in 22nd meeting of the Planning Policy
Commission tonight we're going to talk a
little bit about parking in the city of
Issaquah and opening up to a public
meeting if anybody is here to discuss it
before we get into the meeting I just
want to say one thing about a week and a
half ago I had I got an email that was
kind of I was well was was really just
depressing kind of it was about a
commissioner that had been on the
Commission for about almost eight years
I think and he passed away so I just
wanted to say that offer our condolences
to every extracts family and I wanted to
make sure that it got into the the
record I know they're not there watching
this but you know I just wanted to make
sure that the city would say thank you
for your service and all right so anyway
with that proved over the minutes I know
that some of you weren't there at our
last meeting but we did have a lengthy
discussion on how to be a good
Commissioner so would anybody like to
make a motion to the limits of a second
second all those in favor say aye aye
opposed they the most motion carries
I would like to change one thing on the
on the agenda tonight if it's a if it's
acceptable to the rest of you I would
like to move the election to the end of
the meeting so that we can go through
the meeting and then have that at the
end but okay okay so with that Lucy
please start us off on this great
conversation on parking good evening I'm
Lucy Sloman i'm land development man
during the development services
development services department is that
better
don't want to eat it how about like that
there you go okay thank you so tonight
we're talking about the first moratorium
work plan item to come to PPC I believe
and it's parking so I'm just going to
give you a little bit of history last
summer in 2013 the central is quoi
standards were adopted and there was
something in the centralist quoi plan
that required that there was a
evaluation every three years so we did
that last July and one of the things
that was noted in that evaluation was of
the 14 or so projects that we evaluated
seven of the seven residential projects
all had structured parking of the
commercial projects only one had
commercial it had structured parking so
as a result or maybe not when the
moratorium was enacted parking was
identified as one of six work plan items
for the moratorium and related to
parking we asked two questions is parked
right or not this was for just for
central is claw and shed structured
parking be required to do this we hired
a consultant team fair and peers which
is a transportation engineering firm and
a sub consultant eco Northwest which is
a financial economist company and on
June 7th we presented our findings and
to Landon Shore and their direction was
to leave the parking standards unchanged
and to implement structured parking
requirement and so then staff went away
and worked on code amendments and that's
what we're bringing to you this evening
so the recommendation is as follows for
office for the office uses buildings
over 5,000 square feet would have
one-third of their required parking in
structures for residential uses again
one-third of the required parking would
be in structures
for retail there would be no structured
parking requirement just the existing
encouraged and there would be no
exemptions or adjustments proposed so I
I know there were a lot of different
memos so I pulled out some of the
information that I thought might be
relevant just as by way of an
introduction what we so the staff
evaluated a number of residential retail
and office projects of the six office
projects we evaluated there was a range
from 0 to 93% of their part each
projects parking in structures with an
average of 43% and a median of 31% for
retail it was between 0 and 25 with an
average of 21 and 12 all the residential
projects we evaluated had structured
parking and that was 14 residential
projects with an average of 45% in a
median of 31% so that's the sort of
on-the-ground what are we seeing Eco
Northwest has been working on economic
analyses in the city for a while
associated with vertical mixed-use
projects and affordable housing and so
they were added to the team to look at
the feasibility of structured parking
using their own algorithms and what they
found was that for office projects
somewhere between 25 percent structured
parking and fifty percent structured
parking it became infeasible same was
true for retail projects and for
residential projects had dependent on
the kind of the construction type for
townhomes you could have a hundred
percent requirement for structured
parking and that would not be a problem
based on their model whereas again it
was somewhere between 25 and 50 percent
structured parking is where it switches
from feasible to infeasible when you're
dealing
podium yes a question on that so when
they were further analysis where they
were looking at current project cost and
project values were they trying to
forecast what would be feasible you know
assuming continued growth and rise of
land values and over a five-year or
ten-year period well what we wrote were
looking at current to its current okay
and so are the administration's
recommendation is both a combination
than of achieving the vision that was
established in central is kua and trying
to avoid unintended consequences such as
reducing the likelihood of redevelopment
or new projects and then we have our
next steps I'm just doing a quick
overview I'm more interested in your
questions than presenting a lot of
detail once we have had the discussion
with PPC we're hoping we'll get a
recommendation this evening then we
would return to land and shore in July
and we are scheduled to be in front of
council for adoption mid July anybody
have any good comments I've got it I
guess I'm a little confused with your
percentages but if between 25 and 50
percent of structured parking is
infeasible why are we proposing 33
percent okay let me let me try and
improve my wording the way they looked
at it in 25 percent increments zero 25
50 75 100 at 25 it was feasible at 50
percent
it was infeasible according to their
model so it's somewhere between 25 and
50 percent it went from feasible to
infeasible but they were not looking at
any finer grain between 25 and 50
percent does that make more sense
and why is that Lucy we specially
commissioned this why are we going only
25 percentages junks well I think that
there is a limit to how much a model can
can predict at that specific range part
of those limitations the number of
examples we looked at it looks like we
are you showed us that the structured
parking has seven projects surveyed we
had a a dozen for residential I'm sorry
that was one with office and then we
weren't given a number for retail so
less than two dozen projects were looked
at for this information so eco Northwest
is not that was just a staff survey of
projects on the ground equal Northwest
was doing a financial model not using
specific projects from ethic law but
looking at a number of factors such as
land values construction costs cost of
structured parking different kinds of
lease rates associated with various land
juices so how many for retail you'd
given us the numbers of seven for office
but a dozen for residential how many
retail did you guys look at the staff at
the staff level yeah projects that you
guys looked at in the city it says up
there four and that was what was about
documentation and the Tartar
documentation is doesn't have a number
of page nine so staff felt like looking
at two dozen was all encompassing of our
city how did you guys come to that
number of looking at we were looking at
recent projects that had been built over
the last five to ten years we weren't we
were trying to think of projects that
were in central is kua and the urban
villages that had similar
characteristics to what we were
anticipating in Central School that's
interesting so by using the urban
villages did you find that that was a
pretty good use by using our urban
villages as an example is that part of
the reason why you came to the
conclusion on retail do you want to
avoid retail parking requirements in
favor of having smaller businesses and
not having chains moving in is there a
correlation between those two not
specifically related to group
yeah the the report specifically calls
out no no structured parkour you don't
to require structured parking for retail
because a large a ladle a larger retail
development is more likely to be able to
whose effect that of an example and I'm
curious if that's because of looking at
the urban villages specifically so I
think I'm not I want to make sure I'm
answering the question that you're
asking if you're asking is the mix of
uses in Grand Ridge Plaza a concern to
us and therefore we were picking trying
to avoid that I don't that was not part
of it we were looking at recent retail
projects and Grand Rouge Plaza is a
recent retail one that had structured
parking so we looked at that I think
overall we had we had a concern that
from both what we're hearing the
projects we looked at and the model that
came from eco Northwest or the
information that came from eco Northwest
that retail projects with requiring
structured parking could skew to larger
chains that would be more likely to
afford it than smaller local businesses
but smaller chains that could be true up
to we didn't think that there was a
clear indication that this would not
skew the market okay thank you oh you
said that after about 25 percent it
became infeasible somewhere between 25
and 50 percent I understand that but you
said that somewhere above the 25 so how
did you come up with a 33 percent it was
looking at the projects on the ground
and seeing at what point what kind of
numbers we were seeing so in residential
projects we were seeing that most
projects were at 30% if you were a
little bit lower than that but that did
not seem like a big stretch
you get up to 33% and so that's why we
were not concerned with picking that
level with office projects we were
seeing that most projects over a certain
size that's why we picked 5,000 was were
building significantly more even closer
to a hundred percent so in the retail
who would actually if we went forward
with your recommendation who would be
the ultimate benefit er in retail right
so who would benefit if we went to 25%
it I just want to make sure I'm tracking
your question who would in the retail
marketplace if we set it at 25% required
structured parking who would benefit but
probably a moderate to larger stores and
chains that could afford to build
structured parking what we were seeing
in central Islam the first few years of
implementation is that many that the
development projects were small and they
were building no structured parking
especially when it was redevelopment of
just a pad they most of central is quad
is you know has 75 percent parking lots
that was one of the factors that drove
the establishment of the central is Claw
plan and so many of those can redevelop
and do not need to build any extra
parking so we're seeing that the little
ones are able to use surface parking and
until they do a full redevelopment of a
piece of property structured parking
would be pretty burdensome so let's take
the safe way target shopping mall in the
middle of the summertime it's I would
say on the weekend you could have 40
percent capacity
and Christmas it's almost 100% capacity
so how would this impact that if they
were to redevelop today to this
recommendation what would that story
look like I think that story so the
story would be that they would have to
figure out if they were going to
redevelop they probably would only
redevelop if they were able to add more
either more retail or mix of uses and so
for them the question would be how could
they provide the parking on the existing
land would and I think that would
probably mean that they would choose to
go to structured parking because that
would be the only way to increase the
density they could increase the density
slightly but not that much without going
to structured parking so this
recommendation here is saying that they
would have to make a certain first of
all retail being the exclusion we're not
requiring them to have structured
parking but we are requiring residential
and office to have structured parking
minimums that correct yes okay well if I
want to build an office complex and it
turns out that I go over my own and it
becomes infeasible at 30 30 % how does
the city work with me as the developer
to address the three percent parking so
you're asking if my project and you want
to build an office project and you feel
that it's infeasible to do 33% parking
what what role would the city have in
working with that property owner some
general guidelines of what what would
happen well I think we'd want to sit
down and understand their assumptions
and where the concern you know where
was it the construction type where they
may be building to smaller project to
not be able to make that feasible is
there an opportunity to work with
another property owner nearby to jointly
redevelop to share the cost of the
structured parking I think we'd want to
sit down and understand what was driving
them to it to perceive that it was
infeasible okay because there is no
wiggle room correct Lucy basically
mentioned this report there will be no
exceptions correct now when one of the
okay to make comment oh I'd like to just
jump in if I can so you know one of the
things is and in you know so eco
Northwest basically set up parameters to
say somewhere in this range it's going
to be infeasible to get what you want
under the current market values and
market structure that's in place right
now what we did is by looking at the
existing projects that have been coming
through the pipeline recently we we
establish what we felt was a reasonable
tolerance for how much structured
parking was coming with with projects
and so as you look at the medians I
think are really important so right now
the medians for both office and
residential or 31% right and so you know
as we look at office so right now we've
got one office project that's in the
pipeline on Gilman and that's Gilman
loss that's a hundred percent structured
parking for that office project Costco
is coming in there a hundred percent
structured parked you know and so as I
think about 30 percent and again getting
back to the goal here the goal here is
is and I think staff felt like we were
proposing a modest requirement as an
initial requirement for the developers
to say okay look we're really serious
that we need to start using our property
within central Issaquah within the city
more efficiently right and so if based
on both the economic analysis that econ
Northwest did plus the tolerances in
projects that were happening in our city
I think we felt like you know moving 33%
for both residential and office made
sense so that's that's that's the
premise for how we built this and that's
where we should be talking about you
know do you like the thought process
that we we use to get to this place or
do you feel like there's some flaws do
you feel like you know we don't want
this to happen so one of the things Joan
about your question is so office for me
I could take all these very differently
you know retail you know so retail
structured parking really only happens
with really large retail projects right
I mean if if when when Denny's got
demolished and Corner Bakery came in you
know for us to have a parking garage
come with that small retail space would
not have made any sense but when you
talk about you know hundreds of
thousands of square feet of retail
you're talking about Bell Square
you know we push Grand Ridge Plaza to do
that structure up there they didn't feel
like that that was economically feasible
for them but they did and I think
they're glad that they did that but we
are talking smaller scale it really is
not for the suburbs and we are still a
suburb retailers in the suburbs feel
like they want to have convenience
parking right in front of their stores
and that's typically surface parked so
part of my concern as your Economic
Development Director is if we were to
put a requirement on retail I think we
would basically just most likely
stagnate any retail redevelopment in our
city and so that's one of the reasons
why the administration is not proposing
a retail component here but when you
look at office you know right now Class
A office space has structured parking
and I think what we're trying to say is
from an office perspective you know
we're not Bellevue we're not redmond our
office niche is a niche and anybody
building office here it's going to be
fairly small scale and doing it as class
a with some structured parking I don't
think is a stretch my opinion hello
your recommendation is that we
we do not change retail requirements now
but we only look at office and
residential yeah so I think I feel
comfortable looking at looking at the
econ Northwest study and then the the
meetings that we've had so far that I
don't think the 1/3 requirement is going
to inhibit any any future development
and then central is about given the
direction that land values are going so
my question so I'm going to kind of move
the conversation a little bit one is
kind of a quick one up question than to
I think I want one that I want to have
the rest of the rest of the Commission
discuss first off you made a comment
about how you want to have structured
parking because you're concerned about
the redevelopment potential of these
lives
none of these lots of but but the
redevelopment potential of these
projects is there any discussion of
having design centers dictate the type
of structured parking there's there's
been some some discussion nationally
about ensuring that structured parking
are done on flat I'm not sure the
technical term would be but that the the
parking structures are flat and not
sloped so that the particular parking
structure can be repurposed into
something other than Park you know in
the future and so I'm curious so that's
something that we've taken into account
several design standards rather than
strictly our parking standards so I'm
just going to back up one second because
we did talk about this a bit with Landon
Shore and we had a lot of conversation
internally so one of the challenges with
the moratorium work plan the six items
is they're overlapping and you're
dealing with them sequentially and so
one of the things that we liked about
the schedule for parking is that parking
has implications for almost all of the
other moratorium work plan items
especially architectural fit and urban
design as well as vertical mixed-use and
affordable housing
yeah no if that's not FSI relevant for
today we can save that for a later later
touch point so we we have certain design
standards for parking already it is also
one of the items that our consultant on
architectural fit and urban design is
looking at but I mean it's important
to recognize exactly the point that
you're making which is that the choices
that we make whether we keep structured
parking encouraged or whether we require
structured parking have design
implications and that we have to look at
that within those other items but
understanding how I think one of the big
drivers for this from within this piece
protecting in particular is are we
efficiently and effectively using our
land and so we absolutely need to think
about design but I think this piece is
probably more focused on the efficient
use of land that's fine as I think we
can say that for another conversation so
then so then my I think the more the
question that I really want to hear
discussion for the rest of the council
is on the the memo and the analysis has
all been done very much discussing how
do we have more structured parking and I
think the more relevant question is how
do we have less surface parking which I
think by asking the question the
opposite direction thank you we may get
to a slightly different policy
recommendation because I think when you
look at why we don't want surface
parking you discussed the the lack of
density in surface parking I think you
can get to that by requiring density
minimums and far minimums other than
strictly structured parking and then
have a need for structured parking
simply be implied in a particular
density minimum and I think also I don't
remember if this is this is discussed
directly in the material but in the
context of trying to evolve central
asuka from being a suburban environment
to a more urban environment is the fact
that surface parking tends to degrade
the pedestrian experience as you as you
navigate the city and so I think and I
think this this is the appropriate venue
to have to have this discussion but we
can we can maybe put this aside for
another more like the MU by I really
like to see something that as we move
towards encouraging structured parking I
would also really like to see something
that discourages certain types of
surface parking because I don't I think
if I look at a project that has surface
parking in the back of a lot that's
facing away from any price
Mary Street in a primary pedestrian
access I don't really care if its
surface structured if it's surface and
we need more density later acknowledge
be redeveloped but that surface parking
isn't taking away from the urban
character of the particular neighborhood
but I think having new developments that
have a suburban style of surface parking
I think does not contribute to the
transition from a suburban urban form
that were seeking with this type of Pro
structured parking policy so I think can
be really helpful to in addition to
requiring a certain competitive
structured parking looking to
specifically discourage certain
placements of surface parking because I
don't I don't think the problem is that
we that a new development will have
surface parking I think the problem is
that in development we'll have surface
parking where there is a large surface
lot that is between bus stop and the
front door and office building and so I
think I think if if the concern is we
want in structured parking is one more
density I think we should just have
density requirements and whether or not
they get to that density via structured
parking a structured parking or doing
parking outside or whatever I think is
kind of relevant what matters they
deliver that entity we want and if we
don't if we want structured parking
because we don't like having traditional
suburban surface Lots that are in the
front of the building we should just
simply not allow surface Lots along
primary street so we had a discussion
around the amuse I think it at a land in
charming a couple months ago where we
talked about requiring that the first
floor of buildings along a primary
material such as Gilman we simply
potentially would just simply require
that that has to be commercial retail
because that's what we want and we don't
want someone building apartment
buildings that aren't excused along
specific streets I think we can use the
same toolkit and say along particular
streets you just can't have a surface
lot that faces that Street so I think if
that if that's what we want more density
and not suburban surface Lots
I don't think simply requiring
structured parking achieves either of
those goals I think we should have a
particular policy that more directly
achieves those two goals rather than
simply trying to fill
to sign a particular structure to
non-structured parking ratio that was
kind of a long comment no that's okay I
tried to make some notes so we do have a
minimum density requirement in the urban
core we have a minimum floor area ratio
requirement in most parts of central is
cause certainly for larger properties we
have building placement requirements
that build two lines and a certain
amount of street wall required currently
which puts the buildings of the street
and the parking away from the street so
I think you know in that sense we've
addressed some of those and you know
there may be other opportunities and we
can certainly discuss that I think one
of the challenges in in with surface
parking is that it does support some of
the other things that we're trying to do
so for instance if you have a full block
development it may be difficult to get
it all in the middle of the block and
have building all the way around it I
mean in other words not pick one street
that's the loser and other streets that
are the winner foot but I think don't
you but don't you get to those and I'm
just gonna challenge you on that for
sake of discussion but don't you get to
that through all those other policies
that you just walk through that you know
we've already checked the box we have
density requirements we have street
facing my kids we're not going to join
right but have it a building face to
Street and if a developer has a lot that
they want to develop and has a density
requirement to think that they can't
meet with surface parking and they can't
put surface parking in any of the four
streets then they're going to build
structured parking and I don't I don't
see and then so I want to he responds I
don't see how having a structured
parking requirement in addition to all
those other things that we already have
I don't see how it's going to drive any
different sort of development well I
think what we've seen is we've had those
tools for three years and we aren't
quite achieving the vision that we want
and I think the other piece that I would
add and then Keith had something he
wants to say is that we're also one of
the other challenges that we're finding
is that there is a
a value placed on both streets and
greenways such as our creeks and our
parks and other parts of the green
necklace and what we're finding is that
again something gets sacrificed along
the way so it's it's not that surface
parking alone will solve that I don't
think it will but we want to add that as
another tool to try and get to the
vision because what we're finding is
that even though we have many of the
good tools that you've identified in
place we're just not getting as far as
we want to be in terms of achieving that
vision certainly so I think my takeaways
and I think we just need to strengthen
those tools have more rigorous density
requirements have more rigorous Street
facing requirements rather than trying
to get through it do parking I think
we're trying to tackle the the symptom
not not the root cause I think I think I
think this proposal is fine and I would
support it because I don't think of
prohibits any type of development we
want anyways I don't but I don't think
it's going to I don't think is going to
achieve anything I think if I think if
we want to get type of development we
want we need to be using other parts of
the toolkit and not not parking to that
because I don't I don't know I don't
think this actually gets to the issues
that that I think we've seen so far I
mean in Miami in fact I don't want to
leave you alone I completely agree that
this does not get to our goal you start
out with these two fundamental questions
I get you're wanting to focus on the
structured parking element but I feel
like we've forgotten the first question
which is how are we parking in Issaquah
and I think most people agree we have a
problem and I don't think this actually
addresses that problem I'm I really am
not understanding from the study house
staff came away saying the office and
residential should both be at 33% and if
you find that you're going to prohibit
retail between 25 and 50 let's aim low
and give it 20 but to say that retail
isn't going to have any kind of
accountability now you mentioned that
with higher density buildings that there
would be more requirement I live in know
what that is because right now I feel
like unless you're creating all
standalone retail businesses it would be
very easy to have let's say plaza 221
you give us this example we've got it on
page 32 of 45 has 57 estimated
is going to need yet has no structured
parking requirements that seems like a
problem to me and it seems like this
little loophole the developers are going
to be able to come in and say well maybe
I would have built an office but it sure
is going to be easier for me just to
brand it as retail and further down the
line depending on how we've changed our
code we're going to be able to have
someone come into a retail space but
let's say they're a dentist office and
they'll just you know replumb it and
we'll be changing these little things to
be able to have the very heart of the
issue which is retailers being able to
kind of be this vacuum that's being
created right now in this proposal I'm
not seeing how we're actually addressing
major parking issues with this so going
back to our question number one
there's no comment right now from the
staff about actually doing structured
parking for our park and ride structured
parking for we want to encourage more
walkability in Issaquah and where people
are actually going to go and park to be
able to use these retail spaces which
don't have any kind of requirement for
providing anything other than the basic
surface structures they already have so
you you alluded to a parking problem
more than once can you elaborate on what
that is because I don't know that we
have a store if you right now city staff
says that Issaquah needs to be a
mixed-use community we want to have less
cars on the road we can't build more
roads right so we need to have more ways
of how people are using those roads so
one primary way would be a Park and Ride
unfortunately our Park & Ride is
completely at max capacity by like 8:00
a.m. so even if you're somebody who
isn't using that park and ride for their
purposes of work if you want to be able
to come into Issaquah and walk to Gilman
there's nowhere for you to go right now
we haven't addressed basic issues I
don't you know we think about structures
that are for instance next to the
library are usually at max capacity the
small little places that we have for
people to be able to come park their car
go to restaurants use the retail build
up the way that we want is a quater look
there's really nowhere for people to
come in and go and we've seen
information that has shown that people
come into our community and leave
because it is bouldering peak times
Friday nights
Saturday nights we've seen that there's
an issue of people trying to be able to
use transit and
unable to because of park-and-ride being
maxed out so when we talk about parking
issues in Issaquah I appreciate this
focus on structured parking but we
haven't actually addressed parking in
Issaquah as a full package so this the
scope of this is not addressing parking
in Issaquah parking issues in Issaquah
this is about parking issues in central
is a clog right so Oldtown not
applicable
Hyland's not applicable where Tantra
Lacroix is central is equai is the focus
of this work item and I think one thing
to keep in mind is I think believe land
insurer already made a decision on how
much parking and decided to leave the
requirements as is and so what we're
discussing here today and correct me if
I'm wrong Keith is what kind of parking
not how much and so and so I think I
think Keith would like us to not get
distracted on volume of parking I think
the question is how much parking so
little hot to you I don't want talking
about that for a little bit because we
can do that so right now so so Landon
Shore basically gave a nod but at the
end of the day what comes out of Landon
Shore and what comes out of the City
Council will be a product of this
conversation as well and so let's just
let's leave that right here so what
Ferren Pierce did is they looked at
right-sized parking and they looked at
how parking was being used as atlas so
they used atlas of the case study
because that's really what generated the
issues and the moratorium item for
parking was the concern that there was
spillover parking issues from Atlas out
on the 7th into the Commons shopping
center and so fare and Pierce did a
parking study and if you live in Atlas
and you have a vehicle you get a you get
a placard for your car that says you're
a resident of Atlas so it's really easy
to tell where this people are parking
because they all have stickers right and
so what they found their conclusion was
that people are parking in sevens and
people are leaving their cars in the
Commons parking lot because they want to
not because there's not parking spaces
available within the Atlas project
itself it's preference so maybe you have
an apartment that's right there on 7th
why would I want a parking space that
might be
farther away back in the project when I
can park basically outside the door
right and so what what Ferren Pierre
said and their conclusion was people are
parking where they want to in parking
spaces that are unregulated and if the
community doesn't like that outcome then
the community needs to have a
conversation about parking regulations
whether that's you know doing a parking
zone or putting meters in or limited
term parking there's a whole group of
tools that the city can use if it
doesn't like how the free parking spaces
are being used as the city densifies
okay so that's the conclusion that the
consultant came up with in terms of was
Atlas right-size parked their conclusion
was yes based on analysis research and
field surveys on what's happening there
now just talking about Atlas I I assumed
or read or I was told that Atlas has
what three hundred and some units but
there wasn't sufficient it was like two
hundred parking places so there was a
big difference between now there was no
one you know more than one to one I had
clean said if I don't unload of it I go
up the top of my head as we try to find
that I'll go and comment I agreed Rory I
don't I don't think we have a parking
issue in central school I think if
you're looking strictly a park and rides
I think certainly we we have more demand
than we can ever possibly meet to
building parking garages but I think
when you're looking specifically at
developments within Centro Scott for
people trying to get to businesses homes
in Center as well I don't I don't think
we have a parking problem
I mean Deptford evidently from residents
that there are and I think so I think
that we have a lack of conveniently
available parking which is a different
problem than a lack of parking period
and so I think Keith is right that I
would much rather see a discussion
around doing
need to have timed parking do we need to
have residential permit zones we need to
have paid parking i I don't III when I
hear a discussion at that mention of
tools we can have the city is actually
not a discussion that's been brought up
but I do appreciate you talking about
the discussion that you think kids wants
to have sure well so I didn't I didn't
think I didn't think that that we wanted
to have a discussion here today about
whether we wanted to charge for parking
whether or not we wanted it moved up the
parking minimums I didn't think either
of those don't you to just kind of move
on the discussion at some point in time
would the city consider looking more
specifically at parking in the central
area err in a central area downtown area
is that on the books to do so what the
council said when we came back with our
consultants not the council's land in
short committee was that the kinds of
control devices to control or methods to
control use of on street parking they
were very interested in that but they
did not want scope creep and so they
asked us to track this and bring it back
as an item next year but they really
wanted the moratorium items to stay
closely hewing closely to the topics
that had been specified so because
Farren peers had done some research
we've asked them to prepare a memo to
summarize that so we have that to use
next year but we aren't addressing that
at this time then just to be clear and
because you set downtown I don't know if
you meant downtown so there is parking
issues downtown and we know that people
use the downtown parking spaces as Park
& Ride
because the that bus stop right across
the street for the 554 is busy from
people who leave their cars in downtown
you mean old old camp where we are right
now downtown old town same thing for me
so I want to make sure if we're talking
in Old Town there is parking concern on
Old Town and the council has asked staff
I believe it's due next year to come
back to the council
with an assessment of how to add parking
spaces to Old Town so Old Town's its own
parking little quandary but for central
is a quad this is what this piece was
meant to focus on so and then to answer
Joan's question Atlas's park at one
point two stalls per unit and what just
to unpack Keith's comment about right
sized parking I just want to many of you
may not know what that is so in 2012
King County undertook a study of
reviewing multifamily throughout the
county and said how much parking is
being provided and how much parking is
being used because there was a concern
that we may be over parking thinking
that that's what we need and as just on
a countywide basis what they found was
that it was generally parked at one
point six stalls per unit and it was
being used at one point two stalls per
unit so I'm sorry what do you think I
can I ask you a question a question so
you said one point two is that one point
to a sign or unassigned because when you
when you take one point two and you have
I have six cars I may not be there but
nobody else can use it so when you use a
number like one point two you have to
know whether they're doing assigned or
unassigned and I suspect it's assigned
because that's why you're getting the
overflow into the grocery store parking
lot
what is something one of the things that
I saw a NAPA that really concerned me
with the smaller units had like point
seven-five in that two years Aquash
standard it's not a full parking space
or it was yeah I think it was one point
is 0.75 is the standard I mean that's
that's not something you can implement
right because you cannot have 0.75 of a
car it works on an average it doesn't
work when you're trying to implement it
so that was that that's the concern and
so is is it assigned or unassigned when
you will talk about Atlas it's both so
they have assigned and
and they I think the point about the
hangtags is it does identify how many
cars there there are certain
requirements that they have I think that
what they're seeing and part of the
reason that and we've been seeing this
at its core islands is that the amount
of cars that people have are dropping
and it may not be you don't agree no I
don't
okay well the studies are very very
clear that with Millennials and that's
the group that is more likely to rent
those units than boomers or Gen X but
with Millennials they are not owning
cars at the same rate they are relying
on transit and alternative
transportation and uber and other
elements other methods than owning cars
or owning multiple cars they may own one
car and not multiple cars why Green
Seattle where there's good
transportation I don't agree in the
suburbs because I don't think the
transportation is good enough but but
that's I mean I I'm a data person so
you'd have to show me data to show it
tell me whether that's that's one way or
the other but I also wanted to make a
comment about office residential and
retail the fact that you'll have enjoy
said some of this so did a j1 is the
growth that the fact that you know not
there's not a standard and being and
actually building that into the plan and
figuring out you know what is this going
to look like five years from now is very
concerning to me the other part is that
office residential and retail are not
independent in a city like a sofa and so
you have standards on too and you have a
third and there's you know there's all
of a sudden you know that there's
overflow from one into the other and
it's it's just a mess so I'm concerned
about the fact that you have on one two
and not on the third and on the fact
that growth is not being taken care of
here
so I'm I'm like to hear more about your
concern about how they relate to one
another I mean when we when we decide
how much parking is required which would
be you know is based on a table that's
related to the uses we would identify
how much parking can is required to be
in a structure which would be related to
either the retail or the office use it
is true that they may choose to
implement that in a variety of ways I
don't know that that makes it a mess
that that means that we have implemented
the uses the way that we intended to I'm
not and maybe I'm not tracking the
concern that your identity I think maybe
it's point of clarification
nothing proposed today changes the total
amount of parking as required of a
retail development correct that's right
so you're asking us is actually to
change parking limits for residential no
parking parking is percentages of
structured a structured versus
unstructured right right if not it's how
your parking not the amount of parking
that you're required to provide okay so
let me ask you a question we've looked
for more mixed-use development in the
centralist qua area and yet these
proposed requirements for structured
parking are split into office
residential and retail what do you do
with the situation that is mixed-use
retail and residential or retail and
office particularly if you are proposing
no structured parking requirement for
retail so just to make my brain not hurt
I'm going to say that if just to take an
example if you had 50 retail stalls
required for the retail 50 parking
stalls required for the retail and 50
parking stalls required for the
residential we would have
you know 15 stalls that were required
for the residential that would have to
be in structured parking and so we would
look for that now the reality is that
they probably would choose to do some
for the retail as well because that's
the kind of that's the way projects get
built is eco Northwest points out
frequently you're building a whole floor
structured parking not a half floor
structured parking so that's why we set
a relatively what we consider a
relatively conservative standard because
we want to push the market establish the
vision but we don't want to have
negative consequences by putting it at a
higher level than the market that we
feel the market can so I think that's a
good point for all of us to make sure
that we get into our brains structured
parking has to happen in floor level
amounts so even if there is a
requirement of 33% if one floor is going
to end up getting you 40% they're going
to build at that level so I think that's
important and it's also important if
we're looking at kind of those smaller
office buildings around the 5,000 square
foot mark which was listed here as kind
of the proposed line is that if that
5,000 square foot office building
requires 10 to 15 total parking slots
they're still going to have to build a
structured parking that would probably
cover most if not all of those as well
that's it's not always true I think it
depends on the method that you park it
built built under counts a structured
correct right so under building which it
to take your example Lindsay I think is
a is a likely one and we are seeing this
in some of the residential projects
where they have say townhouse
at the street and then behind that is
tuck what is under building parking and
then the residence is above that and so
I'm there's not that there's not a cost
or an implicit structural implication
for that but that is different than
buildings say a hole for underground as
we've seen on some slope sites we have
seen Gateway seniors a residential
project built half a floor of under
building parking where it's actually you
know essentially underground and the
other half is a pool and an exercise
room you know so they found a way to do
half and half so I mean that's one of
the challenges is that there are
different structural construction types
and that's another reason that we didn't
set it particularly high because we
aren't trying to get it so fine-grain
that if you build with this construction
type you have this percentage and if you
build with another you have a higher or
lower percentage so so if I look at the
question and I'm shifting topic side so
I like the questions on it so number two
structure parking you know a ensure land
is use more efficiently be discourage
the continuation of single-story surface
parking suburban development so a
specific goal is to not have a little
you know one building one store with you
know a little service parking lot around
we specifically do not want that to
happen so that means that we generally
do not want freestanding retail is that
is that that's fair we don't want a
retail building surrounded by service
parking lot that is not the building
form that we're trying to evolve into I
think that's true so so well do we even
want retail of it be built by itself
well we don't isn't the whole point of
then that the VM you thrust is to always
every to always mix with the office or
residential office or well I think it
had ordered that MN FM we're continuing
to study V mu I think the V mu is
vertical mixed juice just to make sure
know everyone's in on the lingo I think
one of the things that you see with
vertical
mixed-use is that our market isn't quite
ready for it but even if it was
absolutely roaring for it it's unlikely
that you're going to have it on every
street everywhere you would tend to I
mean even in Seattle where they've done
that they had a lot of empty storefronts
for a long time now the market catches
up when you get a certain amount of
density and those infill I don't think
we're quite at that point yet and so
probably more appropriately where we're
targeting certain areas for requiring
vertical mixed-use based on a number of
factors which were identifying how does
it but the how does that interplay with
retail not having structured I guess I
mean I'm thinking out loud here
well I I guess I'm focused I'm focused
on on the piece which I think that we
did not find a ready answer to but the
piece about the single-story retail I
think that part of our the reason I'm
talking about vertical mix juice is that
is part of a multi-story building and as
a preference or a requirement so we're
not requiring multi-story buildings
there are certainly implications land
values structured parking minimum
densities and things that may push
people to that but we I think especially
because we feel that the retail market
though strong here for new rebuilding of
it unless you have a larger piece of
property that or you're doing a full or
sizable redevelopment you're just not
going to be able to incorporate
structured parking and we're not willing
to risk that we would not get new
businesses in on a pad because we've
required structured parking for all
retail uses I've got a couple strategic
questions here then kind of if you can
follow along thinking about the urban
core when we go higher density I'm
thinking two or three hundred units a
building we are not changing the parking
requirements in terms of volume we're
saying that there's going to be less
structured parking therefore there's
going to be more surface parking is that
the argument that I'm hearing no so we
we are we are ensuring that some portion
of the parking for residential projects
will be structured we are not changing
the requirements for how much parking is
required okay clear the requirement now
is zero percent for zero structured is
required right now for residential for
everything okay so when we are looking
at this argument we're saying we're
going to increase structured parking
requirements for high-density
residential for any residential okay so
a higher the structured number those
fewer surface stalls we're going to have
which means we're going to have your
cars parked on street surfaces and less
land being consumed by single stalls not
many not necessarily and the percentage
of the percentage of required parking
that has to be in a structure is the
same no matter the size of the project
obviously a bigger project has more
parking required so it's going to have
more parking in a structure the part
that Keith was talking about earlier in
terms of people using on street parking
is about human nature which is that
people like to park where it's
convenient but some people will park
where it's cheap and some people will
chart Park where will choose to pay for
parking because they like to have a
guaranteed covered parking space those
are the nature of you know the two kind
of parking natures that there are out
there
so in this unit this imaginary unit
hypothetical that's 400 units in size
we're saying we're going to lower the
structure requirement there is no
structured requirement okay so we're not
we're not
Lauren what I've seen is 43% and 33% no
that's that's what that's what's a habit
the numbers up here at the top are what
we found in the projects that we
surveyed being without earth so those
are just what we're finding as a way of
saying well if we look at what's being
built in Issaquah how does that compare
to the numbers that eco Northwest was
finding in their analysis so we are not
we are setting it we're setting it
closer to the median than the average
but we are not lowering our requirement
we are actually setting a requirement
that doesn't exist currently we're
establishing a structure requirement for
residential land and yet where one is
absent today yeah right so that's the
part I was really confused about so I'm
thinking why are we reducing it but
we're not really doing it we're actually
increasing that we're creating that
space yeah okay and I'm still failing to
understand how staff believes the office
and residential knee should be the exact
same percentage for structured parking
yeah I I wouldn't I would be finding all
the way up to hundred percent for office
I don't I mean Kiki do you keep teeth is
admiring my ambition I'm not sure I
would agree with that that's his
characterization at that Sara but I
would say fear III I think you guys
could be could be more aggressive on on
office I think we could be more
aggressive on both I mean I think so so
this is where this is the kind of
conversation I wanted to have with you
guys it's like so we have some data
points and we know what we're getting
without any requirement right this is
just what the market is bearing right
now based on preferences of who's
actually in our community and so the
question is okay how far do we want to
push this bar without and again we're
trying to avoid this unintended
consequences on the bottom of the screen
right because at some point we could say
let's make it a hundred now I actually
think that we could push office to a
hundred because I actually think that
besides the small office space
which tend to be like residential
conversions and other things like that
anybody who's going to build a new
office building in Issaquah it's going
to be class a space they're going to
expect it to have structured parking and
so having either a hundred percent or
you know sometimes having some surface
parking for either for show um you know
couriers and deliveries and drop-offs
all that kind of stuff is kind of norm
but so it doesn't freak me out but
that's pushing you know I think what we
the approach we took was let's go 33%
see what happens and then if the market
is is still responding well and people
are still wanting to develop in central
Issaquah then maybe we move it to 66%
right and so you can you know there's
different approaches here one is let's
go to where we think the market
tolerance can accept it or let's nudge
your way that way so two key tiers the
question is is is this is it on the
table to provide solutions to to a
structured parking disrupted parking for
different businesses and and here's the
example so we don't want to disadvantage
small businesses right in any way so you
know city city garages is the way to
have structured parking and and
accomplish a goal for smaller businesses
where they they have the structured
parking but they don't they don't have
to build something right right and so
they may have a small office they would
qualify as office space right if it was
even if it's a small office and they
don't have the space to have parking so
where so is there is it on the table to
have the you know city create this
structured parking and then have it cost
it out across a bunch of business can we
talk about parking benefit districts and
I think if there's there are two terms
use parking benefit districts and surely
parking your local improvement to staff
thank you can we talk about this guy I
do think it's especially if we want to
go more aggressive than 33% I do think
we would also want to at the same time
discuss those does the staff support
lids it was it was recommended we pay
for it would be paper then did it show
up in the staff part of the docto it
doesn't know
no it was an equal Northwest how to send
the staff support a Winslet where where
are we on that well so I think I think
so local Improvement District has to be
approved by the property owners in the
local Improvement District area I
believe that's actually for the for the
parking business improvement areas the
bids actually talks about being a
financing tool that's actually by a
legislative body yes but you still have
to have agreement of a certain
percentage of writers so the city build
bit so party doesn't build it does that
actually says that the city the
improvements that we don't construct
them we just come up with the money so I
don't know what it's saying because I
don't have it in front of me the way a
local Improvement District word is the
property owners agree to tax themselves
the city builds the improvement on
behalf of those property owners that's
how an L ID works
we haven't do we have any we've done a
lot yes and how's that success rate been
can we talk about that well there are
things like street improvements like
specifically regarding to parking no
we're not done how is that discussed
doing that have what how what's that
audition on not in central is across
well and I think haven't discussed it at
all is outreach telling me I said not in
central Issaquah House staff has not
described as discussed doing a lids in
central Issaquah we have not discussed
doing a local Improvement District for
parking in central Issaquah and why is
that why it has a big business because
we don't think that's the right solution
right can you talk more about that why
is that not a good solution because we
don't think we have a parking problem in
central Issaquah well so I'm going to
take a different tact which is that we
encourage parking districts okay which
is is a less formal I mean that isn't
necessarily a building a parking garage
although it could be one of the
challenges is when you're talking about
multiple property owners who may have
completely different redevelopment
schedules and needs how do we bring all
those people together there
a work program it's directed by the
council to develop those kinds of
districts and to go out and lobby
property owners and educate them and try
and develop that but I think that that
is is not something that you can do
without quite a bit of effort so it's
that doesn't negate what we're proposing
doesn't negate that that could happen
that could be the next step ask because
every three year well every year as
Jennifer painfully knows we have to
prepare a report for the council on the
implementation of central Issaquah and
then there's the three-year more
in-depth report that we do we could
after three years say okay we want to
move that this further and faster and
the way we're going to do it is by
trying to implement one of one of these
various kinds of districts or LEDs but
that isn't the place where we are right
now which is to make structured parking
happen by the action of the city in
terms of financing and building it so so
would you say a lid or a parking benefit
district is a toolkit to increase the
total number of parking spots but not
really good toolkit to change the type
of parking provider I think that I think
it I don't know that that's necessarily
true I just think it requires a love it
places it at a priority of staff time
there's a lot of like a lot of legwork
right and I'm not saying that badge is
not what we've been asked to do at this
point okay so it's so you would use it
more as an economic development tool
frankly I mean so let's assume that we
want to redevelop central Issaquah and
we want to build a bunch of parking
spaces so that that could then
facilitate property owners to redevelop
and not have to provide those spaces
they could buy into a garage basically
and so that's one way to actually incent
redevelopment to happen is to actually
build the infrastructure that makes it
easier for those properties to redevelop
but because we believe that we can we
can privately fund a substantial amount
of
structured parking we don't need a lid
because the because of these these
thresholds are we should should be able
to be easily met by existing or upcoming
development we're taking one small step
towards the vision in terms of more
urban form in favor
thank you sorry wall leanings bad so
we're taking one small step towards a
the more urban form and the wiser use of
our or more efficient use of our land
that then I think that there this is the
first bite at a larger Apple which may
very well include all the tools that
you're bringing up we're just not at
that point yet
so can I then direct the question toward
some of those other ideas because eco
Northwest in their their presentation
here goes through case studies for the
city of Portland and the City of Redmond
and talks about other ways to
incentivize structured parking and those
include allowing an additional story for
the construction they include a density
bonus or a floor area ratio bonus win
and these are on pages 24 of 51 and 25
of 51 right but he's falling through
pages 12 and 13 of the econ record yep
so what in addition to potentially
requiring and putting these things in
place are we considering any of these
other ideas around incentivizing that
use through density bonuses floor area
ratios any of those so we have two may
be modest ones that are already in place
well once not so modest I think they
were very happy to see that with the
minimum floor area ratio we do not count
structured parking to that which is a
pretty important incentive the other
modest one that we do is if you have
under building parking we allow you to
have increased height so it's it's not a
significant height increase it's about
six feet but it does facilitate doing
under building or structured parking do
we have any sense of how successful
those have been any commentary from
developers whether or not that
incentivized this type of development
and whether taking that further in any
of these ways would continue to
incentivize that type of behavior I
definitely I I don't I don't know
directly I know that they were very
happy to get the extra height I don't
know if that was say a tipping point how
much of an incentive it was in their
decision making because there are a
number of factors that come into play I
would love for the the PCC we the PPC or
PC I went son if you want groceries or
policy I'll stop by the PCC afterwards
so III would love to see to come with an
increase in required structure parking
and additional height at six feet seems
a little low I mean it's certainly
better than nothing but III would love
to recommend to Landon Shore and a
council that if we're going to inquiry
structured parking no give them an extra
six feet or something like that I think
I think if we're going to make one one
small step in this direction let's also
make another small step and another and
another another tool that we have so AJ
where you could have proposed like a
threshold like fifty like so at what
percent so so right now if we're going
to mandate thirty three and they go to
what do they now get that bonus of
whatever that might be if it's
additional height or density or whatever
that to a question I was because you
need to have that you need to actually
figure that part out right so if you
want them to do one can I inject for
just a moment
if one do one do one one stall and one
structured stalling no I was I was
assuming that they would be having to
build 33% if you're so if you're so
you're suggesting that if they do what
they're required to do that they get
extra height you know but I guess in
that case you're basically just raising
height limits then yes if they require
33% and then they achieve or they do to
impose a sticker percent then you give
them a good point of those things that
way ya know and I would say yeah if you
if we're gonna require 33% and staff
doesn't want to say require 50% because
there it is too aggressive let's require
33% and then if you hit 50% or maybe for
office 80% sounds like that's um I mean
these are these are arbitrary but you
know have have have have a requirement
that we feel like isn't going to
prohibit any project from happening but
then on what are more aspirational
structure requirement is let's have more
aggressive benefits and it sounds like
height limit is the one since we're
already at zero FA are I think having
higher height maybe maybe increasing the
total number of FA are but I don't know
if the council have an appetite for that
but well maybe give them an extra maybe
give them an extra six feet if we hit
kind of what our aspirational structure
parking so just to make sure I'm
tracking what you're saying when you say
an extra six feet do you mean on top of
the six feet they order to get now so
we're at a total of twelve correct okay
I just wanted to make sure we weren't
getting half story
and then so one of the things that's a
little bit of a challenge right now is
we have a density bonus program that if
you go over that height or over a
certain density then you have to either
pay or provide open space or do
affordable housing depending on your
land juice so the question is are we a I
would say I would say though I would say
those would not change because if you if
you're giving them that extra six feet
but they don't want to pay into open
space they just don't take advantage of
the extra six feet okay so then we're
not really giving them anything okay
that's okay so I think if you were going
to give the
the extra 12 I know
package might be something they delayed
right Boyd might repeat after my second
yeah uh-huh
yes I'm the puppet over here so the
existing code has this density bonus
provision and the we had reckoned staff
had recommended some changes to that
program right before the moratorium and
I think that that council is looking at
how the moratorium items shake out to
determine whether they keep the density
bonus program in place and I think
Keith's point is that this may be
instead of being folded directly into it
because it's complicated by this
existing program that hasn't been
modified but that it's a recommendation
to have sort of a Phase two of this that
if if the density bonus program is
modified that that PPC's recommendation
would be to give an extra 12 feet of
height for these minimum parking level
and I think and I think let's not get
tied up on the specifics the high
setting it's more that if when we have a
discussion around bends their density
bonuses maybe it's we recommend that a
more higher level of structured parking
being corporated into that so so one of
the things that came out of the first
phase of conversation of vertical mix
use was that the density bonus program
in central Issaquah is actually a
disincentive and not an incentive and so
basically it one of the things that
we're talking about and thinking about
is what if we put that program or that
piece of central Issaquah basically in
the freezer for maybe the next five
years until the market actually catch
that it catches up to the point where
people want to take advantage of that so
in this time we're now you can't go
above say a certain number of
because the density bonus program is on
hold doing this would allow you those
extra you know one floor or two floor
and I would be if you maximize your
structured parking so right so we get
something we want and then they can
actually then put a higher project
together so it might actually be a great
win-win so just thinking about that as a
construct and so maybe for tonight and
again I'm not trying to put words in
anybody's mouth but maybe what we do is
we say okay let's also think about some
incentives that would be
performance-based based on going above
the requirement that's being set here
yeah I think that's I think that's fair
so I actually have a couple things here
that AJ is brought up and and I think
are really good ideas but to cement what
he and a couple others have said I kind
of wrapped the room my mind around a new
strategy here if we increase the
structured parking I see there's three
major benefits one there's an
environmental benefit there's a economic
benefit and there's a health benefit
from an environmental benefit by adding
more structured parking means we're
going to have more opportunity for
pervious surfaces instead of impervious
surfaces from an economic standpoint we
have higher revenue generation per
square foot of real estate because we
are now allowing those we're now clean
building space where there would be a
single stall and from a health
standpoint we create the opportunity for
more open space which creates both a
healthier psychological and leisure
lifestyle and walkability walkability so
by actually increasing the structured
parking requirements we actually as a
city would be better off because if we
have more units even if we give the
benefit of saying ok we'll give you
higher density we'll give you not hard
as they will give you height by building
more parking structure and parking
capacity will actually give us more
revenue because we
have more units higher density and we
can generate sales tax revenue per
people we can also generate property tax
is all that right I think that the
environmental and the health are correct
I'm not sure that it automatically is
higher revenue generating because there
are higher costs that come with
structured parking so it does encourage
not just spreading out more so that once
you build a bigger building then you
have more density and it could do that
it could generate more revenue but I
don't know that it inherently does that
being not not to get it after I am are
we are we looking at how we tax
structured parking differently than
surface parking zetas
is that a whole nother can of worms but
the fact that you know if you're for
requiring people to build structured
parking does that qualify as an
improvement that results in higher
property tax per space probably think
that was wrong for him okay so then you
ACI see you in which entity with all the
instance the property tax levy sales tax
but we would result in a higher well the
more valuable people aren't put in the
building the more people are going to
shop well no remember remember we're not
we're not changing the total number of
parking spaces well but if you look at
the target parking lot for example if
you took that surface area and instead
built up I know that I I know but that's
the point I tried to make earlier
whether or not it's structured or non
structure it has nothing to do with the
total amount of density and if what we
want to achieve is a denser environment
the house and we should be looking at
our density requirements actually that's
not correct because if you have less
surface parking that means you can
utilize that square footage of space for
higher density business but that if you
only go up one story then does it make a
difference and then but that's that's
true we're going
is where that required structure parking
if we want people to hit if we want to
develop or to hit a certain amendment
entity we should just require a minimum
level of density and whether or not they
meet that density requirement and a
parking requirement through structure
and on structured parking I think is
irrelevant the cars take up space
whatever the course and if what if what
they're what they have to do to meet the
density requirements build structured
parking that's that that's fine and but
I don't I don't see what we need I
receive require I got a run guys sorry
but I think I think this is I'd
certainly don't oppose it because it
seems like it's not going to discourage
development but I don't think my fine
point is I don't think your structured
parking requirement achieves any of the
goals that we think we're trying to
achieve I don't I don't think this will
hurt but I think - I think to achieve
the the density in the urban form that
we want I think we need to achieve it
using things other than structured
parking so all right I got to run I'll
see you guys my conversation yeah great
great conversation happen keep having
fun without me I'm sure glad I don't
have to go through this all the time and
be creative and think about all these
things and then have a group of people
come in and say you forgot about that or
could you do this hmm it's hard that's
my life there's always things that you
don't think of that that could make it
better right and all of us are looking
to make it better so well yeah right
absolutely yeah so so for if we're at
43% structured parking we want to
propose a 33% why would we go lower than
what we then what pillars are willing to
build that now and a related question
which is about this in feasibility so I
know they gave the range but presumably
I mean and also this is only based on
six offices but if I don't think that
the offices would be building at an
infeasible rate if if it were actually
infeasible so it seems that this is on
the lower end of what is infeasible at
least for offices if this is
representative of offices
so I we we can go higher I think what
we're concerned about is we are testing
a market we are trying to look at a
number of factors so that we're making
an informed decision and we're trying
not to break the market I don't know I
had one other thing just about so
working within the framework of these
numbers for requirements for the
different office residential in retail
so it's 33 for office and residential
and then nothing on retail and I think
that a number of the concerns as far as
vertical excuse and then redevelopment
from one type to another from an office
to retail or retail to an office and
then and then also the fact that for
offices if they're too small then you
wouldn't have the requirement it seems
like for retail if retail were also put
at 33% that would be similar and it
could have a similar space requirement
to the office because the reasoning for
why you wouldn't want it seems to me
that the reasoning for why you wouldn't
want to put this requirement on small
offices is similar to why you wouldn't
want to put it on small retail you want
to encourage small retail I think it's
how people use that as Parker's people
who are in in office environment want to
park in structured parking but the
retail developers are concerned that if
they only provide structured parking
people won't be able to park right next
to the store that they want to go to and
thus won't shop as much well for and but
for especially for large projects it
seems like if we want to encourage small
projects and we don't want to encourage
large projects or retail large box chain
stores one thing would be to put the
requirement on the large stores or and
ice right now stuff is recommending no
change to the standards how about we
change the standards a little if we
don't want to put all of our eggs in the
structured parking basket we think this
is going to give us
unintended consequences I don't
understand why Keith is telling me that
but you don't believe that central
Issaquah has a parking problem but
clearly we're trying to address
increasing parking in Issaquah so maybe
the staff think that's like a future
problem we're going to come off of it so
so I'm the economic development director
in addition to being the development
Services Director has the Economic
Development Director we talk to our
businesses every year and our businesses
don't tell us that they don't have
enough parking
so in central is go along Gilman the
businesses that we do business visits
with every year parking parking is a
concern for every retailer but signage
is there are other things that drive
their needs parking in Old Town is a
concern for the businesses in Old Town
but for central Issaquah what I can tell
you is parking is not the main issue
right now it's traffic
so so one piece I want you guys to be
aware of again I think it's about parity
is to our knowledge and we did we did as
much research as we could we could only
find one other city that was proposing a
requirement on structured parking and
that's Federal Way and they've had that
legislation cued up for a long time and
has not been able to get their council
to approve it so so we are we are going
to be seen as being someone who's doing
something that nobody else is doing by
just requiring structured parking in the
developments that are coming in central
Issaquah so so that's one of the reasons
why we're taking a fairly conservative
approach to this is because we're kind
of jumping out there where no other than
other cities are not doing that so this
is a piece of information I want you
guys to be aware of so then what are
other cities doing that are achieving
structured parking are they achieving
structured parking because their land
values are more expensive and land is
less available and thus it just becomes
a requirement are they achieving it
because they have the density
requirements and
and it's required because of that what
is this because because they're workers
that's baked in already to their numbers
they have to achieve it and it's the
most economical way for them to do it
it's restructured parking because they
already have to achieve a certain amount
of parking
we're not moving our standards at all so
so everybody does things a little bit
differently so like for Redmond around
Cleveland Street
they've mandated mixed-use for six
blocks basically so you're getting
structured parking and one of the things
I was going to say Lindsay is if you're
getting five over one if you're building
five over one your structure parking
that just because of the quantity of
parking that you're providing you're not
going to build that expensive building
and then surface part behind it it just
it won't it won't that nobody does that
so so the cities that have certain focus
of development activity they're getting
the structured parking because of the
densities so like downtown Bellevue
they're getting structured parking
because of the densities that are
happening there but there's a land value
and market driven outcome and not a
regular regulated outcome at least as
far as we understand when we discuss the
central area plan forever and ever
ninety percent of it about of it was
retail at the bottom and and residential
above and it's not required is there
areas of the city that of the central
area that you think are so important to
have that kind of a structure that you
can actually require it to be put in
there the vertical mixed-use where you
can retail on the ground floor and
residences above it I mean you have to
do that if you're if the if the plan is
what was created in the central area
plan you're going to have to require
that I know that you tried to get it
into Atlas and Atlas didn't want to do
that but there's there was no
requirement that they had to do that so
are you planning on putting that into
some areas right that's a separate work
plan item for the moratorium
and we are looking at certain areas
where it may be required okay that's
good to hear because it wasn't there
before
right I want to bring up a question
about Atlas at the moment and use that
as a model
if Atlas was at 100 percent capacity
under capacity of what 100 percent of
occupants occupant capacity would
there's parking structure become
completely full and would their lot
become completely full if that's the
case then with those cars then you would
have overflow onto the streets and then
into the Commons is that assumption
reasonable I don't think that we think
that's what's going to happen based on
the studies that King County has done in
comparable locations projects of this
size and type have parked at about one
point two stalls per unit which is what
they provided that doesn't count in in
the on street parking which would be
available for guests or for sort of a
safety net if that number is not
specifically correct we are seeing a lot
of on street parking near Atlas but
that's about convenience and human
nature not because there isn't enough
parking on site right and I understand
that's why I said it a hundred percent
capacity because right now it's
convenient parking and then the
convenient parking becomes heavily
impacted so people then have to park in
the parking lot a designated area in the
parking structure that they have right
and that's why the city may decide wants
to discuss whether we need to be doing
something to or control on street arm
Street parking is used could be time
limits could be residential parking
zones could be meters
lots of different tools that the city
can discuss and and think about whether
the costs are worth the benefits so and
if we going back to the central core and
that five iron unit complex I was
telling you that about the hypothetical
the structured parking would then become
more convenient to the residents because
it could literally they're living above
parking right whereas as Alice right now
it might be more convenient for them to
park on the street because their unit is
facing the street and they don't have to
go to the back of the parking lot but if
you have 12 storey buildings now the
majority of those residents would say
convenient parking is actually in the
garage structure so having higher
structure require or having higher
structured parking requirements would
also be more convenient so the impact
there would be because your feel good
high Abood right because I'm not
building I'm not just thinking about
Alice I'm thinking I'm looking at Alice
but Atlas is more spread out but when
you go towards the core and even looking
at where Rolly will likely be those
units are going to be 12 stories high
give or take so you can better that the
fact of convenient parking is it's great
if it's right on the street right in
front but the reality is those streets
might handle 12 cars at tops so the
convenient parking would then be
structured parking so by adding more
structure requirement we're saying we're
actually going to be giving people a
benefit of the doubt and give them more
convenience higher capacity can you
require in a 12 story apartment building
and you require that the higher you go
that that it goes above the 33% and you
add the extra parking into it we can
require whatever we want I know so but
but everything has an economic impact
right so
as we require a more expensive building
because now all of the parking or a
bigger percentage of the parking is
being instructure
you know that's changing then the lease
amount that those units will go for
because they have to recoup the cost of
building the facility right and so part
of as we as we try and balance out all
these things because we want we want
great urban form which tends to be more
complicated and expensive buildings but
we're also worried about affordable
housing and what it costs to run an
apartment in our community and so part
of this is finding trying to optimize
all those variables in a way that gets
us the best city at the end of the day
and so all I'm saying is just think
about there's always going to be a
counterbalance to whatever whatever
button or lever we push right and it's
either going to be higher rents for
apartments or higher lease space for
offices or higher lease space for retail
as ultimately you guys wanted to push
something that direction so so that's
the that's what we just have to keep in
mind as we're thinking about percentages
I was just trying to yeah
continue on and sort of go down from his
comments about actors parking under
buildings and stuff so the cost
difference and all of those things that
you have to add in and the Builder will
have to decide you know he's going to
have to look at the neighborhood and see
what rent can be you know his highest
rent but he can go up to or it's not
going to be rented so he's going to put
that into his development plans and
seeing if he can put in that kind of
parking he might go down and not have to
do at all but but it would I think what
is important and keep in particular if
when we have these conversations it were
really helpful to have data that shows
us okay so we do this and this is how it
changes because you're sure of the
assumptions that we made now I'm I see
most people here all the people who
talked are tend to be data people and so
you know saying we think is is a bit
harder for us to
to consume we want to see that you know
that the you push down on this it goes
up by percent so much that kind of stuff
sure and and so part of why you've got
two things here that that look fairly
tight on case studies is you know you've
got you've got an economic firm that did
a model for us and said here's based on
your land values and construction costs
here's here's where the thing tits
somewhere between 25 and 50 very large
amount of anyway so yeah so I get that
and so and and so what we did was we
said what is the tolerance of the market
right because I think for me that's
what's more important it's what what
people have put real projects together
for in our community they figured out
how to get those numbers okay
and so that means that they can then
rent apartments or rent office space for
whatever the market will bear having
that amount of structured parking so for
me I used I thought that was a much
better metric than what we got out of
Eko Northwest so as Vicki said the
averages are higher than than the
recommendation right and so so then so
then there's a disconnect right there
yeah and higher are they on what echo
Northwest predicts us infeasible was the
Lawrence's right but it doesn t v--'s
excuse they're close to the DD right I
mean we're looking we're looking at a
number of numbers I mean I I think you
know one of the things that that's a
challenge and is even if we had a great
model and every single project analyzed
in the city it's not a guarantee that
we're going to get the right number I
think that you know where we're trying
to establish a number that's reasonable
but I don't think that we have enough
data to say we guarantee this is the
right number I just I don't think that
that's the way
that you're going to get a real estate
number that guarantees you going forward
is there is some art to this too I'm not
sure this I think you can benchmark
against similar cities you can do so I
know you you used a consultant but you
can benchmark us to you know what that's
what does that actually look like it
this seems this seems a little too
squishy for me and and a lot of there's
a lot of data that that doesn't seem
like there's this enough consistency so
so I am concerned I think a lot of us
have have had the same system same
reaction and that was what Landon Shore
when they said hey we need to question
that 33 percent recommendation give us
more data send it back to PPC and so
we're looking at this and going okay
yeah we looked at the data that you have
but the the infeasibility
financial numbers were looking at that
and going that doesn't make sense for
the projects that we're actually seeing
and the projects that we're actually
seeing there's only six four and 14 for
us to make the decision based on and
that's too little so what about other
cities the other states have different
economic factors than we do true so so
what Bellevue guess what Kirkland gets
is a different to different market than
is acquired the clay is Issaquah and you
know it would be great if we had 26 and
you know 44 and 114 we don't get that
many projects and and so when we looked
at the projects that have come through
the pipeline in the last five years
that's that's how many there are and we
felt like beyond that was not going to
be a good a good metric because just the
art our sophistication
five years ago was dramatically
different than it is now
absolutely agreed and so so those that
is the whole
range of data that we can use in my
opinion so so keep in terms of
benchmarking so what metrics are you
using to the side that'd be a different
or similar so when you benchmark you'll
never find exactly the same situation
someplace else what you're using is is a
set of things that that you're using to
compare so the benchmark doesn't need to
be in in in this in this state it can be
in another state it's we're trying to
come up with a best practice based on
cities that have had similar problems
and and that's my concern is is we're
using just Bellevue and Redmond assuming
that that's the only cities available to
us so when you benchmark I think there's
you should look at more than just this
area and would you agree I would I would
absolutely agree especially when you say
we're looking at Federal Way who hasn't
passed this and were looking at Portland
and I don't find these to be actually
very good comparisons for us at all so
so yeah so office our office market is
our office market our office market is
highly influenced by Bellevue Seattle
Redmond and those office markets and
i-90 in our location in Puget Sound it
does no good to look at Irvine Orange
County Silicon Valley anywhere else to
try and get a peer on office market for
us what our office market is is that's a
whole conversation in and of itself and
I'm more than happy to sit down and have
coffee with you and talk about that from
a residential standpoint econ Northwest
basically did the analysis as part of
the vertical mix use of what our current
market rate is for residential based on
lease rates that we're getting now and
and they've compared that to the cost of
building a five over one product so
they've done that analysis of
our current market based on property
values and construction costs and so you
know I guess I feel like that the
analysis that was done is as good as it
can be I don't think this is an exact
science I think if you guys want to know
that at 33% we're fine at 34% people
walk away you're not going to get that
because every development project is
different in ways that they finance in
ways that they acquire the property and
in ways that they construct and so I
think the best we can do with this is to
pick a number that we feel comfortable
with and then test it so in doing that
how we looked at the potential ROI of
the incentives because you mentioned
incentives earlier right so if we if a
developer says I can do structured
parking up to 20% after 20% it becomes
infeasible if we came back and said okay
based on our model based on the fact
that every floor that you build is a
hundred people and looking at it from a
10-year standpoint the revenue the
potential sales revenue or sorry
potential tax revenue the city could
generate from each floor of residence
living there would pay for that
incentive within 10 years right so we're
actually paying off the incentive
through their sales right through the
the resident sales then we could help
that developer build that extra
structure or that extra floor and we can
achieve our goals and after 10 years
then we are making money on that
investment
sure so so the state allows for
multifamily tax exemption so that could
apply for residential right now that's
another conversation that the council is
having as it relates to May
the transit-oriented development project
so and it was part of as you guys know
the toolbox that we're bringing forward
in terms of what we could do for
affordable housing so so far up to this
point the council has been hesitant to
say we're going to put incentives in
place for development to happen in
central Issaquah so so so far it's been
regulations or policies but not
incentives now clearly you guys could
make a recommendation to consider
incentives and maybe those incentives
would run along the lines of what we've
talked about tonight in terms of getting
more structured parking but so far
incentives have not been in it in the
basket in tourism in the scent of
doesn't have to necessarily mean that we
are giving money away right so if we can
convince a developer to build more
structured parking then we fill up more
square footage of the lot that they have
with residents right and in doing so if
we if we create a model that says this
is the incentive that will give you and
our objective is to have it paid off in
ten years or 15 years and that after 15
years we will be making money on that
investment that we have we can't
necessarily call it an investment but
the incentive is an investment into our
future right so we're encouraging that
developer to build more structured
parking we give them an extra floor that
extra floor gives us more revenue so
that it makes sense so yeah I'm tracking
on all that and and and I don't think
that so a height bonus as an incentive
for more structured parking you know
clearly that is something that could be
discussed and added as a recommendation
at this point we have not we
not had any incentives included in any
of the moratorium items so far but I'm
not I get I get the logic behind it and
if ultimately you guys want to propose
an incentive at a certain level of
structured parking like as in an
additional floor for building height you
could do that does that model make sense
to you I mean I think in real world that
would actually work yes young man
propose that we open up to public
comment and keep the conversation going
with the folks we have in the room okay
we can certainly do that if you want to
if do you guys have any any burning
questions that that you might forget
that you really need to know I mean we
could discuss this for the next 12 hours
without getting to a conclusion on what
they're asking us to do today which is
where at least we have nothing now we
want at least 33% of course it could be
more about we're looking at 33% as a
minimum as a starter with that unless
there's something else we can discuss
after it not agree with joy I think
these people have been sitting here for
a while so if anybody I'm going to close
this meeting and open up the public
comments and if anybody in the audience
would like to make a comment ladies
first
good evening I'm Christy triple and with
Valley properties at one five nine five
Northwest Gilman Boulevard here in
Issaquah so as I've listened to you ask
questions and as the conversation has
evolved so too has what I wanted to
share with you but I think with the
central Issaquah plan in the urban core
the vision always was how do we overcome
the sea of parking that we have on the
valley floor which was seventy-five
percent so you think about that that's
not the highest and best use for our
land and many developers when land
values increase absolutely are going to
agree with you and they're going to move
to structured parking and they're going
to build the best building possible
within that calm prime so having a
complete compact and connected community
is really important so I think the tools
that you're talking about are important
I do agree with the recommendation of
keeping the parking standards the same
as they are I think we're we have the
right ratios for today obviously that
conversation and how we use our valley
floor and our vehicles or multimodal
options is going to change in 10 or 20
years so think about some tools that you
can do today to help influence the kind
of development you want to see today so
that's one piece and then on the notion
of structured parking obviously that is
an important element to looking to that
future so I think moving forward with
that what's going to be important and
obviously separate from the conversation
about the two questions at hand this
evening of for the public hearing is
asking staff in the city to consider on
its next comp plan discussion what are
some tools that we can put in the
toolbox to really enable that to be
successful and to see the kind of
development we want to see so things
like the park
and Business Improvement Districts are
important how can they collaborate
looking at the shared parking agreement
taking the requirement off the title to
be recorded because that creates a real
problem for developers and their banks
and financing and all the things
associated with that and then also
looking at what are some other things
had one other ideas in terms of the
toolkit oh that's probably because it's
the most hardest I forgot
parking enforcement or management needs
to be part of that conversation in the
structured parking environment because
if you're asking developers to place a
priority of structured parking which is
much more expensive and there's free
parking right outside their door that
they can't actually recoup costs for
that makes it really difficult for
looking at where you make your
investments in a building so I think
that that's important too and I think
that's an opportunity for a community
dialogue next year but how do you figure
out to put some tools in place for today
to make sure that you're influencing the
type of development that's going to
happen today
thanks for the opportunity to comment
and good luck but the coin your first
my name is Mel Morgan I serve on the
development Commission so I get to see
these regulations when projects come
through and I served on the central
Issaquah task force and we built the
central Issaquah plan so I saw it from
the vision at the beginning and I think
the key here tonight is you're really
being asked to make a decision on what
these percentages are that's what the
land and Shore Committee has asked you
to opine on is what these percentages
should be and what the basis for that
would be to achieve the central Issaquah
vision and avoid any unintended
consequences and number one I think we
need to be aspirational than what we do
here
I understand keys issue with trying to
bring businesses in which we want to do
but at the same time we want to be
looking forward and be aspirational in
terms of the central Issaquah plan and
creating as as much of an urban
environment as we can which means
structured parking I do think you've got
the numbers here and if you look in your
package its pages 16 and 17 that have
the charts that showed all three of them
at 25 to 50 percent the feasibility
flipped over so somewhere in that range
I think if you look at residential first
that looked the least feasible but we've
got good projects we've seen six
projects come through in central
Issaquah we've got the senior housing
project Gateway senior that was it was
at 29% when you look at the other five
we had gateway at 49% reeva 78% Vale at
40% Atlas at 76% in in stood at a
hundred percent so we were 40 percent to
a hundred percent without any structured
parking requirement at all I think to
set it at 33 percent is not being very
aspirational about it I think we can set
it at 50 percent if we look at the study
showing that 50 percent it's not
feasible it's sort of marginal
and we've seen projects come in near 50
or above for many of these I think you
should set it at 50 percent as a good
starting point for residential for
office if you look at the chart it's it
leans more towards feasible at 25 then
unfeasible at 50 which means to me it
leans more towards 50 we have five
buildings that were over 5,000 square
feet one of them was the ProLiant of
Surgeons that was 0% parking or
structured the other four were 31% 33%
55% and 93 percent I'm going to look at
that we've got a minimum of 30 31% of
those four projects and two of them over
50% again I think we can go at at least
50% for office and we've already got the
market support for that in what's been
built and then finally with retail which
is a tough one for standard retailers
that wanted an easy lot for people to
drive in get out shop and leave but
that's what is a clause had as Christie
pointed out where 75 percent we were 75
percent of the developable land was
parking lots when we started looking at
the central Issaquah plan and most of
that was for retail we had far more
retail than we had residential or office
so retail it's a tough one but I think
we do have to have a minimum there and
maybe that's where you said it at 33% if
not higher but I think we should have
some minimum for retail because we
already have a lot of retail downtown
Issaquah my final question would be what
do we do with hotels and other types of
developments the Spring Hill Suites was
recently built at a hundred percent
structured parking so I think with hotel
properties you could easily go at at
least 50 percent if not more but I don't
know if Lane assures can consider that
separately so thank you very much just
to follow up on that if isn't there
requirements
or if a new business comes in new retail
don't they have to abide by a certain
number of parking spaces that they have
as they're required to have so there is
some kinds of requirements already right
so right now as with anything you know
if you wanted to build a new retail
space it would need to meet the parking
numbers so a certain number of spaces
would have to come with each one of
those new businesses okay so at least
there is some kind of a overing over
important you know connection that they
have to have there's some on retail and
requirements you know so retail is the
hardest one and and that's probably why
you guys are feeling less comfortable
with it you know I mean it's it's hard
to predict retails future frankly
brick-and-mortar retail is changing
dramatically you know that when you see
Sears not make it when you see JC
Penney's probably not going to make it
you know it's it's it's hard it's hard
to predict what kind of how retail is
going to change in the future you know I
can look at the empty staples building
and say you know somebody somebody
demolished that building and built the
same building there with surface parking
that would be that'd be horrible but
right now you know it's it's hard to
predict where this should go frankly for
we here so we have one more person that
I'm sure see was going to say all hi my
name's Keith Niven and I'm the economic
development director I'd like to add
Keith does his job and does it well so
I'm not going to hate Nike so a couple
thoughts one was I guess these are
aspirational statements and it's a place
seems very much it these two thoughts
but their heads one is what's the is
equality we want to be any others how do
we get economic development
and construction for a place that loves
its natural beauty when we have
impervious services that very much is
against that natural beauty so I would
agree that these numbers that are
represented here seem too low for
aspirational statements we need to be
shooting higher both in what we get and
what we want I think if you just have a
social standards you need that in code
though if I think I did hear Keith say
that office might already be at a
hundred percent so I guess I would set
that out as a goal already to start that
is a ten percent
residential thirty percent as minimum
retail I guess I have two thoughts one
is begin answer amount of sprawl if you
don't require retail to be kind of
centered area you can just go out and
build a lot tear down the trees and have
service service parking I think G and
just force that to be structured
together with and to defeat that sprawl
so I also I think there is a cumulative
effect of I think the example of the
corner bakery was put in an existing
place at some point you get a certain
level of density and don't have
structured parking you're then I'm going
to come back to the city and say we need
structured parking and the taxpayers
have to pay for that I don't think
that's a long-term goal either we need
to say not just who you are now but who
want to be I think if you don't require
the structured parking today to look at
the growth of the area in Puget Sound
we're not going to be that place we want
to be that has a great beauty I think
there's a switching gears a little bit
there's a I've heard the comment
expressed that we requires tried to
focus growth and development in this
central plan but we're getting a lot of
the growth in development outside of the
central planning area so I think we need
to look at a topic for insider' ation is
down zoning certain other areas we're
down zoning
eliminating construction in other areas
to center to focus it in a core area to
not have built and spread that's a piece
of it I think another piece is where you
I I think you still want a zoning that
limits the height of you buildings to a
certain zone outside of a sub core area
so that we don't have spreading growth
or a way to control that or to enforce
the structured parking maybe those
things might be considered outside of
the structure that I'm looking to the
policy Planning Commission to consider
things in a wider perspective than just
the things that you get presented
specifically by city staff please keep
up the good work
Thanks I'm sorry one other thought and
it's a process thing I guess I'd like to
see in the agenda place where it simply
calls up public comment as an item topic
that's discussed not just as something
we add partway through that way just
maybe hopefully increases people wanted
to come and talk and increases democracy
if they know that there's a planned
place for that I think that's a good
thing Thanks so John can we propose
something and to go for without I'm
going to close the public comments and
open it up to you so we so actually I
think both of both and I'm sorry I don't
remember even and they they they said
something but I was thinking as well so
I think for me I would be comfortable
with 5050 and 33 I I really I really
cannot see not having a standard for the
retail and so for me that would be the
so I don't I agree with the AJ that it's
not going to solve all our problems
I think density is the one that will
solve the problem
but if we had to have the structured
parking standard to me that would be the
place to go and I would agree with that
idea but I would put a minimum size
requirement on the retail before
required requiring structured parking
much like we're talking about for office
at 5,000 and I'm not sure where that is
on retail there's very few projects here
to look at let's see well they said that
was 10 to 15 parking spots or at that
size or office but not necessarily for
retail so the the four projects that we
have here you've got the plaza 221
retail which required 57 parking spots
for 11,000 square feet and then you jump
up to 118 thousand square feet with over
Lake Center so I'm not sure if there is
any information on understanding how
many parking spaces per kind of set of
square footage on retail that might help
make that decision because we might say
with retail I really don't want to see
50 parking spots out in front of
something in central Issaquah so still
being back we can actually create I
think a motion that we asked the city
for what is reasonable for retail
structured parking and they can come up
with some cases and present them what to
us so that we can have a better
understanding of what we want to
recommend in terms of a number we don't
have enough data to make that assessment
tonight I think we have a reasonable
amount of information to make the
assessment for a residential office
retail and hotel and actually though yet
my own mind I put down 50% for
residential at and 60% 50% for office
and he just happened at the same number
so we want to make a decision on those
and then
the city to come back with some but they
think is acceptable for retail with some
cases so we can make a decision on it
I'm going to jump in and say that I love
Ron how you like to you like to get more
information and put the brakes on
because I think all of us want to make
the best choice possible and get as much
information as possible but based on
where we're at I think that we need to
make a recommendation tonight that
doesn't necessarily need to coincide
necessarily with what we initially came
in with but the idea of saying let's get
more information and put it off I think
might be detrimental to our community in
terms of moving forward with the agenda
items that we need to I am a big
proponent of what LCS said even though I
agree with her about the squishiness of
what we're looking at I think we have to
say this is the best that we've got
right now and we've had suggestions of
saying we're going to we're going to
take a shot and see how it goes so given
that I think we should I would be a
proponent of of moving around with these
numbers a little bit right now I don't
know if I would love to hear from staff
saying yes we proposed this you seem to
be in favor of something maybe you have
a more of a tiered system obviously you
like retail being less than and I think
that we're seeing office as being
something that can easily support having
more so maybe that means that it's kind
of a tiered gradual amount of increases
but I also like I'll say it would be a
proponent of changing these numbers so I
just want to make a couple comments you
had up there on the first slide you put
that back up at six is that is that the
slide for the next one
that one that they have put in 43%
parking I'd like to know what they're
doing with the rest of the cars I mean
that's only half of the scenario you
need to know okay there's 43 percent but
there has whatever 50 some percent
that's on the street or you know you
have to look at that at the same time
that you look at how much parking they
provide that doesn't mean too much to me
because there's so much more or maybe
there isn't anymore
when you look at at those particular
things and the second thing is when we
talked about the central area it was
always with the assumption that there
would be green necklace and open areas
for people we want a density but we
wanted openness at the same time and I
don't know if I can go back and say
we're just going to have these buildings
be 33 percent or 50 percent without
knowing that how much area we actually
have to build on giving us all the green
stuff around it so we might require more
than 33 percent we might require more
than 50 percent if the bottom line is to
get what the central area wanted and and
imagine for our city so I think 33
percent is too low I agree with with
some of the other commissioners here I
would like to get some kind of a emotion
tonight and even if it's just two of the
three but we need to progress onto this
I think that we're kind of looking at
you know we want the retail to have a
certain amount but I don't think you
know are you going to go back and look
at the retail that we have we're going
to require more things if you're putting
in a burger a burger king of some some
store
are you really going to require you know
parking you know structured parking I
don't think that a small grocery store
something is going to be able to do that
so what Lucy answers my question before
Keith gave me this wonderful explanation
I asked her why what would you do if you
come in with 31% to the 33% you said we
work with you we do this we get you know
and I like that approach from the city
that they're willing to work to see how
you can put it together
to even get more density and more I
would rather have all the you know
structured parking so I get 45 different
parks that I can walk around and it
doesn't bother me as much so I would
like to have a motion tonight I think
we're at a point where we need a motion
I think we've discussed all the stuff
that we can you know little things that
are in it so would somebody like to make
a motion and I ask one more question
okay hotels where do they fall between
office retail residential well that's
the question I was just discussing with
Keith I mean those three uses that we
proposed don't cover every use that
there is pack city and and so for
instance restaurants I'm not sure would
fall into those categories we didn't say
commercial which would capture every
single what would capture a lot more
uses institutional we're talking about
through a separate just owning change on
school industrial and warehouse I mean
you know so we're not we we didn't try
and hit every category but we should
talk about other categories I mean as
now identified the Spring Hill Marriott
is 100% Raleigh hotel is zero they they
plan structured parking
as future phases and the parking lots
they built will come out but that that
is that is what it is the hotel that was
planted his quoi Highlands would have
had maybe 75 67 75 percent structured
parking and it was not financially
feasible and so they can move forward
with it so you know again we don't have
a big sample of hotels to guide us
though in terms of hotels it it takes
care of the rooms accept hospitality has
a whole lot of people that work there
and so you if you're not counting that
then you're under you got less parking
spaces and you shed or lose less parking
the new strip so how you define a number
of parking spaces for hospitality is
very different than having it for
residential or or retail right there's a
two different things well and and I
think what you're saying is whether the
parking requirements based on and
they're on a per room basis that isn't
just for guests but takes into account
the staff that serves the hotel so and
you know rather than get sidetracked on
that one thing that I think would be
important in taking this back to Landon
Shore is to have a list of those things
that this doesn't cover such as as you
said restaurants I'm not sure now that I
think about it whether or not grocery
stores are included in that and if I was
going to make a recommendation on retail
structured parking requirements I would
have to think about that you know are we
just talking about a larger retail
environment like what happened in the
highlands and high street or what about
a grocery store that goes in are we
requiring that they're so understanding
that scope would be really important
are you suggesting we do not make a
recommendation tonight no I'm suggesting
that we did no I do believe we need to
make a recommendation but we are just a
recommendation body if we also recommend
these are the other pieces of
information that they may need to
disregard our recommendation and move
forward with it I think that's fine so
we make a recommendation based on three
areas that we were asked to make a
location on and make a recommendation
about other areas be make a
recommendation that city staff provide
the additional information for land and
char because one of the reasons that
things you could do that you know that's
that's two different ones yep
give me a give me a notion what do you
think of that what is presented this
evening are we able to come to a
consensus on numbers won't we start
there that's what I'm we started
involving your me do that in the
emotional either fail or you change the
motion please do the first two I would
love to ask is that I know you've you
come with of these numbers we tend to
have a consensus of wanting to tweak
those numbers do you have any input as
far as to me I'm seeing a cheered a
tiered system I'd love to see if you're
like nope across the board right now I'm
seeing that you want to have less
requirements of structured parking on
retail and right now it looks like the
market can bear the highest amount of
office so with city staff liked would
the city staff support our
recommendation if it was more tiered
than across the board or do you see
residential and office being the same
seeing as you recommended to us via 33%
across those two so I just want to make
sure I understand your terminology so
when you say tier do you mean that each
of these land uses doesn't have the same
requirement rect okay yeah I don't have
a concern that they might have different
requirements okay looks like I'm going
to propose them that we say that a
retail is at 32
percent I'm going to propose that we say
that residential is at 33% and that
office is at 50% I disagree I want I
would like to I do I have a second on
the motion it was it was not a motion no
I know I know but you know you want to
go there I know that yeah I'm trying to
just test that waters you have numbers
right now so I was actually thinking
5050 33 so 50 residential 50 office 33
hotel I'm sorry we can't detail sorry
okay I want to throw in minimum sizes
there I'm being with the office the
recommendation was 5000 and I think I
agree on that I have no clue where to
put that on retail but I feel like it
has to be there so they have some
definitions that maybe help page 1608
Rita I've they have general midscale
general large-scale in general
neighborhood scale retail definitions
30,000 square feet for a mid scale 4,000
for neighborhood scale your worship is
45 or 50 one that's very good okay so so
yeah so we could use those numbers if we
want to base it on a definition so and
and again this is not like conclusive
it's only one example but corner bakery
I think is either 41 or 4,300 square
feet and I think that would that's a
size that indicates to me it would be
pretty hard to add parking into that
structure isn't that a restaurant also
so it is a restaurant but I'm just
thinking of it as a so-so maybe part of
it the way to go about this is in the
other direction not as opposed to thing
about how many square feet the space is
think about how many parking spaces make
sense to be in a structure right so if
you say let's assume that it's 20 spaces
that's basically let's call it you could
see there tuck under so it could be
under the building or it's two floors
of ten spaces well that's a really small
garage right and so this is where you
have to kind of start to test what does
that look like out once if somebody were
to build this and so you know I think so
the question and you guys had kind of a
little bit visceral reaction to 50 right
a surface parking lot of 50 was bad okay
so what if that was structured
okay well now you could say it's it's
two floors of 25 okay well or it's three
floors of whatever that works out to be
so so it might be easier to think about
it because if you guys thought about in
terms of number of cars we can translate
that into square footage of retail space
based on the standards because the
standards say you have to have a certain
number of spaces per square foot right
so so I don't know if that wouldn't be
helpful or not but that may be I think
that I think that is really helpful to
me I think if we have the numbers that
said this many parking spaces per square
feet and for this size of a building you
could see that many structured spaces
per floor that would certainly be
helpful in making whatever decision that
I'm guessing ultimately landed chore is
going to have to make so maximum Maxim's
are usually one per 400 square feet and
minimums are usually one for 200 square
feet for offices and I think for retail
restaurants that the challenge is
parking is really high now the one thing
that we do typically do is that when you
look at something like where Corner
Bakery went in I'm just wiggling because
I'm freezing the air conditionings like
on high now and where Corner Bakery went
in it's a mix of uses and we typically
use a shopping center standard for
development like that and I think that's
again one type
Jennifer's looking up as fast as she can
yeah it's like one per I think it's it's
three as a max
okay so we could not put a square
footage requirement on it because it
already was going to have to adhere to
what's already set I'm sorry so wait
again during it and by trying to change
the amount that staff has already put
that radio yeah so you could you could
basically say that there could be a
requirement that there's not a surface
parking lot greater than X number of
stalls right so that way you could say
all right so so let's say that 20 we
don't want to parking lot bigger than 20
stalls all right so now if I'm building
a development and it requires 25 I've
got to put those extra five stalls in a
structure somewhere right so that's I
mean you could tackle it that way so
I've got an idea here and I think we
have a lot of different ideas on the
table right now and I know it some of
you wants to make a decision tonight so
let me ask staff if we give you our
recommendations and you help us bake
this into a plan that we can vote on the
next time we meet would that delay would
that delay cause a negative impact in
the agendas so um I I'm only providing
this as an answer to you our agenda
bills due tomorrow oh yeah
so if I just stay on the schedule and
that's what I was going to say is if the
right thing to do is to not send
something forward we can delay it all
I'm saying is to stay on the schedule we
have to have a recommendation tonight
and so here's the thing
Landon sure gave this to us because they
didn't know what to do with those
numbers no every code revision is going
to come through you guys so for vertical
mix use if we do a code revision
everything you guys are going to get to
touch all the moratorium things okay but
the question they asked yes so I don't I
don't think they were out
they were asking staff that question and
we thought that that was useful
information both for you and for the
land in Shore I think what they're
asking for you is to have the kind of
conversation that you're having is you
know what are our consent concerns what
are our opportunities how does this fit
with the vision where might this have
negative consequences are we including
the right lane I mean all the things
that you're talking about are the things
that they're looking for you to have a
conversation about so maybe now we look
at these 45 and use that as a guide and
we make those numbers work within the
next 15 minutes we could come up with a
decision because I think right now we
are in all reference yeah well we have
differences of opinions because we don't
really know how we want to tie those
numbers in and and you've all brought up
really good points about some of these
numbers like well where's a hotel
where's a restaurant come in where is a
supermarket come in so so maybe maybe
again its suggestion to help you guys
with this conversation is staff I think
what's clear that we took a conservative
approach to this no other cities doing
this we said okay let's let's put one
toe in the lake you heard from the
public this is we should be aspirational
not conservative so maybe the first step
is to say philosophically do you guys
think we should be aspirational or
conservative because that will then tip
you towards one side or other of the
spectrum and then if if there's
consensus on that then we can talk about
okay what's an aspirational number that
we all can maybe feel comfortable with
or what's the conservative number that
we might all feel comfortable with it's
a suggestion or make a motion to make a
decision on whether we want to be
conservative level
we can move this thing forward I don't
know that that mattheum oh yeah oh yeah
spiration
raise your target so so I are we agreed
on the 50-50 on the first two it's the
third one that we seem to be stuck on
victus so some people on new information
yeah and so it we're it's the thing that
we're sticking on is so we like the
third is from what I heard we like the
33 we just don't know what that
threshold is that's it right so we've
got a 50/50 and threshold on the 33% is
are we going to impact smaller
businesses that's that's our question
here right right you know yes yes yes
and are we choosing 50% because we feel
like it's aspirational yes I think you
aspirational is go I don't even know the
50% is aspirational I think the market
can bear it when we look at the numbers
specifically regarding office space I
think it's going to be easily this is a
minimum never gonna know they can go to
100% if they want but this is our
baseline minimum so the 50-50 club here
works I think that the retail is so it's
extremely different than its you know
there's so many different different
avenues different kinds of retail
different requirements there is
requirements in the city for a number of
parking spaces for retail units so there
is some basis to to work on this but to
require a small places to have
structured parking is is I don't know
how you can do that I mean how how could
you open a learning center and build
dude who's going to come in and offer
Issaquah those services we have to
provide some you know open spaces we
have to have enough because each one has
to have so many spaces available but
it's
very difficult for the small businesses
now if you're talking and I could have
idea because aren't we talking about the
developers who build the buildings not
the retailer who ends up inhabiting that
building you would just have more
retailers in a larger building is the
idea so we would still be able to have a
variety of services provided to us it's
just not all individually so I have a
big building and you put in ten
different small retail in there and then
require them to pay for structured
parking there's small business on a
limited budget and that's just going to
add cosby there to us or to to them to
be able to open their business and you
know that eliminates Issaquah from
having a good business here so you've
got to be really careful on whether it's
an existing retail space or somebody
building a new space you're not going to
I can imagine that 30,000 square foot
retail business in Central miss applause
it just doesn't sit there but if you
have the big building with 10 different
smaller areas and smaller companies in
there that would work oh sorry
quietly so I don't think that we should
be extremely concerned with putting
higher numbers on on retail that's just
my opinion I think that you know 33 to
me is that is a big number as it is and
I don't think we should go anywhere
further than 33 percent o my Greek zone
I might kill you can't I already 50 33
is what don't think I have a question
for Keith yes on the retail yes help us
understand how to come up with the
number what so right now because because
there is no truck no charge parking in
Issaquah that if you if you create if
you create a situation where a retail or
somebody one who wants to build retail
has to build a parking garage they're
not going to be able to monetize the
value of that with the patrons so in
other words you know you can't charge
the park in that garage because as soon
as you put a price tag on if people will
just park elsewhere they'll find other
free parking close by and do that and
then that will be seen as a detriment to
the retail space and so they'll be
vacant okay so at some point that that
paradigm changes in Issaquah when we
have when parking is at a premium
and then it you can charge for retail
parking so right now what's going to
happen is that retail space will have to
charge its retailers its tenants more
money to offset the cost of maintaining
the garage right and so what you'll have
happen is it'll be a function of the
availability of space so as retailers
look to habitat different spaces within
the city that more expensive space will
go last okay so so if you so any any
percentage on retail I think you're now
to the point of saying I'd say pick a
number because I think you're just going
to basically preclude a number of
retailers from being able to afford that
space so if we want to be aspirational
and create structured parking for retail
yes understanding the the small business
model that Joan brought up is really a
great point that when I'm also thinking
about is the development where Lowe's
and PCC is if in the future
forward-looking when that becomes
redeveloped because of I imagine it will
how large of a retail space should we be
looking at before we put down a
requirement because obviously the bigger
the rewrite the retail space not a
retailer but the entire complex right so
this is this is the struggle we had
which is why we ended up with zero and
you may not like our thought process so
on the very big end of the spectrum a
mall or you know whether it's an
enclosed mall
or an open-air mall like grandage Plaza
or the Commons if the Commons built
today most likely they would have put
some of their their parking in structure
and they're actually we're having
conversations with them about
redevelopment and it's going to turn
into something much more dense that that
part structured parking for that will
happen just because of the value of land
and the amount of square footage that
we're all going to want to incorporate
on their property so then you flip to
the middle size so the middle size are
like the the lows and the grocery stores
and the staples building and those type
of spaces right now there there's not
many new retailers that want to
encompass that size of a space you're
basically talking you know your bigger
chains or you know like furniture
galleries or things that take a lot of
floor space right and so then then
you're down to little so you go you go
really big like like enclosed or outdoor
mall then you've got your big box and we
have we're not going to get more we're
not likely going to get more big boxes
we could I mean one of the reasons why
this came up is there was a proposal for
a Les Schwab Schwab big-box surface
parking not what we want but that gives
a big box
well medium sized box you know but
that's that's one of the things that I
agree with AJ is this isn't the only
tool that's going to get us to where we
want to be at the end of the day though
Keith can I stop you there my biggest
concern and somebody said it and I don't
remember who is at some point if we
don't plan for it now and we don't do
the aspirational stuff now at some point
it's going to cost Issaquah and we don't
have that money right and we're going to
have to pay for that parking garage so
the standards we put in place today are
going to impact us in the future and if
we don't take care of it now we're going
to take care of the future because it's
not going to scale the way district was
growing and the amount of demand there
is for for retail and retail products
it's just not going to scale parking
lots are already really really full and
so they're going to have to put parking
garages at some point so the way I'm
thinking about it is the bigger stores
and how we define the bigger stores we
have to have structured parking they
have to build it in now because if they
don't we're going to pay for it later
so you know that's I I'm not willing to
accept a zero on retail right now for
for larger businesses I honestly there
should almost be a different requirement
retail versus mall mall is a completely
different animal
although it's retail the duck protects
the small mom-and-pop retail shop like
run Street Market I agree we were to
redevelop you're going to require them
love them
parking they can't make that work I
don't think no matter what we tell you
put there you wouldn't be able to make
that work because of the sites there's
benches that's the size requirement or
the demand requirement for for parking
and since we do have are a number of
parking spaces and it's based on I'm
thinking is based on square footage
right of the store not that less dimmers
that's that you can concerns me even
more that's not customers is based on on
square footages to store you know we
could use that so can we go in with a
proposal and I'm conscious of time
because it's way past time and you guys
have been working all day
so can we do the 30 we do 5050 and 33
and then leave the the kind of the cap
on the size of the business to like a
midsize and above and whatever we define
midsize we go with the operate whatever
the operational definition is and I'm
thinking something like that because if
we make it if we make it too small then
then we're impacting small businesses
make it too large we're only impacting
big-box stores and so we need something
in between so that I mean that's what
I'm thinking what do you do so so to
give you some
reference points I'll try and be as
accurate as it can be so so staples is
like 22,000 square feet okay
so bigger or smaller or is that the size
I mean so so okay so if you want
something smaller than that the corner
bakery is a good example you're saying
the corner bakery was less than 5,000 is
just under where details under it right
now if you look at our findings of fact
everything is over 5,000 gross square
feet so I would be a proponent of
keeping that measure I think when we try
to think about small businesses when
it's the corner bakery if you try to in
there I've you know unless you want to
start playing with this city's amount
and saying no I think that's 7,000 or
you want to start quibbling about that
right now we have a baseline do we have
any reason to move that baseline I'm
good to the base the baseline in
defining the fact amendment 3
specifically says residential uses and
office uses over 5,000 gross square feet
we would also add to that and that we
would add into that retail spaces as
well so residential is zero I mean any
residential project of any size had to
do so we require all residential uses
and office uses over 5,000 gross square
feet to use structured parking to meet a
portion of their minimum parking
requirements well that's an error then
because what the code says is any
residential project of any size has to
do structured parking okay so then we're
in the front what in this is the fine
and the findings of fact that we're
about to vote on and amend lucy what's
wrong here what needs to be changed
because right now because okay thank you
mel okay
I have possibly an easy solution to this
tobacco if we we could create a motion
that would save 50 percent of
residential 50 percent office and for
retail we leave it up to Development
Commission to help vet those numbers
because it almost okay to be closer to
the development to really understand
that I would agree because I think
there's too many pieces to that puzzle
for us right now it's almost a
case-by-case basis
we'll see in the findings of fact we're
in collections I'm having a hard time
seeing where it says the 33 that you
guys have proposed I'm having our time
seeing where I want even amend that to
be able to make well I'm so I I didn't
write the findings of fact so I'm
looking at it now but I think it would
be in the code proposal that okay this
is on I've got it up on the screen and
it's on that's why I might probably been
on page 46 starting on page 46 those are
the specific code amendments that are
required for the code amendments that
we're proposing so on page 48 is where
it specifically says office used optical
Azari for sign percent residential uses
33 percent retail service uses no
requirements okay I'm going to ask
everybody on our amendments of one and
two nobody seems to have a problem with
our definitions of parking structure no
one seems to have brought up any issues
of wanting to change our findings of
fact right now is that correct does
anyone have a problem with that okay so
I'm going to make an amendment that we
that we adopt the essential is a quad
development and design standards as
written with the change Jennifer to
Section B point one being 50 percent
number two being 50 percent and number
three being 33 percent I would actually
like to challenge the 33% and leave that
up to another Commission like the
development Commission to be able to
understand that on our base
use my case basis I'm going to I'm going
to work that way I'm going to make a
motion and if you don't want to vote
about bar you answer yeah you can't
this development convention bases their
decisions on what is already there yeah
we can't go to take it back to the it
come so part of our role of what we're
here's the problem we're not subject
matter experts in the retail and we
don't have enough information about
retail to make a good decision I think
tonight we do about the other two but
retail is too complex of a beast and it
really is or at least we have not been
presented with the information from
staff to look at because the decisions
we make tonight are going to be
decisions that are going to impact small
and medium-sized businesses and it's a
really important decision that we get
right hold your opinion in very high
regard however I would like to make a
motion for the numbers that I suggested
and to move forward on the three areas
that we were asked to evaluate okay
there's a motion a motion on the floor
and beckon it I'm thinking if you can't
second I can't okay artists claria
alternate oh if there's not enough
people you can oh okay so you know
whatever yeah if there are not enough
regular members here the alternates can
vote they still in for the regular
members last and we thank them for their
service so there's a motor floor and
it's been seconded all those in favor of
she yeah she did the minimum on the
retailer issues with Jennifer Skye was
at 33% a change of residential on 50% in
an office on 50% his eyes I I'm
proposing that we keep it as staff is
recommended at the at the 5,000
gross square feet as mentioned in our
amendment 3 I'm saying no other changes
I'm Sam keeping it at the 5,000 for so
there's no minimum for retail and
service right now and since we didn't
recommend a percentage so the question
is are you recommending a requirement of
33% structured for projects above 5,000
England ok I am my amendment if eclis
puts 5,000 across-the-board on both
residential and retail anything over
5,000 square feet is subject to the
percentages of structured parking so you
would add 5,000 to the residential
anything that is over that correct that
that's not what we proposed I'm just
trying to make sure I'm understanding
the 25,000 on office residential and
retail only for retails we were talking
about long different regions again we
leave the moment I answer that I was I
will leave no gross square foot on
residential uses and add a 5,000 gross
square feet to retail so that any
business that is under 5,000 gross
square feet of retail space is not
subject to the 33% parking requirement
would your motion for retail include
hotel and commercial it is not specified
by staff and so I'm deferring that that
is not included that's not what we've
been asked to evaluate today okay so I
was in motion it has been moved in
second and you read the motion
so I believe that that that the motion
is to increase the office percentage
from 33 to 50 percent otherwise
unchanged increase the residential
percentage to 50 percent otherwise
unchanged and add a percentage to retail
service uses of 33 percent for projects
above 5,000 square feet okay correct
so and that's what I've tried to put up
here just so we can all see you know I I
just I you have to have it repeated by
my own by bailing it wasn't going to be
me and then don't did I make a counter
motion or how's that work
you can make an amendment to the motion
okay I would like to make an amendment
to emotion that retail be further
evaluated because of the complexity of
retail and I don't believe that 5,000
feet this requires structured parking at
5,000 square feet is going to be
profitable that's not an amendment
that's a that's a position which I
respect
okay so I like to make an amendment that
we approve the residential and the
office and we table the retail so that's
a separate motion then that's not
amendment okay so how would I so I run
is your amendment iam you leave I don't
know if this account to you you'll tell
me if it's not a counter motion but what
I'm hearing Ron basically ask is that
retail service be left unchanged with no
requirement because he would like
further study that is correct so I'm
moving I believe that we need can we
just decide if what I said is a motion
or a counter motion I mean whether it's
an acceptable from a procedural
perspective
I don't think you can answer that I know
I can't answer that I don't know if
there's someone here who could you are
basically saying that we're going to
approve the retail with no requirements
with the assumption or the
recommendation that it and it has
further evaluation by staff to determine
if there's an appropriate to determine
if there is a a more appropriate way to
do this
perfect yes I like that right he is it's
an append mental to absolutely so I
propose that we ask city staff to
reevaluate the retail requirements but
this the caveat in there was that we
leave the retail at 0% and recommend
that they continue this ok so I make the
motion to you make the amendment I make
the amendment to the motion the motion
that we leave retail at 0% and ask city
staff to assess a I don't know what I
said so I think so your your your ass
you're putting forward an amendment to
the motion to leave the retail
recommendation unchanged and ask staff
to make a recommendation a future
recommendation on the appropriate level
of retail arcing parking ranking and and
so if this is more or less correct than
the the next step is someone has to
second data yeah ok and I want to
continue with that amendment within one
year okay well I don't I'm also a point
of order I don't see how the amendment
can't challenge
the actual motion so right now the
motion is for 33% but the amendment is
to bring it down to 0% so there's one
more zero measure isn't an amendment
obvi you can vote down the amendment
will forget it you approve the amendment
then you go back to your motion - and
what will happen is you'll approve the
amendment based on approve the motion
based on the amendment that was if it
was passed so it is an amendment in your
markup so the question is if someone
else supports brightening the discussion
I have a amendment on the floor does
anybody second that amend that ended
okay so we're going to vote on the
amendment now okay so you understand
we're going to leave it at zero and
we're going to we're going to recommend
that staff come back with further
evaluation of the process and the need
for structured parking parking and if I
could maybe suggest an amendment to the
amendment is because I think what you're
asking for is because you guys were
clear you wanted aspirational standards
right and so you guys figured out where
you wanted office and residential to be
and what I heard was you need more
information to find that aspirational
level for retail so I would just suggest
you throw that aspirational word in for
us to come back with an aspirational
standard for retail I'd like to make an
amendment the same amendment with the
word of aspirational in there to add the
word aspirational to that within one
year okay so it's not changing since his
making me amend his making the motion
the amendment so it's not changing it so
we have a just a second agree with the
change yes is young yes okay so we're
going to vote on the amendment as we I
just stated
so all those in say
of agreeing and to the amendment to the
motion say Aye all right aye opposed nay
I'm a native there was one two three
four I don't think I can vote can i yeah
you can because okay well I vote yes and
so the most the amendment passes and I
will go back to the original motion
which now includes the amendment that
was passed so the amendment is 50 50 and
0 with the aspirational recommendation
for staff so with that I call the motion
12 for the most call for the whatever
I'll second that motion
you know neither said can i condition
all those in favor of the amendment
their motion with the amendment please
say aye aye opposed nay
and she carries okay thank you okay the
last thing I'm in ours
addendum like the agenda extremely I
can't even talk is the we need a vice
chair so since I will be gone for
several meetings and then examine my
cell is anybody willing to step forward
and put their name into the vice chair I
would like to put my money
this guy Thank You Carl
are there any other nominations from the
floor and I nominate her you can
nominate anybody you want nominate
Lindsey and do I have to accept or
reject like you also have to do yeah I
would accept that good okay so we have
to follow five people to be vice chair
I'm not quite sure how to do this all
those that date like do you want do you
want to give them a chance to make
statements if they're to canvas
do you know what I hope you have
prepared remarks yeah and yet you want
to pass us some money yeah are you
giving a statement like that all right
good
you know being vice chair and since I
will be gone you're going to be running
meetings and do you feel comfortable
enough you've both been on the council
for a while council whatever this is for
a while Commission and so you both know
what to do when you're both certainly
qualifies for doing it so do you are you
going to be in town do you have the time
to do it and okay so so we have two
qualified people to be vice chair so all
those who would we only have one based
on people so all those that would like
on to be your next vice chair or do we
have to vote for one versus the other
ladies haven't you you don't get to vote
you don't get help me I normally do like
there's only five of us to get to vote
you get the item point of order you
don't get a vote for yourself as well
obviously but I'm saying like is it yes
versus no one or well anyway anyway
there's five of us that can both so all
those that would prefer to have Ron be
the vice chair I I'm all those that were
like Lindsay to being faster i watch
show room do everything good
okay so I know that that Ron really
wants to do ice chair and I'm sure that
there will soon be a chair position
available and so it would be nice if if
you could step into that one of those
positions in the mierqi not like not not
not right now but you know what are
these I'm totally cool um so with that
I'm assuming
Ron is now your vice-chair so
congratulations thank you yeah and again
with that I'm going to call the meeting
to order at 9:26 one hour early this is
one of the longest meetings that was
you