Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the 04/09/2025 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We will start with a roll call. Commissioner Parna? Present. Commissioner Coleman?

Present.

Commissioner Copely?

Present.

Commissioner Gagne? Present. Commissioner Van Nyman, I believe we're waiting on. Vice chair Woodier? Present. And I am chair Weston. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present tonight, Jeff Churchill, Lauren Alpert, Becky Fry, Kim Dietz, Ojre Cardenas, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Great. And that's approved. And I'd also look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from 03/26/2025.

So moved. Moved. Second. All

right. That was comprehensive. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

All right. Next up is public comment and items from the audience.

So, for the public hearing, we have one speaker. And, for general comments, we have one speaker.

All right. So, we are going to start with just General public comment. Yep. And this will be for, items that aren't covered by the public hearing later.

We have, Mr. Morton.

Great. And a reminder to keep your comments to three minutes and start with your name and address.

Evening, commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I commend the commission's dedication to advising the mayor and council on the Redmond 2050 comprehensive plan, which was adopted in November 2024 and serves as a road map for Redmond's development over the coming decades. One area that warrants your focused attention is the integration of sustainable and resilient building practices within your urban development projects. The 2025 code updates as part of the Redmond 2050 initiatives emphasize the transition from suburban to urban standards and the incorporation of universal design principles.

These updates aim to enhance equity, sustainability, and resilience in Redmond's built environment. But as you advance these initiatives, it's crucial to ensure that your resilience and sustainability goals are not only aspirational but also actionable and measurable. I encourage the commission to consider the following recommendations. First, establish clear sustainability metrics. Develop specific quantifiable criteria to evaluate the environmental impact of new developments.

This includes setting benchmarks for energy efficiency, water conservation, and the use of renewable materials. By implementing these metrics, you can track progress and hold developers accountable to your sustainability commitments. Second, incentivize green building certifications. Provide incentives for developers who achieve recognized green building certifications such as LEED or passive house standards. This could involve expedited permitting processes, density bonuses, or financial rebates.

Such incentives would encourage the adoption of high performance building practices and contribute to Redmond's sustainability objectives. Third, promote community engagement and education. Engage with residents and developers through workshops and informational sessions to raise awareness about the benefits of sustainable design and construction. An informed community is more likely to support and advocate for green initiatives and foster a culture of sustainability. And fourth, integrate nature into urban spaces.

Ensure that new developments incorporate green spaces such as parks, green roofs, and community gardens. These areas enhance aesthetic appeal and provide ecological benefits, improve air quality, and

offer recreational opportunities for residents. By adopting these measures, Redmond can create a built environment that aligns with with your sustainability and resilience goals. I hope you'll continue to prioritize these considerations while moving forward with urban development projects. Thank you.

Thank you. And that's all for tonight. Great.

That's all we have yet.

Okay. Good. Next up is our election of officers. So annually, we elect a chair and vice chair for the Planning Commission. These roles serve a term of one year. We'll start with our chair. Commissioners are welcome to self nominate. The elected chair will run the election of the vice chair and the rest of the meeting. So are there any nominations for chair? I'm gonna self nominate.

I'll second.

Oh, would you like to also run for chair?

No. I would like to nominate you as well. But since you're nominating yourself, then I'll second.

Fantastic. This isn't a second one, but thank you. Any other nominations? No? Okay. In that case, we will actually vote. Should I be resume as chair of the Planning Commission? All in favor?

Oh, aye. Yes. Aye.

Thank you. Aye. Good job, Susan.

All opposed. Alright. Thank you for that. Next up, we will, use the same process, more or less, to elect the vice chair. Are there any nominations for this? I would like to nominate Janine Woodier to serve a second term. Are there any other nominations for others or self nominations? No. Okay. All in favor of Janine? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed? I don't think so. No? Okay. So again, thank you Janine for serving this role for a second term. That is much appreciated. With that, we can move on to our normal business. So next up is a study session on the 2025 housing amendments. Ian Lefkourt is out, so Jeff Churchill will be leading us.

Hello. Good evening. I'll do my best, to fill in for Ian this evening. I think I have a a relatively simple job because the discussion on the housing amendments for, this package has concluded. All the issues matrices issues matrix items are closed.

I did wanna point out two changes that are in the materials that you received in your packet as compared to the last time you saw the draft. One is that there is very explicit language added at the beginning of the chapter or close to the beginning of the chapter to point out where the payment and lieu requirements live so that they don't get missed. They're already there, but it just it just makes it very clear where they are and how to get there. And then, we as we have been going through the code, we have been replacing shall, most of the time with must, some of the time with will, some of the time in the sentence it's not needed at all once you remove shall. And so we took the opportunity since this chapter was in front of us again to go do that, and we're doing that with all the chapters as we go because become our convention not to use shall because it feels dated and not always clear.

So those are the two changes. They don't change anything substantive about any of

the

amendments. Ian went ahead and put together a draft report in the in case that you are ready to make a recommendation. You could you could first vote on the code amendments themselves, and then you could vote on the report that Ian put in your packet.

Alright. I will take it from there. So first of all, I just wanted to say thank you for, making it so clear what was changed from the last meeting. I scanned through. That looked great. Does anyone have additional comments on the changes? Commissioner Aparna?

Not on the changes, but I had a question. And I'm not sure whether it is for these regulations. So I I I don't even know if it's the right place. But nowhere in the in the regulations does it state where the PIL funds are placed and whether there's a dedicated fund for affordable housing. I know that we don't kind of have recommendations as to where it goes. But like, is there supposed to be a reference to where the PIL funds or a mechanism does go to the general fund? So a little

So this is more of a process question about budgeting maybe?

No. Okay. Because we talk about the funds. The funds have to recite. The text has to connect with something else. It's not a budget question. The budget is for potential projects. But if we collect the money, where is shouldn't the regulations state where the money resides?

Got it. Jeff, I don't know if you have an answer on this one.

Seeing if Ian would hear, he has the entire chapter memorized, and he could tell you right away. I would have to read through it to see where that language, exists. Where the money actually does go is into the housing trust fund to fund affordable housing projects in Redmond.

So do it doesn't need to be referenced in the regulations? Is am I hearing you correctly?

It may in fact be referenced. I don't know. I would need to check. I'm just telling you as as a as a matter of fact where it actually does.

Okay.

Alright.

But I can I can look at that during the next

Yeah? Item. Just a clarification would be nice. And if it isn't referenced and it should be referenced, we should have it in the regulations. But it's good to know it's in a housing trust fund. I'm relieved. Thank you.

Is that something that, you would like clarification on before you're willing to vote a recommendation?

So I do have an answer now because Oh. Find control f is really good. So there's a provision in this is section o five o, alternative compliance. Yep. And what it says is that b two says that cash payments and move providing actual housing units may be provided and will be used only for the subsequent provision of affordable housing units by the city or other housing provider approved by the administrator. So it's for affordable housing.

Okay. But it doesn't say where, like, the name of the fund. Right?

It doesn't name the fund. It's it names the purpose that has to be used for affordable housing and only affordable housing according to the text.

Okay. I think we can close it then. As long as it's there in the regulations, that's fine. Because I tried looking, maybe I missed it. So thank you.

Great question. Any others? All right. So in that case, I'd look for a motion to ask ask staff to recommend approval to City Council of the 2025 housing amendments. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Oh, actually, So moved. I need the motions.

Moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Thank you. And is there any discussion on that? No. Okay. So in that case, I'd actually also like to vote, to accept the report that was part of our packet tonight because we don't have any changes made to that. So, if I'd also look for a motion to approve the report that was prepared for tonight's meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Great.

Thank you all. So that is wrapping up the 2025 housing.

Thank you very much. We will get that out to the council as soon as it's all signed, and we will be briefing them on April 22.

Great. Thank you. Alright. Next up is our public hearing on the design standards in part three of the 2025 code package for Redmond 02/1950. For this one, we'll be bringing up Becky Fry, Kim Dietz, Lauren Alpert and Odra Cardenas.

Good evening, commissioners. Just a really cleave, quick reminder of what's in this package before we open it up for public comment. But this particular package is not just the design standards, it does have minor updates in several of the chapters that you see here in yellow, including some cleanups in landscaping, solid waste, parking, review procedures. So in your memo, we've outlined several meetings, but here's just a quick reminder. It's just references for the most part.

There is some things that are moving around, like the screening requirements for garbage and recycling enclosures are being removed from the design standards and moved into the section on garbage and recycling. And there's a couple of other updates related to zoning name changes, center name changes, lots of code references. It does also include new and revised definitions that match other code updates that are happening. And so all of these things are a part of this package in addition to the design standards, although the design standards do make up the bulk of it. And again, just a quick reminder, this has been a process that's been underway for three years now, that's been extremely collaborative.

We've had several years worth of meetings, events, testing phases with multiple property owners. We've had reviewers that included mass timber developers, property owners, designers, architects. We've had a lot of very, very helpful feedback from the community, including over the last month or so. And so before we open it up to public comment, I did wanna just really quickly walk through some of the changes that were made in 02/1958, and then we'll go through them more in-depth after the public comment. But just for those who provided public comment previously, we have responded to those in draft three point zero.

There is a bunch of other minor edits that happened, including just some purpose statement applicability clarifications. There's some things that were inadvertently deleted that got put back. There were some things that were pointed out to us by the Planning Commissioner the Public that were still in duplication as we started to merge everything. So we've cleaned all of those things up. But we did also had some pretty significant changes in response to public comment, including reworking our step back provisions.

We changed the interior facade modulation requirements. We've reduced the roofline modulation requirements, and we provided some clarification on the tower standards. So we appreciate all of the very, very thoughtful comments that came in from the community. And we just wanted to point out that we did respond to those in draft three point zero, and they're also outlined in the issues matrix. So I will hand it back to the chair.

Great. Thank you for that overview. So at that point sorry, at this point, I will open the public hearing. And, if you could let us know our public commenters.

We have David M. And if you can step up to the mic and say your full name and address, please.

Good evening staff and commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I appreciate the work that staff, the commission, and the community have put into draft three point o of the Redmond zoning code chapter twenty one fifty eight design standards. This has been a significant and collaborative undertaking, and it's clear that much thought has gone into creating a more user friendly and future oriented framework. I want to recognize the thoughtful structure and clarity this draft brings to Redmond's evolving development landscape.

The move toward more objective and measurable standards is welcome. Clear expectations benefit everyone from applicants and design professionals to neighbors and future residents. That said, there are a few areas where refinement could enhance both predictability for applicants and quality outcomes for the community. First, regarding open space design, I support the emphasis on usable well integrated open spaces. But requiring that some common open spaces be publicly accessible may be too limiting for certain urban or vertically oriented projects.

There needs to be flexibility in how publicly accessible and active use are defined. Creative, high quality semi private open spaces like podium courtyards or rooftop gardens could contribute meaningfully to livability, especially in denser or mixed use zones. Second, contextual design is critical to ensure that new development respects the unique character of each neighborhood. The revised language of the draft is promising, but there's an opportunity to clarify that compatibility should not become mimicry. People want innovation and architectural diversity, not replicas, and the standards should support that by focusing on transitions, massing, materials, and pedestrian experience rather than prescriptive style.

Third, I'd like to highlight the sustainability enhancements. I'm encouraged by the incentives for high performance buildings and energy efficiency design, but I urge the commission to consider consider integrating green infrastructure requirements like green roofs or low impact stormwater features into the base standards, not just as optional enhancements. This would align Redmond's development code with its environmental goals. Finally, I encourage continued collaboration with developers, architects, and especially residents. Successful implementation will require clear guidance, especially for small or infill projects.

Thank you for your time and your commitment to shaping a livable, equitable, and beautiful Redmond. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? That was it. Great. Thanks. So with that, I think I'm going to turn this over to Becky, and we will go through the issues matrix.

Before we go through the issues matrix, I do want to go through some of the larger changes that happened in 02/1958, draft three point zero. Let me zoom in a little bit. Not necessarily word for word or every single edit in here, but I just wanted to capture some of the larger changes that were specifically in response to either the Planning Commission or public comment. And then as we go through the issues matrix, we might be able to close some things faster. So again, up at the top, we've walked through some of the changes that we've made for clarity on alternative design compliance previously.

But when we start to get into the changes that have been made is where we get down into the context sensitive design. So one of the things that was pointed out from our community is our Section eleven hundred and thirteen hundred were overlapping and not working well together previously. So we have combined them, so you'll Oops, I'm sorry. So what you'll see is, some of the text that was in 1,100 that was just really general just got moved up under a 1,000, and then eleven hundred and thirteen hundred got combined. And what we ended up doing then was then just figuring out where the duplication occurred.

We've done some cleanup. We've made some additional explanations. Previous public comments and Planning Commission comment is please just make it a little bit easier for us to determine what do you mean by building design elements or site design elements. And so we've done some of that cleanup here. And then one of the questions before was give me an example of a site design element, and one of the ones that's actually a high priority of the community, and the city is looking at connective open spaces, and so we've used that as an example of a site design element.

And we've just provided an example here. So there's just been some cleanup in here. It does remove two sections into one, and does provide quite a bit of cleanup there. Some of the other things that have happened, as we get down a little bit further, is in the step backs. We had some public comment.

You've seen some email going back and forth about our step backs and providing clarity and some adjustments there. There's actually been some pretty significant edits in here in response to the public comment that we received. One of the first things is we've actually added some exemptions. And so one of the things that we are exempting is if you have a really large right of way. So if you're on an arterial or, you've got a significant amount of space from building to building on either side of the road, the the purpose of the step back, is not needed anymore, and so we're gonna just exempt it.

Also, if you have between the street and the front of the building, some linear open space trail, a tree preservation, there's some several occasions where that does exist in several parts of the city. The step back is not as impactful there as well, and so that would just be exempt. And then there's also places where the topography is pretty significant between the level of the street and the level of the front entry of the main building. And so if there's also a topography rise in there, the purpose of a step back would be not needed anymore. And so we've just added some very specific, very clear exemptions.

And then also, we had inadvertently removed a line when we removed a table, so we put back the actual maximum width. It is referenced in several other places, but just putting back the specific statement. Then the illustration that went with that also had inadvertently got deleted, so we put that back. We have, in response to public comment, made some revisions to add some flexibility for interior facade modulations. But then when we actually get down here into the building step back, some additional changes have been made.

One of the public comments here was about the actual upper story on the podium. One thing I just noticed this afternoon is in 3, we did strike the top floor here, but we had inadvertently forgotten that. So I'm gonna suggest we strike that as well, because if we're striking it in this row, we don't need it in that row as well. But that eliminates a top floor step back. But also, again, in direct response to public comment, is do we need to have the same step back, the same dimension, the entire width of the facade, or is there a way that we could add in some flexibility?

Maybe portions of the building could be less or even up to the street if the majority of it needs a step back. And so we've added these two provisions here where up to 25% of the building may vary from the step back, also a minimum step back may be averaged. And so you could also vary the design of the step back as long as you're no less than 10 feet in-depth. So we've added some additional flexibility with the ornamentation and the alternative design compliance that gives us, for a standard building, the design standard and four different alternative pathways for setbacks. So that's a pretty significant revision.

We've also made some revisions to rooflines. The mass timber exemption was actually hidden down below. We've just moved it up. But the actual minimum modulation we've struck, There was a minimum modulation of eight feet or 12 feet depending on the width of, or excuse me, the length of the modulation. We've just struck that completely.

It was pointed out to us that a 12 foot modulation could be a full story, and so that has just been edited down to five feet for modulation. There have been some other adjustments to the code that take the place of a lot of the roofline modulation purposes. We've done a couple of other edits throughout, just some cleanup, some additional clarifications in alternative design standards. But you'll see we tried to mark up where all of those major changes have been. I just wanted to point out the ones that I did here because they did have some pretty significant edits that have been a direct response to community feedback.

Now I will go ahead and open it up to the Issues Matrix unless there's any other questions.

Any other questions? No, I think we're ready for the Issues Matrix.

Great, thank you. Alright. And then as I mentioned at the end of our last meeting, the intent here was to divide our comments into two sections. So what I've done is the first set of table here is comments that resulted in an edit to the draft, and then the second section is comments that did not result in an edit. That helps us then keep a clean accounting of what has been changed over time.

So again, I have the old number in here, so folks who've been following along. But I have reordered them so that general comments that are applicable throughout up here first and then all the other comments are in order from the outline of the chapter. So this first one is Commissioners Coleman and Nyman had some comments on the purpose statements. We did actually go through, Commissioner Van Nyman had asked us to have an introductory sentence in front of each list and a purpose statement to help provide that high level. Several staff members worked on that and went through and provided those purpose statements throughout.

Commissioner Coleman, do you want respond to this one?

I guess we want to respond. Do both of us need to respond?

So in general, we would. I'm feeling a little bit sensitive on time

No, understand that.

On this one.

I mean, would say, as an example, this is a good example of kind of what we discussed. So, if consistent, then I think we could close, if that's the case. If it sounds like staff are taking their time to go through it in that way.

Yeah, in many cases, the purpose statement references back to something that was adopted in the comprehensive plan. It's the high level, just umbrella statement, whereas the actual technical purpose of that section is still in the list format.

Yeah. Then I'm I'm I'm good with that.

Okay. And I just I wanted to reiterate, to me, this made it much more readable. So I thought this was a great improvement.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Before we proceed to the next one, this is Kim Dietz. Becky, would you like the notes of our progress tracked in this document or in a secondary document?

Secondary, please.

Okay, got it.

Thank you. And so the next open comment is a comment from Commissioner Webson about building topologies. This, we just wanted to make a note, we did in the packet completely change this how we did it. We removed the table from the draft, and we added all of that information to the table of applicability so that all of the information that might be helpful for people to understand how to navigate the chapter could just be in that one resource document.

So I love the table of applicability. This is the sort of thing that really appeals to me because it's so understandable. My only question is how it will be published.

We are going to be having it online, and we will also have it in our development services table. It, excuse me, our office. So we will have it in a lot of different formats and a lot of different ways. We do have entry pages for the zoning code on our website as well. So, god.

I can't tell you.

Also Thank you. Oh, sorry.

No. Go ahead.

We also have already distributed that. It went out a couple of different times. Most recently, this last Friday, we sent out to our GovDelivery distribution list for both Redmond 2050 and our code updates list. So our subscription list of over 3,100, subscribers got the full package of everything, including, the table of changes, the table of applicability, the issues matrix, every single chapter. And so this has gone out pretty broadly already.

That's great. My question was, mostly just around if someone was in a position where they're trying to figure out what to do with their property, that it would be in a line where they could find it. But it sounds like that's been covered.

Yeah. Well, it'll be easy to access.

Great. Okay. Well, then I'm happy to close.

Thank you. Right. This next one again was just really broadly. As we started updating the purpose statements and the table of applicability, we've made some additional edits to the actual alternative design compliance sections. So in some cases, there was not an ADC statement yet.

There were a few places, especially where we were just moving these over that didn't make it in. And so we've added one where there was just nothing before. In a couple of other places, we've added some additional edits just to make sure that people understand the purpose of the alternative design compliance, the cross referencing to the other processes, including where you can find variances in 2,116, the zoning height flexibility, all of those pieces are now added as cross references in the alternative design compliance section. And so there's definitely been a lot of edits in this chapter, but we've walked through a lot of that previously. But you'll see that that section should be significantly more clear than it was before about major and minor edits, that we've removed the language that limited the variations to just minor standards.

So it should be a much clearer section.

Commissioner Cobley?

Yeah. I thought those were good updates, and I'm good to close.

And I also really appreciate the changes here. Because I found this just very unclear at the beginning, mostly from being unfamiliar with it. I think it's much easier to read through and figure out whether or not it applies to a given project. So thanks for the continued work, I'm ready to close.

Thank you. Yeah, one of the things we worked hard on is making sure that people understood that it was a part of the existing design review process. And that was something that our design community, our technical advisory committee had mentioned is that it's a matter of risk mitigation. And so if it's not clear that it's not a separate process, then people might not take it and do the design flexibility options. And so we wanted to make sure that the language in there was super clear that we do encourage that to be used.

Let's keep going down to the next one. We had a couple of comments on similar but different. And again, I walked through one of these is thirteen hundred and eleven hundred, and they've been meshed together, and I explained as we went through the draft 02/1958 where that has been done. This did have some conflicting language, so, we did have to remove and change a few things here and there to make that section work. But hopefully, the context sensitive standards make sense a little bit better now.

It does make it very clear that you need to pull something from the surroundings, but you also have a limit on how much you can pull from the surroundings so that there is a relationship. But as a public comment tonight, it's it's not a mimicry of what's there. So it includes a minimum and a maximum of the push and pull from a context standpoint.

So, commissioner, since this was a public comment, it's not with any of us. Is there any discussion about this? Or are we good to close? Commissioner Copely.

Yeah. Just based on the public comment tonight, I would say that, we were encouraged to think about more objective and measurable standards. So I think that Becky had said that there's gonna be a minimum maximum if

Mhmm.

If those are gonna be implemented and they're clear as to, you know, what it means for something to be minimally or maximally similar to something nearby, I think that would be great.

Yeah. And it does. The language is very clear. And in fact, it says, specifically related to colors, don't pull any more than, I think it says two colors. So it's very clear on how much you can pull, how what the maximum amount that you can pull from your neighbors.

Great. So good to close? Yep. I think so. I'm seeing nodding.

Great. And then a comment from commissioner Parna on the materials and context. We worked out this statement through email.

Yeah, this is great. Thank you. You can close it.

Thank you. And then we had another comment about duplication and repetition. And so Kim Dietz worked through clarification on that, that you can see some of the bullet points here specifically.

Yeah, this is great. Thank you for going through piece by piece. Much more clear. Happy to close.

And then this one, I don't know if you want to add any additional requirements, Chair Weston, Yeah, to the sensory

so I reviewed appendix 12 separated out is great. And then just the text as written, I think captured my major points on this. So I'm happy to close.

Okay, great. Okay, and then we had a lot of comments about how does this work, how does it relate to mandatory versus incentives. And so I just want to reiterate that there is a new draft appendix 12, but at the beginning of all of that, we added a lot of content about how it relates to the comprehensive plan, how it relates to state and federal codes, building codes, and what happens when there's a conflict, how it applies to the incentives. Very specifically if you're going for this incentive, need to do this table, and potentially if you have this type of development, this table and that table. And so we've tried to really provide a lot more clarity on the specific relationships between the codes and the incentives and how to use that appendix.

Great. So this is another one that was from public comment. Is there any commissioner feedback or discussion? No, I think this looks good. So I think we're good to close this one as well.

Great, thank you. And then I walked through all of the step back changes, and again, there's quite a few of them. We made a lot of additional flexibility added in where we felt that the city could very easily accomplish the city's goals and purpose for that section and still respond to the request from the community for the additional flexibility. So, this is the proposed that we have worked through. Staff met two or three times just to kinda narrow in on how to provide some additional flexibility and clarity on step backs.

Yep. And the piece that I just wanted to make sure that we captured just with the commissioners here right now is that edit since the packet was published on remove striking the second step back reference, the 10 foot one?

Yes. Yeah. I'll add another note to make that very clear.

Okay. And do any commissioners have any concerns about that? That seems more of a typo than a right. Okay. Good. Perfect.

Are we good to close? Any other discussion on the edits specifically?

No. I think we're good to close. And I just wanna say, I do appreciate these community conversations because I think this brings a lot of expertise out that it's just it's good to get that feedback incorporated into the document. And I'm personally glad to see that it happened. Don't have anything to add though, so we can close. And

you were forwarded today a trail of emails that was public comment back and forth, and the final response of the property owner who was originally the one looking at this was responsive saying thank you. There were some comments about the blank wall sections from a couple commissioners, just about the order in which vegetation appeared and the public art and that, and there has been some cleanup. Kim Dietz worked through the blank wall section again. Are there any questions or additional comments on blank walls?

Commissioner Coleman, anything?

No, it's been through. It looked fine to me.

Yes. So this is so sensible now. I'm glad we got rid of the one plant requirement. And it just says, this I is much

do want to also point out one thing, that we had inadvertently missed. When we talked about, mass timber alternatives, the exposed mass timber treatment, serving as a treatment for a blank wall, because, it's decorative element at that point. We did add that back in because somehow it got removed in one of the edits or never made it in, but we just talked about it. That is also as part of the edits.

Yeah. I liked it as the current draft looks great to me, so I'm ready to close. And Commissioner Coleman as well.

Perfect. Thank you. Again, another public comment briefly mentioned it so I was running through the interior facade modulation. The existing code was essentially just moved over, and it really was, based off of what would make sense for a garden style apartment, but once you start to get a taller building. And that was the comment from the community.

And so we've added some additional clarity, and then we've added some additional alternatives. So, as we did a lot of edits, like for instance, the publicly architecturally integrated art, integrated photovoltaic, green walls, those are things that appear in several other places in this chapter. We actually pulled those in here too as an option for that interior facade modulation.

Great. Any discussion here? We're good? Okay. So we're good to close.

Thank you. Sorry.

Sorry. Sorry. Nope. I missed it. Commissioner Cobley.

I think I understand what the intent is, but it says 40 feet or two units, whichever is greater.

That

means if the two units are more than 40 feet wide, then that would be greater. Otherwise, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. And that I understood that correctly. Okay.

Yeah. That is the case. So again, his comment was that a a typical modulation would get you halfway through, a unit. And so from an architectural standpoint, it they were saying it would be easier at a unit break instead of a mid unit break. So we just allowed them that option. Okay.

I'm seeing nodding, so I think we're good to close on that. Thank you.

Great. And the next one again is a public comment about the roofline modulations. Again, the number of modulations, we've just simplified that down to a five feet per modulation instead of having two different modulations and significantly greater. Again, with the architecturally integrated art, some of the other pieces that we're doing, the roofline modulation decreases the significance from there.

Any comments? No? Okay, good to close on that.

We did make an edit in response to Chair Weston's clarification to make sure that the cul de sacs are not necessarily required for a remodel or an infill. So we just added a quick statement.

Yeah. Thanks for just clarifying on that because I could see that being confusing. Happy to close.

We've got a couple that have already been closed. And then oh, wait a minute. This might be in the wrong spot. But there was a public comment, and again tonight, just about differentiation and adding additional incentives. This package part three does not include incentives, but incentives are part of the twenty twenty five code updates.

And so we've added some additional cross references and some call outs to how sustainability features and all of our new mandatory group buildings that are part of package two, how all of that relates. But we are not expanding the scope right now for sustainability incentives, but the ESAP projects could result in recommendations for code changes, and there might be some additional sustainability edits that happen in the next code update package. So for right now, we didn't add anything other than just some additional cross references and just explanation of how it fits.

Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Any comments on that? No, we're happy to close. Thank you.

There was also a public comment asking if we could expand the alternative design compliance to maybe have benchmarks for if you wanna vary, have minimum standards potentially. An example was additional green building. And so there's, again, we're just adopting a bunch of things. Last fall we've adopted the brand new green building program, and we're adopting new mandatory green building pieces and incentives in this package as well. So we're not proposing any expansion of scope at this time. Since we're adopting a bunch of things brand new, we need to monitor it for a couple of years before we look at potential future code revisions, is the staff's recommendation.

Any comments on that? Commissioner Cobley.

Yeah. I saw the response is that, we're not looking to expand requirements. But I think the if I understood the public comment correctly, it was to reduce requirements for green buildings that meet certain standards. Was that understood the same way by other commission?

Not this comment. There was another comment.

So this comment I took to mean the idea of adding metrics or benchmarks to provide accountability. So going in and saying like, we wanna reduce this thing by this much or increase it by this. So basically putting numbers to it. And I'm taking the response. I I agree with this response that we can get a little while for things to start getting traction before we start developing trends. But I know this has been a conversation topic in the past. I see commissioner Aparna's hand.

So the idea of benchmarking is that everybody's gotta do it. So it's not something that one building does and it does its own little thing. So it's not the right place for an ADC. And buildings are required to report out an energy benchmarking as mandatory requirements in the green green building part. So that part is taken care of by, like, every new development. So I don't think I think this response is spot on and should be closed. So thank you.

Other opinions? Alright. I think we're good to close. Great.

Some additional public comment just about requiring some additional clarification on ADC. We've talked about that up above and you've seen it. But throughout, we also made sure that every alternative design compliance language was there. However, that being said, we are okay with slightly vague or even completely vague alternative design compliance statements. The state law requires us to have very, very clear and measurable standards, but if we vary from the standards, that's where we can have more flexibility, have language that's a little more loosey goosey if we need to.

And the ADC statements are intentionally broad in how we would like to interpret them because we want people to use them for creative ideas. And we wanna make sure that they can be used for new materials, new technologies. We've talked about a lot of things over the last couple of years here with the Planning Commission of as things change, and so we wanna make sure that the Alternative Design Compliance is written broadly enough that it can be flexible to respond to change. The standard itself is very clear and very objective. The purpose statements are very clear.

And then as you go and try to do a variance, you have to comply with the purpose statements, but the actual variability then is more broad.

Commissioner Whittier?

I understand the intent behind vagueness, but I'm wondering if perhaps there's an opportunity to provide some examples so that we're not creating additional complexity and burden on the developers and other members of our community who want to pursue this route?

Yeah. Sure. We have a number of different processes where we can have discussions with developers over time. A lot of times they come in and ask us, hey, are you okay with us doing this approach instead of that approach? The alternative design compliance really is just setting that process for design.

So if they're coming in and the standard is 12 feet or 15 feet, and the alternative is 10 feet with a color change or something along those lines, That allows us to be creative in the interpretation as long as they meet the purpose statements. And so within each section, there could be multiple examples.

So it's perhaps a little less at the building level and more individual design choices within the structure?

Yes. Yeah. And during the pre application phase, that'll probably come up. We've also made ourselves available to property owners who wanna reach out and talk about, especially some of the newer things like the inclusive design and the mass timber construction, those need some earlier conversations, like before a pre application would be. And so we've made ourselves available to the community if they need those early conversations as well. It's like, hey, what does this mean? How do we interpret it? And again, we've added some edits in there to make sure that it's clear that it's not a completely separate process.

Does that satisfy?

I'm satisfied. Excellent. Alright.

This is a great topic because I think, the ABC was something that it just it needed a little bit more explanation. I'm really glad there's been a chance to flesh more of it out. Are there other comments on this piece? Commissioner Aparna? I actually have a different question on

the whole ADC process, but maybe we'll finish it and then add that as a new point

of That sounds great.

Okay, we can do that. So keep going for now?

Yep. We'll close this one and keep going.

Okay. Perfect. Alright. There's a couple more that have already been closed. Additional public comment just about the universal design and there are other codes, especially federal codes that do talk to some of these pieces and parts.

We just wanted to clarify that yes, some of those federal requirements say you have to have a certain number of units in certain places that meet visitability standards. And just to be extra super clear, in the actual appendix 12, we have made it, very explicit that this is not meeting your mandatory requirements. This is above and beyond the mandatory requirements. We're trying to incentivize more of them. And so they're not intended to conflict, but we have added statements in the appendix 12 as well as when there are conflicts.

We've also added some flexibility, in there as well that if for some reason, you can't meet one line item on there, it doesn't kick you out of the entire incentive. There's some flexibility with that as well. But it does also have some things that are, the code may state, you know, you have to have a minimum of 34 inches, but our community feedback is that's too small. We need a couple more inches for clearance. Well, that our checklist is directly in response to our local community's request.

So there might be some things that are directly reflected in a building code or in a federal code somewhere, that we just have a slightly different dimension because our community has said, in our community, we need a little bit different. So there are a couple of places where that is also taking place, and that is intentional. Discussion.

Yeah. I'm seeing a lot of thumbs up here. I just want to say on this one, it's being so specific on that. And then also, I feel like it really meets we had a lot of conversation during the incentives discussion just about this. And I really feel like this meets the spirit of that conversation back in the fall. So I really appreciate this answer.

Great. I also do wanna point out too that I have to be very, very appreciative and thankful and publicly acknowledge the members of the Northwest Universal Design Council that reviewed several drafts of this and helped actually mark out some of those dimensional changes that they have a practical experience with their clients in our region where they're seeing some slight variations that are needed. So the practical on the ground experience from the council and our community both were extremely helpful in developing this resource for our community.

That's such a resource. Thank you.

A public comment as well on flexible building height. In many, many, many places in the code, we've actually added where, you can transfer the FAR from a corner treatment to add additional, heights. There's a couple of other places where we have flexibility within the zoning, and there's a number of other, just provisions where there's flexibility in height. And the public comment was, hey, but I've got building code limitations that are practical, and we can't necessarily go above the building code. And so there was just some, confusion about how that would apply.

We just provided here some clarity that flexibility is actually gonna be a trade off for potentially not requiring additional incentive work. So it might be less cost to get there. It's not intended to take you beyond building code. It's to be working entirely with the package of everything, including the incentives, to get you where you need to be and still get us creativity in our building design.

Great. Thumbs up. I think we're good on that one. We can close.

Great. Some additional comments on sustainable resiliency, specifically several and and I did not copy and paste, but this was emailed to you, the full request here of different ways that we can expand on the incentive program, the green building program, climate responsive, embodied carbon, and monitoring and tracking. And, again, it's same comment as up above. We're adopting all of these new things as part of this package. We're not expanding the scope right now, but with the ESAP update and some additional updates that are happening following this one, there might be some pieces of that that fold into those future projects.

All right. That makes sense. Any comments here? Nope. Just nodding. Okay. Good to close on that one, too. Thank you.

I'm sorry. I don't know what happened to my sorry. My page jumped for some reason. I'm not sure why. There we are, parking provisions. So there was just another request to have some parking provisions. We just adopted parking regulations in November 24, and so we're not making any other parking provisions at this time. There was a pretty substantial update, including going down to zero parking requirements for some uses in our light rail stations. So we're not proposing any changes at this time to other than that, what you've seen in this package.

Yep. That seems sensible. I'm seeing nodding and thumbs ups. So we'll close that.

Great. And then we've got a couple more closed issues, and we're done. So if there's anything else that we would like to add, now is the time where we can do that.

Yeah. So let's open this up for, conversation on either the changes that came up or anything new that hasn't been covered yet. I see Commissioner Aparna.

Thank you, Jill. Thank you, Becky. I want to start off with a couple of really two positive points. I loved appendix 12, and I love the table of applicability. I think both are easy to read, and they're really clear. And I I just thank you for doing that. Whoever's done it, it's wonderful. Now on to my questions. I'm specifically addressing twenty one fifty eight zero three hundred, which is more the ADC process. So I have like, it's a it's a two part question.

Right? So I think the ADC process is clear, but it's lacking certain information, I think. Now one is, are there limits to how many ADCs an application can put in? So it's like the ship of thesis. Right? Like at what point would it shift into another ship entirely? Right? So where does that line lie? If I get every ADC on the table, what happens then? Maybe I meet maybe I would have to exceed all of that.

But it does change the context and the intention. And that leads to the question is the iconic building, which we hope at some point might actually happen in Redmond, may not even fit the ADC buckets. And it might be a significant draw, and we might lose opportunities because the ADCs are designed for variations of the theme presented to larger or smaller degree. But what if those are not the themes the iconic building discusses? At that point, like, just again, I'm going back to Mopup because it's such an iconic structure.

It will not get built here. Maybe it would get maybe it would work on the parking. Maybe it would work on the street level entrance. But it will not be accepted here.

So no. Right now the way it is written there's not a limit. Because the way it is written is that in order to get an ADC approved, have to meet the purpose. And so the purpose is something that the city is really focusing on now and not necessarily how you get there. And so the whole approach, how we've rewritten this chapter is to be less on methods and more on outcomes. And so there is not a limit in there right now, and I believe that's intentional. But Kim, jump in if you feel that there's anything additional that might be helpful to add.

No. I think you've got it, Becky. Thank you.

So yeah. Sorry. I'll just one follow-up question. So if there are no maximum or, like, ADCs, obviously there's no minimum, at what point do we break the mold? So does it break the mold gradually? That's what I'm hearing. One ADC, then the second development does another ADC along the same lines. Therefore, it shifts to something else. Right? Like

Yeah. If

and so I I'm just trying to understand if somebody really wants to break the mold, is it possible here? If

Yes. Not

Okay. Okay.

So what happens when a new project comes in that's very unique today is they usually come in for a development agreement. Right? And so it may be a part of a development agreement if it's a really unique site, a really unique development. So there's that. And we have specifically called that in the language that iconic unusual buildings are intended to go through that ADC process if they want to.

So they can choose whatever they feel is the appropriate pathway. The end result though really is aiming and really relying on the purpose statements. So as long as the outcomes are achieved, the creativity and design will be encouraged and allowed. Now that being said, we've also had some conversations at previous planning commissions about needing to monitor how things get developed, right? And so as we see change over time, if we need to see changes to our standards or potentially changes to how flexible we really want those ADCs to be, that would be something that we could monitor over time and potentially incorporate into future updates.

Got it. Thank you.

Can we share a comment?

I was I think this reflects as well the public comment around contextual design earlier this evening. I'm still not not sure how clear it is that we welcome iconic buildings. I get a statement of fact that, you know, we would we would actually encourage that versus you have to kinda work your way through the the context. Is is and I'm wondering if there's a really I I wasn't sure whether specific term iconic is in here. I think, like you said, it is in here, but I was just trying to find it.

Yeah. So we did that in a previous edit. We've actually, in here, the purpose statement, to encourage distinctive design elements and allow for unique iconic buildings. Okay. And then also, we have down in here, specifically under the ADC, developments within cultural districts and iconic buildings and centers intended as landmark place making buildings may utilize the ADC for requirements for coordinating building design elements with surrounding properties. So we have specifically called out a iconic buildings, in this process in a couple of different places.

Okay. So I missed that. That's that's helpful. I just wonder, is that enough?

I didn't see that until this revision, draft three. To me, it's way more clear now. But if you think it I think this is a really good point of discussion. If you think it needs to be somehow boosted. For

me personally, I don't know how you feel, but for me personally, it's I think we should have some form of iconic building here in Redmond. Again, going back to the public comment around, you know, compatibility shouldn't be mimicry and things like that. I think the statement in the second point there is really well well made. And should we have something that's very specific about this? Because, you know, if if we don't, I'm not sure how much we're we're actively encouraging it versus if you're thinking about it, need to find it in the code.

And maybe it comes across to Becky's point, may come across in terms of the purpose, so we might just rock up and say, hey, I've got a great idea for an iconic building for Redmond and that's the purpose, then, yeah, obviously, that's pretty straightforward. But I don't know if somebody was trying to think, is this something I could possibly do or is it encouraged? I don't think it's necessarily stated as clearly as we might want it to be.

I have, as you were talking, I have an idea. But in order to implement it, I would have to go back to my team and it would probably be a part of ODRA's next package. But we've been talking about some other alternative pathways. Like, we have an alternative pathway for mass timber buildings. So there's options for us to consider looking at just alternative pathways. And maybe what we look at in that is we approach it as the same thing. Maybe those iconic buildings, we just set aside a very clear alternative pathway. But that would not be a a quick and simple edit that we could make tonight. That would have to be something we'd have to develop.

Just one last comment. Is this something we could tie it to something else? So if you're a developer, you can be incentivized to build something that's more iconic if you get some other kind of help or differential kind of approach or cost or something that is connected to something else. To encourage it is the point. Was like, how do we encourage it is my question.

Yeah, I mean, I see Kim in just a second. I think there's just remembering, like, which way the direction is going here, because you would have like, the city can't request an iconic building. It's more that a property owner could wish to build one, and then we how do we unblock that? Mhmm. And so, to me, it's I wanna make sure that what we're doing is, like, just keeping in in perspective that this is really about, like, a property owner deciding to develop and how they would handle it.

Not just that we would really appreciate having one. Like, how do we make that like spring forward? But anyway, that's a separate comment. Kim, you had a response?

Yes, yes. I, as you were saying that, I was thinking about the community process. And, this might be a good topic for us to, like Becky said, take, bring back in another package. But, it gives us that opportunity to discuss with the community. Like, we might want to bring in some designers and builders who have been responsible for iconic buildings to learn what that process was that they used. So we could learn from our neighboring cities. We have some great examples in Seattle. But we can also reach out more broadly to learn what the best method is if in fact there there was a method.

I love that idea, actually learning from somewhere else. It's great.

And we're also implementing the new cultural districts too, and as those expand, maybe there's something that we could explore, like pairing, like you said, maybe there's something incentivizing or encouraging or something that we can do, those iconic buildings in our cultural centers. So I would suggest that that would take a lot of conversations and not necessarily something we can include in this package, But it's definitely something that our team can take back and noodle on and see how we can expand on that in future updates.

Commissioner Aparna.

Since I started this whole conversation

Oh, into your mic.

Oh, Since I started this conversation, I think I would like to say that, yes, it would be nice to have it in future updates. But let's say in the interim, highly unlikely given where everything's at. But should we have some somebody come up? From a back end process, it will be nice to see that they get a fair hearing. So if it's somebody at the desk, whoever's reviewing that first set of applications and looking at it should be trained to be able to, hey, flag this and say this needs to escalate up to a different person or have a little bit more involvement.

So it's a more process, not necessarily a regulation question. But I think we don't wanna close the doors. And I have great hopes for the Cultural District and maybe the potential art center. It'd be really cool to see something unique in Redmond. Mhmm. Something we can point to and yeah. So

Yeah. Thank you. So I there have been many, many, many edits in this complete repeal and replace that have expanded on flexibility, expanded on creativity, expanded on variations of themes. So we do feel that we're very strongly moving in that direction. If we we do need additional work to to really super emphasize that, it it will need to be a separate project.

But I do think that the the language that's in the draft right now offers that pathway and that clarity and the encouragement for that creative and distinctive elements, and iconic buildings are called out, you know, specifically. So there is a pathway for that to happen, in the meantime. You said that, you know, if we wanna expand it in the future, it doesn't negate it today. There is a pathway for that to happen immediately upon adoption of this.

Yeah. So that's a first step for this year's package, and then maybe next year's would have more support behind it. Commissioner Coleman.

That makes sense to me to have what we've got here included, not block passage in that sense. I did send an email on the March 4 about the same this topic, and I didn't really get a response from anybody around how to think about how how we define an economic building and also a connection to the Maritime Arts and Science Center that One Redmond are looking at. So outside of this document, I'd love, when we get back to this, to go back to that. I sort of made three points in there, but that was kind of my initial thinking of what would define an iconic building or what we would expect for an iconic building in terms of why we'd have it and what the rationale for being there is. Yeah.

So, when the time comes. 03/04/2025. Point

to That's my great. Commissioner Aparna.

Yeah. I think if we are looking at something which would happen in the future packet, would it be possible to put that as a note in the planning commission report as something that is going to be a call up for future? That's been our holding spot for to do items. Right? So could could something be added there, please?

So basically mention in the report that we appreciate that ADC currently Right. And that

it will be revisited at a later date. So officially, we put that in if and if the commission votes on it. Yeah. Right.

Yep. Sure. That that can be a part of the planning commission recommendation and comments.

I'm seeing broad.

It'll all we'll also add it to the issues matrix too. So it's very clear as a part of your discussion.

Great. All right. Any other topics? We have a few more minutes. Is there anything new that anyone wants to bring up before we close on this?

Okay. So for, do we want to move to a recommendation tonight?

No. I have a draft staff report working in progress. We need to incorporate all of the discussion items for tonight in your staff report, and update the issues matrix to mark everything closed. I will bring that to you for your recommendation at your next meeting. And then we'll close it out, and we'll be done.

Perfect. I am going to close the verbal and written portion of the public hearing because I did not do that earlier. So we are formally closed on there. And then we will see this material back again in two weeks. All right.

All right. You very much.

Thank you all for your help. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have staff and commissioner updates.

So I just wanted to update you on the agenda. We're working on the agenda for the, planning commissioner workshop. So I know there were some some big asks for speakers. We couldn't get everyone that you wanted, but we're going to try, to get someone from, our environmental programming work to talk about resilience and sustainability. We're also there were some questions about the impact of planning work, so the impact of a lot of policies and zoning work that you're doing now.

So we're gonna speak to that and kind of give you an update on some of the TOD work and some of the numbers that we've been getting on that. So that's sort of the the draft the working draft agenda. So if there's anything else that within reason that we we think we'll be able to get, speakers for, well, please please send that our way.

And just to to remind everyone, that is the last Wednesday of the month of April. So we have our regular meeting in two weeks, and then in three weeks, we will have our annual retreat.

Mhmm. Yep.

Any other comments here?

I think that's it for staff updates right now.

Alright. Any commissioner updates?

I'm sorry, Becky, is your hand raised for a staff update?

I do. I have a really quick update I wanted to share with the commissioners. Staff met with the Sokolbe Tribal Council again last week to provide an update on the work that we've been doing in partnership over the last couple of years. That included an update on the incentive program and the inclusion of the items that they specifically requested of us to include in that, and the Arts and Cultural District and the conversations that will flow about the tribal integration in the future. And I just wanted to express how appreciative we have been of that process.

That collaboration has been super helpful. And I just wanted to provide additional feedback to you that those conversations are ongoing. And they have expressed their appreciation for us incorporating their requests into our work. So just a quick update.

Thank you so much for including that. I'm always appreciative that those conversations are happening. All right. Any other commissioner updates tonight? No. Well, in that case, I look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

All right. Then we are adjourned.