Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 30, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 28, 2016

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 - Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 - Jon Stob 2018 - Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 - Justin Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 - Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 - Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 - Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 - Salim Juma see IMC 18.03. 2018 - Larisa Kolcz 2018 - Vacant 2018 - Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 12, 2016

packet pp.5–9

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 28, 2016

▶ Watch from 1:34 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Proposed Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Amendments

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.11–51

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

BACKGROUND

2529 segments .txt ↗

0:38 ↗ g a huge

0:39 ↗ packet good evening and welcome to the

0:42 ↗ June

0:44 ↗ 30th uh meeting of the planning policy

0:47 ↗ commission tonight we're going to do a

0:49 ↗ public hearing on the proposed Central

0:51 ↗ isqua Development and design standards

0:55 ↗ Amendment with an S um but first of all

0:59 ↗ um I was wasn't here the last time so I

1:01 ↗ didn't get a chance to welcome the the

1:03 ↗ new members to the um to the commission

1:06 ↗ so welcome thank you um I did read the

1:09 ↗ minutes and I was really impressed with

1:11 ↗ everybody's comments um normally it

1:14 ↗ takes several meetings to get adjusted

1:17 ↗ to what exactly we're looking at um I

1:20 ↗ think uh the comments that were there by

1:24 ↗ the new members were I thought were were

1:27 ↗ kind of awesome you just got really into

1:29 ↗ to it and started uh working on it so

1:32 ↗ thank you for that the first thing on

1:34 ↗ our agenda is approval of the minutes of

1:36 ↗ that meeting do I have a motion to

1:38 ↗ approve the minutes uh I'll make such a

1:40 ↗ motion uh second it is there any

1:46 ↗ discussion hearing no discussion all

1:49 ↗ those in favor of approving the minutes

1:52 ↗ as written please say I I opposed motion

1:57 ↗ carries so with that we're going to ask

2:00 ↗ Lucy and Kristen to give us an update on

2:04 ↗ what the U proposed changes are to the

2:14 ↗ Amendments hello I'm Christ Leon I'm a

2:16 ↗ senior planner with the development

2:17 ↗ services department for those of you I

2:19 ↗ have not met um I'm going to start it

2:22 ↗ off and then I'm going to hand it over

2:23 ↗ to Lucy there are four amendments that

2:25 ↗ we're talking about tonight well let let

2:27 ↗ me do this part first um but there are

2:30 ↗ four amendments uh we it'll be a public

2:32 ↗ an open hearing so we'll have the open

2:34 ↗ meeting for public comment in a little

2:35 ↗ bit and then a PPC discussion and

2:37 ↗ recommendation the amendments are to

2:39 ↗ clarify the affordable housing provision

2:41 ↗ and density bonus program to clarify

2:45 ↗ minimum plant size and spacing clarify

2:47 ↗ options to address building mass and

2:49 ↗ design and establish the size and

2:51 ↗ location criteria for motorcycle parking

2:55 ↗ spaces so first up we have clarify

2:58 ↗ affordable housing provision in the D

2:59 ↗ dity bonus program so this came up the

3:02 ↗ density pron bonus program is a way to

3:06 ↗ provide economic value for developers by

3:09 ↗ allowing them additional square footage

3:11 ↗ through either Building height or flare

3:13 ↗ floor area ratio in exchange for public

3:16 ↗ benefits which would be in this case

3:18 ↗ affordable housing and open space so you

3:20 ↗ say here's your base height here's where

3:22 ↗ you can build if you want to go over

3:24 ↗ that that's great but you're going to

3:25 ↗ give us something in return so the

3:27 ↗ amendment was requested because over

3:30 ↗ since this has been adopted there's been

3:32 ↗ confusion among applicants and staff

3:34 ↗ alike about how to calculate the bonus

3:36 ↗ area and the requirements associated

3:38 ↗ with that so in conversations with the

3:40 ↗ city attorney and staff a few other

3:42 ↗ things were added to the

3:43 ↗ amendment the first one

3:46 ↗ is change the word bonus density to

3:50 ↗ bonus development this came up in a

3:52 ↗ discussion with our City attorney and it

3:54 ↗ came up because we said what if an

3:56 ↗ applicant and this happens what if an

3:58 ↗ applicant doesn't want to add an entire

4:00 ↗ floor of usable space they only want to

4:03 ↗ add about two or three feet and this may

4:05 ↗ come up because say an applicant wants

4:07 ↗ to put a penthouse on the top and they

4:08 ↗ can get you know with really high

4:09 ↗ ceilings and they can get more money for

4:11 ↗ that than they can for a 10-ft ceiling

4:14 ↗ so it's it's come up before and the

4:16 ↗ developer and the City attorney said

4:17 ↗ well they're not actually adding density

4:20 ↗ that's a development bonus not a density

4:22 ↗ bonus so you can't get anything from

4:24 ↗ them if you call it density bonus so for

4:28 ↗ that reason we have gone through the

4:29 ↗ entire centralistic quas standards and

4:31 ↗ we are proposing to change the word

4:33 ↗ density to development so that no matter

4:36 ↗ how high they go above the height or how

4:37 ↗ far they go over the F we still get P

4:40 ↗ public benefit for going over that base

4:43 ↗ that they're allowed to

4:44 ↗ do another one the second one is to

4:47 ↗ include exemptions so throughout the

4:49 ↗ land use code there are certain things

4:51 ↗ that are exempt from building Heights

4:53 ↗ such as um mechanical equipment required

4:57 ↗ elevator shafts cell towers chimneys

5:00 ↗ flag poles that kind of thing is exempt

5:02 ↗ from Building height so there was no

5:03 ↗ reason not to exempt it from this as

5:04 ↗ well um the other one that we Exempted

5:07 ↗ our public schools and school facilities

5:09 ↗ because they already add a public

5:10 ↗ benefit they are a public benefit to the

5:12 ↗ city so it kind of felt like double

5:13 ↗ dipping if we required that from

5:17 ↗ them this is the one that initiated the

5:20 ↗ conversation this chart which is

5:22 ↗ supposed to tell us how to um calculate

5:26 ↗ the requirement from the developer so

5:29 ↗ what we did the most confusing part for

5:31 ↗ people seemed to be um first of all the

5:34 ↗ left half of the table was for onethird

5:36 ↗ the first onethird of the bonus density

5:39 ↗ development and the right half was for

5:42 ↗ 2/3 and another confusing point so we

5:45 ↗ clarified that and just you know by

5:48 ↗ adding one3 and 2/3 to each side and in

5:50 ↗ the text in the in the body of the table

5:53 ↗ and then also there was the confusion

5:56 ↗ came from this column A2 which is called

6:01 ↗ portion that seemed to be a point of

6:03 ↗ confusion for people as well so we

6:04 ↗ eliminated that

6:09 ↗ piece and lastly the last Amendment here

6:12 ↗ has to do with what do you use if it's

6:16 ↗ common that Builders will go over both

6:17 ↗ the F and the building height and people

6:20 ↗ said do you use both of those do you use

6:22 ↗ one of those if you use one which do you

6:24 ↗ use so we said calculate it all and

6:27 ↗ whichever one comes out to be greater

6:28 ↗ the floor height or the building I mean

6:30 ↗ the building height or the floor area

6:31 ↗ ratio that is the one that you use so

6:34 ↗ those are the four amendments proposed

6:36 ↗ amendments regarding um bonus

6:38 ↗ development and I will hand it over to

6:42 ↗ Lucy are we doing are we doing questions

6:45 ↗ are we doing public comment now or how

6:47 ↗ do you want to do that tonight um I

6:49 ↗ thought you'd go through your whole

6:51 ↗ presentation and then we could do public

6:54 ↗ comment okay I do have one question on

6:56 ↗ on 54 though uh on that se section B is

7:00 ↗ there a reason why we're not I mean if

7:02 ↗ they're going over Building height and

7:05 ↗ exceeding the base is there a reason

7:06 ↗ we're not uh putting those together

7:09 ↗ instead of just using the uh largest of

7:12 ↗ the two now Lucy may have to step in but

7:13 ↗ I think it's because they're not totally

7:15 ↗ separate entities so by going over the

7:18 ↗ building height you may also at the same

7:20 ↗ time unintentionally go over the F and

7:24 ↗ can you explain it

7:26 ↗ better well I I I think actually Kristen

7:29 ↗ hit on it there um that by exceeding in

7:33 ↗ one category or the other it's if you

7:36 ↗ think of it as a as like a volume it's

7:40 ↗ it's the same volume going over that's

7:42 ↗ why we picked the greater of them

7:44 ↗ because it they're not two separate sets

7:48 ↗ of I'm not doing a good job they're not

7:50 ↗ two separate they're not two separate

7:52 ↗ sets of volume they're overlapping and

7:54 ↗ therefore to count them both twice would

7:57 ↗ would be counting it twice

8:01 ↗ does that make sense as much as it can

8:03 ↗ yeah that's kind of you thank

8:07 ↗ you I had a question uh about the fee I

8:11 ↗ noticed I can't remember where it was

8:12 ↗ but it noticed that it was saying that

8:14 ↗ it was um exempt from development

8:15 ↗ agreements so uh it mentions $15 I was

8:18 ↗ curious how this compares to the fee

8:20 ↗ that is normally in development

8:22 ↗ agreements is is higher or lower and

8:24 ↗ then I'm questioned about that is then

8:27 ↗ what how how staff determined that it

8:28 ↗ should higher or lower than we generally

8:30 ↗ said in our development agreements well

8:32 ↗ uh do the development agreements do

8:34 ↗ bonuses they don't so I I don't know

8:37 ↗ there's a line item that specifically

8:38 ↗ mentions that so I think what it's

8:40 ↗ saying is that um projects that are in

8:44 ↗ areas covered by development Agreements

8:47 ↗ are not are exempt from density bonus

8:50 ↗ because there's been some kind they have

8:53 ↗ separate regulations and

8:55 ↗ negotiations and so in some cases

9:00 ↗ um for instance Costco is in the central

9:05 ↗ uh isqua area they have a development

9:08 ↗ agreement and they are

9:11 ↗ paying quite a bit of money I'm I don't

9:13 ↗ want how does that break down per square

9:15 ↗ foot I I couldn't possibly tell you off

9:17 ↗ the top of my head I'm sorry how did you

9:19 ↗ guys come up let's direct it to the 15

9:21 ↗ then how did you guys come up with this

9:23 ↗ amount that was the market rate at that

9:25 ↗ time we I can't tell you how they came

9:27 ↗ up with it we didn't write it but they

9:29 ↗ there language that then changes it

9:31 ↗ based on the market rate cuz from from a

9:33 ↗ little bit of research that I did that

9:34 ↗ seemed a little low and I was just

9:36 ↗ curious why and if there's reason for it

9:38 ↗ that's great but I wanted to know what

9:40 ↗ that was that's come up a few times it's

9:41 ↗ been asked a few times and I would have

9:43 ↗ the same question myself because we

9:45 ↗ didn't write this portion so I think

9:48 ↗ right now I think we'll keep that there

9:50 ↗ put it in the parking lot and we're

9:51 ↗ doing a housing strategy and this whole

9:53 ↗ thing is going to be Revisited so I

9:55 ↗ would imagine that we would address that

9:57 ↗ then and say is 15 what we want to keep

9:59 ↗ do we want to adjust that based on the

10:00 ↗ market rate how how does that work so I

10:04 ↗ agree that that's something that's come

10:05 ↗ up before and I I don't have the answer

10:07 ↗ but we can always relook at it going

10:09 ↗ back to 54 I was just looking at the

10:11 ↗ definitions of floor area ratio and then

10:13 ↗ the height so I'm thinking of the

10:15 ↗ situation in which uh you've got

10:19 ↗ um I don't know some portion of a floor

10:22 ↗ cordoned off for whatever reason they

10:23 ↗ just decide they're going to use it for

10:25 ↗ storage it's not going to be available

10:27 ↗ for units um but they've also um added

10:31 ↗ height to it so it's not being used for

10:32 ↗ either I mean that would be a situation

10:34 ↗ conceivably where you're both exceeding

10:37 ↗ the F and the height requirements at the

10:39 ↗ same time I mean I think there can be

10:41 ↗ situations where that would arise oh

10:43 ↗ right and that's why we put that in

10:45 ↗ there because there are situations where

10:46 ↗ that can arise and that's why we said

10:48 ↗ you calculate it both ways you calculate

10:50 ↗ the building height that's exceeding it

10:51 ↗ and then you would count the the F

10:53 ↗ that's exceeding it but then you're only

10:55 ↗ taking one and then you're only taking

10:56 ↗ the greatest number of those two so that

10:58 ↗ you're not double dipping and using

11:01 ↗ both not the greatest number of those

11:04 ↗ two the one that is greater results in

11:06 ↗ the greatest benefit to the city yes

11:09 ↗ thank

11:14 ↗ you I know it seems if if if you're

11:16 ↗ exceeding both I mean you should be

11:18 ↗ charged for both I mean to the extent

11:20 ↗ that there is not

11:22 ↗ overlap because there will be some

11:24 ↗ overlap and I don't know how you'd

11:25 ↗ necessarily calculate that I mean but it

11:27 ↗ should be a simple you know

11:33 ↗ calculation I am not good enough at

11:34 ↗ numbers to figure that out I me so

11:36 ↗ here's I I guess here's the thing and

11:39 ↗ and maybe I'm just not you and I each

11:41 ↗ probably have a picture in our head um I

11:44 ↗ cannot imagine a way where the greater

11:48 ↗ number does not include the Lesser

11:52 ↗ number so if for instance the square

11:55 ↗ footage that exceeds for height is

11:58 ↗ 10,000 ,000 Square ft and the square

12:01 ↗ footage that exceeds for f is 5,000

12:05 ↗ square ft I cannot imagine a way in

12:08 ↗ which that 5,000 square feet is not con

12:11 ↗ is not within the 10,000 square feet I

12:14 ↗ guess that's my confusion is how do you

12:15 ↗ have a square footage measured on blank

12:17 ↗ height okay so that that's a great

12:21 ↗ question so um if uh it kind of goes

12:25 ↗ back to the um

12:29 ↗ point that Kristen made if if the height

12:32 ↗ limit is 50 feet and in some cases it is

12:37 ↗ um and your building is 52 feet you

12:41 ↗ would just take us that slice at the

12:44 ↗ 50ft level whatever that floor plate is

12:48 ↗ and that would be the so if that floor

12:51 ↗ plate

12:52 ↗ is 2,000 square ft that would be what

12:56 ↗ the base the number that you would use

12:58 ↗ the square footage you would use to

13:01 ↗ calculate um what their fee or their

13:04 ↗ open space or whatever was um that would

13:06 ↗ be the number you would use to calculate

13:08 ↗ okay and that makes okay now that makes

13:10 ↗ sense okay

13:13 ↗ okay anything else I do have a question

13:17 ↗ okay help me understand when you say

13:21 ↗ we're going to be

13:23 ↗ exceeding base

13:25 ↗ height

13:27 ↗ and does that mean that we're going to

13:30 ↗ have if a developer wants to come in and

13:32 ↗ say I want 12T ceilings I want 14ot

13:35 ↗ ceilings whatever and it causes each

13:37 ↗ floor to eventually Stack Up could that

13:39 ↗ actually in theory

13:41 ↗ create perception from the outside a

13:44 ↗ second story or another floor so you're

13:47 ↗ actually raising it that much of a

13:49 ↗ difference this isn't this isn't done on

13:51 ↗ stories or floors this is actually done

13:52 ↗ on height so it would go above there's a

13:55 ↗ difference between counting the number

13:56 ↗ of stories because you're right you

13:58 ↗ could have a 10 foot story or you could

13:59 ↗ have a 15ot story so if you do stories

14:04 ↗ it could they could be allowed to have

14:06 ↗ five stories and that oh shoot now I

14:08 ↗ have to do math that could either go up

14:09 ↗ to you know 75 feet or it could go up to

14:12 ↗ 50 feet if you have five stories you

14:14 ↗ know depending but if you do it just

14:16 ↗ based on height alone just based on the

14:18 ↗ number of feet included in that building

14:20 ↗ yes absolutely that could get it over

14:22 ↗ the base

14:23 ↗ height does that make sense so the way

14:26 ↗ this is currently worded

14:29 ↗ could actually allow a developer to

14:31 ↗ exceed base heyes from 50 to maybe 75

14:35 ↗ because of the formula that we have here

14:37 ↗ and only by giving us public benefit in

14:39 ↗ return so they're required to give us

14:43 ↗ either affordable

14:44 ↗ housing through that because of that

14:47 ↗ height and or um open space so they

14:52 ↗ don't just get it and that open space

14:54 ↗ and or affordable housing would not

14:56 ↗ necessarily be connected to the that

14:59 ↗ specific development so they could

15:00 ↗ actually create a development Elsewhere

15:02 ↗ for affordable housing or create open

15:04 ↗ space in another area if they are doing

15:07 ↗ a residential a development that

15:10 ↗ includes residential components so it's

15:12 ↗ either all residential or mixed use

15:13 ↗ which would me which includes

15:15 ↗ residential so retail on the bottom and

15:17 ↗ residential on the top they do

15:19 ↗ affordable housing that must be included

15:22 ↗ within that development so some of their

15:24 ↗ units must be affordable if they're

15:26 ↗ doing a commercial development or not

15:28 ↗ non-residential development then

15:30 ↗ whatever they exceed they pay right now

15:34 ↗ $15 per square foot of whatever their

15:37 ↗ bonus area is and that goes into a fund

15:39 ↗ and Council then determines whether that

15:41 ↗ goes towards open space or affordable

15:43 ↗ housing which does not have to be on

15:45 ↗ site okay yeah okay thank you for the

15:48 ↗ clarification that's excellent you're

15:52 ↗ welcome continue good

15:56 ↗ okay Jennifer's actually doing the next

15:58 ↗ one I was going to say I wasn't

16:00 ↗ mentioned but I'm going to do the next

16:02 ↗ one U my name is Jennifer R Woods um

16:04 ↗ there's another Jennifer woods so the r

16:06 ↗ is important um I'm an associate planner

16:08 ↗ with development services and I'm going

16:10 ↗ to talk to you about the next Amendment

16:12 ↗ which is to clarify the minimum plant

16:14 ↗ size in spacing so the reason for the

16:16 ↗ amendment is that it revises a current

16:18 ↗ flexible standard that we have in the

16:20 ↗ code today that allows an applicant to

16:22 ↗ basically manipulate the plant sizes uh

16:25 ↗ required or the spacing required with a

16:28 ↗ letter from a landscape architect

16:29 ↗ explaining what the justification for

16:31 ↗ doing that would be that's it um that

16:34 ↗ particular standard has kind of been

16:36 ↗ misused so we're revising it to kind of

16:39 ↗ put a more a bigger eye on exactly what

16:42 ↗ they're requesting and a better

16:44 ↗ justification on why um the amendment

16:47 ↗ also includes the requirement to have a

16:49 ↗ peerreview conducted at the applicant's

16:52 ↗ expense um so that we have an expert

16:54 ↗ looking at uh what that landscape

16:56 ↗ architect is proposing

16:59 ↗ and that's

17:01 ↗ it so how did you come up with

17:04 ↗ 85% question grow that I back way back

17:08 ↗ when it was decided I have no idea but

17:11 ↗ it's been that way for a very long time

17:13 ↗ so

17:14 ↗ 85% is just what we require they show

17:18 ↗ the plants on the plans so that we can

17:21 ↗ ensure that they're using the spacing

17:24 ↗ the appropriate spacing of the plants

17:27 ↗ and we're not going to end end up with

17:29 ↗ either big gaps between plants when

17:31 ↗ they're at their maturity or that they

17:34 ↗ are so close that they would damage each

17:37 ↗ other um so we sometimes see that um

17:41 ↗ some developers want to not pay a lot of

17:44 ↗ money and so they um use U big symbols

17:51 ↗ um sometimes we see that um some

17:53 ↗ developers want things to look very full

17:57 ↗ at planting and they will not grow in

17:59 ↗ well they will not be the plants will

18:02 ↗ not maintain health because there's not

18:04 ↗ enough room for branches and stuff to to

18:07 ↗ reach maturity so what we're asking is

18:10 ↗ that they show their plants at 85% so

18:13 ↗ that staff is able to review the plans

18:17 ↗ and make sure that they're well spaced

18:19 ↗ for the health is that how it's stated

18:21 ↗ in

18:22 ↗ the the code today 80 85% in the plans I

18:27 ↗ just read that at that uh they were

18:29 ↗ required to put in uh plants that were

18:31 ↗ 85% of it the growth yeah so the it says

18:35 ↗ the plan shall indicate plants at 85% of

18:37 ↗ mature size and and basically what Lucy

18:39 ↗ was saying is when they create their

18:41 ↗ plants and they give them T us for

18:42 ↗ review the plans need to mimic what is

18:45 ↗ what it's going to look like on site

18:47 ↗ once the plants have filled out 85% of

18:49 ↗ their maturity so I I I understand that

18:52 ↗ and now it's it's just in the plants

18:54 ↗ yeah it's not just in the plants they

18:55 ↗ don't have to plant a tree that's 85% of

18:58 ↗ that would be bit I I do have one

19:02 ↗ additional question just on 1017

19:05 ↗ generally uh has there been any looking

19:07 ↗ at um the other standards in terms of uh

19:10 ↗ utilization of uh low water plants or

19:13 ↗ native plants um and is that already

19:16 ↗ included yes that the the chapter 10

19:19 ↗ which is the landscape development

19:21 ↗ standards chapter actually has specific

19:23 ↗ requirements for how much Native you use

19:26 ↗ um so there and and drw to an plants as

19:29 ↗ well uh so there there's kind of a

19:32 ↗ several sections actually throughout the

19:33 ↗ entire set of Standards but this is the

19:36 ↗ specific one about Landscaping that

19:38 ↗ required those kinds of

19:39 ↗ things here's a a question from uh

19:42 ↗ Connie Marsh uh she had pointed out that

19:45 ↗ on number two plans shall indicate

19:48 ↗ plants of 85% of maturity

19:51 ↗ size number three all planting areas

19:54 ↗ shall contain Landscaping installed

19:57 ↗ based on approved plan and appropriately

20:00 ↗ space to provide total coverage of the

20:02 ↗ landscape within 3

20:04 ↗ years had mentioned that while this is

20:06 ↗ not a change these two seem to

20:08 ↗ contradict each other is not possible to

20:11 ↗ have coverage within three years if

20:13 ↗ plants don't mature whatever that means

20:15 ↗ for 80

20:17 ↗ years so what if you have a very slow

20:19 ↗ growing

20:21 ↗ plant who selects the who who will

20:24 ↗ actually approve the plants do we have

20:26 ↗ someone that's on site that will say

20:28 ↗ these are the appropriate plants to use

20:29 ↗ or these are not the appropriate

20:33 ↗ plant so there's typically the plans are

20:37 ↗ drawn up by a landscape architect that

20:39 ↗ we review and in um in our office and um

20:43 ↗ they're kind of two separate I would say

20:45 ↗ they're kind of two separate and tense

20:47 ↗ there the 85% maturity piece the the

20:50 ↗ first part that you read off is really

20:52 ↗ to make sure like Lucy was saying that

20:54 ↗ the plants are spaced appropriately that

20:56 ↗ they're using enough plants and and that

20:58 ↗ they're going to they're going to

21:00 ↗ basically um maintain the Landscaping

21:02 ↗ profile that they're showing on the

21:04 ↗ plans which is a picture it's not what's

21:06 ↗ going to happen in real life so the

21:08 ↗ other part of that which is the next one

21:11 ↗ which has to do with what they look like

21:12 ↗ in three years is seeing how the picture

21:15 ↗ fulfills itself in real life and so we

21:17 ↗ do an inspection there's a whole process

21:20 ↗ of Maintenance period they go through

21:22 ↗ and we'll go out and do a maintenance

21:24 ↗ inspection to make sure that these

21:26 ↗ things look the way that they were

21:27 ↗ supposed to on the plants and part of

21:29 ↗ that is making sure that um ground cover

21:31 ↗ achieves its coverage that the shrubs

21:33 ↗ are alive and doing well and filling out

21:35 ↗ and things aren't

21:37 ↗ overcrowded okay so what you're saying

21:39 ↗ is after the landscape architect and and

21:43 ↗ the gardeners come in and do the

21:45 ↗ plantings we have an inspection at that

21:47 ↗ time to evaluate the plants to make sure

21:49 ↗ that they are that they are specified in

21:52 ↗ the plans or what you're saying is in

21:54 ↗ three years we send out another

21:56 ↗ inspection through go out and evaluate

21:59 ↗ the Landscaping so there's both we do a

22:02 ↗ performance inspection and a maintenance

22:04 ↗ inspection three years after the

22:06 ↗ installation has occurred okay the

22:08 ↗ performance inspection is just to make

22:09 ↗ sure things are in the place that

22:11 ↗ they're supposed to be per the

22:13 ↗ plans and if they are not

22:17 ↗ uh they don't meet the Conformity

22:20 ↗ standards how is that enforced through

22:23 ↗ something that we call a punch list and

22:26 ↗ a punch list is a technical term that we

22:28 ↗ use that basically is a list of to-dos

22:30 ↗ before we'll sign off on your permit and

22:32 ↗ let you begin your maintenance period

22:36 ↗ and typically at the beginning of the

22:37 ↗ maintenance period we collect a

22:39 ↗ maintenance Bond so that's our security

22:41 ↗ to ensure that after we say okay you've

22:44 ↗ done everything per the plans we're good

22:46 ↗ to go you if you have punch list items

22:49 ↗ You' finished all your punch list items

22:52 ↗ then you can move into maintenance we

22:53 ↗ need your bond there's a there certain

22:55 ↗ calculation that we take in for the bond

22:58 ↗ a certain amount of of um funds

23:01 ↗ associated with that Bond and then we go

23:03 ↗ through the maintenance period and at

23:04 ↗ the end of three years we basically

23:06 ↗ repeat the process before we release

23:07 ↗ that Bond but the bond is there as a

23:10 ↗ security mechanism to make sure things

23:12 ↗ are done and stay the way that they're

23:15 ↗ supposed to in the plans okay excellent

23:18 ↗ and how has that worked for us so

23:20 ↗ far it seems to be working good uh to my

23:23 ↗ knowledge we've never had to collect on

23:25 ↗ a

23:26 ↗ bond

23:28 ↗ I do have a question but I want to First

23:30 ↗ address I don't have a copy of these

23:32 ↗ public comments do you were they

23:34 ↗ distributed by staff or no uh Connie

23:37 ↗ Marsh had given it to me U I'm sure that

23:39 ↗ Connie will make her statement at the

23:42 ↗ public hearing since she's here oh um

23:45 ↗ thank you yeah yes so um since this is a

23:50 ↗ um talking about standards that affect

23:54 ↗ the development commission's uh review

23:57 ↗ of the of the of the am amendments um I

24:01 ↗ would certainly invite the two people

24:03 ↗ from the development company uh

24:05 ↗ commission to come up here and join us

24:08 ↗ if you would so care to or

24:12 ↗ not

24:15 ↗ app be able to ask questions yes yeah

24:19 ↗ you would be considered part of planning

24:21 ↗ policy I know I saw you writing things

24:24 ↗ down there to ask questions and you

24:25 ↗ might as well ask them now while we're

24:27 ↗ discussing it then than waiting till the

24:29 ↗ end

24:31 ↗ so triple triple what I get Jennifer my

24:35 ↗ question is about the peer review um I'm

24:38 ↗ curious you know you guys mentioned you

24:40 ↗ don't have a landscape architect on

24:42 ↗ staff uh it sounds like this is kind of

24:44 ↗ a something that we tend to use a lot

24:46 ↗ I'm curious why someone doesn't pull

24:48 ↗ double duty in this area and why the

24:51 ↗ staff has chosen to maybe not have a

24:54 ↗ resource that someone who maybe is

24:56 ↗ qualified to do this why why the peer

24:57 ↗ review I'm curious why we've chosen to

24:59 ↗ go this route it's pretty predominant

25:01 ↗ through uh the standard uh we keep

25:04 ↗ referring back to the peer review why

25:06 ↗ why have we made that choice to go with

25:08 ↗ that option so there are quite a few

25:10 ↗ things where staff um have just enough

25:13 ↗ not knowledge to probably get ourselves

25:15 ↗ in trouble um so you know geotechnical

25:18 ↗ review Wetland

25:19 ↗ biologists um certain kinds of Road

25:23 ↗ design we just don't have the enough

25:26 ↗ experience and frequent enough

25:28 ↗ experience uh we do have one person

25:32 ↗ who's trained as a a landscape architect

25:35 ↗ on staff I don't think he has the

25:37 ↗ bandwidth to be doing that or you know

25:40 ↗ to

25:41 ↗ maintain um sort of the staying up with

25:45 ↗ the literature and all the new plants

25:47 ↗ that that come on the market to be able

25:49 ↗ to do that and so we would um I would

25:53 ↗ assume we would advertise and identify a

25:56 ↗ landscape architect

25:58 ↗ who would provide those services for us

26:00 ↗ we would have a contract with them

26:02 ↗ applicants would be required to

26:04 ↗ reimburse the city for that peer review

26:07 ↗ um we did that um when the major

26:11 ↗ development review team in the urban

26:13 ↗ Villages for many years we um had a

26:17 ↗ landscape architect Who provided those

26:19 ↗ services to the

26:21 ↗ mdrt um in in that same kind of setting

26:25 ↗ does the city have resources to open a

26:27 ↗ position to be able to fulfill this I

26:29 ↗ realize that that we have to re re word

26:32 ↗ this but uh it sounds like there's the

26:34 ↗ need I'm curious do you mean to put

26:37 ↗ someone on staff that would be a council

26:39 ↗ decision budgetary decision I see okay

26:42 ↗ and so I I um and to sort of uh Riff on

26:47 ↗ uh Justin's Point um you know we're

26:51 ↗ we're right now have already submitted

26:53 ↗ everything for next year and with the um

26:58 ↗ positions that we have or the positions

27:00 ↗ we've requested and I just don't think

27:02 ↗ that um at this point we feel that

27:05 ↗ there's the need for someone a a

27:07 ↗ full-time need for that that position

27:10 ↗ which is when we typically why you know

27:13 ↗ geotechnical services and and Wetland

27:16 ↗ biologists we just don't need them

27:18 ↗ consistently enough to have someone on

27:20 ↗ staff now bigger city um may very well

27:24 ↗ have that but we're just not using those

27:26 ↗ Services frequently enough that

27:28 ↗ addresses my question thank you L and

27:29 ↗ for a historical perspective also I

27:31 ↗ think the Council made a budgetary

27:33 ↗ decision a few years ago to even lose

27:35 ↗ the arborist that was a long-term uh

27:38 ↗ staff member in that area so there are

27:39 ↗ definitely budgetary considerations in

27:40 ↗ that point and I have a question to

27:43 ↗ address that as well uh we're do a lot

27:46 ↗ of work in our agency do we have shared

27:49 ↗ resources we could leverage from say

27:51 ↗ bellev or Redmond or squami would be

27:54 ↗ able to fill that role for the temporary

27:57 ↗ race that we need

27:59 ↗ them well I I think I don't know I so

28:03 ↗ I'm making this up off the top of my

28:05 ↗ head I had thought about that um I think

28:08 ↗ the question is we would want someone

28:10 ↗ who was familiar enough with our

28:11 ↗ standards and our expectations to

28:13 ↗ fulfill those

28:15 ↗ responsibilities it's an interesting

28:17 ↗ question if another city I mean I will

28:21 ↗ say that when we were looking for some

28:23 ↗ additional planning resources I did

28:25 ↗ contact probably 10 different cities to

28:27 ↗ see who they used um I have not done

28:30 ↗ that for landscape services and that

28:32 ↗ would certainly be an appropriate thing

28:34 ↗ to do to find out um if there is a

28:37 ↗ consultant that they use uh Andor if

28:41 ↗ there's someone on staff they care to

28:43 ↗ share most of the

28:45 ↗ time um I know that we've shared

28:49 ↗ building inspectors when one city's been

28:51 ↗ slower and another city has been busier

28:54 ↗ but I'm not sure that typically cities

28:56 ↗ share staff that way way but it's an

28:58 ↗ interesting question we'll have to find

28:59 ↗ out

29:01 ↗ about there's going to be a lot of

29:03 ↗ building going on proposed building in

29:05 ↗ the next 20 years and it if we ever get

29:09 ↗ to a point where there is so much going

29:12 ↗ on and there is a need for a

29:17 ↗ specific arborist or landscape designer

29:21 ↗ I think at that time the city might look

29:23 ↗ at it but um right now there is

29:28 ↗ unless I'm I'm off I don't think there's

29:31 ↗ enough work for one person to to

29:34 ↗ maintain a salary on staff

29:36 ↗ so maybe in the

29:43 ↗ future any questions from our

29:45 ↗ illustrious development

29:47 ↗ commission I would I would agree with

29:49 ↗ you madam chair the uh just off the top

29:52 ↗ of my head without statistics but uh the

29:55 ↗ pace at which the development commission

29:57 ↗ has been meeting has certainly uh picked

30:00 ↗ up in the last year but uh it was much

30:05 ↗ higher uh several years ago excuse me uh

30:09 ↗ before 2008 2009 uh we were

30:12 ↗ routinely uh meeting having uh

30:15 ↗ development commission meetings with two

30:17 ↗ applications per meeting uh every month

30:21 ↗ and sometimes more than that and we

30:23 ↗ almost never have that now it seems like

30:26 ↗ there's a lot more development but it is

30:28 ↗ not uh to your point about uh the need

30:31 ↗ for specific disciplines on this on

30:33 ↗ staff uh the what we're seeing is is not

30:36 ↗ as much demand for the services here as

30:40 ↗ as there was and it seems hard to

30:41 ↗ believe but uh that is the

30:47 ↗ case Lucy are you next yes I

30:51 ↗ am thank

30:56 ↗ you

30:58 ↗ you need all those

31:01 ↗ papers I want to be prepared but

31:03 ↗ hopefully I won't need

31:06 ↗ them so I'm um covering two different

31:10 ↗ pieces first one um is a fairly

31:13 ↗ significant rewrite of chapter 14 in the

31:16 ↗ central isqua standards chapter 14 is

31:19 ↗ building design um there were several

31:22 ↗ reasons that um we uh determined that

31:27 ↗ this was uh necessary first of all we

31:30 ↗ wanted to make the standards easier to

31:32 ↗ use we discovered in using them that um

31:36 ↗ there were often things referenced in

31:39 ↗ multiple locations so in five different

31:42 ↗ places windows were there were standards

31:44 ↗ related to Windows and in five different

31:46 ↗ places there were standards related to

31:48 ↗ entries and it just made it hard for

31:52 ↗ applicants and for staff to feel

31:54 ↗ confident that they had um gotten to all

31:57 ↗ the standards that um were applicable uh

32:01 ↗ we had gotten feedback from the

32:03 ↗ commission the council and the public uh

32:07 ↗ as well as our own staff experience

32:09 ↗ where that there were certain challenges

32:11 ↗ in this chapter um and some desire um

32:15 ↗ that we had heard to provide more Tools

32:18 ↗ around design and uh we consider these

32:22 ↗ edits a an interim step um prior to have

32:27 ↗ proposed to um to the council as part of

32:30 ↗ the budget to

32:33 ↗ um uh look for outside resources to Prov

32:38 ↗ help us write um more detailed

32:41 ↗ architectural and building standards so

32:44 ↗ but that will take well into next year I

32:47 ↗ mean first of all we have to see if we

32:48 ↗ get the budget for next year and then

32:50 ↗ that work has to take place so we're

32:51 ↗ thinking that's at least a year or more

32:54 ↗ out and that um there are a lot of

32:57 ↗ building projects coming through so we

32:59 ↗ see this as um a step to provide um a

33:03 ↗ better tool while we wait to develop a

33:06 ↗ more final tool so those were the three

33:09 ↗ reasons why um we took this step um the

33:14 ↗ first thing I wanted to show you was

33:15 ↗ just the overall structure and compare

33:17 ↗ that um you can see that many of the

33:20 ↗ same categories still exist but we have

33:23 ↗ regrouped them um we found that you know

33:27 ↗ you can see that for instance

33:28 ↗ residential uses are in several places

33:30 ↗ and standards for all uses are in

33:32 ↗ several places so we tried to group like

33:35 ↗ with like and um and U make that

33:40 ↗ easier um one of the questions I had

33:44 ↗ received was to be really clear about

33:46 ↗ what things were either removed or

33:48 ↗ replaced um so these seem like the four

33:52 ↗ we didn't really remove very much mostly

33:54 ↗ we replace things um or used a different

33:58 ↗ tool but we wanted to specifically

34:00 ↗ identify these one of them was there was

34:03 ↗ a requirement that buildings with a foot

34:05 ↗ pint greater than 45,000 s square feet

34:09 ↗ be comprised of at least two

34:13 ↗ masses the a footprint of 45,000 square

34:17 ↗ fet is huge and we were not seeing any

34:20 ↗ buildings that met that requirement and

34:23 ↗ um in thinking about it more uh we could

34:26 ↗ have said you know if it was a building

34:28 ↗ of 45,000 squ ft you know the whole

34:30 ↗ building instead of just a footprint but

34:33 ↗ what we realized um in some of uh the

34:36 ↗ reviews that we have done with the

34:37 ↗ commission was it was really the length

34:39 ↗ of the building that was an issue more

34:42 ↗ than the square footage of the building

34:44 ↗ so we moved to a we've taken away the

34:47 ↗ 45,000 square fet and replaced it with

34:50 ↗ some requirements related to buildings

34:52 ↗ over 50 ft in

34:54 ↗ length uh there was uh requirements

34:57 ↗ related to benches and seat walls along

34:59 ↗ 25% of the facade um this was sometimes

35:04 ↗ just met with seat walls or planting

35:06 ↗ areas and we weren't finding that that

35:08 ↗ was

35:09 ↗ necessarily uh giving us the benefit

35:12 ↗ that we were hoping so we've taken that

35:14 ↗ specific requirement out and um added it

35:18 ↗ as a treatment for blank walls one of

35:21 ↗ the options there um consideration what

35:25 ↗ used to be requ it said

35:28 ↗ consider making rooftop accessible to

35:31 ↗ the public um we just thought that was

35:34 ↗ unlikely and it was a consideration and

35:37 ↗ so uh we proposed to just remove that as

35:41 ↗ a

35:42 ↗ consideration and finally um there's

35:44 ↗ something called a solar reflectance

35:47 ↗ index which has to do with the color and

35:49 ↗ materials that um a roof and there was a

35:53 ↗ specific number um in the C Central

35:57 ↗ isqua standards um and we had had some

36:00 ↗ confusion with one of the

36:03 ↗ projects and we realized in um

36:06 ↗ understanding that better that that that

36:08 ↗ requirement was already addressed in the

36:10 ↗ isqua municipal code so we took that out

36:13 ↗ we didn't want to have any conflicts or

36:15 ↗ confusion between those two um but we

36:18 ↗ did uh put in a consideration based on

36:21 ↗ the color um you know if it's visible

36:24 ↗ from above with so many Hills and people

36:26 ↗ living on squawk Mountain uh we wanted

36:28 ↗ to put that consideration in

36:32 ↗ there some of the things that we added

36:36 ↗ um we uh had these

36:40 ↗ uh standards from isqua Highlands and uh

36:45 ↗ while those are not infallible they have

36:47 ↗ been used for a number of years so we

36:50 ↗ looked at those standards for things

36:52 ↗ related to um facades greater than 50

36:55 ↗ fet in length

36:57 ↗ um the tripartite are three horizontal

37:00 ↗ components of a building uh techniques

37:03 ↗ to emphasize and highlight entrances to

37:07 ↗ buildings materials and colors and um

37:11 ↗ definitions and techniques to deal with

37:13 ↗ blank walls so we look to their

37:15 ↗ standards to give us proven uh tools

37:19 ↗ rather than trying to write or create

37:21 ↗ our

37:24 ↗ own so um th you know this is many pages

37:29 ↗ I'm not going to go through all the

37:31 ↗ specifics I am certainly happy to answer

37:34 ↗ questions uh one thing we did receive

37:37 ↗ was an uh email from the public

37:40 ↗ identifying um elements that they found

37:43 ↗ confusing or that where they disagreed

37:46 ↗ so um we took those under

37:48 ↗ consideration and our proposing seven

37:52 ↗ changes to the standards in response to

37:55 ↗ those public comments uh those were

37:57 ↗ emailed out to you earlier today um but

38:00 ↗ since many of you may not have had seen

38:03 ↗ that email we're going to go through

38:04 ↗ them tonight um that's the memo you have

38:07 ↗ in front of you so you can follow along

38:09 ↗ if you're

38:10 ↗ interested um quick question uh

38:12 ↗ regarding the rooftop uh considerations

38:14 ↗ where was that located specifically

38:15 ↗ within the

38:19 ↗ standards it was uh in the chap the

38:22 ↗ section on rooftops which I believe is

38:25 ↗ 14.6

38:33 ↗ yes so if you look I think it's on page

38:36 ↗ 20 of your packet under 14.6 a it was

38:41 ↗ number

38:43 ↗ three um so my my question is gearing

38:46 ↗ towards that uh why is the consideration

38:49 ↗ being removed I mean it seems as we get

38:52 ↗ into more and more of these mixed use

38:54 ↗ buildings um rooftop deck access um

39:00 ↗ rooftops uh used for um either Gathering

39:03 ↗ spaces or for pea

39:05 ↗ patches um or even uh on smaller

39:09 ↗ developments such as restaurants are

39:11 ↗ very common uh within Seattle and as we

39:14 ↗ grow and attract more of those type of

39:16 ↗ restaurants and and developments it

39:19 ↗ seems like that would be a consideration

39:20 ↗ you would want so the use of the rooftop

39:24 ↗ we weren't taking that out but the use

39:27 ↗ of the Rooftop by the public so making a

39:30 ↗ rooftop of generally available to the

39:33 ↗ public seemed um unlikely and if someone

39:37 ↗ was interested and saw value in doing

39:40 ↗ that they seemed like they were likely

39:42 ↗ to do it whether it was in the code or

39:44 ↗ not okay so that's that's our rationale

39:48 ↗ let us

39:52 ↗ know if they if uh the building is

39:58 ↗ residential um obviously it will it

40:01 ↗ could be used for the residents of that

40:04 ↗ building absolutely but it would be hard

40:06 ↗ to have somebody just decide to walk up

40:09 ↗ and and use the you know sunbath up in

40:13 ↗ the roof um so I can see where there

40:16 ↗ would be a difference in

40:18 ↗ uh in necessity to to put that in and

40:23 ↗ and and I I don't I don't want to uh um

40:27 ↗ imply that we don't think that the I

40:30 ↗ mean we think it would be great if the

40:32 ↗ public was allowed to use the roof and

40:33 ↗ we absolutely I agree with everything

40:36 ↗ you said Justin that uh the rooftop

40:40 ↗ should be available it should um be a

40:43 ↗ resource either for um sort of uh uh

40:48 ↗ Recreation or passive spaces for the

40:51 ↗ residents or the employees or uh a

40:55 ↗ separate um you know even customers but

40:58 ↗ yeah I see Jones point that uh in in an

41:00 ↗ apartment complex you don't necessarily

41:02 ↗ want random people traing through your

41:03 ↗ building unless the Builder specified in

41:06 ↗ his original plans that he was going to

41:08 ↗ put a piano bar up there right so you

41:11 ↗ know if you knew when you bought the the

41:14 ↗ condo in the building you would know

41:17 ↗ that that's going to be up there right

41:20 ↗ okay I would love to see that actually I

41:23 ↗ think we all agree get to developing

41:25 ↗ that John

41:27 ↗ so um I'll start through the um seven

41:31 ↗ changes um that uh were identified in

41:34 ↗ response to public comments

41:38 ↗ um there were

41:40 ↗ um two pieces that have existed in the

41:45 ↗ central isqua standards from the

41:47 ↗ beginning one is this what what

41:50 ↗ architecturally we refer as tripartite

41:53 ↗ construction or design you know it has a

41:55 ↗ base a middle and a top and then there

41:59 ↗ was also a um piece related to after

42:04 ↗ above the third floor you either set the

42:06 ↗ building back or you made changes in

42:09 ↗ materials and um colors and uh other

42:16 ↗ articulation uh and I think that that

42:19 ↗ we're still maintaining that but we're

42:21 ↗ not specifying that it has to happen at

42:24 ↗ the uh above the third floor because

42:27 ↗ that has been U we've found that kind of

42:30 ↗ cumbersome it doesn't really relate to

42:33 ↗ um the actual height of the building if

42:35 ↗ you have a four-story building that may

42:37 ↗ look really odd to have that fourth

42:40 ↗ floor have to be different than the rest

42:42 ↗ of the building it may not that may not

42:44 ↗ be the right place to make that a cap so

42:47 ↗ it we the techniques we think are the

42:50 ↗ right techniques we just didn't think

42:52 ↗ that specifying the third floor made

42:55 ↗ sense and the the public comment that um

42:59 ↗ uh we had received said this that the

43:01 ↗ way we had tried to combine those two

43:03 ↗ things um was not helping it it was

43:06 ↗ making more confusion so we decided to

43:11 ↗ make this edit to try and eliminate the

43:18 ↗ confusion

43:21 ↗ okay

43:23 ↗ um number two uh had to do with views

43:27 ↗ and solar access um I think that there

43:31 ↗ the public comment had to do

43:33 ↗ specifically uh with uh views to and

43:36 ↗ from certain buildings uh I think we

43:39 ↗ felt that we had spent a lot of time on

43:41 ↗ views with PPC and the council in the

43:44 ↗ last rounds of edits last year um so we

43:48 ↗ wanted to specifically reference and

43:50 ↗ Link these two sections um rather than

43:54 ↗ introduce new views

43:57 ↗ pieces um and in doing that uh we

44:01 ↗ separated solar access from views

44:05 ↗ because we thought that it began to get

44:07 ↗ too complicated having both of them in

44:09 ↗ the same

44:12 ↗ sentence this was also the should and

44:14 ↗ shall discussion that some of you may

44:16 ↗ have seen um and so that was part of you

44:21 ↗ can see some of the edits are related to

44:23 ↗ um clarifying those word choices

44:30 ↗ number three had to do again with should

44:33 ↗ and shall um also there was a question

44:36 ↗ of what what is an adjacent use so we

44:39 ↗ added the word building because um the

44:42 ↗ point of this particular standard is

44:45 ↗ that you shouldn't be setting buildings

44:47 ↗ back unless the setback is going to be

44:49 ↗ usable and Mak sense and um and that

44:53 ↗ reference was to adjacent uses so we

44:56 ↗ wanted to clarify what an adjacent use

45:05 ↗ was um number four there was some

45:08 ↗ confusion about what overhead elements

45:11 ↗ were and in looking at that language um

45:15 ↗ I think we real recognize that um that

45:19 ↗ relative to this on Gates and fences and

45:24 ↗ um establishing semi-private or

45:26 ↗ semi-public space that overhead elements

45:30 ↗ probably weren't that useful or relevant

45:32 ↗ to that so we eliminated that um and

45:35 ↗ also clarified that it wasn't just where

45:37 ↗ Gates and fences are required but even

45:40 ↗ just if they're proposed um so that that

45:43 ↗ it's the same standard in either

45:49 ↗ circumstance number

45:51 ↗ five um was a question about what was a

45:55 ↗ proportional cost color I think um so we

45:58 ↗ we recognized that this language was a

45:59 ↗ little awkward so we tried to add some

46:02 ↗ additional language to

46:04 ↗ clarify um around colors um appropriate

46:10 ↗ um proportion and the difference between

46:12 ↗ coherent and sort of

46:20 ↗ chaotic uh number six uh was around the

46:25 ↗ uh uh concerned around the word sh

46:27 ↗ should so we've made this um required as

46:31 ↗ opposed to

46:37 ↗ optional and then uh number seven was

46:40 ↗ again confusion about when we said

46:42 ↗ accept alleys and then we started

46:44 ↗ talking about pedestrians it seemed like

46:46 ↗ we were mixing things up so we took the

46:48 ↗ alleys out so that we're talking about

46:51 ↗ the areas where you don't want blank

46:53 ↗ walls in the first sentence and then

46:55 ↗ then with alleys and blank walls in what

46:58 ↗ ways you can allow

47:03 ↗ those that makes more

47:10 ↗ sense staff um in in working through

47:13 ↗ these um staff had uh identified one

47:19 ↗ clarification um that was related to

47:22 ↗ Windows um one was that we wanted

47:26 ↗ Windows not just facing streets but also

47:29 ↗ facing the public realm the reason

47:31 ↗ that's capitalized is public realm

47:33 ↗ represents Community spaces and

47:36 ↗ circulation facilities so basically the

47:38 ↗ kinds of spaces that the public would be

47:41 ↗ in and um we were concerned that um the

47:48 ↗ II uh the last one that's been edited

47:51 ↗ that there could be some confusion about

47:54 ↗ whether the the things that we did not

47:57 ↗ want appeared to be part of the um 75%

48:02 ↗ that was required to be clear so we

48:04 ↗ separated the those into distinct

48:07 ↗ sentences um with the intent of

48:09 ↗ clarifying

48:12 ↗ that any questions

48:17 ↗ comments go on um a few different things

48:21 ↗ but I'll wait okay I I have just one

48:24 ↗ question I mean um

48:27 ↗ it seems a little unclear I mean for

48:29 ↗ instance uh small storefronts that have

48:31 ↗ two large windows but then they have one

48:34 ↗ door panel window or one of their

48:36 ↗ Windows has their decal which may

48:38 ↗ Encompass more than 25% it seems a

48:40 ↗ little unclear that um we're not talking

48:44 ↗ overall percentage of Windows versus um

48:47 ↗ each particular window you see what I'm

48:50 ↗ saying well actually in our experience

48:54 ↗ so right now

48:56 ↗ uh in the sign code and I I'm not even

48:58 ↗ going to go in the Supreme Court did a

49:00 ↗ ruling on on sign codes nationally last

49:02 ↗ year and we're going to have to

49:04 ↗ undertake that um so that's part of why

49:07 ↗ we're putting this in here but currently

49:09 ↗ in the sign code you're actually limited

49:13 ↗ um to a different percentage and the way

49:15 ↗ we have applied that is to um that we

49:19 ↗ look at all the windows because there

49:21 ↗ may be a reason based on activities

49:23 ↗ inside that you want one window

49:26 ↗ that has your film on it uh for you know

49:30 ↗ we've we've had stores where they are

49:32 ↗ counting their money and doing their

49:34 ↗ business and they do not want any

49:35 ↗ visibility into that room but all the

49:38 ↗ rest of the windows could be clear so

49:41 ↗ that's why we're not doing it on a

49:42 ↗ window by window basis but rather

49:44 ↗ allowing them to do it on a a facade

49:47 ↗ basis um so going to that point I mean

49:50 ↗ say you have

49:53 ↗ uh th a hypothetical sure a CIA facility

49:58 ↗ where they they need every window

49:59 ↗ blacked out does this provide for an

50:01 ↗ exception yes I believe that um let me

50:05 ↗ just I want to get the exact reference

50:07 ↗ for

50:12 ↗ you okay so it says uh the next one I I

50:17 ↗ I says this may be reviewed by the

50:19 ↗ director on a case-by casee basis when

50:21 ↗ the security and privacy requirements of

50:23 ↗ the tenant need to be balanced with the

50:25 ↗ character of the circulation facility so

50:28 ↗ if um that's on page 17 of

50:39 ↗ 41 that's up near the um top under F no

50:45 ↗ the top uh the very top of the page I I

50:48 ↗ I which would be under

50:52 ↗ d

50:54 ↗ m

51:10 ↗ and my only you know concern still on

51:13 ↗ that realm was would be to put uh

51:16 ↗ current section four above current

51:18 ↗ section three and allow the director to

51:20 ↗ make a case-by casee basis on on those

51:22 ↗ kind of issues as well again it

51:25 ↗ hypothetical the CIA coming in I I throw

51:29 ↗ that out because that's the most secure

51:30 ↗ thing I can think of yeah no no no fair

51:32 ↗ enough um are you concerned that by

51:36 ↗ um uh just construction it would seem

51:39 ↗ that that would not be something that

51:40 ↗ would be within the director's purvey to

51:42 ↗ exempt if it's sat below that exemption

51:45 ↗ all right so why don't we look at where

51:47 ↗ we're putting it or adding language to

51:49 ↗ clarify that the intent is all of the

51:52 ↗ things in section d uh

51:56 ↗ apply to even just adding words you know

51:58 ↗ anything within this section D may be

52:01 ↗ reviewed

52:06 ↗ okay Lucy I found the wording regarding

52:10 ↗ Building colors um building design uh to

52:15 ↗ be a little ambiguous I felt it to

52:19 ↗ actually continue to create this concept

52:21 ↗ of what we want without saying what we

52:24 ↗ want which we can kind of get into

52:25 ↗ trouble for um I I didn't know that this

52:29 ↗ section actually achieved adding the

52:31 ↗ word hodg Podge though I love the word I

52:33 ↗ didn't I didn't feel like it I

52:35 ↗ appreciate your concept of this this

52:37 ↗ quilt like concept of being a lot of

52:40 ↗ different things in one um but I also

52:42 ↗ didn't feel like it necessarily helped

52:44 ↗ with building color um and I was curious

52:47 ↗ um I'm I'm assuming that uh our legal

52:50 ↗ staff has looked through it and that

52:52 ↗ they found that this satisfied any

52:54 ↗ requirements that we have

52:56 ↗ uh no we have not sent this particular

52:59 ↗ section to the City attorney yet

53:03 ↗ um you know I'll be frank the color

53:06 ↗ section is the very very hardest one

53:08 ↗ there are certain things that are very

53:10 ↗ clear and very easy to say um I'm not

53:14 ↗ sure uh that there is a consensus

53:17 ↗ exactly on how to handle color which is

53:19 ↗ why we're looking forward to having a

53:21 ↗ consultant next year to help us address

53:24 ↗ that um

53:25 ↗ um I think the question for you is

53:29 ↗ whether

53:31 ↗ um you're asking or recommending that F

53:35 ↗ not be included or that it be clarified

53:38 ↗ further whether whether that u h how

53:42 ↗ however legally we're able to say these

53:45 ↗ are the things that we approve of that

53:48 ↗ we suggest um but by not giving people

53:52 ↗ these um more clear definitions um I

53:55 ↗ feel like we start to get into a loop of

53:57 ↗ not quite right go back not quite right

53:59 ↗ and that's what I was a little concerned

54:01 ↗ of specifically regarding the color

54:03 ↗ right so I didn't know how

54:06 ↗ and this is a new thing for our staff

54:09 ↗ because we have typically had either a

54:12 ↗ very specific pallet in certain parts of

54:14 ↗ town or an Architectural Review

54:16 ↗ Committee in other parts of town and um

54:21 ↗ we're frankly dipping our toe in and

54:24 ↗ trying to uh as I said provide some uh

54:28 ↗ guidance to get us through the next

54:30 ↗ period of time until we um have work

54:33 ↗ through on

54:35 ↗ a more thorough uh I'm not sure quite

54:39 ↗ what the right adjective is but

54:43 ↗ um do do you mind if I throw something

54:45 ↗ in on this oh um first of all I have a

54:49 ↗ suggestion of one change to the verbiage

54:51 ↗ because I didn't really understand

54:53 ↗ appropriate proportion

54:55 ↗ and I thought it might be better to say

54:58 ↗ color pet should be appropriate for the

55:01 ↗ material

55:03 ↗ specified so forth if that's what

55:11 ↗ we so your your new revision where it

55:13 ↗ says a color pallet for anyone building

55:15 ↗ should be in appropriate

55:17 ↗ proportion

55:18 ↗ to with color I don't think it

55:20 ↗ proportions but I thought if it said

55:22 ↗ should

55:23 ↗ be appropriate

55:27 ↗ four okay and then I I guess my

55:30 ↗ experience from the development

55:32 ↗ commission is I actually like this

55:34 ↗ language because it would give us

55:36 ↗ something to hang our hat on if they do

55:39 ↗ come in with a color palette and say

55:41 ↗ here are the four or five colors we're

55:43 ↗ using we can app Pine on it and say we

55:46 ↗ don't think that's appropriate for we

55:48 ↗ could actually use that verbiage it's

55:49 ↗ not appropriate for this and I think

55:52 ↗ developers typically are fairly flexible

55:55 ↗ on

55:56 ↗ color at that stage because it's not a

55:58 ↗ big cost item you know if it's an

56:00 ↗ architect saying I really want to have

56:02 ↗ this kind of color scheme the developers

56:04 ↗ will say look if it gets me approved to

56:07 ↗ do a different color pattern I'll do it

56:09 ↗ I kind of like the language from a

56:11 ↗ usability that's great

56:12 ↗ feedback have we actually had a problem

56:15 ↗ with

56:17 ↗ color um yes um but I I am not I'm not

56:22 ↗ eager to step into that yet

56:25 ↗ um I think there's been a lot and I'm

56:27 ↗ sorry for laughing it's just I've gotten

56:29 ↗ a million phone calls around the atlas

56:31 ↗ project at sth and Gilman there's a lot

56:33 ↗ of discussion about the

56:35 ↗ blue um and we've spent quite a bit of

56:38 ↗ time in the field looking at that with

56:40 ↗ various City

56:42 ↗ officials um I think that it has been um

56:47 ↗ I think some of the questions are not

56:49 ↗ just around the

56:51 ↗ color um but also where what part of the

56:54 ↗ building the color is on and how visible

56:57 ↗ it is from other places and I uh so I

57:01 ↗ think that color has been an issue I

57:04 ↗ just think we're not because we haven't

57:06 ↗ regulated it at this point we are

57:09 ↗ hesitant or in this way we are hesitant

57:12 ↗ to try and really dial this down in a

57:15 ↗ very specific way without more

57:19 ↗ professional uh expertise about what has

57:22 ↗ withstood legal challenges what has been

57:26 ↗ manageable by staff and commissions to

57:28 ↗ actually apply I think that's been one

57:31 ↗ of the concerns um the original Central

57:34 ↗ isqua plan uh standards avoided

57:37 ↗ discussion of color uh we just thought

57:40 ↗ that it was um too difficult to regulate

57:43 ↗ I think because of the extent of

57:45 ↗ comments we've received we feel and and

57:48 ↗ I think a desire on the part of the

57:49 ↗ commission to have better

57:51 ↗ tools we're willing to begin begin that

57:54 ↗ discuss discussion but we really feel

57:56 ↗ like to complete it we're going to need

57:58 ↗ a different set of resources than what

58:00 ↗ staff can bring to the topic and and

58:02 ↗ Lucy I I may be the only one that wasn't

58:05 ↗ aware of this but in the training that

58:08 ↗ we had uh not long ago it was brought up

58:11 ↗ and I believe you uh also referred to it

58:14 ↗ there was a US Supreme Court decision

58:15 ↗ involving the city of isqua and I

58:18 ↗ believe as I recall it that the it got

58:22 ↗ all the way up to the Supreme Court

58:24 ↗ because because the I think it was the

58:26 ↗ development commission at the time had

58:28 ↗ told the applicant that the color was

58:31 ↗ unacceptable and he said well what do

58:32 ↗ you want me to do and the development

58:35 ↗ commission basically responded we'll

58:36 ↗ know when we see it and and I think Lucy

58:40 ↗ said that at national conventions now

58:44 ↗ people will say is there anybody here

58:45 ↗ from isqua can you tell us about your

58:46 ↗ stand because it was it did get all the

58:48 ↗ way up there so it's an

58:50 ↗ extremely um challenging issue I think

58:53 ↗ for everybody it gets discussed at that

58:56 ↗ level so the original

59:01 ↗ um uh requirements for the downtown area

59:06 ↗ said anything you build in the future

59:09 ↗ will be similar to what's already there

59:12 ↗ now that you know didn't give anybody

59:15 ↗ any direction whatsoever yeah I mean so

59:20 ↗ with the background of that case I mean

59:22 ↗ I would have some similar issu with hodg

59:25 ↗ Podge being unconstitutionally vague and

59:28 ↗ that would be a major concern that it

59:29 ↗ may expose us to more litigation it

59:31 ↗ would be one where i' almost rather

59:34 ↗ leave it out rather than face another

59:36 ↗ Court challenge until we have something

59:37 ↗ that's more properly vetted um and then

59:40 ↗ that would be my recommendation on that

59:42 ↗ particular portion well and and I think

59:44 ↗ it's a good um opportunity for us to

59:46 ↗ have a conversation with the city

59:48 ↗ attorney I mean coming out of this we'll

59:51 ↗ have a month or so before we're at land

59:54 ↗ and Ure so we'll have an opportunity to

59:56 ↗ have a conversation with the city

59:57 ↗ attorney and see if uh he has

1:00:00 ↗ recommendations on language or whether

1:00:02 ↗ this should um uh be delayed until we

1:00:06 ↗ get to more detailed uh standards

1:00:10 ↗ working with the consultant yeah so as

1:00:11 ↗ long as it goes through that Ving

1:00:13 ↗ process I'd be comfortable with it great

1:00:15 ↗ and I would I would say again too though

1:00:17 ↗ we really like to have the tools of the

1:00:19 ↗ language that we can use and again I

1:00:22 ↗ don't think any developer is ever going

1:00:24 ↗ to sue the city go to that step in order

1:00:27 ↗ to get their color pallet for their

1:00:29 ↗ building it would never make any

1:00:31 ↗ Financial sense you did that if we said

1:00:33 ↗ look here's change these colors to this

1:00:36 ↗ they would say great we'll do that

1:00:38 ↗ rather than fight it that much and it

1:00:40 ↗ would really be nice to have this kind

1:00:41 ↗ of language to hang our hat on even if

1:00:44 ↗ it's not constitutionally

1:00:46 ↗ defendable well we'll do our best yeah I

1:00:49 ↗ think maybe also

1:00:52 ↗ adding the directors over our site for

1:00:54 ↗ caseby case exceptions to be appropriate

1:00:58 ↗ too um or would that not fly legally I

1:01:03 ↗ think that'd be exceptions are always

1:01:05 ↗ fine um as far as Case by case I don't

1:01:09 ↗ think you could allow a director to

1:01:11 ↗ caseby casee overrule without a

1:01:13 ↗ standard um as far

1:01:17 ↗ as one of the ways this could be pegged

1:01:20 ↗ is is to use some sort of complimentary

1:01:23 ↗ color pallet system

1:01:25 ↗ uh and then also include languages to

1:01:27 ↗ keep the languages to the cons

1:01:30 ↗ consistent with the nature of the

1:01:32 ↗ surrounding developments so that there

1:01:34 ↗ is some color that you can Peg it off of

1:01:37 ↗ um so that if you have a blue coming up

1:01:38 ↗ against buildings that are traditionally

1:01:41 ↗ brick red you could look at that and say

1:01:43 ↗ well that's not complimentary to the

1:01:45 ↗ nature of it it ends up um being outside

1:01:48 ↗ of it so maybe pegging it to some some

1:01:50 ↗ existing color palette complimentary

1:01:52 ↗ color scheme I think one of the

1:01:54 ↗ challenges I think that's a good I and I

1:01:56 ↗ completely appreciate where you're

1:01:58 ↗ trying to go with it I think one of the

1:01:59 ↗ challenges with trying to Peg it

1:02:02 ↗ um to existing things is as the city's

1:02:06 ↗ transitioning where we've been may not

1:02:08 ↗ be where we want to be so it um it is

1:02:11 ↗ always a challenge trying to figure out

1:02:14 ↗ what that threshold or Milestone is or

1:02:17 ↗ Landmark that we're

1:02:18 ↗ using

1:02:20 ↗ um and I'm not sure you

1:02:23 ↗ know

1:02:26 ↗ generally if you're reasonable and

1:02:29 ↗ you're trying to find a solution a

1:02:31 ↗ win-win solution you don't end up in

1:02:33 ↗ court um but that um we're not

1:02:37 ↗ interested in standing up with a big red

1:02:38 ↗ flag and and getting ourselves in

1:02:40 ↗ trouble so I think what we should do is

1:02:43 ↗ is while trying to create tools to use

1:02:47 ↗ in the interim to support um staff and

1:02:50 ↗ the development commission check in to

1:02:53 ↗ see if this is um so vague that it will

1:02:57 ↗ present challenges and to determine if

1:03:00 ↗ um there are language or examples that

1:03:04 ↗ um that the City attorney would

1:03:06 ↗ recommend um along in the vein of what

1:03:09 ↗ you're suggesting

1:03:10 ↗ Jus so after you go to rivers and

1:03:13 ↗ streams what's the process after that so

1:03:16 ↗ it's actually land and Shore land and

1:03:17 ↗ Shore um that's okay um so uh land and

1:03:21 ↗ Shore is a council committee uh this

1:03:23 ↗ package comes out uh assuming that you

1:03:26 ↗ recommend it um be moved forward um it

1:03:29 ↗ goes to the full Council who just refers

1:03:33 ↗ it to land and Shore at land and Shore

1:03:37 ↗ uh staff make a similar

1:03:39 ↗ presentation uh we include some of the

1:03:41 ↗ kind information on the kinds of

1:03:43 ↗ comments that you've provided um we

1:03:47 ↗ continue to discuss that with the

1:03:48 ↗ council uh the council committee and

1:03:51 ↗ then they uh would make a recommendation

1:03:53 ↗ to the full

1:03:56 ↗ Council time frame oh time frame I'm

1:03:59 ↗ sorry I think we're looking at September

1:04:02 ↗ the last slide um so the first

1:04:06 ↗ uh

1:04:08 ↗ first thing to look at land and Shore is

1:04:13 ↗ in a week two weeks okay August July the

1:04:17 ↗ 18th is the the full Council referring

1:04:20 ↗ it to the council committee August 4

1:04:23 ↗ would be the Council committee and then

1:04:26 ↗ potentially back to the council for

1:04:28 ↗ action on September

1:04:30 ↗ 19th Sometimes they come back more than

1:04:32 ↗ once to Landon Shore depending on the

1:04:34 ↗ kinds of questions and work that staff

1:04:37 ↗ needs to do to respond to the council

1:04:40 ↗ when is the next PPC

1:04:44 ↗ meeting

1:04:46 ↗ um I need a calendar

1:04:50 ↗ July be the second and fourth of July

1:04:55 ↗ so we will have a PC meting 71 July 11

1:04:59 ↗ would be the

1:05:01 ↗ second

1:05:04 ↗ Thursday no or is it the 14th and the

1:05:07 ↗ 28th of July yeah see how much good my

1:05:09 ↗ meth did yeah I can't picture what July

1:05:12 ↗ the 14th and 28 28th okay so um there is

1:05:17 ↗ time for you to do a little bit more

1:05:19 ↗ discussion and talk to the attorney and

1:05:22 ↗ get some Maybe see if there's a little

1:05:25 ↗ bit better language so we still have the

1:05:27 ↗ opportunity to to vote on approval of

1:05:32 ↗ this before it goes to them or does it

1:05:34 ↗ have to be done tonight well we couldn't

1:05:36 ↗ move it on this schedule if you weren't

1:05:38 ↗ done with it tonight if we had to come

1:05:40 ↗ back here that would bump them so it's

1:05:43 ↗ it's really I and I I don't I don't

1:05:45 ↗ think we're trying to apply pressure to

1:05:47 ↗ the

1:05:48 ↗ commission sometimes you feel like I

1:05:51 ↗ think you have a sense of the changes

1:05:53 ↗ we're going to make and you're

1:05:54 ↗ comfortable forwarding it and you aren't

1:05:56 ↗ seeing the exact words and sometimes you

1:05:59 ↗ want to see the exact words and we bring

1:06:01 ↗ it back to you and that's a decision

1:06:03 ↗ that you can make at the end of the

1:06:05 ↗ evening based on the U you know the

1:06:09 ↗ sense of the commission well I don't I

1:06:11 ↗ don't think we've had any real problems

1:06:14 ↗ with anything it's just that uh you know

1:06:16 ↗ we don't have a definitive answer on

1:06:18 ↗ this for Justin uh to be comfortable

1:06:21 ↗ with so um you can and forward it with

1:06:26 ↗ that caveat of of having uh further

1:06:29 ↗ discussion based on that sure is all I

1:06:32 ↗ was getting at so that on July 11th if

1:06:34 ↗ you have come up with anything we can

1:06:36 ↗ discuss that little bit of and provide

1:06:39 ↗ additional information just on that one

1:06:41 ↗ little that's that's all I'm getting

1:06:44 ↗ right I also have another suggestion

1:06:47 ↗ that might be helpful we have why don't

1:06:50 ↗ we leverage maybe the Arts commission to

1:06:53 ↗ be able to look at some more Bolder

1:06:55 ↗ colors like let's take the atlas um if

1:06:59 ↗ the developer came forward and said I

1:07:01 ↗ want to paint my building this color

1:07:03 ↗ blue and build the atlas project as it

1:07:05 ↗ is uh it may not fall into the standard

1:07:09 ↗ the the standard schemes that we want to

1:07:11 ↗ come up with so it could go on to an

1:07:14 ↗ Arts commission who could then look at

1:07:16 ↗ at the whole and determine does it fit

1:07:19 ↗ the um does it fit the surroundings does

1:07:22 ↗ it comply with

1:07:24 ↗ the landscape that we have the the

1:07:27 ↗ mountainscape the trees all those

1:07:30 ↗ different kinds of things they can look

1:07:31 ↗ at that and they can make the evaluation

1:07:33 ↗ and make it allowed to go forward

1:07:34 ↗ because I like the fact that we allow

1:07:37 ↗ for uniqueness and colors and bold

1:07:40 ↗ aspects that kind of makes isqua nice at

1:07:43 ↗ the same time I don't want someone to

1:07:45 ↗ come in with a floresent green building

1:07:46 ↗ either so I think having that oversight

1:07:49 ↗ and using their

1:07:51 ↗ expertise and they like what they do and

1:07:53 ↗ they're very talented at it so I think

1:07:55 ↗ that would be a great idea to bring in

1:07:56 ↗ another commission and and absolutely

1:07:59 ↗ other commissions can be involved we

1:08:01 ↗ still have to have an adopted standard

1:08:03 ↗ that they're using as the basis as

1:08:04 ↗ opposed to their personal opinion um

1:08:07 ↗ from a land use perspective um it that

1:08:11 ↗ it's part of sort of the case law that

1:08:13 ↗ decisions have to be based on standards

1:08:16 ↗ that anyone can identify so Arts

1:08:20 ↗ commission could be involved but we

1:08:22 ↗ would still need criteria or basis with

1:08:24 ↗ which they were reviewing at um against

1:08:28 ↗ or that we if staff was uh or a separate

1:08:31 ↗ third party was reviewing we still have

1:08:33 ↗ to have a criteria or standard and

1:08:36 ↗ that's the criteria the same criteria

1:08:38 ↗ that the development commission uses

1:08:40 ↗ right so so I I would I don't know what

1:08:44 ↗ the uh uh I mean I certainly understand

1:08:48 ↗ your suggestion but uh the standards

1:08:52 ↗ that you're you you f folks are going to

1:08:54 ↗ come up with the changes are the ones

1:08:56 ↗ that we'll be will be using to make our

1:09:00 ↗ decisions and recommendations at at the

1:09:02 ↗ DC so

1:09:06 ↗ uh and that would be the same as the

1:09:08 ↗ Arts commission I mean they need a basis

1:09:10 ↗ to it's got to be the a decision on yeah

1:09:14 ↗ it sounds like we need to have a

1:09:15 ↗ collaborative discussion with you I'm

1:09:17 ↗ sorry we need to have a collaborative

1:09:18 ↗ discussion with you I think that's what

1:09:21 ↗ we're doing well you have development

1:09:23 ↗ you have PL and you have art right here

1:09:28 ↗ so Lucy I got just quick question sure

1:09:32 ↗ that not related to

1:09:34 ↗ color thank you where did the where did

1:09:38 ↗ 13 ft come

1:09:40 ↗ from in regards

1:09:42 ↗ to the separation between buildings uh

1:09:46 ↗ is that a standard or is that something

1:09:48 ↗ that's always been there or I think it's

1:09:52 ↗ based on the width of the uh facility

1:09:56 ↗ the three block passage and the

1:09:58 ↗ landscape that would be provided on

1:10:00 ↗ either side of it and so the total

1:10:03 ↗ number was the um basis you know adding

1:10:06 ↗ up those

1:10:08 ↗ pieces 13 seems

1:10:11 ↗ so 13 would you like it to be 14 I'd

1:10:15 ↗ like it to be 15

1:10:18 ↗ okay it did I just didn't I just was

1:10:21 ↗ curious of where the 13 came from but it

1:10:24 ↗ seem to be a basis unless it's a

1:10:26 ↗ standard that is based on sidewalk

1:10:29 ↗ widths are 6 feet and planting widths

1:10:32 ↗ are three and a half right on each side

1:10:36 ↗ or you know that's what the

1:10:38 ↗ international business or building

1:10:40 ↗ standard codes are well okay now I'm

1:10:43 ↗ standing here and I'm thinking um a

1:10:45 ↗ three block passage is 10 ft wide and I

1:10:48 ↗ think that it requires two feet on

1:10:50 ↗ either side my trustee sidick here

1:10:57 ↗ kick a psychic kick she is

1:11:08 ↗ psychic no no you're right right so a

1:11:10 ↗ secondary through plog passage is 5 foot

1:11:13 ↗ walkway and 4 feet of landscape on

1:11:16 ↗ either side which adds up to 13 so that

1:11:19 ↗ was where the number 13 came

1:11:22 ↗ from

1:11:25 ↗ thank you you're welcome I do have a

1:11:27 ↗ couple questions is okay jump in the um

1:11:31 ↗ I guess one one quick comment too the

1:11:33 ↗ tripartite building idea I very much

1:11:35 ↗ like the idea of getting rid of that

1:11:37 ↗ three floors and so forth I would like

1:11:39 ↗ that sort of reconsidered over time too

1:11:41 ↗ as we see buildings come through and

1:11:43 ↗ necessitating

1:11:45 ↗ tripart every time I'm not sure we need

1:11:48 ↗ but the on item

1:11:51 ↗ two 1438 3M building Mass it talks about

1:11:56 ↗ analysis solar impact from tall

1:11:58 ↗ buildings used as a factor determine the

1:12:00 ↗ placement of the tall portions of

1:12:02 ↗ buildings and I was trying to figure out

1:12:04 ↗ what is tall I I knew someone was going

1:12:07 ↗ to ask that

1:12:09 ↗ question

1:12:12 ↗ um so um I looked at the definitions

1:12:16 ↗ there have been in some of the

1:12:18 ↗ development agreements we have defined

1:12:20 ↗ those terms it isn't uh defined in this

1:12:24 ↗ one um I just wanted to double check

1:12:28 ↗ let's see

1:12:34 ↗ 43 can you do me a favor and look see if

1:12:37 ↗ you can figure out the

1:12:38 ↗ original

1:12:40 ↗ um source of

1:12:42 ↗ that it's the was it in the general

1:12:47 ↗ standards I just wanted to see if the

1:12:49 ↗ language was changed at

1:12:52 ↗ all

1:13:01 ↗ so I'm looking at the original um

1:13:05 ↗ language used the word

1:13:09 ↗ taller so um I think that we stuck with

1:13:12 ↗ our

1:13:13 ↗ terminology um I we did not Define it um

1:13:17 ↗ uh that could be something that we could

1:13:20 ↗ do um I believe in the rally development

1:13:24 ↗ agreement which was sort of the

1:13:26 ↗ springboard from which many of the

1:13:28 ↗ standards here I think that may have

1:13:30 ↗ been like over eight or nine

1:13:33 ↗ stories um so uh but because we haven't

1:13:38 ↗ defined that in central isqua I think we

1:13:41 ↗ didn't Define it here maybe something in

1:13:43 ↗ the future to look into and right out

1:13:46 ↗ yeah um another question on

1:13:50 ↗ 144 A1 The Continuous Street wall shall

1:13:53 ↗ be

1:13:55 ↗ provided I want to make sure is that the

1:13:57 ↗ the issue we had with the Costco corner

1:14:00 ↗ and the buildings coming out to the

1:14:01 ↗ sidewalk is that a separate is that

1:14:03 ↗ under site design not building wall

1:14:06 ↗ design so this would be a separate

1:14:08 ↗ issue having a continuous Street wall or

1:14:12 ↗ would this require you to go all the way

1:14:13 ↗ out to that corner so

1:14:19 ↗ um there uh in chapter 11 which site

1:14:24 ↗ you're correct um there are several like

1:14:27 ↗ maybe five Provisions that relate to

1:14:30 ↗ Street walls so the first is depending

1:14:32 ↗ on which zone it is it specifies the

1:14:35 ↗ percentage of the

1:14:37 ↗ Frontage that needs to be occupied by a

1:14:40 ↗ building and then for um where there

1:14:43 ↗ isn't a building it defines um where

1:14:49 ↗ um uh techniques and tools for

1:14:52 ↗ establishing a street wall that isn't a

1:14:54 ↗ building so that might be architectural

1:14:56 ↗ elements um or some kind of fence or

1:14:59 ↗ wall

1:15:01 ↗ um

1:15:02 ↗ however uh you might remember that last

1:15:05 ↗ year around views um circulation

1:15:09 ↗ facilities and significant Community

1:15:11 ↗ spaces were identified as the important

1:15:15 ↗ views to preserve and to take the uh

1:15:19 ↗ Costco example um as kind of a Lessons

1:15:22 ↗ Learned

1:15:23 ↗ where uh streets are curval linear uh we

1:15:27 ↗ committed that we would um upfront

1:15:29 ↗ through an AAS administrative adjustment

1:15:32 ↗ of Standards identify which views were

1:15:35 ↗ important um upfront so that then we

1:15:38 ↗ could work the plan around that because

1:15:40 ↗ obviously on a curve linear Road it is

1:15:43 ↗ an Ever Changing Vista so that can still

1:15:46 ↗ Trump this language then sure can you

1:15:49 ↗ show me just where you are to make sure

1:15:51 ↗ I am oh it it was in it wasn't in the

1:15:54 ↗ the list of seven it was in the building

1:15:56 ↗ design and ground level details 144

1:16:00 ↗ A1 okay page 25 of 51 thank you 15 of 41

1:16:05 ↗ in

1:16:08 ↗ your 25

1:16:15 ↗ 51 so um what I would say

1:16:20 ↗ um what I would say Mel is

1:16:23 ↗ that on a straight Street this that

1:16:26 ↗ wouldn't be an issue and on a curval

1:16:28 ↗ linear Street we would have to identify

1:16:31 ↗ if there was if we needed to for

1:16:34 ↗ instance adjust Street tree spacing or

1:16:37 ↗ other kinds of Street wall elements to

1:16:39 ↗ ensure that that Vista was preserved

1:16:42 ↗ great and that site great okay and then

1:16:45 ↗ on um building

1:16:49 ↗ materials

1:16:52 ↗ 7B

1:16:56 ↗ um says concrete block sh comp

1:16:59 ↗ complimentary mortar colors and I was

1:17:02 ↗ trying to figure out does that mean

1:17:03 ↗ complimentary to the building or to the

1:17:06 ↗ block

1:17:08 ↗ itself I would have assumed that that

1:17:10 ↗ was the block itself

1:17:14 ↗ okay um and then on

1:17:17 ↗ eight Building colors e color blocking

1:17:22 ↗ is permitted and I'm not familiar with

1:17:24 ↗ the term okay so um and you know I I

1:17:29 ↗ wondered about that uh today because

1:17:34 ↗ um um part of the reason we put this in

1:17:37 ↗ is color blocking was not allowed in the

1:17:39 ↗ isqua Highland standards and we felt it

1:17:42 ↗ was a um good tool so

1:17:50 ↗ um and I apologize that I didn't

1:17:52 ↗ anticipate this I'm just going to um

1:17:56 ↗ this is how when we had this

1:17:58 ↗ conversation

1:18:05 ↗ um I love um typing in front of lots of

1:18:11 ↗ people not

1:18:17 ↗ clothing so um I'm I'm not recommending

1:18:20 ↗ any of these but um color blocking is a

1:18:23 ↗ technique in which uh you find

1:18:26 ↗ panels um so it adds a certain level of

1:18:30 ↗ interest in detail where you may not

1:18:32 ↗ change the material at all um it is um

1:18:36 ↗ proba you see this one here that's I'm

1:18:38 ↗ not saying I'm not recommending that we

1:18:40 ↗ do this although I'd like it um but it

1:18:45 ↗ is um it is a very costeffective way to

1:18:48 ↗ add interest and scale to a building um

1:18:51 ↗ so uh we wanted to be clear that that

1:18:54 ↗ was one of several tools but you'll

1:18:57 ↗ notice where um you have a blank wall or

1:19:00 ↗ where um we're talking about surface

1:19:02 ↗ detailing that would not be sufficient

1:19:05 ↗ to uh address the standards that we've

1:19:08 ↗ written in other parts of this section

1:19:10 ↗ great thank you yeah I also have

1:19:14 ↗ a it sounds like they finished I have a

1:19:17 ↗ couple questions also about building

1:19:19 ↗ materials um

1:19:21 ↗ 7A um uh sturdy quality materials will

1:19:24 ↗ be

1:19:26 ↗ used High reflective materials may be

1:19:28 ↗ limited used in limited quantities

1:19:30 ↗ that's fine sturdy quality materials

1:19:32 ↗ will be used how about sturdy long

1:19:35 ↗ lasting all weather

1:19:36 ↗ materials the reason why I bring that up

1:19:39 ↗ uh I went for a walk the other day up in

1:19:42 ↗ uh Highlands and I noticed that along

1:19:45 ↗ the

1:19:46 ↗ sidewalk uh many buildings that have

1:19:49 ↗ fiber board is disintegrating

1:19:53 ↗ H and moving forward that's not

1:19:56 ↗ necessarily a building material that I

1:19:57 ↗ would recommend we do in mass quantities

1:20:00 ↗ one because the maintenance behind it

1:20:02 ↗ but also because it disintegrates very

1:20:04 ↗ rapidly and if we're in a high density

1:20:07 ↗ situation we have many buildings

1:20:09 ↗ starting to rapidly

1:20:10 ↗ deteriorate it's going to really bring

1:20:12 ↗ down the

1:20:13 ↗ neighborhood and bring down the the

1:20:16 ↗ right and it's not that I mean from a

1:20:18 ↗ sustainability perspective that's not

1:20:20 ↗ what we're looking for either the the

1:20:22 ↗ one um uh and I appreciate your language

1:20:25 ↗ I I think that's a a good addition um

1:20:29 ↗ one of my questions would be is it the

1:20:31 ↗ detailing of the material or the actual

1:20:33 ↗ material because um Hardy uh if that's

1:20:36 ↗ what you mean like the cement paneling

1:20:39 ↗ that's no that's good what I saw was

1:20:42 ↗ actually fiber board painted fiber board

1:20:45 ↗ huh I want to hear where that is so that

1:20:48 ↗ laminating and it's you can actually see

1:20:50 ↗ the fiber the paper fiber behind it okay

1:20:54 ↗ I think it's I can show you where it is

1:20:57 ↗ okay I have an idea where it might be so

1:20:59 ↗ thank you for pointing that

1:21:01 ↗ out that's no I think that's a good

1:21:03 ↗ addition putting that in 7D the

1:21:06 ↗ following materials are prohibited

1:21:08 ↗ corrugated fiberglass

1:21:10 ↗ t111 uh backlit awnings maybe

1:21:13 ↗ composition

1:21:15 ↗ wood I think that's what they would call

1:21:17 ↗ that okay well we'll that's where

1:21:20 ↗ knowing where you're uh the example

1:21:23 ↗ you're thinking of and being able to

1:21:25 ↗ assure ensure that we're referring to it

1:21:27 ↗ properly yeah

1:21:29 ↗ okay I can I can show you the details

1:21:32 ↗ offline great where that is located

1:21:34 ↗ thank

1:21:36 ↗ you anything

1:21:39 ↗ else I I have a question Madam chair for

1:21:41 ↗ for you and and Lucy uh it goes back to

1:21:44 ↗ the the tall uh I just want to make sure

1:21:48 ↗ that I understand what the rationale is

1:21:51 ↗ for the for

1:21:53 ↗ as I understand it let me just put it

1:21:55 ↗ this way as I understand it there there

1:21:57 ↗ is not now a definition of tall there is

1:22:03 ↗ not I I don't presume to speak for

1:22:07 ↗ the other members of the development

1:22:09 ↗ commission but that seems to

1:22:12 ↗ me to be something that might benefit

1:22:16 ↗ from

1:22:17 ↗ uh some some more detail as what Define

1:22:22 ↗ what is all I mean it's Beauty in the

1:22:24 ↗ eyee of the beholder and I it it just

1:22:29 ↗ seems you have to quantify it yeah I I I

1:22:33 ↗ would suggest that that that's something

1:22:36 ↗ that it just seems to me could use some

1:22:39 ↗ greater definition it seems like

1:22:42 ↗ arbitrary yeah you would like a height

1:22:46 ↗ orer than other buildings surround it

1:22:49 ↗ what would you I I don't know I mean I I

1:22:51 ↗ that's what I'm saying I don't it just

1:22:53 ↗ seems to me that the word tall leaves it

1:22:56 ↗ up to the individual to decide what's

1:22:58 ↗ tall and what's not is highrise defined

1:23:01 ↗ we mention it when we're discussing

1:23:03 ↗ um um I'm sorry what in so um that was

1:23:07 ↗ just pointed out and so I'm looking that

1:23:09 ↗ up um it's under stru right I'm on page

1:23:12 ↗ 26 of uh 4 so um uh lowrise is up to

1:23:18 ↗ four stories midrise is from five to n

1:23:22 ↗ stories and highrise are typically 10

1:23:25 ↗ stories or more and um in looking at the

1:23:29 ↗ definition of taller you mentioned

1:23:31 ↗ Beauties in the eye of the beholders

1:23:32 ↗ somewhat I mean if you have a taller

1:23:35 ↗ building going in next to a shorter

1:23:38 ↗ building but that taller bu building is

1:23:40 ↗ blocking 90% of the light across that

1:23:43 ↗ entire property I think that might

1:23:45 ↗ qualify as taller for that other

1:23:48 ↗ property and so it may be something

1:23:49 ↗ where you have to look at either um

1:23:51 ↗ maximum height or provide a definition

1:23:54 ↗ of solar where it's blocking a certain

1:23:56 ↗ amount of sunlight in adjacent property

1:23:59 ↗ um that maybe two ways to look at it or

1:24:02 ↗ percentage ofre of adjacent buildings

1:24:05 ↗ yeah so again I think one of the

1:24:08 ↗ challenges is as during this

1:24:09 ↗ transitional period um the you know the

1:24:13 ↗ goal is to um accomodate a certain

1:24:17 ↗ amount of density that the city has

1:24:19 ↗ committed to

1:24:20 ↗ taking um so the question

1:24:24 ↗ becomes um I if it prohibited someone

1:24:29 ↗ building anything on their adjacent

1:24:33 ↗ property I think the city could be sued

1:24:36 ↗ for a taking so

1:24:39 ↗ um I I think that if the um I I

1:24:43 ↗ appreciate uh the point that the

1:24:45 ↗ commission's making and I would

1:24:48 ↗ recommend that the word tall be

1:24:50 ↗ substituted with either mid rise or

1:24:53 ↗ highrise because those are defined

1:24:56 ↗ terms i' I'd be comfortable with midrise

1:24:58 ↗ I think at that point um just in terms

1:25:01 ↗ of or above midrise or above

1:25:05 ↗ exactly um I like that then you quantify

1:25:09 ↗ it with a

1:25:10 ↗ standard

1:25:14 ↗ least okay if you actually said analysis

1:25:16 ↗ of solar impacts from mid-rise and

1:25:19 ↗ high-rise

1:25:20 ↗ buildings used as a factor

1:25:24 ↗ and in determining the placement of the

1:25:27 ↗ midrise of the portion above X

1:25:34 ↗ Stories the X stories would be what low

1:25:36 ↗ rise goes to was that four five

1:25:39 ↗ floors I'm not sure I I forget the exact

1:25:42 ↗ definition of midrise but if it would

1:25:43 ↗ Encompass everything above the lowrise

1:25:45 ↗ standards yeah Lucy you said was it five

1:25:49 ↗ to uh midrise is 5 to 9

1:25:53 ↗ yeah so that would get five and higher

1:25:56 ↗ and then any impacts placement of the

1:25:59 ↗ portions above four

1:26:02 ↗ stories so that would capture your five

1:26:04 ↗ and

1:26:05 ↗ above that make

1:26:08 ↗ sense you putting them together so what

1:26:12 ↗ I have right now is that um the second

1:26:16 ↗ sentence tall buildings also impact

1:26:18 ↗ solar access analysis of solar impacts

1:26:21 ↗ from mid and highrise buildings will be

1:26:24 ↗ used as a factor in determining the

1:26:26 ↗ placement of the portions of buildings

1:26:30 ↗ above four stories yeah and I I would

1:26:32 ↗ add a couple words to that uh adverse

1:26:35 ↗ solar impacts um you know I think if

1:26:38 ↗ you're

1:26:40 ↗ providing I mean there's obviously

1:26:41 ↗ always going to be solar impacts of some

1:26:43 ↗ sort um and then I would also add um

1:26:47 ↗ analysis of adverse solar impacts and

1:26:51 ↗ mitigation efforts

1:26:53 ↗ um you know if there's something that

1:26:55 ↗ they can do to add reflective light back

1:26:58 ↗ into the property that they're

1:27:00 ↗ affecting really what is the

1:27:03 ↗ impact okay I've got

1:27:06 ↗ that thank

1:27:11 ↗ you I have a question here for our

1:27:14 ↗ committee here uh

1:27:16 ↗ on

1:27:19 ↗ B3 143 B3

1:27:25 ↗ uh it states I wait till people get

1:27:29 ↗ to page

1:27:31 ↗ 24

1:27:39 ↗ bottom this is new language was

1:27:42 ↗ added provide setbacks for commercial

1:27:45 ↗ and Retail uses only if the adjacent

1:27:47 ↗ uses are likely to use them or they are

1:27:51 ↗ necessary for security purposes such as

1:27:54 ↗ uh

1:27:55 ↗ offices so in the situation of

1:27:59 ↗ that what is considered

1:28:02 ↗ likely is not Quantified just

1:28:05 ↗ likely two if it's a mixed use

1:28:09 ↗ environment shouldn't we protect the

1:28:12 ↗ setback because we don't know what's

1:28:15 ↗ going to move in if it's going to be a

1:28:17 ↗ cafe maybe a bike shop hiking shop some

1:28:21 ↗ other type of retail that may actually

1:28:23 ↗ want to use the

1:28:24 ↗ sidewalk or sales or eating or other

1:28:30 ↗ types of

1:28:31 ↗ Commerce if we leave it as

1:28:34 ↗ likely and we're really leaving it up to

1:28:36 ↗ the developer and that may not

1:28:39 ↗ be best best action to take what's some

1:28:44 ↗ opinions could I just clarify one thing

1:28:47 ↗ um and I don't and I apologize that we

1:28:49 ↗ didn't say this up front but when and I

1:28:51 ↗ don't know if you you can tell this in

1:28:52 ↗ the copy that you have but when it's

1:28:54 ↗ double underline and green that means

1:28:57 ↗ that it was relocated from one part of

1:29:00 ↗ the chapter to another so it's new in

1:29:04 ↗ this location but it is not new text ah

1:29:08 ↗ okay so we didn't give you the decoda

1:29:10 ↗ ring up front sorry about that all right

1:29:13 ↗ I just assumed it

1:29:14 ↗ was completely understandable completely

1:29:18 ↗ understandable while we're at it do we

1:29:20 ↗ want to discuss it yeah

1:29:25 ↗ or am I the only

1:29:26 ↗ one I'm I'm always of you know two minds

1:29:30 ↗ about uh setbacks for these kind of kind

1:29:32 ↗ of uses I mean on the one hand you do

1:29:35 ↗ have to provide for the greater density

1:29:38 ↗ and putting a setback that may never be

1:29:40 ↗ used removes that ability um or or

1:29:44 ↗ forcing a developer to use it when they

1:29:46 ↗ don't necessarily want to I think the

1:29:47 ↗ developers are going to be in the best

1:29:48 ↗ place to determine whether there's going

1:29:51 ↗ to be need for a potential setback for

1:29:53 ↗ those kind of uses so in that respect I

1:29:56 ↗ think I'm fine with the language as is

1:30:00 ↗ person and I guess question Lucy that

1:30:02 ↗ would be something a developer would

1:30:04 ↗ come in look for this exemption in the

1:30:07 ↗ staff report you would aine on it to the

1:30:09 ↗ development commission then we would

1:30:11 ↗ have to believe that it's going to be

1:30:14 ↗ likely that there is and and that's a

1:30:17 ↗ that's an interesting point Mel because

1:30:20 ↗ there are essentially four different

1:30:22 ↗ tests there's um the developer is going

1:30:25 ↗ to propose something the staff is going

1:30:27 ↗ to review it um the commission is going

1:30:30 ↗ to look at it and the public is going to

1:30:32 ↗ look at it um there is a maximum setback

1:30:36 ↗ so in every Zone there is a maximum

1:30:39 ↗ amount that they could set back to begin

1:30:42 ↗ with um and the question is do you set

1:30:44 ↗ back the full amount or just a portion

1:30:46 ↗ or none and um I would say that it is

1:30:50 ↗ probably um

1:30:52 ↗ more common that we get some setback

1:30:55 ↗ than we get no setback but not in all

1:30:58 ↗ cases I mean I can think of projects

1:31:00 ↗ that have become come before the

1:31:02 ↗ development Commission in which there is

1:31:04 ↗ no

1:31:05 ↗ setback and how's that been a problem

1:31:08 ↗ for us I don't um think that it is a

1:31:12 ↗ problem um I think what we don't want is

1:31:16 ↗ that

1:31:18 ↗ um I think our concern is that um

1:31:22 ↗ typically in in a Suburban approach you

1:31:26 ↗ would always have a setback and more

1:31:28 ↗ setback is better and so what we want is

1:31:31 ↗ to use our land thoughtfully and

1:31:33 ↗ efficiently if if there is an

1:31:35 ↗ opportunity for it to be used and Mak

1:31:38 ↗ sense in just the way you've described

1:31:40 ↗ where we're we're setting it up to um

1:31:43 ↗ serve potential uses and the ground

1:31:45 ↗ floor is designed for retail and

1:31:48 ↗ therefore we're likely to have uh it's

1:31:51 ↗ not unre reasonable to think that some

1:31:53 ↗ of those uses would take advantage of it

1:31:55 ↗ in the very ways you've described that

1:31:57 ↗ would be great I think if someone is

1:31:59 ↗ coming in with um

1:32:04 ↗ uh a medical

1:32:08 ↗ uh let me I'm going to use your CIA

1:32:12 ↗ example uh but you know a server Farm a

1:32:16 ↗ CIA facility they're never going to have

1:32:19 ↗ you know they're never going to have

1:32:20 ↗ their windows open they're never going

1:32:22 ↗ to use any of that space then we would

1:32:25 ↗ question why are we setting back there

1:32:27 ↗ now there might be security or privacy

1:32:30 ↗ reasons and that's the kind of

1:32:32 ↗ conversation that we have and that's

1:32:34 ↗ that's what this is intended to guide as

1:32:36 ↗ those kind of

1:32:37 ↗ conversations okay I just want to ensure

1:32:40 ↗ that retail space

1:32:44 ↗ for public is protected in these cases

1:32:48 ↗ so but what I've heard so far sound like

1:32:51 ↗ great argument so okay move on thank you

1:32:56 ↗ thank

1:32:59 ↗ you I think it'll come as a case by

1:33:02 ↗ casee situation and what kind of

1:33:04 ↗ building they're going to you know

1:33:06 ↗ you're not going to limit the

1:33:08 ↗ development and if the developer wants

1:33:11 ↗ to build a uh use the building for a

1:33:14 ↗ specific purpose you're going to have to

1:33:16 ↗ go with that

1:33:18 ↗ here anything else I do have one more uh

1:33:23 ↗ this is

1:33:24 ↗ for uh section

1:33:27 ↗ BB which is the top of page um 23 of our

1:33:32 ↗ packets or page 13 of the suggested

1:33:34 ↗ agenda

1:33:37 ↗ items uh developments should implement

1:33:40 ↗ the most effective and Innovative uh

1:33:42 ↗ sustainable Green Building program

1:33:44 ↗ measures furthermore developments should

1:33:47 ↗ be or should build from the experience

1:33:50 ↗ of local and Regional sustainable

1:33:52 ↗ developments including EA project zome

1:33:55 ↗ and Fire Station 72 Sustainable Building

1:33:58 ↗ design should also address other

1:34:01 ↗ sustainable aspects such as low impact

1:34:04 ↗ development conduit for fiber Broadband

1:34:06 ↗ Readiness and uh project power

1:34:10 ↗ minimization instead of should shouldn't

1:34:13 ↗ that be

1:34:15 ↗ shall so we had a lot of discussion

1:34:18 ↗ about this today um because we had done

1:34:20 ↗ that evaluation of every should and

1:34:22 ↗ shall in this chapter and here's our

1:34:24 ↗ hesitation is um there are building code

1:34:30 ↗ requirements there are um optional

1:34:33 ↗ sections of the building code related to

1:34:36 ↗ sustainability that the city has

1:34:39 ↗ adopted um those are addressed through

1:34:42 ↗ other

1:34:43 ↗ regulations um the piece um that is

1:34:47 ↗ related to this is not generally

1:34:49 ↗ reviewed by development services staff

1:34:53 ↗ um what we're trying to do is

1:34:56 ↗ encourage um someone to do these things

1:35:00 ↗ uh and we had thought about identifying

1:35:03 ↗ that um that they potentially shall work

1:35:07 ↗ with the office of

1:35:09 ↗ sustainability um because they have much

1:35:11 ↗ more technical expertise um our concern

1:35:15 ↗ is that if someone proposes something I

1:35:17 ↗ can't say it is the most effective and

1:35:19 ↗ Innovative I I I'm not sure any of the

1:35:21 ↗ staff and development services would be

1:35:25 ↗ um uh expert enough to evaluate the

1:35:30 ↗ choices that were being proposed so

1:35:32 ↗ while we completely concur with the um

1:35:36 ↗ motivation that you're identifying

1:35:39 ↗ because that is the city's vision and

1:35:41 ↗ policy for itself I think that that the

1:35:44 ↗ way we view this particular provision is

1:35:48 ↗ that it's indicating those values

1:35:52 ↗ but that we're relying on other sections

1:35:55 ↗ of the code to um Implement that until

1:35:59 ↗ such time for instance that the office

1:36:01 ↗ of sustainability adopts mandatory

1:36:04 ↗ Provisions beyond what the building code

1:36:07 ↗ or the state energy codes require um is

1:36:10 ↗ there the potential then to put a shell

1:36:14 ↗ consult with office of sustainability to

1:36:16 ↗ identify potential projects meaning that

1:36:19 ↗ they could that they're at least forc to

1:36:21 ↗ look and see and ask and see what could

1:36:24 ↗ we do to make this project better even

1:36:26 ↗ if they don't necessarily implement it I

1:36:28 ↗ mean if we can make a business if the

1:36:29 ↗ office of sustainability can make a

1:36:31 ↗ business case to them that hey if you do

1:36:33 ↗ these projects you're going to result in

1:36:35 ↗ long-term cost savings um and these

1:36:38 ↗ impacts that are going to be good for

1:36:39 ↗ you as a business level you're opening

1:36:42 ↗ that conversation I think a little bit

1:36:43 ↗ more even if you're not mandating the

1:36:45 ↗ project itself and I'll tell you my only

1:36:48 ↗ hesitation is I have no sense of their

1:36:50 ↗ Staffing and whether they are prepared

1:36:52 ↗ to have to talk with every applicant

1:36:57 ↗ um and so I would like to have a

1:37:00 ↗ conversation with them before I commit

1:37:01 ↗ them to having to talk with every

1:37:03 ↗ applicant and that may be something too

1:37:05 ↗ where we make those conversations happen

1:37:08 ↗ only on projects above certain square

1:37:10 ↗ footages right that's true um and that

1:37:13 ↗ way that could limit it to those

1:37:15 ↗ available resources which wouldn't

1:37:17 ↗ overtax them right

1:37:20 ↗ right

1:37:30 ↗ Luc see do you have additions so the

1:37:32 ↗ only uh last thing was there were um and

1:37:36 ↗ and I'm not sure that we need to discuss

1:37:37 ↗ them but I just wanted to get them on

1:37:39 ↗ your ra on the uh commission's radar uh

1:37:43 ↗ as you may be aware the track changes

1:37:45 ↗ were very extensive in this chapter and

1:37:47 ↗ when we began accepting them we found

1:37:49 ↗ some typos and errors

1:37:51 ↗ so there are uh six of those which were

1:37:55 ↗ in your memo they do not change content

1:37:58 ↗ they either restore something that was

1:38:00 ↗ accidentally deleted or delete something

1:38:02 ↗ that was accidentally left in or correct

1:38:05 ↗ uh spelling or a awkward word I don't

1:38:08 ↗ think there's anything to discuss but we

1:38:10 ↗ just wanted to be overt about those

1:38:12 ↗ changes

1:38:16 ↗ coming okay so um the last one uh has to

1:38:22 ↗ do with motorcycle parking spaces um

1:38:26 ↗ since Central isqua was adopted there

1:38:28 ↗ has been a requirement for a certain

1:38:31 ↗ amount of u motorcycle parking to be

1:38:34 ↗ provided based on the number of uh

1:38:37 ↗ automobile parking spaces that were

1:38:40 ↗ provided what we inadvertently left out

1:38:43 ↗ was a um two Provisions that have been

1:38:46 ↗ in several development agreements where

1:38:48 ↗ we had done research on this one was the

1:38:51 ↗ the size of the spaces and the second

1:38:53 ↗ was credit um if you provide motorcycle

1:38:57 ↗ parking you get a small credit towards

1:38:59 ↗ your required automobile parking we have

1:39:02 ↗ not seen anyone take that so far um it

1:39:04 ↗ is at the option of the developer uh

1:39:08 ↗ down at the bottom you can see I ran

1:39:10 ↗ through a hypothetical and an actual um

1:39:14 ↗ project uh just to show you that uh it

1:39:17 ↗ might result in say even that Gateway

1:39:20 ↗ where there were almost 700 parking

1:39:22 ↗ spaces it might result in four or five

1:39:26 ↗ parking spaces being removed if that

1:39:28 ↗ credit was

1:39:29 ↗ given my only comment on the motorcycle

1:39:32 ↗ stall size is I've seen several

1:39:34 ↗ developments use a large multi stall

1:39:37 ↗ that can accommodate several bikes and I

1:39:39 ↗ think the code should allow for that

1:39:41 ↗ aspect you know if you have a um

1:39:45 ↗ a 16t by 8T stall that can accommodate

1:39:49 ↗ four bikes it should be be proportional

1:39:51 ↗ and count as four stalls rather than

1:39:54 ↗ forcing them to mark off a bunch of

1:39:55 ↗ separate stalls just a lot of places

1:39:57 ↗ have a motorcycle parking

1:40:02 ↗ area my hesitancy

1:40:05 ↗ is how that doesn't end up being used as

1:40:08 ↗ a parking stall for vehicles which was

1:40:10 ↗ part of the concern part of the push

1:40:13 ↗ that we had received from the Urban

1:40:15 ↗ Village Development commission was um

1:40:18 ↗ that motorcycle riders are hesitant to

1:40:21 ↗ take a full car space and so I I wonder

1:40:25 ↗ how we um simply labeling it is probably

1:40:29 ↗ not enough to protect it if it does fit

1:40:31 ↗ a full-size vehicle that's actually how

1:40:33 ↗ I've seen it uh is labeled as motorcycle

1:40:37 ↗ parking or offset in a different color

1:40:39 ↗ paint so that it's clearly labeled as

1:40:41 ↗ motorcycle parking only okay um you know

1:40:44 ↗ yellow paint primarily is how I've seen

1:40:46 ↗ that labeled so would it be sufficient

1:40:48 ↗ to um simply reference that um that an

1:40:54 ↗ applicant could propose um

1:40:59 ↗ combining some number of their

1:41:02 ↗ motorcycle parking spaces into a

1:41:06 ↗ combined motorcycle parking space and it

1:41:09 ↗ would be reviewed on a Case by case

1:41:11 ↗ basis yeah I think that would be okay

1:41:13 ↗ that would be great and that way the

1:41:13 ↗ director could address any labeling

1:41:16 ↗ concerns right and I the other thing I'm

1:41:18 ↗ concerned about is just where it's

1:41:20 ↗ located

1:41:21 ↗ you know if it's U motorcycle parking um

1:41:25 ↗ tends to be in sort of little leftover

1:41:27 ↗ pieces which is some of the value of it

1:41:30 ↗ um because without requiring it people

1:41:32 ↗ often won't create them they'll just

1:41:34 ↗ make bigger car parking spaces and then

1:41:36 ↗ we're back to a motorcycle taking a

1:41:38 ↗ full-size car space and at the same time

1:41:41 ↗ I don't um want those leftover spaces to

1:41:44 ↗ to be someplace where it would be very

1:41:47 ↗ difficult to get a motorcycle in and out

1:41:49 ↗ of you know say in between two cars and

1:41:52 ↗ two walls where you would never be able

1:41:54 ↗ to get there so I I like that idea thank

1:42:13 ↗ you anything

1:42:19 ↗ else

1:42:22 ↗ that's

1:42:23 ↗ it um so at this

1:42:26 ↗ time I'm going to open up to any anybody

1:42:30 ↗ here that would like to make a public

1:42:40 ↗ comment

1:42:49 ↗ I

1:42:52 ↗ hey my name is Connie Marsh and I have a

1:42:56 ↗ store at 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard

1:42:59 ↗ site B1 and I live here and uh I thought

1:43:05 ↗ staffed an awesome job of responding to

1:43:09 ↗ public comment and going through the

1:43:12 ↗ shells and mites and woods and all of

1:43:15 ↗ that because uh that's actually the

1:43:17 ↗ first time I had ever read through code

1:43:20 ↗ just highlighting the words and looking

1:43:22 ↗ at the hierarchy of language

1:43:24 ↗ specifically and it oddly made it way

1:43:27 ↗ easier to read how it might function and

1:43:31 ↗ so it an interest I may do it all the

1:43:34 ↗ time from now on just because then I can

1:43:37 ↗ read code and and see better what might

1:43:39 ↗ happen when it goes to be enforced um so

1:43:43 ↗ I I liked the majority of the language I

1:43:46 ↗ liked giving development commission some

1:43:49 ↗ tools where they can explain to the

1:43:52 ↗ developer why they don't like something

1:43:56 ↗ right now they can say well the color

1:43:59 ↗ spectrum is not our preference and then

1:44:02 ↗ they just have to let it waft into the

1:44:04 ↗ distance because everything becomes

1:44:06 ↗ personal opinion in personal opinion is

1:44:08 ↗ not enforceable even though it might be

1:44:10 ↗ legitimate and so even if it might not

1:44:13 ↗ be perfect language it is language that

1:44:16 ↗ for the moment is enough to at least

1:44:19 ↗ give them enough Force being behind

1:44:20 ↗ their words to potentially make

1:44:22 ↗ something better and create a community

1:44:24 ↗ conversation about the context of a

1:44:26 ↗ building within the community and that

1:44:28 ↗ has been lacking so far um not because

1:44:31 ↗ people didn't want to do it but the

1:44:33 ↗ tools were not available so for the most

1:44:35 ↗ part I think the tools I see included

1:44:38 ↗ especially with some of the the changes

1:44:41 ↗ will help not perfect but but they will

1:44:46 ↗ help now of course

1:44:48 ↗ because I'm a whiner

1:44:51 ↗ um I I disagree with the fact that the

1:44:55 ↗ landscape code works I think we just are

1:44:59 ↗ in the habit of giving the bond back

1:45:02 ↗ whether the plants are surviving or not

1:45:04 ↗ I've never seen the bond withheld but I

1:45:07 ↗ actually very rarely actually see the

1:45:09 ↗ plants survive

1:45:12 ↗ so I think that needs to change creating

1:45:16 ↗ a plan that has

1:45:18 ↗ 85% coverage in the plant and then

1:45:21 ↗ expecting the coverage to be there in 3

1:45:24 ↗ years is sort of an impossible standard

1:45:27 ↗ because when you read the landscape plan

1:45:30 ↗ they have a survivability they have a

1:45:32 ↗ coverage they have these places where

1:45:34 ↗ they have to measure and it's very

1:45:35 ↗ detailed and um so I think there needs

1:45:38 ↗ to be some more accurate language

1:45:40 ↗ involved in those so that we can

1:45:43 ↗ actually get mature you know big things

1:45:45 ↗ planted right now we have a lot of

1:45:47 ↗ smaller deciduous trees and Shore Pines

1:45:50 ↗ in our town which don't make isqua look

1:45:53 ↗ like isqua they make it look like

1:45:55 ↗ Indiana especially in the winter time

1:45:57 ↗ and this may be one of the reasons for

1:46:00 ↗ that limited planting pallet that we see

1:46:03 ↗ going in all of the time um color

1:46:10 ↗ now uh I don't know if you remember the

1:46:13 ↗ past we had like four colors in Old Town

1:46:16 ↗ and you see a lot of them you had blue

1:46:19 ↗ and I think you had green and then I

1:46:21 ↗ think you had sort of a bricky pink

1:46:24 ↗ color so um it would be a fascinating

1:46:30 ↗ public gathering to see what colors and

1:46:34 ↗ Architectural Styles the city of isqua

1:46:37 ↗ thinks its identity is because clearly

1:46:40 ↗ with Atlas people are flipping their

1:46:42 ↗ gourds over that blue and they're

1:46:45 ↗ flipping their gourds over the modernism

1:46:47 ↗ of the building with sort of unrelieved

1:46:49 ↗ decoration

1:46:51 ↗ when it went through development

1:46:52 ↗ commission it looked just about like

1:46:54 ↗ that and it got passed through um and

1:46:58 ↗ now it looks pretty Stark especially the

1:47:01 ↗ color combinations but what could they

1:47:03 ↗ have said and done to change it how do

1:47:06 ↗ you describe what it is the people of

1:47:08 ↗ the city of issaqua want in their

1:47:11 ↗ architecture and how do you make it just

1:47:13 ↗ so

1:47:15 ↗ totally uh well not make it so

1:47:17 ↗ traditional you die of boredom right

1:47:20 ↗ right um but not so Whimsical that you

1:47:24 ↗ feel like you're in Eugene and we should

1:47:26 ↗ have a pot store every 30 feet instead

1:47:28 ↗ of every 300 feet right because I don't

1:47:30 ↗ want to go through marijuana again that

1:47:32 ↗ soon um but I think that's a public

1:47:35 ↗ discussion and the city has not really

1:47:36 ↗ had a discussion of that sort and I

1:47:38 ↗ think it would be interesting involving

1:47:40 ↗ the Arts commission the development

1:47:42 ↗ Commission because I think people at

1:47:44 ↗ this moment are interested um who would

1:47:47 ↗ do that I don't know so um the

1:47:50 ↗ director's

1:47:52 ↗ changes uh I don't even know what that

1:47:55 ↗ means I don't know who the director is

1:47:58 ↗ whether the director can designate that

1:48:00 ↗ to someone else and how those changes

1:48:02 ↗ are tracked so that anyone would ever

1:48:04 ↗ know that those changes were authorized

1:48:07 ↗ I don't know whether those changes would

1:48:09 ↗ then be able to be called upon to be

1:48:11 ↗ used in other situations and other

1:48:14 ↗ proposals so we do have the

1:48:16 ↗ administrative adjustment of Standards

1:48:19 ↗ process and and uh it does seem like you

1:48:21 ↗ need to legitimize some of those changes

1:48:24 ↗ through a more structured and public

1:48:26 ↗ process doesn't need necessarily need to

1:48:28 ↗ be onerous but if every other thing is

1:48:31 ↗ oh and the director can change it um

1:48:35 ↗ they can change almost anything but how

1:48:38 ↗ and why and what exact criteria would

1:48:40 ↗ did they use because we we may hate that

1:48:44 ↗ um in the end yet we will have no say or

1:48:47 ↗ control nor

1:48:48 ↗ visibility and I was thinking maybe

1:48:51 ↗ inviting the sustainability Department

1:48:53 ↗ to the preap meetings for some of the

1:48:55 ↗ larger projects would be a uh reasonably

1:48:58 ↗ loow impact way for them to discuss with

1:49:01 ↗ developers their ideas for uh

1:49:04 ↗ sustainable and green housing that

1:49:06 ↗ wouldn't be a a budget hit or a Time

1:49:09 ↗ suck but would at least begin the

1:49:11 ↗ conversation because you get Mary Joe

1:49:14 ↗ there all delighted in talking gibberish

1:49:17 ↗ that I'm sure she knows what she's

1:49:19 ↗ saying might just like their fires okay

1:49:22 ↗ thanks thanks Connie as usual good

1:49:26 ↗ comments anybody else want

1:49:29 ↗ to does anybody else want to do any

1:49:32 ↗ public comment see none I'll close the

1:49:36 ↗ public comment and open it up to you

1:49:40 ↗ guys if there's anything else that you

1:49:41 ↗ want to discuss right now we have a list

1:49:46 ↗ of of changes in the amendments uh we've

1:49:51 ↗ discussed six or seven of them and made

1:49:53 ↗ changes that uh you all seem to agree

1:49:56 ↗ with um most of them aren't major

1:49:59 ↗ they're more clarification than than

1:50:03 ↗ changing anything but I think uh staff

1:50:07 ↗ is willing to make those changes to help

1:50:10 ↗ the development commission and and make

1:50:12 ↗ it more reasonable I think that um no

1:50:15 ↗ matter what we do

1:50:17 ↗ tonight a year from now someone's going

1:50:20 ↗ to realize that no this doesn't work and

1:50:22 ↗ we're going to have to come back and

1:50:24 ↗ change it again I mean that's just the

1:50:25 ↗ process that it's ongoing so

1:50:29 ↗ um we have um to vote on this tonight

1:50:34 ↗ and I would propose that

1:50:39 ↗ um somebody not me would make a u a

1:50:43 ↗ motion to uh forward this to the next

1:50:49 ↗ person next organization that looks at

1:50:51 ↗ this land and Shore or whatever and

1:50:54 ↗ based on uh with the caveats that all of

1:50:57 ↗ the things that we discussed will be

1:50:59 ↗ changed when it goes forward yeah I I

1:51:02 ↗ would make a motion to forward uh as

1:51:06 ↗ amended uh tonight with comments and

1:51:09 ↗ with the express uh caveat as to section

1:51:13 ↗ 144 A8 Building colors that we expressed

1:51:18 ↗ yes on the record

1:51:20 ↗ is there a second a

1:51:24 ↗ second any further

1:51:28 ↗ discussion all those in favor of of uh

1:51:31 ↗ the amendment the motion say I I I

1:51:38 ↗ opposed so you understand what the the

1:51:42 ↗ motion is with all of those and it would

1:51:44 ↗ be nice on July 11th you don't have to

1:51:47 ↗ come back and make a presentation but

1:51:49 ↗ just to uh give us the feeling that the

1:51:52 ↗ things that we talked about were indeed

1:51:54 ↗ included in the revisions that you're

1:51:57 ↗ going to make to the amendment

1:51:59 ↗ absolutely I think it's a great idea

1:52:01 ↗ just in the same way that we've been

1:52:02 ↗ sending things to the development

1:52:04 ↗ commission when we send them to you I

1:52:06 ↗ think it's great to send it to you when

1:52:07 ↗ we're sending it to the council now we

1:52:09 ↗ haven't been invited to the development

1:52:11 ↗ commission Come Along come on Madam

1:52:15 ↗ chair I I would like to just say on the

1:52:17 ↗ record that uh uh the assumption on my

1:52:20 ↗ part was that as was the case as was the

1:52:24 ↗ case

1:52:24 ↗ here we weren't specifically invited but

1:52:27 ↗ we were told that this was going to

1:52:29 ↗ happen we've been talking with staff for

1:52:32 ↗ a long time about uh about how good an

1:52:35 ↗ idea this would be to give us a chance

1:52:37 ↗ to at least sit in the audience and hear

1:52:40 ↗ how the the proposed changes are

1:52:42 ↗ discussed and what they are and I

1:52:45 ↗ personally would invite all of you

1:52:48 ↗ alternates and so on to come to uh to

1:52:51 ↗ any development Commission meeting I but

1:52:54 ↗ I wanted to spec specifically say this

1:52:57 ↗ has been a an extremely good experience

1:52:59 ↗ for me and I I hope this is not

1:53:02 ↗ unprecedented uh for us to be able to

1:53:04 ↗ come here and not only observe how the

1:53:09 ↗ planning uh policy commission works but

1:53:12 ↗ to be able to actually participate and

1:53:14 ↗ comment on some of this is uh to me it's

1:53:16 ↗ a it's a heck of a of an opportunity for

1:53:20 ↗ us and I very much appreciate being uh

1:53:23 ↗ given that

1:53:24 ↗ opportunity I can say I definitely

1:53:26 ↗ appreciate the uh different perspective

1:53:28 ↗ and the input that you gave tonight it

1:53:30 ↗ was really helpful great thank you and I

1:53:32 ↗ I have to it's it's been interesting to

1:53:34 ↗ make make comments down there but to be

1:53:36 ↗ up here and be able to ask questions

1:53:37 ↗ really helpful thank you very much thank

1:53:39 ↗ you well and I you know I I had a long

1:53:41 ↗ conversation with the uh chair of land

1:53:44 ↗ and Shore and I think the kind of

1:53:45 ↗ conversations that you had tonight are

1:53:48 ↗ the kind of uh thing that will be really

1:53:51 ↗ useful to them when these proposals come

1:53:54 ↗ forward so I think I think um it will be

1:53:57 ↗ very much appreciated by the council as

1:53:59 ↗ well and um ripping off what Randy said

1:54:02 ↗ when that when DC looks at their next

1:54:05 ↗ Central Isa project that will be one of

1:54:07 ↗ your trainings is to actually be there

1:54:10 ↗ or else watch it on TV if you're not

1:54:11 ↗ available that night to see what they do

1:54:14 ↗ with a code that we all work with and

1:54:16 ↗ change and think about and to see how it

1:54:18 ↗ actually lives in when a project and an

1:54:21 ↗ applicant come before them and how they

1:54:22 ↗ have to explain and talk about it

1:54:24 ↗ because I think that'd be fabulous

1:54:25 ↗ training for all of us I've listened to

1:54:27 ↗ them uh you know I watched them and I'm

1:54:30 ↗ thinking oh my goodness the detail and

1:54:33 ↗ the time that it takes so I know that

1:54:35 ↗ they all do a good job and they we just

1:54:36 ↗ depend on Carl to do

1:54:39 ↗ everything Carl has to be there no

1:54:41 ↗ matter what

1:54:43 ↗ right I only alternate now I don't have

1:54:45 ↗ to do and I I assume that uh you get the

1:54:49 ↗ same kinds of questions privately or you

1:54:51 ↗ know when you're walking on the street

1:54:53 ↗ or uh whatever that that the members of

1:54:55 ↗ the development commission do and it's

1:54:57 ↗ uh I'm going frankly I'm going to use

1:55:00 ↗ this in further discussions with uh

1:55:03 ↗ citizens about what's going on and how

1:55:06 ↗ did how is this going on and so on I'm

1:55:08 ↗ going to use this as an example of how

1:55:10 ↗ the process in uppercase is improving

1:55:14 ↗ here because this this to me is a really

1:55:17 ↗ a great precedent well we're all all

1:55:20 ↗ members of the community and we you know

1:55:23 ↗ see the same things that everybody else

1:55:25 ↗ does and this is seven or eight people

1:55:28 ↗ that are tuned into to what's going on

1:55:32 ↗ and and has willing to make some comment

1:55:35 ↗ make some contribution and we are

1:55:38 ↗ thinking about what uh the rest of the

1:55:41 ↗ community thinks about so all of us are

1:55:44 ↗ you know thank you for all of you but

1:55:46 ↗ now that we've done this K kind kind of

1:55:50 ↗ thing um if there's anything else that

1:55:52 ↗ Trish do you have anything else okay

1:55:55 ↗ with that we will call the meeting to

1:55:57 ↗ close at

1:56:02 ↗ 826 thank

1:56:04 ↗ you thank you

1:56:06 ↗ Jo the mistake really like functional

1:56:10 ↗ collaboration

1:56:18 ↗ because

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF