there we go you're on yeah good evening
and welcome to the June 28th meeting of
the planning policy commission tonight
we're going to continue our discussion
on a proposed rezone of parcels that
were eliminated taken out of the central
area plan at first we have our sets of
minutes that we have to approve the
first one is for June the 14th and if
you hopefully have read it and
understand that it was the park plan and
Old Town were more discussed on that
evening I have a motion to approve the
minutes of June 14th I'd like to make a
motion to approve the minutes of June
14th about a second second all those in
favor say aye opposed motion passes I
want to remind everybody that Old Town
is still under our discussion and we
have scheduled for July the 12th to
continue with our discussion of Old Town
the changing of the boundary in the
south end of the city so hopefully
before the next meeting before the 12th
you again go over the minutes that we
are in here because as usual they are
absolutely complete of everything that
happened on that night so we might want
to do that so I need a motion to approve
the minutes of June 21st to make a
motion to approve the minutes of June
21st
that's second I'll second that all that
any discussion
they changes all those in favor say aye
aye aye opposed
hearing none motion care
before we start a discussion on the
rezone and before Trish gives us a
wonderful update when we ended our
meeting last week we had a discussion a
proposed meeting between the business
owners in the new rezone area and the
city and so Ron and I were able to
attend that meeting and it was a very
constructive meeting this was in
addition to the hearing last week yeah
in addition it was on Tuesday and it was
very constructive the business owners
were able to explain why they did not
need they should not be downgraded from
where they were and the city was very
open to listen to them and I think they
came up with a good compromise there
were there were a few things that the
city did change but Trish is going to
explain each one of the proposals
tonight so that's what we're looking at
is basically the main things that will
be changed if a rezone appears so with
that I'm going to ask Trish to go over
the changes the city's proposal for the
rezone right and if you need a paper
copy of the packet since they were
late-breaking and just were published
last night the copies are on the middle
table it was a very good meeting on
Tuesday with property owners and the
recommendation we came up with for those
that were zoned intensive commercial
that were brought out of central
Issaquah would be to have them stay with
the name intensive commercial but also
change the development standards for
intensive commercial for the rear
setback and change that from 10 feet to
5 feet and also to change the impervious
surface of intensive commercial from 65%
to 90% and those are in red the
that changes to all of them that we're
proposing to change for all the
intensive commercial properties outside
of central so that's what we all came up
with for the properties down intensive
commercial and for the properties zone
destination retail that were removed
from central
we all agreed on a recommendation to
create a new zone called destination
retail and to move that into the IMC and
have all the development standards for
bulk and setbacks to be the same as
central except for the front setback and
we're proposing to make that ten versus
zero in central standards so those were
the two proposals that we came up with
and in your packets there's all the
comparisons of all the zones in all the
ways we tried to go this way in that way
but this is the real simple and basic
recommendation that we came out with at
the end of Tuesday's meeting truce I
simply then just applying this to all of
intensive commercial outside of central
Issaquah are there any other parcels
that are impacted other than kind of the
ones we're looking at in Old Town and
yeah route 10 the gray areas with
numbers on them
that are north of i90 those would be the
ones that were removed from central and
the ones that are sort of in between
those two technical word those would be
most for the most part because there's
not that many
well actually I take that back no there
are no other parcels zoned intensive
commercial there are actually there too
there's one that is just to the left of
the urban village to solid orange
there's a rectangle up there I can it
looks like above number nine and to the
right of number two uh here nope but to
the left Wow
another blank one up there that's
intensive commercial and then also down
there the new king county parcel oh that
was
here that one yes okay because that
would be the site where we're hoping
CenturyLink would move for the so the
Tod oh that's the bottom of the valley
yeah not not the not the top of it which
is yes full of trees no but that's the
the top of it is a different zoning yes
facilities yeah or community facilities
okay so so with this in an effect up
zone those two parcels to bring them in
alignment with all these yes okay well
but they would have increased impervious
surface and an increased rear setback
okay yeah it's not they're not getting
height in bulk but the writing they're
not getting any additional height but
they are getting more impervious surface
okay other questions but nothing nothing
elsewhere in the city correct that's our
only intention commercial zoned area
thank you any other questions before you
deliberate so before we before we
discuss everything since you did not the
three of you did not intend to the
meeting and here the business owners
reasons for the need to make these
changes in their zoning I wanted to ask
if since there are a few members of the
committee the committee or the community
out there if they want to make any
additional comments before we open it up
for discussion among the commissioners
is Trish one more question clarifying
already want me to wait okay does
anybody want to make another any more
comments
it was concerns though Ron and I were
there and we were there as strictly at
but as listeners just to to listen and
be if we needed to answer any questions
for the commissioners I think it was a
great meeting I think the city was open
and I think that in the future any
issues that come up like this I hope
that the people who are on one side and
the city can get together and and work
out a reasonable solution thank you for
all of the business owners that were
there and the city did an awesome job
the staff did an awful job so thank you
so any questions from the commissioners
AJ can you talk about for the
destination retail why you're sticking
with the 10-foot setback as you
highlight that as one of the few
differences curious and logic behind
that the zero setback from central is
because everything to be up to the
street for that whole pedestrian feeling
and the air the when we actually looked
at destination retail most of those uses
are already set back a bit
because their frontage is East Gilman
and so bombs the Grange if you go down
that street remember in the tour they're
all already set back quite a bit and so
we thought a zero setback wasn't as
realistic for that area being that it's
it's just not the same so we put a
10-foot setback so that they would be
able to use those areas the way they're
using them now and not have a detriment
so if you have a zero front setback you
don't have to build it the street right
you can you can be back
for though it's a two-line right yes
okay so okay so in that so in central -
it's a set - and I understand that so in
the in in and out and outside of central
is it a 10-foot set Benham um or is it
as soon as it is set to minimum I'm just
wondering why I get why we would not
want a set to line I'm just wondering
where the minimum is in just zero and
let them build up if they want to and if
they don't want to they they don't they
don't need to so part of it is the uses
that are in destination retail they are
a destination by vehicle today you know
if you look at the Grange and xxx and
bombs most of their customers actually
drive there right and so that ten feet
you know when you look at how they're
laid out now most of those front yards
set backs are either landscaping or
they're you know circulation areas and
you know I I guess I don't feel strongly
about that AJ if you were passionate
about making that a zero setback and not
a set-to line I don't know that that
necessarily flips my cart upside down I
think the reason why we were suggesting
the 10-foot setback was it was more in
keeping with the retail zone that
existed out there before central so part
of this was in a way trying to look at
what we originally were proposing and
taking kind of it ended up being a
little bit of a Frankenstein outcome but
I think that's why the 10-foot setback
was being proposed for whatever that's
worth
ya know that's helpful I think in not to
sidetrack on just this we can we can
talk more big picture but I like to
consider zero I certainly don't want to
set two that would be way too burdensome
but I think also then not requiring a
setback either
just throwing it out there we ask each
other questions or not okay
okay thank you I'm learning the protocol
all right so AJ what what's the concern
why it's uh it's a concern in the sense
that while I certainly get that right
now most people get there by car and I
don't expect that to change in the short
term I think the vision for Old Town and
State Route 10 is to be more and more
walkable over time especially as
centrally so quote gets build up and
there are people that are living within
not a short walk within walkable
distance and so you know if in five or
ten years one of the parcels wants to
redevelop and have something at the
street front I just see no reason to
prohibit that I don't think we need to
work sir we certainly don't need to
require it like we are in in Gilman and
Pickering but I don't see any reason for
us to prohibit it either what would be
your overall estimation or or picture of
what you want that I weigh that road
down there to look like do you want
actually you know that we're talking
about commercial buildings sometimes do
you want a commercial building right at
zero aye aye I think so in the sense
that that part of State Route 10 is no
longer a highway certainly in the built
environment was for when it was a
highway but it's not anymore and
particularly if we are going to bring in
a part of Old Town I think I would like
to see it over time evolved to actually
be more like Old Town I remember us
talking about using that part of the
road not necessarily is like a festival
street that would be too much but the
idea being that the the the broad
right-of-way of State Route 10 is an
asset that we can use for things other
than just driving and parking as public
right-of-way and that would mean I mean
I think over time some of the some of
the buildings maybe come forward
any other discussion on that point I
think I like the idea of actually having
the setback for consistency so that has
the same look and feel throughout the
whole experience but can consistent with
what that's what it is today
okay so you don't want range when we got
bombs they're not gonna change sure um
so you don't want a new building that's
just stuck out there like a sore thumb
so if we had let's say the building
let's say we had a lot to the west of
the Grange I mean and build right out to
the edge of the street it would almost
it wouldn't match the fact that it
wouldn't match the Grange it wouldn't
match xxx it wouldn't match the bones
wouldn't match the businesses across the
street now also thinking 50 years out
things can change
maybe we can readjust that at the time
mm-hmm
if there is a reason to go back and
actually change it but it would be
really jarring I think to come into that
area and also there's a building right
out at the very front with a zero
setback so I think would be the wrong
visual experience okay just remind me
which parcels are the ones impacted on
this map destination retailer and the
purple the purple okay does this include
the lazy boy where's the lazy boy lot on
this
so yeah so is that right we okay
it's what upside-down it does yeah so
that so that is what cultural I'm that
business okay so that is so that is
neither of these two that line correct
at CBD he's a question for you as far as
the the setback goes hey this will be
easy I'm awesome
I like easy oh let's say the Grange has
a catastrophic event and they lose the
the front half or their property fire
takes out the gap cyclone yes tornado
this case would be hey NATO but that's
okay and they have to rebuild yes would
they have to go up to the ten foot and
if so so that was the ten foot would be
a minimum maximum so the way a setback
works is if you put a number in there
like ten feet they could go that close
to the front street but they could
choose to be a 20 feet or thirty feet
and as you know the Grange has their
pumps out front so they're currently
well beyond that but if they did want to
rebuild with a ten-foot the difference
between what you and AJ are talking
about is they would have to maintain
that ten-foot frontage of mostly
landscaping I'm I guess says it's mostly
kind of the grass and stuff out front
under AJ's proposal which I don't know
if he's made a proposal if he does come
forward and say he would like that as
his proposal they could build the front
of the Grange building right at their
property line yeah I think I think I I
think I'd like the idea of having easier
step back because I'm kind of looking at
it and like even if you know xxx and The
Grange never change but Ike across the
street there's that little strip mall
like if that got redeveloped and some
had some retail that was actually at the
frontage since I mean that's the very
end of the state route 10 and so people
could walk back and forth from the
Grange to that
I think that would be better than
current if the property got redeveloped
I think I think I think my proposal is
you know keep it has a setback not not a
build to but change it from ten to zero
I like the fact that there was some
landscaping trees in there and I think
that will be as much of a advantage to
people walking to be able to stroll
through something that's really nice
something goes in there you can put a I
don't know if it's even zoned for
putting in a cafe or whatever else in
there there's a room to do that and make
it friendly to them yeah yeah clarifying
question so for the for the for the
setback for something like gas stations
or if you had an outdoor cafe does that
need to be more than ten feet back or
it's just the actual structure you can
have outdoor seating okay so you can
have stuff right at the property line
okay okay can I ask a question if memory
serves me I don't believe their
sidewalks over there right now correct
right because I've done some walking
over there and I seem to remember it I
was watching carefully when I had my
kids around with me so I'm I'm just
wondering you know if we you know if we
think about that becoming there's some
other things I think that might need to
happen before that becoming a walkable
area and you know I'm not sure you know
if you put the zero setback what does
that mean for sidewalks and putting in a
requirement for that or an easement for
that but that's a good point I I'm
thinking that would to me be kind of
number I'd want that plan before we just
say let's that's a good point yeah no I
can't really be walkable if there's no
yeah okay so any other questions on that
particular issue about no anything else
that you see on that plan that might
need further understanding that the
property owners are I've worked with the
city and that have they've come up with
a you know the changes are not that
grade yeah so on the printout we're
going from
option one which is the current to the
yellow correct yeah and then what was
the proposal that we originally got out
that they objected to was that was
option two or three I'm not sure what
the numbers are but the original one was
to go back to their zoning that predated
the central plan for destination retail
it would have been the retail zone okay
and four I see it would have been the IC
that's outside of central okay so I
think both of those have 65% impervious
and that was the the biggest concern I
think to Ajay's point option one and
option two were what the city put
together option three is what we
discussed at our last PPC meeting and
then the one in yellow right now is what
we D curled out of on the meeting with
the city with the business owners as a
proposal in this I have a question for
Trish and for Keith though the IE we
were originally going from 90 to 65 and
I heard a lot of the the pushback about
[Music]
increasing the impervious surface and
the point behind the impervious surface
is for water runoff so would they end up
being required to have dry wells or
storage facilities to channel that
runoff what would that look like is that
a is that a really is that I'd costs a
significant cost barrier to increase
capacity so we could get 85 but still
give them what they need did you ask
like 20 questions there I think he's
asking by increasing into ninety percent
are we adding in additional costs to a
potential redevelopment that aggravation
and what are we going to do with the
water runoff okay it's a great question
so what I would say is right now
the basically there's there's a
hierarchy of stormwater treatments that
you're supposed to follow when you
develop property based on King County
stormwater manual Department of Ecology
manual so under NPDES it basically says
your first task is to look at whether or
not you can infiltrate your stormwater
on your site okay so if if they have per
Keable soils and can infiltrate there
then what they would do would be to
build a wet well underneath their
parking lot though stormwater would go
into it and it would basically then perk
into the ground and whatever doesn't
perk they would pipe it off site okay so
there's there is still even though they
can pave their entire site there's still
a stormwater obligation for them to try
to infiltrate on site as opposed to
piping it off but that ultimately is a
function of whether or not the soils can
accept that by allowing them to and so
is that more expensive than doing like a
detention pond or a rain garden not
necessarily because it's a concrete
vault
under your parking lot the water goes
into the ground or it goes out through a
cartridge filter and it's it's all it
all has a cost associated with it but
I'm not sure it's any more expensive to
do it in a vault versus in a natural
feature as it relates to cost I mean so
so the opportunities as you heard
Tuesday what you heard from the business
owners both of the intents of commercial
and the destination retail is their
property is only so big and by allowing
them to increase the impervious or keep
the impervious at the level that it was
at in Central and to potentially
minimize their yard setbacks it gives
them more ability to creatively look at
increasing development on their prop
because their property's not getting any
bigger so they have to use what they
have left and by taking out some of
those other restrictions like impervious
limits and setbacks from side yards and
rear yards it gives them more
opportunity to look at adding density of
some kind to their property did I answer
your questions almost okay
so if we went from and I understand the
deal about the soils and so on so if we
went from 85 and gave them 90 are there
other regulations that would be a
barrier to given giving them that 5% in
other words if we gave them the 5% all
the sudden do they have other
obligations they have to meet that are
higher criteria based on King County or
state criteria so so let me say let me
answer it maybe this way and you can
tell me if I didn't answer it right so
you have an obligation to manage your
storm water on your property based on
certain criteria and if they choose to
have more impervious surface which means
more water runs off the property then
they still have to detain it and they
can only release it at a certain rate no
matter what so what it means is they may
have to build a bigger detention vault
to hold the storm water longer and meter
it out at a slower pace than if the site
was 65% impervious and some of it could
just infiltrate and not runoff so
there's so I guess it's a it's an
engineering exercise and nothing else so
you can calculate the amount of storm
water coming off the property
you have to meet a certain rate of
discharge and that then tells you how
big your vault needs to be if if you put
it say underneath the building or
underneath the parking lot if it's a
pond an open pond same calculation you
have to have a certain volume of water
that you can hold on your site during
peak storms and discharge it at array
that doesn't cause flooding impacts Oh
in this area would there be a
percolation pond for them to discharge
your water so if if they if so their
first hoo that they have to jump over is
can they percolate it on their property
so they would do a soil analysis and/or
a perk test and see how quickly the
water would go in and then that would
help their engineers understand how they
would potentially deal with their
stormwater if they found that the water
table was too high no in this part I
mean near the creek it could be but as
you get farther away from the creek this
part of town actually is better than say
closer to the lake where the soils don't
perk very well their engineer would then
be able to figure out their stormwater
requirements based on what they could
accommodate on-site okay so in essence
if we gave them the 90 percent and
obviously they can build down to an 85
percent there would be then up to them
to decide whether or not it would be
possible to fish right so it's it's the
same so to put it another way run this
might help it's the same as a JS setback
requirement conversation right so just
because you give them 90 percent
impervious that's a that's a cap it
doesn't mean they have to do that they
could choose to redevelop their site in
a way that would be 65 percent and have
a bunch of pervious areas that's a
decision they would make as a property
owner they don't have to thank you in
the in the PPC meeting on the 21st I
don't see anything in the video because
I missed that one about any concerns of
property entity on water management was
did anything come up on this Tuesday no
no it didn't all of those issues already
decided on no matter what property it is
how water is
it's percolated how it is contained by
giving them 90% does not give them the
ability to just black top 90% they have
to buy all of the other rules that are
set up in the city so understanding that
you know you can have 90% but if you
can't contain the water based on this
this and this you're not going to get
your 90% and the cost is on on the
property owner you know it's just like
building any any building yeah
does it pencil out to the developer to
build that particular building any way
that they want to build it so there's
always rules and you saw these 127 pages
that you got there are specific things
that you can and cannot do all of which
have been percolated for the last many
years of how to take care of the things
in the city
good good double use of percolated okay
last question one last question right so
Keith one last question for you because
this actually came up in some of our in
some of the discussion during the
meeting and that was the property owner
to the far most eastern area on Gilman
last address on Gilman Oh Sam Kyle yes
what's down here so he wanted to go all
the way up to the the very edge of the
property line so zero setback for an
underground parking and then we're
talking ten feet back from the road for
above-grade parking that still that
would be acceptable all along these
areas right or retailed so someone if
they wanted to go in with underground
parking they can go all the way to zero
and then above-ground would be ten feet
back so so right now and I believe mr.
Kyle agreed that ten feet would work for
him at the end of the day I think he was
originally trying or advocating for zero
I believe that that that 10 foot
building setback line
would apply underground as well now I
don't know that that's it's a super
great question and I just don't I'm not
sure of the answer and I'm looking at
Trish to see if she knows so the problem
is so if you put and the reason is so
let's assume you expected that ten feet
to be landscaped right if you put the
parking garage underground the
likelihood that you're growing anything
on top of it is probably slim because
it's all gonna be concrete so I believe
that ten feet means structure at ten
feet even if it's underground structure
so so by but but his frontage for for
what he was talking about was on third
and you know the character of third what
I would say that ten feet would match in
better with the existing buildings that
are residents because you've got some
other stuff so this will be a park
across the street right now it's
residences but then as you get further
south all this is just housing and so
that 10-foot setback would be much more
in keeping I think with the character of
what that's kind of what that's gonna
feel like you know this is hard to
really see because it's a bunch of
property lines but out there there's one
big building in the middle of a parking
lot and what he was talking about was
putting another office building kind of
where the existing parking lot is and as
we talked about that parcel is really
more fronting on Gilman which you know
the ten feet is this little area back
here so that kind of ends up being kind
of a side yard for him so I don't you
know I think that's why mr. Kyle got to
a point where I think he was okay with
the ten foot front yard setback
recognizing that the others were fives
and to that point on the third that
would be a 10-foot setback because that
wouldn't you can't have two front yards
so for the parcels and we talked about
these ones at the very north end right
there's a house those ones would have a
10-foot front yard setback on third if
he purchases those parcels for the
purpose of development you would be
merging all those parses together so he
has those parcels he owns them now so do
we want to go to an aerial photograph
would that be easier yeah because based
on the way we're discussing these
policies he would have a 10-foot setback
on Gilman and he would have a zero
setback on third which would be out of
character with the other residents on
third
okay so this is this is what mr. Kyle
currently owns he owns here's the big
this is a Liberty office building right
here and can you see that okay yeah
awesome no you're good but what we
talked about was he owns he actually
owns this and this and this and this and
we talked about this house right here
and you know he's looking at you know
can he do something different with this
northern part of his property which
really faces third but then the bigger
conversation was to take this existing
surface parking lot and potentially put
it underground and build probably
another office building like in here
which will have no setback issues
because it's really kind of it doesn't
have any
I mean his street frontage here's the
front of his property at the end of
Gilman right here so I think in in in
terms of what he's planning to do at
least currently I think what we're
talking about was meeting his
expectations for redevelopment
I agree but aspirationally let's say he
sells all of this property and
chanelle's comes in or he hadn't decided
to subnautica lee different the question
comes back to third because that would
be if he merged all those parcels
together
yes third would become a side yard
becoming a 0 setback and which would be
out of character with other properties
in on 3rd now I think if you merged all
that then you would say third is the
right well it depends what you're
merging so if you take so this is like a
two-story office building here as is
this I mean if you merge these parcels
and created one you know if you chose to
address it off of 3rd then that would be
the front even though it's the long
property end it would be it their legal
Street frontage if you merge them in
with kind of the liberty office project
then I agree with you Ron I think it's a
side to the front still being this
little
kind of nub on Gilman it depends upon
where they address it to some extent
look could this be one of those
properties where that has an exception
to the zero zero ten
so right now so I guess the question is
it you know are you are you concerned
about the proposed setbacks because of a
future lock consolidation that one
property owner might do yes
okay we're already having well we were
already having sort of that kind of that
conversation it's going that direction
right well are you or you run are you
proposing something like a ten-foot side
front and back setback for all
properties not on for all properties but
for this property specifically because
this property is unique in the sense
that its addresses Gilman which is
basically the width of that Street which
is between those houses in the freeway
so bird is actually becomes a zero
setback line which is his side yard
allow him to build an office building
all the way up to the edge of the street
if he wanted to consolidate his
properties merged a Lots as does the
city of any say with that or is that
just a filing with the county well so if
you merged all those Lots you know we
have some interpretive ability to
determine yards so right now because of
the orientation of those buildings the
way they are you know I think we'd still
consider third the front now if they
merge those Lots and they they cleared
the the buildings so they were starting
from scratch you know I mean it's hard
it's hard to to say whether we would
consider this aside I mean it seems like
you could say that's the front and
that's the side
but it might also be where they take
access from and right now as you can see
these parcels access off 1/3 so if they
were wanting to keep those driveways I
mean we may still say that's the front
of this parcel because that's where
they're getting vehicular access so
there's a lot of variables and the city
does have somewhat a level of discretion
but I hear you're concerned I don't know
what the likelihood of like that
complete lock consolidation and complete
bulldozing of those buildings is I mean
it could happen someday that's kind of
like saying we encourage next use now
that we've had this and I think my
commissioners understand the problem
that I'm trained or the point that I'm
trying to make what's your feedback well
I just wanted to clarify across the
street is gonna become a city park is
that correct yes okay so I I totally
understand around what you're saying but
this is also unique in that that say it
goes to they built you know it gets
consolidated a developer comes in and
they build you know right to the
property line the that's gonna be in a
park across the street it's not it's not
going to be kind of the residential look
and feel and so I'm thinking out loud
slightly but it's so it's kind of gonna
be in the future I think it's going to
be unique and so then the question in my
head is do we have a problem with
potentially a building going all the way
to the property line across from a city
park where would we still want it set
back you know with some trees and
shrubbery that's just what I'm thinking
as you're talking about it and that
would be worst case the it sounds like
the city has the ability if we're in
that situation to deem third the front
yes I think I think we have some ability
to do that and right now there is a
sidewalk on this side of third it looks
like it's kind of right at the back of
right away so you know
if that were to happen and if that were
considered a side yard and they were
allowed to build to that side yard
setback there could be a building right
behind the sidewalk we write the policy
where zero zero ten where more than
sixty percent or more than more than 60
percent of the so this is code not
policy right so we need to think black
and white not shades of grey I think Ron
like I see what you're saying but this
seems like such a unique unlikely case I
don't I don't think we need to use this
I feel like this is the exception that
proves the rule I don't I don't think we
need to write our code looking at weird
triangle Lots well the reason why I
bring this up is because we've been soft
in some of our language in the past we
haven't got what we wanted so that's why
we went back and redid the CIP this
would be one of those situations where
if the property owner did build out
would it create a visual impediment to
the area and would it really bother a
lot of people think the as it stands
right now are you comfortable with the
code as if the property stays exactly
the way it is are you comfortable with
the way the setbacks the zero and ten
feet are you comfortable with it the way
it is now
if he doesn't do anything else to the
property the way it is now it works
right you're comfortable with that
provided that there's a ten foot setback
on third so is Ronis I'm just looking at
the map as you're talking to I mean
could this potentially could this case
also happen with you know I'm looking at
parcels 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 I know what
some of their current news is but if we
take away that piece of it and
could these be consolidated and
developed I mean do you run into the
same issue then on dogwood and on
Crescent well I don't think you would
because the green checked area which is
right behind 37 36 and 35 is actually
going to be park space and that would be
I believe bones candy the one exception
to that would be parcel number 32 which
I think is the Grange and I guess that
brings them the other question as as far
as setback because that is a residential
neighborhood so that's probably even
more important for this type of
conversation is that they could actually
build out right up to the edge of the
street or sidewalk if there's a sidewalk
there
I just think as we should probably just
talk through it no I mean I think if we
have our very long-term hats on and we
don't think about what's in there right
now I see your point I mean it would be
a very stark contrast from you know
residential single-family homes across
the street to you know fully developed
and six the person was looking at that
one
just to clarify Keith this the highest
these could get a 65-foot maximum is
that how many stories are we imagining
here so so your worst case scenario Ron
I'm just trying to paint a picture would
be up to the property line and five
swells tile no because to get above to
get above the base height you have to
setback your upper floors so those those
that fifth floor and I think the fourth
floor would be step back from that that
building face three stories isn't it and
yeah so it's three stories step back you
could do two more yeah I'm just trying
to paint a visual of you know the thirty
years out and what we're thinking about
so three stories would be in that the
property line
and then yeah I'm just suggesting if
we're if you're concerned about that
property then you kind of have to look
at I think the rest of those chunks too
because they're right up against
single-family I mean we're seeing a
little bit of that happen in Old Town
you know with some of the multifamily
units coming in up against some of the
single-family more of just the zigzag
nature of what that looks like but again
I you know I don't know how much we want
to set code for 20 30 years from now
versus something that we feel like
everyone's bought in new and feels go
back to my original question does it
work set up the way it is right now yes
you don't know if he's going to combine
all his properties to properties or not
do anything and leave it the way it is
so the discussion seems to me that you
know you cannot
imagine everything that's going to
happen in the future besides the fact
that they do we combine two properties
they're going to look at those two
properties based on something where
where are you going to put the front
where are you gonna what's the side how
are you gonna have the access and at
that time the city is going to have to
look at it and say it doesn't work and I
can't look
25 years out in the future I mean as
long as it works now I think some of the
problems we've had like that
my personal thing is I don't like a
storage unit on Newport but that was
created because there was no code to
prevent it now I think we've gone
through 500 codes we've gone through 127
pages of what can and cannot be done in
those areas but we cannot you know look
at the future and provide everything
that's kind of what I think so
we're looking at it the way it is now we
have no idea what it's going to do in
the future so think about it this way
Ron you know I yeah I think your points
are good I think though you know one of
the things is these properties as part
of central Issaquah could have done that
right I mean because the setbacks that
we're talking about in terms of what the
outcome is going to be are other than
the front and we talked about the set
two versus a set back there they're not
different right so your concern that you
have about Sam Kyle's property and its
relationship to third Avenue would have
existed if these properties would have
stayed in central right and so so I
guess in a way what what the council
asked us to do was to take these
properties out of central they didn't
say and fix any of the other problems
that might have been associated with
them while they were in central and so I
guess I don't know I don't want to make
this harder than it needs to be
because I don't know that what you're
concerned about is likely to transpire
in the next 20 years so I don't know I
mean nobody has nobody here that I know
if has a crystal ball so we're all
trying to make the best decisions we can
based on the information we have and so
if if part of our charge was to really
look at taking them out of central but
not significantly downzoning or changing
their development ability I think
leaving the setbacks the way that
they're currently proposed is probably
the closest outcome we could have to
that intent all situationally
situational planning going to be
aspirational looking out if I owned the
Grange based on those current criteria
of Zoning I may want to put in mix juice
and develop the property to its maximum
which means I'm going to jack it all the
way up as high as I can go and fill up
just full of people right max from
thinking that far ahead
40 50 years that might happen what would
that look like how would that impact
neighborhood behind it right and if I
was a neighbor behind it I'd be pretty
upset if I had look at a 65 well I mean
so so likewise we talked about lazyboy a
little bit before so lazy boys in Old
Town right now it's in CBD it could be
five storeys so this building right here
could have been bladed when staples
moved out and there could be five story
apartments running along the property
line more or less I think there's a five
foot side yard with in CBD so so you
know when when you are adjacent to
different zoning there are things that
can get built that are very different
than what you might be used to and
that's just part of I think the deal
I hope that it goes through the
development Commission and they use the
requirements that we put in in the way
of building and and things to build with
and all the other things that we talked
about to make it AI pleasing to the city
and something we would be these web
right we would have the Old Town to
element standards so if if you guys
that's that's another conversation if
you guys make that recommendation to add
this area into Old Town then it would
have to follow the design guidelines for
Old Town just a follow-up question in
the Tuesday meeting was there any
discussion around the side or rear
setbacks there was a lot of discussion
about ok around the setbacks the
property owners for both the IC engine
retail lobbied hard to make the setbacks
as small as possible okay and the
reasons I gave for zero setbacks were
reasonable and understandable based on
their businesses and they they want to
have access to their property so and it
worked so the only thing I want to say
we talked about this is a good one if
you have a garage 10 feet under and
you're not sure if landscaping would
grow think about the Mercer Island
bridge that's covered with all this
landscaping and it will grow yeah but I
think if you talk to Sam Kyle about how
deep his garage was gonna be I think it
was it was probably you know you don't
dig deeper here then you have to write
and so generally and especially because
you hit water fairly high up our
groundwater is fairly high and so I
don't have to have any reasonable so I
like trees it just happened depending on
the trees depending on the soil anything
could happen to do that so absolutely
okay are there any other discussions are
we ready to okay one quick one on where
it says I am
Parkinson's IMC standards that's all
equipment it's a criminal code did I MC
is yes okay so an Enzo and though in
those cases this is your zone the same
as the rest of the non CI P okay with
that do I have anybody who liked emotion
make a motion to accept the proposal of
the city and the way of the two zoning
districts just before motion I just
wanted to make a comment Ron I do
appreciate the long-term look at this
because I do think that's something that
is important and we do need to be
thinking about that even in these
near-term pieces and the developments
continuing to come so I I do really
appreciate that you bring that
perspective to this conversation and I
understand what the council was asking
us to do and in this situation but I I
also don't want to see us necessarily
err on
well that wasn't our mission so that's
not think through what's what's best so
just in the spirit of that I'm not I'm
in support of what we're planning here
for tonight but I do think I don't feel
comfortable with moving forward as kind
of the PPC saying well it's not our
mission to kind of think through the
longer-term vision of what we want to do
and put the code in place and I know you
guys have done a lot of great thinking
around that so it is where the teeth I
think are so the development is coming
it's here it's happening and so I think
it's it's just good thoughtful
conversation I think to continue to push
forward with I don't think that we
should you know be concerned with 40 or
50 years out but I think that as we make
plans that cause or suggest COEs we
should take into consideration what
those codes would affect you know what
the outcome of those specific things
were so and that takes you into the
future that yes you know we like blue
buildings and therefore we're happy that
every building is going to be blue in
the future so absolutely we have to
think about the future but how we think
about it
and how specific we get might not be
where we are right now I don't know how
to say that but anything else so can
somebody make a motion to accept that
proposal as it is stated as I've been
told the middle I'd make motions so you
know I'd like to make you are a member
of the Commission at this point in time
just what part of the quorum because
there's I was needed for quantum oh all
right one two three four no you're not
like I'm not it's more before there's
five oh one two three four five well I
don't considered I'd like to make a
motion to approve the administration or
recommendation of destination retail I
don't count me when I'm thinking the
other four so any one second I'll second
any other discussion all those in favor
say aye aye opposed very no nays the
motion carries so with that we will we
realize clarification he made the motion
for only destination retail he did not
mention commercial information bozo was
or both of the two did you say both of
the two for administration of
recommendation for destination retail
that call me don't you know make a moat
okay my error you wanna make a motion
for commercial like to make a motion to
approve oh okay there's two pieces okay
make a recommendation to approve the
intents of commercial option for in one
second I will second any discussion all
those in favor say aye
aye aye opposed motion carries the next
steps for this um and I'll forward you
an email as well in the agenda comes out
that we'll go to as far as we know it
will go to the land and Shore Committee
a week from tonight in this building and
they start at what time 6:30 now okay
but I will since I think I have all your
email still we'll send you that agenda
when it when it goes on live on the
website but that'll be when the council
committee starts to talk about it with
that I just want to remind you again to
read that the minutes of the park of the
old town plan they'll be prepared on the
12th of July and that's when we'll start
talking about whether or not we want Oak
10 in Old Town okay and will that all be
dealt with it the next okay there will
be a lot of letters sent to the property
owners to the north in Old Town and I
know you've been getting a lot of things
from us lately and also those property
owners to the South that we've talked
about removing from old towns so they're
all aware of the discussion that we're
having do you remember how many letters
were sending out 59 to the north oh wow
and just over a about 150 to the South
okay and the letters the last draft I
saw lets folks know that the zoning
doesn't change if I'm moving out I just
say that it just says the boundaries
will be discussed the boundary changes
will be discussed discussed on the 12th
okay yeah because it's a there's no
zoning impact but there's a design
standard in fact know that because those
the areas to the south are not bound by
the old town design standards because
they're not within the CBD sunset or the
multifamily right behind but we're
talking about them in the future it
could be right in the future if you guys
decide to change that okay we can talk
about this next meeting can you guys
send us a copy of the list yes yes
a clarification we had a public hearing
and it was continued to the 12 to the
12th I believe but I believe that an
accurate scale is it we are complete we
continue the public hearing so there
will be processed for opportunities for
people to discuss correct that's my
understanding
okay now anything for the good of the
order just a big thank you guys for
taking the extra time to meet you know
all together both the property owners
and the you know city staff I think that
was a really cool example of working
together to get something that worked
for everyone so thank you the city cares
I was there anything from staff I just
liked it so thank you to our scribe who
does an excellent job I think I mean I
don't know how she records at all unless
she goes back and listens to it over
again and types down everything I think
she does a good job though with that if
there's nothing else I'm going to close
the meeting at 7:35 and thank you all
for coming thanks
you