Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, December 10, 2020 · 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 Christen Leeson, Senior Planner 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 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Vacant 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, 2020 – Robin Beukers see IMC 18.03.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Nov. 12, 2020

packet pp.5–8

▶ Watch from 2:19 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-12-20 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting November 12, 2020 MINUTES

Recommendation on Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) 18.19.D Olde Town Architectural Standards for Single Family Duplex, (A)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.9–53

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 39:22 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The City updated the Olde Town Subarea Plan in 2018. The Plan includes the following goal, policy and listed for Immediate Action to preserve Olde Town character. These are quoted below for your reference:

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.55

Open packet at p.55 ↗

Staff report:

FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/11/21 Public Hearing: Electric Vehicle Charging 8/12/21 2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Stations (tentative) Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements 2/25/21 Title 18: Signs Amendments

2693 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ he heard me

0:13 ↗ has ron i just joined cool

0:17 ↗ so we're going to start the meeting

0:20 ↗ tonight is the

0:22 ↗ december 10th meeting the planning

0:24 ↗ policy commission

0:26 ↗ i will redo all of the requirements

0:29 ↗ because of the

0:30 ↗ requirements from the governor and the

0:33 ↗ mayor

0:34 ↗ this will be all remote

0:38 ↗ and anybody who well the commissioners

0:41 ↗ if they want to speak know that they

0:44 ↗ need to put their

0:45 ↗ questions or comments in the chat and

0:47 ↗ hopefully i will

0:49 ↗ get to them as they are put in there

0:52 ↗ anybody who wants to speak tonight needs

0:55 ↗ to follow the directions that are

0:57 ↗ on the website on the city website

1:02 ↗ we are

1:03 ↗ [Music]

1:06 ↗ going to start this with chris taking a

1:09 ↗ roll of the people

1:10 ↗ roll call commissioner voice

1:17 ↗ here commissioner lewis

1:21 ↗ here commissioner carl

1:24 ↗ here mr fall here

1:28 ↗ and uh chair probably

1:31 ↗ here me

1:35 ↗ um i did uh uh

1:38 ↗ forget to ask the commissioners to

1:41 ↗ introduce themselves every time they

1:43 ↗ speak so that kristen doesn't

1:45 ↗ send me little nasty notices to remind

1:47 ↗ me so if you could do that i would

1:49 ↗ really appreciate it um

1:52 ↗ christian would you also introduce

1:55 ↗ anybody else

1:56 ↗ any um person from the city that has

2:00 ↗ joined us tonight

2:01 ↗ yes we have deputy city administrator

2:04 ↗ andrea snyder

2:05 ↗ we have land development manager lucy

2:08 ↗ sloman

2:09 ↗ and our consultant samantha samantha

2:11 ↗ suiter

2:12 ↗ with meta urban design is also here

2:16 ↗ thank you so um the first order of our

2:18 ↗ business tonight

2:19 ↗ is to approve the minutes of the

2:23 ↗ last meeting november the 12th

2:28 ↗ are there any changes concern questions

2:31 ↗ about the minutes

2:36 ↗ hearing none the minutes are approved

2:40 ↗ um tonight we are going to have a public

2:44 ↗ hearing

2:45 ↗ on the recommendations on proposed

2:48 ↗ amendments to the issaquah municipal

2:50 ↗ code

2:51 ↗ the old town architectural standards for

2:55 ↗ single

2:55 ↗ family duplex we've had several meetings

2:58 ↗ on this

3:00 ↗ the last one being with

3:03 ↗ the development commission uh we've met

3:05 ↗ with the city

3:06 ↗ and got input from the city but now

3:09 ↗ we're going to have

3:10 ↗ our uh senior planner kristen leeson

3:14 ↗ give us

3:14 ↗ a little update on

3:18 ↗ reminding us exactly where we are and

3:21 ↗ how we're

3:22 ↗ going from now on

3:25 ↗ so kristin

3:32 ↗ whoops all done already

3:40 ↗ let's see

3:47 ↗ okay

3:51 ↗ you all can see this

3:56 ↗ it i am going to ask um the way this is

3:59 ↗ set up right now and i couldn't get my

4:00 ↗ two screens to work again

4:02 ↗ um i would ask lucy sloman if you

4:05 ↗ wouldn't mind

4:06 ↗ if someone has a comment or a question

4:08 ↗ could you keep an eye on that in the

4:10 ↗ comments section and please let me know

4:12 ↗ okay absolutely

4:14 ↗ thank you so yes tonight we're

4:16 ↗ discussing the pro

4:17 ↗ proposed new architectural standards for

4:19 ↗ old town and it's specifically for these

4:21 ↗ sing all structures located

4:23 ↗ within the single family duplex zone

4:27 ↗ so tonight we are going to present an

4:29 ↗ updated draft from what we saw on

4:31 ↗ october 7th

4:32 ↗ based on the comments that we heard then

4:34 ↗ we will hear from the public

4:35 ↗ then you all have an opportunity to

4:37 ↗ discuss and then

4:39 ↗ potentially make a recommendation to the

4:41 ↗ city council

4:43 ↗ just as a reminder in 2018 the city

4:46 ↗ council adopted the updated old town

4:48 ↗ sub-area plan

4:49 ↗ one of the goals in the sub-area plan

4:51 ↗ was to preserve residential

4:53 ↗ neighborhoods and the policies

4:54 ↗ 5.1 specifically said adopt

4:57 ↗ architectural standards

4:58 ↗ and updated development standards can

5:00 ↗ just consistent with the character and

5:02 ↗ style

5:02 ↗ of the existing residences so in july of

5:06 ↗ this year

5:07 ↗ city council adopted landy's code

5:08 ↗ amendments

5:10 ↗ for this area that reduced the maximum

5:13 ↗ height of all structures within the area

5:14 ↗ from

5:15 ↗ 30 feet to 25 feet or two stories

5:18 ↗ whichever is lower there were

5:22 ↗ several people that were unhappy with

5:23 ↗ say three-story flat roof

5:25 ↗ buildings that had been constructed

5:27 ↗ lately which was

5:28 ↗ sort of preceded this and prompted these

5:32 ↗ amendments to take place

5:33 ↗ including the standards in september of

5:36 ↗ 2019

5:38 ↗ we held our kicked it off by holding a

5:39 ↗ stakeholder lunch

5:41 ↗ with a smaller group of business owners

5:43 ↗ and residents

5:45 ↗ residential owners in january of 2020

5:48 ↗ we had our walk audit and workshop in

5:51 ↗ february we had both a joint commission

5:53 ↗ of the planning policy commission in the

5:55 ↗ development commission and then with the

5:56 ↗ city council at a

5:57 ↗ study session to get a feel for to say

6:00 ↗ this is what we've heard

6:01 ↗ and get a feel of where the council

6:04 ↗ wanted to go with these how

6:05 ↗ stringent they wanted them to be or

6:06 ↗ loose they wanted to be what topics they

6:08 ↗ wanted us to cover

6:10 ↗ so on october 7th we showed the first

6:13 ↗ draft of the standards at a

6:18 ↗ point any policy commission and

6:20 ↗ development commission meeting

6:22 ↗ and then tonight's our public hearing

6:25 ↗ tentatively we're

6:26 ↗ scheduled to take these to the january

6:28 ↗ 12th council study session

6:30 ↗ and then on february 1st to council for

6:32 ↗ action

6:34 ↗ so i'm going to go over um kind of an

6:37 ↗ overview again just to remind you and

6:39 ↗ anybody who may not have

6:41 ↗ seen this before in

6:45 ↗ watching tonight for the first time um

6:47 ↗ kind of an overview of what we heard

6:49 ↗ and then some of the changes that what

6:50 ↗ the intent of each of the sections and

6:52 ↗ the changes that have been made so the

6:54 ↗ first change that we made was to change

6:56 ↗ the first title

6:57 ↗ which is um it was just mass and scale

7:00 ↗ and trying to make this a little bit

7:02 ↗ more layman friendly

7:03 ↗ we changed it to building mass and scale

7:05 ↗ and in parentheses shape and size

7:08 ↗ and then front yards we also added

7:10 ↗ fences because we realized that that was

7:12 ↗ the

7:12 ↗ larger topic than originally you had

7:14 ↗ thought

7:16 ↗ so the just a reminder the area of

7:18 ↗ applicability here is everything that

7:20 ↗ you see in kind of the goldy beigey

7:22 ↗ color

7:22 ↗ that is the single family duplex zone

7:28 ↗ some of the overarching topics that came

7:29 ↗ up um i'm going to go over first

7:32 ↗ we because we felt it was necessary

7:35 ↗ added an introduction to the old town

7:37 ↗ characteristics

7:39 ↗ we tightened it up to reflect that these

7:41 ↗ are standards and not guidelines so we

7:43 ↗ took out

7:44 ↗ maize and shoulds and replaced it with

7:45 ↗ shells we made more prescriptive menus

7:48 ↗ and that you you need to comply you

7:50 ↗ shall comply with the least of two of

7:52 ↗ the following and there we left out any

7:54 ↗ open-ended

7:55 ↗ and any other thing that might fit here

7:58 ↗ we clarified some rules of measurement

8:00 ↗ for

8:00 ↗ for key terms clarified what must comply

8:04 ↗ with the standards

8:06 ↗ as that came up last time we flipped the

8:08 ↗ introductions and character pages so

8:10 ↗ that

8:11 ↗ the character is up front and everybody

8:13 ↗ knows okay this is what we're talking

8:15 ↗ about

8:15 ↗ and then these are the standards that

8:17 ↗ apply we

8:19 ↗ opted not to allow modifications we feel

8:21 ↗ like these standards

8:22 ↗ are have a light enough

8:26 ↗ touch that it's not something that

8:29 ↗ people shouldn't be able to comply with

8:30 ↗ i think that's a correct

8:32 ↗ double negative that people should be

8:34 ↗ able to comply with these

8:35 ↗ um it shouldn't be a financial hardship

8:38 ↗ it shouldn't be

8:39 ↗ a structural hardship so we didn't we

8:41 ↗ don't think that's necessary we can

8:42 ↗ always revisit it

8:43 ↗ and then we added clarifications just

8:45 ↗ the planners went over it to make sure

8:47 ↗ that

8:48 ↗ they understood it and that they could

8:49 ↗ explain it and they could easily enforce

8:52 ↗ it

8:54 ↗ so the first one building mass and scale

8:56 ↗ what we heard is don't regulate

8:58 ↗ style we don't you know we don't want to

9:00 ↗ say everything has to be craftsman or

9:02 ↗ everything has to be tutor

9:03 ↗ um they just want they want to keep the

9:05 ↗ eclectic nature of the neighborhood

9:07 ↗ it's one of the great things about it

9:08 ↗ they do they want to prohibit big boxes

9:10 ↗ by requiring buildings to be broken down

9:12 ↗ into smaller parts

9:16 ↗ intent is to produce buildings that are

9:18 ↗ consistent in scaling character with old

9:19 ↗ town

9:20 ↗ but to avoid large flat boxes that are

9:23 ↗ uninterrupted

9:24 ↗ and to generate thoughtfully designed

9:26 ↗ buildings that become assets to the

9:27 ↗ neighborhood

9:31 ↗ some of the changes that we made um are

9:33 ↗ some of the overarching ones

9:34 ↗ that i mentioned above we added key

9:36 ↗ terms and diagrams of street facing

9:38 ↗ facade and architectural feature

9:40 ↗ and we also made more prescriptive menus

9:42 ↗ as i mentioned above for example you

9:43 ↗ must comply with at least two of the

9:44 ↗ following elements

9:45 ↗ and then it lists four

9:50 ↗ roof design what we heard were two

9:52 ↗ different things

9:53 ↗ from the community and the commissions

9:55 ↗ we heard that they wanted to prohibit

9:57 ↗ flat roofs

9:58 ↗ the council on the other hand wanted to

10:00 ↗ allow some flexibility especially for

10:02 ↗ green roofs or rooftop decks

10:04 ↗ so we compromised a bit um wait i go

10:07 ↗ here

10:08 ↗ the intent so ensure that roofs are

10:10 ↗ complementary to the style of the

10:12 ↗ building

10:13 ↗ prevent large interrupted expanses of

10:16 ↗ roof

10:17 ↗ and create we added this one create a

10:20 ↗ more visually interesting

10:22 ↗ streetscape

10:26 ↗ so one of the standards was in mass and

10:28 ↗ scale or shape and size and we moved it

10:30 ↗ down here

10:31 ↗ that all two story buildings shall vary

10:33 ↗ the building height or roof shape to

10:34 ↗ reduce the perceived size of the

10:36 ↗ building

10:37 ↗ we did that just because we felt it was

10:39 ↗ more roof associated than building

10:41 ↗ associated we added roof line because we

10:44 ↗ realized that

10:46 ↗ you can't always see the roof form or

10:48 ↗ the roof surface

10:50 ↗ from the street sometimes you just see

10:51 ↗ the line so we added roof line

10:54 ↗ we deleted the durable weather

10:56 ↗ resistance standard because that's

10:57 ↗ already in our building code

10:59 ↗ we will add pictures that you see on the

11:01 ↗ right here to

11:02 ↗ clarify what a medium earth tone roof

11:05 ↗ color is

11:06 ↗ compared with a light ruth tone earth

11:08 ↗ color

11:10 ↗ and then we also the question came up

11:12 ↗ last time

11:14 ↗ as to whether the way we had described

11:16 ↗ 50

11:17 ↗ flat roof was easy enough for us to

11:19 ↗ measure and then the planners looked at

11:21 ↗ it and they said it's fine the way it is

11:22 ↗ i think we're good

11:23 ↗ um again if there's any confusion we can

11:25 ↗ always come back and revisit

11:29 ↗ building materials in color again many

11:32 ↗ different things

11:33 ↗ we heard from the public look at the

11:36 ↗ appearance and

11:37 ↗ durability instead of the exact material

11:39 ↗ it needs to be cost effective and

11:41 ↗ practical

11:42 ↗ commissioners wanted more guidance

11:44 ↗ regarding what materials are appropriate

11:45 ↗ and inappropriate i remember a long

11:47 ↗ conversation about log cabins

11:49 ↗ and the council said don't focus on the

11:51 ↗ style of materials instead address

11:53 ↗ appropriate or inappropriate

11:55 ↗ city-wide do it city-wide and it's a

11:58 ↗ matter of durability

12:00 ↗ and just a note um

12:03 ↗ we're going to do that so it's not in

12:06 ↗ this document right here

12:08 ↗ so the intent is to address the richness

12:10 ↗ and the vibrancy and timelessness to

12:12 ↗ provide visual interest

12:14 ↗ to create a sense of human scale by

12:16 ↗ highlighting architectural features

12:18 ↗ i should note that we did define

12:19 ↗ architectural features it's come up a

12:21 ↗ couple of times

12:22 ↗ july continuation of the eclectic old

12:25 ↗ town history

12:26 ↗ to enhance the overall appearance of the

12:28 ↗ building

12:30 ↗ by using colors that create interest in

12:31 ↗ variety and to complement a building's

12:33 ↗ overall architectural style and

12:35 ↗ composition

12:37 ↗ um i had to me for a second

12:41 ↗ move your faces there we go so

12:44 ↗ as i mentioned we deleted there was

12:46 ↗ mention of a citywide materials list we

12:48 ↗ don't yet have a citywide materials list

12:50 ↗ so once we get that we will include it

12:53 ↗ in the

12:53 ↗ isoquant municipal code the land use

12:55 ↗ code and that will apply citywide

12:58 ↗ and not just to old town we added a

13:00 ↗ standard about materials continuing this

13:02 ↗ came up last time materials continuing

13:04 ↗ from the front facade

13:06 ↗ by about one-third about one-third the

13:08 ↗ length of the sides are no less than 15

13:10 ↗ feet

13:12 ↗ we added a standard about prohibiting

13:13 ↗ transition and color along a horizontal

13:15 ↗ plane horizontal plane which is

13:17 ↗ represented

13:18 ↗ in the picture of the rainbow house here

13:20 ↗ um this house has

13:22 ↗ right there it's all brick but it

13:23 ↗ changes color seven times in accordance

13:25 ↗ with the rainbow

13:26 ↗ and um we're just saying you can't do

13:28 ↗ that without a change in materials

13:30 ↗ along a horizontal plane horizontal

13:32 ↗ plane

13:34 ↗ an adu we address those this time that

13:36 ↗ they should use the same color as the

13:38 ↗ primary structure

13:41 ↗ same color scheme actually as a primary

13:43 ↗ structure

13:44 ↗ any high intensity extremely bright

13:46 ↗ fluorescent colors should only be used

13:48 ↗ on

13:48 ↗ may can shall only be used on the front

13:52 ↗ door

13:53 ↗ and the garage door must be the same

13:55 ↗ color or darker than the body of the

13:56 ↗ house

14:00 ↗ front porches doors and windows we

14:02 ↗ changed the order i think it used to be

14:03 ↗ doors windows and front porches

14:05 ↗ um change the order what we heard is to

14:08 ↗ require

14:10 ↗ doors and windows to face the front

14:11 ↗ street or to face the street and allow

14:14 ↗ flexibility and don't be too perspective

14:16 ↗ too prescriptive

14:18 ↗ um the intent is to create human

14:20 ↗ oriented design to maintain a livelihood

14:21 ↗ and active street face and

14:23 ↗ to provide weather protection for people

14:24 ↗ going in and out of the

14:26 ↗ house the changes we weren't very

14:29 ↗ prescriptive on how big the piece of

14:30 ↗ glass had to be

14:31 ↗ and we thought maybe somebody putting in

14:33 ↗ a two by two piece of glass as a front

14:35 ↗ window is the only window wasn't a good

14:36 ↗ idea so

14:37 ↗ um we added a dimension that the glass

14:39 ↗ itself has to be at least 18 square feet

14:42 ↗ the question of over under configuration

14:45 ↗ of a duplex came up so we addressed that

14:47 ↗ through text and drawings we added

14:51 ↗ public pedestrian route and entry

14:52 ↗ features as

14:53 ↗ key terms established minimum sizes for

14:56 ↗ front porch and recessed

14:58 ↗ entry and opted not to allow

15:00 ↗ encroachment

15:01 ↗ of the front porch into the setback

15:03 ↗ which is something that we came

15:05 ↗ something that was discussed last time

15:10 ↗ yards and fences we heard don't regulate

15:14 ↗ setbacks based on the street what that

15:16 ↗ mean based on the street and what that

15:18 ↗ means

15:18 ↗ as a reminder for those just tuning in

15:20 ↗ is that

15:22 ↗ in some cases the setback that is in the

15:24 ↗ code says that a house has to be set

15:26 ↗ back by 10

15:27 ↗ feet from the from the front property

15:29 ↗ line but not everybody does that some

15:31 ↗ people do 15 feet some people do 20 some

15:33 ↗ people do 10 and it can be staggered

15:36 ↗ and our question was is that okay and

15:39 ↗ people decided sure that's fine we don't

15:41 ↗ care so don't don't regulate where they

15:43 ↗ have to be

15:44 ↗ allow usable space for active front

15:46 ↗ yards prohibit front yards that are

15:48 ↗ totally hardscape

15:49 ↗ and require a walkway from the street to

15:51 ↗ the front door

15:53 ↗ the intent is pretty much what i just

15:55 ↗ said

15:56 ↗ provide a defined welcoming safe entry

15:58 ↗ create active front yards and ensure

16:00 ↗ natural elements or plants are

16:02 ↗ integrated into the design

16:05 ↗ the changes that we made we added that

16:07 ↗ in okay shall the front yard

16:08 ↗ impervious exceed 70 and that is with

16:11 ↗ exceptions so

16:13 ↗ um it says 50 unless you want to add

16:17 ↗ something like

16:18 ↗ a bocce ball court or a front garden out

16:22 ↗ there that would increase it to 70

16:23 ↗ percent and its usable space

16:26 ↗ we defined front yards low fence and

16:28 ↗ privacy fence

16:29 ↗ and we opted to be silent on chain link

16:32 ↗ fences that came up in our last

16:33 ↗ discussion as well

16:34 ↗ and after taking a tour through old town

16:37 ↗ realize that there are several chain

16:38 ↗ link fences there

16:40 ↗ that don't really detract from the

16:42 ↗ character

16:43 ↗ um they seem to be fine um but this is

16:46 ↗ all up for discussion later

16:49 ↗ uh driveways and garages what we heard

16:51 ↗ is that when alleys are available

16:52 ↗ graduate

16:53 ↗ garages and driveways must be oriented

16:56 ↗ toward the alley

16:57 ↗ when alleys are not available prioritize

17:00 ↗ the human experience over the car

17:02 ↗ so don't make the garage the prominent

17:04 ↗ feature in the house

17:07 ↗ and again the intent prioritize human

17:09 ↗ circulation and minimize pedestrian and

17:11 ↗ vehicular conflicts

17:14 ↗ changes that we made we added subtactics

17:17 ↗ key matching standards and

17:20 ↗ scenarios so right here um

17:23 ↗ if you happen to be a street loaded

17:27 ↗ garage that's located behind the house

17:30 ↗ then 6.1 6.2 6.5 and 6.6

17:34 ↗ apply to that scenario and that's what

17:35 ↗ you should look at

17:37 ↗ we defined alley loaded and street

17:39 ↗ loaded garage added

17:41 ↗ minimum length for alley loaded

17:42 ↗ driveways added buildable width as a key

17:45 ↗ term we

17:46 ↗ were originally talking about the width

17:48 ↗ of the building and

17:49 ↗ decided that the width of the lot

17:53 ↗ was probably a more appropriate size to

17:54 ↗ work with

17:56 ↗ specified when garages are allowed to be

17:58 ↗ integrated with the house

18:00 ↗ added some diagrams for clarification

18:05 ↗ last well almost lastly and we talked

18:07 ↗ about last time we talked about

18:08 ↗ additions and adus and what should apply

18:11 ↗ and what should not apply

18:13 ↗ so after long discussions i think

18:16 ↗ um what we decided is that most of these

18:19 ↗ standards apply to things that can be

18:21 ↗ seen from the street

18:23 ↗ so if a an alteration is big enough to

18:26 ↗ require a structural change

18:28 ↗ or a second story is added then these

18:30 ↗ standards will apply

18:32 ↗ obviously they apply to new development

18:33 ↗ as well somebody tears down a house and

18:35 ↗ builds up or they build on a vacant lot

18:36 ↗ they apply but

18:38 ↗ as far as additions and ads go that's

18:40 ↗ what we thought about there and

18:42 ↗ as far as accessory dwelling units go

18:44 ↗ adus

18:46 ↗ they must be consistent or similar to

18:48 ↗ the color of the house the discussion

18:50 ↗ last time was that they should have to

18:51 ↗ comply

18:52 ↗ in some way um and this is what we

18:56 ↗ came like the decision that we came to

18:58 ↗ at least

19:00 ↗ uh lastly we added we changed the

19:03 ↗ glossary a little bit we

19:04 ↗ removed definitions from that are also

19:07 ↗ located in title 18 and just said these

19:09 ↗ are in title 18.

19:10 ↗ um we identified definitions from the

19:12 ↗ central that are also located in the

19:14 ↗ central isoqua standards we added

19:16 ↗ the key terms that are in the body of

19:19 ↗ the document down into the glossary

19:21 ↗ and also added some diagrams to help

19:23 ↗ explain key terms

19:25 ↗ and that is all i have

19:30 ↗ that's a lot thank you kristin you're

19:32 ↗ welcome

19:33 ↗ um so what i'm going to do is open the

19:36 ↗ public hearing

19:38 ↗ at 6 51 and ask if anybody is signed up

19:42 ↗ to speak

19:46 ↗ we have two people that have signed up

19:48 ↗ to speak um the first was

19:50 ↗ reza connie i'm not sure if she's here

19:55 ↗ if you were here could you unmute your

19:56 ↗ phone

20:02 ↗ second person that signed up to speak is

20:05 ↗ cynthia gatuzzo

20:07 ↗ and i don't believe that she's here she

20:10 ↗ also

20:11 ↗ right before the meeting sent comments

20:14 ↗ that i forwarded on to the planning

20:15 ↗ policy commission

20:16 ↗ so you have her comments as well i don't

20:20 ↗ see these are all those are the only

20:21 ↗ others that are signed up is there

20:23 ↗ anyone else that would like to speak

20:26 ↗ uh if you want to let me know let me

20:29 ↗ know by

20:29 ↗ hitting pound star 3.

20:42 ↗ anyone else

20:49 ↗ during um none

20:53 ↗ we did get three comments

20:57 ↗ that were emailed into us

21:00 ↗ and i don't know if they'll affect

21:04 ↗ what you guys um

21:07 ↗ think of what these standards are the

21:10 ↗ first one was basically just uh

21:12 ↗ doing some minor changes between

21:16 ↗ impervious impervious and adding

21:19 ↗ shingles to the possibility of

21:24 ↗ building materials the second one

21:28 ↗ was a cons two concerns the first one

21:31 ↗ was

21:32 ↗ uh with tearing down existing houses and

21:35 ↗ building

21:36 ↗ much larger maybe on two lots

21:40 ↗ uh buildings and what happens when

21:44 ↗ you don't comply and you ask for an

21:48 ↗ administrative uh review

21:51 ↗ what is the process to that and the last

21:55 ↗ one was

21:55 ↗ uh was major um

21:59 ↗ not allowing three storage buildings

22:01 ↗ three store

22:05 ↗ three three buildings high um

22:09 ↗ and that's already been taken care of in

22:11 ↗ the

22:12 ↗ uh plans that christian just went

22:15 ↗ through

22:16 ↗ and the other one was a person who

22:19 ↗ actually lives in old town and

22:23 ↗ and dislikes any uh

22:26 ↗ comments changes requirements in the

22:29 ↗ city

22:30 ↗ before i close the

22:34 ↗ uh public hearing when i jump in

22:37 ↗ really quickly i did have two phone

22:39 ↗ calls that i just thought i should let

22:41 ↗ you all know

22:42 ↗ about one was a resident and property

22:45 ↗ owner in old town

22:46 ↗ who um

22:49 ↗ i apologize who is not happy with the

22:51 ↗ standards does not want to see the

22:53 ↗ standards and

22:54 ↗ another just had several questions and

22:56 ↗ had not read the standards yet

22:57 ↗ um and i did not hear back from that

22:59 ↗ person i did just get an email

23:01 ↗ pop-up from uh cynthia grusso who said

23:04 ↗ she would like to speak or we can just

23:05 ↗ read her email if you would like to do

23:07 ↗ that

23:09 ↗ she would like to speak i would

23:12 ↗ appreciate if she would sign in

23:18 ↗ i wasn't going to close the public

23:20 ↗ hearing until i got

23:22 ↗ a uh review

23:25 ↗ from the commissioners if anybody had

23:28 ↗ any other suggestions concerns

23:30 ↗ that they wanted to address

23:33 ↗ and needed more time to go over the

23:37 ↗ requirements i'm not done white men um

23:42 ↗ if you all wanted to continue the public

23:45 ↗ hearing

23:46 ↗ to our next meeting and to do that i

23:50 ↗ have to

23:50 ↗ ask you ahead ahead of time before

23:53 ↗ the public hearing is completed so

23:57 ↗ is that person called in yet

24:02 ↗ you're unmute

24:05 ↗ no apparently i own a dollar to the pot

24:08 ↗ that's what i keep hearing um

24:10 ↗ i uh keep emailing back and forth with

24:13 ↗ her she wasn't sure how to get in so i

24:14 ↗ sent her the directions again but you

24:16 ↗ may want to read her email and then

24:20 ↗ the email is quite extensive

24:24 ↗ with that i know that all of you

24:28 ↗ did not have very much time to go over

24:30 ↗ it and

24:31 ↗ think about the questions that were

24:33 ↗ brought

24:34 ↗ by the owner of the

24:39 ↗ building inside old town

24:42 ↗ so i i don't know if

24:46 ↗ you want to and while we're waiting if

24:49 ↗ ron commissioner fall

24:50 ↗ has a question that he would like to

24:54 ↗ propose i know that it's uh during the

24:56 ↗ public hearing but

24:58 ↗ we are waiting for someone to call in so

25:02 ↗ ron if you would like to

25:05 ↗ uh ask a question sure

25:09 ↗ madam chair this is ron fall so i have

25:12 ↗ two questions um

25:14 ↗ they're fairly light i think you guys

25:16 ↗ did a great job on the document overall

25:19 ↗ um first question is going to page 10.

25:26 ↗ ron is when you say page 10 do you mean

25:29 ↗ page 10

25:30 ↗ of the packet or page 10 of the document

25:33 ↗ page 10 of the document page 23 of the

25:36 ↗ packet

25:37 ↗ thank you so much and that's going to be

25:40 ↗ under section

25:41 ↗ 2.5 regarding to roof colors

25:44 ↗ it says medium to dark earth tones what

25:47 ↗ about a black

25:48 ↗ roof charcoal gray or black

25:53 ↗ where does that fall is that okay or is

25:55 ↗ that being excluded

25:59 ↗ and then my next question is going to

26:03 ↗ page

26:06 ↗ 13 which is page 25 of the packet

26:12 ↗ under standards continued section 3.4

26:17 ↗ line item e garage doors shall be the

26:20 ↗ same color as the body of the house or

26:23 ↗ darker i don't know that i agree with

26:26 ↗ that

26:27 ↗ [Music]

26:29 ↗ can you please clarify what that means

26:31 ↗ and how

26:32 ↗ if someone wants to paint if someone has

26:34 ↗ a greenhouse

26:36 ↗ a dark house or a dark blue house and

26:38 ↗ they want to paint their garage door

26:40 ↗ white or off-white

26:43 ↗ the same color as maybe the facade is

26:46 ↗ that acceptable

26:47 ↗ another case is up the street from my my

26:50 ↗ house

26:51 ↗ is a house where it's a very beautiful

26:54 ↗ dark gray house

26:55 ↗ they did an awesome job on i mean it's

26:57 ↗ like a 10 out of a 10.

26:59 ↗ they have an orange front door and an

27:01 ↗ orange garage door

27:03 ↗ and it looks hot would that be

27:05 ↗ acceptable

27:09 ↗ um so i'll start with the garage door uh

27:13 ↗ so uh and thanks for giving examples

27:16 ↗ um generally because the the

27:20 ↗ goal that was identified was to

27:24 ↗ draw more attention to the people parts

27:27 ↗ of the house

27:28 ↗ and less attention to the garage part of

27:31 ↗ the house

27:32 ↗ we've allowed things like the garage the

27:35 ↗ front door

27:36 ↗ to be a bright color or to have more

27:39 ↗ flexibility

27:40 ↗ um the garage door

27:44 ↗ is to make it less

27:47 ↗ prominent would be the same color as the

27:51 ↗ body of the house

27:53 ↗ now i the colors that are available

27:58 ↗ we have i think a primary color

28:02 ↗ which is just measured based on

28:06 ↗ whichever is the most and so that would

28:09 ↗ be

28:09 ↗ uh the one that would be applied to the

28:12 ↗ garage

28:13 ↗ that or something darker

28:17 ↗ okay i don't know that i agree with that

28:20 ↗ um another case in point glass garage

28:23 ↗ doors

28:25 ↗ and i'll use mary lou polly's house as a

28:27 ↗ great example

28:28 ↗ beautiful house dark gray but she has a

28:31 ↗ glass garage door and it almost appears

28:33 ↗ white

28:34 ↗ and the garage door is prominent but the

28:36 ↗ it's such a classy setup

28:38 ↗ that it looks it's it's fantastic

28:42 ↗ so i don't know that we want to

28:46 ↗ really control the color of the garage

28:49 ↗ door

28:51 ↗ i think that's a limitation that we

28:53 ↗ shouldn't be getting

28:54 ↗ into and the same thing

28:58 ↗ what if you have a wood colored uh

29:00 ↗ garage door let's say you have an oak

29:02 ↗ garage door

29:04 ↗ and you it's stained we're excluding

29:07 ↗ that because we want to de-emphasize a

29:09 ↗ garage door but a garage door is a main

29:11 ↗ part of a house

29:12 ↗ can be and if it's

29:15 ↗ the same color as the body it's gonna be

29:16 ↗ very monochromatic and i think it's

29:19 ↗ gonna look like

29:20 ↗ it could look like a hulk as opposed to

29:22 ↗ a nice accent

29:25 ↗ well you bring up two good examples ron

29:28 ↗ uh

29:28 ↗ one is where you're using a natural

29:31 ↗ material

29:32 ↗ such as wood in its natural state

29:36 ↗ the other is the glass doors or the

29:39 ↗ translucent doors

29:41 ↗ i think those are excellent exceptions i

29:44 ↗ think

29:46 ↗ what we've seen i think we were trying

29:49 ↗ to draw because

29:50 ↗ we are considering um

29:55 ↗ standards for single family in general

29:59 ↗ and we tried to consider some of the

30:01 ↗ standards

30:02 ↗ in other parts of the city so

30:05 ↗ in isqa highlands and talus for instance

30:08 ↗ white garage doors are already

30:10 ↗ precluded and they need to match the

30:14 ↗ body of the house

30:15 ↗ i do think that exceptions should be

30:18 ↗ made for

30:21 ↗ uh things like natural wood or

30:24 ↗ the translucent because we aren't

30:27 ↗ specifying materials so if you picked

30:30 ↗ those materials you should be able to

30:32 ↗ leave them in their natural state

30:35 ↗ i think that when garage doors are

30:38 ↗ painted

30:39 ↗ um very different colors they can draw a

30:43 ↗ lot of attention to them

30:44 ↗ which was one of the criteria that we

30:48 ↗ were given to try and minimize

30:53 ↗ okay

30:56 ↗ uh and i know there's a question from

30:58 ↗ commissioner lewis but we're gonna

30:59 ↗ go back to the phone call

31:03 ↗ that is now uh kristen could you

31:07 ↗ put her in

31:17 ↗ so mrs gotuzo uh if you could please hit

31:21 ↗ uh stars pound

31:25 ↗ six it should i've

31:28 ↗ sent you a request to unmute

31:44 ↗ what are the last two numbers on your

31:46 ↗ bow nine

31:47 ↗ nine

31:56 ↗ if you could hit either star six or

31:58 ↗ pound six

32:03 ↗ i think it's star six

32:07 ↗ kim are you able to unmute her

32:12 ↗ or

32:26 ↗ okay

32:33 ↗ and you said it's see

32:40 ↗ andrea you recall if it is star six or

32:43 ↗ pound six

32:44 ↗ either way one of those two i'm sorry

32:47 ↗ check the website

32:48 ↗ it's star six star six

32:53 ↗ oh okay

33:02 ↗ [Music]

33:13 ↗ [Music]

33:22 ↗ um

33:27 ↗ [Music]

33:36 ↗ um

33:38 ↗ [Music]

33:48 ↗ thank you

33:52 ↗ you mute her or did she

33:55 ↗ mute herself

34:22 ↗ okay tim she's going to call back in

34:26 ↗ so while we're waiting i'm going to ask

34:29 ↗ commissioner lewis to

34:31 ↗ tell us her question but i will inter

34:34 ↗ interrupt her if

34:35 ↗ uh the caller is able to get in

34:39 ↗ so commissioner lewis what is your

34:41 ↗ question no trouble

34:43 ↗ uh thank you this is uh commissioner joy

34:46 ↗ lewis um i want to start off by saying

34:48 ↗ that the revisions

34:50 ↗ to the packet and the work by staff is

34:52 ↗ phenomenal

34:53 ↗ i really like this version it looks

34:55 ↗ really great

34:56 ↗ um i did have a question regarding the

35:00 ↗ glossary

35:01 ↗ um all the terms that are in title 18

35:03 ↗ have been removed it mentions

35:05 ↗ um and obviously anything that isn't um

35:07 ↗ anything that isn't being mentioned was

35:09 ↗ removed

35:10 ↗ um i'm curious since we're touching

35:11 ↗ title 18

35:13 ↗ next year um basically how you guys feel

35:17 ↗ about

35:18 ↗ this um merging like how how easy and

35:21 ↗ accessible is it going to be for

35:22 ↗ homeowners

35:23 ↗ as they're trying to go through and read

35:25 ↗ this packet and apply it to their

35:27 ↗ projects

35:28 ↗ doubling back to this doubling back to

35:30 ↗ that i kind of wanted to get a better

35:31 ↗ feeling of how

35:32 ↗ um a community member will use this

35:35 ↗ packet because right now when i look at

35:36 ↗ this i really love how it's laid out

35:38 ↗ but when i think about them bouncing

35:40 ↗ between um title 18

35:42 ↗ highlighting having changes coming to it

35:43 ↗ how staff kind of feels we'll

35:45 ↗ be able to streamline that and make it

35:47 ↗ easier for community members

35:52 ↗ so i'll start sam may have something

35:54 ↗ that she wants to add in as well

35:57 ↗ we did try um i know that there are some

36:00 ↗ definitions from title 18 that are used

36:03 ↗ so much

36:04 ↗ um uh or that were so essential that we

36:08 ↗ put it in there and just referenced it

36:10 ↗ was from title 18

36:13 ↗ or identified

36:16 ↗ uh where title 18 you know would be the

36:19 ↗ go-to spot

36:21 ↗ i realized that there's some awkwardness

36:23 ↗ in the interim

36:25 ↗ and we are very much looking forward to

36:27 ↗ having one

36:28 ↗ integrated document um i i think the

36:31 ↗ challenge

36:32 ↗ is just that there are some definitions

36:34 ↗ from central issaquah that we pulled in

36:37 ↗ some from uh some that may come from

36:40 ↗ um title 18 1802

36:43 ↗ and then ones that were um important to

36:47 ↗ this section and i think the most

36:49 ↗ important ones are there

36:51 ↗ um and that was our goal to try and make

36:54 ↗ it easy but i recognize that there may

36:56 ↗ be the occasional definition

36:58 ↗ um that will require that and i guess

37:01 ↗ that means

37:02 ↗ um either going to title 18

37:05 ↗ or speaking with staff because we would

37:08 ↗ certainly be help

37:09 ↗ more than happy to help a homeowner

37:13 ↗ yeah that's the caller

37:17 ↗ is she ready yes the caller has asked um

37:20 ↗ caller i have requested you to unmute

37:24 ↗ your phone hitting star six please

37:46 ↗ we're going to continue on

37:52 ↗ until she's able to to call in

37:56 ↗ and get connected

37:59 ↗ cynthia hello oh my goodness

38:04 ↗ we made it we made it thank you for your

38:07 ↗ patience

38:07 ↗ welcome um uh technology i just that was

38:11 ↗ just the oddest thing and uh yes but

38:13 ↗ anyway so here we are thank you so much

38:15 ↗ i really do

38:16 ↗ appreciate everybody being flexible and

38:19 ↗ working back and forth and getting

38:21 ↗ allowing me to have my time

38:24 ↗ um so i quickly read through this this

38:28 ↗ evening was super happy to see that i

38:30 ↗ actually made um

38:32 ↗ i was able to make some comments um

38:35 ↗ and so these are just a few adjustments

38:37 ↗ that i would like to have everybody

38:39 ↗ consider

38:40 ↗ um and i'll just start from the top

38:44 ↗ well i am the owner uh i should

38:46 ↗ introduce myself this is cynthia and i

38:47 ↗ owned

38:48 ↗ a single family duplex on andrews street

38:51 ↗ and i also live

38:53 ↗ um on quinault or uh on squawk mountain

38:56 ↗ as well

38:57 ↗ so i have two properties here and we've

38:59 ↗ been here for about 19 years

39:02 ↗ and i'm super happy that some standards

39:05 ↗ are being put in place because i've seen

39:07 ↗ the downtown area change and i think

39:08 ↗ this is a fabulous idea

39:11 ↗ so here we go starting at the top 1.1

39:15 ↗ a it speaks of um i guess the depth

39:19 ↗ of the balconies or or porches i believe

39:22 ↗ and i i just think that four feet if we

39:25 ↗ added an extra foot feet

39:28 ↗ in the depths that would give um a

39:31 ↗ better

39:33 ↗ um use of space for people to actually

39:36 ↗ use that rather than just the pass

39:38 ↗ through to get into their home

39:39 ↗ and it would just create more of a

39:41 ↗ community feel uh four feet really isn't

39:43 ↗ much to put anything out there like a

39:46 ↗ a patio set a t or a a bench or a

39:49 ↗ you know bistro table really not much um

39:53 ↗ and then it would also actually i think

39:56 ↗ give a better

39:56 ↗ mass reduction feel to any large

40:00 ↗ construction construction project that

40:02 ↗ might go on

40:05 ↗ and i don't know if you could tie that

40:06 ↗ into the total square foot of the house

40:09 ↗ or how technical you can get maybe if

40:10 ↗ it's a smaller house

40:12 ↗ four feet is fine but if it's a larger

40:14 ↗ like someone's trying to build like a

40:15 ↗ 100 square foot on a small lot or

40:18 ↗ whatever maybe five feet would go into

40:20 ↗ a you know into effect but um

40:24 ↗ and then so if we move on to 1.2

40:27 ↗ um change from at least two of the

40:29 ↗ following elements to a minimum of

40:31 ↗ three elements um requiring three uh at

40:34 ↗ least three

40:35 ↗ elements i just think that um

40:38 ↗ some of the elements listed are pretty

40:40 ↗ basic and one can easily

40:41 ↗ choose trim and multi-colored paint to

40:45 ↗ allow

40:46 ↗ um i mean from that list

40:49 ↗ and those alone aren't very thoughtfully

40:52 ↗ designed elements that we're trying to

40:55 ↗ achieve i believe

40:56 ↗ and that perhaps if we add an additional

40:58 ↗ element in combination with that

41:01 ↗ for instance like window panes shutters

41:04 ↗ or balconies

41:05 ↗ then that would just be more impactful

41:07 ↗ um i could just see people trying to

41:09 ↗ just do the bare minimum sometime

41:11 ↗ and and that might kind of close that

41:14 ↗ little loophole

41:17 ↗ and then also we never talked about

41:19 ↗ there's talk about trim

41:21 ↗ on the homes uh windows and doors but

41:23 ↗ not the size

41:24 ↗ and i know sometimes builders will come

41:26 ↗ in and they do that builder grade

41:27 ↗ special trim

41:29 ↗ super little really skinny thin to save

41:32 ↗ cost

41:32 ↗ and it would just really be nice when

41:34 ↗ you go into the you know historic

41:35 ↗ neighborhoods homes with charm

41:37 ↗ there's usually like four inch trim or

41:39 ↗ it's actually actual measurement comes

41:41 ↗ to 3.5 inches

41:43 ↗ um maybe give some consideration to the

41:46 ↗ size of trim that's used for the windows

41:48 ↗ and indoors

41:50 ↗ so we don't see like little pencil thin

41:52 ↗ trim going up around everything

41:54 ↗ um anyways and this uh

41:57 ↗ and it just gives a more robust feel

42:01 ↗ and then uh 2.4 uh omit

42:05 ↗ all oh well this is my little note to

42:07 ↗ myself uh flat roof

42:09 ↗ i'm on board with the no flat roof thing

42:11 ↗ or sloped roof

42:12 ↗ uh i just feel that flat roof designed

42:15 ↗ homes usually are found in more

42:17 ↗ modern and contemporary homes not in

42:22 ↗ homes that were designed in this area in

42:25 ↗ the period

42:26 ↗ in which it was originated and i know

42:28 ↗ we're not trying to go back exactly to

42:30 ↗ that time period but

42:32 ↗ um the flat roof design it just i just

42:36 ↗ believe that it just really clashes with

42:37 ↗ the old town surroundings i like the

42:39 ↗ idea of roof

42:40 ↗ top gardens or rooftop

42:43 ↗ balconies but i i really don't

42:47 ↗ i wasn't sure if that was an exception

42:49 ↗ you can have a rooftop

42:51 ↗ if you have that element um that's the

42:54 ↗ only way or maybe we can just say hey

42:56 ↗ maybe if it's

42:57 ↗ on a shed structure but not

43:00 ↗ on the home itself because i really

43:02 ↗ don't see a lot of people

43:03 ↗ going in and putting garden rooftop

43:07 ↗ gardens

43:08 ↗ or you know organic roofs on their

43:11 ↗ and um that we would i'm just trying to

43:13 ↗ eliminate the whole

43:15 ↗ uh contemporary i just want more of a

43:17 ↗ cohesive feel to the neighborhood

43:19 ↗ um i like the eclectic feel but

43:23 ↗ sloped roofs don't really have a place

43:26 ↗ here

43:27 ↗ and then 3.4 i was confused about the

43:30 ↗ color options this was sort of a note i

43:31 ↗ know i'm just making a statement

43:33 ↗ i guess we're still deciding on colors

43:36 ↗ um omit doors the whole garage door

43:40 ↗ thing about asking for it to be the same

43:42 ↗ color as the house or

43:43 ↗ darker i just feel that this is a little

43:46 ↗ reaching

43:47 ↗ um a little too restrictive and then

43:51 ↗ the privacy fence there was no mention

43:54 ↗ about

43:54 ↗ or maybe i overlooked it the height of

43:56 ↗ that privacy fence

43:58 ↗ um it's in section 5.3 if we can maybe

44:01 ↗ put a number on that that private

44:03 ↗ defense because we don't want someone to

44:04 ↗ put like a 10 foot fence up

44:06 ↗ or an eight foot maybe perhaps six feet

44:09 ↗ um

44:09 ↗ and then the low fence i think you said

44:12 ↗ four

44:12 ↗ feet but maybe we can put that to 40

44:16 ↗ inches because even four feet

44:17 ↗ when you're walking along the sidewalk

44:20 ↗ area

44:21 ↗ i know it's just a couple of inches but

44:23 ↗ um

44:25 ↗ i think 44 inches would be plenty high

44:27 ↗ enough for

44:29 ↗ you know a front low fence in the front

44:32 ↗ yard

44:33 ↗ and that's it those are all my comments

44:35 ↗ i didn't get to the end of

44:37 ↗ the the deck but that was all i had and

44:40 ↗ i

44:40 ↗ really do appreciate you guys giving me

44:42 ↗ the time and uh

44:44 ↗ look forward to see how this all

44:45 ↗ progresses

44:48 ↗ thank you for your comments so

44:51 ↗ joy you were commissioner louis you were

44:55 ↗ in the process of asking a question

44:58 ↗ i don't know if if lucy

45:02 ↗ has completely answered it for you

45:06 ↗ yes thank you uh madam chair

45:08 ↗ commissioner joy lewis again

45:09 ↗ um i want to let um samantha make a

45:11 ↗ comment i think that she wanted to

45:13 ↗ respond to my comments about glossary

45:15 ↗ but my second question um that i'm going

45:17 ↗ to mention before samantha just in case

45:19 ↗ she wants to address it

45:20 ↗ is to say i'm wondering how well we're

45:22 ↗ defining for folks

45:24 ↗ really when when it's necessary right i

45:27 ↗ think we mentioned structural

45:28 ↗ changes to the home as being that how

45:31 ↗ well is that defined

45:32 ↗ right how easy is that going to be for

45:34 ↗ people to be able to relate to

45:36 ↗ um what they need to do and i kind of

45:39 ↗ wanted to have

45:40 ↗ a little comments from staff about how

45:42 ↗ are we going to

45:44 ↗ help communicate that in a way that's

45:45 ↗ easy for people to read and say yeah

45:47 ↗ this applies to me or it doesn't um

45:50 ↗ so i'll turn over to anthony yeah

45:53 ↗ uh thank you commissioner um i just

45:55 ↗ wanted to respond and elaborate on

45:57 ↗ um what lucy was saying and part of the

45:59 ↗ reason why we ended up taking those

46:01 ↗ definitions out is because we didn't

46:04 ↗ want to have very similar definitions

46:06 ↗ that were slightly different

46:08 ↗ in multiple places it became a staff

46:10 ↗ implementation

46:11 ↗ issue that we were trying to avoid so i

46:14 ↗ agree that not having him in the

46:16 ↗ document

46:16 ↗ is a little less user friendly but we

46:19 ↗ were thinking that that was a little

46:21 ↗ better because it could be more easily

46:23 ↗ implemented

46:24 ↗ over you know over the long haul um but

46:27 ↗ there might be

46:28 ↗ some interim solution like maybe we have

46:31 ↗ an appendix

46:32 ↗ um that has the definitions in title 18

46:34 ↗ just as a

46:35 ↗ you know something that people can refer

46:37 ↗ to and then when it's adopted or when

46:39 ↗ title 18 is updated that's just one

46:41 ↗ sheet that's easy to be

46:42 ↗ updated or something um so we can

46:44 ↗ probably

46:45 ↗ try to workshop um an interim solution

46:48 ↗ because

46:48 ↗ i do agree if you're not living and

46:51 ↗ breathing this kind of stuff on a daily

46:53 ↗ basis

46:54 ↗ it might be hard to then try to track

46:56 ↗ down those those definitions in title 18

46:58 ↗ um because you you all know how

47:01 ↗ difficult it is to find what you need in

47:02 ↗ the code

47:03 ↗ even if you know the code um so maybe we

47:06 ↗ can do something like that just as an

47:07 ↗ appendix yeah at least be shaking your

47:09 ↗ head

47:10 ↗ that's it that's a great comment so with

47:13 ↗ those

47:14 ↗ comments um adding

47:17 ↗ additional comments into the

47:21 ↗ code they um

47:24 ↗ document that we're talking about is

47:27 ↗ that

47:27 ↗ a major process where you're going to

47:31 ↗ have to

47:32 ↗ go through planning policy again or

47:35 ↗ is it just putting in a addendum

47:39 ↗ is just minor and it just automatically

47:42 ↗ goes in there

47:44 ↗ lucy well two things

47:47 ↗ uh one i think it might be restoring

47:50 ↗ some of the definitions that were

47:52 ↗ in the version that you saw last time

47:56 ↗ and these are definitions that already

47:59 ↗ exist

47:59 ↗ we're not creating new material

48:03 ↗ we're simply taking material from

48:06 ↗ uh that that would have already applied

48:08 ↗ to this

48:09 ↗ and putting it in a location um

48:12 ↗ where it is more accessible so

48:15 ↗ i'm i'm hoping that would not qualify

48:18 ↗ for

48:19 ↗ requiring the hearing to be extended but

48:23 ↗ look to my colleagues

48:26 ↗ the other point i wanted to make

48:30 ↗ in response to commissioner lewis's

48:32 ↗ question was that on page 16

48:35 ↗ of the packet was uh the definition

48:39 ↗ or the term that as we described it

48:42 ↗ significant

48:43 ↗ redevelopment and so

48:47 ↗ um uh i i um

48:51 ↗ wonder if commissioner lewis could give

48:53 ↗ us her take on whether this seems

48:56 ↗ um how well the definition that's there

49:01 ↗ answers her question

49:04 ↗ thank you lucy i guess what it is is

49:06 ↗ that um

49:08 ↗ i think it's easy to read this document

49:10 ↗ from our chair right here and

49:11 ↗ feel like it covers it but i think it's

49:14 ↗ also easy for somebody who's sitting in

49:16 ↗ a different position

49:17 ↗ to be switching out for a more modern

49:19 ↗ window and they decide i'm going to make

49:21 ↗ a slightly bigger window does you know

49:23 ↗ what i mean being able to help

49:25 ↗ kind of do some nitty-gritty because

49:27 ↗ some stuff is obvious right when you

49:29 ↗ look at um

49:31 ↗ different um modifications that people

49:33 ↗ are making you know it's kind of that

49:35 ↗ you know

49:35 ↗ that classic um question of um you know

49:39 ↗ i'll know it when i see it

49:41 ↗ um so i'm kind of hoping that there's a

49:43 ↗ way um the staff want a comment of

49:45 ↗ saying i know

49:46 ↗ in this document we're going to include

49:47 ↗ maybe language about do you have

49:49 ↗ questions this is how you contact us

49:51 ↗ right because we know that you guys have

49:52 ↗ offered to say

49:53 ↗ hey well we want to help guide you

49:54 ↗ through this but um

49:56 ↗ you know maybe there needs to be like a

49:57 ↗ direct um you know

49:59 ↗ contact us old town kind of a thing of

50:02 ↗ being able to allow people to say hey

50:04 ↗ can i have run this

50:06 ↗ through um in in a more easily way you

50:09 ↗ know what i'm saying it's a way to kind

50:10 ↗ of um

50:12 ↗ make the community have an easier link

50:14 ↗ to wondering

50:15 ↗ is does this does this count

50:18 ↗ okay so we're doing something that we

50:22 ↗ don't usually do which is having

50:24 ↗ commissioner comments in the middle of

50:26 ↗ a public hearing and so i

50:29 ↗ i i know we got off track because

50:32 ↗ uh of the caller um i need to know

50:36 ↗ from the commissioners if there were

50:39 ↗ enough

50:40 ↗ questions that uh were asked by the

50:44 ↗ the probably the public to uh

50:47 ↗ make you want to continue the open

50:51 ↗ the public hearing discussion

50:54 ↗ or do you want to close the public

50:57 ↗ hearing

50:58 ↗ and then just go into a discussion

51:02 ↗ and eventually have a vote on

51:06 ↗ the document

51:11 ↗ uh any any comments

51:17 ↗ if i don't hear any content then i will

51:20 ↗ close the public hearing

51:24 ↗ okay so the public hearing will be

51:27 ↗ closed

51:29 ↗ at 7 22.

51:32 ↗ and now i'll open it up for

51:36 ↗ more discussion on where we go from here

51:39 ↗ if if you want to add subtract

51:42 ↗ what are your thoughts i don't i have a

51:46 ↗ question from

51:49 ↗ commissioner voice

51:55 ↗ thank you chair provola and thank you

51:57 ↗ staff for a very

51:59 ↗ well thought out very thorough

52:02 ↗ and incredibly user-friendly pocket i

52:05 ↗ want to thank all staff ms sloman miss

52:08 ↗ schneider massouder miss leeson

52:10 ↗ uh it's very well done and very easy to

52:12 ↗ follow

52:14 ↗ i do have a few things and i didn't

52:16 ↗ really get

52:17 ↗ i tried to jump in there at the last

52:18 ↗ second but it looks like i missed my

52:20 ↗ boat

52:21 ↗ um but as far as the discussion is the

52:23 ↗ garage doors

52:24 ↗ i had a couple questions there i think

52:26 ↗ one question in another section and then

52:28 ↗ one or two comments

52:32 ↗ in 3.4 e discussing the garage doors

52:36 ↗ it says that the garage door shall be

52:39 ↗ the same color or darker than the body

52:43 ↗ of the house should the word body be

52:46 ↗ changed to primary cladding

52:48 ↗ material color or some other similar

52:51 ↗ word

52:52 ↗ um the body's not a defined word i

52:54 ↗ believe in the glossary

52:57 ↗ and then as far as the garage doors

53:00 ↗ are concerned in our packet it shows a

53:03 ↗ picture that translucent picture with

53:04 ↗ the blue house

53:06 ↗ that trim that is on the outline of the

53:09 ↗ garage door and i believe also the grids

53:11 ↗ that would be a picture of where the

53:14 ↗ actual color of the

53:15 ↗ garage is lighter than the body of the

53:18 ↗ house

53:19 ↗ so again i'm kind of i think ron rick

53:22 ↗ commissioner fowle brings up a good

53:24 ↗ point as far as

53:26 ↗ the color of the garage is a tough one i

53:28 ↗ i think that might be

53:30 ↗ not keeping with the spirit of a light

53:32 ↗ touch i understand what you're trying to

53:34 ↗ say about not being a prominent feature

53:35 ↗ of the house

53:37 ↗ that might be a little heavy-handed i

53:40 ↗ mean

53:41 ↗ thoughts on that like i said i have a

53:42 ↗ couple more but i'll stick with the

53:44 ↗ garage doors for now

53:48 ↗ any comments

53:51 ↗ lucy well i think

53:55 ↗ i i've communicated what our goal was

53:59 ↗ in terms of implementing what we

54:02 ↗ understood

54:03 ↗ um but so far i'm hearing

54:06 ↗ a community member and two commissioners

54:10 ↗ uh questioning that as a light touch i

54:13 ↗ mean

54:14 ↗ this is why we come back to the

54:15 ↗ commission and

54:17 ↗ ask for your input and uh i think at

54:20 ↗ this point it's

54:21 ↗ it's really up to commissioner

54:23 ↗ discussion

54:25 ↗ i think the options that would be on the

54:28 ↗ table is

54:29 ↗ leave it as is leave it as is with

54:32 ↗ things like translucent doors and

54:36 ↗ natural materials allowed

54:39 ↗ or remove it

54:44 ↗ so um there are one two three

54:47 ↗ four five commissioners here tonight

54:51 ↗ so i'd like to get a general idea if

54:55 ↗ uh if you are an agreement of

54:58 ↗ changing it or leaving it the way it is

55:01 ↗ first of all do you want to change it

55:08 ↗ it just strikes me because the the

55:09 ↗ commissioner voicer it strikes me

55:11 ↗ because the garage is already not a

55:12 ↗ prominent feature you're talking one of

55:14 ↗ three scenarios where it's integrated as

55:16 ↗ part of the house

55:17 ↗ it's already going to be sent back from

55:18 ↗ the porch or portico

55:20 ↗ so again it's already prominently

55:22 ↗ physically it's not

55:24 ↗ the primary part of the house and again

55:26 ↗ you start talking about

55:28 ↗ natural wood that's not even on the

55:30 ↗ color palette meaning it's it's not

55:32 ↗ it has no limitations if you're using

55:34 ↗ like like ron said

55:35 ↗ commissioner fell said like an oak door

55:38 ↗ um

55:38 ↗ that's not even on the requirements that

55:40 ↗ wouldn't even count against the color

55:42 ↗ palette so

55:43 ↗ the garage one seems a little heavy

55:45 ↗ that's my opinion so i would strike it

55:47 ↗ myself that's how i feel

55:51 ↗ uh do i have any other comments of

55:53 ↗ striking it

55:54 ↗ at a minimum i would like to see an

55:57 ↗ exception being made for

55:59 ↗ different materials i understand staff's

56:01 ↗ point

56:02 ↗ um about when we're talking about the

56:04 ↗ body of the home's um

56:06 ↗ paint but i i do like the idea of being

56:08 ↗ able to allow

56:09 ↗ as much freedom as possible right

56:11 ↗ because we do want to have a lighter

56:12 ↗ touch

56:13 ↗ so i would like to at least see an

56:14 ↗ exception made for um

56:16 ↗ again that translucent glass wood

56:19 ↗ natural you know natural things um that

56:22 ↗ people would be able to use

56:24 ↗ i have a question for commissioner carl

56:29 ↗ actually

56:30 ↗ this is janice carl thank you for the

56:32 ↗ time um

56:33 ↗ i uh and this is a comment not a

56:36 ↗ question but it seems to me that

56:38 ↗ in 3.5 we're already specifying

56:40 ↗ limitations on bright colors

56:43 ↗ to be limited to the front door so that

56:46 ↗ precludes applying

56:47 ↗ a bright color you know a bright accent

56:50 ↗ color to the garage door which

56:53 ↗ i think though there may be examples

56:56 ↗ where we might want to allow that

56:58 ↗ in general the policy is to as lucy

57:01 ↗ mentioned focus on the the human access

57:05 ↗ features rather than the vehicle access

57:07 ↗ so i'm cons

57:08 ↗ i agree with 3.5 as a great limitation

57:11 ↗ on that

57:12 ↗ seems to me we could strike element e

57:15 ↗ of 3.4 and i agree with joy's thoughts

57:18 ↗ on making provision for

57:22 ↗ natural um

57:25 ↗ natural materials to be to be encouraged

57:28 ↗ even

57:30 ↗ that's all i have thank you so we have

57:34 ↗ to have a consistent

57:36 ↗ uh opinion to

57:40 ↗ uh send forth to the council

57:43 ↗ so i'm hearing a couple different things

57:45 ↗ here

57:46 ↗ and so i need to get a consensus

57:50 ↗ one way or the other and i'm not quite

57:51 ↗ sure how to do that

57:54 ↗ lucy thank you madam chairwoman

57:58 ↗ um i i believe that um

58:02 ↗ uh there are two ways to do it and i'm

58:06 ↗ i'm not clear which one uh commission

58:08 ↗ and i and i appreciate um

58:11 ↗ the chairwoman is likewise trying to do

58:14 ↗ this

58:15 ↗ um i think one is to strike 3.4

58:18 ↗ e and not discuss

58:22 ↗ garage doors at all and then

58:25 ↗ things like natural stains and materials

58:28 ↗ would be

58:29 ↗ as available as um

58:32 ↗ you know any other materials on the

58:35 ↗ house

58:36 ↗ the other option is to keep e

58:39 ↗ but add some exceptions

58:43 ↗ relative to using natural materials or

58:46 ↗ translucent materials

58:49 ↗ if there was if the commissioners found

58:51 ↗ some value in

58:54 ↗ focusing the range of colors for the

58:57 ↗ garage door

58:58 ↗ okay so there are two uh possible

59:02 ↗ solutions so i'd like to see

59:06 ↗ a hands on the first one so we

59:09 ↗ eliminate e

59:19 ↗ um for this

59:23 ↗ so bad carry

59:26 ↗ so um any how do you go into the second

59:31 ↗ second consideration of adding

59:34 ↗ more colors when you've all already

59:36 ↗ agreed to remove

59:39 ↗ uh number e i think that the

59:43 ↗ general range of materials that's

59:45 ↗ available

59:46 ↗ are allowed to be applied to the garage

59:49 ↗ door with 3.4

59:51 ↗ e eliminated and so i think you

59:55 ↗ may be correct that we don't have to

59:57 ↗ make further edit edits to

59:59 ↗ acknowledge that okay

1:00:03 ↗ so i have a question a comment

1:00:07 ↗ from commissioner fall

1:00:18 ↗ you're on mute oh

1:00:21 ↗ there we go sorry thank you madam chair

1:00:24 ↗ uh so this commissioner fall the

1:00:26 ↗ question that i have is

1:00:28 ↗ would an orange garage door

1:00:33 ↗ as an example would that be acceptable

1:00:38 ↗ and i can share an example through

1:00:41 ↗ google maps i can send a link to

1:00:43 ↗ everyone

1:00:44 ↗ is that okay for me to do in this forum

1:00:48 ↗ or should i

1:00:48 ↗ not do that it's not my house it's the

1:00:50 ↗ house up the street but it is on google

1:00:52 ↗ maps

1:00:53 ↗ i don't think that would be appropriate

1:00:59 ↗ um so i there is a

1:01:02 ↗ total number of colors um

1:01:07 ↗ uh the uh

1:01:11 ↗ colors this is um staff person lucy

1:01:14 ↗ sloman sorry

1:01:16 ↗ um the

1:01:19 ↗ uh there's a total number of colors of

1:01:22 ↗ three

1:01:23 ↗ the garage door would need to fit into

1:01:27 ↗ that limit unless of course

1:01:30 ↗ it's a natural material and that's

1:01:33 ↗ exempted

1:01:34 ↗ by 3.4 d um

1:01:38 ↗ so there probably are some

1:01:41 ↗ colors that um

1:01:44 ↗ are per the mud cell scale

1:01:47 ↗ that might be considered orange

1:01:51 ↗ that uh

1:01:58 ↗ um okay um that could be considered

1:02:02 ↗ orange that could be uh applied

1:02:06 ↗ to the building but because it counts to

1:02:10 ↗ one of your three colors you would have

1:02:12 ↗ to decide

1:02:13 ↗ um whether that's where you want to use

1:02:16 ↗ one of them

1:02:17 ↗ but that would of what a possibility

1:02:20 ↗ that a homeowner had

1:02:22 ↗ would a person be able to ask for

1:02:24 ↗ variance to the city

1:02:28 ↗ yes or no no uh

1:02:31 ↗ the that was part of the initial um

1:02:34 ↗ kristen's

1:02:35 ↗ initial presentation that um because

1:02:39 ↗ these are viewed as a fairly light hand

1:02:42 ↗ there

1:02:42 ↗ uh was no adjustment process proposed

1:02:46 ↗ now that's for the commission to discuss

1:02:49 ↗ um i'm just reporting the nature of the

1:02:51 ↗ way it's structured at this time

1:02:54 ↗ okay i i just think the

1:02:58 ↗ the when it comes to colors we shouldn't

1:03:00 ↗ be

1:03:01 ↗ too restrictive and i think our color

1:03:04 ↗ options are too restrictive

1:03:08 ↗ because there are certain countries

1:03:09 ↗ modern homes in old town

1:03:12 ↗ and they can be very

1:03:16 ↗ classy with some colors that

1:03:20 ↗ are very bright so

1:03:23 ↗ i think what staff are responding to and

1:03:26 ↗ all i can do is tell you what

1:03:28 ↗ staff were attempting to do and then the

1:03:30 ↗ commission that's

1:03:31 ↗ what we're asking you to do is to give

1:03:33 ↗ us feedback if we've hit

1:03:35 ↗ the right um spot um what we had heard

1:03:39 ↗ from the community was

1:03:40 ↗ a desire to um not restrict colors

1:03:45 ↗ but also not allow the full spectrum

1:03:48 ↗ to have less bright colors

1:03:52 ↗ um sam can probably report this better

1:03:55 ↗ than i can but my memory is

1:03:57 ↗ that she said that many communities

1:04:00 ↗ limit the month cell scale going up to 8

1:04:03 ↗ or

1:04:03 ↗ 10 and we have actually allowed it to go

1:04:06 ↗ to 14.

1:04:08 ↗ so that is allowing a greater range

1:04:11 ↗ than many communities do because

1:04:14 ↗ we recognize that there are existing

1:04:18 ↗ homes

1:04:18 ↗ in old town that

1:04:22 ↗ are colorful they're not necessarily

1:04:24 ↗ bright but they're colorful

1:04:27 ↗ so we were trying to strike that balance

1:04:29 ↗ between

1:04:32 ↗ not having extremes

1:04:35 ↗ while at the same time recognizing

1:04:38 ↗ variety

1:04:39 ↗ is important part of that eclecticism

1:04:44 ↗ yeah and to to add on to that we were

1:04:46 ↗ trying to define

1:04:47 ↗ where the colors become fluorescent

1:04:49 ↗ where's the line between

1:04:51 ↗ bright and fluorescent so that's where

1:04:53 ↗ that chroma of 14 comes into

1:04:55 ↗ um so with the color range that we've

1:04:58 ↗ identified

1:05:00 ↗ we're not saying that you can't paint it

1:05:01 ↗ orange we're just saying it can't be

1:05:03 ↗ fluorescent orange

1:05:05 ↗ um except for on the door we're still

1:05:07 ↗ allowing that

1:05:08 ↗ that brightness to be on the door

1:05:10 ↗ because it's still a limited feature

1:05:13 ↗ um but then so that's defining the range

1:05:16 ↗ of color but then in no

1:05:18 ↗ case can you have more than three colors

1:05:20 ↗ so there's kind of the range of color

1:05:22 ↗ and then the number of colors you're

1:05:24 ↗ using are the two

1:05:25 ↗ metrics that we've established and and

1:05:29 ↗ uh land development manager lucy

1:05:32 ↗ sloman again um i would just add on to

1:05:35 ↗ that that there

1:05:36 ↗ are some things that are um exempted

1:05:39 ↗ from that

1:05:40 ↗ um so i believe the front door

1:05:43 ↗ and um i think maybe

1:05:47 ↗ trim uh is also not part of the

1:05:51 ↗ three color limit

1:05:54 ↗ i guess i i would like to comment uh

1:05:57 ↗ beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

1:06:00 ↗ so it's very difficult to

1:06:04 ↗ in a document like this to specifically

1:06:08 ↗ name every color possibility so

1:06:11 ↗ hopefully i assume that the

1:06:15 ↗ community members are smart enough to

1:06:19 ↗ choose what feels good

1:06:23 ↗ i have a question from uh commissioner

1:06:26 ↗ voice

1:06:29 ↗ commissioner voice here actually it's

1:06:31 ↗ more of a comment not

1:06:32 ↗ i do have a few more questions but uh i

1:06:35 ↗ think

1:06:36 ↗ i think as far as the garage i think you

1:06:38 ↗ guys did strike the right balance that's

1:06:40 ↗ the thing

1:06:41 ↗ i actually think that uh 3.4 e

1:06:45 ↗ is not worth the trouble i think it

1:06:47 ↗ actually causes more trouble than it's

1:06:48 ↗ worth that's why i think it's worth

1:06:49 ↗ getting rid of

1:06:50 ↗ um because again we're we have to

1:06:52 ↗ remember

1:06:54 ↗ first and second these garages are

1:06:56 ↗ either going to be in the alley

1:06:57 ↗ or they're going to be street loading

1:07:00 ↗ behind the complex itself so only in the

1:07:03 ↗ third situation

1:07:05 ↗ only in the third situation are you

1:07:06 ↗ going to have it as integrated as part

1:07:08 ↗ of the house

1:07:09 ↗ without it being the prominent feature

1:07:10 ↗ anyway

1:07:12 ↗ and as far as the color scale again

1:07:14 ↗ there's language in here that says only

1:07:16 ↗ the front door itself

1:07:18 ↗ can be uh bright fluorescent i think

1:07:21 ↗ what my point was

1:07:22 ↗ is you're gonna have more and more

1:07:24 ↗ garage doors like these translucent ones

1:07:26 ↗ where

1:07:27 ↗ the material to build them is you know

1:07:30 ↗ dark

1:07:30 ↗ black steel or dark gray so if we start

1:07:34 ↗ you know becoming nitpicky about that

1:07:36 ↗ the color on the garage i just don't

1:07:38 ↗ think

1:07:39 ↗ i don't think 3.4 e is worth the trouble

1:07:42 ↗ because i do think you guys have already

1:07:43 ↗ given it a light touch i think that

1:07:45 ↗ i think without that we're already

1:07:47 ↗ following in the spirit of that

1:07:48 ↗ so that's my opinion i just i don't

1:07:51 ↗ think it's worth the trouble because

1:07:52 ↗ again

1:07:53 ↗ most likely scenarios you're not even

1:07:54 ↗ going to have a prominent garage well

1:07:56 ↗ all three scenarios you wouldn't have a

1:07:58 ↗ prominent garage anyway

1:08:00 ↗ so that's my take on it

1:08:04 ↗ um i have a question from commissioner

1:08:08 ↗ lewis

1:08:11 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here um

1:08:13 ↗ to try to

1:08:14 ↗ since we're kind of all stuck in these

1:08:15 ↗ little boxes to continue the

1:08:17 ↗ conversation a bit i will say

1:08:19 ↗ to ron i think the big difference for me

1:08:21 ↗ when reading it was the difference

1:08:22 ↗ between

1:08:22 ↗ brightness and hue right it's not that

1:08:25 ↗ the color is prohibited

1:08:26 ↗ it's that brightness um on the eyes

1:08:29 ↗ which is why i had

1:08:30 ↗ um less of an issue with it but my

1:08:33 ↗ my question actually is that um

1:08:35 ↗ commissioner um mel

1:08:36 ↗ morgan brought up a really good point

1:08:38 ↗ that i had seen in the document

1:08:40 ↗ and wanted to point out i assumed it was

1:08:42 ↗ a typo he mentions it as a typo

1:08:44 ↗ and i wanted to get staff to really um

1:08:46 ↗ clarify again

1:08:47 ↗ about um the planting boxes and the

1:08:49 ↗ grasses being pervious versus impervious

1:08:58 ↗ kristen can you comment on that it was

1:09:01 ↗ just i was going to try and pull out my

1:09:02 ↗ email

1:09:04 ↗ remember which number he was referring

1:09:06 ↗ to um i do believe

1:09:08 ↗ based on what i remember it was supposed

1:09:11 ↗ to be pervious and not impervious

1:09:13 ↗ he says um it's page 16.

1:09:17 ↗ i assume that is

1:09:21 ↗ of the document and not the packet

1:09:36 ↗ yes i see it and it and it does it says

1:09:39 ↗ all front yards shall include

1:09:40 ↗ impervious surfaces such as planting

1:09:43 ↗ beds or

1:09:43 ↗ lawns so i believe that is supposed to

1:09:48 ↗ be pervious

1:09:50 ↗ sam and lucy could correct me if i'm

1:09:52 ↗ wrong

1:09:54 ↗ it's not a standard it's actually a uh

1:09:57 ↗ underneath above 5.1

1:10:05 ↗ oh yes yes that is a typo thank you

1:10:08 ↗ it took a long time to find that one but

1:10:11 ↗ thanks everybody

1:10:14 ↗ okay so we've eliminated e and we agree

1:10:17 ↗ on that

1:10:18 ↗ um are there any other

1:10:21 ↗ specifics that you would like to bring

1:10:24 ↗ up

1:10:25 ↗ or any of the comments from the

1:10:27 ↗ community

1:10:28 ↗ uh would you like to discuss

1:10:38 ↗ no is this a new question from

1:10:41 ↗ commissioner voice

1:10:49 ↗ so like i told you i have a couple

1:10:50 ↗ questions these ones are pretty quick

1:10:52 ↗ um 3.4 f the word similar

1:10:56 ↗ kind of a poorly defined word uh who

1:10:58 ↗ arbitrates what is similar

1:11:00 ↗ is that just on the color scale so if

1:11:01 ↗ it's green it has to be a light green or

1:11:03 ↗ a dark green

1:11:04 ↗ um so that was just kind of more of a

1:11:06 ↗ comment a similar a good word can that

1:11:08 ↗ be changed to something a little bit

1:11:09 ↗ better

1:11:11 ↗ other than similar and kind of wondering

1:11:13 ↗ at what point in the process does that

1:11:14 ↗ get flagged

1:11:15 ↗ and who does that is that uh something

1:11:17 ↗ before you guys give uh

1:11:19 ↗ the certificate of occupancy whoa whoa

1:11:22 ↗ whoa

1:11:22 ↗ you guys didn't follow 3.4 f how dare

1:11:25 ↗ you

1:11:26 ↗ and then do you not give them the keys

1:11:27 ↗ to their house type thing i mean

1:11:29 ↗ so that was one and then

1:11:33 ↗ 4.1 the text states that no less than 18

1:11:36 ↗ square feet

1:11:38 ↗ i believe for a window um since all

1:11:40 ↗ buildings vary in size

1:11:42 ↗ would this work better as a percentage

1:11:45 ↗ versus

1:11:45 ↗ a fixed number

1:11:50 ↗ lucy um

1:11:54 ↗ so uh land development manager lucy

1:11:57 ↗ sloman

1:11:57 ↗ uh 3.4 f um

1:12:01 ↗ uh i think uh

1:12:05 ↗ what what i'm guessing we're trying to

1:12:07 ↗ avoid is if we say the same

1:12:09 ↗ i don't think we want to be out with

1:12:11 ↗ colored chips from

1:12:13 ↗ trying to figure out who the

1:12:14 ↗ manufacturer was so

1:12:17 ↗ um it might be

1:12:22 ↗ um i i i appreciate your concern

1:12:26 ↗ um you know um you say potato i say

1:12:30 ↗ potato

1:12:31 ↗ um but uh and maybe it's

1:12:35 ↗ perceived the same i i i don't

1:12:38 ↗ um i think we can think about a

1:12:42 ↗ a good phrase i think it was just

1:12:45 ↗ trying to avoid um saying same

1:12:48 ↗ and then being stuck trying to figure

1:12:51 ↗ out

1:12:52 ↗ brands and things in terms of

1:12:55 ↗ how the process works

1:12:59 ↗ conditions are you know

1:13:02 ↗ review is done uh conditions

1:13:05 ↗ we would probably when the

1:13:08 ↗ accessory dwelling unit or adu is

1:13:11 ↗ submitted

1:13:12 ↗ asks for paint samples to

1:13:15 ↗ match and then would inspect that

1:13:20 ↗ before completing

1:13:23 ↗ certificate of occupancy finally the

1:13:26 ↗ permit

1:13:27 ↗ um that is a pretty standard part of our

1:13:30 ↗ final

1:13:30 ↗ inspection for buildings

1:13:34 ↗ where color and materials for instance

1:13:36 ↗ the development commission

1:13:38 ↗ often has a color board and we take that

1:13:40 ↗ out

1:13:41 ↗ to a site and are walking around holding

1:13:44 ↗ it up which is again back to your

1:13:46 ↗ perceived the same um because we are not

1:13:49 ↗ asking for them to have you know buckets

1:13:51 ↗ of paint to show us that this is sure

1:13:53 ↗ when william's not

1:13:55 ↗ benjamin moore um

1:13:58 ↗ so would would that help commissioner

1:14:01 ↗ boyce

1:14:03 ↗ yeah yeah like i said it was more just

1:14:06 ↗ again i know

1:14:06 ↗ that we're doing the light touch and

1:14:08 ↗ then we took out some of these words to

1:14:10 ↗ make sure that they were standards not

1:14:12 ↗ guidance so that word just kind of

1:14:14 ↗ caught me by surprise so

1:14:16 ↗ no that works for me could you direct me

1:14:18 ↗ to your second comment please i'm

1:14:20 ↗ i apologize i don't remember the number

1:14:22 ↗ yeah

1:14:23 ↗ i'm 4.1 and it's talking about

1:14:26 ↗ um windows and this funny enough this

1:14:29 ↗ goes back to garages

1:14:31 ↗ so what a translucent garage panel count

1:14:34 ↗ is part of the window

1:14:35 ↗ i mean if you i mean again i guess it

1:14:38 ↗ would be on a different plane

1:14:39 ↗ so i guess that's moot so never mind i

1:14:41 ↗ retract that last statement but

1:14:43 ↗ as far as just having 18 square feet on

1:14:46 ↗ that

1:14:47 ↗ um pedestrian pedestrian facing facade

1:14:52 ↗ is that kind of an arbitrary number

1:14:54 ↗ seeing is that the building's

1:14:56 ↗ width is going to change i mean is it is

1:14:58 ↗ it better as a percentage i don't know

1:15:00 ↗ i'm just asking the question

1:15:02 ↗ yeah it's uh a great question

1:15:05 ↗ that staff spent a lot of time talking

1:15:07 ↗ about we discussed

1:15:08 ↗ percentages as well and i think what

1:15:12 ↗ what we um what we settled on

1:15:15 ↗ and i know we'll hear from you all uh as

1:15:18 ↗ to your thoughts about uh what we

1:15:20 ↗ settled on

1:15:21 ↗ was that a three by six window

1:15:24 ↗ or eighteen square feet is a fairly

1:15:26 ↗ standard

1:15:28 ↗ window residential window size

1:15:32 ↗ and um rather than say three by six

1:15:35 ↗ feet which would be the sort of standard

1:15:38 ↗ dimensions we thought we would provide

1:15:42 ↗ more flexibility allowing

1:15:45 ↗ someone to

1:15:49 ↗ configure it you know as a long narrow

1:15:51 ↗ or a tall

1:15:52 ↗ narrow uh window uh if that was

1:15:56 ↗ appropriate um again to that uh

1:15:59 ↗ light touch i think that um to try and

1:16:02 ↗ i think we just didn't feel that we had

1:16:05 ↗ a way

1:16:06 ↗ to come up with a percentage that we

1:16:09 ↗ would feel

1:16:09 ↗ confident in and so we picked a standard

1:16:12 ↗ window size

1:16:16 ↗ okay uh commissioner voice here yeah no

1:16:19 ↗ thank you ms sloman i guess um

1:16:21 ↗ you know i when listening to our

1:16:23 ↗ previous

1:16:24 ↗ uh public comment i think for the most

1:16:27 ↗ part and you could tell me if i'm wrong

1:16:29 ↗ i imagine when you guys are going

1:16:30 ↗ through the building process

1:16:32 ↗ i imagine you guys have probably more

1:16:34 ↗ trouble constraining people

1:16:36 ↗ than you do dragging them through the

1:16:38 ↗ minimums

1:16:39 ↗ and i think that's probably most likely

1:16:41 ↗ the case i i can't imagine

1:16:43 ↗ spec building in old town is a big thing

1:16:46 ↗ right now

1:16:46 ↗ where you have people just wanting to

1:16:48 ↗ drop a box in the middle of the town i

1:16:50 ↗ imagine

1:16:51 ↗ most likely usually you guys are trying

1:16:52 ↗ to bring these people back you know you

1:16:54 ↗ got way too many planes you know way too

1:16:56 ↗ many colors way too many claddings

1:16:58 ↗ i doubt it's just i doubt it's trying to

1:17:00 ↗ drag people to the minimums i could be

1:17:01 ↗ wrong

1:17:02 ↗ but that typically what you guys see in

1:17:04 ↗ old town or

1:17:05 ↗ am i completely off base

1:17:09 ↗ well um i i i think the first uh land

1:17:12 ↗ development manager

1:17:13 ↗ lucy sloman i would say that

1:17:17 ↗ we are seeing spec building um

1:17:20 ↗ because there has been some what is

1:17:22 ↗ called short flatting

1:17:24 ↗ where a large lot is further subdivided

1:17:28 ↗ um if it's if it's large enough and

1:17:31 ↗ has enough room to be meet the minimum

1:17:34 ↗ lot size we are seeing

1:17:35 ↗ some subdivision and then new structures

1:17:39 ↗ um i think in general those have

1:17:43 ↗ um the price point

1:17:46 ↗ that the builder is going for is such

1:17:48 ↗ that it

1:17:49 ↗ um is um

1:17:53 ↗ they're consistent with the kind of

1:17:54 ↗ recommendations where

1:17:56 ↗ we're making um but it is

1:18:00 ↗ important i think to the point uh that

1:18:03 ↗ the commission

1:18:04 ↗ uh one of the commissioners brought up

1:18:06 ↗ at our last meeting

1:18:07 ↗ that to simply say you have to have one

1:18:10 ↗ building

1:18:10 ↗ a one window facing the street and if

1:18:13 ↗ you put in

1:18:14 ↗ a single you know six by six glass block

1:18:18 ↗ uh would that meet the intent and and we

1:18:22 ↗ said uh worst case scenario no

1:18:25 ↗ so what would be that sort of minimum so

1:18:28 ↗ we pick

1:18:29 ↗ as i said the standard window size

1:18:33 ↗ it's nice to uh when one of the

1:18:36 ↗ commissioners brings up

1:18:38 ↗ a comment or question about a specific

1:18:42 ↗ um item on in this document

1:18:46 ↗ it's nice to have the knowledge that the

1:18:50 ↗ staff has actually spent time on each

1:18:52 ↗ one of these to

1:18:55 ↗ come up with a reasonable solution it's

1:18:57 ↗ very hard

1:18:58 ↗ even though you say with a light touch

1:19:02 ↗ to have a light touch when you want the

1:19:05 ↗ city to be

1:19:08 ↗ cool to be you know really attractive

1:19:11 ↗ and moving into the future to have

1:19:14 ↗ sustainable

1:19:16 ↗ buildings that are going to last and and

1:19:19 ↗ be

1:19:19 ↗ consistent with what you know the

1:19:21 ↗ general pub the majority of the general

1:19:24 ↗ population wants

1:19:25 ↗ i know that when we had the first

1:19:27 ↗ meeting in january

1:19:28 ↗ when we invited the um

1:19:33 ↗ community in to give their thoughts and

1:19:36 ↗ a lot of their thoughts were very

1:19:38 ↗ consistent what

1:19:39 ↗ the city has come up with uh in this

1:19:43 ↗ document and so uh i'm pleased with that

1:19:46 ↗ i think that

1:19:47 ↗ you know nothing is ever perfect

1:19:51 ↗ but i like the fact that um you know

1:19:56 ↗ minor things can be changed when it

1:19:58 ↗ doesn't change

1:19:59 ↗ the uh intention

1:20:02 ↗ of the document to be able to

1:20:06 ↗ add a word put impervious instead of

1:20:08 ↗ pervious or vice versa

1:20:10 ↗ it's it's nice to be able to have that

1:20:13 ↗ and if there is a problem

1:20:15 ↗ i would assume that the city would say

1:20:17 ↗ hey you know

1:20:18 ↗ we didn't do it right this time we're

1:20:20 ↗ going to change it and make sure that it

1:20:21 ↗ works the next time

1:20:23 ↗ i don't think anybody can ask for more

1:20:26 ↗ than that

1:20:28 ↗ just trying to you know

1:20:32 ↗ make it you know warm and

1:20:35 ↗ fuzzy to live in the city of issaquah

1:20:38 ↗ and have people who are not living in

1:20:42 ↗ old town to enjoy the ambiance of

1:20:47 ↗ what we're hoping to accomplish so i

1:20:49 ↗ don't see

1:20:50 ↗ any more questions

1:20:53 ↗ does anybody else want to make a comment

1:20:58 ↗ everybody is consistent with the only

1:21:00 ↗ change

1:21:01 ↗ that we have really made is the

1:21:04 ↗ elimination of e

1:21:11 ↗ with that senior planner

1:21:14 ↗ nic leeson would like to make a comment

1:21:17 ↗ before we

1:21:19 ↗ go forward thank you this is kristen

1:21:21 ↗ listen actually i wanted to note that i

1:21:23 ↗ had three small changes

1:21:25 ↗ one was to remove 3.4 e regarding garage

1:21:28 ↗ door colors

1:21:30 ↗ another was it's a very small one but we

1:21:32 ↗ could still note it to

1:21:33 ↗ change pervious to in to impervious to

1:21:36 ↗ pervious on page 16

1:21:38 ↗ under the right whatever you call that

1:21:41 ↗ thing and the last one is we discussed

1:21:43 ↗ putting an appendix to include the title

1:21:46 ↗ 18 definitions

1:21:48 ↗ for now and when it's incorporated fully

1:21:51 ↗ into the it's quality municipal code it

1:21:53 ↗ can be removed

1:21:54 ↗ so does everybody agree with those three

1:21:58 ↗ additions okay so

1:22:01 ↗ um it is up to us to decide if we want

1:22:05 ↗ to

1:22:06 ↗ at this time vote on accepting the plan

1:22:10 ↗ with the changes suggestions that have

1:22:13 ↗ been

1:22:17 ↗ illuminated by our senior planner

1:22:21 ↗ to do that i need somebody make a motion

1:22:24 ↗ to do that don't i had one quick

1:22:28 ↗ question if that's okay

1:22:29 ↗ sure thanks madam chair this is

1:22:32 ↗ commissioner fault

1:22:33 ↗ a quick question here to lucy and

1:22:36 ↗ kristen

1:22:38 ↗ going back to uh roof colors

1:22:41 ↗ uh section 2.5 number a

1:22:45 ↗ medium to darker returns does i asked

1:22:48 ↗ the question

1:22:48 ↗ before but i never got a confirmation or

1:22:51 ↗ an answer back

1:22:52 ↗ does charcoal gray or black is that

1:22:54 ↗ being excluded or

1:22:57 ↗ where does that fall

1:23:04 ↗ this kristen lee sin and i i don't

1:23:07 ↗ believe it's being excluded

1:23:08 ↗ i could be wrong um don't believe it's

1:23:11 ↗ being excluded but it could be

1:23:13 ↗ spelled out a little bit more clearly um

1:23:16 ↗ it looks like two slogan has something

1:23:18 ↗ she'd like to say

1:23:22 ↗ uh land development manager lucy sloman

1:23:25 ↗ so

1:23:26 ↗ ron it's a great question because i'm

1:23:27 ↗ not sure i would have answered the way

1:23:29 ↗ kristen did

1:23:30 ↗ so um it's clear that um

1:23:35 ↗ i i guess dark earth tones is charcoal

1:23:39 ↗ gray

1:23:40 ↗ found in in earth tones i would say yes

1:23:44 ↗ um black um maybe not um

1:23:48 ↗ so uh i think we may

1:23:52 ↗ need to um

1:23:56 ↗ uh sam did a great job of

1:23:59 ↗ finding those visual examples of medium

1:24:02 ↗ and light and it sounds like we need to

1:24:04 ↗ also have an image of dark

1:24:06 ↗ uh so uh and and i think the

1:24:10 ↗ uh question of charcoal gray that's a

1:24:13 ↗ pretty standard

1:24:15 ↗ roof color and so it seems important to

1:24:18 ↗ depict that in a way that

1:24:21 ↗ that's available i'm seeing some head

1:24:23 ↗ nods

1:24:25 ↗ [Music]

1:24:26 ↗ i don't know if the commissioners want

1:24:28 ↗ to give me a head nod on black

1:24:31 ↗ a flat black as opposed to a charcoal

1:24:35 ↗ gray

1:24:35 ↗ or a slightly variegated color in the

1:24:38 ↗ same way

1:24:39 ↗ that the medium tones have

1:24:42 ↗ more variation

1:24:45 ↗ i like the possibility of having

1:24:47 ↗ different colors i don't think we should

1:24:50 ↗ limit all the the roofs to

1:24:54 ↗ bland brown uh uh

1:24:58 ↗ you know i can understand the

1:25:00 ↗ fluorescent

1:25:01 ↗ uh in some areas but i i can't

1:25:05 ↗ uh i disagree with just limiting it to

1:25:10 ↗ those two you know

1:25:13 ↗ very i don't want to say bland but

1:25:17 ↗ minimally uh colors

1:25:21 ↗ um land development manager lucy sloman

1:25:24 ↗ again um ms leeson points out that

1:25:27 ↗ coal is black so um maybe the

1:25:30 ↗ um simplest is to say

1:25:34 ↗ medium um

1:25:37 ↗ to dark earth tones um

1:25:43 ↗ you know a range of colors medium to

1:25:45 ↗ dark earth tones

1:25:47 ↗ through black or something because uh i

1:25:49 ↗ agree

1:25:50 ↗ i don't think our intent was to um

1:25:54 ↗ eliminate the dark end

1:25:57 ↗ of the range if you add keep

1:26:01 ↗ adding earth tones on it earth tones

1:26:05 ↗ to me are more brown

1:26:09 ↗ and do you need the word earth tone in

1:26:13 ↗ there

1:26:16 ↗ um well i think adding the word black

1:26:18 ↗ gives us

1:26:19 ↗ quite a range um and i would say that

1:26:23 ↗ um for texans like kristen and myself

1:26:27 ↗ um we can say that there is a lot of

1:26:29 ↗ earth tone out there and

1:26:31 ↗ it um gives quite a range

1:26:34 ↗ so i i think clarifying that black

1:26:38 ↗ is um assuming that this is the intent

1:26:42 ↗ of the commissioners

1:26:43 ↗ that black is an acceptable color that

1:26:46 ↗ we weren't intending to

1:26:48 ↗ restrict the dark end of the range then

1:26:51 ↗ i think it would be good to

1:26:53 ↗ um add that somehow because um

1:26:56 ↗ that i think you know gives us we're

1:26:58 ↗ taking the really light ones

1:27:00 ↗ out but we're starting with medium you

1:27:02 ↗ can go as dark as you want

1:27:05 ↗ so medium hearth tones to black

1:27:09 ↗ or medium earth tones to dark charcoal

1:27:11 ↗ gray

1:27:13 ↗ so what we don't want to see are blue

1:27:16 ↗ blue metal roofs

1:27:17 ↗ and green metal roofs how about red

1:27:21 ↗ or red metal roofs

1:27:24 ↗ i agreed i i think that was absolutely

1:27:27 ↗ the intent

1:27:29 ↗ okay so that's four things to change

1:27:33 ↗ on the uh in the document

1:27:36 ↗ i have a question from from commissioner

1:27:38 ↗ lewis

1:27:40 ↗ i wanted to get a clarification again on

1:27:42 ↗ the flat roofs um part of it

1:27:44 ↗ section two we had a lot of discussion

1:27:46 ↗ with dc about flat roofs and i know that

1:27:49 ↗ um we've talked about wanting to have an

1:27:52 ↗ exception for

1:27:53 ↗ a rooftop garden for a green roof um

1:27:57 ↗ we've talked about you know rooftop you

1:27:59 ↗ know decks

1:28:00 ↗ um but i'm not reading the documents

1:28:02 ↗ saying no flat roofs but with exceptions

1:28:05 ↗ so i'm missing something about where we

1:28:07 ↗ came down on flat roofs

1:28:13 ↗ are they prohibited with exception

1:28:16 ↗ or right or yes lucy's saying yes

1:28:20 ↗ or are they allow are they allowed in

1:28:22 ↗ the document now because we want to have

1:28:24 ↗ the exception but shouldn't the

1:28:25 ↗ exception be clarified

1:28:30 ↗ so um if you do not have a green roof or

1:28:34 ↗ a roof deck

1:28:36 ↗ you could have up to 50 percent

1:28:39 ↗ of the roof area as flat

1:28:43 ↗ with a green roof or a roof deck

1:28:47 ↗ you could increase beyond 50

1:28:51 ↗ um i i think um

1:28:56 ↗ staff are maybe i'll say struggling

1:29:01 ↗ uh we've had different messages from

1:29:03 ↗ different

1:29:04 ↗ uh entities uh i think the community

1:29:07 ↗ has had one the commission has had a

1:29:11 ↗ slightly different one and the council

1:29:12 ↗ has had a slightly different one

1:29:16 ↗ this is your recommendation you are

1:29:18 ↗ welcome to

1:29:20 ↗ send forward the direction that you

1:29:24 ↗ think is appropriate um i think

1:29:27 ↗ what we have proposed was our

1:29:32 ↗ best attempt to thread the needle

1:29:37 ↗ um thank you i thank you for clarifying

1:29:39 ↗ that i i guess

1:29:40 ↗ if we were open to a discussion um if

1:29:43 ↗ other people had comments on this i'd

1:29:45 ↗ love i'd love to hear that i think the

1:29:46 ↗ flower thing is an important element um

1:29:48 ↗ but if nobody else

1:29:50 ↗ um has any issues with that then that

1:29:52 ↗ like you want to drop

1:29:55 ↗ so i'm going to go to the comment from

1:29:59 ↗ commissioner carl

1:30:02 ↗ and then come back to commissioner voice

1:30:08 ↗ okay well just on the top this is

1:30:10 ↗ commissioner carl thank you for the time

1:30:12 ↗ um on the immediate issue of the flat

1:30:15 ↗ roofs

1:30:16 ↗ i think that it's going to be very

1:30:18 ↗ unusual for anyone except with a

1:30:20 ↗ contemporary house to want to have a

1:30:22 ↗ flat roof

1:30:23 ↗ and we do know that there are homes

1:30:25 ↗ built in the 50s and 60s

1:30:27 ↗ that are present in old town and i think

1:30:29 ↗ we should respect

1:30:30 ↗ that era and the flexibility

1:30:34 ↗ in maintaining that sense of funky

1:30:36 ↗ mid-century modern

1:30:37 ↗ that so much of us love and miss

1:30:41 ↗ honestly from my time in houston

1:30:46 ↗ but my actual key comment that i wanted

1:30:48 ↗ to make was on the topic of the roof

1:30:51 ↗ colors and and those two samples that

1:30:54 ↗ um sam identified for us to contrast

1:30:58 ↗ light and medium are both highly

1:31:00 ↗ variegated

1:31:01 ↗ and i wondered if using the term

1:31:03 ↗ variegated

1:31:04 ↗ in that the color spectrum for roofs

1:31:10 ↗ would help mitigate the potential for

1:31:12 ↗ there being a solid black roof

1:31:14 ↗ and to incorporate some of those

1:31:16 ↗ charcoal grays by default

1:31:18 ↗ and that's all i have to share this time

1:31:20 ↗ thank you

1:31:27 ↗ land development interior sloman um

1:31:30 ↗ uh to commissioner carl's um

1:31:34 ↗ suggestion um i guess

1:31:37 ↗ to keep it at a like well i

1:31:40 ↗ entirely understand uh the goal

1:31:44 ↗ of adding variegated i'm a little

1:31:47 ↗ nervous

1:31:48 ↗ of having to evaluate different roof

1:31:50 ↗ products to determine

1:31:53 ↗ if they are both medium to dark

1:31:56 ↗ and variegated so i would

1:31:59 ↗ i would i guess

1:32:02 ↗ be inclined to just do color

1:32:06 ↗ and not variegation but of course this

1:32:09 ↗ is your recommendation

1:32:15 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner voice

1:32:20 ↗ and then we'll come back to um

1:32:23 ↗ barricaded

1:32:25 ↗ this was an old comment from like 10

1:32:27 ↗ minutes ago

1:32:28 ↗ but it sounds like your name is in there

1:32:30 ↗ so that's okay

1:32:31 ↗ that's okay no it was just about the

1:32:32 ↗ roofs as far as i was thinking of like

1:32:34 ↗ tar shingles

1:32:35 ↗ so again those are pretty dark so i'm

1:32:37 ↗ perfectly comfortable with the sloman

1:32:39 ↗ suggestion

1:32:40 ↗ as far as um you know basically starting

1:32:43 ↗ almost all the way to black at that part

1:32:45 ↗ of the spectrum and then earth tones

1:32:47 ↗ don't really bother me

1:32:48 ↗ again you can kind of think i guess the

1:32:51 ↗ earthiest tone you could

1:32:52 ↗ probably get is more of like an arizona

1:32:54 ↗ red and

1:32:55 ↗ but you're not going to see the the

1:32:57 ↗ famous orange garage you're not going to

1:32:59 ↗ see anything like that so i'm okay with

1:33:00 ↗ that spectrum so

1:33:02 ↗ for what that's worth and then as far as

1:33:04 ↗ commissioner lewis's

1:33:06 ↗ suggestion about talking about flat

1:33:08 ↗ roofs i don't know how much we're gonna

1:33:10 ↗ see those

1:33:10 ↗ other than if you have a contemporary

1:33:13 ↗ home

1:33:14 ↗ um i don't i won't uh say her name

1:33:18 ↗ but there's a very wonderful person we

1:33:20 ↗ all um

1:33:22 ↗ know and respect who works for the city

1:33:25 ↗ and

1:33:26 ↗ her house back there i believe is more

1:33:28 ↗ contemporary it has a very low pitch

1:33:30 ↗ but if that's the house you're gonna

1:33:32 ↗ build i don't necessarily think of flat

1:33:34 ↗ roofs

1:33:35 ↗ inappropriate but you're not going to

1:33:37 ↗ see someone build a craftsman with a

1:33:38 ↗ flat roof

1:33:39 ↗ and you're not going to see someone

1:33:40 ↗ build a small tudor with a flat roof

1:33:43 ↗ it really is like one particular style

1:33:44 ↗ house

1:33:46 ↗ and if you're not going to ban

1:33:49 ↗ contemporary modern homes um from being

1:33:52 ↗ built in old town

1:33:53 ↗ like i said a flat roof with a small

1:33:55 ↗ garden or a deck i don't think

1:33:58 ↗ i don't think we're gonna start seeing

1:33:59 ↗ them pop up everywhere i think we'll be

1:34:01 ↗ okay

1:34:02 ↗ i think so so

1:34:06 ↗ what it's worth okay so that kind of

1:34:09 ↗ i'm seeing some some heads moving

1:34:13 ↗ that that seems to be a reasonable

1:34:15 ↗ suggestion

1:34:17 ↗ so we're going to get off of

1:34:21 ↗ uh we're comfortable with the

1:34:24 ↗ the way it works right now in the way of

1:34:27 ↗ flat roofs so we don't have to discuss

1:34:29 ↗ that anymore

1:34:31 ↗ we've handled the color we're

1:34:33 ↗ comfortable with

1:34:35 ↗ the terminal terminology in the color

1:34:38 ↗ for the roofs

1:34:40 ↗ um is there every time i ask this i get

1:34:43 ↗ nothing and then when i go into

1:34:45 ↗ let's do a uh do this somebody comes up

1:34:48 ↗ with a

1:34:49 ↗ another comment so i'm going to ask you

1:34:50 ↗ one more time is there any other

1:34:53 ↗ feature that you would like to bring

1:34:57 ↗ up whether um there's still something

1:35:01 ↗ that the community has said that

1:35:05 ↗ you'd even like to discuss but you think

1:35:08 ↗ that everything

1:35:08 ↗ on this document besides the

1:35:12 ↗ four things that uh we would like

1:35:14 ↗ changed

1:35:17 ↗ that we are comfortable with

1:35:20 ↗ what the city has put together

1:35:23 ↗ lucy did you have another comment

1:35:27 ↗ i'm not as fast as kristen to get into

1:35:29 ↗ the chat

1:35:30 ↗ uh land development manager uh lucy

1:35:33 ↗ slummon

1:35:33 ↗ um i just wanted to clarify with the

1:35:36 ↗ commissioners

1:35:38 ↗ uh development commission member mel

1:35:41 ↗ morgan had

1:35:42 ↗ two comments uh one had to do with

1:35:45 ↗ the pervious which we've addressed uh in

1:35:48 ↗ a previous

1:35:49 ↗ comment i can't quite see the page

1:35:53 ↗ number it's 19 in the packet

1:35:56 ↗ there was a question about the

1:35:59 ↗ double use of shingles in the

1:36:04 ↗ caption and i wondered if that was

1:36:07 ↗ one that the commissioners cared to

1:36:11 ↗ include

1:36:12 ↗ in their edits

1:36:30 ↗ can you call out the page

1:36:34 ↗ this is page 19 of the packet

1:36:39 ↗ and it's under it's frequently used

1:36:43 ↗ materials

1:36:44 ↗ it is a caption uh the middle line

1:36:47 ↗ uh he is page seven

1:36:53 ↗ thank you i it's the packet numbers are

1:36:56 ↗ on top of it

1:36:57 ↗ um so shingles was

1:37:00 ↗ added in red in the middle of the middle

1:37:04 ↗ line

1:37:04 ↗ and then um below the next line down and

1:37:08 ↗ slightly to the left

1:37:09 ↗ shingles also appears in

1:37:12 ↗ from my quick read it appears that it is

1:37:16 ↗ unnecessary to have

1:37:18 ↗ both instances of that word um

1:37:21 ↗ but i'm i'm looking to the commissioners

1:37:24 ↗ to um

1:37:25 ↗ confirm or deny that's the first time

1:37:28 ↗ that we haven't added something we're

1:37:30 ↗ actually taking it

1:37:33 ↗ so away kind of averages out a little

1:37:35 ↗ bit of this

1:37:37 ↗ um so i think you know

1:37:40 ↗ uh it's redundant to say it twice but as

1:37:43 ↗ long as it's in there it's fine

1:37:45 ↗ as far as i'm concerned do i have any

1:37:46 ↗ comment on that

1:37:50 ↗ i would keep the first one and delete

1:37:51 ↗ the second one

1:37:55 ↗ there you go

1:37:59 ↗ so thank you i'm gonna

1:38:03 ↗ ask this one more time if there are any

1:38:05 ↗ more questions

1:38:06 ↗ comments this is it

1:38:10 ↗ this this is your even this is done

1:38:15 ↗ so with that um i need to have

1:38:19 ↗ a um

1:38:22 ↗ someone to suggest where we go from here

1:38:29 ↗ i need a motion

1:38:32 ↗ to accept based uh with the addition of

1:38:35 ↗ the four things that were called up by

1:38:37 ↗ christian

1:38:39 ↗ five things you added one and i didn't

1:38:42 ↗ even know um

1:38:44 ↗ okay the five things uh if you do make

1:38:47 ↗ it

1:38:48 ↗ a motion it would be wise to

1:38:51 ↗ in that motion to call out the five

1:38:55 ↗ things that

1:38:56 ↗ are going to be changed

1:39:00 ↗ and if you need to phone a friend we

1:39:01 ↗ would be happy to help fill in

1:39:06 ↗ so uh i need somebody to make a motion

1:39:12 ↗ all right i'm happy to i'm definitely

1:39:14 ↗ going to phone a friend

1:39:16 ↗ but i thought we know we dumped this on

1:39:18 ↗ commissioner lewis so often so i'll do

1:39:20 ↗ my best

1:39:22 ↗ this is definitely a trial by fire so

1:39:24 ↗ please bear with me

1:39:27 ↗ so uh commissioner voice i just wanted

1:39:31 ↗ to point out that

1:39:32 ↗ um uh kristen is

1:39:35 ↗ typing the um edits into the chat

1:39:39 ↗ so you could hopefully uh

1:39:42 ↗ just read them in one moment when she's

1:39:45 ↗ completed the list of five

1:39:48 ↗ isn't staff wonderful that's cheating

1:40:04 ↗ this is kristen they are there now and i

1:40:06 ↗ apologize i couldn't figure out how to

1:40:07 ↗ hit return and keep in the same message

1:40:09 ↗ but hopefully you can see them all

1:40:12 ↗ that is fantastic miss leeson so let me

1:40:14 ↗ try

1:40:15 ↗ and do this as officially as i can we'll

1:40:17 ↗ see if i can make it through it without

1:40:19 ↗ any help time and date required no

1:40:24 ↗ no you move i would like to make a

1:40:28 ↗ motion

1:40:29 ↗ to remove 3.4 e

1:40:33 ↗ from the city's

1:40:37 ↗ draft document

1:40:41 ↗ of the all right

1:40:44 ↗ i'm gonna have to start over so what do

1:40:46 ↗ how do i actually uh

1:40:48 ↗ this is this document how would i

1:40:50 ↗ describe it

1:40:52 ↗ so kristen lease and i believe that you

1:40:55 ↗ can just make a motion

1:40:56 ↗ to recommend if this is what you're

1:40:59 ↗ going to do

1:40:59 ↗ recommend approval to the city council

1:41:01 ↗ with the following changes

1:41:03 ↗ and those would be included in the

1:41:05 ↗ findings of fact when we sent those on

1:41:09 ↗ recommended city council

1:41:14 ↗ the following one

1:41:17 ↗ sorry commissioner joy lewis the finding

1:41:19 ↗ of facts of the old town

1:41:20 ↗ architectural standards it just helps to

1:41:23 ↗ say what our

1:41:24 ↗ packet is you're doing great

1:41:30 ↗ old town architectural staff

1:41:35 ↗ you guys are great thanks a village

1:41:41 ↗ you can see why no one bites on

1:41:46 ↗ okay i would like to make a motion to

1:41:48 ↗ recommend to the city council

1:41:50 ↗ the finding of facts of old town

1:41:52 ↗ architectural standards

1:41:54 ↗ with the following

1:41:58 ↗ recommendations that we remove

1:42:01 ↗ 3.44 e

1:42:04 ↗ that we change pervious to impervious on

1:42:07 ↗ page 16.

1:42:10 ↗ add title 18 definitions as an appendix

1:42:14 ↗ add an image of dark roof

1:42:17 ↗ and remove second shingles on page seven

1:42:24 ↗ i'd like to second says kristen lisa and

1:42:27 ↗ i need to jump in really quickly please

1:42:29 ↗ that is my fault i apologize we need to

1:42:31 ↗ change impervious

1:42:32 ↗ previous

1:42:38 ↗ is that a redo no

1:42:43 ↗ uh so i have a um a motion and a second

1:42:48 ↗ anyway okay i

1:42:51 ↗ also i i just wanted to clarify the

1:42:54 ↗ commission's intent

1:42:56 ↗ we did discuss adding an image of a dark

1:42:59 ↗ roof

1:42:59 ↗ there was also a question of changing

1:43:02 ↗ dark earth tones to black or s or

1:43:06 ↗ charcoal gray and i wasn't sure whether

1:43:09 ↗ we were just adding an

1:43:10 ↗ image or uh changing uh

1:43:13 ↗ the text as well i think we wanted to

1:43:16 ↗ write

1:43:16 ↗ the text

1:43:22 ↗ so i'm not going to make you do this

1:43:24 ↗ again

1:43:26 ↗ it's too kind so also add an

1:43:30 ↗ image as well as change the text of a

1:43:32 ↗ dark roof

1:43:34 ↗ with black part of the spectrum

1:43:39 ↗ a second

1:43:42 ↗ any further discussion i never know with

1:43:46 ↗ you you always come up with something

1:43:48 ↗ great

1:43:48 ↗ um so i'll call the question all those

1:43:51 ↗ in favor

1:43:52 ↗ of the motion as stated so uh

1:43:57 ↗ succinctly by commissioner

1:44:00 ↗ voice all those in favor say i

1:44:03 ↗ uh no i can't do that kristen you have

1:44:06 ↗ to do the role

1:44:07 ↗ [Music]

1:44:11 ↗ so um if you're in favor say i uh let's

1:44:13 ↗ see

1:44:14 ↗ commissioner lewis yay

1:44:17 ↗ what's your voice yeah

1:44:20 ↗ commissioner carl aye commissioner foul

1:44:25 ↗ yay chair probably yes

1:44:28 ↗ the motion passes five votes in favor

1:44:32 ↗ zero against

1:44:35 ↗ thank you it's really interesting you

1:44:37 ↗ know you read this

1:44:38 ↗ and um everybody has a different

1:44:41 ↗ ideas and things that pop up

1:44:46 ↗ are things that you don't expect and

1:44:49 ↗ there's uh

1:44:50 ↗ a lot of discussion on it it's uh it's

1:44:53 ↗ really cool that

1:44:54 ↗ um that the commissioners uh

1:44:57 ↗ really think about making things better

1:45:02 ↗ even though the city makes it wonderful

1:45:04 ↗ it's really nice to

1:45:06 ↗ kind of step back a little bit and have

1:45:08 ↗ a a different idea

1:45:10 ↗ uh put in to make sure that you're doing

1:45:13 ↗ it right

1:45:14 ↗ so we protect the city so um with that

1:45:18 ↗ um

1:45:21 ↗ commissioner commissioner lewis here

1:45:23 ↗ joan i just want to piggyback on that

1:45:24 ↗ real quick to say

1:45:25 ↗ that the contributions of the

1:45:26 ↗ development commission were vital

1:45:28 ↗ um in creating this document and i want

1:45:30 ↗ to say thank you for um

1:45:32 ↗ for their hard work on this along with

1:45:34 ↗ staff because

1:45:35 ↗ um seeing the progression of this

1:45:36 ↗ document this conversation as we've had

1:45:38 ↗ it over time

1:45:39 ↗ um is really satisfying and so wanting

1:45:41 ↗ to include them in those

1:45:42 ↗ in those accolades i think the shout out

1:45:46 ↗ they're

1:45:46 ↗ actually watched some of them are

1:45:48 ↗ watching because i'm seeing emails

1:45:49 ↗ coming in

1:45:51 ↗ so uh when uh the last meeting

1:45:54 ↗ that uh we had a meeting with dc dc

1:45:58 ↗ and then we had another meeting and we

1:46:00 ↗ all um

1:46:03 ↗ jointly said how much we appreciated

1:46:05 ↗ their hard work

1:46:06 ↗ and um now joy is doing it again i think

1:46:09 ↗ they're going to um

1:46:12 ↗ i don't know how they're going to take

1:46:13 ↗ being so uh widely

1:46:16 ↗ uh known for their good work so

1:46:19 ↗ uh good for them so um

1:46:22 ↗ i don't since nobody has

1:46:26 ↗ actually signed up to

1:46:29 ↗ make any other comments i don't think

1:46:31 ↗ i'm going to have

1:46:33 ↗ open it up to audience comments because

1:46:35 ↗ i know nobody

1:46:37 ↗ i can see nobody on the on the

1:46:40 ↗ screen so um

1:46:43 ↗ what is our next

1:46:48 ↗ meeting schedule i did read it and i

1:46:52 ↗ didn't see

1:46:52 ↗ a sign code on it i thought the sign

1:46:55 ↗ code was coming back in january february

1:46:58 ↗ so this is kristin leeson um it is

1:47:01 ↗ coming back

1:47:02 ↗ so signs are now coming back in

1:47:07 ↗ uh on january 28th coming back for

1:47:10 ↗ discussion we'll actually have code

1:47:11 ↗ changes for you all to look at and

1:47:13 ↗ discuss

1:47:13 ↗ and react to and then they come back for

1:47:16 ↗ a public hearing potentially on february

1:47:18 ↗ 25th

1:47:20 ↗ is when those will be there our first

1:47:21 ↗ meeting in january we will have three

1:47:24 ↗ new ppc members

1:47:25 ↗ and we will be talking about potential

1:47:27 ↗ amendments to um

1:47:28 ↗ for adding electric vehicle charging

1:47:30 ↗ stations

1:47:31 ↗ which will also come back for public

1:47:33 ↗ hearing so

1:47:35 ↗ are we going to schedule a um

1:47:39 ↗ educational meeting for our new

1:47:42 ↗ commissioners this is kristin yes

1:47:45 ↗ we are um deputy city administrator

1:47:49 ↗ andrea snyder and i

1:47:50 ↗ are going to have and we're going to do

1:47:53 ↗ one just for those three commissioners

1:47:54 ↗ to start with um and then when we get

1:47:57 ↗ new members in may we will do

1:47:59 ↗ a larger one like we usually do but

1:48:01 ↗ we're going to

1:48:02 ↗ do a briefer one in january yes

1:48:07 ↗ anything else i would like to give you a

1:48:10 ↗ report

1:48:11 ↗ back our comprehensive plan amendments

1:48:13 ↗ went to city council on

1:48:16 ↗ monday they were approved all of them

1:48:19 ↗ there was quite a bit of discussion on

1:48:21 ↗ the legacy landscaping one which is at

1:48:23 ↗ the corner of sr 900 and

1:48:26 ↗ newport way and lots of discussion about

1:48:29 ↗ that one

1:48:30 ↗ particularly regarding the environment

1:48:32 ↗ and the

1:48:34 ↗ community benefit provided by that but

1:48:36 ↗ ultimately they approve that as well as

1:48:39 ↗ the rv lot um

1:48:42 ↗ andrea snyder was able to work with a

1:48:44 ↗ consultant

1:48:45 ↗ and provide potential very valid

1:48:48 ↗ solid solutions for the relocation

1:48:51 ↗ of the rv park residents and so they

1:48:55 ↗ they were satisfied with that and went

1:48:57 ↗ ahead and approved everything that night

1:49:00 ↗ and there is miss snyder so i see

1:49:04 ↗ andrea did you want to make a comment

1:49:10 ↗ thank you uh madam chair

1:49:13 ↗ this is andrea snyder deputy city

1:49:15 ↗ administrator

1:49:16 ↗ um i just wanted to

1:49:19 ↗ further share you know kristin head had

1:49:22 ↗ said that i had worked as a consultant

1:49:23 ↗ to provide some extra information for

1:49:25 ↗ city council

1:49:27 ↗ wanted to elaborate on that point for

1:49:29 ↗ the rv park

1:49:32 ↗ which is to say that the council was

1:49:34 ↗ very concerned with

1:49:37 ↗ potential displacement or relocation of

1:49:41 ↗ any of the rv park users and what we've

1:49:44 ↗ been able to do

1:49:45 ↗ through our continued negotiations with

1:49:49 ↗ centurylink and planning out the site

1:49:53 ↗ for what would be their relocation site

1:49:57 ↗ we believe that there would there will

1:50:00 ↗ be nobody

1:50:00 ↗ displaced that's the best information

1:50:02 ↗ that we have at this time

1:50:05 ↗ so so we were really happy

1:50:08 ↗ to to see that i think

1:50:12 ↗ you know we need to finalize site plans

1:50:14 ↗ and everything but

1:50:16 ↗ we're pretty confident that we

1:50:19 ↗ can create or retain 20 spots

1:50:22 ↗ and we know that there are um 21

1:50:25 ↗ long-term users

1:50:27 ↗ of the park and we think we're pretty

1:50:30 ↗ sure

1:50:31 ↗ we're pretty confident too that we can

1:50:33 ↗ um

1:50:35 ↗ squeeze one more in there so

1:50:38 ↗ so that's really good news we'll

1:50:39 ↗ continue to work with rv park

1:50:42 ↗ property management as well as our site

1:50:45 ↗ design consultants etc to finalize all

1:50:48 ↗ the design

1:50:49 ↗ but i wanted to share that with the

1:50:50 ↗ commission because i know that was a

1:50:51 ↗ concern that was brought up here as well

1:50:56 ↗ any other comments this is kristin again

1:50:59 ↗ one last thing two last things

1:51:01 ↗ um the presentation that was given on

1:51:03 ↗ monday is

1:51:04 ↗ on the website if you all wanted to look

1:51:06 ↗ there are um

1:51:07 ↗ rough kind of site plans that were in

1:51:09 ↗ the presentation

1:51:11 ↗ that uh andrea was just talking about

1:51:14 ↗ and

1:51:14 ↗ secondly i just wanted to let you know

1:51:16 ↗ that while the calendar for ppc looks

1:51:18 ↗ relatively empty for next year it's

1:51:20 ↗ not going to be we just um have a lot of

1:51:23 ↗ things that we're trying to work around

1:51:24 ↗ with title 18

1:51:25 ↗ and affordable housing and lots of

1:51:28 ↗ things coming up so

1:51:30 ↗ don't fret it will be full i promise

1:51:33 ↗ okay i figured you'd fill up the blank

1:51:36 ↗ spaces

1:51:37 ↗ so um with that uh before i close the

1:51:40 ↗ meeting

1:51:40 ↗ i would like to make sure that uh

1:51:44 ↗ to wish everybody a safe and merry

1:51:47 ↗ christmas

1:51:48 ↗ i know it's going to be a strange time

1:51:51 ↗ strange

1:51:51 ↗ christmas but i hope you all stay safe

1:51:54 ↗ and

1:51:55 ↗ enjoy family and good food

1:51:58 ↗ and just have a nice

1:52:02 ↗ nice safe time so uh

1:52:05 ↗ so with that i'm going to call the

1:52:08 ↗ meeting to close

1:52:09 ↗ at 8 23.

1:52:12 ↗ i appreciate all your work thank you

1:52:16 ↗ merry christmas happy new year

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)

Administration/Staff: Joan Probala

Christen Leeson

Senior Planner Ron Faul

Samantha Suter

Consultant Joy Lewis Lucy Sloman

Land Dev. Manager Janice Carle Andrea Snyder

Deputy City Administrator Jason Voiss Others Present: Richard Sowa

Development Commission Chair