good evening we're on the air welcome to
the April 27th planning policy
Commission meeting one thing that you
may have seen on the call to order is
election of officers but we are delaying
that until children fill all our new
members and alternates are present to
participate in a vote to try to give
everybody a chance to compete for the
higher paying jobs of Chairman and vice
chairman first item of business tonight
is approval of the minutes from April
13th do I have a motion that's up the
minutes like to make a motion to accept
minutes of April 13th I'll second any
discussion all in favor aye aye
and it's accepted now is a break from
our normal routine and a very pleasant
one we have a special guest tonight for
particularly for the television viewing
audience a council president as would
like to make a presentation or I'm not
sure exactly what Stacy is going to do
but she's going to do it well oh well I
hope your Thank You mr. chair and
members of the Commission I really
appreciate the opportunity to have this
special spot right before you begin your
your business on your agenda
you may recall several months ago
October the Commission presented a memo
to the City Council and it had to do
with your review of the 2016
comprehensive plan amendments and you
had several recommendations and comments
back to the council and so I realized
that several months later but I wanted
to make sure that I got back to you we
have
on behalf of the council has a short
memo to you in response and I would like
to read that so that it is short I like
to read that and also so that people who
are watching and the people who are in
the audience can hear it as well and
then I have copies for you I'm writing
on behalf of the City Council to thank
you for planning policy Commission's
additional recommendations related to
the 2016 comprehensive plan amendments I
have attached a copy of your memo to our
memo when I hand it to you before
responding to the substance of your memo
I first thank all of you for your hard
work and thoughtful comments the city
and this community not just the City
Council relies on your dedicated work as
a critical part of the decision-making
process second and as chair of the
council's Landon Shore Committee this
year I acknowledge the frustration with
reviewing the 2016 comprehensive plan
amendments as it was lengthy and
challenging the 2016 amendments were
adopted by the Council on March 20 2017
your memo addressed three areas of
recommendations generally they are first
state growth targets service
infrastructure provision and level of
service second city affordable housing
strategy and C community sustainability
indicators and the council thanks you
for your recommendations particularly I
want to note that the council was not
aware that you were working from aged
rate studies this seemed to be a
particular concern of the Commission's
the council thanks you for pointing this
out it is my understanding that city
staff is reviewing all impact and
mitigation fee rate studies ages and
data input needs and will be making a
recommendation later this year to the
council regarding how to prioritize and
schedule any fee study updates that are
needed the 2017 budget and work plan
includes updates to the parks traffic
non-motorized impact fees and the
general government cost allocation plan
it may be necessary to incorporate
funding and staff time into the 2018
budget and work plan for other updates
next year also the council may consider
asking the administration to include an
aging
scheduled in future budgets to ensure
the council is kept current on the need
for updates most of the other comments
and concerns in your memo regarding
infrastructure keeping payslips
development growth targets
sustainability indicators affordable
housing and more our topics of interest
to the council and included in
discussions this year as part of the
moratorium I want to thank you again for
your very thoughtful memo if you have
any future questions please don't
hesitate to ask and we very much
appreciate your direct comments back to
the council thank you thank you
they get these everybody just want to
get everybody
no a trishul scan and send it to people
if you're interested in getting the
comments you can sit down and read and
measure pleasure all right that said
ready to go that's the day favor
starting a review the sub ere sub Area
Plan Update mmm
Thank You mr. chairman crank your
microphone up so that we ever talk about
her so you can hear me can you hear me
now all right thanks so I'm going to
kick this off and give a presentation
about the Old Town sub Area Plan Update
we've been working with I think this is
our third meeting with the Planning
Policy Commission and we've enjoyed your
feedback and the feedback of the public
and we are here tonight to show you the
results of that work as well as have a
public hearing so this official will I'm
going to talk for a while we have a team
here to talk and then we'll turn it over
to the public so we have a series of
slides and bear with me as we get
through this so tonight's goals are to
give you a background and overview of
the plan and the process as well the
summary I'll get into in a minute on the
electronic survey that we have had out
for about the last three weeks or so
that closed yesterday and then we'll get
into the overall plan format and then a
review of the changes from the April
13th PPC meeting in which we heard some
changes we've had some work and that's
we'll go through those itemized things
that are in your packet and we'll try
and get through that and then we'll have
question answer availability for the PPC
and then public comment time and then
we'd like to if you're willing have
discussion and if you're forward a
recommendation to move this plan forward
to the City Council if that's if you're
comfortable doing so tonight there's an
overview
and there's a reminder about the process
that we've been going through it's been
a couple years now so in 2014 there were
several council goals established
council said we want to focus turn our
attention to Old Town there had been
some focus on central Issaquah and other
areas so and then in 2015 an Old Town
task force was established focused much
on the commercial area of Old Town and a
report was prepared and we've talked
about that in the past in 2016 we had
two public open house outreach events in
May and November that I'll summarize in
a bit 2017 is where we're here now
I mentioned the survey we had a couple
more open houses in March that were good
attendance that was good to talk with
folks there and then the schedule asks
that if council and PPC are comfortable
to review and take action on the plan
this year and then I think so again this
is an overview policy setting plan
setting the direction and then in 2018
if the schedule continues is to amend
various development and design standards
to implement parts of the plan so that's
the process timeline so now before I get
into the project overview there's
several slides here about the public
outreach and the going to talk about the
electronic survey here's a summary of
the open houses and the outreach I just
mentioned justly I'd say it started in
May with kind of the general questions
like what do you like what don't you
like what's your vision for the future
and then in November went to more
specific topics and then with the most
recent survey there's kind of narrowed
to to two big topics kind of building
character and design and the second one
is traffic cut through traffic issues in
the residential neighborhoods and ideas
on that
so the survey the electronic survey
looked at those issues I just talked
about and here's some results that that
are in so first of all and we received
456 electronic responses and then in the
last week or so paper copies were handed
out to residents in the immediate
residential area right right around
sunset way and 21 paper responses came
back from that handout one of the topics
looked at what is the type of character
we would all like to see in the
single-family duplex neighborhood so
that's north and south of sunset way the
first slide shows we asked what's your
top three and this slide shows that well
there you see it there so 75% like the
single-family kind of old-fashioned
Craftsman bungalow home
55% the two story and then duplex again
in a kind of a traditional style at 44%
so there's kind of that preference and
we've heard this in earlier open houses
the preference for more traditional
historic small-scale character so what
people what did people not like you can
see kind of low scores for what you see
up on the screen they're kind of the
more boxy larger modern contemporary
design so moving on we asked if we were
to consider code changes in the future
not tonight but in the future changes
here's some questions asked the highest
one at the bottom don't allow several
small Lots to be consolidated to one so
a person can build larger houses a house
or duplex
second one is to consider lowering the
building height from three down to two
stories we've heard that in public
comment and a second a third one is to
increase the minimum green space or
pervious surface on the lot it's
currently 50% some other questions were
asked so when we look at garages kind of
the old-fashioned historic design do you
want to have tucked the garage behind
the house
36% looked at that accessory dwelling
units there's a high preference of
support for 80 use or mother-in-law
apartments and you support duplexes that
resemble single-family character of
house pretty strong preference for that
another question was what's the dish
would you support additional density
that reflects the same scale single
family and a little preference for that
so that's kind of quick on the
residential moving onto Front Street in
the commercial what's the vision for the
future these are the top three vote
getters the top left is this qual
library and then the bottom left is the
one or two-story traditional Main Street
look what was not enjoyed or supported
is the four to five story standalone or
mixed-use so I guess they're all labeled
mixed-use even the older design on the
right moving to the third category and
building character and design with East
sunset Way right outside the door we
asked so what land uses would so and the
support talks about increasing or
allowing small office and retail type
uses clearly not a preference for the
larger commercial uses on that Street
and this is currently a multi-family
allows multifamily with 4,000 square
feet of office uses on that Street
and then to the visual preference survey
of long sunset way a preference for the
buildings you see here I'm the highest
vote getters 44% but so not not a real
clear preference and then the types that
are less supported along sunset way and
then the second big topic has to do with
traffic and so the way this so clearly
congestion is a problem in Issaquah so
yeah they said yes we were hoping to get
feedback and cut through traffic and
that's the follow-up question which
asked a series of photos what do you
support so the traffic circle looks like
the clear idea supported here and then
slide a photo in the bottom is that just
a narrow street so I guess not such
support for the narrow street so that's
my quick run-through of survey and you
know that's once it's important but
there's been a lot of other public
outreach so let's not just be aware of
that we're talking I'm going to continue
are you okay so now it's launching in
the overview of the plan
the plan was initially written and
adopted in 1999 so 17 or so years ago
now 18 it was updated in 2009 just to
remove the bypass when that was no
longer supported back in 99 there was a
preference to preserve the historic
scale and character of both commercial
and residential areas and from the all
the what we're hearing through this
process that remains the same the key
issues I just ran through front sunset
single-family neighborhood building
character traffic and then a
consideration of a boundary change at
the North End of the Old Town area that
will show in a minute
this slide talks about elements the
second bullet that were overhauled in
the plan we've added a definition
section the crossed out chapters are the
actual chapters that exist today they've
been renamed little repackaged we've
added an environment chapter and a
housing chapter that we'll talk about
tonight and these are highlights of kind
of the key topics in each each of the
chapters and pretty soon we're going to
head off into team teamwork here so we
have other with each different chapter
like last time we have other staff here
so Kristin Leeson's right behind me
ready to talk about some chapters and
Curt seaman our transportation manager
is here as is Trish always thank you all
right so we met April 13th we had some
we had discussion here and and these are
highlights of elements you're seeing the
PPC is seeing new tonight that's in your
packet on to the let's see I think this
is the so here's the bow I guess one of
the first topics I'll talk about it the
boundary map change so through the
discussion we've looked at old town and
up at the north end is a kind of a
transition and character from the
historic traditional towards what's up
at Gilman Boulevard on the right of that
red hatch marked areas the staples
former staples store and on the left
side is confluence park so in our
discussion it seemed like a preference
or a thought that that area is more
within the character of the central
Issaquah plan and so the proposal is to
is to shift it to that place we had
discussion of well Chicago Woods Park
where should confluence park go I guess
it should go everywhere but the current
plan cuts it in half so we had to pick
in
out and we picked out but I don't know I
think either way it's still confluence
park it's very important to Old Town
central is crawling everywhere that's
the boundary map adjustment to consider
I've got a couple questions should I
hold off until you're done with your
presentation or we'd like them going to
start now I think it'd be best to hold
off if you can remember them
good yes all right the introduction
chapter so I'll talk briefly the
introduction chapters in your packet
covers these topics kind of just again
given an overview there's a 20-year plan
it's a subset of the comprehensive plan
of development of the whole city and
like I said earlier sets the framework
for future code amendments if the city
chooses to and other actions to
implement the plan and now we're ready
to launch into of the community old town
community chapter I'll turn it over to
Kristin so whatever is highlighted in or
whatever is in black was there last time
whatever is in red is a change this time
you see the vision for the Old Town
community is quite a bit longer than it
was seeming a bit generic and we want we
want central to be pedestrian we want
this to be pedestrian when I would
everything to be safe so we expanded on
it a bit just to focus a bit more on Old
Town and its historic integrity and its
weird daily services and how easily
walkable it already is another one of
the things that we tried to do in our
changes this time a comment came up that
there was a lot of redundancy so we've
tried to eliminate a lot of that these
are pretty simple changed it to Old Town
added weather protected because that
helps to make it in more twenty 24/7
environment if people are protected from
the rain that we have around here the CC
down at the bottom policy a5 is crossed
out part of that is because it's into
place so we wanted to get rid of
redundancy however we still wanted to
know to note that we want to use
architectural and landscape
elements to mark transitions and
entrances to and within Old Town so we
just merged that into D right above it
again redundancy in a four Street wall
didn't sound good to some people so it
sounded so we just took that out and
then v1 was reduced was deleted because
ever doesn't see with those things in
the mobility and connectivity element so
golf C so when we did the survey we we
just didn't know how this was going to
turn out as far as architectural minor
scale we didn't know what people were
thinking turns out that people kind of
want to see first
initially the goal focused on Old Town
as a whole but we have a housing section
that talks about the character of
housing so we decided to focus this one
solely on the cultural business district
or the CBD and sunset neighborhood which
is what we're calling it right now just
east sunset way that's what the goal did
policy c1 focuses on the CBD and talks
about considering standards that still
allow for feet can actually go above
four feet now but still allow four feet
still allow the building step back at a
wedding cake to help preserve views
don't pay quite as much attention to be
impervious surface but focus a lot on
the greenery or the landscaping on walls
to help soften soften it so it doesn't
feel quite so urban so then c2 now
focuses on sunset way and people are
actually we heard that they want to
reduce the building heights a little bit
down to three three stories and said
three feet down to three stories and
actually don't allow much commercial on
long that Street so we've written this
to reflect that it would still allow
some but not big commercial maybe small
commercial parking this section also
focuses on parking and we talked last
time about establishing maximum parking
requirements which is something that we
did in central Issaquah the taskforce
wanted to adopt codes more like the
central istic laws so they asked this
perhaps lesson minimum parking
requirements and the reason that they
are that the task force what to do this
is because our parking requirements now
sometimes prohibit properties from
redeveloping because they're a bit
excessive or just undoable I'm not
feasible so that's a possibility however
as it says in the last part of this we
would definitely need to provide
sufficient parking somewhere else and
the council has tasked us with coming up
with a plan by the end of 28 to figure
out where additional parking can go
before these things would happen so we
talked about the different neighborhoods
in here we talked about the cultural
business district the sunset a
neighborhood the small-scale residential
neighborhoods multi-family in this map
because we talked about them in the
policies this map is just there to help
identify those and that has been added
since last time and now if Kurt's ready
I'm going to hand it over to Kurt
how do you just escape look what is
really in Medellin sir
I was at the ETS clothes everything just
to be a daddy
and be wrong okay
down there talking to monster-sized and
there you go
here come wait page page 22 and we're
off okay a little confusion here but
we're so I'm Curt seaman I'm the
transportation manager here in it's a
quiet word we're going to instead of I'm
going to switch you from the PowerPoint
just because it seemed like there was a
couple things missing that I noticed in
the PowerPoint so we're just we're going
to go through things in the actual
document you have it's and I'm not going
to read through everything but I do want
to talk to you at a high level about
what we've done and and sort of and then
just go through and hit the highlights
here so as as Dave mentioned I I feel
like we have lots of great input from
from the Commission and the public last
time that really helped SBI hopefully
more clear on these policies and so a
couple of principles that we applied
here generally is that less is more and
so we were pretty aggressive in our
editing I think here as you'll see but
in no case I think I feel that we've
lost it in the content of what's in here
so I you need to be sure to let us know
if that's if you feel that's not the
case but we think we've got everything
that we've had in here originally but in
far less words and and we tried to say
things as simply and clearly and
concisely as possible and to not repeat
ourselves which there seem to be a lot
of repetition in the in the earlier
version so so with that said the vision
is is essentially so we'll go through
the this is the strikethrough version so
you can see what was there and what was
what what's been changed so the vision
is essentially the same the will focus
now three three goals in the in the plan
that in the plan so the first is this
idea of
a policy that emphasizes connectivity so
you can see our discussion with better
connectivity in all modes with an old
town is really the key and so so we
haven't so in it in the spirit of
repetition we've struck through the
first policy because it just talks about
multimodal connectivity but we in policy
which is now policy a1 specifically
talked about developing a transportation
system that improves connectivity for
all modes so there's a there's a
sentence on what sidewalks should be and
how they should be built same is true
for bicycles we talked about the
importance of bus stops for transit
always looking to provide as much on
street parking as possible and always
looking to connect gaps in our system
that enhance the completeness of getting
around in old town so again I think I
hope you'll find that everything here
and these other the strikethrough
portions we haven't lost anything and
we've really simplified and tried to put
most all of the ideas into this of
connectivity for all the modes into this
first policy a1 so that's that and then
policy a2 talks about we talked about a
gateway to to Old Town and and this came
up when we were working on East sunset
as well so we have a policy in there
that we should look to enhance the
entrance at East sunset so that becomes
more of a gateway to mark the entrance
to old town so there's that's I said I
wasn't going to read that but that's
basically what it says there and then
and then policy a3 goes to this the
importance of implementing the all the
great work that that was done for the
downtown streetscape plan so the idea is
that that that good work would be
implemented into projects in in Old Town
so
so that's the policy that are there are
the policies that support goal a so I
would propose to maybe just go through
all the rest of my section and then be
happy to answer any questions so again
everything that was in goal a remains in
goal a in concept
it's just hopefully set in far less
words it's a little hard to see that
with all of the text and all the strikes
ruse but I think if we accepted the
strike throughs you'd see a much cleaner
simpler version of getting everything
done we want here for multimodal
connectivity so that's that's goal a so
goal B is all about traffic and impacts
from traffic to the residential
neighborhoods and the businesses as well
in Old Town so we all know just driving
over here this this evening it was
reinforced once again how how much
traffic congestion even here at six
o'clock at night and how that traffic
degrades the neighborhoods and quality
of life and both for residents and
businesses in this part of town so we've
the policies address that issue on two
levels one is to develop and implement
traffic calming strategies and we've
listed a variety of tools which David
showed you some pictures of Sauternes
restrictions traffic circles landscape
barriers and so forth and and you'll see
we say and other measures as appropriate
so any or all we talk about a a traffic
calming toolbox and so these are
typically the types of types of tools we
have that we know helps with traffic
calming so but it's important to note
that we're not limiting ourselves just
to these these type of improvements and
then so that's what we're that's what
we're committing to do in Old Town is to
is to implement a traffic calming
program and then equally important is
that
see we know that much of the traffic
that's impacting us here is not is not
it's a claw traffic and so it's equally
important to continue to work with all
of our partner agencies to look at ways
that we can improve the the the regional
corridors ability to carry regional
traffic which is where regional traffic
should be not on our local streets so
that's those are the two policies that
address traffic impacts in Old Town and
then now it gets a little bit Messier
here but hopefully simpler in the end so
so goal C talked about increasing the
number of trips made by pedestrians and
bicycles in Old Town and so we've
changed that just slightly to I think
more or clearly say what we want to say
here which is - we want a balanced
transportation system that integrates
all the most pads bikes transit and the
street plan so - that supports
multimodal access and circulation which
is consistent I think with what we
talked about in goal a so it's this idea
of a balanced transportation system no
one's know when to legislating single
occupancy vehicles off the road but we
know that we need to balance all modes
of getting around to have a successful
transportation system so that's the goal
that's the discussion about this and
then the policies focus there's about
seven policies I think altogether so and
we've divided we've rather than going
through the separating them into
different goals we've combined them all
into this multimodal goal and then we've
gone into non-motorized policies and how
we would support and expand our non
motorized network which is typically
Ted's and bikes and so I won't read
those to you but again same concept same
idea
hopefully said in fewer few few fewer
policies and fewer words so those that
non-motorized elements are in policies
one two and three and then transit on
how to better support transit are
discussed in policies c4 c5 and c6 and
again I'm happy to discuss they're not
trying to push you through these I'm
happy to discuss any or all of these in
more detail but I also to respect
everyone's time won't read all these to
you because you have them all in your
packet and then the third sort of major
element in this goal see is on how we
might be able to expand ride-sharing and
what that could look like both with you
know can you trip reduction those types
of policies and then we know that
especially in Old Town the istic Law
School District has a big impact so
we've specifically mentioned it's across
school district as as a high value group
to work with to help reduce traffic
impacts in Old Town so again we see that
goal is is is struck through but again
we believe that all of the ideas and
goli have been rolled into actually D
and E have been replaced by a more rebus
robust and complete goals C so now that
I have you may be totally confused I'll
stop talking and do what other questions
network we're going to keep going but
okay we'll keep going and I'll but I'm
not going also okay I'll go back to the
PowerPoint
escape escape that didn't work there so
we've got two chapters I'll talk about
environment and economic vitality
there's just a couple changes to that in
the environment chapter policy a1 is a
combination of a1 and a2 where oh yeah
thank you there's the whole thing
stormwater is the issue we've we've been
talking about this so there's a new code
that the city must comply with which
requires if feasible stormwater must
infiltrate into the soil of the site and
so this is reflecting that it's
reflecting but the stormwater code does
give an option where there's a special
zoning districts such as an Old Town sub
area plan to in the middle of this
discussion to say if there's a conflict
between the stormwater requirements and
the vision of developing according to
our vision of development of development
design standards then we have the choice
to say the vision of the development
standards can prevail over the
requirement for the infiltration of
stormwater on site so to put that in
some laypersons terms so the proposal
here is just in the CBD zone primarily
the front Street area the vision there
is primarily have buildings right out to
the sidewalk zero lot line you know
right next to each other on the sides
and in the rear the stormwater L ID
requirement low-impact stormwater
development requirement could require
like a rain garden or some a grassy area
to infiltrate the water on the site so
if we wanted to build up to the property
lines but at the same time need a rain
garden or a bio filtration Swale those
two are in conflict so the proposal here
is just not for all of Old Town because
we have that choice to say for all of
Old Town but
for the CBD area is to later adopt a
code that enables the city to choose
this option that's what that's all about
this next policy we discussed last week
this or two weeks ago is a discussion
about non-conforming codes that come
from an old plan David can you go back
okay because would the I'm a little
confused based on what I've got on my
okay I wondered about that because I
mean you got in what I have on my staff
report is different than that okay thank
you for I'll clarify so down the mouse
work right here example a placeholder
you've got it crossed out here but it's
still listed yeah let me
breaking news break packet was sent okay
I should have started with that kind of
started out I start breaking news
breaking news okay this is so we had
this placeholder and the placeholder is
proposed to be replaced with what you
see there okay okay yeah all right thank
you
and welcome to and thank you sorry about
that this is old news this next slide is
old news we talked about that last time
the non-conforming discussion this is
outdated code or policy language we have
the Comprehensive Plan and existing code
has more up-to-date discussion of
non-conforming so my Curt was saying
instead of repeating that in this plan
will just let other plans talk about
non-conforming policies moving on to
economic vitality chapter at last
Commission meeting there was a request
to add the school Arts Commission as one
of the key groups and that is there a
force stricken to get rid of redundancy
and that policy has moved into the
connectivity chapter and again be one is
redundant
policy now b2 addresses the discussion
we had at the last meeting about these
cell tower the new cell technology
coming online and finding that balance
between concealing these new
infrastructure with potential aesthetic
negative impacts to the character of the
neighborhood so that's proposed language
see what you think of that and again
some redundant policies are removed and
more and then we move on to the housing
chapter that Kristen is going to talk
about and then we're almost done here
back alright so again with the survey we
found out that it wasn't just a scale
and it wasn't you know it's not that you
could do that people are okay with
modern as long as it was a small scale
people say we just want traditional and
we want it to be small so that's where
we started to head with the housing
element here so is that map that I
showed you talked about the small scale
residential neighborhoods which are
north and south at B cents that way so
that's where this is primarily focused
in the to section I'm sections I'm going
to talk to you talk about so the that's
what the goal does the first policy
talks about ensuring that new and
redevelopment is constructed in the same
traditional style and scale as the
existing small-scale neighborhoods for
residential neighborhoods and a
correction that I need to make that came
up last time I think John may have
brought it up we talked about allowing
and encouraging cottage housing within
old town we threw in small-scale too but
there probably needs to be a little more
elaboration on what cottage housing is
so we will we will continue with that we
had that discussion last time and then
thirdly it's a new policy provide
architectural standards that insured
duplexes are constructed to look like
single-family properties and consider
reducing the
height from three stories down to two
stories currently three stories are
allowed and again use the traditional
materials based on the survey people
would 80% 87% of people would like to
continue seeing an accessory dwelling
units and other online units there they
help support homeowner maintenance and
affordability and be three before I
didn't show up here but B 3 B 4 and C 5
i we combined those a little but there
was a lot of redundancy but with B 5 put
it into B 3 inches that work with
organizations such as King County in
their consortium King County consortium
housing repair program and help educate
low to moderate income homeowners of
programs to help people preserve their
existing housing and then C did not
change at all goal sue didn't change at
all that focuses primarily on
multifamily and ensuring that there are
amenities there that we work with the
multifamily homeowners to do
transportation demand programs to help
you know inform them about carpooling
and other options besides having a car
which helps with the cost of not having
a car so that's what C does there were
no changes to that one so if you have
any questions it's in the packet we can
talk about it but I didn't want to bring
it up here okay I guess I can do next
step so tonight we have the public
hearing
possibly a PPC recommendation may a
twist would go to council work session
may 15th it gets referred to the land
and shore committee which would happen
on June 1st and likely again in July and
then council action hmm it did say June
but now it's probably going to be pushed
out to like til July we'll see all right
sure yeah yes any a council member or
Commission members have any questions or
the staff before we open up for public
comment a lot of questions yeah I've got
about a dozen too so going through the
presentation like this it might be
helpful for us to start from the
beginning and how everybody kind of goes
section by section maybe unless you
would share would rather have every
every salesperson don't return okay yes
how would you like this
yes section by section I'm going to
start with a the very beginning I think
that you guys had included the
abridgement of Old Town without the e
and was passed by council as part of the
facing No so on page 11 of my packet out
of 49 or page 1 of 39
we have Old Town we can eat two
different times and then throughout most
of the document there's no e when we
refer to the plan that was adapted in 99
and 2009 it's an established adapted
plan with an E so we still call it that
but when we were talking about the new
plan or the new whatever's new we try to
remember to take the e off but the
established plan we still consider it
having the e because that's what it was
in 2009 and so that when it's been
decided in there that had not been
decided if they were discussed that's
what we're proposing though that's what
we heard for most folks that they would
rather get rid of the E and I know you
had mentioned that you had heard that
from the economic vitality Commission
that was formed for Old Town but I don't
remember doing anything from from actual
residents was there also support from
the community about drunken you know I
didn't I haven't grown out either so I
want a question at the open houses I I
think a lot of residents who feel that
way and so sure here I saw that in
scrapping C I wanted to see where we
were falling within that if that was
something that we was that was being
decided tonight if that was getting
prose except for a recommendation the
whole thing is up for recommendation if
you guys want to keep the e that can be
part of your recommendation absolutely
okay we make a motion for
at the very anyway you vegetarian
Express try to get through these
sections not beat a dead horse too much
if we can get through them so let's go
to section the first one follow through
on the slideshow or that yeah okay I've
got questions that they want we want to
ask I think what community would
be the first my first question to is
actually about so we're we're being
asked to look at two different
considerations and I would ask that we
actually split them tonight i right now
we're supposed to be voting on this
jointly both the proposed boundary
change as well as the updated elements
and so i would ask that we actually call
two different votes on them and not do
them together if I made this opposed to
the chair that we know that we actually
abridges a and put them again still in
tonight while we separate them out
because right now I feel like they're
two separate issues rather than
belonging them into one not sure I
understand what the value of that is so
I was surprised that we hadn't we've
seen a lot of information from staff
going through this policy plan we
haven't seen much about the boundary
change I know again it was recommended
by the task force but it was also put to
us that the former staples possible most
likely brewery they'll be coming in is
able to do it regardless of where it
falls I hadn't I when I in the area
going up to Gelman I'm not seeing a
strong reasoning why we would want to
move that area to the central Issaquah
and rather than have keeping with the
old town I'm also I wasn't at the last
meeting but there was comments looking
at the map about people saying we're not
sure what's going down on the bottom the
bottom we're not quite sure what's going
on we're kind of getting rid of the top
and I see this kind of condensing of old
towns that I think it's a little
concerning and I don't think this staff
is a actually addressed how the
community felt about this and a lot of
the information that we've gotten about
feedback but we did get a feedback from
residents in previous meetings saying
that they were opposed to this and so I
think that staff hasn't actually
addressed to the pker you're kind of
adjusted
clarify they're opposed to the boundary
change yeah there was there was comments
that were on record I believe two
meetings ago or peoples that were
opposed to it and I haven't seen any
information from you guys other than the
recommendation from that task force that
that recommends this okay because it's
been on the docket for it was on the
docket last year because of the task
force and then it was on the docket
in January when we had the public
hearing on it again and I don't recall
anyone talking about the that they were
against the boundary change I would have
to I would have to go back to I would
have to go back to that meeting on Forks
we don't have a year certainly welcome
on who recommend against it yeah I'm
some I was surprised that we weren't
giving more information I think trying
to help understand why staff encouraged
us to make this boundary change other
than that recommendation from the task
force that's not it concerning okay so
I've got questions about the boundary
area as well
aside from superficially being separated
by a creek what other motivations are
there to change this boundary well
during the taskforce discussions their
reasoning for wanting to do it was that
they feel like old town really doesn't
start until you get to dogwood they said
it's just a different character we don't
really get it that was that was their
reasoning for making that recommendation
okay
the crow really did separate the feeling
of where you are before the creek and
where you are after the creek like if
they merge soil building yeah if we I'm
gonna ask two questions one if we leave
the boundary portion so that's part of
Old Town what do you think that would
look like and if we take your
recommendation what would that look like
times what'd it look like I don't know
what you mean whatever would at one line
its develops or redevelop there right is
our there would the plan with a vision
for that change I mean is it's owned
differently because it would no longer
be
part of the old town would be part of a
different area so Woody's
the style of that change with the
solubility Stapleton shot the staples
properties actually has an entrance it
can connect up to the Gillman Boulevard
that ends with bones and the Grange and
so if you kept it in Old Town
you'd have part of your building
accessing from central and part of it
accessing from Old Town and we thought
that just would be really a little mixed
messages for the property owner that
he's got two phases in two sub area
plans so we thought this was a way to
move it to one that seemed more logical
because we're not going to pull Gillman
out of central and put it in Old Town so
it seemed more logical to take the creek
and make that the border for between
Central and Old Town okay well thinking
about bones candy that would belong in
Old Town no that's not on the table at
this point that's already in the vision
it's in the district vision as part of
old 10 as part of that district you can
bring that up at a in your motion
because there's very their proximity is
very close and the Grange
also matches Old Town right so we're
welcome to recommend that if that's this
is first I've heard that anybody would
want to move that part of Gilman into
Old Town I mean it's well the reason why
I'm asking now is because it's being
proposed that we move it out of Old Town
we know just a little just staples up to
the creek basically the line of where
Gillman is where Gilman and Front Street
is that intersection so I think maybe
what Ron's point is is a adjacent
communities fit into the concept of Old
Town so to say that that c-pulse area
doesn't really quite fit in those
surrounding areas kind of help blend it
when we talk about old town holding a
lot of the treasures of Issaquah bones
as list is one and though it's not in
Old Town it's adjacent to and helps
create that feeling of going into Old
Town exactly yes thank you so what I'm
trying to understand is what is the real
purpose why would we want to move it out
of old town I understand you're saying
is because of the look and feel but is
that really necessary because at some
point you're going to have a separation
between Old Town and Gillman exactly so
what's the vision that your the city's
thinking about for that I mean are they
is that building is going to be very
modern looking and all inland not that
and remember nothing happens until it
gets redeveloped the fact that you're in
one sub area or another sub area doesn't
mean you have to change immediately it's
just the future of the area is what
we're looking at when we do a sub area
plan and when you do that the boundaries
if you will you're looking at either
natural features or property lines or
some other logical place to separate
those areas so that you can have a
vision on one side and the other
typically it's either a right-of-way or
a creek or something so that you're not
right across the street from something
that's just glaringly different and so
when we relook at this and when the task
force first we looked at it they said
why didn't you use the creek because it
seems that when you cross the creek and
hit the mercantile building not hit it
directly you see it that's what that
feeling is that's where the sign is
welcome to historic Issaquah that's when
you start seeing all that it's not it's
not before then and so we thought we
would make that correction now if you
guys are uncomfortable with that you can
recommend against it I'm not
uncomfortable I'm just trying to
understand the the logic that made the
suggestion they doesn't really go into
in this docket here about why why would
we suggest it oh and that's what I was
really trying to find out is is there a
reason why we would not want to have a
Old Town gateway as opposed to changing
it to something that's more modern and
then what would those buildings look
like would those modern building that
colony that's zoning yeah but it's still
would be part of the vision doll right
because we'd say we have two visions
that are colliding with each other well
if it if it turns out let's say that
staples ends up in old 10 the vision for
old 10 is it can have you know route 66
kinds of signage it can have you know
we're rewriting that right now
during the moratorium so we have a
chance with the architectural designs
that we're working on as well through
the moratorium to revamp that that
vision a little bit and that's where
that could come in if it's out of old
town if it stays in old town then it
still has the same zoning of CBD it can
still have 65 feet height it still has
95% eighty-five 85 percent impervious to
setbacks I mean it has all the same
things that it has now okay all right so
I'm done what sells this one I just make
one comment about the the boundary I
mean I think I agree with Ron's plan and
then maybe it just wasn't well explained
the rationale wasn't well explained but
I mean I'm on I'm on board with the
change for the reasons I think Trish you
laid out I've never really felt like you
hit downtown until you hit dogwood and
convention that Kristen and and the
whole concept we have mentioned
confluence park but not having it split
in half by a boundaries make sense to me
so it you know previous comments
notwithstanding I haven't seen those
from the public but now I'm on board
with the change the record one ask my
commissioners a question here what a
some of what we're discussing here let's
debate this if I say if I'm comfortable
and saying I want to keep it part of Old
Town because I think a great gateway
into
town also from an economic standpoint
because now people are coming in to
Front Street area and it's kind of
almost like a debut right otherwise it's
going to be part of the or which is a
completely different look and feel and
so you're gonna have two competing
policies covering those land areas so I
kind of think would be nice to leave it
as Old Town
what's feedback yeah I brought them I
really didn't see how staff presented to
us a motivation to why we were shrinking
this boundary map and when there was
other comments from the previous meeting
about well what's going on the bottom I
really foresee a future where pretty
soon all we have is sunset and Front
Street encompassing a future Old Town
and I think that this is a unique
opportunity to ask staff you know you
you've been really extensive about going
over a lot of this document but yet we
haven't spent much time on on this and
all I'd heard was that the task force
had wanted it but yet the economic
opportunity isn't actually going to
evade us if it stays within the boundary
that from what I understand the brewery
is able to do it either way so I wasn't
seeing that anything from staff really
showing us why are we shrinking this
boundary and trying to you know when we
talk about how important this really is
to the heart of our city I was a little
confused as to the motivations behind
why it was why it was important and so
that's why I was saying maybe that was
something that we would take separate
votes on so that it wasn't uh we can
talk about that let's move on with
questions so that we can get the
Commission member pollen Commission
member questions answered then we can
move into the public comment if we
discuss this much more we'll be here all
night before
public has a chance to speak but that's
going kind of why we're here
that's what I go through in Section and
ask questions we'll discuss it
afterwards there's medication that's
good after we hear from the public
because that may change some
perspectives as well I like that all
right we'll move into the Old Town
community if you have questions on that
apparently when I go through section by
section my first question was on c2 on
language of consider reducing I really
felt like we should be putting stronger
language after such strong community
support the consider reducing the
building height felt a little soft to me
I know that staff likes to tell us that
the teeth is in the code I'm on sorry on
page 29 of 49 or page 19 of 39 and again
that's OTC policy c2 says and in red
consider reducing the building height on
Easons that way and I felt like we had
pretty strong support from the community
and if that was kind of weak language
again I know that the teeth is in the
code you'd like to tell us but I thought
like consider reducing was a little soft
on this point so are you proposing just
saying reducing or reduce or what are
you proposing we actually specify
something like building heights shall
not exceed those of the other buildings
alongside of them if we don't want to
put an actual feet we want to leave that
to code I understand it want to put
speak specifics in this is our goals but
again that language of consider reducing
I thought was soft I make a suggestion
because I have the same comment on page
43
instead of using consider reducing
because that's really weak limit Oh read
as well maintain the district characters
the street limiting the building height
on east sense that way for new
development and redevelopment to three
stories because if you say consider then
its code would have to be written as
maybe to be considered and then we're
back to what happens in the CIP where it
becomes recommended and then no one
doesn't
we have comments and then here about you
know wanting to pursue preserve our view
corridors and I think that height is a
big part of that and so when we have
these other values in this document I
would like it to just I think it should
be reflected throughout so again I would
be for legate replacing too limiting
instead of saying consider reducing okay
anyone else my next question was again
on that same page but its policy three
of the OTC and this goes back to those
quality materials are used in new and
redeveloped projects you had said that
this concept of quality materials which
was not in the friendly definitions that
were provided to us so I realized that
this is something that's still being
ironed out but it felt a little
innocuous to just be referencing
something that isn't concrete and again
I recognize that staff doesn't have the
resources to be able to present to us
the whole package at once so there is
this element of trust that I was a
little concerned about this vague
quality materials you know in central
Issaquah and the plan we say such as we
could put some such as is I think we
just got one that helps can you tell us
where were you again does 9219 a 39 or
29 of 49 OTC policy c3 ensure quality
materials are used in new and redevelop
projects there's a sense of permanence
as soon as you propose just saying after
quality material such as on listing a
few examples
long as we don't object because we
didn't name every quality material on
the road I think that's one of the
reasons we'd leave it out but I if you
say such as or for example well then
yeah I mean if you don't say anything
then you're simply making that decision
at the planning desk right right I don't
know yeah other questions in that
section I said a comment on the on the
discussion under OTC goal C traditional
character etc and then there's the
discussion and I don't I know the
discussion is just to provide context I
think for the policies that follow it
did seem in that particular discussion
sorry no that's page 18 of 39 in the
packet there were a few things as you
get into that paragraph that talked
about there's a sense that starts new
development and redevelopment along east
sunset Way would focus on a mix of
office services and residential yet not
retail things like that that almost
seemed like a policy that I didn't
didn't see reflected in the policies
later which I a separate comment not
sure we I want to I would recommend
dictating use that much but that's a
separate comment but so there's that and
then actually after that the rest of
that paragraph development of east
sunset way small parcels provide for
potential negative impacts to abutting
single-family neighborhoods etc I kind
of thought those last couple sentences
were almost like value judgments that
were placed in there that I mean I think
it probably is a negative impact on
those budding communities but seemed
kind of weird to have you know value
judgment in the in the in the document
that's all and the the last statement
there the following are intended to lead
us into the code changes that's what we
were trying to do in the discussion as
you said to set the context for what we
would be doing next but you're right
it's odd it's odd to try
to put forward what you're going to try
to put into code without it setting out
a policy that's really clear we didn't
you know we here we don't want retail on
Sunset so it's we were trying to have a
balance but yeah that that's your right
sure what to do there yeah I've got a
question about the old town map and the
legend it uses the word cultural
business neighborhood is the word
cultural of any significant meaning does
ona specific cultural business district
the CBD get it but it's cultural instead
of central central like in a lot of
other main places but we we didn't want
the map to just look like it's a zoning
map so we call it the area the cultural
business area so it doesn't appear to be
a zoning map well the reality is
cultural is just a word well I mean
there that we have the theater there you
have art stores and you know they're in
classes there and music stores and
theater classes so it is sort of our
cultural it's hard of Issaquah right but
I needed from a map standpoint is it's a
marketing term no it's not well it's the
name of the zone yeah
it's a cultural business district okay
and a question about page 19 of 39 or 29
of 49 OTC policy d2 which was in red and
consider lessening minimum parking
requirements I I think we should strike
this entire thing I felt that this idea
of maintaining the character while
providing sufficient amounts of parking
when we know that council has asked aft
to come back with more parking we know
that there's a huge crunch that we're
going to have with parking there were
comments about this refacing of old town
of being able to allow businesses in
front to take away their street parking
in front to be able to open up their
businesses to the street so that's
another potential way of losing street
parking and as most of us know literally
it can make a difference just so
two three spots can make a difference of
you hunting all night being a blood
dinner and turning around and going to
another community or just having that so
this comment of saying you know we want
to help maintain the character while
providing sufficient amounts of parking
we know there's not a sufficient amounts
of parking we know staff needs to work
on this so putting in language that says
we want to lessen the minimum parking
requirements for businesses though I
understand was recommended by the Task
Force I would be in favor of striking
anyone else felt strongly about allowing
businesses to not provide the amount of
parking that we've already set as being
a requirement for them to look at this
again that's more of a item to discuss
after we hear the public comment
Lorenzen we're into discussing
particulars now what we wanted to in
this section is to get questions to the
staff so if you have specific questions
in regards to something that's here that
there's you don't understand and we'll
get to discussions after we have the
public comments
doesn't marking me on that section any
other specific questions on you know we
wanted again that's my is what you're
talking about it more discussion aspects
before we would vote on something yeah
so that's what I'm having that other
that's pretty clear in my opinion we can
discuss these items efforts
well hearing no objection from the
council members I will open it up for
public comments so you're just going
section at a time they're closer skip it
in public
oh so the public yeah yeah okay okay
deal
so if there are members of the public
that would like to ask questions or make
comments if and she sees you're right
this is your option please go to the
linker phone and remember you need to
state your name and address okay after
ordered the yeah sure in the packet
we swear that way
you can fill it out after to the map
okay so again state your name and
address I'm Chris Craven and I live it
580 Front Street South and thank you for
the time and opportunity to talk tonight
so this is confusing to me again it
shows boundaries but we've only laid out
portions of the district so it leaves a
lot to the imagination of what is going
on and the rest of the plan one thing
that that particularly bothers me is it
seems I need to stay at the microphone
section is the area across the street
and we're on the small green so I feel
like there's some significant Civic
properties that aren't even mapped out
on this we have the schools that are in
here we have the community center and
the green that connects the community
center and to me all of that is Old Town
and I'd like to see it depicted as Old
Town the pool is not not on here and
it's a significant cultural landmark
that is historical as well I believe so
I think think I would like to see more
depiction of the entire Old Town
district we talk about gateways and
we've depicted and we've talked in the
plan about the sunset gateway and maybe
you could help me with the numbers of
travelers that come through
that gateway I'm assuming that is pretty
equal to this southern gateway that
comes into old town from ourselves and
yet we have not addressed another major
gateway into old town for instance I'll
just give reverence to an analogy if
somebody comes over to my house or my
home whether they come in the front door
or the back door I have a bench and I
have a carpet and I ask them to take off
their shoes and it sets the tone for how
I want my guests to behave in my home
and I think that is similar to how we
want our guests to be welcomed and
behave in our precious old town that is
a district a character and an arrival
place so in regards to the discussion on
the north I've always envisioned the
Gateway as being the beautifully
landscaped intersection of Gillman in
front to me that is I'm I'm entering
part of Old Town or Front Street in
downtown Issaquah I do agree with your
statement about addressing regional
traffic versus the through traffic I
totally agree with that I think that is
applauded to be in there sorry I had a
little note card here to be able to take
some notes that I wanted to to talk
about the one thing in regards to the
boundaries too and identifying all the
all the uses and all the properties and
all the gateways and we talked about the
schools and how we want the traffic to
interact with that how we want the
character of Old Town to support those
connections to the school so I think
it's really important to diagram it out
because it starts creating some patterns
and some priorities and some policies
that go forward
we talk about in this old town about the
acquisition of the Creekside properties
and yet it's not part of the boundary so
here's another either-or if we're
talking about acquiring Creekside
properties then maybe it should be
included in the boundary or maybe we
shouldn't talk about it as part of the
old town plan thank you thank you my
name is Lindsay Walsh I'm at 1769 28 the
Avenue Northeast and the Highlands I'm
just going to go page by page like you
guys were like I need to get back to the
entryway so I absolutely agree with the
idea of keeping the boundaries as they
are I think when the downtown
streetscape plan was recently presented
to the City Council they had talked
about creating signage at that entry
point as kind of a placemaking for
ensuring that as people come into the
old town area they recognize okay I'm
entering we have a great opportunity
right at that corner of front and Gilman
to have that signage there whereas there
isn't as much down near the creek and I
think it's very important as you said
the gateway into that I see agree with
on see to the reduce limit versus
consider agree with the such as for
quality materials 4d to with the
lessening of the minimum parking
requirements if we're talking about the
ability to redevelop on Sunset and areas
like that we may just consider
are putting something in there exempting
the CBD from lessening parking
restrictions and allowing it in some of
those other areas since this encompasses
a very large zone if that was what was
intended there to do so within the
connectivity and mobility goal be policy
be one this continues to suggest that we
use traffic calming such as Chicanos and
narrow street even though the Community
Survey disagreed so we may want to
strike those areas to going in to see
three what areas that
yeah so connectivity and mobility see
three on page 34 of 49 c3d requiring
weather protection over sidewalks along
accessory and oriented streets we may
want to suggest that that's just in the
CBD area in order to strengthen that
recommendation since obviously we're not
going to recommend people on the sunset
housing areas require weather protection
although I very much agree in the CBD
area also that should just be integrated
into the downtown streetscape plan since
we're moving ahead with that if possible
moving on to the next page in what is
now c8 it looks like the word and is
missing in there it was there was a
strike through and that should be
corrected I already talked about
defining okay I'm moving on to 44 of 49
in the packet this is into the housing
policy b1 when we're talking about the
ad use would it be possible and I don't
know whether this belongs in this plan
or otherwise too if people are if we are
recommending a to use as obviously the
community wanted based on the survey if
there was the ability to require less
than the 50% open space on the property
in order to encourage that development
which would help with our low-income
housing and maintaining the housing
prospects that might be one way to do it
and I think I'm done so that's it thank
you thank you very much
Steve Pereira 117 northeast I would
street for about nine and half years so
I guess just a shout out commission
member Lewis I just like you let it with
the this seems to have the II removed
from a lot of these places I'm the one
one of those who had concerned with a
being removed I think even as we're
preparing the documents it should be
consistent throughout and if the e is in
the process then it should be used
throughout the process until such time
as it gets recommended from for removal
so I guess taking these this to you from
topic so next was the whether or not we
have the gateway it would not be good
change at the boundary I have concerns
with that and as I expressed last time
one of those concerns was that there's
already a lot of traffic that comes from
the staples and turns on the Crescent
and does a u-turn and I think you're
only increasing the use and like hood
that's the continued to be by changing
the boundary and listening the boundary
you've done nothing to talk about how
that's not going to happen to a larger
degree now it puts pressure on
residential communities I know I've
heard a lot of talk in the past about
people unlike Bush and alder from sunset
they get a lot of pass-through traffic
we're only going to increase capacity
traffic if we increase the density or
change the boundary from Old Town to
something else I think also there's a
lot of us that do look at things like
bones candy and The Grange is part of
the old town even though it may be out
of the old or out of the central
business district or the whatever those
terms are I think I have concerns with
moving that because it increases the
pressure we haven't talked about how
we're dressing traffic already on Front
Street without increasing the density on
Front Street by increased zoning I
haven't heard how or if
zoning or moving that partial to the
central business your trades from from
CBD to the senators are all plan allows
for increased density or maybe higher
density that can be allowed in the
simple is ago plan that would not be
allowed today I know the the plan
brewery which is current plan might be
looking at it but you could also look at
larger redevelopment of other businesses
there such as I think that's a Thai
restaurant now and a I just have
concerns with that I think it also ties
in nicely the way it is when you
consider the Grange and bombs and that
segways around to a dead end where it
connects with Duggan with dogwood
northeast I would so I have some
concerns about the changing the boundary
conceptually make sense but I have
they're still more negatives and our
positives one of the items talked about
on the mobility the bicycle facilities
facilities to me means more things like
where we're going to store our bikes or
a pronto style bike system it doesn't
talk about the mobility or the actual
using bikes on the roads and I think we
need to focus on people riding bikes and
pedestrians not just on facilities which
is too narrow of a scope so that segways
with what what are the code that's going
to tie in with this and this is kind of
an aspirational statement it has nothing
to do with code one of the things I
heard another thing I heard was there
talks about the stormwater code could be
revised so that acquires instead of
requiring rain or rain gardens or grips
grip grip trainers that could be reduced
or removed to have a lesser standard
where we don't require a grip strength
grip drainage I think that's a problem a
concern I think we'll talk about more
and more density on Front Street I have
concerns with reducing that density and
I think allowing that within
indeed increase the likelihood of higher
density and higher building standards in
Issaquah I think another point is that I
think we talked about a lot about
economic vitality that's important that
it's not it needs to have an equal
measurement for livability standards and
I think would do much better at talking
about economic vitality when you have a
set number how much of revenue have you
increased then you do about economic
been about livability factors like the
small town feeling that we have that we
need to maintain next one was on the
housing policy a to the small scale
cottage style one of the things I guess
two things one is does that include like
the idea of mini housing I know I heard
that we need to foot flush that out more
as far as what that means I would also
ask that if you look at having ad use
you also have requirements for
additional parking on the property not
just have more people parking on the
street you haven't talked about how
you're going to accommodate the
additional traffic that come through 80
years and that needs to be part of the
discussion next point rain coverage it
obviously rains a lot in Washington is
it rains tonight I have concerns with
already with people Senate a lot of the
businesses on Front Street a lot of
people just stand in the doorways and
smoke within 25 feet of the entrance I
think that just moves them from the
entryway to out in front of the window
to smoke and put their cigarette butts
so I guess but a small town look if you
line I don't know that we need to have
awning coverage for people that changes
the look and style of the feelings of
the buildings I think on there I next
point was that as kind of a segue I know
I've heard about the Arts Commission
being tied in and maybe we're looking at
signage changes for the area to tie in
with some of the arts commissioners for
doing those I think that's a good thing
and last I guess it just talks about I
get again this
well one of the things was mentioned was
the again gets back to code but it's
also the point that member Lewis
referred to is that I don't get the
feeling of consider things as in strong
a lot strong enough language to me there
needs to be more of we're only going to
allow density at this height and that's
whatever the code says you can build
that's what they're going to be allowed
to build and I haven't heard I guess I
keep hearing that there's a 50-foot
density now and I'm looking like I'm I
know I'm not going to get an answer but
it seems like two stories is sufficient
for me not higher than two standards
should be the density or the height
requirement for me that would include
limiting or should be included a limit
on the elevator shaft which doesn't have
to maintain current standards can be
above the 50 height threshold limit and
I have concerns with keeping those sight
lines for from our beautiful scenic area
that's it for me thank you
Jim Brady your your chance you can
always change your mind next person
Andrew Turner
hi my name is Andrew Turner I live at
260 northeast alder Street it's a gray
house with a yellow door right over
there I just wanted to start by thinking
that the Commission and the the sub area
team for their service I know this is a
lot of work and it's easy for sort of
folks to take shots on the side and fill
out surveys and I'm not show up but you
all are here and you all here so so
thank you for that second thing I'd say
is just some context on on our family
we've been here for about nine years we
have two kids they walk to school every
day up to Clark they'll be going to IMS
they'll be going to high school
and so I come at this from a point of
view of sort of the yellow neighborhood
which is we prefer a walking safe
neighborhood we prefer the small-town
feel and yet my wife and I love going
out to dinner on Front Street we like
going to Jack's we love that levitated
here we like lots of other places like
that for us it's this great mix of sort
of a emerging small town with some sort
of more modern amenities so that's kind
of the spirit of my comments in general
I'm not a huge fan of design standards
that would sort of legislate cookie
cutter I think that the hard thing that
that you are going to have to do that I
don't have an answer to is to thread the
needle between this notion of old and
new seamlessly intertwining and I think
that's hard to do and in general I
prefer to let individual homeowners look
didn't let them make the decision
probably I want to design and build
their own home that's what we did I
think ours fits within the neighborhood
you all can be your own judge of that
but I think it's difficult to to sort of
legislate what homeowners can and cannot
do at the same time I think it's
difficult I have a difference between
individual homeowners and developers and
I think that I would support potentially
different design standards for
developers and I think that if you look
at the survey results the the things
that you've picked I we used to live up
on Andrew Street that mr. Capilouto
built that's a builder way of thinking
about this and our house is the way an
individual homeowner thinks of this
again you can make your own decision on
what you like what you don't like but I
think that there are potentially
different incentives there and in
general I prefer for small young
families like ourselves that need a
bigger house
to have some more degrees of freedom -
they live here they kind of know why
they're here it's hard enough to find a
house here anyway you probably aren't
going to put up some crazy modern thing
and at the end of the day hopefully
they'd make that decision but I don't
generally don't support that I don't
know how to put that into policy or code
but that's sort of difficult third thing
is I applaud all the things that we put
in here about using traffic and
congestion especially with pass-through
as I mentioned we walk our kids at
school every day and it's important to
us that we continue to be able to do
that we'll be doing that for eight or
nine years and it is only going to get
worse as some of the folks have talked
about I have a couple pieces of specific
feedback before I get to the e housing
on H a - here's on this give me a second
page 33 of 49 or 43 of 49 I do think
that we need to define small scale I
think that if you think about a
community that's going to invite new
diverse population of Ages cultures and
incomes it needs to accommodate young
and growing families like ours we have
two kids other folks in the neighborhood
have four I think we need to be careful
about how we think about this idea of
small versus sort of maybe appropriate
and I think that we have some code
recommendations with respect to pervious
and impervious and height but I don't
think you can just have a bunch of small
cottages I think that you will not have
as much diversity as you might want to
respect to old say older families and
newer younger families the second thing
is I'd ask ask us to define in the
mobility section something on page 22 of
39:32 of 49 its connectivity and
mobility policy a 1e complete gaps and
enhancing existing incomplete
connections throughout Old Town what
does that mean what gaps are incomplete
and what connections need to be
connected this is a red flag for me as a
guy that lives in that neighborhood
right over there with the opportunity to
magically connect a bunch of things
potentially through our walking
neighborhood that statement concerns me
so I'd say to commissioner Lewis's
feedback early on we need more specific
language about where those connections
are otherwise it's sort of like it
doesn't really mean much the last thing
the e I feel passionately about the E
and Commissioner Lewis thank you for
bringing it up in old maps little town
there's an e it's currently has an e
there's been no as far as I'm aware
public survey on the e it's old town in
the introductory comments we have a
notion of an authentic sense of place
and the authentic sense of place has an
e so leave it
thanks thank you Jennie Begum
I'll leave that out honest honestly no
no no no although Jenny Bingham 375
southeast Andrew Street and I was trying
to think of the word I wanted to say
kind of appalled but not surprised that
they're still digging with the word Old
Town Oh lde versus old I spoke last
Thursday and had looked up the meaning
of old and olv and Oh el de and Oh el de
means quaint Oh el D is kind of like end
of life
Oh LD I mean truthfully okay I've lived
here in Issaquah and Andrew Street since
1969 so I know what Oh el de town is you
came down first of all Gillman was
highway 10 there was no I 90 so you if
you went up to factorio or went up to
over Lake or anything and you came down
the only thing you could see coming down
into this town is dairy gold lights
that's it that only told you there was a
town down here Old Town started just as
you came down the hill which meant
Gillman okay which there was nothing
over there until you got to Derek gold
across the street from Derry gold which
is now staples had a little white house
in the mid 70s that little white house
sat where staples is was the first house
this is now over a Gillman village the
Far East white house was the very first
one that's Old Town Oh el de with a and
W the bowling alley used to be back by
bones Oh el de toute which goes clear
out - I'd say Flint sauce
that wasn't a signature C Street never
meant to be a signature story never and
shouldn't be
because we've got a traffic problem the
infrastructure in Issaquah is awful
yet we still just keep adding more homes
we have no plan to add any more streets
something's got to happen and the
traffic calming was my biggest thing too
is when we did the when we passed these
surveys out I know that we've got what
you say 90 some back and then I got some
surveys from the city last Friday and
walked them I got some help from
actually the Flint toss people and Dave
Kapler and we did birch and alder and
Andrews and Bush because I know a lot of
seniors around there they don't know
anything about next-door there's no more
paper or more in Sequoia press they
don't go on the city website to see
what's happening around here so I asked
them if I could get these and I was mad
dashing because I got them later than I
had anticipated I was going to get them
so I mad dashed and we got out there
Friday night and delivered them to
people and I understand we got 21 back
that's better than nothing
however when they went to turn him in
over the weekend I went on Monday and
took two seniors that asked me to walk
them went down to deliver him to the
police station no I have to say this
because there were people that walked
and walked them down over the weekend so
I went down on Monday and said I need to
turn a couple of these in for some
people there was no box at the police
station for these people to turn it in
and I was telling all these people and I
had to make a mad dash to tell all these
people about this survey it wasn't like
I had a whole month because I didn't
have the papers to hand out I didn't
have a whole month to spend and talk
with all these seniors it was boom boom
boom and leaving them on doorsteps
talking to many people as I could
however I think I would have gotten more
more than 21 people to turn him in so my
question is the people that turned him
in are mainly online
and they're not going to be as concerned
about the cut through traffic as we
people that live here I would like to
see you guys consider talking more to
just our people who have the problems
with the cut through traffic of the
speeding and work with us only on this
traffic calming traffic calming they've
picked the roundabouts you've already
told me that you're not going to do
curbing on Andrews Bush no curbing
there's no money for curbing curb and
gutter so if the people come off sunset
way come to 4th Avenue and there's a
roundabout here and they're going down
here to get up to 2nd Avenue they're
going to do what they do now and just go
right into the gravel and peel out and a
high rate of speed so that isn't going
to work I just want you to do a little
more with the people that are affected
rather than have a survey for the whole
city that don't really care about the
traffic calming down here they care
about getting where they want to go and
believe me it's not anywhere here
against the quad that they're doing
business period so I just say I don't
think I don't think our City Council or
our people on Front Street have a right
to take and name our town first of all
then we're going to have a council want
to name it's a clawback to gilman that's
what this place used to be called so
what right do they have without a vote
of the community or anybody to take o LD
e town that they made years ago into Oh
LD thank you thank you very
thank you my name is Mary Lynch and I
recited to 6:9 Oh North West Oak Crest
drive squad and I came here tonight one
of the things is I was on the citizens
task force for the central area plan and
I was concerned when I saw that the
lines were being redrawn one of the
things is you know taking the confluence
park out of the Old Town area because if
you look at you know even though a lot
of its not colored in there's not a
whole lot of parks in the Old Town area
and you've got pretty small Lots and I
as part of the citizens task force of
the central area plan we basically said
that the central area plan should be
making its own parks and so to move it
into the central area plan all of a
sudden they have another Park that they
hadn't planned on and does that mean
that they're not going to create new
parks in the central area plan that's my
take on that I really think it should
stay in the Old Town and at least that
side the other aisle again talk with the
other the locals is where the other side
should be I also on here would like to
see the multimodal trails not only where
the missing links but where are they now
because that's part of our culture it's
hiking and biking and trails
so the Renier trail really ought to be
identified on here and with it then the
view corridors that we want to keep
because that's part of our culture and
none of that shows up on this map and
when you get south of town there's some
major view corridors and trails that
aren't shown on here I would like to see
also when we're talking about multimodal
and I mentioned this before is we need
to include motorized chairs it may be
non motorized paths but a lot of our
people in Issaquah are using motorized
chairs so that needs to be part of our
codes and standards and I really think
needs to stand apart when we're
designing things I don't see anything in
here that talks about all walk
intersections and that going into it
because if we're going to reset codes
you know that was one of the things that
came up in the
Front Street is being a big positive
from the local group of people that were
talking so that should be talked I think
in the codes and standards I also think
we need to look at also parking
enforcement and doing some of the other
cities do is having stickers for the
residents that get to park and those
that don't have a sticker get tagged if
they're there for more to two to three
hours that ought to be something we're
looking at changing policy and codes
also because the downtown area is being
used as a park-and-ride
and it's only going to get worse now
with the park and rides in Bellevue
being closed they're not going to be
able to get to where they need to go so
they're going to be using our downtown
area for park and rides and our parking
was going to be worse stormwater my
concern is with now all the trees off of
Front Street
we've created our own problem with water
trees absorb a large percent of the
water that comes down we don't have
trees that's also effective if you look
at any downtown architecture when they
talk about walkability trees are part of
what makes an area walkable and I was
appalled that we've allowed the cut down
of the trees on the Front Street area
and I think we need to put some of those
back we also need to look at green roofs
as part of the central area we've got an
example down on Renier already with
green roofs so you know we need to look
at other alternatives and more green
ways of handling our water and I think
rain gardens is something on some of
these other areas is work with the
neighbors in Old Town to come up with
some rain gardens far as the economic
again it's across school district was
not a partner they're part of our
economic vitality they also we need to
show them on here because their property
is totally underutilized we can have
adult classes we can have music courses
there's all sorts of things we could be
doing to raise money and economic
vitality cohousing we need to consider
tiny homes and and the ability to do
mobile homes that's going to be a code
change because a lot of tiny homes are
mobile cohousing should
so be included with the cottages and I
put that and I did see it any place I
said it every time I've come into one of
these meetings I said we need to talk
about the green project and
aging-in-place
and I don't see that in any of the
policies also the other thing I think we
need to do is in the streetscapes we
showed all this art walk but we didn't
look at it again from a walkability and
a lot of indiscreet States plans a lot
of those metal o walls covered ways to
get into the parking and walking path so
you know that should be a priority is
identifying where are walking paths are
and showing them on this map and also
our walkability the other thing just
very briefly is we need to look at all
of our underlying codes last week it was
divulged from staff after question was
asked about streets our sidewalk codes
is based on 1964 codes which were in
1970 we ruled unconstitutional as we're
going back and rewriting our policies
rewriting our codes I would hope to some
place in here we say that all of our
underlying codes need to be reviewed for
are they current and already the best
practices because they were laughing at
the meeting the fact that they were
based on 1964 code and I think that's
appalling thank you thank you
the last individuals signed up anybody
else well you want to make some comments
my name is Mel Morgan I'm under
development Commission's I think you
have my address I just wanted to suggest
with regard to the comment about
lessening the parking requirements if I
understand correctly the parking
requirements right now would be the same
for the city except for the central area
if I have that right which would be such
as for restaurants I think it's one
parking stall for 100 square feet and
four apartments unless there's too
it's two parking stalls per unit even if
it's a one-bedroom unit so I would just
suggest before taking out that statement
about lessening take a look at what the
actual parking requirements are because
it may be reasonable to bring some of
those down for the especially the
cultural business district so thank you
thank you
anybody else from the public hi Connie
you're hiding back under the corner
didn't see you okay Connie Marsh live up
on this block so I've been trying not to
pay attention to this because it makes
me sort of crazy so I was just reading
it and gasping periodically I agree
considering is not enough the map is
mainly blank and not only is it missing
creeks sides there's no creek so it
doesn't show it doesn't even give you an
idea of what you might be talking about
and so I think last time I spoke about
the whole South and just having no
particular vision or no concept for the
future and so I think we need this needs
to go back not be approved and ask for a
more overarching view of this that gives
you enough detail so that you can
actually understand what this might look
like in 20 years or 30 years right now
it's sort of just like dinking around
with the code a little bit so for
example for me I go down Front Street
South and I want to get across the
street and I don't want the traffic
stuck there I wanted to be my town again
right I want it to be 25 miles an hour I
want to retail on either side and I want
us the community to be able to cross the
street all the way down to squawk Valley
Park and this is the beginning of that
transition right now we've
sort of said ah you know there's
residential there's little commercial
down there and that's good enough I
don't think that is good enough I think
we have to plan for what we want the
future to be because old town should not
just languish saying yeah you know
little houses little commercial what
would be the most vital smashing old
town you could imagine and that does not
necessarily in my mind mean that we all
have to have the same architecture I
agree with this gentleman here it's a
fine balance between having in a little
new Flair and a little old flair but not
having impacts on the next-door
neighbors so they're looking at nasty
blank walls every time they get up for
example so I think there's a lot more
work to be done in a holistic and
general information manner now my anal
retentive side comes out I've been
reading this for years
axial views must be protected from
public areas I you know what I don't
even know what that means so I looked up
axial views and what I get is anatomy so
let's let's put down what we want we
want to enjoy our mountains and our
green hillsides around us from many and
varied viewpoints around old town that's
what we want and it isn't necessarily
just from public places and roads like I
understand in the middle of the road and
say well if I can see tiger from here
BAM I'm dead all right policy a4 says
enhance wayfinding by creating visual
interest and activity in the public
realm contributing to positive
pedestrian experience I don't know what
that means
I don't know how getting visual interest
in activity in the public realm helps
you with wayfinding and so then I went
back and I looked for good directive
language on wayfinding and I couldn't
really find anything that would help
describe how you figure out where you're
getting around town
right now you're screening off all of
the parking so okay how do you know
where you're going to park now you've
hidden it for example right where do you
go for your public parking how do you
find the little cut around the corner
parking behind Jack's these are the
things I want to know about wayfinding
if I'm a stranger in town and I'm stuck
in my traffic and I wanted to pull off
where would I go and what would I do and
that I didn't see in there I also didn't
agree with having read some of the
surveys that this idea is that sunset
didn't want small retail what I read of
the survey results is they did want
small retail and small commercial they
did not want large retail and so this
idea that we must protect just one front
street from encroaching retail I think
specifies if that's even a word Old Town
for the future and I don't think we
really want to go there we want to make
it awesome retail so everybody gets more
customers right there's no particular
maintenance policies for the landscaping
sidewalks and streets which as Mary said
we found out the other day that really
those those people who own those
properties aren't required to maintain
their sidewalks or their landscaping and
we have an entire central Issaquah plan
an old town that are assuming something
that is absolutely not true so now we
need some policy language cut through
traffic is not defined only I don't know
what it means anymore it's cut through
regional traffic cutting through front
street is that what you're trying to
stop are you trying to stop the cut
through traffic that is going from
Issaquah to is across just using the old
neighborhoods to do so and so without
knowing what you're talking about for
cut through traffic I'm for getting rid
of regional traffic but I'm not sure
that that was the intent because that is
also cut through traffic and there's
economic vitality policy c3 that talks
about some sort of streamlined
permitting system when everybody adheres
to the standards per post well we don't
really have the
standards and I don't entirely
understand what the mechanism is for
that you have a plan to action ordinance
for this like we do for the central it's
a quoi plan that binds and allows for
that short cutting of permitting through
code looks like old language so maybe
it's been there a long time and I've
just never read it before but I think
you need somebody needs to tell you what
the mechanism for that is and that's all
I could come up with while I was
listening thanks thank you guys anybody
else hearing now hearing none and seeing
all hands raised nobody jumping up we'll
close public comments and go into
discussion
commission members we want to let staff
address any of the awesome comments we
have in the public I just want to say
thank you for everybody coming out and
voicing their thoughts on what we've
been talking about just staff want to
address anything that was said before we
get going only the things you would like
us to address thank you I mean if
there's something specific and we're
happy to yes it's everything that public
comments raises questions or comments or
discussion by members of Commission you
can ask the staff to answer that to your
satisfaction I would like to start off
the discussion wet and voicing my
concerns about the way this is currently
written and I don't think we would be
ready for a vote tonight on this I think
this is half-baked and I think we need
to go back through it or just guys again
the whole thing you don't ready for a
vote tonight I don't think any part of
this agenda is ready for vote tonight I
think we need to go back and actually
discuss and maybe make some revisions
together on this okay
it's okay we've got a chance to discuss
stuff okay yes tonight so I'd like to
start with a question about housing
there doesn't seem to be addressing any
of this issue of you know right now
where you think you're specifically in
the document there's language about the
30% and above so there's no comments
about people who fall within 2-0 to 30%
and addressing is a large homeless
population that we have well I don't
want to assume it that we take that into
Old Town I think it's something that
we've all seen has affected Old Town and
I'm curious why staff left out of this
new section which is very valuable we
need to have a housing section in this
why we didn't address any of that
segment of the population address there
dear um the part of the sub area plan is
to address things that are specific only
to Old Town or more Old Town than other
places and since housing affordable
housing homeless is part of the whole
city's issues and we're doing a housing
strategy right now we left that issue to
be talked about entirely for the whole
city and not pieces of it in different
different sub areas because we wanted to
treat it as a issue for the whole city
and not just for one part of the city
that was why we chose to do it that way
I'm same with the tree canopy same with
sustainability those kinds that are
citywide policies are citywide
happenings we try to leave those in the
Comprehensive Plan to be overarching the
whole city and just do the specifics and
the sub area plans I was glad to see the
addition of the housing but I felt like
we were leaving out a chunk of it and I
was curious why there is a preservation
in there of the existing housing stack
because some of our best affordable
housing is in Old Town just because it's
older right so we specifically address
that and I was curious it didn't expand
and start talking yeah if there's a
place to take advantage of preservation
of existing housing it's it's an Old
Town stair
we're just a quick question based on
public comment good Tricia Dave or
somebody just speak to there's a lot of
talk about the map and the blank pieces
of the map is there a reason for that or
Superman
the map was intended to be a reference
for the neighborhood's that we were
talking about in the policies we did not
put in a non-motorized map to show where
all the existing and proposed routes are
because we have a non-motorized map in
our comprehensive plan and part of the
issue that we have found is that we have
a non-motorized map in our central
Issaquah plan and we have one in the
comprehensive plan but they're
inconsistent and even though we have
tried to make those consistent it
doesn't always happen and so right now
we have inconsistent maps and we would
like to avoid that so that's why we
didn't show existing and proposed this
was just intended to be a neighborhood
reference map we put it up there
initially without the public properties
but then there were big white spaces and
the public properties at the Windsor
green there were big white spaces just
there and like well that looks kind of
weird why we leave that out so we showed
the public properties and yes we
probably could have shown them all it
wasn't intended to show where all of the
public facilities or main Espino
municipal buildings are it was just
intended to show why those white spaces
you know keep those keep the white
spaces out anything all right and the
other pieces in the existing plan there
are the neighborhoods that are regulated
by the standards the CBD standards and
the Sun set and that area the
multifamily area adjacent to it so
there's a similar map in the existing
plan that just has those areas
highlighted and not anything else
because the lower part which is the
school and some of the multifamily on
Front Street
they aren't regulated any differently
than their land use code says and so we
didn't want folks to think they were
getting regulated differently because
they're on the map but maybe to make it
less confusing we could put them on the
map with just state that there's no
additional regulations for those areas
being proposed in the plan but they're
still in Old Town they'd be one way to
do it and clearly there was some
confusion about this map so if you guys
have any direction let us know yeah I
mean I guess my thought on that is I
understand
it's a reference map and I get the point
of it it does leave the open a question
like well what about everything else and
I understand what you just said Trish
about it's regulated all the same so I
think maybe just filling it in would
answer that question I do there was a
comment about the gateways and what
about the southern gateway I do think
there's an opportunity there to at least
and I'm not sure that I'm not suggesting
that we change the way it looks or what
the vision is for that southern gateway
but maybe just acknowledging that there
is yet another way into old town and and
in mentioning that because we talked
about the other two ways into old town
so I would support addition of that
right and the reason we talked about the
gateway from sunset is we know that
there's a sunset design project going on
right now so we thought wouldn't it be
great to put in a Gateway idea before we
actually start that because we know that
there's something coming soon so we
could certainly mention the other ones
even though there's not a project
imminent I think in general the concern
about a whole southern half of the old
town described areas really valid in
something that needs to be explored or
at least to find more in this plan and a
map like this seems like something that
should be like one of the first pages of
plan to me that is like here's here's
the area we're talking about and here's
how each of those separate colored areas
is is being treated and here's our
vision for that whether it's just
existing and saying preserve existing
and defining that at least at least
acknowledging that it's in the area and
that it needs to be incorporated into
this plan for that area I think is
really critical
so I've got some topics I'd like to
discuss here looking at the housing
policy a1 I had some language I'd like
to add to it leaving the language as it
is and then after which has Old Town
neighborhoods so this is again a CH
policy a1 ad front yard setbacks and
landscaping dedicated entry and walkways
main entry location garage placement and
prominence reason why I'm thinking about
including that into the vision is
because they're not codes what you're
doing is you're saying this is the look
and style we're looking for an Old Town
if we do not include it and you go
through the new developments in Old Town
today you will notice that our front
doors on the sides of houses instead of
in the front so they're not welcoming
you have garages right out in front as a
main entry point and that's not
necessarily an Old Town look either
that's more of a urban look right so
maybe putting this type of language into
policy will help us to find more
accurate codes to enforce it I had
similar comments when I when I read this
I you know to me if we want to describe
how we want to establish these things
and for a1 it's kind of it's kind of
curious to say like shouldn't this be a
part of the policy to help guide the
code they recognize that this is not the
codes not where we're putting in exact
building requirements but the more you
know we talked about wanting to make
condense some of this language to me
this is an area where we want to expel a
little bit more because this is a place
that we have to be able to guide future
discussions of what that code is so I'm
for trying to actually define this
language here in the housing policy in
a1
and in a two because when we start
talking about what is small-scale I
think it's hard to start saying well are
this the size of the homes what kind of
you know the difference between a tiny
home a home a cottage these are all
different types of living and different
things different things that people can
do on a lot to be able to accommodate a
variety of lifestyles and of economic
means and without defining those terms
or just saying something like
small-scale it's not it's not really
known as far as does that mean that
homes can exceed a size does that mean
that how you know it we it starts to get
a little fuzzy so I think that we need
to have a better defining of terms both
for a1 and a2 a3 when it says consider
again I don't like that word consider
the limiting new residential development
on a3 I felt like that language again
was soft using that word consider as I
felt the community had really backed
wanting strong language about about that
and not specifically on that a3 so you
want to change the similar to the
earlier discussion the traditional
materials you want to change that that
define what traditional materials are as
well and there's a whole part in the
discussion the discussion we tried to
put all the gate I'm excuse me the
gabled roofs what traditional and so
would run on sentences be better up
there because that's where we're trying
to put context of what it means to be
traditional and what traditional
materials our own work the architecture
is it's gabled roof types of things I
mean not everybody has to have a gable
roof what we're giving suggestions so
they're not in the policy to handcuff us
but they're in the discussion to give
context of what we mean when we say they
need to be the same traditional scale
style and scale because of the context
in but if you'd mentioned porches and I
didn't catch all the list of things that
you mentioned yeah I'll read it again
front yards well should I just read the
whole thing so everybody I'm just
curious if that list would be better up
with the other items that were when we
were doing for example
up there do you want the list to be
longer is that what you're saying
I don't necessarily think it needs to be
longer I just think that the policy
needs to be more focused so for instance
when we say establish architectural
standards have helped ensure new
development is constructed in the same
traditional style and scale as existing
small residential neighborhoods front
yard setbacks and landscaping dedicated
entry walk Dennett dedicated entryway
all right dedicated entry walkways in
main entry locations garage placement
and prominence needs to be traditional
right so non-traditional is putting the
front door on the side of the house gift
you're saying run to see the paragraph
above that the discussion is paragraph
where we say important historic elements
such as two-story houses gabled roofs
traditional materials of wood stone
brick and multi paint windows what we're
trying to do there is establish a
context of what it means when we say in
the policies the architectural and the
traditional elements it worries me as
someone that's going to try to enforce
it if you only have it in one policy and
then three policies later you talk about
traditional or you talk about elements
and it's not there but it's in this one
I'm trying we're trying to put them in
places so that they can all refer back
to that okay so you're recommending
putting it up in the main paragraph
right that if you want a list of things
we're happy to put a bigger list if you
would like but we're worried about
scattering the list because then when we
want it to say something it'll be in
another spot sure you see what I'm
saying yeah I agree with that okay yep
okay
and then and then so in that same area
when we have policy for a to allow and
encourage small-scale cottage housing
with the old town I feel like we need to
bet we don't the rather that are
different that needs to be better to
find yeah right name three sorry what is
the best way to move forward on on that
I mean no it's the kind of action plan
in general on how I define that because
there's everyone's got different ideas
on what I think we talked last time cuz
it was your comment that they have to
truly be not big cottages but and you
had like with them we had central they
have common common yards in the center
and parking is off-site and they're not
2,200 square feet they're gone there's a
great public comment that there should
be variety right it should be small
there should be medium there should be
large there so incorporating that and
kind of maybe when we throw out those
terms maybe there's a way to in the
policy just bag you know kind of briefly
touch on small medium large scale and
then talk about some kind of appropriate
mix yes this cottage living has that
communal aspect where some shared
resources exist but also having tiny
homes is a very small footprint we're
talking about a few hundred square feet
but it's all enclosed on that you know
and when we talk about encouraging a to
use and being able to really have a more
affordable housing you need to start we
need to have all these different modes
of being rather than just one
traditional style of house we're saying
we want to encourage that so I don't
know whether it's putting it in the
definitions but breaking apart these
things that we want to encourage because
we talk about you know eighty use we
talk about all these different things
but yet we don't actually define these
differences styles that we want to
accept the into the community and
defining what those different ones are
yeah we would like to define that and
put that in them but that was something
that John added last time and we just
didn't have the time to turn it around
in a week to get it all in there
on we able to move on any other
questions okay age policy a 300 is good
timing actually I'm glad you interrupted
consider limiting again I think that's
really illegal big weak language like to
change remove consider and put in limit
just change consider limiting just to
limit yes okay yeah I'll be for that and
there it's talking about two stories
with traditional materials as well now
this actually things another question
here looking at the original old town
standards the original Old Town design
standards or covered front street and
sunset I'm warning if we should be
adopting those in our discussion of Old
Town because there's a lot of
parallelisms
and it comes to the residential units
another thing them how they're already
they got their adopted and then we're
mending those right after this in 2018
Biggs is today right right everyone
saying is actually because we're talking
about old town right now in our policy
right why don't we take the whole town
design standards because those are not
codes yes yes they're out there the
teeth but it's a hybrid document it's
not real code it is that's code it yeah
I do not know that it's a beautiful
thing too it's got pictures it says
encourage discourage it's a beautiful
thing
yeah that's why I didn't think was code
even a scholar but talent and now
colored interesting wow I did not know
that okay I stand corrected
because that goes into discussing
two-story units with gabled correct does
it the teeth so we're not looking at
three-story houses
two-story houses and now we put that in
towards the old town and that's keeping
it consistent throughout not just on
Front Street and sunset now well they
have different zones so the regulations
are different for front
and different for sunset and one of the
discussions we've had as it currently
does sunset the cultural business
district and multi-family other other
multi-family districts so what we're
talking about adding to the standards
would be the small scale residential
that you see and yellow up there because
it currently does not talk about that
right okay
need to go back and do more research
since well since we're in housing right
now I had a question about housing
policy c1 or it says that pedestrian
amenities that serve as a draw to the
commercial areas of Old Town I wanted to
know how do you decide what what is a
draw to the community I was a little
confused about this language we trying
to say that we're encouraging more more
economic development one store but gets
encouraging going to more stores I you
know I wasn't quite sure of this
language of as a draw it's like the
festival streets that was proposed in
the streetscape that it doesn't change
anything it you know it just makes it
more inviting more pedestrian friendly
you could have little plaza parties
there it just takes what we have and
makes it more accessible more able to
participate in things and just makes it
more viable and then ideally to you
don't build you know an apartment
building Lobby is not a draw front
street but a building that has mixed-use
on the bottom or an art studio next to
the lobby or sment and data is a draw to
a community because it makes that the
walking the windows more interesting
than you know walking by a lobby or a
dentist office or something that's you
know you can't see through the windows
it's just not as more as fun to walk to
the next place yeah I think I think the
community is strongly supportive of this
you know retail below live above concept
but I just didn't feel like the language
on here again it serves as a draw to the
commercial areas I didn't understand how
this it seems a little flowery to me I
think if we want to talk about how we
want to really encourage the mixed use I
think it needs to be defined a little a
little differently for some reason a
language that of serving as a draw the
commercial areas didn't feel like it was
trying to achieve what you were saying
which is that emphasis on saying we want
to encourage mixed use we want to have
we want to not encourage a certain type
of thing like a lobby to a building we
want to instead encourage this I thought
that language then could be stronger if
that's what the point of that statement
was firstly one sort of a related
comment there and maybe something that
kind of runs through for me and I think
some some folks in the public said it as
well
sticking with that policy see one just
as an example earlier I think in
economic vitality I talked about in the
discussion it said you know we want east
sunset to be a certain way except for
retail and we we talked about that a
minute ago so then this would sort of
seem to be an internal conflict with
that earlier statement unless here we're
just talking about the cultural business
district and so maybe just sort of
throughout there are a couple things
limited parking and Ella
you know exceptions for Li D and maybe
in this case how we want mixed-use to
look if we're just talking about the
cultural business district just just
stating that in some cases or qualifying
it because here looks like we're trying
to plant it everywhere and maybe really
not good point I've got two other
suggestions I want to add to this plan
but we are going up to nine o'clock do
we want to carry this conversation
forward the next planning do as a
discussion
your next meeting that you could discuss
this is in June unless we call a special
meeting somehow in May because you but
you're already booked up for May I
believe you're already looked up I don't
have a packet I consider booked up in
June - but we'd fit it in somehow
what's your thoughts I think it needs to
be further discussed I think we need to
wash it off work this is definitely not
ready to go to City Council I did I
disagree I think it is ready to go to
City Council oh okay it's with with some
pointed amendments or suggestions again
this is a broad broad view it doesn't
have to be bumped and it's but let me
add my two comments and then for
discussion and keep you asking about
disgusting seafood you can talk we also
talked about whether you want to
separate the old town or the yeah if we
might well really want to make a
statement about the e as well I think I
agree on me again
so two comments I don't see anywhere in
this policy and I may be this the old
town maybe it doesn't belong in the old
town policy but I think Old Town ISM
it's important that we have something
that that is for Old Town a pea patch in
a flower garden something a pea patch or
gardening until a community space that
allows people to come in I got your
email for that but that was in or for
under the parks in general right it's
part of the green necklace but that
means I could go almost anywhere and I
think Old Town is unique because it's
got some very excellent real estate they
would run it's in the it's in the green
necklace policy of Old Town oh so there
is it so it's in there there is place
for a pea patch in the old town policy
it's I sent it to you it's in there okay
I didn't sorry I didn't read it as that
I thought when I read it as green
necklace I didn't realize it was
actually associated to old town right it
continuing it from central to old town
to contain all the trails and parks and
pee patches are a perfect idea for okay
Tom so would okay as well I didn't
realize it the nets and like
clarification and the desk other option
II and this probably belongs again may
belong in the in the plant as opposed to
the old town plan when it comes to
transit shelters in terms of coverage
shelters I had some suggestions that we
should be building shelters bus shelters
that reflect hotel reflect Issaquah in
general but I agree I actually have this
comment on the CNM c3 and that's
regarding the bull language for for the
bike for the bike kind of centers that
we want to be using and I was saying we
wanted to have language that basically
says how they're physically integrated
to this space how we how we integrate
that into whole town I think is really
important we need have language about
where we're actually plopping our bike
share from into the city these kind of
these things and that how their design
should be specifically reflected of that
code of Oldtown rather than kind of
having the traditional Seattle's bike
share which is kind of a steel aluminum
look that kind of gets parked down
wherever there is concrete to me that we
we don't really know what our bike share
program is going to look like but I
think that when it does it really ought
to look adorable it really ought to fit
the feel of the community so this is
similar to your point about bus stops is
that they should reflect the feeling of
old town and so I think we should have
language where we talk about these
things to be able to say that they need
to be placed in a thoughtful way that
they need to be designed to
aesthetically adhere to the values of
the community because I've got some
pictures I'd like to show can I load it
into the home until the of picture let
exactly have some pictures of bus stops
that I'd like to show
okay and you know we're not in charge of
bus stops Metro and right but we have a
say in what we use for bus stops if we
want to pay for them or we can also use
other methods I just don't want well I
want to be very detailed for the topic
tonight thing but it's not really
detailed it's important because if we
don't include shelters in our vision
we're going to get what Metro is going
to give us and I want to be very clear I
agree with joy that we should put the
language in there to be consistent with
the design and the character I'm not
sure we want to put specific pictures in
there no and I'm not saying pictures
what I'm saying I want to use pictures
to illustrate the importance of it in
terms of how to word the policy so that
it's it's focused not general because if
we say we want bus stops to be to
reflect is a co-op and it could be a
generic Metro structured bus stop with
pictures of fish on it right as opposed
to a bus stop
that is architectural II designed to
meet and embrace the values of Old Town
and right as a clock and I can see that
right now the design standards have
pictures like that not of transit
stations but they have encouraged
pictures that we want things to look
like this this and this and not this
this and this and it sounds like those
would be perfect for the standards where
you're actually using pieces of the
picture to say this is what we want no
matter if the applicant is Metro or if
it's a developer and then but there's
not a lot of pictures in the plan other
than sort of those overarching sort of
visionary ones that like our environment
so if we want to
[Music]
put together a policy or bus shelters
where would you recommend that we do
that I would agree with the way joy
phrased it that you would design it in
how did I have it written design in the
character of Old Town and the bike sir
she said the bike sure that fits the
character of Old Town and we knew would
we would puff it up a little bit but
that it's the same just like the houses
just like the commercial that everything
should have that feeling that it's all
together and not like you know totally
out of place like you're saying that
you're worried that all of a sudden
we're going to get a real shiny modern
spacecraft kind of a transit shelter is
that what you're that kind of a thing
you're worried about that it's like
totally not supposed to be here yes okay
I just do a search on bus shelters
that's probably what Metro will do
they'll design one that I looked at a
lot of their designer bus shelters and
they're great for downtown Seattle but
they are not good for Issaquah so I
think what we should do is which is we
should say that we appreciate Ron doing
this research because I think it's
really important to the community and if
you could share that with city staff and
while those pictures may not be included
in this document that they are something
that we'd like staff to use is a
referential point point of when we start
to say this is actually something we
want to develop money we want to put
some money aside into putting a bus stop
regardless of Metro wants to give us
those funds and this is a reference
point of of other things so those
pictures can go where we also already
have design pictures and references but
they don't necessarily live in this
document right yeah these pictures were
just for our discussion so that we would
be able to put together maybe policy
language sounds like the most part we're
all on board with with that with that
concept I think you know I want to say
thank you for going to that effort and
being able to help staff with that since
we don't have a current repertoire of
photos in our our resources basically
maybe we can say even though they're not
going to be part of the document right
there's a lot easier to find ones I
think would be inappropriate to me
but so is the way this is a this is you
know talking about kind of more the
superficial how whole town looks I have
a question about this document that's at
the CNN policy II to was crossed out all
this connectivity and mobility goal II
was crossed out except for one line I'm
hoping that that just is my outdated
page 25 of 39 or 35 of 49 so all this is
read you know read it and then it
crossed out except for the last line a
continue to develop strong partnerships
with the regional trends and agencies
that serve as a cloth and I went I'm
sorry I'm having trouble finding the
pages 25 of 39 or 35 of 49 and it's the
crossed out mobility goal a CNN policy
II - and again I have it all read it out
except for one the last line I didn't
see five maybe see five movie up to see
five okay so that's what I was hoping I
was like I was like I feel like we've
already stated yes right these concepts
it's already integrated so I wanted that
red line to break rule thank you that
one a little I cross the road so sorry I
know I'm getting late but again I didn't
I didn't want to have that totally
thanks for pointing that out
since my document still showed that as
being a part of it so I really
appreciated Commissioner Morgan's
comments about the parking and so that's
something that I want to address with
you guys you know we have let me see I
can give you actual stuff so we have OTC
policy G 2 on page 29 of 49 where we
want to encourage the lessening of the
minimum parking requirements but then we
have other places where we say for
instance in policy a1 section D always
provide as much on street parking as
feasible
right on street parking is public what
we're talking about the minimum and the
maximum is for an applicant coming in
and building something that the private
parking would be have a minimum and a
maximum
but public parking we would want to
provide public parking wherever however
everywhere that we can provide it so is
there a way for us to then talk about so
considered lessening the minimum parking
requirements so it sounds like you're
talking about you know for housing
versus for businesses we want to you
want to encourage lessening the
what it's already the required amount of
sparkling for a business that would come
in right I want to say you don't need as
much parking but yet so then in terms
and that would mean spill out onto the
street but we have an issue with parking
the council has asked you guys to find
more parking so I public parking we're
probably right so did you see how I'm
seeing I'm seeing this issue of right we
want to encourage development so we're
going to lessen some of the requirements
of parking yet we know we have a parking
problem we have a mandate from Council
to find more parking so by having
businesses have to provide less parking
to to their customers that's still out
and affects public parking which then
spills out across so I guess knocking
wrong I feel like yeah I feel like we're
encouraging parking as we need as much
as we can because we have this deficit
we still have to find some we don't know
where it is but yet let's encourage
economic development by saying you don't
have to put in as much parking I'm a
little concerned about of it is right
now through the moratorium councils
asked us to look at parking in central
and so we have someone looking that that
helped with the right sized parking
program in Seattle that has all sorts of
scenarios and they've done tests and
each other
it's rather extensive but we're hoping
to take that information to see did we
do the right standards for central did
we do the right minimum and maximum and
if we can use those anywhere else
because they've made sense because we're
having somebody test them we're saying
consider them in Old Town to see if that
would help us with the parking issues
but maybe sharing more having more
public parking figuring it all out we're
not saying just absolutely do it we're
saying see what we've learned from
Central and see if we can use it for Old
Town as well because we don't want to
penalize Old Town and have them less
desirable than to be in central so we're
trying to just sort of even the playing
field if it's possible if it's not
possible you're right we wouldn't do it
but we want we want to be able to look
at it okay
I appreciate that that's what I was I
was trying to figure out was write these
messages um I only have one more point I
think and then I'm ready to say how I
feel about this document and that's evb
to
and that is specifically regarding Oh
sir I'm so wrong abb - I'm sorry I
thought I'd be hopeful visit page so let
me find let me actually find it it's
very specifically regarding our Wi-Fi so
page 31 of 39 our page 41 of 49 evie
policy b2 I was hoping that we could
make this language stronger on the
visual impact of communications network
rather than just the develop strategies
I think if I feel like that pushes it
kind of down the line so we're
specifically addressing that this could
be an issue and we I so I felt like even
just having language that says that
blanketly telecoms need to of the
communications networks that will be
coming in into the future need to adhere
again to those concepts of our community
rather than this language of develop
strategies to me right felt fake and one
item that you missed at the last meeting
is we're in a consortium right now with
a lot of the Eastside cities that are
working with the small cell development
because it's a new technology and so
we're all working together it's not
final yet what we've come up with but
we're all trying to figure out how to
make sure that the city has a role in
saying what it's going to look like when
it comes into the town whereas a lot of
the small set of providers would like
there to be less cities say and so we
wanted to be really strong in fact I
think it was John that said I want to
have it right in there that we want to
be sure we're developing strategies that
include concealment so that you don't
see anything from our old town streets
because it is such a different area than
where there's cobra lighting or you know
the new kind of modern kinds of things
so that's why it's there because it
doesn't that policies don't exist yet
but we're trying to pre-pre pump it that
when it comes down we want to be sure
that we roll the control which I
appreciate
so I guess justice develop strategy such
as concealment I felt was left this
loophole maybe rather than saying
develop strategies
concealment but maybe what you're
telling me is it it's so it's so new
that you still want to leave a little
bit of gray area right but we wanted to
mention concealment to show that we
really like that idea so that's why we
wanted to put that in as a for example
and the balance there is that we don't
want to prohibit it from coming here
because it's potentially very beneficial
right and we don't want to be that goes
that extensive but right
we certainly do care about it right
right don't want to let them just come
in and have free rein of our streets so
right now on that on that point I would
just this is just a nitpicky thing which
you can change if you want but I would
probably just say make investments in
downtown Internet connectivity and cell
service because Wi-Fi is probably going
to be gone in a couple years yes um yeah
based on 20 years ago we were all
listening to our dial-up modems and
wondering we never heard of Wi-Fi Wi-Fi
term Cody so just downtown cell service
no no I would just say Internet
connectivity and cell service yeah I
agree I think it's good but you hear
what it makes you everything what's
everything about real but it's Old Town
you don't want Wi-Fi go back to dialer
we want dialogue we can type into sound
exactly I didn't have people joy we
return um TVs do I just have to one
comment and one question and then I'm
I'm good one the first I guess question
is on connectivity and mobility we have
really talked about that much yet but on
the scene in policy a1 which is on page
22 of 39 we talk about sidewalks and how
we connect silence is accessibility if
Mary's gone now as she was talking about
you know kind of 8088 your clients and
chairs and stuff is that inherent I mean
I don't know much about the those state
and federal laws around that is that
sort of already baked into this or do we
need to say a DA requires
rules or nurse and pudding right
sidewalks and stuff in that would
accommodate motorized chairs yeah right
so the question is so I guess to say the
opposite of that you you wouldn't you
wouldn't be able to construct sidewalks
that weren't external
that so in that sense I think it's
whatever it's getting the side of this
yeah yeah okay that's I've thought so I
just was curious and then the only other
comment I have is on environment
environmental goal under environmental
gold be age 27 at 39 if you go down to a
policy b3 which is acquired Creekside
parcels to enhance and restore its
across creeks and reduce flooding
impacts I think that's actually covered
up above under a policy a4 so we already
talked about including property
acquisition for flood control I think we
talked I think you probably mentioned it
again under goal B because that's where
we're talking about enhancing riparian
areas and wetlands and stuff but anyway
there might just be some repetition and
where is the other place which is
thanking a for Oh a for a for you might
just bring that you might just be able
to delete the second one and then this
is another thing that I'm not sure if it
needs to be stated or not but there's a
couple of places in here we talked about
acquiring Creekside parcels and I
understand why do we need to say acquire
Creekside parcels from willing sellers
to enhance or again is that implied or
might there be a situation where the
city for flood control purposes and like
I'm an Intel Mainers feel like that I
assume not if they're usually ours I
mean they're willing for one we yeah so
I don't know I don't know people are
sensitive to that but maybe acquire when
available acquired whenever yeah that's
all I have good so I've got three one of
them is I would like to send a
recommendation to City Council that they
decide what to do with old town in terms
of spelling
I think we should make a recommendation
of what we think they will decide and
doesn't that's what they do that's as
far as the amendment yeah that's part of
the amendment so that would be part of
your recommendation okay so that's all
we are already uncovered okay all right
and I propose that we keep old town
northern section that they want to
remove part of the existing old town and
that part of this plan also includes a
gateway for the southern portion of Old
Town there's a recommendation of the
City Council
do you have one one last question I
promise
yeah you had a third one you said that
was yeah inordinately yeah the North and
South was to Paul so okay okay oh and
gateway for the north and gateway for
the South as recommendations to City
Council keep the nae I had a question
actually which is about we mentioned we
talk about water in this document but
that didn't really come up much and you
know it's not actually in Old Town but
the plume of toxic chemicals that we had
an issue with wells it's kind of
adjacent and kind of hovers all the time
to the side of of it and I think that
what really struck me was this concept
of us wanting to upgrade old homes
wanting to be able to keep this
inventory and stock of affordable
housing and my question was specifically
regarding the pipes do we have any kind
of policy in place of the city to
address our older community to be able
to ensure kind of clean drinking water
when we know that we have some issues
with our wells well we have this giant
plume sitting just next to old round we
actually have a water comprehensive plan
and a sewer comprehensive plan that we
have to update every five years it's a
state regulation and there there's a
listing of all the pipes that are
needing to be updated or culverts or
whatever infrastructure needs to be
updated but I think those are on five
years schedules aren't they Kurt and so
that would be covered in the in the big
plan and there's kind of this
acknowledgment that right older areas
which you have half gone liner and yeah
okay good again I don't need to get
needs to be including the documents that
we didn't ever touch on it so I wanted
to correct and that's why because it's
the big picture but good question and
good question
well to help find our discussion I'm
ready to vote on this as amended in the
comments that we've made but I would be
again in favor of keeping the e for Old
Town as well as not allowing the
restriction of the boundary
if I ready to vote on this package or do
you want to discuss holding it off some
more I think we need to go back and
really Bank it but I don't think it's
ready
oh yes we can vote we can vote and if
you don't think it's ready you can or
you can make a motion to not or I I
would like to make a motion that we
continue the discussion on this agenda
on this plan old town plan is there a
second second
I was just prepping you sorry I was just
propping you hearing none Oh shinier I
know I know no second emotion not so
forward to that mission right that case
any other discussion yeah I would like
to make a motion chairs to the chair
that we continue with number one of
updating the elements regarding the old
town community connectivity mobility
environment and economic vitality and
adding a housing element but I would
leave off the second proposed boundary
change I would not recommend a part of
this document okay except Timon yeah
that's like my motion is do I get to
vote on the fog to bring a boat on the
first part and to specifically write
like a novela me let me ask a discussion
because it seems to me what we could do
well would be we can vote on the
boundary and say yes or no yeah okay
keep it all together yeah but there's no
reason not to conclude this in if we're
going to vote on this so it would be
that we're approving the updated
elements as modified by our discussion
tonight and we also are we are not
proposing that the Old Town sub area be
changed that's exactly what I would like
to that is exactly what I would said I
would propose I don't know that I have
backing for that but
who you're asking two votes well it's
one vote because this whole thing is a
matter of if you look on the back and
your thing is talking about the voting
on a proposed finding a fact amendments
review and a recommendation that the
updated elements of old town community
connectivity mobility environment
economic vitality housing element be
approved as we that as we have amended
or maybe as amended with regards to
commented limits the comments and stuff
that you have and that we are that the
we are not recommending approval of the
boundary change and I guess we can also
add in there that we're also
recommending that old
missed the clarification I was going to
ask for is Ted a or no II yeah old stays
old with an E I don't feel 100%
comfortable with voting about the
proposed boundary changes because I
don't know that it's been fully defined
what happens if it's removed or if it
stays in and I don't know if that
happened at a session that I missed or
if it happened before I join this effort
but just seems like something that we
talked a lot about and then now we're
saying either yes or no as a
recommendation without really getting
full-on answers to our questions about
what that area becomes if it is voted
out of old town I guess is my that's my
concern
and if I if we if everyone else wanted
to vote tonight I mean I don't know if I
feel comfortable saying yay or nay
that's up campus what I'm saying I don't
know if anyone else shares that or if
I'm missing something so I guess the
clarifies to them in that case we would
split the issues we would vote on the
amendment and anonymously splitting it
till we discuss whether it should be
personally yeah I feel like we moved or
remain the same to a later meeting I'd
be happy to vote on on on the rest of
the plan but that boundary I feel like
we didn't
get a full enough understanding of that
to vote on that tonight so that was how
I originally would okay we can make a
closing now look we have two votes then
basically as long as I mean I don't know
that all the data means to the process
but maybe I want to make a motion that
we we split them well let's find out is
there a time crunch is there a specific
reason why we need to have this packet
voted on tonight
um it's part of all of the projects that
are you saw that your schedule on the
back of the it's part of trying to get
all the pieces through the Planning
Policy Commission so they can get
through the council on their timeline if
you're not ready you're not ready like
then we wouldn't look at it until June
and I'm not sure what we would be able
to tell you about this specific boundary
change because if it's out of the
boundary the zoning doesn't change the
nothing would change until if we were
going to change the zoning or proposes
zoning it would have to come back to you
guys again because you guys are in
charge of that so it would just be the
first step that was in the docket of the
task force recommendation that maybe old
town really starts at the creek and so
that that should be part of central but
it would have just been the first step
nothing changes immediately other than
then we would start talking about you
know it does the zoning change does it
you know what would happen next should
it be but it was just the first step and
if we would realize that you guys had
issues with it I never realized that
there was an issue because it's been in
the docket all this time that to you
know have the folks coming you know to
have someone from the task force come
and tell us why that was important to
them there's the other aspect of course
is again and we're making a
recommendation to the City Council and
if we don't fully baked this they're
going to kick it back to us which means
it's going to taking days they'll make a
decision like this was it with with our
with they appreciate our guidance but
they will move forward so we can
recommend what we think but it's not in
our purview and further clarify it's
going to working session first and then
to Council is that right right yeah so
they'll work on a little bit right
they're going to have a lot of looks
I thought at least in my view of the
discussion we hadn't had the consensus
that we should not remove city council
may say otherwise but we can go ahead
and make the recommendation it stays the
same and if they choose otherwise they
can follow what today recommendation was
by the right and if here's the concern
though if we say you wanted to remain
and shouldn't there be a vision a
gateway vision for that area we've
already said we want one of the north
end in the south end right right but
shouldn't we evaluate that as far as
this or would that be an amendment to
this because right now there isn't a
policy for Gateway because they didn't
create one because it's was going away I
think staff knows that we want to
include that we want we want to
encompass a feeling that we want to have
gateways we want everyone to recognize
when they're coming in just as we had a
friendly comment as saying we how we
want people to know where they are and
how to behave and this is old town right
depending want to acknowledge all
gateways Rio wherever they rest wherever
and depending on where your vote goes on
where the boundary stays it would you
know talk about the Gateway would have
to be a dogwood or a Gilman right so so
this is a question for staff if we vote
on this tonight and we decide that we're
going to go ahead and keep that we want
gateways for the north and the south and
we approve this what would be the next
step for the vision the planning policy
for those gateways well when we do the
code you could have gateways right now
the design standards have gateway
features and the minutes like the
corners of the buildings have plazas or
there's a signage or that we would have
that when we update the code next year
we would put maybe more specifics in
about the West one should have these
aspects the north one should have you
know if you want to get into specifics
or something like that that would be the
time for the t's for but if that's a
recommendation to because we don't talk
about gateways in here now
right we would put a policy about
gateways but we provide standards for
north and south gateways in old town
before it goes to City Council okay and
then that would come back to us so
you're looking at two different for
different projects that I just go to
council right she was talking about the
design standards and I'm talking about
the policies they go to Council on aid
right so my question is would there be
two different policies on one for
gateways and then one for the rest of
everything else we discussed tonight
you'd have to amend this then right
anyway no I talked about yeah we talked
about a lot of pages of stuff we're
going to yeah that's going to sharpen
language we've given them awesome
feedback about about this document
probably more than they anticipated and
so it just it's just an inclusion of
saying we want gateways into the
community to be helped try to find that
character I understand you're going to
go back and sharpen your pencils on this
thing with all of our suggestions but my
question is would gateways because right
now this packet does not talk about in
the north gateway right and I clear self
kick it includes the ones from sunset we
would add a mention of the other
gateways in a policy right and so those
gateways that policy would then come
back to us no no it was just the
integral right here and forward it you
trust us but it would get done and we
reported on to Council with that policy
in here okay just like okay yeah that's
the part that I didn't know how kind of
logistical II how that works okay
you shaved that okay I no longer like to
make a motion to separate ability
[Laughter]
I mean oh really
is there any more discussion we have the
motion to accept and Weavin gets down
the table - I'm sure we're we are but
they boasted except one and not again
not and to propose that the boundaries
not be changed subject to the additions
that we've already added to the document
I would think I would second that when
there's a second okay any more
discussion so the discussion in between
my second so it's approval for
Secretary's going to try to put this so
it's no longer change but everything but
all DL as amended yes okay keeping the
inherited effective anything mihi okay I
just wanted to clarify okay Ben motion
to the second is also seconded all in
favor aye opposed I do motion passes was
that unanimous a no-no for the one thing
one I'm sorry I voted no because I don't
think I was I don't think it's ready yet
okay I just looked this way so I didn't
see them dump mouse so that's why I
didn't know who said what
okay one super at being said sir any
other things that we have to discuss um
not that I know of so anyone whispering
so there is a there's we have the
meeting on the 11th is the next meeting
yes at five o'clock five of us may not
be able to make that because okay I
understand I understand wait what
everybody's aware of that and that'll be
the first but the first meeting we
recreating with our new members our new
member one of which may be sitting in
the front row allegedly Lindsay why
three we're happy to have you I'm member
and then we have three alternates yes
so we're going to have a hostile deck
pan one will have to bring already a
chair we have too many people of torture
now not all
never too many ever two men it is never
I don't think there's ever too many
thank you to the 11th hopefully and that
case I will adjourn the meeting at 9:25
thank you very much and thank you all
the sides that are making your comments
and sitting around listening to us
debate endlessly relevance obscenities
the border