Development Commission · Thursday, January 20, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Arthur Schulte outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 17, 2021

packet pp.5–12

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-17-21 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Land Use Code Update: Building and Design - Neighborhood Overlay Standards, (D)

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.13–26

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 20th Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is for staff to provide background on and receive feedback pertaining to Building and Design, specifically related to Neighborhood Overlay Standards.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.27–29

Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

11.20.21 – 12.01.21 Public Comment Update Natural Areas

Title 18 Code Update: Public Comments

Received · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

Topics: Land Use

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.31

▶ Watch from 1:40:05 Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

2022 Development Commission Schedule (tentative) (updated 12/14/2021)

2631 segments .txt ↗

0:17 ↗ guidelines

0:18 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:20 ↗ computers and others who may be

0:22 ↗ attending by phone for all meeting

0:24 ↗ attendees who wish to speak please

0:27 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

0:29 ↗ state your name each time before

0:31 ↗ speaking

0:32 ↗ get your microphone when not speaking if

0:34 ↗ you are having technical difficulties

0:36 ↗ try joining the meeting using a

0:38 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

0:40 ↗ tablet

0:41 ↗ or use the calling

0:47 ↗ and uh

0:48 ↗ if you are not on mute please go ahead

0:50 ↗ and mute now

0:51 ↗ and uh kristen can you please go ahead

0:54 ↗ and call attendance

0:57 ↗ yes i will call attendance for the

0:58 ↗ planning policy commission commissioner

1:00 ↗ vader

1:01 ↗ here

1:02 ↗ uh commissioner lewis

1:05 ↗ here commissioner milligan

1:08 ↗ here

1:09 ↗ uh commissioner

1:10 ↗ voice

1:12 ↗ here

1:13 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:15 ↗ here

1:16 ↗ chair fall

1:19 ↗ here

1:20 ↗ and commissioner monahan has an excused

1:23 ↗ absence

1:29 ↗ for the development commission

1:31 ↗ uh chair brennan

1:35 ↗ here

1:37 ↗ commissioner sanford here

1:40 ↗ commissioner soha

1:43 ↗ i do not see him this evening and i do

1:45 ↗ not remember him uh

1:48 ↗ saying he was unable to attend i will

1:50 ↗ check in a moment

1:51 ↗ uh commissioner dylan

1:55 ↗ commissioner shore

1:58 ↗ here

1:59 ↗ commissioner price

2:05 ↗ here

2:07 ↗ commissioner schulte

2:09 ↗ here

2:10 ↗ commissioner ikeda

2:13 ↗ here

2:14 ↗ commissioner morgan

2:18 ↗ i saw you say here i did not hear you

2:21 ↗ say here

2:22 ↗ here

2:26 ↗ thank you i will confirm uh about

2:29 ↗ commissioner so in just a moment

2:47 ↗ uh ron you're muted

2:51 ↗ humans aren't supposed to be muted

2:54 ↗ i like lucy's comment uh so kristin i

2:57 ↗ have a question for you before we move

2:59 ↗ forward

3:00 ↗ order of business

3:02 ↗ do we there are meeting minutes in our

3:04 ↗ packets do you want us to go ahead and

3:06 ↗ approve those meeting minutes now or do

3:08 ↗ we want to do that at a different ppc

3:10 ↗ meeting

3:11 ↗ uh go ahead and do it now because our

3:12 ↗ next seven meetings are joint meetings

3:15 ↗ okay excellent if we don't do it now

3:16 ↗ it's going to be six months before we do

3:19 ↗ i understand

3:20 ↗ so uh for ppc members are there any

3:23 ↗ changes that you want to

3:25 ↗ make or suggest

3:27 ↗ in the meeting minutes

3:30 ↗ okay see none uh the meeting minutes are

3:33 ↗ approved and now we're going to go ahead

3:35 ↗ and

3:36 ↗ actually again our order of business

3:39 ↗ before we open up to public comment here

3:42 ↗ um

3:43 ↗ kristen do we want to how do we want to

3:46 ↗ do this because the packet isn't really

3:48 ↗ set up in chapters as we normally

3:52 ↗ break out

3:53 ↗ public comment into chapters so how do

3:56 ↗ you want to handle the what's the best

3:58 ↗ way to do it for today i would go let

4:01 ↗ lucy go through lucy's going to give our

4:02 ↗ presentation tonight i would go through

4:04 ↗ the entire presentation first it's not

4:06 ↗ very long and i think it's easy to

4:08 ↗ absorb and it's easier to talk as one

4:10 ↗ package rather than individual parts

4:13 ↗ very good then we will proceed with that

4:15 ↗ so uh we'll open up with public comment

4:18 ↗ and then we will have again public

4:19 ↗ comment after the presentation and after

4:22 ↗ um some questions filtered through by

4:25 ↗ ppc members

4:28 ↗ so kristen do you want to go ahead and

4:29 ↗ open up for a public comment

4:32 ↗ yes if anyone would like to speak please

4:34 ↗ raise your virtual hand or press star 3.

4:41 ↗ hard for me to see so i'm going to give

4:42 ↗ it a minute

4:50 ↗ no there is no one who would like to

4:52 ↗ speak at this time

4:53 ↗ excellent

4:55 ↗ uh so we're gonna go ahead close public

4:56 ↗ comment and uh lucy we're gonna go ahead

4:58 ↗ and give you the floor free presentation

5:01 ↗ thanks

5:13 ↗ and

5:15 ↗ you see

5:16 ↗ i'm trying oh okay

5:21 ↗ for some reason it's

5:26 ↗ all right do you let me know when you

5:28 ↗ see my screen

5:30 ↗ yes

5:31 ↗ fantastic

5:32 ↗ um so tonight we're talking about

5:35 ↗ building and site design

5:37 ↗ and neighborhood overlay zones as part

5:39 ↗ of the title 18 update

5:42 ↗ i believe this is part of bucket number

5:44 ↗ four

5:46 ↗ and what we're going to cover tonight is

5:49 ↗ background and context as well as the

5:52 ↗ update methods that we are proposing

5:56 ↗ so in terms of background

5:59 ↗ the city has

6:01 ↗ places a high value on neighborhood

6:03 ↗ diversity that is goal number eight in

6:06 ↗ the

6:08 ↗ council's title 18 goals and outcomes as

6:11 ↗ well as the city

6:13 ↗ is always pursuing high quality

6:15 ↗ development

6:17 ↗ however one of the challenges is that

6:20 ↗ the way we have added code over the

6:22 ↗ years is in layers

6:24 ↗ which has created a very cumbersome code

6:28 ↗ you can see

6:29 ↗ down here

6:30 ↗ at the bottom are

6:32 ↗ some of the codes that we're

6:34 ↗ talking about this evening

6:36 ↗ there's the land use code which was

6:38 ↗ adopted in 1995.

6:40 ↗ old town 2001

6:44 ↗ central issaquah 2013.

6:47 ↗ then the replacement regulations for

6:49 ↗ talus and issaquah highlands in 2018

6:53 ↗ then the central issaquad design manual

6:56 ↗ which was added to the central isquas

6:59 ↗ standards and also in 2018 and then in

7:02 ↗ 2021 the single family and duplex

7:05 ↗ standards for old town

7:07 ↗ and so i want to give you an example of

7:09 ↗ when i talk about cumbersome what we

7:11 ↗ mean

7:12 ↗ so if we start with um probably that one

7:15 ↗ of the outermost layers

7:17 ↗ the replacement regulations for either

7:19 ↗ talus or isco highlands

7:22 ↗ if you were doing if you were a

7:24 ↗ developer and you were doing a project

7:26 ↗ or you were a staff person who was

7:27 ↗ trying to do some research

7:30 ↗ you'd start with the replacement

7:31 ↗ regulations and you might

7:34 ↗ say is this use allowed what are the

7:36 ↗ development standards such as height or

7:39 ↗ setbacks

7:40 ↗ but then when you wanted to know what

7:42 ↗ the parking standards were

7:44 ↗ you would go to the central isoqua

7:46 ↗ standards and then if you had critical

7:48 ↗ areas you would have to go to the

7:50 ↗ general

7:51 ↗ issaquah imc

7:53 ↗ 1810 to get those standards and this is

7:58 ↗ not only cumbersome it's confusing um

8:01 ↗ because you don't always know

8:04 ↗ exactly how those pieces fit together

8:06 ↗ and um sometimes they're conflicting

8:09 ↗ provisions or if then statements that

8:12 ↗ make it hard to know

8:14 ↗ how it applies so these are the

8:16 ↗ regulations that we're referring to

8:18 ↗ tonight and sort of the overarching

8:20 ↗ challenge

8:22 ↗ that we have

8:25 ↗ um

8:25 ↗ this uh slide uh assembles many of the

8:29 ↗ different update methods that were

8:31 ↗ mentioned in the memo

8:33 ↗ so um

8:34 ↗ one of the

8:36 ↗ another one of the council's

8:38 ↗ title 18 goal and outcomes is to

8:41 ↗ consolidate and streamline code

8:44 ↗ so that's a starting point

8:46 ↗ we want to also uh remove redundancies

8:49 ↗ and duplications i i've sensed some

8:52 ↗ hesitation from the commissioners and

8:54 ↗ the public

8:56 ↗ around that and and so i wanted to give

8:58 ↗ you an example of the

9:00 ↗ why this is important to us to try and

9:03 ↗ eliminate them

9:05 ↗ it's not only

9:06 ↗ inefficient

9:07 ↗ and confusing and much longer code

9:11 ↗ and um

9:13 ↗ hard to locate things

9:15 ↗ but

9:16 ↗ in fact

9:17 ↗ we have to create cheat sheets of the

9:20 ↗ regulations around particular things

9:22 ↗ because it's so difficult to find all

9:24 ↗ the pieces

9:26 ↗ so for amp for example if we're looking

9:28 ↗ at something relatively small like the

9:30 ↗ screening of utilities and services

9:33 ↗ all those different numbers represent

9:35 ↗ different provisions i would have to go

9:37 ↗ look at to make sure i had a complete

9:39 ↗ picture

9:40 ↗ of the different

9:42 ↗ tools fencing landscape you know what

9:45 ↗ you can and cannot do with utilities and

9:48 ↗ services

9:49 ↗ and what we want to do so some of them

9:52 ↗ are contradictory some of them are

9:54 ↗ complementary some of them are additive

9:57 ↗ and so we have to look at all of those

9:59 ↗ and consider it and that's time

10:01 ↗ consuming and efficient and not helpful

10:04 ↗ to the public

10:05 ↗ to the commissioners who are reviewing

10:07 ↗ permits to the applicants and to staff

10:10 ↗ and so we want to create something

10:12 ↗ that's clear and direct

10:14 ↗ we also want to identify specific

10:17 ↗ minimum standards be be clear what the

10:20 ↗ expectation is that we have

10:22 ↗ we want to incorporate best practices if

10:25 ↗ they aren't already in there

10:27 ↗ we want to clarify when standards apply

10:31 ↗ some of the examples i've given you know

10:33 ↗ when you're dealing with this what we're

10:35 ↗ we're lovingly calling the onion of

10:38 ↗ these layers of code

10:40 ↗ it does make you cry when you cut into

10:42 ↗ it and so you're trying to figure out

10:46 ↗ when you're looking at the replacement

10:47 ↗ regs and then it sends you to central

10:49 ↗ issaquah

10:51 ↗ how do those two pieces relate to each

10:53 ↗ other we've tried to provide

10:55 ↗ explanations but they're not always um

10:59 ↗ perfect or clear

11:02 ↗ we want to

11:03 ↗ identify certain standards that apply

11:06 ↗ consistently across the city for

11:08 ↗ instance there are multi-family

11:11 ↗ standards in old town there are

11:13 ↗ multi-family standards in central

11:15 ↗ issaquad there are multi-family

11:17 ↗ standards in the general imc

11:21 ↗ we're not convinced that all those need

11:24 ↗ to be different that we can't have

11:26 ↗ general multi-family standards that

11:29 ↗ apply across the city and then for

11:32 ↗ instance in central issaquah have

11:35 ↗ particular architectural style

11:37 ↗ components

11:38 ↗ that contribute to creating that

11:40 ↗ particular neighborhood

11:42 ↗ so we want to clarify

11:44 ↗ what are good practices citywide and

11:47 ↗ what are necessary to retain and enhance

11:51 ↗ individual neighborhood character

11:56 ↗ um

11:57 ↗ in the memo there was some discussion

12:00 ↗ about part six and part seven so let me

12:03 ↗ take a minute to explain what that means

12:05 ↗ i don't know if uh you all have seen the

12:07 ↗ table the proposed table of contents

12:10 ↗ for

12:11 ↗ title 18.

12:12 ↗ right now we have the title

12:15 ↗ and then under that title are different

12:17 ↗ chapters

12:18 ↗ critical areas procedures

12:21 ↗ development standards zoning etc

12:26 ↗ but those are not in a particular order

12:30 ↗ and what we want to do is group the

12:33 ↗ chapters into related topics

12:36 ↗ so for instance and each of those

12:39 ↗ groupings

12:40 ↗ would be called apart so there'll be an

12:43 ↗ environmental part a neighborhood

12:45 ↗ overlay part a subdivision part so

12:48 ↗ that

12:49 ↗ individual chapters are more clearly

12:53 ↗ grouped and there's room for expansion

12:55 ↗ so that if for instance

12:57 ↗ there's a new subdivision technique

13:00 ↗ that we want our procedure that we want

13:03 ↗ to add we can just add it to that group

13:05 ↗ and it will remain with all the rest of

13:07 ↗ the other subdivision chapters

13:10 ↗ so in this case we're talking about part

13:13 ↗ six which will be citywide development

13:15 ↗ standards and part seven which is

13:18 ↗ neighbor neighborhood overlays

13:21 ↗ um you can see in part six um most if

13:25 ↗ not all of the chapters are listed

13:28 ↗ many of them are gray because we're not

13:30 ↗ talking about those tonight you've seen

13:32 ↗ some already some of them will be coming

13:35 ↗ up

13:36 ↗ next month

13:37 ↗ we're in particular talking about site

13:39 ↗ and urban design

13:41 ↗ and building design

13:43 ↗ but we're talking about those as

13:46 ↗ city-wide sets of standards that would

13:50 ↗ be consistent

13:51 ↗ and then

13:53 ↗ in the neighborhoods where there are

13:55 ↗ components such as

13:57 ↗ style

13:59 ↗ guides

14:00 ↗ those would be in the overlays other

14:03 ↗ standards that are unique to that

14:05 ↗ particular neighborhood would be located

14:08 ↗ in that neighborhood

14:11 ↗ now i'll give you an example of why um

14:13 ↗ i'm going into this in kind of

14:16 ↗ excruciating detail

14:18 ↗ um

14:19 ↗ we have the um

14:21 ↗ central issaquah architecture and urban

14:24 ↗ design manual which we kind of shorthand

14:26 ↗ for urban design or design manual

14:29 ↗ there is an architecture component to it

14:33 ↗ which you can see the list on the left

14:36 ↗ and then there is an urban design

14:38 ↗ component

14:40 ↗ as we said architecture

14:43 ↗ is part of

14:45 ↗ creating the character and sort of the

14:47 ↗ uniqueness of a particular neighborhood

14:50 ↗ but urban design is actually universal

14:54 ↗ good practices for creating a

14:58 ↗ friendly

14:59 ↗ usable

15:01 ↗ enticing public realm

15:03 ↗ are universal and so many of the

15:08 ↗ standards that exist in the urban design

15:11 ↗ component of the design manual we're

15:14 ↗ proposing would become

15:16 ↗ the foundation

15:17 ↗ for those site and urban design

15:20 ↗ standards that would apply citywide

15:23 ↗ so

15:24 ↗ what we're trying to do is take things

15:26 ↗ apart

15:27 ↗ and clarify

15:29 ↗ where they should apply

15:31 ↗ city-wide as city-wide standards and

15:35 ↗ where something is an integral part of

15:38 ↗ the nature of creating a unique

15:40 ↗ neighborhood

15:45 ↗ another example

15:47 ↗ that was in your memo is this chart of

15:50 ↗ single-family design elements

15:53 ↗ and part of the reason that we wanted to

15:56 ↗ show you this is you can see that um you

15:59 ↗ know across the top are the various

16:02 ↗ um

16:03 ↗ sec different codes old town central

16:06 ↗ highlands talus

16:08 ↗ and city-wide

16:10 ↗ you can see that there is a unit

16:12 ↗ orientation a parking and driveways and

16:15 ↗ a garages

16:16 ↗ that's in old town that's in the

16:18 ↗ highlands that is in talus

16:21 ↗ the highlands and talus ones are

16:23 ↗ virtually identical some of you

16:25 ↗ old-timers will remember that when the

16:28 ↗ replacement regs were being created

16:30 ↗ those were actually one set of

16:33 ↗ replacement regulations and towards the

16:35 ↗ end of the process it was pulled apart

16:37 ↗ and so there's a lot of redundancy

16:39 ↗ between those two

16:41 ↗ chapters that could be brought together

16:45 ↗ and

16:46 ↗ either form the basis for city-wide

16:48 ↗ standards or be pulled together and not

16:51 ↗ have these redundant components

16:54 ↗ but

16:55 ↗ for old town

16:57 ↗ the new architecture

16:59 ↗ for single fam the architectural

17:01 ↗ standards for single family and duplex

17:03 ↗ even though it has the same components

17:05 ↗ it's not necessarily the same language

17:08 ↗ and so what we have to do is go in and

17:10 ↗ look at those and say

17:12 ↗ should they all be combined into one or

17:15 ↗ should these be part of

17:18 ↗ the neighborhood overlays that will

17:20 ↗ create

17:22 ↗ unique

17:23 ↗ single-family neighborhoods

17:29 ↗ another component that we included in

17:30 ↗ your memo was the developer obligations

17:34 ↗ this is related to central issaquah it

17:36 ↗ was

17:38 ↗ adopted as part of the work plan during

17:40 ↗ the moratorium

17:44 ↗ i

17:45 ↗ i don't actually know why it is in the

17:47 ↗ central issaquah plan

17:49 ↗ rather than in the central issaquah

17:51 ↗ standards

17:53 ↗ um but that's where it's housed right

17:55 ↗ now and we want to relocate it

17:58 ↗ into the standards for central

18:00 ↗ issaquah's neighborhood overlay the

18:03 ↗ reason is

18:04 ↗ it's hard to find and typically things

18:07 ↗ that are in the um

18:10 ↗ plans are not

18:12 ↗ you can't enforce them like standards

18:14 ↗ there are things that we that were put

18:17 ↗ into the standards to try and allow them

18:19 ↗ to be enforceable and we've been

18:22 ↗ relatively effective but it's really

18:24 ↗ confusing because

18:25 ↗ generally you don't go looking in a plan

18:28 ↗ to find standards

18:35 ↗ lucy and i jump in really quickly sure

18:37 ↗ absolutely

18:38 ↗ so

18:41 ↗ these the uh follow-up obligations being

18:44 ↗ in the plan though is not the ideal

18:46 ↗ reason and some former people or some

18:48 ↗ older some of our older ppc members or

18:50 ↗ members who have been on here longer um

18:52 ↗ will remember doing this but this came

18:54 ↗ up during the 2016 moratorium as part of

18:58 ↗ the visioning process we were asked to

19:00 ↗ revision central issaquah and we wanted

19:02 ↗ to get more specific with each of our

19:04 ↗ neighborhoods and this is this was our

19:06 ↗ way of doing it was coming up with

19:08 ↗ certain things that each neighborhood

19:09 ↗ needed to have but because we were doing

19:11 ↗ visioning and not code

19:14 ↗ this is where it wound up so if yes i

19:16 ↗ agree with lucy it would be better as a

19:17 ↗ standard but i did want to provide some

19:19 ↗ background

19:20 ↗ thank you

19:21 ↗ i appreciate that reminder of why it

19:23 ↗ ended up in an unusual location

19:28 ↗ and then the

19:29 ↗ last

19:30 ↗ component that we wanted to mention was

19:32 ↗ the design manual monitoring

19:36 ↗ we adopted as i mentioned uh this new

19:39 ↗ tool in 2018

19:41 ↗ there the city and when i say a new tool

19:43 ↗ it was just something that the city had

19:45 ↗ never really had this level of

19:46 ↗ architectural um style guide before

19:50 ↗ and so there were questions would it be

19:52 ↗ effective and there were certain

19:53 ↗ components that were adopted towards the

19:56 ↗ end of the process that the council was

19:59 ↗ uncertain if we had picked um the right

20:02 ↗ method or the right components

20:04 ↗ and so uh one of the solutions was to

20:07 ↗ monitor it um

20:09 ↗ monitoring either

20:11 ↗ was supposed to happen at the end of

20:12 ↗ three years which was um in what now

20:16 ↗ feels like the early days of the

20:17 ↗ pandemic

20:18 ↗ and or after three land use permits

20:22 ↗ we've only had two land use permits and

20:25 ↗ and when we realized that we had passed

20:28 ↗ the three-year

20:30 ↗ deadline

20:31 ↗ we were at the beginning of this title

20:34 ↗ 18 process and it seemed like an

20:36 ↗ important and appropriate

20:39 ↗ component of

20:41 ↗ considering how we carry all of these

20:43 ↗ tools forward to do this as part of that

20:46 ↗ process

20:47 ↗ rather than a separate monitoring

20:51 ↗ the other component of that that i think

20:53 ↗ we would point out is

20:55 ↗ that we have had more than

20:58 ↗ the two projects i've listed that have

21:00 ↗ used the design manual

21:02 ↗ they just have not triggered a land use

21:04 ↗ permit

21:06 ↗ additions

21:07 ↗ remodels

21:09 ↗ have

21:10 ↗ are below the land use threshold but

21:13 ↗ they still are required

21:15 ↗ to use the manual

21:18 ↗ and one of the things that we would like

21:20 ↗ to hear from

21:21 ↗ the commissioners about is

21:25 ↗ how that is working

21:27 ↗ i mean your thoughts about how those

21:29 ↗ thresholds are applied should the manual

21:31 ↗ only apply to new development or should

21:34 ↗ it be applied over a certain threshold

21:37 ↗ and let me show you a couple of examples

21:40 ↗ as a way of

21:42 ↗ explaining this

21:44 ↗ here are three

21:46 ↗ projects

21:48 ↗ um jackson's new convenience store at

21:51 ↗ gilman and sr 900

21:54 ↗ that's upper left

21:56 ↗ lower left is

21:58 ↗ the old tikka masala restaurant at

22:00 ↗ gilman village

22:02 ↗ and uh lower right is the agonist

22:06 ↗ location that burned down

22:08 ↗ and the reason that i point these out is

22:11 ↗ both evergreen ford which did have a

22:15 ↗ land use permit and jacksons

22:19 ↗ are franchises

22:20 ↗ and um

22:22 ↗ several of the development commissioners

22:24 ↗ will remember we talked a lot about

22:27 ↗ franchises and whether the architectural

22:29 ↗ standards should

22:31 ↗ have any flexibility for franchise

22:35 ↗ businesses

22:36 ↗ jackson's

22:38 ↗ while they do have standard architecture

22:40 ↗ was able

22:42 ↗ to um i think

22:44 ↗ uh com use apply that's the word i'm

22:47 ↗ looking for apply the design manual

22:50 ↗ evergreen ford struggled

22:53 ↗ ford and lincoln have very um specific

22:56 ↗ strict and modern standards for

22:59 ↗ architecture which is a challenge when

23:01 ↗ you're located in traditional issaquah

23:03 ↗ and there was a lot of negotiating

23:06 ↗ between the city um the the um

23:10 ↗ car dealership and the franchise on how

23:14 ↗ to do this and it was a bit of a

23:16 ↗ struggle i mean i think we finally

23:17 ↗ worked it through but it was very time

23:19 ↗ consuming so that so franchises is one

23:22 ↗ of the things that we want to talk about

23:25 ↗ um

23:26 ↗ on the other hand we want things that

23:27 ↗ fit into the city and don't just look

23:29 ↗ like franchise city so um

23:32 ↗ i'm not by bringing this up i'm not

23:35 ↗ suggesting that we get rid of it i just

23:37 ↗ think now that we've done a little bit

23:39 ↗ of this we would like to talk about it

23:41 ↗ some more

23:42 ↗ um

23:43 ↗ with the old tikka masala space and the

23:46 ↗ eggness space

23:47 ↗ what we're seeing is even though you

23:50 ↗ have to fully comply

23:53 ↗ if you're

23:54 ↗ above a certain

23:56 ↗ improvement value on the king county

23:58 ↗ records

24:01 ↗ if you're below that threshold you're

24:03 ↗ still supposed to comply to the fullest

24:05 ↗ extent practical and feasible

24:09 ↗ that is not the clear that it gives you

24:11 ↗ a lot of latitude for negotiating but it

24:14 ↗ doesn't provide a lot of guidance

24:16 ↗ and when you're dealing with buildings

24:19 ↗ like you know the agonist is just that

24:22 ↗ very one-third

24:24 ↗ northern end of the building

24:26 ↗ and then you've got two-thirds of the

24:28 ↗ building that are going to remain in the

24:31 ↗ original style now

24:34 ↗ agnost is where it is i'm i'm not

24:36 ↗ proposing anything different than

24:38 ↗ compliance with the

24:40 ↗ design manual as it is at the moment but

24:43 ↗ as an example

24:45 ↗ of the some of the challenges

24:47 ↗ these two

24:48 ↗ lower examples

24:51 ↗ are trying to

24:54 ↗ figure out how

24:56 ↗ on a portion of a building

24:59 ↗ apply an architectural style

25:02 ↗ which may or may not be

25:06 ↗ so compatible with the rest of the

25:08 ↗ building

25:09 ↗ so that is

25:11 ↗ something we wanted to put out there we

25:13 ↗ think that's sort of what we have seen

25:16 ↗ um as some of the challenges from the

25:19 ↗ design manual

25:23 ↗ and so

25:25 ↗ um just to kind of conclude the the top

25:29 ↗ four boxes are um

25:32 ↗ some i think the questions that were in

25:34 ↗ the cover memo that you received

25:37 ↗ um the bottom two are um two of the sort

25:41 ↗ of things that we

25:42 ↗ have been thinking about some more one

25:44 ↗ is this question about the design manual

25:46 ↗ and whether it applies just to new

25:48 ↗ development or above a certain threshold

25:52 ↗ of

25:55 ↗ remodel or change

25:57 ↗ um and then

25:59 ↗ you know because we are hosting the

26:01 ↗ development commission to provide us

26:04 ↗ um with some boots on the ground

26:07 ↗ experience we want to know if there are

26:09 ↗ particular tools that they're looking

26:12 ↗ for or think would be useful

26:15 ↗ in improving their ability to do an

26:18 ↗ effective job

26:22 ↗ and that concludes my presentation

26:28 ↗ thank you very much lucy so we'll go

26:30 ↗ ahead and open it up to uh commissioner

26:32 ↗ questions

26:34 ↗ and if you have a question go ahead and

26:35 ↗ please put it in the chat and i'll call

26:37 ↗ on you

26:41 ↗ should i stop sharing my screen or you

26:43 ↗ um

26:44 ↗ do you have enough of the information

26:47 ↗ i would suggest keeping up there because

26:49 ↗ you might need to scroll through the

26:50 ↗ commissioner wants to point something

26:51 ↗ out

26:52 ↗ okay i'll leave it up for a moment

26:55 ↗ just to be clear and as a reminder don't

26:56 ↗ put the question in the chat but either

26:58 ↗ put the word question

27:00 ↗ just put the word question in the chat

27:02 ↗ or later if the word comment in the chat

27:03 ↗ thank

27:04 ↗ you the first question is nina milligan

27:10 ↗ thank you chair fall this is

27:11 ↗ commissioner milligan thank you lucy for

27:13 ↗ the excellent summary and for the packet

27:16 ↗ as well

27:18 ↗ i only have a couple questions right now

27:21 ↗ before we

27:22 ↗ um get to hear from the public and some

27:23 ↗ other things and one had to do with the

27:25 ↗ developer obligations you're asking

27:27 ↗ whether

27:29 ↗ we should

27:30 ↗ move them to another place but you're

27:31 ↗ not asking whether they should be

27:33 ↗ applied city-wide

27:36 ↗ am i understanding that correctly that's

27:37 ↗ my first question

27:38 ↗ yes so um

27:41 ↗ so

27:41 ↗ the we're not proposing at this point to

27:45 ↗ change the obligations we may fine-tune

27:48 ↗ the tools

27:50 ↗ and we're only

27:52 ↗ proposing

27:54 ↗ we're still treating them as a

27:57 ↗ something that would be part of the

27:58 ↗ neighborhood overlay

28:02 ↗ okay so in that way it would cover more

28:04 ↗ than central issaquah

28:06 ↗ i'm sorry as a as a component of central

28:10 ↗ it's the central neighborhood

28:12 ↗ thank you for closing thank you okay so

28:13 ↗ it would be in the neighborhood overlay

28:15 ↗ of central as it caught the developer

28:16 ↗ obligations and they don't exist

28:18 ↗ anywhere else

28:20 ↗ okay and then the next question has to

28:22 ↗ do with um process and i was going to

28:25 ↗ ask you if you could briefly remind me

28:28 ↗ about how we get input uh

28:31 ↗ on this process for instance from

28:33 ↗ issaquah highlands and i'm remembering

28:35 ↗ it especially when we look at the design

28:37 ↗ manual monitoring we said that we were

28:39 ↗ going to put the replacement rigs in and

28:41 ↗ then we're going to come back a year

28:42 ↗ later and get input

28:44 ↗ and

28:45 ↗ and then how how is that

28:48 ↗ how does that inform what we're doing

28:50 ↗ today as part of the public input

28:54 ↗ well

28:56 ↗ we did do the neighborhood uh the

29:00 ↗ a year after

29:02 ↗ the um issaquah highlands replacement

29:05 ↗ regs were put into place we did go out

29:07 ↗ and have the neighborhood meeting

29:09 ↗ um then the pandemic happened and we

29:11 ↗ haven't really

29:13 ↗ done much beyond that in terms of

29:15 ↗ implementing some of the concerns

29:17 ↗ um that were raised

29:22 ↗ so i um kristin may be able to confirm

29:26 ↗ this better than i am but i believe that

29:28 ↗ all of the packets

29:30 ↗ um are going to

29:32 ↗ for instance talis and issaquah

29:34 ↗ highlands hoas

29:37 ↗ mini had a very long

29:39 ↗ and detailed conversation with sarah hoy

29:43 ↗ and so uh

29:45 ↗ and and we have an interested parties

29:48 ↗ uh email list that these packets are

29:50 ↗ going out to and we're very interested

29:53 ↗ in including

29:54 ↗ any groups that might have particular

29:57 ↗ insight

29:58 ↗ into for instance neighborhood

30:00 ↗ obligations

30:02 ↗ yeah excellent thank you

30:12 ↗ ron you're muted

30:16 ↗ sorry about that everybody

30:17 ↗ thank you very much nida and the next

30:20 ↗ question is from john ikeda

30:22 ↗ or aikido uh thank you commissioner paul

30:25 ↗ this is uh chemistry

30:27 ↗ uh just a couple questions um

30:30 ↗ when you say that there's been multiple

30:32 ↗ or redundant standards

30:35 ↗ when they conflict

30:36 ↗ is the more stringent standard being

30:38 ↗ applied

30:41 ↗ well

30:43 ↗ in this case the one the example i gave

30:45 ↗ you was not necessarily more strict or

30:49 ↗ less strict they were just different

30:50 ↗ ways you know do you use landscape or

30:53 ↗ fencing

30:54 ↗ to screen

30:55 ↗ these services

30:57 ↗ so um

30:59 ↗ i don't i don't i think what we're

31:01 ↗ looking for

31:03 ↗ is

31:05 ↗ selecting the most effective

31:08 ↗ clear

31:09 ↗ and um

31:11 ↗ easiest to apply not that we're trying

31:14 ↗ to take the easy route but to

31:17 ↗ pick ones that um clearly and directly

31:21 ↗ convey what our expectations are clear

31:23 ↗ direction then clear design intent then

31:26 ↗ exactly

31:27 ↗ uh one other another question on this

31:29 ↗ the

31:30 ↗ i think they're called art neighborhood

31:32 ↗ spaces or neighborhood overlays

31:35 ↗ is that generally referring to an

31:37 ↗ architectural standard you'd be

31:38 ↗ developing for those spaces

31:40 ↗ well um there could they could

31:43 ↗ be building design they could be

31:47 ↗ other standards that are are particular

31:50 ↗ um

31:52 ↗ to neighborhoods and i don't want to

31:53 ↗ distract us because

31:55 ↗ i'm going to give an example

31:57 ↗ if people don't like it save it for the

31:59 ↗ circulation discussion that stephen

32:02 ↗ um pat padua is going to bring uh in

32:05 ↗ february

32:06 ↗ but for instance issaquah highlands and

32:08 ↗ talus have trail standards

32:11 ↗ the city doesn't have really any trail

32:13 ↗ standards

32:14 ↗ so you know there are some things that

32:16 ↗ apply to neighborhoods that we are

32:18 ↗ discussing

32:20 ↗ should those

32:22 ↗ remain unique to that neighborhood or do

32:25 ↗ they like the urban design component of

32:28 ↗ the central issaquah

32:30 ↗ design manual provide a good foundation

32:33 ↗ to create standards for the whole city

32:36 ↗ so we're having to look at each one of

32:38 ↗ them and say

32:40 ↗ just because it lives with a

32:41 ↗ neighborhood right now does it belong

32:44 ↗ with that neighborhood permanently long

32:46 ↗ term

32:47 ↗ or is it the foundation for a set of

32:49 ↗ standards that could be applied citywide

32:54 ↗ uh thank you

32:55 ↗ you're welcome thank you

32:59 ↗ thank you very much uh commissioner

33:00 ↗ akina

33:02 ↗ and uh commissioner brookie shore

33:05 ↗ the floor

33:06 ↗ hello

33:08 ↗ um i have kind of a follow-up question

33:10 ↗ on what you just said or maybe two-part

33:13 ↗ question

33:14 ↗ so there could be

33:16 ↗ some regulations that don't right now

33:18 ↗ apply to an area but they could

33:21 ↗ through this change

33:23 ↗ apply somewhere new

33:25 ↗ how how is that approved or decided

33:28 ↗ that

33:29 ↗ that change will be made

33:31 ↗ so um

33:34 ↗ we first of all we are having each of

33:36 ↗ these sort of gap analyses and update

33:40 ↗ memos

33:41 ↗ that's phase one we're getting to the

33:44 ↗ end of that phase

33:46 ↗ we're going to then release

33:50 ↗ draft discussion draft code

33:53 ↗ um that will be available for not our

33:56 ↗ usual one week before the meeting but

33:58 ↗ several weeks probably about a month

34:01 ↗ then we're we're going to hold some open

34:03 ↗ houses

34:05 ↗ for people to come ask questions we're

34:07 ↗ going to

34:08 ↗ reconvene

34:10 ↗ ppc and whatever border commission was

34:13 ↗ providing some

34:15 ↗ expertise

34:17 ↗ and then

34:19 ↗ have a deliberation session

34:22 ↗ so we we're we're holding a series

34:25 ↗ of um

34:26 ↗ meetings we're we're trying to track how

34:29 ↗ we're making so we're trying to make the

34:31 ↗ proposals now

34:32 ↗ that's our update method that we're

34:34 ↗ talking about this evening

34:37 ↗ and then we are looking for feedback as

34:40 ↗ we go through each of these steps to say

34:43 ↗ why is this applied city-wide why isn't

34:46 ↗ this applied city-wide why isn't this

34:48 ↗ just limited to a neighborhood

34:50 ↗ and you know as i describe these things

34:53 ↗ we're still in the kind of early stages

34:56 ↗ of figuring these out so

34:58 ↗ although i'm i know i'm sometimes overly

35:00 ↗ successful at speaking with confidence

35:03 ↗ please feel free to say

35:05 ↗ i don't think that's the right way to go

35:07 ↗ um you know we are um

35:10 ↗ real

35:11 ↗ really here to have a conversation with

35:13 ↗ you

35:14 ↗ to understand whether we're headed in

35:17 ↗ the right direction before we invest a

35:19 ↗ lot of time writing something

35:22 ↗ that we could have found out um early on

35:25 ↗ was maybe not the right direction to go

35:28 ↗ and when that's presented well there

35:31 ↗ it'll be kind of like a trap changes

35:33 ↗ kind of thing so we will be able to see

35:36 ↗ where something's been added or deleted

35:38 ↗ or we are not doing track changes and i

35:41 ↗ will tell you it would be illegible if

35:44 ↗ we tried to do that

35:46 ↗ but

35:47 ↗ for some of the

35:49 ↗ ppc members

35:52 ↗ and maybe even development commission if

35:54 ↗ you followed closely when we did the

35:56 ↗ sign code it was a similar process

35:59 ↗ um

36:00 ↗ we were um

36:03 ↗ pulling in

36:04 ↗ the uh you know and there was an example

36:06 ↗ i think it was in um let me look

36:10 ↗ so the way uh appendix b1

36:13 ↗ of uh the memo was prepared

36:17 ↗ um you can see those orange boxes

36:21 ↗ um that were in b1

36:23 ↗ are the

36:25 ↗ they're

36:26 ↗ lovingly titled change explainers so um

36:30 ↗ they are really describing what is the

36:32 ↗ source and

36:35 ↗ are we combining multiple items are we

36:38 ↗ um

36:41 ↗ selecting one thing over another

36:44 ↗ and then

36:45 ↗ as you'll see when we release our first

36:48 ↗ external drafts i believe next week

36:52 ↗ we are trying to identify at a high

36:54 ↗ level if certain things were were

36:56 ↗ deleted um so that um

37:01 ↗ we're not doing a word for word track

37:04 ↗ changes um some

37:06 ↗ sections it's not possible

37:08 ↗ if we have a single chapter we are

37:10 ↗ trying to do a much closer finer grain

37:13 ↗ track changes

37:14 ↗ we're really trying to give the big idea

37:17 ↗ of what we're carrying forward what our

37:19 ↗ sources were and the things that were

37:21 ↗ removed and or retained

37:31 ↗ and thank you commissioner brookie thank

37:33 ↗ you lucy

37:34 ↗ commissioner uh richard sanford you have

37:37 ↗ the floor

37:38 ↗ hi thank you this is richard sanford um

37:42 ↗ lucy uh i want to kind of take your

37:45 ↗ go in the order of your main four

37:47 ↗ questions the first or their concerns

37:49 ↗ with consolidation of the documents

37:52 ↗ and i guess this is a two-part question

37:53 ↗ um

37:55 ↗ i'm taking it that not all of the

37:57 ↗ content in the external documents will

38:00 ↗ be promoted to the code

38:02 ↗ i'm thinking of things like statements

38:04 ↗ of purpose um

38:06 ↗ maybe performance standards

38:09 ↗ recommendations guidelines that kind of

38:10 ↗ thing so

38:12 ↗ the external documents will continue to

38:15 ↗ exist under this plan is that right and

38:18 ↗ if they do there's still a hierarchy of

38:21 ↗ precedence isn't there in determining

38:24 ↗ what standards apply or

38:26 ↗ what information a developer needs to

38:29 ↗ look at to be able to understand the

38:31 ↗ full set of requirements that's question

38:34 ↗ number one

38:35 ↗ and

38:36 ↗ let me let me because that was a lot of

38:38 ↗ um a thought and i want to make sure i

38:40 ↗ don't lose the pieces of it

38:43 ↗ um

38:46 ↗ so

38:47 ↗ uh i i think that there's some really

38:49 ↗ important things uh in there uh

38:52 ↗ probably

38:53 ↗ i i don't think we're

38:55 ↗ we're not trying to make big policy

38:57 ↗ changes we're trying to carry forward

38:59 ↗ the policies that the city has worked so

39:02 ↗ hard

39:03 ↗ to develop we're we're really trying

39:06 ↗ to

39:07 ↗ put it into a format that's

39:10 ↗ clear streamlined consolidated

39:13 ↗ easy to use

39:16 ↗ i do think that

39:19 ↗ we're less likely to carry guidelines

39:22 ↗ forward

39:23 ↗ and when we're using performance

39:25 ↗ standards

39:26 ↗ we're going to probably try and be clear

39:29 ↗ about how to evaluate whether a

39:31 ↗ performance chance standard has been you

39:34 ↗ know how would we know if it's been met

39:38 ↗ so those are some of the sort of best

39:40 ↗ practices

39:41 ↗ and then where we have multiples i think

39:43 ↗ we're trying to pull it into one

39:45 ↗ coherent

39:46 ↗ thing we're not getting rid of purpose

39:49 ↗ and intent statements but if if we're

39:51 ↗ combining multiple chapters we're going

39:52 ↗ to we're going to pull those together

39:55 ↗ into one set

39:57 ↗ of

39:58 ↗ purpose or intense statements does that

40:00 ↗ make sense okay yeah and i guess i just

40:03 ↗ want to clarify do those external

40:05 ↗ documents still exist

40:08 ↗ after

40:09 ↗ the title 18 revision or have they all

40:11 ↗ been

40:13 ↗ promoted as it were into the imc

40:17 ↗ so

40:18 ↗ um

40:18 ↗ by external documents if you mean like

40:21 ↗ the comprehensive plan and the central

40:23 ↗ issaquah plan

40:25 ↗ those documents will exist outside as

40:30 ↗ our vision

40:31 ↗ they will not be part of title 18 but

40:33 ↗ they are authorized they are adopted and

40:37 ↗ they are effective in establishing our

40:40 ↗ vision

40:41 ↗ the

40:42 ↗ standards the things that are in title

40:45 ↗ 18

40:46 ↗ are the standards that we need to

40:48 ↗ implement and achieve that vision

40:51 ↗ so the vision documents will exist

40:54 ↗ all the various standards that are in

40:57 ↗ title 18 are proposed to be

41:01 ↗ updated

41:02 ↗ consolidated and replaced

41:05 ↗ okay considering the sids then will the

41:08 ↗ sids continue to exist with its chapter

41:10 ↗ 18 architecture design manual

41:13 ↗ so the design manual is proposed to

41:16 ↗ being pulled apart

41:18 ↗ with the urban design component uh the

41:23 ↗ urban design part becoming the

41:26 ↗ foundation for city-wide urban design

41:28 ↗ standards the architectural part

41:31 ↗ becoming

41:32 ↗ part of the neighborhood overlay for

41:35 ↗ central issaquah okay so all of that

41:38 ↗ document then is intended to migrate

41:40 ↗ into the imc in some form

41:42 ↗ and

41:43 ↗ yeah and and i'm thinking i guess of the

41:45 ↗ design manual in which there's a lot of

41:47 ↗ information there in terms of

41:48 ↗ illustrations photos things like that

41:51 ↗ that you know everybody says are worth a

41:53 ↗ thousand words and i i'm wondering how

41:56 ↗ is the code machine will be able to

41:59 ↗ handle

42:00 ↗ that um

42:02 ↗ there have been a lot of conversations

42:05 ↗ among

42:06 ↗ our team with

42:08 ↗ the

42:09 ↗ entity code publishing

42:11 ↗ that

42:12 ↗ hosts our code

42:14 ↗ because we have found with the version

42:17 ↗ that we are currently and have

42:19 ↗ historically been using that it was

42:21 ↗ difficult

42:22 ↗ to get the level of visual

42:25 ↗ graphics um that we felt were necessary

42:28 ↗ for some of these codes which is why

42:30 ↗ they existed outside of code publishing

42:35 ↗ we feel much more confident now that we

42:38 ↗ will be able to integrate images

42:41 ↗ if you happen to look at the sign code

42:44 ↗ which had many more images photos and

42:47 ↗ drawings

42:48 ↗ those have

42:50 ↗ by my estimation

42:52 ↗ been incorporated

42:54 ↗ they're very clear and they're easy to

42:55 ↗ read at code publishing so we feel

42:58 ↗ we feel pretty good about being able to

43:01 ↗ um

43:03 ↗ have a more visual and graphically rich

43:07 ↗ code posted there than we have in the

43:10 ↗ past

43:11 ↗ okay that's great thank you i think it

43:12 ↗ covers my second question which was

43:15 ↗ would content then continue to exist

43:17 ↗ redundantly in these outside documents

43:19 ↗ after it's been migrated and it sounds

43:21 ↗ like no at cut over time the other doc

43:24 ↗ the other standards documents disappear

43:26 ↗ and all that content and the code is

43:28 ↗ approved

43:29 ↗ right thank you

43:35 ↗ thank you very much commissioner sanford

43:37 ↗ and another question here from

43:39 ↗ commissioner brennan but before we move

43:41 ↗ forward i just want to make sure that

43:44 ↗ if there are any questions that any of

43:46 ↗ the commissioners have

43:47 ↗ please go ahead and put them in the chat

43:48 ↗ now so we can go ahead and spool you up

43:51 ↗ uh and commissioner brennan you have the

43:53 ↗ floor

43:55 ↗ thank you cheerful so

43:56 ↗ maybe this is more of a comment less of

43:58 ↗ a question but as i'm i'm listening to

44:00 ↗ the discussion and just reading through

44:01 ↗ the materials

44:03 ↗ the

44:04 ↗ part of the challenge with this is

44:05 ↗ there's

44:06 ↗ there's a lot of blending together of

44:08 ↗ things that are mostly like

44:09 ↗ administrative in nature like

44:11 ↗ corrections and

44:13 ↗ fixing eliminating redundancies

44:15 ↗ providing clarifications if the language

44:17 ↗ is creating confusion

44:20 ↗ the structure of the code meaning is it

44:22 ↗ organized well is it easy to follow is

44:24 ↗ it an understandable so a lot of that

44:26 ↗ stuff is

44:27 ↗ really uh kind of more of an

44:28 ↗ administrative nature where things start

44:30 ↗ to get blurry a little bit for me and

44:32 ↗ maybe as this work keeps moving forward

44:35 ↗ you can try to park this out and maybe

44:37 ↗ organize it the substantive piece is

44:39 ↗ we're talking about

44:40 ↗ you know like the expanding um best

44:43 ↗ practices you know geographically so if

44:45 ↗ there are certain standards that apply

44:47 ↗ in some part of the city

44:48 ↗ and and they are the considered really

44:51 ↗ the best practice or or other parts of

44:53 ↗ the city don't even have that standard

44:55 ↗ and it's something that the city wants

44:56 ↗ to do that's a substantive change if

44:58 ↗ you're going to expand the code to cover

45:01 ↗ a broader area of the city it might make

45:03 ↗ sense but it is a regulation that

45:05 ↗ doesn't currently exist now in that

45:08 ↗ geographic area the other areas were

45:10 ↗ talking about

45:12 ↗ the updates to like the design manual

45:17 ↗ in the architectural standards like the

45:19 ↗ in the urban design and architectural

45:20 ↗ design requirements

45:22 ↗ those are substantive changes that

45:23 ↗ you're talking about now um as part of

45:26 ↗ the way that's been described at least

45:27 ↗ in the memo and the way i understood you

45:29 ↗ um

45:30 ↗ in the way you described that lucy but

45:32 ↗ it

45:33 ↗ so that is another area where these are

45:35 ↗ changes that have that put in place new

45:38 ↗ regulations or different regulations

45:40 ↗ than currently existed and those are the

45:42 ↗ areas where people

45:44 ↗ need to understand what those changes

45:45 ↗ are from a uh you know public engagement

45:48 ↗ even from the commission engagement

45:50 ↗ standpoint

45:51 ↗ um because those are you know a new

45:54 ↗ requirement i guess the in the final

45:57 ↗ piece is

45:58 ↗ um

45:59 ↗ when we're trying to figure out what is

46:03 ↗ kind of the the best way to integrate

46:06 ↗ all of this stuff together and there is

46:08 ↗ some areas where the um i think you were

46:10 ↗ talking about

46:12 ↗ pulling down uh about what you described

46:15 ↗ it as the developer obligations and

46:17 ↗ putting those into the code as more of

46:19 ↗ an enforceable

46:21 ↗ element of the code um there there may

46:24 ↗ not be written in code language so

46:26 ↗ they're too broad or general so that's

46:29 ↗ another uh area where i think

46:32 ↗ substantive change should be looked at

46:34 ↗ so i guess i guess my point is if you

46:36 ↗ can somehow part out those things that

46:39 ↗ really are administrative

46:41 ↗ and i have a ton of confidence in

46:44 ↗ staff's ability to figure out how to

46:46 ↗ organize the code and and correct those

46:49 ↗ things that are errors or or fix the

46:51 ↗ redundancies i think where the most

46:52 ↗ benefit for the commission would be is

46:55 ↗ understanding where the real changes are

46:57 ↗ the what i call the substantive changes

46:59 ↗ to the regulation or expansion of the

47:00 ↗ regulations so we can understand what

47:02 ↗ those are to provide comment thanks

47:05 ↗ thank you

47:07 ↗ thank you commissioner brennan and

47:09 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

47:14 ↗ thank you chairfall um

47:17 ↗ i want to start by saying it's always

47:18 ↗ such a pleasure to work with you lucy um

47:20 ↗ this presentation was fantastic this

47:22 ↗ packet was fantastic when i first

47:25 ↗ got it as you know from our email

47:27 ↗ correspondence i was a little

47:28 ↗ dumbfounded because there's a lot of

47:30 ↗ goals here right it's kind of the heart

47:32 ↗ and the meat before we even get to our

47:35 ↗ rough draft of code

47:37 ↗ and so i really struggle with

47:39 ↗ figuring out how to address the

47:40 ↗ methodology

47:42 ↗ i think where i've come to right now is

47:44 ↗ that

47:46 ↗ one of the things you brought up with

47:47 ↗ the concern about the consolidation

47:50 ↗ and i think it really depends on how

47:51 ↗ it's going to be constructed

47:54 ↗ and how it's going to be tested out

47:56 ↗ before it's rolled out

47:57 ↗ so right now the methodology looks

47:59 ↗ really sound to me right i'm not being

48:01 ↗ presented a lot of different options

48:02 ↗ though to be able to say this feels

48:04 ↗ better versus this what i can say is

48:06 ↗ that this feels like an improvement and

48:09 ↗ so

48:10 ↗ go forth right um i like this so far

48:13 ↗ but

48:14 ↗ how it is on paper and how it actually

48:17 ↗ ends up looking and being displayed out

48:19 ↗ is going to be very different so it's a

48:22 ↗ cautionary thumbs up right

48:24 ↗ of saying okay yeah i want to see more i

48:27 ↗ appreciate the walkthrough i really do

48:29 ↗ um

48:30 ↗ and i'm wondering if really that has to

48:31 ↗ do a little bit with

48:33 ↗ you know the ability to use digital

48:36 ↗ tools in how we move forward versus that

48:39 ↗ kind of

48:40 ↗ you know old-school um paper and ink the

48:42 ↗ way that we used to have to go through

48:44 ↗ code and thumbing through this way in

48:45 ↗ that way right and hoping again this is

48:48 ↗ you know

48:49 ↗ step m through z

48:51 ↗ um is being able to say okay now that we

48:53 ↗ have what we want how does it actually

48:56 ↗ look how are we interacting with it how

48:58 ↗ are we touching it um and it struck me

49:00 ↗ when i was going through this document

49:02 ↗ that i realized i've never built an

49:03 ↗ izakawa right as you know i've sat in

49:06 ↗ the seat

49:07 ↗ and sat on other um boards of

49:09 ↗ commissions but i've never actually had

49:10 ↗ to use the code right and it very much

49:13 ↗ struck me when going through this

49:14 ↗ methodology that

49:16 ↗ i i look at the code i look at our

49:19 ↗ policies right i have my fingers and all

49:21 ↗ of it but how it actually ends up coming

49:22 ↗ out on the back end i have really very

49:24 ↗ little clue about right and so it's

49:26 ↗ going to be very interesting to have you

49:28 ↗ guys when you come back to us being able

49:29 ↗ to say

49:31 ↗ this is why this is better because this

49:33 ↗ is how it's going to be right and i

49:34 ↗ would really appreciate almost a user

49:36 ↗ experience

49:38 ↗ that will be completely hypothetical and

49:40 ↗ to be able to say

49:41 ↗ when um people come in and need to use

49:44 ↗ our land use tools this is how they're

49:46 ↗ going to be able to do it i don't know

49:48 ↗ if that makes sense but i feel like this

49:50 ↗ is a very um two-dimensional concept

49:53 ↗ right now that's going to have to get

49:55 ↗ um

49:56 ↗ it's going to have to get sharpened up

49:57 ↗ at some point right um right now we're a

50:00 ↗ square we're gonna need to become a cube

50:02 ↗ kind of a thing so i'm just very struck

50:04 ↗ by how um

50:07 ↗ how more i need to know about this does

50:09 ↗ that make sense right so i really

50:10 ↗ appreciated this

50:12 ↗ time that you guys took with us to

50:13 ↗ really start this process on the

50:15 ↗ methodology um

50:17 ↗ and i was struck too by something you

50:19 ↗ said about the gaps analysis portion

50:21 ↗ ending

50:22 ↗ and what i like to think of it as more

50:24 ↗ is our gaps analysis will now be

50:26 ↗ evolving because as we go into

50:30 ↗ our

50:31 ↗ rough drafts

50:32 ↗ we really do want to keep the intent and

50:35 ↗ the heart of gaps analysis continuing

50:37 ↗ because we want to be able to have that

50:39 ↗ evolution right that addressing

50:42 ↗ what are we removed why what are we

50:44 ↗ adjusting why what are we how are we

50:46 ↗ tweaking and and why right which is

50:48 ↗ really the heart of our gaps analysis

50:50 ↗ that we've really been pushing staff to

50:51 ↗ us to kind of explain to us what hasn't

50:53 ↗ been working so how are we addressing

50:55 ↗ that so that we don't

50:57 ↗ um

50:58 ↗ so we use this opportunity wisely right

51:00 ↗ so i would encourage a little bit of a

51:02 ↗ different

51:03 ↗ approach maybe i know it was just a work

51:05 ↗ choice but i'm just going to use it uh

51:07 ↗ to really plant my flag on that um

51:10 ↗ the other thing that i want to ask the

51:11 ↗ question about there is a question here

51:13 ↗ i promise is about the

51:15 ↗ design manual and how it applies to

51:17 ↗ when you said new versus a threshold

51:20 ↗ give me an example of a threshold 20

51:23 ↗ right like how much of the building

51:25 ↗ are we talking about

51:26 ↗ so i'm i'm going to take a step back and

51:29 ↗ and yeah by just a little information on

51:31 ↗ the first part and then i'll um answer

51:33 ↗ your actual question

51:35 ↗ um

51:36 ↗ so i i appreciate what you're saying and

51:39 ↗ and i want to start by saying that this

51:41 ↗ presentation and this memo is a whole

51:44 ↗ bunch of us working on it i'm i'm just

51:47 ↗ um like i am pay

51:49 ↗ pretending that this is my building so

51:52 ↗ um this represents a lot of staff time

51:55 ↗ and uh

51:57 ↗ thought and um trying to figure out from

52:00 ↗ many different perspectives how this is

52:04 ↗ presented

52:05 ↗ and how do it to you know succinctly

52:08 ↗ explain this

52:09 ↗ second

52:10 ↗ we have been meeting with affinity

52:12 ↗ groups um throughout this process with

52:15 ↗ developers um with different kinds of

52:19 ↗ users because we're interested in

52:21 ↗ exactly the kinds of experiences that

52:24 ↗ you're talking about

52:25 ↗ property owners

52:28 ↗ retail owners

52:29 ↗ residents

52:31 ↗ different groups

52:32 ↗ have been

52:34 ↗ meeting

52:35 ↗ and telling us sort of what's working

52:38 ↗ and what's not working with different

52:39 ↗ parts of the code

52:42 ↗ these are kind of the early days and

52:45 ↗ then we go and we we once we've had

52:48 ↗ these conversations we start actually

52:50 ↗ working through

52:52 ↗ the code process and we're going to

52:53 ↗ learn things and i'm sure we're going to

52:55 ↗ have policy questions along the way

52:58 ↗ um we are

52:59 ↗ taking uh several weeks for staff to

53:02 ↗ read these because and not just staff in

53:06 ↗ cpd but

53:08 ↗ for instance on

53:10 ↗ bucket one we've got people from parks

53:12 ↗ and public works and other departments

53:15 ↗ reading this and saying does this make

53:17 ↗ sense how will this work

53:20 ↗ um you know i'm i'm concerned about

53:24 ↗ x y and z

53:26 ↗ and it's really helpful that parks and

53:28 ↗ public works are looking at this because

53:31 ↗ they're a kind of a customer too they

53:33 ↗ build things in the city um so they have

53:36 ↗ these experiences

53:37 ↗ just like you're describing um then

53:40 ↗ we'll have our external

53:42 ↗ um

53:43 ↗ drafts that go out along with an open

53:46 ↗ house where people can come and ask

53:48 ↗ questions and i and i'm not even

53:50 ↗ necessarily covering everything but i'm

53:52 ↗ just

53:52 ↗ saying that we are trying to

53:55 ↗ reach out and get many different

53:58 ↗ perspectives to try and understand

54:01 ↗ are we creating the tools we need i see

54:04 ↗ minnie has turned on her camera and i'm

54:05 ↗ guessing she maybe has something to add

54:08 ↗ thanks lucy i think if i understood the

54:10 ↗ question correctly you were wondering

54:12 ↗ what the threshold is where we apply the

54:15 ↗ architectural styles is that

54:18 ↗ what what you were

54:19 ↗ asking yes lucy gave us two uh two

54:22 ↗ wanting us to weigh in on the two and

54:24 ↗ i'm curious where that threshold is

54:27 ↗ yeah so my my understanding of the way

54:29 ↗ the you know right now

54:31 ↗ the architectural style so you have to

54:33 ↗ pick out of the five or six of those

54:35 ↗ styles for obviously for new development

54:37 ↗ that applies

54:39 ↗ but if if you're redevelop redeveloping

54:42 ↗ your property the the threshold is 50

54:46 ↗ value but it doesn't distinguish between

54:49 ↗ what you're doing to the outside of the

54:50 ↗ building or what your tenant improvement

54:54 ↗ costs are so if you're just upgrading

54:55 ↗ your hvac for instance

54:58 ↗ or any mechanical equipment inside that

55:01 ↗ can get pretty expensive and you can

55:02 ↗ easily trigger

55:03 ↗ bringing your building into compliance

55:05 ↗ with these architectural styles

55:08 ↗ we don't think that was the legislative

55:09 ↗ intent but the language and the code

55:12 ↗ kind of binds you to

55:14 ↗ how

55:15 ↗ how those projects trigger compliance

55:17 ↗ with architectural style so we do need

55:20 ↗ to look at that to distinguish perhaps

55:23 ↗ the exterior improvement cost and and so

55:26 ↗ one option is to take you know break

55:28 ↗ down the redevelopment cost into what

55:31 ↗ how much of it is exterior and how much

55:33 ↗ of it is interior and then establish

55:37 ↗ it's much easier to say this is the

55:39 ↗ style you have to meet if you're

55:40 ↗ building a brand new building

55:42 ↗ it's a whole another

55:44 ↗ situation when you're adding a small

55:46 ↗ addition or adding a you know screening

55:49 ↗ on a rooftop or small little things that

55:52 ↗ they that they have to go through this

55:54 ↗ uh elaborate process uh to show how

55:57 ↗ they're in compliance with an

55:59 ↗ architectural style so that that that

56:02 ↗ was i think the problem we had kind of

56:03 ↗ posed in terms of

56:05 ↗ solutions if you guys have any ideas we

56:07 ↗ can bring back some options for your

56:09 ↗ consideration

56:10 ↗ of uh how to how to establish a

56:13 ↗ threshold that makes sense for these

56:16 ↗ smaller uh buildings

56:18 ↗ uh

56:19 ↗ renovations and additions yeah that that

56:22 ↗ is very interesting to me that's

56:23 ↗ actually a very different conversation

56:25 ↗ um

56:26 ↗ uh

56:27 ↗ that i that i also wasn't aware of when

56:29 ↗ i was reading reading this so i think

56:31 ↗ that that's that's a kind of a separate

56:33 ↗ discussion um unless you guys are

56:35 ↗ prepared to have it today but it sounds

56:36 ↗ like that's something that

56:38 ↗ we really when going through the rough

56:39 ↗ draft and looking at the language of

56:42 ↗ being able to say and propose something

56:43 ↗ right to obviously submit to council

56:45 ↗ saying we think that this is appropriate

56:46 ↗ for them to be able to make that

56:48 ↗ decision on um

56:50 ↗ and lucy to your point absolutely i love

56:53 ↗ hearing how many stakeholders we have

56:54 ↗ involved

56:55 ↗ especially

56:57 ↗ code enforcement right i think it's a

56:58 ↗ fantastic department to be running a lot

57:00 ↗ of this by

57:01 ↗ and the people who are going to be

57:03 ↗ saying well i'm going to be applying

57:04 ↗ this how does this actually how does

57:06 ↗ this read to me right being able to kind

57:07 ↗ of go to the source in a way so um i

57:10 ↗ really appreciate the work of everybody

57:12 ↗ on this

57:13 ↗ and i really think that we're on the

57:15 ↗ right track

57:16 ↗ what we what we want to avoid

57:19 ↗ is to make this something that is not

57:21 ↗ user friendly for

57:23 ↗ the small individual right or

57:26 ↗ the small builder

57:27 ↗ for the small business owner what we

57:29 ↗ want to do is not make this something

57:30 ↗ where you do need to have

57:32 ↗ your corporate lawyers involved and to

57:34 ↗ be able to have this right you know what

57:36 ↗ i mean and so how do we do how do we

57:38 ↗ make this all of this right so

57:40 ↗ approachable you know you did such a

57:42 ↗ great way of laying out that we do have

57:44 ↗ all these

57:45 ↗ different pieces right our design

57:47 ↗ standards old town right central right

57:49 ↗ we have all these components that we've

57:51 ↗ worked on and so being able to wrap it

57:53 ↗ up in a way that also feels sinful so i

57:55 ↗ mean no pressure or anything but

57:57 ↗ thank you very much

57:59 ↗ right and and just to your point uh joy

58:02 ↗ i would add on to what mindy said which

58:05 ↗ i think is a really important part of

58:07 ↗ this but i want to acknowledge what

58:08 ↗ you're saying which was

58:10 ↗ you know we we knew that the um

58:14 ↗ monitoring of the design manual needed

58:17 ↗ to be a part of this process and we

58:18 ↗ wanted to put that on your radar and be

58:21 ↗ open about the pat the fact that during

58:23 ↗ the pandemic this deadline passed

58:27 ↗ and we're also been working with these

58:29 ↗ property owners in the examples that we

58:32 ↗ identified

58:33 ↗ um and we're hearing um uh

58:37 ↗ challenges

58:38 ↗ um about that um but we recognize that

58:41 ↗ we didn't lay out the questions quite as

58:43 ↗ clearly as we needed to that we kind of

58:46 ↗ identified that monitoring was a part of

58:48 ↗ this but didn't really provide some of

58:50 ↗ these examples or discussion topics

58:53 ↗ and um so there will be time at our next

58:56 ↗ week meeting where

58:58 ↗ you can ponder this a little bit if you

59:01 ↗ want to pick this up again

59:03 ↗ um next week

59:05 ↗ and and i think the point that minnie's

59:07 ↗ making that is an important one and i'll

59:09 ↗ give you another example um you know the

59:12 ↗ friends of youth building um this isn't

59:14 ↗ under central issaquah but um it's not

59:18 ↗ dissimilar um in the old town

59:20 ↗ neighborhood

59:21 ↗ the friends of youth buildings value is

59:23 ↗ only three thousand dollars

59:26 ↗ so if you replace the windows on that

59:28 ↗ building you have now triggered

59:31 ↗ full compliance well let's say full

59:34 ↗ compliance means you're supposed to be

59:35 ↗ at the street

59:37 ↗ we're not going to make you tear down

59:38 ↗ the building and move it i mean there's

59:40 ↗ there's just it's a it ends up with a

59:42 ↗ lot of uncertainty

59:44 ↗ and uh

59:46 ↗ and lack of clarity around the very

59:48 ↗ kinds of issues that mini identified um

59:51 ↗ you know

59:52 ↗ interior

59:53 ↗ tenant improvements uh hvac

59:57 ↗ upgrades um

59:58 ↗ or the two that we showed you like the

1:00:01 ↗ agonists and the tikka masala upgrades

1:00:03 ↗ um we want those kinds of upgrades

1:00:06 ↗ happening we want people to be able to

1:00:08 ↗ do work in our city

1:00:09 ↗ and um it's it's hard on everyone to

1:00:12 ↗ sort of figure out the best way forward

1:00:14 ↗ and so we'd like to

1:00:15 ↗ really make sure that we have um some

1:00:18 ↗ guidance from you all about what those

1:00:20 ↗ thresholds are

1:00:23 ↗ well if your goal was to get us excited

1:00:24 ↗ for the nitty gritty it worked we're so

1:00:26 ↗ excited we're ready we're ready guys

1:00:32 ↗ all right thank you commissioner lewis

1:00:33 ↗ and yes we are very excited

1:00:37 ↗ all right so we're gonna go ahead and uh

1:00:40 ↗ commissioner milligan has the floor

1:00:44 ↗ uh hello commissioner nina milligan here

1:00:46 ↗ thank you cheerful i uh have a follow-up

1:00:49 ↗ question that is inspired by

1:00:50 ↗ commissioner sanford's questions and it

1:00:52 ↗ might be

1:00:53 ↗ similar to what he was asking but at

1:00:55 ↗ least it's um related and it's something

1:00:57 ↗ that i need to clarify now so that i can

1:00:59 ↗ incorporate it into my comments later uh

1:01:02 ↗ lucy when you're

1:01:04 ↗ talking about not losing things you know

1:01:05 ↗ we have a couple things of course i'm

1:01:07 ↗ going to go on the issaquah highlands

1:01:09 ↗ filter because that's the one i know the

1:01:11 ↗ best and so we have the guiding

1:01:12 ↗ principles and the urban design

1:01:14 ↗ guidelines

1:01:15 ↗ um how do you incorporate those or how

1:01:17 ↗ do you not lose those when you bring

1:01:19 ↗ them into

1:01:20 ↗ the other

1:01:22 ↗ type of documentation

1:01:25 ↗ uh it's a great question commissioner

1:01:28 ↗ milligan i

1:01:29 ↗ the way they're incorporated currently

1:01:32 ↗ in the replacement regular regulations

1:01:35 ↗ is they are attachments and they are

1:01:37 ↗ used as part of our review

1:01:41 ↗ um

1:01:43 ↗ but i'll say that the goals and

1:01:46 ↗ guidelines well the goals in particular

1:01:49 ↗ are

1:01:50 ↗ more like

1:01:52 ↗ a central esqua plan then they are

1:01:55 ↗ something that we can use for review i'm

1:01:58 ↗ i we've used them that way but i don't

1:02:01 ↗ know that it's best practice

1:02:03 ↗ um so i think that's something we're

1:02:06 ↗ going to be exploring whether we

1:02:08 ↗ carry it you know whether they become

1:02:10 ↗ attachments to the neighborhood overlay

1:02:12 ↗ um for talis for issaquah islands um

1:02:16 ↗ central esqua plan for central iskwa

1:02:19 ↗ old town plan for old town or whether we

1:02:23 ↗ try and do something else and you know

1:02:25 ↗ we

1:02:26 ↗ we're having this initial conversation

1:02:28 ↗ and i'm not sure we've gotten much

1:02:30 ↗ further

1:02:31 ↗ relative to that particular piece

1:02:38 ↗ okay and thank you commissioner milligan

1:02:40 ↗ and commissioner sanford you have the

1:02:42 ↗ floor

1:02:45 ↗ hi um i just wanted to pick up for a

1:02:47 ↗ minute on uh commissioner lewis's uh

1:02:49 ↗ point regarding usability and this

1:02:51 ↗ meeting really isn't chiefly i don't

1:02:53 ↗ think about usability concerns but i

1:02:54 ↗ think there were great points in that

1:02:57 ↗ this really seems to me it's basically

1:02:59 ↗ an information architecture challenge

1:03:01 ↗ and it's a website project and it's a

1:03:03 ↗ documentation project

1:03:05 ↗ and i assume that are i at least i hope

1:03:09 ↗ that our prime consultant on this has

1:03:11 ↗ experienced in all those areas but i

1:03:13 ↗ think that there are there is expertise

1:03:16 ↗ that's required in this project to make

1:03:17 ↗ that happen and i hope that uh you know

1:03:19 ↗ usability testing certainly all the way

1:03:22 ↗ through is a prime prime component of

1:03:24 ↗ that

1:03:25 ↗ i want to move on just a minute to uh

1:03:28 ↗ are there concerns with applying urban

1:03:30 ↗ design city-wide and i think

1:03:32 ↗ commissioner brennan um alluded to this

1:03:36 ↗ um

1:03:38 ↗ i'm thinking of the urban design section

1:03:40 ↗ of the architecture and urban design

1:03:43 ↗ manual that's really what we're

1:03:44 ↗ referring to and

1:03:46 ↗ when we worked on that the the

1:03:48 ↗ assumption was that that was high

1:03:50 ↗ density and the orient it was a grid

1:03:53 ↗ kind of orientation of blocks there

1:03:56 ↗ and there was wording about uh through

1:03:58 ↗ black passages and maximum block size

1:04:00 ↗ and enclosure and those kinds of

1:04:03 ↗ concepts and i guess i'm just wondering

1:04:05 ↗ about are those really applicable

1:04:09 ↗ equally across the city

1:04:12 ↗ um

1:04:13 ↗ i guess maybe my question is what's

1:04:15 ↗ what's the def what do we mean by

1:04:17 ↗ city-wide there i understand it's

1:04:18 ↗ supposed to apply to commercial

1:04:20 ↗ mixed-use and and um

1:04:23 ↗ multi-family only

1:04:24 ↗ right yes that's that would be my

1:04:27 ↗ expectation as well

1:04:30 ↗ so i guess

1:04:32 ↗ would that be applicable then equally to

1:04:35 ↗ any place in the city that could have

1:04:36 ↗ any of those types of uses

1:04:41 ↗ you tell me

1:04:42 ↗ okay

1:04:44 ↗ and i guess that you know and i guess uh

1:04:47 ↗ commissioner brandon said those are

1:04:48 ↗ really

1:04:50 ↗ substantive pieces

1:04:52 ↗ so i don't hold the key to that but it

1:04:56 ↗ seems like those that's pretty

1:04:58 ↗ fundamental stuff

1:05:08 ↗ and thank you very much commissioner

1:05:09 ↗ sanford

1:05:11 ↗ uh i don't see any additional questions

1:05:15 ↗ so

1:05:16 ↗ kristin let's go ahead and open it up

1:05:18 ↗ for public comment

1:05:21 ↗ all right if anyone would like to make a

1:05:22 ↗ comment please raise your hand

1:05:25 ↗ virtual hand or press star three we do

1:05:26 ↗ have one someone who would like to speak

1:05:28 ↗ connie marsh

1:05:30 ↗ i am making you a

1:05:34 ↗ panelist and

1:05:36 ↗ [Music]

1:05:37 ↗ you are unmuted go ahead and turn on

1:05:39 ↗ your camera hey

1:05:40 ↗ i'm trying i'm trying to lower there we

1:05:42 ↗ go

1:05:43 ↗ i'm using my cell phone

1:05:46 ↗ okay

1:05:48 ↗ so

1:05:49 ↗ you in theory can see my aquamarine wall

1:05:52 ↗ it's unusual

1:05:53 ↗ um

1:05:55 ↗ interesting conversation

1:05:57 ↗ complicated though

1:05:59 ↗ uh here are my

1:06:01 ↗ overarching

1:06:04 ↗ goals

1:06:05 ↗ um

1:06:07 ↗ we have spent a lot of time

1:06:11 ↗ creating character areas in our town

1:06:14 ↗ and as you put

1:06:16 ↗ these new

1:06:19 ↗ tools together

1:06:21 ↗ the character areas need to stay

1:06:25 ↗ consistent

1:06:28 ↗ [Music]

1:06:29 ↗ and

1:06:31 ↗ i i think you have to be very careful

1:06:33 ↗ when you do that and i would suggest you

1:06:36 ↗ go out to all of these neighborhood

1:06:39 ↗ overlays they may not have no idea that

1:06:42 ↗ they have a neighborhood overlay

1:06:45 ↗ and um

1:06:47 ↗ introduce them to what you're doing

1:06:49 ↗ because i think when we start talking

1:06:51 ↗ about neighborhoods in this town the

1:06:52 ↗ community doesn't even know

1:06:55 ↗ and so you're you're using tools

1:06:58 ↗ that isaquanians have are are blind to

1:07:02 ↗ right

1:07:03 ↗ and then um

1:07:06 ↗ simplicity

1:07:07 ↗ so when you start making comments

1:07:10 ↗ about

1:07:12 ↗ uh well citywide

1:07:14 ↗ uh i think you need a map to show what

1:07:17 ↗ this means

1:07:18 ↗ how much of this town is not already

1:07:22 ↗ covered by some of these standards right

1:07:25 ↗ how much of our commercial area or

1:07:28 ↗ multi-family is actually outside of the

1:07:30 ↗ central issaquah area or outside of the

1:07:33 ↗ urban villages

1:07:35 ↗ and

1:07:36 ↗ some we have we have the the myrrh area

1:07:39 ↗ of old town etc so

1:07:42 ↗ interestingly they don't

1:07:45 ↗ have neighborhood character pieces yet

1:07:48 ↗ and so you're talking about overlaying

1:07:52 ↗ character

1:07:54 ↗ pieces for some places that have it in

1:07:57 ↗ some places that have none

1:08:00 ↗ so is the intent to go back and create a

1:08:03 ↗ neighborhood vision for these blank

1:08:05 ↗ areas are you just going to tell them

1:08:07 ↗ what they're going to be um

1:08:10 ↗ i

1:08:12 ↗ like the idea of enforceable standards

1:08:14 ↗ in the central issaquah area to

1:08:17 ↗ help

1:08:18 ↗ ensure that

1:08:20 ↗ we get the character that we have

1:08:23 ↗ intended

1:08:25 ↗ however

1:08:28 ↗ i don't think

1:08:31 ↗ that

1:08:32 ↗ you should do that yet

1:08:35 ↗ i think that

1:08:37 ↗ that if

1:08:39 ↗ if those follow

1:08:42 ↗ already

1:08:44 ↗ in what we envisioned then those

1:08:47 ↗ standards should be there but

1:08:50 ↗ i think

1:08:51 ↗ the whole city needs to do a project

1:08:53 ↗ about envisioning what their

1:08:54 ↗ neighborhood character should be and how

1:08:56 ↗ they should be protected and what rules

1:08:58 ↗ should be

1:08:59 ↗ allowed and you've got

1:09:01 ↗ plenty else to do now if you see because

1:09:04 ↗ you have experienced

1:09:06 ↗ that it's not working and you must

1:09:09 ↗ establish those standards so they're

1:09:10 ↗ enforceable because we're not getting

1:09:12 ↗ what we want that's another question but

1:09:14 ↗ you have not given me any data to let me

1:09:18 ↗ know that that is actually a problem at

1:09:20 ↗ this point in time

1:09:22 ↗ and

1:09:23 ↗ and you say it's difficult

1:09:25 ↗ i guess i don't really understand what

1:09:27 ↗ difficult

1:09:28 ↗ means you talk about amount of

1:09:30 ↗ negotiating time

1:09:33 ↗ [Music]

1:09:34 ↗ i'm not sure

1:09:37 ↗ what your definition of success is

1:09:40 ↗ do we expect to reduce our amount of

1:09:43 ↗ negotiating by half

1:09:46 ↗ what is our end goal with that how much

1:09:48 ↗ flexibility do you want to have none

1:09:51 ↗ zero

1:09:52 ↗ do we want five percent

1:09:56 ↗ uh

1:09:56 ↗ [Music]

1:09:58 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:10:00 ↗ do we want 50 so when you say more

1:10:03 ↗ simple to use i wish i had an idea what

1:10:05 ↗ you meant

1:10:07 ↗ and what you were aiming for because i

1:10:09 ↗ watched the struggle i've lived the

1:10:11 ↗ struggle i read the darn stupid struggle

1:10:14 ↗ but um

1:10:17 ↗ i guess i want to know better

1:10:21 ↗ how

1:10:22 ↗ how you think this is going to fix that

1:10:25 ↗ struggle

1:10:26 ↗ because you you say it

1:10:28 ↗ will because then it will be more

1:10:31 ↗ defined nothing is ever that defined

1:10:34 ↗ so

1:10:35 ↗ you underst

1:10:36 ↗ lucy might understand more what i'm

1:10:39 ↗ gabbling about than everybody else

1:10:40 ↗ because she watches me pound my head

1:10:42 ↗ against the wall for the last 20 years

1:10:45 ↗ um

1:10:46 ↗ and we have gone back and forth between

1:10:48 ↗ prescriptive and flexible

1:10:51 ↗ and and here we go again but what is the

1:10:53 ↗ sweet spot and how are you going to

1:10:55 ↗ define it and then how are you going to

1:10:57 ↗ correct it

1:10:59 ↗ right so i want maps because i want to

1:11:02 ↗ see what this means when you're talking

1:11:04 ↗ about central isoqua plan

1:11:07 ↗ design standards

1:11:10 ↗ we clearly don't want those everywhere

1:11:13 ↗ if we're keeping the same setbacks like

1:11:16 ↗ side and front setbacks

1:11:18 ↗ uh we aren't going to be able to apply

1:11:20 ↗ those standards in places it won't make

1:11:22 ↗ any sense at all

1:11:23 ↗ so i don't think those are going to work

1:11:26 ↗ everywhere and we won't don't want our

1:11:28 ↗ city all to look the same

1:11:30 ↗ and so i am concerned that

1:11:34 ↗ that it won't get us what we want we

1:11:36 ↗ can't have a city-wide architectural

1:11:40 ↗ standard yet have our neighborhood

1:11:42 ↗ characters in the methods that you're

1:11:44 ↗ aiming for

1:11:46 ↗ um

1:11:47 ↗ i i

1:11:48 ↗ i you see a language english is my first

1:11:52 ↗ language and i find it very very

1:11:54 ↗ difficult

1:11:55 ↗ but

1:11:56 ↗ in the end i think it does need to be

1:11:58 ↗ simpler but i need more direction on

1:12:02 ↗ where you think you're going

1:12:04 ↗ and

1:12:06 ↗ [Music]

1:12:07 ↗ and what time you expect to save and how

1:12:10 ↗ you expect to save that time then one

1:12:12 ↗ little segue on to

1:12:15 ↗ um

1:12:16 ↗ thresholds

1:12:18 ↗ well we all know for critical area

1:12:19 ↗ standards if something burns down they

1:12:21 ↗ get to stay in the critical area however

1:12:23 ↗ much they want to

1:12:25 ↗ so you could for the case of something

1:12:28 ↗ burning down just switch that over to

1:12:30 ↗ architectural standards

1:12:33 ↗ but that's just the burning down

1:12:34 ↗ situation or natural disaster okay i

1:12:37 ↗ think i'll stop

1:12:39 ↗ now

1:12:40 ↗ bye

1:13:03 ↗ and christian is that yeah i'm sorry i

1:13:05 ↗ was i was moving her back i apologize it

1:13:07 ↗ took me a minute um let me see

1:13:09 ↗ if there's anyone else who would like to

1:13:11 ↗ speak please raise your hand

1:13:20 ↗ i'm checking the message box in case

1:13:22 ↗ anybody wants to send a message to me

1:13:23 ↗ that way

1:13:27 ↗ i know i can never find the hand to

1:13:29 ↗ raise

1:13:34 ↗ now there's no one else who would like

1:13:35 ↗ to speak okay thank you so i'm going to

1:13:38 ↗ go ahead and bring it back to the

1:13:40 ↗ commissioners for discussion

1:13:43 ↗ um

1:13:44 ↗ are there any commissioners who would

1:13:45 ↗ like to further discuss

1:13:47 ↗ these topics today

1:13:49 ↗ go ahead and put them into the chat box

1:13:51 ↗ please

1:13:59 ↗ not seen any

1:14:02 ↗ here we go

1:14:03 ↗ commissioner milligan you are the first

1:14:05 ↗ one

1:14:06 ↗ as far as yours

1:14:08 ↗ thank you chairfall

1:14:09 ↗ uh commissioner milligan here uh thank

1:14:11 ↗ you lucy for all your uh answers to the

1:14:13 ↗ questions

1:14:14 ↗ and then i just wanted to

1:14:18 ↗ summarize some of the thoughts that i

1:14:20 ↗ had while reading the packet and

1:14:21 ↗ listening to your presentation and

1:14:24 ↗ folding in the answers to your questions

1:14:25 ↗ in no particular order

1:14:28 ↗ of priorities just where it is on my

1:14:31 ↗ piece of paper here so i can keep track

1:14:33 ↗ the developer obligations seem to me

1:14:38 ↗ worth

1:14:38 ↗ looking at as because they're very

1:14:41 ↗ holistic they seem very um kind of um

1:14:44 ↗ ethical sort of level of things they're

1:14:47 ↗ they're not um so specific that i i

1:14:49 ↗ wanted to look more at

1:14:52 ↗ them being

1:14:54 ↗ something that we could have citywide to

1:14:56 ↗ me it seemed of interest that way i just

1:14:58 ↗ wanted to state that opinion

1:15:01 ↗ and then i wanted to talk about uh allow

1:15:04 ↗ deviations which we didn't have any

1:15:05 ↗ questions about but this was one of the

1:15:06 ↗ things i wanted to bring up is something

1:15:08 ↗ i have an eye for

1:15:11 ↗ when the example in the packet on page

1:15:14 ↗ 23 of the packet

1:15:16 ↗ talks about window trans

1:15:20 ↗ transparency or whatever it's called

1:15:23 ↗ and that we would have allowed

1:15:24 ↗ deviations based on the use inside

1:15:27 ↗ and you know what i just can't imagine

1:15:31 ↗ that um

1:15:32 ↗ being necessary and would

1:15:36 ↗ i allow deviations frustrate me because

1:15:39 ↗ we have a rule for a reason

1:15:42 ↗ and if we provide allowed

1:15:44 ↗ that means that you're going to be

1:15:45 ↗ getting uses

1:15:47 ↗ say on the ground floor

1:15:48 ↗ that aren't the uses that you want

1:15:50 ↗ anyway because the uses you want on the

1:15:52 ↗ ground floor the ones that are active

1:15:53 ↗ and transparent and interact with the

1:15:55 ↗ sidewalk and then if we say oh okay but

1:15:58 ↗ you can put uses in there

1:15:59 ↗ that don't interact with the sidewalk

1:16:02 ↗ then

1:16:03 ↗ and and you know what really it it works

1:16:05 ↗ out

1:16:06 ↗ um

1:16:08 ↗ more often than we think i mean who

1:16:09 ↗ would have thought that dentist offices

1:16:11 ↗ could be on the ground floor of retail

1:16:13 ↗ and it's okay and i remember the first

1:16:15 ↗ time i sat in one of those chairs and

1:16:17 ↗ the windows right next to mine but you

1:16:19 ↗ know

1:16:20 ↗ it's it's actually a nice active

1:16:23 ↗ uh sidewalk because of that and then i

1:16:25 ↗ also want to bring up

1:16:27 ↗ at this point for your consideration

1:16:29 ↗ um

1:16:30 ↗ to

1:16:30 ↗ be mindful of how

1:16:33 ↗ looking through the window doesn't

1:16:34 ↗ always get you where you want to go

1:16:37 ↗ ulta

1:16:38 ↗ is a problem but then do we want to

1:16:41 ↗ allow window um

1:16:43 ↗ what do you call them you know like when

1:16:44 ↗ i go out by nordstrom certainly i do

1:16:46 ↗ love looking at the mannequins and

1:16:47 ↗ they're in the window anyway i didn't

1:16:49 ↗ see that we covered that well enough

1:16:51 ↗ just just point of of observation

1:16:55 ↗ then the other thing i want to talk

1:16:56 ↗ about it has to do with those guiding

1:16:57 ↗ principles and design guidelines

1:16:59 ↗ um these things were are really

1:17:01 ↗ important in issaquah highlands and one

1:17:02 ↗ thing that i get concerned about is that

1:17:04 ↗ they are guidelines

1:17:06 ↗ and they have encouraging soft language

1:17:09 ↗ and yet i think there's an um

1:17:12 ↗ a expectation that they're actually

1:17:14 ↗ standards and i think it would be

1:17:16 ↗ worthwhile to find out where those are

1:17:17 ↗ standards and one of the reasons why i

1:17:20 ↗ brought up let's go back to that year

1:17:22 ↗ following review to see if we

1:17:25 ↗ got public information that allows us

1:17:28 ↗ to um

1:17:30 ↗ to improve upon that

1:17:32 ↗ so that fences um front porches uh

1:17:36 ↗ things like that that are really

1:17:37 ↗ important in issaquah highlands can

1:17:39 ↗ become perhaps stronger languages

1:17:41 ↗ language if that's what is desired

1:17:44 ↗ and then i

1:17:46 ↗ can't help but comment about franchises

1:17:48 ↗ i am so proud of the cities that put

1:17:51 ↗ their foot down and starbucks comes in

1:17:54 ↗ and looks so awesome in their town or

1:17:58 ↗ mcdonald's or whoever it is who says oh

1:18:02 ↗ god you mean i have to come up with do

1:18:04 ↗ it with your standard aren't they

1:18:06 ↗ awesome

1:18:07 ↗ so i i hope that we can

1:18:09 ↗ have strong standards that do allow for

1:18:12 ↗ development in our community that

1:18:14 ↗ preserve our community character

1:18:18 ↗ and then the last one that i wanted to

1:18:21 ↗ comment about i'm just going to do it

1:18:22 ↗ all guys and then i'm sitting down

1:18:25 ↗ unless commissioner lewis says something

1:18:27 ↗ that i have to comment to but okay

1:18:29 ↗ here's my last one

1:18:31 ↗ uh lucy you were talking about

1:18:34 ↗ some neighborhood standards being so

1:18:36 ↗ good that you might apply them

1:18:38 ↗ city-wide that sounds cool and you know

1:18:41 ↗ we've done that so many times and we've

1:18:42 ↗ learned through the development

1:18:44 ↗ agreements that hey this is pretty cool

1:18:46 ↗ let's do this city-wide because we've

1:18:47 ↗ learned something but here's the caution

1:18:49 ↗ that this is what popped up on my brain

1:18:51 ↗ i thought could be a problem

1:18:53 ↗ okay so you take something that's really

1:18:55 ↗ important to issaquah highlands let's

1:18:56 ↗ say fence height

1:18:59 ↗ and you

1:19:00 ↗ put it city wide and then somebody in

1:19:02 ↗ south cove

1:19:04 ↗ gets mad about it 10 years from now and

1:19:06 ↗ so then you change the whole thing

1:19:09 ↗ and then issaquah highlands loses what

1:19:12 ↗ they thought was important to them

1:19:13 ↗ because it became a city

1:19:15 ↗ wide

1:19:17 ↗ standard so i don't know how to prevent

1:19:20 ↗ that but i just wanted to put a note

1:19:22 ↗ that

1:19:23 ↗ how could we

1:19:24 ↗ continue to predict the neighborhood

1:19:27 ↗ standard when it goes city-wide and then

1:19:28 ↗ differences of opinion falling later on

1:19:32 ↗ so that's it and back to my earliest

1:19:35 ↗ comment really great work i think the

1:19:37 ↗ process is going well really appreciate

1:19:39 ↗ all your public engagement thank you for

1:19:41 ↗ the reassurances of talking with our

1:19:43 ↗ neighborhood communities and leaders to

1:19:45 ↗ make sure those neighborhood overlays

1:19:46 ↗ are getting the attention that they need

1:19:48 ↗ and and thank you development commission

1:19:52 ↗ i love having you guys here and uh

1:19:55 ↗ put uh some comments oh good mel

1:19:57 ↗ morgan's coming up that's commissioner

1:20:00 ↗ thank you everyone thank you cheerful

1:20:06 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

1:20:08 ↗ commissioner morgan and mel morgan go

1:20:10 ↗ ahead and floor is yours thank you thank

1:20:12 ↗ you chair fall and hopefully everybody

1:20:13 ↗ can hear me now and

1:20:15 ↗ um

1:20:16 ↗ and a big thanks to lucy and kristen and

1:20:20 ↗ your whole team for the package you put

1:20:21 ↗ together and the great presentation lucy

1:20:24 ↗ i appreciate it in terms of the answers

1:20:26 ↗ to your questions the concerns and

1:20:28 ↗ thoughts

1:20:29 ↗ number one the consolidation of the

1:20:31 ↗ documents

1:20:32 ↗ i think is an excellent idea

1:20:35 ↗ the process you're doing here makes a

1:20:37 ↗ ton of sense

1:20:38 ↗ the

1:20:40 ↗ standards that the city have

1:20:42 ↗ from a developer's perspective can be

1:20:45 ↗ considered hard or easy

1:20:48 ↗ but that understanding them should

1:20:50 ↗ always be easy

1:20:52 ↗ that's a goal we should always have

1:20:56 ↗ number two applying urban design

1:20:57 ↗ citywide for commercial and multi-family

1:21:01 ↗ i would agree with that because our

1:21:03 ↗ various standards i think have

1:21:06 ↗ evolved over time from backstage in 95

1:21:09 ↗ to today

1:21:11 ↗ as the city evolved and grew and certain

1:21:14 ↗ areas of the city were evolving and

1:21:16 ↗ growing

1:21:17 ↗ at a fairly rapid pace and and um

1:21:20 ↗ and changing but we've changed a lot

1:21:23 ↗ over these 25 years

1:21:25 ↗ and now we're at a point i think where

1:21:26 ↗ we can have some development standards

1:21:28 ↗ that apply

1:21:30 ↗ for commercial properties city-wide

1:21:33 ↗ where that threshold is and where you

1:21:35 ↗ have neighborhood overlay beyond that

1:21:36 ↗ i'm not sure but i think there should be

1:21:38 ↗ some design standards that we can apply

1:21:40 ↗ city-wide

1:21:42 ↗ the

1:21:43 ↗ retaining

1:21:44 ↗ some neighborhood-specific standards i

1:21:46 ↗ think we definitely should have those

1:21:48 ↗ kind of overlays

1:21:50 ↗ the areas that did devolve evolve

1:21:53 ↗ especially the highlands and talus and

1:21:55 ↗ the urban core and old town

1:21:58 ↗ i think we've seen some very good

1:22:00 ↗ evolution in those areas that should be

1:22:02 ↗ respected and retained

1:22:04 ↗ in those neighborhood overlays going

1:22:06 ↗ forward and that also

1:22:09 ↗ uh well that'll get my last comment

1:22:12 ↗ um

1:22:14 ↗ number four moving the developer

1:22:15 ↗ obligations i think that's an excellent

1:22:17 ↗ idea to put those into title 18 again to

1:22:20 ↗ simplify it so a developer can look in

1:22:22 ↗ one spot to find everything they need to

1:22:24 ↗ do

1:22:25 ↗ the threshold for applying to the the

1:22:27 ↗ design manual i'm sorry i don't really

1:22:29 ↗ have a very good idea you make a great

1:22:31 ↗ point lucia about

1:22:32 ↗ friends of youth and percentage of

1:22:34 ↗ assessed value

1:22:36 ↗ good luck

1:22:37 ↗ um

1:22:38 ↗ the

1:22:39 ↗ uh the tools that we could use i would

1:22:42 ↗ hearken back to the green sheets that we

1:22:45 ↗ used to use in the development

1:22:46 ↗ commission

1:22:47 ↗ which i thought were an excellent tool

1:22:50 ↗ i would think for a developer and both

1:22:52 ↗ for us on the commission level and

1:22:54 ↗ reviewing projects to be able to walk

1:22:56 ↗ through and say

1:22:57 ↗ here's everything that this project has

1:22:59 ↗ to meet

1:23:00 ↗ those standards and how are we going to

1:23:02 ↗ judge them

1:23:04 ↗ and in this case you could have the

1:23:05 ↗ basic standards

1:23:07 ↗ designed citywide

1:23:09 ↗ and then you're going to have a

1:23:10 ↗ plug-and-play for each of the

1:23:12 ↗ neighborhood overlays that gets added

1:23:14 ↗ into that i think those

1:23:16 ↗ those kind of green sheets if we can

1:23:18 ↗ distill what we do in title 18 into the

1:23:21 ↗ green sheets i think it means that we've

1:23:23 ↗ done a good job in title 18

1:23:26 ↗ making it clear enough for everybody to

1:23:27 ↗ understand what we're looking for

1:23:30 ↗ and again the city-wide versus

1:23:32 ↗ neighborhood can be addressed pretty

1:23:34 ↗ well in there again thanks for

1:23:37 ↗ everything you've done on this and

1:23:38 ↗ thanks to the planning policy commission

1:23:40 ↗ for

1:23:41 ↗ allowing us to join in thank you

1:23:58 ↗ ron you're muted

1:24:02 ↗ ah sorry about that all

1:24:04 ↗ so

1:24:05 ↗ i like to second what uh mel just said i

1:24:07 ↗ think that when he just came up his

1:24:10 ↗ with his ideas about the green sheets

1:24:12 ↗ and

1:24:13 ↗ breaking out into

1:24:15 ↗ the subjects and the core i think was a

1:24:18 ↗ great idea would

1:24:20 ↗ help me wrap my head around this project

1:24:22 ↗ because this is really

1:24:24 ↗ can be confusing just a lot of

1:24:26 ↗ information and a

1:24:28 ↗ very methodical way to kind of

1:24:31 ↗ bring this out

1:24:32 ↗ so i am not hearing also a lot of

1:24:35 ↗ questions from some of the other

1:24:37 ↗ commissioners so i want to make sure

1:24:38 ↗ that everybody has an opportunity to be

1:24:40 ↗ able to say something here so

1:24:42 ↗ um

1:24:44 ↗ uh

1:24:46 ↗ if you have a question please go ahead

1:24:48 ↗ and put the chat in the

1:24:52 ↗ put your question into the chat so i can

1:24:54 ↗ go ahead and call on you

1:24:56 ↗ um

1:24:58 ↗ otherwise

1:25:02 ↗ ah we've got a comment from uh

1:25:04 ↗ commissioner boehner excellent it worked

1:25:09 ↗ yeah this is sarah vader i succumbed to

1:25:10 ↗ the

1:25:11 ↗ peer pressure mostly because i don't

1:25:13 ↗ know if this is even valuable but it's

1:25:15 ↗ where my

1:25:16 ↗ head is stuck um and again i don't even

1:25:19 ↗ know if it applies but um or what i'm

1:25:21 ↗ thinking about is like what stops us so

1:25:23 ↗ we do all this work right now we

1:25:26 ↗ streamline all of these different

1:25:27 ↗ documents and then in

1:25:29 ↗ three years we realize that there's a

1:25:31 ↗ need for a you know set of design

1:25:33 ↗ standards that apply to a certain thing

1:25:35 ↗ do we end up back you know in 15 years

1:25:37 ↗ time in the same position we're at now

1:25:39 ↗ with

1:25:40 ↗ code and then a whole bunch of other

1:25:42 ↗ things um or like what's the path to

1:25:45 ↗ like sustainability for this document

1:25:47 ↗ that we don't end up um kind of where

1:25:49 ↗ we're at

1:25:50 ↗ now

1:25:55 ↗ um well i'll i'll start many i'm sure

1:25:58 ↗ has some ideas too um

1:26:00 ↗ i i think uh partly what i would say is

1:26:04 ↗ you know we started with this bifurcated

1:26:06 ↗ historically we've had this bifurcated

1:26:09 ↗ system of the land use code that was

1:26:12 ↗ adopted

1:26:13 ↗ in

1:26:14 ↗ the late 90s

1:26:16 ↗ and then

1:26:17 ↗ a couple of areas like old town where we

1:26:21 ↗ we did a lot of focus and then a bunch

1:26:23 ↗ of development agreements

1:26:25 ↗ and um

1:26:27 ↗ i think that's

1:26:28 ↗ part of the important importance of this

1:26:32 ↗ title 18 with parts and chapters is it's

1:26:35 ↗ providing a much more sustainable

1:26:38 ↗ structure

1:26:40 ↗ it will

1:26:41 ↗ you know mean that we have to regularly

1:26:46 ↗ revisit it and make sure that we aren't

1:26:50 ↗ um

1:26:51 ↗ coloring outside the lines but i think

1:26:53 ↗ we're creating a much more sustainable

1:26:56 ↗ um structure that that we can

1:26:59 ↗ tend much more easily without um

1:27:04 ↗ growing another engine

1:27:11 ↗ okay thank you

1:27:12 ↗ so go ahead sorry chair uh yeah i was

1:27:15 ↗ just going to add that with this

1:27:16 ↗ consolidation and big overhaul and

1:27:19 ↗ looking at it from you know

1:27:21 ↗ comprehensively

1:27:22 ↗ is is our hope is that we provide a

1:27:25 ↗ framework a skeleton you know whatever

1:27:27 ↗ you want to call it with a broad brush

1:27:29 ↗ approach that everything kind of falls

1:27:32 ↗ in its place and then

1:27:34 ↗ if um the community desires and the

1:27:36 ↗ policies change or you know there's a

1:27:39 ↗ desire to kind of tweak few things or

1:27:41 ↗ redo a few things that framework will

1:27:44 ↗ exist and then that you know it'll it'll

1:27:47 ↗ sink in much better as opposed to having

1:27:50 ↗ this meandering path of 10 different

1:27:52 ↗ documents

1:27:53 ↗ that currently if any change

1:27:56 ↗ now you know you you don't have that

1:27:58 ↗ framework

1:28:00 ↗ in place because it's all bifurcated and

1:28:03 ↗ it's somewhat linked but it's not quite

1:28:04 ↗ linked

1:28:06 ↗ so this exercise will hopefully get get

1:28:08 ↗ the framework set up but it won't

1:28:10 ↗ prevent uh the community to kind of have

1:28:13 ↗ a conversation about anything that's not

1:28:15 ↗ working to have to go back and and

1:28:17 ↗ change it um

1:28:19 ↗ but it won't you know that that's the

1:28:21 ↗ hope here uh with this exercise but you

1:28:24 ↗ know excellent points other other points

1:28:26 ↗ that were made tonight as well in terms

1:28:28 ↗ of you know deviations that have a vague

1:28:31 ↗ language obviously we want to get away

1:28:33 ↗ from those because then what's the point

1:28:35 ↗ of having these

1:28:37 ↗ standards and discussions when we can

1:28:39 ↗ have

1:28:40 ↗ um

1:28:41 ↗ pretty broad deviation uh ability um yes

1:28:45 ↗ there needs to be some flexibility for

1:28:47 ↗ unusual circumstances but it doesn't

1:28:49 ↗ need to be

1:28:50 ↗ uh the example that was shared today

1:28:52 ↗ um the area-wide this the city-wide i

1:28:57 ↗ think will be very careful with not

1:28:59 ↗ taking things and pushing it on

1:29:01 ↗ neighborhoods that they don't belong

1:29:04 ↗ um

1:29:05 ↗ but

1:29:06 ↗ like someone you know one of you said uh

1:29:08 ↗ this is this may be the beginning of the

1:29:10 ↗ once you get the full

1:29:13 ↗ code at that point you will be able to

1:29:15 ↗ the devil is going to be in the details

1:29:17 ↗ at that point to kind of see that does

1:29:18 ↗ this make sense for city-wide or not and

1:29:21 ↗ you know if it's a natural context that

1:29:23 ↗ this that the building should respect

1:29:25 ↗ the natural context does it matter

1:29:27 ↗ whether it's in central issaquah or an

1:29:29 ↗ old town

1:29:30 ↗ or somewhere else

1:29:32 ↗ if you're building so those kind of

1:29:33 ↗ things perhaps will apply everywhere

1:29:36 ↗ we are going to have a discussion with

1:29:38 ↗ all of you on circulation and parking

1:29:41 ↗ and one of the things and there is this

1:29:43 ↗ through block passage

1:29:45 ↗ which

1:29:46 ↗ should be different in more urban

1:29:47 ↗ context and should be different in

1:29:49 ↗ central issaquah as opposed to applying

1:29:51 ↗ it city-wide so perhaps those things

1:29:54 ↗ will get nuanced and worked on

1:29:56 ↗ uh and we've learned through our

1:29:58 ↗ implementation that those some tweaks

1:30:01 ↗ there may be necessary not changes in

1:30:03 ↗ policy but perhaps

1:30:05 ↗ what's working on the ground or not um

1:30:07 ↗ so we'll bring that to for your

1:30:09 ↗ discussion

1:30:11 ↗ in february but tonight's discussion was

1:30:13 ↗ the the site design and the building

1:30:15 ↗ design um aspects of those two and and

1:30:19 ↗ it sounds like this design manual and

1:30:22 ↗ bifurcating into architectural and urban

1:30:24 ↗ design we we can continue that

1:30:26 ↗ conversation at our next meeting um so

1:30:30 ↗ we provided the links to those to the

1:30:32 ↗ design manual and and i think

1:30:34 ↗ development commission is very familiar

1:30:35 ↗ with it uh some of the things you all

1:30:37 ↗ were talking about is having those green

1:30:40 ↗ sheets or

1:30:41 ↗ more of a structure to what is a

1:30:43 ↗ criteria and what is a guideline as you

1:30:46 ↗ as we bring forth um projects for

1:30:49 ↗ approval um having a very

1:30:52 ↗ you know detailed document that doesn't

1:30:54 ↗ has a list of things but not a very

1:30:57 ↗ clear here's the criteria you have to

1:30:59 ↗ meet and here are some ways you can meet

1:31:01 ↗ it perhaps we can you know take that

1:31:04 ↗ feedback

1:31:06 ↗ the green sheets

1:31:07 ↗ lucy can speak to that but i think what

1:31:09 ↗ we've heard

1:31:11 ↗ was

1:31:12 ↗ they were in addition to the code

1:31:14 ↗ sometimes they were not in sync with the

1:31:16 ↗ code um sometimes they were different

1:31:18 ↗ from the code so there were some issues

1:31:20 ↗ i think from consistency in

1:31:23 ↗ and and language was too broad uh so

1:31:26 ↗ even if

1:31:27 ↗ um you know

1:31:28 ↗ there would never be an instance where

1:31:30 ↗ someone could say this this doesn't meet

1:31:32 ↗ but i think the intent there is to have

1:31:34 ↗ really clear criteria for approval as

1:31:37 ↗ development commission is looking at to

1:31:39 ↗ say whether this criteria has been met

1:31:41 ↗ and then you have some guidance of how

1:31:43 ↗ the criteria can be met by by these

1:31:45 ↗ guidelines

1:31:47 ↗ so we're happy to take any other

1:31:48 ↗ feedback i think that's what i've heard

1:31:50 ↗ from from our discussion tonight

1:31:56 ↗ back over to you chair

1:31:59 ↗ thank you uh minnie and looks like we

1:32:01 ↗ have a comment from commissioner lewis

1:32:08 ↗ thank you chairfall uh minnie i really

1:32:10 ↗ appreciate your comments right there i

1:32:12 ↗ think that when we talk about

1:32:14 ↗ consolidating and streamline something

1:32:16 ↗ that's kind of been missed from the

1:32:17 ↗ conversation is that also our intent is

1:32:20 ↗ really to strengthen our code we talk so

1:32:22 ↗ much here in ppc about how

1:32:25 ↗ you know we put our intent into the

1:32:27 ↗ policy but the teeth is in the code

1:32:29 ↗ there's so many times that we're working

1:32:31 ↗ um on really difficult things coming

1:32:33 ↗ together as a community and deciding

1:32:35 ↗ things that we say wait wait the teeth

1:32:37 ↗ will be in the code we'll get there

1:32:39 ↗ right and this is really our opportunity

1:32:41 ↗ to strengthen our code and to really

1:32:44 ↗ have unequivocally clear and strong

1:32:47 ↗ language right to be able to actually

1:32:49 ↗ have strict code that gets us what we

1:32:52 ↗ want what we've already stated as a

1:32:53 ↗ community

1:32:54 ↗ in our policies so i think it's uh

1:32:57 ↗ it's not just about framework it's not

1:32:58 ↗ just about usability it's also about

1:33:00 ↗ that result so i really appreciate your

1:33:02 ↗ comments um and i really want to put

1:33:05 ↗ that emphasis too on you know i think

1:33:07 ↗ you know connie made the comment about

1:33:08 ↗ what's the sweet spot um and it's a

1:33:11 ↗ tough line we're expecting a lot of you

1:33:12 ↗ guys but we also expect in this

1:33:14 ↗ consolidation to really get to the meat

1:33:17 ↗ of here's where we really need to

1:33:20 ↗ really buff up our code to be what it

1:33:22 ↗ needs to be to align with our community

1:33:24 ↗ values and our policies so

1:33:26 ↗ thank you for that hard work

1:33:32 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

1:33:33 ↗ commissioner richard sanford you have

1:33:36 ↗ the floor

1:33:37 ↗ thank you um this just occurred to me

1:33:39 ↗ from the discussion um

1:33:41 ↗ and then i think director dollywell

1:33:43 ↗ discovered it um as we're migrating this

1:33:46 ↗ content it sounds like a lot of

1:33:49 ↗ uh recommendations guidelines

1:33:51 ↗ performance standards and so on we'll be

1:33:54 ↗ moving into the code and it seems to me

1:33:56 ↗ that it's going to be very critical to

1:33:57 ↗ distinguish between guidelines and

1:33:59 ↗ requirements when we do this

1:34:01 ↗ structurally within each chapter and

1:34:04 ↗ part so that it's really readily

1:34:06 ↗ understandable or it seems to me we

1:34:08 ↗ could be creating

1:34:10 ↗ more

1:34:10 ↗ uh conflict and confusion between

1:34:13 ↗ guidelines and requirements when they're

1:34:15 ↗ all

1:34:16 ↗ in the code together um so i guess

1:34:19 ↗ that's

1:34:20 ↗ that's my point

1:34:24 ↗ and thank you commissioner sanford

1:34:26 ↗ uh

1:34:27 ↗ i have not seen any additional comments

1:34:30 ↗ from commissioners so last call

1:34:38 ↗ not seeing any new ones so i'm going to

1:34:40 ↗ go ahead and

1:34:42 ↗ close out that and we're going gonna go

1:34:45 ↗ ahead and move it over to

1:34:47 ↗ um

1:34:49 ↗ kristin

1:34:50 ↗ to go ahead and talk about new business

1:34:55 ↗ so

1:34:56 ↗ yeah first i'll start with the calendar

1:34:58 ↗ um dc you might be interested as well

1:35:02 ↗ i did not include a calendar this week

1:35:04 ↗ because it is in flux right now and we

1:35:08 ↗ have some potential changes coming to it

1:35:11 ↗ so i will put that in the next one

1:35:13 ↗ however i wanted to mention on the last

1:35:15 ↗ calendar and this is for ppc

1:35:18 ↗ i'm going to need to see a show of hands

1:35:19 ↗ on the last calendar

1:35:21 ↗ i included an additional meeting where

1:35:23 ↗ you will actually be the visiting

1:35:24 ↗ commission ah

1:35:26 ↗ um and with the environmental board and

1:35:30 ↗ that is for gary schmeck to talk about

1:35:33 ↗ the work that has continued on the

1:35:35 ↗ stormwater master plan

1:35:38 ↗ and the other one um

1:35:39 ↗ but i need to be sure before we do that

1:35:41 ↗ that would be on march 9th then you have

1:35:43 ↗ a meeting on march 10th then you have a

1:35:45 ↗ meeting on march 24th

1:35:46 ↗ so i just want to be sure that um before

1:35:49 ↗ we're fully committed that we can have a

1:35:51 ↗ quorum at that meeting so

1:35:53 ↗ if you could

1:35:54 ↗ how am i going to do this

1:35:56 ↗ um

1:35:58 ↗ i'll just ask real quick let's see um

1:36:01 ↗ commissioner fall or chair fall would

1:36:03 ↗ you be able to attend

1:36:07 ↗ i can't commit

1:36:08 ↗ okay commissioner voice

1:36:13 ↗ i believe so

1:36:14 ↗ okay commissioner lewis

1:36:18 ↗ yes i can attend march night

1:36:20 ↗ excellent commissioner milligan

1:36:23 ↗ yes i can attend

1:36:25 ↗ excellent uh commissioner bader

1:36:30 ↗ yes most likely

1:36:31 ↗ okay and commissioner zaragoza

1:36:34 ↗ most likely only need to check but i

1:36:36 ↗ think so okay great i think we'll have

1:36:38 ↗ did i leave anybody out you keep

1:36:40 ↗ skipping around on me um i think we'll

1:36:41 ↗ be okay then great so i'll leave that on

1:36:43 ↗ the calendar thank you

1:36:44 ↗ um as for council updates

1:36:48 ↗ i do not have any however i know that

1:36:51 ↗ many wanted to talk about

1:36:53 ↗ monday night's council meeting

1:36:56 ↗ thanks kristen um so um council's been

1:36:59 ↗ looking at shopping cart regulations um

1:37:03 ↗ so they you know we

1:37:05 ↗ this community has had an uptick in

1:37:07 ↗ abandoned shopping carts

1:37:09 ↗ uh so

1:37:10 ↗ upwards of 40 shopping carts are left at

1:37:13 ↗ uh the transit center or at the corners

1:37:16 ↗ and things like that and it's so

1:37:18 ↗ somewhat tied to theft issues that

1:37:21 ↗ happen at target in other places so

1:37:23 ↗ there was a big um

1:37:26 ↗ uh community um you know a lot of

1:37:27 ↗ community members spoke at the last

1:37:29 ↗ council meeting and council uh

1:37:32 ↗ considered an ordinance uh to

1:37:34 ↗ to address the issue for abandoned

1:37:36 ↗ shopping cart so if you're interested in

1:37:38 ↗ that

1:37:39 ↗ topic you can watch the council meeting

1:37:41 ↗ but uh there is a new ordinance in place

1:37:44 ↗ which basically

1:37:46 ↗ um you know allows the business it

1:37:48 ↗ requires the businesses to uh one uh put

1:37:52 ↗ some signage on the premises that you

1:37:54 ↗ know people can't walk away with uh with

1:37:56 ↗ the shopping carts and two to have uh we

1:37:58 ↗ can identify what the shopping carts are

1:38:01 ↗ and if we find you know if we find them

1:38:04 ↗ abandoned we call them and they come and

1:38:06 ↗ pick them up within 24 hours if

1:38:09 ↗ the abandoned carts continue for three

1:38:12 ↗ times or you know six times in three

1:38:14 ↗ months or something like that then they

1:38:16 ↗ have then that particular business has

1:38:18 ↗ to come up with a plan uh for how

1:38:20 ↗ they're going to manage their uh

1:38:22 ↗ abandoned shopping cart so as you are

1:38:24 ↗ out and about in the community and you

1:38:25 ↗ look at this and have

1:38:27 ↗ some feedback for us

1:38:29 ↗ or some suggestions on how to tackle

1:38:31 ↗ this problem um you know please let us

1:38:34 ↗ know

1:38:35 ↗ so that that happened

1:38:37 ↗ um the other thing i think where

1:38:40 ↗ that relates to title 18

1:38:42 ↗ we're working with a city clerk uh to

1:38:44 ↗ set up some uh briefings for council uh

1:38:48 ↗ on title 18 we had gone and done a study

1:38:51 ↗ session with them uh earlier during this

1:38:53 ↗ process uh but we are scheduled for

1:38:56 ↗ february 7th to go give them

1:39:00 ↗ a status update of all the things we you

1:39:02 ↗ know we've been working with the boards

1:39:04 ↗ and commissions on

1:39:05 ↗ so that's happening on february 7th

1:39:08 ↗ that's all i have kristen

1:39:13 ↗ thank you i did have uh one other

1:39:15 ↗ thought this um

1:39:17 ↗ this topic we are intending to carry

1:39:19 ↗ this over to our next meeting with uh dc

1:39:21 ↗ as

1:39:23 ↗ joining us again are there any other is

1:39:25 ↗ there any other information that you all

1:39:27 ↗ need from us or if you need it

1:39:29 ↗ if there's something you know that will

1:39:31 ↗ help this discussion move along um email

1:39:34 ↗ us email me during the week

1:39:36 ↗ and you know you may

1:39:38 ↗ go sit and

1:39:39 ↗ have some dinner after this go ah dude i

1:39:41 ↗ forgot that so

1:39:43 ↗ feel free to email it to me um and we

1:39:45 ↗ can get you more information for next

1:39:47 ↗ week

1:39:48 ↗ yeah um and before next week's meeting

1:39:50 ↗ starts we're actually

1:39:52 ↗ going to have a public hearing that

1:39:54 ↗ should probably last not more than 30

1:39:56 ↗ minutes and then the join meeting will

1:39:58 ↗ start

1:39:59 ↗ that's all

1:40:02 ↗ thank you uh kristen and

1:40:05 ↗ if there's no other business then we

1:40:08 ↗ will go ahead and adjourn at 8 15.

1:40:13 ↗ thank you everybody thank you for the

1:40:15 ↗ commission for the

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (13)

Faul

Vice-Chair Voiss

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan

Zaragoza (Alternate) Absence: Commissioner Monahan (Excused) Development Commissioners Present: Chair Brennan

Vice-Chair Price

Commissioners Dillon

Ikeda

Morgan

Sanford

Schulte

Shore Absence: Commissioner Sowa (Unexcused)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua