct. Okay.

Only commercial buildings.

Only, yeah, non-residential buildings.

Multifamily, no.

Correct, because multifamily, you have showers.

Yeah, you said a good point. Or at least you hope you do. Right. Commissioner Krause.

I mean, I'm into biking. I've got 10 bikes in my garage and all that. So I feel totally good with this. I think there's two things also to help justify it. If you have like a high-end road bike, for example, you're bringing it into your unit. You're not leaving it in the storage thing. So you're not going to need any of those spaces. And if you're riding the line bikes, they'll just sit outside anyway. So I feel comfortable with the 0.25. The shower for... Is it based on a certain size of a business, though, where we require showers? Because that could be burdensome if it's a smaller company.

I believe there is a size requirement attached to it. I'll go back and double check. And I can have that for the next meeting. But I think there is a size requirement.

When I worked at Microsoft, I mean, we had locker rooms. And that was kind of a key thing, because you're not going to ride there and sweat. I bring the bike in my office, but I wouldn't but I have to take a shower.

But Vice Chair Patterson makes a good point. And I know it's not a size thing, but it does say tier one only. So those are, I missed the one. Central Issaquah, Old Town, and?

Issaquah Highlands.

Thank you. But yeah, it would be good to know if that's triggered by size. Okay. Other questions, comments? Commissioner Matthews.

Yeah, I think I'd like to see clarification on what the non-residential is, too. So say, like, would Safeway have to put in a shower? I mean, yeah, I guess you'd want them to, but I mean, I guess it does make sense to do it by how many people work at an office.

Commissioner Olin?

Just a comment about geographic locations. So up in the Highlands, there are a lot of trails. and a lot of people mountain bike or trail bike up there. And so my guess is that there would be somewhat more of a demand up there. But again, if you're living up in the highlands, you can put your bike in your unit if you run out of spaces. So I just think it's somewhat geographically dependent, but I understand the desire to eliminate the tiers. But I am in favor of 0.25.

Yeah.

Vice chair Patterson.

Uh, one more kind of comment suggestion. I think one of the letters from the public mentioned something about, um, basically other ways to find bike parking, like investments, whether it be city parks and rec maybe type of thing. Um, I know it's not strictly residential, but like to provide bike parking options throughout the city. Um, I know like Sound Transit might be another option to explore. I'm thinking about the park and ride over by Tibbetts has like bike storage lockers. There's like a dozen of them. But like I think there's things that exist that could help the vision or the intent behind like having bike parking available for both residential and non-residential or commercial. So just some other paths to explore.

Commissioner Zacharoff, did you want to say anything? Okay. Any other comments, questions? I just appreciate you guys clarifying that with Kristen and Vice Chair Patterson about the .25, because originally I thought, wow, that's drastic. And now that you bring up Redmond, and again, Redmond is bike capital of Washington State, so again, that helped put it in perspective. And these still seem pretty, I don't know, they still seem... I don't know what the word is, draconian, as far as, you know, for people to build this. But I guess it can always be looked at. I guess pulling the one, I just, yeah, that's asking even a commercial store quite a bit to have showers and lockers. I'd say secure room is pretty kind, but storage room. But, again, I might feel differently next year when I'm riding my bike around town. Okay. Okay. That was it for me. Any other commentary about bikes?

No, I will come back with some clarifications on the showers and number of spaces. I was trying to look at it right now, but it's too fast. I will come back with information on that.

All right. So we have more regular business. Our next item is on July 27th, the Planning Policy Commission held a public hearing regarding several items on the PBI work plan. Regarding, sorry, I lost my place. Regarding ground floor transparency, the commission recommended amending residential ground floor transparency from 70% to 40% for residential, not including townhomes, and from 70% to 45% for commercial uses, except for the urban core where the requirement would remain 70%. The Planning, Development and Environment Committee is making a different recommendation to the full council. At our August 27th meeting, PPC agreed to write a letter to the full council explaining our rationale for our recommendation. A draft was prepared And tonight we will finalize the letter to be included in the September 22nd council packet. Kristen will post the letter on the screen and definitely want to say big thanks to Genevieve, Commissioner Adair. And yeah, this is your guys' opportunity. Again, all of our names will be on it. So if there's something that you would like to see edited or changed, now's the opportunity to do it.

Oh yeah, yeah.

Yeah, no, that was, yes. Commissioner Adair did an awesome job. Yeah, let's put it on the screen and then we'll, yeah, yeah. We've got four minutes, we're good. No, just kidding. Yes.

I guess one of the things, thanks for doing that. The only thing I said, do we also want to put, and it may have been there, so I may have missed it, is a call to action to ask why they came to a different point of view and be more prescriptive of having them respond to it versus just give them some justifications for ours. So a little more aggressive, but I'm curious if there's a role for that in there.

Well, let's start with the author.

Yeah, I'm open if you guys have any wording you'd like to add. I kind of wanted to take a very straightforward approach and not try and ascribe any motives or speculation to what they were doing or why they chose it. I think one of the things we should be concerned about, or not concerned as in upset, but one thing we should keep in mind is that the PDE will be presenting their side at council, and we'll have the opportunity to explain, whereas we might not necessarily have that opportunity for rebuttal.

Thanks, I just think if it is this just we're putting it out or is it a cover if it starts a conversation? I think it's okay to and I used to use this phrase a lot when I work It's like help me understand like help us understand how you came to a different conclusion we'd like to understand more as a Nicer way of saying what I said earlier It by sure Patterson

I hadn't thought about that, but now that you mentioned it, I think it's a reasonable request. And I say that because they kind of ask the same of us, right? If you recall, there was a very strict script of like, why did you feel this way? Like what recommendation are you making? Why did you make it? Like they wanted to know from us, like why we felt the way we did about the things we recommended. And so I think that's probably what was jarring about this was that it got to that point. We, at least thus far, we haven't really heard kind of why they went that way which was very different from I mean it was the other extreme right it was like we're here we're here we were looking for the middle and they went down there I just don't know that we currently have the information of why they chose to go with the 15 so to your point I think it's worth I think there's a nice way we can probably do it to just say we would like to understand it you know if they go to the

15% Yeah, I think the issue is that they're gonna be voting on it at the time So there's not going to be an opportunity for us to like change our arguments. Do you know what I'm saying? Based on what they say, I mean so I see what you're saying I could offer my opinion and why they chose what they chose based on what I've seen in but Which is I just think they think less regulation will lead to more building and

Right.

Um, it's one way to put it, but yeah, if you have some phrases or ideas, we can workshop it. Yeah. Let's throw it in. See how it sounds.

Um, I'll just say from my point of view, full transparency did workshop a little bit with commissioner there. Very little bit, very modest tweaks. I actually think, you know, in fairness to the council, one thing they would say is they did deliberate at that night at the PDE. say watch the video if you want to know what our thinking was and the other thing is when writing something like this it should be straightforward it should be dispassionate it's really and i think commissioner adair did a great job of doing that it provides the information the council members will see it in their packets prior to the pde making their vote and you know those packets are released to the public people will have the opportunity to see and the pd will have to either defend or go along with it one thing i would also say is they did look at a lot of our recommendations and went with them that's the other thing to remember now this one is jarring because they did swing the complete opposite way and i in my opinion i think they made a mistake but again i think uh a dispassionate letter like the one commissioner adair wrote i think that's kind of the right tone and again if we ask them they're going to tell you to go watch the video Commissioner Ahlener.

And I would just add, since they asked us what our rationale was, they had an opportunity to tell us what theirs was, and they did not.

Yeah, well, like I said, we've got time.

I guess I'll ask the staff, like, did they provide rationale? Like, should we go watch the video? I don't know. If you have it off the top of your brain, or I can go figure it out myself. If you don't know, it's okay, too.

I'm going back over it. With, so they did two. With the urban core, so one of our commercial, I think was already, we're proposing, we proposed, the Planning Policy Commission proposed 45%, correct, for the commercial, or was it 40? Okay, so it was already 40 somewhere else. Yeah. Right, for outside and then urban core was 70%. So for the 40%, they said just do 40 for everything. It doesn't make sense. You know, for urban core, just keep it the same straight across the board. If I recall correctly, I think that's what it was. For multifamily, I honestly don't recall. Kate, do you recall if they had a reason for the 15%?

I believe retail and commercial were split in terms of their percentages. So the idea was ground floor retail spaces would need 70% citywide. And the change was to 45% because that's what Old Town's ground floor commercial across the board is for not only retail, but commercial office uses as well. So the proposal was to combine retail but taking it from 70%, making it 45% to Metro Old Town. And commercial was at 40%, which is what the multifamily citywide ground floor commercial transparency standard was. So PDE preferred 40% rather than 45% ground floor transparency for retail and commercial citywide. And then instead of maintaining 40% for multifamily, they proposed 15%. Do you recall why? I don't recall specifics. I know there were a lot of, you know, we want positive pedestrian-oriented spaces, but there was an idea that, well, this could be achieved maybe in other ways, art, articulation. Right.

You know, it was sort of do articulation or put up, you know, greenscapes on walls, that kind of thing. But otherwise there wasn't...

Okay well there's their justification I suppose. Again it doesn't really change the way I feel but if anyone else has any edits or comments now is the time. I mean, I think there's an argument to be made. I just, again, I like the straightforward no, trying to make people feel like they made a bad decision and just here's why we disagree.

I guess I'll throw one other just, I guess, suggestion out, which is do we want to provide a fallback line? Meaning we say, like to add to what you've already written is like, do we say 40% or no less than 30 or something like that? Or is that too much? Okay. Then I think we just live with it.

I think they're probably gonna sort of gravitate towards a compromise. I mean, I would think most people on their own. Yeah.

Yeah. But yeah, other than that, I think it's a great letter. I think you did an awesome job. I,

And I really appreciate the comments. Like, I am open to, like, if we have a stronger conclusion, you know, we want to do, but I'm, it's late at night, my brain broken.

I second what Vice Chair Patterson said. Yeah, no, and again, what Commissioner Grass, what everybody said, which, again, you did a fantastic job, Commissioner, there. I'm happy to put my name on it, too.

So, just to be clear, in case I missed something, there are no changes to the letter? Okay, so what I will do is put this, there is actually PPC letterhead, so I will put this on the PPC letterhead for you and send it off to Commissioner Voice and have you sign that probably tomorrow or Monday. It needs to go in the packet on Tuesday. Okay, so just keep your eyes open for that.

Do you need me to sign it? Oh, yeah.

Do I have to DocuSign it?

No.

Thank God. Okay. I hate that thing. Yeah, I don't care. Right. I won't even say it here because we're on camera, but, yeah, I hate DocuSign. Okay. Commissioner Adair, are you happy?

Yeah, I'm very happy. Thank you, guys. I appreciate all of your input, and I know we've all worked really hard on this, and so thank you for that. And, Kristen, thank you for all of your hard work and your guidance. And do you want it in a document like Doc X?

We'll discuss that offline. Sorry.

Bye-bye.

It's not very often I get to ask a commissioner, did you get everything you needed? Okay. Well, wonderful. Been a long night. Commissioner Adair, your brain is not the only one that's broken. So let's get out of here. We're going to go real quickly through reports. City Council updates, please.

I'm going to spare you. And no, we don't have any tonight.

Okay. other business or announcements are there any updates to the calendar or other business or announcements from city staff none all right commissioners anything for the good of the order nope i think we're all in agreement again thank you commissioner adair for your hard work that was fantastic and uh next meeting is a public hearing um So yeah, we'll have that to look forward to. Otherwise, we will adjourn this meeting at 8.52 p.m. Good night, everyone.