Development Commission – Special Meeting · Wednesday, July 26, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

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

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Review of Draft Design Manual Chapter

Keith Niven, Economic Development and Development Services Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.5–93

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

i e w Rev 6 FT v. D R A 1 7 0 . 7.2

3260 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ Pop's me

0:11 ↗ and all right I think we're ready to get

0:15 ↗ started I'd like to bring to order the

0:17 ↗ special meeting to discuss the review of

0:19 ↗ design the draft design manual chapter 3

0:22 ↗ and there's I think process-wise what

0:28 ↗ I'd really like to do is have people ask

0:31 ↗ specific questions about about chapter 3

0:34 ↗ and once we get through the questions

0:37 ↗ and we'll provide some opportunity for

0:38 ↗ the public to make comment if there are

0:40 ↗ members of the public it looks like

0:41 ↗ there are and then we'll go back and we

0:43 ↗ may maybe have some time to talk about

0:46 ↗ our thoughts overall and where we're

0:48 ↗ going and how to squad that makes sense

0:51 ↗ so let's let's get started so I was just

0:58 ↗ going to UM be annoying and just remind

1:06 ↗ you of the meeting schedule let's see

1:11 ↗ where am i oh here we go

1:15 ↗ so we have tonight and we have next week

1:19 ↗ if we need it just so you know the

1:24 ↗ overall structure last night.they so we

1:27 ↗ can't get enough of this so we were at

1:30 ↗ council talking about this for several

1:31 ↗ hours last night you love lucy' and then

1:38 ↗ early in August will consolidate all the

1:41 ↗ comments and start working with krandall

1:45 ↗ or Angela to develop the final draft

1:48 ↗ which will then go through a fairly

1:50 ↗ standard format of PPC and then on to

1:53 ↗ councils with the PPC hearing in August

1:57 ↗ August 31st we hope that some of the

2:01 ↗ commissioners will come to that PPC

2:04 ↗ hearing we know that in the past it's

2:08 ↗ been really helpful for them to hear

2:09 ↗ from you and especially because this is

2:12 ↗ your tool I think it'll be a good

2:14 ↗ opportunity to help them understand how

2:16 ↗ this tool how you see this tool working

2:19 ↗ and you know staff is certainly happy to

2:22 ↗ explain that but I think it may mean

2:24 ↗ or coming from the Commission anyway the

2:29 ↗ goal is to have this adopted in October

2:34 ↗ okay I've got the draft here in case we

2:38 ↗ have edits that we want to write up but

2:40 ↗ we are open to the general comments

2:47 ↗ right that open up the board and see who

2:49 ↗ has comments questions we're just doing

2:53 ↗ questions if doing questions now I have

3:01 ↗ a general question on page 71 of 93 the

3:07 ↗ harmony the inappropriate paragraph I

3:11 ↗ know we talked a lot about prescriptive

3:13 ↗ verses kind of there's some gray area so

3:17 ↗ who has like the final call on you know

3:20 ↗ a developer comes in with a design that

3:23 ↗ is somewhere in that realm who has a

3:27 ↗ final call to say no that's not

3:29 ↗ appropriate for our community well in

3:32 ↗ central Issaquah interpretations live

3:35 ↗ with the director and then they could be

3:38 ↗ appealed I think that you're the

3:41 ↗ inappropriate list here is our good

3:44 ↗ performance standards in terms of it

3:47 ↗ tells you which is what you don't want

3:49 ↗ it to do but without an image and

3:52 ↗ without more maybe some more specifics I

3:56 ↗ think I understand your question

4:00 ↗ you know just how do we get better

4:01 ↗ clarity about that so I think we would

4:04 ↗ agree that that language needs to be

4:07 ↗ fine-tuned so it's clear what look-at-me

4:09 ↗ architects for me so can I offer another

4:12 ↗ answer to so for permits that come to

4:17 ↗ the Development Commission as the

4:19 ↗ decision body you guys are the final

4:21 ↗ decision so if you guys altima decide it

4:24 ↗ doesn't meet the intent of the

4:26 ↗ guidelines then that's the decision now

4:29 ↗ as lucy mentioned the applicant if they

4:31 ↗ disagree with that they can appeal that

4:32 ↗ to the city's Hearing Examiner then we

4:34 ↗ have another conversation about who's

4:35 ↗ right

4:36 ↗ right but not all permits come to the

4:40 ↗ Development Commission some are

4:41 ↗ administrative and in that case the

4:44 ↗ staff will be using this tool and we

4:46 ↗ will then be the final decision-maker

4:48 ↗ again unless it's appealed and then

4:50 ↗ ultimately that goes to the Hearing

4:51 ↗ Examiner for resolution Thank You

4:57 ↗ general question yeah with the exception

5:01 ↗ of the natural context and the usable

5:04 ↗ open space sections is the rest of this

5:06 ↗ chapter pretty specific to the urban

5:09 ↗ core style zone or does this apply to

5:12 ↗ all of central Issaquah page 60 says it

5:16 ↗ does apply to all of central Issaquah

5:18 ↗ and I'm thinking especially about the

5:20 ↗ things like block size and so on is our

5:24 ↗ assumption that that would apply to East

5:26 ↗ End of Gilman as well as right in the

5:28 ↗ middle of the urban core yes

5:36 ↗ can can you maybe explain this block

5:40 ↗ sighs I'm not sure I understand how that

5:44 ↗ was arrived at is it just based on

5:46 ↗ what's there already or I mean we're not

5:51 ↗ going to tear buildings down and now

5:53 ↗ start building blocks those dimensions

5:56 ↗ are we well I think as pop so we have

6:00 ↗ certain streets that are in place and

6:05 ↗ then we have the properties in between

6:11 ↗ we so I'm thinking about this from both

6:16 ↗ directions that you've asked this

6:17 ↗ question just from a planning

6:20 ↗ perspective there's a lot of research

6:22 ↗ about block size Portland has a like a

6:25 ↗ 200 square foot block I mean 200 feet on

6:29 ↗ the side Seattle has a slightly larger

6:32 ↗ block it's probably more like 220 by 250

6:38 ↗ and there's some square blocks and some

6:40 ↗ rectangular blocks it switches around

6:43 ↗ Westlake so I think that they're there

6:47 ↗ block sizes are based on that sort of

6:49 ↗ standard length there's a lot there's a

6:55 ↗ lot of research around why you want

6:57 ↗ frequent streets from a pedestrian

6:59 ↗ perspective from an economic perspective

7:02 ↗ so in terms of how you implement that as

7:07 ↗ even if you look at Central it's gone

7:10 ↗ now and I can pull up that map there is

7:12 ↗ a grid that kind of conceptual grid that

7:18 ↗ is overlaid and so there are absolutely

7:21 ↗ blocks that when they redevelop we would

7:24 ↗ expect a street to be built to further

7:26 ↗ subdivide and the sort of super blocks

7:29 ↗ that exist into smaller blocks okay if

7:36 ↗ that applies sounds like a wonderful

7:38 ↗ thing to do if you're opening an old

7:40 ↗ field and starting your own

7:41 ↗ because you got an existing system

7:44 ↗ already and I'm not sure how you get to

7:48 ↗ that standard block size with existing

7:51 ↗ you know if you're going to say we're

7:52 ↗ going to redevelop who blocks or you

7:56 ↗ know between two streets and then make a

7:58 ↗ developer put in an extra seat I guess

8:00 ↗ that's that's an extra Street I guess

8:02 ↗ it's okay it just seemed to me that I

8:04 ↗ didn't I didn't understand the basis

8:06 ↗ since blocks are already established

8:09 ↗ well right so if you look I'm not sure

8:15 ↗ that Crandall Aram Beulah would agree

8:17 ↗ with exactly this map so but I'm just

8:19 ↗ using it for discussion purposes but if

8:23 ↗ you look at this you can see for

8:25 ↗ instance in Pickering down near the Town

8:29 ↗ & Country even continuing into the

8:31 ↗ Commons they're showing a street grid

8:34 ↗ that is subdividing those blocks

8:36 ↗ sometimes where you have streets like

8:41 ↗ Gilman and maple and a mall and maple

8:45 ↗ that are already at a good spacing what

8:48 ↗ you're adding is further north-south

8:49 ↗ streets to shorten it because between SR

8:54 ↗ 912 there are no streets and that's like

8:56 ↗ twelve or fourteen hundred feet long and

8:58 ↗ so we're anticipating that there would

9:02 ↗ probably be two more streets that would

9:04 ↗ be built in there and but you are

9:07 ↗ highlighting Carl that the challenge

9:11 ↗ which is that what if it's only half of

9:16 ↗ the block that is being you know it's

9:19 ↗ the south side of the block where that

9:21 ↗ streets supposed to go through and

9:22 ↗ that's part of our negotiation and part

9:25 ↗ of what we come and talk about you know

9:27 ↗ with a larger project with the

9:28 ↗ Commission this is how we're thinking

9:30 ↗ about doing this incrementally it would

9:35 ↗ it apply to the rally development

9:37 ↗ agreement property so that block size

9:40 ↗ does not because they have their own

9:42 ↗ development agreement but they have they

9:45 ↗ have agreed to put those same streets in

9:47 ↗ okay so I mean this grid has some

9:51 ↗ reflection of their Street system but if

9:54 ↗ you look at there

9:55 ↗ in agreement they have shown those same

9:57 ↗ two extra streets being built right so

10:01 ↗ but you know to give you guys an example

10:03 ↗ of how this is playing out in real world

10:05 ↗ so the street that's the north-south one

10:09 ↗ just north of tivitz Park right where

10:11 ↗ the hand is so right now we've been

10:13 ↗ talking with the developer about doing a

10:15 ↗ transit oriented development right next

10:16 ↗ to the park-and-ride garage where the

10:18 ↗ Century Link maintenance yard is so if

10:21 ↗ you go out there and look there's no

10:23 ↗ street more South in between where

10:26 ↗ CenturyLink is and where cascade

10:28 ↗ Business Park is well plan shows a

10:31 ↗ street going in there so as we've been

10:33 ↗ talking to the developer about that site

10:35 ↗ they are planning to build enough of a

10:40 ↗ street to accommodate two-way traffic it

10:42 ↗ won't be a full Street section but what

10:44 ↗ we call half street improvements which

10:46 ↗ is two travel lanes and then the

10:47 ↗ sidewalk on their side that will go in

10:50 ↗ with that project assuming it moves all

10:52 ↗ the way forward so part of it is you set

10:55 ↗ the framework so that when these

10:57 ↗ development applications come in you

11:00 ↗ know what you're trying to get to now

11:01 ↗ there may be cases where it just doesn't

11:02 ↗ work right and we realize that but

11:05 ↗ without having a road map you don't know

11:07 ↗ what to ask for so part of it is you

11:10 ↗ know and I think part of the

11:12 ↗ conversation is is this map right or is

11:15 ↗ what Crandall arambula doing you know

11:17 ↗ which is actually a little bit of a

11:18 ↗ finer grain block size you know is that

11:21 ↗ the right the right size you know

11:23 ↗ because that sets the expectations for

11:26 ↗ the conversations we'll have with

11:27 ↗ developers as they come through and what

11:30 ↗ are what's shown that we would be

11:33 ↗ putting in or have put in with that fit

11:35 ↗ with the 240-foot pretty much because I

11:39 ↗ think so I haven't gone back to measure

11:41 ↗ this but the in central is quad you know

11:47 ↗ we require the through block passage

11:49 ↗ every 250 to 300 feet depending on

11:52 ↗ what's kind of what's generating it so

11:56 ↗ Crandall Randall is recommending some

11:59 ↗ different tools you know we would have

12:01 ↗ looked for a street that follows this

12:04 ↗ grid that's shown and if your block is

12:07 ↗ longer than 300 feet

12:09 ↗ every 250 at maximum 250 feet you have

12:12 ↗ to have a through block passage which is

12:15 ↗ a you know 10 foot wide walkway with I

12:18 ↗ don't know 10 feet on either side or 5

12:20 ↗ feet on either side they're looking at

12:23 ↗ something that's more substantial as

12:25 ↗ they're through block passage you know

12:27 ↗ it's I again we sent them a lot of edits

12:31 ↗ and I haven't had time to compare their

12:33 ↗ document to the edit but you know that

12:36 ↗ was one of our questions is is it 40

12:39 ↗ feet or 60 feet and how do we know which

12:41 ↗ one and is you know what's the genesis

12:44 ↗ of that but I think what you know

12:46 ↗ they're talking about is almost like a

12:48 ↗ street going through either the mixed

12:51 ↗ mode or the pedestrian bike only secured

12:59 ↗ you see on page 76 block access through

13:05 ↗ block passages pedestrian and bike only

13:10 ↗ on under the appropriate order points

13:15 ↗ there I think that's a great idea the

13:18 ↗ question that I have I said who is going

13:20 ↗ to maintain that there's maintenance of

13:25 ↗ the walks the landscape all that I could

13:30 ↗ is a thought there is that the

13:36 ↗ enhance or the owner individual owner

13:39 ↗ that's going to maintain it or is the

13:40 ↗ city going to maintain that my

13:43 ↗ expectation is that they're privately

13:45 ↗ maintains I don't think we've discussed

13:47 ↗ that yet so I mean I think that's a good

13:49 ↗ question to make sure it's clear in the

13:51 ↗ document now or is it a Association that

13:54 ↗ all the folks living in that walkway

13:56 ↗ that area have an association they pay

14:02 ↗ into them between two dimensions right

14:05 ↗ also under inappropriate items there he

14:10 ↗ talks about inappropriate storage area

14:14 ↗ and storage rooms and trash

14:16 ↗ enclosure shall not be fronting the

14:18 ↗ passage there so the thought is that

14:22 ↗ were with the tenants or the arguments

14:25 ↗ of those units where would they put

14:28 ↗ their trash I'm assuming it's maybe

14:33 ↗ merchants or probably um probably in an

14:37 ↗ alley or underground parking right well

14:42 ↗ that those are so those are great

14:44 ↗ choices alleys are the best because

14:48 ↗ they're meant to be serviced they're not

14:49 ↗ meant to be pedestrian oriented and so

14:52 ↗ they serve that really well and they're

14:55 ↗ in a garbage truck can easily access

14:57 ↗ that underground is very common because

15:00 ↗ a lot of these kinds of buildings have

15:02 ↗ chutes and so you put those in a central

15:05 ↗ location and comes down the thing is

15:07 ↗ then then what typically the garbage

15:10 ↗ truck typically can't go in there or

15:12 ↗ won't go in there and so what that means

15:15 ↗ is that they have some kind of cart and

15:17 ↗ they're use a sort of trolley system and

15:20 ↗ they pull them out that means we have to

15:22 ↗ have a staging location but I think that

15:26 ↗ I think I would agree with what they're

15:29 ↗ saying is the staging wouldn't be in the

15:32 ↗ through block passage since that's so

15:35 ↗ pedestrian in such a sort of gathering

15:36 ↗ spot

15:40 ↗ I had one thank you I didn't see

15:46 ↗ anything specifically about streets and

15:48 ↗ sidewalks like Lane wigs curb radius

15:53 ↗ sidewalks tree periodicity and so on is

15:56 ↗ that out of scope because that's public

15:58 ↗ or should that be part of this document

16:01 ↗ so Center so essentially the central

16:04 ↗ istic law standards will still exist so

16:07 ↗ if we look at so this chapter chapter 6

16:18 ↗ has street standards with Lane widths

16:23 ↗ and sidewalk wits and planting widths

16:25 ↗ and frequency of trees now they're so

16:30 ↗ you know there's six moratorium items

16:33 ↗ and one of the other moratorium items is

16:35 ↗ vertical mixed juice which is the idea

16:37 ↗ of having retail uses on the ground

16:40 ↗ floor and either office or residential

16:43 ↗ above Crandall Aram villa has a separate

16:47 ↗ contract working on specific design

16:51 ↗ standards and potentially locations for

16:54 ↗ for that and they may make some

16:56 ↗ recommendations that regarding wider you

17:00 ↗ know specific widths of sidewalks I

17:02 ↗ don't think it's significantly different

17:04 ↗ than what we have but I think they want

17:06 ↗ to ensure that there are certain widths

17:08 ↗ there to support the kinds of retail

17:10 ↗ restaurant uses that you're likely to

17:12 ↗ get in that ground floor area so that

17:17 ↗ may we haven't decided you know if they

17:20 ↗ want to make recommendations or set

17:22 ↗ specific standards you know will that be

17:25 ↗ another chapter in the design manual

17:27 ↗ will that be another section of the

17:30 ↗ central is Squa standards we're still

17:32 ↗ we're waiting to get the content settled

17:34 ↗ to figure out where some of these pieces

17:36 ↗ will live and so if this document is

17:40 ↗ still used could we have a reference

17:41 ↗ somewhere in block access that would

17:43 ↗ point to this and say that the standard

17:45 ↗ for lane width and so on is in this

17:47 ↗ document well if this if this design

17:50 ↗ manual is a chapter of central central

17:53 ↗ is squad then they've got

17:54 ↗ all those pieces there together so I but

17:57 ↗ the point that you're making is an

17:58 ↗ important one is just making sure that

18:01 ↗ as we move these forward making it clear

18:06 ↗ how those pieces work together and that

18:09 ↗ they are still linked we have a question

18:15 ↗ on page 80 of 93 under building edges

18:19 ↗ under inappropriate they say that more

18:24 ↗ than one upper floor setbacks that

18:26 ↗ create the wedding cake appearances you

18:31 ↗ know why they think that's a bad thing

18:34 ↗ inappropriate yeah okay I mean I could

18:40 ↗ speculate but I I well so I don't know

18:48 ↗ from an aesthetic perspective here's the

18:51 ↗ one thing I can say is from sort of uh

18:53 ↗ and and Kevin maybe or Ray maybe the

18:57 ↗ best people to answer this but you know

19:00 ↗ structurally it's complicated when you

19:02 ↗ set a part of a building back because

19:06 ↗ you've still got to carry that structure

19:07 ↗ down so it may be that there's just not

19:11 ↗ they don't see the value of having

19:15 ↗ multiple setbacks if you're setting back

19:18 ↗ 20-feet that may be sufficient to really

19:20 ↗ from the street perspective create the

19:23 ↗ perception of a four-story building even

19:26 ↗ though they're one to some number of

19:30 ↗ other stories above that and maybe

19:33 ↗ another speculation because I don't know

19:34 ↗ either but as but I haven't I've been

19:36 ↗ told I have an opinion on everything so

19:39 ↗ what I've heard them say is they want

19:42 ↗ all of this to be very purposeful so for

19:45 ↗ example if you're going to change

19:46 ↗ materials on the building facade it

19:48 ↗ should be purposeful and not seem random

19:50 ↗ right and so as you step back and you

19:53 ↗ typically do a step back for a number of

19:56 ↗ reasons one is you're trying to open up

19:58 ↗ a view corridor potentially but you're

20:01 ↗ also potentially trying to diminish the

20:03 ↗ height of the building by creating that

20:05 ↗ step back

20:06 ↗ and so maybe why they're suggesting not

20:10 ↗ the wedding cake is because I don't

20:13 ↗ think they see that that serves the same

20:16 ↗ purpose and it creates kind of multiple

20:19 ↗ planes which now you're trying to deal

20:20 ↗ with from an architecture and a facade

20:23 ↗ treatment so I don't know that that's

20:25 ↗ the answer but I think that might have

20:27 ↗ something to do with you know seeing two

20:30 ↗ bigger planes stepping back as opposed

20:32 ↗ to like a Legos is a better architecture

20:36 ↗ approach I don't know that it's

20:37 ↗ necessarily an urban design thing but it

20:39 ↗ seems to be in this chapter so we can

20:42 ↗ ask that question yeah okay I also have

20:45 ↗ the sense from that that they're really

20:47 ↗ talking about creating a space of

20:48 ↗ enclosure right an outdoor room because

20:51 ↗ people feel comfortable in that kind of

20:53 ↗ space and my sense was that multiple

20:56 ↗ setbacks just open up that room and you

20:58 ↗ don't have that space and I would agree

21:02 ↗ that you know that's what we're trying

21:03 ↗ to do this does open it up so you got

21:06 ↗ four storey and then you set back 20 why

21:09 ↗ not continue on and to limit that under

21:13 ↗ unappropriate I think that's a probably

21:16 ↗ good point that we should maybe bring it

21:18 ↗ up with video so these are great moments

21:21 ↗ where if we're all scratching our head

21:22 ↗ we need we need some more clarity right

21:25 ↗ yeah thank you um mr. chair Lucy on page

21:35 ↗ 79 under description right um it could I

21:41 ↗ just ask the commissioners because we

21:42 ↗ have two sets of page numbers on here

21:44 ↗ okay so either state 72 or you know 80

21:48 ↗ of eighty ninety three so that I I can

21:52 ↗ make sure I'm looking at the same place

21:53 ↗ you're actually referencing okay great

21:56 ↗ thank 79 of 93

21:58 ↗ okay thank you mm-hmm under description

22:02 ↗ this is the parking structure and lot

22:05 ↗ and I'm trying to understand under

22:08 ↗ description it says in no instance two

22:12 ↗ buildings we designed to promote and

22:14 ↗ ohto orientation i guess you know it's a

22:22 ↗ building structure and why do we have

22:23 ↗ that statement they just mean that

22:26 ↗ building should not be designed to

22:28 ↗ promote an auto orientation their family

22:31 ↗ why I mean it's a it's a parking

22:34 ↗ structure what's the so this is what

22:39 ↗ they're let me just pull it up so we're

22:41 ↗ all looking at the images I mean I can I

22:44 ↗ understand that we're not trying to

22:45 ↗ promote promote everybody from getting

22:48 ↗ out of their cars and stuff like that

22:50 ↗ but this is a parking structure and why

22:56 ↗ I don't think this is a parking

22:58 ↗ structure this the topic is parking

23:02 ↗ structures and lots but the gray the

23:05 ↗ gray some of that when they say parking

23:08 ↗ structure that maybe the parking that's

23:10 ↗ just at the ground floor for instance

23:12 ↗ with another kind of use above or even

23:16 ↗ if it is a parking structure that's

23:18 ↗ solely devoted while it's for the use of

23:23 ↗ cars we still want the parking

23:25 ↗ structures to support and enhance the

23:31 ↗ public realm for pedestrians so if we

23:35 ↗ were designing it for automobiles we

23:38 ↗ would put no screening on it we would we

23:42 ↗ wouldn't care if it was a surface

23:43 ↗ parking lot anywhere on the block and I

23:45 ↗ think what we're saying is that the way

23:48 ↗ you design those things you try we we

23:51 ↗ need to have it functional for

23:54 ↗ automobiles but we're not trying to be

23:56 ↗ oriented to automobiles

23:59 ↗ does that make more sense I don't like

24:03 ↗ speaking from both sides there

24:04 ↗ Mountaineer it's it's a building a

24:06 ↗ parking structure but we don't want it

24:09 ↗ to look like a parking structure and by

24:11 ↗ no means that we designed to promote

24:14 ↗ automotive orientation

24:19 ↗ it's a parking structure so it takes

24:22 ↗ time talking about parking structures

24:23 ↗ within buildings that have other uses in

24:28 ↗ them well but even not I mean so let's

24:29 ↗ take a couple examples so one would be

24:32 ↗ let's take the example of a drive-thru

24:34 ↗ right drive to is very Auto oriented

24:36 ↗ right because it's for a car you don't

24:38 ↗ most people don't walk up to a

24:40 ↗ drive-thru and so the question is is

24:42 ↗ where do you allow that drive-thru to be

24:44 ↗ if it's an auto oriented design you put

24:48 ↗ that drive-thru out on the street you

24:50 ↗ want everybody to be able to get in and

24:51 ↗ out as quickly as possible in their car

24:53 ↗ if it's pedestrian oriented you put that

24:56 ↗ drive-thru on the back side of the

24:57 ↗ building so that the street can still

25:00 ↗ have an orientation to the sidewalk so

25:02 ↗ that people feel comfortable walking

25:04 ↗ into it and you don't have to walk

25:06 ↗ across a drive aisle right to get to the

25:09 ↗ door so that's that's not a parking

25:11 ↗ garage but similarly with a parking

25:13 ↗ garage

25:13 ↗ if I wanted to design the most easy

25:16 ↗ access parking garage I'd put a driveway

25:19 ↗ on every every Street right I'd put I'd

25:22 ↗ make put big signs and say here's my

25:24 ↗ parking garage and I'd make it as Lucy

25:26 ↗ said open so you can see it from

25:28 ↗ anywhere what we want to do with parking

25:31 ↗ garages is we want to be purposeful for

25:33 ↗ where those access points are so that

25:36 ↗ they don't put a driveway on every

25:38 ↗ street because every time there's a

25:39 ↗ driveway there's an opportunity for a

25:41 ↗ pedestrian and a vehicle to have a

25:42 ↗ conflict point right so part of it is

25:45 ↗ being thoughtful for where those

25:46 ↗ driveways are part of it is putting the

25:49 ↗ appropriate screening down at the street

25:51 ↗ level so that when you walk past it

25:53 ↗ you're not just feeling like I'm walking

25:55 ↗ past a huge surface parking lot in a

25:57 ↗ building right it's nice when the

25:59 ↗ architecture actually has some plantings

26:02 ↗ and some screenings and some other

26:03 ↗ things so as you walk past you don't

26:05 ↗ feel like this is a dead zone and I just

26:07 ↗ need to walk as fast as I can to get

26:09 ↗ past this building so I think I think

26:12 ↗ even though the function is is car

26:14 ↗ oriented I think the design of the

26:17 ↗ building is trying to be more pedestrian

26:20 ↗ friendly and you know thinking about how

26:24 ↗ it intersects with our desire to have a

26:27 ↗ fit

26:27 ↗ and walkable downtown you don't have to

26:34 ↗ buy that a lot of just made it all I'm

26:36 ↗ just thinking it was really this and

26:39 ↗ it's a parking structure yet we're

26:42 ↗ telling the description is that we are

26:45 ↗ not promoting Auto orientation so why

26:50 ↗ did we build the parking garage listen I

26:52 ↗ build it and then that takes care of it

26:54 ↗ but if we're going to do it that's fine

26:57 ↗ then let's just say that you know try to

27:00 ↗ limit the access to the structure or or

27:04 ↗ screen it or I mean there are a lot of

27:07 ↗ screening and stuff like that on

27:10 ↗ building edges in silicon which I agree

27:13 ↗ it's just that I don't quite agree with

27:15 ↗ that statement it says you know we're

27:18 ↗ building a parking structure but by no

27:21 ↗ means should it be by no means are we

27:26 ↗ promoting Auto orientation right I think

27:29 ↗ Keith Keith did a good job of

27:31 ↗ summarizing and though when he said that

27:32 ↗ what what if what they were really

27:33 ↗ trying to do is minimize minimize the

27:37 ↗ appearance you know make it look

27:38 ↗ pedestrian friendly and so if you go

27:40 ↗ down into the inappropriate it says

27:42 ↗ inappropriate or multiple driveways curb

27:44 ↗ cuts or access points along a single

27:46 ↗ punished consider consolidation and that

27:48 ↗ that's kind of what that sends yeah and

27:50 ↗ so maybe which is changing to say

27:52 ↗ something that affected you know

27:54 ↗ disguise it so that it looks like a

27:56 ↗ theater or looks like the neighborhood

27:59 ↗ it does not look like a auto parking

28:02 ↗ garage I said I've got a question on on

28:08 ↗ page 89 of 93 and the fabrics so it's

28:18 ↗ only canvas no synthetic materials and I

28:23 ↗ don't know enough about awnings at all

28:24 ↗ to know if most awnings are canvas or

28:29 ↗ they're either that's glass metal so

28:34 ↗ there's other choices I mean right um

28:37 ↗ canvas

28:39 ↗ is it is a material that you find I mean

28:42 ↗ it's not the most durable but it has a

28:46 ↗ nice quality with light coming through

28:48 ↗ it and then there they also do mention

28:55 ↗ you know the metal canopy so you do see

28:58 ↗ I think glass is another good material I

29:01 ↗ mean there's some downsides to glass

29:03 ↗ because it needs to be clean so it

29:05 ↗ doesn't look junky from above but the

29:10 ↗ vinyl tends to be the sort of

29:12 ↗ inexpensive big sign kind of feels like

29:16 ↗ it's been shrink wrapped and so I think

29:20 ↗ that's probably what they're trying to

29:23 ↗ move away from is there are there other

29:26 ↗ synthetic materials besides vinyl though

29:29 ↗ that are use on ships okay working on is

29:34 ↗ stuff that they use on ships it's not

29:37 ↗ canvas but it's not vinyl but it's a

29:41 ↗ synthetic material lasts a long time

29:43 ↗ holds up to sunlight all the things that

29:47 ↗ are bad protects against and I don't I

29:52 ↗ had the same question if you seem canvas

29:54 ↗ isn't very long-lasting not to mention

29:59 ↗ the fact that in this environment canvas

30:01 ↗ is organic and has mold and all that

30:03 ↗ other stuff grows on it

30:05 ↗ well synthetics don't do that right and

30:08 ↗ also there's a couple of different

30:11 ↗ purposes for canopies and I think what

30:14 ↗ you're highlighting Carl is an important

30:16 ↗ distinction like canvas would probably

30:19 ↗ be more for shade in the summer glass

30:23 ↗ and metal is probably more of a wet wet

30:27 ↗ weather protection and so it would be

30:31 ↗ helpful to understand some of that if

30:34 ↗ they're thinking about that it's not

30:36 ↗ that that you don't use canvas in wet

30:38 ↗ weather situations but you're right

30:40 ↗ those are some of the downsides so

30:42 ↗ that's a good question will for you and

30:44 ↗ one of the comments from the council

30:46 ↗ last night which I thought was really

30:47 ↗ good as it relates to weather protection

30:50 ↗ is somehow addressing how where you do

30:54 ↗ have weather protection if the purpose

30:55 ↗ is for all weather outdoor pedestrian

30:59 ↗ comfort a lot of times as you see from

31:02 ↗ the top photo what's underneath the

31:04 ↗ canopy is tables and chairs and so if

31:07 ↗ you're walking you're out from

31:08 ↗ underneath the canopy so it was a great

31:10 ↗ comment I'm not sure how you deal with

31:12 ↗ it because we want the tables and chairs

31:14 ↗ on the sidewalk but if they're under the

31:16 ↗ canopy then you're walking out in the

31:18 ↗ unprotected area so I thought it was a

31:20 ↗ great point and I think it's something

31:22 ↗ we have to think about as we put a finer

31:25 ↗ tune on this we've generally required

31:27 ↗ deeper canopies the other thing about

31:30 ↗ four feet is if it's I think they let it

31:33 ↗ go up to you

31:34 ↗ well twelve feet in height I'm doing

31:38 ↗ this from memory four feet up at 12 feet

31:41 ↗ up in the air doesn't provide much

31:43 ↗ weather protection so I think the other

31:46 ↗ piece is to look at depths that what

31:52 ↗ we've done is looked at depths related

31:54 ↗ to the height at which they're located

31:55 ↗ and having a maximum height because

31:57 ↗ there's a point at which the canopy is

32:00 ↗ really just an architectural feature

32:02 ↗ it's no longer weather protection and so

32:05 ↗ trying to figure out you know what is an

32:07 ↗ appropriate range so the four feet is

32:11 ↗ another good question to follow up onto

32:14 ↗ another question on page 91 of 93 under

32:18 ↗ urban parks were appropriate accessible

32:21 ↗ parts within three blocks of all

32:23 ↗ residents so they see I did a set a

32:26 ↗ standard that people develop property

32:30 ↗ they have to make sure they create works

32:32 ↗ in net and then and then the question

32:36 ↗ the other question is would the city

32:38 ↗ parks department have us want to have

32:41 ↗ some kind of say in this in terms of how

32:42 ↗ many parks they want to maintain the day

32:45 ↗ I got this I handed those pages right

32:47 ↗ and I know they have some thoughts I

32:50 ↗ think they were happy to see these pages

32:52 ↗ in there I think they were interested in

32:54 ↗ having some some you know the the parks

32:58 ↗ that they've picked a show in here are

33:00 ↗ the crown jewels of the Pearl District

33:02 ↗ in Portland it

33:03 ↗ jameson square and tanner spring and we

33:05 ↗ would be very lucky to have that quality

33:07 ↗ of park in our city but those are full

33:11 ↗ block parks that serve a large district

33:15 ↗ so i think part of the question is

33:18 ↗ minimum size maximum size frequency you

33:22 ↗ know if we're trying to do something

33:23 ↗ within three blocks which would be great

33:25 ↗ you know I mean having something within

33:27 ↗ a ten minute walk if you're going to be

33:30 ↗ denser and more urban is appropriate but

33:34 ↗ are those part of a project that are

33:38 ↗ then shared by the community are those

33:40 ↗ things that the city's providing good

33:43 ↗ questions I just don't I think we just

33:45 ↗ need to spend a little more time

33:47 ↗ understanding both with the parks

33:49 ↗ department and crandle Randal how to

33:51 ↗ sort of help set a framework that and

33:56 ↗ understand what they're suggesting and

33:58 ↗ what we think we can do right Thank You

34:03 ↗ mr. chair Lucy getting back to the

34:06 ↗ canopy again I guess I didn't I don't

34:10 ↗ think we want to limit the designer when

34:12 ↗ they come in

34:12 ↗ you know what can be provided what not

34:14 ↗ to be provided and and I read the

34:18 ↗ unappropriate this year oddly sized form

34:23 ↗ what does that mean no and the other

34:27 ↗ thing is oversize advertising for tennis

34:30 ↗ and I can see the example there but is

34:33 ↗ that what we really want we don't want

34:36 ↗ the commercial folks that have their

34:38 ↗ signs up there what happens if the guy

34:42 ↗ comes in with a canopy that slopes

34:44 ↗ towards the building is that an oddly

34:47 ↗ sized form you know glass going back

34:54 ↗ into the building so sloped towards the

34:56 ↗ building so the water gets into building

34:58 ↗ and then there's a downspout on the side

35:00 ↗ that goes down instead of sloping away

35:03 ↗ from the building word you know then

35:05 ↗ that's where all the rain the water drop

35:08 ↗ flying would be so an African coming in

35:11 ↗ with a canopy going the opposite

35:14 ↗ direction and said it

35:15 ↗ oddly sized form that we don't allow so

35:22 ↗ I guess you know I think we need to be

35:24 ↗ careful on what you put on that

35:27 ↗ inappropriate list and just let the

35:30 ↗ architect have some creativity to design

35:33 ↗ something and yet still within our

35:35 ↗ jurisdiction or reminisces know this is

35:39 ↗ not good now this is not what we mean

35:41 ↗ that kind of thing so in my mind right

35:45 ↗ now I don't know what odd besides form

35:47 ↗ means so judging by the page I would say

35:54 ↗ that the blue awning at the bottom is

35:56 ↗ considered an oddly sized form it's not

35:58 ↗ excited shaped oddly shaped and what the

36:01 ↗ attentive shape urban design thing is

36:04 ↗ you have a consistency and not have one

36:07 ↗ thing stand out to draw attention away

36:09 ↗ from everything else yeah that would be

36:11 ↗ an oddly shaped form yeah odd maybe your

36:15 ↗ interpretation that's an odd-looking

36:17 ↗ therapy to me I said no it's not not

36:20 ↗ it's okay I mean it's up for

36:23 ↗ interpretation absolutely and so by but

36:26 ↗ that's putting this category into the

36:28 ↗ inappropriate I think we need to be

36:30 ↗ careful to identify make sure that this

36:34 ↗ is what we want I mean I've seen I'm

36:38 ↗ sure everybody seemed canopy buildings

36:41 ↗ with slopes towards the building we said

36:43 ↗ an odd shape and one do you think they

36:46 ↗ make a provision for that here with

36:48 ↗ horizontal metal canopies and what that

36:50 ↗ implies is that will that will be that

36:53 ↗ type of canopy it would slow back little

36:56 ↗ a new piece injures a boat I get your

37:01 ↗ point

37:01 ↗ I guess I would ask isn't that isn't

37:03 ↗ that our job to then interpret what's

37:06 ↗ oddly shaped at the time it's presented

37:08 ↗ to us as long as we've outlined some

37:12 ↗ performance standard but I again you

37:15 ↗ know thinking that as a designer coming

37:17 ↗ in when he looks at this he says wow

37:20 ↗ oddly shaped forms is inappropriate I'm

37:24 ↗ not going to design my my putting on a

37:28 ↗ designer cap

37:29 ↗ I would say well I've been limited my my

37:31 ↗ creativity and just go with the regular

37:34 ↗ slope away from the building

37:35 ↗ that should get disapproved so let's use

37:38 ↗ the blue canopy as an example right so I

37:41 ↗ look at it and I see no relationship of

37:44 ↗ that canopy to the architecture of the

37:45 ↗ building so I'm going to call it odd

37:47 ↗ right and so let's assume I convince you

37:50 ↗ all that it is odd and we put a red

37:53 ↗ check on the worksheet and we say you

37:55 ↗ know what you've gotten you don't you're

37:57 ↗ not meeting this you know this

37:59 ↗ requirement because you have an oddly

38:00 ↗ shaped canopy the applicant has an

38:03 ↗ opportunity to tell us and convince us

38:05 ↗ no that's not oddly shaped it looks like

38:08 ↗ a big sombrero because I sell sombreros

38:10 ↗ I mean you know what I mean

38:12 ↗ so there's an opportunity I think for

38:14 ↗ them to explain and convince you as the

38:18 ↗ decision-makers that maybe we got it

38:20 ↗ wrong but you know because we're filling

38:22 ↗ out the checklist based on what we can

38:24 ↗ get from their application and they may

38:26 ↗ or may not have given us enough

38:28 ↗ information to have maybe taken a

38:31 ↗ different take on that canopy but

38:32 ↗ without any other information I think we

38:36 ↗ all probably have an opinion on whether

38:37 ↗ we think that blue canopy is oddly

38:39 ↗ shaped or not and that starts our

38:42 ↗ conversation here about does that meet

38:45 ↗ the intent of the design manual or not

38:46 ↗ you guys will then land in a certain

38:49 ↗ place based on some staff input because

38:51 ↗ we will have done a staff report for you

38:53 ↗ to consider and then the applicant gets

38:55 ↗ an opportunity to say okay I see you

38:57 ↗ gave me a red checker let me let me tell

38:59 ↗ you about that canopy and maybe that we

39:02 ↗ all go you go yeah I get it now it's a

39:04 ↗ great design we're totally into it yeah

39:07 ↗ selling hair oh and I understand where

39:09 ↗ you're coming from people but at the

39:11 ↗ same time I think we should give them a

39:12 ↗ lot of encouragement to come in with

39:14 ↗ different design and not just limit them

39:16 ↗ to this is how the design looks like go

39:19 ↗ look at the appropriate list don't look

39:21 ↗ at the if you look at if you come in

39:23 ↗ with underly an inappropriate list we're

39:27 ↗ going to have a long discussion and by

39:29 ↗ in his design he's got a lot of things

39:31 ↗ that he needs to get approval and this

39:33 ↗ is just another thing that he has to

39:36 ↗ argue or defend you know he's just going

39:41 ↗ to go with

39:42 ↗ the regular canopy you know it's cheaper

39:45 ↗ you know more regular and it's

39:49 ↗ appropriate and I know as a designer

39:51 ↗ putting on a hat designer I know the

39:53 ↗ city will prove it I don't need to come

39:55 ↗ up with something more creative that

39:57 ↗ looks different looks good I don't need

40:00 ↗ to do that I don't need to fight this

40:01 ↗ battle

40:02 ↗ I have other battles by the city so I

40:07 ↗ guess I just don't want to either

40:10 ↗ hands-on creativity I by locking them

40:15 ↗ down to you know things that it seems

40:20 ↗ like you know we need to release them

40:22 ↗ and have their great creativity to come

40:24 ↗ in and give us some good designs but

40:27 ↗ it's in fact the issue that we're facing

40:29 ↗ yes yes personally I kind of like this

40:33 ↗ paragraph I think of you district

40:36 ↗ driving down the abbé when I think it

40:38 ↗ went to see the vinyls in the oddly

40:40 ↗ shape

40:41 ↗ I'll definitely what kids you know we're

40:43 ↗ not talking to building we're just

40:44 ↗ talking about pretty much signage and

40:46 ↗ just an awning so I actually like that

40:51 ↗ we're not allowing vinyl or oddly shaped

40:53 ↗ awnings honor our streets and actually I

40:58 ↗ might go I'm iTAC Chua Lee put on

41:00 ↗ another requirement that maybe we

41:02 ↗ proposed color restrictions

41:04 ↗ maybe you can't have very you know like

41:06 ↗ we did with the buildings you can't have

41:08 ↗ a very bright blue or something like

41:09 ↗ that maybe they have to be toned down

41:12 ↗ and so I I think we're moving into

41:15 ↗ comments as opposed to a question so

41:18 ↗ let's those are good it's good

41:19 ↗ discussion but let's hold off and get

41:21 ↗ our questions answered first and then

41:22 ↗ we'll move into more substantive time

41:25 ↗ for comments question general is it

41:31 ↗ should we include any guidance on

41:33 ↗ building height here not necessarily

41:36 ↗ what maximum height of a building might

41:38 ↗ be what guidance regarding building

41:41 ↗ heights related to the enclosure section

41:43 ↗ for example where should a high-rise go

41:46 ↗ versus a low-rise building that kind of

41:49 ↗ thing should it be consistent building

41:51 ↗ height within blocks or is that a pro

41:55 ↗ grid for some other standard so I think

42:03 ↗ that an interesting question I think

42:10 ↗ that because they've established I'm not

42:14 ↗ quite sure which page the enclosure is

42:15 ↗ on so I'm doing this from this eighty of

42:18 ↗ ninety-three it looks like you right

42:25 ↗ they basically established you know if

42:30 ↗ you're setting back after four floors

42:32 ↗ then you're basically establishing a

42:35 ↗ street experience of no more than four

42:39 ↗ stories and so and then we also have the

42:47 ↗ styles that have certain height maximums

42:51 ↗ and so I think between the two what

42:54 ↗ you're going to end up with is a

42:57 ↗ character that's going to be

42:59 ↗ predominantly four stories long streets

43:01 ↗ okay so where would a high-rise be

43:04 ↗ permitted in this in the urban core so

43:07 ↗ Hagen went nine to ten stories there

43:09 ↗ something like that hundred twenty

43:11 ↗ five-foot building right so you know in

43:14 ↗ Vancouver for instance you have a sort

43:19 ↗ of two three-story podium with a taller

43:23 ↗ structure behind that some of them are

43:27 ↗ probably 15 or 20 stories and so I'm not

43:31 ↗ saying that this is intended to emulate

43:33 ↗ Vancouver I think they have a different

43:36 ↗ they're putting out a different vision

43:39 ↗ for is quoi but I think in that sense

43:41 ↗ that if you're setting back 20 feet

43:45 ↗ above four storeys then you are going to

43:49 ↗ generally from the street perceive a

43:51 ↗ four-story building even if it's much

43:55 ↗ taller yeah I guess behind my question

43:58 ↗ is some concern I've heard from the

43:59 ↗ community about high-rises and how they

44:01 ↗ might be integrated into central

44:03 ↗ Issaquah and so on

44:08 ↗ so are you suggesting are you trying to

44:11 ↗ talk about changes to the actual heights

44:13 ↗ or are you trying to talk about how to

44:16 ↗ handle the heights that are allowed

44:18 ↗ right the ladder that could we have some

44:21 ↗ guidance in this document that would

44:23 ↗ discuss that especially because say on

44:25 ↗ this page 80 of 93 right there talking

44:28 ↗ about the whole idea of enclosure within

44:30 ↗ blocks and to have that consistent and

44:32 ↗ so on and it just occurred to me well

44:34 ↗ would you allow a high-rise building

44:36 ↗ within that would you allow two storey

44:38 ↗ building within that if so where is your

44:40 ↗ idea of enclosure right because there

44:45 ↗ would be a block of uneven Heights it

44:48 ↗ would be the opposite of enclosure

44:49 ↗ I don't know that uneven Heights are I

44:53 ↗ think that probably the gaps in the

44:55 ↗ street wall are more impactful than

44:58 ↗ uneven Heights would sit within a

45:01 ↗ certain range right and but similar kind

45:04 ↗ of effect yeah right so I think that the

45:06 ↗ you know the one two three four stories

45:10 ↗ is not I mean I think we're going to

45:13 ↗ keep getting a lot of one storey

45:15 ↗ buildings just because to justify

45:17 ↗ redevelopment you're going to have to

45:19 ↗ get more development on the site to pay

45:21 ↗ for it so we're probably looking at a

45:23 ↗ street that feels like it's two to four

45:26 ↗ storeys and so I'm not sure that a

45:32 ↗ consistent height will be the key as

45:35 ↗ much as a consistent street wall I don't

45:39 ↗ know if that answers your question I

45:41 ↗ guess the concern still remains about

45:43 ↗ where are we going to permit 12 storey

45:45 ↗ buildings do we have any guidance for

45:47 ↗ example to do that at all in this

45:49 ↗ document or elsewhere yes okay I mean

45:53 ↗ the central is squad standards have

45:55 ↗ height limits in them right right

45:57 ↗ so that would mean that buildings would

45:59 ↗ occur anywhere within central Issyk wall

46:01 ↗ because it has high limit of 125 feet

46:03 ↗ what did you say so so there's not in so

46:06 ↗ to clarify when Lucas had not in the

46:08 ↗ design manual there's not you know so so

46:11 ↗ the architectural piece has some

46:13 ↗ limitations on architectural styles

46:16 ↗ based on height and we uncovered that

46:18 ↗ week ago that's just a week ago and so

46:21 ↗ but for urban design and I think the

46:24 ↗ point that Richards making is you know

46:26 ↗ right now the code so now we're going

46:29 ↗ from design manual to code the code or

46:32 ↗ the zoning standards for Central

46:33 ↗ Issaquah have a maximum building height

46:35 ↗ based on the zone whether it's the core

46:38 ↗ or the mixed use area it's got a certain

46:40 ↗ limit of height and whether you

46:42 ↗ incorporate the density bonus or not

46:44 ↗ gives you the ability even go higher I

46:47 ↗ would say that although this is this is

46:50 ↗ developing design issues like enclosure

46:53 ↗ and street wall if I had a piece of

46:56 ↗ property and I wanted to put a 10-story

46:58 ↗ building and I mean the core could do

47:00 ↗ that I have to pick the right

47:02 ↗ architecture which if I'm in the core

47:04 ↗ it's north west contemporary but I could

47:08 ↗ do that on any block with any

47:10 ↗ surrounding land use based on the

47:13 ↗ current what's in front of us now okay

47:17 ↗ so if there's if there is a conversation

47:19 ↗ that the Commission wants to have about

47:21 ↗ building heights and maximum building

47:23 ↗ height that that may be relevant but may

47:26 ↗ not be relevant to this particular tool

47:28 ↗ but that could be again a comment that

47:31 ↗ gets conveyed back to the council as

47:33 ↗ just a parking lot thing for the city to

47:37 ↗ deal with maybe in a different venue I

47:39 ↗ don't know I don't know that that

47:41 ↗ conversation is not going to happen

47:42 ↗ somewhere soon it just may not be

47:45 ↗ associated with the architecture and

47:47 ↗ urban design manual for central is a

47:48 ↗ clock so I don't that's not a very

47:52 ↗ satisfactory answer but it's it's the

47:55 ↗ one I've got

47:55 ↗ Thanks add sounds like it's a little out

47:57 ↗ of scope of the organ design manual

47:58 ↗ right now and that probably more like

48:00 ↗ the central looser coil and development

48:02 ↗ design I think it's so if I was if I was

48:05 ↗ going to choose to give a developer a

48:08 ↗ clear understanding of what he can and

48:10 ↗ can't do I'd tackle it there and not in

48:13 ↗ here because this is more this is more

48:17 ↗ cakes and frosting that's more main

48:20 ↗ course more prescriptive indeed but I

48:23 ↗ mean you're also bringing up an

48:25 ↗ important point is that these pieces are

48:27 ↗ not unrelated

48:30 ↗ on that same page Lucy on page 80 of 93

48:33 ↗ on the description it says upper floors

48:36 ↗ before shall be set back 20 feet so do

48:41 ↗ they mean it has to be exactly 20 feet

48:44 ↗ or did they intend to say at least 20

48:47 ↗ feet and provide some leeway or do you

48:52 ↗ should ask you what you think they

48:54 ↗ thought that way it's written it sounds

48:58 ↗ like it has to be 20 feet yeah all cases

49:02 ↗ I'm not doing a very good driving this

49:06 ↗ document as I try and move through it

49:08 ↗ I'm sorry I see it flash fine yeah I

49:15 ↗ think that's a great question no I don't

49:17 ↗ know the answer I've asked that the

49:21 ↗ intent is that 19 feet 11 and 20 feet 1

49:27 ↗ are both unacceptable but it's a good

49:30 ↗ question I mean the door the 25 right

49:33 ↗ you see a minimum but having that is the

49:36 ↗ maximum - that sounds strange yeah they

49:40 ↗ make the same reference on page 83 of 93

49:46 ↗ also that provides under descriptions is

49:53 ↗ provided 20 foot setback

49:57 ↗ and on

50:01 ↗ and then the question mr. chair on that

50:06 ↗ I have on page 83 of 93 in addition to

50:10 ↗ that 20 foot setback on the first

50:12 ↗ paragraph it says that the building

50:14 ↗ adjacent the natural area shall be

50:16 ↗ setback is there a definition of how far

50:21 ↗ setback is this is a budding natural

50:27 ↗ areas so the first floor first four

50:31 ↗ floors should be set back the question

50:35 ↗ that I have found we know how far they

50:38 ↗ should sit back well or is there ever

50:46 ↗ there's a baggy so that back above so

50:48 ↗ this debt back building it up at the 20

50:51 ↗ feet yeah he's 21 so what they're saying

50:53 ↗ is so so for the face of the building

50:56 ↗ that's next to the creek you have the

50:58 ↗ building face and then above four floors

51:00 ↗ you have to step it back 20 feet and we

51:04 ↗ got to unpack that and figure out if

51:06 ↗ that's magic in any way because the idea

51:09 ↗ there is again you want to open up that

51:13 ↗ natural corridor to get more light more

51:15 ↗ Sun all that kind of stuff and not just

51:17 ↗ have a bunch of flat building walls

51:19 ↗ against it you know plus part of this

51:22 ↗ concept is treating those as amenities

51:25 ↗ for public interface and so you know you

51:30 ↗ know trails we we sat down with them and

51:35 ↗ one of our bigger employers in town

51:37 ↗ yesterday and talked about one of the

51:40 ↗ proposed buildings that's going to come

51:42 ↗ to you guys soon and how they're

51:44 ↗ treating their adjacency to Issaquah

51:48 ↗ Creek and I think it was trail and

51:51 ↗ creating public spaces on that side of

51:55 ↗ the project is as important that's how

51:57 ↗ they relate to the street so I think I

52:00 ↗ think what they're saying here is that

52:02 ↗ step back on that natural edge not only

52:06 ↗ doesn't give you such a rigid urban form

52:09 ↗ next to the natural amenity because that

52:13 ↗ then become

52:13 ↗ very abrupt but it also then allows for

52:16 ↗ more Sun and wind and everything else to

52:18 ↗ get into that space and you're using the

52:19 ↗ same sort of scale techniques in both

52:22 ↗ areas where you're anticipating

52:23 ↗ pedestrians I understand that but if you

52:26 ↗ read the two paragraphs you know if you

52:30 ↗ read the two paragraphs to me it says

52:33 ↗ the first four floors has to be set back

52:38 ↗ and it doesn't say how far so where are

52:41 ↗ you reading that right because I have a

52:42 ↗ big eighty-three now I'm reading on 83

52:45 ↗ so it says a guideline is in description

52:47 ↗ if you read the two paragraph buildings

52:50 ↗ adjacent to natural areas it doesn't say

52:52 ↗ shall be set back it says shall be

52:55 ↗ stepped back so what that means is that

52:59 ↗ treatment of stepping back upper floors

53:01 ↗ is that's what they're talking about

53:03 ↗ they're not saying set back they're

53:05 ↗ saying it'll be stepped back well

53:07 ↗ actually what they're if you look under

53:11 ↗ description the second sentence where

53:13 ↗ I'm sort of pointing provided 20 foot

53:16 ↗ setback for all floors above the fourth

53:20 ↗ floor so I think wherever you're placing

53:23 ↗ those first four floors then you would

53:26 ↗ have 20 feet exactly and then go up

53:31 ↗ additional floors if they're present

53:34 ↗ okay so the question that I have is that

53:36 ↗ to clarify what you just said Kevin is

53:39 ↗ that the first four floors can be up

53:43 ↗ against where the property line is for

53:45 ↗ natural areas I know but but that would

53:50 ↗ also you would have setbacks from the

53:53 ↗ code anyway we already govern that so um

53:57 ↗ would be regular say that it may be that

54:00 ↗ something may need to clarify there's a

54:02 ↗ sit back right so there's an so back to

54:04 ↗ the table we saw earlier on building

54:07 ↗ heights also has step backs yeah

54:11 ↗ setbacks if it's a critical area that's

54:14 ↗ a different thing but if it's just a

54:16 ↗ natural amenity

54:18 ↗ [Music]

54:20 ↗ sorry I think Oh actually if you look at

54:24 ↗ page 70 let me see if I can get that up

54:28 ↗ here on 69 they have them and no 60 I'm

54:40 ↗ sorry

54:40 ↗ 70 of 93 which is page 62 that's they

54:51 ↗ are describing

54:53 ↗ I think the page that you're looking at

54:56 ↗ ray is relevant but it needs to be

55:00 ↗ combined with this natural context page

55:03 ↗ and the map on the page before and that

55:06 ↗ there are a number of a number of

55:10 ↗ actions that are necessary and as both

55:14 ↗ Connie and Keith pointed out critical

55:17 ↗ areas themselves have a required buffer

55:20 ↗ and then another building setback area

55:22 ↗ so you couldn't be right on the either

55:26 ↗ the buffer or the critical area yeah

55:28 ↗ but further they're asking for you know

55:31 ↗ so if you look at and I completely agree

55:35 ↗ with you everything needs to be numbered

55:37 ↗ so that we are not pointing at bullets

55:40 ↗ visually like bullets better but I've

55:43 ↗ learned the hard way that that doesn't

55:44 ↗ that makes it hard to write staff

55:47 ↗ reports and have conversations but on

55:49 ↗ the fourth bullet under appropriate

55:51 ↗ public access walkways between regulated

55:55 ↗ Creek or wetland open space and the

55:57 ↗ building frontage so the intent is to

55:59 ↗ get people into these areas and so you

56:04 ↗ know that may be part of a it may be

56:10 ↗ part of the building setback area which

56:13 ↗ can have something like a you know a

56:16 ↗ paved trail but it's beginning to give

56:23 ↗ some breathing room I guess between the

56:25 ↗ critical area and the building well all

56:27 ↗ that I'm saying

56:29 ↗ is that you know on page 83 that set

56:33 ↗ backwards you step back I think we maybe

56:35 ↗ we need some clarification on that

56:37 ↗ because first paragraph says sit back

56:41 ↗ and then the second paragraph has said

56:43 ↗ anything above four floors shall be set

56:47 ↗ back

56:48 ↗ I think the second paragraph should say

56:51 ↗ step back with that 20 feet step back

56:55 ↗ but on the first paragraph you should

56:57 ↗ say sit back okay so I think they have

57:02 ↗ it right right I think I have a right I

57:05 ↗ think they need a step is go up and it

57:09 ↗ steps back right and they're going to

57:11 ↗ say that step that step back has to be

57:13 ↗ set back 20 feet so 20 feet should hear

57:16 ↗ you sit back we'll fix the language I

57:20 ↗ mean we could just say should be

57:21 ↗ terrorists or stuff okay question mr.

57:29 ↗ chair hung on page 82 of 93 under us

57:41 ↗ sorry sorry sorry page 86 12 93 86 of 93

57:54 ↗ under inappropriate we're not allowing

58:01 ↗ or it's inappropriate have blue-tinted

58:04 ↗ reflective in other opaque materials or

58:06 ↗ treatment why is that and it's the same

58:14 ↗ thing on page 87 also they say glazing a

58:18 ↗ distant that isn't appropriate

58:20 ↗ reflective in other opaque material and

58:23 ↗ the rationale is behind that well we

58:25 ↗ want generally we want i think they

58:28 ↗ added the word blue because we had

58:29 ↗ questions there are certain kinds of

58:32 ↗ tinting that goes into windows that's

58:34 ↗ that's kind of imperceptible but

58:37 ↗ improves the light quality inside but

58:41 ↗ mostly what we're trying to get at is

58:44 ↗ that it needs to be clear glass so that

58:46 ↗ you're seeing that you know if we're

58:47 ↗ going to put these active uses and these

58:50 ↗ windows you want to see what's going on

58:52 ↗ there that's part of that relationship

58:54 ↗ between the public realm and and what's

58:58 ↗ going on in the buildings so I think

59:00 ↗ what they're trying to get at is the

59:03 ↗ those are a list of some of the ways

59:06 ↗ that you prevent that sort of visual

59:09 ↗ connection yeah and I agree with you

59:12 ↗ that's probably what it is have that

59:13 ↗ transparency that openness between

59:16 ↗ inside and outside but at the same time

59:18 ↗ you know I've seen and you know you can

59:22 ↗ put a strip of reflective glass that

59:25 ↗ smoked glass that provides a little bit

59:27 ↗ of a privacy inside you can see the

59:29 ↗ folks in there but you can't see what

59:31 ↗ they're eating and have that that that

59:34 ↗ strip of opaque not opaque but tinted

59:39 ↗ shade that provides a little bit of

59:43 ↗ privacy so so loosely like that under

59:46 ↗ inappropriate I guess I don't quite

59:48 ↗ agree with that or maybe if anything

59:52 ↗ would be limited number of tinted area

59:55 ↗ in a glass or windowpane something which

59:58 ↗ is recovering this and comments then and

1:00:00 ↗ discussion

1:00:09 ↗ specific questions more had a question

1:00:12 ↗ on page 75 of 93c so one of the

1:00:20 ↗ guideline it says through blocked

1:00:21 ↗ passages shall be provided to break up

1:00:23 ↗ blocks over 240 feet and lengths so does

1:00:28 ↗ that mean 240 feet in width or 400 in

1:00:31 ↗ length

1:00:40 ↗ it's document page 67 loosing grab 67

1:00:44 ↗ thank you these little gray boxes are

1:00:49 ↗ like almost imperceptible when I'm

1:00:51 ↗ looking on this screen so I apologize it

1:00:53 ↗ just takes me a while to find it so um

1:00:55 ↗ can you just a touch above that it's in

1:00:58 ↗ a you got right there the guideline it

1:01:01 ↗ says 240 feet and length right so does

1:01:05 ↗ that mean it's a 240 feet in width or

1:01:07 ↗ 400 in length or neither so a block is

1:01:12 ↗ so they've given us a maximum block

1:01:16 ↗ lengths and as sort of a minimum block

1:01:19 ↗ lengths of the 240 so as you begin to in

1:01:24 ↗ on either dimension of the block if

1:01:27 ↗ either one of those exceeds 240 feet

1:01:30 ↗ you're looking at a super block passage

1:01:32 ↗ okay so with that always be then 240 it

1:01:37 ↗ couldn't be 240 feet in length because

1:01:39 ↗ there there spec 400 by 240 right links

1:01:42 ↗ by width they may not always be that way

1:01:44 ↗ I mean we have a lot of I mean part of

1:01:47 ↗ the challenge that we're facing is those

1:01:49 ↗ existing buildings and so as as Carl

1:01:53 ↗ pointed out in a not Greenfield

1:01:55 ↗ situation we're going to be working

1:01:57 ↗ around that so you may have blocks that

1:01:59 ↗ are 240 by 240 or 240 by 340 or 240 by

1:02:05 ↗ 420 I see so they are saying anytime a

1:02:08 ↗ block maybe 400 feet in length that it

1:02:10 ↗ needs to be broken with a through block

1:02:12 ↗ passage okay thank you thank you

1:02:23 ↗ other questions

1:02:30 ↗ it's free to pass go for it if I could

1:02:36 ↗ just make a I don't know whether this is

1:02:38 ↗ too constraining but would it be

1:02:40 ↗ possible to go through page by page what

1:02:42 ↗ said that we're not jumping back and

1:02:44 ↗ forth now that we're going to do come it

1:02:46 ↗ sounded like we're moving on from

1:02:47 ↗ questions to comments it did I

1:02:49 ↗ misunderstand yeah I think what I'd like

1:02:51 ↗ to do first is ask if there's any

1:02:53 ↗ comments from Bella I would thank you

1:02:54 ↗ sorry I heard the word comment right

1:02:57 ↗ well no that's what I said but so if you

1:03:00 ↗ want to make comment we'd like you to

1:03:02 ↗ sign in and make a comment

1:03:10 ↗ I will I'm gonna say there's a phrase

1:03:14 ↗ remaining I didn't assign you to be my

1:03:15 ↗ new yeah her believe I am her the key

1:03:19 ↗ okay my name is Connie Marsh and I live

1:03:22 ↗ up on squawk and so I've been running

1:03:26 ↗ around taking pictures of town and

1:03:29 ↗ buildings ok which has been sort of

1:03:36 ↗ fascinating and eventually you'll

1:03:39 ↗ probably see some of the pictures anyway

1:03:41 ↗ but that is brought a bit of a new

1:03:44 ↗ perspective into how this might function

1:03:52 ↗ so where do I begin

1:03:55 ↗ you all were with me in the past when

1:03:57 ↗ people would bring things in and you had

1:03:59 ↗ a hard time being able to say no we

1:04:02 ↗ don't want that we want this and it was

1:04:07 ↗ like well it doesn't say shell it's not

1:04:09 ↗ required

1:04:10 ↗ it says should and this is an

1:04:13 ↗ interpretation that we chose to make and

1:04:17 ↗ so here you are so as I'm walking those

1:04:21 ↗ blocks and seeing all these things that

1:04:24 ↗ didn't go well I become way more firm in

1:04:30 ↗ the conversation of when can you all say

1:04:35 ↗ no and how can you support it with what

1:04:39 ↗ language when staff has presented it as

1:04:43 ↗ okay and so far in this I don't see that

1:04:48 ↗ the language is there for you to use I

1:04:51 ↗ see lots of shoulds I see if you were to

1:04:55 ↗ choose is this good enough and that

1:04:59 ↗ doesn't seem like something to rest your

1:05:02 ↗ feet on and say no it has to be like

1:05:06 ↗ this because this language says so

1:05:09 ↗ so my bigger concern is our whole goal

1:05:11 ↗ is to make it so you all can say no and

1:05:16 ↗ I'm not convinced and perhaps what I

1:05:19 ↗ would need is I would need a the youth

1:05:23 ↗ the new tool laid over the top of the CI

1:05:27 ↗ DDS tool and try it and see if you could

1:05:32 ↗ you could make it happen using even an

1:05:34 ↗ existing building because there's plenty

1:05:36 ↗ of buildings to say yes and no two out

1:05:38 ↗ there in our town I'm here to tell you

1:05:40 ↗ because I don't want the same argument

1:05:44 ↗ to happen after all of this time okay so

1:05:45 ↗ that is my overarching concern in some

1:05:48 ↗ sort of potential solution to see how it

1:05:51 ↗ would work for you all staff is trying

1:05:53 ↗ to see how it works for them then I have

1:06:01 ↗ a little bit of heartburn over the

1:06:04 ↗ Front's of buildings because you're

1:06:06 ↗ supposed to pay attention to the

1:06:07 ↗ critical area the park the potential

1:06:11 ↗ pass through and the street so say you

1:06:15 ↗ have a retail building with that back to

1:06:18 ↗ a critical area are you mandating a

1:06:22 ↗ double entrance I just don't know how

1:06:25 ↗ many fronts of building needs to have

1:06:28 ↗ and then when you put that over the top

1:06:30 ↗ of where you can park it turns into a

1:06:38 ↗ puzzle that I haven't been able to

1:06:40 ↗ unravel I got some great examples of

1:06:42 ↗ don't do this in my pictures but I so

1:06:46 ↗ far haven't found the perfect thing not

1:06:49 ↗ having the parks sort of lined out on a

1:06:53 ↗ map when it says they need to be within

1:06:56 ↗ X distance of everything seems to be

1:07:00 ↗ such a gap if we're trying to create the

1:07:03 ↗ green necklace and they've disturbed a

1:07:05 ↗ distance and there's no dots I know that

1:07:07 ↗ the map is in progress but it does seem

1:07:09 ↗ like we have some of the critical areas

1:07:11 ↗ they're not all the parks are

1:07:13 ↗ conspicuously missing and I think that

1:07:16 ↗ would help

1:07:17 ↗ and then context and I think they did

1:07:21 ↗ okay on some of the context but they

1:07:24 ↗ didn't talk about the view protection

1:07:26 ↗ and I thought it was disturbingly

1:07:29 ↗ difficult to understand how to protect

1:07:32 ↗ the views of our Great Hills because

1:07:33 ↗ that was the best thing about the walk

1:07:35 ↗ around town

1:07:36 ↗ and they don't want to lose that but I

1:07:38 ↗ don't see any guidance or language here

1:07:40 ↗ that will help you protect one of our

1:07:42 ↗ core values of the city I so I would I

1:07:46 ↗ would say we need to get that language

1:07:48 ↗ put into place because I don't think the

1:07:50 ↗ CI DDS standards do it for us okay I'm

1:07:55 ↗ almost done I swear the setback from

1:07:59 ↗ critical areas we have filled the

1:08:02 ↗ setback from critical areas buffers with

1:08:05 ↗ parking consistently through town for

1:08:08 ↗ the last god I don't I don't even know

1:08:10 ↗ 30 years so every place I go critical

1:08:13 ↗ area parking lot building and so well

1:08:17 ↗ you all seem to be saying we're going to

1:08:18 ↗ continue a setback from the critical

1:08:21 ↗ area buffer these guys are saying well

1:08:24 ↗ you can't have it be parking and so it

1:08:27 ↗ has to be something and so I propose

1:08:30 ↗ that you get rid of the setback and you

1:08:34 ↗ say well if you do not reduce your

1:08:36 ↗ buffer at all you can put your trail in

1:08:39 ↗ the outer tooth three-quarters of the

1:08:41 ↗ buffer and you can put your building

1:08:43 ↗ right up to a complete buffer and try to

1:08:46 ↗ activate our critical area buffers with

1:08:49 ↗ people because when they see them they

1:08:51 ↗ own them and they will protect them and

1:08:53 ↗ right now they're hidden behind bushes

1:08:55 ↗ at the backside of parking lots with

1:08:56 ↗ faded signs behind fences and it does

1:08:59 ↗ the critical areas and us no good

1:09:02 ↗ whatsoever so I would actually propose

1:09:04 ↗ that as a change in that would allow the

1:09:07 ↗ developer actually to have a little more

1:09:09 ↗ room in this labyrinth of things that

1:09:12 ↗ they can't do okay you're all looking at

1:09:15 ↗ me look at these eyeballs like what did

1:09:17 ↗ she say well maybe somebody knows Thanks

1:09:25 ↗ you know if let's say this as you try to

1:09:28 ↗ walk by the sign in shape I will just

1:09:35 ↗ photocopy the one from last week

1:09:39 ↗ no but Mary's already on here

1:09:41 ↗ what's got you dog I didn't say that I

1:09:51 ↗ added

1:09:52 ↗ I added tonight's date to last week okay

1:09:57 ↗ so thank you

1:09:59 ↗ three comments so how about this general

1:10:02 ↗ discussion what what do people want to

1:10:04 ↗ say or do we want to go through as

1:10:05 ↗ Lucy's those are games I'm sorry that's

1:10:08 ↗ right okay I mean I just proposing it

1:10:11 ↗ like that because then we don't end up

1:10:13 ↗ bouncing around all over I do have to

1:10:16 ↗ confess that I liked the page after page

1:10:18 ↗ after page as opposed to flipping back

1:10:20 ↗ and forth I'm unfortunately a bit of a

1:10:22 ↗ linear thinker in that regard well a lot

1:10:26 ↗ of linear thinkers now were there to

1:10:29 ↗ talk about unless there's something on

1:10:33 ↗ the cover of the urban design section

1:10:35 ↗ I'm on page 16 which is page 68 of

1:10:41 ↗ trying to get a PA of 93

1:10:50 ↗ so any comments about the next page 69

1:10:57 ↗ the map button so is that the draft map

1:10:59 ↗ to be refined is that where we're going

1:11:01 ↗ to this one have to do with the changes

1:11:06 ↗ with urban core taking out that section

1:11:08 ↗ or no I think there are a couple of

1:11:12 ↗ things that we have been talking to

1:11:15 ↗ Crandall arandora about and it would be

1:11:17 ↗ great if the Commission has some

1:11:19 ↗ thoughts about that so one easy example

1:11:22 ↗ to identify is Hill sites is it things

1:11:26 ↗ 10% 15% we use 15% of islands but

1:11:31 ↗ maybe 10 percents more appropriate here

1:11:33 ↗ or 20% some more appropriate here you

1:11:35 ↗ know we haven't I think that that what

1:11:37 ↗ they're identifying is an important

1:11:39 ↗ thing because you know there is this you

1:11:44 ↗ know they kind of indicated there's this

1:11:45 ↗ ring of hillsides and as I pointed out

1:11:48 ↗ it continued here and then continue up

1:11:50 ↗ here

1:11:51 ↗ you know there's Cougar Mountain there's

1:11:54 ↗ sort of the toe of squawk and there's

1:11:56 ↗ the edge of the plateau I guess so there

1:12:01 ↗ it's all along there but you know we

1:12:05 ↗ didn't know off the top of our heads

1:12:07 ↗ what percentage that was and and wanted

1:12:11 ↗ to figure out what was the right

1:12:17 ↗ percentage but and unless you guys are

1:12:21 ↗ topographic experts percentages may not

1:12:23 ↗ be very useful because it if you think

1:12:29 ↗ about it there are many streets that are

1:12:31 ↗ 15 percent and it's the loss images on a

1:12:33 ↗ bicycle of which pay needs well I mean

1:12:38 ↗ for instance I do know that a lot of the

1:12:42 ↗ roads that are along this edge of Cougar

1:12:45 ↗ Mountain have to be you know 18 percent

1:12:48 ↗ to get up

1:12:49 ↗ James bush roads an example which I in

1:12:52 ↗ goes to 22 I guess at some point so

1:12:55 ↗ that's a pretty steep hill so if you're

1:12:57 ↗ thinking about that as an example is is

1:13:00 ↗ it that kind of steepness at which

1:13:03 ↗ we want to have this kind of this kind

1:13:09 ↗ of relationship this kind of

1:13:10 ↗ architectural and site planning gesture

1:13:13 ↗ or is it a more gentle slope would be

1:13:16 ↗ appropriate to so Lucy

1:13:20 ↗ so I'll just admit I'm confused on this

1:13:23 ↗ one so I'm going to just go ahead and

1:13:24 ↗ maybe say something that's not very

1:13:26 ↗ informed so are there any hillsides

1:13:30 ↗ within central Issaquah or they all

1:13:32 ↗ backdrops so there are there are central

1:13:36 ↗ there are and the Commission is

1:13:40 ↗ painfully aware Innes wood gateway

1:13:44 ↗ gateway senior Riva

1:13:48 ↗ and we also know the very preliminary

1:13:52 ↗ early proposed black nugget a hotel

1:13:54 ↗ those are or Fred Meyer site those all

1:14:01 ↗ have so okay so let's just stop there

1:14:04 ↗ for a second so I guess what I would say

1:14:06 ↗ is there's a difference for me from

1:14:09 ↗ taking a look at cougar tiger or squawk

1:14:12 ↗ and the horrible-looking wall behind

1:14:15 ↗ Fred Meyer right

1:14:16 ↗ still a hillside but I don't know that I

1:14:19 ↗ want to see it right I mean so I mean I

1:14:21 ↗ think the question is are there

1:14:23 ↗ different hillsides or if there's a

1:14:25 ↗ certain slope we keep them all the same

1:14:27 ↗ because I mean that one's got Scotch

1:14:30 ↗ broom and other invasives going on and

1:14:31 ↗ behind a falling apart Soldier pile wall

1:14:34 ↗ and I mean I think I appreciate the fact

1:14:38 ↗ that we have buildings that cover some

1:14:39 ↗ of it up right as opposed to maybe what

1:14:42 ↗ we've been talking about in terms of

1:14:44 ↗ framing views for like cougar squak and

1:14:47 ↗ tigers so I guess you know for me and

1:14:50 ↗ again this is my ignorance for

1:14:51 ↗ understanding the rest of this chapter

1:14:53 ↗ of the manual is what are we using the

1:14:56 ↗ designation of hillsides for is it for

1:14:59 ↗ mostly kind of views and then are they

1:15:06 ↗ all the same or not so um I think it'd

1:15:11 ↗ be great to have a conversation about

1:15:12 ↗ views I think that this

1:15:15 ↗ is this particular one the way I've read

1:15:19 ↗ it not an expert I'm guessing as much as

1:15:22 ↗ anyone is more about building form and

1:15:27 ↗ how it relates to or highlights or

1:15:32 ↗ respects these certain kinds of natural

1:15:35 ↗ areas now I would say because this was

1:15:39 ↗ one of the thoughts I had in in thinking

1:15:42 ↗ about this is and I think you the

1:15:46 ↗ Commission saw this with for instance

1:15:47 ↗ Gateway senior that when you have

1:15:50 ↗ buildings that are on that are coming

1:15:52 ↗ down the slope at you know starting at

1:15:55 ↗ the top like gateway senior then you've

1:15:57 ↗ got certain kinds of things that you're

1:15:59 ↗ trying to do to not just have a big

1:16:01 ↗ blank wall of concrete that's holding up

1:16:03 ↗ all the active areas and so what you

1:16:08 ↗ require on a hillside may be different

1:16:12 ↗ than what you require next to something

1:16:14 ↗ that's going to maybe be flatter like a

1:16:16 ↗ creek or a wetland or other kind of open

1:16:20 ↗ space because if you look at this map

1:16:22 ↗ this isn't just about critical areas I

1:16:25 ↗ mean for instance the ponds in Pickering

1:16:28 ↗ are there so these are you know so a

1:16:33 ↗ question for the Commission is what kind

1:16:36 ↗ of green spaces do we want to have that

1:16:39 ↗ sort of treatment for is it only creeks

1:16:42 ↗ and wetlands or does it include other

1:16:45 ↗ green areas that are not just

1:16:47 ↗ undeveloped land but land that's going

1:16:49 ↗ to remain that way so that's one

1:16:52 ↗ question another one is what kind of

1:16:55 ↗ relationship are we looking at for

1:16:57 ↗ hillsides and then the third would be

1:17:00 ↗ the view question go well that you know

1:17:10 ↗ look in the description for hillsides on

1:17:13 ↗ on page 70 of 93 because wooded hillside

1:17:16 ↗ is greater than 10% slope I think that

1:17:19 ↗ would eliminate the black nugget Road

1:17:22 ↗ hillside there's no force no force left

1:17:26 ↗ up there yes justice

1:17:27 ↗ it's and that's a really good question

1:17:29 ↗ that was one of our questions was if

1:17:34 ↗ it's not touristed now but you might

1:17:38 ↗ want to reforest it or you know there

1:17:44 ↗ may be architectural treatments you want

1:17:46 ↗ even if it's not forested I mean these

1:17:48 ↗ are these are the questions yeah but to

1:17:50 ↗ me it would seem appropriate because in

1:17:52 ↗ talking about building design adjacent

1:17:55 ↗ to and trying to make an army well it's

1:17:58 ↗ a big wall and dirt above I don't I

1:18:03 ↗ don't want to necessarily complement

1:18:04 ↗ that how can I replace it right right

1:18:07 ↗ exactly so so it seems like the only

1:18:10 ↗ other real hill side that comes into

1:18:12 ↗ play then would be the down by Innes

1:18:15 ↗ would show that that hatch part so um I

1:18:20 ↗ I do think it's important to note that

1:18:22 ↗ this whole you know sort of hillside

1:18:24 ↗ that comes along here also even though

1:18:27 ↗ it's not in the central area well this

1:18:29 ↗ is all in central Issaquah up where BMC

1:18:32 ↗ lumber is yeah so the hillside is right

1:18:35 ↗ outside of it but since you're adjacent

1:18:37 ↗ to it it comes with that one yeah and

1:18:38 ↗ that's it no thank you for the

1:18:40 ↗ clarification yeah that's great okay and

1:18:42 ↗ you know to some extent that's true here

1:18:46 ↗ you do have the site sloping but most of

1:18:49 ↗ the hillside is outside of central is

1:18:51 ↗ quad but is that backdrop to a central

1:18:53 ↗ is cloth

1:19:07 ↗ well do you want us to go to page 72

1:19:10 ↗ look beyond them if we go past the map

1:19:14 ↗ on page 69 do we want to talk about page

1:19:16 ↗ 70 then is the question you're having on

1:19:18 ↗ on this map what would constitute what

1:19:22 ↗ would constitute hillsides it if they

1:19:29 ↗ specified a percent slope for hillsides

1:19:31 ↗ and that's what's shown in the green

1:19:34 ↗ hash is ten percent so they said ten

1:19:37 ↗ percent like I'm pretty confident that

1:19:39 ↗ they did not have GIS technology to map

1:19:43 ↗ the 10 percent slips I think that you

1:19:46 ↗ know when you look at our topography on

1:19:48 ↗ some of the maps that they did have it's

1:19:50 ↗ it's apparent where you know you've got

1:19:53 ↗ a hillside just from the tightness of

1:19:56 ↗ the contour lines so I think what this

1:19:58 ↗ map represents is obvious hillsides that

1:20:01 ↗ are surrounding Central is qua not a ten

1:20:05 ↗ percent slope per se so when you're

1:20:11 ↗ asking if we think that's okay or we

1:20:15 ↗ want to define it more or less I and I

1:20:19 ↗ think to be fair I'm not asking you to

1:20:21 ↗ give me a percentage but to maybe talk

1:20:26 ↗ about if you have thoughts about how you

1:20:30 ↗ would like to have these relate which

1:20:34 ↗ kind of hillsides do you think are

1:20:35 ↗ important to either in terms of viewing

1:20:38 ↗ or building into or up against and the

1:20:43 ↗ same with the natural areas parks and

1:20:45 ↗ open spaces do when you look at some of

1:20:51 ↗ the areas on the map as I mentioned like

1:20:54 ↗ Pickering ponds or some of these areas

1:20:56 ↗ for instance near the Commons not all of

1:20:59 ↗ those are wetlands some of those are

1:21:01 ↗ kind of green corners and I haven't had

1:21:04 ↗ time to dig in to figure out what they

1:21:07 ↗ are and I'm not asking you to do this

1:21:10 ↗ instantaneously but just simply if you

1:21:13 ↗ have thoughts about what kind of natural

1:21:16 ↗ areas open spaces and parks

1:21:20 ↗ you would like to see this plan use

1:21:23 ↗ special techniques relative to well I

1:21:31 ↗ really like to thought of protecting our

1:21:32 ↗ health sides from development you know

1:21:35 ↗ we've seen lots of instances of where

1:21:37 ↗ it's gone wrong definitely um the

1:21:42 ↗ development to our further west on i-90

1:21:45 ↗ where there's some of you what's that

1:21:48 ↗ Bellevue yeah or there's some landslides

1:21:51 ↗ already and you know who's dealing with

1:21:53 ↗ that I think it's good to stay away and

1:21:56 ↗ preserve them because that's part of

1:21:58 ↗ what makes there's a clause so so great

1:22:06 ↗ so I guess Lucy as I read the sentence

1:22:10 ↗ under guideline on page 70 I think I

1:22:14 ↗ mean I think it's not exactly right so I

1:22:18 ↗ mean I think so you could take out and

1:22:20 ↗ the reason why I say it is you take out

1:22:21 ↗ the first premise and just start with

1:22:23 ↗ new development and I think that's a

1:22:25 ↗ true statement no matter where it is I

1:22:27 ↗ mean we want new developments to support

1:22:29 ↗ the unique setting of central Issaquah I

1:22:31 ↗ think that's a period I think I think

1:22:33 ↗ what they're trying to say is if you're

1:22:34 ↗ near one of these natural areas you

1:22:37 ↗ should your development should support

1:22:40 ↗ and strengthen the Natural Area the

1:22:42 ↗ natural context that it's in and I think

1:22:45 ↗ it didn't quite it doesn't come quite

1:22:47 ↗ come across that way might

1:23:02 ↗ no on that page that the death of on the

1:23:05 ↗ inappropriate just in this whole idea

1:23:07 ↗ and trying to read through this and

1:23:08 ↗ understand what their meaning about

1:23:10 ↗ complementing and reinforcing the

1:23:12 ↗ natural environment I got kind of

1:23:15 ↗ concerned I'm not sure if this is in

1:23:17 ↗ line maybe with Connie is talking about

1:23:19 ↗ but the inappropriate things the large

1:23:22 ↗ expanse of impermeable and permeable

1:23:25 ↗ paved outdoor areas or large expanses of

1:23:29 ↗ manicured landscaping areas it sounds

1:23:31 ↗ like they're saying the only thing you

1:23:32 ↗ can do is like have a trail our natural

1:23:36 ↗ area next to it and then to me it seems

1:23:40 ↗ to conflict with the idea that we want

1:23:42 ↗ people to be able to enjoy those open

1:23:45 ↗ areas those natural areas and if we're

1:23:48 ↗ saying you can't build a plaza there for

1:23:50 ↗ people to sit and have lunch or so the

1:23:54 ↗ key word there so and and maybe I'm

1:23:56 ↗ reading too much into it but for me the

1:23:58 ↗ key word is impermeable and I guess the

1:24:00 ↗ question is is so what if your Plaza was

1:24:02 ↗ pervious you know what if it had more of

1:24:05 ↗ a of a natural kind of context to it I

1:24:09 ↗ don't think I don't think they're saying

1:24:11 ↗ you can't have a public space on that

1:24:13 ↗ face I think what they're trying to say

1:24:16 ↗ is it should be designed in a way that

1:24:17 ↗ one you know

1:24:19 ↗ maybe doesn't maybe it's not just

1:24:20 ↗ concrete right maybe that's there's what

1:24:22 ↗ they're saying is you need to take a

1:24:23 ↗ different design approach to it if

1:24:26 ↗ you're on the natural side of the

1:24:29 ↗ project well but I understand but I was

1:24:33 ↗ thinking about that with the atlas some

1:24:36 ↗ of the discussion has been about well it

1:24:38 ↗ was not oriented to take advantage for

1:24:41 ↗ the residents of what's going along the

1:24:44 ↗ creek there and I think well if you want

1:24:47 ↗ to bring residents down and if you want

1:24:48 ↗ to have outdoor seating it's harder to

1:24:51 ↗ do that I think in you know contact

1:24:53 ↗ gravel or grass or whatever and to have

1:24:56 ↗ a courtyard that's impermeable I think

1:25:00 ↗ could be a nicer way to get people and

1:25:03 ↗ that would be I'm assuming restricted by

1:25:05 ↗ what you can do in any buffer zone right

1:25:07 ↗ you couldn't do impermeable well I think

1:25:12 ↗ I think that the the point that keeps

1:25:14 ↗ trying to make is

1:25:16 ↗ an interesting one because they don't

1:25:18 ↗ think under appropriate there's anything

1:25:20 ↗ that would indicate you know that would

1:25:22 ↗ complement that and say these larger

1:25:24 ↗ outdoor I mean I agree with what you're

1:25:26 ↗ saying now that we think about Pickering

1:25:29 ↗ I don't know whether you ever walk

1:25:31 ↗ around tinkering pond or whatever it's

1:25:34 ↗ called you know Costco has all those

1:25:36 ↗ large terraces that face out there and

1:25:39 ↗ that's one of the nice things about

1:25:40 ↗ walking there on a sunny day at

1:25:42 ↗ lunchtime is they're full of people

1:25:44 ↗ eating and you know quite frankly you

1:25:46 ↗ can go up there and sit with them and

1:25:48 ↗ they're not going to know what you know

1:25:50 ↗ there's enough people there that they

1:25:51 ↗ don't know who it is and they're

1:25:52 ↗ certainly welcoming of that and and so I

1:25:56 ↗ would agree that we if that's what we

1:25:59 ↗ want and it's simply about material then

1:26:02 ↗ we need to add something if it's about

1:26:05 ↗ not wanting that I'm not sure that we

1:26:07 ↗ would agree because we do want that kind

1:26:09 ↗ of interaction and and based on some of

1:26:13 ↗ the conversations that we've had with

1:26:16 ↗ Crandall Randall I think they would say

1:26:18 ↗ the same thing they they want people to

1:26:20 ↗ enjoy it I think I think that they're

1:26:23 ↗ trying to find ways that it might feel

1:26:28 ↗ less urban than what you would do at a

1:26:31 ↗ you know a corner of a building right up

1:26:34 ↗ against an intersection that kind of

1:26:36 ↗ urban Plaza would be different than the

1:26:38 ↗ kind that you would build facing a

1:26:40 ↗ wetland so I think they're suggesting

1:26:44 ↗ that that sort of distinction that is it

1:26:46 ↗ coming through at this point if that's

1:26:49 ↗ our intent yeah or in my mind I think

1:26:52 ↗ maybe in my mind they've gone too far

1:26:54 ↗ partly because you can't do manicured

1:26:57 ↗ landscape dairies either which I presume

1:26:59 ↗ means grass so if you can't have a

1:27:02 ↗ grassy area and you can't have Imperial

1:27:04 ↗ services so it's I don't get to make its

1:27:08 ↗ bark or sand or compact gravel or some

1:27:11 ↗ but it can't be compact gravel that's

1:27:13 ↗ actually am considered for avails right

1:27:15 ↗ yeah I mean I think it's a good point

1:27:17 ↗ yeah okay

1:27:22 ↗ of a general census we do want to

1:27:25 ↗ provide public access to those natural

1:27:28 ↗ areas and not not restricted if there's

1:27:30 ↗ a convenient way to do it it doesn't

1:27:31 ↗ impact adversely impact the natural area

1:27:34 ↗ right and I think it's just to take what

1:27:37 ↗ you're saying Richard a little further

1:27:39 ↗ it's not just access because that could

1:27:41 ↗ be a trail so but it's also a space

1:27:43 ↗ where you might be able to sort of

1:27:45 ↗ linger or gather or and meditate or you

1:27:50 ↗ know just enjoy the beauty of that

1:27:53 ↗ critical area and have that sort of

1:27:55 ↗ awareness that Connie was talking about

1:28:00 ↗ some more thoughts on page 70 we're

1:28:02 ↗ going to move ahead I know it's cool in

1:28:06 ↗ here and it's hot out there so we can

1:28:07 ↗ stay all night

1:28:08 ↗ [Laughter]

1:28:10 ↗ speak for yourself yeah

1:28:13 ↗ so let's move here page 71 any

1:28:16 ↗ discussion comments concerns boring I'm

1:28:23 ↗ sorry I did you say that out loud I did

1:28:26 ↗ was you know private development

1:28:29 ↗ especially residential commercial

1:28:30 ↗ architecture shall serve as background

1:28:32 ↗ buildings and I I don't know I don't

1:28:37 ↗ know that I don't want really body

1:28:41 ↗ buildings but I don't know that I want

1:28:42 ↗ people to design background buildings

1:28:45 ↗ for saying okay so maybe we should take

1:28:51 ↗ a step back and just discuss what that

1:28:52 ↗ when you think of a background building

1:28:55 ↗ what does that mean to you know that

1:28:58 ↗ there's no modulation it's just going to

1:29:01 ↗ be a boxy structure that's tan or gray

1:29:05 ↗ and all the same windows and so I that I

1:29:14 ↗ would say a background building was

1:29:16 ↗ something else I wouldn't say that it

1:29:18 ↗ didn't have interest and it didn't have

1:29:20 ↗ modulation but that it's

1:29:27 ↗ it's okay this may be a terrible analogy

1:29:31 ↗ it's like a well tailored suit you know

1:29:33 ↗ it is it's very elegant it's beautifully

1:29:36 ↗ detailed it's attractive to look at but

1:29:39 ↗ it does it's not a floral print with

1:29:42 ↗ wide lapels and bell bottoms so that you

1:29:44 ↗ cannot miss in velour you can't miss it

1:29:47 ↗ so so to me that doesn't mean that it's

1:29:52 ↗ it's unattractive or bland or boring it

1:29:56 ↗ just isn't doesn't stand out more than

1:30:01 ↗ the next building than the next building

1:30:03 ↗ they're all well designed they all

1:30:05 ↗ contribute to the public realm but they

1:30:09 ↗ aren't doing so at the expense or in

1:30:11 ↗ competition with the next building yeah

1:30:14 ↗ I understand what you're saying and I

1:30:16 ↗ think that no I think that's a very good

1:30:18 ↗ analogy I just don't know that I agree

1:30:19 ↗ with their premise because I I think I'd

1:30:23 ↗ like to see interesting buildings that

1:30:25 ↗ fit within the Issaquah palette that

1:30:29 ↗ we're talking about that are interesting

1:30:32 ↗ not background I don't want other people

1:30:35 ↗ it might be as simple as changing the

1:30:37 ↗ word I agree with what Lucy's saying

1:30:39 ↗ it's like it wants to given all the

1:30:45 ↗ styles that we've approved in that area

1:30:47 ↗ or in general I think we're going to get

1:30:50 ↗ interesting buildings just by virtue of

1:30:53 ↗ that and then it's our discretion to

1:30:55 ↗ make sure they're refined and

1:30:56 ↗ appropriate so I think we'll get them I

1:31:00 ↗ think the word background buildings

1:31:03 ↗ maybe needs to be changed to buildings

1:31:08 ↗ that that you know art it looked rusev

1:31:14 ↗ unobtrusive or or or comply with the the

1:31:20 ↗ guidelines in some fashion some way to

1:31:23 ↗ reference the guidelines because I think

1:31:24 ↗ there is a lot of richness in the

1:31:26 ↗ guidelines that that's going to occur no

1:31:28 ↗ matter what so so but I agree that the

1:31:31 ↗ word is is troubling but the notion of

1:31:35 ↗ it I agree with

1:31:39 ↗ especially with you know say the context

1:31:42 ↗ of the parking garage going back to the

1:31:43 ↗ parking garage discussion we don't want

1:31:45 ↗ it to be out of mobile centric yes we

1:31:48 ↗ know it's a parking garage but we want

1:31:50 ↗ it to fit within the context of the

1:31:52 ↗ other buildings and the block so we just

1:31:57 ↗ don't want we want appropriate screening

1:32:00 ↗ we don't want it to be served by a

1:32:01 ↗ series of ramps and signs and and things

1:32:04 ↗ that call it out as a parking garage

1:32:06 ↗ when somebody goes into the garage and

1:32:08 ↗ turns on their headlights I don't think

1:32:10 ↗ you want to be blasted you know so

1:32:11 ↗ there's things you can do to mitigate it

1:32:13 ↗ from being automobile centric although

1:32:15 ↗ we know it's a parking garage and I

1:32:17 ↗ think how you mitigate that is it has to

1:32:20 ↗ fit with the context of these design

1:32:23 ↗ guidelines does that make sense yeah let

1:32:29 ↗ me let me just ask you one question Mel

1:32:31 ↗ so if we if we maple street office

1:32:37 ↗ building which you know well which i

1:32:39 ↗ think is a very handsome and elegant

1:32:41 ↗ building it is a well tailored suit I

1:32:43 ↗ think of it by me so I don't think of

1:32:46 ↗ that as a pejorative to say it's a

1:32:48 ↗ background building you may feel that so

1:32:51 ↗ and so that may be the wrong term but I

1:32:54 ↗ think of that in terms of what I'm

1:32:56 ↗ trying to say about a background

1:32:57 ↗ building I think of the Maple Street

1:32:59 ↗ building as a background building if

1:33:01 ↗ there was a series of those kinds of

1:33:03 ↗ buildings going down the street

1:33:05 ↗ different colors different materials so

1:33:08 ↗ you know maybe you know I think that's a

1:33:10 ↗ three storey building if there was a

1:33:12 ↗ four-story building than a 2-story

1:33:13 ↗ building I think that they would make a

1:33:15 ↗ very handsome coordinated and

1:33:19 ↗ interesting and street face and none of

1:33:23 ↗ those buildings would if they were all

1:33:25 ↗ sort of of a similar ilk to the Maple

1:33:27 ↗ Street building none of them would be

1:33:29 ↗ more important than than the next one

1:33:32 ↗ and so that to me is what a background

1:33:35 ↗ building is not that it has been

1:33:38 ↗ stripped of all of the you know the roof

1:33:41 ↗ the detailing the articulation the

1:33:43 ↗ setbacks an entry that draws attention

1:33:46 ↗ to itself where you know where to enter

1:33:48 ↗ the building you know so I

1:33:51 ↗ I don't know if that helps and I'm not

1:33:53 ↗ trying to send negative about the

1:33:54 ↗ rebuilding no I think that's good

1:33:56 ↗ because I would agree with you and I

1:33:57 ↗ look at like what they're showing in

1:33:59 ↗ terms of the historic building you know

1:34:01 ↗ the very boxy structure same windows and

1:34:04 ↗ everything and maplestreet you've got

1:34:06 ↗ slopes in the roof you've got setbacks

1:34:09 ↗ and balconies and and so I'd agree and

1:34:11 ↗ maybe it's good to have it this way in

1:34:13 ↗ terms of it gives us more of a way to

1:34:17 ↗ hold developers back in if we think we

1:34:19 ↗ need to exactly because a great tool and

1:34:22 ↗ still have if the maple street worked

1:34:25 ↗ with in this context for staff I'd be

1:34:27 ↗ happy with it and I think it might be

1:34:29 ↗ easier to get rid of the term background

1:34:31 ↗ and just do an edit because the the real

1:34:33 ↗ bottom line of what you're trying to do

1:34:35 ↗ is to have the residential and

1:34:38 ↗ commercial architecture not compete but

1:34:40 ↗ rather support and Hanson define the

1:34:43 ↗ urban fabric I mean you're introducing a

1:34:46 ↗ term that at least one person or maybe

1:34:48 ↗ more as confused over why do I do that

1:34:51 ↗ right and and and I think that if we're

1:34:53 ↗ all comfortable with the way we've

1:34:55 ↗ described it then we can fund we can use

1:34:58 ↗ that as a sort of launching point for

1:34:59 ↗ the description without necessarily have

1:35:03 ↗ using a term that we feel may be

1:35:05 ↗ misleading security I would agree with

1:35:09 ↗ what you said about maple Building Lucy

1:35:12 ↗ and you know if it's continue looking

1:35:14 ↗ for but if we continuously have those

1:35:17 ↗ buildings all over Issaquah gee why do I

1:35:20 ↗ need to get a new architect we'll just

1:35:22 ↗ go to I think that's mithoon that design

1:35:25 ↗ just go to mithoon and they have the

1:35:27 ↗ price of it's just you know we're trying

1:35:30 ↗ to limiting you know we have to be

1:35:32 ↗ careful not to limit the architect

1:35:37 ↗ creativity you know through that's a

1:35:40 ↗ good building and I would agree with you

1:35:42 ↗ and that's what we kind of like to have

1:35:44 ↗ somewhere close to that sort of design

1:35:47 ↗ but I don't think we want to limit them

1:35:49 ↗ into yeah continuously that yeah just

1:35:52 ↗ copy that over and over throughout the

1:35:55 ↗ whole street and you'll get it approved

1:35:57 ↗ and from the applicants point of view he

1:36:01 ↗ wants to get it approve as soon as

1:36:02 ↗ possible so he comes in with

1:36:04 ↗ same elevations as maple building but

1:36:09 ↗ the inside is changed a little bit and

1:36:10 ↗ then get it approved so again you know I

1:36:13 ↗ guess I'm really very about just saying

1:36:17 ↗ use this example and then go with it and

1:36:21 ↗ I don't know what the right language is

1:36:24 ↗ you say you know this is what we want

1:36:29 ↗ but don't don't limit yourself to what

1:36:32 ↗ we think we want I think we're doing a

1:36:36 ↗ reasonable job of saying we like this we

1:36:40 ↗ don't like that if there's things that

1:36:42 ↗ we approve if it looks like this that's

1:36:43 ↗ good if it doesn't look like this if if

1:36:45 ↗ it falls outside those characters and

1:36:48 ↗ parameters don't waste your time so we

1:36:50 ↗ don't want to have to look at yeah Andy

1:36:51 ↗ you know if the designer applicants

1:36:54 ↗ knows what we want they'll just go ahead

1:36:55 ↗ and design the way it is the way that

1:36:58 ↗ they know we'll approve and and not have

1:37:03 ↗ that creativity that they have that's

1:37:07 ↗ what I'm under remind everybody that you

1:37:10 ↗ know we should kind of let them open up

1:37:13 ↗ the creativity and for them come in with

1:37:17 ↗ some design that they can that we can

1:37:19 ↗ accept I don't you know you can we say

1:37:24 ↗ something give us something that we

1:37:25 ↗ think we want we can't say that so yeah

1:37:30 ↗ that's why we're going through all this

1:37:32 ↗ exercise to write down with what we

1:37:34 ↗ think we want right well I think one of

1:37:36 ↗ the conversations for the Commission to

1:37:39 ↗ potentially weigh in on is you know it's

1:37:45 ↗ a clause grown tremendously it is still

1:37:47 ↗ a town of thirty five thousand people

1:37:49 ↗ and there are going to be a limited

1:37:58 ↗ number of civic buildings you know if

1:38:01 ↗ we're saying that civic buildings for

1:38:02 ↗ instance are sort of that punctuation

1:38:04 ↗ that where we would look for more Flair

1:38:08 ↗ more interests more out-of-the-box

1:38:10 ↗ architecture potentially it you know

1:38:17 ↗ we have none of those in central is

1:38:20 ↗ maybe right now I mean I guess well yeah

1:38:22 ↗ fire station 72 I I think that's a very

1:38:26 ↗ all over that's downtown okay so I think

1:38:31 ↗ we have some good Civic architecture do

1:38:33 ↗ not misunderstand me none of that is in

1:38:35 ↗ central is claw I don't know how many

1:38:37 ↗ more Civic buildings will be built in

1:38:40 ↗ central as well we might go to school we

1:38:44 ↗ might get one if they can assemble the

1:38:46 ↗ land parks might be another opportunity

1:38:50 ↗ for less understated you know so the

1:38:56 ↗ question is what are those punctuation

1:38:58 ↗ marks where we can give guidance and say

1:39:01 ↗ these are the things that with these

1:39:04 ↗ sort of handsome public oriented

1:39:08 ↗ complimentary buildings what are going

1:39:10 ↗ to be the punctuation marks that help us

1:39:12 ↗ orient and give interest within this

1:39:16 ↗ district and I don't know if you have

1:39:20 ↗ thoughts about what those are council

1:39:26 ↗ well I don't know if you can say this is

1:39:28 ↗ what we want you know and then say these

1:39:30 ↗ are not you know some of them they can

1:39:33 ↗ come in really nice you know even view

1:39:35 ↗ this inappropriate you know include that

1:39:38 ↗ into some appropriate elements and

1:39:42 ↗ they'll come out very nice now so don't

1:39:46 ↗ say you know these are inappropriate

1:39:49 ↗ they'll never come in with a vinyl

1:39:50 ↗ material canopy because that's not what

1:39:54 ↗ we want if you come in the whole project

1:39:56 ↗ is out the window

1:39:58 ↗ yeah so we shouldn't say that that's I

1:40:02 ↗ thinking is it let them come in and try

1:40:05 ↗ to incorporate something nice that we

1:40:07 ↗ can and we can say yes or no and make

1:40:10 ↗ some changes in there so so I think Rea

1:40:13 ↗ that the challenge is it is not it has

1:40:17 ↗ to be predictable yeah through and and

1:40:20 ↗ so well and and and I think what we're

1:40:25 ↗ what we've heard you know the way Connie

1:40:28 ↗ is describing it I think some of the FIR

1:40:30 ↗ raishin that the Commission has had and

1:40:32 ↗ the council in the community is we've

1:40:35 ↗ had to say yes to these things because

1:40:37 ↗ you know honestly we focused on urban

1:40:41 ↗ design and we're seeing that that has

1:40:44 ↗ not gotten what we wanted so we're going

1:40:45 ↗ to add architectural styles materials

1:40:50 ↗ colors which we very we intentionally

1:40:52 ↗ avoided that did not get us the results

1:40:55 ↗ we want I think what we've heard as

1:40:58 ↗ staff and I think what Crandall Randall

1:41:01 ↗ has both heard and proposed is something

1:41:06 ↗ that is more directive that is I don't

1:41:12 ↗ know whether I mean I know they say it's

1:41:14 ↗ prescriptive I don't I'm not quite sure

1:41:16 ↗ we're at prescriptive language yet and

1:41:19 ↗ and that's something we're going to be

1:41:20 ↗ talking about in that final document but

1:41:24 ↗ I well you know I'm trained as an

1:41:27 ↗ architect I appreciate the creativity

1:41:29 ↗ you're asking for but I think if that's

1:41:32 ↗ what we want we're not going to have an

1:41:34 ↗ architectural style guide because we and

1:41:38 ↗ we are going to have an architectural

1:41:40 ↗ style guide so let me just put that

1:41:41 ↗ footnote out there because we want to

1:41:46 ↗ put edges to this I believe that good

1:41:50 ↗ architects will find ways to be creative

1:41:53 ↗ because their clients are going to look

1:41:56 ↗ for ways to make their build you know

1:41:58 ↗ it's the Kaveri concern that Mel's

1:42:00 ↗ raising you know people want their

1:42:02 ↗ buildings to feel special but they're

1:42:05 ↗ going to find that specialness not in

1:42:07 ↗ the huge gesture or the bright color

1:42:10 ↗ it's going to be in maybe their entryway

1:42:13 ↗ or roof or a material or unusual window

1:42:17 ↗ combination or something like that so

1:42:20 ↗ and and you know the example you've

1:42:22 ↗ given the vinyl weather covering we're

1:42:27 ↗ not going to say we deny your project

1:42:30 ↗ you have vinyl weather coverings

1:42:32 ↗ we're going to condition the project and

1:42:34 ↗ we're going to say we like to it you

1:42:35 ↗ have weather covering it needs to be a

1:42:38 ↗ different material so and that that may

1:42:42 ↗ be a bad example

1:42:44 ↗ if the Commission thinks that vinyl

1:42:47 ↗ weather covering is the right thing but

1:42:50 ↗ I think that we are narrowing down the

1:42:54 ↗ choices to try and create a range that

1:42:57 ↗ we think will result in something that

1:43:00 ↗ feels more fitting in the city I agree

1:43:07 ↗ and I'll say you know this requires a

1:43:10 ↗ certain amount of trust trust that you

1:43:12 ↗ are going to get good designs and I

1:43:15 ↗ think one thing you can trust architects

1:43:17 ↗ to do is push this envelope continually

1:43:19 ↗ and I think it's up to us to then

1:43:21 ↗ interpret whether they're pushing it in

1:43:24 ↗ the right direction

1:43:26 ↗ I say - a project gets way better when

1:43:31 ↗ it has constraints so if we put a

1:43:34 ↗ framework around this I think it's going

1:43:36 ↗ to force this level of refinement that

1:43:38 ↗ is occurring now sort of anything's an

1:43:41 ↗ option now anything you know when they

1:43:46 ↗ were age clothing a red building all

1:43:47 ↗ three I think once you put a framework

1:43:51 ↗ around it it forces people in word to a

1:43:54 ↗ degree and boxes them in but what it

1:43:57 ↗ really forces is that the quality goes

1:43:59 ↗ up the refinement gets better and there

1:44:01 ↗ they're going to find the way especially

1:44:03 ↗ with you know depending on who your

1:44:05 ↗ client is I mean to your point Lucy is

1:44:08 ↗ the clients going to want their building

1:44:11 ↗ to be distinctive they wanted to yield

1:44:13 ↗ high rents they want it to be an

1:44:14 ↗ attractive building that fills up quick

1:44:16 ↗ and stays full so I think there's

1:44:20 ↗ certain amount of trust we have to place

1:44:21 ↗ in that but then we also have to operate

1:44:25 ↗ as that that we they're going to push on

1:44:30 ↗ us and we have to push back and I think

1:44:31 ↗ that friction is where we're going to

1:44:33 ↗ get a lot of distinction and quality

1:44:36 ↗ that's my opinion

1:44:40 ↗ so unless there's more compelling

1:44:43 ↗ dialogue let's move on to page 72 of 93

1:44:55 ↗ are we all voting for the bottom one see

1:45:01 ↗ that's an instance where we just say no

1:45:05 ↗ comments on this one why I thought we

1:45:09 ↗ should replace that middle picture with

1:45:11 ↗ the library their library looks way

1:45:13 ↗ better than that building I I did have

1:45:20 ↗ one question I'm not I just have a

1:45:21 ↗ question worried about the corporate

1:45:22 ↗ identities expressed through building

1:45:24 ↗ material and I know that I'm the bottom

1:45:28 ↗ one I think is obviously not something

1:45:30 ↗ we would be looking for but is there the

1:45:33 ↗ possibility of other corporate

1:45:36 ↗ identities at would fit an REI sign or

1:45:39 ↗ something like that would that fit in

1:45:43 ↗ the as well thing and so there there's

1:45:44 ↗ want to keep it a blanket just keep them

1:45:46 ↗ out so I think you're raising a good

1:45:49 ↗ point so I don't think that constrains

1:45:53 ↗ signs

1:45:54 ↗ I mean signs are not a part of this at

1:45:57 ↗ this point I think that it does I think

1:46:07 ↗ that it's going to be a challenge for

1:46:09 ↗ some corporate models you know red is a

1:46:12 ↗ classic Pickering barn red yes other

1:46:17 ↗ Reds no Krispy Kreme may not be able to

1:46:21 ↗ do well I so I don't know that Krispy

1:46:25 ↗ Kreme I mean I'm doing this from memory

1:46:27 ↗ okay it is a corporate architecture I

1:46:31 ↗ think that and and maybe that's the I

1:46:36 ↗ think that that corporate architecture

1:46:41 ↗ that fits with the architectural style

1:46:44 ↗ manual is going to be okay but if your

1:46:48 ↗ corporate architecture

1:46:51 ↗ I mean this is obviously an extreme one

1:46:53 ↗ but you know not all

1:46:59 ↗ well most corporations have an urban

1:47:01 ↗ model I mean you know that's the example

1:47:03 ↗ I think of first and this is again not

1:47:05 ↗ architectural one of the challenges we

1:47:08 ↗ had years in year after year at

1:47:10 ↗ highlands was they kept bringing in

1:47:12 ↗ their suburban model and we kept saying

1:47:14 ↗ we need your urban model we know you

1:47:16 ↗ have one you need to do your urban model

1:47:18 ↗ here and so I think that that while they

1:47:21 ↗ do have certain corporate you know they

1:47:26 ↗ want a distinctive image there's often a

1:47:29 ↗ variety of ways that they can achieve it

1:47:31 ↗ without necessarily losing all of their

1:47:34 ↗ identity yeah so like say a target

1:47:37 ↗ building that's in downtown Seattle

1:47:40 ↗ wouldn't be able to do a big red target

1:47:44 ↗ on a building like that right that

1:47:47 ↗ others that's another sign yeah yeah so

1:47:50 ↗ when our economic development director

1:47:51 ↗ boy yeah so one of the things that may

1:47:54 ↗ want to be in the guidelines section

1:47:56 ↗ because I think it's worth maybe

1:47:58 ↗ unpacking a little bit is you know what

1:48:01 ↗ it doesn't talk about because this is

1:48:02 ↗ about contrast right and you could maybe

1:48:05 ↗ say the same thing about harmony and

1:48:07 ↗ it's right now so I'm going to go and

1:48:09 ↗ I'm going to go build a new project in

1:48:11 ↗ central Issaquah somewhere well the

1:48:13 ↗ stuff on both sides of me are 1980 strip

1:48:15 ↗ mall right so so nobody's telling me I

1:48:18 ↗ should be have contextual harmony with

1:48:22 ↗ those things right and so I guess the

1:48:24 ↗ question here and this actually came up

1:48:26 ↗ in a conversation we had yesterday is

1:48:28 ↗ you know where is the opportunity for

1:48:33 ↗ someone who's really kind of the first

1:48:35 ↗ redevelopment project in a particular

1:48:37 ↗ area to set that style you know going

1:48:41 ↗ back to Maple Street building you know

1:48:43 ↗ you bet you can now make there needs to

1:48:46 ↗ be some sort of at least conversation

1:48:48 ↗ about there's now a context there that

1:48:51 ↗ somebody on an adjacent property needs

1:48:53 ↗ to work with in some way right it

1:48:56 ↗ doesn't have to match it but it needs to

1:48:58 ↗ at least acknowledge it and and reflect

1:49:00 ↗ it in its design in a lot of places in

1:49:03 ↗ central Issaquah there is no

1:49:05 ↗ context that we want to take forward for

1:49:07 ↗ the next 20 years because we expect the

1:49:09 ↗ whole thing to redevelop maybe in some

1:49:11 ↗ parts of central Issaquah so maybe what

1:49:14 ↗ we need in the guidelines section is

1:49:16 ↗ also some text about kind of the

1:49:19 ↗ pioneers within a certain sub area to be

1:49:22 ↗ able to basically choose and not have us

1:49:25 ↗ say well there's no there's no it

1:49:27 ↗ doesn't it doesn't have context with

1:49:29 ↗ anything else I don't I mean I don't

1:49:31 ↗ know where that goes in here but it

1:49:33 ↗ seems like somewhere we need to address

1:49:34 ↗ that piece because otherwise I could see

1:49:36 ↗ us having maybe not clear discussions

1:49:40 ↗ with applicants of saying hey everything

1:49:42 ↗ around me throw away I'm going to now be

1:49:44 ↗ the pillar of you know I'm going to set

1:49:47 ↗ the style for this this next block maybe

1:49:50 ↗ that's okay maybe it's not and I just

1:49:51 ↗ don't know right now I don't know how to

1:49:53 ↗ deal with that so we just might need to

1:49:55 ↗ have them put some thought into that

1:49:57 ↗ piece because we know there's going to

1:49:59 ↗ be places where it's going to be even

1:50:01 ↗ though it's not greenfield it's semi

1:50:04 ↗ virgin redevelopment property when you

1:50:07 ↗ write in the harmony section in the page

1:50:08 ↗ before good neighbors a new building or

1:50:11 ↗ development that supports rather than

1:50:12 ↗ competes with the established character

1:50:14 ↗ of the area and maybe you don't want it

1:50:17 ↗ to exactly yeah you know maybe I don't

1:50:21 ↗ want to be compatible with the Big O

1:50:22 ↗ tires maybe I do that's against big goes

1:50:26 ↗ higher that's exactly the point

1:50:31 ↗ greenie other comments on page 72 I'm

1:50:38 ↗ going to tension potentially skip page

1:50:40 ↗ 73 let somebody have some real concerns

1:50:43 ↗ with a blank page that we have 74 1973

1:50:55 ↗ seventy-five

1:51:02 ↗ [Applause]

1:51:06 ↗ I think Karl when he brought up the fact

1:51:08 ↗ that basically his communities built and

1:51:12 ↗ so I think there may be value in in

1:51:16 ↗ setting this setting up this design

1:51:19 ↗ guide as a aspirational in some part

1:51:24 ↗ that says when the opportunity creates

1:51:26 ↗ itself to incorporate these these design

1:51:30 ↗ guides we're going to do it but we're

1:51:31 ↗ not going to impose them on already

1:51:34 ↗ existing stuff there may be some value

1:51:35 ↗ in trying to make a statement somewhere

1:51:37 ↗ that maybe it already does I just didn't

1:51:39 ↗ know this so is our is what you're

1:51:48 ↗ saying that if well I lumps Owens saying

1:51:55 ↗ is that when we have the chance to move

1:51:58 ↗ closer to this model we want to do it

1:52:00 ↗ that's all I'm saying right and and that

1:52:03 ↗ you know that's something we that this

1:52:06 ↗ is the hardest thing to do is how you

1:52:09 ↗ incrementally redevelop toward a vision

1:52:12 ↗ and I think one of the things we're

1:52:15 ↗ looking forward to is some more

1:52:16 ↗ conversations about how you do that in a

1:52:19 ↗ way that makes sense

1:52:21 ↗ as as you only have partial

1:52:24 ↗ redevelopment of a block for instance

1:52:26 ↗ yeah so in Lucy to that point I mean so

1:52:30 ↗ inappropriate on page 75 of 93 you know

1:52:34 ↗ one of the things that they talk about

1:52:35 ↗ being inappropriate as a parcel passage

1:52:38 ↗ and I guess the question is you know

1:52:41 ↗ there's going to be times let's say that

1:52:43 ↗ white building in the the bottom photo

1:52:47 ↗ is a redevelopment that's a new building

1:52:49 ↗ let's just pretend right and so we could

1:52:52 ↗ get that passage potentially along that

1:52:56 ↗ building but then maybe that next piece

1:52:59 ↗ which is in the yellow we can't get

1:53:00 ↗ until that next piece of property

1:53:03 ↗ redeveloped so the question is is what

1:53:05 ↗ do you do are they saying don't get that

1:53:08 ↗ parcel partial I don't even can't say

1:53:10 ↗ partial assets oh my gosh I need to go

1:53:13 ↗ sleepers you know you know I don't know

1:53:16 ↗ I what are they saying don't do it or

1:53:18 ↗ get

1:53:19 ↗ in maybe entitlement but not build it I

1:53:22 ↗ mean I think it I don't understand

1:53:25 ↗ because it's all going to be incremental

1:53:27 ↗ right we're not we're not going to get

1:53:29 ↗ potentially a whole block built at a

1:53:31 ↗ time and so if if the direction here is

1:53:34 ↗ don't do things in small pieces if it's

1:53:38 ↗ part of a bigger plan to get maybe a

1:53:41 ↗ through block connection or a mid block

1:53:43 ↗ you know access way maybe we got to do

1:53:46 ↗ it in pieces and so I don't know I'm not

1:53:48 ↗ sure what to do with that what about if

1:53:50 ↗ we just add the word permanent partial

1:53:53 ↗ passages well except it could be five

1:53:57 ↗ years that or ten years

1:53:59 ↗ I know but again if it's designed to

1:54:01 ↗ eventually go through when the next

1:54:03 ↗ place gets developed okay as opposed to

1:54:06 ↗ others of passage that we know we'll

1:54:08 ↗ never know readers so you could

1:54:11 ↗ potentially move the or in front of dead

1:54:14 ↗ end and have it the dead end parcel

1:54:16 ↗ passages just because you want to be

1:54:18 ↗ able to that one more time

1:54:20 ↗ yeah sake so because I think that's the

1:54:23 ↗ point is you don't want to get you want

1:54:25 ↗ to have a road to nowhere you don't want

1:54:27 ↗ a mid-block crossing that goes to the

1:54:30 ↗ back of a building right and so you know

1:54:33 ↗ so if there if we know it's likely to be

1:54:36 ↗ dead end we might send through permit

1:54:39 ↗ review say okay in this particular case

1:54:41 ↗ don't do that because that sends a bad

1:54:43 ↗ message to our community because we're

1:54:45 ↗ sending them somewhere that doesn't go

1:54:47 ↗ anywhere

1:54:47 ↗ yeah my interpretation of that was that

1:54:51 ↗ it's mid block that it just you don't

1:54:53 ↗ allow someone to end a passage mid block

1:54:56 ↗ because going back to it incrementally

1:54:59 ↗ you know you develop one block and you

1:55:02 ↗ have that partial passage and say the

1:55:03 ↗ next block hasn't been redeveloped yet

1:55:06 ↗ well once it is you want that that

1:55:08 ↗ passage already there to connect to now

1:55:11 ↗ the next one and I asked a question

1:55:15 ↗ about the nature of them are they are

1:55:17 ↗ they easements or are they right-of-way

1:55:19 ↗ I think that I don't know well probably

1:55:26 ↗ easements but that that's a good

1:55:28 ↗ question I mean I think that was the

1:55:30 ↗ question that Ray brought up are these

1:55:32 ↗ roommate

1:55:33 ↗ city's responsibility or I mean there

1:55:36 ↗ are different sides of the same coin

1:55:37 ↗ is are they dedicating them as

1:55:40 ↗ right-of-way my guess is not but then

1:55:42 ↗ you would want some kind of easement

1:55:44 ↗ that allowed at least the through block

1:55:48 ↗ part of it to be used by the community

1:55:53 ↗ and I guess my question is goes down to

1:55:55 ↗ who pays for creating it not maintaining

1:55:58 ↗ it necessarily I guess that's part to

1:56:01 ↗ the question then who creates it then

1:56:02 ↗ it's a question of if you get a critical

1:56:05 ↗ mass of development then is the onus on

1:56:07 ↗ the city to come in and create it so to

1:56:11 ↗ speak if it's right away or is it always

1:56:14 ↗ on the developer to improve that so far

1:56:17 ↗ they deliver that in development no it's

1:56:21 ↗ generally been on the developer I mean

1:56:23 ↗ you know at some point I don't I don't

1:56:27 ↗ think we're there but at some point the

1:56:29 ↗ city could decide we're going to build

1:56:31 ↗ the street this plaza this through block

1:56:34 ↗ passage because we believe that will

1:56:36 ↗ spur a certain kind of redevelopment in

1:56:38 ↗ this area and that I don't think that

1:56:41 ↗ there's a particular you know pioneer

1:56:45 ↗ project or you know priming of the pump

1:56:47 ↗ that the city has identified that they

1:56:49 ↗ want to undertake okay and wonderful a

1:56:52 ↗ good example is the townhomes that are

1:56:54 ↗ built on the south side of where Dick's

1:56:57 ↗ Sporting Goods is and they've got just

1:57:00 ↗ right across that parking lot that

1:57:02 ↗ pedestrian walk through which seems like

1:57:05 ↗ it's private there's no street that goes

1:57:07 ↗ through but it's open to the public

1:57:10 ↗ to walk through it's a required plaza

1:57:13 ↗ linear Plaza that was it was the peanut

1:57:21 ↗ gallery is commenting that's a private

1:57:22 ↗ plaza then I take it with an ailment

1:57:24 ↗ ability to allow the public purpose I

1:57:28 ↗ mean actually when they were asking for

1:57:31 ↗ local examples I sent that one to them

1:57:34 ↗ and asked if that you know represented

1:57:37 ↗ the kind of through block passage

1:57:39 ↗ because it is wider than we've typically

1:57:42 ↗ done those through block passages yeah I

1:57:44 ↗ think that the

1:57:46 ↗ it's at least 30 feet wide and then

1:57:49 ↗ there's another 10 feet or something two

1:57:51 ↗ buildings so you know you're looking at

1:57:53 ↗ something in this probably 50 foot range

1:57:58 ↗ let's move head 76

1:58:04 ↗ [Applause]

1:58:13 ↗ about 77

1:58:23 ↗ about 78

1:58:35 ↗ about 79 will be teaching Lucy just one

1:58:41 ↗ minor typo on there under appropriate

1:58:43 ↗ that on which book page of 79 okay under

1:58:48 ↗ appropriate the first paragraph says

1:58:50 ↗ maybe lease obtrusive to the sort of

1:58:54 ↗ stop thank you on the subject of typos

1:59:02 ↗ like to raise my tech rating I just

1:59:06 ↗ can't leave it behind this is a draft

1:59:09 ↗ document in work right but I have

1:59:12 ↗ probably several hundred markups on this

1:59:14 ↗ so far so I hope that at the end we have

1:59:17 ↗ a definite responsibility assigned for

1:59:19 ↗ the final draft for an editor to go

1:59:22 ↗ through all this because you know it's

1:59:23 ↗ not extremely clean at this point about

1:59:33 ↗ page eight

1:59:38 ↗ I guess the one question about the

1:59:42 ↗ setback with it at least or exactly yeah

1:59:45 ↗ and I I guess opinion wise here I don't

1:59:49 ↗ know that I agree with you can only have

1:59:51 ↗ one upper floor step back and that you

1:59:54 ↗ know it's four storeys one setback and

1:59:56 ↗ that's it we'll ask them to explain that

1:59:59 ↗ so their rationale and then I think we

2:00:01 ↗ can deliberate on whether that's a good

2:00:02 ↗ reason or not as opposed to multiple

2:00:05 ↗ step backs on upper floors yeah as I I

2:00:08 ↗ don't know that it would detract

2:00:10 ↗ necessarily from buildings and if a

2:00:12 ↗ developer wants to set it back a couple

2:00:14 ↗ times I'll see where the harm would be I

2:00:23 ↗ think they're always trying to avoid

2:00:25 ↗ setbacks from the progress of the

2:00:28 ↗ project Oh a page 81 or step backs versa

2:00:34 ↗ I have one comment here under

2:00:36 ↗ appropriate the second bullet point it

2:00:39 ↗ might be might spell it out in the

2:00:44 ↗ design codes but should we be

2:00:45 ↗ prescriptive on the pedestrian sight

2:00:47 ↗ lines for how I off the ground the

2:00:51 ↗ windows have to be

2:00:58 ↗ off the ground or relative to the grade

2:01:00 ↗ or both relative to their would be great

2:01:09 ↗ if it's pedestrian sight line is this a

2:01:11 ↗ AAA to in essence were locate window

2:01:14 ↗ openings above pedestrian sidelines yeah

2:01:16 ↗ okay window openings above veteran sight

2:01:18 ↗ lines Dubonnet want to be more specific

2:01:20 ↗ prescriptive their minimum elsewhere

2:01:23 ↗ they indicate it as five feet if it is a

2:01:26 ↗ pedestrian I can't find the key so maybe

2:01:28 ↗ that is our gold standard but they

2:01:31 ↗ should say it oh it's elsewhere well

2:01:33 ↗ they do have they do reference

2:01:34 ↗ pedestrian sight lines where they do

2:01:36 ↗ want transparency okay these five feet

2:01:41 ↗ in the benchmark and so maybe and that

2:01:44 ↗ is it so anything it means they do on

2:01:46 ↗ page 87 where they're talking about

2:01:49 ↗ ground floor transparency for retail

2:01:52 ↗ from floor retail I think your point is

2:01:56 ↗ good one I should just say here as well

2:01:57 ↗ as say so Lucy also on a one I mean I

2:02:03 ↗ think we have the same question about

2:02:05 ↗ one foot six inches and four feet are

2:02:08 ↗ those supermagic or is there a range

2:02:12 ↗ there that's that's allowable right I

2:02:14 ↗ mean that's pretty darn specific do that

2:02:18 ↗ right clarity

2:02:19 ↗ well that's clear I mean there's no

2:02:21 ↗ ambiguity about right one foot six

2:02:23 ↗ inches now I would wonder it along the

2:02:25 ↗ sight line I wonder maybe about not

2:02:28 ↗ being prescriptive and if they're saying

2:02:30 ↗ it's appropriate to locate them above

2:02:32 ↗ sight lines but not that you have to now

2:02:36 ↗ if a developer came in and said we want

2:02:38 ↗ to have our these windows to be a three

2:02:42 ↗ feet I think part of so that so I could

2:02:45 ↗ get so part of the I'll maybe pose the

2:02:49 ↗ opposite side of that so so they build

2:02:51 ↗ it that way and then all the tenants

2:02:53 ↗ move in and they don't like that level

2:02:56 ↗ of visibility into their space so then

2:02:59 ↗ you get things like furniture and you

2:03:03 ↗ know butcher paper and I stopped in the

2:03:06 ↗ windows so nobody can look in so

2:03:08 ↗ you know I agree I love the fact that

2:03:11 ↗ you would because we want is we want

2:03:13 ↗ that the ability to kind of have that

2:03:15 ↗ active side walk by being able to see

2:03:18 ↗ into some of those but you get so you

2:03:22 ↗ get some bad behavior too right so the

2:03:24 ↗ other way that you see it is when you

2:03:27 ↗ have specific you know when you have

2:03:30 ↗ these height limits and we're seeing

2:03:34 ↗ this in the you district a lot where the

2:03:36 ↗ ground floor they're they're pushing the

2:03:39 ↗ ground floor down so you get these sort

2:03:42 ↗ of troglodyte units and that's also

2:03:48 ↗ uncomfortable because then people are

2:03:50 ↗ really looking into everything that's

2:03:52 ↗ going so then they've always got shades

2:03:54 ↗ on their windows so I think it's it's

2:03:56 ↗ trying to as key said establish a level

2:04:01 ↗ at which it will be comfortable on both

2:04:03 ↗ sides you know for kind of the right

2:04:06 ↗ level of engagement on the same page

2:04:15 ↗ there are a number of pages in this

2:04:17 ↗ section with no inappropriate section is

2:04:19 ↗ that because it's just not appropriate

2:04:21 ↗ to include and there are no examples of

2:04:25 ↗ in appropriate images there either same

2:04:28 ↗ next page

2:04:38 ↗ speaking of the next page 82 comments

2:04:48 ↗ comments mr. chair under appropriation

2:04:53 ↗ appropriate under appropriate the last

2:04:56 ↗ paragraph it talks about accommodation

2:04:59 ↗ outside seating dining retail limited

2:05:04 ↗ landscape or raised planet I wonder

2:05:08 ↗ should we include railings in there I

2:05:13 ↗ said as a merchant you know every square

2:05:18 ↗ you know it's its money so if you put

2:05:21 ↗ planters in there planters takes up more

2:05:23 ↗ room versus just railing you only have a

2:05:27 ↗ couple of inches that each into your

2:05:29 ↗ there are space so I wonder should we

2:05:34 ↗ could the word railing and have them

2:05:37 ↗ have that option to go into there says

2:05:41 ↗ me and clothes how could the other thing

2:05:43 ↗ so railing should be acceptable yeah I I

2:05:47 ↗ think that there so I don't know that

2:05:53 ↗ I'm going to make sure I'm tracking what

2:05:55 ↗ you're what you're getting at

2:05:57 ↗ so there's the first sentence is the

2:05:59 ↗ sort of activities that we want and the

2:06:02 ↗ second sentence is how landscape could

2:06:05 ↗ be appropriately incorporated so while

2:06:10 ↗ the landscape may be part of defining

2:06:12 ↗ those areas and railings would also

2:06:14 ↗ define those areas I don't think that

2:06:16 ↗ they're trying to actually address the

2:06:19 ↗ tools that you're using to define cafes

2:06:24 ↗ eating I think that they're trying to

2:06:26 ↗ identify appropriate ways for landscape

2:06:28 ↗ to be incorporated but do we want

2:06:31 ↗ landscape do we not railing I I think

2:06:35 ↗ you could have railings or you could not

2:06:37 ↗ have railings I don't think they're

2:06:39 ↗ trying to say talk about railings with

2:06:43 ↗ the seating although you're you're

2:06:45 ↗ absolutely right most restaurants if

2:06:47 ↗ they serve

2:06:48 ↗ alcohol are going to have to have

2:06:49 ↗ railings yeah I think they're really the

2:06:51 ↗ second sentence is really just trying to

2:06:53 ↗ get at how what appropriate landscape

2:06:57 ↗ would look like it curls right it would

2:07:02 ↗ be a possibility this is just a main

2:07:04 ↗ glue does and say you can't have them

2:07:06 ↗ related to then on description be though

2:07:09 ↗ doesn't it say that landscaping is

2:07:12 ↗ required here do we want that or is that

2:07:16 ↗ just copy and paste from the previous

2:07:18 ↗ section section yeah yeah after look at

2:07:22 ↗ the description be it looks like it's

2:07:25 ↗ calling for required landscaping for

2:07:27 ↗ these setbacks yep down below when it

2:07:30 ↗ describes it as appropriate it qualifies

2:07:33 ↗ it as optional looks like yeah could we

2:07:36 ↗ say something like I you know items

2:07:40 ↗ that's used for for screening could I be

2:07:46 ↗ landscaping raised planters right

2:07:51 ↗ railings even a more more more options

2:07:57 ↗ see right now the way I read it has said

2:07:59 ↗ yeah you could use landscaping or raised

2:08:03 ↗ planters or landscape pots I think I

2:08:08 ↗ don't get the impression that railing is

2:08:10 ↗ okay there although you know you read

2:08:13 ↗ into you say well railing could be so I

2:08:18 ↗ guess my proposed language maybe you can

2:08:22 ↗ change the language to say that that

2:08:27 ↗ includes ie landscaping great great

2:08:33 ↗ planters or railings of some kind please

2:08:46 ↗ if we're going optional there did we

2:08:48 ↗ want to delete it up above in

2:08:50 ↗ description where it says maximum

2:08:51 ↗ 10-foot landscape setback well I think

2:08:54 ↗ the like at you have a level of

2:08:57 ↗ precision that is amazing and so I think

2:09:01 ↗ what you're highlighting is that the way

2:09:04 ↗ that so part of the confusion for me was

2:09:08 ↗ I was looking at the lower B when you

2:09:10 ↗ were talking and then realized there was

2:09:12 ↗ an upper B so the upper be the way it's

2:09:17 ↗ written is it implies that the entire

2:09:19 ↗ setback is landscape and the lower one

2:09:22 ↗ implies that landscape is a part of that

2:09:24 ↗ setback but not don't entirely of it not

2:09:28 ↗ only that optional rate because the

2:09:30 ↗ image at the bottom of that page shows

2:09:31 ↗ that kind of setback there's no

2:09:33 ↗ landscaping really included in it so and

2:09:35 ↗ I hope you take out the word landscapes

2:09:38 ↗ in the upper Eddy

2:09:39 ↗ correct thank you good yes what proposed

2:09:42 ↗ green

2:09:51 ↗ moo-ved 883 yeah on page 83 i guess my

2:10:00 ↗ comment is maybe we should clarify the

2:10:04 ↗ word setback and step back

2:10:06 ↗ I guess we're there you're switching

2:10:09 ↗ back and forth from each step back as

2:10:12 ↗ like a marriage cake and step back sit

2:10:16 ↗ back it's on the ground level where you

2:10:17 ↗ sit back and and they're interchanging

2:10:22 ↗ that on page 83 of 93 but if you go to

2:10:26 ↗ page 82 of 93 under B it's a ten-foot

2:10:31 ↗ ground-floor setback I think that's

2:10:35 ↗ correct

2:10:36 ↗ setback is on setback from on the ground

2:10:38 ↗ level you said back when you're up on

2:10:40 ↗ the fifth floor you want to go back you

2:10:43 ↗ step back so so that's why on page 83 I

2:10:49 ↗ I I think they need to clarify it a

2:10:52 ↗ little bit got it for somebody right

2:10:55 ↗ graph should be set back and in the

2:10:58 ↗ second paragraph under description 20

2:11:01 ↗ foot step back I think for some of these

2:11:04 ↗ that are as prescriptive as that I mean

2:11:07 ↗ there's really no variability I mean in

2:11:09 ↗ theory assuming that 20 feet is magic I

2:11:11 ↗ mean so so we've used photos throughout

2:11:14 ↗ this document to give us visual images

2:11:18 ↗ of what what's what could work and what

2:11:20 ↗ might not work but for some of these

2:11:22 ↗ that are like exact and or if they are

2:11:25 ↗ you know they like for this example on

2:11:28 ↗ the previous page in the middle

2:11:29 ↗ they used actually a software diagram

2:11:34 ↗ and and dimensioned it right and so for

2:11:37 ↗ this one ray maybe the best thing is to

2:11:40 ↗ push these photos down and have a

2:11:42 ↗ similar diagram sketch that shows the

2:11:46 ↗ bottom level and then this step back for

2:11:49 ↗ the upper level so it's clear to match

2:11:53 ↗ up with whatever wording we end up with

2:11:55 ↗ I agree we should have some

2:11:57 ↗ or clarity on the wording but maybe we

2:11:59 ↗ could have a diagram to show that as

2:12:02 ↗ well because that I think would be a

2:12:03 ↗ clear representation yeah yeah yeah

2:12:06 ↗ that's I agree I agree

2:12:08 ↗ Justin on page 83 I think there's a

2:12:12 ↗ mixed up my mind right right the word I

2:12:15 ↗ think we can I'm gonna pick that I think

2:12:17 ↗ we keep the set back on the 20 feet

2:12:18 ↗ because that matches what we're using

2:12:20 ↗ for a setback you talk about Rene's okay

2:12:24 ↗ I'm going to call wordsmithing and we're

2:12:26 ↗ going to fix exactly but and that the

2:12:29 ↗ minimum is the big question yeah yeah

2:12:30 ↗ it's missing okay for

2:12:43 ↗ 85 hanging there we're going to go

2:12:48 ↗ dancing like I had a question on

2:12:51 ↗ appropriate first bullet it's as

2:12:54 ↗ secondary entries are permitted along

2:12:56 ↗ through passage frontages is a through

2:12:59 ↗ passage frontage the same as through

2:13:02 ↗ block passage

2:13:04 ↗ excellent question I'm not I honestly

2:13:06 ↗ I'm not sure exactly it's when it is

2:13:09 ↗ through through passage I don't know

2:13:12 ↗ what frontage is sort of throwing me off

2:13:16 ↗ in there so I think that's a good point

2:13:18 ↗ of needing clarification thank you that

2:13:23 ↗ is how I read it but well it's just it's

2:13:29 ↗ just one of the things that was coming

2:13:31 ↗ up is consistent terminology age 86 so

2:13:41 ↗ lucy wet you so we talked about this one

2:13:44 ↗ earlier you read the second bullet point

2:13:47 ↗ under inappropriate and threw in a word

2:13:50 ↗ there that's not there and that's glass

2:13:53 ↗ so when I read that it says blue tinted

2:13:56 ↗ reflective or other opaque materials or

2:13:59 ↗ treatments and I look at the picture on

2:14:02 ↗ top which I assume is what they're

2:14:05 ↗ saying is an appropriate treatment and I

2:14:07 ↗ see brass doors right and so you know

2:14:11 ↗ for me that that's a that's kind of a

2:14:14 ↗ reflective material but if we're really

2:14:16 ↗ talking about the glass I think that

2:14:19 ↗ could use maybe another word or two to

2:14:22 ↗ be clear on that perspective because I

2:14:24 ↗ think you know there are some

2:14:26 ↗ architectural treatments at the ground

2:14:28 ↗ level that are shiny and reflective and

2:14:31 ↗ actually can be quite nice and that's

2:14:34 ↗ different than saying the windows are

2:14:37 ↗ transparent right so I think that one is

2:14:40 ↗ and and I think the glass had come up

2:14:44 ↗ that topic had come up in staff comments

2:14:46 ↗ so that's why I was just reading into it

2:14:48 ↗ but I think it's a good clarification

2:14:50 ↗ that's really just a windows

2:14:54 ↗ the glass when well window includes the

2:15:00 ↗ frame and that's what keeps pointed us

2:15:04 ↗ who said oh right gotcha

2:15:06 ↗ last night this glass just got and I

2:15:09 ↗ brief 87 the guideline paragraph I don't

2:15:18 ↗ understand that long run-on sentence I

2:15:20 ↗ don't actually understand what they're

2:15:22 ↗ trying to say there seems like maybe two

2:15:25 ↗ sentences to me but I can't tell it

2:15:36 ↗ makes sense to my planner brain but

2:15:38 ↗ we'll work on that given the way I would

2:15:41 ↗ read this is retail uses fronting is

2:15:45 ↗ that correct retails the subject uses of

2:15:48 ↗ the verb on public streets a through

2:15:50 ↗ block passage natural areas uses is a

2:15:53 ↗ noun uses is a noun retail is an

2:15:57 ↗ adjective

2:15:58 ↗ you're testing Isis or entire English so

2:16:02 ↗ I would can we recast that sentence so

2:16:05 ↗ that's clear so I'm retail applications

2:16:11 ↗ are retail in real estate uses as a rate

2:16:15 ↗ right first I've know the processes

2:16:17 ↗ except this would be typical I'd

2:16:18 ↗ understand yeah okay that is the word

2:16:21 ↗ that's the word in okay so we retail

2:16:26 ↗ activities but activity is more like

2:16:31 ↗ stuff to go on on the plaza

2:16:33 ↗ I mean you retail a uses a basis if you

2:16:36 ↗ wanted to use a different word than uses

2:16:38 ↗ I mean I'm gonna you're talking about

2:16:41 ↗ the actual space and that's the use

2:16:44 ↗ picture I don't know fish yeah I may be

2:16:48 ↗ I'm finding to use it's not in

2:16:51 ↗ industrial commercial okay residential

2:16:58 ↗ battle will use

2:17:03 ↗ that's obviously confusing to enough

2:17:05 ↗ people that would that we are address it

2:17:08 ↗ not here right if you have it right yeah

2:17:12 ↗ well with any other comments on 87 and

2:17:17 ↗ 88 my one comment here is the they I

2:17:27 ↗ think they show the blue line on the

2:17:29 ↗ picture and the upper right to show that

2:17:31 ↗ this is what they're talking about forty

2:17:32 ↗ percent transparent at the ground floor

2:17:35 ↗ me is just not a great picture given you

2:17:40 ↗ don't really get to see the ground floor

2:17:41 ↗ that well and mostly what you see is

2:17:43 ↗ this the sort of barcode pattern of

2:17:48 ↗ these windows in the building which i

2:17:51 ↗ think is very attractive I was waiting

2:17:53 ↗ for you to say this background building

2:17:56 ↗ so I'll be honest you I told them you

2:18:00 ↗ guys do not like this picture I love

2:18:02 ↗ this building so I understand why they

2:18:04 ↗ have not dropped it because they

2:18:06 ↗ probably liked it too as designers but I

2:18:08 ↗ know this is not a good picture because

2:18:11 ↗ it doesn't convey what you guys are

2:18:13 ↗ wanting you know that it's not

2:18:16 ↗ representative of the things that you

2:18:18 ↗ like so that and then in this case I

2:18:22 ↗ don't think it's a very good

2:18:23 ↗ representation right of the ground floor

2:18:25 ↗ transported adult dark right yeah as all

2:18:28 ↗ dark and it's at an angle and it's

2:18:29 ↗ behind bright and and does the diagram

2:18:33 ↗ at the bottom do it sufficiently I mean

2:18:37 ↗ not in terms of being architectural II

2:18:40 ↗ what we want in terms of style but in

2:18:43 ↗ terms of sort of or composition but in

2:18:46 ↗ terms of meeting the requirement so

2:18:51 ↗ illustrating what forty percent

2:18:52 ↗ transparent all looks like that all

2:18:54 ↗ right right there you go yeah yeah so

2:18:56 ↗ even the photo on the next page which is

2:18:58 ↗ our weather protection page the top one

2:19:00 ↗ I mean so you've got big windows you can

2:19:02 ↗ actually see through those windows

2:19:04 ↗ that's like a better photo but I will do

2:19:08 ↗ we can find one yeah yeah we'll keep

2:19:09 ↗ pushing

2:19:14 ↗ same page note inappropriate section

2:19:15 ↗ there right wonder if they could move

2:19:17 ↗ the second bullet under appropriate down

2:19:18 ↗ there make it an appropriate reflective

2:19:23 ↗ coatings yeah aged 89 i I would like to

2:19:32 ↗ just build on our previous discussion on

2:19:34 ↗ this page can I go back to some of the

2:19:37 ↗ other guidelines that we've discussed up

2:19:38 ↗ till this point harmony compatibility

2:19:41 ↗ and then a third one I like to use a lot

2:19:43 ↗ is integration so I think there should

2:19:46 ↗ be some levity in the awning but it

2:19:49 ↗ needs to have harmony compatibility and

2:19:52 ↗ integration within the building and the

2:19:54 ↗ urban fabric and I would I would cite

2:19:57 ↗ the inappropriate picture again as that

2:19:59 ↗ has none of the above really just wants

2:20:02 ↗ to get your attention and so there I

2:20:05 ↗ think it's inappropriate so there's

2:20:07 ↗ still this subjective element to it but

2:20:10 ↗ if somebody is doing you know designing

2:20:12 ↗ a refined building you would think they

2:20:15 ↗ would a very special attention to that

2:20:18 ↗ on as well and that's where I think

2:20:20 ↗ integration comes into play and if we

2:20:22 ↗ use that word I think if it forces the

2:20:25 ↗ hand a little bit to get the desired

2:20:28 ↗ effect with without hemming them in as

2:20:33 ↗ much I guess I'm talking mostly to you

2:20:36 ↗ well but I think you're also that one of

2:20:38 ↗ the important points that you're

2:20:39 ↗ bringing up kevin is the point that even

2:20:44 ↗ if you did have a sombrero business I

2:20:47 ↗ would say that your awning should be are

2:20:51 ↗ appropriate to the architecture of the

2:20:53 ↗ building yes and instead I think you're

2:20:56 ↗ using the word integration I think

2:20:58 ↗ another concept is that is consistent

2:21:03 ↗ with the architectural character of the

2:21:04 ↗ building so it but I think that you're

2:21:09 ↗ also to raise point we're not asking

2:21:14 ↗ that it not at you know it could be the

2:21:18 ↗ jewelry on the building I'm going for

2:21:20 ↗ girl in the jury this time and but it

2:21:24 ↗ needs to it needs to

2:21:27 ↗ yeah I would use as an example if we're

2:21:31 ↗ using the the Arts and Crafts style we

2:21:35 ↗ have this very severe roof line coming

2:21:36 ↗ down to the the street level and that

2:21:39 ↗ that severe roof line could keep going

2:21:40 ↗ you know and you just just situate your

2:21:44 ↗ building such that that where that roof

2:21:46 ↗ line terminates it does span out for

2:21:48 ↗ five feet and serve as that awning is

2:21:52 ↗ one example and then it becomes part and

2:21:57 ↗ parcel of the architecture as opposed to

2:21:59 ↗ this thing that's attached to the

2:22:01 ↗ building by a third party and I think

2:22:03 ↗ that's when the awning is successful and

2:22:05 ↗ I think the top image illustrates that

2:22:07 ↗ it's it's very much a part of that that

2:22:11 ↗ storefront window facade that the

2:22:13 ↗ materiality is similar it registers off

2:22:17 ↗ the window lines and so that's what I

2:22:19 ↗ mean by and that's where I think it

2:22:22 ↗ becomes appropriate I really like that

2:22:26 ↗ idea that integrating or complementary

2:22:29 ↗ to the building style because that would

2:22:31 ↗ give us the tool when we look at an

2:22:33 ↗ awning able to say no we do like this or

2:22:36 ↗ we don't like that we can use that

2:22:38 ↗ language I think actually without having

2:22:41 ↗ to say it can only be horizontal metal

2:22:44 ↗ or canvas mm-mean that if there's a

2:22:47 ↗ material that carl's talked about that

2:22:50 ↗ synthetic that may be a good I hate to

2:22:52 ↗ say no we're never going to happen yeah

2:22:54 ↗ yeah

2:22:59 ↗ just a question on this page would this

2:23:02 ↗ be appropriate for this or not because

2:23:04 ↗ maybe a developer would never be faced

2:23:06 ↗ with it should we have any words

2:23:07 ↗ regarding weather protection for transit

2:23:09 ↗ stops even for light transit like

2:23:12 ↗ jitneys or whatever might be appropriate

2:23:14 ↗ in here like a good question here from a

2:23:20 ↗ building owners perspective so a transit

2:23:24 ↗ stop is a separate I'm not sure that

2:23:25 ↗ would be covered under this but from a

2:23:29 ↗ building owners perspective you don't

2:23:31 ↗ want somebody to say okay you have to

2:23:33 ↗ design the transit waiting area in front

2:23:36 ↗ of your building you know and require

2:23:39 ↗ that of somebody to do here it's

2:23:45 ↗ essentially a taking of your property

2:23:47 ↗ then right because not if it's in the

2:23:50 ↗ right-of-way but Richard is your is your

2:23:57 ↗ point that that transit stops should

2:24:01 ↗ shall some four have be weather

2:24:07 ↗ protected or are you suggesting that

2:24:11 ↗ that that provision is incorporated into

2:24:15 ↗ the adjacent building I guess my thought

2:24:20 ↗ is that if there are transit stops they

2:24:22 ↗ should be comfortable obviously

2:24:25 ↗ functional but I'm not sure whether the

2:24:28 ↗ developer would be required to provide

2:24:29 ↗ those or whether they would be public

2:24:31 ↗ and therefore not appropriate to this

2:24:32 ↗ guide probably would what might come

2:24:36 ↗ handy in that I were where the transit

2:24:42 ↗ transit authority would be in Corp in

2:24:46 ↗ any partnership with an owner developing

2:24:50 ↗ developer coming in putting in a

2:24:52 ↗ building with a transit stop in front of

2:24:56 ↗ it

2:24:57 ↗ or maybe even inside the building or

2:24:59 ↗ happy it's remarkably difficult I'll say

2:25:02 ↗ we went through this with Atlas they

2:25:04 ↗ negotiated upfront with Metro they

2:25:09 ↗ redesigned a location and then Metro

2:25:14 ↗ wasn't sure they wanted to use it so I

2:25:17 ↗ think and you know it's kind of like

2:25:20 ↗ some of the challenges that we face with

2:25:21 ↗ school bus stops you know it's one place

2:25:23 ↗ one year it's a different place another

2:25:25 ↗ year because we're of where the children

2:25:27 ↗ are the timing how many buses they're

2:25:30 ↗ running I it is it is a huge value of

2:25:34 ↗ ours so I think that what you're saying

2:25:38 ↗ is correct I'm not sure that I'm not

2:25:44 ↗ sure that putting it in here I mean this

2:25:47 ↗ is more about the building design and I

2:25:49 ↗ think that we want them I'm just not

2:25:52 ↗ quite sure how we can predict where

2:25:55 ↗ they're going to be enough to set that

2:25:58 ↗ up front in front

2:25:59 ↗ I've never may have been behind my

2:26:01 ↗ question I don't know that it's really

2:26:03 ↗ appropriate for this guide but obviously

2:26:05 ↗ it's something we're training encourage

2:26:06 ↗ in the core right absolutely well and

2:26:09 ↗ just one overall statement about this

2:26:11 ↗ guide and I want you guys to I think

2:26:13 ↗ hopefully embrace this perspective is

2:26:16 ↗ you know we're going to get this done

2:26:18 ↗ it's going to get adopted we're going to

2:26:19 ↗ start using it and we're going to

2:26:21 ↗ immediately start to realize the things

2:26:22 ↗ that we forgot to add alright and so

2:26:25 ↗ part of this is recognizing that this

2:26:27 ↗ thing needs to be semifluid and we need

2:26:29 ↗ to have the diligence keep updating it

2:26:32 ↗ as we go through permits have

2:26:35 ↗ realizations and go wait that didn't

2:26:37 ↗ turn out exactly the way we wanted or we

2:26:39 ↗ got into a debate about something we

2:26:41 ↗ shouldn't have because we were all clear

2:26:43 ↗ on how it should have been but the

2:26:44 ↗ developer had no idea right so part of

2:26:47 ↗ this is just just take that with a grain

2:26:49 ↗ of salt

2:26:49 ↗ Richard because we may be revisiting

2:26:52 ↗ that particular issue maybe sometime in

2:26:54 ↗ the near future won't our answer be

2:26:57 ↗ that's something the planning policy

2:26:59 ↗ missed that's a battle absolutely means

2:27:04 ↗ your answer we will be new we only

2:27:06 ↗ deliver light what's your comments from

2:27:10 ↗ the PC on TV to make it now have a page

2:27:15 ↗ 90 the companies

2:27:16 ↗ I know inappropriate they're about page

2:27:25 ↗ 91 is still in the same the 191 I

2:27:32 ↗ definitely question two questions about

2:27:35 ↗ the first appropriate accessible parts

2:27:37 ↗ within three blocks of all residents so

2:27:40 ↗ in terms of building design do you say

2:27:45 ↗ well you're building a building and

2:27:47 ↗ there's no park within three blocks so

2:27:50 ↗ you have to put the park in yours or it

2:27:52 ↗ seems hard thing to figure out how you

2:27:56 ↗ do that and then again back to my

2:27:58 ↗ question of you want to have parks every

2:28:00 ↗ three blocks it because then you have to

2:28:02 ↗ maintain them and stuff so I'm not so

2:28:04 ↗ sure that I like the idea of the green

2:28:06 ↗ necklace and connected parts and planned

2:28:09 ↗ out but I'm not sure that it can you be

2:28:11 ↗ this prescriptive even how it would work

2:28:14 ↗ well enough I don't know that means

2:28:18 ↗ they're public parks but I I think it is

2:28:24 ↗ I think understanding the intense of

2:28:28 ↗ spacing the size you know if you have a

2:28:32 ↗ small piece of property and you're the

2:28:35 ↗ first one to build and there's no Park

2:28:38 ↗ in that area does that mean it's on you

2:28:41 ↗ you know I and and it obviously ties

2:28:47 ↗ back to the parks plan and so we are

2:28:51 ↗ going to meet next week and begin to

2:28:53 ↗ talk to the parks department because

2:28:55 ↗ there's they're trying to start

2:28:57 ↗ anticipating some of the needs for

2:28:58 ↗ central we're trying to understand

2:29:01 ↗ how these pages fit in and begin to try

2:29:06 ↗ and set that framework so and just to

2:29:09 ↗ Mel's point I guess what I would say is

2:29:12 ↗ you know there's if you're if you if you

2:29:16 ↗ go with like a demand based approach

2:29:19 ↗ there's a big difference between you

2:29:22 ↗ know three blocks of three-story

2:29:23 ↗ buildings or three blocks of eight

2:29:25 ↗ storey buildings in terms of the number

2:29:27 ↗ of people that you're generating in a

2:29:30 ↗ particular

2:29:30 ↗ block that would need an open space to

2:29:33 ↗ go recreation right and so part of it

2:29:35 ↗ for me is that that piece is missing

2:29:37 ↗ there's there was an assumption may be

2:29:39 ↗ made on density that I don't know how to

2:29:43 ↗ deal with that right yet just because

2:29:44 ↗ again we don't have there's not a

2:29:47 ↗ pattern that's been established yet

2:29:49 ↗ right so I don't I find myself also and

2:29:53 ↗ I think Lucy and I were both looking to

2:29:55 ↗ the Parks Department to give us some

2:29:56 ↗ clarity on this particular topic since

2:29:59 ↗ it's their wheelhouse

2:30:07 ↗ I'm a page 92 oh of 93 that's some

2:30:14 ↗ comments on 93 it looks like a lot like

2:30:19 ↗ the other case it was like all right I'm

2:30:26 ↗ getting the sense that we're we've

2:30:28 ↗ completed that any other comments for

2:30:30 ↗ people that people would like to make

2:30:31 ↗ feel compelled to make well I think one

2:30:34 ↗ of the things to talk about not tonight

2:30:38 ↗ but strategically we have this meeting

2:30:41 ↗ next week and how do we want to use that

2:30:44 ↗ we've gone through sort of you know both

2:30:47 ↗ documents we've looked in depth I'm not

2:30:50 ↗ sure whether there are big topics that

2:30:54 ↗ are left for you the one topic that a

2:30:59 ↗ few of us have communicated about is

2:31:03 ↗ whether we want to look at some images

2:31:06 ↗ or you know talk about local projects

2:31:11 ↗ that we think are good examples or and I

2:31:15 ↗ don't know that we're saying that they

2:31:18 ↗ have to be in there but we'd like to put

2:31:19 ↗ these out to the architect crandall

2:31:21 ↗ rambilas

2:31:23 ↗ like them to consider these as for

2:31:26 ↗ inclusion or whether we're looking at a

2:31:30 ↗ little bigger pool I mean I I know

2:31:34 ↗ there's been a lot of and crandle

2:31:36 ↗ rambilas has frankly when we said that

2:31:38 ↗ to them they said we prefer to have

2:31:40 ↗ local projects I said you know because

2:31:44 ↗ it's nice for both the community for the

2:31:49 ↗ staff for the builders to be able to go

2:31:51 ↗ out and see a project and not just look

2:31:54 ↗ at it in a little you know 2 inch by 2

2:31:56 ↗ inch photo but see what it feels like in

2:31:59 ↗ three dimensions so there's I mean so so

2:32:03 ↗ clearly we could spend easily two hours

2:32:06 ↗ looking at pictures and and going

2:32:08 ↗ through you know that and I think

2:32:11 ↗ another suggestion that Connie made but

2:32:14 ↗ it was also I think she stole it from

2:32:15 ↗ one of our council members kidding

2:32:18 ↗ because it was made last night as well

2:32:21 ↗ was at some point and I don't know if it

2:32:24 ↗ makes if we're ready to do this is run

2:32:26 ↗ you guys through a dry run and take

2:32:28 ↗ either bail or in its wood or atlas or

2:32:31 ↗ one of the projects that you might have

2:32:33 ↗ done without this do a new one use this

2:32:37 ↗ and then talk through how we saw working

2:32:41 ↗ you know fill out the checklists go

2:32:45 ↗ through that and then see if if you and

2:32:49 ↗ we are generally on the same page if we

2:32:52 ↗ can't agree then that's going to be very

2:32:55 ↗ telling that maybe some of this needs

2:32:57 ↗ because I don't know how much of this is

2:32:59 ↗ going to get updated before the next

2:33:02 ↗ meeting right

2:33:03 ↗ none of it yeah and so the question is

2:33:05 ↗ is what's a good useful next step right

2:33:07 ↗ absolutely about some point that's a

2:33:10 ↗ great idea to do that yeah my bias is to

2:33:14 ↗ try the tool on see how it works that

2:33:17 ↗ week and I think we could spend more

2:33:18 ↗ than two hours looking at pictures and

2:33:20 ↗ we will all have a different idea what

2:33:22 ↗ it looks like but I think there's a

2:33:23 ↗ general consensus of we'd like to see

2:33:26 ↗ more it's across stuff or local stuff

2:33:28 ↗ that then not and preferably would like

2:33:32 ↗ to see more appropriate Issaquah

2:33:34 ↗ pictures and inappropriate but mostly

2:33:37 ↗ have to see the fact like that works out

2:33:39 ↗ but I think using the tool right now and

2:33:43 ↗ seeing if see it if we could come to

2:33:45 ↗ some kind of resolution or agreement on

2:33:47 ↗ how we can atlas would be a great one to

2:33:50 ↗ look at anyway pick a project that had

2:33:53 ↗ generated a little controversy and then

2:33:55 ↗ see how how this could have helped or

2:33:57 ↗ not that would be great use of our time

2:34:00 ↗ I think I agree I think that would be

2:34:03 ↗ great and we could work to do that next

2:34:06 ↗ week the one so that I would like to not

2:34:11 ↗ do Atlas because it's Henry buildings

2:34:14 ↗ and I would rather do either Vale or in

2:34:17 ↗ ass would because it's a smaller site in

2:34:19 ↗ one building the one thing to keep in

2:34:22 ↗ mind is none of them are going to fit

2:34:24 ↗ the Issaquah style unless we say it's

2:34:28 ↗ western false front or Grange and so

2:34:34 ↗ that part of the outcome right sure yes

2:34:40 ↗ but it's a little bit more challenging

2:34:42 ↗ because we've got that that that's like

2:34:44 ↗ a whole batch of it but for example is

2:34:49 ↗ good we went through a project and

2:34:52 ↗ review on one of the projects the other

2:34:56 ↗ day and the applicant had chose urban

2:34:59 ↗ Grange and so our consultant said you

2:35:03 ↗ know that's a challenge in this location

2:35:06 ↗ because we chose arts and crafts and and

2:35:10 ↗ he went through why they chose arts and

2:35:12 ↗ crafts to review it again and the

2:35:14 ↗ applicant chose why they chose urban

2:35:16 ↗ Grange and it was it was a fascinating

2:35:18 ↗ conversation to watch that unfold so

2:35:20 ↗ part of like if we choose in its wood or

2:35:24 ↗ Vale we're going to have to assume which

2:35:27 ↗ one of these architectural styles it

2:35:30 ↗ should fit in because the the consultant

2:35:33 ↗ has created some general parameters if

2:35:36 ↗ it's a particular height you know it can

2:35:38 ↗ only be a certain thing or you know for

2:35:41 ↗ urban Grange you know his comment was

2:35:43 ↗ the the applicants building was pretty

2:35:46 ↗ square it was like a cube and urban

2:35:49 ↗ Grange is much more kind of barn like an

2:35:52 ↗ agriculture and how do you deal with

2:35:54 ↗ that scale issue so if you really want

2:35:57 ↗ to do urban Grange how do you deal with

2:35:59 ↗ the fact that the building doesn't mimic

2:36:01 ↗ the urban Grange form you know just

2:36:03 ↗ because you want to use metal siding

2:36:05 ↗ doesn't make it urban grains right and

2:36:07 ↗ so it's a great conversation and I think

2:36:09 ↗ we learned a lot for how it would work

2:36:11 ↗ so similarly I think if we choose Vale

2:36:14 ↗ or in its wood and I would agree with

2:36:16 ↗ Lucy alice is too complicated to do in a

2:36:18 ↗ week but you know so we'll pick which

2:36:23 ↗ one of those architects architecture

2:36:25 ↗ themes seems to make sense for that and

2:36:29 ↗ then we'll judge it against that you

2:36:31 ↗ guys might say hey look you guys picked

2:36:33 ↗ arts and crafts we don't see that

2:36:36 ↗ building as arts and crafts at all we

2:36:37 ↗ would have chosen this style and then

2:36:40 ↗ that's a great conversation point right

2:36:42 ↗ I think that sounds fabulous we will not

2:36:44 ↗ be providing the checklist

2:36:48 ↗ well night I guess my preference might

2:36:50 ↗ be veiled just in terms of Venice would

2:36:52 ↗ had all the fill side stuff that sort of

2:36:56 ↗ impacted and we don't have that many

2:36:57 ↗ hillside sites yeah like it we might go

2:37:01 ↗ down the hillside rabbit hole and and

2:37:03 ↗ spend a lot of time there when that

2:37:04 ↗ might not be very informative for most

2:37:07 ↗ of the property but I will tell you that

2:37:08 ↗ both of those properties have a natural

2:37:11 ↗ area

2:37:12 ↗ so both it would be that that sort of

2:37:14 ↗ natural Eric because it has a stream on

2:37:17 ↗ in in proximity and they're saying

2:37:20 ↗ anything within 150 feet of that natural

2:37:23 ↗ area would have this application so it

2:37:28 ↗ would apply to available as well but you

2:37:30 ↗ wouldn't have the full hillside thing to

2:37:32 ↗ deal with

2:37:33 ↗ sure okay so let's we'll do bail don't

2:37:36 ↗ have it filled out and we'll talk our

2:37:38 ↗ way through it with good pistone so

2:37:43 ↗ other comments just the only other one

2:37:47 ↗ Honea brought up the idea of you

2:37:49 ↗ protection think view protections mostly

2:37:51 ↗ covered in SIDS if i recollect she would

2:37:56 ↗ say no yeah so the other thing i would

2:38:04 ↗ like to do is i started making a list

2:38:07 ↗ and I think Connie sort of did too and

2:38:09 ↗ that was something you had seen I think

2:38:12 ↗ some of you had seen I just like to have

2:38:15 ↗ a list of buildings so that if you if

2:38:18 ↗ were there certain buildings that we

2:38:20 ↗ like I don't I don't want it to be my

2:38:23 ↗ list of good buildings so what I'd like

2:38:27 ↗ to do is just start a list and email it

2:38:30 ↗ around and then we can look at it next

2:38:34 ↗ next meeting that way if the public

2:38:36 ↗ wants to add something to it it we're

2:38:38 ↗ not excluding the public conversation

2:38:40 ↗ but we're building a list does the list

2:38:43 ↗ have imagery because I think sometimes I

2:38:45 ↗ know it helps me you want to send you

2:38:49 ↗ photos I guess or is that too much or

2:38:51 ↗ just a list and then we we look at a map

2:38:54 ↗ maybe

2:38:56 ↗ I don't know I am I will see what we can

2:39:01 ↗ do yeah yeah so um but you know your

2:39:06 ↗ point is so I think at the very least

2:39:09 ↗ what we have to do is send an address or

2:39:11 ↗ something so that you can get to Google

2:39:13 ↗ Street View and look at it maybe that's

2:39:15 ↗ the best one because I think if I start

2:39:18 ↗ dropping foot first of all I don't have

2:39:20 ↗ photos of all of them if I'm doing

2:39:21 ↗ screen Clips then I get to a PDF then no

2:39:24 ↗ one else can modify the document when I

2:39:26 ↗ send it out to you but I don't expect

2:39:29 ↗ you but the name I may call something

2:39:31 ↗ may not be the name you call that

2:39:33 ↗ building and that's not going to be very

2:39:34 ↗ helpful if we can't all look at it

2:39:36 ↗ address address and google map and be

2:39:38 ↗ great I think that's a great idea

2:39:40 ↗ okay the onus is on you know that those

2:39:42 ↗ those townhomes just south of Dix I

2:39:44 ↗ think exporting goods would be a good

2:39:47 ↗ example got the plat so yeah drew block

2:39:49 ↗ casa just kept three level residential

2:39:53 ↗ and everything so romantic tenant right

2:39:57 ↗ the rate I'd like to thank all the

2:39:59 ↗ participation there are great comments

2:40:01 ↗ richer night apparently you have a lot

2:40:03 ↗ of editorial kind of things I don't know

2:40:05 ↗ if you've written those down you might

2:40:07 ↗ want to pass I have them I guess the

2:40:08 ↗ appropriate times when we're up to the

2:40:10 ↗ final draft or so on and then I can pass

2:40:13 ↗ money I need them before the final data

2:40:15 ↗ can give me a new it right you and I

2:40:17 ↗ were talking about how to do that okay

2:40:19 ↗ great yeah thanks Connie for your

2:40:24 ↗ participation as well so let's during

2:40:26 ↗ the meeting

2:40:28 ↗ thank you thank you

2:40:30 ↗ thank you

2:40:40 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Recommendations & actions (3)

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

Niven said a designer can present their proposal to the Development Commission, and then explain their decision and convince the Commission as to why their design should be considered and approved.
Commission Discussion The Commissioners agreed to review the manual page by page and raise issues of concern in addition to those already discussed.
Sloman said the recently approved apartment projects at Vale or Inneswood would be good options for that exercise, as well as assessing which of the proposed architectural styles discussed last week would most closely…