Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 31, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 – Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 – Jon Stob 2018 – Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 – 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. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing Proposed Code Amendment re: Urban Schools

Jennifer R. Woods, AICP, Associate Planner

Topics: Land Use

Public Hearing Proposed Amendment re: Architectural Review and Urban Design

Director · Keith Niven, AICP, Development Services · packet pp.5–147

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

A. Refresher – Proposed Urban Schools Amendment: On July 13, 2017, PPC held a public hearing on land use code amendments that provide more urban development standards for Public Schools that allow for multi-story schools to be built more efficiently on smaller parcels of land. On June 22nd, PPC held a public hearing on land use code amendments requiring structured parking for a portion of required parking for residential and office uses in Central Issaquah and the City Council approved required structured parking for office, residential and retail uses in Central Issaquah. The Parking amendment was adopted by Council, and became effective on August 16, 2017 (Ord 2799 at this link). Upon reflection of this Moratorium Work Plan item and the

3774 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ good evening and welcome to

0:17 ↗ August 31st meeting the planning policy

0:19 ↗ Commission tonight we have the honor of

0:22 ↗ doing something we usually don't do and

0:24 ↗ that's have two public hearings the

0:28 ↗ first is on a proposal addition from

0:32 ↗ what we've already approved for adding

0:35 ↗ structure Parker to parking two

0:38 ↗ buildings in this tonight we're going to

0:40 ↗ talk about this school district and so

0:42 ↗ I'm just going to open up for discussion

0:44 ↗ if there's the proposal is to add like

0:48 ↗ like our other proposals 50% absolute

0:53 ↗ parking any discussion any yes I have

1:00 ↗ discussion is this one okay so I like to

1:06 ↗ make a recommendation that the only

1:12 ↗ public school shall provide 95 percent

1:15 ↗ of the required parking structure and

1:18 ↗ that when a parking structure is built

1:23 ↗ that it provides covered parking for

1:28 ↗ bicycles and E bicycles unless there is

1:31 ↗ already structured unless there's

1:35 ↗ already covered parking for bicycles so

1:39 ↗ two recommendations imposing 95 percent

1:44 ↗ structured parking and covered parking

1:49 ↗ for bicycles I would love to hear from

1:51 ↗ staff as to why they settled on the 50

1:54 ↗ percent and if that was just the

1:55 ↗ directive that we had given the

1:57 ↗ recommendation we had given counsel and

1:59 ↗ that they had settled on on previous

2:00 ↗ structured parking or how you guys came

2:02 ↗ to this number specifically for schools

2:03 ↗ I don't like that Jennifer go through

2:08 ↗ that the reasons and answer your

2:10 ↗ questions actually and then we'll get

2:12 ↗ back to and I just want to tell you that

2:14 ↗ I'm here for item number two and I have

2:16 ↗ had nothing to do with this so unless

2:18 ↗ its context from our previous work I

2:20 ↗ have nothing to offer your experts over

2:22 ↗ there so when I have a presentation if

2:26 ↗ you'd like me to go through it yeah and

2:28 ↗ then I can go back and answer

2:29 ↗ questions for instance the one that joy

2:31 ↗ just asked him

2:42 ↗ so the purpose of this amendment is to

2:47 ↗ package it with the other urban school

2:50 ↗ code amendments that you guys heard on

2:52 ↗ July 13 so the idea would be to add this

2:54 ↗ on

2:55 ↗ so it's standalone right now but it

2:57 ↗ think of it as an add-on to that bigger

2:59 ↗ package that's why the title says

3:03 ↗ continued so where have we been where

3:07 ↗ are we going we've been to PPC we can

3:09 ↗ you angel on July 13th we're back today

3:12 ↗ we went to land in Shore with this as an

3:15 ↗ informational item in August and we'll

3:18 ↗ be going back after this public meeting

3:20 ↗ in September with the full bundled

3:23 ↗ package for land and Shore to consider

3:26 ↗ and then refer to can't make a

3:27 ↗ recommendation to Council for final

3:29 ↗ decision possibly as early as September

3:31 ↗ 18th so that's where we are and that's

3:33 ↗ where we're going hopefully so here's

3:37 ↗ the actual code amendment it literally

3:38 ↗ is one line all new public schools shall

3:41 ↗ provide 50% of the required parking and

3:44 ↗ structures and yes this falls in line

3:46 ↗ with the research and the dialogue that

3:49 ↗ was had associated with the simplest kua

3:52 ↗ parking requirements that you also heard

3:54 ↗ not too terribly long ago so the

4:00 ↗ findings just as kind of a refresher why

4:02 ↗ are we doing urban school urban school

4:04 ↗ amendments the intent of these

4:10 ↗ amendments are to provide regulations

4:11 ↗ for the development of public schools

4:13 ↗ that better meet the needs of the school

4:15 ↗ district the proposed standards will

4:17 ↗ allow schools to be sited on smaller

4:19 ↗ properties and will allow more efficient

4:22 ↗ use of the existing properties that they

4:24 ↗ own smaller footprints would allow

4:26 ↗ school siting on smaller properties but

4:29 ↗ a large amount of surface parking is

4:30 ↗ really counter to what we were trying to

4:33 ↗ do so we wanted to remedy that by

4:34 ↗ bringing this amendment forward to you

4:37 ↗ and trying to add it to that Lendl

4:38 ↗ package so so we're trying to ensure

4:43 ↗ that surface parking lots aren't kind of

4:46 ↗ pushed to the maximum and use so now we

4:49 ↗ have questions

4:50 ↗ this is literally one of the smallest

4:52 ↗ amendments I've ever done so I'm here

4:54 ↗ for your questions

4:56 ↗ we had conversation about the previous

4:59 ↗ amendment so I think we would try and

5:01 ↗ focus just to this this particular

5:03 ↗ amendment and add it on if that's what

5:05 ↗ you guys choose okay this is

5:08 ↗ clarification yes it is 50% making it

5:14 ↗ equal with 50 50 percent of the other

5:19 ↗ amendments but we approved for parking

5:22 ↗ in central acquiesce just to verify that

5:24 ↗ yes and I think that answer is Joy's

5:27 ↗ question as well so does anybody have

5:31 ↗ any questions

5:31 ↗ well before we dive into questions you

5:34 ↗ all got Connie Marcia's email so I have

5:37 ↗ paper copies of her the attachment that

5:39 ↗ she had in that email if anybody would

5:41 ↗ like him just raise your hand and I'll

5:42 ↗ bring you one

5:53 ↗ in a little bit of time and I said give

5:57 ↗ me your opinions I think I realized that

5:59 ↗ there are some opinions that might be

6:02 ↗ interesting to hear so what I'm going to

6:05 ↗ do is open the public hearing at 6:40

6:10 ↗ and then we will go from there and let

6:14 ↗ your discussions go on so I don't have a

6:17 ↗ sign-up sheet I don't know if anybody's

6:20 ↗ sign up but does anybody know is anybody

6:32 ↗ especially from the school district

6:35 ↗ willing to come up and explain their

6:38 ↗ position and what they think of

6:40 ↗ structured parking at 50% level Steve

6:49 ↗ Crawford director capital project for

6:51 ↗ the school district as we have been

6:54 ↗ looking at compacting school footprints

6:56 ↗ to allow for smaller parcels we have

7:03 ↗ looked at structured parking for some of

7:05 ↗ those concept designs we have I guess a

7:13 ↗ couple of issues that when you're

7:17 ↗ talking 50% structured parking parking

7:20 ↗ requirements for an elementary school or

7:22 ↗ about 93 parking spaces we typically

7:25 ↗ have a a little bit more than that to

7:27 ↗ help alleviate parking on the

7:29 ↗ neighborhood's adjacent but 93 parking

7:33 ↗ spaces at 50% adds roughly a million

7:39 ↗ dollars to the cost of a school that's

7:42 ↗ roughly about three percent of the total

7:44 ↗ cost of construction that's not an

7:47 ↗ insignificant amount and if you're

7:49 ↗ talking ninety five percent you're

7:52 ↗ talking about five to seven percent of

7:55 ↗ the total cost of a school as an

7:58 ↗ increase to accommodate the parking not

8:01 ↗ an insignificant amount

8:03 ↗ as we look at compacting school

8:06 ↗ footprints and reducing the area of land

8:10 ↗ that we have to acquire there gets to be

8:14 ↗ a point where you're trading off the

8:16 ↗ cost of structured parking versus the

8:18 ↗ cost of not buying additional land to

8:22 ↗ accommodate surface parking so if you

8:26 ↗ have an average about 330 square feet

8:29 ↗ per parking space and you take half of

8:32 ↗ the 93 required so you're looking at 46

8:37 ↗ spaces it's about 15,000 180 square feet

8:41 ↗ that's 0.348 acres if you look at a

8:48 ↗ million dollars of an acre for the cost

8:51 ↗ of land you're looking at reducing the

8:55 ↗ cost of land by roughly about three

8:57 ↗ hundred forty-eight thousand dollars but

8:59 ↗ you're increasing the cost of the

9:00 ↗ construction by six hundred an

9:03 ↗ additional six hundred thousand dollars

9:07 ↗ that's the difference in the cost of the

9:09 ↗ structured parking versus the cost of

9:11 ↗ the savings of land so it is an increase

9:16 ↗ unless you're talking close to three

9:18 ↗ million dollars an acre for the cost of

9:21 ↗ land that's what it takes to kind of

9:22 ↗ balance out the cost of structured

9:24 ↗ parking the surface parking space cost

9:27 ↗ about $4,000 a structured parking space

9:31 ↗ costs about twenty thousand dollars per

9:33 ↗ space if you go to sinking the parking

9:38 ↗ below grade then that cost goes up about

9:42 ↗ another ten percent so the cost of

9:44 ↗ structured parking is not insignificant

9:47 ↗ there is some balance when you're

9:50 ↗ looking at buying new land there are no

9:57 ↗ large parcels I mean for the hilltop

10:01 ↗ site we've looked at condensing the

10:03 ↗ elementary footprint down to a little

10:05 ↗ over five acres that's that's pretty

10:08 ↗ condensed the majority of the parking is

10:10 ↗ in a structured situation

10:15 ↗ the the reduced land area means that

10:21 ↗ you're in most cases well let's back up

10:25 ↗ the reduced land area means you're going

10:27 ↗ to need less I am for a school site

10:29 ↗ there aren't any five acre parcels

10:32 ↗ around here that are basically level

10:33 ↗ that have for sale signs on them so

10:35 ↗ you're going to be looking at

10:39 ↗ consolidating parcels to form a school

10:42 ↗ site in most all instances and in most

10:46 ↗ all instances you're going to end up

10:48 ↗ needing to take either homes or business

10:51 ↗ properties so smaller land areas are

10:57 ↗ advantageous from a number of different

10:59 ↗ reasons and cost being able to locate

11:08 ↗ schools closer to the communities where

11:10 ↗ the students are coming from so that

11:12 ↗ there's a local service a higher

11:14 ↗ probability that students can walk to

11:17 ↗ school and provide neighborhood

11:22 ↗ recreational facilities I think the

11:25 ↗ other thing that I wanted to mention is

11:29 ↗ that in the rationale for the 50% it

11:33 ↗ talks about the IMC standards require

11:40 ↗ that new public schools shall have a

11:42 ↗ portion of the required parking in

11:43 ↗ structured parking the rationale being

11:45 ↗ that the use of land for public schools

11:47 ↗ must be done as efficiently as possible

11:49 ↗ to ensure the public lands are used

11:51 ↗ wisely part of what we had requested

11:55 ↗ initially was a 90% impervious area and

12:00 ↗ I don't know that everybody really

12:03 ↗ understands that when you put an under

12:06 ↗ drain under a play field so that you can

12:07 ↗ use it more often through the winter

12:09 ↗ months

12:10 ↗ that's an impervious surface so a sand

12:14 ↗ playfields an impervious surface a turf

12:16 ↗ football field

12:18 ↗ it's an impervious surface a grass

12:21 ↗ baseball field it's impervious surface

12:24 ↗ so if you're looking at a five acre

12:26 ↗ elementary site and a minnow

12:27 ↗ of playfield space for an elementary at

12:31 ↗ about an acre to an acre and a quarter

12:33 ↗ you're looking at 15 to 25 percent of

12:37 ↗ that land area which is providing

12:40 ↗ community recreational facilities is

12:42 ↗ considered impervious and so it seemed

12:46 ↗ reasonable to have a 90 percent level

12:49 ↗ because in essence you're basically

12:51 ↗ already way beyond that if you look at a

12:54 ↗ middle school or a high school with the

12:57 ↗ size of a football field the soccer

12:59 ↗ lacrosse field softball field or

13:03 ↗ baseball field you're looking at close

13:06 ↗ to 30 to 33 percent of a site that's

13:09 ↗ devoted to recreational use that's open

13:13 ↗ space that's impervious area so even if

13:17 ↗ you devote another 10% to the allowance

13:23 ↗ you're still talking at 30 to 40 percent

13:26 ↗ of the area that most people would

13:28 ↗ consider to be open space and would

13:32 ↗ visualize it as pervious space pervious

13:37 ↗ surfaces so when you combine those two

13:40 ↗ things it gets to be a pretty

13:45 ↗ restrictive you know when you increase

13:49 ↗ the area of pervious surface that's

13:54 ↗ required means you have to buy more land

13:56 ↗ in the past we've been working on

13:59 ↗ existing school sites this COIs high

14:01 ↗ school middle and clark we're all

14:03 ↗ existing school sites and we've relied

14:05 ↗ on the city to grant variances those

14:09 ↗ facilities were existing non-conforming

14:11 ↗ uses so they exceeded the most

14:15 ↗ restrictive adjacent zoning heights most

14:18 ↗ restrictive adjacent zoning impervious

14:20 ↗ areas so it was not without reason that

14:25 ↗ a variance could be continued when you

14:29 ↗ look into my new property you really

14:31 ↗ need to know what amount of land you're

14:34 ↗ going to have to allow as open pervious

14:38 ↗ space not counting your play fields not

14:41 ↗ you're building and parking etc because

14:44 ↗ it's not really very prudent to assume

14:47 ↗ that you're going to get a variance if

14:54 ↗ it would be rather embarrassing to buy a

14:56 ↗ piece of property assuming you're going

14:57 ↗ to get a variance on an impervious area

14:59 ↗ and then find that it's not granted and

15:03 ↗ now you really can't fit everything so

15:06 ↗ as we're buying new properties that

15:09 ↗ becomes more critical to know in advance

15:11 ↗ and you know we would like to minimize

15:14 ↗ the amount of land that we have to

15:16 ↗ acquire for each of the four schools

15:19 ↗ that are planned the two new

15:20 ↗ elementaries a middle school in high

15:21 ↗ school but even a 50% requirement for

15:29 ↗ structured parking does add to the cost

15:31 ↗ of school construction we are looking at

15:34 ↗ bond funds that were voted in 2016 so

15:38 ↗ we've seen the cost of construction

15:40 ↗ already escalate sites that were

15:43 ↗ identified as likely candidates for

15:47 ↗ school sites or tied up in landmark

15:50 ↗ decisions and decisions about

15:53 ↗ appropriate use or not so 50% increases

16:01 ↗ the costs not an insignificant amount

16:03 ↗ there is some trade-off to reduced land

16:05 ↗ area 95% that's really a huge increase

16:12 ↗ and I think far beyond what's required

16:15 ↗ of any other type of development in the

16:17 ↗ city well I have a question before you

16:20 ↗ go down so putting in structured parking

16:23 ↗ you're saying there's 96 parking lot

16:27 ↗ parking stalls that you would be putting

16:29 ↗ in for an elementary school there's 93

16:32 ↗ that are required it's something like

16:33 ↗ that and half of that so you'd have two

16:38 ↗ levels half so you're going to shrink

16:41 ↗ that down doesn't that open up more

16:44 ↗ space for you to Recreation or do your

16:49 ↗ you know important things that this

16:51 ↗ school has to do yeah it's about 15,000

16:54 ↗ square feet it's about

16:55 ↗ Oh point three four eight acres a little

16:57 ↗ over a third of an acre that would be

16:59 ↗ saved by putting a 2-level you know 50%

17:03 ↗ of the parking instruction isn't that a

17:06 ↗ value it is a value and that's about

17:09 ↗ three hundred and forty eight thousand

17:11 ↗ dollars if you're paying a million

17:12 ↗ dollars an acre for the property but it

17:14 ↗ adds nine hundred and thirty thousand

17:17 ↗ dollars to the cost of construction so

17:19 ↗ there's still a six hundred thousand

17:20 ↗ dollar premium to do that okay thank you

17:28 ↗ does anybody else want to comment on the

17:34 ↗ proposal my name is Connie Martian I

17:39 ↗ live in Issaquah I sent you an email

17:46 ↗ that shows historically the amount of

17:49 ↗ impervious surface bla-bla-bla that the

17:51 ↗ district has used just as a basis for

17:55 ↗ understanding a little bit more about

17:58 ↗ what's going on remember that the

18:01 ↗ district is not necessarily just buying

18:03 ↗ or trying to get small parcels it also

18:06 ↗ has some large parcels that it wants to

18:11 ↗ use so if you say it can have a large

18:14 ↗ amount of impervious surface there's

18:16 ↗ nothing saying that they cannot just use

18:19 ↗ that impervious surface for more surface

18:22 ↗ parking and so it is difficult to create

18:27 ↗ a code that allows for a smart small

18:32 ↗ parcel to be used without the unintended

18:35 ↗ consequences of just creating a vast sea

18:39 ↗ of asphalt and a large parcel and so how

18:43 ↗ do you solve this sort of conundrum

18:45 ↗ within the code you you could split it

18:49 ↗ in two sizes of parcels sort of like

18:51 ↗ they did with retail and and parking

18:54 ↗ right if the size of the parcel is going

18:57 ↗ to be X then the surface parking you

19:00 ↗ know becomes up to the School District

19:03 ↗ how much land do they want to try to

19:04 ↗ preserve for play food fields as to how

19:07 ↗ much they want to put in there surface

19:09 ↗ parking but then if you have a large

19:12 ↗ parcel it could force them to do

19:14 ↗ structured parking to try to preserve

19:17 ↗ the excess land for things like trees an

19:20 ↗ actual impervious surface when I mean

19:22 ↗ pervious surface when they do have the

19:24 ↗ luxury on a larger parcel of keeping the

19:27 ↗ land more intact if you read the code as

19:31 ↗ presented it doesn't address the

19:34 ↗ difficulty that I'm discussing and the

19:37 ↗ way it was given to you it sounds like

19:41 ↗ the only conversation you can have is

19:42 ↗ about the parking itself and so I don't

19:47 ↗ think that we know enough about the

19:50 ↗ consequences of this code we don't

19:53 ↗ understand even what the process would

19:57 ↗ be for the small parcel at the top of

19:59 ↗ the hill because both development

20:01 ↗ agreements are coming to their close and

20:03 ↗ they're going to become code and that is

20:05 ↗ going to potentially change the process

20:08 ↗ for anything adjacent to those areas

20:11 ↗ which that parcel is and so I think it's

20:16 ↗ unwise to come to a conclusion at this

20:18 ↗ point in time I don't think anyone

20:20 ↗ entirely understands the consequences

20:23 ↗ because too many codes are swirling at

20:25 ↗ the same time the school district is

20:30 ↗ trying to not spend money and trying to

20:38 ↗ create sort of tighter suburban schools

20:41 ↗ my point of view is that the city is

20:44 ↗ trying to create a more urban footprint

20:48 ↗ for schools with all the appurtenances

20:51 ↗ that you would find in an urban school

20:53 ↗ we don't know because we actually have

20:56 ↗ no policy for urban schools so you're

20:58 ↗ trying to make this decision in a void

21:01 ↗ of policy and so to me the whole thing

21:04 ↗ is just awkward and so unlikely to come

21:08 ↗ have a good outcome and I expect that if

21:12 ↗ you pass this tonight and the council

21:14 ↗ passes it will be revisiting again next

21:16 ↗ year because of the unintended

21:17 ↗ consequences

21:19 ↗ I have not gone on as long as Steve I

21:23 ↗ could but I'm going to let somebody else

21:25 ↗ chat after me thanks thanks Connie

21:30 ↗ would anybody like else like to make any

21:32 ↗ comments on the proposal just on the

21:37 ↗ proposal for the parking

21:52 ↗ hi thank you um sorry I'm late hi my

21:59 ↗ name is Susan and Susan Hasson they live

22:02 ↗ at 195 to 4 southeast 24th place it's a

22:06 ↗ mammoth and I'm a volunteer at a

22:08 ↗ Issaquah food and clothing blank bank

22:10 ↗ not blank and I'm a vendor for the

22:14 ↗ Recology clean escapes tour and my

22:18 ↗ comment is and I apologize if Jennifer

22:21 ↗ read it but I don't think she probably

22:22 ↗ has okay did I get I plowed the

22:26 ↗ Commission's headway toward efficiently

22:28 ↗ built new and redeveloped public schools

22:30 ↗ new standards including some required

22:33 ↗ structured parking would make smaller

22:35 ↗ than usual parcels feasible for schools

22:37 ↗ thus facilitating school siting still

22:43 ↗ the Commission's intention that appears

22:46 ↗ to be to allow the district to build to

22:47 ↗ those standards on any cff parcel even

22:51 ↗ if it is green open space covered with

22:54 ↗ tree canopy and are large for this

22:57 ↗ reason I suggest that the Commission

23:00 ↗ please revise the code amendment to

23:03 ↗ state that the new standards apply to

23:04 ↗ smaller than usual parcels and that

23:07 ↗ school development is subject to the

23:09 ↗ city's site planning public process

23:13 ↗ regulations and other policies for

23:16 ↗ retaining trees and open space etc such

23:20 ↗ a revision would clarify the

23:22 ↗ Commission's definition of the

23:24 ↗ characteristics and location of urban

23:27 ↗ schools that one small change would make

23:30 ↗ a difference thank you for your

23:32 ↗ consideration and also thank you for

23:36 ↗ your patience I'm quite new to learning

23:39 ↗ about all these various policies and how

23:42 ↗ they fit together in processes and Trish

23:44 ↗ Heinonen explained a lot to me today

23:48 ↗ that there are other down the road

23:52 ↗ levels that would talk about trees and

23:55 ↗ things like that one example I was

23:59 ↗ thinking of his Providence Heights could

24:01 ↗ these standards would be subject to

24:03 ↗ compartment Heights be subject to these

24:05 ↗ standards

24:06 ↗ for the CFF if it were rezone cff and

24:09 ↗ she said well there are other

24:10 ↗ regulations down the road but I just

24:12 ↗ really strongly believe that if you

24:14 ↗ clarify this up front it would really

24:16 ↗ help everybody understand like the

24:19 ↗ citizens in the school district and the

24:22 ↗ City Council thank you so much ice-t

24:43 ↗ Pereira old town is about 10 years so

24:47 ↗ one of the things I think of was that

24:48 ↗ before this current term of PPC started

24:52 ↗ I think it was council president Goodman

24:55 ↗ came and talked to you all and said that

24:58 ↗ we really value your input and I think

25:00 ↗ that's kind of the basis for considering

25:02 ↗ obviously I have my opinion of where you

25:04 ↗ should go with this but her point and my

25:07 ↗ point I think is you don't always have

25:09 ↗ to take just the facts that are

25:10 ↗ presented before you and vote on them

25:12 ↗ you can give valid opinion that might be

25:14 ↗ broader or different than just the

25:16 ↗ specific scope that's presented to you

25:18 ↗ and so to me this scope of what should

25:23 ↗ structured parking be isn't the right

25:25 ↗ scope or perspective as Connie said

25:28 ↗ there's so much more than use to go into

25:30 ↗ this I think the whole issue of what is

25:36 ↗ a urban school needs to be considered as

25:38 ↗ policy beyond just the structured

25:40 ↗ parking piece so please take the time to

25:43 ↗ consider that in your deliberations and

25:45 ↗ provide that input if that's what you

25:47 ↗ feel is best on the structured parking

25:51 ↗ piece it seems to me that 50 percent

25:54 ↗ that was advised for the other pieces

25:56 ↗ like commercial and business and all

26:00 ↗ that it's an economy of how do we get

26:03 ↗ people to come to Issaquah with cases

26:05 ↗ schools though we don't have to get

26:07 ↗ people to come to school as they come to

26:08 ↗ schools and in fact be able to come to

26:10 ↗ Issaquah because we have high quality

26:12 ↗ schools so we don't have to incentivize

26:14 ↗ them by having a lower parking

26:16 ↗ percentage required

26:17 ↗ so based on that I would see indeed 100%

26:21 ↗ requirement seems to be an appropriate

26:23 ↗ level for me for what should the

26:25 ↗ structured requirement parking be for

26:27 ↗ schools again anything we can do to

26:31 ↗ Street shrink the footprint of schools

26:34 ↗ because when we look at the city

26:38 ↗ documents and it talks about things like

26:39 ↗ pre canopy in our natural environment

26:41 ↗ those are the things that were risking

26:42 ↗ destroying not just by cutting them down

26:44 ↗ but tame them down on places that aren't

26:48 ↗ designed to have that structure to have

26:52 ↗ that zoning in place so take the time

26:57 ↗ now to say let's take a pause it's okay

26:59 ↗ to take a pause and and have a higher

27:02 ↗ requirement and let's look at that

27:04 ↗ structured parking in that wider

27:05 ↗ perspective so we don't have to keep

27:07 ↗ revisiting it piece by piece thanks

27:19 ↗ my name is Mary Lynch and I just want to

27:21 ↗ build on what Connie and Steve said and

27:24 ↗ also kind of support some of the stuff

27:25 ↗ that Steve's also said Crawford said is

27:30 ↗ that I think we need better definition

27:32 ↗ on what this is actually coming from as

27:35 ↗ far as area of the city you know it's

27:39 ↗ right now covering all the parcels and

27:41 ↗ all the classifications and I really

27:43 ↗ think that we need to have policy for

27:44 ↗ urban schools before we can begin to

27:46 ↗ define this better because the other

27:48 ↗ thing is Steve mentioned underground

27:50 ↗ parking well I don't really think

27:51 ↗ underground parking is very feasible in

27:53 ↗ most of the seei of the central area

27:56 ↗ plan of Issaquah because if you go to

27:58 ↗ over to the library you'll notice that

28:00 ↗ is a flood zone and it has flooded

28:02 ↗ before so some of these is not even

28:05 ↗ feasible to consider underground parking

28:07 ↗ in a lot of these places the other

28:09 ↗ things we haven't talked about urban

28:11 ↗ schools a lot of the urban schools when

28:13 ↗ you're really looking at it and you're

28:14 ↗ going up with parking what's on top of

28:17 ↗ them they're soccer fields so that's how

28:20 ↗ you can combine some of the pervious

28:22 ↗ surfaces together so and maybe cut the

28:25 ↗ cost some too so there's a lot of

28:27 ↗ options that can do it but until we have

28:30 ↗ some clear sitting down from the school

28:32 ↗ district the city and the public talking

28:35 ↗ about what we want the future of

28:37 ↗ Issaquah and our schools to be and

28:39 ↗ hopefully getting that other arm in

28:42 ↗ there the developers who may be and the

28:44 ↗ people that own the land talking

28:46 ↗ together and defining what the policies

28:48 ↗ is what we want to look like and what

28:50 ↗ the needs are I really think this is

28:53 ↗ trying to homies go in the right

28:55 ↗ direction because you're trying to

28:56 ↗ reduce the amount of space use but I

28:58 ↗ think it's too soon and we tried to do

29:00 ↗ this with a central area plan and what

29:02 ↗ are we doing again we're back we're

29:03 ↗ doing the codes so let's do this in the

29:05 ↗ right phase let's make sure we have the

29:07 ↗ policy make let's make sure we have all

29:09 ↗ the players together that are sitting

29:11 ↗ down and talking before we make the

29:13 ↗ decision just because it's we're doing

29:16 ↗ something else right now thank you to

29:20 ↗ make a comment

29:22 ↗ as anybody else can't talk anybody else

29:26 ↗ into making comment okay with that I

29:29 ↗ will close the public hearing at 7:05

29:32 ↗ and it open it up to starting to stand

29:40 ↗ up I know if you had someone say Steve

29:46 ↗ Crawford again just quick comment we

29:50 ↗ could look at putting the whole football

29:51 ↗ field the La Crosse soccer track on top

29:54 ↗ of parking that's still going to be 100%

29:57 ↗ impervious area the whole thing and with

30:04 ↗ that I will close the public hearing at

30:06 ↗ 7:05 and I appreciate all your comments

30:12 ↗ I mean they're all valid they're all

30:16 ↗ coming from concerned citizens so that's

30:18 ↗ that's positive because those are the

30:21 ↗ people who have been looking through all

30:24 ↗ this and and judging what the value is

30:27 ↗ Jennifer would you like to say anything

30:30 ↗ else or contribute maybe I can start it

30:35 ↗ what are the ramifications with waiting

30:39 ↗ to make a final decision on this I can

30:47 ↗ talk to it because I think we we very we

30:50 ↗ discussed it at the July 13th hearing q

30:52 ↗ um I don't know Kathy did you want to

30:55 ↗ jump in no okay you were grabbing the

30:56 ↗ microphone sighs I am so the school

31:01 ↗ district has bond money that they need

31:04 ↗ to spend in order for them to spend that

31:07 ↗ money to say to buy new land they need

31:09 ↗ some level of understanding on what the

31:11 ↗ requirements are going to be so that

31:12 ↗ they can cite and find land that they

31:15 ↗ can meet the requirements for so this is

31:18 ↗ all kind of time crunched based on when

31:22 ↗ that bond money needs to be expended and

31:24 ↗ how quickly they need to find land and

31:27 ↗ if I remember correctly the bond passed

31:29 ↗ in 2016 so um

31:34 ↗ three and a half go maybe a little more

31:36 ↗ so time is feeling like it's running out

31:40 ↗ so it's time based on year so it's time

31:43 ↗ based on months because there could be X

31:47 ↗ actually additional comments so they're

31:50 ↗ gonna so let me let me jump in so

31:52 ↗ they're gonna they're moving forward

31:54 ↗ buying property now okay and you know if

31:57 ↗ we don't pass code amendments they will

32:00 ↗ bring their land use applications in and

32:02 ↗ we will process it against the

32:04 ↗ regulations that are in place now so

32:07 ↗ what we're trying to do is work with the

32:08 ↗ school district to put more appropriate

32:12 ↗ provisions in place including and I

32:15 ↗ think what we realized after we'd come

32:18 ↗ through PPC the first time with those

32:20 ↗ code amendments was that we had not

32:22 ↗ addressed parking and that by shrinking

32:25 ↗ by allowing the buildings to get taller

32:28 ↗ and the setbacks to be reduced I think

32:30 ↗ to Connie's point you are basically

32:34 ↗ creating more space on the property for

32:36 ↗ something and the worst outcome would be

32:39 ↗ surface parking lot right so we said

32:41 ↗ okay let's let's require as was

32:44 ↗ happening with residential commercial

32:46 ↗ and retail let's propose requiring a

32:49 ↗ portion of that parking to be in

32:51 ↗ structure so that's that's kind of how

32:54 ↗ we landed here tonight was we're

32:56 ↗ catching up a piece that I think we

32:58 ↗ admittedly didn't think of originally

33:00 ↗ otherwise it would have been part of

33:02 ↗ that original package that we brought

33:04 ↗ forward to you guys for consideration

33:06 ↗ last month Keith and Jennifer can you

33:09 ↗ speak to but when we spoke about this

33:12 ↗ the first part of the package in July we

33:14 ↗ had talked about creating an urban

33:16 ↗ school policy where we add on staff kind

33:19 ↗ of is that in process well I realized

33:22 ↗ that isn't in front of us today is do we

33:24 ↗ have any update on that you guys

33:26 ↗ receiving those comments and working on

33:28 ↗ that it's again one of the many work

33:30 ↗ items you have or we have any update on

33:33 ↗ that so the recommendation as it's being

33:35 ↗ processed through the the public process

33:37 ↗ right now the agenda bill for the bulk

33:40 ↗ of the amendments that we processed or

33:43 ↗ that we brought to you in July 13th is

33:45 ↗ making its way to Council right

33:47 ↗ now in that is the recommendation that

33:49 ↗ you guys made for us to look at urban

33:52 ↗ school policy within the next year's

33:54 ↗ what I actually think the timeline was

33:56 ↗ that was in the recommendation so that's

33:58 ↗ in there that's for councils

33:59 ↗ consideration but that that is actually

34:02 ↗ an existing objective in your

34:06 ↗ recommendations or in your

34:07 ↗ recommendations from July 13th so some

34:12 ↗ of the comments have talked about you

34:14 ↗ know don't rush this idea you know

34:17 ↗ there's no problem in waiting we should

34:19 ↗ consider urban schools before moving

34:21 ↗ forward with this one question I have is

34:24 ↗ if if we put in a 50% and make that make

34:33 ↗ that decision before the urban schools

34:35 ↗ conversation has happened we still have

34:39 ↗ the option then when the urban schools

34:40 ↗ conversation happens to change that

34:43 ↗ number right and are you seeing we as in

34:45 ↗ that study the city and yo yes okay

34:48 ↗ because the the idea that's running

34:51 ↗ through my mind is okay if we stall and

34:54 ↗ wait for that urban schools conversation

34:56 ↗ to happen up to a year from now and the

34:59 ↗ school district makes a purchase of land

35:02 ↗ with the assumption that they can put

35:04 ↗ all surface parking on it you know that

35:08 ↗ changes things so so I've stayed in my

35:15 ↗ position here and and I you all know it

35:18 ↗ so I want to present an argument and

35:21 ↗ then the intention of the argument is to

35:23 ↗ invoke discussion and based on what

35:26 ↗ we've heard from the school district so

35:28 ↗ far if we look at the future cost of

35:29 ↗ money we were kind of quoted here 4,000

35:33 ↗ per space versus 20,000 per space Lanna

35:37 ↗ is at a super premium with in Issaquah

35:39 ↗ so and we're talking about possibly

35:42 ↗ using eminent domain where if we invoke

35:45 ↗ eminent domain the real estate costs

35:48 ↗ will actually go up higher because now

35:49 ↗ you also have to associate legal costs

35:52 ↗ just tied to that parcel as well if we

35:56 ↗ use a rule of thumb of 90 95 percent

36:01 ↗ structured parking so anywhere from five

36:04 ↗ to twenty stalls would be allowed for

36:07 ↗ maybe the front of the school for

36:09 ↗ visitors it is a more efficient and

36:14 ↗ effective use of a scarce resource

36:18 ↗ though both money and in terms of land

36:21 ↗ itself so and I also I'm not pushing

36:26 ↗ back on the schools in terms of trying

36:30 ↗ to be difficult

36:31 ↗ I want top-line schools but I also

36:33 ↗ realize that we are a growing community

36:35 ↗ and so there will be ever more pressure

36:38 ↗ on our schools and if we acquire smaller

36:42 ↗ parcels today and our student population

36:48 ↗ keeps growing where are we going to put

36:50 ↗ those cars for the teachers the faculty

36:52 ↗ the students and so my concern is that

36:57 ↗ we're not future proofing this

37:01 ↗ discussion by saying only 50% structure

37:05 ↗ parking and in addition to that I feel

37:08 ↗ that providing covered parking for

37:12 ↗ bicycles as well will help mobilize

37:15 ↗ people because of inclement weather and

37:20 ↗ if we start looking at things like

37:22 ↗ ebikes and I think e bikes is a very

37:24 ↗ viable solution future solution that's

37:32 ↗ going to be coming to as a quads

37:33 ↗ extraordinarily popular in Israel and

37:36 ↗ just because the United States today

37:39 ↗ isn't a place where a bikes are a fad it

37:47 ↗ will be coming to our our areas as the

37:50 ↗ cost of bikes go down so I I want to be

37:54 ↗ very careful in moving forward with this

37:57 ↗ proposition and I think 95 percent is

37:59 ↗ absolutely acceptable we could also put

38:02 ↗ in a recommendation to City Council that

38:05 ↗ they consider

38:08 ↗ moving forward with a school and urban

38:10 ↗ school policy as they considered the

38:13 ↗ structured parking requirements and let

38:15 ↗ them actually decide what to do as far

38:18 ↗ as making a decision so let me further

38:26 ↗ this conversation of percentages and

38:29 ↗ their importance between fifty percent

38:32 ↗ and ninety five percent and all of that

38:33 ↗ so the cost of increasing that we're

38:40 ↗ talking here as the cost being to the

38:43 ↗ school district but really we need to

38:46 ↗ think about that

38:46 ↗ since the schools are paid for via bonds

38:49 ↗ the cost comes back to the homeowners

38:52 ↗ and the taxpayers and so when we're

38:55 ↗ talking about the difference between

38:57 ↗ 5000 cents richer than 95 percent

39:00 ↗ structured the the additional cost all

39:04 ↗ goes to the taxpayer so I think we need

39:08 ↗ to kind of consider that and whether or

39:11 ↗ not passing an additional three million

39:14 ↗ dollars on to the taxpayers the right

39:17 ↗ way to do things we have a choice I mean

39:21 ↗ granted I hear your argument I don't

39:24 ↗ want to pay any more than I absolutely

39:25 ↗ have to but when it comes to making the

39:30 ↗ right decisions then and we know that

39:34 ↗ land is going to be an extraordinarily

39:36 ↗ scarce resource how do we move forward

39:39 ↗ with that how do we actually increase

39:41 ↗ capacity if we have 10 acres of land

39:44 ↗ available for a school how do we

39:46 ↗ maximize that for the future of the city

39:49 ↗ I mean look how fast we're growing now

39:52 ↗ think of what I'm trying to look 20

39:54 ↗ years and 30 years out that structure

39:57 ↗ park you know 95% we're putting in as a

40:00 ↗ requirement possibly today may not be 95

40:03 ↗ percent in 20 years it may turn into 50

40:06 ↗ percent because they'll need additional

40:08 ↗ parking space how do we fix that so why

40:12 ↗ would we ask of the school district and

40:14 ↗ taxpayers to hit a 95 percent

40:19 ↗ rate when we're not asking that of

40:22 ↗ developers of retail or housing where

40:26 ↗ they're gonna actually make money off of

40:28 ↗ this because we could either pay it up

40:32 ↗ today or we can pay it up in the future

40:34 ↗ if we paid up in the future it's going

40:37 ↗ to be a lot more expensive and a lot

40:39 ↗ more difficult so let me take a step

40:43 ↗ back what is ultimately our goal in

40:47 ↗ looking at structured parking for school

40:51 ↗ sites is it because we believe that

40:55 ↗ having surface parking lots in front of

40:59 ↗ or behind a school district is bad

41:02 ↗ visually and reduces pedestrians ability

41:06 ↗ to get to the school and all of those

41:07 ↗ things or are we doing it for

41:10 ↗ preservation of open space because if

41:13 ↗ we're talking about the latter then

41:15 ↗ preservation of open space may happen in

41:17 ↗ other ways including asking developers

41:20 ↗ to increase their rate and other things

41:23 ↗ I'm looking at it from an optimization

41:26 ↗ of space so I'm not and I understand the

41:30 ↗ environmental aspect is important but

41:33 ↗ this we need to look at it in terms of a

41:36 ↗ tool how do we make and create the most

41:38 ↗ optimized tool to educator our student

41:42 ↗ body right so by creating a 95 percent

41:51 ↗ structured parking and that could take

41:54 ↗ on a lot of different forms we could put

41:56 ↗ schools on top of parking we could do if

42:00 ↗ we push forward for the requirements let

42:02 ↗ developers come back with a solution we

42:05 ↗ don't know what that solution would look

42:06 ↗ like we don't know that it's a twenty

42:08 ↗ thousand dollar per space parking I

42:10 ↗ think we need more information but if we

42:14 ↗ start off at a 50% as what we have for

42:20 ↗ office space that might be adequate for

42:22 ↗ office space because then they're

42:24 ↗ restricted to the size they can't grow

42:26 ↗ so they move on to a different building

42:28 ↗ our schools are stuck right so we can't

42:32 ↗ just by new property or just create

42:35 ↗ eminent domain and inquire property that

42:37 ↗ way because it's not necessarily right

42:40 ↗ to do that and it may not be

42:42 ↗ cost-effective for us to do that so if

42:44 ↗ we build it let's build it right

42:46 ↗ putting 95% structure parking in today

42:49 ↗ may save us money in the future and if

42:53 ↗ we look at the future costs of money

42:54 ↗ what it would cost us to build a 95%

42:57 ↗ structured parking today may be a lot

43:01 ↗ cheaper and it would be in 20 years from

43:04 ↗ now and so we might actually be money

43:07 ↗ ahead by a record making that

43:08 ↗ requirement today that's what how I'm

43:10 ↗ looking at it I have tons more thoughts

43:12 ↗ but let's open it up and see what's

43:15 ↗ coming out and maybe I'll just have my

43:16 ↗ thoughts I mean maybe it's a risk of

43:18 ↗ being simple I mean at this point in

43:21 ↗ time I appreciate that the thought of

43:24 ↗ being able to have an additional

43:26 ↗ discussion about this in the future when

43:28 ↗ we talk about the school policy and also

43:33 ↗ the need for some certainty right now

43:35 ↗ and then I have a hard time based based

43:39 ↗ on that and knowing we're going to have

43:40 ↗ a future conversation about school

43:41 ↗ policy have a hard time I guess right

43:43 ↗ now coming up with a number that's

43:47 ↗ different than what we're already asking

43:48 ↗ of other land uses and so I mean I'm

43:50 ↗ stuck on the 50% just because I mean if

43:53 ↗ a few months down the road or eight

43:56 ↗ months down the road whatever we want to

43:57 ↗ have a more detailed discussion about it

43:59 ↗ and change it to 75 or reduce it to 25

44:01 ↗ or whatever that's one thing but I mean

44:03 ↗ right now we're just picking numbers out

44:05 ↗ of a hat I think you know and so I say

44:07 ↗ we put 50% in there's certain some some

44:10 ↗ certainty for purchases and use of bond

44:12 ↗ money it's consistent with the existing

44:14 ↗ land uses and then we can have a more

44:16 ↗ informed discussion later that's where I

44:17 ↗ am on it and if our is there a reason

44:20 ↗ that the coast passive specifies public

44:22 ↗ schools rather than including charter

44:24 ↗ schools private schools all schools

44:26 ↗ basically would have to adhere to this

44:27 ↗ code why is it that we specifically say

44:29 ↗ public so let's focus on the fact that

44:31 ↗ schools go public schools go into the

44:34 ↗ sea ffs own that's why okay because

44:37 ↗ private schools wouldn't be raised owned

44:39 ↗ CFF our schools are be sorry would be it

44:42 ↗ would be out on the under commercial

44:43 ↗ they would be whatever the underlying

44:45 ↗ zoning is

44:46 ↗ where they were allowed and I can try

44:48 ↗ and figure all of the different sub

44:49 ↗ areas that we have and where they're all

44:51 ↗ allowed but I don't know that I could do

44:52 ↗ it right off the top of my head okay we

44:55 ↗ have the option of being able to

44:56 ↗ recommend an amount of structured

44:58 ↗ parking for all schools not just for

45:01 ↗ this particular zoning that we're

45:03 ↗ looking at as in the next year you guys

45:07 ↗ are going through our urban schools that

45:09 ↗ applies to not not just our public

45:11 ↗ schools so the way this code amendment

45:14 ↗ is set up is the pieces that we're

45:17 ↗ amending are under the cff zoning

45:20 ↗ description in the land use code so if

45:23 ↗ we were to do amendments like that they

45:25 ↗ would go into a completely different

45:26 ↗ section of the code just just in terms

45:29 ↗ of the logistics that I understand what

45:31 ↗ I'm wondering is that that's even

45:32 ↗ possible if you guys are like we're not

45:33 ↗ really we're we're not willing to touch

45:35 ↗ other places in the code right now or if

45:37 ↗ if that is open that's what my question

45:40 ↗ is I do understand that it probably I

45:45 ↗ would think that it would be open for

45:48 ↗ discussion at a later time when we're

45:50 ↗ putting the whole program together but I

45:55 ↗ don't think it so private so private

46:00 ↗ schools joy is you know that's not what

46:03 ↗ we what we did earlier was office and

46:05 ↗ retail specifically so if if the

46:09 ↗ Commission is interested in adding that

46:12 ↗ it would be a specific ad to central

46:15 ↗ Issaquah to add to the code revisions

46:18 ↗ that we just processed on residential

46:21 ↗ office and retail so if that is indeed

46:25 ↗ something this commission wants to do I

46:28 ↗ think that can be an ask it's as

46:30 ↗ Jennifer said it's separate from what

46:31 ↗ we're doing now but it could be an

46:34 ↗ add-on and we have to figure out how

46:37 ↗ quickly we have staff resources to turn

46:40 ↗ that around I don't I just don't know

46:41 ↗ right now but it would be you guys could

46:43 ↗ make that as a kind of a follow up

46:46 ↗ recommendation if you as a commission

46:48 ↗ felt like that was something that we

46:49 ↗ just met again missed where we're not

46:52 ↗ infallible

46:53 ↗ we missed oh yeah I won am

46:58 ↗ disappointed with how mr. Crawford

47:00 ↗ represented the school district's

47:01 ↗ position as both questioning if we

47:04 ↗ understand what an impervious surface is

47:06 ↗ and then having a kind of what I

47:09 ↗ consider to be a limited scope as to how

47:11 ↗ we use our space I think having

47:14 ↗ structured parking below play fields and

47:17 ↗ being able to combine different pervious

47:18 ↗ surfaces is something that's happened

47:20 ↗ across our country very successfully and

47:21 ↗ having well it does give an increased

47:24 ↗ cost stopping this kind of spread of an

47:26 ↗ asphalt jungle and trying to really

47:28 ↗ create a really true small-scale

47:31 ↗ footprint is essential and I wish that

47:35 ↗ we were hearing a little different

47:38 ↗ perspective from the school district

47:39 ↗ that was encouraging those kinds of

47:41 ↗ maybe out-of-the-box thinking that

47:43 ↗ rather than just saying we would like to

47:45 ↗ have as much as much open sprawling

47:48 ↗ parking as possible so I for one in for

47:51 ↗ a higher amount than 50% I think that

47:54 ↗ our government our schools should be

47:56 ↗ leading a standard when we had our

47:58 ↗ discussions about retail we were talking

48:00 ↗ about trying to encourage people into

48:01 ↗ the community and I would like to see

48:03 ↗ our standards for the schools be

48:05 ↗ something that is has a much higher

48:07 ↗ standard so I do see a difference in

48:09 ↗ putting a different standard if we think

48:12 ↗ that Ron's proposal of 95 percent is a

48:15 ↗ little egregious for some I would be

48:17 ↗ fine

48:17 ↗ to find a middle ground maybe that is

48:20 ↗ 80% and that that makes people feel

48:22 ↗ better about it

48:23 ↗ but I for one would like to vote tonight

48:25 ↗ about increasing the amount beyond the

48:27 ↗ 50% and agree that it shouldn't be

48:30 ↗ something that's table for a future

48:32 ↗ discussion because I do think it's

48:33 ↗ something that we should have in place

48:34 ↗ now for the school district to have to

48:37 ↗ abide by so let me see if I can ask

48:40 ↗ another question are there any urban

48:43 ↗ school policies or structured parking

48:46 ↗ requirements in any other local cities

48:49 ↗ that we know about anything that we can

48:51 ↗ use as guidelines No

48:54 ↗ so now I have to talk so the research

48:59 ↗ that was done as part of the structured

49:05 ↗ parking amendment other than Federal Way

49:09 ↗ which just enacted

49:11 ↗ a requirement for structured parking for

49:13 ↗ multifamily projects I think over a

49:17 ↗ hundred units was 25% that's it

49:22 ↗ everybody else in the region is you know

49:28 ↗ Bellevue wrote a rather detailed email

49:31 ↗ Mike Brennan who serves on development

49:35 ↗ Commission is director of development

49:37 ↗ services in Bellevue and we contacted

49:39 ↗ him regarding the spring district which

49:42 ↗ is again very forward-thinking urban

49:45 ↗ density conversion transit light rail

49:48 ↗ all the good stuff and he said there is

49:51 ↗ no structured parking requirement they

49:53 ↗ specifically decided against that

49:56 ↗ they have taken the position that if

50:01 ↗ land develops it is at a cost and the

50:05 ↗ requirements that are associated with

50:07 ↗ developing in it will lead projects to

50:12 ↗ have to build structured parking so they

50:14 ↗ decided to set the structure in such a

50:19 ↗ way that they think it will result in

50:21 ↗ structured parking so we are definitely

50:27 ↗ leading by a hard mark farm margin

50:33 ↗ so and when when comment for Joy's

50:38 ↗ suggestion just for thought is so this

50:42 ↗ is a this is a minimum requirement so

50:46 ↗ the 50% is is what we would say is

50:48 ↗ minimally expected out of a new school

50:52 ↗ development I mean your comments about

50:54 ↗ the school district should be a leader

50:55 ↗ and should push that to some higher

50:57 ↗ number I guess the question for you is

51:00 ↗ is is the city going to mandate that or

51:03 ↗ is that something that should come out

51:05 ↗ of maybe that follow-up conversation

51:08 ↗ that's more policy related about urban

51:10 ↗ schools and and addressing that form and

51:14 ↗ function a little bit differently then

51:16 ↗ through a required standard and I'm just

51:19 ↗ throwing that out as a thought something

51:20 ↗ for you to think about not suggesting

51:22 ↗ anything other than what you said

51:23 ↗ earlier

51:23 ↗ I wish that

51:25 ↗ the opinions of the school district were

51:27 ↗ presented in a way where they were more

51:29 ↗ open but the way that they've been

51:31 ↗ presented to us in this meeting and in a

51:33 ↗ previous meeting

51:34 ↗ show me that minimums are there for a

51:36 ↗ reason because otherwise get without

51:37 ↗ that lis with giving them so much leeway

51:39 ↗ they're gonna take the smallest amount

51:41 ↗ possible because they believe that

51:43 ↗ that's what's in their better interest

51:44 ↗ and I would like to encourage them to

51:46 ↗ think a little bit better and that's why

51:48 ↗ I would like to increase the minimum I'm

51:50 ↗ not 50 percent well I don't need it to

51:53 ↗ be 95 percent I uh I do I would be a

51:58 ↗ proponent for increasing that amount so

52:03 ↗ I agree with a lot of the things that

52:05 ↗ have been said also by joy as far as the

52:10 ↗ creative use I think that the idea of

52:13 ↗ the play fields over the parking lot yes

52:16 ↗ that would add cost but that's also

52:18 ↗ consolidating impervious surface it's

52:20 ↗ more impervious surface but it's

52:22 ↗ impervious surface and layers on top of

52:24 ↗ itself so it does free up more land to

52:28 ↗ be pervious surface I think that the 50%

52:33 ↗ in the last meeting when we were talking

52:34 ↗ about that it was talked about as being

52:36 ↗ this very aspirational number because

52:39 ↗ there aren't a lot of examples of other

52:42 ↗ other policies where any requirement is

52:46 ↗ required at all and so I think that the

52:49 ↗ 50% in to standardize it with the other

52:52 ↗ businesses that would be what I would be

52:54 ↗ in favor of especially because even that

52:57 ↗ 50% is kind of breaking new ground and

53:01 ↗ hasn't really been tried before and and

53:06 ↗ that's also what we're proposing for

53:08 ↗ these other businesses and I do think

53:11 ↗ it's important for public schools in

53:12 ↗ particular private schools their various

53:16 ↗ and size of public schools too but some

53:19 ↗ public schools that will be in the

53:21 ↗ future will be very large and will have

53:23 ↗ very large parking lots potentially

53:25 ↗ could be very sprawling large parking

53:27 ↗ lots if there's not a requirement so I

53:29 ↗ think that it's important to have some

53:31 ↗ requirement and I think that 50% is a

53:33 ↗ reasonable amount

53:37 ↗ well I I agree it's a very difficult

53:43 ↗ balancing act for the schools and from a

53:47 ↗ taxpayer perspective I want to get the

53:52 ↗ most we can with our money and I'm

53:56 ↗ worried that if we delay this much

54:01 ↗ longer for another year or something

54:02 ↗ school this is going to spend as you

54:06 ↗ said they'll try to do it there's cheap

54:08 ↗ as they can on the other hand of the

54:11 ↗ school districts perspective 95%

54:15 ↗ potentially triple maybe a Drupal the

54:19 ↗ cost of 50% I'm sort of and at least for

54:28 ↗ the present time particularly since we

54:29 ↗ have a money crisis or a time factor for

54:32 ↗ money that's available for a particular

54:34 ↗ project or right now for that bond issue

54:37 ↗ we've got to do something with it or

54:39 ↗ lose it we should go with the 50% and

54:42 ↗ then after the urban policy process goes

54:46 ↗ through we can look at well maybe we

54:49 ↗ need to change from 50% we still have

54:52 ↗ that option but at least we'll have

54:54 ↗ something sit-in primarily so the school

54:57 ↗ district can do their job and make plans

55:00 ↗ I agree I think that the school

55:09 ↗ districts have a lot of work and

55:11 ↗ problems trying to actually at the

55:15 ↗ schools honest particular piece of

55:17 ↗ property and I think that having the

55:21 ↗ semi requirement of at least 50% and

55:24 ↗ that as as he said a minimum of 50% will

55:29 ↗ get us through the next round of

55:33 ↗ meetings that we can put people together

55:37 ↗ to address the issue and see where we're

55:41 ↗ going and I don't know how much power

55:44 ↗ the city has in actually designing the

55:47 ↗ schools because the city doesn't know

55:49 ↗ what

55:50 ↗ the schools need only the school

55:53 ↗ district with their background and their

55:54 ↗ information knows exactly what the

55:57 ↗ schools need and how to put it together

55:59 ↗ and if we sit down with this middy or

56:04 ↗ whatever you want to call it and you do

56:07 ↗ come up with creative solutions I think

56:11 ↗ that's where we need to go more than

56:13 ↗ mandating that 95% or 100% of parking be

56:17 ↗ in in covered parking my daughter my

56:23 ↗ grandkids go to school in Hong Kong and

56:25 ↗ they are in a big building with arcing

56:30 ↗ underneath and their school is on top of

56:32 ↗ the there is no land over there either

56:35 ↗ to to expand and so that's an option

56:40 ↗ that I think we need to look at and I

56:42 ↗ think everything should be on the table

56:45 ↗ and it's hard once you're working for a

56:49 ↗ school district or any organization and

56:51 ↗ you work hard hard hard and this is what

56:55 ↗ you come up with and you just assume

56:57 ↗ that that's the way it's going to be and

56:59 ↗ it's you don't think out of the box and

57:02 ↗ I think we need to really think out of

57:05 ↗ the box for the future for our schools

57:08 ↗ not just demanding 95 or 100 percent I

57:12 ↗ think there's a lot to learn and and do

57:16 ↗ but the school district needs to go

57:18 ↗ forward I don't think they're there they

57:20 ↗ might be looking at parcels of land but

57:22 ↗ I don't think they're worth looking at

57:23 ↗ for specific things and I think we can

57:28 ↗ always come back in a few months and and

57:30 ↗ have some negotiating and see exactly if

57:34 ↗ we can think out of the box and come up

57:36 ↗ with better ideas so I agree with the at

57:39 ↗ this point in time the minimum 50% would

57:41 ↗ be a starting point of where we should

57:44 ↗ go so any other comments you've all made

57:48 ↗ some reasonable good explanation of

57:53 ↗ where you are I do need if we go forward

57:55 ↗ I do need a I want to make a motion one

58:00 ↗ way or the other to

58:02 ↗ continue on with this Oh Troy we look

58:04 ↗ like you're ready yeah I would move that

58:06 ↗ we passed the amendment as proposed by

58:11 ↗ staff exactly make a second emotion you

58:16 ↗ can make an amendment to the motion the

58:18 ↗ motions on the table right now fifty

58:20 ↗ percent so I like to make an amendment

58:22 ↗ to the motion that we include one on a

58:27 ↗ percent covered parking for bicycles

58:32 ↗ unless there is already capacity unless

58:35 ↗ there is already sufficient covered

58:42 ↗ covered parking for bicycles and I would

58:46 ↗ like to make an amendment to the motion

58:48 ↗ that we raise it to at least sixty

58:51 ↗ percent the maker of the motion has to

58:55 ↗ agree to the amendment does the make or

58:57 ↗ the motion agree to the amendment and

58:59 ↗ you're not a motion the amendment from

59:06 ↗ what I understand right okay so there's

59:09 ↗ a motion on the on the on the table of

59:12 ↗ accepting the 50% structured parking as

59:15 ↗ as proposed by ask all those in favor

59:20 ↗ say aye aye opposed nay

59:24 ↗ all right so we have four four and three

59:28 ↗ against so I would assume that the

59:30 ↗ motion passes with that we will go into

59:37 ↗ the second discussion on that was the

59:42 ↗ easy one

59:42 ↗ [Laughter]

59:48 ↗ no he's not but I think we have to make

59:51 ↗ it clear that that there is going to be

59:54 ↗ more discussion with the people that are

59:57 ↗ in the know that continue this we will

1:00:04 ↗ be back okay

1:00:06 ↗ we need to say that in the action missed

1:00:13 ↗ opportunity so good evening I'm Lucy

1:00:20 ↗ slum and land development manager DSD

1:00:24 ↗ tonight we are having a public hearing

1:00:28 ↗ on the design manual which is a new tool

1:00:34 ↗ as I mentioned in my email we know that

1:00:39 ↗ there are punctuation grammar

1:00:41 ↗ wordsmithing issues and that InDesign

1:00:44 ↗ has created a somewhat funky document so

1:00:48 ↗ if as you see things feel free to email

1:00:51 ↗ me also feel free to ask questions as we

1:00:56 ↗ go along this evening so just for a

1:01:01 ↗ little bit of history

1:01:03 ↗ July 11th 2016 staff did the first

1:01:10 ↗ required three year evaluation of

1:01:13 ↗ central Issaquah we evaluated 14

1:01:16 ↗ projects they all complied with the

1:01:18 ↗ Central's clause standards and they were

1:01:22 ↗ considered not to have met the

1:01:24 ↗ community's expectations that led to the

1:01:29 ↗ more as part of the moratorium on

1:01:31 ↗ September 6th architectural fit and

1:01:34 ↗ urban design were identified as two work

1:01:37 ↗ plan items subsequently were combined

1:01:40 ↗ into a single item and the consultant

1:01:44 ↗ Crandall Aram Beulah was hired to

1:01:47 ↗ prepare the manual so what we're talking

1:01:53 ↗ about tonight and I'd like to invite

1:01:56 ↗ there are three members the development

1:01:59 ↗ commission that are here tonight we've

1:02:01 ↗ set up the table so that they can come

1:02:04 ↗ and join in we're thinking of this kind

1:02:07 ↗ of like what we've been doing with the

1:02:08 ↗ UV DC and PPC in anticipation of the

1:02:13 ↗ ending of the development agreements and

1:02:14 ↗ so because this is going to be the tool

1:02:18 ↗ that DC will

1:02:19 ↗ going forward we thought and since

1:02:21 ↗ they've spent all this time it seemed

1:02:22 ↗ appropriate for there to be a dialog so

1:02:25 ↗ I would invite you up to the table and

1:02:31 ↗ I'm I know these men are famous but they

1:02:34 ↗ should probably introduce themselves

1:02:37 ↗ infamous is this one okay my name is

1:02:53 ↗ Richard so I'm the chair of the

1:02:54 ↗ Development Commission I'm Randi

1:02:56 ↗ Harrison and Mel Morgan I'm the vice

1:03:00 ↗ chair of the development Commission so

1:03:03 ↗ as you can see up on the screen we have

1:03:07 ↗ held a number of meetings six with the

1:03:09 ↗ development Commission and two with the

1:03:11 ↗ council as work sessions in those

1:03:14 ↗ meetings

1:03:15 ↗ Crandell Aram Beulah and sometimes city

1:03:19 ↗ staff have assessed some of the

1:03:21 ↗ challenges that central akua's faced in

1:03:24 ↗ implementing the centralist law

1:03:25 ↗ standards identified the components that

1:03:28 ↗ would be incorporated into the design

1:03:31 ↗ manual and spent several meetings

1:03:34 ↗ reviewing the first draft so I think the

1:03:42 ↗ thing we're going to sort of start with

1:03:43 ↗ the conclusion which is the checklist

1:03:47 ↗ that Crandall Aram Billa developed it

1:03:52 ↗ highlights that the design manual is

1:03:54 ↗ divided into two primary components

1:03:57 ↗ architecture and urban design and that

1:04:00 ↗ the purpose is really to create a tool

1:04:04 ↗ that both staff and the Development

1:04:06 ↗ Commission can use to track the reviews

1:04:09 ↗ and figure out whether a proposal is in

1:04:15 ↗ compliance and we have already used this

1:04:19 ↗ as sort of a trial run with a project

1:04:21 ↗ that was approved under central is claw

1:04:24 ↗ as sort of a test case that was a good

1:04:27 ↗ opportunity for us to see how this might

1:04:29 ↗ work

1:04:32 ↗ now what I'd like to do is kind of run

1:04:35 ↗ through sort of at a high level the

1:04:38 ↗ components and look at some of the

1:04:41 ↗ important details the first is that

1:04:47 ↗ Crandall Aram Beulah which I sometimes

1:04:50 ↗ call CA just because it's easier to say

1:04:54 ↗ divided central Issaquah into two main

1:04:57 ↗ districts there was the urban core which

1:05:01 ↗ is the area that's sort of missing from

1:05:03 ↗ here and then the other everything else

1:05:08 ↗ surrounding the urban core was the

1:05:10 ↗ second district called traditional

1:05:12 ↗ Issaquah just note that they've called

1:05:15 ↗ out certain neighborhoods East like

1:05:17 ↗ Darcy and Gilman that was aren't all the

1:05:20 ↗ neighborhoods that are in that

1:05:21 ↗ surrounding area I'm not quite sure why

1:05:23 ↗ they chose those but I cheated and use

1:05:25 ↗ their slides one of the policy questions

1:05:30 ↗ which I didn't include in the memo but

1:05:32 ↗ which might be a good place to talk

1:05:36 ↗ about with the two Commission's is the

1:05:41 ↗ way the manual is currently structured

1:05:44 ↗ has a fairly bright edge between the

1:05:48 ↗ urban core and this traditional Issaquah

1:05:51 ↗ area the Commission spent a lot of time

1:05:53 ↗ talking about that should those edges be

1:05:57 ↗ blurrier ca looked at they watched the

1:06:02 ↗ videotapes of the Commission sessions

1:06:05 ↗ staff talked about it both staff and

1:06:09 ↗ Crandall or ambulance after

1:06:13 ↗ concurred with Crandall or rambilas

1:06:15 ↗ position that we should keep a brighter

1:06:17 ↗ edge but that is one thing that may be

1:06:21 ↗ worth talking about either now or later

1:06:24 ↗ about whether that should continue to be

1:06:27 ↗ a brighter edge or should be blurry or

1:06:32 ↗ line between the two districts

1:06:40 ↗ if you want I I guess I feel a little

1:06:45 ↗ compelled to set the stage a little

1:06:46 ↗ differently as a member of the

1:06:50 ↗ development mission one of the things we

1:06:51 ↗ continue struggle with was having

1:06:55 ↗ developers come present make

1:06:56 ↗ presentations to us and our response

1:06:59 ↗ being well we're not sure we like it but

1:07:01 ↗ it's consistent with the rules and

1:07:03 ↗ regulations and so we need something

1:07:05 ↗ more we we needed something more to be

1:07:07 ↗ able to help us be more definitive and

1:07:10 ↗ what our expectations were and so so

1:07:13 ↗ that generated the whole notion of the

1:07:16 ↗ design manual and the consequence of

1:07:19 ↗ that is that because we struggle so much

1:07:23 ↗ often having to say well it meets the

1:07:25 ↗ standards so we can't really complain

1:07:27 ↗ about it or change it or challenge it

1:07:29 ↗ very much it's not liking something

1:07:30 ↗ doesn't usually get you very far we want

1:07:33 ↗ it to be real specific so you're always

1:07:36 ↗ trying to balance that notion of

1:07:38 ↗ prescriptive versus aspirational as CA

1:07:42 ↗ always said you know I mean the bottom

1:07:44 ↗ line is in the in the purest sense would

1:07:47 ↗ like it to be black and white but the

1:07:49 ↗ reality is there's nothing black and

1:07:51 ↗ white you know so being able to try to

1:07:53 ↗ be as definitive as possible but not

1:07:55 ↗ eliminate options or that when you get

1:07:59 ↗ right on a borderline is it absolutely

1:08:01 ↗ imperative that it if it's in one zone

1:08:03 ↗ it has to be this and if it's not we

1:08:05 ↗ think we think there's some grounds for

1:08:07 ↗ dialogue and discussion but our our

1:08:10 ↗ general default is to be as prescriptive

1:08:12 ↗ as we possibly can so that we can

1:08:14 ↗ eliminate confusion in the dialogue

1:08:16 ↗ that's the whole point of the design

1:08:17 ↗ name Lucy so is your recommendation then

1:08:21 ↗ to keep Lucy's idea of a bright edge at

1:08:25 ↗ the discretion of the Development

1:08:27 ↗ Commission we I think I think in general

1:08:30 ↗ we would like as bright edge as possible

1:08:32 ↗ acknowledging that there are times when

1:08:35 ↗ that just doesn't make sense that we

1:08:37 ↗ don't want to we don't want to miss

1:08:39 ↗ opportunities because of a arbitrary

1:08:41 ↗ line that something we decided that that

1:08:43 ↗ was a good thing to do right so it it

1:08:45 ↗ really like I said I prefer I think our

1:08:48 ↗ preference would be to make it as black

1:08:50 ↗ and white as

1:08:50 ↗ but there's also got to be

1:08:52 ↗ acknowledgement that it's never always

1:08:53 ↗ black and white

1:08:54 ↗ that's that's what always causes the

1:08:56 ↗ dialogue is the tough that's the tough

1:08:58 ↗ go instead of one line around you're

1:09:00 ↗ going to have to so there's this area

1:09:02 ↗ between the two designations where it

1:09:06 ↗ could be either one well I think we'd

1:09:08 ↗ like to have one line well I mean that's

1:09:10 ↗ kind of an easy way out for also also

1:09:12 ↗ recognize that that may not always work

1:09:15 ↗ I would add at this point that one of

1:09:20 ↗ the benefits that I think the Commission

1:09:23 ↗ sees with this approach is that it's not

1:09:26 ↗ just the city that benefits from this

1:09:29 ↗ it's the potential applicants does the

1:09:32 ↗ we believe the effect of this will to

1:09:35 ↗ give someone who wants to come into

1:09:37 ↗ Issaquah and and do something a much

1:09:40 ↗ clearer set of wealth I can't do that

1:09:44 ↗ there I can't do this kind of

1:09:47 ↗ architecture here but I may be able to

1:09:49 ↗ do over there the point is that we

1:09:52 ↗ believe it will have a significant

1:09:54 ↗ benefit in helping applicants before

1:09:56 ↗ they even come before the city staff

1:09:58 ↗ with their initial initial paperwork to

1:10:01 ↗ understand what the city wants and where

1:10:03 ↗ we want it I'll throw one other thing

1:10:07 ↗ too I think that I think one of the

1:10:11 ↗ concerns about the bright line is the

1:10:13 ↗ only design that's allowed within the

1:10:16 ↗ urban core is the northwest traditional

1:10:20 ↗ so there's only one style in a fairly

1:10:22 ↗ large area of Issaquah where a lot of

1:10:24 ↗ developments should take place where

1:10:27 ↗ there's only a single style that could

1:10:28 ↗ happen I think the commissioners felt

1:10:30 ↗ more inclined to allow other styles to

1:10:33 ↗ seep into the urban core as opposed to

1:10:36 ↗ letting Northwest contemporary seep out

1:10:38 ↗ into traditional Issaquah that would be

1:10:42 ↗ where I think the bright line could be a

1:10:43 ↗ problem

1:10:44 ↗ we don't allow some seepage I guess we

1:10:47 ↗ call

1:10:48 ↗ well that really would be a bright line

1:10:50 ↗ at the discretion of the Development

1:10:52 ↗ Commission a case-by-case basis right

1:10:55 ↗ now the way it's written within the

1:10:56 ↗ urban core you can only do the

1:10:58 ↗ traditional northwest traditional style

1:11:01 ↗ and nothing else

1:11:04 ↗ transpiration of DC it's at the it would

1:11:07 ↗ be it would be in code so right now this

1:11:10 ↗ has gone forward ultimately to the

1:11:12 ↗ council - then get codified and it would

1:11:14 ↗ be then in code so DC would have clear

1:11:19 ↗ direction on what architecture could go

1:11:21 ↗ where it's not they you know this was

1:11:25 ↗ bantered back and forth and I don't

1:11:26 ↗ think all of the commissioners landed in

1:11:29 ↗ the same spot on whether that should be

1:11:31 ↗ a bright line or whether it should have

1:11:33 ↗ some flexibility and I think part of at

1:11:37 ↗ least the conversation at DC was it's

1:11:42 ↗ kind of like a new pair of trousers

1:11:43 ↗ we're gonna try it on and see how it

1:11:45 ↗ fits and as you know as things come

1:11:48 ↗ through we're gonna have some

1:11:49 ↗ realizations that you know what you know

1:11:52 ↗ maybe after we see the second or third

1:11:54 ↗ building that looks the same we might

1:11:55 ↗ want to say hey you know what some

1:11:57 ↗ flexibility in that line might make a

1:11:58 ↗ lot of sense at that point I don't know

1:12:00 ↗ I think I think we all kind of agreed

1:12:02 ↗ that let's take this thing for a test

1:12:05 ↗ run and see how it how it plays so so I

1:12:09 ↗ guess could we see what that would look

1:12:12 ↗ like written but you're asking what's

1:12:17 ↗ being proposed right now is bright line

1:12:19 ↗ okay hard bright line hard bright line

1:12:22 ↗ no flexibility so what I was hearing

1:12:24 ↗ from DC is maybe it might make sense to

1:12:28 ↗ look at some of the how many styles were

1:12:31 ↗ there proposed there's one in the urban

1:12:34 ↗ core and six in traditional East quad

1:12:36 ↗ yeah so maybe some of those six we

1:12:40 ↗ consider okay for the urban core such as

1:12:44 ↗ the Northwest Revival style that is a

1:12:46 ↗ little bit taller or something like that

1:12:48 ↗ and that might keep that bright line but

1:12:52 ↗ still present more options so that we're

1:12:55 ↗ not getting the same project in the

1:12:57 ↗ urban core over and over and over again

1:12:59 ↗ maybe

1:13:02 ↗ well and and and I I think I want to

1:13:07 ↗ just tag on to what well a couple of

1:13:09 ↗ things one I would say Richard reminded

1:13:14 ↗ me of something that I had meant to say

1:13:15 ↗ earlier which was the code was central

1:13:21 ↗ his quest a nerds were intentionally

1:13:22 ↗ written focused on urban design and not

1:13:24 ↗ architecture and we tried that for a

1:13:27 ↗ number of years and we're deciding that

1:13:29 ↗ didn't those are the trousers they

1:13:31 ↗ didn't fit right we're gonna take them

1:13:33 ↗ to the tailor and I like bell-bottoms

1:13:38 ↗ and in looking at this I I think that

1:13:44 ↗ the representative members of DC who are

1:13:47 ↗ here tonight have characterized it quite

1:13:51 ↗ accurately there was a lot of discussion

1:13:53 ↗ should it be a bright line should those

1:13:55 ↗ styles be allowed everywhere should they

1:13:59 ↗ be allowed in a ring there were a number

1:14:01 ↗ of different suggestions we took that

1:14:04 ↗ back to see a and asked for their

1:14:08 ↗ recommendation their recommendation was

1:14:10 ↗ to keep a bright line that does not mean

1:14:12 ↗ that we cannot alter it I but I think

1:14:14 ↗ that's why there has not been

1:14:18 ↗ it didn't come forward in a different

1:14:20 ↗ format because there was not a clear

1:14:22 ↗ consensus coming from DC and there were

1:14:27 ↗ a couple of different options that were

1:14:30 ↗ possible and there was as I said not

1:14:34 ↗ clear direction ask a question or I'm

1:14:39 ↗ going to ask a question is this related

1:14:43 ↗ to commercial retail multifamily

1:14:47 ↗ development but not single-family

1:14:50 ↗ development I would assume it would be

1:14:53 ↗ any development that occurred it is

1:14:58 ↗ unlikely though not prohibited that

1:15:02 ↗ single-family would be built we've had

1:15:04 ↗ the lamp we've had one proposal in the

1:15:07 ↗ four years for a single this is only

1:15:09 ↗ applying to something that goes to a

1:15:10 ↗ level three review right no it applies

1:15:12 ↗ to everything okay

1:15:15 ↗ and it's just that given the allowed

1:15:19 ↗ Heights and densities and uses it's

1:15:22 ↗ unlikely that people would tend to

1:15:26 ↗ redevelop with single-family so this is

1:15:32 ↗ just in central Issaquah and so think

1:15:34 ↗ about the what's down here now you would

1:15:36 ↗ basically have to buy out an existing

1:15:38 ↗ shopping center to build a plat now

1:15:41 ↗ that's not unheard of but the land

1:15:43 ↗ values probably aren't going to be very

1:15:45 ↗ appealing to many people to do that so I

1:15:49 ↗ think all right we're trying to look at

1:15:51 ↗ the map and consider whether or not the

1:15:53 ↗ area behind like Gilman Village the

1:15:56 ↗ housing there is included in that right

1:16:00 ↗ yes I mean this area and the sort of

1:16:04 ↗ Gilman neighborhood does have some

1:16:06 ↗ single-family houses I believe the one

1:16:09 ↗ single-family house that we've received

1:16:11 ↗ was in that area and you know I think

1:16:15 ↗ the thing about it is that arts and

1:16:18 ↗ crafts craftsmen are you know easily

1:16:22 ↗ used for single-family homes they may

1:16:26 ↗ have even you know they're sort of the

1:16:28 ↗ genesis of that style so I think that

1:16:31 ↗ the tools wall intended for the other

1:16:35 ↗ uses that you identified are not

1:16:39 ↗ problematic for a single-family house I

1:16:42 ↗ have a question about the line for the

1:16:44 ↗ Western gateway when we had gone over

1:16:46 ↗ the proposed things for Old Town the

1:16:51 ↗ city had recommended that we pushed that

1:16:53 ↗ boundary and I believe that the

1:16:55 ↗ recommendation of this commission was to

1:16:56 ↗ keep it at that crossroads of Gilman and

1:16:59 ↗ Front Street and I'm curious where that

1:17:02 ↗ where that line is lying if that was

1:17:04 ↗ passed and I'm thinking of it

1:17:06 ↗ specifically regards to the former

1:17:07 ↗ staples building in regard to what is

1:17:09 ↗ able to be built here does that line put

1:17:12 ↗ us does that put us right at that

1:17:14 ↗ juxtaposition of Gilman and Front Street

1:17:16 ↗ or is that past the state place so I

1:17:19 ↗ staples is not in this this is so it's

1:17:25 ↗ kind of the beauty and the challenge of

1:17:28 ↗ these six moratorium items being dealt

1:17:30 ↗ with there are different pieces being

1:17:33 ↗ addressed this piece is working with the

1:17:36 ↗ boundary just as it is without changing

1:17:39 ↗ any of the the boundaries is that

1:17:42 ↗ boundary at yeomen at Front Street or as

1:17:45 ↗ it passed the old town boundary let me

1:17:47 ↗ let me do this

1:17:48 ↗ it's a Gilman in front so the Staples

1:17:51 ↗ property is currently in Old Town and

1:17:54 ↗ you know as as we talked about so that

1:17:57 ↗ issue specifically is being handled both

1:17:59 ↗ with the old town plan update as well as

1:18:02 ↗ the neighbourhood vision conversations

1:18:05 ↗ and that's the route 66 neighborhood

1:18:08 ↗ that that might potentially get added to

1:18:10 ↗ I think where those bulbs haven't

1:18:14 ↗ stopped bouncing yet because the old

1:18:15 ↗ town plan update hasn't been approved

1:18:17 ↗ and the district vision is happening

1:18:19 ↗ last but it seems like at least at this

1:18:22 ↗ point that property is staying in Old

1:18:24 ↗ Town okay so on this map this red line

1:18:29 ↗ represents the boundary and this would

1:18:31 ↗ be the Staples property right here so it

1:18:35 ↗ would be right on the edge but right

1:18:36 ↗ outside of central is called me that's a

1:18:39 ↗ great example of where we talk about

1:18:41 ↗ having this hard and fast line a bright

1:18:43 ↗ line versus a blurred line as we talk

1:18:45 ↗ about how we try to create a style of

1:18:48 ↗ how when people are coming through

1:18:49 ↗ Issaquah we've talked about wanting to

1:18:51 ↗ promote Commerce in our city and so

1:18:55 ↗ that's why my question is because I

1:18:56 ↗ think that's a good example of a

1:18:57 ↗ property that when we have either if

1:18:59 ↗ it's been expanded we have one option of

1:19:01 ↗ how of how a style of which it can be

1:19:03 ↗ redeveloped versus if it falls into the

1:19:06 ↗ other bucket and so I think of that

1:19:08 ↗ particular corridor as being a good

1:19:10 ↗ example of how we really have an

1:19:12 ↗ illustration of these two different

1:19:13 ↗ styles kind of meeting head-to-head and

1:19:15 ↗ that's why I asked about where that line

1:19:17 ↗ is falling right now and I realized

1:19:18 ↗ maybe that hasn't really been approved

1:19:20 ↗ yet but to me that's a good example that

1:19:21 ↗ I would think about it's kind of how we

1:19:23 ↗ that kind of juxtaposition of where

1:19:26 ↗ those lines come together and what we

1:19:28 ↗ want that to look like a really good

1:19:30 ↗ point

1:19:32 ↗ so that would be Old Town yeah currently

1:19:36 ↗ it looks like that would be Old Town

1:19:38 ↗ it's right on the edge of the Issaquah

1:19:41 ↗ style of

1:19:42 ↗ list there but I think that in our

1:19:45 ↗ packet is called traditional Issaquah

1:19:48 ↗ and not the urban core so it actually

1:19:50 ↗ has one two three four five different

1:19:54 ↗ six with the new northwest revival

1:19:58 ↗ here's a new one yes oh yes

1:19:59 ↗ six so the Grange style and Western

1:20:05 ↗ Falls front were both I think added to

1:20:09 ↗ the traditional Issaquah area in to

1:20:12 ↗ reflect what's happening in Old Town and

1:20:14 ↗ what's happening kind of along the

1:20:17 ↗ service area of kind of central is a

1:20:20 ↗ clause so so there is I think some

1:20:23 ↗ compatibility there in some of the

1:20:25 ↗ choices that are available but that

1:20:29 ↗ particular parcel and right now if it

1:20:33 ↗ does stay in Old Town part of the Old

1:20:36 ↗ Town update is to also update the

1:20:40 ↗ architecture and urban design standards

1:20:42 ↗ for that sub area so that would be a

1:20:45 ↗ separate thing that would happen next

1:20:47 ↗ year okay

1:20:50 ↗ I was curious too and reading the packet

1:20:51 ↗ when we talk about a blurred line

1:20:53 ↗ it seemed whatever there was a creek

1:20:55 ↗ reservoir there was a language about how

1:20:59 ↗ it needs to have natural materials that

1:21:01 ↗ are used to help kind of blur that line

1:21:02 ↗ of our open space and green space would

1:21:06 ↗ you argue that that is a way of blurring

1:21:07 ↗ the line of how we're directing what

1:21:09 ↗ materials can be used next to green

1:21:12 ↗ space and again I look again at these

1:21:13 ↗ kind of hard lines of the Issaquah style

1:21:16 ↗ versus you know when we have Pickering I

1:21:18 ↗ see our big we have a some degree

1:21:21 ↗ necklace going up and so to me that's

1:21:23 ↗ kind of a way of softening is saying

1:21:25 ↗ when you're within I think it was almost

1:21:26 ↗ 100 or 150 feet underneath me that you

1:21:29 ↗ have to use particular styling so to me

1:21:32 ↗ that was kind of a way of blurring it

1:21:33 ↗ it's am I reading that incorrectly kind

1:21:35 ↗ of her um no I don't think you're

1:21:39 ↗ reading it incorrectly I think that this

1:21:43 ↗ so the the urban design elements

1:21:46 ↗ transcend use and style it will that

1:21:55 ↗ piece of the con

1:21:56 ↗ next we'll make I think more of a

1:22:00 ↗ gesture towards the natural areas which

1:22:03 ↗ we want to spend some time talking about

1:22:05 ↗ what is in and what is out but I'm not

1:22:11 ↗ sure that the style will for instance

1:22:13 ↗ traditional Issaquah reads more

1:22:16 ↗ traditionally and northwest contemporary

1:22:19 ↗ reads more contemporary and I think that

1:22:21 ↗ will continue even if you are using say

1:22:25 ↗ more natural materials for instance this

1:22:31 ↗ is a question for the Development

1:22:33 ↗ Commission so I understand the idea of

1:22:37 ↗ voting yes or no on on a bright line but

1:22:40 ↗ what could be some of the options for

1:22:42 ↗ implementing a blurred line in terms of

1:22:46 ↗ the policy and one thing that was cooked

1:22:49 ↗ forward would be to allow a different

1:22:51 ↗ style and look or in the urban center

1:22:54 ↗ sorry

1:22:55 ↗ whatever urban core but to me that just

1:22:59 ↗ seems like a change it's still there's

1:23:00 ↗ still a bright line and you're just

1:23:02 ↗ allowing something more inside the

1:23:04 ↗ bright line so I'm just wondering how

1:23:07 ↗ you would implement a blurred line

1:23:09 ↗ what possible options that would be for

1:23:11 ↗ doing that so so I did mention that and

1:23:15 ↗ just quickly to say that there two of

1:23:18 ↗ the options that were discussed was was

1:23:20 ↗ their transitional ring or were styles

1:23:24 ↗ allowed certain styles or all styles

1:23:26 ↗ were allowed throughout the urban core

1:23:30 ↗ from our perspective we would just get

1:23:33 ↗ whatever staff would send to us and if

1:23:35 ↗ there's a bright line and if it's not

1:23:37 ↗ allowed at dawn round if we if you have

1:23:39 ↗ flexibility I think the best is if

1:23:43 ↗ somebody came to staff and said we want

1:23:46 ↗ to do this style within the urban core

1:23:48 ↗ it fits one of the other styles we think

1:23:52 ↗ it would look well in the urban core and

1:23:54 ↗ if staff has the flexibility or bring it

1:23:57 ↗ to us and say would you agree with that

1:24:00 ↗ and if we have that flexibility I don't

1:24:04 ↗ know how you

1:24:05 ↗ of they actually write that into ability

1:24:10 ↗ to do that it's like having her cake and

1:24:14 ↗ eating it too yeah and I think what what

1:24:17 ↗ we will what I would want folks to

1:24:19 ↗ understand is we're not talking about

1:24:22 ↗ Berlin with a wall that goes that says

1:24:25 ↗ that's that side and this and there are

1:24:27 ↗ no exceptions if you try to cross it

1:24:28 ↗ you're going to get a shot my take on

1:24:33 ↗ this is that we think the hard line

1:24:37 ↗ basically sends the message that this is

1:24:42 ↗ what we have agreed on with a lot of

1:24:44 ↗ work a lot of different people this is

1:24:47 ↗ what we agree have agreed on is the

1:24:50 ↗ approach that is gonna best suit the

1:24:52 ↗ interests of the city long term I

1:24:56 ↗ personally believe that the reality is

1:25:00 ↗ when we get something from an applicant

1:25:03 ↗ that goes to the staff and the staff

1:25:05 ↗ goes yeah that's that's a good idea but

1:25:07 ↗ do this and that and then it comes to

1:25:09 ↗ the development Commission even though

1:25:11 ↗ it may transgress the hardline if if

1:25:17 ↗ it's acceptable style and staff agrees

1:25:22 ↗ with it and the applicant agrees with

1:25:24 ↗ the adjustments that make it acceptable

1:25:26 ↗ to bring forward to us we should be able

1:25:28 ↗ to we should be able to at least

1:25:30 ↗ consider it

1:25:31 ↗ so with that and they're normally the

1:25:37 ↗ way we do it is to open up to public

1:25:40 ↗ comment before we all discuss this and

1:25:42 ↗ it seems like just this one little issue

1:25:44 ↗ is going to take a while and so what I'd

1:25:48 ↗ like to do is find out if there's

1:25:49 ↗ anybody I'm going to open the public

1:25:52 ↗ comment at 8 o'clock on this one

1:25:55 ↗ particular issue and would like to know

1:25:57 ↗ if anybody would like to make any

1:25:59 ↗ comments you've come on up

1:26:10 ↗ hi Steve Brera so two thoughts occurred

1:26:13 ↗ to me one was as I look at this and this

1:26:17 ↗ idea of the map I guess two thoughts one

1:26:20 ↗ was this is Gua style and the central or

1:26:26 ↗ style I would also like to see revision

1:26:31 ↗ to Issaquah style to have a Down zone

1:26:35 ↗ for a height of the building to a set

1:26:38 ↗ height even if you have a five store

1:26:39 ↗ traditional style it's still going to be

1:26:41 ↗ too big for the surrounding areas so I'd

1:26:45 ↗ like that considered as food for thought

1:26:48 ↗ I would also like to see that those

1:26:52 ↗ specifically applied to the what talks

1:26:56 ↗ about the old the the bottom right

1:27:00 ↗ corner where we talk about the old route

1:27:01 ↗ 10 I would like to see that specifically

1:27:06 ↗ down zoned to have a less density with

1:27:09 ↗ those traditional style areas in

1:27:13 ↗ addition to the old town area so those

1:27:17 ↗ are kind of my first thoughts my second

1:27:18 ↗ thought was as I heard you Richard you

1:27:20 ↗ talked about and I've gotten a lot of

1:27:23 ↗ the the development Commission meetings

1:27:25 ↗ you've had stuff come forward and you

1:27:27 ↗ only have the choice the code says we

1:27:29 ↗ have to allow we have to allow it

1:27:30 ↗ there's no Willa tee to say no we don't

1:27:32 ↗ like it for the color of the building

1:27:34 ↗ and material so I applaud the ability to

1:27:37 ↗ have more the builders say no that's

1:27:39 ↗ just looks dumb or looks ugly so I think

1:27:42 ↗ those are pluses that move forward with

1:27:46 ↗ that idea why I want the flexibility for

1:27:52 ↗ the development Commission to say no not

1:27:55 ↗ just because the code says so but no

1:27:57 ↗ because that's ugly or that's dumb and

1:27:59 ↗ you don't have that ability today so I

1:28:02 ↗ think that's the step in the right

1:28:03 ↗ direction thank you I'm just pulling up

1:28:08 ↗ a different map please come to yeah

1:28:10 ↗ Connie

1:28:17 ↗ like that hasn't happened yes I did but

1:28:30 ↗ I didn't realize that it would take air

1:28:34 ↗ long sorry

1:28:43 ↗ just switch places it what okay Connie

1:28:48 ↗ Marsh canceled so I think it's a step in

1:28:53 ↗ the right direction I listen to the

1:28:56 ↗ development Commission's conversation

1:28:58 ↗ and they're really trying to figure out

1:29:02 ↗ how to make a consistent flexible and

1:29:07 ↗ attractive composition that they have

1:29:10 ↗ the power to change which i think is

1:29:12 ↗ impossible to get right so I understand

1:29:14 ↗ it's impossible to begin with one of my

1:29:17 ↗ concerns is some of our buildings that I

1:29:19 ↗ consider to be sort of some of the best

1:29:22 ↗ Issaquah buildings I've not been able to

1:29:26 ↗ understand whether they would be allowed

1:29:28 ↗ in the different zonings and that would

1:29:31 ↗ be like the library building because it

1:29:34 ↗ doesn't really fit the themes and so I

1:29:39 ↗ concocted a little grouping of those

1:29:43 ↗ pictures and called it Northwest

1:29:45 ↗ Industrial but because it seems like a

1:29:47 ↗ lot of our buildings sort of have an

1:29:49 ↗ industrial edge and so I would actually

1:29:51 ↗ prefer to see another category added on

1:29:56 ↗ to the core area that would provide

1:30:02 ↗ another style that I think would work

1:30:04 ↗ now

1:30:05 ↗ they talked sort of around it and never

1:30:08 ↗ concluded that that's where they wanted

1:30:11 ↗ to go because it seems very complex

1:30:13 ↗ already but I think it needs to be

1:30:17 ↗ discussed the other thing that was sort

1:30:20 ↗ of put aside saying it was taken care of

1:30:22 ↗ by other code is the view protection

1:30:25 ↗ from the

1:30:26 ↗ variety of buildings and the

1:30:28 ↗ architecture that is provided you have

1:30:31 ↗ all kinds of different things you have

1:30:33 ↗ to look at from up close the materials

1:30:36 ↗ that it is made from but it never really

1:30:39 ↗ takes you in a step back and says how

1:30:42 ↗ does this look in the context of

1:30:44 ↗ everything around it and I would like to

1:30:46 ↗ see that more clarified from what I was

1:30:50 ↗ what I was provided Thanks I'm not sure

1:30:55 ↗ how that would work is anybody else good

1:30:59 ↗ ideas I just don't know how to put that

1:31:01 ↗ together

1:31:02 ↗ please come and

1:31:17 ↗ yeah susan has again I just think it's

1:31:21 ↗ really interesting those tasks that

1:31:23 ↗ you're trying to do because on one hand

1:31:27 ↗ you're trying to encourage certain

1:31:30 ↗ things you if staples parking lot were

1:31:32 ↗ redeveloped you wouldn't want it to be

1:31:34 ↗ the same exact thing I'm guessing you

1:31:36 ↗ might want parking on the side and the

1:31:38 ↗ back and you know something different

1:31:41 ↗ so and you're trying to encourage

1:31:44 ↗ sustainability in the city and all sorts

1:31:46 ↗ of innovations bicycle parking covered

1:31:49 ↗ bicycle parking like all these and and

1:31:52 ↗ architectural some sort of cohesion and

1:31:55 ↗ at the same time like I'm a visual

1:31:58 ↗ artist so I I have a I like freedom I

1:32:01 ↗ like to be able to do things that are

1:32:04 ↗ weird and I like seeing weird things out

1:32:07 ↗ there that don't fit in because it

1:32:09 ↗ reminds me that they're human beings and

1:32:11 ↗ it's not a movie set you know it's not a

1:32:15 ↗ constructed social engineering project

1:32:19 ↗ it's not aspen it's not you know it's

1:32:23 ↗ sort of like it's a gua so at the same

1:32:26 ↗ time you know i just think it's a really

1:32:30 ↗ interesting initiative that you have

1:32:35 ↗ where you're trying to encourage

1:32:40 ↗ ecological and visual progress in

1:32:43 ↗ Issaquah and land-use progress and at

1:32:47 ↗ the same time allow for people to

1:32:54 ↗ exercise their creativity and improvise

1:32:57 ↗ on their own and encourage them to do

1:33:01 ↗ that just like you might with a kid you

1:33:03 ↗ know figure it out yourself sort of idea

1:33:06 ↗ and and you and you at the same time

1:33:10 ↗ it's a government it's a public entity

1:33:12 ↗ so you it's impossible to have

1:33:16 ↗ situations that look like it depends on

1:33:21 ↗ if somebody likes you at City Hall you

1:33:24 ↗ know do I make a good impression are

1:33:28 ↗ they going to do this because I know

1:33:30 ↗ there

1:33:30 ↗ brother or something like so I think

1:33:35 ↗ that yeah the more you can provide

1:33:38 ↗ resources the better the more you can

1:33:42 ↗ maybe I don't know I've seen model

1:33:44 ↗ ordinances in Minnesota where they talk

1:33:46 ↗ about architectural things like

1:33:50 ↗ Christopher Alexander's book a pattern

1:33:52 ↗ language all about how do you make human

1:33:56 ↗ scale places how do you make places that

1:33:58 ↗ are good to live in Jane Jacobs you know

1:34:01 ↗ like these these principles and I've

1:34:06 ↗ seen a lot of neat things happening in

1:34:09 ↗ Issaquah like that and so I just really

1:34:12 ↗ I guess I just really feel for you

1:34:13 ↗ because I can kind of tell where you

1:34:15 ↗ want to go with this no just really wish

1:34:18 ↗ your the best things mm-hmm anybody else

1:34:22 ↗ like to make a comment

1:34:35 ↗ mmm David Kapler some flexibility is

1:34:39 ↗ something I I wish you would have I

1:34:41 ↗ guess also in some cases I wish you had

1:34:43 ↗ veto power

1:34:45 ↗ you know everybody talked about Atlas

1:34:48 ↗ doubtless is a joy compared to what

1:34:52 ↗ people are telling me about Gateway and

1:34:55 ↗ it's just I've got a whole bunch of

1:34:58 ↗ stories running X 990 that are gonna be

1:35:00 ↗ rising from those concrete foundations

1:35:02 ↗ that are there and I wish we had a way

1:35:07 ↗ of stirring that differently but it's a

1:35:11 ↗ challenge what you're doing and keep up

1:35:13 ↗ the work thank you

1:35:16 ↗ would anybody else like to make a

1:35:19 ↗ comment but anybody else like to make a

1:35:22 ↗ comment seeing nobody I will close the

1:35:26 ↗ public hearing at 8:10 and open it up to

1:35:32 ↗ continued discussion so one point I

1:35:38 ↗ would like to make is that and you may

1:35:45 ↗ remember this from your training there

1:35:49 ↗ are two kinds of due process that we are

1:35:51 ↗ legally required to meet one is

1:35:55 ↗ procedural due process that means giving

1:35:57 ↗ notice but the other is substantive due

1:36:00 ↗ process and substantive due process

1:36:03 ↗ means that the rules have to be clear

1:36:07 ↗ and predictable and so discretion to

1:36:13 ↗ just say no based on something other

1:36:17 ↗ than what's in the code will lead us

1:36:20 ↗ back to the Supreme Court which as an

1:36:22 ↗ urban planner I don't like going into

1:36:24 ↗ land-use trainings and being reminded of

1:36:27 ↗ so I I think understanding the the

1:36:33 ↗ wishes of the Development Commission

1:36:36 ↗ and planning policy commission and

1:36:39 ↗ crafting language that has criteria for

1:36:45 ↗ the things that we want if it's

1:36:47 ↗ different than a bright line we can

1:36:49 ↗ certainly talk about but we can't simply

1:36:53 ↗ say we someone's made a good case so we

1:36:57 ↗ want and I'm just taking it to an

1:37:00 ↗ extreme I'm not saying anyone suggested

1:37:02 ↗ this but we if someone came in and said

1:37:05 ↗ I want to do a bungalow and in the urban

1:37:08 ↗ core can I do that

1:37:11 ↗ we would have to say no because right

1:37:14 ↗ now that's not the way the rules are wet

1:37:15 ↗ written and so we have to we cannot be

1:37:20 ↗ capricious that's that's one of those

1:37:22 ↗ tests that were required to meet so I've

1:37:26 ↗ got a question about this packet in

1:37:29 ↗ terms of the discussion that we have

1:37:30 ↗ right now I don't remember seeing in

1:37:34 ↗ language this discussion is it in this

1:37:37 ↗ packet or is this something that's been

1:37:39 ↗ just brought to our attention that we

1:37:40 ↗ need to discuss when we were putting

1:37:42 ↗ together the presentation we realized

1:37:44 ↗ that this might be another policy piece

1:37:47 ↗ that was worth discussing this evening

1:37:50 ↗ so it was not in the packet you're right

1:37:52 ↗ oh we should not make a decision tonight

1:37:55 ↗ until we see that idea written in a

1:38:01 ↗ policy form or would that be an

1:38:03 ↗ amendment to this document well I don't

1:38:07 ↗ know that I think what we're looking for

1:38:09 ↗ is guidance from the Commission I'm I

1:38:16 ↗ have not gathered that there is a

1:38:18 ↗ consensus at this time that so that's

1:38:24 ↗ what got us to this so we're looking for

1:38:27 ↗ guidance and depending on what that

1:38:32 ↗ guidance is we can discuss how to move

1:38:36 ↗ forward okay I I think you had mentioned

1:38:39 ↗ in the document that this had been

1:38:40 ↗ approved by council but I was really

1:38:42 ↗ secretly hoping there was going to be

1:38:43 ↗ somebody here tonight to talk to us

1:38:45 ↗ about that but going through the

1:38:46 ↗ advisement it has not been has not beds

1:38:48 ↗ we've had two works

1:38:49 ↗ with the council so um well know so I'm

1:38:52 ↗ sorry with with legal counsels when I'm

1:38:54 ↗ in depth oh oh that kind of count so

1:38:56 ↗ when I was going through this document I

1:38:58 ↗ really couldn't shake from every page

1:39:00 ↗ thinking about Anderson B is a clown I

1:39:02 ↗ think with good reason

1:39:03 ↗ I'm sure a lot of us were thinking about

1:39:05 ↗ that and so when looking at the urban

1:39:07 ↗ core and seeing more limited choices I

1:39:11 ↗ made me concerned that we were going to

1:39:13 ↗ be opening ourselves up to this kind of

1:39:15 ↗ either this or no situation and thinking

1:39:19 ↗ about the particulars of the case I was

1:39:22 ↗ it to me it speaks to this blurred line

1:39:24 ↗ issue of saying how much can we allow

1:39:27 ↗ giving developers some sort of leeway

1:39:29 ↗ that still fits within the way that we

1:39:31 ↗ view our city since we've obviously had

1:39:33 ↗ issues with that and so having I was I

1:39:37 ↗ was hoping to have legal counsel here

1:39:38 ↗ for kind of talking about talking

1:39:40 ↗ specifically to what how this document

1:39:42 ↗ opens us up or how this protects us or

1:39:45 ↗ so this was sent to legal counsel they

1:39:49 ↗ reviewed it they identified two issues

1:39:52 ↗ that was not one of them the two issues

1:39:55 ↗ they identified one was clarity on how

1:39:59 ↗ to know what an inappropriate color was

1:40:01 ↗ and clarity around the idea of

1:40:05 ↗ compatibility that's why you had the

1:40:08 ↗ twenty one extra pages at the end where

1:40:11 ↗ certain terms were altered or additional

1:40:15 ↗ graphics added to address that so urban

1:40:20 ↗ core was not one of the areas of concern

1:40:22 ↗ from the city attorney so for those the

1:40:25 ↗ number of options in the urban core that

1:40:27 ↗ was not a concern it's it's not I don't

1:40:29 ↗ think it's so the issue the liability

1:40:32 ↗ issue that is being kind of alluded to

1:40:35 ↗ is the city was sued a while back

1:40:40 ↗ and the code that the city was using was

1:40:43 ↗ declared to be void for vagueness that's

1:40:46 ↗ that's a planning term it's basically

1:40:48 ↗ not providing enough clarity that an

1:40:50 ↗ applicant can actually get through the

1:40:52 ↗ process and so what was basically

1:40:54 ↗ decided was that that project that was

1:40:58 ↗ being contended was considered not

1:41:02 ↗ fitting with is

1:41:03 ↗ style but nobody then defined what that

1:41:06 ↗ was and so the applicant they so they

1:41:08 ↗ won because the city didn't do a good

1:41:11 ↗ enough job describing what that actually

1:41:13 ↗ meant here what we've tried to do was

1:41:15 ↗ take code language that was things like

1:41:19 ↗ because the way this was originally

1:41:22 ↗ written you know was you know we want to

1:41:24 ↗ encourage steep roof pitches okay what

1:41:28 ↗ does that mean because that what that

1:41:29 ↗ means to me may not be the same as what

1:41:31 ↗ it means to you so we asked our

1:41:33 ↗ consultant so we need to get some

1:41:34 ↗ quantifiable numbers in there so that

1:41:37 ↗ when the Commission actually gets an

1:41:38 ↗ application they can say okay that roof

1:41:40 ↗ is too flat it doesn't meet the

1:41:43 ↗ standards and therefore we can say no

1:41:45 ↗ and so we've gone through it to the best

1:41:48 ↗ of our ability to make it understandable

1:41:52 ↗ for an applicant now I think that having

1:41:55 ↗ one style in the core doesn't cause a

1:41:59 ↗ problem so long as an applicant can

1:42:02 ↗ Slough through that process and get to a

1:42:04 ↗ permit at the end of the day and so just

1:42:07 ↗ because there's not more flexibility I

1:42:09 ↗ don't think puts the city at risk and I

1:42:11 ↗ think that's where the city attorney

1:42:12 ↗ also agreed with that position thank you

1:42:16 ↗ Lucy yeah how does the concept because

1:42:20 ↗ in the past on the development

1:42:22 ↗ Commission we would have something and

1:42:24 ↗ we'd hear the administrative adjustment

1:42:28 ↗ of standards is does that create the

1:42:32 ↗ flexibility that that you're looking at

1:42:34 ↗ or potentially at you know we've got

1:42:38 ↗ bright-line rules but then all of a

1:42:40 ↗ sudden we have this administrative

1:42:41 ↗ adjustment of standards which changed

1:42:46 ↗ you know with stuff in regards to the

1:42:52 ↗ wedding cake on a building we could make

1:42:54 ↗ it go higher because we did an

1:42:57 ↗ administrative adjustment so is that the

1:42:59 ↗ out that Development Commission could

1:43:02 ↗ have so right now the this is not

1:43:07 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:43:10 ↗ are not available for this if if there

1:43:15 ↗ is a we can discuss it

1:43:17 ↗ I think that Crandall Aram Beulah has

1:43:21 ↗ heard a concern from the Development

1:43:24 ↗ Commission that a s's were used to

1:43:28 ↗ frequently and so this is this is it so

1:43:35 ↗ but yeah I I again that it that is a

1:43:38 ↗ that is our consultants recommendation

1:43:41 ↗ that's why we're having this

1:43:43 ↗ conversation with these two Commission's

1:43:45 ↗ so you can look at this you have the

1:43:50 ↗ requirements for the core and it's

1:43:52 ↗ everybody saying it's one style but that

1:43:55 ↗ one style is so different you can use

1:43:57 ↗ different materials you can use

1:43:59 ↗ everything to make it more unique right

1:44:03 ↗ now I think that you have to make sure

1:44:07 ↗ that that is understood that it's not

1:44:10 ↗ every building has to look the same

1:44:11 ↗ right has to flow a little bit better

1:44:14 ↗ but what we were really looking for is

1:44:16 ↗ to be able to establish a template oh

1:44:19 ↗ absolutely hoping that there was enough

1:44:22 ↗ creativity in the architectural

1:44:24 ↗ community that they could look at that

1:44:25 ↗ and say we can beat this we can meet

1:44:27 ↗ this template but here's some

1:44:29 ↗ interesting ways to do it and then we

1:44:31 ↗ have their pictures that would say if it

1:44:34 ↗ looks like this we thought I think

1:44:36 ↗ that's really a good idea we'd really

1:44:37 ↗ like to go with that but if it looks

1:44:38 ↗ like this we really don't want to see

1:44:40 ↗ that you know and I think it gives us it

1:44:43 ↗ gives the developer bar to try to hit

1:44:49 ↗ that I think there's a plenty of

1:44:52 ↗ creativity in that if you choose if you

1:44:54 ↗ choose there to be the developers need

1:44:57 ↗ that I mean it makes their job a lot

1:44:59 ↗ easier they know what they can do how

1:45:01 ↗ they can do it and know what the cost is

1:45:03 ↗ going to be and then I'll have to spend

1:45:05 ↗ three years going through the permitting

1:45:07 ↗ process I mean it's a win-win for

1:45:09 ↗ everybody and it's a win-win for the

1:45:10 ↗ city well it makes it frankly it makes

1:45:13 ↗ it easier for us because we don't have

1:45:14 ↗ to see stuff that we just don't want to

1:45:16 ↗ look at and I'm tired of yelling at Carl

1:45:18 ↗ because he approves something and we you

1:45:22 ↗ know that's it

1:45:23 ↗ I don't share that that's I think that's

1:45:26 ↗ what I was alluding to him I fir

1:45:27 ↗ comment I I believe that all of us in

1:45:30 ↗ the Commission there are things that

1:45:32 ↗ would buzz points I guess you should

1:45:35 ↗ call them but that we we believe that

1:45:38 ↗ this will make it a more well-defined

1:45:42 ↗ process for everybody everybody involved

1:45:45 ↗ including the public and I would just

1:45:48 ↗ add sitting in here and listening to

1:45:51 ↗ your discussion with the school board

1:45:53 ↗ one of the things that I enjoy most

1:45:55 ↗ about being on the development

1:45:56 ↗ Commission is the fact that you know

1:45:58 ↗ this is public input is a critical

1:46:01 ↗ component of what this city does and how

1:46:04 ↗ we do it and what we produce our living

1:46:08 ↗ documents so just as the case with the

1:46:10 ↗ with the school board issue no we could

1:46:13 ↗ come back what we're doing now is going

1:46:16 ↗ well we need to adjust we need to adjust

1:46:19 ↗ this we need we have the plan in place

1:46:22 ↗ we've been through it for three years

1:46:24 ↗ and now we know what didn't work has it

1:46:28 ↗ in the execution as we planned so this

1:46:32 ↗ is this is a living a living process and

1:46:35 ↗ that's its enormous ly encouraging but

1:46:38 ↗ there is a process I mean that's what I

1:46:40 ↗ felt there was a problem with a central

1:46:44 ↗ area plan that was this is the plan and

1:46:46 ↗ we want this but there was no way to get

1:46:48 ↗ them and our teeth work you've done I

1:46:52 ↗ think you've covered just about every

1:46:54 ↗ possible thing that you could cover

1:47:01 ↗ we don't think we have but we we think

1:47:05 ↗ this is a good start and I guess that's

1:47:07 ↗ I think a point that needs to continue

1:47:08 ↗ and he made us we this isn't the end

1:47:10 ↗ product that's exact you know we we

1:47:12 ↗ would hope we think that we in a number

1:47:15 ↗ of things with this we set the bar but

1:47:17 ↗ more importantly we opened up the

1:47:19 ↗ opportunity for some public dialogue to

1:47:20 ↗ be able to take a look at that and say M

1:47:22 ↗ this this works this doesn't work and we

1:47:25 ↗ gave a real clear track for developers

1:47:27 ↗ to be able to have it have a best shot

1:47:28 ↗ at coming up with so we in no way think

1:47:31 ↗ that it's done you know we think that

1:47:33 ↗ one thing I'd like you to require on all

1:47:35 ↗ these buildings that you the ones you

1:47:37 ↗ have flat roofs on Gardens trees

1:47:43 ↗ interface with nature on on top of those

1:47:47 ↗ buildings I don't know why that it

1:47:49 ↗ actually isn't in there it just makes

1:47:52 ↗ more sense you go into Seattle and you

1:47:54 ↗ say you see that in Seattle but there

1:47:57 ↗ are no requirements here in this in that

1:47:59 ↗ this did you present it if anybody else

1:48:03 ↗ want to continue the conversation is

1:48:06 ↗ there anything else is there something

1:48:08 ↗ in there that specifically you have a

1:48:11 ↗ problem with actually no I've just got

1:48:17 ↗ one very very small thing on page 102 of

1:48:21 ↗ 147 where we're talking about building

1:48:24 ↗ edges and entries one of the areas it

1:48:28 ↗ talks about inappropriate any customer

1:48:30 ↗ entries excess directly from parking

1:48:32 ↗ lots or alleys I really appreciate the

1:48:35 ↗ idea of public entries being at the

1:48:39 ↗ street area but one of the things that

1:48:42 ↗ I've also appreciated in say Grand rich

1:48:45 ↗ Plaza or something like that is also

1:48:48 ↗ having that other entryway I mean we

1:48:51 ↗ have weather if somebody if you're gonna

1:48:53 ↗ have a parking lot and somebody's gonna

1:48:55 ↗ park there they should be able to also

1:48:57 ↗ enter in that way so I might change that

1:49:01 ↗ to say inappropriate if the only entry

1:49:04 ↗ so there wouldn't be any only entries

1:49:08 ↗ because your primary entries cannot be

1:49:10 ↗ from a parking lot this is a comment or

1:49:13 ↗ a question that we've

1:49:14 ↗ asked a number of times and haven't

1:49:17 ↗ really had an opportunity to sit down

1:49:19 ↗ and get down to this level of response

1:49:22 ↗ but it is all I can say is it was an

1:49:26 ↗ intentional choice by Crandall arambula

1:49:28 ↗ to not make that change I so that's not

1:49:36 ↗ contradicting what you're saying it's

1:49:38 ↗ just giving you as much perspective as I

1:49:41 ↗ have on it actually like actually like

1:49:48 ↗ what you said

1:49:49 ↗ because she's right when you're parking

1:49:51 ↗ your car and it's raining it's like I

1:49:53 ↗ want to get inside and I may not

1:49:55 ↗ necessarily care so much what it looks

1:49:57 ↗ like as long as it gets me inside though

1:50:00 ↗ is there and we at least address that

1:50:04 ↗ with CA and

1:50:13 ↗ then actually I was going to discuss

1:50:15 ↗ exactly what John mentioned about the

1:50:19 ↗ spaces on the roofs I noticed that piece

1:50:21 ↗ was missing as far as open community

1:50:24 ↗ spaces and green spaces on rooftops so

1:50:27 ↗ that's addressed in the centralist cost

1:50:30 ↗ standards it isn't required so let me

1:50:32 ↗ let me just be clear it is encouraged

1:50:35 ↗ and we certainly are supportive of it

1:50:39 ↗ and we have a couple of projects that

1:50:41 ↗ have taken advantage of it the only

1:50:44 ↗ thing I can tell you is that from a

1:50:48 ↗ building code perspective it is more

1:50:51 ↗ complicated to have that on the roof so

1:50:54 ↗ Lucy I'm doing this from really bad old

1:50:56 ↗ memory pre vacation memory

1:50:58 ↗ so his there is there not something

1:51:01 ↗ within the natural context piece that

1:51:04 ↗ talks about step backs and green

1:51:07 ↗ activity spaces on the roof so buildings

1:51:13 ↗ in the enclosure section and in the set

1:51:18 ↗ back step back area buildings over a

1:51:23 ↗ certain height have to step back and

1:51:25 ↗ those would be terraces but that

1:51:29 ↗ wouldn't inherit I mean it could be

1:51:31 ↗ green it is not required to be green we

1:51:39 ↗ also talked about those Heights when

1:51:41 ↗ when we're looking at the chart is that

1:51:43 ↗ and I'm not on the right page so I'm of

1:51:46 ↗ course not gonna reference it well but

1:51:49 ↗ it says things like yeah all right and

1:51:56 ↗ there it was yeah so like in the right

1:51:58 ↗ column when we're talking about height

1:52:00 ↗ or stories or whatever that is that's

1:52:02 ↗ way too small for me to actually read I

1:52:04 ↗ believe it says like force Plus stories

1:52:08 ↗ so is that a minimum or a maximum oh so

1:52:17 ↗ so for Northwest contemporary stories it

1:52:20 ↗ says 4 plus stories you know just using

1:52:23 ↗ that as an example for all across

1:52:26 ↗ some of them say max some of them say

1:52:28 ↗ like 2 to 5 floors right what does that

1:52:33 ↗ mean well for instance arts and crafts

1:52:37 ↗ has range because different uses have

1:52:41 ↗ different heights so commercial would be

1:52:45 ↗ different than residential so I think

1:52:46 ↗ that's why they put the range in I think

1:52:51 ↗ that so I'm going I'm going to try

1:52:55 ↗ something because I do that kind of

1:52:59 ↗ thing I'm made a kind of little crib

1:53:10 ↗ sheet on Heights because that was one of

1:53:13 ↗ the policy questions that we were hoping

1:53:15 ↗ to discuss with you and so I put in the

1:53:20 ↗ men in the max as I understood it okay

1:53:24 ↗ and now we've got one additional the

1:53:27 ↗ Northwest contemporary right now Norton

1:53:30 ↗ Oh

1:53:31 ↗ Northwest revival these are all

1:53:33 ↗ traditional Issaquah styles you are

1:53:36 ↗ right there is Northwest contemporary

1:53:37 ↗ but that's for the urban core and this

1:53:39 ↗ was relative to traditional Issaquah

1:53:43 ↗ there was a lot of discussion by the

1:53:45 ↗ development commissioned by the council

1:53:49 ↗ the public and staff about whether we

1:53:53 ↗ needed another style and so we have

1:53:55 ↗ another style and if we want to talk

1:54:01 ↗ about this I can sort of frame it a

1:54:03 ↗ little bit I guess the question kind of

1:54:09 ↗ the thing to address here is do we feel

1:54:12 ↗ comfortable with all of those Heights is

1:54:14 ↗ there and some of those are pretty tall

1:54:18 ↗ so I think the chart below the table 4.4

1:54:24 ↗ is the allowed Heights so our task was

1:54:30 ↗ not to evaluate Heights in the different

1:54:33 ↗ districts our task was to look at the

1:54:35 ↗ architecture and urban design

1:54:39 ↗ so we have focused on what is

1:54:42 ↗ appropriate to implement table 4.4 so as

1:54:48 ↗ you can see outside the urban core the

1:54:51 ↗ heights are the max height using density

1:54:55 ↗ bonuses 65 feet except in mixed juice it

1:54:59 ↗ is 85 feet those would translate into 65

1:55:09 ↗ would be somewhere between five and six

1:55:13 ↗ stories 85 feet would be somewhere

1:55:16 ↗ between seven and eight stories

1:55:18 ↗ depending on the use okay so if I'm

1:55:21 ↗ interpreting that correctly that means

1:55:23 ↗ then the the northwest revival you're

1:55:28 ↗ saying is only going to be appropriate

1:55:31 ↗ in areas that have at least that height

1:55:34 ↗ capacity well okay I'm backing up so I

1:55:40 ↗ think the question is what minimum and

1:55:45 ↗ maximum Heights should be applied to

1:55:48 ↗ this for instance the ten stories that

1:55:50 ↗ see a recommended is probably beyond the

1:55:54 ↗ heights allowed in those zones and in

1:55:59 ↗ one place they said minimum height was

1:56:02 ↗ five stories and another place they said

1:56:03 ↗ it was six stories so the administration

1:56:07 ↗ is recommending kind of as a range for

1:56:10 ↗ discussion either four to five as a

1:56:12 ↗ minimum or seven to eight as a maximum

1:56:15 ↗ given the heights that are allowed in

1:56:19 ↗ traditional is kua and I would just add

1:56:22 ↗ that the pictures at the bottom this

1:56:24 ↗ commercial style that Northwest revival

1:56:27 ↗ represents these are buildings in

1:56:29 ↗ Issaquah that although two stories are

1:56:32 ↗ built in this commercial style the

1:56:35 ↗ building on the right where Vina bellow

1:56:39 ↗ is is the Koot Co utt I don't have never

1:56:43 ↗ heard it said building the Issaquah Bank

1:56:46 ↗ building is the one on the left and the

1:56:48 ↗ middle picture is what it looked like

1:56:49 ↗ originally

1:56:51 ↗ oh I just like to show that because I

1:56:53 ↗ was really blown away when I saw that

1:56:55 ↗ how it had been transformed

1:56:57 ↗ so those represent especially in

1:57:00 ↗ original form and the coot building are

1:57:04 ↗ both classic examples of the commercial

1:57:09 ↗ style that they are proposing as part of

1:57:12 ↗ Northwest revival so back to our meaty

1:57:16 ↗ slide so there is a range of uses or a

1:57:23 ↗ range of styles the only style that

1:57:25 ↗ initially had gone above four stories

1:57:29 ↗ was Northwest Lodge the Arts and Crafts

1:57:31 ↗ style has been modified by CA to have

1:57:36 ↗ five stories but we still have the

1:57:38 ↗ potential of buildings that are taller

1:57:42 ↗ than that and so that's why we asked for

1:57:45 ↗ the Northwest survival that was part of

1:57:46 ↗ the instigation for the Northwest

1:57:48 ↗ revival style and so this style came in

1:57:52 ↗ on Thursday night so the development

1:57:56 ↗ Commission had not had an opportunity

1:57:57 ↗ that was another reason that we thought

1:58:00 ↗ it was important to have them here

1:58:01 ↗ because they were a big part of the

1:58:04 ↗ instigation and asking for this other

1:58:06 ↗ style and it seemed appropriate to have

1:58:08 ↗ a roundtable discussion I've also got a

1:58:16 ↗ question more about materials what's

1:58:21 ↗ appropriate what's not appropriate so it

1:58:22 ↗ was just a good time to bring this up

1:58:26 ↗ it's at it's there you go all right so I

1:58:32 ↗ see the use of simulated what is

1:58:35 ↗ acceptable and I understand simulate

1:58:36 ↗ what can take on many different forms

1:58:38 ↗ but I see that up in Highlands is the

1:58:43 ↗ use of some simulated wood is already de

1:58:47 ↗ laminating barber board particle board

1:58:49 ↗ soaking up its rotting is coming off too

1:58:51 ↗ it's walking it looks terrible would it

1:58:56 ↗ be appropriate to say that type of

1:59:00 ↗ material is not appropriate in this

1:59:04 ↗ document or would that be more of a code

1:59:09 ↗ so it actually so that language was

1:59:13 ↗ added at the direction of DC through a

1:59:16 ↗ conversation about the original proposal

1:59:18 ↗ was natural materials only and I think

1:59:22 ↗ part of the conversation that we had at

1:59:23 ↗ DC was to have some more flexibility for

1:59:26 ↗ things like hardiplank and other

1:59:28 ↗ materials that are in current

1:59:30 ↗ construction but yet have that

1:59:33 ↗ appearance of durable material so I

1:59:36 ↗ think the intent was if it's synthetic

1:59:39 ↗ it would emulate a durable material I am

1:59:43 ↗ not aware of the construction issues

1:59:47 ↗ that you're identifying in the highlands

1:59:49 ↗ and what kind of materials are

1:59:51 ↗ experiencing that lack of durability so

1:59:55 ↗ I think sir I have checked in with Sarah

1:59:59 ↗ hoye and I didn't I didn't remember till

2:00:02 ↗ you were I saw your email but I did not

2:00:04 ↗ remember your previous comment I've got

2:00:07 ↗ to go back and look Sarah hoye the

2:00:09 ↗ executive director of the Issaquah

2:00:11 ↗ Highlands Community Association told me

2:00:13 ↗ more about that it's a very specific

2:00:15 ↗ material it is not I think I think it

2:00:18 ↗ would be unfair to it paint all

2:00:20 ↗ simulated wood with that brush but I can

2:00:25 ↗ find out more about the specific example

2:00:28 ↗ that you've identified Ron and we can we

2:00:34 ↗ can identify that because I don't think

2:00:35 ↗ we want something it's not going to be

2:00:37 ↗ durable exactly yeah I'm not saying all

2:00:39 ↗ simulated wood I'm just saying there are

2:00:41 ↗ a certain variety as a simulated wood

2:00:43 ↗ that would be disastrous 15 20 years of

2:00:48 ↗ use yeah I could imagine the urban core

2:00:50 ↗ being built using a lot of these

2:00:52 ↗ materials and after 20 years it would

2:00:54 ↗ look terrible right I think I mean I

2:00:56 ↗ think to your point I think rather than

2:00:58 ↗ identifying certain brands because as

2:01:00 ↗ you know we we learn about durability

2:01:02 ↗ based on time

2:01:04 ↗ you may have a belief like that Trek's

2:01:07 ↗ is a very durable product but then we

2:01:09 ↗ might find out that no actually it may

2:01:11 ↗ not last as long as we think it might so

2:01:13 ↗ so part of this is identifying the

2:01:16 ↗ intent which is if it's synthetic that

2:01:18 ↗ it's a proven durable product I think is

2:01:21 ↗ what the intent was of allowing

2:01:24 ↗ synthetics not a subject matter expert

2:01:26 ↗ on that but I wanted to bring that up as

2:01:28 ↗ important criteria so when you are

2:01:31 ↗ looking at the plant proposal from a

2:01:34 ↗ developer and they have a specific

2:01:38 ↗ synthetic material that they're going to

2:01:40 ↗ use you would have the option to say

2:01:43 ↗ show me the history though of whatever

2:01:51 ↗ when I say no I don't terms of what we

2:01:55 ↗ approve we wouldn't get into essentially

2:01:58 ↗ like Building Code approval are there

2:02:01 ↗ some things inappropriate but whether it

2:02:04 ↗ meets the guidelines of the design

2:02:07 ↗ architectural design not okay for us to

2:02:11 ↗ be able to say this is a you know a

2:02:14 ↗ material that won't last but you know I

2:02:18 ↗ think the important thing to add is this

2:02:20 ↗ you know as as much as this was created

2:02:22 ↗ as an important tool kit for the

2:02:25 ↗ development Commission it is a tool that

2:02:28 ↗ staff are also going to be implementing

2:02:30 ↗ and you know the Commission had seized

2:02:34 ↗ material boards they approve them but we

2:02:36 ↗ are also behind the scenes you know

2:02:38 ↗ looking at things at a finer grain than

2:02:42 ↗ the Commission will based on the codes

2:02:44 ↗ that are adopted

2:02:45 ↗ so I I think that's trying to find a

2:02:50 ↗ more generic term not as specific he

2:02:52 ↗ said not a specific prod product that is

2:02:55 ↗ not being allowed but to try and

2:02:58 ↗ identify what those kind of durable

2:03:00 ↗ materials are that are acceptable does

2:03:04 ↗ that make sense that makes sense

2:03:06 ↗ okay

2:03:07 ↗ Shefali you know one of the things that

2:03:10 ↗ I I personally think is an improvement

2:03:12 ↗ in this and this process that will

2:03:14 ↗ result from this is that I know you've

2:03:16 ↗ attended some Development Commission

2:03:18 ↗ meetings and you have your as such

2:03:21 ↗ you're probably aware that there have

2:03:23 ↗ been some as in more than one

2:03:29 ↗ application where the Development

2:03:31 ↗ Commission has specifically asked or

2:03:34 ↗ more material to be used that is

2:03:38 ↗ representative of Northwest or natural

2:03:41 ↗ material more stone and wood and the

2:03:45 ↗ issue is that we asked and suggested

2:03:49 ↗ strongly and because it wasn't it was a

2:03:52 ↗ suggestion from us and it wasn't in the

2:03:55 ↗ list of materials that can be used in

2:03:58 ↗ this type of district which is what the

2:04:00 ↗ design manuals we didn't get it what's

2:04:06 ↗ the plan to finish the document

2:04:08 ↗ I know it's stamped final draft all over

2:04:09 ↗ the place but there's a lot of tweaks of

2:04:12 ↗ something to happen and to me there's a

2:04:13 ↗ lot of holes as far as the inappropriate

2:04:15 ↗ examples you know we have a lot of

2:04:17 ↗ yellow question marks throughout the

2:04:18 ↗ document of saying still need to provide

2:04:20 ↗ this and to me that's where a lot of our

2:04:21 ↗ teeth is is to be like this is what we

2:04:23 ↗ don't want is is that still in the works

2:04:27 ↗ is that done but just not added to the

2:04:28 ↗ document or there are maybe two or three

2:04:34 ↗ locations in which we have asked for

2:04:38 ↗ inappropriate examples to maybe be

2:04:40 ↗ identified I would say that that the you

2:04:50 ↗ know the majority if not all of what

2:04:53 ↗ were what is left to be done is for

2:04:55 ↗ instance cleaning up the InDesign fixing

2:04:59 ↗ some of the numbering I think that there

2:05:02 ↗ are relatively minor things left to be

2:05:04 ↗ done I don't feel that the one or two or

2:05:09 ↗ three locations of inappropriate is

2:05:11 ↗ significant but that's my opinion has it

2:05:15 ↗ been done then I mean if they're not

2:05:17 ↗ significant then that means that you've

2:05:18 ↗ you found details to include

2:05:21 ↗ we just don't have them we I would not

2:05:26 ↗ say that we have asked for that to be

2:05:30 ↗ added and again have not had an

2:05:32 ↗ opportunity to sit down and understand

2:05:35 ↗ Crandell Ram Beulah may feel that those

2:05:37 ↗ are not necessary that it that there

2:05:39 ↗ isn't particularly a good example of

2:05:41 ↗ inappropriate examples sorry I'm

2:05:48 ↗ repeating my words way I guess then I

2:05:50 ↗ would I would encourage completion of

2:05:53 ↗ that I think that that's really

2:05:54 ↗ important to show language showing this

2:05:57 ↗ is not what we want I have one example

2:05:59 ↗ that is on page 60 of 147 where the

2:06:03 ↗ inappropriate as a facade projection

2:06:05 ↗ accepted balcony and you give an

2:06:06 ↗ inappropriate picture and I found it to

2:06:09 ↗ be a little bit vague and so if that's

2:06:11 ↗ what you're considering to be

2:06:12 ↗ inappropriate which I mean I can see

2:06:13 ↗ that it is a larger could you give me

2:06:15 ↗ the page number again 460 of 147 I think

2:06:18 ↗ um and so I mean I some point that I

2:06:21 ↗ shouldn't actually have a height maximum

2:06:23 ↗ of saying you know for this false front

2:06:25 ↗ western-style this is how big it should

2:06:29 ↗ be there should actually be a range of

2:06:30 ↗ specifying it because right now it feels

2:06:32 ↗ a little subjective to say oversized and

2:06:35 ↗ so we have you know the language on B is

2:06:38 ↗ just the facade projection being

2:06:40 ↗ inappropriate yeah we don't really

2:06:43 ↗ actually have a specification of how far

2:06:47 ↗ is too far and then you can you know see

2:06:50 ↗ on you know pages 98 99 provide examples

2:06:54 ↗ question mark I think that's pretty you

2:06:57 ↗ know important to say for a building

2:06:59 ↗ edging we talked about we have a lot to

2:07:02 ↗ talk about as far as awnings what

2:07:04 ↗ materials can be used you know we don't

2:07:05 ↗ want polyester awnings or how much we

2:07:08 ↗ want them to project over because of

2:07:09 ↗ because of weather but then we don't

2:07:11 ↗ have what is it an inappropriate

2:07:13 ↗ building edge first set back so I just I

2:07:16 ↗ think that this document needs to be

2:07:18 ↗ finished I don't think we need to

2:07:19 ↗ necessarily see that but I having it

2:07:20 ↗ just remain a blank to me it's a little

2:07:22 ↗ bit of concern so I would encourage that

2:07:24 ↗ okay and let me speak to a couple of the

2:07:26 ↗ examples that you've identified one of

2:07:29 ↗ the things that has

2:07:31 ↗ I'm out of some of the legal world is

2:07:36 ↗ that a photograph is as valuable as the

2:07:39 ↗ words so I think that that's the reason

2:07:43 ↗ that for instance the example that you

2:07:44 ↗ identified in the Western false front

2:07:48 ↗ even though it's there's not a specific

2:07:49 ↗ number I think that it's relative a

2:07:53 ↗ proportional description between the

2:07:56 ↗ words and the image that was acceptable

2:08:00 ↗ we have tended to use numbers but

2:08:03 ↗ because it is a proportional situation

2:08:07 ↗ it may not have been a number that a

2:08:10 ↗ number may not have been the right

2:08:11 ↗ approach there is with the weather

2:08:15 ↗ protection

2:08:17 ↗ you know the central district west

2:08:19 ↗ standards still exist and these

2:08:22 ↗ complement those and so one of the

2:08:24 ↗ decisions with weather protection was

2:08:26 ↗ for instance to have the more design

2:08:30 ↗ elements such as the materials the image

2:08:33 ↗ the sort of character of those be in

2:08:36 ↗ this document whereas the dimensional

2:08:38 ↗ requirements remains in centralist quest

2:08:41 ↗ standards so that they complement each

2:08:43 ↗ other so I think that that that that

2:08:46 ↗ dimension has been addressed it's just

2:08:48 ↗ not in this particular document and I

2:08:52 ↗ appreciate let's look at them right this

2:08:59 ↗ was a so this is one of the examples

2:09:01 ↗ whether we're staff I you know put this

2:09:06 ↗ in as a placeholder because we need to

2:09:07 ↗ have that conversation with Crandall Ram

2:09:09 ↗ Beulah and we can follow up and it's

2:09:11 ↗ helpful to know that that you would find

2:09:13 ↗ that useful

2:09:14 ↗ thank you I have a question and a

2:09:18 ↗ suggestion to Joy's point if we go back

2:09:22 ↗ to 60

2:09:37 ↗ so using the picture in the bottom right

2:09:41 ↗ hand corner your suggestion is to use

2:09:45 ↗ the spirit of the vision to mitigate

2:09:52 ↗ that type of structure those type of

2:09:56 ↗ additions yet that still leaves a lot of

2:09:59 ↗ ambiguity and subjectivity so if a

2:10:04 ↗ developer came in and wanted to do

2:10:06 ↗ something similar to that

2:10:08 ↗ there isn't anything definitive that

2:10:10 ↗ would say you cannot do that so um well

2:10:16 ↗ it has been identified as inappropriate

2:10:18 ↗ and so let's say the developer came in

2:10:21 ↗ and showed this and I would look at this

2:10:25 ↗ and say um this has been identified as

2:10:28 ↗ an inappropriate example and the cornice

2:10:30 ↗ is approximately half the size of the

2:10:34 ↗ facade below it and that's what you're

2:10:38 ↗ showing and so that has already been

2:10:39 ↗ deemed to be inappropriate you're right

2:10:42 ↗ it doesn't say five feets okay and six

2:10:46 ↗ feet isn't but that is with buildings

2:10:50 ↗ that can vary from one to six storeys or

2:10:54 ↗ no one to four storeys a dimensional a

2:11:01 ↗ dimension may not be appropriate right

2:11:03 ↗ and I certainly understand that but the

2:11:05 ↗ argument is how do you actually regulate

2:11:08 ↗ that who would be the one who would be

2:11:10 ↗ able to decide whether or not that was

2:11:13 ↗ appropriate developer comes and says

2:11:14 ↗ that's great that's why we're so famous

2:11:19 ↗ so staff staff would take the first

2:11:22 ↗ whack at it we fill out the checklist

2:11:24 ↗ first so actually the applicant fills

2:11:25 ↗ out the checklist first and the

2:11:27 ↗ applicant would say I chose Western

2:11:29 ↗ Falls front and I meet all the standards

2:11:32 ↗ and we go through and we say well no we

2:11:34 ↗ don't think you do because this is is

2:11:36 ↗ disproportionate ultimately then that

2:11:39 ↗ gets forwarded to the development

2:11:41 ↗ commission development Commission get to

2:11:42 ↗ see that staff don't believe it's

2:11:44 ↗ appropriate now the applicant would then

2:11:46 ↗ say here I here's what it says here's

2:11:49 ↗ why I think it's appropriate

2:11:51 ↗ they ultimately then get their the

2:11:52 ↗ decision maker so they then get to

2:11:54 ↗ decide if the applicant let's assume

2:11:56 ↗ they they agree with staff and they

2:11:59 ↗ require that that extension to be

2:12:02 ↗ reduced certain amount the applicant

2:12:05 ↗ then has the ability to appeal that

2:12:07 ↗ decision so there is a process so now

2:12:09 ↗ we're back to a procedural due process

2:12:11 ↗ there's a process associated with that

2:12:13 ↗ if that then goes to the hearing

2:12:15 ↗ examined the Hearing Examiner agrees

2:12:17 ↗ with the Development Commission that

2:12:18 ↗ they made the appropriate decision then

2:12:21 ↗ the applicant then gets to appeal that

2:12:22 ↗ to Superior Court if he wants and then

2:12:24 ↗ we're back to a place that we've been

2:12:27 ↗ before so part of this is getting as

2:12:30 ↗ many of those ambiguities knocked down

2:12:32 ↗ as as appropriate is this one where we

2:12:35 ↗ might want to take a second look and and

2:12:37 ↗ maybe provide some additional clarity

2:12:40 ↗ maybe I don't know but I hear the point

2:12:45 ↗ I'm not sure I feel super comfortable at

2:12:47 ↗ this moment on that particular one

2:12:50 ↗ example of inappropriateness but you

2:12:53 ↗ know I know that Lucy's been having

2:12:55 ↗ conversations with the city attorney and

2:12:57 ↗ I don't know if there's something else

2:12:58 ↗ coming for this or not but I think it's

2:13:00 ↗ I think we're on the same page as you

2:13:02 ↗ are we want clarity I think the

2:13:04 ↗ Development Commission wants as much

2:13:06 ↗ clarity as they can get out of it

2:13:08 ↗ and there will be places where we've

2:13:10 ↗ probably not provided enough and we'll

2:13:12 ↗ have to come back and and add photos and

2:13:15 ↗ if not more text I don't think that

2:13:18 ↗ there needs to necessarily be a height

2:13:19 ↗ requirement but it's to me and it just

2:13:20 ↗ an example of saying you know Lucy's

2:13:22 ↗ word so I think we're well if it's

2:13:23 ↗ double the size then that means it's too

2:13:26 ↗ big and so just having even that kind of

2:13:28 ↗ bracketing I think helps developers

2:13:30 ↗ especially when we have these blinks of

2:13:32 ↗ what is inappropriate so that's why I

2:13:34 ↗ just call out up saying

2:13:35 ↗ the better we define what we don't want

2:13:37 ↗ I think it helps to direct what we do

2:13:39 ↗ this is just a comment about the photos

2:13:42 ↗ so I think the photos are very helpful

2:13:45 ↗ and as you said they're also helpful

2:13:47 ↗ from a legal standpoint when the wording

2:13:49 ↗ isn't as precise but I also particularly

2:13:53 ↗ really liked the Issaquah photos there

2:13:55 ↗ are a lot of photos from within

2:13:56 ↗ SEO and I think that if they could

2:14:00 ↗ provide replace some of the photos that

2:14:04 ↗ aren't from Issaquah with Issaquah

2:14:05 ↗ photos I think that would be extra

2:14:08 ↗ helpful just because it would help also

2:14:09 ↗ the developers they can then model after

2:14:12 ↗ things that they could actually see in

2:14:14 ↗ the community and it would also I

2:14:16 ↗ imagine helped make the community more

2:14:19 ↗ cohesive because the examples are

2:14:21 ↗ actually examples existing here so

2:14:24 ↗ they're all looking at me because we had

2:14:26 ↗ this conversation okay Altman Commission

2:14:28 ↗ they're mostly they're mostly from

2:14:31 ↗ Issaquah which i think is great but then

2:14:33 ↗ they're you know there's some there are

2:14:34 ↗ some that are we we did a squad building

2:14:42 ↗ survey of non-residential buildings that

2:14:45 ↗ are two or more stories with the

2:14:47 ↗ development commission and passed that

2:14:50 ↗ along I think that in the timeframe that

2:14:52 ↗ we had they were a plus I did not

2:14:55 ↗ provide them with new photos I asked

2:14:58 ↗ them to let me know which ones they

2:14:59 ↗ thought were good examples that we other

2:15:02 ↗ than the library which we were all very

2:15:03 ↗ clear it would be in here so I think

2:15:07 ↗ that is something that we will be

2:15:08 ↗ following up with them to replace some

2:15:11 ↗ of the pictures or add to some of the

2:15:13 ↗ pictures because I agree with you it

2:15:15 ↗ while it has really helped these are

2:15:17 ↗ great pictures they're clear they're

2:15:19 ↗ well lit it's always nice to have

2:15:22 ↗ projects you can actually go walk around

2:15:24 ↗ that experiencing them in three

2:15:27 ↗ dimensions is different than looking at

2:15:29 ↗ a picture and so that will be something

2:15:31 ↗ that we'll follow up with them one of

2:15:34 ↗ the major points we tried to make with

2:15:36 ↗ consultant was that we didn't want all

2:15:38 ↗ of these equalities to be inappropriate

2:15:42 ↗ we would heartily agree with you that we

2:15:45 ↗ felt very strongly the same way

2:15:47 ↗ Lucy Durst had a great job of putting in

2:15:49 ↗ Issaquah photos together and very few

2:15:52 ↗ those made it in there and unfortunately

2:15:54 ↗ so I think also there's a there's an

2:15:57 ↗ aspirational aspect of this too because

2:15:59 ↗ we're talking about what what we

2:16:03 ↗ specifically for the urban core which is

2:16:06 ↗ going to go up by definition and so we

2:16:10 ↗ don't have a lot of up in the urban core

2:16:14 ↗ yet so what do we want them to look

2:16:16 ↗ and that's why the examples a lot of the

2:16:20 ↗ examples there are from Portland where

2:16:22 ↗ CA is but they've they've got that there

2:16:26 ↗ and that's it's pretty hard to find

2:16:29 ↗ northwest contemporary I've story

2:16:33 ↗ buildings in an Issaquah that we want to

2:16:35 ↗ see more of and I would say one one

2:16:38 ↗ other thing to Commission to Falls point

2:16:40 ↗ this is one of the one of the perennial

2:16:44 ↗ challenges of the Development Commission

2:16:46 ↗ and that we want creativity as one of

2:16:50 ↗ the members of the public

2:16:52 ↗ I mentioned tonight and we've had some

2:16:54 ↗ real active discussions on on how do you

2:16:57 ↗ have standards and and code height and

2:17:01 ↗ things like that and then go to this in

2:17:03 ↗ this direction without stifling

2:17:05 ↗ creativity without having some

2:17:08 ↗ architectural presentation to us that

2:17:10 ↗ really is is neat and and oh by the way

2:17:14 ↗ code compliant but it wouldn't have been

2:17:17 ↗ before so when it comes to the facade

2:17:20 ↗ heights and things like that I think

2:17:23 ↗ that's one of the reasons that we're not

2:17:25 ↗ getting into too specific numbers and

2:17:28 ↗ trying to go more with with pictures of

2:17:30 ↗ what we think works and what doesn't

2:17:32 ↗ work okay Wells but now not to imply

2:17:37 ↗ that we should be wrapping up or

2:17:38 ↗ anything like that but looking at the

2:17:40 ↗ clock and looking at where we are I

2:17:42 ↗ think with the discussion do we want to

2:17:46 ↗ make the suggestion to continue this

2:17:48 ↗ conversation at a later time that we can

2:17:52 ↗ gig into this it allow the city stuffs

2:17:53 ↗ and make changes and so on I haven't

2:17:57 ↗ heard any major changes what changes

2:17:59 ↗ would they be I mean specifications

2:18:02 ↗ clarifications but no conditions I think

2:18:07 ↗ I would feel from my perspective Ron I

2:18:09 ↗ have I think I have one question and one

2:18:11 ↗ comment left and I'm ready to move

2:18:14 ↗ forward I don't know that I need a

2:18:16 ↗ further round table discussion to

2:18:19 ↗ continue in a later date but that's just

2:18:21 ↗ from my perspective that I'm isn't there

2:18:23 ↗ but

2:18:25 ↗ correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you

2:18:27 ↗ interested in adding another design

2:18:30 ↗ standard to this all the design

2:18:33 ↗ standards are in the draft that you

2:18:35 ↗ receive it's in there is an amendment

2:18:37 ↗ okay

2:18:38 ↗ okay now I understand and I'm sure

2:18:42 ↗ joy what's your question oh my I had a

2:18:44 ↗ question about um the very last section

2:18:46 ↗ is on context and I at first I was

2:18:50 ↗ questioning when I read the document cuz

2:18:52 ↗ I was reading it obviously front to back

2:18:53 ↗ why it was kind of put as it felt like

2:18:55 ↗ an afterthought and I kind of was

2:18:56 ↗ questioning at first why it was put at

2:18:59 ↗ that place in the document and then I

2:19:00 ↗ realized I cared less about where it was

2:19:02 ↗ in the document the fact that I thought

2:19:03 ↗ this was a really important part when we

2:19:05 ↗ talked about trying to take in something

2:19:07 ↗ aspirational and actually put some teeth

2:19:09 ↗ on it

2:19:09 ↗ it's on page 141 of 147 and the the line

2:19:14 ↗ that strikes me is the end of the first

2:19:15 ↗ paragraph or so simply put new

2:19:16 ↗ development should fit in with the

2:19:18 ↗ environment and vision for central

2:19:19 ↗ Issaquah and I thought wow that's

2:19:21 ↗ exactly what we want we want to step

2:19:23 ↗ back and feel like this is cohesive

2:19:24 ↗ rather than a bunch of puzzle pieces put

2:19:26 ↗ together especially in the core when we

2:19:30 ↗ have a lot of development coming and so

2:19:33 ↗ I I just might comp my my question is

2:19:36 ↗ kind of about this why this element is

2:19:38 ↗ put here and then I think my further

2:19:41 ↗ comment is to kind of say is there a way

2:19:43 ↗ to kind of expand this and make this a

2:19:45 ↗ little more integral into the document

2:19:46 ↗ because to me this is it feels a little

2:19:50 ↗ more important than the way it's

2:19:51 ↗ addressed does that mean I don't know

2:19:52 ↗ that makes sense so I'm gonna go back

2:19:54 ↗ and actually I I love how much you guys

2:19:57 ↗ challenge me in terms of making

2:19:59 ↗ presentation okay so let me say a couple

2:20:03 ↗ things about the urban design section so

2:20:06 ↗ you know a big piece that we had an

2:20:09 ↗ address was architecture clearly you

2:20:11 ↗ guys have no questions on the structure

2:20:13 ↗ of architecture so I'm not even going to

2:20:15 ↗ go back there but on urban design I

2:20:17 ↗ think you what you're bringing up is an

2:20:18 ↗ interesting point and it took me a

2:20:22 ↗ little bit of time to understand the way

2:20:26 ↗ they were thinking about it and here's

2:20:28 ↗ what I'd like to say is that there are

2:20:30 ↗ two broad categories there is context

2:20:32 ↗ and there's sight context is how does

2:20:36 ↗ the project fit into the setting

2:20:38 ↗ and site is obviously the specific site

2:20:41 ↗ and and I think that the the reason that

2:20:45 ↗ it is here joy is because it applies to

2:20:48 ↗ all styles in all districts so they've

2:20:51 ↗ set up the districts they've explained

2:20:53 ↗ this sort of fine-grain thing then what

2:20:56 ↗ they're saying is what are the things

2:20:58 ↗ that are ubiquitous generic spread over

2:21:02 ↗ everything in a consistent sort of way

2:21:06 ↗ and so you know in context they have the

2:21:09 ↗ natural context piece which is the one

2:21:11 ↗ we'd like to discuss a little bit more

2:21:13 ↗ with you the other is other buildings

2:21:16 ↗ and what they've said is the majority of

2:21:18 ↗ buildings need to harmonize the way they

2:21:20 ↗ harmonize is using the Styles civic and

2:21:23 ↗ cultural buildings are the ones that

2:21:25 ↗ will stand out and I would add to that

2:21:28 ↗ the sort of parks and plazas I think

2:21:30 ↗ will be an important piece the site

2:21:33 ↗ itself then there are a number of pieces

2:21:36 ↗ about how that site contributes to

2:21:39 ↗ building a pleasant pedestrian oriented

2:21:42 ↗ public realm so there's the sort of

2:21:44 ↗ bundle this basket of things which they

2:21:47 ↗ chose for whatever reason to make second

2:21:50 ↗ that applies to everything as opposed to

2:21:54 ↗ the architecture which is parsed in a

2:21:56 ↗ much more fine-grain way does that help

2:22:01 ↗ it does help except for when I look back

2:22:03 ↗ to the design review checklist and I

2:22:05 ↗ have seen you know natural content and

2:22:06 ↗ the context section doesn't apply it's

2:22:09 ↗ almost like the note category needs to

2:22:10 ↗ be crossed off it needs to apply you

2:22:12 ↗ know so the way that I read the document

2:22:14 ↗ it felt a little more like there I I get

2:22:17 ↗ that it's a it's a bigger bucket that

2:22:18 ↗ applies to everything but it also felt

2:22:22 ↗ important to me and maybe it didn't

2:22:24 ↗ stand out quite as what as much as as

2:22:26 ↗ there was something too resonated with

2:22:28 ↗ me about how it was kind of whether it

2:22:29 ↗ was at the end of the document or

2:22:31 ↗ whether it was just a shorter section to

2:22:34 ↗ me it was important all agree with joy

2:22:37 ↗ there I like the idea of that beginning

2:22:42 ↗ contact section of the urban design

2:22:44 ↗ almost being in to go back to the very

2:22:49 ↗ beginning of it but kind of before the

2:22:51 ↗ architecture

2:22:52 ↗ section in the introduction just because

2:22:55 ↗ that's such an important element of

2:22:58 ↗ here's why we're doing it here's here's

2:23:01 ↗ what this means for developers and

2:23:03 ↗ here's the context that we're going to

2:23:06 ↗ be reviewing these projects well I guess

2:23:11 ↗ then what I'm hearing is so you know

2:23:14 ↗ this is page two and and it has so what

2:23:19 ↗ I'm hearing is that some of the language

2:23:22 ↗ of potentially the description I gave

2:23:25 ↗ you and the language that CAA is using

2:23:29 ↗ at the beginning of chapter three should

2:23:32 ↗ be pulled into this page to set up that

2:23:36 ↗ framework a little better is that is

2:23:38 ↗ that what I'm here I almost rather be

2:23:39 ↗ repetitive and that's restated again if

2:23:42 ↗ you want to keep that context at the end

2:23:43 ↗ so it feels more umbrella-like and maybe

2:23:45 ↗ it's just a matter of going through this

2:23:47 ↗ design review checklist and maybe there

2:23:48 ↗ is just no box the note boxes aren't a

2:23:50 ↗ you know if it it has to apply if it

2:23:52 ↗ doesn't apply then that's an issue

2:23:53 ↗ that's a that's a stall well I like the

2:23:59 ↗ idea of there being aspirational stuff

2:24:02 ↗ in Chapter one rather than leaving that

2:24:07 ↗ to chapter three okay

2:24:25 ↗ so under build you know I think there's

2:24:28 ↗ some pieces like building edges that are

2:24:30 ↗ probably going to apply to all projects

2:24:32 ↗ I think it's just the context so if

2:24:36 ↗ you're looking that oh okay context

2:24:38 ↗ portion the site and that would stay

2:24:41 ↗ yeah there's just something about that

2:24:43 ↗ that is so but you know that natural

2:24:46 ↗ areas will not apply to every project so

2:24:49 ↗ but I think I mean so if you think about

2:24:51 ↗ it I guess I agree to some extent with

2:24:53 ↗ the commissioners and and you guys

2:24:54 ↗ unless you went back and looked at all

2:24:56 ↗ the DC meetings which I assume maybe you

2:24:58 ↗ did not I would have one of the one of

2:25:01 ↗ the first things out of our consultants

2:25:04 ↗ mouth was it's important for buildings

2:25:08 ↗ to fit into the environment and and that

2:25:11 ↗ goes contrary to what most architects

2:25:13 ↗ want to do which is to build the most

2:25:16 ↗ impressive building that they can for

2:25:17 ↗ their client and so that particular

2:25:20 ↗ issue was key to everything that's spun

2:25:23 ↗ out from there right that's why there's

2:25:25 ↗ specific architecture types that they

2:25:27 ↗ can choose from not just a complete open

2:25:30 ↗ architectural palette right and so I

2:25:32 ↗ think putting something in the

2:25:33 ↗ introduction that says that that was one

2:25:35 ↗ of the kind of the the cornerstones of

2:25:38 ↗ the Capstone's to the whole structure

2:25:40 ↗ for this I think that's great because I

2:25:42 ↗ think that's the way they led was

2:25:44 ↗ because it was a hard thing to to kind

2:25:47 ↗ of hear at the beginning but it was very

2:25:48 ↗ key to how they put this whole piece

2:25:50 ↗ this puzzle together which is you know

2:25:53 ↗ what building should blend in with their

2:25:55 ↗ surroundings and they shouldn't

2:25:57 ↗ necessarily be the point of attention

2:25:59 ↗ for that particular block unless they're

2:26:02 ↗ they have a particular use that warrants

2:26:05 ↗ that and that was very I think very

2:26:07 ↗ pivotal to the whole conversation so I

2:26:09 ↗ think that can be done I think that is

2:26:12 ↗ not contrary to the way that I think

2:26:14 ↗ they've heard the messages well and and

2:26:16 ↗ and I think that especially in looking

2:26:19 ↗ at page two that it seems a little light

2:26:28 ↗ on it boy yeah we just yeah I just I

2:26:31 ↗ like the idea of really expanding you

2:26:33 ↗ know we I think we all gravitate towards

2:26:35 ↗ that concept and really just right I

2:26:38 ↗ mean

2:26:38 ↗ home off the bat right the architecture

2:26:41 ↗ probably needs less description but the

2:26:43 ↗ context I think could benefit to help

2:26:46 ↗ users understand the distinction between

2:26:50 ↗ the two really it's the tone of the

2:26:52 ↗ document okay well and it sends a

2:26:56 ↗ message out that you know the building

2:26:58 ↗ that you just built in Vegas you're not

2:27:00 ↗ going to be able to build here up at the

2:27:02 ↗ front right and I think that's a message

2:27:03 ↗ we all want people to start with it

2:27:07 ↗ sounds more like you suppose I mean yeah

2:27:11 ↗ it's a quoi and and brings so many other

2:27:15 ↗ people into into this is there any

2:27:20 ↗ discussion we go back to this kind of

2:27:22 ↗ hard verse blurry line as far as styles

2:27:25 ↗ in the urban core it sounds like we're

2:27:27 ↗ all pretty happy with the traditional

2:27:28 ↗ styles that are in front of us is there

2:27:30 ↗ any discussion about wanting to expound

2:27:32 ↗ or keep right now what we have for the

2:27:34 ↗ urban core I think I'm a little bit

2:27:38 ↗ concerned with there only being one

2:27:40 ↗ option there and for such a large area

2:27:44 ↗ of the city and Joanne I heard what you

2:27:47 ↗ said about how you know it can be

2:27:48 ↗ interpreted a lot of different ways

2:27:50 ↗ maybe devoting a little bit more space

2:27:55 ↗ to some of those different options

2:27:58 ↗ within that one design standpoint as a

2:28:02 ↗ way to show some differentiation instead

2:28:06 ↗ of necessary bringing out bringing one

2:28:08 ↗ of the other design styles into the

2:28:12 ↗ urban core or defining a seventh piece

2:28:15 ↗ just so would that be more images that

2:28:19 ↗ would show that diversity think so yeah

2:28:24 ↗ I like that idea

2:28:28 ↗ good yeah you know but you know one

2:28:31 ↗ question about that would be that some

2:28:33 ↗ of the limitations would be that you

2:28:34 ↗ cannot have eaves or overhangs in the

2:28:41 ↗ next up but in the urban core your

2:28:44 ↗ buildings would not be able to have

2:28:45 ↗ eaves or overhangs on a building

2:28:47 ↗ which may be fine but we meaning no

2:28:50 ↗ buildings would have that and I don't

2:28:52 ↗ know if that's an area that needs to be

2:28:54 ↗ that strict in the guidelines or that's

2:28:57 ↗ a good point because isn't that the area

2:28:59 ↗ where we're trying to create mixed-use

2:29:01 ↗ development to get people to walk around

2:29:03 ↗ and if we're not gonna have overhangs

2:29:06 ↗ that's I'm sorry I think this would be

2:29:08 ↗ like at the top at the top there's still

2:29:09 ↗ weather protection

2:29:10 ↗ oh okay okay and overhangs and and

2:29:23 ↗ remember remember I mean there's a

2:29:26 ↗ character piece and I think that's

2:29:28 ↗ partly what you're speaking to you you

2:29:30 ↗ were speaking there's an architectural

2:29:33 ↗ and sort of design character and then

2:29:36 ↗ there's functionality you know at four

2:29:38 ↗ plus stories what's happening at the top

2:29:41 ↗ of the building in terms of

2:29:43 ↗ functionality it's not it's it's a

2:29:45 ↗ decorative piece you're referring to

2:29:49 ↗ awnings and things like that at the

2:29:51 ↗ lower levels right which would be then

2:29:53 ↗ included in this yes discussion right

2:29:56 ↗ because weather protection is when in

2:29:58 ↗ that urban design section that applies

2:30:00 ↗ to everything yeah I have a couple

2:30:05 ↗ questions here one on the page 33 bottom

2:30:09 ↗ left-hand corner third paragraph could

2:30:13 ↗ you clarify exactly what that intent is

2:30:16 ↗ can you tell me what you're you know I I

2:30:19 ↗ saw your email this is the urban course

2:30:22 ↗ located centrally and while it may be

2:30:24 ↗ influenced by the urban core zoning

2:30:27 ↗ district I don't one of the same though

2:30:30 ↗ right so there there is the urban core

2:30:35 ↗ zoning you know like any other zone that

2:30:40 ↗ you have in the city and then there's

2:30:42 ↗ the urban core design manual district

2:30:48 ↗ got it so they have the same name and

2:30:51 ↗ they're in the same location okay I

2:30:54 ↗ looked a little ambiguous to me but

2:30:57 ↗ thank you for the clarification

2:30:58 ↗ absolutely I also see something that

2:31:00 ↗ looked

2:31:00 ↗ like is lacking in this document I see

2:31:03 ↗ throughout the document the mention of

2:31:05 ↗ that sometimes steel doors or metal

2:31:08 ↗ doors

2:31:09 ↗ I think I saw steel doors you just don't

2:31:13 ↗ want to see aluminum doors showing up

2:31:15 ↗ I saw steel and I was referencing

2:31:18 ↗ thinking I wonder if they thought about

2:31:19 ↗ aluminum doors aluminum windows okay

2:31:23 ↗ nevermind and is there any restriction

2:31:26 ↗ on colors yes hey how restrictive of

2:31:31 ↗ very restrictive we want that

2:31:34 ↗ restrictive yeah let me just say Atlas

2:31:39 ↗ blue yeah so there and I'm not speaking

2:31:44 ↗ personally I think the message from the

2:31:47 ↗ community from the Development

2:31:49 ↗ Commission from the council is Atlas

2:31:53 ↗ blue is not what we want and that this

2:31:56 ↗ the color palettes that are identified

2:31:59 ↗ in here are they are I don't think they

2:32:07 ↗ will be monotonous but they will be

2:32:10 ↗ narrower so toward that idea within the

2:32:15 ↗ glossary of terms which in this addendum

2:32:18 ↗ is page 123 124 there's a really good

2:32:22 ↗ explanation for earthtones hue tint and

2:32:26 ↗ tone along with a color wheel and I feel

2:32:30 ↗ like that needs to be like there needs

2:32:36 ↗ to be a link between that very specific

2:32:40 ↗ information and what's included in each

2:32:43 ↗ of the design styles so you may notice

2:32:48 ↗ that every single color page was

2:32:50 ↗ replaced along with this this section

2:32:53 ↗ and that was to take the term hue which

2:32:57 ↗ is specifically does not defined through

2:33:00 ↗ the glossary and this color wheel and

2:33:03 ↗ specifically link it to the

2:33:06 ↗ inappropriate color term and that was

2:33:10 ↗ very important to the City Attorney

2:33:14 ↗ - as well as the inclusion of the couple

2:33:17 ↗ of the inappropriate pictures in the

2:33:20 ↗ glossary to ensure that there was

2:33:22 ↗ greater clarity of what was

2:33:25 ↗ inappropriate yeah so I think what I

2:33:28 ↗ would want both for the Development

2:33:31 ↗ Commission and for developers is and

2:33:35 ↗ maybe another color wheel or some kind

2:33:38 ↗ of definition in visual terms of earth

2:33:42 ↗ tones and then just a every time we're

2:33:48 ↗ mentioning color in each of the design

2:33:50 ↗ areas referring them to this page or

2:33:55 ↗ this glossary so that because you're not

2:33:59 ↗ going to include that visual multiple

2:34:00 ↗ times in the document but being very

2:34:03 ↗ specific about what the difference is

2:34:05 ↗ there so I'm gonna set the curtain piece

2:34:08 ↗ aside for just a moment but but in good

2:34:11 ↗ code writing you don't you know that

2:34:13 ↗ yeah and I reason is if we call out one

2:34:16 ↗ thing and link it back to the glossary

2:34:18 ↗ and we don't do that with everything it

2:34:21 ↗ implies certain things about what we're

2:34:25 ↗ saying or not saying so that's why the

2:34:29 ↗ the terminology is exact and that is

2:34:33 ↗ then staffs responsibility to say you

2:34:37 ↗ know see it says hue here as an import

2:34:39 ↗ in appropriate color that's defined in

2:34:42 ↗ the glossary so that's that's how that

2:34:44 ↗ would play out in terms of earth tones

2:34:48 ↗ let me make this bigger for my eyes if

2:34:51 ↗ not for yours and like Lucy how in the

2:34:55 ↗ document you definitely find pickering

2:34:57 ↗ read as being okay here and not okay

2:34:59 ↗ here because I thought as being a nice

2:35:01 ↗ definition of where where do we allow

2:35:04 ↗ our our hue to be kind of a thing I

2:35:05 ↗ thought that was well put and and the

2:35:07 ↗ Development Commission deserves all

2:35:09 ↗ credit for Pickering red they that was I

2:35:11 ↗ think a really a wise thing that they

2:35:13 ↗ did was to specifically call out that

2:35:16 ↗ color

2:35:26 ↗ you know Lindsay I can ask them about

2:35:31 ↗ that I I will tell you that we've spent

2:35:33 ↗ a lot of time on this that doesn't mean

2:35:35 ↗ that we've got it right but we started

2:35:37 ↗ with with natural colors and my point

2:35:40 ↗ was you know when the sky is natural

2:35:44 ↗ exactly that atlas blue is sky blue and

2:35:48 ↗ that's natural and that's not what we

2:35:49 ↗ want so I know that they spent a lot of

2:35:53 ↗ time trying to look at terms and I I

2:35:58 ↗ think the thing I would say is I I can

2:36:01 ↗ go back and look at at I know that they

2:36:05 ↗ very specifically pick up that section

2:36:08 ↗ reads really well and I think it is a

2:36:11 ↗ very it has a lot of clarity to it

2:36:14 ↗ I like visuals but that's just me so I

2:36:18 ↗ could see it either way I just I really

2:36:21 ↗ like the the visual that's given to the

2:36:26 ↗ hue I guess I get that tint and tone and

2:36:29 ↗ so if there was any way to demonstrate

2:36:31 ↗ that as well for the earth tones I think

2:36:35 ↗ that would be great okay

2:36:41 ↗ don't I think I have if you don't mind

2:36:44 ↗ I'd like to just point out I'm Lucie

2:36:48 ↗ drop the question before about the

2:36:49 ↗ northwest revival style that we had not

2:36:51 ↗ seen that and we may weren't it provides

2:36:54 ↗ our opinion on that from the Development

2:36:56 ↗ Commission perspective first I was

2:36:58 ↗ saying Richard Wright I've talked before

2:36:59 ↗ they I like the Northwest revival as a

2:37:03 ↗ possible use a style to be used a couple

2:37:07 ↗ things one would be Lucy did bring up

2:37:10 ↗ the suggestion that she had of changing

2:37:12 ↗ the height and I think was looking for a

2:37:16 ↗ direction on how to go with that with 85

2:37:20 ↗ feet and I think it's in the northwest

2:37:23 ↗ revival you're required to go it's 15 to

2:37:26 ↗ 20 feet in their first floor you really

2:37:28 ↗ couldn't go above 7 stories so I think 7

2:37:31 ↗ is the max works and I think she said

2:37:34 ↗ four or five and I think with four you

2:37:35 ↗ could still get a tripartite design so I

2:37:39 ↗ think a four to seven height limit with

2:37:42 ↗ that I think would work for that it does

2:37:48 ↗ bring up one other question issue I

2:37:49 ↗ think is here is buildings over five

2:37:52 ↗ storeys we now have two choices but only

2:37:55 ↗ two we have Northwest Lodge and

2:37:58 ↗ northwest Revival Northwest revival has

2:38:01 ↗ to be a brick stone covered building

2:38:04 ↗ northwest Lodge the images are very much

2:38:07 ↗ large style one of the big designs you

2:38:09 ↗ would see would be a five over two

2:38:11 ↗ multifamily mixed-use design two floors

2:38:14 ↗ of commercial on the bottom and concrete

2:38:17 ↗ and five floors of wood frame above that

2:38:20 ↗ you typically can do more than five of

2:38:22 ↗ wood frame that would put you at seven

2:38:25 ↗ storeys in the mixed use zoning which is

2:38:29 ↗ quite a bit of the traditional area that

2:38:33 ↗ would typically I think be what we would

2:38:34 ↗ be seen come down the road would be a

2:38:38 ↗ five over two which would only allow the

2:38:41 ↗ lodge and revival which I kind of

2:38:43 ↗ question whether you could fit a design

2:38:48 ↗ in the lodge or Revival style in a five

2:38:51 ↗ over two type of building I think there

2:38:54 ↗ are a lot of

2:38:55 ↗ examples of very attractive five over

2:38:57 ↗ two buildings that would work in

2:38:59 ↗ Issaquah we've seen it in that

2:39:01 ↗ don't meet those two styles and raises a

2:39:03 ↗ concern for me well you be your

2:39:06 ↗ suggestion I wish they would have come

2:39:09 ↗ up with another one another style for

2:39:14 ↗ that size or if arts and crafts be

2:39:18 ↗ interpreted if you went up to seven

2:39:20 ↗ stories or I don't know if that works

2:39:22 ↗ but I would look maybe more to Lucy and

2:39:26 ↗ her team try to figure out a style that

2:39:29 ↗ would be a modern Issaquah five over two

2:39:33 ↗ apartment that meets what we want to see

2:39:35 ↗ in Issaquah and I'm not sure that fits

2:39:38 ↗ in those two but if there's another

2:39:40 ↗ style for them I'm agreeing to be able

2:39:43 ↗ to be amended for that I I tend to think

2:39:46 ↗ about how urban Grange style has been

2:39:49 ↗ applied in like Wenatchee for larger

2:39:52 ↗ scale buildings and it kind of

2:39:54 ↗ integrated some of the comments that we

2:39:56 ↗ had heard tonight about kind of more of

2:39:57 ↗ a Northwest industrial kind of mixed

2:39:59 ↗ with a little bit of an old school and I

2:40:01 ↗ think urban Grange might be able to if

2:40:03 ↗ we were able to I might be one way to go

2:40:07 ↗ I don't know if that takes into account

2:40:09 ↗ the five stories as well right here

2:40:13 ↗ they're doing solar but I don't know if

2:40:15 ↗ they're right that's a that's a good

2:40:18 ↗ point Lindsay I mean Barnes probably

2:40:24 ↗ pushing you know four storeys maybe five

2:40:27 ↗ C but given the the overall sort of

2:40:31 ↗ profile of the building I'm not sure

2:40:33 ↗ that it addresses the five over to the

2:40:38 ↗ lodge style I mean there there is some I

2:40:44 ↗ think there are some ways in which five

2:40:46 ↗ over two would work with lodge because

2:40:48 ↗ the way it is described is as with a

2:40:55 ↗ heavy base lighter above so you know

2:40:58 ↗ having a and bipartite so you know

2:41:05 ↗ having a two-story base of some kind of

2:41:08 ↗ may

2:41:08 ↗ or concrete with the five storeys above

2:41:11 ↗ I think isn't inconsistent and it would

2:41:15 ↗ have a pitched roof which you know if

2:41:18 ↗ you're doing a mix juice with

2:41:19 ↗ residential for instance that also could

2:41:22 ↗ be appropriate I will tell you that that

2:41:27 ↗ coming up with this style was quite a

2:41:30 ↗ feat and I don't know that there is

2:41:33 ↗ another style that I would recommend do

2:41:36 ↗ you think we would be able to come have

2:41:38 ↗ them come up with pictures of I've over

2:41:41 ↗ two multifamily that would fit the lodge

2:41:44 ↗ style the way they talk about it and and

2:41:49 ↗ that's a good point just in general if

2:41:51 ↗ if we look at the Development Commission

2:41:53 ↗ you guys say okay these are the most

2:41:55 ↗ common types of development that we get

2:41:58 ↗ in Issaquah or that we want to get in

2:42:01 ↗ Issaquah as an example the five over to

2:42:04 ↗ let's make sure there are pictures that

2:42:06 ↗ address that wherever it's applicable to

2:42:09 ↗ the height because gosh if we're gonna

2:42:12 ↗ be providing pictures the more pictures

2:42:15 ↗ that we can provide that are applicable

2:42:17 ↗ in addition to aspirational or great I

2:42:21 ↗ think it's very Pro because like

2:42:23 ↗ pictures of clay Loch Lodge we're not

2:42:26 ↗ gonna get clay lock Lodge built in

2:42:27 ↗ mmm-hmm what so and while we're on these

2:42:35 ↗ topics here I do have three additional

2:42:37 ↗ well two questions here one I didn't see

2:42:40 ↗ anywhere in this document about the use

2:42:43 ↗ of reflective tinted windows I don't

2:42:46 ↗ know if that would be part of the

2:42:47 ↗ document no it is it actually it is in

2:42:50 ↗ here it's very specifically prohibited

2:42:52 ↗ okay excellent and then my next question

2:42:55 ↗ is utilities and the utilities go a

2:42:57 ↗ couple different directions one would be

2:42:59 ↗ street lamp street lighting if there

2:43:01 ↗ would be different type of street

2:43:03 ↗ lighting for different areas then to the

2:43:07 ↗ use of satellite dishes and cellular

2:43:12 ↗ towers and other types of communication

2:43:14 ↗ devices that would be on buildings if

2:43:16 ↗ that would be part of the design or if

2:43:19 ↗ that would be part of

2:43:20 ↗ code and then you have utilities such as

2:43:23 ↗ HVAC systems and so on if those would be

2:43:26 ↗ visible so utilities are addressed in in

2:43:28 ↗ is central is cost standards and we

2:43:32 ↗ asked we asked Crandall Ram Beulah if

2:43:35 ↗ they felt additional standards were

2:43:38 ↗ necessary and I assume that since they

2:43:41 ↗ didn't add anything in here they feel

2:43:42 ↗ that that what we've got in the central

2:43:44 ↗ is quest Androids is sufficient you know

2:43:48 ↗ what it requires is that rooftop systems

2:43:50 ↗ be screened and that would include you

2:43:55 ↗ know cell towers and other kinds of

2:43:57 ↗ equipment on the roof in terms of

2:44:00 ↗ streetlights there the specific styles

2:44:03 ↗ of streetlights is not defined we are

2:44:08 ↗ working with Public Works engineering as

2:44:11 ↗ different projects have taken place in

2:44:13 ↗ different parts of town to identify a

2:44:16 ↗ streetlight for the corridor or for the

2:44:19 ↗ district so that has been we've been

2:44:21 ↗ working on that incrementally with

2:44:23 ↗ Public Works engineering Public Works

2:44:25 ↗ operations in PSE that would be baked

2:44:28 ↗ into this document no it doesn't mean

2:44:31 ↗ it's it's our right-of-way and so it's

2:44:34 ↗ really a plan that we need to have to be

2:44:37 ↗ able to make it easy to work with

2:44:39 ↗ applicants but we don't have to put it

2:44:43 ↗ into this particular document to be able

2:44:46 ↗ to specify what kind of street fixtures

2:44:49 ↗ to use ersten okay excellent thank you

2:44:53 ↗ mm-hmm one less round

2:44:56 ↗ anybody else wanna so there was one

2:45:00 ↗ other policy conversation which we

2:45:02 ↗ haven't had which is about the natural

2:45:03 ↗ areas do we want to talk about that or

2:45:06 ↗ not

2:45:08 ↗ what conversation yeah what elements

2:45:13 ↗ should be included in the natural areas

2:45:16 ↗ and the extent of response to those so

2:45:23 ↗ this document seems to suggest that you

2:45:26 ↗ need to have windows and things like

2:45:30 ↗ that oriented toward the natural

2:45:32 ↗ environment

2:45:34 ↗ you can't have a parking lot between the

2:45:36 ↗ building in the natural environment all

2:45:38 ↗ things like that which and the material

2:45:43 ↗ materials need to address right so - so

2:45:47 ↗ we weren't we weren't questioning that

2:45:50 ↗ list which is this sort of the things

2:45:52 ↗ that are listed under that with the

2:45:54 ↗ bullets down here building materials

2:45:56 ↗ open articulation uses side access site

2:46:00 ↗ uses I think the two questions were the

2:46:03 ↗ map that MCA showed included some things

2:46:07 ↗ that we don't think probably makes sense

2:46:10 ↗ and two there was quite a bit of

2:46:14 ↗ discussion both with the council and

2:46:16 ↗ with the Development Commission about

2:46:21 ↗ for instance if you have four four

2:46:24 ↗ classifications of streams do you make

2:46:26 ↗ the full set of responses for all of

2:46:29 ↗ those or does a class-four stream

2:46:32 ↗ doesn't have a different level of

2:46:34 ↗ response and say a class two or one

2:46:36 ↗ stream can you give us an example yeah

2:46:43 ↗ right so it could be that so one one

2:46:49 ↗ example would be the building step back

2:46:53 ↗ when they're next to this natural area

2:46:57 ↗ you might say with the highest level

2:47:02 ↗ building step back with a class four

2:47:04 ↗ stream they don't step back I am I am

2:47:08 ↗ NOT a proponent I think we are fine the

2:47:12 ↗ administration is fine with having all

2:47:16 ↗ of these but that was we put that out as

2:47:19 ↗ a policy discussion because even though

2:47:22 ↗ we have put this forward in the

2:47:23 ↗ administration is comfortable with this

2:47:25 ↗ there was not clarity by the Development

2:47:29 ↗ Commission there's not clarity by the

2:47:30 ↗ council and it seemed as a planning

2:47:33 ↗ policy Commission that that might be

2:47:35 ↗ something you want to discuss it may not

2:47:37 ↗ be and that's fine where would that be

2:47:39 ↗ applicable so this is the map that

2:47:44 ↗ Crandall ramble are proposed it would

2:47:46 ↗ need to be updated

2:47:47 ↗ because some of the green areas shown

2:47:50 ↗ are actually development parcels so we

2:47:54 ↗ are not using this map to take away the

2:47:58 ↗ development rights of certain properties

2:48:01 ↗ we do think that there are certain

2:48:05 ↗ things that might might be appropriate

2:48:09 ↗ wetlands critical areas and streams and

2:48:13 ↗ their buffers I think we all feel that

2:48:15 ↗ though that is an important part of the

2:48:17 ↗ green necklace and that that level of

2:48:19 ↗ response is appropriate another would be

2:48:24 ↗ stormwater facilities

2:48:26 ↗ you know the ponds at Pickering place

2:48:28 ↗ are have a their stormwater ponds but

2:48:32 ↗ they have a very natural character they

2:48:33 ↗ have trails it would seem appropriate to

2:48:35 ↗ do that engineered ponds maybe that

2:48:38 ↗ isn't appropriate those might be

2:48:39 ↗ redeveloped in the future when projects

2:48:43 ↗ redevelop maybe we don't do that for

2:48:46 ↗ those hillsides they had proposed

2:48:49 ↗ hillsides we had removed the

2:48:51 ↗ administration proposed removing

2:48:53 ↗ hillsides if this is not a venturi I'm

2:48:55 ↗ getting a very interesting set of faces

2:48:57 ↗ I don't know how that actually fits in

2:49:00 ↗ to this and I have a specific question

2:49:05 ↗ but to that which is on the last slide

2:49:07 ↗ it said that the responses are on page

2:49:09 ↗ are on part you D 1.1.1 yeah and what

2:49:15 ↗ where is that in our I just couldn't

2:49:18 ↗ find shirt but I'm I'm having trouble

2:49:21 ↗ understanding what the proposed

2:49:23 ↗ responses that were talking about are so

2:49:27 ↗ can i maybe since I am getting prizes

2:49:31 ↗ yes so so right now the way that they

2:49:34 ↗ proposed the document was if your

2:49:36 ↗ project is next to an open space that

2:49:40 ↗ that your design should reflect that as

2:49:44 ↗ an amenity and not just turn your back

2:49:46 ↗ on it right and so one of the questions

2:49:48 ↗ that Lucy was saying is are all of those

2:49:51 ↗ open spaces equal like so for example if

2:49:53 ↗ your next Issaquah Creek so let's take

2:49:56 ↗ as a qualm Medical Center or atlas you

2:49:58 ↗ know that that's a big Amen

2:50:01 ↗ it's it's you know would be hard to just

2:50:03 ↗ say oh I didn't even know it was there

2:50:05 ↗ but we have some creeks in town that you

2:50:08 ↗ know for part of the year they may not

2:50:10 ↗ have water in them right and so it may

2:50:12 ↗ look even more like a ditch and so you

2:50:14 ↗ say okay

2:50:15 ↗ do I treat that the same as do I treat

2:50:23 ↗ that the same as I treat Issaquah Creek

2:50:25 ↗ now what's being proposed in the manual

2:50:28 ↗ is yes you did so so yes you do and part

2:50:31 ↗ of it has to do with is there public

2:50:33 ↗ access to that open space so for example

2:50:37 ↗ you know you can take the ponds around

2:50:40 ↗ Pickering right there's a it's a it's a

2:50:43 ↗ it's actually manmade it's it's

2:50:44 ↗ detention facility but it looks natural

2:50:47 ↗ and there's walkin around it and so the

2:50:49 ↗ public is invited to enjoy that amenity

2:50:52 ↗ so if you're gonna build a building next

2:50:54 ↗ to that with the manual would say is you

2:50:56 ↗ should recognize that there should be

2:50:58 ↗ step backs there should be access to the

2:51:00 ↗ open space and that's how you handle it

2:51:03 ↗ I think the question that Lucy was

2:51:05 ↗ trying to ask earlier was is that is

2:51:09 ↗ what's in the manual now where we're

2:51:11 ↗ basically if you are adjacent to an open

2:51:13 ↗ space your design should reflect that

2:51:16 ↗ adjacency in some way you know I think

2:51:20 ↗ the administration is fine with that as

2:51:22 ↗ a holistic approach but that's part of

2:51:26 ↗ the conversation point is do you guys

2:51:28 ↗ agree with that perspective that you

2:51:31 ↗ know whether it's a ditch or whether

2:51:32 ↗ it's it's a quad Creek you should

2:51:34 ↗ recognize that hey it's it's a critical

2:51:37 ↗ area and we should pay attention to it

2:51:40 ↗ when we design our projects we could say

2:51:42 ↗ yes and then exceptions could go through

2:51:46 ↗ the development Commission there aren't

2:51:48 ↗ any exceptions

2:51:50 ↗ that's okay that's where you were saying

2:51:52 ↗ we have to be her white house be

2:51:55 ↗ predictable predictable independent yes

2:51:58 ↗ all right so what we had put in here was

2:52:04 ↗ hillsides and developable property

2:52:08 ↗ because some of the land that they

2:52:09 ↗ showed is Green has development rights

2:52:12 ↗ would not be included in the map

2:52:15 ↗ stormwater ponds natural storm water

2:52:18 ↗ with ponds with trails would be included

2:52:21 ↗ engineered ones would not regulated

2:52:24 ↗ creeks wetlands and their buffers would

2:52:26 ↗ get this special response city parks

2:52:30 ↗ city-owned open space and private

2:52:33 ↗ protected property would get this

2:52:35 ↗ response but we would treat the map as

2:52:38 ↗ informational and not regulatory because

2:52:41 ↗ I don't think we want to have to go to

2:52:42 ↗ council every time the city buys a new

2:52:45 ↗ Park for instance or if a project

2:52:50 ↗ identifies a wetland then they would

2:52:53 ↗ have to do that because it's being it's

2:52:55 ↗ a regulated critical area we wouldn't

2:52:57 ↗ need to update the map to show that it's

2:52:59 ↗ a regulated critical area so the map

2:53:02 ↗ would be informational it would give a

2:53:04 ↗ sense of some of the things that we're

2:53:06 ↗ saying we want this response to but we

2:53:10 ↗ would establish the things that are in

2:53:13 ↗ that you must respond to and the things

2:53:15 ↗ that are out that would not require that

2:53:19 ↗ response so when you're talking about

2:53:22 ↗ that and you say regulated creeks but

2:53:24 ↗ then above you've also talked about

2:53:26 ↗ class for streams versus class two

2:53:28 ↗ streams are those related so streams

2:53:32 ↗ have a they're a series of

2:53:34 ↗ classifications and criteria for those

2:53:38 ↗ again the administration other than the

2:53:42 ↗ things that we've identified at the

2:53:44 ↗ bottom because the map bundled a lot of

2:53:46 ↗ things together the administration is

2:53:49 ↗ fine leaving it the way it was but

2:53:51 ↗ because there was not clarity coming out

2:53:53 ↗ of DC and there was not clarity when we

2:53:57 ↗ made a presentation at a recent council

2:53:59 ↗ workshop we're simply bringing it to

2:54:02 ↗ your attention if you do not feel a need

2:54:05 ↗ or to pursue this further we're okay

2:54:08 ↗ with that we just wanted to include this

2:54:11 ↗ as one of the policy topics that we that

2:54:13 ↗ you could choose to talk about you're

2:54:15 ↗ not really thinking the words clarity

2:54:18 ↗ you're thinking of discussion there's

2:54:20 ↗ both clarity which is the list at the

2:54:23 ↗ bottom and then

2:54:26 ↗ policy which would be are all

2:54:30 ↗ classifications of streams handled the

2:54:32 ↗ same way it it could be clear either way

2:54:35 ↗ it's just a question of what is our

2:54:37 ↗ policy what is the result that we want

2:54:40 ↗ yeah and I would say it at the risk of

2:54:43 ↗ saying this incorrectly I'm finding with

2:54:46 ↗ the all the natural features and being

2:54:48 ↗ treated the same but I like the

2:54:50 ↗ clarifications that you have there in

2:54:52 ↗ red

2:54:52 ↗ ok is that makes sense yeah and if I

2:54:56 ↗ knew more about class 2 versus class 4

2:54:59 ↗ maybe I have an answer for that and say

2:55:02 ↗ well ok if something's a ditch 90% of

2:55:05 ↗ the year it don't feel like we need to

2:55:07 ↗ address it so if there is a an obvious

2:55:10 ↗ response there I think that's fine as

2:55:13 ↗ far well that's the thing I will say is

2:55:15 ↗ that many ditches many things that might

2:55:18 ↗ to the layperson appeared to be a ditch

2:55:20 ↗ are considered a stream both from our

2:55:24 ↗ critical area regulations and the State

2:55:26 ↗ Department of Fish and Wildlife and so I

2:55:32 ↗ don't call them ditches hesitate for you

2:55:36 ↗ to think of it as being a ditch and I

2:55:38 ↗ would actually be more of a component of

2:55:40 ↗ saying all streams are the same because

2:55:43 ↗ basically depending on the Northwest

2:55:45 ↗ what our rainfall has been at any given

2:55:47 ↗ time I mean so giving this kind of

2:55:48 ↗ classification I think is better to just

2:55:50 ↗ leave everything as being like yes we

2:55:52 ↗ want to have a response to everything

2:55:54 ↗ rather than going into a thing of

2:55:56 ↗ depending on what time of year or

2:55:57 ↗ developer looks at that and says hey but

2:55:59 ↗ I don't know is there a problem

2:56:00 ↗ and sticking to that I don't think one

2:56:03 ↗ dishes we want landscapes natural

2:56:06 ↗ looking areas right go right and the

2:56:10 ↗ thing you're calling a ditch is a often

2:56:11 ↗ a creek and then when it is a creek is a

2:56:14 ↗ regulated Creek it has buffers and those

2:56:17 ↗ must be landscaped and so the question

2:56:19 ↗ is in addition to the regulatory

2:56:22 ↗ requirements through the critical area

2:56:24 ↗ regulations do we want the site and the

2:56:28 ↗ buildings to additionally respond and

2:56:30 ↗ right now I think I'm hearing yes and

2:56:32 ↗ yes so I would just make one suggested

2:56:36 ↗ to change the list I think the developer

2:56:38 ↗ developer

2:56:39 ↗ property is an obvious one that yes that

2:56:42 ↗ should be excluded but the engineered

2:56:45 ↗ ponds I think that potentially

2:56:48 ↗ engineered ponds are engineered for a

2:56:49 ↗ reason they're they're man-made ponds

2:56:51 ↗ that are potentially put there to

2:56:53 ↗ provide habitat for species so I would

2:56:56 ↗ suggest that not all engineered ponds

2:56:58 ↗ are are you know like ice or ice core I

2:57:04 ↗ don't think I mean not saying all

2:57:05 ↗ man-made ponds are ugly eyesores and I

2:57:07 ↗ don't think that's the case I agree I

2:57:09 ↗ think that you don't need to first first

2:57:15 ↗ of all I'd say that historically they

2:57:20 ↗ were generally treated as an engineering

2:57:22 ↗ element unless as this multi-use space

2:57:25 ↗ like you're describing Victoria which I

2:57:27 ↗ completely concur that they can have an

2:57:30 ↗ engineering purpose but they don't have

2:57:32 ↗ to look like it which is the point that

2:57:34 ↗ Pickering pond makes her I don't want to

2:57:36 ↗ make a developer force their development

2:57:39 ↗ to have a view over an ugly engineered

2:57:42 ↗ pond well and and I think the other

2:57:45 ↗ piece is that if you take the upon that

2:57:48 ↗ I showed in the upper right which is at

2:57:52 ↗ the Fred Meyer shopping center you know

2:57:56 ↗ when that shopping center redevelops

2:57:58 ↗ that pond may go away so I mean I think

2:58:01 ↗ that it's not only it may not be a thing

2:58:03 ↗ that you want a building to focus on the

2:58:06 ↗ other thing is it may not be something

2:58:08 ↗ that stays long-term and these open

2:58:12 ↗ spaces is it for the occupants of the

2:58:15 ↗ building to appreciate the space

2:58:18 ↗ adjacent to the building or is it for

2:58:20 ↗ the people that are in the space do not

2:58:25 ↗ be intimidated by a huge building so I

2:58:28 ↗ think it's both there are I think it is

2:58:33 ↗ to have openings and opportunities to

2:58:36 ↗ have a relationship from inside the

2:58:39 ↗ building to this natural feature I think

2:58:42 ↗ it's for people who there's a public

2:58:45 ↗ access requirement or public access

2:58:49 ↗ element along this natural feature

2:58:52 ↗ that would so that then you want the

2:58:56 ↗ building to have certain kinds of uses

2:58:58 ↗ and scale to make it Pleasant a pleasant

2:59:02 ↗ part of that experience you know one

2:59:04 ↗ side this natural element the other side

2:59:07 ↗ a building that has openings appropriate

2:59:11 ↗ scale etc and what you showed us in red

2:59:15 ↗ is in this document no okay so that

2:59:18 ↗ would be something you would add to the

2:59:19 ↗ document right we would need to clarify

2:59:21 ↗ that mostly because the map has included

2:59:27 ↗ some things that would be excluded based

2:59:32 ↗ on that list in red so your suggestion

2:59:34 ↗ is that we approve this tonight and then

2:59:37 ↗ you would come back with this as an

2:59:38 ↗ amendment that we would approve and bake

2:59:40 ↗ it in or on mr. strategy I think if we

2:59:46 ↗ proved it tonight we would approve it

2:59:48 ↗ with the assumption that this is going

2:59:49 ↗ to be into it so they don't have to come

2:59:51 ↗ back and and redo that so I think that

2:59:53 ↗ the language that's on whatever this

2:59:56 ↗ page is 85 of 147 is very close to what

3:00:04 ↗ we described in red I think we would

3:00:07 ↗ want to clarify this B's statement that

3:00:11 ↗ says open space shown on the previous

3:00:12 ↗ page I think we would want to use the

3:00:14 ↗ criteria that you saw in red the map

3:00:17 ↗ itself would need to be updated because

3:00:19 ↗ that includes lots of different things

3:00:23 ↗ but I think that 95% of what we showed

3:00:27 ↗ you in that summary slide is the

3:00:29 ↗ language that's already in this document

3:00:31 ↗ we just now that we've agreed on which

3:00:33 ↗ elements are going to trigger it we need

3:00:36 ↗ to put those elements into this document

3:00:38 ↗ to finalize it okay that work for you

3:00:44 ↗ so we are looking for an approval of the

3:00:48 ↗ document like first thing that has to

3:00:51 ↗ happen is a motion like to make a motion

3:00:55 ↗ to approve the document

3:00:58 ↗ for the let me use the right title I

3:01:02 ↗ like to make a motion to approve the

3:01:05 ↗ final draft eight twenty five seventeen

3:01:08 ↗ central Issaquah architecture urban and

3:01:11 ↗ design manual with the additions of of

3:01:15 ↗ those few addition second all those in

3:01:19 ↗ favor say aye

3:01:21 ↗ all right motion carries

3:01:25 ↗ I just have one question you dream this

3:01:29 ↗ at night

3:01:30 ↗ [Laughter]

3:01:33 ↗ [Music]

3:01:36 ↗ my dreams are nightmares I do on it I

3:01:40 ↗ didn't want to say that yeah I do want

3:01:42 ↗ to compliment you on your wealth of

3:01:45 ↗ information so obviously you've done

3:01:47 ↗ your homework and answered the various

3:01:50 ↗ questions that have come up so thank you

3:01:53 ↗ for that yeah yeah we say thank you for

3:01:54 ↗ this document because I think this is

3:01:56 ↗ something that our communities needed

3:01:57 ↗ for a long time yeah well thank you but

3:01:59 ↗ I mean really it has been a great team

3:02:02 ↗ effort I think the development

3:02:03 ↗ Commission has devoted an amazing number

3:02:05 ↗ of evenings to reading and meeting and

3:02:08 ↗ discussing this and it has been hugely

3:02:11 ↗ helpful because you know it is a great

3:02:14 ↗ community conversation that we have had

3:02:16 ↗ and I really appreciate you giving us

3:02:19 ↗ that high-level picture helping us sort

3:02:22 ↗ through some of the last details that we

3:02:24 ↗ have that's been really helpful things

3:02:25 ↗ really is this really is a great

3:02:33 ↗ document and it shows high quality

3:02:36 ↗ workmanship I mean throughout it's

3:02:38 ↗ really quite well written and it's a

3:02:40 ↗ living document I keep saying it you

3:02:43 ↗ know two years from now we could be back

3:02:46 ↗ here sitting in front of you discussing

3:02:49 ↗ how to change this document that that

3:02:51 ↗ talked about tonight we appreciate your

3:02:54 ↗ work on the front line to show why we

3:02:55 ↗ need it how it works now or doesn't okay

3:02:59 ↗ with that I'm gonna call the meeting

3:03:01 ↗ closed that

3:03:03 ↗ [Music]

3:03:04 ↗ 9:40 very good stuff okay

3:03:08 ↗ how are you open yes

3:03:18 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF