Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 28, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 24, 2018

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 – Vacant 2020 – Jason Voiss 2020 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 14, 2018

packet pp.5–12

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 24, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:03 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

at its May 17 meeting to forward the plan to Council for approval.

Minutes of June 21, 2018

packet pp.13–20

▶ Watch from 6:03 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) Planning Policy Commission—Special Meeting 6-21-18 Minutes, Page 1

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Continued from 6/21/18 Proposed Rezone to Parcels Zoned Destination Retail and Intensive Commercial Outside Central Issaquah Plan Area, (D)

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Attachments from 6/21/18 meeting are · packet pp.21–128

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

The amended Central Issaquah Visions were adopted May 21, 2018. As part of the visions, all of the parcels zoned Destination Retail and some of the parcels zoned Intensive Commercial were removed from the Central Issaquah Plan area, as the Council deemed these areas should no longer be part of the Central Issaquah Plan. The effective date for the amended visions is August 23, 2018 so that rezoning those affected parcels could take place before the visions’ effective date.

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.129

Open packet at p.129 ↗

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 4. Sign Code update 5. Olde Town Plan update 7/12/18 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 6/4/18 Talus Parcel 9 5/10/18 6/2/18

1265 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ there we go you're on yeah good evening

0:18 ↗ and welcome to the June 28th meeting of

0:20 ↗ the planning policy commission tonight

0:23 ↗ we're going to continue our discussion

0:25 ↗ on a proposed rezone of parcels that

0:28 ↗ were eliminated taken out of the central

0:32 ↗ area plan at first we have our sets of

0:37 ↗ minutes that we have to approve the

0:39 ↗ first one is for June the 14th and if

0:44 ↗ you hopefully have read it and

0:46 ↗ understand that it was the park plan and

0:52 ↗ Old Town were more discussed on that

0:56 ↗ evening I have a motion to approve the

1:00 ↗ minutes of June 14th I'd like to make a

1:03 ↗ motion to approve the minutes of June

1:05 ↗ 14th about a second second all those in

1:08 ↗ favor say aye opposed motion passes I

1:14 ↗ want to remind everybody that Old Town

1:18 ↗ is still under our discussion and we

1:21 ↗ have scheduled for July the 12th to

1:25 ↗ continue with our discussion of Old Town

1:28 ↗ the changing of the boundary in the

1:30 ↗ south end of the city so hopefully

1:33 ↗ before the next meeting before the 12th

1:36 ↗ you again go over the minutes that we

1:39 ↗ are in here because as usual they are

1:43 ↗ absolutely complete of everything that

1:45 ↗ happened on that night so we might want

1:46 ↗ to do that so I need a motion to approve

1:49 ↗ the minutes of June 21st to make a

1:53 ↗ motion to approve the minutes of June

1:55 ↗ 21st

1:57 ↗ that's second I'll second that all that

2:01 ↗ any discussion

2:02 ↗ they changes all those in favor say aye

2:06 ↗ aye aye opposed

2:08 ↗ hearing none motion care

2:12 ↗ before we start a discussion on the

2:17 ↗ rezone and before Trish gives us a

2:19 ↗ wonderful update when we ended our

2:22 ↗ meeting last week we had a discussion a

2:30 ↗ proposed meeting between the business

2:34 ↗ owners in the new rezone area and the

2:37 ↗ city and so Ron and I were able to

2:40 ↗ attend that meeting and it was a very

2:43 ↗ constructive meeting this was in

2:46 ↗ addition to the hearing last week yeah

2:48 ↗ in addition it was on Tuesday and it was

2:53 ↗ very constructive the business owners

2:56 ↗ were able to explain why they did not

2:59 ↗ need they should not be downgraded from

3:02 ↗ where they were and the city was very

3:05 ↗ open to listen to them and I think they

3:08 ↗ came up with a good compromise there

3:11 ↗ were there were a few things that the

3:13 ↗ city did change but Trish is going to

3:15 ↗ explain each one of the proposals

3:18 ↗ tonight so that's what we're looking at

3:20 ↗ is basically the main things that will

3:23 ↗ be changed if a rezone appears so with

3:27 ↗ that I'm going to ask Trish to go over

3:32 ↗ the changes the city's proposal for the

3:34 ↗ rezone right and if you need a paper

3:36 ↗ copy of the packet since they were

3:39 ↗ late-breaking and just were published

3:40 ↗ last night the copies are on the middle

3:43 ↗ table it was a very good meeting on

3:47 ↗ Tuesday with property owners and the

3:50 ↗ recommendation we came up with for those

3:52 ↗ that were zoned intensive commercial

3:54 ↗ that were brought out of central

3:57 ↗ Issaquah would be to have them stay with

4:01 ↗ the name intensive commercial but also

4:03 ↗ change the development standards for

4:06 ↗ intensive commercial for the rear

4:08 ↗ setback and change that from 10 feet to

4:11 ↗ 5 feet and also to change the impervious

4:16 ↗ surface of intensive commercial from 65%

4:19 ↗ to 90% and those are in red the

4:23 ↗ that changes to all of them that we're

4:26 ↗ proposing to change for all the

4:27 ↗ intensive commercial properties outside

4:29 ↗ of central so that's what we all came up

4:32 ↗ with for the properties down intensive

4:34 ↗ commercial and for the properties zone

4:38 ↗ destination retail that were removed

4:40 ↗ from central

4:41 ↗ we all agreed on a recommendation to

4:44 ↗ create a new zone called destination

4:47 ↗ retail and to move that into the IMC and

4:51 ↗ have all the development standards for

4:55 ↗ bulk and setbacks to be the same as

4:57 ↗ central except for the front setback and

5:01 ↗ we're proposing to make that ten versus

5:04 ↗ zero in central standards so those were

5:08 ↗ the two proposals that we came up with

5:11 ↗ and in your packets there's all the

5:15 ↗ comparisons of all the zones in all the

5:17 ↗ ways we tried to go this way in that way

5:19 ↗ but this is the real simple and basic

5:22 ↗ recommendation that we came out with at

5:25 ↗ the end of Tuesday's meeting truce I

5:28 ↗ simply then just applying this to all of

5:32 ↗ intensive commercial outside of central

5:35 ↗ Issaquah are there any other parcels

5:37 ↗ that are impacted other than kind of the

5:39 ↗ ones we're looking at in Old Town and

5:41 ↗ yeah route 10 the gray areas with

5:46 ↗ numbers on them

5:47 ↗ that are north of i90 those would be the

5:51 ↗ ones that were removed from central and

5:53 ↗ the ones that are sort of in between

5:56 ↗ those two technical word those would be

6:00 ↗ most for the most part because there's

6:04 ↗ not that many

6:05 ↗ well actually I take that back no there

6:08 ↗ are no other parcels zoned intensive

6:10 ↗ commercial there are actually there too

6:12 ↗ there's one that is just to the left of

6:15 ↗ the urban village to solid orange

6:17 ↗ there's a rectangle up there I can it

6:20 ↗ looks like above number nine and to the

6:21 ↗ right of number two uh here nope but to

6:25 ↗ the left Wow

6:26 ↗ another blank one up there that's

6:29 ↗ intensive commercial and then also down

6:31 ↗ there the new king county parcel oh that

6:34 ↗ was

6:35 ↗ here that one yes okay because that

6:37 ↗ would be the site where we're hoping

6:40 ↗ CenturyLink would move for the so the

6:42 ↗ Tod oh that's the bottom of the valley

6:45 ↗ yeah not not the not the top of it which

6:48 ↗ is yes full of trees no but that's the

6:52 ↗ the top of it is a different zoning yes

6:55 ↗ facilities yeah or community facilities

6:57 ↗ okay so so with this in an effect up

7:01 ↗ zone those two parcels to bring them in

7:04 ↗ alignment with all these yes okay well

7:07 ↗ but they would have increased impervious

7:09 ↗ surface and an increased rear setback

7:14 ↗ okay yeah it's not they're not getting

7:17 ↗ height in bulk but the writing they're

7:20 ↗ not getting any additional height but

7:21 ↗ they are getting more impervious surface

7:23 ↗ okay other questions but nothing nothing

7:29 ↗ elsewhere in the city correct that's our

7:31 ↗ only intention commercial zoned area

7:33 ↗ thank you any other questions before you

7:37 ↗ deliberate so before we before we

7:45 ↗ discuss everything since you did not the

7:49 ↗ three of you did not intend to the

7:51 ↗ meeting and here the business owners

7:54 ↗ reasons for the need to make these

7:57 ↗ changes in their zoning I wanted to ask

8:00 ↗ if since there are a few members of the

8:04 ↗ committee the committee or the community

8:06 ↗ out there if they want to make any

8:09 ↗ additional comments before we open it up

8:14 ↗ for discussion among the commissioners

8:16 ↗ is Trish one more question clarifying

8:20 ↗ already want me to wait okay does

8:22 ↗ anybody want to make another any more

8:24 ↗ comments

8:27 ↗ it was concerns though Ron and I were

8:45 ↗ there and we were there as strictly at

8:47 ↗ but as listeners just to to listen and

8:50 ↗ be if we needed to answer any questions

8:53 ↗ for the commissioners I think it was a

8:55 ↗ great meeting I think the city was open

8:58 ↗ and I think that in the future any

9:01 ↗ issues that come up like this I hope

9:04 ↗ that the people who are on one side and

9:09 ↗ the city can get together and and work

9:12 ↗ out a reasonable solution thank you for

9:18 ↗ all of the business owners that were

9:20 ↗ there and the city did an awesome job

9:22 ↗ the staff did an awful job so thank you

9:25 ↗ so any questions from the commissioners

9:30 ↗ AJ can you talk about for the

9:33 ↗ destination retail why you're sticking

9:35 ↗ with the 10-foot setback as you

9:38 ↗ highlight that as one of the few

9:39 ↗ differences curious and logic behind

9:42 ↗ that the zero setback from central is

9:45 ↗ because everything to be up to the

9:47 ↗ street for that whole pedestrian feeling

9:51 ↗ and the air the when we actually looked

9:53 ↗ at destination retail most of those uses

9:55 ↗ are already set back a bit

9:58 ↗ because their frontage is East Gilman

10:00 ↗ and so bombs the Grange if you go down

10:03 ↗ that street remember in the tour they're

10:05 ↗ all already set back quite a bit and so

10:08 ↗ we thought a zero setback wasn't as

10:11 ↗ realistic for that area being that it's

10:14 ↗ it's just not the same so we put a

10:17 ↗ 10-foot setback so that they would be

10:19 ↗ able to use those areas the way they're

10:22 ↗ using them now and not have a detriment

10:24 ↗ so if you have a zero front setback you

10:28 ↗ don't have to build it the street right

10:30 ↗ you can you can be back

10:34 ↗ for though it's a two-line right yes

10:37 ↗ okay so okay so in that so in central -

10:40 ↗ it's a set - and I understand that so in

10:42 ↗ the in in and out and outside of central

10:46 ↗ is it a 10-foot set Benham um or is it

10:49 ↗ as soon as it is set to minimum I'm just

10:55 ↗ wondering why I get why we would not

10:56 ↗ want a set to line I'm just wondering

10:59 ↗ where the minimum is in just zero and

11:01 ↗ let them build up if they want to and if

11:03 ↗ they don't want to they they don't they

11:05 ↗ don't need to so part of it is the uses

11:16 ↗ that are in destination retail they are

11:19 ↗ a destination by vehicle today you know

11:24 ↗ if you look at the Grange and xxx and

11:26 ↗ bombs most of their customers actually

11:29 ↗ drive there right and so that ten feet

11:33 ↗ you know when you look at how they're

11:36 ↗ laid out now most of those front yards

11:40 ↗ set backs are either landscaping or

11:42 ↗ they're you know circulation areas and

11:48 ↗ you know I I guess I don't feel strongly

11:52 ↗ about that AJ if you were passionate

11:55 ↗ about making that a zero setback and not

11:58 ↗ a set-to line I don't know that that

12:01 ↗ necessarily flips my cart upside down I

12:04 ↗ think the reason why we were suggesting

12:07 ↗ the 10-foot setback was it was more in

12:10 ↗ keeping with the retail zone that

12:12 ↗ existed out there before central so part

12:15 ↗ of this was in a way trying to look at

12:17 ↗ what we originally were proposing and

12:20 ↗ taking kind of it ended up being a

12:21 ↗ little bit of a Frankenstein outcome but

12:24 ↗ I think that's why the 10-foot setback

12:27 ↗ was being proposed for whatever that's

12:30 ↗ worth

12:31 ↗ ya know that's helpful I think in not to

12:35 ↗ sidetrack on just this we can we can

12:36 ↗ talk more big picture but I like to

12:39 ↗ consider zero I certainly don't want to

12:41 ↗ set two that would be way too burdensome

12:42 ↗ but I think also then not requiring a

12:45 ↗ setback either

12:47 ↗ just throwing it out there we ask each

12:50 ↗ other questions or not okay

12:52 ↗ okay thank you I'm learning the protocol

12:54 ↗ all right so AJ what what's the concern

12:57 ↗ why it's uh it's a concern in the sense

13:00 ↗ that while I certainly get that right

13:02 ↗ now most people get there by car and I

13:04 ↗ don't expect that to change in the short

13:06 ↗ term I think the vision for Old Town and

13:11 ↗ State Route 10 is to be more and more

13:13 ↗ walkable over time especially as

13:15 ↗ centrally so quote gets build up and

13:17 ↗ there are people that are living within

13:18 ↗ not a short walk within walkable

13:21 ↗ distance and so you know if in five or

13:23 ↗ ten years one of the parcels wants to

13:25 ↗ redevelop and have something at the

13:26 ↗ street front I just see no reason to

13:28 ↗ prohibit that I don't think we need to

13:30 ↗ work sir we certainly don't need to

13:32 ↗ require it like we are in in Gilman and

13:34 ↗ Pickering but I don't see any reason for

13:37 ↗ us to prohibit it either what would be

13:41 ↗ your overall estimation or or picture of

13:47 ↗ what you want that I weigh that road

13:52 ↗ down there to look like do you want

13:56 ↗ actually you know that we're talking

13:59 ↗ about commercial buildings sometimes do

14:01 ↗ you want a commercial building right at

14:04 ↗ zero aye aye I think so in the sense

14:08 ↗ that that part of State Route 10 is no

14:10 ↗ longer a highway certainly in the built

14:12 ↗ environment was for when it was a

14:14 ↗ highway but it's not anymore and

14:15 ↗ particularly if we are going to bring in

14:17 ↗ a part of Old Town I think I would like

14:19 ↗ to see it over time evolved to actually

14:21 ↗ be more like Old Town I remember us

14:23 ↗ talking about using that part of the

14:26 ↗ road not necessarily is like a festival

14:27 ↗ street that would be too much but the

14:29 ↗ idea being that the the the broad

14:31 ↗ right-of-way of State Route 10 is an

14:34 ↗ asset that we can use for things other

14:37 ↗ than just driving and parking as public

14:41 ↗ right-of-way and that would mean I mean

14:42 ↗ I think over time some of the some of

14:44 ↗ the buildings maybe come forward

14:49 ↗ any other discussion on that point I

14:53 ↗ think I like the idea of actually having

14:56 ↗ the setback for consistency so that has

14:59 ↗ the same look and feel throughout the

15:01 ↗ whole experience but can consistent with

15:03 ↗ what that's what it is today

15:05 ↗ okay so you don't want range when we got

15:07 ↗ bombs they're not gonna change sure um

15:10 ↗ so you don't want a new building that's

15:12 ↗ just stuck out there like a sore thumb

15:14 ↗ so if we had let's say the building

15:18 ↗ let's say we had a lot to the west of

15:25 ↗ the Grange I mean and build right out to

15:30 ↗ the edge of the street it would almost

15:35 ↗ it wouldn't match the fact that it

15:38 ↗ wouldn't match the Grange it wouldn't

15:40 ↗ match xxx it wouldn't match the bones

15:42 ↗ wouldn't match the businesses across the

15:44 ↗ street now also thinking 50 years out

15:47 ↗ things can change

15:50 ↗ maybe we can readjust that at the time

15:52 ↗ mm-hmm

15:53 ↗ if there is a reason to go back and

15:55 ↗ actually change it but it would be

15:58 ↗ really jarring I think to come into that

16:02 ↗ area and also there's a building right

16:05 ↗ out at the very front with a zero

16:08 ↗ setback so I think would be the wrong

16:10 ↗ visual experience okay just remind me

16:15 ↗ which parcels are the ones impacted on

16:18 ↗ this map destination retailer and the

16:20 ↗ purple the purple okay does this include

16:24 ↗ the lazy boy where's the lazy boy lot on

16:28 ↗ this

16:31 ↗ so yeah so is that right we okay

16:36 ↗ it's what upside-down it does yeah so

16:40 ↗ that so that is what cultural I'm that

16:42 ↗ business okay so that is so that is

16:44 ↗ neither of these two that line correct

16:46 ↗ at CBD he's a question for you as far as

16:53 ↗ the the setback goes hey this will be

16:59 ↗ easy I'm awesome

17:01 ↗ I like easy oh let's say the Grange has

17:04 ↗ a catastrophic event and they lose the

17:08 ↗ the front half or their property fire

17:11 ↗ takes out the gap cyclone yes tornado

17:17 ↗ this case would be hey NATO but that's

17:20 ↗ okay and they have to rebuild yes would

17:25 ↗ they have to go up to the ten foot and

17:27 ↗ if so so that was the ten foot would be

17:30 ↗ a minimum maximum so the way a setback

17:33 ↗ works is if you put a number in there

17:36 ↗ like ten feet they could go that close

17:39 ↗ to the front street but they could

17:42 ↗ choose to be a 20 feet or thirty feet

17:44 ↗ and as you know the Grange has their

17:46 ↗ pumps out front so they're currently

17:47 ↗ well beyond that but if they did want to

17:52 ↗ rebuild with a ten-foot the difference

17:55 ↗ between what you and AJ are talking

17:57 ↗ about is they would have to maintain

17:58 ↗ that ten-foot frontage of mostly

18:01 ↗ landscaping I'm I guess says it's mostly

18:04 ↗ kind of the grass and stuff out front

18:06 ↗ under AJ's proposal which I don't know

18:10 ↗ if he's made a proposal if he does come

18:12 ↗ forward and say he would like that as

18:13 ↗ his proposal they could build the front

18:16 ↗ of the Grange building right at their

18:18 ↗ property line yeah I think I think I I

18:22 ↗ think I'd like the idea of having easier

18:24 ↗ step back because I'm kind of looking at

18:26 ↗ it and like even if you know xxx and The

18:29 ↗ Grange never change but Ike across the

18:31 ↗ street there's that little strip mall

18:32 ↗ like if that got redeveloped and some

18:35 ↗ had some retail that was actually at the

18:36 ↗ frontage since I mean that's the very

18:39 ↗ end of the state route 10 and so people

18:41 ↗ could walk back and forth from the

18:42 ↗ Grange to that

18:43 ↗ I think that would be better than

18:45 ↗ current if the property got redeveloped

18:48 ↗ I think I think I think my proposal is

18:51 ↗ you know keep it has a setback not not a

18:53 ↗ build to but change it from ten to zero

18:55 ↗ I like the fact that there was some

18:57 ↗ landscaping trees in there and I think

19:00 ↗ that will be as much of a advantage to

19:03 ↗ people walking to be able to stroll

19:06 ↗ through something that's really nice

19:08 ↗ something goes in there you can put a I

19:11 ↗ don't know if it's even zoned for

19:13 ↗ putting in a cafe or whatever else in

19:16 ↗ there there's a room to do that and make

19:19 ↗ it friendly to them yeah yeah clarifying

19:22 ↗ question so for the for the for the

19:24 ↗ setback for something like gas stations

19:25 ↗ or if you had an outdoor cafe does that

19:29 ↗ need to be more than ten feet back or

19:30 ↗ it's just the actual structure you can

19:33 ↗ have outdoor seating okay so you can

19:34 ↗ have stuff right at the property line

19:36 ↗ okay okay can I ask a question if memory

19:40 ↗ serves me I don't believe their

19:42 ↗ sidewalks over there right now correct

19:45 ↗ right because I've done some walking

19:48 ↗ over there and I seem to remember it I

19:50 ↗ was watching carefully when I had my

19:53 ↗ kids around with me so I'm I'm just

19:55 ↗ wondering you know if we you know if we

19:58 ↗ think about that becoming there's some

19:59 ↗ other things I think that might need to

20:00 ↗ happen before that becoming a walkable

20:04 ↗ area and you know I'm not sure you know

20:07 ↗ if you put the zero setback what does

20:10 ↗ that mean for sidewalks and putting in a

20:13 ↗ requirement for that or an easement for

20:14 ↗ that but that's a good point I I'm

20:16 ↗ thinking that would to me be kind of

20:18 ↗ number I'd want that plan before we just

20:20 ↗ say let's that's a good point yeah no I

20:22 ↗ can't really be walkable if there's no

20:23 ↗ yeah okay so any other questions on that

20:29 ↗ particular issue about no anything else

20:33 ↗ that you see on that plan that might

20:37 ↗ need further understanding that the

20:43 ↗ property owners are I've worked with the

20:47 ↗ city and that have they've come up with

20:49 ↗ a you know the changes are not that

20:52 ↗ grade yeah so on the printout we're

20:54 ↗ going from

20:56 ↗ option one which is the current to the

20:59 ↗ yellow correct yeah and then what was

21:02 ↗ the proposal that we originally got out

21:05 ↗ that they objected to was that was

21:06 ↗ option two or three I'm not sure what

21:09 ↗ the numbers are but the original one was

21:11 ↗ to go back to their zoning that predated

21:13 ↗ the central plan for destination retail

21:15 ↗ it would have been the retail zone okay

21:17 ↗ and four I see it would have been the IC

21:19 ↗ that's outside of central okay so I

21:22 ↗ think both of those have 65% impervious

21:25 ↗ and that was the the biggest concern I

21:28 ↗ think to Ajay's point option one and

21:32 ↗ option two were what the city put

21:35 ↗ together option three is what we

21:36 ↗ discussed at our last PPC meeting and

21:40 ↗ then the one in yellow right now is what

21:44 ↗ we D curled out of on the meeting with

21:48 ↗ the city with the business owners as a

21:52 ↗ proposal in this I have a question for

21:56 ↗ Trish and for Keith though the IE we

22:01 ↗ were originally going from 90 to 65 and

22:04 ↗ I heard a lot of the the pushback about

22:08 ↗ [Music]

22:11 ↗ increasing the impervious surface and

22:13 ↗ the point behind the impervious surface

22:16 ↗ is for water runoff so would they end up

22:20 ↗ being required to have dry wells or

22:24 ↗ storage facilities to channel that

22:28 ↗ runoff what would that look like is that

22:31 ↗ a is that a really is that I'd costs a

22:35 ↗ significant cost barrier to increase

22:37 ↗ capacity so we could get 85 but still

22:40 ↗ give them what they need did you ask

22:44 ↗ like 20 questions there I think he's

22:48 ↗ asking by increasing into ninety percent

22:50 ↗ are we adding in additional costs to a

22:54 ↗ potential redevelopment that aggravation

22:57 ↗ and what are we going to do with the

22:59 ↗ water runoff okay it's a great question

23:02 ↗ so what I would say is right now

23:07 ↗ the basically there's there's a

23:11 ↗ hierarchy of stormwater treatments that

23:15 ↗ you're supposed to follow when you

23:17 ↗ develop property based on King County

23:20 ↗ stormwater manual Department of Ecology

23:22 ↗ manual so under NPDES it basically says

23:26 ↗ your first task is to look at whether or

23:29 ↗ not you can infiltrate your stormwater

23:30 ↗ on your site okay so if if they have per

23:38 ↗ Keable soils and can infiltrate there

23:42 ↗ then what they would do would be to

23:44 ↗ build a wet well underneath their

23:47 ↗ parking lot though stormwater would go

23:50 ↗ into it and it would basically then perk

23:52 ↗ into the ground and whatever doesn't

23:54 ↗ perk they would pipe it off site okay so

23:58 ↗ there's there is still even though they

24:01 ↗ can pave their entire site there's still

24:03 ↗ a stormwater obligation for them to try

24:07 ↗ to infiltrate on site as opposed to

24:10 ↗ piping it off but that ultimately is a

24:13 ↗ function of whether or not the soils can

24:15 ↗ accept that by allowing them to and so

24:20 ↗ is that more expensive than doing like a

24:23 ↗ detention pond or a rain garden not

24:26 ↗ necessarily because it's a concrete

24:28 ↗ vault

24:29 ↗ under your parking lot the water goes

24:31 ↗ into the ground or it goes out through a

24:34 ↗ cartridge filter and it's it's all it

24:38 ↗ all has a cost associated with it but

24:42 ↗ I'm not sure it's any more expensive to

24:44 ↗ do it in a vault versus in a natural

24:46 ↗ feature as it relates to cost I mean so

24:50 ↗ so the opportunities as you heard

24:53 ↗ Tuesday what you heard from the business

24:57 ↗ owners both of the intents of commercial

24:59 ↗ and the destination retail is their

25:02 ↗ property is only so big and by allowing

25:05 ↗ them to increase the impervious or keep

25:08 ↗ the impervious at the level that it was

25:10 ↗ at in Central and to potentially

25:13 ↗ minimize their yard setbacks it gives

25:15 ↗ them more ability to creatively look at

25:18 ↗ increasing development on their prop

25:21 ↗ because their property's not getting any

25:22 ↗ bigger so they have to use what they

25:24 ↗ have left and by taking out some of

25:27 ↗ those other restrictions like impervious

25:30 ↗ limits and setbacks from side yards and

25:33 ↗ rear yards it gives them more

25:35 ↗ opportunity to look at adding density of

25:39 ↗ some kind to their property did I answer

25:42 ↗ your questions almost okay

25:46 ↗ so if we went from and I understand the

25:49 ↗ deal about the soils and so on so if we

25:53 ↗ went from 85 and gave them 90 are there

25:59 ↗ other regulations that would be a

26:03 ↗ barrier to given giving them that 5% in

26:07 ↗ other words if we gave them the 5% all

26:09 ↗ the sudden do they have other

26:11 ↗ obligations they have to meet that are

26:13 ↗ higher criteria based on King County or

26:15 ↗ state criteria so so let me say let me

26:20 ↗ answer it maybe this way and you can

26:21 ↗ tell me if I didn't answer it right so

26:24 ↗ you have an obligation to manage your

26:27 ↗ storm water on your property based on

26:31 ↗ certain criteria and if they choose to

26:34 ↗ have more impervious surface which means

26:36 ↗ more water runs off the property then

26:40 ↗ they still have to detain it and they

26:42 ↗ can only release it at a certain rate no

26:45 ↗ matter what so what it means is they may

26:48 ↗ have to build a bigger detention vault

26:50 ↗ to hold the storm water longer and meter

26:54 ↗ it out at a slower pace than if the site

26:57 ↗ was 65% impervious and some of it could

27:00 ↗ just infiltrate and not runoff so

27:03 ↗ there's so I guess it's a it's an

27:05 ↗ engineering exercise and nothing else so

27:08 ↗ you can calculate the amount of storm

27:10 ↗ water coming off the property

27:11 ↗ you have to meet a certain rate of

27:14 ↗ discharge and that then tells you how

27:16 ↗ big your vault needs to be if if you put

27:20 ↗ it say underneath the building or

27:21 ↗ underneath the parking lot if it's a

27:23 ↗ pond an open pond same calculation you

27:27 ↗ have to have a certain volume of water

27:28 ↗ that you can hold on your site during

27:31 ↗ peak storms and discharge it at array

27:34 ↗ that doesn't cause flooding impacts Oh

27:36 ↗ in this area would there be a

27:39 ↗ percolation pond for them to discharge

27:41 ↗ your water so if if they if so their

27:48 ↗ first hoo that they have to jump over is

27:51 ↗ can they percolate it on their property

27:54 ↗ so they would do a soil analysis and/or

27:59 ↗ a perk test and see how quickly the

28:01 ↗ water would go in and then that would

28:04 ↗ help their engineers understand how they

28:07 ↗ would potentially deal with their

28:09 ↗ stormwater if they found that the water

28:11 ↗ table was too high no in this part I

28:13 ↗ mean near the creek it could be but as

28:16 ↗ you get farther away from the creek this

28:18 ↗ part of town actually is better than say

28:20 ↗ closer to the lake where the soils don't

28:23 ↗ perk very well their engineer would then

28:27 ↗ be able to figure out their stormwater

28:29 ↗ requirements based on what they could

28:30 ↗ accommodate on-site okay so in essence

28:35 ↗ if we gave them the 90 percent and

28:41 ↗ obviously they can build down to an 85

28:44 ↗ percent there would be then up to them

28:49 ↗ to decide whether or not it would be

28:51 ↗ possible to fish right so it's it's the

28:55 ↗ same so to put it another way run this

28:57 ↗ might help it's the same as a JS setback

29:00 ↗ requirement conversation right so just

29:03 ↗ because you give them 90 percent

29:05 ↗ impervious that's a that's a cap it

29:07 ↗ doesn't mean they have to do that they

29:09 ↗ could choose to redevelop their site in

29:13 ↗ a way that would be 65 percent and have

29:16 ↗ a bunch of pervious areas that's a

29:19 ↗ decision they would make as a property

29:21 ↗ owner they don't have to thank you in

29:26 ↗ the in the PPC meeting on the 21st I

29:28 ↗ don't see anything in the video because

29:30 ↗ I missed that one about any concerns of

29:33 ↗ property entity on water management was

29:35 ↗ did anything come up on this Tuesday no

29:37 ↗ no it didn't all of those issues already

29:41 ↗ decided on no matter what property it is

29:43 ↗ how water is

29:45 ↗ it's percolated how it is contained by

29:50 ↗ giving them 90% does not give them the

29:52 ↗ ability to just black top 90% they have

29:56 ↗ to buy all of the other rules that are

29:59 ↗ set up in the city so understanding that

30:03 ↗ you know you can have 90% but if you

30:06 ↗ can't contain the water based on this

30:08 ↗ this and this you're not going to get

30:10 ↗ your 90% and the cost is on on the

30:14 ↗ property owner you know it's just like

30:16 ↗ building any any building yeah

30:18 ↗ does it pencil out to the developer to

30:20 ↗ build that particular building any way

30:22 ↗ that they want to build it so there's

30:25 ↗ always rules and you saw these 127 pages

30:28 ↗ that you got there are specific things

30:31 ↗ that you can and cannot do all of which

30:34 ↗ have been percolated for the last many

30:36 ↗ years of how to take care of the things

30:39 ↗ in the city

30:40 ↗ good good double use of percolated okay

30:46 ↗ last question one last question right so

30:48 ↗ Keith one last question for you because

30:52 ↗ this actually came up in some of our in

30:54 ↗ some of the discussion during the

30:56 ↗ meeting and that was the property owner

30:58 ↗ to the far most eastern area on Gilman

31:05 ↗ last address on Gilman Oh Sam Kyle yes

31:08 ↗ what's down here so he wanted to go all

31:10 ↗ the way up to the the very edge of the

31:13 ↗ property line so zero setback for an

31:15 ↗ underground parking and then we're

31:18 ↗ talking ten feet back from the road for

31:21 ↗ above-grade parking that still that

31:23 ↗ would be acceptable all along these

31:28 ↗ areas right or retailed so someone if

31:31 ↗ they wanted to go in with underground

31:33 ↗ parking they can go all the way to zero

31:34 ↗ and then above-ground would be ten feet

31:37 ↗ back so so right now and I believe mr.

31:42 ↗ Kyle agreed that ten feet would work for

31:44 ↗ him at the end of the day I think he was

31:45 ↗ originally trying or advocating for zero

31:49 ↗ I believe that that that 10 foot

31:55 ↗ building setback line

31:58 ↗ would apply underground as well now I

32:01 ↗ don't know that that's it's a super

32:03 ↗ great question and I just don't I'm not

32:05 ↗ sure of the answer and I'm looking at

32:07 ↗ Trish to see if she knows so the problem

32:09 ↗ is so if you put and the reason is so

32:11 ↗ let's assume you expected that ten feet

32:13 ↗ to be landscaped right if you put the

32:15 ↗ parking garage underground the

32:18 ↗ likelihood that you're growing anything

32:19 ↗ on top of it is probably slim because

32:24 ↗ it's all gonna be concrete so I believe

32:27 ↗ that ten feet means structure at ten

32:30 ↗ feet even if it's underground structure

32:32 ↗ so so by but but his frontage for for

32:38 ↗ what he was talking about was on third

32:41 ↗ and you know the character of third what

32:45 ↗ I would say that ten feet would match in

32:49 ↗ better with the existing buildings that

32:52 ↗ are residents because you've got some

32:54 ↗ other stuff so this will be a park

32:56 ↗ across the street right now it's

32:57 ↗ residences but then as you get further

33:01 ↗ south all this is just housing and so

33:04 ↗ that 10-foot setback would be much more

33:06 ↗ in keeping I think with the character of

33:08 ↗ what that's kind of what that's gonna

33:11 ↗ feel like you know this is hard to

33:14 ↗ really see because it's a bunch of

33:17 ↗ property lines but out there there's one

33:20 ↗ big building in the middle of a parking

33:21 ↗ lot and what he was talking about was

33:24 ↗ putting another office building kind of

33:26 ↗ where the existing parking lot is and as

33:30 ↗ we talked about that parcel is really

33:33 ↗ more fronting on Gilman which you know

33:36 ↗ the ten feet is this little area back

33:38 ↗ here so that kind of ends up being kind

33:41 ↗ of a side yard for him so I don't you

33:45 ↗ know I think that's why mr. Kyle got to

33:47 ↗ a point where I think he was okay with

33:48 ↗ the ten foot front yard setback

33:52 ↗ recognizing that the others were fives

33:54 ↗ and to that point on the third that

34:02 ↗ would be a 10-foot setback because that

34:05 ↗ wouldn't you can't have two front yards

34:07 ↗ so for the parcels and we talked about

34:10 ↗ these ones at the very north end right

34:11 ↗ there's a house those ones would have a

34:15 ↗ 10-foot front yard setback on third if

34:19 ↗ he purchases those parcels for the

34:22 ↗ purpose of development you would be

34:24 ↗ merging all those parses together so he

34:27 ↗ has those parcels he owns them now so do

34:30 ↗ we want to go to an aerial photograph

34:31 ↗ would that be easier yeah because based

34:38 ↗ on the way we're discussing these

34:39 ↗ policies he would have a 10-foot setback

34:43 ↗ on Gilman and he would have a zero

34:47 ↗ setback on third which would be out of

34:49 ↗ character with the other residents on

34:51 ↗ third

35:38 ↗ okay so this is this is what mr. Kyle

35:44 ↗ currently owns he owns here's the big

35:46 ↗ this is a Liberty office building right

35:48 ↗ here and can you see that okay yeah

35:52 ↗ awesome no you're good but what we

35:55 ↗ talked about was he owns he actually

35:58 ↗ owns this and this and this and this and

36:03 ↗ we talked about this house right here

36:05 ↗ and you know he's looking at you know

36:08 ↗ can he do something different with this

36:11 ↗ northern part of his property which

36:12 ↗ really faces third but then the bigger

36:16 ↗ conversation was to take this existing

36:18 ↗ surface parking lot and potentially put

36:21 ↗ it underground and build probably

36:23 ↗ another office building like in here

36:26 ↗ which will have no setback issues

36:28 ↗ because it's really kind of it doesn't

36:31 ↗ have any

36:32 ↗ I mean his street frontage here's the

36:34 ↗ front of his property at the end of

36:35 ↗ Gilman right here so I think in in in

36:41 ↗ terms of what he's planning to do at

36:44 ↗ least currently I think what we're

36:46 ↗ talking about was meeting his

36:48 ↗ expectations for redevelopment

36:50 ↗ I agree but aspirationally let's say he

36:53 ↗ sells all of this property and

36:54 ↗ chanelle's comes in or he hadn't decided

36:56 ↗ to subnautica lee different the question

37:00 ↗ comes back to third because that would

37:02 ↗ be if he merged all those parcels

37:05 ↗ together

37:06 ↗ yes third would become a side yard

37:08 ↗ becoming a 0 setback and which would be

37:11 ↗ out of character with other properties

37:13 ↗ in on 3rd now I think if you merged all

37:16 ↗ that then you would say third is the

37:18 ↗ right well it depends what you're

37:21 ↗ merging so if you take so this is like a

37:23 ↗ two-story office building here as is

37:26 ↗ this I mean if you merge these parcels

37:28 ↗ and created one you know if you chose to

37:33 ↗ address it off of 3rd then that would be

37:35 ↗ the front even though it's the long

37:37 ↗ property end it would be it their legal

37:40 ↗ Street frontage if you merge them in

37:43 ↗ with kind of the liberty office project

37:46 ↗ then I agree with you Ron I think it's a

37:48 ↗ side to the front still being this

37:50 ↗ little

37:52 ↗ kind of nub on Gilman it depends upon

37:54 ↗ where they address it to some extent

37:58 ↗ look could this be one of those

37:59 ↗ properties where that has an exception

38:02 ↗ to the zero zero ten

38:08 ↗ so right now so I guess the question is

38:13 ↗ it you know are you are you concerned

38:17 ↗ about the proposed setbacks because of a

38:22 ↗ future lock consolidation that one

38:26 ↗ property owner might do yes

38:29 ↗ okay we're already having well we were

38:32 ↗ already having sort of that kind of that

38:34 ↗ conversation it's going that direction

38:36 ↗ right well are you or you run are you

38:40 ↗ proposing something like a ten-foot side

38:43 ↗ front and back setback for all

38:45 ↗ properties not on for all properties but

38:48 ↗ for this property specifically because

38:50 ↗ this property is unique in the sense

38:51 ↗ that its addresses Gilman which is

38:54 ↗ basically the width of that Street which

38:58 ↗ is between those houses in the freeway

39:00 ↗ so bird is actually becomes a zero

39:04 ↗ setback line which is his side yard

39:08 ↗ allow him to build an office building

39:10 ↗ all the way up to the edge of the street

39:12 ↗ if he wanted to consolidate his

39:13 ↗ properties merged a Lots as does the

39:17 ↗ city of any say with that or is that

39:18 ↗ just a filing with the county well so if

39:23 ↗ you merged all those Lots you know we

39:29 ↗ have some interpretive ability to

39:31 ↗ determine yards so right now because of

39:35 ↗ the orientation of those buildings the

39:37 ↗ way they are you know I think we'd still

39:40 ↗ consider third the front now if they

39:43 ↗ merge those Lots and they they cleared

39:48 ↗ the the buildings so they were starting

39:51 ↗ from scratch you know I mean it's hard

39:56 ↗ it's hard to to say whether we would

39:59 ↗ consider this aside I mean it seems like

40:01 ↗ you could say that's the front and

40:04 ↗ that's the side

40:06 ↗ but it might also be where they take

40:08 ↗ access from and right now as you can see

40:10 ↗ these parcels access off 1/3 so if they

40:14 ↗ were wanting to keep those driveways I

40:16 ↗ mean we may still say that's the front

40:18 ↗ of this parcel because that's where

40:19 ↗ they're getting vehicular access so

40:21 ↗ there's a lot of variables and the city

40:24 ↗ does have somewhat a level of discretion

40:27 ↗ but I hear you're concerned I don't know

40:30 ↗ what the likelihood of like that

40:32 ↗ complete lock consolidation and complete

40:34 ↗ bulldozing of those buildings is I mean

40:37 ↗ it could happen someday that's kind of

40:40 ↗ like saying we encourage next use now

40:47 ↗ that we've had this and I think my

40:49 ↗ commissioners understand the problem

40:51 ↗ that I'm trained or the point that I'm

40:52 ↗ trying to make what's your feedback well

40:54 ↗ I just wanted to clarify across the

40:56 ↗ street is gonna become a city park is

40:59 ↗ that correct yes okay so I I totally

41:04 ↗ understand around what you're saying but

41:07 ↗ this is also unique in that that say it

41:10 ↗ goes to they built you know it gets

41:12 ↗ consolidated a developer comes in and

41:14 ↗ they build you know right to the

41:15 ↗ property line the that's gonna be in a

41:19 ↗ park across the street it's not it's not

41:22 ↗ going to be kind of the residential look

41:25 ↗ and feel and so I'm thinking out loud

41:28 ↗ slightly but it's so it's kind of gonna

41:30 ↗ be in the future I think it's going to

41:32 ↗ be unique and so then the question in my

41:33 ↗ head is do we have a problem with

41:35 ↗ potentially a building going all the way

41:38 ↗ to the property line across from a city

41:40 ↗ park where would we still want it set

41:43 ↗ back you know with some trees and

41:45 ↗ shrubbery that's just what I'm thinking

41:49 ↗ as you're talking about it and that

41:52 ↗ would be worst case the it sounds like

41:54 ↗ the city has the ability if we're in

41:58 ↗ that situation to deem third the front

42:02 ↗ yes I think I think we have some ability

42:06 ↗ to do that and right now there is a

42:10 ↗ sidewalk on this side of third it looks

42:13 ↗ like it's kind of right at the back of

42:15 ↗ right away so you know

42:19 ↗ if that were to happen and if that were

42:22 ↗ considered a side yard and they were

42:23 ↗ allowed to build to that side yard

42:27 ↗ setback there could be a building right

42:31 ↗ behind the sidewalk we write the policy

42:35 ↗ where zero zero ten where more than

42:40 ↗ sixty percent or more than more than 60

42:45 ↗ percent of the so this is code not

42:47 ↗ policy right so we need to think black

42:50 ↗ and white not shades of grey I think Ron

42:56 ↗ like I see what you're saying but this

42:58 ↗ seems like such a unique unlikely case I

43:03 ↗ don't I don't think we need to use this

43:05 ↗ I feel like this is the exception that

43:09 ↗ proves the rule I don't I don't think we

43:11 ↗ need to write our code looking at weird

43:14 ↗ triangle Lots well the reason why I

43:18 ↗ bring this up is because we've been soft

43:20 ↗ in some of our language in the past we

43:22 ↗ haven't got what we wanted so that's why

43:24 ↗ we went back and redid the CIP this

43:27 ↗ would be one of those situations where

43:28 ↗ if the property owner did build out

43:32 ↗ would it create a visual impediment to

43:36 ↗ the area and would it really bother a

43:39 ↗ lot of people think the as it stands

43:44 ↗ right now are you comfortable with the

43:47 ↗ code as if the property stays exactly

43:49 ↗ the way it is are you comfortable with

43:51 ↗ the way the setbacks the zero and ten

43:55 ↗ feet are you comfortable with it the way

43:57 ↗ it is now

43:57 ↗ if he doesn't do anything else to the

44:00 ↗ property the way it is now it works

44:03 ↗ right you're comfortable with that

44:05 ↗ provided that there's a ten foot setback

44:07 ↗ on third so is Ronis I'm just looking at

44:13 ↗ the map as you're talking to I mean

44:14 ↗ could this potentially could this case

44:16 ↗ also happen with you know I'm looking at

44:19 ↗ parcels 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 I know what

44:24 ↗ some of their current news is but if we

44:26 ↗ take away that piece of it and

44:28 ↗ could these be consolidated and

44:30 ↗ developed I mean do you run into the

44:32 ↗ same issue then on dogwood and on

44:35 ↗ Crescent well I don't think you would

44:40 ↗ because the green checked area which is

44:44 ↗ right behind 37 36 and 35 is actually

44:47 ↗ going to be park space and that would be

44:51 ↗ I believe bones candy the one exception

44:55 ↗ to that would be parcel number 32 which

45:00 ↗ I think is the Grange and I guess that

45:06 ↗ brings them the other question as as far

45:08 ↗ as setback because that is a residential

45:10 ↗ neighborhood so that's probably even

45:12 ↗ more important for this type of

45:14 ↗ conversation is that they could actually

45:16 ↗ build out right up to the edge of the

45:19 ↗ street or sidewalk if there's a sidewalk

45:21 ↗ there

45:31 ↗ I just think as we should probably just

45:33 ↗ talk through it no I mean I think if we

45:36 ↗ have our very long-term hats on and we

45:38 ↗ don't think about what's in there right

45:40 ↗ now I see your point I mean it would be

45:43 ↗ a very stark contrast from you know

45:46 ↗ residential single-family homes across

45:47 ↗ the street to you know fully developed

45:52 ↗ and six the person was looking at that

45:54 ↗ one

45:54 ↗ just to clarify Keith this the highest

45:58 ↗ these could get a 65-foot maximum is

46:01 ↗ that how many stories are we imagining

46:04 ↗ here so so your worst case scenario Ron

46:06 ↗ I'm just trying to paint a picture would

46:08 ↗ be up to the property line and five

46:11 ↗ swells tile no because to get above to

46:16 ↗ get above the base height you have to

46:19 ↗ setback your upper floors so those those

46:22 ↗ that fifth floor and I think the fourth

46:24 ↗ floor would be step back from that that

46:27 ↗ building face three stories isn't it and

46:31 ↗ yeah so it's three stories step back you

46:34 ↗ could do two more yeah I'm just trying

46:36 ↗ to paint a visual of you know the thirty

46:38 ↗ years out and what we're thinking about

46:40 ↗ so three stories would be in that the

46:42 ↗ property line

46:43 ↗ and then yeah I'm just suggesting if

46:45 ↗ we're if you're concerned about that

46:47 ↗ property then you kind of have to look

46:48 ↗ at I think the rest of those chunks too

46:50 ↗ because they're right up against

46:51 ↗ single-family I mean we're seeing a

46:57 ↗ little bit of that happen in Old Town

46:59 ↗ you know with some of the multifamily

47:01 ↗ units coming in up against some of the

47:04 ↗ single-family more of just the zigzag

47:08 ↗ nature of what that looks like but again

47:11 ↗ I you know I don't know how much we want

47:12 ↗ to set code for 20 30 years from now

47:16 ↗ versus something that we feel like

47:18 ↗ everyone's bought in new and feels go

47:20 ↗ back to my original question does it

47:22 ↗ work set up the way it is right now yes

47:29 ↗ you don't know if he's going to combine

47:32 ↗ all his properties to properties or not

47:36 ↗ do anything and leave it the way it is

47:38 ↗ so the discussion seems to me that you

47:43 ↗ know you cannot

47:44 ↗ imagine everything that's going to

47:46 ↗ happen in the future besides the fact

47:48 ↗ that they do we combine two properties

47:52 ↗ they're going to look at those two

47:53 ↗ properties based on something where

47:56 ↗ where are you going to put the front

47:58 ↗ where are you gonna what's the side how

48:00 ↗ are you gonna have the access and at

48:02 ↗ that time the city is going to have to

48:04 ↗ look at it and say it doesn't work and I

48:08 ↗ can't look

48:10 ↗ 25 years out in the future I mean as

48:12 ↗ long as it works now I think some of the

48:15 ↗ problems we've had like that

48:17 ↗ my personal thing is I don't like a

48:19 ↗ storage unit on Newport but that was

48:23 ↗ created because there was no code to

48:25 ↗ prevent it now I think we've gone

48:28 ↗ through 500 codes we've gone through 127

48:32 ↗ pages of what can and cannot be done in

48:35 ↗ those areas but we cannot you know look

48:40 ↗ at the future and provide everything

48:42 ↗ that's kind of what I think so

48:45 ↗ we're looking at it the way it is now we

48:47 ↗ have no idea what it's going to do in

48:49 ↗ the future so think about it this way

48:51 ↗ Ron you know I yeah I think your points

48:54 ↗ are good I think though you know one of

48:58 ↗ the things is these properties as part

49:02 ↗ of central Issaquah could have done that

49:04 ↗ right I mean because the setbacks that

49:06 ↗ we're talking about in terms of what the

49:09 ↗ outcome is going to be are other than

49:12 ↗ the front and we talked about the set

49:14 ↗ two versus a set back there they're not

49:18 ↗ different right so your concern that you

49:21 ↗ have about Sam Kyle's property and its

49:25 ↗ relationship to third Avenue would have

49:27 ↗ existed if these properties would have

49:30 ↗ stayed in central right and so so I

49:34 ↗ guess in a way what what the council

49:40 ↗ asked us to do was to take these

49:42 ↗ properties out of central they didn't

49:45 ↗ say and fix any of the other problems

49:47 ↗ that might have been associated with

49:48 ↗ them while they were in central and so I

49:52 ↗ guess I don't know I don't want to make

49:55 ↗ this harder than it needs to be

49:58 ↗ because I don't know that what you're

50:02 ↗ concerned about is likely to transpire

50:06 ↗ in the next 20 years so I don't know I

50:09 ↗ mean nobody has nobody here that I know

50:12 ↗ if has a crystal ball so we're all

50:14 ↗ trying to make the best decisions we can

50:16 ↗ based on the information we have and so

50:20 ↗ if if part of our charge was to really

50:23 ↗ look at taking them out of central but

50:26 ↗ not significantly downzoning or changing

50:30 ↗ their development ability I think

50:32 ↗ leaving the setbacks the way that

50:34 ↗ they're currently proposed is probably

50:36 ↗ the closest outcome we could have to

50:38 ↗ that intent all situationally

50:42 ↗ situational planning going to be

50:45 ↗ aspirational looking out if I owned the

50:48 ↗ Grange based on those current criteria

50:54 ↗ of Zoning I may want to put in mix juice

50:58 ↗ and develop the property to its maximum

51:00 ↗ which means I'm going to jack it all the

51:02 ↗ way up as high as I can go and fill up

51:04 ↗ just full of people right max from

51:10 ↗ thinking that far ahead

51:12 ↗ 40 50 years that might happen what would

51:16 ↗ that look like how would that impact

51:17 ↗ neighborhood behind it right and if I

51:22 ↗ was a neighbor behind it I'd be pretty

51:24 ↗ upset if I had look at a 65 well I mean

51:28 ↗ so so likewise we talked about lazyboy a

51:31 ↗ little bit before so lazy boys in Old

51:33 ↗ Town right now it's in CBD it could be

51:36 ↗ five storeys so this building right here

51:40 ↗ could have been bladed when staples

51:44 ↗ moved out and there could be five story

51:47 ↗ apartments running along the property

51:50 ↗ line more or less I think there's a five

51:52 ↗ foot side yard with in CBD so so you

51:55 ↗ know when when you are adjacent to

52:00 ↗ different zoning there are things that

52:03 ↗ can get built that are very different

52:05 ↗ than what you might be used to and

52:08 ↗ that's just part of I think the deal

52:11 ↗ I hope that it goes through the

52:12 ↗ development Commission and they use the

52:15 ↗ requirements that we put in in the way

52:17 ↗ of building and and things to build with

52:20 ↗ and all the other things that we talked

52:22 ↗ about to make it AI pleasing to the city

52:26 ↗ and something we would be these web

52:29 ↗ right we would have the Old Town to

52:31 ↗ element standards so if if you guys

52:35 ↗ that's that's another conversation if

52:37 ↗ you guys make that recommendation to add

52:39 ↗ this area into Old Town then it would

52:41 ↗ have to follow the design guidelines for

52:44 ↗ Old Town just a follow-up question in

52:49 ↗ the Tuesday meeting was there any

52:51 ↗ discussion around the side or rear

52:54 ↗ setbacks there was a lot of discussion

52:56 ↗ about ok around the setbacks the

52:59 ↗ property owners for both the IC engine

53:01 ↗ retail lobbied hard to make the setbacks

53:05 ↗ as small as possible okay and the

53:07 ↗ reasons I gave for zero setbacks were

53:13 ↗ reasonable and understandable based on

53:18 ↗ their businesses and they they want to

53:21 ↗ have access to their property so and it

53:23 ↗ worked so the only thing I want to say

53:27 ↗ we talked about this is a good one if

53:32 ↗ you have a garage 10 feet under and

53:36 ↗ you're not sure if landscaping would

53:38 ↗ grow think about the Mercer Island

53:40 ↗ bridge that's covered with all this

53:42 ↗ landscaping and it will grow yeah but I

53:46 ↗ think if you talk to Sam Kyle about how

53:48 ↗ deep his garage was gonna be I think it

53:51 ↗ was it was probably you know you don't

53:52 ↗ dig deeper here then you have to write

53:55 ↗ and so generally and especially because

53:59 ↗ you hit water fairly high up our

54:02 ↗ groundwater is fairly high and so I

54:04 ↗ don't have to have any reasonable so I

54:07 ↗ like trees it just happened depending on

54:10 ↗ the trees depending on the soil anything

54:12 ↗ could happen to do that so absolutely

54:15 ↗ okay are there any other discussions are

54:20 ↗ we ready to okay one quick one on where

54:22 ↗ it says I am

54:23 ↗ Parkinson's IMC standards that's all

54:25 ↗ equipment it's a criminal code did I MC

54:28 ↗ is yes okay so an Enzo and though in

54:31 ↗ those cases this is your zone the same

54:34 ↗ as the rest of the non CI P okay with

54:39 ↗ that do I have anybody who liked emotion

54:41 ↗ make a motion to accept the proposal of

54:46 ↗ the city and the way of the two zoning

54:47 ↗ districts just before motion I just

54:50 ↗ wanted to make a comment Ron I do

54:52 ↗ appreciate the long-term look at this

54:54 ↗ because I do think that's something that

54:57 ↗ is important and we do need to be

54:59 ↗ thinking about that even in these

55:01 ↗ near-term pieces and the developments

55:05 ↗ continuing to come so I I do really

55:07 ↗ appreciate that you bring that

55:08 ↗ perspective to this conversation and I

55:11 ↗ understand what the council was asking

55:13 ↗ us to do and in this situation but I I

55:17 ↗ also don't want to see us necessarily

55:19 ↗ err on

55:20 ↗ well that wasn't our mission so that's

55:22 ↗ not think through what's what's best so

55:25 ↗ just in the spirit of that I'm not I'm

55:27 ↗ in support of what we're planning here

55:30 ↗ for tonight but I do think I don't feel

55:33 ↗ comfortable with moving forward as kind

55:35 ↗ of the PPC saying well it's not our

55:38 ↗ mission to kind of think through the

55:39 ↗ longer-term vision of what we want to do

55:40 ↗ and put the code in place and I know you

55:42 ↗ guys have done a lot of great thinking

55:43 ↗ around that so it is where the teeth I

55:46 ↗ think are so the development is coming

55:49 ↗ it's here it's happening and so I think

55:51 ↗ it's it's just good thoughtful

55:53 ↗ conversation I think to continue to push

55:55 ↗ forward with I don't think that we

55:57 ↗ should you know be concerned with 40 or

56:01 ↗ 50 years out but I think that as we make

56:04 ↗ plans that cause or suggest COEs we

56:08 ↗ should take into consideration what

56:11 ↗ those codes would affect you know what

56:15 ↗ the outcome of those specific things

56:18 ↗ were so and that takes you into the

56:21 ↗ future that yes you know we like blue

56:23 ↗ buildings and therefore we're happy that

56:26 ↗ every building is going to be blue in

56:28 ↗ the future so absolutely we have to

56:32 ↗ think about the future but how we think

56:35 ↗ about it

56:36 ↗ and how specific we get might not be

56:42 ↗ where we are right now I don't know how

56:45 ↗ to say that but anything else so can

56:50 ↗ somebody make a motion to accept that

56:53 ↗ proposal as it is stated as I've been

56:56 ↗ told the middle I'd make motions so you

56:58 ↗ know I'd like to make you are a member

57:01 ↗ of the Commission at this point in time

57:03 ↗ just what part of the quorum because

57:05 ↗ there's I was needed for quantum oh all

57:07 ↗ right one two three four no you're not

57:13 ↗ like I'm not it's more before there's

57:16 ↗ five oh one two three four five well I

57:19 ↗ don't considered I'd like to make a

57:20 ↗ motion to approve the administration or

57:22 ↗ recommendation of destination retail I

57:24 ↗ don't count me when I'm thinking the

57:26 ↗ other four so any one second I'll second

57:32 ↗ any other discussion all those in favor

57:35 ↗ say aye aye opposed very no nays the

57:43 ↗ motion carries so with that we will we

57:48 ↗ realize clarification he made the motion

57:51 ↗ for only destination retail he did not

57:54 ↗ mention commercial information bozo was

57:57 ↗ or both of the two did you say both of

58:02 ↗ the two for administration of

58:05 ↗ recommendation for destination retail

58:06 ↗ that call me don't you know make a moat

58:08 ↗ okay my error you wanna make a motion

58:12 ↗ for commercial like to make a motion to

58:14 ↗ approve oh okay there's two pieces okay

58:27 ↗ make a recommendation to approve the

58:30 ↗ intents of commercial option for in one

58:33 ↗ second I will second any discussion all

58:37 ↗ those in favor say aye

58:38 ↗ aye aye opposed motion carries the next

58:45 ↗ steps for this um and I'll forward you

58:47 ↗ an email as well in the agenda comes out

58:49 ↗ that we'll go to as far as we know it

58:51 ↗ will go to the land and Shore Committee

58:53 ↗ a week from tonight in this building and

58:56 ↗ they start at what time 6:30 now okay

58:59 ↗ but I will since I think I have all your

59:02 ↗ email still we'll send you that agenda

59:05 ↗ when it when it goes on live on the

59:07 ↗ website but that'll be when the council

59:09 ↗ committee starts to talk about it with

59:12 ↗ that I just want to remind you again to

59:14 ↗ read that the minutes of the park of the

59:17 ↗ old town plan they'll be prepared on the

59:20 ↗ 12th of July and that's when we'll start

59:24 ↗ talking about whether or not we want Oak

59:29 ↗ 10 in Old Town okay and will that all be

59:35 ↗ dealt with it the next okay there will

59:42 ↗ be a lot of letters sent to the property

59:46 ↗ owners to the north in Old Town and I

59:49 ↗ know you've been getting a lot of things

59:51 ↗ from us lately and also those property

59:53 ↗ owners to the South that we've talked

59:55 ↗ about removing from old towns so they're

59:57 ↗ all aware of the discussion that we're

1:00:00 ↗ having do you remember how many letters

1:00:03 ↗ were sending out 59 to the north oh wow

1:00:07 ↗ and just over a about 150 to the South

1:00:13 ↗ okay and the letters the last draft I

1:00:16 ↗ saw lets folks know that the zoning

1:00:19 ↗ doesn't change if I'm moving out I just

1:00:22 ↗ say that it just says the boundaries

1:00:24 ↗ will be discussed the boundary changes

1:00:26 ↗ will be discussed discussed on the 12th

1:00:27 ↗ okay yeah because it's a there's no

1:00:29 ↗ zoning impact but there's a design

1:00:31 ↗ standard in fact know that because those

1:00:34 ↗ the areas to the south are not bound by

1:00:36 ↗ the old town design standards because

1:00:38 ↗ they're not within the CBD sunset or the

1:00:42 ↗ multifamily right behind but we're

1:00:45 ↗ talking about them in the future it

1:00:47 ↗ could be right in the future if you guys

1:00:50 ↗ decide to change that okay we can talk

1:00:53 ↗ about this next meeting can you guys

1:00:55 ↗ send us a copy of the list yes yes

1:00:58 ↗ a clarification we had a public hearing

1:01:02 ↗ and it was continued to the 12 to the

1:01:05 ↗ 12th I believe but I believe that an

1:01:07 ↗ accurate scale is it we are complete we

1:01:09 ↗ continue the public hearing so there

1:01:10 ↗ will be processed for opportunities for

1:01:13 ↗ people to discuss correct that's my

1:01:16 ↗ understanding

1:01:17 ↗ okay now anything for the good of the

1:01:21 ↗ order just a big thank you guys for

1:01:24 ↗ taking the extra time to meet you know

1:01:26 ↗ all together both the property owners

1:01:28 ↗ and the you know city staff I think that

1:01:31 ↗ was a really cool example of working

1:01:32 ↗ together to get something that worked

1:01:34 ↗ for everyone so thank you the city cares

1:01:37 ↗ I was there anything from staff I just

1:01:43 ↗ liked it so thank you to our scribe who

1:01:50 ↗ does an excellent job I think I mean I

1:01:53 ↗ don't know how she records at all unless

1:01:55 ↗ she goes back and listens to it over

1:01:56 ↗ again and types down everything I think

1:01:58 ↗ she does a good job though with that if

1:02:01 ↗ there's nothing else I'm going to close

1:02:03 ↗ the meeting at 7:35 and thank you all

1:02:07 ↗ for coming thanks

1:02:18 ↗ you

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