Planning Policy Commission - Special Meeting · Thursday, September 5, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Randy Harrison 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 – Tom Haskins see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Robin Beukers 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 22, 2019

packet pp.5–9

▶ Watch from 0:31 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-22-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Council Chambers August 22, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

4. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.45

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2019 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 8/27/19) All meetings located in Council Chambers unless noted January 2019 September 2019 1/10/19 Cancelled 9/5/19 Public Hearing: Olde Town Code Amendments 1/24/19 Public Hearings: a) Comp Plan 2019 Docket 9/12/19 Open House: Olde Town Architectural Standards/Design Guidelines b) Code amendment: Wireless Communication Facilities Also: Comments from the Mayor 9/26/19 Introduction: Sign Code Update • Comp Plan Amendments: Capital Facilities Element & Utilities Element • Land Use Element re: Tree Canopy/policies (may be postponed until 2020) February 2019 • Public meeting (not a hearing): Comp Plan Amendments: Community 2/14/19 Facilities rezones Continued Public Hearing: Code amendment: Wireless Facilities Introduction: Comp Plan Amendments: Treasures

1159 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ you

0:11 ↗ okay good evening to welcome to the all

0:16 ↗ apologies PPC tonight for the September

0:23 ↗ 5th meeting and we're gonna go ahead and

0:25 ↗ start off the evening with the approval

0:28 ↗ of the minutes do I hear a motion for

0:31 ↗ the approval of the minutes I'd like to

0:32 ↗ make a motion to approve the meeting

0:34 ↗ minutes from August 22nd from 2019 do I

0:37 ↗ hear a second I second it any

0:41 ↗ discussions or all in favor aye

0:48 ↗ motion carries minutes are approved okay

0:51 ↗ and so we're gonna go ahead and I'm

0:54 ↗ gonna go through the agenda tonight with

0:56 ↗ public hearing we're gonna hear on the

0:59 ↗ proposed old town code amendments

1:01 ↗ presented by Kristen we are not actually

1:05 ↗ going to adjourn with a decision or

1:09 ↗ recommendation tonight we are going to

1:11 ↗ postpone that until September 26th and

1:15 ↗ we will also have welcomed with public

1:19 ↗ comment later in a few minutes here so

1:21 ↗ Trish is going to go ahead and open up

1:23 ↗ with some announcements while everyone

1:27 ↗ is still paying complete attention I

1:29 ↗ wanted to make an announcement that next

1:31 ↗ week's open house would be September the

1:34 ↗ 12th open house on the old town

1:37 ↗ architectural design standards

1:40 ↗ guidelines we have to think of a shorter

1:43 ↗ title for that project has been

1:45 ↗ postponed so that at this point there

1:48 ↗ will be no meeting of the PPC in this

1:50 ↗ room next Thursday but we'll let you all

1:53 ↗ know when that will be rescheduled but

1:56 ↗ we just found out late this afternoon

1:58 ↗ that that open house is going to be

2:00 ↗ postponed the official word will come

2:03 ↗ out tomorrow on the website and all

2:06 ↗ those places but we didn't want folks to

2:09 ↗ think it was tonight's meeting was

2:11 ↗ canceled so we asked them not to

2:12 ↗ officially do that until after we had

2:15 ↗ everyone in the room

2:16 ↗ then we canceled next week okay so now

2:19 ↗ on to Kristen for those I haven't met

2:27 ↗ therapy of you

2:28 ↗ I am Kristen Lisa and I'm a Senior

2:30 ↗ Planner with the development services

2:32 ↗ department and you know I edit this

2:36 ↗ PowerPoint about a thousand times and I

2:39 ↗ feel like there's not enough information

2:40 ↗ in here so I'm gonna back up a little

2:42 ↗ bit so just to catch people up our Old

2:47 ↗ Town sub area plan was initially adopted

2:49 ↗ back in 1999 and it had it was touched

2:54 ↗ once in 2009 to remove the references to

2:59 ↗ the potential bypass that was coming

3:01 ↗ through otherwise it hadn't been touched

3:03 ↗ in 2015 and Old Town task force was put

3:07 ↗ together to talk about Old Town vitality

3:11 ↗ and it dealt mostly with the cultural

3:14 ↗ and business district and it went to

3:17 ↗ council they made great recommendations

3:18 ↗ it went to the City Council in the City

3:21 ↗ Council said but wait a second this

3:23 ↗ doesn't address our residential issues

3:25 ↗ at all

3:26 ↗ so an updating knows so one of the

3:30 ↗ recommendations of the task force was to

3:33 ↗ update the sub area plan and the design

3:34 ↗ standards and as part of that we

3:36 ↗ included the residential areas as well

3:39 ↗ so we updated the plan 2018 and in that

3:44 ↗ plan were very specific was a very

3:46 ↗ specific action program they were

3:49 ↗ immediate actions for 2019 to 2020

3:53 ↗ short-term actions from 2021 to 2022 and

3:57 ↗ longer-term actions from 2023 to 2030 we

4:02 ↗ are in the process of implementing the

4:05 ↗ immediate actions so what we have what

4:10 ↗ we're talking about tonight are six of

4:12 ↗ those and we had meetings on August 8th

4:15 ↗ and August 22nd to talk about those

4:19 ↗ and we did during the plan update we had

4:21 ↗ four open houses and it came six times

4:23 ↗ to Planning Policy commission and six

4:25 ↗ times to the City Council before it was

4:28 ↗ adopted so we did talk about these items

4:30 ↗ then but we are here talking about it

4:32 ↗ again so are there any questions on the

4:36 ↗ app and what we've done so far so the

4:42 ↗ first one that we are implementing is

4:44 ↗ action number two just code word is

4:47 ↗ excuse me code revisions to reduce

4:50 ↗ heights to three storeys in the cultural

4:51 ↗ and business district or CBD to three

4:55 ↗ storeys in the multifamily high district

4:57 ↗ east sunset way only so just right along

4:59 ↗ here and to two stories in the single

5:02 ↗ family duplex zone so we've done that in

5:07 ↗ the CBD the heights the base height was

5:10 ↗ 45 feet and you could go up to 65 feet

5:12 ↗ with conditions such as set step backs

5:16 ↗ above a certain floor which means that

5:18 ↗ your building gets moved further back at

5:20 ↗ a certain level and we took away the 65

5:24 ↗ foot maximum and now it's a 40 foot

5:26 ↗ maximum or three storeys whichever is

5:29 ↗ lower in the multifamily high district

5:33 ↗ on East sunset way we kept the base

5:37 ↗ height at 40 feet and said 40 feet or

5:40 ↗ three storeys whichever is lower and

5:42 ↗ removed the maximum height and we did

5:44 ↗ the same thing we initially weren't

5:46 ↗ going to address multifamily medium but

5:48 ↗ we realized the multifamily medium the

5:50 ↗ base was 40 feet but it was also they

5:54 ↗ still had a maximum height of 50 feet

5:56 ↗ and we thought well maybe I'm supposed

5:57 ↗ to have a lower density than high so we

6:00 ↗ made those two the same as far as the

6:03 ↗ height goes any questions yes the the

6:08 ↗ two condo complexes then on that are

6:12 ↗ extend on sunset it would not be

6:17 ↗ approved under the these new standards

6:20 ↗ correct and if this is approved they'll

6:21 ↗ become legally non-conforming is what

6:23 ↗ it's called thank you you're welcome

6:26 ↗ action number three same table on the

6:29 ↗ left was to increase the impervious

6:33 ↗ surface in the cultural and business

6:34 ↗ district from 85% to 95% and to increase

6:38 ↗ the impervious surface and multi-family

6:40 ↗ high on East sunset way from 50% to 75%

6:45 ↗ impervious surface means that you can

6:47 ↗ cover that's much more you know if you

6:49 ↗ go up to 95 75 percent you can now cover

6:52 ↗ 75% of your property with parking lots

6:55 ↗ or driveways or a building whatever it

6:58 ↗ may be that you need on that lot but the

7:01 ↗ heights have gone down in these areas

7:04 ↗ one of the reasons for doing this the

7:06 ↗ task force recommended improved

7:09 ↗ increasing the impervious surface in

7:11 ↗ both of these as an incentive or as a

7:16 ↗ way to potentially help developers

7:17 ↗ redevelop their properties I will let

7:20 ↗ you know - the task force did not

7:22 ↗ recommend reducing the heights in the

7:25 ↗ CBD they actually wanted to keep the

7:28 ↗ four-story height there but based on all

7:31 ↗ the feedback that we got from the

7:33 ↗ residents in the area they were more

7:34 ↗ concerned about keeping the character

7:36 ↗ and so the proposal was to go to three

7:39 ↗ storeys max was to four

7:45 ↗ action number four code revisions to

7:47 ↗ acquire ground-floor commercial on Front

7:49 ↗ Street I will let the PPC know and

7:52 ↗ actually those who are here last time

7:54 ↗ there's been a slight addition to this

7:55 ↗ one so here this again was a task force

7:59 ↗ recommendation trying to increase

8:01 ↗ pedestrian activity on Front Street and

8:04 ↗ the and that's the idea of including

8:06 ↗ commercial retail the task force

8:08 ↗ recommendation was to actually work with

8:10 ↗ offices to move them off of Front Street

8:12 ↗ and make more room for retail the

8:15 ↗ administration felt it opened it up a

8:16 ↗ little bit more for property owners if

8:19 ↗ you said opened it up to commercial and

8:21 ↗ not just specifically retail so it says

8:23 ↗ commercial retail it's so the addition

8:27 ↗ here is ground-floor commercial retail

8:29 ↗ includes those uses currently allowed in

8:31 ↗ the CBD and are included in the

8:34 ↗ subsections of this table of table and

8:37 ↗ that's ascend titled food and beverage

8:39 ↗ office professional financial retail

8:41 ↗ service and medical so in our table of

8:43 ↗ permitted uses which I can show you if

8:45 ↗ you want to see it there are it lists

8:47 ↗ exactly which uses are allowed in the

8:49 ↗ cultural and business district and there

8:50 ↗ are subcategories in each of those that

8:52 ↗ are titled office professional financial

8:54 ↗ food and beverage and those are the

8:57 ↗ primary uses that would be allowed as

9:00 ↗ ground-floor retail this doesn't

9:02 ↗ prohibit any uses from going into

9:06 ↗ cultural and business district which is

9:08 ↗ that those are the ones that we want the

9:10 ↗ ground floor and on the front on Front

9:12 ↗ Street

9:15 ↗ and questions and I know there was a

9:21 ↗ question earlier today does this mean

9:23 ↗ that an insurance company could come in

9:26 ↗ even though that doesn't have in and out

9:27 ↗ and you know traffic that comes in and

9:30 ↗ out without appointments and that is

9:32 ↗ what it means that those would be

9:34 ↗ allowed so you know it's it's up to the

9:37 ↗ Commission if they want to change the

9:39 ↗ recommendation and you know we had

9:41 ↗ originally talked about I didn't put it

9:44 ↗ in here it is in your packet what we had

9:46 ↗ talked about potentially using active

9:48 ↗ commercial but as we worked our way up

9:50 ↗ the food chain and talked to those

9:52 ↗ higher-ups that was decided that that

9:56 ↗ would not be a part of an

9:57 ↗ administration's recommendation yeah so

10:01 ↗ this this was our kind of way of what do

10:06 ↗ you call that it was the it was the mid

10:09 ↗ road sorry yeah yeah so any thoughts on

10:15 ↗ that I think it would be nice to have

10:19 ↗ some type of title though the previous

10:23 ↗ one that we all kind of liked doesn't

10:25 ↗ necessarily address it I think that

10:27 ↗ sometimes when you're saying ground

10:28 ↗ floor commercial retail it doesn't

10:31 ↗ necessarily describe what it sounds more

10:33 ↗ limiting than it is right now the

10:34 ↗ proposal the administration is to

10:36 ↗ actually have a pretty wide berth and I

10:37 ↗ think it's easy to say oh my gosh we're

10:39 ↗ really limiting what we're allowing to

10:41 ↗ come in but as I went through the table

10:43 ↗ today I mean there's just it's almost

10:45 ↗ even it's even almost easier to say what

10:47 ↗ isn't allowed and what is because

10:48 ↗ there's so much that we can do so I

10:50 ↗ think it would be curious to think about

10:52 ↗ maybe a way to be able to better explain

10:54 ↗ that rather than right now saying that

10:56 ↗ we're requiring retail tends to make it

10:58 ↗ seem more limited than it is okay

11:12 ↗ anything else I always come back to it

11:20 ↗ the KOAT action number five was code

11:23 ↗ revisions to allow small-scale retail in

11:25 ↗ multifamily high on East sunset way and

11:29 ↗ so we added a footnote to again the

11:33 ↗ table it permitted uses which I really

11:35 ↗ need to show you all

11:36 ↗ one change since the last thing current

11:37 ↗ planners we're looking at this again and

11:39 ↗ they said wait a second you can allow

11:42 ↗ standalone use not to exceed 4,000

11:44 ↗ square feet and then they said is that

11:46 ↗ gross is that net is that what so we

11:47 ↗ clarified that it's gross square feet so

11:50 ↗ that that's an addition from your packet

11:53 ↗ what this does we currently allow you'll

11:55 ↗ know you know you'd go up and down

11:57 ↗ sunset and you said but their use is

11:58 ↗ there they're already some uses there

12:00 ↗ some are grandfathered in because this

12:01 ↗ was and the code was amended laters

12:03 ↗ after some of those uses are already

12:04 ↗ there you can do it right now in an

12:08 ↗ existing building and an existing

12:09 ↗ mixed-use building but it can't exceed

12:11 ↗ like 1500 square feet or at can't exceed

12:13 ↗ 4,000 square feet but it still has to be

12:15 ↗ inside a building and that's been

12:16 ↗ difficult for people we wanted to come

12:19 ↗ in here and we're having a hard time

12:20 ↗ finding something I wanted to tear

12:21 ↗ something down and build it or put it in

12:23 ↗ a house that's there so this this opens

12:25 ↗ it up a little bit for some of those

12:26 ↗ business owners hope questions

12:36 ↗ so right now I'm going to explain I know

12:40 ↗ I've been through this with PPC one more

12:41 ↗ time but I'm going to explain it one

12:42 ↗ more time yes Robin on the bunny just so

12:45 ↗ I understand could you describe how does

12:47 ↗ the parking parking restrictions work

12:50 ↗ and it was a free zhis a standalone use

12:52 ↗ not to exceed 4,000 square feet no

12:55 ↗ square feet what parking regulations and

12:57 ↗ restrictions would accrue to that they

13:02 ↗ are required to you're required to put

13:08 ↗ in well it's going to depend but there

13:11 ↗ are certain parking there's a certain

13:12 ↗ number of parking spots that's required

13:14 ↗ for any type of use so a restaurant may

13:16 ↗ require so many per square feet and you

13:20 ↗ know a store is another one we're gonna

13:24 ↗ get to the exemptions or the in a minute

13:27 ↗ or they're potential reductions in a

13:29 ↗ minute but those would also apply on

13:31 ↗ sunset as well yeah so if they're but I

13:33 ↗ will tell you if they're required if

13:34 ↗ they go in and they have a 4,000 square

13:36 ↗ foot building and based on their use

13:37 ↗ they're supposed to put in 12 units that

13:40 ↗ could be reduced by 10% potentially I

13:43 ↗ mean 15 yet 10% thank you you're welcome

13:48 ↗ so transfer of development rights is a

13:50 ↗ program that the city has and the city

13:53 ↗ identified both receiving sites and

13:55 ↗ sending sites sending sites are

13:58 ↗ properties that are encumbered by at

14:00 ↗ least 50 percent of their property is

14:02 ↗ encumbered by critical areas and are not

14:05 ↗ likely to be developed or if they are it

14:06 ↗ will be difficult so the cool deal is if

14:10 ↗ these people want to who have these

14:12 ↗ sending sites they can sell their

14:14 ↗ development rights to a developer who

14:17 ↗ has a receiving site and then that

14:20 ↗ developer is able to build above and

14:22 ↗ beyond what they what the code currently

14:24 ↗ allows but recently we adopted the

14:27 ↗ central Issaquah plan in the central

14:29 ↗ Issaquah plan says we want all of our

14:30 ↗ density to go in central Issaquah we

14:33 ↗ also adopted in Oldtown sub area plan or

14:36 ↗ updated it that says and the residents

14:38 ↗ said we don't want more density here so

14:40 ↗ it's logical then that we would remove

14:43 ↗ any receiving sites from old town to

14:46 ↗ keep that additional density from coming

14:47 ↗ here

14:48 ↗ that is what this proposal is so there

14:51 ↗ is just and I didn't put it in here

14:52 ↗ because it's about seven or eight pages

14:54 ↗ of text where you just mark out about

14:55 ↗ eight words at a time but it just

14:58 ↗ removes any references to sunset to

15:00 ↗ multifamily high to multifamily medium

15:02 ↗ anything in old town where there's a

15:04 ↗ receiving site we're also proposing to

15:06 ↗ update the map so everything that is

15:08 ↗ gray right here used to be read as a

15:11 ↗ receiving site but we are proposing to

15:14 ↗ take all of those out to remove those

15:18 ↗ questions

15:25 ↗ last one is number 15 for those who

15:30 ↗ maybe aren't familiar with the plan

15:32 ↗ there are 19 different items and I'm

15:34 ↗ just there numbered by what number they

15:35 ↗ are in the plan we're trying to stay

15:37 ↗ consistent she won't wait what happened

15:38 ↗ to the 8 between this so that's why we

15:43 ↗ started with 2 so development centers

15:48 ↗ that reduce parking requirements for

15:50 ↗ neighborhood oriented commercial

15:51 ↗ projects so we had to come up with a

15:53 ↗ definition for what a neighborhood

15:55 ↗ oriented business was and what we came

15:59 ↗ up with is it is neighborhood oriented

16:01 ↗ businesses have 10 or fewer locations

16:03 ↗ throughout the United States and cater

16:06 ↗ to the daily and or weekly needs of the

16:08 ↗ local community grocery stores and

16:10 ↗ medical dental services no matter the

16:12 ↗ number of locations are accepted as

16:14 ↗ neighborhood oriented businesses

16:22 ↗ so what this means this is our I'm gonna

16:25 ↗ caveat this all this goes into our land

16:30 ↗ use code parking chapter which is

16:34 ↗ currently going through our entitled

16:36 ↗ land use code is going through a huge

16:38 ↗ overhaul so this first one seems really

16:43 ↗ big as a potential reduction but it

16:45 ↗ might change so right now we allow for

16:49 ↗ parking reductions in the CBD zoning

16:51 ↗ district parking requirements for and

16:53 ↗ this is just CBD the cultural and

16:55 ↗ business district along front and right

16:57 ↗ behind it may be reduced by as much as

17:00 ↗ now thirty five percent as follows so

17:03 ↗ they already can get just you come into

17:05 ↗ the CBD you already get a 15% parking

17:08 ↗ reduction just for locating there you

17:11 ↗ can get another 10% parking reduction if

17:13 ↗ you do a shared parking agreement which

17:16 ↗ is a formal legal document that we have

17:17 ↗ this written that the third one that we

17:20 ↗ added is neighborhood oriented

17:21 ↗ businesses if you meet the definition of

17:23 ↗ a neighborhood oriented business and you

17:25 ↗ locate in the CBD you could also get a

17:27 ↗ 10% reduction of the required parking

17:34 ↗ questions yeah so if somebody was to

17:37 ↗ capitalize on all three of those

17:39 ↗ reductions could they actually get up to

17:42 ↗ what would that be yeah and I will tell

17:45 ↗ you that there are some people who when

17:46 ↗ they saw this one poll that's too much

17:48 ↗ so that's what I'm caveat enos by saying

17:51 ↗ some of this may some of this may go

17:52 ↗ away I don't know for sure but just by

17:55 ↗ the initial reaction I had a feeling

17:57 ↗ that it might you know selling medical

18:02 ↗ marijuana be considered a medical well

18:05 ↗ medical marijuana I don't believe is

18:07 ↗ allowed in this zone so no no

18:17 ↗ this is intended to be an incentive

18:21 ↗ neighborhood businesses it's intended to

18:24 ↗ be an incentive to help some of those

18:26 ↗ smaller businesses locate here because

18:28 ↗ parking can be so expensive I didn't

18:31 ↗ they say was about seventeen thousand

18:33 ↗ dollars it can go anywhere from about

18:35 ↗ twenty to sixty thousand dollars per

18:37 ↗ parking space yeah that's a lot of money

18:46 ↗ and then this was still the last one oh

18:51 ↗ right now we have I'm gonna skip ahead

18:53 ↗ this funky map

18:55 ↗ let's turn sideways North is through

18:58 ↗ your left so front Street runs across

19:00 ↗ the bottom this was done back in 1986

19:03 ↗ and it was cut this was what they called

19:05 ↗ the downtown and we have a lot of

19:07 ↗ policies that referred to this and this

19:10 ↗ is where these policies were initially

19:14 ↗ allowed it was called the downtown

19:16 ↗ business district we've changed it a

19:17 ↗ little bit and we probably increased the

19:20 ↗ size a little bit where these reductions

19:22 ↗ could be applied but we took that map

19:24 ↗ out and said anywhere in the CBD zone

19:26 ↗ and mfh along east sunset way is where

19:30 ↗ the these would apply and it's that if

19:32 ↗ they have a change of use within an

19:33 ↗ existing building they don't have to add

19:35 ↗ additional parking and no additional

19:38 ↗ parking required for structural

19:40 ↗ additions that are ten percent less than

19:41 ↗ the original building that's what those

19:43 ↗ are again these may change I don't know

19:46 ↗ all of this language that's being

19:48 ↗ deleted I haven't thrown this in here

19:50 ↗ before but it's all related to the local

19:52 ↗ Improvement District which is no longer

19:53 ↗ in effect so it didn't make sense to

19:56 ↗ still have it in there same with the map

19:59 ↗ that's all I have

20:03 ↗ any more questions or if you want to

20:05 ↗ open it up I do have one more question

20:07 ↗ so as far as the impervious surfaces is

20:10 ↗ 95% does that be requirement or is that

20:14 ↗ a cap that's a Catholic okay that's what

20:16 ↗ I figured I'm gonna clarify anything

20:22 ↗ else any other additional questions you

20:26 ↗ know I have one there's there is a some

20:29 ↗ wording it's not actually in any of the

20:31 ↗ presentation I just have one question

20:32 ↗ there's a there's a one place where the

20:35 ↗ word illuminate Thank You Christopher

20:42 ↗ got that for us today yes DC training so

20:49 ↗ knowing that the as the previous

20:52 ↗ presentations that the target audience

20:53 ↗ for the kinds of retail that we're

20:57 ↗ talking about that are addressed here

20:58 ↗ are we hope would be people who would

21:00 ↗ walk from neighborhoods right and ride

21:02 ↗ bikes there for the target audience is

21:05 ↗ not going to be driving cars we hope

21:09 ↗ right okay

21:11 ↗ so first what would be the process that

21:15 ↗ these that would be put in place if it

21:19 ↗ turns out in a couple of years that we

21:23 ↗ don't have enough I know we have a nexus

21:25 ↗ now we have a surplus of parking

21:27 ↗ available at various times in the city

21:29 ↗ but what would be the process then and

21:33 ↗ this is absolutely hypothetical if it

21:35 ↗ turns out that we need more parking in

21:40 ↗ CBD

21:41 ↗ so there are mr. Regan correct me if I'm

21:44 ↗ wrong but they're about three steps and

21:46 ↗ the first one would be enforcement in

21:48 ↗ saying putting up signs saying this for

21:50 ↗ example is to our parking and it will be

21:53 ↗ enforced you know the difficulty in that

21:55 ↗ is that then you also have to add staff

21:57 ↗ or consultants that will enforce it the

21:59 ↗ second option is to put up meters and

22:02 ↗ just time it out those also have to be

22:05 ↗ enforced but that be meters but the

22:07 ↗ meters that I think help pay for the

22:08 ↗ enforcement

22:09 ↗ the last option would be to build a

22:12 ↗ parking garage

22:13 ↗ that's what's been discussed I remember

22:14 ↗ okay yeah thank you that would be

22:17 ↗ subject to extensive review before any

22:19 ↗ of that oh absolutely

22:21 ↗ yes thank you

22:35 ↗ wasn't it proves previously stated that

22:37 ↗ we're doing ongoing like every biannual

22:40 ↗ surveys of parking spaces are there so

22:43 ↗ that we can monitor that and make weeks

22:44 ↗ to these policies yes that needed every

22:48 ↗ two years the parking is being the

22:50 ↗ parking study is being redone and

22:53 ↗ relooked at it okay so there's a control

22:55 ↗ cycle of right ensuring and fixing right

22:57 ↗ in there there is a breaking point so

22:59 ↗ right now I think I think we said last

23:00 ↗ time the max at you know a Saturday

23:02 ↗ afternoon from 1 to 2 was 67% and if it

23:05 ↗ gets to 85% that's when you say ok we

23:08 ↗ have to stop and reevaluate and figure

23:10 ↗ out what we're gonna do just tell us who

23:38 ↗ you are hi my name is al Juhani we're

23:45 ↗ looking at a piece of property on

23:46 ↗ Rainier Boulevard so I think it falls

23:48 ↗ into this district my question really

23:51 ↗ was for timing it sounds like there's

23:53 ↗ some changes or still evolving this

23:56 ↗ motion or whatever you call it and I was

23:58 ↗ just wondering you said that it may

24:00 ↗ still change is it before the September

24:02 ↗ 26 meeting or is it beyond the September

24:04 ↗ 26 meeting sure no so the public hearing

24:11 ↗ once it goes through we talked the

24:13 ↗ public hearing will continue until

24:15 ↗ September 26th and at that time the

24:17 ↗ Planning Policy Commission will make a

24:19 ↗ recommendation after that it goes to

24:21 ↗ City Council however we don't have dates

24:24 ↗ set for that yet so I don't know what it

24:28 ↗ will be after that but we're doing our

24:30 ↗ very best to keep our website updated if

24:32 ↗ you'll want to give me your email I can

24:33 ↗ always put you on a list too to let you

24:35 ↗ know and same with anybody here if you

24:37 ↗ want to be on our email list write it on

24:40 ↗ that sheet up there and we'll get you on

24:41 ↗ our distribution list so you know what's

24:43 ↗ going on the goal was originally at the

24:49 ↗ end of the year but now that council has

24:51 ↗ so many meetings scheduled for budget

24:53 ↗ everything's been pushed out a little

24:55 ↗ bit so it might be January February

24:57 ↗ depending on when they can fit this in

25:00 ↗ we're hoping still by the end of the

25:01 ↗ year but it's not completely up to us

25:07 ↗ any additional comments from the public

25:23 ↗ good evening David Kepler 255 southeast

25:26 ↗ Andrew Street just more like questions

25:29 ↗ or clarifications pervious concrete is

25:34 ↗ it considered pervious in terms of the

25:37 ↗ 25% I don't think so

25:39 ↗ I didn't think silver shouldn't be thank

25:41 ↗ you front of the building 20 foot deep

25:47 ↗ it's got to be retail and you've got

25:50 ↗ these buildings go back a lot more than

25:53 ↗ 20 feet so you've got possibly other

25:56 ↗ stories and the back that maybe will be

25:59 ↗ office or something else is there going

26:02 ↗ to be like say 80% of the front has to

26:06 ↗ be retail 20 foot deep and 80% of the

26:10 ↗ front of the building so that the back

26:13 ↗ of the building or the upper part of the

26:14 ↗ building will have a front street

26:18 ↗ entrance to do those other uses the

26:22 ↗ whole front is taken up by retail how

26:25 ↗ would you get to the other business yeah

26:30 ↗ ok good and I don't know is there a

26:34 ↗ difference between medical marijuana and

26:36 ↗ recreational marijuana and that might be

26:38 ↗ clarified I can answer that one they're

26:41 ↗ all in the code now just as marijuana

26:43 ↗ and they are not permitted in the CBD

26:47 ↗ and for your how much along the front we

26:53 ↗ use the exact same code that's in the

26:55 ↗ central Issaquah plan right now

26:57 ↗ it was quite frankly eat a little easier

26:59 ↗ to remain consistent and we did talk

27:01 ↗ about it some of these what you do is

27:04 ↗ you put retail on the front and they

27:05 ↗ have tucked under parking in the back or

27:08 ↗ they have you know storage in the back

27:10 ↗ or something else that goes back there

27:12 ↗ we talked about a requirement but these

27:16 ↗ buildings are are pretty narrow as it is

27:18 ↗ and I you know we tried to imagine

27:21 ↗ somebody putting in 50 it was our

27:25 ↗ discussion trying to decide on what that

27:27 ↗ would have been I feel like might have

27:28 ↗ been arbitrary and we didn't have

27:30 ↗ anything to base it on so

27:32 ↗ you know I can't see maybe somebody does

27:34 ↗ 25 feet at retail across in 20 feet D I

27:36 ↗ don't know but and that's something to

27:39 ↗ consider

27:40 ↗ central though is worded the exact same

27:42 ↗ way and there's no limit across the

27:44 ↗ front right I thought the whole part

27:47 ↗ that I thought we ended up and I'm just

27:49 ↗ saying this out loud is that the whole

27:50 ↗ frontage that's on Front Street has to

27:52 ↗ be retail but if it's access through the

27:55 ↗ area if it's access through something

27:56 ↗ else it can be something else as long as

27:59 ↗ we get that 20 feet depth off of Front

28:01 ↗ Street you know you may have if you have

28:04 ↗ residential above you know I used to

28:05 ↗ live in Chicago in Philadelphia and you

28:06 ↗ have retail but you still have to have

28:08 ↗ mailboxes in space for people to get

28:10 ↗ upstairs to residences so right maybe

28:12 ↗ right and that's just a little spot

28:15 ↗ though so I think that would still be

28:16 ↗ okay yeah so that we can if if you all

28:20 ↗ would like if that's something you

28:22 ↗ choose we can make that a little clearer

28:23 ↗ that it takes up the entire front with

28:25 ↗ the exception of access or something

28:27 ↗ like that the additional public

28:32 ↗ questions public comments

28:41 ↗ my name is JJ Lin from 180 Front Street

28:45 ↗ first of all I'm glad that the at least

28:50 ↗ postponed

28:51 ↗ I guess the voting on these proposals

28:54 ↗ not because I don't think they're gonna

28:56 ↗ be implemented but you know I looked at

28:58 ↗ the whole packet and for us to have

29:01 ↗ public comment say you invite the public

29:04 ↗ and then already have a whole sheet in

29:07 ↗ the very back saying that you're gonna

29:08 ↗ sign off on it kind of seems like I'm

29:11 ↗ just wasting my breath because you were

29:13 ↗ just gonna sign that and so I think from

29:16 ↗ a process standpoint it makes more sense

29:18 ↗ that you don't ask something on the same

29:21 ↗ day that you have a public comment

29:23 ↗ because then what's the point of the

29:26 ↗ public comment if you're just gonna pass

29:28 ↗ it so I think I appreciate maybe that

29:31 ↗ was in your intention but at least I

29:33 ↗ appreciate that happening I do have some

29:38 ↗ comments on kind of how a process of all

29:47 ↗ these meetings have gone I've gone I've

29:49 ↗ been - this is my first time actually

29:51 ↗ though two times ago was my first time

29:53 ↗ attending public meetings like this but

29:55 ↗ I think as commissioners as you sit

29:59 ↗ there I kind of imagine the questions

30:02 ↗ kind of I would ask and I think today

30:06 ↗ you've seen me before and I had a lot of

30:09 ↗ opposition to kind of the commercial

30:11 ↗ retail so I think that making it a

30:14 ↗ little broader makes it less I think

30:18 ↗ intrusive on property owners and I think

30:21 ↗ it's better for developers or people who

30:25 ↗ want to look to redevelop their property

30:28 ↗ so I think broadening the definition of

30:31 ↗ commercial and retail was helpful what

30:37 ↗ I guess the question I would have if I

30:40 ↗ were a commissioner would be let's

30:42 ↗ implement let's say we implement he's

30:45 ↗ that specific one commercial retail or

30:48 ↗ whatever the rules are the question I

30:50 ↗ would have is on Front Street what

30:56 ↗ businesses would be eligible to come in

31:01 ↗ and what aren't I don't think we've done

31:05 ↗ a thorough analysis of let's say we

31:08 ↗ passed these and you know obviously

31:11 ↗ there's this term I think you said it

31:13 ↗ was a non-conforming use search you know

31:18 ↗ but let's do a count of what businesses

31:21 ↗ can be there so I know there's an

31:23 ↗ apartment building on Front Street right

31:26 ↗ now well if we had this rule in place

31:28 ↗ that would not be a use that you could

31:31 ↗ do I know we mentioned that there was

31:35 ↗ some construction company that had

31:36 ↗ opened up a business maybe that wouldn't

31:39 ↗ be available and so I think it's

31:42 ↗ reasonable to ask the question on if we

31:45 ↗ pass these rules what businesses that

31:47 ↗ exist right now on Front Street are able

31:50 ↗ to continue or if they move or if they

31:54 ↗ somehow redevelop it under the code

31:56 ↗ maybe they wouldn't be able to exist on

31:59 ↗ Front Street I think that's a reasonable

32:01 ↗ question to ask on the implications and

32:04 ↗ I didn't hear a discussion about that

32:08 ↗ and I was interested in hoping the

32:10 ↗ commission would asked the city to maybe

32:14 ↗ do a little bit of work on that now that

32:16 ↗ we have time in terms of the public

32:21 ↗ comment you know I'm of the feeling that

32:23 ↗ it's a down zone and you know my

32:25 ↗ property value will go down but you know

32:27 ↗ that's up to opinion and you know with

32:31 ↗ all due respect I'm gonna reference last

32:33 ↗ week's last sessions meeting minutes

32:36 ↗ where I brought that up and you know as

32:38 ↗ a commission you've entertained you know

32:40 ↗ a lot of my questions so I appreciate

32:42 ↗ that

32:43 ↗ with all due respect to Christopher who

32:45 ↗ I know he is not the expert on valuing

32:49 ↗ property my question specifically was

32:53 ↗ what do you think will happen to the

32:55 ↗ property values when you read downzone

32:58 ↗ to ask you know the development people

33:02 ↗ and development is the easy way but I

33:06 ↗ don't think we've addressed that and

33:08 ↗ sure we also talked about in the last

33:11 ↗ meeting I'm just referencing a meeting

33:12 ↗ minutes you know we have the community

33:16 ↗ wants to keep the building the three

33:20 ↗ stories or 40 feet or whatever that is

33:22 ↗ that's fine but I don't think we've done

33:26 ↗ a thorough analysis of property values

33:30 ↗ on Front Street and whether or not that

33:32 ↗ will decrease or increase and if you

33:36 ↗ don't have that information well maybe

33:37 ↗ your policy goals is to you know

33:41 ↗ discourage high development in the area

33:43 ↗ and that's fine but I'm proposing the

33:47 ↗ question and I don't think it's been

33:48 ↗ fairly or you know answered and what I'm

33:54 ↗ looking for are facts not an opinion

33:57 ↗ from someone and so someone who can give

33:59 ↗ you maybe a let's say an expert opinion

34:02 ↗ if the city would go to the assessor's

34:05 ↗ office for property and ask those

34:07 ↗ questions and obviously I can't get the

34:12 ↗ city to do it the Planning Commission

34:14 ↗ hasn't in the last two planning

34:16 ↗ commission meetings been receptive to

34:19 ↗ that idea and Here I am again at the

34:21 ↗ public comment meeting asking the

34:23 ↗ Commission to look into whether or not

34:26 ↗ property values will decrease maybe

34:29 ↗ they'll increase and I think it is a

34:32 ↗ fair question to ask and that hasn't

34:35 ↗ been answered in terms of people who

34:38 ↗ have the expertise to answer that and so

34:44 ↗ I want to thank you for giving me a

34:46 ↗ chance to talk and it's been a

34:48 ↗ interesting experience thank you

34:54 ↗ any additional public comments no I'm

35:04 ↗ sorry we just need you to step to the

35:05 ↗ microphone so that we can all hear of it

35:08 ↗ on the record hi my name is carl paul ii

35:13 ↗ live a 2 to 5 First Avenue and for

35:16 ↗ disclosure my wife is also the mayor

35:19 ↗ what is the intention of this what are

35:22 ↗ we trying to accomplish are we trying to

35:23 ↗ activate downtown so that we've got a

35:26 ↗ lively nightlife scene or what is the

35:31 ↗ goal the goal of which part the act of

35:35 ↗ the conversation a proposed amendment

35:38 ↗ the code for the central business

35:40 ↗ district for commercial and the first

35:43 ↗ floor right it's to activate the to get

35:46 ↗ more pedestrians and more activity on

35:48 ↗ the right on the sidewalk and to

35:50 ↗ activate than all the neighboring

35:52 ↗ businesses as well that came out in that

35:56 ↗ old town sub area plan and the task

35:59 ↗ force yes go ahead

36:12 ↗ so just for clarification if it's a

36:15 ↗ multi-story building the first floor has

36:16 ↗ to be retail or has to be mix use or can

36:19 ↗ it be residential or it's new if you're

36:21 ↗ coming in with a new building the first

36:24 ↗ floor would need in it fronts front

36:26 ↗ street if you have frontage right out

36:27 ↗ front street then your first floor 20

36:30 ↗ feet deep from Front Street needs to be

36:33 ↗ commercial / retail and there's a whole

36:35 ↗ list of uses that you can choose from

36:37 ↗ yes I wasn't sure if it applied if

36:40 ↗ you're doing multifamily you couldn't do

36:43 ↗ that on Front Street you could as long

36:45 ↗ as you had something on the first floor

36:47 ↗ that was retail commercial and and it

36:49 ↗ doesn't affect the uses that are there

36:50 ↗ now they all still get to exist there

36:53 ↗ because this would be just for new

36:54 ↗ buildings coming in about to go and his

36:58 ↗ point if there's there's a fire or the

37:00 ↗ place burns down and it's an existing

37:02 ↗ operator if you wanted to rebuild would

37:04 ↗ that affect him we have a non-conforming

37:07 ↗ chapter now in the code that regulates

37:10 ↗ things like fires and floods and those

37:12 ↗ kinds of things and Christopher help me

37:14 ↗ is if it you lose 75% of it you can

37:17 ↗ rebuild the way it was well but and his

37:23 ↗ question is I think could that you still

37:25 ↗ go back there right yeah and and and not

37:28 ↗ the structure itself so the structure is

37:31 ↗ one part but the use I would assume

37:33 ↗ install right if you're an apartment

37:36 ↗ building on Front Street and it burns

37:37 ↗ you can still rebuild that month then as

37:41 ↗ an apartment building does that be

37:42 ↗ exactly the same it could be right right

37:45 ↗ and as Christopher said it depends on

37:47 ↗ how much of it is burned versus how much

37:49 ↗ we would have you comply with the new

37:51 ↗ regs but it's pretty lenient because as

37:54 ↗ you know we've had a lot of floods in

37:56 ↗ the past and so we're trying to help

37:58 ↗ business owners that go through

37:59 ↗ something like that to not give them

38:01 ↗ more hardship than they already had from

38:04 ↗ our perspective I think this is a great

38:06 ↗ change and I am says it's concerned

38:08 ↗ about valuation and I would I would

38:10 ↗ support that actually get an independent

38:13 ↗ review I don't think that would hurt

38:15 ↗ anyone just from a personal perspective

38:17 ↗ except from time perspective but I think

38:22 ↗ that overall there's a lot of

38:24 ↗ others to this change so we're

38:27 ↗ definitely for it

38:28 ↗ if that makes any difference getting to

38:30 ↗ know thanks any additional public

38:34 ↗ comments no any additional okay being

38:40 ↗ that there are no more additional

38:41 ↗ comments I'd like to go ahead and close

38:43 ↗ them continue the public comments until

38:49 ↗ September 26th at 6:30 6:30 well thanks

38:54 ↗ for the cue pretty so you've heard any

39:07 ↗ more discussion mister clarify that's

39:08 ↗ also sunset you were saying it's Front

39:09 ↗ Street but it's Front Street as well as

39:11 ↗ sunset first floor retail is only on

39:14 ↗ it's in the CBD which is Princeton and

39:17 ↗ yeah and that's requirements on Front

39:18 ↗ Street yeah yeah not not sensor okay

39:22 ↗ right that's what's that just CBD I'm a

39:26 ↗ question in general comments when a city

39:31 ↗ be this far another city in this state

39:34 ↗ is going through a planning process and

39:37 ↗ a rezoning process is it the requirement

39:41 ↗ to look at valuations in any way shape

39:43 ↗ or form as part of that process or is it

39:47 ↗ valuation of individual properties or

39:49 ↗ collect evaluation is that a requirement

39:52 ↗ is there a legal obligation to do that

39:54 ↗ is there a legal exposure when the city

39:56 ↗ either up zones or Hung's owns property

40:00 ↗ it's not so it's not part of our per our

40:03 ↗ purview in looking at policy changes

40:08 ↗ okay but that I take is that's my

40:11 ↗ understanding area but from the city's

40:12 ↗ perspective valuation ever an input

40:16 ↗ variable into decision-making such as

40:19 ↗ we're going through here you know town

40:25 ↗ for example when we did central is

40:28 ↗ Sukhois we actually up zoned how many

40:31 ↗ properties a bazillion properties and

40:34 ↗ and part of it was we were trying to get

40:37 ↗ affordable housing

40:38 ↗ come in and so we were trying to do the

40:40 ↗ valuations so that folks could come in

40:43 ↗ and propose affordable housing based on

40:46 ↗ the height that we were giving the

40:48 ↗ property and setbacks we were trying to

40:52 ↗ do this magical calculation that would

40:54 ↗ allow an applicant to actually pencil

40:56 ↗ out some affordability in their in their

40:59 ↗ development and so in that case we did a

41:02 ↗ lot of property evaluations to make sure

41:04 ↗ and we had our folks from affordable you

41:07 ↗ know arch that we work with and we had a

41:09 ↗ market analysis person that's sort of

41:12 ↗ that expert economics guy that and they

41:15 ↗ all were working out the formula to see

41:17 ↗ if I was a developer and we even had

41:19 ↗ developers come in and use their own

41:21 ↗ properties to see if they could pencil

41:22 ↗ it out you know in a world that they

41:24 ↗ were going to redevelop to see and so in

41:27 ↗ that case the valuations were very

41:30 ↗ important to the city because of the

41:31 ↗ outcome we were hoping for we were

41:33 ↗ hoping that an applicant could come in

41:35 ↗ and provide and and help us provide

41:37 ↗ affordable housing because we were

41:38 ↗ giving them so much value-added but

41:42 ↗ that's rare that we go through that much

41:45 ↗ because a lot of it is you know the

41:47 ↗ markets going to dictate a lot of what

41:49 ↗ the values are and we're just trying to

41:50 ↗ keep the process open and the use is

41:55 ↗ open so that folks can come in and try

41:57 ↗ and be creative with their properties

41:59 ↗ and again in Old Town the properties are

42:01 ↗ so small and constrained we're trying to

42:03 ↗ be really creative it was a general

42:05 ↗ statement valuation does not play a role

42:07 ↗ in specific use cases again right in

42:12 ↗ general just to perhaps generally some

42:15 ↗ concerns here about our decision making

42:16 ↗ process and so I understand with the

42:20 ↗ economic vitality Commission be looking

42:22 ↗ at this in conjunction with us at the

42:25 ↗ same time it is going to dam on the 18th

42:27 ↗ ok so there is someone that is actually

42:30 ↗ currently looking at the same plans we

42:32 ↗ are from a different perspective

42:33 ↗ right and we did a know as central as

42:35 ↗ Scott we didn't actually look at what is

42:36 ↗ it going to do to this existing property

42:38 ↗ owners value it was really more for

42:39 ↗ developers and if we're going to acquire

42:40 ↗ this much structured parking will it

42:43 ↗ pencil out for developers what we're

42:44 ↗ asking them to give us you know as far

42:46 ↗ as structured parking or landscaping or

42:48 ↗ whatever it was can I see

42:49 ↗ build and make a living out of it

42:57 ↗ I have one kind of procedural question

43:01 ↗ that something I didn't quite understand

43:03 ↗ on page 41 and 45 in the third paragraph

43:09 ↗ after it's the third whereas the comment

43:15 ↗ period where the comment period for this

43:16 ↗ decision ended on September 6th and the

43:20 ↗ appeal period ended on September 20th

43:24 ↗ and I guess my question is that's kind

43:28 ↗ of a flat statement that's usually a

43:30 ↗ past tense verb for something it hasn't

43:32 ↗ occurred and and this is good you

43:36 ↗ brought it up because in development

43:37 ↗ commission you guys do this differently

43:39 ↗ than we do in PPC and it was good that

43:41 ↗ someone mentioned this what we've always

43:44 ↗ done is we draft a findings of fact as

43:47 ↗ if all goes well and there aren't any

43:49 ↗ changes however often PPC makes many

43:53 ↗ many many many changes and we have to go

43:55 ↗ back and redo the findings of fact that

43:58 ↗ then are approved you know that the

44:00 ↗ chair signs off on where its development

44:02 ↗ Commission you all usually make your

44:04 ↗ decision and then you do the findings of

44:05 ↗ fact at a later meeting or as we try to

44:08 ↗ help out the process by having at least

44:11 ↗ a draft template for you all to look at

44:13 ↗ and then like you said you know it said

44:15 ↗ illuminate instead of eliminating or

44:17 ↗ there are so you know there are some

44:18 ↗ issues that you find and because there's

44:21 ↗ going to be an extent continued public

44:23 ↗ hearing I need to go back and adjust

44:24 ↗ them because that's a change that I

44:26 ↗ didn't know when I drafted these so I'll

44:29 ↗ have to do some tweaks just because

44:30 ↗ things change deeply a procedural

44:32 ↗ because of the the way these two

44:34 ↗ Commission's work this one allows us to

44:37 ↗ do the process but it would write and it

44:39 ↗ will not require us to sign off on

44:41 ↗ something that it's okay yeah so I just

44:51 ↗ want to be clear the things I heard

44:52 ↗ we're a joy you brought up that

44:54 ↗ requiring retail seems a little bit

44:55 ↗ limited and maybe we could find another

44:57 ↗ way to say that right then we're talking

45:00 ↗ about active commercial and it's

45:01 ↗ like not everyone is everywhere is an

45:04 ↗ agreement about that terminology but the

45:06 ↗ point of the terminology I think was to

45:08 ↗ be able to instead of saying retail

45:10 ↗ required which sounds more limiting then

45:13 ↗ when you actually do a deep dive and see

45:15 ↗ how many allowed uses there are and so

45:17 ↗ kind of trying to kick around an

45:19 ↗ alternative to active combat a

45:21 ↗ commercial thank you I'm just making

45:22 ↗ sure I have my to-do lists and was there

45:25 ↗ anything to do with the retail required

45:28 ↗ on the front and how much is required

45:30 ↗ across the front do I need to make him

45:32 ↗ think we all felt that did right yeah I

45:35 ↗ read it as being that it was all the way

45:36 ↗ across and that's the way I read it to

45:38 ↗ maybe okay I just want to make sure

45:39 ↗ thank you

45:40 ↗ so anything any other entities okay so

45:43 ↗ for the public hearing in a couple weeks

45:45 ↗ there's no new information that you all

45:47 ↗ want other than what Kristin just meant

45:49 ↗ and a new findings of fact thank you any

45:52 ↗ any other pieces to that okay and just

45:56 ↗ for your PPC fun there's another public

46:00 ↗ hearing that night as well so bring your

46:03 ↗ public hearing hats because we're also

46:06 ↗ starting the comprehensive plans public

46:08 ↗ hearing that same night that public

46:11 ↗ hearing will also be continued to a date

46:14 ↗ in October I believe it's I want to say

46:15 ↗ the 10th so you'll be perhaps ending

46:19 ↗ this public hearing on that night and

46:21 ↗ starting another one so the fun never

46:24 ↗ ends

46:25 ↗ so just and do I know yet how many folks

46:27 ↗ might be here for the twenty six of

46:30 ↗ someone's making a face so no Jason yes

46:33 ↗ Robin excellent yes Randy Janice

46:36 ↗ excellent Ivan no right now but okay and

46:39 ↗ so joy as it may be Jason's totally know

46:42 ↗ totally know okay and Ron is a baby okay

46:46 ↗ listen I won't I I will not be here on

46:49 ↗ the 24th of October okay 24th of October

46:52 ↗ okay but unfortunately they own oh I'm

46:57 ↗ sorry that yeah it's a joint meeting

46:59 ↗ with my old partners in crime at the SDC

47:03 ↗ both of our language we need you know

47:07 ↗ you can't fact over twenty-fourth okay

47:11 ↗ you know I guess I would have a question

47:14 ↗ from what it sounded like when I read

47:16 ↗ the document you guys are like yes we

47:18 ↗ want to offer these parking requirements

47:20 ↗ and it can be up to 35% and so when I

47:24 ↗ read that I'm thinking that the city's

47:25 ↗ telling me this is what we stand by and

47:27 ↗ now it's like well there's some fluidity

47:28 ↗ we've had some pushback I would love to

47:30 ↗ hear the definitive you know what you

47:33 ↗ can pick two of the three and we're

47:34 ↗ putting all three of them at different

47:35 ↗ percentages and you get a pick and

47:37 ↗ choose how you do that or you know what

47:40 ↗ we're gonna we're gonna say yep it's 35%

47:42 ↗ I would I would love it if maybe in the

47:45 ↗ next couple weeks we get a hard

47:46 ↗ clarification of this is what we are

47:48 ↗ backing versus like well it's not that

47:52 ↗ we got pushback per se it's that the

47:54 ↗ whole other code is moving along like a

47:58 ↗ big ship this is kind of a littler ship

48:00 ↗ but there's a big ship of a code

48:02 ↗ amendment coming through and they're

48:04 ↗ looking at all the parking standards but

48:06 ↗ we didn't want to wait because we got

48:09 ↗ clear direction from the plan that we

48:11 ↗ want to do an incentive for neighborhood

48:13 ↗ oriented business like and so we we

48:17 ↗ tucked that into this process knowing

48:19 ↗ that as we get down the road next year

48:22 ↗ when we're doing the big amendment that

48:25 ↗ all parking might change not just

48:27 ↗ downtown parking but everybody's parking

48:29 ↗ may change and so it's not that they're

48:32 ↗ backing off this that they said no it's

48:34 ↗ good to give Old Town some more tools

48:36 ↗ okay it's not that they're like oh yeah

48:39 ↗ I mean they're real happy that we're

48:41 ↗ doing this knowing though that there's a

48:43 ↗ big changes you know down the down than

48:46 ↗ just saying these particular we're right

48:49 ↗ now we are addressing specifically Old

48:51 ↗ Town and that won't necessarily be

48:52 ↗ citywide for you know in all these

48:55 ↗ circumstances this is a very narrow

48:56 ↗ focus but right now we're backing it

48:58 ↗ it's not like it's our policy and if it

49:01 ↗ makes you feel better you get to review

49:03 ↗ the parking yes

49:07 ↗ when it comes through so truly keep

49:09 ↗ these things in mind too when it's

49:11 ↗ coming through question just from

49:14 ↗ somebody here looking to acquire a piece

49:16 ↗ of property fall down for that given

49:20 ↗ what you just said that all parking

49:21 ↗ might change if I if I was to buy a

49:23 ↗ piece of property on the Rainier Avenue

49:24 ↗ thinking assuming these regs are in

49:28 ↗ place I hear you say then that next year

49:31 ↗ those requirements might change again so

49:34 ↗ that if I'm halfway through my my permit

49:37 ↗ processing I might have the ground shift

49:40 ↗ on to me is that what I heard I

49:42 ↗ understand I would say in a different

49:44 ↗ way if you're going through the we've

49:46 ↗ notified the folks that have permits in

49:49 ↗ the pipeline right now that I have land

49:51 ↗ use permitting going through to let them

49:53 ↗ know that we're working on changes and

49:55 ↗ so they need to be aware and if they can

49:57 ↗ go fast enough and get their building

50:00 ↗ permit that allows them to have those

50:03 ↗ standards forever or at least until

50:05 ↗ unless they don't build on how many

50:07 ↗ years if they don't take advantage of

50:09 ↗ their building permit but if you haven't

50:11 ↗ gotten to that vesting yet like for

50:14 ↗ example if I bought the property and

50:16 ↗ tomorrow I come in with a less than

50:17 ↗ satisfactory application that would not

50:20 ↗ be vested it has to be complete it has

50:22 ↗ to have gone through the process but we

50:25 ↗ try to be upfront when we're working on

50:28 ↗ code changes so that applicants are

50:31 ↗ aware that the changes could happen and

50:33 ↗ of course when we were doing central a

50:35 ↗ lot of people waited to come in because

50:38 ↗ they knew they were gonna be ups owned

50:39 ↗ and on the other times that when we're

50:42 ↗ going to make changes that are less than

50:43 ↗ up zoning there's a flood to get of

50:46 ↗ people to come in before they their

50:48 ↗ change so that they can take advantage

50:50 ↗ of the the previous ones thank you so it

50:53 ↗ works both ways yes I am I have actually

50:56 ↗ have a question I just thought of it's

50:57 ↗ relevant to retail for Christopher sure

51:01 ↗ Christopher there was a very extensive

51:03 ↗ article recently in The Seattle Times

51:05 ↗ that focused on that on retail and what

51:09 ↗ the state's trying to do and it said

51:11 ↗ that retail had in the state statewide

51:14 ↗ has gone down by 11 percent

51:17 ↗ in the last two years I think do we have

51:20 ↗ many insight into the state of I mean we

51:25 ↗ talked about a little bit before but I

51:26 ↗ don't think we got into whether there's

51:28 ↗ reach retail in Issaquah in general much

51:32 ↗ less the CBD is level up down whatever I

51:38 ↗ would say no real hard numbers but one

51:41 ↗ thing I will say related to what we're

51:43 ↗ talking about with that that the

51:44 ↗ discussion about whether we limited to

51:46 ↗ only allowing retail on the bottom floor

51:48 ↗ versus along another kind of office and

51:50 ↗ commercial uses one thing I would say

51:52 ↗ one of the reasons we've kind of come

51:54 ↗ around to leaving it open to all

51:56 ↗ commercial uses is I know based on the

51:59 ↗ inquiries and an interest that we've

52:03 ↗ seen in the vacant properties that are

52:06 ↗ in downtown right now that pendulum is

52:10 ↗ not swinging towards office at all the

52:13 ↗ inquiries we're getting about those

52:15 ↗ vacancies are primarily retail uses so

52:18 ↗ that that to us is the indicator that

52:21 ↗ that the mix that we have right now

52:24 ↗ works it's good there's no reason to

52:27 ↗ change that and like I said it's it is

52:31 ↗ it's good to see the people that are

52:33 ↗ coming in and asking about those

52:34 ↗ properties are primarily interested in

52:36 ↗ doing retail thank you additional

52:42 ↗ questions Robin

52:44 ↗ [Music]

52:49 ↗ okay being that there are no more

52:52 ↗ comments I let's go ahead and adjourn

52:56 ↗ the meeting at 6:30 6:30

53:00 ↗ sorry 732 720 720

53:04 ↗ [Laughter]

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Administration/Staff: Ron Faul

Trish Heinonen

Policy Planning Manager Janice Carle Christen Leeson

Sr. Planner Randy Harrison Christopher Wright

Econ. Dev. Manager Joy Lewis Jason Voiss Robin Beukers

Alternate Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Joan Probala

Bill Rinehart Thomas Haskins

Alternate