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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF