so go good evening and welcome to the
June twenty first meeting of the
planning policy Commission tonight we
have two public hearings on our agenda
the first one is proposed rezone areas
that were the change was facilitated by
the approval of the central area plan so
we're going to talk about that and then
we're going to have a public hearing on
the proposed Old Towne sub area plan so
before that I'm looking at my fellow
commissioners and when we do first time
doing motion on I have a motion to
approve all right that's confusing okay
so we might as well just start with it
welcome to our interesting new place of
our meetings tonight we're talking about
destination retail and intensive
commercial razones
the background on this topic as Joan
mentioned was that when ordinance for
visions that you worked on was adapted
it pulled out parcels that were either
zoned destination retail and some other
parcels owned intensive commercial out
of the central Issaquah plan area the
effective date of the ordinance gave us
90 days to figure out the zoning for
those parcels that have been moved out
of such alyssaglawe
because those would no longer be under
the jurisdictions of the central is
supplied development and design
standards so that's why we're here
tonight on June 8th we sent over 150
letters to not only the property owners
of those properties that were being
removed from central as well but also to
the property owners within three
feet of that of those effective parcels
and the proposal at that time was that
the destination retail parcels piece
owned a retail because that was the
zoning prior to the central plan being
adopted and that intensive commercial
parcels would be the intensive
commercial that's in Asuka Municipal
Code so they were the same before since
the letters went out we've gotten a lot
of really great comments from property
owners in the area that had a lot of
concerns with the retail zone so staff
went back to the drawing board and tried
to figure out another way to transition
them out of central Issaquah and into
Knott central Issaquah but to not lose
out on any of the development standards
that they have now so that's part of the
proposal tonight is another
administration recommendation just so
it's really dark but you can see that
these parcels in grey they're actually a
darker grey are the destination retail
parcels and the ones up here north of
i90 are the intensive commercial purses
just so folks get an idea what we're
talking about so option one was though
option in the letter and that was the
first administration recommendation was
to take the destination retail to the
previous zone which was retail the
issues with banners that had a lower
impervious surface would have which
would have taken away some of the
development potential for the parcels it
also had larger setbacks which would
also take a little bit of that
development potential so that was option
one and this is a table that shows the
differences that the smaller amounts are
in yellow in their retail zone this was
the one again that was proposed in the
letter that went
so Trish since we can read that and you
just actually say what that says so that
we can all say in yellow on the right
the first yellow is 40 feet retail
allows a base height of 40 feet where
destination retail allows it base height
of 48 feet and a base height is what
you're allowed without going through any
permitting or doing anything extra so
they'd be losing out on 8 feet right off
the bat 65 feet is the total height in
both zones so that wasn't a problem the
next three numbers that you see in the
under the retail proposal column are the
setbacks there's a five-foot sized
setback a 10 foot rear setback and a 10
foot front setback whereas in Central
there aren't any setbacks so you can be
right up to the sidewalk and right up to
your property lines so that's a bit of a
difference there the pervious surface
which is how much of your property can
be either gravel asphalt building all
those things roofs for central this
zoning is 90 percent and for retail it
would have gone down to 65% so that was
a bigger change as well the second
option that we came up with to try to
more fit the standards that we have
today in Central is to take all of the
bulk standards that we just talked about
the height the setbacks the impervious
surface take those out of Central and
create a new zone in the IMC but that
would have the same standards as they
have now it would not have the same
central standards for parking or
landscaping or a tree retention any of
those but it would have the bald
standards and the permitted use the same
permitted uses
the existing destination retail so this
wasn't trying to to be more a little bit
more consistent with with us zoning that
they have now and as you see there's no
yellow on the chart because everything
would be the same the third option that
came up while we went back to the
drawing board this week was if we waited
for old town to be done we could zone
the destination retail cultural business
district because those zones are very
similar the the part that's not similar
is there's a real small difference in
impervious surface just 5% is different
but both zones have zero setbacks
they're very similar but the issue with
that is we have to wait for council to
be done with Old Town to see if council
also agreed to put this area into old
town before we could change the zone to
see we B so that was a concern we didn't
know how long we wanted to wait
the to in yellow again are the base
height as 45 is different than the base
height and destination retail is 48
right now and the impervious surface is
85 and CBD and it's a it's 90 in central
ok in the public hearing
there's truly a peanut gallery I love it
so tonight if what we think are the next
steps is the PPC would have their public
hearing tonight and after the close of
the hearing you would ask questions and
have a discussion and then if you're
comfortable you to make a recommendation
to Council and then council would review
it at their land and shore meeting on
July 5th which is right around the
corner and then they would have their
recommendation back to a full council so
there could be action by August 6th
because the effective date of the
visions ordinance is the 23rd and that's
the only as far as I know that's the
only council meeting in August so that's
the one we're shooting for to be done
are there questions from PPC on any of
this why don't we okay can I ask just
one question sure I just want to clarify
this new proposal that's just been put
up isn't first time everyone's seeing it
is right now correct okay with that I'm
going to open the public reading at six
and the first person on the agenda is
Sam Kyle Kyle don't need to come to the
podium and state your name
we haven't been to one of these four
wrong Sam Kyle 371 North East Gilman
Boulevard is their office address hmm
a couple of thoughts as you're thinking
about things in conjunction where you're
going with this rezoning is it I don't
believe that you have a master plan or a
vision of the areas east of Front Street
on gilma Boulevard and what that really
in the future is going to be I don't
know if there's any definitions or like
I don't know that I've ever seen one so
I would suggest you give that some
consideration while you're giving
consideration to the razones of this
different properties I have written and
submitted a letter to the Planning
Department and in the committee and
request that there's a major down zoning
proposal going from destination retail
to retail as Trish just demonstrated on
the on the map and the the intent my
understanding the intent of retail
zoning is for high visibility and
pedestrian friendly orientated I own the
properties if you look on the partial
map of the middle that's on between 38
and 55 so everything east of third
Avenue
so my property is highly focused on i-90
and the East work of Issaquah Creek and
very little frontage on 3rd Avenue and
what frontage
I shouldn't say very little but what
frontage there is there is all faced
inward just to face away from access to
the properties are facing away from 3rd
Avenue so it's not really not retail
orientated in
the concept of what the city has for
retail I don't have a problem with the
recommendation of rezoning and what I
would support would be what they they
just presented to you today was option 2
where you retain you retain the standard
[Music]
development standards of the density
retail where it gave the comparison
there's a comparison sheet that she's
brought it for you to show you but if
you retain those under the retail zoning
and maybe it's just an amendment for
retail zoning for everything east of
Gilman Boulevard or something in that
aspect and the retail zoning and the
rest of the city is a little bit
different but again going back to the
plan what are you gonna do with Gilman
Boulevard you're not gonna leave it the
way it is I would think that someday you
know you get a 100 foot or right away or
something out there and you come up with
some kind of ideas or really what that's
gonna mean for the Grange and all the
rest of those properties that are long
there so again I submitted the letter
and request and after they presented the
third second alternative or two other
alternatives I would support the middle
one whereby that rezone or retail with
the destination retail development
Anderson thank you John
so my name is John mavet I run the
Grange at 145 Northeast Gilman Boulevard
I guess what I'll do is read the comment
I wrote and then I have questions
because it sounds like there is a option
that was given tonight that everybody
here is only seeing for the first time
okay
so good evening and thank you for
hearing my comment my name is John mavet
and I'm general manager of the Grange if
I read it right the Grange is mostly on
parcels 31 and 33 on exhibit a map of
the subject properties which would make
us a candidate for the reinstatement and
I guess I'm gonna go for this actually
is a question as the reinstatement of
restrictions that were wisely removed in
2013 so my question is because the the
mailing I got was a little bit confusing
are we going or is the proposal to go
for the Grange to go from destination
retail to retail that was the proposal
until we went back and tried to figure
out a different way okay okay so I can
only comment on what I've seen right
okay I'm here to ask that you leave our
destination designate designation
destination retail we are like our
neighbors Boehm's chocolate the
definition of a destination retail
Boehm's offers the best chocolates in
America and we are one of the only fuel
stations in the state who offer all
three gate grades of ethanol free fuel
side bar ethanol comes from corn and is
bad for all engines the only reason it's
still in use is directly tied to the
Iowa caucus but that's another story the
particularly troubling restrictions for
us with changing our zoning to the
restrictive setbacks the old ones are
the nearly 30 percent reduction in in
our impervious surface and to kind of a
lesser extent the building height we
need more barns we're busy but I think
that the building heights are within
that but it feels like we're telling a
feed store which is us we have 50 trucks
of 50
or more come on property every week and
to tell us we need less impervious
surfaces I think like you know telling a
swimming-pool maker they need to put in
more sidewalks that if we we are we have
major deliveries all week long every day
a very large truck some of them actually
have struck our buildings and we've got
an area behind the Grange that we would
like to pave to make for more parking
and also put in a demonstration rain
garden I'm kind of in the back middle of
the property the Grange is greener than
ever we actually recycle at this point
at a rate that's um the envy of AG coops
across the country so I guess that what
I'm saying is on behalf of our friends
at bones and us folks at the Grange and
the time when online retailing daily
reaches further and further into our
cash registers don't you be the
committee and or Council that chooses to
make things harder for local legacy
businesses we're doing pretty doggone
well at the Grange we have a community
room that has classes every week we did
10 million dollars last year 5 million
of that in fuel the rest in lawn and
garden and all the other things we sell
we've given more to downtown Issaquah
and is across schools and churches and
and nonprofits in these last two years
than the Grange did ever previous we
sell more gallons of our ethanol free
fuel records over the last 15 years
so we're front thriving and doing well
and we want to remodel and we want to do
well and I think it would be helped if
the restrictions of destination retail
were left in place or and I think I can
also speak for bones on because Tyson
and I talked this week if if they if
we'd be grandfathered in or something
like that and that's that you have any
questions for us no okay
thank you
hi I want to thank you guys for allowing
us to speak I didn't send a letter this
week because i knew i was gonna come
speak but i certainly will put it in
writing this week
my name is melinda person my husband
jeff and i own the property located at
number 11 on exhibit b and actually
we're 235 north-east Juniper Street
which is intensive commercial under the
current zoning um between the two of us
we own three businesses in the city of
escrow and currently employ a total of
20 people we also own two properties
within the city this commercial property
in our home which is also within the
city limits we feel we are the exact
type of people the city would like to
attract we have positive small
businesses that hire good people and
provide good-paying jobs we pay taxes or
good neighbors and volunteer within our
community
however this proposed zoning change
feels if we and our assets are a bit
under attack we purchased this property
in 2015 when it was already zoned in the
central Isikoff plan my husband's
company had been running it for a few
years prior and we were aware of the
change when it happened the location is
good for his business with quick access
to ia and there's very little intensive
commercial property left in Issaquah and
it's even more rare to find one that
comes on the market because they are
really rare and hard to come by in fact
his company has been in business for 40
years this year and the majority of
those years have been here in Issaquah
there were several years in the late 90s
to the 2000s that the company relocated
to Kirkland due to being displaced by
the prior development within the city
and the extension of Maple Street to the
West we were able to return the business
to Issaquah when this property came up
for lease and it's our intention to keep
the business here we don't want to have
to move our business again it's
difficult it's costly and we actually
love Issaquah we purchased the property
under the current central Issaquah plan
zoning we understood that when we were
ready to develop the property in this
future we would be able to utilize 90
percent of the property for impervious
surfaces it's imperative to his per
business as they have many service and
work vehicles that could require a great
deal
parking was sort of available within
very close distance it made a good
investment as we would be able to
improve the property or property to our
future needs with the proposed change to
65% of the property to be allowed to be
on purpose pervious surface we are
losing 25% of our usable area and taking
a significant blow to our overall
property value as well this feels like a
taking of our property and property
rights and our personal assets we are
well aware of the future mass master
plan development of the lakeside
property which will be adjacent to the
neighborhood in question we're hopeful
that this potential rezoning is not part
of an unspoken agenda tied to the
development or an attempt to expand this
current city of Issaquah maintenance
yard which is adjacent to our property
at a reduced cost in the future since we
are only able to operate within tiny
slivers of intensive commercial zoning
with in Issaquah we feel this could push
our business and operations outside of
the city since I combined three
businesses and our two properties I'll
pay a good amount of taxes to the city
if this change is to be approved we feel
that the city is no longer working in
the best interest of its good business
owners and citizens so if the Planning
Commission here was able to provide a
solution like Plan B that you were
providing for the commercial for the
retail that would be more than
acceptable what we're trying to do is
protect our asset and we put a lot of
money into this asset and for this
Planning Commission to take away the use
of 25% of it the potential for us to
build on that to do what we need to do
for our business and/or sell it in the
future has completely reduced the value
of what we could do with that property
and it's it's a small lot so we don't
have a lot of space you know to work
with within that so I mean we would be
accepting I mean we would we would love
to see something that's similar with
what you're offering for retail but for
Plan B for refill retail but um you know
we have a kink at this point we've
engaged council and you know we we're
looking at what our options are legally
because we can't lose 25 percent of the
value of our property okay
I'm done your standard you point out
I'm sorry Linna okay thank you so for
example this is cabinet and this is
website and right here when you come
into the neighborhood one of the car
dealerships is putting a car dealership
right there where there is that Creek
and everything else that face a long way
from our property so but I knew we have
all this very intensive around this but
we're going to be reduced to sixty five
percent of these are a lot it makes
absolutely no sense I mean the pot shop
across the street
they're paved from side to side they
don't know no improvement on impervious
surface so it's just it's it's kind of
crazy to us that this would be where we
are when we made this investment knowing
that we could do this now so I mean it's
it's it's painful I got this letter and
I just I was sick to my stomach
so Tom any other questions Tom I can't
read your right
hi my name is Tom Hufnagel and my wife
and I own that's right so I thought when
I read this they were saying they
weren't gonna change it to go down that
it was staying the same or did I miss
read this letter that it was sent to me
a couple weeks ago well cuz I thought it
said intensive commercial and it was
part of the Issaquah one but was gonna
go to the is it the King County one or
what so does go down in the other code
when you're not in Central and what's
considered I guess when I look at this
map I mean I know this is right because
we have two businesses on there right
now that leased from us that use up
every square inch of the lot and I'm
trying to stand right nothing would
change until you unless you tried to
change the building or if you do
something else but what you have now is
fine okay we wouldn't like to make you
take it down or make you change it as
you just exist now okay can you write
okay can you explain to me which chart
on here applies to me as I can
understand where I'm at and where they
want to go to work right commercial
chart is that exhibit C
so let's see that's the height of any
building and built oh my god now I
understand what you guys are saying
Jesus that's insane I mean my god like
she said this is all intensive
commercial here's it's not some parks or
anything area it's pretty rough-looking
area yeah I mean for God's sakes you
should see the number of cars flying in
next to us there it's absolutely unreal
and so to cut down the space there for
intensive commercial is just amazing to
me you think that that that also so I'm
trying to sin what's the thinking here
rather than we all want to have this big
green field everywhere and no commercial
but that's not reality part of the city
where the council wanted all the jobs
and housing to be focused these areas
they thought were on the outskirts so
they thought it should go back to the
original zoning the fourth central why
we're here tonight is to hear concerns
and so maybe they would change their
mind because you've come forward they're
already outside they weren't ever part
of central so do they have these same
restrictions on them only 65% impervious
know they have a development agreement
which is a whole different set of
regulations so what does it take to get
into something like there and what you
have to negotiate with the city for that
or how does that work you have to have a
big piece of part property that so you
can give different benefits like
affordable housing and traffic it's a
whole different way of working out your
regulations so tell me how late's Anna
Grove
giving more low-income housing a huge
crowd hit the concrete right they have
housing though that that is part of
their their master plan for the next 20
or 30 years has housing and that kind of
thing in it when they that's incredible
because I know somebody actually works
there and they said they stopped eking
out gravel years ago all they do is they
break down gravel or they bring from
outside and then mix the cement in and
bring it out to sites so I mean they're
not even digging the hillside anymore
right right what I'm trying to Senator
my next-door neighbor I I'm up against
their property and their properties are
back of our property line we're
neighbors okay development plan that
they have approved through the city it's
only on the hillside back above that
goes all the way up to the Highlands
okay the valley floor where their
current asphalt plant is that's gonna
continue likely for the next hundred
years according to them so Cadman and
lakeside there's no changes no plan
changes and all the stuff that they got
approved is really the quarry area up
back behind their asphalt business okay
and and since you're saying that the
part where they do the concrete part
which is flat and level like our lot and
we're neighbors back to back right why
would we not be part of that I mean and
I understand what you're saying
you have stones and but I mean we're all
in the same what I would call the armpit
of Issaquah old industrial section here
I mean this is not a parkland area or
any like that this is hardcore intensive
commercial everything going in there
have some conversation okay and our
whatever we agree to on the planning
policy will go to several committee of
the council and then it will go to the
council so there's gonna be a lot of
discussion it's not going to end tonight
okay so we appreciate your comments as
well as your your neighbors I mean
that's what a public open house is
public comment is supposed to be we're
supposed to listen to people out there
in the community and how it affects them
you know a lot of times when you're
sitting in an office and you think this
is a great idea you're not really seeing
all of the things that happen because of
it and as a homeowner property owner you
can be able to tell us what you think is
going to happen so I have the same
response as the man from The Grange that
if you grandfathered businesses are
there that would be fine I mean and new
properties that they would understand
that's what's going on but to switch
midstream that isn't incredible I mean I
I can't understand how anybody would say
that's a great idea
we're simply gonna take huh okay yeah
thanks Steve Perea
hi Steve Pereira 117 North you start
Wood Street for about 10 years
okay so see Pereira 170 northeast are
Wood Street for about 10 years I'm one
of those folks that got the letter about
the development
so I guess my perspective is twofold one
is originally this old route 10 was
proposed to be its own separate
neighborhood and now it's being proposed
to be part of the Old Town neighborhood
and I haven't really heard strong
reasons for each of the proposed
amendments why and why not just keep it
as in his own neighborhood why put it in
part of the old town neighborhood I
think that's a relevant discussion to
have before deciding to include it
conceptually putting that aside the old
route 10 from the Gillman backwards
before you get to the part of the Lots
where these industrial zones that
they've talked about like xxx and The
Grange and poems chocolate seem Roy to
be distinct areas and kind of our park
settings and different than the areas
and industrials the the office bill
instead of set beside I'm one of those
who favor retaining a less impervious
surface allowances to protect the idea
that those businesses one day are going
to be sold if we intensified the
development ability I can mystically
goodness I'd like to see the ideas of
preserving against in those three
businesses businesses specifically I'm a
strong proponent of them we're gonna
lose that area and it seems something
distinct I haven't always seen a vision
that talks about maintaining that
different maybe it is indeed worth
taking a look at maybe as previous
speakers talked about maybe those should
be zone those officers should be zoned
differently not part of that area
because they seem a bit different but I
would be in favor of the lower
impervious surfaces and lower Heights
restrictions and put a vision forward
that says this is what want the
neighborhood to be and to enforce that
going for
word if that includes something like the
CBD district to maintain those
businesses I think that'd be a preferred
option thank you good evening my name is
Catherine Stickle and my husband and I
in son live at four four zero northeast
birch Street which directly behind her
house is Remax the building there so if
you can kind of figure out where we're
at so it's you know continue on down
around the street so high to get the
letter in the mail two of them and
obviously not a business actually we own
a couple of businesses but not
businesses right directly in Issaquah I
needed to come and educate myself and
learn about what how this may affect us
as homeowners in our area so I had a
couple of questions that I'm going to
ask because I'm trying to understand all
this and the first is in Exhibit C where
you talk about parking requirements and
landscaping requirements see the
Issaquah Municipal Code so how are they
different
okay specifically in the landscaping
requirements because there are trees
behind us we're on this on the creek
then there's you know land and trees and
it they mostly in this time of year
provide nice spoilage coverage to the
building that we face on the creek so in
the winter you know it's much visible
but my concern is how does this if you
change the zoning affect the landscape
requirements on the tree the tree
retention that's one of my concerns
number two on exhibit B on the maps
it is map 15 that's that parcel there so
it talks about then again landscaping
and tree retention is being affected so
as a homeowner I'm sure I'm not the only
one along that along the creeks along
birch Street that
be concerned about you know are the
trees all being torn down and then
office on having you know depending on
what kind of development and commercial
the the proposed destination retail or
the retail that you're planning on or
looking for towards in the future so
those are my questions um so I don't
know if you have an answer for me or if
you can answer either one of those
requirements in central are lower and
there's a cap on them on the parking
standards in central out of central you
can you're allowed to have more parking
and there's not a cap on it right and
that's kind of what I was assuming when
you didn't specify because you compared
everything but you didn't compare that
or didn't right because everything for
those are very different it's not just a
number like my height and that
landscaping if you're talking about
trees and shrubs that are right on the
creek that would be I would think in
part of the critical areas so that is
the same regulations in central as in
the IMC I believe but we have to look
because all the parcels are different
and what it would be and we're happy to
talk to you if you come okay and I would
I will do that it's just you know I
can't see remac to do anything else what
they're building right now but who knows
you know if they decide to continue
improvement down that road excuse me
there could up there could be an effect
on us as homeowners and not only effect
on us but on our home her property
values because of the view there and
third what this just got me thinking
about and the community has had a number
of discussions and public meetings and
that about expanding that road for
traffic issues and putting average over
we have a little walking we have a
walking bridge right in there and so
there has been some talk last year stuff
quite a bit of talk about widening that
road diverting traffic off of sunset to
help with traffic congestion now it
doesn't make sense at all to most people
that look at that
but I'm thinking all right if you're
doing rezoning
maybe an ulterior motive they say oh
well now we're going to have to ye
Street and really come through with the
bread in our little quiet community over
here in Old Town in order to feed these
businesses so that's again another one
of my concerns okay and I would love to
come in and talk to you about the
answers to those questions so thank you
does anybody else want to make a comment
thank you sorry we went to the to the
other location by the police station so
we kind of ran here a little abruptly
but my name is Tyson garbage hook I am
the business owner of booms candies at
255 North East Gilman Boulevard I'm also
a resident of Issaquah living on the
plateau a little about poems some of you
may know we've been in in business for
76 years 62 in Issaquah we're family
owned and we all live locally my father
myself and my sister we employ a few
thousand people over those 62 years in
Issaquah including many high school
students who get their first job at
booms we have literally probably a
couple hundred people coming during this
time summertime every year every summer
day on tour tour buses that come through
so we not only have hopefully local
people but we also have people coming
from Eastern Washington and all around
the country we're very proud to be part
of this community for many years I
personally have been there for 25 years
mm-hmm
my father's been there for 46 years and
my sister also 20 years my reason for
being here because I have chocolate
parenting duties is because of the note
that I received basically this is an
important thing for us for booms candies
we face many challenges being a small
business obviously online sales higher
property taxes we have a hard time
finding employees these days and just
the hard cost of being a
brick-and-mortar operation for us to be
sustainable in the long term we will
have to make improvements to our
property being removed from the central
area we will lose some of these
opportunities that we previously had and
we will be faced with lower building
heights greater setbacks and a much
lower impervious surface threshold
at this time we have no plans to change
anything but we need to have that
flexibility in order for us to survive
and hopefully make it to 100 years the
replacement regulations will really
impact how our business is operating it
feels like a threat to our long-term
viability so we've heard a little bit
about possibly the old town designation
and that is something that you know is
possibly intriguing too but by the note
that we were sent the changes were were
pretty big and would really hurt our
possibility to remain there for years we
have actually haven't done any major
change since 1991 but a lot has changed
in Issaquah obviously since 91 and it's
changing faster than ever so I guess
we're interested in hearing more we
would like the city staff in the PPC to
reach out to us because we really like
to have more of a dialogue I know that
the Grange and possibly xxx and some
other people down on our end of Gilman
Boulevard we're are all happy to be
there we all have strong businesses that
I think really make up what is aqua or
the oldest aquifer when I was a kid is
important and we would like to remain
there and we're asking for just the city
and the PPC to work with us and listen
with us listen to us so that we can
remain there but from the letter that
I'm coming here about today that's that
that's a very difficult thing for us to
swallow and work with so thank you much
for your time thank you does anybody
else want to speak
my name is Geraldine Carey and I live at
955 17th Avenue Northwest Issaquah I've
been here 40 years and the businesses
that are speaking tonight
I've patronized them for 40 years I
appreciate them I love The Grange I
think that if you do anything to impact
their viability I think it will be very
very damaging to the city in the past 40
years I think the heart and soul of
Issaquah has gone down I'm just I'm
pretty distraught at what I seen going
on with Issaquah The Grange has been
here forever it's a it's a good business
it it meets a lot of needs and I'm here
basically because I sort of feel like
you're letting all these big-box
companies come in and you're trying to
squash the small people who have been
here with all the restrictions so I hope
that you start looking at the design and
the practices that you are implementing
to not let all these businesses that are
nationwide come in and take out the
small independent people who have been
the life and soul of this community and
I just you know I just see more boxy
buildings more people no improvements to
roads or anything and you know that
corner of Gilman is an important part of
our community and I hope you support not
changing and restricting those big
people from doing business thank you
so my name is Connie Marsh and I live on
squawk Mountain and the central Issaquah
plan covered a tremendous area and was
very unwieldy and difficult to manage
for the city and so when PPC and
community members that attended went
through the process
it didn't seem like these two areas of
Issaquah fit the super high-density
living with mixed-use underneath it
concept that generally is the central is
quería now for me I can see a future for
these two areas that changes them for
the better and makes viable businesses
and allows everyone to expand it's just
the city is not at that point they sort
of envision them within the central
Issaquah lens and then said oh boy that
doesn't quite fit so they pop them out
but there isn't really a plan in place
to get you the vision that you want and
need for your businesses so it seems
like this is one of those shocking
moments where every says oh no crisis is
going to happen and what I see is
finally we're getting y'all to a meeting
where you're going to come to more
meetings and you're gonna have a great
dialogue with the city to get the
neighborhoods that you need and want
that will make the city as a whole
better and sometimes it takes that shock
and anger and fury to get people even to
a meeting and I see y'all here Onis and
it's horrible that it's that way but
otherwise nobody comes so a pathway to
the future for PPC because you all have
to make sort of a decision here is could
you mandate a process for these
neighborhoods now that we've taken them
out now let's bring them in and say we
have an interim set of rules and then we
immediately
and now the the department that has to
handle this might faint but we will
immediately go into a planning situation
for these neighborhoods where they can
engage and get the right set of rules
for each of the neighborhoods and so
then you would be assured that you
wouldn't be just dropped off the edge of
the cliff and these will be the rules
forever it would be within a year you
would have a new set of rules that you
would be able to talk about and
compromise them right and potentially I
know you're shaking your head it's not
ideal
everything should be right in and in its
place
I will say something that you might not
get the impervious surface standard
isn't real in the central Issaquah plan
because you still have to do your
landscaping and you still have so you
are not looking at a 25% reduction you
are looking at a reduction but not so
much so if you can if if you would
support that kind of language I could
see PPC supporting such a thing and so
oddly I'm finding myself trying to split
the difference and find a pathway to
success so that's just so out of my
character usually I'm the filming person
up here so I'm shocked
okay well I have one more short comment
that somebody wants to make Sam Kyle
again I'd like the Commission to also
give consideration to the parking issues
and under the development standards by
retaining the development standards on
play destination retail parking is a
critical factor small businesses are the
backbone to this community and we house
nothing but small businesses throughout
and under the destination retail it
allows us to design underground parking
to keep it out from underneath and
visible and everything else so it's we
used to have like a four per thousand
and the city keeps wanting to drop it
down to one to four thousand or
something like that so just keep in mind
might just for your information back in
that corner there is absolutely no bus
traffic traffic goes down on Front
Street some but there's no bus traffic
or any way to get there so the only way
people get out to our properties are
along with everybody out in that area is
is by car so keep that in mind and when
you're doing your planning thank you
does anybody else have any comments you
know it's a public hearing and we meet
all your comments oh sure
short promise it again
[Music]
again this is all Guster
so this part Gary I'd say emphasize that
not this is totally all businesses in
here and to cut you down to that part
it's just that doesn't make sense so and
I totally filled with these guys I shop
at the Grange because there's no
methanol in there and take up all of our
cars there doesn't destroy the engines
you need some businesses that are
realistic for every city that doesn't
mean you want to happen
before you put signs on top I agree with
that in fact we've been approached by
two cell companies wanting to put cell
towers and we said no we don't want that
we don't think
good thing we're concerned how that
would look the effect on people so we're
gonna have that discussion later on for
you to give you an idea so it's not like
we don't care about his clothes doesn't
don't take away whatever it is this -
okay
is it rent from us I mean they worked
really hard six days a week and stuff
can't see what the sees so anybody else
so I'm going to close the public hearing
at 7:26 and open it up for general
comment
so Joey's putting back on the board
options a baby so be is to keep the same
I'm curious what specifically what the
CBD standards are which I believe are 85
instead of 65 is that correct as far as
impervious surface goes correct so I'm
curious what house staff we feel about
right now we have this proposal of C and
extending see-through to it was formally
the industrial and instead of being 65%
to 85% so right now there's an option to
do that for retail right now changing
conducts nation retail to retail and one
of our options industrial yeah no I we
hadn't thought of another option for
intensive commercial but if we did I
would imagine that it would be the same
as just pulling the impervious surface
and the heights over from Central and
and changing the existing icy zone to be
consistent with the the central it's
intensive commercial zone but it doesn't
fit anything else in the cultural and
business district to be up there it's
the it's sort of the opposite of that
but that if we were going to have an
option and I'm checking with my boss but
I would imagine that that would be an
option that you guys could come up with
similar to the option we came up with
for destination retail is to keep the
height impervious surface and all those
and just bring those pieces into the
other code to make them consistent for
the change
to see something in these areas of the
Gateway that was part of what drove
these numbers then the old numbers have
been there for forever they were the
numbers in the retail it was that it was
these numbers before central Issaquah
was created in 2013
other questions for staff or discuss
amongst yourself so I'm here let's start
with intensive commercial to commercial
if commercial intense commercial was be
down zoned to commercial then what would
that do for the parking ok that the
parking as I said for Central is lower
it's there's a lower requirement and it
has a cap on it so it is a not only a
lower to begin with but it has a cap on
how many parking spaces you can have if
you're not in central there's no cap and
there's no there's it's not a minimum
you can have more parking if you're not
in central ok so let's just focus on on
the commercial versus intensive
commercial district for this
conversation okay moment if we rezone to
commercial here you mean intensive
commercial ok so these properties are
being removed from the CIP they're going
into intensive commercial their
impervious surface would go up but their
parking restrictions would go down no
their part their impervious goes down
and their parking actually goes up
you're allowed more perks so there's a
there's a they're gaining something and
there's something being taken away I
guess it depends how you look at it cuz
even with a lower lower impervious
surface racer even though they could
have more parking they still have to get
it on the lot but they've now have less
impervious surface to work that extra
parking if they might want extra parking
so why are we on
why we want to take it out of the CIP
but why do we need to change the zoning
because the regulations for the central
Issaquah development and design
standards would no longer regulate the
area so they couldn't be in they
couldn't be underneath that code because
they're no longer in the plan so we had
to move them out right okay so could
that be a subset would it make sense to
create a subset of the CIP for these
properties only well what we talked
about our option to for destination
retail is pulling those the bulk
standard the setbacks height those and
pulling them into the other code so that
they're consistent which is I think what
you're saying but that's option two for
destination retail and perhaps you all
could save to do the same thing for
intensive commercial to pull them out
create a new one that has the same
standards of height setbacks all those
and have that live in the other code so
that they don't have a change they would
have their own vision they would they
could in the future but we're not
talking about vision tonight we're
talking about zoning right I understand
that but basically they would have we'd
create a zone specifically for them that
would be packaged to the same standards
that they have today in terms of the
parking in terms of the pervious
surfaces and so on not the parking so so
can i maybe add something so so one of
the things were this is feeling very
condensed because of the timeline that
was created through a different action
we got the 90 days which unfortunately
allowed us enough time to send out
postcards to notify property owners but
there really has not been a whole lot of
time for this dialogue to happen which
is happening basically here tonight and
what we're finding out is what the
property owners are concerned about and
there's some obvious ones right so
obvious is impervious surface I think
that's a thread that's running through
everybody's comments some have talked
about land uses you know we've talked
about whether or not there's some land
use changes through
this process part of its building
heights part of its setbacks and so
those are your kind of your base zoning
things right you know bulk high location
of buildings and land uses and so you
know those things I don't think are a
surprise you know as I'm listening to
the conversation and things like parking
so in central the reason why the parking
standards were reduced is because we
believed there was going to be transit
it was walkable it was bikable and so
part of what we're talking about for
both the icy neighborhood and for the
end of Gillman is they really as you
heard from mr. Kyle they really don't
have bus service you know it is a
drivable destination as is the Grange
for the most part you know we're gonna
try and help walkability and other
things but you know that is how most of
their customers get there so reducing
the parking or allowing the central
lower parking standards now outside of
central I don't know that that makes
sense and I think if we're gonna if
that's really important to the property
owners I think we're gonna have to enter
into a dialogue about you know help me
understand why that makes sense because
I don't know why that makes sense
because most of it's gonna be car
oriented pulling them out of central now
they don't have a limit on the number of
parking spaces that they can have on
their property they can have as many as
they feel comfortable with and and so
that takes them back to what they had
before they were brought into central
which the whole idea is more walkable
it's more bikable less reliance on
automobiles all right so so as we talked
about that in trees the tree retention
requirements are more stringent outside
of central because you know in central
it's denser and the idea was that if you
were developing your property you could
remove more trees through that process
so so there's actually I think I would
say a smidge more protection being
outside and if somebody said that wasn't
fair that was a taking or they felt like
that was an infringement I'd want to
understand why that makes sense because
that doesn't make sense to me so when
we're talking about changes I think
we're mostly
talking about impervious surface and and
building heights and setbacks because
those really affect how much of your
property you can develop and if there
were decisions made over the last five
years because of what was allowed in
central and those are now changing I
think what we wanted to hear was okay
what what do the property was what is
the affected community feel about that
and is there a way that we can maybe
find that space where what's happening
is going to not be an impact for them
and that's why I think you saw some new
alternatives at least for destination
retail I think the question for the icy
zone is would would the administration
be willing to just basically change the
impervious limit in the icy zone from 65
to something higher than that whether
it's 90 or what we talked about that you
know because right now you know
impervious is really a function of storm
water and storm water because stormwater
runoff is used to be a problem serious
problem for the city because we had to
handle the stormwater runoff
nowadays it's less of a problem we have
much better storm facilities in our city
than when those 6565 used to be
prevalent everywhere and one of the
things that you heard from Old Town and
as part of our doubleheader tonight when
we talk about Old Town you know 65 was
the impervious standard for Old Town and
the Old Town task force basically said
why do we have this antiquated standard
for impervious let's allow it to get
higher so we can do more with our
property so that's a theme that you're
hearing from folks that are about to
potentially go backwards ten years in
code you heard that same thing come out
of the economic the the old town Kasper
vitality task force so so that
impervious limit and one of the things
so you know if if ultimately and frankly
I think this whole conversation needs a
lot more baking so you know if the
Commission
wants the administration to continue
dialogue with the property owners to
come up with a more specific
recommendation for the Commission's
consideration I think we're willing to
do that but that's your guys's call on
whether you want that to happen tonight
so hopefully that's helpful in pointing
us in a direction sounds like if we move
these organizations out of commercial
into intensive commercial we have to
move them out of central so that's a
decision already made by the council
right so if we move them out of central
and we've put them into destination
retail and into intensive commercial but
we we keep the impervious surface
requirements and allow the parking then
there is a major win for these
organizations so if we're going to give
them these options and those sounds like
for the betterment of the community we
need to have some sort of negotiation
with these organizations to say alright
so you're actually going to get all
these extra things potentially so let's
make some compromises on where we can
find in an agreement I you could do that
you know I think I think part of what
we're trying to do is is take something
that exists you know either so so so the
the the choices that I think Trish put
up earlier there were three choices for
destination retail and I think we could
have a parallel conversation about I see
but let's start with destination retail
the choices were you know to basically
take three things that exist already and
choose one of those three those three
things are one is retail right that's a
choice the second is cake destination
retail from central Issaquah pull it out
so that they can be that on the outside
and then the third choice would be CBD
so the the the the options
the administration put forward were pick
one of three choices that already exists
not create a new choice now for
intensive commercial I think there's
really only two choices there's you know
well there's there's kind of one
well there's two so there's one which is
take it out and make it I see which
there already is an icy but that has a
significant change in impervious as
we've heard from the property owners and
I would agree with so the question is is
would there be a recommendation to
modify the existing icy to change the
impervious to a different percentage
than 65 and then parking too because now
I will have higher parking right so it's
so they could have so that's so the code
allows for more parking spaces on the
property right once it's outside of
central because there's no cap so my
point here is that maybe the they don't
need as much pervious surface but they'd
rather have more parking so maybe we
give up impervious surface and give them
more parking or we reduce the parking
and give them more pervious surface well
and then you also have building heights
and then you have setbacks so we're
giving up a lot of these there's an
opportunity here I think for a middle
ground that would be great for everyone
here but there's a lot of room to be
negotiated and I think this definitely
needs to be baked through because if
we're gonna give up they're gonna be
giving up setbacks impervious surface
but so so I guess so that's gonna wait
so maybe look at it through this lens
wrong so so what we've heard from was a
number of property owners that asked for
their standards to stay the same and I
think what you should ask yourself is
okay if we did that is there is there a
way we can get them there if the
Commission wanted to get them there is a
way we can get them there I think the
answer is yes and the question is is
does that for either of those two parts
of the city and we we did our tour so I
know you've at least
driven around through those areas you
know do those existing standards that
they have now do they would they be a
problem if they built to those standards
I mean and if your answer is yes you
think that's too dense or too much then
your comment that you made earlier about
we should look at some hybrid that's
something we can definitely do but if if
them building a forty eight foot tall
building instead of a forty foot tall
building doesn't doesn't make a big
difference from a community perspective
standpoint then then maybe it's good the
way it is I think that's what you guys
are thinking about right now is is what
they have what they had in central you
know I think what we said is these areas
don't really feel like central but
they're their standards are to some
extent when they were in central less
than like Gilman and and the mixed use
areas and so I think the question is you
know if they were to redevelop you know
what would be too much if there is a too
much we have a right option we have the
left option but what if they want
something in between it would be a
better fit for them and a better fit for
the community because maybe they don't
need all the things that are in the CIP
but maybe they also don't want to lose
everything by going out of the CIP so
there's attributes from from both sides
that they say well you know what this is
a great opportunity we would really like
to keep this but we don't we can give
this up over here and we create our own
standard we could do that the only thing
I have my biggest problem with this
whole thing is
consistency I you know it was one way
and then you decided to go into
something else and the owners of these
properties are making decisions for the
future based on what it is and to pull
the rug out from under them I have a
problem with that that that to me just
doesn't work and so I certainly don't
want them to go down
I think either option 2 or the third one
that was provided work there might be
some areas in there that might need
tweaking just to make sure that
everybody is happy but I think from what
I heard tonight that most of them would
agree to either one of them as long as
you you know as long as there was enough
parking and enough trees and those guys
things but the major thing is impervious
circuit surface and those are that you
know that's what is causing all this
consternation so unless you have no
thank you so this is my first planning
policy meeting tonight and I did my best
to get some of the the history on this
so that I can understood where it was
coming from but one I just want to say I
think it's wonderful and Connie
regardless of what got people here
they're here so I'm excited but I'm
really glad that everyone did come out
and share how they were feeling because
that's a critical part of this process
and then I do have to say I was really
impressed with how staff very quickly
responded to community feedback that's
been flooding in and showed up tonight
with another option that was really
proactive I do have to say from a
process standpoint nobody had seen it
until just tonight so I do think it's
slightly unfair in the process to you
know in the perfect world ask anyone to
make a decision on that I mean people
came with comments prepared for things
that they saw in the packet but from
what I'm hearing from what people have
said in the audience
if you can please keep it the same as it
is that's fine
call it whatever you want it sounds like
we're under some marching orders from a
timing perspective for other things to
move forward so it seems like the option
that keeps the impervious surface and
the height requirements at a place that
everyone feels like is the same would
work but a concern I have or the holding
place I put out there is there's still
this larger strategic vision issue I
think with this section of our community
that it's very clear to me tonight we
don't understand or we're not all on the
same page as to what the businesses need
in that area and what the owners in that
area need and what we as a city and
vision for that area both short term
medium term and long term and so you
know I look to the city and the
commissioners that you guys that have
been here much longer than I as to how
do we make sure that I think that part
gets addressed because I think I think
we it sounds like we have a quick fix
for tonight if we want to do something
within the schedule but I'm more
concerned about the the longer-term
conversation of what's right and Ron I
think what I'm hearing you say is that
you don't want to give away or jump give
away too much right now and kind of have
a give-and-take conversation I think
that's what I was understanding what you
were trying to say and and so anyways
that that's just kind of my point I'd
make is how do we how do we make sure we
we hit that piece as part of this
process I think that we need a little
bit more I just happened to like the
last two I mean the options of making
the home of the property owners be able
to do their business joy
right now we're trying to find a new
direction for you you find that they are
not part of central we like the idea
over out to about 10 becoming a part of
Old Town and so I I don't know that
keeping it the same advancing is what we
want to see happen in the future
however I'm hearing overwhelmingly that
really needs to change and I would be a
proponent of that I like the 85 percent
of the CBD and so when I envision when I
see these properties I think keeping
zero for setbacks isn't necessarily that
it's the best thing for that area so I
like keeping some of some of these
numbers now changing the base feet to me
50 40 isn't big of a deal because you're
the base maximum is still the same so
for that it's a permanent issue with 8
feet and so that concerns me a little
bit less on that number so I would be a
performative actually making an
amendment to what is effectively an
officer for both of these areas to
basically be the numbers that have been
presented to staff with the change the
impervious surface to eat by percent
rather than the 90 versus the 65 I think
that gets us something that is
tend to what we want for these areas to
go without undue burden to begin to
develop the properties so to summarize
your suggestion would be to pull
destination retail out of central and
lower the impervious to 85 to be
consistent with the CBD and for
intensive commercial to change the
impervious sum from 65 to 85 so that
they all get 85 and there are going to
be some changes from what they're right
now so the difference between so just to
be clear because this is geeky planning
terminology and I want to make sure at
least everybody in the room following a
setback is a mandatory minimum so so if
it says zero it means well serious bad
number because you can't get less than
zero but let's say it said five feet you
know you could put your building at five
feet or you could put your building at
10 feet or you could put your building
at 20 feet there's where as a set to
line which is how central works is
they're set to line like on the street
frontage is zero because we want those
buildings right at the front property
line right but here since it's now
outside it's a setback so even though
it's zero they could be at 20 feet they
could be at 30 feet you know they could
have their Drive they could have their
pumps out in front that's not a problem
I just want to make sure we're tracking
on terminology I think we need to have a
community outreach where these
businesses come in and city staff were
able to respond listen to their feedback
and respond to it and come up with a
plan I don't think we're ready to move
forward with us I don't think I can
so in the event of ability or abstaining
I wouldn't be able to vote YES on it
because I think there still needs to be
a lot of discussion between the property
owners and the city staff and I think
there needs to be a lot more thought
going into how we're going to move
forward with us because it's we're right
it doesn't belong into the central
Issaquah plan but by taking a valise
entra as a co-op plan they're gonna be
given up a lot and to your proposal you
you have some good ideas there but I
think we need to hear from the
landowners what they need in terms of
how they want to move forward because
maybe what we are presenting tonight
maybe they need it maybe they don't need
it maybe there are other things that
they need instead and I'd like to hear
what though with that feedback is
[Music]
the point and this has to be table we
don't have the numbers we can't vote on
it because there's only four of us and
one is one what do you think it's donkey
when I asked her on he said he wasn't
gonna be upstanding but he couldn't vote
yes so that would mean so it wouldn't go
away right so if you're feeling the same
way that you'd like to table it for this
discussion then that means that were I
would like first of all what is give me
again the time frame while we're this
has to be decided completed by August
23rd and I'm not sure what kind of
wiggle room there is it would go it
would go to Landon Shore July 5th so do
we have a meeting on the 28th um we
thought we did but we because of Old
Town we thought we the old town we
thought we would continue until the
twelve but if we had to have one next
week well so we could continue this next
week and still suggestion was to get
some of the homeowners huh
Oh a realtor what can I say commercial
about property owners together that's a
limited time to to get anything done so
my guess is if for those folks that are
sitting in this room who provided
comment tonight if we told them that
they had a week to refine their ask of
the city my guess is we come to that in
a week and come back to you guys and say
that hopefully we could arrive at a
recommendation that at least most of the
property owners here in the room would
be supportive of that would be a clearer
consideration for you guys I get a
better
you know the transportation the
landscaping all of the things that were
discussed tonight in a forum the code I
yeah I'm a trout what's the Municipal
Code to refer back to that I know there
was a comment about about trees right
just refer it back to another code yeah
yeah see you just put them together so
that you know I see a disconnect here of
people understanding one thing and one
another and maybe they're getting it but
they don't know they're getting it and
so I need a visual of which are a little
bit better than that with more some more
substance in it can we get that yes so
so it's it's an infinite list yeah
exactly but it could be a very wieldy
list what I've heard so just want to
summarize what I've heard is building
heights setbacks impervious parking
landscaping tree retention do you want
to include anything else in that
comparative matrix no I understand but
you want us to unpack that and say what
that you know what that is so they can
be clear on it but then I'll ask a
question of all of you is there besides
the things that you talked about is
there some other issue that that you
maybe didn't discuss or forgot about or
some issue in besides transportation
parking impervious surface setbacks
trees any of anything else that that
isn't
in here because I can't think of
anything else so as a homeowner in that
area that's impacted I think we're
talking about the aesthetic of the area
of what it looks like the fuel of the
neighborhoods like the grain and
chocolate and xxx are different in
character and feeling of the
neighborhood if we are we talking about
some that would invite just those
businesses or other businesses the
aesthetic of the area when you talk
about parking on all those other things
there's an aesthetic component that I
think needs to be addressed is it sex
yeah is it you can use these codes and
then have another thing that that
addresses aesthetics or does it have to
be together
you can't cherry pick you have to its
you know it's gonna be in or out so it's
already out of central right you know if
if if the destination retail area moves
into old town then some of the old town
standards like design review will apply
that's a decision that you guys altima
to get to make a recommendation on in
the council will will then make a
decision on separate from this right now
what we're talking about is really
zoning and not designed it's there's
less design kicking it out of central
because central is very designed and we
added a bunch with architectural manuals
and other things
most recently so so that piece that
decision has kind of already been made
in terms of that now whether or not
destination retail goes into old town
that would be a way to add more
aesthetic influences over that area but
that's a decision not part of what we're
talking about right now see and that's
another component I think that a lot of
these land owners don't understand is
what is changing for them so they can
come in and talk to staff and get a
better understanding of that in the next
four days if that's or seven days if
that's what
everybody in the room wants to have
happen or that's what the Commission
wants to have happen so what can I throw
you under the bus
absolutely could you put together a
meeting for these peoples like a second
time and say here's a presentation we
can do QA absolutely so the way you know
it's not everybody individually taking
up all your time so so I will do that
and +1 it so we will set up a meeting
next week like Monday or Tuesday to do
that in some afternoon Tuesday yeah
because you're not here on Mondays so
like Tuesday but then individually if
somebody wants to do it separate they
can come meet with us individually but
just from a process standpoint it sounds
like we're marching towards having
another PPC next Thursday which means if
there's a fourth option that pops out as
a result of your meeting with everyone
there's got to be time too so we're not
doing what we did tonight
you know popping it up and saying okay
are we all good with this that might be
better yeah Jamie will give you as much
time as we can yes yeah but I'm just
saying that everyone can be on board and
the meeting can hopefully go smoothly on
Thursday that's nice not just for me
three options and everybody can just
pick one and actually it is that I move
on talking about a five minute meeting
that would be great yeah so there are
having a meeting next week
Arina sounds like now we are you guys
need to I think make a motion to confine
you they need to know if there's you
know it's very clarification of if we
said something or if there was more that
we wanted to add and one of the things I
wanted to clarify is the main part well
one of the main pieces for our intensive
commercial space for impervious surface
is parking if you look at the businesses
that are on that street we've got a
trailer and boat repair shop we have the
pot shop which isn't included in this
we're an HVAC company where we have 16
vans and service trucks come in every
morning some of them are parked
overnight but some you know take their
trucks off and they come in every
morning we need the parking there's a
roofing company there's si con there's a
the Minuteman press X at the boat
there's the southeast glass they're not
here tonight they weren't able to be
here tonight and there's a landscape
company
these are all very intensive parking
work vehicle places so one of the
reasons we need the impervious surface
is the parking so going to two parking
spots per thousand square feet is really
going to undermine what intensive
commercial is all about and that's that
was the comment that I went to make and
the other thing I was gonna say is if
you're looking for people to that know
what we're you know I mean I think the
group here knows that 65% impervious
surface
doesn't work for us and I think that you
could get a consensus from everybody
tonight that 85 or 90% would be
completely acceptable I think for most
everybody sitting here so I just might
like a quick intro a lot so listen you
have the list you gave is the list
you're right that's that's four that's
the list I just I think the one thing
that that would I would say and I think
Tyson would agree is that impervious
surface and and setback aren't any
they're the same thing to us it
everybody's got good intentions
everybody's hearts in the right place
but for a retailer that's a Landgraf so
you're saying that my that I lose 30% of
my purchase service or I can't develop
or I can put asphalt on it and if I want
to build I need to come 10 feet out well
we have a plan to do something with the
back of the grains right now that ends
if we have a 10 foot if we're gonna put
in rainwater demonstration area if we're
gonna put in full barns to hold fire
logs in the summer if we have to come
ten feet off of the fence that that that
remodel goes back to the architect so so
your list is accurate but I think that
both of those impervious surface and
setback are don't there that's all the
same thing I lose 10 feet and I lose 30
percent can I'm having a hard time
understanding from the fact that we're
property owners we've had these rights
if you've guided down third Avenue when
you're on business day is
bumper-to-bumper with cars stepped up
your drive down Gilman Boulevard is
bumper-to-bumper with cars stuck on the
road we need the parking areas we need
the impervious service areas why is it
that the Commission or the city wants to
take away or we can offset we can give
you this if you give us this I mean we
already have the rights leave it alone
well that's a choice it's like something
else so so just so just not to spend too
much time there so the rules have
already changed because the council's
already taken you guys out of an area
now that's actually not all bad news I
mean because central Issaquah has you
know so your property if it was still in
central Issaquah you would have
architectural review associated with it
so if somebody wanted to redevelop that
property the building would have to look
like a certain building type certain
colors would be only what would be
allowed that doesn't happen now because
you're not in central so so some of this
is actually easy for easier for a
property owner not to be in central what
we're talking about is what now is going
to apply to your property and I think
we're trying to have I think as informed
of a conversation as possible so that a
decision can come out that hopefully is
supportive of what you're all after I
think that's what we're after right now
no no council already took action
so we go to choose pillars so city staff
is willing to spend time with you all
next week and as much time as you want
as long as we I think can conclude those
conversations by the end of business on
Tuesday so that we can potentially get
something to the Commission by either
end a business or early Wednesday so
that they have some time to actually
think about it before we go to a
Thursday extension meeting assuming
that's where the Commission wants to go
and I think we're still waiting for that
ultimate decision so 28th open meaning
before we vote to just bright it's a
regular meeting I know but is it back in
this room there is some discussion and
so nobody is really in I think we all
agree but in somehow different ways or
thinking about the same thing in a
different way so we need to straighten
that out so that we I think we all feel
comfortable to send their answers
absolutely we want to make a decision
that you all are comfortable with and I
think right now there's too many moving
pieces so with that I need a motion I'll
make a motion to move and you're picking
two o'clock on Tuesday your calendars
just busy that's those applicant
meetings they don't I've lost it the
meeting under make a motion to move the
public hearing proposed tenure is it
consumer no I have any comment
all right so I'm going to make a motion
to do the agenda item proposed rezone
the parcels own destination retail
intensive commercial outside
central is called plan area D to the 28
June I'm your calendar you have busy
from 2:00 to 3:00
is it really busy Oh totally because
we're trying to do we're trying to do
that so did everybody so didn't so let
me let me say this so for everybody who
signed up did you include an email
address or some way for us to contact
you if so then we will send out a time
tomorrow for when we have available for
a meeting somewhere here in City Hall
Northwest if that doesn't work for you
or if you want to meet with staff
individually you can send myself or
Trish or Kristen an email and we'll find
time to do that outside of that Tuesday
meeting if you can please come to the
meeting because I think it's more
productive if you're all together thank
you
my breakfast we get done right now with
a smile big enhance their prints right
no absolutely it's an open meeting now
any other property owner that wants to
convert concerned citizen would be
welcome area there this business know to
say I think you guys have the same
issues I mean so I don't know that we
need to have two separate meetings I
think the choices are maybe a little bit
different for each neighborhood but I
think they're the same issues at least
I'm hearing the same issue is there a
way for the meeting on Tuesday to get a
better grasp of the possibility yes okay
so my hope is either Trish or Kristen
can do the matrix in the next like the
comparison of standards yes in the next
couple days okay I think we've got a
plan so moving right along thank you all
for coming tonight and thank you for the
conversation and I think we're gonna
find a good outcome and be sure if your
email isn't on the sheet and you have
contact with that it's weird that we can
okay having trouble reading the email we
can just call this and then hopefully I
find it funny that I find it funny that
we spend so much time on something that
I thought would be easy and now we're
heading into something that we've had a
huge amount of put on
about their future and so it's not like
this was the first time that we saw
everybody a lot of them came and talked
to us this week that's the whole point
of the letter but they wanted to get
there right but they didn't know the new
way so it's good that so the second
thing on our agenda is the old town sub
Area Plan Update keep going they can see
that it went away yeah okay first things
first the first side that you can't see
says more to come so mmm things just
seem to evolve and you know departments
continue to look at things and things
come up and oh some issues have come up
with the plan and departments have ideas
and staff has ideas on some things that
need to change in old town so we're
trying to wrap our heads around that
right now so we are going to bring you a
revised plan once we get our head around
wrapped around it and that's what we'll
talk about on July 12th okay I can't
even tell you what those things are
right now and it's not that I don't want
to it's that we need to look at it and
and trickle it down and get the point
get the bullet points but we're still
going to talk yeah we're still going to
talk so there are two issues that we
still need to talk about and the first
one is the old town boundary so we have
looked at this many times we took a tour
to help us figure out what old town
looked like and what we wanted the
boundaries to be mm oh it's really hard
to see up here so the you might be able
to see the gray shading yeah
so is that bottom line evidence 77th
Street yes yes so the gray shading here
is the existing old town boundaries this
area right here it's what it's all about
in that used to be a central spot that
has now been pulled out a central spot
and you also discuss some really degrees
behind order including this one particle
town today the portion of the limiter
talked about at our last meeting is
South down here it's removing the area
west and front is south of Clark and
Eastern Front and south of Evans which
are really the school the outside was
full of elementary school and then some
single-family small life and
multi-family high is partnered with
so then our deduce sub-area boundaries a
thick black line right there
so before we've moved on I just wanted
to is that what you all want we would
have to figure that out with the
comprehensive plan amendments they could
likely go into either the go-to sex more
okay so the few homes that are in there
would their restrictions change no their
zoning would stay the same they're
useless tat nothing changes about what
they can and can't do with their
property it just pulls it out of the Old
Town Siberia and moves it into another
one comment I ask a question and the
reason for doing this is it mostly just
character fit with the old town area
right so when we talked about it
everything else seemed to fit the old
town grid the old town character this
one the parcels are much larger its
schools which have gone in different
standards anyway so yeah just keeping
the compact feel of what was the
original town okay thank you you're
welcome
George I struggled with this last
meeting and I spent some time on this
and I'm ready to back it I really like
having old route 10
brought into Old Town and addressed
actually doing another try to myself I
really does make sense I hand the idea
of shrinking Old Town originally but it
really is just massively taken up by
land that really
I'm going to be readability I'm soon so
I'm a proponent of these boundary lines
okay and then the other part but you
find with taking that on mobile yet with
these boundary lines as shown okay
Ron I agree with what we're seeing here
I think adding Old Town to the or adding
the old route tend to alternates ideal
and removing the southern half really
that perfectly makes the most sense so
can I ask one more question I'm just I'm
just I'm just trying to line up the map
with that map so Old Town would still
include it would not include Clark
Elementary correct correct but it would
include just north where the like the
hiking with the houses where we have
yeah which I don't know the official
name about to do yeah because there's
yeah there's two historic things right
there above Clark right there's the
trail house yes right there a few of
them the depot yeah Gilman Old Town Hall
Old Town Hall yeah yeah so all of that
still and the is it the it's all still
in that proposed to Old Town bound
perfect okay yeah and I will I do in a
point it's really small no yeah okay
didn't want to split a parcel either so
okay okay since we all agree can I get a
do we not want to wait until we see the
whole package do you want us doing the
boundaries that help you
it does help you okay okay I would like
to have a decision on something anything
and we all agree on this I would like to
move it forward but I need a motion
sure I'll make a motion that we we act
the old town old town plan the revised
boundary oh yeah this is okay you guys
this is up to you yeah um whether you
want to talk about it or table it so
where's my next one let's see so a few
things have happened so the city doesn't
currently have a recommendation on this
okay um three options have been
presented to you and then the the
economic vitality Commission the Chamber
of Commerce and the downtown Issaquah
sociation have all been notified of this
EBC had a long conversation last night
they sent us a letter and they're kind
of undecided they want to have a longer
discussion at the retreat on July 11th
so we would hear back from them and what
happened at that retreat on July 12th
before our PPC meeting that night on the
12th we did receive a letter from the
chamber I have copies of those all right
here if you guys want to see it we did
receive a letter from the chamber
opposing the idea of limiting formula
businesses but there were no comments on
allowing them within the character of
Oldtown so it was they they said no to
limiting the uses but there was no
comment on we'd be okay with the uses if
they were within the character of
Oldtown or fit
side existing structures and the letter
is right there so and then I've already
mentioned the other two so we can talk
about this tonight and talk about what
the options are or we can wait until we
hear a little bit more from the EBC and
what they have to say so you may you may
be able to expand that's what I
interpreted from the letter so establish
would actually go in there
if something goes in there that doesn't
work then it's gonna go away
and so they have a hard time restricting
what does him okay and that's a that's
the big issue they don't think it's
legal and right to do that okay so
that's what prompted the letter to make
sure that they were on record okay being
against eliminate okay it just as a side
note it is legal but okay okay to
restrict I can't order to cut down the
number of businesses or to say it's only
mom-and-pop or if box stores could go in
if they have that the box stores a small
franchise from business like Safeway not
Safeway start about booth
dia said that would be great to have
those kinds of franchises in there so to
restrict it to the language that it is
limits all franchise all box so that's
limiting it to the language of four
point five which was the first option
that was in the packet but there were
two other options and they could come in
there they would just have to comply
with the standards of central Oldtown
were there any comments on that okay
and that's okay okay all right so what
do you want to do do you want to discuss
this further or do you want any waiting
here in EBC house to say I would like to
do some discussions I know they've got a
lot of input last last week and I think
that some of the issues deserve at least
a discussion okay now so that we can
eliminate them or push them on to more
discussion okay so four point five was
limiting the actual use and essentially
it boils down to its if it's a franchise
or chain business that has ten or more
businesses throughout the United States
and there would be as some exception
like banks without drive-through
professional uses grocery stores would
be allowed there worse there would be
some exceptions to that but the idea is
to limit they use another option was to
just require anything that comes in to
comply wholly with the old town
standards design standards and another
one another option was to require all
new Andrea's that redevelop to a certain
financial amount or - it's like the
assess about there are different ways of
doing it but they redevelop to say 50%
of their assessed value of their
property then they have to comply but if
it's under that they don't have to
comply with the standards yes so um
let's see oh we had them all written
down on my desk and they were beautiful
um so option B on the slide they
wouldn't help they could just move in
and they wouldn't have to do anything
but if they moved in - if a building
came down they would have to meet the
standard right so let's try different so
um Home Depot wants to go into the where
the market used to be under a they would
have to meet all of the standards in Old
Town if they go into the market under
scenario B they only have to meet the
standards if they redevelop or make
improvements to that property that our
50-person example 50% or more of their
assessed value so if they only do make
improvements that are up to 40% they
don't have to make any change they don't
have to comply with the standards
they made a 20% improvement and then a
year later did another 20% that you know
that they can do that under the current
central under the current code under the
IMC but in central Issaquah there's a
phasing I think it's still there a
phasing plan where they have to show you
know their plans over the next ten years
or something and if that totals then
they have to comply so it there we could
apply something like that in the city in
this situation correct that doesn't
affect the use just what it looks like
so the use when we're talking about
restricting the use we haven't actually
wrote that in here and that's four point
five the first one okay four point five
or options ANB right
why don't we uh Joan why we open us up
yeah I was gonna wait for Ron to finish
and then I'm finished oh thank you okay
so I opened the Tama forum at 8:25 and
asked if anybody would like to speak on
the park whole town plan is there
anybody that would like to speak so
steeper whole town about 10 years so on
the the boundary area again I'd like to
hear more the vision for including the
ov-10 and what that vision and
neighborhood can and should be designed
I'm glad those neighborhood businesses
are gonna have a chance to meet I just
think there's a wider community meeting
that needs to be part of that discussion
as well that hasn't happened yet I think
that same conversation needs to happen
with whether or not to reduce the old
town sub area neighborhood area a wider
vision wire why not I think we need to
look at not just worse we put the
welcome to to Old Town as call sign but
where do we want that neighborhood to be
should it be looked at for a different
zoning for other things that needs to be
discussion happens before that gets
decided a vision of what a cannon should
be those pieces having discussed I did
send a lot of input in writing form I
didn't want to talk about specifics I
agree with the city though that the
current standards for height don't meet
and folks have had a lot of time to try
to decide if they wanted to and have the
opportunity to build by current
standards they haven't I don't think the
proposed standards though are what the
vision for the old town of is and
needs to be retained for stories and an
increase in impervious service I think
those things are not just about code but
they're about the aesthetic of the
neighborhood and the area and the vision
that we can be and I think we're
changing what the people who live in
that area
design and wanted it to be I don't think
this me
what the envision and the goal of the
people living there is and I'm asking
you to consider lower height standards
lower density lower impervious surfaces
again I think those are part of the
aesthetic of the neighborhood I'm
talking about the old town sub area
neighborhood I'm so front street and
sunsets specifically but it includes I
think a wider area if you look at the
whole sub sub area district again I
don't want to talk about all the things
that I've said on the one specific piece
I did talk about was the umbrellas
signage and I think the couple
businesses I had thought of were
restaurants and they were advertising
alcoholic products on the umbrellas if
that's allowed by city code then I think
that should be changed to not allow
signage III I'm I'm not I'm calling out
a couple things like I said I wasn't
gonna repeat everything so so I there's
been a lot of chances and opportunities
folks have said or not to build I think
by increasing the impervious service
you're also changing design a vision of
something that's historic and character
and has class and charm to something
that isn't that anymore so again I think
there should be more keeping in
character with what the residents of
those areas want not just what the
businesses want
that's a draw to the people of certain
areas to Issaquah not by making it the
same as CIP or other areas but keeping
it different and unique thank you
I appreciate your interest and your
detail-oriented suggestions so since
there anybody else that would like to
speak on the Old Town plan
my name is Geraldine Carrie I live at
955 17th Avenue Northwest Issaquah as to
the character of Old Town a lot has
changed in 40 years
it went from a quaint little farming
community into this development that you
know just has you know the city left
with no heart and soul every seems like
every business that goes in it just kind
of makes a boxy when I tried to find out
what was going to go into the old Front
Street market they told me they they
couldn't tell me that all it had to do
was meet certain requirements and then
that was it and when I look at the
dollar store I mean I think it's
deplorable what we did to that area of
the town I mean you just took away the
soul and heart of that area and I think
you need to think about the people who
live there I mean it's just you know
green spying with white letters or
whatever and it has no character I mean
I when I see that Sun I think of coming
up on 900 through Renton Highlands how
horrible that development looks and if
you let businesses go in you know
because they can afford it and they can
pay you know the the going price you
know what says what's the front street
going to look like I mean is it just
gonna be you know a bunch of you know
ticky tacky boxes and no character I
mean you know when I moved here we had a
little dress shop we had a shoe store
you know we had we had a Ben Franklin I
mean there was so much character to that
end of town and now you know it just has
no character
I mean I'm sad about the fact that you
know the store but I don't even let's
call money tree dollar tree or whatever
I mean I I won't patronize it I hope
everybody who sees it and is put off by
it won't patronize it I'm sad it just
you know it makes Issaquah look ugly
thank you
Mary Lynch I just want to comment on the
process and and a couple other things
one is I think it's really a shame that
the old town had another public hearing
over at an Center in City Hall at the
same time as this one and I think a lot
of people didn't know that this was here
and not at the other City Hall so they
didn't come over here and with all the
traffic in town tonight
I think some of the people just decided
they're not going to listen to us anyway
so why should we come that being said
the the map that you showed up there I
couldn't find any place on the web so do
the people that are being taken out know
that they're being removed and how do
they know that they're being removed to
come and talk and just like you're
having meetings as Steve said with the
businesses I think you need to meet with
those people that live down there the
HOAs and the the others and give them
idea of what's going to happen because
one person I talked to you just felt you
were shoving them off again you know
they might as well just succeed into
King County because they have no idea
what this the impact of being removed
from here is going to do so you're
saying it may go into Sycamore they
don't know they don't know what the
codes are so I'm really concerned about
the process and the lack of involvement
just one other comment as I still
question whether the Dollar Tree sign
fits the new city code and that's my
concern I don't think it fits the
existing signed standards and the fact
that they were allowed to just paint it
over I think is atrocious also is there
anybody else that would like to make
so I popped the formula businesses up on
next-door to see what people had to say
and people have been opining at length
in both directions so I think it's an
interesting topic of conversation but I
think it's a community conversation
it is not a Chamber of Commerce
conversation or even just an economic
vitality community conversation because
as you can see if you read next door
it's it's like Jer it's our soul it's
art it's our community and many many
cities all over the US have their core
areas that don't allow formula stores or
they have very rigid standards for their
designs and so it's really sort of
common in certain areas so and then it
sort of makes me laugh I remember the
first old town meeting where I said wow
you know that that area south doesn't
fit and and Steve said that that area on
Gilman should be in and here we are and
we've come clear round in circles and so
now everybody agrees I am happy with
that we're good
so the question of how long we've been
doing it a year two and a half I'm sorry
two and a half years so how many people
have been lost along the way and sort of
like I did with Gilman do we need to
actually go deliver flyers to all these
people who are impacted in the area so
that they actually know that things are
happening to them how do you solve that
core problem of surprise and horror when
things start changing in the community
and they knows that nothing about it
until the last meeting right I think I
think we have next year a notification
changes notice noticing changes for the
code I think we need to implement
something sooner than that and
standardize it until we get it done and
so that would be what PPC you guys are
going to get these same people who are
upset so if you can ask
for staff to figure out a system to help
it might make life easier
yeah I know I'm looking at y'all
cuz I'll do it I'll walk door-to-door
I'm not employed anymore
sort of I swear I will I sort of like it
but something has got to change I think
the first question I asked was will
anything change with those homes and so
I think if there is concern in the
neighborhoods then we haven't done our
job to show them that everything in
their neighborhood is going to stay
exactly the same there gonna be no more
extra rules or regulations or and that
there'll be no different you can still
walk from there will be no different
it's just the designation of the area
central control did have different
standards and so the standards had to
change for those taken out but Old Town
and sycamore they have the same
standards it's all the same zoning so
the zoning doesn't change when you move
out of Old Town it stays the same as it
was when it was in Old Town
it's a boundary change right but the
regulations stay the same yeah well
apparently we're I'm hearing some things
that people are concerned that there are
going to be changes and more
requirements and cost the money and not
allow them to do certain things and
since it doesn't change it would be wise
for the city to make sure they know I
don't know if you have to go
door-to-door but you know just doing a
flyer most people don't even read it or
understand it or
having a community meeting at least you
invite people first I don't know some
some way to get them to know that there
is no change yeah cuz I would agree I
don't think there's a shared
understanding in the community of what
it means to no longer be in Old Town and
from an emotional connection standpoint
I think a lot of people have an idea of
what they think Old Town means so people
thought they were part of it and
suddenly they're not they're not gonna
know oh it doesn't matter it doesn't
change my land-use at all I don't think
the average person is gonna know that so
do you guys mind throwing that map up
one more time
so I'm at and I might have missed it and
I didn't mention it what and and maybe
it's not a concern to anyone else but I
walk around town a lot and I use our
trail system a lot the one thing we are
gonna lose
taking that chunk out is the Rainier
trail that runs down from the community
center and crosses down second I believe
is in that section and I'm only pointing
it out again I don't know if history
wise if there's a there was a connection
of that being part of what we thought
was Old Town but that was I just wanted
to point that out I don't know if that's
a deal or not but part of it was the
part of it was the railroad track but
that I believe but that doesn't change
it's still part of the city yeah I
understand that
yeah it's own community facilities and
it's all part of the same trail so it's
still treated the same okay I bring it
up just simply as a larger conversation
I feel like as a city we keep having
about how do we make our city walkable
and bikable and and what does that look
like and accessibility and so I know
it's just semantics but I've just been
you know pointing out that that's you
know that kind of system runs through
and so again I don't know how much we
connect it to that but that was the only
the only other thing I hadn't noticed
and I I just wanted to clarify his boom
or is the the pool still within or is
okay and then the skate park next to the
community center
does that does the line go around that
or is it that yeah the skate parks moved
so it's not there anymore no there's
I mean it's kids use it whether it's
official or not I don't know but yeah it
would still be in then okay okay thank
you
yes so we obviously table
but it is our recommendation that that
this area is now okay and then next week
no whenever right this will be July 12
right yes so we've gotten a lot of
comments unless there's something else
you want to say I would like to go over
companies I know that Keith has spent
the time to answer the questions and
some of them are valid and I'd like to
go through them really quickly so if you
want to come up and take a copy a copy
of your
there's piles right what are we so how
do you want to do this sure so ok
alright so number one you know we talked
about the the boundary change and I
think that there was a request that the
staff should be clear on the proposed
boundary change and whether we support
that and so I think what you heard this
evening was that we do support the
proposed boundary change and the the map
revision as is why would you City
go what go to the reasoning behind yeah
the reason behind to answer the question
that was asked sure so I'm gonna turn it
over to my staff who led that
conversation about the map change port
the map change in the current boundary
you know why why do you what's the value
of changing it I think it recognizes the
original Township and kind of solidifies
what it was this part to the South
doesn't really have any ties it has two
ties to the city with its schools and
two areas outside that are within the
school district but not
necessarily to Old Town Old Town is um
it's unique I was gonna say it's tight
it's tight NIT tight kind of but yeah so
so there's probably like thirty answers
here so you want to go through each of
them individually okay
so part of the reason for doing a
written response was so that we wouldn't
have to do this and so in the future I
guess I would rather not spend three
hours on a Sunday doing this if we're
gonna have to go through each of them
individually
I guess my suggestion would be if the
Commission had questions on the
responses now if you have a question on
every response we'll go through every
one of them but to go through each of
them individually seems yes so I'm
looking for the Commission again if the
Commission wants to go through all of
them we will do that for the next hour
if you would rather not do that and I
would be more than happy to go through
any that you might have questions on so
would you like this back to see your
okay No
I really appreciated stuff so I I
appreciated these comments the previous
meeting which is part of why we wanted
to continue that discussion
put it on the desktop if we put it on
the desktop and I'm sure I like everyone
else spent our weekend going through and
every email that we got going through it
and being able to kind of give this that
time I really like staff's response I
think Lera fied some things that you
know a good example would be the
umbrellas and I you know it's gonna be
anyway we're driving through of looking
and I kind of actually observing what
businesses have a blank umbrella which
ones do have advertising and trying to
kind of see the balance of saying you
know it's a popular thing on sailboats
you rarely you often see advertising of
sailboats because sales are very
expensive we have to replace them very
often there's a reason for it and so
having to mandate our businesses or to
link at all times and do it flow change
I don't know it's something that we're
wanting to do right now on a policy
level so I was able to from getting
staffs response to that I was able to
see that this is not the time or the
place to kind of start parceling out
some of those details so when trying to
redirect us back to the policy
discussion that we're trying to have so
I appreciated the replies the staff gave
us from this memo well thanks and and
specifically to the umbrella issue I
think your point is right you know so
it's in code now right so you can it can
be anywhere in the city in the Highlands
it could be in Gillman and so if we feel
like Old Town is different and you know
it shouldn't have advertisement for
coffee or anything else on the umbrellas
then we should have that conversation
but my point was to show you that it's a
Loudoun code now and and that then leads
you guys to whether you think Old Town
deserves a different treatment than the
rest of the city it may be helpful the
same way that we're looking
you know some very separate issues but
we're looking at the possible down
zoning and we're looking want to have a
chart of saying exactly show me what we
got show me what the options are right
now it may be helpful to say here's what
is going on in Old Town and based on
these policy changes this is now what we
would have a good example that is
Heights you know when we went around on
our tour it was easy to see hey what's
this weird building oh there was a
reaction from community from this we
want to try to avoid this that was a
good example to when we hear things like
more story to story maybe three stories
a good in-between kind of theme it might
be helpful when we receive this again on
July 12 to be able to see if there if
the policy is denoting a change and we
expect that the next step will be code
obviously right what that is and maybe
that would be a clear line for people to
be able to see in the community oh this
would be really opposed to or maybe and
some photos I think of are also helpful
to you know at least capture the
conversation because you know when we're
sitting in the council chambers
sometimes it's our division kind of
really what was sizing about I think
we're trying to get the memo up
certainly not an hour they get the speed
I'm operating right now it would have
taken it out no no I wouldn't let you
take it over I mean most of them I don't
you know there's no question on that
there were one or two like the umbrellas
I just you had put in here
PPC we'll discuss right so with that I
want I thought maybe you thought that
there was some reason to well I think we
started that and and so if you know if
you guys feel strongly about no
advertisement on so it can't advertise a
business because that's a sign right but
if it's advertising a product that is
allowed yeah I think it's point I go
into you know different
the world in there you know it just I
don't know it just to me it seems not
the businesses because of the sign code
so another one we can talk about is is
building heights
Steve had suggested in two stories on
Front Street and right now it's really
five and kind of you know so I put some
photos in the memo to show you kind of
some of the buildings that are
definitely more than two now and and so
so the choice for you guys is if you
think two is the right height we can do
that that would create some
non-conformities with what's out there
that's taller than two you know where we
initially started was anymore I think
one of the suggestions that Kristen
alluded to earlier is I think there's a
new ask to maybe go to three so so that
so is there or just to me it was
compromised by the numbers but have you
you didn't know it's coming it's coming
yeah and then yeah so so what what we
talked about today doing is part of this
is you know this getting right that
outreach piece you know if you're a
property owner and you can do five now
and you wake up tomorrow and do two or
three that's a significant and so what
we talked about possibly was was putting
something in policy level that opens up
that conversation the action steps will
be clearer that that's kind of where
we're heading but you know if at the end
of a long or hopefully appropriate level
of public outreach and conversation with
the community you know the answer is
whether it's two or three or four you
know the hope would be we don't have to
meet you
go back in and change the plan right and
so part of I think what we're trying to
do is figure out how to structure this
in a way that the policies in the plan
give us enough direction to then have
those code conversations and whatever
comes out of those code conversations
works for whatever policy we had in the
plan and so that's part of what we're
doing now and we're also going back
since the strategic plan has been
running on its own little path for the
city and we know that we know the at
least what's likely to be the five focus
areas there's key priorities for the
strategic plan and they happen to semi
parallel what's in the old town plan I
mean you know it's it's mobility and its
environment and so one of the things
that was asked of us was you know you
need to kind of read that and look it
back now cross check it against what's
in the draft old town plan and see if
they're talking the same language right
and so that's another reason why you
know as we talked about this today we
said you know we need more time we need
I hate to say we need more time with the
old town plan because as as Kristen said
we've kind of had it moving for a while
but I think we're getting towards that
end point where there's some kind of
pretty significant hey look there's the
memo so some pretty significant changes
you know technology and you know this is
so the idea for this room is there was a
ask to have more things televised and so
there's going to be more overlap with
things happening at City in the city
council chambers and so we needed two
venues and so communications has been
working hard to get this room ready for
that we're not quite there yet but we're
we're getting there and it so be a
little patient with us as we kind of get
ourselves up to having two real
televised venues so anyway so if you
would like to go through this more
methodically we can oh I thought you
that you know this is done and do you
got to the ones where I mean Steve is I
think received this answer he did from
from you guys so but there were just a
couple in there that said PPC will
discuss sure so Trish can you scroll
down till we get to the ones where the
response is PPC will discuss I think it
might land there just because there's
been some additional conversations about
hi internally situation and that might
want to take more of a map form you know
because what you could have is existing
and then proposed like as numerator and
denominator so that you could see in the
areas like a long sunset where we've
talked about lowering that to three okay
what's right behind it and is it to you
know because I think I think
geographically it might make make sense
for you guys to see that relationship
[Laughter]
sure sure okay the first one that came
out is that electric cars so charging
stations you know so that's part of the
city's sustainability effort the
charging stations here at City Hall
Northwest are actually almost used all
the time and so and I can't speak for
the ones that are scattered through the
rest of the city there's some by
Walgreens and community gardens
community gardens are packed they do
have weeds but it's you know part of it
is the the folks that are using them as
plots are supposed to take care of them
and usually there's a waiting list so if
people don't then they don't get plots
again and that's the way they kind of
self-regulate so you're telling me I
made a bigger deal out of that than it
was all right but that Susan put that in
the note it's a safe Oh has the ability
and the authority to make any
recommendations that desire and that's
true it is true seeing it in writing
makes me think I have more power than I
do anyway so I I don't know I know you
guys have read the rest of them is there
anything else that you want to add or
discuss so there's so because so the
next step would be we'd get you guys a
redline plan and a map and maybe a
matrix if that makes sense so we'll try
and get you guys the tools so that next
time we have this conversation about old
town hopefully it'll be
close to the last conversation about old
town but you know this one once did I
you know I want to get it right as you
guys do so you know there's no real
magic we turn into a pumpkin moment like
there was with the last agenda item you
know we don't have 90 days to make a
decision or else something bad happens
we have more time doesn't necessarily
have to be perfect you know we can't
describe discuss it and discuss it so we
have to make a decision at some point
right and you you know just like in any
other piece of literature in the city
you can always come back the next week
and make changes right so establish this
baseline vision of what you want it to
be the rest of that can discuss incant a
place during the standards discussion
which is next but we do have to get to a
point I think that it's really important
to bring people for the community in but
you know you have this discussion II
make a kind of decision than somebody
who hasn't been in the discussions now
come in so do you start from day one or
do you you know continue on with what
contributions you pass so it
there's so many things to do and there's
only two planners that are able to come
in you of course but oh yeah so so
there's so many things that have to be
done at the same time show we can get
some of these big pictures done Jamie
earlier had made a comment that we may
need more public outreach on the old
town sub area plan of removing the
boundaries so tonight we're supposed to
make a decision
no no it's being extended till July 12
yeah it says it but we're proposing it
got it all right so do we want to talk
about how that might look
do we want to talk about doing an
outreach plan yeah I have it on my list
to notice them either three letters or
so weeks um yeah right
you know I'm yeah we're not gonna go out
and do that but I want to ask you know
consensus apartment yes you are so we
decided no but it's they will be maybe
we just we will let you we will let you
guys know as well just as an FYI you're
welcome to come if you want to sit in on
the meetings because if they have a more
it has to be noticed as a public meeting
right as I said it's a quorum the NICUs
are we on TV we delegate one person to
come
they would be I'd like to go
would you like to you too so Kay wait
well maybe we should pick across the
first hour sure so check that out of
three and three and three so if if
Commission leadership wants to go I
think they could make that decision that
they will represent the Commission at
the meeting because it sounded like
Commission leadership the chair and the
vice chair would like to go you know
sure no absolutely I think they do too I
don't think that's gonna be that big of
a lift I think we have to explain some
stuff but once we get there I'm I'm
guessing we can all land at a space
where we can come forward with here's
what the administration and the property
owners would like to see I think the
only issue that
up near and Motown is what businesses
are allowed and how we structure what we
think goes in there and I don't know
what the next step would be to be able
to do that you have to be open but you
know you want to get a vibrant city
right means you have to get businesses
that court as the chamber said if it
goes something goes in there and people
don't want it yeah they're not gonna
support it it's gonna leave of course
it's gonna take you a year two years to
find that out yeah so that one's that
one's clearly the hardest one I think
there's gonna be some other changes but
you know whether you guys want to limit
formula businesses or not that that's
there's definitely two sides to that
discussion I don't think it's I don't
think that's clear one way or the other
and to do that sometimes you have to
have stores that bring people in and
sometimes they are formula stores so I
mean you have to be very careful
that or I would interject that we've
seen they've gotten the opposite we want
to have a vibrant city and by having the
openness we've gotten the opposite
there's the chains that have come and
recently don't promote walkability no I
they need it right and they do then they
do the opposite of what we're intending
and so I was disappointed to see the
letters that we got and kind of to me
for very fear-based as far as let's let
capitalism decide and any kind of
limitations are a bad idea because we
want to have you know we want to have
whatever the market can support and I
think that we that's fine for Issaquah
in general for Old Town I think we need
to protect it and I think we need to see
we're bleeding and we need to stop the
bleeding so I'm in saying I'm a fan of
4.5 I think it's needed and I think it's
needed based on the recent things that
we've that we've seen in the community
and so it should be able to kind of when
we talk about creating that future that
we want I think this is a very common
thing in other areas of our country as
someone who's worked on the East Coast
it's very popular to limit formula
businesses in in these various store
towns and I would like to see us really
consider this rather than just being the
the look of a business and have it
actually have some protections when we
think about the way that a mom-and-pop
operate versus a national chain it
really is a difference of them that
money staying in our community and I see
a big difference between the money that
goes in our community just being the
hourly salaries that are being paid
versus really an extension of all kinds
of services and so rather than going
back to corporate somewhere else
somewhere else in another community and
how that gets rolled out I would like to
see whole town
we have that looking file I'm sad that
we don't have the dress shop
you know there's just it's a very
different vibe that I think we can help
protect and I think this is a good way
to do it so how do you put that against
the rights of the property owners to
decide how much profit they're going to
make if the mom-and-pop is willing to
pay five dollars a square foot and
somebody else is 20 they have a right to
be able to support themselves with their
business and so I think you have to be
very careful on how you limit I mean
there should be limits I think we all
agree on that but you're gonna have to
really fine-tune that so that you
accomplish getting what you want and
still protecting the home business so
well and one of the very real challenges
unfortunately is that unlike the list I
think of some other cities that we were
provided on where this is formula
businesses have been restricted I have a
feeling without having visited all of
them that they don't necessarily look
like our front Street does at commuter
times and so I think it's just something
I think it's important that
unfortunately we're in the situation we
wish we weren't but it puts us in kind
of a catch-22 a little bit of the ideal
mom-and-pops
we'd like to have there and then the
reality of what's going to do best
given the current traffic situation at
certain times of the day so I don't have
any easy answer for that but I just
think that's a element but we need to
think about in this conversation and
then kind of to Joy's point and I saw it
was here in 4.5 but I would like to
actually even challenge the exclusions
that we put forth I mean if we're gonna
go do it I kind of say let's go do it
and you know why why exclude banks and
grocery stores and medical services
there are a lot of great local banks
still around and there's a lot of really
interesting local medical services you
know still around and
so I just kind of push on that a little
bit and if if we are gonna go that route
I kind of challenge our thinking this is
I mean so yeah so torn if if and then
the reason why I think you got the
proposal that you got is you know if our
downtown was just a tourist destination
right you'd say all you want is little
cutesy retail shops where people can
come and spend their money and then go
but Front Street also serves as the
retail for and the service area forced
some by some neighborhoods that we're
trying to keep vibrant in our community
right so things like insurance agents
and hair salons and stuff which aren't
super exciting and vibrant but they are
needed services for residential that's
that's why you got what you got and but
it's good to talk it through because you
know I think we were trying to think
this through and figure out what kind of
made sense with our particular situation
that's that's why we didn't just take a
code from somewhere else and say you
know the Hamptons work here you know
it's like m'as what we thought made the
most sense if we were gonna go there
yeah well I'm just an ass of July 12 is
are we just looking at the formula
business piece are we looking at the
whole and now you'll and you'll look at
the whole plan again with some of the
revisions that we're gonna make okay
you'll get it soon yeah you'll get it
with the Pat you'll get it with the
packet so week before not enough before
Tuesday so I'm so busy well I just had a
follow-on question and so this was
supposed to be the second public hearing
right tied to this
this was the third continuation of the
public hearing okay yeah all right so
it's the third continuation so maybe
it's a mute point then but it sounded
like with a location change
ya know I opened it that I closed I
didn't close it right I think of it you
closed the public comment but I don't
think you closed up over here public
hearing
July 12 are you talking about the
reasons are you talking about this yeah
yeah it would be probably Wednesday if
we could see something that was decided
in that ine and at least the plan that
you that we're really the I should get
it as we are gonna put together whatever
it is we're gonna put the parking and
the landscaping in that yeah in the
church okay so as long as we have that
and you know we've heard them this
evening if there's something different
that they come up with maybe we could
have a meal or something right that's
the intent to a nice to give you the
results of that meeting we don't need a
full packet paper were colored me a memo
I'll do our best as soon as we have no
fearless leaders
quite a week okay so I'm going to close
the meeting at 11:00 I got it this time