I wasn't sure if they changed it. No. Good evening and welcome
to the August 27th meeting of the Planning Policy Commission. As usual,
the first thing on our menu is approval of the minutes and
we're going to go back to April the 23rd. And do I
have a motion to approve the minutes for April 23rd? Also move.
Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Do you
remember? That's when we had the long discussion on firewood.
Seeing no discussion, I call for the vote. All those
in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Motion carries. Now we'll go to the July 9th meeting
of the Planning Policy Commission. Same deal. Do I have
a motion to approve the minutes? Does anybody I
want to provide, Ray, would you like to propose? You were here. I'm
sorry, I can't hear you. The minutes for the meeting on July the
9th. I needed a motion to approve the minutes. Sure. Do I have
a second? I'll second. Is there any discussion? As usual, our recorder has
done an excellent job, so I'll call for the question. All those in
favor of approving the minutes, say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. I wouldn't
abstain for the record, just because I wasn't here. OK. We still have
a quorum, so they are still approved. Tonight we're going to-- Do you
have to abstain when you're not here? Or does it matter? You just--
We have enough people here to have maybe-- Right. OK. Tonight we're going
to talk about the land use code amendments, the changes that have been
made. And Trisha's going to give us an overview so that we have
the discussion so that our next meeting will be an open forum so that
we can have discussion from the community. So, great. Take it away. The goals
for tonight are to understand the overview and magnitude or not of the round one
amendments. As you see in your packet, we've got a lot of amendments we're hoping
to do by the end of the year. And we broke them into two groups,
the first being round one that you're seeing before you tonight. There's one section that
isn't ready for tonight that we'll have for the public hearing, and that is the
comprehensive plan amendment for the central plan. Because we were designated a regional center by
Puget Sound Regional Council in June, right after we updated our comp plan, the periodic
review that you all did, there's pieces of it that aren't consistent because they were
both running at the same time. And so the purpose of that is to, of
the amendment to the central plan is to become consistent with the comprehensive plan so
that both plans are the same and to recognize that now we are a regional
growth center in the urban core. Whereas in the plan now we talk about proposing
to be one and the things we would do if we were going to be
one. So now we're getting all that language corrected to actually say that we are
one. So that'll be coming, that'll be in your packet next time for the public
hearing, but I just wanted to let you know that's coming. The other pieces of
tonight, you may have noticed as you were reading through, most of them have nothing
to do with each other. Often we bring you packages sort of in bundles that
sort of work together. None of these really work together at all. They're different either
they were required by the state, they were required by the feds. It was something
that we noticed that was inconsistent. And so it was sort of this collection of
things that have been niggling on us for a while that we're finally able to
get to now that the comp plan is adopted and the central plan regional center
is designated. So that's why this first group fell to this time. Um, what we
want to know from you is, are there questions that you have or thoughts that
you want to share before the public hearing? So if we need to do a
little research before the public hearing, we'll be able to do that to make the
public hearing easier for you to work through when the public is able to comment
on things. So be thinking about are there gaps or holes in the information? that
make it not an ability for you to make a decision at the public hearing.
So we'd like to know that. And plus, we wanna talk a little bit just
to share with you what round the amendments for round two. Okay, any questions about
tonight's goals? okay and also we have christopher wright here who most of
you probably know from um from his long and varied uh career here with me
um he is he's one of the geniuses behind the code amendments i didn't bring
all the geniuses we will bring them all for the public hearing but if i
had to you know you've flown one friend is christopher i wanted him here in
case you guys got into the deep weeds on some of these he's he's the
guy so that's why christopher's here And plus he's so entertaining, so he just makes
meetings more fun. So the First Amendment, vesting. Vesting is a
big deal to us in the development world. I put a little sort
of a Wikipedia description of it for you all. It is that time
when a permit comes in, permit application, when it's deemed fully complete. At
that moment, those codes that it has been approved on, that's what entitlement
the applicant gets. And I have it actually wrong. Oh no, I did correct
it. But we had an audit last year from our insurance association and they said
everything was great with the code, but they asked us to update this section because
of the new case law that had happened in Kirkland last year. And so that's
what we did. So that's what this amendment is, is cleaning up our vesting provisions.
The second one, no relationship to vesting, is master site plans. We've used master site
plans since I was a young planner here. And they tend to be on large
pieces of property and they tend to be an overview of the vision and goals
of the big site. And they talk about utilities and roads and the big picture.
And then building by building comes in within the master site plan. and we wanted
to clean we've been using it for so many years and now there's fewer and
fewer sites that have large pieces of land and so we wanted to start fine-tuning
this tool because it's just not as useful to us anymore because our city has
changed so much so this one It changes some of the approval criteria to get
rid of the opportunity to do clearing and grading before the whole Master Site Plan
is approved and also to remove the provision that you can do an initial building
before the entire Master Site Plan is approved. and it also clarifies how many acres
one needs before one has to apply for a master site plan it used to
just say 15 acres and now it's those acres have to be developable to kick
in the requirement for a master site plan so those are some cleanups we wanted
to do with master site plan applications if you have questions as i go through
it's easy enough for us to stop and answer your questions in the middle or
at the end whatsoever What's ever easiest for you? And I might kind of chime
in as you're going through these. Sure, chime away. Yeah, so the couple of amendments
related to Master Site Plans, I think as Trish was alluding to, Master Site Plan
as a type of application is kind of getting phased out generally. Master Site Plans
are not done in the urban villages where there's development agreements. Master Site Plans also
aren't done in central Issaquah. So they're still in the code on the valley floor
and a few pockets around the city. But we weren't-- so in the next couple
of years, we may get rid of them altogether from the code. But we weren't
quite ready to do that full analysis yet. But there's some minor changes to the
master site plan code that we did want to make. And as Trish mentioned, one
of them was getting rid of the ability for an applicant to get a early
clearing and grading permit. prior to the master site plan being approved. 'Cause that was
admittedly a little awkward when we could administratively approve a construction permit before the city
council has even had a chance to hear and decide that master site plan. So
one of the things we're doing is getting rid of that option. The other part,
as far as the, developable area required for Master Site Plan. As Trish mentioned, mostly
what Master Site Plans were used for was for large sites with multiple buildings that
are going to be phased in over time. The examples I think in the packet
were the Commons over on Gilman Boulevard Pickering Place. you know, big shopping centers or
office complexes. And we're just not seeing that quite so much anymore, especially with what's
left over. And so it was not intended for sites that basically are just one
building in a parking lot that is going through a site development permit anyway. There's
not much value in doing a master site plan on top of it. So we're
trying to address both of those things. All right. Good. Good summary. Are there questions
on that one? certainly you can ask questions
at the end - that's fine this was a really interesting one we were working
with an applicant that does that makes assisted living facilities and one of the sites
they were looking at was single-family estates where they're currently not allowed and we try
to be collaborative and we said well you know it's it's in all the other
residential zones but If you can show us some information, some data that you've collected
that show that it's either, that it has less environmental impacts, less traffic trips than
the existing residential subdivision on the same property, we'll look at it. We'll bring it
through the process to see if anyone agrees that that's a good use of that
land. They did some studies and they found that it is less environmental impact. There's
a lot more ability to set aside the land than if you actually planted it
in all the homes that you could get on that. And what we looked at,
and then we have a map in the, the packet that shows there are nine
sites that would fit in this criteria and six of them are along Tibbetts Creek
that have the same attributes as what we had studied that have fewer traffic trips
and were able to preserve a lot more land than if you could actually put
the houses in that area the other sites that were not on Tibbetts Creek we
didn't do any analysis for those so we're not sure if it's exactly the same
environmental impact if it says if it's as much less i don't know if that's
the right sentence if it's as much less as it is on tibbets creek because
of the creek and the buffer that are there but we thought it made enough
sense and had a fewer impacts that it was okay to bring forward for you
all to to discuss and think about So that's this one. The other criteria is
that it has to be on a major street and those are listed in the
land use code because we knew that because you'd have sort of more of a
concentration of people and employees, we didn't want someone to be able to drive, have
everybody driving through a neighborhood to get to that. So that's why there's only the
nine spots and they're all on the major streets. Yeah, we're giving a surge of
applications for assisted care facilities, as you might imagine, kind of a sign of the
times. Not that any of you are anywhere near close to needing such a
thing. But as we evaluate, as we get all these inquiries, people interested in doing
these, we have been looking at the whole city and figuring out where all they
fit. And they are currently allowed in just about every single family, multifamily, and commercial
zone. They hadn't been allowed in single family estates. But as we looked at
what areas of the cities are zoned, single family estates, we saw there
were some large parcels on major streets, whether it's Esther 900 or Newport
Way or East Lake Sammamish Parkway that could be suitable sites for this.
So that's what we've tried to do with this one. Another one that's
totally not related to anything, the feds have updated their wireless communication facilities
regulations. and they wanted everybody to be in tune with them. And
so we're finally getting around to updating ours to be consistent with the
October 2014 provisions. And I know there's a lot of words in this
one because it's kind of a technical nature, but it's mostly having to
do with co-locations and how you process them and how they get approved.
Excuse me. Really quickly, the numbers and specifics as to this, were those also
taken from federal regulations or were those something that we came up with independently? The
numbers? In terms of what constitutes a substantial change under the federal law. That's coming
from the feds and also like the review time frames you might have seen in
there are coming from the fed also. Okay. Right. Thank you, Christopher. I didn't even
have to look. This one is a good one, I thought. While we were, this
is about affordable housing definitions and impact fee exemptions. When we were getting ready for
the July council work session on affordable housing, we noticed that all the different impact
fees that we have defined affordable housing a little differently and exempt them a little
differently from development because we adopted them in different years. And so we looked at
them in total and changed them all so they all say the same thing and
they all are defined as the same thing and they're all, the exemptions are all
the same way. And so we were, it was important to us and we told
council that we would get this going as soon as possible so that they were
all in line and all were the same. We worked with Arch on this to
be sure that everything was up to date, current, and just perfectly consistent. So we
were very happy about this one. Are there any questions about this one?
Storage of firewood. I know this was a favorite that we talked about
a couple of months ago, was it now? Council also reviewed this and
they sent it back. So we are back with point two to see if
this one works. And so we're looking forward to our discussion on this one. It's
a lot shorter than the one you previously saw a few months ago, but we'll
see if this one is a go or if there's tweaking to be done. This
is a perennial favorite. But we think that this one is pretty clear.
It's pretty basic. It seems pretty simple. But we'll see what you think.
Are there questions on storage of firewood? Yeah. I think if we're going
to do this, if I recall, the main issue had to do with
the gentleman that was selling it and had stacks and stacks and stacks
and piles. uh to the point where essentially i don't think this regulation
would do much he'd essentially fill his back and side yard with neatly stacked piles
of firewood but it would do nothing to impact the other major impacts of this
home-based business which as i recall were quite disruptive to the neighbors including the use
of a log splitter and multiple trips for which there was no viable way
of enforcing the home based against the home based business. So I mean if we're
going to do something, I think it has to actually address the issue. I mean
this really doesn't address the issue. There was, you know, there were concerns that were
expressed here in the planning policy commission. And then when we took the amendment on
to land insurers, Trish mentioned there were even more concerns. Most of the concerns about
the amendment before had to do with with the cap, the limit we were putting
on the amount of firewood that could be stored. - I think it was six
corns. - Yeah, I think it was four or five. So they were concerned about
the cap we were putting on the amount of wood. Also with the fact that
the home occupation aspect of it. Because I think, you know, there are a couple
of other people in this city that may be occasionally selling firewood from their home
that are not causing problems for their neighbors. And so we are, the biggest problem
with that, with a particular person we were dealing with is there was, the code
was just silent on it altogether. We didn't have anything that we could point to
to say, you're violating this. And the biggest problem there really seems to be just
as you might recall the pictures, just piles and piles of wood all in his
front yard. And so kind of the compromise to at least give us something that
we can point to to say, here, you're in violation of this. And really what
differentiates his situation from others in the city is that if the wood is neatly
stacked in the side and rear yard, then that alleviates a lot
of the concerns. I recall the two other big issues were the number of trips
with wood, which I know there was an issue as to, well, how do you
determine whether these trips are related to business versus personal use? I would say maybe
one way to modify that would include outgoing trips. Blocking the road, too. There was
blocking of the traffic. because of his way he was parking his vehicles
to load and unload um as this came up to the council i mean was
there any um further elucidation on the on the discussion of this i mean i
understand necessarily the amount of firewood may have been an issue but was there discussion
of the possibility of an amount of firewood per square footage something that could be
modified based on maybe the square footage of the residents or the square footage of
the overall lot? Not that discussion in particular. Like I said, they struggled with it,
just like you did. How to be fair to everybody and not just me about
this. And I do think as far as the number of truck trips in and
out and the amount of cutting that's going on, I would think that if all
of the wood needs to be stacked in the side in the rear yard, And
it just won't be so easy for trucks to just come in and out
and dump it and pick it up and go. So it's an indirect way
to address the problem. - So shot number one and see if maybe this
will resolve the issues. I would also, I mean, at the very least, like
to see a limitation on the number of outbound trips. so that someone
can't say it's for personal use. - It's just that's a monitoring thing that we
wouldn't be prepared necessarily to enforce that. - What about a limitation on the hours
of the use of a log splitter? Something like that would be fairly simple to
enforce if you get a complaint and you reject. - Yeah, yeah. CHRISTIE WOOD: So
aren't some of those issues covered in other areas, like noise in the
city and business-- and don't we have some kind of paper that
basically tells you what you can and cannot do if you're a business
in the city that you cannot do some of this whatever? And so
wouldn't that be in addition to this particular thing? So some of those
issues would already be taken care of. Right. Right. Right. Remember, though, he was claiming
that it was just for personal use and that he didn't have a business. And
so we had trouble with that piece of it, too. Well, if he's selling something,
he has a business. Right. Well, we couldn't prove that, though. And the noise issue,
there's a noise ordinance that has hour limitations. Yeah, yeah. I'm familiar with the noise
ordinance. I'm just wondering if imposing an additional limitation just for the use of log
splitters and limiting that in particular to certain hours because of other environmental issues. I
mean, it's got, it's running an engine, it's got smell to it. It's of a
louder nature than standard noise, whether that would be an additional measure that could be
taken that would specifically limit this kind of home-based business. - Maybe, like I said,
one of the concerns that council had was the implications, you know, citywide and not
just for that one person. So is council only concerned with the aesthetic
appearance? It seems the way it's written now, you'll have to pardon me because I
wasn't a part of the original discussion, it only addresses an aesthetic component. Is that
their only concern is, which to me is somewhat similar to what an HOA would
do and that doesn't exist in city limits or in these neighborhoods and it's kind
of a personal choice, unless they're rewriting code to have it also, as mentioned, deal
with, as you would a moving vehicle, like a truck or a boat or something?
Are they rewriting that to include firewood and similar to a boat? Basically, yeah. It
would be treated similar to boats and RVs that need to be stored in the
side or rear yard. Because this is a serious problem for the city is complaints
of aesthetic wood damage. in people's yards? This is a, because to me the complaint
read more that was focused on safety for the community being on a one lane
road, but this only addresses an aesthetic need. So I'm kind of confused as to
how this actually achieves the goal, unless the issue is that the community is overwhelmed
by the unsightliness of wooden people's yards. Is that what we're addressing? I'm kind of
confused because it seems like the one issue isn't being dealt with and what so
the council's concern is purely aesthetic. So then that is a something that's written in
quite a bit about. That's a big part of it. I mean, the other things
that they're concerned about is harder to address. CHRIS RODGERS: Wasn't there some-- I mean,
they were in violation of certain things. I mean, I can't remember exactly what they
were in violation of. But you just didn't have the teeth to enforce it, right?
And so you were trying to create something to enforce. MIKE BOYLE: Right. Well, we're
hoping to get out of this code amendment. Like I said, it's something in black
and white that we can point to and say, you're in violation of that. Because
the issue with that, was he selling it? Was it a business? Or was he
just giving it to his friends and his in-laws and his-- That was the part
we couldn't prove. The road stuff also is a private road that we can't enforce
any use or-- blockage of because it's private. So there are a lot of issues
involved. And like I said, the easiest, clearest one is the aesthetics. Christopher, besides this
particular gentleman that was mentioned in the previous meeting, has there been a preponderance of
people complaining about unsightly wood in the community in various neighborhoods? No. And I think
that's because people don't have huge piles in their front yard. I think for the
most part, people are doing this already. So it hasn't been a problem.
But in one case, it is. And this should fix it.
CHRISTIE WOOD: Any other questions? OK. That's a lively one.
The last one is a housekeeping amendment to clarify local newspaper and expanding the
definition so that when there are new newspapers like we have with the Iskwaw
Reporter that we're allowed to use those because they are local and it allows
us more options for outreach and public notices. So this is sort of a
housekeeping. You couldn't use the local before? We did. It said, as you might have
seen, it says the press, and I think one of them says the Bellevue Journal
and the PI. So we thought we'd clean that up a little bit and add
the reporter and then say any other that are in general circulation in case we
get new ones, we won't be tied just to whatever the old name is. Okay.
So that's all seven of them. And so from now, for the rest of the
next steps on this round one, we get to have discussions and all your questions
tonight and see if we have any homework we need to do before the public
hearing, which is September 10th. And then we hope at that time that you'll have
enough information and you'll be comfortable with the recommendation that night. We'll wait and see
how that goes. and then council will refer it to committee on the 21st and
on the 23rd it will be reviewed by the council Land and Shore Committee and
hopefully we're hoping for an October 5th action by the council so that's round one
and then round two is coming up fast You'll be emailed like you always are,
and we'll make sure you get the mailed copies, those of you that get the
mailers, by the 24th of September. And then October 1st is when you have your
review and the public hearing. And sadly, we couldn't find a date in there to
give you sort of a pre-review like we're doing tonight. So you'll have your public
hearing and your review all in one night. And then if you're comfortable, you'll be
able to recommend it to the council. We'll wait and see how you feel and
how much information has come out then. And that one would go to council for
October 19th, review by the Land and Shore Committee on November 5th, and hopefully council
action in December. So we're... We're tearing through some now that we're done with the
comp plan and the regional growth center, we're on the books for some code amendments.
So we'll see how they roll out. A lot of work going on. Are there
questions on the schedule? I think that's the end. Not on the schedule. I'd like
to go back a little bit. I mean, if we're going to lock down this
1807-205 firewood issue, at least as far as the stacking, I mean,
the only thing i see is uh elevated isn't defined i mean
if we put at least three inches or four inches on there
i think it leaves the guy no wiggle room he may put
it on some plywood on the ground and call that elevated okay
and my understanding was that the elevated issue was to prevent rats
from nesting within the stacks right correct okay good one other comments
on that one you go back to site plans master site plans
I know that it's obvious that there aren't going to be very
many. And you go through a long list of criteria that have
to be met in order for it to-- which are great. In
my previous history of working with real estate and developers, is there
a time frame? I know you talk about if it's not approved
completely before something happens or a date Is there a date that the
city has? Once you get the plans for review, is it three weeks till you--
do you have a certain number of days to make a decision on this so
that developers know? I mean, it could go forever. CHRISTIE WOOD: A decision on the
master site plan? We have timelines that we have to review permits by. Right? This
would be -- I'll let Christopher take that since he's the permit guy. Once it's
approved or when we're reviewing it? When you're reviewing it, if there's a change that
happens during the review process and the developer has already put in $40,000 to get
it to that state, and you make a change and it's approved, it's not grandfathered
in anymore. It's gone. Is there a date? You know, that you have to have
an answer back in 120 days, or-- I don't know what the permit says. Is
that part of this? CHRIS JERRAM: No. No, not really. There's a couple things. One
thing that is part of this is when something is vested, right, when it's a
-- that's another amendment that we're looking at is at what point it's a complete
application. When we're reviewing an application -- I think that's what I mean more than
the master cycle. Right. Yes. That is an important point in time when the application
is officially deemed complete. They've submitted everything that's on our submitter requirements. It's in the
code that we require. That does a couple of things. One, it vests them to
whatever codes are in place at that time. But it also does start the clock.
OK, well, there has to be some-- Exactly. And that's a big part of that,
is it starts the clock and we have-- by law, we have 120 days to
review a land use application. That's time that it's in our hands, not time that
we're waiting for additional information or revisions or anything. So that's the significance of that
complete application. Just as long as that's in there. So-- oh, go ahead. I have
some questions about the vesting amendment. So number one is that I'm
familiar with this court case and it's a new statute. Do we
have to align our code to align with that statute? The advice
we got from our attorney is we could do more Then
that, but it would be risky for us. And so he recommended that we
do exactly in the line because then we're covered, the applicant's covered, because the
rules are the same wherever they go. Okay. Because I know in that court
case, you know, the developer had a permit, just not a building permit. A building
permit, right. So it was like a shoreline development permit, which I'm not, you know,
totally familiar with that and what that means and how much work the developer had
to go through to get to that point. But, you know, I... I work for
a private engineering firm, and I know how much work goes into getting all those
plans together and the permits. And so it could be very substantial. It could be
like $100,000 just to get to that point. And then the city says, oh, we're
going to change our mind. So, you know, there's part of me that feels very
uncomfortable, but I understand that it's a statute now. I'm no lawyer. Maybe you can
help me out with this. So, you know, if we need to align ourselves with
the state statute, then we have to. But, I don't know, there's something to me
that just feels uncomfortable because that just, I guess it kind of focuses or shifts
the power more to the city because you have to have a building permit. Well,
not so much a building permit. If you look through here, you can have a
plot, but... a preliminary plat. Like say if you were just to buy
a piece of property and you can demolish it, you don't need a
plat, but you just need a, you wouldn't need to subdivide. A plat
would be for subdividing. So you just wanted to tear down and rebuild
to the existing zoning standards. You would need to get a preliminary. -
Well, the quick and easy answer is that having a complete preliminary plat
application or a short plat, you know, that may vest you to the development standards
that are encoded at the time. A land use application having a complete, let's say,
site development permit, will vest you to the land use code that's in effect at
the time. A complete building permit will vest you to the building codes that are
in effect at that time. So it kind of evolves as the project goes through
the process. And what we're doing here is defining what that complete application is. And
we don't want to put too much in the code either, because every application has
a list of submittal requirements, all these different things they need to submit. We don't
want to codify all of those. because we do change them. We're always changing submitter
requirements and, oh, we should ask for a landscape plan at this point, or we
need to see the survey at this point. So we don't have too much detail
in there, but we want to have enough to make sure that it's real clear
when the application is complete. Yeah. Going to that, in terms of the expiration of
the vesting and the permit or the approval, it might do well just for
people on smaller projects that aren't necessarily working on a master site plan, but
to reference the IMC provisions as far as the expiration of those so that it's
easily referenceable to know how long you have on your permit so they can see
it there and know exactly where they have to look to I'm pretty sure
it's all pretty much in the same code section. I mean, if it is. Yeah,
I think it is. We can check it, but I'm pretty sure it's all in
the same couple pages. Yeah, and that's my only concern there. I mean, I have
no problem with-- I mean, municipalities are subdivisions of the state, technically. I did have
a quick question on the vested rights. There's a specific mention in both parts A
and C about the development services director and/or his designee. I was curious if there
was actual any kind of something in the code of who that designate is, does
it have to be another city employee or is that able to be a vendor
that they so choose to represent them? - No, that's actually a defined term and
actually you have the code. I'm not, I think it, I mean, it would have
to be-- I would have to be a city employee. And actually, we'll have to
change that because it would still say planning manager. And that's a good catch that
we'd have to-- oh, I'm caught-- that we have to change or update the definition.
Now that we reorganized, we have a different name. So that's why that was changed.
But it's usually somebody in the staff. It's either, it's most always the director, but
if it happens to be like the SEPA official, or it might be whoever the
planner is that's actually doing the project, or it might be the mayor's, you know,
the assistant city manager, it might, you know, depending on the project, that person might
change just by the virtue of what it's entailed. If it's a smaller one. it's
probably going to be the director. If it's a real high level one that has
bits and pieces that are more controversial, it might be the city administrator. I mean,
it could be, I think it depends on the level of complexity, if you will,
that would be that he would designate it to. But otherwise, it would always be
the director. That's helpful. That was one of my question was is basically if there
was language to specify the limitations of that designate. Right.
But you're right, we need to get the language right actually in
the definitions to change the, now that the name is changed. Any
other questions on that one or other ones? I have a question
about the estate parcels. The single family estates? The family estates, exactly.
So I had watched the Development Council meeting where this was initially
discussed and several questions were brought forward by residents. Um, the nursery, uh,
was worried about lighting to greenhouses, uh, specifically also, um, lighting of parking lots by
residents. I haven't seen anything that was addressing those issues. Right. And those are development
issues, whereas this is a policy issue. So those will get resolved in the, with
the development commission. part of what we're reviewing is the impact of the community. And
so to me that was important to kind of see how that they they were
responding and addressing to see, you know, we're we're looking at if it if it
should still be if we should allow this rezoning. And so I was curious if
there was any answers to those questions. Right. And this isn't really, this isn't a
rezone per se. It's a change to the permitted land use table. So it's not
actually a change of the land of all the SFE of the parcel to allow
that specific one. It's more general that would apply to all the single family. But
that's sort of the difference between what the development commission looks at. They look at
actual and site plans and bulldozers and buildings. So they have the nitty gritty
about the lighting, the landscaping, the parking, the dumpsters. Whereas you all have the other
hat that looks at the policies, the philosophy and the intent of what happens in
the zones and are they uses compatible and those kinds of bigger picture thoughts. And
I know some of you wear both hats. You're on the Development Commission and on
the... Planning Policy Commission or on the Urban Village Commission as well as this one
where you do get to wear both hats. But we wouldn't be able to resolve
the lighting or the parking or the dumpsters in this group because that's not our
purview. Our purview is more the philosophy and policy of the zones and the uses
and how that would be looked at citywide. so i would say that does have
a lighting code which specifically defines illumination levels acceptable illumination levels uh based on what's
adjacent to it you know whether if it's adjacent to critical areas or if it's
adjacent to other types of uses so there's a real specific lighting code that will
apply there that is the same across the city was that taken into account um
when looking when the city was saying that this would be less of an impact
than having it turned into the maximum density building within the area? Was that
accounted for with density? The application hasn't gotten to the point of having a
lighting plan, but like I said, with a lighting code, the amount of spillover
that's allowed in any particular area is the same, whether it's a residential use
or commercial use or multifamily. Right, right.
Does that help at all? Are there other questions on that one
or any other ones? No? See, head shaking. Do you have any
questions for us for homework? I think you've done your homework. Oh,
thank you. That's so nice. Do you have any inclination to ask
for informal public comment tonight? You don't have to. It's just a
meeting. But since we're always so happy to have public here, are
you so inclined? I'm very interested. I figure that anybody who's willing to come
to this meeting to have some input on some issue that we're discussing. And I
know they might not be able to come during the public hearing. So I don't
have a problem with that. And they may be a heck of a lot smarter
than us and have better ideas. So I'm all for it. There is always that
opportunity. Yes. Well, then shall I go sit down and we can open it up?
I will. open it up for public comment. We are
extremely happy to have people join us this evening. The
place is just jam-packed. And would anybody like to make
any comments on specifically what we're discussing tonight in the
way changes to the comp plan and the land use
issues? As long as they didn't come up tonight. No,
I know, but-- OK. None? Nobody? Okay, come on
up to the microphone and tell us your name and
your address. Hi there. My name is Todd Alexander. I'm
at 7804 Renton, Issaquah Road, Southeast. In discussion about the
zoning for the project that would be to the south
of us, that's the memory care facility. The concerns we
have... I don't believe that the Planning Commission is painting a
true picture as to what we have here. There's 22 acre
total and we have Tibbetts Valley that runs right through it.
So we have about 10 acres, I would say, on the
west side of Tibbetts Valley. And they're talking about putting in
90 beds in a facility that's 34,000 square feet. And
It's zoned right now to accommodate for one home per
acre, I believe. 35,000 square feet close. Approximately, give or
take. There could be maybe six homes on that side
of Tibbets Valley. If you say, well, there's approximately four
or five people per home, that'd be 24 people versus
90 beds and employees and visitors. that would come
to that facility. And when we started out this
discussion, the first thing that was mentioned was traffic
trips versus residential. Well, my concern is that there's
going to be, there will be tremendous more traffic
trips in a situation like this versus residential. That's
my big concern. Also, I just don't think, you know, if
you're looking at comparing what could be there versus, you know, homes versus this, we're
not comparing apples to oranges because, again, the other side of Tibbets Valley or
Tibbets Creek rather cannot be accessed without a bridge across it. So therefore you cannot
put 20, I think it was mentioned by someone in the planning commission, would you
rather have this or would you rather have 22 homes? Well you can't have 22
homes. I mean with setbacks, with the creek setback, wetland setback, you cannot have 22
homes. So to say, would you rather have 22 versus 34,000 square foot facility
that has 90 beds? Well, I would rather have the nine homes that right now
the zoning would allow for nine to six, depending on setbacks and so forth. So
this is a major impact to us. Obviously, we live right next door to the
facility that would be going in. And there's a big concern that it doesn't adhere
to what we when we purchased our property, And when we, you know, wanted
to move to Issaquah, we felt like, hey, this is, you know, zoning
is in place. The property will be used as it's deemed, as it's
been described to us, and there wouldn't be a change like this. So
we have to make our concerns. And I hope I did some of
that. Thank you. It certainly opens up a question. If you just read
the code as it's written, it seems reasonable. But not knowing
specifically the piece of property that you're talking about, that adds questions. And so
Christopher, would you like to answer that? CHRISTOPHER BORGESON: Sure. And we're looking at
this citywide also, right? So we're not just looking at this one proposal at
this one site. But at that one site, the-- one of the things we
were looking at as you mentioned was how many single family houses could be built
there at one unit for every 35 000 square feet and taking into account all
the critical areas and buffers which could not be built on you know there are
patches of buildable area throughout the site and we came up with a number of
about 24 i think between 18 and 24 houses that could be there there's 22
acres 20 22 acres, right. And is it not zoned right now to accommodate one,
approximately an acre per home? Right, 35,000 square feet. Okay, so then you take a
creek that goes right through the middle of it, you would subtract the 120, is
it 120 foot setback from either side of that creek? So that reduces down, and
that creek obviously runs the longest length of the property. So if you subtract that
setback, and then other areas that are wetland, Certainly, you come far short of allowing
yourself 22 homes, or you're saying 23 homes in a 22-acre parcel. The units could
be clustered in the developable area. Well, that would go into a different impact, right?
That would no longer be low occupant. So low density housing, that would fall into
something else. CHRIS JERRAM: It would be the same density, it's just they would be
clustered in the buildable area rather than spread out. So what would the density be
then? CHRIS JERRAM: The density would be the same. It's like 1.24 dwelling units per
acre. Would there be some minimum lot standards, though, to adhere to, not just density?
CHRIS JERRAM: There's a cluster provision that allows the units to be together. In the
single family estate zone? CHRIS JERRAM: I'm pretty sure. I mean, if it was me,
a single family estate zone doesn't sound like it should allow for a cluster.
No, it doesn't. And I don't think that was something that was an option
for us when we built. Well, I can understand your concern. 35,000 square feet,
90 beds in a residential area? Yeah, clustering is allowed
in the single-family estate zone as long as the lot is at least
two acres, which obviously this is. So what would cluster quantify? Again, if
the density calculation would allow 20, let's say 20 units on that lot,
it would allow the 20 units to be all built in the buildable
area rather than spread out throughout the lot. - Okay, well I suggest it probably
wouldn't. I would say, depending, we would have to certainly look at all the setbacks
and subtract all the wetlands and all, you know, creek setback and so on and
so forth. But I think it would be far less than that. - 'Cause I
kind of agree. When I think of an estate, I think of a big parcel
with lots of grass and so if you would cluster it, then I kind of
think that wouldn't be an estate anymore, you know? Yeah, I think the state refers
to the density. And so, again, with the cluster provision that's been part of
the code for a long time, it would still, that whole 22-acre site would
not be exceeding the 1.24 dwelling units per acre. Right, right. So there
would just be more open space set aside. Similar-- I mean, the assisted
care facility, what that's doing is it is essentially clustering the development all
within two or three acres of the site. Which is-- So that the
whole rest of the site will remain permanent open space. Yeah. OK. So
have you actually drawn this up? Have you made a drawing of-- Oh,
yeah. They have plans. OK. Have you seen the-- Yeah, I've seen the
plans. So maybe as a follow up, you can
talk more specifically with Trish and Chris. And if there
is a possibility of making any changes. or specific things to
add or subtract that maybe, you know, you can look as the city planner and
say, yes, it meets these qualifications, but maybe there is something else that maybe they're
missing. And then if you bring it back at the public hearing, we can discuss
any changes that are made in that. Is that reasonable? - Yeah, you know,
I would point out there's kind of two, this happened in a two different levels.
One is before you is deciding whether or not that use should be permitted in
that zone, right? And that's what we're asking you. The proposed development will be going
through the Development Commission, and we'll have lots of opportunities to-- - That's true, but
you still have the philosophy of how much you can do and where you can
put it and that kind of stuff. And there just might be some other little
quirk that we are all missing that could add to relieve some of the fears
that we have. some of the neighbors might have. Well, it's a
concern. It certainly sounds like you have multiple interests in these type of
use, land uses. And as Issaquah, as we all know, is growing up
and the land is becoming harder and harder to come by. And right
now, Sammamish has got more lawsuits in place right now for builders who are trying
to get things done and who were promised one thing or another by the city
and now they're in lawsuit because there's wetland issues and there you know there's a
lot of developments now that are on hold on the plateau because a lot of
people are saying we've had enough of this you know there's no more land in
is a go on the plateau it's it's becoming very crowded. And we understand that,
you know, everyone wants to use their land. We just want to see it used
in the way that we thought it would be used when we purchased ours. And
the way we had to conform to it. And we hope that things aren't skewed
a certain way just because we're running out of land. Well, unfortunately, things can change
sometimes for the better. Well, right now, we look up at a crane we've looked
at it for a number of months and up on talus hill if you ever
drive by there you'll see a big crane and a big house you know senior
housing and they have the same kind of facility on that hill and uh right
now you know it's sort of like we're feeling like we're putting in you know
we're being put into a commercial space i mean when i see these kind of
developments in this kind of housing or use of land. It's around apartment complexes.
It's around commercial settings. It's not in a state residential. And there's
my point. So thank you very much for your time. Certainly opens
up a few questions of one of the things we we always
at least I think and hope that is the plot is
It's one thing to make decisions in a room, but you've
got to be out there and talk to the citizens of
the community and get all kinds of input from everybody. Sometimes
you win, sometimes you lose, but it has to be for
the common good. Are there any other questions, any more comments?
I'm Mary Moore, 7804 Renton-Isaacua Road, Southeast. I talked earlier, I think
at the last meeting. And one thing I wanted to add after
my husband talked was when we moved into Tibbetts Valley in 2000,
we hired a consultant to take a look at a piece of
property that we purchased. And when they hired an engineer to to
lay out the homes, it was pretty clear the zoning was single family estates and
we could only put in four houses on five acres. There was, you know, and
when you don't have a lot of money and you're trying to make any money
you can back, you're like, was there any way we can try to fit more
houses on here? And there was no cluster discussion whatsoever. The engineer that we hired
said, no, this is single family estates. You can only put in four homes and
that's it. So I was kind of surprised to hear that they're talking about this
cluster in the single family estate zoning has been around for a while because we
did this in 2000 and that's what it was zoned. And another issue I want
to bring up that when TALUS was going in, we were part of the neighborhood
and part of the discussion for that neighborhood and I
remember a lot of talk about our side of the road and
that that side of SR 900, the east side, would remain single-family
estates and create the wildlife corridor. I think there's some TALUS open
space. That was part of the negotiation for TALUS to do all
they're doing on they would have to to make some changes around
the area so it just wasn't, we were inundated with people and houses.
And we just saw a bear out in the pasture this morning. So
there's wildlife. The creek is spawning salmon in November. I don't know how
much of an impact that has, but it definitely, I consider a very
critical area and a part of Issaquah you just don't see anymore. I grew up
here. I don't know how many people were born here, but the change is amazing.
And I feel like you all have the responsibility to understand that and try to
find a balance and say, yes, we can have growth and we understand that and
it can grow in good ways. And there's a point where you have to stop
and say, okay, let's... slow down a little bit here. And I just want
you to consider that. There's a good time for growth and change. And downtown's become
great. And this area down here has been great. And there's a lot of good
things. But I just want you to slow down and think about the effect a
zoning change has. Because if this facility goes in, And then let's
say in a couple years they move out or they sell and
make their millions, millions, millions, who's going to move in and what's
going to happen there? I need to think about that because this
is where I live. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Anybody
else? Yeah. I'm Todd Sargent. Address is 2100, 112th Avenue Northeast of
Bellevue. I used to be the chairman
of the Planning Policy Commission back in the late '90s.
So as an alumni, I congratulate you on looking at
keeping the comprehensive plan a living document. So thank you
for that, for looking at things that inevitably will change,
especially since we're now designated a regional center. So
again, thank you for taking the time to review these code amendments for
the comprehensive plan. With that, on a positive note, unless there's no more
comments? We're not an attaboy. Thank you very much. But it is the
city that's bringing it to us. We're just making sure they're doing it
right, or at least trying to see any holes that they missed. But
thank you. I'm going to close the meeting at--
7:32. As far as you all know that are here, I'm
always looking for a quorum. And it's on September 10th? I
think so. I'm probably sending out a notice pretty quick so
we can start getting your hours. Thank you. I'm a definite
maybe. Can I ask you a question? Sure. It's because I
wasn't-- I don't know the background and all this stuff. That's
why I don't say too much.