ah just in time
yes yes welcome to the Planning Policy
Commission of October 11th and since we
don't have a chair or a vice chair
tonight Lindsay has offered to be the
chair if it's okay with the rest of the
Commission and if that would be the case
we would need a motion to propose that
she'd be officially our chair for
tonight a second a vote all those in
favor say aye opposed excellent carry it
away tastic
thank you everyone now we can have a
meeting so tonight's meeting is a public
hearing on the land use code amendments
around extending kind of we had
previously talked about the compact
public schools and now we're moving on
to the municipal buildings and
government facilities and so I think
you've got a presentation for us and
then there is a proposed code amendment
that we are reviewing for it goes to
City Council correct yes yes the
background is you mentioned last year
you worked on a code amendment for
compact schools and the term government
facilities was part of the code
amendments back then and one of the
first things you all did was proposed to
remove the government facilities out of
the amendment because there was so much
going on at that time with the proposed
school in the highlands that you didn't
want to be distracted with anything else
that you just wanted to focus on the
school piece so we told you at that time
we would be bringing it back when we had
more time to ponder this one and you all
said that was totally okay with you but
we just couldn't have done it back then
in 2017 so in the meantime council
adopted the public school the compact
public schools so that's on the books
now and so today we're bringing you back
a new
an improved version of the amendment and
we're calling it municipal buildings now
just sort of broaden that the umbrella
if you will of what the structures and
buildings that they don't have to just
be government they can be well you can
see there's a definition but we thought
this term made more sense for us than
the previous one and we need them for
future municipal buildings that we're
hoping come online in the future so we
just want to be able to use our land
efficiently as we did when we did the
code amendment for schools the purpose
and intent of what I did also just to
remind those of you that were here last
year the yellow is what we amended last
year for compact public schools and the
green is the new information that's the
proposal so that you don't think
everything is new and oh my gosh where
did this come from it sort of gives you
sort of the step by step how we did the
compact schools and then how we want to
integrate municipal buildings into that
same amendment so we put it into the
purpose and intent instead of just
schools its buildings and structures so
that's pretty straightforward and then
this is the the wonderfully full of all
the examples definition that would go
also go into the Issaquah Municipal Code
we figured we are trying to cover just
about everything we could imagine in
that definition so that when they come
in they would be covered by this and
here's the table the only piece that
we're changing in the table other than
the title so it relates to municipal
buildings as well is originally this was
taken out of the central standards and
in the central standards there's a base
FA r which is floor area ratio and a
maximum floor area ratio and there's a
base height and a maximum height well
when we move this over from central for
some reason we chose the base of the
category instead of the max which is
very confusing so we now are changing it
to
you have a minimum floor area ratio and
a maximum floor area ratio and then on
the building height it's you can go up
to 65 feet because we thought that made
it a lot clearer for an applicant than
base because if a base doesn't mean
anything unless you have a maximum so so
we tried to clarify that I need changes
on that any questions the other piece
that is not in your packet and I
apologize for that is going back to the
central standards and making sure that
the footnote is the same so that if you
happen to be looking this up in central
it doesn't just refer to the public
school compact public schools are also
or if you're refers to municipal
buildings as well but that's a pretty
basic one as well and here's some
examples so we had fun finding this is
Puyallup they have an F AR I'm not even
one 0.94 and so and there's the last
size so you can so you can do the math a
nice 1 2 3 4 5 stories it looks like
it's on a pretty small lot public area
out in front that's our first example
the next one is a little more dense this
is Bothell it's a floor area ratio of
1.3 it's a fairly new one you can see
lots of areas for public many stories
there's probably parking tucked under in
the back so there's another example and
then this one is a 2.1 which would be
over our maximum fer but we still
thought it was worth showing you on this
is in Vancouver Washington with a F air
of 2.1 are there questions on any of
those on any of the examples ok the next
steps after tonight if you know take
public comment and talk to each other
about what you think about this one then
it would go to the City Council in
November and they and landon short
commission would talk about it in
december and perhaps january as well if
they want to meetings on it and that
would be approved or they would take
action early next year
are there group yes is it missing
something
I don't see her during the week you like
to introduce yourself I'm Keith Niven
director development services so as I
read a definition for municipal
buildings I'm having trouble with County
and school district being listed as
municipal buildings because I don't
think they are so probably this was
originally entitled governmental
buildings or something and then as we
change the title to municipal buildings
I'm not sure that County buildings are
not technically municipal buildings and
school district and Water and Sewer
District so I think we have a little bit
of and I think we have a we have a
logistic issue with the definition that
we might need state and federal also are
not noticable yeah yeah my one comment
was we have at the beginning local
government entity and then later we say
state and federal so there's just a
little wordsmithing there I think yep so
do like school administrative buildings
or offices they fall in line with the
the compact school okay sure sure I was
wondering if we were able to have a
definition of compact schools right now
we have number four of compact
facilities right and that's in the comp
plan amendment coming forward right you
saw a couple weeks ago that the nude the
proposed definition for compact school
and urban school are in that package I
guess I felt like in this right now it's
just kinda it's a little large its term
you know allow the sitting of the public
building structures more efficiently as
the city continues to diversify I didn't
find number four to be there how much
clarity which is kind of the whole point
of us giving definitions of these terms
right well that's the purpose and intent
statement yeah okay but when we're
talking about these terms this is the
background that we're giving the public
to talk about things so I didn't think
this was terribly helpful and so going
into I know you're telling me that we
have we have a definition that we have
coming up but it would be nice if some
of that language was inserted in a way
that when we're talking about these
documents when people are looking online
and they're able so you remember that
having a little bit of like oh this is
what the intent is if that makes sense
right if you weren't in the middle of
this discussion it might be a little bit
hard to glean from it what it was and
that's kind of the whole point of giving
that background to everybody so a
reminder of what the definitions are
yeah and then just a point of
clarification Trish you know that you
earlier had mentioned they don't have to
just be government buildings but in the
definition it says provided and
maintained by a local government so are
they a mixture between right and by
entity and I will always confer with my
boss we were thinking like the fire
district would be part of that because
it's government but it's not it's not
like a City Hall piece and I thought the
Water and Sewer District that doesn't
count as a municipal building basically
just need a few more definitions of what
it sounds like this needs to be broken
up into three three or four or maybe we
just need a different header it sounds
like there will fall in different things
so I guess the question is is I mean so
the definition seems to much more be
suited to institutional buildings and I
guess the question is is why did we why
did we land on municipal as opposed to
so why did we pivot from government I
was told that government was too
limiting okay because we wanted the
water district the fire district those
to fit under this umbrella so if that
was the intent then I mean I would
suggest swapping out municipal for
institutional okay does that keep intent
I don't know that's just an on-the-fly
suggestion so you like that Andy keeps
it as one big bucket I mean yeah because
it's fine government can be institutions
so can fire districts and moderns for
districts I think they all might fit
within institutions okay and then so
then I get rid of local maintained by a
government entity or a district
or you could put public entity that was
gonna be my suggestion instead of local
government ah okay
thank you
and then do we need to remove the school
district portion as well we certainly
could because they're covered under the
compact school yeah and then we could
put in state and federal offices we can
put those back in so it looks like we
have to remove school district and
public schools and add those definitions
of compact school I'm missing so is
there more than just public schools line
for school district line five public
schools oh okay okay
anything else I had a thing about d3
height I get the intent is to try to
have these public utilities not be view
blocking I believe is what the intent is
to be able to you know keep our people
our view corridors and whatnot but to me
it seemed important I know was curious
if there was somewhere else that needed
to basically state that they should have
the smallest footprint possible that it
shouldn't just be that limitation that
it's also a matter of building only to
what we need rather than necessarily
sprawling
out right that's in the standards I
believe ok god this is blurry just d3
specifically mentions the height and so
I wasn't I didn't I don't remember
seeing a spot where specifically
mentioned like if there's an official
there there is developing standards is
it right above it that's right easier to
read oh it's in the middle height is
where okay 3 as long as you see it I
don't see it could always hold ctrl and
scroll in that'll make it bigger it
that's great it's super blurry so I'm
not sure that would help my eyes too but
I know that it's in there somewhere
because we talked about that about and I
know it's in the policies to for urban
schools I'm compact about the smallest
footprint possible you know to go up
versus out okay again I just did we
specifically talked about height there
but I just don't remember seeing
something for public utilities about the
efficient of space everywhere not Justin
don't not not only in height right I can
check but I thought it was in here
somewhere
so I'm sure we have questions but since
this is a public hearing do we want to
open it up to the public ask for
comments and then we can come back to
our discussion ok so at this time I
would like to open the public hearing to
anybody who would like to comment
you have to go up to the podium state
your name and then you can give us your
opinion - oh yes your name and address
okay my name is Julian midlow and I live
at 11 sunset quartz northwest Issaquah
further for the terms back back in the
definition I would be suggesting that
instead of municipal we have it like
administrative or or something like to
that effect
that's just my comment for that yeah
thank you thank you and seeing no one
else for the public hearing we'll go
ahead and close comments there and so
you guys want to discuss I know I have a
few things so I just have one other
specific question that was on the on the
little tiny print there on D 9a and
their impacts we we made a change from
designed to minimize adverse impacts on
nearby that's now been changed to
adjacent residential properties right is
that literally mean sharing about I mean
like adjacent right right I'm nearby
doesn't have a definite defined term
hurt
anybody else Trish did you find
somewhere else in the document where we
instead of talking about possibly height
we also talked about oh no I wasn't
looking for that but I can look for that
I could have missed it I just remember I
didn't think that I'd read we
specifically called that out for our
public utilities
[Music]
let's see did you have yeah so I've got
a few things here on the the table we
mentioned impervious surface and
pervious surface we're not saying
minimum or maximum there I think that
may be nice to clarify for somebody
reading it just as a general thought and
then I wanted to bring it back to the
larger question of we separated this out
from public schools do we feel like
there is anything in particular that we
should be discussing for government or
municipal buildings that would be
different from schools is there anything
that we see that we want to make sure
it's called out in this arena well I
think for me it was just that continuing
the concept of efficient use of space
I appreciate the consideration of our
view corridors that's something that
also draws back to other things we've
worked on and bringing that in the code
but just making sure that we're not
having a ridiculous amount of concrete
where we don't need it you know it's
easy to be like well this is you know
there's a bench here so it's you know
it's for the public space but no one's
using it so instead let's actually talk
about efficient use of our space rather
than just one aspect of how public
buildings are being being used and built
babe rails I had a question about
flagpoles I didn't notice any any type
of written language for standards
typically municipalities will have flag
poles outside of their buildings is
there anything the language about that
those are considered I want to say
architectural not impediments
architectural there's a longer word but
they're there I can see it in the code
but it's one of those but they there are
standards for how high those can go and
and it's because their flag poles are
usually pretty high you know there's not
a lot of limitations on stuff like that
but there is a there is a part in the
code that talks about those kinds of
things one thing I noticed let's see I
guess it's got to be still D know in E
16 it says all news public schools and
municipal buildings shall provide 50% of
the required parking and structures I
assume that's supposed to be a minimum
of 50% we don't want anybody to have to
hit it on the nose yeah okay yeah
exactly 50% even if that means half of a
parking space we have any concerns about
the idea of the floor area ratio being
between 0.75 and 2 requiring any sense
of over building with a government
facility just making sure going through
do you know what the floor area ratio is
I know we've got two of our fire
stations that are fairly tall I think 72
down here and 73 up in the highlands any
sense of what the f AR is I'm just
trying to get a sense if there's any
anything that we have that meets our
needs that doesn't necessarily fit
within so we can see if we can figure
that out really quick you have a
building that's bigger than two no I
mean under the 0.75 interesting yeah
it's the 0.94 that they showed was
something like three or four storeys
yeah the Puyallup one yeah and I like
the fire station over here I believe is
two stories and the one in the Highlands
is two stories and so I just wonder if
there's any
so the building square footage is 11,000
and the Lots so it's a point three the
Highlands fire station just close and
then
the one by the Transit Center
[Music]
11,000 square feet and it's on 25,000
square feet so it's close to a point
five I think get my calculator out and
figure it out but it's closer to a point
five so both of those are under the
floor area ratio does that suggest that
we might need to rethink any of that so
so this is this is a great conversation
to have we're just starting to talk to
the school district about their next
schools that they would build under the
compact requirements they're gonna have
a tough time getting to 0.7 that's
that's a big number for them so you know
because of the laundry list in the
definition you know there's going to be
some things that are gonna want to be
more open space than not and we talked
about whether you could exclude
recreational amenities because most
public facilities have some sort of
recreational component associated with
it you know I think if we build a new
City Hall we're gonna easily hit the FA
are I'm not worried about that so the
question is is if we're doing a fire
station or something else is it going to
be a little bit of a challenge to get to
a point seven my guess is yes it will
you know I'm surprised that that you
know my sense of both those fire
stations we just looked at is they're
packed on their site and so to see that
they're coming out closer to a 0.3 to
0.5 FA are is is interesting so yeah so
I wonder if there any sense of certain
facilities that have differing
requirements such as a fire station
maybe needing more area for driveway or
something like that for the bigger
vehicles or like you meant
and with a community facility like the
community center having a large open
lawn area is going to cut down on its
floor area ratio so how do we address
that in the code you make a bigger range
right I mean so so maybe the range goes
instead of 0.72 - maybe it's 0.42 - or
when the fire station is building out
they say you know what we instead of
building God's own fire station we'd
rather build two smaller ones because
it's easier for us to access the
community from these different points
then they're granted an exemption from
the council right I mean this doesn't
lock anybody in because people are able
to make their case and say there's a
reason we should be excluded rather than
necessarily lowering the bar for all
buildings yeah it's their way we can go
between that and recognize some of the
things that we'd need so you guys can
basically start to proceed like an
administrative adjustment of standards
so you could you could leave it at 0.7
to 2 and footnote the point 7 to include
considerations for either operational
requirements like a driveway for a fire
station or you know public amenities
like greens or you know things that are
just yeah we're gonna have if we build a
new City Hall there's gonna be a big
plaza there will be and you know that
will not count towards and if they are
it'll be zero because it'll be surface
area so you know you could do it that
way so that it's not it's not just
giving full discretion but it's saying
okay these are some of the things you
know that the director has discretion
maybe to lower it based on operational
requirements including things like you
know driveways or greens or other public
amenities I don't know I'm again just
talking
I have a question just for a little bit
of context the two is a quad transit
centers the one up in the highlands and
the one down here near Maple Street what
are those
as far as FA ours and would those be
included in this type of government
facility so the hard thing about FA are
is we typically don't include parking so
the question about a Transit Center or
Park and Ride Garage is it's really
parking except that you know like for
example you know if you were looking at
a car dealership those cars are not
parking they're actually inventory so
it's this it looks the same but it's
counted differently from a planning
perspective the Transit Center is 248
thousand square feet a building and it
sits on 194 thousand square feet of
property so that's above a 1.0 f AR it's
probably one in a quarter doing loose
math the other one is the King County
one is probably going to come out really
differently because it has a huge it's
on it at least my would be interesting
to see my intuition is it's on a bigger
piece of property
so it's 311 thousand square feet of
building and it's on 170 so it's it's
close to two so bigger building bigger
piece of property but yeah its affairs
close to two so okay what else can I
look up for you guys that's that's two
and you're telling me that the school
districts gonna have a hard time making
point seven so school district that's
not right they're they're gonna have a
hard time making the minimum so the
field the fields are the problem yeah
unless they put the field on the roof
the field is the problem so middle
schools got a track and a soccer field
lacrosse field high school's guide track
and a football field and a soccer field
and are they still proposing to keep all
these things separate so I mean there's
no we don't have plans because they
don't they don't know property right the
concept still to keep separate fields
for all those uses no so the so the
track has the football field inside it
right so the the recreational facilities
are commingled you know I think there is
a reason why it may or may not make
sense for them to put it on the roof so
the roof if you put because because
those facilities of certain geometry
right a track is four hundred and forty
feet right in a loop you can have a
smaller track but that's generally what
it is you know soccer fields are a
certain dimension or else they're too
small to actually play on so that then
starts to prescribe how the building
looks and you know because you want
windows in all your classrooms having
like a big rectangle isn't really
probably the most conducive to getting
natural light into all your classrooms
so it starts to there starts to be some
push and pull in terms of doing that I
think they are looking
that is a possibility I just don't know
that that's gonna be the outcome that
we're gonna see when they come in for
permits at some point but again all that
speculation they don't own property
there are no permits and I'm just
telling you what is our densest or
highest fi our school right now it's
probably gonna be grand Ridge
you wanna look yeah I mean you're right
near there I mean just thinking about
you know Clark opening up with portables
and everything I know I'm surprised to
think that just in terms of like the
Transit Center space of to that we
wouldn't be able to fill those
classrooms you know roll in an art room
you know let's go nuts I think it's just
even with obviously the film not
counting towards it I'm surprised okay
I'm actually gonna pull out a calculator
kids like I don't think I gave you some
bogus numbers earlier not really but
so grande ridge grande ridge is a point
one for FA are
well obviously this meeting isn't
getting into the school arena but I
think we have brought up some questions
certainly about public facilities and
their ability to meet that if they are
given their operational constraints I
mean I mean I like the idea that Keith
raised of keeping it as is as you know
this is what we want but then having a
footnote or some other guidance in there
that there could be exceptions for
public public space or rational needs or
yeah well there's a good question so
then do you lower it to a point you know
we tend to get closer to what we want
high schools over one now what I would
tell you though is what I'm tell you is
there's too many kids said it's quite I
think they would like it to be less
dense than it is at the moment which is
one of the reasons why they are wanting
to build a new high school is to
decrease the student population it is a
quiet down to a I think a more
manageable number is that sort of across
the street and over sort of
I might have to switch to like actually
aerial photograph so they don't grab the
wrong thing since you made me go there
okay it's it's north it's North yeah
Gibson neck is right by the pool it's
that right no now you're down by
Issaquah middle and Nisqually school
right I thought that's where they put
Gibson egg no it's right next to my bowl
oh yeah
yeah where the middle school was yeah
and now Gibson it is are you
so there's the pool yeah so is that real
one that that's a hey so would have to
be up on the hill like 91 or 335 it's
this it's this so bus barn one of these
so one of these is Gibson Eck and the
others the middle school right so the
middle school's got the baseball field
and the track so that's middle school
right there so I assume this thing is
Gibson AG but what do I know I've not
actually been on the campus since
they've done it yeah yeah the bottom one
is the high school the top one is the
middle is of a middle school houses
isn't that the church Oh over there 3355
of that yeah no I think those are condos
aren't they
yeah those are condos the old okay
because I thought that act they
repurposed another building and made it
into a really small yeah okay right by
the pool right yeah it's right across
from the pool which one's the pool okay
the pools 50 so it should be like 91 or
379 this yeah yeah it's yeah it's 379 so
it it's got it's all on the same parcel
well so I'm gonna tell you what Gibson
Eck and the middle school is in
combination
so it's it's a quarter
it's 0.25 maybe here's a trackhoe it's
under construction so so I think you
guys have brought up a good point and
that is so so the the point seven two to
two could be aggressive for public
buildings perhaps is there a way that we
can separate out some of these different
public buildings that are going to have
different uses and maybe different FA
are requirements you have to have an
exhaustive list then of you know water
utility versus fire right now we have
this kind of bucket of it could include
all these things but not limited to you
know if you want to start parsing it out
we would need to have an exhaustive list
of this is every possible you know it
would anyone include administrative
buildings it would include you know
recreation it would include all the
different things that we have in a
bucket right now so so the point
going back to why we're doing this
you know whether it's the city or if the
county were to build a new courthouse or
you know Water and Sewer District we're
gonna try and build a new facility land
super expensive for everybody right one
of the reasons why we did compact
schools was the school district you know
the existing provisions of community
facilities facilities which said you had
to build to the lowest standard of your
neighbor that meant it had to be a low
density project and I think that then
meant that you had to buy a really big
piece of property to build it so so we
went down that pathway for the school
district and I think we're trying to do
something similar with the understanding
that at some point the city is gonna
want to build a new municipal building
and not wanting to have to buy enough
land to make sure it's a single-story if
that's the height of the surrounding
land uses so so you know the question is
is
are we creating a to compact of an
expectation for what those uses really
are I think we've shown at least some
city halls that range anywhere from
remind me Trish point six to two yes
pretty much so you know and we looked at
a couple fire stations that I think we
perceive as being fairly dense and those
are those are more like 0.3 to 0.5 so
you know I think if we're gonna so
there's choices either one we subdivide
the definition and create more
subcategories which seems like we'd have
to go back and do some more research in
terms of figuring out what are
reasonable compact versions of those
types of uses or we leave it as is and
we put a footnote in terms of what's
reasonable to allow for reduction in the
F air leave all the rest of the
standards the same so building heights
and setbacks are the same but what would
be a reasonable allowance for reduction
on the FA are and for who well it'd be
for anybody if it's if it's in the table
so they'd have to adjust if they have to
justify it and it'd come in and explain
why they need to drive it right yeah
yeah it seems like we need some type of
study of you know where are we at today
and in my mind we're not hitting that
range because they've never been held to
a standard and hit that range and I
think we could do a lot through design
if we hold the standards high where we
know they need to be to support our
growth we can design that to work if
they can then then we bring it back but
when we looked at fire stations those
were their range we found a school that
was within the range we've seen examples
of city halls in other towns that were
within well within the range it could be
done I'm hesitant on lowering standards
because of the current design standards
that are in place
so just a quick question I agree with
the concept but can I question where the
0.75 number originally came from was it
based on information of what other
cities have done was it based on where
we'd like to be
did we talk to any of these agencies
about what they felt like they could
accomplish my recollection of the 0.75
was it was an existing fa our standard
in central not for CF F but for maybe
mixed use or I'd have to go back and
look at those tables but I think it was
a standard we had already adopted for
kind of central which is what we
envisioned to be more urban standard at
the end of day so that seemed like that
was a good parallel to give to something
that we were calling compact schools we
were I also remember in the discussion
talking about what are we gonna get this
versus this versus this like we said all
that number because we liked the result
right because yeah the range in central
is 0.75 to 2 so I think that's why we
chose that range for picks you know
versus point 5 and right I agree I like
what it could get us my only question is
does it create too many you know asking
for differences as is want to happen
with school districts and municipal
buildings well using the school district
as an example anybody could do this with
building but when talking on these
public facilities if they're like if
we're having a really hard time getting
to the point seven five but it's five
then what's to say they're not like oh
it's so hard to get to the point five
you know what I mean like there has to
be at some point where you just say no
this is the point we are having high
density so while we would all like to be
in a country schoolhouse that's
what we're that's not the deduction so I
completely agree
my next portion of the concern is the
idea of these fire stations or something
like that where we see something that
maybe doesn't you would require a lot of
overbuilding I don't think that's gonna
happen because I think what's gonna
happen is they're gonna have the they're
gonna raise the amount of money that
they need you know from the community
and from taxes they're gonna say this is
where the need is I mean maybe it's
naive to think that the fire station is
gonna be like hey you know let's start
putting in pool tables and you know
let's put in you know all these
different amenities we don't need I
think that they're going to build to the
need and they're gonna reproach counsel
saying look this is not what we want
this is what we want and we don't care
whether it fits we want you to say if
this is okay yeah I think it's a more
likely scenario so is staff comfortable
with that idea of putting forth
something that is inevitably going to
require lots of exemptions or requests
so we're quick so why do we why do we
automatically anticipate that we have to
start giving out exemptions though if we
think these are sound standards and we
find out in the next several permits
that they simply can't like they can't
build what the city needs with these
knees then we come back and we talk
about it and City Council eventually
modifies them if we need to modify them
but seems were very quick to say you
know how many exemptions are going to
give out is that is that really the
default practice that we want to do is
it kind of violates all that it you know
all the guidelines
I'd rather rest on the side of hey we've
been trying to build a fire house for
three years and we can't meet the design
density standards well let's read it the
does these standards that make sense
I think we want our codes to set
standards that are attainable yeah
attainable for but also beneficial for
our community I wouldn't want to block a
fire station from being built for three
years or however long it would take us
to come back to code and get it through
the process Oh was that was at the
highlands whose fire station was 0.5 and
I didn't necessarily think like my god
that's the largest fire station I've
ever seen so that being said maybe point
you know maybe they can make point seven
but not point seven five I mean it's
kind of one of those things I agree kind
of needs to be a one-off basis that we
see look we've had a ton of one-off
basis so Keith back to the question do
you feel comfortable putting something
into code that looks like it'll require
exemptions no I think I think you guys
are trying to find that sweet spot
between pushing the land developer
whether it's a public school or a
private party or the city to build
something that is different than what
they did previously when maybe land was
was more readily available and even
though you can look at the fire weather
you're looking at the fire stations or
the existing schools and saying you know
maybe those feel like they fit in with
those neighborhoods you know what we're
talking about is our neighborhoods are
getting going to be getting denser where
we're putting these facilities right
there will be you know that two-story
buildings will no longer be the norm
it's going to be the four storey five
storey six storey buildings so then a
two-story fire station looks maybe like
it's under sized at
point you know and so maybe at that
point it needs to be a three story fire
station maybe with an extra Bay so so so
we're at this point where we're not
trying to look in the rearview mirror
and say do these standards fit you know
what they've done the answer is
definitely no the question is is how far
of our reach is it to get from what they
want to do now to meet these standards
and can they get there and I don't don't
know the answer to that just yet you
know if if the school district were to
come back and say I'm just using them
because they're probably gonna be the
first ones through the gate but fire
station we got to build a new fire
station that's in the works right now
is it going to be able to meet at point
seven don't know because nobody's drawn
up plans yet so far the architects
haven't screamed about that but they
don't know about it because this is what
we told them is we were going to try to
change the code to give them something
similar to schools so if schools is 0.7
they should be knowing that this is
going to land at 0.7 so I'm gonna say if
if you guys liked the examples that we
gave you I don't know do we have a time
sensitivity on this Trish I just knew it
was the fire station whatever that okay
so so we can do a little bit more
looking at examples of institutional
facilities if that's what we decided to
call this and bring back just f it just
FA are nothing else but FA are I mean I
haven't heard any other questions about
building heights or setbacks so so if
you guys want us and I think you guys
were comfortable with City Hall examples
and I think that that seemed like none
of those were really crazy in my mind so
you know the
the range that we've picked I think
would work for City Hall so it's really
sleuthing maybe some of those other
examples in the definitions to say okay
we went we looked at stuff regionally
and here's what they are and here's what
they're FA ours are and then you guys
can maybe have a better conversation
about whether it makes sense to change
the range keep it the same or create
subcategories does that make sense I
just want us to be good stewards of our
land especially I think when we're gonna
ask for these kinds of sacrifices in a
sense and these kind of you know having
people think differently than we have
you know the city really needs to be the
forefront of that and say look you know
we we are going to be that example for
other development in our city you know
yeah I think that the research would be
time well spent because then when it
eventually does go to council I mean
they'd be good to have them those
examine they'll have the same questions
if you could have those examples and
it'd be good to actually have you know
this exercise that we went through to
just you know there are buildings that
everybody around here is familiar with
right be good examples for context as
well I think we've done that before I
all bet that Trish has it in her in a
file somewhere of you know things but we
could do it you certainly do it along
those lines is there do you know if
there are any other cities that have
created code around municipal or
government buildings that might have
some language about exemptions for
public space or something like that I'm
thinking of like the community center
and the fact that we've got concerts on
the green there right I don't know I
think we can look that's something we
can look for as well to see if there are
codes that exempt whether its amenity
space or recreation space or something
along those lines just to give you guys
again another piece of information to
make a better decision on when we make
the recommendation on this
I think that would be useful information
I think we just have to consider whoo
you know how we make those decisions
going forward so so then what does we
have a motion or are we just waiting to
continue on until I would think you
would probably want to not close the
public hearing
okay if if you want to take more public
comment well want to be different
oh I guess it might not be to me not as
we do the research so so I mean I think
as a well so they've already closed it
right that's what I was saying we could
I don't know how that works yeah I mean
I guess I would expect that the
proposals that you bring back is gonna
be the same what we talk about and
decide at that point based on your
examples might try and rate okay right
because if you wanted to continue the
hearing to a date certain that November
15th or 14 15th
has opened up because we're moving the
complan public hearing to the 13th of
December so we could maybe have some
research done by to share with you are
you around on that Thursday before
Thanksgiving as far as I know okay and
so that had originally been a public
hearing it's in the Pickering room right
because this room's already taken that
night so we'd be in the Pickering room
that night that's an absolute that's the
only open night you have for the rest of
the year yeah okay so
then that doesn't require a motion or
anything we would have to announce that
the public hearing is being continued to
a date and time certain which would be
11:15 18 in the Pickering room at City
Hall Northwest ok I would like to
continue this public hearing to November
15th date certain there in the Pickering
room at City Hall Northwest do we have
anything else before closing the meeting
no other than if you think of buildings
in town that you're you know like sort
of giving them to Keith as he was going
if there are ones that you're curious
about if you send them early we can try
and get those into the research that we
do because it's always good to know
which ones you're curious about versus
which ones we are curious about so that
would help and then we'll bring it all
back to you on the 15th
good discussion antastic
so I think that leaves us to close the
meeting at 7:26 p.m.
you