Development Commission - Special Meeting - 24 A · Wednesday, April 24, 2019 · 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 Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development 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 2019 – Michael Brennan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2019 – Randolph Harrison Development Commission members and City 2020 – Melvin Morgan Council members from discussing the merit of 2020 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Jasmina Mihova of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2022 – Richard Sowa however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2022 – Richard Sanford Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2019 – Ryan Roeter Membership 2019 – Vacant The…

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Mock Permit for Training Purposes, Introduction by: Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager Keith Niven, Economic & Development Services Director

Information · Katie Cote, Senior Planning Consultant · packet pp.7–65

Topics: Land UseEconomic Development

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

On August 2, 2017, the Development Commission recommended forwarding your draft of the Central Issaquah Architecture and Urban Design Manual (aka Design Manual) to the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) for review and recommendation prior to sending the Design Manual to the Council for adoption. Following your recommendation, five meetings were held with the Council Land & Shore Committee and two hearings were held on the Design Manual: one at PPC and the other with the Council. There are multiple purposes for bringing the Mock Permit to the April 24, 2019 meeting of the Development Commission: 1. Describe the changes made to the Design Manual following your recommendation. 2. Provide you with a Mock Permit to discuss the application of the Design Manual and the new Developer Obligations to a site in Central Issaquah.

3255 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ all right good evening ladies and

0:15 ↗ gentlemen I'd like to welcome you to the

0:17 ↗ special meeting the Development

0:19 ↗ Commission tonight we'll be discussing

0:20 ↗ the Development Commission Authority

0:22 ↗ regarding sign review and we'll be doing

0:25 ↗ some mark permit for training purposes

0:27 ↗ using our new design guide so with that

0:30 ↗ as an opening I'd like to start the

0:32 ↗ meeting right now and Lucy I think

0:34 ↗ you've got to make some introductions

0:36 ↗ right so we have some new future members

0:41 ↗ of the Development Commission here

0:44 ↗ tonight terms begin May 1st but we asked

0:47 ↗ our new members to join us tonight

0:49 ↗ because this is a training session and

0:51 ↗ it seemed important so tonight we have

0:54 ↗ Brooke Shore Ben Rusch and Arthur

0:58 ↗ Schulte and and we're bidding farewell

1:02 ↗ to Randy Harrison after tonight who is

1:06 ↗ graciously agreed to go over to the

1:08 ↗ Planning Policy commission and take all

1:11 ↗ his knowledge of how you how it appears

1:17 ↗ on the ground to help us get the

1:19 ↗ standards improve the standards and I

1:22 ↗ don't know if the new commissioners want

1:24 ↗ to say a few words about yourselves or

1:29 ↗ sure

1:30 ↗ hi I'm Arthur Schulte mg2 architecture

1:33 ↗ and adjunct professor at LW Tech glad to

1:37 ↗ be on the board and thank you for the

1:38 ↗ opportunity to serve the community

1:42 ↗ excuse me I've been rush I came from UB

1:45 ↗ DC for a couple of years and now here

1:47 ↗ and looking to contribute Brooke Shore

1:52 ↗ I'm a civil engineer and I work in for

1:56 ↗ general contractor in the area thank you

1:59 ↗ so as as you said we're gonna have a new

2:04 ↗ cast of characters tonight because we're

2:07 ↗ doing so much training first Emily our

2:10 ↗ teshe from long range planning is going

2:13 ↗ to speak about the signs and then

2:15 ↗ another group of us will talk about the

2:18 ↗ mock permit

2:50 ↗ hi my name is Emily rtj I'm a Senior

2:54 ↗ Planner with the city of Issaquah you

2:57 ↗ may have remembered me from a few months

2:59 ↗ ago

3:00 ↗ when I came we actually invited you to a

3:03 ↗ planning policy meeting regarding

3:05 ↗ Gillman boulevard and thresholds for

3:09 ↗ levels of review in central Issaquah and

3:12 ↗ funny enough I do have a slide

3:14 ↗ presentation that brings us back to that

3:15 ↗ moment in time where we were discussing

3:17 ↗ those proposed amendments but let me go

3:22 ↗ from the start to introduce the topic of

3:26 ↗ the sign code I'm not sure if you were

3:28 ↗ aware but you did receive a memo in your

3:31 ↗ packets that the city initiated a sign

3:34 ↗ update project this year and the reason

3:37 ↗ why we initiated the project was to

3:41 ↗ address recent a fairly recent Supreme

3:44 ↗ Court case read this versus Gilbert

3:47 ↗ which required the city to all cities to

3:50 ↗ look at their sign codes again under the

3:53 ↗ lens of free speech and areas where

3:57 ↗ signs could potentially be in conflict

4:00 ↗ with the Supreme Court's decision at the

4:04 ↗ same time we knew that we have we knew

4:08 ↗ that we had we still have several sign

4:10 ↗ codes

4:11 ↗ so we have the Issaquah municipal code

4:14 ↗ sign code 1811 and we have a sign code

4:18 ↗ in central Issaquah we also have a sign

4:20 ↗ code in Old Town and we have multiple

4:23 ↗ sign codes associated with developer

4:26 ↗ agreements your review is in central is

4:33 ↗ in Issaquah Municipal Code under 1811

4:35 ↗ and it allows for two different types of

4:38 ↗ review and informal review and a formal

4:40 ↗ review most recently you've probably

4:44 ↗ been experiencing more informal reviews

4:46 ↗ than formal reviews I'm going to

4:47 ↗ highlight what those two are those

4:49 ↗ distinctions and then go into the

4:52 ↗ administration's proposed recommendation

4:55 ↗ as we maneuver through a new sign code

4:58 ↗ merging these sign codes together and

5:00 ↗ legalizing them and enhancing them for

5:02 ↗ the purposes of the cities facilitation

5:04 ↗ sign permits so this is the DC formal

5:13 ↗ review you're probably aware that it's

5:17 ↗ regulating I mean the areas that you

5:19 ↗ regulate are adjacent to major streets

5:22 ↗ and now in those streets there's about

5:24 ↗ 17 streets that are identified and it

5:27 ↗ includes areas of both central Issaquah

5:29 ↗ and Old Town you also have a formal area

5:33 ↗ of review with regards to the CBD that's

5:35 ↗ Old Town property zoned capital facility

5:41 ↗ zones those are the city's facilities as

5:44 ↗ well as any other properties that are

5:46 ↗ adjacent to them and then approved sign

5:48 ↗ packages which is a very limited review

5:51 ↗ mostly done when the city receives a

5:54 ↗ change to an approved sign package and

5:57 ↗ then there's landmark signs which I

6:01 ↗ understand we have not actually

6:04 ↗ designated any landmark signs at this

6:06 ↗ point any questions then there's a DC

6:16 ↗ informal review and this gives you the

6:19 ↗ opportunity to waive a review when you

6:23 ↗ feel like there's no need or there's

6:25 ↗ sufficient information to allow for the

6:27 ↗ administration to review it you recently

6:30 ↗ had two projects come forward with a

6:34 ↗ waived review one was for fieldstone and

6:36 ↗ one was for sunrise and those were

6:37 ↗ monument signs and essentially what

6:40 ↗ happened there is that the information

6:42 ↗ regarding the sign permit was sent to

6:44 ↗ the chair in the vice chair and then

6:46 ↗ with a request from the administration

6:47 ↗ to find out if those sign permit

6:50 ↗ applications could essentially be waived

6:52 ↗ and when they are waived the review

6:55 ↗ changes and it's delegated to the

6:57 ↗ planning director and/or manager and in

7:00 ↗ all cases the permit still needs to meet

7:02 ↗ all of the sign criteria and the

7:04 ↗ regulations involved with him in

7:07 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code and just one

7:10 ↗ caveat there is that this is the qua

7:14 ↗ Municipal Code was was written

7:17 ↗ at a time when the city didn't have

7:19 ↗ these additional sign code sign codes in

7:22 ↗ place so if you recall central is a qua

7:25 ↗ standard design standards development

7:27 ↗ and design standards came into place in

7:29 ↗ 2013 and yet there's still provisions

7:32 ↗ for DC to review sign permits on major

7:36 ↗ streets that fall within central

7:38 ↗ Issaquah you see how that that's kind of

7:41 ↗ juxtaposition and so for that reason

7:46 ↗ signs that fall into central Issaquah

7:49 ↗ are regulated under central in squads

7:51 ↗ design standards development and design

7:52 ↗ standards and they don't go to the

7:54 ↗ development commission so staff

8:02 ↗ evaluated the DC informal review process

8:06 ↗ and what we had observed is that the

8:09 ↗ process has been working in in this

8:11 ↗ informal capacity pretty well you know

8:13 ↗ we haven't had any complaints complaints

8:15 ↗ about it and that we recognize that

8:18 ↗ fewer sign applications are falling into

8:22 ↗ the areas for that required DC review so

8:25 ↗ just as I mentioned before lots of these

8:27 ↗ signed permits that are coming forward

8:28 ↗ fall with under the provisions of the

8:30 ↗ central Issaquah standards and for that

8:33 ↗ reason you haven't seen a lot of sign

8:35 ↗ permit applications come forward

8:37 ↗ I think only two of the streets that are

8:40 ↗ listed under major sign streets are

8:44 ↗ outside of central one two are actually

8:48 ↗ in Old Town and two are outside of

8:51 ↗ central so for that reason you're

8:52 ↗ getting a very small portion of all the

8:55 ↗ sign permits that are coming forward and

8:59 ↗ at the same time and here's where my

9:01 ↗ reference back to thresholds of review

9:04 ↗ at the same time there's probably going

9:07 ↗ to be a greater demand on your time as

9:10 ↗ higher thresholds for project reviews

9:13 ↗ are expected to perk up within central

9:16 ↗ Issaquah and you may be wondering what

9:17 ↗ does that really mean I don't know if

9:20 ↗ you recall and if you're able to see

9:22 ↗ this map very well but this is a map

9:24 ↗ that I presented back in November to

9:25 ↗ show you what development Commission's

9:29 ↗ potential

9:31 ↗ level three reviews could entail and so

9:34 ↗ on this map you'll see that there's a

9:37 ↗ red line outlining central Issaquah and

9:38 ↗ there's a blue line which identifies

9:41 ↗ seventeen corridors

9:43 ↗ well the beige colored parcels are

9:45 ↗ parcels that are greater than three

9:47 ↗ acres and the brown colored parcels are

9:49 ↗ ones that are connected to those blue

9:50 ↗ corridors both of those brown and beige

9:55 ↗ colored properties are areas where there

9:58 ↗ would be a level three review required

10:00 ↗ now of course if you go back and look at

10:03 ↗ the adopted standards that the council

10:05 ↗ recently passed you'll see that there's

10:07 ↗ a provision that if a development comes

10:09 ↗ in under four thousand square feet you

10:12 ↗ you wouldn't get the project review at

10:15 ↗ that point but looking at the map do you

10:18 ↗ see that there's just a handful of

10:21 ↗ properties that don't have a color on it

10:23 ↗ and for that reason those would be the

10:25 ↗ properties that wouldn't be triggering a

10:28 ↗ level three review and wouldn't come to

10:30 ↗ you and for that reason the city expects

10:33 ↗ that you'll probably see an uptick in a

10:35 ↗ lot of new project reviews coming this

10:37 ↗ year and that your time is going to be

10:40 ↗ well spent looking at complex

10:42 ↗ development review projects and getting

10:45 ↗ those vetted through the process and

10:48 ↗ there may not be as much time to review

10:51 ↗ things like sign permits so the

10:59 ↗ administration's recommendation is that

11:00 ↗ staff review and prove throughout the

11:04 ↗ city sign permits and that the change

11:08 ↗ would coincide with the review of the

11:09 ↗ new sign code update project which is

11:12 ↗ expected to be adopted in 2020 are there

11:18 ↗ any questions that's the end of my

11:20 ↗ presentation I I have one when the staff

11:29 ↗ review and approve approval is done made

11:35 ↗ I've lost the sense of the technical

11:39 ↗ capacity of the staff do they include

11:41 ↗ the engineer for instance the there's a

11:43 ↗ manual on uniform traffic control

11:44 ↗ devices that is a requirement for

11:46 ↗ different kinds of signs and is that

11:48 ↗ reviewed by the city engineer or

11:50 ↗ something or there's a staff know that

11:52 ↗ stuff the staff knows that stuff okay

11:56 ↗ now we the review is primarily by the

12:02 ↗ planner but we do have engineers look at

12:05 ↗ it to make sure that there are no

12:08 ↗ utility conflicts to look at sight

12:11 ↗ distance easements to if it's a monument

12:16 ↗ sign or something that might need a

12:19 ↗ structural review we may even bring in a

12:21 ↗ plans examiner so we assign disciplines

12:24 ↗ based on the implications of encodes

12:29 ↗ that need to be used in the review okay

12:32 ↗ I know there I know there are warrants

12:34 ↗ for stop signs and yield signs and all

12:36 ↗ kinds of things like that I'm just

12:37 ↗ wanting to make sure that I'm sorry I

12:39 ↗ was answering for more like commercial

12:41 ↗ signs the MU CTD signs yes those are

12:47 ↗ done by the engineer as part of a

12:49 ↗ development project okay thank you sorry

12:55 ↗ other questions or comments

12:57 ↗ commissioners your this is your

12:59 ↗ opportunity to ask anything the

13:04 ↗ recommendation Emily in the code I think

13:10 ↗ you mentioned 18 dot 11 regarding signs

13:13 ↗ correct just one it you're probably

13:15 ↗ aware of it there's also a mention of

13:17 ↗ signs and Development Commission in 1803

13:20 ↗ Oh 40 I'll be sure to catch that one

13:23 ↗ great thank you

13:29 ↗ it's having a question about the

13:31 ↗ timeframe in terms of a review by chair

13:36 ↗ and vice-chair of a sign how much time

13:40 ↗ that takes staff gonna be done quickly

13:43 ↗ it can be through the informal process

13:46 ↗ or the formal process through the

13:48 ↗ informal process I do not have a time

13:51 ↗ estimate on how quickly the ones for

13:54 ↗ example fieldstone and sunrise were done

13:57 ↗ we don't and we don't run into like

14:00 ↗ media notice timeframes or things like

14:03 ↗ that for the nose it's all right and and

14:08 ↗ that that is a good point that their

14:11 ↗ sign permits would not administrative

14:15 ↗ review staff review of sign permits does

14:18 ↗ not have any noticing requirements okay

14:25 ↗ one comments two comments sure I guess

14:30 ↗ we've reviewed a lot of signs and I

14:33 ↗ think they I guess I always feel like

14:36 ↗ when we're here is development

14:38 ↗ commissioners were the representatives

14:39 ↗ of the city of the citizens of the town

14:43 ↗ looking at what's being developed and

14:45 ↗ put up in front of them and I do think

14:47 ↗ signs can have a fairly large impact on

14:49 ↗ the public realm on what people see on

14:52 ↗ streets and how they feel about their

14:54 ↗ town I've full of faith and in the city

14:58 ↗ staff to do a good review of things and

15:01 ↗ so forth but we have seen signs I think

15:03 ↗ proposed in the past that that I don't

15:05 ↗ think we would have liked and did get

15:07 ↗ changed so I guess I'm hesitant to say

15:11 ↗ remove the public input part of the

15:14 ↗ process completely from the sign review

15:18 ↗ and perhaps typically a chair and

15:21 ↗ vice-chair or somebody that have

15:23 ↗ experience in the development Commission

15:26 ↗ with some projects that have come

15:28 ↗ through of seeing things I guess I still

15:32 ↗ prefer at least the informal process

15:34 ↗ that if a chair advice chair if one of

15:37 ↗ them said wait a minute this thing is

15:39 ↗ really crazy we think the whole commish

15:42 ↗ should look at this and provide input I

15:44 ↗ would rather see that opportunity and in

15:47 ↗ most cases they're probably going to say

15:48 ↗ I'm guessing to agree with staff when

15:52 ↗ they say if staff thinks it's a

15:54 ↗ nice-looking sign I'm guessing the chair

15:56 ↗ and vice chair probably feel the same

15:57 ↗ way my preference would be to keep at

16:00 ↗ least that portion the process is a

16:02 ↗ possibility with something

16:05 ↗ resurrect recollection wise we did

16:08 ↗ change a recommendation by the staff

16:11 ↗ right on the emergency emergency room

16:17 ↗ over on you're thinking of Highmark that

16:23 ↗ that was you weren't changing a

16:28 ↗ recommendation by staff you were

16:30 ↗ clarifying an interpretation of how the

16:34 ↗ sign package that was approved with the

16:38 ↗ with land use permit and the current

16:42 ↗ code had those two fit together the

16:45 ↗ applicant and staff saw it differently

16:47 ↗ each interpreted differently and we

16:50 ↗ decided to bring it back to the

16:51 ↗ Development Commission because they had

16:53 ↗ approved you had approved the original

16:55 ↗ sign package I have one kind of

17:01 ↗ observation and our question are there

17:05 ↗ illuminated electronic reader signs

17:08 ↗ allowed anywhere in the city of Issaquah

17:11 ↗ by present code I loved being tested yes

17:16 ↗ but only at schools at this time okay I

17:22 ↗ reason I ask that is because with all

17:25 ↗ the attention on distracted driving as

17:29 ↗ I've mentioned before when this issue

17:30 ↗ came up once I I just don't see the the

17:35 ↗ net benefit of having another

17:38 ↗ distraction for people in traffic yeah

17:41 ↗ yeah it's been a big debate and it was a

17:45 ↗ big push by the school's just because of

17:47 ↗ the their ability to update information

17:50 ↗ for the community but it is it is

17:53 ↗ something that's tricky and

17:55 ↗ trying to regulate that a good question

18:01 ↗ so is there a time you know I'm the new

18:04 ↗ person here so maybe this is an easy

18:06 ↗ answer but is there a threshold at which

18:08 ↗ things get questioned

18:09 ↗ are there signs that automatically go

18:12 ↗ through and there are things that get

18:13 ↗ put up for review or how does that work

18:15 ↗ so I'm gonna let Emily answer the part

18:19 ↗ of that but central Issaquah in the

18:24 ↗ urban villages like Issaquah Highlands

18:26 ↗ and talus their signs have never come to

18:29 ↗ the Development Commission and it was it

18:35 ↗ started that just development agreements

18:37 ↗ were excluded and then when the

18:40 ↗ provisions for central is quad got

18:43 ↗ adopted they used a similar approach as

18:45 ↗ the urban villages so I don't um off the

18:50 ↗ top of my head remember what the

18:52 ↗ threshold is well I'm are you looking

18:57 ↗ for a code reference or no just do you

19:00 ↗ know which signs in Greater Issaquah are

19:05 ↗ directed to the Development Commission

19:07 ↗ is that monument signs is it well it's

19:10 ↗ just based strictly on the streets that

19:15 ↗ I indicated here adjacent to major

19:20 ↗ quarter so your streets are front street

19:22 ↗ sunset Northwest maple Newport Way

19:25 ↗ Gilman Northwest Sammamish Road East

19:28 ↗ Lake Sam South East 56th Street

19:32 ↗ Falls City Road Issaquah finally grow

19:34 ↗ those are the two ones that you recently

19:35 ↗ waved 228 43rd West Lake Sam and any

19:42 ↗ Street or street segments abutting and

19:45 ↗ that is generally parallel to interstate

19:46 ↗ 90 so again most of those fall within

19:49 ↗ the provisions of central Issaquah which

19:51 ↗ sensualist acquired development and

19:53 ↗ design standards would take presidents

19:55 ↗ and then any sign that comes into the

19:58 ↗ city that's a modification of an

20:00 ↗ existing sign or change to an existing

20:02 ↗ sign would not go to development

20:03 ↗ commission if it happened to fall

20:05 ↗ outside of central Issaquah or outside

20:07 ↗ their villages

20:08 ↗ so the area of review is who's pretty

20:12 ↗ small okay with all those streets you

20:15 ↗ listed off Development Commission

20:17 ↗ reviews all those correct no no if

20:19 ↗ they're outside of central you're out of

20:22 ↗ the 717 that I just rattled off I mean

20:25 ↗ you're you're down to Issaquah Falls

20:27 ↗ City Road it's a qua Pine Lake Road to

20:28 ↗ 28th and sunset maple sunset and front I

20:35 ↗ think that's it okay thank you yep so

20:44 ↗ what is your expectation from your

20:46 ↗ presentation do you want us to make an

20:49 ↗ agreement make a motion or an amendment

20:52 ↗ or what do you think we wanted to hear

20:54 ↗ from the commissioners what their

20:57 ↗ thoughts were on the proposed change I

21:00 ↗ think we think you did all right yeah

21:06 ↗ you feel like you heard from the

21:08 ↗ Commission yes we heard from the

21:10 ↗ Commission we didn't hear a group

21:13 ↗ decision or groups consensus but well I

21:19 ↗ can just add one thing I couldn't agree

21:22 ↗ more with Commissioner Morgan as to his

21:27 ↗ suggestion so so what's the consensus of

21:34 ↗ the Commission what do you think would

21:38 ↗ would the involvement of the at least

21:42 ↗ that care and the vice-chair be

21:45 ↗ acceptable to you yes to to me myself

21:49 ↗ Hart there shows he absolutely Richard

21:52 ↗ now if we can conclude language that

21:55 ↗ chair and vice-chair be consulted when

21:59 ↗ issues regarding signs come before the

22:01 ↗ staff I think that would be a perfect

22:03 ↗ solution yeah I would agree was your

22:10 ↗ recommendation so you probably have

22:11 ↗ things I think I think that's consensus

22:14 ↗ of opinion the chair and the vice chair

22:17 ↗ would like to be involved in those some

22:19 ↗ of those decisions

22:21 ↗ thank you thank you you're welcome

22:25 ↗ [Music]

22:46 ↗ oops no that's right good evening so

22:53 ↗ tonight we're going to have kind of a

22:57 ↗ three-person introduction to some of the

23:01 ↗ things that have better new

23:05 ↗ so the we're going to do it in a couple

23:09 ↗ of parts first we're going to talk a

23:11 ↗ little bit about what has come out of

23:13 ↗ the moratorium and some of the changes

23:16 ↗ or additional tools that are in place

23:19 ↗ and then we're going to use this mock

23:21 ↗ permit as a way of sort of testing and

23:24 ↗ it's meant to be a very informal and

23:26 ↗ interactive evening so the moratorium

23:30 ↗ began in September 2016 and ended in May

23:35 ↗ 2018 and it was enacted to address these

23:38 ↗ six things architectural fed urban

23:41 ↗ design vertical mixed-use affordable

23:44 ↗ housing parking and district visions

23:47 ↗ tonight were just focused on three of

23:50 ↗ them and architectural fit and urban

23:54 ↗ design were combined into the central

23:56 ↗ Issaquah architecture and urban design

23:59 ↗ manual and then district visions was

24:04 ↗ modifications to the central Issaquah

24:07 ↗ plan I'm going to start with the design

24:10 ↗ manual Keith will talk about the

24:13 ↗ district visions and then our planning

24:15 ↗ consultant Katie Cody has been working

24:18 ↗ on the mock permit so but you know we'll

24:23 ↗ all talk so we call it has that very

24:28 ↗ long title central is kua architecture

24:30 ↗ and urban design manual but we just call

24:32 ↗ it the design manual often just because

24:36 ↗ it's shorter and it was adopted at the

24:39 ↗ end of 2017 and became chapter 18 of the

24:44 ↗ central is Clause standards so I'm gonna

24:48 ↗ just Barry give you a very quick

24:50 ↗ overview many of you worked on the

24:52 ↗ design manual but some of you didn't so

24:54 ↗ this is a little bit of a refresher the

24:57 ↗ design manual divided

24:59 ↗ central is Squa into two districts one

25:03 ↗ was the urban core and the other was

25:06 ↗ traditional is squad or urban core has

25:08 ↗ two styles Northwest contemporary and

25:11 ↗ Northwest revival the traditional

25:16 ↗ Issaquah has six styles which are arts

25:19 ↗ and crafts craftsman northwest Lodge

25:22 ↗ Western false front

25:23 ↗ urban Grange and also Northwest revival

25:27 ↗ so the thing I want to point out and

25:29 ↗ this is a little bit of what I want to

25:31 ↗ do tonight is point out some of the

25:32 ↗ changes that took place after it left

25:34 ↗ your good hands in care and that was

25:38 ↗ Northwest revival was added it was

25:41 ↗ already you had added it but then it

25:43 ↗ went to being applied in both districts

25:46 ↗ I think initially it was just in

25:49 ↗ traditional is squat so the other part

25:54 ↗ of the design manual is urban design the

25:58 ↗ first part was architecture the urban

26:00 ↗ design applies across all districts and

26:03 ↗ all styles and it covers both the

26:06 ↗ natural and the built context in which a

26:09 ↗ projects occurring as well as the actual

26:11 ↗ site so the natural context is

26:14 ↗ additional design requirements in

26:17 ↗ response to being near a natural element

26:20 ↗ and the map this is the final map that

26:23 ↗ was adopted by council it is not

26:26 ↗ regulatory it's informational there's a

26:29 ↗ list of specific elements that trigger

26:33 ↗ the natural context the built context

26:38 ↗ most buildings are meant to harmonize

26:40 ↗ but Civic and cultural buildings such as

26:43 ↗ the library or the fire station are

26:46 ↗ meant to stand out in terms of site

26:52 ↗ therefore big categories block size

26:54 ↗ block access building edges and usable

26:58 ↗ or open space and then you can see there

27:00 ↗ are some subsets of that the thing that

27:04 ↗ changed after after the development

27:10 ↗ Commission's work was three news

27:13 ↗ sections were added to natural context

27:15 ↗ we added a page on hillsides and slope

27:18 ↗ sites page on site walls and then to

27:22 ↗ usable open space we also added rooftop

27:25 ↗ use so I'm going to review those quickly

27:27 ↗ feel free to ask questions they don't

27:30 ↗ apply tonight but I just wanted to give

27:33 ↗ you a heads up that those have been

27:35 ↗ added so hillsides and slope sites the

27:42 ↗ issues were the amount of disturbance

27:44 ↗ well let me just take a step back there

27:47 ↗ are not many hillside sites but as you

27:49 ↗ get to the edges of central it's a quoi

27:52 ↗ and start heading some of the sites on

27:55 ↗ the edges where we're heading off the

27:57 ↗ valley floor are sloped and so there was

28:00 ↗ a concern that a lot of the provisions

28:04 ↗ that were in central is quoi were mainly

28:06 ↗ for flat sites and so some of the

28:08 ↗ concerns was the amount of disturbance

28:10 ↗ the length and height of walls that were

28:13 ↗ necessary for those sites and how

28:16 ↗ buildings responded to grade so a

28:19 ↗ hillside is a lot of these regulations

28:22 ↗ don't kick in unless you have fifteen

28:25 ↗ percent or greater slopes when you have

28:28 ↗ that you're expected to grade no more

28:31 ↗ than in 15-foot increments so you can

28:34 ↗ only cut in fifteen feet and then you

28:36 ↗ have to step so the idea is that both

28:38 ↗ the foundations and the rooftops step to

28:42 ↗ follow the natural grades which both

28:45 ↗ blends the building in and reduces the

28:48 ↗ amount of just ignoring the natural

28:51 ↗ topography uphill sites meaning if your

28:56 ↗ roads here and your building is above it

28:59 ↗ you you typically get to average the

29:03 ↗ building height in the city up hill

29:06 ↗ sites it's just a max whatever the

29:09 ↗ height is allowed it's just straight off

29:12 ↗ the road so that you are not because

29:15 ↗ when you average an uphill site the

29:18 ↗ building can be significantly taller and

29:21 ↗ there was a concern that through the

29:23 ↗ building out of scale to the road

29:26 ↗ walls are limited to 10 feet in height

29:30 ↗ and if you need to go taller than 10

29:33 ↗ feet then you need to terrace the walls

29:36 ↗ landscape and and then buildings colors

29:41 ↗ materials and addition of landscape to

29:44 ↗ help it blend in question Lucy on the

29:50 ↗ apartment project proposed a new part

29:52 ↗ way near the storage facility in kinking

29:55 ↗ library it hasn't been built yet did you

29:58 ↗ go back and curious and check to see

29:59 ↗ would that have been approved with these

30:03 ↗ new guidelines do you know probably not

30:05 ↗ the way it was I mean the walls there

30:07 ↗ actually I think the tallest wall was 15

30:10 ↗ feet except where it was immediately

30:14 ↗ adjacent to the right-of-way you know

30:16 ↗ that sort of very long tale of open

30:18 ↗ space but the Commission did put in a

30:22 ↗ requirement that it be terrorists I'm

30:24 ↗ not sure it was Terrace to 10 feet but

30:26 ↗ it had some of these similar intent in

30:29 ↗ terms of the building and the foundation

30:32 ↗ stepping no it would not have complied

30:36 ↗ with these new regulations thank you

30:39 ↗ uh-huh any more questions on this one

30:43 ↗ walls the issue was just the impact the

30:49 ↗ visual impact of walls and how they

30:52 ↗ impacted sort of the creation of the

30:55 ↗ public realm there are two options for

30:58 ↗ walls that are near pedestrian areas one

31:02 ↗ is either that they're limited to four

31:04 ↗ feet and height and then you can tear us

31:06 ↗ back if you need to or you set the wall

31:09 ↗ back enough where you can have trees

31:11 ↗ every 35 feet and then the wall the

31:14 ↗ first wall can start at 10 feet so there

31:17 ↗ are those two options walls are the

31:20 ↗ design of the walls is meant to

31:22 ↗ complement the architectural styles that

31:24 ↗ were adopted through central is kua that

31:29 ↗ there is pedestrian scale design and

31:31 ↗ detailing so you don't just have a

31:32 ↗ smooth concrete wall with no detailing

31:37 ↗ maybe patterning and that when you get a

31:40 ↗ wall that's longer than 35 feet it needs

31:43 ↗ to be either articulated or modulated so

31:46 ↗ you might break the wall up or add piers

31:51 ↗ or other things that again minimize the

31:55 ↗ sort of perceived length of the wall any

31:58 ↗ questions on this 1/3 Lucy yeah I'm

32:04 ↗ sorry no that's okay

32:06 ↗ when I was looking through this when I

32:09 ↗ was reading through it I one thing that

32:11 ↗ kind of caught me and I don't question

32:13 ↗ the the verbage but when we talk about

32:17 ↗ attractive to pedestrians and and so on

32:22 ↗ when I saw the second one there the wood

32:24 ↗ the wooden wall you know I frankly my

32:30 ↗ initial impression was that's

32:32 ↗ interesting that's appropriate and the

32:33 ↗ one at the bottom isn't and this is one

32:37 ↗ down here that the the the one that's

32:40 ↗ the only one on there this it's the

32:43 ↗ bottom one and I know this is a just a

32:47 ↗ personal opinion when I get into

32:48 ↗ aesthetics but I I don't recall the

32:54 ↗ discussions that we had about the about

32:56 ↗ the definitions of the walls what was

32:58 ↗ appropriate and not I know we spent you

33:01 ↗ didn't you have not seen this page no I

33:03 ↗ know that I'm talking about oh yeah and

33:07 ↗ I I just have reservations about the

33:12 ↗ designation of that type of wood wall

33:16 ↗ being appropriate and I'm not trying to

33:20 ↗ revise anything but I just keep thinking

33:22 ↗ about that King County approval above

33:26 ↗ above Costco or uh right Home Depot yep

33:30 ↗ and kind of thinking geez you know I

33:34 ↗ know that what everybody's favorite yep

33:37 ↗ everybody especially the people below it

33:40 ↗ I'm sure so I think part of why so I'm

33:45 ↗ not

33:46 ↗ frankly a huge fan of soldier pile walls

33:48 ↗ that's what this one that you're just

33:51 ↗ the wood when you're describing this is

33:53 ↗ the nicest soldier pile wall I've ever

33:55 ↗ seen which is by Timber Ridge but I

33:58 ↗ think part of what we wanted to

34:00 ↗ acknowledge was that when you're

34:01 ↗ transitioning to open space that

34:04 ↗ rockeries and these kind of wood walls

34:07 ↗ may blend in and be a better transition

34:10 ↗ to open space so they're not intended to

34:13 ↗ be in the used in the middle of these

34:15 ↗ urban projects it's more where you're

34:17 ↗ transitioning on the edges sorry Lucy to

34:20 ↗ pick up on that question should we be

34:23 ↗ commenting on the content of these pages

34:25 ↗ right now it's that part of the process

34:27 ↗ that you wanted or were you going to go

34:28 ↗ through these and we were in a comment

34:30 ↗ on the content before because I have

34:31 ↗ another comment on one of those pictures

34:34 ↗ I'm not sure that it matches the current

34:36 ↗ version of the Syd's so there Richard

34:41 ↗ you are my editor so two things these

34:46 ↗ are adopted we worked with a graphic

34:49 ↗ designer

34:51 ↗ we hired a graphic designer to help get

34:54 ↗ this into a format and include all the

34:56 ↗ checklists that you saw as part of this

34:58 ↗ the adopted version online had some of

35:02 ↗ the pictures on the page here mixed up

35:04 ↗ and this is the correct version okay the

35:08 ↗ one on line is incorrect and I had to

35:10 ↗ email her and see especially about the

35:15 ↗ third row down that left diamond rich

35:17 ↗ diamond pattern on one online that's

35:19 ↗ Marcus inappropriate right but here yeah

35:22 ↗ okay this is the correct configuration I

35:25 ↗ caught that as I was putting this

35:27 ↗ together for you which I just love this

35:30 ↗ quick question so I'm thinking in this

35:33 ↗ is half answered by the Home Depot wall

35:35 ↗ so that's a King County thing but the

35:37 ↗ other wall I'm thinking it was going

35:39 ↗ into the highlands of Highlands Drive

35:40 ↗ there's a big wall there so how does

35:42 ↗ this word again a threshold between is

35:45 ↗ what's a structural like wall that holds

35:49 ↗ up you know area to be supported by

35:51 ↗ housing and all that and what is this

35:54 ↗ and how they translate to each other so

35:58 ↗ this is so and that's that's a good

36:01 ↗ question Benin and it may be better when

36:04 ↗ we have an actual project but I'm gonna

36:06 ↗ do my best to explain it this page is to

36:10 ↗ talk about hillsides and slope sites

36:13 ↗ this page is to talk about both those

36:16 ↗ walls but also just sight walls because

36:19 ↗ sometimes you put in a seat wall or

36:21 ↗ something that is not retaining earth

36:25 ↗ when you look at the one going into

36:27 ↗ Issaquah highlands if these regulations

36:29 ↗ were in place you could not build that

36:31 ↗ wall they would have probably had to

36:34 ↗ start further down the hill and Terrace

36:36 ↗ them up in these ten foot increments

36:38 ↗ with planting beds in between rather

36:42 ↗ than building a single tall wall that

36:46 ↗ took up the entire grade okay thank you

36:53 ↗ so last new page was rooftops and this

36:59 ↗ one also has a picture that's wrong

37:01 ↗ compared to the online version I will

37:03 ↗ admit to that right now

37:06 ↗ so there was a thought that in the urban

37:10 ↗ core where both styles have flat roofs

37:15 ↗ that and where if we are developing in

37:19 ↗ this sort of manner that we're expecting

37:21 ↗ it's going to be more dense more intense

37:24 ↗ development that we really need to be

37:26 ↗ taking advantage of all the different

37:28 ↗ kinds of spaces we have we aren't

37:31 ↗ thinking that rooftops would be open to

37:34 ↗ the public but that there should be

37:37 ↗ opportunities for either tenants or

37:39 ↗ residents of the building to be able to

37:42 ↗ get to those spaces and whether it might

37:46 ↗ be on the roof itself or it might be a

37:49 ↗ terrace or balcony on an upper floor and

37:51 ↗ so any use any building in the urban

37:57 ↗ core built under these regulations would

37:59 ↗ need to provide that option landscape is

38:04 ↗ optional there was some desire to add

38:07 ↗ landscape as a mandatory element but

38:10 ↗ there's

38:11 ↗ a lot of tricky factors that come into

38:13 ↗ play with putting landscape on the roof

38:15 ↗ of buildings and lastly there was some

38:20 ↗ concerns and questions when we were in

38:22 ↗ front of the council about how the roof

38:25 ↗ lines would appear with Northwest

38:27 ↗ contemporary and so we changed out

38:30 ↗ well we I'm not sure where we change

38:32 ↗ that we added pictures to that page

38:35 ↗ which are the images that are shown down

38:38 ↗ here to better represent sort of modern

38:41 ↗ contemporary cornice lines both

38:44 ↗ appropriate and inappropriate pushing on

38:48 ↗ that so in the urban core we can have

38:51 ↗ northwest contemporary and northwest

38:53 ↗ Revival yes

38:54 ↗ so Northwest contemporary does not

38:56 ↗ always have flat roof right you're right

39:00 ↗ in some instances that might not which

39:02 ↗ would then you're right but then you

39:06 ↗ would have the balcony or Terrace option

39:08 ↗ at the upper levels okay so then the the

39:14 ↗ rooftop use would only be required for

39:18 ↗ Northwest contemporary that does have

39:20 ↗ flat roof no because balconies and

39:23 ↗ terraces didn't happen on those upper

39:25 ↗ levels and so I'm it's coming back to me

39:29 ↗ now that that that was part of the

39:34 ↗ advantage of having that as an upper

39:36 ↗ level not a rooftop option but an upper

39:39 ↗ level option to provide access to people

39:42 ↗ to the views and opportunities at the

39:46 ↗ upper floor yes so that's clear when I

39:48 ↗ first read description right there it

39:50 ↗ says both allow and have flat roofs and

39:53 ↗ therefore this would be required so it

39:56 ↗ wasn't really clear what that man right

39:58 ↗ you're right but you are right we do

40:01 ↗ have images of Northwest contemporary

40:03 ↗ with sloped roofs and I'm still I guess

40:07 ↗ confused on language too because it says

40:10 ↗ for buildings in urban core rooftops

40:12 ↗ must include active uses so did you say

40:16 ↗ that could be just landscape or now

40:19 ↗ there could be landscape with it yes

40:21 ↗ there has to be an active use on the

40:23 ↗ roof

40:24 ↗ either on the roof if it was flat or if

40:28 ↗ they chose not to use the roof they

40:32 ↗ could on the upper levels have balconies

40:35 ↗ or terraces that were accessible to

40:38 ↗ building tenants or residents as an

40:40 ↗ alternative individual tenants or no not

40:45 ↗ just I'm sorry I'm not explaining this

40:47 ↗ very clearly not just to like to a

40:52 ↗ specific unit but that you might have a

40:54 ↗ community room at that level that had an

40:58 ↗ outdoor component like a terrace or a

41:00 ↗ balcony that gave everyone in the

41:03 ↗ building access to that that view and

41:07 ↗ that sort of being on an upper level

41:11 ↗ right and then there's our minimum

41:13 ↗ outdoor portion of that that you would

41:15 ↗ you were there are minimum dimensions I

41:19 ↗ believe that it had to be I'm doing this

41:21 ↗ from memory I believe it had to be 8

41:23 ↗ feet deep if you're for the balcony or

41:27 ↗ Terrace right ok Lucy attic curiosity

41:37 ↗ was there ever discussion regarding

41:38 ↗ noise you know would there be a noise

41:41 ↗ ordinance or is that simply just you

41:44 ↗ know up to the building operations to

41:46 ↗ figure that out

41:47 ↗ I think it would be building operations

41:50 ↗ in you know there I mean that's an

41:52 ↗ interesting question we did not put any

41:54 ↗ for instance our restrictions there have

41:58 ↗ been some buildings in Issaquah that

42:01 ↗ have been built with rooftop use and we

42:06 ↗ have not gotten any complaints and I

42:08 ↗ assume that's either because they have

42:10 ↗ very well behaved tenants or the

42:13 ↗ building management is set

42:14 ↗ you know the necessary rules but that is

42:16 ↗ a good question thank you yeah anything

42:20 ↗ else on this one one more let's see

42:25 ↗ could we go back to page 11 which is the

42:28 ↗ rougher you're still going on this set

42:31 ↗ I'm sorry

42:33 ↗ page 11 of 65 which is the one regarding

42:37 ↗ the roof

42:37 ↗ new pages regarding roof are you

42:40 ↗ covering that at all or will that I

42:41 ↗ thought I just did is there something on

42:44 ↗ that P I'm sorry this would be or go

42:45 ↗ back I missed one in there

42:58 ↗ yes right so on page 11 or 65 the is

43:03 ↗ that's a new image down there at the

43:05 ↗ bottom right that's inappropriate on the

43:07 ↗ left at the bottom yes that's basically

43:12 ↗ yeah well it's it's a so I frankly I

43:18 ↗ reused my PowerPoint from the one that

43:22 ↗ we used when we were getting this

43:23 ↗ through council this is the same image

43:26 ↗ it's just a much smaller snippet of the

43:28 ↗ one that's in the lower left-hand corner

43:31 ↗ of the page this is the Northwest

43:38 ↗ contemporary said those just is what I'm

43:41 ↗ saying makes sense right right the lower

43:44 ↗ left one I think that and the borders

43:46 ↗ are both new images right at the bottom

43:48 ↗ of that page actually and the one above

43:51 ↗ borders ok so just the inappropriate one

43:55 ↗ to the left there you know it references

43:58 ↗ that there's no cornice or similar

44:00 ↗ element as present and I didn't see any

44:03 ↗ reference to cornice in the description

44:05 ↗ or innapropriate I didn't know that was

44:07 ↗ required there I don't have my manual in

44:17 ↗ front of me so I believe so I'm doing

44:24 ↗ this again from memory I believe that

44:35 ↗ so I believe that the cornice comes up

44:38 ↗ under massing and style

44:42 ↗ I mean massing and scale rather than

44:46 ↗ under roofline and that was kind of an

44:50 ↗ interesting piece of all of this that

44:52 ↗ the it was how where to demonstrate that

44:59 ↗ characteristic

45:01 ↗ from the manual and we decided that

45:05 ↗ because it was related to the roof and

45:07 ↗ how the roof appeared that that we would

45:11 ↗ put it there rather than under massing

45:14 ↗ and scale wandering right I'm just

45:16 ↗ wondering if that should be called out

45:18 ↗ and either the description or

45:19 ↗ appropriate to say that roof should have

45:22 ↗ cornice structures or similar in other

45:25 ↗ words there's a deficit there but I

45:27 ↗ don't see where it was all doubt as a

45:30 ↗ requirement sorry I don't have something

45:38 ↗ I can grab here to just drag along

45:50 ↗ am I making sense my question here

45:52 ↗ so under massing oh why is there

45:57 ↗ anything on the screen

46:11 ↗ and I'm not I'm not in PowerPoint I

46:15 ↗ don't understand what we're looking at

46:17 ↗ we're not seeing the screen up there

46:18 ↗ we're looking at the city of Issaquah

46:20 ↗ yeah no I I can see what you're seeing

46:23 ↗ it's not what I'm seeing that's really

46:27 ↗ we need to figure that out because it's

46:29 ↗ gonna be a problem for your presentation

46:31 ↗ as well I don't know

46:38 ↗ so let me just say to you imagine if you

46:41 ↗ will under massing it says appropriate

46:45 ↗ is cornice hierarchy if using more than

46:49 ↗ one cornice the upper most roof line

46:52 ↗ displays the most prominent cornice so

46:55 ↗ and then it says flat roofs shall

46:59 ↗ display a cornice or still a similar

47:02 ↗ element design with depth and detail so

47:05 ↗ it's that's what I meant by it's pulling

47:07 ↗ unlike the other styles where everything

47:10 ↗ is kind of self-contained within each of

47:12 ↗ those components for Northwest Revival

47:18 ↗ it's pulling from both massing and

47:21 ↗ scaled into the roofs and that's why we

47:24 ↗ put the images there so I believe I mean

47:28 ↗ I what I'm saying is I don't think we

47:30 ↗ have to add language under roofs because

47:33 ↗ it is a requirement under massing it's

47:37 ↗ just illustrated with roofs right and so

47:40 ↗ these images were better under roof than

47:43 ↗ under massing then is that right so can

47:46 ↗ those men the page if you could see it

47:47 ↗ you would see that it's already pretty

47:50 ↗ full and so we just felt that it it

47:53 ↗ related to roofs and therefore it we

47:56 ↗ could use both pages to capture the

48:00 ↗ information thank you well that's

48:03 ↗ interesting that's

48:06 ↗ which tab well let's see I did that so

48:17 ↗ that's when I used the power f5 things

48:21 ↗ so I'll close it all out when I'm done

48:23 ↗ okay there's rooftops so monitoring

48:31 ↗ there was an interest in not finding

48:34 ↗ ourselves back where we were with some

48:37 ↗ the issues that had driven the

48:39 ↗ moratorium and that we have regular

48:42 ↗ predictable check-ins and so monitoring

48:46 ↗ is required every three years or every

48:49 ↗ three land use permits and the checklist

48:55 ↗ I just wanted I mean I know you've seen

48:58 ↗ it but I just want to talk about it for

48:59 ↗ a moment because this was really driven

49:03 ↗ by your desire to really look at each

49:06 ↗ component on each relevant page to

49:10 ↗ understand how staff had evaluated it

49:12 ↗ and whether you would agree with that

49:15 ↗ evaluation so I worked with the graphic

49:19 ↗ designer and you can see that we've gone

49:21 ↗ to a legal size page for the checklist

49:25 ↗ what that does is it gives us the space

49:28 ↗ down at the bottom which you can't see

49:31 ↗ my mouse moving so down at the bottom

49:34 ↗ you can see there's staff comment and

49:36 ↗ staff proposed conditions so that's a

49:39 ↗ place where staff can put their

49:41 ↗ interpretations and proposed conditions

49:43 ↗ so that you can see them and understand

49:46 ↗ if we've made interpretations or

49:48 ↗ combined things the check boxes at the

49:52 ↗ top that are with objective and

49:55 ↗ description are not meant to be a

49:57 ↗ summary of the entire page but simply

50:00 ↗ respond to are they complying with the

50:03 ↗ objectives and the description and then

50:07 ↗ each element of appropriate and

50:10 ↗ inappropriate has its own check box they

50:14 ↗ are continuously lettered to make it

50:17 ↗ easy for staff to just riff

50:18 ↗ fer to them up above I mean or down

50:21 ↗ below when they're writing the comments

50:24 ↗ [Music]

50:33 ↗ are you finding them yes ma'am oh no I

50:37 ↗ just wanted to give you a moment to get

50:39 ↗ there

50:39 ↗ as I don't know how visible it is up on

50:42 ↗ screen any questions about this part of

50:48 ↗ the okay any questions overall okay

50:58 ↗ now we will have a technical moment well

51:01 ↗ we'll try and escape whatever purgatory

51:04 ↗ we've gone into and then Keith will talk

51:06 ↗ about the changes to the central SQL

51:09 ↗ plan so what are you suggesting

51:25 ↗ yeah nothing's coming up

51:30 ↗ that's again because you do win a funky

51:33 ↗ we're in a funky yeah okay I'm just can

51:41 ↗ you need Development Commission for

51:43 ↗ those of you who don't know me my name

51:44 ↗ is Keith Niven and I'm director of

51:47 ↗ economic development and development

51:49 ↗ services for the city I'm gonna start

51:52 ↗ with an apology when we adopted or when

51:55 ↗ we move through the architectural manual

51:57 ↗ we promised you we'd bring back a mock

52:01 ↗ permit so that we could try out the new

52:04 ↗ toy that we had just gotten and

52:06 ↗ unfortunate to cuss this long to get to

52:08 ↗ you so my apologies for the delay Lucy

52:12 ↗ went through the architectural and urban

52:13 ↗ design manual I'm gonna quickly go

52:15 ↗ through one of the other changes to

52:20 ↗ central Issaquah which is another new

52:22 ↗ tool for you guys to use when you get

52:24 ↗ permit applications so one of the one of

52:30 ↗ the when when the moratorium came into

52:33 ↗ effect one of the concerns that the City

52:37 ↗ Council had was that the description of

52:40 ↗ central Issaquah was fairly homogeneous

52:43 ↗ through the entire thousand acres and

52:47 ↗ even though the central Issaquah was

52:51 ↗ divided into sub districts there was an

52:54 ↗ expectation of mixed-use everywhere just

52:56 ↗ to be very kind of blunt with that and

53:00 ↗ what had happened is and do I get a

53:03 ↗ mouse no I do get a mouse it moved

53:08 ↗ I saw something moved anyway oh there we

53:12 ↗ go

53:12 ↗ sweet all right so the area the very

53:15 ↗ western portion of of central Issaquah

53:20 ↗ basically think about Newport Road west

53:23 ↗ of SR 900 what had happened since the

53:27 ↗ plan got adopted is most of the vacant

53:31 ↗ properties had come under permit and

53:34 ↗ most of them are under construction

53:36 ↗ right now and all the projects that were

53:39 ↗ that had come through were residential

53:41 ↗ and so one of the questions the council

53:44 ↗ asked was if there's this expectation

53:46 ↗ for mix use then how come we didn't get

53:49 ↗ makes use in one whole area of central

53:52 ↗ Issaquah and so they asked us to go back

53:54 ↗ and look at the sub districts to go back

53:58 ↗ and look at the vision for the entire

54:00 ↗ sub area and to kind of think about it a

54:04 ↗ little bit more finer grained and so we

54:09 ↗ started kind of a process with planning

54:12 ↗ policy Commission which included kind of

54:16 ↗ driving around and talking about the

54:18 ↗ different parts of central Issaquah and

54:20 ↗ what it resulted in was shrinking down

54:24 ↗ the number of what were called sub

54:27 ↗ districts and we now are calling them

54:29 ↗ neighborhoods so now we've identified

54:31 ↗ basically five different neighborhoods

54:33 ↗ in central Issaquah so within the sub

54:36 ↗ area there's now five areas that we're

54:39 ↗ wanting to distinguish and the reason

54:42 ↗ why we came up with those different

54:44 ↗ neighborhoods was based on existing land

54:47 ↗ uses expected land uses whether they

54:50 ↗ were part of the regional growth center

54:53 ↗ or not and as we talked about the mock

54:58 ↗ permit tonight one of the things that

55:00 ↗ you should consider is is it meeting the

55:04 ↗ neighborhood vision for the neighborhood

55:06 ↗ within which it's located so we we kind

55:10 ↗ of went through this process of creating

55:13 ↗ more clarity and more differentiation

55:16 ↗ within central Issaquah based on

55:18 ↗ geography and you know what came after

55:22 ↗ that was you know how are you gonna

55:25 ↗ assure that you're gonna get the things

55:27 ↗ that you think you're gonna get and one

55:30 ↗ of the things that we did even though

55:31 ↗ this is basically a sub area plan part

55:35 ↗ of the Comprehensive Plan is we created

55:38 ↗ developer obligations so there's a page

55:42 ↗ for each neighborhood so for each

55:45 ↗ neighborhood there's basically a summary

55:47 ↗ of what we expect that neighborhood to

55:48 ↗ develop like and evolved into but then

55:52 ↗ there's a piece on developer obligations

55:55 ↗ there's a piece on city actions

55:58 ↗ things that we think the city need to do

56:00 ↗ to make this neighborhood whole and then

56:03 ↗ basically there's measures for success

56:06 ↗ and we went through that with Planning

56:09 ↗ Policy Commission and ultimately that

56:11 ↗ got adopted as an amendment to the sub

56:14 ↗ area plan so so as we go through this

56:17 ↗ tonight these are the developer

56:19 ↗ obligations for the confluence

56:21 ↗ neighborhood so as Katie presents her

56:24 ↗ proposal as an applicant you know you

56:29 ↗ guys should be thinking about the

56:30 ↗ architecture and urban design manual

56:32 ↗ that Lucy kind of walked you guys

56:33 ↗ through the high points of and then you

56:35 ↗ should also be thinking about this is in

56:37 ↗ a particular neighborhood within Central

56:39 ↗ Issaquah and this area and and the area

56:43 ↗ is basically 7th and Locust outside you

56:46 ↗ know that's a very different part of

56:48 ↗ Issaquah than say you know over by Fred

56:51 ↗ Meyer which we call the East Lake

56:53 ↗ neighborhood or you know Gilman or

56:55 ↗ Pickering which is basically the

56:57 ↗ regional growth center this part of

56:59 ↗ central Issaquah has a very different

57:01 ↗ feel about it and the idea when we came

57:05 ↗ up with kind of this structure was we

57:09 ↗ would like whatever development happens

57:11 ↗ in that neighborhood to be cognizant of

57:14 ↗ this kind of feeling and expectation for

57:18 ↗ this area so as we go through the mock

57:20 ↗ permit tonight there will be a list of

57:24 ↗ things that this permit will need to do

57:27 ↗ so consider these like design guidelines

57:31 ↗ all right so they're not they're not

57:33 ↗ they are code they have to do these

57:35 ↗ these aren't these aren't discretionary

57:37 ↗ these are shall dues but how you

57:40 ↗ accomplish these there's some

57:43 ↗ flexibility in how you accomplish them

57:45 ↗ because they're applied neighborhood

57:47 ↗ wide right and so you know as you look

57:50 ↗ at things like provide non-motorized

57:54 ↗ connections to facilitate public access

57:56 ↗ to transit on Newports way and Gilman

57:58 ↗ boulevard how you accomplish that could

58:01 ↗ be done in a number of different ways

58:02 ↗ and depending on where the property is

58:06 ↗ there may be different solutions to

58:09 ↗ achieving that obligation

58:12 ↗ and so part of this is thinking about

58:14 ↗ how the developer addresses each one of

58:18 ↗ these they can't just ignore them unless

58:20 ↗ it doesn't apply some of these may not

58:22 ↗ apply to a particular parcel within the

58:24 ↗ neighborhood and that'll be kind of the

58:27 ↗ evaluation process we're gonna have to

58:29 ↗ go through as we evaluate these

58:31 ↗ proposals as they come through so again

58:34 ↗ another tool for you guys hopefully

58:37 ↗ makes sense if you have any questions

58:40 ↗ I'm more than happy to help otherwise

58:42 ↗ I'm going to sit here and watch Katie do

58:44 ↗ her presentation and then I might join

58:47 ↗ in on the discussion later because I

58:49 ↗ don't keep my mouth shut very well

59:00 ↗ and are you on PowerPoint - it's a PDF

59:04 ↗ so this is I think that it's just it's

59:17 ↗ thinking that it's you drag it I think

59:22 ↗ it was doing - I think I might I might

59:27 ↗ bring it back though and then do it a

59:29 ↗ different way okay yeah it's doing the

59:40 ↗ double monitor thing so I think I'll

59:44 ↗ just go with this okay hello I'm Katie

59:48 ↗ Cody and I've been working with

59:51 ↗ development services for about six

59:53 ↗ months as a planning consultant and I'm

59:56 ↗ helping with a couple different project

59:58 ↗ reviews you'll see me again next week

1:00:00 ↗ when we talk about another an SDP

1:00:04 ↗ application and then I've been working

1:00:07 ↗ on this mock development project so one

1:00:13 ↗ second here

1:00:20 ↗ okay so my disclaimer is that I'm a

1:00:24 ↗ planner not an architect so the the plan

1:00:27 ↗ set that you got is a little bit

1:00:29 ↗ rudimentary but thank you for rolling

1:00:32 ↗ with it okay so I think we've gone

1:00:35 ↗ through most of this already but the the

1:00:37 ↗ goal tonight is to look at a fake

1:00:39 ↗ project this is not real in any way and

1:00:42 ↗ use it as an opportunity to practice and

1:00:45 ↗ ask questions you can feel free to

1:00:48 ↗ question my choices as a developer as an

1:00:51 ↗ applicant and as a planner so the floor

1:00:54 ↗ is open again here's the developer

1:00:58 ↗ obligations Keith just mentioned we are

1:01:01 ↗ going to talk about the design manual

1:01:03 ↗ checklists and here we go so the project

1:01:07 ↗ I or the site that I chose is on Locust

1:01:10 ↗ Street down across from the Atlas

1:01:12 ↗ project and it's just about an acre site

1:01:17 ↗ and it's a square site and it's located

1:01:20 ↗ on a an urban street that's straight and

1:01:26 ↗ easy to build on I thought it is located

1:01:32 ↗ by a city-owned property to the south as

1:01:35 ↗ I said Atlas is to the north and the

1:01:38 ↗ salmon Bay Park is nearby as well it's

1:01:44 ↗ sewn to mixed-use residential and as we

1:01:49 ↗ already discussed it's in the confluence

1:01:51 ↗ neighborhood so here's the project site

1:01:55 ↗ the proposal is a mixed-use residential

1:02:00 ↗ commercial building with 36 units

1:02:04 ↗ two-bedroom units 40 spaces of parking

1:02:09 ↗ that will be on the ground floor under

1:02:12 ↗ the under the residential units not not

1:02:16 ↗ underground parking but surface level

1:02:18 ↗ within the building and there will be

1:02:21 ↗ frontage improvements to locust and then

1:02:23 ↗ a through block passage on the west side

1:02:27 ↗ here is the first floor plan

1:02:30 ↗ the outline is not showing up very well

1:02:33 ↗ but your packet would have it more

1:02:35 ↗ clearly the commercial units are up in

1:02:37 ↗ the front and then that's the layout of

1:02:40 ↗ the parking the loading and trash and by

1:02:45 ↗ bike parking or also inside there you

1:02:50 ↗ can kind of follow along she's up to

1:02:52 ↗ page 36 in your packet this is the rough

1:02:57 ↗ upper level floor plans there's going to

1:03:01 ↗ be a rec room in the front part of the

1:03:05 ↗ building where there's shared laundry

1:03:07 ↗ facilities and kind of loungy things

1:03:12 ↗ stairwells and elevator shafts and then

1:03:16 ↗ that's the unit make up and it's not

1:03:18 ↗ very clear for my drawings but the idea

1:03:20 ↗ is that on the ground floor this is the

1:03:23 ↗ building fills the whole footprint and

1:03:26 ↗ on the upper two levels it's sort of a

1:03:29 ↗ u-shaped building with the middle

1:03:30 ↗ portion open and here's the front the

1:03:37 ↗ drawing is kind of a little sketchy but

1:03:39 ↗ again look in your packets I chose to

1:03:42 ↗ apply the Western false front

1:03:44 ↗ architectural style since this site is

1:03:46 ↗ in the traditional Issaquah district and

1:03:51 ↗ it's has a has ground floor retail and

1:03:57 ↗ then the residences above and the

1:04:00 ↗ entrance to the parking garage is on the

1:04:02 ↗ far left side of the building so the

1:04:05 ↗ opposite side from the through block

1:04:07 ↗ passage goodnight can we jump in is that

1:04:10 ↗ okay before you're doing this sure go

1:04:12 ↗ ahead I guess a couple comments I had on

1:04:15 ↗ this were the on some of these things

1:04:18 ↗ where it says allowed required like

1:04:20 ↗ Florrie ratio where it says base 1.25 on

1:04:24 ↗ presume mean that's a 1.25 minimum we

1:04:27 ↗ have over 1.25 maximum for floor area

1:04:30 ↗ ratio that's a maximum so for the

1:04:35 ↗ the base and Max there's you have you

1:04:38 ↗ the maximum is 1.25 if you provide a

1:04:43 ↗ density bonus through is it payment into

1:04:47 ↗ a affordable housing or other mitigation

1:04:49 ↗ funds then you can go up to 2 so that's

1:04:52 ↗ a great question you haven't seen many

1:04:55 ↗ projects that fall into this some zoning

1:05:00 ↗ districts in central Issaquah there is a

1:05:03 ↗ minimum some sites of a certain size

1:05:07 ↗ have a minimum a site of 1 acre in this

1:05:11 ↗ part of central is quad does not have a

1:05:13 ↗ minimum FA our base means that if you

1:05:18 ↗ are below that you are not triggering

1:05:20 ↗ the density bonus provisions which is

1:05:24 ↗ actually either F AR or height but if

1:05:27 ↗ you go above the base you can go between

1:05:30 ↗ the base and the max if you either in

1:05:33 ↗ residential build a fort above housing

1:05:36 ↗ and pay in or various criteria and so I

1:05:40 ↗ I think my main point then is in all of

1:05:44 ↗ these to make sure we specify in the

1:05:46 ↗ chart what it is so like course of

1:05:49 ↗ Florrie ratio base 1.25 so if it's a

1:05:52 ↗ floor or a maximum ratio or a floor a

1:05:54 ↗ minimum ratio that we state that and the

1:05:57 ↗ other things like the setbacks where it

1:05:58 ↗ says 7 feet it's a seven foot maximum

1:06:03 ↗ those kind of things and to make that

1:06:06 ↗ clear so thank you and I did how much

1:06:08 ↗ compared to the package I think the

1:06:10 ↗ package on the proposed you did point

1:06:13 ↗ out the actual 1 point 2 2 must be

1:06:14 ↗ combined yeah there cuz we had those

1:06:17 ↗ separated for commercial and residential

1:06:20 ↗ yeah but we did my whole journey met

1:06:23 ↗ whether it would have met it or not yeah

1:06:25 ↗ yeah and you may if you dig too deep

1:06:27 ↗ into my pro forma there's not a lot

1:06:30 ↗ there so I've thought through most of

1:06:33 ↗ the details but but it's not a super

1:06:37 ↗ detailed project just because of the

1:06:39 ↗ mock permit nature openings but and then

1:06:41 ↗ I guess the other question be if this

1:06:43 ↗ came to us like this where it said

1:06:45 ↗ impervious approximately 80 percent yeah

1:06:47 ↗ and presuming we would have to have it

1:06:49 ↗ you probably would want things to be a

1:06:52 ↗ little bit more precise yeah yeah

1:06:54 ↗ approximately or less than or yeah okay

1:06:57 ↗ thank you and I would also note that I

1:07:02 ↗ lost returning to thought what was I

1:07:04 ↗ gonna say it'll come back to me oh I

1:07:07 ↗ remember now so I I played with the idea

1:07:09 ↗ of trying to max out the fa are just to

1:07:12 ↗ see what the biggest building could be

1:07:14 ↗ on this site and in the end I decided to

1:07:18 ↗ go back down because parking became the

1:07:21 ↗ limiting factor

1:07:22 ↗ even though parking is not included in

1:07:24 ↗ FA our calculation just fitting the

1:07:27 ↗ amount of parking within the building

1:07:30 ↗ footprint because I was I was advised to

1:07:32 ↗ avoid subterranean parking so fitting

1:07:35 ↗ that the amount of parking into the

1:07:37 ↗ footprint limited me to about 40 spaces

1:07:40 ↗ so that's why I didn't go all the way up

1:07:44 ↗ to I think I if I would have maxed out

1:07:46 ↗ at two we probably could have had

1:07:49 ↗ another story and it could have been up

1:07:51 ↗ to fifty units but there just was not

1:07:53 ↗ enough space to park that many cars and

1:07:55 ↗ also meet the 80% impervious surface

1:07:58 ↗ requirement that's a good question yeah

1:08:01 ↗ or for area ratio so the way I

1:08:04 ↗ understand it was built entirely at one

1:08:06 ↗ point I was that correct yes so if the

1:08:09 ↗ whole footprint of the site were built

1:08:11 ↗ one story that would be an F AR of one

1:08:13 ↗ yeah so in this case of 1.25 how does it

1:08:16 ↗ 2/5 coming just because they're not

1:08:18 ↗ using the entire lot they're going up a

1:08:20 ↗ few stories yeah let me go back to the

1:08:23 ↗ site plan so the green is the property

1:08:27 ↗ line and the orange box is the footprint

1:08:30 ↗ of the building and then so so that

1:08:34 ↗ itself already is below one then the

1:08:39 ↗ definition of gross floor area in the

1:08:41 ↗ code excludes all structured parking so

1:08:44 ↗ the whole first floor doesn't count at

1:08:46 ↗ all and then the front the commercial

1:08:50 ↗ spaces

1:08:51 ↗ I guess not the whole first floor but

1:08:52 ↗ the parking floor doesn't count the

1:08:54 ↗ commercial spaces and Lobby count and

1:08:57 ↗ then the residential units and that you

1:09:00 ↗ should

1:09:00 ↗ on both floors count and so all of that

1:09:03 ↗ space added together is 1.25 is a 1.25

1:09:08 ↗ or 1 point 2 - floor area ratio yeah

1:09:11 ↗ okay related question

1:09:13 ↗ so is it four-story or three storey

1:09:17 ↗ building it's three okay I think

1:09:19 ↗ originally on the original page says

1:09:21 ↗ four-story and the beginning of the

1:09:23 ↗ description and a process for that was

1:09:25 ↗ that was an old description oh and I had

1:09:29 ↗ not chopped the top floor yet sorry

1:09:31 ↗ about that

1:09:31 ↗ and the parking is ad grade then it's

1:09:34 ↗ not below grade right okay let's see so

1:09:40 ↗ I'll get into a little bit more of the

1:09:41 ↗ details so this is again the site and

1:09:44 ↗ its surrounding area

1:09:46 ↗ oops I'm going the wrong way there we go

1:09:50 ↗ so the circulation design matches the

1:09:54 ↗ through block passage with the through

1:09:57 ↗ block passage across the street in the

1:10:00 ↗ Atlas project it would then dead-end at

1:10:03 ↗ the end of this of the property however

1:10:06 ↗ the city owns the property directly to

1:10:09 ↗ the south so there's potential

1:10:11 ↗ opportunities later for continuing that

1:10:14 ↗ through block to the city-owned property

1:10:16 ↗ have a question about the if this really

1:10:19 ↗ came through this way we would be

1:10:21 ↗ setting up it seems like a passage route

1:10:25 ↗ that could eventually go from Atlas

1:10:27 ↗ through this project and further south

1:10:29 ↗ that would have an intentional area

1:10:33 ↗ where people would cross the street so

1:10:35 ↗ would this require I think we would

1:10:38 ↗ require that there be a crosswalk and

1:10:41 ↗ that it be you know Destry inactivated

1:10:44 ↗ or so this came up so this is probably

1:10:54 ↗ more about views and vistas than it is

1:10:57 ↗ about circulation so in the views and

1:11:04 ↗ vistas where we have circulation

1:11:08 ↗ facilities we have to continue the sight

1:11:11 ↗ lines of those circulation facilities

1:11:14 ↗ to allow to retain our sight lines to

1:11:19 ↗ our hillsides we didn't specify whether

1:11:23 ↗ circulation facilities were Vic Euler or

1:11:28 ↗ pedestrian so I had been I have actually

1:11:31 ↗ been thinking about this a lot since

1:11:33 ↗ atlas and what would happen with the

1:11:35 ↗ site so when Katie picked this site it

1:11:38 ↗ was actually an interesting opportunity

1:11:40 ↗ and we you know if you if you go to

1:11:43 ↗ Google Street View or bold enough to

1:11:45 ↗ actually go on site and stand on Gilman

1:11:50 ↗ and look down the side of Atlas through

1:11:53 ↗ the through blocked passage you will see

1:11:55 ↗ the hillside and so I said you know this

1:11:59 ↗ seems like a good opportunity to sort of

1:12:01 ↗ think about what the implications are of

1:12:04 ↗ this because I don't know that we really

1:12:05 ↗ meant through blocked passages but we

1:12:08 ↗ didn't specify when we wrote that views

1:12:11 ↗ and vistas and so I think that people

1:12:15 ↗ might choose to make that crossing you

1:12:18 ↗ would not necessarily mark all of those

1:12:23 ↗ but I think we were thinking about this

1:12:26 ↗ more serving the individual projects or

1:12:29 ↗ the individual block and in terms of a

1:12:33 ↗ circulation facility but more

1:12:37 ↗ importantly preserving sight lines down

1:12:40 ↗ circulation facility that make sense but

1:12:46 ↗ to your question commissioner if this

1:12:49 ↗ was a real application we would have

1:12:52 ↗ routed this to public works engineering

1:12:54 ↗ and public works engineering would have

1:12:57 ↗ indicated to us how they would want that

1:13:00 ↗ crossing address so whether there was a

1:13:03 ↗ painted crosswalk or nothing or you know

1:13:08 ↗ our RFPs

1:13:09 ↗ which are the things like we have out

1:13:11 ↗ here when you push the button and the

1:13:13 ↗ lights go off there's a lot of choices

1:13:15 ↗ and you know it's it a lot of it depends

1:13:19 ↗ on visibility and volume of traffic on

1:13:22 ↗ Locust all that would play into I think

1:13:25 ↗ the ultimate outcome

1:13:26 ↗ great thank you and then the other

1:13:29 ↗ question had about this if the was

1:13:31 ↗ private property to the south would we

1:13:34 ↗ require a through block passage nowhere

1:13:41 ↗ no I mean think about veil across the

1:13:44 ↗ street we put a through block passage

1:13:47 ↗ that goes to ages and at some point when

1:13:50 ↗ and it just it goes to alongside the

1:13:53 ↗ building and we preserve the easement

1:13:57 ↗ and if Aegis redevelops then we would

1:14:00 ↗ continue that through block passage and

1:14:03 ↗ that project would take it into

1:14:04 ↗ consideration it's you know the

1:14:07 ↗ challenge of incremental redevelop

1:14:10 ↗ redevelopment okay okay and then the

1:14:17 ↗ motorized routes on to the site are the

1:14:20 ↗ the red line that's showing the entrance

1:14:22 ↗ to parking garage and then the little

1:14:26 ↗ arrow the little blue arrow is showing

1:14:29 ↗ access to the plaza that's proposed at

1:14:32 ↗ the front of the building again this is

1:14:35 ↗ the landscape plan roughly showing that

1:14:39 ↗ trees will be replaced that will be

1:14:42 ↗ trees that will be removed are being

1:14:44 ↗ replaced around the edge of the property

1:14:46 ↗ and at the street and then that little

1:14:49 ↗ um this is our forecourt community space

1:14:54 ↗ and that will be publicly accessible

1:14:56 ↗ from the sidewalk and from the through

1:14:58 ↗ block passage baby excuse me can you go

1:15:01 ↗ back to the overview on the side the

1:15:05 ↗ foot foot so I want one more the aerial

1:15:10 ↗ photograph there we go

1:15:11 ↗ can you tell me where the nearest mass

1:15:15 ↗ transit stop is to the site so people

1:15:20 ↗ that are renting these are going to be

1:15:22 ↗ apartments right not Congress to be

1:15:25 ↗ determined okay well either either way

1:15:29 ↗ how would people access mass transit

1:15:34 ↗ from this site you'd have to walk to

1:15:36 ↗ Gilman or Newport Billman in Newport

1:15:39 ↗ Gilman

1:15:40 ↗ or Newport yeah but that's my I I think

1:15:44 ↗ there's

1:15:46 ↗ we talked on the Atlas application and

1:15:48 ↗ the lofts application we talked about

1:15:55 ↗ where the bus stop was going to be in

1:15:58 ↗ both directions and it was actually

1:16:00 ↗ going to be moved I thought that's so

1:16:03 ↗ that's a very interesting point the bus

1:16:07 ↗ stop with the lofts was part of the

1:16:11 ↗ development agreement that we would that

1:16:13 ↗ they would explore moving it with Atlas

1:16:18 ↗ they wanted to negotiate moving the bus

1:16:22 ↗ stop and worked with Metro to relocate

1:16:25 ↗ it that's a really unusual thing I mean

1:16:31 ↗ I think that maybe the only times in my

1:16:34 ↗ 20 years in a squad that I've seen that

1:16:37 ↗ kind of thing happen that a developer

1:16:39 ↗ would ask to work with King County well

1:16:43 ↗ they're welcome to work with King County

1:16:46 ↗ but we don't usually mandate it because

1:16:49 ↗ you know everyone would like to have a

1:16:51 ↗ bus stop with their project and there's

1:16:53 ↗ a lot of regulations for Atlas it was

1:16:57 ↗ that they it was on one side of an

1:16:59 ↗ intersection and they wanted it on the

1:17:01 ↗ other side which is consistent with

1:17:03 ↗ where Metro is putting things stops now

1:17:06 ↗ but if there are no bus routes near the

1:17:12 ↗ project we probably would not be asking

1:17:15 ↗ them to design something well I wasn't

1:17:18 ↗ specifically thinking about that I just

1:17:20 ↗ wanted I know we're trying to get more

1:17:21 ↗ and more people to walk and take mass

1:17:23 ↗ transit so my question was how realistic

1:17:25 ↗ is it to expect the residents of this of

1:17:28 ↗ this project to avail themselves of mass

1:17:31 ↗ transit in the winter I mean how much of

1:17:34 ↗ a hike is it to the nearest bus stop I

1:17:36 ↗ guess that's my that's my question

1:17:38 ↗ and why are you and what's well at some

1:17:45 ↗ point and you mentioned a just being

1:17:48 ↗ redeveloped so at some point I assume

1:17:50 ↗ it's going to fill in and it's

1:17:52 ↗ to be multifamily with real estate so

1:17:57 ↗ we're gonna get more and more people

1:17:58 ↗ living on the same thing and the

1:18:00 ↗ encouragement is to try to get them to

1:18:02 ↗ take mass transit not to drive and and

1:18:05 ↗ so I'm trying to envision this project

1:18:09 ↗ going in the nearest bus stop being

1:18:12 ↗ where we're people that want to go to

1:18:14 ↗ Seattle to work and avail themselves of

1:18:17 ↗ mass transit and then how what the when

1:18:21 ↗ when more and more people are

1:18:23 ↗ concentrated there that there as I

1:18:27 ↗ understand it now they're getting

1:18:28 ↗ further away to the to the south from

1:18:32 ↗ Gilman Boulevard which is where I think

1:18:35 ↗ the main bus stops are at present so

1:18:39 ↗ that that was my question that how do we

1:18:42 ↗ accommodate if this is getting to the

1:18:44 ↗ point I assume where people are going to

1:18:47 ↗ look out the window and said not today

1:18:48 ↗ that that the bus the King County that

1:18:52 ↗ we work with King County to to move the

1:18:55 ↗ mass transit capabilities based on

1:18:58 ↗ population shifting or whatever it is I

1:19:01 ↗ would think that it would take more than

1:19:03 ↗ a project like this I agree I know it's

1:19:09 ↗ it's a dance Metro has their metrics

1:19:16 ↗ that they require I mean when Gateway

1:19:19 ↗ and Reva and Gateway Senior Open they

1:19:23 ↗ may be restoring bus service to Newport

1:19:27 ↗ we don't know that for sure is that

1:19:31 ↗ something that the city would really

1:19:33 ↗ like to get more clarity on or bring

1:19:36 ↗ there is regular communication and

1:19:40 ↗ meetings on that I mean partly because

1:19:42 ↗ we have the 200 service which we pay for

1:19:46 ↗ it

1:19:47 ↗ the city pays forward to have so you

1:19:52 ↗ know we've made changes to the 200

1:19:54 ↗ service thinking about how where it's

1:19:57 ↗ the most effective routes to use the

1:19:59 ↗ minutes that we have they're trying

1:20:04 ↗ Metro is

1:20:06 ↗ trying a call reservation system up at

1:20:11 ↗ is qua Highlands where there are fixed

1:20:13 ↗ like four or six fixed stops and you

1:20:17 ↗ have to have made a reservation in

1:20:19 ↗ advance in the peak hours in the morning

1:20:22 ↗ the afternoon I mean there there are

1:20:24 ↗ different things that are coming along

1:20:26 ↗ as there's more density but it isn't

1:20:29 ↗ something where it it's not a straight

1:20:35 ↗ easy formula dungeon emergence things

1:20:38 ↗ happen I just wanted it for how much of

1:20:40 ↗ it how much of it is proactive

1:20:43 ↗ anticipating or reactive I think it's

1:20:47 ↗ more reactive and then the other thing

1:20:49 ↗ is what their walk distance is since I

1:20:53 ↗ live in Seattle and near between to

1:20:56 ↗ sound transit stations are gonna open in

1:20:58 ↗ the next year or two and they I'm a

1:21:00 ↗ 10-minute walk and they don't consider

1:21:02 ↗ my house being served by the transit

1:21:04 ↗ stations which i think is crazy they're

1:21:07 ↗ saying a five minute walk so I I don't

1:21:10 ↗ quite understand to have some I mean

1:21:13 ↗ that's that's the City of Seattle Wow

1:21:15 ↗ okay thank you I do have one quick

1:21:19 ↗ question on this apologies I'm still

1:21:21 ↗ kind of getting acquainted with the

1:21:23 ↗ through passage and the the definition

1:21:24 ↗ of that but hypothetically if that

1:21:27 ↗ through passage between Atlas and then

1:21:30 ↗ the other apartment complex was at an

1:21:32 ↗ angle would we have to maintain an angle

1:21:36 ↗ through passage on this project site as

1:21:38 ↗ well because right now it's just

1:21:40 ↗ north-south but say that was at a 45

1:21:42 ↗ degree if that parcel was angled we have

1:21:46 ↗ to maintain that angle on this project

1:21:47 ↗ site so as a result possibly create two

1:21:50 ↗ separate buildings possibly I mean we're

1:21:54 ↗ still that's why I was describing it the

1:21:56 ↗ way I was to the Commission because this

1:21:59 ↗ is the first time we're sort of seeing

1:22:01 ↗ something that isn't a street that is

1:22:03 ↗ kind of going to play that's kind of an

1:22:05 ↗ interesting question because at the same

1:22:07 ↗ time we're driving toward a block

1:22:08 ↗ orientation right more rectangular and

1:22:11 ↗ less odd shaped Lots grid right okay so

1:22:21 ↗ I'm gonna go through the developer

1:22:24 ↗ obligations now and and I wanted to do

1:22:28 ↗ this more as a kind of a teaching

1:22:31 ↗ workshopping tool rather than just going

1:22:34 ↗ through the standards for this for the

1:22:36 ↗ mock development permit so you could see

1:22:38 ↗ how you've seen in the staff report how

1:22:40 ↗ I presented it this is the first time

1:22:42 ↗ you will have seen this in a staff

1:22:44 ↗ report so I want to know if that's a

1:22:47 ↗ helpful way to present it or if there's

1:22:49 ↗ other ways that could be more helpful

1:22:51 ↗ okay so for liveable there's I'm gonna

1:22:54 ↗ go back there I don't have it so there

1:22:57 ↗ are five different vision themes is that

1:23:00 ↗ right four or five liveable distinct

1:23:04 ↗ sustainable anyway they're connected

1:23:07 ↗ connected thank you so for the

1:23:10 ↗ confluence neighborhood there are three

1:23:12 ↗ items in liveable and the two that I've

1:23:17 ↗ highlighted in yellow those are those

1:23:21 ↗ are requirements that go beyond what the

1:23:25 ↗ central Issaquah standards require so

1:23:27 ↗ those are kind of extra they're code in

1:23:30 ↗ addition to what's otherwise required

1:23:33 ↗ the number one about providing amenities

1:23:37 ↗ that invite social opportunity that's

1:23:40 ↗ that is also incorporated into some of

1:23:43 ↗ the design standards so this project has

1:23:46 ↗ the four core plaza at the at the front

1:23:51 ↗ of it to encourage pedestrians to come

1:23:53 ↗ and sit it there's a through block

1:23:55 ↗ passage that's also open to the public

1:23:58 ↗ so we would say that this complies with

1:24:00 ↗ that developer developer objective

1:24:03 ↗ enhance a variety of housing choices

1:24:06 ↗ this one has two bedroom units which I'm

1:24:11 ↗ basing my experience on Seattle

1:24:14 ↗ experience but I think that more

1:24:15 ↗ typically these days

1:24:17 ↗ smaller units are being built so I

1:24:19 ↗ thought I would mix things up by

1:24:21 ↗ building larger units

1:24:23 ↗ and so that would comply with this

1:24:26 ↗ objective and then the third one provide

1:24:30 ↗ wayfinding for local and regional trail

1:24:33 ↗ users as supported by the city's

1:24:35 ↗ wayfinding plan so this project is

1:24:38 ↗ located close to a regional trail I'm

1:24:40 ↗ going to zoom back here to show you

1:24:44 ↗ right here and I am blanking on the name

1:24:47 ↗ of this trail that the it's juniper

1:24:49 ↗ juniper Trail thank you so it's close to

1:24:53 ↗ the Juniper trail and the proposal did

1:24:56 ↗ not include signage so it's going to be

1:24:58 ↗ conditioned that that the project plan

1:25:02 ↗ would have wayfinding markers either at

1:25:05 ↗ the through block passage or at the

1:25:06 ↗ corners of the property that would

1:25:08 ↗ direct pedestrians to the Juniper trail

1:25:12 ↗ any questions on on these what was the

1:25:15 ↗ meaning of the highlighting then so this

1:25:18 ↗ was I'm trying I was trying to

1:25:20 ↗ distinguish that some of the developer

1:25:23 ↗ job legations are similar to

1:25:27 ↗ requirements that are made in other

1:25:29 ↗ places of the code for example the first

1:25:31 ↗ one about amenities there are lots of

1:25:34 ↗ there's a chapter in the central

1:25:36 ↗ Issaquah standards about community space

1:25:39 ↗ and amenities so those kind of mirror

1:25:41 ↗ each other but the other two variety of

1:25:44 ↗ housing choices that's an example of a

1:25:47 ↗ standard that doesn't show up anywhere

1:25:48 ↗ else so that would be unique as an as a

1:25:52 ↗ developer obligation I don't know if

1:25:54 ↗ it's unique to this neighborhood but

1:25:56 ↗ that would have been the only place

1:25:58 ↗ where it would show up and same with the

1:26:01 ↗ wayfinding tools although there are some

1:26:03 ↗ some signage requirements other places

1:26:05 ↗ in code questions I'm seeing some raised

1:26:11 ↗ eyebrows I'm wondering if we need that

1:26:13 ↗ or if we that is going to be explained

1:26:16 ↗ you know in the checklist so people

1:26:18 ↗ understand that the highlight is not a

1:26:20 ↗ necessity bound for other kinds of

1:26:23 ↗ highlighting so one if we really need

1:26:25 ↗ that distinction so you might look at

1:26:28 ↗ pages 20 and 21 in your packet because

1:26:34 ↗ as

1:26:35 ↗ kind of briefly mentioned what she's

1:26:38 ↗ showing on the screen is not what you

1:26:40 ↗ received this is the educational sort of

1:26:44 ↗ piece of it to help you understand that

1:26:46 ↗ some parts of the developer obligations

1:26:50 ↗ complement things that are in the

1:26:53 ↗ development standards central is quest

1:26:56 ↗ standards and then the two pieces she

1:26:59 ↗ highlighted don't really have specific

1:27:02 ↗ code provisions in the it squad Stan

1:27:05 ↗ it's quite central Issaquah standards

1:27:08 ↗ and so these obligations the only way

1:27:12 ↗ we're going to get them is through this

1:27:14 ↗ developer obligation at least at this

1:27:16 ↗ time and so you can see on pages 20 and

1:27:19 ↗ 21 the way she went through them from a

1:27:23 ↗ staff report staff report perspective

1:27:26 ↗ this is the educational sort of

1:27:30 ↗ complementary piece of that at help does

1:27:34 ↗ that make more sense airily you would

1:27:35 ↗ not see it this way in a checklist form

1:27:37 ↗ or exactly can I follow up on that

1:27:41 ↗ question so it's done administratively

1:27:43 ↗ you make recommendations and identify

1:27:46 ↗ the developer obligations you put them

1:27:47 ↗ in front of us and we approve them well

1:27:50 ↗ this will be similar to the other

1:27:53 ↗ standards that that the staff report

1:27:55 ↗ will address this will be included in

1:27:57 ↗ the staff report so it's required in

1:28:00 ↗ order to get the permit approved so you

1:28:02 ↗ would be if you didn't feel like a

1:28:04 ↗ developer hadn't met the obligation then

1:28:07 ↗ we would need to talk about that and

1:28:08 ↗ maybe add a condition so you remember

1:28:11 ↗ the the chart that Keith had up on the

1:28:14 ↗ screen that had liveable whatever

1:28:18 ↗ connected and sustainable so that that's

1:28:22 ↗ the part that she oh thank you so the

1:28:24 ↗ parts that she's reading are in the side

1:28:27 ↗ that dashed box and those those specific

1:28:32 ↗ words if they were not there we wouldn't

1:28:34 ↗ be having this conversation so we're not

1:28:36 ↗ coming up with developer obligations

1:28:38 ↗ that are unique to each project we're

1:28:41 ↗ looking at each project within the

1:28:44 ↗ developer obligations that were

1:28:46 ↗ identified to implement the

1:28:48 ↗ character of that particular

1:28:50 ↗ neighborhood so their performance base

1:28:53 ↗ yes their performance standards thank

1:28:58 ↗ you yeah okay so distinctive there is

1:29:07 ↗ only one and it concerns connection to

1:29:11 ↗ is a Kwok Creek and this site does not

1:29:14 ↗ connect directly or very easily

1:29:17 ↗ indirectly to Issaquah Creek so I

1:29:19 ↗ determined that it does not apply now

1:29:23 ↗ there are frontage improvements going

1:29:25 ↗ into the sidewalk so there will be

1:29:27 ↗ improvements to the pedestrian

1:29:29 ↗ infrastructure to help people who may be

1:29:32 ↗ walking off-site but that's the extent

1:29:36 ↗ of this one okay okay so connected this

1:29:44 ↗ one again was not the first one provide

1:29:48 ↗ non motorized connections to facilitate

1:29:50 ↗ public access to transit on Newports way

1:29:52 ↗ and Gilman Boulevard beyond the sidewalk

1:29:55 ↗ improvements that wasn't applicable to

1:29:58 ↗ this project I have a question about

1:30:00 ↗ that I think during the I remember I

1:30:03 ↗ during the discussion about this

1:30:05 ↗ requirement at like planning policy in

1:30:09 ↗ the city that there was some discussion

1:30:11 ↗ about even if you're not on Newport Way

1:30:14 ↗ or a Gillman there can still be

1:30:16 ↗ requirements and I think Keith you

1:30:18 ↗ touched on this sort of that it wouldn't

1:30:22 ↗ necessarily just be not applicable

1:30:24 ↗ because there's always something you can

1:30:26 ↗ do to help facilitate facilitate access

1:30:29 ↗ to transit

1:30:30 ↗ so even I guess if even if it's just

1:30:32 ↗ creating sidewalks that connect other

1:30:34 ↗ sidewalks that connect to Gilman maybe

1:30:37 ↗ that would be considered something we

1:30:39 ↗ should bring out so rather than saying

1:30:41 ↗ that it's not applicable it is

1:30:43 ↗ applicable because we're improving this

1:30:45 ↗ sidewalk network yeah that's what I

1:30:47 ↗ that's what I thought I remember from

1:30:48 ↗ those discussions about this requirement

1:30:50 ↗ originally and it could even be in the

1:30:53 ↗ form of signage I mean I don't see any

1:30:56 ↗ reason why when you're having a

1:30:58 ↗ a multi-family development with science

1:31:02 ↗ Natuna portrayal this way and so on

1:31:04 ↗ where you couldn't say you know mass

1:31:08 ↗ transit bus stop that way and and have

1:31:11 ↗ that be part of every building that's

1:31:14 ↗ got that's got multifamily it's part of

1:31:17 ↗ the part of the suggestion so part of

1:31:23 ↗ the way any of this is gonna work and I

1:31:25 ↗ think you kind of went there earlier

1:31:27 ↗ Randy and I'll take you back there

1:31:28 ↗ because I agree so if we're gonna get

1:31:31 ↗ people to ride transit and they're not

1:31:33 ↗ on you know a transit route right now

1:31:36 ↗ then you have to facilitate their access

1:31:39 ↗ to those locations right and so part of

1:31:42 ↗ what three point one is is you know

1:31:45 ↗ let's assume Atlas was not there or you

1:31:48 ↗ know it is there and there is a through

1:31:50 ↗ block connection so facilitating

1:31:52 ↗ crossing there versus having to go over

1:31:54 ↗ to seventh and uh makes it more direct

1:31:57 ↗ right and and if you want people to walk

1:31:59 ↗ you give them choices and you make it as

1:32:01 ↗ easy for them to get there as possible

1:32:03 ↗ so I would have probably and this isn't

1:32:07 ↗ being critical of Katie I would probably

1:32:08 ↗ have said it complies and here's why we

1:32:11 ↗ think it complies also likewise as far

1:32:16 ↗ as the connection to Newport and transit

1:32:18 ↗ on Newport you know this will with the

1:32:22 ↗ wayfinding signs I think points you over

1:32:24 ↗ to the Juniper trail which then works

1:32:26 ↗ your way down to get to Newport in a

1:32:28 ↗ safe and hopefully pleasant way you know

1:32:31 ↗ and you know this could also even evolve

1:32:36 ↗ into a conversation on this particular

1:32:37 ↗ project for the trail that runs south of

1:32:42 ↗ Safeway is that still the juniper trail

1:32:44 ↗ mm-hmm okay you know I mean that is

1:32:48 ↗ actually the fastest way to get to the

1:32:49 ↗ park and ride on 900

1:32:52 ↗ and so you know there could be some

1:32:53 ↗ wayfinding that way that says you know

1:32:56 ↗ park and right garage you know a half a

1:32:58 ↗ mile okay that helps people get places

1:33:01 ↗ it makes them think oh yeah a half a

1:33:03 ↗ mile I can do that in ten minute it

1:33:06 ↗ might be worth thinking about a radius

1:33:08 ↗ of you know a half a mile if transits

1:33:10 ↗ within this you know such a radius

1:33:14 ↗ distance to encourage a developer to

1:33:16 ↗ look you know not just right outside

1:33:18 ↗ your front door but within a three-block

1:33:20 ↗ or a five block or whatever radius we

1:33:22 ↗ could think about that as as staff

1:33:24 ↗ during pre application conferences for

1:33:26 ↗ example I talked about talked through

1:33:28 ↗ that all right so provide weather

1:33:32 ↗ protection for primary pedestrian

1:33:34 ↗ walkways including the through block

1:33:36 ↗ passages year-round outdoor seating

1:33:38 ↗ opportunities and transit stops so for

1:33:41 ↗ this one the building you can flip back

1:33:45 ↗ to the elevations that might be easier

1:33:47 ↗ to see has does have a canopy on the

1:33:50 ↗ front along the sidewalk and then also

1:33:52 ↗ along the through block passage and

1:33:53 ↗ there's some covered areas for seating

1:33:56 ↗ at the plaza we talked we've talked a

1:34:00 ↗ lot in several previous meetings

1:34:03 ↗ particularly those that had to do with

1:34:04 ↗ with Gilman about the transit stops and

1:34:09 ↗ I'm glad to see that because I think the

1:34:11 ↗ spirit of the of the DC was that we

1:34:15 ↗ should work as aggressively as possible

1:34:17 ↗ with King County again to make every bus

1:34:21 ↗ stop particularly the ones that are

1:34:24 ↗ around multifamily buildings be have

1:34:28 ↗ some form of cover so I was glad to see

1:34:30 ↗ that included in there as as the

1:34:34 ↗ desirable status for those going forward

1:34:37 ↗ I think that it'd be significant

1:34:38 ↗ personally and I am showing a condition

1:34:42 ↗ here so it must be that a portion of the

1:34:45 ↗ plaza is not covered that I was

1:34:47 ↗ conditioning that that needed to be

1:34:48 ↗ covered okay

1:34:51 ↗ sustainable I'm sorry for the question

1:34:53 ↗ but that was something else that also

1:34:55 ↗ came up in terms of permanent outdoor

1:34:57 ↗ seating and the requirement to have it

1:35:00 ↗ cover

1:35:01 ↗ I can't remember if the obligation says

1:35:03 ↗ that all permanent or seating has to be

1:35:07 ↗ covered because there's question would

1:35:10 ↗ it be permanent versus some could be

1:35:12 ↗ temporary outdoor seating and so are you

1:35:16 ↗ thinking that was one of the developer

1:35:17 ↗ obligations I thought there was

1:35:19 ↗ something that discussion about whether

1:35:20 ↗ it had to be if it was perfect so I hope

1:35:23 ↗ I'm demonstrating that this is a

1:35:24 ↗ training for me as well so I don't think

1:35:31 ↗ that that may very well be true it just

1:35:34 ↗ may be for a different neighborhood okay

1:35:37 ↗ I mean I don't remember seeing it in

1:35:40 ↗ here so it may have says that it should

1:35:44 ↗ be you'll see when we get into the

1:35:47 ↗ design manual that there's also weather

1:35:49 ↗ protection standards there that talked

1:35:52 ↗ about covering seating if three - if

1:35:55 ↗ three - we've got some of the maybe less

1:36:00 ↗ clear language that I authored so okay

1:36:03 ↗ provide weather protection for primary

1:36:06 ↗ pedestrian walkways and I'm gonna skip

1:36:09 ↗ the parens , year-round outdoor seating

1:36:12 ↗ opportunities comma and transit stops

1:36:14 ↗ alright so now we get some discretion

1:36:18 ↗ what does that mean right so does that

1:36:20 ↗ mean it's completely weather protected

1:36:23 ↗ covering for outdoor seating now part of

1:36:26 ↗ it is because those configurations can

1:36:29 ↗ dimensionally look a lot different right

1:36:31 ↗ they may be linear if they're running

1:36:33 ↗ along in the front of a building they

1:36:34 ↗ may be more square as katie has provided

1:36:38 ↗ in this application so as we think about

1:36:41 ↗ weather protection you know what would

1:36:44 ↗ it look like to cover that entire Plaza

1:36:46 ↗ with weather protection and is that the

1:36:50 ↗ endgame that we would want with this

1:36:52 ↗ application

1:36:53 ↗ I think there's discretion so as Kevin

1:36:56 ↗ brought up earlier these are performance

1:36:57 ↗ based which means we get to talk about

1:37:00 ↗ what satisfies the expectation here and

1:37:04 ↗ there's some room for discretion so this

1:37:06 ↗ isn't this is a numeric this is about

1:37:09 ↗ what does it feel like what does it look

1:37:10 ↗ like and it could very well be that

1:37:12 ↗ extending a canopy over that entire

1:37:14 ↗ Plaza might make the plaza dark it might

1:37:17 ↗ make it you know it's gonna it's gonna

1:37:18 ↗ affect the plaza so we would talk I

1:37:20 ↗ would assume we would talk about that

1:37:22 ↗ quite a bit as we talk about what's the

1:37:24 ↗ right amount of weather protection for

1:37:26 ↗ this seating area yeah and cuz I'm

1:37:28 ↗ really glad you that this came up

1:37:30 ↗ because now that I look at it it occurs

1:37:32 ↗ to me that weather protection is great

1:37:36 ↗ for bus stops because that's gonna

1:37:38 ↗ encourage people to go there the outdoor

1:37:42 ↗ seating opportunities in in my opinion

1:37:45 ↗ people are not going to go out door and

1:37:48 ↗ seat themselves unless there's sunshine

1:37:51 ↗ frankly smoking brake well yeah yeah I

1:37:57 ↗ someplace where I can smoke a cigar but

1:38:00 ↗ but but but the way that's worded now it

1:38:03 ↗ seems to me that it is kind of

1:38:05 ↗ all-inclusive and I'm not sure that that

1:38:08 ↗ people are going to use outdoor seating

1:38:11 ↗ if the weather is inclement as opposed

1:38:15 ↗ to a bus stop or some of these other

1:38:17 ↗ ones we're talking about that so that

1:38:21 ↗ when I read that at first it just rolled

1:38:24 ↗ over it but that sounds kind of

1:38:26 ↗ mandatory so so part of it I think and

1:38:29 ↗ then I don't want I agree with a lot of

1:38:31 ↗ what you said Randy I think part of this

1:38:33 ↗ is it's gonna a lot of it's gonna depend

1:38:35 ↗ on the facing of the plaza right so this

1:38:39 ↗ one is gonna have it's not gonna have

1:38:42 ↗ Southern Sun because it's on the north

1:38:44 ↗ side of the building

1:38:45 ↗ right it might get some Western exposure

1:38:48 ↗ so as we talk about because I agree with

1:38:51 ↗ you outdoor seating here you're gonna

1:38:53 ↗ want opportunities to get Sun and

1:38:55 ↗ depending on how that plaza is facing

1:38:58 ↗ you know you could have it covered

1:39:01 ↗ and it still has sun exposure or you

1:39:04 ↗ could have it if it was on the northeast

1:39:05 ↗ part of the building you know and it was

1:39:07 ↗ completely covered just be darken and

1:39:10 ↗ green the whole time right so I think

1:39:13 ↗ part of it is there's there's room for

1:39:15 ↗ discretion on how we apply this

1:39:17 ↗ particular obligation and we're gonna

1:39:20 ↗ hear from the applicant you know they're

1:39:21 ↗ gonna want the the space to be hopefully

1:39:24 ↗ successful as well as part of their

1:39:26 ↗ project so there's going to be

1:39:28 ↗ a lot of voices for us to consider

1:39:29 ↗ before we say okay is there enough

1:39:32 ↗ weather protection in that particular

1:39:33 ↗ space so I'm hoping that and again going

1:39:37 ↗ back to what Lucy said earlier three

1:39:39 ↗ projects and then let's talk about

1:39:41 ↗ whether we drew the line in the right

1:39:42 ↗ place or not and I'm I'm really glad to

1:39:45 ↗ hear that you think that you have that

1:39:47 ↗ discretion because I did not agree with

1:39:49 ↗ the idea that it has to always be

1:39:51 ↗ covered all the time so well at the same

1:39:53 ↗ time this condition right applies to

1:39:56 ↗ developer obligations in the SIPP but

1:39:59 ↗ some of this doesn't it cross over to

1:40:01 ↗ the urban design guidelines for example

1:40:04 ↗ you know if we look on page 63 is 65 of

1:40:07 ↗ the handout it's on weather protection

1:40:09 ↗ and it says the weather protection that

1:40:11 ↗ benefits the intended users such as

1:40:13 ↗ pedestrians and outdoor seating this is

1:40:17 ↗ outdoor seating right so yeah so is it

1:40:21 ↗ required by urban design guidelines here

1:40:24 ↗ or well yeah I guess the way I read this

1:40:32 ↗ is it says year-round outdoor seating

1:40:37 ↗ opportunities it I think that means that

1:40:40 ↗ there they are available but not every

1:40:43 ↗ outdoor seat is year-round protected and

1:40:49 ↗ there was actually a lot of discussion

1:40:53 ↗ at the council related to the urban

1:40:57 ↗ design page that you're identifying

1:40:59 ↗ Richard concerns where weather

1:41:03 ↗ protection is protecting pots and things

1:41:07 ↗ that or even outdoor tables instead of

1:41:12 ↗ the pedestrian who wants to walk along

1:41:14 ↗ the building so I don't remember the

1:41:17 ↗ exact language that got inserted but

1:41:19 ↗ there was some additional language put

1:41:21 ↗ on that page to try and give priority to

1:41:24 ↗ pedestrians using the page rather the

1:41:28 ↗ the path that has weather protection

1:41:31 ↗ rather than other uses that might like

1:41:35 ↗ it but that wasn't the first priority

1:41:38 ↗ right I see the comments on there really

1:41:41 ↗ talk about the

1:41:42 ↗ block passage and so on and the overhang

1:41:44 ↗ and all that and that's really why one

1:41:46 ↗ checkbox is checked on that list and not

1:41:49 ↗ another all right the final section is

1:41:56 ↗ sustainable and there are three

1:41:58 ↗ obligations one conserve and restore

1:42:01 ↗ natural areas and wildlife corridors

1:42:03 ↗ they said it was not applicable Keith

1:42:06 ↗ may think differently this is not

1:42:09 ↗ adjacent to any critical areas there is

1:42:12 ↗ a city-owned property as I said that's

1:42:15 ↗ kind of park like but it's not an actual

1:42:17 ↗ park incorporate green building measures

1:42:22 ↗ such as approaches listed in the city

1:42:24 ↗ sustainable building action strategy so

1:42:27 ↗ for this one there wasn't a lot of

1:42:31 ↗ information provided from the developer

1:42:33 ↗ on their plans for that but things like

1:42:38 ↗ a green roof certainly could be

1:42:40 ↗ incorporated LED fixtures solar panels

1:42:43 ↗ and then the the sustainable building

1:42:46 ↗ action strategy also talks about

1:42:49 ↗ encouraging people to get out and use

1:42:51 ↗ the outdoors in nature and so I probably

1:42:53 ↗ also could have mentioned the through

1:42:55 ↗ block passage and connecting making

1:42:57 ↗ connections to the green necklace how do

1:43:00 ↗ you as an applicant how do you make a

1:43:03 ↗ distinction what's your criteria for

1:43:05 ↗ deciding whether it's going to be a

1:43:07 ↗ green roof or social gathering areas

1:43:11 ↗ well for this site this was not in the

1:43:15 ↗ urban core so the roof a rooftop active

1:43:18 ↗ roof was not required so I suppose the

1:43:22 ↗ applicant would just need to decide if

1:43:23 ↗ if they wanted that as a feature of

1:43:25 ↗ their development and it made sense with

1:43:27 ↗ the building and with their program and

1:43:29 ↗ budget

1:43:30 ↗ Katie could you talk I don't I imagine

1:43:34 ↗ the commissioners are not familiar with

1:43:37 ↗ sustainable building action strategy and

1:43:40 ↗ and I think that there's some guidance

1:43:42 ↗ in there that would help developers

1:43:47 ↗ select yeah so the the green building

1:43:51 ↗ action strategy

1:43:52 ↗ it's a combination it's a document

1:43:55 ↗ that's the city put together and it's

1:43:56 ↗ combination of actions that the city

1:43:59 ↗ wants to take to be a leader in

1:44:01 ↗ sustainability and then focuses such as

1:44:04 ↗ green building and activating getting

1:44:07 ↗ people outdoors and other things to help

1:44:09 ↗ citizens be more active and sustainable

1:44:13 ↗ and also developers so it's it has

1:44:16 ↗ several strategies that a developer

1:44:19 ↗ could consider for the project and I

1:44:24 ↗ think that it's also up to the developer

1:44:26 ↗ to think through how they want to do

1:44:29 ↗ that not just for general information

1:44:31 ↗ not having any architectural expertise

1:44:35 ↗ at all I assume is there is there a

1:44:38 ↗ significant difference between the cost

1:44:41 ↗ of a green roof for a new structure and

1:44:46 ↗ designating it as a get you know social

1:44:49 ↗ gathering area with barbecues and stuff

1:44:51 ↗ like that is I don't know there may be

1:44:55 ↗ more expertise on the Commission general

1:44:58 ↗ general question one thing to think

1:45:00 ↗ about and and actually there's a project

1:45:03 ↗ being built in Issaquah highlands that

1:45:05 ↗ has this is the exiting requirements for

1:45:09 ↗ things on the rooftop actually in the

1:45:11 ↗ same way that parking constrains the

1:45:14 ↗ number of units exiting constrains the

1:45:17 ↗ amount of space that can be devoted to a

1:45:21 ↗ rooftop use and so that particular

1:45:24 ↗ project chose to do a green roof for the

1:45:26 ↗ rest of the area because they had

1:45:30 ↗ already I guess increased the loads to

1:45:32 ↗ handle the activities and so those and

1:45:35 ↗ plus it's more attractive maybe and so

1:45:38 ↗ they had both active areas for resident

1:45:42 ↗ use and then green roof on the rest of

1:45:44 ↗ it both are really expensive

1:45:49 ↗ okay I mean they truly are beyond just

1:45:52 ↗ yeah this is a sustainable buildings

1:45:56 ↗ traction strategy include a quantifiable

1:46:00 ↗ measure like lead lead certification no

1:46:03 ↗ it doesn't have a rating system like

1:46:05 ↗ that it's more kind of a list of

1:46:09 ↗ different strategies to consider some

1:46:11 ↗ are appropriate to individuals some are

1:46:14 ↗ more City strategies and policies so

1:46:17 ↗ it's kind of a mixed bag but it's not

1:46:18 ↗ like a leads lead rating system if an

1:46:22 ↗ applicant was pursuing lead

1:46:24 ↗ certification is there some overlap

1:46:27 ↗ between the requirements for lead and

1:46:29 ↗ what some of these guidelines list so

1:46:32 ↗ they could fulfill some of those

1:46:33 ↗ requirements if they pursued lead sure I

1:46:35 ↗ would say that if they're if they're

1:46:37 ↗ pursuing lead that would be an example

1:46:38 ↗ of meeting that Green Building directive

1:46:41 ↗ that the action strategy talks about for

1:46:44 ↗ sure so probably I don't think you got

1:46:49 ↗ it today but it should be probably

1:46:53 ↗ coming out tomorrow morning the packet

1:46:55 ↗ for next week's meeting so unfortunately

1:46:58 ↗ all your good ideas won't necessarily

1:47:00 ↗ show up in that staff report but when

1:47:03 ↗ that goes out either Katie or I will try

1:47:06 ↗ and send you a link to the sustainable

1:47:08 ↗ building action strategy just so you

1:47:10 ↗ have a chance to familiar yourself

1:47:12 ↗ familiarize yourself with and and I'm

1:47:14 ↗ gonna put my staff on the spot and say

1:47:16 ↗ my expectation similar to the

1:47:19 ↗ conversation we had about the crosswalk

1:47:21 ↗ because we are not the experts in that

1:47:24 ↗ document it came out of our office of

1:47:27 ↗ sustainability I would expect we would

1:47:29 ↗ have at least had a conversation with os

1:47:32 ↗ to say okay here's what they're planning

1:47:35 ↗ to do for this particular application do

1:47:37 ↗ you think it meets this developer

1:47:39 ↗ obligation or not and then we would

1:47:41 ↗ populate our staff report with that

1:47:44 ↗ conversation so you guys at least see

1:47:45 ↗ that now you may say well okay cities

1:47:48 ↗ office of sustainability says yes they

1:47:50 ↗ think it meets it but you might say well

1:47:52 ↗ you know we think you lo bard this why

1:47:55 ↗ don't you give us something else we can

1:47:57 ↗ always those are this again this is a

1:48:00 ↗ much more discretionary conversation

1:48:02 ↗ over

1:48:03 ↗ these things than a lot of the other

1:48:04 ↗ stuff I guess just a process question to

1:48:08 ↗ then so if we extend if this came

1:48:10 ↗ through like this and the condition was

1:48:12 ↗ they had to do this if it didn't come

1:48:15 ↗ back to us if we had a lot of conditions

1:48:17 ↗ it would sort of be here's a general

1:48:19 ↗ project we'll tell them they have to do

1:48:23 ↗ these things and then staff will take a

1:48:24 ↗ look at it we would never really get a

1:48:26 ↗ chance to review it so I guess the

1:48:28 ↗ question be how much would we allow them

1:48:30 ↗ to just condition to come back to staff

1:48:32 ↗ versus bring the back in an actual

1:48:35 ↗ project to us to look at well you know

1:48:39 ↗ part I think that's part of why we're

1:48:42 ↗ still in the - meeting format so that at

1:48:45 ↗ the first meeting if you said we we want

1:48:50 ↗ to have a role in this we want to have

1:48:52 ↗ more discussion about this we think that

1:48:54 ↗ you should actually think about and you

1:48:59 ↗ know propose something rather than

1:49:01 ↗ negotiate it later on that's something

1:49:04 ↗ we can address in the briefing response

1:49:05 ↗ memo and you know there will be some

1:49:10 ↗ discussion items at next week's meeting

1:49:12 ↗ we Katie and I've already been talking

1:49:15 ↗ about how to do it this was not one of

1:49:16 ↗ them but it may be because you may not

1:49:18 ↗ like the condition that's in there so I

1:49:21 ↗ I think that's the real advantage of

1:49:23 ↗ that - meeting format is we we hear from

1:49:26 ↗ you where you feel like we need more

1:49:29 ↗ information or clarity and where the

1:49:34 ↗ public feels that way - I mean that's

1:49:36 ↗ that's what we've really found is

1:49:38 ↗ important because what we may think is

1:49:40 ↗ the most essential pieces of the review

1:49:43 ↗ of this may not be the same for the

1:49:44 ↗ Commission that's that's that value of

1:49:47 ↗ bringing it to the community all right

1:49:51 ↗ the last one is provide viewing

1:49:53 ↗ platforms educational signage or other

1:49:55 ↗ measures to help promote the natural

1:49:57 ↗ environment so this one has sorry this

1:50:01 ↗ one has a condition that the project

1:50:04 ↗ needs to have educational signage

1:50:06 ↗ promoting the nearby natural areas the

1:50:08 ↗ parks the trail added to the forecourt

1:50:12 ↗ and or the through block passage to

1:50:14 ↗ contribute to the sustainability goals

1:50:19 ↗ okay so is this signage that we would be

1:50:22 ↗ reviewing at a later date are we outside

1:50:24 ↗ of well I mean that requirement and I

1:50:28 ↗ think that it would be something that

1:50:32 ↗ staff would then go through and

1:50:34 ↗ implement okay before we move on are

1:50:42 ↗ there any other questions about the

1:50:43 ↗ developer obligations this is the last

1:50:46 ↗ slide all right so the design manual

1:50:51 ↗ review our project is kind of somewhere

1:50:55 ↗ in here we're in the traditional

1:50:58 ↗ Issaquah area and I opted for the

1:51:02 ↗ Western false front style I could have

1:51:05 ↗ chosen several of the other traditional

1:51:08 ↗ Issaquah architectural styles but I

1:51:11 ↗ wanted to choose one that was

1:51:12 ↗ appropriate for mixed use and an active

1:51:16 ↗ street experience so I chose this one

1:51:19 ↗ this style can go up to four storeys

1:51:22 ↗ even though the traditional this one

1:51:25 ↗ right here is in Skagway Alaska that the

1:51:29 ↗ traditional look is about two stories

1:51:31 ↗ but it can go up to four stories its

1:51:34 ↗ mixed-use orient street oriented the

1:51:37 ↗ facade extends beyond the roof to form a

1:51:39 ↗ parapet typically has wood lap siding no

1:51:43 ↗ mixed materials the rectangular form and

1:51:48 ↗ just for the for when once we get to the

1:51:51 ↗ materials the paint selection that I

1:51:54 ↗ chose was based off of this building so

1:51:57 ↗ this is how it would look in building

1:52:00 ↗ form so what I was hoping to do is to

1:52:07 ↗ show you the checklist first

1:52:16 ↗ so this is the checklist that's at the

1:52:20 ↗ beginning of the packet and a lot of the

1:52:24 ↗ boxes are checked this is page 42 it's

1:52:29 ↗ 42 the packet a lot of the items do not

1:52:34 ↗ apply and we didn't include the pages

1:52:38 ↗ that did not apply in your packet so

1:52:40 ↗ part of the process was to take the the

1:52:45 ↗ whole document and just pull those pages

1:52:47 ↗ that applied directly to the project and

1:52:50 ↗ we can have a discussion about whether

1:52:53 ↗ fewer even fewer pages are necessary or

1:52:57 ↗ more pages I included a couple pages

1:53:00 ↗ that were more informational to give the

1:53:03 ↗ context for different styles for example

1:53:06 ↗ and the the intent here isn't that you

1:53:11 ↗ would go to this checklist and not also

1:53:14 ↗ refer to the larger document so we would

1:53:17 ↗ we would expect that you would be

1:53:19 ↗ reading the other pages as well to get

1:53:21 ↗ the content the definitions the color

1:53:24 ↗ wheel and the maps and some of those

1:53:26 ↗ other that other information that's

1:53:28 ↗ necessary to understand the project but

1:53:31 ↗ then we only pulled the checklist parts

1:53:34 ↗ that were that we would need to show you

1:53:36 ↗ how we showed whether it's appropriate

1:53:38 ↗ or inappropriate and at the bottom of

1:53:43 ↗ that of the checklist these are the

1:53:47 ↗ conditions that we ended up with for the

1:53:50 ↗ design manual but those will also be

1:53:53 ↗ repeated on the individual pages so in

1:53:56 ↗ the future you may not actually see that

1:54:00 ↗ can do all the summary of all conditions

1:54:02 ↗ on this overview page because there

1:54:05 ↗ might be too many of them you will see

1:54:08 ↗ the conditions on each of the individual

1:54:10 ↗ pages that is generating a condition but

1:54:13 ↗ I don't know that we will be able to put

1:54:16 ↗ the summary at the bottom of this

1:54:18 ↗ overview checklist does that make sense

1:54:20 ↗ what I'm saying and you may also not see

1:54:22 ↗ the condition numbers it may just be

1:54:26 ↗ that we put an X if there is a condition

1:54:29 ↗ rather than try to create different

1:54:32 ↗ numbering systems that may get confusing

1:54:34 ↗ later on okay a question on the staff

1:54:38 ↗ proposed conditions then in that lower

1:54:40 ↗ right box so these are conditions one

1:54:43 ↗ through five and these are specific to

1:54:45 ↗ the design and urban architecture and

1:54:47 ↗ urban design manual only chapter 18 yes

1:54:50 ↗ it we just saw the other five or a

1:54:53 ↗ number of conditions that were specific

1:54:55 ↗ to the set right and these have the same

1:54:58 ↗ numbers yet they had well that's a will

1:55:01 ↗ that be confusing or should this be

1:55:03 ↗ begin with number six I think when you

1:55:06 ↗ see the staff report next week it won't

1:55:08 ↗ have any numbers yeah that's why we

1:55:10 ↗ opted I opted to not have I in in

1:55:14 ↗ further versions I think there won't be

1:55:16 ↗ any condition numbers on this checklist

1:55:17 ↗ it'll just say condition and then we'll

1:55:20 ↗ figure out the numbering because they

1:55:22 ↗ will also be included in the staff

1:55:24 ↗ report in the whole list so okay at some

1:55:27 ↗ point then in the staff report we'll see

1:55:29 ↗ the entire list of conditions numbered

1:55:31 ↗ all the way through yes would it be an

1:55:36 ↗ addition or basically a deletion so

1:55:39 ↗ staff you said you might not see all the

1:55:42 ↗ staff pose conditions going forward

1:55:44 ↗ because if there if there are a lot of

1:55:46 ↗ here that correctly in this box you

1:55:51 ↗ would see them on each individual page

1:55:53 ↗ and as a tote I think Richard makes a

1:55:56 ↗ really good point that in the staff

1:55:57 ↗ report all of the conditions generated

1:56:01 ↗ by the design manual would show up there

1:56:06 ↗ so this is really to understand the

1:56:09 ↗ genesis of the condition as opposed to

1:56:12 ↗ giving you a full list of conditions for

1:56:15 ↗ the entire project

1:56:16 ↗ what would a what would constitute a

1:56:18 ↗ staff comment as opposed to a staff

1:56:21 ↗ proposed condition so if I'm looking

1:56:25 ↗ let's say I'm looking well here's an

1:56:28 ↗ example sometimes and I'm again doing

1:56:34 ↗ this from memory but when I was looking

1:56:37 ↗ at one style there was either four roofs

1:56:42 ↗ or

1:56:43 ↗ windows there were options not every

1:56:47 ↗ single appropriate one applied in all

1:56:50 ↗ circumstances and so we might explain

1:56:53 ↗ that you know a F and G do not apply in

1:56:58 ↗ this circumstance see through II does

1:57:02 ↗ apply and it is consistent or something

1:57:05 ↗ so it's mainly just to make sure you

1:57:09 ↗ understand sort of the assumptions and

1:57:11 ↗ the background thinking or if we feel

1:57:14 ↗ like we had to do an interpretation

1:57:16 ↗ between two different provisions how we

1:57:19 ↗ fit them together we would explain that

1:57:21 ↗ so it's just so that the that we're not

1:57:23 ↗ just checking a box and then giving you

1:57:26 ↗ a condition we may have to unpack that a

1:57:29 ↗ little bit thank you so now I'm gonna go

1:57:34 ↗ back here okay

1:57:40 ↗ so this is I'm gonna skip this because

1:57:44 ↗ we just talked about it alright so the

1:57:47 ↗ first area that I wanted to talk about

1:57:52 ↗ so this is the first checklist page for

1:57:56 ↗ the Western false front style its style

1:57:58 ↗ number four its massing so Katie could

1:58:03 ↗ you do me a favor and go back to the

1:58:05 ↗ actual checklist for a second yep and go

1:58:11 ↗ one page on so this page did not have

1:58:20 ↗ anything at the bottom Katie had

1:58:24 ↗ provided a then had provided the summary

1:58:29 ↗ of the style my suggestion was to

1:58:32 ↗ combine these two pages where you can

1:58:35 ↗ see I actually suggested that we put a

1:58:39 ↗ dot on the map so you can see where it

1:58:41 ↗ is

1:58:43 ↗ we didn't on this one but we did on the

1:58:45 ↗ one you'll see next week and then we

1:58:47 ↗ just took the summary that appears on

1:58:50 ↗ the next couple of pages and put it on

1:58:52 ↗ the bottom of the page so this ax is a

1:58:54 ↗ little more of a summary page

1:58:56 ↗ of the style and kind of how we got

1:58:59 ↗ where we are is that a useful way to

1:59:01 ↗ approach this okay good because that's

1:59:10 ↗ what you're going to see miss so would

1:59:15 ↗ it be most helpful if I just stick with

1:59:17 ↗ the the checklist here do you want me to

1:59:20 ↗ go back to where you can see the

1:59:21 ↗ building as well on the PowerPoint why

1:59:27 ↗ don't you just stick with this until we

1:59:28 ↗ get to a point yeah great okay so as

1:59:34 ↗ Lucy mentioned these top this top row

1:59:36 ↗ here those checkboxes apply just to the

1:59:39 ↗ objective I was confused when I started

1:59:42 ↗ and I thought that that was a summary of

1:59:43 ↗ the whole sheet but she corrected me

1:59:47 ↗ so this complies of the objective the

1:59:53 ↗ I'm gonna see if I can zoom in oh good

1:59:57 ↗ so massing is talking about the basic

2:00:02 ↗ rectangular block form it's a simple

2:00:06 ↗ flat roof it has a appropriately scaled

2:00:09 ↗ parapet that doesn't like in this

2:00:11 ↗ example here it's way too tall and we

2:00:15 ↗ say that yes it does have appropriate

2:00:19 ↗ cornice at the upper level with a

2:00:21 ↗ parapet does have a simple geometric

2:00:23 ↗ profile the optional ground-floor canopy

2:00:28 ↗ awning or upper level balcony terrace

2:00:30 ↗ with wooden balusters that does not

2:00:33 ↗ apply and it's not a corner building so

2:00:36 ↗ that also does not apply and then those

2:00:40 ↗ are the appropriate elements and for

2:00:42 ↗ inappropriate we're saying it complies

2:00:44 ↗ if it doesn't have the inappropriate

2:00:47 ↗ thing so it does not have over-scaled

2:00:50 ↗ elements ornamental ornamentation of the

2:00:52 ↗ sod elements and it does not have facade

2:00:55 ↗ projections so those are both

2:00:57 ↗ appropriate they both comply

2:01:02 ↗ do you think it would be a little bit

2:01:03 ↗ more clear to just designate that as

2:01:05 ↗ non-applicable in that case or cool I

2:01:09 ↗ don't know what this staff restless to

2:01:11 ↗ have comments is on that well for the

2:01:14 ↗ inappropriate inappropriate well as I've

2:01:17 ↗ been discussed her no I guess since it's

2:01:22 ↗ inappropriate I tend to agree with Katie

2:01:27 ↗ that what we're saying is they have not

2:01:30 ↗ included an inappropriate element

2:01:33 ↗ therefore it complies but that is the

2:01:37 ↗ interesting question is when would you

2:01:39 ↗ check not appropriate are not applicable

2:01:42 ↗ under inappropriate so let us noodle on

2:01:46 ↗ that one a little bit and I guess over

2:01:49 ↗ time as we start seeing it over and over

2:01:51 ↗ again we just get used to you know well

2:01:53 ↗ and we'll also discover if we maybe need

2:01:56 ↗ to use not applicable yeah is it

2:02:03 ↗ possible to back up a couple pages to 46

2:02:07 ↗ to 65 on the PowerPoint or I don't have

2:02:11 ↗ the same we haven't gotten to for

2:02:13 ↗ dessert yet oh good luck I'm going

2:02:15 ↗ backwards so here we go

2:02:22 ↗ scale so the scale objective is that it

2:02:30 ↗ shall not exceed four stories which it

2:02:33 ↗ does not so this is an example of where

2:02:35 ↗ I misunderstood the check boxes because

2:02:37 ↗ I say it complies with conditions where

2:02:39 ↗ I should have said it complies where the

2:02:42 ↗ conditions come in is lower down and

2:02:47 ↗ what do I say here

2:02:50 ↗ so this should be over with here there's

2:02:58 ↗ a lot of boxes to check so sometimes the

2:03:00 ↗ exes end up in the wrong place so for

2:03:03 ↗ this for the scale there they're wanting

2:03:05 ↗ to have articulation every 20 feet or 20

2:03:10 ↗ to 30 feet

2:03:11 ↗ this building has articulation every 40

2:03:13 ↗ feet so that does not comply so that's

2:03:16 ↗ why the condition comes in I'm on the

2:03:19 ↗ wrong page here that the the architect

2:03:26 ↗ would need to figure out a way to add

2:03:28 ↗ articulation every every 20 to 30 feet

2:03:31 ↗ rather than every 40 feet right so see

2:03:33 ↗ on that page would be a place with

2:03:34 ↗ conditions which is what you were trying

2:03:37 ↗ yep yep so that's so then I in in the

2:03:44 ↗ staff comments I talked about the height

2:03:47 ↗ that's appropriate of three storeys the

2:03:49 ↗ bays are at 40 feet so they needed to be

2:03:54 ↗ defined to 20 to 30 feet and then the

2:03:59 ↗ facade steps back 20 feet at the western

2:04:01 ↗ corner to accommodate the plaza which is

2:04:05 ↗ appropriate as well because it's it is

2:04:09 ↗ not it's an appropriate step back for

2:04:11 ↗ still a street or introduced and and

2:04:15 ↗ just to I was thinking about your

2:04:19 ↗ comment Mel about what would we put into

2:04:22 ↗ staff comments and I was thinking back

2:04:26 ↗ to the Gilman lofts project where we

2:04:29 ↗ initially said the roof was complex and

2:04:33 ↗ you guys said no it isn't and I think

2:04:38 ↗ that that's why the way Katie is doing

2:04:42 ↗ kind of a very abbreviated description

2:04:44 ↗ of how she thinks it's complying is a

2:04:47 ↗ useful thing to make sure that the

2:04:50 ↗ underlying assumptions that we used in

2:04:54 ↗ checking certain boxes that's kind of a

2:04:57 ↗ high level not going through every

2:04:58 ↗ single one are necessary to help you

2:05:02 ↗ guys

2:05:03 ↗ verify or question that those

2:05:06 ↗ assumptions that we've made in doing the

2:05:08 ↗ review all right

2:05:16 ↗ next up is walls wall materials this is

2:05:21 ↗ all about creative prioritizing the

2:05:25 ↗ front facade is the most important

2:05:27 ↗ decorative side of the building with

2:05:30 ↗ with a higher level of detail and

2:05:31 ↗ ornamentation and then and maintaining

2:05:34 ↗ simplicity and two dimensionality so the

2:05:37 ↗ project has has ornamentation at the

2:05:42 ↗ ground level with transom windows and

2:05:44 ↗ detailed pillars and and window window

2:05:51 ↗ frames and then the lap siding continues

2:05:55 ↗ around the side but it's much more much

2:05:57 ↗ simpler without the same type of

2:05:59 ↗ ornamentation and the wall material is

2:06:03 ↗ hardiplank it will be simulated wood

2:06:06 ↗ which is appropriate and complies with

2:06:08 ↗ wood trim and we do not have painted

2:06:14 ↗ wood signs although it would be

2:06:17 ↗ appropriate question is the appropriate

2:06:20 ↗ where those are listed those are

2:06:22 ↗ actually from the code we have or the

2:06:24 ↗ design standards so the or simulated

2:06:27 ↗ wood this is the same text as as is in

2:06:32 ↗ chapter 18 it just has boxes checkboxes

2:06:35 ↗ added because I was wondering about that

2:06:37 ↗ when it talks about the Western false

2:06:39 ↗ front style says wood lap siding all

2:06:41 ↗ wood no mixed material mm-hmm but I

2:06:45 ↗ presume that if appropriate sin if

2:06:48 ↗ that's in there as well that it could be

2:06:51 ↗ simulated wood it was right mixed

2:06:55 ↗ materials is they don't want something

2:06:59 ↗ that looks like stone or or a mixture of

2:07:03 ↗ materials we had a lot of discussion

2:07:08 ↗ about the natural versus simulated I

2:07:12 ↗ don't I frankly can't remember whether

2:07:14 ↗ it was with you guys or with the council

2:07:16 ↗ just with consultant I think the in the

2:07:22 ↗ end materials that for instance you know

2:07:27 ↗ a hearty pretty well or hearty panel

2:07:33 ↗ maybe in this case it might be a panel

2:07:38 ↗ can can look like would unless you're up

2:07:41 ↗ very close to it and so I think that's

2:07:45 ↗ why we allowed the simulated materials

2:07:49 ↗ that appear like the natural material

2:07:53 ↗ okay thanks

2:07:57 ↗ and then the the project doesn't have

2:08:01 ↗ any of the inappropriate metal vinyl

2:08:04 ↗ stucco materials or combinations of

2:08:06 ↗ stone brick tile so there are no

2:08:09 ↗ conditions on this area alright

2:08:18 ↗ similarly there were appropriate windows

2:08:21 ↗ they're mostly they're either double

2:08:24 ↗ hung windows or large storefront windows

2:08:27 ↗ that have wood frame I think we didn't

2:08:30 ↗ specify what the material of the windows

2:08:33 ↗ were in the packet so I suppose that

2:08:36 ↗ would be something that would be

2:08:37 ↗ reviewed at construction with additional

2:08:41 ↗ detail and and I think that actually

2:08:43 ↗ brings up a really important point that

2:08:45 ↗ because these are architectural

2:08:48 ↗ standards there are going to be things

2:08:52 ↗ where we don't get to the level of

2:08:54 ↗ detail that to answer everything so for

2:08:59 ↗ instance we would want to be clear with

2:09:02 ↗ an applicant what kind of that vinyl

2:09:05 ↗ windows aren't allowed for instance make

2:09:06 ↗ sure that that's apparent to them but we

2:09:09 ↗ would not necessarily have all the

2:09:12 ↗ materials all the door schedules etc

2:09:14 ↗ worked out at land use so we would

2:09:17 ↗ continue that level of review with the

2:09:22 ↗ construction permits I had a question

2:09:25 ↗ about the inappropriate vinyl windows

2:09:29 ↗ appropriate vinyl clad wood windows

2:09:31 ↗ should it be wood quad vinyl good

2:09:35 ↗ question I wouldn't the would want to

2:09:37 ↗ show on the outside

2:09:44 ↗ [Music]

2:09:46 ↗ alright doors

2:09:47 ↗ similarly there are the wood doors were

2:09:51 ↗ compliant they were appropriate

2:09:55 ↗ what glazed wood doors the store front

2:09:57 ↗ doors are wood kind of a wood frame

2:10:01 ↗ window with a large or wood frame door

2:10:03 ↗ with a large window single hung in a

2:10:06 ↗ natural wood tone there was not a lot of

2:10:11 ↗ information provided about the the

2:10:14 ↗ amount of recess of the doors just

2:10:16 ↗ because of the nature of the drawing so

2:10:18 ↗ that would be something that would be

2:10:20 ↗ looked at in more detail at construction

2:10:26 ↗ rushed on that one so on the top

2:10:29 ↗ objective is marked comply so even

2:10:32 ↗ there's even though there is a condition

2:10:34 ↗ here does it mean that overall it

2:10:37 ↗ complies with the objective even though

2:10:39 ↗ there is a condition it complies with

2:10:42 ↗ the objective yes and then if you wanted

2:10:45 ↗ to understand if it complied with the

2:10:47 ↗ overall a point one point four point

2:10:51 ↗ three point three you would go back to

2:10:52 ↗ the the very first checklist at the very

2:10:57 ↗ beginning and hopefully that says

2:11:01 ↗ complies with condition let's see if I

2:11:02 ↗ did it right so one small correction to

2:11:06 ↗ what Katie said the the check the three

2:11:09 ↗ checkboxes at the top applied to both

2:11:12 ↗ the objective and the description so

2:11:14 ↗ it's covering that whole sort of

2:11:16 ↗ introductory piece at the top and you

2:11:22 ↗ know I think while you absolutely could

2:11:25 ↗ go back and look at the summary

2:11:26 ↗ checklist you also get a good sense at

2:11:28 ↗ their conditions at the bottom whether

2:11:30 ↗ how you're doing overall right I had a

2:11:36 ↗ question about specifics I saw a mention

2:11:39 ↗ of overhead garage doors in the proposal

2:11:42 ↗ and this just may be that it's not

2:11:45 ↗ captured here in the guidelines how do

2:11:49 ↗ we address something like that this has

2:11:55 ↗ been adopted to revisit maybe these

2:12:00 ↗ doors are just talking about the person

2:12:04 ↗ entry doors and maybe the overhead doors

2:12:07 ↗ would be more a window issue if they

2:12:11 ↗ were functioning as like a storefront

2:12:15 ↗ feature I know this is a mock proposal

2:12:17 ↗ so that's probably well down here

2:12:20 ↗ I mean it's covered under urban design

2:12:23 ↗ and parking structures and Lots right

2:12:25 ↗ right but that that wouldn't be relevant

2:12:27 ↗ to this this particular piece I mean I

2:12:30 ↗ agree with Kevin that or Katie one of

2:12:34 ↗ those caves

2:12:34 ↗ somebody somebody that you would go back

2:12:38 ↗ to Windows now I think it is an

2:12:41 ↗ interesting question whether we're

2:12:45 ↗ looking at doors or whether we're

2:12:47 ↗ looking at windows roll-up doors appears

2:12:49 ↗ with certain styles but they don't

2:12:53 ↗ appear with this one and I think that is

2:12:55 ↗ a great introduction to some of the

2:12:58 ↗ questions we're gonna want to discuss

2:13:00 ↗ with you next week in which there isn't

2:13:05 ↗ always clarity about exactly how these

2:13:08 ↗ things comply and I do think that that

2:13:10 ↗ this is not a recipe a half tablespoon

2:13:14 ↗ of this and a tablespoon of that some of

2:13:17 ↗ things are like that but some things are

2:13:19 ↗ going to be a judgement call of whether

2:13:21 ↗ they are meeting this spirit in the

2:13:23 ↗ intent now you could make a case that

2:13:26 ↗ because this is supposed to have an

2:13:28 ↗ active storefront and roll-up windows

2:13:31 ↗ might be integral to that or you might

2:13:34 ↗ say this is a Western false front and

2:13:38 ↗ that's going to be too industrial I mean

2:13:40 ↗ I think those are the things that we're

2:13:42 ↗ going to discuss and have to make a

2:13:44 ↗ judgment call about based in the you

2:13:49 ↗ know images and intense statements that

2:13:52 ↗ are here

2:13:54 ↗ okay all right this one did not have

2:14:08 ↗ checkboxes so I added my own comments

2:14:11 ↗ I'm not sure if that's appropriate but

2:14:13 ↗ you know I think I as actually asked her

2:14:16 ↗ to add them because I saw how you were

2:14:18 ↗ using this and I thought it was a good

2:14:20 ↗ yeah I don't know

2:14:22 ↗ anyway this the roof does comply it has

2:14:25 ↗ a flat roof shape and no materials are

2:14:30 ↗ provided for the door or for the roof

2:14:33 ↗ but it will need to have a muted color

2:14:39 ↗ okay the color in your packet Oh even

2:14:43 ↗ including so here's the color palette

2:14:45 ↗ we've chosen this falls in the earth

2:14:49 ↗ tones appropriate earth tones range that

2:14:53 ↗ is included now in the front part of so

2:14:57 ↗ this is an example of information that's

2:14:59 ↗ not included in these pages but would be

2:15:01 ↗ included in the larger design manual

2:15:05 ↗ document and we've chosen natural or

2:15:10 ↗ stained wood natural wood siding and the

2:15:15 ↗ earth tones appropriate earth tones and

2:15:18 ↗ the body of the building will be a base

2:15:22 ↗ color this bluish color and the accents

2:15:27 ↗ will be the dark and the beige and then

2:15:33 ↗ we are avoiding the bright vibrant vivid

2:15:36 ↗ hues for the siding and avoiding more

2:15:39 ↗ than three colors when the applicant is

2:15:45 ↗ presenting you know colors they

2:15:46 ↗ typically bring in samples or do they

2:15:48 ↗ just have typically we would have a

2:15:51 ↗ board that has the actual paint colors

2:15:54 ↗ on them it's easier than seeing it on

2:15:59 ↗ the screen and not knowing exactly and

2:16:01 ↗ also the physical materials are helpful

2:16:03 ↗ to see the stone or the tile

2:16:05 ↗ yeah it's pretty hard to have a

2:16:07 ↗ photograph be an accurate representation

2:16:10 ↗ right okay this is this one of the pages

2:16:15 ↗ you were thinking about leaving out

2:16:17 ↗ leaving in everything out no and and you

2:16:21 ↗ will I actually asked her to add comment

2:16:26 ↗ the graphic designer to add comments and

2:16:29 ↗ conditions because if you read at the

2:16:31 ↗ very top of the page where it says style

2:16:34 ↗ it says the following chart summarizes

2:16:37 ↗ the various styles found in the design

2:16:39 ↗ manual items in brackets are not

2:16:43 ↗ explicitly stated in the text but are

2:16:45 ↗ required by listing here so we could end

2:16:48 ↗ up with things that are only on this

2:16:51 ↗ chart that weren't in the individual

2:16:53 ↗ pages I don't think we're looking to

2:16:56 ↗ repeat a whole review here but there

2:16:59 ↗ could be circumstances in which

2:17:01 ↗ something is regulated through this

2:17:05 ↗ these summary charts and I think this

2:17:08 ↗ summary chart is a really useful tool

2:17:11 ↗ for helping to an applicant to determine

2:17:13 ↗ what style is appropriate they can go

2:17:17 ↗ number of stories they can see which

2:17:19 ↗ buildings can be taller than two stores

2:17:21 ↗ or one story even up to however many

2:17:24 ↗ stories they want which can have

2:17:26 ↗ balconies or not have balconies if if a

2:17:30 ↗ gabled roof was important to the program

2:17:32 ↗ for whatever reason that would take out

2:17:34 ↗ several different styles so this is a

2:17:38 ↗ it's a helpful tool as well as a

2:17:40 ↗ regulatory piece and you can see if

2:17:42 ↗ you're looking kind of in the upper

2:17:45 ↗ third or half of the page

2:17:47 ↗ that for Western false front footprints

2:17:51 ↗ image symmetry and orientation those are

2:17:54 ↗ in brackets which means that based on

2:17:56 ↗ the descriptions the images discussions

2:18:00 ↗ with the consultant we identified that

2:18:04 ↗ those were in the characteristics of

2:18:06 ↗ this particular style and so we added

2:18:09 ↗ those to this table even though they're

2:18:12 ↗ not officially listed in the description

2:18:14 ↗ and so if you had

2:18:16 ↗ in a symmetrical Western false front

2:18:19 ↗ building we would say that was not in

2:18:21 ↗ compliance even though the word symmetry

2:18:25 ↗ or asymmetry is not used in the style

2:18:28 ↗ pages question about that so in the

2:18:33 ↗ future do you think we should look to

2:18:35 ↗ roll the information that's in brackets

2:18:37 ↗ in this table into the actual text so

2:18:40 ↗ the developer sees it all in one spot

2:18:42 ↗ and isn't going to different places for

2:18:45 ↗ requirements I don't know

2:18:49 ↗ after three permits let's talk about it

2:18:52 ↗ I think this charge is going to be

2:18:56 ↗ fabulous for developers to have went

2:18:59 ↗ through and choose what they want to try

2:19:02 ↗ doing it was great my one I mean I I did

2:19:05 ↗ this because I needed to understand the

2:19:08 ↗ styles so it was something I did when I

2:19:10 ↗ was reviewing it but my fear is that

2:19:13 ↗ it'll be exactly as Katie describes

2:19:16 ↗ they'll go to the chart and they won't

2:19:17 ↗ look at the rest of the pages which have

2:19:20 ↗ so much richer level of detail so it's

2:19:25 ↗ going to be incumbent on staff to really

2:19:28 ↗ push them to look at that level of

2:19:31 ↗ detail this is a great starting point

2:19:33 ↗ and it is a good reference point but it

2:19:36 ↗ is not the same as the the richer detail

2:19:40 ↗ that the individual style pages contain

2:19:46 ↗ okay so that this is a continuation of

2:19:50 ↗ that chart and that moves us out of the

2:19:55 ↗ so now we're into the urban design and

2:20:03 ↗ not included in this but included in the

2:20:06 ↗ larger manual of the urban design

2:20:08 ↗ section it shows a map it has a page

2:20:10 ↗ that describes natural context areas and

2:20:13 ↗ the urban design areas this site was not

2:20:16 ↗ in a natural context zone because it

2:20:19 ↗ didn't meet the criteria of being close

2:20:21 ↗ to a natural area so those provisions

2:20:25 ↗ don't apply here this provision does

2:20:28 ↗ this is

2:20:29 ↗ Harmonie talking about buildings must be

2:20:32 ↗ good neighbors blend in rather than

2:20:34 ↗ stand out the overall composition is

2:20:37 ↗ more important than the design of an

2:20:39 ↗ individual building so this proposal

2:20:42 ↗ would be on a block that's pretty

2:20:44 ↗ undeveloped at the moment except for

2:20:46 ↗ across the street where the Atlas

2:20:49 ↗ developments pretty large but this would

2:20:51 ↗ be of a harmonious or a compatible scale

2:20:55 ↗ with that development even though the

2:20:57 ↗ styles are very different across the

2:21:01 ↗ street from Vale so tell me into the

2:21:08 ↗ next three pages I would like to discuss

2:21:10 ↗ whether you think those are useful or

2:21:11 ↗ not I'm not questioning okay I think it

2:21:13 ↗ was great that Katie included them I

2:21:15 ↗ think there are two ways to think about

2:21:17 ↗ the like this page appropriate is that

2:21:21 ↗ you're using an architectural style that

2:21:25 ↗ is in the manual that is part of

2:21:28 ↗ achieving harmony on the other hand if

2:21:34 ↗ you had a lot of say arts and crafts

2:21:40 ↗ buildings in the area and you picked

2:21:43 ↗ urban Grange we might want to use this

2:21:49 ↗ page to have that discussion about

2:21:51 ↗ whether that's the right style or not I

2:21:53 ↗ mean hopefully staff have done that

2:21:55 ↗ before they've gone to all the trouble

2:21:57 ↗ of getting to the Commission but I'm

2:21:59 ↗ interested in you know that this page

2:22:03 ↗ and in a contrast page which is next I'm

2:22:10 ↗ just trying to make sure we're giving

2:22:12 ↗ you things that are useful for your

2:22:14 ↗ discussions do you have thoughts about

2:22:15 ↗ that I think it's useful we're going to

2:22:19 ↗ include okay great and I think and I

2:22:22 ↗ think this could be a really troublesome

2:22:24 ↗ part a lot of developments yeah because

2:22:26 ↗ partly because I've never felt the need

2:22:29 ↗ to say because there's a bunch of arts

2:22:31 ↗ and crafts buildings you can't do

2:22:33 ↗ something different in this block and

2:22:35 ↗ change it and I can see maybe a neighbor

2:22:38 ↗ coming in and saying you can't build

2:22:40 ↗ that building here because it's not an

2:22:41 ↗ arm

2:22:42 ↗ with my buildings next to it but I don't

2:22:46 ↗ know that we want that as an outcome

2:22:47 ↗ either well and I think it also depends

2:22:50 ↗ on if everything was built in 1970

2:22:56 ↗ around it I'm not sure that's the

2:22:58 ↗ harmony that we're looking for so I

2:23:01 ↗ think I know we spent a long time on

2:23:04 ↗ this harmony page both the Commission

2:23:07 ↗ and the council and staff and the

2:23:09 ↗ consultant because we're not trying to

2:23:12 ↗ be in harmony with what we're moving

2:23:14 ↗ away from at the same time if you know

2:23:21 ↗ to pick one of your favorite buildings

2:23:23 ↗ Randy if you're next to Cal khari and

2:23:25 ↗ you decide to do something really

2:23:27 ↗ different than that is that being

2:23:31 ↗ respectful and in harmony and and and

2:23:34 ↗ that is kind of a performance standard

2:23:36 ↗ like some of the developer obligations

2:23:38 ↗ it's not a clear-cut answer and I think

2:23:41 ↗ it will be an interesting discussion as

2:23:44 ↗ we as we as the city is evolving yeah

2:23:50 ↗ and does it matter if are you trying to

2:23:53 ↗ be in harmony what if you're alone on a

2:23:56 ↗ site not surrounded by other buildings

2:23:58 ↗ you get to set the style baby that's

2:24:01 ↗ that's really why I think this is a good

2:24:05 ↗ test case because I think we're going to

2:24:07 ↗ be seeing this in Issaquah and that's

2:24:11 ↗ the point

2:24:11 ↗ you know if there's nothing around it

2:24:15 ↗ you get you get to decide as long as

2:24:18 ↗ it's concurrent with with the design

2:24:20 ↗ standards although I think one other

2:24:23 ↗ thing to point out though up in the

2:24:25 ↗ front where it's kind of giving the

2:24:28 ↗ overview of the Styles if you have

2:24:30 ↗ multiple buildings in your project so

2:24:32 ↗ take Atlas as an example which even

2:24:35 ↗ though it's really two buildings it

2:24:37 ↗ appears as three buildings what when we

2:24:39 ↗ were talking about that project with the

2:24:41 ↗ consultant Crandall arambula made the

2:24:44 ↗ case that not all three buildings let's

2:24:46 ↗ say you picked arts and crafts not all

2:24:49 ↗ three buildings would have to be arts

2:24:50 ↗ and crafts you could make all three Arts

2:24:52 ↗ and Crafts but it could be

2:24:54 ↗ arts and crafts and Grange or whatever

2:24:57 ↗ so it will the whole harmony thing is

2:25:00 ↗ going to be a very interesting thing to

2:25:02 ↗ see how it evolves because we're not

2:25:04 ↗ looking for uniformity like you're the

2:25:07 ↗ first person on the block and now

2:25:08 ↗ everybody else has to be Grange we're

2:25:11 ↗ not we're not trying to do that I mean

2:25:13 ↗ if you look at Front Street that's not

2:25:15 ↗ the nature of Front Street and I think

2:25:17 ↗ we all think that's a really great

2:25:18 ↗ Street and it's got all of these styles

2:25:21 ↗ up here along Front Street

2:25:28 ↗ all right block size this is a page

2:25:31 ↗ that's maybe just informational maybe it

2:25:34 ↗ could be left out in the future but it

2:25:35 ↗ helped to define the maximum dimensions

2:25:39 ↗ for a block and as we've said this

2:25:46 ↗ project has a through block passage and

2:25:49 ↗ it appropriately aligns between a

2:25:52 ↗ development site with an existing

2:25:56 ↗ through block passage and it does not

2:25:58 ↗ it's not misaligned disconnected well it

2:26:02 ↗ is I guess a dead end passage well I I

2:26:07 ↗ would say it's it's the first phase

2:26:10 ↗ phase one with I mean that's yeah

2:26:15 ↗ debatable I guess the other thing that's

2:26:18 ↗ gonna when you go to the next page mhm I

2:26:23 ↗ don't think this one actually complies

2:26:26 ↗ with this through block plat passage

2:26:28 ↗ because it's 40 feet wide at a minimum

2:26:32 ↗ but there I mean and this is going to be

2:26:35 ↗ the interesting thing Crandall Aram

2:26:37 ↗ Beulah recognized that the through block

2:26:39 ↗ passages that are in the central is

2:26:41 ↗ cross standards which are smaller are

2:26:45 ↗ appropriate on you know these are more

2:26:48 ↗ for full block developments rather than

2:26:52 ↗ these infill single lot relatively

2:26:55 ↗ modest size properties so you know at

2:26:59 ↗ this point we are we're working on

2:27:02 ↗ integrating the design manual into title

2:27:05 ↗ 18 and there may need to be some

2:27:07 ↗ shuffling so that all the tools are

2:27:10 ↗ together because right now we just have

2:27:12 ↗ these ones that are really sized for

2:27:14 ↗ quite large developments something this

2:27:17 ↗ size 40 feet wide would basically blow

2:27:19 ↗ up that whole project unless we could

2:27:22 ↗ have half of it go on the neighboring

2:27:24 ↗ property or something like that if they

2:27:25 ↗ could coordinate having happy now I'm

2:27:29 ↗ gonna go a little bit quicker just an

2:27:31 ↗ interest of time but if I'm going too

2:27:33 ↗ fast please slow me down this alleys I'm

2:27:39 ↗ not sure why this one was there's not a

2:27:41 ↗ now I'm not sure why this one was

2:27:42 ↗ included east of the oh I suppose the

2:27:47 ↗ I'm gonna skip this one all right so the

2:27:51 ↗ parking structure is entered from a

2:27:55 ↗ driveway and it this is the condition

2:27:58 ↗ about the overhead doors that not a lot

2:28:02 ↗ not enough information was provided to

2:28:04 ↗ show whether or not they were had

2:28:07 ↗ appropriate colors and materials and

2:28:13 ↗ building edges this is talking about the

2:28:17 ↗ mass of the building creating an outdoor

2:28:19 ↗ room along the street so they want

2:28:21 ↗ buildings to be built up to the street

2:28:25 ↗ edge which this building is and it has a

2:28:29 ↗ [Music]

2:28:30 ↗ plaza forecourt that emphasizes the

2:28:33 ↗ street edge and also provides public

2:28:35 ↗ space and the entries to the

2:28:45 ↗ ground-floor retail here are all at

2:28:47 ↗ grade appropriately and they're clearly

2:28:49 ↗ identified through the the different

2:28:51 ↗ door and entry window elements ground

2:28:58 ↗ floor transparency this meets the it's

2:29:02 ↗ nearly entirely transparent so it meets

2:29:05 ↗ the minimum requirements for window

2:29:07 ↗ transparency for retail they could be it

2:29:11 ↗ the use of these spaces this doesn't

2:29:15 ↗ necessarily have to be retail it could

2:29:16 ↗ be office but the way that it's designed

2:29:18 ↗ it it looks more it

2:29:21 ↗ expresses more as a retail use so that's

2:29:23 ↗ why I chose this page and this is hold

2:29:25 ↗ on just one second this one does talk

2:29:27 ↗ about roll-up doors Kevin yeah and so

2:29:31 ↗ that's going to be an interesting

2:29:33 ↗ question about how something that's in

2:29:36 ↗ one of these urban design pages relates

2:29:39 ↗ to something in a style page and whether

2:29:43 ↗ we have a concern with how that might

2:29:48 ↗ change the character at the building but

2:29:50 ↗ I mean the character also ties to the

2:29:53 ↗ use right right like like are we trying

2:29:57 ↗ to activate that space and would this

2:30:00 ↗ enhance that so I guess to your point

2:30:03 ↗ it's in our discretion as long as it

2:30:04 ↗ integrates you know if you go back a

2:30:06 ↗ couple pages I think that's a really

2:30:07 ↗ good example of a door that integrates

2:30:11 ↗ 59 of 65 so so I think we just have to

2:30:14 ↗ push it at that point to ensure

2:30:16 ↗ integration right okay great question

2:30:20 ↗ there right on page 59 is 65 I'm trying

2:30:24 ↗ to understand when the objective as Mark

2:30:27 ↗ implies and when it's mark complies with

2:30:29 ↗ conditions on there there's a condition

2:30:32 ↗ at the bottom of the page there about

2:30:33 ↗ integrating the overhead parking doors

2:30:36 ↗ so should see be marked complies with

2:30:40 ↗ conditions I think you're probably right

2:30:46 ↗ and and then if that's true then but

2:30:49 ↗ overall as objective does it comply or

2:30:52 ↗ only comply with conditions you know

2:30:54 ↗ this is kind of the same question I had

2:30:57 ↗ a little while ago so the checkbox this

2:31:01 ↗ was something Katie and I were kind of

2:31:03 ↗ working through the checkboxes at the

2:31:06 ↗ top are just about the objectives and

2:31:08 ↗ descriptions so even if if there's no

2:31:11 ↗ condition coming out of the objective

2:31:14 ↗ for the description you would not check

2:31:17 ↗ complies with conditions that's really

2:31:20 ↗ to help say how they're doing for with

2:31:24 ↗ the objective and description conditions

2:31:27 ↗ that are coming out of the inappropriate

2:31:30 ↗ and appropriate would

2:31:32 ↗ also get a check mark if so you might

2:31:36 ↗ have the top one that says complies and

2:31:39 ↗ then have conditions that are generated

2:31:41 ↗ by the appropriate or inappropriate

2:31:43 ↗ details right okay why why then would

2:31:46 ↗ the objective and description be

2:31:48 ↗ complies with conditions here I think it

2:31:50 ↗ was from the way she did it before which

2:31:53 ↗ was the overall page just a mistake

2:31:59 ↗ protection so this one the project has a

2:32:05 ↗ canopy along the store the the sidewalk

2:32:10 ↗ and the through block passage and

2:32:11 ↗ there's some coverage also at the Plaza

2:32:14 ↗ so it's compliant it does not have any

2:32:17 ↗ of the inappropriate materials it's the

2:32:20 ↗ materials haven't really been detailed

2:32:23 ↗ but we're assuming that it's a metal

2:32:26 ↗ canopy or I'm not actually sure what

2:32:29 ↗ we're assuming it is but it's we're

2:32:31 ↗ assuming that it's an appropriate

2:32:32 ↗ material and then finally this is

2:32:38 ↗ addressing the forecourt the little

2:32:41 ↗ plaza at the at the front of the

2:32:43 ↗ building and it is a human-scale space

2:32:49 ↗ there's landscaped elements with there's

2:32:51 ↗ planters some seating and tables and

2:32:54 ↗ we've avoided blank walls and unusable

2:32:57 ↗ spaces and I think we talked about

2:33:03 ↗ weather protection yet I was gonna call

2:33:05 ↗ attention to I think it was here that it

2:33:09 ↗ talks about yeah weather protection that

2:33:12 ↗ benefits the intended users such as

2:33:15 ↗ pedestrians and outdoor seating so

2:33:17 ↗ that's we did our best not to just cover

2:33:20 ↗ the planters and that is it so I you

2:33:29 ↗ know we went through this in a great

2:33:30 ↗ deal of detail tonight because we wanted

2:33:34 ↗ to hear your feedback we wanted to sort

2:33:36 ↗ of discuss about how we've been doing

2:33:38 ↗ this as you well as many of the longtime

2:33:43 ↗ commissioners know when we do a regular

2:33:46 ↗ before we had the design manual we would

2:33:49 ↗ spend two hours you know between taking

2:33:51 ↗ public comment making a presentation

2:33:54 ↗ applicant making a presentation and

2:33:56 ↗ talking through it so my question for

2:33:59 ↗ you I'm trying to think about I don't

2:34:03 ↗ think any of us want to be here till

2:34:04 ↗ midnight and I want to do what's

2:34:06 ↗ meaningful I want us to do what's

2:34:08 ↗ meaningful to you and yet I'm I'm also

2:34:13 ↗ cognizant of time you are going to get

2:34:17 ↗ all the same level of detail that you're

2:34:19 ↗ seeing here would it be useful to just

2:34:22 ↗ go to the pages that you want to discuss

2:34:24 ↗ or which have conditions or are you

2:34:28 ↗ thinking that we're going to go through

2:34:29 ↗ this at this level of detail for all

2:34:33 ↗ pages I'm I'm just curious I hadn't

2:34:37 ↗ really thought about that till I saw how

2:34:38 ↗ long it took us to go through this but

2:34:44 ↗ we didn't do all the other sections of

2:34:45 ↗ the centralized standards like we

2:34:47 ↗ normally would

2:34:49 ↗ Lucy quick question so do we have this

2:34:55 ↗ package exact same package in front of

2:34:57 ↗ us when the applicants presenting is

2:34:58 ↗ that you'll get a package like this

2:35:02 ↗ electronically about a week in advance

2:35:04 ↗ and day or two later you'll get the

2:35:07 ↗ paper version so you will have had a

2:35:11 ↗ chance to review it and think about it

2:35:13 ↗ ahead of time while referencing the

2:35:15 ↗ applicants design package right you'll

2:35:18 ↗ have their plant drawing set you will

2:35:22 ↗ have a checklist that covers the rest of

2:35:25 ↗ the centralist quest standards you'll

2:35:27 ↗ have this design manual checklist and

2:35:30 ↗ you'll have a much more detailed staff

2:35:32 ↗ report Katie did a good job of just kind

2:35:35 ↗ of giving you an overview relative to

2:35:37 ↗ this mock permit so just for the new

2:35:43 ↗ commissioners we typically in a meeting

2:35:47 ↗ only do one permit we would have a staff

2:35:51 ↗ presentation that might be about 20

2:35:53 ↗ minutes the applicant would have an

2:35:55 ↗ opportunity to present things we asked

2:35:57 ↗ them not to be redundant

2:35:59 ↗ not to repeat the stuff that staff have

2:36:01 ↗ covered but to take the opportunity to

2:36:03 ↗ sort of talk through concerns they have

2:36:06 ↗ with conditions things that staff

2:36:08 ↗ wouldn't know I mean it might be vision

2:36:10 ↗ or like the you're someone's question

2:36:13 ↗ about apartments versus condos they may

2:36:16 ↗ speak to that that's not something the

2:36:18 ↗ city regulates so they would have an

2:36:20 ↗ opportunity commissioners are asking

2:36:23 ↗ questions as we go through that take

2:36:26 ↗ public comment and then the

2:36:29 ↗ commissioners really turn toward

2:36:32 ↗ comments and questions and concerns that

2:36:36 ↗ they see we assemble all of we then we

2:36:39 ↗ go away after the first meeting and work

2:36:41 ↗ with the applicant to respond to those

2:36:44 ↗ things that we've heard from the public

2:36:45 ↗ and the Commission and come back and

2:36:47 ↗ have another discussion around that and

2:36:49 ↗ ask the Commission to make a decision

2:36:52 ↗ thank you yeah

2:36:56 ↗ now I gave you the tip do do do did you

2:37:01 ↗ do - time to think about what you want

2:37:03 ↗ us to do next week well night I guess my

2:37:06 ↗ thought would be since we have it ahead

2:37:08 ↗ of time we'll have the checklist we have

2:37:10 ↗ lots to go through we'll see all the

2:37:12 ↗ conditions you think need to be in there

2:37:14 ↗ I don't think we would need to go

2:37:17 ↗ through every step of it more just

2:37:19 ↗ either concerns that we have separately

2:37:21 ↗ or the conditions items you've brought

2:37:24 ↗ up or something else that might come up

2:37:26 ↗ in public comment okay that's my thought

2:37:30 ↗ so the checklist to us might all even be

2:37:32 ↗ like reference material and we would

2:37:34 ↗ just focus on the points made in the

2:37:36 ↗ staff report as usual and conditions

2:37:39 ↗ made in the staff report instead of

2:37:40 ↗ necessarily going through every point on

2:37:43 ↗ the checklist in the meeting during the

2:37:44 ↗ meeting what will look kind of familiar

2:37:50 ↗ based on the staff report you're gonna

2:37:52 ↗ see next week when we get when when

2:37:55 ↗ katie gets to the section in the staff

2:37:57 ↗ report that's the design manual there's

2:38:00 ↗ maybe three to five paragraphs that are

2:38:03 ↗ kind of introductory sort of setting the

2:38:07 ↗ stage for the checklist

2:38:10 ↗ and then you're really referred to go

2:38:12 ↗ look at the checklist and so I think

2:38:16 ↗ kind of similar to this particular

2:38:18 ↗ checklist there going to be some pages

2:38:21 ↗ that are just a little bit of an

2:38:23 ↗ overview or a commentary or explanation

2:38:26 ↗ and then there are some pages that have

2:38:29 ↗ conditions so I think what we might try

2:38:31 ↗ next time is then just focusing on the

2:38:34 ↗ ones with conditions and and you are of

2:38:38 ↗ course welcome to stop us and say no I

2:38:40 ↗ think we you know I don't disagree I

2:38:42 ↗ don't understand your description here

2:38:46 ↗ or the boxes you've checked and we can

2:38:49 ↗ certainly stop anywhere that you want to

2:38:51 ↗ but we'll go into it focusing on the

2:38:54 ↗ pages with conditions and but retain the

2:38:57 ↗ ability to identify potentially

2:39:03 ↗ additional conditions oh of course

2:39:06 ↗ yeah no and that that's a good point I

2:39:09 ↗ mean it's not only where you have

2:39:12 ↗ questions or concerns with our

2:39:14 ↗ evaluation whether we have a condition

2:39:16 ↗ there or not but that would of course be

2:39:18 ↗ an opportunity to say that condition

2:39:21 ↗ needs edits or we think an additional

2:39:23 ↗ condition is needed absolutely

2:39:32 ↗ who administers that flow a review would

2:39:35 ↗ it be the chair or staff you know for

2:39:38 ↗ instance we're still gonna move through

2:39:44 ↗ checklists to to a degree right even

2:39:47 ↗ though we're not hitting on each point

2:39:48 ↗ we're hitting on maybe the conditions on

2:39:51 ↗ urban design usable open space so who's

2:39:56 ↗ setting who sort of navigate since

2:39:58 ↗ that's that cadence Lee so I'm I'm just

2:40:02 ↗ shooting from the hip here

2:40:04 ↗ I guess my thought is that based on your

2:40:08 ↗ recommendation for how to approach this

2:40:10 ↗ Katy would have the entire checkland

2:40:14 ↗ tire excerpted checklist like this one

2:40:17 ↗ up on the screen the way she did tonight

2:40:20 ↗ she would give some introduction then go

2:40:24 ↗ to the pages that have conditions but as

2:40:28 ↗ we're scrolling through that the

2:40:30 ↗ Commission could stop her at whatever

2:40:32 ↗ page there was additional questions or

2:40:36 ↗ concerns because that same work will be

2:40:39 ↗ in the first the first part as it is now

2:40:42 ↗ up to now that where the staff

2:40:44 ↗ presentation is first that would be when

2:40:48 ↗ this would be done then the applicant

2:40:49 ↗ demo and we'll talk after next week and

2:40:58 ↗ see how it went and see if we try just

2:41:00 ↗ looking yeah just do it

2:41:02 ↗ yeah yeah you guys are good at jumping

2:41:05 ↗ in saying slow down I need to go look

2:41:07 ↗ not anybody real bashful on this group

2:41:12 ↗ so that's all we want to do all right

2:41:15 ↗ other comments or concerns or questions

2:41:18 ↗ I think this was great to do this and go

2:41:21 ↗ through this maybe they did a great job

2:41:23 ↗ I was really valuable really I move we

2:41:26 ↗ approve her project yeah don't say that

2:41:31 ↗ don't say that goes people there's some

2:41:33 ↗ concern that we're trying to sneak

2:41:35 ↗ something in there's really is a press

2:41:36 ↗ not a project is not a project MOC

2:41:39 ↗ project

2:41:40 ↗ it was not a name right that's right

2:41:43 ↗ so I think if you had if you don't mind

2:41:48 ↗ just I'd like to make a couple comments

2:41:53 ↗ about commissioner Harrison the last

2:41:55 ↗ time is with us on the Development

2:41:57 ↗ Commission Randy and I have worked

2:42:01 ↗ together for a long time on this

2:42:03 ↗ Commission and when he first came to the

2:42:06 ↗ Commission

2:42:09 ↗ he has shown an amazing love for this

2:42:12 ↗ city and a credible enthusiasm for the

2:42:18 ↗ Civic process that we have in Issaquah

2:42:24 ↗ he's shown that love and enthusiasm and

2:42:26 ↗ every single aspect of what he's done in

2:42:29 ↗ a service on the development Commission

2:42:31 ↗ and that love enthusiasm combined with

2:42:34 ↗ his his extensive experience on the

2:42:37 ↗ development Commission I think make him

2:42:39 ↗ the perfect member of the Planning

2:42:42 ↗ Policy Commission the city's very

2:42:45 ↗ fortunate the city is a better place the

2:42:51 ↗ dedication and service Randy is provided

2:42:54 ↗ and I know I'm a better Commissioner for

2:42:57 ↗ everything I've learned from Randy over

2:43:00 ↗ the years and I feel incredibly blessed

2:43:03 ↗ to have served with Randy for so many

2:43:07 ↗ years and even more importantly to

2:43:10 ↗ consider myself one of his many friends

2:43:12 ↗ Thank You Randy

2:43:15 ↗ and I glad that this come up because I

2:43:23 ↗ wanted to say now in to my fellow

2:43:26 ↗ commissioners that serving on this

2:43:29 ↗ commission has been one of the best

2:43:31 ↗ experiences of my life to be in this

2:43:35 ↗ town at this time with the challenges

2:43:39 ↗ that we face in the past the traditions

2:43:42 ↗ the community and I hope that on a

2:43:49 ↗ planning policy Commission

2:43:51 ↗ I'm going to be able to just change a

2:43:53 ↗ little bit of what I believe is our job

2:43:57 ↗ which is to maintain the character of

2:44:00 ↗ this wonderful town while accommodating

2:44:04 ↗ inevitable growth it's an it's a very

2:44:09 ↗ difficult job but I I am so honored by

2:44:15 ↗ the opportunity to be on this commission

2:44:18 ↗ and to be the beneficiary of the

2:44:20 ↗ friendship and the counsel that I see

2:44:23 ↗ coming from the staff and from my fellow

2:44:26 ↗ commissioners I I've just it's just

2:44:28 ↗ literally been one of the best

2:44:29 ↗ experiences of my life and I've had a

2:44:31 ↗ lot of really great experiences and this

2:44:33 ↗ is right up there at the top so thank

2:44:35 ↗ you everybody who's had anything to do

2:44:37 ↗ with this it's been wonderful thank you

2:44:41 ↗ we we do appreciate your service thank

2:44:44 ↗ you very much

2:44:45 ↗ and I think with that we probably ought

2:44:48 ↗ to adjourn and we didn't go till

2:44:50 ↗ midnight

2:44:53 ↗ thank you

2:45:05 ↗ 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