g a huge
packet good evening and welcome to the
June
30th uh meeting of the planning policy
commission tonight we're going to do a
public hearing on the proposed Central
isqua Development and design standards
Amendment with an S um but first of all
um I was wasn't here the last time so I
didn't get a chance to welcome the the
new members to the um to the commission
so welcome thank you um I did read the
minutes and I was really impressed with
everybody's comments um normally it
takes several meetings to get adjusted
to what exactly we're looking at um I
think uh the comments that were there by
the new members were I thought were were
kind of awesome you just got really into
to it and started uh working on it so
thank you for that the first thing on
our agenda is approval of the minutes of
that meeting do I have a motion to
approve the minutes uh I'll make such a
motion uh second it is there any
discussion hearing no discussion all
those in favor of approving the minutes
as written please say I I opposed motion
carries so with that we're going to ask
Lucy and Kristen to give us an update on
what the U proposed changes are to the
Amendments hello I'm Christ Leon I'm a
senior planner with the development
services department for those of you I
have not met um I'm going to start it
off and then I'm going to hand it over
to Lucy there are four amendments that
we're talking about tonight well let let
me do this part first um but there are
four amendments uh we it'll be a public
an open hearing so we'll have the open
meeting for public comment in a little
bit and then a PPC discussion and
recommendation the amendments are to
clarify the affordable housing provision
and density bonus program to clarify
minimum plant size and spacing clarify
options to address building mass and
design and establish the size and
location criteria for motorcycle parking
spaces so first up we have clarify
affordable housing provision in the D
dity bonus program so this came up the
density pron bonus program is a way to
provide economic value for developers by
allowing them additional square footage
through either Building height or flare
floor area ratio in exchange for public
benefits which would be in this case
affordable housing and open space so you
say here's your base height here's where
you can build if you want to go over
that that's great but you're going to
give us something in return so the
amendment was requested because over
since this has been adopted there's been
confusion among applicants and staff
alike about how to calculate the bonus
area and the requirements associated
with that so in conversations with the
city attorney and staff a few other
things were added to the
amendment the first one
is change the word bonus density to
bonus development this came up in a
discussion with our City attorney and it
came up because we said what if an
applicant and this happens what if an
applicant doesn't want to add an entire
floor of usable space they only want to
add about two or three feet and this may
come up because say an applicant wants
to put a penthouse on the top and they
can get you know with really high
ceilings and they can get more money for
that than they can for a 10-ft ceiling
so it's it's come up before and the
developer and the City attorney said
well they're not actually adding density
that's a development bonus not a density
bonus so you can't get anything from
them if you call it density bonus so for
that reason we have gone through the
entire centralistic quas standards and
we are proposing to change the word
density to development so that no matter
how high they go above the height or how
far they go over the F we still get P
public benefit for going over that base
that they're allowed to
do another one the second one is to
include exemptions so throughout the
land use code there are certain things
that are exempt from building Heights
such as um mechanical equipment required
elevator shafts cell towers chimneys
flag poles that kind of thing is exempt
from Building height so there was no
reason not to exempt it from this as
well um the other one that we Exempted
our public schools and school facilities
because they already add a public
benefit they are a public benefit to the
city so it kind of felt like double
dipping if we required that from
them this is the one that initiated the
conversation this chart which is
supposed to tell us how to um calculate
the requirement from the developer so
what we did the most confusing part for
people seemed to be um first of all the
left half of the table was for onethird
the first onethird of the bonus density
development and the right half was for
2/3 and another confusing point so we
clarified that and just you know by
adding one3 and 2/3 to each side and in
the text in the in the body of the table
and then also there was the confusion
came from this column A2 which is called
portion that seemed to be a point of
confusion for people as well so we
eliminated that
piece and lastly the last Amendment here
has to do with what do you use if it's
common that Builders will go over both
the F and the building height and people
said do you use both of those do you use
one of those if you use one which do you
use so we said calculate it all and
whichever one comes out to be greater
the floor height or the building I mean
the building height or the floor area
ratio that is the one that you use so
those are the four amendments proposed
amendments regarding um bonus
development and I will hand it over to
Lucy are we doing are we doing questions
are we doing public comment now or how
do you want to do that tonight um I
thought you'd go through your whole
presentation and then we could do public
comment okay I do have one question on
on 54 though uh on that se section B is
there a reason why we're not I mean if
they're going over Building height and
exceeding the base is there a reason
we're not uh putting those together
instead of just using the uh largest of
the two now Lucy may have to step in but
I think it's because they're not totally
separate entities so by going over the
building height you may also at the same
time unintentionally go over the F and
can you explain it
better well I I I think actually Kristen
hit on it there um that by exceeding in
one category or the other it's if you
think of it as a as like a volume it's
it's the same volume going over that's
why we picked the greater of them
because it they're not two separate sets
of I'm not doing a good job they're not
two separate they're not two separate
sets of volume they're overlapping and
therefore to count them both twice would
would be counting it twice
does that make sense as much as it can
yeah that's kind of you thank
you I had a question uh about the fee I
noticed I can't remember where it was
but it noticed that it was saying that
it was um exempt from development
agreements so uh it mentions $15 I was
curious how this compares to the fee
that is normally in development
agreements is is higher or lower and
then I'm questioned about that is then
what how how staff determined that it
should higher or lower than we generally
said in our development agreements well
uh do the development agreements do
bonuses they don't so I I don't know
there's a line item that specifically
mentions that so I think what it's
saying is that um projects that are in
areas covered by development Agreements
are not are exempt from density bonus
because there's been some kind they have
separate regulations and
negotiations and so in some cases
um for instance Costco is in the central
uh isqua area they have a development
agreement and they are
paying quite a bit of money I'm I don't
want how does that break down per square
foot I I couldn't possibly tell you off
the top of my head I'm sorry how did you
guys come up let's direct it to the 15
then how did you guys come up with this
amount that was the market rate at that
time we I can't tell you how they came
up with it we didn't write it but they
there language that then changes it
based on the market rate cuz from from a
little bit of research that I did that
seemed a little low and I was just
curious why and if there's reason for it
that's great but I wanted to know what
that was that's come up a few times it's
been asked a few times and I would have
the same question myself because we
didn't write this portion so I think
right now I think we'll keep that there
put it in the parking lot and we're
doing a housing strategy and this whole
thing is going to be Revisited so I
would imagine that we would address that
then and say is 15 what we want to keep
do we want to adjust that based on the
market rate how how does that work so I
agree that that's something that's come
up before and I I don't have the answer
but we can always relook at it going
back to 54 I was just looking at the
definitions of floor area ratio and then
the height so I'm thinking of the
situation in which uh you've got
um I don't know some portion of a floor
cordoned off for whatever reason they
just decide they're going to use it for
storage it's not going to be available
for units um but they've also um added
height to it so it's not being used for
either I mean that would be a situation
conceivably where you're both exceeding
the F and the height requirements at the
same time I mean I think there can be
situations where that would arise oh
right and that's why we put that in
there because there are situations where
that can arise and that's why we said
you calculate it both ways you calculate
the building height that's exceeding it
and then you would count the the F
that's exceeding it but then you're only
taking one and then you're only taking
the greatest number of those two so that
you're not double dipping and using
both not the greatest number of those
two the one that is greater results in
the greatest benefit to the city yes
thank
you I know it seems if if if you're
exceeding both I mean you should be
charged for both I mean to the extent
that there is not
overlap because there will be some
overlap and I don't know how you'd
necessarily calculate that I mean but it
should be a simple you know
calculation I am not good enough at
numbers to figure that out I me so
here's I I guess here's the thing and
and maybe I'm just not you and I each
probably have a picture in our head um I
cannot imagine a way where the greater
number does not include the Lesser
number so if for instance the square
footage that exceeds for height is
10,000 ,000 Square ft and the square
footage that exceeds for f is 5,000
square ft I cannot imagine a way in
which that 5,000 square feet is not con
is not within the 10,000 square feet I
guess that's my confusion is how do you
have a square footage measured on blank
height okay so that that's a great
question so um if uh it kind of goes
back to the um
point that Kristen made if if the height
limit is 50 feet and in some cases it is
um and your building is 52 feet you
would just take us that slice at the
50ft level whatever that floor plate is
and that would be the so if that floor
plate
is 2,000 square ft that would be what
the base the number that you would use
the square footage you would use to
calculate um what their fee or their
open space or whatever was um that would
be the number you would use to calculate
okay and that makes okay now that makes
sense okay
okay anything else I do have a question
okay help me understand when you say
we're going to be
exceeding base
height
and does that mean that we're going to
have if a developer wants to come in and
say I want 12T ceilings I want 14ot
ceilings whatever and it causes each
floor to eventually Stack Up could that
actually in theory
create perception from the outside a
second story or another floor so you're
actually raising it that much of a
difference this isn't this isn't done on
stories or floors this is actually done
on height so it would go above there's a
difference between counting the number
of stories because you're right you
could have a 10 foot story or you could
have a 15ot story so if you do stories
it could they could be allowed to have
five stories and that oh shoot now I
have to do math that could either go up
to you know 75 feet or it could go up to
50 feet if you have five stories you
know depending but if you do it just
based on height alone just based on the
number of feet included in that building
yes absolutely that could get it over
the base
height does that make sense so the way
this is currently worded
could actually allow a developer to
exceed base heyes from 50 to maybe 75
because of the formula that we have here
and only by giving us public benefit in
return so they're required to give us
either affordable
housing through that because of that
height and or um open space so they
don't just get it and that open space
and or affordable housing would not
necessarily be connected to the that
specific development so they could
actually create a development Elsewhere
for affordable housing or create open
space in another area if they are doing
a residential a development that
includes residential components so it's
either all residential or mixed use
which would me which includes
residential so retail on the bottom and
residential on the top they do
affordable housing that must be included
within that development so some of their
units must be affordable if they're
doing a commercial development or not
non-residential development then
whatever they exceed they pay right now
$15 per square foot of whatever their
bonus area is and that goes into a fund
and Council then determines whether that
goes towards open space or affordable
housing which does not have to be on
site okay yeah okay thank you for the
clarification that's excellent you're
welcome continue good
okay Jennifer's actually doing the next
one I was going to say I wasn't
mentioned but I'm going to do the next
one U my name is Jennifer R Woods um
there's another Jennifer woods so the r
is important um I'm an associate planner
with development services and I'm going
to talk to you about the next Amendment
which is to clarify the minimum plant
size in spacing so the reason for the
amendment is that it revises a current
flexible standard that we have in the
code today that allows an applicant to
basically manipulate the plant sizes uh
required or the spacing required with a
letter from a landscape architect
explaining what the justification for
doing that would be that's it um that
particular standard has kind of been
misused so we're revising it to kind of
put a more a bigger eye on exactly what
they're requesting and a better
justification on why um the amendment
also includes the requirement to have a
peerreview conducted at the applicant's
expense um so that we have an expert
looking at uh what that landscape
architect is proposing
and that's
it so how did you come up with
85% question grow that I back way back
when it was decided I have no idea but
it's been that way for a very long time
so
85% is just what we require they show
the plants on the plans so that we can
ensure that they're using the spacing
the appropriate spacing of the plants
and we're not going to end end up with
either big gaps between plants when
they're at their maturity or that they
are so close that they would damage each
other um so we sometimes see that um
some developers want to not pay a lot of
money and so they um use U big symbols
um sometimes we see that um some
developers want things to look very full
at planting and they will not grow in
well they will not be the plants will
not maintain health because there's not
enough room for branches and stuff to to
reach maturity so what we're asking is
that they show their plants at 85% so
that staff is able to review the plans
and make sure that they're well spaced
for the health is that how it's stated
in
the the code today 80 85% in the plans I
just read that at that uh they were
required to put in uh plants that were
85% of it the growth yeah so the it says
the plan shall indicate plants at 85% of
mature size and and basically what Lucy
was saying is when they create their
plants and they give them T us for
review the plans need to mimic what is
what it's going to look like on site
once the plants have filled out 85% of
their maturity so I I I understand that
and now it's it's just in the plants
yeah it's not just in the plants they
don't have to plant a tree that's 85% of
that would be bit I I do have one
additional question just on 1017
generally uh has there been any looking
at um the other standards in terms of uh
utilization of uh low water plants or
native plants um and is that already
included yes that the the chapter 10
which is the landscape development
standards chapter actually has specific
requirements for how much Native you use
um so there and and drw to an plants as
well uh so there there's kind of a
several sections actually throughout the
entire set of Standards but this is the
specific one about Landscaping that
required those kinds of
things here's a a question from uh
Connie Marsh uh she had pointed out that
on number two plans shall indicate
plants of 85% of maturity
size number three all planting areas
shall contain Landscaping installed
based on approved plan and appropriately
space to provide total coverage of the
landscape within 3
years had mentioned that while this is
not a change these two seem to
contradict each other is not possible to
have coverage within three years if
plants don't mature whatever that means
for 80
years so what if you have a very slow
growing
plant who selects the who who will
actually approve the plants do we have
someone that's on site that will say
these are the appropriate plants to use
or these are not the appropriate
plant so there's typically the plans are
drawn up by a landscape architect that
we review and in um in our office and um
they're kind of two separate I would say
they're kind of two separate and tense
there the 85% maturity piece the the
first part that you read off is really
to make sure like Lucy was saying that
the plants are spaced appropriately that
they're using enough plants and and that
they're going to they're going to
basically um maintain the Landscaping
profile that they're showing on the
plans which is a picture it's not what's
going to happen in real life so the
other part of that which is the next one
which has to do with what they look like
in three years is seeing how the picture
fulfills itself in real life and so we
do an inspection there's a whole process
of Maintenance period they go through
and we'll go out and do a maintenance
inspection to make sure that these
things look the way that they were
supposed to on the plants and part of
that is making sure that um ground cover
achieves its coverage that the shrubs
are alive and doing well and filling out
and things aren't
overcrowded okay so what you're saying
is after the landscape architect and and
the gardeners come in and do the
plantings we have an inspection at that
time to evaluate the plants to make sure
that they are that they are specified in
the plans or what you're saying is in
three years we send out another
inspection through go out and evaluate
the Landscaping so there's both we do a
performance inspection and a maintenance
inspection three years after the
installation has occurred okay the
performance inspection is just to make
sure things are in the place that
they're supposed to be per the
plans and if they are not
uh they don't meet the Conformity
standards how is that enforced through
something that we call a punch list and
a punch list is a technical term that we
use that basically is a list of to-dos
before we'll sign off on your permit and
let you begin your maintenance period
and typically at the beginning of the
maintenance period we collect a
maintenance Bond so that's our security
to ensure that after we say okay you've
done everything per the plans we're good
to go you if you have punch list items
You' finished all your punch list items
then you can move into maintenance we
need your bond there's a there certain
calculation that we take in for the bond
a certain amount of of um funds
associated with that Bond and then we go
through the maintenance period and at
the end of three years we basically
repeat the process before we release
that Bond but the bond is there as a
security mechanism to make sure things
are done and stay the way that they're
supposed to in the plans okay excellent
and how has that worked for us so
far it seems to be working good uh to my
knowledge we've never had to collect on
a
bond
I do have a question but I want to First
address I don't have a copy of these
public comments do you were they
distributed by staff or no uh Connie
Marsh had given it to me U I'm sure that
Connie will make her statement at the
public hearing since she's here oh um
thank you yeah yes so um since this is a
um talking about standards that affect
the development commission's uh review
of the of the of the am amendments um I
would certainly invite the two people
from the development company uh
commission to come up here and join us
if you would so care to or
not
app be able to ask questions yes yeah
you would be considered part of planning
policy I know I saw you writing things
down there to ask questions and you
might as well ask them now while we're
discussing it then than waiting till the
end
so triple triple what I get Jennifer my
question is about the peer review um I'm
curious you know you guys mentioned you
don't have a landscape architect on
staff uh it sounds like this is kind of
a something that we tend to use a lot
I'm curious why someone doesn't pull
double duty in this area and why the
staff has chosen to maybe not have a
resource that someone who maybe is
qualified to do this why why the peer
review I'm curious why we've chosen to
go this route it's pretty predominant
through uh the standard uh we keep
referring back to the peer review why
why have we made that choice to go with
that option so there are quite a few
things where staff um have just enough
not knowledge to probably get ourselves
in trouble um so you know geotechnical
review Wetland
biologists um certain kinds of Road
design we just don't have the enough
experience and frequent enough
experience uh we do have one person
who's trained as a a landscape architect
on staff I don't think he has the
bandwidth to be doing that or you know
to
maintain um sort of the staying up with
the literature and all the new plants
that that come on the market to be able
to do that and so we would um I would
assume we would advertise and identify a
landscape architect
who would provide those services for us
we would have a contract with them
applicants would be required to
reimburse the city for that peer review
um we did that um when the major
development review team in the urban
Villages for many years we um had a
landscape architect Who provided those
services to the
mdrt um in in that same kind of setting
does the city have resources to open a
position to be able to fulfill this I
realize that that we have to re re word
this but uh it sounds like there's the
need I'm curious do you mean to put
someone on staff that would be a council
decision budgetary decision I see okay
and so I I um and to sort of uh Riff on
uh Justin's Point um you know we're
we're right now have already submitted
everything for next year and with the um
positions that we have or the positions
we've requested and I just don't think
that um at this point we feel that
there's the need for someone a a
full-time need for that that position
which is when we typically why you know
geotechnical services and and Wetland
biologists we just don't need them
consistently enough to have someone on
staff now bigger city um may very well
have that but we're just not using those
Services frequently enough that
addresses my question thank you L and
for a historical perspective also I
think the Council made a budgetary
decision a few years ago to even lose
the arborist that was a long-term uh
staff member in that area so there are
definitely budgetary considerations in
that point and I have a question to
address that as well uh we're do a lot
of work in our agency do we have shared
resources we could leverage from say
bellev or Redmond or squami would be
able to fill that role for the temporary
race that we need
them well I I think I don't know I so
I'm making this up off the top of my
head I had thought about that um I think
the question is we would want someone
who was familiar enough with our
standards and our expectations to
fulfill those
responsibilities it's an interesting
question if another city I mean I will
say that when we were looking for some
additional planning resources I did
contact probably 10 different cities to
see who they used um I have not done
that for landscape services and that
would certainly be an appropriate thing
to do to find out um if there is a
consultant that they use uh Andor if
there's someone on staff they care to
share most of the
time um I know that we've shared
building inspectors when one city's been
slower and another city has been busier
but I'm not sure that typically cities
share staff that way way but it's an
interesting question we'll have to find
out
about there's going to be a lot of
building going on proposed building in
the next 20 years and it if we ever get
to a point where there is so much going
on and there is a need for a
specific arborist or landscape designer
I think at that time the city might look
at it but um right now there is
unless I'm I'm off I don't think there's
enough work for one person to to
maintain a salary on staff
so maybe in the
future any questions from our
illustrious development
commission I would I would agree with
you madam chair the uh just off the top
of my head without statistics but uh the
pace at which the development commission
has been meeting has certainly uh picked
up in the last year but uh it was much
higher uh several years ago excuse me uh
before 2008 2009 uh we were
routinely uh meeting having uh
development commission meetings with two
applications per meeting uh every month
and sometimes more than that and we
almost never have that now it seems like
there's a lot more development but it is
not uh to your point about uh the need
for specific disciplines on this on
staff uh the what we're seeing is is not
as much demand for the services here as
as there was and it seems hard to
believe but uh that is the
case Lucy are you next yes I
am thank
you
you need all those
papers I want to be prepared but
hopefully I won't need
them so I'm um covering two different
pieces first one um is a fairly
significant rewrite of chapter 14 in the
central isqua standards chapter 14 is
building design um there were several
reasons that um we uh determined that
this was uh necessary first of all we
wanted to make the standards easier to
use we discovered in using them that um
there were often things referenced in
multiple locations so in five different
places windows were there were standards
related to Windows and in five different
places there were standards related to
entries and it just made it hard for
applicants and for staff to feel
confident that they had um gotten to all
the standards that um were applicable uh
we had gotten feedback from the
commission the council and the public uh
as well as our own staff experience
where that there were certain challenges
in this chapter um and some desire um
that we had heard to provide more Tools
around design and uh we consider these
edits a an interim step um prior to have
proposed to um to the council as part of
the budget to
um uh look for outside resources to Prov
help us write um more detailed
architectural and building standards so
but that will take well into next year I
mean first of all we have to see if we
get the budget for next year and then
that work has to take place so we're
thinking that's at least a year or more
out and that um there are a lot of
building projects coming through so we
see this as um a step to provide um a
better tool while we wait to develop a
more final tool so those were the three
reasons why um we took this step um the
first thing I wanted to show you was
just the overall structure and compare
that um you can see that many of the
same categories still exist but we have
regrouped them um we found that you know
you can see that for instance
residential uses are in several places
and standards for all uses are in
several places so we tried to group like
with like and um and U make that
easier um one of the questions I had
received was to be really clear about
what things were either removed or
replaced um so these seem like the four
we didn't really remove very much mostly
we replace things um or used a different
tool but we wanted to specifically
identify these one of them was there was
a requirement that buildings with a foot
pint greater than 45,000 s square feet
be comprised of at least two
masses the a footprint of 45,000 square
fet is huge and we were not seeing any
buildings that met that requirement and
um in thinking about it more uh we could
have said you know if it was a building
of 45,000 squ ft you know the whole
building instead of just a footprint but
what we realized um in some of uh the
reviews that we have done with the
commission was it was really the length
of the building that was an issue more
than the square footage of the building
so we moved to a we've taken away the
45,000 square fet and replaced it with
some requirements related to buildings
over 50 ft in
length uh there was uh requirements
related to benches and seat walls along
25% of the facade um this was sometimes
just met with seat walls or planting
areas and we weren't finding that that
was
necessarily uh giving us the benefit
that we were hoping so we've taken that
specific requirement out and um added it
as a treatment for blank walls one of
the options there um consideration what
used to be requ it said
consider making rooftop accessible to
the public um we just thought that was
unlikely and it was a consideration and
so uh we proposed to just remove that as
a
consideration and finally um there's
something called a solar reflectance
index which has to do with the color and
materials that um a roof and there was a
specific number um in the C Central
isqua standards um and we had had some
confusion with one of the
projects and we realized in um
understanding that better that that that
requirement was already addressed in the
isqua municipal code so we took that out
we didn't want to have any conflicts or
confusion between those two um but we
did uh put in a consideration based on
the color um you know if it's visible
from above with so many Hills and people
living on squawk Mountain uh we wanted
to put that consideration in
there some of the things that we added
um we uh had these
uh standards from isqua Highlands and uh
while those are not infallible they have
been used for a number of years so we
looked at those standards for things
related to um facades greater than 50
fet in length
um the tripartite are three horizontal
components of a building uh techniques
to emphasize and highlight entrances to
buildings materials and colors and um
definitions and techniques to deal with
blank walls so we look to their
standards to give us proven uh tools
rather than trying to write or create
our
own so um th you know this is many pages
I'm not going to go through all the
specifics I am certainly happy to answer
questions uh one thing we did receive
was an uh email from the public
identifying um elements that they found
confusing or that where they disagreed
so um we took those under
consideration and our proposing seven
changes to the standards in response to
those public comments uh those were
emailed out to you earlier today um but
since many of you may not have had seen
that email we're going to go through
them tonight um that's the memo you have
in front of you so you can follow along
if you're
interested um quick question uh
regarding the rooftop uh considerations
where was that located specifically
within the
standards it was uh in the chap the
section on rooftops which I believe is
14.6
yes so if you look I think it's on page
20 of your packet under 14.6 a it was
number
three um so my my question is gearing
towards that uh why is the consideration
being removed I mean it seems as we get
into more and more of these mixed use
buildings um rooftop deck access um
rooftops uh used for um either Gathering
spaces or for pea
patches um or even uh on smaller
developments such as restaurants are
very common uh within Seattle and as we
grow and attract more of those type of
restaurants and and developments it
seems like that would be a consideration
you would want so the use of the rooftop
we weren't taking that out but the use
of the Rooftop by the public so making a
rooftop of generally available to the
public seemed um unlikely and if someone
was interested and saw value in doing
that they seemed like they were likely
to do it whether it was in the code or
not okay so that's that's our rationale
let us
know if they if uh the building is
residential um obviously it will it
could be used for the residents of that
building absolutely but it would be hard
to have somebody just decide to walk up
and and use the you know sunbath up in
the roof um so I can see where there
would be a difference in
uh in necessity to to put that in and
and and I I don't I don't want to uh um
imply that we don't think that the I
mean we think it would be great if the
public was allowed to use the roof and
we absolutely I agree with everything
you said Justin that uh the rooftop
should be available it should um be a
resource either for um sort of uh uh
Recreation or passive spaces for the
residents or the employees or uh a
separate um you know even customers but
yeah I see Jones point that uh in in an
apartment complex you don't necessarily
want random people traing through your
building unless the Builder specified in
his original plans that he was going to
put a piano bar up there right so you
know if you knew when you bought the the
condo in the building you would know
that that's going to be up there right
okay I would love to see that actually I
think we all agree get to developing
that John
so um I'll start through the um seven
changes um that uh were identified in
response to public comments
um there were
um two pieces that have existed in the
central isqua standards from the
beginning one is this what what
architecturally we refer as tripartite
construction or design you know it has a
base a middle and a top and then there
was also a um piece related to after
above the third floor you either set the
building back or you made changes in
materials and um colors and uh other
articulation uh and I think that that
we're still maintaining that but we're
not specifying that it has to happen at
the uh above the third floor because
that has been U we've found that kind of
cumbersome it doesn't really relate to
um the actual height of the building if
you have a four-story building that may
look really odd to have that fourth
floor have to be different than the rest
of the building it may not that may not
be the right place to make that a cap so
it we the techniques we think are the
right techniques we just didn't think
that specifying the third floor made
sense and the the public comment that um
uh we had received said this that the
way we had tried to combine those two
things um was not helping it it was
making more confusion so we decided to
make this edit to try and eliminate the
confusion
okay
um number two uh had to do with views
and solar access um I think that there
the public comment had to do
specifically uh with uh views to and
from certain buildings uh I think we
felt that we had spent a lot of time on
views with PPC and the council in the
last rounds of edits last year um so we
wanted to specifically reference and
Link these two sections um rather than
introduce new views
pieces um and in doing that uh we
separated solar access from views
because we thought that it began to get
too complicated having both of them in
the same
sentence this was also the should and
shall discussion that some of you may
have seen um and so that was part of you
can see some of the edits are related to
um clarifying those word choices
number three had to do again with should
and shall um also there was a question
of what what is an adjacent use so we
added the word building because um the
point of this particular standard is
that you shouldn't be setting buildings
back unless the setback is going to be
usable and Mak sense and um and that
reference was to adjacent uses so we
wanted to clarify what an adjacent use
was um number four there was some
confusion about what overhead elements
were and in looking at that language um
I think we real recognize that um that
relative to this on Gates and fences and
um establishing semi-private or
semi-public space that overhead elements
probably weren't that useful or relevant
to that so we eliminated that um and
also clarified that it wasn't just where
Gates and fences are required but even
just if they're proposed um so that that
it's the same standard in either
circumstance number
five um was a question about what was a
proportional cost color I think um so we
we recognized that this language was a
little awkward so we tried to add some
additional language to
clarify um around colors um appropriate
um proportion and the difference between
coherent and sort of
chaotic uh number six uh was around the
uh uh concerned around the word sh
should so we've made this um required as
opposed to
optional and then uh number seven was
again confusion about when we said
accept alleys and then we started
talking about pedestrians it seemed like
we were mixing things up so we took the
alleys out so that we're talking about
the areas where you don't want blank
walls in the first sentence and then
then with alleys and blank walls in what
ways you can allow
those that makes more
sense staff um in in working through
these um staff had uh identified one
clarification um that was related to
Windows um one was that we wanted
Windows not just facing streets but also
facing the public realm the reason
that's capitalized is public realm
represents Community spaces and
circulation facilities so basically the
kinds of spaces that the public would be
in and um we were concerned that um the
II uh the last one that's been edited
that there could be some confusion about
whether the the things that we did not
want appeared to be part of the um 75%
that was required to be clear so we
separated the those into distinct
sentences um with the intent of
clarifying
that any questions
comments go on um a few different things
but I'll wait okay I I have just one
question I mean um
it seems a little unclear I mean for
instance uh small storefronts that have
two large windows but then they have one
door panel window or one of their
Windows has their decal which may
Encompass more than 25% it seems a
little unclear that um we're not talking
overall percentage of Windows versus um
each particular window you see what I'm
saying well actually in our experience
so right now
uh in the sign code and I I'm not even
going to go in the Supreme Court did a
ruling on on sign codes nationally last
year and we're going to have to
undertake that um so that's part of why
we're putting this in here but currently
in the sign code you're actually limited
um to a different percentage and the way
we have applied that is to um that we
look at all the windows because there
may be a reason based on activities
inside that you want one window
that has your film on it uh for you know
we've we've had stores where they are
counting their money and doing their
business and they do not want any
visibility into that room but all the
rest of the windows could be clear so
that's why we're not doing it on a
window by window basis but rather
allowing them to do it on a a facade
basis um so going to that point I mean
say you have
uh th a hypothetical sure a CIA facility
where they they need every window
blacked out does this provide for an
exception yes I believe that um let me
just I want to get the exact reference
for
you okay so it says uh the next one I I
I says this may be reviewed by the
director on a case-by casee basis when
the security and privacy requirements of
the tenant need to be balanced with the
character of the circulation facility so
if um that's on page 17 of
41 that's up near the um top under F no
the top uh the very top of the page I I
I which would be under
d
m
and my only you know concern still on
that realm was would be to put uh
current section four above current
section three and allow the director to
make a case-by casee basis on on those
kind of issues as well again it
hypothetical the CIA coming in I I throw
that out because that's the most secure
thing I can think of yeah no no no fair
enough um are you concerned that by
um uh just construction it would seem
that that would not be something that
would be within the director's purvey to
exempt if it's sat below that exemption
all right so why don't we look at where
we're putting it or adding language to
clarify that the intent is all of the
things in section d uh
apply to even just adding words you know
anything within this section D may be
reviewed
okay Lucy I found the wording regarding
Building colors um building design uh to
be a little ambiguous I felt it to
actually continue to create this concept
of what we want without saying what we
want which we can kind of get into
trouble for um I I didn't know that this
section actually achieved adding the
word hodg Podge though I love the word I
didn't I didn't feel like it I
appreciate your concept of this this
quilt like concept of being a lot of
different things in one um but I also
didn't feel like it necessarily helped
with building color um and I was curious
um I'm I'm assuming that uh our legal
staff has looked through it and that
they found that this satisfied any
requirements that we have
uh no we have not sent this particular
section to the City attorney yet
um you know I'll be frank the color
section is the very very hardest one
there are certain things that are very
clear and very easy to say um I'm not
sure uh that there is a consensus
exactly on how to handle color which is
why we're looking forward to having a
consultant next year to help us address
that um
um I think the question for you is
whether
um you're asking or recommending that F
not be included or that it be clarified
further whether whether that u h how
however legally we're able to say these
are the things that we approve of that
we suggest um but by not giving people
these um more clear definitions um I
feel like we start to get into a loop of
not quite right go back not quite right
and that's what I was a little concerned
of specifically regarding the color
right so I didn't know how
and this is a new thing for our staff
because we have typically had either a
very specific pallet in certain parts of
town or an Architectural Review
Committee in other parts of town and um
we're frankly dipping our toe in and
trying to uh as I said provide some uh
guidance to get us through the next
period of time until we um have work
through on
a more thorough uh I'm not sure quite
what the right adjective is but
um do do you mind if I throw something
in on this oh um first of all I have a
suggestion of one change to the verbiage
because I didn't really understand
appropriate proportion
and I thought it might be better to say
color pet should be appropriate for the
material
specified so forth if that's what
we so your your new revision where it
says a color pallet for anyone building
should be in appropriate
proportion
to with color I don't think it
proportions but I thought if it said
should
be appropriate
four okay and then I I guess my
experience from the development
commission is I actually like this
language because it would give us
something to hang our hat on if they do
come in with a color palette and say
here are the four or five colors we're
using we can app Pine on it and say we
don't think that's appropriate for we
could actually use that verbiage it's
not appropriate for this and I think
developers typically are fairly flexible
on
color at that stage because it's not a
big cost item you know if it's an
architect saying I really want to have
this kind of color scheme the developers
will say look if it gets me approved to
do a different color pattern I'll do it
I kind of like the language from a
usability that's great
feedback have we actually had a problem
with
color um yes um but I I am not I'm not
eager to step into that yet
um I think there's been a lot and I'm
sorry for laughing it's just I've gotten
a million phone calls around the atlas
project at sth and Gilman there's a lot
of discussion about the
blue um and we've spent quite a bit of
time in the field looking at that with
various City
officials um I think that it has been um
I think some of the questions are not
just around the
color um but also where what part of the
building the color is on and how visible
it is from other places and I uh so I
think that color has been an issue I
just think we're not because we haven't
regulated it at this point we are
hesitant or in this way we are hesitant
to try and really dial this down in a
very specific way without more
professional uh expertise about what has
withstood legal challenges what has been
manageable by staff and commissions to
actually apply I think that's been one
of the concerns um the original Central
isqua plan uh standards avoided
discussion of color uh we just thought
that it was um too difficult to regulate
I think because of the extent of
comments we've received we feel and and
I think a desire on the part of the
commission to have better
tools we're willing to begin begin that
discuss discussion but we really feel
like to complete it we're going to need
a different set of resources than what
staff can bring to the topic and and
Lucy I I may be the only one that wasn't
aware of this but in the training that
we had uh not long ago it was brought up
and I believe you uh also referred to it
there was a US Supreme Court decision
involving the city of isqua and I
believe as I recall it that the it got
all the way up to the Supreme Court
because because the I think it was the
development commission at the time had
told the applicant that the color was
unacceptable and he said well what do
you want me to do and the development
commission basically responded we'll
know when we see it and and I think Lucy
said that at national conventions now
people will say is there anybody here
from isqua can you tell us about your
stand because it was it did get all the
way up there so it's an
extremely um challenging issue I think
for everybody it gets discussed at that
level so the original
um uh requirements for the downtown area
said anything you build in the future
will be similar to what's already there
now that you know didn't give anybody
any direction whatsoever yeah I mean so
with the background of that case I mean
I would have some similar issu with hodg
Podge being unconstitutionally vague and
that would be a major concern that it
may expose us to more litigation it
would be one where i' almost rather
leave it out rather than face another
Court challenge until we have something
that's more properly vetted um and then
that would be my recommendation on that
particular portion well and and I think
it's a good um opportunity for us to
have a conversation with the city
attorney I mean coming out of this we'll
have a month or so before we're at land
and Ure so we'll have an opportunity to
have a conversation with the city
attorney and see if uh he has
recommendations on language or whether
this should um uh be delayed until we
get to more detailed uh standards
working with the consultant yeah so as
long as it goes through that Ving
process I'd be comfortable with it great
and I would I would say again too though
we really like to have the tools of the
language that we can use and again I
don't think any developer is ever going
to sue the city go to that step in order
to get their color pallet for their
building it would never make any
Financial sense you did that if we said
look here's change these colors to this
they would say great we'll do that
rather than fight it that much and it
would really be nice to have this kind
of language to hang our hat on even if
it's not constitutionally
defendable well we'll do our best yeah I
think maybe also
adding the directors over our site for
caseby case exceptions to be appropriate
too um or would that not fly legally I
think that'd be exceptions are always
fine um as far as Case by case I don't
think you could allow a director to
caseby casee overrule without a
standard um as far
as one of the ways this could be pegged
is is to use some sort of complimentary
color pallet system
uh and then also include languages to
keep the languages to the cons
consistent with the nature of the
surrounding developments so that there
is some color that you can Peg it off of
um so that if you have a blue coming up
against buildings that are traditionally
brick red you could look at that and say
well that's not complimentary to the
nature of it it ends up um being outside
of it so maybe pegging it to some some
existing color palette complimentary
color scheme I think one of the
challenges I think that's a good I and I
completely appreciate where you're
trying to go with it I think one of the
challenges with trying to Peg it
um to existing things is as the city's
transitioning where we've been may not
be where we want to be so it um it is
always a challenge trying to figure out
what that threshold or Milestone is or
Landmark that we're
using
um and I'm not sure you
know
generally if you're reasonable and
you're trying to find a solution a
win-win solution you don't end up in
court um but that um we're not
interested in standing up with a big red
flag and and getting ourselves in
trouble so I think what we should do is
is while trying to create tools to use
in the interim to support um staff and
the development commission check in to
see if this is um so vague that it will
present challenges and to determine if
um there are language or examples that
um that the City attorney would
recommend um along in the vein of what
you're suggesting
Jus so after you go to rivers and
streams what's the process after that so
it's actually land and Shore land and
Shore um that's okay um so uh land and
Shore is a council committee uh this
package comes out uh assuming that you
recommend it um be moved forward um it
goes to the full Council who just refers
it to land and Shore at land and Shore
uh staff make a similar
presentation uh we include some of the
kind information on the kinds of
comments that you've provided um we
continue to discuss that with the
council uh the council committee and
then they uh would make a recommendation
to the full
Council time frame oh time frame I'm
sorry I think we're looking at September
the last slide um so the first
uh
first thing to look at land and Shore is
in a week two weeks okay August July the
18th is the the full Council referring
it to the council committee August 4
would be the Council committee and then
potentially back to the council for
action on September
19th Sometimes they come back more than
once to Landon Shore depending on the
kinds of questions and work that staff
needs to do to respond to the council
when is the next PPC
meeting
um I need a calendar
July be the second and fourth of July
so we will have a PC meting 71 July 11
would be the
second
Thursday no or is it the 14th and the
28th of July yeah see how much good my
meth did yeah I can't picture what July
the 14th and 28 28th okay so um there is
time for you to do a little bit more
discussion and talk to the attorney and
get some Maybe see if there's a little
bit better language so we still have the
opportunity to to vote on approval of
this before it goes to them or does it
have to be done tonight well we couldn't
move it on this schedule if you weren't
done with it tonight if we had to come
back here that would bump them so it's
it's really I and I I don't I don't
think we're trying to apply pressure to
the
commission sometimes you feel like I
think you have a sense of the changes
we're going to make and you're
comfortable forwarding it and you aren't
seeing the exact words and sometimes you
want to see the exact words and we bring
it back to you and that's a decision
that you can make at the end of the
evening based on the U you know the
sense of the commission well I don't I
don't think we've had any real problems
with anything it's just that uh you know
we don't have a definitive answer on
this for Justin uh to be comfortable
with so um you can and forward it with
that caveat of of having uh further
discussion based on that sure is all I
was getting at so that on July 11th if
you have come up with anything we can
discuss that little bit of and provide
additional information just on that one
little that's that's all I'm getting
right I also have another suggestion
that might be helpful we have why don't
we leverage maybe the Arts commission to
be able to look at some more Bolder
colors like let's take the atlas um if
the developer came forward and said I
want to paint my building this color
blue and build the atlas project as it
is uh it may not fall into the standard
the the standard schemes that we want to
come up with so it could go on to an
Arts commission who could then look at
at the whole and determine does it fit
the um does it fit the surroundings does
it comply with
the landscape that we have the the
mountainscape the trees all those
different kinds of things they can look
at that and they can make the evaluation
and make it allowed to go forward
because I like the fact that we allow
for uniqueness and colors and bold
aspects that kind of makes isqua nice at
the same time I don't want someone to
come in with a floresent green building
either so I think having that oversight
and using their
expertise and they like what they do and
they're very talented at it so I think
that would be a great idea to bring in
another commission and and absolutely
other commissions can be involved we
still have to have an adopted standard
that they're using as the basis as
opposed to their personal opinion um
from a land use perspective um it that
it's part of sort of the case law that
decisions have to be based on standards
that anyone can identify so Arts
commission could be involved but we
would still need criteria or basis with
which they were reviewing at um against
or that we if staff was uh or a separate
third party was reviewing we still have
to have a criteria or standard and
that's the criteria the same criteria
that the development commission uses
right so so I I would I don't know what
the uh uh I mean I certainly understand
your suggestion but uh the standards
that you're you you f folks are going to
come up with the changes are the ones
that we'll be will be using to make our
decisions and recommendations at at the
DC so
uh and that would be the same as the
Arts commission I mean they need a basis
to it's got to be the a decision on yeah
it sounds like we need to have a
collaborative discussion with you I'm
sorry we need to have a collaborative
discussion with you I think that's what
we're doing well you have development
you have PL and you have art right here
so Lucy I got just quick question sure
that not related to
color thank you where did the where did
13 ft come
from in regards
to the separation between buildings uh
is that a standard or is that something
that's always been there or I think it's
based on the width of the uh facility
the three block passage and the
landscape that would be provided on
either side of it and so the total
number was the um basis you know adding
up those
pieces 13 seems
so 13 would you like it to be 14 I'd
like it to be 15
okay it did I just didn't I just was
curious of where the 13 came from but it
seem to be a basis unless it's a
standard that is based on sidewalk
widths are 6 feet and planting widths
are three and a half right on each side
or you know that's what the
international business or building
standard codes are well okay now I'm
standing here and I'm thinking um a
three block passage is 10 ft wide and I
think that it requires two feet on
either side my trustee sidick here
kick a psychic kick she is
psychic no no you're right right so a
secondary through plog passage is 5 foot
walkway and 4 feet of landscape on
either side which adds up to 13 so that
was where the number 13 came
from
thank you you're welcome I do have a
couple questions is okay jump in the um
I guess one one quick comment too the
tripartite building idea I very much
like the idea of getting rid of that
three floors and so forth I would like
that sort of reconsidered over time too
as we see buildings come through and
necessitating
tripart every time I'm not sure we need
but the on item
two 1438 3M building Mass it talks about
analysis solar impact from tall
buildings used as a factor determine the
placement of the tall portions of
buildings and I was trying to figure out
what is tall I I knew someone was going
to ask that
question
um so um I looked at the definitions
there have been in some of the
development agreements we have defined
those terms it isn't uh defined in this
one um I just wanted to double check
let's see
43 can you do me a favor and look see if
you can figure out the
original
um source of
that it's the was it in the general
standards I just wanted to see if the
language was changed at
all
so I'm looking at the original um
language used the word
taller so um I think that we stuck with
our
terminology um I we did not Define it um
uh that could be something that we could
do um I believe in the rally development
agreement which was sort of the
springboard from which many of the
standards here I think that may have
been like over eight or nine
stories um so uh but because we haven't
defined that in central isqua I think we
didn't Define it here maybe something in
the future to look into and right out
yeah um another question on
144 A1 The Continuous Street wall shall
be
provided I want to make sure is that the
the issue we had with the Costco corner
and the buildings coming out to the
sidewalk is that a separate is that
under site design not building wall
design so this would be a separate
issue having a continuous Street wall or
would this require you to go all the way
out to that corner so
um there uh in chapter 11 which site
you're correct um there are several like
maybe five Provisions that relate to
Street walls so the first is depending
on which zone it is it specifies the
percentage of the
Frontage that needs to be occupied by a
building and then for um where there
isn't a building it defines um where
um uh techniques and tools for
establishing a street wall that isn't a
building so that might be architectural
elements um or some kind of fence or
wall
um
however uh you might remember that last
year around views um circulation
facilities and significant Community
spaces were identified as the important
views to preserve and to take the uh
Costco example um as kind of a Lessons
Learned
where uh streets are curval linear uh we
committed that we would um upfront
through an AAS administrative adjustment
of Standards identify which views were
important um upfront so that then we
could work the plan around that because
obviously on a curve linear Road it is
an Ever Changing Vista so that can still
Trump this language then sure can you
show me just where you are to make sure
I am oh it it was in it wasn't in the
the list of seven it was in the building
design and ground level details 144
A1 okay page 25 of 51 thank you 15 of 41
in
your 25
51 so um what I would say
um what I would say Mel is
that on a straight Street this that
wouldn't be an issue and on a curval
linear Street we would have to identify
if there was if we needed to for
instance adjust Street tree spacing or
other kinds of Street wall elements to
ensure that that Vista was preserved
great and that site great okay and then
on um building
materials
7B
um says concrete block sh comp
complimentary mortar colors and I was
trying to figure out does that mean
complimentary to the building or to the
block
itself I would have assumed that that
was the block itself
okay um and then on
eight Building colors e color blocking
is permitted and I'm not familiar with
the term okay so um and you know I I
wondered about that uh today because
um um part of the reason we put this in
is color blocking was not allowed in the
isqua Highland standards and we felt it
was a um good tool so
um and I apologize that I didn't
anticipate this I'm just going to um
this is how when we had this
conversation
um I love um typing in front of lots of
people not
clothing so um I'm I'm not recommending
any of these but um color blocking is a
technique in which uh you find
panels um so it adds a certain level of
interest in detail where you may not
change the material at all um it is um
proba you see this one here that's I'm
not saying I'm not recommending that we
do this although I'd like it um but it
is um it is a very costeffective way to
add interest and scale to a building um
so uh we wanted to be clear that that
was one of several tools but you'll
notice where um you have a blank wall or
where um we're talking about surface
detailing that would not be sufficient
to uh address the standards that we've
written in other parts of this section
great thank you yeah I also have
a it sounds like they finished I have a
couple questions also about building
materials um
7A um uh sturdy quality materials will
be
used High reflective materials may be
limited used in limited quantities
that's fine sturdy quality materials
will be used how about sturdy long
lasting all weather
materials the reason why I bring that up
uh I went for a walk the other day up in
uh Highlands and I noticed that along
the
sidewalk uh many buildings that have
fiber board is disintegrating
H and moving forward that's not
necessarily a building material that I
would recommend we do in mass quantities
one because the maintenance behind it
but also because it disintegrates very
rapidly and if we're in a high density
situation we have many buildings
starting to rapidly
deteriorate it's going to really bring
down the
neighborhood and bring down the the
right and it's not that I mean from a
sustainability perspective that's not
what we're looking for either the the
one um uh and I appreciate your language
I I think that's a a good addition um
one of my questions would be is it the
detailing of the material or the actual
material because um Hardy uh if that's
what you mean like the cement paneling
that's no that's good what I saw was
actually fiber board painted fiber board
huh I want to hear where that is so that
laminating and it's you can actually see
the fiber the paper fiber behind it okay
I think it's I can show you where it is
okay I have an idea where it might be so
thank you for pointing that
out that's no I think that's a good
addition putting that in 7D the
following materials are prohibited
corrugated fiberglass
t111 uh backlit awnings maybe
composition
wood I think that's what they would call
that okay well we'll that's where
knowing where you're uh the example
you're thinking of and being able to
assure ensure that we're referring to it
properly yeah
okay I can I can show you the details
offline great where that is located
thank
you anything
else I I have a question Madam chair for
for you and and Lucy uh it goes back to
the the tall uh I just want to make sure
that I understand what the rationale is
for the for
as I understand it let me just put it
this way as I understand it there there
is not now a definition of tall there is
not I I don't presume to speak for
the other members of the development
commission but that seems to
me to be something that might benefit
from
uh some some more detail as what Define
what is all I mean it's Beauty in the
eyee of the beholder and I it it just
seems you have to quantify it yeah I I I
would suggest that that that's something
that it just seems to me could use some
greater definition it seems like
arbitrary yeah you would like a height
orer than other buildings surround it
what would you I I don't know I mean I I
that's what I'm saying I don't it just
seems to me that the word tall leaves it
up to the individual to decide what's
tall and what's not is highrise defined
we mention it when we're discussing
um um I'm sorry what in so um that was
just pointed out and so I'm looking that
up um it's under stru right I'm on page
26 of uh 4 so um uh lowrise is up to
four stories midrise is from five to n
stories and highrise are typically 10
stories or more and um in looking at the
definition of taller you mentioned
Beauties in the eye of the beholders
somewhat I mean if you have a taller
building going in next to a shorter
building but that taller bu building is
blocking 90% of the light across that
entire property I think that might
qualify as taller for that other
property and so it may be something
where you have to look at either um
maximum height or provide a definition
of solar where it's blocking a certain
amount of sunlight in adjacent property
um that maybe two ways to look at it or
percentage ofre of adjacent buildings
yeah so again I think one of the
challenges is as during this
transitional period um the you know the
goal is to um accomodate a certain
amount of density that the city has
committed to
taking um so the question
becomes um I if it prohibited someone
building anything on their adjacent
property I think the city could be sued
for a taking so
um I I think that if the um I I
appreciate uh the point that the
commission's making and I would
recommend that the word tall be
substituted with either mid rise or
highrise because those are defined
terms i' I'd be comfortable with midrise
I think at that point um just in terms
of or above midrise or above
exactly um I like that then you quantify
it with a
standard
least okay if you actually said analysis
of solar impacts from mid-rise and
high-rise
buildings used as a factor
and in determining the placement of the
midrise of the portion above X
Stories the X stories would be what low
rise goes to was that four five
floors I'm not sure I I forget the exact
definition of midrise but if it would
Encompass everything above the lowrise
standards yeah Lucy you said was it five
to uh midrise is 5 to 9
yeah so that would get five and higher
and then any impacts placement of the
portions above four
stories so that would capture your five
and
above that make
sense you putting them together so what
I have right now is that um the second
sentence tall buildings also impact
solar access analysis of solar impacts
from mid and highrise buildings will be
used as a factor in determining the
placement of the portions of buildings
above four stories yeah and I I would
add a couple words to that uh adverse
solar impacts um you know I think if
you're
providing I mean there's obviously
always going to be solar impacts of some
sort um and then I would also add um
analysis of adverse solar impacts and
mitigation efforts
um you know if there's something that
they can do to add reflective light back
into the property that they're
affecting really what is the
impact okay I've got
that thank
you I have a question here for our
committee here uh
on
B3 143 B3
uh it states I wait till people get
to page
24
bottom this is new language was
added provide setbacks for commercial
and Retail uses only if the adjacent
uses are likely to use them or they are
necessary for security purposes such as
uh
offices so in the situation of
that what is considered
likely is not Quantified just
likely two if it's a mixed use
environment shouldn't we protect the
setback because we don't know what's
going to move in if it's going to be a
cafe maybe a bike shop hiking shop some
other type of retail that may actually
want to use the
sidewalk or sales or eating or other
types of
Commerce if we leave it as
likely and we're really leaving it up to
the developer and that may not
be best best action to take what's some
opinions could I just clarify one thing
um and I don't and I apologize that we
didn't say this up front but when and I
don't know if you you can tell this in
the copy that you have but when it's
double underline and green that means
that it was relocated from one part of
the chapter to another so it's new in
this location but it is not new text ah
okay so we didn't give you the decoda
ring up front sorry about that all right
I just assumed it
was completely understandable completely
understandable while we're at it do we
want to discuss it yeah
or am I the only
one I'm I'm always of you know two minds
about uh setbacks for these kind of kind
of uses I mean on the one hand you do
have to provide for the greater density
and putting a setback that may never be
used removes that ability um or or
forcing a developer to use it when they
don't necessarily want to I think the
developers are going to be in the best
place to determine whether there's going
to be need for a potential setback for
those kind of uses so in that respect I
think I'm fine with the language as is
person and I guess question Lucy that
would be something a developer would
come in look for this exemption in the
staff report you would aine on it to the
development commission then we would
have to believe that it's going to be
likely that there is and and that's a
that's an interesting point Mel because
there are essentially four different
tests there's um the developer is going
to propose something the staff is going
to review it um the commission is going
to look at it and the public is going to
look at it um there is a maximum setback
so in every Zone there is a maximum
amount that they could set back to begin
with um and the question is do you set
back the full amount or just a portion
or none and um I would say that it is
probably um
more common that we get some setback
than we get no setback but not in all
cases I mean I can think of projects
that have become come before the
development Commission in which there is
no
setback and how's that been a problem
for us I don't um think that it is a
problem um I think what we don't want is
that
um I think our concern is that um
typically in in a Suburban approach you
would always have a setback and more
setback is better and so what we want is
to use our land thoughtfully and
efficiently if if there is an
opportunity for it to be used and Mak
sense in just the way you've described
where we're we're setting it up to um
serve potential uses and the ground
floor is designed for retail and
therefore we're likely to have uh it's
not unre reasonable to think that some
of those uses would take advantage of it
in the very ways you've described that
would be great I think if someone is
coming in with um
uh a medical
uh let me I'm going to use your CIA
example uh but you know a server Farm a
CIA facility they're never going to have
you know they're never going to have
their windows open they're never going
to use any of that space then we would
question why are we setting back there
now there might be security or privacy
reasons and that's the kind of
conversation that we have and that's
that's what this is intended to guide as
those kind of
conversations okay I just want to ensure
that retail space
for public is protected in these cases
so but what I've heard so far sound like
great argument so okay move on thank you
thank
you I think it'll come as a case by
casee situation and what kind of
building they're going to you know
you're not going to limit the
development and if the developer wants
to build a uh use the building for a
specific purpose you're going to have to
go with that
here anything else I do have one more uh
this is
for uh section
BB which is the top of page um 23 of our
packets or page 13 of the suggested
agenda
items uh developments should implement
the most effective and Innovative uh
sustainable Green Building program
measures furthermore developments should
be or should build from the experience
of local and Regional sustainable
developments including EA project zome
and Fire Station 72 Sustainable Building
design should also address other
sustainable aspects such as low impact
development conduit for fiber Broadband
Readiness and uh project power
minimization instead of should shouldn't
that be
shall so we had a lot of discussion
about this today um because we had done
that evaluation of every should and
shall in this chapter and here's our
hesitation is um there are building code
requirements there are um optional
sections of the building code related to
sustainability that the city has
adopted um those are addressed through
other
regulations um the piece um that is
related to this is not generally
reviewed by development services staff
um what we're trying to do is
encourage um someone to do these things
uh and we had thought about identifying
that um that they potentially shall work
with the office of
sustainability um because they have much
more technical expertise um our concern
is that if someone proposes something I
can't say it is the most effective and
Innovative I I I'm not sure any of the
staff and development services would be
um uh expert enough to evaluate the
choices that were being proposed so
while we completely concur with the um
motivation that you're identifying
because that is the city's vision and
policy for itself I think that that the
way we view this particular provision is
that it's indicating those values
but that we're relying on other sections
of the code to um Implement that until
such time for instance that the office
of sustainability adopts mandatory
Provisions beyond what the building code
or the state energy codes require um is
there the potential then to put a shell
consult with office of sustainability to
identify potential projects meaning that
they could that they're at least forc to
look and see and ask and see what could
we do to make this project better even
if they don't necessarily implement it I
mean if we can make a business if the
office of sustainability can make a
business case to them that hey if you do
these projects you're going to result in
long-term cost savings um and these
impacts that are going to be good for
you as a business level you're opening
that conversation I think a little bit
more even if you're not mandating the
project itself and I'll tell you my only
hesitation is I have no sense of their
Staffing and whether they are prepared
to have to talk with every applicant
um and so I would like to have a
conversation with them before I commit
them to having to talk with every
applicant and that may be something too
where we make those conversations happen
only on projects above certain square
footages right that's true um and that
way that could limit it to those
available resources which wouldn't
overtax them right
right
Luc see do you have additions so the
only uh last thing was there were um and
and I'm not sure that we need to discuss
them but I just wanted to get them on
your ra on the uh commission's radar uh
as you may be aware the track changes
were very extensive in this chapter and
when we began accepting them we found
some typos and errors
so there are uh six of those which were
in your memo they do not change content
they either restore something that was
accidentally deleted or delete something
that was accidentally left in or correct
uh spelling or a awkward word I don't
think there's anything to discuss but we
just wanted to be overt about those
changes
coming okay so um the last one uh has to
do with motorcycle parking spaces um
since Central isqua was adopted there
has been a requirement for a certain
amount of u motorcycle parking to be
provided based on the number of uh
automobile parking spaces that were
provided what we inadvertently left out
was a um two Provisions that have been
in several development agreements where
we had done research on this one was the
the size of the spaces and the second
was credit um if you provide motorcycle
parking you get a small credit towards
your required automobile parking we have
not seen anyone take that so far um it
is at the option of the developer uh
down at the bottom you can see I ran
through a hypothetical and an actual um
project uh just to show you that uh it
might result in say even that Gateway
where there were almost 700 parking
spaces it might result in four or five
parking spaces being removed if that
credit was
given my only comment on the motorcycle
stall size is I've seen several
developments use a large multi stall
that can accommodate several bikes and I
think the code should allow for that
aspect you know if you have a um
a 16t by 8T stall that can accommodate
four bikes it should be be proportional
and count as four stalls rather than
forcing them to mark off a bunch of
separate stalls just a lot of places
have a motorcycle parking
area my hesitancy
is how that doesn't end up being used as
a parking stall for vehicles which was
part of the concern part of the push
that we had received from the Urban
Village Development commission was um
that motorcycle riders are hesitant to
take a full car space and so I I wonder
how we um simply labeling it is probably
not enough to protect it if it does fit
a full-size vehicle that's actually how
I've seen it uh is labeled as motorcycle
parking or offset in a different color
paint so that it's clearly labeled as
motorcycle parking only okay um you know
yellow paint primarily is how I've seen
that labeled so would it be sufficient
to um simply reference that um that an
applicant could propose um
combining some number of their
motorcycle parking spaces into a
combined motorcycle parking space and it
would be reviewed on a Case by case
basis yeah I think that would be okay
that would be great and that way the
director could address any labeling
concerns right and I the other thing I'm
concerned about is just where it's
located
you know if it's U motorcycle parking um
tends to be in sort of little leftover
pieces which is some of the value of it
um because without requiring it people
often won't create them they'll just
make bigger car parking spaces and then
we're back to a motorcycle taking a
full-size car space and at the same time
I don't um want those leftover spaces to
to be someplace where it would be very
difficult to get a motorcycle in and out
of you know say in between two cars and
two walls where you would never be able
to get there so I I like that idea thank
you anything
else
that's
it um so at this
time I'm going to open up to any anybody
here that would like to make a public
comment
I
hey my name is Connie Marsh and I have a
store at 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard
site B1 and I live here and uh I thought
staffed an awesome job of responding to
public comment and going through the
shells and mites and woods and all of
that because uh that's actually the
first time I had ever read through code
just highlighting the words and looking
at the hierarchy of language
specifically and it oddly made it way
easier to read how it might function and
so it an interest I may do it all the
time from now on just because then I can
read code and and see better what might
happen when it goes to be enforced um so
I I liked the majority of the language I
liked giving development commission some
tools where they can explain to the
developer why they don't like something
right now they can say well the color
spectrum is not our preference and then
they just have to let it waft into the
distance because everything becomes
personal opinion in personal opinion is
not enforceable even though it might be
legitimate and so even if it might not
be perfect language it is language that
for the moment is enough to at least
give them enough Force being behind
their words to potentially make
something better and create a community
conversation about the context of a
building within the community and that
has been lacking so far um not because
people didn't want to do it but the
tools were not available so for the most
part I think the tools I see included
especially with some of the the changes
will help not perfect but but they will
help now of course
because I'm a whiner
um I I disagree with the fact that the
landscape code works I think we just are
in the habit of giving the bond back
whether the plants are surviving or not
I've never seen the bond withheld but I
actually very rarely actually see the
plants survive
so I think that needs to change creating
a plan that has
85% coverage in the plant and then
expecting the coverage to be there in 3
years is sort of an impossible standard
because when you read the landscape plan
they have a survivability they have a
coverage they have these places where
they have to measure and it's very
detailed and um so I think there needs
to be some more accurate language
involved in those so that we can
actually get mature you know big things
planted right now we have a lot of
smaller deciduous trees and Shore Pines
in our town which don't make isqua look
like isqua they make it look like
Indiana especially in the winter time
and this may be one of the reasons for
that limited planting pallet that we see
going in all of the time um color
now uh I don't know if you remember the
past we had like four colors in Old Town
and you see a lot of them you had blue
and I think you had green and then I
think you had sort of a bricky pink
color so um it would be a fascinating
public gathering to see what colors and
Architectural Styles the city of isqua
thinks its identity is because clearly
with Atlas people are flipping their
gourds over that blue and they're
flipping their gourds over the modernism
of the building with sort of unrelieved
decoration
when it went through development
commission it looked just about like
that and it got passed through um and
now it looks pretty Stark especially the
color combinations but what could they
have said and done to change it how do
you describe what it is the people of
the city of issaqua want in their
architecture and how do you make it just
so
totally uh well not make it so
traditional you die of boredom right
right um but not so Whimsical that you
feel like you're in Eugene and we should
have a pot store every 30 feet instead
of every 300 feet right because I don't
want to go through marijuana again that
soon um but I think that's a public
discussion and the city has not really
had a discussion of that sort and I
think it would be interesting involving
the Arts commission the development
Commission because I think people at
this moment are interested um who would
do that I don't know so um the
director's
changes uh I don't even know what that
means I don't know who the director is
whether the director can designate that
to someone else and how those changes
are tracked so that anyone would ever
know that those changes were authorized
I don't know whether those changes would
then be able to be called upon to be
used in other situations and other
proposals so we do have the
administrative adjustment of Standards
process and and uh it does seem like you
need to legitimize some of those changes
through a more structured and public
process doesn't need necessarily need to
be onerous but if every other thing is
oh and the director can change it um
they can change almost anything but how
and why and what exact criteria would
did they use because we we may hate that
um in the end yet we will have no say or
control nor
visibility and I was thinking maybe
inviting the sustainability Department
to the preap meetings for some of the
larger projects would be a uh reasonably
loow impact way for them to discuss with
developers their ideas for uh
sustainable and green housing that
wouldn't be a a budget hit or a Time
suck but would at least begin the
conversation because you get Mary Joe
there all delighted in talking gibberish
that I'm sure she knows what she's
saying might just like their fires okay
thanks thanks Connie as usual good
comments anybody else want
to does anybody else want to do any
public comment see none I'll close the
public comment and open it up to you
guys if there's anything else that you
want to discuss right now we have a list
of of changes in the amendments uh we've
discussed six or seven of them and made
changes that uh you all seem to agree
with um most of them aren't major
they're more clarification than than
changing anything but I think uh staff
is willing to make those changes to help
the development commission and and make
it more reasonable I think that um no
matter what we do
tonight a year from now someone's going
to realize that no this doesn't work and
we're going to have to come back and
change it again I mean that's just the
process that it's ongoing so
um we have um to vote on this tonight
and I would propose that
um somebody not me would make a u a
motion to uh forward this to the next
person next organization that looks at
this land and Shore or whatever and
based on uh with the caveats that all of
the things that we discussed will be
changed when it goes forward yeah I I
would make a motion to forward uh as
amended uh tonight with comments and
with the express uh caveat as to section
144 A8 Building colors that we expressed
yes on the record
is there a second a
second any further
discussion all those in favor of of uh
the amendment the motion say I I I
opposed so you understand what the the
motion is with all of those and it would
be nice on July 11th you don't have to
come back and make a presentation but
just to uh give us the feeling that the
things that we talked about were indeed
included in the revisions that you're
going to make to the amendment
absolutely I think it's a great idea
just in the same way that we've been
sending things to the development
commission when we send them to you I
think it's great to send it to you when
we're sending it to the council now we
haven't been invited to the development
commission Come Along come on Madam
chair I I would like to just say on the
record that uh uh the assumption on my
part was that as was the case as was the
case
here we weren't specifically invited but
we were told that this was going to
happen we've been talking with staff for
a long time about uh about how good an
idea this would be to give us a chance
to at least sit in the audience and hear
how the the proposed changes are
discussed and what they are and I
personally would invite all of you
alternates and so on to come to uh to
any development Commission meeting I but
I wanted to spec specifically say this
has been a an extremely good experience
for me and I I hope this is not
unprecedented uh for us to be able to
come here and not only observe how the
planning uh policy commission works but
to be able to actually participate and
comment on some of this is uh to me it's
a it's a heck of a of an opportunity for
us and I very much appreciate being uh
given that
opportunity I can say I definitely
appreciate the uh different perspective
and the input that you gave tonight it
was really helpful great thank you and I
I have to it's it's been interesting to
make make comments down there but to be
up here and be able to ask questions
really helpful thank you very much thank
you well and I you know I I had a long
conversation with the uh chair of land
and Shore and I think the kind of
conversations that you had tonight are
the kind of uh thing that will be really
useful to them when these proposals come
forward so I think I think um it will be
very much appreciated by the council as
well and um ripping off what Randy said
when that when DC looks at their next
Central Isa project that will be one of
your trainings is to actually be there
or else watch it on TV if you're not
available that night to see what they do
with a code that we all work with and
change and think about and to see how it
actually lives in when a project and an
applicant come before them and how they
have to explain and talk about it
because I think that'd be fabulous
training for all of us I've listened to
them uh you know I watched them and I'm
thinking oh my goodness the detail and
the time that it takes so I know that
they all do a good job and they we just
depend on Carl to do
everything Carl has to be there no
matter what
right I only alternate now I don't have
to do and I I assume that uh you get the
same kinds of questions privately or you
know when you're walking on the street
or uh whatever that that the members of
the development commission do and it's
uh I'm going frankly I'm going to use
this in further discussions with uh
citizens about what's going on and how
did how is this going on and so on I'm
going to use this as an example of how
the process in uppercase is improving
here because this this to me is a really
a great precedent well we're all all
members of the community and we you know
see the same things that everybody else
does and this is seven or eight people
that are tuned into to what's going on
and and has willing to make some comment
make some contribution and we are
thinking about what uh the rest of the
community thinks about so all of us are
you know thank you for all of you but
now that we've done this K kind kind of
thing um if there's anything else that
Trish do you have anything else okay
with that we will call the meeting to
close at
826 thank
you thank you
Jo the mistake really like functional
collaboration
because