← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, July 12, 2018

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Dept. of Ecology Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Grant (Olde Town Targeted Basin Study and Plan Study) AB 8939 8/9
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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
2a
Minutes of June 28, 2018
packet pp.5–9
Staff report:
McGAULEY asked what was the rationale for retaining the 10-foot front setback in the new DR- IMC zone. Heinonen said the zero-foot setback from the DR-Central Issaquah zoning designation was intended to reflect the more pedestrian feeling of Central Issaquah, whereas most of the DR uses are already set back because their frontage is on East Gilman. Requiring a zero-foot setback is not as realistic for that area. McGAULEY asked if the front setback is set at 10 feet, does that mean that a developer has to build up to that line. Niven said no, and explained the difference between a set-to and a set-back line. McGAULEY asked is the ten-foot frontage requirement for IC a minimum. Niven replied yes. McGAULEY asked why not set the minimum as zero. Niven explained the current uses in DR are largely patronized via vehicle, such as The Grange, XXX Drive-In, and Boehm’s. The 10-foot setback that…
3. PUBLIC HEARING
3a
Continued from 6/21/18 Public Hearing - Olde Town Subarea Plan, (D)
Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.11–34
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
On June 21st the Planning Policy Commission continued a public hearing for the Olde Town Subarea Plan update. This public hearing was continued to July 12th so that staff was given time to incorporate new comments from the Administration as well as comments provided in the City’s draft Strategic Priorities
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.35
0:15 there he is on air good evening and
0:19 welcome to the July 12th meeting in the
0:21 planning policy Commission tonight we're
0:23 going to have a to continue our public
0:27 hearing from June 21st on the Oldtown
0:30 sub area plan as usual the first order
0:34 of business is the approval of minutes
0:36 from June 28th I'd like to make a motion
0:41 to approve the meeting minutes from June
0:43 28th 2018 suck at the motion is there
0:48 any discussion all those in favor say
0:51 aye
0:51 all right hearing none motion carries I
0:57 guess Trish Oh Jason welcome thank you
1:04 Jason how do you pronounce your last
1:05 thing voice voice right is a new member
1:10 that hasn't been able to attend meetings
1:13 in June so welcome thank you and I I
1:17 know you will be as involved and and
1:21 knowledgeable as our other new members
1:24 that are sitting at the table so welcome
1:26 thank you and with that yep Trish is
1:29 gonna give us an up know Kristen is
1:31 gonna give us an update on the old town
1:34 plan okay
1:37 so let's see she's trying to think back
1:44 I didn't put a date on here this time of
1:46 when the public hearing we first brought
1:48 it back and I can't it was mayor Jay I
1:50 think believe it was May May 10 no
1:52 somewhere around there
1:54 June June 14 there we go and it's been
1:57 continued a couple of times once we took
2:00 a look at boundaries one time we talked
2:02 about formula businesses and then most
2:04 recently we had some administrative
2:07 changes that came up and after
2:09 additional review and so that is what we
2:11 were going to look at tonight and we
2:14 will also make a final decision on
2:15 boundaries and then hopefully tonight
2:18 there will be a recommendation to the
2:19 City Council
2:23 so these are this is a list of I'm gonna
2:25 go over these a little more clearly but
2:27 a list of changes that was made that had
2:29 been made since June 21st the last time
2:31 that you all saw this it's there in
2:34 quality of life vision and then the
2:36 policies as well all the way down and
2:38 then also into the action programs so
2:43 starting with quality of life there is
2:46 an expansion of the section just for
2:49 clarification purposes first we noted
2:52 that it predates suburban a car into car
2:54 oriented form of the rest of the city so
2:57 it's intended to be my walk can I
2:58 interrupt for just one second it are all
3:00 of these updates in the version that
3:02 they are you received okay that was the
3:04 version that they had kind of done that
3:06 update yes right so I'll reviews are in
3:08 your packet and all these are on the
3:09 website as well we added that it came up
3:14 in the strategic plan some of the stuff
3:18 that has popped up in that that it came
3:20 up about three or four times that old
3:22 town has a tight-knit feels without put
3:24 that in there as well there is been we
3:28 added that there's been abuse of parking
3:29 particularly near transit stops and by
3:31 abusive parking I mean parking somewhere
3:33 in front of a shop all day and staying
3:36 there all day so that you know people
3:39 couldn't get to stores development codes
3:41 we added specifically impervious and
3:43 parking just to clarify connection to
3:45 Issaquah Creek wasn't prioritized and a
3:48 loss of neighborhood serving retail I
3:50 believe it said loss of a grocery store
3:52 and we just broaden that to say some
3:54 some neighborhood serving businesses its
3:56 yes
3:57 the tight-knit feel that you have in the
4:00 in the plan mmm-hmm the next word is
4:03 small town charm mm-hmm and I'm not sure
4:05 it's just my opinion but I don't like
4:08 small town okay and you don't have to
4:12 change it I just don't consider its
4:16 across small town anymore but the old
4:20 the old town does does old town have the
4:23 small old town charm it's just my
4:28 opinion okay nobody else seems to care
4:30 so that's my opinion it's on the record
4:33 now okay okay
4:35 and the vision I've just rearranged a
4:38 little bit we added a piece about the
4:40 prominence of views of the mountains and
4:42 how important it is to keep those and
4:43 changed heart of the city to historic
4:45 downtown didn't want to offend anybody
4:48 alright in community we added 1.8
4:53 facilitate active use of sidewalks by
4:56 area businesses and we have a section in
5:00 our code that allows it it allows it to
5:05 happen expedites there we go expedites
5:07 the process for businesses in an adze
5:09 areas to us so is equal hyelin's is
5:12 included
5:12 I think rally might be included in it
5:14 and then add an old town to help
5:15 expedite having serving restaurants you
5:19 know having restaurants or food or
5:20 flowers outside or whatever it is and
5:22 then remove specifics regarding on how
5:25 to update the standard stating only that
5:27 we want to remain consistent with the
5:28 existing scale and character exactly
5:31 what that's going to be will be
5:32 addressed when we do the standards next
5:34 year so in connectivity and mobility we
5:39 just clarified that we want to improve
5:41 connections not only to other areas but
5:43 also within Old Town and got a little
5:46 specific there for example by adding
5:48 sidewalks and missing non-motorized
5:51 improvements so bike lanes and sidewalks
5:52 and then in 2.9 increase the
5:57 availability of parking spaces in Old
5:58 Town specifically by reducing the
6:00 abusive use of free parking which I
6:02 talked about earlier and then adding
6:04 particularly sorry my words are not here
6:08 adding limited parking as well limited
6:12 parking so either through meters or just
6:15 people who come by and mark your tires
6:17 that kind of thing
6:18 ma for environment in slips that's
6:23 supposed to be crossed out instead
6:24 required or we just require we just said
6:27 use limited building heights as opposed
6:30 to step backs which would potentially
6:31 mean lowering heights because right now
6:33 you can go up to 4 storeys with step
6:37 backs we talked about that earlier so
6:39 once you can go up to 3 storeys and then
6:41 once you get to 4 you have to move a
6:42 back 10 feet or 15 feet whatever it may
6:44 be to help preserve views
6:47 and this is saying actually instead of
6:48 using step backs just lower the building
6:50 heights altogether and then the other
6:52 one we just broadened it out instead of
6:54 the green necklace to an integrated park
6:56 system economic vitality we removed the
7:03 four point three regarding the exemption
7:05 expansion of fiber infrastructure and
7:08 then four point four there was initially
7:12 has to have formula businesses so we
7:14 talked about that the administration did
7:16 not have a formal recommendation but
7:18 based on things that we've heard based
7:20 on conversations that you all had and
7:22 it's kind of going in two different
7:23 directions on limiting the uses are
7:25 limiting or monitor requiring a
7:28 character and styles that we're now
7:33 leaning to our recommendation is to just
7:35 lean the way of less control the
7:36 character of Old Town let's regulate the
7:38 character and design of Old Town and see
7:41 what happens that way
7:42 so retain and enhance the vitality of
7:44 the historic shopping core of the city
7:46 through zoning code updates and
7:48 prioritized small-scale local businesses
7:50 neighborhood serving retail grocery and
7:52 restaurant uses and to the conservation
7:55 of larger auto oriented commercial
7:58 spaces into Main Street compatible
7:59 developments so that they would look
8:02 like the rest of Main Street any
8:05 questions
8:10 and then we also added 4.10 to
8:13 facilitate community events and black
8:14 parties housing in the goal we clarified
8:21 that we will add a minimal number of
8:24 housing units to Old Town and well we
8:27 won't add we will allow the addition of
8:29 minimal housing units and they deleted
8:31 5.2 which allowed for various types of
8:34 housing which was kind of a duplicate of
8:37 one below it and replaced it with reduce
8:40 allowable heights in higher density
8:42 areas to maintain the character and
8:43 scale of residential neighborhoods so
8:45 that would be in the multifamily high
8:47 and the single-family duplex areas we
8:50 talked about that on our tour and then
8:53 5.3 toxa is the one the duplicate that
8:57 talks about allowing different types of
8:58 housing but we removed micro housing and
9:03 cottage housing is options in Old Town
9:04 with the idea that those would create
9:07 more density than the minimal density we
9:09 want to allow the Action Programme for
9:16 19 or 20 19 to 20 20 which is our
9:20 short-term next year
9:21 we added three one is to develop
9:23 incentives that reduce parking
9:24 requirements for neighborhood oriented
9:26 commercial projects we added code
9:29 revisions to expand the sidewalk use
9:31 district which is what I talked about a
9:32 few minutes ago and we added adjust old
9:35 town boundaries as adopted which we'll
9:37 talk about that in a few minutes okay
9:39 and for the short term 2021 to 2022 is a
9:43 create streamline City process to allow
9:44 old town street closures to facilitate
9:46 neighborhood and community events okay
9:52 so for the words for the text the
9:55 policies the goals the vision and the
9:58 action program that's what we have any
9:59 thoughts or comments before we move on
10:03 got a couple of questions I'll go ahead
10:05 oh and I was actually gonna wait till we
10:10 were done with the packet to ask them
10:12 but I'll quite ask them now going back
10:16 to section 2.9 and related to section 4
10:24 number 15 parking talks about develop
10:31 incentives that reduce parking
10:34 requirements for neighborhood oriented
10:35 commercial projects why are we
10:39 incentivizing people to have less
10:44 parking or we make it a part of code and
10:48 to or are people going to park if they
10:53 want to shop the ball talent you mean if
10:57 we reduce parking well right now it's so
10:59 it would only be reduced for the private
11:01 property owners who redevelop their
11:02 properties and part of that is their
11:04 struttin Keith you may need to jump in
11:05 here but part of that is is that the
11:07 property owners are having finding it
11:09 difficult to develop their properties
11:11 with the current requirements that we
11:12 have so we need to update those so this
11:17 is we tried a different tact to than the
11:19 formula based businesses because I think
11:21 you know there was a there's a sense
11:24 that I think we had based on your guys's
11:26 deliberations as well as the letter we
11:29 got from the chamber and the one from
11:31 the EVC that said hey take longer think
11:33 about this so what we did is we said
11:36 well okay we we kind of teed up the
11:41 formula based business conversation in
11:44 response to some public comments we got
11:47 about Dollar Tree going in right and so
11:50 as as that conversation unfolded it
11:54 became less about Dollar Tree and more
11:57 about a conversation that the retail on
12:01 Front Street is doing two things it's in
12:07 one way it's serving you've got the
12:09 restaurants that are serving tourists
12:11 and tourist destination type businesses
12:13 but you also have businesses that are
12:16 serving the neighborhoods that are part
12:19 of Old Town and so what this is talking
12:22 about is if somebody were to come in
12:24 let's say
12:25 say that the teriyaki place goes out
12:28 right and a retailer wants to come in
12:31 and do and we heard this last time
12:34 someone talked about when they moved
12:36 here there was a dress shop on Front
12:38 Street not to say that we're gonna get a
12:40 dress shop but let's assume there was
12:41 something small-scale like that that was
12:43 really geared towards the surrounding
12:46 neighborhood if they wanted to go in
12:48 there but maybe there was a problem
12:50 because there wasn't enough parking for
12:52 code or some other reason what this is
12:54 saying is we should look for ways to
12:56 prioritize neighborhoods serving retail
12:59 if it is neighborhood serving in theory
13:02 they're not trying to get people to come
13:04 there from the rest of the city that are
13:06 driving right so the parking issue is a
13:10 function of what's being proposed there
13:13 now this is again we're teeing this up
13:17 as an idea to potentially inso problem
13:22 with incentives is we don't have a lot
13:25 in our toolbox I don't have you know
13:28 subsidies that the city can offer to get
13:31 a a retail or on Front Street but if you
13:35 could say you know what we're gonna not
13:37 require you to provide any parking
13:39 because the two or three spaces are part
13:42 of the general public parking that's in
13:44 the vicinity and we're gonna be fine
13:46 with that that's a that's a policy
13:50 decision that then gets turned into a
13:53 code decision but this is where we had
13:56 that conversation of is that the right
13:58 thing to do or do we just let the market
14:00 handle front street and whatever comes
14:03 comes and we'll hope that it's good
14:06 stuff and so this is that conversation
14:09 point where do we do something to try
14:11 and maybe bend the curve a little bit if
14:15 it needs to be bent so it's I'm not
14:18 saying it's a good idea I'm saying it's
14:21 here for a conversation and this is this
14:24 is the way this works is is you guys
14:26 tell us whether you think that's a good
14:28 idea or not okay I've got a couple more
14:31 comments about it but I can hold off
14:33 from my comments until the
14:35 people can talk about thank you for
14:37 giving that more thorough explanation
14:39 because I wasn't connecting the dots
14:42 between having something that was a
14:44 neighbourhood oriented and parking
14:46 requirements I generally think like that
14:49 that is a good connection I would be
14:53 interested how it would be codified and
14:55 what would be defined as neighbourhood
14:58 oriented which yes yeah we have we would
15:02 have to have that conversation but I
15:03 think in general one of the glances
15:06 we've lost the grocery store we want to
15:09 make sure that if that was you know in
15:12 order to incentivize that coming back
15:15 I think reducing parking requirements
15:16 makes a lot of sense and if you include
15:19 that in the plan then that's a
15:21 conversation that can be had because
15:22 that's part of the vision that says this
15:23 is what we want to get to so what are
15:27 the current parking requirements oh my
15:28 gosh they do and they sit in the end in
15:34 the CBD it's different than the rest of
15:36 the city but it's a little bit lower in
15:38 the rest of the city and if you have a
15:40 certain amount of square footage like
15:42 three it's not as low as central but
15:45 it's not as high as the rest of the city
15:47 somewhere in the middle all right I'm
15:50 sorry no that's okay okay yeah okay okay
15:54 yeah already I move on to boundary all
15:57 right are you done
15:59 well there's with that stuff I shouldn't
16:01 awk about the boundary real quick so do
16:02 you clarification do you want to talk
16:06 about the boundaries now or wait till
16:10 after they open house okay do you
16:19 understand the question
16:22 we open up the pub public hearing to
16:24 discuss their thoughts and then talk
16:26 about the rezone the change in the yeah
16:30 but you're phoning in the southern end
16:31 yeah and if we can only oh if we can
16:33 only open it one time then we'd want to
16:35 present the options for we're going to
16:37 keep the boundaries as well do it right
16:41 we're going to continue the public
16:43 hearing so do you want to continue the
16:45 public hearing and then discuss it yes
16:50 Oh prefer here the community first okay
16:53 so mmm but do we want to hear the
16:58 community be right but you pursue the
17:00 bound I would like to hear your thoughts
17:03 on why and what the value and changing
17:08 that particular piece of property okay
17:11 so I will then we'll have the okay so I
17:14 will let you know that after June 21st
17:16 we sent out about a hundred and fifty
17:17 letters to all the property owners
17:20 within the northern area that's been
17:22 discussed and the southern area that's
17:24 been discussed just to let them know
17:25 that changes were being proposed
17:27 nothing's happened but that there was a
17:29 public hearing tonight I heard from four
17:33 residents about it right now and so
17:39 there are four options mm-hmm and I'm
17:42 not really gonna speak to this southern
17:44 portion of it right now
17:45 but as to the northern portion the city
17:49 is leaning towards not including that
17:50 area in Old Town reason being after the
17:54 route 10 old route 10 destination retail
17:57 discussions the standards that we are
17:59 winding up with there are still closer
18:01 to central Issaquah than they are to Old
18:04 Town where we are talking about
18:05 potentially reducing building heights
18:08 there and not really increasing the
18:11 densities that much
18:12 so we're there going in opposite
18:15 directions so the city right now is not
18:17 leaning towards adding the northern
18:19 portion to it but that's the city's
18:20 stance but there are still four options
18:24 one is option A which is to just leave
18:27 it as it is and don't touch the
18:28 boundaries option B is to take what
18:32 exists now
18:33 and add old route 10 option C is to
18:38 remove the southern portion of what's
18:40 there now and add old route 10 an option
18:44 D is to not add old route 10 but take
18:50 out the southern portion I kind of
18:52 spelled out up there
18:54 but in when I talk to people I would let
18:57 you know when I talk to people questions
19:00 came up and we put it up on the website
19:02 eventually but questions came up like
19:04 can I still vote if we're taken out of
19:07 the Old Town sub area and yes you're
19:09 still in this choir you can still vote
19:10 does it change our school district
19:11 boundaries no it does not change the
19:13 school district boundaries does it
19:14 change budgeting for capital
19:15 improvements in our area no because
19:17 capital improvements are not determined
19:18 by sub areas am I going to be resumed no
19:23 there's no proposal to do that I did
19:26 tell them that there have been
19:27 discussions that haven't really come to
19:29 fruition yet but discussions about
19:31 potentially expanding design standards
19:33 to include all of Old Town but that
19:37 nothing's been decided and you know it's
19:41 so if they were to remain in Old Town
19:42 that that might happen but if they're
19:44 outside of Old Town then if that happens
19:46 it wouldn't apply to them so those are
19:48 some of the conversations that I've had
19:49 with people I'm just to let you know so
19:53 when we talked the last time you were
19:55 going to actually do some contacting who
20:00 in the area you get a better clearer
20:04 idea of what they felt I know you've had
20:06 some questions but did you go and do any
20:10 other we did not go out and go any door
20:13 to do any door-to-door things but we did
20:14 send out the letters to people okay
20:17 listen
20:17 okay now letters included maps okay yeah
20:21 before our last meeting or is this no it
20:24 was on the 21st
20:25 I think the letters went out on the 28th
20:28 thank you
20:29 the letters went out on the 28th okay so
20:31 after our meeting I just know that if
20:33 you all requested it on the 21st and we
20:35 did it the following week that's up
20:41 okay okay so we have four options to
20:45 consider mm-hm and with that with that I
20:48 am done so not that I don't want you to
20:50 be done very good presentation I'm going
20:54 to continue the public hearing and ask
20:57 if there is anybody here that would like
21:00 to comment on where we're going with the
21:03 old town area would anybody like to
21:10 comment please come to the microphone
21:21 good evening my name's Chris Craven I
21:25 live at 580 Front Street I did receive
21:28 the one-page one map notice from the
21:34 28th and so I'm here tonight to comment
21:37 I have to say I probably have more
21:39 questions than comments
21:43 there's no no explanation no link to the
21:48 studies or the reason or any of the
21:50 background information that you may have
21:53 I know I was here at the beginning of
21:55 this process commented about the desire
22:00 to change the northern boundary from its
22:05 existing location to south of the bridge
22:08 and for the same reason I have concerns
22:11 about removing the southern section in
22:14 that design standards allow us to create
22:17 neighborhoods that have character front
22:20 street from north to south is a gateway
22:23 into Old Town and my fear is without
22:27 being in that sub area that it just
22:31 continues to degrade in its character
22:34 and its upgrades and in its standards
22:39 again I have a lot of questions what's
22:41 the advantage of taking the southern
22:43 portion out of the sub plan what what's
22:46 the purpose of that what does it mean to
22:50 be taken out of the sub plan what what
22:53 others
22:53 standards or you know overlays are
22:59 applicable once we get taken out of the
23:01 the old town designation there's a lot
23:06 of residents in that area and the
23:08 connection on the Rainier Trail to this
23:10 area is important and the character and
23:13 the overall you know fitting in with the
23:18 neighborhood is important so all those
23:20 connections I think are important and
23:22 reason to give a very good sound reason
23:28 why it's being proposed to be taken out
23:30 and I don't know what that is
23:35 thank you
23:46 either I'm speaking for four bones
23:49 Kandi's designation of which if we're on
23:52 that map or which map are on because we
23:54 did not get the flyer we're at 2:55
23:57 North East Gilman Boulevard but we saw
24:02 some of you a couple weeks ago here
24:04 where we decided about the destination
24:06 retail land uses and we aren't sure if
24:11 again I may be out of turn maybe
24:13 somebody could correct me here but if we
24:15 are in one of these different boundaries
24:18 we like what we came up with which the
24:21 PBC agreed with On June 28 and we're
24:26 hoping whether we change into a bold
24:29 town or back into central or whatever
24:31 that the standards that were agreed upon
24:33 by your commission will stay with
24:37 whatever area you put us in we heard
24:43 something about maybe like mixed-use or
24:45 something like that that's great if the
24:48 standards are more but we would like the
24:49 minimum for our end of Gilman Boulevard
24:52 to be what you the Commission decided
24:56 last on the 28th of June so again I'm
24:59 not even sure if we're in this I just
25:00 wanted to make sure if we are that our
25:03 voices are heard from what was decided
25:06 on the on the 28th thank you anybody
25:12 else like to make a comment
25:17 I stupid old town about ten years so I'm
25:23 doing best to be here I'm coming in late
25:25 so this topic just the boundary section
25:29 or are there topics as well I'm sorry so
25:34 as I said I'm trying my best to be here
25:36 for all of these I'm running a little
25:38 bit late I'm not sure if the topic is
25:39 just the boundaries at this point or if
25:41 it's broader of comments okay so I guess
25:46 starting with the boundary I guess I'd
25:47 start with the idea of the process being
25:49 not adequate and the old route town was
25:52 looked at as an old neighborhood that
25:53 still needs to be looked at from a
25:54 broader community vision needs to happen
25:57 I think that's true of removing the
25:59 southern portions as well there are
26:00 people that concern themselves part of
26:02 Old Town and if we're not looking at it
26:05 is can or should there be a different
26:07 vision for the old Old Town or for area
26:12 as far as zoning and all that maybe
26:15 there should be and that should be part
26:16 of the discussion and the vision that
26:17 the city has as a whole that discussion
26:21 hasn't happy and it should happen
26:23 should it be three storeys five storeys
26:25 whatever that is that discussion needs
26:27 to happen as far as the boundary and I
26:32 don't know the streets there's that
26:34 along the old route ten where it hooks
26:36 up with drives down narrows down to one
26:41 lane there is some modern buildings back
26:43 in there the office buildings that's
26:45 being proposed to be in Old Town yet
26:49 that for the same reason that doesn't
26:51 seem like that really fits the scale in
26:54 character of Old Town so I'm not sure
26:55 why that's being considered part of Old
26:57 Town maybe that should be looked at as
26:58 owning for something different I don't
27:04 have the answer yet but it just doesn't
27:05 seem that's part of what we're saying is
27:07 the Old Town I would hate to see
27:08 different standards to accommodate them
27:12 being opposed for route 10
27:14 neighbourhoods that shouldn't have that
27:18 look and feel just to accommodate them
27:23 overall on the
27:26 design standards it's more we're still
27:30 approaching it from the perspective of
27:33 what developers wants as far as height
27:36 and density and all that we need to go
27:38 back and look what does the neighborhood
27:40 and one of the communities want not what
27:42 can we accommodate from the business
27:44 standpoint I still think that there's a
27:51 proposal to our desire to the current
27:59 standards don't meet but I don't think
28:01 even the reduce to three storeys and
28:03 increased pervious services meet the
28:07 design standards the requirements of
28:08 what Old Town was required as suggested
28:10 that it be developers had a long time to
28:13 make development they haven't unless we
28:17 limit Old Town to what it is and should
28:20 be that's out of character with what the
28:24 people of this quad said they want Old
28:25 Town to be if all we're doing is
28:30 increase the density increasing the
28:31 pervious service and increasing the
28:33 parking requirements all we're doing is
28:34 expanding the central Issaquah plan
28:36 doing cool the whole town that's not
28:38 what Old Town has ever been about so
28:40 please keep that in mind and vote
28:43 accordingly and lastly the I'm going to
28:51 phrase this wrong the chain stores or
28:52 can you have different businesses like
28:55 let's say it's Starbucks or a franchise
28:57 business in areas I think you've opened
29:00 up the hall to central Issaquah plan we
29:02 have lots of the chances in areas that
29:04 those can thrive I think if you don't
29:07 limit franchise stores even if you keep
29:09 the building standards and height you're
29:12 going to change the character of it
29:13 you've got lots of room and lots of
29:15 places development up for development
29:17 for franchise businesses to go you're
29:21 losing the character of the neighborhood
29:25 it seems like an example would be
29:30 you used to have a grocery store used to
29:33 be down there and now it's going to be
29:35 different business yet if you limited
29:37 franchise stores maybe it would have
29:39 been a grocery store again with the red
29:44 apple market having been there and
29:45 located so I think now's a chance an
29:48 opportunity to retain that charm and
29:51 character I think if you tried to change
29:55 something was designed to seems like I
29:58 made a switch and if you try to do that
30:01 in Dallas or the Highlands they would be
30:02 up in arms all down doesn't have that
30:04 same homeowners association to fight for
30:08 it and I think a lot of people have
30:09 given up so again again guess I'm
30:13 looking for you to retain something
30:14 that's going to be lost if you increase
30:17 the height and the density and the
30:19 pervious surface requirements thank you
30:22 anybody else like to make a comment
30:27 before I close the public hearing I
30:31 received a letter email from the chamber
30:35 that updates their position it should
30:38 have gone to Trish to forward to the
30:42 committee here but I got it like five
30:45 o'clock this evening so I'd like to read
30:48 it into the minutes since they're not
30:52 here to read it themselves the greater
30:55 Issaquah chamber would like to clarify
30:56 position regarding formula businesses
30:59 the new changes in the old plan still
31:03 addresses formula businesses however we
31:06 believe what the core issue in solution
31:09 should be to create clear guidelines and
31:12 standards that will identify the look
31:14 and feel desired for Old Town the
31:17 enforcement of guidelines regarding
31:19 design will be essential to the economic
31:21 vitality an energetic look and feel feel
31:25 Warren Shore old towns prosperity
31:28 limiting the types of businesses will
31:30 not bring about the desired
31:32 redevelopment and visioning we need old
31:34 town we need in old town a great example
31:38 would be in Leavenworth the Starbucks
31:40 looks great and its remit it
31:42 is a tremendous asset to both the
31:44 community and surrounding businesses so
31:48 unless there is some other comment from
31:51 the community I'm going to close the
31:54 public hearing at 7:05 and open it up
31:59 for discussion there are several issues
32:01 that have to be discussed tonight one of
32:07 them being the boundary that is up on
32:12 the screen before we do that I know that
32:17 there's reasons for doing this and as as
32:20 member of the community has questions I
32:23 think we should answer those questions
32:28 before we get are they're valid
32:30 questions and so I think everybody
32:32 should know what they are so I'm gonna
32:35 address some of these but I'm gonna
32:36 allow the Commission to address some as
32:38 well because it was the Commission's
32:40 discussion right so I'm gonna address
32:43 some of it and I wrote them all down but
32:46 I'll so the questions were the
32:48 advantages purpose which those two I
32:52 think you all could probably address
32:54 what does it mean I could do overlays
32:57 and zoning and then connections and oops
33:00 my glasses oh fitting in with
33:01 neighborhood which I believe was more of
33:03 a statement than a question but we can
33:06 see you all can still address that as
33:08 well does that work oh and I do want to
33:10 clarify too that bums is in there you
33:13 should have received a letter we use the
33:14 same one that we did for the retail for
33:16 the reasons so if it didn't make it
33:17 directly to you I apologize but I it was
33:19 sent to you all but bombs is included in
33:21 both B and C up here because it is very
33:25 hard to see I apologize but it's up
33:28 there
33:28 so as for what does it mean I'm going to
33:34 start with going outside of Old Town if
33:37 this area is taken out of old town it
33:40 would either be come part of another sub
33:43 area or it would become its own sub area
33:46 and that would be decided during the
33:47 Comprehensive Plan process which starts
33:49 next month I believe even maybe this
33:53 month actually the sub areas would be a
33:54 discussion later in the fall
33:56 but that would become part of the
33:58 Comprehensive Plan process as for the
34:01 zoning and the standards those don't
34:03 change all the standards that apply now
34:05 to any redevelopment in that area would
34:08 continue a plot to apply to this area
34:10 that doesn't change at all there are no
34:13 overlays here so there's nothing
34:14 additional that would happen right there
34:17 as I mentioned earlier it doesn't change
34:19 school boundaries it doesn't affect
34:22 voting rights
34:23 it doesn't affect city budget and any
34:26 capital improvements that that might
34:27 happen in this area because that's not
34:29 determined by sub area so as far as the
34:33 questions that have come up so far from
34:35 the public that's all that I let's come
34:38 up and all that I can think of if you
34:39 all have any others that you can think
34:40 of the people might so the one thing
34:43 sorry I tried to be loud so the one
34:47 thing that is to keep in mind is so this
34:50 plan has a lot of action items in terms
34:53 of changing building heights adding
34:56 potentially design guidelines for
34:58 single-family so as you think about this
35:02 and how it would apply to areas keep in
35:06 mind that there are some things that may
35:08 not be in place today that would become
35:11 part of this sub area and that would be
35:13 adopted later and so just because
35:16 there's maybe no design guidelines on
35:19 single-family now that is one of the
35:22 recommendations that if it gets carried
35:24 through and adopted by the City Council
35:26 that would be a follow-up action item
35:28 for us which would then apply to an area
35:31 that at this time does not have design
35:33 guidelines and so for someone who may
35:36 want more city oversight you know being
35:40 part of this sub area has its advantages
35:43 because there's a level of detail that's
35:46 in this area that's not not in this area
35:49 for example for someone like BOMs who I
35:54 think have asked for them to be less
35:57 regulated there's some disadvantages
36:00 potentially about being in central or
36:03 Old Town versus not being in Old Town so
36:06 as you think about the boundaries and
36:08 how it
36:08 property owners there's definitely
36:11 advantages and disadvantages but
36:13 different property owners may see
36:15 certain things as advantages where
36:17 others might see them as disadvantages
36:19 but today there's if weather booms is in
36:23 or out as an example they wouldn't see
36:25 any design change they wouldn't see any
36:27 code change if they're in then design if
36:34 there are design guidelines that would
36:36 apply then to the mixed use area that
36:40 would affect bones so right now makes
36:43 you so it what we were calling a
36:45 destination retail let's just today
36:47 assume that that ball lands on makes you
36:49 says as far as its name if that happens
36:54 if that area gets incorporated into old
36:55 town then it could very well be that we
36:58 decide that the same design standards
37:01 for the CBD should apply to the mixed
37:04 use area as well we could we may not we
37:06 may not but we were basically regulating
37:09 everything else
37:10 design-wise in old town and so I would
37:13 pose to you guys well shouldn't there be
37:15 some design guidelines for the mixed use
37:17 area as well if it's an old town since
37:19 the rest of the whole sub area is being
37:21 regulated in design so but that's a good
37:24 another company and so yeah when I was
37:26 speaking I was speaking of being out
37:28 only and Keith started talking about
37:30 being in and you know it's the same
37:32 thing applies not only to old about 10
37:34 but if you're the southern portion and I
37:37 mentioned this earlier that there's been
37:39 talk of potentially expanding
37:42 single-family and duplex design
37:44 standards and if those areas to the
37:46 south are left in they also could have
37:50 design standards applied to those areas
37:52 as well I don't know it hasn't happened
37:54 yet and we're going to talk about the
37:56 standards next year but that's a
37:57 potential so I think we've covered
37:59 advantages what does it mean overlays
38:03 zoning the connections won't change you
38:06 know the the parks we didn't have a new
38:09 parks plan and we're about to have a new
38:11 parks planning connections are huge such
38:13 as that's a citywide thing again not a
38:15 sub area thing so that those connections
38:18 are not affected by anything that might
38:20 happen here
38:22 and fitting in the night with in with
38:23 the neighborhood again would be
38:25 addressed by design standards if that's
38:26 something that they stay in and they
38:28 want to see happen and that would be a
38:31 discussion next year
38:32 so as for purpose I'm gonna let you all
38:35 address that I just I just want to be
38:39 clear I'm having a hard time to be clear
38:44 can we go back to the map and when
38:49 you're discussing ins and outs could you
38:52 specifically show it on the map I know
38:57 you had those four signs but sometimes
39:02 it's not quite clear better so the two
39:07 areas that I'm talking about are this is
39:10 the southern portion which has been
39:12 discussed as being removed and this is
39:16 the northern portion which is the old
39:18 route ten destination retail mixed-use
39:20 area that has been discussed as
39:22 potentially being added okay so there
39:24 are two decisions to be made two
39:26 decisions to be made that's all I wanted
39:28 to make clarify that there are two
39:30 decisions tonight which areas you want
39:32 in or out and as far as the purpose and
39:36 the reason that this came up I think
39:38 thinking through the history of PBC one
39:42 of the things that happened when we were
39:44 looking at the central Issaquah plan was
39:47 that the old route 10 area was in that
39:50 and we looked at that and it went well
39:53 central Issyk was about creating more
39:57 businesses mixed-use increased density
40:00 you know adding do we want to be adding
40:04 to this area so it was PBC's
40:06 recommendation that that particular area
40:09 not be included in the central Issaquah
40:12 plan well when you take something out of
40:14 a sub area you have to designate a sub
40:18 area and so when the next thing that we
40:20 were talking about was the old town sub
40:24 area the idea came up to include that in
40:29 there as
40:31 PBC discussed whether or not it fit the
40:34 same general feeling as old town and
40:37 then once we opened up the boundary idea
40:40 it was also well does the southern
40:42 portion fit the requirements that we're
40:45 gonna have there and so that was kind of
40:47 why I think this came up for us just to
40:52 clarify so with the northern portion it
40:57 sounds like in addition to deciding if
41:00 we add it to Old Town we need a second
41:02 option either/or where we either
41:05 additive old town or we make it its own
41:06 no your decision tonight is whether to
41:09 add it to old town or not that's it if
41:12 it doesn't get added old town where does
41:13 it go we figure that out in the fall
41:16 with the comprehensive plan amendments
41:17 because we have to redo that sub area
41:19 map we have to we have to redo it anyway
41:22 in call plan yeah so in the past weeks
41:29 some of the questions I've asked was
41:31 about architectural standards and my
41:34 understanding was that if we remove the
41:38 southern portion of the old town from
41:43 these old towns of area plan that there
41:46 are no architectural standards today
41:49 that would regulate those developments
41:55 if someone came in and decide to develop
41:56 which are different than the design
41:58 standards that you're talking about
41:59 Keith's right or is architectural
42:02 standards and design centers to say no
42:05 we have to separate things so we have
42:06 where the old town design standards and
42:09 the old town design standards are very
42:10 specific and they apply to the cultural
42:12 and business district and departed
42:14 excuse me to part of East sunset way
42:17 that's that's all that they apply to so
42:20 everything else in the rest of Old Town
42:21 falls under the Issaquah Municipal Code
42:23 the IMC and chapter 18 the land-use code
42:27 and we have something in there called
42:29 green sheets that talk about
42:31 architectural standards but they're
42:33 pretty vague pretty general and that's
42:35 what applies to the rest of it so if
42:37 that area nothing in the design
42:39 standards applies currently to the south
42:41 or to the north and if so if those came
42:43 out thieves
42:44 same standards that apply today would
42:46 apply then well one of the our public
42:49 here had a concern about how it may
42:52 change her neighborhood if she is pulled
42:54 out of the old town and the answer is
42:57 there would be no change so if a
43:00 developer came in today to develop a
43:02 piece of land whether you are in the old
43:05 town or not the building could still get
43:13 there Keith right so today no two days
43:17 but later considering it seems like the
43:22 direction of our the architectural
43:25 standards or at least the discussion is
43:27 going to happen about whether or not we
43:29 want to apply it more broadly right if
43:30 it is taken out no today or tomorrow
43:33 there would be no changes if it's taken
43:34 out tomorrow if it's left in today the
43:38 standards would be the same at the
43:40 beginning of the next year the standards
43:42 may be different because standards that
43:43 apply currently in olives in parts of
43:45 Old Town may apply to all of to Olive
43:47 Oyl town so if you lived there and you
43:54 were concerned about your neighbors
43:57 house and how it looks I would want to
44:01 be an old old town and not not in Old
44:03 Town not that it changes today but what
44:07 at least is is coming potentially is is
44:11 the application of a higher design in
44:14 architecture for that area that's in the
44:17 brown then what's there today so if I
44:20 want more regulations in in aesthetics
44:23 in my neighborhood I would want to be an
44:26 Old Town because where this is all
44:28 pointed is to add more requirements than
44:33 what's there today if I didn't want that
44:35 I would not want to be an Old Town there
44:38 could still be a sub area conversation
44:41 to the south I think this is sycamore
44:44 where we could we could add design
44:47 guidelines to that at some point in the
44:49 future but there is no conversation
44:50 about that now so that's that's I think
44:53 that's the difference about height
44:57 because it sounds like we're having a
44:59 conversation about how old town wants
45:02 buildings to have lower-right
45:07 requirement right so if that does end up
45:10 being adopted those areas down there
45:14 would be quote unquote protected from
45:17 big buildings coming in as their
45:19 next-door neighbors if if we decided and
45:22 if you all just said the council decided
45:23 to expand those design standards then
45:25 yes that could happen so how does I
45:31 understand the school district has their
45:33 own I am is it is it effective in any
45:37 way in or out it's like no okay still in
45:41 Issaquah and it still falls within the
45:42 Issaquah school district it does not
45:45 this is simply for city purposes to more
45:49 easily identifying neighborhoods or
45:51 areas of the city so it's just for our I
45:54 mean the design of school no I'm just
45:57 talking about the lines the lines that
45:58 are drawn don't affect school boundaries
46:00 they don't affect those just for our
46:02 purposes so the building heights are a
46:03 function of zoning and school district
46:06 remember we went through the compact
46:08 schools cff changed the standards that
46:11 applies okay regardless the zoning
46:15 that's at the south end of full town I
46:20 don't know what that zoning is I'll be
46:23 candid so we've talked about reducing
46:25 Heights in the CBD and in the
46:28 multifamily okay so so we've talked
46:32 about pulling those down to a maximum of
46:34 three stories so that would if that's
46:37 what that sound that that would affect
46:39 that area if it stays in Old Town
46:45 I want to just take it up a level and
46:47 ask a question and I you know because
46:49 I'm new to the PPC I just want to make
46:51 sure I understand what what's the point
46:54 of the sub areas overall and I don't
46:57 know if this is for my fellow
46:59 commissioners or for city staff but is
47:02 it to direct and congregate similar land
47:06 use and architectural review and
47:09 different things like that or is it to
47:11 actually create and/or create actual
47:14 community feeling within these different
47:16 sub areas I'm trying to understand kind
47:19 of what the original genesis of breaking
47:21 up our city into these was because that
47:24 will help me more better understand kind
47:26 of what what we're trying to do here so
47:28 any anyone want to take a crack at that
47:30 because the city is so large and it's so
47:33 different when we tried to Percel it out
47:37 so that it's easier to talk about
47:39 different areas based on some of the
47:41 attributes that they have obviously Old
47:44 Town started out as the original grid so
47:46 it was the the certain architecture the
47:49 small scale the grid system and then
47:52 different areas that came in either were
47:55 a sub area because the annex that way or
47:57 because they had a certain certain
48:00 attributes so that you could talk about
48:01 them like the sycamore neighborhood is
48:03 pretty much the whole Sycamore
48:05 neighborhood but as things have shifted
48:08 like when central was invented we sort
48:11 of hand-picked parts of other sub areas
48:13 to create sort of this new place where
48:15 we would have job density and more
48:18 housing density so we had to sort of
48:20 shift the other sub areas around it and
48:22 so this is sort of what we're doing as
48:24 Lindsey mentioned with taking something
48:26 out of central it started sort of a
48:30 ripple effect of well now we're doing
48:31 Old Town let's look at that boundary
48:33 because maybe there's a ripple effect
48:34 that we want to you know moosh those
48:36 boundaries a little bit as well but the
48:38 only central is the only sub area that
48:42 actually had different zoning within it
48:45 so that's what the is causing us to
48:47 rethink the zoning for those parcels
48:49 taken out for Old Town to be in and out
48:51 at this moment does not change your
48:53 zoning like it did for central so that's
48:55 a little bit different of the ripple
48:57 effect why that's the old
48:58 part is different than the central plan
49:00 part thank you does that help it does
49:02 but it sounds like it there's a high
49:05 likelihood in the near future that the
49:07 zoning might change in this sub area as
49:10 well right right by design because you
49:12 all have asked for that as part of the
49:14 plan right all the time plan update
49:15 right well I don't not that the zoning
49:17 would change but that the developers
49:19 dreams okay and then specifically I just
49:24 want to make sure we're really clear on
49:25 the rationale for pulling out the
49:27 southern portion what what are the top
49:31 two reasons for doing that I'm gonna let
49:34 your Commission answer that okay perfect
49:36 I would say look and feel and density
49:45 and grid so if you're looking at the top
49:49 portion there's more of a grid effect
49:52 and more of a feeling of housing close
49:55 by I think the other thing we discussed
49:57 was what is the entry point to that Old
50:02 Town feel and as we were looking at the
50:05 northern portion of do we add that area
50:09 in there in order to kind of create this
50:13 you're now entering Old Town can we put
50:16 a sign you know all of that it was well
50:18 where would we put the sign on the south
50:20 end and does that make sense down or at
50:23 that kind of intersection there think of
50:26 the word Old Town and what it denotes in
50:31 your mind you think big open spaces with
50:34 big schools other kinds of facilities
50:41 like that or is it the main section with
50:45 the downtown and the small homes and
50:47 that and that's kind of what to me Old
50:51 Town means so if somebody said do you
50:54 live in Old Town and I live down at the
50:56 southern end I would not feel like I was
50:59 in Old Town but that's just me I don't
51:02 think it looks the same it doesn't feel
51:04 the same
51:07 doesn't give me the old town feel so if
51:11 that kind of helps a little bit know
51:15 that that's helpful so it sounds like it
51:18 was created from the perspective of a
51:20 planning perspective of how do we
51:22 arrange and organize the city in an
51:24 appropriate way and I'm hearing comments
51:26 around from you know our community and
51:29 neighbors saying well what you know I
51:31 haven't had a say or I want to say or so
51:34 I guess I'm also wondering was there any
51:37 involvement with the different sub area
51:40 residents and describing that it was
51:42 again the intention was more from a
51:44 planning perspective and how we organize
51:47 and do things as we manage growth and
51:50 develop standards across the city and
51:52 not so much creating unique sub
51:54 neighborhood community feels for our
51:57 city I'm just I'm trying to make that
51:59 distinction and understand if that was
52:00 meant to be part of this or not I pretty
52:04 sure that the city sent out letters and
52:06 got the information out to everybody but
52:09 just as
52:10 everybody else is busy they don't pay
52:13 attention till they get a final thing
52:15 that says we're going to do this even
52:17 though they've had the opportunity to
52:20 come in to talk to the city which is
52:22 always open to hear what they have to
52:26 say so you know how long do you wait to
52:29 make a decision and you take what you
52:31 have and then look at the reasonable
52:34 effect of the area I mean that's all you
52:38 can do and hope you made the right
52:40 decision and I will say you know I think
52:42 this process started in 2016
52:44 whereas the firt which was the first
52:46 open house and then we had one or two
52:48 more open houses after that and we've
52:50 had public hearings here and then it
52:52 went to City Council and there were
52:53 discussions there they remanded it back
52:56 to us and we have had more public
52:58 hearings here and back in the first
53:00 round there was a comment about changing
53:02 the boundaries or a couple of comments
53:03 that came up about changing the
53:04 boundaries but it didn't really catch
53:06 traction until the second time around
53:08 and that's when we sent out the letters
53:09 right and then also on the northern
53:14 portion one of our discussions was when
53:17 that came up as a potential boundary was
53:20 well wait we're not hearing from the
53:22 business owners up there please please
53:24 please get them involved and the city
53:25 staff did a great job there long email
53:28 chain lots of discussions happening and
53:31 so I felt like that portion of the
53:33 outreach really worked out and I must
53:37 say that the city is is open to doing
53:40 that same outreach to any main changes
53:45 and that's why we're here I mean that's
53:47 our function yeah and I think I might
53:51 have been misunderstood slightly I
53:52 didn't mean in this particular did have
53:54 we reached out to community I just meant
53:55 the origination of the sub areas was
53:58 there the thought you know there's other
53:59 large cities that think about their sub
54:01 areas as kind of niche little
54:03 communities within the city that's that
54:05 was my question of that just if that was
54:07 part of the thinking or not and I'm not
54:10 looking for it I'm just looking for
54:12 clarity if when you guys originally
54:13 because I wasn't here we're thinking
54:16 that way or again if it was just merely
54:17 from aggregating things so that you
54:21 could put things in place from it from
54:23 planning and design standard Trish was
54:29 saying that a lot of the sub areas came
54:30 about when there was annexations and
54:34 things like that so the the idea of
54:37 segmenting the city into sub areas has
54:40 been around for a long long long long
54:42 long time right right okay so this isn't
54:45 a new no idea yeah okay so Jennifer I
54:49 mean I'm looking at the map right now
54:50 every you know year that different sub
54:52 areas were put into place I'm purposely
54:54 making this distinction because I think
54:56 in the community there's some fear
54:57 around am I not part of the character of
55:00 Old Town anymore and so I'm backing into
55:03 the point of I don't think this exercise
55:06 is meant to do that but I could see in
55:08 the way that it might be perceived that
55:11 it might feel that way and then on top
55:12 of it while we're saying let's take this
55:15 out we're not really saying we're the
55:16 southern half in particular is gonna go
55:18 or the northern half so I'm just saying
55:20 if I were a resident receiving the
55:21 letter I might say okay you're taking
55:24 where am I going though what's happening
55:25 to me so I think there's just some
55:28 additional color that we might need to
55:30 provide and unfortunately some of that
55:32 can't be answered right right exactly
55:34 and that you know that's true and you
55:37 know you say well you said 150 letters I
55:39 just about 104 responses so you know we
55:43 to the to the to the point of
55:46 involvement yes I think the point is
55:47 made but I do think there's space for us
55:49 to make sure that we kind of educate
55:51 what's where do I go next what does this
55:54 mean and just by the comments you
55:55 brought up obviously people are
55:57 concerned about everything from can I
55:59 vote to business change the school
56:01 district and things like that okay
56:03 that's all people have to realize that
56:07 they are still part of the community of
56:09 Issaquah they're not being thrown away
56:11 and into a new city and any any new
56:14 changes it's just a matter of making
56:17 sure that the city has every type of
56:21 opportunity for people to come into and
56:24 enjoy and then have it all connected so
56:28 if we could take these I we're not gonna
56:31 vote on it but if we could take
56:33 get a bye the northern part and just
56:38 have a discussion on the northern part
56:39 are we comfortable in or out
56:42 this is Sammy do you have us taking that
56:46 the northern part and the discussions
56:48 that we've had with the business owners
56:51 at that in the city are you comfortable
56:54 with putting it into Old Town or not I
56:58 am not comfortable because per my
57:01 understanding of communication that was
57:04 sent after the last PPC meeting it
57:06 sounds like this is the zoning and the
57:09 things that we talked about are not in
57:11 play right now so I I'm having trouble
57:14 how can we make a decision on where it
57:16 goes when we're not really sure what
57:19 we're doing there either so I'm having a
57:21 really hard time understanding the order
57:24 of which we should make these decisions
57:27 I'm of the same opinion - seems like we
57:30 keep going to the route of make sure you
57:32 base your decision on what a future
57:34 design might look like a year from now
57:36 in my mind changing the batteries - has
57:39 no value right now
57:41 why don't we pair that decision with
57:43 when we have a design option to actually
57:45 look at right now no one's telling me
57:48 what the design proposal is for southern
57:51 or the northern I don't see any value in
57:54 removing them if we don't you know we're
57:56 making a decision off you know
57:57 incomplete facts in my mind I think to
58:01 speak to both Oh
58:04 it's fine I can go after his comments
58:07 okay so - both of your points Jamie and
58:16 we had made the decision to remove the
58:19 south because we felt we were under the
58:23 impression it was an intrinsic value so
58:26 the by changing the boundary there is
58:30 not going to be any detriment to the
58:35 to the design standards of that area but
58:39 learning tonight that there may be
58:41 future looking if we make designs
58:45 changes or design standard changes or
58:47 architectural changes to Oldtown it
58:49 would then apply to those properties in
58:52 the south when we made the decision we
58:57 weren't we didn't have that information
58:59 at the time so that's why we decided to
59:02 because it was only a intrinsic value
59:06 but there were no other reasons why we
59:10 decided to remove it other than the fact
59:11 that the school district takes up a
59:14 majority of that and it's already a
59:18 non-conforming standard in that area so
59:22 that's why we did so Joan do you want to
59:26 talk about north or south right now I
59:28 wanted to stay with north okay fantastic
59:32 go back to north my goal with the north
59:38 is to make sure that they are not
59:42 included in an area that is going to
59:44 inherently encourage redevelopment or
59:48 densification of those areas and that is
59:54 the reason that I would recommend
59:55 including the northern portion into
59:59 central Issaquah where I feel like
1:00:01 directionality wise we're going to get a
1:00:05 little bit more protections there which
1:00:08 I think are important and I think that
1:00:10 was our original idea of why that area
1:00:14 does not belong in central Issaquah so
1:00:17 that my general feeling is that it does
1:00:20 belong and I think there was some really
1:00:24 good conversations with the businesses
1:00:27 that got to their concerns that staff
1:00:31 then addressed which we then agreed with
1:00:34 and now it's coming up again and then we
1:00:39 agreed with so
1:00:40 well I just want to make it clear that
1:00:46 we are just an advisor or bothering body
1:00:49 to the council and they can change
1:00:51 whatever we we do so they did have some
1:00:54 questions at least the mayor did on our
1:00:57 in regard to the future and what we had
1:01:02 planned for that area I think talking to
1:01:06 the businesses we came up with a good
1:01:08 plan of where it should be today but
1:01:10 they were concerned that we didn't have
1:01:13 a picture in our mind of what that area
1:01:16 was going to look like when they first
1:01:18 started the essential working on the
1:01:21 central area plan that was part of it
1:01:24 and it was set up to be the 50s you know
1:01:31 bones and things that kind of like lemon
1:01:34 worth only a little different if that
1:01:37 makes sense but it didn't fit in central
1:01:44 area because of the zoning this in
1:01:46 central area so we either put it into
1:01:52 old town or we create a whole new
1:01:56 something whole new upset and I don't
1:02:01 know if it's wise to create such a small
1:02:05 area as a specific subset it just sort
1:02:10 of flows into the in - OH - old town to
1:02:13 me and I think that it's something that
1:02:16 I would like to see but into Old Town
1:02:23 it's just I know the way I feel I know
1:02:25 that we had some people come in that the
1:02:27 last open forum here that believed that
1:02:36 that area and the southern area should
1:02:39 be southern area out that area in so I'm
1:02:44 just going to go by what I feel I think
1:02:45 that it's a good fit and I hope that we
1:02:51 and if we don't put it in now I think we
1:02:55 should have a some other discussion on
1:02:57 what we believe the future should look
1:03:00 like and then go back to the agreements
1:03:03 that we made with the business owners
1:03:06 there and see if we can satisfy the
1:03:11 council and and make sure that the
1:03:13 business owners have the ability to grow
1:03:17 and provide a services so Joan I think
1:03:24 you get kind of at the point which is
1:03:26 what has changed since the last meeting
1:03:29 that PBC had and I know you and I have
1:03:31 both talked to mayor Poli yeah and
1:03:35 understand that concept but that hasn't
1:03:38 been presented qpp see it wasn't in any
1:03:42 of this meeting so and I know maybe that
1:03:46 wasn't supposed to come up at this point
1:03:49 but if we're talking about it again
1:03:52 without the new information you know are
1:03:55 we addressing the concerns that the
1:03:59 administration has presented are we
1:04:02 asking the right questions which is
1:04:04 PPC's role and it feels like we're not
1:04:10 okay keith is probably gonna get up here
1:04:12 in just a second but I think no matter
1:04:16 what the zoning is if its destination
1:04:19 retail or mixed juice or whatever it may
1:04:21 be it is still going to be more dense
1:04:25 than what Old Town is being proposed to
1:04:29 be so whatever that final decision on
1:04:31 the zoning is it's probably going to be
1:04:35 more than old town so we don't know
1:04:38 exactly what it is yet and that's going
1:04:41 to be decided later after this
1:04:43 discussion you know you all have talked
1:04:46 about it and you've said maybe we just
1:04:47 don't talk about it at all now we don't
1:04:49 change the suburbs and wait until we
1:04:50 know what the design standards are and
1:04:51 that's an option is to just you know
1:04:53 what let's just postpone let's just keep
1:04:56 the boundaries the way they are until we
1:04:57 know what's going to happen with the
1:04:58 zoning and the standards and everything
1:04:59 else I don't know that that answered
1:05:01 your question but I think I was a great
1:05:05 my opinion is what are we basing the
1:05:07 decision on tonight to even talk about
1:05:09 if we don't know what new proposed
1:05:11 standards are how did we make an
1:05:13 educated decision on whether it's in or
1:05:15 out well we know what the proposed
1:05:17 standards are we just don't know that we
1:05:21 like and the business community likes we
1:05:26 can either go with that or we can which
1:05:30 could be what the council finally
1:05:33 decides on as long as it can be
1:05:35 incorporated into a futuristic plan
1:05:38 which could be I mean if you read what
1:05:41 the the chamber said about essential to
1:05:47 guidelines essential to the development
1:05:49 economic development of the city
1:05:51 I mean that could fight fit into it so
1:05:55 we can either agree to put it in or we
1:05:59 can look at the rest of the issues that
1:06:01 we have to look at tonight and approve
1:06:05 them with the assumption that more
1:06:10 discussion needs to be done on that
1:06:12 particular facet I think we need to
1:06:17 approve something you get this started I
1:06:22 don't want to wait six seven eight more
1:06:24 months to start something to develop
1:06:29 this the Old Town sub area this is one
1:06:33 of my pet peeves I've been pushing this
1:06:36 for I don't know for as long as I've
1:06:37 been on the council to have something
1:06:39 done and when you look at downtown at
1:06:41 the old Old Town area it looks the same
1:06:45 as it did thirty years ago when I moved
1:06:46 in there's there's no changes and
1:06:49 sometimes we need to update and some of
1:06:53 the things that were proposed in the
1:06:55 plan are really good if they come to
1:06:59 fruition so I'd like to get on with at
1:07:02 least that part so if we can't agree on
1:07:05 in or out I mean I could take a straw
1:07:10 vote on whether you want it in or not or
1:07:13 if you have more questions we can do it
1:07:15 that way
1:07:16 or we can just table it so didn't we
1:07:21 have a straw vote at the last meeting or
1:07:24 like the the idea that we were moving
1:07:28 toward a direction of that being
1:07:31 included and then this came back to us
1:07:35 it I'm having a hard time with this
1:07:37 because I know that there are questions
1:07:39 that the administration would like us to
1:07:42 delve into and yet those are not being
1:07:46 discussed I don't think those are
1:07:48 questions to be delved into tonight
1:07:49 though okay I I don't think there's
1:07:53 anything I'm sitting here thinking of
1:07:55 right now that I wish they'd talk about
1:07:56 that I don't and the mayors kind of here
1:08:02 at face value it's okay then I would say
1:08:05 nothing has changed since the last time
1:08:09 we talked about this and have had that
1:08:12 decision point actually there was
1:08:16 something and that was the future
1:08:21 potential of putting design and
1:08:24 architectural standards to the south yes
1:08:26 and for the discussion of the north I
1:08:29 don't feel like that is as much of our
1:08:33 concern maybe maybe it is I'm not
1:08:36 getting that sense on the south I'll
1:08:37 agree with you and I think we have to
1:08:39 have that conversation also but for the
1:08:41 North portion if we if we decide to put
1:08:47 it into Old Town those standards have to
1:08:50 be redeveloped anyways because they are
1:08:52 not the same code they don't have the
1:08:55 same standards as Old Town well right
1:08:58 not necessarily it would have to be
1:09:00 created on its own so if we left it out
1:09:02 it still has to be created it may be
1:09:04 become its own sub area which may be
1:09:06 more appropriate but it sounds like all
1:09:10 the whole North section has still needs
1:09:13 to be baked and you guys need to come up
1:09:14 and tell us well you know we the
1:09:16 development standards the development
1:09:18 standards are being discussed that was
1:09:19 what happened on the 28th and that's
1:09:21 what is still continuing right now and
1:09:22 those are how the property develops what
1:09:25 it looks like is what the design
1:09:27 standards for Old Town are and
1:09:30 could be expanded to that area does that
1:09:34 make sense another conversation it is
1:09:35 it's a and that would be a conversation
1:09:37 if you all decided to pull old route 10
1:09:40 or if full mountain winds up in all town
1:09:42 and next year we start our design
1:09:44 standards conversation about what
1:09:48 standards need to be where what needs to
1:09:50 be regulated standards on what the
1:09:53 buildings will look like could move up
1:09:55 into the old route 10 area but as far as
1:09:57 what the development standards are and
1:09:59 impervious surface and stormwater and
1:10:01 Heights that's that's being determined
1:10:04 now it's a moving target but it's it's
1:10:07 being determined how so the reality is
1:10:10 the decision we should be making is if
1:10:15 we decide to leave the south in assuming
1:10:18 that's kind of all right I feel like
1:10:20 that's the South politer because I have
1:10:23 thoughts on the south okay so if we make
1:10:27 a decision today to move forward with
1:10:31 the original Old Town blueprint north
1:10:36 still has to be baked as far as what
1:10:40 it's going to look like yes there's
1:10:41 still going to be coming back to us for
1:10:43 discussion not necessarily I mean our
1:10:46 position is to advise the council of
1:10:52 after taking community input and
1:10:56 discussion what we feel and and look at
1:11:00 of what it should be they can always
1:11:03 change it I don't think we can look at
1:11:05 you know questions coming up in the
1:11:08 future I think we have to look at is it
1:11:11 reasonable to put it into Old Town does
1:11:14 it fit does it fit and I need a
1:11:23 consensus from you before we move to the
1:11:25 southern part as far as the northern
1:11:29 part are we talking about like the old
1:11:32 oil can Henry's we're talking about old
1:11:35 mill and okay so it does include oil can
1:11:39 Henry's
1:11:40 and xxx and the Grange and bombs and
1:11:43 then some office properties further to
1:11:45 the east a motorcycle place I 90 more
1:11:49 it's its northern say it's primarily
1:11:51 north and south of East Gilman of gilman
1:11:54 east of Front Street with a little bit
1:11:55 to the west so I feel like tell me if
1:12:01 I'm wrong I feel like we're all in
1:12:02 agreement on the dream 20 years out is
1:12:05 is that this bount is that Old Towne
1:12:09 includes the north I may I'm jumping
1:12:11 north and south of it but includes north
1:12:13 doesn't include the south
1:12:15 I mean I'm I get that the 20-year vision
1:12:17 and I think that's part of our purview
1:12:21 and what we're trying to your point Joan
1:12:23 you know you've been here for you know
1:12:25 decades and you feel like Old Town's is
1:12:26 right you feel like it's not changing it
1:12:30 on it so I totally get that and so this
1:12:32 is the vision of how do we coordinate
1:12:34 off in a way that we feel like is
1:12:36 representative of what Old Town is and I
1:12:39 think that's what we're trying to do
1:12:41 where I feel like the consternation is
1:12:42 and the confusion is coming is how do we
1:12:46 get from now to there and it sounds like
1:12:48 there's some real teeth that are getting
1:12:50 decided on now which is clearly why we
1:12:52 had business owners you know showing up
1:12:54 in our previous meetings and we have
1:12:56 residents showing up related to the
1:12:57 southern portion and if I were a
1:13:00 resident or a business owner in either
1:13:02 section I would I would have encouraged
1:13:05 more of my neighbors to come because I
1:13:07 would have some consternation on getting
1:13:09 voted in or out and not knowing what
1:13:12 comes with that and that's where I feel
1:13:14 like it seems very murky from my just
1:13:17 observation and so I think that's where
1:13:20 I think it's not clear on what are we
1:13:23 doing what are we supposed to be doing
1:13:24 what is the right order of things and so
1:13:29 if we put it in the development
1:13:34 standards will be the same but as
1:13:37 Kristen said the design standard which
1:13:40 will make it look and feel like Old Town
1:13:45 we'll be in there so the design Steve
1:13:47 meters maybe you have some decision on
1:13:52 self no I'm saying we can't say right
1:13:54 now that if we change the boundaries
1:13:57 that affects their their design because
1:14:00 we that conversation hasn't nothing yet
1:14:04 well as of right now if they unless I'm
1:14:08 wrong if they are in Old Town and the
1:14:12 design standards are applied to all of
1:14:17 Old Town then they fall under the same
1:14:21 guidelines unless some something happens
1:14:25 or some yeah but it was that if that I
1:14:29 was talking about right but you know we
1:14:33 could there could be a earthquake
1:14:35 tomorrow if it all go away I mean right
1:14:36 now as we're planning this I'm just
1:14:39 trying to come up to a decision with you
1:14:41 people
1:14:42 I think there's confusion design
1:14:46 standards and architectural standards so
1:14:48 we're looking at the north and we're
1:14:50 thinking that we want it to look like
1:14:52 part of the old town right it's not
1:14:55 that's not what we're talking about
1:14:57 tonight
1:14:58 we're talking about design standards
1:15:00 well no so so just not a word or two
1:15:05 conversations at our Paulo there's a
1:15:07 architectural standard that doesn't
1:15:09 exist yet and there's a design standard
1:15:12 the design standard standard so that
1:15:15 there's you're talking about kind of
1:15:17 three different things which Lindsey
1:15:18 just brought it but there's the
1:15:19 development standard height impervious
1:15:21 stormwater all that kind of stuff amount
1:15:22 of parking then there are the design
1:15:24 standards which are also architectural
1:15:26 standards because if you look at the old
1:15:27 town design standards it talks about
1:15:31 what the windows have to look like where
1:15:33 the doors have to be what the signs are
1:15:35 going to be where the materials are that
1:15:38 gets into what it's going to look like
1:15:39 somewhere the architectural standards
1:15:41 and that's what doesn't apply to old
1:15:43 route 10 so tonight the only thing that
1:15:49 matters is the development standards are
1:15:53 the only thing that certain is the
1:15:54 development standards
1:15:56 and then potentially in the future there
1:15:58 might be design standard changes that
1:16:01 could maybe apply to all of Oldtown may
1:16:05 be correct and if there are standards
1:16:09 forth Poletown don't you want them to
1:16:12 continue down to the rest of the area so
1:16:15 our input would be to continue the old
1:16:21 old town standards into this area so if
1:16:25 we move north into old town tonight
1:16:29 well they immediately adopt the new the
1:16:31 whole town development standards you
1:16:32 know no no okay
1:16:34 what's that process look like that would
1:16:36 take place in next year when we start
1:16:41 talking at we have existing design
1:16:42 standards and we need to a middle up
1:16:44 meant standards element standard develop
1:16:45 that facts impervious all that those are
1:16:47 very different between was consider like
1:16:51 gestation retailer we talked about the
1:16:52 class meeting and Old Town know the
1:16:55 development standards will apply whether
1:16:56 it is in or whether it is out and those
1:16:59 actually haven't been adopted yet those
1:17:01 would be those would be effective ones
1:17:02 council finally took action on that made
1:17:05 a decision okay so nothing changes night
1:17:08 of whether we add it or remove it
1:17:09 correct okay in June you mentioned one
1:17:12 second John you mentioned that we're
1:17:14 holding something up by not make a
1:17:16 decision on delay acceptance by the City
1:17:23 Council for that the Old Town sub area
1:17:26 vision that we're looking at okay and
1:17:28 that's all I would like to move it along
1:17:31 and instead of 2019 and 20 it could be
1:17:35 20 and 21 if we continue on do you if I
1:17:40 mean there's a couple things we have to
1:17:42 decide tonight so that's only one of
1:17:44 them we have another six or seven to
1:17:46 decide on so is it the consensus that we
1:17:50 put it into Old Town I'd like to hear
1:17:55 what they're talking about so we were
1:18:00 talking we were talking about say and
1:18:02 could be part of this conversation too
1:18:04 about and I wish I had the design
1:18:06 standards with me
1:18:08 Keith was being cautious of being
1:18:10 quite so absolute particularly about the
1:18:12 parking standards and as I recall the
1:18:15 parking standards there are parking
1:18:16 standards for CVD yeah and they aren't
1:18:18 parking standards for the multifamily on
1:18:21 East sunset way but there are not
1:18:24 parking standards for the rest of Old
1:18:25 Town well yeah there are buys so you
1:18:30 have your multifamily or CBD zone but
1:18:32 through but it my thought is they
1:18:36 wouldn't apply if they came in to Old
1:18:38 Town but I should say we should
1:18:41 double-check that right and let you know
1:18:44 if from my perspective I just like to
1:18:46 know what each zone section or section
1:18:50 of this COIs what does design and
1:18:52 development standards are that we want
1:18:53 to get past so we know how it affects
1:18:56 other areas like I don't have any of
1:18:58 that information to even say if it makes
1:18:59 sense to add in the row section we had
1:19:07 this whole conversation with the
1:19:09 business owners about what they liked
1:19:12 and didn't liked about destination
1:19:14 retail and what they would want in their
1:19:17 development standards and so that
1:19:19 conversation has been add and is
1:19:22 continuing but it sounds like the
1:19:26 intention is to have that conversation
1:19:30 influence whatever multifamily
1:19:34 designation is given to that area is
1:19:39 that correct I'm sorry did we just move
1:19:42 south don't you brought up no I think
1:19:44 you brought it multi-family no did oh
1:19:46 sorry
1:19:46 um mixed use then ok mixed use sorry you
1:19:51 threw me off there I know I know okay so
1:19:55 now you're gonna have to say it again
1:19:56 okay fantastic
1:19:57 so with the business owners there's been
1:20:00 this conversation about what they liked
1:20:03 about destination retail what they would
1:20:04 want in
1:20:06 mixed-use or whatever that new
1:20:08 designation was right I am assuming that
1:20:11 that conversation as it continues is
1:20:13 still going to affect whatever
1:20:16 development standards are assigned to
1:20:20 that area and that whether or not it's
1:20:24 in this old town sub area yes so I'll
1:20:32 share my understanding which may or may
1:20:35 not be consistent with what you guys
1:20:38 heard so part of I think the anxiety
1:20:43 about just moving destination retail out
1:20:46 of central Issaquah and retaining the
1:20:48 name destination retail is there's
1:20:51 nothing in the code that preserves those
1:20:54 uses as is as destination retail they
1:20:59 could all be redeveloped into apartment
1:21:01 buildings and so we could end up with an
1:21:05 area called destination retail that has
1:21:07 no destination retail so I think that
1:21:10 was the crux of the issue so it's a
1:21:14 title issue not a substance issue in my
1:21:17 mind because the standards what we
1:21:19 talked about in terms of building
1:21:20 heights and impervious and setbacks
1:21:23 those I believe are gonna move forward
1:21:27 to Council
1:21:28 now whether council adopts those or
1:21:30 dials them back that's a whole
1:21:32 conversation that none of us have had
1:21:34 and been privy to because we haven't
1:21:37 been there yet some of the conversation
1:21:40 about the building heights and the
1:21:43 impervious proposals that are for the
1:21:47 area that we might call mixed-use seem
1:21:50 out of scale with where we're going with
1:21:53 CBD which is the adjacent zone within
1:21:56 Old Town so that's I think the the issue
1:22:00 of why there's bends maybe less
1:22:06 confidence in the administration saying
1:22:08 we think this northern area should be
1:22:10 part of Old Town Sam Kyle's not here
1:22:12 he's in I think Alaska at the moment he
1:22:16 his preference is not to be part of Old
1:22:18 I think he sees as the conversation we
1:22:23 had with the southern peace there is
1:22:27 this idea that old town has more
1:22:30 regulations than not in old town and so
1:22:34 I think from his perspective which he
1:22:36 would like less regulations he would
1:22:37 rather not be an Old Town I think we
1:22:40 heard from Tyson earlier you know they
1:22:43 want to get what they talked through
1:22:46 with us in terms of coming out of
1:22:49 central Issaquah I think because we
1:22:53 haven't decided to add additional design
1:22:56 regulations or architectural regulations
1:22:59 to this area if it was brought into Old
1:23:01 Town it's hard to know what the outcome
1:23:03 will be I think part of what you guys
1:23:07 need to I think think about is you could
1:23:11 do this in a number of ways we could
1:23:15 wait for the council to make a decision
1:23:17 on the area that used to be destination
1:23:20 retail that might be three or four
1:23:22 months which puts this into the icebox
1:23:25 again we could say you know what let's
1:23:29 leave the boundaries the way they are
1:23:31 but let's make a decision to revisit it
1:23:35 next year after some of these other
1:23:38 decisions are made and at that time you
1:23:41 could have another conversation about
1:23:42 moving the north end or the south end or
1:23:47 you can make the decision to take them
1:23:48 out now so that's what I can share I'm
1:23:51 not sure that added any clarity to any
1:23:53 of this but that's where I think we got
1:23:58 into some fuzziness on the north end the
1:24:00 south end is a different story I think
1:24:02 youth what happens when this plant
1:24:04 whenever it is approved what happens
1:24:07 when it's approved this does what that
1:24:09 what what if we don't improve it what
1:24:11 are we holding up if we approve it when
1:24:13 what then gets set in motion Joan you
1:24:15 know you're saying let's get going with
1:24:16 this let's approve it what what what do
1:24:19 we get to look forward to when it's
1:24:20 approved so all the action items at the
1:24:22 back those don't happen okay so you know
1:24:26 changing zones getting this transferred
1:24:29 development rights out of old town
1:24:32 right now it's shown as a receiving site
1:24:34 so if I was a property owner and I want
1:24:36 to take advantage of the transfer
1:24:37 development rights program I could do
1:24:39 that and add density so a lot of the
1:24:43 things that we've talked about for the
1:24:44 last two years
1:24:45 just stay on Holden and it's in to Jones
1:24:49 point the momentum and the inertia in
1:24:52 this neighborhood is fairly low we don't
1:24:55 see a lot of development activity all
1:24:57 the time otherwise I think there'd be a
1:24:59 higher level of sensitivity let's get
1:25:01 this done
1:25:01 but we need to get it done staff need to
1:25:04 move on to other things we can serve
1:25:07 that today right and just have it apply
1:25:09 to what is considered old town today
1:25:10 which is everything within the black yep
1:25:13 you could all this could be approved
1:25:15 tonight applying to what is currently
1:25:19 old town you could do that the question
1:25:21 is why do we have to make decision on
1:25:22 removing or adding sections to make what
1:25:25 is old because there's old time a day
1:25:26 before so so to rephrase your question
1:25:30 does a boundary change have to be part
1:25:33 of the update no you don't have to
1:25:36 change the boundaries as part of the
1:25:37 update you could say the existing old
1:25:39 town boundary is old town and we don't
1:25:43 want to change the boundary or you know
1:25:46 what there was enough ambiguity about
1:25:48 the boundary here's the five things we
1:25:51 want you as staff to do and then bring
1:25:54 it back to us for another conversation
1:25:55 maybe in 19 or 20 you know we don't have
1:25:58 to wait this was 96 like 20 years 1999
1:26:03 yeah like 20 years 20 years this was
1:26:08 like 20 years since it got updated last
1:26:12 what I was saying is you guys could
1:26:14 basically you could make a
1:26:16 recommendation leave the boundaries the
1:26:17 same but within the next two to three
1:26:20 years come back let's revisit the
1:26:22 boundaries after some of these other
1:26:24 pieces have have hit the ground and
1:26:27 maybe before we do that you know let's
1:26:30 go through a bigger community outreach
1:26:33 conversation about those boundary
1:26:35 changes or those potential boundary J's
1:26:36 problem with that yes is that business
1:26:40 owners that are in the northern section
1:26:42 are in limbo they they have sure
1:26:45 for the next three years which Sam Kyle
1:26:48 said you've changed the zoning on me six
1:26:50 times since I've owned this property and
1:26:52 he says I don't want it to happen any
1:26:54 more times so I I get that I get the
1:26:57 surety of making a decision and saying
1:27:00 we're done I was just offering choices I
1:27:04 don't mind waiting and I think probably
1:27:06 that's what I think most of these
1:27:09 commissioners want to do but I don't
1:27:11 want to say two or three years I want to
1:27:13 say one or two months two or whatever
1:27:17 however you can get how quickly the the
1:27:22 approval is done on the stuff that we
1:27:23 did the development standards if that's
1:27:27 what you need to know or what the future
1:27:30 is going to look like or if the
1:27:32 standards I mean you can make a decision
1:27:34 now can't you that at the standards that
1:27:36 are going to be creative for old town or
1:27:38 that have been created will apply to any
1:27:42 future development that is in unroot ten
1:27:45 I mean can you make those decisions so
1:27:48 that we can make a final decision
1:27:51 whether it's in or out within a
1:27:53 reasonable amount of time
1:27:56 so the answer about building heights and
1:27:59 setbacks and impervious for the old
1:28:02 route ten areas should be done by
1:28:05 October ish and they apply whether the
1:28:13 areas in or out right those would apply
1:28:16 whether it's in or out so there is okay
1:28:20 so so you've answered my question that
1:28:22 it doesn't have to be decided quickly
1:28:24 because they will have decide I know you
1:28:27 have your hand up but I pose the public
1:28:30 meeting so we'll see we'll see how this
1:28:32 works out and I've lost my friend of we
1:28:37 don't have to hurry to just make that
1:28:39 decision if the just the development
1:28:42 standards are decided because I think
1:28:46 the business is there have a right to
1:28:48 know and be consistent with the future
1:28:52 and what going to happen to them so you
1:28:57 that's that's a hard question to answer
1:28:59 what I would say is there would be a lot
1:29:02 of predictability for them as property
1:29:04 owners the city can always come back and
1:29:06 change parking requirements or tree
1:29:10 requirements or other things those
1:29:11 things happen all the time right we we
1:29:14 tinker with codes the thing that if if I
1:29:17 was one of those property owners what I
1:29:20 might be concerned about is you know
1:29:23 what we've done in the rest of Old Town
1:29:26 is we've adopted
1:29:28 you know architectural standards and
1:29:29 we're talking about expanding that
1:29:32 regulation to residential and so you
1:29:36 know okay maybe maybe at some point the
1:29:39 city's talking about if we've included
1:29:41 this area in Old Town maybe the city is
1:29:43 talking about adding that to the mix use
1:29:45 area okay well now that means that my
1:29:49 building you know my building and my
1:29:51 door need to be a certain color where
1:29:54 today I could choose whatever color I
1:29:56 want that's the difference is it's it's
1:29:59 more frosting still can have a door they
1:30:01 can still have a door it's more frosting
1:30:03 than it is bones not bones bones right a
1:30:09 question for you guys my thought process
1:30:13 was always we pulled the old route 10
1:30:17 area out of central squat because it
1:30:19 didn't belong there and we were gonna
1:30:21 have to decide at some point where it
1:30:23 goes what is the timeline for that is
1:30:26 there a deadline no though can just
1:30:33 float it can be its own sub area if it
1:30:38 needs to the old route to in sub area or
1:30:40 something I'm getting the sense that if
1:30:43 we we're not ready to make a decision on
1:30:47 the north because there's too much
1:30:49 ambiguity but we can make a decision on
1:30:55 the old town boundary south leave if we
1:31:00 left it as is and we don't have to do it
1:31:04 at a community outreach there's no harm
1:31:09 and whatever needs it gets done can get
1:31:11 done and moving forward and we can come
1:31:14 back and revisit North section and
1:31:17 decide if we want to put that in or not
1:31:19 say in any year from now and that gives
1:31:21 you time and we can still move forward
1:31:24 otherwise we're going to keep holding
1:31:26 this thing up until we finally have a
1:31:28 fully baked cake and we don't need to do
1:31:30 that we can actually maybe move forward
1:31:33 make progress incrementally right okay
1:31:37 so the decision basically is to leave it
1:31:39 out for at the present moment okay if
1:31:42 that decision is to leave the boundary
1:31:44 as is both on the north and the south
1:31:46 right we're talking about the north I
1:31:48 just want I want and that could be a
1:32:00 three second conversation but I just
1:32:01 want to know the on the north on the
1:32:03 north so it's - at this present time to
1:32:07 leave it out of out of old town is that
1:32:11 the consensus that I'm getting I dislike
1:32:14 the idea but I agree with the thought
1:32:17 process so okay so now if I look at the
1:32:20 same thought process for the South it's
1:32:23 a completely different area completely
1:32:25 different concept different layout of
1:32:30 the land completely different and as you
1:32:32 go down the street you go down quite a
1:32:36 ways to get to the school and and those
1:32:39 that area are you comfortable with
1:32:42 leaving it in and and and considering it
1:32:45 part of Old Town is that a good concept
1:32:48 you want to leave it in I am because I'm
1:32:51 thinking forward who's to say if we
1:32:55 adopt these new design standards at the
1:32:59 South section of which I would agree
1:33:01 looks a little bit different obviously
1:33:02 then when you drive it down consider
1:33:05 downtown like you know Jack's are on
1:33:08 that area what is still an option a well
1:33:12 that southern part start to look more
1:33:14 like what we consider option C if we if
1:33:19 we adopt new stringent designs
1:33:23 so looking forward are we interested as
1:33:26 a community in making what we consider
1:33:29 old town larger look and feel wise where
1:33:33 we making baked to the decision off what
1:33:35 it looks like today are we comfortable
1:33:37 with with limiting to two or three
1:33:40 storey buildings or is that the area
1:33:42 that gives you the opportunity to build
1:33:44 density in that particular area and once
1:33:49 you start building density you're out of
1:33:51 old town oh do you want to restrict it
1:33:54 to small growth basically or do you want
1:34:01 to use that Internet yes I want to
1:34:04 restrict it because of traffic Sam here
1:34:07 I agree I live down there so okay so I'm
1:34:12 sensing that you all want to leave it
1:34:14 into Old Town okay now what else do we
1:34:19 have to decide tonight that that you
1:34:21 guys you read the plan I think we should
1:34:26 have a recommendation timeline for the
1:34:31 North section to be decided not leave it
1:34:35 hanging make the decision tonight to go
1:34:38 with one of the plan what are the
1:34:39 options and if that northern section
1:34:43 isn't in that option we put a
1:34:45 recommendation that it needs to get
1:34:47 addressed more quickly than later you
1:34:52 can put that in as a in your motion to
1:34:58 either accept or reject whatever we're
1:35:01 looking at right now so you can add that
1:35:04 to the the motion to but let's go back
1:35:09 right now to the rest of the plan where
1:35:11 is it anything in the sub area Old Town
1:35:15 plan that you found problematic that you
1:35:20 wanted to change to increase was the
1:35:23 plan my only thing is I want it done now
1:35:27 and a lot of it is
1:35:29 visionary and so I'm hoping that one
1:35:33 staff has lots of time to put in all the
1:35:37 codes and restrictions that they do a
1:35:40 good job and all those things are
1:35:42 accomplished I don't find anything in
1:35:44 there
1:35:45 offensive or you know I don't didn't
1:35:48 find anything that I wanted to add do
1:35:50 the plan feel second I have a question
1:35:55 for T okay
1:35:57 no go okay this is aspirational if I
1:36:02 wanted to be disruptive to the whole
1:36:03 organization and you do that very well
1:36:09 okay so aspirationally I just got this
1:36:12 great idea and I want to share it with
1:36:14 the people here kind of get an idea what
1:36:16 they think if we eliminated parking on
1:36:19 Front Street move the sidewalks the
1:36:24 street and open up all that space your
1:36:29 shop owners to use for outdoor cafes we
1:36:33 move the parking towards the back of the
1:36:35 buildings and the city acquires maybe
1:36:38 some of that property we put it in
1:36:40 parking structure in terms of vitality I
1:36:43 think that would be a huge boon or on
1:36:47 the Front Street business owners because
1:36:50 you would create almost a mall strip and
1:36:54 it would be I think very welcoming so
1:36:56 while we're on the topic of the old helm
1:36:58 plan I thought that would be a great
1:37:01 aspiration to error and your feedback
1:37:05 while she's scratching her head going I
1:37:06 cannot believe you I love the idea I
1:37:09 don't think it's all feasible because of
1:37:13 all of those requirements that you put
1:37:16 in there of buying property and then
1:37:19 shifting the park it behind when parking
1:37:21 is already limited and rapid with
1:37:24 traffic gonna go there always has to be
1:37:27 something that 15 yeah I did the idea
1:37:29 and this plan is to have it walkable are
1:37:32 you going to walk between the the
1:37:34 benches and the chairs and the
1:37:35 restaurants and and
1:37:37 yes because that's already provided for
1:37:41 in the idea of creating those little
1:37:43 outdoor seating areas yeah but if you
1:37:45 take the sidewalk away
1:37:47 I'm not saying take the sidewalks out
1:37:49 what I'm saying is open uses parking
1:37:52 that's on Front Street and turn that
1:37:54 into part of the mall strip for
1:37:56 pedestrian and fur so the city just
1:38:02 executed a contract with Ferran piers to
1:38:05 do a downtown parking study and part of
1:38:09 it was in response to the old town task
1:38:13 force recommendation to look to improve
1:38:17 the capacity of the existing parking and
1:38:22 opportunities so that so that could be a
1:38:24 lot of different things and we'll just
1:38:26 talk about that for a second so so
1:38:27 you've got a certain number of parking
1:38:29 stalls in Old Town now right and some of
1:38:31 them are as Kristen mentioned earlier
1:38:34 may be being used all day by transit
1:38:36 users which which basically takes two
1:38:40 uses a day away so someone who parked
1:38:43 somewhere for nine hours a day that
1:38:46 space would have normally been turned
1:38:48 over at least three times in a normal
1:38:50 parking situation so so part of what
1:38:53 we're trying to do is say how much
1:38:55 capacity are we losing now and if you
1:38:59 did some different things like time
1:39:01 limit parking could you potentially add
1:39:03 parking without adding parking you know
1:39:06 what I mean by just making it more
1:39:07 efficient part of this is also going to
1:39:10 be looking at a garage because one of
1:39:14 our council members who happens to be
1:39:16 council president right now has said
1:39:19 more than once he thinks a garage
1:39:20 downtown makes sense for him so the
1:39:24 parking study that's going now till
1:39:28 that's gonna say October is looking at
1:39:32 that and willing its full it fully you
1:39:35 know broad scoped and there will be a
1:39:38 community outreach piece so there will
1:39:41 be an opportunity to float that idea to
1:39:45 them to take a look at and consider as
1:39:47 they look at the options
1:39:50 I like the idea so so so if so from a
1:39:55 business standpoint or businesses would
1:39:57 hate losing the parking out in front
1:39:59 I'll just say that now from a
1:40:02 streetscape standpoint being able to
1:40:04 widen the sidewalks provide more
1:40:06 opportunities for sidewalk use that's
1:40:09 super great in terms of enlivening the
1:40:11 front street environment but to
1:40:16 Lindsay's point it's a big lift to get
1:40:20 there so so parking study I think is the
1:40:24 opportunity to have that conversation
1:40:27 and and look at the results so they're
1:40:30 they'll actually do license plate
1:40:36 studies to find out where the people
1:40:38 live that are actually parking here to
1:40:41 see if they live locally or if they're
1:40:42 commuting from other places so there's a
1:40:45 lot of data that comes out of they
1:40:47 actually have an app that they just run
1:40:49 behind and app your license plates of
1:40:51 all the people parking in the parking
1:40:52 and that's probably saying too much on
1:40:54 TV so so there's so we're gonna get a
1:40:58 lot of information I think once we get
1:40:59 that information there'll be a better
1:41:01 opportunity to talk about what choices
1:41:03 are here for us to improve parking which
1:41:06 may or may not include removing some
1:41:10 maybe not all but maybe some of the
1:41:13 parking on Front Street to create some
1:41:15 of those nodes that were part of the
1:41:17 streetscape plan that already got
1:41:19 presented to Council so if you read the
1:41:24 the plan here that can be addressed
1:41:29 actually it is addressed because it says
1:41:31 to cut down parking to add more people
1:41:35 opportunities to walk in the
1:41:37 neighborhood all of those things are in
1:41:39 here it's you're going to have to be
1:41:42 very creative on how you get there and
1:41:44 and that's kind of the problem they're
1:41:47 very up here higher level we will do
1:41:50 this and we will create fix up the
1:41:54 traffic on Front Street well how do you
1:41:57 do that so you're going to have a lot of
1:42:01 and discussion on you know maybe a
1:42:04 bridge over top of the city who knows
1:42:06 you know what you're going to come up
1:42:08 with so that you know that comes into it
1:42:10 you know that can be creative that's
1:42:12 thinking out of the box and I think the
1:42:14 city has to do that now to get some of
1:42:18 this done and you talked about you
1:42:21 didn't want traffic more people on the
1:42:24 track you're putting 7500 homes already
1:42:27 into the central area traffic is going
1:42:31 to be Mendes you know right now so a lot
1:42:39 of thinking out of the box has to come
1:42:42 apart come come to fruition so again is
1:42:45 there anything else in the plan that you
1:42:47 would add subtract Ange amy has her I do
1:42:52 it I have to just two things I love the
1:42:55 plan I love the vision of where it's
1:42:57 going there's just two contradictions
1:43:00 that really jump out at me and I've read
1:43:01 this plan several times over the last
1:43:03 month and one is it's all around you
1:43:08 know walkability bikeability pedestrian
1:43:12 friendly and and we're all touching on
1:43:16 it and yet we have the equivalent of a
1:43:18 highway going through this district and
1:43:21 so it's really hard you know to look at
1:43:25 all these nice elements of it and then
1:43:27 when that piece is vague you know and I
1:43:31 know it's a big thing that we need to
1:43:32 tackle but it's that just really stands
1:43:35 out to me is if that doesn't get
1:43:37 addressed a lot of these things become
1:43:40 irrelevant and then the second
1:43:42 contradiction piece that I just am
1:43:45 concerned about is around housing
1:43:47 affordability so we've pointed out in
1:43:50 the plan that we want to keep the
1:43:52 current housing stock in this area and
1:43:55 in fact the latest revision have us
1:43:57 removing higher density homes like
1:44:00 cottage houses and micro apartment units
1:44:04 which is fine I just think we need to
1:44:06 realize that we might inadvertently
1:44:07 actually be making this place very
1:44:10 expensive to live in so Old Town
1:44:13 could potentially become the most
1:44:14 expensive sub area in the city of
1:44:17 Issaquah if we restrict the amount of
1:44:20 housing units there so those are just
1:44:22 the two the two big things that jump out
1:44:24 at me with my hat on kind of just
1:44:27 thinking longer-term of you know this
1:44:30 vision and and what it could potentially
1:44:32 create so that's those that's it you
1:44:35 know I think part of your your concerns
1:44:37 are related to I think one of the
1:44:39 reasons that we don't want to add a lot
1:44:41 of housing is because it affects the
1:44:44 traffic in old town and people have said
1:44:46 they don't want more traffic in old town
1:44:48 so therefore don't allow too much
1:44:51 housing so the two are kind of related I
1:44:52 get completely and fair enough but again
1:44:54 it'll be interesting once we actually
1:44:56 start doing some of these transportation
1:44:57 studies where the majority of that
1:44:59 traffic is originating right and coming
1:45:01 from and I'd be surprised if the
1:45:03 majority of it was intrical traffic but
1:45:07 if I were living down there I'd very
1:45:09 much say oh please don't put another you
1:45:11 know thousand resident unit here that's
1:45:12 just gonna add to it but I would argue
1:45:15 in the details if we could address
1:45:17 longer term the bigger issue of our pass
1:45:20 through traffic
1:45:21 you actually could have a very vibrant
1:45:23 pedestrian friendly front street with
1:45:26 high-density living on it with the
1:45:29 appropriate public transport walkability
1:45:31 you know right pedestrian cyclist is to
1:45:36 your point I completely understand where
1:45:38 people are feeling it is a that is and
1:45:40 it is being addressed it's being just
1:45:42 addressed regionally there's a group
1:45:43 that talking about it and they on it but
1:45:45 that's a 15 you know it's a long time
1:45:48 away and a lot of money away so in the
1:45:49 meantime here we can hopefully address
1:45:51 some smaller fixes that at least help
1:45:53 the pedestrians to get around a little
1:45:55 easier yeah and safer yeah no 100 and I
1:45:58 I biked down from the Highlands and go
1:46:00 through Front Street quite a bit and
1:46:02 thank goodness for that one blinking
1:46:04 crosswalk across you know French Street
1:46:06 there that's the only way I can kind of
1:46:08 safely cross on my bike but to your
1:46:11 point yeah I think there's things we can
1:46:12 do in the near term I just wanted to
1:46:13 point out that I think and the traffic
1:46:16 piece is the bigger thing that we need
1:46:17 to address to really knock this out of
1:46:19 the park and then I do think we need to
1:46:21 just be worried of our decisions and
1:46:23 what that means to affordable house
1:46:26 and what this neighborhood will
1:46:27 eventually start looking like then 10 15
1:46:31 years from now so on the affordable
1:46:34 housing piece I think the plan actually
1:46:35 does a good job of addressing the idea
1:46:40 of we want to decrease tear downs that
1:46:46 would cause yes additional housing but
1:46:50 what we've seen with the additional
1:46:52 housing units that have gone in that
1:46:54 have been multiple stories tall is
1:46:56 they're not affordable right they're not
1:46:58 more affordable than what was torn down
1:47:00 and so the goal of increasing or
1:47:06 maintaining some level of affordability
1:47:08 there is more about keeping the existing
1:47:12 housing stock and letting Central ask
1:47:15 well maybe add the small units and dense
1:47:20 housing that will add the numbers in
1:47:23 that area that's that's my impression of
1:47:26 how the plan addresses those things then
1:47:30 that makes sense I just from a reality
1:47:33 standpoint it's really you know it's
1:47:35 hard to put the teeth that says to a
1:47:37 property owner don't tear this don't
1:47:40 tear this down and rebuild something
1:47:41 that's gonna net you a greater profit so
1:47:44 that's just where I would then go to
1:47:45 what what are our teeth that prevent
1:47:47 that from happening we do have the
1:47:49 housing strategy in place which
1:47:50 addresses two of those things and one is
1:47:52 there's going to be an inventory of
1:47:53 market rate housing correct me if I'm
1:47:55 wrong that is actually affordable that
1:47:58 we would like to try and find a way to
1:47:59 maintain that housing and another one
1:48:03 talks about limiting the number of tear
1:48:05 downs to replace the bigger housing and
1:48:08 so those are both things that are kind
1:48:10 of in play I think they start next year
1:48:12 but they are part of the housing
1:48:13 strategy that was adopted by council
1:48:14 late in 2017 it's going to be really
1:48:18 hard to oversee limiting the tear downs
1:48:27 you know I'm somebody who wants to make
1:48:32 sure that the person who was invested in
1:48:35 that property or in that big
1:48:37 business with the assumption of this is
1:48:40 my retirement that all of a sudden the
1:48:43 city takes it away and changes it and
1:48:47 affordable or not I think that we have
1:48:50 to be reasonable in we can't just say
1:48:53 we're not going to do that because those
1:48:55 people have waited 20 30 years now
1:48:58 they're ready to retire and this is
1:49:00 their retirement so and assuming that
1:49:05 those are code amendments those come
1:49:06 through you all as well so you get a
1:49:08 chance to discuss it then too the only
1:49:10 the only comment I have on it besides
1:49:12 the fact that I want it done tomorrow
1:49:14 there are I understand that a lot of
1:49:17 this takes time and money but there are
1:49:19 a couple things in there that you know
1:49:24 maybe the Arts Commission could be
1:49:26 working on wayfinding and things that
1:49:29 really update the community or working
1:49:33 with the business owners to put the
1:49:36 umbrellas but the over hangings on there
1:49:41 and cleaning up I know that I've walked
1:49:44 down frustrated a lot and there are a
1:49:46 couple buildings that need some basic up
1:49:49 keeping and I think that would change
1:49:51 the whole makeup of Issaquah if just
1:49:55 those things were done besides that
1:49:57 let's fix traffic and let's do this I
1:50:00 think you have to start small and work
1:50:02 on it so call the Arts Commission tell
1:50:05 them to start working on it and then
1:50:08 it's in there but okay and actually to
1:50:13 her point I have brought this down
1:50:16 earlier and I just forgot to mention it
1:50:20 utility some of the utilities for
1:50:24 instance like signals and crosswalk
1:50:26 intersections and so on I think this
1:50:30 goes under falls under traffic but the
1:50:33 village style traffic signals in Old
1:50:36 Town right so if we want to say that we
1:50:39 want to limit all those types of utility
1:50:41 functions to be village style the new
1:50:45 crosswalks are coming in our galvanize
1:50:47 and they look like they belong
1:50:49 in an industrial section of town okay so
1:50:53 shouldn't those also be applicable to
1:50:57 the village style well that can be
1:51:01 addressed that can actually be done
1:51:02 through the design standards we would
1:51:04 have to work we'd work with pwe and with
1:51:07 engineering of his operations to make
1:51:09 sure that it works but that would be
1:51:10 something that we could address during
1:51:11 the design standards when we have that
1:51:13 discussion next year we wouldn't have
1:51:15 that language into this document pardon
1:51:17 me would we would it be and would it be
1:51:20 best to add that language into this
1:51:22 document or no you can certainly add it
1:51:26 I mean under the action steps for an
1:51:28 entity yeah into the action items I mean
1:51:32 it already says that we want to keep the
1:51:33 scaling character so that would fall
1:51:34 into the character in my opinion but
1:51:37 it's it's as a policy and it's not
1:51:39 necessarily as well I guess we're how
1:51:47 would we address that it seems since
1:51:49 it'd be a capital project that the city
1:51:50 would do that it would be best in the
1:51:52 action other items
1:52:01 but not
1:52:09 what we can Keith's suggestion is we
1:52:12 could amend the streetscape plan okay as
1:52:16 well and would that go in the action
1:52:19 items or action yes whatever it would be
1:52:21 a minute I'm in the streetscape plan
1:52:33 with that I'm gonna ask someone to give
1:52:38 me a motion to address what we've
1:52:43 discussed tonight somebody like to make
1:52:47 that motion so I will make a motion that
1:52:51 we adopt option a as is so we leave the
1:52:57 property boundaries as they are and we
1:53:00 ask that the city come back within 18
1:53:07 months 12 months 18 months with a
1:53:11 proposal on what to do with a northern
1:53:16 section you clarify between 12 months
1:53:22 and 18 months
1:53:23 all right so we'll make it 12 we'll make
1:53:26 it 12 months okay
1:53:33 so we'll make it so we say and I and I
1:53:38 would clarify too and say within 12
1:53:40 months of adoption of you know
1:53:43 development standards for that area
1:53:45 because if this can if that conversation
1:53:47 happens to contain it well but if that
1:53:49 conversation for any reason continues
1:53:51 into March of next year and doesn't
1:53:54 happen this year okay so I will make an
1:53:57 amendment then the it would be we asked
1:54:01 that the city reevaluate the northern
1:54:05 section of our discussion to be
1:54:09 discussed again to the PPC within 12
1:54:14 months of the Peru
1:54:16 Old Town sub area plan of the
1:54:20 development standards for old route 10
1:54:22 correct
1:54:23 do we not what about the south including
1:54:27 the South yeah but we do not want to
1:54:29 revisit that in 12 months
1:54:31 are we just assuming South is forever in
1:54:34 we're assuming the South is for everyone
1:54:36 if you want I can I mean you can think
1:54:41 that will probably come up when the
1:54:44 design standards conversation happens
1:54:47 other people went in around naturally
1:54:50 yeah okay well I mean you can always
1:54:53 suggest or include that if you want to
1:54:57 seem like big different but what good
1:54:59 would go together cuz we really were
1:55:01 waiting for the standards right that's
1:55:03 so that's so I'm just suggesting why not
1:55:05 that's not them there Ken oh the North
1:55:09 hinges on the development standards for
1:55:12 old route 10 which are currently up in
1:55:15 the running whereas the South is more
1:55:17 about the design standards which is a
1:55:19 conversation that's inevitably going
1:55:22 going to happen okay you're saying it'll
1:55:25 happen regardless yeah okay a suggestion
1:55:28 might be right now in your action items
1:55:30 for 2019 and 2017 is adjust old town
1:55:35 boundaries comma as adopted you may say
1:55:38 something like relook at old town
1:55:40 boundaries within 12 months of adoption
1:55:42 so it's actually in the plan and not
1:55:44 just in the motion cuz then maybe we
1:55:47 wouldn't forget whatever to include
1:55:52 that's so streamlined it's like it was
1:55:56 meant yeah basically saying so on the
1:56:09 2019 to 2020 number 17 mmm-hmm just old
1:56:15 town boundaries and review whatever
1:56:22 we're gonna call the old route 10 areas
1:56:26 Michell inclusion what he's just leaving
1:56:28 it open cuz who knows in 12 months what
1:56:31 you're gonna want to relook at him you
1:56:33 might want to look at the east so the
1:56:35 problem with not mentioning that is if
1:56:38 it's not adopted as part of Old Town
1:56:43 want to make sure it's already part of
1:56:45 somewhere no but it wouldn't be no it
1:56:48 there's right now it's a part of Old
1:56:50 Town know the northern part is not so I
1:56:55 put the other map up there the ideas
1:56:59 right now we don't change the project we
1:57:01 don't change the boundaries at all agree
1:57:03 because if the action says to relook at
1:57:05 the boundaries you could go in or out
1:57:07 with anything in the boundary is why I
1:57:11 was leaving at gem yeah so I would
1:57:14 suggest although I can't instead of
1:57:18 having the city make a recommendation
1:57:22 because they're asking us to do it in
1:57:26 your motion you say the city I think we
1:57:29 should just add you know we no decision
1:57:36 until the development standards are
1:57:40 settled and then come back to the
1:57:44 planning policy this is our
1:57:46 recommendation no decision you mean we
1:57:48 leave it as is that's your ear motion no
1:57:53 I mean clarify what your what you're
1:57:55 saying is that you if you were to make a
1:57:58 motion because you can't make a motion
1:57:59 but if you were to make a motion your
1:58:02 motion would be to have option a we
1:58:08 would be leaving the property will be
1:58:10 leaving the boundaries as they are I'm
1:58:12 not saying that at all that's your
1:58:14 motion I in your motion you said you
1:58:16 were waiting for that you were asking
1:58:18 the council to make a decision before it
1:58:21 came back the way I read understood your
1:58:23 motion and I don't think we should make
1:58:27 a motion to wait for the council to make
1:58:30 a decision because they're looking to us
1:58:31 to give them input it's all I'm saying
1:58:34 you can make the motion any way you want
1:58:38 but that's just a suggestion that I
1:58:41 think it would be easier to approve the
1:58:47 plan as is keeping the the dirt the
1:58:51 outline exactly the way it is with the
1:58:55 whatever you want to put on it
1:58:57 one of withdraw your yeah yeah I just
1:59:04 moving on let's make a motion to use the
1:59:11 boundary a option our boundary option a
1:59:14 so we're leaving the boundaries as they
1:59:17 are and within 12 months of adoption we
1:59:24 come back and look at the old route 10
1:59:27 as part of being in what boundary we
1:59:31 want to put that area into and I restate
1:59:35 that for you yes okay number we're just
1:59:40 changing the line of number 17 on that
1:59:43 page to say PPC to review the old town
1:59:48 boundaries within 12 months of
1:59:53 development standard adoption acceptance
1:59:58 for old route 10 area whatever you're
2:00:04 gonna call it I don't know if there's a
2:00:06 name since it's not in an old town or
2:00:10 it's not in a sub area I know I'm still
2:00:12 calling it old route 10 DBV
2:00:14 yep so very invisible make sense for
2:00:18 right and I would just make a friendly
2:00:21 comment that it wouldn't just say PPC
2:00:25 would review it would be review because
2:00:28 it would be a process that definitely
2:00:30 you would be part of the process but it
2:00:32 would be a community you know it would
2:00:33 be more than just PPC reviewing then we
2:00:35 constrain you'd be seeing it with Rizzo
2:00:39 that would be my suggestion a second
2:00:43 second I was restating his life
2:00:49 in fact history yeah that's what I was
2:00:52 gonna say we have a second second you
2:00:54 know for the discussion all those in
2:00:58 favor say aye aye opposed motion carries
2:01:04 and just to clarify you're only revising
2:01:07 or you're only reviewing the northern
2:01:09 part your net you're being silent on the
2:01:10 southern part correct and that motion
2:01:13 that was it to clarify because we've had
2:01:20 some questions what we just voted for
2:01:23 and don't assume we have clarity since
2:01:26 everyone just voted I'm just gonna state
2:01:28 it anyway just for the record we're
2:01:32 keeping the boundaries as originally
2:01:34 recommended with no changes and we are
2:01:38 adopting all of the old town sub area
2:01:42 plan with that one change not
2:01:44 recommended but as they are today
2:01:47 correct no change to boundary we did we
2:01:56 want to put any timeframe on revisiting
2:01:58 the plan itself overall plan as opposed
2:02:02 to 20 years from now where is that being
2:02:03 too ambitious would you guys like me to
2:02:09 or doing
2:02:11 are we not too concerned about that if
2:02:13 you make the motion you'll find out okay
2:02:17 well I'll give it a shot I might suggest
2:02:20 adding it to the longer term actions
2:02:24 brilliant one to twenty three to twenty
2:02:28 thirty you stay here visit the plan
2:02:32 mm-hmm okay so I'd like to make a motion
2:02:35 that the PPC that we add to the longer
2:02:40 term actions that the PPC review and
2:02:45 revise the plan as necessary and like
2:02:49 Trish's comment before I would remove
2:02:50 PPC oh and just say review because it's
2:02:53 a community participation got it and the
2:02:56 time frame is well if we're just adding
2:02:59 it to longer-term actions its 2023 to
2:03:03 thirty why are we waiting so long well
2:03:06 it's only eleven years it was nineteen
2:03:08 since the last one but that would be up
2:03:12 in 2012 yeah what no twenty Twenty
2:03:17 twenty one let's I thought we decided
2:03:28 that we wanted to have the community and
2:03:30 pp and PPC review it twelve months after
2:03:35 the approval of the design stand so is
2:03:38 already in no it wasn't part of the
2:03:40 motion so if you wanted to make a motion
2:03:43 for what we decided I would love to have
2:03:46 you make a motion okay I'm gonna go for
2:03:50 shorter this time I am making a motion
2:03:52 to add to the short term actions at leat
2:03:57 plan B reviewed and revised as necessary
2:04:05 by after wouldn't after standards after
2:04:12 the design standards have been adopted
2:04:16 twelve months after that yeah mm-hm okay
2:04:21 that motion any discussion all those in
2:04:27 favor say aye
2:04:30 no with that hopefully wordsmith that
2:04:35 appropriately thank you this is what I
2:04:39 got okay let me know if I got it review
2:04:41 and update the old town plan within 12
2:04:44 months after design standards have been
2:04:46 adopted so so that's like two years from
2:04:49 now and that gives the design standards
2:04:51 about one year to see if they work does
2:04:54 that work well it's in the short-term
2:04:56 options yeah I know
2:04:57 look at it okay and see and give you
2:05:00 input see what changes were made its
2:05:05 it's been moved and seconded and 2022
2:05:08 done so 2020
2:05:11 it is but it's in the short-term it's
2:05:18 after the design standards have been
2:05:20 adopted though so if they're not adopted
2:05:22 till 20 so 22 then we would have a year
2:05:26 to do that that's what I thought I heard
2:05:30 you say that's it
2:05:31 job security don't worry about I think
2:05:35 the goal was just to maybe look at them
2:05:37 like three to four years from now not
2:05:39 ten there we getting to that that was
2:05:41 the goal okay all right look on your
2:05:50 face I'm just gonna let it go but I do i
2:05:59 okay so I'm not gonna let it go no it's
2:06:04 just the old town old town plant sets
2:06:06 the vision and the assumption is that
2:06:09 right now you want this is what you want
2:06:11 the vision to be and you want to give
2:06:14 the design standards once you readjust
2:06:16 once you adjust those in about a year
2:06:18 make sure that those are achieving the
2:06:20 vision they need a little time just do
2:06:25 you need a little time to figure out if
2:06:26 those standards are achieving that
2:06:27 vision that you want before you go
2:06:28 changing the vision again so I I'm not
2:06:31 sure that it's the plan you want to
2:06:32 check in two years or as the design
2:06:34 standards two years after that and give
2:06:36 the vision you know five years the
2:06:39 policies five years before you go
2:06:41 changing the vision again because you
2:06:42 change the vision you're probably gonna
2:06:43 have to change the standards again so
2:06:45 just like the T IP and the IP of a list
2:06:50 of what you want to do yeah and every
2:06:52 year they're changed so if there are
2:06:55 policies of them mm-hmm you put it down
2:06:59 on the list or you change it I mean
2:07:01 cities have the you of the ability to do
2:07:05 that right but for right now it seems
2:07:08 like a reasonable assumption to come
2:07:12 back and discuss it even if it if it
2:07:17 hasn't been had a year to go through the
2:07:20 process I mean there's still the
2:07:24 you know you still can discuss it and
2:07:26 say yeah we think it's going to work no
2:07:28 that's doesn't seem reasonable you can
2:07:31 still have opinions on it so absolutely
2:07:34 so I think that's all we're getting at I
2:07:36 mean we have to close out this and move
2:07:40 on and I think that's a reasonable way
2:07:43 of doing this okay but your concerns are
2:07:47 hurt okay can't keep changing okay I
2:07:52 understand that there's only so much
2:07:54 time in the day and then the week of
2:07:57 being able to process all of this stuff
2:08:00 I understand all that well but I think
2:08:02 the point is also you're saying whatever
2:08:03 metrics are measuring this by will not
2:08:05 have necessarily come to fruition exact
2:08:07 that time frame exact totally I just
2:08:09 need yeah my point was it's time to
2:08:11 settle to see if what your vision is and
2:08:13 what you're doing to get there really
2:08:15 works so if we're not saying what we
2:08:17 think we want to see when we talk about
2:08:19 it again in three years it doesn't mean
2:08:20 we should necessarily deviate right it's
2:08:23 just we haven't we might not have given
2:08:25 it enough time to play out correct that
2:08:27 and that's correct
2:08:28 we're on staff time it's just about
2:08:30 letting see you coming back and oh it
2:08:32 was on the agenda for January 2080
2:08:37 and but we're going to move it because
2:08:39 of this this and this to 2019 kind of
2:08:41 yeah I understand that
2:08:43 so let's yeah you're giving us a lot of
2:08:46 credit okay okay so is there anything
2:08:56 else besides this plan to us usually
2:09:01 have an update of what's gonna happen
2:09:03 there's a new public here so you guys
2:09:06 are all done with this all done on
2:09:11 August 9 is that right
2:09:15 August 9 August 9th there's a new public
2:09:19 hearing and I'm letting you know now to
2:09:22 make sure that we have a quorum I won't
2:09:25 here so no Joan okay I will okay
2:09:31 so Ron is a yes Joan is a no yes no
2:09:37 Lindsey's a yes I hear a whisper okay
2:09:40 yes yes excellent bill Amy yes Jamie
2:09:47 excellent Jason do you think yes
2:09:50 excellent it will be an exciting one but
2:09:54 I just it's a change it's just one
2:09:57 that's just coming down in the path so I
2:09:59 wanted to get it on here cuz it's not
2:10:01 even on your schedule the end up in your
2:10:03 packet this week so that's how new it is
2:10:05 so I just get it on your radar you want
2:10:07 to find out if we're coming before you
2:10:09 tell us what I know I just want to be
2:10:11 sure before we send out my guard this
2:10:14 Ron no because we send out a million
2:10:15 letters to property owners I want to be
2:10:17 sure that there's that the seats are
2:10:19 full of million people yeah
2:10:21 yes we're gonna open up the doors don't
2:10:23 be so many people here sounds like a
2:10:24 serial or any letters one is a
2:10:26 transportation element no that's getting
2:10:30 bumped the comp plan and continues to be
2:10:32 bumped okay at all this other exciting
2:10:34 projects that we're doing now this would
2:10:36 be the permitted land use table of the
2:10:39 central standards the storage units and
2:10:43 hotel discussion how I got more excited
2:10:47 yes a watch fantastic I know I wouldn't
2:10:53 miss it
2:10:53 yeah and you better not I better know
2:10:57 yes yes indeed but that's all I have
2:11:00 okay anything else so with that I'll
2:11:03 close the meeting at 8:45 well done and
2:11:08 thank you for your first meeting well
2:11:09 done thank you