Planning Policy Commission – Special Meeting · Thursday, June 21, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

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 2019 – Joan Probala land use documents. 2020 – Ron Faul 2020 – Troy Rahmig Membership 2022 – Joy Lewis The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Jamie Rosen seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Bill Rinehart several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2022 – Lindsey Walsh 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, 2020 – AJ McGauley see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Chris Rodriguez 2020 – Jason Voiss 2020 –…

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing, continued from Jun. 14

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.43–56

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 14, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:30:27 Open packet at p.43 ↗

Staff report:

On May 10, 2018, PPC held the second public hearing and took another look at the updated draft Olde Town Subarea Plan remanded from City Council. During this meeting, PPC asked staff to amend the 2018-2019 Action Item, #11, regarding a financial study for the Downtown Streetscape Improvements. The amendment changed it from a financial study for all phases of the plan to a financial study for those pedestrian zones which include Front Street from Sunset Way to Gilman Boulevard. A financial analysis to identify funding for the Alder Festival Street and remaining future items were moved to Short-Term Action Items (2020-2021). PPC also asked that staff provide information about communities that prohibit or limit formula businesses (also known as franchises or chain=-stores) as they are interested in learning more about how this might affect Olde Town. At the end of this meeting, the PPC…

3. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.57

Open packet at p.57 ↗

Staff report:

1. Safe Injection Sites (Moratorium) 1/11/18 3/5/18 2. Small Cell Wireless Facilities 2/1/18 5/7/18 Ord No. 2833 3. Historic Preservation Code update 6/28/18 4. Sign Code update 5. Olde Town Plan update 6/14/18 6. Central Standards update Hotels/Storage Units 5/21/18 Ord 2837 3/22/18 7. Housing Strategy: ADUs 3/22/18 5/21/18 Ord 2839 8. Housing Strategy: Inclusionary Zoning 10/26/17 5/7/18 Ord No 2832 9. 2018 Comp Plan/Central Plan Amendments Other Topics PPC Training: Open Meetings Act etc 5/24/18 TDRs (end of Issaquah Highlands Dev Agreement) 4/26/18 Talus Parcel 9 5/10/18 6/2/18

3144 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ so go good evening and welcome to the

0:13 ↗ June twenty first meeting of the

0:15 ↗ planning policy Commission tonight we

0:18 ↗ have two public hearings on our agenda

0:20 ↗ the first one is proposed rezone areas

0:25 ↗ that were the change was facilitated by

0:29 ↗ the approval of the central area plan so

0:34 ↗ we're going to talk about that and then

0:36 ↗ we're going to have a public hearing on

0:37 ↗ the proposed Old Towne sub area plan so

0:42 ↗ before that I'm looking at my fellow

0:44 ↗ commissioners and when we do first time

0:50 ↗ doing motion on I have a motion to

0:56 ↗ approve all right that's confusing okay

1:07 ↗ so we might as well just start with it

1:13 ↗ welcome to our interesting new place of

1:16 ↗ our meetings tonight we're talking about

1:20 ↗ destination retail and intensive

1:22 ↗ commercial razones

1:23 ↗ the background on this topic as Joan

1:27 ↗ mentioned was that when ordinance for

1:30 ↗ visions that you worked on was adapted

1:32 ↗ it pulled out parcels that were either

1:35 ↗ zoned destination retail and some other

1:37 ↗ parcels owned intensive commercial out

1:39 ↗ of the central Issaquah plan area the

1:42 ↗ effective date of the ordinance gave us

1:45 ↗ 90 days to figure out the zoning for

1:47 ↗ those parcels that have been moved out

1:49 ↗ of such alyssaglawe

1:50 ↗ because those would no longer be under

1:52 ↗ the jurisdictions of the central is

1:54 ↗ supplied development and design

1:55 ↗ standards so that's why we're here

1:57 ↗ tonight on June 8th we sent over 150

2:01 ↗ letters to not only the property owners

2:03 ↗ of those properties that were being

2:05 ↗ removed from central as well but also to

2:07 ↗ the property owners within three

2:09 ↗ feet of that of those effective parcels

2:11 ↗ and the proposal at that time was that

2:15 ↗ the destination retail parcels piece

2:17 ↗ owned a retail because that was the

2:20 ↗ zoning prior to the central plan being

2:23 ↗ adopted and that intensive commercial

2:25 ↗ parcels would be the intensive

2:27 ↗ commercial that's in Asuka Municipal

2:29 ↗ Code so they were the same before since

2:37 ↗ the letters went out we've gotten a lot

2:40 ↗ of really great comments from property

2:42 ↗ owners in the area that had a lot of

2:44 ↗ concerns with the retail zone so staff

2:47 ↗ went back to the drawing board and tried

2:48 ↗ to figure out another way to transition

2:51 ↗ them out of central Issaquah and into

2:53 ↗ Knott central Issaquah but to not lose

2:56 ↗ out on any of the development standards

2:59 ↗ that they have now so that's part of the

3:01 ↗ proposal tonight is another

3:02 ↗ administration recommendation just so

3:09 ↗ it's really dark but you can see that

3:13 ↗ these parcels in grey they're actually a

3:16 ↗ darker grey are the destination retail

3:19 ↗ parcels and the ones up here north of

3:21 ↗ i90 are the intensive commercial purses

3:23 ↗ just so folks get an idea what we're

3:25 ↗ talking about so option one was though

3:30 ↗ option in the letter and that was the

3:31 ↗ first administration recommendation was

3:33 ↗ to take the destination retail to the

3:36 ↗ previous zone which was retail the

3:38 ↗ issues with banners that had a lower

3:40 ↗ impervious surface would have which

3:42 ↗ would have taken away some of the

3:43 ↗ development potential for the parcels it

3:45 ↗ also had larger setbacks which would

3:48 ↗ also take a little bit of that

3:49 ↗ development potential so that was option

3:52 ↗ one and this is a table that shows the

3:55 ↗ differences that the smaller amounts are

3:58 ↗ in yellow in their retail zone this was

4:00 ↗ the one again that was proposed in the

4:02 ↗ letter that went

4:03 ↗ so Trish since we can read that and you

4:06 ↗ just actually say what that says so that

4:08 ↗ we can all say in yellow on the right

4:13 ↗ the first yellow is 40 feet retail

4:16 ↗ allows a base height of 40 feet where

4:18 ↗ destination retail allows it base height

4:20 ↗ of 48 feet and a base height is what

4:23 ↗ you're allowed without going through any

4:25 ↗ permitting or doing anything extra so

4:27 ↗ they'd be losing out on 8 feet right off

4:30 ↗ the bat 65 feet is the total height in

4:33 ↗ both zones so that wasn't a problem the

4:35 ↗ next three numbers that you see in the

4:39 ↗ under the retail proposal column are the

4:42 ↗ setbacks there's a five-foot sized

4:44 ↗ setback a 10 foot rear setback and a 10

4:47 ↗ foot front setback whereas in Central

4:50 ↗ there aren't any setbacks so you can be

4:52 ↗ right up to the sidewalk and right up to

4:54 ↗ your property lines so that's a bit of a

4:57 ↗ difference there the pervious surface

5:02 ↗ which is how much of your property can

5:05 ↗ be either gravel asphalt building all

5:08 ↗ those things roofs for central this

5:12 ↗ zoning is 90 percent and for retail it

5:15 ↗ would have gone down to 65% so that was

5:18 ↗ a bigger change as well the second

5:22 ↗ option that we came up with to try to

5:25 ↗ more fit the standards that we have

5:28 ↗ today in Central is to take all of the

5:31 ↗ bulk standards that we just talked about

5:33 ↗ the height the setbacks the impervious

5:35 ↗ surface take those out of Central and

5:37 ↗ create a new zone in the IMC but that

5:42 ↗ would have the same standards as they

5:45 ↗ have now it would not have the same

5:47 ↗ central standards for parking or

5:48 ↗ landscaping or a tree retention any of

5:50 ↗ those but it would have the bald

5:51 ↗ standards and the permitted use the same

5:55 ↗ permitted uses

5:56 ↗ the existing destination retail so this

5:59 ↗ wasn't trying to to be more a little bit

6:00 ↗ more consistent with with us zoning that

6:03 ↗ they have now and as you see there's no

6:09 ↗ yellow on the chart because everything

6:11 ↗ would be the same the third option that

6:16 ↗ came up while we went back to the

6:18 ↗ drawing board this week was if we waited

6:22 ↗ for old town to be done we could zone

6:25 ↗ the destination retail cultural business

6:28 ↗ district because those zones are very

6:30 ↗ similar the the part that's not similar

6:34 ↗ is there's a real small difference in

6:37 ↗ impervious surface just 5% is different

6:39 ↗ but both zones have zero setbacks

6:42 ↗ they're very similar but the issue with

6:44 ↗ that is we have to wait for council to

6:46 ↗ be done with Old Town to see if council

6:49 ↗ also agreed to put this area into old

6:51 ↗ town before we could change the zone to

6:53 ↗ see we B so that was a concern we didn't

6:56 ↗ know how long we wanted to wait

6:59 ↗ the to in yellow again are the base

7:01 ↗ height as 45 is different than the base

7:05 ↗ height and destination retail is 48

7:07 ↗ right now and the impervious surface is

7:09 ↗ 85 and CBD and it's a it's 90 in central

7:14 ↗ ok in the public hearing

7:24 ↗ there's truly a peanut gallery I love it

7:27 ↗ so tonight if what we think are the next

7:30 ↗ steps is the PPC would have their public

7:33 ↗ hearing tonight and after the close of

7:34 ↗ the hearing you would ask questions and

7:36 ↗ have a discussion and then if you're

7:39 ↗ comfortable you to make a recommendation

7:40 ↗ to Council and then council would review

7:43 ↗ it at their land and shore meeting on

7:44 ↗ July 5th which is right around the

7:46 ↗ corner and then they would have their

7:49 ↗ recommendation back to a full council so

7:51 ↗ there could be action by August 6th

7:53 ↗ because the effective date of the

7:56 ↗ visions ordinance is the 23rd and that's

7:59 ↗ the only as far as I know that's the

8:01 ↗ only council meeting in August so that's

8:03 ↗ the one we're shooting for to be done

8:05 ↗ are there questions from PPC on any of

8:09 ↗ this why don't we okay can I ask just

8:14 ↗ one question sure I just want to clarify

8:16 ↗ this new proposal that's just been put

8:18 ↗ up isn't first time everyone's seeing it

8:20 ↗ is right now correct okay with that I'm

8:25 ↗ going to open the public reading at six

8:36 ↗ and the first person on the agenda is

8:40 ↗ Sam Kyle Kyle don't need to come to the

8:44 ↗ podium and state your name

8:59 ↗ we haven't been to one of these four

9:00 ↗ wrong Sam Kyle 371 North East Gilman

9:04 ↗ Boulevard is their office address hmm

9:10 ↗ a couple of thoughts as you're thinking

9:14 ↗ about things in conjunction where you're

9:16 ↗ going with this rezoning is it I don't

9:20 ↗ believe that you have a master plan or a

9:25 ↗ vision of the areas east of Front Street

9:29 ↗ on gilma Boulevard and what that really

9:32 ↗ in the future is going to be I don't

9:34 ↗ know if there's any definitions or like

9:36 ↗ I don't know that I've ever seen one so

9:39 ↗ I would suggest you give that some

9:40 ↗ consideration while you're giving

9:41 ↗ consideration to the razones of this

9:44 ↗ different properties I have written and

9:49 ↗ submitted a letter to the Planning

9:53 ↗ Department and in the committee and

9:57 ↗ request that there's a major down zoning

10:04 ↗ proposal going from destination retail

10:07 ↗ to retail as Trish just demonstrated on

10:10 ↗ the on the map and the the intent my

10:14 ↗ understanding the intent of retail

10:16 ↗ zoning is for high visibility and

10:20 ↗ pedestrian friendly orientated I own the

10:25 ↗ properties if you look on the partial

10:26 ↗ map of the middle that's on between 38

10:28 ↗ and 55 so everything east of third

10:33 ↗ Avenue

10:34 ↗ so my property is highly focused on i-90

10:38 ↗ and the East work of Issaquah Creek and

10:42 ↗ very little frontage on 3rd Avenue and

10:45 ↗ what frontage

10:46 ↗ I shouldn't say very little but what

10:48 ↗ frontage there is there is all faced

10:50 ↗ inward just to face away from access to

10:53 ↗ the properties are facing away from 3rd

10:55 ↗ Avenue so it's not really not retail

10:58 ↗ orientated in

11:00 ↗ the concept of what the city has for

11:02 ↗ retail I don't have a problem with the

11:06 ↗ recommendation of rezoning and what I

11:10 ↗ would support would be what they they

11:13 ↗ just presented to you today was option 2

11:15 ↗ where you retain you retain the standard

11:22 ↗ [Music]

11:24 ↗ development standards of the density

11:29 ↗ retail where it gave the comparison

11:33 ↗ there's a comparison sheet that she's

11:34 ↗ brought it for you to show you but if

11:36 ↗ you retain those under the retail zoning

11:39 ↗ and maybe it's just an amendment for

11:40 ↗ retail zoning for everything east of

11:43 ↗ Gilman Boulevard or something in that

11:45 ↗ aspect and the retail zoning and the

11:46 ↗ rest of the city is a little bit

11:47 ↗ different but again going back to the

11:50 ↗ plan what are you gonna do with Gilman

11:52 ↗ Boulevard you're not gonna leave it the

11:53 ↗ way it is I would think that someday you

11:55 ↗ know you get a 100 foot or right away or

11:57 ↗ something out there and you come up with

11:58 ↗ some kind of ideas or really what that's

11:59 ↗ gonna mean for the Grange and all the

12:02 ↗ rest of those properties that are long

12:04 ↗ there so again I submitted the letter

12:07 ↗ and request and after they presented the

12:10 ↗ third second alternative or two other

12:12 ↗ alternatives I would support the middle

12:14 ↗ one whereby that rezone or retail with

12:18 ↗ the destination retail development

12:22 ↗ Anderson thank you John

12:39 ↗ so my name is John mavet I run the

12:42 ↗ Grange at 145 Northeast Gilman Boulevard

12:45 ↗ I guess what I'll do is read the comment

12:49 ↗ I wrote and then I have questions

12:50 ↗ because it sounds like there is a option

12:52 ↗ that was given tonight that everybody

12:55 ↗ here is only seeing for the first time

12:58 ↗ okay

13:00 ↗ so good evening and thank you for

13:02 ↗ hearing my comment my name is John mavet

13:03 ↗ and I'm general manager of the Grange if

13:05 ↗ I read it right the Grange is mostly on

13:07 ↗ parcels 31 and 33 on exhibit a map of

13:11 ↗ the subject properties which would make

13:13 ↗ us a candidate for the reinstatement and

13:15 ↗ I guess I'm gonna go for this actually

13:17 ↗ is a question as the reinstatement of

13:18 ↗ restrictions that were wisely removed in

13:21 ↗ 2013 so my question is because the the

13:24 ↗ mailing I got was a little bit confusing

13:26 ↗ are we going or is the proposal to go

13:30 ↗ for the Grange to go from destination

13:32 ↗ retail to retail that was the proposal

13:36 ↗ until we went back and tried to figure

13:38 ↗ out a different way okay okay so I can

13:43 ↗ only comment on what I've seen right

13:45 ↗ okay I'm here to ask that you leave our

13:49 ↗ destination designate designation

13:51 ↗ destination retail we are like our

13:54 ↗ neighbors Boehm's chocolate the

13:56 ↗ definition of a destination retail

13:58 ↗ Boehm's offers the best chocolates in

14:00 ↗ America and we are one of the only fuel

14:02 ↗ stations in the state who offer all

14:04 ↗ three gate grades of ethanol free fuel

14:06 ↗ side bar ethanol comes from corn and is

14:10 ↗ bad for all engines the only reason it's

14:12 ↗ still in use is directly tied to the

14:14 ↗ Iowa caucus but that's another story the

14:19 ↗ particularly troubling restrictions for

14:21 ↗ us with changing our zoning to the

14:24 ↗ restrictive setbacks the old ones are

14:27 ↗ the nearly 30 percent reduction in in

14:30 ↗ our impervious surface and to kind of a

14:33 ↗ lesser extent the building height we

14:35 ↗ need more barns we're busy but I think

14:37 ↗ that the building heights are within

14:38 ↗ that but it feels like we're telling a

14:44 ↗ feed store which is us we have 50 trucks

14:48 ↗ of 50

14:48 ↗ or more come on property every week and

14:50 ↗ to tell us we need less impervious

14:53 ↗ surfaces I think like you know telling a

14:56 ↗ swimming-pool maker they need to put in

14:58 ↗ more sidewalks that if we we are we have

15:03 ↗ major deliveries all week long every day

15:06 ↗ a very large truck some of them actually

15:08 ↗ have struck our buildings and we've got

15:10 ↗ an area behind the Grange that we would

15:12 ↗ like to pave to make for more parking

15:15 ↗ and also put in a demonstration rain

15:18 ↗ garden I'm kind of in the back middle of

15:20 ↗ the property the Grange is greener than

15:23 ↗ ever we actually recycle at this point

15:25 ↗ at a rate that's um the envy of AG coops

15:28 ↗ across the country so I guess that what

15:32 ↗ I'm saying is on behalf of our friends

15:33 ↗ at bones and us folks at the Grange and

15:35 ↗ the time when online retailing daily

15:37 ↗ reaches further and further into our

15:39 ↗ cash registers don't you be the

15:41 ↗ committee and or Council that chooses to

15:43 ↗ make things harder for local legacy

15:46 ↗ businesses we're doing pretty doggone

15:50 ↗ well at the Grange we have a community

15:52 ↗ room that has classes every week we did

15:57 ↗ 10 million dollars last year 5 million

16:00 ↗ of that in fuel the rest in lawn and

16:02 ↗ garden and all the other things we sell

16:04 ↗ we've given more to downtown Issaquah

16:06 ↗ and is across schools and churches and

16:09 ↗ and nonprofits in these last two years

16:12 ↗ than the Grange did ever previous we

16:15 ↗ sell more gallons of our ethanol free

16:17 ↗ fuel records over the last 15 years

16:20 ↗ so we're front thriving and doing well

16:22 ↗ and we want to remodel and we want to do

16:23 ↗ well and I think it would be helped if

16:25 ↗ the restrictions of destination retail

16:28 ↗ were left in place or and I think I can

16:30 ↗ also speak for bones on because Tyson

16:34 ↗ and I talked this week if if they if

16:38 ↗ we'd be grandfathered in or something

16:39 ↗ like that and that's that you have any

16:42 ↗ questions for us no okay

16:47 ↗ thank you

17:02 ↗ hi I want to thank you guys for allowing

17:07 ↗ us to speak I didn't send a letter this

17:08 ↗ week because i knew i was gonna come

17:10 ↗ speak but i certainly will put it in

17:12 ↗ writing this week

17:14 ↗ my name is melinda person my husband

17:17 ↗ jeff and i own the property located at

17:19 ↗ number 11 on exhibit b and actually

17:22 ↗ we're 235 north-east Juniper Street

17:27 ↗ which is intensive commercial under the

17:29 ↗ current zoning um between the two of us

17:32 ↗ we own three businesses in the city of

17:34 ↗ escrow and currently employ a total of

17:36 ↗ 20 people we also own two properties

17:39 ↗ within the city this commercial property

17:41 ↗ in our home which is also within the

17:42 ↗ city limits we feel we are the exact

17:45 ↗ type of people the city would like to

17:46 ↗ attract we have positive small

17:47 ↗ businesses that hire good people and

17:49 ↗ provide good-paying jobs we pay taxes or

17:51 ↗ good neighbors and volunteer within our

17:53 ↗ community

17:53 ↗ however this proposed zoning change

17:56 ↗ feels if we and our assets are a bit

17:59 ↗ under attack we purchased this property

18:01 ↗ in 2015 when it was already zoned in the

18:04 ↗ central Isikoff plan my husband's

18:06 ↗ company had been running it for a few

18:08 ↗ years prior and we were aware of the

18:09 ↗ change when it happened the location is

18:12 ↗ good for his business with quick access

18:13 ↗ to ia and there's very little intensive

18:16 ↗ commercial property left in Issaquah and

18:18 ↗ it's even more rare to find one that

18:20 ↗ comes on the market because they are

18:21 ↗ really rare and hard to come by in fact

18:24 ↗ his company has been in business for 40

18:26 ↗ years this year and the majority of

18:27 ↗ those years have been here in Issaquah

18:29 ↗ there were several years in the late 90s

18:31 ↗ to the 2000s that the company relocated

18:33 ↗ to Kirkland due to being displaced by

18:36 ↗ the prior development within the city

18:37 ↗ and the extension of Maple Street to the

18:38 ↗ West we were able to return the business

18:41 ↗ to Issaquah when this property came up

18:43 ↗ for lease and it's our intention to keep

18:44 ↗ the business here we don't want to have

18:47 ↗ to move our business again it's

18:48 ↗ difficult it's costly and we actually

18:50 ↗ love Issaquah we purchased the property

18:53 ↗ under the current central Issaquah plan

18:55 ↗ zoning we understood that when we were

18:56 ↗ ready to develop the property in this

18:58 ↗ future we would be able to utilize 90

19:00 ↗ percent of the property for impervious

19:01 ↗ surfaces it's imperative to his per

19:04 ↗ business as they have many service and

19:05 ↗ work vehicles that could require a great

19:07 ↗ deal

19:07 ↗ parking was sort of available within

19:10 ↗ very close distance it made a good

19:11 ↗ investment as we would be able to

19:12 ↗ improve the property or property to our

19:14 ↗ future needs with the proposed change to

19:18 ↗ 65% of the property to be allowed to be

19:20 ↗ on purpose pervious surface we are

19:21 ↗ losing 25% of our usable area and taking

19:24 ↗ a significant blow to our overall

19:25 ↗ property value as well this feels like a

19:28 ↗ taking of our property and property

19:30 ↗ rights and our personal assets we are

19:33 ↗ well aware of the future mass master

19:35 ↗ plan development of the lakeside

19:36 ↗ property which will be adjacent to the

19:38 ↗ neighborhood in question we're hopeful

19:40 ↗ that this potential rezoning is not part

19:42 ↗ of an unspoken agenda tied to the

19:43 ↗ development or an attempt to expand this

19:46 ↗ current city of Issaquah maintenance

19:47 ↗ yard which is adjacent to our property

19:49 ↗ at a reduced cost in the future since we

19:52 ↗ are only able to operate within tiny

19:53 ↗ slivers of intensive commercial zoning

19:56 ↗ with in Issaquah we feel this could push

19:58 ↗ our business and operations outside of

19:59 ↗ the city since I combined three

20:01 ↗ businesses and our two properties I'll

20:03 ↗ pay a good amount of taxes to the city

20:04 ↗ if this change is to be approved we feel

20:06 ↗ that the city is no longer working in

20:08 ↗ the best interest of its good business

20:09 ↗ owners and citizens so if the Planning

20:14 ↗ Commission here was able to provide a

20:16 ↗ solution like Plan B that you were

20:18 ↗ providing for the commercial for the

20:20 ↗ retail that would be more than

20:22 ↗ acceptable what we're trying to do is

20:24 ↗ protect our asset and we put a lot of

20:26 ↗ money into this asset and for this

20:28 ↗ Planning Commission to take away the use

20:30 ↗ of 25% of it the potential for us to

20:33 ↗ build on that to do what we need to do

20:35 ↗ for our business and/or sell it in the

20:38 ↗ future has completely reduced the value

20:40 ↗ of what we could do with that property

20:41 ↗ and it's it's a small lot so we don't

20:44 ↗ have a lot of space you know to work

20:46 ↗ with within that so I mean we would be

20:49 ↗ accepting I mean we would we would love

20:51 ↗ to see something that's similar with

20:52 ↗ what you're offering for retail but for

20:54 ↗ Plan B for refill retail but um you know

20:57 ↗ we have a kink at this point we've

20:59 ↗ engaged council and you know we we're

21:01 ↗ looking at what our options are legally

21:02 ↗ because we can't lose 25 percent of the

21:06 ↗ value of our property okay

21:09 ↗ I'm done your standard you point out

21:15 ↗ I'm sorry Linna okay thank you so for

21:22 ↗ example this is cabinet and this is

21:25 ↗ website and right here when you come

21:28 ↗ into the neighborhood one of the car

21:30 ↗ dealerships is putting a car dealership

21:32 ↗ right there where there is that Creek

21:34 ↗ and everything else that face a long way

21:36 ↗ from our property so but I knew we have

21:40 ↗ all this very intensive around this but

21:42 ↗ we're going to be reduced to sixty five

21:44 ↗ percent of these are a lot it makes

21:45 ↗ absolutely no sense I mean the pot shop

21:48 ↗ across the street

21:50 ↗ they're paved from side to side they

21:52 ↗ don't know no improvement on impervious

21:55 ↗ surface so it's just it's it's kind of

22:00 ↗ crazy to us that this would be where we

22:03 ↗ are when we made this investment knowing

22:05 ↗ that we could do this now so I mean it's

22:08 ↗ it's it's painful I got this letter and

22:11 ↗ I just I was sick to my stomach

22:12 ↗ so Tom any other questions Tom I can't

22:21 ↗ read your right

22:32 ↗ hi my name is Tom Hufnagel and my wife

22:36 ↗ and I own that's right so I thought when

22:44 ↗ I read this they were saying they

22:46 ↗ weren't gonna change it to go down that

22:48 ↗ it was staying the same or did I miss

22:50 ↗ read this letter that it was sent to me

22:52 ↗ a couple weeks ago well cuz I thought it

22:58 ↗ said intensive commercial and it was

23:01 ↗ part of the Issaquah one but was gonna

23:02 ↗ go to the is it the King County one or

23:04 ↗ what so does go down in the other code

23:10 ↗ when you're not in Central and what's

23:13 ↗ considered I guess when I look at this

23:14 ↗ map I mean I know this is right because

23:23 ↗ we have two businesses on there right

23:24 ↗ now that leased from us that use up

23:26 ↗ every square inch of the lot and I'm

23:28 ↗ trying to stand right nothing would

23:30 ↗ change until you unless you tried to

23:32 ↗ change the building or if you do

23:35 ↗ something else but what you have now is

23:36 ↗ fine okay we wouldn't like to make you

23:39 ↗ take it down or make you change it as

23:42 ↗ you just exist now okay can you write

23:45 ↗ okay can you explain to me which chart

23:48 ↗ on here applies to me as I can

23:49 ↗ understand where I'm at and where they

23:51 ↗ want to go to work right commercial

23:54 ↗ chart is that exhibit C

24:03 ↗ so let's see that's the height of any

24:09 ↗ building and built oh my god now I

24:20 ↗ understand what you guys are saying

24:22 ↗ Jesus that's insane I mean my god like

24:26 ↗ she said this is all intensive

24:28 ↗ commercial here's it's not some parks or

24:30 ↗ anything area it's pretty rough-looking

24:32 ↗ area yeah I mean for God's sakes you

24:36 ↗ should see the number of cars flying in

24:37 ↗ next to us there it's absolutely unreal

24:40 ↗ and so to cut down the space there for

24:43 ↗ intensive commercial is just amazing to

24:46 ↗ me you think that that that also so I'm

24:50 ↗ trying to sin what's the thinking here

24:52 ↗ rather than we all want to have this big

24:54 ↗ green field everywhere and no commercial

24:57 ↗ but that's not reality part of the city

25:03 ↗ where the council wanted all the jobs

25:04 ↗ and housing to be focused these areas

25:07 ↗ they thought were on the outskirts so

25:09 ↗ they thought it should go back to the

25:11 ↗ original zoning the fourth central why

25:14 ↗ we're here tonight is to hear concerns

25:16 ↗ and so maybe they would change their

25:18 ↗ mind because you've come forward they're

25:25 ↗ already outside they weren't ever part

25:27 ↗ of central so do they have these same

25:30 ↗ restrictions on them only 65% impervious

25:32 ↗ know they have a development agreement

25:35 ↗ which is a whole different set of

25:39 ↗ regulations so what does it take to get

25:42 ↗ into something like there and what you

25:44 ↗ have to negotiate with the city for that

25:45 ↗ or how does that work you have to have a

25:47 ↗ big piece of part property that so you

25:50 ↗ can give different benefits like

25:52 ↗ affordable housing and traffic it's a

25:55 ↗ whole different way of working out your

25:58 ↗ regulations so tell me how late's Anna

26:02 ↗ Grove

26:02 ↗ giving more low-income housing a huge

26:06 ↗ crowd hit the concrete right they have

26:09 ↗ housing though that that is part of

26:12 ↗ their their master plan for the next 20

26:15 ↗ or 30 years has housing and that kind of

26:17 ↗ thing in it when they that's incredible

26:32 ↗ because I know somebody actually works

26:34 ↗ there and they said they stopped eking

26:36 ↗ out gravel years ago all they do is they

26:38 ↗ break down gravel or they bring from

26:40 ↗ outside and then mix the cement in and

26:43 ↗ bring it out to sites so I mean they're

26:45 ↗ not even digging the hillside anymore

26:51 ↗ right right what I'm trying to Senator

26:54 ↗ my next-door neighbor I I'm up against

26:56 ↗ their property and their properties are

26:58 ↗ back of our property line we're

26:59 ↗ neighbors okay development plan that

27:16 ↗ they have approved through the city it's

27:18 ↗ only on the hillside back above that

27:20 ↗ goes all the way up to the Highlands

27:22 ↗ okay the valley floor where their

27:24 ↗ current asphalt plant is that's gonna

27:26 ↗ continue likely for the next hundred

27:29 ↗ years according to them so Cadman and

27:31 ↗ lakeside there's no changes no plan

27:33 ↗ changes and all the stuff that they got

27:36 ↗ approved is really the quarry area up

27:39 ↗ back behind their asphalt business okay

27:42 ↗ and and since you're saying that the

27:44 ↗ part where they do the concrete part

27:46 ↗ which is flat and level like our lot and

27:48 ↗ we're neighbors back to back right why

27:51 ↗ would we not be part of that I mean and

27:53 ↗ I understand what you're saying

27:54 ↗ you have stones and but I mean we're all

27:56 ↗ in the same what I would call the armpit

27:58 ↗ of Issaquah old industrial section here

28:01 ↗ I mean this is not a parkland area or

28:03 ↗ any like that this is hardcore intensive

28:06 ↗ commercial everything going in there

28:10 ↗ have some conversation okay and our

28:14 ↗ whatever we agree to on the planning

28:17 ↗ policy will go to several committee of

28:19 ↗ the council and then it will go to the

28:22 ↗ council so there's gonna be a lot of

28:23 ↗ discussion it's not going to end tonight

28:25 ↗ okay so we appreciate your comments as

28:29 ↗ well as your your neighbors I mean

28:32 ↗ that's what a public open house is

28:34 ↗ public comment is supposed to be we're

28:37 ↗ supposed to listen to people out there

28:39 ↗ in the community and how it affects them

28:43 ↗ you know a lot of times when you're

28:45 ↗ sitting in an office and you think this

28:47 ↗ is a great idea you're not really seeing

28:49 ↗ all of the things that happen because of

28:53 ↗ it and as a homeowner property owner you

28:57 ↗ can be able to tell us what you think is

29:00 ↗ going to happen so I have the same

29:03 ↗ response as the man from The Grange that

29:05 ↗ if you grandfathered businesses are

29:07 ↗ there that would be fine I mean and new

29:10 ↗ properties that they would understand

29:11 ↗ that's what's going on but to switch

29:13 ↗ midstream that isn't incredible I mean I

29:16 ↗ I can't understand how anybody would say

29:18 ↗ that's a great idea

29:20 ↗ we're simply gonna take huh okay yeah

29:23 ↗ thanks Steve Perea

29:38 ↗ hi Steve Pereira 117 North you start

29:41 ↗ Wood Street for about 10 years

29:44 ↗ okay so see Pereira 170 northeast are

29:48 ↗ Wood Street for about 10 years I'm one

29:50 ↗ of those folks that got the letter about

29:52 ↗ the development

29:54 ↗ so I guess my perspective is twofold one

29:58 ↗ is originally this old route 10 was

30:01 ↗ proposed to be its own separate

30:03 ↗ neighborhood and now it's being proposed

30:04 ↗ to be part of the Old Town neighborhood

30:06 ↗ and I haven't really heard strong

30:08 ↗ reasons for each of the proposed

30:11 ↗ amendments why and why not just keep it

30:14 ↗ as in his own neighborhood why put it in

30:15 ↗ part of the old town neighborhood I

30:17 ↗ think that's a relevant discussion to

30:19 ↗ have before deciding to include it

30:23 ↗ conceptually putting that aside the old

30:27 ↗ route 10 from the Gillman backwards

30:31 ↗ before you get to the part of the Lots

30:34 ↗ where these industrial zones that

30:36 ↗ they've talked about like xxx and The

30:39 ↗ Grange and poems chocolate seem Roy to

30:42 ↗ be distinct areas and kind of our park

30:45 ↗ settings and different than the areas

30:47 ↗ and industrials the the office bill

30:50 ↗ instead of set beside I'm one of those

30:53 ↗ who favor retaining a less impervious

30:57 ↗ surface allowances to protect the idea

31:02 ↗ that those businesses one day are going

31:03 ↗ to be sold if we intensified the

31:05 ↗ development ability I can mystically

31:07 ↗ goodness I'd like to see the ideas of

31:10 ↗ preserving against in those three

31:11 ↗ businesses businesses specifically I'm a

31:13 ↗ strong proponent of them we're gonna

31:17 ↗ lose that area and it seems something

31:19 ↗ distinct I haven't always seen a vision

31:21 ↗ that talks about maintaining that

31:23 ↗ different maybe it is indeed worth

31:26 ↗ taking a look at maybe as previous

31:31 ↗ speakers talked about maybe those should

31:32 ↗ be zone those officers should be zoned

31:35 ↗ differently not part of that area

31:36 ↗ because they seem a bit different but I

31:39 ↗ would be in favor of the lower

31:40 ↗ impervious surfaces and lower Heights

31:43 ↗ restrictions and put a vision forward

31:46 ↗ that says this is what want the

31:47 ↗ neighborhood to be and to enforce that

31:49 ↗ going for

31:50 ↗ word if that includes something like the

31:52 ↗ CBD district to maintain those

31:55 ↗ businesses I think that'd be a preferred

31:58 ↗ option thank you good evening my name is

32:13 ↗ Catherine Stickle and my husband and I

32:16 ↗ in son live at four four zero northeast

32:18 ↗ birch Street which directly behind her

32:28 ↗ house is Remax the building there so if

32:31 ↗ you can kind of figure out where we're

32:33 ↗ at so it's you know continue on down

32:35 ↗ around the street so high to get the

32:37 ↗ letter in the mail two of them and

32:40 ↗ obviously not a business actually we own

32:42 ↗ a couple of businesses but not

32:44 ↗ businesses right directly in Issaquah I

32:47 ↗ needed to come and educate myself and

32:49 ↗ learn about what how this may affect us

32:51 ↗ as homeowners in our area so I had a

32:54 ↗ couple of questions that I'm going to

32:56 ↗ ask because I'm trying to understand all

32:58 ↗ this and the first is in Exhibit C where

33:02 ↗ you talk about parking requirements and

33:05 ↗ landscaping requirements see the

33:07 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code so how are they

33:10 ↗ different

33:10 ↗ okay specifically in the landscaping

33:13 ↗ requirements because there are trees

33:15 ↗ behind us we're on this on the creek

33:17 ↗ then there's you know land and trees and

33:20 ↗ it they mostly in this time of year

33:23 ↗ provide nice spoilage coverage to the

33:26 ↗ building that we face on the creek so in

33:29 ↗ the winter you know it's much visible

33:30 ↗ but my concern is how does this if you

33:34 ↗ change the zoning affect the landscape

33:36 ↗ requirements on the tree the tree

33:40 ↗ retention that's one of my concerns

33:43 ↗ number two on exhibit B on the maps

33:48 ↗ it is map 15 that's that parcel there so

33:52 ↗ it talks about then again landscaping

33:54 ↗ and tree retention is being affected so

33:57 ↗ as a homeowner I'm sure I'm not the only

33:59 ↗ one along that along the creeks along

34:01 ↗ birch Street that

34:02 ↗ be concerned about you know are the

34:06 ↗ trees all being torn down and then

34:07 ↗ office on having you know depending on

34:09 ↗ what kind of development and commercial

34:11 ↗ the the proposed destination retail or

34:15 ↗ the retail that you're planning on or

34:17 ↗ looking for towards in the future so

34:20 ↗ those are my questions um so I don't

34:22 ↗ know if you have an answer for me or if

34:24 ↗ you can answer either one of those

34:29 ↗ requirements in central are lower and

34:32 ↗ there's a cap on them on the parking

34:35 ↗ standards in central out of central you

34:38 ↗ can you're allowed to have more parking

34:40 ↗ and there's not a cap on it right and

34:42 ↗ that's kind of what I was assuming when

34:43 ↗ you didn't specify because you compared

34:45 ↗ everything but you didn't compare that

34:47 ↗ or didn't right because everything for

34:48 ↗ those are very different it's not just a

34:51 ↗ number like my height and that

34:53 ↗ landscaping if you're talking about

34:55 ↗ trees and shrubs that are right on the

34:58 ↗ creek that would be I would think in

35:00 ↗ part of the critical areas so that is

35:03 ↗ the same regulations in central as in

35:05 ↗ the IMC I believe but we have to look

35:08 ↗ because all the parcels are different

35:10 ↗ and what it would be and we're happy to

35:11 ↗ talk to you if you come okay and I would

35:14 ↗ I will do that it's just you know I

35:15 ↗ can't see remac to do anything else what

35:17 ↗ they're building right now but who knows

35:18 ↗ you know if they decide to continue

35:20 ↗ improvement down that road excuse me

35:22 ↗ there could up there could be an effect

35:25 ↗ on us as homeowners and not only effect

35:28 ↗ on us but on our home her property

35:30 ↗ values because of the view there and

35:32 ↗ third what this just got me thinking

35:35 ↗ about and the community has had a number

35:43 ↗ of discussions and public meetings and

35:45 ↗ that about expanding that road for

35:47 ↗ traffic issues and putting average over

35:49 ↗ we have a little walking we have a

35:51 ↗ walking bridge right in there and so

35:52 ↗ there has been some talk last year stuff

35:54 ↗ quite a bit of talk about widening that

35:57 ↗ road diverting traffic off of sunset to

35:59 ↗ help with traffic congestion now it

36:01 ↗ doesn't make sense at all to most people

36:03 ↗ that look at that

36:03 ↗ but I'm thinking all right if you're

36:05 ↗ doing rezoning

36:12 ↗ maybe an ulterior motive they say oh

36:14 ↗ well now we're going to have to ye

36:15 ↗ Street and really come through with the

36:17 ↗ bread in our little quiet community over

36:20 ↗ here in Old Town in order to feed these

36:22 ↗ businesses so that's again another one

36:24 ↗ of my concerns okay and I would love to

36:28 ↗ come in and talk to you about the

36:29 ↗ answers to those questions so thank you

36:33 ↗ does anybody else want to make a comment

36:55 ↗ thank you sorry we went to the to the

36:59 ↗ other location by the police station so

37:01 ↗ we kind of ran here a little abruptly

37:04 ↗ but my name is Tyson garbage hook I am

37:07 ↗ the business owner of booms candies at

37:11 ↗ 255 North East Gilman Boulevard I'm also

37:14 ↗ a resident of Issaquah living on the

37:16 ↗ plateau a little about poems some of you

37:20 ↗ may know we've been in in business for

37:23 ↗ 76 years 62 in Issaquah we're family

37:26 ↗ owned and we all live locally my father

37:29 ↗ myself and my sister we employ a few

37:33 ↗ thousand people over those 62 years in

37:37 ↗ Issaquah including many high school

37:38 ↗ students who get their first job at

37:41 ↗ booms we have literally probably a

37:47 ↗ couple hundred people coming during this

37:51 ↗ time summertime every year every summer

37:53 ↗ day on tour tour buses that come through

37:57 ↗ so we not only have hopefully local

37:59 ↗ people but we also have people coming

38:02 ↗ from Eastern Washington and all around

38:04 ↗ the country we're very proud to be part

38:06 ↗ of this community for many years I

38:07 ↗ personally have been there for 25 years

38:10 ↗ mm-hmm

38:11 ↗ my father's been there for 46 years and

38:13 ↗ my sister also 20 years my reason for

38:16 ↗ being here because I have chocolate

38:18 ↗ parenting duties is because of the note

38:20 ↗ that I received basically this is an

38:24 ↗ important thing for us for booms candies

38:26 ↗ we face many challenges being a small

38:29 ↗ business obviously online sales higher

38:32 ↗ property taxes we have a hard time

38:34 ↗ finding employees these days and just

38:37 ↗ the hard cost of being a

38:38 ↗ brick-and-mortar operation for us to be

38:41 ↗ sustainable in the long term we will

38:43 ↗ have to make improvements to our

38:44 ↗ property being removed from the central

38:47 ↗ area we will lose some of these

38:49 ↗ opportunities that we previously had and

38:52 ↗ we will be faced with lower building

38:53 ↗ heights greater setbacks and a much

38:56 ↗ lower impervious surface threshold

38:59 ↗ at this time we have no plans to change

39:00 ↗ anything but we need to have that

39:02 ↗ flexibility in order for us to survive

39:06 ↗ and hopefully make it to 100 years the

39:10 ↗ replacement regulations will really

39:12 ↗ impact how our business is operating it

39:16 ↗ feels like a threat to our long-term

39:17 ↗ viability so we've heard a little bit

39:20 ↗ about possibly the old town designation

39:22 ↗ and that is something that you know is

39:25 ↗ possibly intriguing too but by the note

39:28 ↗ that we were sent the changes were were

39:31 ↗ pretty big and would really hurt our

39:34 ↗ possibility to remain there for years we

39:38 ↗ have actually haven't done any major

39:40 ↗ change since 1991 but a lot has changed

39:42 ↗ in Issaquah obviously since 91 and it's

39:45 ↗ changing faster than ever so I guess

39:48 ↗ we're interested in hearing more we

39:50 ↗ would like the city staff in the PPC to

39:53 ↗ reach out to us because we really like

39:54 ↗ to have more of a dialogue I know that

39:57 ↗ the Grange and possibly xxx and some

39:59 ↗ other people down on our end of Gilman

40:02 ↗ Boulevard we're are all happy to be

40:04 ↗ there we all have strong businesses that

40:06 ↗ I think really make up what is aqua or

40:08 ↗ the oldest aquifer when I was a kid is

40:11 ↗ important and we would like to remain

40:13 ↗ there and we're asking for just the city

40:16 ↗ and the PPC to work with us and listen

40:19 ↗ with us listen to us so that we can

40:21 ↗ remain there but from the letter that

40:22 ↗ I'm coming here about today that's that

40:25 ↗ that's a very difficult thing for us to

40:28 ↗ swallow and work with so thank you much

40:30 ↗ for your time thank you does anybody

40:33 ↗ else want to speak

40:49 ↗ my name is Geraldine Carey and I live at

40:52 ↗ 955 17th Avenue Northwest Issaquah I've

40:56 ↗ been here 40 years and the businesses

41:00 ↗ that are speaking tonight

41:03 ↗ I've patronized them for 40 years I

41:05 ↗ appreciate them I love The Grange I

41:07 ↗ think that if you do anything to impact

41:11 ↗ their viability I think it will be very

41:14 ↗ very damaging to the city in the past 40

41:18 ↗ years I think the heart and soul of

41:21 ↗ Issaquah has gone down I'm just I'm

41:23 ↗ pretty distraught at what I seen going

41:26 ↗ on with Issaquah The Grange has been

41:29 ↗ here forever it's a it's a good business

41:32 ↗ it it meets a lot of needs and I'm here

41:37 ↗ basically because I sort of feel like

41:40 ↗ you're letting all these big-box

41:43 ↗ companies come in and you're trying to

41:45 ↗ squash the small people who have been

41:48 ↗ here with all the restrictions so I hope

41:51 ↗ that you start looking at the design and

41:54 ↗ the practices that you are implementing

41:57 ↗ to not let all these businesses that are

42:02 ↗ nationwide come in and take out the

42:06 ↗ small independent people who have been

42:08 ↗ the life and soul of this community and

42:10 ↗ I just you know I just see more boxy

42:15 ↗ buildings more people no improvements to

42:18 ↗ roads or anything and you know that

42:21 ↗ corner of Gilman is an important part of

42:25 ↗ our community and I hope you support not

42:28 ↗ changing and restricting those big

42:31 ↗ people from doing business thank you

42:49 ↗ so my name is Connie Marsh and I live on

42:52 ↗ squawk Mountain and the central Issaquah

42:58 ↗ plan covered a tremendous area and was

43:02 ↗ very unwieldy and difficult to manage

43:04 ↗ for the city and so when PPC and

43:08 ↗ community members that attended went

43:10 ↗ through the process

43:11 ↗ it didn't seem like these two areas of

43:14 ↗ Issaquah fit the super high-density

43:21 ↗ living with mixed-use underneath it

43:25 ↗ concept that generally is the central is

43:29 ↗ quería now for me I can see a future for

43:34 ↗ these two areas that changes them for

43:39 ↗ the better and makes viable businesses

43:42 ↗ and allows everyone to expand it's just

43:47 ↗ the city is not at that point they sort

43:51 ↗ of envision them within the central

43:53 ↗ Issaquah lens and then said oh boy that

43:57 ↗ doesn't quite fit so they pop them out

43:59 ↗ but there isn't really a plan in place

44:02 ↗ to get you the vision that you want and

44:06 ↗ need for your businesses so it seems

44:09 ↗ like this is one of those shocking

44:11 ↗ moments where every says oh no crisis is

44:14 ↗ going to happen and what I see is

44:16 ↗ finally we're getting y'all to a meeting

44:19 ↗ where you're going to come to more

44:21 ↗ meetings and you're gonna have a great

44:22 ↗ dialogue with the city to get the

44:25 ↗ neighborhoods that you need and want

44:27 ↗ that will make the city as a whole

44:29 ↗ better and sometimes it takes that shock

44:32 ↗ and anger and fury to get people even to

44:35 ↗ a meeting and I see y'all here Onis and

44:38 ↗ it's horrible that it's that way but

44:40 ↗ otherwise nobody comes so a pathway to

44:42 ↗ the future for PPC because you all have

44:45 ↗ to make sort of a decision here is could

44:50 ↗ you mandate a process for these

44:52 ↗ neighborhoods now that we've taken them

44:54 ↗ out now let's bring them in and say we

44:59 ↗ have an interim set of rules and then we

45:02 ↗ immediately

45:03 ↗ and now the the department that has to

45:06 ↗ handle this might faint but we will

45:08 ↗ immediately go into a planning situation

45:11 ↗ for these neighborhoods where they can

45:12 ↗ engage and get the right set of rules

45:14 ↗ for each of the neighborhoods and so

45:17 ↗ then you would be assured that you

45:18 ↗ wouldn't be just dropped off the edge of

45:20 ↗ the cliff and these will be the rules

45:22 ↗ forever it would be within a year you

45:24 ↗ would have a new set of rules that you

45:26 ↗ would be able to talk about and

45:27 ↗ compromise them right and potentially I

45:31 ↗ know you're shaking your head it's not

45:33 ↗ ideal

45:33 ↗ everything should be right in and in its

45:37 ↗ place

45:38 ↗ I will say something that you might not

45:42 ↗ get the impervious surface standard

45:46 ↗ isn't real in the central Issaquah plan

45:50 ↗ because you still have to do your

45:51 ↗ landscaping and you still have so you

45:54 ↗ are not looking at a 25% reduction you

45:56 ↗ are looking at a reduction but not so

45:59 ↗ much so if you can if if you would

46:02 ↗ support that kind of language I could

46:04 ↗ see PPC supporting such a thing and so

46:09 ↗ oddly I'm finding myself trying to split

46:12 ↗ the difference and find a pathway to

46:15 ↗ success so that's just so out of my

46:17 ↗ character usually I'm the filming person

46:20 ↗ up here so I'm shocked

46:31 ↗ okay well I have one more short comment

46:35 ↗ that somebody wants to make Sam Kyle

46:44 ↗ again I'd like the Commission to also

46:48 ↗ give consideration to the parking issues

46:50 ↗ and under the development standards by

46:52 ↗ retaining the development standards on

46:55 ↗ play destination retail parking is a

46:59 ↗ critical factor small businesses are the

47:03 ↗ backbone to this community and we house

47:05 ↗ nothing but small businesses throughout

47:08 ↗ and under the destination retail it

47:11 ↗ allows us to design underground parking

47:14 ↗ to keep it out from underneath and

47:16 ↗ visible and everything else so it's we

47:19 ↗ used to have like a four per thousand

47:21 ↗ and the city keeps wanting to drop it

47:23 ↗ down to one to four thousand or

47:26 ↗ something like that so just keep in mind

47:27 ↗ might just for your information back in

47:36 ↗ that corner there is absolutely no bus

47:38 ↗ traffic traffic goes down on Front

47:41 ↗ Street some but there's no bus traffic

47:43 ↗ or any way to get there so the only way

47:45 ↗ people get out to our properties are

47:46 ↗ along with everybody out in that area is

47:49 ↗ is by car so keep that in mind and when

47:52 ↗ you're doing your planning thank you

47:55 ↗ does anybody else have any comments you

48:01 ↗ know it's a public hearing and we meet

48:03 ↗ all your comments oh sure

48:08 ↗ short promise it again

48:20 ↗ [Music]

48:22 ↗ again this is all Guster

48:33 ↗ so this part Gary I'd say emphasize that

49:06 ↗ not this is totally all businesses in

49:08 ↗ here and to cut you down to that part

49:11 ↗ it's just that doesn't make sense so and

49:14 ↗ I totally filled with these guys I shop

49:17 ↗ at the Grange because there's no

49:18 ↗ methanol in there and take up all of our

49:20 ↗ cars there doesn't destroy the engines

49:23 ↗ you need some businesses that are

49:26 ↗ realistic for every city that doesn't

49:28 ↗ mean you want to happen

49:29 ↗ before you put signs on top I agree with

49:32 ↗ that in fact we've been approached by

49:33 ↗ two cell companies wanting to put cell

49:35 ↗ towers and we said no we don't want that

49:37 ↗ we don't think

49:38 ↗ good thing we're concerned how that

49:39 ↗ would look the effect on people so we're

49:42 ↗ gonna have that discussion later on for

49:44 ↗ you to give you an idea so it's not like

49:47 ↗ we don't care about his clothes doesn't

49:48 ↗ don't take away whatever it is this -

49:51 ↗ okay

49:51 ↗ is it rent from us I mean they worked

49:54 ↗ really hard six days a week and stuff

49:57 ↗ can't see what the sees so anybody else

50:02 ↗ so I'm going to close the public hearing

50:05 ↗ at 7:26 and open it up for general

50:10 ↗ comment

50:16 ↗ so Joey's putting back on the board

50:18 ↗ options a baby so be is to keep the same

50:23 ↗ I'm curious what specifically what the

50:26 ↗ CBD standards are which I believe are 85

50:29 ↗ instead of 65 is that correct as far as

50:32 ↗ impervious surface goes correct so I'm

50:35 ↗ curious what house staff we feel about

50:39 ↗ right now we have this proposal of C and

50:42 ↗ extending see-through to it was formally

50:45 ↗ the industrial and instead of being 65%

50:47 ↗ to 85% so right now there's an option to

50:50 ↗ do that for retail right now changing

50:52 ↗ conducts nation retail to retail and one

50:54 ↗ of our options industrial yeah no I we

51:08 ↗ hadn't thought of another option for

51:11 ↗ intensive commercial but if we did I

51:13 ↗ would imagine that it would be the same

51:15 ↗ as just pulling the impervious surface

51:18 ↗ and the heights over from Central and

51:21 ↗ and changing the existing icy zone to be

51:25 ↗ consistent with the the central it's

51:28 ↗ intensive commercial zone but it doesn't

51:31 ↗ fit anything else in the cultural and

51:33 ↗ business district to be up there it's

51:35 ↗ the it's sort of the opposite of that

51:39 ↗ but that if we were going to have an

51:41 ↗ option and I'm checking with my boss but

51:43 ↗ I would imagine that that would be an

51:45 ↗ option that you guys could come up with

51:47 ↗ similar to the option we came up with

51:49 ↗ for destination retail is to keep the

51:51 ↗ height impervious surface and all those

51:53 ↗ and just bring those pieces into the

51:55 ↗ other code to make them consistent for

51:58 ↗ the change

52:11 ↗ to see something in these areas of the

52:14 ↗ Gateway that was part of what drove

52:16 ↗ these numbers then the old numbers have

52:20 ↗ been there for forever they were the

52:23 ↗ numbers in the retail it was that it was

52:27 ↗ these numbers before central Issaquah

52:29 ↗ was created in 2013

52:34 ↗ other questions for staff or discuss

52:37 ↗ amongst yourself so I'm here let's start

52:42 ↗ with intensive commercial to commercial

52:47 ↗ if commercial intense commercial was be

52:51 ↗ down zoned to commercial then what would

52:56 ↗ that do for the parking ok that the

53:00 ↗ parking as I said for Central is lower

53:04 ↗ it's there's a lower requirement and it

53:07 ↗ has a cap on it so it is a not only a

53:10 ↗ lower to begin with but it has a cap on

53:12 ↗ how many parking spaces you can have if

53:15 ↗ you're not in central there's no cap and

53:19 ↗ there's no there's it's not a minimum

53:21 ↗ you can have more parking if you're not

53:23 ↗ in central ok so let's just focus on on

53:26 ↗ the commercial versus intensive

53:28 ↗ commercial district for this

53:30 ↗ conversation okay moment if we rezone to

53:36 ↗ commercial here you mean intensive

53:40 ↗ commercial ok so these properties are

53:44 ↗ being removed from the CIP they're going

53:45 ↗ into intensive commercial their

53:48 ↗ impervious surface would go up but their

53:50 ↗ parking restrictions would go down no

53:53 ↗ their part their impervious goes down

53:55 ↗ and their parking actually goes up

53:57 ↗ you're allowed more perks so there's a

53:59 ↗ there's a they're gaining something and

54:03 ↗ there's something being taken away I

54:05 ↗ guess it depends how you look at it cuz

54:07 ↗ even with a lower lower impervious

54:11 ↗ surface racer even though they could

54:12 ↗ have more parking they still have to get

54:14 ↗ it on the lot but they've now have less

54:17 ↗ impervious surface to work that extra

54:20 ↗ parking if they might want extra parking

54:22 ↗ so why are we on

54:25 ↗ why we want to take it out of the CIP

54:27 ↗ but why do we need to change the zoning

54:29 ↗ because the regulations for the central

54:31 ↗ Issaquah development and design

54:33 ↗ standards would no longer regulate the

54:35 ↗ area so they couldn't be in they

54:38 ↗ couldn't be underneath that code because

54:40 ↗ they're no longer in the plan so we had

54:42 ↗ to move them out right okay so could

54:46 ↗ that be a subset would it make sense to

54:49 ↗ create a subset of the CIP for these

54:53 ↗ properties only well what we talked

54:55 ↗ about our option to for destination

54:57 ↗ retail is pulling those the bulk

54:59 ↗ standard the setbacks height those and

55:02 ↗ pulling them into the other code so that

55:04 ↗ they're consistent which is I think what

55:07 ↗ you're saying but that's option two for

55:09 ↗ destination retail and perhaps you all

55:11 ↗ could save to do the same thing for

55:13 ↗ intensive commercial to pull them out

55:15 ↗ create a new one that has the same

55:17 ↗ standards of height setbacks all those

55:20 ↗ and have that live in the other code so

55:23 ↗ that they don't have a change they would

55:25 ↗ have their own vision they would they

55:29 ↗ could in the future but we're not

55:30 ↗ talking about vision tonight we're

55:31 ↗ talking about zoning right I understand

55:34 ↗ that but basically they would have we'd

55:37 ↗ create a zone specifically for them that

55:42 ↗ would be packaged to the same standards

55:44 ↗ that they have today in terms of the

55:46 ↗ parking in terms of the pervious

55:47 ↗ surfaces and so on not the parking so so

55:51 ↗ can i maybe add something so so one of

55:55 ↗ the things were this is feeling very

55:58 ↗ condensed because of the timeline that

56:00 ↗ was created through a different action

56:03 ↗ we got the 90 days which unfortunately

56:06 ↗ allowed us enough time to send out

56:08 ↗ postcards to notify property owners but

56:10 ↗ there really has not been a whole lot of

56:12 ↗ time for this dialogue to happen which

56:15 ↗ is happening basically here tonight and

56:17 ↗ what we're finding out is what the

56:21 ↗ property owners are concerned about and

56:24 ↗ there's some obvious ones right so

56:27 ↗ obvious is impervious surface I think

56:29 ↗ that's a thread that's running through

56:30 ↗ everybody's comments some have talked

56:33 ↗ about land uses you know we've talked

56:35 ↗ about whether or not there's some land

56:37 ↗ use changes through

56:38 ↗ this process part of its building

56:41 ↗ heights part of its setbacks and so

56:44 ↗ those are your kind of your base zoning

56:46 ↗ things right you know bulk high location

56:49 ↗ of buildings and land uses and so you

56:53 ↗ know those things I don't think are a

56:55 ↗ surprise you know as I'm listening to

56:57 ↗ the conversation and things like parking

56:59 ↗ so in central the reason why the parking

57:03 ↗ standards were reduced is because we

57:05 ↗ believed there was going to be transit

57:07 ↗ it was walkable it was bikable and so

57:10 ↗ part of what we're talking about for

57:12 ↗ both the icy neighborhood and for the

57:15 ↗ end of Gillman is they really as you

57:17 ↗ heard from mr. Kyle they really don't

57:19 ↗ have bus service you know it is a

57:20 ↗ drivable destination as is the Grange

57:23 ↗ for the most part you know we're gonna

57:25 ↗ try and help walkability and other

57:27 ↗ things but you know that is how most of

57:29 ↗ their customers get there so reducing

57:32 ↗ the parking or allowing the central

57:35 ↗ lower parking standards now outside of

57:38 ↗ central I don't know that that makes

57:40 ↗ sense and I think if we're gonna if

57:42 ↗ that's really important to the property

57:45 ↗ owners I think we're gonna have to enter

57:46 ↗ into a dialogue about you know help me

57:49 ↗ understand why that makes sense because

57:50 ↗ I don't know why that makes sense

57:52 ↗ because most of it's gonna be car

57:53 ↗ oriented pulling them out of central now

57:56 ↗ they don't have a limit on the number of

57:57 ↗ parking spaces that they can have on

58:00 ↗ their property they can have as many as

58:02 ↗ they feel comfortable with and and so

58:04 ↗ that takes them back to what they had

58:07 ↗ before they were brought into central

58:09 ↗ which the whole idea is more walkable

58:11 ↗ it's more bikable less reliance on

58:14 ↗ automobiles all right so so as we talked

58:17 ↗ about that in trees the tree retention

58:20 ↗ requirements are more stringent outside

58:23 ↗ of central because you know in central

58:26 ↗ it's denser and the idea was that if you

58:29 ↗ were developing your property you could

58:31 ↗ remove more trees through that process

58:33 ↗ so so there's actually I think I would

58:35 ↗ say a smidge more protection being

58:38 ↗ outside and if somebody said that wasn't

58:41 ↗ fair that was a taking or they felt like

58:43 ↗ that was an infringement I'd want to

58:45 ↗ understand why that makes sense because

58:47 ↗ that doesn't make sense to me so when

58:49 ↗ we're talking about changes I think

58:51 ↗ we're mostly

58:52 ↗ talking about impervious surface and and

58:54 ↗ building heights and setbacks because

58:57 ↗ those really affect how much of your

59:00 ↗ property you can develop and if there

59:03 ↗ were decisions made over the last five

59:05 ↗ years because of what was allowed in

59:07 ↗ central and those are now changing I

59:10 ↗ think what we wanted to hear was okay

59:13 ↗ what what do the property was what is

59:15 ↗ the affected community feel about that

59:17 ↗ and is there a way that we can maybe

59:19 ↗ find that space where what's happening

59:23 ↗ is going to not be an impact for them

59:26 ↗ and that's why I think you saw some new

59:29 ↗ alternatives at least for destination

59:31 ↗ retail I think the question for the icy

59:34 ↗ zone is would would the administration

59:36 ↗ be willing to just basically change the

59:40 ↗ impervious limit in the icy zone from 65

59:44 ↗ to something higher than that whether

59:46 ↗ it's 90 or what we talked about that you

59:49 ↗ know because right now you know

59:51 ↗ impervious is really a function of storm

59:55 ↗ water and storm water because stormwater

59:58 ↗ runoff is used to be a problem serious

1:00:00 ↗ problem for the city because we had to

1:00:03 ↗ handle the stormwater runoff

1:00:06 ↗ nowadays it's less of a problem we have

1:00:09 ↗ much better storm facilities in our city

1:00:12 ↗ than when those 6565 used to be

1:00:15 ↗ prevalent everywhere and one of the

1:00:18 ↗ things that you heard from Old Town and

1:00:20 ↗ as part of our doubleheader tonight when

1:00:22 ↗ we talk about Old Town you know 65 was

1:00:25 ↗ the impervious standard for Old Town and

1:00:27 ↗ the Old Town task force basically said

1:00:30 ↗ why do we have this antiquated standard

1:00:32 ↗ for impervious let's allow it to get

1:00:35 ↗ higher so we can do more with our

1:00:36 ↗ property so that's a theme that you're

1:00:40 ↗ hearing from folks that are about to

1:00:42 ↗ potentially go backwards ten years in

1:00:45 ↗ code you heard that same thing come out

1:00:48 ↗ of the economic the the old town Kasper

1:00:51 ↗ vitality task force so so that

1:00:53 ↗ impervious limit and one of the things

1:00:56 ↗ so you know if if ultimately and frankly

1:01:00 ↗ I think this whole conversation needs a

1:01:02 ↗ lot more baking so you know if the

1:01:05 ↗ Commission

1:01:06 ↗ wants the administration to continue

1:01:08 ↗ dialogue with the property owners to

1:01:11 ↗ come up with a more specific

1:01:13 ↗ recommendation for the Commission's

1:01:15 ↗ consideration I think we're willing to

1:01:16 ↗ do that but that's your guys's call on

1:01:20 ↗ whether you want that to happen tonight

1:01:21 ↗ so hopefully that's helpful in pointing

1:01:26 ↗ us in a direction sounds like if we move

1:01:32 ↗ these organizations out of commercial

1:01:36 ↗ into intensive commercial we have to

1:01:38 ↗ move them out of central so that's a

1:01:39 ↗ decision already made by the council

1:01:40 ↗ right so if we move them out of central

1:01:43 ↗ and we've put them into destination

1:01:46 ↗ retail and into intensive commercial but

1:01:50 ↗ we we keep the impervious surface

1:01:58 ↗ requirements and allow the parking then

1:02:01 ↗ there is a major win for these

1:02:03 ↗ organizations so if we're going to give

1:02:05 ↗ them these options and those sounds like

1:02:07 ↗ for the betterment of the community we

1:02:10 ↗ need to have some sort of negotiation

1:02:11 ↗ with these organizations to say alright

1:02:14 ↗ so you're actually going to get all

1:02:15 ↗ these extra things potentially so let's

1:02:19 ↗ make some compromises on where we can

1:02:22 ↗ find in an agreement I you could do that

1:02:29 ↗ you know I think I think part of what

1:02:31 ↗ we're trying to do is is take something

1:02:35 ↗ that exists you know either so so so the

1:02:39 ↗ the the choices that I think Trish put

1:02:44 ↗ up earlier there were three choices for

1:02:47 ↗ destination retail and I think we could

1:02:49 ↗ have a parallel conversation about I see

1:02:51 ↗ but let's start with destination retail

1:02:53 ↗ the choices were you know to basically

1:02:56 ↗ take three things that exist already and

1:02:59 ↗ choose one of those three those three

1:03:01 ↗ things are one is retail right that's a

1:03:05 ↗ choice the second is cake destination

1:03:07 ↗ retail from central Issaquah pull it out

1:03:10 ↗ so that they can be that on the outside

1:03:13 ↗ and then the third choice would be CBD

1:03:16 ↗ so the the the the options

1:03:20 ↗ the administration put forward were pick

1:03:22 ↗ one of three choices that already exists

1:03:24 ↗ not create a new choice now for

1:03:27 ↗ intensive commercial I think there's

1:03:30 ↗ really only two choices there's you know

1:03:33 ↗ well there's there's kind of one

1:03:35 ↗ well there's two so there's one which is

1:03:38 ↗ take it out and make it I see which

1:03:40 ↗ there already is an icy but that has a

1:03:44 ↗ significant change in impervious as

1:03:46 ↗ we've heard from the property owners and

1:03:48 ↗ I would agree with so the question is is

1:03:50 ↗ would there be a recommendation to

1:03:52 ↗ modify the existing icy to change the

1:03:56 ↗ impervious to a different percentage

1:03:58 ↗ than 65 and then parking too because now

1:04:02 ↗ I will have higher parking right so it's

1:04:06 ↗ so they could have so that's so the code

1:04:09 ↗ allows for more parking spaces on the

1:04:12 ↗ property right once it's outside of

1:04:14 ↗ central because there's no cap so my

1:04:16 ↗ point here is that maybe the they don't

1:04:21 ↗ need as much pervious surface but they'd

1:04:23 ↗ rather have more parking so maybe we

1:04:25 ↗ give up impervious surface and give them

1:04:28 ↗ more parking or we reduce the parking

1:04:30 ↗ and give them more pervious surface well

1:04:37 ↗ and then you also have building heights

1:04:39 ↗ and then you have setbacks so we're

1:04:42 ↗ giving up a lot of these there's an

1:04:44 ↗ opportunity here I think for a middle

1:04:46 ↗ ground that would be great for everyone

1:04:49 ↗ here but there's a lot of room to be

1:04:52 ↗ negotiated and I think this definitely

1:04:54 ↗ needs to be baked through because if

1:04:56 ↗ we're gonna give up they're gonna be

1:04:59 ↗ giving up setbacks impervious surface

1:05:01 ↗ but so so I guess so that's gonna wait

1:05:04 ↗ so maybe look at it through this lens

1:05:06 ↗ wrong so so what we've heard from was a

1:05:10 ↗ number of property owners that asked for

1:05:12 ↗ their standards to stay the same and I

1:05:15 ↗ think what you should ask yourself is

1:05:17 ↗ okay if we did that is there is there a

1:05:20 ↗ way we can get them there if the

1:05:21 ↗ Commission wanted to get them there is a

1:05:23 ↗ way we can get them there I think the

1:05:24 ↗ answer is yes and the question is is

1:05:27 ↗ does that for either of those two parts

1:05:30 ↗ of the city and we we did our tour so I

1:05:33 ↗ know you've at least

1:05:33 ↗ driven around through those areas you

1:05:36 ↗ know do those existing standards that

1:05:38 ↗ they have now do they would they be a

1:05:42 ↗ problem if they built to those standards

1:05:44 ↗ I mean and if your answer is yes you

1:05:47 ↗ think that's too dense or too much then

1:05:50 ↗ your comment that you made earlier about

1:05:53 ↗ we should look at some hybrid that's

1:05:55 ↗ something we can definitely do but if if

1:05:58 ↗ them building a forty eight foot tall

1:06:00 ↗ building instead of a forty foot tall

1:06:02 ↗ building doesn't doesn't make a big

1:06:05 ↗ difference from a community perspective

1:06:08 ↗ standpoint then then maybe it's good the

1:06:11 ↗ way it is I think that's what you guys

1:06:13 ↗ are thinking about right now is is what

1:06:16 ↗ they have what they had in central you

1:06:19 ↗ know I think what we said is these areas

1:06:21 ↗ don't really feel like central but

1:06:23 ↗ they're their standards are to some

1:06:25 ↗ extent when they were in central less

1:06:28 ↗ than like Gilman and and the mixed use

1:06:30 ↗ areas and so I think the question is you

1:06:33 ↗ know if they were to redevelop you know

1:06:37 ↗ what would be too much if there is a too

1:06:40 ↗ much we have a right option we have the

1:06:45 ↗ left option but what if they want

1:06:47 ↗ something in between it would be a

1:06:48 ↗ better fit for them and a better fit for

1:06:50 ↗ the community because maybe they don't

1:06:53 ↗ need all the things that are in the CIP

1:06:55 ↗ but maybe they also don't want to lose

1:06:57 ↗ everything by going out of the CIP so

1:07:01 ↗ there's attributes from from both sides

1:07:03 ↗ that they say well you know what this is

1:07:05 ↗ a great opportunity we would really like

1:07:07 ↗ to keep this but we don't we can give

1:07:09 ↗ this up over here and we create our own

1:07:11 ↗ standard we could do that the only thing

1:07:17 ↗ I have my biggest problem with this

1:07:20 ↗ whole thing is

1:07:22 ↗ consistency I you know it was one way

1:07:25 ↗ and then you decided to go into

1:07:29 ↗ something else and the owners of these

1:07:32 ↗ properties are making decisions for the

1:07:35 ↗ future based on what it is and to pull

1:07:37 ↗ the rug out from under them I have a

1:07:39 ↗ problem with that that that to me just

1:07:43 ↗ doesn't work and so I certainly don't

1:07:48 ↗ want them to go down

1:07:51 ↗ I think either option 2 or the third one

1:07:54 ↗ that was provided work there might be

1:07:58 ↗ some areas in there that might need

1:08:00 ↗ tweaking just to make sure that

1:08:02 ↗ everybody is happy but I think from what

1:08:04 ↗ I heard tonight that most of them would

1:08:08 ↗ agree to either one of them as long as

1:08:12 ↗ you you know as long as there was enough

1:08:15 ↗ parking and enough trees and those guys

1:08:17 ↗ things but the major thing is impervious

1:08:20 ↗ circuit surface and those are that you

1:08:23 ↗ know that's what is causing all this

1:08:26 ↗ consternation so unless you have no

1:08:34 ↗ thank you so this is my first planning

1:08:38 ↗ policy meeting tonight and I did my best

1:08:40 ↗ to get some of the the history on this

1:08:43 ↗ so that I can understood where it was

1:08:45 ↗ coming from but one I just want to say I

1:08:48 ↗ think it's wonderful and Connie

1:08:50 ↗ regardless of what got people here

1:08:51 ↗ they're here so I'm excited but I'm

1:08:53 ↗ really glad that everyone did come out

1:08:55 ↗ and share how they were feeling because

1:08:56 ↗ that's a critical part of this process

1:08:58 ↗ and then I do have to say I was really

1:09:01 ↗ impressed with how staff very quickly

1:09:03 ↗ responded to community feedback that's

1:09:05 ↗ been flooding in and showed up tonight

1:09:08 ↗ with another option that was really

1:09:11 ↗ proactive I do have to say from a

1:09:15 ↗ process standpoint nobody had seen it

1:09:17 ↗ until just tonight so I do think it's

1:09:19 ↗ slightly unfair in the process to you

1:09:23 ↗ know in the perfect world ask anyone to

1:09:26 ↗ make a decision on that I mean people

1:09:28 ↗ came with comments prepared for things

1:09:30 ↗ that they saw in the packet but from

1:09:32 ↗ what I'm hearing from what people have

1:09:34 ↗ said in the audience

1:09:35 ↗ if you can please keep it the same as it

1:09:38 ↗ is that's fine

1:09:39 ↗ call it whatever you want it sounds like

1:09:43 ↗ we're under some marching orders from a

1:09:45 ↗ timing perspective for other things to

1:09:48 ↗ move forward so it seems like the option

1:09:51 ↗ that keeps the impervious surface and

1:09:55 ↗ the height requirements at a place that

1:09:56 ↗ everyone feels like is the same would

1:09:59 ↗ work but a concern I have or the holding

1:10:02 ↗ place I put out there is there's still

1:10:03 ↗ this larger strategic vision issue I

1:10:08 ↗ think with this section of our community

1:10:10 ↗ that it's very clear to me tonight we

1:10:13 ↗ don't understand or we're not all on the

1:10:15 ↗ same page as to what the businesses need

1:10:18 ↗ in that area and what the owners in that

1:10:21 ↗ area need and what we as a city and

1:10:23 ↗ vision for that area both short term

1:10:24 ↗ medium term and long term and so you

1:10:28 ↗ know I look to the city and the

1:10:29 ↗ commissioners that you guys that have

1:10:31 ↗ been here much longer than I as to how

1:10:34 ↗ do we make sure that I think that part

1:10:36 ↗ gets addressed because I think I think

1:10:38 ↗ we it sounds like we have a quick fix

1:10:40 ↗ for tonight if we want to do something

1:10:42 ↗ within the schedule but I'm more

1:10:44 ↗ concerned about the the longer-term

1:10:47 ↗ conversation of what's right and Ron I

1:10:50 ↗ think what I'm hearing you say is that

1:10:51 ↗ you don't want to give away or jump give

1:10:55 ↗ away too much right now and kind of have

1:10:59 ↗ a give-and-take conversation I think

1:11:01 ↗ that's what I was understanding what you

1:11:03 ↗ were trying to say and and so anyways

1:11:06 ↗ that that's just kind of my point I'd

1:11:08 ↗ make is how do we how do we make sure we

1:11:11 ↗ we hit that piece as part of this

1:11:14 ↗ process I think that we need a little

1:11:20 ↗ bit more I just happened to like the

1:11:23 ↗ last two I mean the options of making

1:11:28 ↗ the home of the property owners be able

1:11:32 ↗ to do their business joy

1:11:40 ↗ right now we're trying to find a new

1:11:45 ↗ direction for you you find that they are

1:11:47 ↗ not part of central we like the idea

1:11:49 ↗ over out to about 10 becoming a part of

1:11:52 ↗ Old Town and so I I don't know that

1:11:56 ↗ keeping it the same advancing is what we

1:11:59 ↗ want to see happen in the future

1:12:01 ↗ however I'm hearing overwhelmingly that

1:12:05 ↗ really needs to change and I would be a

1:12:10 ↗ proponent of that I like the 85 percent

1:12:13 ↗ of the CBD and so when I envision when I

1:12:16 ↗ see these properties I think keeping

1:12:18 ↗ zero for setbacks isn't necessarily that

1:12:22 ↗ it's the best thing for that area so I

1:12:24 ↗ like keeping some of some of these

1:12:26 ↗ numbers now changing the base feet to me

1:12:28 ↗ 50 40 isn't big of a deal because you're

1:12:31 ↗ the base maximum is still the same so

1:12:33 ↗ for that it's a permanent issue with 8

1:12:35 ↗ feet and so that concerns me a little

1:12:37 ↗ bit less on that number so I would be a

1:12:40 ↗ performative actually making an

1:12:43 ↗ amendment to what is effectively an

1:12:47 ↗ officer for both of these areas to

1:12:49 ↗ basically be the numbers that have been

1:12:51 ↗ presented to staff with the change the

1:12:52 ↗ impervious surface to eat by percent

1:12:54 ↗ rather than the 90 versus the 65 I think

1:12:58 ↗ that gets us something that is

1:13:01 ↗ tend to what we want for these areas to

1:13:03 ↗ go without undue burden to begin to

1:13:07 ↗ develop the properties so to summarize

1:13:23 ↗ your suggestion would be to pull

1:13:29 ↗ destination retail out of central and

1:13:33 ↗ lower the impervious to 85 to be

1:13:36 ↗ consistent with the CBD and for

1:13:39 ↗ intensive commercial to change the

1:13:42 ↗ impervious sum from 65 to 85 so that

1:13:46 ↗ they all get 85 and there are going to

1:13:55 ↗ be some changes from what they're right

1:13:57 ↗ now so the difference between so just to

1:13:59 ↗ be clear because this is geeky planning

1:14:02 ↗ terminology and I want to make sure at

1:14:04 ↗ least everybody in the room following a

1:14:05 ↗ setback is a mandatory minimum so so if

1:14:13 ↗ it says zero it means well serious bad

1:14:16 ↗ number because you can't get less than

1:14:18 ↗ zero but let's say it said five feet you

1:14:20 ↗ know you could put your building at five

1:14:22 ↗ feet or you could put your building at

1:14:23 ↗ 10 feet or you could put your building

1:14:25 ↗ at 20 feet there's where as a set to

1:14:28 ↗ line which is how central works is

1:14:30 ↗ they're set to line like on the street

1:14:33 ↗ frontage is zero because we want those

1:14:34 ↗ buildings right at the front property

1:14:36 ↗ line right but here since it's now

1:14:38 ↗ outside it's a setback so even though

1:14:42 ↗ it's zero they could be at 20 feet they

1:14:44 ↗ could be at 30 feet you know they could

1:14:46 ↗ have their Drive they could have their

1:14:47 ↗ pumps out in front that's not a problem

1:14:50 ↗ I just want to make sure we're tracking

1:14:51 ↗ on terminology I think we need to have a

1:14:57 ↗ community outreach where these

1:14:59 ↗ businesses come in and city staff were

1:15:01 ↗ able to respond listen to their feedback

1:15:04 ↗ and respond to it and come up with a

1:15:06 ↗ plan I don't think we're ready to move

1:15:09 ↗ forward with us I don't think I can

1:15:13 ↗ so in the event of ability or abstaining

1:15:21 ↗ I wouldn't be able to vote YES on it

1:15:26 ↗ because I think there still needs to be

1:15:28 ↗ a lot of discussion between the property

1:15:33 ↗ owners and the city staff and I think

1:15:35 ↗ there needs to be a lot more thought

1:15:38 ↗ going into how we're going to move

1:15:40 ↗ forward with us because it's we're right

1:15:43 ↗ it doesn't belong into the central

1:15:44 ↗ Issaquah plan but by taking a valise

1:15:47 ↗ entra as a co-op plan they're gonna be

1:15:48 ↗ given up a lot and to your proposal you

1:15:53 ↗ you have some good ideas there but I

1:15:57 ↗ think we need to hear from the

1:15:59 ↗ landowners what they need in terms of

1:16:04 ↗ how they want to move forward because

1:16:06 ↗ maybe what we are presenting tonight

1:16:08 ↗ maybe they need it maybe they don't need

1:16:10 ↗ it maybe there are other things that

1:16:12 ↗ they need instead and I'd like to hear

1:16:14 ↗ what though with that feedback is

1:16:16 ↗ [Music]

1:16:19 ↗ the point and this has to be table we

1:16:21 ↗ don't have the numbers we can't vote on

1:16:23 ↗ it because there's only four of us and

1:16:24 ↗ one is one what do you think it's donkey

1:16:27 ↗ when I asked her on he said he wasn't

1:16:28 ↗ gonna be upstanding but he couldn't vote

1:16:30 ↗ yes so that would mean so it wouldn't go

1:16:33 ↗ away right so if you're feeling the same

1:16:36 ↗ way that you'd like to table it for this

1:16:39 ↗ discussion then that means that were I

1:16:41 ↗ would like first of all what is give me

1:16:45 ↗ again the time frame while we're this

1:16:47 ↗ has to be decided completed by August

1:16:53 ↗ 23rd and I'm not sure what kind of

1:16:57 ↗ wiggle room there is it would go it

1:17:00 ↗ would go to Landon Shore July 5th so do

1:17:06 ↗ we have a meeting on the 28th um we

1:17:09 ↗ thought we did but we because of Old

1:17:12 ↗ Town we thought we the old town we

1:17:14 ↗ thought we would continue until the

1:17:16 ↗ twelve but if we had to have one next

1:17:20 ↗ week well so we could continue this next

1:17:23 ↗ week and still suggestion was to get

1:17:27 ↗ some of the homeowners huh

1:17:30 ↗ Oh a realtor what can I say commercial

1:17:33 ↗ about property owners together that's a

1:17:36 ↗ limited time to to get anything done so

1:17:41 ↗ my guess is if for those folks that are

1:17:44 ↗ sitting in this room who provided

1:17:46 ↗ comment tonight if we told them that

1:17:49 ↗ they had a week to refine their ask of

1:17:53 ↗ the city my guess is we come to that in

1:17:57 ↗ a week and come back to you guys and say

1:17:59 ↗ that hopefully we could arrive at a

1:18:03 ↗ recommendation that at least most of the

1:18:05 ↗ property owners here in the room would

1:18:06 ↗ be supportive of that would be a clearer

1:18:10 ↗ consideration for you guys I get a

1:18:13 ↗ better

1:18:16 ↗ you know the transportation the

1:18:18 ↗ landscaping all of the things that were

1:18:20 ↗ discussed tonight in a forum the code I

1:18:24 ↗ yeah I'm a trout what's the Municipal

1:18:26 ↗ Code to refer back to that I know there

1:18:29 ↗ was a comment about about trees right

1:18:32 ↗ just refer it back to another code yeah

1:18:36 ↗ yeah see you just put them together so

1:18:39 ↗ that you know I see a disconnect here of

1:18:43 ↗ people understanding one thing and one

1:18:46 ↗ another and maybe they're getting it but

1:18:49 ↗ they don't know they're getting it and

1:18:50 ↗ so I need a visual of which are a little

1:18:56 ↗ bit better than that with more some more

1:18:59 ↗ substance in it can we get that yes so

1:19:04 ↗ so it's it's an infinite list yeah

1:19:08 ↗ exactly but it could be a very wieldy

1:19:11 ↗ list what I've heard so just want to

1:19:13 ↗ summarize what I've heard is building

1:19:16 ↗ heights setbacks impervious parking

1:19:18 ↗ landscaping tree retention do you want

1:19:22 ↗ to include anything else in that

1:19:24 ↗ comparative matrix no I understand but

1:19:30 ↗ you want us to unpack that and say what

1:19:32 ↗ that you know what that is so they can

1:19:34 ↗ be clear on it but then I'll ask a

1:19:36 ↗ question of all of you is there besides

1:19:41 ↗ the things that you talked about is

1:19:43 ↗ there some other issue that that you

1:19:47 ↗ maybe didn't discuss or forgot about or

1:19:50 ↗ some issue in besides transportation

1:19:54 ↗ parking impervious surface setbacks

1:20:00 ↗ trees any of anything else that that

1:20:03 ↗ isn't

1:20:03 ↗ in here because I can't think of

1:20:05 ↗ anything else so as a homeowner in that

1:20:09 ↗ area that's impacted I think we're

1:20:12 ↗ talking about the aesthetic of the area

1:20:14 ↗ of what it looks like the fuel of the

1:20:15 ↗ neighborhoods like the grain and

1:20:19 ↗ chocolate and xxx are different in

1:20:24 ↗ character and feeling of the

1:20:25 ↗ neighborhood if we are we talking about

1:20:28 ↗ some that would invite just those

1:20:29 ↗ businesses or other businesses the

1:20:32 ↗ aesthetic of the area when you talk

1:20:34 ↗ about parking on all those other things

1:20:36 ↗ there's an aesthetic component that I

1:20:38 ↗ think needs to be addressed is it sex

1:20:41 ↗ yeah is it you can use these codes and

1:20:46 ↗ then have another thing that that

1:20:49 ↗ addresses aesthetics or does it have to

1:20:52 ↗ be together

1:20:53 ↗ you can't cherry pick you have to its

1:20:56 ↗ you know it's gonna be in or out so it's

1:20:59 ↗ already out of central right you know if

1:21:02 ↗ if if the destination retail area moves

1:21:06 ↗ into old town then some of the old town

1:21:09 ↗ standards like design review will apply

1:21:13 ↗ that's a decision that you guys altima

1:21:16 ↗ to get to make a recommendation on in

1:21:17 ↗ the council will will then make a

1:21:19 ↗ decision on separate from this right now

1:21:22 ↗ what we're talking about is really

1:21:24 ↗ zoning and not designed it's there's

1:21:28 ↗ less design kicking it out of central

1:21:31 ↗ because central is very designed and we

1:21:34 ↗ added a bunch with architectural manuals

1:21:36 ↗ and other things

1:21:37 ↗ most recently so so that piece that

1:21:40 ↗ decision has kind of already been made

1:21:42 ↗ in terms of that now whether or not

1:21:44 ↗ destination retail goes into old town

1:21:46 ↗ that would be a way to add more

1:21:49 ↗ aesthetic influences over that area but

1:21:54 ↗ that's a decision not part of what we're

1:21:56 ↗ talking about right now see and that's

1:21:58 ↗ another component I think that a lot of

1:22:00 ↗ these land owners don't understand is

1:22:03 ↗ what is changing for them so they can

1:22:07 ↗ come in and talk to staff and get a

1:22:09 ↗ better understanding of that in the next

1:22:12 ↗ four days if that's or seven days if

1:22:14 ↗ that's what

1:22:16 ↗ everybody in the room wants to have

1:22:17 ↗ happen or that's what the Commission

1:22:19 ↗ wants to have happen so what can I throw

1:22:20 ↗ you under the bus

1:22:21 ↗ absolutely could you put together a

1:22:24 ↗ meeting for these peoples like a second

1:22:28 ↗ time and say here's a presentation we

1:22:30 ↗ can do QA absolutely so the way you know

1:22:33 ↗ it's not everybody individually taking

1:22:35 ↗ up all your time so so I will do that

1:22:38 ↗ and +1 it so we will set up a meeting

1:22:42 ↗ next week like Monday or Tuesday to do

1:22:46 ↗ that in some afternoon Tuesday yeah

1:22:49 ↗ because you're not here on Mondays so

1:22:51 ↗ like Tuesday but then individually if

1:22:54 ↗ somebody wants to do it separate they

1:22:56 ↗ can come meet with us individually but

1:22:58 ↗ just from a process standpoint it sounds

1:23:01 ↗ like we're marching towards having

1:23:02 ↗ another PPC next Thursday which means if

1:23:05 ↗ there's a fourth option that pops out as

1:23:08 ↗ a result of your meeting with everyone

1:23:10 ↗ there's got to be time too so we're not

1:23:13 ↗ doing what we did tonight

1:23:14 ↗ you know popping it up and saying okay

1:23:16 ↗ are we all good with this that might be

1:23:25 ↗ better yeah Jamie will give you as much

1:23:26 ↗ time as we can yes yeah but I'm just

1:23:29 ↗ saying that everyone can be on board and

1:23:30 ↗ the meeting can hopefully go smoothly on

1:23:32 ↗ Thursday that's nice not just for me

1:23:36 ↗ three options and everybody can just

1:23:38 ↗ pick one and actually it is that I move

1:23:42 ↗ on talking about a five minute meeting

1:23:44 ↗ that would be great yeah so there are

1:23:47 ↗ having a meeting next week

1:23:49 ↗ Arina sounds like now we are you guys

1:23:52 ↗ need to I think make a motion to confine

1:23:56 ↗ you they need to know if there's you

1:23:59 ↗ know it's very clarification of if we

1:24:01 ↗ said something or if there was more that

1:24:02 ↗ we wanted to add and one of the things I

1:24:04 ↗ wanted to clarify is the main part well

1:24:07 ↗ one of the main pieces for our intensive

1:24:11 ↗ commercial space for impervious surface

1:24:14 ↗ is parking if you look at the businesses

1:24:16 ↗ that are on that street we've got a

1:24:18 ↗ trailer and boat repair shop we have the

1:24:21 ↗ pot shop which isn't included in this

1:24:22 ↗ we're an HVAC company where we have 16

1:24:25 ↗ vans and service trucks come in every

1:24:27 ↗ morning some of them are parked

1:24:28 ↗ overnight but some you know take their

1:24:30 ↗ trucks off and they come in every

1:24:32 ↗ morning we need the parking there's a

1:24:34 ↗ roofing company there's si con there's a

1:24:36 ↗ the Minuteman press X at the boat

1:24:39 ↗ there's the southeast glass they're not

1:24:42 ↗ here tonight they weren't able to be

1:24:43 ↗ here tonight and there's a landscape

1:24:44 ↗ company

1:24:45 ↗ these are all very intensive parking

1:24:47 ↗ work vehicle places so one of the

1:24:49 ↗ reasons we need the impervious surface

1:24:50 ↗ is the parking so going to two parking

1:24:53 ↗ spots per thousand square feet is really

1:24:56 ↗ going to undermine what intensive

1:24:58 ↗ commercial is all about and that's that

1:25:00 ↗ was the comment that I went to make and

1:25:01 ↗ the other thing I was gonna say is if

1:25:02 ↗ you're looking for people to that know

1:25:05 ↗ what we're you know I mean I think the

1:25:07 ↗ group here knows that 65% impervious

1:25:09 ↗ surface

1:25:10 ↗ doesn't work for us and I think that you

1:25:12 ↗ could get a consensus from everybody

1:25:13 ↗ tonight that 85 or 90% would be

1:25:15 ↗ completely acceptable I think for most

1:25:18 ↗ everybody sitting here so I just might

1:25:21 ↗ like a quick intro a lot so listen you

1:25:24 ↗ have the list you gave is the list

1:25:26 ↗ you're right that's that's four that's

1:25:27 ↗ the list I just I think the one thing

1:25:30 ↗ that that would I would say and I think

1:25:32 ↗ Tyson would agree is that impervious

1:25:34 ↗ surface and and setback aren't any

1:25:36 ↗ they're the same thing to us it

1:25:38 ↗ everybody's got good intentions

1:25:40 ↗ everybody's hearts in the right place

1:25:41 ↗ but for a retailer that's a Landgraf so

1:25:44 ↗ you're saying that my that I lose 30% of

1:25:47 ↗ my purchase service or I can't develop

1:25:49 ↗ or I can put asphalt on it and if I want

1:25:54 ↗ to build I need to come 10 feet out well

1:25:56 ↗ we have a plan to do something with the

1:25:58 ↗ back of the grains right now that ends

1:26:00 ↗ if we have a 10 foot if we're gonna put

1:26:03 ↗ in rainwater demonstration area if we're

1:26:06 ↗ gonna put in full barns to hold fire

1:26:09 ↗ logs in the summer if we have to come

1:26:11 ↗ ten feet off of the fence that that that

1:26:13 ↗ remodel goes back to the architect so so

1:26:16 ↗ your list is accurate but I think that

1:26:18 ↗ both of those impervious surface and

1:26:20 ↗ setback are don't there that's all the

1:26:23 ↗ same thing I lose 10 feet and I lose 30

1:26:26 ↗ percent can I'm having a hard time

1:26:32 ↗ understanding from the fact that we're

1:26:35 ↗ property owners we've had these rights

1:26:36 ↗ if you've guided down third Avenue when

1:26:39 ↗ you're on business day is

1:26:40 ↗ bumper-to-bumper with cars stepped up

1:26:42 ↗ your drive down Gilman Boulevard is

1:26:44 ↗ bumper-to-bumper with cars stuck on the

1:26:46 ↗ road we need the parking areas we need

1:26:48 ↗ the impervious service areas why is it

1:26:50 ↗ that the Commission or the city wants to

1:26:53 ↗ take away or we can offset we can give

1:26:56 ↗ you this if you give us this I mean we

1:26:58 ↗ already have the rights leave it alone

1:27:03 ↗ well that's a choice it's like something

1:27:24 ↗ else so so just so just not to spend too

1:27:31 ↗ much time there so the rules have

1:27:33 ↗ already changed because the council's

1:27:35 ↗ already taken you guys out of an area

1:27:37 ↗ now that's actually not all bad news I

1:27:42 ↗ mean because central Issaquah has you

1:27:45 ↗ know so your property if it was still in

1:27:47 ↗ central Issaquah you would have

1:27:49 ↗ architectural review associated with it

1:27:51 ↗ so if somebody wanted to redevelop that

1:27:53 ↗ property the building would have to look

1:27:55 ↗ like a certain building type certain

1:27:57 ↗ colors would be only what would be

1:27:59 ↗ allowed that doesn't happen now because

1:28:02 ↗ you're not in central so so some of this

1:28:04 ↗ is actually easy for easier for a

1:28:07 ↗ property owner not to be in central what

1:28:10 ↗ we're talking about is what now is going

1:28:12 ↗ to apply to your property and I think

1:28:14 ↗ we're trying to have I think as informed

1:28:17 ↗ of a conversation as possible so that a

1:28:20 ↗ decision can come out that hopefully is

1:28:23 ↗ supportive of what you're all after I

1:28:24 ↗ think that's what we're after right now

1:28:29 ↗ no no council already took action

1:28:42 ↗ so we go to choose pillars so city staff

1:28:46 ↗ is willing to spend time with you all

1:28:48 ↗ next week and as much time as you want

1:28:51 ↗ as long as we I think can conclude those

1:28:54 ↗ conversations by the end of business on

1:28:56 ↗ Tuesday so that we can potentially get

1:28:58 ↗ something to the Commission by either

1:29:00 ↗ end a business or early Wednesday so

1:29:03 ↗ that they have some time to actually

1:29:04 ↗ think about it before we go to a

1:29:06 ↗ Thursday extension meeting assuming

1:29:08 ↗ that's where the Commission wants to go

1:29:10 ↗ and I think we're still waiting for that

1:29:12 ↗ ultimate decision so 28th open meaning

1:29:18 ↗ before we vote to just bright it's a

1:29:20 ↗ regular meeting I know but is it back in

1:29:22 ↗ this room there is some discussion and

1:29:33 ↗ so nobody is really in I think we all

1:29:37 ↗ agree but in somehow different ways or

1:29:41 ↗ thinking about the same thing in a

1:29:44 ↗ different way so we need to straighten

1:29:47 ↗ that out so that we I think we all feel

1:29:50 ↗ comfortable to send their answers

1:29:51 ↗ absolutely we want to make a decision

1:29:53 ↗ that you all are comfortable with and I

1:29:55 ↗ think right now there's too many moving

1:29:57 ↗ pieces so with that I need a motion I'll

1:30:03 ↗ make a motion to move and you're picking

1:30:04 ↗ two o'clock on Tuesday your calendars

1:30:09 ↗ just busy that's those applicant

1:30:13 ↗ meetings they don't I've lost it the

1:30:15 ↗ meeting under make a motion to move the

1:30:20 ↗ public hearing proposed tenure is it

1:30:23 ↗ consumer no I have any comment

1:30:25 ↗ all right so I'm going to make a motion

1:30:27 ↗ to do the agenda item proposed rezone

1:30:35 ↗ the parcels own destination retail

1:30:37 ↗ intensive commercial outside

1:30:39 ↗ central is called plan area D to the 28

1:30:45 ↗ June I'm your calendar you have busy

1:31:07 ↗ from 2:00 to 3:00

1:31:08 ↗ is it really busy Oh totally because

1:31:11 ↗ we're trying to do we're trying to do

1:31:14 ↗ that so did everybody so didn't so let

1:31:16 ↗ me let me say this so for everybody who

1:31:19 ↗ signed up did you include an email

1:31:21 ↗ address or some way for us to contact

1:31:22 ↗ you if so then we will send out a time

1:31:27 ↗ tomorrow for when we have available for

1:31:31 ↗ a meeting somewhere here in City Hall

1:31:32 ↗ Northwest if that doesn't work for you

1:31:35 ↗ or if you want to meet with staff

1:31:37 ↗ individually you can send myself or

1:31:41 ↗ Trish or Kristen an email and we'll find

1:31:43 ↗ time to do that outside of that Tuesday

1:31:45 ↗ meeting if you can please come to the

1:31:50 ↗ meeting because I think it's more

1:31:52 ↗ productive if you're all together thank

1:31:56 ↗ you

1:31:58 ↗ my breakfast we get done right now with

1:32:02 ↗ a smile big enhance their prints right

1:32:04 ↗ no absolutely it's an open meeting now

1:32:08 ↗ any other property owner that wants to

1:32:10 ↗ convert concerned citizen would be

1:32:14 ↗ welcome area there this business know to

1:32:20 ↗ say I think you guys have the same

1:32:21 ↗ issues I mean so I don't know that we

1:32:24 ↗ need to have two separate meetings I

1:32:26 ↗ think the choices are maybe a little bit

1:32:27 ↗ different for each neighborhood but I

1:32:29 ↗ think they're the same issues at least

1:32:32 ↗ I'm hearing the same issue is there a

1:32:33 ↗ way for the meeting on Tuesday to get a

1:32:38 ↗ better grasp of the possibility yes okay

1:32:43 ↗ so my hope is either Trish or Kristen

1:32:47 ↗ can do the matrix in the next like the

1:32:50 ↗ comparison of standards yes in the next

1:32:53 ↗ couple days okay I think we've got a

1:33:00 ↗ plan so moving right along thank you all

1:33:08 ↗ for coming tonight and thank you for the

1:33:10 ↗ conversation and I think we're gonna

1:33:13 ↗ find a good outcome and be sure if your

1:33:16 ↗ email isn't on the sheet and you have

1:33:18 ↗ contact with that it's weird that we can

1:33:27 ↗ okay having trouble reading the email we

1:34:34 ↗ can just call this and then hopefully I

1:34:41 ↗ find it funny that I find it funny that

1:34:49 ↗ we spend so much time on something that

1:34:51 ↗ I thought would be easy and now we're

1:34:53 ↗ heading into something that we've had a

1:34:56 ↗ huge amount of put on

1:35:08 ↗ about their future and so it's not like

1:35:11 ↗ this was the first time that we saw

1:35:13 ↗ everybody a lot of them came and talked

1:35:15 ↗ to us this week that's the whole point

1:35:17 ↗ of the letter but they wanted to get

1:35:20 ↗ there right but they didn't know the new

1:35:22 ↗ way so it's good that so the second

1:35:43 ↗ thing on our agenda is the old town sub

1:35:45 ↗ Area Plan Update keep going they can see

1:35:53 ↗ that it went away yeah okay first things

1:35:55 ↗ first the first side that you can't see

1:35:58 ↗ says more to come so mmm things just

1:36:02 ↗ seem to evolve and you know departments

1:36:06 ↗ continue to look at things and things

1:36:08 ↗ come up and oh some issues have come up

1:36:10 ↗ with the plan and departments have ideas

1:36:14 ↗ and staff has ideas on some things that

1:36:17 ↗ need to change in old town so we're

1:36:19 ↗ trying to wrap our heads around that

1:36:20 ↗ right now so we are going to bring you a

1:36:25 ↗ revised plan once we get our head around

1:36:28 ↗ wrapped around it and that's what we'll

1:36:30 ↗ talk about on July 12th okay I can't

1:36:33 ↗ even tell you what those things are

1:36:34 ↗ right now and it's not that I don't want

1:36:38 ↗ to it's that we need to look at it and

1:36:39 ↗ and trickle it down and get the point

1:36:42 ↗ get the bullet points but we're still

1:36:46 ↗ going to talk yeah we're still going to

1:36:48 ↗ talk so there are two issues that we

1:36:50 ↗ still need to talk about and the first

1:36:51 ↗ one is the old town boundary so we have

1:36:54 ↗ looked at this many times we took a tour

1:36:57 ↗ to help us figure out what old town

1:36:59 ↗ looked like and what we wanted the

1:37:01 ↗ boundaries to be mm oh it's really hard

1:37:03 ↗ to see up here so the you might be able

1:37:08 ↗ to see the gray shading yeah

1:37:13 ↗ so is that bottom line evidence 77th

1:37:16 ↗ Street yes yes so the gray shading here

1:37:23 ↗ is the existing old town boundaries this

1:37:28 ↗ area right here it's what it's all about

1:37:31 ↗ in that used to be a central spot that

1:37:33 ↗ has now been pulled out a central spot

1:37:35 ↗ and you also discuss some really degrees

1:37:37 ↗ behind order including this one particle

1:37:39 ↗ town today the portion of the limiter

1:37:41 ↗ talked about at our last meeting is

1:37:43 ↗ South down here it's removing the area

1:37:46 ↗ west and front is south of Clark and

1:37:52 ↗ Eastern Front and south of Evans which

1:37:54 ↗ are really the school the outside was

1:37:57 ↗ full of elementary school and then some

1:37:59 ↗ single-family small life and

1:38:01 ↗ multi-family high is partnered with

1:38:04 ↗ so then our deduce sub-area boundaries a

1:38:07 ↗ thick black line right there

1:38:10 ↗ so before we've moved on I just wanted

1:38:13 ↗ to is that what you all want we would

1:38:19 ↗ have to figure that out with the

1:38:21 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments they could

1:38:23 ↗ likely go into either the go-to sex more

1:38:32 ↗ okay so the few homes that are in there

1:38:35 ↗ would their restrictions change no their

1:38:39 ↗ zoning would stay the same they're

1:38:41 ↗ useless tat nothing changes about what

1:38:42 ↗ they can and can't do with their

1:38:43 ↗ property it just pulls it out of the Old

1:38:46 ↗ Town Siberia and moves it into another

1:38:48 ↗ one comment I ask a question and the

1:38:56 ↗ reason for doing this is it mostly just

1:38:59 ↗ character fit with the old town area

1:39:01 ↗ right so when we talked about it

1:39:05 ↗ everything else seemed to fit the old

1:39:07 ↗ town grid the old town character this

1:39:09 ↗ one the parcels are much larger its

1:39:11 ↗ schools which have gone in different

1:39:13 ↗ standards anyway so yeah just keeping

1:39:15 ↗ the compact feel of what was the

1:39:17 ↗ original town okay thank you you're

1:39:20 ↗ welcome

1:39:20 ↗ George I struggled with this last

1:39:24 ↗ meeting and I spent some time on this

1:39:26 ↗ and I'm ready to back it I really like

1:39:30 ↗ having old route 10

1:39:31 ↗ brought into Old Town and addressed

1:39:35 ↗ actually doing another try to myself I

1:39:38 ↗ really does make sense I hand the idea

1:39:41 ↗ of shrinking Old Town originally but it

1:39:44 ↗ really is just massively taken up by

1:39:47 ↗ land that really

1:39:48 ↗ I'm going to be readability I'm soon so

1:39:51 ↗ I'm a proponent of these boundary lines

1:39:53 ↗ okay and then the other part but you

1:39:58 ↗ find with taking that on mobile yet with

1:40:00 ↗ these boundary lines as shown okay

1:40:02 ↗ Ron I agree with what we're seeing here

1:40:05 ↗ I think adding Old Town to the or adding

1:40:09 ↗ the old route tend to alternates ideal

1:40:11 ↗ and removing the southern half really

1:40:15 ↗ that perfectly makes the most sense so

1:40:20 ↗ can I ask one more question I'm just I'm

1:40:23 ↗ just I'm just trying to line up the map

1:40:25 ↗ with that map so Old Town would still

1:40:27 ↗ include it would not include Clark

1:40:30 ↗ Elementary correct correct but it would

1:40:32 ↗ include just north where the like the

1:40:38 ↗ hiking with the houses where we have

1:40:43 ↗ yeah which I don't know the official

1:40:46 ↗ name about to do yeah because there's

1:40:50 ↗ yeah there's two historic things right

1:40:52 ↗ there above Clark right there's the

1:40:54 ↗ trail house yes right there a few of

1:40:56 ↗ them the depot yeah Gilman Old Town Hall

1:40:58 ↗ Old Town Hall yeah yeah so all of that

1:41:01 ↗ still and the is it the it's all still

1:41:04 ↗ in that proposed to Old Town bound

1:41:05 ↗ perfect okay yeah and I will I do in a

1:41:08 ↗ point it's really small no yeah okay

1:41:25 ↗ didn't want to split a parcel either so

1:41:27 ↗ okay okay since we all agree can I get a

1:41:31 ↗ do we not want to wait until we see the

1:41:34 ↗ whole package do you want us doing the

1:41:35 ↗ boundaries that help you

1:41:38 ↗ it does help you okay okay I would like

1:41:41 ↗ to have a decision on something anything

1:41:45 ↗ and we all agree on this I would like to

1:41:50 ↗ move it forward but I need a motion

1:41:54 ↗ sure I'll make a motion that we we act

1:41:57 ↗ the old town old town plan the revised

1:42:03 ↗ boundary oh yeah this is okay you guys

1:42:37 ↗ this is up to you yeah um whether you

1:42:40 ↗ want to talk about it or table it so

1:42:41 ↗ where's my next one let's see so a few

1:42:45 ↗ things have happened so the city doesn't

1:42:46 ↗ currently have a recommendation on this

1:42:48 ↗ okay um three options have been

1:42:51 ↗ presented to you and then the the

1:42:54 ↗ economic vitality Commission the Chamber

1:42:57 ↗ of Commerce and the downtown Issaquah

1:42:59 ↗ sociation have all been notified of this

1:43:01 ↗ EBC had a long conversation last night

1:43:04 ↗ they sent us a letter and they're kind

1:43:07 ↗ of undecided they want to have a longer

1:43:08 ↗ discussion at the retreat on July 11th

1:43:10 ↗ so we would hear back from them and what

1:43:12 ↗ happened at that retreat on July 12th

1:43:14 ↗ before our PPC meeting that night on the

1:43:17 ↗ 12th we did receive a letter from the

1:43:19 ↗ chamber I have copies of those all right

1:43:20 ↗ here if you guys want to see it we did

1:43:22 ↗ receive a letter from the chamber

1:43:24 ↗ opposing the idea of limiting formula

1:43:29 ↗ businesses but there were no comments on

1:43:33 ↗ allowing them within the character of

1:43:35 ↗ Oldtown so it was they they said no to

1:43:39 ↗ limiting the uses but there was no

1:43:41 ↗ comment on we'd be okay with the uses if

1:43:43 ↗ they were within the character of

1:43:45 ↗ Oldtown or fit

1:43:46 ↗ side existing structures and the letter

1:43:49 ↗ is right there so and then I've already

1:43:52 ↗ mentioned the other two so we can talk

1:43:54 ↗ about this tonight and talk about what

1:43:55 ↗ the options are or we can wait until we

1:43:57 ↗ hear a little bit more from the EBC and

1:44:00 ↗ what they have to say so you may you may

1:44:10 ↗ be able to expand that's what I

1:44:12 ↗ interpreted from the letter so establish

1:44:26 ↗ would actually go in there

1:44:28 ↗ if something goes in there that doesn't

1:44:31 ↗ work then it's gonna go away

1:44:34 ↗ and so they have a hard time restricting

1:44:38 ↗ what does him okay and that's a that's

1:44:40 ↗ the big issue they don't think it's

1:44:42 ↗ legal and right to do that okay so

1:44:48 ↗ that's what prompted the letter to make

1:44:51 ↗ sure that they were on record okay being

1:44:56 ↗ against eliminate okay it just as a side

1:45:00 ↗ note it is legal but okay okay to

1:45:05 ↗ restrict I can't order to cut down the

1:45:07 ↗ number of businesses or to say it's only

1:45:10 ↗ mom-and-pop or if box stores could go in

1:45:14 ↗ if they have that the box stores a small

1:45:18 ↗ franchise from business like Safeway not

1:45:23 ↗ Safeway start about booth

1:45:25 ↗ dia said that would be great to have

1:45:27 ↗ those kinds of franchises in there so to

1:45:32 ↗ restrict it to the language that it is

1:45:35 ↗ limits all franchise all box so that's

1:45:40 ↗ limiting it to the language of four

1:45:41 ↗ point five which was the first option

1:45:43 ↗ that was in the packet but there were

1:45:44 ↗ two other options and they could come in

1:45:47 ↗ there they would just have to comply

1:45:49 ↗ with the standards of central Oldtown

1:45:52 ↗ were there any comments on that okay

1:45:54 ↗ and that's okay okay all right so what

1:46:01 ↗ do you want to do do you want to discuss

1:46:02 ↗ this further or do you want any waiting

1:46:03 ↗ here in EBC house to say I would like to

1:46:07 ↗ do some discussions I know they've got a

1:46:09 ↗ lot of input last last week and I think

1:46:13 ↗ that some of the issues deserve at least

1:46:16 ↗ a discussion okay now so that we can

1:46:20 ↗ eliminate them or push them on to more

1:46:23 ↗ discussion okay so four point five was

1:46:27 ↗ limiting the actual use and essentially

1:46:32 ↗ it boils down to its if it's a franchise

1:46:34 ↗ or chain business that has ten or more

1:46:37 ↗ businesses throughout the United States

1:46:39 ↗ and there would be as some exception

1:46:42 ↗ like banks without drive-through

1:46:43 ↗ professional uses grocery stores would

1:46:46 ↗ be allowed there worse there would be

1:46:47 ↗ some exceptions to that but the idea is

1:46:50 ↗ to limit they use another option was to

1:46:53 ↗ just require anything that comes in to

1:46:56 ↗ comply wholly with the old town

1:46:58 ↗ standards design standards and another

1:47:00 ↗ one another option was to require all

1:47:02 ↗ new Andrea's that redevelop to a certain

1:47:05 ↗ financial amount or - it's like the

1:47:09 ↗ assess about there are different ways of

1:47:11 ↗ doing it but they redevelop to say 50%

1:47:14 ↗ of their assessed value of their

1:47:15 ↗ property then they have to comply but if

1:47:17 ↗ it's under that they don't have to

1:47:19 ↗ comply with the standards yes so um

1:47:27 ↗ let's see oh we had them all written

1:47:30 ↗ down on my desk and they were beautiful

1:47:31 ↗ um so option B on the slide they

1:47:47 ↗ wouldn't help they could just move in

1:47:48 ↗ and they wouldn't have to do anything

1:47:50 ↗ but if they moved in - if a building

1:47:53 ↗ came down they would have to meet the

1:47:56 ↗ standard right so let's try different so

1:47:58 ↗ um Home Depot wants to go into the where

1:48:05 ↗ the market used to be under a they would

1:48:10 ↗ have to meet all of the standards in Old

1:48:13 ↗ Town if they go into the market under

1:48:16 ↗ scenario B they only have to meet the

1:48:21 ↗ standards if they redevelop or make

1:48:24 ↗ improvements to that property that our

1:48:26 ↗ 50-person example 50% or more of their

1:48:28 ↗ assessed value so if they only do make

1:48:31 ↗ improvements that are up to 40% they

1:48:34 ↗ don't have to make any change they don't

1:48:35 ↗ have to comply with the standards

1:48:40 ↗ they made a 20% improvement and then a

1:48:43 ↗ year later did another 20% that you know

1:48:46 ↗ that they can do that under the current

1:48:49 ↗ central under the current code under the

1:48:51 ↗ IMC but in central Issaquah there's a

1:48:53 ↗ phasing I think it's still there a

1:48:55 ↗ phasing plan where they have to show you

1:48:58 ↗ know their plans over the next ten years

1:48:59 ↗ or something and if that totals then

1:49:03 ↗ they have to comply so it there we could

1:49:07 ↗ apply something like that in the city in

1:49:09 ↗ this situation correct that doesn't

1:49:16 ↗ affect the use just what it looks like

1:49:19 ↗ so the use when we're talking about

1:49:22 ↗ restricting the use we haven't actually

1:49:24 ↗ wrote that in here and that's four point

1:49:28 ↗ five the first one okay four point five

1:49:35 ↗ or options ANB right

1:49:41 ↗ why don't we uh Joan why we open us up

1:49:44 ↗ yeah I was gonna wait for Ron to finish

1:49:46 ↗ and then I'm finished oh thank you okay

1:49:49 ↗ so I opened the Tama forum at 8:25 and

1:49:53 ↗ asked if anybody would like to speak on

1:49:55 ↗ the park whole town plan is there

1:50:02 ↗ anybody that would like to speak so

1:50:12 ↗ steeper whole town about 10 years so on

1:50:17 ↗ the the boundary area again I'd like to

1:50:21 ↗ hear more the vision for including the

1:50:23 ↗ ov-10 and what that vision and

1:50:25 ↗ neighborhood can and should be designed

1:50:28 ↗ I'm glad those neighborhood businesses

1:50:30 ↗ are gonna have a chance to meet I just

1:50:32 ↗ think there's a wider community meeting

1:50:33 ↗ that needs to be part of that discussion

1:50:34 ↗ as well that hasn't happened yet I think

1:50:37 ↗ that same conversation needs to happen

1:50:39 ↗ with whether or not to reduce the old

1:50:44 ↗ town sub area neighborhood area a wider

1:50:48 ↗ vision wire why not I think we need to

1:50:50 ↗ look at not just worse we put the

1:50:51 ↗ welcome to to Old Town as call sign but

1:50:54 ↗ where do we want that neighborhood to be

1:50:56 ↗ should it be looked at for a different

1:50:57 ↗ zoning for other things that needs to be

1:51:01 ↗ discussion happens before that gets

1:51:04 ↗ decided a vision of what a cannon should

1:51:06 ↗ be those pieces having discussed I did

1:51:12 ↗ send a lot of input in writing form I

1:51:15 ↗ didn't want to talk about specifics I

1:51:17 ↗ agree with the city though that the

1:51:19 ↗ current standards for height don't meet

1:51:23 ↗ and folks have had a lot of time to try

1:51:25 ↗ to decide if they wanted to and have the

1:51:27 ↗ opportunity to build by current

1:51:28 ↗ standards they haven't I don't think the

1:51:30 ↗ proposed standards though are what the

1:51:32 ↗ vision for the old town of is and

1:51:34 ↗ needs to be retained for stories and an

1:51:38 ↗ increase in impervious service I think

1:51:40 ↗ those things are not just about code but

1:51:43 ↗ they're about the aesthetic of the

1:51:44 ↗ neighborhood and the area and the vision

1:51:46 ↗ that we can be and I think we're

1:51:47 ↗ changing what the people who live in

1:51:49 ↗ that area

1:51:50 ↗ design and wanted it to be I don't think

1:51:53 ↗ this me

1:51:54 ↗ what the envision and the goal of the

1:51:56 ↗ people living there is and I'm asking

1:52:00 ↗ you to consider lower height standards

1:52:04 ↗ lower density lower impervious surfaces

1:52:06 ↗ again I think those are part of the

1:52:08 ↗ aesthetic of the neighborhood I'm

1:52:12 ↗ talking about the old town sub area

1:52:14 ↗ neighborhood I'm so front street and

1:52:17 ↗ sunsets specifically but it includes I

1:52:19 ↗ think a wider area if you look at the

1:52:21 ↗ whole sub sub area district again I

1:52:28 ↗ don't want to talk about all the things

1:52:29 ↗ that I've said on the one specific piece

1:52:32 ↗ I did talk about was the umbrellas

1:52:34 ↗ signage and I think the couple

1:52:35 ↗ businesses I had thought of were

1:52:37 ↗ restaurants and they were advertising

1:52:38 ↗ alcoholic products on the umbrellas if

1:52:41 ↗ that's allowed by city code then I think

1:52:43 ↗ that should be changed to not allow

1:52:45 ↗ signage III I'm I'm not I'm calling out

1:52:52 ↗ a couple things like I said I wasn't

1:52:55 ↗ gonna repeat everything so so I there's

1:53:05 ↗ been a lot of chances and opportunities

1:53:06 ↗ folks have said or not to build I think

1:53:08 ↗ by increasing the impervious service

1:53:10 ↗ you're also changing design a vision of

1:53:13 ↗ something that's historic and character

1:53:15 ↗ and has class and charm to something

1:53:17 ↗ that isn't that anymore so again I think

1:53:21 ↗ there should be more keeping in

1:53:23 ↗ character with what the residents of

1:53:25 ↗ those areas want not just what the

1:53:27 ↗ businesses want

1:53:29 ↗ that's a draw to the people of certain

1:53:33 ↗ areas to Issaquah not by making it the

1:53:35 ↗ same as CIP or other areas but keeping

1:53:37 ↗ it different and unique thank you

1:53:42 ↗ I appreciate your interest and your

1:53:47 ↗ detail-oriented suggestions so since

1:53:54 ↗ there anybody else that would like to

1:53:56 ↗ speak on the Old Town plan

1:54:15 ↗ my name is Geraldine Carrie I live at

1:54:18 ↗ 955 17th Avenue Northwest Issaquah as to

1:54:23 ↗ the character of Old Town a lot has

1:54:25 ↗ changed in 40 years

1:54:27 ↗ it went from a quaint little farming

1:54:29 ↗ community into this development that you

1:54:34 ↗ know just has you know the city left

1:54:37 ↗ with no heart and soul every seems like

1:54:40 ↗ every business that goes in it just kind

1:54:43 ↗ of makes a boxy when I tried to find out

1:54:47 ↗ what was going to go into the old Front

1:54:49 ↗ Street market they told me they they

1:54:51 ↗ couldn't tell me that all it had to do

1:54:54 ↗ was meet certain requirements and then

1:54:58 ↗ that was it and when I look at the

1:55:01 ↗ dollar store I mean I think it's

1:55:03 ↗ deplorable what we did to that area of

1:55:05 ↗ the town I mean you just took away the

1:55:07 ↗ soul and heart of that area and I think

1:55:10 ↗ you need to think about the people who

1:55:12 ↗ live there I mean it's just you know

1:55:13 ↗ green spying with white letters or

1:55:15 ↗ whatever and it has no character I mean

1:55:17 ↗ I when I see that Sun I think of coming

1:55:19 ↗ up on 900 through Renton Highlands how

1:55:23 ↗ horrible that development looks and if

1:55:25 ↗ you let businesses go in you know

1:55:28 ↗ because they can afford it and they can

1:55:30 ↗ pay you know the the going price you

1:55:33 ↗ know what says what's the front street

1:55:36 ↗ going to look like I mean is it just

1:55:37 ↗ gonna be you know a bunch of you know

1:55:39 ↗ ticky tacky boxes and no character I

1:55:42 ↗ mean you know when I moved here we had a

1:55:44 ↗ little dress shop we had a shoe store

1:55:46 ↗ you know we had we had a Ben Franklin I

1:55:51 ↗ mean there was so much character to that

1:55:52 ↗ end of town and now you know it just has

1:55:55 ↗ no character

1:55:56 ↗ I mean I'm sad about the fact that you

1:55:59 ↗ know the store but I don't even let's

1:56:03 ↗ call money tree dollar tree or whatever

1:56:05 ↗ I mean I I won't patronize it I hope

1:56:07 ↗ everybody who sees it and is put off by

1:56:09 ↗ it won't patronize it I'm sad it just

1:56:13 ↗ you know it makes Issaquah look ugly

1:56:16 ↗ thank you

1:56:27 ↗ Mary Lynch I just want to comment on the

1:56:29 ↗ process and and a couple other things

1:56:31 ↗ one is I think it's really a shame that

1:56:35 ↗ the old town had another public hearing

1:56:38 ↗ over at an Center in City Hall at the

1:56:42 ↗ same time as this one and I think a lot

1:56:45 ↗ of people didn't know that this was here

1:56:47 ↗ and not at the other City Hall so they

1:56:51 ↗ didn't come over here and with all the

1:56:53 ↗ traffic in town tonight

1:56:54 ↗ I think some of the people just decided

1:56:56 ↗ they're not going to listen to us anyway

1:56:58 ↗ so why should we come that being said

1:57:00 ↗ the the map that you showed up there I

1:57:03 ↗ couldn't find any place on the web so do

1:57:08 ↗ the people that are being taken out know

1:57:11 ↗ that they're being removed and how do

1:57:12 ↗ they know that they're being removed to

1:57:14 ↗ come and talk and just like you're

1:57:16 ↗ having meetings as Steve said with the

1:57:19 ↗ businesses I think you need to meet with

1:57:21 ↗ those people that live down there the

1:57:23 ↗ HOAs and the the others and give them

1:57:26 ↗ idea of what's going to happen because

1:57:27 ↗ one person I talked to you just felt you

1:57:29 ↗ were shoving them off again you know

1:57:31 ↗ they might as well just succeed into

1:57:33 ↗ King County because they have no idea

1:57:35 ↗ what this the impact of being removed

1:57:37 ↗ from here is going to do so you're

1:57:39 ↗ saying it may go into Sycamore they

1:57:40 ↗ don't know they don't know what the

1:57:42 ↗ codes are so I'm really concerned about

1:57:44 ↗ the process and the lack of involvement

1:57:46 ↗ just one other comment as I still

1:57:49 ↗ question whether the Dollar Tree sign

1:57:51 ↗ fits the new city code and that's my

1:57:53 ↗ concern I don't think it fits the

1:57:56 ↗ existing signed standards and the fact

1:58:00 ↗ that they were allowed to just paint it

1:58:02 ↗ over I think is atrocious also is there

1:58:10 ↗ anybody else that would like to make

1:58:20 ↗ so I popped the formula businesses up on

1:58:23 ↗ next-door to see what people had to say

1:58:26 ↗ and people have been opining at length

1:58:31 ↗ in both directions so I think it's an

1:58:34 ↗ interesting topic of conversation but I

1:58:36 ↗ think it's a community conversation

1:58:38 ↗ it is not a Chamber of Commerce

1:58:40 ↗ conversation or even just an economic

1:58:42 ↗ vitality community conversation because

1:58:45 ↗ as you can see if you read next door

1:58:46 ↗ it's it's like Jer it's our soul it's

1:58:49 ↗ art it's our community and many many

1:58:52 ↗ cities all over the US have their core

1:58:56 ↗ areas that don't allow formula stores or

1:58:58 ↗ they have very rigid standards for their

1:59:00 ↗ designs and so it's really sort of

1:59:03 ↗ common in certain areas so and then it

1:59:09 ↗ sort of makes me laugh I remember the

1:59:10 ↗ first old town meeting where I said wow

1:59:13 ↗ you know that that area south doesn't

1:59:15 ↗ fit and and Steve said that that area on

1:59:19 ↗ Gilman should be in and here we are and

1:59:23 ↗ we've come clear round in circles and so

1:59:26 ↗ now everybody agrees I am happy with

1:59:30 ↗ that we're good

1:59:33 ↗ so the question of how long we've been

1:59:38 ↗ doing it a year two and a half I'm sorry

1:59:42 ↗ two and a half years so how many people

1:59:44 ↗ have been lost along the way and sort of

1:59:47 ↗ like I did with Gilman do we need to

1:59:50 ↗ actually go deliver flyers to all these

1:59:52 ↗ people who are impacted in the area so

1:59:54 ↗ that they actually know that things are

1:59:55 ↗ happening to them how do you solve that

1:59:57 ↗ core problem of surprise and horror when

2:00:02 ↗ things start changing in the community

2:00:04 ↗ and they knows that nothing about it

2:00:05 ↗ until the last meeting right I think I

2:00:07 ↗ think we have next year a notification

2:00:11 ↗ changes notice noticing changes for the

2:00:14 ↗ code I think we need to implement

2:00:17 ↗ something sooner than that and

2:00:21 ↗ standardize it until we get it done and

2:00:24 ↗ so that would be what PPC you guys are

2:00:27 ↗ going to get these same people who are

2:00:28 ↗ upset so if you can ask

2:00:31 ↗ for staff to figure out a system to help

2:00:34 ↗ it might make life easier

2:00:38 ↗ yeah I know I'm looking at y'all

2:00:41 ↗ cuz I'll do it I'll walk door-to-door

2:00:44 ↗ I'm not employed anymore

2:00:46 ↗ sort of I swear I will I sort of like it

2:00:50 ↗ but something has got to change I think

2:00:55 ↗ the first question I asked was will

2:00:57 ↗ anything change with those homes and so

2:01:01 ↗ I think if there is concern in the

2:01:05 ↗ neighborhoods then we haven't done our

2:01:07 ↗ job to show them that everything in

2:01:11 ↗ their neighborhood is going to stay

2:01:13 ↗ exactly the same there gonna be no more

2:01:15 ↗ extra rules or regulations or and that

2:01:19 ↗ there'll be no different you can still

2:01:20 ↗ walk from there will be no different

2:01:23 ↗ it's just the designation of the area

2:01:28 ↗ central control did have different

2:01:30 ↗ standards and so the standards had to

2:01:33 ↗ change for those taken out but Old Town

2:01:36 ↗ and sycamore they have the same

2:01:37 ↗ standards it's all the same zoning so

2:01:40 ↗ the zoning doesn't change when you move

2:01:42 ↗ out of Old Town it stays the same as it

2:01:44 ↗ was when it was in Old Town

2:01:47 ↗ it's a boundary change right but the

2:01:50 ↗ regulations stay the same yeah well

2:01:52 ↗ apparently we're I'm hearing some things

2:01:55 ↗ that people are concerned that there are

2:01:57 ↗ going to be changes and more

2:02:00 ↗ requirements and cost the money and not

2:02:03 ↗ allow them to do certain things and

2:02:05 ↗ since it doesn't change it would be wise

2:02:08 ↗ for the city to make sure they know I

2:02:12 ↗ don't know if you have to go

2:02:14 ↗ door-to-door but you know just doing a

2:02:17 ↗ flyer most people don't even read it or

2:02:22 ↗ understand it or

2:02:24 ↗ having a community meeting at least you

2:02:28 ↗ invite people first I don't know some

2:02:31 ↗ some way to get them to know that there

2:02:33 ↗ is no change yeah cuz I would agree I

2:02:37 ↗ don't think there's a shared

2:02:38 ↗ understanding in the community of what

2:02:40 ↗ it means to no longer be in Old Town and

2:02:42 ↗ from an emotional connection standpoint

2:02:44 ↗ I think a lot of people have an idea of

2:02:47 ↗ what they think Old Town means so people

2:02:48 ↗ thought they were part of it and

2:02:50 ↗ suddenly they're not they're not gonna

2:02:51 ↗ know oh it doesn't matter it doesn't

2:02:53 ↗ change my land-use at all I don't think

2:02:56 ↗ the average person is gonna know that so

2:02:59 ↗ do you guys mind throwing that map up

2:03:02 ↗ one more time

2:03:03 ↗ so I'm at and I might have missed it and

2:03:07 ↗ I didn't mention it what and and maybe

2:03:09 ↗ it's not a concern to anyone else but I

2:03:11 ↗ walk around town a lot and I use our

2:03:13 ↗ trail system a lot the one thing we are

2:03:16 ↗ gonna lose

2:03:17 ↗ taking that chunk out is the Rainier

2:03:19 ↗ trail that runs down from the community

2:03:23 ↗ center and crosses down second I believe

2:03:26 ↗ is in that section and I'm only pointing

2:03:29 ↗ it out again I don't know if history

2:03:32 ↗ wise if there's a there was a connection

2:03:35 ↗ of that being part of what we thought

2:03:38 ↗ was Old Town but that was I just wanted

2:03:40 ↗ to point that out I don't know if that's

2:03:41 ↗ a deal or not but part of it was the

2:03:44 ↗ part of it was the railroad track but

2:03:46 ↗ that I believe but that doesn't change

2:03:48 ↗ it's still part of the city yeah I

2:03:51 ↗ understand that

2:03:51 ↗ yeah it's own community facilities and

2:03:54 ↗ it's all part of the same trail so it's

2:03:55 ↗ still treated the same okay I bring it

2:03:57 ↗ up just simply as a larger conversation

2:03:59 ↗ I feel like as a city we keep having

2:04:01 ↗ about how do we make our city walkable

2:04:03 ↗ and bikable and and what does that look

2:04:05 ↗ like and accessibility and so I know

2:04:08 ↗ it's just semantics but I've just been

2:04:10 ↗ you know pointing out that that's you

2:04:13 ↗ know that kind of system runs through

2:04:15 ↗ and so again I don't know how much we

2:04:16 ↗ connect it to that but that was the only

2:04:19 ↗ the only other thing I hadn't noticed

2:04:21 ↗ and I I just wanted to clarify his boom

2:04:23 ↗ or is the the pool still within or is

2:04:26 ↗ okay and then the skate park next to the

2:04:29 ↗ community center

2:04:30 ↗ does that does the line go around that

2:04:31 ↗ or is it that yeah the skate parks moved

2:04:36 ↗ so it's not there anymore no there's

2:04:37 ↗ I mean it's kids use it whether it's

2:04:43 ↗ official or not I don't know but yeah it

2:04:49 ↗ would still be in then okay okay thank

2:04:52 ↗ you

2:04:52 ↗ yes so we obviously table

2:05:00 ↗ but it is our recommendation that that

2:05:07 ↗ this area is now okay and then next week

2:05:13 ↗ no whenever right this will be July 12

2:05:16 ↗ right yes so we've gotten a lot of

2:05:24 ↗ comments unless there's something else

2:05:25 ↗ you want to say I would like to go over

2:05:27 ↗ companies I know that Keith has spent

2:05:30 ↗ the time to answer the questions and

2:05:33 ↗ some of them are valid and I'd like to

2:05:35 ↗ go through them really quickly so if you

2:05:38 ↗ want to come up and take a copy a copy

2:05:40 ↗ of your

2:05:52 ↗ there's piles right what are we so how

2:06:06 ↗ do you want to do this sure so ok

2:06:23 ↗ alright so number one you know we talked

2:06:27 ↗ about the the boundary change and I

2:06:32 ↗ think that there was a request that the

2:06:35 ↗ staff should be clear on the proposed

2:06:40 ↗ boundary change and whether we support

2:06:41 ↗ that and so I think what you heard this

2:06:45 ↗ evening was that we do support the

2:06:48 ↗ proposed boundary change and the the map

2:06:50 ↗ revision as is why would you City

2:07:02 ↗ go what go to the reasoning behind yeah

2:07:05 ↗ the reason behind to answer the question

2:07:08 ↗ that was asked sure so I'm gonna turn it

2:07:11 ↗ over to my staff who led that

2:07:12 ↗ conversation about the map change port

2:07:18 ↗ the map change in the current boundary

2:07:20 ↗ you know why why do you what's the value

2:07:22 ↗ of changing it I think it recognizes the

2:07:25 ↗ original Township and kind of solidifies

2:07:29 ↗ what it was this part to the South

2:07:31 ↗ doesn't really have any ties it has two

2:07:33 ↗ ties to the city with its schools and

2:07:35 ↗ two areas outside that are within the

2:07:37 ↗ school district but not

2:07:39 ↗ necessarily to Old Town Old Town is um

2:07:42 ↗ it's unique I was gonna say it's tight

2:07:44 ↗ it's tight NIT tight kind of but yeah so

2:07:56 ↗ so there's probably like thirty answers

2:07:59 ↗ here so you want to go through each of

2:08:00 ↗ them individually okay

2:08:09 ↗ so part of the reason for doing a

2:08:11 ↗ written response was so that we wouldn't

2:08:13 ↗ have to do this and so in the future I

2:08:17 ↗ guess I would rather not spend three

2:08:19 ↗ hours on a Sunday doing this if we're

2:08:21 ↗ gonna have to go through each of them

2:08:22 ↗ individually

2:08:23 ↗ I guess my suggestion would be if the

2:08:26 ↗ Commission had questions on the

2:08:27 ↗ responses now if you have a question on

2:08:29 ↗ every response we'll go through every

2:08:30 ↗ one of them but to go through each of

2:08:33 ↗ them individually seems yes so I'm

2:08:41 ↗ looking for the Commission again if the

2:08:43 ↗ Commission wants to go through all of

2:08:44 ↗ them we will do that for the next hour

2:08:46 ↗ if you would rather not do that and I

2:08:49 ↗ would be more than happy to go through

2:08:51 ↗ any that you might have questions on so

2:08:59 ↗ would you like this back to see your

2:09:00 ↗ okay No

2:09:03 ↗ I really appreciated stuff so I I

2:09:06 ↗ appreciated these comments the previous

2:09:08 ↗ meeting which is part of why we wanted

2:09:10 ↗ to continue that discussion

2:09:16 ↗ put it on the desktop if we put it on

2:09:20 ↗ the desktop and I'm sure I like everyone

2:09:23 ↗ else spent our weekend going through and

2:09:25 ↗ every email that we got going through it

2:09:26 ↗ and being able to kind of give this that

2:09:28 ↗ time I really like staff's response I

2:09:31 ↗ think Lera fied some things that you

2:09:33 ↗ know a good example would be the

2:09:35 ↗ umbrellas and I you know it's gonna be

2:09:38 ↗ anyway we're driving through of looking

2:09:40 ↗ and I kind of actually observing what

2:09:43 ↗ businesses have a blank umbrella which

2:09:44 ↗ ones do have advertising and trying to

2:09:47 ↗ kind of see the balance of saying you

2:09:49 ↗ know it's a popular thing on sailboats

2:09:50 ↗ you rarely you often see advertising of

2:09:53 ↗ sailboats because sales are very

2:09:54 ↗ expensive we have to replace them very

2:09:56 ↗ often there's a reason for it and so

2:09:57 ↗ having to mandate our businesses or to

2:10:00 ↗ link at all times and do it flow change

2:10:03 ↗ I don't know it's something that we're

2:10:04 ↗ wanting to do right now on a policy

2:10:05 ↗ level so I was able to from getting

2:10:08 ↗ staffs response to that I was able to

2:10:09 ↗ see that this is not the time or the

2:10:12 ↗ place to kind of start parceling out

2:10:14 ↗ some of those details so when trying to

2:10:16 ↗ redirect us back to the policy

2:10:18 ↗ discussion that we're trying to have so

2:10:20 ↗ I appreciated the replies the staff gave

2:10:22 ↗ us from this memo well thanks and and

2:10:28 ↗ specifically to the umbrella issue I

2:10:31 ↗ think your point is right you know so

2:10:33 ↗ it's in code now right so you can it can

2:10:35 ↗ be anywhere in the city in the Highlands

2:10:37 ↗ it could be in Gillman and so if we feel

2:10:41 ↗ like Old Town is different and you know

2:10:44 ↗ it shouldn't have advertisement for

2:10:47 ↗ coffee or anything else on the umbrellas

2:10:50 ↗ then we should have that conversation

2:10:51 ↗ but my point was to show you that it's a

2:10:54 ↗ Loudoun code now and and that then leads

2:10:57 ↗ you guys to whether you think Old Town

2:10:59 ↗ deserves a different treatment than the

2:11:01 ↗ rest of the city it may be helpful the

2:11:03 ↗ same way that we're looking

2:11:05 ↗ you know some very separate issues but

2:11:08 ↗ we're looking at the possible down

2:11:09 ↗ zoning and we're looking want to have a

2:11:11 ↗ chart of saying exactly show me what we

2:11:13 ↗ got show me what the options are right

2:11:16 ↗ now it may be helpful to say here's what

2:11:19 ↗ is going on in Old Town and based on

2:11:21 ↗ these policy changes this is now what we

2:11:23 ↗ would have a good example that is

2:11:25 ↗ Heights you know when we went around on

2:11:27 ↗ our tour it was easy to see hey what's

2:11:29 ↗ this weird building oh there was a

2:11:31 ↗ reaction from community from this we

2:11:33 ↗ want to try to avoid this that was a

2:11:34 ↗ good example to when we hear things like

2:11:36 ↗ more story to story maybe three stories

2:11:39 ↗ a good in-between kind of theme it might

2:11:41 ↗ be helpful when we receive this again on

2:11:43 ↗ July 12 to be able to see if there if

2:11:46 ↗ the policy is denoting a change and we

2:11:49 ↗ expect that the next step will be code

2:11:51 ↗ obviously right what that is and maybe

2:11:53 ↗ that would be a clear line for people to

2:11:55 ↗ be able to see in the community oh this

2:11:58 ↗ would be really opposed to or maybe and

2:12:08 ↗ some photos I think of are also helpful

2:12:10 ↗ to you know at least capture the

2:12:13 ↗ conversation because you know when we're

2:12:15 ↗ sitting in the council chambers

2:12:16 ↗ sometimes it's our division kind of

2:12:18 ↗ really what was sizing about I think

2:12:23 ↗ we're trying to get the memo up

2:12:28 ↗ certainly not an hour they get the speed

2:12:31 ↗ I'm operating right now it would have

2:12:33 ↗ taken it out no no I wouldn't let you

2:12:35 ↗ take it over I mean most of them I don't

2:12:40 ↗ you know there's no question on that

2:12:42 ↗ there were one or two like the umbrellas

2:12:44 ↗ I just you had put in here

2:12:48 ↗ PPC we'll discuss right so with that I

2:12:52 ↗ want I thought maybe you thought that

2:12:55 ↗ there was some reason to well I think we

2:13:00 ↗ started that and and so if you know if

2:13:02 ↗ you guys feel strongly about no

2:13:05 ↗ advertisement on so it can't advertise a

2:13:08 ↗ business because that's a sign right but

2:13:10 ↗ if it's advertising a product that is

2:13:12 ↗ allowed yeah I think it's point I go

2:13:15 ↗ into you know different

2:13:18 ↗ the world in there you know it just I

2:13:20 ↗ don't know it just to me it seems not

2:13:26 ↗ the businesses because of the sign code

2:13:31 ↗ so another one we can talk about is is

2:13:34 ↗ building heights

2:13:36 ↗ Steve had suggested in two stories on

2:13:41 ↗ Front Street and right now it's really

2:13:45 ↗ five and kind of you know so I put some

2:13:50 ↗ photos in the memo to show you kind of

2:13:53 ↗ some of the buildings that are

2:13:54 ↗ definitely more than two now and and so

2:13:58 ↗ so the choice for you guys is if you

2:14:00 ↗ think two is the right height we can do

2:14:04 ↗ that that would create some

2:14:06 ↗ non-conformities with what's out there

2:14:08 ↗ that's taller than two you know where we

2:14:11 ↗ initially started was anymore I think

2:14:15 ↗ one of the suggestions that Kristen

2:14:17 ↗ alluded to earlier is I think there's a

2:14:21 ↗ new ask to maybe go to three so so that

2:14:27 ↗ so is there or just to me it was

2:14:31 ↗ compromised by the numbers but have you

2:14:33 ↗ you didn't know it's coming it's coming

2:14:35 ↗ yeah and then yeah so so what what we

2:14:39 ↗ talked about today doing is part of this

2:14:41 ↗ is you know this getting right that

2:14:46 ↗ outreach piece you know if you're a

2:14:48 ↗ property owner and you can do five now

2:14:51 ↗ and you wake up tomorrow and do two or

2:14:53 ↗ three that's a significant and so what

2:14:57 ↗ we talked about possibly was was putting

2:15:02 ↗ something in policy level that opens up

2:15:06 ↗ that conversation the action steps will

2:15:09 ↗ be clearer that that's kind of where

2:15:11 ↗ we're heading but you know if at the end

2:15:14 ↗ of a long or hopefully appropriate level

2:15:17 ↗ of public outreach and conversation with

2:15:20 ↗ the community you know the answer is

2:15:22 ↗ whether it's two or three or four you

2:15:24 ↗ know the hope would be we don't have to

2:15:26 ↗ meet you

2:15:26 ↗ go back in and change the plan right and

2:15:29 ↗ so part of I think what we're trying to

2:15:31 ↗ do is figure out how to structure this

2:15:33 ↗ in a way that the policies in the plan

2:15:36 ↗ give us enough direction to then have

2:15:38 ↗ those code conversations and whatever

2:15:40 ↗ comes out of those code conversations

2:15:43 ↗ works for whatever policy we had in the

2:15:45 ↗ plan and so that's part of what we're

2:15:48 ↗ doing now and we're also going back

2:15:50 ↗ since the strategic plan has been

2:15:53 ↗ running on its own little path for the

2:15:55 ↗ city and we know that we know the at

2:15:59 ↗ least what's likely to be the five focus

2:16:03 ↗ areas there's key priorities for the

2:16:05 ↗ strategic plan and they happen to semi

2:16:07 ↗ parallel what's in the old town plan I

2:16:09 ↗ mean you know it's it's mobility and its

2:16:12 ↗ environment and so one of the things

2:16:15 ↗ that was asked of us was you know you

2:16:18 ↗ need to kind of read that and look it

2:16:20 ↗ back now cross check it against what's

2:16:23 ↗ in the draft old town plan and see if

2:16:25 ↗ they're talking the same language right

2:16:28 ↗ and so that's another reason why you

2:16:31 ↗ know as we talked about this today we

2:16:32 ↗ said you know we need more time we need

2:16:34 ↗ I hate to say we need more time with the

2:16:35 ↗ old town plan because as as Kristen said

2:16:38 ↗ we've kind of had it moving for a while

2:16:40 ↗ but I think we're getting towards that

2:16:43 ↗ end point where there's some kind of

2:16:45 ↗ pretty significant hey look there's the

2:16:47 ↗ memo so some pretty significant changes

2:16:52 ↗ you know technology and you know this is

2:16:55 ↗ so the idea for this room is there was a

2:16:59 ↗ ask to have more things televised and so

2:17:02 ↗ there's going to be more overlap with

2:17:05 ↗ things happening at City in the city

2:17:07 ↗ council chambers and so we needed two

2:17:09 ↗ venues and so communications has been

2:17:13 ↗ working hard to get this room ready for

2:17:15 ↗ that we're not quite there yet but we're

2:17:18 ↗ we're getting there and it so be a

2:17:23 ↗ little patient with us as we kind of get

2:17:25 ↗ ourselves up to having two real

2:17:27 ↗ televised venues so anyway so if you

2:17:32 ↗ would like to go through this more

2:17:34 ↗ methodically we can oh I thought you

2:17:38 ↗ that you know this is done and do you

2:17:41 ↗ got to the ones where I mean Steve is I

2:17:44 ↗ think received this answer he did from

2:17:47 ↗ from you guys so but there were just a

2:17:50 ↗ couple in there that said PPC will

2:17:52 ↗ discuss sure so Trish can you scroll

2:17:55 ↗ down till we get to the ones where the

2:17:57 ↗ response is PPC will discuss I think it

2:18:05 ↗ might land there just because there's

2:18:08 ↗ been some additional conversations about

2:18:11 ↗ hi internally situation and that might

2:18:54 ↗ want to take more of a map form you know

2:18:57 ↗ because what you could have is existing

2:18:59 ↗ and then proposed like as numerator and

2:19:02 ↗ denominator so that you could see in the

2:19:04 ↗ areas like a long sunset where we've

2:19:06 ↗ talked about lowering that to three okay

2:19:09 ↗ what's right behind it and is it to you

2:19:12 ↗ know because I think I think

2:19:15 ↗ geographically it might make make sense

2:19:17 ↗ for you guys to see that relationship

2:19:21 ↗ [Laughter]

2:19:29 ↗ sure sure okay the first one that came

2:19:35 ↗ out is that electric cars so charging

2:19:39 ↗ stations you know so that's part of the

2:19:42 ↗ city's sustainability effort the

2:19:45 ↗ charging stations here at City Hall

2:19:47 ↗ Northwest are actually almost used all

2:19:49 ↗ the time and so and I can't speak for

2:19:53 ↗ the ones that are scattered through the

2:19:55 ↗ rest of the city there's some by

2:19:56 ↗ Walgreens and community gardens

2:20:04 ↗ community gardens are packed they do

2:20:07 ↗ have weeds but it's you know part of it

2:20:10 ↗ is the the folks that are using them as

2:20:13 ↗ plots are supposed to take care of them

2:20:15 ↗ and usually there's a waiting list so if

2:20:18 ↗ people don't then they don't get plots

2:20:20 ↗ again and that's the way they kind of

2:20:22 ↗ self-regulate so you're telling me I

2:20:30 ↗ made a bigger deal out of that than it

2:20:31 ↗ was all right but that Susan put that in

2:20:34 ↗ the note it's a safe Oh has the ability

2:20:49 ↗ and the authority to make any

2:20:51 ↗ recommendations that desire and that's

2:20:53 ↗ true it is true seeing it in writing

2:20:58 ↗ makes me think I have more power than I

2:21:01 ↗ do anyway so I I don't know I know you

2:21:10 ↗ guys have read the rest of them is there

2:21:12 ↗ anything else that you want to add or

2:21:15 ↗ discuss so there's so because so the

2:21:23 ↗ next step would be we'd get you guys a

2:21:25 ↗ redline plan and a map and maybe a

2:21:29 ↗ matrix if that makes sense so we'll try

2:21:32 ↗ and get you guys the tools so that next

2:21:34 ↗ time we have this conversation about old

2:21:36 ↗ town hopefully it'll be

2:21:38 ↗ close to the last conversation about old

2:21:41 ↗ town but you know this one once did I

2:21:45 ↗ you know I want to get it right as you

2:21:48 ↗ guys do so you know there's no real

2:21:51 ↗ magic we turn into a pumpkin moment like

2:21:54 ↗ there was with the last agenda item you

2:21:56 ↗ know we don't have 90 days to make a

2:21:58 ↗ decision or else something bad happens

2:22:00 ↗ we have more time doesn't necessarily

2:22:05 ↗ have to be perfect you know we can't

2:22:09 ↗ describe discuss it and discuss it so we

2:22:11 ↗ have to make a decision at some point

2:22:13 ↗ right and you you know just like in any

2:22:16 ↗ other piece of literature in the city

2:22:21 ↗ you can always come back the next week

2:22:24 ↗ and make changes right so establish this

2:22:33 ↗ baseline vision of what you want it to

2:22:35 ↗ be the rest of that can discuss incant a

2:22:37 ↗ place during the standards discussion

2:22:39 ↗ which is next but we do have to get to a

2:22:54 ↗ point I think that it's really important

2:22:58 ↗ to bring people for the community in but

2:23:02 ↗ you know you have this discussion II

2:23:03 ↗ make a kind of decision than somebody

2:23:05 ↗ who hasn't been in the discussions now

2:23:08 ↗ come in so do you start from day one or

2:23:10 ↗ do you you know continue on with what

2:23:15 ↗ contributions you pass so it

2:23:18 ↗ there's so many things to do and there's

2:23:21 ↗ only two planners that are able to come

2:23:26 ↗ in you of course but oh yeah so so

2:23:32 ↗ there's so many things that have to be

2:23:34 ↗ done at the same time show we can get

2:23:37 ↗ some of these big pictures done Jamie

2:23:49 ↗ earlier had made a comment that we may

2:23:51 ↗ need more public outreach on the old

2:23:54 ↗ town sub area plan of removing the

2:23:55 ↗ boundaries so tonight we're supposed to

2:23:59 ↗ make a decision

2:24:01 ↗ no no it's being extended till July 12

2:24:04 ↗ yeah it says it but we're proposing it

2:24:06 ↗ got it all right so do we want to talk

2:24:11 ↗ about how that might look

2:24:13 ↗ do we want to talk about doing an

2:24:15 ↗ outreach plan yeah I have it on my list

2:24:22 ↗ to notice them either three letters or

2:24:25 ↗ so weeks um yeah right

2:24:29 ↗ you know I'm yeah we're not gonna go out

2:24:31 ↗ and do that but I want to ask you know

2:24:33 ↗ consensus apartment yes you are so we

2:24:38 ↗ decided no but it's they will be maybe

2:24:41 ↗ we just we will let you we will let you

2:24:55 ↗ guys know as well just as an FYI you're

2:24:57 ↗ welcome to come if you want to sit in on

2:24:59 ↗ the meetings because if they have a more

2:25:03 ↗ it has to be noticed as a public meeting

2:25:06 ↗ right as I said it's a quorum the NICUs

2:25:08 ↗ are we on TV we delegate one person to

2:25:11 ↗ come

2:25:14 ↗ they would be I'd like to go

2:25:18 ↗ would you like to you too so Kay wait

2:25:23 ↗ well maybe we should pick across the

2:25:27 ↗ first hour sure so check that out of

2:25:30 ↗ three and three and three so if if

2:25:48 ↗ Commission leadership wants to go I

2:25:50 ↗ think they could make that decision that

2:25:52 ↗ they will represent the Commission at

2:25:54 ↗ the meeting because it sounded like

2:25:56 ↗ Commission leadership the chair and the

2:25:58 ↗ vice chair would like to go you know

2:26:06 ↗ sure no absolutely I think they do too I

2:26:20 ↗ don't think that's gonna be that big of

2:26:21 ↗ a lift I think we have to explain some

2:26:24 ↗ stuff but once we get there I'm I'm

2:26:27 ↗ guessing we can all land at a space

2:26:30 ↗ where we can come forward with here's

2:26:33 ↗ what the administration and the property

2:26:35 ↗ owners would like to see I think the

2:26:39 ↗ only issue that

2:26:42 ↗ up near and Motown is what businesses

2:26:46 ↗ are allowed and how we structure what we

2:26:50 ↗ think goes in there and I don't know

2:26:52 ↗ what the next step would be to be able

2:26:55 ↗ to do that you have to be open but you

2:26:58 ↗ know you want to get a vibrant city

2:27:03 ↗ right means you have to get businesses

2:27:05 ↗ that court as the chamber said if it

2:27:08 ↗ goes something goes in there and people

2:27:10 ↗ don't want it yeah they're not gonna

2:27:13 ↗ support it it's gonna leave of course

2:27:16 ↗ it's gonna take you a year two years to

2:27:19 ↗ find that out yeah so that one's that

2:27:22 ↗ one's clearly the hardest one I think

2:27:25 ↗ there's gonna be some other changes but

2:27:27 ↗ you know whether you guys want to limit

2:27:29 ↗ formula businesses or not that that's

2:27:33 ↗ there's definitely two sides to that

2:27:35 ↗ discussion I don't think it's I don't

2:27:38 ↗ think that's clear one way or the other

2:27:51 ↗ and to do that sometimes you have to

2:27:55 ↗ have stores that bring people in and

2:27:59 ↗ sometimes they are formula stores so I

2:28:04 ↗ mean you have to be very careful

2:28:07 ↗ that or I would interject that we've

2:28:09 ↗ seen they've gotten the opposite we want

2:28:11 ↗ to have a vibrant city and by having the

2:28:13 ↗ openness we've gotten the opposite

2:28:15 ↗ there's the chains that have come and

2:28:18 ↗ recently don't promote walkability no I

2:28:20 ↗ they need it right and they do then they

2:28:22 ↗ do the opposite of what we're intending

2:28:23 ↗ and so I was disappointed to see the

2:28:26 ↗ letters that we got and kind of to me

2:28:27 ↗ for very fear-based as far as let's let

2:28:30 ↗ capitalism decide and any kind of

2:28:32 ↗ limitations are a bad idea because we

2:28:36 ↗ want to have you know we want to have

2:28:38 ↗ whatever the market can support and I

2:28:39 ↗ think that we that's fine for Issaquah

2:28:42 ↗ in general for Old Town I think we need

2:28:44 ↗ to protect it and I think we need to see

2:28:46 ↗ we're bleeding and we need to stop the

2:28:48 ↗ bleeding so I'm in saying I'm a fan of

2:28:50 ↗ 4.5 I think it's needed and I think it's

2:28:53 ↗ needed based on the recent things that

2:28:55 ↗ we've that we've seen in the community

2:28:57 ↗ and so it should be able to kind of when

2:28:59 ↗ we talk about creating that future that

2:29:01 ↗ we want I think this is a very common

2:29:03 ↗ thing in other areas of our country as

2:29:07 ↗ someone who's worked on the East Coast

2:29:08 ↗ it's very popular to limit formula

2:29:10 ↗ businesses in in these various store

2:29:12 ↗ towns and I would like to see us really

2:29:15 ↗ consider this rather than just being the

2:29:18 ↗ the look of a business and have it

2:29:20 ↗ actually have some protections when we

2:29:22 ↗ think about the way that a mom-and-pop

2:29:25 ↗ operate versus a national chain it

2:29:27 ↗ really is a difference of them that

2:29:29 ↗ money staying in our community and I see

2:29:31 ↗ a big difference between the money that

2:29:33 ↗ goes in our community just being the

2:29:35 ↗ hourly salaries that are being paid

2:29:37 ↗ versus really an extension of all kinds

2:29:40 ↗ of services and so rather than going

2:29:42 ↗ back to corporate somewhere else

2:29:43 ↗ somewhere else in another community and

2:29:46 ↗ how that gets rolled out I would like to

2:29:47 ↗ see whole town

2:29:48 ↗ we have that looking file I'm sad that

2:29:50 ↗ we don't have the dress shop

2:29:52 ↗ you know there's just it's a very

2:29:55 ↗ different vibe that I think we can help

2:29:57 ↗ protect and I think this is a good way

2:29:59 ↗ to do it so how do you put that against

2:30:03 ↗ the rights of the property owners to

2:30:06 ↗ decide how much profit they're going to

2:30:11 ↗ make if the mom-and-pop is willing to

2:30:14 ↗ pay five dollars a square foot and

2:30:16 ↗ somebody else is 20 they have a right to

2:30:20 ↗ be able to support themselves with their

2:30:23 ↗ business and so I think you have to be

2:30:26 ↗ very careful on how you limit I mean

2:30:31 ↗ there should be limits I think we all

2:30:33 ↗ agree on that but you're gonna have to

2:30:35 ↗ really fine-tune that so that you

2:30:38 ↗ accomplish getting what you want and

2:30:41 ↗ still protecting the home business so

2:30:43 ↗ well and one of the very real challenges

2:30:46 ↗ unfortunately is that unlike the list I

2:30:49 ↗ think of some other cities that we were

2:30:51 ↗ provided on where this is formula

2:30:54 ↗ businesses have been restricted I have a

2:30:58 ↗ feeling without having visited all of

2:30:59 ↗ them that they don't necessarily look

2:31:01 ↗ like our front Street does at commuter

2:31:04 ↗ times and so I think it's just something

2:31:06 ↗ I think it's important that

2:31:07 ↗ unfortunately we're in the situation we

2:31:09 ↗ wish we weren't but it puts us in kind

2:31:11 ↗ of a catch-22 a little bit of the ideal

2:31:14 ↗ mom-and-pops

2:31:16 ↗ we'd like to have there and then the

2:31:18 ↗ reality of what's going to do best

2:31:21 ↗ given the current traffic situation at

2:31:23 ↗ certain times of the day so I don't have

2:31:26 ↗ any easy answer for that but I just

2:31:27 ↗ think that's a element but we need to

2:31:30 ↗ think about in this conversation and

2:31:32 ↗ then kind of to Joy's point and I saw it

2:31:34 ↗ was here in 4.5 but I would like to

2:31:36 ↗ actually even challenge the exclusions

2:31:38 ↗ that we put forth I mean if we're gonna

2:31:40 ↗ go do it I kind of say let's go do it

2:31:42 ↗ and you know why why exclude banks and

2:31:45 ↗ grocery stores and medical services

2:31:48 ↗ there are a lot of great local banks

2:31:50 ↗ still around and there's a lot of really

2:31:52 ↗ interesting local medical services you

2:31:55 ↗ know still around and

2:31:57 ↗ so I just kind of push on that a little

2:31:59 ↗ bit and if if we are gonna go that route

2:32:01 ↗ I kind of challenge our thinking this is

2:32:05 ↗ I mean so yeah so torn if if and then

2:32:09 ↗ the reason why I think you got the

2:32:11 ↗ proposal that you got is you know if our

2:32:14 ↗ downtown was just a tourist destination

2:32:17 ↗ right you'd say all you want is little

2:32:20 ↗ cutesy retail shops where people can

2:32:22 ↗ come and spend their money and then go

2:32:23 ↗ but Front Street also serves as the

2:32:27 ↗ retail for and the service area forced

2:32:30 ↗ some by some neighborhoods that we're

2:32:31 ↗ trying to keep vibrant in our community

2:32:33 ↗ right so things like insurance agents

2:32:36 ↗ and hair salons and stuff which aren't

2:32:39 ↗ super exciting and vibrant but they are

2:32:42 ↗ needed services for residential that's

2:32:46 ↗ that's why you got what you got and but

2:32:48 ↗ it's good to talk it through because you

2:32:51 ↗ know I think we were trying to think

2:32:53 ↗ this through and figure out what kind of

2:32:54 ↗ made sense with our particular situation

2:32:56 ↗ that's that's why we didn't just take a

2:32:59 ↗ code from somewhere else and say you

2:33:01 ↗ know the Hamptons work here you know

2:33:03 ↗ it's like m'as what we thought made the

2:33:06 ↗ most sense if we were gonna go there

2:33:07 ↗ yeah well I'm just an ass of July 12 is

2:33:15 ↗ are we just looking at the formula

2:33:17 ↗ business piece are we looking at the

2:33:18 ↗ whole and now you'll and you'll look at

2:33:20 ↗ the whole plan again with some of the

2:33:22 ↗ revisions that we're gonna make okay

2:33:24 ↗ you'll get it soon yeah you'll get it

2:33:26 ↗ with the Pat you'll get it with the

2:33:27 ↗ packet so week before not enough before

2:33:29 ↗ Tuesday so I'm so busy well I just had a

2:33:34 ↗ follow-on question and so this was

2:33:35 ↗ supposed to be the second public hearing

2:33:37 ↗ right tied to this

2:33:38 ↗ this was the third continuation of the

2:33:40 ↗ public hearing okay yeah all right so

2:33:42 ↗ it's the third continuation so maybe

2:33:43 ↗ it's a mute point then but it sounded

2:33:45 ↗ like with a location change

2:33:50 ↗ ya know I opened it that I closed I

2:33:53 ↗ didn't close it right I think of it you

2:33:56 ↗ closed the public comment but I don't

2:33:57 ↗ think you closed up over here public

2:33:59 ↗ hearing

2:34:01 ↗ July 12 are you talking about the

2:34:29 ↗ reasons are you talking about this yeah

2:34:31 ↗ yeah it would be probably Wednesday if

2:34:38 ↗ we could see something that was decided

2:34:40 ↗ in that ine and at least the plan that

2:34:43 ↗ you that we're really the I should get

2:34:45 ↗ it as we are gonna put together whatever

2:34:47 ↗ it is we're gonna put the parking and

2:34:49 ↗ the landscaping in that yeah in the

2:34:51 ↗ church okay so as long as we have that

2:34:53 ↗ and you know we've heard them this

2:34:57 ↗ evening if there's something different

2:34:59 ↗ that they come up with maybe we could

2:35:02 ↗ have a meal or something right that's

2:35:05 ↗ the intent to a nice to give you the

2:35:07 ↗ results of that meeting we don't need a

2:35:08 ↗ full packet paper were colored me a memo

2:35:13 ↗ I'll do our best as soon as we have no

2:35:19 ↗ fearless leaders

2:35:22 ↗ quite a week okay so I'm going to close

2:35:25 ↗ the meeting at 11:00 I got it this time

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