← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, July 13, 2017

6:30 PM · 2h 59m · Council Chambers, 135 East Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Proposed Amendments to Utilities and Public Services Element, Capital Facilities Element, (I) AB 7683 1/10
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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 – Lindsey 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 – Victoria Hunt see IMC 18.03. 2018 – AJ McGauley 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of June 22, 2017
packet pp.5–13
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Public Hearing Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code and Central Issaquah Standards: Urban Schools and Government Facilities
Carried
Jennifer R. Woods, AICP, Associate Planner · packet pp.15–38
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
BACKGROUND
0:23 to the July 13th meeting of the Planning
0:27 Policy Commission tonight we're going to
0:29 hear some proposed amendments to the
0:33 it's a class municipal code and I'm sure
0:37 you're all here with interest to see
0:41 what's going on I must admit that I've
0:44 been on this committee for a number of
0:47 years and I've never seen so many people
0:49 here so welcome this I feel very I don't
0:52 know important tonight so thank first
0:55 thing on our agenda is the approval of
0:59 the minutes from last meeting do I have
1:02 a motion to approve the minutes
1:05 I noticed that my name is an on PVC
1:10 members present and I was there if they
1:12 can make the correction then we did have
1:17 a substitute record or so okay we
1:22 that'll be made changed do I have a
1:25 motion to approve the minutes I have a
1:28 correction on page let me get a second
1:31 first so I was second a second perfect
1:35 now discussion okay so I have a
1:37 correction on page eleven thirty eight
1:43 one two three four fifth paragraph from
1:46 the bottom last sentence where it says
1:52 we have enough to make the assessment on
1:54 residential office retail and hotel
1:57 retail is not supposed to be there no
2:00 retail let's say
2:04 anybody else residential office and
2:06 hotel okay so we have a correction for
2:13 the minutes do it do you want to
2:17 continue the approval based on the
2:20 correct correction
2:22 yes in a second yes so any no more
2:26 discussion and everybody in favor say
2:28 aye
2:29 aye or nay motion carries
2:33 I do want to welcome you all here it's
2:35 really nice to see so many faces one of
2:40 the purposes of having us here besides
2:45 getting comment and helping the city is
2:47 to give you the community members the
2:50 opportunity to make your ideas known to
2:54 the city and so I'm really thrilled that
2:57 you're taking this opportunity to do
2:59 this first on that we're going to do how
3:03 we're going to handle this is jennifer
3:04 is going to give us an update on what
3:06 exactly the city wants to do what
3:10 changes are in the horizon and why they
3:13 are being proposed and I asked Jennifer
3:16 to give me a two-sentence update on
3:20 exactly what we're looking at tonight I
3:23 know I've gotten a lot of comments which
3:27 I appreciate from members of the
3:29 community but some of them were not
3:30 actually on what we are discussing
3:33 tonight so I've asked Jennifer to just
3:36 succinctly start the meeting with two
3:39 sentences on exactly what we're looking
3:42 at this evening so Jennifer please start
3:45 your program all right
3:49 so the following presentation participer
3:53 Taine's - code amendment to provide
3:55 urban development standards for new
3:57 schools and government facilities we are
4:00 not proposing any development with these
4:03 code amendments we're not proposing any
4:05 rezoning or changing of the zoning with
4:08 with these code amendments so everything
4:10 that is CSS which is probably the reason
4:13 why you all receive letters in the mail
4:15 for me those are not changing we're not
4:19 proposing any development on those
4:20 parcels as part of this code amendment
4:24 can't be heard did you all hear me okay
4:30 we're probably good to treat me here for
4:32 people to everyone so what I had said
4:35 earlier in Christ did you all hear her
4:37 in the beginning yes you already repeat
4:45 no yes okay so the following
4:48 presentation per print pertains to land
4:50 use code amendments for urban schools
4:52 and government facilities we are not
4:54 proposing any development with these
4:56 code amendments we're not proposing any
4:58 zone changes with these amendments as I
5:01 stayed a little bit earlier you all
5:03 probably received a letter in the mail
5:04 for me and the reason why is because you
5:07 live within proximity to something zoned
5:09 CSF so like I said we're not proposing
5:12 any rezoning there won't be any
5:14 development on these parcels as part of
5:16 this proposed code amendment what we're
5:19 really doing is proposing code
5:21 amendments to development standards so
5:23 it's how people would develop a property
5:26 not what they're going to develop it
5:28 into so I hope that's good clarification
5:32 so just to add to that we will not be
5:36 reviewing the annexation of the King
5:39 County Island the council is having two
5:42 public hearings on potential
5:44 pre-annexation zoning for parcels within
5:46 the potential annexation area on July
5:49 17th and September 5th on September 5th
5:53 there's also public hearing scheduled
5:54 for council to take action on that
5:56 annexation so those that's that's
6:00 something else
6:01 opening but I think maybe you all should
6:03 be aware of that as an opportunity also
6:07 so with that I'll start my presentation
6:10 okay so our proposed schedule what what
6:15 happens after tonight is that we will go
6:18 to the council land inshore committee
6:20 and at their August and their September
6:22 meetings and we hope it's proposed for
6:26 council adoption on September 18th so
6:33 here is a map this map is actually on
6:36 our website now so if you go to the
6:39 public hearing urban schools and
6:41 government facilities webpage on the
6:43 city's website you can get to this map
6:45 and you can zoom in which I'm not going
6:48 to do for these purposes but if you were
6:50 within 300 feet of any of these green
6:53 properties on this map you got a letter
6:55 from me and we sent out almost 3000
6:57 letters so that could be why we have so
7:01 many people in the audience tonight
7:03 those those parcels shaded in green have
7:06 a range of uses from school sites to
7:08 stormwater ponds so there's a lot of
7:10 different kinds of community facilities
7:12 on these parcels what we're talking
7:14 about tonight though specifically is
7:16 future schools and future government
7:19 buildings so what is an urban school or
7:25 government facility so when we're
7:27 talking about urban we're talking about
7:29 for them it means more efficient use of
7:33 land more compact development the
7:37 location is also very important for
7:39 these facilities as uses need to be
7:41 close to the customers that they're
7:43 serving so and and school locations need
7:47 to be determined where there are service
7:49 gaps so there are specific places where
7:52 these uses need to go so let's use the
7:55 schools as an example the siting
7:58 standard for an elementary school is
8:00 about 10 acres and they need that to
8:04 fulfill all their programmatic needs and
8:06 all of their parking and everything else
8:07 that's required for that kind of school
8:09 quick clarifying question that setting
8:11 standard is based upon it was owning or
8:14 based
8:15 on like a typical what a school would
8:16 expect I've the ladder okay thank you
8:19 so under the current conditions I'm sure
8:22 that's all you looked around the city
8:24 you would notice that land availability
8:27 is becoming scarce or and scarce sir and
8:30 so that makes it more expensive right
8:35 yes
8:36 so an urban elementary school siting if
8:39 it occurred on a smaller property it
8:42 would need to have a taller building
8:44 they might need to have some structured
8:45 parking they might need to really
8:49 concentrate on how they use that land
8:51 pragmatically 4-plays hills and other
8:53 things so everything would be more
8:56 compact so that's an example of how a
9:00 school is finding land today how they
9:03 develop the school today so the purpose
9:08 of the code amendments is currently our
9:10 standards don't meet the needs of this
9:13 quad school district and as we continue
9:15 to continue to grow we have less land to
9:18 grow into and so by allowing dense your
9:22 development less land is needed to
9:24 accommodate the growth needs for school
9:27 and for city buildings which the
9:30 community will benefit from so for
9:32 instance if we get a 10 acre parcel but
9:36 they only develop seven acres because
9:38 that's all they need we have that three
9:40 acres left over to use elsewhere for
9:42 another purpose
9:47 so how would we apply this new code so
9:50 for new schools and new buildings on
9:53 existing school sites which we have
9:55 several in the city now under the
9:57 proposed code they would have new
9:59 standards including development
10:00 standards which are things like height
10:02 and building setbacks and impervious
10:04 surface coverage they might have new
10:07 standards for tree retention minimum
10:09 tree densities and tree replacement
10:11 standards and new landscape standards
10:14 for structured parking because those
10:16 don't exist in our code right now to the
10:18 extent that they do in another code so
10:24 also most of our school sites are
10:27 currently non-conforming in some way
10:30 shape or form and that has to do with
10:32 when we pass the CSS zoning and put the
10:35 zoning on the schools it was the schools
10:37 were already there so when they were
10:40 zoned they were already non-conforming
10:42 in a lot of different ways but only
10:46 sites that are zone CSS where the
10:49 development was specifically for a
10:51 public school or government government
10:53 facility would use this proposed code so
10:56 expansions of existing facilities fall
10:58 under a different section of the code
11:00 and they would be treated a little bit
11:01 differently so we're really just talking
11:03 about new school buildings and say
11:06 expansions that don't meet the non
11:08 conforming approval requirements that
11:11 would allow them to expand under the
11:12 current code
11:18 another clarifying question was were
11:20 kind of divertida so all of these sites
11:22 that has owned cff they all currently
11:24 could be developed as a schoolís around
11:28 the facility and all we're doing is
11:29 we're changing how its developed we're
11:32 not changing whether or not a particular
11:34 building could be built on a particular
11:36 site yes and I would just say that
11:38 schools are an allowed use in the CSS
11:41 zone correct so we don't there is no
11:44 open space that currently you cannot
11:47 build a school building on that you are
11:49 now able to build all it is you're able
11:50 to build a school that is shaped
11:52 differently generally speaking yes yes
11:55 journalist speaking okay so let's use an
12:01 example so let's let's say the existing
12:03 code versus the proposed code and if
12:06 we're going to say the existing code we
12:08 had to make some assumptions because the
12:09 existing code says that new schools are
12:13 going to develop as per the most
12:16 restrictive contiguous zoning so if your
12:19 commercial on one side and your
12:21 residential on the other side the most
12:23 restrictive contiguous zoning is going
12:24 to be the residential and so they would
12:28 develop using the residential standards
12:30 and so I picked a single-family small
12:33 lot because it's in the middle of a
12:35 bunch of the other single-family
12:37 standards in terms of the actual
12:39 prescriptive standards so setbacks
12:42 building heights and whatnot just to use
12:44 as a comparison so if we look at the
12:48 applicable codes under the proposed code
12:52 there would actually be more standards
12:54 applicable to school and government
12:57 facility sites so that would include
12:59 this COIs municipal codes which is
13:02 currently how schools are developed now
13:04 or it's the code under which schools are
13:07 developed now but in addition under the
13:09 proposed code we would also implement
13:13 the central Issaquah landscape standards
13:15 and including those for trees to
13:18 retention density and replacements and
13:21 then we would also implement the sub
13:24 area design guidelines so Old Town has
13:27 its own
13:28 - the own design standards central
13:31 Issaquah has its own design standards if
13:34 you look to the right the right at the
13:37 existing code you'll you won't notice
13:40 those other two pieces in there because
13:43 currently schools or government Silla
13:46 T's and CF f don't have to apply those
13:49 standards we're proposing that they
13:51 would so next would be the levels of
13:56 review so we're proposing that they go
13:59 through a level 3 review and what that
14:01 means is they have to go to a public
14:03 hearing to the Development Commission
14:05 and have their plans approved at a
14:07 public hearing and that would be the the
14:10 process that we're recommending
14:11 currently depending on where they're
14:14 located because schools don't
14:16 necessarily have to be in a CFS zone
14:20 they're a level 2 review there's some I
14:25 guess different existing school sites
14:28 have different land use plans that
14:30 they've developed over the years so this
14:33 would be really just for for new schools
14:35 or those schools that don't meet the non
14:37 conforming approval criteria so to go to
14:41 the development standards which are
14:44 those prescriptive standards FA are
14:47 doesn't exist in the IMC so for our
14:51 audience
14:52 can you explain what if they are and I
14:53 was about to unpack all of that so FA r
14:56 is for area ratio and instead of
14:59 thinking of a building envelope in terms
15:01 of building height and where the
15:04 setbacks are you're thinking about it
15:06 more of how the building covers the land
15:08 and how many floors it takes to cover
15:10 that land so if we have an F AR of say
15:13 one which is a very easy number to use
15:16 you would be able to cover the whole
15:18 site with one building or you could
15:21 cover half the site with two levels of
15:23 the building or you could do the math
15:25 there from then out and there's
15:28 different mechanisms by which you could
15:30 have a floor area ratio of one so what
15:35 we're proposing is that they have a
15:37 minimum floor area ratio of 0.75 which
15:40 means they have to
15:42 and however that happens 3/4 of the land
15:46 they use no matter what so it's a
15:48 minimum no it's not they have to cover
15:51 the land they have to build a structure
15:54 that's large enough that it's equal to
15:56 one third of the land yes before and if
15:59 in yeah three quarters of the land in
16:02 this case it's not but I just want to
16:03 clarify for the audience it's not that
16:05 three quarters of the land must be
16:06 covered because it's actually capped
16:09 that I think one notes captain 90% but
16:12 you can you can easily build a building
16:13 that's less than half the land cover
16:15 assuming you have a ten story building
16:17 that's exactly assuming you go up
16:19 instead of out so that's that's a very
16:21 good distinction and I appreciate that
16:23 so the maximum there that we're
16:26 proposing is two so to use AJ's math to
16:31 as much bigger than 0.75 but to is
16:34 basically covering well let's just say
16:37 you could cover half the land with the
16:39 building and it could have four floors
16:41 okay
16:42 I do math much easier that way okay okay
16:46 so down to step back step back stir a
16:48 little bit different to the way we're
16:49 proposing them so instead of being set
16:52 back from the street what you'll notice
16:54 at the very top is that we are requiring
16:57 a build to line which is similar to what
16:59 we do in central it's a quad but instead
17:00 of saying we want you to set yourself
17:02 back from the street by this mini feet
17:05 instead we're saying we want you to
17:08 build to the street by this many feet
17:09 and you can't go back any farther than
17:11 20 feet okay
17:15 in the s FSL zone so if we were going to
17:18 go to the existing code the s SSL's now
17:21 says you have to be set back 10 feet or
17:23 more from this from the street side and
17:26 then your other setbacks you see the
17:29 side and what we're proposing is 7 feet
17:32 the side in this particular district is
17:35 6 feet for the existing code rear 7 feet
17:39 we're 20 feet proposed code to existing
17:42 code just to show you some of the the
17:45 different kind of setbacks that would be
17:47 required in the proposed code versus the
17:49 existing code
17:51 so next is building height there there's
17:54 a big difference between the building
17:56 height were proposing and what would
17:58 otherwise be allowed in single-family
17:59 zones and I think this really highlights
18:01 some of the difficulties that the school
18:04 is find and trying to develop to their
18:06 programmatic needs because if you're
18:08 developing next to a single family's
18:10 owned most of the heights are a max of
18:13 30 feet so we're proposing 65 feet and
18:20 65 feet would also help achieve the
18:23 Floria ratios that we're also proposing
18:27 impervious surface is another one like
18:29 building height so we're proposing 90
18:31 percent coverage and what would be
18:35 allowed in the assumption zone of SF SL
18:39 would be 50% so half of a lot to be
18:41 covered in that instance so other
18:46 development and design standards that
18:48 would be required so we just talked
18:50 about that a little bit but how we do
18:53 design review in the existing code is
18:57 through something called the green
18:58 sheets and it's a long list of
19:02 guidelines to be followed and it's not
19:07 they're not necessarily requirements in
19:10 the code but more general guidelines to
19:13 follow for site design architecture and
19:16 things to that degree
19:19 so next section is really the landscape
19:22 and trees and there was a comparison
19:24 that I did in your packet to kind of try
19:28 and show all of the differences because
19:30 it's pretty detailed the code is for for
19:35 trees as it regards trees but to do a
19:38 very quick comparison of the two the
19:41 retention requirement which is how many
19:44 trees you retain on-site when you
19:46 develop and we we normally deal with
19:49 those in terms of percentages and we
19:51 deal in it's very mathematical we deal
19:54 in caliper inches and it's cumulative in
19:57 the developable site area which does not
20:00 include critical areas or their buffers
20:02 so if you're next to a wetland
20:05 and you have 50 foot setback from your
20:08 wetland it doesn't include any of the
20:10 wetland or that 50 foot setback
20:12 so this is really just the developable
20:14 side area so in in the proposed code
20:20 what we're saying is because we would be
20:22 using centralist across standards we're
20:25 saying that you could reduce your tree
20:27 retention to 0% however you have to get
20:30 an administrative adjustment of
20:32 standards which is a flexible standard
20:35 that requires a land use permit and it
20:39 requires a level what it's been elevated
20:41 to very very recently is a level 2
20:44 review which requires public
20:46 notification to neighbors within 300
20:48 feet and you're required to do
20:50 replacements if you can't replace then
20:53 you're required to pay into the city's
20:55 tree fund and then we will take those
20:57 monies and plant trees with them in the
21:02 city in the IMC under the existing code
21:04 the retention rate is the same it's 25%
21:07 but the administrative adjustment of
21:10 standards only allows you to reduce that
21:12 by half which comes out to be 12.5% it
21:16 still requires a level 2 review as well
21:19 which requires the public notification
21:22 so the next one is density minimum
21:25 density is maintaining it's just like
21:27 dwelling units on a property if you have
21:29 a minimum density requirement you're
21:30 required to say have 4 4 dwelling units
21:33 per acre a minimum density for trees is
21:36 to require to have in this case in both
21:38 cases you require to have 4 trees for
21:41 every 5000 square feet that you have and
21:44 it's the same it would be the same
21:47 either as we proposed it or as it exists
21:50 in the code today
21:52 replacement tree replacement and the
21:57 proposed code could be on-site off-site
22:00 or like I said you could pay into the
22:02 city's tree fund and we would take those
22:04 monies to plant trees in the existing
22:10 code it's the same thing this is it's
22:13 the exact same process
22:17 so the last one is a structured parking
22:20 landscape and very generally speaking
22:24 the difference between the proposed code
22:26 and the existing code is that it is a
22:29 more urban type of planting that we're
22:33 proposing you could use a green screen
22:36 instead of having to have a 5-foot wide
22:38 planting strip there's just some
22:40 alternatives that still provide the
22:42 green but maybe don't don't take up as
22:44 much space for and in addition we have
22:50 rooftop screening requirements and
22:52 central is to cloth we do not have those
22:54 in the IMC and when I mean rooftop
22:57 screening I mean screening the actual
22:59 top of a parking deck because now maybe
23:03 we have taller buildings and people have
23:05 to look onto that parking deck so the
23:06 idea is that you're visually screening
23:09 or making it a little better to look at
23:11 over time it's an aesthetic thing yeah
23:14 like shades to cars well and well of
23:17 course you have the shade which is
23:19 important as well so see here talked
23:25 about not any situation okay so does
23:27 anybody have any questions because my
23:29 next slide asked for questions about
23:33 anything we've gone over tonight I have
23:36 a scene we'll have a lot of questions
23:37 about the table so I'm happy to pull
23:38 that back up and you can you keep the
23:41 prior page up yes
23:46 that's what comment if you would wait
23:49 till public comment that she will be
23:52 available during public on that concept
23:55 comment to answer any questions you have
23:57 okay let's just finish
24:12 the question questions are for the
24:13 Commission you guys are the opportunity
24:15 ask questions there in the public
24:16 comments it's the timing thing you'll
24:19 have time I promise you'll have all the
24:20 time you need to ask any question you
24:22 have go I don't know questions okay my
24:25 question was simply it's why but how did
24:31 you why those particular numbers why do
24:34 you need such a limited amount of space
24:36 and how did you come up with seven
24:39 instead of twenty what are the
24:41 parameters how did you create this so we
24:43 did work with the school district and
24:45 they they did their own site planning
24:48 kind of experiment to try and figure out
24:50 exactly what they could whittle it all
24:53 down to and it also depends on the type
24:55 of school elementary schools are the
24:58 smallest sited school so you could get
25:01 smaller Lots for elementary schools
25:03 middle schools maybe need a little bit
25:04 bigger and then high schools may be a
25:06 little bit bigger but we worked with the
25:08 school district to try and figure out
25:09 exactly what they needed to fulfill
25:12 their programmatic requirements but then
25:14 also to try and relate it to standards
25:19 that we have that we know work a certain
25:21 way and when I when I say that I mean
25:23 they provide an urban form that would
25:27 complement the need to really provide
25:30 more compact development for schools so
25:33 one of the things is the City Council
25:34 and the school board had a joint meeting
25:36 a couple January's ago after the school
25:41 passed their bond and they knew they
25:43 were going to have to build for new
25:44 voting for new schools to accommodate
25:46 the growth that was coming and one of
25:48 the things that was part of that
25:50 conversation was how can the city in the
25:52 school district work better together to
25:54 help facilitate that need within our
25:56 community and one of the things that was
25:58 identified is our current zoning code
26:00 really doesn't accommodate the
26:02 construction of schools very well so the
26:04 ask was could the city look at revising
26:07 some of its code language to help
26:09 facilitate the development of the new
26:11 schools and so that's really what this
26:13 is is coming along saying you know
26:17 knowing that we're really trying to be
26:19 more efficient with the land that we
26:21 have the land that they have you know
26:23 how can you do that in a way that is
26:25 compatible with adjacent uses and so
26:27 that's what that's where this came from
26:30 and it's Jennifer mentioned we asked the
26:33 school district you know why don't you
26:35 propose Stander's because we don't want
26:37 to change the standards and still have
26:38 them not work for you right and so part
26:41 of where these numbers came from came
26:44 from is Collette school district yes can
26:46 you introduce yourself I can thank you
26:50 so I'm Keith Niven and the city's
26:51 economic development and development
26:53 services director so the land that the
26:57 land that we're looking to to revise the
26:59 zoning on is this land that some of
27:02 which is already owned by the school
27:03 district or is this simply rezoning land
27:06 then the school district then have to go
27:07 out and acquire a particular parcel and
27:09 develop for one of the four new schools
27:11 or boards of both so we're not we're not
27:14 changing the zoning per se we're
27:16 changing the standards associated with a
27:19 specific zoning district for specific
27:21 uses
27:22 okay yes sure yes the zone of these
27:25 parcels is not changing by everything
27:27 with this zoning we'll have new
27:29 standards specifically only for urban
27:32 schools and for government facilities
27:35 they're their standards for public
27:37 deferred standards for utility
27:39 facilities and all kinds of things and
27:40 they've got around 8 but I think to
27:42 answer your question so if the school
27:43 district purchased a property that they
27:45 don't own today that's maybe zoned
27:47 residential or something like that and
27:50 we then Rees owned it
27:51 then whatever standards would be in
27:53 place would then apply to that property
27:54 but the act of rezoning that land that's
27:57 not currently C f/c and things with the
28:00 city of of C F F that act of rezoning
28:03 would be totally distinct action by the
28:06 council that would go through its own
28:07 separate public process absolutely yes
28:12 it is
28:16 are you done yes I don't think so yeah
28:20 um what is the kind of existing adopted
28:25 policy related to this whole urban
28:28 school discussion and they're really
28:31 something that solidly says that's been
28:33 adopted by this community that says yes
28:36 we all agree that urban schools is a
28:38 necessary part of this and this is what
28:41 that looks like that's a that's a great
28:43 question
28:44 I had some slides that have those
28:48 policies on them
28:51 [Music]
28:59 here we go here's a here's a pretty big
29:02 one so here's the first one we agreed to
29:07 the Keene county wide policy displayed
29:10 on the screen this is a very long policy
29:13 and I will very quickly summarize that
29:15 while you all if you want to read it so
29:17 I will talk slowly
29:18 but basically the school districts need
29:23 to provide schools within the urban
29:25 areas so outside of the urban areas is
29:28 off-limits to them and in order to
29:32 assist them in doing that there are four
29:35 strategies which are the four orange
29:37 bullets there on the screen and those
29:40 strategies are things that the county
29:43 has told us to try and do to assist
29:45 schools in finding and locating new
29:47 school sites the one I bolded is the one
29:51 basically this is a reason why we're
29:54 here today
29:55 so it says school design standards that
29:58 reduce land requirements such as
30:00 multi-story structures or reduce
30:02 footprint while still meeting
30:04 programmatic needs so that's that's the
30:08 King County wide policy we also have
30:10 multiple policies in the Comprehensive
30:12 Plan and I'm happy to pull those up as
30:14 well that that tell us us the city that
30:18 we should work with the school district
30:20 and finding sites in co-locating
30:24 recreational uses and those kinds of
30:27 things basically the story is working
30:29 together so if you'd like me to I can go
30:33 through those policies but I thought
30:35 this was the big one this was the one
30:36 that that basically provoked all of the
30:39 policies that I'm referring to that are
30:42 in the comp plan okay so that's kind of
30:43 a that's kind of an overarching policy
30:46 that we've agreed to because we're in
30:47 King County with Seattle and Bellevue
30:49 and all those cities is there anything
30:53 specific - it's a quad that's talked
30:56 about potential sites for urban schools
31:01 and you know are we talking just about
31:03 the central Issaquah area or
31:06 you know how do we keep it consolidated
31:09 to the areas that we've identified as we
31:11 want them to be urban rather than some
31:13 of the areas that are not necessarily in
31:15 what we would consider urban but are
31:18 still already CFS to the specificity
31:21 that you're describing we do not have
31:23 that level of plan so we don't we're not
31:25 going out to find general areas where a
31:28 school could find a property that's
31:29 that's not a written map or anything
31:32 like that but we do have like I had
31:34 stated earlier we do have policies that
31:36 tell us to help schools in a multitude
31:40 of different ways and this is one of
31:42 them I think coming common I think Trish
31:46 might have emailed us when we had asked
31:47 clarify question earlier it was asked
31:49 whether or not the city has any plans or
31:53 visions on where schools are and then
31:55 the answer is no the school district
31:58 probably has some surgery to check plan
32:00 on where they think they could put
32:01 schools but the city does not have an
32:04 opinion on where schools ought to be
32:06 when you're looking at specific sites as
32:09 long as they're inside the urban growth
32:11 area they can't go outside they can't go
32:13 up to correct a valley or the whole
32:16 thing yes definitely yeah but I think
32:18 but also anything that's within is to
32:21 quote municipal boundaries is by
32:22 definition within the urban growth
32:23 boundary so there are no I think I
32:26 believe there are no parts of the city
32:28 of Issaquah that would be off-limits
32:29 from a school so to go back to Keith's
32:32 comment if the city of is a quote if the
32:34 school district bought a piece of land
32:36 that was zoned for say single-family
32:38 zones the school district would still
32:40 need to go to the city to ask for a
32:42 rezone away from say single-family zone
32:45 before they could begin to apply for a
32:48 permit for a school that'll correct yes
32:51 and additionally in the proposed code
32:53 we're saying you also have to go to a
32:54 public hearing for your land use plan so
32:56 your your development plans correct yeah
32:59 so I wanted though the school district
33:02 to take an option on a piece of property
33:04 and then and all the time and get that a
33:07 community input and then go ahead and
33:10 purchase the property they just want to
33:11 go out and buy the property
33:12 yes so I want to take it back to that
33:16 urban schools idea have we had community
33:19 input and feedback we haven't had a
33:22 meeting asking the community about their
33:27 vision of schools and whether or not
33:30 that matches with a school districts
33:34 idea of moving toward urban schools
33:38 isn't that what this meeting is I mean
33:42 this is I think I believe this is this
33:43 is the first public touch point we've
33:45 had for the zoning correct
33:47 I feel like this meeting is talking
33:49 about the zoning in a way that wasn't
33:53 necessarily communicated to for example
33:57 the PTAs or anything like that in
34:01 talking about do we want urban schools
34:05 as an idea well I don't think they at
34:08 this point time because of the limited
34:10 land I don't think they have a choice to
34:13 go into some form of urban schools and
34:16 that brings at the point I would like to
34:18 hold your the rest of your comments
34:21 because some of the people in the in the
34:23 audience might trigger some other
34:26 comments from you so I would like to
34:27 open the public hearing can I can I ask
34:31 one more clarifying question yeah you
34:33 can't believe there is a sign-up sheet
34:35 as everybody who wants to speak tonight
34:38 signed up on that sheet okay ask your
34:42 question all right so this is this is a
34:45 bit of a loaded question I'm going to
34:46 make a comment disguised as a question
34:48 so when you say urban school really you
34:52 just mean a denser more efficient school
34:55 and that's really all that the word
34:57 urban is trying to evoke it's really all
35:02 about the porn yes okay so it's not it's
35:04 not it's not urban in the sense of you
35:06 want it to be this bigger thing is the
35:08 idea that it's denser more compact yes'm
35:13 okay so I've opened up the public
35:16 hearing and the first person on the list
35:18 is Ronald and
35:20 Carol and I can't read your writing so
35:23 if you would like to come to the
35:26 microphone
35:27 introduce yourself where you live and
35:30 because there are so many of you I am
35:33 going to do what the City Council does
35:35 and basically limit you the between
35:38 three and five minutes
35:44 thank you I'm Ron Baker
35:47 I live at 716 7th Avenue Northwest and
35:52 my question is really regarding the term
35:56 other government facilities and in
36:00 particular the thing that comes to my
36:01 mind is how that might apply to
36:03 something like the recycling center I I
36:12 believe the answer is it doesn't I think
36:15 this rezone is only for schools correct
36:18 now and government facility yes thank
36:25 you
36:27 so it's a fair question
36:30 so we have a question on the floor that
36:32 hasn't been answered would you like to
36:36 sorry I was super excited I figured out
36:38 how to use the timer
36:41 what I did here recycling center
36:44 meantime um so so we started with
36:48 schools and then we said well right now
36:51 what's allowed in cff is schools and
36:54 other government buildings and so we
36:56 went ahead and just pushed them both
36:58 forward we don't have any plans to build
37:00 you know so I got into the side
37:02 conversation about well what about it's
37:03 a cemetery you know we're talking about
37:05 a five-story crypt being built there and
37:07 I thought what that could actually be
37:08 kind of cool but you know we're not
37:11 we're not talking about we well let me
37:15 say we don't have any plans for
37:17 government buildings if ultimately
37:18 that's the big sticking point for either
37:21 the Commission or the community I'd say
37:23 we can pull it off because frankly there
37:25 isn't any plans for any municipal
37:27 building period at the moment really
37:31 what we did this for with schools and so
37:33 if ultimately we want to pare this down
37:35 to just schools because that's the
37:37 consternation point I think that's
37:39 absolutely open for a conversation I use
37:42 tax your time thank you okay
37:53 204 minutes - five four minutes or five
38:01 I'm hooker hailstone I own the property
38:04 at 320 Northwest Holly Street oh and
38:09 right now I know that there is a plan to
38:12 have a bridge come across from the creek
38:15 that comes down to Holly Street there
38:18 which would be for the kids to cross and
38:23 also I don't know what they're planning
38:26 and where they're planning on putting
38:29 their parking lot and that not to
38:31 mention that most of that area out there
38:34 is floodplain which is why it's getting
38:37 condensed so much and they're going
38:38 higher which does not appeal to me right
38:48 okay that where is all of this traffic
38:54 going to be going and coming through
38:58 there I mean is it going to be because
39:02 there's one entrance into the school
39:04 there's one eggs out of the school and
39:07 if they're putting some other buildings
39:09 in there at the administration point
39:13 those people are going to be coming and
39:15 going all the time and where are they
39:17 going to be coming and going to there's
39:20 a bunch of stuff because I haven't seen
39:22 any design plan for what's happening so
39:27 I would like to see something in black
39:31 and white that I can look at and have an
39:33 idea of what's happening I don't know if
39:36 anybody can hear you so yeah well I
39:39 wanted to make sure she knows so that's
39:46 some of my concerns because we're going
39:49 to be adding so much traffic right in
39:51 there
39:52 are we going to continue with what we
39:55 have there or are we going to be opening
39:57 up other things that are going to become
40:02 a problem
40:04 well I think that the answer is that -
40:07 that is the city is going to have to do
40:10 their homework and make sure that the
40:13 kids are safe and that there's enough
40:16 egress and get out of that of the
40:21 facility I I don't think any of us have
40:24 seen plans of what they're going to do
40:25 to the administration building yeah but
40:28 and and in essence that's not something
40:32 in the way of transportation that we're
40:34 going to discuss this evening I'd like
40:36 to limit the discussion tonight just on
40:39 the zoning and what the community thinks
40:42 about the change in zoning for schools
40:45 and so I think we that question is valid
40:50 and it should be looked at in a
40:52 different concept of trying to find out
40:55 how to address expert ation in the new
40:59 they're going to tear down the
41:01 administration building right and change
41:03 that oh I think maybe I mean so so the
41:08 concerns that you have are really I'm
41:11 going to stop this so it doesn't buzz on
41:12 me so the concerns that you have are
41:16 going to be site specific for a
41:19 particular school in a particular
41:20 location like I said the school district
41:23 is moving forward looking for sites for
41:26 two elementary schools of middle school
41:27 in a high school and you know for each
41:30 of those sites when they pick one
41:32 there's going to be the issues of
41:35 critical areas and traffic and all the
41:39 other things that they're going to try
41:41 and manage on the site like you know all
41:43 of them have different play area needs
41:45 and parking needs and all of those kind
41:48 of things so until those plans are drawn
41:51 up and submitted to the city I don't
41:54 think any of us know exactly what that
41:56 looks like what Jennifer mentioned
41:59 earlier and I want to kind of go back to
42:00 that point is the process that we're
42:03 proposing is when those development
42:06 plans are prepared and submitted by the
42:08 school that they would be come part of a
42:11 public process that would go through our
42:13 development commission and there'd be an
42:15 opportunity not
42:17 only for you to express your concerns or
42:20 interest in that at that time but also
42:23 there would be we have a different
42:25 commission that typically looks at land
42:27 plans and has a different lens for kind
42:30 of commenting on that and ultimately
42:32 will make decisions on those well I had
42:36 set in on some of the stuff on the part
42:39 that's just above us and what their
42:43 process is and what they were doing for
42:45 the bridges and all of that because I
42:49 lived on this area up until 90 that I
42:58 knew most of the floods and things that
43:00 come through there and I wanted to make
43:03 sure that they had
43:04 I mean I've still got pictures of some
43:07 of this stuff that mmm was not quite so
43:10 nice so why don't we table this
43:14 particular subject I have your email
43:16 here and I will make the city will then
43:19 have it and they can get back to you and
43:22 for any further questions or concerns
43:24 that you may have that work with you
43:27 guys thank you very
43:35 yes Aries Jankowski you'll have to go to
43:45 the okay okay awesome thank you nice to
43:53 know that Fran and Bob I wish I could
44:02 pronounce it that maybe you will when
44:03 you come to would you like would you
44:05 like to cut oh you just signed up okay
44:10 okay Susan
44:18 it can use is it's kind of going in a
44:19 row so you'll know who the next one is
44:21 okay hello good evening everybody
44:37 my name is Susan house do you want my
44:39 address or just my town or address would
44:45 be another normal yes okay
44:48 I live at 195 to four southeast 24th
44:52 place in Sammamish and I fell artcards
44:56 to the clean escapes archeology store in
44:59 Gilman village and I'm a volunteer at
45:01 the food and clothing bank in Issaquah
45:03 so I have a lot of connection to
45:05 Issaquah even though I live in Sammamish
45:07 and I am very much against this
45:13 amendment this proposal and I want to
45:17 tell you why I have studied this sort of
45:21 thing a lot in my education I have a
45:23 master's and regional planning in land
45:26 use planning and transportation and I
45:31 also like to cook and sometimes when I
45:33 cook things I think wouldn't you know
45:35 this tastes nice and this tastes nice
45:37 and this tastes nice wouldn't it be fun
45:39 if it all were in one pot but sometimes
45:42 it just doesn't work out and the way I
45:46 feel about this amendment is just that I
45:48 think there are some good intentions and
45:51 positive directions such as the King
45:54 County intention to have school design
45:58 standards that reduce land requirements
46:00 such as using multi-story or reduced
46:03 footprint and I think there could have
46:07 been a lot more public involvement
46:08 before all these details got itched into
46:12 a presentation and all that work was put
46:15 into it so but the reason why I think
46:18 this is a recipe that just doesn't work
46:20 is that I have volunteered over 400
46:23 hours lately on the different potential
46:27 uses for Providence Heights in Issaquah
46:29 and there
46:31 Group has come up with smiley 53
46:33 different uses besides a school site and
46:38 the thing is with this zoning it it's
46:42 like it's like a net that's killing
46:44 whales because it it basically captures
46:49 our precious green spaces our green open
46:53 spaces in the hinterlands of Issaquah
46:56 and it also captures treat hillsides so
47:02 this this sort of zoning detail is
47:06 extremely inappropriate for those
47:09 resources they need to be kept as they
47:13 are and I think a good zoning for those
47:16 resources which would be CF - OS so
47:22 anyway because what needs to happen is
47:27 that people use the resources at hand to
47:32 make more urban style schools if that's
47:35 the interest in the broader community
47:40 but those need to be in places that are
47:43 for example already cleared already
47:45 graded just absolutely prime for schools
47:48 and that the community is interested in
47:50 and all these details about reducing
47:53 setbacks reducing tree retention
47:55 requirements increasing impervious
47:57 surfaces that are allowed those those
48:02 would be all disastrous and the height
48:06 of a building I think that needs to be
48:08 on a case-by-case basis the height of
48:10 the school because the zoning is you
48:13 know sprinkled throughout Issaquah and
48:15 those parcels are all near people who
48:18 live there thank you
48:40 my name is Linda Hitomi and I live on
48:44 Sunset Court across from the cemetery
48:46 and I didn't know a lot about this issue
48:50 except that our neighborhood sent the
48:54 information out to us to come and attend
48:57 and start to understand what this is
48:59 about and just in the last half-hour it
49:03 appears very clearly that as Susan said
49:09 that we're putting a lot of looser
49:13 zoning on all these different areas that
49:16 are quite variable in terms of green
49:20 space cemeteries up on the Issaquah
49:24 Plateau down in the city and so it looks
49:28 like what you're trying to do is meet
49:30 the needs of schools and allow them to
49:33 put schools in areas where we need them
49:35 but it seems inappropriate to spread
49:39 this within the bounds of the city and
49:43 then loosen all of these areas and make
49:46 them open for development because it's
49:50 it's aimed at schools but it also says
49:53 and other city facilities which as Susan
49:58 said could be lots of things and so I
50:01 think many of us have come here tonight
50:03 concerned that you're overlaying lighter
50:08 zoning rules in a wide disparity
50:13 disparate areas where you have green
50:17 belts and hills and ravines and creeks
50:21 and it just seems inappropriate too
50:24 widely apply this and perhaps it could
50:27 be more concisely stated that it's part
50:30 of either parcels that the schools
50:34 Curtin currently have or parcels to be
50:37 developed for schools and as you said
50:40 for schools to have options for this
50:44 area and then go to the City Council to
50:47 discuss how does that specific site
50:49 impact that specific area
50:53 so that's my two cents eight
51:13 kaitlin's odd three eight zero southeast
51:16 our street I live very close to the
51:18 Issaquah high school and as quad middle
51:20 school now and I do agree that we should
51:24 uncouple the school zoning along with
51:26 the other facility showing I don't think
51:29 that the two of them match up really
51:31 well the other thing that I'd like to
51:33 know is we're talking about all the
51:35 zoning number one would be my concern
51:38 would be the height of the buildings
51:40 because right now as high as those
51:44 buildings are they're blocking the view
51:46 that a lot of us want to live in
51:49 Issaquah four so Tiger Mountain is not a
51:51 clear shot from my house anymore it used
51:53 to be but it's not anymore
51:55 but the other thing would be that we
51:58 don't know exactly what's included in
52:01 the zoning so they've built the middle
52:04 school in the high school they haven't
52:06 added any sidewalks they haven't slowed
52:08 down the kids around the corner they
52:11 haven't added any just things I have to
52:14 do with like how is the parking going to
52:16 be monitored how is the parking going to
52:19 be watched and how is the traffic on the
52:21 street the ingress and egress how is
52:24 that all going to happen so we don't
52:26 know when we vote for the zoning how the
52:29 school is actually going to apply any
52:31 other rules around that so that would be
52:33 my concern is yes the zoning for for
52:37 being a more urban area and being on a
52:39 smaller footprint sounds great
52:41 the reality is what else are they doing
52:44 within that zoning but those would be my
52:46 concerns on that I think you'll get some
52:49 of your answers because the president of
52:51 the school board is here tonight to talk
52:53 so that's great thank you
52:59 Barbara would
53:06 that's the only name I could pronounce
53:11 Linda and please come to it I mean
53:19 that's why we're here to listen to you
53:21 well I've listened carefully
53:24 I think I'd listen carefully to the
53:30 preseason pardon introduce your so I'm
53:33 sorry
53:34 I'm Linda krumins I lived in Issaquah
53:37 for 28 years taught me is a quest school
53:40 district for much of that time and then
53:44 moved to the Seattle School District for
53:46 the last five years I was just oh when
53:55 when my husband and I built our house in
53:58 Issaquah there were no stoplights
54:01 anywhere in town they were none and we
54:06 loved Issaquah we just loved it it was
54:09 yes it was a tree city and that's
54:13 probably because there weren't too many
54:15 buildings yes but time changes things
54:20 and and it changed for us and we started
54:23 seeing more buildings being built we
54:25 started seeing more congestion on the
54:28 roads and it became unpleasant my
54:33 husband passed away in 2001 and I ended
54:37 up moving up to Mount Vernon because my
54:39 mother was sick but Issaquah when I come
54:43 back to see it it still continues to
54:47 change and it will continue to change
54:50 whether we want it to or not it's it's
54:54 uncomfortable change it can be very
54:56 uncomfortable but what we have right now
54:59 because I was connected to be is across
55:01 school district for so long what we have
55:05 right now is a real problem we've got
55:07 kids who are stacked into portables I
55:11 mean I don't I I still have friends who
55:13 teach in Issaquah
55:15 it's it's crowded it's real crowded and
55:19 it's going to get more crowded as
55:21 gateway opens and other building around
55:25 here continues to spread so I'm just
55:29 putting a plea in for the is gloss
55:31 School District I want to see something
55:34 that will help them because I know what
55:36 it's like to teach in a classroom that's
55:38 way too crowded thank you that's it
55:48 could he good evening this is is it on
55:54 I'm taking Cooper the chief financial
55:55 operating officer for istic law school
55:57 district oh and thank you mr. Navin
55:59 we're turning the light on so indeed I
56:03 come before you obviously speaking in
56:05 favor of the code amendment I have a
56:08 Technic member my technical staff will
56:10 speak after this mr. Crawford director
56:12 capital projects and to elected board
56:14 members I come before you tonight a man
56:17 frustrated with trying to find property
56:19 one that has to comply with growth
56:21 management Act and the reinterpretation
56:22 by the GMP C recently we recently sold
56:25 80 acres that were banked outside of the
56:29 UGA in winter Brook farms sold the 80
56:31 acres we had conversations with all of
56:36 your elected officials and an open
56:37 public meeting and talked about what
56:40 could they do to help us site and
56:42 facilitate the siding of schools in the
56:45 city of Ithaca wha and we said change
56:47 your codes because every time we build
56:49 something we have to have to ask for a
56:51 variance so just for the point of
56:52 reference Clark elementary ims and it's
56:56 go high school all of the street are all
56:58 up to 65 foot mark variances were
57:01 granted by the city each time
57:02 accordingly we're really running into is
57:04 given property runs between on the low
57:07 end 750 on the high end two and a
57:09 quarter million an acre for land and we
57:12 need to site accordingly and we're
57:14 looking at and the rule of thumb was
57:16 given by staff rule of thumb is just a
57:18 general OSPI guidance 10 acres for
57:21 elementary 15 to 24 middle and between
57:24 up to 40 acres for a comprehensive high
57:26 school you start to do the math on that
57:28 we have a
57:29 willing constituency a recent bond of
57:32 five hundred thirty three million
57:33 dollars passed by over seventy percent
57:34 so we have the cash to be able to
57:37 execute the deals Rama's land is very
57:40 very hard to come by competing with some
57:43 of the most aggressive and largest
57:45 developers in the whole world not even
57:46 in the United States or in the region so
57:49 I implore you to make no you're not
57:52 making take any action tonight but if
57:54 you're going to hear any testimony here
57:56 for me
57:57 battling the battling growth for nearly
57:59 15 years in the school district as their
58:01 CFO 500 kids a year we potentially would
58:05 type four schools within the
58:07 municipality that could serve an
58:08 additional 4,000 students remember we
58:11 are responding to growth we've never
58:13 issued a building permit ever that is
58:16 not our game we respond to growth and
58:19 where we open our schools full we have
58:22 230 plus portable classrooms that is the
58:26 equivalent of roughly well we built our
58:30 elementary schools just to put in
58:31 perspective around 32 so you can do the
58:34 math on how many equivalent freestanding
58:37 schools we need to accommodate our
58:39 portable growth so I'm not going to
58:42 belabor the point we need denser
58:44 development on both our existing
58:46 property and any future acquisitions
58:48 even though we'd have to go through a
58:49 council approval I'm more than willing
58:52 to answer any technical questions you
58:53 may have and I also have staff available
58:55 as needed
58:56 thank you anything and I don't think so
59:03 I don't think we are yeah
59:11 and these Steve Steve Crawford director
59:16 capital projects for this wealth school
59:17 district a number of points have been
59:20 discussed but as we see the community
59:22 and our cities continue to grow the
59:24 enrollment grows we have to find space
59:25 for new kids and we have been moving
59:28 towards urban schools although we
59:29 haven't gotten as far as we really need
59:31 to get his high was built as a
59:33 three-story building we initially
59:35 started as middle school was a
59:37 two-story and realized that we need to
59:39 compact that footprint even more it's
59:42 gone in as a three-story building Clark
59:45 Elementary is going to be our largest
59:47 elementary school but it's also going to
59:50 be our first three-story Elementary
59:51 School part of the idea of the higher
59:55 density allows us to compact the
59:58 footprint of the building allows
59:59 compaction of the overall site required
1:00:01 so instead of perhaps a 10 acre site
1:00:04 that you have for a grande ridge
1:00:05 elementary you can move down to 7 acre
1:00:08 site there's three other acres that are
1:00:10 reserved for other things or remain in
1:00:12 open space or trees or whatever
1:00:14 depending on where you might be it's
1:00:17 just a critical issue that needs to be
1:00:19 addressed to be able to accommodate the
1:00:21 growth inside the urban growth boundary
1:00:24 line there's just no other room to grow
1:00:26 land is really scarce there are no
1:00:30 parcels with no development on them that
1:00:33 have for sale signs on them and we're
1:00:36 really challenged and have to be
1:00:37 creative and have to be creative in
1:00:39 terms of condensing our footprints as
1:00:41 much as we can to fit things in where
1:00:44 possible another thing that the smaller
1:00:50 footprints allows allows us to put
1:00:52 schools more closely located to the
1:00:56 neighborhoods that they're serving
1:00:58 that's really important from a number of
1:01:01 reason a creates that community identity
1:01:04 provides for the opportunity for more
1:01:06 the students to be walking rather than
1:01:09 transported either by bus or by parents
1:01:11 from their residential areas into a more
1:01:14 distance school it saves the
1:01:21 corresponding trips
1:01:23 an area into another area of the city
1:01:26 reduces your traffic helps reduce
1:01:29 congestion there's a lot of things that
1:01:32 are good a lot of things that helps with
1:01:37 sustainability goals and being green
1:01:40 that come from reducing the footprints
1:01:42 of our buildings and reducing the site
1:01:44 areas that we need for schools thank you
1:01:53 you can introduce yourself if you would
1:01:56 thank you okay I'm Lisa Callen I am the
1:01:59 I'm on the school board director Moore
1:02:02 is also here who's also on the school
1:02:04 board I'm the current residing president
1:02:07 of the school board and I live at three
1:02:09 one five three Northeast Marquette Way
1:02:11 in Issaquah I am an Iskra resident and
1:02:14 and I have a childhood in the its claw
1:02:18 school district so just a couple of
1:02:21 things I know that mr. Cooper wish
1:02:23 Crawford describes some of the things
1:02:25 that some of the questions that have
1:02:26 come up I want to invite anybody that
1:02:30 has questions about our school sites and
1:02:32 our school plans and our growth in the
1:02:34 bond construction or any of our remodels
1:02:37 or any of that to please come and speak
1:02:40 to us also in the school board meetings
1:02:42 we hold our meetings of 2nd and 4th
1:02:44 Wednesdays
1:02:46 there'll be August 2nd 4th and August
1:02:49 will be the next opportunities and that
1:02:50 will be before the next public hearing
1:02:52 there'll be public hearings two public
1:02:55 hearings for the City Council on zoning
1:02:58 which is separate than the topic that
1:02:59 we're talking about tonight but we love
1:03:02 to hear from you directly on your
1:03:04 concerns about things like school egress
1:03:06 sidewalks safety all of that kind of
1:03:08 stuff
1:03:10 and certainly any building that we do
1:03:12 any construction would have to go
1:03:14 through a very public process and we
1:03:16 certainly have community engagement
1:03:18 opportunities to talk of what the
1:03:19 neighbors of any change so what might be
1:03:22 happening around the administration
1:03:23 building site and what might be
1:03:25 happening with Holly we'll certainly
1:03:26 having community conversations around
1:03:28 that and how that might impact you and
1:03:30 what the designs of the egress would
1:03:32 look like and would love to have that
1:03:34 participation
1:03:36 it's often like with the Commission's
1:03:38 and the committee's and the council's
1:03:40 we just don't get as much input that we
1:03:44 like directly from the public and we
1:03:45 just really welcome that with regards to
1:03:49 tonight talking about land use codes it
1:03:52 really is around our ability to try to
1:03:55 use less land to build the schools that
1:03:58 we need to build so if we stick to
1:04:01 current codes and if we are looking for
1:04:05 ways to find to actually build schools
1:04:09 and get those cute little bottoms and
1:04:11 deceits for all of those 500 kids that
1:04:13 we're growing each year and how do we do
1:04:15 that the the object tier is do we have
1:04:19 to do we need to buy more parcels and
1:04:22 figure out how to do that to meet the
1:04:24 current codes or can we buy less land
1:04:26 and convince and be more efficient with
1:04:30 the land that we have and so hopefully
1:04:33 instead of the ten acres for elementary
1:04:36 we can look at seven acres for example
1:04:38 right so we're saving that land use so
1:04:39 just to acknowledge that I'm a big fan
1:04:43 of the environment the school district
1:04:45 is - we always try to site our schools
1:04:48 with as much respect to the like the
1:04:50 local landscape as we can and integrate
1:04:52 it into that as well as into the
1:04:54 community and also try to appreciate
1:04:55 community values so we want to tie that
1:04:57 all in so if we talk about land code
1:05:04 used tonight here and where we are with
1:05:05 that that is allows once the the code
1:05:12 use is defined for CFF zoning right then
1:05:17 whenever a school district is going for
1:05:19 that cff zoning we have to apply to
1:05:22 those rules anything outside of that CFF
1:05:25 zoning is not something that we can go
1:05:28 build a school in so that has to go
1:05:29 through its own public hearing process
1:05:31 so just to be very clear around Matt and
1:05:33 we respect that process and we look
1:05:36 forward to having those discussions in
1:05:38 that very public process so whether it's
1:05:41 open space or it should be a facilities
1:05:43 conversation we want to engage in that
1:05:46 process and we want to respect that so
1:05:48 we want to honor that and
1:05:49 I don't feel I need specific questions
1:05:51 but we are all here to answer those
1:05:53 questions specifically around land use
1:05:54 and then also school specific stuff
1:05:57 we're very happy at the side board
1:05:59 conversations afterwards do with anybody
1:06:01 and be there for that thank you Lisa
1:06:04 okay we have another Lisa my name is
1:06:14 Lisa mill Kowski
1:06:15 I live at 890 lingering pine lane Hetson
1:06:19 talus this is not an amendment about
1:06:23 schools it is about making development
1:06:26 easy and frankly sloppy in my opinion as
1:06:29 I said I'm in chalice in a hillside
1:06:32 development and we've had enough issues
1:06:34 with hasty development don't allow
1:06:38 amendments that clear that allow clear
1:06:41 cutting of parcels whoever it is or
1:06:44 allow for continued hasty development
1:06:47 come up with a plan that is really about
1:06:50 school sites if that's what this is
1:06:51 about make it sound like this is making
1:06:54 it sound like it's about schools but
1:06:55 it's really about more than schools here
1:06:57 okay it sounds real cute we're talking
1:07:00 about the kids but it's about more than
1:07:02 that really it's about hasty development
1:07:05 I'm a mother of three kids they're all
1:07:07 in this Club School District I
1:07:09 volunteered a lot of to school I used to
1:07:11 be an educator myself at the college
1:07:13 level think carefully about it okay
1:07:16 don't do it hasty now you were supposed
1:07:22 to check if you really wanted to speak
1:07:25 tonight but some of the other people
1:07:27 that have come up or not checked so I'm
1:07:28 going to go through this list just does
1:07:31 unitary or juni leg would like to speak
1:07:41 [Laughter]
1:07:47 [Music]
1:07:49 right over there charlie would you like
1:07:54 to speak nope
1:07:56 super
1:08:01 okay um
1:08:13 hi I'm Tom huffnagle we have a property
1:08:17 that's up against the lakeside Sand &
1:08:19 Gravel I just want to be clear it's
1:08:21 commercial right now our property zone
1:08:23 cannot be changed to school take away
1:08:26 the commercial and then the other thing
1:08:29 is a couple years ago they put in a
1:08:31 marijuana store next to us so I'm
1:08:34 assuming no school will come close to
1:08:35 that is that a correct okay happy kids
1:08:45 but I'm hoping they can't build school
1:08:47 no there's separation requirements from
1:08:50 the green businesses and schools and
1:08:53 then you know the you know that the
1:08:56 process is there's nothing there's no
1:08:58 change of Zoning so if you've got a
1:09:00 commercial parcel it's going to stay
1:09:02 commercial if the school district wants
1:09:04 to come and buy your property and buy
1:09:06 out the marijuana business and put a
1:09:08 school there they can that's part of
1:09:10 their process but that's not what we're
1:09:12 talking about today okay thank you
1:09:17 honest
1:09:27 someone with all the green dots thank
1:09:39 so I'm Donna Robinson and we own a house
1:09:43 on Northwest dogwood and my daughter
1:09:45 owns a house on 2nd and Bush
1:09:46 so we're residents of aqua and more
1:09:49 excited to be here the house that we
1:09:52 owned were remodeling
1:09:53 so we're becoming very familiar with the
1:09:55 planning department and the inspection
1:09:57 their inspection people and all the
1:09:59 requirements because we're close to the
1:10:01 creek so we've become very familiar with
1:10:03 the city policies and things so one
1:10:07 thing that I did want to point out to
1:10:09 this map is there are quite a few green
1:10:13 dots that if you don't kind of zoom in
1:10:15 on you don't realize that are about a
1:10:17 half a core a third of an acre an acre
1:10:19 two acres something that the schools
1:10:21 wouldn't even possibly be able to use
1:10:24 but if you don't limit it to schools and
1:10:28 I'm sorry I heard Jennifer very clearly
1:10:30 say that this was the schools were an
1:10:33 example of the code changes here that it
1:10:37 wasn't limited to schools so I would
1:10:39 really encourage the council to limit it
1:10:43 if schools is what we're trying to solve
1:10:45 here then let's limit it because it's a
1:10:48 slippery slope otherwise and I guarantee
1:10:50 you before a school gets ever gets close
1:10:52 to one of these other properties a
1:10:55 government facility a city facility will
1:10:57 see a solution here for them
1:10:59 and we'll be right back here trying to
1:11:01 argue it and we've lost space already
1:11:04 okay so I am a hundred percent I have
1:11:07 open space next to me they've talked
1:11:09 about maybe putting a play yard in there
1:11:12 or anything like that do it that'd be
1:11:14 great
1:11:15 I would be a hundred percent supportive
1:11:17 of that but this general government
1:11:19 facility or city facilities it's way too
1:11:22 broad so I really please you already had
1:11:25 one of your your team go oh wait what
1:11:27 are we talking about here so let's be
1:11:30 clear okay so the second thing I want to
1:11:32 talk about is the permeable ground and
1:11:35 changing it to 90 percent
1:11:37 we are a wet community that the city the
1:11:45 county washington state is requiring a
1:11:47 lot of work and a lot of our tax dollars
1:11:50 to go into us not flooding anymore if
1:11:52 possible there are culverts being built
1:11:55 for fish and adjusting things that were
1:11:58 screwed up years and years ago and so
1:12:01 just kind of take a look at that you
1:12:04 know articles in the newspaper and stuff
1:12:05 you go to ninety percent not permeable
1:12:08 or yeah you go to that I see nothing in
1:12:13 that code that's addressing where all
1:12:15 the drainage and you can say oh no we
1:12:18 have those that's part of the municipal
1:12:19 code and everything no my property is
1:12:23 required to have 50 percent
1:12:26 non-permeable I really worry if you are
1:12:30 not very specific about the code that
1:12:32 we're going to add to the drainage water
1:12:34 we're going to add to runoff and you
1:12:37 know look at hillsides they're sliding
1:12:38 down all around you know let's be very
1:12:41 clear and careful about what we're doing
1:12:43 there okay and then the last thing is
1:12:45 just kind of an administrative thing
1:12:47 when you put a link in the letter could
1:12:50 you test it because I couldn't get to
1:12:52 the map it was a completely different
1:12:55 address so I appreciate the letter
1:12:58 coming out I really do and I don't mean
1:13:00 to beat anybody up but let's test it
1:13:01 before we send the letter out so thank
1:13:04 you for your time I appreciate you
1:13:11 that's never happened before with you
1:13:14 people
1:13:15 Brian thank you my name is Brian
1:13:27 Weinstein I live at 285 W Bush Street
1:13:31 when I was in PTC sitting up there back
1:13:35 in 2003 I always reviewed our code when
1:13:38 it came to proposals that we were
1:13:39 considering so I'd like to do the same
1:13:41 here and take this up a level where we
1:13:44 ought to be looking at it section 18.0
1:13:46 1.0 3 0 purpose and intent of the land
1:13:50 use code 3
1:13:51 facilitating the adequate provision of
1:13:53 transportation water sewerage schools
1:13:56 parks and other public facilities and
1:13:58 services through the orderly application
1:14:00 of these regulations designed to guide
1:14:02 future growth and development so schools
1:14:05 check but then there's this part a bit
1:14:08 more encompassing and a lot more broad
1:14:10 section d required environment
1:14:14 environmental excellence by one
1:14:16 establishing and implementing measures
1:14:18 to preserve is the croisé unique natural
1:14:20 beauty to preventing degradation of the
1:14:23 environment 3 using is a clause natural
1:14:27 resources responsibly for requiring that
1:14:30 environmental impacts are properly
1:14:32 mitigated despite the pressures of
1:14:35 growth 5 recognizing man-made
1:14:38 constraints and 6 preserving
1:14:40 environmentally critical areas Issaquah
1:14:43 residents have made it abundantly clear
1:14:45 via this language that our treed
1:14:48 forested hillsides are a treasure that
1:14:50 needs to be preserved it's a measure of
1:14:52 environmental excellence we also
1:14:55 appreciate and love our schools we vote
1:14:57 for permanent taxes a half billion
1:15:00 that's billion with a B dollars to
1:15:04 sustain them during their continued
1:15:05 growth that growth however needs to be
1:15:08 balanced with environmental excellence
1:15:10 this proposal is nice as it seems to
1:15:13 have urban schools and government
1:15:14 buildings frankly when were we citizens
1:15:17 asked if we wanted to live in an urban
1:15:20 community this change strikes at the
1:15:23 very heart of what
1:15:24 we think of Issaquah rural-urban or
1:15:27 something in between
1:15:28 I have chickens that walk down my street
1:15:30 and reports of bears in the neighborhood
1:15:33 on a weekly basis and there's AG law
1:15:35 school district in this proposal tell us
1:15:37 that now I suddenly live in an urban
1:15:39 area I'm from Los Angeles California
1:15:42 I know what an urban area is this
1:15:46 amendment is not representative of our
1:15:49 code our city our values and the message
1:15:52 to the school district and any other
1:15:54 business or developers the applicant
1:15:57 should be you need to do better you need
1:15:59 to comply with the rules of the town in
1:16:02 which you operate if you can't comply
1:16:04 with our rules change your operating
1:16:06 procedures or go elsewhere read this
1:16:10 proposal carefully saying that something
1:16:13 will be efficient when it is reduced
1:16:16 minimized or taken away is a clever use
1:16:19 of language but in this case it's wrong
1:16:22 we shouldn't change our values because
1:16:24 they are contradictory to how the
1:16:26 applicant chooses to operate the
1:16:29 Issaquah school district with half a
1:16:31 billion dollars of bond money at its
1:16:34 disposal and our city administration
1:16:36 must do better
1:16:39 thank you it's Circuit yet mr. Casper
1:16:50 your neck David Kepler 255 southeast and
1:16:56 earth Street you received a lot of
1:16:58 correspondence from Connie Marsh I
1:17:00 happen to agree with her her analysis
1:17:03 and opinions we've been told several
1:17:09 times tonight this is in a rezone it's
1:17:12 not a rezone technically because it's
1:17:14 still C F F dash F but the criteria for
1:17:18 the zone are dramatically being changed
1:17:20 so property is being read zoned whether
1:17:25 it still has the same letter combination
1:17:27 on it it is definitely a change in its
1:17:30 potential use and it is a rezone I'm
1:17:35 concerned about the
1:17:37 County parcels which is not exactly what
1:17:40 you're dealing with tonight but there is
1:17:42 some suggestion about where CFF should
1:17:46 be up there and where CF o-- open-space
1:17:48 should be and where the other more
1:17:51 commercial is I think the map and so far
1:17:55 the discussion on that is is very weak
1:17:57 and doesn't understand the land I've
1:18:00 been on that land many times there's
1:18:03 wetlands on it
1:18:04 there were Springs and creeks on it
1:18:06 before it blew out in the camp Creek and
1:18:09 they're there again it's had a long
1:18:12 history clayton springs didn't happen
1:18:14 because of the infiltration from
1:18:17 Microsoft because Clayton Springs were
1:18:19 there before it's a complicated
1:18:21 situation the forest
1:18:23 up there is questionable in terms of its
1:18:26 health as the water table and water has
1:18:30 been changed by excavation to the east
1:18:33 and that and we got to make sure that
1:18:35 forests will be healthy as we infringe
1:18:39 upon it and the remaining trees stay
1:18:41 there that's the most important backdrop
1:18:43 we have in the Lower Valley and we need
1:18:47 to keep those trees in good shape we're
1:18:53 adopting well right now we have a
1:18:56 moratorium because the central Issaquah
1:18:59 plan isn't working so wouldn't you I
1:19:03 would suggest that there's written
1:19:06 language in the central as well plan
1:19:08 that's not working but here we're going
1:19:10 to take that language and just adopt it
1:19:12 for this I think that's wrong to be
1:19:16 taking language which we have concerns
1:19:18 about we have a moratorium a huge impact
1:19:20 on people but that moratorium and but
1:19:24 we're saying the language is good enough
1:19:25 to incorporate it on this I think that's
1:19:27 a big mistake
1:19:32 city buildings that's a whole nother
1:19:34 story and if we can leave that out that
1:19:36 must probably be good for now there is a
1:19:39 lot of talk about different parcels and
1:19:41 different things that could happen with
1:19:43 city buildings and the frustration the
1:19:44 city has with the campus's different
1:19:47 being spread out with plan planning and
1:19:50 public works being
1:19:51 other side of town and that there's a
1:19:52 lot of interest in trying to consolidate
1:19:54 and do something more substantial the
1:19:59 confidence I have in the is a Klaus
1:20:02 School District is an academic
1:20:04 institution is extremely high my
1:20:08 confidence level in them as a builder of
1:20:11 schools and impacting communities is
1:20:14 very low and I that's a major concern I
1:20:19 have and this could facilitate even more
1:20:23 impacts and disregard for communities
1:20:26 thank you you don't have to do that
1:20:33 after every time a couple I know I
1:20:40 appreciated it
1:20:52 hi Steve Pereira 170 northeast dogwood
1:20:55 Street about nine and a half years ago
1:20:57 when I moved here first of all thanks to
1:20:59 all of you for being here instead of at
1:21:00 the gas station and blues concert that's
1:21:02 going on tonight thanks to Keith for
1:21:04 another night and to all city staff for
1:21:05 another night dedicated to city business
1:21:07 thank you so kind of centered in context
1:21:10 when I bought here nine and a half years
1:21:12 ago I didn't have any kids but I really
1:21:15 like the community supported kids and
1:21:17 supported school districts I was one of
1:21:18 those who kind of cringed it more than
1:21:20 half a billion dollar bond but was glad
1:21:22 to see it passed so I'm making some
1:21:24 distinction though here between whether
1:21:27 or not this quad school district should
1:21:30 also have to abide by those same
1:21:32 standards or should be allowed to go
1:21:35 outside of areas and I don't think we
1:21:39 should I don't think the municipal
1:21:40 municipal building should be a blue
1:21:42 build either I would also add that I
1:21:45 think this was probably communicated
1:21:47 while 3,000 letters is a lot I think
1:21:49 this is a broader issue than just those
1:21:50 live with it within 300 feet of a kernel
1:21:54 his own cff property I think it would
1:21:56 have been good for the school board to
1:21:59 take up the issue as member Walsh
1:22:02 suggested is this a broader topic that
1:22:04 we should look at not do we want urban
1:22:06 schools or does the community want urban
1:22:08 schools but can we cite those and on
1:22:11 properties that are currently zoned for
1:22:13 this procedure talks about placing urban
1:22:17 development in places where we didn't
1:22:18 plan to have urban development so it is
1:22:21 effectively as David Kepler suggested it
1:22:24 is a rezone in fact if not in the
1:22:28 letters of the code
1:22:37 there were some specifics in the code
1:22:40 that talked about having this device and
1:22:42 good green coverage just have a green
1:22:44 kind of hiding area I forget what the
1:22:47 terminology is that doesn't seem to be
1:22:50 what is gua says is important we want
1:22:53 trees we want non permeable surfaces so
1:22:57 this code language doesn't get us to the
1:22:59 place that we want to be as the city as
1:23:01 a valid community I think it's great to
1:23:04 say to our school kids let's preserve
1:23:06 the environment let's build on acreage
1:23:08 that doesn't need to be terraformed to
1:23:13 meet those needs for all those reasons
1:23:16 for the reasons David Kaplan mentioned
1:23:17 for them for the reasons that Connie
1:23:20 Marsh has already communicated this
1:23:23 seems like a bad idea to put zoning or
1:23:25 put construction in places where we
1:23:27 didn't vision to be urban centers so
1:23:31 please vote no and again thanks to you
1:23:45 my name is Karen Lee I live in some way
1:23:49 I'm an adult I was like a resident for
1:23:51 many many many many years and excuse me
1:23:54 I think that this is a really important
1:23:57 issue the the other factors that are
1:24:01 being brought forth including the zero
1:24:05 sit back that ninety percent impervious
1:24:08 or imperious surface or whatever I can't
1:24:13 I'm getting flustered because I don't
1:24:15 like public speaking but I think that
1:24:17 even though it is cupressus no longer
1:24:19 here I think that there should be more
1:24:22 publicity about this in the other
1:24:24 community newspapers I think there
1:24:26 should be more community input and
1:24:28 chance for more people to speak so I
1:24:31 think that we should that you should
1:24:33 open this up more to more the citizens
1:24:35 and give them a chance to give their
1:24:38 feedback too it may be more hearing
1:24:40 isn't more public speaking like this
1:24:42 thank you
1:24:47 would anybody else like to speak this
1:24:50 evening
1:25:16 my name is Emily frite I live at 2:05
1:25:18 Newport Way Northwest in Issaquah and I
1:25:21 have children in the use across school
1:25:22 district and I work for the across
1:25:24 school district and I'm against this
1:25:27 proposed amendment I'm against this
1:25:30 proposed amendment not for anything
1:25:31 unique that you haven't already heard
1:25:33 tonight but I'd like to state my opinion
1:25:34 anyway for the record the opponent the
1:25:38 proposal to apply the CIP to areas and
1:25:41 properties beyond the central Issaquah
1:25:43 beyond central is quad is short-sighted
1:25:45 and extreme we must keep our trees and
1:25:49 protect the forested slope and hilly
1:25:51 forested green spaces proper planning
1:25:54 entails building on or redeveloping land
1:25:57 that is already and available or not
1:26:00 overly challenged by steep slopes
1:26:02 wetlands and questionable soils this is
1:26:07 standard the standard must be applied to
1:26:09 all development including schools and
1:26:12 other community facilities as a
1:26:14 community Issaquah values our trees and
1:26:17 our treat hillsides and they must be
1:26:20 protected
1:26:21 furthermore the Issaquah school
1:26:23 districts should work within and embrace
1:26:25 the existing land use codes that
1:26:27 represent good land stewardship and
1:26:29 environmental excellence so I hope I am
1:26:33 obviously opposed to this and I
1:26:36 encourage everybody to take a step back
1:26:39 and look more diligently at how we can
1:26:44 reach our common goals I work for the
1:26:46 school district I'm in the schools every
1:26:48 single day my children go to schools
1:26:50 here and I know about the good crowding
1:26:52 we need schools this is in the schools
1:26:54 versus trees this is about smart
1:26:57 intentional development that reflects
1:27:00 our community values thank you Mary
1:27:12 my name is Mary Lynch and I recited to
1:27:14 6:9 Oh North West Oak Crest Drive
1:27:16 Issaquah I sent you a letter and I'm
1:27:19 going to resend it because I did notice
1:27:20 that there was a typo in that and I do
1:27:23 concur or support what Connie said and
1:27:26 David and the others tonight I do want
1:27:28 to also mention that I did serve on the
1:27:30 central area citizens task force I think
1:27:33 2010 2013 during which time I spoke up
1:27:37 constantly a fact that that city needed
1:27:40 to work more closely with the school
1:27:41 district it wasn't until almost a year
1:27:43 ago that they did finally sit down and
1:27:45 work more closely with them but during
1:27:47 those times what we came up with as a
1:27:50 task force was some representative urban
1:27:52 schools that other countries and cities
1:27:55 are doing across the country and that
1:27:57 was to locate them in the central area
1:27:59 where we have the density to go higher
1:28:01 with them to even look at having schools
1:28:03 that might have affordable housing the
1:28:05 teachers could live in either above or
1:28:07 adjacent to them to work with the city
1:28:10 to have playgrounds for their
1:28:12 Elementary's that might also during nine
1:28:14 hours become more usable community
1:28:16 spaces because we don't really put a lot
1:28:18 fully utilize our parks today that we
1:28:20 have here those are all part of our
1:28:22 discussions that we gave forward to city
1:28:24 staff hoping that we would build codes
1:28:26 and design standards around that that
1:28:28 did not happen that's one of the reasons
1:28:31 why we have the memoriam the codes are
1:28:34 not correct this code amendments that
1:28:37 you see tonight as other people have
1:28:39 said are for all the parcels of land and
1:28:41 I and many of us could not even identify
1:28:45 what all those parcels are you said you
1:28:47 send them out to 3,000 how do we even
1:28:50 know that was accurate so until you know
1:28:52 what all the parcels are being impacted
1:28:54 how can you make an educated real
1:28:58 judgment I don't know how can without
1:29:01 informing the people that are going to
1:29:03 be affected this can you make changes to
1:29:05 it that actually lessens the amount of
1:29:08 Zoning and requirements on there we
1:29:11 already know that the tree canopy has
1:29:13 that the city has no real tree canopy
1:29:16 code the last study was done in 2006 and
1:29:19 that was a guesstimate so the codes are
1:29:22 not there so we know what a tree canopy
1:29:25 we don't have any really clear standards
1:29:27 that protect trees we say we put money
1:29:29 into a tree fund but there's no
1:29:31 accountability that I found that number
1:29:33 one how much money goes into that and
1:29:35 what comes out of that tree fund and
1:29:37 where those have planted and how it
1:29:39 really affects the tree canopy I hear
1:29:41 we're supposed to have a study sometime
1:29:43 this year I've not seen it but I've not
1:29:46 seen anything in the revised codes for
1:29:48 the central area plan that says that
1:29:51 we're going to get any revised codes or
1:29:52 any stiffening of requirements for that
1:29:56 I also want to say that I really think
1:30:02 that the school should be located in the
1:30:03 urban areas or in the central area plan
1:30:06 and to put schools and change the
1:30:09 schools and zones like for Issaquah
1:30:11 Valley you've got that's a residential
1:30:14 neighborhood that abut two Issaquah
1:30:17 Creek and to change the codes for that
1:30:19 you're not only changing a total
1:30:22 neighborhood environment we've just
1:30:24 spent how many millions on a bridge to
1:30:26 get to the other sides of the creek and
1:30:28 I was down there just yesterday looking
1:30:31 and there are people playing on the
1:30:33 other side that I could almost touch
1:30:35 from where I was standing on the
1:30:37 blacktop it is a cause alley so if
1:30:39 you're going to say that you can go
1:30:41 within the 90% pervy impervious surface
1:30:44 and you're going to allow them all these
1:30:46 variation or not variations now they're
1:30:48 going to be to allowable codes where is
1:30:51 the real public review of this because I
1:30:54 know I was part of the Issaquah middle
1:30:56 when Clark went in there and we had to
1:30:58 go to like two or three development
1:31:00 meetings and had to have large audience
1:31:03 comments talk to try and get some of the
1:31:06 things that we got to get the sidewalks
1:31:08 that we had up venire to get the wall
1:31:12 which I wish would have been on sound
1:31:14 absorbing wall but just a concrete wall
1:31:16 to protect those neighbors that are
1:31:18 along Front Street from the new noise
1:31:21 it's going to come from Clark but that
1:31:24 shouldn't have had to those people in
1:31:26 the community shouldn't have had to come
1:31:28 and fight to get protection from noise
1:31:31 and from that that should have been an
1:31:32 established code so what I would like to
1:31:35 see is nothing else a little bit Peyton
1:31:38 the code when it comes to schools and
1:31:41 other municipal buildings that they have
1:31:43 to play the same game to protect our
1:31:45 environment is what we stand for or
1:31:47 we're going to end up with solid
1:31:49 concrete throughout not only the central
1:31:52 area plan but if these codes go forward
1:31:54 we can redo any public land to whatever
1:31:58 we want on this code so it can have the
1:32:00 65-foot buildings it can have the 90%
1:32:04 impervious surface and zero lot lines
1:32:06 and that's not right so you need to look
1:32:09 at what the code is you need to figure
1:32:11 out what it's going to impact and I
1:32:12 would say also you know stop listen and
1:32:20 get the moratorium and the new codes in
1:32:22 place before you change this does
1:32:31 anybody else have any comments okay
1:32:37 so record I'm Jake Cooper chief
1:32:39 financial and operating officer for the
1:32:40 school district what I just heard is
1:32:45 that's why I believe I'm professionally
1:32:48 frustrated currently you don't want us
1:32:51 to redevelop you don't want us to
1:32:52 develop we have a federal and state
1:32:55 obligation to educate your children and
1:32:56 houses and schools so what should we do
1:32:59 where should we house them I heard to go
1:33:01 somewhere else
1:33:02 I don't know where that somewhere else
1:33:04 is we've been looking for property for
1:33:06 as long as I work for the system we've
1:33:09 had a real estate agent working with us
1:33:10 for 30 years I've sat down with every
1:33:14 type of municipality real estate folks
1:33:19 builders developers there is not flat
1:33:22 graded ground ready for a school to be
1:33:24 sited on so I want you all to think
1:33:27 about that very carefully this we do not
1:33:29 propose this a work with the city staff
1:33:31 lightly but it is a smart use of
1:33:35 taxpayer money to redevelop existing
1:33:38 property that you have so you don't have
1:33:39 to expend up to two million dollars per
1:33:41 acre and secondarily if we have to buy
1:33:44 less acreage for each school site that
1:33:46 also saves the taxpayers a significant
1:33:47 amount of money which I didn't hear
1:33:49 anybody talk about taxpayer savings but
1:33:51 as a CFO I take that very seriously and
1:33:54 that's why we have the highest bond rate
1:33:55 in the state and a higher bunnery in the
1:33:57 federal government on the moody side and
1:33:59 15 clean consecutive state audits so I
1:34:03 take a fiduciary responsibility very
1:34:05 seriously both on land acquisition and
1:34:07 construction I also like to point out we
1:34:09 have an excellent track record of
1:34:11 construction and building lower square
1:34:13 footage cost and Eve our neighbors and
1:34:16 so there's a there may be some low
1:34:17 confidence levels I don't know why our
1:34:19 projects open on time and for the most
1:34:22 part on budget unless we change the
1:34:24 scope or codes require us to add scope
1:34:27 to a project so that's my closing from
1:34:29 my administrative standpoint the parcels
1:34:32 of land that some suggest exists they
1:34:36 don't as a unicorns and leprechauns live
1:34:38 or chasing so it would be very clear
1:34:40 that that we have had done an exhaustive
1:34:43 search for you for a long and lengthy
1:34:46 period of time there are no good
1:34:48 solutions or easy solutions and that's
1:34:50 why we're here tonight and so that's all
1:34:52 I have before you go could you maybe
1:34:55 look quickly at this map and some of the
1:34:57 real hot spot parcels I think that
1:35:01 people are picturing maybe they aren't
1:35:04 something that would even be ideal for a
1:35:07 school is there a way to kind of narrow
1:35:10 this down and say not that you've done a
1:35:12 full study of every one of these I don't
1:35:15 expect that but the tricky part for us
1:35:17 is that my board members failed to
1:35:19 mention that we have two eminent domain
1:35:22 proceedings going on right now
1:35:24 so we've exercised our option under
1:35:26 state law to condemn property so we have
1:35:30 a condemnation here proceeding that
1:35:33 rarely has a stay on it for the
1:35:35 providence Heights there's 40 acres
1:35:37 there where we had planned to house both
1:35:39 an elementary and a high school so
1:35:41 densely developed one parcel two sites
1:35:44 wise land use though densely developed
1:35:48 we also have them in a domain on an
1:35:50 office building located adjacent to Home
1:35:54 Depot Costco Siemens we're better and
1:36:00 the plan there would be then to demolish
1:36:03 our current administration building
1:36:05 and redevelop that site with six
1:36:07 middle-school potentially because again
1:36:10 the unfortunately the only property that
1:36:13 we may be able to close on in your
1:36:15 future was the one we actually currently
1:36:16 own and redevelop and though that we
1:36:20 obviously it's become public that we are
1:36:22 seeking to potentially acquire property
1:36:26 on the upper area from the city of on
1:36:29 the Highlands bench adjacent to Swedish
1:36:31 for a another elementary school also
1:36:34 adjacent to one of the most densely
1:36:37 developed pieces of property in the
1:36:40 whole state of Washington which I hope
1:36:42 people that are Pro urban development
1:36:45 will recognize that that is a great
1:36:46 place to site a school though it may
1:36:49 come at the cost of a few acres of trees
1:36:52 there are trade-offs when it comes to
1:36:54 development so that's where I'm at
1:36:58 thank you thank you yep so that property
1:37:09 is outside the urban growth area and
1:37:11 we're unable to cite schools there it's
1:37:13 also locked up oh and a long term land
1:37:18 bank right the park point piece is that
1:37:19 what you're talking about yeah yeah
1:37:23 permanent open space it out it got moved
1:37:26 outside the UGA right so remember we are
1:37:28 we are forced to site in the UGA which
1:37:29 means if you're in the UGA it's
1:37:31 considered urban it's considered urban
1:37:33 under the growth Management Act so
1:37:35 though it's a clause a ever-evolving
1:37:37 community under state law and zoning
1:37:40 it's considered an urban area and so we
1:37:43 can't cite outside the girl's manager
1:37:45 line or even adjacent
1:37:51 we could we could no longer sight there
1:37:53 is a key there can we have can we have
1:37:56 this conversation on inside please
1:38:02 what I last one answer that question
1:38:08 what so I'm on as long as I've been here
1:38:11 we didn't know any property in Preston
1:38:13 we all as school districts were given
1:38:15 state sections of ground years ago when
1:38:17 statehood occurred those sections have
1:38:19 long been traded or cited schools on
1:38:21 they no longer exist so okay we're going
1:38:26 to since there is no more no one else
1:38:29 that wants to make a public comment I'm
1:38:32 going to close the this portion of the
1:38:34 meeting and close the public comment and
1:38:38 open it up to discussion by the
1:38:41 Commission
1:38:43 so anybody would like to make a comment
1:38:47 clarification suggestion or have any any
1:38:52 clarification from staff yeah I would
1:38:54 like to go ahead and make a suggest a
1:39:01 question here to our Commission um
1:39:03 commission members here seems like
1:39:07 what's missing here is a urban school
1:39:11 policy and I think if we propose an
1:39:16 urban school policy or if a urban school
1:39:20 policy was to be developed it would
1:39:22 probably mitigate a lot of confusion and
1:39:24 help people articulate and set the
1:39:30 expectations that I think a lot of
1:39:32 people have questions about and then you
1:39:36 could actually take that policy and
1:39:39 amend cff to that so we don't actually
1:39:43 have to make a modification to cff
1:39:47 requirements or land use today we
1:39:50 suggest that we have a policy created
1:39:53 and then after the policy is created and
1:39:56 there's consensus on it then you could
1:39:58 amend cff with the policy I
1:40:03 I think I disagree I think and and I
1:40:05 think Keith can correct madness too but
1:40:08 I believe the the policy that we put
1:40:09 that the staff is proposing for CFS is
1:40:12 coming after conversation with the
1:40:14 school district in terms of what the
1:40:16 schools would require to build a more
1:40:19 denser so elementary school and middle
1:40:21 school so I don't I believe that policy
1:40:23 we would I mean that the city doesn't
1:40:25 build schools the school district build
1:40:27 schools I think school district said hey
1:40:29 how much do you do XY and Z make it
1:40:32 easier for us and that's a discussion
1:40:33 here and I'll oh go ahead um this came
1:40:36 as a question from I believe it was you
1:40:39 about the policy base that this is
1:40:41 coming from and I listed you back you
1:40:43 all back several in land use we talked
1:40:45 about wanting to be in the leading edge
1:40:47 of sustainability which is compact
1:40:49 buildings using your land efficiently
1:40:51 less footprint taller versus wider we
1:40:55 have things in the policies and goals in
1:40:58 the parks element in the economic
1:41:02 vitality about working with schools
1:41:04 making sure that we're partners on
1:41:06 providing for schools providing for
1:41:07 parks we have them in our services I
1:41:11 mean we have policies all throughout
1:41:12 talking about not only partnerships for
1:41:15 the community knowing what the community
1:41:17 needs providing for growth providing for
1:41:19 schools loving that we have good schools
1:41:22 and being on the leading edge of
1:41:24 sustainability so the fact that there's
1:41:26 not one policy calling out urban schools
1:41:29 the comp plan would be a lot larger if
1:41:32 we if we were that specific on
1:41:34 everything but generally we work with
1:41:36 the schools we provide for growth we
1:41:39 want to be on the leading continue to be
1:41:40 on a leading edge of sustainable
1:41:42 development and so in staffs mind in the
1:41:45 city's mind we've got all those bases
1:41:47 covered when we come to you wanting to
1:41:49 use the land more efficiently for
1:41:50 schools and government facilities right
1:41:53 and I were maybe just schools we'd be
1:41:56 fine with that too you know I read
1:41:58 through that your answer here and I
1:42:01 understand there's lots of policies I
1:42:04 there's at least 10 and I roll up into
1:42:06 it but I'm also get a little gun-shy in
1:42:10 that we've had
1:42:13 he put the moratorium in place now
1:42:15 because policy was
1:42:18 articulated clearly enough and if we
1:42:22 created a policy for urban schools then
1:42:26 we would articulate exactly what we need
1:42:30 and what we want as a community and then
1:42:35 that would set the right expectations so
1:42:37 you don't have a collection of policies
1:42:40 to support the schools you have a school
1:42:44 policy so it's upper funnel so the grade
1:42:48 and upper funnel experience so I want to
1:42:51 just throw something out there cuz the
1:42:52 moratorium keeps getting bounced around
1:42:54 and you know I think I think when you
1:42:58 look at the moratorium work items it's
1:43:00 not about policy it's about actually the
1:43:03 tools to implement the policy we're
1:43:06 talking about architecture and urban
1:43:07 design we're actually talking about
1:43:09 strategies for affordable housing it's
1:43:11 not about new policies it's about
1:43:14 actually putting the tools in place to
1:43:16 achieve the policies that are in the
1:43:19 plan you know one of those six
1:43:21 moratorium items was to relook at the
1:43:24 visions
1:43:25 it wasn't about really to add new
1:43:27 policies it was about to kind of add
1:43:29 more meat to the bones of that so that
1:43:32 it was clearer what we expected to get
1:43:34 but really most of it you know parking
1:43:37 and you know urban design and
1:43:40 architecture and affordable housing
1:43:42 vertical makes use all of those are
1:43:44 actually implementation tools of the
1:43:46 plan and this is an implementation of
1:43:49 the policies that are up there now I
1:43:51 mean when I read assist is across school
1:43:54 district in planning for growth I think
1:43:57 that's what this is this is now you may
1:43:59 say this isn't a good way to do that and
1:44:02 so maybe we need to pick a spade instead
1:44:05 of a rake but this is this is an
1:44:07 implementation action for a policy that
1:44:11 exists I'm not disagreeing with you
1:44:14 commissioner if you think we should
1:44:16 craft more policies related to kind of
1:44:20 urban character of schools that could be
1:44:22 fine I don't know that that necessarily
1:44:23 has to come before the suggested code
1:44:27 revision that's at you guys for
1:44:30 consideration is evening in you're
1:44:37 thinking of policy to you are you
1:44:40 talking about what the school needs are
1:44:44 you jumping over the line from what we
1:44:48 as a city can do and provide and help
1:44:51 and what the school district needs
1:44:54 because they know their children they
1:44:56 know what they need so do you want a
1:44:57 policy that implements both I think an
1:45:01 overarching policy drafted by the school
1:45:05 district and a may be a task force or
1:45:09 some other body would help the school
1:45:13 district get what they need as resources
1:45:16 and communicate the expectations to the
1:45:20 community I think rolling up creating a
1:45:24 higher level upper funnel policy would
1:45:28 help give direction and clarity to move
1:45:33 forward right so I don't I don't see I
1:45:39 don't see what you're driving at I mean
1:45:40 we the community passed a bond so we
1:45:43 want so we want to build X number of
1:45:45 schools the remains audition okay now
1:45:47 you're asking okay how what's a
1:45:49 particular element useful going to look
1:45:51 like there will be a public process that
1:45:54 will go through a level three review in
1:45:56 terms of what that school looks like
1:45:57 what are the mitigation activities what
1:45:59 they gonna do for transportation when
1:46:00 they go to shaping all of that will
1:46:02 happen this doesn't prevent any of that
1:46:04 so I don't know why I don't not only
1:46:06 want to drive with a upper funnel policy
1:46:08 but what is it up a front of policy mean
1:46:11 all right so all right sorry what is an
1:46:16 urban school I don't think we need to
1:46:20 answer that question in urban school is
1:46:22 just a school that's a little bit denser
1:46:23 than a not urban school I mean I mean no
1:46:27 not not to be not not will be flippant
1:46:29 but all they're asking is instead of
1:46:31 building a one-story elementary school I
1:46:32 want to build a two-story elementary
1:46:34 school
1:46:34 and have it be a little close to the
1:46:36 road that's all that's happening is not
1:46:37 there's no profound philosophical shift
1:46:40 so how we're built in our schools going
1:46:41 on your I was always angry with that I
1:46:43 would disagree with that as well
1:46:44 I'm sorry coming in late but I think
1:46:46 that's a gross overstatement of what's
1:46:48 happening with this proposal so you so
1:46:51 you see this is a fundamental rethink in
1:46:53 terms of how we're building schools
1:46:55 within raising of how we're building our
1:46:57 community who related to how we're
1:46:59 building schools when you start talking
1:47:01 about changing impervious surfaces tree
1:47:03 retention when you start actually
1:47:05 changing the diamond dynamic of what we
1:47:08 set as a standard then yet you're
1:47:10 talking about something larger than just
1:47:11 making that school taller I think most
1:47:13 people are in favor of the comment of
1:47:16 let's go taller instead of lighter but a
1:47:18 Keith's comment about you know rake
1:47:20 first Spade is actually a really good
1:47:22 analogy for what we're looking at right
1:47:24 now maybe we should be going a little
1:47:25 more spade even a mill ground maybe a
1:47:27 shovel but this is a pretty large rake
1:47:29 to be applying to a pretty large breadth
1:47:32 of code I would disagree with anything
1:47:35 what we decide today would affect all
1:47:37 cff or a municipality state was not just
1:47:41 schools so I think before we spend more
1:47:45 time in your funnel can we can we go
1:47:47 ahead and and I think everyone on the
1:47:50 Commission and someone I'm in a few I
1:47:51 think everyone the commission would be
1:47:53 okay to limit this justice schools
1:47:55 because I think as the staff has said
1:47:57 there's no need for municipality and the
1:47:59 staff is open to being on that school so
1:48:00 can we go ahead and close off that part
1:48:02 of the conversation is anyone objected
1:48:04 let me go to some schools now we have to
1:48:06 vote on that so we're sure yeah but can
1:48:08 we can we go and have me have that part
1:48:10 of the conversation so we don't get
1:48:11 distracted by the non school issues and
1:48:13 let us make most yeah can I make a
1:48:16 motion that we amend this so that it
1:48:18 would be limited just to schools on CFF
1:48:20 of a second so I can thought any further
1:48:24 discussion
1:48:25 is typical that you have to do all those
1:48:28 in favor say aye aye aye opposed or okay
1:48:34 so a lot of you have a few answers from
1:48:37 us that we are just discussing schools
1:48:40 not municipal buildings on any of these
1:48:43 properties here I mean we just recommend
1:48:46 to the council so I don't know what
1:48:48 they're going to do but I'm right here
1:48:49 you can see that we agree that that's
1:48:51 not going to be a part of it okay so
1:48:55 that helped narrow
1:48:57 they're of the conversation I was going
1:48:58 to get there but you were so continuing
1:49:01 a conversation about what's going on
1:49:03 with this particular code amendment
1:49:05 through the schools and now you had you
1:49:09 had some comments so I was going to
1:49:12 break this down into three sections the
1:49:14 first of which is that government idea
1:49:17 there are other government sites so
1:49:19 we've covered that I think the other two
1:49:21 approaches that we need to take is does
1:49:24 this idea of urban schools need more
1:49:27 community input before we set the code
1:49:31 in place on this that would be the first
1:49:34 thing and then the second thing is if we
1:49:38 disagree with that idea and want to
1:49:40 approach these code changes can we maybe
1:49:44 look at them individually because as you
1:49:47 said maybe we're okay with height but
1:49:50 maybe we don't want to look at
1:49:51 impervious so I would want to orient the
1:49:54 conversation in those two ways I would
1:49:58 add on to that because I agree with
1:49:59 those things also talking about the
1:50:01 areas specifically the cff plots that
1:50:04 this applies to because I don't think
1:50:06 that what we're talking about for
1:50:08 schools should apply to some areas that
1:50:11 are ready CFS that I think we just said
1:50:15 that with the not applying to other
1:50:18 government right well that's saying the
1:50:22 government facilities can't go on all of
1:50:24 these sites you know these standards
1:50:27 that we're talking about dialing in what
1:50:30 would not apply to those yeah I'm
1:50:32 talking about is narrowing there's all
1:50:34 these cff plots all that green uh-huh
1:50:37 you know if you're Jennifer can you
1:50:38 toggle back to the map please
1:50:40 concentrate that to the areas where we
1:50:43 want to see these types of schools oh
1:50:46 you're saying basically between the
1:50:49 central Issaquah area versus all of s
1:50:52 quo within the growth boundary right
1:50:54 okay so that could be another part of a
1:50:57 conversation
1:51:06 III think I'll go back because I was
1:51:08 surprised to shop with a guy to screw
1:51:10 with me I really don't see this as a
1:51:12 major change putting aside maybe the
1:51:14 permeability but I don't think so I
1:51:16 think there may be some discussion of
1:51:18 whether not it was going from 50 to 90
1:51:19 percent I could see how that that's a
1:51:21 pretty material change but I don't
1:51:23 really see some of the hyper surgeons
1:51:24 and the setbacks as being some wild
1:51:27 rethink of how the head to school once
1:51:30 how to have the community wants
1:51:32 development to be built more on why you
1:51:34 think that putting put white why do you
1:51:36 say put that aside I know that's it as
1:51:38 as I listen to your comments I think I
1:51:40 think maybe there could be discussion
1:51:42 about permeable surface by any other
1:51:43 ones around Heights and setbacks these
1:51:46 these school buildings really aren't
1:51:47 that much they're still my community
1:51:49 larger than so let's talk about
1:51:51 backstrom because if I look at Grand
1:51:53 Ridge Elementary the difference between
1:51:56 saying you can't build within 10 or 20
1:52:03 feet of your property edge versus you
1:52:06 have to build at 10 feet in order to use
1:52:11 that full scope of the site Grand Ridge
1:52:13 Elementary the building there is built
1:52:16 back and I'm horrible at estimating but
1:52:19 I would say at least 50 feet something
1:52:23 like that so the idea of a school
1:52:28 building coming up to that edge I think
1:52:32 is a fundamental difference in how our
1:52:34 schools are currently set up and you'll
1:52:38 have to apologize the fact that I missed
1:52:40 the beginning of meeting but was I was
1:52:42 safety addressed as far as I mean
1:52:43 there's there's a reason for setbacks
1:52:45 especially when we think about how our
1:52:46 children are offloading and on loading I
1:52:49 mean it's kind of a zoo what's been it
1:52:52 pick up and drop off at a school has
1:52:54 this did the city specifically addressed
1:52:56 in our presentation how these setbacks
1:52:58 would affect how we move in and out just
1:53:01 across school district staff that
1:53:02 presented spoke specifically about or
1:53:05 they talked a lot about how that's no
1:53:07 impact they don't it sure that's
1:53:10 definitely a consideration they want to
1:53:11 build safe schools well obviously but
1:53:13 does how does how does this change of
1:53:15 setback affect that
1:53:16 I assume a studies and Don I assume that
1:53:18 they can tell me undeniably this does
1:53:20 not affect safety right did they do that
1:53:23 they're the ones that came up with the
1:53:25 setbacks so so if no change right that's
1:53:28 what I want to hear there's no change
1:53:29 with the setbacks that it would threaten
1:53:31 safety in any way so I'm going to answer
1:53:34 it a little bit differently joy so so
1:53:37 grandma's Elementary when the school
1:53:40 district so grandma's elementary and I
1:53:42 don't remember Steve what year you guys
1:53:43 built that but I'm just going to go
1:53:45 ahead and tell the story since I was in
1:53:46 the room so so the school district came
1:53:49 and it was a normal school at the time
1:53:51 that they built that facility and the
1:53:55 school at that time was basically the
1:53:58 approach that the school district had
1:54:00 was we put the building at the far back
1:54:03 end of the property and we put the
1:54:05 parking lot out front because everybody
1:54:08 drives their kid to elementary school
1:54:10 okay and so what we said was that is not
1:54:14 the approach for Issaquah Highlands and
1:54:16 the city and because we expect our
1:54:18 parents at least some of them will want
1:54:20 to walk their kids to school and the
1:54:22 conversation we had with school just at
1:54:24 that time sorry Steve on the story under
1:54:26 the bus is known that's not going to
1:54:29 happen but we pushed really hard and you
1:54:32 know Lindsay even though it may not be
1:54:33 right at the sidewalk that's why there's
1:54:35 the bus shelter and we got to school the
1:54:36 bus drop-off right on Park Drive because
1:54:39 we wanted to engage the school with the
1:54:42 community and not have it at the back of
1:54:44 a big surface parking lot we push really
1:54:46 hard I think it's a great outcome for
1:54:49 vision for what we want our community to
1:54:52 be now okay fast forward another ten
1:54:55 years and it's time to move the needle a
1:54:57 little bit more
1:54:58 I don't I so I'm saying that because
1:55:00 they are super concerned about safety
1:55:03 and they will not build a school that
1:55:06 has permeability because they're worried
1:55:08 about kidnappings you know you have
1:55:10 parents that come and just take a kid
1:55:13 and go and so that issue is is paramount
1:55:16 to their concern it's paramount to our
1:55:18 concern as well moving the building and
1:55:22 I don't frankly I don't know if they
1:55:24 proposed that set back or if that was
1:55:26 City staff that actually stuck that in
1:55:29 there
1:55:31 so I you know I would say that you know
1:55:35 that may be something we might want the
1:55:38 school district to come back and
1:55:39 specifically address because it's their
1:55:41 issue more than it is ours
1:55:43 even though children's safety is I
1:55:45 thought it's all of ours exactly that's
1:55:48 why I just I was that was one thing I
1:55:49 was wondering is I'd like I'd like
1:55:50 affirm yes this does not impact I'd like
1:55:53 we've done studies and we can show that
1:55:54 this is not this is not an issue and
1:55:56 checked off the list rather than saying
1:55:58 they're going to look at it it's a it's
1:56:01 obviously going to be a factor later on
1:56:02 down the road I just was hoping that we
1:56:03 had an answer right now I'm saying an
1:56:05 answer part they says the president
1:56:12 school board Steve Crawford director
1:56:15 capital projects for the school district
1:56:17 there's a zero to 20 foot build line in
1:56:21 this currently and that's something that
1:56:24 can be accommodated and we will
1:56:25 certainly build Safe Schools each one
1:56:28 particular school each site is going to
1:56:31 be different the building may be close
1:56:34 to the property line that doesn't mean
1:56:36 that's necessarily where kids are coming
1:56:38 in and out of the school there are a lot
1:56:42 of factors that will vary on each school
1:56:45 the pedestrian access the availability
1:56:48 of bus access cars those are all safety
1:56:52 concerns are paramount to developing a
1:56:54 safe site for kids and the fact that
1:56:59 it's a zero to 20 on the front is is
1:57:03 going to work there are other parameters
1:57:07 that become defining elements in school
1:57:11 siting we have to have a fire lane
1:57:14 around the building so that's a 20-foot
1:57:16 perimeter if it's fronting on a street
1:57:19 and it's 20 feet from the street the
1:57:21 street becomes the fire lane so there
1:57:23 doesn't have to be a separate element in
1:57:25 between and so you know this this whole
1:57:30 thing is basically to allow the
1:57:32 potential to compact the footprints the
1:57:35 reality is we need to build schools and
1:57:39 we understand that
1:57:41 we're being a lot more efficient we're
1:57:44 helping to preserve the integrity of
1:57:46 essa quoi by building on smaller sites
1:57:51 we can put them closer to the
1:57:53 neighborhoods if we can build a school
1:57:54 on seven acres or six acres there's a
1:57:57 benefit to the whole community and not
1:57:59 taking ten acres you start looking
1:58:03 around where on the valley floor that's
1:58:04 flat ground are you going to find two
1:58:07 elementary sites a middle school and a
1:58:09 high school site even if you compress
1:58:12 the acreage when you add the totals a
1:58:15 lot of land so we're trying to be
1:58:18 creative we're trying to compact the
1:58:20 footprints
1:58:21 we're trying to work in areas that need
1:58:27 schools that don't require transporting
1:58:31 kids long distances that they can walk
1:58:34 to school much more readily than then
1:58:38 would be the case if you put schools all
1:58:42 on the flat valley floor and you're
1:58:43 transporting kids from all around the
1:58:46 school district is one hundred and eight
1:58:49 or nine square miles it's huge but we
1:58:52 have core areas of growth and we need to
1:58:54 address those in this club happens to be
1:58:56 one of those but all of these allow for
1:59:00 the possibility to develop what's been
1:59:03 termed in urban school but it's it's a
1:59:06 school that can fit as Jake said in an
1:59:10 area that's an urban area the county has
1:59:12 determined that this place is changing
1:59:15 it's not the same as it was in the past
1:59:20 we got we're pushing 20,000 kids in the
1:59:23 school district I started working here
1:59:25 it was under 9,000 and we're growing 500
1:59:28 plus kids a year I'll just stop you it
1:59:34 was a question that was asked and we
1:59:36 usually if there was a question that the
1:59:38 commissioner asks or there's a problem
1:59:40 and it is kind of an unusual situation
1:59:44 to have somebody who is actually a
1:59:48 school district representative to
1:59:50 actually answer the question than having
1:59:52 to go to staff and then have staff go
1:59:55 to the school districts so this is an
1:59:59 issue that we're all concerned with and
2:00:01 if I can get an answer now before I have
2:00:03 to vote on this I'm going to do it any
2:00:05 way I can so is it normal no but this
2:00:08 isn't normal
2:00:09 so is there any other questions that you
2:00:13 guys have I know that there was some
2:00:16 some the 90% is still an issue I'd like
2:00:20 to go through maybe each of those and
2:00:23 discuss people's concerns because I
2:00:25 think we've said maybe that there are
2:00:28 some things that aren't as much of a
2:00:30 concern and there's others that may be
2:00:32 okay so we get that up that talks about
2:00:36 those differences and I apologize for
2:00:40 not knowing to answer this but did did
2:00:43 the city or the school district address
2:00:44 if we if we don't change impervious
2:00:47 surfaces to 90 percent let's say we but
2:00:51 we do change building height is there a
2:00:52 way for this for this property to be
2:00:55 used in a way that both satisfies some
2:00:57 of the needs of the community as far as
2:01:00 tree retention are we able to actually
2:01:02 modify the code and be able to actually
2:01:05 win both ways are we able to change
2:01:07 let's say and go higher than 65 feet and
2:01:09 be able to then not have changed the
2:01:12 impervious surface of 90 percent is
2:01:13 there wiggle room right now or is it or
2:01:15 is after all of this comments that we
2:01:18 received even prior to the meeting is
2:01:20 City still saying this is what we have
2:01:23 to do or is there is there another way
2:01:25 is there is there a third option between
2:01:27 90 and fifty sixty five and thirty I
2:01:30 mean is era is there another option on
2:01:32 the table so so which one do you want to
2:01:36 address first building right 90% so
2:01:39 impervious surface so let me say this
2:01:42 impervious surface is truly a metric of
2:01:45 drainage it really to use impervious
2:01:48 surface to say I want more trees is is
2:01:51 not the right connection points smaller
2:01:54 footprint doe is so yeah so what we're
2:01:56 talking about is as you reduce the
2:01:59 parcel size and and what they're doing
2:02:02 is they're taking their normal program
2:02:04 which they used to fit on 10 acres
2:02:06 and if they're now putting it on seven
2:02:08 or six the room that's left over for so
2:02:11 pervious allows for water to be
2:02:13 infiltrated in in that location right
2:02:16 and so part of but you can accommodate
2:02:19 so let's assume so right now the city
2:02:22 has other code provisions associated
2:02:25 with low-impact development which says
2:02:27 basically the new end PDS rules say the
2:02:29 first thing that you have to do is try
2:02:32 to infiltrate on your property so you
2:02:34 can do that in underground vaults right
2:02:37 so they could take the stormwater from
2:02:39 the property put it in a ball and then
2:02:40 have that be basically a bottomless
2:02:42 vault
2:02:43 so that it infiltrates underneath the
2:02:45 parking lot or underneath the parking
2:02:46 garage if they build a parking garage
2:02:48 here and so using impervious as a way to
2:02:52 get trees is not the right tool if you
2:02:54 want trees say you want trees don't use
2:02:57 impervious pervious to try and get more
2:02:59 trees it's my I guess my point because
2:03:02 looking at the page the minimum tree
2:03:03 density is unchanged by this amendment
2:03:05 correct right I wouldn't I mean I
2:03:08 wouldn't put it as more trees I'd put it
2:03:10 as less asphalt well and you know when
2:03:12 we're talking about lids liz is great
2:03:15 for treating on-site but I I have I had
2:03:19 serious concerns about the ninety
2:03:20 percent and that end of swaps going from
2:03:23 fifty to ninety so when we talk about
2:03:24 isolating areas and we let's talk about
2:03:26 impervious surfaces my question to staff
2:03:28 is after receiving so much really
2:03:31 powerful impact from the community about
2:03:33 this do you have a is there is there a
2:03:36 middle ground as the school district
2:03:37 saying there's no way that we will do
2:03:39 this without these conditions and staff
2:03:41 is backing that or is there some type of
2:03:43 option on the board where we say let's
2:03:46 we can we can all win we can actually
2:03:47 not have 90s sixty five we can not have
2:03:51 the proposed code but we can change the
2:03:53 existing code to make a harmony is what
2:03:55 my question is def so the answer is that
2:04:02 we're here talking about this and trying
2:04:05 to come up with proposed standards that
2:04:09 make sense if the Commission wants to
2:04:12 ratchet down the impervious level from
2:04:15 what staffs recommendation is you know
2:04:19 then then
2:04:20 deal with that the way we deal with that
2:04:21 later you know and and so the way that
2:04:24 plays out it's like for example we had
2:04:26 that conversation about structured
2:04:27 parking you know at the end of the day
2:04:29 the administration agreed with the
2:04:32 Commission's recommendation coming out
2:04:34 of that and so what went forward to the
2:04:37 council for consideration was basically
2:04:39 a unified position from the
2:04:42 administration and Commission that's
2:04:43 great when that happens it doesn't have
2:04:45 to happen that way if for example the
2:04:48 Commission feels really strongly about
2:04:49 the pervious impervious what I would
2:04:51 tell you before you kind of stick a flag
2:04:54 in the ground on this is you know the
2:04:56 Highlands has a hundred percent
2:04:59 impervious allowance it doesn't mean
2:05:01 that just because you allow that that's
2:05:02 what happens on the site
2:05:05 it means they could right and so part of
2:05:08 what I heard you say commissioner is
2:05:10 yeah but if I give them a hundred
2:05:12 percent impervious I don't want to be
2:05:14 the result that it all ends up being a
2:05:16 paved surface parking lot right because
2:05:19 that seems like that's a bad outcome for
2:05:20 the community to allow that but then get
2:05:23 something that was unintended so part of
2:05:26 I guess if that's the concern then let's
2:05:28 talk about how we don't have that happen
2:05:30 and there might be some ideas to get
2:05:33 that taken care of without necessarily
2:05:36 just a watering down pervious level but
2:05:39 you know basically moving moving that
2:05:42 from ninety I do believe that when
2:05:44 you're talking about a more urban site
2:05:47 plan and you know it's hard because we
2:05:50 don't necessarily have any specific
2:05:52 sites we're talking about so it's hard
2:05:54 to using because I want to give an
2:05:56 example and say okay on this particular
2:05:58 site if they end up only buying this
2:06:01 much land and the rest of it which right
2:06:03 now might be undeveloped there might be
2:06:05 a residential maybe a couple
2:06:06 single-family homes well now if those
2:06:09 can stay single-family homes and the
2:06:11 school gets a lot smaller well from an
2:06:14 overall pervious impervious perspective
2:06:17 maybe you're getting to that same spot
2:06:20 but just in a different way because the
2:06:22 schools taking down less that's the
2:06:26 thing that you know that's what we need
2:06:28 to talk about is you know what how does
2:06:30 it really play out at the end of the day
2:06:32 because
2:06:33 because I think that that's a great
2:06:34 thing to keep in mind is the financial
2:06:36 impact on the school district and that
2:06:37 for every percent of permeable land that
2:06:41 you require
2:06:41 that's just more land the school has to
2:06:44 go and purchase because because because
2:06:46 assuming that you've maximized your
2:06:47 building I build structured parking I
2:06:49 think the school district needs to buy
2:06:53 even more land in order to hit a
2:06:55 particular permeable threshold or
2:06:58 impermeable threshold I think the other
2:07:00 thing to consider is in the school
2:07:03 districts letter how I think it was that
2:07:05 in our packet how they talked about the
2:07:09 turf the fact that if they put out turf
2:07:13 then that becomes impervious so it's not
2:07:17 necessarily parking lots it may be you
2:07:22 have green space that green eyes if you
2:07:25 have like a playground that has like
2:07:26 gravel or whatever that still treated as
2:07:29 umber be it most certainly is yes yeah
2:07:31 or they think once you would still
2:07:33 consider that open space from an
2:07:35 aesthetic standpoint it's not it's
2:07:37 impermeable a drainage standpoint I
2:07:39 personally disagree with that but that's
2:07:40 them no so I understand that everybody
2:07:43 here seems to have a different flavor of
2:07:46 what they think should be in this
2:07:49 proposal that's why I think a policy
2:07:53 number arching policy is so important
2:07:56 because it will help us iron out all the
2:07:59 differences that we have I think of all
2:08:02 the differences that would be out there
2:08:03 in the community and it would help me it
2:08:08 would give clarity to the school
2:08:09 district and they would have a voice in
2:08:12 what they need and I think the ultimate
2:08:15 benefit to this would optimize the
2:08:20 ultimate solution right so they have a
2:08:24 set of proto set of things that they
2:08:26 need in this plan and we're looking at
2:08:31 this and we can't even agree on 90%
2:08:34 impervious versus the setbacks then you
2:08:38 have tree density there's too many
2:08:41 factors in this a policy would help set
2:08:45 the vision and then the code
2:08:47 come in to back it up we don't have that
2:08:51 so we don't know what the vision is I
2:08:53 still think I disagree I think I think
2:08:55 what myself ones enjoys are arguing
2:08:57 about are the far the particular metrics
2:09:00 and the tools that we want to use I
2:09:01 think I think the overarching policies
2:09:04 they're there they're intentionally
2:09:06 vague because they don't go and they
2:09:07 don't specify percentage of permeable I
2:09:10 think the policies are there you know I
2:09:12 always say this to you Ron I really
2:09:13 appreciate your approach I agree it's a
2:09:16 little cart before the horse but
2:09:17 unfortunately we don't have we are not
2:09:19 as that you in the situation to be able
2:09:20 to kick it back to staff and say see
2:09:22 what you do in six months well I would
2:09:24 love because because we have an
2:09:26 obligation to the community to move
2:09:27 forward so even if we make a decision
2:09:29 that says this isn't the right thing and
2:09:31 we don't want to move forward that's a
2:09:32 stronger statement and saying we need to
2:09:34 have more large-scale policy in place
2:09:37 because we always talk about the teeth
2:09:38 is in the code we have the opportunity
2:09:40 to give the teeth if we think that this
2:09:42 isn't the right way to manage the
2:09:44 community then this is our chance to
2:09:45 tell staff can you tell council that but
2:09:48 to delay and is to me is more of a
2:09:51 fallback I get the impulse to say we
2:09:53 want more of our ducks in a row carp are
2:09:55 horse I love the passion but I don't
2:09:57 know that that's really a realistic
2:09:59 option for us so all right let's look at
2:10:01 it from a time standpoint when we
2:10:03 purchase this King County Island they
2:10:07 can assign it to whatever land use code
2:10:12 that they want cff right so we're there
2:10:15 a long way sorry I need do you mind I
2:10:18 just don't want to make sure to keep you
2:10:19 is it you concur with that that any any
2:10:21 any code can be assigned to the to the
2:10:23 annexed so that's part of the public
2:10:26 conversation so the property that we own
2:10:29 that we're annexing we will propose
2:10:33 whatever zoning we could propose
2:10:35 residential zoning on that property if
2:10:37 we wanted to so this is why we have a
2:10:40 it's part of a public conversation is
2:10:42 what should that zoning be and why and
2:10:46 that's that's what's starting next week
2:10:49 on Monday right that's not this
2:10:52 conversation this conversation has no
2:10:54 impact on that island so from a time
2:10:56 standpoint I was trying to separate yet
2:10:58 - so from
2:11:00 and the school district doesn't have a
2:11:02 school to build today so if we kick this
2:11:05 back to Landon Shore and say help us put
2:11:08 together a vision of policy for urban
2:11:11 schools
2:11:12 we're not delaying anything sure
2:11:18 well they cannot go out into the
2:11:20 community and spend time resources to
2:11:23 find property they can't do that until
2:11:26 they know what they are allowed to build
2:11:28 and where they can put it so what
2:11:31 property are we currently buying today
2:11:33 aside from the the parcels that we are
2:11:36 currently in in a stage of acquisition I
2:11:41 think I think we're on I think what
2:11:43 you're asking for is you want to see
2:11:45 evidence that making action on CFS now
2:11:48 would facilitate specific action by the
2:11:50 school district in the short term that
2:11:52 what you're asking no no no what I'm
2:11:54 saying is if we if we lose your theft
2:11:56 code the way it is today yeah it affects
2:11:59 nothing within the near future that's
2:12:03 that that's the same thing that I just
2:12:04 said so if we tell if we want a vision
2:12:10 to help us iron out what we want as a
2:12:12 community in our schools that's smart
2:12:15 right because we have a collection of
2:12:20 mishmash policies putting together and
2:12:23 we don't even know what that looks like
2:12:25 so why wouldn't we want to have a policy
2:12:27 we do so I we do we want it what I mean
2:12:31 this is one thing that I think all of us
2:12:32 came across when we looked our packet
2:12:34 what's an urban school what is Issaquah
2:12:35 say that we want our schools to look
2:12:37 like so what I think that what you what
2:12:38 we should do is make a proposal staff to
2:12:42 say we'd like to request that we meet
2:12:44 with land ensure that we form this
2:12:46 policy but that's a separate discussion
2:12:47 from what we're doing today and asking
2:12:49 for to have more clarity in the code and
2:12:51 though and Trish specifically addressed
2:12:53 if we have these for every code our code
2:12:55 would be even longer if we have this as
2:12:57 policy statements it would be even
2:12:59 longer but if this is something that you
2:13:00 feel is a priority then staff can do
2:13:02 that so what we request is that this
2:13:04 discussion of forming that policy and
2:13:06 having that moves continues to move
2:13:08 forward it just can't I don't know that
2:13:11 I agree that it should delay our
2:13:12 decision about
2:13:14 today I'm not saying played the decision
2:13:16 tonight about cff we can vote on that
2:13:19 I'm saying though is before we think
2:13:23 about that we should probably create a
2:13:26 recommendation to City Council or Landon
2:13:29 Shore to come up with a policy
2:13:33 I almost design yeah yeah I like I like
2:13:37 I like the way Joyce said so how about
2:13:39 have a wait let me finish and leaders
2:13:40 please so that gives us we need a policy
2:13:45 I like that I I agree with your
2:13:50 statement I agree that we need we need
2:13:52 actual policy to help guide both the
2:13:55 school district and a city to be able to
2:13:57 say what what do schools look like what
2:14:00 orbán schools look like I agree with
2:14:02 that statement so we could make two we
2:14:05 could do two things tonight we can vote
2:14:07 on this
2:14:09 the CFF and propose a recommendation to
2:14:12 Landon Shore Inn or City Council to
2:14:16 create a urban school policy okay i'm
2:14:19 that the commission sends a request to
2:14:22 staff to i would say rather than a
2:14:24 policy rubberman scoids they made maybe
2:14:26 to define what the city's vision is on
2:14:29 urban school fine and create a live
2:14:32 living and changeable documents yep but
2:14:35 just a buh-buh-buh but to put a little
2:14:36 more substance and definition around
2:14:38 urban school I would second that okay
2:14:41 more discussion on that potato what is
2:14:44 it exactly are you looking for I think
2:14:47 there needs to be a community
2:14:48 conversation between community members
2:14:52 the school district and the city on what
2:14:57 the joint definition is of an urban
2:15:00 school and whether that is appropriate
2:15:02 for all areas of us how do you think
2:15:04 that that has already occurred around
2:15:06 the process I they have I think I think
2:15:09 it's in process and process of doing
2:15:11 that already
2:15:12 so is like I don't know the value of
2:15:15 requesting them doing something that
2:15:17 they're already doing so then that would
2:15:19 be the at the decision of landing Shore
2:15:21 because it's what we do is just a
2:15:23 recommendation that's true so if we set
2:15:27 recommendation to land inshore in our
2:15:30 City Council and they they can always
2:15:34 ignore I wanted to land inshore
2:15:36 conversation the other day that was
2:15:38 talking about this annexation and they
2:15:41 had the same questions about what is in
2:15:44 urban school have we discussed that
2:15:45 before and so I believe there is a need
2:15:51 for a community conversation I do too
2:15:53 especially I watch the land in short too
2:15:56 and I was surprised land ashore was
2:15:58 given a different document that we were
2:16:00 from the superintendent I don't have it
2:16:02 in front of me two dates they had a huge
2:16:04 list of conditions that were not
2:16:06 changeable for what they needed to have
2:16:08 conditions on the site and I think that
2:16:10 some of those things would actually draw
2:16:12 sharp contrast in the community and so
2:16:14 by having a policy in place would help
2:16:16 guide our school district to be able to
2:16:18 say what we do and do not want for this
2:16:21 very fundamental thing so it was
2:16:23 actually from that letter that that's
2:16:25 fit was provided to land in Shore I
2:16:26 believe was from the superintendent was
2:16:29 very specific about what they considered
2:16:33 to be non-negotiable for what they
2:16:35 needed pretty blanket statements as well
2:16:37 so I think by having something in place
2:16:39 we are able to communicate to the school
2:16:42 district this is what we think is
2:16:44 appropriate rather than being a little
2:16:46 more vague as it is right now so there
2:16:51 is a is a motion on the floor and would
2:16:56 you restate your motion Joyce I think
2:17:03 you can you can have to get a better
2:17:04 than I can
2:17:04 I motion and now you'll have before I
2:17:08 motion
2:17:08 I believe our motion is actually as to
2:17:11 the city and not to land in Shore or is
2:17:13 it actually that we need Council to
2:17:15 designate a work session we motion to
2:17:19 plan I would a splendid char is the City
2:17:22 Council so I what I question is is
2:17:25 actually on a staff it was because it
2:17:27 was the public discussion it's not
2:17:28 necessarily well that while a form of
2:17:31 the discussion can happen in in
2:17:33 commissions it may also be happening in
2:17:36 in public hearings it may it may be
2:17:39 happening in other venues as well so
2:17:41 what I'd like to see is how do i who do
2:17:44 i direct this to and is it staff or is
2:17:47 it counsel so I guess it depends on what
2:17:50 it is so if it's a trailer for a either
2:17:56 for recommendation tonight then you add
2:17:59 it onto your recommendation if it's if
2:18:02 the Commission is not going to make a
2:18:03 recommendation because they think that
2:18:05 this other thing needs to happen then
2:18:07 your recommendation is to basically not
2:18:10 take action on the proposed code
2:18:12 amendment until that happens right so it
2:18:15 depends on what you want to do and
2:18:17 personally against the last one that is
2:18:18 not what I think we need to do what I
2:18:19 think that we want to do is add a motion
2:18:22 that says that the DES p.m. since it as
2:18:26 a commission we would like to have
2:18:29 further discussion and to have a living
2:18:31 document created that specifies out the
2:18:34 definition and the details of what an
2:18:37 urban school is what that looks like in
2:18:39 different areas but a recommendation
2:18:41 okay yeah to proceed with this which
2:18:48 will be sent to I would assume it would
2:18:52 be sent to Landon Shorin City Council it
2:18:54 City Council it would be the City
2:18:56 Council yeah it would be making this as
2:18:58 long as this does this help satisfy some
2:19:00 of what are your pointers yeah no I'm
2:19:03 how exactly what you said I think is
2:19:05 exactly what you said okay but we are
2:19:07 still going to vote on what is going on
2:19:09 tonight so let's clear this off of this
2:19:12 table here so we have a motion and also
2:19:16 give us a second there's this two second
2:19:18 sale with rustic and no further
2:19:21 discussion so all those in favor say aye
2:19:24 aye aye
2:19:26 motion carries that we are going to
2:19:29 proceed to recommend to the City Council
2:19:32 with every further discussion on with
2:19:35 the school district and the community to
2:19:38 make sure that the school district knows
2:19:40 what the community wants in their
2:19:43 schools based on what the waiting we're
2:19:46 trying to design all this great visa
2:19:48 because so the discussion will follow
2:19:51 now let's go back to this yes
2:19:53 thing is there still questions about and
2:19:59 I think the height the term is
2:20:04 determined by the size of the property
2:20:06 I mean you they're going to build
2:20:07 schools for 500 kids and so you're going
2:20:10 to have to either go up or have to buy a
2:20:12 lot of land which is out of the question
2:20:14 at this point in time so the height
2:20:16 doesn't affect us I are we able to
2:20:19 increase the height no so right now I
2:20:21 believe that the height factor is
2:20:24 somewhat L over elevator driven so you
2:20:28 can do three storeys and an auditorium
2:20:31 without an elevator you go higher than
2:20:34 that and then it becomes elevators you
2:20:36 can 65 is enough for three storeys
2:20:38 Moyna oh yes right now 65 feet is they
2:20:42 can do they can PI do four storeys with
2:20:45 65 feet and I remember a problem with
2:20:48 the 65 feet okay the other thing is the
2:20:51 nut affects your ear you only have so
2:20:57 much land so you have a minimum amount
2:20:59 of setbacks understanding that the
2:21:01 schools are going to go out and design
2:21:04 the property that is offer safety for
2:21:07 the kids where the classes go everything
2:21:10 is going to be a community based
2:21:12 decision at that point in time so you
2:21:15 are you happy with the possibility of
2:21:19 those small setbacks not that they're
2:21:24 going to be there they could be bigger
2:21:26 they it also one thing that you guys
2:21:28 heard is and and again I think this one
2:21:32 of all the things we're talking about
2:21:33 you know this one's probably the least
2:21:36 concerning for me personally so you
2:21:38 heard the school district say they put a
2:21:40 fire lane around the building right and
2:21:42 that's and fire lane 20 feet so even
2:21:45 though right now it's saying seven foot
2:21:46 side yard seven foot rear that isn't
2:21:48 going to happen right so if if the
2:21:51 Commission has concerns about the lack
2:21:53 of yard depth and you wanted to increase
2:21:56 that to 20 I don't know that that would
2:21:59 cause a problem for them and I'm not
2:22:01 sure it would cause a problem for the
2:22:02 administration sounds like a win-win
2:22:04 then no ifs well
2:22:06 there it's automatic that they need a
2:22:08 twenty-foot why are we yeah why not -
2:22:11 because the 20 foot as they said could
2:22:13 come in the form of a street it could I
2:22:17 mean if if you know if they ended up
2:22:19 with a corner parcel you're right I mean
2:22:22 so the front would be one Street
2:22:23 frontage and then they could you count
2:22:25 the others a side yard and I would yeah
2:22:27 you would want a 20 foot grassy buffer
2:22:29 between a street you know you know you
2:22:32 don't need that for for security
2:22:35 purposes that would just go my concern
2:22:37 with that is the designation of the
2:22:39 build to line to say that they have to
2:22:42 build at 20 feet so is there the concept
2:22:47 between the build to and the setback
2:22:49 right yeah so build to means it has to
2:22:52 be within that that parameters whereas a
2:22:56 setback means it's a minimum right and
2:22:58 so you know if you have so the old way
2:23:01 of doing business you know was like okay
2:23:02 your setback was 10 or 20 feet but that
2:23:05 wouldn't preclude a property owner from
2:23:07 putting the building 50 feet or 200 feet
2:23:09 back right and so part of kind of
2:23:14 getting more precise with how things are
2:23:16 is the the bill to is a much more
2:23:20 precise measure because now we know it's
2:23:23 going to be within that 20 feet it might
2:23:25 be at 20 feet but it's not going to be
2:23:27 at 50 feet or 100 feet or 200 feet back
2:23:29 right so so it's just a different way of
2:23:32 doing it and generally speaking as we've
2:23:37 gotten to be more cognizant of how we
2:23:40 want buildings to sit on property we've
2:23:42 gone to build twos instead of setbacks
2:23:46 because the setback leaves it up to the
2:23:47 property owner build to puts it in our
2:23:50 hands in terms of prescribing where
2:23:53 that's going to go what about for a
2:23:55 large parcel I mean are they you're
2:23:59 going to designate one as your frontage
2:24:01 that doesn't necessarily building up to
2:24:04 20 feet on providence point for example
2:24:06 which is CSF right it was not only not
2:24:10 yes yeah what's not okay I thought I saw
2:24:12 it as green on the map so so so part of
2:24:15 this is and this gets back to the
2:24:17 comment I made earlier about Grand Ridge
2:24:18 Elementary
2:24:19 so if you want people to walk to the
2:24:22 school it's got to be near the street
2:24:24 right the farther back you put it the
2:24:28 you stick it behind a parking lot you
2:24:30 know you're sending the message this is
2:24:32 a place to drive to right and so there's
2:24:35 a conversation about that
2:24:37 I personally believe you know that it
2:24:40 should be somewhat close to the street
2:24:42 you know is 20 feet the right number you
2:24:47 know I don't know so at what point is
2:24:50 so those numbers really get thousand
2:24:54 because we're obviously not educated
2:24:56 enough to make those analysis and
2:24:59 determinations but we're being asked to
2:25:01 vote on the proposed code yet you are so
2:25:06 so you know if we're talking about
2:25:09 really that front billed to line you
2:25:12 know and I don't know maybe ISDN do you
2:25:15 know Steve Howe what the building
2:25:17 setback is for Grand Ridge Elementary I
2:25:23 know that was just died I'm not
2:25:25 specifically how far the building is
2:25:26 back but the the bus shelter structure
2:25:31 is probably right on a little bit yeah
2:25:33 the bus the bus shelters right so at the
2:25:36 right away so you know but you're right
2:25:41 and then we we made them put doors in
2:25:44 but they're locked so you know so
2:25:46 there's there's a give-and-take you know
2:25:47 but you try and get you trying you want
2:25:51 you want to promote walkability to the
2:25:54 school and putting it too far back is
2:25:57 going to be a discouragement for some
2:25:58 folks I think that rec you know that
2:26:00 point is going to show up in this policy
2:26:03 that we recommend you know if it
2:26:05 whatever that goes from here but I guess
2:26:08 voting on these I feel like we're voting
2:26:11 on these numbers without agreeing that
2:26:13 they're necessarily correct or knowing
2:26:16 how much adjustments there is knowing
2:26:19 which ones are essential which ones are
2:26:21 would not as right as well my question
2:26:23 was earlier where where is is there any
2:26:25 wiggle room is it if it's not these
2:26:27 numbers and it's the end it's you know
2:26:30 it's death to possibility or is there
2:26:33 by saying I think the community's got
2:26:35 concerns I've got concerns can we can we
2:26:37 find a middle ground so I guess what I
2:26:42 would say is you know there could be
2:26:44 situations where let's say that you know
2:26:47 they buy a piece of property and the
2:26:48 street frontage is actually a critical
2:26:50 area like a wetland right so we would
2:26:53 not make them put the building in the
2:26:55 wetland there will be allowances for you
2:26:59 know variances and I don't use the word
2:27:01 variances because it's not technically
2:27:03 Rian's it will be adjustment of
2:27:04 standards based on site conditions right
2:27:07 so if they buy a piece of property and
2:27:09 it does not make sense to put the
2:27:11 building at 20 feet for whatever reason
2:27:13 they're going to ask us to deviate from
2:27:15 that one of the reasons why we're
2:27:17 proposing these changes now anyway is
2:27:20 because every school comes in and asked
2:27:22 for a deviation you know the first
2:27:24 bullet on one of those slides was the
2:27:26 existing code doesn't work now and it
2:27:28 puts staff in a really awkward space
2:27:30 because we're being asked to bend almost
2:27:33 all the rules in if we adopt these the
2:27:36 request for changes and an adjustment of
2:27:41 standards will be significantly less and
2:27:43 that's that's a win for the
2:27:45 administration frankly and the school
2:27:48 district because it's one less
2:27:49 administrative hurdle that they have to
2:27:51 go through so what's the best way that
2:27:53 we can vote tonight to because we all
2:27:57 agree that we want to move forward and
2:27:59 we want to open up opportunities for the
2:28:02 squad school district to look at some of
2:28:05 these parcels right and be able to move
2:28:07 forward on that but we don't necessarily
2:28:09 agree on all the language in this code
2:28:13 that we're voting on and we don't
2:28:15 necessarily want to cement these things
2:28:17 in as if they've been reviewed because
2:28:22 there's some of those things that just I
2:28:24 mean those numbers don't necessarily
2:28:25 mean anything to us be right we're not
2:28:29 necessarily experts right so so we can
2:28:32 so again kind of picking them apart so
2:28:37 the pervious impervious we have
2:28:41 impervious standards that high in a lot
2:28:45 of different places
2:28:46 sub areas within the city that's not
2:28:48 actually very uncommon it's uncommon for
2:28:51 certain areas like up on squawk or you
2:28:54 know maybe South Cove but they're not
2:28:56 proposed the likelihood that they would
2:28:58 put a school in either of those
2:28:59 locations is pretty small because it's
2:29:01 not where they're their customer bases
2:29:04 frankly so you know but the the setbacks
2:29:08 I mean I guess what I would say to you
2:29:11 guys is you know we're not asking you to
2:29:14 do anything you're uncomfortable with if
2:29:15 if at the end of the day you want to
2:29:18 basically say we don't have a way to
2:29:21 gauge whether those are the right
2:29:22 numbers or not take a pass I'd rather
2:29:25 you guys pass then propose a standard
2:29:29 that you picked out of a hat right or
2:29:32 threw a dart at a dartboard so you know
2:29:35 if some of these if some of these pieces
2:29:37 of the puzzle are you're comfortable
2:29:39 with then you can make that your
2:29:40 recommendation to the council is we're
2:29:43 comfortable with building high and I'm
2:29:45 not putting words in your mouth we're
2:29:47 comfortable with
2:29:48 I forgot what else is up there yeah they
2:29:52 you know so you can you can go through
2:29:54 and cherry-pick which standards you guys
2:29:56 do want to make a recommendation on and
2:29:59 you may say you know what we're not
2:30:00 engineers we're not developers we're not
2:30:02 going to make a recommendation maybe on
2:30:05 setbacks because every parcel is going
2:30:07 to be different it's not just because
2:30:09 you don't want to I think you guys have
2:30:11 demonstrated a rationale for where you
2:30:13 may not be comfortable and and I think I
2:30:16 don't think we have an absolute clarity
2:30:19 on you know if it's 20 feet it's great
2:30:22 if it's 30 feet you know oh my gosh
2:30:23 Armageddon right or you know so this is
2:30:26 where I think you guys need to figure
2:30:28 out what you're comfortable with I don't
2:30:31 think we're trying to push you past that
2:30:33 but hopefully we've provided you enough
2:30:35 information to have that conversation so
2:30:38 I have a couple questions that they
2:30:41 thought about and listening to our
2:30:43 conversation here and that is what about
2:30:46 charter schools corporation corporate
2:30:49 schools and non-profit schools would
2:30:52 they fall under the same same set of
2:30:55 standards or is this strictly public
2:30:58 Issaquah public school district
2:31:00 it on these lands because I don't want
2:31:02 see what I'm thinking is if you have a
2:31:05 charter school come into Highlands or
2:31:08 some of the other neighborhoods Palace
2:31:10 and decide they want to build out and
2:31:13 we're these are the requirements they
2:31:15 could go very big in a non-conforming
2:31:17 way and it would upset the community and
2:31:21 it's a school so they're locked it so
2:31:24 right now CFS is public ownership so it
2:31:28 has to be either it has to be it could
2:31:31 be is a Class School District it could
2:31:33 be Bellevue college it has to be a
2:31:35 public institution okay so the other one
2:31:40 that I want to address is the trees and
2:31:43 retention because that was where we got
2:31:45 the most community in comment before the
2:31:48 meeting via emails and letters so it
2:31:52 seems like there is obviously and I
2:31:54 think this is coming in because of that
2:31:57 property above the Highlands which I
2:31:59 walked earlier today and I was amazed
2:32:03 how many trees there are and how tall
2:32:06 those trees are so how do people feel I
2:32:12 got a problem with the retriever
2:32:15 tension-free being reduced to zero I I
2:32:17 saw that as a big flag to me especially
2:32:20 with all the public comments that we got
2:32:22 even prior to this meeting I don't think
2:32:26 that that symbolizes what our community
2:32:28 wants to see I I would i if I were
2:32:32 looking at this I would say I would
2:32:35 actually start I would start
2:32:36 cherry-picking and I would start saying
2:32:37 I would keep the existing code on tree
2:32:40 retention I would keep the existing code
2:32:42 on setbacks I'm not trying to tell you
2:32:43 where you need to put a school but
2:32:44 you're telling me that basically the
2:32:46 school district comes in and says and we
2:32:47 need a special exempt exemption and they
2:32:49 get that all the time and so I'm not
2:32:50 sure why I need to make that part of the
2:32:52 code that they have blanket exceptions
2:32:54 all the time on setbacks so I for
2:32:57 increasing the building height I would
2:33:00 even do more if you guys were like hell
2:33:02 we don't mind putting in elevators we
2:33:03 want to we want to see our need being
2:33:06 met while being able to still satisfy
2:33:08 the needs of the community I don't think
2:33:09 that it being more visible to more
2:33:12 people in the area
2:33:13 by having a trade-off of being able to
2:33:15 have a smaller footprint is is an issue
2:33:18 from what I saw from the feedback that
2:33:20 was given to us so I'm formed I'm for
2:33:24 the building height but I would keep the
2:33:25 setbacks in the existing code and I
2:33:27 would keep the tree retention an
2:33:28 existing code I I have a personally I
2:33:30 don't see how ninety percent impervious
2:33:32 surfaces is good for putting that into
2:33:36 the code obviously if they need that the
2:33:39 city is going to say you could man you
2:33:41 know your lid compliant we don't mind so
2:33:43 they're already going to be getting
2:33:44 these exemptions building it into the
2:33:45 code is what I'm scared about so again I
2:33:49 would say okay let's find a number it's
2:33:51 at 70% because you find that 50% is
2:33:54 egregious and we can't work with that
2:33:56 then I can have some flexibility but
2:33:59 again putting putting the tree retention
2:34:01 down to 0% putting the impervious
2:34:02 surfaces up to 90% these things concern
2:34:04 me so would you be an agreement to
2:34:09 retain the tree retention policy I would
2:34:14 keep the existing code and allow for the
2:34:19 landscape to go to centralized appall
2:34:23 parameters so that they don't have to
2:34:25 have pointing feet of setback they could
2:34:29 have five feet of setback with a green
2:34:31 wall instead of landscape terrains I
2:34:36 don't mind a screening wall as the
2:34:40 option for landscaping I think that's
2:34:44 fine particularly when we're talking
2:34:47 about structured parking because we
2:34:48 don't have landscape codes in place so
2:34:53 adding that in yeah yeah well I agree
2:34:59 with your honor percent and I think the
2:35:01 throwing that in about the landscaping
2:35:03 requirements have it centralized quad
2:35:06 landscape requirements the tree
2:35:08 retention of the IMC which is status quo
2:35:11 no change no change there and no change
2:35:14 on setbacks so that's what I'm hearing
2:35:19 well in the other one the one that seems
2:35:21 incongruous with the density argument is
2:35:24 also the impervious surface because it
2:35:26 could be used to
2:35:27 increase the density of schools but it
2:35:30 doesn't know your people with a 90% can
2:35:33 you lower it to 75% would you be
2:35:35 comfortable with 75% in every instance
2:35:39 when the school district comes in and
2:35:41 says I can't build the school because I
2:35:43 need this submissiveness
2:35:45 the city is going to find a way to
2:35:47 create that extra 5 or 10% in impervious
2:35:51 surface so are you comfortable with 75%
2:35:55 okay so as we live a sense model I don't
2:35:59 care 75 we go home tonight
2:36:03 now have we hit everything that the
2:36:06 retention is just saying that density is
2:36:09 the same you're saying some setbacks are
2:36:10 going to stay the same building height
2:36:13 we're we're agreeing to other the 65
2:36:15 feet we're changing a pervious surface
2:36:18 to 75% we're keeping the existing code
2:36:21 on a tree retention all right so I would
2:36:25 like to make a motion that we allow 65%
2:36:33 are allow 65 feet in building height yep
2:36:35 to keep the setbacks we keep the tree
2:36:39 retention as is and we implement the
2:36:45 central is a quaff landscape
2:36:50 requirements what was the other thing
2:36:54 that you mentioned the structured
2:36:56 parking landscape is the other one up
2:36:59 there as well as the FA RS and the level
2:37:02 of review 3 so it would include the FA
2:37:06 RS and a level 3 so the structured
2:37:09 parking landscape stays the same it's in
2:37:10 the Pretz we keep it as a proposed yes
2:37:12 all right good okay I know it requires
2:37:16 rooftop screening the rooftop screening
2:37:17 right Justin yeah and we top screening I
2:37:20 think is important because we have so
2:37:22 many the proposed you're looking down on
2:37:23 it yep so yeah and be included in the
2:37:25 proposal okay so in 75% impervious
2:37:30 surface correct okay so with so that is
2:37:34 your motion where's my motion basically
2:37:36 we're leaving everything the same except
2:37:38 the 75% and the tree retention
2:37:41 and the sad facts we're leaving them the
2:37:44 same when we're changing them we're
2:37:46 leaving them as existing code
2:37:47 so changing the proposed call or not
2:37:51 okay picture so before the before Ron
2:37:55 concludes his motion I want to make sure
2:37:56 staff has our motion okay so it's as
2:38:01 proposed I didn't get the point about
2:38:03 this step back yeah you're dating the
2:38:05 same as it is or as president staying
2:38:07 the same as as it is so the the current
2:38:10 standard sorry to jump in the current
2:38:12 standard is whatever the most
2:38:13 restrictive contiguous zoning is or so
2:38:16 wait it will depend if they're next to
2:38:19 single-family you're going to look at
2:38:20 something like that's on the right hand
2:38:22 of the screen here the existing code
2:38:23 right that ten six and twenty that's
2:38:26 just single-family small I and we're not
2:38:29 necessarily saying we agree with that
2:38:31 we're just saying that needs to go into
2:38:35 a further conversation we further
2:38:36 understand it as as situations come up
2:38:39 and per property city isn't going to do
2:38:41 what they need to this is that we don't
2:38:43 want to make these changes to the code
2:38:44 permanent well we are we don't want to
2:38:48 make the currently proposed zero seven
2:38:51 and seven so that's why we're reverting
2:38:53 to the existing setbacks no changes to
2:38:57 that and the building the bill to line
2:39:01 with that noise
2:39:03 also yes that's part of the setback for
2:39:05 the Sullivan right okay right now there
2:39:08 is no build to line and that's a long
2:39:10 one that's why I wasn't sure if you're
2:39:12 going to address that separately
2:39:13 sassette Thanks I know I'm in I'm in
2:39:16 support of the setback to think it makes
2:39:19 sense for talking just about schools on
2:39:22 just these parcels I think makes sense
2:39:27 as is air as proposed so we have a
2:39:31 motion on the table we haven't begun do
2:39:33 you want to make it you want to make a
2:39:34 motion to change the set backs as I
2:39:37 think it's like I can make it we can
2:39:38 make a motion that says set bed to set
2:39:40 back since all 20 feet level no edge I
2:39:42 think we should add a build tool I not a
2:39:45 motion and a second right we had we
2:39:47 don't have an icon how do we haven't had
2:39:49 a second go for it okay so I just saying
2:39:52 I think we should have added a build to
2:39:54 line but otherwise the setbacks would be
2:39:58 as as dictated by the canoers to
2:40:03 continuous so would your build to line
2:40:06 be 20 feet or do you want that do you
2:40:08 like that way way at the 0 to 20 I'm not
2:40:11 an expert I don't know but if that's
2:40:13 what's being proposed in that think so
2:40:16 will you were given school district want
2:40:19 to build 2 line is 0 to 10 feet is
2:40:23 what's in this letter that we've been
2:40:25 given so they're they're in support of a
2:40:29 bill to line so whether it's 10 20
2:40:34 something like that it's in support of
2:40:37 that you can give them a compromise
2:40:42 under 15 no I don't want to go more than
2:40:46 this yeah 17:46 so what is the motion
2:40:53 we've got to have I mean you keep
2:40:55 changing it and right we're still having
2:40:57 discussion we're trying to nail down our
2:40:59 motion this is what's happening right
2:41:04 all right so let's write this down
2:41:06 okay was there a second to John there is
2:41:10 no such John hasn't even clarified that
2:41:12 made a motion yet yeah I thought it was
2:41:15 a second I'm not an expert I don't I
2:41:17 know that's the problem none of us are
2:41:19 we're making maybe that's what baby -
2:41:22 the point son understand we're not
2:41:24 supposed to be a panel of expert
2:41:25 understanding that you know the city has
2:41:28 looked at and the school districts s
2:41:30 looked at it there's been input from the
2:41:32 community and I mean we have to take
2:41:36 their knowledge that
2:41:39 looking at this all the time with some
2:41:41 degree of value we can't just sit here
2:41:44 and say you know you can change it up or
2:41:47 down it's gonna be my idea tool to do
2:41:50 that right right this is giving the city
2:41:54 a tool to incorporate Institute a build
2:41:56 tool line which they previously didn't
2:41:58 have a mechanism to do before right
2:42:01 build tool I know we want to use I agree
2:42:06 build to line of 20 feet again if
2:42:14 there's a problem with the site there
2:42:17 will be negotiations but it's still in
2:42:20 the code that it will be 20 feet in
2:42:24 you're comfortable we have an amendment
2:42:26 now we don't need in the manual there
2:42:28 was no second okay I still know I'm not
2:42:34 completely clear Ron are you still
2:42:38 making the motion with this bill -
2:42:40 you're on cutting through it so if see
2:42:43 if all we're doing is we're modifying
2:42:44 cff we don't need to worry about tree
2:42:47 retention we don't need to mention those
2:42:49 all we need to mention are the things
2:42:51 that we're going to change so because
2:42:54 right now did the proposed code is
2:42:56 what's in front of us so if we're not
2:42:57 voting on the proposed code we need to
2:42:59 say what's different about the proposal
2:43:00 so we're saying that the tree retention
2:43:02 is not correct that we are putting it at
2:43:05 the 12.5 as our guide for the existing
2:43:09 code unless you'd like to like to change
2:43:11 that is that a different is there a
2:43:12 different percentage run that you would
2:43:14 like I'm using the 12.5 that's what's
2:43:16 existing and obviously it's not pie in
2:43:18 the sky right so you need to keep 100
2:43:20 Reno right no no I'm saying if we leave
2:43:23 it existing then we don't need to
2:43:25 mention that right now all we're doing
2:43:28 is yes we do yeah okay yes we do because
2:43:31 we're voting on it for voting on the
2:43:32 proposal we're not voting on the
2:43:34 existing code so you can like break this
2:43:36 into two pieces and say we're
2:43:38 meaning no changes to sorry huh
2:43:44 you know we're recommending no changes
2:43:46 to tree retention to side and rear yard
2:43:50 setbacks forgot what else pervious
2:43:55 impervious no no you are making
2:43:58 recommending other grades so those two
2:44:00 items and an instructor I don't think
2:44:03 you're changing the structure talking on
2:44:04 you now we are no yourse what you're
2:44:07 saying is you're making no no revision
2:44:11 to existing code for those two items
2:44:12 correct but then you're you're modifying
2:44:18 the proposed lying the administration's
2:44:20 recommendation by changing impervious to
2:44:24 75% what else we talked about just a
2:44:31 setback to our attention everything
2:44:32 everything else well but well if you
2:44:35 keep the bill to line it's just a side
2:44:37 rear yard setbacks don't change I think
2:44:39 we're taking out the zero for the bill
2:44:40 to line we're not saying zero to twenty
2:44:43 pressing the build to line can be zero
2:44:45 are we within your creating a set well
2:44:48 yes then you're creating a setback right
2:44:50 you're creating then you're saying they
2:44:52 have to exactly put the building at 20
2:44:54 feet they can lie 21 or 19 right less
2:44:57 unless they get an exception for step
2:45:00 except that for going to trying to avoid
2:45:02 putting the administration in the
2:45:04 position of always bending the rules
2:45:08 right I mean that's part of this is a
2:45:10 little bit more that's cuz you're just
2:45:12 building into the code that the rules
2:45:13 are constantly bent why do we want
2:45:15 crooked rules that doesn't make any
2:45:16 sense
2:45:17 5 to 20 feet I mean can you not have 0
2:45:21 well right now are you happy I mean I
2:45:24 would look at the existing code right
2:45:26 now we have front is 10 so then I would
2:45:28 say for single-family small all right so
2:45:30 that's what I have so that's that this
2:45:32 is the coat if the staff wants to give
2:45:34 me other numbers to base it on because
2:45:36 we're tweaking but right now there's a
2:45:38 lot of areas where there are zero
2:45:40 setback right so the difference is right
2:45:42 now code is 10 to infinite there's no
2:45:47 there's no maximum but the bill two sets
2:45:50 the max
2:45:51 right and so if it's on its so but you
2:45:54 typically put a range in so if you want
2:45:56 to go 10 to 20 or 0 to 20 or whatever to
2:46:01 20 there should be there's 3 some
2:46:03 flexibility there
2:46:04 so you're saying build two lines says if
2:46:07 we say zero to 20 they have to build
2:46:09 within 0 to 20 of the money on the front
2:46:15 that's what they really want that's what
2:46:18 that's what they're asking for right now
2:46:19 yes and I was not satisfied by the
2:46:22 answer I understand that they feel
2:46:24 pressure but I don't I did not get a
2:46:27 satisfactory answer that they say these
2:46:29 setbacks have been studied these
2:46:30 setbacks are no problem I didn't hear
2:46:32 that I did not hear a clear answer that
2:46:34 this does not and Dave's thoroughly
2:46:37 studied under that back you're talking
2:46:39 about from the school district yes
2:46:41 there's a letter from I know I read the
2:46:44 letter okay where they actually the
2:46:46 superintendent is saying step back zero
2:46:49 feet preferred 7 feet possible and then
2:46:52 build to line 0 to 10 feet the school
2:46:55 district is saying that's what we want
2:46:57 to do 7 to 20
2:47:05 I would like to it sounds like we have
2:47:09 some questions about it sounds like I'm
2:47:10 not the only one a lot of us or have
2:47:12 some questions about these about means
2:47:13 that backs so a setback provides a
2:47:20 minimum distance that the building sets
2:47:22 back from the property line the build to
2:47:26 provides a variance there and if we
2:47:29 ended up with a site that was in a
2:47:32 downtown urban area and you wanted to
2:47:34 put the outside wall of the building at
2:47:36 the back of the sidewalk to align with
2:47:38 other development then you're at 0 feet
2:47:41 and in that kind of a case you might not
2:47:43 I don't think the city would want to
2:47:45 have a 20 foot setback or a 10 foot
2:47:47 setback that means that they're going to
2:47:50 have to make an administrative decision
2:47:52 to align the building or make it fit
2:47:56 into a truly downtown core urban context
2:47:59 that built in line at 0 to 10 or 0 to 20
2:48:03 feet allows for some flexibility and
2:48:06 either one of those would be acceptable
2:48:10 if it were built in an area where all
2:48:13 the other buildings are up to the
2:48:15 sidewalk wouldn't that be reflected in
2:48:17 the existing code for the contiguous
2:48:19 area or not not no because the least
2:48:22 restrictive area could be on the other
2:48:24 corner which would be single-family
2:48:25 residential which would require that the
2:48:28 million foot front setback most
2:48:29 restricted though the most restrictive
2:48:32 meaning the the least amount of
2:48:36 developable space right it all seems
2:48:40 like we make sense to have it as a
2:48:43 objective code so that the least
2:48:47 restrictive the most restrictive
2:48:49 boundary would match to the most
2:48:52 restrictive boundary in other words if
2:48:54 you had zero on one side and you had a
2:48:59 20 on the other side you would have
2:49:00 matching if the other if the other the
2:49:06 other properties if you have properties
2:49:09 on one side that are 20 and you have
2:49:11 properties on the other side that are
2:49:12 zero and you could match the building to
2:49:15 conform with both sides
2:49:17 yeah zero to 20 build mine which relates
2:49:22 to primarily the front but it's I think
2:49:27 zero to 20 I don't like the idea of
2:49:31 living zero to twenty in because most
2:49:38 all of the sites that we're looking at
2:49:40 are not those downtown urban situations
2:49:43 now and I understand this is the code
2:49:45 and it's going to be long term but I
2:49:47 still don't like the idea of providing
2:49:49 that as an option so for in the existing
2:49:53 admin Street Holly is the current line
2:49:57 of your your core so everything across
2:50:00 the street can conform to the urban
2:50:03 standards except for that boundary would
2:50:07 be up to zero if we did the zero to
2:50:12 twenty and they're also talking about
2:50:15 the potential administration building
2:50:17 with maida so part of it was trying to
2:50:20 align things with what could well be
2:50:22 adjacent zoning part of its trying to
2:50:27 align with a number of different
2:50:30 possibilities and potential things that
2:50:33 would come along because it sort of laws
2:50:35 down to defining what we have to look at
2:50:39 in acquisition of a site if we know what
2:50:43 our building area is going to be we know
2:50:44 that we have to provide a certain number
2:50:46 of parking spaces if we're being compact
2:50:49 we're going to have to do structured
2:50:51 parking but impervious area and setback
2:50:54 sort of define perimeters and say you're
2:50:56 going to have to acquire this much land
2:50:58 and when you're going into a competitive
2:51:01 market situation and you're putting
2:51:06 contingencies on the purchase it makes
2:51:08 it more difficult and those
2:51:10 contingencies then have to be predicated
2:51:12 on the fact that we're actually going to
2:51:14 get a variance for this or that or
2:51:17 another thing which is months and months
2:51:19 and months down the road so it just
2:51:22 makes the whole process more difficult
2:51:24 so could we pay for that clarification
2:51:26 that makes a difference yeah question
2:51:29 for Keith if if we decide to go with a
2:51:33 zero to twenty with a director oversight
2:51:38 would that be acceptable now we see that
2:51:42 would give us checks and balances
2:51:45 instead of just giving the school
2:51:47 district a blank check I do trust you
2:51:49 but it would just allow for checks and
2:51:52 balances don't they already have to go
2:51:57 for exception so that would be would be
2:52:00 code if they would allow them to build
2:52:03 to zero without having to get permission
2:52:05 like you're just doing but zero to 20 or
2:52:08 whatever made sense and each individual
2:52:10 project is going to have to come in for
2:52:13 a very detailed review right point well
2:52:18 zero three anything less than twenty
2:52:21 would have to go to director over for
2:52:24 director Poole community approval I
2:52:27 think anything over 20 feet of would
2:52:31 have to come in for a variance well if
2:52:36 we put in a zero through 20 with
2:52:38 director oversight you wouldn't have to
2:52:39 get a variance you just have to ask
2:52:41 director for approval for anything over
2:52:44 20 feet right all of the tests go
2:52:47 through level three review review yeah
2:52:49 I'm comfortable with that so if there's
2:52:52 a zero in 20 and it has to go through a
2:52:55 level three review and zero is not
2:52:56 appropriate then that will come up
2:52:58 during the level three review yeah okay
2:53:02 so are we now comfortable with that yes
2:53:08 that's and progress do remember this
2:53:13 Thunder drain play fields of impervious
2:53:15 surface so there may be a pretty big
2:53:17 area that's open space play field it's
2:53:23 still impervious yeah we discussed that
2:53:28 okay so 75% yep zero to twenty does that
2:53:40 mean there's no changes to the setback
2:53:41 something everyone finds beside seven
2:53:43 three or seven I thought you guys we're
2:53:46 going to say you guys can just do the
2:53:48 front as a real tree line and leave the
2:53:52 sides in the rear no under existing code
2:53:55 if you wanted we're good okay you want
2:54:01 to leave it as existing so that's leave
2:54:03 it as proposed leave it as previous
2:54:05 person proposed in 70 okay so so the
2:54:09 only change to proposed field about is
2:54:14 the 75% and once in about 3% yes through
2:54:19 the tree or attend everything out
2:54:21 tension and minimum density oh I guess
2:54:23 minimum 30 in this example is the same
2:54:25 okay a minimum density should be the
2:54:29 same as existing it is in it okay it is
2:54:32 only in the single family small lot
2:54:35 example given that could be a different
2:54:37 density for different zones they said
2:54:39 this is the most conservative yeah this
2:54:42 is the think it makes it but up again
2:54:45 right yes I think the commercial will
2:54:46 good work okay so so I have a motion for
2:54:53 those two exemptions I will make that
2:54:57 motion to have anger for the proposed
2:55:03 code except for modifying it to have a
2:55:09 75% impervious surface and to modify the
2:55:16 tree retention
2:55:18 to keep the existing code retain the
2:55:22 existing retain the existing coexisting
2:55:25 code for true retention Reap retriever
2:55:28 times which is 25% and may be reduced to
2:55:30 12.5 what was the within word the review
2:55:37 can you repeat that back to us I want to
2:55:43 hear it anymore to keep the proposed
2:55:48 code except for modifying the 75%
2:55:52 impervious surface and retain the
2:55:54 existing code for tree retention yes and
2:55:57 that has the two amendments that we
2:56:00 already passed about policy in the
2:56:02 direction of schools as well attached to
2:56:04 that separate but yes okay are you
2:56:08 sweating here those are separate votes
2:56:10 so all those in favor say aye
2:56:12 I don't think there's been a second yet
2:56:14 we just didn't I'm sorry we did okay up
2:56:16 all those in favor say aye aye
2:56:19 motion carries is there something else
2:56:25 on the docket if you have to no there
2:56:29 isn't you know it normally you come up
2:56:32 with the list of when the next meetings
2:56:35 are so people know exactly what's going
2:56:36 on no more on this next step what is the
2:56:42 next meeting the 27th I have is
2:56:46 architectural review that's so correct
2:56:49 oh my gosh 727 or do that job is that a
2:56:54 discussion it's a discussion the
2:56:56 discussion okay and what is our next
2:56:59 meeting after that Tuesday August 1st on
2:57:04 end of days I said that's happening so
2:57:08 were were pairing you guys with urban
2:57:12 village Development Commission to talk
2:57:14 about ending the development agreements
2:57:17 for the Highlands and talus because we
2:57:19 basically have to put replacement code
2:57:22 in for both of those as the contract
2:57:25 development agreements go to term
2:57:28 so they would be meeting on this we have
2:57:31 been doing enough maybe do more stuff I
2:57:33 know you know usually a you EDC meets at
2:57:36 a different time than we do you know if
2:57:38 we're on their clock or they're on ours
2:57:39 so Tuesday it's going to be uniquely so
2:57:42 timeline 87 then I would I don't know I
2:57:45 know that we're still trying to work out
2:57:47 the mechanics of Epis it might be at a 7
2:57:50 yeah that's a match up with their
2:57:52 standard meeting time I thought I saw a
2:57:54 data 31st that's when the public hearing
2:57:58 is for that I for architectural
2:58:01 riverbeds that's on your schedule we're
2:58:04 doing the 31st and then the first we
2:58:06 actually have four meetings one two
2:58:09 three four five meetings in August we
2:58:11 write those down so I can send it for
2:58:14 tomorrow so you move you mind that way
2:58:16 that would be great actually we had to
2:58:18 put these on the end of your agenda each
2:58:20 time but it went out Jennifer was too
2:58:23 fast for me so I couldn't put the
2:58:24 updated one but so far I will send this
2:58:27 out tomorrow morning but there's two of
2:58:28 them on Tuesdays next in August okay and
2:58:33 two of them are on Thursdays so okay
2:58:36 exciting okay so anything else for the
2:58:39 good of the winners the meeting it I
2:58:42 will close the meeting at 9:30 Joan can
2:58:48 we do the long hair

Motions and votes (1)

City Council that the City have further discussions with the Issaquah School District to create a living, changeable policy document that addresses the issue of urban schools, including the definition of an urban school, what the community would like to see in terms of urban schools, and the School …
Moved by LEWIS · seconded by WALSH that PPC recommend
Carried