Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, April 27, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 9, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 23, 2017

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 - Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 - Jon Stob 2018 - Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 - Vacant The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 - Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 - Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 - Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 - Salim Juma see IMC 18.03. 2018 - Vacant 2018 - Vacant 2018 - Vacant

Election of Officers

Topics: Elections

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 13, 2017

packet pp.5–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 9, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 23, 2017

▶ Watch from 0:53 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Olde Town Subarea Plan Update

Dave Favour, Project Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.11–49

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 7, 2009 Planning Policy Commission · Apr 13, 2017

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

A. Olde Town Subarea Plan - Update: Proposed Plan and Public Hearing The purpose of this meeting is to review the entire proposed Plan, including the introduction and five of the Plan Elements: Old Town Community, Connectivity and Mobility, Environment, Economic Vitality, Housing and the Appendix (Exhibits A-G). Note that the Appendix is partially complete, missing the

3769 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ good evening we're on the air welcome to

0:18 ↗ the April 27th planning policy

0:21 ↗ Commission meeting one thing that you

0:24 ↗ may have seen on the call to order is

0:28 ↗ election of officers but we are delaying

0:31 ↗ that until children fill all our new

0:37 ↗ members and alternates are present to

0:39 ↗ participate in a vote to try to give

0:41 ↗ everybody a chance to compete for the

0:46 ↗ higher paying jobs of Chairman and vice

0:48 ↗ chairman first item of business tonight

0:53 ↗ is approval of the minutes from April

0:56 ↗ 13th do I have a motion that's up the

1:01 ↗ minutes like to make a motion to accept

1:04 ↗ minutes of April 13th I'll second any

1:08 ↗ discussion all in favor aye aye

1:12 ↗ and it's accepted now is a break from

1:16 ↗ our normal routine and a very pleasant

1:19 ↗ one we have a special guest tonight for

1:24 ↗ particularly for the television viewing

1:26 ↗ audience a council president as would

1:34 ↗ like to make a presentation or I'm not

1:39 ↗ sure exactly what Stacy is going to do

1:41 ↗ but she's going to do it well oh well I

1:43 ↗ hope your Thank You mr. chair and

1:46 ↗ members of the Commission I really

1:49 ↗ appreciate the opportunity to have this

1:53 ↗ special spot right before you begin your

1:54 ↗ your business on your agenda

1:56 ↗ you may recall several months ago

1:58 ↗ October the Commission presented a memo

2:03 ↗ to the City Council and it had to do

2:05 ↗ with your review of the 2016

2:07 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments and you

2:10 ↗ had several recommendations and comments

2:13 ↗ back to the council and so I realized

2:16 ↗ that several months later but I wanted

2:18 ↗ to make sure that I got back to you we

2:21 ↗ have

2:21 ↗ on behalf of the council has a short

2:23 ↗ memo to you in response and I would like

2:27 ↗ to read that so that it is short I like

2:29 ↗ to read that and also so that people who

2:31 ↗ are watching and the people who are in

2:33 ↗ the audience can hear it as well and

2:35 ↗ then I have copies for you I'm writing

2:39 ↗ on behalf of the City Council to thank

2:42 ↗ you for planning policy Commission's

2:44 ↗ additional recommendations related to

2:46 ↗ the 2016 comprehensive plan amendments I

2:49 ↗ have attached a copy of your memo to our

2:51 ↗ memo when I hand it to you before

2:53 ↗ responding to the substance of your memo

2:55 ↗ I first thank all of you for your hard

2:57 ↗ work and thoughtful comments the city

2:59 ↗ and this community not just the City

3:01 ↗ Council relies on your dedicated work as

3:04 ↗ a critical part of the decision-making

3:05 ↗ process second and as chair of the

3:09 ↗ council's Landon Shore Committee this

3:10 ↗ year I acknowledge the frustration with

3:12 ↗ reviewing the 2016 comprehensive plan

3:15 ↗ amendments as it was lengthy and

3:17 ↗ challenging the 2016 amendments were

3:19 ↗ adopted by the Council on March 20 2017

3:22 ↗ your memo addressed three areas of

3:25 ↗ recommendations generally they are first

3:28 ↗ state growth targets service

3:31 ↗ infrastructure provision and level of

3:33 ↗ service second city affordable housing

3:36 ↗ strategy and C community sustainability

3:39 ↗ indicators and the council thanks you

3:41 ↗ for your recommendations particularly I

3:44 ↗ want to note that the council was not

3:47 ↗ aware that you were working from aged

3:48 ↗ rate studies this seemed to be a

3:50 ↗ particular concern of the Commission's

3:51 ↗ the council thanks you for pointing this

3:53 ↗ out it is my understanding that city

3:56 ↗ staff is reviewing all impact and

3:58 ↗ mitigation fee rate studies ages and

4:00 ↗ data input needs and will be making a

4:03 ↗ recommendation later this year to the

4:05 ↗ council regarding how to prioritize and

4:07 ↗ schedule any fee study updates that are

4:10 ↗ needed the 2017 budget and work plan

4:13 ↗ includes updates to the parks traffic

4:17 ↗ non-motorized impact fees and the

4:20 ↗ general government cost allocation plan

4:22 ↗ it may be necessary to incorporate

4:25 ↗ funding and staff time into the 2018

4:27 ↗ budget and work plan for other updates

4:29 ↗ next year also the council may consider

4:32 ↗ asking the administration to include an

4:34 ↗ aging

4:35 ↗ scheduled in future budgets to ensure

4:37 ↗ the council is kept current on the need

4:39 ↗ for updates most of the other comments

4:42 ↗ and concerns in your memo regarding

4:44 ↗ infrastructure keeping payslips

4:46 ↗ development growth targets

4:48 ↗ sustainability indicators affordable

4:50 ↗ housing and more our topics of interest

4:53 ↗ to the council and included in

4:55 ↗ discussions this year as part of the

4:56 ↗ moratorium I want to thank you again for

4:58 ↗ your very thoughtful memo if you have

5:00 ↗ any future questions please don't

5:02 ↗ hesitate to ask and we very much

5:04 ↗ appreciate your direct comments back to

5:06 ↗ the council thank you thank you

5:20 ↗ they get these everybody just want to

5:25 ↗ get everybody

5:31 ↗ no a trishul scan and send it to people

5:35 ↗ if you're interested in getting the

5:36 ↗ comments you can sit down and read and

5:39 ↗ measure pleasure all right that said

5:45 ↗ ready to go that's the day favor

5:49 ↗ starting a review the sub ere sub Area

5:53 ↗ Plan Update mmm

5:56 ↗ Thank You mr. chairman crank your

6:00 ↗ microphone up so that we ever talk about

6:02 ↗ her so you can hear me can you hear me

6:05 ↗ now all right thanks so I'm going to

6:08 ↗ kick this off and give a presentation

6:11 ↗ about the Old Town sub Area Plan Update

6:14 ↗ we've been working with I think this is

6:17 ↗ our third meeting with the Planning

6:19 ↗ Policy Commission and we've enjoyed your

6:22 ↗ feedback and the feedback of the public

6:24 ↗ and we are here tonight to show you the

6:28 ↗ results of that work as well as have a

6:30 ↗ public hearing so this official will I'm

6:33 ↗ going to talk for a while we have a team

6:34 ↗ here to talk and then we'll turn it over

6:37 ↗ to the public so we have a series of

6:39 ↗ slides and bear with me as we get

6:42 ↗ through this so tonight's goals are to

6:46 ↗ give you a background and overview of

6:48 ↗ the plan and the process as well the

6:52 ↗ summary I'll get into in a minute on the

6:54 ↗ electronic survey that we have had out

6:56 ↗ for about the last three weeks or so

6:58 ↗ that closed yesterday and then we'll get

7:02 ↗ into the overall plan format and then a

7:06 ↗ review of the changes from the April

7:08 ↗ 13th PPC meeting in which we heard some

7:12 ↗ changes we've had some work and that's

7:14 ↗ we'll go through those itemized things

7:19 ↗ that are in your packet and we'll try

7:21 ↗ and get through that and then we'll have

7:22 ↗ question answer availability for the PPC

7:25 ↗ and then public comment time and then

7:28 ↗ we'd like to if you're willing have

7:31 ↗ discussion and if you're forward a

7:34 ↗ recommendation to move this plan forward

7:38 ↗ to the City Council if that's if you're

7:40 ↗ comfortable doing so tonight there's an

7:43 ↗ overview

7:44 ↗ and there's a reminder about the process

7:47 ↗ that we've been going through it's been

7:51 ↗ a couple years now so in 2014 there were

7:55 ↗ several council goals established

7:57 ↗ council said we want to focus turn our

7:59 ↗ attention to Old Town there had been

8:01 ↗ some focus on central Issaquah and other

8:03 ↗ areas so and then in 2015 an Old Town

8:08 ↗ task force was established focused much

8:12 ↗ on the commercial area of Old Town and a

8:15 ↗ report was prepared and we've talked

8:19 ↗ about that in the past in 2016 we had

8:23 ↗ two public open house outreach events in

8:27 ↗ May and November that I'll summarize in

8:30 ↗ a bit 2017 is where we're here now

8:34 ↗ I mentioned the survey we had a couple

8:37 ↗ more open houses in March that were good

8:41 ↗ attendance that was good to talk with

8:42 ↗ folks there and then the schedule asks

8:46 ↗ that if council and PPC are comfortable

8:49 ↗ to review and take action on the plan

8:51 ↗ this year and then I think so again this

8:54 ↗ is an overview policy setting plan

8:57 ↗ setting the direction and then in 2018

9:01 ↗ if the schedule continues is to amend

9:04 ↗ various development and design standards

9:07 ↗ to implement parts of the plan so that's

9:10 ↗ the process timeline so now before I get

9:13 ↗ into the project overview there's

9:15 ↗ several slides here about the public

9:18 ↗ outreach and the going to talk about the

9:20 ↗ electronic survey here's a summary of

9:23 ↗ the open houses and the outreach I just

9:26 ↗ mentioned justly I'd say it started in

9:32 ↗ May with kind of the general questions

9:33 ↗ like what do you like what don't you

9:36 ↗ like what's your vision for the future

9:37 ↗ and then in November went to more

9:40 ↗ specific topics and then with the most

9:42 ↗ recent survey there's kind of narrowed

9:44 ↗ to to two big topics kind of building

9:47 ↗ character and design and the second one

9:50 ↗ is traffic cut through traffic issues in

9:53 ↗ the residential neighborhoods and ideas

9:55 ↗ on that

9:57 ↗ so the survey the electronic survey

10:00 ↗ looked at those issues I just talked

10:02 ↗ about and here's some results that that

10:07 ↗ are in so first of all and we received

10:12 ↗ 456 electronic responses and then in the

10:15 ↗ last week or so paper copies were handed

10:19 ↗ out to residents in the immediate

10:22 ↗ residential area right right around

10:24 ↗ sunset way and 21 paper responses came

10:27 ↗ back from that handout one of the topics

10:32 ↗ looked at what is the type of character

10:35 ↗ we would all like to see in the

10:37 ↗ single-family duplex neighborhood so

10:38 ↗ that's north and south of sunset way the

10:41 ↗ first slide shows we asked what's your

10:43 ↗ top three and this slide shows that well

10:50 ↗ there you see it there so 75% like the

10:52 ↗ single-family kind of old-fashioned

10:55 ↗ Craftsman bungalow home

10:57 ↗ 55% the two story and then duplex again

11:02 ↗ in a kind of a traditional style at 44%

11:05 ↗ so there's kind of that preference and

11:08 ↗ we've heard this in earlier open houses

11:11 ↗ the preference for more traditional

11:12 ↗ historic small-scale character so what

11:17 ↗ people what did people not like you can

11:20 ↗ see kind of low scores for what you see

11:23 ↗ up on the screen they're kind of the

11:25 ↗ more boxy larger modern contemporary

11:31 ↗ design so moving on we asked if we were

11:37 ↗ to consider code changes in the future

11:39 ↗ not tonight but in the future changes

11:41 ↗ here's some questions asked the highest

11:45 ↗ one at the bottom don't allow several

11:48 ↗ small Lots to be consolidated to one so

11:50 ↗ a person can build larger houses a house

11:53 ↗ or duplex

11:56 ↗ second one is to consider lowering the

11:58 ↗ building height from three down to two

12:00 ↗ stories we've heard that in public

12:03 ↗ comment and a second a third one is to

12:06 ↗ increase the minimum green space or

12:09 ↗ pervious surface on the lot it's

12:12 ↗ currently 50% some other questions were

12:16 ↗ asked so when we look at garages kind of

12:19 ↗ the old-fashioned historic design do you

12:22 ↗ want to have tucked the garage behind

12:23 ↗ the house

12:26 ↗ 36% looked at that accessory dwelling

12:29 ↗ units there's a high preference of

12:32 ↗ support for 80 use or mother-in-law

12:34 ↗ apartments and you support duplexes that

12:38 ↗ resemble single-family character of

12:40 ↗ house pretty strong preference for that

12:45 ↗ another question was what's the dish

12:47 ↗ would you support additional density

12:48 ↗ that reflects the same scale single

12:51 ↗ family and a little preference for that

12:54 ↗ so that's kind of quick on the

12:57 ↗ residential moving onto Front Street in

12:58 ↗ the commercial what's the vision for the

13:02 ↗ future these are the top three vote

13:05 ↗ getters the top left is this qual

13:09 ↗ library and then the bottom left is the

13:14 ↗ one or two-story traditional Main Street

13:16 ↗ look what was not enjoyed or supported

13:21 ↗ is the four to five story standalone or

13:28 ↗ mixed-use so I guess they're all labeled

13:30 ↗ mixed-use even the older design on the

13:32 ↗ right moving to the third category and

13:36 ↗ building character and design with East

13:37 ↗ sunset Way right outside the door we

13:40 ↗ asked so what land uses would so and the

13:45 ↗ support talks about increasing or

13:47 ↗ allowing small office and retail type

13:50 ↗ uses clearly not a preference for the

13:53 ↗ larger commercial uses on that Street

13:56 ↗ and this is currently a multi-family

14:00 ↗ allows multifamily with 4,000 square

14:03 ↗ feet of office uses on that Street

14:06 ↗ and then to the visual preference survey

14:09 ↗ of long sunset way a preference for the

14:13 ↗ buildings you see here I'm the highest

14:15 ↗ vote getters 44% but so not not a real

14:20 ↗ clear preference and then the types that

14:25 ↗ are less supported along sunset way and

14:32 ↗ then the second big topic has to do with

14:37 ↗ traffic and so the way this so clearly

14:40 ↗ congestion is a problem in Issaquah so

14:42 ↗ yeah they said yes we were hoping to get

14:45 ↗ feedback and cut through traffic and

14:47 ↗ that's the follow-up question which

14:50 ↗ asked a series of photos what do you

14:52 ↗ support so the traffic circle looks like

14:55 ↗ the clear idea supported here and then

14:59 ↗ slide a photo in the bottom is that just

15:02 ↗ a narrow street so I guess not such

15:06 ↗ support for the narrow street so that's

15:12 ↗ my quick run-through of survey and you

15:15 ↗ know that's once it's important but

15:18 ↗ there's been a lot of other public

15:20 ↗ outreach so let's not just be aware of

15:24 ↗ that we're talking I'm going to continue

15:27 ↗ are you okay so now it's launching in

15:31 ↗ the overview of the plan

15:32 ↗ the plan was initially written and

15:35 ↗ adopted in 1999 so 17 or so years ago

15:38 ↗ now 18 it was updated in 2009 just to

15:43 ↗ remove the bypass when that was no

15:44 ↗ longer supported back in 99 there was a

15:48 ↗ preference to preserve the historic

15:50 ↗ scale and character of both commercial

15:53 ↗ and residential areas and from the all

15:55 ↗ the what we're hearing through this

15:56 ↗ process that remains the same the key

16:01 ↗ issues I just ran through front sunset

16:04 ↗ single-family neighborhood building

16:05 ↗ character traffic and then a

16:07 ↗ consideration of a boundary change at

16:09 ↗ the North End of the Old Town area that

16:14 ↗ will show in a minute

16:18 ↗ this slide talks about elements the

16:21 ↗ second bullet that were overhauled in

16:24 ↗ the plan we've added a definition

16:27 ↗ section the crossed out chapters are the

16:30 ↗ actual chapters that exist today they've

16:32 ↗ been renamed little repackaged we've

16:36 ↗ added an environment chapter and a

16:39 ↗ housing chapter that we'll talk about

16:41 ↗ tonight and these are highlights of kind

16:46 ↗ of the key topics in each each of the

16:49 ↗ chapters and pretty soon we're going to

16:54 ↗ head off into team teamwork here so we

16:57 ↗ have other with each different chapter

16:59 ↗ like last time we have other staff here

17:01 ↗ so Kristin Leeson's right behind me

17:03 ↗ ready to talk about some chapters and

17:05 ↗ Curt seaman our transportation manager

17:07 ↗ is here as is Trish always thank you all

17:12 ↗ right so we met April 13th we had some

17:17 ↗ we had discussion here and and these are

17:19 ↗ highlights of elements you're seeing the

17:23 ↗ PPC is seeing new tonight that's in your

17:26 ↗ packet on to the let's see I think this

17:32 ↗ is the so here's the bow I guess one of

17:36 ↗ the first topics I'll talk about it the

17:38 ↗ boundary map change so through the

17:42 ↗ discussion we've looked at old town and

17:46 ↗ up at the north end is a kind of a

17:50 ↗ transition and character from the

17:52 ↗ historic traditional towards what's up

17:54 ↗ at Gilman Boulevard on the right of that

17:58 ↗ red hatch marked areas the staples

18:01 ↗ former staples store and on the left

18:04 ↗ side is confluence park so in our

18:07 ↗ discussion it seemed like a preference

18:11 ↗ or a thought that that area is more

18:14 ↗ within the character of the central

18:16 ↗ Issaquah plan and so the proposal is to

18:18 ↗ is to shift it to that place we had

18:21 ↗ discussion of well Chicago Woods Park

18:23 ↗ where should confluence park go I guess

18:25 ↗ it should go everywhere but the current

18:29 ↗ plan cuts it in half so we had to pick

18:31 ↗ in

18:31 ↗ out and we picked out but I don't know I

18:36 ↗ think either way it's still confluence

18:38 ↗ park it's very important to Old Town

18:41 ↗ central is crawling everywhere that's

18:44 ↗ the boundary map adjustment to consider

18:47 ↗ I've got a couple questions should I

18:49 ↗ hold off until you're done with your

18:51 ↗ presentation or we'd like them going to

18:52 ↗ start now I think it'd be best to hold

18:54 ↗ off if you can remember them

18:56 ↗ good yes all right the introduction

19:00 ↗ chapter so I'll talk briefly the

19:02 ↗ introduction chapters in your packet

19:04 ↗ covers these topics kind of just again

19:07 ↗ given an overview there's a 20-year plan

19:10 ↗ it's a subset of the comprehensive plan

19:13 ↗ of development of the whole city and

19:16 ↗ like I said earlier sets the framework

19:18 ↗ for future code amendments if the city

19:20 ↗ chooses to and other actions to

19:22 ↗ implement the plan and now we're ready

19:27 ↗ to launch into of the community old town

19:29 ↗ community chapter I'll turn it over to

19:32 ↗ Kristin so whatever is highlighted in or

19:39 ↗ whatever is in black was there last time

19:40 ↗ whatever is in red is a change this time

19:43 ↗ you see the vision for the Old Town

19:45 ↗ community is quite a bit longer than it

19:47 ↗ was seeming a bit generic and we want we

19:50 ↗ want central to be pedestrian we want

19:52 ↗ this to be pedestrian when I would

19:53 ↗ everything to be safe so we expanded on

19:56 ↗ it a bit just to focus a bit more on Old

20:00 ↗ Town and its historic integrity and its

20:04 ↗ weird daily services and how easily

20:08 ↗ walkable it already is another one of

20:13 ↗ the things that we tried to do in our

20:14 ↗ changes this time a comment came up that

20:16 ↗ there was a lot of redundancy so we've

20:18 ↗ tried to eliminate a lot of that these

20:23 ↗ are pretty simple changed it to Old Town

20:25 ↗ added weather protected because that

20:27 ↗ helps to make it in more twenty 24/7

20:29 ↗ environment if people are protected from

20:31 ↗ the rain that we have around here the CC

20:34 ↗ down at the bottom policy a5 is crossed

20:37 ↗ out part of that is because it's into

20:38 ↗ place so we wanted to get rid of

20:40 ↗ redundancy however we still wanted to

20:42 ↗ know to note that we want to use

20:44 ↗ architectural and landscape

20:45 ↗ elements to mark transitions and

20:47 ↗ entrances to and within Old Town so we

20:49 ↗ just merged that into D right above it

20:54 ↗ again redundancy in a four Street wall

20:58 ↗ didn't sound good to some people so it

21:00 ↗ sounded so we just took that out and

21:01 ↗ then v1 was reduced was deleted because

21:06 ↗ ever doesn't see with those things in

21:08 ↗ the mobility and connectivity element so

21:15 ↗ golf C so when we did the survey we we

21:18 ↗ just didn't know how this was going to

21:19 ↗ turn out as far as architectural minor

21:20 ↗ scale we didn't know what people were

21:22 ↗ thinking turns out that people kind of

21:24 ↗ want to see first

21:27 ↗ initially the goal focused on Old Town

21:29 ↗ as a whole but we have a housing section

21:32 ↗ that talks about the character of

21:33 ↗ housing so we decided to focus this one

21:35 ↗ solely on the cultural business district

21:37 ↗ or the CBD and sunset neighborhood which

21:40 ↗ is what we're calling it right now just

21:41 ↗ east sunset way that's what the goal did

21:45 ↗ policy c1 focuses on the CBD and talks

21:48 ↗ about considering standards that still

21:50 ↗ allow for feet can actually go above

21:52 ↗ four feet now but still allow four feet

21:54 ↗ still allow the building step back at a

21:56 ↗ wedding cake to help preserve views

21:57 ↗ don't pay quite as much attention to be

22:01 ↗ impervious surface but focus a lot on

22:02 ↗ the greenery or the landscaping on walls

22:05 ↗ to help soften soften it so it doesn't

22:09 ↗ feel quite so urban so then c2 now

22:15 ↗ focuses on sunset way and people are

22:17 ↗ actually we heard that they want to

22:18 ↗ reduce the building heights a little bit

22:20 ↗ down to three three stories and said

22:23 ↗ three feet down to three stories and

22:27 ↗ actually don't allow much commercial on

22:30 ↗ long that Street so we've written this

22:33 ↗ to reflect that it would still allow

22:34 ↗ some but not big commercial maybe small

22:36 ↗ commercial parking this section also

22:43 ↗ focuses on parking and we talked last

22:47 ↗ time about establishing maximum parking

22:49 ↗ requirements which is something that we

22:50 ↗ did in central Issaquah the taskforce

22:52 ↗ wanted to adopt codes more like the

22:56 ↗ central istic laws so they asked this

22:58 ↗ perhaps lesson minimum parking

23:00 ↗ requirements and the reason that they

23:02 ↗ are that the task force what to do this

23:04 ↗ is because our parking requirements now

23:07 ↗ sometimes prohibit properties from

23:09 ↗ redeveloping because they're a bit

23:11 ↗ excessive or just undoable I'm not

23:14 ↗ feasible so that's a possibility however

23:17 ↗ as it says in the last part of this we

23:19 ↗ would definitely need to provide

23:20 ↗ sufficient parking somewhere else and

23:22 ↗ the council has tasked us with coming up

23:26 ↗ with a plan by the end of 28 to figure

23:28 ↗ out where additional parking can go

23:30 ↗ before these things would happen so we

23:35 ↗ talked about the different neighborhoods

23:36 ↗ in here we talked about the cultural

23:38 ↗ business district the sunset a

23:40 ↗ neighborhood the small-scale residential

23:43 ↗ neighborhoods multi-family in this map

23:45 ↗ because we talked about them in the

23:47 ↗ policies this map is just there to help

23:48 ↗ identify those and that has been added

23:51 ↗ since last time and now if Kurt's ready

23:54 ↗ I'm going to hand it over to Kurt

24:06 ↗ how do you just escape look what is

24:15 ↗ really in Medellin sir

24:16 ↗ I was at the ETS clothes everything just

24:21 ↗ to be a daddy

24:27 ↗ and be wrong okay

24:44 ↗ down there talking to monster-sized and

24:51 ↗ there you go

25:00 ↗ here come wait page page 22 and we're

25:11 ↗ off okay a little confusion here but

25:15 ↗ we're so I'm Curt seaman I'm the

25:18 ↗ transportation manager here in it's a

25:20 ↗ quiet word we're going to instead of I'm

25:23 ↗ going to switch you from the PowerPoint

25:25 ↗ just because it seemed like there was a

25:27 ↗ couple things missing that I noticed in

25:29 ↗ the PowerPoint so we're just we're going

25:30 ↗ to go through things in the actual

25:33 ↗ document you have it's and I'm not going

25:35 ↗ to read through everything but I do want

25:37 ↗ to talk to you at a high level about

25:39 ↗ what we've done and and sort of and then

25:44 ↗ just go through and hit the highlights

25:45 ↗ here so as as Dave mentioned I I feel

25:48 ↗ like we have lots of great input from

25:50 ↗ from the Commission and the public last

25:52 ↗ time that really helped SBI hopefully

25:57 ↗ more clear on these policies and so a

26:00 ↗ couple of principles that we applied

26:02 ↗ here generally is that less is more and

26:06 ↗ so we were pretty aggressive in our

26:11 ↗ editing I think here as you'll see but

26:13 ↗ in no case I think I feel that we've

26:15 ↗ lost it in the content of what's in here

26:17 ↗ so I you need to be sure to let us know

26:20 ↗ if that's if you feel that's not the

26:22 ↗ case but we think we've got everything

26:24 ↗ that we've had in here originally but in

26:26 ↗ far less words and and we tried to say

26:29 ↗ things as simply and clearly and

26:31 ↗ concisely as possible and to not repeat

26:34 ↗ ourselves which there seem to be a lot

26:36 ↗ of repetition in the in the earlier

26:39 ↗ version so so with that said the vision

26:45 ↗ is is essentially so we'll go through

26:49 ↗ the this is the strikethrough version so

26:51 ↗ you can see what was there and what was

26:54 ↗ what what's been changed so the vision

26:56 ↗ is essentially the same the will focus

27:00 ↗ now three three goals in the in the plan

27:05 ↗ that in the plan so the first is this

27:08 ↗ idea of

27:12 ↗ a policy that emphasizes connectivity so

27:17 ↗ you can see our discussion with better

27:20 ↗ connectivity in all modes with an old

27:22 ↗ town is really the key and so so we

27:26 ↗ haven't so in it in the spirit of

27:28 ↗ repetition we've struck through the

27:31 ↗ first policy because it just talks about

27:33 ↗ multimodal connectivity but we in policy

27:37 ↗ which is now policy a1 specifically

27:40 ↗ talked about developing a transportation

27:44 ↗ system that improves connectivity for

27:46 ↗ all modes so there's a there's a

27:48 ↗ sentence on what sidewalks should be and

27:51 ↗ how they should be built same is true

27:53 ↗ for bicycles we talked about the

27:57 ↗ importance of bus stops for transit

28:00 ↗ always looking to provide as much on

28:02 ↗ street parking as possible and always

28:06 ↗ looking to connect gaps in our system

28:09 ↗ that enhance the completeness of getting

28:12 ↗ around in old town so again I think I

28:15 ↗ hope you'll find that everything here

28:18 ↗ and these other the strikethrough

28:20 ↗ portions we haven't lost anything and

28:22 ↗ we've really simplified and tried to put

28:25 ↗ most all of the ideas into this of

28:27 ↗ connectivity for all the modes into this

28:30 ↗ first policy a1 so that's that and then

28:35 ↗ policy a2 talks about we talked about a

28:38 ↗ gateway to to Old Town and and this came

28:42 ↗ up when we were working on East sunset

28:44 ↗ as well so we have a policy in there

28:47 ↗ that we should look to enhance the

28:51 ↗ entrance at East sunset so that becomes

28:54 ↗ more of a gateway to mark the entrance

28:56 ↗ to old town so there's that's I said I

28:59 ↗ wasn't going to read that but that's

29:00 ↗ basically what it says there and then

29:02 ↗ and then policy a3 goes to this the

29:07 ↗ importance of implementing the all the

29:11 ↗ great work that that was done for the

29:14 ↗ downtown streetscape plan so the idea is

29:17 ↗ that that that good work would be

29:20 ↗ implemented into projects in in Old Town

29:23 ↗ so

29:26 ↗ so that's the policy that are there are

29:31 ↗ the policies that support goal a so I

29:35 ↗ would propose to maybe just go through

29:38 ↗ all the rest of my section and then be

29:41 ↗ happy to answer any questions so again

29:45 ↗ everything that was in goal a remains in

29:49 ↗ goal a in concept

29:51 ↗ it's just hopefully set in far less

29:53 ↗ words it's a little hard to see that

29:55 ↗ with all of the text and all the strikes

29:57 ↗ ruse but I think if we accepted the

29:59 ↗ strike throughs you'd see a much cleaner

30:02 ↗ simpler version of getting everything

30:07 ↗ done we want here for multimodal

30:10 ↗ connectivity so that's that's goal a so

30:13 ↗ goal B is all about traffic and impacts

30:19 ↗ from traffic to the residential

30:21 ↗ neighborhoods and the businesses as well

30:23 ↗ in Old Town so we all know just driving

30:27 ↗ over here this this evening it was

30:29 ↗ reinforced once again how how much

30:32 ↗ traffic congestion even here at six

30:34 ↗ o'clock at night and how that traffic

30:37 ↗ degrades the neighborhoods and quality

30:39 ↗ of life and both for residents and

30:41 ↗ businesses in this part of town so we've

30:44 ↗ the policies address that issue on two

30:49 ↗ levels one is to develop and implement

30:52 ↗ traffic calming strategies and we've

30:54 ↗ listed a variety of tools which David

30:57 ↗ showed you some pictures of Sauternes

30:58 ↗ restrictions traffic circles landscape

31:01 ↗ barriers and so forth and and you'll see

31:04 ↗ we say and other measures as appropriate

31:06 ↗ so any or all we talk about a a traffic

31:09 ↗ calming toolbox and so these are

31:11 ↗ typically the types of types of tools we

31:14 ↗ have that we know helps with traffic

31:17 ↗ calming so but it's important to note

31:20 ↗ that we're not limiting ourselves just

31:21 ↗ to these these type of improvements and

31:25 ↗ then so that's what we're that's what

31:29 ↗ we're committing to do in Old Town is to

31:31 ↗ is to implement a traffic calming

31:33 ↗ program and then equally important is

31:36 ↗ that

31:37 ↗ see we know that much of the traffic

31:40 ↗ that's impacting us here is not is not

31:43 ↗ it's a claw traffic and so it's equally

31:46 ↗ important to continue to work with all

31:48 ↗ of our partner agencies to look at ways

31:52 ↗ that we can improve the the the regional

31:55 ↗ corridors ability to carry regional

31:57 ↗ traffic which is where regional traffic

32:00 ↗ should be not on our local streets so

32:02 ↗ that's those are the two policies that

32:05 ↗ address traffic impacts in Old Town and

32:10 ↗ then now it gets a little bit Messier

32:14 ↗ here but hopefully simpler in the end so

32:18 ↗ so goal C talked about increasing the

32:27 ↗ number of trips made by pedestrians and

32:29 ↗ bicycles in Old Town and so we've

32:32 ↗ changed that just slightly to I think

32:35 ↗ more or clearly say what we want to say

32:39 ↗ here which is - we want a balanced

32:42 ↗ transportation system that integrates

32:43 ↗ all the most pads bikes transit and the

32:46 ↗ street plan so - that supports

32:50 ↗ multimodal access and circulation which

32:52 ↗ is consistent I think with what we

32:55 ↗ talked about in goal a so it's this idea

33:00 ↗ of a balanced transportation system no

33:02 ↗ one's know when to legislating single

33:05 ↗ occupancy vehicles off the road but we

33:07 ↗ know that we need to balance all modes

33:09 ↗ of getting around to have a successful

33:12 ↗ transportation system so that's the goal

33:15 ↗ that's the discussion about this and

33:17 ↗ then the policies focus there's about

33:21 ↗ seven policies I think altogether so and

33:25 ↗ we've divided we've rather than going

33:27 ↗ through the separating them into

33:29 ↗ different goals we've combined them all

33:31 ↗ into this multimodal goal and then we've

33:34 ↗ gone into non-motorized policies and how

33:37 ↗ we would support and expand our non

33:41 ↗ motorized network which is typically

33:44 ↗ Ted's and bikes and so I won't read

33:47 ↗ those to you but again same concept same

33:50 ↗ idea

33:51 ↗ hopefully said in fewer few few fewer

33:55 ↗ policies and fewer words so those that

33:58 ↗ non-motorized elements are in policies

34:01 ↗ one two and three and then transit on

34:05 ↗ how to better support transit are

34:07 ↗ discussed in policies c4 c5 and c6 and

34:15 ↗ again I'm happy to discuss they're not

34:17 ↗ trying to push you through these I'm

34:20 ↗ happy to discuss any or all of these in

34:21 ↗ more detail but I also to respect

34:25 ↗ everyone's time won't read all these to

34:27 ↗ you because you have them all in your

34:29 ↗ packet and then the third sort of major

34:33 ↗ element in this goal see is on how we

34:37 ↗ might be able to expand ride-sharing and

34:40 ↗ what that could look like both with you

34:44 ↗ know can you trip reduction those types

34:45 ↗ of policies and then we know that

34:48 ↗ especially in Old Town the istic Law

34:50 ↗ School District has a big impact so

34:52 ↗ we've specifically mentioned it's across

34:54 ↗ school district as as a high value group

34:59 ↗ to work with to help reduce traffic

35:03 ↗ impacts in Old Town so again we see that

35:09 ↗ goal is is is struck through but again

35:14 ↗ we believe that all of the ideas and

35:15 ↗ goli have been rolled into actually D

35:21 ↗ and E have been replaced by a more rebus

35:25 ↗ robust and complete goals C so now that

35:29 ↗ I have you may be totally confused I'll

35:32 ↗ stop talking and do what other questions

35:35 ↗ network we're going to keep going but

35:38 ↗ okay we'll keep going and I'll but I'm

35:42 ↗ not going also okay I'll go back to the

35:47 ↗ PowerPoint

35:52 ↗ escape escape that didn't work there so

36:03 ↗ we've got two chapters I'll talk about

36:05 ↗ environment and economic vitality

36:07 ↗ there's just a couple changes to that in

36:10 ↗ the environment chapter policy a1 is a

36:15 ↗ combination of a1 and a2 where oh yeah

36:22 ↗ thank you there's the whole thing

36:25 ↗ stormwater is the issue we've we've been

36:28 ↗ talking about this so there's a new code

36:31 ↗ that the city must comply with which

36:33 ↗ requires if feasible stormwater must

36:36 ↗ infiltrate into the soil of the site and

36:39 ↗ so this is reflecting that it's

36:42 ↗ reflecting but the stormwater code does

36:47 ↗ give an option where there's a special

36:49 ↗ zoning districts such as an Old Town sub

36:51 ↗ area plan to in the middle of this

36:55 ↗ discussion to say if there's a conflict

36:56 ↗ between the stormwater requirements and

36:59 ↗ the vision of developing according to

37:04 ↗ our vision of development of development

37:06 ↗ design standards then we have the choice

37:08 ↗ to say the vision of the development

37:10 ↗ standards can prevail over the

37:12 ↗ requirement for the infiltration of

37:15 ↗ stormwater on site so to put that in

37:18 ↗ some laypersons terms so the proposal

37:21 ↗ here is just in the CBD zone primarily

37:24 ↗ the front Street area the vision there

37:27 ↗ is primarily have buildings right out to

37:29 ↗ the sidewalk zero lot line you know

37:32 ↗ right next to each other on the sides

37:33 ↗ and in the rear the stormwater L ID

37:37 ↗ requirement low-impact stormwater

37:39 ↗ development requirement could require

37:41 ↗ like a rain garden or some a grassy area

37:45 ↗ to infiltrate the water on the site so

37:48 ↗ if we wanted to build up to the property

37:50 ↗ lines but at the same time need a rain

37:53 ↗ garden or a bio filtration Swale those

37:56 ↗ two are in conflict so the proposal here

37:59 ↗ is just not for all of Old Town because

38:00 ↗ we have that choice to say for all of

38:02 ↗ Old Town but

38:03 ↗ for the CBD area is to later adopt a

38:07 ↗ code that enables the city to choose

38:10 ↗ this option that's what that's all about

38:16 ↗ this next policy we discussed last week

38:19 ↗ this or two weeks ago is a discussion

38:21 ↗ about non-conforming codes that come

38:23 ↗ from an old plan David can you go back

38:26 ↗ okay because would the I'm a little

38:31 ↗ confused based on what I've got on my

38:33 ↗ okay I wondered about that because I

38:37 ↗ mean you got in what I have on my staff

38:41 ↗ report is different than that okay thank

38:45 ↗ you for I'll clarify so down the mouse

38:49 ↗ work right here example a placeholder

38:51 ↗ you've got it crossed out here but it's

38:53 ↗ still listed yeah let me

38:59 ↗ breaking news break packet was sent okay

39:02 ↗ I should have started with that kind of

39:04 ↗ started out I start breaking news

39:06 ↗ breaking news okay this is so we had

39:09 ↗ this placeholder and the placeholder is

39:11 ↗ proposed to be replaced with what you

39:13 ↗ see there okay okay yeah all right thank

39:19 ↗ you

39:19 ↗ and welcome to and thank you sorry about

39:22 ↗ that this is old news this next slide is

39:25 ↗ old news we talked about that last time

39:27 ↗ the non-conforming discussion this is

39:29 ↗ outdated code or policy language we have

39:34 ↗ the Comprehensive Plan and existing code

39:36 ↗ has more up-to-date discussion of

39:39 ↗ non-conforming so my Curt was saying

39:42 ↗ instead of repeating that in this plan

39:44 ↗ will just let other plans talk about

39:47 ↗ non-conforming policies moving on to

39:51 ↗ economic vitality chapter at last

39:55 ↗ Commission meeting there was a request

39:56 ↗ to add the school Arts Commission as one

39:59 ↗ of the key groups and that is there a

40:03 ↗ force stricken to get rid of redundancy

40:07 ↗ and that policy has moved into the

40:09 ↗ connectivity chapter and again be one is

40:14 ↗ redundant

40:17 ↗ policy now b2 addresses the discussion

40:21 ↗ we had at the last meeting about these

40:25 ↗ cell tower the new cell technology

40:29 ↗ coming online and finding that balance

40:31 ↗ between concealing these new

40:33 ↗ infrastructure with potential aesthetic

40:36 ↗ negative impacts to the character of the

40:38 ↗ neighborhood so that's proposed language

40:40 ↗ see what you think of that and again

40:44 ↗ some redundant policies are removed and

40:49 ↗ more and then we move on to the housing

40:54 ↗ chapter that Kristen is going to talk

40:56 ↗ about and then we're almost done here

41:01 ↗ back alright so again with the survey we

41:09 ↗ found out that it wasn't just a scale

41:11 ↗ and it wasn't you know it's not that you

41:13 ↗ could do that people are okay with

41:16 ↗ modern as long as it was a small scale

41:18 ↗ people say we just want traditional and

41:20 ↗ we want it to be small so that's where

41:22 ↗ we started to head with the housing

41:24 ↗ element here so is that map that I

41:27 ↗ showed you talked about the small scale

41:28 ↗ residential neighborhoods which are

41:30 ↗ north and south at B cents that way so

41:32 ↗ that's where this is primarily focused

41:34 ↗ in the to section I'm sections I'm going

41:36 ↗ to talk to you talk about so the that's

41:41 ↗ what the goal does the first policy

41:44 ↗ talks about ensuring that new and

41:47 ↗ redevelopment is constructed in the same

41:49 ↗ traditional style and scale as the

41:52 ↗ existing small-scale neighborhoods for

41:55 ↗ residential neighborhoods and a

41:58 ↗ correction that I need to make that came

42:00 ↗ up last time I think John may have

42:01 ↗ brought it up we talked about allowing

42:04 ↗ and encouraging cottage housing within

42:06 ↗ old town we threw in small-scale too but

42:08 ↗ there probably needs to be a little more

42:10 ↗ elaboration on what cottage housing is

42:13 ↗ so we will we will continue with that we

42:15 ↗ had that discussion last time and then

42:18 ↗ thirdly it's a new policy provide

42:20 ↗ architectural standards that insured

42:21 ↗ duplexes are constructed to look like

42:23 ↗ single-family properties and consider

42:27 ↗ reducing the

42:29 ↗ height from three stories down to two

42:32 ↗ stories currently three stories are

42:34 ↗ allowed and again use the traditional

42:37 ↗ materials based on the survey people

42:44 ↗ would 80% 87% of people would like to

42:46 ↗ continue seeing an accessory dwelling

42:50 ↗ units and other online units there they

42:53 ↗ help support homeowner maintenance and

42:55 ↗ affordability and be three before I

43:01 ↗ didn't show up here but B 3 B 4 and C 5

43:03 ↗ i we combined those a little but there

43:05 ↗ was a lot of redundancy but with B 5 put

43:09 ↗ it into B 3 inches that work with

43:11 ↗ organizations such as King County in

43:12 ↗ their consortium King County consortium

43:15 ↗ housing repair program and help educate

43:17 ↗ low to moderate income homeowners of

43:20 ↗ programs to help people preserve their

43:22 ↗ existing housing and then C did not

43:25 ↗ change at all goal sue didn't change at

43:26 ↗ all that focuses primarily on

43:27 ↗ multifamily and ensuring that there are

43:29 ↗ amenities there that we work with the

43:31 ↗ multifamily homeowners to do

43:33 ↗ transportation demand programs to help

43:35 ↗ you know inform them about carpooling

43:37 ↗ and other options besides having a car

43:38 ↗ which helps with the cost of not having

43:41 ↗ a car so that's what C does there were

43:43 ↗ no changes to that one so if you have

43:44 ↗ any questions it's in the packet we can

43:46 ↗ talk about it but I didn't want to bring

43:48 ↗ it up here okay I guess I can do next

43:54 ↗ step so tonight we have the public

43:55 ↗ hearing

43:55 ↗ possibly a PPC recommendation may a

43:58 ↗ twist would go to council work session

44:01 ↗ may 15th it gets referred to the land

44:03 ↗ and shore committee which would happen

44:05 ↗ on June 1st and likely again in July and

44:07 ↗ then council action hmm it did say June

44:10 ↗ but now it's probably going to be pushed

44:12 ↗ out to like til July we'll see all right

44:21 ↗ sure yeah yes any a council member or

44:28 ↗ Commission members have any questions or

44:29 ↗ the staff before we open up for public

44:31 ↗ comment a lot of questions yeah I've got

44:33 ↗ about a dozen too so going through the

44:35 ↗ presentation like this it might be

44:37 ↗ helpful for us to start from the

44:38 ↗ beginning and how everybody kind of goes

44:40 ↗ section by section maybe unless you

44:42 ↗ would share would rather have every

44:43 ↗ every salesperson don't return okay yes

44:48 ↗ how would you like this

44:50 ↗ yes section by section I'm going to

44:54 ↗ start with a the very beginning I think

44:56 ↗ that you guys had included the

44:59 ↗ abridgement of Old Town without the e

45:01 ↗ and was passed by council as part of the

45:04 ↗ facing No so on page 11 of my packet out

45:08 ↗ of 49 or page 1 of 39

45:10 ↗ we have Old Town we can eat two

45:13 ↗ different times and then throughout most

45:15 ↗ of the document there's no e when we

45:17 ↗ refer to the plan that was adapted in 99

45:20 ↗ and 2009 it's an established adapted

45:23 ↗ plan with an E so we still call it that

45:26 ↗ but when we were talking about the new

45:28 ↗ plan or the new whatever's new we try to

45:31 ↗ remember to take the e off but the

45:33 ↗ established plan we still consider it

45:36 ↗ having the e because that's what it was

45:38 ↗ in 2009 and so that when it's been

45:40 ↗ decided in there that had not been

45:41 ↗ decided if they were discussed that's

45:43 ↗ what we're proposing though that's what

45:44 ↗ we heard for most folks that they would

45:46 ↗ rather get rid of the E and I know you

45:48 ↗ had mentioned that you had heard that

45:50 ↗ from the economic vitality Commission

45:52 ↗ that was formed for Old Town but I don't

45:54 ↗ remember doing anything from from actual

45:57 ↗ residents was there also support from

46:00 ↗ the community about drunken you know I

46:02 ↗ didn't I haven't grown out either so I

46:04 ↗ want a question at the open houses I I

46:07 ↗ think a lot of residents who feel that

46:09 ↗ way and so sure here I saw that in

46:11 ↗ scrapping C I wanted to see where we

46:13 ↗ were falling within that if that was

46:15 ↗ something that we was that was being

46:16 ↗ decided tonight if that was getting

46:18 ↗ prose except for a recommendation the

46:20 ↗ whole thing is up for recommendation if

46:21 ↗ you guys want to keep the e that can be

46:23 ↗ part of your recommendation absolutely

46:25 ↗ okay we make a motion for

46:30 ↗ at the very anyway you vegetarian

46:33 ↗ Express try to get through these

46:36 ↗ sections not beat a dead horse too much

46:40 ↗ if we can get through them so let's go

46:42 ↗ to section the first one follow through

46:48 ↗ on the slideshow or that yeah okay I've

46:51 ↗ got questions that they want we want to

46:54 ↗ ask I think what community would

46:57 ↗ be the first my first question to is

46:59 ↗ actually about so we're we're being

47:01 ↗ asked to look at two different

47:03 ↗ considerations and I would ask that we

47:05 ↗ actually split them tonight i right now

47:08 ↗ we're supposed to be voting on this

47:09 ↗ jointly both the proposed boundary

47:11 ↗ change as well as the updated elements

47:14 ↗ and so i would ask that we actually call

47:16 ↗ two different votes on them and not do

47:19 ↗ them together if I made this opposed to

47:22 ↗ the chair that we know that we actually

47:23 ↗ abridges a and put them again still in

47:26 ↗ tonight while we separate them out

47:27 ↗ because right now I feel like they're

47:29 ↗ two separate issues rather than

47:31 ↗ belonging them into one not sure I

47:33 ↗ understand what the value of that is so

47:35 ↗ I was surprised that we hadn't we've

47:38 ↗ seen a lot of information from staff

47:40 ↗ going through this policy plan we

47:41 ↗ haven't seen much about the boundary

47:43 ↗ change I know again it was recommended

47:45 ↗ by the task force but it was also put to

47:48 ↗ us that the former staples possible most

47:51 ↗ likely brewery they'll be coming in is

47:53 ↗ able to do it regardless of where it

47:55 ↗ falls I hadn't I when I in the area

47:58 ↗ going up to Gelman I'm not seeing a

48:00 ↗ strong reasoning why we would want to

48:03 ↗ move that area to the central Issaquah

48:06 ↗ and rather than have keeping with the

48:09 ↗ old town I'm also I wasn't at the last

48:12 ↗ meeting but there was comments looking

48:13 ↗ at the map about people saying we're not

48:14 ↗ sure what's going down on the bottom the

48:16 ↗ bottom we're not quite sure what's going

48:18 ↗ on we're kind of getting rid of the top

48:19 ↗ and I see this kind of condensing of old

48:23 ↗ towns that I think it's a little

48:24 ↗ concerning and I don't think this staff

48:26 ↗ is a actually addressed how the

48:29 ↗ community felt about this and a lot of

48:31 ↗ the information that we've gotten about

48:32 ↗ feedback but we did get a feedback from

48:36 ↗ residents in previous meetings saying

48:38 ↗ that they were opposed to this and so I

48:40 ↗ think that staff hasn't actually

48:41 ↗ addressed to the pker you're kind of

48:44 ↗ adjusted

48:44 ↗ clarify they're opposed to the boundary

48:46 ↗ change yeah there was there was comments

48:48 ↗ that were on record I believe two

48:50 ↗ meetings ago or peoples that were

48:51 ↗ opposed to it and I haven't seen any

48:54 ↗ information from you guys other than the

48:56 ↗ recommendation from that task force that

48:58 ↗ that recommends this okay because it's

49:01 ↗ been on the docket for it was on the

49:03 ↗ docket last year because of the task

49:06 ↗ force and then it was on the docket

49:07 ↗ in January when we had the public

49:09 ↗ hearing on it again and I don't recall

49:11 ↗ anyone talking about the that they were

49:13 ↗ against the boundary change I would have

49:16 ↗ to I would have to go back to I would

49:19 ↗ have to go back to that meeting on Forks

49:20 ↗ we don't have a year certainly welcome

49:21 ↗ on who recommend against it yeah I'm

49:24 ↗ some I was surprised that we weren't

49:27 ↗ giving more information I think trying

49:29 ↗ to help understand why staff encouraged

49:31 ↗ us to make this boundary change other

49:33 ↗ than that recommendation from the task

49:35 ↗ force that's not it concerning okay so

49:43 ↗ I've got questions about the boundary

49:45 ↗ area as well

49:48 ↗ aside from superficially being separated

49:52 ↗ by a creek what other motivations are

49:56 ↗ there to change this boundary well

50:01 ↗ during the taskforce discussions their

50:03 ↗ reasoning for wanting to do it was that

50:05 ↗ they feel like old town really doesn't

50:06 ↗ start until you get to dogwood they said

50:09 ↗ it's just a different character we don't

50:10 ↗ really get it that was that was their

50:12 ↗ reasoning for making that recommendation

50:13 ↗ okay

50:15 ↗ the crow really did separate the feeling

50:17 ↗ of where you are before the creek and

50:19 ↗ where you are after the creek like if

50:21 ↗ they merge soil building yeah if we I'm

50:25 ↗ gonna ask two questions one if we leave

50:30 ↗ the boundary portion so that's part of

50:33 ↗ Old Town what do you think that would

50:36 ↗ look like and if we take your

50:39 ↗ recommendation what would that look like

50:42 ↗ times what'd it look like I don't know

50:44 ↗ what you mean whatever would at one line

50:46 ↗ its develops or redevelop there right is

50:48 ↗ our there would the plan with a vision

50:50 ↗ for that change I mean is it's owned

50:54 ↗ differently because it would no longer

50:56 ↗ be

50:57 ↗ part of the old town would be part of a

50:58 ↗ different area so Woody's

51:01 ↗ the style of that change with the

51:03 ↗ solubility Stapleton shot the staples

51:06 ↗ properties actually has an entrance it

51:08 ↗ can connect up to the Gillman Boulevard

51:11 ↗ that ends with bones and the Grange and

51:13 ↗ so if you kept it in Old Town

51:16 ↗ you'd have part of your building

51:17 ↗ accessing from central and part of it

51:20 ↗ accessing from Old Town and we thought

51:22 ↗ that just would be really a little mixed

51:26 ↗ messages for the property owner that

51:28 ↗ he's got two phases in two sub area

51:30 ↗ plans so we thought this was a way to

51:32 ↗ move it to one that seemed more logical

51:36 ↗ because we're not going to pull Gillman

51:37 ↗ out of central and put it in Old Town so

51:41 ↗ it seemed more logical to take the creek

51:43 ↗ and make that the border for between

51:45 ↗ Central and Old Town okay well thinking

51:49 ↗ about bones candy that would belong in

51:53 ↗ Old Town no that's not on the table at

51:58 ↗ this point that's already in the vision

52:00 ↗ it's in the district vision as part of

52:03 ↗ old 10 as part of that district you can

52:06 ↗ bring that up at a in your motion

52:09 ↗ because there's very their proximity is

52:11 ↗ very close and the Grange

52:12 ↗ also matches Old Town right so we're

52:18 ↗ welcome to recommend that if that's this

52:21 ↗ is first I've heard that anybody would

52:23 ↗ want to move that part of Gilman into

52:25 ↗ Old Town I mean it's well the reason why

52:28 ↗ I'm asking now is because it's being

52:30 ↗ proposed that we move it out of Old Town

52:32 ↗ we know just a little just staples up to

52:35 ↗ the creek basically the line of where

52:37 ↗ Gillman is where Gilman and Front Street

52:39 ↗ is that intersection so I think maybe

52:40 ↗ what Ron's point is is a adjacent

52:42 ↗ communities fit into the concept of Old

52:45 ↗ Town so to say that that c-pulse area

52:48 ↗ doesn't really quite fit in those

52:49 ↗ surrounding areas kind of help blend it

52:52 ↗ when we talk about old town holding a

52:54 ↗ lot of the treasures of Issaquah bones

52:56 ↗ as list is one and though it's not in

52:58 ↗ Old Town it's adjacent to and helps

53:01 ↗ create that feeling of going into Old

53:03 ↗ Town exactly yes thank you so what I'm

53:08 ↗ trying to understand is what is the real

53:10 ↗ purpose why would we want to move it out

53:13 ↗ of old town I understand you're saying

53:15 ↗ is because of the look and feel but is

53:18 ↗ that really necessary because at some

53:20 ↗ point you're going to have a separation

53:22 ↗ between Old Town and Gillman exactly so

53:27 ↗ what's the vision that your the city's

53:30 ↗ thinking about for that I mean are they

53:32 ↗ is that building is going to be very

53:34 ↗ modern looking and all inland not that

53:37 ↗ and remember nothing happens until it

53:39 ↗ gets redeveloped the fact that you're in

53:41 ↗ one sub area or another sub area doesn't

53:43 ↗ mean you have to change immediately it's

53:46 ↗ just the future of the area is what

53:48 ↗ we're looking at when we do a sub area

53:50 ↗ plan and when you do that the boundaries

53:54 ↗ if you will you're looking at either

53:56 ↗ natural features or property lines or

53:59 ↗ some other logical place to separate

54:02 ↗ those areas so that you can have a

54:05 ↗ vision on one side and the other

54:07 ↗ typically it's either a right-of-way or

54:09 ↗ a creek or something so that you're not

54:12 ↗ right across the street from something

54:14 ↗ that's just glaringly different and so

54:17 ↗ when we relook at this and when the task

54:20 ↗ force first we looked at it they said

54:21 ↗ why didn't you use the creek because it

54:24 ↗ seems that when you cross the creek and

54:26 ↗ hit the mercantile building not hit it

54:28 ↗ directly you see it that's what that

54:30 ↗ feeling is that's where the sign is

54:31 ↗ welcome to historic Issaquah that's when

54:34 ↗ you start seeing all that it's not it's

54:36 ↗ not before then and so we thought we

54:38 ↗ would make that correction now if you

54:40 ↗ guys are uncomfortable with that you can

54:42 ↗ recommend against it I'm not

54:44 ↗ uncomfortable I'm just trying to

54:45 ↗ understand the the logic that made the

54:50 ↗ suggestion they doesn't really go into

54:54 ↗ in this docket here about why why would

54:58 ↗ we suggest it oh and that's what I was

55:01 ↗ really trying to find out is is there a

55:03 ↗ reason why we would not want to have a

55:06 ↗ Old Town gateway as opposed to changing

55:14 ↗ it to something that's more modern and

55:16 ↗ then what would those buildings look

55:17 ↗ like would those modern building that

55:19 ↗ colony that's zoning yeah but it's still

55:23 ↗ would be part of the vision doll right

55:24 ↗ because we'd say we have two visions

55:28 ↗ that are colliding with each other well

55:33 ↗ if it if it turns out let's say that

55:35 ↗ staples ends up in old 10 the vision for

55:39 ↗ old 10 is it can have you know route 66

55:43 ↗ kinds of signage it can have you know

55:45 ↗ we're rewriting that right now

55:47 ↗ during the moratorium so we have a

55:50 ↗ chance with the architectural designs

55:52 ↗ that we're working on as well through

55:53 ↗ the moratorium to revamp that that

55:56 ↗ vision a little bit and that's where

55:58 ↗ that could come in if it's out of old

56:00 ↗ town if it stays in old town then it

56:03 ↗ still has the same zoning of CBD it can

56:05 ↗ still have 65 feet height it still has

56:08 ↗ 95% eighty-five 85 percent impervious to

56:12 ↗ setbacks I mean it has all the same

56:14 ↗ things that it has now okay all right so

56:22 ↗ I'm done what sells this one I just make

56:25 ↗ one comment about the the boundary I

56:28 ↗ mean I think I agree with Ron's plan and

56:31 ↗ then maybe it just wasn't well explained

56:33 ↗ the rationale wasn't well explained but

56:35 ↗ I mean I'm on I'm on board with the

56:37 ↗ change for the reasons I think Trish you

56:40 ↗ laid out I've never really felt like you

56:42 ↗ hit downtown until you hit dogwood and

56:46 ↗ convention that Kristen and and the

56:49 ↗ whole concept we have mentioned

56:50 ↗ confluence park but not having it split

56:53 ↗ in half by a boundaries make sense to me

56:55 ↗ so it you know previous comments

56:59 ↗ notwithstanding I haven't seen those

57:01 ↗ from the public but now I'm on board

57:03 ↗ with the change the record one ask my

57:08 ↗ commissioners a question here what a

57:11 ↗ some of what we're discussing here let's

57:14 ↗ debate this if I say if I'm comfortable

57:19 ↗ and saying I want to keep it part of Old

57:21 ↗ Town because I think a great gateway

57:24 ↗ into

57:25 ↗ town also from an economic standpoint

57:28 ↗ because now people are coming in to

57:30 ↗ Front Street area and it's kind of

57:35 ↗ almost like a debut right otherwise it's

57:38 ↗ going to be part of the or which is a

57:42 ↗ completely different look and feel and

57:43 ↗ so you're gonna have two competing

57:46 ↗ policies covering those land areas so I

57:51 ↗ kind of think would be nice to leave it

57:53 ↗ as Old Town

57:56 ↗ what's feedback yeah I brought them I

58:02 ↗ really didn't see how staff presented to

58:04 ↗ us a motivation to why we were shrinking

58:06 ↗ this boundary map and when there was

58:08 ↗ other comments from the previous meeting

58:10 ↗ about well what's going on the bottom I

58:12 ↗ really foresee a future where pretty

58:15 ↗ soon all we have is sunset and Front

58:16 ↗ Street encompassing a future Old Town

58:19 ↗ and I think that this is a unique

58:20 ↗ opportunity to ask staff you know you

58:22 ↗ you've been really extensive about going

58:24 ↗ over a lot of this document but yet we

58:27 ↗ haven't spent much time on on this and

58:29 ↗ all I'd heard was that the task force

58:31 ↗ had wanted it but yet the economic

58:34 ↗ opportunity isn't actually going to

58:37 ↗ evade us if it stays within the boundary

58:39 ↗ that from what I understand the brewery

58:41 ↗ is able to do it either way so I wasn't

58:44 ↗ seeing that anything from staff really

58:47 ↗ showing us why are we shrinking this

58:49 ↗ boundary and trying to you know when we

58:53 ↗ talk about how important this really is

58:54 ↗ to the heart of our city I was a little

58:57 ↗ confused as to the motivations behind

59:00 ↗ why it was why it was important and so

59:03 ↗ that's why I was saying maybe that was

59:04 ↗ something that we would take separate

59:05 ↗ votes on so that it wasn't uh we can

59:08 ↗ talk about that let's move on with

59:11 ↗ questions so that we can get the

59:14 ↗ Commission member pollen Commission

59:16 ↗ member questions answered then we can

59:17 ↗ move into the public comment if we

59:20 ↗ discuss this much more we'll be here all

59:23 ↗ night before

59:24 ↗ public has a chance to speak but that's

59:27 ↗ going kind of why we're here

59:29 ↗ that's what I go through in Section and

59:32 ↗ ask questions we'll discuss it

59:33 ↗ afterwards there's medication that's

59:35 ↗ good after we hear from the public

59:37 ↗ because that may change some

59:38 ↗ perspectives as well I like that all

59:41 ↗ right we'll move into the Old Town

59:43 ↗ community if you have questions on that

59:45 ↗ apparently when I go through section by

59:46 ↗ section my first question was on c2 on

59:50 ↗ language of consider reducing I really

59:53 ↗ felt like we should be putting stronger

59:55 ↗ language after such strong community

59:57 ↗ support the consider reducing the

1:00:00 ↗ building height felt a little soft to me

1:00:03 ↗ I know that staff likes to tell us that

1:00:05 ↗ the teeth is in the code I'm on sorry on

1:00:08 ↗ page 29 of 49 or page 19 of 39 and again

1:00:11 ↗ that's OTC policy c2 says and in red

1:00:15 ↗ consider reducing the building height on

1:00:17 ↗ Easons that way and I felt like we had

1:00:19 ↗ pretty strong support from the community

1:00:22 ↗ and if that was kind of weak language

1:00:25 ↗ again I know that the teeth is in the

1:00:27 ↗ code you'd like to tell us but I thought

1:00:29 ↗ like consider reducing was a little soft

1:00:32 ↗ on this point so are you proposing just

1:00:33 ↗ saying reducing or reduce or what are

1:00:36 ↗ you proposing we actually specify

1:00:39 ↗ something like building heights shall

1:00:43 ↗ not exceed those of the other buildings

1:00:46 ↗ alongside of them if we don't want to

1:00:47 ↗ put an actual feet we want to leave that

1:00:49 ↗ to code I understand it want to put

1:00:51 ↗ speak specifics in this is our goals but

1:00:54 ↗ again that language of consider reducing

1:00:55 ↗ I thought was soft I make a suggestion

1:01:00 ↗ because I have the same comment on page

1:01:05 ↗ 43

1:01:06 ↗ instead of using consider reducing

1:01:08 ↗ because that's really weak limit Oh read

1:01:13 ↗ as well maintain the district characters

1:01:18 ↗ the street limiting the building height

1:01:21 ↗ on east sense that way for new

1:01:23 ↗ development and redevelopment to three

1:01:25 ↗ stories because if you say consider then

1:01:29 ↗ its code would have to be written as

1:01:34 ↗ maybe to be considered and then we're

1:01:36 ↗ back to what happens in the CIP where it

1:01:39 ↗ becomes recommended and then no one

1:01:40 ↗ doesn't

1:01:41 ↗ we have comments and then here about you

1:01:43 ↗ know wanting to pursue preserve our view

1:01:46 ↗ corridors and I think that height is a

1:01:48 ↗ big part of that and so when we have

1:01:49 ↗ these other values in this document I

1:01:52 ↗ would like it to just I think it should

1:01:53 ↗ be reflected throughout so again I would

1:01:56 ↗ be for legate replacing too limiting

1:01:58 ↗ instead of saying consider reducing okay

1:02:01 ↗ anyone else my next question was again

1:02:08 ↗ on that same page but its policy three

1:02:10 ↗ of the OTC and this goes back to those

1:02:13 ↗ quality materials are used in new and

1:02:15 ↗ redeveloped projects you had said that

1:02:19 ↗ this concept of quality materials which

1:02:23 ↗ was not in the friendly definitions that

1:02:28 ↗ were provided to us so I realized that

1:02:30 ↗ this is something that's still being

1:02:31 ↗ ironed out but it felt a little

1:02:34 ↗ innocuous to just be referencing

1:02:36 ↗ something that isn't concrete and again

1:02:39 ↗ I recognize that staff doesn't have the

1:02:41 ↗ resources to be able to present to us

1:02:43 ↗ the whole package at once so there is

1:02:46 ↗ this element of trust that I was a

1:02:48 ↗ little concerned about this vague

1:02:50 ↗ quality materials you know in central

1:02:53 ↗ Issaquah and the plan we say such as we

1:02:55 ↗ could put some such as is I think we

1:02:58 ↗ just got one that helps can you tell us

1:03:01 ↗ where were you again does 9219 a 39 or

1:03:04 ↗ 29 of 49 OTC policy c3 ensure quality

1:03:08 ↗ materials are used in new and redevelop

1:03:10 ↗ projects there's a sense of permanence

1:03:16 ↗ as soon as you propose just saying after

1:03:20 ↗ quality material such as on listing a

1:03:22 ↗ few examples

1:03:29 ↗ long as we don't object because we

1:03:31 ↗ didn't name every quality material on

1:03:35 ↗ the road I think that's one of the

1:03:36 ↗ reasons we'd leave it out but I if you

1:03:39 ↗ say such as or for example well then

1:03:41 ↗ yeah I mean if you don't say anything

1:03:43 ↗ then you're simply making that decision

1:03:44 ↗ at the planning desk right right I don't

1:03:46 ↗ know yeah other questions in that

1:03:53 ↗ section I said a comment on the on the

1:03:58 ↗ discussion under OTC goal C traditional

1:04:03 ↗ character etc and then there's the

1:04:05 ↗ discussion and I don't I know the

1:04:08 ↗ discussion is just to provide context I

1:04:10 ↗ think for the policies that follow it

1:04:13 ↗ did seem in that particular discussion

1:04:14 ↗ sorry no that's page 18 of 39 in the

1:04:17 ↗ packet there were a few things as you

1:04:20 ↗ get into that paragraph that talked

1:04:23 ↗ about there's a sense that starts new

1:04:27 ↗ development and redevelopment along east

1:04:29 ↗ sunset Way would focus on a mix of

1:04:31 ↗ office services and residential yet not

1:04:34 ↗ retail things like that that almost

1:04:36 ↗ seemed like a policy that I didn't

1:04:38 ↗ didn't see reflected in the policies

1:04:40 ↗ later which I a separate comment not

1:04:45 ↗ sure we I want to I would recommend

1:04:46 ↗ dictating use that much but that's a

1:04:49 ↗ separate comment but so there's that and

1:04:51 ↗ then actually after that the rest of

1:04:54 ↗ that paragraph development of east

1:04:56 ↗ sunset way small parcels provide for

1:04:58 ↗ potential negative impacts to abutting

1:05:00 ↗ single-family neighborhoods etc I kind

1:05:03 ↗ of thought those last couple sentences

1:05:04 ↗ were almost like value judgments that

1:05:08 ↗ were placed in there that I mean I think

1:05:11 ↗ it probably is a negative impact on

1:05:13 ↗ those budding communities but seemed

1:05:15 ↗ kind of weird to have you know value

1:05:17 ↗ judgment in the in the in the document

1:05:22 ↗ that's all and the the last statement

1:05:25 ↗ there the following are intended to lead

1:05:28 ↗ us into the code changes that's what we

1:05:31 ↗ were trying to do in the discussion as

1:05:33 ↗ you said to set the context for what we

1:05:35 ↗ would be doing next but you're right

1:05:37 ↗ it's odd it's odd to try

1:05:41 ↗ to put forward what you're going to try

1:05:43 ↗ to put into code without it setting out

1:05:47 ↗ a policy that's really clear we didn't

1:05:48 ↗ you know we here we don't want retail on

1:05:50 ↗ Sunset so it's we were trying to have a

1:05:54 ↗ balance but yeah that that's your right

1:05:59 ↗ sure what to do there yeah I've got a

1:06:02 ↗ question about the old town map and the

1:06:09 ↗ legend it uses the word cultural

1:06:12 ↗ business neighborhood is the word

1:06:14 ↗ cultural of any significant meaning does

1:06:18 ↗ ona specific cultural business district

1:06:21 ↗ the CBD get it but it's cultural instead

1:06:25 ↗ of central central like in a lot of

1:06:28 ↗ other main places but we we didn't want

1:06:30 ↗ the map to just look like it's a zoning

1:06:32 ↗ map so we call it the area the cultural

1:06:34 ↗ business area so it doesn't appear to be

1:06:37 ↗ a zoning map well the reality is

1:06:39 ↗ cultural is just a word well I mean

1:06:41 ↗ there that we have the theater there you

1:06:44 ↗ have art stores and you know they're in

1:06:46 ↗ classes there and music stores and

1:06:48 ↗ theater classes so it is sort of our

1:06:49 ↗ cultural it's hard of Issaquah right but

1:06:52 ↗ I needed from a map standpoint is it's a

1:06:56 ↗ marketing term no it's not well it's the

1:06:59 ↗ name of the zone yeah

1:07:01 ↗ it's a cultural business district okay

1:07:04 ↗ and a question about page 19 of 39 or 29

1:07:08 ↗ of 49 OTC policy d2 which was in red and

1:07:14 ↗ consider lessening minimum parking

1:07:16 ↗ requirements I I think we should strike

1:07:20 ↗ this entire thing I felt that this idea

1:07:23 ↗ of maintaining the character while

1:07:25 ↗ providing sufficient amounts of parking

1:07:26 ↗ when we know that council has asked aft

1:07:28 ↗ to come back with more parking we know

1:07:31 ↗ that there's a huge crunch that we're

1:07:34 ↗ going to have with parking there were

1:07:37 ↗ comments about this refacing of old town

1:07:40 ↗ of being able to allow businesses in

1:07:42 ↗ front to take away their street parking

1:07:44 ↗ in front to be able to open up their

1:07:46 ↗ businesses to the street so that's

1:07:48 ↗ another potential way of losing street

1:07:50 ↗ parking and as most of us know literally

1:07:53 ↗ it can make a difference just so

1:07:54 ↗ two three spots can make a difference of

1:07:57 ↗ you hunting all night being a blood

1:07:59 ↗ dinner and turning around and going to

1:08:00 ↗ another community or just having that so

1:08:02 ↗ this comment of saying you know we want

1:08:04 ↗ to help maintain the character while

1:08:05 ↗ providing sufficient amounts of parking

1:08:07 ↗ we know there's not a sufficient amounts

1:08:09 ↗ of parking we know staff needs to work

1:08:11 ↗ on this so putting in language that says

1:08:13 ↗ we want to lessen the minimum parking

1:08:15 ↗ requirements for businesses though I

1:08:17 ↗ understand was recommended by the Task

1:08:19 ↗ Force I would be in favor of striking

1:08:23 ↗ anyone else felt strongly about allowing

1:08:26 ↗ businesses to not provide the amount of

1:08:29 ↗ parking that we've already set as being

1:08:30 ↗ a requirement for them to look at this

1:08:33 ↗ again that's more of a item to discuss

1:08:37 ↗ after we hear the public comment

1:08:40 ↗ Lorenzen we're into discussing

1:08:42 ↗ particulars now what we wanted to in

1:08:44 ↗ this section is to get questions to the

1:08:46 ↗ staff so if you have specific questions

1:08:48 ↗ in regards to something that's here that

1:08:51 ↗ there's you don't understand and we'll

1:08:54 ↗ get to discussions after we have the

1:08:56 ↗ public comments

1:09:07 ↗ doesn't marking me on that section any

1:09:10 ↗ other specific questions on you know we

1:09:14 ↗ wanted again that's my is what you're

1:09:17 ↗ talking about it more discussion aspects

1:09:19 ↗ before we would vote on something yeah

1:09:21 ↗ so that's what I'm having that other

1:09:24 ↗ that's pretty clear in my opinion we can

1:09:27 ↗ discuss these items efforts

1:09:29 ↗ well hearing no objection from the

1:09:31 ↗ council members I will open it up for

1:09:34 ↗ public comments so you're just going

1:09:37 ↗ section at a time they're closer skip it

1:09:39 ↗ in public

1:09:40 ↗ oh so the public yeah yeah okay okay

1:09:42 ↗ deal

1:09:44 ↗ so if there are members of the public

1:09:47 ↗ that would like to ask questions or make

1:09:49 ↗ comments if and she sees you're right

1:09:52 ↗ this is your option please go to the

1:09:54 ↗ linker phone and remember you need to

1:09:57 ↗ state your name and address okay after

1:10:10 ↗ ordered the yeah sure in the packet

1:10:23 ↗ we swear that way

1:10:40 ↗ you can fill it out after to the map

1:10:48 ↗ okay so again state your name and

1:10:53 ↗ address I'm Chris Craven and I live it

1:10:56 ↗ 580 Front Street South and thank you for

1:11:01 ↗ the time and opportunity to talk tonight

1:11:04 ↗ so this is confusing to me again it

1:11:10 ↗ shows boundaries but we've only laid out

1:11:14 ↗ portions of the district so it leaves a

1:11:19 ↗ lot to the imagination of what is going

1:11:23 ↗ on and the rest of the plan one thing

1:11:28 ↗ that that particularly bothers me is it

1:11:31 ↗ seems I need to stay at the microphone

1:11:42 ↗ section is the area across the street

1:11:47 ↗ and we're on the small green so I feel

1:11:50 ↗ like there's some significant Civic

1:11:53 ↗ properties that aren't even mapped out

1:11:55 ↗ on this we have the schools that are in

1:11:59 ↗ here we have the community center and

1:12:02 ↗ the green that connects the community

1:12:05 ↗ center and to me all of that is Old Town

1:12:09 ↗ and I'd like to see it depicted as Old

1:12:13 ↗ Town the pool is not not on here and

1:12:18 ↗ it's a significant cultural landmark

1:12:24 ↗ that is historical as well I believe so

1:12:28 ↗ I think think I would like to see more

1:12:32 ↗ depiction of the entire Old Town

1:12:36 ↗ district we talk about gateways and

1:12:40 ↗ we've depicted and we've talked in the

1:12:43 ↗ plan about the sunset gateway and maybe

1:12:47 ↗ you could help me with the numbers of

1:12:50 ↗ travelers that come through

1:12:52 ↗ that gateway I'm assuming that is pretty

1:12:55 ↗ equal to this southern gateway that

1:12:58 ↗ comes into old town from ourselves and

1:13:01 ↗ yet we have not addressed another major

1:13:07 ↗ gateway into old town for instance I'll

1:13:12 ↗ just give reverence to an analogy if

1:13:14 ↗ somebody comes over to my house or my

1:13:17 ↗ home whether they come in the front door

1:13:20 ↗ or the back door I have a bench and I

1:13:24 ↗ have a carpet and I ask them to take off

1:13:26 ↗ their shoes and it sets the tone for how

1:13:29 ↗ I want my guests to behave in my home

1:13:33 ↗ and I think that is similar to how we

1:13:37 ↗ want our guests to be welcomed and

1:13:41 ↗ behave in our precious old town that is

1:13:45 ↗ a district a character and an arrival

1:13:50 ↗ place so in regards to the discussion on

1:13:53 ↗ the north I've always envisioned the

1:13:57 ↗ Gateway as being the beautifully

1:13:59 ↗ landscaped intersection of Gillman in

1:14:01 ↗ front to me that is I'm I'm entering

1:14:05 ↗ part of Old Town or Front Street in

1:14:08 ↗ downtown Issaquah I do agree with your

1:14:13 ↗ statement about addressing regional

1:14:15 ↗ traffic versus the through traffic I

1:14:18 ↗ totally agree with that I think that is

1:14:21 ↗ applauded to be in there sorry I had a

1:14:25 ↗ little note card here to be able to take

1:14:28 ↗ some notes that I wanted to to talk

1:14:30 ↗ about the one thing in regards to the

1:14:35 ↗ boundaries too and identifying all the

1:14:38 ↗ all the uses and all the properties and

1:14:41 ↗ all the gateways and we talked about the

1:14:44 ↗ schools and how we want the traffic to

1:14:48 ↗ interact with that how we want the

1:14:50 ↗ character of Old Town to support those

1:14:53 ↗ connections to the school so I think

1:14:55 ↗ it's really important to diagram it out

1:14:57 ↗ because it starts creating some patterns

1:15:00 ↗ and some priorities and some policies

1:15:03 ↗ that go forward

1:15:05 ↗ we talk about in this old town about the

1:15:09 ↗ acquisition of the Creekside properties

1:15:11 ↗ and yet it's not part of the boundary so

1:15:15 ↗ here's another either-or if we're

1:15:17 ↗ talking about acquiring Creekside

1:15:20 ↗ properties then maybe it should be

1:15:23 ↗ included in the boundary or maybe we

1:15:25 ↗ shouldn't talk about it as part of the

1:15:27 ↗ old town plan thank you thank you my

1:15:39 ↗ name is Lindsay Walsh I'm at 1769 28 the

1:15:43 ↗ Avenue Northeast and the Highlands I'm

1:15:46 ↗ just going to go page by page like you

1:15:51 ↗ guys were like I need to get back to the

1:16:02 ↗ entryway so I absolutely agree with the

1:16:08 ↗ idea of keeping the boundaries as they

1:16:11 ↗ are I think when the downtown

1:16:15 ↗ streetscape plan was recently presented

1:16:18 ↗ to the City Council they had talked

1:16:21 ↗ about creating signage at that entry

1:16:24 ↗ point as kind of a placemaking for

1:16:27 ↗ ensuring that as people come into the

1:16:31 ↗ old town area they recognize okay I'm

1:16:34 ↗ entering we have a great opportunity

1:16:36 ↗ right at that corner of front and Gilman

1:16:40 ↗ to have that signage there whereas there

1:16:44 ↗ isn't as much down near the creek and I

1:16:46 ↗ think it's very important as you said

1:16:48 ↗ the gateway into that I see agree with

1:16:55 ↗ on see to the reduce limit versus

1:16:58 ↗ consider agree with the such as for

1:17:02 ↗ quality materials 4d to with the

1:17:07 ↗ lessening of the minimum parking

1:17:09 ↗ requirements if we're talking about the

1:17:13 ↗ ability to redevelop on Sunset and areas

1:17:16 ↗ like that we may just consider

1:17:18 ↗ are putting something in there exempting

1:17:21 ↗ the CBD from lessening parking

1:17:24 ↗ restrictions and allowing it in some of

1:17:27 ↗ those other areas since this encompasses

1:17:29 ↗ a very large zone if that was what was

1:17:31 ↗ intended there to do so within the

1:17:42 ↗ connectivity and mobility goal be policy

1:17:45 ↗ be one this continues to suggest that we

1:17:52 ↗ use traffic calming such as Chicanos and

1:17:56 ↗ narrow street even though the Community

1:17:58 ↗ Survey disagreed so we may want to

1:18:00 ↗ strike those areas to going in to see

1:18:10 ↗ three what areas that

1:18:19 ↗ yeah so connectivity and mobility see

1:18:22 ↗ three on page 34 of 49 c3d requiring

1:18:29 ↗ weather protection over sidewalks along

1:18:31 ↗ accessory and oriented streets we may

1:18:34 ↗ want to suggest that that's just in the

1:18:36 ↗ CBD area in order to strengthen that

1:18:39 ↗ recommendation since obviously we're not

1:18:41 ↗ going to recommend people on the sunset

1:18:43 ↗ housing areas require weather protection

1:18:46 ↗ although I very much agree in the CBD

1:18:50 ↗ area also that should just be integrated

1:18:54 ↗ into the downtown streetscape plan since

1:18:57 ↗ we're moving ahead with that if possible

1:19:00 ↗ moving on to the next page in what is

1:19:04 ↗ now c8 it looks like the word and is

1:19:08 ↗ missing in there it was there was a

1:19:10 ↗ strike through and that should be

1:19:11 ↗ corrected I already talked about

1:19:25 ↗ defining okay I'm moving on to 44 of 49

1:19:34 ↗ in the packet this is into the housing

1:19:37 ↗ policy b1 when we're talking about the

1:19:40 ↗ ad use would it be possible and I don't

1:19:43 ↗ know whether this belongs in this plan

1:19:45 ↗ or otherwise too if people are if we are

1:19:51 ↗ recommending a to use as obviously the

1:19:53 ↗ community wanted based on the survey if

1:19:55 ↗ there was the ability to require less

1:19:59 ↗ than the 50% open space on the property

1:20:02 ↗ in order to encourage that development

1:20:05 ↗ which would help with our low-income

1:20:07 ↗ housing and maintaining the housing

1:20:11 ↗ prospects that might be one way to do it

1:20:15 ↗ and I think I'm done so that's it thank

1:20:19 ↗ you thank you very much

1:20:38 ↗ Steve Pereira 117 northeast I would

1:20:41 ↗ street for about nine and half years so

1:20:43 ↗ I guess just a shout out commission

1:20:48 ↗ member Lewis I just like you let it with

1:20:50 ↗ the this seems to have the II removed

1:20:52 ↗ from a lot of these places I'm the one

1:20:55 ↗ one of those who had concerned with a

1:20:57 ↗ being removed I think even as we're

1:20:58 ↗ preparing the documents it should be

1:21:00 ↗ consistent throughout and if the e is in

1:21:02 ↗ the process then it should be used

1:21:04 ↗ throughout the process until such time

1:21:06 ↗ as it gets recommended from for removal

1:21:16 ↗ so I guess taking these this to you from

1:21:20 ↗ topic so next was the whether or not we

1:21:25 ↗ have the gateway it would not be good

1:21:28 ↗ change at the boundary I have concerns

1:21:31 ↗ with that and as I expressed last time

1:21:32 ↗ one of those concerns was that there's

1:21:35 ↗ already a lot of traffic that comes from

1:21:38 ↗ the staples and turns on the Crescent

1:21:40 ↗ and does a u-turn and I think you're

1:21:42 ↗ only increasing the use and like hood

1:21:44 ↗ that's the continued to be by changing

1:21:47 ↗ the boundary and listening the boundary

1:21:48 ↗ you've done nothing to talk about how

1:21:50 ↗ that's not going to happen to a larger

1:21:52 ↗ degree now it puts pressure on

1:21:53 ↗ residential communities I know I've

1:21:55 ↗ heard a lot of talk in the past about

1:21:57 ↗ people unlike Bush and alder from sunset

1:21:59 ↗ they get a lot of pass-through traffic

1:22:01 ↗ we're only going to increase capacity

1:22:02 ↗ traffic if we increase the density or

1:22:05 ↗ change the boundary from Old Town to

1:22:07 ↗ something else I think also there's a

1:22:10 ↗ lot of us that do look at things like

1:22:12 ↗ bones candy and The Grange is part of

1:22:14 ↗ the old town even though it may be out

1:22:16 ↗ of the old or out of the central

1:22:18 ↗ business district or the whatever those

1:22:21 ↗ terms are I think I have concerns with

1:22:23 ↗ moving that because it increases the

1:22:25 ↗ pressure we haven't talked about how

1:22:29 ↗ we're dressing traffic already on Front

1:22:33 ↗ Street without increasing the density on

1:22:35 ↗ Front Street by increased zoning I

1:22:39 ↗ haven't heard how or if

1:22:42 ↗ zoning or moving that partial to the

1:22:46 ↗ central business your trades from from

1:22:49 ↗ CBD to the senators are all plan allows

1:22:51 ↗ for increased density or maybe higher

1:22:52 ↗ density that can be allowed in the

1:22:53 ↗ simple is ago plan that would not be

1:22:55 ↗ allowed today I know the the plan

1:22:57 ↗ brewery which is current plan might be

1:22:59 ↗ looking at it but you could also look at

1:23:01 ↗ larger redevelopment of other businesses

1:23:04 ↗ there such as I think that's a Thai

1:23:07 ↗ restaurant now and a I just have

1:23:11 ↗ concerns with that I think it also ties

1:23:14 ↗ in nicely the way it is when you

1:23:18 ↗ consider the Grange and bombs and that

1:23:21 ↗ segways around to a dead end where it

1:23:25 ↗ connects with Duggan with dogwood

1:23:28 ↗ northeast I would so I have some

1:23:32 ↗ concerns about the changing the boundary

1:23:35 ↗ conceptually make sense but I have

1:23:37 ↗ they're still more negatives and our

1:23:40 ↗ positives one of the items talked about

1:23:46 ↗ on the mobility the bicycle facilities

1:23:48 ↗ facilities to me means more things like

1:23:50 ↗ where we're going to store our bikes or

1:23:52 ↗ a pronto style bike system it doesn't

1:23:55 ↗ talk about the mobility or the actual

1:23:57 ↗ using bikes on the roads and I think we

1:23:59 ↗ need to focus on people riding bikes and

1:24:02 ↗ pedestrians not just on facilities which

1:24:04 ↗ is too narrow of a scope so that segways

1:24:14 ↗ with what what are the code that's going

1:24:17 ↗ to tie in with this and this is kind of

1:24:18 ↗ an aspirational statement it has nothing

1:24:20 ↗ to do with code one of the things I

1:24:25 ↗ heard another thing I heard was there

1:24:27 ↗ talks about the stormwater code could be

1:24:29 ↗ revised so that acquires instead of

1:24:31 ↗ requiring rain or rain gardens or grips

1:24:36 ↗ grip grip trainers that could be reduced

1:24:39 ↗ or removed to have a lesser standard

1:24:41 ↗ where we don't require a grip strength

1:24:43 ↗ grip drainage I think that's a problem a

1:24:45 ↗ concern I think we'll talk about more

1:24:47 ↗ and more density on Front Street I have

1:24:50 ↗ concerns with reducing that density and

1:24:52 ↗ I think allowing that within

1:24:55 ↗ indeed increase the likelihood of higher

1:24:58 ↗ density and higher building standards in

1:25:00 ↗ Issaquah I think another point is that I

1:25:05 ↗ think we talked about a lot about

1:25:07 ↗ economic vitality that's important that

1:25:09 ↗ it's not it needs to have an equal

1:25:12 ↗ measurement for livability standards and

1:25:14 ↗ I think would do much better at talking

1:25:17 ↗ about economic vitality when you have a

1:25:19 ↗ set number how much of revenue have you

1:25:21 ↗ increased then you do about economic

1:25:24 ↗ been about livability factors like the

1:25:26 ↗ small town feeling that we have that we

1:25:28 ↗ need to maintain next one was on the

1:25:35 ↗ housing policy a to the small scale

1:25:37 ↗ cottage style one of the things I guess

1:25:41 ↗ two things one is does that include like

1:25:44 ↗ the idea of mini housing I know I heard

1:25:46 ↗ that we need to foot flush that out more

1:25:50 ↗ as far as what that means I would also

1:25:53 ↗ ask that if you look at having ad use

1:25:56 ↗ you also have requirements for

1:25:58 ↗ additional parking on the property not

1:26:00 ↗ just have more people parking on the

1:26:01 ↗ street you haven't talked about how

1:26:03 ↗ you're going to accommodate the

1:26:04 ↗ additional traffic that come through 80

1:26:07 ↗ years and that needs to be part of the

1:26:08 ↗ discussion next point rain coverage it

1:26:14 ↗ obviously rains a lot in Washington is

1:26:16 ↗ it rains tonight I have concerns with

1:26:20 ↗ already with people Senate a lot of the

1:26:23 ↗ businesses on Front Street a lot of

1:26:24 ↗ people just stand in the doorways and

1:26:26 ↗ smoke within 25 feet of the entrance I

1:26:29 ↗ think that just moves them from the

1:26:30 ↗ entryway to out in front of the window

1:26:32 ↗ to smoke and put their cigarette butts

1:26:36 ↗ so I guess but a small town look if you

1:26:39 ↗ line I don't know that we need to have

1:26:40 ↗ awning coverage for people that changes

1:26:44 ↗ the look and style of the feelings of

1:26:45 ↗ the buildings I think on there I next

1:26:50 ↗ point was that as kind of a segue I know

1:26:52 ↗ I've heard about the Arts Commission

1:26:54 ↗ being tied in and maybe we're looking at

1:26:55 ↗ signage changes for the area to tie in

1:26:57 ↗ with some of the arts commissioners for

1:26:59 ↗ doing those I think that's a good thing

1:27:01 ↗ and last I guess it just talks about I

1:27:06 ↗ get again this

1:27:08 ↗ well one of the things was mentioned was

1:27:10 ↗ the again gets back to code but it's

1:27:14 ↗ also the point that member Lewis

1:27:16 ↗ referred to is that I don't get the

1:27:18 ↗ feeling of consider things as in strong

1:27:22 ↗ a lot strong enough language to me there

1:27:24 ↗ needs to be more of we're only going to

1:27:26 ↗ allow density at this height and that's

1:27:29 ↗ whatever the code says you can build

1:27:31 ↗ that's what they're going to be allowed

1:27:32 ↗ to build and I haven't heard I guess I

1:27:37 ↗ keep hearing that there's a 50-foot

1:27:40 ↗ density now and I'm looking like I'm I

1:27:43 ↗ know I'm not going to get an answer but

1:27:44 ↗ it seems like two stories is sufficient

1:27:49 ↗ for me not higher than two standards

1:27:50 ↗ should be the density or the height

1:27:52 ↗ requirement for me that would include

1:27:56 ↗ limiting or should be included a limit

1:28:00 ↗ on the elevator shaft which doesn't have

1:28:01 ↗ to maintain current standards can be

1:28:04 ↗ above the 50 height threshold limit and

1:28:07 ↗ I have concerns with keeping those sight

1:28:10 ↗ lines for from our beautiful scenic area

1:28:13 ↗ that's it for me thank you

1:28:18 ↗ Jim Brady your your chance you can

1:28:30 ↗ always change your mind next person

1:28:33 ↗ Andrew Turner

1:28:39 ↗ hi my name is Andrew Turner I live at

1:28:42 ↗ 260 northeast alder Street it's a gray

1:28:45 ↗ house with a yellow door right over

1:28:46 ↗ there I just wanted to start by thinking

1:28:49 ↗ that the Commission and the the sub area

1:28:52 ↗ team for their service I know this is a

1:28:55 ↗ lot of work and it's easy for sort of

1:28:56 ↗ folks to take shots on the side and fill

1:28:58 ↗ out surveys and I'm not show up but you

1:29:00 ↗ all are here and you all here so so

1:29:01 ↗ thank you for that second thing I'd say

1:29:04 ↗ is just some context on on our family

1:29:06 ↗ we've been here for about nine years we

1:29:08 ↗ have two kids they walk to school every

1:29:10 ↗ day up to Clark they'll be going to IMS

1:29:13 ↗ they'll be going to high school

1:29:15 ↗ and so I come at this from a point of

1:29:17 ↗ view of sort of the yellow neighborhood

1:29:20 ↗ which is we prefer a walking safe

1:29:23 ↗ neighborhood we prefer the small-town

1:29:26 ↗ feel and yet my wife and I love going

1:29:28 ↗ out to dinner on Front Street we like

1:29:29 ↗ going to Jack's we love that levitated

1:29:31 ↗ here we like lots of other places like

1:29:33 ↗ that for us it's this great mix of sort

1:29:35 ↗ of a emerging small town with some sort

1:29:38 ↗ of more modern amenities so that's kind

1:29:40 ↗ of the spirit of my comments in general

1:29:44 ↗ I'm not a huge fan of design standards

1:29:48 ↗ that would sort of legislate cookie

1:29:51 ↗ cutter I think that the hard thing that

1:29:53 ↗ that you are going to have to do that I

1:29:55 ↗ don't have an answer to is to thread the

1:29:57 ↗ needle between this notion of old and

1:29:59 ↗ new seamlessly intertwining and I think

1:30:01 ↗ that's hard to do and in general I

1:30:03 ↗ prefer to let individual homeowners look

1:30:05 ↗ didn't let them make the decision

1:30:07 ↗ probably I want to design and build

1:30:08 ↗ their own home that's what we did I

1:30:10 ↗ think ours fits within the neighborhood

1:30:12 ↗ you all can be your own judge of that

1:30:14 ↗ but I think it's difficult to to sort of

1:30:16 ↗ legislate what homeowners can and cannot

1:30:18 ↗ do at the same time I think it's

1:30:21 ↗ difficult I have a difference between

1:30:23 ↗ individual homeowners and developers and

1:30:25 ↗ I think that I would support potentially

1:30:28 ↗ different design standards for

1:30:29 ↗ developers and I think that if you look

1:30:31 ↗ at the survey results the the things

1:30:33 ↗ that you've picked I we used to live up

1:30:34 ↗ on Andrew Street that mr. Capilouto

1:30:37 ↗ built that's a builder way of thinking

1:30:40 ↗ about this and our house is the way an

1:30:41 ↗ individual homeowner thinks of this

1:30:43 ↗ again you can make your own decision on

1:30:44 ↗ what you like what you don't like but I

1:30:46 ↗ think that there are potentially

1:30:47 ↗ different incentives there and in

1:30:48 ↗ general I prefer for small young

1:30:50 ↗ families like ourselves that need a

1:30:51 ↗ bigger house

1:30:52 ↗ to have some more degrees of freedom -

1:30:54 ↗ they live here they kind of know why

1:30:56 ↗ they're here it's hard enough to find a

1:30:57 ↗ house here anyway you probably aren't

1:31:00 ↗ going to put up some crazy modern thing

1:31:01 ↗ and at the end of the day hopefully

1:31:04 ↗ they'd make that decision but I don't

1:31:06 ↗ generally don't support that I don't

1:31:08 ↗ know how to put that into policy or code

1:31:10 ↗ but that's sort of difficult third thing

1:31:13 ↗ is I applaud all the things that we put

1:31:15 ↗ in here about using traffic and

1:31:17 ↗ congestion especially with pass-through

1:31:19 ↗ as I mentioned we walk our kids at

1:31:20 ↗ school every day and it's important to

1:31:23 ↗ us that we continue to be able to do

1:31:24 ↗ that we'll be doing that for eight or

1:31:25 ↗ nine years and it is only going to get

1:31:27 ↗ worse as some of the folks have talked

1:31:28 ↗ about I have a couple pieces of specific

1:31:31 ↗ feedback before I get to the e housing

1:31:34 ↗ on H a - here's on this give me a second

1:31:41 ↗ page 33 of 49 or 43 of 49 I do think

1:31:46 ↗ that we need to define small scale I

1:31:48 ↗ think that if you think about a

1:31:50 ↗ community that's going to invite new

1:31:52 ↗ diverse population of Ages cultures and

1:31:55 ↗ incomes it needs to accommodate young

1:31:58 ↗ and growing families like ours we have

1:32:00 ↗ two kids other folks in the neighborhood

1:32:01 ↗ have four I think we need to be careful

1:32:04 ↗ about how we think about this idea of

1:32:05 ↗ small versus sort of maybe appropriate

1:32:09 ↗ and I think that we have some code

1:32:10 ↗ recommendations with respect to pervious

1:32:12 ↗ and impervious and height but I don't

1:32:14 ↗ think you can just have a bunch of small

1:32:15 ↗ cottages I think that you will not have

1:32:17 ↗ as much diversity as you might want to

1:32:19 ↗ respect to old say older families and

1:32:22 ↗ newer younger families the second thing

1:32:25 ↗ is I'd ask ask us to define in the

1:32:28 ↗ mobility section something on page 22 of

1:32:35 ↗ 39:32 of 49 its connectivity and

1:32:39 ↗ mobility policy a 1e complete gaps and

1:32:45 ↗ enhancing existing incomplete

1:32:47 ↗ connections throughout Old Town what

1:32:49 ↗ does that mean what gaps are incomplete

1:32:52 ↗ and what connections need to be

1:32:54 ↗ connected this is a red flag for me as a

1:32:58 ↗ guy that lives in that neighborhood

1:32:59 ↗ right over there with the opportunity to

1:33:01 ↗ magically connect a bunch of things

1:33:04 ↗ potentially through our walking

1:33:05 ↗ neighborhood that statement concerns me

1:33:08 ↗ so I'd say to commissioner Lewis's

1:33:10 ↗ feedback early on we need more specific

1:33:13 ↗ language about where those connections

1:33:14 ↗ are otherwise it's sort of like it

1:33:17 ↗ doesn't really mean much the last thing

1:33:19 ↗ the e I feel passionately about the E

1:33:22 ↗ and Commissioner Lewis thank you for

1:33:24 ↗ bringing it up in old maps little town

1:33:28 ↗ there's an e it's currently has an e

1:33:32 ↗ there's been no as far as I'm aware

1:33:34 ↗ public survey on the e it's old town in

1:33:38 ↗ the introductory comments we have a

1:33:40 ↗ notion of an authentic sense of place

1:33:43 ↗ and the authentic sense of place has an

1:33:46 ↗ e so leave it

1:33:47 ↗ thanks thank you Jennie Begum

1:34:04 ↗ I'll leave that out honest honestly no

1:34:09 ↗ no no no although Jenny Bingham 375

1:34:13 ↗ southeast Andrew Street and I was trying

1:34:16 ↗ to think of the word I wanted to say

1:34:18 ↗ kind of appalled but not surprised that

1:34:20 ↗ they're still digging with the word Old

1:34:22 ↗ Town Oh lde versus old I spoke last

1:34:27 ↗ Thursday and had looked up the meaning

1:34:32 ↗ of old and olv and Oh el de and Oh el de

1:34:36 ↗ means quaint Oh el D is kind of like end

1:34:42 ↗ of life

1:34:43 ↗ Oh LD I mean truthfully okay I've lived

1:34:48 ↗ here in Issaquah and Andrew Street since

1:34:51 ↗ 1969 so I know what Oh el de town is you

1:34:57 ↗ came down first of all Gillman was

1:35:00 ↗ highway 10 there was no I 90 so you if

1:35:04 ↗ you went up to factorio or went up to

1:35:07 ↗ over Lake or anything and you came down

1:35:09 ↗ the only thing you could see coming down

1:35:11 ↗ into this town is dairy gold lights

1:35:14 ↗ that's it that only told you there was a

1:35:17 ↗ town down here Old Town started just as

1:35:22 ↗ you came down the hill which meant

1:35:26 ↗ Gillman okay which there was nothing

1:35:29 ↗ over there until you got to Derek gold

1:35:34 ↗ across the street from Derry gold which

1:35:38 ↗ is now staples had a little white house

1:35:41 ↗ in the mid 70s that little white house

1:35:45 ↗ sat where staples is was the first house

1:35:48 ↗ this is now over a Gillman village the

1:35:51 ↗ Far East white house was the very first

1:35:54 ↗ one that's Old Town Oh el de with a and

1:35:59 ↗ W the bowling alley used to be back by

1:36:02 ↗ bones Oh el de toute which goes clear

1:36:08 ↗ out - I'd say Flint sauce

1:36:10 ↗ that wasn't a signature C Street never

1:36:13 ↗ meant to be a signature story never and

1:36:15 ↗ shouldn't be

1:36:17 ↗ because we've got a traffic problem the

1:36:20 ↗ infrastructure in Issaquah is awful

1:36:23 ↗ yet we still just keep adding more homes

1:36:26 ↗ we have no plan to add any more streets

1:36:30 ↗ something's got to happen and the

1:36:35 ↗ traffic calming was my biggest thing too

1:36:38 ↗ is when we did the when we passed these

1:36:44 ↗ surveys out I know that we've got what

1:36:46 ↗ you say 90 some back and then I got some

1:36:49 ↗ surveys from the city last Friday and

1:36:52 ↗ walked them I got some help from

1:36:55 ↗ actually the Flint toss people and Dave

1:36:57 ↗ Kapler and we did birch and alder and

1:37:01 ↗ Andrews and Bush because I know a lot of

1:37:05 ↗ seniors around there they don't know

1:37:08 ↗ anything about next-door there's no more

1:37:09 ↗ paper or more in Sequoia press they

1:37:13 ↗ don't go on the city website to see

1:37:15 ↗ what's happening around here so I asked

1:37:18 ↗ them if I could get these and I was mad

1:37:20 ↗ dashing because I got them later than I

1:37:22 ↗ had anticipated I was going to get them

1:37:24 ↗ so I mad dashed and we got out there

1:37:26 ↗ Friday night and delivered them to

1:37:28 ↗ people and I understand we got 21 back

1:37:31 ↗ that's better than nothing

1:37:33 ↗ however when they went to turn him in

1:37:36 ↗ over the weekend I went on Monday and

1:37:38 ↗ took two seniors that asked me to walk

1:37:40 ↗ them went down to deliver him to the

1:37:42 ↗ police station no I have to say this

1:37:45 ↗ because there were people that walked

1:37:46 ↗ and walked them down over the weekend so

1:37:50 ↗ I went down on Monday and said I need to

1:37:51 ↗ turn a couple of these in for some

1:37:53 ↗ people there was no box at the police

1:37:55 ↗ station for these people to turn it in

1:37:57 ↗ and I was telling all these people and I

1:37:59 ↗ had to make a mad dash to tell all these

1:38:01 ↗ people about this survey it wasn't like

1:38:04 ↗ I had a whole month because I didn't

1:38:06 ↗ have the papers to hand out I didn't

1:38:09 ↗ have a whole month to spend and talk

1:38:11 ↗ with all these seniors it was boom boom

1:38:13 ↗ boom and leaving them on doorsteps

1:38:14 ↗ talking to many people as I could

1:38:17 ↗ however I think I would have gotten more

1:38:20 ↗ more than 21 people to turn him in so my

1:38:25 ↗ question is the people that turned him

1:38:26 ↗ in are mainly online

1:38:29 ↗ and they're not going to be as concerned

1:38:31 ↗ about the cut through traffic as we

1:38:34 ↗ people that live here I would like to

1:38:37 ↗ see you guys consider talking more to

1:38:44 ↗ just our people who have the problems

1:38:46 ↗ with the cut through traffic of the

1:38:47 ↗ speeding and work with us only on this

1:38:51 ↗ traffic calming traffic calming they've

1:38:53 ↗ picked the roundabouts you've already

1:38:56 ↗ told me that you're not going to do

1:38:59 ↗ curbing on Andrews Bush no curbing

1:39:03 ↗ there's no money for curbing curb and

1:39:06 ↗ gutter so if the people come off sunset

1:39:09 ↗ way come to 4th Avenue and there's a

1:39:11 ↗ roundabout here and they're going down

1:39:13 ↗ here to get up to 2nd Avenue they're

1:39:15 ↗ going to do what they do now and just go

1:39:17 ↗ right into the gravel and peel out and a

1:39:19 ↗ high rate of speed so that isn't going

1:39:22 ↗ to work I just want you to do a little

1:39:25 ↗ more with the people that are affected

1:39:29 ↗ rather than have a survey for the whole

1:39:32 ↗ city that don't really care about the

1:39:34 ↗ traffic calming down here they care

1:39:37 ↗ about getting where they want to go and

1:39:40 ↗ believe me it's not anywhere here

1:39:43 ↗ against the quad that they're doing

1:39:44 ↗ business period so I just say I don't

1:39:50 ↗ think I don't think our City Council or

1:39:52 ↗ our people on Front Street have a right

1:39:55 ↗ to take and name our town first of all

1:40:00 ↗ then we're going to have a council want

1:40:01 ↗ to name it's a clawback to gilman that's

1:40:04 ↗ what this place used to be called so

1:40:06 ↗ what right do they have without a vote

1:40:09 ↗ of the community or anybody to take o LD

1:40:13 ↗ e town that they made years ago into Oh

1:40:17 ↗ LD thank you thank you very

1:40:32 ↗ thank you my name is Mary Lynch and I

1:40:34 ↗ recited to 6:9 Oh North West Oak Crest

1:40:37 ↗ drive squad and I came here tonight one

1:40:41 ↗ of the things is I was on the citizens

1:40:42 ↗ task force for the central area plan and

1:40:44 ↗ I was concerned when I saw that the

1:40:46 ↗ lines were being redrawn one of the

1:40:48 ↗ things is you know taking the confluence

1:40:50 ↗ park out of the Old Town area because if

1:40:53 ↗ you look at you know even though a lot

1:40:57 ↗ of its not colored in there's not a

1:40:59 ↗ whole lot of parks in the Old Town area

1:41:01 ↗ and you've got pretty small Lots and I

1:41:04 ↗ as part of the citizens task force of

1:41:06 ↗ the central area plan we basically said

1:41:09 ↗ that the central area plan should be

1:41:10 ↗ making its own parks and so to move it

1:41:13 ↗ into the central area plan all of a

1:41:15 ↗ sudden they have another Park that they

1:41:16 ↗ hadn't planned on and does that mean

1:41:18 ↗ that they're not going to create new

1:41:19 ↗ parks in the central area plan that's my

1:41:21 ↗ take on that I really think it should

1:41:24 ↗ stay in the Old Town and at least that

1:41:28 ↗ side the other aisle again talk with the

1:41:31 ↗ other the locals is where the other side

1:41:33 ↗ should be I also on here would like to

1:41:36 ↗ see the multimodal trails not only where

1:41:38 ↗ the missing links but where are they now

1:41:40 ↗ because that's part of our culture it's

1:41:42 ↗ hiking and biking and trails

1:41:45 ↗ so the Renier trail really ought to be

1:41:47 ↗ identified on here and with it then the

1:41:49 ↗ view corridors that we want to keep

1:41:51 ↗ because that's part of our culture and

1:41:53 ↗ none of that shows up on this map and

1:41:55 ↗ when you get south of town there's some

1:41:57 ↗ major view corridors and trails that

1:42:00 ↗ aren't shown on here I would like to see

1:42:03 ↗ also when we're talking about multimodal

1:42:05 ↗ and I mentioned this before is we need

1:42:07 ↗ to include motorized chairs it may be

1:42:09 ↗ non motorized paths but a lot of our

1:42:13 ↗ people in Issaquah are using motorized

1:42:16 ↗ chairs so that needs to be part of our

1:42:18 ↗ codes and standards and I really think

1:42:20 ↗ needs to stand apart when we're

1:42:22 ↗ designing things I don't see anything in

1:42:25 ↗ here that talks about all walk

1:42:27 ↗ intersections and that going into it

1:42:30 ↗ because if we're going to reset codes

1:42:31 ↗ you know that was one of the things that

1:42:34 ↗ came up in the

1:42:36 ↗ Front Street is being a big positive

1:42:38 ↗ from the local group of people that were

1:42:41 ↗ talking so that should be talked I think

1:42:43 ↗ in the codes and standards I also think

1:42:46 ↗ we need to look at also parking

1:42:48 ↗ enforcement and doing some of the other

1:42:50 ↗ cities do is having stickers for the

1:42:53 ↗ residents that get to park and those

1:42:55 ↗ that don't have a sticker get tagged if

1:42:58 ↗ they're there for more to two to three

1:42:59 ↗ hours that ought to be something we're

1:43:01 ↗ looking at changing policy and codes

1:43:03 ↗ also because the downtown area is being

1:43:06 ↗ used as a park-and-ride

1:43:07 ↗ and it's only going to get worse now

1:43:09 ↗ with the park and rides in Bellevue

1:43:11 ↗ being closed they're not going to be

1:43:12 ↗ able to get to where they need to go so

1:43:14 ↗ they're going to be using our downtown

1:43:15 ↗ area for park and rides and our parking

1:43:17 ↗ was going to be worse stormwater my

1:43:21 ↗ concern is with now all the trees off of

1:43:24 ↗ Front Street

1:43:24 ↗ we've created our own problem with water

1:43:26 ↗ trees absorb a large percent of the

1:43:30 ↗ water that comes down we don't have

1:43:32 ↗ trees that's also effective if you look

1:43:35 ↗ at any downtown architecture when they

1:43:38 ↗ talk about walkability trees are part of

1:43:41 ↗ what makes an area walkable and I was

1:43:44 ↗ appalled that we've allowed the cut down

1:43:45 ↗ of the trees on the Front Street area

1:43:48 ↗ and I think we need to put some of those

1:43:50 ↗ back we also need to look at green roofs

1:43:54 ↗ as part of the central area we've got an

1:43:57 ↗ example down on Renier already with

1:43:59 ↗ green roofs so you know we need to look

1:44:02 ↗ at other alternatives and more green

1:44:05 ↗ ways of handling our water and I think

1:44:08 ↗ rain gardens is something on some of

1:44:10 ↗ these other areas is work with the

1:44:12 ↗ neighbors in Old Town to come up with

1:44:14 ↗ some rain gardens far as the economic

1:44:16 ↗ again it's across school district was

1:44:19 ↗ not a partner they're part of our

1:44:22 ↗ economic vitality they also we need to

1:44:25 ↗ show them on here because their property

1:44:28 ↗ is totally underutilized we can have

1:44:30 ↗ adult classes we can have music courses

1:44:32 ↗ there's all sorts of things we could be

1:44:34 ↗ doing to raise money and economic

1:44:37 ↗ vitality cohousing we need to consider

1:44:40 ↗ tiny homes and and the ability to do

1:44:43 ↗ mobile homes that's going to be a code

1:44:44 ↗ change because a lot of tiny homes are

1:44:46 ↗ mobile cohousing should

1:44:49 ↗ so be included with the cottages and I

1:44:54 ↗ put that and I did see it any place I

1:44:56 ↗ said it every time I've come into one of

1:44:58 ↗ these meetings I said we need to talk

1:45:00 ↗ about the green project and

1:45:01 ↗ aging-in-place

1:45:02 ↗ and I don't see that in any of the

1:45:04 ↗ policies also the other thing I think we

1:45:10 ↗ need to do is in the streetscapes we

1:45:12 ↗ showed all this art walk but we didn't

1:45:14 ↗ look at it again from a walkability and

1:45:16 ↗ a lot of indiscreet States plans a lot

1:45:19 ↗ of those metal o walls covered ways to

1:45:25 ↗ get into the parking and walking path so

1:45:28 ↗ you know that should be a priority is

1:45:30 ↗ identifying where are walking paths are

1:45:32 ↗ and showing them on this map and also

1:45:35 ↗ our walkability the other thing just

1:45:37 ↗ very briefly is we need to look at all

1:45:40 ↗ of our underlying codes last week it was

1:45:42 ↗ divulged from staff after question was

1:45:44 ↗ asked about streets our sidewalk codes

1:45:47 ↗ is based on 1964 codes which were in

1:45:52 ↗ 1970 we ruled unconstitutional as we're

1:45:56 ↗ going back and rewriting our policies

1:45:58 ↗ rewriting our codes I would hope to some

1:46:00 ↗ place in here we say that all of our

1:46:03 ↗ underlying codes need to be reviewed for

1:46:06 ↗ are they current and already the best

1:46:08 ↗ practices because they were laughing at

1:46:11 ↗ the meeting the fact that they were

1:46:12 ↗ based on 1964 code and I think that's

1:46:16 ↗ appalling thank you thank you

1:46:20 ↗ the last individuals signed up anybody

1:46:23 ↗ else well you want to make some comments

1:46:31 ↗ my name is Mel Morgan I'm under

1:46:33 ↗ development Commission's I think you

1:46:35 ↗ have my address I just wanted to suggest

1:46:37 ↗ with regard to the comment about

1:46:40 ↗ lessening the parking requirements if I

1:46:43 ↗ understand correctly the parking

1:46:46 ↗ requirements right now would be the same

1:46:48 ↗ for the city except for the central area

1:46:51 ↗ if I have that right which would be such

1:46:56 ↗ as for restaurants I think it's one

1:46:58 ↗ parking stall for 100 square feet and

1:47:01 ↗ four apartments unless there's too

1:47:03 ↗ it's two parking stalls per unit even if

1:47:06 ↗ it's a one-bedroom unit so I would just

1:47:08 ↗ suggest before taking out that statement

1:47:11 ↗ about lessening take a look at what the

1:47:14 ↗ actual parking requirements are because

1:47:16 ↗ it may be reasonable to bring some of

1:47:18 ↗ those down for the especially the

1:47:20 ↗ cultural business district so thank you

1:47:23 ↗ thank you

1:47:26 ↗ anybody else from the public hi Connie

1:47:30 ↗ you're hiding back under the corner

1:47:32 ↗ didn't see you okay Connie Marsh live up

1:47:42 ↗ on this block so I've been trying not to

1:47:47 ↗ pay attention to this because it makes

1:47:49 ↗ me sort of crazy so I was just reading

1:47:51 ↗ it and gasping periodically I agree

1:47:57 ↗ considering is not enough the map is

1:48:07 ↗ mainly blank and not only is it missing

1:48:11 ↗ creeks sides there's no creek so it

1:48:12 ↗ doesn't show it doesn't even give you an

1:48:15 ↗ idea of what you might be talking about

1:48:18 ↗ and so I think last time I spoke about

1:48:22 ↗ the whole South and just having no

1:48:26 ↗ particular vision or no concept for the

1:48:30 ↗ future and so I think we need this needs

1:48:33 ↗ to go back not be approved and ask for a

1:48:37 ↗ more overarching view of this that gives

1:48:41 ↗ you enough detail so that you can

1:48:43 ↗ actually understand what this might look

1:48:45 ↗ like in 20 years or 30 years right now

1:48:49 ↗ it's sort of just like dinking around

1:48:51 ↗ with the code a little bit so for

1:48:54 ↗ example for me I go down Front Street

1:48:56 ↗ South and I want to get across the

1:48:58 ↗ street and I don't want the traffic

1:49:00 ↗ stuck there I wanted to be my town again

1:49:02 ↗ right I want it to be 25 miles an hour I

1:49:05 ↗ want to retail on either side and I want

1:49:07 ↗ us the community to be able to cross the

1:49:09 ↗ street all the way down to squawk Valley

1:49:12 ↗ Park and this is the beginning of that

1:49:14 ↗ transition right now we've

1:49:16 ↗ sort of said ah you know there's

1:49:19 ↗ residential there's little commercial

1:49:20 ↗ down there and that's good enough I

1:49:23 ↗ don't think that is good enough I think

1:49:25 ↗ we have to plan for what we want the

1:49:28 ↗ future to be because old town should not

1:49:30 ↗ just languish saying yeah you know

1:49:33 ↗ little houses little commercial what

1:49:35 ↗ would be the most vital smashing old

1:49:38 ↗ town you could imagine and that does not

1:49:41 ↗ necessarily in my mind mean that we all

1:49:44 ↗ have to have the same architecture I

1:49:46 ↗ agree with this gentleman here it's a

1:49:48 ↗ fine balance between having in a little

1:49:50 ↗ new Flair and a little old flair but not

1:49:53 ↗ having impacts on the next-door

1:49:55 ↗ neighbors so they're looking at nasty

1:49:57 ↗ blank walls every time they get up for

1:49:59 ↗ example so I think there's a lot more

1:50:02 ↗ work to be done in a holistic and

1:50:05 ↗ general information manner now my anal

1:50:08 ↗ retentive side comes out I've been

1:50:10 ↗ reading this for years

1:50:11 ↗ axial views must be protected from

1:50:16 ↗ public areas I you know what I don't

1:50:18 ↗ even know what that means so I looked up

1:50:20 ↗ axial views and what I get is anatomy so

1:50:24 ↗ let's let's put down what we want we

1:50:29 ↗ want to enjoy our mountains and our

1:50:32 ↗ green hillsides around us from many and

1:50:35 ↗ varied viewpoints around old town that's

1:50:40 ↗ what we want and it isn't necessarily

1:50:43 ↗ just from public places and roads like I

1:50:48 ↗ understand in the middle of the road and

1:50:50 ↗ say well if I can see tiger from here

1:50:52 ↗ BAM I'm dead all right policy a4 says

1:50:58 ↗ enhance wayfinding by creating visual

1:51:01 ↗ interest and activity in the public

1:51:03 ↗ realm contributing to positive

1:51:05 ↗ pedestrian experience I don't know what

1:51:10 ↗ that means

1:51:11 ↗ I don't know how getting visual interest

1:51:14 ↗ in activity in the public realm helps

1:51:17 ↗ you with wayfinding and so then I went

1:51:20 ↗ back and I looked for good directive

1:51:22 ↗ language on wayfinding and I couldn't

1:51:24 ↗ really find anything that would help

1:51:26 ↗ describe how you figure out where you're

1:51:28 ↗ getting around town

1:51:29 ↗ right now you're screening off all of

1:51:31 ↗ the parking so okay how do you know

1:51:34 ↗ where you're going to park now you've

1:51:36 ↗ hidden it for example right where do you

1:51:39 ↗ go for your public parking how do you

1:51:41 ↗ find the little cut around the corner

1:51:44 ↗ parking behind Jack's these are the

1:51:47 ↗ things I want to know about wayfinding

1:51:49 ↗ if I'm a stranger in town and I'm stuck

1:51:51 ↗ in my traffic and I wanted to pull off

1:51:52 ↗ where would I go and what would I do and

1:51:55 ↗ that I didn't see in there I also didn't

1:52:01 ↗ agree with having read some of the

1:52:03 ↗ surveys that this idea is that sunset

1:52:07 ↗ didn't want small retail what I read of

1:52:10 ↗ the survey results is they did want

1:52:12 ↗ small retail and small commercial they

1:52:15 ↗ did not want large retail and so this

1:52:18 ↗ idea that we must protect just one front

1:52:21 ↗ street from encroaching retail I think

1:52:26 ↗ specifies if that's even a word Old Town

1:52:29 ↗ for the future and I don't think we

1:52:31 ↗ really want to go there we want to make

1:52:32 ↗ it awesome retail so everybody gets more

1:52:34 ↗ customers right there's no particular

1:52:37 ↗ maintenance policies for the landscaping

1:52:40 ↗ sidewalks and streets which as Mary said

1:52:42 ↗ we found out the other day that really

1:52:44 ↗ those those people who own those

1:52:48 ↗ properties aren't required to maintain

1:52:50 ↗ their sidewalks or their landscaping and

1:52:52 ↗ we have an entire central Issaquah plan

1:52:53 ↗ an old town that are assuming something

1:52:56 ↗ that is absolutely not true so now we

1:52:57 ↗ need some policy language cut through

1:53:00 ↗ traffic is not defined only I don't know

1:53:03 ↗ what it means anymore it's cut through

1:53:05 ↗ regional traffic cutting through front

1:53:07 ↗ street is that what you're trying to

1:53:08 ↗ stop are you trying to stop the cut

1:53:10 ↗ through traffic that is going from

1:53:12 ↗ Issaquah to is across just using the old

1:53:16 ↗ neighborhoods to do so and so without

1:53:19 ↗ knowing what you're talking about for

1:53:20 ↗ cut through traffic I'm for getting rid

1:53:22 ↗ of regional traffic but I'm not sure

1:53:24 ↗ that that was the intent because that is

1:53:26 ↗ also cut through traffic and there's

1:53:29 ↗ economic vitality policy c3 that talks

1:53:34 ↗ about some sort of streamlined

1:53:35 ↗ permitting system when everybody adheres

1:53:38 ↗ to the standards per post well we don't

1:53:42 ↗ really have the

1:53:43 ↗ standards and I don't entirely

1:53:45 ↗ understand what the mechanism is for

1:53:47 ↗ that you have a plan to action ordinance

1:53:50 ↗ for this like we do for the central it's

1:53:52 ↗ a quoi plan that binds and allows for

1:53:57 ↗ that short cutting of permitting through

1:54:00 ↗ code looks like old language so maybe

1:54:04 ↗ it's been there a long time and I've

1:54:05 ↗ just never read it before but I think

1:54:07 ↗ you need somebody needs to tell you what

1:54:10 ↗ the mechanism for that is and that's all

1:54:12 ↗ I could come up with while I was

1:54:14 ↗ listening thanks thank you guys anybody

1:54:19 ↗ else hearing now hearing none and seeing

1:54:26 ↗ all hands raised nobody jumping up we'll

1:54:28 ↗ close public comments and go into

1:54:32 ↗ discussion

1:54:34 ↗ commission members we want to let staff

1:54:36 ↗ address any of the awesome comments we

1:54:38 ↗ have in the public I just want to say

1:54:39 ↗ thank you for everybody coming out and

1:54:41 ↗ voicing their thoughts on what we've

1:54:42 ↗ been talking about just staff want to

1:54:44 ↗ address anything that was said before we

1:54:46 ↗ get going only the things you would like

1:54:47 ↗ us to address thank you I mean if

1:54:50 ↗ there's something specific and we're

1:54:53 ↗ happy to yes it's everything that public

1:54:57 ↗ comments raises questions or comments or

1:54:59 ↗ discussion by members of Commission you

1:55:01 ↗ can ask the staff to answer that to your

1:55:04 ↗ satisfaction I would like to start off

1:55:08 ↗ the discussion wet and voicing my

1:55:12 ↗ concerns about the way this is currently

1:55:15 ↗ written and I don't think we would be

1:55:16 ↗ ready for a vote tonight on this I think

1:55:18 ↗ this is half-baked and I think we need

1:55:20 ↗ to go back through it or just guys again

1:55:22 ↗ the whole thing you don't ready for a

1:55:23 ↗ vote tonight I don't think any part of

1:55:25 ↗ this agenda is ready for vote tonight I

1:55:28 ↗ think we need to go back and actually

1:55:29 ↗ discuss and maybe make some revisions

1:55:32 ↗ together on this okay

1:55:43 ↗ it's okay we've got a chance to discuss

1:55:46 ↗ stuff okay yes tonight so I'd like to

1:55:49 ↗ start with a question about housing

1:55:51 ↗ there doesn't seem to be addressing any

1:55:55 ↗ of this issue of you know right now

1:55:58 ↗ where you think you're specifically in

1:56:00 ↗ the document there's language about the

1:56:02 ↗ 30% and above so there's no comments

1:56:05 ↗ about people who fall within 2-0 to 30%

1:56:08 ↗ and addressing is a large homeless

1:56:11 ↗ population that we have well I don't

1:56:13 ↗ want to assume it that we take that into

1:56:15 ↗ Old Town I think it's something that

1:56:16 ↗ we've all seen has affected Old Town and

1:56:19 ↗ I'm curious why staff left out of this

1:56:22 ↗ new section which is very valuable we

1:56:24 ↗ need to have a housing section in this

1:56:25 ↗ why we didn't address any of that

1:56:28 ↗ segment of the population address there

1:56:31 ↗ dear um the part of the sub area plan is

1:56:34 ↗ to address things that are specific only

1:56:36 ↗ to Old Town or more Old Town than other

1:56:40 ↗ places and since housing affordable

1:56:42 ↗ housing homeless is part of the whole

1:56:44 ↗ city's issues and we're doing a housing

1:56:47 ↗ strategy right now we left that issue to

1:56:50 ↗ be talked about entirely for the whole

1:56:52 ↗ city and not pieces of it in different

1:56:55 ↗ different sub areas because we wanted to

1:56:58 ↗ treat it as a issue for the whole city

1:57:00 ↗ and not just for one part of the city

1:57:02 ↗ that was why we chose to do it that way

1:57:04 ↗ I'm same with the tree canopy same with

1:57:09 ↗ sustainability those kinds that are

1:57:11 ↗ citywide policies are citywide

1:57:14 ↗ happenings we try to leave those in the

1:57:16 ↗ Comprehensive Plan to be overarching the

1:57:18 ↗ whole city and just do the specifics and

1:57:21 ↗ the sub area plans I was glad to see the

1:57:23 ↗ addition of the housing but I felt like

1:57:24 ↗ we were leaving out a chunk of it and I

1:57:27 ↗ was curious why there is a preservation

1:57:30 ↗ in there of the existing housing stack

1:57:34 ↗ because some of our best affordable

1:57:36 ↗ housing is in Old Town just because it's

1:57:38 ↗ older right so we specifically address

1:57:40 ↗ that and I was curious it didn't expand

1:57:42 ↗ and start talking yeah if there's a

1:57:43 ↗ place to take advantage of preservation

1:57:45 ↗ of existing housing it's it's an Old

1:57:47 ↗ Town stair

1:57:50 ↗ we're just a quick question based on

1:57:53 ↗ public comment good Tricia Dave or

1:57:57 ↗ somebody just speak to there's a lot of

1:57:59 ↗ talk about the map and the blank pieces

1:58:02 ↗ of the map is there a reason for that or

1:58:04 ↗ Superman

1:58:05 ↗ the map was intended to be a reference

1:58:08 ↗ for the neighborhood's that we were

1:58:09 ↗ talking about in the policies we did not

1:58:11 ↗ put in a non-motorized map to show where

1:58:13 ↗ all the existing and proposed routes are

1:58:15 ↗ because we have a non-motorized map in

1:58:17 ↗ our comprehensive plan and part of the

1:58:18 ↗ issue that we have found is that we have

1:58:20 ↗ a non-motorized map in our central

1:58:22 ↗ Issaquah plan and we have one in the

1:58:24 ↗ comprehensive plan but they're

1:58:25 ↗ inconsistent and even though we have

1:58:27 ↗ tried to make those consistent it

1:58:28 ↗ doesn't always happen and so right now

1:58:30 ↗ we have inconsistent maps and we would

1:58:32 ↗ like to avoid that so that's why we

1:58:34 ↗ didn't show existing and proposed this

1:58:36 ↗ was just intended to be a neighborhood

1:58:37 ↗ reference map we put it up there

1:58:39 ↗ initially without the public properties

1:58:41 ↗ but then there were big white spaces and

1:58:43 ↗ the public properties at the Windsor

1:58:44 ↗ green there were big white spaces just

1:58:46 ↗ there and like well that looks kind of

1:58:48 ↗ weird why we leave that out so we showed

1:58:49 ↗ the public properties and yes we

1:58:51 ↗ probably could have shown them all it

1:58:53 ↗ wasn't intended to show where all of the

1:58:55 ↗ public facilities or main Espino

1:58:56 ↗ municipal buildings are it was just

1:58:58 ↗ intended to show why those white spaces

1:59:01 ↗ you know keep those keep the white

1:59:03 ↗ spaces out anything all right and the

1:59:04 ↗ other pieces in the existing plan there

1:59:08 ↗ are the neighborhoods that are regulated

1:59:10 ↗ by the standards the CBD standards and

1:59:13 ↗ the Sun set and that area the

1:59:17 ↗ multifamily area adjacent to it so

1:59:19 ↗ there's a similar map in the existing

1:59:21 ↗ plan that just has those areas

1:59:23 ↗ highlighted and not anything else

1:59:25 ↗ because the lower part which is the

1:59:28 ↗ school and some of the multifamily on

1:59:29 ↗ Front Street

1:59:30 ↗ they aren't regulated any differently

1:59:32 ↗ than their land use code says and so we

1:59:34 ↗ didn't want folks to think they were

1:59:36 ↗ getting regulated differently because

1:59:38 ↗ they're on the map but maybe to make it

1:59:40 ↗ less confusing we could put them on the

1:59:42 ↗ map with just state that there's no

1:59:43 ↗ additional regulations for those areas

1:59:45 ↗ being proposed in the plan but they're

1:59:48 ↗ still in Old Town they'd be one way to

1:59:52 ↗ do it and clearly there was some

1:59:53 ↗ confusion about this map so if you guys

1:59:55 ↗ have any direction let us know yeah I

1:59:58 ↗ mean I guess my thought on that is I

2:00:02 ↗ understand

2:00:03 ↗ it's a reference map and I get the point

2:00:06 ↗ of it it does leave the open a question

2:00:10 ↗ like well what about everything else and

2:00:11 ↗ I understand what you just said Trish

2:00:12 ↗ about it's regulated all the same so I

2:00:14 ↗ think maybe just filling it in would

2:00:15 ↗ answer that question I do there was a

2:00:18 ↗ comment about the gateways and what

2:00:22 ↗ about the southern gateway I do think

2:00:24 ↗ there's an opportunity there to at least

2:00:26 ↗ and I'm not sure that I'm not suggesting

2:00:29 ↗ that we change the way it looks or what

2:00:32 ↗ the vision is for that southern gateway

2:00:33 ↗ but maybe just acknowledging that there

2:00:35 ↗ is yet another way into old town and and

2:00:38 ↗ in mentioning that because we talked

2:00:41 ↗ about the other two ways into old town

2:00:42 ↗ so I would support addition of that

2:00:45 ↗ right and the reason we talked about the

2:00:47 ↗ gateway from sunset is we know that

2:00:49 ↗ there's a sunset design project going on

2:00:52 ↗ right now so we thought wouldn't it be

2:00:54 ↗ great to put in a Gateway idea before we

2:00:57 ↗ actually start that because we know that

2:00:59 ↗ there's something coming soon so we

2:01:01 ↗ could certainly mention the other ones

2:01:03 ↗ even though there's not a project

2:01:04 ↗ imminent I think in general the concern

2:01:11 ↗ about a whole southern half of the old

2:01:16 ↗ town described areas really valid in

2:01:19 ↗ something that needs to be explored or

2:01:22 ↗ at least to find more in this plan and a

2:01:24 ↗ map like this seems like something that

2:01:26 ↗ should be like one of the first pages of

2:01:28 ↗ plan to me that is like here's here's

2:01:32 ↗ the area we're talking about and here's

2:01:34 ↗ how each of those separate colored areas

2:01:38 ↗ is is being treated and here's our

2:01:40 ↗ vision for that whether it's just

2:01:43 ↗ existing and saying preserve existing

2:01:46 ↗ and defining that at least at least

2:01:49 ↗ acknowledging that it's in the area and

2:01:51 ↗ that it needs to be incorporated into

2:01:54 ↗ this plan for that area I think is

2:01:57 ↗ really critical

2:02:08 ↗ so I've got some topics I'd like to

2:02:12 ↗ discuss here looking at the housing

2:02:16 ↗ policy a1 I had some language I'd like

2:02:22 ↗ to add to it leaving the language as it

2:02:28 ↗ is and then after which has Old Town

2:02:34 ↗ neighborhoods so this is again a CH

2:02:37 ↗ policy a1 ad front yard setbacks and

2:02:41 ↗ landscaping dedicated entry and walkways

2:02:44 ↗ main entry location garage placement and

2:02:46 ↗ prominence reason why I'm thinking about

2:02:51 ↗ including that into the vision is

2:02:54 ↗ because they're not codes what you're

2:02:58 ↗ doing is you're saying this is the look

2:03:00 ↗ and style we're looking for an Old Town

2:03:06 ↗ if we do not include it and you go

2:03:09 ↗ through the new developments in Old Town

2:03:12 ↗ today you will notice that our front

2:03:15 ↗ doors on the sides of houses instead of

2:03:18 ↗ in the front so they're not welcoming

2:03:20 ↗ you have garages right out in front as a

2:03:23 ↗ main entry point and that's not

2:03:26 ↗ necessarily an Old Town look either

2:03:28 ↗ that's more of a urban look right so

2:03:30 ↗ maybe putting this type of language into

2:03:34 ↗ policy will help us to find more

2:03:38 ↗ accurate codes to enforce it I had

2:03:42 ↗ similar comments when I when I read this

2:03:44 ↗ I you know to me if we want to describe

2:03:46 ↗ how we want to establish these things

2:03:49 ↗ and for a1 it's kind of it's kind of

2:03:51 ↗ curious to say like shouldn't this be a

2:03:52 ↗ part of the policy to help guide the

2:03:55 ↗ code they recognize that this is not the

2:03:57 ↗ codes not where we're putting in exact

2:03:59 ↗ building requirements but the more you

2:04:02 ↗ know we talked about wanting to make

2:04:04 ↗ condense some of this language to me

2:04:06 ↗ this is an area where we want to expel a

2:04:09 ↗ little bit more because this is a place

2:04:11 ↗ that we have to be able to guide future

2:04:13 ↗ discussions of what that code is so I'm

2:04:17 ↗ for trying to actually define this

2:04:19 ↗ language here in the housing policy in

2:04:21 ↗ a1

2:04:21 ↗ and in a two because when we start

2:04:23 ↗ talking about what is small-scale I

2:04:24 ↗ think it's hard to start saying well are

2:04:27 ↗ this the size of the homes what kind of

2:04:30 ↗ you know the difference between a tiny

2:04:32 ↗ home a home a cottage these are all

2:04:35 ↗ different types of living and different

2:04:37 ↗ things different things that people can

2:04:39 ↗ do on a lot to be able to accommodate a

2:04:41 ↗ variety of lifestyles and of economic

2:04:43 ↗ means and without defining those terms

2:04:45 ↗ or just saying something like

2:04:46 ↗ small-scale it's not it's not really

2:04:49 ↗ known as far as does that mean that

2:04:50 ↗ homes can exceed a size does that mean

2:04:52 ↗ that how you know it we it starts to get

2:04:55 ↗ a little fuzzy so I think that we need

2:04:57 ↗ to have a better defining of terms both

2:05:00 ↗ for a1 and a2 a3 when it says consider

2:05:06 ↗ again I don't like that word consider

2:05:09 ↗ the limiting new residential development

2:05:11 ↗ on a3 I felt like that language again

2:05:14 ↗ was soft using that word consider as I

2:05:19 ↗ felt the community had really backed

2:05:21 ↗ wanting strong language about about that

2:05:24 ↗ and not specifically on that a3 so you

2:05:26 ↗ want to change the similar to the

2:05:29 ↗ earlier discussion the traditional

2:05:32 ↗ materials you want to change that that

2:05:34 ↗ define what traditional materials are as

2:05:36 ↗ well and there's a whole part in the

2:05:38 ↗ discussion the discussion we tried to

2:05:40 ↗ put all the gate I'm excuse me the

2:05:42 ↗ gabled roofs what traditional and so

2:05:45 ↗ would run on sentences be better up

2:05:48 ↗ there because that's where we're trying

2:05:49 ↗ to put context of what it means to be

2:05:52 ↗ traditional and what traditional

2:05:55 ↗ materials our own work the architecture

2:05:58 ↗ is it's gabled roof types of things I

2:06:00 ↗ mean not everybody has to have a gable

2:06:02 ↗ roof what we're giving suggestions so

2:06:04 ↗ they're not in the policy to handcuff us

2:06:07 ↗ but they're in the discussion to give

2:06:09 ↗ context of what we mean when we say they

2:06:12 ↗ need to be the same traditional scale

2:06:15 ↗ style and scale because of the context

2:06:19 ↗ in but if you'd mentioned porches and I

2:06:21 ↗ didn't catch all the list of things that

2:06:23 ↗ you mentioned yeah I'll read it again

2:06:24 ↗ front yards well should I just read the

2:06:27 ↗ whole thing so everybody I'm just

2:06:29 ↗ curious if that list would be better up

2:06:31 ↗ with the other items that were when we

2:06:34 ↗ were doing for example

2:06:35 ↗ up there do you want the list to be

2:06:37 ↗ longer is that what you're saying

2:06:39 ↗ I don't necessarily think it needs to be

2:06:44 ↗ longer I just think that the policy

2:06:46 ↗ needs to be more focused so for instance

2:06:51 ↗ when we say establish architectural

2:06:54 ↗ standards have helped ensure new

2:06:56 ↗ development is constructed in the same

2:06:58 ↗ traditional style and scale as existing

2:07:00 ↗ small residential neighborhoods front

2:07:03 ↗ yard setbacks and landscaping dedicated

2:07:06 ↗ entry walk Dennett dedicated entryway

2:07:09 ↗ all right dedicated entry walkways in

2:07:14 ↗ main entry locations garage placement

2:07:17 ↗ and prominence needs to be traditional

2:07:20 ↗ right so non-traditional is putting the

2:07:24 ↗ front door on the side of the house gift

2:07:26 ↗ you're saying run to see the paragraph

2:07:28 ↗ above that the discussion is paragraph

2:07:30 ↗ where we say important historic elements

2:07:33 ↗ such as two-story houses gabled roofs

2:07:36 ↗ traditional materials of wood stone

2:07:38 ↗ brick and multi paint windows what we're

2:07:42 ↗ trying to do there is establish a

2:07:45 ↗ context of what it means when we say in

2:07:47 ↗ the policies the architectural and the

2:07:50 ↗ traditional elements it worries me as

2:07:53 ↗ someone that's going to try to enforce

2:07:55 ↗ it if you only have it in one policy and

2:07:58 ↗ then three policies later you talk about

2:08:00 ↗ traditional or you talk about elements

2:08:02 ↗ and it's not there but it's in this one

2:08:05 ↗ I'm trying we're trying to put them in

2:08:08 ↗ places so that they can all refer back

2:08:10 ↗ to that okay so you're recommending

2:08:12 ↗ putting it up in the main paragraph

2:08:14 ↗ right that if you want a list of things

2:08:16 ↗ we're happy to put a bigger list if you

2:08:19 ↗ would like but we're worried about

2:08:22 ↗ scattering the list because then when we

2:08:25 ↗ want it to say something it'll be in

2:08:27 ↗ another spot sure you see what I'm

2:08:29 ↗ saying yeah I agree with that okay yep

2:08:35 ↗ okay

2:08:36 ↗ and then and then so in that same area

2:08:40 ↗ when we have policy for a to allow and

2:08:43 ↗ encourage small-scale cottage housing

2:08:45 ↗ with the old town I feel like we need to

2:08:46 ↗ bet we don't the rather that are

2:08:48 ↗ different that needs to be better to

2:08:49 ↗ find yeah right name three sorry what is

2:08:54 ↗ the best way to move forward on on that

2:08:57 ↗ I mean no it's the kind of action plan

2:08:59 ↗ in general on how I define that because

2:09:01 ↗ there's everyone's got different ideas

2:09:02 ↗ on what I think we talked last time cuz

2:09:05 ↗ it was your comment that they have to

2:09:07 ↗ truly be not big cottages but and you

2:09:11 ↗ had like with them we had central they

2:09:16 ↗ have common common yards in the center

2:09:17 ↗ and parking is off-site and they're not

2:09:20 ↗ 2,200 square feet they're gone there's a

2:09:22 ↗ great public comment that there should

2:09:24 ↗ be variety right it should be small

2:09:26 ↗ there should be medium there should be

2:09:28 ↗ large there so incorporating that and

2:09:31 ↗ kind of maybe when we throw out those

2:09:33 ↗ terms maybe there's a way to in the

2:09:36 ↗ policy just bag you know kind of briefly

2:09:39 ↗ touch on small medium large scale and

2:09:42 ↗ then talk about some kind of appropriate

2:09:46 ↗ mix yes this cottage living has that

2:09:49 ↗ communal aspect where some shared

2:09:51 ↗ resources exist but also having tiny

2:09:55 ↗ homes is a very small footprint we're

2:09:57 ↗ talking about a few hundred square feet

2:09:59 ↗ but it's all enclosed on that you know

2:10:02 ↗ and when we talk about encouraging a to

2:10:03 ↗ use and being able to really have a more

2:10:07 ↗ affordable housing you need to start we

2:10:09 ↗ need to have all these different modes

2:10:11 ↗ of being rather than just one

2:10:13 ↗ traditional style of house we're saying

2:10:14 ↗ we want to encourage that so I don't

2:10:17 ↗ know whether it's putting it in the

2:10:18 ↗ definitions but breaking apart these

2:10:20 ↗ things that we want to encourage because

2:10:22 ↗ we talk about you know eighty use we

2:10:23 ↗ talk about all these different things

2:10:24 ↗ but yet we don't actually define these

2:10:26 ↗ differences styles that we want to

2:10:28 ↗ accept the into the community and

2:10:30 ↗ defining what those different ones are

2:10:34 ↗ yeah we would like to define that and

2:10:37 ↗ put that in them but that was something

2:10:39 ↗ that John added last time and we just

2:10:41 ↗ didn't have the time to turn it around

2:10:42 ↗ in a week to get it all in there

2:10:45 ↗ on we able to move on any other

2:10:49 ↗ questions okay age policy a 300 is good

2:10:53 ↗ timing actually I'm glad you interrupted

2:10:55 ↗ consider limiting again I think that's

2:10:58 ↗ really illegal big weak language like to

2:11:03 ↗ change remove consider and put in limit

2:11:06 ↗ just change consider limiting just to

2:11:09 ↗ limit yes okay yeah I'll be for that and

2:11:15 ↗ there it's talking about two stories

2:11:19 ↗ with traditional materials as well now

2:11:24 ↗ this actually things another question

2:11:27 ↗ here looking at the original old town

2:11:30 ↗ standards the original Old Town design

2:11:35 ↗ standards or covered front street and

2:11:39 ↗ sunset I'm warning if we should be

2:11:43 ↗ adopting those in our discussion of Old

2:11:47 ↗ Town because there's a lot of

2:11:50 ↗ parallelisms

2:11:51 ↗ and it comes to the residential units

2:11:53 ↗ another thing them how they're already

2:11:55 ↗ they got their adopted and then we're

2:11:57 ↗ mending those right after this in 2018

2:12:01 ↗ Biggs is today right right everyone

2:12:04 ↗ saying is actually because we're talking

2:12:06 ↗ about old town right now in our policy

2:12:10 ↗ right why don't we take the whole town

2:12:14 ↗ design standards because those are not

2:12:16 ↗ codes yes yes they're out there the

2:12:19 ↗ teeth but it's a hybrid document it's

2:12:23 ↗ not real code it is that's code it yeah

2:12:27 ↗ I do not know that it's a beautiful

2:12:33 ↗ thing too it's got pictures it says

2:12:34 ↗ encourage discourage it's a beautiful

2:12:37 ↗ thing

2:12:38 ↗ yeah that's why I didn't think was code

2:12:39 ↗ even a scholar but talent and now

2:12:43 ↗ colored interesting wow I did not know

2:12:45 ↗ that okay I stand corrected

2:12:47 ↗ because that goes into discussing

2:12:52 ↗ two-story units with gabled correct does

2:12:55 ↗ it the teeth so we're not looking at

2:12:58 ↗ three-story houses

2:12:59 ↗ two-story houses and now we put that in

2:13:01 ↗ towards the old town and that's keeping

2:13:04 ↗ it consistent throughout not just on

2:13:07 ↗ Front Street and sunset now well they

2:13:10 ↗ have different zones so the regulations

2:13:13 ↗ are different for front

2:13:14 ↗ and different for sunset and one of the

2:13:15 ↗ discussions we've had as it currently

2:13:17 ↗ does sunset the cultural business

2:13:20 ↗ district and multi-family other other

2:13:23 ↗ multi-family districts so what we're

2:13:25 ↗ talking about adding to the standards

2:13:28 ↗ would be the small scale residential

2:13:29 ↗ that you see and yellow up there because

2:13:33 ↗ it currently does not talk about that

2:13:34 ↗ right okay

2:13:39 ↗ need to go back and do more research

2:13:41 ↗ since well since we're in housing right

2:13:43 ↗ now I had a question about housing

2:13:45 ↗ policy c1 or it says that pedestrian

2:13:50 ↗ amenities that serve as a draw to the

2:13:52 ↗ commercial areas of Old Town I wanted to

2:13:54 ↗ know how do you decide what what is a

2:13:58 ↗ draw to the community I was a little

2:14:00 ↗ confused about this language we trying

2:14:02 ↗ to say that we're encouraging more more

2:14:04 ↗ economic development one store but gets

2:14:07 ↗ encouraging going to more stores I you

2:14:10 ↗ know I wasn't quite sure of this

2:14:11 ↗ language of as a draw it's like the

2:14:14 ↗ festival streets that was proposed in

2:14:16 ↗ the streetscape that it doesn't change

2:14:19 ↗ anything it you know it just makes it

2:14:21 ↗ more inviting more pedestrian friendly

2:14:23 ↗ you could have little plaza parties

2:14:25 ↗ there it just takes what we have and

2:14:27 ↗ makes it more accessible more able to

2:14:31 ↗ participate in things and just makes it

2:14:34 ↗ more viable and then ideally to you

2:14:36 ↗ don't build you know an apartment

2:14:40 ↗ building Lobby is not a draw front

2:14:42 ↗ street but a building that has mixed-use

2:14:45 ↗ on the bottom or an art studio next to

2:14:48 ↗ the lobby or sment and data is a draw to

2:14:50 ↗ a community because it makes that the

2:14:53 ↗ walking the windows more interesting

2:14:55 ↗ than you know walking by a lobby or a

2:14:59 ↗ dentist office or something that's you

2:15:00 ↗ know you can't see through the windows

2:15:02 ↗ it's just not as more as fun to walk to

2:15:04 ↗ the next place yeah I think I think the

2:15:06 ↗ community is strongly supportive of this

2:15:09 ↗ you know retail below live above concept

2:15:13 ↗ but I just didn't feel like the language

2:15:15 ↗ on here again it serves as a draw to the

2:15:17 ↗ commercial areas I didn't understand how

2:15:20 ↗ this it seems a little flowery to me I

2:15:21 ↗ think if we want to talk about how we

2:15:24 ↗ want to really encourage the mixed use I

2:15:26 ↗ think it needs to be defined a little a

2:15:29 ↗ little differently for some reason a

2:15:31 ↗ language that of serving as a draw the

2:15:33 ↗ commercial areas didn't feel like it was

2:15:36 ↗ trying to achieve what you were saying

2:15:38 ↗ which is that emphasis on saying we want

2:15:40 ↗ to encourage mixed use we want to have

2:15:43 ↗ we want to not encourage a certain type

2:15:46 ↗ of thing like a lobby to a building we

2:15:47 ↗ want to instead encourage this I thought

2:15:50 ↗ that language then could be stronger if

2:15:52 ↗ that's what the point of that statement

2:15:54 ↗ was firstly one sort of a related

2:15:58 ↗ comment there and maybe something that

2:16:00 ↗ kind of runs through for me and I think

2:16:03 ↗ some some folks in the public said it as

2:16:05 ↗ well

2:16:07 ↗ sticking with that policy see one just

2:16:09 ↗ as an example earlier I think in

2:16:13 ↗ economic vitality I talked about in the

2:16:15 ↗ discussion it said you know we want east

2:16:18 ↗ sunset to be a certain way except for

2:16:19 ↗ retail and we we talked about that a

2:16:21 ↗ minute ago so then this would sort of

2:16:23 ↗ seem to be an internal conflict with

2:16:26 ↗ that earlier statement unless here we're

2:16:29 ↗ just talking about the cultural business

2:16:30 ↗ district and so maybe just sort of

2:16:34 ↗ throughout there are a couple things

2:16:35 ↗ limited parking and Ella

2:16:38 ↗ you know exceptions for Li D and maybe

2:16:40 ↗ in this case how we want mixed-use to

2:16:43 ↗ look if we're just talking about the

2:16:45 ↗ cultural business district just just

2:16:46 ↗ stating that in some cases or qualifying

2:16:49 ↗ it because here looks like we're trying

2:16:51 ↗ to plant it everywhere and maybe really

2:16:53 ↗ not good point I've got two other

2:17:00 ↗ suggestions I want to add to this plan

2:17:03 ↗ but we are going up to nine o'clock do

2:17:06 ↗ we want to carry this conversation

2:17:08 ↗ forward the next planning do as a

2:17:13 ↗ discussion

2:17:16 ↗ your next meeting that you could discuss

2:17:18 ↗ this is in June unless we call a special

2:17:21 ↗ meeting somehow in May because you but

2:17:23 ↗ you're already booked up for May I

2:17:25 ↗ believe you're already looked up I don't

2:17:27 ↗ have a packet I consider booked up in

2:17:29 ↗ June - but we'd fit it in somehow

2:17:31 ↗ what's your thoughts I think it needs to

2:17:33 ↗ be further discussed I think we need to

2:17:36 ↗ wash it off work this is definitely not

2:17:39 ↗ ready to go to City Council I did I

2:17:44 ↗ disagree I think it is ready to go to

2:17:45 ↗ City Council oh okay it's with with some

2:17:49 ↗ pointed amendments or suggestions again

2:17:52 ↗ this is a broad broad view it doesn't

2:17:54 ↗ have to be bumped and it's but let me

2:18:00 ↗ add my two comments and then for

2:18:03 ↗ discussion and keep you asking about

2:18:05 ↗ disgusting seafood you can talk we also

2:18:07 ↗ talked about whether you want to

2:18:08 ↗ separate the old town or the yeah if we

2:18:11 ↗ might well really want to make a

2:18:12 ↗ statement about the e as well I think I

2:18:15 ↗ agree on me again

2:18:16 ↗ so two comments I don't see anywhere in

2:18:24 ↗ this policy and I may be this the old

2:18:27 ↗ town maybe it doesn't belong in the old

2:18:29 ↗ town policy but I think Old Town ISM

2:18:31 ↗ it's important that we have something

2:18:33 ↗ that that is for Old Town a pea patch in

2:18:38 ↗ a flower garden something a pea patch or

2:18:43 ↗ gardening until a community space that

2:18:47 ↗ allows people to come in I got your

2:18:49 ↗ email for that but that was in or for

2:18:51 ↗ under the parks in general right it's

2:18:54 ↗ part of the green necklace but that

2:18:56 ↗ means I could go almost anywhere and I

2:18:58 ↗ think Old Town is unique because it's

2:19:00 ↗ got some very excellent real estate they

2:19:03 ↗ would run it's in the it's in the green

2:19:06 ↗ necklace policy of Old Town oh so there

2:19:10 ↗ is it so it's in there there is place

2:19:13 ↗ for a pea patch in the old town policy

2:19:15 ↗ it's I sent it to you it's in there okay

2:19:18 ↗ I didn't sorry I didn't read it as that

2:19:21 ↗ I thought when I read it as green

2:19:23 ↗ necklace I didn't realize it was

2:19:25 ↗ actually associated to old town right it

2:19:29 ↗ continuing it from central to old town

2:19:32 ↗ to contain all the trails and parks and

2:19:35 ↗ pee patches are a perfect idea for okay

2:19:39 ↗ Tom so would okay as well I didn't

2:19:41 ↗ realize it the nets and like

2:19:43 ↗ clarification and the desk other option

2:19:48 ↗ II and this probably belongs again may

2:19:51 ↗ belong in the in the plant as opposed to

2:19:58 ↗ the old town plan when it comes to

2:20:01 ↗ transit shelters in terms of coverage

2:20:06 ↗ shelters I had some suggestions that we

2:20:10 ↗ should be building shelters bus shelters

2:20:14 ↗ that reflect hotel reflect Issaquah in

2:20:19 ↗ general but I agree I actually have this

2:20:21 ↗ comment on the CNM c3 and that's

2:20:24 ↗ regarding the bull language for for the

2:20:26 ↗ bike for the bike kind of centers that

2:20:30 ↗ we want to be using and I was saying we

2:20:32 ↗ wanted to have language that basically

2:20:34 ↗ says how they're physically integrated

2:20:36 ↗ to this space how we how we integrate

2:20:40 ↗ that into whole town I think is really

2:20:41 ↗ important we need have language about

2:20:42 ↗ where we're actually plopping our bike

2:20:44 ↗ share from into the city these kind of

2:20:47 ↗ these things and that how their design

2:20:48 ↗ should be specifically reflected of that

2:20:51 ↗ code of Oldtown rather than kind of

2:20:52 ↗ having the traditional Seattle's bike

2:20:54 ↗ share which is kind of a steel aluminum

2:20:57 ↗ look that kind of gets parked down

2:20:59 ↗ wherever there is concrete to me that we

2:21:02 ↗ we don't really know what our bike share

2:21:04 ↗ program is going to look like but I

2:21:05 ↗ think that when it does it really ought

2:21:07 ↗ to look adorable it really ought to fit

2:21:09 ↗ the feel of the community so this is

2:21:11 ↗ similar to your point about bus stops is

2:21:13 ↗ that they should reflect the feeling of

2:21:15 ↗ old town and so I think we should have

2:21:17 ↗ language where we talk about these

2:21:19 ↗ things to be able to say that they need

2:21:20 ↗ to be placed in a thoughtful way that

2:21:23 ↗ they need to be designed to

2:21:25 ↗ aesthetically adhere to the values of

2:21:27 ↗ the community because I've got some

2:21:31 ↗ pictures I'd like to show can I load it

2:21:35 ↗ into the home until the of picture let

2:21:38 ↗ exactly have some pictures of bus stops

2:21:41 ↗ that I'd like to show

2:21:43 ↗ okay and you know we're not in charge of

2:21:45 ↗ bus stops Metro and right but we have a

2:21:48 ↗ say in what we use for bus stops if we

2:21:53 ↗ want to pay for them or we can also use

2:21:56 ↗ other methods I just don't want well I

2:21:59 ↗ want to be very detailed for the topic

2:22:03 ↗ tonight thing but it's not really

2:22:06 ↗ detailed it's important because if we

2:22:08 ↗ don't include shelters in our vision

2:22:12 ↗ we're going to get what Metro is going

2:22:16 ↗ to give us and I want to be very clear I

2:22:18 ↗ agree with joy that we should put the

2:22:20 ↗ language in there to be consistent with

2:22:22 ↗ the design and the character I'm not

2:22:24 ↗ sure we want to put specific pictures in

2:22:27 ↗ there no and I'm not saying pictures

2:22:29 ↗ what I'm saying I want to use pictures

2:22:31 ↗ to illustrate the importance of it in

2:22:33 ↗ terms of how to word the policy so that

2:22:40 ↗ it's it's focused not general because if

2:22:46 ↗ we say we want bus stops to be to

2:22:49 ↗ reflect is a co-op and it could be a

2:22:52 ↗ generic Metro structured bus stop with

2:22:56 ↗ pictures of fish on it right as opposed

2:22:59 ↗ to a bus stop

2:23:01 ↗ that is architectural II designed to

2:23:04 ↗ meet and embrace the values of Old Town

2:23:09 ↗ and right as a clock and I can see that

2:23:12 ↗ right now the design standards have

2:23:14 ↗ pictures like that not of transit

2:23:16 ↗ stations but they have encouraged

2:23:18 ↗ pictures that we want things to look

2:23:20 ↗ like this this and this and not this

2:23:22 ↗ this and this and it sounds like those

2:23:25 ↗ would be perfect for the standards where

2:23:27 ↗ you're actually using pieces of the

2:23:29 ↗ picture to say this is what we want no

2:23:32 ↗ matter if the applicant is Metro or if

2:23:34 ↗ it's a developer and then but there's

2:23:38 ↗ not a lot of pictures in the plan other

2:23:40 ↗ than sort of those overarching sort of

2:23:43 ↗ visionary ones that like our environment

2:23:46 ↗ so if we want to

2:23:48 ↗ [Music]

2:23:51 ↗ put together a policy or bus shelters

2:24:00 ↗ where would you recommend that we do

2:24:02 ↗ that I would agree with the way joy

2:24:04 ↗ phrased it that you would design it in

2:24:08 ↗ how did I have it written design in the

2:24:10 ↗ character of Old Town and the bike sir

2:24:12 ↗ she said the bike sure that fits the

2:24:14 ↗ character of Old Town and we knew would

2:24:16 ↗ we would puff it up a little bit but

2:24:19 ↗ that it's the same just like the houses

2:24:21 ↗ just like the commercial that everything

2:24:23 ↗ should have that feeling that it's all

2:24:25 ↗ together and not like you know totally

2:24:28 ↗ out of place like you're saying that

2:24:30 ↗ you're worried that all of a sudden

2:24:31 ↗ we're going to get a real shiny modern

2:24:34 ↗ spacecraft kind of a transit shelter is

2:24:38 ↗ that what you're that kind of a thing

2:24:40 ↗ you're worried about that it's like

2:24:41 ↗ totally not supposed to be here yes okay

2:24:43 ↗ I just do a search on bus shelters

2:24:45 ↗ that's probably what Metro will do

2:24:47 ↗ they'll design one that I looked at a

2:24:50 ↗ lot of their designer bus shelters and

2:24:53 ↗ they're great for downtown Seattle but

2:24:56 ↗ they are not good for Issaquah so I

2:24:59 ↗ think what we should do is which is we

2:25:00 ↗ should say that we appreciate Ron doing

2:25:02 ↗ this research because I think it's

2:25:03 ↗ really important to the community and if

2:25:05 ↗ you could share that with city staff and

2:25:06 ↗ while those pictures may not be included

2:25:08 ↗ in this document that they are something

2:25:11 ↗ that we'd like staff to use is a

2:25:12 ↗ referential point point of when we start

2:25:15 ↗ to say this is actually something we

2:25:18 ↗ want to develop money we want to put

2:25:19 ↗ some money aside into putting a bus stop

2:25:21 ↗ regardless of Metro wants to give us

2:25:23 ↗ those funds and this is a reference

2:25:24 ↗ point of of other things so those

2:25:26 ↗ pictures can go where we also already

2:25:28 ↗ have design pictures and references but

2:25:31 ↗ they don't necessarily live in this

2:25:32 ↗ document right yeah these pictures were

2:25:35 ↗ just for our discussion so that we would

2:25:37 ↗ be able to put together maybe policy

2:25:39 ↗ language sounds like the most part we're

2:25:41 ↗ all on board with with that with that

2:25:43 ↗ concept I think you know I want to say

2:25:45 ↗ thank you for going to that effort and

2:25:47 ↗ being able to help staff with that since

2:25:49 ↗ we don't have a current repertoire of

2:25:51 ↗ photos in our our resources basically

2:25:54 ↗ maybe we can say even though they're not

2:25:56 ↗ going to be part of the document right

2:25:57 ↗ there's a lot easier to find ones I

2:25:59 ↗ think would be inappropriate to me

2:26:02 ↗ but so is the way this is a this is you

2:26:05 ↗ know talking about kind of more the

2:26:07 ↗ superficial how whole town looks I have

2:26:08 ↗ a question about this document that's at

2:26:10 ↗ the CNN policy II to was crossed out all

2:26:13 ↗ this connectivity and mobility goal II

2:26:15 ↗ was crossed out except for one line I'm

2:26:18 ↗ hoping that that just is my outdated

2:26:20 ↗ page 25 of 39 or 35 of 49 so all this is

2:26:25 ↗ read you know read it and then it

2:26:27 ↗ crossed out except for the last line a

2:26:29 ↗ continue to develop strong partnerships

2:26:30 ↗ with the regional trends and agencies

2:26:32 ↗ that serve as a cloth and I went I'm

2:26:34 ↗ sorry I'm having trouble finding the

2:26:36 ↗ pages 25 of 39 or 35 of 49 and it's the

2:26:40 ↗ crossed out mobility goal a CNN policy

2:26:43 ↗ II - and again I have it all read it out

2:26:46 ↗ except for one the last line I didn't

2:26:48 ↗ see five maybe see five movie up to see

2:26:50 ↗ five okay so that's what I was hoping I

2:26:52 ↗ was like I was like I feel like we've

2:26:53 ↗ already stated yes right these concepts

2:26:56 ↗ it's already integrated so I wanted that

2:26:58 ↗ red line to break rule thank you that

2:27:01 ↗ one a little I cross the road so sorry I

2:27:03 ↗ know I'm getting late but again I didn't

2:27:05 ↗ I didn't want to have that totally

2:27:07 ↗ thanks for pointing that out

2:27:08 ↗ since my document still showed that as

2:27:10 ↗ being a part of it so I really

2:27:13 ↗ appreciated Commissioner Morgan's

2:27:15 ↗ comments about the parking and so that's

2:27:17 ↗ something that I want to address with

2:27:19 ↗ you guys you know we have let me see I

2:27:21 ↗ can give you actual stuff so we have OTC

2:27:23 ↗ policy G 2 on page 29 of 49 where we

2:27:27 ↗ want to encourage the lessening of the

2:27:29 ↗ minimum parking requirements but then we

2:27:33 ↗ have other places where we say for

2:27:35 ↗ instance in policy a1 section D always

2:27:40 ↗ provide as much on street parking as

2:27:42 ↗ feasible

2:27:42 ↗ right on street parking is public what

2:27:45 ↗ we're talking about the minimum and the

2:27:46 ↗ maximum is for an applicant coming in

2:27:48 ↗ and building something that the private

2:27:51 ↗ parking would be have a minimum and a

2:27:53 ↗ maximum

2:27:53 ↗ but public parking we would want to

2:27:56 ↗ provide public parking wherever however

2:27:58 ↗ everywhere that we can provide it so is

2:28:01 ↗ there a way for us to then talk about so

2:28:03 ↗ considered lessening the minimum parking

2:28:04 ↗ requirements so it sounds like you're

2:28:06 ↗ talking about you know for housing

2:28:08 ↗ versus for businesses we want to you

2:28:11 ↗ want to encourage lessening the

2:28:13 ↗ what it's already the required amount of

2:28:16 ↗ sparkling for a business that would come

2:28:17 ↗ in right I want to say you don't need as

2:28:19 ↗ much parking but yet so then in terms

2:28:22 ↗ and that would mean spill out onto the

2:28:23 ↗ street but we have an issue with parking

2:28:25 ↗ the council has asked you guys to find

2:28:27 ↗ more parking so I public parking we're

2:28:30 ↗ probably right so did you see how I'm

2:28:31 ↗ seeing I'm seeing this issue of right we

2:28:33 ↗ want to encourage development so we're

2:28:35 ↗ going to lessen some of the requirements

2:28:37 ↗ of parking yet we know we have a parking

2:28:40 ↗ problem we have a mandate from Council

2:28:42 ↗ to find more parking so by having

2:28:44 ↗ businesses have to provide less parking

2:28:46 ↗ to to their customers that's still out

2:28:49 ↗ and affects public parking which then

2:28:51 ↗ spills out across so I guess knocking

2:28:53 ↗ wrong I feel like yeah I feel like we're

2:28:56 ↗ encouraging parking as we need as much

2:28:59 ↗ as we can because we have this deficit

2:29:00 ↗ we still have to find some we don't know

2:29:02 ↗ where it is but yet let's encourage

2:29:04 ↗ economic development by saying you don't

2:29:06 ↗ have to put in as much parking I'm a

2:29:07 ↗ little concerned about of it is right

2:29:10 ↗ now through the moratorium councils

2:29:12 ↗ asked us to look at parking in central

2:29:14 ↗ and so we have someone looking that that

2:29:17 ↗ helped with the right sized parking

2:29:19 ↗ program in Seattle that has all sorts of

2:29:24 ↗ scenarios and they've done tests and

2:29:27 ↗ each other

2:29:28 ↗ it's rather extensive but we're hoping

2:29:30 ↗ to take that information to see did we

2:29:32 ↗ do the right standards for central did

2:29:34 ↗ we do the right minimum and maximum and

2:29:36 ↗ if we can use those anywhere else

2:29:38 ↗ because they've made sense because we're

2:29:40 ↗ having somebody test them we're saying

2:29:42 ↗ consider them in Old Town to see if that

2:29:44 ↗ would help us with the parking issues

2:29:46 ↗ but maybe sharing more having more

2:29:48 ↗ public parking figuring it all out we're

2:29:51 ↗ not saying just absolutely do it we're

2:29:53 ↗ saying see what we've learned from

2:29:55 ↗ Central and see if we can use it for Old

2:29:57 ↗ Town as well because we don't want to

2:29:59 ↗ penalize Old Town and have them less

2:30:03 ↗ desirable than to be in central so we're

2:30:05 ↗ trying to just sort of even the playing

2:30:06 ↗ field if it's possible if it's not

2:30:08 ↗ possible you're right we wouldn't do it

2:30:10 ↗ but we want we want to be able to look

2:30:12 ↗ at it okay

2:30:13 ↗ I appreciate that that's what I was I

2:30:14 ↗ was trying to figure out was write these

2:30:16 ↗ messages um I only have one more point I

2:30:20 ↗ think and then I'm ready to say how I

2:30:22 ↗ feel about this document and that's evb

2:30:25 ↗ to

2:30:26 ↗ and that is specifically regarding Oh

2:30:29 ↗ sir I'm so wrong abb - I'm sorry I

2:30:32 ↗ thought I'd be hopeful visit page so let

2:30:34 ↗ me find let me actually find it it's

2:30:35 ↗ very specifically regarding our Wi-Fi so

2:30:38 ↗ page 31 of 39 our page 41 of 49 evie

2:30:43 ↗ policy b2 I was hoping that we could

2:30:46 ↗ make this language stronger on the

2:30:50 ↗ visual impact of communications network

2:30:52 ↗ rather than just the develop strategies

2:30:54 ↗ I think if I feel like that pushes it

2:30:57 ↗ kind of down the line so we're

2:30:59 ↗ specifically addressing that this could

2:31:01 ↗ be an issue and we I so I felt like even

2:31:04 ↗ just having language that says that

2:31:07 ↗ blanketly telecoms need to of the

2:31:12 ↗ communications networks that will be

2:31:13 ↗ coming in into the future need to adhere

2:31:16 ↗ again to those concepts of our community

2:31:20 ↗ rather than this language of develop

2:31:22 ↗ strategies to me right felt fake and one

2:31:24 ↗ item that you missed at the last meeting

2:31:26 ↗ is we're in a consortium right now with

2:31:29 ↗ a lot of the Eastside cities that are

2:31:31 ↗ working with the small cell development

2:31:34 ↗ because it's a new technology and so

2:31:36 ↗ we're all working together it's not

2:31:39 ↗ final yet what we've come up with but

2:31:41 ↗ we're all trying to figure out how to

2:31:43 ↗ make sure that the city has a role in

2:31:45 ↗ saying what it's going to look like when

2:31:48 ↗ it comes into the town whereas a lot of

2:31:50 ↗ the small set of providers would like

2:31:53 ↗ there to be less cities say and so we

2:31:56 ↗ wanted to be really strong in fact I

2:31:58 ↗ think it was John that said I want to

2:32:00 ↗ have it right in there that we want to

2:32:02 ↗ be sure we're developing strategies that

2:32:04 ↗ include concealment so that you don't

2:32:06 ↗ see anything from our old town streets

2:32:09 ↗ because it is such a different area than

2:32:11 ↗ where there's cobra lighting or you know

2:32:14 ↗ the new kind of modern kinds of things

2:32:17 ↗ so that's why it's there because it

2:32:19 ↗ doesn't that policies don't exist yet

2:32:21 ↗ but we're trying to pre-pre pump it that

2:32:26 ↗ when it comes down we want to be sure

2:32:29 ↗ that we roll the control which I

2:32:31 ↗ appreciate

2:32:31 ↗ so I guess justice develop strategy such

2:32:34 ↗ as concealment I felt was left this

2:32:36 ↗ loophole maybe rather than saying

2:32:38 ↗ develop strategies

2:32:39 ↗ concealment but maybe what you're

2:32:42 ↗ telling me is it it's so it's so new

2:32:44 ↗ that you still want to leave a little

2:32:46 ↗ bit of gray area right but we wanted to

2:32:48 ↗ mention concealment to show that we

2:32:50 ↗ really like that idea so that's why we

2:32:53 ↗ wanted to put that in as a for example

2:32:54 ↗ and the balance there is that we don't

2:32:57 ↗ want to prohibit it from coming here

2:32:59 ↗ because it's potentially very beneficial

2:33:00 ↗ right and we don't want to be that goes

2:33:04 ↗ that extensive but right

2:33:07 ↗ we certainly do care about it right

2:33:09 ↗ right don't want to let them just come

2:33:11 ↗ in and have free rein of our streets so

2:33:13 ↗ right now on that on that point I would

2:33:18 ↗ just this is just a nitpicky thing which

2:33:21 ↗ you can change if you want but I would

2:33:23 ↗ probably just say make investments in

2:33:24 ↗ downtown Internet connectivity and cell

2:33:26 ↗ service because Wi-Fi is probably going

2:33:28 ↗ to be gone in a couple years yes um yeah

2:33:31 ↗ based on 20 years ago we were all

2:33:33 ↗ listening to our dial-up modems and

2:33:35 ↗ wondering we never heard of Wi-Fi Wi-Fi

2:33:37 ↗ term Cody so just downtown cell service

2:33:40 ↗ no no I would just say Internet

2:33:41 ↗ connectivity and cell service yeah I

2:33:44 ↗ agree I think it's good but you hear

2:33:47 ↗ what it makes you everything what's

2:33:49 ↗ everything about real but it's Old Town

2:33:51 ↗ you don't want Wi-Fi go back to dialer

2:33:54 ↗ we want dialogue we can type into sound

2:34:02 ↗ exactly I didn't have people joy we

2:34:06 ↗ return um TVs do I just have to one

2:34:10 ↗ comment and one question and then I'm

2:34:12 ↗ I'm good one the first I guess question

2:34:16 ↗ is on connectivity and mobility we have

2:34:19 ↗ really talked about that much yet but on

2:34:21 ↗ the scene in policy a1 which is on page

2:34:24 ↗ 22 of 39 we talk about sidewalks and how

2:34:30 ↗ we connect silence is accessibility if

2:34:35 ↗ Mary's gone now as she was talking about

2:34:37 ↗ you know kind of 8088 your clients and

2:34:41 ↗ chairs and stuff is that inherent I mean

2:34:44 ↗ I don't know much about the those state

2:34:46 ↗ and federal laws around that is that

2:34:47 ↗ sort of already baked into this or do we

2:34:50 ↗ need to say a DA requires

2:34:53 ↗ rules or nurse and pudding right

2:34:55 ↗ sidewalks and stuff in that would

2:34:56 ↗ accommodate motorized chairs yeah right

2:34:59 ↗ so the question is so I guess to say the

2:35:03 ↗ opposite of that you you wouldn't you

2:35:05 ↗ wouldn't be able to construct sidewalks

2:35:07 ↗ that weren't external

2:35:08 ↗ that so in that sense I think it's

2:35:11 ↗ whatever it's getting the side of this

2:35:13 ↗ yeah yeah okay that's I've thought so I

2:35:15 ↗ just was curious and then the only other

2:35:18 ↗ comment I have is on environment

2:35:23 ↗ environmental goal under environmental

2:35:25 ↗ gold be age 27 at 39 if you go down to a

2:35:30 ↗ policy b3 which is acquired Creekside

2:35:34 ↗ parcels to enhance and restore its

2:35:35 ↗ across creeks and reduce flooding

2:35:37 ↗ impacts I think that's actually covered

2:35:40 ↗ up above under a policy a4 so we already

2:35:43 ↗ talked about including property

2:35:47 ↗ acquisition for flood control I think we

2:35:50 ↗ talked I think you probably mentioned it

2:35:52 ↗ again under goal B because that's where

2:35:54 ↗ we're talking about enhancing riparian

2:35:55 ↗ areas and wetlands and stuff but anyway

2:35:58 ↗ there might just be some repetition and

2:35:59 ↗ where is the other place which is

2:36:00 ↗ thanking a for Oh a for a for you might

2:36:04 ↗ just bring that you might just be able

2:36:06 ↗ to delete the second one and then this

2:36:09 ↗ is another thing that I'm not sure if it

2:36:11 ↗ needs to be stated or not but there's a

2:36:14 ↗ couple of places in here we talked about

2:36:16 ↗ acquiring Creekside parcels and I

2:36:18 ↗ understand why do we need to say acquire

2:36:21 ↗ Creekside parcels from willing sellers

2:36:23 ↗ to enhance or again is that implied or

2:36:28 ↗ might there be a situation where the

2:36:29 ↗ city for flood control purposes and like

2:36:32 ↗ I'm an Intel Mainers feel like that I

2:36:34 ↗ assume not if they're usually ours I

2:36:37 ↗ mean they're willing for one we yeah so

2:36:39 ↗ I don't know I don't know people are

2:36:40 ↗ sensitive to that but maybe acquire when

2:36:44 ↗ available acquired whenever yeah that's

2:36:48 ↗ all I have good so I've got three one of

2:36:53 ↗ them is I would like to send a

2:36:58 ↗ recommendation to City Council that they

2:37:02 ↗ decide what to do with old town in terms

2:37:05 ↗ of spelling

2:37:06 ↗ I think we should make a recommendation

2:37:08 ↗ of what we think they will decide and

2:37:11 ↗ doesn't that's what they do that's as

2:37:13 ↗ far as the amendment yeah that's part of

2:37:16 ↗ the amendment so that would be part of

2:37:17 ↗ your recommendation okay so that's all

2:37:20 ↗ we are already uncovered okay all right

2:37:23 ↗ and I propose that we keep old town

2:37:28 ↗ northern section that they want to

2:37:30 ↗ remove part of the existing old town and

2:37:32 ↗ that part of this plan also includes a

2:37:36 ↗ gateway for the southern portion of Old

2:37:39 ↗ Town there's a recommendation of the

2:37:46 ↗ City Council

2:37:55 ↗ do you have one one last question I

2:37:57 ↗ promise

2:37:58 ↗ yeah you had a third one you said that

2:38:01 ↗ was yeah inordinately yeah the North and

2:38:04 ↗ South was to Paul so okay okay oh and

2:38:08 ↗ gateway for the north and gateway for

2:38:10 ↗ the South as recommendations to City

2:38:12 ↗ Council keep the nae I had a question

2:38:17 ↗ actually which is about we mentioned we

2:38:20 ↗ talk about water in this document but

2:38:21 ↗ that didn't really come up much and you

2:38:24 ↗ know it's not actually in Old Town but

2:38:27 ↗ the plume of toxic chemicals that we had

2:38:31 ↗ an issue with wells it's kind of

2:38:33 ↗ adjacent and kind of hovers all the time

2:38:35 ↗ to the side of of it and I think that

2:38:39 ↗ what really struck me was this concept

2:38:41 ↗ of us wanting to upgrade old homes

2:38:44 ↗ wanting to be able to keep this

2:38:46 ↗ inventory and stock of affordable

2:38:48 ↗ housing and my question was specifically

2:38:51 ↗ regarding the pipes do we have any kind

2:38:54 ↗ of policy in place of the city to

2:38:55 ↗ address our older community to be able

2:38:57 ↗ to ensure kind of clean drinking water

2:38:59 ↗ when we know that we have some issues

2:39:01 ↗ with our wells well we have this giant

2:39:03 ↗ plume sitting just next to old round we

2:39:06 ↗ actually have a water comprehensive plan

2:39:07 ↗ and a sewer comprehensive plan that we

2:39:10 ↗ have to update every five years it's a

2:39:11 ↗ state regulation and there there's a

2:39:13 ↗ listing of all the pipes that are

2:39:15 ↗ needing to be updated or culverts or

2:39:18 ↗ whatever infrastructure needs to be

2:39:21 ↗ updated but I think those are on five

2:39:23 ↗ years schedules aren't they Kurt and so

2:39:25 ↗ that would be covered in the in the big

2:39:26 ↗ plan and there's kind of this

2:39:28 ↗ acknowledgment that right older areas

2:39:30 ↗ which you have half gone liner and yeah

2:39:32 ↗ okay good again I don't need to get

2:39:34 ↗ needs to be including the documents that

2:39:36 ↗ we didn't ever touch on it so I wanted

2:39:37 ↗ to correct and that's why because it's

2:39:38 ↗ the big picture but good question and

2:39:41 ↗ good question

2:39:41 ↗ well to help find our discussion I'm

2:39:46 ↗ ready to vote on this as amended in the

2:39:49 ↗ comments that we've made but I would be

2:39:52 ↗ again in favor of keeping the e for Old

2:39:55 ↗ Town as well as not allowing the

2:39:58 ↗ restriction of the boundary

2:40:03 ↗ if I ready to vote on this package or do

2:40:08 ↗ you want to discuss holding it off some

2:40:11 ↗ more I think we need to go back and

2:40:13 ↗ really Bank it but I don't think it's

2:40:15 ↗ ready

2:40:15 ↗ oh yes we can vote we can vote and if

2:40:19 ↗ you don't think it's ready you can or

2:40:22 ↗ you can make a motion to not or I I

2:40:25 ↗ would like to make a motion that we

2:40:27 ↗ continue the discussion on this agenda

2:40:30 ↗ on this plan old town plan is there a

2:40:34 ↗ second second

2:40:41 ↗ I was just prepping you sorry I was just

2:40:45 ↗ propping you hearing none Oh shinier I

2:40:49 ↗ know I know no second emotion not so

2:40:53 ↗ forward to that mission right that case

2:40:56 ↗ any other discussion yeah I would like

2:40:59 ↗ to make a motion chairs to the chair

2:41:02 ↗ that we continue with number one of

2:41:07 ↗ updating the elements regarding the old

2:41:09 ↗ town community connectivity mobility

2:41:11 ↗ environment and economic vitality and

2:41:12 ↗ adding a housing element but I would

2:41:15 ↗ leave off the second proposed boundary

2:41:18 ↗ change I would not recommend a part of

2:41:21 ↗ this document okay except Timon yeah

2:41:27 ↗ that's like my motion is do I get to

2:41:29 ↗ vote on the fog to bring a boat on the

2:41:31 ↗ first part and to specifically write

2:41:33 ↗ like a novela me let me ask a discussion

2:41:35 ↗ because it seems to me what we could do

2:41:37 ↗ well would be we can vote on the

2:41:41 ↗ boundary and say yes or no yeah okay

2:41:44 ↗ keep it all together yeah but there's no

2:41:46 ↗ reason not to conclude this in if we're

2:41:49 ↗ going to vote on this so it would be

2:41:52 ↗ that we're approving the updated

2:41:55 ↗ elements as modified by our discussion

2:41:59 ↗ tonight and we also are we are not

2:42:04 ↗ proposing that the Old Town sub area be

2:42:08 ↗ changed that's exactly what I would like

2:42:11 ↗ to that is exactly what I would said I

2:42:13 ↗ would propose I don't know that I have

2:42:14 ↗ backing for that but

2:42:15 ↗ who you're asking two votes well it's

2:42:18 ↗ one vote because this whole thing is a

2:42:20 ↗ matter of if you look on the back and

2:42:22 ↗ your thing is talking about the voting

2:42:24 ↗ on a proposed finding a fact amendments

2:42:26 ↗ review and a recommendation that the

2:42:29 ↗ updated elements of old town community

2:42:32 ↗ connectivity mobility environment

2:42:34 ↗ economic vitality housing element be

2:42:37 ↗ approved as we that as we have amended

2:42:41 ↗ or maybe as amended with regards to

2:42:44 ↗ commented limits the comments and stuff

2:42:47 ↗ that you have and that we are that the

2:42:51 ↗ we are not recommending approval of the

2:42:53 ↗ boundary change and I guess we can also

2:42:56 ↗ add in there that we're also

2:42:57 ↗ recommending that old

2:43:00 ↗ missed the clarification I was going to

2:43:02 ↗ ask for is Ted a or no II yeah old stays

2:43:06 ↗ old with an E I don't feel 100%

2:43:09 ↗ comfortable with voting about the

2:43:11 ↗ proposed boundary changes because I

2:43:13 ↗ don't know that it's been fully defined

2:43:16 ↗ what happens if it's removed or if it

2:43:19 ↗ stays in and I don't know if that

2:43:22 ↗ happened at a session that I missed or

2:43:24 ↗ if it happened before I join this effort

2:43:26 ↗ but just seems like something that we

2:43:31 ↗ talked a lot about and then now we're

2:43:34 ↗ saying either yes or no as a

2:43:36 ↗ recommendation without really getting

2:43:38 ↗ full-on answers to our questions about

2:43:41 ↗ what that area becomes if it is voted

2:43:43 ↗ out of old town I guess is my that's my

2:43:47 ↗ concern

2:43:48 ↗ and if I if we if everyone else wanted

2:43:51 ↗ to vote tonight I mean I don't know if I

2:43:54 ↗ feel comfortable saying yay or nay

2:43:56 ↗ that's up campus what I'm saying I don't

2:43:59 ↗ know if anyone else shares that or if

2:44:01 ↗ I'm missing something so I guess the

2:44:05 ↗ clarifies to them in that case we would

2:44:07 ↗ split the issues we would vote on the

2:44:09 ↗ amendment and anonymously splitting it

2:44:11 ↗ till we discuss whether it should be

2:44:13 ↗ personally yeah I feel like we moved or

2:44:16 ↗ remain the same to a later meeting I'd

2:44:19 ↗ be happy to vote on on on the rest of

2:44:22 ↗ the plan but that boundary I feel like

2:44:24 ↗ we didn't

2:44:25 ↗ get a full enough understanding of that

2:44:27 ↗ to vote on that tonight so that was how

2:44:30 ↗ I originally would okay we can make a

2:44:33 ↗ closing now look we have two votes then

2:44:35 ↗ basically as long as I mean I don't know

2:44:38 ↗ that all the data means to the process

2:44:41 ↗ but maybe I want to make a motion that

2:44:43 ↗ we we split them well let's find out is

2:44:46 ↗ there a time crunch is there a specific

2:44:47 ↗ reason why we need to have this packet

2:44:50 ↗ voted on tonight

2:44:51 ↗ um it's part of all of the projects that

2:44:54 ↗ are you saw that your schedule on the

2:44:57 ↗ back of the it's part of trying to get

2:44:59 ↗ all the pieces through the Planning

2:45:01 ↗ Policy Commission so they can get

2:45:02 ↗ through the council on their timeline if

2:45:06 ↗ you're not ready you're not ready like

2:45:08 ↗ then we wouldn't look at it until June

2:45:10 ↗ and I'm not sure what we would be able

2:45:13 ↗ to tell you about this specific boundary

2:45:15 ↗ change because if it's out of the

2:45:17 ↗ boundary the zoning doesn't change the

2:45:21 ↗ nothing would change until if we were

2:45:23 ↗ going to change the zoning or proposes

2:45:25 ↗ zoning it would have to come back to you

2:45:27 ↗ guys again because you guys are in

2:45:28 ↗ charge of that so it would just be the

2:45:31 ↗ first step that was in the docket of the

2:45:34 ↗ task force recommendation that maybe old

2:45:36 ↗ town really starts at the creek and so

2:45:38 ↗ that that should be part of central but

2:45:41 ↗ it would have just been the first step

2:45:43 ↗ nothing changes immediately other than

2:45:45 ↗ then we would start talking about you

2:45:47 ↗ know it does the zoning change does it

2:45:49 ↗ you know what would happen next should

2:45:51 ↗ it be but it was just the first step and

2:45:54 ↗ if we would realize that you guys had

2:45:56 ↗ issues with it I never realized that

2:45:58 ↗ there was an issue because it's been in

2:45:59 ↗ the docket all this time that to you

2:46:02 ↗ know have the folks coming you know to

2:46:04 ↗ have someone from the task force come

2:46:05 ↗ and tell us why that was important to

2:46:07 ↗ them there's the other aspect of course

2:46:09 ↗ is again and we're making a

2:46:11 ↗ recommendation to the City Council and

2:46:13 ↗ if we don't fully baked this they're

2:46:15 ↗ going to kick it back to us which means

2:46:17 ↗ it's going to taking days they'll make a

2:46:20 ↗ decision like this was it with with our

2:46:22 ↗ with they appreciate our guidance but

2:46:24 ↗ they will move forward so we can

2:46:26 ↗ recommend what we think but it's not in

2:46:28 ↗ our purview and further clarify it's

2:46:30 ↗ going to working session first and then

2:46:32 ↗ to Council is that right right yeah so

2:46:34 ↗ they'll work on a little bit right

2:46:35 ↗ they're going to have a lot of looks

2:46:37 ↗ I thought at least in my view of the

2:46:42 ↗ discussion we hadn't had the consensus

2:46:44 ↗ that we should not remove city council

2:46:51 ↗ may say otherwise but we can go ahead

2:46:53 ↗ and make the recommendation it stays the

2:46:55 ↗ same and if they choose otherwise they

2:46:57 ↗ can follow what today recommendation was

2:47:00 ↗ by the right and if here's the concern

2:47:04 ↗ though if we say you wanted to remain

2:47:08 ↗ and shouldn't there be a vision a

2:47:10 ↗ gateway vision for that area we've

2:47:14 ↗ already said we want one of the north

2:47:16 ↗ end in the south end right right but

2:47:19 ↗ shouldn't we evaluate that as far as

2:47:21 ↗ this or would that be an amendment to

2:47:24 ↗ this because right now there isn't a

2:47:26 ↗ policy for Gateway because they didn't

2:47:28 ↗ create one because it's was going away I

2:47:31 ↗ think staff knows that we want to

2:47:32 ↗ include that we want we want to

2:47:34 ↗ encompass a feeling that we want to have

2:47:35 ↗ gateways we want everyone to recognize

2:47:37 ↗ when they're coming in just as we had a

2:47:40 ↗ friendly comment as saying we how we

2:47:42 ↗ want people to know where they are and

2:47:44 ↗ how to behave and this is old town right

2:47:46 ↗ depending want to acknowledge all

2:47:47 ↗ gateways Rio wherever they rest wherever

2:47:50 ↗ and depending on where your vote goes on

2:47:52 ↗ where the boundary stays it would you

2:47:54 ↗ know talk about the Gateway would have

2:47:55 ↗ to be a dogwood or a Gilman right so so

2:47:58 ↗ this is a question for staff if we vote

2:48:01 ↗ on this tonight and we decide that we're

2:48:03 ↗ going to go ahead and keep that we want

2:48:06 ↗ gateways for the north and the south and

2:48:08 ↗ we approve this what would be the next

2:48:11 ↗ step for the vision the planning policy

2:48:16 ↗ for those gateways well when we do the

2:48:20 ↗ code you could have gateways right now

2:48:23 ↗ the design standards have gateway

2:48:25 ↗ features and the minutes like the

2:48:27 ↗ corners of the buildings have plazas or

2:48:29 ↗ there's a signage or that we would have

2:48:32 ↗ that when we update the code next year

2:48:34 ↗ we would put maybe more specifics in

2:48:36 ↗ about the West one should have these

2:48:39 ↗ aspects the north one should have you

2:48:41 ↗ know if you want to get into specifics

2:48:43 ↗ or something like that that would be the

2:48:45 ↗ time for the t's for but if that's a

2:48:47 ↗ recommendation to because we don't talk

2:48:48 ↗ about gateways in here now

2:48:50 ↗ right we would put a policy about

2:48:52 ↗ gateways but we provide standards for

2:48:54 ↗ north and south gateways in old town

2:48:56 ↗ before it goes to City Council okay and

2:48:58 ↗ then that would come back to us so

2:49:00 ↗ you're looking at two different for

2:49:02 ↗ different projects that I just go to

2:49:04 ↗ council right she was talking about the

2:49:05 ↗ design standards and I'm talking about

2:49:07 ↗ the policies they go to Council on aid

2:49:09 ↗ right so my question is would there be

2:49:11 ↗ two different policies on one for

2:49:13 ↗ gateways and then one for the rest of

2:49:16 ↗ everything else we discussed tonight

2:49:18 ↗ you'd have to amend this then right

2:49:21 ↗ anyway no I talked about yeah we talked

2:49:24 ↗ about a lot of pages of stuff we're

2:49:26 ↗ going to yeah that's going to sharpen

2:49:27 ↗ language we've given them awesome

2:49:29 ↗ feedback about about this document

2:49:31 ↗ probably more than they anticipated and

2:49:33 ↗ so it just it's just an inclusion of

2:49:35 ↗ saying we want gateways into the

2:49:37 ↗ community to be helped try to find that

2:49:40 ↗ character I understand you're going to

2:49:43 ↗ go back and sharpen your pencils on this

2:49:44 ↗ thing with all of our suggestions but my

2:49:47 ↗ question is would gateways because right

2:49:52 ↗ now this packet does not talk about in

2:49:55 ↗ the north gateway right and I clear self

2:49:57 ↗ kick it includes the ones from sunset we

2:50:00 ↗ would add a mention of the other

2:50:02 ↗ gateways in a policy right and so those

2:50:05 ↗ gateways that policy would then come

2:50:09 ↗ back to us no no it was just the

2:50:11 ↗ integral right here and forward it you

2:50:14 ↗ trust us but it would get done and we

2:50:16 ↗ reported on to Council with that policy

2:50:17 ↗ in here okay just like okay yeah that's

2:50:21 ↗ the part that I didn't know how kind of

2:50:23 ↗ logistical II how that works okay

2:50:25 ↗ you shaved that okay I no longer like to

2:50:29 ↗ make a motion to separate ability

2:50:31 ↗ [Laughter]

2:50:36 ↗ I mean oh really

2:50:41 ↗ is there any more discussion we have the

2:50:44 ↗ motion to accept and Weavin gets down

2:50:47 ↗ the table - I'm sure we're we are but

2:50:49 ↗ they boasted except one and not again

2:50:51 ↗ not and to propose that the boundaries

2:50:54 ↗ not be changed subject to the additions

2:50:56 ↗ that we've already added to the document

2:50:58 ↗ I would think I would second that when

2:51:00 ↗ there's a second okay any more

2:51:03 ↗ discussion so the discussion in between

2:51:05 ↗ my second so it's approval for

2:51:11 ↗ Secretary's going to try to put this so

2:51:16 ↗ it's no longer change but everything but

2:51:19 ↗ all DL as amended yes okay keeping the

2:51:23 ↗ inherited effective anything mihi okay I

2:51:26 ↗ just wanted to clarify okay Ben motion

2:51:29 ↗ to the second is also seconded all in

2:51:31 ↗ favor aye opposed I do motion passes was

2:51:37 ↗ that unanimous a no-no for the one thing

2:51:39 ↗ one I'm sorry I voted no because I don't

2:51:42 ↗ think I was I don't think it's ready yet

2:51:44 ↗ okay I just looked this way so I didn't

2:51:47 ↗ see them dump mouse so that's why I

2:51:49 ↗ didn't know who said what

2:51:50 ↗ okay one super at being said sir any

2:51:55 ↗ other things that we have to discuss um

2:51:57 ↗ not that I know of so anyone whispering

2:51:59 ↗ so there is a there's we have the

2:52:02 ↗ meeting on the 11th is the next meeting

2:52:06 ↗ yes at five o'clock five of us may not

2:52:12 ↗ be able to make that because okay I

2:52:14 ↗ understand I understand wait what

2:52:16 ↗ everybody's aware of that and that'll be

2:52:18 ↗ the first but the first meeting we

2:52:22 ↗ recreating with our new members our new

2:52:24 ↗ member one of which may be sitting in

2:52:27 ↗ the front row allegedly Lindsay why

2:52:30 ↗ three we're happy to have you I'm member

2:52:32 ↗ and then we have three alternates yes

2:52:36 ↗ so we're going to have a hostile deck

2:52:38 ↗ pan one will have to bring already a

2:52:41 ↗ chair we have too many people of torture

2:52:44 ↗ now not all

2:52:45 ↗ never too many ever two men it is never

2:52:48 ↗ I don't think there's ever too many

2:52:50 ↗ thank you to the 11th hopefully and that

2:52:52 ↗ case I will adjourn the meeting at 9:25

2:52:55 ↗ thank you very much and thank you all

2:52:57 ↗ the sides that are making your comments

2:53:00 ↗ and sitting around listening to us

2:53:01 ↗ debate endlessly relevance obscenities

2:53:05 ↗ the border

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF