to the July 13th meeting of the Planning
Policy Commission tonight we're going to
hear some proposed amendments to the
it's a class municipal code and I'm sure
you're all here with interest to see
what's going on I must admit that I've
been on this committee for a number of
years and I've never seen so many people
here so welcome this I feel very I don't
know important tonight so thank first
thing on our agenda is the approval of
the minutes from last meeting do I have
a motion to approve the minutes
I noticed that my name is an on PVC
members present and I was there if they
can make the correction then we did have
a substitute record or so okay we
that'll be made changed do I have a
motion to approve the minutes I have a
correction on page let me get a second
first so I was second a second perfect
now discussion okay so I have a
correction on page eleven thirty eight
one two three four fifth paragraph from
the bottom last sentence where it says
we have enough to make the assessment on
residential office retail and hotel
retail is not supposed to be there no
retail let's say
anybody else residential office and
hotel okay so we have a correction for
the minutes do it do you want to
continue the approval based on the
correct correction
yes in a second yes so any no more
discussion and everybody in favor say
aye
aye or nay motion carries
I do want to welcome you all here it's
really nice to see so many faces one of
the purposes of having us here besides
getting comment and helping the city is
to give you the community members the
opportunity to make your ideas known to
the city and so I'm really thrilled that
you're taking this opportunity to do
this first on that we're going to do how
we're going to handle this is jennifer
is going to give us an update on what
exactly the city wants to do what
changes are in the horizon and why they
are being proposed and I asked Jennifer
to give me a two-sentence update on
exactly what we're looking at tonight I
know I've gotten a lot of comments which
I appreciate from members of the
community but some of them were not
actually on what we are discussing
tonight so I've asked Jennifer to just
succinctly start the meeting with two
sentences on exactly what we're looking
at this evening so Jennifer please start
your program all right
so the following presentation participer
Taine's - code amendment to provide
urban development standards for new
schools and government facilities we are
not proposing any development with these
code amendments we're not proposing any
rezoning or changing of the zoning with
with these code amendments so everything
that is CSS which is probably the reason
why you all receive letters in the mail
for me those are not changing we're not
proposing any development on those
parcels as part of this code amendment
can't be heard did you all hear me okay
we're probably good to treat me here for
people to everyone so what I had said
earlier in Christ did you all hear her
in the beginning yes you already repeat
no yes okay so the following
presentation per print pertains to land
use code amendments for urban schools
and government facilities we are not
proposing any development with these
code amendments we're not proposing any
zone changes with these amendments as I
stayed a little bit earlier you all
probably received a letter in the mail
for me and the reason why is because you
live within proximity to something zoned
CSF so like I said we're not proposing
any rezoning there won't be any
development on these parcels as part of
this proposed code amendment what we're
really doing is proposing code
amendments to development standards so
it's how people would develop a property
not what they're going to develop it
into so I hope that's good clarification
so just to add to that we will not be
reviewing the annexation of the King
County Island the council is having two
public hearings on potential
pre-annexation zoning for parcels within
the potential annexation area on July
17th and September 5th on September 5th
there's also public hearing scheduled
for council to take action on that
annexation so those that's that's
something else
opening but I think maybe you all should
be aware of that as an opportunity also
so with that I'll start my presentation
okay so our proposed schedule what what
happens after tonight is that we will go
to the council land inshore committee
and at their August and their September
meetings and we hope it's proposed for
council adoption on September 18th so
here is a map this map is actually on
our website now so if you go to the
public hearing urban schools and
government facilities webpage on the
city's website you can get to this map
and you can zoom in which I'm not going
to do for these purposes but if you were
within 300 feet of any of these green
properties on this map you got a letter
from me and we sent out almost 3000
letters so that could be why we have so
many people in the audience tonight
those those parcels shaded in green have
a range of uses from school sites to
stormwater ponds so there's a lot of
different kinds of community facilities
on these parcels what we're talking
about tonight though specifically is
future schools and future government
buildings so what is an urban school or
government facility so when we're
talking about urban we're talking about
for them it means more efficient use of
land more compact development the
location is also very important for
these facilities as uses need to be
close to the customers that they're
serving so and and school locations need
to be determined where there are service
gaps so there are specific places where
these uses need to go so let's use the
schools as an example the siting
standard for an elementary school is
about 10 acres and they need that to
fulfill all their programmatic needs and
all of their parking and everything else
that's required for that kind of school
quick clarifying question that setting
standard is based upon it was owning or
based
on like a typical what a school would
expect I've the ladder okay thank you
so under the current conditions I'm sure
that's all you looked around the city
you would notice that land availability
is becoming scarce or and scarce sir and
so that makes it more expensive right
yes
so an urban elementary school siting if
it occurred on a smaller property it
would need to have a taller building
they might need to have some structured
parking they might need to really
concentrate on how they use that land
pragmatically 4-plays hills and other
things so everything would be more
compact so that's an example of how a
school is finding land today how they
develop the school today so the purpose
of the code amendments is currently our
standards don't meet the needs of this
quad school district and as we continue
to continue to grow we have less land to
grow into and so by allowing dense your
development less land is needed to
accommodate the growth needs for school
and for city buildings which the
community will benefit from so for
instance if we get a 10 acre parcel but
they only develop seven acres because
that's all they need we have that three
acres left over to use elsewhere for
another purpose
so how would we apply this new code so
for new schools and new buildings on
existing school sites which we have
several in the city now under the
proposed code they would have new
standards including development
standards which are things like height
and building setbacks and impervious
surface coverage they might have new
standards for tree retention minimum
tree densities and tree replacement
standards and new landscape standards
for structured parking because those
don't exist in our code right now to the
extent that they do in another code so
also most of our school sites are
currently non-conforming in some way
shape or form and that has to do with
when we pass the CSS zoning and put the
zoning on the schools it was the schools
were already there so when they were
zoned they were already non-conforming
in a lot of different ways but only
sites that are zone CSS where the
development was specifically for a
public school or government government
facility would use this proposed code so
expansions of existing facilities fall
under a different section of the code
and they would be treated a little bit
differently so we're really just talking
about new school buildings and say
expansions that don't meet the non
conforming approval requirements that
would allow them to expand under the
current code
another clarifying question was were
kind of divertida so all of these sites
that has owned cff they all currently
could be developed as a schoolís around
the facility and all we're doing is
we're changing how its developed we're
not changing whether or not a particular
building could be built on a particular
site yes and I would just say that
schools are an allowed use in the CSS
zone correct so we don't there is no
open space that currently you cannot
build a school building on that you are
now able to build all it is you're able
to build a school that is shaped
differently generally speaking yes yes
journalist speaking okay so let's use an
example so let's let's say the existing
code versus the proposed code and if
we're going to say the existing code we
had to make some assumptions because the
existing code says that new schools are
going to develop as per the most
restrictive contiguous zoning so if your
commercial on one side and your
residential on the other side the most
restrictive contiguous zoning is going
to be the residential and so they would
develop using the residential standards
and so I picked a single-family small
lot because it's in the middle of a
bunch of the other single-family
standards in terms of the actual
prescriptive standards so setbacks
building heights and whatnot just to use
as a comparison so if we look at the
applicable codes under the proposed code
there would actually be more standards
applicable to school and government
facility sites so that would include
this COIs municipal codes which is
currently how schools are developed now
or it's the code under which schools are
developed now but in addition under the
proposed code we would also implement
the central Issaquah landscape standards
and including those for trees to
retention density and replacements and
then we would also implement the sub
area design guidelines so Old Town has
its own
- the own design standards central
Issaquah has its own design standards if
you look to the right the right at the
existing code you'll you won't notice
those other two pieces in there because
currently schools or government Silla
T's and CF f don't have to apply those
standards we're proposing that they
would so next would be the levels of
review so we're proposing that they go
through a level 3 review and what that
means is they have to go to a public
hearing to the Development Commission
and have their plans approved at a
public hearing and that would be the the
process that we're recommending
currently depending on where they're
located because schools don't
necessarily have to be in a CFS zone
they're a level 2 review there's some I
guess different existing school sites
have different land use plans that
they've developed over the years so this
would be really just for for new schools
or those schools that don't meet the non
conforming approval criteria so to go to
the development standards which are
those prescriptive standards FA are
doesn't exist in the IMC so for our
audience
can you explain what if they are and I
was about to unpack all of that so FA r
is for area ratio and instead of
thinking of a building envelope in terms
of building height and where the
setbacks are you're thinking about it
more of how the building covers the land
and how many floors it takes to cover
that land so if we have an F AR of say
one which is a very easy number to use
you would be able to cover the whole
site with one building or you could
cover half the site with two levels of
the building or you could do the math
there from then out and there's
different mechanisms by which you could
have a floor area ratio of one so what
we're proposing is that they have a
minimum floor area ratio of 0.75 which
means they have to
and however that happens 3/4 of the land
they use no matter what so it's a
minimum no it's not they have to cover
the land they have to build a structure
that's large enough that it's equal to
one third of the land yes before and if
in yeah three quarters of the land in
this case it's not but I just want to
clarify for the audience it's not that
three quarters of the land must be
covered because it's actually capped
that I think one notes captain 90% but
you can you can easily build a building
that's less than half the land cover
assuming you have a ten story building
that's exactly assuming you go up
instead of out so that's that's a very
good distinction and I appreciate that
so the maximum there that we're
proposing is two so to use AJ's math to
as much bigger than 0.75 but to is
basically covering well let's just say
you could cover half the land with the
building and it could have four floors
okay
I do math much easier that way okay okay
so down to step back step back stir a
little bit different to the way we're
proposing them so instead of being set
back from the street what you'll notice
at the very top is that we are requiring
a build to line which is similar to what
we do in central it's a quad but instead
of saying we want you to set yourself
back from the street by this mini feet
instead we're saying we want you to
build to the street by this many feet
and you can't go back any farther than
20 feet okay
in the s FSL zone so if we were going to
go to the existing code the s SSL's now
says you have to be set back 10 feet or
more from this from the street side and
then your other setbacks you see the
side and what we're proposing is 7 feet
the side in this particular district is
6 feet for the existing code rear 7 feet
we're 20 feet proposed code to existing
code just to show you some of the the
different kind of setbacks that would be
required in the proposed code versus the
existing code
so next is building height there there's
a big difference between the building
height were proposing and what would
otherwise be allowed in single-family
zones and I think this really highlights
some of the difficulties that the school
is find and trying to develop to their
programmatic needs because if you're
developing next to a single family's
owned most of the heights are a max of
30 feet so we're proposing 65 feet and
65 feet would also help achieve the
Floria ratios that we're also proposing
impervious surface is another one like
building height so we're proposing 90
percent coverage and what would be
allowed in the assumption zone of SF SL
would be 50% so half of a lot to be
covered in that instance so other
development and design standards that
would be required so we just talked
about that a little bit but how we do
design review in the existing code is
through something called the green
sheets and it's a long list of
guidelines to be followed and it's not
they're not necessarily requirements in
the code but more general guidelines to
follow for site design architecture and
things to that degree
so next section is really the landscape
and trees and there was a comparison
that I did in your packet to kind of try
and show all of the differences because
it's pretty detailed the code is for for
trees as it regards trees but to do a
very quick comparison of the two the
retention requirement which is how many
trees you retain on-site when you
develop and we we normally deal with
those in terms of percentages and we
deal in it's very mathematical we deal
in caliper inches and it's cumulative in
the developable site area which does not
include critical areas or their buffers
so if you're next to a wetland
and you have 50 foot setback from your
wetland it doesn't include any of the
wetland or that 50 foot setback
so this is really just the developable
side area so in in the proposed code
what we're saying is because we would be
using centralist across standards we're
saying that you could reduce your tree
retention to 0% however you have to get
an administrative adjustment of
standards which is a flexible standard
that requires a land use permit and it
requires a level what it's been elevated
to very very recently is a level 2
review which requires public
notification to neighbors within 300
feet and you're required to do
replacements if you can't replace then
you're required to pay into the city's
tree fund and then we will take those
monies and plant trees with them in the
city in the IMC under the existing code
the retention rate is the same it's 25%
but the administrative adjustment of
standards only allows you to reduce that
by half which comes out to be 12.5% it
still requires a level 2 review as well
which requires the public notification
so the next one is density minimum
density is maintaining it's just like
dwelling units on a property if you have
a minimum density requirement you're
required to say have 4 4 dwelling units
per acre a minimum density for trees is
to require to have in this case in both
cases you require to have 4 trees for
every 5000 square feet that you have and
it's the same it would be the same
either as we proposed it or as it exists
in the code today
replacement tree replacement and the
proposed code could be on-site off-site
or like I said you could pay into the
city's tree fund and we would take those
monies to plant trees in the existing
code it's the same thing this is it's
the exact same process
so the last one is a structured parking
landscape and very generally speaking
the difference between the proposed code
and the existing code is that it is a
more urban type of planting that we're
proposing you could use a green screen
instead of having to have a 5-foot wide
planting strip there's just some
alternatives that still provide the
green but maybe don't don't take up as
much space for and in addition we have
rooftop screening requirements and
central is to cloth we do not have those
in the IMC and when I mean rooftop
screening I mean screening the actual
top of a parking deck because now maybe
we have taller buildings and people have
to look onto that parking deck so the
idea is that you're visually screening
or making it a little better to look at
over time it's an aesthetic thing yeah
like shades to cars well and well of
course you have the shade which is
important as well so see here talked
about not any situation okay so does
anybody have any questions because my
next slide asked for questions about
anything we've gone over tonight I have
a scene we'll have a lot of questions
about the table so I'm happy to pull
that back up and you can you keep the
prior page up yes
that's what comment if you would wait
till public comment that she will be
available during public on that concept
comment to answer any questions you have
okay let's just finish
um
the question questions are for the
Commission you guys are the opportunity
ask questions there in the public
comments it's the timing thing you'll
have time I promise you'll have all the
time you need to ask any question you
have go I don't know questions okay my
question was simply it's why but how did
you why those particular numbers why do
you need such a limited amount of space
and how did you come up with seven
instead of twenty what are the
parameters how did you create this so we
did work with the school district and
they they did their own site planning
kind of experiment to try and figure out
exactly what they could whittle it all
down to and it also depends on the type
of school elementary schools are the
smallest sited school so you could get
smaller Lots for elementary schools
middle schools maybe need a little bit
bigger and then high schools may be a
little bit bigger but we worked with the
school district to try and figure out
exactly what they needed to fulfill
their programmatic requirements but then
also to try and relate it to standards
that we have that we know work a certain
way and when I when I say that I mean
they provide an urban form that would
complement the need to really provide
more compact development for schools so
one of the things is the City Council
and the school board had a joint meeting
a couple January's ago after the school
passed their bond and they knew they
were going to have to build for new
voting for new schools to accommodate
the growth that was coming and one of
the things that was part of that
conversation was how can the city in the
school district work better together to
help facilitate that need within our
community and one of the things that was
identified is our current zoning code
really doesn't accommodate the
construction of schools very well so the
ask was could the city look at revising
some of its code language to help
facilitate the development of the new
schools and so that's really what this
is is coming along saying you know
knowing that we're really trying to be
more efficient with the land that we
have the land that they have you know
how can you do that in a way that is
compatible with adjacent uses and so
that's what that's where this came from
and it's Jennifer mentioned we asked the
school district you know why don't you
propose Stander's because we don't want
to change the standards and still have
them not work for you right and so part
of where these numbers came from came
from is Collette school district yes can
you introduce yourself I can thank you
so I'm Keith Niven and the city's
economic development and development
services director so the land that the
land that we're looking to to revise the
zoning on is this land that some of
which is already owned by the school
district or is this simply rezoning land
then the school district then have to go
out and acquire a particular parcel and
develop for one of the four new schools
or boards of both so we're not we're not
changing the zoning per se we're
changing the standards associated with a
specific zoning district for specific
uses
okay yes sure yes the zone of these
parcels is not changing by everything
with this zoning we'll have new
standards specifically only for urban
schools and for government facilities
they're their standards for public
deferred standards for utility
facilities and all kinds of things and
they've got around 8 but I think to
answer your question so if the school
district purchased a property that they
don't own today that's maybe zoned
residential or something like that and
we then Rees owned it
then whatever standards would be in
place would then apply to that property
but the act of rezoning that land that's
not currently C f/c and things with the
city of of C F F that act of rezoning
would be totally distinct action by the
council that would go through its own
separate public process absolutely yes
it is
are you done yes I don't think so yeah
um what is the kind of existing adopted
policy related to this whole urban
school discussion and they're really
something that solidly says that's been
adopted by this community that says yes
we all agree that urban schools is a
necessary part of this and this is what
that looks like that's a that's a great
question
I had some slides that have those
policies on them
[Music]
here we go here's a here's a pretty big
one so here's the first one we agreed to
the Keene county wide policy displayed
on the screen this is a very long policy
and I will very quickly summarize that
while you all if you want to read it so
I will talk slowly
but basically the school districts need
to provide schools within the urban
areas so outside of the urban areas is
off-limits to them and in order to
assist them in doing that there are four
strategies which are the four orange
bullets there on the screen and those
strategies are things that the county
has told us to try and do to assist
schools in finding and locating new
school sites the one I bolded is the one
basically this is a reason why we're
here today
so it says school design standards that
reduce land requirements such as
multi-story structures or reduce
footprint while still meeting
programmatic needs so that's that's the
King County wide policy we also have
multiple policies in the Comprehensive
Plan and I'm happy to pull those up as
well that that tell us us the city that
we should work with the school district
and finding sites in co-locating
recreational uses and those kinds of
things basically the story is working
together so if you'd like me to I can go
through those policies but I thought
this was the big one this was the one
that that basically provoked all of the
policies that I'm referring to that are
in the comp plan okay so that's kind of
a that's kind of an overarching policy
that we've agreed to because we're in
King County with Seattle and Bellevue
and all those cities is there anything
specific - it's a quad that's talked
about potential sites for urban schools
and you know are we talking just about
the central Issaquah area or
you know how do we keep it consolidated
to the areas that we've identified as we
want them to be urban rather than some
of the areas that are not necessarily in
what we would consider urban but are
still already CFS to the specificity
that you're describing we do not have
that level of plan so we don't we're not
going out to find general areas where a
school could find a property that's
that's not a written map or anything
like that but we do have like I had
stated earlier we do have policies that
tell us to help schools in a multitude
of different ways and this is one of
them I think coming common I think Trish
might have emailed us when we had asked
clarify question earlier it was asked
whether or not the city has any plans or
visions on where schools are and then
the answer is no the school district
probably has some surgery to check plan
on where they think they could put
schools but the city does not have an
opinion on where schools ought to be
when you're looking at specific sites as
long as they're inside the urban growth
area they can't go outside they can't go
up to correct a valley or the whole
thing yes definitely yeah but I think
but also anything that's within is to
quote municipal boundaries is by
definition within the urban growth
boundary so there are no I think I
believe there are no parts of the city
of Issaquah that would be off-limits
from a school so to go back to Keith's
comment if the city of is a quote if the
school district bought a piece of land
that was zoned for say single-family
zones the school district would still
need to go to the city to ask for a
rezone away from say single-family zone
before they could begin to apply for a
permit for a school that'll correct yes
and additionally in the proposed code
we're saying you also have to go to a
public hearing for your land use plan so
your your development plans correct yeah
so I wanted though the school district
to take an option on a piece of property
and then and all the time and get that a
community input and then go ahead and
purchase the property they just want to
go out and buy the property
yes so I want to take it back to that
urban schools idea have we had community
input and feedback we haven't had a
meeting asking the community about their
vision of schools and whether or not
that matches with a school districts
idea of moving toward urban schools
isn't that what this meeting is I mean
this is I think I believe this is this
is the first public touch point we've
had for the zoning correct
I feel like this meeting is talking
about the zoning in a way that wasn't
necessarily communicated to for example
the PTAs or anything like that in
talking about do we want urban schools
as an idea well I don't think they at
this point time because of the limited
land I don't think they have a choice to
go into some form of urban schools and
that brings at the point I would like to
hold your the rest of your comments
because some of the people in the in the
audience might trigger some other
comments from you so I would like to
open the public hearing can I can I ask
one more clarifying question yeah you
can't believe there is a sign-up sheet
as everybody who wants to speak tonight
signed up on that sheet okay ask your
question all right so this is this is a
bit of a loaded question I'm going to
make a comment disguised as a question
so when you say urban school really you
just mean a denser more efficient school
and that's really all that the word
urban is trying to evoke it's really all
about the porn yes okay so it's not it's
not it's not urban in the sense of you
want it to be this bigger thing is the
idea that it's denser more compact yes'm
okay so I've opened up the public
hearing and the first person on the list
is Ronald and
Carol and I can't read your writing so
if you would like to come to the
microphone
introduce yourself where you live and
because there are so many of you I am
going to do what the City Council does
and basically limit you the between
three and five minutes
thank you I'm Ron Baker
I live at 716 7th Avenue Northwest and
my question is really regarding the term
other government facilities and in
particular the thing that comes to my
mind is how that might apply to
something like the recycling center I I
believe the answer is it doesn't I think
this rezone is only for schools correct
now and government facility yes thank
you
so it's a fair question
so we have a question on the floor that
hasn't been answered would you like to
sorry I was super excited I figured out
how to use the timer
what I did here recycling center
meantime um so so we started with
schools and then we said well right now
what's allowed in cff is schools and
other government buildings and so we
went ahead and just pushed them both
forward we don't have any plans to build
you know so I got into the side
conversation about well what about it's
a cemetery you know we're talking about
a five-story crypt being built there and
I thought what that could actually be
kind of cool but you know we're not
we're not talking about we well let me
say we don't have any plans for
government buildings if ultimately
that's the big sticking point for either
the Commission or the community I'd say
we can pull it off because frankly there
isn't any plans for any municipal
building period at the moment really
what we did this for with schools and so
if ultimately we want to pare this down
to just schools because that's the
consternation point I think that's
absolutely open for a conversation I use
tax your time thank you okay
204 minutes - five four minutes or five
I'm hooker hailstone I own the property
at 320 Northwest Holly Street oh and
right now I know that there is a plan to
have a bridge come across from the creek
that comes down to Holly Street there
which would be for the kids to cross and
also I don't know what they're planning
and where they're planning on putting
their parking lot and that not to
mention that most of that area out there
is floodplain which is why it's getting
condensed so much and they're going
higher which does not appeal to me right
okay that where is all of this traffic
going to be going and coming through
there I mean is it going to be because
there's one entrance into the school
there's one eggs out of the school and
if they're putting some other buildings
in there at the administration point
those people are going to be coming and
going all the time and where are they
going to be coming and going to there's
a bunch of stuff because I haven't seen
any design plan for what's happening so
I would like to see something in black
and white that I can look at and have an
idea of what's happening I don't know if
anybody can hear you so yeah well I
wanted to make sure she knows so that's
some of my concerns because we're going
to be adding so much traffic right in
there
are we going to continue with what we
have there or are we going to be opening
up other things that are going to become
a problem
well I think that the answer is that -
that is the city is going to have to do
their homework and make sure that the
kids are safe and that there's enough
egress and get out of that of the
facility I I don't think any of us have
seen plans of what they're going to do
to the administration building yeah but
and and in essence that's not something
in the way of transportation that we're
going to discuss this evening I'd like
to limit the discussion tonight just on
the zoning and what the community thinks
about the change in zoning for schools
and so I think we that question is valid
and it should be looked at in a
different concept of trying to find out
how to address expert ation in the new
they're going to tear down the
administration building right and change
that oh I think maybe I mean so so the
concerns that you have are really I'm
going to stop this so it doesn't buzz on
me so the concerns that you have are
going to be site specific for a
particular school in a particular
location like I said the school district
is moving forward looking for sites for
two elementary schools of middle school
in a high school and you know for each
of those sites when they pick one
there's going to be the issues of
critical areas and traffic and all the
other things that they're going to try
and manage on the site like you know all
of them have different play area needs
and parking needs and all of those kind
of things so until those plans are drawn
up and submitted to the city I don't
think any of us know exactly what that
looks like what Jennifer mentioned
earlier and I want to kind of go back to
that point is the process that we're
proposing is when those development
plans are prepared and submitted by the
school that they would be come part of a
public process that would go through our
development commission and there'd be an
opportunity not
only for you to express your concerns or
interest in that at that time but also
there would be we have a different
commission that typically looks at land
plans and has a different lens for kind
of commenting on that and ultimately
will make decisions on those well I had
set in on some of the stuff on the part
that's just above us and what their
process is and what they were doing for
the bridges and all of that because I
lived on this area up until 90 that I
knew most of the floods and things that
come through there and I wanted to make
sure that they had
I mean I've still got pictures of some
of this stuff that mmm was not quite so
nice so why don't we table this
particular subject I have your email
here and I will make the city will then
have it and they can get back to you and
for any further questions or concerns
that you may have that work with you
guys thank you very
yes Aries Jankowski you'll have to go to
the okay okay awesome thank you nice to
know that Fran and Bob I wish I could
pronounce it that maybe you will when
you come to would you like would you
like to cut oh you just signed up okay
okay Susan
it can use is it's kind of going in a
row so you'll know who the next one is
okay hello good evening everybody
my name is Susan house do you want my
address or just my town or address would
be another normal yes okay
I live at 195 to four southeast 24th
place in Sammamish and I fell artcards
to the clean escapes archeology store in
Gilman village and I'm a volunteer at
the food and clothing bank in Issaquah
so I have a lot of connection to
Issaquah even though I live in Sammamish
and I am very much against this
amendment this proposal and I want to
tell you why I have studied this sort of
thing a lot in my education I have a
master's and regional planning in land
use planning and transportation and I
also like to cook and sometimes when I
cook things I think wouldn't you know
this tastes nice and this tastes nice
and this tastes nice wouldn't it be fun
if it all were in one pot but sometimes
it just doesn't work out and the way I
feel about this amendment is just that I
think there are some good intentions and
positive directions such as the King
County intention to have school design
standards that reduce land requirements
such as using multi-story or reduced
footprint and I think there could have
been a lot more public involvement
before all these details got itched into
a presentation and all that work was put
into it so but the reason why I think
this is a recipe that just doesn't work
is that I have volunteered over 400
hours lately on the different potential
uses for Providence Heights in Issaquah
and there
Group has come up with smiley 53
different uses besides a school site and
the thing is with this zoning it it's
like it's like a net that's killing
whales because it it basically captures
our precious green spaces our green open
spaces in the hinterlands of Issaquah
and it also captures treat hillsides so
this this sort of zoning detail is
extremely inappropriate for those
resources they need to be kept as they
are and I think a good zoning for those
resources which would be CF - OS so
anyway because what needs to happen is
that people use the resources at hand to
make more urban style schools if that's
the interest in the broader community
but those need to be in places that are
for example already cleared already
graded just absolutely prime for schools
and that the community is interested in
and all these details about reducing
setbacks reducing tree retention
requirements increasing impervious
surfaces that are allowed those those
would be all disastrous and the height
of a building I think that needs to be
on a case-by-case basis the height of
the school because the zoning is you
know sprinkled throughout Issaquah and
those parcels are all near people who
live there thank you
my name is Linda Hitomi and I live on
Sunset Court across from the cemetery
and I didn't know a lot about this issue
except that our neighborhood sent the
information out to us to come and attend
and start to understand what this is
about and just in the last half-hour it
appears very clearly that as Susan said
that we're putting a lot of looser
zoning on all these different areas that
are quite variable in terms of green
space cemeteries up on the Issaquah
Plateau down in the city and so it looks
like what you're trying to do is meet
the needs of schools and allow them to
put schools in areas where we need them
but it seems inappropriate to spread
this within the bounds of the city and
then loosen all of these areas and make
them open for development because it's
it's aimed at schools but it also says
and other city facilities which as Susan
said could be lots of things and so I
think many of us have come here tonight
concerned that you're overlaying lighter
zoning rules in a wide disparity
disparate areas where you have green
belts and hills and ravines and creeks
and it just seems inappropriate too
widely apply this and perhaps it could
be more concisely stated that it's part
of either parcels that the schools
Curtin currently have or parcels to be
developed for schools and as you said
for schools to have options for this
area and then go to the City Council to
discuss how does that specific site
impact that specific area
so that's my two cents eight
kaitlin's odd three eight zero southeast
our street I live very close to the
Issaquah high school and as quad middle
school now and I do agree that we should
uncouple the school zoning along with
the other facility showing I don't think
that the two of them match up really
well the other thing that I'd like to
know is we're talking about all the
zoning number one would be my concern
would be the height of the buildings
because right now as high as those
buildings are they're blocking the view
that a lot of us want to live in
Issaquah four so Tiger Mountain is not a
clear shot from my house anymore it used
to be but it's not anymore
but the other thing would be that we
don't know exactly what's included in
the zoning so they've built the middle
school in the high school they haven't
added any sidewalks they haven't slowed
down the kids around the corner they
haven't added any just things I have to
do with like how is the parking going to
be monitored how is the parking going to
be watched and how is the traffic on the
street the ingress and egress how is
that all going to happen so we don't
know when we vote for the zoning how the
school is actually going to apply any
other rules around that so that would be
my concern is yes the zoning for for
being a more urban area and being on a
smaller footprint sounds great
the reality is what else are they doing
within that zoning but those would be my
concerns on that I think you'll get some
of your answers because the president of
the school board is here tonight to talk
so that's great thank you
Barbara would
that's the only name I could pronounce
Linda and please come to it I mean
that's why we're here to listen to you
well I've listened carefully
I think I'd listen carefully to the
preseason pardon introduce your so I'm
sorry
I'm Linda krumins I lived in Issaquah
for 28 years taught me is a quest school
district for much of that time and then
moved to the Seattle School District for
the last five years I was just oh when
when my husband and I built our house in
Issaquah there were no stoplights
anywhere in town they were none and we
loved Issaquah we just loved it it was
yes it was a tree city and that's
probably because there weren't too many
buildings yes but time changes things
and and it changed for us and we started
seeing more buildings being built we
started seeing more congestion on the
roads and it became unpleasant my
husband passed away in 2001 and I ended
up moving up to Mount Vernon because my
mother was sick but Issaquah when I come
back to see it it still continues to
change and it will continue to change
whether we want it to or not it's it's
uncomfortable change it can be very
uncomfortable but what we have right now
because I was connected to be is across
school district for so long what we have
right now is a real problem we've got
kids who are stacked into portables I
mean I don't I I still have friends who
teach in Issaquah
it's it's crowded it's real crowded and
it's going to get more crowded as
gateway opens and other building around
here continues to spread so I'm just
putting a plea in for the is gloss
School District I want to see something
that will help them because I know what
it's like to teach in a classroom that's
way too crowded thank you that's it
could he good evening this is is it on
I'm taking Cooper the chief financial
operating officer for istic law school
district oh and thank you mr. Navin
we're turning the light on so indeed I
come before you obviously speaking in
favor of the code amendment I have a
Technic member my technical staff will
speak after this mr. Crawford director
capital projects and to elected board
members I come before you tonight a man
frustrated with trying to find property
one that has to comply with growth
management Act and the reinterpretation
by the GMP C recently we recently sold
80 acres that were banked outside of the
UGA in winter Brook farms sold the 80
acres we had conversations with all of
your elected officials and an open
public meeting and talked about what
could they do to help us site and
facilitate the siding of schools in the
city of Ithaca wha and we said change
your codes because every time we build
something we have to have to ask for a
variance so just for the point of
reference Clark elementary ims and it's
go high school all of the street are all
up to 65 foot mark variances were
granted by the city each time
accordingly we're really running into is
given property runs between on the low
end 750 on the high end two and a
quarter million an acre for land and we
need to site accordingly and we're
looking at and the rule of thumb was
given by staff rule of thumb is just a
general OSPI guidance 10 acres for
elementary 15 to 24 middle and between
up to 40 acres for a comprehensive high
school you start to do the math on that
we have a
willing constituency a recent bond of
five hundred thirty three million
dollars passed by over seventy percent
so we have the cash to be able to
execute the deals Rama's land is very
very hard to come by competing with some
of the most aggressive and largest
developers in the whole world not even
in the United States or in the region so
I implore you to make no you're not
making take any action tonight but if
you're going to hear any testimony here
for me
battling the battling growth for nearly
15 years in the school district as their
CFO 500 kids a year we potentially would
type four schools within the
municipality that could serve an
additional 4,000 students remember we
are responding to growth we've never
issued a building permit ever that is
not our game we respond to growth and
where we open our schools full we have
230 plus portable classrooms that is the
equivalent of roughly well we built our
elementary schools just to put in
perspective around 32 so you can do the
math on how many equivalent freestanding
schools we need to accommodate our
portable growth so I'm not going to
belabor the point we need denser
development on both our existing
property and any future acquisitions
even though we'd have to go through a
council approval I'm more than willing
to answer any technical questions you
may have and I also have staff available
as needed
thank you anything and I don't think so
I don't think we are yeah
and these Steve Steve Crawford director
capital projects for this wealth school
district a number of points have been
discussed but as we see the community
and our cities continue to grow the
enrollment grows we have to find space
for new kids and we have been moving
towards urban schools although we
haven't gotten as far as we really need
to get his high was built as a
three-story building we initially
started as middle school was a
two-story and realized that we need to
compact that footprint even more it's
gone in as a three-story building Clark
Elementary is going to be our largest
elementary school but it's also going to
be our first three-story Elementary
School part of the idea of the higher
density allows us to compact the
footprint of the building allows
compaction of the overall site required
so instead of perhaps a 10 acre site
that you have for a grande ridge
elementary you can move down to 7 acre
site there's three other acres that are
reserved for other things or remain in
open space or trees or whatever
depending on where you might be it's
just a critical issue that needs to be
addressed to be able to accommodate the
growth inside the urban growth boundary
line there's just no other room to grow
land is really scarce there are no
parcels with no development on them that
have for sale signs on them and we're
really challenged and have to be
creative and have to be creative in
terms of condensing our footprints as
much as we can to fit things in where
possible another thing that the smaller
footprints allows allows us to put
schools more closely located to the
neighborhoods that they're serving
that's really important from a number of
reason a creates that community identity
provides for the opportunity for more
the students to be walking rather than
transported either by bus or by parents
from their residential areas into a more
distance school it saves the
corresponding trips
an area into another area of the city
reduces your traffic helps reduce
congestion there's a lot of things that
are good a lot of things that helps with
sustainability goals and being green
that come from reducing the footprints
of our buildings and reducing the site
areas that we need for schools thank you
Lisa
you can introduce yourself if you would
thank you okay I'm Lisa Callen I am the
I'm on the school board director Moore
is also here who's also on the school
board I'm the current residing president
of the school board and I live at three
one five three Northeast Marquette Way
in Issaquah I am an Iskra resident and
and I have a childhood in the its claw
school district so just a couple of
things I know that mr. Cooper wish
Crawford describes some of the things
that some of the questions that have
come up I want to invite anybody that
has questions about our school sites and
our school plans and our growth in the
bond construction or any of our remodels
or any of that to please come and speak
to us also in the school board meetings
we hold our meetings of 2nd and 4th
Wednesdays
there'll be August 2nd 4th and August
will be the next opportunities and that
will be before the next public hearing
there'll be public hearings two public
hearings for the City Council on zoning
which is separate than the topic that
we're talking about tonight but we love
to hear from you directly on your
concerns about things like school egress
sidewalks safety all of that kind of
stuff
and certainly any building that we do
any construction would have to go
through a very public process and we
certainly have community engagement
opportunities to talk of what the
neighbors of any change so what might be
happening around the administration
building site and what might be
happening with Holly we'll certainly
having community conversations around
that and how that might impact you and
what the designs of the egress would
look like and would love to have that
participation
it's often like with the Commission's
and the committee's and the council's
we just don't get as much input that we
like directly from the public and we
just really welcome that with regards to
tonight talking about land use codes it
really is around our ability to try to
use less land to build the schools that
we need to build so if we stick to
current codes and if we are looking for
ways to find to actually build schools
and get those cute little bottoms and
deceits for all of those 500 kids that
we're growing each year and how do we do
that the the object tier is do we have
to do we need to buy more parcels and
figure out how to do that to meet the
current codes or can we buy less land
and convince and be more efficient with
the land that we have and so hopefully
instead of the ten acres for elementary
we can look at seven acres for example
right so we're saving that land use so
just to acknowledge that I'm a big fan
of the environment the school district
is - we always try to site our schools
with as much respect to the like the
local landscape as we can and integrate
it into that as well as into the
community and also try to appreciate
community values so we want to tie that
all in so if we talk about land code
used tonight here and where we are with
that that is allows once the the code
use is defined for CFF zoning right then
whenever a school district is going for
that cff zoning we have to apply to
those rules anything outside of that CFF
zoning is not something that we can go
build a school in so that has to go
through its own public hearing process
so just to be very clear around Matt and
we respect that process and we look
forward to having those discussions in
that very public process so whether it's
open space or it should be a facilities
conversation we want to engage in that
process and we want to respect that so
we want to honor that and
I don't feel I need specific questions
but we are all here to answer those
questions specifically around land use
and then also school specific stuff
we're very happy at the side board
conversations afterwards do with anybody
and be there for that thank you Lisa
okay we have another Lisa my name is
Lisa mill Kowski
I live at 890 lingering pine lane Hetson
talus this is not an amendment about
schools it is about making development
easy and frankly sloppy in my opinion as
I said I'm in chalice in a hillside
development and we've had enough issues
with hasty development don't allow
amendments that clear that allow clear
cutting of parcels whoever it is or
allow for continued hasty development
come up with a plan that is really about
school sites if that's what this is
about make it sound like this is making
it sound like it's about schools but
it's really about more than schools here
okay it sounds real cute we're talking
about the kids but it's about more than
that really it's about hasty development
I'm a mother of three kids they're all
in this Club School District I
volunteered a lot of to school I used to
be an educator myself at the college
level think carefully about it okay
don't do it hasty now you were supposed
to check if you really wanted to speak
tonight but some of the other people
that have come up or not checked so I'm
going to go through this list just does
unitary or juni leg would like to speak
[Laughter]
[Music]
right over there charlie would you like
to speak nope
super
okay um
hi I'm Tom huffnagle we have a property
that's up against the lakeside Sand &
Gravel I just want to be clear it's
commercial right now our property zone
cannot be changed to school take away
the commercial and then the other thing
is a couple years ago they put in a
marijuana store next to us so I'm
assuming no school will come close to
that is that a correct okay happy kids
but I'm hoping they can't build school
no there's separation requirements from
the green businesses and schools and
then you know the you know that the
process is there's nothing there's no
change of Zoning so if you've got a
commercial parcel it's going to stay
commercial if the school district wants
to come and buy your property and buy
out the marijuana business and put a
school there they can that's part of
their process but that's not what we're
talking about today okay thank you
honest
someone with all the green dots thank
you
so I'm Donna Robinson and we own a house
on Northwest dogwood and my daughter
owns a house on 2nd and Bush
so we're residents of aqua and more
excited to be here the house that we
owned were remodeling
so we're becoming very familiar with the
planning department and the inspection
their inspection people and all the
requirements because we're close to the
creek so we've become very familiar with
the city policies and things so one
thing that I did want to point out to
this map is there are quite a few green
dots that if you don't kind of zoom in
on you don't realize that are about a
half a core a third of an acre an acre
two acres something that the schools
wouldn't even possibly be able to use
but if you don't limit it to schools and
I'm sorry I heard Jennifer very clearly
say that this was the schools were an
example of the code changes here that it
wasn't limited to schools so I would
really encourage the council to limit it
if schools is what we're trying to solve
here then let's limit it because it's a
slippery slope otherwise and I guarantee
you before a school gets ever gets close
to one of these other properties a
government facility a city facility will
see a solution here for them
and we'll be right back here trying to
argue it and we've lost space already
okay so I am a hundred percent I have
open space next to me they've talked
about maybe putting a play yard in there
or anything like that do it that'd be
great
I would be a hundred percent supportive
of that but this general government
facility or city facilities it's way too
broad so I really please you already had
one of your your team go oh wait what
are we talking about here so let's be
clear okay so the second thing I want to
talk about is the permeable ground and
changing it to 90 percent
we are a wet community that the city the
county washington state is requiring a
lot of work and a lot of our tax dollars
to go into us not flooding anymore if
possible there are culverts being built
for fish and adjusting things that were
screwed up years and years ago and so
just kind of take a look at that you
know articles in the newspaper and stuff
you go to ninety percent not permeable
or yeah you go to that I see nothing in
that code that's addressing where all
the drainage and you can say oh no we
have those that's part of the municipal
code and everything no my property is
required to have 50 percent
non-permeable I really worry if you are
not very specific about the code that
we're going to add to the drainage water
we're going to add to runoff and you
know look at hillsides they're sliding
down all around you know let's be very
clear and careful about what we're doing
there okay and then the last thing is
just kind of an administrative thing
when you put a link in the letter could
you test it because I couldn't get to
the map it was a completely different
address so I appreciate the letter
coming out I really do and I don't mean
to beat anybody up but let's test it
before we send the letter out so thank
you for your time I appreciate you
that's never happened before with you
people
Brian thank you my name is Brian
Weinstein I live at 285 W Bush Street
when I was in PTC sitting up there back
in 2003 I always reviewed our code when
it came to proposals that we were
considering so I'd like to do the same
here and take this up a level where we
ought to be looking at it section 18.0
1.0 3 0 purpose and intent of the land
use code 3
facilitating the adequate provision of
transportation water sewerage schools
parks and other public facilities and
services through the orderly application
of these regulations designed to guide
future growth and development so schools
check but then there's this part a bit
more encompassing and a lot more broad
section d required environment
environmental excellence by one
establishing and implementing measures
to preserve is the croisé unique natural
beauty to preventing degradation of the
environment 3 using is a clause natural
resources responsibly for requiring that
environmental impacts are properly
mitigated despite the pressures of
growth 5 recognizing man-made
constraints and 6 preserving
environmentally critical areas Issaquah
residents have made it abundantly clear
via this language that our treed
forested hillsides are a treasure that
needs to be preserved it's a measure of
environmental excellence we also
appreciate and love our schools we vote
for permanent taxes a half billion
that's billion with a B dollars to
sustain them during their continued
growth that growth however needs to be
balanced with environmental excellence
this proposal is nice as it seems to
have urban schools and government
buildings frankly when were we citizens
asked if we wanted to live in an urban
community this change strikes at the
very heart of what
we think of Issaquah rural-urban or
something in between
I have chickens that walk down my street
and reports of bears in the neighborhood
on a weekly basis and there's AG law
school district in this proposal tell us
that now I suddenly live in an urban
area I'm from Los Angeles California
I know what an urban area is this
amendment is not representative of our
code our city our values and the message
to the school district and any other
business or developers the applicant
should be you need to do better you need
to comply with the rules of the town in
which you operate if you can't comply
with our rules change your operating
procedures or go elsewhere read this
proposal carefully saying that something
will be efficient when it is reduced
minimized or taken away is a clever use
of language but in this case it's wrong
we shouldn't change our values because
they are contradictory to how the
applicant chooses to operate the
Issaquah school district with half a
billion dollars of bond money at its
disposal and our city administration
must do better
thank you it's Circuit yet mr. Casper
your neck David Kepler 255 southeast and
earth Street you received a lot of
correspondence from Connie Marsh I
happen to agree with her her analysis
and opinions we've been told several
times tonight this is in a rezone it's
not a rezone technically because it's
still C F F dash F but the criteria for
the zone are dramatically being changed
so property is being read zoned whether
it still has the same letter combination
on it it is definitely a change in its
potential use and it is a rezone I'm
concerned about the
County parcels which is not exactly what
you're dealing with tonight but there is
some suggestion about where CFF should
be up there and where CF o-- open-space
should be and where the other more
commercial is I think the map and so far
the discussion on that is is very weak
and doesn't understand the land I've
been on that land many times there's
wetlands on it
there were Springs and creeks on it
before it blew out in the camp Creek and
they're there again it's had a long
history clayton springs didn't happen
because of the infiltration from
Microsoft because Clayton Springs were
there before it's a complicated
situation the forest
up there is questionable in terms of its
health as the water table and water has
been changed by excavation to the east
and that and we got to make sure that
forests will be healthy as we infringe
upon it and the remaining trees stay
there that's the most important backdrop
we have in the Lower Valley and we need
to keep those trees in good shape we're
adopting well right now we have a
moratorium because the central Issaquah
plan isn't working so wouldn't you I
would suggest that there's written
language in the central as well plan
that's not working but here we're going
to take that language and just adopt it
for this I think that's wrong to be
taking language which we have concerns
about we have a moratorium a huge impact
on people but that moratorium and but
we're saying the language is good enough
to incorporate it on this I think that's
a big mistake
city buildings that's a whole nother
story and if we can leave that out that
must probably be good for now there is a
lot of talk about different parcels and
different things that could happen with
city buildings and the frustration the
city has with the campus's different
being spread out with plan planning and
public works being
other side of town and that there's a
lot of interest in trying to consolidate
and do something more substantial the
confidence I have in the is a Klaus
School District is an academic
institution is extremely high my
confidence level in them as a builder of
schools and impacting communities is
very low and I that's a major concern I
have and this could facilitate even more
impacts and disregard for communities
thank you you don't have to do that
after every time a couple I know I
appreciated it
hi Steve Pereira 170 northeast dogwood
Street about nine and a half years ago
when I moved here first of all thanks to
all of you for being here instead of at
the gas station and blues concert that's
going on tonight thanks to Keith for
another night and to all city staff for
another night dedicated to city business
thank you so kind of centered in context
when I bought here nine and a half years
ago I didn't have any kids but I really
like the community supported kids and
supported school districts I was one of
those who kind of cringed it more than
half a billion dollar bond but was glad
to see it passed so I'm making some
distinction though here between whether
or not this quad school district should
also have to abide by those same
standards or should be allowed to go
outside of areas and I don't think we
should I don't think the municipal
municipal building should be a blue
build either I would also add that I
think this was probably communicated
while 3,000 letters is a lot I think
this is a broader issue than just those
live with it within 300 feet of a kernel
his own cff property I think it would
have been good for the school board to
take up the issue as member Walsh
suggested is this a broader topic that
we should look at not do we want urban
schools or does the community want urban
schools but can we cite those and on
properties that are currently zoned for
them
this procedure talks about placing urban
development in places where we didn't
plan to have urban development so it is
effectively as David Kepler suggested it
is a rezone in fact if not in the
letters of the code
there were some specifics in the code
that talked about having this device and
good green coverage just have a green
kind of hiding area I forget what the
terminology is that doesn't seem to be
what is gua says is important we want
trees we want non permeable surfaces so
this code language doesn't get us to the
place that we want to be as the city as
a valid community I think it's great to
say to our school kids let's preserve
the environment let's build on acreage
that doesn't need to be terraformed to
meet those needs for all those reasons
for the reasons David Kaplan mentioned
for them for the reasons that Connie
Marsh has already communicated this
seems like a bad idea to put zoning or
put construction in places where we
didn't vision to be urban centers so
please vote no and again thanks to you
all
my name is Karen Lee I live in some way
I'm an adult I was like a resident for
many many many many years and excuse me
I think that this is a really important
issue the the other factors that are
being brought forth including the zero
sit back that ninety percent impervious
or imperious surface or whatever I can't
I'm getting flustered because I don't
like public speaking but I think that
even though it is cupressus no longer
here I think that there should be more
publicity about this in the other
community newspapers I think there
should be more community input and
chance for more people to speak so I
think that we should that you should
open this up more to more the citizens
and give them a chance to give their
feedback too it may be more hearing
isn't more public speaking like this
thank you
would anybody else like to speak this
evening
Oh
my name is Emily frite I live at 2:05
Newport Way Northwest in Issaquah and I
have children in the use across school
district and I work for the across
school district and I'm against this
proposed amendment I'm against this
proposed amendment not for anything
unique that you haven't already heard
tonight but I'd like to state my opinion
anyway for the record the opponent the
proposal to apply the CIP to areas and
properties beyond the central Issaquah
beyond central is quad is short-sighted
and extreme we must keep our trees and
protect the forested slope and hilly
forested green spaces proper planning
entails building on or redeveloping land
that is already and available or not
overly challenged by steep slopes
wetlands and questionable soils this is
standard the standard must be applied to
all development including schools and
other community facilities as a
community Issaquah values our trees and
our treat hillsides and they must be
protected
furthermore the Issaquah school
districts should work within and embrace
the existing land use codes that
represent good land stewardship and
environmental excellence so I hope I am
obviously opposed to this and I
encourage everybody to take a step back
and look more diligently at how we can
reach our common goals I work for the
school district I'm in the schools every
single day my children go to schools
here and I know about the good crowding
we need schools this is in the schools
versus trees this is about smart
intentional development that reflects
our community values thank you Mary
my name is Mary Lynch and I recited to
6:9 Oh North West Oak Crest Drive
Issaquah I sent you a letter and I'm
going to resend it because I did notice
that there was a typo in that and I do
concur or support what Connie said and
David and the others tonight I do want
to also mention that I did serve on the
central area citizens task force I think
2010 2013 during which time I spoke up
constantly a fact that that city needed
to work more closely with the school
district it wasn't until almost a year
ago that they did finally sit down and
work more closely with them but during
those times what we came up with as a
task force was some representative urban
schools that other countries and cities
are doing across the country and that
was to locate them in the central area
where we have the density to go higher
with them to even look at having schools
that might have affordable housing the
teachers could live in either above or
adjacent to them to work with the city
to have playgrounds for their
Elementary's that might also during nine
hours become more usable community
spaces because we don't really put a lot
fully utilize our parks today that we
have here those are all part of our
discussions that we gave forward to city
staff hoping that we would build codes
and design standards around that that
did not happen that's one of the reasons
why we have the memoriam the codes are
not correct this code amendments that
you see tonight as other people have
said are for all the parcels of land and
I and many of us could not even identify
what all those parcels are you said you
send them out to 3,000 how do we even
know that was accurate so until you know
what all the parcels are being impacted
how can you make an educated real
judgment I don't know how can without
informing the people that are going to
be affected this can you make changes to
it that actually lessens the amount of
Zoning and requirements on there we
already know that the tree canopy has
that the city has no real tree canopy
code the last study was done in 2006 and
that was a guesstimate so the codes are
not there so we know what a tree canopy
is
we don't have any really clear standards
that protect trees we say we put money
into a tree fund but there's no
accountability that I found that number
one how much money goes into that and
what comes out of that tree fund and
where those have planted and how it
really affects the tree canopy I hear
we're supposed to have a study sometime
this year I've not seen it but I've not
seen anything in the revised codes for
the central area plan that says that
we're going to get any revised codes or
any stiffening of requirements for that
I also want to say that I really think
that the school should be located in the
urban areas or in the central area plan
and to put schools and change the
schools and zones like for Issaquah
Valley you've got that's a residential
neighborhood that abut two Issaquah
Creek and to change the codes for that
you're not only changing a total
neighborhood environment we've just
spent how many millions on a bridge to
get to the other sides of the creek and
I was down there just yesterday looking
and there are people playing on the
other side that I could almost touch
from where I was standing on the
blacktop it is a cause alley so if
you're going to say that you can go
within the 90% pervy impervious surface
and you're going to allow them all these
variation or not variations now they're
going to be to allowable codes where is
the real public review of this because I
know I was part of the Issaquah middle
when Clark went in there and we had to
go to like two or three development
meetings and had to have large audience
comments talk to try and get some of the
things that we got to get the sidewalks
that we had up venire to get the wall
which I wish would have been on sound
absorbing wall but just a concrete wall
to protect those neighbors that are
along Front Street from the new noise
it's going to come from Clark but that
shouldn't have had to those people in
the community shouldn't have had to come
and fight to get protection from noise
and from that that should have been an
established code so what I would like to
see is nothing else a little bit Peyton
the code when it comes to schools and
other municipal buildings that they have
to play the same game to protect our
environment is what we stand for or
we're going to end up with solid
concrete throughout not only the central
area plan but if these codes go forward
we can redo any public land to whatever
we want on this code so it can have the
65-foot buildings it can have the 90%
impervious surface and zero lot lines
and that's not right so you need to look
at what the code is you need to figure
out what it's going to impact and I
would say also you know stop listen and
get the moratorium and the new codes in
place before you change this does
anybody else have any comments okay
so record I'm Jake Cooper chief
financial and operating officer for the
school district what I just heard is
that's why I believe I'm professionally
frustrated currently you don't want us
to redevelop you don't want us to
develop we have a federal and state
obligation to educate your children and
houses and schools so what should we do
where should we house them I heard to go
somewhere else
I don't know where that somewhere else
is we've been looking for property for
as long as I work for the system we've
had a real estate agent working with us
for 30 years I've sat down with every
type of municipality real estate folks
builders developers there is not flat
graded ground ready for a school to be
sited on so I want you all to think
about that very carefully this we do not
propose this a work with the city staff
lightly but it is a smart use of
taxpayer money to redevelop existing
property that you have so you don't have
to expend up to two million dollars per
acre and secondarily if we have to buy
less acreage for each school site that
also saves the taxpayers a significant
amount of money which I didn't hear
anybody talk about taxpayer savings but
as a CFO I take that very seriously and
that's why we have the highest bond rate
in the state and a higher bunnery in the
federal government on the moody side and
15 clean consecutive state audits so I
take a fiduciary responsibility very
seriously both on land acquisition and
construction I also like to point out we
have an excellent track record of
construction and building lower square
footage cost and Eve our neighbors and
so there's a there may be some low
confidence levels I don't know why our
projects open on time and for the most
part on budget unless we change the
scope or codes require us to add scope
to a project so that's my closing from
my administrative standpoint the parcels
of land that some suggest exists they
don't as a unicorns and leprechauns live
or chasing so it would be very clear
that that we have had done an exhaustive
search for you for a long and lengthy
period of time there are no good
solutions or easy solutions and that's
why we're here tonight and so that's all
I have before you go could you maybe
look quickly at this map and some of the
real hot spot parcels I think that
people are picturing maybe they aren't
something that would even be ideal for a
school is there a way to kind of narrow
this down and say not that you've done a
full study of every one of these I don't
expect that but the tricky part for us
is that my board members failed to
mention that we have two eminent domain
proceedings going on right now
so we've exercised our option under
state law to condemn property so we have
a condemnation here proceeding that
rarely has a stay on it for the
providence Heights there's 40 acres
there where we had planned to house both
an elementary and a high school so
densely developed one parcel two sites
wise land use though densely developed
we also have them in a domain on an
office building located adjacent to Home
Depot Costco Siemens we're better and
the plan there would be then to demolish
our current administration building
and redevelop that site with six
middle-school potentially because again
the unfortunately the only property that
we may be able to close on in your
future was the one we actually currently
own and redevelop and though that we
obviously it's become public that we are
seeking to potentially acquire property
on the upper area from the city of on
the Highlands bench adjacent to Swedish
for a another elementary school also
adjacent to one of the most densely
developed pieces of property in the
whole state of Washington which I hope
people that are Pro urban development
will recognize that that is a great
place to site a school though it may
come at the cost of a few acres of trees
there are trade-offs when it comes to
development so that's where I'm at
thank you thank you yep so that property
is outside the urban growth area and
we're unable to cite schools there it's
also locked up oh and a long term land
bank right the park point piece is that
what you're talking about yeah yeah
permanent open space it out it got moved
outside the UGA right so remember we are
we are forced to site in the UGA which
means if you're in the UGA it's
considered urban it's considered urban
under the growth Management Act so
though it's a clause a ever-evolving
community under state law and zoning
it's considered an urban area and so we
can't cite outside the girl's manager
line or even adjacent
we could we could no longer sight there
is a key there can we have can we have
this conversation on inside please
what I last one answer that question
what so I'm on as long as I've been here
we didn't know any property in Preston
we all as school districts were given
state sections of ground years ago when
statehood occurred those sections have
long been traded or cited schools on
they no longer exist so okay we're going
to since there is no more no one else
that wants to make a public comment I'm
going to close the this portion of the
meeting and close the public comment and
open it up to discussion by the
Commission
so anybody would like to make a comment
clarification suggestion or have any any
clarification from staff yeah I would
like to go ahead and make a suggest a
question here to our Commission um
commission members here seems like
what's missing here is a urban school
policy and I think if we propose an
urban school policy or if a urban school
policy was to be developed it would
probably mitigate a lot of confusion and
help people articulate and set the
expectations that I think a lot of
people have questions about and then you
could actually take that policy and
amend cff to that so we don't actually
have to make a modification to cff
requirements or land use today we
suggest that we have a policy created
and then after the policy is created and
there's consensus on it then you could
amend cff with the policy I
I think I disagree I think and and I
think Keith can correct madness too but
I believe the the policy that we put
that the staff is proposing for CFS is
coming after conversation with the
school district in terms of what the
schools would require to build a more
denser so elementary school and middle
school so I don't I believe that policy
we would I mean that the city doesn't
build schools the school district build
schools I think school district said hey
how much do you do XY and Z make it
easier for us and that's a discussion
here and I'll oh go ahead um this came
as a question from I believe it was you
about the policy base that this is
coming from and I listed you back you
all back several in land use we talked
about wanting to be in the leading edge
of sustainability which is compact
buildings using your land efficiently
less footprint taller versus wider we
have things in the policies and goals in
the parks element in the economic
vitality about working with schools
making sure that we're partners on
providing for schools providing for
parks we have them in our services I
mean we have policies all throughout
talking about not only partnerships for
the community knowing what the community
needs providing for growth providing for
schools loving that we have good schools
and being on the leading edge of
sustainability so the fact that there's
not one policy calling out urban schools
the comp plan would be a lot larger if
we if we were that specific on
everything but generally we work with
the schools we provide for growth we
want to be on the leading continue to be
on a leading edge of sustainable
development and so in staffs mind in the
city's mind we've got all those bases
covered when we come to you wanting to
use the land more efficiently for
schools and government facilities right
and I were maybe just schools we'd be
fine with that too you know I read
through that your answer here and I
understand there's lots of policies I
there's at least 10 and I roll up into
it but I'm also get a little gun-shy in
that we've had
he put the moratorium in place now
because policy was
articulated clearly enough and if we
created a policy for urban schools then
we would articulate exactly what we need
and what we want as a community and then
that would set the right expectations so
you don't have a collection of policies
to support the schools you have a school
policy so it's upper funnel so the grade
and upper funnel experience so I want to
just throw something out there cuz the
moratorium keeps getting bounced around
and you know I think I think when you
look at the moratorium work items it's
not about policy it's about actually the
tools to implement the policy we're
talking about architecture and urban
design we're actually talking about
strategies for affordable housing it's
not about new policies it's about
actually putting the tools in place to
achieve the policies that are in the
plan you know one of those six
moratorium items was to relook at the
visions
it wasn't about really to add new
policies it was about to kind of add
more meat to the bones of that so that
it was clearer what we expected to get
but really most of it you know parking
and you know urban design and
architecture and affordable housing
vertical makes use all of those are
actually implementation tools of the
plan and this is an implementation of
the policies that are up there now I
mean when I read assist is across school
district in planning for growth I think
that's what this is this is now you may
say this isn't a good way to do that and
so maybe we need to pick a spade instead
of a rake but this is this is an
implementation action for a policy that
exists I'm not disagreeing with you
commissioner if you think we should
craft more policies related to kind of
urban character of schools that could be
fine I don't know that that necessarily
has to come before the suggested code
revision that's at you guys for
consideration is evening in you're
thinking of policy to you are you
talking about what the school needs are
you jumping over the line from what we
as a city can do and provide and help
and what the school district needs
because they know their children they
know what they need so do you want a
policy that implements both I think an
overarching policy drafted by the school
district and a may be a task force or
some other body would help the school
district get what they need as resources
and communicate the expectations to the
community I think rolling up creating a
higher level upper funnel policy would
help give direction and clarity to move
forward right so I don't I don't see I
don't see what you're driving at I mean
we the community passed a bond so we
want so we want to build X number of
schools the remains audition okay now
you're asking okay how what's a
particular element useful going to look
like there will be a public process that
will go through a level three review in
terms of what that school looks like
what are the mitigation activities what
they gonna do for transportation when
they go to shaping all of that will
happen this doesn't prevent any of that
so I don't know why I don't not only
want to drive with a upper funnel policy
but what is it up a front of policy mean
all right so all right sorry what is an
urban school I don't think we need to
answer that question in urban school is
just a school that's a little bit denser
than a not urban school I mean I mean no
not not to be not not will be flippant
but all they're asking is instead of
building a one-story elementary school I
want to build a two-story elementary
school
and have it be a little close to the
road that's all that's happening is not
there's no profound philosophical shift
so how we're built in our schools going
on your I was always angry with that I
would disagree with that as well
I'm sorry coming in late but I think
that's a gross overstatement of what's
happening with this proposal so you so
you see this is a fundamental rethink in
terms of how we're building schools
within raising of how we're building our
community who related to how we're
building schools when you start talking
about changing impervious surfaces tree
retention when you start actually
changing the diamond dynamic of what we
set as a standard then yet you're
talking about something larger than just
making that school taller I think most
people are in favor of the comment of
let's go taller instead of lighter but a
Keith's comment about you know rake
first Spade is actually a really good
analogy for what we're looking at right
now maybe we should be going a little
more spade even a mill ground maybe a
shovel but this is a pretty large rake
to be applying to a pretty large breadth
of code I would disagree with anything
what we decide today would affect all
cff or a municipality state was not just
schools so I think before we spend more
time in your funnel can we can we go
ahead and and I think everyone on the
Commission and someone I'm in a few I
think everyone the commission would be
okay to limit this justice schools
because I think as the staff has said
there's no need for municipality and the
staff is open to being on that school so
can we go ahead and close off that part
of the conversation is anyone objected
let me go to some schools now we have to
vote on that so we're sure yeah but can
we can we go and have me have that part
of the conversation so we don't get
distracted by the non school issues and
let us make most yeah can I make a
motion that we amend this so that it
would be limited just to schools on CFF
of a second so I can thought any further
discussion
is typical that you have to do all those
in favor say aye aye aye opposed or okay
so a lot of you have a few answers from
us that we are just discussing schools
not municipal buildings on any of these
properties here I mean we just recommend
to the council so I don't know what
they're going to do but I'm right here
you can see that we agree that that's
not going to be a part of it okay so
that helped narrow
they're of the conversation I was going
to get there but you were so continuing
a conversation about what's going on
with this particular code amendment
through the schools and now you had you
had some comments so I was going to
break this down into three sections the
first of which is that government idea
there are other government sites so
we've covered that I think the other two
approaches that we need to take is does
this idea of urban schools need more
community input before we set the code
in place on this that would be the first
thing and then the second thing is if we
disagree with that idea and want to
approach these code changes can we maybe
look at them individually because as you
said maybe we're okay with height but
maybe we don't want to look at
impervious so I would want to orient the
conversation in those two ways I would
add on to that because I agree with
those things also talking about the
areas specifically the cff plots that
this applies to because I don't think
that what we're talking about for
schools should apply to some areas that
are ready CFS that I think we just said
that with the not applying to other
government right well that's saying the
government facilities can't go on all of
these sites you know these standards
that we're talking about dialing in what
would not apply to those yeah I'm
talking about is narrowing there's all
these cff plots all that green uh-huh
you know if you're Jennifer can you
toggle back to the map please
concentrate that to the areas where we
want to see these types of schools oh
you're saying basically between the
central Issaquah area versus all of s
quo within the growth boundary right
okay so that could be another part of a
conversation
III think I'll go back because I was
surprised to shop with a guy to screw
with me I really don't see this as a
major change putting aside maybe the
permeability but I don't think so I
think there may be some discussion of
whether not it was going from 50 to 90
percent I could see how that that's a
pretty material change but I don't
really see some of the hyper surgeons
and the setbacks as being some wild
rethink of how the head to school once
how to have the community wants
development to be built more on why you
think that putting put white why do you
say put that aside I know that's it as
as I listen to your comments I think I
think maybe there could be discussion
about permeable surface by any other
ones around Heights and setbacks these
these school buildings really aren't
that much they're still my community
larger than so let's talk about
backstrom because if I look at Grand
Ridge Elementary the difference between
saying you can't build within 10 or 20
feet of your property edge versus you
have to build at 10 feet in order to use
that full scope of the site Grand Ridge
Elementary the building there is built
back and I'm horrible at estimating but
I would say at least 50 feet something
like that so the idea of a school
building coming up to that edge I think
is a fundamental difference in how our
schools are currently set up and you'll
have to apologize the fact that I missed
the beginning of meeting but was I was
safety addressed as far as I mean
there's there's a reason for setbacks
especially when we think about how our
children are offloading and on loading I
mean it's kind of a zoo what's been it
pick up and drop off at a school has
this did the city specifically addressed
in our presentation how these setbacks
would affect how we move in and out just
across school district staff that
presented spoke specifically about or
they talked a lot about how that's no
impact they don't it sure that's
definitely a consideration they want to
build safe schools well obviously but
does how does how does this change of
setback affect that
I assume a studies and Don I assume that
they can tell me undeniably this does
not affect safety right did they do that
they're the ones that came up with the
setbacks so so if no change right that's
what I want to hear there's no change
with the setbacks that it would threaten
safety in any way so I'm going to answer
it a little bit differently joy so so
grandma's Elementary when the school
district so grandma's elementary and I
don't remember Steve what year you guys
built that but I'm just going to go
ahead and tell the story since I was in
the room so so the school district came
and it was a normal school at the time
that they built that facility and the
school at that time was basically the
approach that the school district had
was we put the building at the far back
end of the property and we put the
parking lot out front because everybody
drives their kid to elementary school
okay and so what we said was that is not
the approach for Issaquah Highlands and
the city and because we expect our
parents at least some of them will want
to walk their kids to school and the
conversation we had with school just at
that time sorry Steve on the story under
the bus is known that's not going to
happen but we pushed really hard and you
know Lindsay even though it may not be
right at the sidewalk that's why there's
the bus shelter and we got to school the
bus drop-off right on Park Drive because
we wanted to engage the school with the
community and not have it at the back of
a big surface parking lot we push really
hard I think it's a great outcome for
vision for what we want our community to
be now okay fast forward another ten
years and it's time to move the needle a
little bit more
I don't I so I'm saying that because
they are super concerned about safety
and they will not build a school that
has permeability because they're worried
about kidnappings you know you have
parents that come and just take a kid
and go and so that issue is is paramount
to their concern it's paramount to our
concern as well moving the building and
I don't frankly I don't know if they
proposed that set back or if that was
City staff that actually stuck that in
there
so I you know I would say that you know
that may be something we might want the
school district to come back and
specifically address because it's their
issue more than it is ours
even though children's safety is I
thought it's all of ours exactly that's
why I just I was that was one thing I
was wondering is I'd like I'd like
affirm yes this does not impact I'd like
we've done studies and we can show that
this is not this is not an issue and
checked off the list rather than saying
they're going to look at it it's a it's
obviously going to be a factor later on
down the road I just was hoping that we
had an answer right now I'm saying an
answer part they says the president
school board Steve Crawford director
capital projects for the school district
there's a zero to 20 foot build line in
this currently and that's something that
can be accommodated and we will
certainly build Safe Schools each one
particular school each site is going to
be different the building may be close
to the property line that doesn't mean
that's necessarily where kids are coming
in and out of the school there are a lot
of factors that will vary on each school
the pedestrian access the availability
of bus access cars those are all safety
concerns are paramount to developing a
safe site for kids and the fact that
it's a zero to 20 on the front is is
going to work there are other parameters
that become defining elements in school
siting we have to have a fire lane
around the building so that's a 20-foot
perimeter if it's fronting on a street
and it's 20 feet from the street the
street becomes the fire lane so there
doesn't have to be a separate element in
between and so you know this this whole
thing is basically to allow the
potential to compact the footprints the
reality is we need to build schools and
we understand that
we're being a lot more efficient we're
helping to preserve the integrity of
essa quoi by building on smaller sites
we can put them closer to the
neighborhoods if we can build a school
on seven acres or six acres there's a
benefit to the whole community and not
taking ten acres you start looking
around where on the valley floor that's
flat ground are you going to find two
elementary sites a middle school and a
high school site even if you compress
the acreage when you add the totals a
lot of land so we're trying to be
creative we're trying to compact the
footprints
we're trying to work in areas that need
schools that don't require transporting
kids long distances that they can walk
to school much more readily than then
would be the case if you put schools all
on the flat valley floor and you're
transporting kids from all around the
school district is one hundred and eight
or nine square miles it's huge but we
have core areas of growth and we need to
address those in this club happens to be
one of those but all of these allow for
the possibility to develop what's been
termed in urban school but it's it's a
school that can fit as Jake said in an
area that's an urban area the county has
determined that this place is changing
it's not the same as it was in the past
we got we're pushing 20,000 kids in the
school district I started working here
it was under 9,000 and we're growing 500
plus kids a year I'll just stop you it
was a question that was asked and we
usually if there was a question that the
commissioner asks or there's a problem
and it is kind of an unusual situation
to have somebody who is actually a
school district representative to
actually answer the question than having
to go to staff and then have staff go
to the school districts so this is an
issue that we're all concerned with and
if I can get an answer now before I have
to vote on this I'm going to do it any
way I can so is it normal no but this
isn't normal
so is there any other questions that you
guys have I know that there was some
some the 90% is still an issue I'd like
to go through maybe each of those and
discuss people's concerns because I
think we've said maybe that there are
some things that aren't as much of a
concern and there's others that may be
okay so we get that up that talks about
those differences and I apologize for
not knowing to answer this but did did
the city or the school district address
if we if we don't change impervious
surfaces to 90 percent let's say we but
we do change building height is there a
way for this for this property to be
used in a way that both satisfies some
of the needs of the community as far as
tree retention are we able to actually
modify the code and be able to actually
win both ways are we able to change
let's say and go higher than 65 feet and
be able to then not have changed the
impervious surface of 90 percent is
there wiggle room right now or is it or
is after all of this comments that we
received even prior to the meeting is
City still saying this is what we have
to do or is there is there another way
is there is there a third option between
90 and fifty sixty five and thirty I
mean is era is there another option on
the table so so which one do you want to
address first building right 90% so
impervious surface so let me say this
impervious surface is truly a metric of
drainage it really to use impervious
surface to say I want more trees is is
not the right connection points smaller
footprint doe is so yeah so what we're
talking about is as you reduce the
parcel size and and what they're doing
is they're taking their normal program
which they used to fit on 10 acres
and if they're now putting it on seven
or six the room that's left over for so
pervious allows for water to be
infiltrated in in that location right
and so part of but you can accommodate
so let's assume so right now the city
has other code provisions associated
with low-impact development which says
basically the new end PDS rules say the
first thing that you have to do is try
to infiltrate on your property so you
can do that in underground vaults right
so they could take the stormwater from
the property put it in a ball and then
have that be basically a bottomless
vault
so that it infiltrates underneath the
parking lot or underneath the parking
garage if they build a parking garage
here and so using impervious as a way to
get trees is not the right tool if you
want trees say you want trees don't use
impervious pervious to try and get more
trees it's my I guess my point because
looking at the page the minimum tree
density is unchanged by this amendment
correct right I wouldn't I mean I
wouldn't put it as more trees I'd put it
as less asphalt well and you know when
we're talking about lids liz is great
for treating on-site but I I have I had
serious concerns about the ninety
percent and that end of swaps going from
fifty to ninety so when we talk about
isolating areas and we let's talk about
impervious surfaces my question to staff
is after receiving so much really
powerful impact from the community about
this do you have a is there is there a
middle ground as the school district
saying there's no way that we will do
this without these conditions and staff
is backing that or is there some type of
option on the board where we say let's
we can we can all win we can actually
not have 90s sixty five we can not have
the proposed code but we can change the
existing code to make a harmony is what
my question is def so the answer is that
we're here talking about this and trying
to come up with proposed standards that
make sense if the Commission wants to
ratchet down the impervious level from
what staffs recommendation is you know
then then
deal with that the way we deal with that
later you know and and so the way that
plays out it's like for example we had
that conversation about structured
parking you know at the end of the day
the administration agreed with the
Commission's recommendation coming out
of that and so what went forward to the
council for consideration was basically
a unified position from the
administration and Commission that's
great when that happens it doesn't have
to happen that way if for example the
Commission feels really strongly about
the pervious impervious what I would
tell you before you kind of stick a flag
in the ground on this is you know the
Highlands has a hundred percent
impervious allowance it doesn't mean
that just because you allow that that's
what happens on the site
it means they could right and so part of
what I heard you say commissioner is
yeah but if I give them a hundred
percent impervious I don't want to be
the result that it all ends up being a
paved surface parking lot right because
that seems like that's a bad outcome for
the community to allow that but then get
something that was unintended so part of
I guess if that's the concern then let's
talk about how we don't have that happen
and there might be some ideas to get
that taken care of without necessarily
just a watering down pervious level but
you know basically moving moving that
from ninety I do believe that when
you're talking about a more urban site
plan and you know it's hard because we
don't necessarily have any specific
sites we're talking about so it's hard
to using because I want to give an
example and say okay on this particular
site if they end up only buying this
much land and the rest of it which right
now might be undeveloped there might be
a residential maybe a couple
single-family homes well now if those
can stay single-family homes and the
school gets a lot smaller well from an
overall pervious impervious perspective
maybe you're getting to that same spot
but just in a different way because the
schools taking down less that's the
thing that you know that's what we need
to talk about is you know what how does
it really play out at the end of the day
because
because I think that that's a great
thing to keep in mind is the financial
impact on the school district and that
for every percent of permeable land that
you require
that's just more land the school has to
go and purchase because because because
assuming that you've maximized your
building I build structured parking I
think the school district needs to buy
even more land in order to hit a
particular permeable threshold or
impermeable threshold I think the other
thing to consider is in the school
districts letter how I think it was that
in our packet how they talked about the
turf the fact that if they put out turf
then that becomes impervious so it's not
necessarily parking lots it may be you
have green space that green eyes if you
have like a playground that has like
gravel or whatever that still treated as
umber be it most certainly is yes yeah
or they think once you would still
consider that open space from an
aesthetic standpoint it's not it's
impermeable a drainage standpoint I
personally disagree with that but that's
them no so I understand that everybody
here seems to have a different flavor of
what they think should be in this
proposal that's why I think a policy
number arching policy is so important
because it will help us iron out all the
differences that we have I think of all
the differences that would be out there
in the community and it would help me it
would give clarity to the school
district and they would have a voice in
what they need and I think the ultimate
benefit to this would optimize the
ultimate solution right so they have a
set of proto set of things that they
need in this plan and we're looking at
this and we can't even agree on 90%
impervious versus the setbacks then you
have tree density there's too many
factors in this a policy would help set
the vision and then the code
come in to back it up we don't have that
so we don't know what the vision is I
still think I disagree I think I think
what myself ones enjoys are arguing
about are the far the particular metrics
and the tools that we want to use I
think I think the overarching policies
they're there they're intentionally
vague because they don't go and they
don't specify percentage of permeable I
think the policies are there you know I
always say this to you Ron I really
appreciate your approach I agree it's a
little cart before the horse but
unfortunately we don't have we are not
as that you in the situation to be able
to kick it back to staff and say see
what you do in six months well I would
love because because we have an
obligation to the community to move
forward so even if we make a decision
that says this isn't the right thing and
we don't want to move forward that's a
stronger statement and saying we need to
have more large-scale policy in place
because we always talk about the teeth
is in the code we have the opportunity
to give the teeth if we think that this
isn't the right way to manage the
community then this is our chance to
tell staff can you tell council that but
to delay and is to me is more of a
fallback I get the impulse to say we
want more of our ducks in a row carp are
horse I love the passion but I don't
know that that's really a realistic
option for us so all right let's look at
it from a time standpoint when we
purchase this King County Island they
can assign it to whatever land use code
that they want cff right so we're there
a long way sorry I need do you mind I
just don't want to make sure to keep you
is it you concur with that that any any
any code can be assigned to the to the
annexed so that's part of the public
conversation so the property that we own
that we're annexing we will propose
whatever zoning we could propose
residential zoning on that property if
we wanted to so this is why we have a
it's part of a public conversation is
what should that zoning be and why and
that's that's what's starting next week
on Monday right that's not this
conversation this conversation has no
impact on that island so from a time
standpoint I was trying to separate yet
- so from
and the school district doesn't have a
school to build today so if we kick this
back to Landon Shore and say help us put
together a vision of policy for urban
schools
we're not delaying anything sure
well they cannot go out into the
community and spend time resources to
find property they can't do that until
they know what they are allowed to build
and where they can put it so what
property are we currently buying today
aside from the the parcels that we are
currently in in a stage of acquisition I
think I think we're on I think what
you're asking for is you want to see
evidence that making action on CFS now
would facilitate specific action by the
school district in the short term that
what you're asking no no no what I'm
saying is if we if we lose your theft
code the way it is today yeah it affects
nothing within the near future that's
that that's the same thing that I just
said so if we tell if we want a vision
to help us iron out what we want as a
community in our schools that's smart
right because we have a collection of
mishmash policies putting together and
we don't even know what that looks like
so why wouldn't we want to have a policy
we do so I we do we want it what I mean
this is one thing that I think all of us
came across when we looked our packet
what's an urban school what is Issaquah
say that we want our schools to look
like so what I think that what you what
we should do is make a proposal staff to
say we'd like to request that we meet
with land ensure that we form this
policy but that's a separate discussion
from what we're doing today and asking
for to have more clarity in the code and
though and Trish specifically addressed
if we have these for every code our code
would be even longer if we have this as
policy statements it would be even
longer but if this is something that you
feel is a priority then staff can do
that so what we request is that this
discussion of forming that policy and
having that moves continues to move
forward it just can't I don't know that
I agree that it should delay our
decision about
today I'm not saying played the decision
tonight about cff we can vote on that
I'm saying though is before we think
about that we should probably create a
recommendation to City Council or Landon
Shore to come up with a policy
I almost design yeah yeah I like I like
I like the way Joyce said so how about
have a wait let me finish and leaders
please so that gives us we need a policy
I like that I I agree with your
statement I agree that we need we need
actual policy to help guide both the
school district and a city to be able to
say what what do schools look like what
orbán schools look like I agree with
that statement so we could make two we
could do two things tonight we can vote
on this
the CFF and propose a recommendation to
Landon Shore Inn or City Council to
create a urban school policy okay i'm
that the commission sends a request to
staff to i would say rather than a
policy rubberman scoids they made maybe
to define what the city's vision is on
urban school fine and create a live
living and changeable documents yep but
just a buh-buh-buh but to put a little
more substance and definition around
urban school I would second that okay
more discussion on that potato what is
it exactly are you looking for I think
there needs to be a community
conversation between community members
the school district and the city on what
the joint definition is of an urban
school and whether that is appropriate
for all areas of us how do you think
that that has already occurred around
the process I they have I think I think
it's in process and process of doing
that already
so is like I don't know the value of
requesting them doing something that
they're already doing so then that would
be the at the decision of landing Shore
because it's what we do is just a
recommendation that's true so if we set
recommendation to land inshore in our
City Council and they they can always
ignore I wanted to land inshore
conversation the other day that was
talking about this annexation and they
had the same questions about what is in
urban school have we discussed that
before and so I believe there is a need
for a community conversation I do too
especially I watch the land in short too
and I was surprised land ashore was
given a different document that we were
from the superintendent I don't have it
in front of me two dates they had a huge
list of conditions that were not
changeable for what they needed to have
conditions on the site and I think that
some of those things would actually draw
sharp contrast in the community and so
by having a policy in place would help
guide our school district to be able to
say what we do and do not want for this
very fundamental thing so it was
actually from that letter that that's
fit was provided to land in Shore I
believe was from the superintendent was
very specific about what they considered
to be non-negotiable for what they
needed pretty blanket statements as well
so I think by having something in place
we are able to communicate to the school
district this is what we think is
appropriate rather than being a little
more vague as it is right now so there
is a is a motion on the floor and would
you restate your motion Joyce I think
you can you can have to get a better
than I can
I motion and now you'll have before I
motion
I believe our motion is actually as to
the city and not to land in Shore or is
it actually that we need Council to
designate a work session we motion to
plan I would a splendid char is the City
Council so I what I question is is
actually on a staff it was because it
was the public discussion it's not
necessarily well that while a form of
the discussion can happen in in
commissions it may also be happening in
in public hearings it may it may be
happening in other venues as well so
what
what I'd like to see is how do i who do
i direct this to and is it staff or is
it counsel so I guess it depends on what
it is so if it's a trailer for a either
for recommendation tonight then you add
it onto your recommendation if it's if
the Commission is not going to make a
recommendation because they think that
this other thing needs to happen then
your recommendation is to basically not
take action on the proposed code
amendment until that happens right so it
depends on what you want to do and
personally against the last one that is
not what I think we need to do what I
think that we want to do is add a motion
that says that the DES p.m. since it as
a commission we would like to have
further discussion and to have a living
document created that specifies out the
definition and the details of what an
urban school is what that looks like in
different areas but a recommendation
okay yeah to proceed with this which
will be sent to I would assume it would
be sent to Landon Shorin City Council it
City Council it would be the City
Council yeah it would be making this as
long as this does this help satisfy some
of what are your pointers yeah no I'm
how exactly what you said I think is
exactly what you said okay but we are
still going to vote on what is going on
tonight so let's clear this off of this
table here so we have a motion and also
give us a second there's this two second
sale with rustic and no further
discussion so all those in favor say aye
aye aye
motion carries that we are going to
proceed to recommend to the City Council
with every further discussion on with
the school district and the community to
make sure that the school district knows
what the community wants in their
schools based on what the waiting we're
trying to design all this great visa
because so the discussion will follow
now let's go back to this yes
thing is there still questions about and
I think the height the term is
determined by the size of the property
I mean you they're going to build
schools for 500 kids and so you're going
to have to either go up or have to buy a
lot of land which is out of the question
at this point in time so the height
doesn't affect us I are we able to
increase the height no so right now I
believe that the height factor is
somewhat L over elevator driven so you
can do three storeys and an auditorium
without an elevator you go higher than
that and then it becomes elevators you
can 65 is enough for three storeys
Moyna oh yes right now 65 feet is they
can do they can PI do four storeys with
65 feet and I remember a problem with
the 65 feet okay the other thing is the
nut affects your ear you only have so
much land so you have a minimum amount
of setbacks understanding that the
schools are going to go out and design
the property that is offer safety for
the kids where the classes go everything
is going to be a community based
decision at that point in time so you
are you happy with the possibility of
those small setbacks not that they're
going to be there they could be bigger
they it also one thing that you guys
heard is and and again I think this one
of all the things we're talking about
you know this one's probably the least
concerning for me personally so you
heard the school district say they put a
fire lane around the building right and
that's and fire lane 20 feet so even
though right now it's saying seven foot
side yard seven foot rear that isn't
going to happen right so if if the
Commission has concerns about the lack
of yard depth and you wanted to increase
that to 20 I don't know that that would
cause a problem for them and I'm not
sure it would cause a problem for the
administration sounds like a win-win
then no ifs well
there it's automatic that they need a
twenty-foot why are we yeah why not -
because the 20 foot as they said could
come in the form of a street it could I
mean if if you know if they ended up
with a corner parcel you're right I mean
so the front would be one Street
frontage and then they could you count
the others a side yard and I would yeah
you would want a 20 foot grassy buffer
between a street you know you know you
don't need that for for security
purposes that would just go my concern
with that is the designation of the
build to line to say that they have to
build at 20 feet so is there the concept
between the build to and the setback
right yeah so build to means it has to
be within that that parameters whereas a
setback means it's a minimum right and
so you know if you have so the old way
of doing business you know was like okay
your setback was 10 or 20 feet but that
wouldn't preclude a property owner from
putting the building 50 feet or 200 feet
back right and so part of kind of
getting more precise with how things are
is the the bill to is a much more
precise measure because now we know it's
going to be within that 20 feet it might
be at 20 feet but it's not going to be
at 50 feet or 100 feet or 200 feet back
right so so it's just a different way of
doing it and generally speaking as we've
gotten to be more cognizant of how we
want buildings to sit on property we've
gone to build twos instead of setbacks
because the setback leaves it up to the
property owner build to puts it in our
hands in terms of prescribing where
that's going to go what about for a
large parcel I mean are they you're
going to designate one as your frontage
that doesn't necessarily building up to
20 feet on providence point for example
which is CSF right it was not only not
yes yeah what's not okay I thought I saw
it as green on the map so so so part of
this is and this gets back to the
comment I made earlier about Grand Ridge
Elementary
so if you want people to walk to the
school it's got to be near the street
right the farther back you put it the
you stick it behind a parking lot you
know you're sending the message this is
a place to drive to right and so there's
a conversation about that
I personally believe you know that it
should be somewhat close to the street
you know is 20 feet the right number you
know I don't know so at what point is
that
so those numbers really get thousand
because we're obviously not educated
enough to make those analysis and
determinations but we're being asked to
vote on the proposed code yet you are so
so you know if we're talking about
really that front billed to line you
know and I don't know maybe ISDN do you
know Steve Howe what the building
setback is for Grand Ridge Elementary I
know that was just died I'm not
specifically how far the building is
back but the the bus shelter structure
is probably right on a little bit yeah
the bus the bus shelters right so at the
right away so you know but you're right
and then we we made them put doors in
but they're locked so you know so
there's there's a give-and-take you know
but you try and get you trying you want
you want to promote walkability to the
school and putting it too far back is
going to be a discouragement for some
folks I think that rec you know that
point is going to show up in this policy
that we recommend you know if it
whatever that goes from here but I guess
voting on these I feel like we're voting
on these numbers without agreeing that
they're necessarily correct or knowing
how much adjustments there is knowing
which ones are essential which ones are
would not as right as well my question
was earlier where where is is there any
wiggle room is it if it's not these
numbers and it's the end it's you know
it's death to possibility or is there
by saying I think the community's got
concerns I've got concerns can we can we
find a middle ground so I guess what I
would say is you know there could be
situations where let's say that you know
they buy a piece of property and the
street frontage is actually a critical
area like a wetland right so we would
not make them put the building in the
wetland there will be allowances for you
know variances and I don't use the word
variances because it's not technically
Rian's it will be adjustment of
standards based on site conditions right
so if they buy a piece of property and
it does not make sense to put the
building at 20 feet for whatever reason
they're going to ask us to deviate from
that one of the reasons why we're
proposing these changes now anyway is
because every school comes in and asked
for a deviation you know the first
bullet on one of those slides was the
existing code doesn't work now and it
puts staff in a really awkward space
because we're being asked to bend almost
all the rules in if we adopt these the
request for changes and an adjustment of
standards will be significantly less and
that's that's a win for the
administration frankly and the school
district because it's one less
administrative hurdle that they have to
go through so what's the best way that
we can vote tonight to because we all
agree that we want to move forward and
we want to open up opportunities for the
squad school district to look at some of
these parcels right and be able to move
forward on that but we don't necessarily
agree on all the language in this code
that we're voting on and we don't
necessarily want to cement these things
in as if they've been reviewed because
there's some of those things that just I
mean those numbers don't necessarily
mean anything to us be right we're not
necessarily experts right so so we can
so again kind of picking them apart so
the pervious impervious we have
impervious standards that high in a lot
of different places
sub areas within the city that's not
actually very uncommon it's uncommon for
certain areas like up on squawk or you
know maybe South Cove but they're not
proposed the likelihood that they would
put a school in either of those
locations is pretty small because it's
not where they're their customer bases
frankly so you know but the the setbacks
I mean I guess what I would say to you
guys is you know we're not asking you to
do anything you're uncomfortable with if
if at the end of the day you want to
basically say we don't have a way to
gauge whether those are the right
numbers or not take a pass I'd rather
you guys pass then propose a standard
that you picked out of a hat right or
threw a dart at a dartboard so you know
if some of these if some of these pieces
of the puzzle are you're comfortable
with then you can make that your
recommendation to the council is we're
comfortable with building high and I'm
not putting words in your mouth we're
comfortable with
I forgot what else is up there yeah they
are
you know so you can you can go through
and cherry-pick which standards you guys
do want to make a recommendation on and
you may say you know what we're not
engineers we're not developers we're not
going to make a recommendation maybe on
setbacks because every parcel is going
to be different it's not just because
you don't want to I think you guys have
demonstrated a rationale for where you
may not be comfortable and and I think I
don't think we have an absolute clarity
on you know if it's 20 feet it's great
if it's 30 feet you know oh my gosh
Armageddon right or you know so this is
where I think you guys need to figure
out what you're comfortable with I don't
think we're trying to push you past that
but hopefully we've provided you enough
information to have that conversation so
I have a couple questions that they
thought about and listening to our
conversation here and that is what about
charter schools corporation corporate
schools and non-profit schools would
they fall under the same same set of
standards or is this strictly public
Issaquah public school district
it on these lands because I don't want
see what I'm thinking is if you have a
charter school come into Highlands or
some of the other neighborhoods Palace
and decide they want to build out and
we're these are the requirements they
could go very big in a non-conforming
way and it would upset the community and
it's a school so they're locked it so
right now CFS is public ownership so it
has to be either it has to be it could
be is a Class School District it could
be Bellevue college it has to be a
public institution okay so the other one
that I want to address is the trees and
retention because that was where we got
the most community in comment before the
meeting via emails and letters so it
seems like there is obviously and I
think this is coming in because of that
property above the Highlands which I
walked earlier today and I was amazed
how many trees there are and how tall
those trees are so how do people feel I
got a problem with the retriever
tension-free being reduced to zero I I
saw that as a big flag to me especially
with all the public comments that we got
even prior to this meeting I don't think
that that symbolizes what our community
wants to see I I would i if I were
looking at this I would say I would
actually start I would start
cherry-picking and I would start saying
I would keep the existing code on tree
retention I would keep the existing code
on setbacks I'm not trying to tell you
where you need to put a school but
you're telling me that basically the
school district comes in and says and we
need a special exempt exemption and they
get that all the time and so I'm not
sure why I need to make that part of the
code that they have blanket exceptions
all the time on setbacks so I for
increasing the building height I would
even do more if you guys were like hell
we don't mind putting in elevators we
want to we want to see our need being
met while being able to still satisfy
the needs of the community I don't think
that it being more visible to more
people in the area
by having a trade-off of being able to
have a smaller footprint is is an issue
from what I saw from the feedback that
was given to us so I'm formed I'm for
the building height but I would keep the
setbacks in the existing code and I
would keep the tree retention an
existing code I I have a personally I
don't see how ninety percent impervious
surfaces is good for putting that into
the code obviously if they need that the
city is going to say you could man you
know your lid compliant we don't mind so
they're already going to be getting
these exemptions building it into the
code is what I'm scared about so again I
would say okay let's find a number it's
at 70% because you find that 50% is
egregious and we can't work with that
then I can have some flexibility but
again putting putting the tree retention
down to 0% putting the impervious
surfaces up to 90% these things concern
me so would you be an agreement to
retain the tree retention policy I would
keep the existing code and allow for the
landscape to go to centralized appall
parameters so that they don't have to
have pointing feet of setback they could
have five feet of setback with a green
wall instead of landscape terrains I
don't mind a screening wall as the
option for landscaping I think that's
fine particularly when we're talking
about structured parking because we
don't have landscape codes in place so
adding that in yeah yeah well I agree
with your honor percent and I think the
throwing that in about the landscaping
requirements have it centralized quad
landscape requirements the tree
retention of the IMC which is status quo
no change no change there and no change
on setbacks so that's what I'm hearing
well in the other one the one that seems
incongruous with the density argument is
also the impervious surface because it
could be used to
increase the density of schools but it
doesn't know your people with a 90% can
you lower it to 75% would you be
comfortable with 75% in every instance
when the school district comes in and
says I can't build the school because I
need this submissiveness
the city is going to find a way to
create that extra 5 or 10% in impervious
surface so are you comfortable with 75%
okay so as we live a sense model I don't
care 75 we go home tonight
now have we hit everything that the
retention is just saying that density is
the same you're saying some setbacks are
going to stay the same building height
we're we're agreeing to other the 65
feet we're changing a pervious surface
to 75% we're keeping the existing code
on a tree retention all right so I would
like to make a motion that we allow 65%
are allow 65 feet in building height yep
to keep the setbacks we keep the tree
retention as is and we implement the
central is a quaff landscape
requirements what was the other thing
that you mentioned the structured
parking landscape is the other one up
there as well as the FA RS and the level
of review 3 so it would include the FA
RS and a level 3 so the structured
parking landscape stays the same it's in
the Pretz we keep it as a proposed yes
all right good okay I know it requires
rooftop screening the rooftop screening
right Justin yeah and we top screening I
think is important because we have so
many the proposed you're looking down on
it yep so yeah and be included in the
proposal okay so in 75% impervious
surface correct okay so with so that is
your motion where's my motion basically
we're leaving everything the same except
the 75% and the tree retention
and the sad facts we're leaving them the
same when we're changing them we're
leaving them as existing code
so changing the proposed call or not
okay picture so before the before Ron
concludes his motion I want to make sure
staff has our motion okay so it's as
proposed I didn't get the point about
this step back yeah you're dating the
same as it is or as president staying
the same as as it is so the the current
standard sorry to jump in the current
standard is whatever the most
restrictive contiguous zoning is or so
wait it will depend if they're next to
single-family you're going to look at
something like that's on the right hand
of the screen here the existing code
right that ten six and twenty that's
just single-family small I and we're not
necessarily saying we agree with that
we're just saying that needs to go into
a further conversation we further
understand it as as situations come up
and per property city isn't going to do
what they need to this is that we don't
want to make these changes to the code
permanent well we are we don't want to
make the currently proposed zero seven
and seven so that's why we're reverting
to the existing setbacks no changes to
that and the building the bill to line
with that noise
also yes that's part of the setback for
the Sullivan right okay right now there
is no build to line and that's a long
one that's why I wasn't sure if you're
going to address that separately
sassette Thanks I know I'm in I'm in
support of the setback to think it makes
sense for talking just about schools on
just these parcels I think makes sense
as is air as proposed so we have a
motion on the table we haven't begun do
you want to make it you want to make a
motion to change the set backs as I
think it's like I can make it we can
make a motion that says set bed to set
back since all 20 feet level no edge I
think we should add a build tool I not a
motion and a second right we had we
don't have an icon how do we haven't had
a second go for it okay so I just saying
I think we should have added a build to
line but otherwise the setbacks would be
as as dictated by the canoers to
continuous so would your build to line
be 20 feet or do you want that do you
like that way way at the 0 to 20 I'm not
an expert I don't know but if that's
what's being proposed in that think so
will you were given school district want
to build 2 line is 0 to 10 feet is
what's in this letter that we've been
given so they're they're in support of a
bill to line so whether it's 10 20
something like that it's in support of
that you can give them a compromise
under 15 no I don't want to go more than
this yeah 17:46 so what is the motion
we've got to have I mean you keep
changing it and right we're still having
discussion we're trying to nail down our
motion this is what's happening right
now
all right so let's write this down
okay was there a second to John there is
no such John hasn't even clarified that
made a motion yet yeah I thought it was
a second I'm not an expert I don't I
know that's the problem none of us are
we're making maybe that's what baby -
the point son understand we're not
supposed to be a panel of expert
understanding that you know the city has
looked at and the school districts s
looked at it there's been input from the
community and I mean we have to take
their knowledge that
looking at this all the time with some
degree of value we can't just sit here
and say you know you can change it up or
down it's gonna be my idea tool to do
that right right this is giving the city
a tool to incorporate Institute a build
tool line which they previously didn't
have a mechanism to do before right
build tool I know we want to use I agree
build to line of 20 feet again if
there's a problem with the site there
will be negotiations but it's still in
the code that it will be 20 feet in
you're comfortable we have an amendment
now we don't need in the manual there
was no second okay I still know I'm not
completely clear Ron are you still
making the motion with this bill -
you're on cutting through it so if see
if all we're doing is we're modifying
cff we don't need to worry about tree
retention we don't need to mention those
all we need to mention are the things
that we're going to change so because
right now did the proposed code is
what's in front of us so if we're not
voting on the proposed code we need to
say what's different about the proposal
so we're saying that the tree retention
is not correct that we are putting it at
the 12.5 as our guide for the existing
code unless you'd like to like to change
that is that a different is there a
different percentage run that you would
like I'm using the 12.5 that's what's
existing and obviously it's not pie in
the sky right so you need to keep 100
Reno right no no I'm saying if we leave
it existing then we don't need to
mention that right now all we're doing
is yes we do yeah okay yes we do because
we're voting on it for voting on the
proposal we're not voting on the
existing code so you can like break this
into two pieces and say we're
meaning no changes to sorry huh
you know we're recommending no changes
to tree retention to side and rear yard
setbacks forgot what else pervious
impervious no no you are making
recommending other grades so those two
items and an instructor I don't think
you're changing the structure talking on
you now we are no yourse what you're
saying is you're making no no revision
to existing code for those two items
correct but then you're you're modifying
the proposed lying the administration's
recommendation by changing impervious to
75% what else we talked about just a
setback to our attention everything
everything else well but well if you
keep the bill to line it's just a side
rear yard setbacks don't change I think
we're taking out the zero for the bill
to line we're not saying zero to twenty
pressing the build to line can be zero
are we within your creating a set well
yes then you're creating a setback right
you're creating then you're saying they
have to exactly put the building at 20
feet they can lie 21 or 19 right less
unless they get an exception for step
except that for going to trying to avoid
putting the administration in the
position of always bending the rules
right I mean that's part of this is a
little bit more that's cuz you're just
building into the code that the rules
are constantly bent why do we want
crooked rules that doesn't make any
sense
5 to 20 feet I mean can you not have 0
well right now are you happy I mean I
would look at the existing code right
now we have front is 10 so then I would
say for single-family small all right so
that's what I have so that's that this
is the coat if the staff wants to give
me other numbers to base it on because
we're tweaking but right now there's a
lot of areas where there are zero
setback right so the difference is right
now code is 10 to infinite there's no
there's no maximum but the bill two sets
the max
right and so if it's on its so but you
typically put a range in so if you want
to go 10 to 20 or 0 to 20 or whatever to
20 there should be there's 3 some
flexibility there
so you're saying build two lines says if
we say zero to 20 they have to build
within 0 to 20 of the money on the front
that's what they really want that's what
that's what they're asking for right now
yes and I was not satisfied by the
answer I understand that they feel
pressure but I don't I did not get a
satisfactory answer that they say these
setbacks have been studied these
setbacks are no problem I didn't hear
that I did not hear a clear answer that
this does not and Dave's thoroughly
studied under that back you're talking
about from the school district yes
there's a letter from I know I read the
letter okay where they actually the
superintendent is saying step back zero
feet preferred 7 feet possible and then
build to line 0 to 10 feet the school
district is saying that's what we want
to do 7 to 20
I would like to it sounds like we have
some questions about it sounds like I'm
not the only one a lot of us or have
some questions about these about means
that backs so a setback provides a
minimum distance that the building sets
back from the property line the build to
provides a variance there and if we
ended up with a site that was in a
downtown urban area and you wanted to
put the outside wall of the building at
the back of the sidewalk to align with
other development then you're at 0 feet
and in that kind of a case you might not
I don't think the city would want to
have a 20 foot setback or a 10 foot
setback that means that they're going to
have to make an administrative decision
to align the building or make it fit
into a truly downtown core urban context
that built in line at 0 to 10 or 0 to 20
feet allows for some flexibility and
either one of those would be acceptable
if it were built in an area where all
the other buildings are up to the
sidewalk wouldn't that be reflected in
the existing code for the contiguous
area or not not no because the least
restrictive area could be on the other
corner which would be single-family
residential which would require that the
million foot front setback most
restricted though the most restrictive
meaning the the least amount of
developable space right it all seems
like we make sense to have it as a
objective code so that the least
restrictive the most restrictive
boundary would match to the most
restrictive boundary in other words if
you had zero on one side and you had a
20 on the other side you would have
matching if the other if the other the
other properties if you have properties
on one side that are 20 and you have
properties on the other side that are
zero and you could match the building to
conform with both sides
yeah zero to 20 build mine which relates
to primarily the front but it's I think
zero to 20 I don't like the idea of
living zero to twenty in because most
all of the sites that we're looking at
are not those downtown urban situations
now and I understand this is the code
and it's going to be long term but I
still don't like the idea of providing
that as an option so for in the existing
admin Street Holly is the current line
of your your core so everything across
the street can conform to the urban
standards except for that boundary would
be up to zero if we did the zero to
twenty and they're also talking about
the potential administration building
with maida so part of it was trying to
align things with what could well be
adjacent zoning part of its trying to
align with a number of different
possibilities and potential things that
would come along because it sort of laws
down to defining what we have to look at
in acquisition of a site if we know what
our building area is going to be we know
that we have to provide a certain number
of parking spaces if we're being compact
we're going to have to do structured
parking but impervious area and setback
sort of define perimeters and say you're
going to have to acquire this much land
and when you're going into a competitive
market situation and you're putting
contingencies on the purchase it makes
it more difficult and those
contingencies then have to be predicated
on the fact that we're actually going to
get a variance for this or that or
another thing which is months and months
and months down the road so it just
makes the whole process more difficult
so could we pay for that clarification
that makes a difference yeah question
for Keith if if we decide to go with a
zero to twenty with a director oversight
would that be acceptable now we see that
would give us checks and balances
instead of just giving the school
district a blank check I do trust you
but it would just allow for checks and
balances don't they already have to go
for exception so that would be would be
code if they would allow them to build
to zero without having to get permission
like you're just doing but zero to 20 or
whatever made sense and each individual
project is going to have to come in for
a very detailed review right point well
zero three anything less than twenty
would have to go to director over for
director Poole community approval I
think anything over 20 feet of would
have to come in for a variance well if
we put in a zero through 20 with
director oversight you wouldn't have to
get a variance you just have to ask
director for approval for anything over
20 feet right all of the tests go
through level three review review yeah
I'm comfortable with that so if there's
a zero in 20 and it has to go through a
level three review and zero is not
appropriate then that will come up
during the level three review yeah okay
so are we now comfortable with that yes
that's and progress do remember this
Thunder drain play fields of impervious
surface so there may be a pretty big
area that's open space play field it's
still impervious yeah we discussed that
okay so 75% yep zero to twenty does that
mean there's no changes to the setback
something everyone finds beside seven
three or seven I thought you guys we're
going to say you guys can just do the
front as a real tree line and leave the
sides in the rear no under existing code
if you wanted we're good okay you want
to leave it as existing so that's leave
it as proposed leave it as previous
person proposed in 70 okay so so the
only change to proposed field about is
the 75% and once in about 3% yes through
the tree or attend everything out
tension and minimum density oh I guess
minimum 30 in this example is the same
okay a minimum density should be the
same as existing it is in it okay it is
only in the single family small lot
example given that could be a different
density for different zones they said
this is the most conservative yeah this
is the think it makes it but up again
right yes I think the commercial will
good work okay so so I have a motion for
those two exemptions I will make that
motion to have anger for the proposed
code except for modifying it to have a
75% impervious surface and to modify the
tree retention
to keep the existing code retain the
existing retain the existing coexisting
code for true retention Reap retriever
times which is 25% and may be reduced to
12.5 what was the within word the review
can you repeat that back to us I want to
hear it anymore to keep the proposed
code except for modifying the 75%
impervious surface and retain the
existing code for tree retention yes and
that has the two amendments that we
already passed about policy in the
direction of schools as well attached to
that separate but yes okay are you
sweating here those are separate votes
so all those in favor say aye
I don't think there's been a second yet
we just didn't I'm sorry we did okay up
all those in favor say aye aye
motion carries is there something else
on the docket if you have to no there
isn't you know it normally you come up
with the list of when the next meetings
are so people know exactly what's going
on no more on this next step what is the
next meeting the 27th I have is
architectural review that's so correct
oh my gosh 727 or do that job is that a
discussion it's a discussion the
discussion okay and what is our next
meeting after that Tuesday August 1st on
end of days I said that's happening so
were were pairing you guys with urban
village Development Commission to talk
about ending the development agreements
for the Highlands and talus because we
basically have to put replacement code
in for both of those as the contract
development agreements go to term
so they would be meeting on this we have
been doing enough maybe do more stuff I
know you know usually a you EDC meets at
a different time than we do you know if
we're on their clock or they're on ours
so Tuesday it's going to be uniquely so
timeline 87 then I would I don't know I
know that we're still trying to work out
the mechanics of Epis it might be at a 7
yeah that's a match up with their
standard meeting time I thought I saw a
data 31st that's when the public hearing
is for that I for architectural
riverbeds that's on your schedule we're
doing the 31st and then the first we
actually have four meetings one two
three four five meetings in August we
write those down so I can send it for
tomorrow so you move you mind that way
that would be great actually we had to
put these on the end of your agenda each
time but it went out Jennifer was too
fast for me so I couldn't put the
updated one but so far I will send this
out tomorrow morning but there's two of
them on Tuesdays next in August okay and
two of them are on Thursdays so okay
exciting okay so anything else for the
good of the winners the meeting it I
will close the meeting at 9:30 Joan can
we do the long hair