Development Commission · Wednesday, August 2, 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

Draft Design Manual - Test Run

Keith Niven, Economic Development and Development Services Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager

Draft Design Manual - Issaquah Images

Keith Niven, Economic Development and Development Services Director Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager

2921 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ oh excuse me there class that's me

0:16 ↗ I'd like to start the meeting and we're

0:20 ↗ going to be doing two things tonight

0:22 ↗ we're going to be reviewing the de

0:23 ↗ Graaff design manual test run we're

0:25 ↗ going to have that which is really

0:26 ↗ interesting and then we'll be looking at

0:28 ↗ graph design manual the Issaquah images

0:32 ↗ and seeing how we relate to the some of

0:35 ↗ the buildings around town what I'd like

0:37 ↗ to do is have the draft design manual

0:39 ↗ test run first and then we'll have

0:40 ↗ public comment and then we'll do the

0:42 ↗ this quite images and then we'll do

0:45 ↗ public comment after that so if you do

0:48 ↗ wish to make public comment I know you

0:51 ↗ love to sign in so we'll pour to that so

0:56 ↗ let's begin good evening so since we

0:59 ↗ didn't send you a packet I just put that

1:01 ↗ up there and we will due to public

1:04 ↗ comments so let's see here

1:13 ↗ okay so as I mentioned to some of you

1:18 ↗ Keith had a great idea which was to

1:21 ↗ delegate an assignment and so we asked

1:26 ↗ because we had seen Crandall Randall ax

1:28 ↗ go through an evaluation of two

1:31 ↗ buildings that of applicants who are

1:33 ↗ currently in the works and they put

1:36 ↗ together a PowerPoint and kind of walked

1:38 ↗ us and the applicant through their

1:40 ↗ thinking and we said would you do that

1:42 ↗ again for this because we thought it

1:44 ↗ would be a good test for all of us

1:49 ↗ to see how this worked so I talked to

1:51 ↗ them today they ran me through their

1:53 ↗ PowerPoint I will be reading my notes

1:55 ↗ and hopefully we'll have a successful

1:57 ↗ conversation so there their overarching

2:02 ↗ comments were not too bad not an F so

2:09 ↗ they did bail everybody track and

2:11 ↗ remembering that right so the first

2:14 ↗ thing they did was look at you the

2:19 ↗ checklist and I think you can maybe see

2:23 ↗ I know it's a little harder on the big

2:25 ↗ monitor but there are red checks in this

2:28 ↗ column and this column and what they

2:31 ↗ have done is really they focus just on

2:34 ↗ the red check they aren't running

2:36 ↗ through all the ways that they think it

2:38 ↗ complies and they started with

2:43 ↗ architecture now this is not in the

2:45 ↗ urban core so it is not a you know

2:50 ↗ northwest contemporary is not applicable

2:53 ↗ or available but their point in in

2:57 ↗ evaluating that was as you can see down

3:01 ↗ here at the bottom was to show that even

3:04 ↗ if it was Northwest contemporary it

3:07 ↗ still would have had red checks their

3:11 ↗ suggestion was that it was either

3:13 ↗ designed under arts and crafts or

3:16 ↗ craftsman listen how do you learn

3:20 ↗ through one second do you have a quick

3:22 ↗ picture you could pull up a veil I shows

3:26 ↗ up in here

3:27 ↗ okay they will have images and circle

3:29 ↗ pieces or super so you will you will

3:32 ↗ absolutely see it you don't have to do

3:33 ↗ it all for memories okay

3:35 ↗ thank you for saying asking that another

3:38 ↗ question no see remind me worst Vail

3:40 ↗ apartment said by a pilot okay let me do

3:44 ↗ this it's at seventh and Locust right

3:47 ↗ behind the safe way behind safe way oh

3:50 ↗ okay okay yeah okay I know but you know

3:55 ↗ what I can do so in case you're ever

4:03 ↗ interested you may not have seen what I

4:05 ↗ just did but if you go to the home page

4:08 ↗ and you click on new development on the

4:11 ↗ on the Left this map of active projects

4:15 ↗ pops up cement of a fish

4:20 ↗ and so this anything that's outlined in

4:26 ↗ yellow is new and then anything that is

4:31 ↗ think this yeah so then if you click on

4:36 ↗ it you get all this information about

4:39 ↗ the project so there's a quick little so

4:42 ↗ that's a location and you also get kind

4:44 ↗ of a quick image although we'll get more

4:47 ↗ images as we go through it that help

4:50 ↗ refresh your project thank you

4:56 ↗ okay so both architectural and from an

5:02 ↗ urban design perspective they identified

5:05 ↗ things that concerned them and in ways

5:09 ↗ in which they thought it did not comply

5:12 ↗ so the first using they didn't think

5:15 ↗ that arts and crafts and craftsmen would

5:17 ↗ be significantly different in their

5:20 ↗ evaluations so they just picked arts and

5:21 ↗ crafts and carried that one through to

5:25 ↗ show the evaluation so from a massing

5:29 ↗ you may remember its massing scale

5:31 ↗ materials and colors so they're going to

5:34 ↗ they've run through those four

5:36 ↗ categories so relative to massing

5:40 ↗ obviously veil has a flat roof Arts and

5:43 ↗ Crafts doesn't have a flat roof so it

5:46 ↗ would have to pick some kind of pitched

5:49 ↗ roof flat or steep depending on the

5:52 ↗ style that they had selected there were

5:56 ↗ no upper-level balcony which they

5:59 ↗ thought would have benefitted the

6:01 ↗ elevation and composition is symmetrical

6:04 ↗ which they also thought would have

6:06 ↗ helped its appearance so here are images

6:12 ↗ showing some of the things first is flat

6:15 ↗ roof the symmetrical composition arts

6:23 ↗ and crafts is typically asymmetrical and

6:25 ↗ they thought that would have made this a

6:26 ↗ more interesting composition in terms of

6:33 ↗ materials they said there were too many

6:36 ↗ different materials they said typically

6:41 ↗ you don't want more than three that some

6:45 ↗ of the materials that were selected were

6:47 ↗ inappropriate for an arts and crafts

6:49 ↗ building the metal and cement chest

6:54 ↗ panels were not appropriate materials

6:57 ↗ for arts and crafts and one of the

7:01 ↗ things about arts and crafts is that it

7:03 ↗ would have sort of a heavier weight e'er

7:07 ↗ masonry base which would

7:09 ↗ not the design of this particular

7:12 ↗ project so again they are looking at the

7:17 ↗ different panels and identifying the

7:21 ↗ cement panels in the body and the accent

7:25 ↗ panels that that that was not the right

7:31 ↗ materials and also they found that the

7:35 ↗ hardy panel and in particular the metal

7:39 ↗ panel the hardy panel is of the cement

7:42 ↗ panel both of them are very flat so you

7:47 ↗ don't get any shading shadow and that's

7:49 ↗ a lot of the materials and detailing of

7:52 ↗ an arts and crafts building relies on

7:54 ↗ some different planes in trim and

7:58 ↗ different materials to create those

8:00 ↗ slight shifts which give you shade and

8:03 ↗ shadow lines which make for a more

8:06 ↗ detailed and interesting elevation

8:15 ↗ so these were just identifying where

8:17 ↗ different materials were used so they

8:23 ↗ had a lot to say about the windows the

8:27 ↗ windows are horizontal bands on this

8:32 ↗ building whereas arts and crafts would

8:33 ↗ be much more separate kind of vertical

8:36 ↗ windows there was a lack of detail in

8:40 ↗ terms of trim and lentils and other

8:42 ↗ things like that the windows were

8:45 ↗ probably either fixed or casement which

8:48 ↗ means they swing out like this not

8:50 ↗ double hung which is what you would

8:51 ↗ expect with arts and crafts and the

8:55 ↗ vinyl windows they didn't think we're

8:58 ↗ appropriate and we talked about that for

9:00 ↗ a while because I think we're still

9:01 ↗ trying to understand when they say

9:03 ↗ natural materials do they mean literally

9:05 ↗ natural materials or materials that look

9:08 ↗ natural so I think we're going to have

9:10 ↗ some more conversation about that

9:11 ↗ because we'd like to understand if

9:13 ↗ they're using a hardiplank material

9:15 ↗ that's installed to create that change a

9:19 ↗ dough and it appears to be

9:21 ↗ board-and-batten or wood grain or

9:23 ↗ something is that acceptable so we don't

9:26 ↗ know that yet but they have commented

9:30 ↗ that vinyl windows they that it's not a

9:33 ↗ hard and fast rule but that a lot of

9:37 ↗ vinyl windows are not very durable and

9:40 ↗ permanent and they thought it was really

9:42 ↗ important that things be designed to be

9:46 ↗ long-lasting and to have quality and

9:49 ↗ that was a concern when they saw a vinyl

9:52 ↗ windows

9:58 ↗ so they were identifying where the

10:02 ↗ windows were called out and and here you

10:06 ↗ can also get a sense of sort of the

10:07 ↗ on horizontality horizontal bands

10:11 ↗ of windows and doors you know they went

10:19 ↗ through four different materials that

10:22 ↗ they were focused on walls doors windows

10:26 ↗ and roof and they identified that there

10:30 ↗ was nothing that the middle was silent

10:33 ↗ that you could that there were certain

10:36 ↗ implications about doors in in the

10:39 ↗ design of them they were likely to be

10:41 ↗ certain materials but that it was never

10:43 ↗ specifically called out

10:52 ↗ color palette they thought there were

10:56 ↗ again too many colors and that the

11:00 ↗ colors that were selected were not

11:02 ↗ appropriate and and this was interesting

11:04 ↗ to me because one of the colors so the

11:08 ↗ white I kind of understood it's a

11:10 ↗ creamier white would have been

11:12 ↗ appropriate as on earth tone but the

11:15 ↗ blue was not appropriate because it was

11:18 ↗ not an earth tone found in Issaquah and

11:22 ↗ so I thought that was an interesting

11:28 ↗ comment that I wouldn't have anticipated

11:30 ↗ because it's a fairly soft blue

11:40 ↗ then on to urban design a big part of

11:45 ↗ the urban design guidelines is around

11:52 ↗ natural areas as you may remember that

11:54 ↗ that certain gestures are made to

11:57 ↗ natural areas between the Locust Street

12:00 ↗ edge which is not really a street at

12:03 ↗ that point is a stream it's a small

12:06 ↗ little creek and so that would trigger

12:09 ↗ if you're within 150 feet of that of a

12:12 ↗ natural area that would trigger certain

12:16 ↗ kinds of actions and so that's a lot of

12:19 ↗ what they're focused on there's no

12:22 ↗ landscape transitions to the creeks the

12:26 ↗ building materials aren't as natural as

12:28 ↗ they should be towards a creek and that

12:32 ↗ the massing and common areas don't take

12:35 ↗ advantage of the creeks that the front

12:38 ↗ entrance doesn't orient towards that and

12:41 ↗ that the upper levels don't step back so

12:43 ↗ I think there's several pieces so here's

12:49 ↗ the site plan the creek is right here

12:52 ↗ it's a class-4 so it has a very small

12:56 ↗ buffer and there is this kind of access

13:02 ↗ way it's not for use by bail except for

13:07 ↗ emergency vehicles but ages behind it

13:11 ↗ does use it and so their recommendation

13:15 ↗ was that this common air and there may

13:18 ↗ be another so their recommendation was

13:22 ↗ that this common area should have been

13:25 ↗ located down here towards the corner so

13:30 ↗ that it sort of had a better

13:31 ↗ relationship to that the upper floors

13:36 ↗ didn't step back as the guidelines would

13:39 ↗ have suggested and the front so this is

13:44 ↗ their lobby I asked about this because I

13:46 ↗ was a little surprised when they said no

13:47 ↗ front doors

13:48 ↗ the front doors based onto the street

13:50 ↗ they would have suggested that they face

13:52 ↗ the

13:53 ↗ Natural Area compatibility with the area

14:04 ↗ I think this is going to be an

14:06 ↗ interesting one for us to discuss

14:08 ↗ because other than Atlas this is well

14:11 ↗ this is the second building in the area

14:12 ↗ and they thought that it could have been

14:17 ↗ more sympathetic to its context so for

14:23 ↗ instance with the ages senior residences

14:28 ↗ behind they thought that it could have

14:33 ↗ done a better job of picking up some of

14:38 ↗ the clues from that building which again

14:40 ↗ arts and crafts would have probably

14:43 ↗ helped do some of that not using more

14:48 ↗ natural materials facing to the wetland

14:52 ↗ it felt somewhat divorced from all these

14:55 ↗ things that are happening around it so

15:01 ↗ edges they admitted this the next couple

15:06 ↗ of ones are picky so I'll just start off

15:13 ↗ with that the first one was that they

15:18 ↗ they they use the word insufficient here

15:21 ↗ I think when as we talked about it more

15:23 ↗ what they said was that it was unclear

15:26 ↗ what the separation was that they had

15:29 ↗ provided these appropriate outdoor

15:32 ↗ spaces for the units that are right next

15:35 ↗ to the trail but that it was unclear

15:38 ↗ what the kind of vegetation would be was

15:41 ↗ it evergreen should it maybe be

15:44 ↗ evergreen and a wall to give a little

15:48 ↗ greater sense or clear sense of

15:50 ↗ separation from the trail especially

15:53 ↗ since there are you know fairly large

15:56 ↗ windows that face from the living space

15:58 ↗ into this area it would be appropriate

16:01 ↗ to have a little clear demarcation of

16:04 ↗ public and

16:06 ↗ public areas then usable open space they

16:19 ↗ felt like this had not been well

16:23 ↗ designed that it felt a little bit like

16:25 ↗ a leftover space and had not been

16:28 ↗ thought out as clearly as it should be

16:31 ↗ the bike racks and some of the street

16:36 ↗ furniture that you would expect weren't

16:38 ↗ shown at least not yet it was not clear

16:44 ↗ what the program was for the space they

16:47 ↗ thought that if the residential units

16:50 ↗ that face onto the trail were live work

16:53 ↗ as opposed to residential lofts that

16:59 ↗ this might have been an opportunity for

17:02 ↗ some cafes or small businesses that

17:06 ↗ could have taken advantage of the space

17:11 ↗ they also and this was something I think

17:14 ↗ because they were looking at the

17:16 ↗ original set of plans and not on the

17:19 ↗ briefing response memo we had all

17:23 ↗ commented on these blank walls that we

17:26 ↗ thought that they did not do a very good

17:28 ↗ you know that it was unnecessary if

17:29 ↗ there's residential units why not have

17:31 ↗ windows or doors or something and they

17:34 ↗ so they had identified that as well

17:37 ↗ they thought there should either be

17:39 ↗ doors or windows something that was more

17:43 ↗ active relating to that space to really

17:47 ↗ be able to take advantage of its

17:49 ↗ presence and that was it

17:58 ↗ thoughts

18:02 ↗ I thought that was terrific I thought it

18:04 ↗ was really helpful I thought it it

18:07 ↗ really focused in I think some of the

18:09 ↗ areas that they pointed out we struggled

18:11 ↗ with when they were when they were

18:12 ↗ talking about the design in general and

18:14 ↗ you just what came up in my my going

18:19 ↗ around looking at buildings again some

18:21 ↗ of those some of those same kind of

18:23 ↗ comments with Vale or would be the

18:25 ↗ comments that I'd make on some of our

18:26 ↗ existing building so I thought that was

18:27 ↗ really really good for me

18:29 ↗ I don't know how everybody else is

18:31 ↗ feeling one quick question is the

18:34 ↗ step-back above if I remember they had

18:38 ↗ said should step back after four or five

18:40 ↗ floors they're saying the fifth floor

18:43 ↗ should step back is that them saying

18:46 ↗ that I think the requirement should be

18:48 ↗ four well that's a good question

18:51 ↗ mal I had well actually when I'm

18:55 ↗ counting here is five yeah and so I

18:59 ↗ think that they're saying in I think

19:05 ↗ it's EPS

19:05 ↗ maybe back from the street at four and

19:09 ↗ then or at five and then also if you had

19:14 ↗ that kind of natural area you would

19:16 ↗ additionally have that step back on on

19:19 ↗ the natural area side okay yeah because

19:24 ↗ I think I remember that that they had

19:26 ↗ that question work about they said after

19:28 ↗ four or five floors right and and I

19:31 ↗ agree we need to get one of the other

19:32 ↗ right yeah yeah this this step back was

19:37 ↗ more from the Natural Area just from the

19:39 ↗ street well and and it is a good point

19:41 ↗ that I don't well I don't remember well

19:50 ↗ that's it so here's a good question you

19:52 ↗ know when you if you haven't so an arts

19:57 ↗ and crafts building I'm doing this from

19:59 ↗ memory let's actually let's do this I

20:01 ↗ had it pulled up

20:32 ↗ so arts and crafts is a maximum of four

20:35 ↗ stories so this is a five story building

20:41 ↗ so they they changed ax I'm looking at

20:45 ↗ arts and crafts appropriate two to five

20:47 ↗ stories so um maybe they've revised it

20:54 ↗ since though so the if you I'm looking

20:57 ↗ at this chart that was right at the very

20:59 ↗ last page which I had done kind of going

21:03 ↗ through the original drafts so some of

21:06 ↗ it may have changed when you guys got

21:08 ↗ your final draft so I'm going to leave a

21:11 ↗ little bit of ignorance there but partly

21:15 ↗ if you look in this kind of upper box

21:19 ↗ you can see that to some extent it's

21:21 ↗ based on use so that a commercial

21:24 ↗ building might be two to three stories

21:25 ↗ where a residential or office building

21:28 ↗ could be four stories so that's an

21:32 ↗ interesting point that you know are they

21:34 ↗ recommending removing a story from Vale

21:38 ↗ because it's a five story building or

21:40 ↗ are we doing some other kind of

21:42 ↗ treatment because it is an interesting

21:47 ↗ question how you with a pitched roof

21:53 ↗ building how you do a step back so

21:59 ↗ that's a good question I mean this

22:01 ↗ actually raises and then we talked about

22:03 ↗ it two meetings back on the challenge

22:06 ↗ that if the number of stories is limited

22:08 ↗ for this the Arts and Crafts style but

22:10 ↗ the zoning allows for a taller building

22:13 ↗ and remember we're forcing them into the

22:16 ↗ box of northwest Lodge as a that's only

22:19 ↗ box you could go into if you're outside

22:21 ↗ of the rink or so my task on Friday is

22:28 ↗ to summarize all this and those are some

22:30 ↗ of the questions that we're going to

22:31 ↗ want to follow up with them to

22:33 ↗ understand whether there are going to be

22:37 ↗ a certain style whether you know how

22:41 ↗ we're going to resolve that because I

22:43 ↗ don't think we're asking for everything

22:44 ↗ to be Northwest

22:47 ↗ so that's that's a follow-up question so

22:55 ↗ other comments or questions question we

23:00 ↗ see when we say setback when we reach

23:03 ↗ third four or fourth four we mean just a

23:07 ↗ front or including the side which they

23:10 ↗ have circled in well streets we need to

23:13 ↗ have them set back then and also if

23:17 ↗ that's the case about the back side they

23:20 ↗ need to set back also it's taking a lot

23:24 ↗ of square footage out of a building we

23:26 ↗ do that so I you know we were looking at

23:31 ↗ we were also working with them on

23:32 ↗ vertical mixed used and I think that

23:35 ↗ they were showing it on three sides of

23:38 ↗ the example we were seeing on the other

23:40 ↗ hand there were streets on three sides

23:42 ↗ so I'm not sure whether it's the street

23:44 ↗ that's generating that or the

23:45 ↗ expectation that it is on all three or

23:50 ↗ four sides so that's a good follow-up

23:52 ↗ question I know that in this case what

23:55 ↗ they're circling is not is because there

24:00 ↗ is a set of step back or setback from

24:04 ↗ because of the natural area being on

24:06 ↗ that side so that's a clarification of

24:09 ↗ you know is it just a street or is it

24:12 ↗ all sides that set them and then another

24:16 ↗ question would be and I would agree with

24:18 ↗ what they have comments there that

24:20 ↗ there's no frontage hunting doors and

24:23 ↗ when we reviewed it I seem to recall

24:26 ↗ that the front is kind of like in the

24:27 ↗ middle next to the setback and it's not

24:30 ↗ very distinct it just kind of a little

24:33 ↗ small door and you walk into and there's

24:35 ↗ a little vest of you well so this

24:39 ↗ actually this isn't exactly the ground

24:42 ↗ plane it's kind of a mixture but so

24:44 ↗ you're right ray there is an entry right

24:48 ↗ here but that's they consider that a

24:50 ↗ secondary entry Oh the primary entry is

24:53 ↗ at the corner with a lobby and

24:58 ↗ sort of some public rooms and other

25:02 ↗ things and then all of these units that

25:05 ↗ face the street have individual entries

25:08 ↗ as well so there there are a lot of

25:10 ↗ doors along the street but the main

25:13 ↗ building door for the upper floors is at

25:17 ↗ the 7th and Locust corner yeah and if

25:21 ↗ that's the case and maybe that area

25:23 ↗ there's there should be some kind of a

25:25 ↗ setback and I would agree maybe the

25:29 ↗ corner and the that would be on the east

25:36 ↗ side and then on the north side of the

25:38 ↗ building I you know I think that the

25:43 ↗ setback should be in that corner

25:45 ↗ somewhere north side and then to the

25:47 ↗ east side of the business there that's

25:49 ↗ the main entryway

25:52 ↗ but to require them to have said back

25:55 ↗ all around the building seems kind of

25:57 ↗ sesang well I think step back I mean

26:04 ↗ hahaha

26:06 ↗ we'll get it sorted out to step back

26:11 ↗ while you're right it does does reduce

26:14 ↗ the size of the upper floor and I know

26:18 ↗ Mel had identified that could you have

26:21 ↗ more than one and why were they

26:23 ↗ recommending against a wedding cake but

26:29 ↗ I think that at least the first setback

26:31 ↗ or the only step back is with the intent

26:36 ↗ of having a building that sort of

26:38 ↗ perceived to be four storeys in height

26:40 ↗ so that would be the maximum sort of

26:43 ↗ height of the building as perceived from

26:45 ↗ the street he does add a question so

26:53 ↗ it's more about process and final

26:55 ↗ outcome we say that this didn't fail

26:57 ↗ is that correct that what we said so he

27:00 ↗ said I you may say we I'm quoting

27:05 ↗ Crandall Aram villa

27:06 ↗ okay I'm not saying I disagree with them

27:09 ↗ I just I'm relying on their

27:11 ↗ perspective I think that that they are

27:16 ↗ identifying some key things that would

27:23 ↗ need to be fixed to comply with the

27:26 ↗ design manual and that so their

27:32 ↗ overarching comment was not too bad not

27:35 ↗ an F okay um so you can draw you're

27:40 ↗ given to your own grade based on this

27:42 ↗ evaluation and I think that's my

27:43 ↗ question in terms of process is there a

27:45 ↗ hard and fast line is there a tipping

27:46 ↗ point is it really the discretion of the

27:49 ↗ Commission at the point where we all

27:51 ↗ agree it's a horrible building and it

27:53 ↗ doesn't meet most of the criteria but we

27:57 ↗ all sit here and send it through anyways

27:59 ↗ I mean is that a possibility or or do

28:02 ↗ you send it away with strong

28:04 ↗ recommendations or do you just say no

28:06 ↗ rework it so what I would say Keith may

28:12 ↗ say something different what I would say

28:15 ↗ is if if it had this many things we

28:19 ↗ probably wouldn't be sending it forward

28:21 ↗ if we could help it right I mean we

28:23 ↗ would want to tone it down condition

28:25 ↗ true right without condition well some

28:27 ↗ of this I wouldn't be like if the

28:29 ↗ architectural style is wrong I wouldn't

28:31 ↗ want to be bringing it forward I mean I

28:33 ↗ think we would have had a lot of

28:34 ↗ conversations to say you pick the wrong

28:37 ↗ architectural style you need to repair

28:39 ↗ that but I think that sending a building

28:41 ↗ forward to you unless the applicant is

28:43 ↗ insisting with the wrong architectural

28:47 ↗ style is not a good use of everyone's

28:50 ↗ time I mean you know typically what we

28:53 ↗ do is we want to work with an applicant

28:55 ↗ to get them as close as possible so that

28:59 ↗ hopefully we're recommending approval

29:01 ↗ with conditions we don't want to make

29:04 ↗ them redesign the whole thing when the

29:07 ↗ site development permit comes in but we

29:09 ↗ certainly would if they're being

29:11 ↗ reticent and so I guess what I'm saying

29:18 ↗ is typically we're trying to get it

29:20 ↗ closed and then have you guys evaluating

29:24 ↗ whether

29:25 ↗ we've gotten it all or there are some

29:27 ↗ additional things and and so that it's

29:32 ↗ not a question so much of deny you know

29:37 ↗ what are we going to do with this mess

29:39 ↗ okay doesn't that help yeah that helps

29:42 ↗ is more about process and I was asking

29:45 ↗ you one anymore is there a rigorous

29:46 ↗ process the checklist seems to be very

29:49 ↗ rigorous and and is there this

29:51 ↗ underlying rigorous process too and

29:53 ↗ that's really what I was looking for and

29:54 ↗ it seems like the process is similar to

29:57 ↗ how we have been operating you evaluate

29:59 ↗ it you send it forward when you feel

30:02 ↗ it's ready to go

30:03 ↗ and hopefully we approve it as well we

30:05 ↗ may approve it with strong

30:06 ↗ recommendations but it goes through okay

30:09 ↗ so don't think there's a like a metric

30:12 ↗ in if you get three read checks or five

30:15 ↗ read checks it automatically gets denied

30:17 ↗ right so there is some level of

30:19 ↗ discretion of both staff and the

30:21 ↗ Commission at the end of the day to say

30:23 ↗ you know what we understand why maybe

30:26 ↗ they don't comply with those or maybe

30:28 ↗ with conditions they get you know

30:30 ↗ they're in the ballpark or maybe you

30:32 ↗ just say send it back I mean so that

30:34 ↗ that's your choice at the end of the day

30:36 ↗ is decision makers I think hopefully as

30:39 ↗ Lucy said we've at least corralled them

30:41 ↗ in the yard so that the number of things

30:43 ↗ that you're actually working through

30:44 ↗ with them is similar to what you've done

30:46 ↗ you know prior to this tool this is not

30:49 ↗ the only tool in the toolbox remember

30:51 ↗ this is we're just adding a new tool and

30:53 ↗ part of this is you know besides seeing

30:56 ↗ if any of this doesn't feel like it

30:57 ↗ feels good and I think you guys have

30:58 ↗ identified at least a few things that

31:01 ↗ still feel a little bit maybe loose but

31:05 ↗ it's to say you know does this cause you

31:08 ↗ to think about this project differently

31:10 ↗ than without it and it did for me I mean

31:13 ↗ some of the things you know as you go

31:14 ↗ through the checklist and say oh yeah

31:15 ↗ you know what about that it's like well

31:18 ↗ yeah they probably could have done

31:20 ↗ something on the north edge that

31:22 ↗ actually reflected the stream being

31:24 ↗ adjacent to them and right now I don't

31:26 ↗ think it's the architecture doesn't show

31:28 ↗ that they necessarily did so if that's

31:31 ↗ part of our values then we should say

31:34 ↗ okay that's great now we have a

31:36 ↗ remembrance

31:37 ↗ do that the other thing I would add just

31:40 ↗ real quickly is that generally is staff

31:43 ↗ no matter whether we're working with a

31:45 ↗ development agreement or central is claw

31:48 ↗ or the IMC you know we're trying to get

31:51 ↗ them as close as possible bring it

31:53 ↗ forward and have a discussion with you

31:55 ↗ you guys are good about identifying

31:57 ↗ further things you see helping to craft

31:59 ↗ conditions asking the hard questions but

32:02 ↗ sometimes we're also just have gotten to

32:04 ↗ that as far as we feel we can and we are

32:07 ↗ bringing it forward with a few things we

32:10 ↗ don't want to bring it with a whole

32:11 ↗ basket full of things set of problems

32:13 ↗ but sometimes there are one or two

32:15 ↗ points where we just don't agree and

32:17 ↗ we've said fine let's go have a

32:19 ↗ conversation with the Commission and the

32:21 ↗ public and get them to weigh in on this

32:24 ↗ and we'll each lay out our case and you

32:27 ↗ know you guys are the decision-makers

32:29 ↗ that's why we pay you the big bucks you

32:31 ↗ get to make the decision if it was check

32:35 ↗ complies not complies would you have to

32:39 ↗ have a condition then yes okay what you

32:42 ↗ couldn't allow something that did not

32:44 ↗ comply to go through I think we

32:47 ↗ condition I think we'd probably leave it

32:49 ↗ up to the applicant to as part of their

32:52 ↗ presentation a commission to describe to

32:54 ↗ you guys why they believe they don't

32:56 ↗ need to comply with that particular

32:59 ↗ standard so if if they don't agree and

33:07 ↗ they make their case that they don't

33:09 ↗ agree and we still continue to believe

33:11 ↗ that it's non-compliant then what I

33:15 ↗ think it depends on the measure at the

33:17 ↗ magnitude of what it is so I'll give you

33:21 ↗ I'll pick two examples from from this

33:24 ↗ they've shown vinyl windows and we don't

33:27 ↗ think they're good vinyl windows to me

33:29 ↗ that is not a denial kind of thing you

33:32 ↗ can condition you may not use vinyl

33:34 ↗ windows or you have to use would be

33:37 ↗ twenty-year vinyl windows or wood cased

33:39 ↗ windows that to me does not so

33:43 ↗ profoundly it made for the applicants

33:45 ↗ they may say that's a cost we can't bear

33:48 ↗ we're not going to proceed or

33:50 ↗ going to appeal this but to me changing

33:54 ↗ out windows from one material to another

33:56 ↗ material is not something that

33:59 ↗ profoundly alters but if you said I

34:03 ↗ think staff missed that this community

34:05 ↗ space needs to be at the corner not in

34:08 ↗ the middle that would be something that

34:11 ↗ I would say should be remanded back to

34:14 ↗ be reworked and re shown because it

34:17 ↗ changes the whole configuration of the

34:19 ↗ site can you still get the parking in

34:21 ↗ how does that deal with access how's

34:23 ↗ that site designed now we might do that

34:26 ↗ between the first and the second meeting

34:29 ↗ you know we might go away for two months

34:31 ↗ and they rework that and come back and

34:35 ↗ then you could evaluate it and say we

34:38 ↗ think that succeeds or we need a few

34:40 ↗ more conditions but you're heading in

34:42 ↗ the right direction

34:43 ↗ does that help give you an example of a

34:46 ↗ I think a one that is is probably more

34:49 ↗ likely so they bring the application in

34:51 ↗ and let's assume in this location they

34:53 ↗ pick urban Grange all right so we go

34:57 ↗ through the checklist and we go wow it's

34:59 ↗ totally out of context you know there's

35:02 ↗ it doesn't have the right proportions

35:04 ↗ whatever the case is we say you know

35:05 ↗ what it really you really need to pick

35:07 ↗ arts and crafts and there's they love

35:10 ↗ their building they say no no we're

35:12 ↗ going to do orbit great that may come

35:15 ↗ forward as one of those kind of kind of

35:18 ↗ just apple and orange conversations for

35:20 ↗ you guys and ultimately you guys may say

35:22 ↗ I can't support urban Grange in this

35:24 ↗ location and and we're not going to

35:27 ↗ design your building for you you got to

35:29 ↗ go back and redesign and bring it back

35:31 ↗ that's one where I could see I could see

35:34 ↗ that could happen because you know

35:35 ↗ people end up they design something they

35:37 ↗ love it right and then you know here we

35:39 ↗ are saying you have to pick a different

35:40 ↗ architectural style and they may say you

35:42 ↗ know forget that let's go have that

35:44 ↗ conversation a commission alright so I

35:47 ↗ think that one could be a real one that

35:49 ↗ that happens so that would be so if they

35:52 ↗ give urban Grange and they met all the

35:54 ↗ requirements for urban Grange would that

35:57 ↗ then be the compatibility that you

35:59 ↗ didn't

36:00 ↗ think it was compatible with the

36:01 ↗ neighborhood that would be a tough

36:04 ↗ compatibility thing stick an urban

36:06 ↗ Grange building on 7th at Locust I mean

36:08 ↗ in my opinion and that would be the

36:10 ↗ thing we would put our Hannibal with

36:12 ↗ Atlas tonight or the ages you know that

36:19 ↗ let it be no good that would be an

36:20 ↗ interesting conversation to have all

36:22 ↗ right so just not having been here been

36:25 ↗ out of town last week this this the

36:27 ↗ presentation that you just made Lucy is

36:29 ↗ a theoretical with and the Vale

36:32 ↗ applicant was was a participant in this

36:36 ↗ they they were not oh okay I thought

36:39 ↗ this way were so um I understand okay I

36:42 ↗ I was going to ask you how they've

36:44 ↗ reacted well I didn't I actually Mike

36:47 ↗ Martin is now working for a Vale and so

36:52 ↗ I saw him and I said you know do you

36:54 ↗ want to be a part of this and he said

36:55 ↗ maybe and we talked about and we thought

36:57 ↗ probably better not to do that

37:00 ↗ just because this is a hypothetical

37:02 ↗ conversation not a not a you have to go

37:06 ↗ back and redesign your building it's

37:08 ↗ more of a post-mortem on bail you know

37:11 ↗ and and what would we have done

37:13 ↗ differently if we had this tool when we

37:16 ↗ did this review right and these

37:18 ↗ guidelines were in place would I bail

37:20 ↗ was right because the yeah the project

37:22 ↗ has approved met the code Bailey they

37:24 ↗ have a permit they could write City it

37:26 ↗ Dupree life and don't get to take it

37:27 ↗ back it's kind of just a couple

37:29 ↗ questions or observations so one is the

37:32 ↗ process we're back to the process

37:33 ↗ question and one of the challenges that

37:36 ↗ we've had is kind of level of

37:39 ↗ information that we get when they come

37:42 ↗ in an application and so I think the rig

37:45 ↗ the additional rigor that this generates

37:49 ↗ I think will provide hopefully better

37:51 ↗ quality more consistent level of detail

37:54 ↗ and documentation that we get for review

37:56 ↗ because we've had from you know fairly

37:58 ↗ sketchy stuff to fairly detailed

38:01 ↗ drawings and got to kind of find that

38:04 ↗ sweet spot so we're not twisting arms

38:06 ↗ constantly to make changes we've

38:07 ↗ invested a ton of money and construction

38:09 ↗ of drawings and we're saying they got

38:11 ↗ everything

38:11 ↗ - thing having enough to be able to

38:13 ↗ respond to the new kind of design

38:16 ↗ standards and I think this this will

38:18 ↗ help on that front a lot I think the the

38:22 ↗ other question is always about the

38:23 ↗ timing of their engagement with the

38:25 ↗ Commission and I understand what you're

38:26 ↗ just talking about there will be

38:27 ↗ instances where they're going to say

38:28 ↗ well we're done with - every we'll talk

38:30 ↗ to the Commission because we think we

38:31 ↗ can show them how grand our building is

38:33 ↗ it fit maybe you will succeed maybe not

38:36 ↗ but but I think the standard should be

38:40 ↗ there is kind of this level of

38:43 ↗ engagement that happens at the staff

38:45 ↗ level design development before it's

38:47 ↗ kicked into the commission so that it's

38:48 ↗ been the first kind of level of rigor

38:51 ↗ has as you know happened so and so I

38:55 ↗ think we need to think about that maybe

38:58 ↗ that's just staff discretion when you

38:59 ↗ choose to advance them I think that's

39:02 ↗ important for us so that we can do a

39:03 ↗ good job of applying the new standards

39:06 ↗ because we don't have a detail recommend

39:07 ↗ do this very well and then the other

39:09 ↗ thing about the checklist I think that

39:11 ↗ even though it's a relatively high check

39:13 ↗ a checklist as far as the elements that

39:15 ↗ we're looking at it makes us do a kind

39:18 ↗ of a systematic review of the project

39:20 ↗ and I think that for me anyway that will

39:22 ↗ help me a lot in trying to really look

39:25 ↗ at the various elements and then applied

39:26 ↗ really what's been described in the

39:30 ↗ design guidelines here are standards of

39:33 ↗ what those features should look like or

39:35 ↗ be like the downside and I mentioned

39:38 ↗ this in two meetings ago don't want to

39:41 ↗ get and come a little worried about

39:43 ↗ getting put into a tight box though on

39:45 ↗ some of these where there may be some

39:47 ↗ interesting design features that they

39:50 ↗ want to put in a building but doesn't

39:52 ↗ match up with the standard very well but

39:54 ↗ really the project is a nice project and

39:56 ↗ so I I worry about how that will play

39:58 ↗ maybe I'll just come from experience but

40:00 ↗ if we force them into a box sometimes we

40:03 ↗ may not may not get the best project out

40:05 ↗ of that either so it's kind of a give

40:07 ↗ and take on that for me well so I would

40:10 ↗ add a couple of thoughts because you

40:13 ↗ know it's the same things that we risk

40:14 ↗ wrestle with you know traditionally DC

40:19 ↗ had a very very very complete set of

40:21 ↗ plans before you approved it

40:24 ↗ and while that is kind of nice for DC in

40:29 ↗ the public it's pretty burdensome for

40:31 ↗ applicants to go to that level without

40:33 ↗ having confidence and so what we're and

40:39 ↗ and and this is still you know a

40:41 ↗ conversation I think that's why I'm

40:42 ↗ having this is at why I'm saying this is

40:45 ↗ because we're trying to strike a balance

40:47 ↗ between having enough information to

40:49 ↗ understand what they're proposing while

40:53 ↗ also getting them what they they would

40:58 ↗ say their project is entitled once they

41:00 ↗ have this land use permit to move

41:02 ↗ forward into construction so we want to

41:05 ↗ have them we want to understand it well

41:07 ↗ enough that we feel confident that we

41:09 ↗ know what they're doing but have not you

41:11 ↗ know driven them so far down the line

41:13 ↗ that they've invested a huge amount of

41:16 ↗ money without any certainty so I I think

41:19 ↗ that is an important feedback loop

41:21 ↗ between the Commission and staff to

41:24 ↗ understand are you getting the right

41:27 ↗ kinds of information I agree with you

41:30 ↗ Mike that some of these things around

41:33 ↗ materials and colors are going to drive

41:35 ↗ some of you know a higher level of

41:38 ↗ information that I think will be useful

41:40 ↗ to have a better sense of how the

41:44 ↗ building is actually going to look in

41:48 ↗ terms of the checklist this is another

41:54 ↗ good conversation so the way you know

41:57 ↗ different staff members have used the

41:59 ↗ central is clause standards checklist

42:00 ↗ differently my goal with it has been to

42:05 ↗ have it at a sort of moderate level but

42:08 ↗ that by using the checklist we can cover

42:11 ↗ a lot of those compliance things in

42:13 ↗ there and not spend the staff report

42:17 ↗ going through and saying this is how it

42:19 ↗ complies this is how it complies this is

42:21 ↗ how it complies but it is important to

42:24 ↗ indicate in what way we perceive

42:26 ↗ compliance because what you're doing

42:29 ↗ then is setting a bar as you move

42:31 ↗ forward that if as they refining and

42:35 ↗ developing their construction drawings

42:37 ↗ you have set the bar of how you review

42:40 ↗ this why you recommended approval so

42:44 ↗ that if they decide to make what seems

42:47 ↗ like a minor change to them and a

42:49 ↗ significant change to us we are able to

42:51 ↗ say seeing here's the checklist this is

42:54 ↗ the way we review that this was the

42:56 ↗ basis for our recommendation no you

42:57 ↗ can't take out half the windows or you

43:00 ↗ know what whatever that is so it's I'm

43:06 ↗ not sure the Commission really use that

43:08 ↗ checklist a lot but it was something

43:10 ↗ that was helpful to staff because we

43:12 ↗ could identify where there wasn't

43:14 ↗ compliance or where you didn't meet the

43:17 ↗ standard and then focus on a general

43:20 ↗ description of the project for each

43:22 ↗ chapter and then the basis for

43:25 ↗ conditions because that's sort of the

43:27 ↗ big proof in putting the thing that I've

43:29 ↗ liked about this process with the

43:32 ↗ consultant from the beginning is that it

43:33 ↗ seemed to me to be a logical next step

43:36 ↗ for this whole process where we've now

43:40 ↗ had examples of the first few buildings

43:44 ↗ and we recognized the need for some more

43:47 ↗ for some adjustments and I at this point

43:51 ↗ in the game I almost believe that the

43:53 ↗ non-compliance if this goes through in

43:56 ↗ the way it is right now this process

43:59 ↗ with the identification of specific

44:03 ↗ types of architecture that are expected

44:07 ↗ or an applicant in an application in

44:10 ↗ this part of the city it seems to me

44:14 ↗ that all I recall one of the things in

44:16 ↗ the very first meeting that we had is

44:18 ↗ the clarity that that gives to an

44:20 ↗ applicant that that they didn't have or

44:23 ↗ that they don't have until this thing

44:26 ↗ becomes the new standard that in and of

44:30 ↗ itself to me says that with this new set

44:36 ↗ of standards when it comes to the

44:38 ↗ development Commission in my opinion the

44:41 ↗ non-compliance issues are probably going

44:43 ↗ to be more important in my mind than the

44:45 ↗ compliance issues because if they if

44:47 ↗ they know it's arson

44:48 ↗ Pass or Northwest lodge or whatever and

44:53 ↗ they from the get-go and they decide on

44:56 ↗ their style and then they go through

44:58 ↗ that process with the staff seems to me

45:02 ↗ that it would it would result in the DC

45:05 ↗ having to be the non-compliant issues

45:09 ↗ would be probably fewer but more

45:13 ↗ important i well I I don't know whether

45:19 ↗ they're more important I think they are

45:21 ↗ definitely where our focus would be and

45:25 ↗ now you know we give the applicants a

45:29 ↗ chance to look at the staff of port or

45:31 ↗ before we issue it they are have an

45:34 ↗ opportunity to give us input we want to

45:36 ↗ make sure our conditions are clear if

45:38 ↗ they disagree with them it's good to

45:40 ↗ know where we're going coming into a

45:42 ↗ meeting with you guys and there's going

45:44 ↗ to be one to three things that they

45:47 ↗ disagree about and that we've had a

45:49 ↗ chance to have that conversation and

45:52 ↗ then come in here and make our case but

45:57 ↗ that you're right that those are the

45:59 ↗ main focus of the time and attention

46:02 ↗ when we get here is explaining why we

46:04 ↗ are putting conditions on or where we

46:07 ↗ disagree with the applicant we can't

46:08 ↗ resolve it through a condition having

46:12 ↗ you know making a case so you guys can

46:14 ↗ be the arbiters um one thought about the

46:19 ↗ stream you know if you look at the look

46:22 ↗ at Google Earth or whatever and look at

46:25 ↗ that stream I don't even think you can

46:27 ↗ see the stream I mean it says it looks

46:30 ↗ like a grove of trees and you said class

46:32 ↗ four does that go dry it's class four I

46:38 ↗ think it could be an intermittent stream

46:40 ↗ I don't know that this one is it may

46:42 ↗ very well be I just don't know that much

46:44 ↗ about it so maybe this is more just

46:46 ↗ theoretical that it it I guess the

46:50 ↗ question about changing the whole

46:51 ↗ building to have it focus on that open

46:55 ↗ area or that natural area that doesn't

46:59 ↗ seem like that much of a

47:01 ↗ and a natural area well that is so I

47:07 ↗ think I think Mel veg is a super

47:09 ↗ important point and that was one of our

47:12 ↗ questions among ourselves and back to

47:16 ↗ Crandall Aram villa is yes we think that

47:19 ↗ you know this is this natural areas are

47:23 ↗ significant community value is every

47:27 ↗ natural area of that value or are there

47:31 ↗ certain like class one and class two

47:34 ↗ streams or certain levels of wetlands or

47:37 ↗ certain kinds of protected areas like

47:42 ↗ our Pickering ponds those are stormwater

47:44 ↗ ponds should those be treated as natural

47:46 ↗ areas should certain kinds of slopes

47:49 ↗ with or without trees you know and so I

47:52 ↗ mean I think that's an important thing

47:55 ↗ for the Commission to give us feedback

47:57 ↗ on because that I mean a huge amount of

48:01 ↗ the city becomes subject to the Natural

48:04 ↗ Area regulations if it's everything so

48:08 ↗ and that's okay but we want to be

48:09 ↗ intentional about it if that's the if

48:12 ↗ that's the expectation gateway I'm sorry

48:16 ↗ go ahead gateway on the eastern edge

48:23 ↗ basically behind me the Sammamish Club

48:25 ↗ yep there is now a class as I recall

48:28 ↗ it's been a while class for stream or

48:33 ↗ yeah it is supposedly a class for really

48:36 ↗ well and gateways actually all three

48:38 ↗ sides except for the Newport side is a

48:40 ↗ wetland so along i-90 along yeah and

48:44 ↗ then I try to solder this this Amanda

48:46 ↗ stream began with them in the senior

48:48 ↗ place as I recall it and I think this is

48:51 ↗ a difference of what worked what we're

48:53 ↗ talking about the developer of the

48:56 ↗ Gateway I believe is going to do very

48:58 ↗ significant improvement of what is now a

49:02 ↗ blackberry lined

49:03 ↗ ditch that may have been a creek that

49:06 ↗ the form of the agricultural use of the

49:10 ↗ land made it a drained

49:12 ↗ and the applicant is going to do a lot

49:15 ↗ of work as I recall to restore it to

49:18 ↗ something that has rocks and deadfall

49:23 ↗ and things like that minute and that to

49:25 ↗ me is a question that the applicants

49:28 ↗ doing it there on a class-four stream so

49:32 ↗ what what if any would be the obligation

49:35 ↗ is maybe higher than a class for stream

49:37 ↗ because there's no water in it look at

49:41 ↗ it every day

49:42 ↗ uh well I I defer I don't know that for

49:46 ↗ sure but the point is yes it's it's a

49:49 ↗ problematic stream both of our

49:52 ↗ problematic streams and one that the

49:53 ↗ applicants got a significant part of the

49:55 ↗ plan to quote restore it and in this one

49:59 ↗ it's not his profit not the applicants

50:01 ↗ property but if it's a ditch where do

50:05 ↗ you where do you draw the line yes okay

50:07 ↗ can I instead of debating the status of

50:11 ↗ the stream in the studio I think the

50:12 ↗ point though that we're talking about is

50:14 ↗ the relationship between this project

50:17 ↗ and its design and what's going on

50:19 ↗ around it really is it a natural area

50:21 ↗ that's around it whether it's a

50:22 ↗ designated natural area or not it might

50:24 ↗ be something else I mean that's worth

50:26 ↗ recognizing it's part of the project or

50:29 ↗ you could even have a plaza and a

50:30 ↗ building that's across the street you

50:32 ↗ say well if we do something interesting

50:34 ↗ on this side of the street now we've got

50:35 ↗ a nice gateway Plaza entrances so

50:38 ↗ there's there's a lot of relationship

50:39 ↗ questions that you think about and how

50:42 ↗ its designated obviously if it's

50:44 ↗ designated in a city plan as a natural

50:46 ↗ area or a critical area that's dealt

50:48 ↗ with under critical areas code and how

50:49 ↗ it gets addressed but how the building

50:51 ↗ interrelates with that I think is and

50:55 ↗ what it is whether it's man-made or

50:57 ↗ otherwise is the conversation that the

51:00 ↗ staff needs to have with the design team

51:02 ↗ and then eventually would come to us and

51:03 ↗ we would think about that I think that

51:06 ↗ context question is an important one as

51:08 ↗ we're dealing with this and the other

51:10 ↗ part of that context question is is it

51:12 ↗ what what is there now or is it what is

51:15 ↗ that going to be anticipated to be there

51:17 ↗ into the future that sometimes is a

51:19 ↗ interesting debate and depending upon

51:23 ↗ what the long-range kind of picture

51:26 ↗ looks like as far as the redevelopment

51:27 ↗ and potential redevelopment of

51:29 ↗ neighboring properties might be too so

51:31 ↗ there's some discretion or judgment I

51:34 ↗ think that needs to be applied there but

51:35 ↗ the idea here is what's the relationship

51:37 ↗ between the building and what's going on

51:39 ↗ around it in this case with this size it

51:44 ↗ would seem to me that maybe the

51:47 ↗ architect is just seeing this stream on

51:49 ↗ a on a plan when you actually look at it

51:53 ↗ thinking well would you say okay we need

51:55 ↗ to orient this building towards that

51:57 ↗ under this new natural area code seems

52:03 ↗ overreaching does it dump it like that

52:06 ↗ and I don't know if it's orient and and

52:08 ↗ I haven't looked at the words lately so

52:11 ↗ I'm doing this from distant memory it's

52:14 ↗ recognized right I think I think the

52:17 ↗ issue is that and and part of I think

52:20 ↗ the approach that our consultant took is

52:23 ↗ if you leave it up to the architects and

52:26 ↗ this isn't I'm not slamming anybody in

52:28 ↗ the room if you leave it up to the

52:29 ↗ architects you know they build what they

52:31 ↗ want to do there regardless of what's

52:33 ↗ around it usually and I think all

52:36 ↗ they're saying is take context into

52:38 ↗ consideration and if there's an open

52:40 ↗ space or as Mike pointed out maybe it's

52:43 ↗ a public space the building should

52:45 ↗ somehow reflect that it doesn't have to

52:47 ↗ I don't think they're saying it has to

52:49 ↗ completely kind of say that that's the

52:52 ↗ jewel of that piece of property but you

52:54 ↗ shouldn't you know that building veiled

52:57 ↗ and this I think is a criticism I don't

53:00 ↗ think you would know from that North

53:02 ↗ elevation that there's anything of

53:04 ↗ particular on that side because it's

53:08 ↗ just it's just the building architecture

53:10 ↗ just wraps around and you know I was the

53:12 ↗ comment that ray made earlier and if the

53:15 ↗ doors are truly there I don't know that

53:17 ↗ that elevation if you were walking down

53:19 ↗ the sidewalk how do you know where the

53:20 ↗ front doors are I it's just all kind of

53:23 ↗ blend so so there's pieces I think that

53:27 ↗ this is asking us to think about context

53:30 ↗ is one and and the degree of

53:34 ↗ impatiens mal I think I think there's

53:36 ↗ some latitude there and maybe it should

53:39 ↗ somehow be based on what that is right

53:43 ↗ if it is a qua Creek you know maybe

53:45 ↗ that's a very different approach then

53:47 ↗ whatever the name of this stream is the

53:50 ↗ safe way backdoors drunkest ditch Oh

53:54 ↗ aren't we poetic you know III agree -

54:00 ↗ Keith I think the applicant or somewhere

54:03 ↗ in the document needs to say that it's

54:06 ↗ they need to recognize that there is an

54:08 ↗ asset here that they need to address

54:10 ↗ however where you want to address it

54:13 ↗ maybe you want to a visual approach to

54:18 ↗ it

54:18 ↗ or physical approach or maybe a plaza

54:22 ↗ but you recognize that there is an acid

54:24 ↗ here that you should do something about

54:26 ↗ it and not just ignore it and I'm sure

54:29 ↗ that applicant a lot of them that I've

54:31 ↗ seen they will come back and they will

54:33 ↗ say we recognize it there's a stream and

54:35 ↗ then here's how we propose to address it

54:38 ↗ and if we put enough language in the

54:41 ↗ standard does it recognize it what are

54:44 ↗ you going to do about it

54:45 ↗ are you just going to ignore you can't

54:48 ↗ do that so what are you doing about it

54:50 ↗ so something like that I think and then

54:53 ↗ it's up to the Commission and maybe the

54:55 ↗ staff in the first trial go through it

54:58 ↗ see that approach that they put in there

55:02 ↗ is that is that fits in to our needs and

55:06 ↗ if the applicant says yeah I think that

55:09 ↗ reason and if staff says now doesn't so

55:11 ↗ if it comes to the Commission and you

55:13 ↗ know we're not we're also painting we're

55:16 ↗ being paid this big bucks to make that

55:18 ↗ decision and we may not all agree to

55:21 ↗ what they're proposing and maybe we can

55:23 ↗ go through a vote for says yes and three

55:27 ↗ says no and then we can proceed from

55:29 ↗ there

55:30 ↗ well and I think that the point that

55:31 ↗ you're also bringing up that's a really

55:34 ↗ interesting one is our streams and

55:37 ↗ critical areas are rated so there are

55:42 ↗ different levels and so maybe the extent

55:45 ↗ of response is based on the rating

55:47 ↗ system

55:48 ↗ that the level of response so you can

55:52 ↗ see on the slide that the creeks on the

55:58 ↗ north side is different than you know

56:01 ↗ the is quad creek and therefore the kind

56:05 ↗ of response that you would make to one

56:07 ↗ is of a different magnitude than the

56:10 ↗ kind of response you would make to

56:11 ↗ another this here are the standards

56:13 ↗ national are those national the ratings

56:17 ↗ ah no but they stayed mean the time line

56:23 ↗ type - yeah yeah yeah I mean they are I

56:26 ↗ don't think they're completely uniform

56:30 ↗ from city to city but they are you know

56:34 ↗ quote having fish or not having fish you

56:37 ↗ have to use best available science so

56:39 ↗ there's going to be a lot of similarity

56:41 ↗ between what any city is doing because

56:44 ↗ well the reason I ask is that it seems

56:47 ↗ to me that you know Puget Sound Chinook

56:50 ↗ have been declared are listed and so

56:55 ↗ that's pretty that's federal it's very

56:58 ↗ clear about anything it has to do with

57:01 ↗ an endangered species especially an you

57:04 ↗ know none crominus species that migrates

57:06 ↗ and and with the emphasis on restoring

57:09 ↗ habitat but but that's why it puzzles me

57:13 ↗ that it I mean the origin of the ratings

57:16 ↗ that's when we come to traffic we're

57:19 ↗ talking about national standards that

57:22 ↗ apply in all states the Fed DLT enforce

57:25 ↗ them so I fish aren't engineered well

57:27 ↗ yeah but I mean no I just it because

57:32 ↗ that's clarity for an applicant I mean

57:34 ↗ if it's a company in Dallas that's

57:36 ↗ applying shouldn't they just know from

57:41 ↗ the get-go when they do for site survey

57:43 ↗ that they've got a obligation I think

57:45 ↗ and we would tell them that and the

57:48 ↗ state does you know review and approve

57:51 ↗ the standards not they they don't they

57:55 ↗ don't require that every city have

57:57 ↗ exactly the same standards and mean and

57:59 ↗ frankly with traffic there's more

58:02 ↗ and one there's an ite manual there's a

58:04 ↗ San Diego there are more than one manual

58:06 ↗ out there just most cities choose to use

58:09 ↗ the same manual yeah you know the I

58:16 ↗ think you bring up a good question about

58:20 ↗ the level of response but I guess I'd

58:23 ↗ have a question about it in some cases

58:24 ↗ do you even need to respond in the way

58:28 ↗ they talked about because reading

58:29 ↗ they're their natural context which is

58:32 ↗ the things they talked about things that

58:34 ↗ were appropriate front doors oriented

58:37 ↗ towards open space entrances facing

58:39 ↗ regulated creeks or wetland open space

58:41 ↗ and so in this case you would according

58:46 ↗ to the manual you would have to

58:47 ↗ orientate your front door to that Creek

58:50 ↗ yes and and I've already said to them

58:52 ↗ that I don't I mean because if you have

58:55 ↗ to have and we've talked about it and

58:57 ↗ they agreed that it really should be a

58:59 ↗ door shouldn't feel like a back door but

59:02 ↗ your front door is not going to face

59:05 ↗ that way in most cases because otherwise

59:08 ↗ then you're putting a back side to the

59:10 ↗ street I mean we I think what they're

59:12 ↗ trying to do is provide a more balanced

59:14 ↗ response between how we handle streets

59:17 ↗ and how we handle natural areas but and

59:20 ↗ to recognize the value of the community

59:22 ↗ but not to turn our back on the street

59:26 ↗ in the process right but the way and the

59:31 ↗ way yeah and and I would agree the way

59:33 ↗ it's written right now would indicate

59:34 ↗ otherwise

59:35 ↗ and then the other question be like the

59:36 ↗ step back that upper floor step back

59:38 ↗ like in this case with a freak like that

59:42 ↗ is that important enough to say yes you

59:45 ↗ need to step back the upper floor of the

59:47 ↗ building you tell me I don't think so

59:51 ↗ because nobody's going to walk in that

59:53 ↗ Creek or that open area I mean it's a

59:56 ↗ Safeway parking lot behind it so this is

1:00:01 ↗ this is a pretty big philosophical part

1:00:03 ↗ of this right right and that is do you

1:00:06 ↗ require an applicant to recognize open

1:00:09 ↗ space and treat the building accordingly

1:00:11 ↗ now you might be able to do that a

1:00:14 ↗ couple different

1:00:15 ↗ maybe it's a step back we had the same

1:00:18 ↗ conversation with Costco because as Lucy

1:00:21 ↗ mentioned they're treating the ponds and

1:00:23 ↗ Pickering similar to a natural open

1:00:26 ↗ space you know and they had had

1:00:28 ↗ basically a nine story stark edge

1:00:32 ↗ against that you know against that pond

1:00:34 ↗ and you know what they suggested for

1:00:36 ↗ them to consider was something like a

1:00:38 ↗ green wall that could potentially soften

1:00:43 ↗ that edge and I think what they're

1:00:44 ↗ looking for again is for the applicants

1:00:47 ↗ to recognize that you're adjacent to

1:00:49 ↗ open space the building shouldn't just

1:00:52 ↗ be a stark flat edge because that's easy

1:00:54 ↗ to do you know is it a step back is it

1:00:58 ↗ some green treatment is there some other

1:01:00 ↗ things that you could do I think and

1:01:01 ↗ this digit I think Mike's point earlier

1:01:03 ↗ is it's important to recognize what's

1:01:07 ↗ important but can you give the

1:01:10 ↗ applicants the ability to maybe address

1:01:12 ↗ it in maybe more than one way and and

1:01:16 ↗ maybe there's some offered maybe there's

1:01:17 ↗ some of these pieces where that is is

1:01:20 ↗ some direction we should give back to

1:01:23 ↗ the consultants is you know rather than

1:01:25 ↗ making it a mandatory step back maybe

1:01:27 ↗ which does have some light and you know

1:01:30 ↗ air flow and other benefits so there

1:01:33 ↗ there is benefit to the step back but

1:01:37 ↗ could there be other choices and that's

1:01:38 ↗ you know that's up for you guys I think

1:01:41 ↗ to have that conversation but but

1:01:43 ↗ remember Costco is not under this d'azyr

1:01:46 ↗ no annual so this was a conversation I

1:01:50 ↗ don't know whether they would have bent

1:01:52 ↗ Crandall Rendell ax would have been as

1:01:54 ↗ magnanimous if they had been under the

1:01:58 ↗ manual so I think it's a good point of

1:02:02 ↗ consideration for you but I think the

1:02:04 ↗ way Crandall ran Beulah responded may

1:02:07 ↗ not be indicative of what what the

1:02:10 ↗ manual would or would not allow them to

1:02:12 ↗ do as currently drafted exactly right

1:02:16 ↗ and and and I completely agree with

1:02:18 ↗ Keith this is a essential philosophical

1:02:21 ↗ point it is a value of the community but

1:02:25 ↗ that doesn't mean that that inherently

1:02:27 ↗ leads to we must always do X so I think

1:02:30 ↗ we're looking for guidance from the

1:02:32 ↗ Development Commission on the

1:02:35 ↗ appropriate steps are they the same for

1:02:39 ↗ every kind of stream or open space maybe

1:02:42 ↗ they are maybe they aren't that's I

1:02:44 ↗ think what we would like to hear that's

1:02:45 ↗ I'd like I think your idea of saying

1:02:47 ↗ having something in there saying the

1:02:50 ↗ scope of your respect for the stream or

1:02:54 ↗ the open space as they put it would be

1:02:58 ↗ adjusted according to the size and type

1:03:02 ↗ of open space that's there because

1:03:05 ↗ you're right Issaquah Creek versus this

1:03:07 ↗ two very different open spaces or as

1:03:10 ↗ Mike said even if it's a public plaza or

1:03:14 ↗ something that works the same way so

1:03:16 ↗ it'd be nice if there was something that

1:03:18 ↗ would say you can have your scale be

1:03:21 ↗ adjusted you don't have to hit all of

1:03:22 ↗ the appropriate items or something very

1:03:25 ↗ small but if it was big you may have to

1:03:28 ↗ hit all these appropriate items that

1:03:31 ↗ make sense so how far ahead we have to

1:03:33 ↗ look though

1:03:35 ↗ so if the city would like to hit when we

1:03:39 ↗ talk about green necklaces for example

1:03:41 ↗ there are going to be pieces of property

1:03:45 ↗ that will come in that will become green

1:03:47 ↗ necklaces eight years from now the plan

1:03:51 ↗ just goes on indefinitely right based on

1:03:55 ↗ funding and the hydrology and the flood

1:03:57 ↗ plain Maps and so on it well there's a

1:03:59 ↗ point the point that that Mike made is I

1:04:01 ↗ mean we do know where critical areas are

1:04:03 ↗ in fact I think it's the other kinds of

1:04:05 ↗ natural areas storm ponds non-critical

1:04:11 ↗ areas slopes those kinds of things but

1:04:13 ↗ and there are there are that's what I

1:04:16 ↗ was getting at with the ratings I mean

1:04:17 ↗ it seems to me it's pretty pretty clear

1:04:19 ↗ now that the city and the and the

1:04:22 ↗ applicant knows that there is a

1:04:26 ↗ class-four stream there and these are

1:04:29 ↗ what this is what you can and can't do

1:04:31 ↗ and the applicants in some cases I

1:04:35 ↗ believe have the option of saying we

1:04:38 ↗ will improve

1:04:39 ↗ or we're just going to ignore it I mean

1:04:40 ↗ it's it's there so I seem that the

1:04:44 ↗ guidelines seem to be pretty clear now

1:04:48 ↗ so that does gives them the options so

1:04:53 ↗ limited let me just unpack what you're

1:04:54 ↗ saying a little bit Randy just I don't

1:04:57 ↗ know whether it helps or it's extraneous

1:04:59 ↗ heading into the weeds I I would include

1:05:04 ↗ open spaces and things like that too I

1:05:06 ↗ mean it seems to me that this makes it

1:05:08 ↗ clearer than the previous set of

1:05:11 ↗ standards we have to deal with that's it

1:05:12 ↗ so all I'll add is that with wetlands

1:05:16 ↗ there's a certain buffer that is

1:05:18 ↗ required you are allowed to reduce that

1:05:22 ↗ 25% under certain circumstances and if

1:05:26 ↗ you enhance it if it's already a

1:05:28 ↗ fabulous high quality buffer we're not

1:05:31 ↗ going to allow you to reduce it because

1:05:33 ↗ there's no enhancement necessary but the

1:05:36 ↗ you know gateway was a good example

1:05:38 ↗ there was a lot of reed canarygrass and

1:05:41 ↗ they were willing to pull all that out

1:05:43 ↗ and rebuild the buffer and in exchange

1:05:48 ↗ for that reduction another thought I had

1:05:56 ↗ on this the it's a good example of

1:06:00 ↗ saying here's a building that's really

1:06:02 ↗ not arts and crafts at all you know put

1:06:05 ↗ a slope through change the windows make

1:06:07 ↗ it asymmetrical and balconies a lot of

1:06:10 ↗ stuff you have to really change about

1:06:12 ↗ this and I guess that two things one of

1:06:14 ↗ the interesting to see okay if you went

1:06:17 ↗ in and quickly redesigned the building

1:06:18 ↗ what might it look like but the other

1:06:21 ↗ question of do we want to have just

1:06:24 ↗ these four styles you know arts and

1:06:26 ↗ crafts and Grange and lodge we'd be

1:06:30 ↗ saying that a building like this Billy

1:06:31 ↗ can't go into downtown Issaquah it makes

1:06:37 ↗ me question are the guidelines to

1:06:40 ↗ strength

1:06:43 ↗ so in this and this this just to put a

1:06:45 ↗ finer point on what you just said Mel

1:06:48 ↗ this building couldn't go into central

1:06:52 ↗ is a quat outside the core if it was in

1:06:56 ↗ the core then you you're choosing

1:06:58 ↗ northwest contemporary and even though

1:07:00 ↗ it still got some red checks

1:07:02 ↗ I think it's dealing with different

1:07:04 ↗ issues than it did under the Arts and

1:07:08 ↗ Crafts style right right exactly so yeah

1:07:11 ↗ so if this was across the street where

1:07:13 ↗ Safeway is that it's in the core right

1:07:17 ↗ you could do how you know and then this

1:07:19 ↗ building is is judged differently so so

1:07:23 ↗ mission Morgan what are you suggesting

1:07:25 ↗ that there there should be another or

1:07:28 ↗ one or two more styles because I you

1:07:34 ↗ know I think one of the things that we

1:07:35 ↗ the reason we're here tonight is that

1:07:37 ↗ we're we were dissatisfied with the

1:07:41 ↗ breads of the things that came before us

1:07:45 ↗ and so now we're saying well we've got

1:07:48 ↗ to make some anyway so yeah so yeah are

1:07:51 ↗ you suggesting there ought to be one or

1:07:52 ↗ two more styles in the in the book I

1:07:55 ↗ wonder I yeah I don't know I I'm sort of

1:07:59 ↗ on the fence about that and I guess I'd

1:08:01 ↗ be like with this if you went through

1:08:03 ↗ all the changes they recommend to give

1:08:05 ↗ it to arts and crafts slow proof the

1:08:08 ↗ window changes Aysen a symmetry and the

1:08:11 ↗ design what would this building look

1:08:14 ↗ like with that so the interesting thing

1:08:18 ↗ happen triangle and a pencil oh you know

1:08:22 ↗ so one of the so I think one of the

1:08:24 ↗ things were responding to is the comment

1:08:29 ↗ that us go ahead and say Atlas was

1:08:32 ↗ Orlando architecture right I mean that

1:08:35 ↗ it could go anywhere I mean in I think

1:08:37 ↗ it could it could go it could plop down

1:08:40 ↗ in Phoenix in Orlando in in Dallas that

1:08:43 ↗ building could be anywhere and I think

1:08:46 ↗ part of what how the pendulum swing back

1:08:48 ↗ was we want buildings that are more is a

1:08:52 ↗ claw-like and you know and our our key

1:08:56 ↗ Jack from Portland tried to figure out

1:08:58 ↗ what that was and you know as you guys

1:09:00 ↗ talked about tradition and heavier

1:09:03 ↗ styles and earth tones you know this is

1:09:06 ↗ the pallet they came up with and I think

1:09:08 ↗ the question is and the one that's you

1:09:10 ↗ know the urban Grange is the one that's

1:09:12 ↗ a little bit on the edge to allow

1:09:14 ↗ something a bit different but you know I

1:09:17 ↗ guess you know it's a great conversation

1:09:21 ↗ point and you know part of it and I want

1:09:25 ↗ y'all to remember this that we're not

1:09:28 ↗ going to get this right to start with

1:09:30 ↗ we're going to we're going to we're

1:09:32 ↗ going to get a tool that we don't have

1:09:34 ↗ now and then as we go through projects

1:09:37 ↗ and this is why I think this was super

1:09:38 ↗ super beneficial because not only was

1:09:42 ↗ Vail something that you guys had seen

1:09:43 ↗ but it also was next to a critical area

1:09:46 ↗ so it gave us that opportunity to really

1:09:48 ↗ unpack that conversation about you know

1:09:51 ↗ what does that really want to look like

1:09:55 ↗ but as we go through this and we start

1:09:57 ↗ to struggle with maybe some projects we

1:09:59 ↗ like that don't fit you know it's going

1:10:03 ↗ to inform us that maybe we do need

1:10:05 ↗ another style and I'm not trying to

1:10:07 ↗ defer that conversation because if you

1:10:09 ↗ guys want to find and and maybe when we

1:10:11 ↗ go through the photos you know you guys

1:10:13 ↗ will say hey here's a block of photos

1:10:16 ↗ that we really like that maybe don't fit

1:10:21 ↗ into any of those is across styles so

1:10:24 ↗ crandall arambula pick us of six style I

1:10:28 ↗ mean based on these photos and that may

1:10:30 ↗ be a great outcome don't know because we

1:10:32 ↗ haven't done that yet so and I I've been

1:10:35 ↗ um you know it's an interesting an

1:10:42 ↗ interesting question I know that you

1:10:46 ↗ know we've all kind of fallen in love

1:10:48 ↗ please

1:10:49 ↗ staff has with Connie's sheep herding

1:10:53 ↗ and pint drinking comment and and there

1:10:59 ↗ is a certain level of historicism in the

1:11:02 ↗ styles that that were selected which was

1:11:05 ↗ part of what we were looking at is quad

1:11:06 ↗ buildings to see if there were modern

1:11:08 ↗ examples that and and frankly I'm

1:11:10 ↗ looking elsewhere I've got Whistler

1:11:13 ↗ photos I was up on orcas this weekend

1:11:16 ↗ I've been kind of looking at non

1:11:18 ↗ single-story non residential buildings

1:11:23 ↗ but you know trying to think about

1:11:26 ↗ historical examples that are maybe more

1:11:29 ↗ modern I will tell you that that you as

1:11:33 ↗ a crew reject a lot of those pictures

1:11:36 ↗ and that isn't a criticism it's just an

1:11:38 ↗ observation that there is a kind of

1:11:42 ↗ early modernism

1:11:45 ↗ that's from sort of the 1920s that you

1:11:50 ↗ know Kevin will like and I will like but

1:11:53 ↗ you guys don't like and and so it may

1:11:57 ↗ end and all I'm saying is I think it's

1:12:00 ↗ going to be hard if you are not picking

1:12:03 ↗ it and I think it's the right thing to

1:12:07 ↗ do so I'm again I'm not saying that I

1:12:09 ↗ think it's a mistake northwest

1:12:12 ↗ contemporary is going to be the thing

1:12:14 ↗ that is most like what architects are

1:12:16 ↗ doing now and so if you want two

1:12:19 ↗ distinct areas not allowing Northwest

1:12:22 ↗ contemporary in the traditional Esquire

1:12:26 ↗ whatever we're calling it area makes

1:12:28 ↗ sense but if you are trying to find

1:12:31 ↗ other styles that have a certain

1:12:35 ↗ historical character and yet are not

1:12:38 ↗ quite so historic are more 20th century

1:12:43 ↗ than maybe late 18th or very early 20th

1:12:47 ↗ century I don't think you guys are going

1:12:49 ↗ to like them I mean we could certainly

1:12:52 ↗ look at pictures and I'm happy to do

1:12:54 ↗ that but a lot of the things that I like

1:12:57 ↗ and and you guys are very adamant about

1:13:00 ↗ would be those kinds of early European

1:13:05 ↗ modernism that a one exception I've seen

1:13:07 ↗ is that you kind of are attracted to

1:13:09 ↗ some of the sort of industrial style

1:13:12 ↗ buildings but that sort of more stripped

1:13:16 ↗ facade more punched windows not a lot of

1:13:20 ↗ trim

1:13:21 ↗ that's where you guys say that just

1:13:23 ↗ looks brutal to me you know and I mean

1:13:25 ↗ that in a kind of architectural style

1:13:27 ↗ message yeah yes so just something to

1:13:31 ↗ think oh I so this we could debate this

1:13:34 ↗ probably for a long time I think this is

1:13:36 ↗ actually a really important kind of

1:13:38 ↗ point to try to get some clarity around

1:13:40 ↗ and my guess is that as this advances to

1:13:44 ↗ the council there were probably similar

1:13:45 ↗ conversations about these styles and are

1:13:48 ↗ they the right ones and neither is there

1:13:49 ↗ enough breath here etc but I think it is

1:13:53 ↗ you know as we think about how the city

1:13:55 ↗ will develop into the future and the

1:13:57 ↗ look and feel that that we're trying to

1:13:59 ↗ either preserve or and/or create I think

1:14:02 ↗ the style question is going to be really

1:14:04 ↗ important and I agree I we're not going

1:14:07 ↗ to get it exactly right and we have some

1:14:09 ↗ experience and it'll be some adjustments

1:14:11 ↗ codes and standards are always being

1:14:12 ↗ updated so it's nothing new but this

1:14:15 ↗ will be a whole wholly different

1:14:17 ↗ approach a thing for Issaquah which is

1:14:19 ↗ good but this I think rambling on your

1:14:22 ↗ little bit look as we move ahead to the

1:14:25 ↗ images in the pieces that actually will

1:14:28 ↗ generate a little bit more kind of

1:14:32 ↗ feedback I guess from the Commission's

1:14:34 ↗ points of view because they're not going

1:14:35 ↗ to be the same I think on all those bins

1:14:37 ↗ of what we like and kind of where would

1:14:39 ↗ you'd like to see it happening and maybe

1:14:41 ↗ there's a hybrid that comes out of it I

1:14:42 ↗ don't know between the Northwest

1:14:43 ↗ contemporary and and something that's a

1:14:45 ↗ little bit more traditional or maybe we

1:14:47 ↗ just stick with where we are at the end

1:14:49 ↗ will be but that that might help us a

1:14:51 ↗ little bit calm as we look at some of

1:14:53 ↗ those images that you sent out to us

1:14:55 ↗ brochure and and we could do that and

1:14:57 ↗ then we can circle back to this - let's

1:15:01 ↗ take a time that probably makes good

1:15:03 ↗ sense okay so um did you want to laugh

1:15:06 ↗ oh I wasn't going to log into the

1:15:09 ↗ looking at photos until we had a chance

1:15:11 ↗ for the public to be willing to provide

1:15:14 ↗ some input if they so choose

1:15:16 ↗ GW back please honey please light up

1:15:29 ↗ okay Connie Marsh and I live upon squat

1:15:33 ↗ so some of the things that are missing

1:15:38 ↗ from how things usually come through for

1:15:42 ↗ you is the staff usually has a position

1:15:47 ↗ and in this situation it was what

1:15:53 ↗ somebody else thought

1:15:55 ↗ and so when staff is put in the work at

1:15:59 ↗ reviewing the whatever it is and they

1:16:03 ↗ think they're going the right direction

1:16:05 ↗ the conversation is not as gentle and

1:16:09 ↗ easy to get things changed as it was

1:16:13 ↗ tonight because they think they're doing

1:16:16 ↗ good and you can understand you don't

1:16:17 ↗ want to go backwards is painful to go

1:16:19 ↗ backwards and then to try to identify

1:16:21 ↗ what exactly it is from you all and get

1:16:24 ↗ it on paper it all hurts and so that's

1:16:28 ↗ missing and so what I'm going to do is

1:16:31 ↗ I'm going to sort of add that in from my

1:16:35 ↗ own experience and you can throw things

1:16:36 ↗ at me if you like sure go ahead I get to

1:16:42 ↗ throw back though so of course we don't

1:16:44 ↗ have it up anymore so I'm going to be

1:16:46 ↗ doing it from memory

1:16:48 ↗ okay my memory of that thing was that

1:16:56 ↗ the person on staff who was presenting

1:16:59 ↗ it said well there's this little stream

1:17:02 ↗ thing but it's off-site and there's a

1:17:03 ↗ road in between so the critical area

1:17:06 ↗ code basically says you know there is no

1:17:10 ↗ buffer because there's a road there and

1:17:12 ↗ so it's off-site and we don't really

1:17:14 ↗ have to address it and so there you go

1:17:19 ↗ now we have this new overlay and the

1:17:24 ↗ staff person says the exact same thing

1:17:26 ↗ well there's this road in between in our

1:17:29 ↗ critical area code says that because

1:17:32 ↗ when there's a road in between a stream

1:17:35 ↗ that it is no longer a buffer

1:17:38 ↗ it's off property so we just don't think

1:17:42 ↗ that they should be orienting anything

1:17:44 ↗ toward that stream and then you all get

1:17:48 ↗ to say well we don't think that's true

1:17:52 ↗ we think that even if it is they're not

1:17:54 ↗ on their property that this is the

1:17:57 ↗ Issaquah way and it should be oriented

1:18:00 ↗ there and the staff person stands here

1:18:02 ↗ and says the code doesn't really support

1:18:06 ↗ orienting things toward

1:18:09 ↗ totally off-site small critical areas

1:18:12 ↗ and how do you fight that and that is a

1:18:16 ↗ realistic scenario so now let me tell

1:18:18 ↗ you a little bit more about this

1:18:20 ↗ particular critical area which is point

1:18:22 ↗ number two if you are supposed to be

1:18:26 ↗ identifying the context now other

1:18:30 ↗ development staff is going to have to

1:18:32 ↗ provide you with the complete context

1:18:36 ↗ and in this situation that stream runs

1:18:40 ↗ year-round it is follows a public

1:18:45 ↗ pathway that is signed and mapped with

1:18:48 ↗ the city as one of our main walking

1:18:51 ↗ corridors and I sent Lucy a picture of

1:18:53 ↗ this walking corridor which is actually

1:18:56 ↗ connected as a pedestrian pathway to the

1:18:59 ↗ library distribution center and going on

1:19:03 ↗ through to the Safeway shopping center

1:19:06 ↗ so this is actually a major pedestrian

1:19:08 ↗ corridor for the central Issaquah area

1:19:12 ↗ that people use all the time and so all

1:19:17 ↗ of that was left out of the context so

1:19:20 ↗ now if the people don't use the road

1:19:22 ↗ except for for emergency is this not an

1:19:26 ↗ opportunity to instead get a lunar style

1:19:29 ↗ little Plaza going there where you could

1:19:32 ↗ enhance the creek and make a happening

1:19:36 ↗ that connects with one of the major

1:19:38 ↗ pedestrian corridors that we have now

1:19:41 ↗ granted the Safeway has this big hideous

1:19:44 ↗ wall that has no decoration whatsoever

1:19:47 ↗ but people look at

1:19:48 ↗ the ever flowing stream as one of those

1:19:51 ↗ few places where you can just sort of

1:19:53 ↗ get a hint of a natural area and in in

1:19:56 ↗ this time of year there's this beautiful

1:19:59 ↗ umbrella of trees that you walk through

1:20:02 ↗ and so you're going through this

1:20:03 ↗ vegetated tunnel right in the middle of

1:20:06 ↗ your central area so this is a moment

1:20:10 ↗ yet you miss all of that when you're

1:20:13 ↗ looking at this flat presentation where

1:20:17 ↗ none of that is is provided for you and

1:20:20 ↗ so then you would be making a decision

1:20:23 ↗ that might not enhance what is already

1:20:26 ↗ there and I don't know how to get all of

1:20:30 ↗ that information presented to you so

1:20:33 ↗ that I could have the Issaquah connected

1:20:36 ↗ it's a quad that we could enjoy those

1:20:38 ↗ moments happen when you judge the

1:20:41 ↗ positioning in the situation of your

1:20:45 ↗ building so I think the presentation

1:20:47 ↗ style of the staff and also what they

1:20:52 ↗ require the developer needs to change to

1:20:58 ↗ gather the situational feel okay that

1:21:02 ↗ was very long but hopefully I drew a

1:21:04 ↗ picture for you and Lucy actually has

1:21:07 ↗ pictures of it right and so then when

1:21:14 ↗ you go to you looking at the checklist I

1:21:22 ↗ would be interested in having you all do

1:21:26 ↗ the exercise for yourself where you're

1:21:28 ↗ checking off the boxes and you're saying

1:21:30 ↗ well do I think this is right or wrong

1:21:32 ↗ or right or wrong do I liking do I not

1:21:36 ↗ like it and does it fit with our town

1:21:39 ↗ and why and before the meeting starts

1:21:44 ↗ and and share that information for the

1:21:50 ↗ first few times that you use the

1:21:52 ↗ checklist so that you become familiar

1:21:53 ↗ with it as as a tool and I don't expect

1:21:58 ↗ it's going to work very well initially

1:22:02 ↗ I think it's progress in the right

1:22:03 ↗ direction so I think that all I'm going

1:22:09 ↗ to say cuz otherwise you'll forget

1:22:11 ↗ anything I said all right thank you but

1:22:16 ↗ mister check ma'am

1:22:17 ↗ because what I make a question and a

1:22:20 ↗ comment following that public comment as

1:22:23 ↗ I believe it's relevant sure we have

1:22:24 ↗ been in our training classes or our

1:22:27 ↗ review classes it was brought to my

1:22:29 ↗ attention after I'd been on the

1:22:30 ↗ commission for a while that trying to

1:22:35 ↗ think of the exact wording that it is

1:22:40 ↗ preferable for the members of the

1:22:42 ↗ Commission do not visit the site in

1:22:47 ↗ question before there is a formal

1:22:51 ↗ presentation is that is that correct I

1:22:55 ↗ would say it's stronger than not

1:22:57 ↗ preferred so we're not supposed to go

1:22:59 ↗ look at the site because you know of us

1:23:03 ↗ to be you're supposed to be responding

1:23:05 ↗ to the information that has been

1:23:08 ↗ provided to everybody now I think to

1:23:14 ↗ Connie's point she's welcome to send in

1:23:19 ↗ if she feels that that staff have

1:23:22 ↗ overlooked some aspect of the context

1:23:26 ↗ you know we provide you with all the

1:23:29 ↗ original letters that we get so the Lucy

1:23:37 ↗ let me know ask this I mean I understand

1:23:39 ↗ the rationale for that it I was going

1:23:41 ↗ out and looking at every single

1:23:43 ↗ applicant if it's a question of when the

1:23:49 ↗ information is available though when the

1:23:51 ↗ public when the notice goes up and the

1:23:53 ↗ notices go out to everyone within 300

1:23:55 ↗ yards or feet whether of the of the

1:23:57 ↗ application doesn't that constitute the

1:24:00 ↗ ability of anybody that's interested to

1:24:02 ↗ go look look and go what was that sign

1:24:06 ↗ stop the car get out and look at all

1:24:08 ↗ there's a big white sign there I is it

1:24:10 ↗ is it the the notification that there is

1:24:13 ↗ an application for there

1:24:15 ↗ that constitutes or is it the actual

1:24:17 ↗ fact that as members of this commission

1:24:19 ↗ we are not to go look at it even if it's

1:24:23 ↗ been identified as a new apartment

1:24:26 ↗ complex or skateboard front of you know

1:24:29 ↗ plays or whatever so I'm not sure I'm

1:24:32 ↗ entirely tracking so I'm going to say a

1:24:34 ↗ couple things you need to tell me if

1:24:35 ↗ I've missed the point and we get the

1:24:38 ↗ question is we're not supposed to go

1:24:40 ↗ look at the site until there is a formal

1:24:44 ↗ presentation that's what I believe we

1:24:47 ↗ were told okay

1:24:48 ↗ yeah I yeah I wish that weren't the case

1:24:51 ↗ I understand why it is and I've been

1:24:54 ↗ complying with it but you don't quite

1:24:57 ↗ agree with it

1:24:58 ↗ no I don't agree but I don't I don't

1:25:00 ↗ agree with it either but I don't go out

1:25:03 ↗ you know but okay I don't know why it's

1:25:06 ↗ like that do well I think the reason is

1:25:10 ↗ that we're acting a quasi-judicial

1:25:12 ↗ capacity so where the judges are making

1:25:14 ↗ decisions and so they were supposed to

1:25:16 ↗ make a decision based on the record

1:25:17 ↗ that's presented to the Commission but

1:25:19 ↗ we're it's precisely the reason that

1:25:21 ↗ they provided that I'm compliance I just

1:25:26 ↗ have a big piece left to send all right

1:25:29 ↗ and I do think I do think that it's an

1:25:32 ↗ opportunity for the public to identify

1:25:33 ↗ those specific areas and interests that

1:25:35 ↗ they have that's part of their their

1:25:37 ↗ function that that's that gives us the

1:25:40 ↗ ability to leverage their understanding

1:25:42 ↗ and knowledge of specifics

1:25:44 ↗ so let's presented and and just since

1:25:47 ↗ that's news to me

1:25:48 ↗ but I don't have many rules Lucy and I

1:25:51 ↗ are going to chat that through we're

1:25:53 ↗ going to check in with the city attorney

1:25:54 ↗ and double-check that Randy and if if

1:25:57 ↗ there's a different opinion today than

1:25:59 ↗ there was previously we'll share that

1:26:01 ↗ with the Commission it is you know I

1:26:04 ↗ would don't kill into what Randy had

1:26:07 ↗ mentioned you know I don't think that

1:26:09 ↗ that's right no I understand I

1:26:13 ↗ absolutely understand the quasi-judicial

1:26:15 ↗ aspect of it that's why I'm complying

1:26:17 ↗ with it since but boy it's just yeah and

1:26:21 ↗ just to kind of reinforce that you know

1:26:24 ↗ we're asking for somebody to come in

1:26:25 ↗ with no knowledge of the site well you

1:26:28 ↗ know

1:26:28 ↗ all of us have lived here and we know

1:26:30 ↗ what the site is when you say Safeway we

1:26:32 ↗ know we're safe way is behind Safeway we

1:26:34 ↗ know but you know we're drawing from our

1:26:37 ↗ past knowledge of experience in an

1:26:41 ↗ exposure and to like randy says you have

1:26:45 ↗ a sign out there that says we're going

1:26:46 ↗ to build XYZ development here you know

1:26:49 ↗ what is it's all public knowledge for

1:26:51 ↗ again the people go we will definitely

1:26:53 ↗ follow up and check on that because I

1:26:55 ↗ think it's a serious point and and I

1:26:57 ↗ know there's a distinction between you

1:27:00 ↗ know that commissioners are not supposed

1:27:02 ↗ to do research on a project though so

1:27:05 ↗ you know wanting to know background on

1:27:06 ↗ developers and going to that extent you

1:27:09 ↗ know that's definitely not kind of part

1:27:12 ↗ of the protocol but getting familiar

1:27:15 ↗ with the property and knowing how the

1:27:17 ↗ site slopes knowing its relationship to

1:27:20 ↗ surrounding streets and development

1:27:23 ↗ well compatibility is is now a new

1:27:25 ↗ heading for us if the latter will be

1:27:28 ↗ absolutely so we'll we will double check

1:27:31 ↗ and get back to you guys because it's a

1:27:33 ↗ great question thank you sure okay great

1:27:38 ↗ great comments any others good pictures

1:27:41 ↗ let's look at some pictures I thought I

1:27:46 ↗ thought we were going to get done this

1:27:47 ↗ first part real fast these pictures are

1:27:49 ↗ going to take forever the good thing

1:27:51 ↗ that it's hot outside we're going to get

1:27:53 ↗ graded on our tests I just group them

1:28:03 ↗ kind by the evaluations that you guys

1:28:06 ↗ gave them okay so again so first of all

1:28:18 ↗ the characteristics I used non single

1:28:23 ↗ family multiple stories except where

1:28:26 ↗ there were Civic historic or squad

1:28:29 ↗ treasures newer buildings again except

1:28:32 ↗ if they were Issaquah treasures and then

1:28:35 ↗ grouped by the part of town so that's

1:28:37 ↗ sort of the lens that I put them through

1:28:39 ↗ you may have other lenses please

1:28:41 ↗ identify

1:28:44 ↗ so I think there were six of you who

1:28:50 ↗ filled this out and most of them got

1:28:56 ↗ evaluated by everyone as it got further

1:28:57 ↗ down the list

1:28:59 ↗ they got fewer and fewer so there are

1:29:03 ↗ two columns here one is if you like them

1:29:07 ↗ on a scale of one to five where one is

1:29:09 ↗ high but then also if they represent

1:29:12 ↗ Issaquah and that we got a lot fewer

1:29:15 ↗ comments on that so that's why I

1:29:17 ↗ provided this again so that is we're

1:29:19 ↗ talking through if you want to fill this

1:29:21 ↗ out that would be a useful tool for us

1:29:24 ↗ because you could like some I mean I

1:29:26 ↗ know there are some of you who said I

1:29:28 ↗ like this building it is not as qua so

1:29:32 ↗ III think those are two completely

1:29:36 ↗ possible scenarios so anyway these all

1:29:41 ↗ got the highest score the barn and the

1:29:45 ↗ library and four out of four of you who

1:29:49 ↗ did that rating so there were six people

1:29:52 ↗ who did one part of it and for people

1:29:54 ↗ who did another that's part of why I'm

1:29:56 ↗ giving this to you again in case you

1:29:58 ↗ want to provide that information so then

1:30:04 ↗ from one it dropped down to one point

1:30:07 ↗ five and those two buildings that got

1:30:09 ↗ that score were the train depot and

1:30:12 ↗ bones and again universally seen as

1:30:16 ↗ representative of the city so then the

1:30:24 ↗ next group was 1.6 or 1.7 this was left

1:30:30 ↗ to right High Street offices Timber

1:30:33 ↗ Ridge and City Hall and Timber Ridge got

1:30:37 ↗ added on at the end so a lot of gotten

1:30:43 ↗ evaluations of it as whether people

1:30:46 ↗ liked it but not whether they thought it

1:30:48 ↗ was asked why only got one person who

1:30:50 ↗ commented on whether that's why I said

1:30:52 ↗ one out of one

1:30:54 ↗ because to say a hundred percents a

1:30:56 ↗ little misleading

1:30:58 ↗ where's High Street so high street is

1:31:01 ↗ that is Squa Highlands it's kind of near

1:31:04 ↗ the cinema up above the YWCA anyway yep

1:31:07 ↗ um Tim Burrage is it Tallis and

1:31:10 ↗ obviously City Hall thank you for that

1:31:12 ↗ reminder Randy I'll try and identify

1:31:13 ↗ where some of these are and feel free to

1:31:18 ↗ just start talking about anything you

1:31:21 ↗ want to talk about I'm just kind of

1:31:23 ↗ rolling along then there was a big group

1:31:27 ↗ of ones that got one point eight many of

1:31:32 ↗ them were downtown village cedar stands

1:31:36 ↗ Shell station then there were a bunch of

1:31:43 ↗ them from Issaquah Highlands which

1:31:45 ↗ included Swedish hospital the fire

1:31:48 ↗ station star point which is up at 25th

1:31:52 ↗ and Park it's almost to the village

1:31:54 ↗ green and same with Blakely Hall which

1:31:56 ↗ is at the village green that's sort of

1:31:58 ↗ oval at the end so these were generally

1:32:02 ↗ got most people thought they represented

1:32:06 ↗ Issaquah but you can see that some like

1:32:10 ↗ the courthouse and star point for

1:32:14 ↗ instance did not get all everyone

1:32:18 ↗ agreeing and by the way I really

1:32:20 ↗ appreciated the written comments that

1:32:22 ↗ you guys put in I did not have time to

1:32:25 ↗ accumulate those I was working till

1:32:27 ↗ about 640 tonight to get this together

1:32:29 ↗ so but I think those are really useful I

1:32:35 ↗ mean I found a lot of you had the

1:32:39 ↗ courthouse was not universally liked a

1:32:41 ↗ lot of you had very thoughtful

1:32:42 ↗ evaluations of it and I find that I

1:32:44 ↗ think that was really helpful and I will

1:32:46 ↗ pass those along to Crandall Randall and

1:32:48 ↗ sort of assemble them for our use too

1:32:50 ↗ because I thought that was really useful

1:32:52 ↗ so I appreciate you taking the time

1:32:57 ↗ then the next group was sort of 2.0 to

1:33:01 ↗ 2.3 that was John L Scott which is kind

1:33:06 ↗ of near the Transit Center in rally

1:33:09 ↗ property a YWCA family village it is quo

1:33:13 ↗ highlands near the Transit Center Costco

1:33:16 ↗ building 3 the hatchery the mercantile

1:33:22 ↗ building fire station 72 which is by the

1:33:26 ↗ Transit Center King County

1:33:28 ↗ administrative building which is almost

1:33:30 ↗ the hardest thing to photograph ever and

1:33:33 ↗ brownstones Brooklyn walks these were

1:33:41 ↗ the lowest scores at when I put two

1:33:46 ↗ pictures of the Transit Center up

1:33:47 ↗ because a lot of you said that it did

1:33:51 ↗ not you know you can see no one thought

1:33:53 ↗ it's represented Issaquah and I

1:33:58 ↗ understand understand that about the

1:34:00 ↗ West Side which where its loads the

1:34:03 ↗ green wall on the other side on the east

1:34:05 ↗ wall I always kind of liked never heard

1:34:08 ↗ for me to I didn't like the blank side

1:34:11 ↗ but the green wall that started to

1:34:13 ↗ having a certain appeal so anyway I just

1:34:16 ↗ put two pictures up because I thought it

1:34:17 ↗ might be worth talking about which which

1:34:21 ↗ side were thinking about when we're

1:34:22 ↗ thinking about you know not liking a

1:34:26 ↗ building once me they sort of the

1:34:30 ↗ question is good for a Transit Center

1:34:33 ↗ Transit building you know but I don't

1:34:35 ↗ really like parking garages the parking

1:34:39 ↗ garage is great right that's what I was

1:34:41 ↗ thinking about the answer to this

1:34:42 ↗ question

1:34:43 ↗ he liked the building or not right right

1:34:46 ↗ yeah so I I would like it better for us

1:34:48 ↗ on the ground but either side what

1:34:53 ↗ you're thinking about in the central is

1:34:55 ↗ a quiet if we're doing like a public

1:34:57 ↗ parking garage for example or even a

1:34:59 ↗ garage related to a building I don't

1:35:01 ↗ think that would be discouraged

1:35:03 ↗ to privately we'd be pushing it

1:35:05 ↗ underground but it from a standpoint

1:35:10 ↗ from an architectural and fit from an

1:35:11 ↗ earth for urban core I don't I'm missing

1:35:15 ↗ it for both and I think in my comments

1:35:17 ↗ you mentioned if you look at the

1:35:18 ↗ Highland Park and Ride that has a much

1:35:20 ↗ more kind of interesting

1:35:21 ↗ urban feeling and you've got similar

1:35:23 ↗ kind of a situation you've got two very

1:35:25 ↗ different elevations on that building if

1:35:28 ↗ you look on the west side versus the

1:35:30 ↗ esight but they're both different and

1:35:31 ↗ interesting I think they would actually

1:35:33 ↗ fit so if you're looking at thinking

1:35:35 ↗ about garage and try out it so that was

1:35:37 ↗ one of the buildings I added I have a

1:35:40 ↗ slide of some ones that came up through

1:35:43 ↗ your comments they're only about four

1:35:45 ↗ buildings that got added but I thought

1:35:47 ↗ that was a really and I I don't know why

1:35:49 ↗ I put one in and not the other but you

1:35:51 ↗ know who knows

1:35:55 ↗ hi mark was another one that got soso

1:36:01 ↗ rating I was not surprised by 710 Fifth

1:36:06 ↗ Avenue someone said it looked like cargo

1:36:08 ↗ texture I would I would agree I think

1:36:13 ↗ it's kind of fun but that doesn't make

1:36:14 ↗ it is too clogged again I would also

1:36:18 ↗ point out it's the same architects that

1:36:20 ↗ designed the subject of tonight's

1:36:24 ↗ meeting the same would you say didn't

1:36:31 ↗ know that Lucy I think that's a good

1:36:32 ↗ point too because as an interesting

1:36:36 ↗ urban building I can see it it just

1:36:39 ↗ isn't I don't think from what we've

1:36:42 ↗ heard from the public of projects we've

1:36:44 ↗ reviewed I don't think it to me fit any

1:36:49 ↗ of the categories we'd be looking for

1:36:50 ↗ and that's that's agree.i commissioner

1:36:54 ↗ Morgan I agree and I think it's really

1:36:56 ↗ interesting to sit here and look at the

1:36:58 ↗ and go through this process and realize

1:37:00 ↗ how many of these buildings were

1:37:01 ↗ approved by this development commission

1:37:04 ↗ that that are not getting very high

1:37:08 ↗ ratings it's intriguing to me and very

1:37:18 ↗ discovery Heights there's three

1:37:20 ↗ different phases and I didn't really I

1:37:23 ↗ didn't have a good picture of them we

1:37:26 ↗ went out with staff today and we took a

1:37:29 ↗ lot of these pictures so they're kind of

1:37:31 ↗ quick and dirty pictures not necessarily

1:37:33 ↗ ones we would use if we were putting

1:37:34 ↗ something in the manual the there are

1:37:40 ↗ several phases of discovery Heights the

1:37:43 ↗ left and center picture are the early

1:37:46 ↗ phase are the later phases but the one

1:37:49 ↗ on the right has a little more of it

1:37:54 ↗ used them I don't know whether I would

1:37:57 ↗ say arts and crafts but you know it had

1:38:00 ↗ some pitched roofs it had brackets it

1:38:04 ↗ had more of the vocabulary so I didn't

1:38:08 ↗ know whether as a taller building I'm

1:38:11 ↗ not saying that it would meet our

1:38:14 ↗ parameters but I thought it might I

1:38:17 ↗ didn't know which building of all the

1:38:19 ↗ one because I listed more than one

1:38:20 ↗ address so I was curious if

1:38:23 ↗ commissioners had made any distinction

1:38:25 ↗ between the various buildings I know

1:38:27 ↗ with me it was the building on the left

1:38:29 ↗ and that I liked the balconies but

1:38:33 ↗ that's what I would think and when you

1:38:34 ↗ talk about brutal architecture those

1:38:37 ↗ sections that stick out with those to me

1:38:39 ↗ or to overpowering it's also I mean when

1:38:47 ↗ I look at these it reminds me of what I

1:38:48 ↗ what I think a lot of people feel I do

1:38:51 ↗ too that there are actually two lissa

1:38:52 ↗ clause I mean that was the whole idea of

1:38:54 ↗ the urban village that is not Old Town

1:38:58 ↗ it's not in the valley it's a whole new

1:39:01 ↗ way of accommodating the agreement of

1:39:04 ↗ one a curve developed with four acres

1:39:08 ↗ there are three acres to go to public

1:39:09 ↗ land so does it represent Issaquah well

1:39:13 ↗ which I squat are we talking about are

1:39:15 ↗ we talking about the one that's in

1:39:17 ↗ the famous Center in from the sunset

1:39:19 ↗ magazine article the people they talk to

1:39:22 ↗ I believe for residents of the highlands

1:39:25 ↗ and they various acquire it's not the

1:39:28 ↗ same as people who are complaining about

1:39:30 ↗ it publicly and coming here in the

1:39:33 ↗ meeting about an application and the

1:39:35 ↗ architecture in particular so it almost

1:39:38 ↗ it almost depends on which is acquire

1:39:40 ↗ are we talking about when we say is it

1:39:42 ↗ is it compares it represent this quote

1:39:46 ↗ well so we're in a little bit of a

1:39:50 ↗ conundrum and and and and and so I'm

1:39:54 ↗ just going to I I may have or some of

1:39:57 ↗ the other commissioners may have already

1:39:59 ↗ heard this you know what we were trying

1:40:01 ↗ to do was we we definitely want distinct

1:40:04 ↗ neighborhoods we don't we're not trying

1:40:06 ↗ to build esquel islands on the valley

1:40:08 ↗ floor or the valley floor on his client

1:40:11 ↗ so we want to maintain that distinction

1:40:13 ↗ at the same time you know understandably

1:40:16 ↗ Crandall Ram Villa is a Portland firm so

1:40:19 ↗ they're going to have a lot of Portland

1:40:20 ↗ examples and we were hoping you know as

1:40:24 ↗ a staff person you know we write design

1:40:27 ↗ guidelines and then applicants have to

1:40:29 ↗ come in and use them and we're picking

1:40:32 ↗ pictures often of things that we know

1:40:34 ↗ using pictures that we've often taken so

1:40:37 ↗ when we look at those pictures we see a

1:40:40 ↗ hundred times more stuff than that

1:40:42 ↗ picked that little tiny picture

1:40:44 ↗ represents I'm looking at Crandall or

1:40:47 ↗ Angela's pictures and I am looking I'm

1:40:50 ↗ like in the position that the applicants

1:40:52 ↗ in and I'm thinking I don't like that

1:40:53 ↗ very much I mean I don't that picture

1:40:56 ↗ doesn't tell me very much and so you

1:40:59 ↗ know we were talking to Donna ramble and

1:41:02 ↗ he said yes you know we would like to

1:41:04 ↗ have more pictures of Issaquah in there

1:41:07 ↗ because this things that the community

1:41:09 ↗ supports so I don't put this in here

1:41:14 ↗ because I think that central is question

1:41:17 ↗ look like it's client ones but there may

1:41:19 ↗ be some buildings as we're seeing that

1:41:22 ↗ that we think are close enough models

1:41:25 ↗ with certain maybe

1:41:29 ↗ caveat that would help communicate to

1:41:34 ↗ the Commission to staff and to

1:41:37 ↗ applicants in the public what we're

1:41:41 ↗ trying to do so that's why there's some

1:41:45 ↗ pictures here so I have a commentary

1:41:48 ↗ about this page in general and I think I

1:41:50 ↗ think it's thumbs up for me what I

1:41:51 ↗ struggle with most is the term Northwest

1:41:53 ↗ contemporary I think the problem with

1:41:55 ↗ that is that's not actually a style

1:41:58 ↗ Northwest contemporary breeds everything

1:42:00 ↗ on that page and they're all different

1:42:03 ↗ you know I heard that term when I moved

1:42:05 ↗ up here 25 years ago and I've been

1:42:08 ↗ trying to figure out what Northwest

1:42:11 ↗ contemporary is and I still have no idea

1:42:12 ↗ but I could also argue that the flip

1:42:15 ↗ side of that is at the downtown library

1:42:18 ↗ to me is is truly Northwest contemporary

1:42:22 ↗ if we want to get down to something

1:42:23 ↗ that's that's beautiful and you could

1:42:26 ↗ put that that moniker on it so and it

1:42:29 ↗ was designed by an architect from

1:42:30 ↗ Philadelphia yeah and so well I think

1:42:37 ↗ they did their homework is what they did

1:42:39 ↗ and in context then therefore becomes so

1:42:43 ↗ important and I don't think any of these

1:42:45 ↗ buildings have context and I just don't

1:42:47 ↗ I don't I worry about Northwest

1:42:50 ↗ contemporary I think moreover is my

1:42:52 ↗ biggest concern in all of this because

1:42:55 ↗ it's not a style all these other ones

1:42:57 ↗ are actually styles and there's no box

1:43:00 ↗ around Northwest contemporary anything

1:43:02 ↗ goes it's like put a slanty roof on it

1:43:05 ↗ put an angled beam on it thats my that's

1:43:11 ↗ my commentary and I think we're all

1:43:12 ↗ fairly adverse to those buildings and

1:43:15 ↗ and I think we'll see more of that with

1:43:18 ↗ with that style being out there

1:43:25 ↗ that's my - I don't know I I can't think

1:43:30 ↗ of another style I guess is the problem

1:43:34 ↗ well let me and maybe that's the point

1:43:36 ↗ of Northwest contemporary I mean I'm

1:43:39 ↗ willing to look at it from that angle

1:43:40 ↗ that it is open-ended

1:43:42 ↗ it's just be contextual make an effort

1:43:44 ↗ make a nice building here and then and

1:43:47 ↗ then we we we review it on those merits

1:43:51 ↗ and maybe that's enough let me ask a

1:43:54 ↗ question to that because that to me that

1:43:57 ↗ goes to the core of what the Commission

1:44:00 ↗ has been asking since I've been on it

1:44:02 ↗ can you do anything with this that says

1:44:05 ↗ Northwest and/or Issaquah as opposed to

1:44:08 ↗ something as we mentioned earlier that

1:44:10 ↗ is absolutely indistinguishable from

1:44:12 ↗ anything in Phoenix or Philadelphia or

1:44:15 ↗ whatever I mean that has that is an

1:44:19 ↗ issue so that if they come in with a

1:44:21 ↗ nice with something it is compatible

1:44:24 ↗ with these guidelines and it's it has a

1:44:31 ↗ quote Northwest component in a design

1:44:34 ↗ right is that not what we're what we're

1:44:38 ↗ trying to do we're trying to give the

1:44:40 ↗ applicant the idea that that's what we

1:44:42 ↗ want to see I would agree and then and

1:44:44 ↗ then I go back to these images and

1:44:46 ↗ there's no Northwest in those images

1:44:47 ↗ except the bottom right image the lower

1:44:51 ↗ pedestrian oriented building on the

1:44:54 ↗ lower right that that probably is it

1:44:57 ↗ supports that building it's probably the

1:45:00 ↗ workout facilities or the pool something

1:45:03 ↗ like that so did you have Timber Ridge

1:45:06 ↗ with seven earlier pegs because that

1:45:11 ↗ would be a question to me I think that

1:45:14 ↗ may be a good example of Northwest

1:45:17 ↗ contemporary for a taller building for a

1:45:19 ↗ larger building maybe that becomes large

1:45:22 ↗ style or something but this is something

1:45:24 ↗ where I could see this building and I

1:45:27 ↗ would agree I think that's a nice

1:45:29 ↗ building I think it's when I look at it

1:45:32 ↗ I see lodge but I agree it also has

1:45:34 ↗ northwest leanings right

1:45:36 ↗ certainly does and I would say the true

1:45:41 ↗ same is true about the high street you

1:45:43 ↗ know it's it's Northwest in its

1:45:47 ↗ treatment of its cornice its materials

1:45:49 ↗ the divisions in the window it's there

1:45:53 ↗ you know it it starts to approach that

1:45:56 ↗ the City Hall feels Romanesque it feels

1:45:59 ↗ really out of context of anything around

1:46:04 ↗ in my opinion but it has a pitched roof

1:46:08 ↗ and it's made of brick is up it could it

1:46:11 ↗ could be in an arts arts and crafts

1:46:13 ↗ bucket for sure so I threw just and we

1:46:21 ↗ can keep flipping back and forth but

1:46:22 ↗ just to finish the last group were some

1:46:27 ↗ of the buildings that came up that were

1:46:30 ↗ not included one was st. George's Square

1:46:35 ↗ which is on Gilman by Gillman village

1:46:40 ↗ for 85 reindeer is has a kind of

1:46:44 ↗ interesting combination of brick and

1:46:46 ↗ corrugated metal with these sort of two

1:46:52 ↗ story elements Pro Alliance which is a

1:46:56 ↗ medical office building next to Swedish

1:46:58 ↗ and then the s qua Highlands

1:47:01 ↗ park-and-ride ProLiant is that a like a

1:47:05 ↗ porte-cochere on the right oh yes yeah

1:47:09 ↗ okay so the view from that side might

1:47:12 ↗ give it a bit I'll tell you from a site

1:47:14 ↗ planning perspective I can't stand this

1:47:17 ↗ building but I don't have strong

1:47:20 ↗ feelings it pushes aside against where

1:47:22 ↗ you're driving in towards right I mean

1:47:24 ↗ they sort of started with the elevator

1:47:26 ↗ tower and designed their way out but I

1:47:29 ↗ think that architectural II in terms of

1:47:33 ↗ elements in terms of color in terms of

1:47:36 ↗ materials I think that it is a good

1:47:39 ↗ building to discuss in terms of whether

1:47:43 ↗ we think it fits in even if from a site

1:47:47 ↗ planning perspective since the whole

1:47:48 ↗ building is oriented to a

1:47:50 ↗ parking lot we wouldn't and away from

1:47:52 ↗ the street we wouldn't want to do that

1:47:53 ↗ but that doesn't just like anything else

1:47:56 ↗ that doesn't mean that there aren't

1:47:57 ↗ things to talk about that our good

1:48:00 ↗ reference points and let's see that

1:48:03 ↗ building also it intrigues me I've been

1:48:06 ↗ been there and that wall that act it

1:48:10 ↗ does look at on that is a parking lot

1:48:12 ↗ there the major parking lot for the

1:48:13 ↗ building or the only parking lot for

1:48:14 ↗ that building

1:48:15 ↗ but that wall has those windows on the

1:48:20 ↗ right of that building have spectacular

1:48:22 ↗ views I've been and I literally the

1:48:26 ↗ first time I went in there I thought why

1:48:28 ↗ is there a blank large blank wall was

1:48:32 ↗ that kind of you that could ask so to me

1:48:38 ↗ it would have been something you wanted

1:48:39 ↗ to emphasize with the architecture I

1:48:41 ↗ think it's a good Northwest contemporary

1:48:43 ↗ example but it's also an example of

1:48:45 ↗ something we would have turned away with

1:48:48 ↗ recommendations you know there's a blank

1:48:52 ↗ wall blank wall but but I appreciate the

1:48:55 ↗ corner the porte-cochere

1:48:57 ↗ on the front I'm sure really brings it

1:49:00 ↗ down to a human scale I am I think it

1:49:04 ↗ has potential it just need to be pushed

1:49:06 ↗ in the right direction I put the the 485

1:49:11 ↗ Rainier was mine that was an example for

1:49:15 ↗ me of how the urban Grange can be used

1:49:20 ↗ the urban Grange doesn't have to be this

1:49:22 ↗ large a loft style structure I think it

1:49:25 ↗ can be a single or two-story structure

1:49:28 ↗ and I think it could house office spaces

1:49:30 ↗ I think it could house commercial and a

1:49:33 ↗ variety of things but I think if you

1:49:35 ↗ move around that building it's doing a

1:49:37 ↗ lot of interesting things yes and then

1:49:40 ↗ the st. George is great I think that's a

1:49:42 ↗ good Arts and Crafts building I like it

1:49:45 ↗ of course I guess the 45 Rainier would

1:49:47 ↗ it I didn't go back to look but would

1:49:50 ↗ the would it fit with the Grange

1:49:53 ↗ requirements in term no because it's not

1:49:57 ↗ big enough

1:49:58 ↗ yes yeah so I mean that and I'm not

1:50:00 ↗ saying that that should be the

1:50:01 ↗ definitive answer

1:50:03 ↗ just saying the way it's defined right

1:50:05 ↗ now in the manual would say this

1:50:07 ↗ building should be something else which

1:50:10 ↗ I think would bring up a good point

1:50:11 ↗ because maybe we should be able to build

1:50:13 ↗ smaller ranges yeah that is the pitfall

1:50:15 ↗ yeah I said on that we the developer

1:50:20 ↗ Commission often that was one of the

1:50:22 ↗ first ones that came before the

1:50:23 ↗ Commission when I was on it and one of

1:50:26 ↗ the things that I recall being said

1:50:27 ↗ specifically about that was that it's in

1:50:29 ↗ the trans it's the transition between

1:50:31 ↗ Old Town and and the area that on the

1:50:35 ↗ north of the creek where confluence park

1:50:37 ↗ is now and it's a very in my opinion to

1:50:41 ↗ this day it's a very smooth transition

1:50:43 ↗ from Old Town into the areas that we're

1:50:47 ↗ talking about here and the architect or

1:50:49 ↗ the president the applicant I recall

1:50:51 ↗ that application specifically talked

1:50:55 ↗ about trying to make it compatible with

1:50:58 ↗ Old Town and yet not not be 1890s

1:51:04 ↗ architecture I think you talked about

1:51:08 ↗ this a few times and that's the idea of

1:51:12 ↗ trendy is prescriptive as we can to give

1:51:14 ↗ direction and certainty at the same time

1:51:17 ↗ we don't want to be overly rigid and and

1:51:19 ↗ rule out having this sort of a building

1:51:23 ↗ constructed so how do we how do we do

1:51:26 ↗ that and partly that might be from some

1:51:27 ↗ experience here and applying these

1:51:29 ↗ standards once they're on lies but the

1:51:32 ↗ idea of having the ability to have the

1:51:37 ↗ flexibility to integrate multiple

1:51:39 ↗ elements of a project or stateless and

1:51:42 ↗ from a scale standpoint this makes sense

1:51:44 ↗ even though it's not at the grand scale

1:51:46 ↗ of a grange building but it's got the

1:51:48 ↗ key elements and let's advance it as

1:51:49 ↗ that you know but the Commission

1:51:51 ↗ obviously there's some risk to the

1:51:52 ↗ developer now because the Commission

1:51:54 ↗ needs to agree that that's okay with the

1:51:56 ↗ staff recommendation but i just-i again

1:51:59 ↗ i'm back to i worry a little bit about

1:52:02 ↗ getting overly rigid and boxed into some

1:52:05 ↗ of these design standards and not have

1:52:08 ↗ some offering for there

1:52:10 ↗ some features that are integrated and

1:52:12 ↗ they may not meet that specific when I

1:52:15 ↗ look at that building I see urban Grange

1:52:16 ↗ but if the applicant came in here with a

1:52:18 ↗ craftsman pitch I could buy it you know

1:52:21 ↗ I don't know you know what I'm saying so

1:52:24 ↗ is there is that the wiggle room in and

1:52:26 ↗ of itself right there I don't know but I

1:52:28 ↗ hear you hi Gary

1:52:30 ↗ I know it's Lucy the building on the 45

1:52:34 ↗ right near that you can just see the

1:52:35 ↗ pitch of the roof is that I can't recall

1:52:38 ↗ now is that a separate no this decision

1:52:41 ↗ right here is a part of everything kind

1:52:44 ↗ of a little bit larger scale than then

1:52:47 ↗ this element and and you know one of the

1:52:53 ↗ challenges and and I we want

1:52:57 ↗ predictability for everyone we want to

1:53:01 ↗ feel like we have clarity we can't we

1:53:08 ↗ can't have it just be a gut reaction by

1:53:12 ↗ the Commission and I'm not saying that's

1:53:14 ↗ what you're asking for if there's

1:53:17 ↗ flexibility there have to it has to be

1:53:20 ↗ predictable and circumscribed and clear

1:53:24 ↗ where there is flexibility Crandall

1:53:30 ↗ Randall is not described flexibility

1:53:32 ↗ although I think we found that their

1:53:34 ↗ language is not quite as you know

1:53:37 ↗ pointed as we might suggest if we wanted

1:53:41 ↗ that level of clarity and I think this

1:53:45 ↗ is something that we're struggling with

1:53:47 ↗ trying to determine what is the right

1:53:50 ↗ tool to get the best success and not

1:53:57 ↗ miss good opportunities and I you know

1:54:06 ↗ on the building the catalysis structure

1:54:11 ↗ the timber beverage yeah that to me that

1:54:20 ↗ obviously that's the building but to be

1:54:23 ↗ if I were to look at that that picture

1:54:26 ↗ of that structure I would say yep that's

1:54:30 ↗ urban village and that's part of that's

1:54:32 ↗ part of that development and it's in

1:54:35 ↗ that style but if I were to be shown the

1:54:40 ↗ opposite side of that building with the

1:54:43 ↗ perspective and I would say no way

1:54:47 ↗ because it's you know that you probably

1:54:50 ↗ know it's called the Potala by a lot of

1:54:53 ↗ folks because it's massive so it's

1:54:59 ↗ intriguing to me that we can look at a

1:55:01 ↗ picture like this and say yep that's

1:55:03 ↗ that's what we want but the other side

1:55:06 ↗ of the building in the perspective yeah

1:55:08 ↗ yeah which is why I didn't show I

1:55:13 ↗ figured that was not the scale and such

1:55:16 ↗ that we were looking for but I do think

1:55:21 ↗ you know one thing about this building I

1:55:23 ↗ think from the it's a tall building in

1:55:25 ↗ from the street side and you're 900

1:55:30 ↗ sides you're going not from 900 we're

1:55:32 ↗ going up up the hill next to it I think

1:55:36 ↗ it for a large building next door Street

1:55:40 ↗ on the slope I think it does a pretty

1:55:42 ↗ good job of connecting with the street

1:55:46 ↗ not being overpowering showing a nice

1:55:48 ↗ face of the street and you're right from

1:55:50 ↗ the downhill side it's building but we

1:55:54 ↗ won't have those kind of slopes downtown

1:55:56 ↗ you know so one thing that interest

1:56:05 ↗ interested me was whether the Issaquah

1:56:09 ↗ Highland Park & Ride was one to consider

1:56:12 ↗ putting in I left out some buildings

1:56:17 ↗ that I might

1:56:18 ↗ have that I thought were too modern and

1:56:21 ↗ there's a new mixed-use project at

1:56:24 ↗ Tallis I didn't put that in it's pretty

1:56:27 ↗ modern there was something else I can't

1:56:31 ↗ remember what it was I just sort of

1:56:33 ↗ filtered those out figuring that wasn't

1:56:35 ↗ something that I mean I guess for

1:56:37 ↗ Northwest contemporary it would have

1:56:39 ↗ been an option I guess that's one

1:56:43 ↗ question for the Commission is you know

1:56:49 ↗ and that's where you can use your little

1:56:51 ↗ forms and you don't have to say it out

1:56:52 ↗ loud and you can just give it to me

1:56:55 ↗ but whether it's quo Highlands

1:56:57 ↗ park-and-ride seems like a building that

1:57:01 ↗ we should be including as an example of

1:57:06 ↗ things that we think represents

1:57:09 ↗ Northwest contemporary

1:57:10 ↗ in is why do we want any more parking

1:57:16 ↗ rides well garages are going to be a

1:57:20 ↗ part of some of what what we're dealing

1:57:22 ↗ with well true yes you know we are

1:57:27 ↗ ultimately when I'm long since under the

1:57:32 ↗ sod supposedly going to get a light rail

1:57:35 ↗ station and that light rail station I

1:57:40 ↗ mean I've heard a lot of discussion in

1:57:42 ↗ the last couple of months about the

1:57:45 ↗ folks that are going to be driving in

1:57:47 ↗ from Maple Valley and North Bend to use

1:57:50 ↗ light rail we're going to be driving in

1:57:53 ↗ to do it so parking lot our part I think

1:57:56 ↗ I I would argue in part of it I think

1:57:59 ↗ the idea if you say put a park and ride

1:58:01 ↗ at eight nine eight about a nine ninety

1:58:05 ↗ and somebody takes a shuttle bus to the

1:58:07 ↗ park and ride you know I know

1:58:10 ↗ our station comes with a new 500 stall

1:58:12 ↗ garage so there's a new grudge comes

1:58:14 ↗ with our parking parking right yes yeah

1:58:17 ↗ with the new train station yes so to the

1:58:21 ↗ question know about it you know as far

1:58:24 ↗ as now for a garage if this was going to

1:58:28 ↗ be if this was a facade of an office

1:58:30 ↗ building I'd say

1:58:31 ↗ I don't think so but thinking about our

1:58:33 ↗ trying to integrate the design of what

1:58:36 ↗ is typically a fairly clunky structure

1:58:38 ↗ is in a non interesting structure as a

1:58:41 ↗ parking garage a treatment like that I

1:58:43 ↗ think is a good example and if you flip

1:58:45 ↗ around to the other side of this it has

1:58:46 ↗ a full wholly different elevation and

1:58:49 ↗ treatment it's got actually artwork

1:58:51 ↗ integrated into the side of the building

1:58:52 ↗ a bit when it's windy it actually moves

1:58:54 ↗ it's kind of it so it is I think an

1:58:58 ↗ example of how you could treat a while

1:59:01 ↗ pregnant and kind of expectation that we

1:59:03 ↗ don't just want blank concrete faced

1:59:05 ↗ with some vines going on yeah I like

1:59:08 ↗ this building I like the gabion wall at

1:59:10 ↗ the base you know the cornice treatment

1:59:14 ↗ and then if you just take an account the

1:59:16 ↗ context of where it is it fits perfectly

1:59:19 ↗ and I know it's hard to get into it I

1:59:21 ↗ thought that's another story but but

1:59:25 ↗ it's parking garages go I really think

1:59:28 ↗ that's a good one and you're gonna need

1:59:30 ↗ parking you're just going to need it

1:59:32 ↗ nobody can't hide from it what was it um

1:59:36 ↗ I reviewed my quarry Kevin they just

1:59:39 ↗ said that vine-covered because I the one

1:59:42 ↗ in downtown me yeah yeah me that's as

1:59:52 ↗ good as a parking lot well garage gets

1:59:55 ↗ this the on the north side of the

1:59:58 ↗ Highlands garage got that little bit all

2:00:01 ↗ that metal stuff yeah well yeah but I

2:00:04 ↗ think is I mean is kinda artwork on it

2:00:07 ↗ well yeah and it's better I it's better

2:00:09 ↗ than the picture of a white - for me

2:00:11 ↗ yeah yeah that is absolutely stark which

2:00:17 ↗ is the verb or the adjective that's been

2:00:19 ↗ thrown around so much as what we don't

2:00:21 ↗ want and if you're going to have a

2:00:24 ↗ parking garage - maybe and you can you

2:00:26 ↗ can put fine to change color you get

2:00:29 ↗ some red in the fall and you know

2:00:31 ↗ whatever

2:00:32 ↗ that's Northwest yeah I think it's

2:00:34 ↗ actually

2:00:35 ↗ like about yeah between the two garages

2:00:39 ↗ you know the parking right I think that

2:00:41 ↗ this is with the vine on the side I

2:00:44 ↗ think that kind of covers it and like

2:00:47 ↗ Randy said it changes colored and

2:00:50 ↗ whether it's next to the fire station

2:00:53 ↗ which is a I think it's the front of the

2:00:59 ↗ of the park and ride is right adjacent

2:01:02 ↗ to that and to me they fit be darn well

2:01:07 ↗ together as adjacent structures down so

2:01:14 ↗ I and that's the point you're making is

2:01:17 ↗ the context and how does it fit so you

2:01:20 ↗ know if you're in the middle of fairly

2:01:23 ↗ in contemporary architecture and you

2:01:29 ↗ stick parking garage with a three-story

2:01:31 ↗ green wall on it in the middle of that

2:01:33 ↗ it may not fit so well and the other the

2:01:36 ↗ one if the Highlands may actually fit

2:01:37 ↗ better so but the point is I think it's

2:01:41 ↗ about the expectation on how the garages

2:01:44 ↗ are treated there there's an art here

2:01:47 ↗ and architectural there's architectural

2:01:49 ↗ treatment to the to the building it's

2:01:51 ↗ not just a right so so that may fit

2:01:54 ↗ better in a different location I think

2:01:58 ↗ that as Kevin said I think it fits

2:02:00 ↗ really well where it is a green wall on

2:02:03 ↗ that building probably wouldn't fit so

2:02:05 ↗ well they're fairly busy street it's

2:02:08 ↗ like well not a lot of pedestrian

2:02:10 ↗ activity at that location most of its up

2:02:12 ↗ further up the street so again it's

2:02:15 ↗ context since maybe we have a picture of

2:02:17 ↗ both one of the green wall and one of

2:02:20 ↗ the art wall on this working right and

2:02:23 ↗ and the point is we want some

2:02:25 ↗ interesting treatment that it because it

2:02:26 ↗ look like a concrete garage that could

2:02:31 ↗ be an office building

2:02:33 ↗ I mean that that doesn't say that

2:02:35 ↗ doesn't scream parking garage to me

2:02:37 ↗ that's the point yeah yeah and that's a

2:02:41 ↗ that's a good point too if it's if it

2:02:43 ↗ looks like an office building you go

2:02:44 ↗ around and around trying to find where

2:02:46 ↗ the engine is right that's the problem

2:02:48 ↗ that you know it gets to the seek is

2:02:51 ↗ being office buildings can you go back

2:02:53 ↗ to the Costco it's interesting to me

2:03:00 ↗ that three and a three said it

2:03:02 ↗ represents Issaquah which gets back to I

2:03:04 ↗ guess the question you brought up Randy

2:03:06 ↗ of you know that's not historical

2:03:10 ↗ there's a quad type of design to me that

2:03:12 ↗ suburban it's it's good suburban office

2:03:15 ↗ building design it's got in different

2:03:19 ↗ aspects I don't live like the stairwell

2:03:20 ↗ portion that sticks out so much but it's

2:03:23 ↗ got a sloped roof it's got modulation so

2:03:25 ↗ that it's not really historical in my

2:03:28 ↗ mind in terms of fitting right but I

2:03:31 ↗ like the building but right and it would

2:03:33 ↗ be though in the urban core so it did

2:03:35 ↗ Northwest contemporary yeah so that you

2:03:38 ↗ wouldn't it wouldn't be a his if they

2:03:41 ↗ were following the design manual this is

2:03:45 ↗ probably heading more correctly in the

2:03:47 ↗ right direct it'll fit the new Issaquah

2:03:48 ↗ but yeah right and my comment on that

2:03:53 ↗ Mel is that I I look at the entryway I

2:03:56 ↗ think they did something to it to

2:04:00 ↗ represent Issaquah they did something to

2:04:03 ↗ it and the rest of them

2:04:04 ↗ yeah it's modern misuk wha when you say

2:04:07 ↗ historical is a Quattro what is this a

2:04:10 ↗ historical risk while you're trying to

2:04:11 ↗ build a building that's four-story high

2:04:14 ↗ historically there's no this squad is in

2:04:18 ↗ heaven four-story high historically it's

2:04:21 ↗ all one story or two story this is a

2:04:23 ↗ three of four story indeed they put in

2:04:27 ↗ an effort to to enhance the entrance is

2:04:32 ↗ something like Issaquah I think that's

2:04:34 ↗ actually where I was country I think

2:04:35 ↗ actually that's another example of the

2:04:37 ↗ to which side do you which side do you

2:04:40 ↗ put up there because if you put up the

2:04:42 ↗ side that of the

2:04:44 ↗ on the Pickering pond with the wood

2:04:47 ↗ bridge and stone a little stone

2:04:50 ↗ gathering place there it would have a

2:04:52 ↗ completely different well actually I

2:04:57 ↗ don't ever see that I always see the

2:05:01 ↗ back and I I always like it right and

2:05:03 ↗ and and that's an interesting point

2:05:05 ↗ Randy because the backside of this which

2:05:08 ↗ you know when we were doing the STP for

2:05:11 ↗ Costco that was one of the things that

2:05:14 ↗ we looked at in terms of the evolution

2:05:16 ↗ of their architecture and this is the

2:05:18 ↗ first building that they designed for

2:05:20 ↗ themselves and while the front

2:05:22 ↗ this side is rectilinear the sort of

2:05:25 ↗ canopy that protects the back Terrace is

2:05:29 ↗ arced or something as it's much more

2:05:32 ↗ organic in shape which is kind of a nice

2:05:35 ↗ counterpoint anyway so I think we're

2:05:40 ↗ talking about does it represent Issaquah

2:05:42 ↗ for me it is is this the type of

2:05:45 ↗ building that we want to see it is it

2:05:47 ↗ does a style the feel the quality of

2:05:49 ↗ buildings that we want and that a lot of

2:05:53 ↗ that's kind of a personal reaction to a

2:05:56 ↗ lot of these things but I think that for

2:05:58 ↗ me is kind of the fundamental of the

2:06:00 ↗ question it's not under the match up was

2:06:03 ↗ something that was already got here it's

2:06:04 ↗ like well what do I want to see in the

2:06:06 ↗ future and is this what we're looking

2:06:07 ↗ for

2:06:07 ↗ and the examples are very helpful I

2:06:10 ↗ think to the design community they're

2:06:12 ↗ coming that will be coming in try to

2:06:14 ↗ design - did a lot and designed to be

2:06:16 ↗ standard so the example pictures that

2:06:19 ↗ represent what like I think are very

2:06:21 ↗ useful

2:06:25 ↗ so I want to know what you want from us

2:06:28 ↗ I guess I'm a little what we're doing is

2:06:32 ↗ what I want and we may and I would take

2:06:36 ↗ further rating if you choose to do that

2:06:42 ↗ and that's that this is what I wanted so

2:06:47 ↗ what I'm not understanding is exactly

2:06:51 ↗ how our weeks are we expecting these to

2:06:55 ↗ be in the manual are we expected do we

2:06:57 ↗ think just the top 11.5 yeah well I

2:07:01 ↗ don't even know I don't know

2:07:06 ↗ you know the barn may be a good example

2:07:09 ↗ or Grange the library may be a good

2:07:13 ↗ example of a civic building that makes a

2:07:15 ↗ departure I I think what I I so your

2:07:20 ↗ question is what's next

2:07:21 ↗ mm-hmm you know we have a small sampling

2:07:26 ↗ of evaluators here although extremely

2:07:30 ↗ highly qualified yes and actually Connie

2:07:34 ↗ did it too so I have not factored her

2:07:39 ↗ scores in here but I am going to pass

2:07:41 ↗ all of that along and you know we're

2:07:45 ↗ going to have a conversation with

2:07:46 ↗ Council tomorrow night I'm I think it's

2:07:50 ↗ a good point of conversation with

2:07:53 ↗ Grandal and ela about the buildings that

2:07:55 ↗ we're we're rating they may want to you

2:07:59 ↗ know for instance st. George I think

2:08:03 ↗ that in terms of massing and materials

2:08:06 ↗ there's a lot that's very nice about it

2:08:07 ↗ I don't actually like the windows

2:08:09 ↗ because they're in the same plane as the

2:08:11 ↗ body of the building and without that

2:08:14 ↗ sort of setback I think it has this kind

2:08:17 ↗ of weird modern slick feel with with a

2:08:21 ↗ more historic building so that doesn't

2:08:24 ↗ mean we can't use it it just means that

2:08:25 ↗ you identify that the wind when windows

2:08:28 ↗ are not consistent with the style you

2:08:30 ↗ know so those are the kinds of things

2:08:32 ↗ that I could imagine ways that they I

2:08:34 ↗ could imagine them using this but that's

2:08:36 ↗ a conversation for us to have but

2:08:38 ↗ we haven't had this kind of evaluation

2:08:40 ↗ then we're not in a position to then

2:08:42 ↗ have that conversation with them person

2:08:47 ↗ I'd like to see a lot of these pictures

2:08:50 ↗ in the manual I think there's a lot of

2:08:53 ↗ very attractive picked out a lot of very

2:08:55 ↗ attractive buildings and it fit well and

2:08:58 ↗ and I think it really just provides a

2:09:00 ↗ really strong lower frame of reference

2:09:02 ↗ for all of us no background or expertise

2:09:05 ↗ aside that that's our common ground is

2:09:09 ↗ what's around here and that's something

2:09:11 ↗ we can hang our hat on and really I

2:09:14 ↗ think has a strong communication active

2:09:18 ↗ communication and surrounds these

2:09:21 ↗ building well how what is the objective

2:09:29 ↗ in terms of the target date for getting

2:09:31 ↗ this in final form and when will an

2:09:35 ↗ applicant be able to avail themselves

2:09:38 ↗ himself/herself so duh we have proposed

2:09:43 ↗ staff the staff schedule is proposing

2:09:47 ↗ adoption of this in October but it it

2:09:52 ↗ depends on when the moratorium was

2:09:54 ↗ lifted I asked one question I don't know

2:10:00 ↗ if I'm allowed to ask or if you're

2:10:01 ↗ allowed to comment do you like where

2:10:02 ↗ this is headed as staff and will you

2:10:07 ↗ find it useful yes because I I am more

2:10:13 ↗ focused on urban design I certainly have

2:10:15 ↗ architectural opinions but I have you

2:10:21 ↗ know my experience has been more with

2:10:25 ↗ working with an architectural review

2:10:27 ↗ committee in the urban villages so even

2:10:30 ↗ though I'm trained as an architect and I

2:10:32 ↗ certainly have personal opinions I have

2:10:34 ↗ less opinions around architecture and so

2:10:41 ↗ I'm appreciating having a tool that we

2:10:44 ↗ have all developed and that represents

2:10:47 ↗ the community whereas I have stronger

2:10:50 ↗ opinions about urban design

2:10:51 ↗ nine because of wanting to have I think

2:10:55 ↗ that's a little more universal whereas

2:10:58 ↗ even though there are some very specific

2:11:00 ↗ things that I think are important in

2:11:02 ↗ iske in terms of how natural areas are

2:11:06 ↗ handled for instance I think that

2:11:08 ↗ Crandall Randall have also added a layer

2:11:11 ↗ and a level of detail that takes some of

2:11:17 ↗ our urban design another step further

2:11:19 ↗ that I think will be really useful but

2:11:22 ↗ the architectural piece I'm very glad

2:11:24 ↗ that staff is not asked to write that I

2:11:26 ↗ don't I don't know that we would have

2:11:29 ↗ been in the position to put this kind of

2:11:31 ↗ tool together and so I think it was

2:11:33 ↗ great that we got to hire a consultant

2:11:36 ↗ to bring that kind of expertise in

2:11:39 ↗ perspective I believe we're going to get

2:11:42 ↗ better buildings yeah maybe 200 can you

2:11:45 ↗ go back up in one slide

2:11:50 ↗ take one more this is a in the like a

2:11:55 ↗ couple questions here one is the mean

2:11:59 ↗ one is the mercantile building which I

2:12:02 ↗ can see representing is Klaus a

2:12:03 ↗ historical kind of building that was a

2:12:05 ↗ little surprised that it was it would

2:12:08 ↗ still be in the light category because

2:12:10 ↗ it it's a pretty to me it's a pretty

2:12:14 ↗ plain inexpensive looking historical

2:12:17 ↗ building and I'm curious as

2:12:20 ↗ commissioners talking I agree what okay

2:12:23 ↗ what I agree with Commissioner Morgan

2:12:26 ↗ you just said well and you know what I

2:12:28 ↗ did not specify when I sent out the

2:12:32 ↗ survey is what does like mean yeah so I

2:12:35 ↗ kind of intentionally didn't do that but

2:12:38 ↗ I mean it is a question of when you like

2:12:39 ↗ something do you like it because you

2:12:42 ↗ have nostalgic feel I started to put

2:12:44 ↗ this down and I just thought I'm not

2:12:46 ↗ doing that

2:12:46 ↗ so is it nostalgia is it because it's

2:12:50 ↗ integral because it represents community

2:12:54 ↗ because you want to see more of them

2:12:55 ↗ there are a lot of ways that you can

2:12:58 ↗ like a building and they may not at all

2:13:00 ↗ be consistent among the different

2:13:02 ↗ commissioners

2:13:04 ↗ and can I ask a question Lucy did you

2:13:07 ↗ think about putting Hilah station in

2:13:10 ↗ there in this Hilah station called the

2:13:13 ↗ the Raleigh hotels so I you know I I was

2:13:18 ↗ as I was driving around I today I

2:13:20 ↗ thought about that and I did think about

2:13:23 ↗ putting it in and I guess because of the

2:13:25 ↗ sort of not doing modern buildings I

2:13:28 ↗ sort of I think I filtered it out and

2:13:31 ↗ now I'm thinking I probably shouldn't i

2:13:33 ↗ I have I believe that that is those that

2:13:39 ↗ place is where we should be doing we

2:13:45 ↗ should be going more if we're going to

2:13:47 ↗ build tall buildings and they're going

2:13:49 ↗ to be at the base of cooter orcs quad

2:13:51 ↗ core tiger i I really think they did and

2:13:56 ↗ I you know we did not come before us all

2:13:58 ↗ right or at least not when I was since

2:14:01 ↗ I've been on the Commission about I I

2:14:03 ↗ think that's a group personally one of

2:14:05 ↗ the better examples of a newer approach

2:14:07 ↗ to tall buildings in Issaquah so I

2:14:12 ↗ frankly I'd recommend it okay they are

2:14:14 ↗ there I don't know how tile so I think I

2:14:16 ↗ might disagree your time with the new

2:14:18 ↗ hotel or the original the well the whole

2:14:22 ↗ I'm talking about though well I know

2:14:24 ↗ what your guess the original one is the

2:14:26 ↗ one on the like better of the two yeah

2:14:29 ↗ but when you look at them from if you

2:14:32 ↗ look at them from either the i-90

2:14:34 ↗ perspective or you're driving into them

2:14:37 ↗ or whatever I just believe that they're

2:14:39 ↗ they're good examples of I'd like to see

2:14:45 ↗ more of if we're going to go up that's

2:14:46 ↗ I'd like them to look at that feel my

2:14:49 ↗ concern would be in the original

2:14:51 ↗ building I I like that a lot more in the

2:14:54 ↗ newer one my concern would be there's no

2:14:58 ↗ balconies there's no slope grooves to me

2:15:00 ↗ it's a fairly boxy now maybe that fits

2:15:02 ↗ with Rendell rambilas idea of a starker

2:15:06 ↗ you know sort of plain building above

2:15:09 ↗ but I don't in my mind that doesn't fit

2:15:13 ↗ with what we'd want to do

2:15:16 ↗ okay this one I know what other people

2:15:19 ↗ think but that's interesting my opinion

2:15:21 ↗ I wouldn't want to have that one in

2:15:22 ↗ there also throughout it I would very

2:15:27 ↗ much like brownstones to be in there

2:15:30 ↗ saying very good the question be what

2:15:33 ↗ category would those fit in the in the

2:15:38 ↗ traditional area with our trained

2:15:41 ↗ architect I was with Evy that is our

2:15:43 ↗ grass okay now fits for that yes okay I

2:15:48 ↗ think between the pedestrian walkway

2:15:53 ↗ through and building styles I think

2:15:55 ↗ that's a great project see that downtown

2:15:58 ↗ would be excellent in the comments from

2:16:07 ↗ the Commission about from the public we

2:16:13 ↗ sign it stir again all right so so me

2:16:24 ↗ again I would like to have it so I

2:16:27 ↗ didn't have to come to every meeting and

2:16:29 ↗ say what was missing in context

2:16:31 ↗ personally I don't know that we should

2:16:34 ↗ have to haunt the meetings and provide

2:16:36 ↗ information every time but it feels like

2:16:39 ↗ we have to do that at this point so

2:16:41 ↗ that's a that's a comment extended from

2:16:44 ↗ the last one I wandered around took

2:16:47 ↗ pictures of all this stuff but after

2:16:50 ↗ reading the manual and how you're going

2:16:52 ↗ to use the manual it seemed to me that

2:16:54 ↗ there were a few examples of the

2:16:56 ↗ architectural style but many many

2:16:58 ↗ examples of the components part of the

2:17:02 ↗ varying buildings that is going to be

2:17:04 ↗ the main tool so windows doorways

2:17:12 ↗ reflections color palettes and all of

2:17:15 ↗ those things so when I was looking

2:17:17 ↗ around I was trying to identify what

2:17:20 ↗ category would go in and then look at

2:17:22 ↗ good and bad examples of the details of

2:17:25 ↗ the buildings that's going to be one of

2:17:27 ↗ the tools to judge by

2:17:29 ↗ and these pictures don't get you close

2:17:32 ↗ enough or for understanding those

2:17:36 ↗ details the Front's the backs the sides

2:17:38 ↗ of the buildings are all very different

2:17:40 ↗ with all the different approaches that

2:17:42 ↗ you have and it does seem like you have

2:17:45 ↗ to consider it all 360 because you're

2:17:48 ↗ going to be looking at what again

2:17:50 ↗ context on all sides and then one of the

2:17:54 ↗ reasons the park-and-ride green wall

2:17:56 ↗ fits is because you have squawk Mountain

2:17:59 ↗ in the back and you need the green to

2:18:03 ↗ juxtapose with the very very powerful

2:18:07 ↗ form of your forested hillsides and so

2:18:10 ↗ the idea of context means stepping back

2:18:13 ↗ and looking at your architectural forms

2:18:16 ↗ also in their natural context and then

2:18:20 ↗ if you go down maple and you squint as

2:18:24 ↗ you see the Maple Street building on the

2:18:27 ↗ left and the new hotel on the right you

2:18:29 ↗ go oh that is what sort of that Street

2:18:32 ↗ space that the consultants are talking

2:18:36 ↗ about there's a microcosm of a creation

2:18:39 ↗ of a street space in the core area and

2:18:42 ↗ so to me I went wow I have to be

2:18:45 ↗ thinking of all these buildings maybe

2:18:47 ↗ with zero setback side to side because

2:18:51 ↗ in a urban core your buildings aren't

2:18:54 ↗ one-offs like this they're like this and

2:18:57 ↗ this and this and they have to have a

2:18:59 ↗ certain rhythm and fit for how they are

2:19:02 ↗ put together and we aren't used to that

2:19:04 ↗ in this town it's a one-off with

2:19:06 ↗ landscaping around so I'm not sure that

2:19:10 ↗ that that change is in this manual and

2:19:15 ↗ as a tool to be used for the urban core

2:19:20 ↗ I also liked the library building and

2:19:24 ↗ several buildings around town and the

2:19:26 ↗ closest I could get it's not a real

2:19:27 ↗ architectural style was north west

2:19:30 ↗ industrial we have this sort of

2:19:33 ↗ industrial feel but we've been using the

2:19:36 ↗ metal grooves and and things that are a

2:19:38 ↗ little harsh it just seems to me like

2:19:40 ↗ the library you could use this sort of

2:19:42 ↗ modern industrial style overlaid with

2:19:45 ↗ wood instead and start turning it a

2:19:48 ↗ little more natural and it would

2:19:50 ↗ actually be a great architectural fit

2:19:54 ↗ we've built a lot of buildings that look

2:19:56 ↗ just like it we just have not used the

2:19:58 ↗ natural bits of wood to make it conform

2:20:01 ↗ a little bit to what we might be

2:20:02 ↗ thinking and I feel like we're missing

2:20:04 ↗ an architectural fit because it doesn't

2:20:10 ↗ have a name even though we've sort of

2:20:12 ↗ been creating it all along and and I

2:20:17 ↗ don't even I don't know how to fit that

2:20:19 ↗ into the conversation it just feels like

2:20:22 ↗ so many of the buildings we look at we'd

2:20:24 ↗ have to shove into a category and they

2:20:27 ↗ don't fit just right but see if you

2:20:29 ↗ squint maybe maybe we just need to call

2:20:31 ↗ that a style and say it's okay but with

2:20:34 ↗ newer updated materials not a blue roof

2:20:38 ↗ right okay I can test it thank you

2:20:48 ↗ thank you did you sign it so the further

2:20:56 ↗ comments I have a comment on a couple

2:20:59 ↗ big presentations just made by a Miss

2:21:02 ↗ March I wish more people would quote

2:21:06 ↗ haunt these meetings I really do the

2:21:10 ↗ public the public input and I know this

2:21:13 ↗ is televised but I just would encourage

2:21:16 ↗ people to come down here and participate

2:21:18 ↗ even if it's just to observe and the

2:21:21 ↗ more people that we get in this room

2:21:23 ↗ particularly those that do their

2:21:25 ↗ homework and come in and make

2:21:27 ↗ observations in a respectful disciplined

2:21:30 ↗ manner to me it's it's invaluable

2:21:33 ↗ absolutely mmm the reality is that we're

2:21:36 ↗ making some decisions that have

2:21:38 ↗ significant impact on what people are

2:21:40 ↗ going to be seeing and without them

2:21:42 ↗ understanding the context of how we got

2:21:44 ↗ from where we are there's always a

2:21:46 ↗ tension there why did you do that and so

2:21:48 ↗ we do appreciate we do appreciate

2:21:50 ↗ colleague and there's the next chance

2:21:53 ↗ for the public to be involved would that

2:21:54 ↗ be the August 31st planning policy

2:21:57 ↗ Commission well tomorrow night because

2:22:02 ↗ we like three nights in a row maybe we

2:22:05 ↗ are discussing this with the council at

2:22:08 ↗ landing short committee then on Friday

2:22:12 ↗ sort of packaging up all the comments

2:22:14 ↗ and sending it off to Crandall Randall

2:22:17 ↗ ax who will have a draft back to us mid

2:22:19 ↗ August work with them on that and then

2:22:22 ↗ head to planning policy 31st I think

2:22:27 ↗ you're right 30th 31st they would have a

2:22:29 ↗ chance to step in and make comments

2:22:32 ↗ publically

2:22:37 ↗ well good job everybody I think that's

2:22:40 ↗ been a profitable time so let's adjourn

2:22:45 ↗ it was a great job and always have all

2:22:48 ↗ those and putting all that stuff

2:22:50 ↗ together and that was grading

2:23:00 ↗ 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