Good evening everyone and welcome to the April 28th meeting of the
Planning Policy Commission. Tonight we're going to have a
public hearing. For some reason, public hearing on the Central Area Development and Design Standards
Amendments. I know the city has been working really hard to put the, to
cover all their bases and make it a good segue into the development of the
Central Area Plan. And I, the rest of you out there get a chance to
make your comments on anything they've missed or tell them they did a good job,
whatever. But first of all, we have to do two things. First thing is the
approval of the minutes from March 24th. Do I have a, Do I
have a motion to approve the minutes of March 24th? Anybody?
I'll move. Do I have a second? Second. I do
have a bit of discussion on that. All right. Page 12 of our packets
discussing the actual motion, the minutes seem a little unclear as
to the boundary between marijuana facilities
and the difference between the reduction of the other marijuana boundaries. They both state
separation requirement between marijuana store and marijuana facilities. And my recollection was it
was all boundary requirements except those mandated by statute were reduced to 500,
including the boundary between marijuana facilities or stores, however you phrase it.
And then, of course, the transit center reduction to 100 feet. The wording was a
little unclear there, and I wanted to make sure the minutes reflect that.
Okay, in the actual council package. Yeah,
yeah. Correct. So that would be the only change I'd recommend to the
minutes would be clarifying that portion a little bit.
Any other discussion? Do I have
a vote on it? Does everybody,
do I have approval on the minutes? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
And moving right along. The second thing we, I would like to really start out
with this evening is we're going to have a big change in the
People who are who represent the city on planning policy next year and I'd like
to thank the people from the city for all their hard work for the people
that are leaving us next time. This is their last meeting. So
Raymond extract. Thank you so much for years of being on the planning policy. And
tell is not here. She's traveling. But if she sees this. Thanks very much. And
Michael Foss. Brian Garvey, Susan Kowitz, and Paul Weller
are all soon to be former members of Planning Policy and I want to make
sure that they're thanked for all the work they did and all their input that
they've put in the commission for the last several years. So with that,
yes, for those who are here. And there are many reasons why these people are
leaving. Some job related, some have moved. Certainly we wish them all well.
So with that, I'd like to open up the city's portion of the demonstration, so
if you would. Take the floor. Take the floor. Okay.
Hi, I'm Lucy Sloman, you haven't seen me in a few months. I'm land development
manager in the development services department, and tonight we're going to
be talking about edits to
Central Issaquah Standards. You guys have been very helpful. We're now
on round three, and there are so many in round three that we've divided them
into several buckets, and so you'll see tonight, I call this round 3.1.
There are two more rounds that are coming later this year. So tonight we're
going to review the edits, then we'll open up for public comment and then we'll
have discussion and recommendation. If it's all right with the
chairwoman, what I would suggest is that as we go through each of these, then
we have discussion of each of the edits or each amendment
after a brief presentation. Knowing the commission, there will be discussion after
everyone. At every point possible. Okay, excellent. So here's the list of the six,
there are eight amendments that were in this first round. Two of them have been
previously approved or sent to council. And we have six that we're looking at tonight.
First one is on sky bridges. What we've done is we've added a
definition for sky bridges and a definition for pedestrian bridges, added design standards and a
process for the council to approve a sky bridge.
Part of the reason that we're doing this is in the Costco development agreement, which
is part of Central Iskra, and the Swedish development agreement up
at the hospital, sky bridges are included and there are regulations for those.
And our concern was that if someone for whatever reason, wanted to put a sky
bridge in central Isquah, we had nothing to guide that process, their design, or anything.
So what we did is, since both of those development agreements have been through commissions
and council, we started with those, tried to tweak them to cover all of central
Isquah, and then incorporated some of the discussion on views and vistas that had come
up. In addition,
these are, so I know this will be a little confusing, but we had a
very lucky opportunity, which is that once we sent the packets out to you, of
course the public sees them, We also agreed that based on our experience last time
that the Development Commission would receive the packets because they're implementing this all the time
and they have a lot of experience and we felt that last time we particularly
benefited from Commissioner Morgan's participation. So as a result of the public comments we
received after the packet was issued, we are proposing these edits
to go forward as part of your recommendation, and we're glad to talk through these.
I do have a couple questions. Sure. Starting with A4,
under 14.7, Skybridge is placed at the second level of buildings,
and this question involves the interplay of Skybridge's at second levels
where they extend over city right of ways. Has there been any sort of discussion
as to whether in that situation a second level bridge over
a city right of way allows enough access for fire and rescue vehicles which may
be oversized? So any time, so we feel that we have enough tools
to ensure that the bridge is at the right height, I think is the short
answer. We have to do this frequently with other design
elements and we work closely with Eastside Fire and Rescue. So we're not concerned that
we need to specify what that clear height is. And I think our inclination would
be to not put that in here because it might change if the equipment changed.
Okay, and so that would be more captured under the permitting process for city right
away? Exactly. Do you mind if I piggyback onto that real quick? I was curious,
since it specifically mentions emergency vehicles, we often have large vehicles in Issaquah,
since with our situation next to the 90, and I was curious if there was
actually kind of a gap between how high an emergency vehicle is and how high
our maximum allowable is for for a large like 18 wheeler truck. Since it specifically
mentions emergency vehicles, if we have accounted for that in the code of something that
might actually require a higher element than an emergency vehicle.
Would you want to add something that said, for instance, the height of the bridge
will be determined by the clearance necessary for emergency vehicles and standard
Do we currently have a code for bridges that we want to apply to the
sky bridges in Issaquah? I'm assuming that we have maximum heights already. Right.
Thinking of the hole in the overpass right now. Might be a little bit of
a motivator. Which is hopefully going away soon. But since I noticed the language specifically
mentioned emergency vehicles, and I don't see that, and I don't know the technical feet
of them, but I don't see it as being the top maximum vehicle height that
I've seen, and so I'm wondering if language using that as a bar measure might
have a conflict down the road. I don't know that it would, but that's one
of my questions on specifically that language.
So here's the thing. I guess I'm not feeling concerned because
I think probably no one who wants to build a skybridge wants it to be
low enough that a truck's going to run into it. However, we usually need 14
feet clear for a fire truck because of the ladder. And I think 14
feet is sufficient for bridges, which
is again why I don't wanna, I'm not 100% positive, I'm about 90% positive.
So I feel that, I'm not particularly concerned about it, I understand what you're saying,
and if you would prefer that we reference, you know, Trucks that are typically found
on public streets. I don't have a problem with that
And you know, maybe that's a safe way to go just to make sure
I also had a question as to the interplay between section a 13
And the definition of sky bridge the definition itself says that it's got to be
a for Skybridge that it's gotta be an enclosed, fully enclosed structure,
but under 13 it says that it may be open, that the walls
shall be generally be transparent or open, and I was just curious how that plays
out. Yep. Thank you, I think we will remove or open.
Okay. Because, and that's a good catch, I believe
with Costco we were encouraging that and I think that's a left over. And I
think what, here's what we were trying to make the distinction with sky bridges and
pedestrian bridges, that in essence a sky bridge is almost like an extension of the
building that is crossing the right of way, whereas a pedestrian bridge is
more like a crosswalk that is in the air. Now it might have weather protection,
might have a up pedestrian bridge might have a roof but it was generally open
and I don't think you know my general concern is that there be the ability
for sky bridges to have some open element to them I mean it's one inconsistency
exactly yeah that's great I mean if it was my opinion
I would think that we'd leave that open in there because I think that allows
for flexibility and if someone wants to do an open one they can so I
think So I would go the other way instead of crossing that out.
Leave that in and then add open to where, I don't know where that other
section is. Okay. You know Bellevue,
Lincoln Square? Sure. That's somewhat open, but it covered. I mean,
a sky bridge like that. And maybe that's a pedestrian bridge. That's just strictly a
pedestrian bridge. And I understand, oh, I'm sorry. I just think that the
definition pedestrian and skybridge will just, it's gonna be hard to define the distinction
between the two. Well, so I think
generally we, so there is a reason, because what we're
saying is that skybridges are often, for instance, connecting
The examples we gave was like a hospital where you needed to move patients from
one side of the road to another, or certain corporations need a secure campus.
I agree that that doesn't mean that they couldn't have some openness.
And we would call a structure where you could open the windows still as a
fully enclosed structure. It doesn't mean that there's something that isn't open. So,
So if Costco wanted to create a pedestrian bridge rather than a sky bridge, do
they have? They only want sky bridges. Okay, well, whoever, Swedish or whoever
comes in and does something, if they applied for a pedestrian bridge, they can do
it open or they apply for a sky bridge, they can do it closed? I
mean, how does that work? It's also going to be kind of the purpose. If
you're doing something that's secure, and may have some limitations as to
who can access it, it's going to be a sky bridge. Okay. Whereas a
pedestrian bridge is really meant for anyone. I mean, just like anyone can cross a
crosswalk, anyone could take a pedestrian bridge.
I think I'd echo those, you know, limited concerns that having the ability to create
a partially open air sky bridge would be I think of some of the Boeing
buildings in Renton and Tukwila that had that ability there where they just stuck a
secure door on either side, but it really did function as more of a sky
bridge than a pedestrian walkway. If it's accessed on the second level
and just between two buildings of the same company, then
how's someone going to get up there and cross over unless they work there? Right.
I had a question about number six and number ten. So on number six, does
this mean that there's a building requirement that the sky bridge will need to be
by a stairwell since there needs to be direct access, the most direct
route possible, this language? I was curious if this is actually regarding more like a
building code, that they would need to locate it close to the
the stairwell that runs up and down the building because of this language? No, what
Six was trying to get at was that just in the same way that
public spaces and public routes need to be direct and
comprehensible so that people can find, it's a wayfinding thing. So it was thinking about
this as a above the street level wayfinding that the skybridge shouldn't
if it's important enough to connect between two sides of the street, then at that
level it should be visible, direct, and kind of comprehensible. So that was
where the direct route possible so that you're not going down some crazy hallway to
find it and then heading across and then having to do the same thing to
get someplace on the other side. I find that's actually very common of the sky
bridges that are in First Hill for the hospitals and they use signage to be
able to differentiate that. But since the buildings are often older, they're not actually, the
sky bridges usually are more accessible on one side, across the street and then
another. And so I was curious how this would limit building them for that very
reason. but you're saying that it's more to encourage easiness to find.
Right. I mean, if it's important enough to provide it, then it should be something
that is well incorporated into the building design so that people can use it
and find their way through it. And you're right. I mean, you can use signage,
but I always feel like if signage is kind of the Band-Aid to fix, something,
and I think at this point we're also often dealing with new buildings that,
rather than existing buildings. My other question was, I had assumed that, like
mentioned before, that open bridges were going to be allowed. And so on number, I
believe it's 10, I was wondering about the grade. Right now, we're mandating that they
all be flat. And often, I can think of different European cities that I've been
in. Those have been arched, which can be for the benefit of drainage. And they're
also aesthetically much more pleasing. And so I see that in our language, we're kind
of wanting, even though we want a design element, we're kind of forcing this boxiness
to it, and I wasn't sure why the city felt that we needed to restrain
that kind of gradient. So I don't think we're worried about drainage relative to sky
bridges, since they are predominantly enclosed. I think it's more open. Right, I think it
was more for ADA and just general
usability for a wide range of users that may have
mobility restrictions and to ensure that it was usable by the widest
range of users. So it's not that the exterior could not include arches or
other kinds of elements to make it visually pleasing. I think the concern is that,
and I'm familiar with, I think, some of the, you know, the Rialto Bridge, I
mean, which is lovely, but wouldn't be, a wheelchair user couldn't use it, for instance.
And it seems like those are the kinds of people that may benefit the most
from being able to comfortably and easily use the,
that kind of facility.
I have a question on number two, so 14.7 A2.
So no more than one sky bridge may be located within any block front or
500 feet of frontage, whichever is less. So I mean, when I first read that,
I thought, well, like in a typical city block, you know, like, ever been to
Spokane, they have tons of sky bridges, right? I mean, that makes sense there. but
I'm trying to think of this as for a Costco or a Swedish where the
blocks aren't defined exactly like city square blocks.
So I just don't know if this is necessary for, and then also
Issaquah. Our blocks are really just Old Town and maybe Central Issaquah. I
just don't know if this would apply. I just don't, I don't know.
wondering, I don't know of any other option to put in there or just scratch
it or something. I'm just kind of thinking out loud here if it's really necessary.
So I'll just say for staff, this is like one of our most important requirements.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it, but I just want you to know that
it's not something we would take lightly because Spokane is not our model. Our
big concern is that as we build frequent and a lot of sky
bridges if that happened We are really taking most of the vitality off the street
Which is the goal of central isquah is to have people using the street and
to focus the activities there and so We want to recognize that there may be
times when this is appropriate but we would not want to a lot of
sky bridges to happen especially like multiples in a block because then really no one
is going to want to be at street level because they'll be all this activity
at the second floor yeah