good evening and welcome to
August 31st meeting the planning policy
Commission tonight we have the honor of
doing something we usually don't do and
that's have two public hearings the
first is on a proposal addition from
what we've already approved for adding
structure Parker to parking two
buildings in this tonight we're going to
talk about this school district and so
I'm just going to open up for discussion
if there's the proposal is to add like
like our other proposals 50% absolute
parking any discussion any yes I have
discussion is this one okay so I like to
make a recommendation that the only
public school shall provide 95 percent
of the required parking structure and
that when a parking structure is built
that it provides covered parking for
bicycles and E bicycles unless there is
already structured unless there's
already covered parking for bicycles so
two recommendations imposing 95 percent
structured parking and covered parking
for bicycles I would love to hear from
staff as to why they settled on the 50
percent and if that was just the
directive that we had given the
recommendation we had given counsel and
that they had settled on on previous
structured parking or how you guys came
to this number specifically for schools
I don't like that Jennifer go through
that the reasons and answer your
questions actually and then we'll get
back to and I just want to tell you that
I'm here for item number two and I have
had nothing to do with this so unless
its context from our previous work I
have nothing to offer your experts over
there so when I have a presentation if
you'd like me to go through it yeah and
then I can go back and answer
questions for instance the one that joy
just asked him
so the purpose of this amendment is to
package it with the other urban school
code amendments that you guys heard on
July 13 so the idea would be to add this
on
so it's standalone right now but it
think of it as an add-on to that bigger
package that's why the title says
continued so where have we been where
are we going we've been to PPC we can
you angel on July 13th we're back today
we went to land in Shore with this as an
informational item in August and we'll
be going back after this public meeting
in September with the full bundled
package for land and Shore to consider
and then refer to can't make a
recommendation to Council for final
decision possibly as early as September
18th so that's where we are and that's
where we're going hopefully so here's
the actual code amendment it literally
is one line all new public schools shall
provide 50% of the required parking and
structures and yes this falls in line
with the research and the dialogue that
was had associated with the simplest kua
parking requirements that you also heard
not too terribly long ago so the
findings just as kind of a refresher why
are we doing urban school urban school
amendments the intent of these
amendments are to provide regulations
for the development of public schools
that better meet the needs of the school
district the proposed standards will
allow schools to be sited on smaller
properties and will allow more efficient
use of the existing properties that they
own smaller footprints would allow
school siting on smaller properties but
a large amount of surface parking is
really counter to what we were trying to
do so we wanted to remedy that by
bringing this amendment forward to you
and trying to add it to that Lendl
package so so we're trying to ensure
that surface parking lots aren't kind of
pushed to the maximum and use so now we
have questions
this is literally one of the smallest
amendments I've ever done so I'm here
for your questions
we had conversation about the previous
amendment so I think we would try and
focus just to this this particular
amendment and add it on if that's what
you guys choose okay this is
clarification yes it is 50% making it
equal with 50 50 percent of the other
amendments but we approved for parking
in central acquiesce just to verify that
yes and I think that answer is Joy's
question as well so does anybody have
any questions
well before we dive into questions you
all got Connie Marcia's email so I have
paper copies of her the attachment that
she had in that email if anybody would
like him just raise your hand and I'll
bring you one
in a little bit of time and I said give
me your opinions I think I realized that
there are some opinions that might be
interesting to hear so what I'm going to
do is open the public hearing at 6:40
and then we will go from there and let
your discussions go on so I don't have a
sign-up sheet I don't know if anybody's
sign up but does anybody know is anybody
especially from the school district
willing to come up and explain their
position and what they think of
structured parking at 50% level Steve
Crawford director capital project for
the school district as we have been
looking at compacting school footprints
to allow for smaller parcels we have
looked at structured parking for some of
those concept designs we have I guess a
couple of issues that when you're
talking 50% structured parking parking
requirements for an elementary school or
about 93 parking spaces we typically
have a a little bit more than that to
help alleviate parking on the
neighborhood's adjacent but 93 parking
spaces at 50% adds roughly a million
dollars to the cost of a school that's
roughly about three percent of the total
cost of construction that's not an
insignificant amount and if you're
talking ninety five percent you're
talking about five to seven percent of
the total cost of a school as an
increase to accommodate the parking not
an insignificant amount
as we look at compacting school
footprints and reducing the area of land
that we have to acquire there gets to be
a point where you're trading off the
cost of structured parking versus the
cost of not buying additional land to
accommodate surface parking so if you
have an average about 330 square feet
per parking space and you take half of
the 93 required so you're looking at 46
spaces it's about 15,000 180 square feet
that's 0.348 acres if you look at a
million dollars of an acre for the cost
of land you're looking at reducing the
cost of land by roughly about three
hundred forty-eight thousand dollars but
you're increasing the cost of the
construction by six hundred an
additional six hundred thousand dollars
that's the difference in the cost of the
structured parking versus the cost of
the savings of land so it is an increase
unless you're talking close to three
million dollars an acre for the cost of
land that's what it takes to kind of
balance out the cost of structured
parking the surface parking space cost
about $4,000 a structured parking space
costs about twenty thousand dollars per
space if you go to sinking the parking
below grade then that cost goes up about
another ten percent so the cost of
structured parking is not insignificant
there is some balance when you're
looking at buying new land there are no
large parcels I mean for the hilltop
site we've looked at condensing the
elementary footprint down to a little
over five acres that's that's pretty
condensed the majority of the parking is
in a structured situation
the the reduced land area means that
you're in most cases well let's back up
the reduced land area means you're going
to need less I am for a school site
there aren't any five acre parcels
around here that are basically level
that have for sale signs on them so
you're going to be looking at
consolidating parcels to form a school
site in most all instances and in most
all instances you're going to end up
needing to take either homes or business
properties so smaller land areas are
advantageous from a number of different
reasons and cost being able to locate
schools closer to the communities where
the students are coming from so that
there's a local service a higher
probability that students can walk to
school and provide neighborhood
recreational facilities I think the
other thing that I wanted to mention is
that in the rationale for the 50% it
talks about the IMC standards require
that new public schools shall have a
portion of the required parking in
structured parking the rationale being
that the use of land for public schools
must be done as efficiently as possible
to ensure the public lands are used
wisely part of what we had requested
initially was a 90% impervious area and
I don't know that everybody really
understands that when you put an under
drain under a play field so that you can
use it more often through the winter
months
that's an impervious surface so a sand
playfields an impervious surface a turf
football field
it's an impervious surface a grass
baseball field it's impervious surface
so if you're looking at a five acre
elementary site and a minnow
of playfield space for an elementary at
about an acre to an acre and a quarter
you're looking at 15 to 25 percent of
that land area which is providing
community recreational facilities is
considered impervious and so it seemed
reasonable to have a 90 percent level
because in essence you're basically
already way beyond that if you look at a
middle school or a high school with the
size of a football field the soccer
lacrosse field softball field or
baseball field you're looking at close
to 30 to 33 percent of a site that's
devoted to recreational use that's open
space that's impervious area so even if
you devote another 10% to the allowance
you're still talking at 30 to 40 percent
of the area that most people would
consider to be open space and would
visualize it as pervious space pervious
surfaces so when you combine those two
things it gets to be a pretty
restrictive you know when you increase
the area of pervious surface that's
required means you have to buy more land
in the past we've been working on
existing school sites this COIs high
school middle and clark we're all
existing school sites and we've relied
on the city to grant variances those
facilities were existing non-conforming
uses so they exceeded the most
restrictive adjacent zoning heights most
restrictive adjacent zoning impervious
areas so it was not without reason that
a variance could be continued when you
look into my new property you really
need to know what amount of land you're
going to have to allow as open pervious
space not counting your play fields not
you're building and parking etc because
it's not really very prudent to assume
that you're going to get a variance if
it would be rather embarrassing to buy a
piece of property assuming you're going
to get a variance on an impervious area
and then find that it's not granted and
now you really can't fit everything so
as we're buying new properties that
becomes more critical to know in advance
and you know we would like to minimize
the amount of land that we have to
acquire for each of the four schools
that are planned the two new
elementaries a middle school in high
school but even a 50% requirement for
structured parking does add to the cost
of school construction we are looking at
bond funds that were voted in 2016 so
we've seen the cost of construction
already escalate sites that were
identified as likely candidates for
school sites or tied up in landmark
decisions and decisions about
appropriate use or not so 50% increases
the costs not an insignificant amount
there is some trade-off to reduced land
area 95% that's really a huge increase
and I think far beyond what's required
of any other type of development in the
city well I have a question before you
go down so putting in structured parking
you're saying there's 96 parking lot
parking stalls that you would be putting
in for an elementary school there's 93
that are required it's something like
that and half of that so you'd have two
levels half so you're going to shrink
that down doesn't that open up more
space for you to Recreation or do your
you know important things that this
school has to do yeah it's about 15,000
square feet it's about
Oh point three four eight acres a little
over a third of an acre that would be
saved by putting a 2-level you know 50%
of the parking instruction isn't that a
value it is a value and that's about
three hundred and forty eight thousand
dollars if you're paying a million
dollars an acre for the property but it
adds nine hundred and thirty thousand
dollars to the cost of construction so
there's still a six hundred thousand
dollar premium to do that okay thank you
does anybody else want to comment on the
proposal my name is Connie Martian I
live in Issaquah I sent you an email
that shows historically the amount of
impervious surface bla-bla-bla that the
district has used just as a basis for
understanding a little bit more about
what's going on remember that the
district is not necessarily just buying
or trying to get small parcels it also
has some large parcels that it wants to
use so if you say it can have a large
amount of impervious surface there's
nothing saying that they cannot just use
that impervious surface for more surface
parking and so it is difficult to create
a code that allows for a smart small
parcel to be used without the unintended
consequences of just creating a vast sea
of asphalt and a large parcel and so how
do you solve this sort of conundrum
within the code you you could split it
in two sizes of parcels sort of like
they did with retail and and parking
right if the size of the parcel is going
to be X then the surface parking you
know becomes up to the School District
how much land do they want to try to
preserve for play food fields as to how
much they want to put in there surface
parking but then if you have a large
parcel it could force them to do
structured parking to try to preserve
the excess land for things like trees an
actual impervious surface when I mean
pervious surface when they do have the
luxury on a larger parcel of keeping the
land more intact if you read the code as
presented it doesn't address the
difficulty that I'm discussing and the
way it was given to you it sounds like
the only conversation you can have is
about the parking itself and so I don't
think that we know enough about the
consequences of this code we don't
understand even what the process would
be for the small parcel at the top of
the hill because both development
agreements are coming to their close and
they're going to become code and that is
going to potentially change the process
for anything adjacent to those areas
which that parcel is and so I think it's
unwise to come to a conclusion at this
point in time I don't think anyone
entirely understands the consequences
because too many codes are swirling at
the same time the school district is
trying to not spend money and trying to
create sort of tighter suburban schools
my point of view is that the city is
trying to create a more urban footprint
for schools with all the appurtenances
that you would find in an urban school
we don't know because we actually have
no policy for urban schools so you're
trying to make this decision in a void
of policy and so to me the whole thing
is just awkward and so unlikely to come
have a good outcome and I expect that if
you pass this tonight and the council
passes it will be revisiting again next
year because of the unintended
consequences
I have not gone on as long as Steve I
could but I'm going to let somebody else
chat after me thanks thanks Connie
would anybody like else like to make any
comments on the proposal just on the
proposal for the parking
hi thank you um sorry I'm late hi my
name is Susan and Susan Hasson they live
at 195 to 4 southeast 24th place it's a
mammoth and I'm a volunteer at a
Issaquah food and clothing blank bank
not blank and I'm a vendor for the
Recology clean escapes tour and my
comment is and I apologize if Jennifer
read it but I don't think she probably
has okay did I get I plowed the
Commission's headway toward efficiently
built new and redeveloped public schools
new standards including some required
structured parking would make smaller
than usual parcels feasible for schools
thus facilitating school siting still
the Commission's intention that appears
to be to allow the district to build to
those standards on any cff parcel even
if it is green open space covered with
tree canopy and are large for this
reason I suggest that the Commission
please revise the code amendment to
state that the new standards apply to
smaller than usual parcels and that
school development is subject to the
city's site planning public process
regulations and other policies for
retaining trees and open space etc such
a revision would clarify the
Commission's definition of the
characteristics and location of urban
schools that one small change would make
a difference thank you for your
consideration and also thank you for
your patience I'm quite new to learning
about all these various policies and how
they fit together in processes and Trish
Heinonen explained a lot to me today
that there are other down the road
levels that would talk about trees and
things like that one example I was
thinking of his Providence Heights could
these standards would be subject to
compartment Heights be subject to these
standards
for the CFF if it were rezone cff and
she said well there are other
regulations down the road but I just
really strongly believe that if you
clarify this up front it would really
help everybody understand like the
citizens in the school district and the
City Council thank you so much ice-t
Pereira old town is about 10 years so
one of the things I think of was that
before this current term of PPC started
I think it was council president Goodman
came and talked to you all and said that
we really value your input and I think
that's kind of the basis for considering
obviously I have my opinion of where you
should go with this but her point and my
point I think is you don't always have
to take just the facts that are
presented before you and vote on them
you can give valid opinion that might be
broader or different than just the
specific scope that's presented to you
and so to me this scope of what should
structured parking be isn't the right
scope or perspective as Connie said
there's so much more than use to go into
this I think the whole issue of what is
a urban school needs to be considered as
policy beyond just the structured
parking piece so please take the time to
consider that in your deliberations and
provide that input if that's what you
feel is best on the structured parking
piece it seems to me that 50 percent
that was advised for the other pieces
like commercial and business and all
that it's an economy of how do we get
people to come to Issaquah with cases
schools though we don't have to get
people to come to school as they come to
schools and in fact be able to come to
Issaquah because we have high quality
schools so we don't have to incentivize
them by having a lower parking
percentage required
so based on that I would see indeed 100%
requirement seems to be an appropriate
level for me for what should the
structured requirement parking be for
schools again anything we can do to
Street shrink the footprint of schools
because when we look at the city
documents and it talks about things like
pre canopy in our natural environment
those are the things that were risking
destroying not just by cutting them down
but tame them down on places that aren't
designed to have that structure to have
that zoning in place so take the time
now to say let's take a pause it's okay
to take a pause and and have a higher
requirement and let's look at that
structured parking in that wider
perspective so we don't have to keep
revisiting it piece by piece thanks
my name is Mary Lynch and I just want to
build on what Connie and Steve said and
also kind of support some of the stuff
that Steve's also said Crawford said is
that I think we need better definition
on what this is actually coming from as
far as area of the city you know it's
right now covering all the parcels and
all the classifications and I really
think that we need to have policy for
urban schools before we can begin to
define this better because the other
thing is Steve mentioned underground
parking well I don't really think
underground parking is very feasible in
most of the seei of the central area
plan of Issaquah because if you go to
over to the library you'll notice that
is a flood zone and it has flooded
before so some of these is not even
feasible to consider underground parking
in a lot of these places the other
things we haven't talked about urban
schools a lot of the urban schools when
you're really looking at it and you're
going up with parking what's on top of
them they're soccer fields so that's how
you can combine some of the pervious
surfaces together so and maybe cut the
cost some too so there's a lot of
options that can do it but until we have
some clear sitting down from the school
district the city and the public talking
about what we want the future of
Issaquah and our schools to be and
hopefully getting that other arm in
there the developers who may be and the
people that own the land talking
together and defining what the policies
is what we want to look like and what
the needs are I really think this is
trying to homies go in the right
direction because you're trying to
reduce the amount of space use but I
think it's too soon and we tried to do
this with a central area plan and what
are we doing again we're back we're
doing the codes so let's do this in the
right phase let's make sure we have the
policy make let's make sure we have all
the players together that are sitting
down and talking before we make the
decision just because it's we're doing
something else right now thank you to
make a comment
as anybody else can't talk anybody else
into making comment okay with that I
will close the public hearing at 7:05
and it open it up to starting to stand
up I know if you had someone say Steve
Crawford again just quick comment we
could look at putting the whole football
field the La Crosse soccer track on top
of parking that's still going to be 100%
impervious area the whole thing and with
that I will close the public hearing at
7:05 and I appreciate all your comments
I mean they're all valid they're all
coming from concerned citizens so that's
that's positive because those are the
people who have been looking through all
this and and judging what the value is
Jennifer would you like to say anything
else or contribute maybe I can start it
what are the ramifications with waiting
to make a final decision on this I can
talk to it because I think we we very we
discussed it at the July 13th hearing q
um I don't know Kathy did you want to
jump in no okay you were grabbing the
microphone sighs I am so the school
district has bond money that they need
to spend in order for them to spend that
money to say to buy new land they need
some level of understanding on what the
requirements are going to be so that
they can cite and find land that they
can meet the requirements for so this is
all kind of time crunched based on when
that bond money needs to be expended and
how quickly they need to find land and
if I remember correctly the bond passed
in 2016 so um
three and a half go maybe a little more
so time is feeling like it's running out
so it's time based on year so it's time
based on months because there could be X
actually additional comments so they're
gonna so let me let me jump in so
they're gonna they're moving forward
buying property now okay and you know if
we don't pass code amendments they will
bring their land use applications in and
we will process it against the
regulations that are in place now so
what we're trying to do is work with the
school district to put more appropriate
provisions in place including and I
think what we realized after we'd come
through PPC the first time with those
code amendments was that we had not
addressed parking and that by shrinking
by allowing the buildings to get taller
and the setbacks to be reduced I think
to Connie's point you are basically
creating more space on the property for
something and the worst outcome would be
surface parking lot right so we said
okay let's let's require as was
happening with residential commercial
and retail let's propose requiring a
portion of that parking to be in
structure so that's that's kind of how
we landed here tonight was we're
catching up a piece that I think we
admittedly didn't think of originally
otherwise it would have been part of
that original package that we brought
forward to you guys for consideration
last month Keith and Jennifer can you
speak to but when we spoke about this
the first part of the package in July we
had talked about creating an urban
school policy where we add on staff kind
of is that in process well I realized
that isn't in front of us today is do we
have any update on that you guys
receiving those comments and working on
that it's again one of the many work
items you have or we have any update on
that so the recommendation as it's being
processed through the the public process
right now the agenda bill for the bulk
of the amendments that we processed or
that we brought to you in July 13th is
making its way to Council right
now in that is the recommendation that
you guys made for us to look at urban
school policy within the next year's
what I actually think the timeline was
that was in the recommendation so that's
in there that's for councils
consideration but that that is actually
an existing objective in your
recommendations or in your
recommendations from July 13th so some
of the comments have talked about you
know don't rush this idea you know
there's no problem in waiting we should
consider urban schools before moving
forward with this one question I have is
if if we put in a 50% and make that make
that decision before the urban schools
conversation has happened we still have
the option then when the urban schools
conversation happens to change that
number right and are you seeing we as in
that study the city and yo yes okay
because the the idea that's running
through my mind is okay if we stall and
wait for that urban schools conversation
to happen up to a year from now and the
school district makes a purchase of land
with the assumption that they can put
all surface parking on it you know that
changes things so so I've stayed in my
position here and and I you all know it
so I want to present an argument and
then the intention of the argument is to
invoke discussion and based on what
we've heard from the school district so
far if we look at the future cost of
money we were kind of quoted here 4,000
per space versus 20,000 per space Lanna
is at a super premium with in Issaquah
so and we're talking about possibly
using eminent domain where if we invoke
eminent domain the real estate costs
will actually go up higher because now
you also have to associate legal costs
just tied to that parcel as well if we
use a rule of thumb of 90 95 percent
structured parking so anywhere from five
to twenty stalls would be allowed for
maybe the front of the school for
visitors it is a more efficient and
effective use of a scarce resource
though both money and in terms of land
itself so and I also I'm not pushing
back on the schools in terms of trying
to be difficult
I want top-line schools but I also
realize that we are a growing community
and so there will be ever more pressure
on our schools and if we acquire smaller
parcels today and our student population
keeps growing where are we going to put
those cars for the teachers the faculty
the students and so my concern is that
we're not future proofing this
discussion by saying only 50% structure
parking and in addition to that I feel
that providing covered parking for
bicycles as well will help mobilize
people because of inclement weather and
if we start looking at things like
ebikes and I think e bikes is a very
viable solution future solution that's
going to be coming to as a quads
extraordinarily popular in Israel and
just because the United States today
isn't a place where a bikes are a fad it
will be coming to our our areas as the
cost of bikes go down so I I want to be
very careful in moving forward with this
proposition and I think 95 percent is
absolutely acceptable we could also put
in a recommendation to City Council that
they consider
moving forward with a school and urban
school policy as they considered the
structured parking requirements and let
them actually decide what to do as far
as making a decision so let me further
this conversation of percentages and
their importance between fifty percent
and ninety five percent and all of that
so the cost of increasing that we're
talking here as the cost being to the
school district but really we need to
think about that
since the schools are paid for via bonds
the cost comes back to the homeowners
and the taxpayers and so when we're
talking about the difference between
5000 cents richer than 95 percent
structured the the additional cost all
goes to the taxpayer so I think we need
to kind of consider that and whether or
not passing an additional three million
dollars on to the taxpayers the right
way to do things we have a choice I mean
granted I hear your argument I don't
want to pay any more than I absolutely
have to but when it comes to making the
right decisions then and we know that
land is going to be an extraordinarily
scarce resource how do we move forward
with that how do we actually increase
capacity if we have 10 acres of land
available for a school how do we
maximize that for the future of the city
I mean look how fast we're growing now
think of what I'm trying to look 20
years and 30 years out that structure
park you know 95% we're putting in as a
requirement possibly today may not be 95
percent in 20 years it may turn into 50
percent because they'll need additional
parking space how do we fix that so why
would we ask of the school district and
taxpayers to hit a 95 percent
rate when we're not asking that of
developers of retail or housing where
they're gonna actually make money off of
this because we could either pay it up
today or we can pay it up in the future
if we paid up in the future it's going
to be a lot more expensive and a lot
more difficult so let me take a step
back what is ultimately our goal in
looking at structured parking for school
sites is it because we believe that
having surface parking lots in front of
or behind a school district is bad
visually and reduces pedestrians ability
to get to the school and all of those
things or are we doing it for
preservation of open space because if
we're talking about the latter then
preservation of open space may happen in
other ways including asking developers
to increase their rate and other things
I'm looking at it from an optimization
of space so I'm not and I understand the
environmental aspect is important but
this we need to look at it in terms of a
tool how do we make and create the most
optimized tool to educator our student
body right so by creating a 95 percent
structured parking and that could take
on a lot of different forms we could put
schools on top of parking we could do if
we push forward for the requirements let
developers come back with a solution we
don't know what that solution would look
like we don't know that it's a twenty
thousand dollar per space parking I
think we need more information but if we
start off at a 50% as what we have for
office space that might be adequate for
office space because then they're
restricted to the size they can't grow
so they move on to a different building
our schools are stuck right so we can't
just by new property or just create
eminent domain and inquire property that
way because it's not necessarily right
to do that and it may not be
cost-effective for us to do that so if
we build it let's build it right
putting 95% structure parking in today
may save us money in the future and if
we look at the future costs of money
what it would cost us to build a 95%
structured parking today may be a lot
cheaper and it would be in 20 years from
now and so we might actually be money
ahead by a record making that
requirement today that's what how I'm
looking at it I have tons more thoughts
but let's open it up and see what's
coming out and maybe I'll just have my
thoughts I mean maybe it's a risk of
being simple I mean at this point in
time I appreciate that the thought of
being able to have an additional
discussion about this in the future when
we talk about the school policy and also
the need for some certainty right now
and then I have a hard time based based
on that and knowing we're going to have
a future conversation about school
policy have a hard time I guess right
now coming up with a number that's
different than what we're already asking
of other land uses and so I mean I'm
stuck on the 50% just because I mean if
a few months down the road or eight
months down the road whatever we want to
have a more detailed discussion about it
and change it to 75 or reduce it to 25
or whatever that's one thing but I mean
right now we're just picking numbers out
of a hat I think you know and so I say
we put 50% in there's certain some some
certainty for purchases and use of bond
money it's consistent with the existing
land uses and then we can have a more
informed discussion later that's where I
am on it and if our is there a reason
that the coast passive specifies public
schools rather than including charter
schools private schools all schools
basically would have to adhere to this
code why is it that we specifically say
public so let's focus on the fact that
schools go public schools go into the
sea ffs own that's why okay because
private schools wouldn't be raised owned
CFF our schools are be sorry would be it
would be out on the under commercial
they would be whatever the underlying
zoning is
where they were allowed and I can try
and figure all of the different sub
areas that we have and where they're all
allowed but I don't know that I could do
it right off the top of my head okay we
have the option of being able to
recommend an amount of structured
parking for all schools not just for
this particular zoning that we're
looking at as in the next year you guys
are going through our urban schools that
applies to not not just our public
schools so the way this code amendment
is set up is the pieces that we're
amending are under the cff zoning
description in the land use code so if
we were to do amendments like that they
would go into a completely different
section of the code just just in terms
of the logistics that I understand what
I'm wondering is that that's even
possible if you guys are like we're not
really we're we're not willing to touch
other places in the code right now or if
if that is open that's what my question
is I do understand that it probably I
would think that it would be open for
discussion at a later time when we're
putting the whole program together but I
don't think it so private so private
schools joy is you know that's not what
we what we did earlier was office and
retail specifically so if if the
Commission is interested in adding that
it would be a specific ad to central
Issaquah to add to the code revisions
that we just processed on residential
office and retail so if that is indeed
something this commission wants to do I
think that can be an ask it's as
Jennifer said it's separate from what
we're doing now but it could be an
add-on and we have to figure out how
quickly we have staff resources to turn
that around I don't I just don't know
right now but it would be you guys could
make that as a kind of a follow up
recommendation if you as a commission
felt like that was something that we
just met again missed where we're not
infallible
we missed oh yeah I won am
disappointed with how mr. Crawford
represented the school district's
position as both questioning if we
understand what an impervious surface is
and then having a kind of what I
consider to be a limited scope as to how
we use our space I think having
structured parking below play fields and
being able to combine different pervious
surfaces is something that's happened
across our country very successfully and
having well it does give an increased
cost stopping this kind of spread of an
asphalt jungle and trying to really
create a really true small-scale
footprint is essential and I wish that
we were hearing a little different
perspective from the school district
that was encouraging those kinds of
maybe out-of-the-box thinking that
rather than just saying we would like to
have as much as much open sprawling
parking as possible so I for one in for
a higher amount than 50% I think that
our government our schools should be
leading a standard when we had our
discussions about retail we were talking
about trying to encourage people into
the community and I would like to see
our standards for the schools be
something that is has a much higher
standard so I do see a difference in
putting a different standard if we think
that Ron's proposal of 95 percent is a
little egregious for some I would be
fine
to find a middle ground maybe that is
80% and that that makes people feel
better about it
but I for one would like to vote tonight
about increasing the amount beyond the
50% and agree that it shouldn't be
something that's table for a future
discussion because I do think it's
something that we should have in place
now for the school district to have to
abide by so let me see if I can ask
another question are there any urban
school policies or structured parking
requirements in any other local cities
that we know about anything that we can
use as guidelines No
so now I have to talk so the research
that was done as part of the structured
parking amendment other than Federal Way
which just enacted
a requirement for structured parking for
multifamily projects I think over a
hundred units was 25% that's it
everybody else in the region is you know
Bellevue wrote a rather detailed email
Mike Brennan who serves on development
Commission is director of development
services in Bellevue and we contacted
him regarding the spring district which
is again very forward-thinking urban
density conversion transit light rail
all the good stuff and he said there is
no structured parking requirement they
specifically decided against that
they have taken the position that if
land develops it is at a cost and the
requirements that are associated with
developing in it will lead projects to
have to build structured parking so they
decided to set the structure in such a
way that they think it will result in
structured parking so we are definitely
leading by a hard mark farm margin
so and when when comment for Joy's
suggestion just for thought is so this
is a this is a minimum requirement so
the 50% is is what we would say is
minimally expected out of a new school
development I mean your comments about
the school district should be a leader
and should push that to some higher
number I guess the question for you is
is is the city going to mandate that or
is that something that should come out
of maybe that follow-up conversation
that's more policy related about urban
schools and and addressing that form and
function a little bit differently then
through a required standard and I'm just
throwing that out as a thought something
for you to think about not suggesting
anything other than what you said
earlier
I wish that
the opinions of the school district were
presented in a way where they were more
open but the way that they've been
presented to us in this meeting and in a
previous meeting
show me that minimums are there for a
reason because otherwise get without
that lis with giving them so much leeway
they're gonna take the smallest amount
possible because they believe that
that's what's in their better interest
and I would like to encourage them to
think a little bit better and that's why
I would like to increase the minimum I'm
not 50 percent well I don't need it to
be 95 percent I uh I do I would be a
proponent for increasing that amount so
I agree with a lot of the things that
have been said also by joy as far as the
creative use I think that the idea of
the play fields over the parking lot yes
that would add cost but that's also
consolidating impervious surface it's
more impervious surface but it's
impervious surface and layers on top of
itself so it does free up more land to
be pervious surface I think that the 50%
in the last meeting when we were talking
about that it was talked about as being
this very aspirational number because
there aren't a lot of examples of other
other policies where any requirement is
required at all and so I think that the
50% in to standardize it with the other
businesses that would be what I would be
in favor of especially because even that
50% is kind of breaking new ground and
hasn't really been tried before and and
that's also what we're proposing for
these other businesses and I do think
it's important for public schools in
particular private schools their various
and size of public schools too but some
public schools that will be in the
future will be very large and will have
very large parking lots potentially
could be very sprawling large parking
lots if there's not a requirement so I
think that it's important to have some
requirement and I think that 50% is a
reasonable amount
well I I agree it's a very difficult
balancing act for the schools and from a
taxpayer perspective I want to get the
most we can with our money and I'm
worried that if we delay this much
longer for another year or something
school this is going to spend as you
said they'll try to do it there's cheap
as they can on the other hand of the
school districts perspective 95%
potentially triple maybe a Drupal the
cost of 50% I'm sort of and at least for
the present time particularly since we
have a money crisis or a time factor for
money that's available for a particular
project or right now for that bond issue
we've got to do something with it or
lose it we should go with the 50% and
then after the urban policy process goes
through we can look at well maybe we
need to change from 50% we still have
that option but at least we'll have
something sit-in primarily so the school
district can do their job and make plans
I agree I think that the school
districts have a lot of work and
problems trying to actually at the
schools honest particular piece of
property and I think that having the
semi requirement of at least 50% and
that as as he said a minimum of 50% will
get us through the next round of
meetings that we can put people together
to address the issue and see where we're
going and I don't know how much power
the city has in actually designing the
schools because the city doesn't know
what
the schools need only the school
district with their background and their
information knows exactly what the
schools need and how to put it together
and if we sit down with this middy or
whatever you want to call it and you do
come up with creative solutions I think
that's where we need to go more than
mandating that 95% or 100% of parking be
in in covered parking my daughter my
grandkids go to school in Hong Kong and
they are in a big building with arcing
underneath and their school is on top of
the there is no land over there either
to to expand and so that's an option
that I think we need to look at and I
think everything should be on the table
and it's hard once you're working for a
school district or any organization and
you work hard hard hard and this is what
you come up with and you just assume
that that's the way it's going to be and
it's you don't think out of the box and
I think we need to really think out of
the box for the future for our schools
not just demanding 95 or 100 percent I
think there's a lot to learn and and do
but the school district needs to go
forward I don't think they're there they
might be looking at parcels of land but
I don't think they're worth looking at
for specific things and I think we can
always come back in a few months and and
have some negotiating and see exactly if
we can think out of the box and come up
with better ideas so I agree with the at
this point in time the minimum 50% would
be a starting point of where we should
go so any other comments you've all made
some reasonable good explanation of
where you are I do need if we go forward
I do need a I want to make a motion one
way or the other to
continue on with this Oh Troy we look
like you're ready yeah I would move that
we passed the amendment as proposed by
staff exactly make a second emotion you
can make an amendment to the motion the
motions on the table right now fifty
percent so I like to make an amendment
to the motion that we include one on a
percent covered parking for bicycles
unless there is already capacity unless
there is already sufficient covered
covered parking for bicycles and I would
like to make an amendment to the motion
that we raise it to at least sixty
percent the maker of the motion has to
agree to the amendment does the make or
the motion agree to the amendment and
you're not a motion the amendment from
what I understand right okay so there's
a motion on the on the on the table of
accepting the 50% structured parking as
as proposed by ask all those in favor
say aye aye opposed nay
all right so we have four four and three
against so I would assume that the
motion passes with that we will go into
the second discussion on that was the
easy one
[Laughter]
no he's not but I think we have to make
it clear that that there is going to be
more discussion with the people that are
in the know that continue this we will
be back okay
we need to say that in the action missed
opportunity so good evening I'm Lucy
slum and land development manager DSD
tonight we are having a public hearing
on the design manual which is a new tool
as I mentioned in my email we know that
there are punctuation grammar
wordsmithing issues and that InDesign
has created a somewhat funky document so
if as you see things feel free to email
me also feel free to ask questions as we
go along this evening so just for a
little bit of history
July 11th 2016 staff did the first
required three year evaluation of
central Issaquah we evaluated 14
projects they all complied with the
Central's clause standards and they were
considered not to have met the
community's expectations that led to the
more as part of the moratorium on
September 6th architectural fit and
urban design were identified as two work
plan items subsequently were combined
into a single item and the consultant
Crandall Aram Beulah was hired to
prepare the manual so what we're talking
about tonight and I'd like to invite
there are three members the development
commission that are here tonight we've
set up the table so that they can come
and join in we're thinking of this kind
of like what we've been doing with the
UV DC and PPC in anticipation of the
ending of the development agreements and
so because this is going to be the tool
that DC will
going forward we thought and since
they've spent all this time it seemed
appropriate for there to be a dialog so
I would invite you up to the table and
I'm I know these men are famous but they
should probably introduce themselves
infamous is this one okay my name is
Richard so I'm the chair of the
Development Commission I'm Randi
Harrison and Mel Morgan I'm the vice
chair of the development Commission so
as you can see up on the screen we have
held a number of meetings six with the
development Commission and two with the
council as work sessions in those
meetings
Crandell Aram Beulah and sometimes city
staff have assessed some of the
challenges that central akua's faced in
implementing the centralist law
standards identified the components that
would be incorporated into the design
manual and spent several meetings
reviewing the first draft so I think the
thing we're going to sort of start with
the conclusion which is the checklist
that Crandall Aram Billa developed it
highlights that the design manual is
divided into two primary components
architecture and urban design and that
the purpose is really to create a tool
that both staff and the Development
Commission can use to track the reviews
and figure out whether a proposal is in
compliance and we have already used this
as sort of a trial run with a project
that was approved under central is claw
as sort of a test case that was a good
opportunity for us to see how this might
work
now what I'd like to do is kind of run
through sort of at a high level the
components and look at some of the
important details the first is that
Crandall Aram Beulah which I sometimes
call CA just because it's easier to say
divided central Issaquah into two main
districts there was the urban core which
is the area that's sort of missing from
here and then the other everything else
surrounding the urban core was the
second district called traditional
Issaquah just note that they've called
out certain neighborhoods East like
Darcy and Gilman that was aren't all the
neighborhoods that are in that
surrounding area I'm not quite sure why
they chose those but I cheated and use
their slides one of the policy questions
which I didn't include in the memo but
which might be a good place to talk
about with the two Commission's is the
way the manual is currently structured
has a fairly bright edge between the
urban core and this traditional Issaquah
area the Commission spent a lot of time
talking about that should those edges be
blurrier ca looked at they watched the
videotapes of the Commission sessions
staff talked about it both staff and
Crandall or ambulance after
concurred with Crandall or rambilas
position that we should keep a brighter
edge but that is one thing that may be
worth talking about either now or later
about whether that should continue to be
a brighter edge or should be blurry or
line between the two districts
if you want I I guess I feel a little
compelled to set the stage a little
differently as a member of the
development mission one of the things we
continue struggle with was having
developers come present make
presentations to us and our response
being well we're not sure we like it but
it's consistent with the rules and
regulations and so we need something
more we we needed something more to be
able to help us be more definitive and
what our expectations were and so so
that generated the whole notion of the
design manual and the consequence of
that is that because we struggle so much
often having to say well it meets the
standards so we can't really complain
about it or change it or challenge it
very much it's not liking something
doesn't usually get you very far we want
it to be real specific so you're always
trying to balance that notion of
prescriptive versus aspirational as CA
always said you know I mean the bottom
line is in the in the purest sense would
like it to be black and white but the
reality is there's nothing black and
white you know so being able to try to
be as definitive as possible but not
eliminate options or that when you get
right on a borderline is it absolutely
imperative that it if it's in one zone
it has to be this and if it's not we
think we think there's some grounds for
dialogue and discussion but our our
general default is to be as prescriptive
as we possibly can so that we can
eliminate confusion in the dialogue
that's the whole point of the design
name Lucy so is your recommendation then
to keep Lucy's idea of a bright edge at
the discretion of the Development
Commission we I think I think in general
we would like as bright edge as possible
acknowledging that there are times when
that just doesn't make sense that we
don't want to we don't want to miss
opportunities because of a arbitrary
line that something we decided that that
was a good thing to do right so it it
really like I said I prefer I think our
preference would be to make it as black
and white as
but there's also got to be
acknowledgement that it's never always
black and white
that's that's what always causes the
dialogue is the tough that's the tough
go instead of one line around you're
going to have to so there's this area
between the two designations where it
could be either one well I think we'd
like to have one line well I mean that's
kind of an easy way out for also also
recognize that that may not always work
I would add at this point that one of
the benefits that I think the Commission
sees with this approach is that it's not
just the city that benefits from this
it's the potential applicants does the
we believe the effect of this will to
give someone who wants to come into
Issaquah and and do something a much
clearer set of wealth I can't do that
there I can't do this kind of
architecture here but I may be able to
do over there the point is that we
believe it will have a significant
benefit in helping applicants before
they even come before the city staff
with their initial initial paperwork to
understand what the city wants and where
we want it I'll throw one other thing
too I think that I think one of the
concerns about the bright line is the
only design that's allowed within the
urban core is the northwest traditional
so there's only one style in a fairly
large area of Issaquah where a lot of
developments should take place where
there's only a single style that could
happen I think the commissioners felt
more inclined to allow other styles to
seep into the urban core as opposed to
letting Northwest contemporary seep out
into traditional Issaquah that would be
where I think the bright line could be a
problem
we don't allow some seepage I guess we
call
well that really would be a bright line
at the discretion of the Development
Commission a case-by-case basis right
now the way it's written within the
urban core you can only do the
traditional northwest traditional style
and nothing else
transpiration of DC it's at the it would
be it would be in code so right now this
has gone forward ultimately to the
council - then get codified and it would
be then in code so DC would have clear
direction on what architecture could go
where it's not they you know this was
bantered back and forth and I don't
think all of the commissioners landed in
the same spot on whether that should be
a bright line or whether it should have
some flexibility and I think part of at
least the conversation at DC was it's
kind of like a new pair of trousers
we're gonna try it on and see how it
fits and as you know as things come
through we're gonna have some
realizations that you know what you know
maybe after we see the second or third
building that looks the same we might
want to say hey you know what some
flexibility in that line might make a
lot of sense at that point I don't know
I think I think we all kind of agreed
that let's take this thing for a test
run and see how it how it plays so so I
guess could we see what that would look
like written but you're asking what's
being proposed right now is bright line
okay hard bright line hard bright line
no flexibility so what I was hearing
from DC is maybe it might make sense to
look at some of the how many styles were
there proposed there's one in the urban
core and six in traditional East quad
yeah so maybe some of those six we
consider okay for the urban core such as
the Northwest Revival style that is a
little bit taller or something like that
and that might keep that bright line but
still present more options so that we're
not getting the same project in the
urban core over and over and over again
maybe
well and and and I I think I want to
just tag on to what well a couple of
things one I would say Richard reminded
me of something that I had meant to say
earlier which was the code was central
his quest a nerds were intentionally
written focused on urban design and not
architecture and we tried that for a
number of years and we're deciding that
didn't those are the trousers they
didn't fit right we're gonna take them
to the tailor and I like bell-bottoms
and in looking at this I I think that
the representative members of DC who are
here tonight have characterized it quite
accurately there was a lot of discussion
should it be a bright line should those
styles be allowed everywhere should they
be allowed in a ring there were a number
of different suggestions we took that
back to see a and asked for their
recommendation their recommendation was
to keep a bright line that does not mean
that we cannot alter it I but I think
that's why there has not been
it didn't come forward in a different
format because there was not a clear
consensus coming from DC and there were
a couple of different options that were
possible and there was as I said not
clear direction ask a question or I'm
going to ask a question is this related
to commercial retail multifamily
development but not single-family
development I would assume it would be
any development that occurred it is
unlikely though not prohibited that
single-family would be built we've had
the lamp we've had one proposal in the
four years for a single this is only
applying to something that goes to a
level three review right no it applies
to everything okay
and it's just that given the allowed
Heights and densities and uses it's
unlikely that people would tend to
redevelop with single-family so this is
just in central Issaquah and so think
about the what's down here now you would
basically have to buy out an existing
shopping center to build a plat now
that's not unheard of but the land
values probably aren't going to be very
appealing to many people to do that so I
think all right we're trying to look at
the map and consider whether or not the
area behind like Gilman Village the
housing there is included in that right
yes I mean this area and the sort of
Gilman neighborhood does have some
single-family houses I believe the one
single-family house that we've received
was in that area and you know I think
the thing about it is that arts and
crafts craftsmen are you know easily
used for single-family homes they may
have even you know they're sort of the
genesis of that style so I think that
the tools wall intended for the other
uses that you identified are not
problematic for a single-family house I
have a question about the line for the
Western gateway when we had gone over
the proposed things for Old Town the
city had recommended that we pushed that
boundary and I believe that the
recommendation of this commission was to
keep it at that crossroads of Gilman and
Front Street and I'm curious where that
where that line is lying if that was
passed and I'm thinking of it
specifically regards to the former
staples building in regard to what is
able to be built here does that line put
us does that put us right at that
juxtaposition of Gilman and Front Street
or is that past the state place so I
staples is not in this this is so it's
kind of the beauty and the challenge of
these six moratorium items being dealt
with there are different pieces being
addressed this piece is working with the
boundary just as it is without changing
any of the the boundaries is that
boundary at yeomen at Front Street or as
it passed the old town boundary let me
let me do this
it's a Gilman in front so the Staples
property is currently in Old Town and
you know as as we talked about so that
issue specifically is being handled both
with the old town plan update as well as
the neighbourhood vision conversations
and that's the route 66 neighborhood
that that might potentially get added to
I think where those bulbs haven't
stopped bouncing yet because the old
town plan update hasn't been approved
and the district vision is happening
last but it seems like at least at this
point that property is staying in Old
Town okay so on this map this red line
represents the boundary and this would
be the Staples property right here so it
would be right on the edge but right
outside of central is called me that's a
great example of where we talk about
having this hard and fast line a bright
line versus a blurred line as we talk
about how we try to create a style of
how when people are coming through
Issaquah we've talked about wanting to
promote Commerce in our city and so
that's why my question is because I
think that's a good example of a
property that when we have either if
it's been expanded we have one option of
how of how a style of which it can be
redeveloped versus if it falls into the
other bucket and so I think of that
particular corridor as being a good
example of how we really have an
illustration of these two different
styles kind of meeting head-to-head and
that's why I asked about where that line
is falling right now and I realized
maybe that hasn't really been approved
yet but to me that's a good example that
I would think about it's kind of how we
that kind of juxtaposition of where
those lines come together and what we
want that to look like a really good
point
so that would be Old Town yeah currently
it looks like that would be Old Town
it's right on the edge of the Issaquah
style of
list there but I think that in our
packet is called traditional Issaquah
and not the urban core so it actually
has one two three four five different
six with the new northwest revival
here's a new one yes oh yes
six so the Grange style and Western
Falls front were both I think added to
the traditional Issaquah area in to
reflect what's happening in Old Town and
what's happening kind of along the
service area of kind of central is a
clause so so there is I think some
compatibility there in some of the
choices that are available but that
particular parcel and right now if it
does stay in Old Town part of the Old
Town update is to also update the
architecture and urban design standards
for that sub area so that would be a
separate thing that would happen next
year okay
I was curious too and reading the packet
when we talk about a blurred line
it seemed whatever there was a creek
reservoir there was a language about how
it needs to have natural materials that
are used to help kind of blur that line
of our open space and green space would
you argue that that is a way of blurring
the line of how we're directing what
materials can be used next to green
space and again I look again at these
kind of hard lines of the Issaquah style
versus you know when we have Pickering I
see our big we have a some degree
necklace going up and so to me that's
kind of a way of softening is saying
when you're within I think it was almost
100 or 150 feet underneath me that you
have to use particular styling so to me
that was kind of a way of blurring it
it's am I reading that incorrectly kind
of her um no I don't think you're
reading it incorrectly I think that this
so the the urban design elements
transcend use and style it will that
piece of the con
next we'll make I think more of a
gesture towards the natural areas which
we want to spend some time talking about
what is in and what is out but I'm not
sure that the style will for instance
traditional Issaquah reads more
traditionally and northwest contemporary
reads more contemporary and I think that
will continue even if you are using say
more natural materials for instance this
is a question for the Development
Commission so I understand the idea of
voting yes or no on on a bright line but
what could be some of the options for
implementing a blurred line in terms of
the policy and one thing that was cooked
forward would be to allow a different
style and look or in the urban center
sorry
whatever urban core but to me that just
seems like a change it's still there's
still a bright line and you're just
allowing something more inside the
bright line so I'm just wondering how
you would implement a blurred line
what possible options that would be for
doing that so so I did mention that and
just quickly to say that there two of
the options that were discussed was was
their transitional ring or were styles
allowed certain styles or all styles
were allowed throughout the urban core
from our perspective we would just get
whatever staff would send to us and if
there's a bright line and if it's not
allowed at dawn round if we if you have
flexibility I think the best is if
somebody came to staff and said we want
to do this style within the urban core
it fits one of the other styles we think
it would look well in the urban core and
if staff has the flexibility or bring it
to us and say would you agree with that
and if we have that flexibility I don't
know how you
of they actually write that into ability
to do that it's like having her cake and
eating it too yeah and I think what what
we will what I would want folks to
understand is we're not talking about
Berlin with a wall that goes that says
that's that side and this and there are
no exceptions if you try to cross it
you're going to get a shot my take on
this is that we think the hard line
basically sends the message that this is
what we have agreed on with a lot of
work a lot of different people this is
what we agree have agreed on is the
approach that is gonna best suit the
interests of the city long term I
personally believe that the reality is
when we get something from an applicant
that goes to the staff and the staff
goes yeah that's that's a good idea but
do this and that and then it comes to
the development Commission even though
it may transgress the hardline if if
it's acceptable style and staff agrees
with it and the applicant agrees with
the adjustments that make it acceptable
to bring forward to us we should be able
to we should be able to at least
consider it
so with that and they're normally the
way we do it is to open up to public
comment before we all discuss this and
it seems like just this one little issue
is going to take a while and so what I'd
like to do is find out if there's
anybody I'm going to open the public
comment at 8 o'clock on this one
particular issue and would like to know
if anybody would like to make any
comments you've come on up
hi Steve Brera so two thoughts occurred
to me one was as I look at this and this
idea of the map I guess two thoughts one
was this is Gua style and the central or
style I would also like to see revision
to Issaquah style to have a Down zone
for a height of the building to a set
height even if you have a five store
traditional style it's still going to be
too big for the surrounding areas so I'd
like that considered as food for thought
I would also like to see that those
specifically applied to the what talks
about the old the the bottom right
corner where we talk about the old route
10 I would like to see that specifically
down zoned to have a less density with
those traditional style areas in
addition to the old town area so those
are kind of my first thoughts my second
thought was as I heard you Richard you
talked about and I've gotten a lot of
the the development Commission meetings
you've had stuff come forward and you
only have the choice the code says we
have to allow we have to allow it
there's no Willa tee to say no we don't
like it for the color of the building
and material so I applaud the ability to
have more the builders say no that's
just looks dumb or looks ugly so I think
those are pluses that move forward with
that idea why I want the flexibility for
the development Commission to say no not
just because the code says so but no
because that's ugly or that's dumb and
you don't have that ability today so I
think that's the step in the right
direction thank you I'm just pulling up
a different map please come to yeah
Connie
like that hasn't happened yes I did but
I didn't realize that it would take air
long sorry
just switch places it what okay Connie
Marsh canceled so I think it's a step in
the right direction I listen to the
development Commission's conversation
and they're really trying to figure out
how to make a consistent flexible and
attractive composition that they have
the power to change which i think is
impossible to get right so I understand
it's impossible to begin with one of my
concerns is some of our buildings that I
consider to be sort of some of the best
Issaquah buildings I've not been able to
understand whether they would be allowed
in the different zonings and that would
be like the library building because it
doesn't really fit the themes and so I
concocted a little grouping of those
pictures and called it Northwest
Industrial but because it seems like a
lot of our buildings sort of have an
industrial edge and so I would actually
prefer to see another category added on
to the core area that would provide
another style that I think would work
now
they talked sort of around it and never
concluded that that's where they wanted
to go because it seems very complex
already but I think it needs to be
discussed the other thing that was sort
of put aside saying it was taken care of
by other code is the view protection
from the
variety of buildings and the
architecture that is provided you have
all kinds of different things you have
to look at from up close the materials
that it is made from but it never really
takes you in a step back and says how
does this look in the context of
everything around it and I would like to
see that more clarified from what I was
what I was provided Thanks I'm not sure
how that would work is anybody else good
ideas I just don't know how to put that
together
please come and
yeah susan has again I just think it's
really interesting those tasks that
you're trying to do because on one hand
you're trying to encourage certain
things you if staples parking lot were
redeveloped you wouldn't want it to be
the same exact thing I'm guessing you
might want parking on the side and the
back and you know something different
so and you're trying to encourage
sustainability in the city and all sorts
of innovations bicycle parking covered
bicycle parking like all these and and
architectural some sort of cohesion and
at the same time like I'm a visual
artist so I I have a I like freedom I
like to be able to do things that are
weird and I like seeing weird things out
there that don't fit in because it
reminds me that they're human beings and
it's not a movie set you know it's not a
constructed social engineering project
it's not aspen it's not you know it's
sort of like it's a gua so at the same
time you know i just think it's a really
interesting initiative that you have
where you're trying to encourage
ecological and visual progress in
Issaquah and land-use progress and at
the same time allow for people to
exercise their creativity and improvise
on their own and encourage them to do
that just like you might with a kid you
know figure it out yourself sort of idea
and and you and you at the same time
it's a government it's a public entity
so you it's impossible to have
situations that look like it depends on
if somebody likes you at City Hall you
know do I make a good impression are
they going to do this because I know
there
brother or something like so I think
that yeah the more you can provide
resources the better the more you can
maybe I don't know I've seen model
ordinances in Minnesota where they talk
about architectural things like
Christopher Alexander's book a pattern
language all about how do you make human
scale places how do you make places that
are good to live in Jane Jacobs you know
like these these principles and I've
seen a lot of neat things happening in
Issaquah like that and so I just really
I guess I just really feel for you
because I can kind of tell where you
want to go with this no just really wish
your the best things mm-hmm anybody else
like to make a comment
mmm David Kapler some flexibility is
something I I wish you would have I
guess also in some cases I wish you had
veto power
you know everybody talked about Atlas
doubtless is a joy compared to what
people are telling me about Gateway and
it's just I've got a whole bunch of
stories running X 990 that are gonna be
rising from those concrete foundations
that are there and I wish we had a way
of stirring that differently but it's a
challenge what you're doing and keep up
the work thank you
would anybody else like to make a
comment but anybody else like to make a
comment seeing nobody I will close the
public hearing at 8:10 and open it up to
continued discussion so one point I
would like to make is that and you may
remember this from your training there
are two kinds of due process that we are
legally required to meet one is
procedural due process that means giving
notice but the other is substantive due
process and substantive due process
means that the rules have to be clear
and predictable and so discretion to
just say no based on something other
than what's in the code will lead us
back to the Supreme Court which as an
urban planner I don't like going into
land-use trainings and being reminded of
so I I think understanding the the
wishes of the Development Commission
and planning policy commission and
crafting language that has criteria for
the things that we want if it's
different than a bright line we can
certainly talk about but we can't simply
say we someone's made a good case so we
want and I'm just taking it to an
extreme I'm not saying anyone suggested
this but we if someone came in and said
I want to do a bungalow and in the urban
core can I do that
we would have to say no because right
now that's not the way the rules are wet
written and so we have to we cannot be
capricious that's that's one of those
tests that were required to meet so I've
got a question about this packet in
terms of the discussion that we have
right now I don't remember seeing in
language this discussion is it in this
packet or is this something that's been
just brought to our attention that we
need to discuss when we were putting
together the presentation we realized
that this might be another policy piece
that was worth discussing this evening
so it was not in the packet you're right
oh we should not make a decision tonight
until we see that idea written in a
policy form or would that be an
amendment to this document well I don't
know that I think what we're looking for
is guidance from the Commission I'm I
have not gathered that there is a
consensus at this time that so that's
what got us to this so we're looking for
guidance and depending on what that
guidance is we can discuss how to move
forward okay I I think you had mentioned
in the document that this had been
approved by council but I was really
secretly hoping there was going to be
somebody here tonight to talk to us
about that but going through the
advisement it has not been has not beds
we've had two works
with the council so um well know so I'm
sorry with with legal counsels when I'm
in depth oh oh that kind of count so
when I was going through this document I
really couldn't shake from every page
thinking about Anderson B is a clown I
think with good reason
I'm sure a lot of us were thinking about
that and so when looking at the urban
core and seeing more limited choices I
made me concerned that we were going to
be opening ourselves up to this kind of
either this or no situation and thinking
about the particulars of the case I was
it to me it speaks to this blurred line
issue of saying how much can we allow
giving developers some sort of leeway
that still fits within the way that we
view our city since we've obviously had
issues with that and so having I was I
was hoping to have legal counsel here
for kind of talking about talking
specifically to what how this document
opens us up or how this protects us or
so this was sent to legal counsel they
reviewed it they identified two issues
that was not one of them the two issues
they identified one was clarity on how
to know what an inappropriate color was
and clarity around the idea of
compatibility that's why you had the
twenty one extra pages at the end where
certain terms were altered or additional
graphics added to address that so urban
core was not one of the areas of concern
from the city attorney so for those the
number of options in the urban core that
was not a concern it's it's not I don't
think it's so the issue the liability
issue that is being kind of alluded to
is the city was sued a while back
and the code that the city was using was
declared to be void for vagueness that's
that's a planning term it's basically
not providing enough clarity that an
applicant can actually get through the
process and so what was basically
decided was that that project that was
being contended was considered not
fitting with is
style but nobody then defined what that
was and so the applicant they so they
won because the city didn't do a good
enough job describing what that actually
meant here what we've tried to do was
take code language that was things like
because the way this was originally
written you know was you know we want to
encourage steep roof pitches okay what
does that mean because that what that
means to me may not be the same as what
it means to you so we asked our
consultant so we need to get some
quantifiable numbers in there so that
when the Commission actually gets an
application they can say okay that roof
is too flat it doesn't meet the
standards and therefore we can say no
and so we've gone through it to the best
of our ability to make it understandable
for an applicant now I think that having
one style in the core doesn't cause a
problem so long as an applicant can
Slough through that process and get to a
permit at the end of the day and so just
because there's not more flexibility I
don't think puts the city at risk and I
think that's where the city attorney
also agreed with that position thank you
Lucy yeah how does the concept because
in the past on the development
Commission we would have something and
we'd hear the administrative adjustment
of standards is does that create the
flexibility that that you're looking at
or potentially at you know we've got
bright-line rules but then all of a
sudden we have this administrative
adjustment of standards which changed
you know with stuff in regards to the
wedding cake on a building we could make
it go higher because we did an
administrative adjustment so is that the
out that Development Commission could
have so right now the this is not
administrative adjustment of standards
are not available for this if if there
is a we can discuss it
I think that Crandall Aram Beulah has
heard a concern from the Development
Commission that a s's were used to
frequently and so this is this is it so
but yeah I I again that it that is a
that is our consultants recommendation
that's why we're having this
conversation with these two Commission's
so you can look at this you have the
requirements for the core and it's
everybody saying it's one style but that
one style is so different you can use
different materials you can use
everything to make it more unique right
now I think that you have to make sure
that that is understood that it's not
every building has to look the same
right has to flow a little bit better
but what we were really looking for is
to be able to establish a template oh
absolutely hoping that there was enough
creativity in the architectural
community that they could look at that
and say we can beat this we can meet
this template but here's some
interesting ways to do it and then we
have their pictures that would say if it
looks like this we thought I think
that's really a good idea we'd really
like to go with that but if it looks
like this we really don't want to see
that you know and I think it gives us it
gives the developer bar to try to hit
that I think there's a plenty of
creativity in that if you choose if you
choose there to be the developers need
that I mean it makes their job a lot
easier they know what they can do how
they can do it and know what the cost is
going to be and then I'll have to spend
three years going through the permitting
process I mean it's a win-win for
everybody and it's a win-win for the
city well it makes it frankly it makes
it easier for us because we don't have
to see stuff that we just don't want to
look at and I'm tired of yelling at Carl
because he approves something and we you
know that's it
I don't share that that's I think that's
what I was alluding to him I fir
comment I I believe that all of us in
the Commission there are things that
would buzz points I guess you should
call them but that we we believe that
this will make it a more well-defined
process for everybody everybody involved
including the public and I would just
add sitting in here and listening to
your discussion with the school board
one of the things that I enjoy most
about being on the development
Commission is the fact that you know
this is public input is a critical
component of what this city does and how
we do it and what we produce our living
documents so just as the case with the
with the school board issue no we could
come back what we're doing now is going
well we need to adjust we need to adjust
this we need we have the plan in place
we've been through it for three years
and now we know what didn't work has it
in the execution as we planned so this
is this is a living a living process and
that's its enormous ly encouraging but
there is a process I mean that's what I
felt there was a problem with a central
area plan that was this is the plan and
we want this but there was no way to get
them and our teeth work you've done I
think you've covered just about every
possible thing that you could cover
we don't think we have but we we think
this is a good start and I guess that's
I think a point that needs to continue
and he made us we this isn't the end
product that's exact you know we we
would hope we think that we in a number
of things with this we set the bar but
more importantly we opened up the
opportunity for some public dialogue to
be able to take a look at that and say M
this this works this doesn't work and we
gave a real clear track for developers
to be able to have it have a best shot
at coming up with so we in no way think
that it's done you know we think that
one thing I'd like you to require on all
these buildings that you the ones you
have flat roofs on Gardens trees
interface with nature on on top of those
buildings I don't know why that it
actually isn't in there it just makes
more sense you go into Seattle and you
say you see that in Seattle but there
are no requirements here in this in that
this did you present it if anybody else
want to continue the conversation is
there anything else is there something
in there that specifically you have a
problem with actually no I've just got
one very very small thing on page 102 of
147 where we're talking about building
edges and entries one of the areas it
talks about inappropriate any customer
entries excess directly from parking
lots or alleys I really appreciate the
idea of public entries being at the
street area but one of the things that
I've also appreciated in say Grand rich
Plaza or something like that is also
having that other entryway I mean we
have weather if somebody if you're gonna
have a parking lot and somebody's gonna
park there they should be able to also
enter in that way so I might change that
to say inappropriate if the only entry
so there wouldn't be any only entries
because your primary entries cannot be
from a parking lot this is a comment or
a question that we've
asked a number of times and haven't
really had an opportunity to sit down
and get down to this level of response
but it is all I can say is it was an
intentional choice by Crandall arambula
to not make that change I so that's not
contradicting what you're saying it's
just giving you as much perspective as I
have on it actually like actually like
what you said
because she's right when you're parking
your car and it's raining it's like I
want to get inside and I may not
necessarily care so much what it looks
like as long as it gets me inside though
is there and we at least address that
with CA and
then actually I was going to discuss
exactly what John mentioned about the
spaces on the roofs I noticed that piece
was missing as far as open community
spaces and green spaces on rooftops so
that's addressed in the centralist cost
standards it isn't required so let me
let me just be clear it is encouraged
and we certainly are supportive of it
and we have a couple of projects that
have taken advantage of it the only
thing I can tell you is that from a
building code perspective it is more
complicated to have that on the roof so
Lucy I'm doing this from really bad old
memory pre vacation memory
so his there is there not something
within the natural context piece that
talks about step backs and green
activity spaces on the roof so buildings
in the enclosure section and in the set
back step back area buildings over a
certain height have to step back and
those would be terraces but that
wouldn't inherit I mean it could be
green it is not required to be green we
also talked about those Heights when
when we're looking at the chart is that
and I'm not on the right page so I'm of
course not gonna reference it well but
it says things like yeah all right and
there it was yeah so like in the right
column when we're talking about height
or stories or whatever that is that's
way too small for me to actually read I
believe it says like force Plus stories
so is that a minimum or a maximum oh so
so for Northwest contemporary stories it
says 4 plus stories you know just using
that as an example for all across
some of them say max some of them say
like 2 to 5 floors right what does that
mean well for instance arts and crafts
has range because different uses have
different heights so commercial would be
different than residential so I think
that's why they put the range in I think
that so I'm going I'm going to try
something because I do that kind of
thing I'm made a kind of little crib
sheet on Heights because that was one of
the policy questions that we were hoping
to discuss with you and so I put in the
men in the max as I understood it okay
and now we've got one additional the
Northwest contemporary right now Norton
Oh
Northwest revival these are all
traditional Issaquah styles you are
right there is Northwest contemporary
but that's for the urban core and this
was relative to traditional Issaquah
there was a lot of discussion by the
development commissioned by the council
the public and staff about whether we
needed another style and so we have
another style and if we want to talk
about this I can sort of frame it a
little bit I guess the question kind of
the thing to address here is do we feel
comfortable with all of those Heights is
there and some of those are pretty tall
so I think the chart below the table 4.4
is the allowed Heights so our task was
not to evaluate Heights in the different
districts our task was to look at the
architecture and urban design
so we have focused on what is
appropriate to implement table 4.4 so as
you can see outside the urban core the
heights are the max height using density
bonuses 65 feet except in mixed juice it
is 85 feet those would translate into 65
would be somewhere between five and six
stories 85 feet would be somewhere
between seven and eight stories
depending on the use okay so if I'm
interpreting that correctly that means
then the the northwest revival you're
saying is only going to be appropriate
in areas that have at least that height
capacity well okay I'm backing up so I
think the question is what minimum and
maximum Heights should be applied to
this for instance the ten stories that
see a recommended is probably beyond the
heights allowed in those zones and in
one place they said minimum height was
five stories and another place they said
it was six stories so the administration
is recommending kind of as a range for
discussion either four to five as a
minimum or seven to eight as a maximum
given the heights that are allowed in
traditional is kua and I would just add
that the pictures at the bottom this
commercial style that Northwest revival
represents these are buildings in
Issaquah that although two stories are
built in this commercial style the
building on the right where Vina bellow
is is the Koot Co utt I don't have never
heard it said building the Issaquah Bank
building is the one on the left and the
middle picture is what it looked like
originally
oh I just like to show that because I
was really blown away when I saw that
how it had been transformed
so those represent especially in
original form and the coot building are
both classic examples of the commercial
style that they are proposing as part of
Northwest revival so back to our meaty
slide so there is a range of uses or a
range of styles the only style that
initially had gone above four stories
was Northwest Lodge the Arts and Crafts
style has been modified by CA to have
five stories but we still have the
potential of buildings that are taller
than that and so that's why we asked for
the Northwest survival that was part of
the instigation for the Northwest
revival style and so this style came in
on Thursday night so the development
Commission had not had an opportunity
that was another reason that we thought
it was important to have them here
because they were a big part of the
instigation and asking for this other
style and it seemed appropriate to have
a roundtable discussion I've also got a
question more about materials what's
appropriate what's not appropriate so it
was just a good time to bring this up
it's at it's there you go all right so I
see the use of simulated what is
acceptable and I understand simulate
what can take on many different forms
but I see that up in Highlands is the
use of some simulated wood is already de
laminating barber board particle board
soaking up its rotting is coming off too
it's walking it looks terrible would it
be appropriate to say that type of
material is not appropriate in this
document or would that be more of a code
so it actually so that language was
added at the direction of DC through a
conversation about the original proposal
was natural materials only and I think
part of the conversation that we had at
DC was to have some more flexibility for
things like hardiplank and other
materials that are in current
construction but yet have that
appearance of durable material so I
think the intent was if it's synthetic
it would emulate a durable material I am
not aware of the construction issues
that you're identifying in the highlands
and what kind of materials are
experiencing that lack of durability so
I think sir I have checked in with Sarah
hoye and I didn't I didn't remember till
you were I saw your email but I did not
remember your previous comment I've got
to go back and look Sarah hoye the
executive director of the Issaquah
Highlands Community Association told me
more about that it's a very specific
material it is not I think I think it
would be unfair to it paint all
simulated wood with that brush but I can
find out more about the specific example
that you've identified Ron and we can we
can identify that because I don't think
we want something it's not going to be
durable exactly yeah I'm not saying all
simulated wood I'm just saying there are
a certain variety as a simulated wood
that would be disastrous 15 20 years of
use yeah I could imagine the urban core
being built using a lot of these
materials and after 20 years it would
look terrible right I think I mean I
think to your point I think rather than
identifying certain brands because as
you know we we learn about durability
based on time
you may have a belief like that Trek's
is a very durable product but then we
might find out that no actually it may
not last as long as we think it might so
so part of this is identifying the
intent which is if it's synthetic that
it's a proven durable product I think is
what the intent was of allowing
synthetics not a subject matter expert
on that but I wanted to bring that up as
important criteria so when you are
looking at the plant proposal from a
developer and they have a specific
synthetic material that they're going to
use you would have the option to say
show me the history though of whatever
when I say no I don't terms of what we
approve we wouldn't get into essentially
like Building Code approval are there
some things inappropriate but whether it
meets the guidelines of the design
architectural design not okay for us to
be able to say this is a you know a
material that won't last but you know I
think the important thing to add is this
you know as as much as this was created
as an important tool kit for the
development Commission it is a tool that
staff are also going to be implementing
and you know the Commission had seized
material boards they approve them but we
are also behind the scenes you know
looking at things at a finer grain than
the Commission will based on the codes
that are adopted
so I I think that's trying to find a
more generic term not as specific he
said not a specific prod product that is
not being allowed but to try and
identify what those kind of durable
materials are that are acceptable does
that make sense that makes sense
okay
Shefali you know one of the things that
I I personally think is an improvement
in this and this process that will
result from this is that I know you've
attended some Development Commission
meetings and you have your as such
you're probably aware that there have
been some as in more than one
application where the Development
Commission has specifically asked or
more material to be used that is
representative of Northwest or natural
material more stone and wood and the
issue is that we asked and suggested
strongly and because it wasn't it was a
suggestion from us and it wasn't in the
list of materials that can be used in
this type of district which is what the
design manuals we didn't get it what's
the plan to finish the document
I know it's stamped final draft all over
the place but there's a lot of tweaks of
something to happen and to me there's a
lot of holes as far as the inappropriate
examples you know we have a lot of
yellow question marks throughout the
document of saying still need to provide
this and to me that's where a lot of our
teeth is is to be like this is what we
don't want is is that still in the works
is that done but just not added to the
document or there are maybe two or three
locations in which we have asked for
inappropriate examples to maybe be
identified I would say that that the you
know the majority if not all of what
were what is left to be done is for
instance cleaning up the InDesign fixing
some of the numbering I think that there
are relatively minor things left to be
done I don't feel that the one or two or
three locations of inappropriate is
significant but that's my opinion has it
been done then I mean if they're not
significant then that means that you've
you found details to include
we just don't have them we I would not
say that we have asked for that to be
added and again have not had an
opportunity to sit down and understand
Crandell Ram Beulah may feel that those
are not necessary that it that there
isn't particularly a good example of
inappropriate examples sorry I'm
repeating my words way I guess then I
would I would encourage completion of
that I think that that's really
important to show language showing this
is not what we want I have one example
that is on page 60 of 147 where the
inappropriate as a facade projection
accepted balcony and you give an
inappropriate picture and I found it to
be a little bit vague and so if that's
what you're considering to be
inappropriate which I mean I can see
that it is a larger could you give me
the page number again 460 of 147 I think
um and so I mean I some point that I
shouldn't actually have a height maximum
of saying you know for this false front
western-style this is how big it should
be there should actually be a range of
specifying it because right now it feels
a little subjective to say oversized and
so we have you know the language on B is
just the facade projection being
inappropriate yeah we don't really
actually have a specification of how far
is too far and then you can you know see
on you know pages 98 99 provide examples
question mark I think that's pretty you
know important to say for a building
edging we talked about we have a lot to
talk about as far as awnings what
materials can be used you know we don't
want polyester awnings or how much we
want them to project over because of
because of weather but then we don't
have what is it an inappropriate
building edge first set back so I just I
think that this document needs to be
finished I don't think we need to
necessarily see that but I having it
just remain a blank to me it's a little
bit of concern so I would encourage that
okay and let me speak to a couple of the
examples that you've identified one of
the things that has
I'm out of some of the legal world is
that a photograph is as valuable as the
words so I think that that's the reason
that for instance the example that you
identified in the Western false front
even though it's there's not a specific
number I think that it's relative a
proportional description between the
words and the image that was acceptable
we have tended to use numbers but
because it is a proportional situation
it may not have been a number that a
number may not have been the right
approach there is with the weather
protection
you know the central district west
standards still exist and these
complement those and so one of the
decisions with weather protection was
for instance to have the more design
elements such as the materials the image
the sort of character of those be in
this document whereas the dimensional
requirements remains in centralist quest
standards so that they complement each
other so I think that that that that
dimension has been addressed it's just
not in this particular document and I
appreciate let's look at them right this
was a so this is one of the examples
whether we're staff I you know put this
in as a placeholder because we need to
have that conversation with Crandall Ram
Beulah and we can follow up and it's
helpful to know that that you would find
that useful
thank you I have a question and a
suggestion to Joy's point if we go back
to 60
so using the picture in the bottom right
hand corner your suggestion is to use
the spirit of the vision to mitigate
that type of structure those type of
additions yet that still leaves a lot of
ambiguity and subjectivity so if a
developer came in and wanted to do
something similar to that
there isn't anything definitive that
would say you cannot do that so um well
it has been identified as inappropriate
and so let's say the developer came in
and showed this and I would look at this
and say um this has been identified as
an inappropriate example and the cornice
is approximately half the size of the
facade below it and that's what you're
showing and so that has already been
deemed to be inappropriate you're right
it doesn't say five feets okay and six
feet isn't but that is with buildings
that can vary from one to six storeys or
no one to four storeys a dimensional a
dimension may not be appropriate right
and I certainly understand that but the
argument is how do you actually regulate
that who would be the one who would be
able to decide whether or not that was
appropriate developer comes and says
that's great that's why we're so famous
so staff staff would take the first
whack at it we fill out the checklist
first so actually the applicant fills
out the checklist first and the
applicant would say I chose Western
Falls front and I meet all the standards
and we go through and we say well no we
don't think you do because this is is
disproportionate ultimately then that
gets forwarded to the development
commission development Commission get to
see that staff don't believe it's
appropriate now the applicant would then
say here I here's what it says here's
why I think it's appropriate
they ultimately then get their the
decision maker so they then get to
decide if the applicant let's assume
they they agree with staff and they
require that that extension to be
reduced certain amount the applicant
then has the ability to appeal that
decision so there is a process so now
we're back to a procedural due process
there's a process associated with that
if that then goes to the hearing
examined the Hearing Examiner agrees
with the Development Commission that
they made the appropriate decision then
the applicant then gets to appeal that
to Superior Court if he wants and then
we're back to a place that we've been
before so part of this is getting as
many of those ambiguities knocked down
as as appropriate is this one where we
might want to take a second look and and
maybe provide some additional clarity
maybe I don't know but I hear the point
I'm not sure I feel super comfortable at
this moment on that particular one
example of inappropriateness but you
know I know that Lucy's been having
conversations with the city attorney and
I don't know if there's something else
coming for this or not but I think it's
I think we're on the same page as you
are we want clarity I think the
Development Commission wants as much
clarity as they can get out of it
and there will be places where we've
probably not provided enough and we'll
have to come back and and add photos and
if not more text I don't think that
there needs to necessarily be a height
requirement but it's to me and it just
an example of saying you know Lucy's
word so I think we're well if it's
double the size then that means it's too
big and so just having even that kind of
bracketing I think helps developers
especially when we have these blinks of
what is inappropriate so that's why I
just call out up saying
the better we define what we don't want
I think it helps to direct what we do
this is just a comment about the photos
so I think the photos are very helpful
and as you said they're also helpful
from a legal standpoint when the wording
isn't as precise but I also particularly
really liked the Issaquah photos there
are a lot of photos from within
SEO and I think that if they could
provide replace some of the photos that
aren't from Issaquah with Issaquah
photos I think that would be extra
helpful just because it would help also
the developers they can then model after
things that they could actually see in
the community and it would also I
imagine helped make the community more
cohesive because the examples are
actually examples existing here so
they're all looking at me because we had
this conversation okay Altman Commission
they're mostly they're mostly from
Issaquah which i think is great but then
they're you know there's some there are
some that are we we did a squad building
survey of non-residential buildings that
are two or more stories with the
development commission and passed that
along I think that in the timeframe that
we had they were a plus I did not
provide them with new photos I asked
them to let me know which ones they
thought were good examples that we other
than the library which we were all very
clear it would be in here so I think
that is something that we will be
following up with them to replace some
of the pictures or add to some of the
pictures because I agree with you it
while it has really helped these are
great pictures they're clear they're
well lit it's always nice to have
projects you can actually go walk around
that experiencing them in three
dimensions is different than looking at
a picture and so that will be something
that we'll follow up with them one of
the major points we tried to make with
consultant was that we didn't want all
of these equalities to be inappropriate
we would heartily agree with you that we
felt very strongly the same way
Lucy Durst had a great job of putting in
Issaquah photos together and very few
those made it in there and unfortunately
so I think also there's a there's an
aspirational aspect of this too because
we're talking about what what we
specifically for the urban core which is
going to go up by definition and so we
don't have a lot of up in the urban core
yet so what do we want them to look
and that's why the examples a lot of the
examples there are from Portland where
CA is but they've they've got that there
and that's it's pretty hard to find
northwest contemporary I've story
buildings in an Issaquah that we want to
see more of and I would say one one
other thing to Commission to Falls point
this is one of the one of the perennial
challenges of the Development Commission
and that we want creativity as one of
the members of the public
I mentioned tonight and we've had some
real active discussions on on how do you
have standards and and code height and
things like that and then go to this in
this direction without stifling
creativity without having some
architectural presentation to us that
really is is neat and and oh by the way
code compliant but it wouldn't have been
before so when it comes to the facade
heights and things like that I think
that's one of the reasons that we're not
getting into too specific numbers and
trying to go more with with pictures of
what we think works and what doesn't
work okay Wells but now not to imply
that we should be wrapping up or
anything like that but looking at the
clock and looking at where we are I
think with the discussion do we want to
make the suggestion to continue this
conversation at a later time that we can
gig into this it allow the city stuffs
and make changes and so on I haven't
heard any major changes what changes
would they be I mean specifications
clarifications but no conditions I think
I would feel from my perspective Ron I
have I think I have one question and one
comment left and I'm ready to move
forward I don't know that I need a
further round table discussion to
continue in a later date but that's just
from my perspective that I'm isn't there
but
correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you
interested in adding another design
standard to this all the design
standards are in the draft that you
receive it's in there is an amendment
okay
okay now I understand and I'm sure
joy what's your question oh my I had a
question about um the very last section
is on context and I at first I was
questioning when I read the document cuz
I was reading it obviously front to back
why it was kind of put as it felt like
an afterthought and I kind of was
questioning at first why it was put at
that place in the document and then I
realized I cared less about where it was
in the document the fact that I thought
this was a really important part when we
talked about trying to take in something
aspirational and actually put some teeth
on it
it's on page 141 of 147 and the the line
that strikes me is the end of the first
paragraph or so simply put new
development should fit in with the
environment and vision for central
Issaquah and I thought wow that's
exactly what we want we want to step
back and feel like this is cohesive
rather than a bunch of puzzle pieces put
together especially in the core when we
have a lot of development coming and so
I I just might comp my my question is
kind of about this why this element is
put here and then I think my further
comment is to kind of say is there a way
to kind of expand this and make this a
little more integral into the document
because to me this is it feels a little
more important than the way it's
addressed does that mean I don't know
that makes sense so I'm gonna go back
and actually I I love how much you guys
challenge me in terms of making
presentation okay so let me say a couple
things about the urban design section so
you know a big piece that we had an
address was architecture clearly you
guys have no questions on the structure
of architecture so I'm not even going to
go back there but on urban design I
think you what you're bringing up is an
interesting point and it took me a
little bit of time to understand the way
they were thinking about it and here's
what I'd like to say is that there are
two broad categories there is context
and there's sight context is how does
the project fit into the setting
and site is obviously the specific site
and and I think that the the reason that
it is here joy is because it applies to
all styles in all districts so they've
set up the districts they've explained
this sort of fine-grain thing then what
they're saying is what are the things
that are ubiquitous generic spread over
everything in a consistent sort of way
and so you know in context they have the
natural context piece which is the one
we'd like to discuss a little bit more
with you the other is other buildings
and what they've said is the majority of
buildings need to harmonize the way they
harmonize is using the Styles civic and
cultural buildings are the ones that
will stand out and I would add to that
the sort of parks and plazas I think
will be an important piece the site
itself then there are a number of pieces
about how that site contributes to
building a pleasant pedestrian oriented
public realm so there's the sort of
bundle this basket of things which they
chose for whatever reason to make second
that applies to everything as opposed to
the architecture which is parsed in a
much more fine-grain way does that help
it does help except for when I look back
to the design review checklist and I
have seen you know natural content and
the context section doesn't apply it's
almost like the note category needs to
be crossed off it needs to apply you
know so the way that I read the document
it felt a little more like there I I get
that it's a it's a bigger bucket that
applies to everything but it also felt
important to me and maybe it didn't
stand out quite as what as much as as
there was something too resonated with
me about how it was kind of whether it
was at the end of the document or
whether it was just a shorter section to
me it was important all agree with joy
there I like the idea of that beginning
contact section of the urban design
almost being in to go back to the very
beginning of it but kind of before the
architecture
section in the introduction just because
that's such an important element of
here's why we're doing it here's here's
what this means for developers and
here's the context that we're going to
be reviewing these projects well I guess
then what I'm hearing is so you know
this is page two and and it has so what
I'm hearing is that some of the language
of potentially the description I gave
you and the language that CAA is using
at the beginning of chapter three should
be pulled into this page to set up that
framework a little better is that is
that what I'm here I almost rather be
repetitive and that's restated again if
you want to keep that context at the end
so it feels more umbrella-like and maybe
it's just a matter of going through this
design review checklist and maybe there
is just no box the note boxes aren't a
you know if it it has to apply if it
doesn't apply then that's an issue
that's a that's a stall well I like the
idea of there being aspirational stuff
in Chapter one rather than leaving that
to chapter three okay
so under build you know I think there's
some pieces like building edges that are
probably going to apply to all projects
I think it's just the context so if
you're looking that oh okay context
portion the site and that would stay
yeah there's just something about that
that is so but you know that natural
areas will not apply to every project so
but I think I mean so if you think about
it I guess I agree to some extent with
the commissioners and and you guys
unless you went back and looked at all
the DC meetings which I assume maybe you
did not I would have one of the one of
the first things out of our consultants
mouth was it's important for buildings
to fit into the environment and and that
goes contrary to what most architects
want to do which is to build the most
impressive building that they can for
their client and so that particular
issue was key to everything that's spun
out from there right that's why there's
specific architecture types that they
can choose from not just a complete open
architectural palette right and so I
think putting something in the
introduction that says that that was one
of the kind of the the cornerstones of
the Capstone's to the whole structure
for this I think that's great because I
think that's the way they led was
because it was a hard thing to to kind
of hear at the beginning but it was very
key to how they put this whole piece
this puzzle together which is you know
what building should blend in with their
surroundings and they shouldn't
necessarily be the point of attention
for that particular block unless they're
they have a particular use that warrants
that and that was very I think very
pivotal to the whole conversation so I
think that can be done I think that is
not contrary to the way that I think
they've heard the messages well and and
and I think that especially in looking
at page two that it seems a little light
on it boy yeah we just yeah I just I
like the idea of really expanding you
know we I think we all gravitate towards
that concept and really just right I
mean
home off the bat right the architecture
probably needs less description but the
context I think could benefit to help
users understand the distinction between
the two really it's the tone of the
document okay well and it sends a
message out that you know the building
that you just built in Vegas you're not
going to be able to build here up at the
front right and I think that's a message
we all want people to start with it
sounds more like you suppose I mean yeah
it's a quoi and and brings so many other
people into into this is there any
discussion we go back to this kind of
hard verse blurry line as far as styles
in the urban core it sounds like we're
all pretty happy with the traditional
styles that are in front of us is there
any discussion about wanting to expound
or keep right now what we have for the
urban core I think I'm a little bit
concerned with there only being one
option there and for such a large area
of the city and Joanne I heard what you
said about how you know it can be
interpreted a lot of different ways
maybe devoting a little bit more space
to some of those different options
within that one design standpoint as a
way to show some differentiation instead
of necessary bringing out bringing one
of the other design styles into the
urban core or defining a seventh piece
just so would that be more images that
would show that diversity think so yeah
I like that idea
good yeah you know but you know one
question about that would be that some
of the limitations would be that you
cannot have eaves or overhangs in the
next up but in the urban core your
buildings would not be able to have
eaves or overhangs on a building
which may be fine but we meaning no
buildings would have that and I don't
know if that's an area that needs to be
that strict in the guidelines or that's
a good point because isn't that the area
where we're trying to create mixed-use
development to get people to walk around
and if we're not gonna have overhangs
that's I'm sorry I think this would be
like at the top at the top there's still
weather protection
oh okay okay and overhangs and and
remember remember I mean there's a
character piece and I think that's
partly what you're speaking to you you
were speaking there's an architectural
and sort of design character and then
there's functionality you know at four
plus stories what's happening at the top
of the building in terms of
functionality it's not it's it's a
decorative piece you're referring to
awnings and things like that at the
lower levels right which would be then
included in this yes discussion right
because weather protection is when in
that urban design section that applies
to everything yeah I have a couple
questions here one on the page 33 bottom
left-hand corner third paragraph could
you clarify exactly what that intent is
can you tell me what you're you know I I
saw your email this is the urban course
located centrally and while it may be
influenced by the urban core zoning
district I don't one of the same though
right so there there is the urban core
zoning you know like any other zone that
you have in the city and then there's
the urban core design manual district
got it so they have the same name and
they're in the same location okay I
looked a little ambiguous to me but
thank you for the clarification
absolutely I also see something that
looked
like is lacking in this document I see
throughout the document the mention of
that sometimes steel doors or metal
doors
I think I saw steel doors you just don't
want to see aluminum doors showing up
I saw steel and I was referencing
thinking I wonder if they thought about
aluminum doors aluminum windows okay
nevermind and is there any restriction
on colors yes hey how restrictive of
very restrictive we want that
restrictive yeah let me just say Atlas
blue yeah so there and I'm not speaking
personally I think the message from the
community from the Development
Commission from the council is Atlas
blue is not what we want and that this
the color palettes that are identified
in here are they are I don't think they
will be monotonous but they will be
narrower so toward that idea within the
glossary of terms which in this addendum
is page 123 124 there's a really good
explanation for earthtones hue tint and
tone along with a color wheel and I feel
like that needs to be like there needs
to be a link between that very specific
information and what's included in each
of the design styles so you may notice
that every single color page was
replaced along with this this section
and that was to take the term hue which
is specifically does not defined through
the glossary and this color wheel and
specifically link it to the
inappropriate color term and that was
very important to the City Attorney
- as well as the inclusion of the couple
of the inappropriate pictures in the
glossary to ensure that there was
greater clarity of what was
inappropriate yeah so I think what I
would want both for the Development
Commission and for developers is and
maybe another color wheel or some kind
of definition in visual terms of earth
tones and then just a every time we're
mentioning color in each of the design
areas referring them to this page or
this glossary so that because you're not
going to include that visual multiple
times in the document but being very
specific about what the difference is
there so I'm gonna set the curtain piece
aside for just a moment but but in good
code writing you don't you know that
yeah and I reason is if we call out one
thing and link it back to the glossary
and we don't do that with everything it
implies certain things about what we're
saying or not saying so that's why the
the terminology is exact and that is
then staffs responsibility to say you
know see it says hue here as an import
in appropriate color that's defined in
the glossary so that's that's how that
would play out in terms of earth tones
let me make this bigger for my eyes if
not for yours and like Lucy how in the
document you definitely find pickering
read as being okay here and not okay
here because I thought as being a nice
definition of where where do we allow
our our hue to be kind of a thing I
thought that was well put and and the
Development Commission deserves all
credit for Pickering red they that was I
think a really a wise thing that they
did was to specifically call out that
color
you know Lindsay I can ask them about
that I I will tell you that we've spent
a lot of time on this that doesn't mean
that we've got it right but we started
with with natural colors and my point
was you know when the sky is natural
exactly that atlas blue is sky blue and
that's natural and that's not what we
want so I know that they spent a lot of
time trying to look at terms and I I
think the thing I would say is I I can
go back and look at at I know that they
very specifically pick up that section
reads really well and I think it is a
very it has a lot of clarity to it
I like visuals but that's just me so I
could see it either way I just I really
like the the visual that's given to the
hue I guess I get that tint and tone and
so if there was any way to demonstrate
that as well for the earth tones I think
that would be great okay
don't I think I have if you don't mind
I'd like to just point out I'm Lucie
drop the question before about the
northwest revival style that we had not
seen that and we may weren't it provides
our opinion on that from the Development
Commission perspective first I was
saying Richard Wright I've talked before
they I like the Northwest revival as a
possible use a style to be used a couple
things one would be Lucy did bring up
the suggestion that she had of changing
the height and I think was looking for a
direction on how to go with that with 85
feet and I think it's in the northwest
revival you're required to go it's 15 to
20 feet in their first floor you really
couldn't go above 7 stories so I think 7
is the max works and I think she said
four or five and I think with four you
could still get a tripartite design so I
think a four to seven height limit with
that I think would work for that it does
bring up one other question issue I
think is here is buildings over five
storeys we now have two choices but only
two we have Northwest Lodge and
northwest Revival Northwest revival has
to be a brick stone covered building
northwest Lodge the images are very much
large style one of the big designs you
would see would be a five over two
multifamily mixed-use design two floors
of commercial on the bottom and concrete
and five floors of wood frame above that
you typically can do more than five of
wood frame that would put you at seven
storeys in the mixed use zoning which is
quite a bit of the traditional area that
would typically I think be what we would
be seen come down the road would be a
five over two which would only allow the
lodge and revival which I kind of
question whether you could fit a design
in the lodge or Revival style in a five
over two type of building I think there
are a lot of
examples of very attractive five over
two buildings that would work in
Issaquah we've seen it in that
don't meet those two styles and raises a
concern for me well you be your
suggestion I wish they would have come
up with another one another style for
that size or if arts and crafts be
interpreted if you went up to seven
stories or I don't know if that works
but I would look maybe more to Lucy and
her team try to figure out a style that
would be a modern Issaquah five over two
apartment that meets what we want to see
in Issaquah and I'm not sure that fits
in those two but if there's another
style for them I'm agreeing to be able
to be amended for that I I tend to think
about how urban Grange style has been
applied in like Wenatchee for larger
scale buildings and it kind of
integrated some of the comments that we
had heard tonight about kind of more of
a Northwest industrial kind of mixed
with a little bit of an old school and I
think urban Grange might be able to if
we were able to I might be one way to go
I don't know if that takes into account
the five stories as well right here
they're doing solar but I don't know if
they're right that's a that's a good
point Lindsay I mean Barnes probably
pushing you know four storeys maybe five
C but given the the overall sort of
profile of the building I'm not sure
that it addresses the five over to the
lodge style I mean there there is some I
think there are some ways in which five
over two would work with lodge because
the way it is described is as with a
heavy base lighter above so you know
having a and bipartite so you know
having a two-story base of some kind of
may
or concrete with the five storeys above
I think isn't inconsistent and it would
have a pitched roof which you know if
you're doing a mix juice with
residential for instance that also could
be appropriate I will tell you that that
coming up with this style was quite a
feat and I don't know that there is
another style that I would recommend do
you think we would be able to come have
them come up with pictures of I've over
two multifamily that would fit the lodge
style the way they talk about it and and
that's a good point just in general if
if we look at the Development Commission
you guys say okay these are the most
common types of development that we get
in Issaquah or that we want to get in
Issaquah as an example the five over to
let's make sure there are pictures that
address that wherever it's applicable to
the height because gosh if we're gonna
be providing pictures the more pictures
that we can provide that are applicable
in addition to aspirational or great I
think it's very Pro because like
pictures of clay Loch Lodge we're not
gonna get clay lock Lodge built in
mmm-hmm what so and while we're on these
topics here I do have three additional
well two questions here one I didn't see
anywhere in this document about the use
of reflective tinted windows I don't
know if that would be part of the
document no it is it actually it is in
here it's very specifically prohibited
okay excellent and then my next question
is utilities and the utilities go a
couple different directions one would be
street lamp street lighting if there
would be different type of street
lighting for different areas then to the
use of satellite dishes and cellular
towers and other types of communication
devices that would be on buildings if
that would be part of the design or if
that would be part of
code and then you have utilities such as
HVAC systems and so on if those would be
visible so utilities are addressed in in
is central is cost standards and we
asked we asked Crandall Ram Beulah if
they felt additional standards were
necessary and I assume that since they
didn't add anything in here they feel
that that what we've got in the central
is quest Androids is sufficient you know
what it requires is that rooftop systems
be screened and that would include you
know cell towers and other kinds of
equipment on the roof in terms of
streetlights there the specific styles
of streetlights is not defined we are
working with Public Works engineering as
different projects have taken place in
different parts of town to identify a
streetlight for the corridor or for the
district so that has been we've been
working on that incrementally with
Public Works engineering Public Works
operations in PSE that would be baked
into this document no it doesn't mean
it's it's our right-of-way and so it's
really a plan that we need to have to be
able to make it easy to work with
applicants but we don't have to put it
into this particular document to be able
to specify what kind of street fixtures
to use ersten okay excellent thank you
mm-hmm one less round
anybody else wanna so there was one
other policy conversation which we
haven't had which is about the natural
areas do we want to talk about that or
not
what conversation yeah what elements
should be included in the natural areas
and the extent of response to those so
this document seems to suggest that you
need to have windows and things like
that oriented toward the natural
environment
you can't have a parking lot between the
building in the natural environment all
things like that which and the material
materials need to address right so - so
we weren't we weren't questioning that
list which is this sort of the things
that are listed under that with the
bullets down here building materials
open articulation uses side access site
uses I think the two questions were the
map that MCA showed included some things
that we don't think probably makes sense
and two there was quite a bit of
discussion both with the council and
with the Development Commission about
for instance if you have four four
classifications of streams do you make
the full set of responses for all of
those or does a class-four stream
doesn't have a different level of
response and say a class two or one
stream can you give us an example yeah
right so it could be that so one one
example would be the building step back
when they're next to this natural area
you might say with the highest level
building step back with a class four
stream they don't step back I am I am
NOT a proponent I think we are fine the
administration is fine with having all
of these but that was we put that out as
a policy discussion because even though
we have put this forward in the
administration is comfortable with this
there was not clarity by the Development
Commission there's not clarity by the
council and it seemed as a planning
policy Commission that that might be
something you want to discuss it may not
be and that's fine where would that be
applicable so this is the map that
Crandall ramble are proposed it would
need to be updated
because some of the green areas shown
are actually development parcels so we
are not using this map to take away the
development rights of certain properties
we do think that there are certain
things that might might be appropriate
wetlands critical areas and streams and
their buffers I think we all feel that
though that is an important part of the
green necklace and that that level of
response is appropriate another would be
stormwater facilities
you know the ponds at Pickering place
are have a their stormwater ponds but
they have a very natural character they
have trails it would seem appropriate to
do that engineered ponds maybe that
isn't appropriate those might be
redeveloped in the future when projects
redevelop maybe we don't do that for
those hillsides they had proposed
hillsides we had removed the
administration proposed removing
hillsides if this is not a venturi I'm
getting a very interesting set of faces
I don't know how that actually fits in
to this and I have a specific question
but to that which is on the last slide
it said that the responses are on page
are on part you D 1.1.1 yeah and what
where is that in our I just couldn't
find shirt but I'm I'm having trouble
understanding what the proposed
responses that were talking about are so
can i maybe since I am getting prizes
yes so so right now the way that they
proposed the document was if your
project is next to an open space that
that your design should reflect that as
an amenity and not just turn your back
on it right and so one of the questions
that Lucy was saying is are all of those
open spaces equal like so for example if
your next Issaquah Creek so let's take
as a qualm Medical Center or atlas you
know that that's a big Amen
it's it's you know would be hard to just
say oh I didn't even know it was there
but we have some creeks in town that you
know for part of the year they may not
have water in them right and so it may
look even more like a ditch and so you
say okay
do I treat that the same as do I treat
that the same as I treat Issaquah Creek
now what's being proposed in the manual
is yes you did so so yes you do and part
of it has to do with is there public
access to that open space so for example
you know you can take the ponds around
Pickering right there's a it's a it's a
it's actually manmade it's it's
detention facility but it looks natural
and there's walkin around it and so the
public is invited to enjoy that amenity
so if you're gonna build a building next
to that with the manual would say is you
should recognize that there should be
step backs there should be access to the
open space and that's how you handle it
I think the question that Lucy was
trying to ask earlier was is that is
what's in the manual now where we're
basically if you are adjacent to an open
space your design should reflect that
adjacency in some way you know I think
the administration is fine with that as
a holistic approach but that's part of
the conversation point is do you guys
agree with that perspective that you
know whether it's a ditch or whether
it's it's a quad Creek you should
recognize that hey it's it's a critical
area and we should pay attention to it
when we design our projects we could say
yes and then exceptions could go through
the development Commission there aren't
any exceptions
that's okay that's where you were saying
we have to be her white house be
predictable predictable independent yes
all right so what we had put in here was
hillsides and developable property
because some of the land that they
showed is Green has development rights
would not be included in the map
stormwater ponds natural storm water
with ponds with trails would be included
engineered ones would not regulated
creeks wetlands and their buffers would
get this special response city parks
city-owned open space and private
protected property would get this
response but we would treat the map as
informational and not regulatory because
I don't think we want to have to go to
council every time the city buys a new
Park for instance or if a project
identifies a wetland then they would
have to do that because it's being it's
a regulated critical area we wouldn't
need to update the map to show that it's
a regulated critical area so the map
would be informational it would give a
sense of some of the things that we're
saying we want this response to but we
would establish the things that are in
that you must respond to and the things
that are out that would not require that
response so when you're talking about
that and you say regulated creeks but
then above you've also talked about
class for streams versus class two
streams are those related so streams
have a they're a series of
classifications and criteria for those
again the administration other than the
things that we've identified at the
bottom because the map bundled a lot of
things together the administration is
fine leaving it the way it was but
because there was not clarity coming out
of DC and there was not clarity when we
made a presentation at a recent council
workshop we're simply bringing it to
your attention if you do not feel a need
or to pursue this further we're okay
with that we just wanted to include this
as one of the policy topics that we that
you could choose to talk about you're
not really thinking the words clarity
you're thinking of discussion there's
both clarity which is the list at the
bottom and then
policy which would be are all
classifications of streams handled the
same way it it could be clear either way
it's just a question of what is our
policy what is the result that we want
yeah and I would say it at the risk of
saying this incorrectly I'm finding with
the all the natural features and being
treated the same but I like the
clarifications that you have there in
red
ok is that makes sense yeah and if I
knew more about class 2 versus class 4
maybe I have an answer for that and say
well ok if something's a ditch 90% of
the year it don't feel like we need to
address it so if there is a an obvious
response there I think that's fine as
far well that's the thing I will say is
that many ditches many things that might
to the layperson appeared to be a ditch
are considered a stream both from our
critical area regulations and the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife and so I
don't call them ditches hesitate for you
to think of it as being a ditch and I
would actually be more of a component of
saying all streams are the same because
basically depending on the Northwest
what our rainfall has been at any given
time I mean so giving this kind of
classification I think is better to just
leave everything as being like yes we
want to have a response to everything
rather than going into a thing of
depending on what time of year or
developer looks at that and says hey but
I don't know is there a problem
and sticking to that I don't think one
dishes we want landscapes natural
looking areas right go right and the
thing you're calling a ditch is a often
a creek and then when it is a creek is a
regulated Creek it has buffers and those
must be landscaped and so the question
is in addition to the regulatory
requirements through the critical area
regulations do we want the site and the
buildings to additionally respond and
right now I think I'm hearing yes and
yes so I would just make one suggested
to change the list I think the developer
developer
property is an obvious one that yes that
should be excluded but the engineered
ponds I think that potentially
engineered ponds are engineered for a
reason they're they're man-made ponds
that are potentially put there to
provide habitat for species so I would
suggest that not all engineered ponds
are are you know like ice or ice core I
don't think I mean not saying all
man-made ponds are ugly eyesores and I
don't think that's the case I agree I
think that you don't need to first first
of all I'd say that historically they
were generally treated as an engineering
element unless as this multi-use space
like you're describing Victoria which I
completely concur that they can have an
engineering purpose but they don't have
to look like it which is the point that
Pickering pond makes her I don't want to
make a developer force their development
to have a view over an ugly engineered
pond well and and I think the other
piece is that if you take the upon that
I showed in the upper right which is at
the Fred Meyer shopping center you know
when that shopping center redevelops
that pond may go away so I mean I think
that it's not only it may not be a thing
that you want a building to focus on the
other thing is it may not be something
that stays long-term and these open
spaces is it for the occupants of the
building to appreciate the space
adjacent to the building or is it for
the people that are in the space do not
be intimidated by a huge building so I
think it's both there are I think it is
to have openings and opportunities to
have a relationship from inside the
building to this natural feature I think
it's for people who there's a public
access requirement or public access
element along this natural feature
that would so that then you want the
building to have certain kinds of uses
and scale to make it Pleasant a pleasant
part of that experience you know one
side this natural element the other side
a building that has openings appropriate
scale etc and what you showed us in red
is in this document no okay so that
would be something you would add to the
document right we would need to clarify
that mostly because the map has included
some things that would be excluded based
on that list in red so your suggestion
is that we approve this tonight and then
you would come back with this as an
amendment that we would approve and bake
it in or on mr. strategy I think if we
proved it tonight we would approve it
with the assumption that this is going
to be into it so they don't have to come
back and and redo that so I think that
the language that's on whatever this
page is 85 of 147 is very close to what
we described in red I think we would
want to clarify this B's statement that
says open space shown on the previous
page I think we would want to use the
criteria that you saw in red the map
itself would need to be updated because
that includes lots of different things
but I think that 95% of what we showed
you in that summary slide is the
language that's already in this document
we just now that we've agreed on which
elements are going to trigger it we need
to put those elements into this document
to finalize it okay that work for you
so we are looking for an approval of the
document like first thing that has to
happen is a motion like to make a motion
to approve the document
for the let me use the right title I
like to make a motion to approve the
final draft eight twenty five seventeen
central Issaquah architecture urban and
design manual with the additions of of
those few addition second all those in
favor say aye
all right motion carries
I just have one question you dream this
at night
[Laughter]
[Music]
my dreams are nightmares I do on it I
didn't want to say that yeah I do want
to compliment you on your wealth of
information so obviously you've done
your homework and answered the various
questions that have come up so thank you
for that yeah yeah we say thank you for
this document because I think this is
something that our communities needed
for a long time yeah well thank you but
I mean really it has been a great team
effort I think the development
Commission has devoted an amazing number
of evenings to reading and meeting and
discussing this and it has been hugely
helpful because you know it is a great
community conversation that we have had
and I really appreciate you giving us
that high-level picture helping us sort
through some of the last details that we
have that's been really helpful things
really is this really is a great
document and it shows high quality
workmanship I mean throughout it's
really quite well written and it's a
living document I keep saying it you
know two years from now we could be back
here sitting in front of you discussing
how to change this document that that
talked about tonight we appreciate your
work on the front line to show why we
need it how it works now or doesn't okay
with that I'm gonna call the meeting
closed that
[Music]
9:40 very good stuff okay
how are you open yes
you