Development Commission – Special Meeting · Thursday, June 8, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Christopher Wright, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Project Oversight Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board to Email the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2018 – Jasmina Mihova The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2018 – Raymond Leong Development Commission members and City 2018 – Richard Sowa Council members from discussing the merit of 2019 – Michael Brennan specific land use development applications outside 2019 – Randolph Harrison of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2020 – Melvin Morgan however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2020 – Kevin Price Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2018 – Robert Bakh Membership 2018 – Carl…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 3, 2017

packet pp.5–11

▶ Watch from 0:59 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES May 3, 2017 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Moratorium Work Plan: Architectural Fit and Design Discussion of the Design Manual's Outline

Keith Niven, Economic Development and Development Services Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.13–61

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Apr 10, 2017

▶ Watch from 4:15 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

Memo To: Development Commission From: Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Lucy Sloman, AICP Date: June 1, 2017 Re: Moratorium Work Plan Item: Architectural Fit & Urban Design

4463 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ we have front-row available it's great

0:15 ↗ I'm good to go so let's call to order

0:19 ↗ the meeting of the Development

0:21 ↗ Commission on Thursday June 8th a

0:23 ↗ special night for us first order of

0:26 ↗ business is did you want to go through

0:30 ↗ the new membership okay tonight we have

0:40 ↗ two new members Richard Sanford I

0:43 ↗ believe you have you been present at a

0:45 ↗ previous show previously okay and yes

0:48 ↗ meaning me Hova and welcome very very

0:53 ↗ much this evening great and then our

0:57 ↗ first order of business would be

0:59 ↗ approval of minutes for May 3rd 2017 as

1:03 ↗ everybody had a chance to look through

1:04 ↗ those any Corrections changes do have a

1:08 ↗ comment on page 9 I think there's a

1:11 ↗ commissioner named Barbie ih are

1:14 ↗ referred to at the top of that page it

1:17 ↗ should that be Robert bak bak H look

1:24 ↗ they're closer divided well Lucy printed

1:28 ↗ a copy for me but she insisted I read it

1:30 ↗ there any other changes correction of a

1:36 ↗ motion to approve so moved a second

1:39 ↗ again all in favor aye

1:42 ↗ motion carries minutes are approved so

1:46 ↗ next item is election of officers so so

1:50 ↗ before the coming year will elect new

1:52 ↗ officers which would be a new chair and

1:54 ↗ a new vice chair there are any motions

1:59 ↗ from the full Oh mr. chair I understand

2:03 ↗ that there have been conversations with

2:05 ↗ our current chair about his willingness

2:07 ↗ to continue to serve if you were so

2:10 ↗ nominated by the Commission I just want

2:13 ↗ to confirm that that was mister like I

2:15 ↗ did talk to our chair and he's willing

2:17 ↗ to put in another year as long as we

2:20 ↗ doubled his pay

2:21 ↗ it starts at zero right exactly so so if

2:25 ↗ that is the case then mr. chair I

2:27 ↗ nominate our current chair to serve a

2:30 ↗ second term second nominated second for

2:35 ↗ Richard so the service chair for the

2:37 ↗ coming year

2:39 ↗ it's Richard have any complaints no any

2:43 ↗ discussion or any other nominees for the

2:46 ↗ chair position the other discussion or I

2:51 ↗ think he's done an outstanding job

2:54 ↗ serving his first year he's got his feet

2:57 ↗ under him I think he's got the hang of

2:59 ↗ it but I think he needs more practice

3:01 ↗ and so I think that is on another year

3:04 ↗ to practice is an excellent idea that's

3:06 ↗ it like I think I would agree I think

3:09 ↗ he's done a great job with some very

3:10 ↗ contentious meetings very long meetings

3:12 ↗ I think he maybe set the record for us

3:14 ↗ with a five-hour meeting so five and a

3:15 ↗ half but whose kind of it yeah

3:18 ↗ so you know their comments all in favor

3:22 ↗ aye aye aye opposed so mr. chair

3:28 ↗ following suit with the re-election of

3:31 ↗ our current chair seems appropriate then

3:33 ↗ that our current vice-chair continued to

3:35 ↗ serve as a second to the courage here so

3:39 ↗ if you wouldn't oppose I would like to

3:43 ↗ nominate mr. our Commissioner Morgan to

3:46 ↗ serve as a second term as the vice chair

3:48 ↗ exactly that was that are you sure you

3:52 ↗ don't want to wait until after the

3:53 ↗ matter how I do and no because I've seen

3:56 ↗ you in action before and you do an

3:57 ↗ excellent job when you're sitting in

3:59 ↗ that seat or as the vice chair so I

4:01 ↗ think it would be a privilege to have

4:03 ↗ you continue to serve well thank you

4:05 ↗ thank you any other nominations a

4:07 ↗ discussion on favor aye opposed okay so

4:15 ↗ we're done so we'll move to agenda item

4:17 ↗ four the moratorium work plan I just

4:20 ↗ wanted to take a moment and a chat with

4:24 ↗ the Commission about the packet which

4:26 ↗ was a little bit of a snafu so I wanted

4:31 ↗ to

4:32 ↗ explore you know when we send out permit

4:36 ↗ we always send hard copies to the

4:38 ↗ commissioners to ensure that you get

4:40 ↗ drawings in case you don't have a

4:41 ↗ monitor that's big enough to read

4:45 ↗ we made an executive decision not to

4:48 ↗ just to send this electronically I think

4:52 ↗ one of our lessons learned was that

4:53 ↗ having the memo that said that buried

4:56 ↗ inside of the packet probably wasn't so

4:59 ↗ helpful because people didn't probably

5:01 ↗ see that at all or it certainly not till

5:04 ↗ later but I think more importantly is

5:07 ↗ just the question of paper versus

5:10 ↗ electronic for these non permit kind of

5:13 ↗ packets because we're likely to have

5:15 ↗ some more of them as you're working

5:18 ↗ through this architectural fit and urban

5:21 ↗ design manual and so I just wanted to

5:23 ↗ get some feedback from the commissioners

5:26 ↗ people's thoughts on that well it's

5:29 ↗ probably the the most Neanderthal when

5:33 ↗ it comes to all things IT i do need when

5:36 ↗ it when there are plans I need them

5:39 ↗ I can read PDFs urgently thanks Jeff so

5:45 ↗ I would just request that unless it's

5:49 ↗ I'm the only one but that's the only

5:51 ↗ thing I need paper for is the plan is

5:54 ↗ that when when we have a packet that has

5:56 ↗ plans that one would have to open to get

6:00 ↗ the full vision of it I'm sure there's a

6:04 ↗ way of doing it online on a computer but

6:07 ↗ well microns are what so if unless you

6:10 ↗ you know 11 by 17 it's hard enough to

6:12 ↗ read of those plans and unless you have

6:14 ↗ a monitor at least that size which some

6:16 ↗ people do some people don't right and so

6:20 ↗ that's always been my contention that

6:23 ↗ whenever we're sending you a packet with

6:25 ↗ plans that you need to receive a paper

6:29 ↗ copy I'm I'm really referring more to

6:32 ↗ these sort of non permit tight hackus

6:34 ↗ and thoughts from the commissioners to

6:38 ↗ ensure that we're helping you do the

6:40 ↗ work that we're asking you to this will

6:42 ↗ probably come up again in August if we

6:44 ↗ have the next meeting with another

6:45 ↗ go at this against one request that I

6:48 ↗ would I don't have any problem with

6:50 ↗ electronic version I think it might be

6:52 ↗ helpful to know that it is that is it

6:54 ↗ that we won't have something show up in

6:56 ↗ the mail so we just know that's what

6:57 ↗ we'll have to work with and then they

6:58 ↗ then there's if it's a significant

7:00 ↗ problem for any bender there's time to

7:02 ↗ run down to City Hall it's necessary

7:04 ↗ absolutely and Commissioner Sandford

7:07 ↗ requested a paper copy and that was easy

7:10 ↗ to do and we would certainly be glad to

7:12 ↗ do that and I think the lesson learned

7:15 ↗ for me is to then ask Dominique when she

7:18 ↗ sends out an electronic only packet to

7:21 ↗ include it in the email rather than

7:23 ↗ relying on a memo that's inside the

7:26 ↗ packet okay thank you you have a

7:31 ↗ thoughts on them oh I like a need for

7:35 ↗ our copy senator okay all right thank

7:40 ↗ you Lou thank you Yukie

7:44 ↗ I think I'm up all right good evening

7:47 ↗ Development Commission Keith Niven

7:49 ↗ director of economic development

7:51 ↗ development services so the last couple

7:55 ↗ meetings we've had our consultant here

7:56 ↗ from Portland and they've been kind of

7:59 ↗ steam rolling through their ideas on

8:02 ↗ architecture and urban design and it

8:05 ↗ seemed like the best course of action

8:07 ↗ for this evening was to let them stay in

8:10 ↗ Portland and for us to have a

8:11 ↗ conversation at this step to make sure

8:14 ↗ we're all tracking on where this thing's

8:16 ↗ going what it feels like and if there's

8:19 ↗ reasons to deviate from that trajectory

8:21 ↗ this is a good time for us to identify

8:24 ↗ where we think maybe they're not quite

8:26 ↗ on target if that is indeed what we

8:29 ↗ might be thinking so for tonight I think

8:31 ↗ we're really talking it's not a

8:33 ↗ presentation it's conversation so Lucy

8:35 ↗ and I are here and we're going to talk

8:38 ↗ through kind of this this thing that's

8:41 ↗ coming our way

8:42 ↗ to make sure that by the time they spend

8:45 ↗ as much time as they're going to draft

8:47 ↗ up this document we don't look at and go

8:49 ↗ wait what is this I don't you know I

8:51 ↗ don't get how this works because at that

8:53 ↗ point it's not going to be a convenient

8:54 ↗ time to have that conversation so we're

8:57 ↗ going to do that we're going to

8:59 ↗ art that hopefully this evening and Lucy

9:06 ↗ changed toppings on this thing she

9:08 ↗ changed the name my presentation if I

9:11 ↗ could handle it you well currently I

9:14 ↗ couldn't so all right so here we go so

9:16 ↗ let's let's start so for me part of it

9:20 ↗ is is hit of what's the elevator speech

9:23 ↗ right so if somebody stops you on the

9:25 ↗ street and said hey you're talking about

9:27 ↗ architecture and urban design tell me

9:30 ↗ about that what is that so part of it is

9:33 ↗ starting at a very high level and

9:35 ↗ understanding what the consultant is

9:37 ↗ suggesting is basically what you see on

9:41 ↗ this slide I boiled it down to few

9:44 ↗ things here so two architectural styles

9:47 ↗ within Central Issaquah so they've

9:49 ↗ suggested what they're calling and

9:51 ↗ Issaquah style and then what they're

9:53 ↗ calling an urban core so two styles and

9:56 ↗ then we will unpack these later but this

9:59 ↗ is kind of the basic framework and then

10:01 ↗ within urban design they identified four

10:05 ↗ components context compatibility site

10:09 ↗ and building form and then how this

10:13 ↗ plays out through implementation is

10:15 ↗ through some worksheets okay and so

10:18 ↗ those were actually part of the packet

10:20 ↗ for this evening but we'll get into that

10:22 ↗ later this evening so here's the main

10:24 ↗ framework two different architectural

10:26 ↗ styles and four components of urban

10:29 ↗ design implemented through checklists

10:32 ↗ that what everybody understands that's

10:34 ↗ what I understand so hopefully if I'm

10:36 ↗ getting nods I'm going to move on all

10:39 ↗ right so within the architectural styles

10:42 ↗ they identified what they called an

10:43 ↗ Issaquah style and that can include

10:47 ↗ architecture from arts and crafts

10:50 ↗ craftsman northwest lodge western false

10:53 ↗ front and urban Grange so they

10:55 ↗ identified all these different styles

10:58 ↗ you can find in Issaquah now and they

11:01 ↗ felt like all these different styles

11:02 ↗ would be appropriate moving forward in

11:06 ↗ the area that they're calling basically

11:10 ↗ the non core because the core is the

11:12 ↗ second

11:13 ↗ bullet point here which is the red part

11:17 ↗ of central Issaquah on the zoning map so

11:20 ↗ and for that they identified urban

11:24 ↗ contemporary so these right now I mean

11:27 ↗ so I think some of these have actual

11:31 ↗ definable styles

11:32 ↗ I mean arts and crafts and craftsman and

11:36 ↗ Northwest Lodge you get to urban

11:37 ↗ contemporary and we can define that any

11:40 ↗ way we want to I think but we'll have

11:42 ↗ that conversation as we move forward

11:43 ↗ there's photographs that they've

11:45 ↗ included that we've seen in previous

11:47 ↗ presentations and we'll get down to

11:48 ↗ talking about some of those buildings

11:51 ↗ and I know there were some emails

11:52 ↗ associated with one particular building

11:54 ↗ we can talk about that may be what we

11:56 ↗ like what we don't like about it and and

11:58 ↗ where we think we might want to nudge

12:00 ↗ the consultants if we feel like there

12:01 ↗ might need to be some nudging so then

12:05 ↗ urban design so here they unpack those

12:08 ↗ four pieces of urban design context they

12:14 ↗ talk about the district which is the

12:15 ↗ neighborhood remember central is equai

12:17 ↗ is a compilation of ten different

12:20 ↗ neighborhoods and then hillsides natural

12:23 ↗ areas I think what they're envisioning

12:25 ↗ and they talked about that a little bit

12:26 ↗ last time like for example if you're

12:29 ↗ next to the creek you know maybe your

12:31 ↗ design should reflect the fact that

12:33 ↗ you've got this natural setting rather

12:35 ↗ than just rigidly be on the grid

12:40 ↗ compatibility talked about harmony and

12:42 ↗ contrast site we talked about block size

12:45 ↗ and access edges usable open space and

12:49 ↗ then building form this is really

12:51 ↗ talking about the different land use

12:54 ↗ types that we'll end up seeing within

12:57 ↗ central Issaquah so residential

12:58 ↗ commercial some industrial really that's

13:01 ↗ kind of the area over by the quarry and

13:03 ↗ then mixed-use which we're having a

13:07 ↗ whole conversation about alright so so

13:11 ↗ what the manual so they did give us

13:13 ↗ basically a ghost manual and so part of

13:16 ↗ it in the reason why I included this

13:17 ↗ page is to kind of just show everybody

13:20 ↗ who didn't get a copy of this what the

13:23 ↗ general format is going to look like so

13:25 ↗ as you get so that for

13:26 ↗ section and I didn't include that at

13:29 ↗ table of contents but when you get to

13:30 ↗ section 2 is architecture and in the

13:33 ↗ next section after that is urban design

13:35 ↗ and so as you get to each of these

13:38 ↗ sections they then start to unpack their

13:41 ↗ ideas a little bit further so as we

13:44 ↗ talked about for architecture there's

13:46 ↗ really being proposed they originally

13:49 ↗ had three and they ended up collapsing

13:53 ↗ the three down into two so as I

13:57 ↗ mentioned earlier you've got the urban

13:59 ↗ core and that's really kind of again

14:02 ↗ it's back to kind of the most intense

14:04 ↗ part of the zoning for central Issaquah

14:07 ↗ and then everything outside of the core

14:10 ↗ they're identifying as a clutch style

14:12 ↗ okay so basically those are our two

14:15 ↗ that's our segregation for our two

14:17 ↗ different architectural opportunities

14:19 ↗ all right so with in Issaquah style you

14:24 ↗ know they showed photos of arts and

14:26 ↗ crafts and craftsmen these photos were I

14:31 ↗ believe from the last presentation they

14:32 ↗ made northwest Lodge Western false front

14:37 ↗ and urban Grange which is kind of like

14:41 ↗ that one originally they started as

14:43 ↗ calling it industrial and then it kind

14:44 ↗ of morphed into urban Grange and then it

14:47 ↗ kind of worked its way just into the

14:49 ↗ user claw style component and then

14:54 ↗ moving to the core so this is the

14:58 ↗ building that I think we all got at

15:00 ↗ least a few of us guys emails on this is

15:03 ↗ what they're calling an example of urban

15:06 ↗ contemporary and part of this and I'm

15:08 ↗ going to take a minute just to pause

15:10 ↗ here and and they had other photos and

15:13 ↗ we can we can we can pull those

15:16 ↗ presentations up from previous meetings

15:19 ↗ of what they saw as contemporary

15:22 ↗ buildings because I think we're going to

15:25 ↗ want to spend some time talking about

15:26 ↗ maybe both of these two urban or

15:29 ↗ architectural styles here when we get to

15:32 ↗ the point where it feels like we want to

15:34 ↗ do that and you guys can stop me anytime

15:37 ↗ I don't know if I said that earlier but

15:39 ↗ I'm just kind of rolling so you guys

15:40 ↗ if whenever you want to stop and talk

15:42 ↗ stop and talk because this is really

15:44 ↗ intended to be mooring I guess that's a

15:46 ↗ question to do we want to do we want to

15:50 ↗ have chair go through the presentation

15:52 ↗ or cubes through the prism Jerry Jerry

15:57 ↗ today James good guy say if keys go

16:00 ↗ through the presentation and then open

16:03 ↗ up for public comment and then have

16:07 ↗ questions or do one question and one of

16:10 ↗ my thoughts was we could do that and we

16:11 ↗ don't necessarily have to close since

16:13 ↗ it's not a decision we're making tonight

16:15 ↗ we don't necessarily have to close the

16:17 ↗ public comment portion you like to ask

16:20 ↗ questions as we go or have them go

16:22 ↗ through all of it and then go through

16:25 ↗ I'm for asking questions that we go I

16:28 ↗ mean my understanding that's my personal

16:31 ↗ feel so well it's you know let's go

16:33 ↗ around I want everybody start an opinion

16:34 ↗ but one of my conservative questions if

16:36 ↗ we start question as we go will we get

16:38 ↗ too bogged down in one point or not that

16:41 ↗ down I do have a number of questions but

16:43 ↗ I would like to see the whole click

16:44 ↗ through first because King and Keith may

16:47 ↗ address them

16:47 ↗ as he goes yeah yeah - two of my

16:51 ↗ questions were already answered as Keith

16:53 ↗ was progressing so if we step to stick

16:56 ↗ to a typical format okay all right I I

17:00 ↗ think with the option to maybe interject

17:02 ↗ a nice clarifying question yeah yeah

17:04 ↗ Jerry doesn't mind Jerry sick and you

17:08 ↗ guys okay why well know that and then

17:12 ↗ we'll do open up for the public and then

17:14 ↗ as I said I'm open to when we get to our

17:17 ↗ questions and discussion even it's still

17:19 ↗ open to public if we feel like it anyway

17:21 ↗ okay awesome mr. Nibin all right so

17:24 ↗ we're rolling so here's what here's what

17:28 ↗ this did that and I don't want to focus

17:31 ↗ on the words because they're really just

17:33 ↗ meant as placeholders at the moment but

17:36 ↗ basically so when we get into actually

17:39 ↗ describing these there's going to be a

17:41 ↗ series of photographs and that's hard to

17:44 ↗ see on this my apologies but there's

17:47 ↗ actually places for photographs on the

17:49 ↗ right hand side but but basically what

17:52 ↗ they would do then

17:53 ↗ is as they start to talk about within

17:55 ↗ the Arts and Crafts style which is what

17:57 ↗ this page is intended to represent

17:59 ↗ there's conversation about massing and

18:02 ↗ there's going to be a guideline and

18:04 ↗ there's a description and then there's

18:07 ↗ going to be recommended recommended and

18:09 ↗ not recommended so there's there's

18:11 ↗ basically going to be and then if

18:12 ↗ there's some code that helps fortify

18:16 ↗ this particular guideline that's going

18:18 ↗ to be listed on this page as well so in

18:21 ↗ theory so let's assume that somebody

18:23 ↗ comes in with a project and they pick

18:25 ↗ arts and crafts all right they're in

18:28 ↗ there in the digit quad style area of

18:31 ↗ central Issaquah and as an applicant

18:34 ↗ they choose arts and crafts all right so

18:36 ↗ now we open up the manual and we go to

18:38 ↗ the arts and crafts pages and we start

18:40 ↗ to say okay so here's what it says that

18:42 ↗ project should look like so now in the

18:44 ↗ sudden we can start to say okay well

18:46 ↗ here's what's intended here's what the

18:48 ↗ applicant has provided and either it

18:50 ↗ does or doesn't match right and so this

18:54 ↗ is hopefully gets us to and we're going

18:56 ↗ to get to that point here shortly is

18:58 ↗ what does the checklist look like

19:00 ↗ because then you're basically there's

19:01 ↗ going to be a checklist and then you can

19:03 ↗ go back and look at you know because the

19:09 ↗ expectation that I have and I'm kind of

19:11 ↗ jumping to the end and then we'll jump

19:12 ↗ back because it's part of it is talking

19:14 ↗ about how these how these pages and how

19:16 ↗ this manual actually work but the way I

19:18 ↗ understand and Lucy if you have a

19:19 ↗ different expectation let me know but

19:21 ↗ you know as this comes in you know staff

19:25 ↗ will prepare their staff report as usual

19:28 ↗ and part of it will be to fill out the

19:30 ↗ checklist right and so the checklist

19:32 ↗ will be staffs impression of whether it

19:35 ↗ does or doesn't meet this this basically

19:38 ↗ code section because this will

19:39 ↗ ultimately be codified and so we'll give

19:42 ↗ our first take on it and then as you

19:44 ↗ guys then review the staff report and

19:46 ↗ review our assessment of whether it

19:49 ↗ meets or doesn't meet the architectural

19:51 ↗ guidelines and urban design guidelines

19:53 ↗ you know that'll be an opportunity for

19:55 ↗ some conversation about you know well

19:57 ↗ you guys checked yes we're you guys

19:59 ↗ check no and we thought it did let's

20:00 ↗ talk about that and so that's the way I

20:03 ↗ think this is intended to

20:04 ↗ work and it's going to be you know my

20:07 ↗ hope is once this eventually gets

20:09 ↗ populated with actual English and not

20:11 ↗ other languages that it'll be really

20:15 ↗ clear

20:15 ↗ you know because part of like as what we

20:17 ↗ talked about before is sometimes what's

20:20 ↗ really important to say this isn't going

20:23 ↗ to happen and we used we use the Atlas

20:25 ↗ blue as an example so if if ultimately

20:27 ↗ the community to size primary colors are

20:30 ↗ not appropriate for large buildings you

20:32 ↗ know what you'd say is not recommended

20:34 ↗ is you know not recommended primary

20:36 ↗ colors right and so or primary colors as

20:40 ↗ primary building facades you know maybe

20:43 ↗ you can use it as accents or in some

20:46 ↗ ways but not as maybe a primary wall

20:48 ↗ panel and so part of I think what we'll

20:51 ↗ get here when this ultimately gets

20:53 ↗ populated is the direction will need to

20:56 ↗ then do to plan review which is what the

20:58 ↗ goal is

20:59 ↗ so that's chapter 2 architectural

21:04 ↗ guidelines now we're into urban design

21:06 ↗ and urban design chapter 3 is is exactly

21:10 ↗ the same as chapter 2 so the page layout

21:13 ↗ is the same it's got the same kind of

21:15 ↗ guideline and description recommended

21:17 ↗ not rent recommended code provision and

21:20 ↗ then it's going to have photos on the

21:21 ↗ right-hand side so part of this is even

21:25 ↗ though we have two very distinct topics

21:27 ↗ putting it in a manual that kind of

21:29 ↗ works similarly is important for a tool

21:34 ↗ for us because I think it'll make it

21:35 ↗ easier and then here we are so this is

21:41 ↗ kind of the end so this so this is what

21:43 ↗ the checklist will look like ok so as

21:45 ↗ you get as you get into this you know we

21:49 ↗ will say okay

21:50 ↗ is this project in the in the core or

21:53 ↗ not in the core right and so if it's in

21:55 ↗ the core you know now you're down to

21:57 ↗ that bottom of the first I could use a

22:01 ↗ bounce the bottom of the first column

22:04 ↗ and we'd be filling out this part of the

22:06 ↗ checklist right on the on the

22:08 ↗ architecture side on the urban design

22:10 ↗ side then we'd have to fill out this

22:13 ↗ part and so they gave us a couple

22:15 ↗ example

22:16 ↗ so for example so this is now broken

22:19 ↗ into two different sheets I think for

22:21 ↗ readability so like on this one the

22:24 ↗ applicant chose Western false front

22:26 ↗ right so so then staff would go through

22:30 ↗ and identify where it complies and where

22:35 ↗ it doesn't and you know what could

22:37 ↗ potentially happen out here is if we put

22:39 ↗ a condition on it associated with either

22:43 ↗ its compliance or non-compliance that

22:45 ↗ condition would they get referenced here

22:47 ↗ so as you guys look at this you say uh

22:49 ↗ okay so color looks like it complies but

22:53 ↗ it looks like staff put condition I

22:55 ↗ guess it's a 1 or a 7 and 5 and so then

23:00 ↗ you guys could look at conditions one or

23:02 ↗ seven and five and say oh okay yeah

23:04 ↗ those are relating to color I get it and

23:06 ↗ now I can understand kind of a thought

23:08 ↗ process here it doesn't mean you have to

23:10 ↗ agree with it I mean that's still part

23:12 ↗ of the decision process is for that to

23:14 ↗ happen but this is the way this mechanic

23:17 ↗ is supposed to work and here's an

23:19 ↗ example of them doing the urban design

23:22 ↗ side so again it works the same way it's

23:24 ↗ just it's a checklist you go through it

23:26 ↗ and you you go through the design manual

23:31 ↗ and you basically make an assessment on

23:33 ↗ whether it's in compliance or not and if

23:35 ↗ it's not there's conditions that need to

23:37 ↗ apply and and that gets us to a point

23:40 ↗ where we would wrap up the staff report

23:43 ↗ and move it on to you guys so if that's

23:45 ↗ the way I think we see this working I

23:46 ↗ think that was my last slide so I think

23:50 ↗ at this point if you want to open up a

23:52 ↗ dialogue or if you would rather hear

23:58 ↗ from the community your choice mr. chair

24:01 ↗ listen so I just wanted to add two

24:05 ↗ things

24:05 ↗ our first goal tonight is to get

24:10 ↗ confirmation on the outline and the

24:13 ↗ structure but there is clearly some

24:16 ↗ further discussion of the styles and

24:18 ↗ feedback that seems to be desired and

24:22 ↗ necessary so that's just one that was

24:25 ↗ just sort of one informational piece the

24:27 ↗ second one is that what

24:29 ↗ you know there was a very long

24:30 ↗ presentation that they used last time to

24:33 ↗ start the preference conversation and

24:36 ↗ what we've done is called that down so

24:40 ↗ that all the slides that they showed for

24:44 ↗ the Issaquah style and all the slides

24:46 ↗ and information that they showed for the

24:50 ↗ urban core style or the urban

24:52 ↗ contemporary style are in two separate

24:55 ↗ slideshows so I don't know whether it

24:58 ↗ might be useful to look at some of those

25:01 ↗ just to understand more of their

25:03 ↗ thinking because I know there's been a

25:06 ↗ very strong reaction to the urban core

25:08 ↗ doesn't mean it would be changed by

25:10 ↗ seeing this slideshow but it would maybe

25:14 ↗ help us focus the is that the images is

25:19 ↗ that the description is it is it various

25:22 ↗ aspects is that the whole thing just

25:25 ↗ because right now we have one slide

25:27 ↗ that's representing something that was a

25:29 ↗ little more unpacked in the previous

25:32 ↗ presentation I think I think that'd be a

25:34 ↗ great idea to help the conversation so

25:39 ↗ you want to start with framework and

25:41 ↗ structure or you want to or I was

25:44 ↗ thinking bringing up those slides to

25:46 ↗ show some of the other is again we've

25:48 ↗ got that one shot that brought up a lot

25:50 ↗ of opinion and before we get in a lot of

25:52 ↗ discussion just about that maybe see

25:55 ↗ some of those other Sharon and Keith I I

25:59 ↗ think it would be it might be helpful it

26:01 ↗ would be helpful for for public

26:04 ↗ reference to just address the big code

26:08 ↗ say tell us what the code is in the

26:11 ↗ central political plan regarding maximum

26:14 ↗ height of a building in the Central

26:17 ↗ District we're planning because there's

26:18 ↗ a lot of confusion in the public about

26:20 ↗ how high a building can go into CIP and

26:23 ↗ I and it's clearly defined so right okay

26:27 ↗ so um thank you mr. Morgan for your

26:32 ↗ suggestion I have this open so we can

26:38 ↗ also look at images

26:41 ↗ in here but so there are right now can

26:54 ↗ we can you see that well enough what

26:56 ↗ this chart is showing that's so urban

27:04 ↗ core again is that sort of red zone the

27:08 ↗ central area the base height meaning the

27:13 ↗ height that you can go to without having

27:17 ↗ to do a development bonus action is 48p

27:22 ↗ the one caveat to that is if you have

27:24 ↗ retail on the ground floor or under

27:27 ↗ building parking that goes to 54 feet

27:31 ↗ okay so and that's true with I think all

27:36 ↗ of the height you can see it in the

27:42 ↗ footnote number 4 that you get to go to

27:46 ↗ 54 if you have those either of the

27:49 ↗ retail or under building parking allows

27:52 ↗ the base height to go up so the urban

27:58 ↗ core is the most intense area and so

28:02 ↗ it's maximum height is 125 it with you

28:08 ↗ make these other actions related to open

28:10 ↗ space or affordable housing in the other

28:14 ↗ areas of central Issaquah the maximum

28:19 ↗ height is mostly 65 although in one area

28:22 ↗ it's 85 for clarification 125 might get

28:28 ↗ you most attend story building depending

28:34 ↗ on modulus yes they're building right

28:35 ↗ yeah okay

28:39 ↗ Oh can't you Randy good suggestion okay

28:43 ↗ okay so let's start with is a Klaus

28:48 ↗ style so the only these are the slides

28:52 ↗ they showed last time the only change I

28:55 ↗ made was to pull urban Grange into this

28:57 ↗ since it that does two districts have

29:00 ↗ been combined so I think this was one of

29:06 ↗ the guiding principles maybe from the

29:08 ↗ central is Claw plan so this shows these

29:12 ↗ were this is the map from last time so

29:14 ↗ the industrial style has been combined

29:17 ↗ with the Issaquah style so that you have

29:20 ↗ just the to urban core style in its

29:22 ↗ quest aisle so first is craftsman so

29:29 ↗ they used at kakari was one of their

29:31 ↗ examples so house like massing not more

29:36 ↗ than four stories so typically three

29:38 ↗ single use buildings craftsman much more

29:46 ↗ detailed tripartite meaning the three

29:48 ↗ levels base middle and top low pitch

29:52 ↗ roof deep these exposed rafters

30:00 ↗ the use of stone or River rot shingle

30:06 ↗ board-and-batten which is the sort of

30:09 ↗ this kind of treatment the kind of

30:17 ↗ window configuration oh I guess that was

30:25 ↗ our that was crafting - sorry

30:27 ↗ so arts and crafts from the early 19th

30:34 ↗ century again forced or no more than

30:36 ↗ four typically three you can use that

30:39 ↗ for mixed-use buildings so that would be

30:41 ↗ one of the distinctions steep pitched

30:44 ↗ roof certain English vernacular elements

30:49 ↗ casement windows and then a range of

30:54 ↗ materials such as stucco's shingle and

30:56 ↗ brick different kind of roof shapes and

31:02 ↗ materials being shown in this I assume

31:05 ↗ new building which is helpful to see

31:07 ↗ rather than just the traditional and

31:10 ↗ arched forms windows

31:25 ↗ so that's a two-story commercial version

31:28 ↗ and then this is another two-story one

31:32 ↗ with using shingles Multi pane windows

31:35 ↗ and brick this is a four story version

31:44 ↗ again with a steep roof certain

31:47 ↗ vernacular elements casement and sash

31:52 ↗ windows and then again similar range of

31:55 ↗ materials so now we're going to lodge

31:59 ↗ which was notable because you know the

32:05 ↗ first two were limited to three or four

32:06 ↗ storeys this was the one that they

32:08 ↗ identified that could be significantly

32:10 ↗ taller consistent with the character of

32:14 ↗ the building which included again

32:17 ↗ overhanging deep overhanging eaves a

32:20 ↗ symmetrical composition steep pitched

32:23 ↗ roofs prominent chimney certain kinds of

32:27 ↗ materials such as shingle and the

32:29 ↗ granite stone base double hung windows

32:35 ↗ Western false front again this one I

32:39 ↗ don't think had the height limitations

32:42 ↗ and this was an example from front

32:45 ↗ Street the false front comes from the

32:52 ↗ parapet which is shown here facade has

33:01 ↗ more ornamentation than the other sides

33:03 ↗ double hung windows collabora door wood

33:06 ↗ lap siding again wood cladding not a

33:13 ↗ mixture of materials clerestory windows

33:16 ↗ which are these windows above the main

33:19 ↗ window recessed doors multi-plane pane

33:23 ↗ storefront windows

33:28 ↗ and then with making the point that the

33:31 ↗ sides and rear of the building need a

33:33 ↗ higher quality than sometimes is used

33:36 ↗ when you focus just on a facade and then

33:41 ↗ this was a four-story example including

33:46 ↗ that tripartite massing but again wood

33:49 ↗ siding and lastly was the urban Grange

33:55 ↗ they did not provide as much information

33:57 ↗ in their presentation last year so it

34:01 ↗ was they were showing some industrial

34:04 ↗ buildings including the one that was in

34:07 ↗ your packet but it was not detailed at

34:09 ↗ the same level as the other four Styles

34:14 ↗ so that's its claw style

34:23 ↗ urban core so this was not specifically

34:32 ↗ urban core but I thought I put this in

34:34 ↗ here just as a image from their original

34:36 ↗ presentation this was more about the

34:38 ↗ street but as we're talking through it I

34:40 ↗ just wanted to put more images in that

34:42 ↗ might be useful as part of our

34:44 ↗ discussion that's the same slide these

34:47 ↗ are the same slide so so they were

34:54 ↗ looking at this relative to more dense

34:57 ↗ urban conditions shooting for timeless

35:00 ↗ character and respecting the natural

35:03 ↗ setting so they provided more

35:09 ↗ information they did with the other

35:10 ↗ style since there's only one style they

35:12 ↗ went into it with more detail so they've

35:15 ↗ looked at it from the form massing scale

35:17 ↗ materials and color that's five sorry so

35:21 ↗ they would there's a series of photos

35:24 ↗ annotated photos with on this so talking

35:32 ↗ about simple configurations strong

35:35 ↗ vertical upward elements rather than

35:38 ↗ horizontal elements and an emphasis on

35:41 ↗ the ground floor relative to the

35:43 ↗ pedestrian talking about segmenting the

35:49 ↗ street wall so that it's not as

35:51 ↗ monolithic that's broken into pieces and

35:53 ↗ creates a level of articulation again

35:59 ↗ base middle and top which is sometimes

36:02 ↗ called tripartite again simplified forms

36:09 ↗ and using a certain rhythm

36:18 ↗ these are all formed for massing up

36:25 ↗ looking at full block developments I

36:29 ↗ think that's their assumption in this

36:30 ↗ area so they were showing different ways

36:32 ↗ that blocks might be developed as part

36:36 ↗ of you know you're using the full block

36:38 ↗ you may not have a building that fills

36:40 ↗ the full block so that that was I think

36:43 ↗ the point of looking at this one and

36:46 ↗ that there aren't parking lots and how

36:49 ↗ the mid block connection might be

36:51 ↗ incorporated this is again a full block

36:57 ↗ but having a private courtyard with

37:00 ↗ structured parking this was using 3/4 of

37:07 ↗ the block with an existing building

37:09 ↗ remaining on the other quarter this one

37:13 ↗ does not have on-site parking and a

37:17 ↗ courtyard between the two buildings

37:21 ↗ this looks at holding down sort of the

37:25 ↗ corners of the block but having the

37:28 ↗ parking in the middle to separating and

37:33 ↗ serving both uses ground oriented

37:39 ↗ residential on the ground floor this was

37:47 ↗ looking for a residential project at

37:50 ↗ some of the components such as landscape

37:53 ↗ or privacy walls concrete base front

37:57 ↗ door and weather protection raising the

38:01 ↗ ground floor to make it more comfortable

38:04 ↗ potentially for the ground floor units

38:09 ↗ zero setback

38:13 ↗ how the corners could be emphasized and

38:17 ↗ while also incorporating public art

38:23 ↗ lobby in the middle of the building in

38:25 ↗ this case scale so they're thinking that

38:30 ↗ it is four or more stories with setbacks

38:34 ↗ along certain environmental areas

38:38 ↗ pedestrian corridors and open spaces so

38:41 ↗ this would be a five storey height

38:43 ↗ building after the in this example it's

38:49 ↗ after five storeys its setback as is

38:55 ↗ this one and they're assuming that that

38:57 ↗ technique would be used when you're they

39:01 ↗ say critical corridors but based on that

39:03 ↗ first slide I think they mean

39:04 ↗ environmentally sensitive areas and then

39:10 ↗ materials they are emphasizing brick and

39:15 ↗ wood in this case brick and concrete

39:22 ↗ talking about how hardiplank or party

39:25 ↗ board might be appropriate along with

39:27 ↗ metal cladding stucco wood

39:34 ↗ and then their recommendation for colors

39:38 ↗ with light or dark colors only

39:51 ↗ and that's the end of the bait thank you

39:54 ↗ Sam so I think we'll move to public

39:58 ↗ comment and if you when you come to the

40:02 ↗ microphone please give your name and

40:04 ↗ address for the record and feel free to

40:08 ↗ provide your input on both structure and

40:10 ↗ the framework that's provided and any of

40:12 ↗ the photos you saw and anything else

40:15 ↗ about what's been presented tonight

40:17 ↗ anyone care to speak

40:33 ↗ I'm I'm Steve Pereira 170 northeast I

40:36 ↗ would streak for about nine and a half

40:37 ↗ years so I guess I'd found a little

40:40 ↗ confusing when I was going to read

40:41 ↗ through the packet both because of lack

40:44 ↗ of pictures that I guess now learning we

40:46 ↗ included later in the lorem ipsum text

40:47 ↗ that I didn't understand Latin so I was

40:51 ↗ trying to follow and wasn't making sense

40:53 ↗ it makes more sense now so I guess a

40:57 ↗ couple thoughts one was it seems one of

41:00 ↗ the things that's within the scope is I

41:02 ↗ guess so a couple things one was it

41:05 ↗ seems in not in the height limit it

41:07 ↗ doesn't include the height for the

41:11 ↗ elevators which can be an additional

41:13 ↗ height so I think that needs to be part

41:15 ↗ of the consideration and your zoning for

41:17 ↗ how high you want the building to be in

41:20 ↗ that context I would like to say that

41:23 ↗ I'd like to see Development Commission

41:24 ↗ say maybe the height limit should be or

41:27 ↗ could be less than what it is today that

41:29 ↗ seems to be within the scope of this

41:32 ↗ consideration we look we're looking at

41:38 ↗ this is two pieces one is in Issaquah

41:41 ↗ style and a core style I meant I'm not

41:46 ↗ voy a fan of the core style buildings

41:47 ↗ that I've seen pictured here I would

41:51 ↗ like to see the Issaquah standard

41:52 ↗ applied

41:53 ↗ I guess throughout I would also like to

41:55 ↗ see maybe that Heights limit or the

42:02 ↗ height limit and I don't know if the

42:03 ↗ height limit talks just about number of

42:05 ↗ Heights or if we talk about the number

42:07 ↗ of floors that are allowed I don't I

42:09 ↗ know there's some zoning stuff that

42:10 ↗ talks about having the flexibility for

42:14 ↗ some versus the other so I think maybe

42:15 ↗ that could be part of the consideration

42:17 ↗ to looked at as far as what's done

42:21 ↗ what's not done again though I think if

42:25 ↗ you build it they will come and it seems

42:27 ↗ like we want to pride ourself on being

42:29 ↗ more than just another bellevue the core

42:31 ↗ style doesn't make sense to me so I

42:34 ↗ would encourage all of you to say that

42:36 ↗ doesn't mesh I would also like to look

42:38 ↗ at

42:40 ↗ set more define standards as far as if

42:44 ↗ you will the old town area or the

42:46 ↗ Issaquah style needs to follow some

42:50 ↗ specific set patterns that's it for now

42:58 ↗ great thank you very much

43:00 ↗ just a reminder fair by to the the

43:02 ↗ height information was provided for

43:04 ↗ informational purposes but the only

43:06 ↗ thing we're considering tonight are the

43:08 ↗ design guidelines the structure and the

43:10 ↗ framework for that and some of that but

43:13 ↗ we're not we won't be discussing or

43:16 ↗ getting into any of the height

43:18 ↗ limitations in the code right now so

43:29 ↗ so Connie Marsh native on squawk

43:34 ↗ actually I think you all could make

43:37 ↗ recommendations as to what you feel

43:41 ↗ about the height in the core area given

43:43 ↗ the architectural styles that are

43:46 ↗ recommended for the core because what

43:50 ↗ the consultants seem to be saying is we

43:54 ↗ can have sort of an Issaquah style if we

43:57 ↗ keep the buildings small as soon as you

44:00 ↗ get above a certain height then almost

44:03 ↗ by definition you have to go to a

44:05 ↗ different style of building that tends

44:08 ↗ to be what they pictured and in

44:11 ↗ listening to them I thought I heard them

44:14 ↗ say that that smaller in their opinion

44:22 ↗ because this is not part of their task

44:25 ↗ would be good for Issaquah we have met

44:28 ↗ our growth targets very close we don't

44:30 ↗ necessarily need as much density as we

44:33 ↗ thought we did when we wrote the central

44:35 ↗ physical plan and so I think that you

44:40 ↗ all can provide recommendations to the

44:43 ↗ City Council about the architectural fit

44:46 ↗ of your community given the consultants

44:49 ↗ consideration from what I have heard and

44:52 ↗ my personal feel about their

44:55 ↗ contemporary sort of contemporary course

44:58 ↗ style is it's very stark as compared to

45:01 ↗ our mountains and who we are and where

45:03 ↗ we are placed and that is the contrast

45:05 ↗ that fits so ill and I didn't see in

45:10 ↗ this the component parts that might

45:13 ↗ soften those larger buildings should

45:16 ↗ everyone decide that we need them and I

45:18 ↗ think that that is something that is

45:20 ↗ missing it's just that Hills behind with

45:23 ↗ those buildings will give us the same

45:25 ↗ strident contrast without the color that

45:27 ↗ we have with Alice I don't have a

45:29 ↗ particular problem with with their their

45:33 ↗ varying styles for the rest of of

45:36 ↗ Issaquah I like it I like their format I

45:39 ↗ think that that would make

45:41 ↗ there their system would make it easier

45:44 ↗ for staff to understand that the

45:46 ↗ architecture was fitting and give them

45:47 ↗ more tools and also give you all more of

45:51 ↗ a glimpse as to how the decision was

45:53 ↗ made to know that the architecture was

45:56 ↗ appropriate for the place when I first

45:59 ↗ read it I thought that you all were

46:01 ↗ going to be using that checklist which I

46:04 ↗ thought was going to be hard but now

46:05 ↗ that I know it's staff using the

46:07 ↗ checklist and then you are reviewing the

46:09 ↗ checklist for fit that seems to make

46:11 ↗ sense to me whether you the people who

46:14 ↗ are going to be using that feel like

46:16 ↗ that is enough and gives you enough

46:21 ↗ tools to say well you all have the

46:24 ↗ checklist but now we have to decide what

46:27 ↗ we could recommend within the code to

46:29 ↗ make it better and that is the part of

46:32 ↗ this presentation that I didn't

46:33 ↗ understand because what I see is as

46:35 ↗ you're up here and you're saying well we

46:36 ↗ don't really like it but we don't

46:38 ↗ necessarily have the tools to tell you

46:40 ↗ how to change it to something that we

46:42 ↗ like and and that still feels missing

46:47 ↗ okay thank you thank you Connie

47:00 ↗ Jenny Bingham 375 southeast sander

47:03 ↗ Street I lived there for 47 years so

47:05 ↗ I've seen many changes in Issaquah I to

47:07 ↗ agree that the architecture is not

47:10 ↗ appropriate for our beautiful signature

47:13 ↗ Street Front Street I believe that it's

47:19 ↗ just too square it doesn't have a

47:21 ↗ Western it doesn't have the country feel

47:23 ↗ it doesn't show them it doesn't show the

47:24 ↗ beauty of the mountains and who we are

47:26 ↗ and who we have been we are historical

47:29 ↗ we need a more historical element and I

47:33 ↗ don't know that our architect has caught

47:36 ↗ that in hearing us I'm not sure maybe if

47:41 ↗ they give us an opportunity to maybe get

47:43 ↗ into some books and we can present

47:45 ↗ something to you guys of what you'd like

47:47 ↗ to see I don't know the answer there but

47:50 ↗ if we're only stuck with these I'm

47:52 ↗ saddened I'm saddened for the history

47:55 ↗ I'm saddened for the just a concept and

47:58 ↗ what's going to happen to downtown

48:00 ↗ beautiful Issaquah take away all these

48:02 ↗ beautiful views as I said in on a next

48:05 ↗ door quote be beautiful for the top of

48:08 ↗ the mountain if the city was up on

48:10 ↗ Cougar Mountain let's say and they look

48:12 ↗ down in all these beautiful mountains

48:13 ↗ and I have a concern also with four

48:16 ↗ storeys we're all the people that are

48:19 ↗ going to have business in these four

48:20 ↗ storeys first of all were the people

48:23 ↗ that own it gonna Park and we're the

48:25 ↗ people that want to visit going to park

48:28 ↗ they going to build some monstrosity

48:31 ↗ huge parking garage it sticks up even

48:34 ↗ six or seven stories maybe they really

48:38 ↗ ought to think about closing front

48:39 ↗ street and making it a really neat area

48:41 ↗ where it's not a street anymore

48:45 ↗ it's a place where people can just come

48:47 ↗ around and have a town square I don't

48:48 ↗ know the answer but I do know these

48:51 ↗ designs are not meant for historical

48:54 ↗ Issaquah o LD e count thank you thank

48:59 ↗ you and just to clarify actually these

49:00 ↗ standards would not apply to Old Town so

49:03 ↗ this is the central is Squa plan so then

49:06 ↗ Front Street is falls under different

49:09 ↗ design standards

49:11 ↗ I know but this though but this area is

49:19 ↗ not covered by these guidelines it's a

49:23 ↗ different there's a different set of

49:24 ↗ design guidelines for Front Street and

49:27 ↗ sunset and all this just to make sure

49:30 ↗ the public's aware of that yeah I was

49:33 ↗ going to say point of order the the

49:34 ↗ design plans Relays urban is between

49:37 ↗ pretty much down Gilman to 900 that area

49:40 ↗ and then the the Issaquah style is

49:44 ↗ everything kind of wet Sammamish in

49:46 ↗ towards costco center isn't any

49:49 ↗ Sammamish right yeah but doesn't go in

49:52 ↗ doesn't come into downtown as the old

49:55 ↗ town area right right very any other

49:59 ↗ public comment questions okay

50:06 ↗ all right can we put the map back up of

50:08 ↗ the other data covers that might be good

50:11 ↗ reference points so I I operate a

50:14 ↗ business in Issaquah so I hope I'm

50:15 ↗ qualified to make comment absolutely I'm

50:18 ↗ just going to put on a cup so in case

50:20 ↗ anyone wants to

50:30 ↗ there we go yeah so my name is Debbie

50:33 ↗ Marlowe I own Marlowe sign jewelry in

50:36 ↗ the meadow shopping center right off of

50:37 ↗ Northwest Gilman I've owned that for two

50:40 ↗ years I actually live just on the border

50:43 ↗ of Renton in Issaquah but I'm coming

50:47 ↗ maybe a little bit after the fact on

50:49 ↗ some of these questions but as I listen

50:51 ↗ to the presentation from Keith I

50:53 ↗ wondered about for one thing what they

50:58 ↗ what the consultants would classify

51:00 ↗ Gilman Village per se what what category

51:03 ↗ that would fall into what they would

51:05 ↗ classify old you know old town it's a

51:08 ↗ cost or describe what may be what they

51:10 ↗ would classify that as I know that's a

51:12 ↗ separate set of guidelines and then I

51:15 ↗ also wonder why there's - why there's

51:19 ↗ it's across tile and then urban core and

51:21 ↗ then also industrial style like I kind

51:24 ↗ of get the industrial part but I'm kind

51:27 ↗ of not sure why there needs to be more

51:29 ↗ you know there's needs to be two

51:31 ↗ separate ones and I agree that the urban

51:35 ↗ core style feels really stark and really

51:37 ↗ cold and and really generic and I think

51:43 ↗ that it doesn't speak to the

51:45 ↗ family-friendly home community style

51:48 ↗ that is a quad thinks I think it's

51:50 ↗ trying to convey and continue to convey

51:52 ↗ I look at some of the things that

51:55 ↗ they've done I look at this Collins and

51:57 ↗ you know what category would they call

52:00 ↗ that the consultants what category does

52:02 ↗ that whole beautiful project up there

52:04 ↗ fall into like style-wise I saw a screen

52:08 ↗ of the Redmond area and some of that

52:11 ↗ with a lot of public space what looked

52:14 ↗ like a lot of walking in corridor work

52:17 ↗ that was really inviting and more retail

52:20 ↗ friendly ground-level friendly I think

52:23 ↗ that's really important for keeping

52:25 ↗ people here locally to enjoy shopping

52:28 ↗ here in Issaquah I think the parking

52:32 ↗ situation is going to get really

52:35 ↗ important it's already really important

52:37 ↗ but I think if transit comes forward and

52:40 ↗ we progress in what we're doing here

52:42 ↗ I think parking is going to be something

52:43 ↗ that we

52:44 ↗ - look at how that implies into the

52:47 ↗ building's themselves because I think it

52:49 ↗ all has to integrate even more so than

52:51 ↗ now and just the colors and the natural

52:56 ↗ feel I think if there can be a better

52:58 ↗ range I know you guys all experienced a

53:01 ↗ lot with the Atlas project but you know

53:04 ↗ there's there's definitely a color fit

53:07 ↗ that is more suiting for that and so

53:09 ↗ that's that's a really big component -

53:11 ↗ and just the ability to take what we

53:15 ↗ have especially in those in those areas

53:18 ↗ off of North West Gilman and make

53:21 ↗ something that's kind of cohesive out of

53:23 ↗ kind of a cluster of little bursts of

53:26 ↗ things it's not an easy it's not an easy

53:29 ↗ task because you have really a

53:31 ↗ conglomeration of no style I guess kind

53:35 ↗ of so not an easy not an easy task but

53:38 ↗ hopefully something can be done to you

53:42 ↗ know promote people staying in strolling

53:46 ↗ and being part of the community as a

53:49 ↗ whole and kind of bringing it bringing

53:50 ↗ it giving it some oneness so that's this

53:54 ↗ mic perspective so thank you thank you

53:56 ↗ very much the other public comment or

53:59 ↗ questions we heard none let's move the

54:04 ↗ Commissioner questions there's more more

54:07 ↗ of a comment we did sit through I think

54:09 ↗ about six hours of presentations on this

54:10 ↗ and they covered a great range of stuff

54:12 ↗ one of the big parts that I took away

54:14 ↗ from it was they're wanting to move

54:16 ↗ traffic around it's a quater way to open

54:18 ↗ up that whole Gilman area and change the

54:21 ↗ way that we possibly do business there

54:22 ↗ in that we making more of a walkable

54:25 ↗ shoppable section right where people

54:27 ↗ come too far can actually spend time

54:29 ↗ going up out down that road the way we

54:32 ↗ have our traffic patterns through

54:33 ↗ Issaquah right now aren't very good for

54:35 ↗ that there's too many cars going back

54:37 ↗ and forth the setbacks are pushed back

54:39 ↗ from the street so it's not really

54:40 ↗ street visible so that was one of the

54:43 ↗ things I took away from that

54:44 ↗ presentation is that one of the

54:45 ↗ suggestions are going to make and the

54:47 ↗ urban core area of my understanding the

54:49 ↗ QuickTime wrong was kind of a future

54:51 ↗ look as we start to grow the city as we

54:53 ↗ get the transit in and we have more

54:56 ↗ Karlis

54:57 ↗ kind of residents people who take the

55:00 ↗ train into work take the train back home

55:01 ↗ and I want to be able to walk to a

55:03 ↗ little bodega and go shopping and stuff

55:05 ↗ like that they want to live in dense

55:06 ↗ housing and not looking for having

55:08 ↗ lawnmowers and everything else so it's

55:10 ↗ the idea to be able to support those

55:13 ↗ residents as well that's kind of the

55:14 ↗ idea pata the urban core that was my

55:17 ↗ takeaway from it also just wanted to add

55:22 ↗ to your points about friendly retail

55:25 ↗ environment and walkable space and so on

55:28 ↗ if you happen to miss the last meeting

55:31 ↗ when the presentation occurred if you

55:33 ↗ could check out the May 3rd YouTube dev

55:37 ↗ comm meeting I think you'll see a lot of

55:38 ↗ information there that might make you

55:40 ↗ feel better

55:41 ↗ he's a lot of things that you were

55:42 ↗ saying we're points that exactly were

55:44 ↗ addressed by Crandall arambula Oh

55:48 ↗ questions on his presentation I mean it

55:54 ↗ was very well done but I just wanted

55:56 ↗ that there was one other point those but

55:58 ↗ what by what the citizens was the the

56:00 ↗ meeting area kind of a town center that

56:02 ↗ was another one of their core tenants

56:04 ↗ that they kept talking about there is no

56:05 ↗ real center of Issaquah yeah there's no

56:08 ↗ place where you can point to and say hey

56:10 ↗ there's that many pleasureable don't do

56:11 ↗ when something happens and that was the

56:14 ↗ idea between somewhere in that it's

56:16 ↗ across style to be able to build that

56:17 ↗ kind of community feel where you'd have

56:19 ↗ a central location go to a park or a

56:22 ↗ central landmark that states this is a

56:25 ↗ quad right and when news people show a

56:29 ↗ picture of Issaquah they show a picture

56:30 ↗ of that that kind of that kind of idea

56:35 ↗ questions so just a couple kind of

56:39 ↗ thoughts kind of starting on that kind

56:41 ↗ of applique approach to application of

56:43 ↗ this as a design standard so one of the

56:49 ↗ the challenges I think first is with

56:51 ↗ with this kind of urban core

56:55 ↗ contemporary style and we talked about

56:59 ↗ it Lucy talked about when they were here

57:02 ↗ they spent a lot of time kind of awesome

57:04 ↗ true what that was

57:05 ↗ I think because there's not a kind of

57:08 ↗ known architectural standard like

57:10 ↗ craftsman or arts and crafts that we're

57:14 ↗ going to have to in the design manual

57:18 ↗ have probably more exhaustive

57:20 ↗ explanation and description and graphics

57:22 ↗ and pictures and whatever what that is

57:25 ↗ this seems to be the place where there's

57:28 ↗ going to be the most tension I think I

57:33 ↗ tend to agree with some of the

57:35 ↗ description that we've heard so far some

57:36 ↗ of the images that they're showing

57:38 ↗ really what this kind of character may

57:41 ↗ be the broken force we got to talk more

57:42 ↗ about that piece so that that was one

57:46 ↗ kind of observation I think another one

57:50 ↗ is you've got the way it's set up it

57:53 ↗ seems a little bit bright line pick a

57:55 ↗ style and then you've got to follow that

57:56 ↗ style and there are going to be

57:58 ↗ instances where somebody is going to

57:59 ↗ want to blend some stuff here and how do

58:02 ↗ we go about doing that so we don't trap

58:03 ↗ people in a design corner that really

58:08 ↗ limits their creativity to present what

58:10 ↗ might be even more interesting solution

58:13 ↗ because they're the trapped within the

58:14 ↗ box of the specific style so in some

58:18 ↗ areas that may make sense them because

58:20 ↗ there is some compatibility like arts

58:23 ↗ and crafts and craftsman there's you

58:25 ↗ know features of trade back and forth it

58:27 ↗ might work that might be that's another

58:29 ↗ thing I think to think about it my guess

58:31 ↗ is some of this is stuff that staff is

58:33 ↗ already contemplating you mind do you

58:38 ↗ mind if we think of one out of time well

58:40 ↗ what I think about it and have some

58:42 ↗ discussion around some of that and allow

58:44 ↗ it to is that part of this is yeah not

58:48 ↗ what you guys put together but they put

58:50 ↗ together so in some ways you're

58:51 ↗ reporting back to them but you're also

58:53 ↗ interpreting for us and want to make

58:55 ↗ sure understand what we're doing but you

58:57 ↗ can I think bring some more flavor to it

58:59 ↗ so if you want to well one thing I just

59:01 ↗ I would like because I know we're

59:03 ↗ getting a lot of come when we're going I

59:06 ↗ think Commissioner Brandon's point was a

59:09 ↗ good one that the urban core is less

59:13 ↗ familiar you know it's not a known

59:16 ↗ architectural style and or not

59:19 ↗ favorite architectural style and so I

59:22 ↗ think where we have some of the

59:23 ↗ terminology or some of the pieces that

59:25 ↗ we're looking at up there it would be

59:27 ↗ helpful to say these we'd like these

59:30 ↗ words we don't like these images we like

59:33 ↗ these materials and we like these images

59:37 ↗ of them you know because I just I don't

59:40 ↗ want I want to provide them with I want

59:44 ↗ to help shape the conversation to move

59:46 ↗ it forward which I know is exactly what

59:47 ↗ the Commission is trying to do and so

59:51 ↗ sorting some of that so that we're not

59:54 ↗ just joined a baby out with the

59:56 ↗ bathwater and I know part of what you

59:58 ↗ were also doing mr. Morgan was looking

1:00:04 ↗ to see if some of the images that are

1:00:05 ↗ already in central it's a kwame service

1:00:07 ↗ as a way of providing some additional

1:00:10 ↗ guidance and that's a great thing too so

1:00:14 ↗ would you actually bring up the question

1:00:16 ↗ and there are some in the descriptions

1:00:20 ↗ that they've provided under 2.0 the

1:00:22 ↗ architecture or both the different

1:00:25 ↗ styles and then they're like for the

1:00:28 ↗ contemporary would you like and would

1:00:31 ↗ you like our feedback specifically on

1:00:34 ↗ some of that language then where we want

1:00:35 ↗ to see some of that taken out so we can

1:00:38 ↗ add it I think one of the things they

1:00:39 ↗ might want to be discussed for a brief

1:00:42 ↗ moment again is a framework level

1:00:44 ↗ conversation which and at some point at

1:00:47 ↗ least my recollection of their

1:00:48 ↗ presentation is they talked about the

1:00:50 ↗ core and they talked about taller

1:00:52 ↗ buildings you know right now without any

1:00:55 ↗ rules the the implication of most

1:00:59 ↗ architects hopefully none take issue

1:01:02 ↗ with this is is that they is that they

1:01:06 ↗ want to they want to create an ode to

1:01:08 ↗ themselves right and so as you as you

1:01:10 ↗ get these taller buildings and all of

1:01:13 ↗ them want to be the brightest building

1:01:15 ↗ in the neighborhood you know the result

1:01:19 ↗ of that is not something that that they

1:01:21 ↗ thought was a good outcome so so most of

1:01:23 ↗ the imagery that that they have for the

1:01:26 ↗ contemporary buildings I think they call

1:01:28 ↗ them the really

1:01:29 ↗ most of the buildings become background

1:01:30 ↗ buildings you know you want them to kind

1:01:33 ↗ of blend into the background and not be

1:01:35 ↗ something bright and shiny because if

1:01:37 ↗ you get too many bright and shiny things

1:01:38 ↗ then you've got Las Vegas right and so

1:01:41 ↗ part of this is okay so so you leave

1:01:43 ↗ those those key buildings that come in

1:01:47 ↗ and maybe it's the ones at the corner or

1:01:49 ↗ the ones that become have a more

1:01:51 ↗ community component to it where you let

1:01:54 ↗ the architecture of those actually do

1:01:56 ↗ something a little bit more dramatic but

1:01:58 ↗ the rest of the buildings become then

1:02:00 ↗ the backdrop for those so that was the

1:02:02 ↗ way I kind of understood their kind of

1:02:04 ↗ vision and if you think about cities

1:02:07 ↗ like London Paris and you you think

1:02:09 ↗ about the building's I mean there most

1:02:12 ↗ of the buildings you're kind of same

1:02:13 ↗ color you know because a lot of them

1:02:15 ↗ were built a long time ago when you know

1:02:17 ↗ they were using stone to build building

1:02:19 ↗ exteriors and and you know they're not

1:02:21 ↗ they're not really super exciting but

1:02:24 ↗ they make for a brilliant city so I

1:02:27 ↗ think part of this is is that that kind

1:02:29 ↗ of concept of alright if we're if we're

1:02:32 ↗ going to focus right now on on kind of

1:02:35 ↗ the core and that idea of this

1:02:36 ↗ contemporary is it okay for generally

1:02:40 ↗ some of the buildings to be fairly bland

1:02:43 ↗ looking you know and does that mean that

1:02:45 ↗ we're a bland city or does that mean

1:02:46 ↗ that they become the backdrop for the

1:02:48 ↗ mountains and the views and some of the

1:02:50 ↗ other things that are happening around

1:02:51 ↗ them and I think it's a great it's I

1:02:54 ↗ think we need to have that conversation

1:02:55 ↗ because I think it's very key to whether

1:02:58 ↗ we stay with you know again I think we

1:03:01 ↗ could we can we can leave it

1:03:03 ↗ contemporary and then just say what that

1:03:04 ↗ is and that can either be you know

1:03:07 ↗ something that's kind of bright colors

1:03:09 ↗ dark colors or something different but I

1:03:12 ↗ think that's a great you know as we look

1:03:14 ↗ for these pieces we might want to pull

1:03:16 ↗ and talk about that would definitely be

1:03:18 ↗ one I think we should talk about okay oh

1:03:21 ↗ I guess then then back to the question

1:03:25 ↗ would you like some some feedback on the

1:03:28 ↗ verbage that they do have here's that we

1:03:30 ↗ were saying Lucy about I meant because

1:03:34 ↗ I'm sorry that I can confuse things I

1:03:38 ↗ was thinking more related to the styles

1:03:41 ↗ on the slides

1:03:42 ↗ then the text that's in there because

1:03:46 ↗ I'm not sure how much of the text and

1:03:48 ↗ there is even final okay certainly you

1:03:53 ↗ know I think are not that far into the

1:03:55 ↗ weeds right I think it's the framework

1:03:58 ↗ are we covering the right things is the

1:04:01 ↗ structure of it and the tools that

1:04:03 ↗ they're going to provide going to be

1:04:05 ↗ useful to us I think that's the biggest

1:04:07 ↗ big thing then the second thing is are

1:04:12 ↗ we on the right track with the the

1:04:15 ↗ styles and if not looking at those two

1:04:19 ↗ different bundles of slides and saying

1:04:22 ↗ are the words right are the images right

1:04:25 ↗ you know and that I think that the

1:04:28 ↗ wordsmithing not that I wouldn't take

1:04:30 ↗ that in an email to share with them but

1:04:33 ↗ I think that's more what we'll be doing

1:04:36 ↗ when they give us the draft manual you

1:04:38 ↗ know I guess okay so the so I think the

1:04:41 ↗ first point commissioner Brennan brought

1:04:42 ↗ up was about getting more

1:04:44 ↗ Burbage around some of these styles and

1:04:47 ↗ so forth I was like we're particularly

1:04:49 ↗ the urban core style or whatever it

1:04:52 ↗ turns out to be call them right every

1:04:54 ↗ may not be the right board to put in

1:04:55 ↗ there yeah we've got yeah more of a

1:04:57 ↗ lightning rod and probably not the image

1:04:59 ↗ that we're trying to project so so but

1:05:01 ↗ tonight we won't go into to try to get

1:05:03 ↗ down into that level that's okay with

1:05:05 ↗ everybody with the knowledge that we do

1:05:08 ↗ want them to add more to that you know I

1:05:10 ↗ think we want them to add more pictures

1:05:12 ↗ or a little bit more but I thought that

1:05:15 ↗ the real idea an urban core was I think

1:05:16 ↗ slide number six or some like that where

1:05:18 ↗ it showed just those form massing

1:05:20 ↗ materials and like setback that's really

1:05:23 ↗ what they're talking about it's not the

1:05:24 ↗ picture of what it is but those are the

1:05:26 ↗ they need to match these kind of

1:05:27 ↗ standards to be that kind that doesn't

1:05:30 ↗ have to be contemporary does anything

1:05:32 ↗ else but needs require these parts to it

1:05:33 ↗ those that was my understanding of what

1:05:36 ↗ this whole thing is about it it's a

1:05:37 ↗ guideline not a description right it's

1:05:40 ↗ it's you want to make sure it has these

1:05:42 ↗ features and fits within this framework

1:05:44 ↗ to be considered that but not

1:05:46 ↗ necessarily have to look a certain way

1:05:47 ↗ it doesn't have to be contemporary it

1:05:49 ↗ could be a log cabin because it's wood

1:05:51 ↗ and you know

1:05:52 ↗ as long as it matches like that wooden

1:05:55 ↗ one they have I said along the creek it

1:05:57 ↗ could still be urban contemporary but

1:05:58 ↗ via a solid wood building but there was

1:06:02 ↗ some really nice ones they had I guess I

1:06:09 ↗ I guess my concern is that I'm beginning

1:06:16 ↗ to feel that a difference in what I

1:06:19 ↗ thought was the objective of the whole

1:06:21 ↗ drill which was bringing the consultant

1:06:25 ↗ to analyze the CIP and execution of the

1:06:28 ↗ CIP to date and clearly define what they

1:06:34 ↗ believe is weakness and execution and

1:06:37 ↗ make recommendations to the city about

1:06:40 ↗ how to address what we believe are

1:06:42 ↗ things that we're not satisfied with as

1:06:45 ↗ public staff DC whatever so far and I

1:06:52 ↗ personally think that they've done a

1:06:54 ↗ heck of a good job with that and what

1:06:56 ↗ we're seeing here tonight is what I'm

1:06:58 ↗ not clear on is we've got another

1:07:00 ↗ meeting coming up in August and that's

1:07:02 ↗ going to be where we're going to be

1:07:03 ↗ presented with their draft manual right

1:07:06 ↗ and what I heard believe I heard you say

1:07:08 ↗ earlier is that we don't want to be

1:07:10 ↗ going in and telling them we don't like

1:07:11 ↗ this whole section we don't like this so

1:07:13 ↗ we want the objective would be to get as

1:07:17 ↗ much agreement on the direction and some

1:07:21 ↗ and the end two key factors in that

1:07:24 ↗ before the draft manual goes to print

1:07:27 ↗ am I right so far okay then I would say

1:07:32 ↗ that the I I really like the idea of

1:07:39 ↗ having the definition that we've got so

1:07:42 ↗ far in terms because my understanding

1:07:45 ↗ again is that we want applicants to be

1:07:48 ↗ able to look at the amended plan and

1:07:51 ↗ right off the get-go say nope that

1:07:54 ↗ doesn't work for me so I either change

1:07:57 ↗ my application before I bring it to the

1:08:00 ↗ city staff for the first time for you to

1:08:01 ↗ look at or I'd say no I'm going to do it

1:08:04 ↗ in Redmond

1:08:05 ↗ that kind of clarity from the get-go

1:08:09 ↗ from people that want to build or do

1:08:12 ↗ something in Issaquah that's not there

1:08:14 ↗ now it's if they come in with an idea

1:08:16 ↗ and it generally fits the guidelines and

1:08:18 ↗ then it goes through a significant

1:08:21 ↗ process to identify what goes forward

1:08:24 ↗ from there

1:08:25 ↗ so is that is that correct or wrong I

1:08:30 ↗ think that we are moving to a more I

1:08:39 ↗ don't know whether I like this word but

1:08:41 ↗ I'll just throw it out there for now is

1:08:42 ↗ more prescriptive so the difference

1:08:46 ↗ between you know prescriptive standards

1:08:49 ↗ are ones that prescribe what you have to

1:08:52 ↗ do performance standards tell you how it

1:08:55 ↗ needs to work so there's more

1:08:57 ↗ flexibility and we the centralist clause

1:09:02 ↗ standards were more urban design focused

1:09:05 ↗ and less architectural focused so we're

1:09:08 ↗ changing that balance we are clearly

1:09:11 ↗ moving to a much more including a lot

1:09:15 ↗ more architectural information colors

1:09:18 ↗ materials styles and I think the

1:09:24 ↗ consultant has communicated that they

1:09:27 ↗ are a proponent of a more prescriptive

1:09:32 ↗ approach so that's the way we're going

1:09:35 ↗ so and I think you know what the way I'd

1:09:38 ↗ also described this Randy is you know

1:09:40 ↗ think about this as an evolution right

1:09:42 ↗ and I think what we're doing is we're

1:09:44 ↗ providing a finer grain on the

1:09:47 ↗ expectations that we as a community have

1:09:49 ↗ for what the applicants are bringing us

1:09:51 ↗ so you're I think you're right that if

1:09:54 ↗ when when we get this done that there

1:09:58 ↗ will be much more clarity from the

1:10:01 ↗ applicants perspective of what it would

1:10:03 ↗ take to get a permit from us which

1:10:05 ↗ avoids a lot of the kind of

1:10:08 ↗ back-and-forth and will ultimately lead

1:10:10 ↗ to I think a more efficient process for

1:10:13 ↗ staff so I think you know so that's what

1:10:16 ↗ I expect we'll get

1:10:17 ↗ well and that's why I think this is and

1:10:20 ↗ with all I'm sure we've all been the

1:10:22 ↗ subject of neighborhood questions

1:10:25 ↗ comments and so on and frankly this to

1:10:29 ↗ me is the way it's supposed to work we

1:10:31 ↗ had a plan that was developed with an

1:10:32 ↗ enormous amount of public input the CIP

1:10:34 ↗ and it went into execution phase and we

1:10:39 ↗ have come to say whoa wait a minute

1:10:40 ↗ plans still good we still like the

1:10:42 ↗ boundaries and so on and so forth but

1:10:44 ↗ we've got some things that clearly are

1:10:46 ↗ not going we didn't expect to get what

1:10:49 ↗ we got so now we're trying to prevent

1:10:51 ↗ the repetition of getting things that

1:10:53 ↗ we've got that we don't particularly

1:10:56 ↗ think are what we want more of and the

1:11:01 ↗ the I like the idea I really like the

1:11:07 ↗ idea of having standards and sticking to

1:11:11 ↗ them in terms of the design standards

1:11:15 ↗ the the massing and things like that

1:11:18 ↗ i I we have to be flexible to a certain

1:11:22 ↗ degree but in my opinion the benefit of

1:11:25 ↗ this process is there's going to be

1:11:27 ↗ flexibility but clearly defined rules

1:11:32 ↗ not cut lines for what what are the

1:11:36 ↗ limits so we don't get into AAS after

1:11:40 ↗ AAS after AAS because that's I believe

1:11:44 ↗ what we're getting is a kind of a public

1:11:48 ↗ wariness the ones that really get into

1:11:50 ↗ the weeds and the process and they're

1:11:52 ↗ seeing this and if we do this right in

1:11:56 ↗ my opinion will have less will have far

1:11:59 ↗ fewer requests for adjustment of

1:12:00 ↗ standards because the standards will be

1:12:02 ↗ clear there will be great on elected and

1:12:05 ↗ staff will say yep that's in keeping

1:12:08 ↗ with the standards we'll go forward

1:12:11 ↗ let me get back to recovered

1:12:14 ↗ Commissioner Burton's first point about

1:12:16 ↗ more verbage in your second point I

1:12:18 ↗ stopped the after that can you bring

1:12:20 ↗ that up again um

1:12:25 ↗ the idea of integration of more than one

1:12:28 ↗ architectural scale and how how would we

1:12:31 ↗ do that using these guidelines so we

1:12:33 ↗ talked to them about that because we

1:12:34 ↗ asked the same question I think it's a

1:12:36 ↗ great one to kind of explore you know is

1:12:39 ↗ it possible to merge two different

1:12:41 ↗ styles in a singular project and their

1:12:44 ↗ answer was yes that would actually make

1:12:46 ↗ it more interesting but not in a single

1:12:49 ↗ building that that was because what they

1:12:54 ↗ said is where you have multiple

1:12:55 ↗ buildings having different buildings in

1:12:58 ↗ different styles for instance if atlas

1:13:00 ↗ so they used Atlas as an example and

1:13:02 ↗ said so what if each of those three

1:13:04 ↗ buildings had a different architectural

1:13:06 ↗ style associated with it not just a

1:13:09 ↗ different color but actually a different

1:13:11 ↗ style and if you think about that

1:13:13 ↗ project and think about okay what if one

1:13:15 ↗ of the buildings was you know craftsman

1:13:18 ↗ and another was arts and crafts you know

1:13:20 ↗ it would make that look very different

1:13:22 ↗ and a much more kind of fine grained

1:13:26 ↗ architecture which I think this

1:13:29 ↗ community probably would have

1:13:30 ↗ appreciated right so does that mean then

1:13:33 ↗ when you get into the checklist you

1:13:35 ↗ actually have to fit your building has

1:13:38 ↗ to fit one of these styles say for is

1:13:41 ↗ across tile so um I you know we didn't

1:13:47 ↗ write this so right right right right

1:13:49 ↗ we're in turn ugly during orientation of

1:13:51 ↗ it my feeling my impression is if you're

1:13:54 ↗ doing a single building like you were

1:13:56 ↗ doing Vail you know which is a single

1:13:58 ↗ unified building you would pick one of

1:14:01 ↗ those five and that that building would

1:14:04 ↗ need to conform with that yeah and and

1:14:07 ↗ so you know that we're we like

1:14:12 ↗ flexibility because it's hard to

1:14:14 ↗ anticipate every situation that comes I

1:14:17 ↗ have to say the thought of being able to

1:14:19 ↗ mix and match and pull between them is a

1:14:23 ↗ little overwhelming to me given that

1:14:25 ↗ we're going to have at this point six

1:14:27 ↗ styles that we're going to have to

1:14:29 ↗ evaluate so I know that said

1:14:36 ↗ commissioner Brennan you know you may

1:14:38 ↗ have experience doing this in other

1:14:40 ↗ places and not I'm certainly open to

1:14:42 ↗ that I'm just kind of giving you my sort

1:14:45 ↗ of shoot-from-the-hip as a staff person

1:14:47 ↗ trying to imagine how I well I get that

1:14:50 ↗ I guess and and they're looking for

1:14:52 ↗ predictability - I mean right the dark

1:14:55 ↗ textual sure and you know and that's

1:14:57 ↗ what they said is that predictability

1:14:58 ↗ they think that is such a high priority

1:15:00 ↗ but I think it still would be good and

1:15:04 ↗ it's just balance and I understand

1:15:06 ↗ commissioner Harrison's point about we

1:15:08 ↗ want to have a standard and let's stick

1:15:09 ↗ to the standard that's what it is and

1:15:11 ↗ let's be prescriptive about that there

1:15:13 ↗ are some upsides to that but there are

1:15:15 ↗ also some downsides to that and so this

1:15:17 ↗ is balance that we're trying to find I

1:15:19 ↗ think what what you're describing would

1:15:22 ↗ be that would be the the starting place

1:15:25 ↗ where the predominant style is pick one

1:15:27 ↗ but there needs to be if somebody's

1:15:29 ↗ bringing something forward that is of

1:15:31 ↗ interest and we like it and you want to

1:15:33 ↗ find a path for them there needs to be a

1:15:35 ↗ path of them to follow so they don't get

1:15:37 ↗ trapped in the corner of code or the

1:15:40 ↗ standards it doesn't allow the city to

1:15:42 ↗ accomplish what might be a better

1:15:43 ↗ project and that staff may agree but you

1:15:45 ↗ just don't have a way to get them there

1:15:46 ↗ so the idea of kind of an off-ramp that

1:15:49 ↗ now that there's a predominant style but

1:15:51 ↗ but if they want to add some for

1:15:54 ↗ whatever reason and features are an

1:15:56 ↗ element that that isn't consistent if

1:15:59 ↗ there's a way to accomplish that I guess

1:16:00 ↗ that would be my goal commissioner are

1:16:02 ↗ you talking about things like parking

1:16:04 ↗ the whether it's underground or at that

1:16:07 ↗ level of variation at an example this is

1:16:11 ↗ more conceptual and less specific of an

1:16:13 ↗ example I'm just trying to try to make

1:16:17 ↗ sure that we do something that what

1:16:19 ↗ we're doing here isn't overly rigid for

1:16:23 ↗ the design community because you may end

1:16:26 ↗ up with something that you know is not

1:16:28 ↗ as good as it could be because of that

1:16:30 ↗ oh and one of the questions I had was

1:16:32 ↗ about retail restaurant services is that

1:16:37 ↗ if krispy kreme came to town and said

1:16:39 ↗ here's an iconic Krispy Kreme building

1:16:43 ↗ that we want to build in your city it

1:16:45 ↗ wouldn't fit I'd think about that

1:16:47 ↗ building and I don't see where it fits

1:16:49 ↗ in

1:16:49 ↗ any of these styles and so you would say

1:16:52 ↗ take that unique retail building style

1:16:55 ↗ and make it Arts and Crafts instead or

1:16:58 ↗ something and is that not you know now

1:17:01 ↗ come we want to have well I mean is a

1:17:05 ↗ fundamental question I agree that needs

1:17:08 ↗ to be addressed commissioner but I would

1:17:10 ↗ just say that I think we've got examples

1:17:12 ↗ again in the execution of the CIT we've

1:17:15 ↗ got at least one example that comes to

1:17:16 ↗ mind for me where this commission said

1:17:20 ↗ understanding corporate identity and the

1:17:23 ↗ bazillions of dollars the corporation's

1:17:25 ↗ putting and put into branding and

1:17:27 ↗ driving down the street to say oh there

1:17:29 ↗ it is I think we got a structure here

1:17:33 ↗ that is corporate but is absolutely well

1:17:38 ↗ I won't use absolutes but it's not has

1:17:41 ↗ nothing to do with north west or

1:17:43 ↗ Issaquah identity and and what it is is

1:17:47 ↗ their corporate brand and it's the same

1:17:50 ↗ is the same floor plan that you use in

1:17:52 ↗ Phoenix and everything else which is

1:17:53 ↗ what we've talked about a number I am

1:17:55 ↗ and I guess that's a good fundamental

1:17:56 ↗ question then would we want to you could

1:17:59 ↗ take a place a like Winthrop small town

1:18:02 ↗ that decided to go with a Western theme

1:18:04 ↗ and everything had to be that we want to

1:18:08 ↗ say these are the themes that have to

1:18:10 ↗ fit throughout the central is a quat

1:18:13 ↗ area and not allow for something that it

1:18:17 ↗ is outside that boss so I'm not just so

1:18:22 ↗ do you think that under these guidelines

1:18:25 ↗ Krispy Kreme would not be allowed in

1:18:27 ↗ urban core I I don't know the answer I

1:18:29 ↗ think it was built it think it's built

1:18:32 ↗ it as a claw style it's in this plus

1:18:34 ↗ style and it's in it's in that shopping

1:18:36 ↗ center so you could call it I mean so is

1:18:39 ↗ it old Grange does it meet that kind of

1:18:42 ↗ architecture I don't know we don't know

1:18:45 ↗ enough about it yes you know so so but

1:18:49 ↗ you know if that were to be in the core

1:18:53 ↗ I mean so part of it is that's a level

1:18:56 ↗ of detail we have to drill down to right

1:19:00 ↗ and you know so that a whole iconic

1:19:04 ↗ question back you know we kind of

1:19:06 ↗ stumbled over that I'm trying to get

1:19:08 ↗ iconic signs approved in the city that

1:19:11 ↗ was about five years ago we're due to

1:19:15 ↗ have that conversation it would be my

1:19:17 ↗ guess so you know so part of it is is

1:19:19 ↗ figuring out how you allow those those

1:19:23 ↗ and maybe it's more about function you

1:19:28 ↗ know and I guess that's an interesting

1:19:30 ↗ conversation that a planner might want

1:19:32 ↗ to have about architecture is do you

1:19:34 ↗ allow those buildings that have more of

1:19:36 ↗ a community-based function and obviously

1:19:39 ↗ not Krispy Kreme is not falling into

1:19:40 ↗ that can but but to have maybe a more

1:19:45 ↗ latitude with architecture because you

1:19:47 ↗ want those buildings to stand out in one

1:19:49 ↗ way or another so so a quick question

1:19:51 ↗ would if veil under under this new plan

1:19:57 ↗ if fail came in right in the heart of

1:20:00 ↗ the CIP and said we want to do a an arts

1:20:04 ↗ and crafts style they be allowed to do

1:20:07 ↗ it in the in a CIP I mean in the urban

1:20:10 ↗ design in the urban what is there now

1:20:12 ↗ aware as urban core so well that's where

1:20:14 ↗ they are no they're actually in the

1:20:16 ↗ they're in there's a cliff file okay so

1:20:19 ↗ if somebody came in in urban core I mean

1:20:22 ↗ this is I think this is maybe what we're

1:20:24 ↗ talking about here and said I want to do

1:20:27 ↗ an art something that is in Issaquah

1:20:29 ↗ style what we're saying is we don't

1:20:31 ↗ we're concerned about them not being

1:20:35 ↗ able to do that

1:20:36 ↗ I mean if everything else were equal

1:20:38 ↗ they can't do arts and crafts in urban

1:20:41 ↗ course all right

1:20:43 ↗ so I have two thoughts I'd put out there

1:20:46 ↗ one is one some I don't I apologized

1:20:50 ↗ can't remember who said it from the

1:20:51 ↗ public that is Klaw Islands because

1:20:53 ↗ we're having that conversation relative

1:20:56 ↗ to how do we I think you you said it and

1:21:01 ↗ tape is rolling slowly in my head and so

1:21:06 ↗ one of the things I and I think it

1:21:08 ↗ relates to what we're talking about with

1:21:10 ↗ central is quad is you know some of the

1:21:12 ↗ central is the cost and or

1:21:14 ↗ are applicable to the urban villages you

1:21:16 ↗ know they started with the urban

1:21:18 ↗ villages and then they evolved and have

1:21:21 ↗ folded into central as Klaus but

1:21:24 ↗ architectural II we have you know in our

1:21:28 ↗ conversation both internally and with

1:21:31 ↗ the communities have agreed know that we

1:21:36 ↗ the work we're doing now trying to come

1:21:38 ↗ up with architectural fit would not

1:21:41 ↗ apply to those urban villages because we

1:21:42 ↗ want to stink to neighborhoods and so

1:21:45 ↗ the the tools that we've used through

1:21:48 ↗ the urban design guidelines in his claw

1:21:50 ↗ Highlands will stay in place so that

1:21:53 ↗ they have their they have three

1:21:55 ↗ neighborhood types traditional townscape

1:21:57 ↗ house and garden cottage lane and those

1:21:59 ↗ are the three that will stay up there

1:22:01 ↗ along with their Architectural Review

1:22:03 ↗ Committee's to help maintain a distinct

1:22:06 ↗ neighborhood that feels like his

1:22:08 ↗ client's and doesn't feel like Central

1:22:10 ↗ is cloth or it doesn't feel like talus

1:22:12 ↗ breakdown or Old Town exactly and so I

1:22:17 ↗ think one of the questions for the

1:22:19 ↗ Commission may be in in asking that I

1:22:23 ↗ you know when you think about it

1:22:25 ↗ central it's cause like 900 acres that's

1:22:27 ↗ huge and so is it appropriate that it

1:22:31 ↗ has two areas is that the you know is it

1:22:36 ↗ essentially kind of like two

1:22:38 ↗ neighborhoods should you know in terms

1:22:41 ↗ of character and and I think what what

1:22:44 ↗ Crandall Rand Allah has said is that you

1:22:47 ↗ have this sort of central core which is

1:22:49 ↗ more dense more intense which makes

1:22:52 ↗ sense for some of the transit oriented

1:22:54 ↗ development that's coming so we're

1:22:56 ↗ trying to look for some kind of style

1:22:59 ↗ tools massing form etc that will fit in

1:23:05 ↗ Issaquah and make this distinct core and

1:23:09 ↗ I'm just laying this out I'm not saying

1:23:13 ↗ you shouldn't disagree with it and then

1:23:15 ↗ there is this second sort of district

1:23:20 ↗ area character that is the is quash dial

1:23:23 ↗ up some a little bit less intense it's a

1:23:26 ↗ a more historical and character so that

1:23:30 ↗ so that's one piece to think about you

1:23:32 ↗ know is to the right number of sort of

1:23:36 ↗ neighborhood types I think the other

1:23:40 ↗ piece that I would add when you're

1:23:42 ↗ talking about say Krispy Kreme the thing

1:23:45 ↗ that struck me and that I learned the

1:23:48 ↗ hard way up a disco Highlands is those

1:23:51 ↗ those kinds of businesses like Krispy

1:23:54 ↗ Kreme and many others are often called

1:23:57 ↗ credit tenants I yeah and if you look at

1:24:00 ↗ the they're the ones that come in with

1:24:02 ↗ these franchise packages that are very

1:24:05 ↗ particular

1:24:06 ↗ but as monolithic and specific as those

1:24:09 ↗ seem there's often a suburban one and an

1:24:12 ↗ urban one and we usually get the

1:24:16 ↗ suburban one which is the freestanding

1:24:18 ↗ building that has you know a whole bunch

1:24:21 ↗ of very specific architectural

1:24:23 ↗ parameters to it that is meant for

1:24:25 ↗ sitting in a parking lot but that's not

1:24:28 ↗ where we are anymore and as we move to

1:24:31 ↗ that more urban character those credit

1:24:35 ↗ tenants know how to operate in in a you

1:24:40 ↗ know if we allowed those kinds or if

1:24:42 ↗ those kinds of businesses were attracted

1:24:43 ↗ to Front Street they would know how to

1:24:45 ↗ go into those shops and that framework

1:24:49 ↗ they do the same thing in a mall and so

1:24:52 ↗ while I think being conscious and

1:24:56 ↗ respectful of the wide variety of

1:24:59 ↗ businesses that we have and we want in

1:25:02 ↗ the city part of what we're doing is

1:25:05 ↗ helping with that transition away from

1:25:08 ↗ the freestanding suburban building that

1:25:11 ↗ has to be wrapped in a very specific

1:25:12 ↗ skin to a tenant that goes into you know

1:25:18 ↗ a unit in a building and they have a

1:25:21 ↗ different package that conveys their

1:25:23 ↗ brand but doesn't require that they

1:25:25 ↗ control every single piece of the

1:25:27 ↗ building

1:25:30 ↗ oh well just there's a lot there's a lot

1:25:34 ↗ to consider here you know I go back to

1:25:35 ↗ your original question a of our goal

1:25:38 ↗ tonight does the structure work yes I

1:25:40 ↗ like the structure and where it's headed

1:25:42 ↗ I do I feel it's headed towards a

1:25:44 ↗ prescriptive path and I think we've

1:25:46 ↗ talked about that

1:25:47 ↗ and we all agree on that but then we've

1:25:50 ↗ asked well how can we interject some

1:25:53 ↗ flexibility in that and and I have some

1:25:56 ↗ thoughts around that because what I when

1:26:00 ↗ I look at that map I see these two

1:26:03 ↗ distinct cores and now especially since

1:26:05 ↗ we've eliminated one and there's really

1:26:07 ↗ just two and and I worry about the

1:26:09 ↗ overlap and I worry about literally the

1:26:14 ↗ the abrupt transition from one to the

1:26:17 ↗ next so one thought I have and I don't

1:26:21 ↗ know if this is way off the cuff is

1:26:22 ↗ allow the Issaquah style if we if we

1:26:26 ↗ drill in on those specific styles that

1:26:29 ↗ we like allow those styles to move into

1:26:31 ↗ the urban core potentially but do not

1:26:34 ↗ let the urban core move into the

1:26:36 ↗ Issaquah and I think it might help that

1:26:38 ↗ fabric seem a little more with blended

1:26:43 ↗ in appropriate and you feel the identity

1:26:46 ↗ throughout the city versus these abrupt

1:26:49 ↗ changes and I think it helps soften you

1:26:52 ↗ know these urban contemporary styles

1:26:54 ↗ that we see you know if you have a lot

1:26:56 ↗ of these you know in part this is a

1:26:59 ↗ function of zoning and height limits and

1:27:02 ↗ I'm not suggesting we have a hundred and

1:27:04 ↗ twenty five foot tall building with

1:27:06 ↗ shingles on it you know that just

1:27:08 ↗ doesn't work so I don't have all the

1:27:12 ↗ answers but I think it might provide

1:27:14 ↗ some overlap so I wonder if that

1:27:15 ↗ provides some flexibility in part two of

1:27:19 ↗ the flexibility I think a good designer

1:27:21 ↗ can react to those styles and interpret

1:27:23 ↗ and I think they can interpret for their

1:27:25 ↗ client and they can also put forth their

1:27:27 ↗ their their design you know an example

1:27:31 ↗ I'd use and I we do this all the time

1:27:34 ↗ where I work is is is we do a broad type

1:27:38 ↗ of styles we do contemporary and very

1:27:40 ↗ traditional stuff what we like the best

1:27:43 ↗ is

1:27:43 ↗ we call crafted modern and it has one

1:27:46 ↗ foot in the past but we're interpreting

1:27:48 ↗ it with very somewhat contemporary

1:27:51 ↗ spatial arrangements and contemporary

1:27:53 ↗ materiality but they're they're crafted

1:27:55 ↗ and they're considered you know so so

1:27:57 ↗ one just really basic example though

1:27:59 ↗ it's like you have the Craftsman style

1:28:00 ↗ but you have a client who you know is

1:28:04 ↗ looking for something a little more hip

1:28:05 ↗ or are the knee braces galvanized steel

1:28:09 ↗ is our would we allow like a galvanized

1:28:12 ↗ board-and-batten configuration or or a

1:28:16 ↗ metal trellis element that's stylized

1:28:19 ↗ specifically stylistically craftsman but

1:28:22 ↗ it but it has a little more of a

1:28:23 ↗ industrial edge to it so I think we can

1:28:26 ↗ provide some levity in there I don't

1:28:29 ↗ know when we drill down on all of that

1:28:30 ↗ and that's I guess a question for you is

1:28:34 ↗ is when do we get to that level of

1:28:36 ↗ fidelity because I feel like the next

1:28:37 ↗ one coming is a little too it's going to

1:28:40 ↗ represent that or no it is so so any

1:28:47 ↗ thoughts on that one leg so also gets

1:28:50 ↗ them from our new commissioner some

1:28:52 ↗ awesome echoes out they had exactly the

1:28:54 ↗ same process you did with missing the

1:28:57 ↗ Icicle style into the urban core and it

1:28:59 ↗ makes sense to me

1:29:01 ↗ I believe I'm one of the new generations

1:29:03 ↗ moving into the quest being only here a

1:29:05 ↗ couple years and I see the different

1:29:08 ↗ styles but I do think if we mix the two

1:29:10 ↗ together it will blend in more versus it

1:29:13 ↗ will stick out this Belleview if you

1:29:15 ↗ just leave the core style and also had a

1:29:18 ↗ different angle to it I come from Canada

1:29:21 ↗ and we have certain standards in Canada

1:29:24 ↗ where I don't know who exactly was

1:29:27 ↗ dealing with it but we had a huge

1:29:29 ↗ housing development and there was an

1:29:31 ↗ architect that was in charge of just the

1:29:32 ↗ colors to make sure that you don't put a

1:29:34 ↗ yellow house mix the green house and it

1:29:36 ↗ looks like Christmas the whole time so

1:29:39 ↗ thinking if we have some kind of a color

1:29:41 ↗ charge work if you're building a block

1:29:43 ↗ you're not going to put a black building

1:29:44 ↗ next to white but you're not just going

1:29:46 ↗ to do beige and it just goes to blend

1:29:49 ↗ together so I don't know how we get into

1:29:51 ↗ that but

1:29:53 ↗ that will be a great year just to have

1:29:54 ↗ some kind of a an assessment even if the

1:29:57 ↗ building is built now and the other one

1:29:58 ↗ is ten years later you still get to look

1:30:01 ↗ into it and be like hey we need to match

1:30:03 ↗ the color not match its order okay thank

1:30:07 ↗ you Richard yeah one question and a

1:30:11 ↗ couple of concerns I guess I was curious

1:30:14 ↗ about why the industrial style kind of

1:30:16 ↗ morphed down into a building form

1:30:19 ↗ instead of a style it looks like it's

1:30:22 ↗ been replaced by urban Grange but the

1:30:23 ↗ industrial idea went down into a

1:30:25 ↗ building form which I guess is a

1:30:27 ↗ building type I think that there was a

1:30:33 ↗ recognition that that area that they had

1:30:37 ↗ originally put it in was more diverse

1:30:41 ↗ that end of Gillman I think they were

1:30:44 ↗ trying to recognize that that is a

1:30:45 ↗ unique neighborhood this is service and

1:30:49 ↗ old 10th yeah right uh-oh highway toll

1:30:53 ↗ highway 10 and you know they were

1:30:57 ↗ originally showing the industrial

1:30:59 ↗ buildings which made sense for the

1:31:01 ↗ service area and for some of the things

1:31:03 ↗ but I don't think anyone thinks bones is

1:31:06 ↗ going to become an industrial style

1:31:07 ↗ building so I think they recognized that

1:31:10 ↗ although that is a unique district that

1:31:14 ↗ the diversity of different styles might

1:31:18 ↗ suit that neighborhood as well as the

1:31:22 ↗ rest of the area that they designated is

1:31:24 ↗ I I guess I wondered now we've gone from

1:31:26 ↗ three styles down to two and I wonder if

1:31:29 ↗ we just essentially renamed what we were

1:31:31 ↗ talking before an industrial urban range

1:31:33 ↗ if we'd be back to the three styles and

1:31:35 ↗ we wouldn't have the sense that they're

1:31:38 ↗ only too well and maybe I mean I'm

1:31:40 ↗ probably not doing a good job with my

1:31:43 ↗ nomenclature here so there are these two

1:31:45 ↗ districts want urban core and is Squa

1:31:50 ↗ Stella I think those shouldn't have

1:31:51 ↗ should probably show the new slide up

1:31:53 ↗ well ya know the older keep saying that

1:31:57 ↗ [Laughter]

1:32:01 ↗ but I'm also thinking that in some ways

1:32:04 ↗ maybe style isn't the right word I mean

1:32:09 ↗ maybe they are almost like district

1:32:15 ↗ districts yeah I mean and and districts

1:32:17 ↗ has its own challenges but I agree

1:32:20 ↗ something because then we have styles

1:32:22 ↗ below that and so to have styles at this

1:32:25 ↗ level of these two geographic areas and

1:32:28 ↗ then having another collection of styles

1:32:31 ↗ under that is a little redundant yeah

1:32:35 ↗ urban core collection it's a glove style

1:32:38 ↗ it's buckling

1:32:39 ↗ you know I like something like that

1:32:41 ↗ better because you're getting into my

1:32:42 ↗ second point which was the concern about

1:32:44 ↗ adding district to the end of the style

1:32:46 ↗ nomenclature in here and as we know

1:32:49 ↗ district has its own special meeting

1:32:50 ↗ inside the central is called plan right

1:32:53 ↗ so there seems to be kind of a

1:32:54 ↗ fundamental confusion to use that term

1:32:56 ↗ to me would we be talking about a style

1:32:59 ↗ district or would we be talking about

1:33:01 ↗ sip district so I think I think what

1:33:04 ↗ you're identifying is that we need you

1:33:07 ↗ know just like plants in a gene in the

1:33:10 ↗ family steven zucker I'm not even going

1:33:13 ↗ to get it right I'm going to embarrass

1:33:14 ↗ my biology teacher but that we need

1:33:18 ↗ something that's sort of predictable in

1:33:20 ↗ terms of how the hierarchy works so that

1:33:24 ↗ when we say I'm talking about a style or

1:33:26 ↗ a district or a geographic area or

1:33:29 ↗ whatever that we all know what we're

1:33:31 ↗ talking about so I think that's a good

1:33:33 ↗ point

1:33:37 ↗ okay thanks on that and then I guess my

1:33:40 ↗ last point had to do with what we were

1:33:43 ↗ talking about in terms of the real

1:33:44 ↗ content versus the structural discussion

1:33:46 ↗ here essentially we're looking at a

1:33:48 ↗ manual that's content free right now and

1:33:50 ↗ we're going to be seeing it I think one

1:33:52 ↗ more time end of maybe first week of

1:33:55 ↗ August and then after the other

1:33:57 ↗ Commission's have had a look at the

1:33:59 ↗ draft or at least the presentation is

1:34:01 ↗ that

1:34:01 ↗ just you know it seems it seems like you

1:34:05 ↗ know so if when we get to that ledge

1:34:08 ↗ when it seems like you guys are ready to

1:34:10 ↗ dig into content I mean I think what

1:34:12 ↗ we've done is we've given the

1:34:13 ↗ consultants like six weeks or something

1:34:17 ↗ six weeks I don't know to actually draft

1:34:20 ↗ this manual I don't know that it

1:34:22 ↗ necessarily has to come all at once so I

1:34:25 ↗ think the question is you know as you

1:34:27 ↗ guys at what I'm hearing is a census

1:34:29 ↗ let's let's get the details let's now

1:34:31 ↗ start to look at you know what it

1:34:33 ↗ actually says and start to think about

1:34:35 ↗ you know is it is it clear enough do we

1:34:39 ↗ agree with the direction and setting I

1:34:41 ↗ think what we can ask our consultant is

1:34:43 ↗ can we piecemeal it up and start to

1:34:47 ↗ bring pieces forward sooner than all at

1:34:51 ↗ once I'm kind of mixed about that but I

1:34:55 ↗ think the I think the point of that

1:34:58 ↗ which I hear a concern and and I can

1:35:03 ↗ certainly share that is that to review

1:35:06 ↗ the whole thing in one meaning seems

1:35:08 ↗ unrealistic so whether we're bringing

1:35:12 ↗ you you know section one and two and

1:35:15 ↗ then three and four or we're bringing

1:35:17 ↗ you the whole thing once twice you know

1:35:21 ↗ in a series of meetings it seems like

1:35:26 ↗ One Touch seems like not very many agree

1:35:30 ↗ agree there's something that yeah that

1:35:32 ↗ number of pages and yeah and and and

1:35:34 ↗ this is a big deal and I personally I'm

1:35:40 ↗ going to need I would request time to

1:35:46 ↗ review it and really understand it and

1:35:49 ↗ go back and read it maybe twice before

1:35:51 ↗ the next meeting you know so that yeah

1:35:54 ↗ well and and it may be that if you do

1:35:57 ↗ get the whole thing at once and we may

1:35:59 ↗ not be able to give it a lot in advance

1:36:03 ↗ mean more than our typical week it may

1:36:07 ↗ be that we're digesting it you know in

1:36:09 ↗ the same way we're looking at sort of

1:36:11 ↗ the higher level and then we're moving

1:36:12 ↗ down a level at the next meeting so that

1:36:15 ↗ you

1:36:15 ↗ just inherent we're not changing the

1:36:17 ↗ document necessarily but we're able to

1:36:20 ↗ digest it in a series of layers so let

1:36:24 ↗ me let me offer something as well

1:36:25 ↗ because this this timeline is my evil

1:36:27 ↗ construct so so and I'm more actually

1:36:31 ↗ interested in kind of getting it through

1:36:34 ↗ at a certain point in time this year but

1:36:37 ↗ what we haven't talked about is whether

1:36:39 ↗ or not you know we would be willing to

1:36:41 ↗ maybe have some extra meetings so once

1:36:43 ↗ we have the document if once you know I

1:36:46 ↗ agree with you Randy I think you're

1:36:47 ↗ going to need time to read it one think

1:36:49 ↗ about it maybe read it again say oh did

1:36:51 ↗ it really say that but then once that's

1:36:53 ↗ happened you know maybe we can meet you

1:36:56 ↗ know you know twice in two weeks or

1:36:59 ↗ something right and and to actually get

1:37:01 ↗ more touches because once the ball

1:37:03 ↗ starts rolling I think it'll actually go

1:37:05 ↗ pretty quickly I I just I guess my

1:37:08 ↗ concern is it's also summer and and you

1:37:11 ↗ know people are going on vacation

1:37:12 ↗ they're doing their heaven house guests

1:37:14 ↗ in and so on and and the the

1:37:18 ↗ opportunities to do the kind of

1:37:22 ↗ dedication to this are just fewer in the

1:37:26 ↗ summer because there's more there's more

1:37:28 ↗ stuff going on or and if we get it and

1:37:31 ↗ have a link to read it before the you

1:37:34 ↗ know before the definitive meeting maybe

1:37:37 ↗ maybe we can and maybe we can't

1:37:39 ↗ individually do that so I don't what I'm

1:37:42 ↗ what I don't think I'm requesting is

1:37:44 ↗ every effort be made to give the

1:37:45 ↗ development Commission sufficient time

1:37:47 ↗ to study it to the degree that it needs

1:37:49 ↗ to be studied so we can do our job you

1:37:52 ↗ know instead we've been talking a lot

1:37:54 ↗ about this balance between being

1:37:55 ↗ prescriptive and allowing flexibility

1:37:57 ↗ that's really where the art of writing

1:37:59 ↗ this is going to take place right so

1:38:01 ↗ that's really where we need to have some

1:38:03 ↗ time to work and tune this and I would

1:38:06 ↗ bet that there would be even one final

1:38:09 ↗ draft following when we see it next so

1:38:13 ↗ I'm open to multiple meetings so to

1:38:16 ↗ address it I don't know everybody else

1:38:18 ↗ let me get let me back up to keep us

1:38:20 ↗ moving along then to partly so I think

1:38:22 ↗ one thing we know we do want something

1:38:24 ↗ the other than style in

1:38:26 ↗ and for a nomenclature for that I'm

1:38:29 ↗ going to get back to Commissioner prices

1:38:31 ↗ question about allowing is a claw style

1:38:38 ↗ Issaquah styles all of those to go

1:38:41 ↗ throughout central asia claw would that

1:38:44 ↗ be acceptable to everybody in other

1:38:47 ↗ words you could do it in the urban core

1:38:48 ↗ if you wanted to yeah that's available

1:38:51 ↗ to me I like that idea

1:38:53 ↗ so with some control so there's a

1:38:58 ↗ transition in a lot of one construct

1:39:03 ↗ between different land uses is a

1:39:05 ↗ transition area we allow it to you allow

1:39:07 ↗ step things down you change the

1:39:09 ↗ architectural requirements in zoning

1:39:12 ↗ change there are a lot of different

1:39:13 ↗ pieces that influence what's going to

1:39:15 ↗ happen because in the urban core area it

1:39:18 ↗ allows for more density higher buildings

1:39:20 ↗ etc and as you move out it steps down

1:39:24 ↗ that density intensity will move down

1:39:27 ↗ and so the style the buildings can

1:39:28 ↗ change you don't want to do something

1:39:30 ↗ that's going to essentially promote

1:39:33 ↗ projects that don't take advantage of

1:39:36 ↗ what we want in the core and that is

1:39:38 ↗ that higher density use so I don't know

1:39:45 ↗ that I would like to say you can just

1:39:46 ↗ use it anywhere because I think that

1:39:48 ↗ becomes to patchwork II for me but it

1:39:50 ↗ seems like some ability in your on the

1:39:54 ↗ perimeters as you're transitioning from

1:39:56 ↗ one style or zone or district wherever

1:39:59 ↗ it ends up getting called to another

1:40:01 ↗ would make some sense I don't know how

1:40:04 ↗ that so let me draw something out

1:40:06 ↗ because your your sparking some ideas in

1:40:10 ↗ my head so as we can see there are

1:40:13 ↗ certain certain of the Issaquah styles

1:40:16 ↗ are limited in height in the urban core

1:40:23 ↗ there are more base not just the height

1:40:27 ↗ is different there are certain minimum

1:40:29 ↗ density requirements so inside the urban

1:40:33 ↗ core you have a minimum FA are 0.75

1:40:38 ↗ which is not that high

1:40:39 ↗ outside the urban core you only have

1:40:41 ↗ that if you have a three acre parcel or

1:40:43 ↗ larger if you have a residential project

1:40:45 ↗ in the urban core you have to have a

1:40:48 ↗ minimum of 36 dwelling units per acre

1:40:52 ↗ because that is consistent with how we

1:40:56 ↗ got the regional growth center and

1:40:58 ↗ transit so some of that will knock out

1:41:02 ↗ certain styles because you just won't be

1:41:05 ↗ able to it won't fit the parameters that

1:41:08 ↗ they are at least initially establishing

1:41:11 ↗ for this style I don't I don't know if

1:41:14 ↗ that solves the the problem you're

1:41:17 ↗ identifying Jennifer I agree and I hear

1:41:19 ↗ what you're saying I absolutely do and I

1:41:21 ↗ go back to um I think it's a function of

1:41:25 ↗ height ultimately we can't turn a

1:41:27 ↗ 10-story building into a craftsman but

1:41:29 ↗ but then I back up a little bit here and

1:41:31 ↗ I think I think we've all identified

1:41:33 ↗ maybe maybe this was just me but I've

1:41:35 ↗ heard a lot of feedback from the

1:41:36 ↗ community that the urban contemporary is

1:41:38 ↗ very controversial and and so but I

1:41:42 ↗ asked well then what is the alternative

1:41:44 ↗ there you know as I look at this

1:41:46 ↗ building I think it's actually well

1:41:47 ↗ composed building it's of highly durable

1:41:50 ↗ materials it's a thoughtful pallet it's

1:41:53 ↗ a it's a great corner site its modulated

1:41:55 ↗ well it really activates the street it

1:41:57 ↗ does a lot of great things but I can

1:42:00 ↗ understand why it's unappealing but if

1:42:02 ↗ you compare this building to Alice I

1:42:05 ↗ think this is stars and stripes above

1:42:07 ↗ Alice so so but but but if then the

1:42:10 ↗ contemporary going back to my question

1:42:12 ↗ is is not the right question them or

1:42:15 ↗ answer them what is does that make sense

1:42:18 ↗ I just don't know so can I a little bit

1:42:21 ↗ so there are other there are other parts

1:42:24 ↗ of the code that influence the building

1:42:26 ↗ envelope so things that you ohm and just

1:42:31 ↗ described but also there are you've got

1:42:34 ↗ maximum Heights that are allowed and

1:42:36 ↗ then there are things like step backs at

1:42:37 ↗ certain height so you started so you

1:42:39 ↗ don't get the big box you're you create

1:42:42 ↗ something that's interesting down it

1:42:43 ↗ that kind of more pedestrian scale level

1:42:45 ↗ the first couple of stories and then you

1:42:47 ↗ do something that's a little bit

1:42:48 ↗ different as you as to building those up

1:42:52 ↗ and depending

1:42:53 ↗ hi it goes you maybe have other features

1:42:55 ↗ it or step backs or report changes that

1:42:58 ↗ are required and then you also have the

1:43:00 ↗ roof line and so the other other piece

1:43:02 ↗ that people are thinking about is your

1:43:04 ↗ your first experience is what is

1:43:06 ↗ happening on the ground level you want

1:43:07 ↗ to pay really close attention to that I

1:43:09 ↗ think the consultants have done a pretty

1:43:10 ↗ good job of speaking to that and talking

1:43:12 ↗ about some of those key elements one

1:43:14 ↗ piece that we're hearing about is that

1:43:17 ↗ architecture is not compatible with our

1:43:19 ↗ city our that skyline won't fit with the

1:43:21 ↗ surrounding mountain and green scape etc

1:43:25 ↗ so what are the other things that might

1:43:27 ↗ be fools that are in the code to kind of

1:43:31 ↗ influence what would be the kind of a

1:43:33 ↗ bigger picture image that is a quad

1:43:36 ↗ turns into based on architectural

1:43:40 ↗ standards but also the limitations or

1:43:43 ↗ requirements or envelope changes that

1:43:47 ↗ are in the land use code that are not

1:43:48 ↗ part of the design standard so that

1:43:51 ↗ there those are other tools that you

1:43:53 ↗ figure out how do you build that in the

1:43:54 ↗ overall land use code in addition to the

1:43:58 ↗ design design kapha I understand but is

1:44:01 ↗ the isn't the land use code Mazzoni

1:44:03 ↗ already pretty baked in a large degree

1:44:07 ↗ or this is just a function of design

1:44:10 ↗ review and isn't the modulation and

1:44:13 ↗ terracing you're talking about already

1:44:14 ↗ set there it exists in the code now but

1:44:20 ↗ I don't know if that's something that we

1:44:22 ↗ could look at as part of in combination

1:44:24 ↗ with trying to respond to the concerns

1:44:26 ↗ that we're hearing about is that our for

1:44:29 ↗ grabs and I think some of the community

1:44:31 ↗ I'm not talking so I'm still I guess I

1:44:35 ↗ guess what I would say is as part of

1:44:38 ↗ this moratorium work item I would say

1:44:41 ↗ not but what I would say is because

1:44:44 ↗ we're touching on this conversation

1:44:45 ↗ about building heights now views are

1:44:48 ↗ Iying views and views was definitely one

1:44:51 ↗ of the urban design pieces that the

1:44:54 ↗ consultants and I think we fought that

1:44:57 ↗ issue mr. Morgan on the Costco site plan

1:45:03 ↗ mr. Harrison so so I think we need some

1:45:06 ↗ clarity on views but other than views

1:45:08 ↗ building heights you know the the

1:45:10 ↗ envelope that's set by zoning is baked I

1:45:14 ↗ don't think this work product is

1:45:16 ↗ supposed to touch that but as a sidebar

1:45:19 ↗ and as an outcome if the Commission

1:45:22 ↗ wants to make a recommendation to the

1:45:23 ↗ council about overall building heights

1:45:26 ↗ now what you're getting as a product is

1:45:28 ↗ some of the architectural styles are

1:45:31 ↗ being recommended at maximum building

1:45:34 ↗ heights so you might look at that and

1:45:36 ↗ say okay well let's assume I have a six

1:45:38 ↗ story building if if the consultants

1:45:41 ↗ saying okay I can't use arts and crafts

1:45:43 ↗ and I can use you know half of the

1:45:45 ↗ architectural style that six storeys

1:45:47 ↗ well maybe six storeys is not a good

1:45:49 ↗ choice for us at the end of the day I

1:45:50 ↗ don't know so there's there some there's

1:45:53 ↗ some connectivity that you guys can make

1:45:55 ↗ I think if at the end of the day you

1:45:57 ↗ decide that the building heights that

1:46:00 ↗ are allowed now in central is a positive

1:46:03 ↗ problem I would raise that as a red flag

1:46:05 ↗ to the council but it should not

1:46:08 ↗ necessarily I don't know how it feeds

1:46:10 ↗ into ultimately this work product time

1:46:12 ↗ just answer because he's responded by

1:46:14 ↗ real quick so I don't know that I was

1:46:16 ↗ suggesting that we change it I was and

1:46:19 ↗ maybe I didn't say this very well but

1:46:20 ↗ there are other things that influence

1:46:23 ↗ the building envelope that are in the

1:46:24 ↗ code they're not the architectural style

1:46:26 ↗ so the step backs and the building

1:46:28 ↗ heights set in the code I'm not

1:46:29 ↗ suggesting that we go back and revisit

1:46:30 ↗ that I just think we need to think about

1:46:32 ↗ in combination the things that could

1:46:35 ↗ influence what the building will look

1:46:36 ↗ like in the end right it's not just what

1:46:39 ↗ we're seeing here in the design and in

1:46:42 ↗ one piece that I would add is Keith and

1:46:46 ↗ I were in here last night too

1:46:48 ↗ and one of the moratorium work plan

1:46:52 ↗ items parking was we were having our

1:46:56 ↗ first report out on that and there were

1:46:58 ↗ certainly other pieces that fell out of

1:47:01 ↗ that discussion

1:47:02 ↗ for instance parking enforcement shared

1:47:04 ↗ parking agreements there were several

1:47:06 ↗ things that were identified as maybe not

1:47:12 ↗ being in the right place to achieve what

1:47:14 ↗ we wanted and was

1:47:15 ↗ councils direction was these are the two

1:47:17 ↗ things that we've asked you to do please

1:47:20 ↗ track on those other things as part of a

1:47:24 ↗ list of amendments that would come next

1:47:26 ↗ year once we've gotten through the

1:47:27 ↗ moratorium work plan items so I think I

1:47:30 ↗ think not surprisingly keep us on point

1:47:35 ↗ with what the council is asking us to do

1:47:38 ↗ but it doesn't mean that we are not

1:47:42 ↗ tracking and benefiting from the things

1:47:45 ↗ that we're learning and observing while

1:47:47 ↗ going through this these work plan items

1:47:51 ↗ let me get back to the question again of

1:47:55 ↗ Issaquah style throughout we've gotten a

1:47:58 ↗ couple of different thoughts on that in

1:48:00 ↗ terms of limitation I mean everywhere

1:48:02 ↗ any other feedback on that there is

1:48:07 ↗ there a possibility of having it as a

1:48:12 ↗ Development Commission flexibility would

1:48:16 ↗ be one of those things if we did save

1:48:17 ↗ somebody came in and said I want to do a

1:48:19 ↗ one-story and maybe it won't work that

1:48:21 ↗ the minimum fer but I want to do a

1:48:24 ↗ one-story Craftsman style building on

1:48:27 ↗ this lot right in the middle and we

1:48:28 ↗ think no that's not appropriate

1:48:29 ↗ they'll have to change the urban okay

1:48:32 ↗ that wasn't like the up house but I was

1:48:34 ↗ thinking you know it what I might be the

1:48:36 ↗ perimeter of the urban core kind of I

1:48:39 ↗ this is my envisionment is it that the

1:48:42 ↗ center of the core kind of is the taller

1:48:44 ↗ part and as it goes out and comes back

1:48:46 ↗ out to the Issaquah style that kind of

1:48:47 ↗ grades down at the height of the

1:48:49 ↗ buildings so you know the craftsman but

1:48:51 ↗ that would get back to it's not the

1:48:53 ↗ codes not written that way like I know

1:48:55 ↗ before and you're right on the edge

1:48:56 ↗ you're still able to do that all

1:48:58 ↗ buildings well agree but I think this

1:49:04 ↗ may be what Commissioner price was

1:49:06 ↗ suggesting and it seems almost dictated

1:49:09 ↗ by reality to me that that if if on the

1:49:14 ↗ eastern side that's for example eastern

1:49:16 ↗ side of the Issaquah the boundary the

1:49:19 ↗ eastern boundary of urban core and

1:49:20 ↗ Issaquah style if you are an applicant

1:49:23 ↗ that wants to do a

1:49:26 ↗ Issaquah style the developer structure

1:49:31 ↗ half of the your building is on the

1:49:35 ↗ Issaquah style side and half is because

1:49:37 ↗ it that's not I guess what I really put

1:49:40 ↗ this informal question when the boundary

1:49:44 ↗ run if like East Germany and or East

1:49:46 ↗ Berlin and West Berlin if the boundary

1:49:48 ↗ goes Nehru do you have the option of

1:49:51 ↗ saying I know that 3/4 of my property is

1:49:54 ↗ in the urban core and only 1/4 of it is

1:49:58 ↗ in the US across tile can I do the whole

1:50:01 ↗ thing

1:50:01 ↗ it's across tile well cause that to me

1:50:03 ↗ would get us the what I agree of

1:50:07 ↗ flexibility and I think we should go

1:50:08 ↗ beyond that though in terms of thinking

1:50:10 ↗ about this not just the straddling but

1:50:13 ↗ even further in if somebody came in in

1:50:15 ↗ the middle there the court said I want

1:50:18 ↗ to do a craftsman-style building right

1:50:21 ↗ now it would say no you can't do that

1:50:22 ↗ yeah and do we want to say that well

1:50:26 ↗ where would we set that well I mean if

1:50:28 ↗ we didn't and well then do we do that

1:50:31 ↗ exactly we create a buffer we create a

1:50:33 ↗ transition zone so I mean I just because

1:50:37 ↗ there's many topics yeah I think what

1:50:41 ↗ you've you know to some extent we can

1:50:43 ↗ also give the consultant and the

1:50:45 ↗ opportunity to have heard this and as

1:50:49 ↗ part of implementing sort of their

1:50:54 ↗ vision overlaid with the comments

1:50:57 ↗ they're hearing it may be worthwhile to

1:50:59 ↗ let them take a shot at it based on the

1:51:01 ↗ conversation that you've had tonight

1:51:03 ↗ what Commissioner would it be would it

1:51:06 ↗ be worthwhile to get some clarity on

1:51:08 ↗ that issue just by going through this

1:51:12 ↗ yes yea or nay on the Commission about

1:51:14 ↗ whether or not it's how we feel as a

1:51:17 ↗ commission about allowing no no the mix

1:51:22 ↗ of stocks is this so you can provide the

1:51:24 ↗ feedback to them as a work item so let's

1:51:26 ↗ just go through let's say there are

1:51:28 ↗ three ideas here one would be leave it

1:51:30 ↗ the way it is the urban core is crossed

1:51:32 ↗ I'll separate one would be to have a

1:51:35 ↗ buffer zone let's say it would be to

1:51:38 ↗ Ben somehow of where you could bring in

1:51:40 ↗ this request I'll or third being that

1:51:42 ↗ you could do as a claw style anywhere

1:51:44 ↗ within the urban core I gave you those

1:51:47 ↗ three choices Richard we'd be open to

1:51:49 ↗ allowing Issaquah style within the core

1:51:52 ↗ not just its boundary as long as it

1:51:54 ↗ meets the far limits okay yes I think

1:51:58 ↗ I'll go with both boundary and adding

1:52:03 ↗ them throughout but they're all going we

1:52:06 ↗ have to chose two one

1:52:07 ↗ well I was going to throw something else

1:52:09 ↗ so why can't we say that you have a

1:52:11 ↗ contemporary building but meets a

1:52:14 ↗ Craftsman style you can mix the two it

1:52:16 ↗ doesn't need to be a black box that's

1:52:19 ↗ where I was going with saying that I

1:52:21 ↗ would like to have them inside I don't

1:52:23 ↗ want to see a 10-story building and I

1:52:25 ↗ want storage building next set I think

1:52:26 ↗ that's kind of ridiculous so that's our

1:52:30 ↗ thinking either go with a buffer or mix

1:52:32 ↗ the styles together so it still you have

1:52:34 ↗ contemporary look but it looks like you

1:52:38 ↗ said you're going to get your cake in

1:52:39 ↗ unit to give also okay okay well you

1:52:43 ↗ know I mean after throwing it out there

1:52:45 ↗ I thought we had some good deliberation

1:52:47 ↗ and and so I'm a little torn at this

1:52:50 ↗ point even though it was my idea III

1:52:53 ↗ guess then I will stick with number

1:52:55 ↗ three though but I would place the

1:52:58 ↗ condition we threw out throughout but

1:53:01 ↗ with the condition of it's a function of

1:53:03 ↗ height limit if there's a point where it

1:53:05 ↗ just doesn't work and and again as long

1:53:09 ↗ as it meets the far but if it meets the

1:53:12 ↗ far and somebody comes to you and they

1:53:13 ↗ want a two-story building and they want

1:53:15 ↗ to modulate a bunch of little row type

1:53:18 ↗ Craftsman houses or I guess maybe that's

1:53:20 ↗ not in that zone but what's to say that

1:53:24 ↗ isn't appropriate okay

1:53:28 ↗ I'm in favor of FA but I wouldn't call

1:53:31 ↗ it a buffer I'd call it a transition

1:53:33 ↗ zone that urban urban core is urban core

1:53:36 ↗ and Issaquah style is just a claw style

1:53:39 ↗ but there has to be or should they can't

1:53:41 ↗ be as stark checkpoint charlie kind of

1:53:44 ↗ thing it can it can there can be on the

1:53:48 ↗ borders of the two styles there can be

1:53:53 ↗ being favored a transitional area yeah

1:53:56 ↗ okay the transitional area as well

1:53:59 ↗ because I think because the urban core

1:54:01 ↗ requires more via the ground for what

1:54:04 ↗ retail and designed to have residential

1:54:08 ↗ above it so I want to make sure that

1:54:10 ↗ kind of stays that way we keep it dense

1:54:11 ↗ and for the purpose of what it's

1:54:13 ↗ supposed to be not mix in something that

1:54:16 ↗ won't fit into that lifestyle okay and a

1:54:20 ↗ little bit of everything smart your

1:54:24 ↗ keyboard yeah so I'm my preference is

1:54:28 ↗ that we define some sort of a transition

1:54:31 ↗ area where you can you know freely kind

1:54:33 ↗ of blends one styles to allow that

1:54:35 ↗ transition to happen but I want to and

1:54:38 ↗ reason for that for me is I thinking the

1:54:40 ↗ urban core you do want to have some kind

1:54:43 ↗ of continuity in the way it looks you

1:54:46 ↗ know want to mix it up too much but you

1:54:49 ↗ don't you don't but at the same time you

1:54:51 ↗ don't want to make everything look the

1:54:52 ↗ same so this back to this how do we

1:54:55 ↗ create create some predictability

1:54:56 ↗ through more prescriptive code but at

1:54:59 ↗ the same time where appropriate allow

1:55:01 ↗ some flexibility to create the interest

1:55:03 ↗ that we're looking for - and

1:55:04 ↗ compatibility with things that are going

1:55:06 ↗ on around it so I my preference is that

1:55:10 ↗ we have this transition area but there's

1:55:12 ↗ still an off-ramp option with some

1:55:15 ↗ discretion on the part of staff or

1:55:17 ↗ alternative adjustment standards or

1:55:19 ↗ something it allows for something unique

1:55:22 ↗ if it fits because one of the things

1:55:26 ↗ that we're thinking about a lot here is

1:55:27 ↗ we're thinking about projects by

1:55:29 ↗ themselves the projects are in a context

1:55:31 ↗ that what's going on around them so

1:55:33 ↗ sometimes given what's going on around

1:55:36 ↗ them warrant something that's maybe a

1:55:38 ↗ little bit different or unique it may

1:55:40 ↗ not fit exactly

1:55:41 ↗ with what the guidance said oh I'm still

1:55:43 ↗ in like I like the predictability part

1:55:46 ↗ but I think the and some continuity in

1:55:51 ↗ the standard in the core but some

1:55:53 ↗ ability and offering so I'm gonna I'll

1:55:56 ↗ three there's a different approach but

1:55:59 ↗ but I think it is that it is let's be

1:56:01 ↗ flexible in a transition area as far as

1:56:04 ↗ blending the styles I think that makes a

1:56:06 ↗ nice movement from one of the districts

1:56:09 ↗ to another zones or whatever call it and

1:56:12 ↗ then some off-ramp option with some

1:56:15 ↗ expression well great thank you I my

1:56:21 ↗ perspective the the vast majority the

1:56:24 ↗ feedback I think we've gotten in

1:56:25 ↗ projects coming in is it doesn't need

1:56:28 ↗ what is considered the Issaquah style in

1:56:30 ↗ these projects so I would be more open

1:56:32 ↗ to having it throughout being able to do

1:56:35 ↗ it throughout the district or the urban

1:56:37 ↗ area and I think given the minimum FA

1:56:40 ↗ are as a limitation that's going to

1:56:42 ↗ drive some of it and I think just from a

1:56:44 ↗ dollar perspective of somebody saying I

1:56:46 ↗ want to do a two-story building where I

1:56:48 ↗ could do six somebody also have outbid

1:56:51 ↗ them for that land and build six more

1:56:53 ↗ likely anyway but but that would be my

1:56:55 ↗ boat I think so

1:56:57 ↗ let's go to I cut you off yet another

1:57:00 ↗ somebody other points mr. Brennan slip

1:57:04 ↗ Dominion some of my other comment okay

1:57:05 ↗ shape um it would be at some point

1:57:09 ↗ helpful Commissioner price touched on it

1:57:12 ↗ about the outline and the structure and

1:57:15 ↗ the topics each of you fry to outline

1:57:18 ↗ and it would be helpful to understand

1:57:20 ↗ I realize it's highly schematic in in

1:57:24 ↗ some ways it's difficult until you see

1:57:26 ↗ it filled out what is there but if the

1:57:30 ↗ general organization and it's the cover

1:57:34 ↗ sheet on the memos that I gave gave you

1:57:38 ↗ if you if you think the overall

1:57:41 ↗ organization and topics makes sense for

1:57:44 ↗ soon mom if that how you think about the

1:57:47 ↗ checklist some of those very sort of

1:57:51 ↗ what less sexy but important piece but

1:57:56 ↗ to get some feedback on if you have but

1:57:59 ↗ they're doing their homework let me

1:58:00 ↗ bring up a couple of things share one is

1:58:03 ↗ the pen caught this before but the urban

1:58:07 ↗ core that they've added in that upper

1:58:08 ↗ portion that is actually part of the

1:58:11 ↗ East Lake District and outside of the

1:58:13 ↗ urban core and I looked at that and I

1:58:16 ↗ wondered why are we put in urban core

1:58:18 ↗ style in a non urban core area and so

1:58:23 ↗ I'd like them to reconsider and I don't

1:58:25 ↗ know what other commissioners think

1:58:27 ↗ about whether that should be in Issaquah

1:58:29 ↗ style location it's already got some

1:58:33 ↗ other buildings in there as it is but

1:58:36 ↗ there are some large parcels there that

1:58:39 ↗ could be redeveloped and they are an

1:58:41 ↗ entryway from the north part the

1:58:44 ↗ northern entry into the city would we

1:58:46 ↗ want to see those as more Issaquah style

1:58:49 ↗ or urban does everyone understand the

1:58:54 ↗ area talking about northern 56th and

1:58:56 ↗ wedge up there Rylander part of the

1:58:58 ↗ thinking of there ways to meet density

1:59:00 ↗ targets in East Lake um I don't mate I

1:59:04 ↗ think it may be more what commissioner

1:59:07 ↗ Morgan brought up is that the office

1:59:09 ↗ buildings that are there are probably

1:59:12 ↗ more urban core style than they are the

1:59:17 ↗ Iskra right subsets that with a

1:59:20 ↗ provision though the understanding that

1:59:21 ↗ the buildings that really are like that

1:59:24 ↗ are towards the back right

1:59:26 ↗ Microsoft Siemens building the same as

1:59:29 ↗ buildings are more towards the front but

1:59:31 ↗ those are more likely to be redeveloped

1:59:32 ↗ given their density

1:59:34 ↗ it's a one's it about urban core the

1:59:36 ↗ Microsoft buildings that are further

1:59:37 ↗ back at Costco now is a couple of them

1:59:39 ↗ you don't see from East Lake Sammamish

1:59:42 ↗ but the FedEx facility would likely be

1:59:45 ↗ redeveloped or the seamen site human

1:59:48 ↗ site was planned for apartments I think

1:59:50 ↗ before the moratorium or they were

1:59:51 ↗ looking at that anyway so that area

1:59:54 ↗ would we well if the majority of the

1:59:59 ↗ Commission was suggesting we blend all

2:00:00 ↗ the styles are using anywhere you want

2:00:03 ↗ so why

2:00:03 ↗ man oh no I think we're talking about we

2:00:05 ↗ could use Issaquah style wherever but

2:00:08 ↗ not urban core wherever yeah yeah nurse

2:00:11 ↗ de Boer never finds its way into inside

2:00:13 ↗ right so you're so pissed bringing that

2:00:16 ↗ back is across time see you guys in

2:00:19 ↗ Washington points well when when the

2:00:21 ↗ consultants presented I suggested that I

2:00:25 ↗ think that's another gateway and so if

2:00:28 ↗ that's if that's a gateway and I feel

2:00:30 ↗ like it's a transition zone you're

2:00:31 ↗ coming off of this highly residential

2:00:33 ↗ you know area or heart with the park

2:00:37 ↗ into what I consider one of the gateways

2:00:39 ↗ into the city is it is it more

2:00:43 ↗ appropriate to be the equesticle that

2:00:45 ↗ yeah just shooting from the hip but the

2:00:47 ↗ precedent that occurs there you know are

2:00:50 ↗ some pretty substantial structures

2:00:52 ↗ already and would that makes and they're

2:00:54 ↗ fairly but they wouldn't have to be torn

2:00:55 ↗ down certainly and they're fairly off

2:00:57 ↗ set back from the roadway - well plus if

2:01:02 ↗ you start to think about so if if

2:01:04 ↗ Siemens and space labs and FedEx

2:01:07 ↗ redevelop and redeveloped in mortgage

2:01:10 ↗ akua's style so now what's that

2:01:12 ↗ neighborhood feel like right I mean

2:01:15 ↗ those Microsoft buildings become kind of

2:01:16 ↗ the backdrop I don't know I mean they'll

2:01:20 ↗ be their own micro urban core yeah

2:01:22 ↗ historic urban core it would be part of

2:01:25 ↗ your transition zone exactly yeah

2:01:27 ↗ sister pre-developed is apartment

2:01:30 ↗ buildings wouldn't that be five storey

2:01:32 ↗ apartment buildings again so does we'll

2:01:33 ↗ stay in the urban core that's a little

2:01:36 ↗ bit it's not urban core zoning out there

2:01:38 ↗ it's in the East Lake area if you've got

2:01:41 ↗ the map Lucy to show it's the it's

2:01:43 ↗ purple up there well I am recording

2:01:47 ↗ messager there yeah but good so here in

2:01:51 ↗ this area that we're talking about which

2:01:54 ↗ is making to use India on the other

2:01:57 ↗ methods or open court and so it's all

2:02:00 ↗ been horse style so they're here we're

2:02:02 ↗ now identifying some of our nomenclature

2:02:05 ↗ challenges but mixed use allows a height

2:02:09 ↗ it so it's the second bit most dense

2:02:11 ↗ zones and so that it may be that because

2:02:18 ↗ you know some of these they're bigger

2:02:21 ↗ parcels

2:02:22 ↗ kind of along here and then up in the

2:02:25 ↗ area that they identified but a lot of

2:02:27 ↗ it along East Lake Sammamish into 21st

2:02:30 ↗ or smart small parcels and maybe that

2:02:33 ↗ was part of the driver I I don't I don't

2:02:35 ↗ know yeah and I guess in my mind I you

2:02:38 ↗ know seeing the urban core south of 56 I

2:02:40 ↗ mean the urban core in the zoning was

2:02:43 ↗ drawn specifically because that's where

2:02:45 ↗ the density and and if we say we want to

2:02:48 ↗ take that look and move it out towards a

2:02:51 ↗ state park into the north end of that

2:02:53 ↗ city I just don't see the reason for

2:02:54 ↗ that I couldn't agree more and I glad

2:02:57 ↗ you brought that up because I I just

2:03:01 ↗ really would like an assistant but to

2:03:04 ↗ protect the State Park for what it's

2:03:06 ↗ worth I mean the buildings are they're

2:03:08 ↗ the ones that were talking about but I

2:03:11 ↗ agree it seems to me like it makes more

2:03:14 ↗ sense particularly with the values you

2:03:16 ↗ know the values of our community that

2:03:19 ↗ we're talking about to to keep you put

2:03:23 ↗ turn it back into this across tile for

2:03:26 ↗ that for that wedge there just because

2:03:29 ↗ it's it's of the proximity to the to the

2:03:33 ↗ park either thought sudden-like

2:03:41 ↗ I do have another question if you don't

2:03:43 ↗ mind the on the check list I wondered

2:03:46 ↗ the where it says applies yes or no and

2:03:52 ↗ so let's say you decided you had a

2:03:54 ↗ project that was Arts and Crafts style

2:04:02 ↗ and that would it be let's see on the

2:04:06 ↗ architecture I guess there so if you

2:04:10 ↗ said okay this is an Arts and Crafts

2:04:11 ↗ style applied there's a no massing scale

2:04:15 ↗ materials color and it seemed like those

2:04:17 ↗ would apply to everything would that

2:04:19 ↗ always be checked done if I asked that

2:04:22 ↗ question

2:04:23 ↗ okay and I'm not sure I quite remember

2:04:27 ↗ the answer so I don't I don't care that

2:04:33 ↗ I don't remember why you wouldn't have

2:04:35 ↗ them all apply I guess it would the only

2:04:38 ↗ thing I can think is that if you only

2:04:40 ↗ are doing as the example shows the

2:04:43 ↗ Western floss front then then for all

2:04:45 ↗ the rest of these you would be checking

2:04:47 ↗ not applies just to be clear that this

2:04:50 ↗ is the section you're focused on right

2:04:52 ↗ okay I don't know if that okay that

2:04:55 ↗ sounds like you had the time I apologize

2:04:57 ↗ I don't understand your question I just

2:04:59 ↗ don't think that the first the first two

2:05:01 ↗ questions or yes or no does this apply

2:05:02 ↗ now and if you are Western false front

2:05:05 ↗ style if they decide you to fit in that

2:05:07 ↗ category and all for those things apply

2:05:10 ↗ thank you saying they apply to each then

2:05:13 ↗ you have one checkboxes to what your

2:05:14 ↗ front style applies yes or no that's it

2:05:16 ↗ and then the rest okay okay yeah and

2:05:20 ↗ then does it meet the standard silver

2:05:22 ↗ depends on how much you like to check

2:05:24 ↗ boxes well but but it could it could it

2:05:29 ↗ be that the applicant well you've got

2:05:32 ↗ that you've got the option for us to say

2:05:36 ↗ yes or no I mean but if your Western

2:05:41 ↗ falls friend if you've decided that's

2:05:43 ↗ what it is yeah and we heard that it's

2:05:45 ↗ you choose one style right and all for

2:05:48 ↗ those things and same for also one night

2:05:50 ↗ so it could kind of work there was an

2:05:52 ↗ apartment building we just

2:05:53 ↗ we approved a little while ago had like

2:05:55 ↗ multiple fronts like at little town

2:05:58 ↗ houses they came off if I'm I can't

2:05:59 ↗ remember their neighbor off top my head

2:06:00 ↗ but if they want to do one craftsman in

2:06:03 ↗ the next shut out one they make that one

2:06:06 ↗ in arts and crafts in the next one

2:06:07 ↗ another arts and crafts the next one a

2:06:08 ↗ craftsman then it could still fit within

2:06:12 ↗ the structure because it happened in in

2:06:15 ↗ multi two or three of these one I

2:06:17 ↗ actually think Randy hit it on the head

2:06:19 ↗ and and I may be wrong but I think I

2:06:22 ↗ think the actual way this is supposed to

2:06:25 ↗ work is the applicant fills out the

2:06:28 ↗ checklist and has to identify whether

2:06:31 ↗ they believe it applies or doesn't apply

2:06:32 ↗ right so they go ahead so they check

2:06:35 ↗ applies on all those and then staff

2:06:38 ↗ comes in and says does it comply or not

2:06:40 ↗ right and I think like what but but I

2:06:44 ↗ think that the fallacy with that is the

2:06:47 ↗ point that commissioner Morgan made

2:06:49 ↗ which is if you're picking western false

2:06:52 ↗ front than all of those applies and and

2:06:55 ↗ right now it's giving the implication to

2:06:57 ↗ the applicant that you could say well I

2:06:59 ↗ pick massing scale and materials but I

2:07:02 ↗ don't pick color okay and that that

2:07:04 ↗ would not be the right message to send

2:07:06 ↗ at least as we're understanding so so I

2:07:09 ↗ think I think the light just went on are

2:07:11 ↗ you done so commissioner Morgan so

2:07:14 ↗ you're saying there shouldn't be an

2:07:16 ↗ applies for a style but there should be

2:07:20 ↗ a complies for each of those well let me

2:07:26 ↗ - I think someone said this which is for

2:07:28 ↗ Western false front you would check that

2:07:31 ↗ that's the one yes but you're picking

2:07:33 ↗ that style so you would have one that

2:07:36 ↗ would say yes I picked that one and you

2:07:38 ↗ might need that for each one of them

2:07:40 ↗ because for instance if you had three

2:07:41 ↗ buildings one could be Western one could

2:07:44 ↗ be Arts and Crafts one could be Grange

2:07:45 ↗ and then then you would have all of this

2:07:50 ↗ because then you would be talking about

2:07:52 ↗ whether the staff and then the

2:07:54 ↗ Commission would be saying yes you've

2:07:56 ↗ complied or not complied and what if you

2:07:58 ↗ know that there are conditions that can

2:08:00 ↗ fix that yeah

2:08:03 ↗ okay okay smells like you're already

2:08:07 ↗ asking the question for us oh good well

2:08:09 ↗ that's alright I you guys have to be

2:08:12 ↗ able to use this as much as I do

2:08:13 ↗ so I want to make sure together yeah

2:08:16 ↗ okay so other questions things I think

2:08:23 ↗ the I guess one of the questions I did

2:08:29 ↗ have in got back to sort of style and

2:08:31 ↗ stuff is retail retail uses don't seem

2:08:35 ↗ to be covered in many of these unless

2:08:37 ↗ you're going to say if you have a retail

2:08:38 ↗ use it has to be Arts and Crafts style

2:08:41 ↗ or you know most of the examples they

2:08:43 ↗ show or of office buildings or

2:08:45 ↗ residential well a nice recruit and you

2:08:49 ↗ know the interesting point about that

2:08:52 ↗ was one of the notes I made it and I

2:08:55 ↗ think Commissioner Bach said it which is

2:08:59 ↗ we probably need more pictures so for

2:09:02 ↗ instance if you're going to have Western

2:09:04 ↗ storefront you probably need it as a

2:09:06 ↗ single use building we're the ones that

2:09:08 ↗ are suitable for mixed juice or maybe a

2:09:11 ↗ variety of uses what does that look like

2:09:14 ↗ as an industrial building what does that

2:09:16 ↗ look like as a mixed-use building what

2:09:18 ↗ does that look like as a retail building

2:09:20 ↗ because and I think first of all I think

2:09:23 ↗ it helps all of us implement it it helps

2:09:27 ↗ us make sure that we understand what

2:09:29 ↗ that means as we're agreeing to these

2:09:32 ↗ things for all those uses yes exactly

2:09:34 ↗ yeah so if given that in most of the

2:09:37 ↗ zones most juices are allowed then we

2:09:40 ↗ should probably have depictions of that

2:09:43 ↗ so that we understand if there are

2:09:47 ↗ breakouts for retail you know for

2:09:50 ↗ instance you know windows they've said

2:09:53 ↗ some things about windows that might be

2:09:55 ↗ challenging for some retail uses though

2:09:57 ↗ and the in a relation to that I guess is

2:10:01 ↗ the old highway 10 district and it seems

2:10:08 ↗ to me what they've it doesn't seem to

2:10:11 ↗ cover that well because if somebody came

2:10:12 ↗ along and said I want to do something

2:10:14 ↗ that would match

2:10:15 ↗ xxx facility whatever I want to put in a

2:10:19 ↗ very unique facility we're saying you

2:10:21 ↗ have to fit one of these styles maybe

2:10:23 ↗ something that doesn't come from fifties

2:10:26 ↗ are couture you know 50s or 60s highway

2:10:29 ↗ architecture and how would we address

2:10:31 ↗ that within these standards

2:10:33 ↗ that's a good question correct well I

2:10:35 ↗ was just going to say but you might not

2:10:37 ↗ you might that could be intentional you

2:10:39 ↗ could say xxx should always be unique

2:10:42 ↗ and iconic and and I'm just throwing

2:10:45 ↗ this out for discussion that it should

2:10:47 ↗ be unique and iconic and we don't want

2:10:49 ↗ anymore googy 1950's kind of

2:10:51 ↗ architecture along that but I think when

2:10:54 ↗ we you know when you look at the

2:10:55 ↗ description of old highway 10 that

2:10:57 ↗ district specifically is intended I

2:10:59 ↗ think for a restaurant retail

2:11:02 ↗ entertainment cultural type of area that

2:11:06 ↗ you could get some very think unique

2:11:08 ↗ buildings in and I have a heart you know

2:11:12 ↗ you could fit them in unsure but know

2:11:14 ↗ that if you put Arts and Crafts in that

2:11:17 ↗ area it fits with the idea of the vision

2:11:20 ↗ of the district well it goes back to one

2:11:21 ↗ thing I forgot to ask in terms of the

2:11:23 ↗ structure and I didn't see it outlined

2:11:24 ↗ here's is their mechanism for departures

2:11:26 ↗ and you know we would have to be clear

2:11:31 ↗ on what those departures are framework

2:11:34 ↗ you know if then but is that mechanism

2:11:38 ↗ built into this at all and could it be

2:11:41 ↗ so right I don't know is the short

2:11:44 ↗ answer it is not part of the outline it

2:11:48 ↗ is part of the central is quest

2:11:50 ↗ standards now I mean one of the things

2:11:53 ↗ that we've identified is there are a

2:11:57 ↗ bundle of stuff that's being pulled out

2:12:00 ↗ of central Issaquah and into this manual

2:12:02 ↗ and and the way we think about those are

2:12:06 ↗ some of the most important things that

2:12:08 ↗ we see through community discussion in

2:12:11 ↗ terms of ensuring that we're getting the

2:12:12 ↗ community and achieving the vision that

2:12:15 ↗ was intended by central is Squa and then

2:12:18 ↗ there's all the other stuff that staff

2:12:20 ↗ use to review and

2:12:26 ↗ ensure that we get projects that fit in

2:12:28 ↗ and address certain things so we're

2:12:32 ↗ going to have to go back and do some

2:12:34 ↗ stuff to the rest of centralist claw and

2:12:36 ↗ I don't know whether the aass are going

2:12:40 ↗ to only apply to the stuff in that book

2:12:42 ↗ and not to the manual or the aass

2:12:45 ↗ applied to the whole thing I mean I I

2:12:47 ↗ think that's a spot-on question you know

2:12:51 ↗ commissioner Harrison has I think

2:12:53 ↗ identified his perspective and so the

2:12:57 ↗ question you know we have that question

2:12:59 ↗ outstanding as we move forward and it's

2:13:02 ↗ a good one for the consultant to help us

2:13:04 ↗ understand what how they were thinking

2:13:06 ↗ that would work let's just be clear so

2:13:12 ↗ in that district if some if I can't some

2:13:18 ↗ corporate I mean it sounds contradicts

2:13:20 ↗ what I said earlier but if a drive-in

2:13:27 ↗ wanted to go in literally across the

2:13:31 ↗ street or next to xxx I Drive what I

2:13:36 ↗ think is sonic or one of those kinds of

2:13:39 ↗ things that would with their red you

2:13:45 ↗ know whatever it is they're their brand

2:13:48 ↗ image you're saying that but what we're

2:13:52 ↗ seeing here is that under the new

2:13:54 ↗ guidelines they think they have to pick

2:13:57 ↗ arts and crafts whatever and if they if

2:14:01 ↗ they don't want to do that then stop

2:14:03 ↗ right I mean is that is that basically

2:14:06 ↗ what we're sequester but I think that's

2:14:10 ↗ what we're saying well it

2:14:12 ↗ okay so isn't that what we are trying to

2:14:15 ↗ get here is more control as I said

2:14:21 ↗ earlier the ability to say just doesn't

2:14:26 ↗ fit oh but that I mean that gets back to

2:14:29 ↗ a question getting the vision for that

2:14:30 ↗ district per se was a chewing yeah

2:14:34 ↗ what's that originally I mean what it is

2:14:36 ↗ now right

2:14:37 ↗ yeah yeah yeah that industrial bringing

2:14:41 ↗ and service jobs and so on well it's

2:14:45 ↗ it's it can go back to the discussion

2:14:48 ↗ but I mean it was meant to the idea of

2:14:50 ↗ cultural it's entertaining restaurants

2:14:54 ↗ entertainment those kind of things as

2:14:55 ↗ you say if somebody came in and said

2:14:57 ↗ we've got this design as something that

2:15:00 ↗ would fit with a style of triple action

2:15:03 ↗ and we might say sorry it doesn't fit is

2:15:08 ↗ that the outcome we want to have I agree

2:15:12 ↗ that's that's the question and is there

2:15:14 ↗ a mechanism for could there be a

2:15:16 ↗ mechanism for addressing that right

2:15:18 ↗ right now well and if you were going to

2:15:20 ↗ have adjustments would be that be the

2:15:23 ↗ kind of adjustment that you would want

2:15:24 ↗ yeah I know most retailers especially

2:15:29 ↗ like the in announcement as Krispy

2:15:30 ↗ Kremes and even the Lowe's they do take

2:15:33 ↗ the architectural standards of the local

2:15:35 ↗ community into a exteriors into account

2:15:39 ↗ so their interiors might be very fixed

2:15:41 ↗ in the rigid and the way to do it their

2:15:43 ↗ exterior is they just wanna make sure

2:15:44 ↗ that accent colors and their signage so

2:15:47 ↗ I think they can fit I think every one

2:15:49 ↗ of those could fit into an

2:15:49 ↗ arts-and-crafts with the stucco outsides

2:15:52 ↗ or whatever else but as long as I get

2:15:54 ↗ able get their accent colors and their

2:15:55 ↗ signage they're going to be happy so oh

2:16:00 ↗ I guess my perspective it's probably

2:16:02 ↗ reiterating what I've already said but

2:16:04 ↗ the idea of having a more prescriptive

2:16:08 ↗ starting place I think helps us I think

2:16:11 ↗ it's been a little bit to kind of

2:16:16 ↗ obscure yeah too much too much

2:16:19 ↗ discretion which makes it really hard

2:16:21 ↗ from a staff perspective to figure out

2:16:23 ↗ what when can I say no here so we need

2:16:26 ↗ to we need to build standards both the

2:16:29 ↗ code and again these design standards

2:16:31 ↗ that provide more specificity I think

2:16:35 ↗ that's important but the idea of

2:16:36 ↗ departures is something you can't you've

2:16:38 ↗ got to have that otherwise you miss

2:16:40 ↗ opportunities the challenge with that

2:16:42 ↗ though is figuring out when is a

2:16:45 ↗ departure appropriate even considering a

2:16:47 ↗ departure appropriate so I think that's

2:16:49 ↗ something that they need

2:16:50 ↗ explore a little bit about well where

2:16:52 ↗ are those kind of levels are thresholds

2:16:54 ↗ that we might want to set in the code

2:16:55 ↗ that say we have a departure that's

2:16:58 ↗ administrative and it's in this range

2:17:00 ↗ and if it's something that's a more

2:17:02 ↗ significant departure maybe it's got to

2:17:03 ↗ come here and it allows a public there's

2:17:07 ↗ a much more intense public process that

2:17:09 ↗ goes with that so I I think that's

2:17:11 ↗ something we actually need to explore a

2:17:13 ↗ little bit more in the construct of the

2:17:15 ↗ design enters and for guidelines and the

2:17:18 ↗ the code itself yeah okay Commissioner

2:17:25 ↗ can I just ask a quick question you two

2:17:28 ↗ gentlemen have been on the Commission

2:17:29 ↗ longer than any any of us do you

2:17:32 ↗ remember an instance where the

2:17:34 ↗ development Commission voted not to

2:17:39 ↗ recommend to the City Council not

2:17:42 ↗ approve it has that ever happened not

2:17:46 ↗ approve a project location oh yeah

2:17:50 ↗ really I think they might have been a

2:17:53 ↗ change like this errors that happened on

2:17:55 ↗ Mike no it was I know when Costco wanted

2:17:58 ↗ to oh is the standards to allow them to

2:18:01 ↗ do a hotel next to the freeway that

2:18:03 ↗ didn't fit the wedding-cake zoning and I

2:18:06 ↗ don't think we where the approval

2:18:08 ↗ Authority I think we're recommending

2:18:09 ↗ maybe well on the master site plan right

2:18:12 ↗ master site plan you are site

2:18:14 ↗ development permits and we're not really

2:18:16 ↗ using master site plans I think in

2:18:18 ↗ central is club but you know I think

2:18:21 ↗ part of this would just be an

2:18:27 ↗ observation from the inside we would be

2:18:31 ↗ pretty clear you know I mean part of the

2:18:33 ↗ benefit for us working as closely as we

2:18:36 ↗ do with you is that we try and channel

2:18:38 ↗ the Commission's that we go in front of

2:18:41 ↗ and communicate not only what the code

2:18:44 ↗ says but what we think are your values

2:18:47 ↗ your likely perspectives to try and

2:18:52 ↗ position them for success and then you

2:18:58 ↗ know that gives the Commission then an

2:19:01 ↗ opportunity to figure out if there are

2:19:04 ↗ tweaks and massaging that's necessary on

2:19:07 ↗ those more discretionary pieces and so

2:19:14 ↗ I'm not sure any project I've brought to

2:19:18 ↗ a Commission's ever been denied for that

2:19:21 ↗ reason now they've occasionally been

2:19:22 ↗ appealed but I think that we would hope

2:19:29 ↗ that we weren't bringing things to you

2:19:32 ↗ that we didn't think were approvable I

2:19:35 ↗ don't mean to imply that that you know

2:19:38 ↗ we would override staff recommendation

2:19:42 ↗ well your work you got but but what I'm

2:19:44 ↗ saying is the staff at staff has done

2:19:46 ↗ everything that they've everything that

2:19:48 ↗ they could to make the best result of a

2:19:52 ↗ given application but then when it comes

2:19:56 ↗ here and you have done your job but we

2:20:00 ↗ look at it and say golly you know is

2:20:05 ↗ that mechanism has it ever been put into

2:20:08 ↗ effect and in you look I mean part of

2:20:12 ↗ the process is they come here we provide

2:20:16 ↗ there are elements of a project denying

2:20:17 ↗ a project in its entirety is a hard

2:20:19 ↗ thing to do if they're reading that's

2:20:21 ↗ that's inside the frame and that's why

2:20:23 ↗ we're trying to get more better but our

2:20:26 ↗ scope of responsibility is does it meet

2:20:30 ↗ the design criteria that's in the code

2:20:32 ↗ is it compatible with the design

2:20:33 ↗ standard and there are many instances

2:20:37 ↗ where we've made significant required

2:20:40 ↗ them to make some significant changes to

2:20:42 ↗ the project that was originally proposed

2:20:44 ↗ that we just didn't think was yeah or

2:20:47 ↗ really along I mean at this point post

2:20:49 ↗ it may be part of that approval standard

2:20:51 ↗ if we did have something where there

2:20:53 ↗ could be some adjustments made may be

2:20:55 ↗ able to require community conference

2:20:57 ↗ bring that back up to say if you want to

2:21:00 ↗ go through that it's going to require

2:21:01 ↗ more community input and more input at

2:21:03 ↗ the beginning in you normally would if

2:21:05 ↗ you want to have something different

2:21:07 ↗ than what's working that's and I was

2:21:10 ↗ yeah yeah I I just think that's good to

2:21:14 ↗ be more attendance meetings the you know

2:21:19 ↗ more public participation if they have

2:21:21 ↗ if they have it gives them the format to

2:21:25 ↗ do it and maybe something that the

2:21:26 ↗ public loves and will really like to see

2:21:28 ↗ but it doesn't fit within them and it

2:21:30 ↗ could be a community building could be a

2:21:31 ↗ public building it and and you know the

2:21:36 ↗ to build on something one of the

2:21:38 ↗ commissioners said I apologize I don't

2:21:41 ↗ remember which one you know right now

2:21:44 ↗ there that adjustment of standards

2:21:47 ↗ process is set up where there are

2:21:49 ↗ certain things that are specifically

2:21:50 ↗ precluded from being adjusted and then

2:21:55 ↗ and right now it is at the applicants

2:22:00 ↗ discretion whether they're AAS is done

2:22:04 ↗ ahead of time or bundled with their

2:22:07 ↗ application and so there might you know

2:22:11 ↗ what you're saying is that there are

2:22:14 ↗ certain things that if if they rise to a

2:22:19 ↗ certain level would need to be part of

2:22:21 ↗ an applicator come to the the AAS on its

2:22:24 ↗ own comes to you because it's an

2:22:26 ↗ administrative permit but that kind of

2:22:28 ↗ adjustment would need a community

2:22:31 ↗ conversation or B be a part of the SDP

2:22:36 ↗ or whatever application I think the

2:22:40 ↗ challenge is always the criteria right

2:22:43 ↗ so that there are it's a predictable

2:22:47 ↗ clear path for an applicant staff and

2:22:50 ↗ Commission in public to understand what

2:22:55 ↗ can and should be approved than what can

2:22:58 ↗ and will be denied and I would suggest

2:23:00 ↗ that we would want as you mentioned if

2:23:02 ↗ maybe they maybe that hearing is early

2:23:05 ↗ because you don't want something to go

2:23:07 ↗ to all the work and staff do all the

2:23:09 ↗ work oh all the way down that trail and

2:23:10 ↗ get the inside by the way everything

2:23:13 ↗ else been approved are you okay with

2:23:15 ↗ this I could look in this want to find

2:23:18 ↗ out that right away

2:23:20 ↗ so that might indicate that peeling that

2:23:24 ↗ apart and having it as a separate

2:23:26 ↗ activity that could come earlier yeah

2:23:30 ↗ okay that makes sense so just a

2:23:33 ↗ different topic real quick just feedback

2:23:35 ↗ on the question I was asked about the

2:23:38 ↗ structure of and trying to respect that

2:23:42 ↗ staff is here again tonight has probably

2:23:44 ↗ been a long week and I guess they want

2:23:46 ↗ to get home pretty quick so that the

2:23:47 ↗ feedback on I think that the way it's

2:23:49 ↗ outlined is good I think it works really

2:23:52 ↗ well the way it's blocked out by you

2:23:55 ↗ know looking at urban design

2:23:56 ↗ requirements architectural requirements

2:23:58 ↗ etc the design standards I also like the

2:24:00 ↗ recommended not recommended most of the

2:24:03 ↗ time you say well you know this is

2:24:05 ↗ what's required but the idea in the

2:24:07 ↗ standards of saying here's some examples

2:24:09 ↗ of what we like to see and here's some

2:24:11 ↗ stuff like bevel wood siding you know is

2:24:14 ↗ not something we want in the urban core

2:24:16 ↗ and I know so are not recommended that

2:24:20 ↗ kind of stuff I think that that's kind

2:24:21 ↗ of helpful then you kind of said yes we

2:24:25 ↗ like it and we don't like it boundaries

2:24:26 ↗ and then people try to work in the

2:24:28 ↗ middle I think that's really good and

2:24:31 ↗ then that I think the checklist is is

2:24:34 ↗ really a good tool for us I think that's

2:24:36 ↗ something we'll probably want to maybe

2:24:38 ↗ even play with a little bit more as the

2:24:41 ↗ details start to build in here on what

2:24:44 ↗ level of detail you want it would help

2:24:46 ↗ us in our deliberation and final

2:24:48 ↗ decision-making because we've had

2:24:50 ↗ different reviews a couple of different

2:24:51 ↗ tools over the years and some of them

2:24:53 ↗ over the green sheets and some of them

2:24:55 ↗ worked and better than others and and

2:24:58 ↗ this I like better than the green sheets

2:25:00 ↗ that we've used in the past but I think

2:25:02 ↗ some there may be some more we want to

2:25:04 ↗ put in there I'm not quite sure what

2:25:05 ↗ that is yet that's my yeah yeah I mean I

2:25:08 ↗ think that you know one of the questions

2:25:10 ↗ is going to be how this is a living

2:25:14 ↗ document you know some pieces like the

2:25:19 ↗ the checklist we may tweak every quarter

2:25:23 ↗ and until we get it figured out how it

2:25:26 ↗ works well for all the different users

2:25:29 ↗ some things we may you know be fine with

2:25:33 ↗ for five

2:25:34 ↗ for ten years and then we want you know

2:25:36 ↗ that that we're done with that style or

2:25:38 ↗ where we've taking a different approach

2:25:41 ↗ on views or access or one of those other

2:25:45 ↗ elements and so the question is how how

2:25:47 ↗ do we how are we able to keep that a

2:25:52 ↗ living doc you know totally agreeing as

2:25:54 ↗ I thought son I think you're doing a

2:25:56 ↗ great job of it that's what I've been

2:25:57 ↗ saying earlier this this whole process

2:25:59 ↗ is keeping this a living document I'm in

2:26:03 ↗ a central Issaquah plan that's what

2:26:04 ↗ we're doing here where we've started

2:26:07 ↗ executed we're going huh so we're

2:26:10 ↗ pulling the horses reins and saying

2:26:13 ↗ let's slow down a little bit here and

2:26:14 ↗ take a look at this and I that's one of

2:26:16 ↗ things that's most encouraging to me

2:26:17 ↗ about this whole process is that it it

2:26:19 ↗ is a living democratic process that has

2:26:24 ↗ to be put out there and discussed openly

2:26:25 ↗ and records kept and everything outside

2:26:27 ↗ I would agree very much just even on

2:26:29 ↗ especially this design standards as

2:26:31 ↗ we're coming up with this new that we

2:26:35 ↗ don't wait five years that as you say

2:26:37 ↗ maybe if every quarter we come back

2:26:38 ↗ after a couple of these projects and we

2:26:40 ↗ have another meeting to talk about what

2:26:41 ↗ worked what didn't and yeah I think just

2:26:44 ↗ by the fact that it's a prescriptive

2:26:47 ↗ allows it to long you can put things in

2:26:50 ↗ and take well you know after we see our

2:26:52 ↗ first hearty panel building we make it's

2:26:56 ↗ a rule that this one a practical

2:27:00 ↗ question about maintenance is the

2:27:02 ↗ deliverable defined as the source file

2:27:04 ↗ do we have the source files when this is

2:27:06 ↗ done not just PDF or copies on hard copy

2:27:11 ↗ so that we can maintain it or is the

2:27:12 ↗ assumption that the consultant would

2:27:15 ↗ maintain the document going forward I

2:27:19 ↗ assume we own the product when it's done

2:27:22 ↗ well and and so that the miracle of

2:27:25 ↗ technology is that you know even PDFs

2:27:28 ↗ are editable these days thankfully so

2:27:32 ↗ yes I would agree for though

2:27:35 ↗ okay yeah Randi will not be doing that

2:27:37 ↗ for what the one thing I really like

2:27:42 ↗ about the Stockman secondo almost a

2:27:44 ↗ gating factor for people want to develop

2:27:46 ↗ in Issaquah so they can make that

2:27:47 ↗ decision early on and decide whether or

2:27:49 ↗ not it makes sense for them I that will

2:27:51 ↗ help us a lot in to save your your time

2:27:54 ↗ as well because someone can look at this

2:27:55 ↗ know what they can do rather than happen

2:27:57 ↗ to throw everything at the wall and you

2:27:59 ↗ guys say yes or no and work with them

2:28:00 ↗ for six months and I said walk away

2:28:02 ↗ anyway well historically I I would say

2:28:08 ↗ you know one of the things that I'm

2:28:09 ↗ learning is we're used to working with a

2:28:11 ↗ master developer who got to choose who

2:28:15 ↗ they sold their land to got to choose

2:28:17 ↗ who their architect was had their own

2:28:20 ↗ architectural review committee and that

2:28:23 ↗ is not something that you have in the

2:28:25 ↗ rest of the city and so the tools that

2:28:27 ↗ we're developing now makes sense for a

2:28:31 ↗ sort of different configuration that

2:28:34 ↗ doesn't have that added layer you know

2:28:37 ↗ they could be capricious we cannot be

2:28:40 ↗ capricious and so I think some of these

2:28:42 ↗ tools recognize the different

2:28:45 ↗ circumstances in which this has happened

2:28:47 ↗ yeah I'd like to I know it's late but

2:28:53 ↗ I'd like to have a discussion about the

2:28:55 ↗ urban core style it's certainly been

2:28:59 ↗ brought up in a lot of public input

2:29:01 ↗ about that specifically people's

2:29:04 ↗ thoughts on that one word

2:29:10 ↗ dark that's what we want to avoid look

2:29:13 ↗ at someone one word okay just no I mean

2:29:15 ↗ if it's Rob's dark is the issue another

2:29:17 ↗ your more words there you just what you

2:29:19 ↗ said you want to go long I go back to

2:29:22 ↗ the goals and what is the goal is it to

2:29:25 ↗ establish an identity for his o'clock

2:29:27 ↗ and and so it's a very subjective

2:29:30 ↗ question in this and so is that our idea

2:29:33 ↗ I don't know

2:29:34 ↗ I am I when I think of its Clyde don't

2:29:37 ↗ necessarily think of that but but I

2:29:41 ↗ think you need that type of building you

2:29:43 ↗ know and I think there's things you can

2:29:45 ↗ do that that in soften it you know you

2:29:47 ↗ talked about some of it it's terracing

2:29:50 ↗ modulation the cornices those things

2:29:53 ↗ start to bring the identity and then

2:29:54 ↗ it's all about materials I think to

2:29:58 ↗ establish identity I don't know if I'm

2:30:02 ↗ helping don't it and trigger a question

2:30:04 ↗ but because that's over the core as well

2:30:06 ↗ right and that you know it's within it

2:30:08 ↗ and it's much more long lines of what we

2:30:10 ↗ like in a city is it I mean I am I'm not

2:30:15 ↗ questioning what you're saying I'm just

2:30:18 ↗ interested in a all because it's also

2:30:22 ↗ I'm guessing that if you put this out

2:30:24 ↗ for more public comment that people

2:30:25 ↗ would react to this more positively than

2:30:27 ↗ to the other massive building yeah and I

2:30:30 ↗ think it allows room for creative

2:30:32 ↗ expression I don't think that as a type

2:30:35 ↗ it's necessarily a problem but the main

2:30:39 ↗ elements I think that Crandall arambula

2:30:41 ↗ we're talking about can be expressed in

2:30:42 ↗ a number of different ways maybe they

2:30:44 ↗ have some other images that might be

2:30:46 ↗ closer to what we could get excited

2:30:48 ↗ about I think I think that mr. Pryce's

2:30:53 ↗ comment about what is the image in

2:30:56 ↗ broader kind of statements that we want

2:31:00 ↗ is a quad to comment it is what it is

2:31:03 ↗ right now and a lot of people will argue

2:31:05 ↗ that we like what it is we don't want it

2:31:07 ↗ to change well it's going to change so

2:31:10 ↗ our job is to guide that change and try

2:31:13 ↗ to create a future that is kind of a

2:31:14 ↗ preferred future into it and trying to

2:31:16 ↗ be and articulate what that looks like

2:31:18 ↗ sometimes hard to do but it it kind of

2:31:21 ↗ this

2:31:22 ↗ preamble about you know it could even be

2:31:25 ↗ to this part of the design standards

2:31:27 ↗ about what it is a look and feel

2:31:30 ↗ character that we're trying to create

2:31:32 ↗ and the bigger picture is maybe

2:31:35 ↗ something that we could think about and

2:31:36 ↗ I don't the sultan's can assist with

2:31:38 ↗ doing that that's important I also you

2:31:41 ↗ know we also want to prevent you know a

2:31:43 ↗ lot of reflective glass and hard edges

2:31:46 ↗ and that because that's not the image

2:31:48 ↗ it's not really compatible with the

2:31:50 ↗ natural features that are going on

2:31:52 ↗ around is a quad natural materials are

2:31:55 ↗ probably something we really want to

2:31:56 ↗ promote so you're looking at wood or

2:31:58 ↗ with tone materials you know use of

2:32:00 ↗ stone brick those sorts of materials

2:32:05 ↗ that are more compatible with it with

2:32:07 ↗ kind of a natural environment and less

2:32:09 ↗ about downtown Seattle you know rootin

2:32:12 ↗ for Bellevue reflective glass and hard

2:32:14 ↗ steel and things like that

2:32:15 ↗ but at the same time you want to have

2:32:17 ↗ some edginess to now because that's what

2:32:20 ↗ makes it more interesting to be but

2:32:22 ↗ that's the hard part to describe and

2:32:24 ↗ then actually friends link that into

2:32:26 ↗ codes and design standards that actually

2:32:28 ↗ make it happen and that's where you know

2:32:30 ↗ this about the living document yes we're

2:32:32 ↗ going to keep moving ahead and we'll see

2:32:34 ↗ what but this new change drives in a way

2:32:37 ↗ of future development I think that

2:32:40 ↗ broader description of the image of is a

2:32:44 ↗ flower trying to create might help um -

2:32:49 ↗ organ that image that you emailed where

2:32:53 ↗ was that in central squad do you

2:32:55 ↗ remember so the there's a few of them so

2:32:58 ↗ if you have the plan if you can pull it

2:32:59 ↗ up for the design standards different to

2:33:05 ↗ vary that there was one on the very

2:33:07 ↗ first page so this is the whole

2:33:11 ↗ centralist law standards is that the the

2:33:14 ↗ SIDS yeah yeah if you go to the very

2:33:17 ↗ first page I think oh I'm sorry

2:33:20 ↗ you meant to literally the very first

2:33:21 ↗ page I thought you meant

2:33:31 ↗ maybe I was looking at a different

2:33:33 ↗ document well you know there may be a

2:33:36 ↗ covered document that isn't it here I

2:33:38 ↗ don't let me see if I go down I think I

2:33:43 ↗ know which one you're talking about and

2:33:45 ↗ I didn't realize that wasn't on the

2:33:46 ↗ cover one of them I think is in the

2:33:48 ↗ district visions Tibbets Valley section

2:33:51 ↗ ray I'm not sure we I don't have the

2:33:57 ↗ central his club plan here right now um

2:33:59 ↗ you get it off our web page movie which

2:34:06 ↗ wedge web page Odyssey web page under

2:34:08 ↗ bellman sir

2:34:09 ↗ no can go to plan that's good

2:34:14 ↗ [Applause]

2:34:17 ↗ [Music]

2:34:36 ↗ each I have a I have a hard copy that is

2:34:40 ↗ the one

2:34:42 ↗ Commissioner Morgan yes so that was what

2:34:45 ↗ I think that was on the first page so

2:34:46 ↗ and then that we've got a couple more

2:34:49 ↗ later me part of it when you look at the

2:34:53 ↗ images that came in the plan that was

2:34:55 ↗ adopted in 2012 like a tall building on

2:34:58 ↗ the right and some of the others it's

2:35:01 ↗ got on the taller buildings it's got

2:35:04 ↗ some variated modulated bases and then

2:35:09 ↗ step back taller buildings with

2:35:11 ↗ balconies on almost all month all of

2:35:14 ↗ them I think there's a good example on

2:35:16 ↗ page 20 there I think that was one of

2:35:18 ↗ the photos that you sent no thank you

2:35:30 ↗ at one hour I grab those photos like the

2:35:33 ↗ the two photos on the right there so I

2:35:39 ↗ think this is this is Vancouver and I

2:35:43 ↗ have a lot of pictures of this project

2:35:44 ↗ okay

2:35:45 ↗ so so this all the pictures we saw the

2:35:49 ↗ public is seen in the plan have not been

2:35:52 ↗ as I would agree with mr. Harrison's

2:35:54 ↗ comment of a stark solid form and I

2:35:58 ↗ understand what the architect was

2:35:59 ↗ talking about well the building should

2:36:01 ↗ be fairly plain and it should be taking

2:36:03 ↗ place at the pedestrian level but

2:36:06 ↗ personally I don't think the feedback

2:36:08 ↗ we've gotten from the public would

2:36:10 ↗ support that there I think I think we

2:36:15 ↗ would want buildings that have or

2:36:17 ↗ balconies more modulation to them more

2:36:22 ↗ interesting than at the upper levels as

2:36:24 ↗ well as the street level even in urban

2:36:27 ↗ area it's just my opinion okay so I

2:36:33 ↗ think it needs to be balanced out with

2:36:34 ↗ some humdrum buildings and then you have

2:36:37 ↗ some spec you know special abilities

2:36:39 ↗ otherwise you have too much special

2:36:40 ↗ it's--there's looking like a sprinkles

2:36:42 ↗ falling off of a cupcake on your desk

2:36:44 ↗ right it's just a hole but it looks all

2:36:46 ↗ round like a good deal individually they

2:36:49 ↗ look great but as a whole it's like a

2:36:50 ↗ mess right until I see the building the

2:36:55 ↗ the second picture down on the right the

2:36:57 ↗ the taller building there I think would

2:36:59 ↗ be too special if you have buildings

2:37:01 ↗ that all look like that it would be yeah

2:37:03 ↗ I think it does look a little yeah a

2:37:05 ↗ little too mystical exhausting I I know

2:37:09 ↗ that you said that we're not here to

2:37:12 ↗ talk about height and I get it but I

2:37:16 ↗ just don't see how that building in the

2:37:19 ↗ second picture at that height I'm just

2:37:24 ↗ not I'm just not talking about the the

2:37:27 ↗ architecture of the method the mass of

2:37:30 ↗ the building just the height I just

2:37:32 ↗ don't see how a hundred and twenty five

2:37:34 ↗ foot ten story building I mean I know

2:37:36 ↗ it's in the code I know it but seeing

2:37:40 ↗ the numbers

2:37:42 ↗ 125 feet 10 stories is one thing but

2:37:45 ↗ seeing that is another I I just don't

2:37:50 ↗ think that's compatible I think I don't

2:37:53 ↗ know where you could play a 10 story

2:37:55 ↗ building in the Central District power

2:37:57 ↗ plant where it wouldn't block the view

2:37:59 ↗ right so again I guess back to what was

2:38:02 ↗ our charge we back to note our charges

2:38:04 ↗ tonight

2:38:05 ↗ given that height would you want the

2:38:07 ↗ building that was shown in the picture

2:38:09 ↗ of a plant you know from the architect

2:38:12 ↗ tonight none of that one that is less

2:38:14 ↗ stark yes and I would just add that this

2:38:17 ↗ building is probably much taller than

2:38:20 ↗ times yeah yeah a little less fun unless

2:38:22 ↗ it's something more along the lines of

2:38:24 ↗ yeah yeah bottom left yeah I want that

2:38:28 ↗ one we want that one just put that this

2:38:32 ↗ might help us I think it's not tonight

2:38:34 ↗ but maybe when you bring this back there

2:38:37 ↗ are layers of things in the in the codes

2:38:40 ↗ and regulations that impact the actual

2:38:43 ↗ building that we get in what the uses

2:38:45 ↗ are so you have abs or acquire montañas

2:38:50 ↗ owning requirement should have certain

2:38:51 ↗ envelope requirements and you have

2:38:53 ↗ setback requirements and there are

2:38:54 ↗ different things that affect how the

2:38:56 ↗ site's laid out and how the building is

2:38:58 ↗ configured we're just talking about kind

2:39:00 ↗ of stuff that gets put on the outside

2:39:02 ↗ for the most part here not so much about

2:39:04 ↗ what's really going to drive the

2:39:07 ↗ different forms of building because a

2:39:09 ↗ residential building is a very different

2:39:10 ↗ than an office building there are things

2:39:13 ↗ that we that regulate how big the floor

2:39:15 ↗ plates can be and how far apart

2:39:16 ↗ buildings I hope you have been to doing

2:39:18 ↗ that Issaquah energy about how far part

2:39:20 ↗ buildings need to be but it's it might

2:39:23 ↗ be useful just to now these are the

2:39:25 ↗ things that influence in addition to the

2:39:27 ↗ design standards that influence what

2:39:30 ↗ building types and the nature of the

2:39:32 ↗ uses we're going to get in different

2:39:34 ↗ parts of the city because we also have

2:39:35 ↗ the district plan provides some

2:39:37 ↗ description about what kinds of things

2:39:39 ↗ want to happen in these various

2:39:40 ↗ districts within the city so that and

2:39:43 ↗ that would probably be informative to us

2:39:44 ↗ as we're thinking about the design

2:39:46 ↗ standards and also informative maybe to

2:39:49 ↗ the public who's trying to track all of

2:39:50 ↗ the

2:39:50 ↗ works yes one quick point but when it

2:39:53 ↗ gets away I'm thinking back to the

2:39:55 ↗ presentation how central to their vision

2:39:57 ↗ the idea the urban grid was and so I'd

2:40:00 ↗ be interested in any constraints in the

2:40:02 ↗ code that would impinge or affect the

2:40:06 ↗ implementation of the urban grid because

2:40:09 ↗ I believe to them that was absolutely

2:40:11 ↗ essential to getting a lot of the other

2:40:13 ↗ components in at one so if you look at

2:40:15 ↗ the outline I'm doing this from memory

2:40:17 ↗ because I don't have it in front of me

2:40:18 ↗ they do talk about block size under

2:40:21 ↗ urban design right sir and so and that

2:40:24 ↗ actually was one of the few things where

2:40:26 ↗ there was text I think they were saying

2:40:28 ↗ a 240 by 400 square foot block maximum

2:40:33 ↗ and preferably 240 foot square but I'm

2:40:36 ↗ doing that from memory I'm not sure

2:40:38 ↗ that's exactly right so I think I only

2:40:44 ↗ want to make the point that I think they

2:40:46 ↗ recognize how important that is as a

2:40:48 ↗ part of implementing the vision and the

2:40:52 ↗ plan and so they are including it as

2:40:54 ↗ part of the manual absolutely I think it

2:40:57 ↗ was fundamental in more than one way to

2:40:58 ↗ what they were proposing and so if we

2:41:01 ↗ have you know any issues with that in

2:41:03 ↗ terms of code and we should probably

2:41:05 ↗ understand those and grid is addressed

2:41:08 ↗ in the central Issaquah plan but it's a

2:41:10 ↗ different approach to that grid I think

2:41:14 ↗ in the exhibit that's in the set then

2:41:17 ↗ the more detailed implementation that

2:41:19 ↗ they had when they did their overlay it

2:41:20 ↗ looked like it was much more defined

2:41:22 ↗ which to answer one of the other things

2:41:25 ↗ that could impact would be exterior

2:41:27 ↗ living space say above ground level I

2:41:30 ↗ think one of the things that I think

2:41:32 ↗ looking back and say the Atlas

2:41:33 ↗ apartments the lack of balconies the

2:41:36 ↗ lack of connection between the inside of

2:41:39 ↗ the buildings and anybody at the street

2:41:41 ↗ level and the extent that if we may

2:41:45 ↗ might be in design per se if there's

2:41:48 ↗ more requirement for outside living area

2:41:51 ↗ above ground level that could be met

2:41:53 ↗ through either through balconies or

2:41:55 ↗ through rooftop gardens that could also

2:41:59 ↗ affect the design that we see in

2:42:01 ↗ buildings themselves I'm my suggestion

2:42:07 ↗ it's not an exhaustive lesson on Watson

2:42:09 ↗ it's just what are the things for Leia

2:42:11 ↗ in a quick explanation of how that how

2:42:13 ↗ they get apart then that would be like

2:42:15 ↗ in the design standards to me part of it

2:42:18 ↗ would be more outside and I'm not sure

2:42:20 ↗ how you put that in there but not just

2:42:23 ↗ box building well you know or at least

2:42:25 ↗ for residential right now there is a

2:42:27 ↗ requirement for 4844 unit we allow that

2:42:35 ↗ to be consolidated and so one question

2:42:42 ↗ would be whether that is on a certain

2:42:47 ↗ percentage or in certain style types and

2:42:52 ↗ it could be above the first floor so it

2:42:54 ↗ doesn't all just get consolidated in the

2:42:56 ↗ plaza right but you but or what you

2:43:00 ↗ might say is that individual certain

2:43:02 ↗ percentage of units have to have either

2:43:05 ↗ a terrace

2:43:06 ↗ or a falcon right yeah and that then

2:43:12 ↗ outdoor space you know is that a

2:43:16 ↗ separate category from the ones that are

2:43:19 ↗ you know individually related to the

2:43:21 ↗ unit gotcha

2:43:22 ↗ okay I'll just go pick up my stuff okay

2:43:26 ↗ sorry

2:43:27 ↗ thank you

2:43:27 ↗ thank you other thoughts on the

2:43:33 ↗ framework the checklist miss Roberta

2:43:35 ↗ thought made some very good points about

2:43:37 ↗ it I did to them they're going to be a

2:43:42 ↗ good tool kit for us I think it is yeah

2:43:47 ↗ okay what else have we not covered you'd

2:43:51 ↗ like us to cover tonight at least I so

2:44:00 ↗ is there are there any of the images

2:44:04 ↗ that they have provided that anyone so

2:44:07 ↗ we talked about the wooden one that one

2:44:13 ↗ if I went through them could you just

2:44:16 ↗ people just call out if they like

2:44:18 ↗ certain images I mean I I think what

2:44:20 ↗ we're trying to do is help give them

2:44:22 ↗ guidance or if there's certain

2:44:24 ↗ particular notes on the slides that

2:44:26 ↗ resonate or don't resonate I think it

2:44:28 ↗ would be helpful to hear that to try and

2:44:31 ↗ help this evolved to a big leap forward

2:44:33 ↗ like an equine test right yeah we all

2:44:37 ↗ have to do we're going to learn a lot

2:44:39 ↗ about you in this process

2:44:40 ↗ oh no no no yes no no so remember you

2:44:55 ↗ can also talk about some of the

2:44:56 ↗ terminology like the tripartite if if

2:44:59 ↗ those things resonate in to me with this

2:45:02 ↗ one you mentioned tripartite but the

2:45:04 ↗ upper part is so small to it it's well

2:45:06 ↗ and so I find that a really helpful

2:45:09 ↗ comment so that we understand then

2:45:11 ↗ what's generating the know yeah well

2:45:13 ↗ then to me in the starkness of the

2:45:15 ↗ exterior form okay just when the window

2:45:18 ↗ window in it that that to be might work

2:45:21 ↗ if the colors if the colors were

2:45:23 ↗ different on that Billy okay so that's

2:45:25 ↗ an important point because they were

2:45:27 ↗ shooting for light and dark and what I'm

2:45:30 ↗ hearing is that may be another version

2:45:33 ↗ of too stark I think we want natural

2:45:38 ↗ well this this could be matched down I

2:45:41 ↗ know

2:45:41 ↗ ruff well were they thinking not bright

2:45:43 ↗ that with them when they said lie there

2:45:45 ↗ to seem like everything's either light

2:45:46 ↗ or dark and wasn't part of the argument

2:45:48 ↗ they one of the buildings to be

2:45:49 ↗ background so the landscape and other

2:45:51 ↗ elements would stand out it's also a way

2:45:54 ↗ to avoid blues in so I think I do have

2:45:57 ↗ to declare it if light or dark is a

2:45:59 ↗ grave mechanism

2:46:00 ↗ say light night light dark and natural

2:46:03 ↗ capture Oh see there's no blue siding in

2:46:06 ↗ there and I think we have to be that

2:46:08 ↗ with it you I believe that is it was a

2:46:11 ↗ key point of what they presented to us

2:46:14 ↗ consistently is the buildings in the

2:46:17 ↗ central Issaquah plan should blend in

2:46:21 ↗ most of them and there could be accent

2:46:23 ↗ buildings but most of the buildings

2:46:26 ↗ should not be monuments to architectural

2:46:28 ↗ hubris so just to be fair to architects

2:46:32 ↗ sometimes it's a client well yeah it's

2:46:35 ↗ the answer which is too strong but but

2:46:40 ↗ the idea was that most of the buildings

2:46:41 ↗ in the central Issaquah plan should

2:46:46 ↗ create the public realm as opposed to

2:46:49 ↗ sort of being the foreground is that

2:46:51 ↗ which er yeah okay

2:46:52 ↗ in my own planner s I just I start it

2:46:58 ↗ keeps jumping out at me I the modulation

2:47:01 ↗ with with balconies and things like that

2:47:03 ↗ would and in a difference is between a

2:47:06 ↗ professional building in a residential

2:47:08 ↗ right I was gonna say I read this is an

2:47:10 ↗ office building so balconies wouldn't

2:47:12 ↗ really don't know I just say but I read

2:47:14 ↗ as a government office building I think

2:47:17 ↗ it's a very utilitarian it can be bold I

2:47:19 ↗ think it's a very expensive stark bill I

2:47:22 ↗ don't think this isn't a good corner

2:47:24 ↗ site yeah I don't like this yeah so here

2:47:26 ↗ just another observation on this one too

2:47:29 ↗ is down at the ground floor level I mean

2:47:31 ↗ you've got kind of stark above but in a

2:47:33 ↗ lot of ways you pretty stark down at the

2:47:35 ↗ bottom yes

2:47:36 ↗ so you don't have any real pedestrian

2:47:37 ↗ interest down here and it's not softened

2:47:39 ↗ very well at all

2:47:40 ↗ I landscape overhangs yep yeah overhangs

2:47:45 ↗ right so because we're doing such a

2:47:47 ↗ great job of unpacking this image and

2:47:50 ↗ your reactions to it I want to go back

2:47:52 ↗ to this one which was a very visceral

2:47:54 ↗ reaction because it has a lot of natural

2:47:57 ↗ materials in it and yet it it doesn't

2:47:59 ↗ resonate for most of you if or some of

2:48:02 ↗ you can you talk about that a little bit

2:48:05 ↗ number one you don't end the tripartite

2:48:07 ↗ that you talked about okay so I'll just

2:48:10 ↗ tell you from from a modernist

2:48:12 ↗ perspective they might say they did and

2:48:15 ↗ I'll tell you why and you can tell me

2:48:16 ↗ why it doesn't work

2:48:17 ↗ vertical tripartite I've got the base

2:48:19 ↗ and you've got this heavier top here now

2:48:23 ↗ it's not a cornice but they might say

2:48:27 ↗ that that's the tripartite peace now

2:48:29 ↗ that okay i i'm not saying that it means

2:48:31 ↗ you're wrong I'm just saying that's the

2:48:33 ↗ way an architect might say in a mod in a

2:48:36 ↗ modern vocabulary how they're doing

2:48:38 ↗ trestle work what I do like about the

2:48:41 ↗ building is that it's a large building

2:48:43 ↗ with large floor plates but they broke

2:48:44 ↗ it up with that vertical different dark

2:48:46 ↗ color element and I think that's a good

2:48:48 ↗ thing to do when you have these big

2:48:49 ↗ massive buildings I like the use of the

2:48:53 ↗ natural materials but the way they

2:48:54 ↗ integrated into the windows it's just a

2:48:57 ↗ personal reaction to me use God isn't

2:49:01 ↗ appealing to me in this combination of

2:49:04 ↗ colors or materials and then I at the

2:49:07 ↗ top of the building again a lot of the

2:49:09 ↗ images they're showing us or disjoints

2:49:11 ↗ flat top buildings and even though

2:49:12 ↗ they're tripartite attempting that at

2:49:15 ↗ least that some too much of that gets

2:49:18 ↗ pretty old in a hurry honest if you're

2:49:20 ↗ looking at a skyline also a model if it

2:49:23 ↗ doesn't have any real setback as it goes

2:49:24 ↗ up so that's an interesting point and

2:49:27 ↗ because I see that over here but when I

2:49:31 ↗ look at this I wonder if that is it it's

2:49:36 ↗ not the facade you you focus on but it

2:49:39 ↗ seems to have more modulation on that

2:49:42 ↗ side I don't know whether that level of

2:49:44 ↗ modulation helps or it isn't sufficient

2:49:47 ↗ to address the concern you're raising

2:49:50 ↗ and I think from the tops when you look

2:49:53 ↗ at from here

2:49:54 ↗ you see side and side it does look like

2:49:56 ↗ very boxy and you're right I don't think

2:49:58 ↗ that modulation seems to make much of a

2:50:00 ↗ difference visually I agree with

2:50:03 ↗ everything that's been said but I would

2:50:04 ↗ also add again to me this is that the

2:50:08 ↗ even if that's stone it still it still

2:50:12 ↗ would stand out that's the color it's

2:50:16 ↗ the the natural elements and the great

2:50:20 ↗ the dark section of the tripartite if

2:50:23 ↗ the colors on either side of that were

2:50:27 ↗ variations of that like lighter gray I

2:50:31 ↗ it would not be much more close to

2:50:35 ↗ acceptable to me than then with the

2:50:39 ↗ looks like white right so the only point

2:50:42 ↗ I would make about that and I'm just I'm

2:50:44 ↗ just trying to facilitate I'm not trying

2:50:46 ↗ to argue is on a sunny day this is quite

2:50:49 ↗ brilliant on a gray day a gray building

2:50:52 ↗ is pretty grey yeah so the question in I

2:50:57 ↗ only put that out there because I think

2:50:59 ↗ that we are trying to Emme we always

2:51:02 ↗ photograph things in the sunshine and

2:51:04 ↗ then we have to live with them mostly

2:51:06 ↗ not so I think that it in this

2:51:10 ↗ conversation is going to be important to

2:51:11 ↗ understand if we're going for those not

2:51:14 ↗ so brilliant whites how are we doing

2:51:16 ↗ something that doesn't feel drab on gray

2:51:18 ↗ days would this actually meet our like

2:51:22 ↗ if I look to the right the right the

2:51:24 ↗ Posada on the right side and you look at

2:51:27 ↗ the windows and that big portion yeah

2:51:30 ↗ would that actually fit within our

2:51:32 ↗ guidelines in terms of repetitive and

2:51:36 ↗ would that be now we can only go so far

2:51:39 ↗ before we break things up bill didn't

2:51:42 ↗ even fit so one thing I would say is

2:51:45 ↗ that the tools that we have right now I

2:51:48 ↗ think they're all in the building

2:51:50 ↗ chapter are contradictory and that's one

2:51:54 ↗ of the frustration staff had is that one

2:51:58 ↗ direction was to break it into smaller

2:52:00 ↗ buildings so you might say that that

2:52:02 ↗ right facade does that you know it's got

2:52:05 ↗ dark light dark and one of them

2:52:06 ↗ said that then the second thing is

2:52:08 ↗ you're supposed to do tripartite base

2:52:10 ↗ middle top then you're also supposed to

2:52:13 ↗ set back after a certain number is like

2:52:16 ↗ too many tools that you're and they're

2:52:18 ↗ all given your weight and how do you do

2:52:21 ↗ that without just a totally chopped up

2:52:23 ↗ building so I think that one or two of

2:52:29 ↗ those may be fine

2:52:31 ↗ trying to use all three of them in every

2:52:33 ↗ building was was challenging and so I

2:52:36 ↗ think that's that's one of their

2:52:38 ↗ challenges the study does all may be

2:52:40 ↗ valid tools how do you know when you use

2:52:42 ↗ which one or is it at the applicants

2:52:44 ↗ discretion know you're all smiling I

2:52:54 ↗ don't know if it's a happy smile I would

2:52:58 ↗ personally I'd say know that I'm a

2:53:02 ↗ modernistic and boxy in the roof lines

2:53:06 ↗ wrapping around our second okay Mike

2:53:12 ↗ Allen yeah I would say yes yes everybody

2:53:15 ↗ know that if wider you like this one

2:53:16 ↗ better than the previous one picture the

2:53:18 ↗ Cheerios pollen on my roof well weather

2:53:25 ↗ is different yeah yeah but down the

2:53:28 ↗ science we could do later about the

2:53:31 ↗ width with there's there's less in dark

2:53:39 ↗ weather that would look more acceptable

2:53:43 ↗ to me I mean that's kind of a compromise

2:53:45 ↗ in dark light rainy sunny and the roof

2:53:50 ↗ is that looks all warm and comfortable

2:53:52 ↗ inside the other thing now yeah you know

2:54:01 ↗ I mean there's little bits and pieces I

2:54:02 ↗ could pick apart but as a building I

2:54:04 ↗ think it's it's a nice gesture I like

2:54:08 ↗ the dark natural material

2:54:10 ↗ I think that mr. mr. know Stark here I

2:54:13 ↗ think that's too dark well for Issaquah

2:54:16 ↗ in winter Maine wowzers and also that's

2:54:19 ↗ kind of is that it New England saltbox

2:54:21 ↗ kind of architectures okay well it's a

2:54:23 ↗ salt box on steroids and yeah yeah I

2:54:27 ↗ don't yeah but that's not hearken to our

2:54:29 ↗ crime-fighting heritage well it's just a

2:54:33 ↗ tough time I hear you know you have we

2:54:36 ↗ want to have things that are like

2:54:38 ↗ surprises too that are interesting that

2:54:40 ↗ create conversation of that and some

2:54:43 ↗ people will like that

2:54:44 ↗ and some people will go what were they

2:54:45 ↗ thinking and and then sometimes and then

2:54:48 ↗ who knows what goes on inside the

2:54:50 ↗ Daniell which could be kind of fun I'd

2:54:51 ↗ be old fun you don't want we don't want

2:54:53 ↗ to you know have a monolithic young town

2:54:58 ↗ right so no one really focused on this

2:55:00 ↗ but in the Issaquah Highlands guidelines

2:55:01 ↗ it talks about consistency of the

2:55:04 ↗ neighborhood type but it allows 25%

2:55:07 ↗ quirks it consistent is seventy five

2:55:11 ↗ percent and so an article one time

2:55:13 ↗ described is qua Highlands 25 percent

2:55:16 ↗ quirks use that word quirk in the

2:55:19 ↗ article in the article I'm not just

2:55:22 ↗ remember it's a guideline to use that

2:55:24 ↗ word I could clarify one point on my my

2:55:26 ↗ commentary about meshing for overlaying

2:55:29 ↗ the zones or the districts this is what

2:55:32 ↗ I meant is bring the gable roof into the

2:55:36 ↗ urban core that to me gives it that

2:55:39 ↗ consistency iconic consistency it's not

2:55:42 ↗ literal but there's there's an assassin

2:55:43 ↗ sand so that that's what I was harkening

2:55:45 ↗ towards a little bit but and I I think

2:55:50 ↗ the architectural style is fine I just

2:55:52 ↗ this is another color issue for me that

2:55:54 ↗ that that building in a different color

2:55:58 ↗ I would I wouldn't go automatically no I

2:56:00 ↗ would go Olney looking building

2:56:02 ↗ different and gives a variety but no

2:56:05 ↗ Darby always ends up because there's so

2:56:07 ↗ few windows to it could be as well as

2:56:09 ↗ siding and it's all very monolithic well

2:56:14 ↗ not to put too fine a point on it I

2:56:17 ↗ think it's actually not so much that

2:56:19 ↗ they don't have a lot of windows I think

2:56:21 ↗ it's that the trim is the same color as

2:56:22 ↗ the body

2:56:23 ↗ colors so and the windows are going to

2:56:25 ↗ be dark because that's what windows are

2:56:27 ↗ and so therefore it just reads as all

2:56:30 ↗ dark and you don't the things that

2:56:32 ↗ they've done to modulate are less are

2:56:34 ↗ more subtle and maybe too subtle mm-hmm

2:56:37 ↗ so that's that a master's degree in

2:56:40 ↗ architecture game that is break on the

2:56:42 ↗ on the right the scream right uh-huh

2:56:45 ↗ okay do you want to talk about these

2:56:51 ↗ other than to say I think it's great

2:56:53 ↗ that then the parking is concealed you

2:56:55 ↗ have that combination parking pedestrian

2:56:59 ↗ areas and in them yeah the the building

2:57:04 ↗ frontage is given over to solely

2:57:06 ↗ pedestrian listing on this one

2:57:08 ↗ specifically I like the fact that the

2:57:11 ↗ building at the corner where there's a

2:57:13 ↗ curve to the street was not brought all

2:57:14 ↗ the way out to the street that's my oh

2:57:17 ↗ yeah that's my Costco comment also I

2:57:24 ↗ don't know where yeah I think it's in

2:57:26 ↗ the core already but screening all the

2:57:27 ↗ mechanical equipment that there plunk it

2:57:29 ↗ down on the roof is something we want to

2:57:30 ↗ make sure yeah that is already in the

2:57:33 ↗ code so it is a challenge that we have

2:57:36 ↗ when you're looking straight down on it

2:57:38 ↗ but we have tried to address that

2:57:49 ↗ there's just no character so is that

2:57:51 ↗ that in a residential building that's

2:57:53 ↗ what it reads to mean well no well I

2:57:58 ↗ mean I took Commissioner Morgan's point

2:58:01 ↗ which I agree with is that's not it's

2:58:04 ↗ not friendly it doesn't it doesn't say

2:58:06 ↗ balcony and and get out and you know so

2:58:09 ↗ if this building had balconies would

2:58:11 ↗ that be different not sure because they

2:58:13 ↗ might just stuck on for the sake of that

2:58:15 ↗ but but that's it's not an inviting

2:58:19 ↗ residential building and if they're if

2:58:20 ↗ they're showing it just for this tree

2:58:22 ↗ oil at ground floor units I do like that

2:58:24 ↗ aspect of it

2:58:25 ↗ which I that's that yeah yeah yeah

2:58:28 ↗ landscaping yeah have some separation

2:58:32 ↗ between the public and a private space

2:58:34 ↗ for Brian Morris I did get concerned

2:58:38 ↗ about this one in terms of out about

2:58:41 ↗ that about the yeah create the we allow

2:58:46 ↗ them to say yeah lift that up and eat

2:58:49 ↗ the street away from the unit that seems

2:58:51 ↗ to go conflict with what we're talking

2:58:53 ↗ about so the one challenge that I would

2:58:57 ↗ point out while I completely agree with

2:59:01 ↗ your comment the reality is almost

2:59:03 ↗ nothing in central is quads flat and so

2:59:07 ↗ one question is if you're doing a you

2:59:09 ↗ know if you're doing individual units

2:59:11 ↗ then you can begin to stagger them and

2:59:13 ↗ step along the street one of the

2:59:16 ↗ challenges is when you're doing a full

2:59:18 ↗ block or half block building how do you

2:59:21 ↗ take up that grade ground across the

2:59:23 ↗ building and so yeah so I look at this

2:59:28 ↗ and I said that's reasonable that may

2:59:30 ↗ not be a solution that we want and so

2:59:32 ↗ that that's yes because I remember the

2:59:33 ↗ one of the slides they have that showed

2:59:35 ↗ those buildings the very beginning like

2:59:37 ↗ I think down in Portland that were solid

2:59:40 ↗ wall along the street I didn't want to

2:59:42 ↗ have that yeah this image for me the

2:59:45 ↗ thing that catches my eye is the

2:59:48 ↗ pedestrian experience along here is not

2:59:49 ↗ great because you're right against a

2:59:51 ↗ concrete stone wall it's love your head

2:59:54 ↗ there's really no landscaping that

2:59:57 ↗ softens it if it's a hot day and you're

2:59:58 ↗ standing you're walking through there in

3:00:00 ↗ the side

3:00:00 ↗ going to not be very comfortable so that

3:00:02 ↗ if we're going to have conditions like

3:00:04 ↗ that we need to make sure that that

3:00:05 ↗ transition between the pedestrian space

3:00:08 ↗ and the building is done something done

3:00:11 ↗ the sauce off yeah it's a blanket if you

3:00:16 ↗ cover that if you treat that in a

3:00:18 ↗ different material or with some kind of

3:00:21 ↗ landscape element and had it the area

3:00:26 ↗ above that some is not what you're

3:00:28 ↗ commenting on it's really the part down

3:00:30 ↗ where the pedestrian and I and I'll tell

3:00:33 ↗ you I like I like the architectural

3:00:36 ↗ variety of that building because to me

3:00:38 ↗ that's not it's not flashy but its

3:00:41 ↗ distinctive and it's I really like I

3:00:45 ↗ mean I that to me would be has a lot of

3:00:47 ↗ texture that I just really would

3:00:49 ↗ appreciate and and you know along with

3:00:51 ↗ having recommended and not recommended

3:00:52 ↗ the reality of using pictures is that

3:00:55 ↗ you usually you often have to carve out

3:00:57 ↗ the things that are that are not okay as

3:01:00 ↗ well as the things that are okay in a

3:01:02 ↗ photo yeah and I also want to

3:01:04 ↗ acknowledge that if that was the whole

3:01:05 ↗ building I probably might say wow a

3:01:09 ↗ really white stark building but to

3:01:12 ↗ seeing that part of it and in these

3:01:14 ↗ lighting conditions it like looks okay

3:01:17 ↗ just say that pop out that they put a

3:01:19 ↗ glistening if we put it in the two

3:01:21 ↗ buildings back that everyone commented

3:01:23 ↗ will be great the one that we're saying

3:01:25 ↗ there's no balconies even if you don't

3:01:27 ↗ have the balconies but you have pop-ups

3:01:29 ↗ in and out even small ones it will make

3:01:31 ↗ the building more P like dynamic and

3:01:35 ↗ every we've talked that one to death do

3:01:39 ↗ we need to talk about this one it's a

3:01:41 ↗ great corner site but I think it stops

3:01:43 ↗ there no it really opens up that corner

3:01:47 ↗ and that's where you get in trouble with

3:01:48 ↗ these tall buildings these really dense

3:01:50 ↗ areas if you can open up that corner it

3:01:52 ↗ does a lot of things just visually

3:01:53 ↗ safety light calls out completely step

3:01:59 ↗ down we go in the back street art this

3:02:03 ↗ corner plaza in the taller retail and

3:02:06 ↗ that is something that we have right now

3:02:08 ↗ in central is qua um encouraging

3:02:13 ↗ treatment of corn

3:02:14 ↗ of building and what I'm hearing from

3:02:18 ↗ this slide and some other ones is that

3:02:20 ↗ that is still something that's important

3:02:22 ↗ to preserve either by cutting eroding it

3:02:25 ↗ back like this or potentially having a

3:02:29 ↗ treatment and just the base is cut back

3:02:31 ↗ or somehow there's something notable at

3:02:34 ↗ that corner and they made this look like

3:02:36 ↗ three different buildings when you look

3:02:38 ↗ up at the upper roofline the Yuma and I

3:02:41 ↗ know if the plan does it that there are

3:02:43 ↗ maybe some corners at intersections

3:02:46 ↗ where you want to require that to happen

3:02:48 ↗ that are very you know intense on the

3:02:50 ↗ pin it could be very intense in the

3:02:52 ↗ future on the pedestrian side and you

3:02:53 ↗ want to have some extra space at the

3:02:55 ↗ corner it for example would you be

3:02:57 ↗ thinking like at the this central plaza

3:03:01 ↗ concept that they discussed the corners

3:03:03 ↗ that face out on that where there be

3:03:05 ↗ there had to be a lot of pedestrian

3:03:07 ↗ traffic by design you'd have because if

3:03:10 ↗ you do that it forces the building to

3:03:13 ↗ change a or two so it changes the look

3:03:16 ↗ at the in the corner of the architecture

3:03:18 ↗ I think this one goes what's the one we

3:03:23 ↗ talked about before we talked about that

3:03:28 ↗ one what are you so building on

3:03:33 ↗ extremely excellent so I think we know

3:03:38 ↗ what you're going to say architectural

3:03:40 ↗ II but in terms of the step back

3:03:44 ↗ thoughts about essentially creating

3:03:49 ↗ something that appears to be five

3:03:50 ↗ storeys even if it's taller appreciate

3:03:54 ↗ that in the corn has helped you know and

3:03:57 ↗ if that were if I are the doors at the

3:04:00 ↗ top or just windows I think those are

3:04:02 ↗ windows of in the upper one or two

3:04:04 ↗ stories at the very very top lid those

3:04:08 ↗ are windows I'll cook because if they

3:04:09 ↗ were if they were very doors I was going

3:04:11 ↗ to say if there were you know really

3:04:14 ↗ nice potted plants up there along with

3:04:18 ↗ the entire front of it would

3:04:20 ↗ significantly soften the appearance

3:04:22 ↗ abilities well and that isn't I mean I

3:04:25 ↗ think that also touches on Commissioner

3:04:28 ↗ Morgan's point about balconies and roof

3:04:30 ↗ uses the one of the values of the roof

3:04:34 ↗ is you know is a public gathering space

3:04:36 ↗ where you have a building that may take

3:04:38 ↗ up you know to get the site to work you

3:04:41 ↗ may not have enough room at the ground

3:04:42 ↗ but you have the roof the benefit to the

3:04:46 ↗ passerby can be the trees or other

3:04:49 ↗ landscape elements that are up there

3:04:51 ↗ that are visible from off site and I'd

3:04:55 ↗ agree and I think this building you

3:04:56 ↗ would notice these even more from say a

3:04:58 ↗ block or two away that that difference

3:05:01 ↗ with that modulation become more

3:05:03 ↗ apparent certainly I did live these two

3:05:06 ↗ I don't see the that one of the things

3:05:08 ↗ you know that the balconies have

3:05:12 ↗ overhangs that stick out from a building

3:05:15 ↗ with a diagonal tie back to the building

3:05:17 ↗ I think with a lot of these buildings

3:05:19 ↗ that could break up the start face of

3:05:22 ↗ leaves which is I think in some ways

3:05:24 ↗ what Commissioner price was talking

3:05:27 ↗ about is that those are can be kind of

3:05:29 ↗ an arts-and-crafts vocabulary but done

3:05:32 ↗ in a sort of modern material that

3:05:37 ↗ doesn't look historic but adds that

3:05:40 ↗ level of detail to the building

3:05:53 ↗ my first reaction to that is didn't we

3:05:57 ↗ who's that no ha ha that's right here's

3:06:06 ↗ the red I wonder what people would think

3:06:08 ↗ if it didn't have the red so I think

3:06:11 ↗ that the red is actually like a mahogany

3:06:13 ↗ or a walnut colored wood product you

3:06:19 ↗ know that's one of the things I've

3:06:21 ↗ noticed about rally's hotel is that it

3:06:24 ↗ looks like solid colored panels but

3:06:26 ↗ actually when you're up close those are

3:06:28 ↗ a very expensive kind of wood paneling

3:06:32 ↗ system but one of the challenges is you

3:06:35 ↗ have to appreciate that up close yeah

3:06:37 ↗ and you know I was thinking about this

3:06:40 ↗ earlier Lucy that I personally believe

3:06:43 ↗ that the hi-low crossing is very nice

3:06:47 ↗ very nicely done and when I look at it

3:06:50 ↗ from 90 when I'm coming into town it

3:06:53 ↗ doesn't its distinctive but it doesn't

3:06:56 ↗ say wow look at me and I and then when

3:06:59 ↗ you get closer to it actually see the

3:07:01 ↗ materials on it which I go past it every

3:07:03 ↗ day I you know I think it's just one of

3:07:06 ↗ the most under appreciated new

3:07:09 ↗ developments in in the whole city and it

3:07:12 ↗ really to me shows and it shows how it

3:07:14 ↗ can be done I think this one for me

3:07:18 ↗ I mean if the architectural variety is

3:07:20 ↗ interesting to debate would just be over

3:07:23 ↗ the colors of material selection it's

3:07:25 ↗ got the balcony somehow feels really

3:07:28 ↗ top-heavy

3:07:29 ↗ well you know one thing I was just

3:07:31 ↗ thinking about is they had talked about

3:07:33 ↗ using vertical lines to emphasize

3:07:36 ↗ verticality and this one feels much more

3:07:38 ↗ horizontal and a little more squat which

3:07:42 ↗ I think relates to your comment

3:07:53 ↗ Dunlap thumbs-down found it's okay like

3:07:58 ↗ what's it lead to it does when it's hard

3:08:01 ↗ to be turn to act it's sort of yeah so

3:08:03 ↗ let's say on the front door to an

3:08:05 ↗ individual unit

3:08:06 ↗ I like the materials if that's what

3:08:10 ↗ they're trying to show there's a

3:08:10 ↗ different kind of materials I I like the

3:08:12 ↗ wooden brick if it had a different door

3:08:14 ↗ this is a great example of just bringing

3:08:16 ↗ in an awning with some braces or

3:08:18 ↗ something just an awning just to give it

3:08:20 ↗ a pedestrian or a human-scale

3:08:22 ↗ that just has this yes no there's no

3:08:24 ↗ human scale I do appreciate the

3:08:26 ↗ landscape buffer

3:08:27 ↗ I appreciate the material holds off the

3:08:29 ↗ street those are durable material and

3:08:33 ↗ they're natural

3:08:34 ↗ those are all good but but then it gets

3:08:36 ↗ lost on like there's a person supposed

3:08:38 ↗ to make it it looks like we take a smoke

3:08:42 ↗ breaks as opposed to just going to say

3:08:44 ↗ try to get a keg up so since it's

3:08:47 ↗ improving yeah

3:08:52 ↗ but that one something again it's not a

3:08:56 ↗ really nice pedestrian environment it's

3:08:59 ↗ kind of hard to since we can't see the

3:09:01 ↗ rest out to the street but there's

3:09:02 ↗ nothing that's coming out from the

3:09:03 ↗ building there's no sort of weather

3:09:05 ↗ protection there's no real articulation

3:09:08 ↗ as you're walking along where it sets

3:09:09 ↗ back so one of the things that's in the

3:09:12 ↗ standards right now which is kind of a

3:09:14 ↗ pet peeve of mine which shows you that I

3:09:17 ↗ pay attention to some details that like

3:09:20 ↗ are crazy

3:09:21 ↗ I don't like smooth windows and I think

3:09:25 ↗ part of that I agree with the weather

3:09:27 ↗ protection but also you want some sense

3:09:30 ↗ that there's depth to the windows and

3:09:32 ↗ the mullions and things because it gives

3:09:35 ↗ it that texture if it gets too flat I

3:09:38 ↗ think it just all becomes a skin and you

3:09:40 ↗ don't get a sense of the pieces the

3:09:44 ↗ question here with this would we allow

3:09:47 ↗ this with the cover on the windows kind

3:09:49 ↗ of like the BevMo up in the highlands I

3:09:51 ↗ don't think we this would be approved

3:09:54 ↗ with it we allow 50% so this looks like

3:09:57 ↗ it might Oh

3:09:59 ↗ but if you had the you know or it might

3:10:03 ↗ be it depends on whether the sort of

3:10:06 ↗ clerestory piece of this was a part of

3:10:09 ↗ that 50% calculation obviously these

3:10:12 ↗ windows

3:10:13 ↗ that's like two-thirds one-third I think

3:10:16 ↗ that's one of the big issues with

3:10:17 ↗ ground-floor retail you know is somebody

3:10:20 ↗ that comes in and says well we need to

3:10:22 ↗ like a banks as well we need to block

3:10:24 ↗ all these windows off and the whole idea

3:10:25 ↗ was there a connection between the

3:10:28 ↗ inside the out and yeah and they work

3:10:29 ↗ with Jesse jail right yeah like a wallet

3:10:32 ↗ what I'm sorry what is the rationale for

3:10:35 ↗ doing that you're locking it off the

3:10:39 ↗ retail why do I wouldn't you like if you

3:10:41 ↗ have a bank if you have a bank branch

3:10:42 ↗ and somebody's got offices or you know I

3:10:45 ↗ mean you can end up with service retail

3:10:47 ↗ where people just put of them with

3:10:49 ↗ blinds or or like with demo up in the

3:10:52 ↗ highlands it's all product shelves so

3:10:56 ↗ they've got kind of a decorative film on

3:10:58 ↗ the outside of the windows you can't see

3:11:02 ↗ like like this but covering almost all

3:11:05 ↗ of it the nice dorm see that's a more

3:11:18 ↗ that but that's a more contemporary

3:11:20 ↗ style of architecture you've got a

3:11:23 ↗ variety of integers you get three

3:11:24 ↗ different facades so in a plaza space

3:11:29 ↗ where people can mingle in hangout but

3:11:34 ↗ you know I don't know that it's a

3:11:37 ↗ different kind of interest for me but

3:11:38 ↗ it's it's not something that I say yacht

3:11:40 ↗ it's just for me I don't think I would

3:11:46 ↗ have a hard time with this textured well

3:11:50 ↗ and and to Commissioner Harrison's point

3:11:52 ↗ you know I wonder about this metallic

3:11:55 ↗ gray if it has a little sparkle I mean

3:11:57 ↗ just a little bit of shine that makes it

3:11:59 ↗ a little more interesting in grey

3:12:01 ↗ weather than then a flat material that

3:12:06 ↗ didn't have any you know any shine to it

3:12:09 ↗ but I agree with Fischer bred into him

3:12:14 ↗ in the three different phases and the

3:12:16 ↗ set back and the courtyard it's a good

3:12:20 ↗ example of light and dark you mind if

3:12:22 ↗ that was blue pink beige yeah

3:12:33 ↗ brick I'm like brick I like it that's a

3:12:36 ↗ personal yeah I do too

3:12:38 ↗ and it's got the window it's got the

3:12:41 ↗ shade awnings on the autumn it's got

3:12:45 ↗ accent pieces that are not just and

3:12:47 ↗ gaudy to me it's it's a different

3:12:49 ↗ different accent pieces so that's that

3:12:53 ↗ is in contrast to the previous one

3:12:55 ↗ that's just to me it's just a more

3:12:58 ↗ interesting structure actually for the

3:13:01 ↗ image of is a Claddagh and we're talking

3:13:03 ↗ about brick would be a material that for

3:13:05 ↗ me would work well this kind of demo

3:13:08 ↗ Frick I mean it's almost a it's a new

3:13:10 ↗ building that looks like it's been

3:13:11 ↗ around you know what looks like a

3:13:13 ↗ converted warehouse that looks like a

3:13:15 ↗ factory that's the kind of character I

3:13:17 ↗ think that people would probably be

3:13:19 ↗ attracted it's interesting to me though

3:13:21 ↗ is this whole what they're trying to

3:13:23 ↗ show here is the stucco we're all

3:13:24 ↗ talking about the brick yeah there point

3:13:27 ↗ to the second point anyway and but but

3:13:32 ↗ what I'm hearing is that this is a that

3:13:35 ↗ this is the kind the kind of

3:13:37 ↗ intersection between modernity and

3:13:41 ↗ historicism that doesn't feel like

3:13:44 ↗ you're trying to pretend it's old and

3:13:46 ↗ yet accommodates six floors and and and

3:13:52 ↗ taller generally more modern character

3:13:56 ↗ yeah I say and again exactly that but

3:14:00 ↗ but compare that was it there it is

3:14:02 ↗ almost the same size that one in the

3:14:03 ↗ previous building yep did I honestly

3:14:06 ↗ believe that public would have far less

3:14:12 ↗ if any of whoa what are they doing with

3:14:15 ↗ the brick than that one same same floor

3:14:18 ↗ space same height I think it's two

3:14:22 ↗ different buildings I think this is a

3:14:23 ↗ parkland building versus yet I was

3:14:25 ↗ wondering you got another one an office

3:14:26 ↗ building or an apartment building office

3:14:28 ↗ building no I read this as an office

3:14:30 ↗ building okay but in my I don't know

3:14:34 ↗ what it'd be with the windows on the

3:14:35 ↗ right with office you need to have much

3:14:37 ↗ more window well I thought it I wouldn't

3:14:39 ↗ have that was a really far between the

3:14:41 ↗ well and you may be right I read it as

3:14:44 ↗ office because of the way the ground

3:14:45 ↗ floor looked but now that I look at it

3:14:47 ↗ with these individually opening casement

3:14:50 ↗ windows because of the eventual dorm I

3:14:54 ↗ think you got a with you see Lucy I'm

3:14:58 ↗ sorry back to the other one though I

3:14:59 ↗ think one of the things is materialized

3:15:02 ↗ I think if with stucco I think it needs

3:15:05 ↗ to be an accent cut material like

3:15:07 ↗ they've done here not a whole facade of

3:15:09 ↗ stucco okay I like it yeah alka nice now

3:15:18 ↗ the interesting thing is these are

3:15:20 ↗ balconies that push into the building as

3:15:23 ↗ we hope to balconies that are on the

3:15:25 ↗ side and then and then between it that

3:15:28 ↗ other section that gets pushed back as

3:15:29 ↗ well yeah right I think this is almost

3:15:31 ↗ like a it's not an atrium because it's

3:15:33 ↗ not enclosed but it has that open

3:15:36 ↗ multiple floors yeah I appreciate what

3:15:39 ↗ about the balconies are truly integrated

3:15:41 ↗ and I think it's one of the best design

3:15:45 ↗ guidelines I've ever worked with is

3:15:47 ↗ integration is it an integrated feature

3:15:49 ↗ where some balconies were like last our

3:15:52 ↗ balconies and they just long devil yep

3:15:54 ↗ this was truly integrated into the

3:15:56 ↗ building and achieved indoor/outdoor

3:15:57 ↗ achieves a lot of articulation that

3:16:00 ↗ facade it does a lot of things materials

3:16:03 ↗ dark and light that much so I but why

3:16:06 ↗ why would I mean I will very much like a

3:16:10 ↗ building but I don't understand the

3:16:11 ↗ economics why would a developer have all

3:16:15 ↗ that open space there I like it I like

3:16:19 ↗ it but I don't it seems like good it'll

3:16:20 ↗ do you know that yeah I think that's the

3:16:23 ↗ entry Plaza well you have the Y's it's

3:16:27 ↗ just an interesting economic thing to me

3:16:28 ↗ because I think it adds tremendously to

3:16:31 ↗ the building and if that were solid

3:16:35 ↗ there if to me it wouldn't be as

3:16:37 ↗ interesting so that's a I don't know if

3:16:39 ↗ it's a sacrifice on the part of the

3:16:40 ↗ developer to have done that but I don't

3:16:44 ↗ remember ever seeing that before so okay

3:16:47 ↗ I'm going to make something up which is

3:16:49 ↗ that it potentially these grills

3:16:52 ↗ represent the elevator tower lobbies and

3:16:55 ↗ so the

3:16:57 ↗ out of space potentially between that

3:17:00 ↗ Lobby and the front facade is too

3:17:03 ↗ shallow or too close to the elevator to

3:17:06 ↗ justify it and so it's an opportunity to

3:17:08 ↗ have a striking building where there

3:17:11 ↗ would be minimal benefit from filling it

3:17:13 ↗ in so it made it happen

3:17:15 ↗ I don't like that okay okay yeah I wish

3:17:19 ↗ you happen more I put that up late at

3:17:21 ↗ night yeah I think it brings in the

3:17:23 ↗ store system too because that's a good

3:17:25 ↗ word I was talking those big words

3:17:28 ↗ you're confusing okay I like separate

3:17:32 ↗ yeah and it dampers yeah yeah oh that's

3:17:37 ↗ interesting so Steve was saying that

3:17:40 ↗ this the door that you didn't like that

3:17:42 ↗ had the wood inside mm-hmm

3:17:44 ↗ [Music]

3:17:46 ↗ it just needs an awning it needs a

3:17:49 ↗ different door but we'll argue about

3:17:52 ↗ that light anymore so here our balcony

3:18:00 ↗ we're gonna agree to dinner yeah I like

3:18:03 ↗ because I like that really I like the

3:18:06 ↗ way the ground floor pilot pulls up so

3:18:08 ↗ it's one building at a time I think

3:18:11 ↗ sometimes the tripartite earns it in

3:18:13 ↗ three buildings I like it

3:18:19 ↗ first Linden's but I don't know what

3:18:21 ↗ yeah I'm Peter McCall exclusive 43 you

3:18:29 ↗ know and the thing that'll be

3:18:30 ↗ interesting when we get down to the book

3:18:32 ↗ is because we don't want it all

3:18:35 ↗ consistent I think you all are going to

3:18:38 ↗ have to talk about how much consistency

3:18:40 ↗ do you need or how much agreement do you

3:18:42 ↗ need between yourself and you know if

3:18:47 ↗ one person disagrees if half the people

3:18:50 ↗ disagree if most of the people you know

3:18:53 ↗ in that's a that's something to think

3:18:55 ↗ about is what will ensure variety but

3:18:58 ↗ not things that we are trying to avoid

3:19:01 ↗ whatever it takes for votes wins I was

3:19:05 ↗ at that point I mean if it gets to that

3:19:08 ↗ point we can can we just signify the

3:19:11 ↗ intent of the Commission by having a

3:19:14 ↗ vote on an individual issue yeah with an

3:19:17 ↗ override by the vice-chair sure we're

3:19:24 ↗ not talking about that one anymore hey I

3:19:29 ↗ think that's the one that that we were

3:19:32 ↗ looking at that had the three different

3:19:33 ↗ to God only this is

3:19:40 ↗ that's the end all right that was really

3:19:43 ↗ helpful I appreciate you sly I think it

3:19:46 ↗ was a good idea

3:19:47 ↗ and the one thing it seemed I don't

3:19:49 ↗ think we saw any retail or I guess maybe

3:19:55 ↗ just ground-floor retail right everybody

3:19:57 ↗ opposed you mentioned like in all these

3:19:59 ↗ different styles to show the different

3:20:02 ↗ types of buildings would be very helpful

3:20:04 ↗ the different different uses in that

3:20:06 ↗ applying that styles yeah especially

3:20:09 ↗ this claw style so last question for you

3:20:11 ↗ Keith speaking of retail what is you

3:20:16 ↗ that's your job title now to look look

3:20:19 ↗ at that right I mean so but there been

3:20:23 ↗ there's been so much news in the last

3:20:25 ↗ couple of weeks about brick-and-mortar

3:20:28 ↗ retail now it's been you know department

3:20:32 ↗ stores and malls and things like that

3:20:33 ↗ but what would from your perspective

3:20:36 ↗ looking out at a building that's going

3:20:39 ↗ to be there for the years how do is that

3:20:45 ↗ has the objective of having as much

3:20:47 ↗ retail as possible or I know if that's

3:20:50 ↗ correct

3:20:50 ↗ in going in the central district what

3:20:53 ↗ plan is that changing from your

3:20:56 ↗ perspective what's real and what's

3:20:58 ↗ possible so so complicated question and

3:21:03 ↗ especially at almost 10:30 so let's go

3:21:07 ↗ with so right now the tax structure in

3:21:10 ↗ this day definitely benefits the city to

3:21:13 ↗ have a high proportion of retail it

3:21:16 ↗ brings more money into our coffers which

3:21:19 ↗ then we can use for services and staff

3:21:23 ↗ so retail there's a benefit to retail as

3:21:27 ↗ Amazon and Walmart and Costco and other

3:21:32 ↗ retailers are starting to bite into

3:21:35 ↗ brick and mortar you know you're seeing

3:21:37 ↗ things like JCPenney and Sears and

3:21:41 ↗ others struggling and trying to figure

3:21:43 ↗ out how to keep afloat right and so part

3:21:46 ↗ of part of what's happening in

3:21:50 ↗ and to come verse a ssin that's

3:21:52 ↗ happening earlier just based on some of

3:21:55 ↗ the standards and I'm going back to

3:21:57 ↗ Commission member Brennan's comment

3:21:59 ↗ about there's a lot of other things that

3:22:00 ↗ effect ultimately what we're going to

3:22:02 ↗ get and SAR is going to be a big one

3:22:05 ↗ and you know knowing that right now

3:22:08 ↗ we've set minimum FA RS you know

3:22:11 ↗ especially in the core you know it

3:22:14 ↗ likely that we'll get single story

3:22:16 ↗ retail as new development as

3:22:19 ↗ redevelopment not likely so the retail

3:22:22 ↗ that we're probably going to be getting

3:22:24 ↗ in addition to what we have now will be

3:22:27 ↗ things like you know it'll be the

3:22:29 ↗ neighborhood serving ground-floor retail

3:22:31 ↗ in mixed use vertical mixed-use building

3:22:34 ↗ you know that's clearly something I

3:22:37 ↗ think that we are hoping that we'll get

3:22:38 ↗ out of the redevelopment of Central

3:22:40 ↗ Issaquah you know trying to figure out

3:22:43 ↗ you know my job and what I'm trying to

3:22:46 ↗ figure out is really how do I populate

3:22:49 ↗ and even land use mix as it redevelop

3:22:53 ↗ sand and you know right now what I would

3:22:55 ↗ tell you probably the hardest struggle

3:22:56 ↗ is office space you know in getting

3:22:59 ↗ office because right now Issaquah as an

3:23:01 ↗ office market is is not a hot commodity

3:23:05 ↗ and so getting off it so like the

3:23:07 ↗ project that's happening where the

3:23:10 ↗ council approved the development

3:23:11 ↗ agreement for Gilman lofts which is

3:23:13 ↗ happening next to the gotcha

3:23:14 ↗ you know that's supposed to be three

3:23:17 ↗ storeys of office over ground-floor

3:23:19 ↗ retail with some tuck under parking in

3:23:22 ↗ the back side so getting office in in

3:23:25 ↗ central Issaquah is a huge piece and

3:23:28 ↗ that will drive things like convenience

3:23:30 ↗ retail and more places where people will

3:23:33 ↗ want to go for lunch time once you have

3:23:35 ↗ that you know daytime population that's

3:23:37 ↗ hanging out looking for places to go

3:23:39 ↗ have lunch so so I think standalone

3:23:43 ↗ retail will not be a big slice of our

3:23:46 ↗ pie let alone just because of what's

3:23:49 ↗ going on globally with retailers but

3:23:54 ↗ also just because of the price of land

3:23:55 ↗ and things like putting mandates on

3:23:58 ↗ structured parking and other things that

3:24:00 ↗ are coming out of

3:24:01 ↗ those other code requirements so I think

3:24:05 ↗ I think part of what we want to do is to

3:24:08 ↗ not lose some of the square footage that

3:24:10 ↗ we have so there's been conversation

3:24:13 ↗ about as things go away and and we saw

3:24:15 ↗ that with Atlas we displaced some uses

3:24:19 ↗ now some move to other parts in town but

3:24:23 ↗ some just disappeared we don't want too

3:24:25 ↗ much of that because again getting back

3:24:28 ↗ to our tax base and what we need to be a

3:24:32 ↗ vibrant community requires it relies on

3:24:35 ↗ retail okay so just to that point come

3:24:38 ↗ close to what you're saying I thought

3:24:40 ↗ you said earlier is that read the

3:24:43 ↗ alternatives are chunk of City revenue

3:24:47 ↗ comes from retail and if that goes away

3:24:51 ↗ or significantly decreases then

3:24:53 ↗ alternate sources for that revenue have

3:24:56 ↗ to be found in the form of a property

3:24:59 ↗ tax or or it could be head tax so some

3:25:02 ↗ cities charge a head tax on employees

3:25:07 ↗ you know we charge a business and

3:25:09 ↗ occupation tax yeah but some cities also

3:25:13 ↗ charge a head tax so like you know like

3:25:16 ↗ an office user won't pay a B&O tax or

3:25:20 ↗ might pay a minimal B&O tax but they

3:25:23 ↗ would pay if they're they've got

3:25:26 ↗ thousands of employees then you charge a

3:25:29 ↗ certain head tax and they pay based on

3:25:30 ↗ the number of employees they have so

3:25:33 ↗ there's there's you know at the end of

3:25:34 ↗ the day you know the city will figure

3:25:36 ↗ out how to get enough revenue to operate

3:25:38 ↗ and if we lose out on sales tax we will

3:25:42 ↗ have to make it up in a different way

3:25:45 ↗ you know questions comments anything

3:25:48 ↗ else you need from us it's time for

3:25:51 ↗ napping

3:25:53 ↗ well I very much appreciate the public's

3:25:56 ↗ patience and the comments that were made

3:25:58 ↗ very much appreciated all the

3:26:02 ↗ commissioners comments I think this has

3:26:03 ↗ been an excellent session and a great

3:26:06 ↗ chance and everything that you've done

3:26:07 ↗ to present it to us and work with us on

3:26:10 ↗ this and there's our new commissioners

3:26:12 ↗ well

3:26:12 ↗ and really appreciate that so without

3:26:16 ↗ any further ado meetings adjourned thank

3:26:19 ↗ you

3:26:29 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF