Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 11, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3–13

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

On July 13, 2017, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) held a public hearing on proposed Land Use Code amendments requiring design standards for Compact Public Schools and Government Facilities. However, PPC recommended that Government Facilities be removed from the

Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code 18.07.480 Community Facilities Standards Regarding Municipal Buildings

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager

3. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.15

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2018 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 10/02/18) All meetings located in Council Chambers unless noted May September 5/10/18 9/13/18 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Land Use a) Talus End of DAs: Parcel 9: remand from Council (public hearing) Element, Parks Element) b) Olde Town Plan – vision/policies wrap up (public hearing) c) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 9/27/18 Comprehensive Plan Amendments continued 5/24/18: (Transportation Element, Appendix B Implementation) a) Training – (new & existing members) b) Olde Town Plan – Tour June October 6/14/18 10/11/18 a) Official date new members begin: elect Chair/Vice Chair Public Hearing: Compact Municipal Buildings b) 2018 Parks Strategic Plan - (public hearing) c) Olde Town Plan: recommendation (continued public hearing) d) Intro: Gilman Blvd Visioning 10/25/18 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 6/21/18…

1075 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ ah just in time

0:18 ↗ yes yes welcome to the Planning Policy

0:23 ↗ Commission of October 11th and since we

0:26 ↗ don't have a chair or a vice chair

0:29 ↗ tonight Lindsay has offered to be the

0:32 ↗ chair if it's okay with the rest of the

0:35 ↗ Commission and if that would be the case

0:38 ↗ we would need a motion to propose that

0:40 ↗ she'd be officially our chair for

0:44 ↗ tonight a second a vote all those in

0:54 ↗ favor say aye opposed excellent carry it

0:59 ↗ away tastic

1:01 ↗ thank you everyone now we can have a

1:03 ↗ meeting so tonight's meeting is a public

1:07 ↗ hearing on the land use code amendments

1:10 ↗ around extending kind of we had

1:13 ↗ previously talked about the compact

1:14 ↗ public schools and now we're moving on

1:17 ↗ to the municipal buildings and

1:19 ↗ government facilities and so I think

1:22 ↗ you've got a presentation for us and

1:25 ↗ then there is a proposed code amendment

1:27 ↗ that we are reviewing for it goes to

1:29 ↗ City Council correct yes yes the

1:34 ↗ background is you mentioned last year

1:36 ↗ you worked on a code amendment for

1:40 ↗ compact schools and the term government

1:42 ↗ facilities was part of the code

1:45 ↗ amendments back then and one of the

1:47 ↗ first things you all did was proposed to

1:50 ↗ remove the government facilities out of

1:52 ↗ the amendment because there was so much

1:54 ↗ going on at that time with the proposed

1:57 ↗ school in the highlands that you didn't

1:59 ↗ want to be distracted with anything else

2:00 ↗ that you just wanted to focus on the

2:02 ↗ school piece so we told you at that time

2:04 ↗ we would be bringing it back when we had

2:07 ↗ more time to ponder this one and you all

2:09 ↗ said that was totally okay with you but

2:13 ↗ we just couldn't have done it back then

2:15 ↗ in 2017 so in the meantime council

2:18 ↗ adopted the public school the compact

2:21 ↗ public schools so that's on the books

2:23 ↗ now and so today we're bringing you back

2:26 ↗ a new

2:27 ↗ an improved version of the amendment and

2:29 ↗ we're calling it municipal buildings now

2:31 ↗ just sort of broaden that the umbrella

2:34 ↗ if you will of what the structures and

2:37 ↗ buildings that they don't have to just

2:38 ↗ be government they can be well you can

2:41 ↗ see there's a definition but we thought

2:43 ↗ this term made more sense for us than

2:45 ↗ the previous one and we need them for

2:49 ↗ future municipal buildings that we're

2:51 ↗ hoping come online in the future so we

2:53 ↗ just want to be able to use our land

2:54 ↗ efficiently as we did when we did the

2:57 ↗ code amendment for schools the purpose

3:01 ↗ and intent of what I did also just to

3:03 ↗ remind those of you that were here last

3:05 ↗ year the yellow is what we amended last

3:09 ↗ year for compact public schools and the

3:11 ↗ green is the new information that's the

3:14 ↗ proposal so that you don't think

3:16 ↗ everything is new and oh my gosh where

3:18 ↗ did this come from it sort of gives you

3:20 ↗ sort of the step by step how we did the

3:22 ↗ compact schools and then how we want to

3:24 ↗ integrate municipal buildings into that

3:26 ↗ same amendment so we put it into the

3:29 ↗ purpose and intent instead of just

3:31 ↗ schools its buildings and structures so

3:35 ↗ that's pretty straightforward and then

3:39 ↗ this is the the wonderfully full of all

3:42 ↗ the examples definition that would go

3:46 ↗ also go into the Issaquah Municipal Code

3:48 ↗ we figured we are trying to cover just

3:51 ↗ about everything we could imagine in

3:54 ↗ that definition so that when they come

3:56 ↗ in they would be covered by this and

4:00 ↗ here's the table the only piece that

4:02 ↗ we're changing in the table other than

4:04 ↗ the title so it relates to municipal

4:07 ↗ buildings as well is originally this was

4:10 ↗ taken out of the central standards and

4:13 ↗ in the central standards there's a base

4:16 ↗ FA r which is floor area ratio and a

4:19 ↗ maximum floor area ratio and there's a

4:22 ↗ base height and a maximum height well

4:25 ↗ when we move this over from central for

4:28 ↗ some reason we chose the base of the

4:31 ↗ category instead of the max which is

4:35 ↗ very confusing so we now are changing it

4:38 ↗ to

4:39 ↗ you have a minimum floor area ratio and

4:41 ↗ a maximum floor area ratio and then on

4:44 ↗ the building height it's you can go up

4:47 ↗ to 65 feet because we thought that made

4:49 ↗ it a lot clearer for an applicant than

4:52 ↗ base because if a base doesn't mean

4:55 ↗ anything unless you have a maximum so so

4:59 ↗ we tried to clarify that I need changes

5:02 ↗ on that any questions the other piece

5:08 ↗ that is not in your packet and I

5:10 ↗ apologize for that is going back to the

5:13 ↗ central standards and making sure that

5:15 ↗ the footnote is the same so that if you

5:17 ↗ happen to be looking this up in central

5:19 ↗ it doesn't just refer to the public

5:21 ↗ school compact public schools are also

5:23 ↗ or if you're refers to municipal

5:25 ↗ buildings as well but that's a pretty

5:28 ↗ basic one as well and here's some

5:32 ↗ examples so we had fun finding this is

5:35 ↗ Puyallup they have an F AR I'm not even

5:39 ↗ one 0.94 and so and there's the last

5:43 ↗ size so you can so you can do the math a

5:46 ↗ nice 1 2 3 4 5 stories it looks like

5:50 ↗ it's on a pretty small lot public area

5:53 ↗ out in front that's our first example

5:56 ↗ the next one is a little more dense this

5:59 ↗ is Bothell it's a floor area ratio of

6:03 ↗ 1.3 it's a fairly new one you can see

6:07 ↗ lots of areas for public many stories

6:10 ↗ there's probably parking tucked under in

6:12 ↗ the back so there's another example and

6:15 ↗ then this one is a 2.1 which would be

6:19 ↗ over our maximum fer but we still

6:23 ↗ thought it was worth showing you on this

6:25 ↗ is in Vancouver Washington with a F air

6:28 ↗ of 2.1 are there questions on any of

6:34 ↗ those on any of the examples ok the next

6:39 ↗ steps after tonight if you know take

6:42 ↗ public comment and talk to each other

6:44 ↗ about what you think about this one then

6:46 ↗ it would go to the City Council in

6:49 ↗ November and they and landon short

6:51 ↗ commission would talk about it in

6:52 ↗ december and perhaps january as well if

6:55 ↗ they want to meetings on it and that

6:57 ↗ would be approved or they would take

6:59 ↗ action early next year

7:02 ↗ are there group yes is it missing

7:09 ↗ something

7:20 ↗ I don't see her during the week you like

7:25 ↗ to introduce yourself I'm Keith Niven

7:29 ↗ director development services so as I

7:32 ↗ read a definition for municipal

7:34 ↗ buildings I'm having trouble with County

7:36 ↗ and school district being listed as

7:38 ↗ municipal buildings because I don't

7:39 ↗ think they are so probably this was

7:44 ↗ originally entitled governmental

7:45 ↗ buildings or something and then as we

7:48 ↗ change the title to municipal buildings

7:50 ↗ I'm not sure that County buildings are

7:53 ↗ not technically municipal buildings and

7:55 ↗ school district and Water and Sewer

7:59 ↗ District so I think we have a little bit

8:01 ↗ of and I think we have a we have a

8:03 ↗ logistic issue with the definition that

8:06 ↗ we might need state and federal also are

8:08 ↗ not noticable yeah yeah my one comment

8:10 ↗ was we have at the beginning local

8:12 ↗ government entity and then later we say

8:14 ↗ state and federal so there's just a

8:16 ↗ little wordsmithing there I think yep so

8:19 ↗ do like school administrative buildings

8:21 ↗ or offices they fall in line with the

8:24 ↗ the compact school okay sure sure I was

8:29 ↗ wondering if we were able to have a

8:30 ↗ definition of compact schools right now

8:33 ↗ we have number four of compact

8:34 ↗ facilities right and that's in the comp

8:36 ↗ plan amendment coming forward right you

8:38 ↗ saw a couple weeks ago that the nude the

8:41 ↗ proposed definition for compact school

8:43 ↗ and urban school are in that package I

8:45 ↗ guess I felt like in this right now it's

8:48 ↗ just kinda it's a little large its term

8:51 ↗ you know allow the sitting of the public

8:53 ↗ building structures more efficiently as

8:55 ↗ the city continues to diversify I didn't

8:58 ↗ find number four to be there how much

9:01 ↗ clarity which is kind of the whole point

9:02 ↗ of us giving definitions of these terms

9:05 ↗ right well that's the purpose and intent

9:07 ↗ statement yeah okay but when we're

9:10 ↗ talking about these terms this is the

9:12 ↗ background that we're giving the public

9:13 ↗ to talk about things so I didn't think

9:16 ↗ this was terribly helpful and so going

9:19 ↗ into I know you're telling me that we

9:20 ↗ have we have a definition that we have

9:22 ↗ coming up but it would be nice if some

9:24 ↗ of that language was inserted in a way

9:26 ↗ that when we're talking about these

9:27 ↗ documents when people are looking online

9:29 ↗ and they're able so you remember that

9:31 ↗ having a little bit of like oh this is

9:33 ↗ what the intent is if that makes sense

9:35 ↗ right if you weren't in the middle of

9:37 ↗ this discussion it might be a little bit

9:39 ↗ hard to glean from it what it was and

9:41 ↗ that's kind of the whole point of giving

9:42 ↗ that background to everybody so a

9:47 ↗ reminder of what the definitions are

9:49 ↗ yeah and then just a point of

9:52 ↗ clarification Trish you know that you

9:54 ↗ earlier had mentioned they don't have to

9:57 ↗ just be government buildings but in the

9:58 ↗ definition it says provided and

10:01 ↗ maintained by a local government so are

10:05 ↗ they a mixture between right and by

10:08 ↗ entity and I will always confer with my

10:13 ↗ boss we were thinking like the fire

10:16 ↗ district would be part of that because

10:19 ↗ it's government but it's not it's not

10:23 ↗ like a City Hall piece and I thought the

10:26 ↗ Water and Sewer District that doesn't

10:28 ↗ count as a municipal building basically

10:32 ↗ just need a few more definitions of what

10:33 ↗ it sounds like this needs to be broken

10:34 ↗ up into three three or four or maybe we

10:38 ↗ just need a different header it sounds

10:42 ↗ like there will fall in different things

10:44 ↗ so I guess the question is is I mean so

10:47 ↗ the definition seems to much more be

10:49 ↗ suited to institutional buildings and I

10:54 ↗ guess the question is is why did we why

10:56 ↗ did we land on municipal as opposed to

10:59 ↗ so why did we pivot from government I

11:02 ↗ was told that government was too

11:03 ↗ limiting okay because we wanted the

11:06 ↗ water district the fire district those

11:09 ↗ to fit under this umbrella so if that

11:11 ↗ was the intent then I mean I would

11:14 ↗ suggest swapping out municipal for

11:18 ↗ institutional okay does that keep intent

11:21 ↗ I don't know that's just an on-the-fly

11:24 ↗ suggestion so you like that Andy keeps

11:27 ↗ it as one big bucket I mean yeah because

11:29 ↗ it's fine government can be institutions

11:31 ↗ so can fire districts and moderns for

11:35 ↗ districts I think they all might fit

11:37 ↗ within institutions okay and then so

11:40 ↗ then I get rid of local maintained by a

11:42 ↗ government entity or a district

11:47 ↗ or you could put public entity that was

11:51 ↗ gonna be my suggestion instead of local

11:53 ↗ government ah okay

12:00 ↗ thank you

12:02 ↗ and then do we need to remove the school

12:05 ↗ district portion as well we certainly

12:08 ↗ could because they're covered under the

12:10 ↗ compact school yeah and then we could

12:16 ↗ put in state and federal offices we can

12:18 ↗ put those back in so it looks like we

12:22 ↗ have to remove school district and

12:23 ↗ public schools and add those definitions

12:27 ↗ of compact school I'm missing so is

12:37 ↗ there more than just public schools line

12:40 ↗ for school district line five public

12:43 ↗ schools oh okay okay

12:55 ↗ anything else I had a thing about d3

13:01 ↗ height I get the intent is to try to

13:04 ↗ have these public utilities not be view

13:07 ↗ blocking I believe is what the intent is

13:09 ↗ to be able to you know keep our people

13:12 ↗ our view corridors and whatnot but to me

13:15 ↗ it seemed important I know was curious

13:17 ↗ if there was somewhere else that needed

13:19 ↗ to basically state that they should have

13:20 ↗ the smallest footprint possible that it

13:22 ↗ shouldn't just be that limitation that

13:24 ↗ it's also a matter of building only to

13:27 ↗ what we need rather than necessarily

13:29 ↗ sprawling

13:29 ↗ out right that's in the standards I

13:32 ↗ believe ok god this is blurry just d3

13:37 ↗ specifically mentions the height and so

13:38 ↗ I wasn't I didn't I don't remember

13:39 ↗ seeing a spot where specifically

13:41 ↗ mentioned like if there's an official

13:45 ↗ there there is developing standards is

13:49 ↗ it right above it that's right easier to

13:54 ↗ read oh it's in the middle height is

14:03 ↗ where okay 3 as long as you see it I

14:06 ↗ don't see it could always hold ctrl and

14:10 ↗ scroll in that'll make it bigger it

14:13 ↗ that's great it's super blurry so I'm

14:15 ↗ not sure that would help my eyes too but

14:18 ↗ I know that it's in there somewhere

14:19 ↗ because we talked about that about and I

14:21 ↗ know it's in the policies to for urban

14:23 ↗ schools I'm compact about the smallest

14:25 ↗ footprint possible you know to go up

14:26 ↗ versus out okay again I just did we

14:31 ↗ specifically talked about height there

14:32 ↗ but I just don't remember seeing

14:33 ↗ something for public utilities about the

14:36 ↗ efficient of space everywhere not Justin

14:38 ↗ don't not not only in height right I can

14:41 ↗ check but I thought it was in here

14:42 ↗ somewhere

14:47 ↗ so I'm sure we have questions but since

14:49 ↗ this is a public hearing do we want to

14:51 ↗ open it up to the public ask for

14:53 ↗ comments and then we can come back to

14:55 ↗ our discussion ok so at this time I

15:00 ↗ would like to open the public hearing to

15:02 ↗ anybody who would like to comment

15:08 ↗ you have to go up to the podium state

15:11 ↗ your name and then you can give us your

15:14 ↗ opinion - oh yes your name and address

15:20 ↗ okay my name is Julian midlow and I live

15:25 ↗ at 11 sunset quartz northwest Issaquah

15:30 ↗ further for the terms back back in the

15:36 ↗ definition I would be suggesting that

15:40 ↗ instead of municipal we have it like

15:44 ↗ administrative or or something like to

15:47 ↗ that effect

15:48 ↗ that's just my comment for that yeah

15:54 ↗ thank you thank you and seeing no one

15:58 ↗ else for the public hearing we'll go

16:00 ↗ ahead and close comments there and so

16:04 ↗ you guys want to discuss I know I have a

16:07 ↗ few things so I just have one other

16:09 ↗ specific question that was on the on the

16:13 ↗ little tiny print there on D 9a and

16:20 ↗ their impacts we we made a change from

16:23 ↗ designed to minimize adverse impacts on

16:26 ↗ nearby that's now been changed to

16:28 ↗ adjacent residential properties right is

16:31 ↗ that literally mean sharing about I mean

16:33 ↗ like adjacent right right I'm nearby

16:35 ↗ doesn't have a definite defined term

16:39 ↗ hurt

16:44 ↗ anybody else Trish did you find

16:48 ↗ somewhere else in the document where we

16:49 ↗ instead of talking about possibly height

16:51 ↗ we also talked about oh no I wasn't

16:54 ↗ looking for that but I can look for that

16:56 ↗ I could have missed it I just remember I

17:00 ↗ didn't think that I'd read we

17:02 ↗ specifically called that out for our

17:03 ↗ public utilities

17:07 ↗ [Music]

17:19 ↗ let's see did you have yeah so I've got

17:24 ↗ a few things here on the the table we

17:27 ↗ mentioned impervious surface and

17:29 ↗ pervious surface we're not saying

17:31 ↗ minimum or maximum there I think that

17:34 ↗ may be nice to clarify for somebody

17:36 ↗ reading it just as a general thought and

17:41 ↗ then I wanted to bring it back to the

17:46 ↗ larger question of we separated this out

17:49 ↗ from public schools do we feel like

17:52 ↗ there is anything in particular that we

17:54 ↗ should be discussing for government or

17:57 ↗ municipal buildings that would be

18:00 ↗ different from schools is there anything

18:02 ↗ that we see that we want to make sure

18:05 ↗ it's called out in this arena well I

18:10 ↗ think for me it was just that continuing

18:13 ↗ the concept of efficient use of space

18:15 ↗ I appreciate the consideration of our

18:17 ↗ view corridors that's something that

18:19 ↗ also draws back to other things we've

18:21 ↗ worked on and bringing that in the code

18:23 ↗ but just making sure that we're not

18:26 ↗ having a ridiculous amount of concrete

18:28 ↗ where we don't need it you know it's

18:31 ↗ easy to be like well this is you know

18:32 ↗ there's a bench here so it's you know

18:34 ↗ it's for the public space but no one's

18:35 ↗ using it so instead let's actually talk

18:37 ↗ about efficient use of our space rather

18:39 ↗ than just one aspect of how public

18:43 ↗ buildings are being being used and built

18:48 ↗ babe rails I had a question about

18:51 ↗ flagpoles I didn't notice any any type

18:54 ↗ of written language for standards

18:56 ↗ typically municipalities will have flag

19:01 ↗ poles outside of their buildings is

19:02 ↗ there anything the language about that

19:04 ↗ those are considered I want to say

19:07 ↗ architectural not impediments

19:11 ↗ architectural there's a longer word but

19:17 ↗ they're there I can see it in the code

19:19 ↗ but it's one of those but they there are

19:22 ↗ standards for how high those can go and

19:25 ↗ and it's because their flag poles are

19:27 ↗ usually pretty high you know there's not

19:28 ↗ a lot of limitations on stuff like that

19:31 ↗ but there is a there is a part in the

19:33 ↗ code that talks about those kinds of

19:34 ↗ things one thing I noticed let's see I

19:41 ↗ guess it's got to be still D know in E

19:47 ↗ 16 it says all news public schools and

19:51 ↗ municipal buildings shall provide 50% of

19:53 ↗ the required parking and structures I

19:55 ↗ assume that's supposed to be a minimum

19:57 ↗ of 50% we don't want anybody to have to

20:01 ↗ hit it on the nose yeah okay yeah

20:05 ↗ exactly 50% even if that means half of a

20:08 ↗ parking space we have any concerns about

20:15 ↗ the idea of the floor area ratio being

20:20 ↗ between 0.75 and 2 requiring any sense

20:24 ↗ of over building with a government

20:27 ↗ facility just making sure going through

20:34 ↗ do you know what the floor area ratio is

20:38 ↗ I know we've got two of our fire

20:40 ↗ stations that are fairly tall I think 72

20:44 ↗ down here and 73 up in the highlands any

20:47 ↗ sense of what the f AR is I'm just

20:54 ↗ trying to get a sense if there's any

20:56 ↗ anything that we have that meets our

21:00 ↗ needs that doesn't necessarily fit

21:03 ↗ within so we can see if we can figure

21:08 ↗ that out really quick you have a

21:10 ↗ building that's bigger than two no I

21:13 ↗ mean under the 0.75 interesting yeah

21:18 ↗ it's the 0.94 that they showed was

21:22 ↗ something like three or four storeys

21:24 ↗ yeah the Puyallup one yeah and I like

21:28 ↗ the fire station over here I believe is

21:33 ↗ two stories and the one in the Highlands

21:36 ↗ is two stories and so I just wonder if

21:40 ↗ there's any

22:02 ↗ so the building square footage is 11,000

22:07 ↗ and the Lots so it's a point three the

22:11 ↗ Highlands fire station just close and

22:15 ↗ then

22:23 ↗ the one by the Transit Center

22:32 ↗ [Music]

22:42 ↗ 11,000 square feet and it's on 25,000

22:47 ↗ square feet so it's close to a point

22:50 ↗ five I think get my calculator out and

22:52 ↗ figure it out but it's closer to a point

22:54 ↗ five so both of those are under the

22:58 ↗ floor area ratio does that suggest that

23:01 ↗ we might need to rethink any of that so

23:06 ↗ so this is this is a great conversation

23:09 ↗ to have we're just starting to talk to

23:13 ↗ the school district about their next

23:14 ↗ schools that they would build under the

23:17 ↗ compact requirements they're gonna have

23:22 ↗ a tough time getting to 0.7 that's

23:25 ↗ that's a big number for them so you know

23:31 ↗ because of the laundry list in the

23:34 ↗ definition you know there's going to be

23:37 ↗ some things that are gonna want to be

23:38 ↗ more open space than not and we talked

23:43 ↗ about whether you could exclude

23:46 ↗ recreational amenities because most

23:48 ↗ public facilities have some sort of

23:50 ↗ recreational component associated with

23:52 ↗ it you know I think if we build a new

23:56 ↗ City Hall we're gonna easily hit the FA

23:58 ↗ are I'm not worried about that so the

24:01 ↗ question is is if we're doing a fire

24:03 ↗ station or something else is it going to

24:06 ↗ be a little bit of a challenge to get to

24:08 ↗ a point seven my guess is yes it will

24:12 ↗ you know I'm surprised that that you

24:16 ↗ know my sense of both those fire

24:18 ↗ stations we just looked at is they're

24:20 ↗ packed on their site and so to see that

24:23 ↗ they're coming out closer to a 0.3 to

24:27 ↗ 0.5 FA are is is interesting so yeah so

24:34 ↗ I wonder if there any sense of certain

24:38 ↗ facilities that have differing

24:41 ↗ requirements such as a fire station

24:43 ↗ maybe needing more area for driveway or

24:48 ↗ something like that for the bigger

24:49 ↗ vehicles or like you meant

24:51 ↗ and with a community facility like the

24:54 ↗ community center having a large open

24:58 ↗ lawn area is going to cut down on its

25:00 ↗ floor area ratio so how do we address

25:04 ↗ that in the code you make a bigger range

25:07 ↗ right I mean so so maybe the range goes

25:12 ↗ instead of 0.72 - maybe it's 0.42 - or

25:18 ↗ when the fire station is building out

25:20 ↗ they say you know what we instead of

25:22 ↗ building God's own fire station we'd

25:25 ↗ rather build two smaller ones because

25:26 ↗ it's easier for us to access the

25:28 ↗ community from these different points

25:29 ↗ then they're granted an exemption from

25:31 ↗ the council right I mean this doesn't

25:34 ↗ lock anybody in because people are able

25:39 ↗ to make their case and say there's a

25:41 ↗ reason we should be excluded rather than

25:43 ↗ necessarily lowering the bar for all

25:45 ↗ buildings yeah it's their way we can go

25:49 ↗ between that and recognize some of the

25:51 ↗ things that we'd need so you guys can

25:56 ↗ basically start to proceed like an

26:02 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

26:03 ↗ so you could you could leave it at 0.7

26:06 ↗ to 2 and footnote the point 7 to include

26:12 ↗ considerations for either operational

26:16 ↗ requirements like a driveway for a fire

26:18 ↗ station or you know public amenities

26:22 ↗ like greens or you know things that are

26:26 ↗ just yeah we're gonna have if we build a

26:28 ↗ new City Hall there's gonna be a big

26:29 ↗ plaza there will be and you know that

26:32 ↗ will not count towards and if they are

26:35 ↗ it'll be zero because it'll be surface

26:37 ↗ area so you know you could do it that

26:41 ↗ way so that it's not it's not just

26:44 ↗ giving full discretion but it's saying

26:46 ↗ okay these are some of the things you

26:48 ↗ know that the director has discretion

26:50 ↗ maybe to lower it based on operational

26:54 ↗ requirements including things like you

26:57 ↗ know driveways or greens or other public

27:00 ↗ amenities I don't know I'm again just

27:02 ↗ talking

27:03 ↗ I have a question just for a little bit

27:06 ↗ of context the two is a quad transit

27:08 ↗ centers the one up in the highlands and

27:10 ↗ the one down here near Maple Street what

27:13 ↗ are those

27:13 ↗ as far as FA ours and would those be

27:17 ↗ included in this type of government

27:20 ↗ facility so the hard thing about FA are

27:24 ↗ is we typically don't include parking so

27:29 ↗ the question about a Transit Center or

27:32 ↗ Park and Ride Garage is it's really

27:34 ↗ parking except that you know like for

27:39 ↗ example you know if you were looking at

27:41 ↗ a car dealership those cars are not

27:43 ↗ parking they're actually inventory so

27:46 ↗ it's this it looks the same but it's

27:48 ↗ counted differently from a planning

27:50 ↗ perspective the Transit Center is 248

27:58 ↗ thousand square feet a building and it

28:01 ↗ sits on 194 thousand square feet of

28:03 ↗ property so that's above a 1.0 f AR it's

28:13 ↗ probably one in a quarter doing loose

28:17 ↗ math the other one is the King County

28:23 ↗ one is probably going to come out really

28:25 ↗ differently because it has a huge it's

28:30 ↗ on it at least my would be interesting

28:33 ↗ to see my intuition is it's on a bigger

28:36 ↗ piece of property

28:42 ↗ so it's 311 thousand square feet of

28:45 ↗ building and it's on 170 so it's it's

28:51 ↗ close to two so bigger building bigger

28:55 ↗ piece of property but yeah its affairs

28:57 ↗ close to two so okay what else can I

29:04 ↗ look up for you guys that's that's two

29:07 ↗ and you're telling me that the school

29:08 ↗ districts gonna have a hard time making

29:10 ↗ point seven so school district that's

29:15 ↗ not right they're they're gonna have a

29:16 ↗ hard time making the minimum so the

29:18 ↗ field the fields are the problem yeah

29:20 ↗ unless they put the field on the roof

29:23 ↗ the field is the problem so middle

29:27 ↗ schools got a track and a soccer field

29:30 ↗ lacrosse field high school's guide track

29:34 ↗ and a football field and a soccer field

29:37 ↗ and are they still proposing to keep all

29:39 ↗ these things separate so I mean there's

29:43 ↗ no we don't have plans because they

29:44 ↗ don't they don't know property right the

29:47 ↗ concept still to keep separate fields

29:50 ↗ for all those uses no so the so the

29:53 ↗ track has the football field inside it

29:55 ↗ right so the the recreational facilities

29:58 ↗ are commingled you know I think there is

30:03 ↗ a reason why it may or may not make

30:09 ↗ sense for them to put it on the roof so

30:11 ↗ the roof if you put because because

30:17 ↗ those facilities of certain geometry

30:19 ↗ right a track is four hundred and forty

30:21 ↗ feet right in a loop you can have a

30:24 ↗ smaller track but that's generally what

30:26 ↗ it is you know soccer fields are a

30:28 ↗ certain dimension or else they're too

30:29 ↗ small to actually play on so that then

30:33 ↗ starts to prescribe how the building

30:36 ↗ looks and you know because you want

30:40 ↗ windows in all your classrooms having

30:42 ↗ like a big rectangle isn't really

30:45 ↗ probably the most conducive to getting

30:47 ↗ natural light into all your classrooms

30:49 ↗ so it starts to there starts to be some

30:52 ↗ push and pull in terms of doing that I

30:55 ↗ think they are looking

30:56 ↗ that is a possibility I just don't know

30:59 ↗ that that's gonna be the outcome that

31:00 ↗ we're gonna see when they come in for

31:02 ↗ permits at some point but again all that

31:05 ↗ speculation they don't own property

31:07 ↗ there are no permits and I'm just

31:11 ↗ telling you what is our densest or

31:13 ↗ highest fi our school right now it's

31:17 ↗ probably gonna be grand Ridge

31:19 ↗ you wanna look yeah I mean you're right

31:22 ↗ near there I mean just thinking about

31:30 ↗ you know Clark opening up with portables

31:33 ↗ and everything I know I'm surprised to

31:35 ↗ think that just in terms of like the

31:37 ↗ Transit Center space of to that we

31:39 ↗ wouldn't be able to fill those

31:40 ↗ classrooms you know roll in an art room

31:44 ↗ you know let's go nuts I think it's just

31:47 ↗ even with obviously the film not

31:49 ↗ counting towards it I'm surprised okay

31:53 ↗ I'm actually gonna pull out a calculator

31:54 ↗ kids like I don't think I gave you some

31:57 ↗ bogus numbers earlier not really but

32:05 ↗ so grande ridge grande ridge is a point

32:11 ↗ one for FA are

32:19 ↗ well obviously this meeting isn't

32:22 ↗ getting into the school arena but I

32:27 ↗ think we have brought up some questions

32:29 ↗ certainly about public facilities and

32:34 ↗ their ability to meet that if they are

32:38 ↗ given their operational constraints I

32:41 ↗ mean I mean I like the idea that Keith

32:44 ↗ raised of keeping it as is as you know

32:47 ↗ this is what we want but then having a

32:49 ↗ footnote or some other guidance in there

32:51 ↗ that there could be exceptions for

32:53 ↗ public public space or rational needs or

33:03 ↗ yeah well there's a good question so

33:08 ↗ then do you lower it to a point you know

33:14 ↗ we tend to get closer to what we want

33:18 ↗ high schools over one now what I would

33:24 ↗ tell you though is what I'm tell you is

33:27 ↗ there's too many kids said it's quite I

33:30 ↗ think they would like it to be less

33:32 ↗ dense than it is at the moment which is

33:34 ↗ one of the reasons why they are wanting

33:36 ↗ to build a new high school is to

33:38 ↗ decrease the student population it is a

33:40 ↗ quiet down to a I think a more

33:42 ↗ manageable number is that sort of across

33:49 ↗ the street and over sort of

33:55 ↗ I might have to switch to like actually

33:58 ↗ aerial photograph so they don't grab the

34:00 ↗ wrong thing since you made me go there

34:06 ↗ okay it's it's north it's North yeah

34:11 ↗ Gibson neck is right by the pool it's

34:21 ↗ that right no now you're down by

34:25 ↗ Issaquah middle and Nisqually school

34:27 ↗ right I thought that's where they put

34:31 ↗ Gibson egg no it's right next to my bowl

34:38 ↗ oh yeah

34:39 ↗ yeah where the middle school was yeah

34:42 ↗ and now Gibson it is are you

34:56 ↗ so there's the pool yeah so is that real

35:01 ↗ one that that's a hey so would have to

35:07 ↗ be up on the hill like 91 or 335 it's

35:10 ↗ this it's this so bus barn one of these

35:14 ↗ so one of these is Gibson Eck and the

35:16 ↗ others the middle school right so the

35:18 ↗ middle school's got the baseball field

35:20 ↗ and the track so that's middle school

35:22 ↗ right there so I assume this thing is

35:25 ↗ Gibson AG but what do I know I've not

35:31 ↗ actually been on the campus since

35:32 ↗ they've done it yeah yeah the bottom one

35:41 ↗ is the high school the top one is the

35:43 ↗ middle is of a middle school houses

35:49 ↗ isn't that the church Oh over there 3355

35:53 ↗ of that yeah no I think those are condos

35:58 ↗ aren't they

35:59 ↗ yeah those are condos the old okay

36:07 ↗ because I thought that act they

36:08 ↗ repurposed another building and made it

36:10 ↗ into a really small yeah okay right by

36:15 ↗ the pool right yeah it's right across

36:19 ↗ from the pool which one's the pool okay

36:25 ↗ the pools 50 so it should be like 91 or

36:30 ↗ 379 this yeah yeah it's yeah it's 379 so

36:40 ↗ it it's got it's all on the same parcel

36:43 ↗ well so I'm gonna tell you what Gibson

36:48 ↗ Eck and the middle school is in

36:49 ↗ combination

36:54 ↗ so it's it's a quarter

36:59 ↗ it's 0.25 maybe here's a trackhoe it's

37:07 ↗ under construction so so I think you

37:12 ↗ guys have brought up a good point and

37:15 ↗ that is so so the the point seven two to

37:19 ↗ two could be aggressive for public

37:22 ↗ buildings perhaps is there a way that we

37:28 ↗ can separate out some of these different

37:31 ↗ public buildings that are going to have

37:32 ↗ different uses and maybe different FA

37:36 ↗ are requirements you have to have an

37:38 ↗ exhaustive list then of you know water

37:40 ↗ utility versus fire right now we have

37:42 ↗ this kind of bucket of it could include

37:43 ↗ all these things but not limited to you

37:46 ↗ know if you want to start parsing it out

37:47 ↗ we would need to have an exhaustive list

37:49 ↗ of this is every possible you know it

37:53 ↗ would anyone include administrative

37:54 ↗ buildings it would include you know

37:55 ↗ recreation it would include all the

37:58 ↗ different things that we have in a

37:59 ↗ bucket right now so so the point

38:02 ↗ going back to why we're doing this

38:05 ↗ you know whether it's the city or if the

38:10 ↗ county were to build a new courthouse or

38:13 ↗ you know Water and Sewer District we're

38:15 ↗ gonna try and build a new facility land

38:17 ↗ super expensive for everybody right one

38:20 ↗ of the reasons why we did compact

38:21 ↗ schools was the school district you know

38:24 ↗ the existing provisions of community

38:26 ↗ facilities facilities which said you had

38:28 ↗ to build to the lowest standard of your

38:30 ↗ neighbor that meant it had to be a low

38:33 ↗ density project and I think that then

38:35 ↗ meant that you had to buy a really big

38:37 ↗ piece of property to build it so so we

38:39 ↗ went down that pathway for the school

38:41 ↗ district and I think we're trying to do

38:44 ↗ something similar with the understanding

38:47 ↗ that at some point the city is gonna

38:50 ↗ want to build a new municipal building

38:53 ↗ and not wanting to have to buy enough

38:56 ↗ land to make sure it's a single-story if

38:59 ↗ that's the height of the surrounding

39:01 ↗ land uses so so you know the question is

39:06 ↗ is

39:06 ↗ are we creating a to compact of an

39:11 ↗ expectation for what those uses really

39:14 ↗ are I think we've shown at least some

39:18 ↗ city halls that range anywhere from

39:20 ↗ remind me Trish point six to two yes

39:24 ↗ pretty much so you know and we looked at

39:29 ↗ a couple fire stations that I think we

39:31 ↗ perceive as being fairly dense and those

39:35 ↗ are those are more like 0.3 to 0.5 so

39:41 ↗ you know I think if we're gonna so

39:43 ↗ there's choices either one we subdivide

39:46 ↗ the definition and create more

39:50 ↗ subcategories which seems like we'd have

39:56 ↗ to go back and do some more research in

39:58 ↗ terms of figuring out what are

39:59 ↗ reasonable compact versions of those

40:03 ↗ types of uses or we leave it as is and

40:06 ↗ we put a footnote in terms of what's

40:12 ↗ reasonable to allow for reduction in the

40:15 ↗ F air leave all the rest of the

40:16 ↗ standards the same so building heights

40:18 ↗ and setbacks are the same but what would

40:21 ↗ be a reasonable allowance for reduction

40:24 ↗ on the FA are and for who well it'd be

40:28 ↗ for anybody if it's if it's in the table

40:31 ↗ so they'd have to adjust if they have to

40:36 ↗ justify it and it'd come in and explain

40:38 ↗ why they need to drive it right yeah

40:40 ↗ yeah it seems like we need some type of

40:43 ↗ study of you know where are we at today

40:44 ↗ and in my mind we're not hitting that

40:47 ↗ range because they've never been held to

40:50 ↗ a standard and hit that range and I

40:52 ↗ think we could do a lot through design

40:53 ↗ if we hold the standards high where we

40:55 ↗ know they need to be to support our

40:57 ↗ growth we can design that to work if

41:01 ↗ they can then then we bring it back but

41:03 ↗ when we looked at fire stations those

41:06 ↗ were their range we found a school that

41:07 ↗ was within the range we've seen examples

41:09 ↗ of city halls in other towns that were

41:11 ↗ within well within the range it could be

41:13 ↗ done I'm hesitant on lowering standards

41:16 ↗ because of the current design standards

41:18 ↗ that are in place

41:20 ↗ so just a quick question I agree with

41:23 ↗ the concept but can I question where the

41:26 ↗ 0.75 number originally came from was it

41:30 ↗ based on information of what other

41:34 ↗ cities have done was it based on where

41:36 ↗ we'd like to be

41:38 ↗ did we talk to any of these agencies

41:41 ↗ about what they felt like they could

41:43 ↗ accomplish my recollection of the 0.75

41:47 ↗ was it was an existing fa our standard

41:50 ↗ in central not for CF F but for maybe

41:55 ↗ mixed use or I'd have to go back and

41:59 ↗ look at those tables but I think it was

42:01 ↗ a standard we had already adopted for

42:04 ↗ kind of central which is what we

42:07 ↗ envisioned to be more urban standard at

42:10 ↗ the end of day so that seemed like that

42:12 ↗ was a good parallel to give to something

42:16 ↗ that we were calling compact schools we

42:21 ↗ were I also remember in the discussion

42:22 ↗ talking about what are we gonna get this

42:25 ↗ versus this versus this like we said all

42:27 ↗ that number because we liked the result

42:32 ↗ right because yeah the range in central

42:35 ↗ is 0.75 to 2 so I think that's why we

42:38 ↗ chose that range for picks you know

42:41 ↗ versus point 5 and right I agree I like

42:45 ↗ what it could get us my only question is

42:49 ↗ does it create too many you know asking

42:55 ↗ for differences as is want to happen

42:58 ↗ with school districts and municipal

43:00 ↗ buildings well using the school district

43:02 ↗ as an example anybody could do this with

43:04 ↗ building but when talking on these

43:06 ↗ public facilities if they're like if

43:08 ↗ we're having a really hard time getting

43:10 ↗ to the point seven five but it's five

43:12 ↗ then what's to say they're not like oh

43:14 ↗ it's so hard to get to the point five

43:16 ↗ you know what I mean like there has to

43:18 ↗ be at some point where you just say no

43:20 ↗ this is the point we are having high

43:23 ↗ density so while we would all like to be

43:26 ↗ in a country schoolhouse that's

43:27 ↗ what we're that's not the deduction so I

43:31 ↗ completely agree

43:33 ↗ my next portion of the concern is the

43:37 ↗ idea of these fire stations or something

43:41 ↗ like that where we see something that

43:44 ↗ maybe doesn't you would require a lot of

43:48 ↗ overbuilding I don't think that's gonna

43:50 ↗ happen because I think what's gonna

43:51 ↗ happen is they're gonna have the they're

43:53 ↗ gonna raise the amount of money that

43:54 ↗ they need you know from the community

43:55 ↗ and from taxes they're gonna say this is

43:58 ↗ where the need is I mean maybe it's

44:01 ↗ naive to think that the fire station is

44:02 ↗ gonna be like hey you know let's start

44:04 ↗ putting in pool tables and you know

44:06 ↗ let's put in you know all these

44:07 ↗ different amenities we don't need I

44:09 ↗ think that they're going to build to the

44:10 ↗ need and they're gonna reproach counsel

44:12 ↗ saying look this is not what we want

44:14 ↗ this is what we want and we don't care

44:17 ↗ whether it fits we want you to say if

44:19 ↗ this is okay yeah I think it's a more

44:22 ↗ likely scenario so is staff comfortable

44:25 ↗ with that idea of putting forth

44:27 ↗ something that is inevitably going to

44:30 ↗ require lots of exemptions or requests

44:36 ↗ so we're quick so why do we why do we

44:40 ↗ automatically anticipate that we have to

44:41 ↗ start giving out exemptions though if we

44:43 ↗ think these are sound standards and we

44:46 ↗ find out in the next several permits

44:49 ↗ that they simply can't like they can't

44:51 ↗ build what the city needs with these

44:53 ↗ knees then we come back and we talk

44:55 ↗ about it and City Council eventually

44:57 ↗ modifies them if we need to modify them

44:59 ↗ but seems were very quick to say you

45:01 ↗ know how many exemptions are going to

45:03 ↗ give out is that is that really the

45:04 ↗ default practice that we want to do is

45:06 ↗ it kind of violates all that it you know

45:09 ↗ all the guidelines

45:11 ↗ I'd rather rest on the side of hey we've

45:14 ↗ been trying to build a fire house for

45:16 ↗ three years and we can't meet the design

45:17 ↗ density standards well let's read it the

45:19 ↗ does these standards that make sense

45:23 ↗ I think we want our codes to set

45:31 ↗ standards that are attainable yeah

45:36 ↗ attainable for but also beneficial for

45:39 ↗ our community I wouldn't want to block a

45:41 ↗ fire station from being built for three

45:43 ↗ years or however long it would take us

45:47 ↗ to come back to code and get it through

45:49 ↗ the process Oh was that was at the

45:51 ↗ highlands whose fire station was 0.5 and

45:53 ↗ I didn't necessarily think like my god

45:55 ↗ that's the largest fire station I've

45:57 ↗ ever seen so that being said maybe point

46:01 ↗ you know maybe they can make point seven

46:03 ↗ but not point seven five I mean it's

46:05 ↗ kind of one of those things I agree kind

46:06 ↗ of needs to be a one-off basis that we

46:08 ↗ see look we've had a ton of one-off

46:10 ↗ basis so Keith back to the question do

46:16 ↗ you feel comfortable putting something

46:18 ↗ into code that looks like it'll require

46:23 ↗ exemptions no I think I think you guys

46:31 ↗ are trying to find that sweet spot

46:34 ↗ between pushing the land developer

46:39 ↗ whether it's a public school or a

46:42 ↗ private party or the city to build

46:47 ↗ something that is different than what

46:53 ↗ they did previously when maybe land was

46:57 ↗ was more readily available and even

46:59 ↗ though you can look at the fire weather

47:02 ↗ you're looking at the fire stations or

47:03 ↗ the existing schools and saying you know

47:06 ↗ maybe those feel like they fit in with

47:08 ↗ those neighborhoods you know what we're

47:12 ↗ talking about is our neighborhoods are

47:14 ↗ getting going to be getting denser where

47:16 ↗ we're putting these facilities right

47:19 ↗ there will be you know that two-story

47:22 ↗ buildings will no longer be the norm

47:25 ↗ it's going to be the four storey five

47:27 ↗ storey six storey buildings so then a

47:29 ↗ two-story fire station looks maybe like

47:32 ↗ it's under sized at

47:34 ↗ point you know and so maybe at that

47:37 ↗ point it needs to be a three story fire

47:39 ↗ station maybe with an extra Bay so so so

47:44 ↗ we're at this point where we're not

47:48 ↗ trying to look in the rearview mirror

47:49 ↗ and say do these standards fit you know

47:53 ↗ what they've done the answer is

47:55 ↗ definitely no the question is is how far

47:59 ↗ of our reach is it to get from what they

48:02 ↗ want to do now to meet these standards

48:05 ↗ and can they get there and I don't don't

48:12 ↗ know the answer to that just yet you

48:14 ↗ know if if the school district were to

48:16 ↗ come back and say I'm just using them

48:19 ↗ because they're probably gonna be the

48:20 ↗ first ones through the gate but fire

48:22 ↗ station we got to build a new fire

48:24 ↗ station that's in the works right now

48:30 ↗ is it going to be able to meet at point

48:33 ↗ seven don't know because nobody's drawn

48:36 ↗ up plans yet so far the architects

48:39 ↗ haven't screamed about that but they

48:41 ↗ don't know about it because this is what

48:43 ↗ we told them is we were going to try to

48:46 ↗ change the code to give them something

48:50 ↗ similar to schools so if schools is 0.7

48:53 ↗ they should be knowing that this is

48:54 ↗ going to land at 0.7 so I'm gonna say if

48:58 ↗ if you guys liked the examples that we

49:02 ↗ gave you I don't know do we have a time

49:04 ↗ sensitivity on this Trish I just knew it

49:07 ↗ was the fire station whatever that okay

49:08 ↗ so so we can do a little bit more

49:12 ↗ looking at examples of institutional

49:17 ↗ facilities if that's what we decided to

49:18 ↗ call this and bring back just f it just

49:22 ↗ FA are nothing else but FA are I mean I

49:25 ↗ haven't heard any other questions about

49:26 ↗ building heights or setbacks so so if

49:29 ↗ you guys want us and I think you guys

49:32 ↗ were comfortable with City Hall examples

49:36 ↗ and I think that that seemed like none

49:38 ↗ of those were really crazy in my mind so

49:41 ↗ you know the

49:42 ↗ the range that we've picked I think

49:44 ↗ would work for City Hall so it's really

49:47 ↗ sleuthing maybe some of those other

49:49 ↗ examples in the definitions to say okay

49:54 ↗ we went we looked at stuff regionally

49:57 ↗ and here's what they are and here's what

50:00 ↗ they're FA ours are and then you guys

50:01 ↗ can maybe have a better conversation

50:03 ↗ about whether it makes sense to change

50:06 ↗ the range keep it the same or create

50:08 ↗ subcategories does that make sense I

50:12 ↗ just want us to be good stewards of our

50:14 ↗ land especially I think when we're gonna

50:16 ↗ ask for these kinds of sacrifices in a

50:20 ↗ sense and these kind of you know having

50:22 ↗ people think differently than we have

50:24 ↗ you know the city really needs to be the

50:26 ↗ forefront of that and say look you know

50:28 ↗ we we are going to be that example for

50:32 ↗ other development in our city you know

50:35 ↗ yeah I think that the research would be

50:37 ↗ time well spent because then when it

50:39 ↗ eventually does go to council I mean

50:40 ↗ they'd be good to have them those

50:42 ↗ examine they'll have the same questions

50:43 ↗ if you could have those examples and

50:44 ↗ it'd be good to actually have you know

50:46 ↗ this exercise that we went through to

50:47 ↗ just you know there are buildings that

50:49 ↗ everybody around here is familiar with

50:51 ↗ right be good examples for context as

50:53 ↗ well I think we've done that before I

50:54 ↗ all bet that Trish has it in her in a

50:57 ↗ file somewhere of you know things but we

50:59 ↗ could do it you certainly do it along

51:04 ↗ those lines is there do you know if

51:07 ↗ there are any other cities that have

51:09 ↗ created code around municipal or

51:13 ↗ government buildings that might have

51:16 ↗ some language about exemptions for

51:19 ↗ public space or something like that I'm

51:23 ↗ thinking of like the community center

51:25 ↗ and the fact that we've got concerts on

51:28 ↗ the green there right I don't know I

51:31 ↗ think we can look that's something we

51:33 ↗ can look for as well to see if there are

51:38 ↗ codes that exempt whether its amenity

51:41 ↗ space or recreation space or something

51:45 ↗ along those lines just to give you guys

51:47 ↗ again another piece of information to

51:49 ↗ make a better decision on when we make

51:52 ↗ the recommendation on this

51:56 ↗ I think that would be useful information

52:01 ↗ I think we just have to consider whoo

52:05 ↗ you know how we make those decisions

52:08 ↗ going forward so so then what does we

52:15 ↗ have a motion or are we just waiting to

52:18 ↗ continue on until I would think you

52:22 ↗ would probably want to not close the

52:25 ↗ public hearing

52:25 ↗ okay if if you want to take more public

52:28 ↗ comment well want to be different

52:31 ↗ oh I guess it might not be to me not as

52:34 ↗ we do the research so so I mean I think

52:37 ↗ as a well so they've already closed it

52:40 ↗ right that's what I was saying we could

52:42 ↗ I don't know how that works yeah I mean

52:46 ↗ I guess I would expect that the

52:48 ↗ proposals that you bring back is gonna

52:49 ↗ be the same what we talk about and

52:52 ↗ decide at that point based on your

52:54 ↗ examples might try and rate okay right

52:57 ↗ because if you wanted to continue the

52:59 ↗ hearing to a date certain that November

53:04 ↗ 15th or 14 15th

53:06 ↗ has opened up because we're moving the

53:11 ↗ complan public hearing to the 13th of

53:13 ↗ December so we could maybe have some

53:20 ↗ research done by to share with you are

53:23 ↗ you around on that Thursday before

53:25 ↗ Thanksgiving as far as I know okay and

53:30 ↗ so that had originally been a public

53:33 ↗ hearing it's in the Pickering room right

53:37 ↗ because this room's already taken that

53:39 ↗ night so we'd be in the Pickering room

53:40 ↗ that night that's an absolute that's the

53:45 ↗ only open night you have for the rest of

53:47 ↗ the year yeah okay so

53:55 ↗ then that doesn't require a motion or

53:58 ↗ anything we would have to announce that

54:00 ↗ the public hearing is being continued to

54:02 ↗ a date and time certain which would be

54:06 ↗ 11:15 18 in the Pickering room at City

54:11 ↗ Hall Northwest ok I would like to

54:14 ↗ continue this public hearing to November

54:18 ↗ 15th date certain there in the Pickering

54:23 ↗ room at City Hall Northwest do we have

54:31 ↗ anything else before closing the meeting

54:34 ↗ no other than if you think of buildings

54:38 ↗ in town that you're you know like sort

54:40 ↗ of giving them to Keith as he was going

54:42 ↗ if there are ones that you're curious

54:44 ↗ about if you send them early we can try

54:46 ↗ and get those into the research that we

54:49 ↗ do because it's always good to know

54:50 ↗ which ones you're curious about versus

54:53 ↗ which ones we are curious about so that

54:55 ↗ would help and then we'll bring it all

54:56 ↗ back to you on the 15th

54:59 ↗ good discussion antastic

55:02 ↗ so I think that leaves us to close the

55:05 ↗ meeting at 7:26 p.m.

55:21 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Lindsey Walsh, Acting Chair

Joy Lewis

Troy Rahmig

Bill Rinehart

Jason Voiss, Alt. (Acting as Voting Member)

Joan Probala

Ron Faul

AJ McGauley

Staff (2)

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager

Keith Niven, Economic Dev. & Dev, Svcs. Director

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

In the absence of the Commission Chair and Vice Chair, it was MOVED BY LEWIS, SECONDED BY RINEHART that WALSH serve as Commission Chair for tonight’s meeting.
The City had already adopted the standard for Central Issaquah in envisioning a more urban environment, and it seemed like a good standard to apply to compact schools as well.