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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Audience commenters (1)

Connie Marsh

Recommendations & actions (7)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

MOVED BY BRENNAN, SECONDED BY PRICE that minutes of the Development Commission meeting on May 3, 2017 be approved as corrected.
After confirming that SOWA is willing to serve another term as Chair, MOVED BY BRENNAN, SECONDED BY HARRISON that SOWA be nominated as Chair of the Development Commission.
After confirming that MORGAN is willing to serve another term as Vice Chair, MOVED BY BRENNAN, SECONDED BY HARRISON that MORGAN be nominated as Vice Chair of the Development Commission.
HARRISON asked staff to clarify the maximum height of buildings allowed in the Central Issaquah Plan (CIP).
Staff agreed to look at the nomenclature and propose alternate terms that would be more clear.
MORGAN asked staff to respond to BRENNAN’s point about integrating two or more styles.
The Commission briefly discussed instances in the past when the Development Commission voted to not approve an application, and the value of Community Conferences in helping applicants understand the concerns of the…