Development Commission · Wednesday, July 19, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 3, 2017

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 June 8, 2017

packet pp.5–11

Previously discussed: Development Commission · May 3, 2017

▶ Watch from 0:38 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION—SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 8, 2017 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Review of Draft Design Manual Chapters 1 and 2

Keith Niven, Economic Development and Development Services Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.13–75

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

i e w Rev 5 FT v. D R A 1 7 0 . 7.1

2877 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ walking up there all the time and yep

0:13 ↗ all right I'd like to call

0:15 ↗ to order July 19th we're going to be

0:19 ↗ discussing the draft design manual

0:21 ↗ chapters we have some administrative

0:23 ↗ business to do we have some minutes to

0:25 ↗ approve on January 8th if I hope you've

0:28 ↗ had a chance to read them if anybody has

0:30 ↗ or changes or recommendations I'd be

0:33 ↗ listening to them now mr. chair move we

0:38 ↗ approve the minutes of the June 8th

0:39 ↗ meeting second any discussion all those

0:45 ↗ in favor approving the minutes say aye

0:46 ↗ aye aye opposed okay so we're ready to

0:52 ↗ review the draft design manual and

0:54 ↗ chapters and we talked a little bit

0:57 ↗ about this and I think I don't know what

1:00 ↗ the process is for us to do this but it

1:03 ↗ seems like we could quickly dissolve

1:05 ↗ into some bit of dysfunction unless we

1:07 ↗ put a little structure and order in it

1:09 ↗ so what we'd really like to do is go

1:12 ↗ through each chapter and and have first

1:15 ↗ questions on those specific questions

1:18 ↗ about that information and then once we

1:21 ↗ get through those questions and we could

1:23 ↗ have some general discussion about it

1:24 ↗ and we just look and then we'll just

1:27 ↗ progress through so we can make sure

1:28 ↗ that we get all the questions answered

1:30 ↗ first and then be able to have have some

1:32 ↗ discussion about what people think about

1:35 ↗ how does that make sense

1:36 ↗ sure okay so I'm just going to give you

1:39 ↗ some of the dates and context of what

1:41 ↗ we're doing how this is process has been

1:45 ↗ going so about a year ago we did an

1:49 ↗ evaluation of central Issaquah and

1:53 ↗ architectural character and certain

1:55 ↗ urban design issues were raised as

1:59 ↗ concerns coming out of our first three

2:02 ↗ years the council approved a moratorium

2:05 ↗ on September 6 including architectural

2:08 ↗ fit and urban design as two of the six

2:11 ↗ work plan items staff proactively

2:14 ↗ combined them into one consultant team

2:17 ↗ was hired in March that was Crandall or

2:20 ↗ and Allah and they we've had three

2:23 ↗ meetings with the development commission

2:25 ↗ on that the April 5th and May 3rd

2:27 ↗ meeting

2:28 ↗ or with krandall or Ram Beulah with an

2:31 ↗ assessment and introduction and then a

2:35 ↗ presentation of the design manual

2:37 ↗ components and on June 8th we discussed

2:41 ↗ the outline and styles and images about

2:44 ↗ the styles so our schedule for going

2:48 ↗ through this draft design manual with

2:50 ↗ Commission is chapters 1 & 2 tonight

2:54 ↗ chapter 3 next week and then the

2:56 ↗ following week as parking lot issues or

2:59 ↗ if you go really fast you get a free

3:01 ↗ night and turn to so-and-so I think

3:09 ↗ similar to what you're describing we

3:10 ↗ want to make sure we talk about global

3:12 ↗ things and then we can go through page

3:13 ↗ by page I really do want to emphasize

3:16 ↗ that we would like edits grammar typos

3:19 ↗ punctuation wordsmithing

3:21 ↗ not to do that tonight to either give me

3:24 ↗ a written if you have marked up your

3:26 ↗ written copy that's fine or if you want

3:28 ↗ to email it but if I think if we talk at

3:31 ↗ that level we will be here till next

3:34 ↗ year and then this is the schedule in

3:38 ↗ case you're interested next week is a

3:40 ↗ council work session we just got a few

3:45 ↗ minutes ago I saw in my email that the

3:49 ↗ chapter 3 has arrived so you'll get that

3:53 ↗ electronically tomorrow and then it'll

3:55 ↗ be mailed out so I assume you'll get it

3:57 ↗ on Friday or Saturday the council is

4:00 ↗ going to get the same chapters that

4:02 ↗ you've gotten for their work session

4:04 ↗ next week where Crandall Aram Beulah

4:06 ↗ will be talking about the structure of

4:08 ↗ the document the approach sort of

4:10 ↗ catching them up with where they are the

4:13 ↗ last time the council had a presentation

4:15 ↗ was that introduction and initial

4:17 ↗ assessment so unless they've been

4:19 ↗ watching your meetings they haven't had

4:21 ↗ a chance to hear about that after we

4:25 ↗ finish our meetings with you we will be

4:27 ↗ working with Crandall Randall on the

4:29 ↗ preparation of the final draft design

4:31 ↗ manual goes to PPC land and shore and

4:36 ↗ then council adoption is proposed for

4:39 ↗ mid-october

4:41 ↗ I was just speaking with some of the

4:42 ↗ commissioners we are thinking that

4:45 ↗ towards the end of this process or

4:48 ↗ possibly at the PPC hearing either PPC

4:51 ↗ would come to your final meeting or and

4:54 ↗ or some of you might go to the PPC

4:57 ↗ hearing just to provide that bridge we

4:59 ↗ know that they've always found it real

5:01 ↗ they've really appreciated understanding

5:03 ↗ the kinds of observations and effort

5:06 ↗ that you guys have explaining why you've

5:09 ↗ recommended what you've recommended so

5:12 ↗ we can talk about that as we go I think

5:15 ↗ these first two meetings we will just

5:17 ↗ focus on getting through the text and

5:19 ↗ then we can talk about what might be

5:20 ↗ helpful with that third meeting so

5:25 ↗ that's that's the end of our

5:26 ↗ introduction I have just so you know we

5:32 ↗ have a word version of the document so

5:34 ↗ if I need to be typing in actual things

5:37 ↗ the way we sometimes do here with

5:39 ↗ motions we can actually be tight typing

5:42 ↗ in text or we can pull it up to follow

5:45 ↗ along on-screen whatever you guys find

5:48 ↗ useful

5:51 ↗ so it's following your recommendation

5:54 ↗ chapter one if you have questions I will

5:58 ↗ do my best to answer them yes I do have

6:05 ↗ a question on page on page one in the

6:09 ↗ paragraph that says visual examples it

6:12 ↗ refers to the design Commission right

6:16 ↗ here like oh sorry

6:20 ↗ uh yeah page one and the paragraph

6:22 ↗ headed visual examples it says they are

6:24 ↗ intended to provide designers developers

6:26 ↗ and the design Commission you means yeah

6:30 ↗ we'll fix it is that that's not we have

6:32 ↗ no new commission plant that would be us

6:36 ↗ I think okay we were naming you okay

6:42 ↗ other questions

6:45 ↗ yes my chairman Lucy on the P PPC are

6:49 ↗ they having a continuous meeting on this

6:54 ↗ document are they reviewing or are we

6:56 ↗ doing the bulk of it you're doing the

6:58 ↗ bulk of it really okay well they're

7:01 ↗ their job is to is more of sort of

7:06 ↗ procedural piece but we the reason that

7:09 ↗ we've involved the Development

7:11 ↗ Commission is because of your knowledge

7:13 ↗ and your experience actually reviewing

7:16 ↗ permits and PPC would not be in a

7:19 ↗ position to do that so it's a required

7:22 ↗ PPC is a required part of the process

7:25 ↗ and I don't want to diminish their

7:27 ↗ effort but I think the bulk of the

7:31 ↗ reason we've involved you so much is

7:33 ↗ that we think really you guys are the

7:35 ↗ experts and provide a good testing board

7:37 ↗ for what kind of tool you think is

7:40 ↗ necessary so in the meeting with the PCC

7:43 ↗ you PPC is it an update to them on what

7:48 ↗ we have done so far in the document then

7:50 ↗ that's end of next month it's a public

7:56 ↗ hearing I went well the meeting with

7:58 ↗ people is ray my recommendation is until

8:01 ↗ we get through this I don't know that

8:02 ↗ what we're going to how best to

8:04 ↗ coordinate between the two so I think as

8:07 ↗ we get to the end of the second meeting

8:09 ↗ next week we probably will be in a

8:11 ↗ better position to talk about how best

8:14 ↗ to transition between the two

8:15 ↗ commissions would that work yeah because

8:19 ↗ I as I said to some of the other

8:21 ↗ commissioners we're kind of making this

8:23 ↗ up as we go along this is a unique

8:25 ↗ process and a tool that the city hasn't

8:28 ↗ developed before and so I think we're

8:30 ↗ kind of feeling our way through it

8:31 ↗ and I understand your questions I just

8:34 ↗ don't have answers at this point okay

8:36 ↗ all right Thank You mr. chair yes

8:39 ↗ question so and you just mentioned that

8:42 ↗ that were it's a new tool that's being

8:44 ↗ created and so I'm looking at page 17 of

8:46 ↗ 75 in our packet

8:48 ↗ numbers and I as I was reading through

8:51 ↗ this the role of the design manual

8:53 ↗ segment section here trying to

8:56 ↗ understand the relationship between this

8:58 ↗ and the codes and the standards that are

9:00 ↗ applied because if you go down to says

9:03 ↗ the guidelines are in this manual are

9:05 ↗ prescriptive and not discretionary so

9:07 ↗ generally in code world just

9:09 ↗ prescriptive means it's a fairly

9:11 ↗ black-and-white application this is what

9:13 ↗ you do and way that this is drafted is

9:16 ↗ very discretionary in nature it's more

9:18 ↗ of a design guidelines as as it's kind

9:21 ↗ of written and so it was a little bit

9:24 ↗ confused and then I went down to the

9:26 ↗ paragraph below that and it says in

9:29 ↗ cases where the guidelines described in

9:31 ↗ the document contradict previously

9:33 ↗ adopted regulations in the central is a

9:37 ↗ Clark addiction design manual the the

9:39 ↗ design manual takes precedent so it says

9:42 ↗ this takes precedent over the code and

9:44 ↗ so I started to go okay that it's a

9:47 ↗ little challenging I think from a design

9:49 ↗ and just even from an enforcement

9:50 ↗ standpoint so I'm trying to figure out

9:51 ↗ how these layer from just an application

9:54 ↗ company so you're talking about the tool

9:55 ↗ and kind of massaging that might be

9:57 ↗ something won't think about so here one

10:03 ↗ thing I didn't mention is we sent them

10:06 ↗ on these two chapters probably 11 pages

10:09 ↗ of comments okay okay so that was that

10:12 ↗ was number one from all four reviewers

10:14 ↗ we just we understand that the

10:17 ↗ prescriptive versus guideline question

10:20 ↗ is likewise with us they have made I'll

10:26 ↗ be frank it's been really busy and I

10:28 ↗ haven't gone through to see which of our

10:31 ↗ things that we commented on they've

10:33 ↗ already folded in and which ones will

10:35 ↗ come with that final draft this is

10:36 ↗ clearly one of them because we have

10:38 ↗ exactly the same questions less about

10:41 ↗ less about this taking precedent over

10:45 ↗ central Issaquah standards because I

10:49 ↗ think our plan is that next year we

10:52 ↗ would we thought we would do it

10:53 ↗ simultaneously everything's moving too

10:56 ↗ fast we need to get this settled into

10:58 ↗ being the tool that we believe it should

11:00 ↗ be

11:01 ↗ then next year we would go back and I

11:03 ↗ think look at central is squat and

11:05 ↗ figure out what parts of for instance

11:09 ↗ chapter 14 on buildings would need to be

11:12 ↗ removed because this has taken that

11:14 ↗ place but certainly the prescriptive

11:20 ↗ piece and how to apply apply this was a

11:23 ↗ big question of ours thanks I follow up

11:27 ↗ on that question I also mark that with a

11:31 ↗ big question mark at Hyde I I guess I

11:36 ↗ would ask Commissioner Brennan to say

11:40 ↗ again what your concern is because I

11:41 ↗ think my concern is the same but I'm not

11:45 ↗ sure so rather than really it's trying

11:48 ↗ to figure out what's the construct of

11:49 ↗ the regulations that will be applied in

11:53 ↗ central Issaquah planning area in the

11:58 ↗ hierarchy of how they how they work

12:00 ↗ together so that there's not confusion

12:02 ↗ about that in what takes precedent where

12:05 ↗ the staff has and the design

12:06 ↗ professionals have some room to create

12:09 ↗ versus this is what the code says and

12:11 ↗ this is what you need to do like

12:12 ↗ setbacks sorry folks that's what they

12:14 ↗ are you don't need to mess with those

12:15 ↗ line but when it comes to architectural

12:17 ↗ features and things like that that are

12:19 ↗ included here won't have a little bit of

12:20 ↗ room to create so that that was actually

12:24 ↗ my point and it sounds like staff is

12:26 ↗ already thinking through that well and

12:28 ↗ two I'm going to just this is the first

12:32 ↗ piece that I that I heard you say which

12:34 ↗ is what staff focused on so I'm going to

12:36 ↗ say this just to make sure that we're in

12:39 ↗ concurrence or if we have different

12:42 ↗ perspectives the central Issaquah

12:46 ↗ standards versus this document is a

12:49 ↗ question for us that's one that we feel

12:51 ↗ that we can resolve in the future by

12:54 ↗ revising the standards I think our

12:58 ↗ bigger question which I believed you

13:00 ↗ touched on Commissioner Brennan is that

13:04 ↗ this is stated to be prescriptive but a

13:08 ↗ lot of the language is not very

13:10 ↗ prescriptive it's you know it's a steep

13:13 ↗ roof but it

13:14 ↗ not saying steep is greater than X slope

13:17 ↗ or there are a lot of shoulds and there

13:21 ↗ very few shells and must so how is how

13:25 ↗ what does it mean to be prescriptive is

13:27 ↗ that as a performance standard

13:30 ↗ it says prescriptive prescriptive

13:32 ↗ standards are typically like it shall be

13:35 ↗ seven and then it's seven a performance

13:38 ↗ standard is it will be possessed Rhian

13:40 ↗ friendly and pedestrian friendly means

13:42 ↗ it does XY and Z and so the way this is

13:47 ↗ written right now is a little bit more

13:49 ↗ of a performance standard but it says

13:51 ↗ it's prescriptive so we have some of

13:53 ↗ those same questions about how they're

13:56 ↗ intending to apply this document so that

14:00 ↗ we make sure that the language achieves

14:03 ↗ the intent because right now it doesn't

14:07 ↗ seem very prescriptive yeah and I wrote

14:09 ↗ that term performance standard in here

14:10 ↗ too I mean I that's the way it feels to

14:13 ↗ me so you've got again that room -

14:15 ↗ there's some room to create it isn't

14:18 ↗ prescriptive there are only a few places

14:20 ↗ on its like those toons it will really

14:22 ↗ do we want to be that black and white

14:23 ↗ hue or not well and I think that would

14:26 ↗ be a good thing to hear from the

14:28 ↗ Commission is that the notion between

14:31 ↗ prescriptive and performance and your

14:34 ↗ thoughts about that relative I mean

14:36 ↗ you've only seen the architecture piece

14:37 ↗ so far but your thoughts about it

14:39 ↗ relative to architecture because I think

14:43 ↗ their intent is it be prescriptive based

14:47 ↗ on the conversations we've heard both

14:49 ↗ just with staff and mostly with the

14:52 ↗ Commission so understanding your

14:54 ↗ thoughts about that would certainly be

14:55 ↗ very helpful Lucy I just want to maybe

15:00 ↗ go back to the base sure when you say

15:03 ↗ they you're talking about consultant yes

15:06 ↗ okay that's number one secondly my

15:09 ↗ understanding of the reason that we're

15:11 ↗ doing this and is - is because we looked

15:16 ↗ we Issaquah looked at first three years

15:21 ↗ for the CIT and said so

15:24 ↗ okay we need to need to look at it again

15:26 ↗ and one of the things that I believe was

15:31 ↗ said in the first meeting with the

15:32 ↗ consultant with the Development

15:35 ↗ Commission was that the extant document

15:41 ↗ regarding development in the central the

15:45 ↗ central Issaquah plan was too nebulous

15:49 ↗ that it gave to gave developers too many

15:52 ↗ options and it gave the city and

15:54 ↗ specifically the Development Commission

15:57 ↗ not enough ability to say that doesn't

16:02 ↗ that's not in keeping with what the

16:04 ↗ vision was for the central Issaquah

16:07 ↗ plant so the answer to that as I

16:09 ↗ understand it is to give us a more

16:13 ↗ prescriptive approach to saying this is

16:16 ↗ it then a developer can come in or an

16:19 ↗ applicant come in and say okay I

16:20 ↗ understand what my options are if I

16:24 ↗ build here in this district or in this

16:26 ↗ district and to be pretty clear about

16:29 ↗ the fact that we're trying to get away

16:32 ↗ from having to approve something because

16:36 ↗ it's compliant with the code but it's

16:39 ↗ not really representative of Issaquah or

16:41 ↗ Northwest you know what whatever it is

16:44 ↗ so that where it would you agree with

16:47 ↗ that or if not and then no I mostly I

16:51 ↗ would agree so I would say that

16:54 ↗ intentionally the centrist across

16:56 ↗ standards were written to focus on urban

16:58 ↗ design and not architecture style not

17:00 ↗ materials and not colors I mean there

17:03 ↗ were some things in there but very few

17:05 ↗ tools there was clearly frustration in

17:08 ↗ the Community Council Commission and so

17:13 ↗ the determination was we need a tool

17:15 ↗ that addresses that and someone to come

17:19 ↗ in and help us identify what would be

17:22 ↗ the right styles the right colors

17:24 ↗ materials etc so I that part I

17:28 ↗ completely agree with I think that the

17:31 ↗ [Music]

17:34 ↗ and I'm hoping Michael chimed in given

17:38 ↗ his background he and and others as well

17:42 ↗ may I'm interested in their perspective

17:46 ↗ from the tools they use we want we want

17:53 ↗ architect we want to identify those

17:57 ↗ things that are important and values of

17:59 ↗ the community and be able to be clear

18:02 ↗ and and get those things and yet

18:06 ↗ architecture isn't usually a formula it

18:09 ↗ is a design each side and use is

18:11 ↗ different and so how do we communicate

18:16 ↗ that without creating a formula that

18:19 ↗ gives and I think this was what

18:22 ↗ Commissioner Brennan may have been

18:25 ↗ touching on is where there is some

18:32 ↗ ability to be you know respond to these

18:37 ↗ things that are unique while clearly

18:41 ↗ communicating the expectations and the

18:46 ↗ things that are important to us so the

18:50 ↗ challenge with a prescriptive code and

18:52 ↗ absolutely prescriptive code is there's

18:59 ↗ no wiggle room there's no and and and

19:03 ↗ that may be and I'm not trying I am NOT

19:06 ↗ saying we should not do that I think

19:09 ↗ we're just trying to understand the pros

19:11 ↗ and the cons and if we want to try a

19:14 ↗ very prescriptive code we could

19:16 ↗ absolutely do that um Lucy perhaps part

19:21 ↗ of our discussion in this chapter could

19:24 ↗ be after the questions could be our

19:26 ↗ discussion of where that we think it

19:28 ↗ should be prescriptive versus

19:30 ↗ performance standards that's that were

19:36 ↗ that way a lot other questions

19:39 ↗ I had one on urban core in the last

19:50 ↗ meeting I think we discussed the use of

19:52 ↗ the traditional

19:53 ↗ Issaquah styles in urban core and we had

19:56 ↗ three options that we were discussing at

19:58 ↗ that time not to allow traditional

20:00 ↗ styles at all in urban courts and this

20:02 ↗ is primarily in Chapter two but it's

20:04 ↗ referred to beginning in Chapter one and

20:08 ↗ not to use them at all was one option

20:10 ↗ and to have them on the borderline

20:11 ↗ permit them inside the urban core zone

20:13 ↗ was another option and to allow

20:16 ↗ traditional urban Styles across the

20:19 ↗ urban core was the third option I think

20:22 ↗ most of us discussed number two and

20:25 ↗ three favored those maybe with a slight

20:27 ↗ emphasis on three but I noticed that

20:29 ↗ this document beginning in the first

20:32 ↗ chapter really does restrict urban core

20:35 ↗ to one style and that's Northwest

20:37 ↗ contemporary so my question was did we

20:41 ↗ want to rethink our discussion regarding

20:43 ↗ using traditional styles inside the

20:45 ↗ urban core in the light of this draft of

20:48 ↗ the document so the thing that I would

20:51 ↗ add is that we did discuss this with

20:53 ↗ Crandall Randall ax and they did not

20:56 ↗ have a concern with that so I think I I

21:00 ↗ don't know whether they did not have

21:04 ↗ time to incorporate it but it's a I

21:09 ↗ don't think any of us have a concern

21:12 ↗ with it and they were going to propose a

21:14 ↗ way a method for doing it and so maybe

21:17 ↗ the question to come back to them is

21:19 ↗ that we would like to know that during

21:21 ↗ this review process what method they

21:24 ↗ proposed okay so it's not specifically a

21:28 ↗ chapter one question we can when they

21:29 ↗ get into chapter 2 there will probably

21:31 ↗ be more about this but I for one am

21:34 ↗ willing to rethink my vote on that after

21:36 ↗ I've seen how they developed the urban

21:38 ↗ core styles you know

21:39 ↗ not necessarily sure that I could see a

21:42 ↗ Arts and Crafts style next to a

21:44 ↗ Northwest contemporary so we'll table

21:47 ↗ that's right now other questions about

21:52 ↗ specific aspects of the document

21:54 ↗ definite chapter one up the oil just

21:56 ↗ chapter one okay I more uh there was

22:00 ↗ there we did receive a comment late

22:03 ↗ today I believe from Mary Lynch and she

22:06 ↗ just one of the questions was a

22:07 ↗ regarding definition to drew a list of

22:11 ↗ definitions and we don't just throw

22:13 ↗ definitions of something in here that's

22:15 ↗ not used as a term in the document but

22:17 ↗ if there are things that are useful from

22:21 ↗ just this list that she submitted there

22:24 ↗ are terms that are using the document

22:25 ↗ that would be helpful they have been

22:26 ↗ defined if they're not already defined

22:28 ↗ that might be a worthwhile exercise just

22:30 ↗ to go true and sickly

22:33 ↗ right there are a couple of things about

22:35 ↗ definitions that I would add there are

22:39 ↗ some definitions in the Crandall Aram

22:41 ↗ Beulah document that are also in

22:43 ↗ centralist clause definition chapter we

22:46 ↗ asked them to remove those I think their

22:51 ↗ inclination was to make it a more user

22:53 ↗ friendly document to just match the

22:55 ↗ definition the challenge with that of

22:57 ↗ course is remembering that it's in two

22:59 ↗ places if you update the definition so

23:04 ↗ you know we need to work through that we

23:07 ↗ also had staff had identified a long

23:09 ↗ list of definitions we wanted added

23:12 ↗ because there are a lot of terms in here

23:14 ↗ that aren't defined in in other city

23:16 ↗ documents and they added a significant

23:20 ↗ amount but I'm not sure they were had

23:23 ↗ time to incorporate all of them and I

23:25 ↗ completely agree that looking at Mary

23:29 ↗ Lynch's definitions makes complete sense

23:32 ↗ if there are good definitions in there

23:34 ↗ that address some of the things that

23:35 ↗ we've identified I think that's great

23:37 ↗ and if there are definitions elsewhere

23:42 ↗ in the city's code that would be

23:44 ↗ applicable here but they're not restated

23:46 ↗ here making a note that you know

23:48 ↗ please refer to chapter basic ROM Oh yep

23:54 ↗ that's a great idea

23:55 ↗ notice in the glossary section there are

23:57 ↗ a few that are out of order so don't

23:59 ↗ know if you want to take them here as

24:00 ↗ typos we can do that easily later typos

24:03 ↗ please suggestions for terms to include

24:06 ↗ sure okay I want to consider sip

24:10 ↗ since CI DDS is included mullion and

24:17 ↗ muntin I have no idea what they are so

24:28 ↗ our architects can help with this I'm

24:31 ↗ sure

24:32 ↗ kind of balance okay another question

24:49 ↗ alright let's let's

24:52 ↗ I think that on the table is the the

24:54 ↗ real discussion of how prescriptive we

24:56 ↗ want this to be but what's the sense of

24:59 ↗ the Commission on on there what whether

25:02 ↗ they see it as being you know as the

25:07 ↗ contractor once said whether they were

25:10 ↗ aspirational or too prescriptive you

25:12 ↗ know what is the general sense of the

25:14 ↗ Commission how prescriptive v1

25:22 ↗ my question the document does say

25:25 ↗ currently that if there's a discrepancy

25:27 ↗ between this and plans and ordinances

25:30 ↗ including I guess municipal code that

25:32 ↗ this document is going to rule right but

25:34 ↗ we that's already been discussed right

25:36 ↗ there that the city staff pointed that

25:38 ↗ out that correct did I miss that

25:41 ↗ right no I mean that it that is the way

25:43 ↗ that documents written I i-i'll just

25:47 ↗ answer your question that I think it

25:49 ↗ needs to be tighter I think no no wait

25:55 ↗ does it doesn't need to be tighter than

25:58 ↗ it is but I think that it is absolutely

26:00 ↗ in the right direction and will result

26:04 ↗ in us being able to do a better job both

26:08 ↗ in the long run in the general sense and

26:11 ↗ in our own walking out of the room after

26:12 ↗ we have to consider an application so I

26:17 ↗ very much appreciate the theory and the

26:21 ↗ direction of what we're seeing so far do

26:25 ↗ you think it should be prescriptive yes

26:28 ↗ to me that's why that's why we're having

26:31 ↗ this discussion that's why the

26:32 ↗ moratorium is put in place so we could

26:35 ↗ say wait a minute let's look at let's

26:38 ↗ look at what what have we learned from

26:40 ↗ the first three years and what do we

26:42 ↗ need to do as a result of that so I I

26:46 ↗ remember the consultant specifically

26:49 ↗ talking about how our default position

26:52 ↗ usually was well it's in the color even

26:54 ↗ though it wasn't necessarily anything

26:57 ↗ that would thought about we get a bright

26:59 ↗ blue building in the middle of town and

27:01 ↗ as opposed to being prescriptive and

27:04 ↗ saying here's what we want you know so I

27:07 ↗ think and it clearly he was of the mind

27:10 ↗ that it should be very prescriptive and

27:12 ↗ I know this is absolutely anecdotal but

27:14 ↗ when I've been talking a great deal

27:16 ↗ about this process with with folks I

27:20 ↗ have yet to encounter anybody that says

27:22 ↗ oh why are you doing that that's a waste

27:24 ↗ of time everything I've heard and public

27:28 ↗ barbecue feedback has been volved cool

27:31 ↗ that's good I didn't know you guys were

27:32 ↗ doing that you guys been the city is

27:35 ↗ part of the idea that if a developer

27:37 ↗ complies with the criteria they're

27:40 ↗ defined here that that proposal will

27:44 ↗ probably be almost automatic

27:46 ↗ where as proposals that don't comply are

27:50 ↗ subject to much more scrutiny public

27:54 ↗ hearing documentation justification and

27:56 ↗ so on I think what it means is before

27:58 ↗ somebody comes in with a proposal they

27:59 ↗ look at what the expectations are and

28:01 ↗ they don't propose anything that's

28:03 ↗ really radically different than what is

28:05 ↗ recommended so that that that would

28:09 ↗ eliminate frustration on their part

28:11 ↗ because they would they wouldn't design

28:14 ↗ something really fancy that didn't fit

28:15 ↗ at all and it would eliminate some

28:18 ↗ problems with us of not having an idea

28:21 ↗ what was going to come and seeing

28:22 ↗ something that we were pretty probably

28:24 ↗ going to be pretty comfortable with that

28:25 ↗ I would agree with that

28:28 ↗ yeah because you know that that would

28:31 ↗ save the designer a lot of heartaches

28:33 ↗ you know coming in with a submit oh what

28:36 ↗ is it that you're looking for dates um

28:38 ↗ is something and the city folks review

28:41 ↗ it yeah you know it's within on the code

28:46 ↗ it doesn't say they can't do it so your

28:49 ↗ hands are tied in a way it comes to the

28:51 ↗ design Commission

28:51 ↗ you know our hands are tied to so we

28:55 ↗ ended up with a blue building that

28:56 ↗ everybody's complaining about all did

28:58 ↗ that get through and now so I think this

29:04 ↗ this really clarifies that so we can

29:07 ↗ make it more more stringent maybe not in

29:12 ↗ agreement with commissioner Harrison but

29:14 ↗ make it a document that people can pick

29:17 ↗ up and say okay this is what the city of

29:19 ↗ this COIs wants you know I will design

29:21 ↗ it based on that and then we know we'll

29:23 ↗ go so if I can add two cents so I think

29:28 ↗ I mean maybe the questions a little bit

29:29 ↗ different

29:30 ↗ commissioners because I think everybody

29:32 ↗ up here would say this is mandatory you

29:34 ↗ have to comply with this the question is

29:37 ↗ is how exact is this written so right

29:41 ↗ now and I think this kind of goes to

29:43 ↗ Commissioner Brian

29:44 ↗ was saying earlier is how much latitude

29:47 ↗ are you going to give each designer or

29:49 ↗ each architect to kind of fit within the

29:52 ↗ box how small is the box and so right

29:55 ↗ now what they've drafted up is I think

29:59 ↗ they're intending it to be mandatory but

30:01 ↗ they're kind of bookending it to some

30:04 ↗ extent you know here's kind of some

30:05 ↗ examples of recommendations here's some

30:08 ↗ things are not recommended and if it's

30:10 ↗ clear enough and that's I think one of

30:13 ↗ the biggest questions for you guys is

30:14 ↗ have they painted a bright enough

30:16 ↗ picture for you guys to say okay now I

30:18 ↗ know I know

30:20 ↗ it goes here or it doesn't go there and

30:23 ↗ and that there's enough breadcrumbs for

30:25 ↗ me to get to the goal line or there's

30:27 ↗ not and if there's not then we need to

30:29 ↗ tell them they need to unpack it more

30:31 ↗ right and so that's part of the

30:33 ↗ conversation I think we need to have if

30:35 ↗ you guys are comfortable with the

30:38 ↗ philosophy that this will be mandatory

30:40 ↗ it is it's it's a rule you have to

30:43 ↗ comply with it but it's not going to say

30:45 ↗ your buildings have to be orange right

30:47 ↗ it's going to say it can be like this

30:51 ↗ but it shouldn't be like that

30:52 ↗ and is that enough direction for us or

30:55 ↗ do we need to populate it more I think

30:58 ↗ that's the biggest question yeah and and

31:00 ↗ that's a good point good and I would

31:02 ↗ agree with you but that would give the

31:04 ↗ city staff and the Commission more

31:07 ↗ negotiating tools if that's the

31:11 ↗ requirements and the architect comes in

31:12 ↗ and they do not fit that requirements

31:14 ↗ then then that's a tool that they can

31:16 ↗ use to negotiate on something else so so

31:22 ↗ part of and Lucy gave an example earlier

31:24 ↗ on on you know steep pitched roofs right

31:28 ↗ okay so I don't want to be negotiating

31:32 ↗ with an applicant on whether or not a

31:34 ↗ twelve to one as a steep pitched roof

31:36 ↗ right I mean it should if we are going

31:38 ↗ to apply if they're going to if they're

31:41 ↗ going to use terms or adjectives like

31:44 ↗ steep and wide and low I think what Lucy

31:48 ↗ and I are hoping for is that they give

31:50 ↗ us a little bit more of what they're

31:52 ↗ envisioning of what that means so that

31:55 ↗ we don't have to state you're amongst

31:57 ↗ ourselves

31:58 ↗ and say well is it's four feet wide well

32:01 ↗ defense what it is a pair of the baby

32:03 ↗ you know

32:04 ↗ and so some of it is I think just

32:07 ↗ providing a little bit more of that

32:10 ↗ quantitative piece to some of the

32:12 ↗ descriptors that they've kind of cued up

32:14 ↗ so and okay and I just want to point out

32:18 ↗ that they have begun to do that now the

32:20 ↗ roofs that there's a formula in there

32:23 ↗ that I thought was like well that's

32:25 ↗ pretty specific on page shoot it's in

32:31 ↗ the first chapter where define the

32:33 ↗ definition and in definitions roof pitch

32:36 ↗ and it gives a definition of voltage

32:39 ↗ yeah

32:41 ↗ moderate and steep right so that's an

32:43 ↗ evolution based on some of those

32:44 ↗ comments I think that we dished back to

32:46 ↗ them after the first round which was hey

32:49 ↗ you guys got to give us a little bit

32:51 ↗ more to work with right and and Kevin I

32:57 ↗ think what we don't want is to have

32:59 ↗ mandatory cookie cutter approach so I

33:03 ↗ don't think anybody is and has any

33:05 ↗ desire to have a document that ultimate

33:09 ↗ comes out of this that results in

33:11 ↗ literally a cookie cutter doesn't leave

33:14 ↗ any room for an AAS it doesn't leave any

33:17 ↗ room for a little bit of an imagination

33:18 ↗ or whatever that's not what we want but

33:21 ↗ I but that's that's why so far I really

33:26 ↗ appreciate the shape of this because I

33:29 ↗ think it does get us in the direction

33:31 ↗ that we've been talking about and it and

33:35 ↗ the Deaf if it has in the definitions if

33:39 ↗ it gives specific things like that that

33:43 ↗ take that to take the confusion about

33:46 ↗ what is wide and what is steep and

33:48 ↗ things like that that comes out of the

33:51 ↗ end the final product that's good I

33:54 ↗ think one of the examples I found on

33:56 ↗ page 52 of the document under Northwest

34:00 ↗ contemporary style for scale appropriate

34:02 ↗ is that if taller than four to five

34:04 ↗ floors that well I mean if it's taller

34:07 ↗ than four of and is it taller than five

34:10 ↗ it

34:11 ↗ it has to be one of the other things

34:13 ↗ like so to be prescriptive I think that

34:18 ↗ you know in the last meeting I I felt

34:21 ↗ more inclined I think to have this be a

34:24 ↗ very prescriptive code to come up with

34:26 ↗ very specific but then in reading

34:28 ↗ through this I got concerned about the

34:33 ↗ prescriptive nature and I started

34:34 ↗ thinking about some of the buildings we

34:35 ↗ have in Issaquah in which buildings

34:37 ↗ would and will not comply with this like

34:39 ↗ I say the library downtown could that

34:42 ↗ actually fit in one of these styles or

34:45 ↗ some of the other buildings and like a

34:48 ↗ color bright colors are not allowed

34:51 ↗ anywhere there being inappropriate in

34:55 ↗ all the different styles and I actually

34:57 ↗ think urban grains allows it as an

34:59 ↗ accent

35:00 ↗ this is intact yeah yeah but not as a

35:03 ↗ full coloring and it so it I guess I

35:06 ↗ started thinking wait a minute or we I

35:08 ↗ really have a very monotone right

35:11 ↗ central Issaquah area well if we're that

35:14 ↗ prescriptive about color right so just

35:18 ↗ to take a step back to your first point

35:21 ↗ commissioner Morgan the we did ask them

35:25 ↗ if they could add some s quoi images

35:28 ↗ that they think are compliant and we

35:30 ↗ began to suggest some buildings for them

35:32 ↗ to look at and also to include some

35:39 ↗ contemporary examples because a lot of

35:42 ↗ the is claude traditionals now again i'm

35:45 ↗ saying this because i want to know if

35:47 ↗ you agree because direction isn't

35:49 ↗ helpful if i'm if our direction is

35:52 ↗ heading someplace different but i don't

35:54 ↗ think that we were asking my impression

35:57 ↗ is that we were not hoping to have

36:00 ↗ Leavenworth's or you know things that

36:04 ↗ look like they were built a hundred

36:06 ↗ years ago I don't think we're opposed to

36:08 ↗ that if that's what someone chooses but

36:11 ↗ I think what we were what we were asking

36:13 ↗ is for some and they have some but a few

36:16 ↗ more modern examples that comply with

36:19 ↗ these various Issaquah style a

36:24 ↗ different styles under Issaquah because

36:27 ↗ a lot of them were very historical and

36:30 ↗ again we were not trying to create a

36:33 ↗ historic district it was our impression

36:36 ↗ it yeah comment about and that and I

36:40 ↗ agree with you and I guess the situation

36:42 ↗ that we're in we don't want to have a

36:44 ↗ cookie cut description of this is how

36:47 ↗ the building should be but at least we

36:49 ↗ have something a minimum low pitch roof

36:51 ↗ one to twelve anything above that is

36:55 ↗ okay that's a minimum anything above

36:57 ↗ that we encourage the architect to come

36:59 ↗ in with ideas on the vivid color I had a

37:03 ↗ thing about it vivid color is

37:05 ↗ inappropriate I agree unless it's a it's

37:09 ↗ an accent color so maybe we could say

37:12 ↗ something along that line we don't want

37:15 ↗ an orange or purple color building but

37:19 ↗ we could use it as an accent color so

37:22 ↗ something along that line and any of the

37:24 ↗ if the architect choose to use that or

37:27 ↗ designer you know then then that's okay

37:29 ↗ maybe especially for the Northwest

37:31 ↗ contemporary where it says vivid is

37:34 ↗ inappropriate that maybe we could say

37:35 ↗ except in accent colors yeah yeah and if

37:39 ↗ you could look at that's where we're

37:40 ↗ drawing a page 59 of 75 you know the

37:44 ↗ green color is inappropriate but then

37:47 ↗ the picture above it white or what it's

37:50 ↗ more vivid greener or white so you know

37:56 ↗ you have to be somewhat you don't want

38:01 ↗ vivid colors and I would agree with you

38:02 ↗ and everybody says well what is vivid

38:04 ↗ color to you may not be vivid color to

38:06 ↗ me so there seems to me that we need to

38:10 ↗ set some minimum standard that we will

38:13 ↗ accept and anything above that we'll

38:15 ↗ leave it up to the designer to have some

38:18 ↗ latitude for them to do the work so I'll

38:20 ↗ tell you a little antidote which is that

38:23 ↗ the city whenever you go to a planning

38:25 ↗ law class the city of Issaquah is always

38:29 ↗ a staffer identify as to identify

38:31 ↗ themselves because we're one of the few

38:33 ↗ communities in Washington in which we

38:36 ↗ were taken to the Supreme Court and loss

38:38 ↗ don't mean state Supreme Court and the

38:40 ↗ US Supreme Court so it is a it's really

38:43 ↗ important to us that that it be clear

38:48 ↗ and meet legal tests and one of the

38:53 ↗ important things is pictures that's why

38:56 ↗ I'm riffing on your comment commissioner

38:59 ↗ my own because pictures when you're

39:04 ↗ using words like muted and vivid and

39:07 ↗ accent and natural the pictures are

39:11 ↗ going to be essential unless we're

39:12 ↗ creating a painting palette and we have

39:14 ↗ one in Old Town and I found that really

39:16 ↗ cumbersome so I think we would like to

39:20 ↗ not do it that way at the same time we

39:23 ↗ have to provide enough clarity to the

39:26 ↗ words that we use and pictures is a

39:29 ↗ common way to do that so I think that if

39:34 ↗ white is too vivid then or if we don't

39:38 ↗ can even though it is bright it's not

39:41 ↗ vivid then we need to you know think

39:44 ↗ about how those things work so that

39:46 ↗ we're and we're clear with everyone and

39:50 ↗ we're in a good legal standing

39:53 ↗ there's also go back back to I guess

39:56 ↗ that phrase just inappropriate versus

39:58 ↗ appropriate and or so as I guess it's

40:01 ↗ truly prescriptive would it be allowed

40:03 ↗ and not allowed or required in in every

40:06 ↗ corner not allowed or tonight yeah so

40:10 ↗ just a couple on its on the question

40:12 ↗ here so one of the goals here obviously

40:17 ↗ is to create additional like you

40:20 ↗ described elusive tools and keep you

40:22 ↗ know how we can guide development to

40:25 ↗ accomplish the outcomes that are

40:26 ↗ important to the community but not be so

40:29 ↗ constraining that you know we end up

40:31 ↗ with everything looks the same so if you

40:33 ↗ don't want that and obviously because

40:34 ↗ that's not a rich in an appealing

40:38 ↗ environment to create so part of the

40:41 ↗ question for in my mind going back forth

40:44 ↗ between the question of prescriptive it

40:46 ↗ kind of very black-and-white application

40:48 ↗ versus something sort of more

40:49 ↗ performance-based is normally the

40:51 ↗ prescriptive

40:52 ↗ requirements are included in the code

40:54 ↗ they're going to set the dimensions

40:55 ↗ they're going to set the building

40:56 ↗ envelope size are going to set the

40:58 ↗ maximum floor plates of F AR and all

41:01 ↗ that sort of stuff so they're going to

41:02 ↗ set that they're going to say you can't

41:03 ↗ have visible mechanical equipment on the

41:05 ↗ roof so they're going to be very clear

41:08 ↗ in the decoding a lot of areas and

41:11 ↗ there's still some discretion some areas

41:12 ↗ but this tool is really about trying to

41:16 ↗ define the characteristics of

41:17 ↗ development outside of just the overall

41:21 ↗ kind of sides and dents and density

41:23 ↗ that's covered in other places it's

41:25 ↗ what's it going to look like and so I

41:27 ↗ think for me looking at this as a

41:30 ↗ performance standard it's about here's

41:33 ↗ what we want it to look like misery of

41:35 ↗ the examples when there were really

41:36 ↗ specific areas we want to give very

41:38 ↗ clear direction about a form or colors

41:42 ↗ or whatever it might be needed we need

41:44 ↗ to choose those and be clear about that

41:45 ↗ but this cuts both ways because one

41:49 ↗ hopefully it gives some clarity to the

41:51 ↗ development community and design

41:53 ↗ professionals but when it comes to us it

41:55 ↗ also gives us a tool to push back on

41:56 ↗ this and then okay you might think you

41:58 ↗ made it but we don't think you did so

42:00 ↗ and here's why and so we've got some

42:02 ↗ tools to say we want to shape it a

42:04 ↗ little differently than where you guys

42:05 ↗ took it and we're more tuned Navy too

42:08 ↗ different than the commute to the

42:09 ↗ community then they made me because they

42:10 ↗ may be coming from a different place

42:11 ↗ even a different part of a country doing

42:13 ↗ design here and so it's it's trying to

42:17 ↗ give clear direction there but I think

42:19 ↗ about it it's not only a tool for them

42:20 ↗ it's the tool that we're going to use to

42:23 ↗ say it's not quite where we want it to

42:26 ↗ be and we didn't have those previously

42:28 ↗ was it somebody made the comment earlier

42:30 ↗ and met the code music well yeah you're

42:32 ↗ right met the code so we couldn't push

42:34 ↗ back well this is this is I think going

42:36 ↗ to be a really important piece of that

42:39 ↗ process for us when we think we see

42:42 ↗ things that really going off the mark

42:43 ↗ and we want to push back on it so so

42:45 ↗ again I also being clear but there are

42:49 ↗ some things I think we do need to be

42:50 ↗ pretty clear in the standards of the

42:52 ↗ style selections and things like that

42:54 ↗ and where they go is something that's

42:55 ↗ been fine here pretty clearly in what

42:58 ↗ areas of a city and there's some

42:59 ↗ discussion about me

43:00 ↗ we want to talk about that but the other

43:04 ↗ elements of the the buildings that we

43:07 ↗ feel are important in the way they look

43:08 ↗ at cetera I think is really what we need

43:10 ↗ to focus on and did they hit the market

43:11 ↗ are we in the right balance place here

43:13 ↗ between being really clear on those

43:16 ↗ things versus let's let some creativity

43:18 ↗ happen if we're uncomfortable about the

43:24 ↗ colors and the degree to which they're

43:25 ↗ specified here a long time ago I think

43:27 ↗ we raised the issue of a pallet primary

43:30 ↗ colors and accent colors why did that

43:33 ↗ not work for old town is it just too few

43:37 ↗ or the two is there an idea of Pantone

43:40 ↗ ranges I know Palo Alto has a pallet

43:43 ↗ right you can look on the website you

43:44 ↗ can see 60 colors they specify for

43:47 ↗ they're highly acidic buildings and

43:48 ↗ public buildings so what a Pantone range

43:51 ↗ work I know nothing about Pantone so

43:53 ↗ maybe somebody else could you know the

43:55 ↗ name I mean that's impressive but I'm

43:59 ↗ thinking about you know in corporate

44:00 ↗ settings when you're on brand or you're

44:02 ↗ off brand and that's that's usually a

44:04 ↗ very specified palette of primary and

44:06 ↗ accent colors and so I'm curious why

44:09 ↗ that could not work in our case if it

44:12 ↗ were broad enough and if designers were

44:14 ↗ involved to try to define that you know

44:22 ↗ I think we have a significant amount of

44:24 ↗ discretion on the selection of colors I

44:27 ↗ think the code does that I think even I

44:30 ↗ think maybe this is a little too much

44:34 ↗ too broad and maybe there's some more

44:36 ↗ specificity we can give regarding accent

44:38 ↗ colors you know that are appropriated to

44:41 ↗ provide additional definition on key

44:44 ↗ building elements or something like that

44:45 ↗ but but when it talks about find one

44:48 ↗ that says colors here it's you know it

44:52 ↗ talks about colors that are consider

44:53 ↗ appropriate for kind of the surrounding

44:56 ↗ area

44:59 ↗ the palette this complementarity is a

45:02 ↗ quas natural environment and hillsides

45:04 ↗ increase I mean that's pretty for hot

45:05 ↗ state very good the idea is that that

45:08 ↗ it's going to blend it's going to look

45:09 ↗ good against the backdrop oh you're not

45:11 ↗ going to have something that's just like

45:12 ↗ this bright beacon in the middle of the

45:14 ↗ season which which page or anyone I'm

45:17 ↗ sorry I am on page 52 is that the page

45:21 ↗ number 52 or the packet 52 back at 50

45:24 ↗ it's page 52 of 75 in the packet it's

45:31 ↗ the North West large style

45:32 ↗ I think there's similar language in some

45:36 ↗ of the others if I remember so the

45:43 ↗ question of what we're trying to say is

45:46 ↗ that we don't want to have building it's

45:50 ↗ some bold bright color sitting in the

45:52 ↗ middle of what is a lot of buildings

45:55 ↗ that are more muted and blending with

45:58 ↗ our with the environment Orlando but you

46:00 ↗ would you would want to have a building

46:02 ↗ it does something that has an element

46:04 ↗ that pops out for a reason an

46:06 ↗ architectural purpose it looks good and

46:08 ↗ it's a nice accent it creates interest

46:10 ↗ so you don't want you don't want to say

46:11 ↗ no to that so how do we how do we put

46:14 ↗ language into this that's why I think I

46:16 ↗ mean old vivid colors are only allowed I

46:19 ↗ think as an accent and the grain style

46:22 ↗ is the only place I thought through the

46:25 ↗ whole document with yeah I just get very

46:29 ↗ concerned we will end up with a very

46:31 ↗ monotone palette a buildings again I'm

46:38 ↗ not voting for Atlas blue either it's I

46:42 ↗ look suggest guy doesn't it yeah well I

46:45 ↗ you know and I think the I think you

46:52 ↗ raise a good point we don't want it to

46:53 ↗ be monotone I I also have some questions

46:56 ↗ about natural I mean I think we can

46:58 ↗ think of flowers that come in every

46:59 ↗ color of the rainbow and so I I don't

47:05 ↗ know whether a

47:06 ↗ pantone range is the right thing but I I

47:09 ↗ think something that helps visually or

47:14 ↗ numerically communicate that I I think

47:17 ↗ the so I'm not asking for the Commission

47:19 ↗ to solve this problem we can work with

47:21 ↗ the consultant but I do think that the

47:24 ↗ point that you're discussing is an

47:26 ↗ important one to give clarity is our

47:29 ↗ brighter colors as an accent or on a

47:32 ↗ certain element or on doors appropriate

47:35 ↗ or not appropriate all Styles some

47:39 ↗ styles you know that I think is a great

47:42 ↗ piece of feedback to get from the

47:45 ↗ Commission then we all need to figure

47:47 ↗ out you know how do we do that with with

47:51 ↗ your maybe that statement just does it

47:52 ↗ you know something like inappropriate

47:54 ↗ except conservatively as accents I think

48:01 ↗ that I think the the consultant and the

48:05 ↗ city can figure out how to do that but

48:07 ↗ the general sense of a group is that

48:09 ↗ we're real interested in having it as

48:13 ↗ prescriptive as we can at the same time

48:16 ↗ we don't want it to be so prescriptive

48:18 ↗ that it's cookie cutter and one of the

48:20 ↗ issues that pops up is color and so

48:22 ↗ working with them and trying to figure

48:25 ↗ out how to be able to articulate that in

48:27 ↗ a way that doesn't open the door for

48:29 ↗ anything but at the same time recognize

48:31 ↗ as a concern of the Commission and I'm

48:33 ↗ sure the city of having that having a

48:37 ↗ style that's consistent with the colors

48:39 ↗ of the city i I along the same lines

48:46 ↗ when I got to page 44 seventy five there

48:50 ↗ was a section in there and I this is on

48:53 ↗ architecture so I are we we have a good

48:56 ↗ chapter one year or not out of champion

48:59 ↗ a hole it's a general thing and on that

49:03 ↗ to this without going to a specific

49:04 ↗ paragraph I got to the point I've done

49:09 ↗ that where I thought it was too

49:12 ↗ restrictive the section in question I

49:15 ↗ circled it and said just giving the

49:18 ↗ applicant enough

49:18 ↗ choices because I think we I think

49:22 ↗ that's a line that we we want to be

49:26 ↗ prescriptive not restrictive and and

49:30 ↗ prescriptive is more gives the applicant

49:34 ↗ more options a very clear options and

49:38 ↗ that's so I think that's that's what we

49:42 ↗ that's where we want to go so how do

49:45 ↗ people feel about the input on the

49:48 ↗ introduction we've got a few more more

49:51 ↗ sections to go I don't want to cut off

49:53 ↗ the discussion at the same time it's

49:55 ↗ it's starting to sound a little bit

49:56 ↗ familiar yeah so I the staff have

50:00 ↗ adequate feedback from the Commission on

50:03 ↗ chapter one absolutely yeah well I I

50:07 ↗ would recommend unless there are any

50:08 ↗ other philosophical thoughts on chapter

50:11 ↗ one that we move into chapter 2 well

50:14 ↗ just a quick one okay interested in

50:16 ↗ people's opinion on the placement of the

50:18 ↗ checklist in the front instead of in the

50:21 ↗ back as an appendix for example I guess

50:23 ↗ which is where I would expect to see

50:25 ↗ something like that what page are you in

50:30 ↗ - truthfully well that's um each 20 of

50:33 ↗ 75 20 at 75 no I think I kind of like it

50:37 ↗ in a way in that it's right up front so

50:40 ↗ something like an architect picks this

50:42 ↗ up to go through it they'll know right

50:44 ↗ away right can't miss it and even though

50:47 ↗ a lot of this hasn't been defined yet

50:49 ↗ right get the sense of what's coming so

50:51 ↗ just wanted to ask that I forget where

50:53 ↗ was placed before right it's at the end

50:56 ↗ I noticed it too we want to stop attune

51:02 ↗ I hadn't seen reactions that not a bad

51:04 ↗ actually not a bad idea to push it

51:06 ↗ forward to catch your attention I mean

51:08 ↗ we using this tool when you go through

51:10 ↗ Bigley so

51:14 ↗ I think we can move ahead to chapter 2

51:18 ↗ architecture questions first question I

51:28 ↗ read I was along the last meeting but I

51:31 ↗ read that there's a lot of concern about

51:33 ↗ where the line is between where the line

51:36 ↗ is drawn between urban core and

51:37 ↗ traditional Issaquah and my comment is

51:41 ↗ that this is just questions right now

51:43 ↗ okay well if so so okay so there but if

51:48 ↗ I

51:49 ↗ Alex Trebek will take it in the form of

51:51 ↗ a question that we forgot I think the

51:58 ↗ consultant listened to the tape but we

52:00 ↗ forgot to call that out as one of the

52:03 ↗ edits so that actually when we sent the

52:05 ↗ next set of questions that was one of

52:09 ↗ ours as well that was that an intention

52:12 ↗ was that an oversight that the map

52:13 ↗ didn't get changed or was that an

52:15 ↗ intentional thought on their part that

52:18 ↗ it should not be changed and and we just

52:20 ↗ haven't had a chance to follow up on

52:23 ↗ that okay okay then the question then is

52:26 ↗ that would gilman boulevard be included

52:28 ↗ in the additional Issaquah parts of it

52:33 ↗ would or the thing so I as far as I my

52:38 ↗ memory from checking this is that if you

52:40 ↗ look at the screen the area where the

52:42 ↗ hand is is the area that is does not

52:46 ↗ match the urban core zone and so that

52:52 ↗ that area if it if her bin' core only

52:55 ↗ apply urban core style only applies to

52:58 ↗ urban core zone then this area would be

53:03 ↗ removed okay and that raises a related

53:06 ↗ question that I had last time I had

53:08 ↗ discomfort with the use of the word

53:10 ↗ district here because district has a

53:13 ↗ very specific meaning rate inside the

53:16 ↗ SIP

53:16 ↗ and its high-visibility district visions

53:20 ↗ and so on and the word district was

53:22 ↗ being used here and to refer to

53:24 ↗ architectural styles there's been some

53:27 ↗ massage the land

53:28 ↗ which I appreciate to try to clarify

53:29 ↗ that but I think there's still a

53:32 ↗ confusion about that in my mind when

53:35 ↗ it's talking about a district in terms

53:38 ↗ of architecture not the zoning districts

53:41 ↗ of the central esquel plan so I don't

53:46 ↗ know if that's a question but I have a

53:48 ↗ proposal essentially to change district

53:50 ↗ to zone and I know there's a confusion

53:52 ↗ of zoning then but yeah I think we could

53:54 ↗ talk through that as well okay

54:01 ↗ these are referred to in the manual now

54:03 ↗ as architectural districts correct and

54:06 ↗ an architectural district then would

54:10 ↗ comprise say multiple SIPP districts as

54:15 ↗ they're defined in the central listicle

54:17 ↗ plan for example if I look at urban core

54:20 ↗ here it may span a couple of CIP

54:24 ↗ districts so I was just trying to avoid

54:26 ↗ Dec and ambiguity and the term to use

54:29 ↗ the word district there so that we don't

54:31 ↗ have to qualify it every time and say

54:33 ↗ it's an architectural district versus a

54:35 ↗ sip district I think the solutions in

54:37 ↗ the first sentence where it says the

54:38 ↗ architectural districts are zones and my

54:41 ↗ go-to way on architectural zone I do

54:43 ↗ that's my proposal so I would I I would

54:47 ↗ actually be a little concerned about

54:49 ↗ that for the very reason that you

54:50 ↗ identified because we have zoning

54:52 ↗ districts my impression is that the

54:56 ↗ districts that are in the central

54:58 ↗ Issaquah plan are being renamed to

55:00 ↗ something different so that may actually

55:02 ↗ free up district for use here but I

55:06 ↗ appreciate what you're saying is that we

55:08 ↗ we want to have clear nomenclatures so

55:11 ↗ that it is easy to know when we use a

55:13 ↗ term what it is applying to because I

55:17 ↗ think it raises the natural question oh

55:18 ↗ you know if I'm in the urban core zoning

55:22 ↗ district and does the style

55:24 ↗ automatically apply you know what's the

55:27 ↗ relation of those so this is the problem

55:29 ↗ of having too many moving pieces at once

55:31 ↗ right so I would suggest maybe putting

55:34 ↗ that comment they think it's a valid one

55:36 ↗ in the parking lot for now I think the

55:38 ↗ districts are turning into neighborhoods

55:41 ↗ because I think it makes more sense it

55:43 ↗ feels better and then if that does

55:46 ↗ happen then an architectural district

55:51 ↗ that spans multiple neighborhoods makes

55:53 ↗ perfect sense

55:54 ↗ all right so we've got to figure out

55:56 ↗ some of those pieces and I think we'll

55:59 ↗ get there I think it's just a matter of

56:02 ↗ so far nobody's pushback on that comment

56:05 ↗ on the district side of things turning

56:08 ↗ them into calling them neighborhoods

56:09 ↗ instead of districts but that that

56:12 ↗ conversations midstream so I'd say we

56:15 ↗ put that comment maybe over here on the

56:17 ↗ side board for now we comment though

56:19 ↗ good point the question page 33 of 75 is

56:24 ↗ a good page for the example there's

56:28 ↗ dimensional requirements that are called

56:30 ↗ out in here or limits and what was

56:33 ↗ coming in my mind is are there are these

56:37 ↗ addressed in the elsewhere in the code

56:41 ↗ do we have limitations like this and

56:43 ↗ then are there areas where these styles

56:46 ↗ are architectural styles where we're

56:49 ↗ going to call these are allowed that

56:52 ↗ would allow you a greater or lesser I

56:54 ↗ mean were the these dementia it creates

56:57 ↗ confusion so if you say you can't be

56:58 ↗ more than five storeys this one but

57:01 ↗ you're in a zone that allows a taller

57:02 ↗ than five storey building it you could

57:04 ↗ so now if you all of a sudden said well

57:06 ↗ you can't have a building because you're

57:08 ↗ only allowed this this style of

57:10 ↗ architecture in that neighborhood or

57:13 ↗ zone or district whatever man is calling

57:15 ↗ it now we created a new constraint that

57:17 ↗ is more restrictive than with the code I

57:20 ↗ guess what I would say is I think what

57:23 ↗ that means is you can't use arts and

57:25 ↗ crafts if you're going taller than five

57:28 ↗ storey right so I think that they I'm

57:32 ↗ gonna I don't know this is something

57:34 ↗ that we created so I don't know and

57:38 ↗ that's why it has a big draft acrostic

57:39 ↗ columns but I think they just drop that

57:41 ↗ in but are part of the reason that we

57:46 ↗ created this as we needed to understand

57:47 ↗ some of those questions that you were

57:50 ↗ asking from color from length from

57:52 ↗ height trying to understand

57:54 ↗ and if we had eliminated things that we

57:57 ↗ didn't want to eliminate so I think the

58:01 ↗ point for instance is if you're going to

58:03 ↗ have a six story building then your

58:07 ↗ Northwest lodge because that's really

58:09 ↗ the only style and in turn you know the

58:12 ↗ is quad district or whatever it's called

58:14 ↗ that that allows that height so I think

58:18 ↗ what Keith is saying is true that but as

58:22 ↗ you get to the edges of certain ones

58:25 ↗ either

58:26 ↗ you know length of building height of

58:28 ↗ building a style is going to be almost

58:31 ↗ selected for you as opposed to having

58:34 ↗ the full range and getting to pick and

58:37 ↗ that was my thinking and I just what I'm

58:39 ↗ glad you feel this I didn't study this

58:42 ↗ table but that was my might concern it

58:44 ↗ was like are we forcing something right

58:46 ↗ here in inadvertently as far as specific

58:50 ↗ style or limiting building hypo that

58:52 ↗ would otherwise be allowed in parts of

58:55 ↗ India in a central Issaquah flora okay

58:59 ↗ good so I just sound like you've got a

59:02 ↗ 200 we're working through that no other

59:05 ↗ question love the wood frame over base

59:08 ↗ that we see with that is that typically

59:09 ↗ a 5 on 5 over 1

59:11 ↗ yes five over one every live over two

59:14 ↗ yeah yeah so any any of those then that

59:18 ↗ our outside the urban core would have to

59:20 ↗ be worth less Lodge at that height yeah

59:24 ↗ yeah how do you like it yeah so we even

59:29 ↗ think about that hasha later with his

59:31 ↗ head welcome to mel rainier because then

59:36 ↗ you want to think about allowing point

59:40 ↗ about other styles because i'm reading a

59:42 ↗ new constraint on the developable

59:45 ↗ develop development potential of a

59:47 ↗ property Oh

59:48 ↗ I mean northwest lies isn't fit for a

59:52 ↗ lot of uses that developers would want

59:55 ↗ well you know the based on I haven't

1:00:00 ↗ looked at this in a little while but you

1:00:03 ↗ know you have lots that go up to four

1:00:05 ↗ storeys and you know I think we're

1:00:09 ↗ seeing fours and fives so the quest and

1:00:13 ↗ you know Northwest Lodge takes you to

1:00:15 ↗ six so the question is are any of these

1:00:22 ↗ others well yeah do we want some another

1:00:27 ↗ style that goes to five and northwest

1:00:29 ↗ contemporary permits higher heights

1:00:31 ↗ right but right now we're saying that's

1:00:34 ↗ not to be used in traditional right

1:00:39 ↗ and as I didn't look at the zoning

1:00:42 ↗ maximum heights and number of stories

1:00:45 ↗ but outside of central you can't the

1:00:53 ↗ urban core you can go over five storeys

1:00:58 ↗ well so um without the density bonus

1:01:03 ↗ yeah that's exactly then you're stuck

1:01:05 ↗ with Northwest long style marketing well

1:01:10 ↗ you're pretty much limited to either 48

1:01:12 ↗ or 54 feet depending if you can go to 54

1:01:16 ↗ if you have either ground yeah under

1:01:19 ↗ building parking or ground floor retail

1:01:23 ↗ or a lobby but otherwise you're limited

1:01:27 ↗ to 48 so you're probably at four stories

1:01:30 ↗ you know right now without going above

1:01:32 ↗ the base so I think that the range that

1:01:36 ↗ they they're talking about is is not

1:01:40 ↗ unreasonable but there's a there is a

1:01:43 ↗ height question yeah and I know you

1:01:45 ↗ start tipping the architecture if you

1:01:47 ↗ get to Heights doesn't Stan okay so okay

1:01:51 ↗ well it's a question

1:01:58 ↗ other questions yes good that's here on

1:02:02 ↗ page 44 of 75 what's the rationale for

1:02:08 ↗ the roof roof material not be a dominant

1:02:12 ↗ characteristic building roof you know

1:02:20 ↗ when you have a roof sometimes you want

1:02:23 ↗ the roof to stand out so are we limiting

1:02:28 ↗ the guy from the roof roof and roof

1:02:33 ↗ material I think in that particular

1:02:38 ↗ architecture the answer is that's their

1:02:40 ↗ suggestion so if you pick arts and

1:02:42 ↗ crafts they're saying the roof should

1:02:44 ↗ not be a dominant part of the

1:02:46 ↗ architecture last question with a

1:02:49 ↗ craftsman oh thank you in stock Aspen

1:02:51 ↗ sorry

1:02:52 ↗ Craftsman style you can test them style

1:02:54 ↗ okay so you go to a different style you

1:02:56 ↗ go to a different style if you wanted

1:02:58 ↗ say a significant roof element okay good

1:03:02 ↗ so thank you same-same actually this

1:03:06 ↗ what I was referring to earlier so same

1:03:08 ↗ same page inappropriate

1:03:11 ↗ again it has wood this you know yeah I

1:03:19 ↗ it seems to me that it might be limiting

1:03:24 ↗ and when it says no wood shingles were

1:03:27 ↗ shakes mm-hmm on a car on a Craftsman

1:03:30 ↗ style or is ending theme or slate so it

1:03:34 ↗ leaves you with composite shingles I I'm

1:03:37 ↗ kind of being I mean but yeah I mean

1:03:39 ↗ that's these are the conversation might

1:03:40 ↗ need to be I actually I had circled that

1:03:42 ↗ I mean not because I like the

1:03:44 ↗ prescriptive part but this is where to

1:03:46 ↗ me when I was reading through this I

1:03:48 ↗ thought wait a minute what's what is

1:03:50 ↗ wrong with giving them the option of

1:03:52 ↗ using shingles or shakes and a Craftsman

1:03:56 ↗ style poor men typically saying it's

1:03:59 ↗ inappropriate yeah I would say all of

1:04:01 ↗ the above are appropriate you know in

1:04:03 ↗ the inappropriate category yeah I mean I

1:04:06 ↗ I wouldn't I wouldn't

1:04:08 ↗ I don't have a problem with saying

1:04:10 ↗ inappropriate bright vivid so on and so

1:04:12 ↗ forth for craftsman but but then you get

1:04:14 ↗ down there to the roof material I'm

1:04:16 ↗ thinking no maintenance is an issue for

1:04:19 ↗ a

1:04:20 ↗ and I just I thought that was a little

1:04:24 ↗ bit too restrictive mm-hmm that's what

1:04:26 ↗ yeah and I would agree with that mr.

1:04:28 ↗ chair yeah the asphalt industry would

1:04:34 ↗ love it

1:04:34 ↗ Ted we're limiting ourselves to just

1:04:37 ↗ asphalt is there do you know what why I

1:04:39 ↗ could make it a question what the

1:04:42 ↗ specific complaint or concern is about

1:04:46 ↗ well we had we actually asked some

1:04:48 ↗ questions about shingles and shakes

1:04:51 ↗ because there was not consistency

1:04:54 ↗ throughout the document in terms of we

1:04:57 ↗ just didn't understand sometimes shakes

1:04:59 ↗ were allowed sometimes shingle wood she

1:05:01 ↗ knows were allowed sometimes neither

1:05:03 ↗ were allowed and we had a question just

1:05:07 ↗ to understand that better but I mean not

1:05:10 ↗ as specific as we didn't specifically

1:05:14 ↗ call out this page but just better

1:05:17 ↗ understand how they were thinking though

1:05:19 ↗ did you get it when an answer is not yet

1:05:22 ↗ one of the thank you

1:05:25 ↗ perhaps it's the pitch of the roof maybe

1:05:27 ↗ but it's too steep you can't use wood

1:05:31 ↗ shingle because you can't get up there

1:05:32 ↗ for maintenance that's why I didn't find

1:05:34 ↗ of rule that out

1:05:35 ↗ if they're flat you can't use them but

1:05:36 ↗ they're steep eating it's pretty steep

1:05:39 ↗ doing well but actually I

1:05:41 ↗ okay I'm using my cheat sheet but it is

1:05:46 ↗ a low it's a low craftsman they've

1:05:48 ↗ identified a low pitch roof so that like

1:05:51 ↗ I think that's a very good call that you

1:05:54 ↗ would not want a would a true wood

1:05:57 ↗ product on a on a low pitch roof thank

1:06:03 ↗ you so so let's focus on questions good

1:06:07 ↗ job more questions page 37 of 75

1:06:17 ↗ again inappropriate standing seam this

1:06:20 ↗ is also for Arts and Crafts style

1:06:24 ↗ standing seam or metal roofing again

1:06:27 ↗ yeah that's that's it

1:06:31 ↗ you know when I look at the picture

1:06:33 ↗ there when i underscore dit looked at

1:06:35 ↗ the picture and I thought what's exactly

1:06:38 ↗ wrong with a metal roof it's not a

1:06:41 ↗ bright color it's so either one of the

1:06:45 ↗ things I don't quite understand why it's

1:06:46 ↗ inappropriate well I you know and maybe

1:06:53 ↗ we're focusing a lot on roofs and and so

1:07:00 ↗ some more variety and or less

1:07:04 ↗ distinctions between roofs might be fine

1:07:08 ↗ I think that they may be trying to help

1:07:12 ↗ make distinct looks or and if we allow

1:07:15 ↗ all kinds of roofing everywhere and I'm

1:07:18 ↗ not suggesting that's what you're saying

1:07:20 ↗ but I think they're just trying to

1:07:21 ↗ create a little brighter edges between

1:07:23 ↗ which kinds of materials can be used

1:07:26 ↗ where both color or material and that's

1:07:32 ↗ just I don't know what standing set any

1:07:34 ↗ standing that one it is yeah thank you

1:07:41 ↗ [Applause]

1:07:45 ↗ more questions and thinking of the way

1:07:58 ↗ that a Northwest contemporary has been

1:08:01 ↗ defined here now with lots of images and

1:08:06 ↗ a real range of applications residential

1:08:10 ↗ to retail an office and so on and just

1:08:14 ↗ brainstorming I wonder if it would be

1:08:16 ↗ appropriate to allow this sort of style

1:08:19 ↗ outside of urban core I'm seeing a

1:08:21 ↗ Western gateway for example east east

1:08:25 ↗ side of Gilman I wonder if it would get

1:08:28 ↗ us out of the issue of having to build a

1:08:31 ↗ Northwest Lodge anytime you need a

1:08:33 ↗ five-story building in the gateway

1:08:34 ↗ Western gateway that was talk a little

1:08:46 ↗ bit about that already it's about

1:08:48 ↗ exploring the are we creating too many

1:08:51 ↗ limitations on given all of the looking

1:08:55 ↗ at all of the parameters that they can

1:08:59 ↗ build to so outside as far as question

1:09:04 ↗ your question is when we talked about is

1:09:05 ↗ it only allows for if it allows 450 460

1:09:09 ↗ foot building I've maximum hi going

1:09:11 ↗ upwards you can deal five storey

1:09:13 ↗ building there and now based on this

1:09:16 ↗ criteria the only type of a building you

1:09:18 ↗ can build is a fat is that what we want

1:09:20 ↗ and I would suggest probably not but I

1:09:26 ↗ don't know what how many opportunities

1:09:30 ↗ there are actually to build a building

1:09:33 ↗ that size given the properties that are

1:09:34 ↗ available or development and

1:09:36 ↗ redevelopment oh I don't know something

1:09:39 ↗ they need to take a closer look at well

1:09:41 ↗ and I think applying urban core outside

1:09:49 ↗ of the urban core Northwest contemporary

1:09:51 ↗ outside the urban core may not be the

1:09:53 ↗ only solution I mean I think if we're if

1:09:55 ↗ we have a concern related to the art

1:09:59 ↗ textural styles that are available for

1:10:01 ↗ the potential heights I think that's

1:10:03 ↗ something to throw back in their Court

1:10:06 ↗ and say can we reconsider some of these

1:10:09 ↗ other styles being taller is there a

1:10:11 ↗ different style that or certain

1:10:13 ↗ treatment that that upper floor needs

1:10:15 ↗ that's unique if you're going to have

1:10:18 ↗ Grange or Western Falls front or

1:10:22 ↗ arts-and-crafts with five or six floors

1:10:24 ↗ I mean I I think we don't have to solve

1:10:27 ↗ the problems I think we have to pose the

1:10:31 ↗ concerns the questions and and then ask

1:10:34 ↗ for some help unless we you know feel

1:10:37 ↗ very passionately about what the or have

1:10:40 ↗ a lot of clarity about what the solution

1:10:42 ↗ what appropriate solution there is I

1:10:46 ↗ have one question I feel like in my

1:10:49 ↗ first pass of this I came up with this

1:10:53 ↗ term but I can't seemed up to come come

1:10:55 ↗ up with it again as I don't see any

1:10:57 ↗ place for departures addressed anywhere

1:11:01 ↗ and you know that's one of the

1:11:03 ↗ mechanisms I think we have for wiggle

1:11:05 ↗ room right I think it's the discretion

1:11:07 ↗ of this board and Commission and

1:11:12 ↗ departures and I feel like we discussed

1:11:14 ↗ it and is it in here and I just missed

1:11:16 ↗ it or did I did I make that up I think

1:11:18 ↗ you made it up checked though so we have

1:11:22 ↗ but you know I think what you may be

1:11:24 ↗ thinking back to is you know with Vail

1:11:28 ↗ they brought several elevations the

1:11:32 ↗ Commission identified which one we

1:11:35 ↗ identified where that didn't comply with

1:11:37 ↗ certain codes and had written an

1:11:42 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:11:44 ↗ now that's an odd way to go about it and

1:11:49 ↗ I'm luckily the applicant was happy with

1:11:52 ↗ that or fine with that if we're going to

1:12:00 ↗ have departures then I mean I think it

1:12:05 ↗ would be good to talk about do we want

1:12:07 ↗ departures when would we consider that I

1:12:11 ↗ mean we have to have

1:12:13 ↗ teria it has to be of because we have to

1:12:15 ↗ create predictability for an applicant

1:12:17 ↗ to understand and I know you know this

1:12:20 ↗ the what is the path how is there

1:12:24 ↗ certainty what is predictability for how

1:12:27 ↗ to get through this process so I think

1:12:29 ↗ the question is one do you think

1:12:31 ↗ departures are appropriate - if so what

1:12:35 ↗ would they be would they be for

1:12:36 ↗ everything would there be for certain

1:12:38 ↗ things and and talking a little bit

1:12:43 ↗ about the you know under what

1:12:45 ↗ circumstances so that we can try and

1:12:47 ↗ craft or tangible criteria yeah it's a

1:12:50 ↗ tough one

1:12:51 ↗ it's a tough test is it certainly tough

1:12:54 ↗ but I think it's it's the one the one

1:12:56 ↗ way we do have to address subjective

1:12:59 ↗ issues you know color usually being the

1:13:01 ↗ big one departures allowed upon

1:13:04 ↗ Commission review and discretion you

1:13:08 ↗ know I think another thing you can

1:13:09 ↗ always count on is designers and

1:13:11 ↗ architects pushing the envelope so so

1:13:14 ↗ there's going to be variation in wiggle

1:13:17 ↗ room just within what's presented to us

1:13:18 ↗ I feel like so so that's one way or or

1:13:23 ↗ do we just say you know that's that's a

1:13:27 ↗ zoning issue and it has nothing to do

1:13:30 ↗ with this this is prescriptive I don't

1:13:34 ↗ know how do you guys feel about that so

1:13:36 ↗ the administrative adjustment standards

1:13:40 ↗ process it exists now what I've read in

1:13:44 ↗ a while but what's the range of

1:13:46 ↗ discretion it's presented through that

1:13:50 ↗ either to the director or to the

1:13:52 ↗ Commission

1:13:53 ↗ so administrative well I won't go into

1:13:58 ↗ procedures right now but in terms of

1:14:00 ↗ discretion there is a list of things

1:14:03 ↗ that may not be adjusted so you can't

1:14:06 ↗ add uses that are not listed you can't

1:14:08 ↗ go above the height you can't go above

1:14:10 ↗ the impervious so there's certain things

1:14:12 ↗ that are excluded and then all other

1:14:15 ↗ things are available for adjustment and

1:14:18 ↗ there's a general list in Chapter one

1:14:21 ↗ and then of criteria and then many

1:14:25 ↗ of the development standards which are

1:14:28 ↗ the more prescriptive standards have

1:14:30 ↗ specific criteria so streets have a

1:14:33 ↗ specific set of criteria I'm blanking

1:14:39 ↗ parking has a specific set of criteria

1:14:41 ↗ the design standards tend to just rely

1:14:45 ↗ on the general list in Chapter one and I

1:14:49 ↗ mean I can pull that up if there's an

1:14:51 ↗ interest in in looking at that process

1:14:54 ↗ well I'm just thinking that if that

1:14:57 ↗ would be something that could be applied

1:14:59 ↗ to this or modified to apply to allow

1:15:02 ↗ for some discretion but keeping in mind

1:15:06 ↗ you know the way this is written it's

1:15:07 ↗ it's most ways written in a performance

1:15:12 ↗ standard it's not a black and one or a

1:15:13 ↗ few if thou shalt be this or no more

1:15:16 ↗ than that but there's already a

1:15:19 ↗ significant amount of discretion in

1:15:20 ↗ interpreting this document here this

1:15:26 ↗ question but it doesn't seem like

1:15:28 ↗ there's a lot of room outside the

1:15:31 ↗ general borders of the styles no yeah on

1:15:35 ↗ the style of the styles of style so that

1:15:37 ↗ could fall to the administrative

1:15:40 ↗ Jessamine standards to apply styles or

1:15:43 ↗ elements of styles outside the areas or

1:15:46 ↗ described it right isn't that part of

1:15:49 ↗ the function of the Building Commission

1:15:51 ↗ is to look at the style and see if it

1:15:53 ↗ falls under Northwest or craftsman

1:15:58 ↗ yes why'd you bring people from

1:16:00 ↗ different walks of life to decide is

1:16:02 ↗ that the style on that when we when we

1:16:05 ↗ brought the question that the Commission

1:16:07 ↗ had raised about you know urban core and

1:16:10 ↗ traditional or is claw area and can they

1:16:13 ↗ overlap and they started talking about

1:16:16 ↗ you know sort of a bit of a Chinese menu

1:16:19 ↗ and I said I said that's like too much

1:16:22 ↗ for staff to it you know that that's

1:16:23 ↗ going to be very difficult to administer

1:16:25 ↗ so I I think that we we want something

1:16:32 ↗ that it has a certain level of clarity

1:16:36 ↗ so so part of this is you know

1:16:40 ↗ going back to chapter one sorry mr.

1:16:42 ↗ chair so or maybe it's the beginning of

1:16:45 ↗ the chapter so one of the things that

1:16:47 ↗ they're proposing is two distinct

1:16:49 ↗ districts right and the more you guys

1:16:52 ↗ want to blend those I mean I think you

1:16:54 ↗ need to go back to does that make sense

1:16:56 ↗ or do you want just one district in the

1:16:58 ↗ whole central is a cloth I mean the

1:17:00 ↗ rationale for having to and and making a

1:17:03 ↗ distinction for the core is saying the

1:17:06 ↗ core should be perceptible by the rest

1:17:09 ↗ of the community as different than the

1:17:11 ↗ rest of central Issaquah and that's

1:17:13 ↗ that's that's a yes or no that's that we

1:17:15 ↗ should talk about that is that important

1:17:17 ↗ because if so then the standards the

1:17:19 ↗ architecture is one of the big ways that

1:17:22 ↗ you can do that make the buildings look

1:17:23 ↗ different in the core than they do not

1:17:25 ↗ in the core okay and so so that's I

1:17:29 ↗ think that's that the premise of this

1:17:30 ↗ now I think if ultimately outside the

1:17:33 ↗ core if the only choice is northwest

1:17:36 ↗ Lodge I think asking the consultants say

1:17:38 ↗ give me another choice so that there's

1:17:40 ↗ at least two because that's a choice one

1:17:41 ↗ is not a choice you know that's a

1:17:44 ↗ different conversation

1:17:46 ↗ I think philosophically what I need to

1:17:48 ↗ hear from you guys is does it make sense

1:17:50 ↗ to have two distinct districts and one

1:17:54 ↗ basically being analogous to the Corps

1:17:56 ↗ or the regional growth center should

1:17:59 ↗ that have a different architecture a

1:18:00 ↗ perceived architectural style than

1:18:03 ↗ everywhere else and that's a very I

1:18:05 ↗ think it's a very basic question that at

1:18:09 ↗ some point does that beam at a point at

1:18:11 ↗ some point you guys should talk through

1:18:12 ↗ because it it goes to a lot of what you

1:18:15 ↗ guys are talking about for exceptions

1:18:17 ↗ and deviations if if you're if you're

1:18:20 ↗ holding a more true line then there's I

1:18:24 ↗ don't know that you want as much

1:18:25 ↗ opportunity to say I've got this

1:18:27 ↗ building it's going to look really cool

1:18:29 ↗ but if it's maybe not going to be that

1:18:32 ↗ that regional growth center style that

1:18:35 ↗ everybody else is just done because my

1:18:38 ↗ buildings better no that's a good point

1:18:40 ↗ you know and I would agree with that

1:18:42 ↗ point and that would if you say just one

1:18:45 ↗ district or one Corps whatever the term

1:18:48 ↗ maybe we would eliminate the

1:18:51 ↗ the discussion about well why is it

1:18:53 ↗ drawn right here why isn't my property

1:18:56 ↗ part of this or that just have one

1:19:00 ↗ architectural design standard which is

1:19:04 ↗ this one and you deviate from this one

1:19:07 ↗ then then we need to sit down and talk

1:19:10 ↗ about it

1:19:11 ↗ so that's along the same line with what

1:19:14 ↗ cute is called Camille and I would agree

1:19:17 ↗ willing be willing to listen to warming

1:19:21 ↗ to one district rather than two will

1:19:24 ↗ allow all styles to be the same all

1:19:27 ↗ these Styles everywhere throughout yeah

1:19:29 ↗ yeah so why do we still want the core of

1:19:32 ↗ the core to be distinctive and and the

1:19:36 ↗ one thing I'll add because I'm just

1:19:38 ↗ looking at the district table as the

1:19:42 ↗ intensity and Heights are significantly

1:19:45 ↗ different in urban core than elsewhere

1:19:48 ↗ so yeah if people choose to build closer

1:19:55 ↗ to the maximum you're going to get all

1:19:58 ↗ northwest contemporary so you're going

1:20:00 ↗ to effectively do that so the question

1:20:03 ↗ is do you how much do you want the

1:20:08 ↗ Builder to be making that decision based

1:20:10 ↗ on the size of their building versus

1:20:13 ↗ saying this is the district and we want

1:20:16 ↗ that district to have these edges and

1:20:18 ↗ that character to two valid ways to go

1:20:25 ↗ yes that's a huge question

1:20:29 ↗ well okay that'll ah because any more

1:20:32 ↗ brighter so anyone bright ideas key so

1:20:35 ↗ if we go back to the if we go back to

1:20:37 ↗ the word that was used before

1:20:39 ↗ neighborhood it seems to me that what we

1:20:46 ↗ want to do or what I thought the

1:20:48 ↗ consensus was then was that's a good

1:20:50 ↗ idea because that's really what this

1:20:53 ↗ whole thing is about protecting and

1:20:57 ↗ protecting neighborhoods and allowing

1:20:59 ↗ growth in specific areas and specific

1:21:02 ↗ ways

1:21:05 ↗ so I I'm a little bit leery about what

1:21:10 ↗ getting away from that to put it mildly

1:21:15 ↗ so yeah

1:21:19 ↗ makes me a little uncomfortable that to

1:21:22 ↗ think about allowing allowing overlap

1:21:27 ↗ yeah yeah okay I mean I think we have a

1:21:30 ↗ sapphic two ways Randi one would be

1:21:31 ↗ we've got the core and then we've got

1:21:34 ↗ say the four or five styles yet this is

1:21:36 ↗ a traditional are you uncomfortable with

1:21:40 ↗ the core and temporary moving into the

1:21:43 ↗ traditional and are you uncomfortable

1:21:46 ↗ with traditional moving into the

1:21:48 ↗ contemporary I think the idea of having

1:21:52 ↗ the central core be distinctive in terms

1:21:56 ↗ of the height and the type of

1:21:59 ↗ architecture is preferable to having it

1:22:02 ↗ and the having that style morph outside

1:22:08 ↗ thing so you're uncomfortable with the

1:22:10 ↗ contemporary moving into the traditional

1:22:13 ↗ areas so you're advocating to zones if

1:22:15 ↗ you will to ticks but would you how do

1:22:18 ↗ you feel about the traditional styles

1:22:20 ↗ moving into the contentment to the core

1:22:22 ↗ well I I'm kind of ambivalent about that

1:22:25 ↗ because it seems to me that a developer

1:22:27 ↗ an applicant with the price of land

1:22:29 ↗ these days probably wouldn't wouldn't

1:22:31 ↗ propose that to begin with unless I mean

1:22:34 ↗ itit just seems to me to be not the

1:22:36 ↗ premium use from an applicant appointed

1:22:38 ↗ to do if they want because I think the

1:22:40 ↗ architect was there feeling have been

1:22:43 ↗ they didn't want traditional in the core

1:22:46 ↗ area if I remember the reservation right

1:22:48 ↗ yeah but it sounds like you be I guess

1:22:50 ↗ it's question would we be comfortable

1:22:52 ↗ allowing traditional styles in the urban

1:22:56 ↗ core if somebody wants to do it but

1:22:59 ↗ maybe maybe I've just got an incorrect

1:23:03 ↗ vision of the urban core because I see

1:23:06 ↗ the urban core is the higher buildings

1:23:08 ↗ in Issaquah I think that they're they

1:23:10 ↗ likely would be but if somebody came

1:23:12 ↗ along and said you know what i'd i just

1:23:15 ↗ want to build a really nice

1:23:16 ↗ or Story Northwest Lodge building right

1:23:19 ↗ in the middle of the urban core really

1:23:21 ↗ what I want to do right now we would say

1:23:25 ↗ no you can't do that that's not allowed

1:23:27 ↗ yeah to put that build in there yeah I

1:23:29 ↗ think that's a good idea to stick with

1:23:31 ↗ that to say no sorry okay I mean that to

1:23:34 ↗ me that's that's that's the core what

1:23:36 ↗ we're doing here is Danny you know a

1:23:38 ↗ nice building but it doesn't fit that's

1:23:41 ↗ just the cork and trying to get very

1:23:43 ↗ clear guidelines on this and I have

1:23:45 ↗ another question

1:23:46 ↗ Lucy on the unser can I back up right

1:23:49 ↗ and you like oh my guess the question is

1:23:51 ↗ for the other commissioners since its

1:23:53 ↗ come up too because I think it's a good

1:23:54 ↗ point about this yeah you know whether

1:23:58 ↗ we bleed things over one to the other

1:24:00 ↗ yeah I don't want to saw a building in

1:24:03 ↗ half or a lot in half I'm not I think I

1:24:05 ↗ got that I think we made good points I'd

1:24:08 ↗ like other commissioners opinions yeah I

1:24:12 ↗ I've been thinking a lot about this as

1:24:15 ↗ well and I still don't think I've fallen

1:24:19 ↗ on one side of the fence or the other I

1:24:21 ↗ think the third element of variation we

1:24:24 ↗ have on our side or character is time

1:24:27 ↗ right I think I think we're really not

1:24:29 ↗ going to see this take shape for maybe

1:24:32 ↗ 20 30 years before it's highly

1:24:36 ↗ identifiable what we're doing here so so

1:24:40 ↗ I think I think that adds the variation

1:24:42 ↗ in character I think part of what you

1:24:44 ↗ hear the community wanting to preserve

1:24:45 ↗ is character so so I guess I always

1:24:48 ↗ become concerned that that urban core

1:24:50 ↗ will erode character and I think that

1:24:52 ↗ the best example I can think of just as

1:24:55 ↗ just as an example is the top pot donut

1:24:58 ↗ what would you do if that wasn't there

1:25:00 ↗ you know I think I might be pretty

1:25:02 ↗ bummed out I mean it's such an

1:25:03 ↗ interesting little folly in what is

1:25:06 ↗ otherwise pretty bland you know so so

1:25:11 ↗ how do you allow for that variation what

1:25:13 ↗ tool is there to allow for that

1:25:14 ↗ variation I don't know that's an example

1:25:16 ↗ not saying top pot donut order or atomic

1:25:19 ↗ or whatever that that style is is

1:25:21 ↗ appropriate but it's folly it's

1:25:23 ↗ identifiable everybody knows it it's

1:25:26 ↗ probably the most popular thing in that

1:25:27 ↗ area

1:25:29 ↗ in my opinion so is what I'm saying do I

1:25:37 ↗ have an answer to what I'm saying

1:25:38 ↗ probably not but but I just think that

1:25:41 ↗ that's that's at the core of character

1:25:43 ↗ that I think we're trying to preserve or

1:25:45 ↗ promote or define so thoughts questions

1:25:50 ↗ comments on that notion but I'm probably

1:25:55 ↗ on the side of saying that the urban

1:25:57 ↗ core ought to be distinctive and and so

1:26:00 ↗ the loss of Top Pot building wouldn't

1:26:04 ↗ bother nearly as much as losing the Top

1:26:06 ↗ Pot Doughnuts

1:26:07 ↗ and you can cook Donuts anywhere no so

1:26:10 ↗ so the reality is I think that it is it

1:26:15 ↗ is what we've been trying to do is in

1:26:18 ↗ the sense of transition from sleep

1:26:21 ↗ little Issaquah to a more urban

1:26:24 ↗ environment really is going to take 20

1:26:26 ↗ years but you're going to see that

1:26:28 ↗ transition yeah but it sounds like

1:26:30 ↗ you're in favor then like with Randy of

1:26:32 ↗ the bright line absolutely between the

1:26:34 ↗ district but I go back to an early

1:26:36 ↗ example we are having before the meeting

1:26:38 ↗ started of the fish hatchery what a

1:26:40 ↗ unique thing and I think that's an

1:26:42 ↗ identifiable landmark in this in this

1:26:47 ↗ town and so so how do you bring that

1:26:49 ↗ into the core I guess and maybe the

1:26:53 ↗ answer is you don't and that's that's

1:26:54 ↗ how it goes but I'm just posing the

1:26:57 ↗ question is is there a loss of character

1:26:59 ↗ potentially in that core so but you just

1:27:06 ↗ referred you to things that currently

1:27:08 ↗ exist so the idea here is is can we

1:27:10 ↗ create new interesting and unique

1:27:13 ↗ features or buildings in the city and so

1:27:16 ↗ I I'm - I'm in the camp of kind of

1:27:19 ↗ trying to create this an identifiable

1:27:24 ↗ city center essentially court urban core

1:27:26 ↗ piece I think that makes sense to me and

1:27:29 ↗ I think the dimensions of the they're

1:27:31 ↗ allowed there and Randy's point about

1:27:35 ↗ people are going to be pushing to

1:27:37 ↗ maximize their development on the

1:27:39 ↗ property

1:27:40 ↗ because property values are high think

1:27:41 ↗ it's going to drive a lot of ash that

1:27:42 ↗ being said I think there needs to be

1:27:45 ↗ some way where there is a unique idea

1:27:51 ↗ development idea to actually get

1:27:53 ↗ consideration so we can look at creating

1:27:56 ↗ a new and unique feature in the city

1:27:57 ↗ because we don't want the idea of

1:27:59 ↗ character is important we don't want

1:28:01 ↗ everything to be you know this kind of

1:28:03 ↗ vertical more edgy kind of urban and

1:28:06 ↗ that's all you've yet you want to have

1:28:07 ↗ things that are the identifiable

1:28:09 ↗ character of the city or something that

1:28:13 ↗ that's an attractive feature that people

1:28:15 ↗ talk about

1:28:16 ↗ it's the memorable elements and the some

1:28:20 ↗ of these buildings you know if you put a

1:28:22 ↗ bunch of them together it's not going to

1:28:23 ↗ be a memorable illness there's going to

1:28:24 ↗ be a lot of buildings that are much

1:28:27 ↗ similar in style but it's how do we do

1:28:30 ↗ that

1:28:30 ↗ so I think that's something that we need

1:28:32 ↗ to think about a pathway for those kind

1:28:36 ↗ of unique ideas that might emerge that

1:28:39 ↗ we that we really want to think about

1:28:41 ↗ sounder I will give you a preview of the

1:28:45 ↗ next chapter which they have you know

1:28:53 ↗ it's vocabularies all disappearing at

1:28:59 ↗ this hour

1:29:00 ↗ they are discouraging look at me

1:29:03 ↗ buildings accept civic buildings which

1:29:11 ↗ you know Vancouver British Columbia is

1:29:14 ↗ considered sort of a classic example of

1:29:18 ↗ background buildings except then there's

1:29:22 ↗ some that art background buildings you

1:29:24 ↗ know the law-courts

1:29:26 ↗ UBC there's some really fabulous and

1:29:30 ↗ distinctive buildings I don't mean to

1:29:35 ↗ derail us but I do I do think that they

1:29:37 ↗ are thinking that every building doesn't

1:29:40 ↗ need to stand out some buildings should

1:29:44 ↗ stand out

1:29:45 ↗ I think civic buildings could be a good

1:29:48 ↗ example if we don't have any Civic

1:29:50 ↗ buildings in central is

1:29:52 ↗ does that mean every building is a

1:29:54 ↗ background building and discuss if you

1:30:02 ↗ might I'm curious to whatever

1:30:03 ↗ commissioners think about the bright

1:30:04 ↗ line concept um urban contemporary

1:30:09 ↗ versus I'm willing to listen to see Lucy

1:30:13 ↗ they have to do this all this work how

1:30:15 ↗ would that what would that mean if we

1:30:16 ↗ work just to combine the whole the urban

1:30:19 ↗ core and then traditional what would

1:30:21 ↗ there's obviously some work that needs

1:30:24 ↗ to be done to it but I'm going to maybe

1:30:26 ↗ having one core red and the separate

1:30:30 ↗ ones and you know you look at the map

1:30:33 ↗ and you have this little chunk that's

1:30:35 ↗ sticking out from the urban core and I

1:30:37 ↗ don't understand what that is but you

1:30:41 ↗ get a situation here yes like an

1:30:43 ↗ appendix tip I think it's I don't I

1:30:49 ↗ think it follows the zoning line yeah

1:30:53 ↗ over the top there's that Western

1:30:55 ↗ gateway so this this area is the one

1:30:58 ↗ that is the question because you're

1:31:00 ↗ right

1:31:00 ↗ that you say well you're it's it's part

1:31:03 ↗ of the mixed use zone you're talking the

1:31:06 ↗ neighborhood I'm I'm looking at the

1:31:08 ↗ zoning map I just don't have that dr.

1:31:11 ↗ boom yeah so that's these like like

1:31:13 ↗ western gateways where it says you could

1:31:16 ↗ actually see Gateway on the Madalena

1:31:17 ↗ meet yeah so that's what's in gateway

1:31:21 ↗ I think the appendix is part of either

1:31:26 ↗ Pickering or Darcy I can't remember

1:31:29 ↗ which neighborhood that is well there

1:31:30 ↗ yeah there is a it's kind of because of

1:31:34 ↗ the way the Creek flows I think but but

1:31:37 ↗ you we would get away from this where is

1:31:40 ↗ the line drawn and just eliminate

1:31:45 ↗ discussion and it makes it easier for

1:31:47 ↗ the staff and for that folks reviewing

1:31:49 ↗ that this is the core whatever the name

1:31:53 ↗ is at that time so here's the standards

1:31:56 ↗ we need to follow well I guess the

1:31:59 ↗ question would but let's keep going

1:32:00 ↗ around them because that's one idea so

1:32:02 ↗ raise your favorite sounds like of

1:32:04 ↗ eliminating

1:32:05 ↗ the distinctions between the two it

1:32:07 ↗ would all be one just one Randy's

1:32:09 ↗ brought up the idea of keeping the

1:32:11 ↗ bright line between urban contemporary

1:32:13 ↗ and all the others Richard I think

1:32:18 ↗ you're in favor of keeping the bright

1:32:20 ↗ line I'm I had posed one going one way

1:32:25 ↗ but not the other the urban the

1:32:28 ↗ Northwest contemporary never finds

1:32:30 ↗ itself in traditional but traditional

1:32:31 ↗ can find its way into urban core mostly

1:32:34 ↗ for those those virtues I was talking

1:32:36 ↗ about just of how do you build character

1:32:37 ↗ or preserve or good Ryan I prefer to

1:32:42 ↗ have the distinction of the

1:32:43 ↗ neighborhoods between the two okay

1:32:45 ↗ Richard well I was just ready to change

1:32:50 ↗ my vote from last time and I like

1:32:53 ↗ traditional allowing to migrate aside

1:32:56 ↗ urban core I think I'm for more of a

1:32:57 ↗ distinction for urban core now and the

1:33:00 ↗ reason is the way the Northwest

1:33:02 ↗ contemporary has been developed in this

1:33:04 ↗ draft of the manual I'm seeing a lot

1:33:05 ↗ more things in there now than I saw

1:33:06 ↗ before including residential uses but

1:33:09 ↗ I'm not at all opposed to the exact

1:33:12 ↗ opposite of what Evans said be

1:33:17 ↗ contemporary moving outside of that

1:33:19 ↗ especially when I look at traditional

1:33:21 ↗ ethical up there in Gateway only and if

1:33:24 ↗ we're to achieve densities up there we

1:33:26 ↗ might want to allow more than one style

1:33:28 ↗ although I understand there might be

1:33:29 ↗ other approaches to that I think there

1:33:31 ↗ are other just other areas here in the

1:33:33 ↗ traditional area its iguazu - the right

1:33:36 ↗ where northwest contemporary could be

1:33:37 ↗ appropriate and some uses so I'm not

1:33:40 ↗ opposed northwest contemporary moving

1:33:42 ↗ out but exactly the opposite I guess of

1:33:45 ↗ Commissioner price is the architect I

1:33:46 ↗ should be quiet as ever clear directions

1:33:50 ↗ yes it is okay so here's something to

1:33:54 ↗ think about and this just struck me

1:33:56 ↗ thinking about what you're saying mr.

1:33:59 ↗ Sandford Northwest contemporary may be

1:34:03 ↗ the most comfortable for architects and

1:34:05 ↗ so I think one thing you risk by

1:34:08 ↗ allowing Northwest contemporary into the

1:34:10 ↗ traditional it area is it may be

1:34:13 ↗ the default architectural style because

1:34:16 ↗ it will be the most

1:34:18 ↗ familiar and comfortable and it is kind

1:34:21 ↗ of where the market is right now and so

1:34:23 ↗ I think if you if your goal is to have

1:34:28 ↗ distinction between two areas and maybe

1:34:32 ↗ a softer edge I wouldn't try and achieve

1:34:35 ↗ that by allowing the northwest

1:34:37 ↗ contemporary outside of that area I

1:34:39 ↗ agree there's a bread line are the

1:34:45 ↗ entrance it's a bright line yeah I'm

1:34:46 ↗ onion for the bright line black yes my

1:34:50 ↗ point was creating an opportunity for

1:34:53 ↗ our appropriate unique project or

1:34:55 ↗ architecture or civic building or

1:34:57 ↗ something good could apply a different

1:35:02 ↗ architectural standards in the core so

1:35:04 ↗ if that is a a sentiment of the

1:35:06 ↗ Commission I think one thing we could

1:35:08 ↗ task the consultants with is good day

1:35:12 ↗ maybe expand that net a little bit for

1:35:14 ↗ what becomes a kind of a instead of just

1:35:18 ↗ civic buildings because I'm not sure the

1:35:20 ↗ city's got the resources to build a

1:35:22 ↗ bunch of buildings in central Issaquah

1:35:23 ↗ but not even over the next 30 years but

1:35:27 ↗ you know could there be other prominent

1:35:30 ↗ buildings and and maybe we need to

1:35:32 ↗ figure out how we could describe those

1:35:34 ↗ so that they can come in and say hey we

1:35:36 ↗ are one of these and that's why our

1:35:38 ↗ architecture is going to be a kind of a

1:35:42 ↗ deviation off of what the standards say

1:35:45 ↗ and I don't know if that's possible I

1:35:48 ↗ don't know what that would look like but

1:35:49 ↗ if that's something the Commission as a

1:35:51 ↗ whole say yeah let's let's explore that

1:35:53 ↗ we can always kick that question to them

1:35:56 ↗ see what they come up with and when it

1:35:57 ↗ comes back we just may throw it against

1:35:59 ↗ the wall and say that we don't like it

1:36:00 ↗ leave it the way it is don't know and I

1:36:04 ↗ think I would agree with Mr Price about

1:36:06 ↗ allowing the bright line but allowing if

1:36:09 ↗ somebody wants to bring in a traditional

1:36:11 ↗ building into the core they want to

1:36:14 ↗ build a three-story building and they

1:36:15 ↗ can do it with the minimum far and make

1:36:18 ↗ it fit in a Craftsman style I I would be

1:36:23 ↗ okay with that the but the bigger

1:36:26 ↗ concern I had them in the bright line

1:36:27 ↗ would get back to the limitations

1:36:30 ↗ because all the

1:36:31 ↗ the map up here and our zoning map all

1:36:33 ↗ that purple is mixed use which you can

1:36:37 ↗ go up to 85 feet with I think you get

1:36:40 ↗ there in large part maybe with

1:36:42 ↗ affordable housing and some other things

1:36:45 ↗ and if we want to encourage affordable

1:36:47 ↗ housing if we want it in the purple

1:36:49 ↗ areas in those areas if we take that one

1:36:53 ↗ portion out of the urban core if those

1:36:56 ↗ are in these restrictions the only thing

1:36:59 ↗ that could go to you five feet would be

1:37:00 ↗ Northwest Lodge and I have a hard time

1:37:03 ↗ thinking we say yes we want an

1:37:06 ↗ affordable housing project now build it

1:37:09 ↗ in this Northwest lodged island so

1:37:12 ↗ limiting as Keith indicated there's a

1:37:15 ↗ lot of moving pieces around through the

1:37:18 ↗ moratorium so a housing strategy is part

1:37:21 ↗ of that and affordable housing is a big

1:37:25 ↗ discussion topic so I wouldn't want you

1:37:28 ↗ deciding architectural styles to try and

1:37:31 ↗ get affordable housing all right right

1:37:33 ↗ so know that that's my only point I

1:37:35 ↗ think if you if if you want to have more

1:37:42 ↗ variety of buildings that are available

1:37:44 ↗ in a district that maybe has ways to get

1:37:48 ↗ more height then I think that's the

1:37:50 ↗ question I don't want you to try and

1:37:53 ↗ solve before don't know exactly I was

1:37:55 ↗ just saying there's a kind of a side

1:37:56 ↗ note that yes we may be going against

1:37:58 ↗ one of the city's wishes if we limit

1:38:01 ↗ those buildings question mr. chairman do

1:38:07 ↗ see maybe you can answer this on the

1:38:08 ↗ west side of the urban quarters that

1:38:11 ↗ traditional Issaquah do you know the

1:38:13 ↗ purpose of that goal think that's

1:38:17 ↗ sticking up there you mean why is this

1:38:20 ↗ out why why do we have that as a

1:38:22 ↗ traditional and not just them into urban

1:38:27 ↗ core or something well it's that's

1:38:30 ↗ outward gateway and reeva and a lot of

1:38:35 ↗ the other projects that you've looked at

1:38:36 ↗ is

1:38:39 ↗ problems outside the urban core zoning

1:38:41 ↗ yeah but the properties over there are

1:38:48 ↗ all spoken for isn't it well not quite

1:38:52 ↗ all of them there's a few ones out there

1:38:55 ↗ but not a whole lot but to pull that out

1:38:58 ↗ when I not pulled that out but the

1:39:01 ↗ designate that as additional is a quad

1:39:04 ↗ all by itself out there seems so it's

1:39:08 ↗ different interesting being different

1:39:11 ↗ you don't know the purpose of that demo

1:39:17 ↗ well I think generally what Commissioner

1:39:20 ↗ Morgan said is correct that the urban

1:39:24 ↗ core generally follows the urban core

1:39:27 ↗ zone and that area is not zoned I it's

1:39:35 ↗ lower density lower height buildings

1:39:37 ↗ thank you

1:39:38 ↗ less intense events but those other

1:39:42 ↗ styles seem to fit better my particular

1:39:44 ↗ styles to fit better out there the

1:39:54 ↗ document Commons I was going to are

1:39:58 ↗ there other questions in the architect

1:40:00 ↗ in chapter 2 I actually Lucy if you

1:40:05 ↗ would go back to the administrative

1:40:07 ↗ adjustment of standards thing I because

1:40:10 ↗ we've been talking about how do we allow

1:40:13 ↗ somebody with a really good design to do

1:40:18 ↗ something that is not exactly in

1:40:20 ↗ compliance with the districting and

1:40:24 ↗ that's come up a couple of times and I

1:40:26 ↗ haven't actually have to apologize

1:40:28 ↗ publicly this I don't look at this a

1:40:30 ↗ long time no that's that's that the the

1:40:37 ↗ one who was up there before had a list

1:40:39 ↗ of things like that but it was about how

1:40:42 ↗ yeah there we go

1:40:43 ↗ when I just looked at that quickly when

1:40:46 ↗ it was up there it seems to me that

1:40:51 ↗ an AAS if you really look at that

1:40:55 ↗ there's almost everything is open to an

1:40:59 ↗ AAS if it's in the code so critical

1:41:04 ↗ areas except is authorized by the code

1:41:07 ↗ so above the sentences

1:41:11 ↗ no administrative adjustment may be made

1:41:14 ↗ for standards or requirements listed

1:41:16 ↗ below except as otherwise permitted by

1:41:19 ↗ this code and if you look at a through K

1:41:23 ↗ it's I the way I'm understanding the

1:41:27 ↗ wording there is just about everything

1:41:28 ↗ is can be you can ask for an AAS III

1:41:33 ↗ think that the wording may be misleading

1:41:36 ↗ so I think what that means is that in

1:41:39 ↗ critical areas for instance it will say

1:41:41 ↗ you can buffer average if you do it in

1:41:44 ↗ this particular way so that is might be

1:41:48 ↗ considered an adjustment of the

1:41:50 ↗ standards but it is a very prescribed

1:41:54 ↗ adjustment whereas an adjustment of

1:41:57 ↗ standards is just asking to do something

1:42:01 ↗ differently because you feel you can

1:42:02 ↗ meet the objectives a different way you

1:42:05 ↗ couldn't come in and say my proposal is

1:42:09 ↗ to build a house on a critical area

1:42:10 ↗ because I think I can do it in a way

1:42:12 ↗ that will meet the intent we would say

1:42:15 ↗ no we would not we wouldn't be able to

1:42:19 ↗ adjust that because critical areas is

1:42:22 ↗ listed in here okay I I understand what

1:42:26 ↗ you're saying I just it just seems the

1:42:28 ↗ the wording that declared flat

1:42:31 ↗ declarative sentence with followed by

1:42:35 ↗ how many a through K however you can get

1:42:39 ↗ an AAS if it's in the code it seems

1:42:42 ↗ almost contradictory and and that's I

1:42:45 ↗ think one of the one of the concerns

1:42:48 ↗ that I've had in these meetings is that

1:42:52 ↗ we routinely run into aass and I

1:42:57 ↗ understand it's completely legal I get

1:43:00 ↗ it and it's very carefully analyzed but

1:43:03 ↗ it just seems to me that it's a

1:43:05 ↗ matter of routine that we get a request

1:43:08 ↗ for an AAS on pervious surface or

1:43:10 ↗ buffers or things like that when if you

1:43:15 ↗ just read that first sentence it would

1:43:17 ↗ be very clear you know what I'm saying

1:43:21 ↗ if people look at that well if I did and

1:43:24 ↗ I I'm not I'm not sure there's an altar

1:43:27 ↗ I can't come up with a suggestion for

1:43:28 ↗ and I know where I supposed to be

1:43:30 ↗ wordsmithing this but that's a pretty

1:43:32 ↗ fundamental aspect of this is how it is

1:43:35 ↗ not part of over this guy I know but I

1:43:37 ↗ but we're talking would this not be a

1:43:41 ↗ mechanism for getting into the we were

1:43:45 ↗ doing a architecture architectural style

1:43:48 ↗ in a district that it's not

1:43:50 ↗ I think that's zoning misses time so I I

1:43:54 ↗ think to get back to the point that

1:43:57 ↗ Commissioner Brennan was identifying

1:44:00 ↗ this says anything that isn't in this

1:44:03 ↗ chapter

1:44:04 ↗ meaning the design manual the design

1:44:07 ↗ manual takes precedent over central or

1:44:10 ↗ squad this is what we're doing here

1:44:11 ↗ right so this piece of code that you're

1:44:15 ↗ looking at at the screen or this down

1:44:17 ↗ here is in the centralist law standards

1:44:20 ↗ if that isn't referenced in the design

1:44:22 ↗ manual you don't get to use these tools

1:44:26 ↗ so if if we wanted to and I'm not

1:44:30 ↗ suggesting but if there was some form of

1:44:33 ↗ departure or of these criteria where the

1:44:35 ↗ criteria you wanted to use then you

1:44:37 ↗ could say in the design manual we

1:44:40 ↗ allowed you know adjustments of these

1:44:43 ↗ standards for roof pitch making that up

1:44:47 ↗ for roof pitch using the criteria that

1:44:50 ↗ are in Chapter one of the centralist

1:44:54 ↗ quest standards

1:45:01 ↗ so other questions okay

1:45:07 ↗ I'm concerned about the time we were we

1:45:10 ↗ were scheduled to go till nine o'clock

1:45:12 ↗ we have two members of the public and

1:45:13 ↗ what might seem appropriate at this

1:45:15 ↗ point is if they wish to make comment I

1:45:17 ↗ would like to open up the opportunity

1:45:19 ↗ for the public to provide comment and

1:45:22 ↗ would ask you to sign in we'll give you

1:45:24 ↗ five minutes each my name is Connie

1:45:42 ↗ Marsh and I live up on squawk Mountain

1:45:46 ↗ [Music]

1:45:48 ↗ so from my community standpoint this

1:45:53 ↗ conversation is about how do we create

1:45:56 ↗ an Issaquah that we recognize and is

1:45:58 ↗ even better than the it cause that we

1:46:01 ↗ have now well excepting density when we

1:46:04 ↗ create a bright line with an urban

1:46:08 ↗ center I cannot disagree that we are

1:46:13 ↗ going to lose what is a qua was because

1:46:18 ↗ that is never what Issaquah was these

1:46:21 ↗ guidelines or these architectural

1:46:25 ↗ standards create a new sort of Issaquah

1:46:29 ↗ form so to my mind the question is

1:46:33 ↗ whether that form would fit in with what

1:46:37 ↗ you would see is equality would be

1:46:41 ↗ larger so as an extent of Issaquah so if

1:46:45 ↗ you are looking at an old town with

1:46:48 ↗ large bank buildings because we have

1:46:50 ↗ lots of small towns in our area that

1:46:53 ↗ have bigger buildings are those the

1:46:55 ↗ styles of buildings that we would be

1:46:57 ↗ expecting to get in our core that would

1:46:59 ↗ create that area there's no glass shown

1:47:04 ↗ there's none of the Bellevue East Gate

1:47:07 ↗ style buildings there so we need to be

1:47:10 ↗ very sure that we don't want to push

1:47:11 ↗ into the future to that look to some

1:47:14 ↗ extent because if we

1:47:15 ↗ go with this we are going to be in sort

1:47:17 ↗ of this old school for the rest of until

1:47:21 ↗ we change the code again right so I

1:47:24 ↗ wouldn't make exceptions because then

1:47:28 ↗ you never know where you're going but I

1:47:29 ↗ might allow for a little more variation

1:47:32 ↗ in styles of building as a part of the

1:47:36 ↗ package and so that's just a beginning

1:47:39 ↗ and I'm going to go through my notes

1:47:40 ↗ really fast because I only have five

1:47:42 ↗ minutes this presentation of the manual

1:47:46 ↗ needs a numbering system so you can

1:47:47 ↗ actually orient yourself and discuss it

1:47:50 ↗ without having to say at the bottom of

1:47:52 ↗ which page and what kind of page is that

1:47:55 ↗ and some things were lost that to me

1:47:58 ↗ seemed to be integral in architecture

1:48:01 ↗ and those are the uses of the buildings

1:48:03 ↗ like weather protection what does that

1:48:05 ↗ look like some of the buildings talked

1:48:08 ↗ about the glass not being opaque but

1:48:12 ↗ that sort of was in the central urban

1:48:14 ↗ section yet even though we're going to

1:48:16 ↗ have shopping in the outlying areas it

1:48:18 ↗ didn't discuss anything about sort of

1:48:20 ↗ the pedestrian interface with the lower

1:48:22 ↗ storeys of the buildings and I found

1:48:24 ↗ that concerning because we're going to

1:48:26 ↗ be using the shorter buildings in the

1:48:28 ↗ same same ways and the pedestrian is is

1:48:32 ↗ of major concern and I don't know if

1:48:34 ↗ that's coming into the future but it

1:48:36 ↗ felt like those were missing and then

1:48:39 ↗ there's the discussion of situational

1:48:41 ↗ placement which it actually calls out

1:48:43 ↗ pitch roll tape placement and it's like

1:48:46 ↗ well does the building fit here what are

1:48:49 ↗ the criteria for those in what might

1:48:51 ↗ that be do we want a lot of buildings

1:48:53 ↗ that look the same going cookie-cutter

1:48:55 ↗ cookie-cut cookie-cutter what kind of

1:48:57 ↗ variation would you want to see in a

1:48:59 ↗ particularly bird right so that you

1:49:02 ↗ would know where you were and I didn't

1:49:04 ↗ see that fleshed out enough that one you

1:49:06 ↗ all would be able to make a decision is

1:49:08 ↗ it appropriately situational when you're

1:49:11 ↗ looking at it and reviewing the project

1:49:13 ↗ because you might say well we have 16 of

1:49:16 ↗ those buildings and I can't stand to

1:49:17 ↗ look at them ever again but we have no

1:49:20 ↗ way to say no to that building a

1:49:23 ↗ discussion of the interface with

1:49:26 ↗ landscaping we have architectural so

1:49:28 ↗ genders that we can use with landscaping

1:49:30 ↗ again it's the pedestrian feel and the

1:49:33 ↗ use of the building and how your

1:49:35 ↗ entrances to the building all fit

1:49:37 ↗ together and this is just the facade

1:49:38 ↗ sort of a thing and that doesn't seem

1:49:41 ↗ like enough and I'm not sure if that's

1:49:43 ↗ coming later and I saw that yawn so I'll

1:49:45 ↗ go louder and faster the concept of

1:49:48 ↗ Northwest contemporary and I have a hard

1:49:51 ↗ time with that because I picture

1:49:53 ↗ Northwest contemporary like the library

1:49:54 ↗ building on front and sunset and we

1:49:58 ↗ could we could have that buildings in

1:50:02 ↗ traditional is across yet we are not

1:50:04 ↗ providing the forms for that in this

1:50:07 ↗ situation so and then I have some

1:50:11 ↗ details on I don't understand what the

1:50:14 ↗ varying like Lucy said articulation

1:50:17 ↗ means and it's not addressed in the

1:50:19 ↗ pictures as the example so there needs

1:50:21 ↗ to be some coherence between the

1:50:23 ↗ language and the pictures so that you

1:50:25 ↗ know exactly what they're talking about

1:50:27 ↗ because I was confused by what they

1:50:30 ↗ intended between the language in the

1:50:33 ↗ pictures colors you guys hit upon these

1:50:37 ↗ work so okay this is my favorite there's

1:50:42 ↗ lots of pictures of buildings where I

1:50:44 ↗ want to be a sheepherder and then going

1:50:46 ↗ for a pint and I'm not really sure that

1:50:50 ↗ it's a quiet is a sheepherding town and

1:50:54 ↗ so I might kick out a couple of those

1:50:57 ↗ building styles and get something a

1:50:59 ↗ little a little less in English or Irish

1:51:05 ↗ war so to speak and I already talked

1:51:08 ↗ about the oh there we go

1:51:11 ↗ talks about the library building I want

1:51:13 ↗ those in there so I don't have to get on

1:51:15 ↗ my horse and load my shotgun

1:51:16 ↗ thank you what it was a little long

1:51:25 ↗ oh forget to sign it describe Mary Lynch

1:51:32 ↗ to 60 no Northwest Oak Crest and I'll

1:51:34 ↗ sign in just to further say I already

1:51:37 ↗ commented about the lower part of the

1:51:39 ↗ urban core and that the community

1:51:42 ↗ meetings that the community really

1:51:44 ↗ wanted it moved up to Juniper because of

1:51:48 ↗ they wanted to keep the other

1:51:50 ↗ residential so if you look here I think

1:51:53 ↗ it is still included the other concern I

1:51:55 ↗ have as part of this is an action task

1:51:58 ↗ force so the central area plan we saw

1:52:01 ↗ Home Depot and Fred Meijer and all or

1:52:04 ↗ things that could go higher and have

1:52:06 ↗ mixed-use this is not included in the

1:52:08 ↗ urban core this would be traditional so

1:52:10 ↗ what you have over now if it is to be

1:52:13 ↗ redeveloped anything with Fred Myers or

1:52:16 ↗ Home Depot would go back not to what we

1:52:18 ↗ have and what we saw is that as up

1:52:21 ↗ against the mountain that is a good

1:52:23 ↗ place instead of near a major road those

1:52:26 ↗ are areas that could go higher and

1:52:28 ↗ provide Nick's use with housing and all

1:52:31 ↗ above it so I would say you need to

1:52:33 ↗ relook at some of your urban if you're

1:52:35 ↗ going to keep these designations you

1:52:37 ↗ need to look at where those boundaries

1:52:38 ↗ are and have them fit more closely with

1:52:41 ↗ what the district visions were and where

1:52:45 ↗ I think from those meetings what the

1:52:47 ↗ public said they wanted them to be and

1:52:49 ↗ go back and work with Tricia and all and

1:52:51 ↗ make sure that those are incorporated

1:52:53 ↗ similarly and I really do think as far

1:52:55 ↗ as uses you need to do top need to talk

1:52:57 ↗ about urban schools and other things

1:52:59 ↗ that are going to be located down here

1:53:01 ↗ so those reflect in the architectural

1:53:04 ↗ standards and the other thing I did kind

1:53:07 ↗ of allude to it is the rooftops when you

1:53:10 ↗ have a big building and you're going to

1:53:12 ↗ be looking down on your rooftops I think

1:53:14 ↗ we need to do a better job of having

1:53:16 ↗ green roofs and also protecting some of

1:53:19 ↗ the utilities there are on top of the

1:53:21 ↗ buildings from the views and view

1:53:24 ↗ corridors that are above them thank you

1:53:29 ↗ don't forget to sign it

1:53:32 ↗ thank you so we get paid that way

1:53:38 ↗ remember where we've asked questions

1:53:42 ↗ about thoughts in general over the

1:53:46 ↗ construction of the document at this

1:53:48 ↗ point I think there's a lot of work that

1:53:55 ↗ went into this and I really appreciate

1:53:57 ↗ the effort it really went into it we're

1:54:01 ↗ in a bit of a crunch here you know try

1:54:05 ↗ to have some tools for the folks in the

1:54:08 ↗ city to do their job in at the same time

1:54:12 ↗ for us to have some kind of a guidance

1:54:16 ↗ when we say yes or no to a certain

1:54:18 ↗ project but I think the moratorium is

1:54:23 ↗ this is it's in place and I think we

1:54:26 ↗ need to move a little bit faster on this

1:54:31 ↗ it's my thought on this but overall I

1:54:34 ↗ think we're headed to the right

1:54:35 ↗ direction Thank You Lucy and yourself

1:54:38 ↗ Keith - thank you I like to bring up

1:54:43 ↗ I think Mary brought up a good point

1:54:44 ↗ about the home depot Fred Meyer that

1:54:47 ↗ area because it got me to page 26 of 75

1:54:54 ↗ and talking back the architectural

1:54:58 ↗ districts or zones and at that second

1:55:03 ↗ paragraph right there in the middle

1:55:04 ↗ traditional is acquire is primarily

1:55:06 ↗ composed of residential neighborhoods

1:55:08 ↗ reflect more traditional architectural

1:55:10 ↗ styles and I was thinking well that's

1:55:13 ↗ not really true of most of that stuff

1:55:15 ↗ along East Lake Sammamish there and it

1:55:18 ↗ does make me wonder about is it again

1:55:21 ↗ maybe this gets back to some of these

1:55:23 ↗ traditional styles being too limiting as

1:55:26 ↗ we would then be saying we're going to

1:55:28 ↗ go back to the Irish pubs and the

1:55:32 ↗ traditional things that the building's

1:55:35 ↗ been built along here and an 85-foot

1:55:38 ↗ zone so even just that paragraph that

1:55:40 ↗ discussion I brought up I thought that

1:55:42 ↗ needed some change and it does bring up

1:55:44 ↗ my question about the contemporary work

1:55:48 ↗ somewhere else or do we need another

1:55:49 ↗ style that can work in an area like that

1:55:57 ↗ chair I am very happy with the process I

1:56:03 ↗ am very happy with the pace I think I

1:56:07 ↗ think we need to take as much time as we

1:56:10 ↗ need to take to get it right and I think

1:56:14 ↗ we're doing that as far as I'm concerned

1:56:15 ↗ I think the pace in the inclusion is

1:56:20 ↗ right on the money and it's I'm very

1:56:23 ↗ proud of this this process and I am also

1:56:28 ↗ I really like the product so process

1:56:31 ↗ pace and product as far as I'm concerned

1:56:33 ↗ we're proceeding in the right direction

1:56:37 ↗ to the right pace I've got another

1:56:41 ↗ comment fuel and I'll just keep popping

1:56:42 ↗ them in here so on page 29 to 75 the

1:56:48 ↗ urban core contemporary a couple things

1:56:53 ↗ at the top there the the goals encourage

1:56:58 ↗ consistency unity and timelessness and I

1:57:01 ↗ I don't know that I feel that that would

1:57:03 ↗ be the goal of the architectural style I

1:57:06 ↗ would want to have in the urban core for

1:57:09 ↗ everything to be consistent in uniform

1:57:14 ↗ and then the first line of simple

1:57:17 ↗ composition with vertical emphasis again

1:57:20 ↗ it I don't know it sounds to me like it

1:57:23 ↗ could be a fairly dull urban center is

1:57:27 ↗ what they're looking for and I know

1:57:28 ↗ their opinion was it it seemed to be

1:57:31 ↗ more they wanted the street side things

1:57:34 ↗ to be interesting in the buildings to be

1:57:36 ↗ playing I don't know that I necessarily

1:57:38 ↗ agree with that and I didn't see

1:57:41 ↗ anything in the discussion here their

1:57:45 ↗ description that actually talked about

1:57:47 ↗ North West something that made it feel

1:57:50 ↗ Northwest other than maybe durable

1:57:52 ↗ materials and I didn't see a discussion

1:57:56 ↗ of balconies in there

1:57:57 ↗ I think are important getting back to

1:57:59 ↗ the essential Issaquah plan and the

1:58:02 ↗ buildings we saw in there and the core

1:58:03 ↗ that show lots of balconies and then

1:58:06 ↗ personally I was not impressed with any

1:58:10 ↗ three of these buildings I wouldn't want

1:58:12 ↗ to see maybe the first on the bottom one

1:58:15 ↗ I don't know I thought that might have

1:58:18 ↗ been built in East Berlin or something

1:58:20 ↗ comment on that is that the best we want

1:58:22 ↗ to show as an example yeah that's not

1:58:25 ↗ what I would look for and how do you

1:58:27 ↗ stay so but that's why we're here

1:58:31 ↗ listening to you yeah I thought that

1:58:34 ↗ yeah that's not at all the second one

1:58:36 ↗ the second one the middle and to me

1:58:38 ↗ maybe sort of works but then the first

1:58:41 ↗ one I kind of nice like him in saying

1:58:44 ↗ this I think it's contemporary 1930s of

1:58:48 ↗ the architects out here sorry but there

1:58:53 ↗ will be no sheep herders

1:58:55 ↗ mr. chair I I would like to jump in

1:58:59 ↗ though and on the point about the

1:59:01 ↗ Western I'm sorry northern part of the

1:59:05 ↗ traditionalist opposed own I completely

1:59:07 ↗ agree with that that I have not really

1:59:10 ↗ understood that designation or why it's

1:59:14 ↗ carved out and in the traditional

1:59:17 ↗ Issaquah it seems to me based on what it

1:59:19 ↗ is now and the potential for

1:59:21 ↗ redevelopment that it should be urban

1:59:24 ↗ core so are you talking about this area

1:59:27 ↗ or out here right there where Fred Meyer

1:59:30 ↗ yeah okay and I would say either either

1:59:36 ↗ urban core or something different than a

1:59:40 ↗ different classic a different

1:59:42 ↗ classification but in just these

1:59:43 ↗ buildings yeah good so we're back to

1:59:50 ↗ urban core images and and you know I

1:59:55 ↗ guess I appreciate your concern that you

1:59:59 ↗ don't want okay these may not be the

2:00:03 ↗ right images I think the only thing I

2:00:05 ↗ would say about these three images is

2:00:08 ↗ they don't look like

2:00:11 ↗ okay so um if you're not consistent so

2:00:15 ↗ if sorry yes we're having fun but I

2:00:25 ↗ guess my so I get you know what is

2:00:27 ↗ consistent and what is variety so ha and

2:00:34 ↗ so I I understand your concern tonight

2:00:39 ↗ Anna and I think that that the important

2:00:42 ↗ I think from what I've gathered we would

2:00:46 ↗ all say we don't want something that

2:00:48 ↗ feels monotonous and I would say that

2:00:51 ↗ even if we don't like these three images

2:00:53 ↗ if all of these fit into Northwest

2:00:55 ↗ contemporary that isn't very monotonous

2:00:57 ↗ so that I think that is a good sign then

2:01:02 ↗ but we still need to get images that we

2:01:04 ↗ would be a of things that we think are

2:01:06 ↗ things that we would want to see because

2:01:09 ↗ by not liking some of these images that

2:01:15 ↗ helps elucidate maybe things that

2:01:20 ↗ characteristics of Northwest

2:01:22 ↗ contemporary we would want to

2:01:23 ↗ incorporate okay on that same line page

2:01:27 ↗ 68 of 75 down at the bottom I think we

2:01:31 ↗ did like this image in a previous

2:01:34 ↗ meeting 68 is 75 sorry there on the

2:01:44 ↗ right yes yes that one you did like a

2:01:46 ↗ lot we liked that image for life

2:01:48 ↗ we always me of Queens New York okay I

2:01:54 ↗ wrote a note here I did not I do not

2:01:56 ↗ like the image at the top you all were

2:01:59 ↗ very clear about that and I hadn't

2:02:01 ↗ communicated that to them but that was

2:02:03 ↗ that there was a different townhouse

2:02:05 ↗ product that that image that they had

2:02:08 ↗ used which you had liked and I

2:02:11 ↗ recommended that they change it out for

2:02:13 ↗ this one because I remembered that was

2:02:15 ↗ not a fan favorite this one the top yes

2:02:21 ↗ okay one other page 71 of 7-5

2:02:24 ↗ or we like that page though just and

2:02:26 ↗ this is where I think just an edit sort

2:02:28 ↗ of if taller than four and so four to

2:02:31 ↗ five story floors where it talks about

2:02:34 ↗ appropriate that third sentence if

2:02:37 ↗ taller than four to five floors and

2:02:39 ↗ again that to me you can't give

2:02:41 ↗ developer that it's one of the other

2:02:44 ↗ okay yeah pick one

2:02:46 ↗ thank you sure just one other question

2:02:49 ↗ on page 71 of seventy five the two

2:02:53 ↗ middle pictures is that picture on the

2:02:57 ↗ left a picture of a door or a picture

2:02:59 ↗ window well what it says is just a

2:03:04 ↗ sliding glass door open and closed that

2:03:08 ↗ it looks like a window to me but I'm

2:03:10 ↗ looking at a little blurry picture on a

2:03:12 ↗ monitor yeah one of the left looks like

2:03:15 ↗ if you would walk into a desk I think

2:03:17 ↗ there looks pretty window ish yeah yeah

2:03:19 ↗ I think Olson okay they I think they're

2:03:21 ↗ two different pictures the other two

2:03:24 ↗ different I think it's a door on the

2:03:26 ↗ right on the left I think it's probably

2:03:27 ↗ a picture with them now but the

2:03:29 ↗ parenthesis yes one is close okay

2:03:36 ↗ a new question page 67 and there

2:03:42 ↗ northwest contemporary under description

2:03:46 ↗ [Music]

2:03:47 ↗ sloped roofs shall only be used for

2:03:49 ↗ residential buildings and minimal to no

2:03:54 ↗ over overhang or eaves I I guess I

2:03:58 ↗ wondered why seems to me I don't know

2:04:01 ↗ why we would limit prevent commercial

2:04:04 ↗ buildings from having a sloped roof to

2:04:06 ↗ them I think there a lot of I've seen

2:04:09 ↗ very nice sloped roofs at the tops of

2:04:12 ↗ buildings of what was the WaMu Center

2:04:15 ↗ downtown the original one or whatever

2:04:18 ↗ but I think it's a mechanical area but

2:04:23 ↗ what six storeys tall

2:04:26 ↗ yeah yeah but I mean it's a commercial

2:04:28 ↗ building it's got a sloped roof at the

2:04:30 ↗ top and I think it can look good and I

2:04:32 ↗ don't see why it has to be I can't have

2:04:34 ↗ a commercial with and since we're closed

2:04:41 ↗ page 66 for appropriate color to prevent

2:04:49 ↗ kind of thing we went through a couple

2:04:52 ↗ decades ago or traditional barn red

2:04:54 ↗ maybe in parentheses we can say just

2:04:57 ↗ specify pickling barn red I know

2:05:01 ↗ people may not have been here we went

2:05:03 ↗ when we went through the painting of

2:05:05 ↗ Pickering and what barn red was supposed

2:05:08 ↗ to be and had meetings with yeah to go

2:05:13 ↗ over what that was so I've heard yeah do

2:05:17 ↗ that again let's not do that again we

2:05:19 ↗ have an example the Pickering barn ready

2:05:25 ↗ had a question about black on the same

2:05:28 ↗ page appropriate neutrals black wood we

2:05:33 ↗ think that a stark black a pure black

2:05:35 ↗ would be appropriate for wall color

2:05:44 ↗ of pens it's on how much wall there is

2:05:47 ↗ if you get a lot of windows and glass

2:05:49 ↗ and black might work and siding trim it

2:05:52 ↗ out so okay so pure black is fine okay

2:05:56 ↗ yes

2:05:57 ↗ Jeff there's a there's a recent a

2:06:01 ↗ remodel down on Front Street where they

2:06:04 ↗ basically took out a nail salon and put

2:06:06 ↗ in an office space it's for Madison

2:06:08 ↗ development it's a it's black so at next

2:06:13 ↗ time you scroll down Front Street just

2:06:15 ↗ kind of take a look at it and see how it

2:06:16 ↗ feels I actually think it looks really

2:06:18 ↗ classy it's 20 feet wide though page 58

2:06:26 ↗ of 75 I guess we're going to get content

2:06:28 ↗ on that page right they just haven't

2:06:29 ↗ completed that yet if you get paid by

2:06:40 ↗ the page they just skip line in there

2:06:42 ↗ for extra but no actually I don't think

2:06:51 ↗ you're going to get any contact on that

2:06:52 ↗ one I'm serious I think I think that the

2:06:55 ↗ way they've approached it is that

2:06:56 ↗ there's one page for each of these

2:06:58 ↗ topics and I think what they're saying

2:07:00 ↗ is that the roof isn't going to be

2:07:02 ↗ visible in western false fronts so

2:07:04 ↗ they're not going to specify yeah that's

2:07:07 ↗ but I mean that that was my read of it

2:07:09 ↗ you too loose you paid sixty four

2:07:15 ↗ seventy-five on the urban grain style

2:07:17 ↗ for doors I thought it'd be helpful to

2:07:22 ↗ add rod style doors with glass that will

2:07:26 ↗ open up to expand the base out so I

2:07:34 ↗ think are you are you saying you want

2:07:37 ↗ that added I'd like that added is that

2:07:40 ↗ so help me understand what the words

2:07:42 ↗ like I thought that's a glass overhead

2:07:44 ↗ garage door Wiggles I would that cover

2:07:46 ↗ it right you know I just want to make

2:07:48 ↗ sure yeah sorry no it's okay so sliding

2:07:53 ↗ in four miles

2:07:54 ↗ I think about Paul right exactly

2:07:58 ↗ that's right open that roof about so

2:08:01 ↗ other comments general actually I

2:08:04 ↗ thought on page 46 of 75 is interested

2:08:11 ↗ me looking at these buildings on the

2:08:12 ↗ north west Lodge style because the the

2:08:18 ↗ number one and two are good and three is

2:08:21 ↗ inappropriate and I looked at those in

2:08:23 ↗ number two I'm not sure if that's like

2:08:25 ↗ clay lock Lodge or something but

2:08:27 ↗ personally now look at that and to me it

2:08:30 ↗ I mean it does look like a building that

2:08:32 ↗ would be out somewhere in a forest like

2:08:35 ↗ that in a very large roof to me I

2:08:38 ↗ thought that was a lot of roof cover to

2:08:41 ↗ be looking at in a building in Issaquah

2:08:44 ↗ and then I look at the bottom one and I

2:08:46 ↗ think maybe that's a more I think that

2:08:49 ↗ was the vertical emphasis and a couple

2:08:53 ↗ of things on the bottom one that they

2:08:55 ↗ didn't like but actually I thought that

2:08:57 ↗ might be a more interesting building for

2:09:00 ↗ or northwest Lodge style today they

2:09:03 ↗ agreed to go not a hundred-year-old one

2:09:06 ↗ we don't like the ones they pick like

2:09:10 ↗ and we like to own them you're not

2:09:12 ↗ supposed to yeah yeah yeah it takes the

2:09:14 ↗ other way around

2:09:16 ↗ kind what other people think about it

2:09:18 ↗ but I agree I had the same film is it

2:09:27 ↗ possible Lucy to ask it's to me it

2:09:32 ↗ seemed it would be helpful in the long

2:09:35 ↗ run if some of if more of the pictures

2:09:38 ↗ were actually Issaquah buildings I

2:09:42 ↗ because I think we've got some really

2:09:45 ↗ good examples of all of these maybe not

2:09:49 ↗ a lot of them but I do think we've got

2:09:51 ↗ examples in Issaquah of Grange style you

2:09:56 ↗ know of all these and it just seems to

2:10:00 ↗ me to be a good idea rather than showing

2:10:02 ↗ crescent flake you know if we had at

2:10:07 ↗ least one of the

2:10:08 ↗ pictures that was an extent structure in

2:10:11 ↗ Issaquah I don't know how others feel

2:10:14 ↗ about that but we're going to it's log

2:10:16 ↗ style well or in arts and crafts or you

2:10:19 ↗ know it particularly in contemporary

2:10:21 ↗ well I don't know if we can I don't know

2:10:23 ↗ if we have one that we want to put in

2:10:25 ↗ effort but if we do have it just seems

2:10:28 ↗ to me to be a great idea to say you know

2:10:30 ↗ we're looking for this is already here

2:10:32 ↗ this is what we're looking for in this

2:10:33 ↗ style well in that as condiments I think

2:10:36 ↗ I'd love to have the picture of the

2:10:38 ↗ library somewhere in here ins and it

2:10:41 ↗ wanted them to see where it could fit

2:10:44 ↗ but sure it does in these categories I

2:10:49 ↗ well and and and I agree it and I'll

2:10:53 ↗ tell you just from and I don't know

2:10:56 ↗ about other designers on the Commission

2:10:58 ↗ it was it was illuminating to me because

2:11:03 ↗ a lot of the examples that we use in our

2:11:05 ↗ guidelines are buildings we know now

2:11:08 ↗ staff in development services are from

2:11:12 ↗ lots of different places so we have lots

2:11:14 ↗ of pictures from different places and so

2:11:16 ↗ they may not be places that the

2:11:19 ↗ designers who are having to pick this up

2:11:21 ↗ and use it may know and it was

2:11:23 ↗ illuminating to me to pick up a document

2:11:25 ↗ and not know a lot of the pictures that

2:11:27 ↗ are in here in a bad way but just I want

2:11:31 ↗ to walk around the building I want to

2:11:32 ↗ sort of see what it feels like and how

2:11:34 ↗ to experience those things and it would

2:11:37 ↗ be nice to have some examples that you

2:11:39 ↗ know we can say to a designer go look at

2:11:41 ↗ this building as opposed to just looking

2:11:44 ↗ at a little even knowing where it is so

2:11:48 ↗ you can look at Google Street yeah and

2:11:50 ↗ and I would say we don't need to put an

2:11:54 ↗ Issaquah example as an inappropriate I'm

2:11:58 ↗ not suggesting that but if one of the

2:12:01 ↗ pictures out of the three if we could do

2:12:03 ↗ that would be a nice across structure

2:12:05 ↗ for exactly that reason I think it's

2:12:07 ↗ desirable okay also on page 38 of 75 on

2:12:13 ↗ the Arts and Crafts style talking about

2:12:16 ↗ color

2:12:18 ↗ I'm warm white gray tan olive and that

2:12:23 ↗ was it and maybe that I maybe that's

2:12:26 ↗ true of the Arts and Crafts style but it

2:12:28 ↗ seemed like a pretty limited color

2:12:31 ↗ palette to say you can be white or gray

2:12:33 ↗ or all over town I would agree I would

2:12:43 ↗ also make allowances for dark art brown

2:12:50 ↗ lady bad dark gray dark and dark gray

2:12:53 ↗ just dark yeah

2:12:55 ↗ in general other specific common

2:13:14 ↗ more comment good job and no comments

2:13:23 ↗ just a couple quick general comments

2:13:26 ↗ about progress here i think i think

2:13:29 ↗ we're creating a tool i think it's going

2:13:31 ↗ to be really useful and it's not going

2:13:34 ↗ to be perfect when it's done and it can

2:13:37 ↗ evolve as we experience have experience

2:13:39 ↗ with it so you going for perfection and

2:13:42 ↗ contemplating every what-if is probably

2:13:45 ↗ not productive but uh but i will say i

2:13:48 ↗ mean that this discussion tonight

2:13:49 ↗ hopefully it's been helpful to staff in

2:13:52 ↗ the and the consultants to continue to

2:13:55 ↗ refine it so it's more useful tool for

2:13:57 ↗ us to work along with staff are going to

2:13:59 ↗ be primary users of this from an

2:14:01 ↗ implementation standpoint on with all

2:14:03 ↗ the design professionals and others that

2:14:05 ↗ use it but it's going to be important

2:14:07 ↗ for us i think that's good in the other

2:14:09 ↗ just another comment i know this is a

2:14:11 ↗ huge amount of work for staff and we

2:14:13 ↗ have a huge pile of stuff in front of

2:14:15 ↗ you i appreciate that you know the

2:14:18 ↗ attention that you've been giving to the

2:14:19 ↗ comments that we've been providing and a

2:14:22 ↗ lot of credit and kudos to staff for

2:14:24 ↗ your efforts on this i appreciate that

2:14:26 ↗ thanks agree comment have we addressed

2:14:36 ↗ the i don't see here the issue with

2:14:39 ↗ roofing and no solar equipment that goes

2:14:42 ↗ onto the roof we talk about different

2:14:45 ↗ asphalt you know she would shingles you

2:14:47 ↗ can use as you can't use that but

2:14:50 ↗ looking ahead there's a lot of solar

2:14:53 ↗ power industry that's coming into play

2:14:57 ↗ and how is that outside incorporated in

2:15:02 ↗ here maybe I shouldn't just limit it to

2:15:05 ↗ solar power but there are other

2:15:07 ↗ equipment that are we allowing that to

2:15:10 ↗ go in there into the traditional

2:15:15 ↗ Issaquah area well I don't think the

2:15:18 ↗ intent isn't to have it but I think it's

2:15:20 ↗ a great question how does it fit in with

2:15:23 ↗ the architectural styles are there

2:15:27 ↗ specific recommendations or techniques

2:15:34 ↗ that are necessary to make those make if

2:15:38 ↗ you're going to be adding something like

2:15:39 ↗ solar how you would do it yeah so so if

2:15:44 ↗ I'm a developer I come in and say I have

2:15:46 ↗ this new building in whatever the roof

2:15:49 ↗ situation is I'm putting all solar

2:15:52 ↗ panels in there and people look at it as

2:15:54 ↗ well

2:15:55 ↗ sat on here there's no sort of animals

2:15:59 ↗ and you're not going to put any solar

2:16:00 ↗ power solar panel on there it can be

2:16:03 ↗ solar panels are made out of basketball

2:16:05 ↗ shingles well actually that's the new

2:16:09 ↗ solar roof so yeah well that would all

2:16:12 ↗ the files that be a question like it's a

2:16:15 ↗ good different question able to do that

2:16:17 ↗ and create those how quickly can we

2:16:19 ↗ change this just change something that

2:16:22 ↗ just says asphalt shingles - solar

2:16:26 ↗ shingles or mm-hmm I mean to say like a

2:16:30 ↗ long process has to go through PPC and

2:16:34 ↗ council yeah yeah well but is it would

2:16:36 ↗ that not be concurrent or congruent with

2:16:39 ↗ the development of the technology though

2:16:41 ↗ because my understanding is that that's

2:16:43 ↗ exactly where there are prototypes right

2:16:46 ↗ now that will be roofing materials of

2:16:49 ↗ various appearances that will be solar

2:16:53 ↗ panels so that as this as it as the

2:16:58 ↗ technology develops the city ought to be

2:17:02 ↗ able to go before they're planning the

2:17:04 ↗ PPC and say hey we want to we want to

2:17:07 ↗ adjust the the standards to be able to

2:17:11 ↗ allow an applicant to do something to

2:17:13 ↗ use this new technology yeah yeah along

2:17:18 ↗ the line you know when we start limiting

2:17:20 ↗ the designer to what's appropriate and

2:17:23 ↗ what is not you know I think we need to

2:17:25 ↗ remember that you don't want to tie

2:17:27 ↗ their hands too much it's a lot of solar

2:17:31 ↗ tiles they're coming in so a solar roof

2:17:34 ↗ tile or coming in - and you know if we

2:17:37 ↗ want to book ahead

2:17:38 ↗ something that we need to think about

2:17:43 ↗ final comments so if you have small

2:17:49 ↗ edits or things that you think about

2:17:51 ↗ later please feel free to email me all

2:17:53 ↗ right so I think it's a good time to

2:17:56 ↗ adjourn

2:17:56 ↗ Thanks thanks for your staff for did a

2:17:58 ↗ great job as good as I said the next I

2:18:01 ↗ just saw that that's come in so that'll

2:18:04 ↗ go out tomorrow you so you should get it

2:18:08 ↗ electronically tomorrow paper copy next

2:18:12 ↗ day or two

2:18:13 ↗ we're meeting next Wednesday Tuesday is

2:18:16 ↗ the council one and a half our work

2:18:19 ↗ session with other topics this is the

2:18:22 ↗ third topic of a three topic meaning on

2:18:26 ↗ on this as well so in case you're one

2:18:31 ↗ two nights in a row please feel free to

2:18:34 ↗ join us if we're not getting enough

2:18:36 ↗ summer school no exercise method thank

2:18:40 ↗ you

2:19:04 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF